Tudor England
Im embarrassed by how little I know about most of them (as a kid I could at least have named them in order, cant even do that now).
Of what I know I dont think anyone comes close to Elizabeth I in terms of achievements. Even though Englands greatest age was under Victoria she had little to do with it. Elizabeth II is kinda impressive as well if only for doing nothing wrong for so long. [men not doing very well, I'll nominate George VI as the most decent monarch]
Of what I know I dont think anyone comes close to Elizabeth I in terms of achievements. Even though Englands greatest age was under Victoria she had little to do with it. Elizabeth II is kinda impressive as well if only for doing nothing wrong for so long. [men not doing very well, I'll nominate George VI as the most decent monarch]
My family was originally from England, Birmingham, specifically. I've always planned to visit. Just havn't had the time. I never thought about Elizabeth II that way, but it's absolutely true. Her method of distinction, was her absence of distinction!
I've always been a fan of George VI. What a man. Taking over for Edward VIII, despite that stutter. That took some courage, and willingness to be found foolish, for the sake of his country and countrymen. WWII could've been a disaster if Edward Windsor had been king. His fascist leanings, and passive personality, would've changed events considerably. George VI had moral courage, in the face of inundating obstacles. I admire that kind of man.
I've long been an admirer of Elizabeth. Specifically, her devotion to duty, at the sacrifice of personal desire. Tell me, how did it work in Tudor times, when a reigning Queen married? Substantially differently than now, I'd bet. Didn't he acquire the title King? What about relative powers? Did queen then become subject to king?
The official title of the Queen's husband then (and now) is Prince Consort of England (though this is usually shortened to Prince; only Prince Albert was recognized specifically in this capacity). Oftentimes he is given some additional lordships as well (such as a Duchy or Earldom; Elizabeth II's husband, is also Duke of Edinburgh). It is worth noting that Mary was married to Philip II of Spain, and he DID in fact meddle in her affairs quite often, though he was not particularly interested in Mary herself, or in England, except where it could leverage his own position. Philip II, fittingly enough, was also the monarch who launched the Armada that sailed against Elizabeth.
Turn Prophet: this is better than a book, and the information is accurate. Please don't stop now, as time permits you, tell us more! I'm a long time anglophile, with history in the Episcopalian church. (history) What's the difference between the cultures of Wales and England, and how did they become so closely joined. Tell me more about Cromwell, and the place he played in the reformation. Was Henry the VIII, in ways a puppet king? Even if, he didn't know it? You mentioned the people's uprising, and that many held resentments for the church (Roman Catholic) What were those resentments? Were there reprisals? And how did they impact the reformation? How did the hard core catholics accept the change? What was the impact of Martin Luther? Wasn't Jane Grey executed for treason? Tell me all you know about Queen Elizabeth I. What other misconceptions are there? Was Henry VIII dissatisfied at his death. Did Edward attain the throne immediately? Did he die in power, then Jane Seymore was maneuvered into place? I guess that's enough for now? Oh, What about Katherine Howard?
There is a lot there... I will try to deal with it as soon as I can (this is fun, I haven't got to teach Tudor History in awhile haha), but I'm visiting my folks in Sacramento at the moment. I will try to answer all your questions in the next few days, if I can.
As for England and Wales, I'm not exactly an expert, but here is the short version:
Wales has had a historically distinct culture from England. Their language, customs, and law were radically different for hundreds of years. After the Norman Conquest, the English (or Normans, really) were continually trying to conquer the Welsh, but they didn't really succeed until the reign of Edward I. Edward (who is also called the "Hammer of the Scots" for the brutal campaigns he waged in Scotland... the film Braveheart portrays this era, with more than a few creative liberties) built a ton of castles up and down the Welsh border and gave most of these lands to some of his most trusted retainers. This was the origin of the so-called "Marcher Lords" (named for their estates on the Welsh Marches). In later times, these lords became problematic for some monarchs, including the Tudors. Edward I also conferred on his son the title, "Prince of Wales," a title that has stuck to subsequent crown princes of the English throne (he did this largely to solidify his control over Wales).
