#Tudor primary sources

[elephantlovemedleys]

TUDORWEEK2024 - DAY FIVE: Your Favourite Tudor Iconography

The Hours of Elizabeth The Queen

The Hours of Elizabeth the Queen has been described as the most lavish Book of Hours produced in fifteenth-century England. The text itself contains three sequences of Hours: the Hours of the Virgin and also the Hours of the Cross and of the Passion together with a number of other devotional texts.  The illustration is particularly lavish.  In addition to the full-page images before important textual divisions the book includes an astonishing 423 painted initials with narrative or decorative scenes.�� The manuscript is known as the Hours of the Queen because of an inscription at the bottom of the pictured miniature of the Crucifixion: ‘Elisabeth the quene’.  This appears to be a signature of Elizabeth of York (d. 1503), daughter of Edward IV (1461-83) and wife of Henry VII (1485-1509).  However, the manuscript was not originally made for her. Later in the volume (f. 152) is a prayer for the soul of Cecily or Cicely (d. 1450), Duchess of Warwick, and it is likely that the book was made for a member of her family, possibly her father, the powerful Richard Neville (b. 1400, d. 1460), 5th Earl of Salisbury, the nephew of Henry IV (1399-1413).  Thus this magnificent book was deemed important enough to have been passed to important members of English aristocracy, in this case, ultimately the daughter, wife, and mother of successive kings of England. 

[fideidefenswhore]

"The one sent should not fail to pay his respects to some of the lords here, who have influence with the king; and to propitiate the most illustrious and beloved Anne with some trifles, preferably something brave and novel from those parts, which she may know to be worth from 1,200 to 1,300 crowns a year (intertenir la Ill. et Amata Anna con alcuni cosselin piu presto nove et galante di quelle parte, che cognose da ascendemo ad un ducento o trecento scudi lo anno), to be divided among two or three visits." -Augustino Scarpinello, Milanese Ambassador in England, to Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan. 1531.

[mary-tudor]

[historyartthings]

this letter by Rafe Sadler always has me absolutely creased. Honestly good for them for not being 'ruled' hahah

(For anyone who’s read the mirror and the light, Mantel actually mentions this incident in passing)

(Also, 'set by their heels' means to be put in the stocks)

'In 1537 Sir Ralph Sadler was sent into the North, just after the suppression of “the Pilgrimage of Grace.” In a letter from Newcastle, 28 Jan. he gives an account of the still agitated state of the country through which he had just passed. The following very dramatic scene occurs at Darlington:’

‘Syr,—I saw no likelihood of any lygtness or desyre of devision amongst the people throughout the whole Bishopricke, which is a gret countrey, savyng in one towne, which is called Daryngton; and there I noted and perceyved the people to be very fikell. My chance was to come into the towne in the evenyng, about vi of the clocke, or somewhat afore; and when I alighted at my lodging, I think there was not passing iii or iiii persons standing about the inne doore, assuring your Lordshipp, that I was scant ascended up a payre of steres into my chamber, but there was about xxx or xl persons assembled in the strete afore my chamber windows, with clubbs and batts; and there they cam rooninge out of all quarters of the strete, and stode together on a plompe, whispering and roundinge together. Whereupon I called unto me myn host, who seemed to be an honest man, and I asked him what the people meant to assemble so together? He answered me, that when they saw or harde of any comyng out of the South, they used always so to gather together to here newes. I told him it was ill suffered of them that were the heddes of the towne to let them make such unlawfull assemblies together in the strete, and that it was a very ill example, and hard to judge what inconveniencys might followe, or what attemptats they wold enterprise when such a number of light felowes were assembled. He answered me by his faith, that the heddes of the towne could not rule them, nor durst, for their lyves, speke any fowle words to them; but, quod he, I thinke myselfe to be in som credite with them; and, quod he, ye shall see that I shall cause them to scatter abrode, and every man to go to his home by and by. Marry, quod I, if ye do well, ye shoulde set some of them by the heles. No, quod he, God defende; for so might we bringe a thousande on our toppes within an hower; but, quod he, ye shall see me order them well ynough with fayre words; and thereupon he went to the route in the strete, as they stode whispering together, and with his cappe in his handes, prayed them to leve their whispering, and every man to go home; and there came they all about him, and asked him who I was? whense I cam? and whither I wold? Myn hoste told them, that I was the kyng's servante, and going from his Highnes in ambassade into Scotland: whereunto one of them replyed and sayed, that could not be true, for the Kyng of Scoth was in Fraunce. Nevertheless, in fine myn host so pacyfyed them, that every man went his way; but moche ado he had, as he told me, to persuade them to beleve that I went into Scotland; and they all with one voyce asked when my Lorde of Norff. wold com, and with what company? and so myn host cam to me as a messenger from them to know the trewth; and I sent them word that he wolde be at Danncaster on Candlemas Even; and that he brought no more with him but his owne houshold servants; which pleased them wondrous well; and so every man departed, and I harde no more of them. I assure your Lordship the people be very fykell, and methinketh in a marvellous strange case and perplexite, for they stare and look for thinges, and fayne wold have they cannot tell what'

