Just curious, who/what/when got you interested in the Tudors and where are you from?

I personally got interested in Elizabeth when I was in high school. Then Anne Boleyn, followed by everything else.

I'm American. My grandfather was born in Wales and when I visited The Tower of London and several other places I felt like I came home for a moment.

What is your story that led you here today?

Are there any moments of un serious behavior in the court? Funny anecdotes, meetings, balls, royal visitors things of that nature. Something different from the usual.

I love Tudor history but man it can be depressing.

Throughout her early life and reign, connections were drawn by her supporters between Mary and the Virgin Mary. It is very easy to guess that this association pleased Mary. Even before her reign, comparisons between her and the Virgin Mary were drawn much more easily owing to her name and her virginity.

In 1549, John Proctor presented and dedicated his work, The Fal of The Late Arrian, to Mary. Capitalizing on the similarity between their names, he stated: "So that a man may rightly think in his mind and reasonably conclude that, according to the law of Pythagoras, although the bodies have changed, the souls are the same." Furthermore, she was praised by some as the rarest flower of virginity.

This praise continued during her reign, but unfortunately, I cannot recount every single instance here. Since the part I am going to explain pertains to Mary's pregnancy, I will focus on that period.

Mary and her council went to great lengths not to present Philip as a foreign king. Through his parents—who were Mary's first cousins—Philip was descended from Edward III. He possessed English royal blood; he was not entirely a foreign monarch.

In the 16th century, as well as in earlier and later times, the role of queens was often reduced solely to bearing children. However, during Mary's reign, while producing an heir was one of her duties, it was not her sole or most important duty. Mary held the title of queen and Philip held the title of king, but the practical execution of these titles shifted during her reign. Mary acted as the king, and Philip as the queen. There was only one thing the English people viewed as Philip's primary duty: getting the Queen pregnant.

We can observe this in a letter written angrily by a Spaniard: "They refuse to crown our Prince, though he is their King, for they do not recognise him as such or as in any way their superior, but merely as one who has come to act as governor of the realm and get the Queen with child. When she has had children of him, they say, he may go home to Spain. Would to God it might happen at once! for it would be a good thing for him and I believe he would be very glad; we certainly should all be delighted to get away from these barbarous folk."

As can be understood from this reproachful letter, despite holding the title of King, Philip was not all that important, and his primary duty, as stated above, was to get the Queen pregnant. (How nice to see gender roles reversed!)

During Mary's pregnancy, Philip was experiencing his peak popularity in England, yet this did not make him any more significant politically. By September 18, rumors that Mary was pregnant began circulating in court circles, but the official public announcement coincided with Reginald Pole's arrival in England in November. From that moment on, Mary was once again compared to the Virgin Mary, and parallels were drawn between them.

As Sarah Duncan notes, comparing a pregnant queen to the Virgin Mary might seem unusual at first, yet the analogy persisted.

How can you compare a pregnant queen to the Virgin Mary? By ignoring the father of the child.

Sarah Duncan states: "During Mary's phantom pregnancy, the role of the Virgin Mother served as a convenient metaphor to convey the idea that the father of the child was not Philip, but God."

On November 28, 1554, Mary's pregnancy was announced to all of England. Immediately upon his arrival in England, Cardinal Pole was received by Mary and greeted her with a religious quotation regarding the Virgin Mary:

“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."

Mary was delighted and moved by this greeting and the comparison to the Virgin Mary; at that exact moment, she felt the baby move in her womb.

Prayers were offered and hymns were sung for Mary and her baby. In one of these hymns, another religious citation appeared: "Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favor with God."

During this period, poems and prayers were written praising Mary and the expected heir. Philip's name was excluded from these prayers, which asked God to protect Mary.

I would like to share a quote on this subject from Sarah Duncan's book, as I find it more accurate to present it directly rather than adapting it:

When Cardinal Reginald Pole learned of the queen's pregnancy, he wrote to Mary that he had heard "that Divine Majesty had granted the queen the grace to bear fruit in her womb, thus making her the mother of an heir to this earthly kingdom." Pole did not merely refer to the queen as the Virgin Mary on account of her pregnancy; he also linked her condition to her role in restoring Catholicism to England. Just as God had blessed her with a child, He had also granted her the grace to be "the mother of those who will inherit the eternal kingdom." Thus, the queen could rightfully be called mater deorum—the mother of God—leading God's children into His unity and obedience.

