u/SceneWise1298

While we focus so much on the annulment and the Great Matter, I often feel as if the misogyny directed at Katherine is passed over. Whether it's people insisting she slept with Arthur and is therefore a liar, or that Henry would have left Katherine in the first place, we don't take a prolonged pause to focus on how misogyny plays a role in this.

And all are very fair points, but the framing of the arguments as well as the crass often directed towards her seems to overlook the fact that her problem are 100% because she's a woman.

I see how figures like Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard are rightfully centered in modern conversations about misogyny and feminism, but often Katherine isn't. At least not with the same ferocity these two are.

Katherine was the first of Henry's six wives to be brought down by men because of her gender. She was the first to experience misogyny.

Her sexual history was placed before the entire country against her will, and English men were determined to prove she was lying about her sexual history. She was replaced because she could no longer have children, etc.,

She lost everything she had because she was a woman who wouldn't back down. Sometimes I feel as if her gender gets lost in the sauce.

I am constantly torn between these two, because I think they both embody who Cromwell was as a person. I know it's unpopular, but with the exception of a few dramatizations, I believe Frain does a great job at balancing the ruthlessness and the kindness that Cromwell had initially, but disappeared due to proximity to Henry VIII.

I think Rylance does a great job at the above too, though I think he's slightly more sympathetic.

Also, Tudors was my gateway into Cromwell, and it's been my favorite portrayal ever since.

I speculate on this often, because his downfall, while planned, did seem more spontaneous than the downfall of others. I know the crux of the blame for his execution is on the failure to quickly secure an annulment for the Cleaves marriage, as well as possible French influence. And then there's the religious upheaval.

These were all in the workings months in advance, but I wonder what could have changed in his personal relationship with Henry VIII for him to have survived his downfall.

What was Mary's relationship with her ladies like? I know it was generally positive, but her reign and her court are often so mystified and left out of larger discussions that I don't know as much as I'd like to.

I'm sure a majority of us grew up with the "Bloody Mary" game being played in school, or at least references at a party or fathering at one point or another. And if not that, then the popular exposure to Mary I is "Bloody Mary" anyway -- the moniker given to her due to the Marian persecutions.

Though the overall opinion of Mary I is still somewhat negative, there's been a notable shift (in my opinion) in popular receptions of her as a historical figure. In that we're starting to have a more sympathetic and kind view of her. We're starting to realize she's no worse or better than her siblings, and that her traumatic childhood and health issues may have contributed to her her decisions.

Additionally, her Reign and it's failures weren't solely her fault. She inherited a financial catastrophe from her brother, who inherited a financial catastrophe from Henry VIII. These are all things starting to be associated with Mary as an individual.

In general, though slow, Mary is starting to be seen in a more balanced and nuanced light --- which I think she deserves.

Where did this shift come from? To my understanding, there's not been a "Wolf Hall" version of Mary's life that has contributed to the positive reception of her (though her portrayal in The Tudors and Wolf Hall may've helped).

I credit it to genuine research amongst Tudor fans, and a need to differentiate fact from fiction and propaganda.

I'm knee deep into Philip IV of France research, and notice the similarities (albeit loosely) between he and Henry VIII, mainly in terms of anti-papal sentiment. If I understand correctly, when Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn, the majority of research done by his advisors at the time (Cromwell, Cranmer) was focused around annulling his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, not necessarily breaking away from Rome (especially since there was no English precedent). But to my understanding, research was done in regards to splitting from the Catholic Church.

Do you think in breaking away from the church, they looked at monarchs like Philip IV of France and his detainment of the Pope? Or his anti-Papal sentiments when deciding to break away. While England had never exactly had a monarch separate from the Church or had disagreements with the Pope, other European Monarchs did. And Philip IV's discourse with the Pope was especially well known.

So I wonder if he was cited or considered when Henry broke from Rome.

The framing of Elizabeth's imprisoning by Mary is so odd, in that I've noticed it tends to leave out details that would validate Mary's decision. I don't believe it can be chalked up to "paranoia" when there was a legitimate rebellion for he throne.

I think it made sense considering her suspicions and the threat to her Crown. Was it nice? No, but I don't think Mary was aiming for "nice". I think it's legitimate to imprison the woman who Protestants are wanting to replace you with as Queen.

I don't necessarily see it as any different than Elizabeth enacting blanket laws on innocent Catholics towards the end of her reign, due to plots to dethrone her from notable Catholics. I think it's awful what Elizabeth did to the Catholics (and it's often ignored completely in Tudor circles), but the context makes sense.

Mary imprisoning Elizabeth is often taken out of context and framed as a way to make Mary look like a vindicative individual. And not a Queen who had legitimate reason to fear for her throne.

I've been a fan of the Templar Order for an incredibly long time now. Recently, in the circles I occupy, I've seen the occasional belief that the Templars were generally awful. Now I don't think they're perfect or even morally good. Like most monastic orders, they have their fair share of flaws, especially in terms of belief systems and actions taken to defend said systems (at least if we're judging by today's standards). There's also their involvement in banking (which at the time, Christians weren't supposed to be doing. But their proximity to the Pope allowed this).

I don't think they're any worse though than other monastic orders. In my research, I haven't come across terrible things they've done as a whole. And the research i've looked at indicates they're more gray than entirely good or bad.

I was curious to see what others thought, and if there is existing evidence pointing to them being evil people.