'Parish of Darlington', in The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham: Volume 3, Stockton and Darlington Wards, (London, 1823), pp. 350-377

[edwardseymour]

Is Katherine Howard very 'luxurious'? How is her family's expenditure situation?

✨ terfs/zionists fuck off ✨

i’m not sure what you mean by your question abt her family: her father ran up debts and struggled financially, but the howards were, generally, wealthy… and her uncle and grandmother likely financed her early career at court.

i think a lot has been said about how indulgent, frivolous and spoilt katherine was as queen, with alison weir suggesting “each day, katherine discovered some new caprice, and her greed earned her the disapproval of many of the older people at court” — for which there is no evidence — and lacey baldwin smith characterised katherine as “a doll upon which to lavish all the luxury and display of tudor imagination. at twenty-one katherine howard, temperamentally, was quite capable of acting the role of the pampered and irresponsible child bride, but she lacked the wit, patience and understanding to play the companion” — which can be disputed with evidence of her involving herself with the queen’s work, and multiple positive descriptions of her by her contemporaries.

moreover, the primary source for the idea that katherine was indulgent and frivolous comes from the spanish chronicle, so it’s not reliable: russell admits that “a spanish merchant living in london, who admittedly never let fact stand in the way of a good story, claimed later that ‘the king had no wife who made him spend so much money in dresses and jewels as she did, who every day had some new caprice’”. likewise, baldwin smith described the same author as “one not very reliable chronicler”. so, there has so be a level of criticism applied to the validity afforded to this source. that’s just basic analytical skill as a historian.

as for actual sources as to her frivolity, we can say that a considerable portion of her collection of jewels and lands (excluding those that came from the queen’s collection) came from henry by way of gifts, with marillac reporting “the king is so amorous of her that he cannot treat her well enough”. the spanish chronicle seems to have rendered this as something katherine demanded, that “the king had no wife who made him spend so much money in dresses and jewels as she did”, which almost certainly seems incorrect, if for no other reason than katherine was not his wife for very long. true enough, if we traipse through her inventories and other records, we can identify numerous gifts from henry. we can also identify gifts that katherine regifted to others, as well as pieces she had repurposed. that she was reported as favouring french fashions suggest her wardrobe was distinct from her predecessors enough to suggest new pieces were purchased in place of her inheriting pieces from jane seymour — albeit anne of cleves did also introduce french fashions to her wardrobe — but this can’t be corroborated with evidence, as hayward has pointed out: “little has come to light about katherine’s wardrobe”.

comparatively, it does not appear that katherine’s material wealth was excessive relative to henry’s other wives. as russell points out: “a defence of her spending can be mounted by pointing out that it does not seem so great when set in its wider context. her jewellery acquisitions in the summer and winter of 1540, for instance, compare favourably in cost to those commissioned by or for anne boleyn, even before she became queen”. likewise tallis’ research has indicated that “jane seymour’s collection was significantly larger than that of either of her successors. […] katherine howard’s inventory consisted of more items than that of the queenly inventory of her successor, katherine parr”.