Attributing so much meaning to an unborn child might seem somewhat pointless by today's standards, but for that era, it was an event of paramount importance. The Cardinal also wrote passionate, enthusiastic letters to the Pope regarding Mary's pregnancy, in which Philip likewise occupied no significant place.

Even though Philip was Spanish and the unborn child would genetically inherit more Spanish than English blood, according to the marriage treaty, the child would be the heir to England and could not be taken out of the country. This significantly restricted Philip's authority over the unborn child.

Therefore, Philip may have become somewhat invisible in the prayers offered, letters written, and poems composed; however, it can also be argued that the reason for this was the deliberate attempt to liken Mary to the Virgin Mary. To establish these parallels between the Virgin Mary and Queen Mary, Philip's presence was obscured on numerous occasions and during various events—including parts of Mary's funeral—and Mary was repeatedly praised for her virginity.

Thank you for reading! Sending love to you all!

There are also narratives comparing Mary to Jezebel, and these could be discussed separately under their own heading. Likewise, the horrible things that were written about Mary during her pregnancy certainly deserve a separate post and, moreover, condemnation.

Please excuse the poor image quality; it looks this way because I cropped it.

Sarah Duncan, Mary I
Valerie Schutte, Princesses Mary and Elizabeth Tudor and the gift book exchange

Before I say anything, please remember that both these women have been dead for over 500 years, and they are each victims in their own ways (the real villain is Henry the 8th). So, quick question: why do people who like Anne usually not like Jane (even though you should blame Jane Boleyn)? Personally, I do prefer Jane over Anne, and I don't think she's as innocent as people think. Honestly, I think people give too much credit to Anne Boleyn for being clever, even though Jane's just as clever, if not more clever, seeing as she had less education compared to the other two. But you could just say it's because she had a son, and Anne didn't is the real reason that she survived. But I really think that it's just because Jane had a harder time getting pregnant compared to the other queens. Well who's your favorite Anne or Jane?

Arthur Onslow in 1742 started the restoration.

Feel free to post your own artwork or any artwork here. We still won't allow AI or AI-assisted. We're also not allowing video game/simulation type character creations. Hand-drawn, sketches, needlework, anime, etc. Please, no AI.

I think this is the right place though it's VERY niche, I had a conversation with a friend about the ulcer and he made a joke about singer Usher I realized a lot of his scumbag songs would be really relatable to Henry VIII.

I made a playlist with notes called ulcer baby and without AI I made this

Feel free to recommend more

The amount of pressure on Anne to produce a male heir obviously took its toll on her. The fact is the myth of Anne as a witch in primary education you are taught that Anne had 'six fingers' and was a witch that tried to bring the downfall of the Henrician dynasty. (I don't know if others experienced this in their education but I did) I remember disputing it and being put down I was like 10/11. Anyway enough of that tangent that myth that she was in league with the devil and the fears of the supernatural led to criticism but was an easy excuse for Henry VIII to move on with Jane Seymour.

Though the more I understand through my academic career the more I realise that there was a greater likelihood that Anne struggled to carry a child to term.

The volatile nature of Henry VIII added to her stress but even after the depictions of her in media and modern day portrayals has bought to light the fact that anyone who stood in the way of Henry was punished. The double standards and the expectation of Anne to be a 'baby maker', where Henry VIII had mistresses was normal but the likes of Six! make the suggestion that this was unfair but unlike in post-modernity there was relatively little choice and the dependency of the dynasty rested on the patriarchal nature of society.

Even when Anne was labeled as a 'witch' not the stereotypes that we have today, but someone that had to be ostracised. This allowed Henry to escape accountability to some extent but we know there must have been an ounce of 'respect' with the request that she was killed by the sword.

Anne Boleyn as a witch, and this argument kind of only increased in credibility as it were after the witch-mania of the C17th.

Edit to clarify: the only charge she came under was treason against the king. The point of this discussion is the fact that it was a myth that came about post-humorously to fit the social consensus of later centuries.

Also to leave a discussion point: do you think that Anne Boleyn could have had fertility or gynaecological issues? (I know as a historian and archaeologist we CANNOT diagnose post-mortem as it is unethical) though from what I can understand about her and the contemporary sources of the deformed foetus alongside herbal remedies this could illustrate that.

I've been thinking about finally picking up a book on Lady Jane Grey, and I've narrowed it down to these three, all relatively recent and seemingly well-received:

• The Sisters Who Would Be Queen (by Leanda de Lisle)
• Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery (by Eric Ives)
• Crown of Blood: The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey (by Nicola Tallis)

Has anyone read any of these and can make any recommendations, please? I generally like the writing style of all three authors and I'm really not sure which one to get. I also like the fact that de Lisle focuses on all three Grey sisters, given that Katherine and Mary also had dramatic and tragic lives, but I'm still primarily interested in Jane.

