Location: The Lighter Side of The Tudors

Discussion: In His Majesty's defenceReported This is a featured thread

Showing 1 - 20 of 29  |  Show  posts at a time
2 | Next
Hehewuti
Hehewuti
In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 12:04 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 12:04 PM EDT
I know that people love hating on Henry these days...what with the fact that he killed two of his wives and all...but I just can't help feeling that he was a far more complex man than the villain that most people believe he is nowadays. One point that I think is extremely important for people to remember about Henry is that in his time life and death just were the stakes that people played with. Particularily people in power or those who went against them. So although for us in our more enlightened state it seems barbaric for Henry to have executed two of his wives, for him it was the proper and fitting end for two people who had in his eyes betrayed him. I do believe that he probably let his emotions get the best of him in this situation....but that does not make him a monster. It makes him human and flawed. Unfortunately for him with the position he was in it meant he did real damage when he took his vengeance on those he perceived as traitors.

Sorry I know this isn't supposed to be a serious thread but I just had to say that.
4  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?    
Keyword tags: defence Henry
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
1. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 1:42 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 1:42 PM EDT
I agree with you to the extent that we have to always remember that Henry was "just a man". The problem with Personal Monarchy like Dictatorship means that rule at the whim of one man very, very rarely is without huge problems. When you look at how promising Henry's rule began, we can see that a lot of people were very hopeful for the future. He had a knack for choosing very capable ministers who really advanced England on the world stage....however, as you stated, he could let his emotions get in the way of good decision making. All the while, believing that God had appointed him so his decisions were sanctioned by God. In a lot of ways, you have to feel sorry for him, despite having everything in life that he could ever want materially, he never seemed to achieve true contentment & satisfaction in his relationships. He became very paranoid toward the end of his life..and probably rightly so , that everyone had a personal agenda. Life had taught him that. All his ministers and wives to some extent had their own reasons for wanting royal favour whether it was wealth, power or position.....And in the end, who really cared about the man? He must have felt very lonely at times, even while being constantly surrounded by people. 3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
HeverRose
HeverRose
2. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 2:20 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 2:21 PM EDT
Both of you bring up very valid points. I cannot for the life of me understand why ANYONE would want to be King or Queen of anything!! It is nothing but heartache.

Hehewuti, you raise the question that is always in my mind when I think of the Tudors, and that is, in what way were these people different from us and in what ways were they the same? They seem to exist in a parallel universe. Your points about the value of life and death are an example of that. We wouldn't think of doing half the things that they thought of as normal, and they, in turn, would cringe at many of the values we have. That is why it is so hard to figure them out sometimes.

MsSquirrly, you make a good point about the lonliness of the king.. It must have been incredibly hard for Henry to be a real person. I read in David Starkey's book on the young Elizabeth that Henry and his children did not have one meal together until about 1543 or so, when he was married to Katherine Parr. Think about that!!! he couldn't even be a father and have dinner with his children. He had many of the uncommon pleasures, like mistresses and jousting, but few of the usual ones that make people really happy.
Do you find this valuable?    
jrmslady09
jrmslady09
3. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 2:35 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 2:35 PM EDT
I do agree he was a human and as such in many lives of many humans, some of us never seem to partake in the more traditional and happy occurrences in our lives although we partake some of the uncommon just as some of us in some ways parallel the life of Henry but we don't share some of the things he did but,we all can find that we see the pleasures he rarely saw in his life we see everyday. In short I am glad I never will have to be burdened by rule as he was because those little pleasures and luxuries I enjoy are true blessings. Do you find this valuable?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
4. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 3:35 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 3:35 PM EDT
"
MsSquirrly, you make a good point about the lonliness of the king.. It must have been incredibly hard for Henry to be a real person. I read in David Starkey's book on the young Elizabeth that Henry and his children did not have one meal together until about 1543 or so, when he was married to Katherine Parr. Think about that!!! he couldn't even be a father and have dinner with his children. He had many of the uncommon pleasures, like mistresses and jousting, but few of the usual ones that make people really happy."
I recently read Kelly Hart's book on The Mistresses of Henry VIII and she says at one part :

"Extra-marital relationships could be a way to escape the responsibilities of always acting as a king was expected to; with his mistress he had a chance to lead a somewhat normal family life, and with a woman he had chosen himself. These early days with baby Henry Fitzroy, in an informal household where mother, father and baby could spend time together, was a luxury not afforded to legitimate royal children, who were whisked away from their parents soon after the birth. Henry had an opportunity, in Jericho and his other hideaways, to spend time with women without the extensive etiquette that was expected of him at court. Here he could relax. Here, he could enjoy spending time with his newborn son. He was probably closer to Henry Fitzroy than to his three legitimate children, and the two spent a large amount of time together".

