Monarchy

[sodascouts]

I've been on an Anglophile kick for a while now. I even bought the box set of Starkey's Monarchy.

Since it seems to be a popular topic judging from the recent "What Are You Into" thread, I thought I'd make a separate thread for it. Enjoy!

[Troubadour]

I'll be interested to know which kings & queens interest you. I'm currently reading a biography of Henry IV, one of my heroes.

I have just finished reading 'Young Henry: The Rise of Henry VIII' by Robert Hutchinson, which was great.

I am particularly interested in Alfred the Great. He is a prominent presence here in Winchester, and I have always loved this statue. Maybe it is my romanticism, but it is as if he is guarding the city.

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/03/96/039681_a36b2b41.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/17/article-1387965-0B383EFE00000578-682_634x905.jpg

William I (the Conqueror) is another of my interests, partly because he built Winchester Cathedral. He used stones from an old Saxon church that had stood there for years and stamped his mark on this country with the cathedral's completion only thirteen years after he came to power. Some of the original Norman building still exists, and it is fascinating to see the original rounded Norman arches juxtaposed with the later Gothic-style arches that now dominate the building. William II (Rufus) was actually brought to the cathedral after he died and his bones, along with those of King Cnut and others, are in beautiful ornate boxes that sit on beams halfway between the floor and the ceiling in the nave. Quite amazing!

I would like to learn more about all of the monarchs, but right now I am especially interested in Richard III (the fact that he has been portrayed, largely by Tudor propaganda, as such a despicable character makes him fascinating), Edward III, Henry V, Charles I and Elizabeth I. When you get the chance, I'd love to hear what you admire so much about Henry IV, and a little about your other favourite monarchs...

I'm not even sure if this should perhaps become another thread! Soda?

[Freypower]

Just quickly, I was just using that lovely bookmark you sent me of Winchester! I've only been there once; would love to go back someday.

Henry VIII is my hero & has been since I was about 7 or 8. Elizabeth ranks just under her father. Henry IV founded the Lancastrian dynasty & survived, against all the odds, although of course it all fell apart under Henry VI in the Wars of the Roses. Because Henry VII was the Lancastrian heir and because I am a Tudor junkie my sympathies were always with the Lancastrian side (and this also has something do with why I support Liverpool but that is another story). I could go on about this for hours but I'm just quickly responding. I don't know if it's too esoteric a subject to have its own thread.

I recommend Ian Mortimer's books about Edward III, Henry IV and Henry V (although in the Edward III book he takes the position that Edward II was not murdered; I find that very hard to accept).

[Glennsallnighter]

Lou, I love your pics of Winchester. I have to get there some day ...... Soon!

You should try to get a few today under the blanket of snow!

I have read a lot of both fiction and historical works based around the Tudor period and find it fascinating.

[sodascouts]

I'd like to move the posts about royalty into a separate thread but it's going to be difficult because most posts respond to both the royalty aspect and other things as well. I'll try to figure something out.

ETA: I did the best I could, even though I had to leave some of the posts about monarchy in the other thread due to the fact that they dealt with multiple subjects. However, from now on, let's try to keep it to this thread. I find this subject fascinating!

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I have a question for Freypower. I am interested in knowing why you consider Henry VIII to be your hero. I have always found his life to be interesting and fascinating, but never heroic. I mean the man had six wives - two of which he beheaded, and two of which he dumped to marry the others, and that doesn't even count his mistresses. Other than that, the only other significant thing that he did that I can think of off the top of my head is to separate the Church of England from the Catholic Church. I guess some could interpret that as heroic. Anyway, just curious. :hmm:

[sodascouts]

I'm curious to hear the answer too. When I think of "hero," I think of someone admirable I would like to emulate. Henry VIII is far from that, IMHO. He did some good in his time and had some admirable qualities, but for me, in order to be a hero one most also be moral. When it came to morality, his behavior was at best selfish and vain, was at worst vicious and cruel.

While it was not uncommon for kings and queens of the day to kill at will and do whatever it took to maintain power, does that make it right?

Plus, even in his time period, Henry VIII's behavior was extreme. It earned him the name "The English Nero" from foreign contemporaries. As someone who has studied Renaissance history at length, I find him to have very little about him that is worthy of the accolade "hero."

As far as it being "heroic" for him to establish a new church, he did to both allow himself to divorce Catherine of Aragon and grab for himself power and money he saw going to the Pope and Rome. Placing himself as the head of the church not only allowed him to grant himself a divorce, but also allowed him to make decisions without concerning himself with the Pope's opinions and seize money for the state which had in the past gone to the church.

