#claire ridgway

[marriageandthecrown]

"Rose without a thorn" was never about Katheryn Howard, but actually this quote seemed to initially appear during Henry's marriage to Katharine of Aragon - and not even about his wife, but about Henry. And when you think about it, Henry would see himself like that.

[heather123fan-blog]

Lecture Two of the Men Behind the Throne series was on Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. Phil Roberts has written a biography on him called Cardinal Wolsey: For King and Country. I'm starting to really like and admire Wolsey after learning more about him. Not only was he a smart, loyal counselor who served Henry VIII well diplomatically and politically, but he also appears to have been fairly benevolent. He protected early Reformers from being persecuted, but still supported the Pope as Head of the Church. He also supported church reform and closed several smaller monasteries to fund new schools he had built. Of all the Thomases I have to say he seems to have been the one that was the most benevolent and did quite a bit for the common people. I don't like that he broke up the Henry Percy and Anne Boleyn relationship, but he does seem to have gotten along fine with Anne later and supported her interests in the divorce. Contrary to popular belief the Boleyns did not hate Wolsey. They worked well with him and viewed him as an ally. Though Norfolk had some conflict with him there is NO evidence that Anne played a role in his downfall. Which make sense as she needed his help to marry the King. Let's not blame her for things she didn't do. Thomas Cromwell was also friends with Wolsey but not quite as devoted to him as Wolf hall portrays. Once Wolsey was banished up North he began to move on to further his own career.

[tudorblogger]

Monthly Reading Summary – August 2023

[queencatherineparr]

“The love between the couple was reawakened after the King’s death and the couple were married by the end of May 1547 ...  It is not known exactly when the couple became betrothed and even when they got married, due to the fact that the couple wanted to keep their relationship quiet because of the King’s recent death. It is clear, however, that they married in haste … Marriage to Seymour changed Catherine’s life. She was finally with the man she loved.” 

- Claire Ridgway, The Elizabeth Files

[fideidefenswhore]

Considering that many of those interested in Anne Boleyn are female and that many are young, Mayhew frequently shows a baffling disdain for them, repeatedly calling them Anne's "fanatical fans and groupies". The women of the past fare just as severely in Mayhew's narrative. Queen Catherine of Aragon is cruelly labelled as "dwindling rapidly into a rather unattractive dumpy middle age". Mary Boleyn, we are told, "managed to inveigle herself into Henry VIII's bedroom". Considering we know next to nothing about Mary's affair with Henry VIII, including who initiated it, it is bewildering that Mayhew has the confidence to tell his readers that it was all Mary's ploy. Anne Boleyn is accused of "gaslighting the King of England into religious revolution". 

jesus christ, what a fucking idiot.

[isabelleneville]

𓅃 ANNE BOLEYN WEEK 2024 𓅃

day four | favourite Anne motto

“Ainsi sera, groigne qui groigne”, which translates to “Let them grumble, that is how it is going to be”. Anne made use of this motto for a few weeks in around late 1529/early 1530. Anne had the motto embroidered on her servants’ livery ... Anne may only have used to for a few weeks, but a piece of embroidery featuring the motto has survived. The piece, which is thought to have been a cupboard cloth, has an oval design with the motto displayed in its border .. in the middle is of Anne Boleyn’s white falcon pecking at a pomegranate, the symbol of Katherine of Aragon ... The falcon is also perched on a stock, or tree stump, a Plantagenet badge, from which red and white roses spring, symbolising Anne bringing fertility to Henry VIII’s previously barren stock. The motto and the accompanying image give us insight into how Anne Boleyn was feeling at the time, her frustration at the situation, her impatience, her defiance at those who were painting her as a usurper and wh*re, and clearly her anger towards Katherine of Aragon. - Claire Ridgway, The Anne Boleyn Files

AINSI SERA GROIGNE QUI GROIGNE (LET THEM GRUMBLE; THAT IS HOW IT IS GOING TO BE)

[mosertone]

Modern day Halloween customs have their beginnings in many medieval traditions. Souling was one of the precursors to Trick or Treating. During the Middle Ages, on October 31st the eve before All Saints Day, church bells were rung, bonfires were lit and people wore masks to ward off spirits and to send them on their way. Farm buildings and homes were also blessed to protect them from evil. Poor children would go around knocking on doors begging for Soul Cakes, apples and ale this was called “Souling”. Each soul cake was said to represent a soul in Purgatory and in exchange for a cake the souler would promise to pray for the dead of that household. Rhymes would be sung as the soulers stopped at each house, such as: "One for Peter, and two for Paul; Three for him who made us all. Pray good people Remember the poor. And give us all a good soul-cake For the blessed dead and charity’s sake." Source: Halloween, All Hallows Eve and Soul Cakes, Claire Ridgway for The Tudor Society..

