Don't even think about it, you'd be justified by my ignorance of presidents. And I've cultivated that stupidity for awhile. Of course politicians are different from monarchs. They have to win election, and weren't born and bred for the job.

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.

Regnant Queens still maintained their supremacy upon marriage, though frequently their husbands could and did meddle in her affairs. It was always a fine line to walk, since the Queen was expected to rule in her capacity as monarch, but also to be subordinate to her husband in her married capacity. Very messy, which was one reason the English were skeptical of/biased against Queens (certainly the long trail of successful Queens like Elizabeth I, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II seem to have put that to rest). However, one could never become King in his own right by marriage. Elizabeth was rightly concerned that her consort might undermine her own rather serious political ambitions. However, it is all but confirmed that Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, was her lover for many years, especially in the early period of her reign (despite his own marriages).

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).

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? 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? 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. I passionately hate research. I don't even like to google. So forgive me if my thoughts are utterly wrong. I don't know where or how, they ended up in my brain. Thank you from my curiousity controlled heart. Installments are perfect, cause I can ask questions, and clarify concepts! Groovy! Oops. Forgot something. 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?

Some English often speak derisively about fellow Britons in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. There are even stereotypes about North and South England (basically the inverse of the United States, as Southern English are regarded as more genteel and proper, while Northerners are sometimes stereotypically regarded as poorer, less-educated, and akin to what Americans would call "hicks"). I wouldn't necessarily compare the English-Welsh relationship to the American North and South. It's more like Quebec and the rest of Canada if I had to make an analogy, as Welsh is still spoken in some areas (especially rural areas). That linguistic distinction has made assimilation a touchy issue, especially since the Welsh were basically kept under the boot of English nobility for centuries.

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.

As far as I'm aware from my medievalist colleagues (one of my advisers was a medievalist), the law of primae noctis has poor historical basis at best, and was almost certainly never a widely-used custom, if it was used at all. There is no evidence I'm aware of that Edward I encouraged it among English-born nobility living in Scotland. Nonetheless, customs of this nature are found in a number of different cultures, and it's possible it was practiced somewhere, sometime in medieval Europe.

Well, the "old religion" of Celtic Britain was largely extinct by the 11th century, as far as I know. Christianity began spreading to Britain as early as the third or fourth century, and Celtic Christianity was quite widespread in the Early Middle Ages (Thomas Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization cover some of this ground... although I'm not entirely sold on Cahill's thesis, personally; see also The Book of Kells). Druidism was almost certainly extinct or an extreme minority of religious practice well before the Norman Conquest. One of England's last pre-Norman kings, Edward the Confessor, built (or at least refurbished) Westminster Abbey, after all.

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.

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). 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.

Cromwell was one half of the duo that effectively led and engineered the English Reformation (the other most significant figure was Thomas Cranmer). He was an incredibly skilled administrator, a calculating political genius, an incredibly outspoken critic of the Church and an advocate of heavy Protestant reforms, and something of a pariah for many members of the nobility and more conservative religious factions.

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.

Well, yes and no. Cromwell really did have strong feelings about religion and he was terribly opposed to the Church of Rome. Certainly he understood that the Supremacy could well advance his own position as well, as Henry Tudor was far more amiable to the "new men" than most of England's nobility. But Cromwell was also a deeply religious man. He believed his actions were in service to his lord and master he was divinely ordained to serve, and his "ethically questionable" actions should at least be considered in this light (although there is no doubt that Cromwell and most of the Tudor court, like politicians in every age, had a calculating, Machiavellian side). This is one reason Cromwell particularly despised Thomas More, who he considered a traitor of the worst sort, who worshiped an idolater (the Pope) instead of obeying his rightful lord.

Yes, Jane Grey was a cousin Edward VI (once removed... she was the granddaughter of Henry's sister, Mary) and the Tudor family with a very tenuous claim to the throne (she was, like Edward, educated in the Protestant household of Catherine Parr). Basically, she was steered into place by loyalists to Edward (who did not want Mary to ascend the throne) and the Protestant cause, which was terribly endangered by Mary's Catholicism. Essentially, Jane Grey's family maneuvered her into place on Edward's desires to subvert the succession (he had to void Elizabeth's claims on the throne as well, or else risk legitimizing Mary). However, much of the court did not approve of this action, and upon Edward's death, Mary's supporters began to raise an army to defend her claim to the throne. When it became clear that Mary had a good deal more support, the Privy Council decided to change sides and turn against Jane Grey and her family after only nine days. Grey and several others were charged with treason and imprisoned in the Tower of London. They were sentenced to death, but the sentences were not carried out in part out of fear that it would provoke active rebellion amongst Jane's and Edward's supporters.

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).

It's an excellent book. If you enjoy it, you might also try A Place of Greater Safety which is set in the French Revolution.

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.

The Romans ruled England (and a little bit of Scotland) for over 350 years, and were in an influence on the island for an undetermined number of generations before they invaded.

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).

Even the 'Germanic peoples' is a bit of an overgeneralisation the heritage of all those people really comes from before national boundaries were really set.

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.

The Norman aristocracy thought of themselves as French, because they were French. Latin was the international language (because of the Roman empire), French was the language of court because the aristocracy was French. William was Norman French - so from Norse ancestry and had a claim to the English throne, previous kings of England like Canute were king of England and Denmark.

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.