King Henry the VIII, a dynastic Tudor King of England in 1509-1547, was highly motivated man. And when those motivations were thwarted, heads rolled. Lots of them.

King Henry VIII was a tormented man. He had no heir to his dynasty, and this determination to have a son, led to one of the bloodiest periods in English history. He was married to Queen Catherine of Aragon, who bore him one child, a daughter Mary (often referred to as Bloody Mary), but no sons, and who was getting old.

Henry met a local maiden named Anne Boleyn. And in order to marry her, and thus have sons (plus confiscate church property) He disavowed allegiance to the catholic church, and declared himself head of the Church of England (American version is Episcopalianism) There were trials and tests of loyalty. There was attempted civil war. Anne Boleyn was executed, along with thousands of others. There's political intrigue and subterfuge. Questions of conscience, and imprisonment. There's a man for all seasons, Sir (now Saint) Thomas Moore.

Henry married six times, killed thousands, executed two wives, and changed the religion where his nation worshipped, in search of a son, who'd one day be king. The monarch he bore, but never endorsed was among Englands greatest. The English Reformation changed England forever and the lives of all who lived there. (and I'm not exagerating).

I specialized in Tudor and Stuart England during grad school. Definitely a cool period. The main thing further education on this period did for me was demolish the myth of "Saint" Thomas More and the Catholic propaganda I had been brought up with. The guy was a complete dick. This isn't to say that his opponents were particularly moral or respectable folks, but More is not worthy of the praise that gets heaped on him. He was a Catholic fanatic obsessed with keeping England subject to the whim of the Pope, and was more than happy to let Spain and Austria effectively dictate policy to England.

Of Henry's chancellors, More is given far more credit than he deserves, and Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell are both underrated, at least as objects of study. Cromwell is probably the most interesting figure in the English Reformation. The Reformation as a whole is profoundly misunderstood as well. The notion that the Church of England was created just so Henry could get a divorce is to give Henry too much credit in pushing the Reformation (not to say he was not extremely important, but others were arguably more crucial to the key steps), and not enough to the welling up of popular sentiments against the Pope and Church in England, which had a long history of anti-clerical movements.

The short reign of Edward Tudor is often skipped over by a lot of people, perhaps overshadowed by his sisters. But it was a profoundly interesting time when the English Reformation took much more radical steps. Had he lived, it would be interesting to see what the Church of England would have become.

I am astonished. I've adored Thomas Moore since first seeing, A Man For All Seasons, at 14, and never heard hints his ethics were suspect. I, have the books, Colloquies on the Progress and Prospects of Society, and Utopia, although it's been years since I picked them up. Heroes with feet of clay make for more interesting heroes. But heroes who're actually dogmatic church beaurocrats are a waste of shelf space. Cromwell has always been such an interesting character. May have been the brains as well. I understood Woolsey as a baffoon, I know nothing more than the obvious, but would love to learn. Recommendations?

Yes, much of this I knew, just considered it unlikely to draw attention to the thread. Perhaps I'm underestimating this group. The politics and economics are the more interesting issue. I've often wondered to what degree Henry was managed by his cabinet, (or what passes for it) A personality like that could be convinced to champion any issue, if done deftly with delicacy; especially one disputing his manhood and sovreignty. I don't think the reformation in Germany can be discounted either. Martin Luther had many converts and prospective converts before this began, altering also their economic balance. What do you think of Queen Mary's reign? Hardly the Bloody she acquired as suffix, but the attempt to return catholicism after everthing suffered, was evidence of a disturbed mind. The former Anglicans, now reconvened catholics had repeated ethical quagmires. I guess you could deduce England wasn't deeply commited to either incarnation, or perhaps just more reliably, devoted, to thier heads.

Really. I'd like to hear more about King Edward. Jane Seymore's son, wasn't he? Anything you can suggest I'd appreciate. Are you a history teacher? Sorry it took me so long to reply to the other post. I've you've read it you understand why.

The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

Sir Thomas Moore at inquest. Great quote. I'd almost forgotten. Have you ever seen the play, A Man for all Seasons?

Just the film version with Scofield and Shaw, awesome to the last degree of awesomeness

I completely agree. I'm thrilled that you liked the movie. History is such an eclectic subject, not everyone has the ability to appreciate it. It's nice to find people who do. If you ever get the chance, see the play. It'll be worth the price of admission, I promise.

