Tudor History Lovers discussion
Which Tudor do you like / dislike and why ?
I am aware of that. I have read up on the subject :) I just think Henry VIII is a pompous ass. The older he got, the more of an ass he became.
Well... I can't say he is my favourite person in history either! Interesting! A psychiatrist's dream to write a paper or seminar on! Nice buddy? No!
Harvey wrote: "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, combine..."
Oh, I'm not a fan of Starkey, believe me. He's just as pompous in real life, btw.
Yes:)) Bit of a ham actor! However I forgive him a lot in that he has brought history, Tudor history in particular to a wide audience.
^ ^ Susanna I found Starkey charming and friendly when I met him! He wasn't pompous to his fans at all! =D
Michelle wrote: "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..."I liked her performance Michelle. I think Portman is an excellent actor.
I don't think Henry VIII was a pompous a** (now I feel like Henry's advocate! LOL). Don't get me wrong, he wasn't a great person. But I think he is much more misunderstood than people tend to think.Harvey, I used to think quite highly on the Tudors until I started reading up on Richard III and the Plantagenets!! Now I'm not so sure. I also used to think that it was a no brainer that Richard killed the princes in the Tower. I have since changed my mind. I guess I'm becoming a bit more of a Ricardian!!! Thank you for your views on if you were Henry. I like your insight on things!
Aly you are one of the few that always comes to defend old king Harry! ;)
ha!! It's true, Colleen. I think its because I want to think the best of him. Part of that view point comes totally from the Autobiography by Margaret George. I know it's HF, but it's extremely well researched and gives a very human perspective to Henry.
Oh totally, MG puts so so so much into her research it is easy to forget that she writes fictionalized historical events.
Whatever "best" was in Henry VIII died early on. You are entitled to your opinion Aly. I don't agree with you.
I like the little discussion going on between Harvey and Jayme.
And I value both your opinions as well. Harvey I do get what you’re saying about how they felt about not having an heir to the thrown in those days, but really, that’s silly, and I know its silly of me to sit in my cosy chair contradicting it now, but when we sit in this day and age and think of the way it was back then we cant help but to think they were mad! Jayme you make a good point about Henry being an ass, I agree. And Harvey, good on you for not caring whether you had a blue teddy as a child or a red monkey with two front teeth. All I want to say is that not only was Henry an ass for the way he treated his wives when they could not bare sons, he was an ass all around I think. He thought because he was King, he would get everything and anything he wanted, he was ruler of the world according to him. No one was mightier than dear Henry. No one could say boo or ba against him, and that’s what makes him a bad ruler, he was in a sense a dictator. He dictated his wives and his children, he even dictated his people and their religion, and there he tried to dictate God, what a mistake, and I do believe that for that, God punished him.
And I value both your opinions as well. Harvey I do get what you’re saying about how they felt about not having an heir to the thrown in those days, but really, that’s silly, and I know its silly of me to sit in my cosy chair contradicting it now, but when we sit in this day and age and think of the way it was back then we cant help but to think they were mad! Jayme you make a good point about Henry being an ass, I agree. And Harvey, good on you for not caring whether you had a blue teddy as a child or a red monkey with two front teeth. All I want to say is that not only was Henry an ass for the way he treated his wives when they could not bare sons, he was an ass all around I think. He thought because he was King, he would get everything and anything he wanted, he was ruler of the world according to him. No one was mightier than dear Henry. No one could say boo or ba against him, and that’s what makes him a bad ruler, he was in a sense a dictator. He dictated his wives and his children, he even dictated his people and their religion, and there he tried to dictate God, what a mistake, and I do believe that for that, God punished him.
Henry VIII was worried he wouldn't be remembered after he was gone. I wonder how he feel that we are talking about him 500+ years later.
Haha he'd be impressed, and then he'd chop off all our heads when he sees how much we dislike him, and all the rubish we talk about him...
You know what, I wonder how Henry and Elizabeth II would have gotten along...
Henry was a tyrant for sure but being a ruler isn't all wine and roses; every decision one makes in a position like that will have supporters and nay sayers.
