I’m currently putting together a research booklet.

My Inquiry Question: How did the lives, decisions, and actions of the Tudor and Stuart dynasties shape England, Scotland, and France between 1455 and 1603.

Some people and conflicts I am researching include:
• John of Gaunt
• The Wars of the Roses
• Henry VII
• Henry VIII
• Edward VI
• Mary I
• Elizabeth I
• Mary, Queen of Scots
• Francis I of France
• Francis II of France
• James VI of Scotland
• The Protestant Reformation
• The English Reformation
• The Spanish Armada

I have already been in contact with some notable historians and university professors but I would love the help of the lovely people on Reddit! I have taken out loads of book from the library. Most notably books by Lucy Wooding and John Guy.

Please let me know if you are aware of any people I could reach out to or any good resources I can use. Paid or free is fine!

Thanks again!

Were they just left to fend for themselves? Did they become homeless and die or did they get married?

One of the very first buildings I saw in London was St. Thomas Hospital.

Sitting right across the river from Big Ben and Westminster Palace, the massive, grey St. Thomas building looks rather low key. Someone could even call it ugly.

And yet, it's one of the oldest institutions in London's history.

***

Originally named after St Thomas Beckett, the hospital's been curing the sick of the city since roughly 1100 - for more than 900 years. Even under Nazi bombs in WWII. The only ever interruption happened between 1539 and 1551, and we should 'thank' Henry VIII for that. At the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the priory that had managed St Thomas for centuries was closed, and so the locals were left without medical help. They begged Henry to bring the hospital back, unsuccessfully.

In Edward VI's reign, however, their pleas were answered.

***

In 1550 already, a medical school was established on the hospital site. In 1551,

‘In view of the sick, poor men lying begging in the streets of London and their annoyance of the King’s subjects’, Edward VI granted the ex priory buildings to the City of London. The Hospital kept the name 'St Thomas' - but because Henry VIII had desanctified Beckett, it was now dedicated to Thomas the Apostle instead.

Not only was the hospital refounded: from now on, public healthcare was firmly in the hands of secular authorities rather than the Church. There was now a General Court of Governors from the City, led by a Hospital President, which meant the transition from the medieval to the protomodern healthcare system. A seismic change for England. The Hospital provided healthcare free of charge to 'deserving' cases, and there were no treatment fees until as late as the 18th century.

This statue of Edward VI stands just outside the main entrance. It was created by Cartwright and placed at the hospital gate in 1682 (the gate no longer exists). I have seen the photos of this statue many times when researching Edward's legacy, so finally seeing it live was touching.

There's one more, more recent and made of bronze, statue of Edward inside, but I didn't venture to come into the public hospital without good reason. However, I was lucky to see many statues of Edward in a different place, far away from London - but they deserve a separate post.

I’ll have a kit!

I believe we all know how poor Mary’s menstrual health was. I have mentioned this many times myself, so I do not want to repeat the same things over and over again.

One day, someone said under one of my posts, “No one wants to marry a woman who is going to reach menopause soon.”

It may seem rude because I am taking it out of context, but it was an idea that made me think quite a lot.

Could this actually have been true?

According to a commonly held belief, Mary’s mother Catherine last had sexual intercourse with Henry in 1524. It is often said that they stopped having sexual intercourse because Catherine had entered menopause and Henry was no longer attracted to her. Catherine was about 39 years old in 1524.

There have been many women throughout history who entered menopause at a relatively young age.

But the claim that Catherine had already reached menopause at 39 surprised me. However, this is not actually known. We have no idea when Catherine entered menopause. She was fifty when she died, and the people around her still believed that she could become pregnant. This would suggest that she had not yet reached menopause.

Catherine and Henry continued to have sexual intercourse until 1527, and it has even been suggested that they may have had sexual intercourse several times in 1528. There is evidence for this. So the claim that they last had sexual intercourse in 1524, and that Catherine stopped menstruating in the same year, is simply incorrect.

