Tudor History

I also just want to say, it's thought that Edward VI died of a suppurating pulmonary abscess.

/nerd

scarletpeaches said:

I'll freely admit to watching The Tudors as nothing more than JRM porn.

HOLLA, JOHNNY-BOY!

But it really ripped my nips when he was given that title and 'Henry' said, "Fidei Defensor...Defender of the Faith..."

Well thanks for that. Really. I needed to be patronised. And I'm sure no-one else knew what that meant.

The thing is, Henry would have known, as well as everyone around him, so it was clearly a nod to the audience. Those poor, poor Americans, who know no Latin...

Click to expand...

That's why I call it entertainment. I'll freely admit I'm watching JRM too and not for the historical accuracy. No it doesn't make it right to tell historical inaccuracies, but there isn't anything inaccurate about JRM...IMHO.

Latin...they forced my brother to learn it in High School and killed the requirement the year I started. I was sooo glad, even if I don't know what all the Latin words mean. I can ask for a cold beer in Spanish and say thank you and I'm more likely to use that than Latin.

joyce said:

Boy, didn't this lead to some horrid times throughout Great Britain.

Click to expand...

Just had to point out that the term Great Britain didn't exist in the Tudor era.

Scotland was an independent state, and the Reformation started later up here.

Let's ask Henry Cavill what he thinks of the historical inaccuracies in each series of The Tudors:

I meant was that Catherine of Aragon's character in The Tudors was what I liked. I imagine Catherine was something like that, a true dignified Queen. She was also pretty ballsy that she kept writing to Henry after he married Anne, signing her letters Queen of England. She was an awesome woman.

I also don't think Catherine Howard was all that stupid. I mean, again, I haven't read up that much about her like I have with Anne and Catherine of Aragon, but I think one needs to remember she was a young girl. We all did stupid things when we were young, and I think that is particularly true if one is in love. I think for Catherine, Thomas was, to her, maybe like her knight in shining armor. He loved her, he was her age, he was pretty. The courly love thing was pretty popular, and I know plenty teenage girls today couldn't resisit a guy if he wrote them sonnets and poems. It's all very romantic, and girls CRAVE that stuff. I'm 19 and a quick glance up at my movie collection that I brought with me to college consists of-Pride and Prejudice, Titanic, Shakespear in Love, The Holiday, The Notebook. Last night the roomies and I even watched Disney's Beauty and the Beast.

Sorry, I didn't mean to rant, I'm just saying is that girls like the romantic aspect of life, and perhaps Thomas provided that for young Catherine. I'm sure we've all made mistakes when we were young, and again, that is soooo true when we were in love. I think people should give her more credit.

She still had some growing up to do, and as well all know, never got the chance.

I know teenagers were different back then, they had different responsabilities and such, but I think in some aspects they were still like teens of today. They still had the "raging hormones" and everything.

Oh aye, yes. She was loved by the people. Especially women.

And so was her daughter. We always think of Mary as being standoffish, cold, and so on...but she was godmother to many children and was naturally maternal.

(Hark at me, speaking as if I knew them).

Sidenote: I'm incorporating the phrase "Mine eyes desire you above all things," into my current WIP. Yes. You know the genre. Still, I'm doing it...

scarletpeaches said:

Oh aye, yes. She was loved by the people. Especially women.

And so was her daughter. We always think of Mary as being standoffish, cold, and so on...but she was godmother to many children and was naturally maternal.

Click to expand...

Thank you! I also think Mary Tudor is another person I think people need to go easier on. I know Philipa Gregory's work is inaccurate, but I did like her portral of Mary. People forget that she used to take care of little Bess

Also, the phrase is beautiful. Simple yet sweet. I'm a huge romantic so yeah I love things like that. *Sigh* such a shame boys don't even attempt to be gentlemen any more. I'm not saying I want them to bow to me and kiss my hand, just maybe hold open the door for me or give me your seat on the bus. That's all.

History_gal said:

I know teenagers were different back then, they had different responsabilities and such, but I think in some aspects they were still like teens of today. They still had the "raging hormones" and everything.

Click to expand...

Catherine Howard may have been like the other teens in her day but she should not have been. She was related to real nobility as opposed to local county bigwigs. She was manipulated by her appalling uncle and made into a honey trap for a sick, wicked old man. Of all the women who Henry married I have most sympathy for her as she seemed to be the only one who did not possess a single brain cell. She lost her head before she had a chance to lose her mind.

I've always wondered about teens during history and how they dealt with stuff and what they were like.

To me, nobility or not, you still have the homormones. I get that people were different back then, particularly among the noble class. I get that parents did their best to try to squash that rebellious spark that teens have, but it's still there. In certain aspects, I think all kids from all different times and class-periods have SOME of the same qualities.

Besides, Anne was very noble. She had been in two courts, served two queens before coming to England, and it was rumored that she was not chaste, and had known men in France. Henry even makes a commit about it after he married her.

King Francis confides in the Duke of Norfolk and says "how little virtously Anne has always lived"

Henry himself tells the Spanish ambassador that she had been "corrupted in France". I believe Anne was higher up on the social status than Kitty Howard, and she, and her siblings, had a sexual reputation.

I'm not saying that that's good or in excusable, but you know. I know this isn't during Renissance times, but during the Colonial time period 80% of the population of married women were already with child when they got married. If the same is to be said about the Renssiance, than that definatly suggests people are living un-piously.

