Author Topic: Tudor Queens  (Read 42947 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FaithWhiteRose

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #195 on: May 20, 2007, 11:27:45 AM »
I didn't know where I was meant to post this, I put it here because I think the Stuarts are closer to the Tudors than the Windsors are. If I was meant to put it in the Windsors place, please I ask the Moderator to move it.


I write this to discuss which of the Tudor Queens loved more and did the most for England. We can't exclude Mary I, Lady Jane and Elizabeth, but I would like to make the Queen consorts the main aim of the discussion: Elizabeth of York, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr.

In my opinion, the Queen Consort who did the most for the country was, without a doubt (again is my opinion), Catherine of Aragon. Of the reigning Queens, well I think both Mary and Elizabeth loved England, although in such different ways. Well, maybe not so differently, but just with different points of view. About Lady Jane, what I have read on her shows us an intelligent and well educated young girl who had no ambitions. Her short reign, however, is not a proof of what kind of woman she would have ended up being...


What do you think?

The people loved Katherine of Aragon and she did alot for England. I also think Elizabeth of York was a good Queen, though more like a piece of decoration---and Philippa of Hainault was a great consort as well.

Offline ampel25

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #196 on: June 30, 2007, 05:45:36 PM »
Anne Boleyn, Anne Boleyn, Anne Boleyn.

She convinced Henry to translate the Bible to English, stopped the Inquisition from coming to England, singlehandedly prevented Jews, Catholics, AND Lutherans from being burned at the stake.  She gave more to charity than Katherine of Aragon(not per year, MORE) and the four remaining wives combined-a thousand pounds a year, equivalent to millions.  She sat in for Henry during a meeting with the ambassador of France and had enormous influence over England's politics.  In fact, if you examine the way Henry's government was run during those 1000 days and compare it with the way the government was run the remainder of Henry's government you see a very prominent difference,a much softer, yet formative government.  In fact, the main reason for her downfall was Cromwell's personal fear of her power....Eric Ives describes it as a coup.

Offline ampel25

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #197 on: June 30, 2007, 05:50:18 PM »


Well, Mary was then as evil as Elizabeth was... She also executed many people, some of them belonging to her own family. What she did to Mary Stuart was more than cruel... I think we can't judge as evil a ruler when she was doing what every other ruler did at the time...


About Catherine of Valois I don't know much. It seems that she married Owen Tudor, but I don't know if there is any written proof of it...

Are you kidding me?  Mary Stuart posed a very, VERY serious threat to Elizabeth's throne and was implicated in only God knows how many plots.  Perhaps you have been reading too much revisionist romantic history.  I think that Elizabeth kept Mary ALIVE for so long attests to perhaps a bit of naiveté in her character-very, very foolish.  Mary Stuart was a dangerous woman.


And if we are going to do "Well, Elizabeth executed her cousin so she must be ten times worse than Bloody Mary" lest we forget the 16 year old Lady Jane Grey whom Mary watched be abused by her parents, mistreated by those around her, and then executed her?  Hm...shall we also let it slip our heads that she burned her father's minister and closest friend at the stake, even after he recanted his "heretical" beliefs?  Likewise, the locking of her sister in the Tower. 

Offline ampel25

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #198 on: June 30, 2007, 05:57:21 PM »
Quote
10. Elizabeth I: The very epitome of a queen regnant. A masterful politician, only ever cirumstantially religious, vain, witty, wise, clever, callous, she commands respect rather than liking.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on Elizabeth too. She was a brilliant woman and politician but as a person was second only to her father as the Tudor I like least. People often compare her to her father but I think she was a lot like her grandfather, Henry VII, manipulative, calculating, determined and sometimes cold.

Also I don't want to get into the religion thing too much but as Prince_Lieven, the number of deaths under Mary was 300, some of whom (like Cramner, Ridley and Latimer) had actively taken the side of Jane Grey and conspired against Mary. If Jane's supporters (of which ironically she was not one herself) had won they would have had Mary killed. As it was there many times under her father and brother that Mary's life was in danger because she refused to give up her religion. Having had her legitimacy, her mother, her governess (her kinswoman, Margaret Plantagent Pole, killed by her Henry VIII at age 70 because her son the Cardinal spoke out against him) and everyone else close to her was taken away, the only thing she had to get her through was her faith. Yes, she was fanatical about it but then so was Jane Grey about her protestantism. If Jane had become Queen I fully expect she would have instituted a Protestant version of Mary's burnings of heretics.

Mary is called "Bloody Mary" because the Catholics lost and the winners write the history books. If Elizabeth had never gotten on the throne, history might call Mary something different. As it was Elizabeth, praised for her "tolerance", killed more Catholics than Mary killed Protestants and this was started before (in the case of Jesuit priests in England) the Pope ever excommunicated her (which was a mistake I agree). Elizabeth outlawed Catholicism altogether and those who didn't attend Anglican services were fined heavily. That's not exactly "tolerance". And Elizabeth can't be excused with religious fanaticism either and people like Margaret Clitherow, a wife and mother of 2, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Clitherow ) who was literally crushed to death for the "crime" of harboring a priest were hardly threats to Elizabeth's throne.

