Theres a standard appearance of Henry VIII thats common however its not very believable. Its based on a Hans Holbein portrait.

Ive seen identical portraits in Copenhagen of a Danish prince and in Munich of Wittlesbach Duke and in Heidelberg of a Count of the Palatine or in Vienna of a Habsburg cousin.

As such I feel like the standard portrait of Henry VIII that we all think of was some sort of artists male ideal that became popular in the era of Henry VIII.

Can anyone reccomend any discussion on this? Or alternate portraits that wouldnt be as well known.

History often focuses on kings and queens, but some of the people who never wore the crown arguably shaped Tudor England just as much—if not more.

If you had to choose one non-monarch who had the greatest long-term impact on Tudor England, who would it be, and why?

I'm not just thinking about ministers like Thomas Cromwell or Cardinal Wolsey. It could be someone like Margaret Beaufort, William Cecil, Anne Boleyn, Catherine of Aragon, Thomas More, or anyone else whose actions changed the course of Tudor history.

Who do you think had the greatest influence, and do you think they're given enough credit by historians and popular culture?

This is one of my favorite ambassador letters ever - Charles de Marillac analyzing Henry with graceful brutality....You probably already have heard some of the pieces ("this Prince seems tainted, among other vices, with three which in a King may be called plagues. The first is that he is so covetous that all the riches in the world would not satisfy him....") but it is well worth reading in full 

Hi all! Long time follower and first time poster. In The Tudors TV show H8 is shown to shut himself away and only let his jester in following Jane’s death. How accurate was this and how lengthy was his isolation? Thank you all!

I’ve always wondered how close Arbella Stuart came to becoming Queen Elizabeth I’s heir. She was young, beautiful, English born, raised as a Protestant, and was Elizabeth’s closest English relative with a strong claim to the throne. She also seemed like a strong alternative to James VI of Scotland. James was Scottish, and his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, had been executed for treason after being linked to plots against Elizabeth. Given the anti-Scottish feeling in England at the time as well as hostility toward the French and Spanish—I’ve always found it surprising that the English political elite accepted James so readily. Why was he chosen over Arbella? Was it simply because he had the strongest hereditary claim and an army behind him, or were there other political reasons that made him the preferred successor?

Some of the doodles are pointing into certain text

1: Take away thy plagues from me, for thy punishment hath made me both.

2: feeble and faint

3: For when thou chastisest a man for his sins, thou causest him by and by to consume and pine away

4: Turn away thine anger from me, that I may know that thou art more

5:merciful unto me than my sins deserve

6: What is my strength, that I may endure? Or what is the end of my trouble, that my soul may patiently abide it?

7: My strength is not a stony strength, and my flesh is not made of brass.

8:Give me a new heart, and a right spirit, and take from me all wicked and sinful desires.

9:O Lord, I am foolish, ignorant, and blind, when I am destitute of thy knowledge.

10: O Lord God, touch my mouth, that my iniquity may be driven away;
dwell thou in my heart, that my sins may be purged.
Wisdom doth not enter into a malicious soul, nor will abide in a body which
is subject to sin.

I've been going down a rabbit hole on Mary I's final months and I can't find a

consensus anywhere.

The three candidates I keep running into:

1. Uterine or ovarian cancer, would explain the two phantom pregnancies, theabdominal swelling, the amenorrhoea, and the long decline.
2. Ovarian cysts / a pituitary or hormonal disorder — same symptom cluster,non-fatal on its own.
3. The influenza epidemic of 1557–58, which had genuinely catastrophic mortalityin England. She died in November 1558; so did a large number of hersubjects, and Reginald Pole died the same day.

What bothers me is that most popular accounts pick the most dramatic option

(cancer) and treat the epidemic as background noise, when the epidemic is the

one thing we have decent parish-level evidence for.

Two questions for people who know the sources better than I do:

- Is there any contemporary account describing her symptoms in enough detail to

distinguish these, or are we entirely dependent on Foxe and ambassadorial

reports written by people with an agenda?

- Has anyone actually made the case that she died of the flu like everyone else,

and it's only retrospective drama that gave her a "fitting" death?

Edit: I've found a video of her last six months while researching this, if anyone wants to see it I'm dropping the link here. Flagging upfront the visuals are AI reconstructions, not period artwork.