If this was done out of theological conviction, I would respect it; after all, did the corrupt popes really deserve the kind of political power bestowed on them at the time? The pope's selling of indulgences in order to bring more money into the church was a disgusting exploitation of religious power. However, it is clear that Henry VIII did not want true reformation because when it did start to take hold as a result of his disavowal of the Pope, he tried to reign it back in.

The level of his hypocrisy is clear when you realize that only a few years prior, he had written a work called Defense of the Seven Sacraments railing against Protestant leader Martin Luther and singing the praises of Catholicism - he didn't care about the corruption in the church then, when an alliance with the Pope was profitable to him. It was only when it became politically expedient to disavow the Pope that he did so.

[Lisa]

The pope in Rome might have wielded his office and his ministry to influence British political decisions. The act that forms a separate church and effectuates Henry VIII to officiate as its first minister is a beginning to the social direction that now separates affairs of the church from affairs of the state.

[sodascouts]

You're absolutely right, Lisa, with regard to papal interference. The corrupt Pope often tried to manipulate kings and queens to forward his own interests, many of which had nothing to do with religion.

As a Protestant myself, I recognize the value of what Henry VIII did in forwarding the Protestant Reformation (although I wouldn't call it separation of Church and State, since The Act of Supremacy actually made him head of BOTH church and state, concentrating them in one power). However, I cannot respect Henry VIII's motivations, and I feel The Act of Supremacy's positive ramifications were a happy byproduct of Henry VIII's selfishness rather than the result of an admirable theological initiative on his part.

[Lisa]

I wouldn't know. I have done no study of British history to date. I don't know too much about its monarchy, either.

[Glennsallnighter]

I find British history fascinating. In school we were given a very biased version of it due to the fact that the British Colonised us. However, while maybe not everything they did in Ireland (particularly under Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth 1st) was advantageous to us I think overall tune country did well out of it! Also they did no more or less in Ireland than any foreign colonists would have done anywhere. However it does mean that I have had to independently research any British History I know in order to be objective about it! I love reading about the Tudor period in particular.

[Troubadour]

Thank you for starting this thread, Soda! I think we could have some fun discussions here. I am by no means an expert on the monarchy, but I am fascinated by history in general and the kings and queens of the past have my attention at the moment. We can include any good websites or book/documentary recommendations, too.

I am also genuinely interested to know why Henry VIII is one of your heroes, FP. I can understand the fascination with him - and Robert Hutchinson's book 'Young Henry' does paint him in a slightly more sympathetic light, showing the demands of the royal life from a very young age - but I am curious as to why you consider him a hero.

[Troubadour]

For anyone interested, I mentioned William the Conqueror earlier and the original Norman arches that are still present in Winchester Cathedral. This is a great photo of an original part of the building:

http://www.durhamworldheritagesite.com/architecture/romanesque/winchester-cathedral/image

In contrast to the later, Perpendicular Gothic-style arches shown here:

http://chloenelkin.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/p1010037.jpg?w=490&h=653

The whole building is stunning, but there is something about those simpler, rounded Norman arches that really take you back in time. You can feel the history all around you, and you can envisage the monks and almost hear their singing when you are in the original part of the Cathedral.

This is one of the mortuary chests I mentioned in a previous post. There are six boxes containing the assorted bones of kings such as William II, King Cnut, King Ethelwulf and King Eadwig. I just find it amazing!

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c374/Lulabelle_/Continued/MortuaryChestWinchesterCathedral.jpg

Lastly, this is an interesting little page, detailing a trip that Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn made to Winchester Cathedral in 1535, and showing its importance in various stages of history:

http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/anne-boleyn-places/abbeyschurches/winchester-cathedral/

[sodascouts]

Fascinating! Thank you for sharing those gorgeous photos.

When I teach History of the English Language, all of these monarchs play prominent roles. Alfred the Great was one of the first to use English in official documents (as opposed to Latin) and William the Conqueror introduced French as the "language of the elite" which introduced lots of French word stock into the English language.

[Freypower]

I'm curious to hear the answer too. When I think of "hero," I think of someone admirable I would like to emulate. Henry VIII is far from that, IMHO. He did some good in his time and had some admirable qualities, but for me, in order to be a hero one most also be moral. When it came to morality, his behavior was at best selfish and vain, was at worst vicious and cruel.

