luxastria  asked:

Hi! I see you've typed Henry VIII and his wives– could you type the other Tudor kings and their wives as well? Also if you have an opinion on the Plantagenets' types.... I've been thinking ENFJ for Eleanor of Aquitaine but am not sure.

Oh, gee, talking about the Tudors my favorite topic, what a pain this is. ;)

I don’t know them all well enough to type them, but I’ll give the ones I have studied more extensively a shot.

Henry VII: ISTJ, Core Enneagram 6.

Meticulous, detailed, careful, he did nothing without great consideration and intense moral deliberation – his greatest aim was the security and financial stability of England (Te), he based his entire intended structure on a known myth (he named his eldest son Arthur, then spent years grooming Arthur, and painting him in the minds of the people, as the “new” King Arthur who would bring Camelot back to England). His methods were highly efficient and detached, and he often got what he want by establishing a power structure and financial incentives for others to align with him – squeezing the nobility in fines while leaving the lower classes untouched and/or entertaining them in lavish ways (sensor focus, + Te = very efficient, intelligent, and relentless). He was a sensor, who loved sensory things – fine clothes, hunts, jousts, dancing, and suchlike, but did not act until certain of the outcome, and left more aggressive physical tactics to others – such as Sir Thomas Lovell (his spymaster) or Lord Rhys from Wales, who killed Richard III within “a spear’s length of Henry, who was unhorsed in the battle.” I considered Ni/Se (INTJ) but… he seems more able to switch methods and tactics, while sometimes underestimating Emperor Maximilian and King Ferdinand, and the “re-envisioning Camelot” smells of strong Si-mythology making.  I should also mention his strong Fi values – in a world where everyone else cheated on their wife with mistresses, he didn’t, and he was reluctant to execute his enemies, often offering them chances at redemption – showing a strong sense of moral scruples, despite the handful of executions he did have to order. Losing Elizabeth of York nearly, literally, killed him, emotionally – such intense feelings behind all the detachment.

I STRONGLY suspect an Enneagram 6 for Henry VII – so distrusting, so paranoid, he didn’t even confide in his closest friends or advisors after awhile, and even feared his younger son might overthrow him and seize the throne.

(I suspect both Maximilian and Ferdinand as STPs, along with Maximilian’s son Archduke Philip; all were incredibly opportunistic, bold in their environments, and changeable, though Ferdinand had more long-term planning abilities, and the ability to “smile in the face of his enemies,” which his daughter Katharine inherited from him, unlike her ENTJ mother or FP sister, Juana.)

Elizabeth of York: SFJ. Core Enneagram… 2?

Everyone loved her, so easygoing, good-natured, well-liked (unlike the “cold” Henry), deferential, warm, affectionate, interested in sensory pleasures (music, dancing, sewing, other similar pursuits), also able to manage her husband’s strict financial guidelines (she made do with a small pension). I haven’t read an enormous amount about her, but this seems the most likely type.

Prince Arthur’s life was so short, it’s hard to type him – but I suspect ISTJ, like his father; he was known to be reserved, serious, and careful in his decisions, much enjoying dancing and other sensory things, highly dutiful and content to remain in the background. (I imagine the bold, charming, Fe-dom Katharine of Aragon, with her short stature and flaming red hair left him dumbstruck.)

Margaret Tudor - ISFP (?). Emotions dictated her actions. She had a STRONG sense of lower Ni going on, in that she warned her Scottish husband that he would enter England and die immediately – but naturally he didn’t listen to her, went off, got himself killed, and left her holding Scottish ropes, with two-thirds of the Scottish male population decimated by the Howard family (ESTX’s if ever there were ones - I think the elder Howard, the father, was an ESTJ; his son-namesake was an ISTJ; and Edmund and Edward were ESTPs). My personal favorite anecdote involves her threatening to fire cannons on a later husband, if he so much as set foot near her castle.

Henry VIII: ESTP, Enneagram 8/3/-?5?

This one should be self-explanatory, with a side dose of psychopath (and I do not use that term lightly; he fits every scientific criteria).

(I’m less sure about his later wives, but Katharine was one of history’s most proficient, most intelligent Fe-doms, and Anne Boleyn was an ESFP.)