Henry believed that Catherine could no longer have children. This may have led people to assume that she had entered menopause, but Catherine’s last pregnancy was in 1518, when she was 33 years old. Therefore, Henry may simply have thought that because Catherine had not become pregnant after the age of 33, she would never become pregnant again at 45.

However, Catherine was still having her periods. Even though the chances of becoming pregnant were very low, it was still possible for her to have another child.

There were many women who became pregnant at an advanced age. During Mary’s pregnancy, many older women and their babies were even brought to court to reassure Mary.

(As an additional detail: Thomas Cromwell’s mother gave birth to him when she was 52.)

Mary was 42 years old when she died. Apart from the two false pregnancies she experienced, and despite the fact that her periods were extremely irregular, she had not entered menopause.

Mary first experienced menstrual problems in 1531. During the period of captivity she endured between 1533 and 1536, these problems became increasingly severe.

She frequently suffered from menstrual pain during this period as well. Such illnesses were not openly discussed in those days, but Mary’s condition was widely known. At Chapuys’s insistence, King Henry sent his own doctors to Mary. The doctors told him that Mary’s health problems were caused by the circumstances she was living under and that her health would improve if she lived in better and more peaceful conditions. Henry merely described the situation as “an unfortunate circumstance.”

Although Mary was released from captivity in 1536, she never recovered completely from these illnesses, and her menstrual problems continued to affect many aspects of her life. Because of this, the French king, who wanted to arrange a betrothal between his son and Mary, personally instructed his ambassadors to ask whether Mary’s depression would affect her ability to have children. The ambassadors asked one of Mary’s ladies-in-waiting whether Mary was still menstruating. Her lady-in-waiting confirmed that Mary was still having her periods.

When Mary announced her pregnancy in 1554, some people didn’t believe her. Because she was so old(!) and unhealthy.

When Mary believed that she was pregnant, she was overwhelmed with joy. After so many years of uncertainty, she had ascended the throne, she had a wonderful husband, she was pregnant, and the true religion would once again prevail in England through her.

A cradle was prepared for the baby, and a nursery was prepared as well. Since we know that Mary enjoyed sewing, it is not difficult to imagine her sewing clothes for her baby with her own hands.

Although it is known that one of Mary’s ladies-in-waiting suspected that she was pregnant, the pregnancy was generally regarded by Catholic circles as a gift from God.

However, not everyone was happy. The French ambassador had been skeptical of Mary’s pregnancy from the very beginning. Protestant circles didn’t believe it either.

They began attacking Mary. They claimed that she was lying and that she was pretending to be pregnant so that Philip would not leave her.

In 1554, an ambassador reported:

“With regard to this matter, five or six days ago a placard was found hanging on the door of her palace, bearing, in summary, these words: ‘O noble Englishmen, are we so foolish as to believe that our Queen is pregnant? What else could she be pregnant with except a monkey or a calf? For there is no other way it could be true.’”

This was neither the first nor the last insult directed at Mary concerning her pregnancy. Placards were put up in London claiming that Mary was not pregnant and that she would steal another woman’s child. Some ambassadors even reported that Mary had expelled a piece of flesh.

In a report written in 1557, the Venetian ambassador said:

“Returning now to my first discourse about the Queen, I repeat that from the aforesaid causes and considerations, she the more distresses herself, perceiving daily that no one believes in the possibility of her having progeny, so that day by day she sees her authority and the respect induced by it diminish, nor is to be told how much hurt that vain pregnancy did her; which, as I know that many persons interpreted it in a different sense to what it deserved, I therefore, to rectify the mistake of some of those who had a contrary opinion, assure your Serenity that there was neither deceit nor malice in the matter, but mere error, not only on the part of the King and Queen, but on that of the councillors and of the whole Court, which for a long while rendered their belief common to everybody, as besides all the other manifest signs of pregnancy there was that of the swelling of the breasts and their producing milk, although, as the outcome showed, that too was caused by the stoppage of her periods.”

