Harry and Meghan Debacle

[RosesandIris]

Following on from Harry and Meghan Biography

@7worfs

Was she?? Ah that's all right then.

🙄

In the historical context, yes, it was alright at the time.
No need to get emotional over a XVII century floozy.

Wolfgirrl
he needed a son which Catherine of Aragon wasn't providing
The lack of a son was not due to Catherine of Aragon not providing one.
The sex of a baby is decided by which sperm gets to the egg first. So not really Catherine's choice. But then her name is Catherine so she can do no right in your eyes.

Seriously @mamansnet? Blame the woman as she's a 'cocktease'? Horrendous attitude!

That's the WHOLE point wolfgirrl, whatever/whoever Henry decided he wanted or didnt want, someone would fix it for him.

He was known to be fickle, totally self-centred, and could turn on a sixpence. Also prone to terrible rages, very vain, and in later years, syphilitic.

"What Henry VIII wants Henry VIII gets" to coin a phrase.

Blame the woman as she's a 'cocktease'? Horrendous attitude!

Oh yes, throughout history women have NEVER used about their only source of control at the time to achieve something.

@7Worfs sorry I did sound a bit dramatic there! But I feel for her, and just because she died hundreds of years ago it doesn't mean she didnt suffer as any woman would now.

@MissHoskins you again! So pleased you're still following me. From memory I think Catherine did conceive boys but they were miscarried/stillborn. She had many pregnancies but only one went to term I think.

@yolopenguinseatfish wasnt the syphilis theory debunked? I think he got ragey as he had infected ulcerated legs which caused him chronic pain. But yes I imagine he was a tyrant.

As for their similarities with Meghan and Harry, I dont really think there are any. Harry isn't king. Meghan isn't queen. Aside from an assumption that the women were whispering in the mens ear (more likely with meghan, less so with ann in my opinion) they basically have nothing in common.

Wolfgirrl history is full of misery yes, I'm flippant because I like my MN discussions tongue-in-cheek.

I thought It’s widely believed that Anne Boleyn was set up as Henry had his eye on Jane Seymour who he thought would be a more docile wife & I think Anne has a couple of miscarriages.

Catherine Howard was apparently unfaithful & that was at the time treason. Penalty for treason was execution. Quite why Henry thought a pretty teenager would be interested in an old man with ulcerated legs is anyone’s guess

Catherine Parr narrowly missed being executed. She’d realised she was in danger & quickly made up with Henry, so when they came to arrest her, the soldiers were sent away. I’ll shut up now.

@Wolfgirrl And on what evidence you would say they were completely blameless? For someone who has apparently been reading up a lot on Anne Boleyn, you seem to be overlooking the fact that Henry is well documented as having been completely besotted with her at the beginning (and the fact that her name is spelt with an e at the end). He beheaded her after just 3 years of marriage, losing interest when she didn't provide a male heir; only Elizabeth, and several miscarriages. Hardly time to give it a real shot, given the recovery time needed between each pregnancy.

He beheaded wife no. 5 Katherine Howard after she allegedly slept with her cousin = high treason when you're the King's wife. Henry was never going to let that slide, innocent or not - the damage to his reputation was too great. She was 17 when they married and 19 when she died. So I don't see her as being a great schemer.

Of course Henry and Edward only listened to themselves in the end, but both caused an almighty amount of constitutional upheaval for the sake of the women they were lusting after. Would they have gone to all that trouble for women who had spurned them from the outset? Wallis was already married, don't forget. She could have stayed married if she'd really wanted an excuse for Edward to leave her alone.

Anne and Wallis will always take some blame for their husbands' actions, because they WERE ultimately the reason for it, passively or otherwise. I just don't happen to believe they were passive.

Anne with an e, Wolfgirrl. You can't have been doing that much reading on the subject if you can't spell her name correctly

And honestly, if you aren't Meghan or one of Meghan's "friends", I will eat my proverbial hat....

crosspost mamansnet

Katherine Parr was the clever one, or managed a lucky escape.

Catherine of Aragon - tried to play the long game and suffered for it, she was very devout hence not able being to accept being divorced on a royal whim.

Anne Boleyn - I suspect could have been the Meghan of her day, a hustler, but paid for it with her head.

Jane Seymour - postpueral (sp?) fever

Anne of Cleves - politically wily, lucky to escape

Catherine Howard - very young, foolish, lost her head poor thing.