Perhaps it's too harsh to say that Thomas More was a complete dick, but I have not found him to be any more worthy of praise than, say, Cromwell, who is demonized in the hagiographic A Man for All Seasons (which is a great book and film, but a horribly warped picture of the period's history). More giddily burned heterodox texts, supported the burning of heretics, threw a remarkable lack of force behind critiques of the Inquisition, and was much more politically calculating than he is usually portrayed (even in The Tudors, which few would criticize as being too friendly to Catholicism). Although one must be careful not to put too much stock in the polemics of John Foxe (an anti-Catholic Elizabethan propagandist), More never spoke of any distaste for torture for heretics. Although nominally peace-loving on account of his "humanism," More certainly relished the language of the Crusades when it came to his critiques of Protestantism. Certainly More was aware of what was likely to happen to those publishers and agitators he suspected and "investigated" for heresy. Again, this isn't to say that he was worse than his contemporaries, but he was hardly a pacifist or icon for toleration (despite what he says in Utopia, although you will notice his harsh treatment of "atheists," who More would have considered to encompass most other religions). Even among his contemporaries, More was quite authoritarian in his political leanings. He was a major supporter of the Imperial faction in court and tended to favor policies beneficial to Imperial and Spanish interests. If you want the other side of the coin to A Man for All Seasons, I'd go with Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall. Though still fictionalized and hardly objective (it is primarily from Cromwell's perspective), I think it is a little more realistic representation of the Tudor court. It's certainly better researched, even if it is a novel.

The extent to which the Reformation was "supported" by the commons is still a point of considerable contention among historians. Many seemed to like the addition of the vernacular language to church services, but many also opposed campaigns to dissolve the monasteries or engage in iconoclasm. Henry VIII in particular remained rather committed to a very conservative Reformation, which was nominally Protestant in doctrine, but still quite Catholic in form (Henry still liked the ritual and hierarchy, which, after all, buttressed his own position). There were strong reactions among sections of the common people, though. Large scale meetings, especially in the South and urban centers, agitated strongly for more vigorous reforms, and many members of the commons and the gentry enthusiastically spread English translations of the Bible, at the time a radical act that Henry never really approved of. On the flip side, the Pilgrimage of Grace (also known as the Rebellion of the Five Wounds) was a reaction of rural, mostly Northern peasants that had largely pro-Catholic leanings, though they did not explicitly support the papacy (they were certainly anti-Reformation insofar as it involved structural changes to the Church).

Mary was perhaps not any "Bloodier" than her contemporaries, but certainly she persecuted Protestants with far more zeal than her predecessors or Elizabeth did to suspected Catholics. In fact, throughout the Reformation, the most violently suppressed "heretics" at each stage were radical Protestants, the people now usually classified as Puritans in an umbrella term. In any case, Mary was not a particularly competent monarch, and her contemporaries in the aristocracy were probably quite right to worry that she was giving far too many privileges to the Spanish (her husband was King of Spain, remember) and the Papacy. However, it's worth noting that while Mary was idealistic, she was also rather naive, as she had never really been groomed for the throne, and her father and brother were quite adamant about not wanting her anywhere near the crown (hence the attempt by Edward's regents to install Jane Grey in a coup following Edward's death). She was never really able to revamp the Church in England, partly because many of the Catholic lands had been sold off under Henry and Edward, and there was no way she could wrest them from the aristocracy.

If you're looking for a very complete (if somewhat dry) account of the period, I'd start with John Guy's Tudor England. It's pretty much the gold standard for period at the moment, and Guy is pretty much, well, the guy when it comes to the period. Very few scholars have done more direct research on the period.

Edward's reign is usually characterized by the actions of his regents, Somerset and Northumberland, and religious contemporaries like Thomas Cranmer and Hugh Latimer, but Edward had a few writings of his own, and he appears to have been an exceedingly bright young man who did in fact have strong opinions on religious matters (it's worth noting that Catherine Parr, Henry's final wife, arranged for Edward to have Protestant tutors of a more radical leaning). Though he died at 15, Edward was enthusiastic in his support of further Reformation (the Book of Common Prayer and the Forty-Two articles that remain the core of the Anglican Church originated in this period).

