After Eliz of York died, and he did the proper amount of mourning; why wasn't he much more persistent about finding a bride? I know there were a few attempts, and some negotiations that obviously ended up going nowhere.... Margaret Beaufort was still alive, and I don't understand why neither of them had Henry safely re-married siring sons to help the solitary prince. They knew how quickly death happened.
Pretty much the title :) I am keen to learn more about this time period, and I'm wondering if you have a favorite podcast series or video series explaining it! There is so much out there, but not all things are trustworthy/well-researched so I thought it would be nice to get a consensus on what are the best ones. If there are any particularly well presented or entertaining, that's a bonus too!
Again! The first two slides are not MY THOUGHTS. I AM NOT THE OP OF THEM. The last image are my replies to the arguments made in the first two pictures/slides (...I ask cause Im autistic and history is my special interest. I try not to get TOO passionate. Also im swedish so english is not my main language so please be as kind as you can muster if I annoy you - I promise im not trying to annoy it just somehow comes naturally😭)
Here is your Weekly Wednesday What-if megathread! Please post all of your What-if Questions in this megathread. All what-if's as long as its Tudor-related.
According to Find A Grave :
Muriel (Marcella) Howard – Sister of Elizabeth Boleyn, died around 1512/1513, married to John Grey, Viscount Lisle (d. 1504) and then Sir Thomas Knyvet.
BIRTH : 1486
DEATH : 14 Dec 1511 (aged 24–25)
BURIAL : St. Mary's Churchyard
Lambeth, London Borough of Lambeth, Greater London, England
MEMORIAL ID : 146071538
Other Sources : Kindred Britain
Just finished the audiobook of this bio of Catherine Howard. It was so thorough and rather fascinating.
I felt bad for Catherine, as she seemed a bit like a flighty teenager who was way out of her depth. I know we can’t look at events from the 16th century through a 21st-century lens, but it felt like she was groomed, then used by so many men. Seems unfair she had to pay with her life.
I’d be interested to hear others’ opinions of the book. Admittedly, I had not studied her life too deeply prior to this, and I know you guys are far more well-versed in this subject than I am.
I’ve been thinking about Henry VIII’s burial place at St George’s Chapel, Windsor.
Henry is buried in a vault with Jane Seymour, and later Charles I was also placed there. Unlike some other major monarchs, Henry never received the huge tomb he planned for himself, and today the burial place is marked fairly plainly.
Given modern non-invasive technology, do you think there is a good argument for scanning or reassessing the vault - not to disturb the remains, but to understand the condition of the burial space, conservation risks, and whether the arrangement is exactly as traditionally understood?
I’m not really arguing for an exhumation or public spectacle. More the idea of a respectful archaeological/conservation survey, similar in spirit to how historically important royal burials are sometimes studied when there is a genuine preservation or identification question.
Would that be appropriate, or should the vault be left alone unless there is a direct conservation need?
I’d be interested to hear what people think, especially on the ethical side: historical knowledge vs royal/religious burial dignity.
Just started reading son of prophecy by Nathan Amin
Book premise is essentially a deep dive into medieval Welsh history and the weaving of Henry’s origins and early life into that narrative
It is a rejection of the reduction of Henry’s Welshness of some quarters and shows how Henry’s Welsh ancestry and upbringing was core to his identity
I think an area people seem to forget is Henry’s protection by the Herbert family of raglan castle . The Herbert’s were the preeminent Welsh family with power .
Anyway so far so good and I wondered if anyone else has read or or is going to read it.
I had never seen this beautiful painting before. The title of the painting is "Queen Isabel the Catholic Presiding over the Education of Her Children." It was painted in 1864 and depicts Queen Isabel and her children. It is currently on display at the Museo del Prado in Spain. The Prado Museum also displays an original portrait of Queen Mary I painted by Antonis Mor.
The person beside Queen Isabel, most likely her daughter Catherine, is showing her a piece of paper (a letter?). Catherine was Isabel's youngest child. Her brother Juan is playing the virginal. Catherine had three sisters named Isabella, Joanna, and Maria, but there are four girls in this painting. I think one of the girls may be Margaret of Austria, the wife of Catherine's brother Juan.
This painting gives us a glimpse into Catherine's childhood. Catherine spent her life in Spain before coming to England in 1501. She did not have a quiet life; her family was constantly travelling throughout Spain, and Catherine accompanied them. During her early childhood, she grew up in Spain in a social and cosmopolitan culture alongside Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
Her brother Juan died a few months after his marriage. Juan's wife, Margaret, did not leave Spain immediately; she stayed there for another two years and, at the request of Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort, helped teach Catherine French. A close friendship developed between them that would last until Margaret's death.