Now conflated into "Hallowthanksmas" in the states.

[boleynfae]

“The beginning of her speech, and the general undercurrent of her words, was so similar to that of George's that she must have been told what he had said. The manner of the address, and the overall meaning behind the words, are too similar for this to be purely coincidental, even taking into account the conventions of the sixteenth century. The fact that she chose to reiterate his comments emphasises as nothing else the bond between brother and sister, even at the very end.”

— George Boleyn: Tudor Poet, Courtier & Diplomat by Claire Ridgway, Clare Cherry

[duchessofthemoonartworks]

On May 19 1536 Anne Boleyn was beheaded by a French swordsman at the tower of london. While her life ended there her story will forever live on in books, movies & TV shows. I highly recommend Claire Ridgway book The Fall of Anne Boleyn.

More places to follow my art 🌙

Instagram @ duchess_of_the_moon_

Twitter https://mobile.twitter.com/Duchesofthemoon

[catalinadearagonsblog]

Catherine of Aragon's final letter to Henry VIII: fake or real

Some years after her death the text of a letter she supposedly dictated to her husband as she lay on her deathbed began to circulate amongst Roman Catholic writers.

My Lord and dear husband, The hour of my death now approaching, I cannot choose but, out of the love I bear you, to advise you of your soul’s health, which you ought to prefer before all considerations of the world or flesh whatsoever. For which yet you have cast me into many calamities, and yourself into many troubles. But I forgive you all, and pray God to do so likewise. For the rest, I commend unto you Mary, our daughter, beseeching you to be a good father to her. I must entreat you also to look after my maids, and give them in marriage, which is not much, they being but three, and to all my other servants, a year’s pay besides their due, lest otherwise they should be unprovided for until they find new employment. Lastly, I want only one true thing, to make this vow: that, in this life, mine eyes desire you alone. May God protect you. -Tremlett, Giles, Catherine of Aragon: The Spanish Queen of Henry VIII

Supposedly she signed it as “Katharyne the Quene”. One of Catherine's biographer's, Giles Tremlett, takes this last letter with a healthy dose of skepticism. He believes that it "is almost certainly fictitious". He does though concede that the letter may have reflected what she was feeling in the early hours of the 7th of January. His version is different from the one that appears in Patrick Williams’s biography. 

My Lord and dear husband, I commend myself to you. The hour of my death draws near, and my condition is such that, because of the tender love that I owe to you, and in only a few words, I put you in remembrance of the heath and safeguard of your soul, which you ought to prefer before all worldly matters and before the care and tendering of your own body, for the which you have cast me into many miseries and yourself into many anxieties. For my part I do pardon you all, yes I do wish and devoutly pray to God that He will also pardon you. For the rest, I commend unto you Mary, our daughter, beseeching you to be a good father to her, as I heretofore desired. I entreat you also, on behalf of my maids, to give them marriage-portions, which is not much, since there are only three of them. For all my other servants, I ask for one year’s pay more than their due, lest they should be unprovided for. Lastly, do I vow, that mine eyes desire you above all things. - Williams, Patrick. Katharine of Aragon: The Tragic Story of Henry VIII’s First Unfortunate Wife

Other scholars take it at face value that such a letter existed – Patrick Williams is one. Amy Licence writes that "it is by no means certain that this is a genuine letter, surviving in a later document rather than the State Papers and Letters." Linda Porter writes "In its dignified pathos and remembrance of a great and, for the writer, enduring love, it is one of the most moving farewells in the English language". Claire Ridgway believes " it rings true with Catherine's behaviour and her character". If it was fictitious, Claire is not sure that the writer would have bothered with the financial details. The Catholic recusant Nicholas Sander, writing in Elizabeth I’s reign, reported that “The king could not refrain from tears when he read the letter [Catherine’s last letter to him] ... " If Henry read Catherine's letter, it means that someone sent it to him from Kimbolton. Perhaps Henry saved the letter and it fell into the hands of a Catherine's supporter.