I know... But dont you think that most supported him because they were scared of him? Scared of what would happen to them if they did go up against him?
Glad to have you back Colleen
Glad to have you back Colleen
Harvey wrote: "1066 and all that
by W.C. Sellar & R.J. Yeatman was what I referring to. A.L. Rowse
..."Thanks for the recommendation, Harvey. Which of Rowse's books would you recommend that someone start with? I enjoyed David Starkey's _Elizabeth: Struggle for the Throne_ but understand that it was meant to be a popular book, not scholarly. (Does he do scholarly any more?) Any other authors you would recommend?
Thanks Neicole, I've been wrapped up in reading and preparing for my upcoming trip so I didn't get to the group for a while. At least someone noticed my absence! ;)I think it was part fear and part a product of the times. They were brought up all their lives to serve, honor, and obey the king. He was like a celebrity; they saw him as better than themselves so who were they to get in his way? It wasn't until the whole mass of the destruction of the churches that people finally stood up and said "enough is enough".
For older scholarly, I am a fan of G.R. Elton.
Naomi wrote: "Harvey wrote: "1066 and all that by W.C. Sellar & R.J. Yeatman was what I referring to. A.L. Rowse
Kenneth Clark 
The thing with Henry being a bad ruler is he really wasn't as tyrannical as we think he was. To us today he seems that way, but for the time, he wasn't any different than any other ruler around Europe (I would argue that the Pope could be worse at times because he truly did rule everyone and Henry broke free of that). In that respect, I think Henry did quite a bit for England. He stopped their dependence on the Pope for everything. Regardless of popular thinking, he didn't break from Catholicism to marry AB. The thought had probably been brewing in his head for awhile. We see Henry making this decision to divorce Katherine and throw her aside as just a royal whim; something that he had no problem doing. I don't truly believe that. He looked for a way to get out of his marriage without trying to hurt Katherine's feelings (he thought maybe she wanted to go to a convent since she was so pious). He didn't just directly jump into getting rid of her. She understood that a Queen's job was to make boys. It had probably been drilled into her since she was a very small child. She failed on that job. She knew that she did. She couldn't have expected Henry to be happy with her for the rest of their days when she had failed to give him the one thing that he needed. Yes, she had a child, but it was a girl. That means that anyone that married Mary would have been ruler of England, and that person wouldn't have been an English man. Henry would have, in effect, been giving his entire kingdom to someone foreign which would have caused one of two things: Civil War or England becoming part of another kingdom and losing its identity. What a legacy to leave a child!!! I would probably have panicked too, would have done everything in my power to ensure that those things didn't happen. Did he go about it the right way?? I don't think so. But I understand why he did it. The problem with Henry (as it is so often in life) is that everything isn't black and white; there are some grey areas to the situation. Unfortunately, over time, the grey areas get obscured and are harder to see. To us, Henry was this tyrant, this horrible human being. To the people of his time, he was doing what a king does. And the people generally liked him, they just didn't like his taste in women save Katherine!!!
Harvey wrote: "Naomi wrote: "Harvey wrote: "1066 and all that by W.C. Sellar & R.J. Yeatman was what I referring to. A.L. Rowse[..."I don't know much about David Starkey, but was 'introduced' recently when i heard the podcast of a lecture he gave about Henry VIII having achieved his dream of FAME. I have yet to seek out his DVDs, but will eventually. I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't like him - on the contrary, I found him very amusing and he seemed quite knowledgeable. (He is gay; he has confirmed that in interviews.)
My interest is in reading histories or historical biographies of the Tudor period; I'm not interested in the historical fiction about it -- hence my question about other authors. I'll take a look at A.L. Rowse.