Her eldest sister Isabella died in childbirth in 1498 at the age of 28. Her other sister Joanna spent much of her life isolated in a castle. Catherine's closest sister, Maria, died in 1517 from ailments caused by frequent childbirth.
We can imagine how much sorrow a young girl felt over losing two of her siblings in succession. However, Catherine continued her education under her mother's supervision and received an accomplished education.
I would also like to share a passage I read a few days ago about Catherine's childhood in Theresa Earenfight's book:
"As she traveled, she came into contact with an array of cultural influences—Mudéjar and Gothic, Christian and Muslim—in the towns she visited and at the court of her parents, who relished the mix of styles even as they conquered the Nasrid kingdom of Granada. Some places mattered to her more than others: Arévalo, where her grandmother lived; Guadalupe, her spiritual home; Seville, site of many family gatherings; and Granada, where she soaked up both the sun and Islamicate culture. The act of travel shaped Catalina's aesthetic taste and created meaningful social practices. But the royal processions promoted more than just Isabel and Fernando's ambitions. Catalina received an important education in queenship as she watched her parents interact with their subjects and convoke the regional assemblies of nobles and townspeople. Her identity was shaped by the geography of the Iberian Peninsula—from the mountains of the north to those of the south, and inland and coastal cities. She spoke several languages and could read even more, a cultural fluency she gained during a childhood spent literally on the move."
The traces of the culture in which she grew up did not leave her when she came to England, and throughout her queenship she formed friendships with famous humanists such as Thomas More, Erasmus, and Juan Luis Vives. She supported them and asked Vives to write a book for the education of her daughter, Princess Mary. Vives wrote a book entitled De Institutione Feminae Christianae (The Education of a Christian Woman) and dedicated the book to Catherine of Aragon. Again at Catherine's request, Vives prepared a study programme for Princess Mary.
Catherine ensured that her daughter Mary received an education as accomplished as her own. When Mary was 11 years old, she translated a prayer by Saint Thomas Aquinas from Latin into English. Although this translation was most likely done as homework, it circulated in certain circles. Sometime between 1537 and 1547, Henry Parker (Jane Boleyn's brother) wrote the following to Mary about this translation:
"I remember very well that when you were scarcely twelve years of age, you were already so proficient in the Latin language—a rare thing among women—that Your Grace could not only perfectly read, write, and construe Latin, but furthermore translate any difficult text from Latin into our English tongue. And among all your other most virtuous endeavors, I have seen a prayer translated by your own hand from Saint Thomas Aquinas that, I assure Your Grace, is so well done and so faithful to the Latin original that whenever I look upon it—as I possess a copy of it—I not only marvel at its execution, but furthermore, because of its excellence, I have placed it in my own book or books, as well as in those of my poor wife (your humble beadwoman) and my children, so that it may give them occasion to remember to pray for Your Grace."
Richard Fetherston, who served as Mary's Latin teacher from 1525 to 1533, also played a part in this achievement.
After Richard Fetherston became her daughter Princess Mary's tutor in 1525, Queen Catherine wrote the following to Mary:
"As for your Latin writing, I am glad that you are to go to Master Fetherston, for it will greatly benefit you to learn from him how to write correctly. Nevertheless, I would like you sometimes to send me the Latin passages you have written yourself, after having them read over by Master Fetherston, so that it will be a great comfort to me to see that you retain its Latin, its fine style, and everything else."
Since we know that Mary's knowledge of Latin was at least as good as her English, we can understand that Federston was a good teacher.
(Additional note: Mary's last recorded words were in Latin.)
As for her teacher Richard Federston, it is worth mentioning a few things about him as well. He was a great supporter of Queen Katherine and Princess Mary during the annulment proceedings. As a result, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London around 1534 and, after approximately six years of imprisonment, was hanged, drawn, and quartered alongside other supporters of Queen Katherine and Princess Mary.
Thank you for reading this somewhat messy post. Initially, I was only going to talk about this painting I newly discovered and Catherine’s childhood, but then I suddenly included Mary as well. Sending love to you all!!
Theresa Earenfight, Catherine of Aragon
Valerie Schutte, Princesses Mary and Elizabeth Tudor and the gift book exchange
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!
I still can’t believe Margaret gave birth to Henry VII when she was just 13. My goodness. What a brave, daring and strong woman she was.
I would really like to read up on how European countries turned Protestant, starting from Prussia. Does anyone have recommendations? Google has suggested these:
The Reformation: A History by Diarmaid MacCulloh (reminds me of Hermione saying Hogwarts: A History)
The European Reformations by Carter Lindberg
Theology of the Reformers by Timothy George
I'm open to ideas! Audiobooks welcome too.
Thanks!
Discussion point: what do you make of this painting?
