Anything to do with the Knights Templar, the historical Jesus and the dead sea scrolls, battle of Britain and other WWII campaigns from D Day. Edward I and Edward II reigns.
That was reflected in his seven marriages, and his multiple beheadings of wives. He didn't execute all seven, though. Didn't two die naturally and one outlive him?
Divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced , beheaded , survived. that how I remember them.
That was reflected in his seven marriages, and his multiple beheadings of wives. He didn't execute all seven, though. Didn't two die naturally and one outlive him?
Seven??? I think you've added one. It would be amazing to discover one lost to history He had two executed. Two survived him.
Yes!! I see the globe
Henry was a monster. Elizabeth was not that bad in relative terms, given her contemporaries but she was a right bitch to those sailers who helped defeat the Armada. They didn't get paid resulting in major suffering.
Henry made this country independent, a few heads rolled but that's the way things were done in those days, all over the world.
If you read Elizabeth, the struggle for the throne by David Starkey I think you'll change your mind about her instead of dismissing her as a "bitch" for one act. She was an immensely intelligent and astute person outwitting all before her and putting this country first at every turn. We owe a great deal to her.
Divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced , beheaded , survived. that how I remember them.
Of course in his mind he didn't divorce them, He annulled the marriages. I wonder what the actual legal position is now. When he died according to law he had only had two Jane S and K P. Then Mary had her mother's marriage declared legal. Elizabeth didn't draw attention to her mother so I doubt if she did the same. So unless anyone has overturned Mary's overturning Henry had three wives.
I love hearing about what daily life was like for normal people behind the iron curtain during the cold war. The BBC series ' The Lost World Of Communism' was excellent.
For me a few things.
Great change re the reformation and the seeming casual acceptance of burning at the stake someone because their belief and practices are different
and Henry VIII and his wives - not just that he married so many times but that he could have a couple executed. The constitutional implications of fertility.
That with Henry VIII so many people in the story of his time had violent deaths and yet people still wanted to be near him and work for him. He has got to be in the running for worst employer of the 16th C.
Family dynamics. The idea that people fought so hard for their family to have the throne and yet so many of the individuals had different descendants having the others killed. Henry VII's granddaughter has his great-granddaughter killed. That great granddaughter's mother was welcomed at court afterwards by her cousin who had her daughter killed. What must that have been like. That same queen apparently was very fond of her half sister Elizabeth initially and then got to a stage of considering having her executed. Better than Eastenders.
Perhaps because Henry was either such a monster or so desperate he manage to overturn everything, although he broke with Rome it wasn't his intention to change the religion of Britain but by the dissolution thats what he did or at least started. I wonder if Britain would have remained Roman Catholic or would the Protestant faith still have come here. If Mary had been married to a suitable husband and ruled jointly as her grandparents had in Spain, how would things have turned out, although particularly religious she was also well educated and well read, of course we would not have had Elizabeth so I doubt Britain would have become what it actually did, even though we would still have had the adventurers like Walter Raleigh but perhaps no cause to pursue the Spanish. There are so many turning points in history so many what ifs, the Tudor period seems full of them.
That amazing decade in Henry's reign when he turned the world upside down and laid the foundations of modern Britain; the astonishing personalities which emerged in that period; remarkable and brilliant Elizabeth who triumphed. Then there is the enjoyment of the various interpretations which ard possible re people and events.
I think the Tudor period was such a time of excess. Of greed . Of overweening power . Sickening and fascinating in equal parts.
Thanks for the responses guys. My historical study has generally been more modern stuff but there's so much in terms of literature and documentary on the Tudors that it should be easy to get into.
Also, can anyone recommend a good starting point for looking into the French Revolution? A friend told me that Simon Schama's book is good but it's also gigantic (and has had some criticism as well.)
Henry made this country independent, a few heads rolled but that's the way things were done in those days, all over the world.
Henry was a right bastard and beyond his treatment of his court was cruel to his children especially to Mary. I often wonder what Mary would have been like if she hadn't been through what she had - no excuse though
If you read Elizabeth, the struggle for the throne by David Starkey I think you'll change your mind about her instead of dismissing her as a "bitch" for one act.
Excuse me but I didn't
dismiss her as a bitch for one act. I said she was a bitch to those sailers and nothing bar information about that particular act will change my mind about that. I think she had many fine qualities and surprisingly unbloodthirsty given her time but I do not excuse her treatment of the soldiers.
Medieval period. There is this perception of the middle ages and it's people as being very ignorant, superstitious and inferior. I think that's unfair and not accurate, they were learned and innovative and tough because they had to be, they also were not dirty in general and had good teeth.
Anglo Saxons. This period of history always seems to get skimmed over sandwiched between the end of the Roman Empire and the Norman conquest, with the anglo saxons portrayed as barely literate barbarians easily beaten by the Norman invaders. Again innacurate as Anglo-saxon England was a very powerful and wealthy, well ordered place, and the Battle of Hasting was a close run thing.
