“Le roman de la rose”, end of 15th century, France
Bodleian Library MS. Douce 195, c.1490-1500
1503, AU where nobody dies and everybody lives forever : drawing of Henry VII & Elizabeth of York with their seven children
i wanted an happy AU so… voilà! and i’ve always loved to imagine Henry VII being surrounded by a pack of gingers :) for the children who died in infancy, i drew them at the age they passed away. for the other ones, at the age they had in 1503. so on this picture : Margaret (14), Katherine (8 days old), Elizabeth (3), Arthur (16), Henry (12), Edmund (1) and Mary (7).
Anonymous asked:
I’m currently listening to Anne Boleyn: 500 Years of Lies by Hayley Nolan on Audible, and I’m trying hard to like it because it has really good information discrediting some of the beliefs surrounding Anne; but I have to admit that it’s grating me to hear the author stating that the Tudors were “usurpers” and that they were preventing a “more rightful heir” from gaining the throne. I almost screamed in frustration when she blamed H8’s sociopathy on Margaret Beaufort and especially Henry VII, using that one source claiming that H7 once tried to kill H8 in a fit of rage as firm evidence of a miserable childhood (ignoring all evidence stating otherwise); because of course having an overprotective parent (which is all H7 was) is going to cause you to grow up with no conscience. Also is it true that H8 was given absolutely no training in monarchy and came to the throne completely uneducated in that regard, I find that incredibly hard to believe regarding H7.
Hello! First of all, there's so much to unpack here. I think we have to go step by step. A big disclaimer is that I have not read Nolan’s book, so I’m only considering what you told me here. Secondly, I will not be addressing any claims against Margaret Beaufort because, frankly, what did that woman ever do be accused of that — the same Margaret Beaufort who 'of marvayllous gentyleness she was unto all folks' , and who 'unkind she would be unto no creature'? Are we talking about the same Margaret? We know one of her old servants, Henry Parker, was talking about his 'godly mistress the Lady Margaret’ to her great-granddaughter Mary well into the mid-1500s, and we know the time Margaret reprimanded a dean in Christ's College for beating one of his pupils (crying ‘gently, gently!’). I don’t see how she could be considered the origin of anyone’s sociopathy, but I also dislike the term — antisocial personality disorder is a medical condition and I doubt we could ever diagnose Henry VIII with that or anyone else who died five hundred years ago for that matter. The rest of my answer is under the cut!
I’m not the OP, but I’ve got the book (available here on my dropbox), and yeah, it’s bad.
These are passages regarding Margaret Beaufort and Henry VII in Hayley Nolan’s book:
One of the king’s biographers, John Matusiak, tells of how during these formative childhood years, from birth until the age of seven, those who surrounded Henry were passive figures, attending and providing at a distance rather than interacting and comforting as loving parental figures. Only weeks after his birth, Henry was taken away from his mother and father at Greenwich to live at Eltham Palace in Kent. Here he was raised by his grandmother Lady Margaret Beaufort, who by all accounts was an incredibly intense woman. A devout Catholic, she took a vow of chastity at the age of sixty-one. She would wake at 5 a.m. every day to begin her prayers, and would wear a hair shirt. John Fisher described her as being continuously gripped with anxiety, in tears over past miseries and bemoaning what doom was to come.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I swear I remember reading that Elizabeth had a role in her children’s, including Henry VIII, upbringing; with some historians believing that due to their similar handwriting, Elizabeth may have taught Henry VIII to write.
The idea that Margaret Beaufort awakened at 5am for prayer is not something shocking, as that was the time for the dawn prayer liturgy of Lauds. Also, I highly doubt that Margaret was constantly in misery, if the descriptions of her are anything to go off.
Throughout Henry’s early childhood, his father’s health deteriorated and the old king became increasingly bad-tempered, nasty and violent towards everyone he dealt with, including young Henry, who it’s reported he attacked after his son apparently drove him into an almost trance-like pathological rage. The Spanish ambassador Fuensalida even told of how Henry’s father once attacked him so violently it was ‘as if to kill him’.
So, not disturbing in the slightest that these should be the people who were raising the future king of England and Anne Boleyn’s future husband. Not that Henry had always been the future king. In fact, for the first ten years of his life he grew up in the shadow of his older brother and original heir to the throne, Prince Arthur. But when Arthur died unexpectedly in 1502, their father became paranoid that ten-year-old Henry, who was now sole heir to the Tudor throne, would also die, exposing the kingdom to attack. So, he effectively locked his son away from all risk of physical harm and deadly diseases that had a nasty habit of snatching youngsters away all too soon. But as Matusiak rightly points out, animals raised in captivity aren’t the most functional.
By the time Henry was thirteen, his father refused to let him take his place, like his brother before him, as prince of Wales at Ludlow Castle, instead keeping him locked within the safety of his own Palace of Westminster. Again Fuensalida, who came to the Tudor court in 1508, described a disturbing scene: at seventeen, Henry was ‘locked away as a woman’ in a bedchamber just off from his father’s that was only accessible via a private door. Even though the young prince was said to have held his own miniature court, he never spoke in public, except to answer a question asked by his father, and he was surrounded at all times by trusted attendants whose permission Henry needed to move anywhere within the palace walls.
