Tudor History Lovers discussion
Which Tudor do you like / dislike and why ?
I know, its sad, and yet I feel pity for Anne, because how could see not see this devotion that Katherine had towards Henry??? How could Anne ever have thought to ever live up to her standards? I think she was afraid in a way, she knew Henry did love Katherine once, she knew he also did think highly of her, because he did, he knew she was a force to be reckoned with, she came from a mighty monarch line, and she was a great asset to his Kingdom. Yes, he lusted for Anne, but what else could she award him but that? Nothing… Katherine served in more ways than one for 24 years, that’s why he stayed married to her for so long.
As a young boy he was in love with her, fascinated by her. She was beautiful with her Spanish ways, and I believe he had fun with her to. She allowed him his mistresses and he still loved her, but then Anne came and spoiled everything…
Katherine gave him his first child! Yes, she never could give him a son, but I really do think that that was God punishing him for his evil ways. Oh, I just wish everyone could see what a wonderful women she was, the things she did for him, he’s country that she adopted as her own!
As a young boy he was in love with her, fascinated by her. She was beautiful with her Spanish ways, and I believe he had fun with her to. She allowed him his mistresses and he still loved her, but then Anne came and spoiled everything…
Katherine gave him his first child! Yes, she never could give him a son, but I really do think that that was God punishing him for his evil ways. Oh, I just wish everyone could see what a wonderful women she was, the things she did for him, he’s country that she adopted as her own!
I don't necessarily think that Anne came and spoiled everything. If not the Howard/Boleyn clan, some other ambitious family may have placed the idea in his head. Henry VIII was always concerned with the legacy he was leaving behind. He craved war because he thought that would ensure that his name lived forever in infamy and he desired, above all else, a son to carry on the legacy. He feared leaving his throne to his daughter(s). That very same fear that allowed Anne and the Howard family to weasel their way in was the very same thing that proved to be their undoing when Anne could not produce a male heir for Henry's satisfaction.
I know that there are many AB haters here and I do so love hearing your thoughts and opinions on her, but I am, personally, an AB fan. It is difficult to give AB any respect without undermining the feelings and situations that KoA was forced to endure, particularly following AB's arrival on the scene, but there is something to be said about AB.
She was a pawn of her family's political ambitions. Had any other girl been in Anne's shoes, well, she might have done the same things. Near the end I think that Anne got so desperate, knowing that her failure to produce a male heir was about to leave her a head shorter, that she only hastened her own demise with erratic behavior and actions that both upset Henry and stood suspiciously against the backdrop of the already long list of indiscretions Henry and those who did not support her had laid at her feet. She was doomed from the get-go, in my opinion. The only thing that could have saved her was a healthy baby boy. The Howard/Boleyn family worked so hard to get Anne on the throne they failed to consider that giving their king ultimate power left them most vulnerable.
If anything, you have to at least give her snaps for being half the DNA behind Elizabeth I. ;)
Don't get me wrong, I do admire KoA immensely. I admire that she never lost her faith and that she stood true to her vows till the very end. I admire what a great mother she was, how deeply she cared for her daughter. I just think that AB got a bad rap that was not all her own doing.
PS: I openly welcome opposing viewpoints on this opinion of mine. So many smart people here, I love to hear your thoughts and opinions in contrast to my own.
I know that there are many AB haters here and I do so love hearing your thoughts and opinions on her, but I am, personally, an AB fan. It is difficult to give AB any respect without undermining the feelings and situations that KoA was forced to endure, particularly following AB's arrival on the scene, but there is something to be said about AB.
She was a pawn of her family's political ambitions. Had any other girl been in Anne's shoes, well, she might have done the same things. Near the end I think that Anne got so desperate, knowing that her failure to produce a male heir was about to leave her a head shorter, that she only hastened her own demise with erratic behavior and actions that both upset Henry and stood suspiciously against the backdrop of the already long list of indiscretions Henry and those who did not support her had laid at her feet. She was doomed from the get-go, in my opinion. The only thing that could have saved her was a healthy baby boy. The Howard/Boleyn family worked so hard to get Anne on the throne they failed to consider that giving their king ultimate power left them most vulnerable.