Awwwwwwwwwww Aly!!! Sorry.I am not saying Henry was the anti-Christ... the total personification of evil, though I could come close. More lost his job and head. For me, any friend of Erasmus is a friend of mine. A man who could see through the fallacies of the 'Reformation'. He was profligate and King.
he was the law.... feared God a little... 'till he got a theological break... Come Aly! You have to give me a stronger argument!
irony of ironies.... Tudor England was 'Merrie England'. More prosperous, yes, but 'merrie?' Interesting quandary!
haha!! Harvey, I'm not saying you called him the anti-Christ!! that made me giggle! I don't think he is as evil as you fear. I would honestly say that the biggest evil in his life were his councillors (Wolsey and Cromwell, those two scare me!). Henry wanted to play and have fun, and while he was supposedly smart, he was easily swayed by his favorites. Yes, More died and that was tragic. But he gave up his job on his own. My biggest problem with More is that he made himself into a martyr. He died needlessly. And I'm curious as to how much of the idea to kill More was Henry's. He seemed to truly regret that particular death, which makes me think someone (Cromwell perhaps? Maybe even the Boleyns?? Combination of the two?) played on his anger and made More seem worse than he actually was.
Mmmmmmmmmm... fair and maybe moot point. I do detest Cromwell!!!!!!!!! He was bad news to be fair. But while it is good to be King... Henry was no angel either. More, was probably 'out of his time' and did not sit well in the climate.
Henry definitely wasn't an angel! I agree on your assessment with More. And I too hate Cromwell!!!!!
I agree, Cromwell was certainly a piece of work!!. I am really fascinated at this point by the interplay between he and Anne Boleyn. Two very strong characters. They ended up on opposite sides, but it is interesting to ponder what they could have done had they worked together.
Harvey - Someone asked for a recommendation of which Rowse to start with, did you answer? If so, can you repeat cuz I missed it!
The Elizabethan Renaissance: the Life of Society, London: Macmillan, 1971
The Elizabethan Renaissance: The Cultural Achievement, London: Macmillan, 1972 The Elizabethan Renaissance: The Cultural Achievement
by A.L. Rowse
spring to mind
I don't like Dudley, if we're getting into all the Tudor reigns, not just people from Henry's. Too ambitious. I get the feeling he played people and I do believe he offed his wife. I think he was a snake in the grass in general, and I think it's good that EI did not marry him. She could've gone the way of Mary Stuart.
I should be interested in some subject choices from Elizabeth's reign. Lots of interesting couriers!I much preferred The Life of the Society to the The Cultural Achievement - I thought I should go mad while reading the (I was afraid never-ending) bit on madrigals.
Harvey wrote: "The Elizabethan Renaissance: the Life of Society, London: Macmillan, 1971 The Elizabethan Renaissance: The Cultural Achiev..."
Thanks much for the recommendations, Harvey. I'll be checking these out very soon.
I'm coming into this conversation late, but I find it fascinating. I'm surprised how much anti-Anne sentiment there is. I am reading everything I can get my hands on about her right now. She is definitely my favorite Tudor. Katherine of Aragon is so interesting and complicated, too. As a person, I would have to pick Henry VII as my least favorite Tudor because of his ruthlessness, but he is certainly very interesting. I find Jane Seymour to be pretty dull, so maybe she's a better pick. I also echo the Cromwell dislike, though he, like Henry VII, is interesting to research. I'm really enjoying the debate on Henry VIII. I am inclined to hate him, but some of you raise interesting points. I tend to believe Wolsey and Cromwell made most of his decisions, but there's still plenty to dislike about the king himself.
Well Henry VIII was pretty young when he took the throne so decisions were made for him until he was old enough.
Yes, he was 17, I believe, but it seems to have been a precedent that continued through most of his reign.
His grandmother took care of a lot of things until he reached 18. But he was only a couple weeks shy. And she soon died after. Wolsey had installed himself in the royal household before then, and once Henry became king I believe he saw it as his golden opportunity. I think Henry relied too much on others because he was so cloistered as a child. He wasn't supposed to be king, but once his brother died, his father kept him so shut in that he had no idea what was going on and how the world worked. And suddenly, his father dies. And then within weeks his grandmother dies. Suddenly all the authority that was over him was gone and he went crazy. And his first crazy act was marrying a woman that he should have never married (according to his father and gmother). I actually agree with them. He shouldn't have married her. He should have made provisions for her and maybe found someone else for her to marry or sent her back to Spain. The marriage was a foolish thing. He didn't wait for the proper anything to marry her, and his advisors then later used it against her to begin to overthrow her. Brigid, there is a lot of anti Anne sentiment here!! But I kinda agree with it. She's super fascinating, and I like learning different things about her, but she wasn't very nice, and extremely ruthless (it wasn't just her family, she wanted it too!). I agree with you about Jane Seymour. She does seem dreadfully dull!!!