While J. J. Scarisbrick, one of Henry VIII’s most prominent biographers, backs up the reports that young Henry was raised in near isolation, David Loades raises the obvious question as to how isolated he could really have been in the ‘crowded environment’ of the Tudor court. Indeed, Fuensalida was also to report Henry spending many a day jousting in the tiltyard at Richmond. Granted, he was watched closely by his father, and Loades concedes that these were ‘strictly private’ activities in which Henry would probably joust or play tennis with only his instructor for company. It was said to be out of the question for the young prince ever to demonstrate his sporting skills to the rest of the court, and he went on to show his great upset at being excluded from the court’s many summer activities.
Henry’s father refused to let him take part in official royal celebrations or festivities during the years leading up to his reign. You would have thought it might have been a good idea to prepare the future king, as he had done Arthur, but no. Henry never sat in on government proceedings, nor attended council meetings. Matusiak confirms he was ‘entirely untutored in the art of kingsmanship’.
Honestly, as you’ve pointed out, Henry did indeed educate his son, and Fuensalida is not a reliable source. Also, the idea that Henry didn’t want to send his son away is not surprising- Arthur died from illness at Ludlow Castle, it was safer to have him educated in London. It’s also unsurprising that Henry would not want his son to waste time doing activities that could result in injury, and instead focus on his extremely important studies.
i'll ask another one if i'm allowed 👉👈 richmond / henry vii + 3A? x
Of course! 🌹
Anonymous asked:
I’m currently listening to Anne Boleyn: 500 Years of Lies by Hayley Nolan on Audible, and I’m trying hard to like it because it has really good information discrediting some of the beliefs surrounding Anne; but I have to admit that it’s grating me to hear the author stating that the Tudors were “usurpers” and that they were preventing a “more rightful heir” from gaining the throne. I almost screamed in frustration when she blamed H8’s sociopathy on Margaret Beaufort and especially Henry VII, using that one source claiming that H7 once tried to kill H8 in a fit of rage as firm evidence of a miserable childhood (ignoring all evidence stating otherwise); because of course having an overprotective parent (which is all H7 was) is going to cause you to grow up with no conscience. Also is it true that H8 was given absolutely no training in monarchy and came to the throne completely uneducated in that regard, I find that incredibly hard to believe regarding H7.
Hello! First of all, there's so much to unpack here. I think we have to go step by step. A big disclaimer is that I have not read Nolan’s book, so I’m only considering what you told me here. Secondly, I will not be addressing any claims against Margaret Beaufort because, frankly, what did that woman ever do be accused of that — the same Margaret Beaufort who 'of marvayllous gentyleness she was unto all folks' , and who 'unkind she would be unto no creature'? Are we talking about the same Margaret? We know one of her old servants, Henry Parker, was talking about his 'godly mistress the Lady Margaret’ to her great-granddaughter Mary well into the mid-1500s, and we know the time Margaret reprimanded a dean in Christ's College for beating one of his pupils (crying ‘gently, gently!’). I don’t see how she could be considered the origin of anyone’s sociopathy, but I also dislike the term — antisocial personality disorder is a medical condition and I doubt we could ever diagnose Henry VIII with that or anyone else who died five hundred years ago for that matter. The rest of my answer is under the cut!
I shall attend upon Your Majesty, whenever Your Majesty chooses to invite me
i hate this scene so much because yes, katherine and mary started off bumpy but they became friends??? katherine gave her a fucking GOLD pomander??? mary gave gifts back??? ffs if anything mary’s initial anger could’ve been at henry for marrying a child, and even worse, mary herself wasn’t married. so i hate this show for not portraying them having a good relationship 💕
There’s also one thing I want to add on is that the scene where Howard removes two of her ladies. This is not entirely accurate since in a conversation with Chapuys Mary says she’s confident she will keep her ladies, meaning that she probably never lost them to begin with
isabellalinton
Actually, Mary does seem to have lost one of her ladies-in-waiting, two months (6th Feb) after she’d assured Chapuys that she had found some way to reconcile with Katherine. Although, Chapuys identifies the order as stemming from Henry, not Katherine: “The Princess recommends herself most humbly to Your Majesty’s good graces. She is, thank God, in good health just now, though exceedingly distressed and sad at the death of one of her damsels, who has actually died of grief at her having been removed from her service by the King’s order.”
given the short distance in time between the initial threat made by Katherine and the execution thereof, and the similarity in the action taken with the specific threat made by Katherine (“the attempt lately made to take away from her two of her maid servants proceeded entirely from this new queen”, 5th Dec), and the lack of any other incident ‘demanding’ punishment from the king (that I can think of off the top of my head), I feel like it’s reasonable to surmise that the loss of one of Mary’s ladies came from Katherine. Wilkinson, in her biography of KH, summarises it as thus: “the injured party was Katherine, but Henry was also angry on Katherine’s behalf and he threatened to take away Mary’s maids. He had used this form of punishment against his daughter before In October 1533, when Mary refused to acknowledge Anne Boleyn or her daughter, Henry reduced her household and her yearly allowance. In February 1541 he would remove another of her maids”.
