Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Telly addicts

Related: Film discussion forum.

Original poster

Is Katherine Howard going to get the chop on the Tudors tonight?

110 replies

darleneconnor · 19/02/2011 19:10

She really isn't being very kindly portrayed in this series is she?

I am going to miss the series when it is over. I dont see why they cant continue on.

I heard the production company are making a series about the Borgias.

OP posts:
Northernlurker · 20/02/2011 19:08

No but I think he would have expected her to marry and produce male heirs who could come in handy.

Original poster
darleneconnor · 20/02/2011 19:13

I wonder how he'd have felt if he had found out that the line eventually went through his sister Margaret, against his express wishes.

There are still decendents on his other sister's line aren't there?

OP posts:
SilveryMoon · 20/02/2011 19:19

I knew he was alot younger than Katherine of Aragon. I def read he was about 10 years old when she came to this country, but from what I read (I do believe it was David Starkey or Allison Weir) I got the impression he was drawn to her from the moment they met.

It is all very interesting stuff

AngelHMum · 20/02/2011 19:37

He probably was fascinated by Katherine of Aragon. By all accounts she was intelligent, lively and attractive.

darlene I wonder that too, and also how he'd have felt knowing that the most successful reign of any of his offspring, in fact one of the most successful in history was that of his daughter ?
Elizabeth didn't really have too many other options but to leave her throne to James did she?

Original poster
darleneconnor · 20/02/2011 19:42

She was just as sexist as her Dad. She passed over a rightful female heir on the other side in favour of an adult male on the other. I think religion also had a bit to do with it.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 20/02/2011 19:52

'I wonder how he'd have felt if he had found out that the line eventually went through his sister Margaret, against his express wishes.'

Haahaa. Margaret was the elder of the two, anyhow.

medicalmayhem · 20/02/2011 19:56

just wanted to say i thought last nights episode was brilliant!!

AngelHMum · 20/02/2011 20:19

She was just as sexist as her Dad. She passed over a rightful female heir on the other side in favour of an adult male on the other. I think religion also had a bit to do with it.

Oh so true darlene and also like her dad she had no problem executing her ex-favourites once they fell from grace.
I do like to think that she passed the throne to James partly to appease her conscience for having his mother killed.
Mind you the Stuarts didn't exactly cover themselves in glory did they ? Perhaps passing the throne back to the Grey family line might have been a better bet.

expatinscotland · 20/02/2011 20:26

You can't really expect 16th century men and women to have have 21st century ideas and perspectives, though. Wink

I think she passed the throne to James because if she hadn't, it would have gone that way, anyhow.

He was literally the last man standing, legitimate, a Protestant, married to a Protestant and a father of two sons already.

TwoIfBySea · 20/02/2011 20:48

And maybe that is why I see Lady Jane as tragic NorthernLurker, the waste of life and potential.

I think the painting isn't about someone groping in the dark for the block at all. I suppose it is what you make of it and each to their own.

I did note, while doing my degree, that surprisingly historians are a bitchy lot when discussing each other's opinions and work. Actually scratch surprise, some of it was downright amusing!

Northernlurker · 20/02/2011 20:51

Collective word for a group of historians?

A malice of historians Grin

TwoIfBySea · 20/02/2011 21:11

I can well believe it.

Original poster
darleneconnor · 20/02/2011 21:24

expat-get you facts straight (again) before you come out with stuff you dont know about.

Henry specifically excluded margaret's line from the throne, so legally it should have gone down mary's.

If it had we would have a 'United Kingdom' now.

OP posts:
AngelHMum · 20/02/2011 21:48

I might be remembering my A level history wrong here, darlene you might be able to correct me if I am, but didn't James have to get his act of succession passed through parliament himself ?
Until that point he could still have been usurped had Mary Tudor's heirs invoked Henry's wishes?
Parliament however had a preference for James so he didn't have too much trouble if I remember correctly. Mind you he soon lost their support through his belief in The Divine Right of Kings.

Original poster
darleneconnor · 20/02/2011 21:50

yes, that's not contradicting what I said is it?

OP posts:
AngelHMum · 20/02/2011 22:08

No, not at all - I just thought I had a vague recollection of his position not being entirely legal and secure when he took the throne.
I must refresh my memory about the Stuart period. I did enjoy studying them at A level.

Northernlurker · 20/02/2011 22:15

Darlene - that's a really rude way to speak to expat.

Like nearly every historical situation it's open to interpretation and the Will of one monarch is not necessarily binding unto every generation. Especially when the heir has a country and an army of their own and has points of sympathy with the nobility of the vacant country. To refer to contemporary precedent - Edward VI left LJG as his heir in his will - fat lot of difference that made! In passing the succession to James Elizabeth did what she always did so well - made the best of a bad situation.

expatinscotland · 20/02/2011 22:53

I do have my facts straight, darlene. Henry was dead. After the fact, Parliament had the power to do things he might not have approved of.

Don't worry about it, Northern, it's from another thread she's going on about - 4.

expatinscotland · 20/02/2011 22:55

'Edward VI left LJG as his heir in his will - fat lot of difference that made! In passing the succession to James Elizabeth did what she always did so well - made the best of a bad situation.'

Henry VII also claimed the throne by right of conquest, regardless of what any dead king may have wanted.

Clary · 20/02/2011 23:18

Loving all the Tudors info!

Just to add a bit...Katherine of Aragon died in 1536 actually, not long before Anne Boleyn, but in time for Henry's marriage to Jane Seymour to be beyond reproach.

Didn't realise the series had telescoped Henry's sisters Shock - what name did she have then?

taugenichts · 20/02/2011 23:22

Re Tudor historians, which was the historian who effectively ruined the career of G R Elton, much loved in my own schooldays? Anyone know?

AngelHMum · 20/02/2011 23:39

Edward wasn't deemed old enough though to leave a will and he hadn't had it approved by his parliament. Had he lived longer and had it passed matters would have been different. However it was deemed more of a wish rather than a legality. Therefore Henry's will was still declared to be the legal route for succession.
Jane also did not want the throne, she fought against it and from the start declared she considered Mary to be the rightful heir.
As has been discussed earlier she was a pawn albeit a very intelligent and highly educated one.
She willingly gave up her "throne" to Mary and by all accounts was relieved to do so. She was well aware that she had been used by her family and in-laws for political purposes.

I am not sure of the religious leanings of Mary Tudor and her descendants but James was certain to continue as a Protestant king and from a religious point of view would maintain stability.
Unfortunately his belief in Divine Right carried on by his son Charles led the country into Civil War 40 years later.
That's part of what makes history so interesting for me - what would have been but for different decisions ? We went from being a monarchy to a republic in a very short space of time.
At one point a marriage was considered between Edward and Lady Jane. Had that happened would she have legally kept the throne if his wishes were the same upon death? Jane may still have stepped aside for Mary regardless.
You are right expat the wishes of any dead monarch still depended upon the wishes of the parliament at the time.

AngelHMum · 20/02/2011 23:47

Clary they kept the character as Margaret and unfortunately married her off to the King of Portugal in series 1.Which was interesting as neither sister married the King of Portugal.
If I remember correctly the producers scrapped Mary to avoid audience confusion with the King's daughter having the same name !!

TwoIfBySea · 20/02/2011 23:58

You mean apart from being Ben Elton's uncle taugenichts? Like I said historians are a bitchy lot, they generally dislike each other with a passion and to read some of their responses to what another has said - like being back in high school!

taugenichts · 21/02/2011 01:04

Are you kidding, TwoIf? I had no idea. I can probably still recite pages from his books.