To think that Henry VIII was an abusive physco

[Iwanttoslowdown]

And should be taught in school as such.

One of mine is being taught about this tosser in Secondary school history and I was appalled that it was treated with such blasé that he literally was an abuser.

So I had to retell the story not as someone to be revered or remembered well, but that this abuser killed some of his wives including the mother of his daughter Elizabeth I, had serial mistresses, gorged his way through Court like some oversized pimple set to burst and generally Gould not be taught as a good person.

And Idi Amin served with distinction in the UK and Ugandan armies, before coming to power, as well as being an accomplished amateur sportsman. How many people do you have to have killed before you qualify as a serial killer?

So was Bloody Mary……

He wasn’t unusual at all for a monarch or aristo of the times. He was just much more in the public eye.

I do wonder if people on threads like this know anything at all about history

So you think Henry 8th is like a serial killer?

The 'killings' were done in the name of treason. The same reason for most executions by monarchs over all time.

So what do you make of all the previous monarchs to him?

He wasn’t unusual at all for a monarch or aristo of the times. He was just much more in the public eye.

Don't disagree @Onnabugeisha
Psychopathy was celebrated in those times - so long as it was directed at preserving the nobility's entitlement to gather wealth, resource hoard, preserve generational privilege through primogeniture, & keep the peasantry tugging its forelock.

See post at 21:11, which doubles up as a response here too.

You're right about H8 behaving no differently from other monarchs.
"In the name of treason" isn't accurate though.
Most historians agree that eg Anne Boleyn was fitted up, as was her brother.
Ooops - sorry - unless that's what you were implying by "in the name of treason?" - ie a trumped-up charge?

& many of Henry's victims were high in his esteem before he weathervaned on them according to current rumour or political expediency.

Whist I admire Liz 1 immensely ..she had one of the most brutal and efficient/effective secret services. It is recognised as the first proper institutionalised secret service in the world. Even down to the 007 which was her most famous spies John Dee insignia (Fleming got his idea from it) It’s main purpose Was to literally wipe out a whole religion (catholic) and she and her advisors were determined to do that at any cost including killing Mary of Scotland . This region of terror, for many people, continued for 40 years of her reign . About 1000 were executed , and many more tortured or died from torture

that aside, I often wonder what we would know about Liz 1 if she had married - I think her decision to not marry marks her out as a brilliant strategist and not some thwarted schoolgirl who missed out on love that is depicted as at times. I think it was a calculated strategy she saw would give her chance to reign for a long time rather than be usurped/beheaded by a more powerful husband or son. She only had to look at Mary of scotland to see what getting married did to you.

I think a lot of this stuff about previous monarchs/historical figures was bollocks. I bet Henry VIII was a coward, who just sat around eating and farting all day. Like with our own governments, there are more powerful people behind them pulling the strings.

I don’t think Henry V111 was any worse than his predecessors or descendants for hundreds of years .
you are judging him by the standards of today
many of stuff we are horrified by today was normal - it’s called progress thank goodness. It’s what we beheaded a king for and had a civil war for, it’s what we’ve fought (men and women) for suffrege for. We are no longer in the main indentured peasants with no say in our lives, and we have a government with democracy (or at least a fairly ok attempt at it). we don’t enjoy a day out with the kids at an execution or dunking/burning of a witch any more, we don’t think slavery is ok, or torture, or bear bating, cock fighting (in the main), and since only 30 years ago we don’t allow teachers to hit children

royal marriages were transactional events of the state - even marriage to Anne Boleyn was not entirely a love (lust) match, it had advantages and allegiances for him

what always surprises me is why the hell did women go through marriages with kings, princes at all? They had pretty short life expectancy in the main. I assume almost all were pressurised by their fathers and the monarch and had no choice as forced marriage. But some were old enough and wise enough to know what the risks were.

😂

Many charges of treason were 'trumped up' in our modern eyes.

In their eyes, any threat to their reign would be seen as treason, or was against specific laws which were set out.

It wasn’t psychopathy though, as he was perfectly sane.

