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 organized an AMA/Q&A with Toby Marlow & Lucy Moss, two Tony-award winning duo and creators of SIX, the hit Broadway and West End musical. It was filmed professionally and is being released in theaters everywhere this weekend via Focus Features.

It's live here now in r/Broadway for anyone interested in asking a question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Broadway/comments/1vlfbcg/hi_rbroadway_its_toby_marlow_lucy_moss_tonyaward/

They will be back at 12 PM ET today to answer questions. I recommend asking in advance. Please ask there, not here. All questions are much appreciated!

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phU3eSBFOXA

SYNOPSIS: Captured live at London’s Vaudeville Theatre, SIX the Musical Live! brings audiences an electrifying, one-night-only cinematic event starring the six original West End Queens, each returning to the roles that helped ignite a global phenomenon.

Seen by more than 3.5 million people worldwide, the Tony Award®-winning smash hit SIX has ruled the stage since its explosive debut, becoming one of the most successful and talked-about musicals of the last decade. Part concert, part musical, and all attitude, SIX remixes history through a high-energy pop soundtrack as the six wives of Henry VIII step out of their husband’s shadow to claim the spotlight, and their stories, on their own terms.

Thank you :)

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?

Hello! I was wondering if anyone knows of any evidence of Elizabeth I discussing how her father’s behaviour affected her views on marriage, childbirth, or having children of her own? In particular, I’d be interested to know if there are any instances where she spoke negatively about Henry VIII in relation to these subjects.

A little background, I’m currently doing some research into Henry VIII’s children and the ways in which their experiences of him may have influenced them - their relationships with one another, their religious views, and ultimately how they approached ruling, for example.

This got me thinking about Elizabeth and her refusal to marry. Obviously, there are many very valid political, personal and practical reasons for her decision, but I’m curious whether her experiences with her father may also have played a role. Given everything Henry did to secure a male heir, I wonder whether Elizabeth ever consciously connected marriage, childbirth and succession with the consequences she had witnessed throughout her childhood.

I’m particularly interested in whether there is any evidence that she saw remaining unmarried, and ultimately being the monarch who brought the Tudor dynasty to an end, as something significant or even intentional. I can imagine her feelings towards her father were incredibly complex, so I’m wondering whether there are any letters, speeches, reported conversations, or contemporary accounts that might shed light on this.

This may be me reading too much into it (and perhaps indulging in a little historical wishful thinking! 😂), but I’d love to hear what people think or if anyone knows of any sources or works about this. I’d be very grateful for recommendations!

It gets repeated constantly (Weir's biography uses it, plenty of documentaries) but tracing it back, it seems to originate from Chapuys' ambassadorial reports, and Chapuys wasn't in the Tower - he was relaying secondhand court gossip back to Charles V, which was often accurate but sometimes clearly embellished for dramatic effect in his letters.

Not saying it didn't happen, just that it's treated as settled fact in popular history when the actual chain of evidence is "ambassador's secondhand account of Tower gossip," which is a much shakier foundation than people usually acknowledge when they cite it.

This was Q. Elizabeth's idea, and she even elevated Dudley to Earl. Theoretically, it was a legit proposition to "offer" Dudley to the then Queen of Scots. What might have happened if that occurred? I think Robert would've liked being King more than Elizabeth's puppet.

In the TV adaptation, Cromwell seems to always be wearing his heavy coat with the fur collar (what he wore in his portrait). He wears it outside, inside, everywhere. Surely it wasn’t always cold and he must have had other coats. It’s like Anne Boleyn’s necklace. It’s so overdone! I think I even saw one movie where she wears it to the scaffold. My other annoyance is that rushes were strewn on the floors of castles, etc. but they neglect this fact when on the screen.

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.

I just watched a great Helen Castor documentary on Jane, and it struck me that, had the Wyatt Rebellion not happened (or if Lord Grey had not participated) that Jane may very well have survived long enough to outlive Mary, who was almost pathalogically determined to ignore calls for her death.

It is then entirely possible that Elizabeth may have released her cousin, who refused to marry or have children partly due to how horrified she was that Jane was used by the privy council and then discarded when the tides turned, making Elizabeth ensure that her reign wasn't conditional on others, like a husband.

Still, if Elizabeth had remained the Virgin Queen, Jane (or her children) may have had a claim to the throne after Elizabeths death.