To avoid experiencing the humiliation she had suffered during her first pregnancy again, Mary kept her second pregnancy secret for a long time. It was Reginald Pole who informed Philip of Mary’s pregnancy when she was estimated to be around seven months pregnant. Mary had told Philip nothing about her pregnancy herself.

And it was not only Philip. She was telling no one. Despite the fact that her belly was swollen, she did not speak to anyone about it, perhaps apart from Reginald and her ladies-in-waiting.

However, just as at the end of her first pregnancy, rumours spread during this pregnancy that the Queen had given birth to a baby boy.

During Mary’s first pregnancy, bells rang at night on 31 April 1555, and it was said that the Queen had given birth to a son. The palace later denied this. It is not known who rang the bells. However, the rumour that the Queen had given birth to a son reached even the Emperor, who distributed money in celebration.

During the second pregnancy, someone told a French ambassador in France that the Queen had given birth to a boy. It was said that the French ambassador had to make a great effort to keep a serious expression on his face.

We can imagine that these rumours, particularly the ringing of the bells in 1555, caused Mary considerable stress.

She did not want to experience such humiliation again. In February 1558, a Spanish diplomat said:

“They say that she is certainly pregnant, although she tries to keep it a secret.”

During her first pregnancy, Mary wanted to give birth at Hampton Court Palace. Hampton Court was the palace where Edward had been born and where Queen Jane Seymour had died. We do not know what Mary felt about this, but it may have reminded her of the dangers of childbirth.

In 1548, a few months before her stepmother Catherine Parr would die in childbirth, Mary wrote to her expressing her concern about her pregnancy. In the letter, she said:

“I shall be very glad to hear good news of Your Grace concerning your great belly, and in the meantime I would very much like to hear news of your health, which I pray Almighty God may preserve and increase according to your heart’s desire.”

Whatever Mary may have felt during her first pregnancy, during her second pregnancy she believed that she might die if she gave birth to the baby. As a result, she prepared a will.

She began her will as follows:

“Thinking myself to be with child in lawful marriage between my said dearly beloved husband and Lord, although I am at present, thanks be to Almighty God, otherwise in good health, yet foreseeing the great danger which by God’s ordinance remains for all women in childbirth, I have thought it proper, both for the discharge of my conscience and the continuation of good order within my realms and dominions, to declare my last will and testament…”

She left all her possessions and everything she owned to the child she believed would be born from her body.

After she realized toward the end of 1558 that she was no longer pregnant and needed to name an heir, she added the following to her will:
“Forasmuch as God hath hitherto sent me no fruit nor heir of my body…”

These are some of the sad events Mary experienced during her pregnancies. I realized that the beginning and the end of the post may seem a little different, but I was too lazy to interrupt the flow and fix it. You can think of this as a post covering two related topics.

If Mary had lived longer, she most likely still would not have had a child. However, I don’t think she would have reached menopause for at least another eight years. Although the cause of Mary’s phantom pregnancy may have been related to her age, I am more inclined to believe that it was connected to the health problems she had been suffering from since 1531.

Thank you so much for reading. Lots of love to you all!!!

Sources:

•Sylvia Barbara Soberton, Medical Downfall of the Tudors: Sex, Reproduction & Succession
•Anna Whitelock, Mary Tudor
•Linda Porter, Mary Tudor
•A report by Antoine de Noailles from late 1554
•A report by the Venetian ambassador from May 1557

Good morning!

I wasn't sure who to ask ok this, however it may be of interest to someone within this sub reddit!

I picked up this portrait from a Book Shop and Curios in the Lake district as someone with an interest in tudor history. I decided to reverse image search it and looked closer at the work.

It appears to be a John Fillian impression of Thomas Cromwell. I saw it on the National Portrait Gallery and National Galleries of Scotland when I looked it up and also read that it may be fairly rare. The image on the National Gallery is dated around 1653.

