Elizabeth I??(191 Posts)
I’m trying to broaden my historical knowledge and I’m reading a bit about the Tudors and I was wondering if people thing that Elizabeth I thought her mum, Anne Boleyn was innocent of the trumped up charges her father Henry VIII accused her off to execute her as she had a locket with her and her mother’s portrait in which she wore until her death but she didn’t go back and change the law saying her parents marriage was legitimate like her elder sister Mary did when she was on the throne to her parents marriage.
So I’m asking do you think she thought her mother was innocent? Thanks all
My understanding of Mary Boleyn is that she was very different from her intelligent and shrewd younger siblings. I don't believe she was 'pimped oout' at all - there are rumours she was mistress to more than just Henry. I believe she was just an attractive woman who was his type.
Most historians I read don't seem to believe that any of his wives were directly 'advanced' into their positions by their families, with the possible exception of Jane Seymour who might have been lightly coached. Certainly, the Duke of Norfolk was unlikely to actively advance a second niece, far less intelligent and experienced than the first, after the previous had become the first ever executed queen. It's worth noting that Katherine Howard was virtually forgotten within her own family - her father was not wealthy, she was one of many (I think about 10?) children and she was in no way a priority for them. I think when she caught Henry's eye they took advantage of the situation, but noone would have planned for it. There were only 11 years between Anne Boleyn's death and Henry's - noone would have forgotten it.
Whilst there might have been very different morality, the Boleyns and the Howards (weren't they cousins) seemed to be unusually fond of pushing their young females into relationships outside marriage to get power. At least for England, it might have been more common in France and Italy.
I don't think there is any evidence she was forced into anything - it was a very different perspective on sex and marriage in those days. 'Pimped out' doesn't apply when women were possessions and expected to marry as they were told (to become the mistress of the king was even more prestigious).
I don't think there's any evidence to say Mary Boleyn was 'pimped out' was there? Though it's a popular take on the situation in The Tudors and the Other Boleyn Girl, I don't think there's definitive proof that Mary Boleyn was forced to sleep with Henry to advance her family.
I’ve always felt very sorry for Mary Boleyn & her husband. His wife basically pimped our to advance her family. And no say in the matter for either of them.
Henry VIII wouldn't (and couldn't) recognise Henry Carey as Mary Boleyn was married.
Henry Carey was almost certainly not his son. Without a legitimate heir, he would have recognized pretty much any illegitimate male heir, particularly one from a good family, as proof of his fertility and virility. He did for Bessie Blount's Henry. Perhaps the tiniest chance that he wouldn't have politically in that moment, but I think it's very small indeed.
I think Starkeys' treatment of Mary Tudor was excellent...I had never thought to put her into the context of having to watch her parents marriage break up, kept from seeing her mother, and having to serve her new sister. She was a girl who went from being courted and feted to being less than nothing. We know the effect that this would have on modern kids...why would it be any the less for Mary?
I think her religion was the one constant in her life, which was why many died, as she genuinely thought she was saving them. I do however think that Cranmer was sheer revenge.
I think we see historical people as figures as opposed to a woman with a bad hair day, or raging PMT, or one who had all the certainties and props of her existence ripped away, and had to try to work out what she had done wrong, and how to survive in the new dispensation.
My youngest dc is almost 17. I couldn’t imagine marrying her to a man old enough to be her grandfather, especially one who had executed her cousin.
Jane Seymour would not have followed Anne Boleyn to the scaffold- she had done THE thing, produced an heir. A male heir. She would have been safe.
So many what ifs in Henry’s reign; if his & Katherine's first son hadn’t died, if AB hadn’t miscarried, if Jane hadn’t died...
I agree, the fact she was considered a bastard by Rome was irrelevant. After all, William the Conqueror was also a bastard.
I'm just sticking my head in to say this is such an interesting thread, thanks OP for posting!
There wasn't anything to gain by making their marriage lawful as she had Henry's Tudor blood even if some people considered her illegitimate. I'd say she enough of Court politics to know the charges were probably trumped up, tho I've seen a theory that the 'incest' if true, may have been desperation for a male child which would mean her position would safer as Henry was desperate for a male heir.