either way, following this, their relationship seems to have been fine. They exchanged gifts, as mentioned above, (“the Princess has not yet visited the new queen, though she has on this New Year’s day sent her a present, at which the King, her father, has been much pleased, as well as at one he himself has received from her. And as I have been told by the messenger who took both the presents, not only was the King extremely delighted, but he has sent her back by the same bearer two most magnificent new year’s gifts, as I am given to understand, both from himself and from his queen.”) They collaboratively requested to visit Edward (“the King and Queen went a week ago to visit the Prince at the request of the Princess, but chiefly at the intercession of the Queen herself.”) When Henry granted Mary full permission to reside at Court, Katherine “countenanced it with good grace”, and was “agreeable”. Wilkinson describes it thus: “under Katherine’s tender influence, Henry began to think that, perhaps, his family might find the happiness that had been sorely lacking in recent years”. Alternatively, Russell describes it thus: “the visit into Essex to see the little heir was judged a success. […] Mary had been pressing for her father to visit Edward more often […] however, Chapuys was quite clear in his letter to the emperor that the deciding factor was Catherine’s enthusiasm for the trip […] Catherine’s rapprochement with Mary may have had pragmatic motivations as well. It is speculative, but two months later the Duke of Norfolk revealed in conversation with the French ambassador that there were 'secret’ plans to restore Mary to the line of succession.[…] It may be that Catherine knew of her stepdaughter’s rising prominence - even if Mary never became queen, acknowledging her as second-in-line was a clear sign of her restoration to her father’s favour - and decided that it would be sensible to remain on good terms with her.”
Anonymous asked:
Do you feel that Henry VII has been unfairly maligned as a bad husband and person?
I strictly disagree with the statement that Henry VIIwas a bad husband and a bad king. These things are myths cultivated bythose who consider themselves historians of non-orthodoxideas (many of them Ricardians), or by those who didn’t make a properresearch about Henry and his family life with Elizabeth. Unfortunately, many mainstream historians, too, tend to underestimate Henry VII and his achievements during the years of his kingship.
In the past years, the flames of the myth of Henry VII beinga bad husband to Elizabeth were fanned by Henry’s portrayals in popular culture,especially in Philippa Gregory’s novels about the Wars of the Roses. Gregoryseems to dislike Henry VII a lot, and at times I think that she simply didn’tdo a proper historical research about this king.
I will never – never ever – agree with Philippa Gregory’sinterpretation of Elizabeth of York’s relationship with Henry VII.
I have nodoubt that he didn’t rape her before the wedding, and then she somehow grew to lovehim. I firmly believe that he didn’t force himself on her before they exchangedmarriage vows. Maybe the attraction between Henry and Elizabeth was so strongthat they had premarital sex, but I don’t think that it happened. We shouldn’tbelieve everything we see in popular culture and read in novels.
When Elizabeth and Henry married, they were young and beautiful,and they were founders of the new royal dynasty.
Elizabeth “was one of thebeauties of her age”: she was a classic English rose, with her long blonde hair, her fair skin, and her blue eyes, and she was a young woman of a kind and charmingdemeanor. According to contemporary sources, Henry was tall and veryslender, dark haired, and handsome in the prime of his life. They had everythingto become a happy couple, and they were reportedly not content – they were veryhappy in their marriage.
Some people say that Elizabeth of York was largelyneglected by Henry despite the fact that she had more royal bloods in herveins. I believe that it is not true. I read that Elizabeth often participatedin the meetings with foreign ambassadors, whichproves that she could have had some political power and could have probably influenced,if not swayed, Henry’s political decisions if she wanted that – but she justhad other preferences in life.
Henry was a loving and caring husband to Elizabeth. He may be considered kind of a perfect royal husband because he didn’t keep mistressesand didn’t sire bastards on them. Throughout his life, Henry was very devotedto Elizabeth, even though at the beginning their marriage was not a love matchbut an arranged political union. Henry VII was the opposite of HenryVIII in private life, and I believe that if he watched how his second survivingson treated his wives, he felt disgust and shame for Henry VIII’s deeds.
Henry was very affected by Elizabeth’s death, and maybe he loved her even after her death. He neveremotionally recovered from her death and honored her every year until his owndeath. Every February 11th a requiem Mass was sung, and the bells were tolledin her honor. The Tower of London, where Elizabeth had died giving birth, wasabandoned as a royal residence.
When Elizabeth died, the king went into seclusion andwas there alone for a long time; he ordered many Masses for her soul (more than600 Masses only in London!) on the day after her death. Elizabeth’s funeral wasone of the most lavish ever seen.
Henry also became seriously ill and wasnursed back to life by Margaret Beaufort, but he became a changed man upon hisrecovery – more suspicious and more ill-disposed, and the royal court became agloomy place.