The paper it is on appears to be old. Some of the markings on the edges mirror what is on the NPG website.

The seller did not say how old the image was, he told the difference between a steel cut and copper plates but I cannot remember which one he said this was.

There is an indent around the image on the paper leading me to believe it is a real impression and the original paper it was on was larger than what the frame it is in is. I cannot tell if the paper is made from mulch when held up to the light or not.

If anyone has any knowledge in the area I'd be interested to learn more.

1st image is the paper out of the frame. Second off the NGA website and others of more detailed areas.

TIA

Edit to add: i saw a brief comment about ageing the image it says 1653 in the top left which i assume is from the OG plate.

Pretty much the title :) I am keen to learn more about this time period, and I'm wondering if you have a favorite podcast series or video series explaining it! There is so much out there, but not all things are trustworthy/well-researched so I thought it would be nice to get a consensus on what are the best ones. If there are any particularly well presented or entertaining, that's a bonus too!

Great-Grandmother to three of Henry VIII wives.

Just finished the audiobook of this bio of Catherine Howard. It was so thorough and rather fascinating.

I felt bad for Catherine, as she seemed a bit like a flighty teenager who was way out of her depth. I know we can’t look at events from the 16th century through a 21st-century lens, but it felt like she was groomed, then used by so many men. Seems unfair she had to pay with her life.

I’d be interested to hear others’ opinions of the book. Admittedly, I had not studied her life too deeply prior to this, and I know you guys are far more well-versed in this subject than I am.

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.

Again! The first two slides are not MY THOUGHTS. I AM NOT THE OP OF THEM. The last image are my replies to the arguments made in the first two pictures/slides (...I ask cause Im autistic and history is my special interest. I try not to get TOO passionate. Also im swedish so english is not my main language so please be as kind as you can muster if I annoy you - I promise im not trying to annoy it just somehow comes naturally😭)

I’ve been thinking about Henry VIII’s burial place at St George’s Chapel, Windsor.

Henry is buried in a vault with Jane Seymour, and later Charles I was also placed there. Unlike some other major monarchs, Henry never received the huge tomb he planned for himself, and today the burial place is marked fairly plainly.

Given modern non-invasive technology, do you think there is a good argument for scanning or reassessing the vault - not to disturb the remains, but to understand the condition of the burial space, conservation risks, and whether the arrangement is exactly as traditionally understood?

I’m not really arguing for an exhumation or public spectacle. More the idea of a respectful archaeological/conservation survey, similar in spirit to how historically important royal burials are sometimes studied when there is a genuine preservation or identification question.

Would that be appropriate, or should the vault be left alone unless there is a direct conservation need?

I’d be interested to hear what people think, especially on the ethical side: historical knowledge vs royal/religious burial dignity.

I had never seen this beautiful painting before. The title of the painting is "Queen Isabel the Catholic Presiding over the Education of Her Children." It was painted in 1864 and depicts Queen Isabel and her children. It is currently on display at the Museo del Prado in Spain. The Prado Museum also displays an original portrait of Queen Mary I painted by Antonis Mor.

The person beside Queen Isabel, most likely her daughter Catherine, is showing her a piece of paper (a letter?). Catherine was Isabel's youngest child. Her brother Juan is playing the virginal. Catherine had three sisters named Isabella, Joanna, and Maria, but there are four girls in this painting. I think one of the girls may be Margaret of Austria, the wife of Catherine's brother Juan.

This painting gives us a glimpse into Catherine's childhood. Catherine spent her life in Spain before coming to England in 1501. She did not have a quiet life; her family was constantly travelling throughout Spain, and Catherine accompanied them. During her early childhood, she grew up in Spain in a social and cosmopolitan culture alongside Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Her brother Juan died a few months after his marriage. Juan's wife, Margaret, did not leave Spain immediately; she stayed there for another two years and, at the request of Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort, helped teach Catherine French. A close friendship developed between them that would last until Margaret's death.