All I'm saying it wasn't a tolerant and bloodless age from ANY side.


Jackie, all of the "good" things you have said about Mary and all of the "bad" things you have said about Elizabeth come from Catholic or Spanish sources.  Would you not agree they are equally biased as the "winners" you speak of.  It's possible Elizabeth killed more Catholics, but Elizabeth was Queen for 45 years.  I've also read the only people BURNED during Elizabeth's reign were anabaptists-there were four of them.

Offline umigon

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
    • View Profile
    • My Family Tree
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #199 on: June 30, 2007, 07:00:50 PM »

Hey, hey, ampel! We can have pacific discussions here, that's why we all write here for. It might be just me, but the "tone" of your messages seem a bit agressive, and as biased as mine can be. If you meant no offense, alright, I'm sorry then, but I really think those messages were a bit intimidating. None of what has been written is false and EVERYBODY can form their own ideas.

Alright, you've made clear that you defend Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth I before defending Catherine of Aragon and Mary I. Alright, we've had many discussions about it without being agressive. 

Of course Mary Stuart was a threat for Elizabeth... I didn't say otherwise. But I would say that imprisoning somebody who asks you for help for 20 years is indeed cruel. Not saying that Mary Stuart was a saint... but Elizabeth wasn't, either...
Gonzalo Velasco Berenguer

My Family Tree: www.tribalpages.com/tribes?userid=umigon

Royal Families: www.tribalpages.com/tribes?userid=gondan

Offline FaithWhiteRose

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #200 on: July 02, 2007, 04:52:12 PM »


Well, Mary was then as evil as Elizabeth was... She also executed many people, some of them belonging to her own family. What she did to Mary Stuart was more than cruel... I think we can't judge as evil a ruler when she was doing what every other ruler did at the time...


About Catherine of Valois I don't know much. It seems that she married Owen Tudor, but I don't know if there is any written proof of it...

Are you kidding me?  Mary Stuart posed a very, VERY serious threat to Elizabeth's throne and was implicated in only God knows how many plots.  Perhaps you have been reading too much revisionist romantic history.  I think that Elizabeth kept Mary ALIVE for so long attests to perhaps a bit of naiveté in her character-very, very foolish.  Mary Stuart was a dangerous woman.


And if we are going to do "Well, Elizabeth executed her cousin so she must be ten times worse than Bloody Mary" lest we forget the 16 year old Lady Jane Grey whom Mary watched be abused by her parents, mistreated by those around her, and then executed her?  Hm...shall we also let it slip our heads that she burned her father's minister and closest friend at the stake, even after he recanted his "heretical" beliefs?  Likewise, the locking of her sister in the Tower. 

I agree, Mary Stuart was a serious threat but i can't help but pity her. And I thoroughly dislike Mary for being radicalist and burning innocent people, and what she did to Elizabeth and Jane---and 'specially her marriage to Prince Phillip of Spain which ended up in losing Calais, one of the crappiest ones in history. But Anne Boleyn humiliated, hurted, and pretty much abused Mary Tudor who was 100% innocent as a teen. If Anne had not done such, Mary probably wouldn't have even been radicalist.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2007, 05:01:07 PM by FaithWhiteRose »

Offline FaithWhiteRose

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #201 on: July 02, 2007, 04:57:51 PM »
Anne Boleyn, Anne Boleyn, Anne Boleyn.

She convinced Henry to translate the Bible to English, stopped the Inquisition from coming to England, singlehandedly prevented Jews, Catholics, AND Lutherans from being burned at the stake.  She gave more to charity than Katherine of Aragon(not per year, MORE) and the four remaining wives combined-a thousand pounds a year, equivalent to millions.  She sat in for Henry during a meeting with the ambassador of France and had enormous influence over England's politics.  In fact, if you examine the way Henry's government was run during those 1000 days and compare it with the way the government was run the remainder of Henry's government you see a very prominent difference,a much softer, yet formative government.  In fact, the main reason for her downfall was Cromwell's personal fear of her power....Eric Ives describes it as a coup.

Yah, Anne Boleyn was a very powerful Queen and remains the one of the most fascinating personalities in history, no doubt 'bout that, but the people hated her and called her "the Great Whore". Plus what she did to Mary Tudor and Katherine of Aragon was unaccepatable. Nevertheless, she was smart, persuasive, cunning and clever, the qualities of her i like best. But some of her qualities were used for the worse rather than the better on some . . .

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #202 on: July 03, 2007, 05:16:35 PM »
In my opinion, many of the Tudors used each other badly, but I have never blamed anyone from a modern standpoint. What is  true is that it's unfortunate they lived in an era where they had to treat each other like that just to survive, in the power politics of the world they lived in. Many of these things weren't done for personal reasons, but just to survive, at least in the cases of Mary Stuart ior Lady Jane Grey so judging them on it seems inaccurate.