Mary Tudor (Henry’s youngest sister): ESFJ?

Strong-willed, did what she wanted, within the confines of society – she married someone she didn’t care about (the King of France) under condition that she could get her brother to agree to let her “choose her own husband next time” – which wound up being Charles Brandon (without permission, which got them in a world of temporary hurt, until ESTJ Cardinal Wolsey smoothed it over). She was extroverted, popular, enthusiastic, strong-willed, and had no problem sharing her views, but was also much loved and known for her “charm.”

Margaret Beaufort - EXTJ, I lean ENTJ.

It blows my mind that two Te-dom females were in power at the same time – Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII’s mother, grandmother of Henry VIII) and Isabella of Spain (Katharine of Aragon’s mother).

I’m honestly iffy on her, because I could see an argument for SiNe or NiSe, but I lean a little more NiSe because she’s such an opportunist in making certain her son climbed to power (Se opportunism); she was incredibly insightful in protecting him, by sending him to France, knowing he was a future potential heir – and she was swift to adopt such methods as the printing press, in order to capitalize through tracts the promotion of her son as an official monarch. She heavily invested in many colleges, founding and establishing them, wrangling with her son over finances to support them, showing a strong Te/Fi (detached efficiency, aimed at progressive social change, revolving around something she felt strongly, personally about). She was such a “forceful” presence (Te/Se?) that she rather overwhelmed Elizabeth of York. So, an ESTJ typing is fine, but ENTJ seems… more right. Lower Ne’s have more playfulness to them that she seems to lack. But oh, god, how I love her.

Screw you, Philippa Gregory, for character-assassinating them all.

Might as well branch out:

Isabella of Spain: ENTJ.

This woman… blows my mind, in all the right ways. You know what this Major Boss did when Columbus showed back up with STUFF? While Ferdinand was all, “Oh, cool, where’s the gold?” Isabella marched straight up to her council chamber and wrote Pope Alexander (Rodrigo Borgia - another ENTJ) to demand he give them full rights and profits from any future exploration in this “new world” – hello, mounting revenues! She saw future profits clear as day, then got really pissed when Columbus decided to enslave the population, which in her lower Fi mind was WRONG. (She also had some incredibly cute inferior Fi meltdowns over Ferdinand’s mistresses, where she threw hissy fits and literally kicked them out of court. She and Ferdinand were awesome together, but he struggled a bit once she died. She had better long-term planning skills.)

Um, where were we? Oh yeah, Henry VIII’s kids.

Mary I: SFJ, Enneagram 2?. Frankly there’s so much epic BS and anti-Catholic propaganda/history rewriting against her after Elizabeth’s reign that she’s hard to find, but Mary seems to have wanted to restore England to its old stability – but she wasn’t unintelligent in doing so; she and her cabinet were very smart in paving the way for Elizabeth’s future reign in financial terms, as well as in writing much of the material that Elizabeth would use to establish a common Church. She knew how the world worked, and how to navigate in it (Si). She was enormously sensitive – so much so her brother giving her a lecture on religion in front of everyone drove her to tears; and yet, she was so loyal to her sister that she refused to execute her, even when it would have been the “smart” thing to do; she held on to that familial bond, forever regretting that she signed her name to the document her mother never signed, in order to save her life.

Elizabeth I: ENTJ, Enneagram… 8, maybe, with possibly a 6?

Here’s a master tactician for you, who transformed herself into a symbolic representation of England’s virginity (Ni), who made every decision for tactical advantage or political advancement (Te), who kept her councilors guessing at every turn while knowing exactly what she intended to do (Ni) and wound up making England a powerful nation once again, resolving religious disputes and making financial decisions along the way. Much as her sister’s reign saddens me (it was just stabilizing when she died) – in a sense, I’m glad Elizabeth was the monarch Henry VII (the grandfather) always wanted a Tudor to be.

Edward V: ISTJ.

Strong willed, traditional values, more of a sensory focus, overall – not particularly considerate of others’ feelings even at a young age, inclined to “force” his beliefs on others; he died quite young so we can’t type him very well, but ISTJ makes sense. I suspect Jane Grey was also an ISTJ.