There’s no mention of it in diplomatic missives. Eustace Chapuys, who was the ambassador from the Holy Roman Empire and Catherine’s nephew Charles V, never mentioned it when writing to his lord. It would make sense for Queen Catherine to trust Chapuys with the knowledge of such a letter – but there is no mention. He did write, however, of a request that Catherine made of Henry to take care of her servants after her death (it cannot really be termed a will as at the time English law forbade women from writing wills if their husbands were living – as technically everything the wife owned belonged to the husband).

Knowing that according to English law a wife can make no will while her husband survives, she would not break the said laws, but by way of request caused her physician to write a little bill, which she commanded to be sent to me immediately, and which was signed by her hand, directing some little reward to be made to certain servants who had remained with her. -Eustace Chapuys to Charles V, 21 January 1536.

Sources:

[owlsandwich]

Nine People Tag

This is my first tagged post! Thank you to @boundedsea for tagging me! Reminds me of the Internet in the olden days 🥹

LAST SONG: Noise by Nightwish

LAST MOVIE: Monte Cristo (the 1922 silent film as part of my attempt to watch as many Count of Monte Cristo adaptations as possible)

CURRENTLY WATCHING: Nothing - I actually don't watch series shows at all unless they are short and completed. I will probably watch the new Good Omens at some point.

CURRENTLY READING: The Scholars of Night by John M. Ford. I really want to finish this as I was loving it, though I haven't picked it up in a few months. Life got in the way. I am also reading George Boleyn: Tudor Poet, Courtier and Diplomat by Claire Ridgway and Clare Cherry, and The INFJ writer by Lauren Sapala. Also Dracula Daily, of course!

CURRENTLY CRAVING: Lunch 😭 I'm doing intermittent fasting to try and be as slim as possible for top surgery in 2 months.

LAST THING SEARCHED (FOR WRITING): "What does fear look like?" - I suck at coming up with varied body language descriptions for emotions, so sometimes need to check for inspiration.

Tagging: @itreatyoutosteak @diner-drama @takingawildbreath @secretpeaceful @fictionalbullshitter

[heather123fan-blog]

Currently, listening to a lecture series called The Men Behind the Throne with Claire Ridgway. My first time doing a Tudor online event and getting to interact with people face to face. Been loving this event. I'm learning a lot of new things I didn't know before about the counselors that served all the Tudor monarchs. Starting with the men who served in Henry VII's government. There were so many! Including Edmund Dudley and Richard Guildford. I'm falling more in love with Henry VII by the day. He really was such a fantastic king. What a pity his son didn't learn more from him. I want to get my hands on a copy of Steven Gunn's Henry VII's New Men and the Making of Tudor England. It's a newer book focusing on the ministers that served him during his reign. Has anyone read it?

[lightelfearthling]

https://claireridgway.com/events/christmas/

In this six-day event, historian and author Claire Ridgway explores the history of Christmas and brings to life the twelve days of merriment that the Tudors enjoyed, both at the royal court and in towns and villages around the country.

Learn all about the Tudor Christmas in this interactive online event through video talks, Zoom Q&A sessions and Zoom discussions.

https://claireridgway.com/events/christmas/

[fideidefenswhore]

So I follow Claire Ridgway's Anne Boleyn Files and she has a few interesting alternative videos on what would have happened if Anne Boleyn had given birth to a son and not been executed. I am curious what you think may have happened to Mary had Anne given birth to a son that was acknowledged by everyone as Prince of Wales. Would she have been restored to the Succession or not?

It's hard to say perhaps Henry would have made Mary legitimate again but I can't see him doing that without putting Elizabeth and her new brother's legitimacy in danger. Maybe he would have married her off elsewhere?

Claire thinks the 1553 Crisis probably would have been avoided had Anne's son inherited the throne. I tend to agree with her son on the throne even if that son were to die young the Crown would still pass to Elizabeth. The Lady Jane Grey Coup would have been avoided.

