#the ultimate tudor husband

[wonder-worker]

Thinking about Elizabeth Woodville as a gothic heroine is making me go insane. She entered the story by overturning existing social structures, provoking both ire and fascination. She married into a dynasty doomed to eat itself alive. She was repeatedly associated with the supernatural, both in terms of love and death. Her life was shaped entirely by uncanny repetitions - two marriages, two widowhoods, two depositions, two flights to sanctuary, two ultimate reclamations, all paralleling and ricocheting off each other. Her plight after 1483 exposed the true rot at the heart of the monarchy - the trappings of royalty pulled away to reveal nothing, a never-ending cycle of betrayal and war, the price of power being the (literal) blood of children. She lived past the end of her family name, she lived past the end of her myth. She ended her life in a deeply anomalous position, half-in and half-out of royal society. She was both a haunting tragedy and the ultimate survivor who was finally free.

[katharinepar]

“In death, Jane became the ultimate consort; unblemished (especially in the eyes of her capricious and tyrannical husband), ever young, and the mother of a surviving son. Instead of merely being the wife who ‘died’ and in recognition of her saint-like life — which went beyond the medieval ideal of saintly queenship — Jane should actually be remembered as the wife who was (effectively) canonised.”

Aidan Norrie, ‘Jane Seymour: Saintly Queen’, Tudor and Stuart Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty (Queenship and Power)

[catalinadearagonsblog]

Katherine of Aragon & Gertrude Courtenay

Gertrude was daughter of William Blount, fourth Baron Mountjoy, a distinguished humanist scholar and chamberlain to Katherine of Aragon. As the daughter of such an esteemed gentleman at court,  Gertrude received an outstanding education and served Katherine of Aragon as one of her maids of honor. The Queen oversaw the education of her young charges, so Gertrude benefitted from the royal patronage. In 1519, she married to Henry VIII’s first cousin Henry Courtenay, Earl of Devon. Gertrude was the wife and mother of the last Plantagenets at the Tudor court.

Gertrude was one of Queen Katherine of Aragon's attendants at the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520. If the Chateau Vert rings any bells it’s probably because it was the masque that saw Anne Boleyn, freshly returned from France, debuting at the Tudor court in March 1522. A little-known fact is that Gertrude Courtenay also took part in it, playing the role of Honour. In 1525, Gertrude’s star was on the rise once again when her husband was created the Marquess of Exeter, making Gertrude a Marchioness.

Gertrude was among the key political players of Henry VIII’s court during the infamous annulment, known as the Great Matter, commencing in 1527 and ending in 1536. The Marchioness of Exeter was among the high-profile ladies-in-waiting who staunchly supported Katherine of Aragon. Seeing how popular the Queen was among the women at court, Anne Boleyn used her influence and dismissed some of them, including Gertrude.

During the summer of 1531, Katherine of Aragon was banished from court. The Queen received gifts and letters from her trusted friends and former servants like Gertrude Courtenay in her exile.

Henry VIII had had enough of his wife’s resistance, and he married the pregnant Anne Boleyn in secret on 25 January 1533. On 31 May, Anne rode in a procession from the Tower of London to Westminster Hall—it was the most impressive part of the coronation festivities. The Marchioness of Exeter opened the cavalcade, a clear sign that she was a high-profile lady-in-waiting. Gertrude had no other choice but to follow the King’s orders and accompany the new Queen: a clear sign to Katherine’s followers that unconditional obedience was required. Gertrude’s husband managed to avoid appearing at Anne’s coronation. Whether the illness Henry Courtenay suffered in June was real or feigned cannot be discerned now, but Gertrude later “much lamented her husband’s sickness at the time of the Queen’s coronation, and said that though her person was there, her heart was at home with her husband”.

Gertrude’s prominent role during the christening of Anne Boleyn’s daughter was calculated as an insult to Katherine of Aragon. Henry VIII selected Gertrude as one of Princess Elizabeth’s godmothers. The disgusted Marchioness complained to her friends that “she really wanted to have nothing to do with this” but took part “so as not to displease the King”.