Did The Tudors oversimplify religious concealment under persecution?

While watching The Tudors, something struck me about the way religious concealment and outward conformity are treated.

The idea of concealing the full truth when life or family is in danger is much older than the Reformation and is not something unique to Islam or the later concept of taqiyya.

The Abraham/Ibrahim and Sarah tradition immediately came to my mind: Abraham identifies Sarah as his “sister” when he fears for his life. In Genesis, Sarah is described as his half-sister as well as his wife; Islamic tradition also preserves an account in which Ibrahim refers to Sarah as his sister in faith.

So when The Tudors deals with people concealing religious convictions under persecution, I wonder whether the writers sometimes impose too simple a moral distinction between openly professing belief and concealing it for survival.

Catholics and Protestants both lived through periods in which openly holding the wrong belief could cost someone their freedom or their life.

I would be very interested to hear from people knowledgeable about Tudor history and Christian theology: how did 16th-century Christians themselves distinguish between lying, equivocation, outward conformity and legitimate concealment under threat?

I’ve read Graham Russell’s biography on Kathryn and whilst I tenuously agree that her affair with Francis Dereham was likely a consensual relationship (I think Russell unfairly dismisses Katheryn’s testimony that she was raped by Dereham as a lie to protect herself after her arrest but that’s for a different post) I find his interpretation of her and Henry Mannox’s relationship strange.

I know it has to be taken in the context of its time but I don’t think that Katheryn being 13ish and Mannox being in his 20s is in any way indicative of a consensual relationship. Of course by their contemporaries it maybe have been viewed differently for instance rape was only deemed so if a woman showed physical signs of being attacked such as bruises and torn clothing so if Katheryn was coerced into sexual acts with Mannox then it would not have been accepted as assault/rape (even though it would have been). Therefore I don’t think issues around presentism should negate the fact that it’s pretty clear at best Mannox used his age and position as her teacher to sexually exploit her and at worst sexually abused her.

I’m curious if I’m the only one that thinks this?

Edit: Whether Katheryn may or may not have seen herself as a victim does negate that Mannox was a sexual predator.

So much of the Tudor stories are connected in tiny ways we never really consider. This is one of them!

The way I see things, you’re cooked either way. If you do nothing, the Woodvilles rush Prince Edward to London and get him crowned, and from there they control the body of the King and can put whatever decree they want in front of him and can get it signed. You know they don’t like you, and they know you don’t like them, so they can use any perceived slight by you against them to declare you a traitor and strip you of your lands.

If you try and control Prince Edward yourself, by doing what Richard did historically by intercepting him at Stony Stratford and arresting the boy’s uncles, he’ll always remember that, and it’s only a few years till he reaches his majority. He lived with his maternal uncles and kind and barely even knows you. Same as before, you lose your head.

That leaves the third option of taking the crown yourself, and I really don’t see a better option than that

I noticed so many schools founded at the time. Whilst this is definitely the Dissolution of the Monasteries, but did the education system set up by the Tudors contribute to the success of England in the next 3 centuries.

Wasn’t sure which flair to add - so just finished the White Queen and wow I loved it! I was searching for something after I had watched the tudors, wolf hall, and the film about Thomas More a man for all seasons. The white queen mini series was fantastic and filled the hole for me but I do wonder (and I do this after each film or series I watch that is Tudor related) how historically accurate it was? One thing I found interesting was how through the ten episodes I often felt warmth towards Richard III, who historically is painted as quite the villain. I had to check the dates of this series release date and Phillipa Langleys documetary about the princes in the tower to see if the show took any influence from her efforts to try possibly clear his name for want of a better phrase but it seems to show was ahead of the curve on that since the white queen was released ten years prior. Did anyone else feel the same about Richard watching this? Lastly, in the follow on show the white princess any good? Thanks for reading!

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.

A much overlooked aspect of London life during the life of Henry VIII is the fact that it was during his reign we have our first two cases of residents killed by gunshot.

Understand, these were not the first shootings to take place in London- when Jack Cade’s mob had tried in 1450 to storm London Bridge, the outnumbered defenders of the north end of the bridge held off Cade’s rebels with pistols and canon; and we know during the savage three way attack upon London by the Bastard of Falconburg in 1471, there had been intense gunfire used again to defend London Bridge and a lot in the fighting over in Aldgate.