Well, Mary's counsel from the Emperor's representative was to acknowledge Anne as Queen once/if she had a son. She did ultimately follow his counsel in the summer of 1536 when it came to acknowledging the religious supremacy, the legal invalidity of her parents' marriage and her own bastardy (and renouncing any claim to the throne thereby), so one could plausibly assume she would've done the same here. Many Marians insist she would never have done so; I myself don't find that scenario plausible, unless she was already on the other side of England at the point of her continued stance, in one of Charles V's realms and under his protection (as much as France had pushed for her to wed one of their princes, they're unlikely to have risked alienating HVIII by keeping her under theirs [tbf, they did harbor Reginald Pole, but that was years later in a much-changed religious and political landscape/circumstances], as for Scotland, James V had outright refused Chapuys' proposal on the grounds it would alienate HVIII, his close neighbour, and besides, had already acknowledged AB as Queen and Elizabeth as Princess, along with his mother).

I am curious what you think may have happened to Mary had Anne given birth to a son that was acknowledged by everyone as Prince of Wales. Would she have been restored to the Succession or not?

No to the 2nd, and what's been argued in this genre goes even further and more specifically, that had AB had a son in 1533, Mary would not have been disinherited or had her title reduced at all, because there would have been 'no need'. However, the prevalence of this theory underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of English precedent when it came to inheritance and HVIII's own beliefs, which wouldn't have changed but rather been vindicated, had his prince been born in 1533:

"[...] to appreciate Henry’s viewpoint it is first necessary to clarify the nature of his quest. This was certainly not simply to wed Anne Boleyn. Most scholars have concurred with the emphasis given by Elton and Scarisbrick that, whatever the roots of Henry’s ‘Great Matter’, he became unquestionably ‘convinced in his conscience that his marriage to Catherine had been a great sin’ and that his lack of sons was a punishment for this transgression. This reasoning also means that we must take seriously Henry’s worries about a future renewal of civil war, which might best be averted by the birth of a healthy and clearly legitimate baby boy. In earlier marriage negotiations with France and the Empire he had insisted that Mary was heir presumptive; he now argued that she would be barred by illegitimacy. This contention puzzled continental contemporaries because elsewhere in western Europe those children born to couples who in good faith (like Katherine and Henry in 1509) believed themselves validly married were treated as legitimate. Nevertheless, Henry was right. After a period of some uncertainty, by the late fourteenth century England had opted out of the bona fides principle, just as it had famously done in the Statute of Merton from that of legitimation per subsequens matrimonium.

While it is true that the English royal succession was not rigidly constrained by the law of property, nevertheless, as Sir John Baker notes, ‘succession problems were usually debated in legal terms and in accordance with the common law canons of inheritance’. A successful challenge to his marriage would thus automatically bastardise Mary and leave Henry with no direct heir."

- Katherine of Aragon & The Veil, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol 66. © Cambridge University Press

What Mary does seem to have been offered in late 1533, was the retaining of her own household, its complete staff, etc, in exchange her acknowledgement of Elizabeth as Princess, her stepmother as Queen, her parents' marriage is invalid, her own title as invalid by extension:

Throughout these years, the king had showed a genuine personal affection for Mary, even if his support for her as his successor was minimal at times. Initially, therefore, he hoped to persuade her to accept the Boleyn marriage despite its inevitable implication of her own disinheritance. Henry determined that the strongest incentive he could offer to secure her acquiescence was the continuation of her household on nearly the same scale it enjoyed prior to Elizabeth's birth. A checkeroll listing of all Mary's household officers and department heads as well as her senior staff carries the date of October 1533, a month after Elizabeth's birth. The list provides a snapshot of Mary's household on the eve before she was to experience considerable loss in status as a result of the imminent reduction of her household. Indeed, the list initially presents something of a puzzle. The king had already announced plans to reduce Mary's household shortly after Elizabeth's birth in September. Yet the list contains exalted names apparently indicating that in October 1533 that Mary's household was still of sufficient status to attract the service and residency of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury and Lady Margaret Douglas (Henry VIII's niece). Did the October list represent a description of Mary's household as it actually existed, or was it instead a fantasy household offered to Mary, via the checkeroll, as an inducement to accept her own disinheritance? There is not enough evidence for a definitive answer. Given the positive comment by the Milanese envoy around this time that Mary's household was appropriate to her (then) status as heir to the throne combined with the rarity of household lists taking the form of fantasy literature and the tradition of compiling such lists for accounting during October, this study proceeds on the assumption that the October list of 1533 was an accurate depiction of Mary's household. Jeri L. McIntosh. From Heads of Household to Heads of State: The Preaccession Households of Mary and Elizabeth Tudor, 1516–1558.