(Another add-on: I see Thomas More as an INTJ, along with Thomas Cromwell. More was more of a deeply intellectualized INTJ, where Cromwell had more Te – but far from being a straight up idealist, More was prophetic in his ability to discern what would happen next, and defend himself against it. If it hadn’t been for that rat-fink lying at his trial, he would perhaps escaped unscathed instead of becoming a martyr. And… Thomas More’s irreverent, sarcastic, slightly offensive humanist-scholar friend Erasmus, I’m fairly sure was ENFP.)

The Plantagenets:

Edward IV: ESTP. His grandson, Henry VIII, took after him, both in personality and pursuits. Notorious opportunist, womanizer, detached, but tended to live more in the moment.

- Elizabeth Woodville: I have NO IDEA. Need to research her more.

George: Unsure. EST… something, I suspect. Need more information. Odd, his continual bids for POWER and to be in charge. Te?

Richard III: ISFP?

I’m fairly confident about the SP, and the introversion – he actually fought on the field of battle instead of hanging back as Henry VII did (and lost his life in the process). I need to read more, but … a slight sense of Fi impressions?

That’s all I have, offhand.

Eleanor of Aquitaine: ENFJ sounds plausible. There’s certainly evidence for the NiSe, in my opinion – not every woman (except, well, Isabella of Spain) mounts a horse and rides into combat or leads an army on a Crusade!

There you go. That only took me… 45 minutes.

I am going to brag now that I’m descended from some of these people. Thank you for telling me,!

- ENFP Mod

anonymous asked:

curious about your thoughts re: people romanticizing henry viii like he really looked like jrm and him and anne had like the romance of the century it really bothers me

Oh, the ask I have dreaded and kind of sort of wanted because I don’t want to offend people but I have thoughts.

It bothers me too.

I understand that people are interested in this relationship.  So am I!  And I don’t think it was without love–at least, not on her part.  I sort of side with the theory that while Henry thought he loved several of his wives at different times, he likely was too emotionally damaged to really love them.  My evidence to back this up would probably be all of the times he emotionally abused and/or murdered them.

Murder.  He murdered Anne, the mother of his then-toddler, and made her life a living hell before then.  There was a legal show, of course, but let’s be real: the convictions of Anne and her “lovers” were bullshit.  I don’t believe that Henry didn’t know this–I think he was mentally ill, but not to the point of delusion at that point.  I also don’t think he was an idiot.  I think he was an abusive asshole who treated six women like shit.  (Let’s not forget that he made at least one veiled threat to Jane Seymour during their marriage.)

And yeah, I find the constant need to justify Henry’s looks to be… a bit much.  It’s a reaction to the idea that he was this hideous monster throughout his life, which he wasn’t.  By the standards of the day, which were not ours, I imagine he was quite attractive.  He looks pretty good in a portrait or two done in his youth, but I don’t think had he been born today we’d stop in our tracks like “WOW LOOK AT THAT HOT PIECE”.  Some of the things people waxed poetic about re: Henry were remarkable for a king back in the day.  He was tall, athletic–kings often weren’t.  We have tall athletic men today.  We don’t care as much about #datcalf today.

I don’t feel as if people are intentionally going overboard.  It’s a reaction, I believe, to the outdated views of Henry and Anne as people who were never into each other on a sexual level, who were just an asshole king and his schemer wife.  They weren’t that.  Their passion in their early days was real.  If she’d had a boy, they likely would have continued on together, though I tend to doubt that Henry would have been some devoted husband who’d never cheat on his wife.  It reminds me a bit of the Ricardian thing where in the case of your historical fave being portrayed badly for years, you respond in going the complete opposite direction.  The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I should add–I have no issue with people shipping them in a fictitious sense.  I’ve never super gotten into that side of historical!tumblr…  Even when I was super into the Borgias all the time–still love ‘em–I wasn’t like, that into modern AUs and “what if” scenarios.  I’ve always been more into how gray the real people were.  Going on with that Borgia thing–I was and still am interested in the relationship between Cesare and Lucrezia Borgia.  I would reblog my favorite quotes about their weird relationship, blog my ass off about it.