As for England and Wales, I'm not exactly an expert, but here is the short version:
Wales has had a historically distinct culture from England. Their language, customs, and law were radically different for hundreds of years. After the Norman Conquest, the English (or Normans, really) were continually trying to conquer the Welsh, but they didn't really succeed until the reign of Edward I. Edward (who is also called the "Hammer of the Scots" for the brutal campaigns he waged in Scotland... the film Braveheart portrays this era, with more than a few creative liberties) built a ton of castles up and down the Welsh border and gave most of these lands to some of his most trusted retainers. This was the origin of the so-called "Marcher Lords" (named for their estates on the Welsh Marches). In later times, these lords became problematic for some monarchs, including the Tudors. Edward I also conferred on his son the title, "Prince of Wales," a title that has stuck to subsequent crown princes of the English throne (he did this largely to solidify his control over Wales).
There is a lot there... I will try to deal with it as soon as I can (this is fun, I haven't got to teach Tudor History in awhile haha), but I'm visiting my folks in Sacramento at the moment. I will try to answer all your questions in the next few days, if I can.
As for England and Wales, I'm not exactly an expert, but here is the short version:
Wales has had a historically distinct culture from England. Their language, customs, and law were radically different for hundreds of years. After the Norman Conquest, the English (or Normans, really) were continually trying to conquer the Welsh, but they didn't really succeed until the reign of Edward I. Edward (who is also called the "Hammer of the Scots" for the brutal campaigns he waged in Scotland... the film Braveheart portrays this era, with more than a few creative liberties) built a ton of castles up and down the Welsh border and gave most of these lands to some of his most trusted retainers. This was the origin of the so-called "Marcher Lords" (named for their estates on the Welsh Marches). In later times, these lords became problematic for some monarchs, including the Tudors. Edward I also conferred on his son the title, "Prince of Wales," a title that has stuck to subsequent crown princes of the English throne (he did this largely to solidify his control over Wales).
As for England and Wales, I'm not exactly an expert, but here is the short version:
Wales has had a historically distinct culture from England. Their language, customs, and law were radically different for hundreds of years. After the Norman Conquest, the English (or Normans, really) were continually trying to conquer the Welsh, but they didn't really succeed until the reign of Edward I. Edward (who is also called the "Hammer of the Scots" for the brutal campaigns he waged in Scotland... the film Braveheart portrays this era, with more than a few creative liberties) built a ton of castles up and down the Welsh border and gave most of these lands to some of his most trusted retainers. This was the origin of the so-called "Marcher Lords" (named for their estates on the Welsh Marches). In later times, these lords became problematic for some monarchs, including the Tudors. Edward I also conferred on his son the title, "Prince of Wales," a title that has stuck to subsequent crown princes of the English throne (he did this largely to solidify his control over Wales).
Awesome! How did their cultures differ? I've noticed some English speak of Wales with derision, in similarity to the way people speak of the American south. Is the origin due to this history, or more recent cultural and political events, which dictate public opinion. I was slightly familiar with the prince of Wales title, but understood it more as a conferred honor, good to understand the politcally expedient truth. Isn't it always the same?
As to how the cultures differ specifically, you have to understand pre-Norman England, on which I'm hardly an expert. In early times, Britain was inhabited by Celtic peoples usually called "Britons" for short, but my understanding is that this label belies a fair amount of ethnic and tribal distinction. The Romans briefly occupied parts of Southern Britain and introduced some new customs, materials, and trade, but the Romans withdrew with the collapse of their empire. Several Germanic tribes, most notably the Angles (from whom the name "England," or Angle-land, is derived) and the Saxons migrated into (or "invaded," depending on your preference) most of England and were engaged in warfare on-and-off with various Celtic clans in Wales and Scotland. By the 11th century, Anglo-Saxon culture was firmly established in England. Anglo-Saxon, and by extension English, is derived from a different language group than Welsh, Gaelic, and other Celtic languages. Celtic and Germanic customs were also different, although I'm really not an expert on the specifics of these cultures.