This painting although painted in C19th, has so much meaning behind it. The white of innocence and the fact that it gives this almost ‘martyr’ like image for LJG which illustrates the Victorian narrative that LJG was believed to have died for the continuation of Protestantism. Yes, this thought of the whigs and tories have been widely debunked but it signifies her youth and the Victorian narrative of LJG’s innocence.
That was a discussion begun a few times towards the middle of Henry's kingship. Obviously, it never happened, bu there were those who thought Cromwell may have been ennobled just to marry the King's bastard daughter and handle her.
I cannot even imagine that alternative history, and I wonder what others thought of those rumors?
Context: this was a blog post of mine and was more of a look into one of the many shows that provided nostalgia and interesting perceptions of public history.
Horrible Histories is a history based comedy show for children, that started in 2009 on CBBC. I shall be analysing the ‘Mary the 1st song’ 2012, this was set to the tune of Kate Bush’s ‘Wuthering Heights’.
Mary I was the first born child to Henry VIII and Henry VIII's first wife Catherine of Aragon. Mary I (r.1554-1558) is often a queen regnant that is portrayed by historiography and popular culture as a cruel queen.This conveys how due to anti-catholic sentiment, the 'real' reign of Mary I is often neglected. Rather than being celebrated like her sister, Elizabeth I (r.1558-1603) both popular culture and children’s shows reinforce the anti-Catholic and Victorian narrative. They continue to portray contemporary ideas on Early Modern Women in reference to the royal narrative continues to convey these concepts. As children tend to know Mary I as ‘Bloody Mary’. Yet her sister Elizabeth I as a Protestant is normally reflective positively because of her religion whereas Mary because of her faith is demonised. Therefore, the portrayal of Mary I in CBBC’s Horrible Histories needs to be criticised and discussed. This will be illustrated throughout this essay. Mary’s legacy has been invisible for far too long and has allowed her to become misunderstood. In this case taking apart the perception of Mary I, in the 2012 'Mary the First' song. Therefore, it is important to change how Mary I is taught and understood by public history and popular culture.
Firstly, the song starts with the discussion of Mary’s childhood with ‘plenty of stepmothers’. Though due to being the daughter of Aragonese princess Catherine, she was rather alienated from the family in her childhood due to the King’s Great Matter. Following in her mothers footsteps, she continued to be a devoted catholic. Elizabeth by contrast was taken into the Howard household and became close with Henry VIII’s last wife Katherine Parr. This highlighted how from a young age, Mary was an outcast from the family and the plenty of stepmothers which horrible histories positively alludes to is far from the truth. Further this was not aided by the Succession Acts from 1534,1536 and then 1543 and 1546. Which originally bastardised Mary, this again was not aided by the 1553 succession act, which led to the devise of succession.
Ultimately, leading to Mary to take London in the succession crisis. As Northumberland (John Dudley), wanted to ensure his place in power, by persuading the now sick Edward VI to declare Lady Jane Grey as rightful queen. As through the Henrician reformation there was the fear that Mary I would undo this, as conveyed in this song by ‘Protestants were saying, that my rule made them sick’. The song further indicates issues with the issues from the Devise of Succession, ‘They [protestants] revolted, challenged me’, the challenge came from xenophobia and anti Spanish sentiment in the form of the Wyatt rebellion 1554 along with the fear of what this meant for the church. Wyatt and Protestant rebels were fearful that England would become a Spanish puppet. This revolted in Mary executing 90 of the rebels due to the fact that these protestants believed she had usurped the throne from Lady Jane Grey. Both Jane and Guilford Dudley were executed as well, while Wyatt became a martyr. These revolts for the main part were in pockets and did not have as great of an impact as Horrible Histories implies in the song.
However, through this Protestants, were fearful of the instability that had occurred with the changes made to the church. Many Protestants kept practicing in secret, as well as this many kept altars in the crypts of churches as many knew that the religious policy was ever changing and adapting. The song mentions the ‘Marian burnings’, which was 289 though they reference 300, ‘to tie three hundred to a stake’. They imply in the song that Mary I ordered every single one of these individuals to be burnt, herself. As Strong and other historians convey many of these were done in the name of Mary I, they were not strictly ordered by her. Mary took an approach by having what is colloquially known as a war on words whereby there was the introduction of censorship on Protestant writing. This saw the underground publication of the 1549 second book of common prayer, there was 19,000 in circulation by 1558.
Through Mary’s counter reformation there was the Marian exiles that fled to Flanders and most notably in the example of John Knox, Geneva, this saw the writing of ‘The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women’ while he was in exile, published after her death in 1558. This is an important piece to highlight the criticisms of female monarchy, this alongside the Victorian narrative surrounding Mary I in the nineteenth century created the idea that as this song reinforces ‘Mary the First, that’s me, called the Bloody Queen of England’. The idea comes from contemporary sources of Marian exiles especially Foxe’s Acts and monuments 1563, that Mary I had targeted them. Though the myth that Mary I was the bloody queen is important to put into context in regards to the medieval belief in the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, which one excluded the rule of women and two the anti catholic and anti Spanish sentiment that continued to grow because of xenophobia. Mary’s legacy is so much more than this perception that popular culture such as this song and programme likes to reinforce, she was the first queen regnant and incredibly devoted to her faith despite everything that occurred during her childhood as well as the dislike she faced as queen in the turmoil that was Early Modern Europe.