Would the man who didn’t care about his wife behave in this way?Of course, not! Henry did consider remarrying in the last years of his life,but he didn’t do that. He was buried next to his beloved wife in WestminsterAbbey.
Some time ago, I wrote a long post about Henry VII’sachievements and his reign. If you are truly interested, you can read it. Thenyou will have no illusions left about Henry being a bad king. The link is here.
I believe that Henry VII is an unfairlymaligned king who is underrated and underappreciated by historians, readers,and general audience.
He bought his wife a lion.
#RelationshipGoals
I wonder if the way people look at Henry VII is because they want to say that what Henry VIII did is his fault. Oh, his father was a cold and cruel man, of course he doesn't know how to love! That kind of thing. It's BS.
Considering that historians have a very long track record of making excuses for Henry (”Oh, he needed an heir for England!” and “He was just an innocent dupe of Cromwell and totally believed Anne really was guilty!” and “Anna von Kleefes was a total cow!”) you’re probably right.
In reality, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York were affectionate and even indulgent parents. They found Henry’s temper tantrums and rude behavior adorable. (In retrospect, they were huge red flags about his character, but they couldn’t have known that.)
Henry VII gently encouraged Arthur towards some athleticism. The boy showed a talent for archery, so Henry bought him an expensive bow. But there’s no indication he ever forced his studious and quiet-natured son into more strenuous exercise to try to “toughen him up,” or made him feel bad for his somewhat introverted demeanor. They seem to have accepted their boys for who they were.
Henry also encouraged his younger son and namesake to study, though the boy vastly preferred the outdoors and sports. A career in the church was Prince Henry’s destiny, but there’s no indication that his father tried to force him to eschew the activities he enjoyed. Prince Henry did sort of go wild with the partying and playing when he was out from under his father’s thumb, but it doesn’t seem his upbringing was particularly strict, especially for the time period.
Both of Henry and Elizabeth’s daughters turned out to be strong-willed women who demanded respect for their own worth, and took control of their destinies when they felt they’d been wronged. Though today, we applaud women like that, in those days, willful women were a sign that parenting hadn’t been strict enough. Well-raised women were supposed to be humble and obedient. Neither Mary or Margaret could be described that way by any stretch of the imagination.
If anything, their contemporaries might have judged Henry and Elizabeth over-indulgent and somewhat careless in their parenting because they were so affectionate and gently encouraging instead of stern. Child-rearing manuals of the day heavily discouraged showing children any affection because it would spoil them, and stressed harsh correction for even minor infractions. Children were seen as dangerously sinful by nature and needed very strict, cold, and tough discipline in order to keep them on the path of righteousness.
Henry was not the product of an emotionally abusive home, or deprived of parental love. He had every possible advantage in life, but still turned out to be a monster.
theamazingcat
I’m 100% fed up with people putting what Henry VIII turned out to be on his parents, even if you don’t care or like them, it’s uncalled for. I’ve also heard people saying “Well if Elizabeth of York had lived Henry VIII never would have became a tyrant or she would have stopped Anne’s execution”
First of all I highly doubt Elizabeth of York would have approved of Anne Boleyn or the Reformation. Second just because Henry VIII deeply mourned his mother doesn’t excuse the fact that he turned out to be a horrible ruler or the fact that he killed two innocent women and publiclly shamed two other for no reason.
You are totally right - Elizabeth of York would NOT have approved of Anne Boleyn or what Henry did to Katharine of Aragon. But I don’t think her disapproval would have stopped Henry any more than his sister’s disapproval did. And it might have led to Elizabeth being treated poorly. I wince imagining her being shuttled off to live in some dilapidated palace.
I don’t think she could have stopped Anne’s execution. To paraphrase Campeggio, I don’t think an angel descending from Heaven itself could have done that.
ultrasanaposts
Going back to Henry VII and parenting, what about after Arthur and Elizabeth of York had died? In The Tudors series it was hinted that Henry VII became very paranoid about his son’s health and had him practically shut out in order to keep him healthy? Both Henry VII and his mother Margaret Beaufort at this point controlled Henry’s life, which in hindsight is not abnormal, he was still a kid. Then when his father died, Henry VII gets painted as a villain because he was trying to give Henry a stable and wealthy kingdom by taking money and lands from noblemen who were suspected or trialed of treason. When Henry VIII became king he gave the money back, and Henry VII is seen as a greedy man.
Um take this very objectively I’m not a Tudor researcher, but I watched a series, and like you said people do put some blame on Henry VII because they thought he was more concerned about keeping a wealthy kingdom and the royal line stable. His paranoia over the young Henry VIII after both his son and his wife’s death would be understandable and Margaret Beaufort seems to be characterized as a very controlling woman.
But then Henry VIII was also a very spoiled man.