Was there actually a "prima noce" law? Designed to force Scottish nobles from their lands? I assumed most of that movie was flagrantly romanticized. But it was so stimulating, I didn't care. One of the best ethically robust movies I've seen. (but I see very few movies)
The Norman conquest is another of my interests. William II conquering England, then failing to take Wales. I believe there were problems with practitioners of the Old Religion, practicing polytheism. I got the idea that was realted to the Druids, but am uncertain. I've also heard there've been rumors, William II, from Normandy, was descended from Viking stock. Any info?
Whether the Normans constitute "Viking stock" is somewhat open to interpretation. The Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans all descended from Germanic peoples, although the Vikings are generally considered to be specifically from Scandinavia. Since the Vikings were still pretty active in the 11th century, it's possible William was descended from Vikings, although I rather doubt it.
Wasn't the english language at that time, the peoples language, and French the more aristocatic tongue, primaily used in documentation, and science, with Latin only for religious use? I believe this began the ascendency of english as a world wide language...
Didn't the normans assimilate and become part of the English? Thus contributing to their centuries long stability, but negating the locals need to pursue retaking the thrown? Didn't someone once, retake the thrown?
Didn't the normans assimilate and become part of the English? Thus contributing to their centuries long stability, but negating the locals need to pursue retaking the thrown? Didn't someone once, retake the thrown?
French wouldn't really have been used in "science," since there really was no scientific culture until at least the 16th century (there was scientific knowledge, but this was largely natural philosophy written in Latin for a small audience). Norman/English nobility would have spoken it, but not all the time, and good facility in French was considered a mark of high culture (hence why Thomas Malory wrote Le Morte d'Arthur in French). Still, the extent to which French was the primary language of the aristocracy after about the 12th century is probably exaggerated. English was already radically transforming in this period, morphing from a traditional Germanic language into a much more French- and Latin-based vocabulary. I wouldn't really say this was the beginning of English as a worldwide language, though--that would have to wait for the expansion of the British Empire, largely in the 18th century and after. So yes, the Normans did assimilate and become "English." Really, English culture as we understand it is probably more Norman than it is Anglo-Saxon, which is partly why there is so much mystique and romanticizing of pre-Norman England (JRR Tolkien wrote his mythology in part because of what he saw as a dearth of authentically "Anglo-Saxon" mythology).
I will try to get to more on the Tudors, with whom I more familiar, later.
Tell me more about Cromwell, and the place he played in the reformation.
Cromwell first entered the service of the court as an assistant to Henry VIII's first great chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey. However, when he saw that Wolsey was falling out of favor in the court over his failure to secure a divorce for Henry (along with his dubious financial dealings and opposition from conservative nobles), Cromwell managed to distance himself from Wolsey and work himself back into the king's good graces as a member of Parliament. He quickly rose through the ranks in the inner circles of the Tudor court, and became the chief rival of Thomas More (More supported Catherine of Aragon's faction, while Cromwell supported the Boleyns). When it became obvious that Catherine's cause was lost, More resigned his post, and most of his duties were taken up by Cromwell.
Cromwell managed to ram several bills through Parliament that buttressed the king's position at the expense of the Catholic Church and often the nobility. He was one of the primary forces behind the Supremacy (making Henry VIII head of the Church of England) and the real force behind the Act in Restraint of Appeals (which prevented Catherine from taking her case to Rome). Cromwell thus effectively made Henry VIII the supreme secular and religious power in England.
When Cromwell became aware of Henry's dissatisfaction with Anne Boleyn's failure to produce a son and his increasing interest in Jane Seymour (Henry's favorite wife and eventual mother of Prince Edward), Cromwell quickly altered his allegiances again and declared virtual war on the Boleyns, helping to insure that Anne, her brother, and several other members of court were executed, and that Anne's father was banished from court. By clearing a path for Henry to marry Jane, Cromwell secured his place in the king's good graces and became his most trusted and powerful minister.
Once he had enough power to deal more freely, Cromwell began his program of more aggressive reforms, dissolving most of England's monasteries, stripping many church ornaments, and pushing for a more Lutheran theology in the Church of England. His efforts earned him the enmity of much of the more Catholic north, and several counties rose up in a rebellion known as the Pilgrimage of Grace, which blamed Cromwell and other "wicked counselors" for the actions taken against their houses of worship. In order to put the insurrection down, Henry needed the support of several powerful nobles, most of whom resented Cromwell and other "new men" who had come to power but were not of noble families. This was the beginning of Cromwell's downfall, as he soon found himself pitted against a council of nobles opposed to his projects. Henry VIII also found Cromwell's reforms too much for his taste, and endorsed the much more theologically-conservative Six Articles that reaffirmed the importance of the priesthood, sacraments, and rituals of the Church.