If anything, you have to at least give her snaps for being half the DNA behind Elizabeth I. ;)
Don't get me wrong, I do admire KoA immensely. I admire that she never lost her faith and that she stood true to her vows till the very end. I admire what a great mother she was, how deeply she cared for her daughter. I just think that AB got a bad rap that was not all her own doing.
PS: I openly welcome opposing viewpoints on this opinion of mine. So many smart people here, I love to hear your thoughts and opinions in contrast to my own.
I love your post Michelle. I have to say, I was an AB fan for a long time. That was until I read The Lady in the Tower by Alison Weir a month or so ago. Now, I have a very different view of Anne. Now, before you blame Weir, I have to say, she is actually sympathetic to Anne and her plight. She brought up some arguments that others make about AB, partly to debunk them, I think, but they got me thinking. It seems a lot more likely to me now that AB was not so much a pawn of her families political ambitions, but a willing participant in them, and even to some point, an instigator. Never thought I would say that, but there it is. Now, that doesn't mean that I dislike her, she still fascinates me (Sorry Colleen, lol). It's just that she fascinates me for a different reason. I certainly do not see her as a victim, though, unless you say she is a victim of herself.
AND (here is the big heresy, lol)- I'm not even sure that a baby boy would have saved her, anymore. I think she bit off more than she could chew when she went up against Cromwell and I don't think he would have given up until she was out of his hair, so to speak. As for Henry's backing, I don't even think she would have kept that even with a heir. I am starting to formulate the opinion that Henry was too in love with the idea of "plots against him" and reacted like a pendulum as far as who was in favor and who wasn't.
Lyn M wrote: "I love your post Michelle. I have to say, I was an AB fan for a long time. That was until I read The Lady in the Tower by Alison Weir a month or so ago. Now, I hav..."
Hmm, how very interesting Lyn. I have not read the book, but I am most interested to read it now. Now that you've brought it to light, in many ways I do agree with you. I cannot say that Anne was entirely a victim, no, but I do not think it had ever occurred to her that she should be the next queen. I think THAT was part of her family's scheme to rise in favor. I do agree, however, that she developed an arrogance that was likely very damaging to her in the long run.
I also agree with you about how getting under Cromwell's skin was not the wisest move on Anne's part, by any means. But, since most of the allegations against her are widely considered to be untrue, I still do believe that a male heir might have allowed Anne to ride out her reign. When I think about it, I consider how shortly Jane Seymour was on the throne and how she was regarded as his true wife even after her death for delivering Edward VI to him. It is said that many royal portraits of King Henry VIII and Jane Seymour were commissioned even as he sat on the throne beside Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard, and Catherine Parr. He was buried beside her. I cannot believe for a second that his love for Jane Seymour, his unwavering devotion to her, could have possibly had much more going for it than her ability to give him a son and, perhaps, the fact that she was not so meddlesome. She made due on a promise that no queen before her could. And then I think about Anne and I cannot wrap my mind around the thought that Henry was willing to abandon a princess of Spain, alienate the other princes of Europe, and divide his people from their faith for the love of one woman. That is where I have to stand back in awe and say to myself, wow, AB was a force to be reckoned with. That's where I have to wonder if she could have maybe given Cromwell a run for his money if she had been able to deliver a son. Even Cromwell was not untouchable. True, it is said that Henry VIII regretted having Cromwell executed and was said to have regarded him as perhaps his most loyal servant, but, as you said, Henry began to unsettle himself with these conspiracy theories (something that I believe plagued his daughters in their reigns, as well). So, like Cardinal Wolsey and Sir Thomas More before him, Cromwell met the same sticky end.
Hmm, how very interesting Lyn. I have not read the book, but I am most interested to read it now. Now that you've brought it to light, in many ways I do agree with you. I cannot say that Anne was entirely a victim, no, but I do not think it had ever occurred to her that she should be the next queen. I think THAT was part of her family's scheme to rise in favor. I do agree, however, that she developed an arrogance that was likely very damaging to her in the long run.