I really don't buy into the notion that he loved KoA. I think he certainly respected and admired her in his youth as the daughter of 2 monarchs, but it was more of a formal relationship. He probably thought that maybe he could capture what he had with his mistresses with Anne Boleyn as his wife but in the end, I don't believe she really loved him. She had an agenda and I think he realized that after they were married.
Do you find this valuable?    
jrmslady09
jrmslady09
5. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 4:00 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 4:00 PM EDT
Ms.S I agree with you and I may have to procure that book sounds like a good read!!! When I am finished of course with the book selected for the book read/study. 0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
HeverRose
HeverRose
6. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 4:22 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 4:22 PM EDT
Before Arthur died, Henry grew up in the company of his mother and sisters. I do think he admired women and only treated them shabbily once they became problematic, like KOA or Anne Boleyn after they "failed" him. But I don't know of any other evidence that he was unchivarlous toward women any other time.

So I think when he was 18 and Katherine was 24, she was the iconic "older woman" a young man like Henry might have some infatuation for. But I don't think he ever had any real passion for her. With Anne, I think it became all about the son. I am sure that by the time they married, he was no longer as enthusiastic about her as he once was. The bloom was definately off the rose.

Do you find this valuable?    
royalfalcon
royalfalcon
7. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 4:34 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 4:34 PM EDT
I actually believe that Anne did love Henry in the end. Certainly not at the start of their relationship, However, when she got angry about his affairs I do not believe that was just because she was concerned about her position I thinkj that she was jealous because by this time she did have emotional feelings for him. Do you find this valuable?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
8. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 5:42 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 5:42 PM EDT
"I actually believe that Anne did love Henry in the end. Certainly not at the start of their relationship, However, when she got angry about his affairs I do not believe that was just because she was concerned about her position I thinkj that she was jealous because by this time she did have emotional feelings for him."
well of course, its just my opinion and speculation. Its one of those really big mysteries as to why a man who was known to be fickle could have been so single minded in his pursuit of a woman (6 or 7 years with no hint of another mistress) and then when he marries her....suddenly loses all interest. Now of course, she wasn't pregnant during those years and usually he took a mistress when his wife was pregnant. But it is still very intriguing as to how things could take such a nose dive so quickly.

Despite Bluff Hal's exterior, it seems that Henry was a rather insecure man. One of the reasons I have come to this opinion is voiced by Weir when she said : "Chapuys...states that Anne, ludicrously "was also charged, and her brother likewise, with having laughed at the King and his dress" and making fun of his poetry, "which was objected to them as a great crime" ; in sum,, "she showed in various ways she did not love the King but was tired of him".