The turmoil created by the alliances and warfare of early modern europe can be highlighted by the disastrous reign of the regencies of Edward VI under Somerset (Thomas Seymour) and then Northumberland. This saw the narrative that Mary I got accused of losing Calais, conveyed further by ‘when the French advanced we lost Calais’. When in fact when her father Henry VIII wanted to recreated the 'glory days’ of Henry V and the Battle of Agincourt 1415 and trying to gain territory in France was the cause of this. Then the issue of the siege of Boulogne 1544, which saw the downfall of England’s territory in France then this decayed throughout the reign of Edward VI and the Mary I. Though as conveyed by this Mary I is used as a scapegoat for foreign policy and religious policy when indeed this can be contributed to Mary I having the blame for this, than the issues of Henry VIII’s own legacy. As due to the Anti-Spanish and anti-catholic sentiments this led many to use Mary to blame for this situation.
Finally, the last verse discusses the catholic legacy of Mary, or more accurately the lack of ‘[Elizabeth] made the country Protestant, meaning my [Mary] legacy was ruined’. Elizabeth introduced ‘via media’ in the Religious Settlement 1559. This meant that there was the expectation for the population to attend a protestant service but could practice catholicism at home. Mary I’s legacy was ruined most significantly rather in the turmoil that was post reformation and the rule of William and Mary II, this can be highlighted by the Glorious Revolution 1688 and the subsequent Bill of Rights 1689. Whereby there was the decision that there could not be a monarch who was catholic on the throne. The clause for this is still legacy in modern England this can be conveyed by the fact that the monarch has to swear that they are devoted to promoting Protestantism in the English realm. This can be linked to the Protestant perspective of Mary I’s reign meaning that many did not want the repetition of the policies and decisions that came as a result of her reign. Though if Mary I’s reign had not been after the turmoil and legacy of the Henrician reformation then there may have not been the same perspective on the rule of Mary I.
Overall, Mary’s reign is remembered by the writing of Foxe and the term ‘bloody mary’ which popular culture such as horrible histories and the ‘Mary the first song’ has run with. Yet Mary was victim of patriarchy and the anti catholic sentiment and can be viewed as a scapegoat for the turmoil that has become known as the ‘mid Tudor crisis’. Mary has had a strong legacy and revisionist historians are recognising this as she was not a Queen to be feared but rather someone to be admired in many cases. Though Horrible Histories does not do this justice and reinforces the parts of Mary’s reign that can be explained and explored by the wider historical context in Early Modern Europe. Therefore, Mary I should be admired for changing the royal narrative as Queen regnant alongside despite everything she went through a woman devoted to her faith as a catholic.
Finally, discussion point: what do you make of this take? Do you like these media interpretations as public history?
Secondary Sources:
YouTube, ‘Mary I song’ 2012.
Genius, Mary I song lyrics. https://genius.com/Horrible-histories-mary-the-first-annotated
J.C.E Strong: ‘Happily Ever After? Elizabethan Representations of Mary
I and Philip II’s Marriage’ Chapter 1 in memory and myth from ‘Mary I in Writing:letters, literature and representation.’ Edited by Valerie Schutte and Jessica S. Hower. 2022.
Contemporary sources:
John Knox 1558 ‘The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.’ https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-first-blast-of-the-trumpet-against-the-monstrous-regimen-of-women-1558
John Foxe 1563 ‘Acts and Monuments’. https://www.dhi.ac.uk/foxe/
Just curious, who/what/when got you interested in the Tudors and where are you from?
I personally got interested in Elizabeth when I was in high school. Then Anne Boleyn, followed by everything else.
I'm American. My grandfather was born in Wales and when I visited The Tower of London and several other places I felt like I came home for a moment.
What is your story that led you here today?
In London, right behind the impressive St. Paul's Cathedral, lies the quiet King Edward Street.
It got its present name in Victoria's reign, after King Edward VI. It was in this modest street, in 1552, that Edward’s royal charter established Christ's Hospital, probably the most famous of his many schools.
Founded to house, cure, and educate the poor and orphaned boys and girls of the city, the school was originally housed here, in the former monastery of Greyfriars. Though it was brutally damaged in the Great Fire of 1666, the school was rebuilt on this site and remained here for another two centuries before moving to Horsham, where it still thrives today.