I also agree with you about how getting under Cromwell's skin was not the wisest move on Anne's part, by any means. But, since most of the allegations against her are widely considered to be untrue, I still do believe that a male heir might have allowed Anne to ride out her reign. When I think about it, I consider how shortly Jane Seymour was on the throne and how she was regarded as his true wife even after her death for delivering Edward VI to him. It is said that many royal portraits of King Henry VIII and Jane Seymour were commissioned even as he sat on the throne beside Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard, and Catherine Parr. He was buried beside her. I cannot believe for a second that his love for Jane Seymour, his unwavering devotion to her, could have possibly had much more going for it than her ability to give him a son and, perhaps, the fact that she was not so meddlesome. She made due on a promise that no queen before her could. And then I think about Anne and I cannot wrap my mind around the thought that Henry was willing to abandon a princess of Spain, alienate the other princes of Europe, and divide his people from their faith for the love of one woman. That is where I have to stand back in awe and say to myself, wow, AB was a force to be reckoned with. That's where I have to wonder if she could have maybe given Cromwell a run for his money if she had been able to deliver a son. Even Cromwell was not untouchable. True, it is said that Henry VIII regretted having Cromwell executed and was said to have regarded him as perhaps his most loyal servant, but, as you said, Henry began to unsettle himself with these conspiracy theories (something that I believe plagued his daughters in their reigns, as well). So, like Cardinal Wolsey and Sir Thomas More before him, Cromwell met the same sticky end.
Those of you talkimng about KoA, I loved how the actress portrayed her in "The Tudors" I would love to be one of her ladies in waiting. She got completely shafted.
Michelle - True about it occurring to AB that she should be the next queen (or not occurring to her as the case may be). The Weir book deals mainly with the last six months or so of her life, so I'm not fresh on her early life. I need to do more research (sounds fun, huh.) As for Henry and whether he would have backed AB against Cromwell if she would have given him a male child, you make some very good points. It is a theory that I am playing around with in my head, and I'm not sure where I'm going to end up. Again, a great excuse for more research. I wonder what I will think after I finish the Cromwell book?
Yes, it is a theory that I am also experimenting with, Lyn. I regret that I need to do some more research on Cromwell. I picked up Wolf Hall a few days ago. I know it is HF, but I think it will give me a better outline of his character and a better idea of what to research when I begin looking for non-fiction references to him.
The research does sound fun to me, Lyn. I'm endlessly entertained by the what-might-have-been's of the royal families.
The research does sound fun to me, Lyn. I'm endlessly entertained by the what-might-have-been's of the royal families.
Jayme wrote: "Those of you talkimng about KoA, I loved how the actress portrayed her in "The Tudors" I would love to be one of her ladies in waiting. She got completely shafted."
I agree, Jayme. I think Maria Doyle Kennedy did a great job playing KoA. I wasn't such a fan of the woman who portrayed her in The Other Boleyn Girl with Natalie Portman. I also wasn't too excited about Scarlett Johansson as Mary Boleyn. I think I would have liked to have seen someone like Michelle Williams or Ginnifer Goodwin play Mary Boleyn. Natalie Portman though, I liked her as Anne Boleyn.
I agree, Jayme. I think Maria Doyle Kennedy did a great job playing KoA. I wasn't such a fan of the woman who portrayed her in The Other Boleyn Girl with Natalie Portman. I also wasn't too excited about Scarlett Johansson as Mary Boleyn. I think I would have liked to have seen someone like Michelle Williams or Ginnifer Goodwin play Mary Boleyn. Natalie Portman though, I liked her as Anne Boleyn.
I thought Scarlett Johansen as Mary Boelyn was believable. I didn't like how Natalie Portman played Anne. I found her conniving and mean.
OOH - I think I would like conniving and mean. That tells you something about my character, huh, LOL. I just find conniving and mean can be interesting if it is done right, however, I haven't seen the movie, so I would have to see it to know how it came off.