After Arthur’s death, Henry was careful with his last-surviving son. He wouldn’t allow Prince Henry to joust, which was a very reasonable restriction, considering how often men were killed or maimed in that sport. Prince Henry was probably resentful about that, because he certainly threw caution to the wind after his father’s death and began jousting again. (This - in my opinion - shows the inherent selfishness of Henry VIII quite poignantly. His kingdom had no heir, but he was not about to let the prospect of another horrific civil war ripping apart his kingdom spoil his fun.)
Henry did execute his father’s tax ministers when he came to the throne, but he wasn’t exactly showering money back on his people. He did initially reverse some of his father’s most unpopular policies, but quickly realized “Hey, I need those monies.” Wolsey’s tax policy was pretty aggressive, because Henry had an autocratic dislike of going to Parliament to ask them to give him revenue. He did it in 1513 when he needed money for one of his foolish vanity wars, but it was another ten years after that before he did it again. In 1523, he went hat-in-hand to ask for money to pay for the silly war he’d already engaged in a year prior and now needed to pay for.
Margaret Beaufort was a powerhouse of a woman, but I think fiction has done her a grave disservice in portraying her as “dominating.” But then again, our society has a way of always painting strong women as “pushy” or “bossy.”
Her son took her advice on many occasions, but he was not bullied by her or under her command. He respected her - as she deserved - but she didn’t push him around, nor did she bully her daughter-in-law as is sometimes depicted in fiction.
viiisexual - pride flag for henry viii, who queered heterosexuality by not receiving head but happily taking it
Love how H8 stans get mad when you tell them H7 didn’t actually abuse his son because if Henry’s life wasn’t packed with misery and suffering then they can’t have that Freudian Excuse for the double uxoricide he committed♥️
Look I’m not saying there’s anything inherently wrong with the Anne X Henry True Luv 4 Ever Fandom but if the only way you know how to sympathize with someone is to pretend everyone around them was as comically evil as possible then maybe just watch the Harry Potter movies again instead of pretending “Henry VII/KoA/Jane Seymour/Mary I/whoever happens to be getting more attention than Henry and Anne this week was a Demon What Cometh From The Pits Of Hell!!” is a valid academic viewpoint
The funny thing is, Henry VII did allow his son to joust ('running the ring’). He just didn’t let him compete in tournaments, presumably because he didn’t want his only surviving son to get skewered.
cruelmillennial-deactivated2022
Anonymous asked:
What was Henry VIII’s relationship with his dad and mum like?
“According to their own lights, they were conscientous and loving parents. If a criticism can be made, it is that they tried too hard, especially with Arthur. They were also bound by the conventions of their times. But these were less harsh than the more schematic historians of the family have assumed.” – David Starkey
Well, both relationships were relatively brief in comparison to the total span of his life, for starters– Elizabeth of York died due to childbed fever when Henry was eleven years old, and he was dually orphaned and crowned at age seventeen; this in the year 1509 upon the death of Henry VII.
In 1507, Henry termed the death of his “dearest mother” as the “[most] hateful intelligence.” We can assume they were close– with the evidence of similar handwriting, it is likely that she taught him to write. He didn’t live in a household that was separate and far from her like Arthur did. They both stayed in the same room in the Tower during the Cornish rebellion, so there was again the opportunity for a bond, and probably something he did not likely forget.
The impression of her death on Henry cannot be overstated. She became pregnant within a couple months of Arthur’s death, even though she was in her late thirties. Even though England still had an heir, this was not enough– her last pregnancy was two years earlier, the resulting child had been Edmund Tudor, who died within the same year. Elizabeth Woodville’s last pregnancy had been at the age of 43; nonetheless a pregnancy in the late thirties was considered a high risk at the time. It was a risk taken, because the reward it could bring was so direly needed.
It was in 1497 that the Venetian ambadassor Trevisan visited Henry VII and Elizabeth of York separately– his first audience had been with Henry and Arthur, and his second with Elizabeth and Henry. In the Italian it was made clear that ‘her son the prince’ was Henry, duke of York. The indication is that Arthur was identified with his father, and Henry with his mother.
It is my understanding that this was observed as a result of both the closeness of these relationships, and the resemblance each child bore to the respective parent.
After Arthur’s death, Henry VII became more watchful and protective of his remaining son– he was the sole heir, after all, so this is understandable. Again, it is my impression that this only increased after the death of Elizabeth. Their bedrooms were connected by a door. Henry chafed at the restrictions placed upon him, wanted to be allowed to joust and was not, etc. I doubt they always got along…I can see the potential humor in the visual of arguments that took place by the time his son exceeded him in height (which was when H8 was around 14-15, iirc).
Controversially, perhaps, I think they both loved each other. I am sure the younger felt, ocassionally, that he hated him– perhaps he even declared it– but he wanted his admiration and approval underneath it all, I believe. I can’t believe H8 truly hated him (although I’m sure he was resentful of him at times); or he wouldn’t have paid for such an expensive commision of him after his death.
Henry VIII wanted to right what he viewed as his father’s wrongs (we see this in the pardons, we see this, perhaps, in his choice to marry COA– what was discussed re: his future marriage on H7′s deathbed is a point of contention, as there are conflicting accounts) within his own reign, and yet he wanted to expand his legacy (the King’s Spears, for instance), as well.
The executions of Empson and Dudley are viewed as Henry trying to dissociate himself with his father. It is possible…but I also allow for the possibility/interpretation that this was Henry trying to dissociate their actions from his father’s reign.
Consider it this way: had they gone unpunished, had they not even been arrested…that was as good as saying that everything they did, every single person that had suffered financially because of their policies and actions…had had the full approval of their monarch. By their legal punishment, the blame for this was laid at the feet of his father’s advisers rather than his father himself.
Anonymous asked:
Hi, I've seen people saying that Henry VII was abusive to Henry VIII, that Reginald Pole claimed they wanted to kill each other and that when Henry VII died, Henry VIII didn't mention him but instead drew attention to his York side. Do you know if there is any truth to this?
Reginald Pole was 8 years old when Henry VII died. tbh, i have doubt for every account from this period, and even more when they come from a child. i don’t think Henry VII was violent, but there was tension between Henry VII & his son (one of the unfamous examples is when H7 forbade his son to joust and the Prince was like WTF DAD! I WANT TO JOUST! I AM THE BEST!! I HAAAATE YOU! Henry VII: *rolls eyes*). Yes, tension because Prince Henry wanted freedom, he was used to it -and when his brother died, GAME OVER HENRY. But Henry loved his son i think… and you are right, when he became King, he clearly drew attention to his York side, and many people compared him to Edward IV. they seem to have shared a close physical ressemblance as well :)
I think it was Henry Pole, Lord Montague (Reginald Pole’s brother) who made these allegations. I have absolutely no idea where the original sources are, but Robert Hutchinson mentions this incident in ‘Young Henry: The Rise of Henry VIII’:
In 1538, the prince’s cousin Henry Pole, Lord Montague, was to claim rashly in a private conversation with his brother Sir Geoffrey that the king [Henry VII] ‘had no affection nor fancy unto’ his heir.
Still, this was many decades after Henry VII’s death, and the actual truth of just how strained Henry VII and his son’s relationship was may have been embellished or exaggerated since. Although, according to Hutchinson again, one of the Spanish ambassadors, de Fuensalida, did specifically allege that Henry VII “sought to kill” his son after a quarrel. Hutchinson suggests that this may have been second-hand information taken from court gossip (due to de Fuensalida’s relatively new status on the English diplomatic circuit), which I could somewhat believe. I mean, if someone walked into my house while rebellious teenage me was having a fight with my super-strict Asian parents, they’d probably conclude that my parents were trying to “kill” me too lmao. That being said, I haven’t read the original source yet so I can’t exactly agree or disagree with Hutchinson’s analysis right now.
These statements certainly stand in sharp contrast to Ferdinand Duque’s (another Spanish ambassador) statement in 1504 that it was “quite wonderful’, how much the king likes the prince of Wales”, and that there was “no better school in the world than the society of such a father as Henry VII”. Possibly, this was because Henry VIII was only a child when this was written, as opposed to the other statements, which were written when he was a moody teenager (so to speak). There was a point where he seemed to start rebelling against his father’s overprotectiveness, and his father was likely becoming increasingly frustrated by Henry’s “attitude”. But Lord Montague’s allegation that this somehow meant that Henry VII had absolutely no love or care for his own son just seems extremely unlikely.
Pay attention to his drawing of eyes!
Anonymous asked:
do you have an "about" page with relevant information about yourself (eg pronouns, a name you go by, etc)? only i like your blog but always feel strange about following blogs with no face so to speak
I’ve answered this before so we’re going to do this bullet points style
-If there are categories of people you don’t want to follow please assume I belong to all of them
-If you need my demographic info before you can decide if you agree with my opinion or not please disagree with my opinions
-Please assume I am up to no good - this is a good thing to assume with any blog on here - even blogs with faces may be no-faces in disguise
-All of the information you want has been posted here at one time or another if you want to know but I like having that threshold of difficulty in place - if you want to get your creep on I want you to have to work for it
-I am hoping the irony of your having sent this ask anonymously is not lost on you
And, for all bloggers everywhere, a quick reminder: you don’t owe anybody jack shit!
Richard of York from the Talbot Shrewsbury Book made in Rouen (Normandy) in 1444/5 by the Talbot Master
shout out to all my haters that I’m gonna outlive and have a fat ass while doing it
Sadly, this is a misleading title - they live longer THAN THOSE WITH LARGE WAISTS.
This is because abdominal fat is linked to higher mortality rates, which was the main focus of the study. Abdominal adiposity, specifically visceral fat (think of it as inter organ fat), is much more harmful than subcutaneous fat that lives right below your skin. It’s also associated very strongly with heart disease, asthma, Alzheimer’s, type two diabetes and a whole other host of life-shortening conditions, more than other types of fat. All this study suggests is that abdominal fat, that presents in large waists, is significantly more detrimental to your lifespan than fat in your thighs or hips.
And I know this is a joke but misleading article titles, especially about health, really get under my skin. lol quite literally.
Reblogging for addition. Please stop spreading the dangerous lie that fat ‘protects’ your organs or that women ‘need’ a fat stomach because of their uterus or whatever else. The reality is that fat actually chokes your organs, on top of being active tissue which messes with a lot of stuff that shouldn’t be messed with, and your uterus is like, as big as two walnuts when you’re not pregnant, so it’s definitely not causing a visible bulge. And also: while women tend to have a higher fat percentage than men to be ready to pregnancy and breastfeeding, too much extra fat is dangerous, especially on your belly.
aes-of-spades
Disney vs. Original
lexistentialism
The last one is the most important.
^^
fckreality
Yup
Ex for pocahontas was 8 we know that now
Oh good, I get to debunk fairy tale ridiculousness again. It’s been awhile since I’ve been able to use my fairy tale knowledge on here.
Okay, first of all, there is no such thing as an “original” version of a fairy tale; there are only “popular” or “accepted” versions. All versions of fairy tales are as valid as any other version given their history as oral tales; each tale twists and changes as it spreads to other cultures, and several tale types have similar tales that formed independently of each other in various places around the world (Cinderella is the most famous example, with over 1,000 recorded variations and some of the oldest versions being found in Greece, China, and Egypt).
Second of all, several of these are patently false. I’ll just go down the list.
- Snow White and Hunchback are the two that are actually true. In the Grimms version of Snow White (”Little Snow White”), the Queen does ask for her liver and lungs (though this was later revised to the Queen asking for her heart) and she is forced to dance in red hot shoes until she dies. This is the norm for Snow White tales, though the specifics vary quite a lot. Hunchback is similarly grim, which makes since given that it’s based on a book by Victor Hugo (like, come on. This is the same guy that wrote Les Mis. You expected something different?). The Rapunzel one is also more or less true, as is the Hercules one.
- Clarification on the Little Mermaid one: she doesn’t actually wind up in purgatory. Since she was a mermaid and not a human, she didn’t have a soul and so when she killed herself, became a “daughter of the air” and can earn a soul (and thus proceed up to heaven) if she does good deeds for mankind for 300 years. Purgatory is a Catholic construction, and the probability that Hans Christian Andersen was Catholic is very very small considering that Roman Catholicism remained illegal in Denmark for nearly three centuries after the Lutheran Reformation in the mid 1500s.
- Cinderella: This is only true in the Grimms/German version. I’ve actually written a paper on revenge and retribution in Cinderella tales across the world, so I can tell you with a great deal amount of certainty that it greatly depends on which Cinderella tale you’re looking at for the fate of the stepmother/stepsisters. Perrault’s Cinderella/the French version, on which the Disney movie was based, ended with Cinderella forgiving her stepsisters and inviting them to live with her in the palace. The only thing they are denied is the ability to marry the prince.
- Pocahontas: this one is pretty half-and-half; there is absolutely no evidence that John Smith raped and impregnated Pocahontas before, during, or after his time in Jamestown. Historical accounts maintain that Pocahontas was friends with John Smith and often visited Jamestown during the years he was there. When the English reported that Smith had died after being sent back to England to treat him for injuries from a gunpowder incident, she stopped visiting the settlement for a couple of years. It’s also maintained in the historical accounts that when she visited, she often brought food and kept several of the settlers from starving. Historical accounts do not say that they were lovers, that she was of suitable age for a relationship (period), or that there were any sexual implications to their relationship. It is only in fictional accounts of their relationship (particularly in the Disney version, where she was significantly aged up) that that relationship is portrayed as romantic.
- (cont) There are a couple of scholars that say she was raped during her captivity by the English (which happened long after Smith left for England), but the majority of the scholarship agrees that she was not raped. Her only child is by John Rolfe and he was conceived after they were married, so the ‘raped and impregnated’ claim is wrong as well. She was also not kidnapped and taken to England. She and John Rolfe were married before they left for England…for a good two years, in fact. She and Rolfe traveled to England, stayed for a year and a half, and then boarded a ship to return to Virginia, where Pocahontas died of an unknown disease along the way.
- Mulan: false. I’ll let this post do the explaining for me, because it explains it better than I ever could. The actual ballad of Hua Mulan says no such thing; the ending this post describes is from a book called the “Sui Tang Romance” and is basically fanfiction of the actual Hua Mulan legend. The tragic end is “a detail that cannot be found in any previous legends or stories associated Hua Mulan.”
- Beauty and the Beast: patently and blatantly false. I have never been so insulted by a statement about a fairy tale in my life, and I argue about Cinderella on a regular basis. There is no BATB variant tale where the Beast ends up eating the girl after the wedding. The Beaumont/French tale (again, the version on which the Disney version was based), has the Beast dying of heartbreak because Beauty was late returning to the castle, but ends with the Beast and Beauty happily married after she proclaimed her love for him. Here are links to BATB tales around the world, just because I want to correct the awful monstrosity that was “the Beast ends up eating Belle after the wedding.” Also, here’s a link to my favorite BATB variant, the Norwegian “East of the Sun and West of the Moon,” and a link to “Cupid and Psyche,” the tale on which many BATB tales are based. The Aarne-Thompson tale type for Beauty and the Beast is 425 for anyone interested (425A tales are Cupid and Psyche tales and 425C tales are BATB tales).
Basically, this post is a hodge-podge of mostly true to embarrassingly and infuriatingly false information. Do your own research, and don’t believe everything the internet tries to tell you about fairy tales.
goodqueenalys
“why is it always the woman who has to see past the beast in the man? why does she always have to clean his wounds, even after he has damaged her beyond repair? why is it always the man who is worthy of forgiveness for being a monster? I want to see the beast in the beauty. the half smile, half snarl. the unapologetic anger. I would like to see the man forgive the monster. to see her, blood and all, and love her anyway.”
— beauty and the beast | Caitlyn S. (via alonesomes)
I’m sorry this is very pretty but I can NOT take this seriously like if you’re going to use fairy tale motifs in your writing can you have the decency to not reference extremely specific scenes from the Disney film so I can at least pretend that you guys care enough about your Hot Feminist Takes to actually look at a picture book or something CHRIST ALIVE
I can’t take this seriously not only because it specifically references the Disney movie when trying to talk about the tale in general but also fundamentally misses the goddamn point of the tale. The Beast is kind. The Beast is gentle. The Beast is a gentleman who treats Beauty with the utmost respect. That’s the point; seeing “past the beast” was about looking past ugly physical appearances to see the genuinely kind, thoughtful gentleman underneath.
Beauty (in the absolute most technical sense and only in some narratives) is the monster of the tale, because BATB stories are fundamentally about the female protagonist growing into mental maturity and recognizing that looks aren’t everything. Search for the Lost Husband/BATB tales are all about the female protagonist’s psychological and spiritual growth as a person, because she is the one who matures over the course of the story while the male character is already fully realized. The fact that this person wrote what they did tells me that they understand nothing about what BATB tales are actually about.
OK but the question stays the same. Why can’t men mature and learn to look past the appearance in fairy tales?
(Also, the gentleness very much depends on the version of the tales.)
1) They do. They’re just not Type 425 (Search for the Lost Husband/Beauty and the Beast) tales. Fairy tales are formulaic; all stories of Type 425 involve a girl who marries a supernatural/cursed husband (who may or may not appear human at night), breaks a taboo (usually involving seeing him as a human, but overstaying at home or refusing to return and fulfill a promise made to the man are also common taboos) and then must complete some sort of task to reunite with him. That’s the nature of the tale.
There are plenty of tale types that deal with cursed maidens finding husbands to break their curses or men who marry female animals that turn into women (Type 402: “The Animal Bride” tales, tales like “The Crane Wife” and “The Frog Tsarevna,” and any tale that focuses on selkies, as one example). Every Swan Maiden/Swan Lake-type story is basically this plot, too. “The Swan Princess” is the classic example of this trope; it’s all about the maturation arc of the male character and learning to look past physical appearances to see the actual woman.
And there are just as many tales about women who understand that the men in their lives are terrible people regardless of what they look like and have to outwit and escape them (Type 955: The Robber Bridegroom tales, Type 706: The Armless Maiden/The Girl With No Hands stories, and Type 311: Fitcher’s Bird tales). Fairy tales are extremely versatile that way; there’s a ton of really clever, witty girls and women who save themselves, their sisters, their brothers, their husbands, and their families and friends through nothing but their own ingenuity and determination. It just happens that those stories aren’t told as often (in part because some of them are some of the more gruesome tales in the fairy tale world).
2) No, the gentleness and kindness of the man is very much a core aspect of all of the Type 425 tales. Beauty and the Beast, East of the Sun and West of the Moon, The Black Bull of Norroway, The Bear Prince, The Enchanted Tsarévich, The Snake Prince, Cupid and Psyche…the defining aspects of the tale type are a kind gentleman, usually a prince or noble of some sort, cursed to become some sort of animal or monster and a girl (who he treats kindly and often lavishly) who must look past his monstrous physical appearance and complete some sort of task to change him back.
Sometimes this is not looking at him when he’s a human, a temptation she fails and has to overcome by completing some seemingly impossible task or being sent on a years-long journey to find him again. Sometimes this is returning after a certain time period after he lets her go visit her parents, or returning to fulfill a promise she has given to help him, a promise she fails to keep for a variety of reasons. Whatever the reason is, it doesn’t matter; the kindness with which the “Beast” character treats the female protagonist is basically universal in Type 425 tales.
theamazingcat
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York (from the documentary Henry VIII (1491-1547): The mind of a tyrant - part 1)
These are the faces they make after reading the White Princess
lizzie278
Hahahaha! I’m laughing so hard at that comment.
I just wanna see PG go up to their thrones In like 1500 and read it out loud to them.
Henry throws her in the Tower after the rape scene. “That’s not how it happened, it was all Bess idea to consummated the marriage before…”
“Dear Arthur might hear you, don’t let him find out this way.”