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.

I imagine they also glossed over her involvement in her (utter twat) husbands murder and then marrying the chief suspect .....🙄

Isn't her collaboration in Darnley's murder still a matter of debate? I know Antonia Fraser doesn't think she was involved but Fraser's a Catholic writer. I incline to the idea that Darnley was dangerously unstable politically and a few people would have liked him removed to get control of the Queen - notably Bothwell.

Yeah, leg ulcers so bad you could smell him before he entered a room.

H8 was certainly opportunistic. He argued against the Protestant heresies in a well publicised pamphlet which gained him from the Pope the title of Defender of the Faith which is still used on our coins (Fid.Def). He then switches for the sake of a new chance at a male heir. To say nothing of the fabulous abbeys and monasteries which could be sacked. Some were definitely corrupt but a source of medicine, education, hospitality and work for local people.

As for previous kings and the odd queen not being as cruel? William 1 took a major expedition to harry the north setting major cities and towns back and causing starvation. The battle between Stephen and Matilda weakened the whole country. The crusades were a nightmare for the average family. To say nothing of the Wars of the Roses.

There were IMHO four Tudor Kings before H8 (if you don't count H4 as parts 1 and 2 - small joke). H4 effectively stole the state of England and Wales; H5 pursued successful wars which impoverished England; H6 didn't last long. The only savvy one appears to have been H7 who tried to restore the English treasury but no dount did so with connivance and repression.

How can you not get it?

Her father beheaded her mother. Liz 1 was only 3. Can you not imagine the trauma, the horror, the association of marriage with death?

She dodged marriage proposals before ascending to the crown as part of dodging all the plots that hatched around her, with or without her knowledge. Allying herself in marriage to a single noble house would have blown the protection that her single status gave her - she could claim total neutrality to all noble houses, & total loyalty to the crown.

Once on the throne, much the same reasoning applied. Nobody wanted her to marry a foreign prince, as this would have been seen as handing the crown to external powers. She didn't want to marry an english noble, because what would then stop her from accidentally falling downstairs, & him taking over - as all the men at court felt was 'natural'?

TL:DR - she remained single to preserve her life.

How did you not know this? We were taught this at school in the 90s. It certainly wasn’t glossed over and I can very vividly recall the description of those horrible slave ships.

Well you had a piss poor education and couldn't have read much off your own bat, watched any TV programmes or seen any films that covered this.

Plus the whole of the UK was involved in the slave trade, certainly NOT just England.

Educate yourself and do something about your bigotry.

In school they are taught the facts. And those are the facts.

^This. He's a historical figure, not the abusive partner of an MNer.

So when men were treating us as property and doing heinous things to us, was that not terrorism?

I was waiting for the 'spell police' to comment.

There really is no need for people to pick up on spelling mistakes all the time - education, dyslexia etc really aren't an indicator of intelligence.

Just being mean!

Her father beheaded her mother. Liz 1 was only 3. Can you not imagine the trauma, the horror, the association of marriage with death?#

She was four when a stepmother died in agony after giving birth to an heir. Seven when a stepmother was divorced on the grounds that she was ugly and had rendered her husband impotent. And was eight when another stepmother was beheaded. There's a very good book on Elizabeth I by Elizabeth Jenkins, who pointed out that in her unconscious, Queen Elizabeth associated sex and marriage with humiliation and painful public death - you give yourself to a man, he cuts off your head.

And not marrying but holding out the chance that she might was a very useful diplomatic ploy.

it can certainly be argued that if they hadn't used violence women wouldn't have gained the right to vote

What gained women the right to vote was their war work. Not slashing portraits, turning pillar boxes into bombs or flinging themselves under horses.

Well I haven’t learnt anything new from the OP. I think I got the measure of Henry VIII by the time I was 8 or 9.

Not to mention her abuse at the hands of creepy Thomas Seymour, husband of Catherine Parr. Her early years must have felt dangerous to say the least.

Not to mention her abuse at the hands of creepy Thomas Seymour, husband of Catherine Parr. Her early years must have felt dangerous to say the least

In at least one incidence of which Catherine was complicit - the stepmother who was the closest thing to a mother Elizabeth ever had (apart from Kat Ashley, and she was a servant).

No wonder she didn't want to make herself vulnerable.

#Naunet Absolutely, I didn't explain myself properly. I agree with the causes, I don't always agree with the actions that get the desired outcome. Obviously, women were treated atrociously and things needed to change. I find it hard sort out my feelings about it.

So, Women being treated as second class citizens= BAD. Women getting the vote = GOOD. Blowing up innocent people to get the vote =BAD.

Does the good justify the bad. I don't know. I know that when my Dd1 was in primary and questioned the teacher about the suffragettes carrying out violent acts she was told that they were to be celebrated. She is autistic, so in her eyes bad is bad and good is good.

I didn't - secondary school days in the '70's, & the attitude was very much The King Is Infallible & the women who he abused somehow asking for it.

I mean - the temerity of them. Not getting pregnant with sons & all that. Failing at both compliance AND womanning.

I've always thought that one reason for royal wives not conceiving easily must have been the almost unimaginable amounts of stress they were under. Every month, people watching your figure, servants checking the sheets...and when you consider that most of them were chosen for political purposes rather than because they might be good child bearing material, it's no wonder so many of them failed. Not to mention poor health and nutrition, lack of understanding of maternal and child well-being and disease, it's a wonder any queen succeeded.

fifteenohfour did educate themselves they went to a museum about slavery, not everybody has the same opportunities when it comes to education. I find some posters attitudes rude and uncalled for, if someone even expresses a different viewpoint it seems to be ok to crush and belittle them. Surely these threads are a place where posters should be free to discuss all opinions. I know that I'm learning some interesting things and considering other posters points. I might even change my view on the subject or it might validate my bigoted opinion that mumsnet can be full of twats.

@KettrickenSmiled
I was a teenager in the 1970s and I was definitely taught at school that he was a tyrant who treated his wives atrociously.

Odd innit @3beesinmybonnet?

I attended a girls school which was big on academic effort but still had a lot of institutionalised misogyny. We were schooled to become - & I quote verbatim - "somebody's nurse, somebody's secretary, or somebody's wife."
When I asked how we went about becoming the "somebody" ourselves, I was given a detention for insolence. I hadn't intended to offer any cheek whatsoever - it was a genuine question.

No, not a paedophile by today’s standards <sigh>

Henry was considered especially merciful because he got a professional swordsman in to behead Anne rather than leaving it to the axeman…….

A hebephile by today's standards then.

Which very few people have heard of, let alone understand the difference between, so why the sighing?

I don't understand what you've written?

I agree. It was also the case that they knew the blame would always be theirs and never the king’s if they failed to produce a healthy heir to the throne. It couldn’t possibly be the king’s failure, could it???