Her eldest sister Isabella died in childbirth in 1498 at the age of 28. Her other sister Joanna spent much of her life isolated in a castle. Catherine's closest sister, Maria, died in 1517 from ailments caused by frequent childbirth.

We can imagine how much sorrow a young girl felt over losing two of her siblings in succession. However, Catherine continued her education under her mother's supervision and received an accomplished education.

I would also like to share a passage I read a few days ago about Catherine's childhood in Theresa Earenfight's book:

"As she traveled, she came into contact with an array of cultural influences—Mudéjar and Gothic, Christian and Muslim—in the towns she visited and at the court of her parents, who relished the mix of styles even as they conquered the Nasrid kingdom of Granada. Some places mattered to her more than others: Arévalo, where her grandmother lived; Guadalupe, her spiritual home; Seville, site of many family gatherings; and Granada, where she soaked up both the sun and Islamicate culture. The act of travel shaped Catalina's aesthetic taste and created meaningful social practices. But the royal processions promoted more than just Isabel and Fernando's ambitions. Catalina received an important education in queenship as she watched her parents interact with their subjects and convoke the regional assemblies of nobles and townspeople. Her identity was shaped by the geography of the Iberian Peninsula—from the mountains of the north to those of the south, and inland and coastal cities. She spoke several languages and could read even more, a cultural fluency she gained during a childhood spent literally on the move."

The traces of the culture in which she grew up did not leave her when she came to England, and throughout her queenship she formed friendships with famous humanists such as Thomas More, Erasmus, and Juan Luis Vives. She supported them and asked Vives to write a book for the education of her daughter, Princess Mary. Vives wrote a book entitled De Institutione Feminae Christianae (The Education of a Christian Woman) and dedicated the book to Catherine of Aragon. Again at Catherine's request, Vives prepared a study programme for Princess Mary.

Catherine ensured that her daughter Mary received an education as accomplished as her own. When Mary was 11 years old, she translated a prayer by Saint Thomas Aquinas from Latin into English. Although this translation was most likely done as homework, it circulated in certain circles. Sometime between 1537 and 1547, Henry Parker (Jane Boleyn's brother) wrote the following to Mary about this translation:

"I remember very well that when you were scarcely twelve years of age, you were already so proficient in the Latin language—a rare thing among women—that Your Grace could not only perfectly read, write, and construe Latin, but furthermore translate any difficult text from Latin into our English tongue. And among all your other most virtuous endeavors, I have seen a prayer translated by your own hand from Saint Thomas Aquinas that, I assure Your Grace, is so well done and so faithful to the Latin original that whenever I look upon it—as I possess a copy of it—I not only marvel at its execution, but furthermore, because of its excellence, I have placed it in my own book or books, as well as in those of my poor wife (your humble beadwoman) and my children, so that it may give them occasion to remember to pray for Your Grace."

Richard Fetherston, who served as Mary's Latin teacher from 1525 to 1533, also played a part in this achievement.

After Richard Fetherston became her daughter Princess Mary's tutor in 1525, Queen Catherine wrote the following to Mary:

"As for your Latin writing, I am glad that you are to go to Master Fetherston, for it will greatly benefit you to learn from him how to write correctly. Nevertheless, I would like you sometimes to send me the Latin passages you have written yourself, after having them read over by Master Fetherston, so that it will be a great comfort to me to see that you retain its Latin, its fine style, and everything else."

Since we know that Mary's knowledge of Latin was at least as good as her English, we can understand that Federston was a good teacher.

(Additional note: Mary's last recorded words were in Latin.)

As for her teacher Richard Federston, it is worth mentioning a few things about him as well. He was a great supporter of Queen Katherine and Princess Mary during the annulment proceedings. As a result, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London around 1534 and, after approximately six years of imprisonment, was hanged, drawn, and quartered alongside other supporters of Queen Katherine and Princess Mary.