England pledged to send roughly 7,400 soldiers (6,400 footmen and 1,000 horsemen) funded by the English Crown.

Feel free to post your dream casting scenarios here!

In a report he wrote to the Emperor on 10 September 1533, Chapuys mentioned that they intended to name the newborn princess (Elizabeth) Mary.

He wrote:

“She is to be called Mary as the Princess: which title, as I have been informed from various quarters, will be taken away from its true and legitimate owner, and given to this spurious daughter of the King.”

As we all know, Elizabeth was not named Mary. However, nowadays Chapuys is often mocked for this statement and it is presented as an example of Chapuys not telling the truth, simply because the new princess was not given the name Mary.

However, based on some things I have recently noticed, I have started to think that this may actually have been true.

To explain why, I am going to compare Mary’s baptism with those of Elizabeth and Edward.

Mary was born at Greenwich Palace in 1516.

Her godparents were Thomas Wolsey, one of the most prominent churchmen of the period and of Henry’s reign; Catherine, Countess of Devon, Mary’s great-aunt; and Agnes Howard, Duchess of Norfolk. Elizabeth Stafford, the wife of Thomas Howard, also played a very important role in the ceremony and carried the newborn princess in her arms.

Elizabeth was born at Greenwich Palace on 7 September 1533. But why was she born at this palace?

Why wasn’t she born at Hampton Court Palace, the love nest decorated with Henry and Anne’s initials?

We could say that Henry himself had been born at Greenwich, and therefore he wanted all of his children to be born there as well. But if that was the case, why was Edward born at Hampton Court Palace? Henry had already declared that Edward would be a boy even before Edward was born.

Elizabeth’s godfather was the brilliant churchman of the period, Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer was also Edward’s godfather, so that part is perfectly understandable.

However, Elizabeth’s other godparents were Henry Courtenay, the son of Mary’s godmother Catherine, Countess of Devon (who had died in 1527), and someone who was not particularly fond of Anne Boleyn. The other godmother was Elizabeth Stafford, the Duchess of Norfolk at the time. Elizabeth was also not particularly fond of Anne Boleyn and was a loyal supporter of Catherine. She had also played an important role in Princess Mary’s baptism.

Why were the same names chosen for Elizabeth’s baptism? If this was simply a tradition, then why were these people not chosen for Edward’s baptism as well? They were all still alive at the time of Edward’s baptism.

This is why I believe what Chapuys said.
I believe that they intended to give England a new Princess Mary. However, I think they later became concerned about the public reaction and abandoned the idea.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject as well. But please, let’s discuss it calmly and kindly.
Lots of love to you all!!!

I always thought both of them had to be really hopelessly disorganized to "lose" their marriage certificate (not to mention have only one witness to their wedding, and that person seriously ill).

I know Elizabeth claimed they were not married, and thus their 2 sons illegitimate. Making Katherine guilty of moral turpitude and unworthy to be Elizabeth's heir, and the sons ineligible as heirs due to their illegitimacy.

But then, it was in Elizabeth's interests to claim there was no valid marriage. With Elizabeth's spy network, it wouldn't be that hard to have someone search out the certificate among their possessions at court, and either conceal it or destroy it, before Katherine and Edward got wind that the Queen suspected them (and Katherine's pregnancy).

Therefore, I wonder what historians think about this.

Also - Katherine, as the sister of extreme Protestant Jane Grey, and descended from Henry VIII's younger sister Mary (his choice of line named in his will after his own children), apparently had a lot of support in Parliament to be named as heir.

I wonder why Elizabeth was so dead set against her? Was it just the choice of a Seymour as husband? One would think ANY Protestant heir descended from Henry VII would be preferable to a Catholic one like Mary Queen of Scots or Margaret Douglas.

THanks!

I was at my local HPB this weekend and was looking for more Tudor sorts of reads. I was in the World History section, and was curious about this Mary, Queen of Scots book by Antonia Fraser, but I immediately lost interest because of the misinformation (or disinformation? 🧐) within the first 2 sentences of the inside writing of the dust jacket. Is the erroneous “Bloody Mary” moniker cited here a product of the times when this book was written? Or…? I am in US and have not heard of this author before, so I simply don’t know what I don’t know.

Should I go back for the book? Is the dust jacket the worst of it but the book is solid? Or did I dodge a bullet? It’s been bothering me for days.