Anne Bolyen was quite a character, and certainly changed things. As for Katherine of Aragon, I read I think it was in Starkey's Eight Wives that by resisting the changes Henry wanted, she actually caused them, especially in regards to the position of her daughter, and also with regards to the Catholic church in England. That is, her resistance strengethened change, rather than the reverse. Perhaps so, but she was in a tough spot, but it sure is an interesting perspective.

Offline FaithWhiteRose

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #203 on: July 05, 2007, 12:30:18 PM »
In my opinion, many of the Tudors used each other badly, but I have never blamed anyone from a modern standpoint. What is  true is that it's unfortunate they lived in an era where they had to treat each other like that just to survive, in the power politics of the world they lived in. Many of these things weren't done for personal reasons, but just to survive, at least in the cases of Mary Stuart ior Lady Jane Grey so judging them on it seems inaccurate.

Anne Bolyen was quite a character, and certainly changed things. As for Katherine of Aragon, I read I think it was in Starkey's Eight Wives that by resisting the changes Henry wanted, she actually caused them, especially in regards to the position of her daughter, and also with regards to the Catholic church in England. That is, her resistance strengethened change, rather than the reverse. Perhaps so, but she was in a tough spot, but it sure is an interesting perspective.

That is definitely true---and the violence, for me at least, completes Tudor history. And yes, if Katherine gave in to the divorce the Pope would have no reason to object, neither would the Holy Roman Emperor and  Henry wouldn't break away from the Catholic church because the Pope granted him the annulment, for Katherine agreed.

Offline lady

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #204 on: July 14, 2007, 08:49:25 AM »
Anne Boleyn! My fave Tudor Queen.

Offline lady

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #205 on: July 14, 2007, 09:05:10 AM »
I had posted this info a while ago in other topic, I copy it again here, it may be interesting.
Anne Boleyn charitable works
She began them in 1532 when she had sent money and medicines for the relief of the mother of Richard Lyst, a lay brother in the convent of the Observant Friars at Greenwich. He had been against her but after that he became a staunch supporter.
Also Anne used to give alms weekly to the poor and clothes sewn by herself and her ladies.
She provided for widows and poor householders, when visiting a town or village she sent her almoner ahead to find out from the parish authorities if there were any needy families in the district. A list was sent to Anne and she made grants of money.
The Queen aided poor scholars providing money for their education maintaining several at the University of Cambridge.
After her death there was found amongst her papers a list of grants for the relief of poor artisans.

Offline FaithWhiteRose

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #206 on: July 14, 2007, 05:13:46 PM »
It's sad if you ask me, the way she tried to win the people's favor and how they still rejected her.  :(

Offline bell_the_cat

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • I am he, who will bell the cat
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #207 on: July 16, 2007, 01:52:52 PM »


Yah, Anne Boleyn was a very powerful Queen and remains the one of the most fascinating personalities in history, no doubt 'bout that, but the people hated her and called her "the Great Whore". Plus what she did to Mary Tudor and Katherine of Aragon was unaccepatable. Nevertheless, she was smart, persuasive, cunning and clever, the qualities of her i like best. But some of her qualities were used for the worse rather than the better on some . . .

I know that Francois I referred to Mary Boleyn as "the Great Whore" - this is quoted by Alison Weir in her Henry's wives book (not a great source, I know!). Mary was certainly much more of an easy catch than Anne, who waited six or seven years before she slept with Henry!

I wonder if Anne was really that unpopular - maybe if she had produced a son, Henry's first wife would have been forgotten. Most people wouldn't really have minded too much who the King's wife was as long as she did the job properly. This of course involved lots of charity work, so I suppose all of Henry's wives would have done their bit for "charidee". This wasn't in the same league as the big givers of the era, egocentrics like Cardinal Wolsey or Lady Margaret "Mags" Beaufort, however.

I don't think Anne was cunning, exactly. She was artless enough to allow herself to be completely out manoeuvred by mild-mannered Jane Seymour, for example. Not cunning enough!
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. (Mark Twain)

Offline FaithWhiteRose

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #208 on: July 16, 2007, 04:05:43 PM »
Well, Katherine didn't do her job right but the people of England still loved her, right?

Anne couldn't do anything when Jane took her place. she was stuck. Henry thought her a witch. and even she couldn't change his mind about that . . . call me crazy but I believe in Black Magic and witchcraft and think that there could have been a possibility of Anne being a witch.

Maybe if Anne had sat Henry down serenely, calm him down, apologize for not bearing him any sons, assure him that she's not a witch, and actually AGREE to end their marriage then maybe she could have escaped her execution.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Tudor Queens
« Reply #209 on: July 16, 2007, 04:53:34 PM »
It's always been my take on it that no matter what, Henry had to have Anne executed, because it would have made him look silly if he hadn't and instead had divorced the woman that he had created such an uproar to marry. By the time of Anne of Cleves, this was no longer a concern, and Anne of Cleves did agree to their divorce. I think no matter what Anne had to ''agree'' ( there wasn't much she could do), to what happened and no Anne wasn't a witch, she was just a very captivating woman.