^I think you are probably right, although I'm not sure that Anne would've given her "jewel" away easily. As a noblewoman, she was well aware of the value of it. One has to remember that the chances of pregnancy were great, and the risk of having an illegitimate child even greater. I have read various methods of contraception and I don't think much was available at this time, at least, nothing reliable.

I pulled those qoutes from Henry VIII:The King and His Court

So I'm starting to think that, yes, Anne knew the value of her jewels and she kept the jewel clean with Henry. Yet, I think in France, however, she may have lost her "jewel."

Also, there are many ways to lose a "jewel" but that doesn't mean we have truly lost them. I don't know if its true or not, so don't qoute me but I have heard that Mary Boleyn introduced Henry to the um blow job. Perhaps Anne did that on men whilst living in France

A good point. It also must be noted that Henry VIII very likely caught the "french" disease from Mary Boleyn. Hence, his offspring suffered the effects to a point.

I wouldn't set much store by anything Alison Weir says. She rails against Anne in some books, deifies her in others and clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word 'consistent'.

She does, however, know what it means to pick her verdict and manipulate the evidence around it, ignoring what doesn't 'fit', according to her whim. See her fuck-awful book on the Princes in the Tower as a case in point.

As for any criticisms made of Anne by Henry?

Most of them came in 1536. You might want to check what he was trying to do to her then.

Er, excuse me...

history gal but stop thinking of children and teenagers as we have today in any time except modern!

Even in the 1940s children left school at 12 or 14 and went to work or into training for work.

Before then that was life for most people. A brief childhood, what education your family could afford or thought necessary, and then training and/or work.

I think it's also worth mentioning that until the 18th century a child was regarded as a small version of an adult and expect to behave so. More so of an older teenage.

We have to be careful not to apply 21st century ideas of childhood onto the 16th century.

pdr said:

history gal but stop thinking of children and teenagers as we have today in any time except modern!

Even in the 1940s children left school at 12 or 14 and went to work or into training for work.

Before then that was life for most people. A brief childhood, what education your family could afford or thought necessary, and then training and/or work.

Click to expand...

Snap!

mk I did say that there were differences-huge ones-between the two sets of teens, I was just referring to physical/emotional changes that teenagers go through; that cannot be prevented. Yeah they had jobs and were saw as small adults, but I'm sure, on some occasions, they had their moments of break-downs. Were they as common as the ones kids have today; no. Were they as emotional as teenagers today; probably not.

What I was saying about Kitty Howard was that, yes even though she made a mistake, we all do. Even in that day and age there was a maturity gap between someone 15 and 20. Was it as big as the one now, probably not. Kids back than, though they didn't express themselves like the ones in this generation, I'm still sure got frusterated by their parents and employers, wanted a way out. All I was saying was that dispite there being some MAJOR differences between a 15 year old of the sixteenth century and a 15 year old of today, I'm sure there are still small similarities.

Teens, in any age, are still going to go through changes both physical and emotional. I think that kids back than just kept everything down, unlike kids today.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that kids back then were like kids of the modern world.

scarletpeaches said:

As for any criticisms made of Anne by Henry?

Most of them came in 1536. You might want to check what he was trying to do to her then.

Click to expand...

Believe me, I know. I've read up on this stuff too.

History_gal said:

mk I did say that there were differences-huge ones-between the two sets of teens, I was just referring to physical/emotional changes that teenagers go through; that cannot be prevented. Yeah they had jobs and were saw as small adults, but I'm sure, on some occasions, they had their moments of break-downs. Were they as common as the ones kids have today; no. Were they as emotional as teenagers today; probably not.

What I was saying about Kitty Howard was that, yes even though she made a mistake, we all do. Even in that day and age there was a maturity gap between someone 15 and 20. Was it as big as the one now, probably not. Kids back than, though they didn't express themselves like the ones in this generation, I'm still sure got frusterated by their parents and employers, wanted a way out. All I was saying was that dispite there being some MAJOR differences between a 15 year old of the sixteenth century and a 15 year old of today, I'm sure there are still small similarities.

Click to expand...

Katherine Howard didn't make A mistake, she made a lot of them. Once she finally got caught with Culpepper, I believe it came out that she was quite the little slut back at home, and her guardian was reprimanded for providing such poor supervision during her upbringing.

I'm not entirely sure she was a slut. Abused, possibly. Desperate for affection? Again, possibly.

An idiot? Oh for sure.

I love the line "Yours as long as life endures." The fact a borderline illiterate made such an effort as to write letters to the man she loved says a lot. I almost feel sorry for her. But putting it in writing? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I haven't researched Katherine as much as I have Anne or Catherine of Aragon. Was she forced into the relationship with Henry. I mean, if she was, than I kind of sympathize with her. I wouldn't want to marry some smelly, fat, hairy man. The putting it in writing though, well, yeah that was pretty stupid.

Anyways, was she kind of thrust into the marriage. I always thought that she and Henry did not have that long of courtship, and it also sounds like they had nothing in common.

I reckon it was one of those "He's the king. You don't say no to him," things. She was overpowered by her family and distracted by the shiny. He showered his 'rose without a thorn' in jewels and everything a silly little girl could want.

^I agree. She was "groomed" to be Queen of England by her uncle, The Duke of Norfolk, who was a reptile. He saw an opportunity and pounced on it. I think he tried to ignore her "encounters" and prayed for the best.