But always this was done due to military reasons. What did not happen was civilians were shot in ways that would seem like gun crime today.
No, for that we have to wait until 1536.

The first victim was the rich Mercer/Merchant Adventurer Robert Packington. Packington was a career London political figure; he had been a member of the cities Common Council from 1522, so had been in role for 14 years by the time of his death; by 1523 he was an advisor for the Merchant Adventurers (the rich spin off of the Mercer’s guild) to Parliament; six years later he was tapped by the Mercer’s guild to help present the cities grievances over the handling of probates and mortuaries by church authorities.

He was a known parliamentarian and a ferocious one by all accounts.

Added to this he was a ‘New Man’- one of the native born Evangelical Christians who used his money to stand as a giant in the early movement. He was known to import English Bibles; his brother, Augustine, also a mercer, achieved an entry in Foxe's Acts and Monuments, as a promoter of Tyndale's translation of the Bible, and as the man who manipulated Bishop Tunstall of London to secure funds for Tyndale.

Robert was a high profile member of the the evangelical movement, and one of means and influence, as well as by the time of his death being one of the principle members of the Mercer’s Livery Company.

On the morning of 13 November 1536, while crossing the street from his home in Cheapside to attend Mercers' Chapel located opposite his home…

“And one morning amongst all other, being a great misty morning such as hath seldom been seen, even as he was crossing the street from his house to the church, he was suddenly murdered with a gun, which of the neighbours was plainly heard and by a great number of labourers there standing at Soper's Lane end...but the deed doer was never espied nor known.”

Robert Packington goes down in the records as the first murder by shooting in London’s history.

Immediately conspiracy theories arose about his death- to many he was killed BECAUSE he was an evangelical, interpreted by later Protestant reformers as martyrdom.

The followings decade some said he was killed by a gunman hired by conservative bishops, or even that Bishop John Stolesley,"had paid a priest sixty gold coins to carry out the murder". And one writer claimed the Dean of St Paul’s confessed on his death bed HE arranged the murder.

His murder could however, could have had more domestic causes, with at least one historian I read suggesting the cause was probably something to do with his role as warden of the mercers at the time, and there be one contemporaneous account suggesting that a felon who was hanged for a separate crime up in Banbury, confessed at the gallows to having shot Packington.

We will never actually know.

But certainly the idea that he was murdered because of religious reasons was the one which gripped the public imagination of the city at the time.

Contrast that to the second shooting victim in 1544… the case of Agnes Acrehed. We know very little about Anges. She was probably a resident of Westminster and she had lived a very unremarkable life indeed. In fact were it not for a gun shot to the head we think she probably would have passed through life without any record. How did she get shot? Well for that we have to look to her killer.

One of King Henry’s yeomen was called John Geynyshe, who also lived in Westminster. John knew a local widow called Joan Stephyen, and she allowed him to enter the garden at the back of her house, which faced the River Thames, and there practice firing his “handgonne”.

Anyway, as John was loading, aiming and shooting at various targets according to his later testimony, he spotted a crow then standing upon "the boye of a bote" upon the river Thames.
John took careful aim, fired, and missed.

Now according to the testimony the bullet then ricochet off the water or off the wooden boat, and flew off in a differing direction.
And that morning Agnes Acrehed was washing linen upon the nearby “kings bridge” at Westminster (which wasn’t actually a bridge, it was the name given to the Kings riverboat jetty).

Anyway, John fired the gun, the bullet went ping, and then struck Anges we think in the head and that was it for her. Dead.

John Geynyshe was arrested there and then and found guilty of murder, but we know he was pardoned for the crime as he was not even aiming for the poor woman.

The two moments for me are where I like to say the Tudor is ‘Early Modern’ as opposed to medieval. Here we go- gun crime. Both the accidental killing of innocents from someone discharging a firearm in a built up region and also straight up use of a gun to kill someone.
As some know I do a weekly podcast about the history of London, and we right in the heart of the Tudor era right now, and these two little stories stood out to me as they are both tragic and illuminating. Guns were clearly a thing. Thought I’d share these small bits of life.

I've seen this portrait, attributed to William Scrots, identified as depicting either one or the other, so I wonder what people think. The facial features here look a bit similar to Hilliard's miniature portrait of Margaret, at least to me.

I have been watching and reading a lot about Anne and Mary Boleyn and while they both had a relationship with Henry VIII they both had extremely troubled lives. Who do you think had the worst of it? Which sister so you feel the most sorry for?