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.

@Mirabai

A nice, simple source for you that explains how he was the founder of the CofE as we usually view it.

www.history.com/.amp/topics/british-history/church-of-england

Another, that supports my point that it was essentially the same as Catholicism, without the pope. It's pedantry to mention the pre/existing Church of England which was a national chapter of Catholicism.

www.britannica.com/topic/Church-of-England

And yet you haven't apostrophised correctly in your attempted takedown of someone else's imperfect writing. Being unnecessarily unkind just bit you on the bum.

I strongly suggest that you don’t pick up smatterings of history from ‘nice simple sources’ and then attempt patronise people who studied it to postgrad level. 😉

Alexander de Pfeffel?

Interesting. I wonder who the heir would have been it he didnt survive the injury

Interesting. I wonder who the heir would have been it he didnt survive the injury

It might well have been another war between the supporters of Mary - an adult - and Elizabeth - who was a baby. Support for the Elizabeth/Boleyn group for Elizabeth wasn't a given. Henry's reforms had a lot of opposition in the country and among the aristocracy.

This is an important point and one I take up with romantic purveyors of historical fiction (this does not include Mantel) who imbue women retrospectively with a power they simply did not have at the time. It appeals to contemporary female readers of a certain kind of historical imagination - but it distorts the reality

You studied history to postgraduate level? really?

What part do you disagree with?

Perhaps you believe everything they read in Philippa Gregory.

Lol absolutely😂

Henry Fitzroy was still alive at the time of the injury, so would have been a viable third candidate although his health was already declining I think.

This is the problem for Henry, not just that he doesn't have a legitimate son of his own but that there are so few viable male relatives in the family tree. It's sisters and nieces as far as the eye can see. In terms of pure family tree, Henry Courtney, the Marquess of Exeter might have been in with a shout: he was the king's cousin, pretty powerful. He was losing out in the battle for power with Cromwell in 1536 but he was still free: he was imprisoned and executed in 1538.

Why was he executed

The usual - could have presented a threat to the King's power base.
tudortimes.co.uk/people/henry-courtenay

Implicated in the Pole conspiracy (catholic plot) - although concrete evidence & fair trial wasn't a big feature of Henry's reign, & it's likely his execution was a foregone conclusion. He was too well connected & land-rich to be allowed acquittal.

Yes sounds about right😀

human behaviour never really changes,,, but society was different yes

What is society if not a sum of human behaviour ?

What sort of history have you been reading? Because the people of earlier societies most definitely thought differently than we do now. They were fundamentally different as their value system and world view was incomprehensible compared to today.

Respectfully (not not) : bollocks. Yes, they may have believed different things. They may have known different things. But that doesn't make them "incomprehensible". Just people - like you and I - who knew and believed different things. Personally I find Henry Tudors behaviour totally comprehensible. And Julius Caesar. And Alexander the Great. And before that Cain and Abel. Or Arminius, or Plato.

Plus ça change and all that.

It would likely have been Mary actually. She was widely viewed as his rightful heir and she had powerful allies in the country. She would have had the might of Spain behind her.

Perhaps you believe everything they read in Philippa Gregory

I don't read Gregory after The Other Boleyn Girl, which was a travesty both of history and the historical novel genre, and I don't read historical fiction generally. I find my history degree gets in the way of appreciating it. I'm taking issue with your dismissive comment that attributing power to women in the past is retrospective and that they didn't have it at the time.

Hi @HowVeryLikeSibella I forgot about Fitzroy. Agree about the family tree being so overwhelmingly female - given the male attitude in the 16 as to whether women could actually wield power you can understand Henry's deep anxiety over the succession.

I'd have gone for the Plantagenets, myself. 😉

Can I just say thank you to everyone who has posted on this thread (and to the OP for starting it ). It's been very informative and entertaining and has renewed my long dormant interest in history.
I'm now set up to record Wolf Hall and will read the books, which I know will have me scouring the net for more information, hopefully leading to more books.

Sorry I missed this post.

As soon as Henry returned from his wars Catherine was out of the driving seat. She was eventually shoved aside for Anne Boleyn and sent off into exile, isolated from her daughter Mary, from whom she could only receive smuggled letters.

Elizabeth I is a better example. There’s no dispute there are individual women in history who wielded extraordinary power (mostly queens and noblewomen) but there are not that many of them. Noblewomen, princesses were generally pawns of the patriarchy paired off in dynastic marriages or sent to convents or exile if it suited. They might end up like Catherine of Aragon with a bit of de facto power for a while, or they may end up like Anne of Cleves - who was divorced asap, it is said, for being “nothing so fair” as her Holbein portrait implied. She did at least least manage to get a good settlement and to keep her head.

Well your next post is my exact same view as well so you have sort of answered my question for me!

It’s not dismissive - it’s making a particular point about the drawbacks of populist interpretation of history that imbues historical female characters with contemporary levels of female empowerment. It’s tempting and it sells books, I get why it’s done, but it distort’s women’s history.

That’s not to say there weren’t individual women with great power and status historically, but there aren’t a huge number of them.

I dont disagree, of course they were few and far between and were not the every day woman at all but its no the case that our queens were just faded into the background without any power or influence at all (I know you werent presenting that) but obviously nothing like modern women are seen.

Just people - like you and I - who knew and believed different things.

I disagree. Sorry. It goes deeper than knowledge and belief imho. It’s an entire world view that is alien to modern sensibilities. But then I read primary sources a lot.

But then I read primary sources a lot.

Reading isn't a synonym for understanding.