One of the reasons the Normans wanted it was because it was so organised, had a host of laws and had a god tax system etc. also the reason the take over was fairly easy or the invaders after Hastings. If the Anlo Saxons hadn't fallen for the Norman ruse and chased the 'fleeing' Normans and had kept the shield wall firm it would probably been an entirely different outcome. How would things have progressed then I wonder.
Of course in his mind he didn't divorce them, He annulled the marriages. I wonder what the actual legal position is now. When he died according to law he had only had two Jane S and K P. Then Mary had her mother's marriage declared legal. Elizabeth didn't draw attention to her mother so I doubt if she did the same. So unless anyone has overturned Mary's overturning Henry had three wives.
Och they just made it up as they went along really. Who was going to argue with them? Mary was a particularly unpleasant specimen.
Och they just made it up as they went along really. Who was going to argue with them? Mary was a particularly unpleasant specimen.
Indeed. As I said earlier I wonder what she would have been like had she not been subjected to the abuse she had when young. I don't just mean being separated from her mother, which must have been beyond dreadful. I have a few biographies of her and it's quite heartbreaking. She did have her own sense of values and honour and without the abuse may have been a fine queen and human being. I don't excuse her though.
I wonder too what Edward VI would have turned out. There was a danger that he would have been the Protestant version of her only colder.
Henry was a right bastard and beyond his treatment of his court was cruel to his children especially to Mary. I often wonder what Mary would have been like if she hadn't been through what she had - no excuse though
Excuse me but I didn't
dismiss her as a bitch for one act. I said she was a bitch to those sailers and nothing bar information about that particular act will change my mind about that. I think she had many fine qualities and surprisingly unbloodthirsty given her time but I do not excuse her treatment of the soldiers.
Fair enough but she was still arguably the greatest monarch this country has ever had.
Och they just made it up as they went along really. Who was going to argue with them? Mary was a particularly unpleasant specimen.
I always wonder as someone else mentioned would Mary have been as she was without the treatment that was meted out to her by her own father and having to see her mother treated as she was and not even being allowed to see her before she died, she was feted by her father until he realised a son wasn't to be had, yet his daughter was extremely well educated and although serious seemed quite happy when a child, she may well have made a good queen even if she had to have a consort of equal standing - like her grandparents perhaps, her queen of England and him king of where ever, might have worked.
Fair enough but she was still arguably the greatest monarch this country has ever had.
I would say she is certainly up there. She had brains to burn and it was quite an achievement to have even survived Mary.
I also think that she was very clever in positioning herself to fill a bit of the void for new Protestant England left with the reduced awe for the Virgin Mary,
It is another of the what ifs - what if she had married (and did what happen to her mother give her a real psychological problem that way) how things would have panned out,
I would say she is certainly up there. She had brains to burn and it was quite an achievement to have even survived Mary.
I also think that she was very clever in positioning herself to fill a bit of the void for new Protestant England left with the reduced awe for the Virgin Mary,
It is another of the what ifs - what if she had married (and did what happen to her mother give her a real psychological problem that way) how things would have panned out,
She was highly intelligent, well educated, genetically well disposed and was a supreme pragmatist. A perfect coalescence IMO.
If I had a time machine, well.
I'd be all over the Norman period. I'd watch the Battle of Hastings (the preperations too), Northumbrian uprisings, Stephen and Matilda (would of loved to have seen her escape!), Eadric the Wild. I'm keen on archery too so I'd love to have a go at their bows, but I doubt I could handle the draw weight, lol.
I'd like to then go forward too, meet Isaac Newton and see the comet again, as I'd of first seen the comet all those years back with my first trip. I'd try and get a first edition of Principia, after that we'd go for a lovely lamb lunch.
If I had a time machine, well.
I'd be all over the Norman period. I'd watch the Battle of Hastings (the preperations too), Northumbrian uprisings, Stephen and Matilda (would of loved to have seen her escape!), Eadric the Wild. I'm keen on archery too so I'd love to have a go at their bows, but I doubt I could handle the draw weight, lol.
I'd like to then go forward too, meet Isaac Newton and see the comet again, as I'd of first seen the comet all those years back with my first trip. I'd try and get a first edition of Principia, after that we'd go for a lovely lamb lunch.
LOL I think we should organise the DS tour though time. Ending up with a lamb lunch - like the one I just finished.
Thanks for the responses guys. My historical study has generally been more modern stuff but there's so much in terms of literature and documentary on the Tudors that it should be easy to get into.
Also, can anyone recommend a good starting point for looking into the French Revolution? A friend told me that Simon Schama's book is good but it's also gigantic (and has had some criticism as well.)
It's big, but very readable, as it assembles anecdotes of a huge variety of personalities of the Revolution. I enjoyed it.
Great thread OP! I'm totally obsessed with the Tudors. I love Philippa Gregory's novels even if they're not strictly fact, and any TV documentaries about Henry VIII or Elizabeth I.