Cromwell's real failure, and his eventual fall out of favor with the king, came when he pushed for a marriage to Anne of Cleves after the death of Jane Seymour. Cromwell hoped this marriage might solidify ties between England and the more Protestant sections of Northern Europe who were engaged in war against the Holy Roman Empire. However, Henry VIII seemed to have an extreme distaste for Anne and believed her to be too unattractive for his taste. The marriage was dissolved rather quickly (Henry claimed he was unable to consummate it, such was his dislike for the woman sexually), and Cromwell suffered a major defeat. By then, his conservative opponents had managed to convince Henry that Cromwell was abusing his position and was an unscrupulous power-monger who was guilty of heresy and might even seek to supplant the succession by marrying Princess Mary (this was included in the Bill of Attainder leveled against him)!
Cromwell was executed without trial, though Henry almost immediately regretted it. He later chastised many members of his council for their condemnations of Cromwell, accusing them of leveling false charges (which of course, many of them probably were, although it is true that Cromwell's religious views were quite heterodox compared to Henry's). Many of Cromwell's reforms were pursued by Cranmer, especially during the reign of Edward. Cranmer himself was famously burned at the stake by Mary Tudor, one of the "300 Protestant Martyrs." Cranmer's execution is famous because he first offered to recant his views, but when he was given a public forum, he instead launched into a diatribe condemning Mary, her adviser Cardinal Pole, the Pope, and the Catholic Church.
Cromwell represented the more radical faction of the English Reformation (Henry ultimately chose the more conservative faction) and the tradition of meritocratic "new men" whom the nobility regarded as upstarts.
Ah. Wonderful story. I saved it to read last, with everything else done, and no time pressure to detract from pleasure. Cromwell is indeed a fascinating figure. I had no idea he was the instrument behind the Anglican Church, although I guess he would've preferred it even further from the Catholic principles and practices, he despised. I'd like to know more about the philosophy or morality, behind pushing for the execution of the Bolyens, just to solidify his own position. Seems, at best, questionably ethical. This seems to be a trend running through that era. Take whatever position is expedient, a devote yourself comepletely to it. Damn who it hurts. Explain how this can be a part of mainstay Europe, with it's sophistication and beauty. Also please tell me about the Inquisitions remnants. How did it reflect life, and what happened when the reformation displaced the church?
So, it's possible Cromwell actually originated the idea of supremacy, to fascillitate Anne's assencion, and his own? That's awesome. What an undercurrent. I love this time of England. Hell, I love every time of England. Let's just start at it's origins and continue from there, (time permitting) of course.
How did Jane Grey come to power, I'd assumed she was maneuvered in as a puppet, queen. But then who were the puppeteers? She was executed for treason, wasn't she? Wonderful story. I like to read these last thing, so please don't stop writing. It's a pleasure and a priviledge to read.
So, it's possible Cromwell actually originated the idea of supremacy, to fascillitate Anne's assencion, and his own? That's awesome. What an undercurrent. I love this time of England. Hell, I love every time of England. Let's just start at it's origins and continue from there, (time permitting) of course.
How did Jane Grey come to power, I'd assumed she was maneuvered in as a puppet, queen. But then who were the puppeteers? She was executed for treason, wasn't she? Wonderful story. I like to read these last thing, so please don't stop writing. It's a pleasure and a priviledge to read.
So, it's possible Cromwell actually originated the idea of supremacy, to fascillitate Anne's assencion, and his own?
How did Jane Grey come to power, I'd assumed she was maneuvered in as a puppet, queen. But then who were the puppeteers? She was executed for treason, wasn't she?