But I didn’t try to push the idea that they were some love story in real life.  Because they weren’t.  When people act as if we really don’t understaaand Henry and Anne, they actually were super in love and would have stayed that way had Elizabeth been a boy…  It seems like there’s this revisionist slant that reminds me of hardcore Ricardians.  This downplays exactly how hideously abusive Henry was to Anne–and it ignores the fact that Anne wasn’t some sassy sweetheart who just fell head over heels for a guy who just HAPPENED to be the king of England and did no wrong.

I don’t mind people having fun, but the idea of rewriting a relationship that ultimately ended with the guy offing his wife to marry someone better equipped to birth a boy is… uncomfortable.  Yes, I know it was all much more complicated with that–but that did happen in the end, didn’t it?  Unless people come at me with “Henry was actually brain damaged and knew not what he did!!!”  

Which… okay.  

I have mutuals who are super into H/A so I hope they don’t get offended.  I don’t want to shame them or start some big convo, because it’s not like I think anyone is intending to erase the abusive parts of this marriage and how fucked up it actually was.  (This is not me turning an anon question that was very valid into a callout post.)  I also know that this is a fandom that I am not a part of that seems have experienced some issues with bullying and I don’t want to engage in that either.  I DON’T WANT TO START A HUGE DEBATE.  The Tudors are not my Major Thing, though I am interested in them.

I’ll be frank: I do not get why people love this relationship.  I don’t get the romanticizing of it, I can theorize that it has to do with recent historical works and a desire to reclaim Anne Boleyn because she has been trashed (though more recently I find that some writers have elevated her above the other wives to a point that it actually grosses me out a little like they were all interesting women who deserved better), but I can’t know peoples’ motivations.  

I tend to feel that historical figures are somewhere in the in between.  Like, my beloved Borgias.  I believe that Cesare Borgia was a legitimately awful human being who, despite how fascinating I find him, was probably a rapist and definitely a murderer.  He also adored his sister.  But he also didn’t put her well being above everything–but then….  See where I’m going?  He was a person.  He had contradictions.  I’m not going to bring up quotes and articles and theories to support my opinion that he was better than he was, because at the end of the day…  The undeniable facts of “rape” and “murder” tend to cancel out some other stuff.  I really love him as a historical figure, but I’m not going to rewrite or defend him.

Then there’s this who was Richard III?  Who was Henry VII?  Who was Henry VIII? stuff that’s been going on a while.  I personally think that all of them did some bad shit of varying degrees.  All have had their reputations dealt with in dubious ways.  I’m just… not super concerned about putting them into “good” or “bad” and I think that when we start arguing for or against a historical figure we really sort of… put blinders on.

But there are those undeniable facts, that undeniable ending regarding Henry and Anne’s relationship.  And before you start arguing anything else about them, you have to remember that.  Whatever justification you give Henry’s actions, they were his.

And this is just petty but I hate that Henry and Anne: The Lovers That Changed History thing that came out a while ago lmao just because I feel like the big thing people always have against anti-Anne Boleyn records is that they’re “super biased!!!” which they are, but like…  Y’all…  Some of the pro-Anne stuff that has been released in more recent years is ridiculously biased, and that doc is a prime example.  So.  Let’s be fair.  Everyone has bias.  The historical anti-Anne shit is super biased because it’s political, but like… Find me a more recent scholarly work re: a historical figure without bias.  Try.  It may be faint, but it’s probably there.  Faint bias is natural, ridiculous bias is not.

Anyway.  I want people to have their fun and I won’t deny them that.  But I don’t really get it.

Oh, I wanted to add that I am not a historian.  My academic credentials are being a semester away from graduating with a B.A. in Art History.  I’m pretty sure that there are few super qualified historians who are on Tumblr.  I’ve made my opinions clear about what being qualified means in the past, but like…  It’s okay to not be a historian and talk about history.  It’s okay to just sort of shoot around have fun and theorize.  Obviously.  I don’t want to make anyone feel shamed, again.  We’re allowed to have our interests that are outside of our academic field; people can often know a lot about history without taking a single high-level course history course.  


top 10 favourite women of all time (in no particular order) ♦ asked by anon