While it was not uncommon for kings and queens of the day to kill at will and do whatever it took to maintain power, does that make it right?

Plus, even in his time period, Henry VIII's behavior was extreme. It earned him the name "The English Nero" from foreign contemporaries. As someone who has studied Renaissance history at length, I find him to have very little about him that is worthy of the accolade "hero."

As far as it being "heroic" for him to establish a new church, he did to both allow himself to divorce Catherine of Aragon and grab for himself power and money he saw going to the Pope and Rome. Placing himself as the head of the church not only allowed him to grant himself a divorce, but also allowed him to make decisions without concerning himself with the Pope's opinions and seize money for the state which had in the past gone to the church.

If this was done out of theological conviction, I would respect it; after all, did the corrupt popes really deserve the kind of political power bestowed on them at the time? The pope's selling of indulgences in order to bring more money into the church was a disgusting exploitation of religious power. However, it is clear that Henry VIII did not want true reformation because when it did start to take hold as a result of his disavowal of the Pope, he tried to reign it back in.

The level of his hypocrisy is clear when you realize that only a few years prior, he had written a work called Defense of the Seven Sacraments railing against Protestant leader Martin Luther and singing the praises of Catholicism - he didn't care about the corruption in the church then, when an alliance with the Pope was profitable to him. It was only when it because politically expedient to disavow the Pope that he did so.

All of this is accurate. I am using the word 'hero' in a sense which perhaps doesn't give the meaning I wish to convey.

I tend to view the foundation of the English Church, however selfish the motives, as a major step which ended up making England a more independent country. Sometimes these things are not necessarily done out of honourable motives; the Dissolution of the Monasteries was a naked grab for cash, but it had the effect of creating the new English landed gentry/middle class. There was also the creation of the first real English navy and the encouragement of arts & literature. Also, everything Henry did was done with the support of Parliament. He never tried to rule without Parliament like other kinsgs such as Richard II and Charles I.

[EaglesKiwi]

I tend to view the foundation of the English Church, however selfish the motives, as a major step which ended up making England a more independent country. Sometimes these things are not necessarily done out of honourable motives; the Dissolution of the Monasteries was a naked grab for cash, but it had the effect of creating the new English landed gentry/middle class. There was also the creation of the first real English navy and the encouragement of arts & literature. Also, everything Henry did was done with the support of Parliament. He never tried to rule without Parliament like other kings such as Richard II and Charles I.
IMHO, the Protestant movement (enormously aided by Henry's creation of the CoE, whatever his motives were), has done a lot to encourage independent thought.

I've been fascinated by Henry VIII since childhood (I remember going to Hampton Court aged 9, and already knowing the names & fates of all the queens, little show-off that I was). It's even more interesting to read about him know from an adult perspective which sees the world in many shades of grey...

I'm only just starting to read up about the earlier monarchs. Henry II (Plantagenet) is, again, fascinating.

I'm a little more familiar with those following the Tudors, thanks in part to enjoying historical fiction!

[sodascouts]

Thanks for the explanation, FP! I understand your opinion much better now - it was the term "hero" that threw me off.


I've been fascinated by Henry VIII since childhood (I remember going to Hampton Court aged 9, and already knowing the names & fates of all the queens, little show-off that I was).

I remember a (slightly inaccurate) mnemonic device I was taught in middle school to remember the fates of the wives: "Divorced, Beheaded, Died; Divorced, Beheaded, Survived!"


I'm only just starting to read up about the earlier monarchs. Henry II (Plantagenet) is, again, fascinating. I'm trying to investigate them more as well. Have you seen Becket and The Lion in Winter? I know they aren't necessarily historically accurate, but they're terrific historical fiction with enough realism to bring Henry II and his reign to life. The Lion in Winter is especially effective in presenting the complicated power dynamics within the royal family. For a drama that's largely talking, it keeps you on the edge of your seat.

With regard to later kings, it's hard for me to divorce my opinion of them from Shakespeare's history plays. Thanks to him, I see Henry V as a hero and Richard III as a child-murdering monster. However, I should note that despite the fact that Richard III was not as deformed as Shakespeare presents and there has been a concerted effort to rehabilitate his image, I still think the likelihood of him being responsible for the deaths of the Princes in the Tower is very high.

[Freypower]

Becket & The Lion In Winter are both worth watching.

If you want to read a book that paints Richard III in the best light possible, read Sharon Penman's novel The Sunne In Splendour (I am going to read her new book about Richard I, Lionheart, soon).