Like her father, Gertrude walked on eggshells trying not to displease the King, but ultimately it was impossible for her to accept Anne Boleyn as the new Queen. The Catholic Marchioness soon found herself in a position of open defiance of Henry VIII and his second wife. Gertrude gave ear to the Nun of Kent’s prophecies (for which the Nun was executed in 1534). She remained fiercely loyal to Katherine of Aragon and Princess Mary in their fell from grace. She exchanged letters with Eustace Chapuys, ambassador of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and even visited him in disguise during the period when it was dangerous to become Henry VIII’s enemy. How much Gertrude knew of the proposed match between Reginald Pole and Princess Mary remains unknown, but she certainly favoured the idea of the Anglo-Imperial war. In late 1535, Katherine of Aragon’s health began to deteriorate and it became clear to everyone that she was mortally ill. She died on 7 January 1536 amid rumours of poisoning.

Sources:

Sylvia Barbara Soberton, The Forgotten Tudor Women: Gertrude Courtenay. Wife and Mother of the last Plantagenets

https://tudorsdynasty.com/ten-things-you-didnt-know-about-gertrude-courtenay-marchioness-of-exeter/?amp=

[scotianostra]

24th June 1488 saw the coronation at the age of 15 of King James IV arguably the first effective monarch of the House of Stewart.

Young James had been a pawn in the forces that had brought down his father, and was said to have warn an iron belt around his waist in penance.

James was a Renaissance King who spoke several languages including Gaelic, English and French and was keen on arts and learning. Aberdeen University was founded, the printing press came to Scotland and education was made compulsory for barons and wealthy landowners. He spent lavishly on the court and built new halls in Edinburgh and Stirling castles. Edinburgh became main burgh and centre of government and justice.

He successfully settled major feuds between his nobles and between the Highland clans, and ended the hold of the MacDonald who had semi-independently ruled the Western Isles. He supported the Yorkist pretender Perkin Warbeck which provoked a military response from his Henry VII of England. However this was patched up in a truce ‘of perpetual peace‘ in 1502, and his marriage to Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII, in the following year was to ultimately bring the thrones of Scotland and England together.

By 1513 Henry VIII was on the throne of England and fighting in France. Encouraged by Louis XII of France under the ‘Auld Alliance’ James invaded England but the Scots were massacred by the English forces under the Earl of Surrey at the Battle of Flodden Field in Northumberland on 9 September 1513.

Like many of Scotland's nobility, James was killed, there have been many theories about what happened to his body the most likely outcome is after the battle it was taken to Berwick, where it was embalmed and placed in a lead coffin before being transported to London.

The recipient of this gory package was said to have been Catherine of Aragon, first wife of Henry VIII, and in charge of the family business while the English king fought in France.

She, in turn, sent the dead king's surcoat, blood-stained and slashed, to her husband with the recommendation that he use it as a war banner.

The body was left in the monastery of Sheen in Richmond upon Thames unburied due to James having been excommunicated by The Pope for breaking The Treaty of Perpetual Peace. The Monastry was eventually demolished, but nothing is known of what happened to our King.

Legend has it that the skull was removed and used as a football before the master glazier to Elizabeth I took it as a souvenir. Legend also has it that the skull was eventually handed over to the Great St. Michael's Church in Wood Street in the City of London and buried there. The church is long gone, as is the church yard, the latter now occupied by a pub by the name of the Red Herring.

David Ross, historian and convener of The Society of William Wallace must have believed this as he, along with some London friends, had plans to install a plaque to James IV somewhere in Wood Street London. Sadly, big Davie passed away unexpectedly before ambition was never realised.

Other unlikely theories go that James had survived and had gone into exile, or that his body was buried in Scotland. Two castles in the Scottish Borders are claimed as his resting place. The legend ran that, before the Scots charge at Flodden, James had ripped off his royal surcoat to show his nobles that he was prepared to fight as an ordinary man at arms. Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie, writing in the 1570s, claimed that a convicted criminal offered to show him the Kings grave ten years after the battle, but Albany refused.

If David Ross believed it was in London that's good enough for me, but anyone wishing to reflect on this much loved King best go to Flodden Field and pay your respects to all that died there.