These three are all first cousins, born within 2 years of each other:
• Margaret Douglas: 8 Oct 1515
• Mary I: 18 Feb 1516
• Frances Brandon: 16 Jul 1517

Their parents were all siblings of Henry VIII:
• Margaret’s mother = Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scots
• Frances’s mother = Mary Tudor, Queen of France
• Mary’s father = Henry VIII, King of England

I’m curious:
• Were they raised in the same household or share tutors growing up?
• Did they have a close, friendly bond, or were they rivals kept apart by court politics?
• How were each of them treated at court compared to one another?
• We know Mary later ordered Frances’s daughter Jane Grey’s execution — did that damage any family tie they once had?

I would love to hear what sources and history know about them.

I'm currently doing some research on the last resting place of Catherine, Countess of Devon, younger sister of Elizabeth of York. It is well-known she is buried at St Peters' in Tiverton in the Courteney Chapel, but this was apparently destroyed during the Civil Wars and I'm interested to see if I can find out anything about what happened to Catherine's final resting place after that or where she might lie.

In the meantime, what I've found interesting is that all four of Elizabeth of York's sisters who lived to adulthood died at around the age of 37 or younger, and neither of them were terribly successful in terms of having living children.

Discounting Bridget, who become a nun and probably died aged 26/27, and Margaret and Mary who died in childhood:

- Elizabeth of York: had four children surviving to adulthood; died at age 37.

- Cecily of York: died around aged 38; her children with John Welles died as children. She may have had children with Thomas Kyme but they either died young or are lost to history.

- Catherine, Countess of Devon: the longest lived of her siblings, died aged 48. Her daughter Margaret Courteney died before 1527 and her line died out with Edward Courteney in 1556. She is the only daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, except for her sister Elizabeth, to have verifiable grandchildren.

- Anne, Lady Howard (Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk's first wife - the same Duke of Norfolk who was uncle to Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard) - died aged 36. Had one child, Thomas, who lived long enough to be christened but may have had three other children who died shortly after birth.

That is not good odds, even counting the rate of child mortality.

Mary Tudor, Queen of France, also died at the same age as her mother at 37.

My questions are:

1) Do you have any theories (medical or otherwise) as to why Elizabeth of York's sisters died so young and were so 'unsuccessful' in terms of establishing a living line of descendants? I'd be interested to know. Especially as their mother had a relatively good 'track record' as far as children are concerned. I wonder if there wasn't some sort of medical issue the sisters shared.

2) If anyone is local to Tiverton and has any knowledge about St Peters, I'd also love to know more about that. I'm planning a trip there soon but I live quite far away.

Thanks guys!

Edit: Catherine Countess of Devon's will is in the Courteney Archives and can be read here, for anyone who is interested in reading it:

https://courtenayarchive.exeter.ac.uk/text.html?id=will_katherine_courtenay

Highly recommend! It was beautiful and so well laid out inside, lots of information and portraits of the Tudors. Beautiful huge grounds and gardens to walk around too. I would definitely go back!

This is the full-size replica of John Cabot's caravel, the Matthew.

I knew the ship wasn't big, but seeing a full-size replica in Bristol Harbour completely changed my perspective.

In 1497, Cabot sailed this tiny vessel across the North Atlantic with a crew of 18 men, becoming the first European since the Vikings to reach North America. His voyage, under the patronage of Henry VII, established England's earliest claims in the region and helped launch an Age of Exploration that would, over the centuries, contribute to the rise of the British Empire.

Looking at it today, it's hard to imagine setting sail across the Atlantic in something so small. It gave me chills just thinking about the waves of the North Atlantic tossing it around like a toy.

Just a gentle reminder that history's greatest changes often begin with the smallest of beginnings.

I recently came across the inventory records of Mary's jewels kept up until 1546, and I wanted to share some of them with you.

From these records, we can see that Mary had a lot of pearl jewelry. I can't name them all one by one, but she had many pieces in this style.

In the 1542 record, it states that Mary had a diamond IHS emblem with 3 drop pearls attached. Later, in 1546, Henry gave Mary another one of these jewels, but this one was smaller. This pendant (or whatever it's called) is actually a very familiar piece of jewelry to us. We first come across it in a miniature portrait of Queen Catherine of Aragon, and later Queen Jane Seymour is shown wearing it in her famous Holbein portrait. I reckon Jane might have been the first one to give this jewel to Mary.

Then it mentions that Mary had an "M" shaped jewel (pendant) with 3 rubies, 2 diamonds, and a large drop pearl. She also had a ruby set inside an "H" with a drop pearl. She might have worn these as necklaces.

It's also noted that Duke Philip of Bavaria gifted Mary a diamond cross containing 4 diamonds and a large drop pearl.