Well, that was how Anne was written in The Other Boleyn Girl: mean and conniving and just a horrible person!!! I didn't like her portrayal either!! I think they could have made AB a little bit more two dimensional instead of just this mean person. Although, I don't really think AB was that great of a person. I have a hard time putting the AB that was married to Henry with the AB that was intelligent, fun to be around, and well liked by people. I want to do some more research on Cromwell too. He's super interesting to me. I also want to reread The Lady in the Tower. I retain information better if I read something twice or even more. I really liked that book though. It made me consider some new things about Anne Boleyn.
Exactly how I felt about the book, Aly. Are you reading the Thomas Cromwell book for the group read. I have just started it. I also have Wolf Hall on my shelf to read.
I have Wolf Hall sitting around waiting for me. I will eventually read the group read, I just don't know when. I really wanna read it because I've heard that it is an easy book to get into!!! I might be a month behind on it. But I will read it!!! Wolf Hall seems pretty cool. I've read the first couple of pages and it sucked me right in. I had a hard time putting it aside, but I'm also trying to finish Sunne in Splendour and reading the two huge books at once plus all my school books is just too much!!!!
Hmm, I fear I am the only one who thought well of Natalie Portman's performance. Although, I must say, I like Natalie Dormer's performance quite a bit more. Though, I feel she had more to work with as The Tudors being a series instead of a movie like The Other Boleyn Girl.
I agree with you, Aly, the way Anne was written was a bit dull in the book The Other Boleyn Girl. I would have also liked to see a more multi-faceted Anne as we are able to see in The Tudors.
I agree with you, Aly, the way Anne was written was a bit dull in the book The Other Boleyn Girl. I would have also liked to see a more multi-faceted Anne as we are able to see in The Tudors.
Hi Michelle, I agree with you on Natalie Dormer's performance in The Tudors, there was something about her that brought a very real quality about Anne... I think she played the part very well, right up to the end.
I havent read all your comments, but a few, and I must just ad, that although I do not like AB very much, I do understand that she was a pawn that her family used to gain power, and thats very sad, but I think she pushed it a bit to far. I wont say I hate her, I just like KoA more than her, and then again, I like AB much more than I like Jane Seymore
I havent read all your comments, but a few, and I must just ad, that although I do not like AB very much, I do understand that she was a pawn that her family used to gain power, and thats very sad, but I think she pushed it a bit to far. I wont say I hate her, I just like KoA more than her, and then again, I like AB much more than I like Jane Seymore
I wonder about Katherine of Aragon... I completely understand the difference in opinions/culture/societal norms between then and now, however...If I were to meet a woman today whose husband divorced her after 24 years to marry a much younger woman and say it was because God wanted him to, and he tried to have the whole 24-yr marriage nullified, and I saw that until her death she tried to stay true to him, and never got over him, well, I'd wonder about her. I know that the queen was supposed to look the other way at the king's indiscretions, but once the marriage was formally over, I'd say good bye to bad rubbish and try to move on. She never was able to pull herself together after the whole incident.
So... while I completely respect the fact that she maintained an unbelievable grace and dignity throughout it all, I don't like that she always wanted him back. Just seemed a bit sad to me.
Hope that doesn't offend anyone as it is not meant to in the least. I do respect her, I guess I'm just saying I don't understand her.
Paula, KoA saw herself married to Henry VIII til the day she died. She was a devout Catholic and the only way she was going to accept the divorce is if the Pope himself granted it and the Pope wasn't going to do that.