I agree, I really like her books too, she paints a vivid picture. I wonder though what you think of the Hilary Mantel books about Thomas Cromwell starting with Wolf Hall, I personally found it unreadable and didn't bother with the follow up.
Also, can anyone recommend a good starting point for looking into the French Revolution? A friend told me that Simon Schama's book is good but it's also gigantic (and has had some criticism as well.)
History as written by decent historians always has - at the top of their game they're rubbing up against equally learned and literate historians ;-)
Think of it this way - the more criticism, the more attention his peers are paying to him
Comments
Divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced , beheaded , survived.
Seven??? I think you've added one. It would be amazing to discover one lost to history
Henry made this country independent, a few heads rolled but that's the way things were done in those days, all over the world.
If you read Elizabeth, the struggle for the throne by David Starkey I think you'll change your mind about her instead of dismissing her as a "bitch" for one act. She was an immensely intelligent and astute person outwitting all before her and putting this country first at every turn. We owe a great deal to her.
Of course in his mind he didn't divorce them, He annulled the marriages. I wonder what the actual legal position is now. When he died according to law he had only had two Jane S and K P. Then Mary had her mother's marriage declared legal. Elizabeth didn't draw attention to her mother so I doubt if she did the same. So unless anyone has overturned Mary's overturning Henry had three wives.
Thanks for the responses guys. My historical study has generally been more modern stuff but there's so much in terms of literature and documentary on the Tudors that it should be easy to get into.
Also, can anyone recommend a good starting point for looking into the French Revolution? A friend told me that Simon Schama's book is good but it's also gigantic (and has had some criticism as well.)
Excuse me but I didn't
dismiss her as a bitch for one act. I said she was a bitch to those sailers and nothing bar information about that particular act will change my mind about that. I think she had many fine qualities and surprisingly unbloodthirsty given her time but I do not excuse her treatment of the soldiers.
One of the reasons the Normans wanted it was because it was so organised, had a host of laws and had a god tax system etc. also the reason the take over was fairly easy or the invaders after Hastings. If the Anlo Saxons hadn't fallen for the Norman ruse and chased the 'fleeing' Normans and had kept the shield wall firm it would probably been an entirely different outcome. How would things have progressed then I wonder.
Och they just made it up as they went along really. Who was going to argue with them? Mary was a particularly unpleasant specimen.
Indeed. As I said earlier I wonder what she would have been like had she not been subjected to the abuse she had when young. I don't just mean being separated from her mother, which must have been beyond dreadful. I have a few biographies of her and it's quite heartbreaking. She did have her own sense of values and honour and without the abuse may have been a fine queen and human being. I don't excuse her though.
I wonder too what Edward VI would have turned out. There was a danger that he would have been the Protestant version of her only colder.
Fair enough but she was still arguably the greatest monarch this country has ever had.
I always wonder as someone else mentioned would Mary have been as she was without the treatment that was meted out to her by her own father and having to see her mother treated as she was and not even being allowed to see her before she died, she was feted by her father until he realised a son wasn't to be had, yet his daughter was extremely well educated and although serious seemed quite happy when a child, she may well have made a good queen even if she had to have a consort of equal standing - like her grandparents perhaps, her queen of England and him king of where ever, might have worked.
I also think that she was very clever in positioning herself to fill a bit of the void for new Protestant England left with the reduced awe for the Virgin Mary,
It is another of the what ifs - what if she had married (and did what happen to her mother give her a real psychological problem that way) how things would have panned out,
The same for me. The second world war in general.
Usually something triggers an interest with me. Having watched Game of Thrones and the White Queen last year, I'm getting into the Wars of the Roses.
She was highly intelligent, well educated, genetically well disposed and was a supreme pragmatist. A perfect coalescence IMO.
I'd be all over the Norman period. I'd watch the Battle of Hastings (the preperations too), Northumbrian uprisings, Stephen and Matilda (would of loved to have seen her escape!), Eadric the Wild. I'm keen on archery too so I'd love to have a go at their bows, but I doubt I could handle the draw weight, lol.
I'd like to then go forward too, meet Isaac Newton and see the comet again, as I'd of first seen the comet all those years back with my first trip. I'd try and get a first edition of Principia, after that we'd go for a lovely lamb lunch.
Wonder how she'd fare today and how well disposed Cameron would be to have his ears boxed - something she seemed to have a habit of doing to men
It's big, but very readable, as it assembles anecdotes of a huge variety of personalities of the Revolution. I enjoyed it.
I agree, I really like her books too, she paints a vivid picture. I wonder though what you think of the Hilary Mantel books about Thomas Cromwell starting with Wolf Hall, I personally found it unreadable and didn't bother with the follow up.
Yup....quite unbeatable for those couple of pages alone ;-)
History as written by decent historians always has - at the top of their game they're rubbing up against equally learned and literate historians ;-)
Think of it this way - the more criticism, the more attention his peers are paying to him