simply put: the royal court was an exorbitant/garish display of opulence and wealth, irrespective of katherine — earlier in his reign henry’s court was described as a remarkable show of “jewels and gold and silver, the pomp being unprecedented”. katherine as queen, and as an english-born woman lacking international royal standing, was simply more vulnerable to accusations of overspending and frivolity than her husband or other members of the royal family, just as anne boleyn had been. this extends into her historiography too, with gareth russell claiming katherine valued henry because he “could give her everything she ever wanted”, and that “katherine’s extravagance was not balanced by any particular displays of piety or memorable largesse”; perpetuating this idea of teenaged frivolity while otherwise relishing the lavishness of royal and aristocratic circles. consider how russell describes henry’s court otherwise (“the henrician court in its twilight, a glittering but pernicious sunset” in the introduction, as one example). he wants to have it both ways, critical of the barbarity of the henrician court, whilst finding irresistible the level of wealth only barbarity can uphold — this extends beyond henry viii’s court, as russell has also written about the queen mother and titanic, so clearly richness and materiality has its own draw as a subject. meanwhile for katherine, it is used against her: “the very things that made katherine howard’s time as henry viii’s queen so pleasant became a cudgel with which to beat her” (blakemore). moreover i think it is a detail we read backwards into katherine’s historiography, as people allow archetypes about teenage girls, and young women who marry older, wealthy men, to colour their conceptualisation of katherine howard. i’m old enough to remember how people talked about anna nicole smith. especially given the fact that materialism is an element of the investigation into her downfall — “one cannot read the surviving records of the scandal without noticing the ubiquitous concern with the material circumstances of katherine’s indiscretions” (irish) — as the council were very interested in the material connections between the people involved as evidence of courtship conventions by way of gift-giving etc. it has been extrapolated in popular imagination to justify katherine’s actions as those of a spoilt teenage girl.

[annabolinas]

Tudor Week 2023:

Day 5: Most Used Tudor Related Resource: A Non-Comprehensive List of My Favorite Tudor Books

I know I said this wasn't comprehensive, and it really isn't; I used 63 secondary sources and 9 primary source collections for my novel alone. These are just my favs, the ones I go back to regularly, plus one surprise. Warning: this is a long post. *crying emoji*

Tudor England: A History - Genuinely the best one-volume history of Tudor England out there. If you're a Tudor buff, GET THIS BOOK!!! There's not only refreshingly balanced interpretations of every Tudor monarch, but Wooding is careful to focus on ordinary people in Tudor England, with chapters dedicated to their religion, literature, relations with the wider world, authority and dissent, and more! Plus, the footnotes and Further Reading are an absolute delight, chock-full of fascinating research. This is academic history at its absolute best.

The Tudor Chronicles - Ever forgot what important stuff happened in Tudor England in 1505? 1563? 1589? This is the book for you. It's a year-by-year look at Tudor history. This was an invaluable book while writing the novel; it really provided a chronological framework on which I could structure the story. Absolutely essential.

Henry VIII by J.J. Scarisbrick - Despite being published in 1968, this remains a classic biography of Henry VIII, one of the very best out there. While Scarisbrick has aged poorer in some areas than others (i.e. his underestimation of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr), his treatment of Henrician foreign policy and the struggle for the annulment has IMO never been bettered. Plus, he has a whole chapter on matrimonial canon law if you want to better understand the background to Henry's quest for an annulment from Catherine of Aragon.

Henry VIII by Lucy Wooding - I actually think Wooding is a better biography of Henry than Scarisbrick, if only because this was published in 2015. Understanding yet never excusing Henry, and with balanced and well-argued interpretations of every historiographical controversy in his reign, this is a book I keep coming back to! Plus, she manages to be sympathetic to Catherine, Anne, and Henry in the Great Matter, no small feat.