No matter who you are, King or not, you know when someone doesn't love you. Maybe Anne was jealous of the fact that she may lose her position of influence rather than the man she loved? Its just a theory :)
Do you find this valuable?    
royalfalcon
royalfalcon
9. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 6:16 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 6:32 PM EDT
It is a mystery that we will never totally know what went wrong between Henry and Anne. It has been said that she was too fiesty as a wife. He had found it acceptable in a mistress but once they were married he expected more meek obedience. Maybe also he built Anne up so much in his mind during those 6 or 7 years that it would have been impossible for her to live up to his expectations. I have often thought that what Henry wanted probably did not exist and that is why he was often so disappointed. Do you find this valuable?    
Hehewuti
Hehewuti
10. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 6:29 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 6:29 PM EDT
"I agree with you to the extent that we have to always remember that Henry was "just a man". The problem with Personal Monarchy like Dictatorship means that rule at the whim of one man very, very rarely is without huge problems. When you look at how promising Henry's rule began, we can see that a lot of people were very hopeful for the future. He had a knack for choosing very capable ministers who really advanced England on the world stage....however, as you stated, he could let his emotions get in the way of good decision making. All the while, believing that God had appointed him so his decisions were sanctioned by God. In a lot of ways, you have to feel sorry for him, despite having everything in life that he could ever want materially, he never seemed to achieve true contentment & satisfaction in his relationships. He became very paranoid toward the end of his life..and probably rightly so , that everyone had a personal agenda. Life had taught him that. All his ministers and wives to some extent had their own reasons for wanting royal favour whether it was wealth, power or position.....And in the end, who really cared about the man? He must have felt very lonely at times, even while being constantly surrounded by people."
Yes I believe that poor old Harry must have been a very lonely man. In my humble opinion I believe that his reasons for marriage after marriage was not only to get sons but also love. Take for example his marriage to Catherine Parr...as far I can tell he never meant her to bear his children. I really think he just wanted somebody to love and care for him. It's a pity he couldn't have been a bit smarter about other people's agendas from the beginning and maybe then he would have saved himself a lot of trouble. Poor Prince!
Do you find this valuable?    
Hehewuti
Hehewuti
11. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 4 2011, 6:40 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 4 2011, 6:40 PM EDT
"It is a mystery that we will never totally know what went wrong between Henry and Anne. It has been said that she was too fiesty as a wife. He had found it acceptable in a mistress but once they were married he expected more meek obedience. Maybe also he built Anne up so much in his mind during those 6 or 7 years that it would have been impossible for her to live up to his expectations. I have often thought that what Henry wanted proabably did not exist and that is why he was often so disappointed."
I don't think that what Henry wanted did not exist. Like I said before I think he was very lonely. I think mostly what he we wanted was real companionship. But he may have thwarted himself by believing so fully in his own supremacy of all those around him...of course we have to remember that he did seem to have something really good with Jane Seymour. Unfortunately for him she died tragically...if it had not been for that though....history could have been very different.
Do you find this valuable?    
royalfalcon
royalfalcon
12. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 5 2011, 6:12 AM EDT | Post edited: Sep 5 2011, 6:12 AM EDT
"I don't think that what Henry wanted did not exist. Like I said before I think he was very lonely. I think mostly what he we wanted was real companionship. But he may have thwarted himself by believing so fully in his own supremacy of all those around him...of course we have to remember that he did seem to have something really good with Jane Seymour. Unfortunately for him she died tragically...if it had not been for that though....history could have been very different."
LOL I am on Henry's side Hehewuti. I do, however,, believe that Henry was a great romantic who tended to put women on a pedestal that they could not live up to, so that ultimately he was disappointed with them.. We cannot say how the relationship would have worked out with Jane Seymour because she died after giving Henry what he desired more than anything - a legitmate son and heir. I do agree with you that very likely Henry was very lonely, because he must have felt that everybody in his company had an agenda and were ultimately looking out for their own interests. He certainly had his faults, but I admire him for his many fine qualities and think as many have said before history would indeed be a lot duller without him.
Do you find this valuable?    
Hehewuti
Hehewuti
13. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 5 2011, 10:28 AM EDT | Post edited: Sep 5 2011, 10:28 AM EDT
"LOL I am on Henry's side Hehewuti. I do, however,, believe that Henry was a great romantic who tended to put women on a pedestal that they could not live up to, so that ultimately he was disappointed with them.. We cannot say how the relationship would have worked out with Jane Seymour because she died after giving Henry what he desired more than anything - a legitmate son and heir. I do agree with you that very likely Henry was very lonely, because he must have felt that everybody in his company had an agenda and were ultimately looking out for their own interests. He certainly had his faults, but I admire him for his many fine qualities and think as many have said before history would indeed be a lot duller without him."
Yes your theory does seem to fit very well with what happened with Anne Boelyn and also Anne of Cleves. Although Catherine Parr did seem to make Henry happy in the end. Don't think there was a disappointment there.
Do you find this valuable?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
14. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 5 2011, 1:14 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 5 2011, 3:24 PM EDT
yes I agree with both of you. Henry really does come across as a hopeless romantic. He loved all the courtly love and chivalry aspect of pursing a new love but once he had consummated that love, he seemed to lose interest. Perhaps it was all about his fantasy/ideal woman? Problem for him, was that it was probably rare if someone showed their true selves to him. Or maybe when they did, he preferred his romanticized image of them.

Jane did the same thing as Anne....or was used as she was, by her family. The difference was that I think Jane went into it with her eyes open...knowing that if she refused to be the king's mistress and only his wife that he may go for it. I am not sure that Anne knew that. But at a certain point she must have realised, after staying away from court and receiving all those letters, that Henry was not going to give up. Once he finally offered her marriage, everything changed. I think Jane had an agenda, just as much as Anne. The wife I think that really broke his heart was Kathryn Howard. Perhaps the only wife with the smallest agenda (girls just wanna have fun). Chapuys who had seen him through 4 previous wives even said that he had never seen him so affected. Probably Kathryn was in awe of Henry and he saw that as love. She was like a groupie in a lot of ways LOL. Poor Henry, you really do have to feel sorry for him. Catherine Parr seems to have been a genuinely "nice" person.....intelligent, attractive and fashionable. She had her agenda too however. I am sure Henry knew that but by then had learned to live with the fact that there is no one who doesn't ...when you are king.
Do you find this valuable?    
freya9
freya9
15. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 5 2011, 3:12 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 5 2011, 3:12 PM EDT
I agree with Ms Squrrly that an absoulte monarchy is rarely without great difficulties. As the saying goes 'power corrupts, total power corrupts totally'. Considering the power that Henry had and the times he lived in he was nowhere near as ruthless and cruel as many others in that situation would have been. Do you find this valuable?    
Hehewuti
Hehewuti
16. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 5 2011, 4:39 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 5 2011, 4:39 PM EDT
"yes I agree with both of you. Henry really does come across as a hopeless romantic. He loved all the courtly love and chivalry aspect of pursing a new love but once he had consummated that love, he seemed to lose interest. Perhaps it was all about his fantasy/ideal woman? Problem for him, was that it was probably rare if someone showed their true selves to him. Or maybe when they did, he preferred his romanticized image of them.