[une-sanz-pluis]

I don't know Henry VI very well, so he really does nothing? Margaret of Anjou took the place of the king, and her husband was just a puppet?

The answer to this is somewhat complicated because there's a split between the historians (K. B. MacFarlane, John Watts) who see Henry VI as incapable of ever ruling in his own right and the country was governed by others (the minority council, Suffolk, Somerset, Margaret and ultimately York) and the historians (Bertram Woolf, Ralph A. Griffiths) who see Henry VI as ruling in his own right for a stretch of time, albeit as a king who was lacking in judgement though they disagree on when he began ruling on his own. Personally, I think the arguments put forward by Griffiths and Woolf are the most convincing - that there was a stretch of time where Henry was ruling in his own right.

There's also the problem of looking back at Margaret of Anjou through the layers of Yorkist and Tudor narratives that sought to denigrate Margaret and portrayed her as an ambitious woman who subverted the natural order and would not submit to her husband as she ought to, often depicting Henry as a hapless puppet or long-suffering saint. We also know that Margaret remained at liberty when Richard, Duke of York and, later, Edward IV had custody of Henry VI, and was the active threat to their regimes. It was to their benefit to present Margaret as an agent of her own will, not Henry's - especially York, who was presenting himself as a loyal subject forced to rebel to save England from the evils of Henry's bad advisors and later had probably forced Henry disinherit his son and name York and his sons as his heirs. There is some evidence that Henry and Margaret were working together. Apparently there was a special token that only she and Henry knew so she would know if the messages came from Henry himself or were an attempt by the Yorkists to trick her into returning and placing herself and their son into Yorkist hands. This hardly suggests Henry was a hapless puppet who was controlled by his wife or whoever had custody of him, but rather supported Margaret's actions and resisted Yorkist rule in one of a few ways open to him.

[edwardseymour]

(from other blog!)

🔥 choose violence ask game 🔥

3. screenshot or description of the worst take you've seen on tumblr

shan't be posting a screenshot, but the take that ‘defending katherine parr is defending thomas seymour’ is actually repugnant. her actions wrt elizabeth can and should be criticised — but within their proper context. katherine was a brilliant woman but she was also a woman, and legally, socially and culturally her husband overpowered her. she lived in a patriarchal society. she was negligent, at best, complicit, at worst — but she did warn ashley to keep an eye on thomas and elizabeth, did berate her husband for his ill-treatment, and did ultimately send elizabeth away. she was also pregnant with his child and the pregnancy seems to have been difficult. and elizabeth loved her; she was more her mother than anyone else. putting her on the same level as thomas seymour is just so gross to me.

8. common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

i PROMISE you anne boleyn does not receive the ‘worst’ historical abuse of the six wives/female historical figures. the idea of an evil, manipulative, promiscuous anne boleyn is nowhere near as culturally prevalent and pervasive as you insist it is. she very much does not have it anywhere near as bad as is claimed.

people simply do not care about anne boleyn, far more than they actively hate her — and where she does get treated with misogyny, it’s on a similar level to other female historical figures. it’s not distinct to her. moreover, what is unique to her is the level of revisionism and attention she gets. as another post has already put it: “anne's reinvention has been the most powerful and vocal in historical circles. anne is the center of almost all revisionist efforts in tudor historiography”. none of the six wives have been researched, revisited, reimagined and rehabilitated or simply discussed even a fraction as much.

we've already been over this. at this point i honestly believe insistence over this simply comes down to people looking for a thing to feel persecuted and exceptional over, while lacking the academic curiosity, talent and integrity to actually go and find something more tangible than the single most popular person in tudor history.

10. worst part of fanon

the hypocrisy/doublethink is truly something in this fandom sometimes. ‘monarchy was sacrosanct’ so therefore the commons unfailingly accepted the divine right of kings, except for all the times when they didn't and all the numerous recorded instances of royals being slandered/revolted against... but simultaneously, recognising the use of myth/prophecy and mysticism/faith in discourses of the time is ‘lionising’ historical figures, so we can't talk about henry vii and allusions to y daroganwr or king arthur but we can compare anne boleyn to classical mythology. sure!