Henry VIII: The Mask of Royalty - A bit of an odd book, this is a psychological profile of Henry in his last years, 1540-7. Nevertheless, Smith is careful to never armchair diagnose Henry with anything, but rather bring out facets of his personality which are often ignored, like his obsession with honor and deep-rooted conviction in his close relationship with God as an anointed monarch. This was really helpful in fleshing out Henry as the main character in my novel.

Henry VIII: The Decline and Fall of a Tyrant - If Lacey Baldwin Smith focuses mainly on Henry's psyche from 1540-7, Robert Hutchinson provides a more general picture of these last years. He's particularly insightful on Henry's declining health, his war with France, court factionalism, and the economic woes England faced as a result. I wasn't as familiar with the non-matrimonial aspects of Henry's reign when I was writing the novel, so this book proved a godsend to me.

Six Wives - I know, I know, David Starkey is a racist POS. But he somehow managed to make the (so-far; I hope Suzannah Lipscomb will change this) best overview of the six wives. Weir is downright unreliable and Fraser repeats a number of myths and is a strong CoA partisan. It's Starkey who debunks myths and offers intriguing interpretations of everything from the dating of Anne and Percy's relationship to proof of Foxe's story of Catherine Parr's near-arrest.

Catherine of Aragon by Giles Tremlett - Why it took seventy years to supersede Gareth Mattingly's biography on Catherine, I don't know, but Tremlett did it. This is a richly detailed, fair book on Catherine, and while he is sympathetic to Catherine, he doesn't present her as a plaster saint. Still, it's hard to feel anything but admiration for her after this biography. This is the closest book we'll get to knowing her as a person.

The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn by Eric Ives - This book deserves to be called "the Anne Boleyn bible". An underrated feature of this biography is its fascinating and insightful analysis of Anne's faith, presenting convincing evidence of her evangelical beliefs, and her artistic patronage. Even if I don't agree with his theory of her fall, this is still the best Anne biography out there.

Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves by Elizabeth Norton - In a small field of books about these two queens, Norton manages to produce the best ones. Due to the paucity of evidence, there's naturally a lot of speculation and use of "might have", but she does the best of any book at producing a picture of these two queens as actual people (with thorough citations to boot).

Young and Damned and Fair by Gareth Russell - I feel I should clarify that I don't agree with Russell's analysis of Catherine Howard's relationship with Manox and Dereham; it was not consensual (although I think Dereham groomed her into thinking it was). That being said, Russell sweeps away many of the myths and misconceptions about Catherine to present a very empathetic, yet never biased book about this tragic queen. Plus, he includes a wealth of details about court life and anecdotes about Catherine not found in other bios.

Catherine Parr by Susan James - James is practically the expert on Catherine Parr; it was James who really proved that Catherine was far more passionate and lively than popular belief has it. Thus, it's no surprise this biography is superb. James is particularly good on Catherine's 1544 regency, household, and her Protestant beliefs, really giving you a detailed picture of her faith.

Letters and Papers (L&P) of Henry VIII and the Calendar of State Papers, Spain (CSP Spain) - These two Victorian primary source collections are invaluable resources for researching Henry's reign. They're collections of summaries (and sometimes transcripts) of primary sources for Henry's reign. This is the bedrock of nearly all books about his reign, so much so that excerpts of it are part of my set texts for next term. Plus, there's so much in it; it's a never-ending-buffet for Tudor buffs.

Dress at the Court of Henry VIII - What color shoes did Catherine Parr like to wear the most? How did clothes communicate royal status and political leanings, for both Henry and his wives? How did Henry's children, courtiers, and servants dress on different occasions? This book is the one-stop shop for Henrician fashion. My only complaint is that its illustrations are B&W, but if you combine this with the drawings of gowns in Herbert Norris' Tudor Costume and Fashion, you're pretty much set.

Elizabeth I - The later Tudors aren't really my wheelhouse, but I had to include this amazing biography of Elizabeth I. Forget Weir or Plowden, this is the best biography of Elizabeth out there, and it's a masterpiece of historical biography, period. This book manages to grapple with everything that happened in Elizabeth's nearly 70-year life without getting bogged down in details and preserving a sympathetic, nuanced picture of the woman behind the queenly mask. 10/10, highly recommend!!