Jane did the same thing as Anne....or was used as she was, by her family. The difference was that I think Jane went into it with her eyes open...knowing that if she refused to be the king's mistress and only his wife that he may go for it. I am not sure that Anne knew that. But at a certain point she must have realised, after staying away from court and receiving all those letters, that Henry was not going to give up. Once he finally offered her marriage, everything changed. I think Jane had an agenda, just as much as Anne. The wife I think really broke his heart was Kathryn Howard. Perhaps the only wife with the smallest agenda (girls just wanna have fun). Chapuys who had seen him through 4 previous wives even said that he had never seen him so affected. Probably Kathryn was in awe of Henry and he saw that as love. She was like a groupie in a lot of ways LOL. Poor Henry, you really do have to feel sorry for him. Catherine Parr seems to have been a genuinely "nice" person.....intelligent, attractive and fashionable. She had her agenda too however. I am sure Henry knew that but by then had learned to live with the fact that there is no one who doesn't ...when you are king."
For myself I mostly believe that what he was looking for was someone who truly loved HIM for who he was....and not for his position.
Do you find this valuable?    
LadyTudorsFan
LadyTudorsFan
17. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 5 2011, 7:19 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 5 2011, 7:19 PM EDT
"yes I agree with both of you. Henry really does come across as a hopeless romantic. He loved all the courtly love and chivalry aspect of pursing a new love but once he had consummated that love, he seemed to lose interest. Perhaps it was all about his fantasy/ideal woman? Problem for him, was that it was probably rare if someone showed their true selves to him. Or maybe when they did, he preferred his romanticized image of them.

Jane did the same thing as Anne....or was used as she was, by her family. The difference was that I think Jane went into it with her eyes open...knowing that if she refused to be the king's mistress and only his wife that he may go for it. I am not sure that Anne knew that. But at a certain point she must have realised, after staying away from court and receiving all those letters, that Henry was not going to give up. Once he finally offered her marriage, everything changed. I think Jane had an agenda, just as much as Anne. The wife I think that really broke his heart was Kathryn Howard. Perhaps the only wife with the smallest agenda (girls just wanna have fun). Chapuys who had seen him through 4 previous wives even said that he had never seen him so affected. Probably Kathryn was in awe of Henry and he saw that as love. She was like a groupie in a lot of ways LOL. Poor Henry, you really do have to feel sorry for him. Catherine Parr seems to have been a genuinely "nice" person.....intelligent, attractive and fashionable. She had her agenda too however. I am sure Henry knew that but by then had learned to live with the fact that there is no one who doesn't ...when you are king."
Apparently, Shakespeare had based his play Othello on Henry VIII's mariage to Katherine Howard. The way Henry reacted after hearing of Katherine's infidelity made him similar to Othello - he was going to get his sword and kill her himself. He then had Francis Dereham executed out of envy as Francis had "spoiled her".
Do you find this valuable?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
18. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 5 2011, 7:40 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 5 2011, 7:40 PM EDT
"Apparently, Shakespeare had based his play Othello on Henry VIII's mariage to Katherine Howard. The way Henry reacted after hearing of Katherine's infidelity made him similar to Othello - he was going to get his sword and kill her himself. He then had Francis Dereham executed out of envy as Francis had "spoiled her"."
Interesting theory. Dereham did suffer an awful fate for no real crime, save that he had some fun with a single woman who consented ...before she was married. Very different times! It hightlights that morality is not objective and absolute...it changes with the times.
Do you find this valuable?    
Hehewuti
Hehewuti
19. RE: In His Majesty's defence
Sep 6 2011, 3:59 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 6 2011, 3:59 PM EDT
"Interesting theory. Dereham did suffer an awful fate for no real crime, save that he had some fun with a single woman who consented ...before she was married. Very different times! It hightlights that morality is not objective and absolute...it changes with the times."
I think in some ways morality will stay basically the same...for instance murdering has always been a heinous crime, even though nowadays we think of those executions they had back in the Tudor times as murder so it's becoming more refined as well, but in the end murder has always been wrong. As well as robbery and such things.... in other ways morality is just about how the society needs the individual to behave in order to survive. Or how the society percieves is the way the individual should behave.
Do you find this valuable?    
2 | Next

Related Content

  (what's this?Related ContentThanks to keyword tags, links to related pages and threads are added to the bottom of your pages. Up to 15 links are shown, determined by matching tags and by how recently the content was updated; keeping the most current at the top. Share your feedback on Wetpaint Central.)