I think we already established Henry 8 was took the throne young and he wasn't supposed to rule. However, it sounds like that was an excuse for his bad behavior. I am sorry that doesn't excuse him. He didn't take any responsibility and by the time he did, it is too little too late.
Yes, we did establish it in another thread. And I'm not saying anywhere that it did excuse him. I'm talking more of where his head might have been.
I can say where his head was or where a head was but do you really want me to say it on this thread? :)
Brigid wrote: "I'm coming into this conversation late, but I find it fascinating. I'm surprised how much anti-Anne sentiment there is. I am reading everything I can get my hands on about her right now. She is def..."Cromwell was an absolute B******d but sure is fascinating to research! If I had a grant I'd be fascinated to do some myself. As I have stated before, the Tudors in general were quite unlovely but are utterly enthralling!
They are enthralling!! I could spend forever reading about them and still find new things!!
Jayme wrote: "I think we already established Henry 8 was took the throne young and he wasn't supposed to rule. However, it sounds like that was an excuse for his bad behavior. I am sorry that doesn't excuse him...."OK I am way way behind on this thread due to some PC issues so just jumping in here but may toss in some things from other comments/posts here too.
On Henry VIII he was an amazingly dynamic person, BUT he was also IMO a very pampered spoiled manchild that did not get Nearly enough time in 'Time Out' when he was young. I enjoy reading about him because of the time and all but also just to get my 'Are You Kidding Me' fix.
There was some posts about Kat Howard. I did read a book that I liked about her. The Rose Without a Thorn: The Wives of Henry VIII Now Plaidy books are older and some are not Super accurate But in this one KH seems pretty close if not right on and was not Just told as her being a wanton hussy.
Catherine Parr is one I like but then she went and married Seymour so had to question her there cause he was nutty.
Mary Tudor (Henrys daughter) seemed a mix of sadness and cruelty. Deep religious beliefs did seem to be the jumping ground for her title of Bloody Mary but I dont think it was soley as a revenge deal. I have read many places where it was a belief about 'setting a heretics soul free' through Fire.
I am currently reading a book on Anne of Cleves by Margaret Campbell Barnes and like how it is giving her a True character other than being a giant, fat, ugly, smelly horse of a woman. Depicts her as smart and kind and in a way Earning the right to be kept as Henrys Adopted sister by her behavior.
OK am still catching up on here but think I pegged the things I saw as I was reading so far at least.
Wen I sooo agree with you. Henry 8 definitely needs a "time out"
Haha I agree with you to...
We could make this thread the who hates Henry thread hehe...
I just wanted to ad that I also really disliked Jane Seymore for some reason...
We could make this thread the who hates Henry thread hehe...
I just wanted to ad that I also really disliked Jane Seymore for some reason...
I seriously think I'm the only one who likes Henry LOL
Hehe maybe, but there's nothing wrong with that is there? Its your opinion who you like and dislike right? Just like it is ours about Katherine. And to tell you the truth, I did like him, at the beginning. And I dont think he was a tyrant, just a bit of a self loving man...
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...
33 is a score years younger than me... so yes. Its young!:) Not a bad thing.
Even in the early 19th Century a Queen having a daughter was like England loosing the World Cup (soccer) or the Ashes (cricket), so a semi-national disaster. This is not my personal view on life. I am merely pointing out what was in the corporate or societal psyche at the time. Nation building was by dynasty, marriage alliance (and conquest). Sons were not going to give the nation to a foreign power like Mary... And "horror, horror" (then) she was Catholic as well!