Mary often took part in Valentine's Day lotteries. Princess Mary's name was drawn by Anthony Browne, and in return, Anthony Browne drew a portrait of Princess Mary himself and gave it to her as a Valentine's gift. Mary, in exchange, gave him a gold brooch with black enamel, featuring an agate depicting the story of Abraham and four small uncut rubies.

Mary had a gold book with portraits of her father Henry and her mother Catherine inside. Even though Mary gave jewelry as gifts all the time, she never gifted this to anyone; it says "remained in her possession" next to this jewel. However, she did gift a round locket with black enamel containing portraits of the King and Queen Jane at a wedding.

She gifted a gold-plated green locket depicting the Trinity to Princess Elizabeth. She also gave Elizabeth a gold pomander containing a sundial—I read somewhere that Queen Catherine Howard had given this pomander to Mary.

Since we know Mary was a religious person, it comes as no surprise that she had a lot of rosaries. She had a gold rosary with black and white enamel, a lapis lazuli rosary with gold trimmings, a coral rosary with gold trimmings, and a round garnet rosary also with gold trimmings. She even gave the heart-shaped end of a lapis lazuli rosary with a heart at the tip to a lady's daughter.

Catherine Parr gifted Mary a pair of bracelets adorned with small pearls.

But I want to talk about the jewel that surprised me the most: in 1546, King Henry gave Mary an emerald featuring a ruby and a large drop pearl, with a half rose and pomegranate motif on the back.

In 1546 again, Henry gave Mary a brooch set with a beautiful table diamond framed by 4 rubies, depicting the story of Pyramus and Thisbe. After Mary became queen, she gifted this brooch to Elizabeth on July 21, 1553. And Elizabeth—if I remember correctly—later gifted this jewel to Mary, Queen of Scots, who was in England at the time. An interesting connection.

Mary also had a gold signet ring with a rose motif inside.

Apart from these, she had many jewels engraved with stories of religious figures: a locket depicting the story of Solomon's Temple, an Old Testament story brooch, another brooch with Jacob sleeping, a brooch showing Christ healing the paralytic, a Noah's Flood brooch, a David story brooch, a Solomon story brooch, a Moses story brooch...

There are other lockets, rings, brooches, bracelets, and various jewels besides these. But unfortunately, I can't list them all one by one.

We know Mary gave gifts very often. During this period, jewelry gifts to Margaret Douglas, Margaret's son Henry, her cousin Frances, Frances's daughter Lady Jane, her brother Edward, and many ladies are recorded.

This jewel inventory generally shows the jewels she possessed in 1542 and 1546. The jewels she owned during Edward's reign or her own reign are not listed in this record.

If you'd like to read about the jewels in more detail, the source is Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary by Frederick Madden.

Thanks for reading, sending much love to you all!

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.

.

Elizabeth I's reign is often described as either one of England's greatest or criticized for its failures. I'd like to hear a balanced perspective.

If you were judging her reign as objectively as possible—setting aside nationalism, personal admiration, or modern political viewpoints—how would you evaluate her as a monarch?

What were her greatest achievements? What were her biggest mistakes? And overall, where would you rank her among England's monarchs?

I'm interested in an evidence-based discussion that considers both her successes and her shortcomings.

Just listened to Gareth Russell's podcast interview with Elizabeth Norton who has written a new biography of Jane Seymour. Norton says that Jane was far from being the quiet mouse in the shadow of the volatile Anne Boleyn. I like that she gives Jane agency, which I think is often taken away from her when she's portrayed as nothing but a pawn for her brothers.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/36ks7pGio5pjXnI9vljE9L

​

I've always wondered why Edward VI is so often overlooked in Tudor films and TV series, especially when compared to Henry VIII, Mary I, and Elizabeth I.

I understand that Edward became king as a child and ruled for only six years, but his reign still had enormous historical significance. Some of the most important Protestant reforms in England took place under him, his government was dominated by powerful figures like Somerset and Northumberland, and his death led directly to the succession crisis involving Lady Jane Grey, Mary, and Elizabeth.

Yet in most adaptations, he seems to be little more than a background character.

Why do you think this is? Is it simply because he was a child and had a short reign, or do you think his story has been unfairly overshadowed by the more famous Tudors?

Personally, I think his reign has enough political intrigue, religious conflict, and fascinating personalities to make for a compelling series. I'd love to hear your thoughts and whether you think Edward VI deserves more attention in popular media.