13. worst blorboficiation

i recently saw that michael hick’s ‘the self-made king’ book about richard iii (which i haven’t read, so for all i know is very good but the title has always put me off) in a bookshop, and it reminded me how profoundly intellectually dishonest ricardians are. whether or not hicks’ book is sound, the popular/fandom approach to idealising richard iii is legitimately insane. truly i believe the only reason for mutilating the historical richard like this — to turn him into some fantasy merrie olde englande caricature of a medieval king — is to appropriate him into a racist, xenophobic, classist conservative ideal of monarchy. for as much as they might talk of him being ‘self-made’ or ‘socialist’ (as professional-at-failing-upwards matt lewis described him), they clearly do not care for such ideas, because they are centering them around (a fundamentally flawed understanding of) medieval monarchy. it's so ugly.

14. that one thing you see in fics all the time

i don’t read fanfic, but i see posts abt them and edit aus a lot and a consistent thing that i just cannot understand is the ‘fix-it’ narratives that have the women having numerous pregnancies. why? especially because the dates given essentially prove that in these aus, women never get to spend any time not pregnant or getting impregnated — including the historic protocols of lying in, churching etc., or religious conventions (sex was forbidden on certain days etc). it all basically creates an image of a husband who disrespects his wife by constantly trying to impregnate her, and a woman forced to endure the physical demands of constant pregnancy/labour with no regard for any other facet of her life/personhood. especially since these aus give these women a diabolical amount of children (including forcing twins/triplets on these women). it’s just so blatant that queenship/womanhood = being a broodmare. and, worse, these aus have the nerve to give these children horrific names.

25. common fandom complaint that you're sick of hearing

not directly what was asked but it’s genuinely exhausting how predominantly complaints about katherine howard being called a stupid slut have become wrapped up in this idea that katherine can only be worthy of sympathy if she did not willingly have sex. so often people trying to defend her, and criticising misogyny directed at her, ultimately constrain her to a fundamentally sexist idea — that sex can only be something done to her, as an unwilling participant. otherwise the implication is that comments about her intelligence or promiscuity are justified. there is no benefit to whitewashing katherine’s sexuality, and the insistence on characterising her almost exclusively as a victim is distressing. and it’s tiring having to repeatedly point this out. it simply feels like katherine howard is talked a lot but rarely as a fully actualised person in her own right.

[greatbritishsimchallenge]

What's up with the heirs and having a difficult relasionship with their dads? (I'm not complaining, it's just something I've noticed)

I had never noticed this pattern before, anon, but you absolutely have a point.

For people who may not be familiar with the whole legacy/may have forgotten, under the cut is a rundown of all our main story father-child relationships thus far - see if you agree with anon!

Iron Age

Maddox didn't start off as a great dad, but he learned how to be better at it along the way of having his five children.

However, he had deep fractures with two of his children: His eldest, Max, got the worst of his parenting. Max watched his father remarry multiple times and have more children and constantly felt like his dad was 'moving on' with a new family and paying minimal attention to him.

He originally had a close relationship with his daughter Maeve, but then he murdered Maeve's Roman boyfriend and was killed by the Romans himself before Maeve could really process any of it.

Roman Britain

Carmo was a big time family man and great father. Unfortunately, he was assassinated while still quite young and we followed Kennedi in this era rather than his children, so we didn't get to see much of their dynamic.

Anglo Saxon

Adrianus loved his children, but made the mistake of playing favourites. When he thought he was creating character building competition between them, he was actually creating a deep rift and rivalry that would ultimately lead to the whole family's destruction.

Medieval

William was an orphan, but the little he could remember of his father was happy.

Adrianus also got to make amends for his past fathering mistakes by being an amazing father-figure for William.

William was in turn a good dad to Neville, sacrificing his own life and freedom to protect his son from having to join the Crusades.

He did have a rough patch after the death of his husband, Rogue, but his son Neville was the key to helping his dad recover from the grief.

Neville had a close relationship with his daughter, Elisaria, but they hit a difficult time in their relationship when Neville had a child with his new wife - his first who would be born into nobility and inherit a title. Elisaria was deeply jealous and felt like her father was taking away all of her future prospects to make a noble match in favour of supporting his new, already noble, child.