[period-dramallama]

I shake my head. “I think not. For all his faults, for all your disillusionment in me, you always wanted the same man to take the throne as I did. For all the revenge you desired to take of me, James you always wanted triumphant. It would be a better revenge, a more lasting one, if the son of Scots came to rule, supplanting the line of English Tudors, would it not?”

I'm sorry WHAAAAAAAAT

Why would Mary prefer James over Philip when Philip is literally a Catholic. Like yeah James is her son but if she wanted James over Philip... why didn't she say so? She bequeathed her claim to Philip. She could have left it to James, or someone else or to nobody at all.

It's kinda insulting to Mary to act like her biological tie to James overrules everything else in her life including her THOUGHTS and OPINIONS. Oh she's vocally angry with James? Doesn't matter. Primary sources? Doesn't matter. She's his Mother. She Loves him. She must want him to succeed. Don't need any evidence. His success is her success because she is his Mother.

[malkaleh]

For this to make sense read this gorgeous fic by @nocompromise-noregrets and also have knowledge of my OT3 verse. This is an in universe fandom post (on a tumblr that it is like, Good Website But Also Still Hell Site)

So I went to the panel discussion at Welles Hall (with a friend which was life changing levels of great) and I wanted to write a book report for the tumblr.

Natalie is actually Aphrodite. Like, I was speechless. I do not know how us mere mortals can gaze at such beauty and anyway, I was the most useless of lesbians.

I’m not personally into men romantically or sexually but like, aesthetically James and Jon and Rupert are very appealing. Like a sunset or a piece of art. Also very charming, A+

Ahmed is a sweetheart and very funny.

The questions/answers were all great but uh, some highlights:

Ahmed really talked about how much he admired the work Rupert did in particular - that he really sat down with the primary sources and asked great insightful questions (quote “I think in some ways actors have a similar drive to historians - to understand people, even repellant ones”)

“People ask me if I have any sympathy for him [Norwich] and the answer is no! I loathe him - the historical study is fascinating and important but I have never liked him”

Rupert said it was hard to be in [Norwich’s] head - that he ended up developing a ritual for getting in and out of character to separate himself - he really gave credit to the shows intimacy coordinator for the workshopping before anyone was on set.

(Aside we learned that Rupert was cast really early on - apparently they didn’t want anyone else because he’s quote ‘handsome and charming and a brilliant performer and that’s what we needed’)

Maya said there were times she had to stop herself from quote ‘making excited squeaking noises’ on set (world renowned historians - they are in fact just like us) and that her favourite set was the Arthurian Masque plus “one I can’t talk about yet” *eyes emoji*

Maya “I went into the process of revising it (The Tudor Triad: New Edition) with delight and sadness” she talked about how she loved being back with these three but also the heaviness of it - how she wrestled with how much to include.

Ahmed interjected and said that it was one thing he really struggled with as well - that only having Norwich’s voice, Noriwch’s details on the abuse was something particularly sickening and that’s in large part why it was so incredible to see James’ performance.

(“I think, I hope that somewhere in the afterlife Thomas Cromwell is glad to see that he is given his story back to him”)

Both James and Rupert really talked about how the townhouse visit was the most confronting part - that Norwich’s journals are awful and chilling but somehow being in the space where it happened, that made it all the more real, especially because by this point they’d both been in their characters heads for a while.