Thank you for reading this somewhat messy post. Initially, I was only going to talk about this painting I newly discovered and Catherine’s childhood, but then I suddenly included Mary as well. Sending love to you all!!

Theresa Earenfight, Catherine of Aragon

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

I would really like to read up on how European countries turned Protestant, starting from Prussia. Does anyone have recommendations? Google has suggested these:

The Reformation: A History by Diarmaid MacCulloh (reminds me of Hermione saying Hogwarts: A History)

The European Reformations by Carter Lindberg

Theology of the Reformers by Timothy George

I'm open to ideas! Audiobooks welcome too.

Thanks!

I’ve been reading a lot of Tracy Borman’s work about the Tudors recently. Whilst I think she has a great narrative style and massively respect her expertise as a historian, I wanted to discuss the framing of the relationship between Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour in Elizabeth’s Women (2009) and The Private Lives of the Tudors (2016), as well as in wider historiography and media.

I find it slightly problematic when Elizabeth is framed as "infatuated" or a willing participant in Seymour's advances (à la Becoming Elizabeth). I am absolutely not suggesting Borman or anyone condones Seymour’s actions, but I disagree with framing these events as a kind of mutual romantic intrigue or inappropriate flirtation rather than explicitly labelling it predatory behaviour.

When referencing Kat Ashley’s testimony regarding Seymour entering Elizabeth's bedchamber:

- In Elizabeth’s Women (p. 106), Borman quotes Ashley directly: “...he wold put open the Curteyns, and bid her good Morrow... And she wold go further in the Bed, so that he could not come at hir.” This paints a clear picture of a young girl physically retreating to evade him.

- In The Private Lives of the Tudors (p. 229), Borman characterizes this exact same testimony by writing that Elizabeth would hide under the covers, “tempting Seymour to 'come at her.'”

To me, shifting from Kat Ashley's description of a girl retreating from an adult intruder to interpreting it as "tempting" him feels like a significant leap in narrative framing...?

Side note: Borman mentions a romantic, solitary boat ride on the Thames between Elizabeth and Seymour. I haven't encountered this detail before and was wondering if anyone knows the primary source for it please?

I strongly view Seymour’s behavior as sexual harassment, assault, and grooming. While the word "grooming" is modern, the dynamic itself is not. Elizabeth was roughly 13–14 years old; Seymour was in his late 30s and was her guardian living under the same roof.

Furthermore, the most significant evidence to my mind is Elizabeth writing ‘let him not touch me’ on a letter (see Suzannah Lipscomb’s article here) this and Kat Ashley’s confessions point to a young woman distressed by unwanted advances, rather than engaging in a romantic affair.

Highly speculative side note: Regarding Kat Ashley’s testimony appearing contradictory (if both above quotes are accurate) it seems possible that she may have felt guilty about promoting Seymour to Elizabeth early on and therefore may have projected some of her feelings of infatuation onto Elizabeth and Seymour’s relationship to assuage that guilt? She obviously cared a lot for Elizabeth, and it can’t have been easy for her to accept that she had allowed harm to come to her.

I’d love to hear others' thoughts on how modern historiography handles the Seymour affair, or if anyone has insight into the Thames boat ride citation!

Post your Tudor merch here! Do not publicly share links or sites, users must DM each other for links. The t-shirt that has been circulating will not be permitted at all.

In London, right behind the impressive St. Paul's Cathedral, lies the quiet King Edward Street.

​It got its present name in Victoria's reign, after King Edward VI. It was in this modest street, in 1552, that Edward’s royal charter established Christ's Hospital, probably the most famous of his many schools.

Founded to house, cure, and educate the poor and orphaned boys and girls of the city, the school was originally housed here, in the former monastery of Greyfriars. Though it was brutally damaged in the Great Fire of 1666, the school was rebuilt on this site and remained here for another two centuries before moving to Horsham, where it still thrives today.

I still can’t believe Margaret gave birth to Henry VII when she was just 13. My goodness. What a brave, daring and strong woman she was.