Author Topic: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537  (Read 29866 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« on: April 04, 2006, 09:43:03 AM »
Well, she doesn't have her own thread so I thought I would start one.
Henry's 3rd wife and perhaps "milk and honey" after all the "spice" with Anne Boleyn, but was she a poor political pawn or did she actively seek to entice a dissatisfied king? Lets have at her.
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2006, 11:04:09 AM »
I can't wait till Bell finds this thread.  ;D

When people call Jane Seymour a woman in the same mould as Anne Boleyn (ie that she set out to entice Henry) they usually site a specific example - didn't Henry send her a present that she refused because it look compromising to her honour or something?
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2006, 11:28:02 AM »
 ;D I was thinking of Bell when I started it ;D Yes, Henry sent her a purse "full of sovereigns", she sent it back with the message that she would accept his gift when she was betrothed and about to wed. I have read that he also sent her some kind of locket but I don't know wether that was a myth.
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Eddie_uk

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2925
    • View Profile
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2006, 11:31:09 AM »
I was always of the opinion that Jane was a sweet kind woman, the complete opposite to Anne! Also wasn't she kind to Mary and Elizabeth??

By the way congrats to dear Kimberly for becoming a mod!! I know she will make an excellent one!!!   :-* :-*
Grief is the price we pay for love.

FREE PALESTINE.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2006, 11:33:23 AM »
Yes, Elisabeth is taking some time off, she's very busy, and I echo your words, Kim is sure to be brillo.  :-*
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2006, 11:50:09 AM »
Quote
I was always of the opinion that Jane was a sweet kind woman, the complete opposite to Anne! Also wasn't she kind to Mary and Elizabeth??:-*

>:(

Quote
By the way congrats to dear Kimberly for becoming a mod!! I know she will make an excellent one!!!   :-* :-*

 [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif]


Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2006, 11:50:52 AM »
Thank you boys, with a sharp pointy stick in one hand and a large gin in the other...how can I fail ;)
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Eddie_uk

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2925
    • View Profile
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2006, 11:55:07 AM »
Quote
Quote
I was always of the opinion that Jane was a sweet kind woman, the complete opposite to Anne! Also wasn't she kind to Mary and Elizabeth??:-*

>:(



  ;D ;D
I do reserve judegement though, i've yet to really have the pleasure of branching from the Winsdors and Romanovs to the good old Tudors.


Grief is the price we pay for love.

FREE PALESTINE.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2006, 12:22:29 PM »
Well, there's not much about clothes and jewels but plenty of big personalities.  ;D
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2006, 01:43:49 PM »
jane married henry a couple of days after anne was executed... no matter what else she did, i don't think that speaks highly of her 'good' personality  :P

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2006, 01:58:35 PM »
One day Anne Boleyn noticed a jewel around Jane's neck and asked to see it. Jane pulled away and Anne snatched it off her and found it to be a miniature of Henry. Sorry but Jane is definately slimey IMO
Member of the Richard III Society

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2006, 02:01:28 PM »
i think she was calculatedly meek... she pretty much must have guessed that henry needed a break from anne's 'b!tchiness' and presented herself as the alternative... then copied anne's game of 'not giving in' and there you are, jane the queen...  :-/

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2006, 02:22:53 PM »
Wholehearedly agree with you Ilyala ;)
Member of the Richard III Society

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2006, 02:38:55 PM »
oh and let's not forget the game she played making herself popular with the english people by presenting herself as the new catherine of aragon (the whole kindness to mary thing... the meekness... the catholicism...)... i think that was another leaf out of anne's book. anne was terribly unpopular. jane done her homework...

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Jane Seymour c 1509-1537
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2006, 11:24:22 AM »
Well, yes I agree, I think Jane knew that she had to be meek, and the opposite of Anne Boleyn to succeed, although she might naturally have been this way too. She was more of a typical 16th century woman, whereas Anne was in many ways very modern. Jane knew what kind of a role she had to play, and played it, but I think she had some natural inclinations in this way.  She does deserve her own thread, as she is interesting, but comes across as very demure and meek in history, so that you want to know more, if this was the truth, etc.