“It was horrible - i actually don’t like to talk about it in detail honestly”

They both talked about how great Ellie at Welles Hall was - that she and Ahmed and Maya really talked them through the diary/papers and the decoding. (“All props to Rupert and James - not only is the content not an easy read, reading/interpreting Tudor handwriting is a process and reading Tudor handwriting in a mix of languages is even worse”)

Natalie “my guiding sense was that Anne would rip him [Norwich] apart with her bare hands and dance on the remains - I just found that through playing her, reading her own words even if it’s never referred to directly”

Jon was very sure he wanted to have what Henry says to Norwich remain a mystery (though Rupert knows!) and he didn’t want the audience to see Henry’s face when it was sad - Rupert said that it was ‘incredibly bloody satisfying’ to play the moment when Norwich realises that he has ‘fucked around and found out’

Rupert said he thought that Norwich absolutely believed in his own mythology - that essentially, might makes right, that he was a great Roman General etc. (Which apparently Ahmed is currently working on an academic article about Norwich and Ancient Rome)

I’ll be back for part II: the Lionel Discussion Panel later.

-semperlyqueerly

[elephantlovemedleys]

A few entries allow us a glimpse into the relationship shared between Elizabeth and Henry. A sum of 3s 6d spent for "eggs, butter, and milk for the King and Queen" implies a special treat, but gives no clue about when, where, and how the ingredients were used⎯or why they were purchased from the queen's Privy Purse rather than from the kitchen accounts. Her purchase of a pound-and-a-half of gold of Venice, 8 ounces of gold of Damascus, and an ounce of Venetian silk for making the "lace and buttons for the King's mantle of the Garter" suggests that Elizabeth made the Garter with her own hands, a distinct act of affection in a 17 year old marriage that had the Great Wardrobe couture at its disposal.

Arlene Okerlund, Elizabeth of York: Queenship and Power / Privy purse expenses of Elizabeth of York : wardrobe accounts of Edward the Fourth. With a memoir of Elizabeth of York

[fideidefenswhore]

"Cromwell coolly betrayed his ally in religion when she was becoming obstructive and a liability to his plans for the future, and the tale is abominable." Diarmaid MacCulloch, 2014

//

"And then you see the real story, and just the big outlines of it, which should have been there for all of us; that Cromwell’s career is held back under Anne, it is not advanced. As soon as she’s dead, whoosh! He’s away! He’s a baron, he’s a knight, he’s Lord Privy Seal. That should have told all of us, and it didn’t." Diarmaid MacCulloch, 2019

// 

"Cromwell wants to be Henry's right-hand man; he wants to be the chief advisor. Anne wants to be Henry's right-hand woman, she wants to be the chief advisor. You cannot have two in the one court." Dr. Lauren Mackay, 2022

//

"Cremuel said lately to me that were the Lady to know the familiar terms on which he and I are, she would surely try to cause us both some annoyance, and that only three days ago she and he had had words together, the Lady telling him, among other things, that she would like to see his head off his shoulders. "But," added Cromwell, "I trust so much on my master, that I fancy she cannot do me any harm." I cannot tell whether this is an invention of cromwell in order to enhance his merchandise. All I can say is, that everyone here considers him Anne's right hand, as I myself told him some time ago." Eustace Chapuys to the Emperor, June 1535

"Now [Cromwell] stands above every one but the Lady, and every one considers he has more credit with his master than Wolsey had." Eustace Chapuys to the Emperor, November 1535

TudorWeek2023, Day 1: Favourite Tudor Rivalry(/Alliance): Anne Boleyn & Thomas Cromwell

[mary-tudor]

24 March 1603: death of Elizabeth Tudor, Queen of England.

[katharinepar]

Hey do you have any book recs for Byzantine history in general or for people just starting to learn about it?

Hello – so sorry this took so long! I'm finishing up a research project and haven't had a chance to log into Tumblr. While I have always, and will always, love the Byzantines, my job dictates that my focus is on the Tudors, all the time, so I apologize if some of these aren't completely up to date. Nevertheless, I'm happy to provide clarification on any of my suggestions and would be open to answering any questions you might have.

Bear in mind that the history of the "Byzantine Empire" spans a thousand years, and encompasses varying periods that differ significantly. It would probably be beneficial to nail down which period you're interested in studying/learning more about and going from there (though for a comprehensive overview I recommend the Cambridge History or Byzantium by Cyril Mango, both of which I've cited below).

Also, I was really delighted by this question – thank you!