Tudor

And now we have Cassian, who has made many questionable parenting decisions...

I feel like we've had a lot of dads doing what in their heads is best, but is actually not great at all and ends up messing with their children in some way or another. I'd say the only actively neglectful father we've had is Cassian, and even then it is an emotional neglect that he doesn't really realise he's doing.

[richmond-rex]

Is the last will of Elizabeth of York still exist?

Hi! Elizabeth of York left no surviving last will, but I don't think there ever was one tbh. It was not the custom for married women to write wills (since in their condition of 'femmes couvert' their goods/properties were ultimately their husbands'). This is why in this period we only commonly find widows writing last wills, because they were no longer under the 'couverture' of any man (they were 'femmes sole') and could legally dispose of their goods/properties as they saw fit without someone else's approval. Queens consort occupied a somewhat ambivalent area because they responded to no man (so they could engage in selling, purchasing, engaging with properties etc without needing their husbands to represent them under the law) but they were still ultimately subordinated to the king and were not officially 'femmes sole'.

(An interesting example is that Catherine Valois, whilst married to Owen Tudor, did write her own last will. It seems her condition as queen dowager still elevated her over all men but the king, even her second husband).

You will not find the wills of Anne of Bohemia, Elizabeth of York, Philippa of Hainault, Jane Seymour and others who died while they were still the reigning king's wife. But we know for example that Philippa of Hainault did informally ask her husband to fulfil a set of (necessarily informal) requests on her deathbed. If Elizabeth of York did the same, her words were not registered anywhere as Philippa's were by the chronicler Jean Froissart.

[fideidefenswhore]

Can you tell me about the antipathy Anne Boleyn's household had for men? Thank you.

Ah, you know, I sort of jumbled up a descriptive word in my memory-- I'm going to fix it, it was more like an irreverent attitude towards men. They were part of the fun but they could take or leave them, was the impression left by Edward Baynton (the line was "a strong antipathy towards what he saw as feminine indepedence in the Queen's household", cited from the following) in his letter to George Boleyn (reflected in, 'undesired service/ require no hire')

Still, I don't think this narrative about Anne really holds water. James Taffe's new book about the households of Tudor Queens with Jane Boleyn as a case study is bound to prove, has proved, very unpopular in some circles (I'm somewhat surprised a takedown by Olga Hughes has not landed on her blog yet...is she on hiatus? She certainly went all-in on her AB 2021 review); but one thing going for it is the depth of detail. Anne was a protector and promoter of other women's interests in her household, it went deeper than mere courtly gloss. Why did she loan Elizabeth Somerset £100? Why did Somerset not want her husband to know about this? Why did Anne keep her secret? Why did Somerset ultimately betray her trust by giving evidence against her? Was that secret being used against her by someone else (Cromwell, etc)?

How is it argued that Anne didn't have friendships with women when at least one was reported to have endured even when it would have been safer to jettison the allegiance? Again we find Baynton, reporting that there has been "great friendship" between Margery Horsman and the Queen, and "reluctance to implicate Anne" demonstrating how "the arrest of their mistress had [caused] a rift between [vice-chamberlain and maid], reflecting then the divergence of their allegiances and interests."

[wonder-worker]

“Although (Elizabeth of York) was presented as the ultimate Tudor trophy wife, her position and popularity were potential threats to her husband’s authority.” - Lauren Rose Browne

*sigh*

When are we going to move past this dismissive, simplistic and frankly rather problematic image of Elizabeth of York? Derek Neal encapsulates what exactly is so troubling about it far better than I could, which I'm quoting below:

“The first Tudor consort is mainly remembered as a dynastic symbol, one element of an equation: York plus Tudor equals peace. In this interpretation, handed down to us by the Tudor chroniclers via Shakespeare, Elizabeth accomplished her most important work, if not without lifting a finger, merely by proffering a finger for a wedding ring.”