So while McIntosh admits there's 'not enough evidence for a definitive answer', I find her theory highly plausible, as it seems to fit the timeline of events (specifically, late 1533 to early 1534) and adheres to the scholarly understanding of HVIII's character, temperament, and personality of the early 1530s.

There's sense to this offer, as obviously the Duke of Richmond had his own household, but unlike her brother, Mary had been acknowledged as Princess her entire life. So, 'the arrogant presumption of that title' (HVIII's words) is very...things that make you go hmmm.

So it was at his discretion to legitimate her by statute (as Caesaropapism goes, an equivalent to the Pope declaring children of similar dissolved marriages legitimate in good faith, he could have done this), but I don't believe he ever would have. There's some fuzziness here, because this was apparently offered to COA via Campeggio by HVIII circa 1529 and refused (and she seems to have tried to grasp at this previous offer much later, like in 1533), so he must have been willing at some point (unless this was merely an attempted feint of deceit). What seems most plausible is that it was on offer genuinely, but as he further studied the religious and legal scholarship/precedent on the matter and argued for the legitimacy of his beliefs and views in the years to come, he must have come to believe Mary's illegitimacy would inevitably follow the dissolution of her parents' marital union.

It's hard to say perhaps Henry would have made Mary legitimate again but I can't see him doing that without putting Elizabeth and her new brother's legitimacy in danger. Maybe he would have married her off elsewhere?

At most, he might have invested her in some titles by dint of marriage negotiations, this making her more appealing to prospective royal/noble parents wishing to marry their sons (I've seen Duchess of York suggested, which I don't find likely from HVIII, former Duke of York, in particular...it was a title for second sons....I could see some new creation however, maybe Marchioness/Marquess of Exeter, as I believe Gertrude Courtenay lost that title after being attainted, and obviously her husband's was rather more permanently lost).

There was arguably equal danger to marrying her abroad to a prince (the potential to invade) and marrying her in England (proximity eased the possibility for any future coup). However, such qualms could be eased via marriage treaties, and in fact, we know of the marital negotiations for Mary that took place in the late 1530s and throughout the 1540s, that an immoveable caveat HVIII tended to add was that Mary and a future spouse would renounce any claim to the throne of England, in writing (as this was often the appeal for the other party, most, with the exception of the Duke of Bavaria, which was closed for other reasons, ended in stalemate). Tl; dr I'm not really sure her prospects for marriage would've been much better off in any counterfactual where her first stepmother both remained Queen, and had a prince (which is one of the greatest ironies of the, alternately named, Aragonese/ Marian / White Rose faction of 1536...they schemed for the reinstatement and better circumstances of their Princess, which never really eventuated in any significant way [at least, arguably not in much greater luxury or attendance at court than she might've enjoyed in her acceptance of Anne as Queen], as she remained in that joint household with Elizabeth for several years, etc.)

Claire thinks the 1553 Crisis probably would have been avoided had Anne's son inherited the throne. I tend to agree with her son on the throne even if that son were to die young the Crown would still pass to Elizabeth. The Lady Jane Grey Coup would have been avoided.

Well, that's to assume Mary wouldn't have fought for the throne. She never fought for this against her half-brother by another stepmother, but she did signficantly defy him, and she never left England as she planned to do during his reign...which leaves us with a rather open question of how she would have survived once he assumed complete power in his majority and dissolved his regency council. We can never really know counterfactuals, and this one feels way too nebulous to even make any attempt of sketch, tbh. How many supporters would any Boleyn-Tudor prince have had? Elizabeth had a significant party by the time Mary took the throne, and they certainly made enough moves in her favor to unsettle and frighten the regime. Certainly, I cannot envision a Boleyn-Tudor prince revising the succesion to make Jane Grey his heir and disinherting his own sister, especially as Elizabeth would, in this scenario, be considered legitimate more universally (within England, at least).

[creativejamie]

One Man, Two Guvnors Explained: What's Up With the Ending?

One Man, Two Guvnors Explained: What’s Up With the Ending?

City of Brighton, located on the south coast of England, 1963. Mobster businessman Charlie Duck Clench (Fred Ridgway) is celebrating the engagement of his daughter Pauline (Claire Lams) to lawyer Harry Dangle’s (Martin Ellis) son Alan (Daniel Rigby) with guests. Charlie tells Harry that he promised his daughter’s hand in marriage to his old business partner, Roscoe Crabbe, but it turns out that…