u/AreaTop3576

In s6 Ep1 Amy is on a call with zephra corporate and she asks for more support for the employees during the pandemic and Kira Moon says she cut out and they couldn’t hear her. Once Amy says that some of the employees earnings could go towards paying for the protective gear Kira says ‘well when you put it like that‘ which I took to imply that she actually did hear Amy the first time and was pretending not to because she didn’t want to address the issue?

opinions?

Edit: after seeing some responses turns out I’m definitely a Jonah, never trust corporate! 😂

I’ve been reading a lot of Tracy Borman’s work about the Tudors recently. Whilst I think she has a great narrative style and massively respect her expertise as a historian, I wanted to discuss the framing of the relationship between Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour in Elizabeth’s Women (2009) and The Private Lives of the Tudors (2016), as well as in wider historiography and media.

I find it slightly problematic when Elizabeth is framed as "infatuated" or a willing participant in Seymour's advances (à la Becoming Elizabeth). I am absolutely not suggesting Borman or anyone condones Seymour’s actions, but I disagree with framing these events as a kind of mutual romantic intrigue or inappropriate flirtation rather than explicitly labelling it predatory behaviour.

When referencing Kat Ashley’s testimony regarding Seymour entering Elizabeth's bedchamber:

- In Elizabeth’s Women (p. 106), Borman quotes Ashley directly: “...he wold put open the Curteyns, and bid her good Morrow... And she wold go further in the Bed, so that he could not come at hir.” This paints a clear picture of a young girl physically retreating to evade him.

- In The Private Lives of the Tudors (p. 229), Borman characterizes this exact same testimony by writing that Elizabeth would hide under the covers, “tempting Seymour to 'come at her.'”

To me, shifting from Kat Ashley's description of a girl retreating from an adult intruder to interpreting it as "tempting" him feels like a significant leap in narrative framing...?

Side note: Borman mentions a romantic, solitary boat ride on the Thames between Elizabeth and Seymour. I haven't encountered this detail before and was wondering if anyone knows the primary source for it please?

I strongly view Seymour’s behavior as sexual harassment, assault, and grooming. While the word "grooming" is modern, the dynamic itself is not. Elizabeth was roughly 13–14 years old; Seymour was in his late 30s and was her guardian living under the same roof.

Furthermore, the most significant evidence to my mind is Elizabeth writing ‘let him not touch me’ on a letter (see Suzannah Lipscomb’s article here) this and Kat Ashley’s confessions point to a young woman distressed by unwanted advances, rather than engaging in a romantic affair.

Highly speculative side note: Regarding Kat Ashley’s testimony appearing contradictory (if both above quotes are accurate) it seems possible that she may have felt guilty about promoting Seymour to Elizabeth early on and therefore may have projected some of her feelings of infatuation onto Elizabeth and Seymour’s relationship to assuage that guilt? She obviously cared a lot for Elizabeth, and it can’t have been easy for her to accept that she had allowed harm to come to her.

I’d love to hear others' thoughts on how modern historiography handles the Seymour affair, or if anyone has insight into the Thames boat ride citation!

Marcus is running in the clacton election against Farage. Will he give out free samples of boob cheese to those who vote for him?