It's interesting, to be deemed a 'friend' of Meghans you only have to say something unfavourable about Kate. I've stated I dislike both of them, and I've made a fair few critical comments about Meghan as well. Its bordering on absolute fantasy.

Catherine was previously married to Henry's older brother (but didnt consummate the marriage) who then died

Historians discount this. The lack of consummation was used as an excuse to allow Henry to marry Catherine. It's beleived that her marriage to Arthur was consummated.

@EthelMayFergus, yes, that was me re the director who said MM was the meanest person he had ever met. The DM article could be about him, as he is now based in NYC. But, I don't think he would care about being anonymous.

Anne Boleyn might only have been the catalyst for Henry's actions, but it was all done in his pursuit of her. She has no doubt been demonised by history, but I reckon she played Henry like a charm

Its difficult not to put today's attitudes onto Anne, but we must remember that women's lives were not their own in Tudor times. Even Queens were the property of men. Anne (I suspect) was a tool of one faction of men and her life meant nothing to them. From what I've read, she was a very religious person who would be highly unlikely to sleep with other men. Also, highly unlikely she was left alone long enough to do so. When you look at her speech just prior to execution, and bearing in mind her devoutness, I think she was framed and used by men.

@mamansnet it is just a continuation of the sexist view that a man is controlled by a domineering wife. He was the king, Anne (with an e) was a nobody really. We always talk about power imbalances on here, there is an imbalance if ever there was one. His love for her no doubt spurred him on with the reformation but it probably wasnt the only factor.

I think Henry's wives have all gained reputations in that way that society likes the fit them into neat little labels; the temptress, the boring one etc.

It is probably doing a disservice to women that were are complex as you and I. Just because they died hundreds of years ago it doesnt make them any less human.

@Winterlife that's interesting I will have to look it up. It's all hard to prove though, I dont think we will ever know 100%.

It would be a horrendous attitude if there wasn't evidence to support it. I've always been quite fascinated by Anne Boleyn as it happens, but I've never seen anything to suggest that she didn't know exactly what she was doing when she got involved with Henry.

Unless you'd rather we try to make out that all women in history are blameless?

Women can be villains too, half an hour reading MN should be enough to prove that!

Poor Katherine. There is a board in Hampton Court Palace which lists all her children. It is heartbreaking.

Katherine’s children

ArchePenguin Alison Weir is a brilliant writer!

Catherine of Aragon had a terrible life, sent from sunny Spain to cold England, married off twice, all those pregnancies ending badly apart from Mary. Then living in impoverished exile until she died.

Henry VIII was an absolute monster.

@mamansnet of course women can be villains.

Here is an extract from an article about a biography of Anne Boleyn called 500 years of lies:

'the king had been making inquiries in secret about divorcing Katherine of Aragon years before Boleyn came on the scene, and Boleyn actually resisted the king’s advances. She ran away from the royal court for a year starting in the summer of 1526 to escape, and those love letters appear to encompass the time when she was absent from court, distancing herself from his advances. “The historians who do acknowledge this say it was a calculated tactic and sexual blackmail — the ultimate example of ‘when a girl says no, she really means yes,’” says the historian. “There are historians who are calling Henry’s harassment love letters and claim that he sentenced the queen he loved to death. I’m sorry, but the manner in which a man kills a woman does not prove his love for her. If it can end in decapitation, it was never love.”'

Wolfgirrl Anne Boleyn was not a "nobody". Her family was prominent in Tudor England. Anyone who'd read even a modest amount of English history would know that.
You spend a lot of time defending women who are perceived as "domineering" who marry into the British royal family, and you've spent a truly extraordinary amount of time slagging off Catherine. Just saying. It would be interesting if Mumsnet were ever asked to reveal the IP address from which your posts originate.

Wasn't the second beheaded sleeping around?
No. She had slept with the two before her engagement/marriage. She had been sexually abused from the age of 13 by a staff member. She was taken advantage of by older men. She was blackmailed for her past. She had to help provide work to silence those who knew. It was used against her anyway.

I can well imagine MM fancies herself as a latter-day Jackie O,

Yes, without the good breeding that Jacqueline had been brought up with, Jackie was also taught to put up with sexist and mistreatment, even telling her own daughter, 'All men are unfaithful.'