It was the impact of classism and sexism that meant lower class men and all women were less than human.

Aristos had right of life and death over their feudal tenants. Yeah yeah, Magna Carta supposedly limited that, but not really and certainly not for women.

Husbands could easily kill their wives and get away with it. I mean, Robert Dudley is famous for having his wife pushed down the stairs to her death so he could pursue Elizabeth I as a possible suitor. Peasants could sell their wives at market if they wanted to as well in this time period….this practice started to actually get recorded in newspapers in the 17th and 18th centuries.

(Racism had same result too, but that’s another conversation).

why the hell did women go through marriages with kings, princes at all? They had pretty short life expectancy in the main. I assume almost all were pressurised by their fathers and the monarch and had no choice as forced marriage. But some were old enough and wise enough to know what the risks were.

Lol, doesn’t matter how old or wise you were as a woman you still had no choice. You could try and beg to be able to retire to a nunnery, but if marrying you off again benefitted the men in your family, you’d be married off even if toothless and 60yr old.

I think you're working a bit back to front.

The Roman catholic world had as a duty to wipe out protestantism and war against England for that purpose had been attempted prior.

The political issue was that the monarch was head of state and as such subjects needed to declare their allegiance to the monarch. Catholics at that time couldnt do that in all honesty because their head of state was the pope

That was seen as a threat to the monarch. If you are a powerful subject (so not the likes of you and me) and you have the money to perhaps raise an army or a rebellion and at the same time you dont declare allegiance to the monarch or you have people around you who think that you should be on the throne instead of the monarch, then that is a massive threat

These days threats like that are dealt with by laws or long standing litigation, fines etc etc. In those days it was dealt with by executions and treason law.

So her secret service (which was genius and groundbreaking) were simply trying to ensure that she was kept alive. In the same way as the catholic world/Spanish worlds main focus was trying to not keep her alive.

Yes, I am aware of this…the pope essentially put a death warrant on her head. But …it was incredibly brutal albeit brilliant

she was ruthless - just like all the kings that proceeded her. And yes it kept her alive, as did her lack of marriage /children imho.

It to be 😍is a bit ott …immense admiration in a slightly horrified way yes. I wouldn’t want her as a ruler by todays standards any more or less than Henry v111 or pretty much any ruler before the civil war , and some after 🙄

Oh I forgot, I dont think Ive ever seen her interpreted or presented as a woman who lost out on love, she made her own decision not to get married, she had seen too much from her mum/step mums, her older sister, her cousin to see what would happen to her power if she married.

She's a massive heroine of mine, despite the fact that was she was pretty horrendous

Fair do’s…I can think of far worse ..she was certainly incredibly intelligent and savvy and one in eye for the patriarchal establishment who wanted her to be married to a puppet consort they could control.

maybe start another thread on our feminist icons ? I have a few unsung feminist icons including some well known historic figures who don’t get the recognition for what they really were doing vs public perception

Well his daughters burned people at the stake for their religion so they can’t be much better.

The Tudors is my favourite topic, I’m a bit obsessed. He was an accomplished courtier, very charming, very intelligent, but the frustration of no legal heir must have half killed him and the accidents surely exacerbated his actions.

@bellac11 @Newlifestartingatlast - I get it with the ... oh it's late so I'll go for a quick glib cliche - love/hate thang re: Liz 1.

I have her Scrotts portrait in my office, for inspiration.
She is 13 here. 13! & already (comparatively) better educated, multi-lingual & self-possessed.

But were I her subject - I would tremble.

& already (comparatively) better educated, multi-lingual & self-possessed.
ooops- than most of us here.

Elizabeth I wasn’t a feminist 🙄 so not sure how she can be a ‘feminist icon’?

She said “I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England too,"

She thought all other women were weak and feeble…she was special though.

She wasn’t saying women were weak she was simply reflecting what men thought of women at the time.

Erm we are talking about a serial killer.

The French call him “Barbe Bleue” - Bluebeard - which if you know the folktale is fairly accurate.