Books

Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire (2009)

Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome by Cyril Mango

The Fall of Constantinople 1453 by Steven Runciman (though 1453 by Roger Crowley is also a great start)

Byzantium: The Early Centuries by John Julius Norwich (a good introduction, as is A Short History of Byzantium)

Women in Purple: Rulers of Medieval Byzantium by Judith Herrin

Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire by Judith Herrin

The Last Centuries of Byzantium by Donald Nicol (the edition I read is dated, some 30 years old; I don't know how recent publications have fared – more academic than the others)

Lost to the West by Lars Brownworth

Byzantium: The Bridge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages by Michael Angold

Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade by Anthony Kaldellis

Biographies

Anna Komnene and the Alexiad: The Byzantine Princess and the First Crusade by Ioulia Kolovou

Podcasts

The History of Rome Mike Duncan

History of Byzantium

Primary Sources

Anna Komnene's Alexiad

Further research

Historia Civilis, last I checked, has a fairly decent catalogue on Rome and Byzantium on Youtube.

If I think of any more to suggest I'll tack them on in a reblog.

[historyartthings]

‘No less believable, because he had heard it from “person’s of honour”, was the tradition that Protector Somerset had observed “a bloody sword come out of the wall”, prophesying his own decapitation’.

- D.R Woolf, ‘The “Common Voice”: History, Folklore and Oral Tradition in Early Modern England’, p. 49.

(They should’ve put this in Becoming Elizabeth. For the drama of it all)

[maximumphilosopheranchor]

Hi! Hope you're doing good) i wonder what portrayance of Elizabeth do you like the most and your opinion about series and movies telling about Elizabeth ( Elizabeth 1998, Virgin Queen with Anne Mary Duff, Elizabeth 2005, Becoming Elizabeth, The Tudors).

And the second question it's what is your opinion on " Becoming Elizabeth" and how much historical accurate can we call it?

Hi! I'm doing relatively well considering some unwelcome changes in my life and the fact that my small country borders with Mordor, thank you.

My favourite portrayal of Elizabeth onscreen is Glenda Jackson in the 1970s miniseries Elizabeth R. Yeah, I suppose one may say that Elizabeth's vulnerable side is a bit lacking there but still from all portrayals it comes the closest to the real Elizabeth. And, as I once said, the writing of the series is light years ahead of any modern Tudor drama.

My thoughts on Elizabeth 1998 and Virgin Queen you can read here. I have objections against the depiction of Elizabeth's relationship with Essex in Elizabeth 2005 but apart from that I rather like Helen Mirren's Elizabeth. In fact, I would put it in the second place after Glenda Jackson's Elizabeth. One of the things I appreciate about Elizabeth 2005 is that they cast age appropriate actors instead of making an aging Elizabeth grotesque (cough Mary Queen of Scots 2018 cough).

Laoise Murray's portrayal of Elizabeth in The Tudors has a special place in my heart because it was the show that sparked my interest in Tudor England and Elizabeth in particular. I wrote about it here.

Becoming Elizabeth... Where do I begin? I still haven't managed to watch the last two episodes of it but I don't think that there's anything that could alter my opinion. For me this show turned out to be a disappointment. The costumes were good and there are some worthy portrayals, like Mary I, John Dudley and Edward VI but as a portrayal of Elizabeth's early life - which this show primary was supposed to be about - it is a huge failure. I don't know what it was, was it the writer's inability to understand Elizabeth or to get the sense of her or something else but, as others have pointed out, instead of telling Elizabeth's story they ended up with telling a story of an abstract abuse victim in the 16th century setting. And it can't be explained by the lack of information because while it's true there's no a lot of record of Elizabeth post-Seymour scandal during Edward's reign they failed to build upon the sources they have. We have, for example, the interrogation transcripts, Elizabeth's letters to Somerset which show how she behaved, how she acted, what was her argumentation and what she stood for. Was it used in the depiction of Elizabeth's interrogation on the show? Watch Episode 6 and you will see that the answer is no. Not only that, the episode that should be focused on Elizabeth's interrogation and defense of herself and her servants, was focused on the Seymour brothers' relationship problems and John Dudley's noble and not so noble deeds. I love John Dudley, but come on, is this show about Elizabeth or anyone else except her? I'm also dissatisfied that show!Elizabeth on top of being out of character was barely existing out of her relationship with the two men - Thomas Seymour and Robert Dudley. As much as I love Elizabeth's relationship with Robert Dudley introducing their romance at this stage of the story - I remind, that this was Edward's reign - was premature for me. At this stage of the timeline I would have preferred them to be portrayed as friends, perhaps, with a hint - but only a hint - of something more in the future like Susan Kay did it in Legacy.