Jayme, exactly. I think this is one of those things that all of us today find difficult when we're trying to put ourselves in the position of someone of the era -- we don't have any absolute convictions about god and what god wants us to do in the same way that they did. Unless the Pope told Katherine that she wasn't married; she was married. It was as simple and straightforward as that. She may well have been relieved by, say, 1533, if the pope had made such a ruling, but without it, it didn't matter what anyone else was doing or saying -- it would have been a mortal sin for her to move on. That was the central reality of her life, not her marriage itself. And until god, thru the pope, said the marriage was over, it wasn't 'officially over'. In her eyes, there was not any divorce and her husband was a bigamist. I do wonder how much of her love for her husband was a mixture of nostalgia and fear for his immortal soul.I agree that it's sad for her, but without us being able to internalize those core beliefs in the way she did, we can't fully appreciate it. It's not a matter of 'knowing' but of having a different world view. We can't block things out that are already part of our knowledge and experience when we look back in time.
I think KoA stood up for her convictions. I don't think the Pope would have said it was over. They didn't believe in divorce and Katherine certainly wasn't dead. Henry 8 just got tired of her like he did all his wives.
Well, there were historical precedents for divorce, or rather for annulments, but very few of them. And in the political situation that the pope found himself in after the sack of Rome by Charles V, that would have been a non-starter.
Also remember not only was Katherine a devoted Catholic, she was from Spain, she was new to this country when she came here to marry Henry's brother Authur, and when he died, she couldnt go back to Spain, as she was now a women from England, and that was another reason why she marriend Henry, and then, after 24 years, he decides, Oh well I've had enough of you lets get another wife and see if she's better he suddently wants to have his marriage annuld??? What the heck??? She was not only devoted now to her King, but to the country that she had adopted as her own now. England was now her country, Henry still her husband, and also she would never accept the divorce because on what Henry was basing it on
Plus she was beloved by the people of England as their Queen.
Exactly, so even if his divorce to her was legitimate, the people didn’t accept it, as she was their Queen, even when Katherine Parr married the King, they never accepted another Queen but KoA… thus I see no reason why she shouldn’t have felt devoted to him. Besides, she was his first betrothed… and another little fact, he was married to Katherine of Aragon longer than all the others put together, that is something to be said.
Agreed, I think he regretted divorcing Katherine of Aragon.
Jayme, I think we are kindred spirits hehe, I agree with you. I think he regretted it especially when he grew old and his body was not as athletic as it once was. When he started marrying all the wrong women after Jane Seymour I think he wished he had never let Katherine go. And I do believe she might have lived a long and wonderful life if he had not delivered that blow towards her with the divorce.
It just sucks that all the pressure is put on the woman to produce and carry the heir. Plus KoA was nearing the end of her childbearing years and that is not her fault. It is also not her fault she has so many miscarriages. People didn't take care of themselves back then.
I know what you mean... and I dont think the King realised that when she eventually was pregnant all those times that all the pressure he put on her to have a son was what caused her to miscarriage in the first place... when a pregnant women has to carry so much responsiblity (I mean the responsibility of the whole country if you think about it) then it is very likely that she would miscarriage, its to much stress!
People were really stupid back then.
Hehe I agree... The King most of all... he should have thought things through more, maybe he would have had more children then dont you think?
Jayme wrote: "People were really stupid back then."Only back then???? Are we all so much wiser now? As to the question of miscarriages; some women are liable to miscarry multiply now despite better nutrition, medical services etc. My wife sadly is one example, though I have not divorced her because of that.
Harvey I do agree with you to, we are all stil stupid arent we, but you seem to be much wiser than dear King Henry. We just understand that sometimes things happen, like a miscarriage, and that its not that persons fault, yet Henry didnt understand that, for some reason he thought it was a sick joke Katherine was playing on him or something
No... I'm the the wisest fool in Christendom! :) (or was that James I?). The point is that vanity, on Henry's part consumed sense and proportion.
I was just saying people back then didn't have the medical knowledge or the information we have now. Granted, when you do have the knowledge, doesn't mean we use it either. However, men are not inclined to divorce their wives just because they can't have kids. It's called adoption :)
Haha get what you're saying Jayme...
I bet Henry would have you beheaded if he heard you speaking at this moment.
I bet Henry would have you beheaded if he heard you speaking at this moment.
probably, but I have a feeling I would have been beheaded for my ideas anyways.