Grey and her husband, Guilford Dudley, were not executed until Jane's father's involvement in the abortive attempt to supplant Mary with Elizabeth during Wyatt's Rebellion, which Thomas Wyatt and other Protestant nobles undertook in opposition to Mary's Spanish marriage. The extent to which she was actively involved in the initial coup is somewhat in contention, although she and her husband were certainly not involved in Wyatt's Rebellion (the insurrection, however, did provide Mary with a convenient excuse to rid herself of Grey and Dudley). Jane was granted the "privilege" of a private execution by her cousin, Queen Mary. Elizabeth herself, who probably had been involved in the rebellion (although it could not be proven), was clever enough to avoid execution, though she was placed under house arrest until Mary's death four years later.
Depending on one's interpretation of royal law during the Tudor era, Jane could be seen either as a pawn in a coup that constituted treason against the succession, or as the legitimately named successor (thus making Mary a usurper to the throne herself).
Like you I my impression of More was established by A Man for All Seasons and Mantel's book was a real eye-opener.
He couldn't but c.f. William and Mary, joint monarchs although that's a bit sui generis.
They largely just put forts up on the Welsh border as the terrain made it hard to conquer - and there wasn't that much benefit in completely controlling it.
The Normans were very similar; the Marcher Lords, as mentioned before were there to control the borders because the interior was hard and unprofitable to control.
Eventually Wales fell because of political alliances falling apart and the Welsh princes conceding (apart from a couple of rebellions).
...
Whether the Normans constitute "Viking stock" is somewhat open to interpretation. The Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans all descended from Germanic peoples, although the Vikings are generally considered to be specifically from Scandinavia. Since the Vikings were still pretty active in the 11th century, it's possible William was descended from Vikings, although I rather doubt it....
Whether the Normans constitute "Viking stock" is somewhat open to interpretation. The Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans all descended from Germanic peoples, although the Vikings are generally considered to be specifically from Scandinavia. Since the Vikings were still pretty active in the 11th century, it's possible William was descended from Vikings, although I rather doubt it....
Vikings is a general term for Norse/Scandinavian raiders. The Norse men rampaged about as vikings, but when they settled down they were just Norse men. When some of the Norse men settled down in parts of what would become France - Norse men - North Men - Norman; that's where the name comes from.
...
Yes, for centuries even, the Norman aristocracy in England considered themselves French, first and foremost. This began some of the controversy in which the English king attempted to claim the French throne during a crisis of succession there. The Hundred Years' War was a direct result of this claim, although to a certain extent, various renewals of the HYW were attempts by various English kings to solidify their own claims over the English throne over their Yorkist or Lancastrian rivals during the War of the Roses (we can get to that later). Even Henry VIII himself claimed as his title, "King of England, Ireland, and France." English kings never really gave up their dream of capturing the French throne until the later Tudor era.
French wouldn't really have been used in "science," since there really was no scientific culture until at least the 16th century (there was scientific knowledge, but this was largely natural philosophy written in Latin for a small audience). Norman/English nobility would have spoken it, but not all the time, and good facility in French was considered a mark of high culture (hence why Thomas Malory wrote Le Morte d'Arthur in French). ...
Yes, for centuries even, the Norman aristocracy in England considered themselves French, first and foremost. This began some of the controversy in which the English king attempted to claim the French throne during a crisis of succession there. The Hundred Years' War was a direct result of this claim, although to a certain extent, various renewals of the HYW were attempts by various English kings to solidify their own claims over the English throne over their Yorkist or Lancastrian rivals during the War of the Roses (we can get to that later). Even Henry VIII himself claimed as his title, "King of England, Ireland, and France." English kings never really gave up their dream of capturing the French throne until the later Tudor era.
French wouldn't really have been used in "science," since there really was no scientific culture until at least the 16th century (there was scientific knowledge, but this was largely natural philosophy written in Latin for a small audience). Norman/English nobility would have spoken it, but not all the time, and good facility in French was considered a mark of high culture (hence why Thomas Malory wrote Le Morte d'Arthur in French). ...
The English court more or less went from thinking of themselves as Norman French in England - to thinking of themselves of English with a claim to France - to English.
Basically the notion of which nationality is which is 'somewhat' complex.
Sorry, I only meant to catch up on a thread I hadn't seen, got distracted.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE