Queen Elizabeth is described by contemporaries as a very handsome woman and of great ability, as beloved, as a woman of the greatest charity and humanity.  There seems, indeed, good reason to suppose that she was an admirable and wholly acceptable spouse in the king’s eyes.  Certainly they shared fully in the social life of the court, both formal and informal, gave each other little presents, and generally gave the impression of a happy married life.  Very few evidences survive of displays of affection by the couple, but it is not to be expected that there would be.  This dearth, however, is more than compensated for by the [anecdote] of what happened when news of the death of Prince Arthur was brought to court.
—  “Henry VII (The English Monarch Series)” by S. B. Chrimes
Little precision can be given to any estimate of Henry’s relations with his queen, for lack of appropriate material.  He appears to have been a devoted and faithful husband and father, and Bacon’s facile phrase that ‘towards his queen he was nothing uxorious’ has no justification, unless it was meant to convey that he did not indulge her desire (if she had any such) to interfere in matters of political decision.  Queen Elizabeth is described by contemporaries as a very handsome woman and of great ability, as beloved, as a woman of the greatest charity and humanity.  There seems, indeed, good reason to suppose that she was an admirable and wholly acceptable spouse in the king’s eyes.  Certainly they shared fully in the social life of the court, both formal and informal, gave each other little presents, and generally gave the impression of a happy married life.  Very few evidences survive of displays of affection by the couple, but it is not to be expected that there would be.  This dearth, however, is more than compensated by the… anecdote of what happened when news of the death of Prince Arthur was brought to court.
—  Henry VII by S. B. Chrimes

anonymous asked:

Hit me up with some orochimaru if ya can 👀👀

Lol I really hope you meant this anon:

send me a character & I’ll answer the following about them!

general opinion: fall in a hole and die | don’t like them | eh | they’re fine I guess | like them! | love them | actual love of my life
hotness level: get away from me | meh | neutral | theoretically hot but not my type | pretty hot | gorgeous! | 10/10 would bang
hogwarts house: gryffindor | slytherin | ravenclaw | hufflepuff
best quality: He saw Konoha for what it was
worst quality: How does me manage to make everything sexual?
ship them with: Jiraiya (because pervs deserve each other)
brotp them with: Kabuto, Tsunade
needs to stay away from: Suigetsu
thoughts: You shouldn’t experiment on children too harshly asshole

I WILL NOT LET POSTMAN PAT GET AWAY WITH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





If it be true that England showed a greatness and a marked flowering of her spirit and genius in the course of the sixteenth century, such a development would have been inconceivable without the intermediation of Henry of Richmond’s regime.  Not for him were the vast egoisms of his son Henry nor the gloriations of his grand-daughter Elizabeth.  But without his unspectacular statecraft their creative achievements would have had no roots.  His steady purposefulness save England from mediocrity.  It was not the union of the Roses that mattered, symbolic enough though that was.  What mattered most in the long run was the spadework without which the springs of national genius would not be freed.  In the ultimate analysis, the quality of Henry VII was not that of a creator, but rather of a stabilizer, for lack of whom the ships of State are apt to founder.  For that quality, he stands out pre-eminent among British monarchs.
—  “Henry VII (The English Monarch Series)” by S. B. Chrimes

anonymous asked:

was there a courtship between Henry VII & EoY prior the wedding? I read on a comment a very short one occured?

If there was it was very brief and very formal.

After Bosworth in Aug. 1485 Elizabeth was brought from Sheriffhutton in the north to be with her mother in London, and then to Margaret Beaufort’s Thames side home, Coldharbour House.  While there, Henry did visit the women.  De Lisle writes “[Henry VII] had met Elizabeth of York several times in the privacy of his mother’s house, and found the nineteen-year-old was every inch the beauty she was reputed to be: tall, fair-haired, blue-eyed, with perfectly balanced features.  It would emerge that she was also sweet-natured, diplomatic and intelligent.  In love, as in what, Henry had proved fortunate.  Elizabeth of York, in turn, was being given an opportunity to get to know her husband-to-be, and she found that Henry could be good company.  In Brittany he had enjoyed gambling, music, dancing, poetry and literature.  He was quick to smile, with an exceptionally expressive face, but his years of vulnerability had made him a man anxious to be in control of every detail of his environment.”  A lot of this excerpt reads like a series of assumptions by De Lisle, her imagining what it would have been like for Henry and Elizabeth.  For all we know they could have been rather non-plussed by one another during these visits.  License even says “We cannot know what Elizabeth thought when she first met [Henry VII], sometime that autumn [1485], either at the home of the dowager queen, or at Coldharbour House, where his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was living.”

License goes on to note “The union was practically decided by the time they eventually met, probably in early September 1485… It was the best possible political arrangement for both of them, designed to heal national divides, but it could hardly have been a love match.”  She goes on to say “The couple probably met on a number of occasions, both at court and at Margaret Beaufort’s home, Coldharbour House… Perhaps Henry was taking the time to get to know his bride…”

I believe there were also some expenses in Henry’s accounts around this time showing he had paid for some garments to be made for his future bride, which can be interpreted as practical, affectionate, or both practical and affectionate.  Practical, in that his future bride should be finely arrayed, or affectionate, in that he delighted in making a gift of it to her.  Who knows?

Any “courting” would have been in the presence of others, and probably would have been very formal.  I don’t think a lot has been written about any courting, as such, but it is known that they met and visited with one another at least a few times before their wedding.  I don’t think courting Elizabeth was Henry’s top priority at the time, as his reign was very young and he was fighting an uphill battle to establish himself as an authority on the throne.  He was also arranging his coronation at this time, dealing with Parliament, disposing of the old regime and instating a new one, etc.  He was quite busy, and he didn’t want his reign to be dependent on Elizabeth’s heritage, and so he was putting in some elbow grease to DIY his kingship.

Henry and Elizabeth were married Jan. 18, 1486 - so they didn’t know one another for very long before they were wed.

Chrimes writes of the interim between Bosworth and the wedding thus: “Besides, there were other considerations, some of the awkward ones, to be dealt with, before the point of actual marriage could be reached.  For one thing, it is a tolerable certainty that at 22 August 1485 [Henry VII] had never set eyes on his intended bride… Even Henry could hardly have plunged into matrimony with a total stranger.  He must have time for making the lady’s acquaintance, and opportunity for a little wooing.  Unfortunately there is no evidence of this process, but it must surely have occurred.  In any event, there were two serious obstacles to the wedding, which had to be got over before it could be celebrated.  At the time of Henry’s arrival in England, Elizabeth was, by the law of the land, stigmatized as a bastard, and it would not have done for Henry to marry a person of that status.  Furthermore, the parties were related in the fourth degree of kinship and perhaps in the fourth degree of affinity, and could not be married without dispensation.  To overcome these obstacles took time, and, on the whole, things moved fast to enable to marriage to take place on 18 January 1486.”  Again, the quote is chock full of speculation – Chrimes even admitting there is no evidence of any courting or “wooing” as he calls it – but it seems like practical speculation within the realm of possibility given what we do know of their temperaments and the circumstances.

Thank you for the question!

If it be true that England showed a greatness and a marked flowering of her spirit and genius in the course of the sixteenth century, such a development would have been inconceivable without the intermediation of Henry of Richmond’s regime. Not for him were the vast egoisms of his son Henry nor the gloriations of his granddaughter Elizabeth. But without his unspectacular statecraft their creative achievements would have had no roots.
—  Henry VII by S.B Chrimes

anonymous asked:

you do know sheriarty will never be canon, right?

Hi there anon. That’s a complicated question to answer, to be honest, because it depends on what exactly you mean by ‘sheriarty becoming canon’.

If you mean as in Sherlock and Jim getting involved in a romantic relationship in canon, I agree, they probably won’t. I don’t think that’s the story Mofftiss is telling.

But, for my part, sheriarty is already canon in all the ways that matter. What is already canon sheriarty includes (but is not limited to):

  • Jim is the only one capable of ‘distracting’ Sherlock, and making him momentarily forget about the dreariness and monotony of life, as is Sherlock Jim’s best distraction (see TGG and TRF)
  • Jim and Sherlock are kindred spirits and they both struggle with the consequences of having a brilliant mind. They are two sides of the same coin and share a connection they don’t have with anyone else, (see TRF, esp. the roof top scene and the “I am you”)
  • Sherlock admires Jim’s brain, and considers it the equal of his own (see TAB)
  • Sherlock admires and appreciates the chrimes Jim orchestrates for his benefit (see TGG and TRF)
  • Jim is the one Sherlock calls on in his mind palace in his moments of deepest need, when he’s dying (see HLV)
  • Jim is the one Sherlock calls on when he realizes he can’t shut off all his emotions, and that he needs to learn how to deal with them and control them, like Jim does (See TAB and “You think you’re so big and strong, Sherlock! Not with me! I am your weakness, I keep you down, evey time you stumble, every time you fail, when you’re weak, I. Am. There!”)
  • They are turned on by each other (see TGG and “I thought you might call, I left you my number” and “Is that a British Army Browning L9A1 in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?”)
  • Sherlock imagines Jim licking a gun (see TAB)
  • Sherlock, who’s stated he’s married to his work, imagines Jim in a wedding dress (see TAB)
  • Sherlock can’t get over Jim’s (apparent) suicide, to the point that he slides back into drugs and his life is… a bit of a mess (see… all of s3, basically)  
  • When Jim’s back (it doesn’t even matter if it’s physically or posthumously), he’s so excited about it he doesn’t need drugs anymore, because he’s got the real thing now (see TAB) 

I mean, the list goes on and on. This is all canon, and it’s all the sheriarty I’ll ever need. To be quite honest, I’m not even sure these two would ever want to, or be able to, get into anything resembling a “normal” relationship. 

And they don’t need that. Canonically, they have much more than a “normal” relationship anyway. What they have is this deeper understanding of each other, this connection, this game that binds them together. Now and forever. Amen.  

He was a man of high qualities and great ability and he devoted himself to his duties as king with a degree of devotion and professionalism unwonted in most of his predecessors.  He displayed a far-reaching comprehension of affairs of State and remained always the essential pivot upon which government turned.  No minister of his at any time overshadowed the throne.  His talent for choosing the right man for ministerial posts was remarkable.  Their loyalty and service to him were matched by his loyalty and trust in them … He was astute, cautious, prudent, patient.  He attempted nothing rash or ill-considered, avoided impetuosity, and generally manifested a well-informed and well-balanced mind.
—  “Henry VII (The English Monarch Series)” by S. B. Chrimes

anonymous asked:

We know that the Warbeck story is fake but how did EoY react to it at the time when rumours were going that her brother could be alive? Thanks

I mean, it’s like 95% certain it wasn’t Richard… but there’s still some who acknowledge the possibility that it could have been.

Per usual, we have no first hand account from Elizabeth as to her personal feelings on the matter.  It also wasn’t commented on by any chroniclers or ambassadors.

Amy License writes “So who was this imposter who claimed to be more entitled to the English throne that its reigning king and queen?  Was there any truth in his contention?  His very existence can only have raised uncomfortable questions for Elizabeth of York, whether or not she believed, or hoped, there was any substance to the claim that now threatened her position and her family.  On balance, the evidence suggests Warbeck was no her younger brother returned from the death, but the circumstances of his death would never allow her any degree of certainty.  Even if she were convinced of Richard’s death back in 1483, her feelings at the exploitation of his identity cannot have been straightforward.”

I think the fact that Elizabeth and Henry decided to enoble Prince Henry as the Duke of York at this time, competing with the Warbeck’s self-styling as the Duke of York, speaks to the fact that Elizabeth couldn’t have believed Warbeck was her brother.  And if she did think it was her brother, she wasn’t about to do him any favors and was out to protect her own.

I think also the fact that James IV became rather disillusioned of him and sent him packing after a time also shows that at least the King of Scots wasn’t convinced Warbeck was the real deal.  He was more eager to make peace with Henry VII than he was to support Warbeck in his aim for the English throne. (Chrimes also subscribes to this view).

Elizabeth was famously loyal to her family, the fact that she chose her husband and children over a boy who may have been her brother shows us either her cool self-preserving logic or her distrust of this pretender.  In either case, she felt no overwhelming need to help him.

Moreover, Henry VII had Sir James Tirrell interrogated around this time, a suspect in the York Princes deaths.  License says “It can never be ascertained whether Henry was in possession of conclusive proof regarding the princes but his actions suggest his belief in their decease; if he had been, undoubtedly he would have shared this with his queen, their sister.”

In short, we can’t know her innermost thoughts.  If she thought it was her brother she gave no outward indication and took no action on his behalf.  She behaved most diplomatic through the whole ordeal, revealing nothing and not interfering in her husband’s plans, from what we know.  I’m sure the thought of her brother still being alive must have both excited her and horrified her.  It must have been nice to have the glimmer of hope that her brother hadn’t been murdered, but it also must have worried her that her, her husband, and her children could all potentially been murdered if the pretender was proven to be the true heir to the throne.

Thank you for the question.

His reign was unspectacular and though full of surprising and striking events, not at any point sensational, glamorous, or dramatic.  But his services to the realm were immeasurable, far greater than he himself could have imagined or predicted.  His regime produced a pacification, and orderliness, a cohesion, a viability in the forms and machinery of government, a sustained effectiveness without which stability and consolidation could not have been obtained, and provided an indispensable standpoint for subsequent growth and flowering.  It vindicated the achievements of the past, and provided potential for the fluorescence of the later Tudor period.  It brought England on towards its ‘manifest destiny’ as Great Britain.
—  “Henry VII (The English Monarch Series)” by S. B. Chrimes
By such displays of wealth, taste, and ingenuity, Henry could and did impress his courtiers, his subjects, and the ambassadors of foreign potentates.  It was all part of Henry’s idea of kingship.  But it was also an expression of his personality.  It is evident that Henry knew how to enjoy himself in a great variety of ways, and was quite capable of participated in many recreations, pastimes, jollifications, and drolleries that one would not at first sight associate with the somewhat grim portrayals we have of him.  The notion that his chief leisure occupation was initialing accounts of his income becomes an absurdity when it is seen how he spent substantial portions of that income.  The care he lavished on his income accounts may well be deemed a fitting prudence for a monarch in his position, but the man himself can be better known by what he spent his money on.
—  “Henry VII (The English Monarch Series)” by S. B. Chrimes

anonymous asked:

Just curious, how do you think England could have been better under Arthur? Wasn't Henry VIII's early reign and early years of marriage to Katherine a success? Not channeling or anything, just wondering!

Arthur had been schooled extensively in kingship and statecraft and began his rigorous education at the age of three. He had a few years’ experience running a household at Ludlow and in heading a council governing Wales. He’d been trained from a young age to be a good and virtuous king. He was raised in a household of loyal noblemen who ran his council.  In 1493 Arthur had the power to “appoint commissions of oyer et terminer in the March shires and in the principality, powers of array, of inquiry into liberties and into flights of criminals.” (S.B. Chrimes, Henry VII).  The Prince had, by that time become the “greatest lord of the whole region and in a strong position to supervise justice.” (S. B. Chrimes).  Arthur had been raised to be the perfect prince and the ideal king that his father wished him to be.

Henry, on the other hand, was raised in a household with his sisters and nurses at Eltham. He was primed for a life in the church and from what little we have of his education, kingship and statecraft didn’t appear to be part of the curriculum. He was the spare that seemed incredibly unlikely to take the throne. After Arthur’s death Henry received a slapdash education in kingship by shadowing his father, who also arrayed an army of accomplished scholars to tutor the new heir apparent. But after Henry VII’s death it became apparent that Henry VIII wasn’t very attentive to his responsibilities as king. I’ve read of him refusing to read missives and delegating all his tasks to other men.

Arthur and Henry appear to have very different personalities and dispositions.  Henry has constantly been compared to his grandfather Edward IV, while Arthur has been liked to his own father Henry VII.

Henry did bring a hightened culture to the court and continued his father’s legacy of making England a part of what was happening on the continent. But so far as actually ruling a kingdom, I think he was neither prepared for it nor naturally predisposed to it.  I do not think Henry VII would have approved of Henry VIII’s rule in the slightest.

anonymous asked:

do you know any good historical fiction/non fiction books about the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor era? I've heard bad things about Philippa Gregory, and mixed reviews about Alison Weir, so i just wanna make sure i get something worth my time and money. thanks!

Non-Fiction: Dan Jones’ The Hollow Crown, it’s a pretty easy read an gives a good general layout of who the key figures and events were. Michael K. Jones’ Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle is a fairly written account of the events leading up to the battle and the battle itself.  The Rise of the Tudors by Chris Skidmore goes over Henry VII’s early life and is a great complement to Thomas Penn’s The Winter King which covers Henry VII’s later life.  I’m about to jump into Desmond Seward’s The Wars of the Roses, which is supposed to be quite decent, and I may have to report back.  Jasper Ridley’s The Tudor Age is worth a read, it’s more about the life of common people.  And last but certainly not least is the book I am constantly referencing on my blog, S.B. Chrimes Henry VII.

Fiction: I’ll admit I haven’t delved too deep into this area of fiction.  Jean Plaidy has an absolute slew of historical fiction books that cover this era, and while most find her writing dry, I actually quite enjoy it.  I used to read a lot of Allison Weir fiction books, and I found her’s were quite entertaining.  Tony Riches has a fab Trilogy about Owen Tudor, Jasper Tudor, and Henry VII (a book dedicated to each), I’ve read Henry’s and am currently reading Owen’s.  Again, quite entertaining.

Thank you for the question, and happy reading!

anonymous asked:

I have a curiosity. What years were the "Catherine Gordon era?" Was Arthur still alive then? I imagine, if--and it's a big if, Henry's head was turned, as The White Princess suggests, Henry and Lizzie would've been married some time.

By the “Catherine Gordon Era” I assume you mean what years was she in England – in which case 1497 to her death in 1537.  

Elizabeth of York died at the beginning of 1503.  Catherine was one of Elizabeth’s favorite ladies in waiting, and this makes me think there was not an affair between Henry and Catherine (or else it was crazy discreet).  Moreover, Catherine was chief mourner at Elizabeth’s funeral and I don’t care who you are, you don’t have your mistress serve as chief mourner at your wife’s funeral.  Also, as a point of interest, Margaret Beaufort carried her train at the funeral.  So…. I really don’t think there was an affair between Henry and Catherine.

Moreover, Chrimes, Temperley, De Lisle, and License only mention Gordon in passing and hint at no special relationship between she and the king.  I don’t have Thomas Penn’s ‘Winter King’ at hand, maybe he has something to say?

The exiles would have been greeted by a tall, slender and impressive young man in his mid-twenties, with small blue eyes and noticeably bad teeth in a long, sallow face beneath very fair hair.  Amiable and high-spirited, Henry Tudor was friendly if dignified in manner, while it was clear to everyone that he was extremely intelligent.  His definitive biographer, Professor Chrimes, credits him – event before he had become king – with possessing ‘a high degree of personal magnetism, ability to inspire confidence, and a growing reputation for shrewd decisiveness.’  On the debit side, he may have looked a little delicate – he had poor health – while despite his obvious ability, so far he had had no experience of warfare and as yet there was no military leader of repute among his followers.  Nevertheless, it is obvious that he had no trouble in presenting himself as a serious rival to King Richard.
—  The Wars of the Roses by Desmond Seward

anonymous asked:

Ok, sorry! Then I'll ask you this: if you should suggest me three books and three movies about historical characters, which ones would you choose?:)

Here are my current suggestions:


1. Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose (even though Ambrose was a bit sketchy, this book is popular for a reason - it’s easy to read and very informative) (P.S. this book is largely about Meriwether Lewis)

2. Henry VII by S.B. Chrimes (because this is the Henry VII handbook as far as I can tell)

3. Queen Victoria by Lytton Strachey (because even though it is an older biography, I found it to be quite good - short, readable, fair and even critical)


1. Russia’s Lost Princesses Documentary, narrated by Ramola Garai (just finished, was a nice introduction to a new area of study I’ve recently become interested in)

2. To Walk Invisible (fictionalized portrayal of the Bronte sisters, was exceptionally well done, I think)

3. Jane Austen Behind Closed Doors (explores who Jane Austen was via the places she lived and visited, quite an interesting take on a biographical documentary)

Thank you for the ask!

anonymous asked:

What do you make of Tyrell's confession? Only More claimed it to be true right? Why didn't Henry announce it if someone admitted to killing the princes?

Chrimes says “[Henry VII’s] only male heir now was the ten-year-old and as yet not very robust second son, Henry.  In these circumstances, it is far from surprising that within five weeks of Arthur’s death, Sir James Tyrell, before his execution, should be alleged to have made a confession which was calculated to lay the ghosts of the princes in the Tower for ever.  Tyrell was the ideal candidate for such a confession, especially as he would shortly be dead, and it was most important to take the opportunity, such as it was, to make it very difficult for any further imposter to claim to be a son of Edward IV.  But the manifest expediency of the allegation does not make it true.” 

In the endnotes he goes on to say “there is no reliable evidence that the confession was ever made by Tyrell or that it was ever published, as it surely would have been if it had been made.  The most that can be said is that it appears that Henry VII let it be known that Tyrell had confessed before he was executed, and the reasons for his so doing are obvious enough, as indicated above.  The essential incredibility of the whole story as embroidered and enlarged upon by Sir Thomas More in his Richard III, and vaguely referred to by Polydore Vergil and the Great chronicle, was fully exposed by P. M. Kendall, Richard The Third (1953), 398-406.”

It looks like Chrimes takes the stance that if there was a confession it wasn’t good enough for even Henry to capitalize on it, and so he merely announced that Tyrell had made “a confession” before his execution and let people infer from that as they wished.  More and Vergil seem to have been the primary ones to run with the idea.  

Moreover, if there had been a confession by Tyrell, why was it not included in his public trial? 

Penn writes “Not long after his execution, it was being said that he had confessed to murdering Edward IV’s sons, the princes in the Tower.  A decade on, Thomas More had transformed Tyrell into the archetype of the over-ambitious courtier, a man whose heart ‘sore longed upward’, who organized the princes’ deaths at Richard III’s behest.  By the end of the sixteenth century, following More, Shakespeare immortalized Tyrell as the perpetrator of ‘the most arch deed of piteous massacre/That ever yet this land was guilty of’.”

It seems Penn also entertains the idea that there was possibly not a confession, but rather that rumors ran rampant and were expanded on.  But even Henry knew better than to trust a rumor, it seems.

Thank you for the ask.