In July 1543, Parliament passed the third Act of Succession of Henry VIII's reign. This act overrode the first Act of Succession (1534), which had vested the succession of the English Crown to the children of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, and the second Act of Succession (1536), which had made the children of Jane Seymour first in line for the throne, and both princesses Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate. The act, which gained Royal Assent at the close of Parliament in February 1544, established the new line of succession as Edward, then any children he were to have, then a son Henry VIII might have with Katherine Parr, that potential son's possible children, then children from marriages after Queen Katherine, if any, then Mary, Mary's children, if any, then Elizabeth. Credit for Mary and Elizabeth's restoration to the line of succession is often given to Queen Katherine Parr.
'My lord, we had forgot the fart,' surely?
Another one, which I don't know whether she really said, is her supposed response to being asked if she believed in the Catholic definition of the Eucharist.
Christ was the word did make it.
He took the bread and brake [broke] it.
And what his word did make it
That I believe, and take it.
Same kind of clever evasion as 'etc' for titles, I guess.
@SoonerthanIthought - Margaret's heir from 1542 was her granddaughter, Mary Queen of Scots. Henry VIII had wanted to marry her to Edward, and the Scots had signed a treaty agreeing to this when she was six months old. But the Scottish Parliament refused to ratify the treaty and renewed Scotland's alliance with France.
Henry started a military campaign to force the marriage and destroy the French alliance (known as 'The Rough Wooing' and the war was still ongoing when he died in 1547, which probably influenced his decision. Having the Scottish queen as Queen Consort was one thing, but having the reigning Scottish monarch as Queen Regnant of England was quite another...
Elizabeth refused to name an heir because she did not want a rival - the endless civil wars of the Wars of the Roses showed what could happen where the legitimacy of the monarch was questioned, and she was vulnerable in an era when female leadership was considered unnatural and unGodly. Better to keep the question in the air, and the opposition disunited among the various candidates.
Plus, of course, possible candidates locked up (Arbella Stuart) or executed (Mary QoS) so they couldn't drum up support.
History repeated itself - Arbella Stuart (cousin of James through Margaret, the sister of Henry VIII) made a secret marriage to Katherine Grey's grandson, for which she was imprisoned in the Tower and died young.
It is only supposition that Henry Carey was Henry VIII’s son. Henry VIII openly admitted that Elizabeth Blount’s son was his but never admitted the same for Henry Carey.
What do those of you who are saying Henry Carey was Henry VIII's son think of Alison Weir's treatment of the evidence -- which seems pretty clear against.
So why didn’t Katherine Grey’s son become King once Elizabeth died?
Katherine Grey's exclusion from the succession likely had to do with the Spanish ambition to put her on the throne. De Feria -- the Spanish ambassador's -- had correspondence with Spain around 1559 which indicated she would be a likely central piece for a plot to replace Elisabeth on the throne, as long as Katherine would agree to be Catholic. Which, fairly wisely, she never did.
The Spanish involvement meant Elisabeth naming Katherine or her issue as heir would potentially mean the end of England as a sovereign nation or a messy civil war at best -- since Mary I's wedding to Philip was EXTREMELY unpopular -- and even naming Katherine as heir would have caused an uproar.
Pretty sure that if her parents marriage wasn't deemed lawful, she'd not have been (a) in line to the throne and (b) permitted to ascend to it.
Henry VIII had bastards - Henry Carey, for crying out loud, who was also Elizabeth I's first-cousin (and possible his sister Catherine). There was also Henry Fitzroy, who was in line - with Henry VIII's blessing - to marry his own half-sister, Mary, at one point, so...
I think she knew that politicians lie, even back then, that her mother was scapegoated because she couldn't carry a male heir to term, and her father's eye had wandered to Jane Seymour (whose family machinated for the marriage to their own ends... had Jane not died shortly after providing the male heir? She would have gone the same way as Anne Boleyn, in my opinion).
Why did Henry exclude his sister Margaret from the successsion, does anyone know?
One of the many women (in her case a girl) who I think was treated very badly is Catherine Howard. She was only 17 when she married henry - and aiui her family (uncle was Duke of Norfolk) pushed for it, sending her into an obviously very dangerous situation for any woman but particularly for a 17 yr old.
I think the original BBC series, 6 wives of Henry VIII, is still one of the clearest introductions - others will know how accurate it is but it did address the politics/religion as well as portraying the relationships. (though I don't think I would watch the torture scenes now.) I think it's available on dvd.
Hahah yes, it’s very intriguing @DarlingNikita
Just marking place to catch up later. Love this period of history.
@malibuloving assuming that an annulment had been granted, and that then the same Royal children of Henry VIII had been born, I would assume it would have been whomever succeeded Elizabeth.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.