Jayne... do you really think Henry VIII thought that way? Its, as is said, a non-starter for ten. You are sophisticated American, probably young, I'm a 54 year-old Brit, a bit sophisticated too I think. In Henry's place, and lets assume my wife was KoA, I, personally may not have given a monkey's whether or not I had a son, daughter or bananas. This is not how it panned out or the Tudor mind, let alone the mind of most Royal Houses. Read Seller and Yateman, 1066 and all that. It may be satire but more than a grain of truth in the psyche of those involved in the dynastic business and truthfully in the minds of possibly most men (i.e. carrying on the family name). Logical? Maybe not. Actuality? Yes.
Harvey - The books you reference sound interesting. I love satire, and as you said, it usually contains grains of truth. Can you let me know what books would be best to start with?
1066 and all that
by W.C. Sellar & R.J. Yeatman was what I referring to. A.L. Rowse
before David Starkey
became famous are of course serious historians of the period. x
Welcome:) Though of course Ricardians never could stand A.L. Rowse... but I am of a liberal persuasion and think all should be read!
I have not read Rowse, but I have read some Starkey. I love finding new authors.
Thanks for the info on the book, Harvey!! It looks pretty cool (and interesting!!). I too, believe all should be read! It's great to have several views on something so you can kinda get the whole picture. I might have to stay away from A.L. Rowse for a bit. I've read enough Anti-Richard stuff for the moment!! As for the above discussion, I'm going to play the devil's advocate just for giggles and ask: Aren't you both being a little unfair to Henry? He was freaked out that his dynastic line wasn't going to be continued if he stayed with the wife that he currently had. He had to do something to keep the family line going and that meant finding a woman who wasn't going through menopause.
Like I said, just playing devil's advocate and curious to what ya'll think.
If you are a serious Tudor student you should read Rowse. Older generation. but a scholar
I will do that! I just wrote it down in my "To be read" notebook. I'm currently reading Ives' biography of AB. Can't believe I haven't read it before now!!!
Rowse is interesting, but somewhat long-winded.
Actually Aly, I thought I was being fair to Henry. I did say "If I were he......" and I am not, and do not have his concerns. I cannot judge history, or anyone on my personal tastes, prejudices etc. The historian's role is to be as objective as possible. I am a personal fan of Dick III and find most of the Tudors insufferable. It has to be said though it was a most important time in British history (the Early Modern Period). Not that Henry VII would have filled in forms saying I'm ushering in the Early Modern Period. More and Erasmus were active and then great prosperity spread under Elizabeth... of course the great theological debate was going on for Britain and not just as a backdrop. Please play the Devil's advocate!
Harvey wrote: "Jayne... do you really think Henry VIII thought that way? Its, as is said, a non-starter for ten. You are sophisticated American, probably young, I'm a 54 year-old Brit, a bit sophisticated too I t..."I am 33 so I don't know if that counts me as young. I am just saying it is not all on the woman but I know they thought it should be. I mean did guys really think that they insert their key in the lock, jiggle it around a little and out pops a boy?
Susanna wrote: "Rowse is interesting, but somewhat long-winded."I admit that Starkey is a greater populist. I don't mean to disparage the guy at all... just that being younger generation, combined with personality he can be argued to be a better or more contemporary 'communicator' (he has done some great BBC broadcasts. Amazon I am sure will have them. Rowse is more 'old school'. But then so am I.:))
Tudor History Lovers
Books mentioned in this topic
The Origins of the Second World War (other topics)Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII (other topics)
A Tudor Tragedy: The Life and Times of Catherine Howard (other topics)
The Fifth Queen (other topics)
Lady Jane Grey (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
A.J.P. Taylor (other topics)A.L. Rowse (other topics)
A.L. Rowse (other topics)
Kenneth Clark (other topics)
A.L. Rowse (other topics)
More...
I think that is so touching that KoA hand embroidered his shirts and turned a blind eye to all his mistresses and bastard children. Even when AB lived with them and paraded her haughty self around as if she were already queen, KoA still made her husband shirts, still declared her undying love for him and their daughter.