I can't imagine that A Man for All Seasons was intended to be any more accurate than Julius Caesar

David Starkey is the man for all Tudors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Starkey

I've only read Elizabeth which was excellent. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Elizabeth-Dr...9995742&sr=1-6

Yeah Starkey is excellent as well, especially for a more popular audience. His focus is much more on thew court and politics than on the Reformation, but he's a great starting point as well. He was even an adviser to the producers of The Tudors.

I prefer absolute accuracy in my historical novels and plays too, but not always getting my preference, I enjoy the esthetics, while trying to ignore the imperfections. Admittingly, I'm not always successful.

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?

I bought the book you suggested, Wolf Hall by Hillary Mantel. The first scene is of vividly portrayed child abuse, and it's routine normalcy. I can't wait to get into the meat of reformation. Appreciations and felicitations.

I've always admired the Tilbury Docks speech credited to Elizabeth to the land troops prior to the expected invasion from the Spanish Armada. To give the speech, she left her main bodyguard and was escorted among the armed troops by a handful of men. It's a hell of a speech fo a monarch to give, and somehow both crystallises, and perhaps presages or even forges some parts of national character of the English - the sense of duty, getting on with the job, and a sense of never submitting to hostile forces.

My loving people,

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood even, in the dust.

I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.

A fantastic triumph of PR, apparantly the Queen was 'safely' tucked away and the speech given afterwards.

Think I heard that from Starkey. From wiki

"Prior to the speech the Armada had been driven from the Strait of Dover in the Battle of Gravelines eleven days earlier, and had by now rounded Scotland on its way home, but troops were still held at ready in case the Spanish army of Alexander Farnese, the Duke of Parma, might yet attempt to invade from Dunkirk; two days later they were discharged. On the day of the speech, the Queen left her bodyguard before the fort at Tilbury and went among her subjects with an escort of six men."

Don't know. Very few Queens and Elizabeth never married. (married England instead to avoid it)

Queen Victoria married Albert and he just became Prince afaik. Dont think he could have succeeded but not at all sure.

As head of state it would be the only prudent action to take. England's at war, and the loss of the Queen, would be a devastating blow to morale, perhaps a decisive one. Could change the land from a country unconquered by foreign invaders since William The Bastard in 1066, to a spanish province, and probably catholic to boot. I have no problem with this. I don't think it has any negative connotations.

Her behavior was consistent. Giving the speech promoted morale. And so did not risking her life. Look how everyone complained about the top-down convertible ride of John F. Kennedy, after-the-fact. They implied he yearned for destruction, and deserved no sympathy for getting it.

back in those fine old days monarchs led from the front. Part of the proganda was I suspect to suggest that she was up to it.

and it was promoted as a before the fight against the Spanish morale raiser when in fact it was delivered afterwards. It would be like Churchill's 'we will fight them on the beaches' speech being delivered in 1945

Did Elizabeth marry England to avoid a pressured marriage to political expedients? Or did Elizabeth marry England to avoid ever having the risk of a male potential usurper? Or to pledge herself to giving up on love, (with it's inherent risk of treachery)? Anyone know?

In England, men who marry queens (or are married to princesses who then become queens) are given the title of 'Prince'.

Has that always been so? In some of the Elizabethan literature, (read: historical novels lol) the Queen seems concerned about consorts usurping the throne. It was portrayed by Bette Davis, as an actual coup, destabilized by Elizabeth herself. (A sussex or essex comes to mind) And in one of the current movies, she says she won't marry, because her county doesn't need a king. I don't know if that was meant facetiously, or literally. But it does seem to be an ongoing theme.

If she said anything like that I would guess it just meant England could be run by a woman. The impression I have is that many doubted a woman was competent to rule the country. That fits with the propoganda speech as a response to the expectation she would lead the troops into battle like her daddy would have. I think that's the constant theme you are seeing.

As for marrying England, that's always portrayed as a way of avoiding a political marriage which she feared would tear the kingdom apart (effectively ursurping her as you suggest)

Been a while since I read about this stuff, any experts out there?

Who do you think was your countries greatest monarch? Additional thoughts on Elizabeth I?
I'm also interested in the Norman conquest, and William II, (although it doesn't quite count as Tudor England.) Especially the language changes that resulted. Sorry to drive you crazy about your birthplace, but it has such and endlessly fascinating history.

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]