There were some serious pacing issues as well. What was the point of dragging out Thomas Seymour's business for so long? The man should be dead by Episode 4.

In short I find a lot of problems with this show, and to answer your question how much historically accurate it was, I would say no, it wasn't particularly accurate nor it was particularly entertaining. There was a lot of fiction thrown in partly to carry on Thomas Seymour's existence for 6 Episodes, partly to God knows what reasons. And yes, I'm compelled to say this - there's no evidence that Elizabeth lost her virginity to Thomas Seymour, let alone that it happened like the show portrayed it.

[richmond-rex]

Hello! I apologize if you’ve been asked this before but are there any places to look for primary sources on Henry VII and his court? Particularly online resources (since I live in the States)? Thank you!

Hi! There used to be a website that hosted several primary source documents (the Henry Tudor Society) but I don't think it's working anymore. I recommend the following:

Foreign diplomacy: Calendar of State Papers, Spain (vol 1) Calendar of State Papers, Venice (vol 1) Calendar of State Papers, Milan (1385-1618) Calendar of Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland (vol 14)

Tudor Chamber Books Project (expenses)

Calendar of Patent Rolls (vol 1 and vol 2)

On archive.org you can find: The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources (A. F. Pollard) / Rutland Papers (contains the device for the coronation of Henry VII) / The Statutes of Henry VII / Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII (James Gairdner) / Tudor and Stuart Proclamations (vol 1) / Tudor Royal Proclamations (vol 1) / Chronicles of London / The Croyland Chronicle / Hall's Chronicle / The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne / Paston Letters and the Papers of Fifteenth Century England

This is all I could think of before my laptop shut down (sob) but I think it's basically what you would be looking for! Good luck 🌹x

[play-now-my-lord]

not to be a Language Nerd on what's clearly a joke but this feels like it fails the sniff test. Shakespeare was far from the only playwright of his era whose work survives to the present - and he worked way less frequently with contemporary England as a setting than most, and many of his coinages relied on his own knowledge of Latin or Greek, which weren't the primary source of slang terms in OP in the Tudor era (that'd be a sort of congealing urban argot with influences from English's many dialects, with the foreign influences being afaik primarily Spanish and Dutch). Like, not saying 0% of Shakespeare's apparent coinages weren't just fashionable slang words among the literate proto-bourgeois that he hung around with, but I really doubt *most* of them were.

In particular, the outsized Spanish influence on anything touching on warfare is evident in Shakespeare, and almost certainly was a case of slang driving Shakespeare's coinages rather than the other way around, because there's zero evidence he had any familiarity with Spanish. But he definitely knew his way around Latin and Greek well enough to come up with new words to fit English from classical stock, which wasn't exactly something that trickled up to him from memes. (And we know this because there were other, way more ridiculous, playwrights and authors who went ham with it; I forget off the dome what they were called but there was a school of authors who wrote the most ridiculous shit using fancy school Latin to try and embellish the language and teach moral lessons, and they mostly survive to the present day as an academic curiosity - and from Shakespeare making fun of them.)

The theory that most of the words Shakespeare is credited with "inventing" are really just contemporary youth slang, and Shakespeare's plays are merely the earliest surviving sources that wrote them down is fascinating because of how that interacts with his use of historical and folkloric sources in his plays. Like, imagine a version of The Green Knight where King Arthur calls Gawain "cringe".