Ian Mortimer's book about Henry IV makes the point that if Shakespeare had written the plays from Henry's viewpoint & not Richard II's Henry would have gone down the years a much more sympathetic figure (much as I see him) but that it was almost impossible to write approvingly of the deposition of a king during Elizabeth's reign. The deposition scene from Richard II was performed before the Essex rebellion, for instance.

And Soda, thanks for understanding; I am enormously interested in Henry's life & times, whether I should have used the word 'hero' or not; but I'm well aware of all the negatives that can be said of him.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Thanks for the clarification about Henry VIII, FP. What you say does make sense, but I agree that using the word 'hero' seems inappropriate to me. I'm pretty much in agreement with Soda here about the traits that I consider heroic.

And Lou, your pictures of the Winchester Cathedral are awesome. It made me think of the song of the same name though that I don't really care for. :wink:

[Troubadour]

Thank you for the recommendations, FP. My laptop has been taken away for repair after the screen went crazy last night, but I have just downloaded an Android app called British Monarchy, which is quite nifty. Just basic info about each monarch, but nice as a little, easily accessible extra!

[sodascouts]

Cool! I'll have to check that out!

[Freypower]

Here's a sad fact for you. When I was last at Westminster Abbey I got a whole sheet of fridge magnets of all the monarchs from William I to Elizabeth II. They are only small squares but they're really nice. This sort of thing is right up my alley. :shy:

By the way it's the Queen's Diamond Jubilee day yesterday my time, February 6; 60 years since she came to the throne.

[Koala]

Thanks for the explanations and photos FP and Troub! Very interesting!

[Annabel]

Bit of light hearted fun but it helped my youngest daughter learn and remember all about the Kings and Queens of England. She is a 'star in her history classes' her teacher tells me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkzxXLRjojM

Both my girls, like me, are history buffs but through the kids TV programmes and the books Horrible Histories, they have a fun way of learning and remembering historic facts.

BTW there are lots of other H H videos on youtube. ;)

[EaglesKiwi]

That's cool! And welcome back, Melanie! We've missed you around here :)

[Freypower]

The Horrible Histories books are brilliant. Rosalind has grown up with them. We also have the complete set of HH magazines.

[sodascouts]

That was fabulous! Love it!

[Troubadour]

I'm looking forward to watching that video when I get my laptop back! I am all for anything that makes history (or any subject) fun for kids. The app I mentioned is definitely worth downloading if you are an Android user. It is free, and it is not as basic as I first thought. It has a fairly detailed overview of each monarch's reign... Very handy.

The Richard III Society online is a great website if you are interested in exploring this monarch in more detail and, perhaps, from a different perspective.

[sodascouts]

I remember watching a documentary where one of the members of that society was interviewed. Apparently they are quite devoted to "proving his innocence" with regard to the Princes in the Tower! She was vehement that it couldn't possibly have been him and seemed to be half in love with him, lol.

[Troubadour]

Oh dear! Well, they are definitely committed to trying to find out more about the real Richard, which I don't think is a bad thing... I suppose you will always get your fanatics who want to completely change the public perception of him - and it seems to be an unfortunate trait that many females are attracted to 'bad guys' because they want to believe that they have some undiscovered tortured and sensitive side and are very misunderstood! I would not be so extreme in my views - I think Richard probably was guilty of much, particularly with regard to the princes - but I still think, despite the romantic fanaticism, that there is some research on the Society website that is worth reading and that Richard probably wasn't entirely the monster he has been portrayed as.

[sodascouts]

I agree, Troub. Although the fervor of that lady made me chuckle, the society certainly has a good deal of information on the man that is worth reading.

[Freypower]

Oh dear! Well, they are definitely committed to trying to find out more about the real Richard, which I don't think is a bad thing... I suppose you will always get your fanatics who want to completely change the public perception of him - and it seems to be an unfortunate trait that many females are attracted to 'bad guys' because they want to believe that they have some undiscovered tortured and sensitive side and are very misunderstood! I would not be so extreme in my views - I think Richard probably was guilty of much, particularly with regard to the princes - but I still think, despite the romantic fanaticism, that there is some research on the Society website that is worth reading and that Richard probably wasn't entirely the monster he has been portrayed as.

Agreed. As I said earlier I regard myself as a 'Lancastrian' so the 'Richard did it' line goes along with my beliefs. There is no doubt he wasn't as bad as people think; he is still remembered with affection in Yorkshire where he spent most of his time before becoming king.