We need to stop defining Elizabeth of York by the basic purpose of her marriage and queenship and begin understanding her through the actual practice of her queenship.*

Because the fact of the matter is, Elizabeth of York was a tremendously successful queen. She was an able intercessor, an active administrator of her lands, and a patroness in her own right. We have evidence that Henry listened to her on matters that people often assume he acted alone or only through his mother's advice. She contributed culturally to the court, including festivities and building projects, and played an active and positive role in queenly diplomacy, including but not limited to her involvement in her sisters’ and children’s marriages, her correspondence with the Pope and foreign rulers, and receiving important ambassadors in her husband’s absence**. She may have some discreet influence in some appointments in the Crown Prince's household. In short, Elizabeth of York excelled in spheres of queenship that were both conventional and powerful, because the two could and did co-exist, because medieval queenship was inherently political and the lines between public and private were blurred to the point of non-existence for queens just as they were for kings. As we can clearly see, Elizabeth was not presented as a “trophy wife” any more than literally any queen consort before or after her; she was, in fact, an evidently active and influential queen who greatly inspired both her daughter and her daughter-in-law's queenships respectively.

Furthermore, Elizabeth of York’s position was not a "threat" to her husband. Why would it be? As J.L. Laynesmith (whose reading of Elizabeth I don't agree with either) says, "Identification with Elizabeth of York's kin aided Henry VII in gaining an entire kingdom." The Croyland Chronicle, a contemporary source, likewise emphasizes her importance in cementing Henry VII's position: in Elizabeth "there could be found whatever appeared to be missing in the king's title elsewhere." Elizabeth of York's position, in fact, bolstered Henry VII's kingship, and this extended far beyond his marriage to her. We must remember that while Henry Tudor was Lancastrian in blood and allegiance, his fight for the throne was very much as a Yorkist claimant - specifically, a claimant for Edwardian Yorkists against Richard III's rule (The events of 1483 were a violent conflict within the Yorkist dynasty, not an external threat against the Yorkist dynasty). You could argue that Henry VII's road to the throne was, effectively, as Edward IV's symbolic heir rather than Henry VI's (who was quite irrelevent to the current conflict, tbh): Henry Tudor was the prospective husband of the Yorkist heiress and the 'avenger' of the dead Yorkist Princes. This was the widely recognized interpretation of contemporaries like Croyland and William Caxton*** and was also how he gained the majority of his new support in England which (without discounting his own initiative, actions and clear competence) were essential to both make him a credible threat and ultimately win Bosworth. He relied on several of her father's former councilors as well, ensuring a great deal of continuity between their reigns. In this context, Elizabeth of York's "position" as the Yorkist heiress, cemented by her formal proclamation as Duchess of York, was not a disadvantage to Henry VII but an indispensable advantage to him. Elizabeth herself was aware of this and played an important role in image politics for the new Tudor dynasty: "Her role as a daughter of the house of York was a major aspect of her identity. Whereas her mother and Margaret of Anjou had adopted emblems personal to them...Elizabeth of York used her father's white rose. Other Yorkist emblems such as the sun in splendour and the falcon and fetterlock were also used in Tudor iconography." As you can see, Elizabeth's contribution went far beyond merely standing at Henry's side with a wedding ring; she was actively involved in cementing the image of the Tudor dynasty in her own right, and was equally invested in doing so. In short: Elizabeth of York's "position" was not a threat to her husband’s rule; it was vital to her husband’s rule. In fact, her unique position was so important that, even years later, post-contemporary Tudor depictions gave her a uniquely equal footing to her husband: for example, in the first pageant of the coronation procession for her granddaughter Elizabeth I, Elizabeth of York was depicted as "a stabilising and legitimising force of the dynasty, and, incredibly, as the equal to her husband" - as Lauren Rose Browne herself writes.

You cannot claim that Henry VII needed Elizabeth of York to bolster his kingship and also claim that he shunted her aside because her position was a threat to his kingship. You cannot claim that Henry VII used Elizabeth of York’s Yorkist heritage to his benefit but also claim that he tried to avoid any implication of her royal inheritance. Those are fundamentally contradictory and make very little sense. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Even more baffling is the idea that Elizabeth of York's "popularity" would have somehow been a threat to her husband's authority. She and Henry lived in a world where queens were meant to embody "the feminine element necessary to legitimate sovereignty", to perform their role as Marian-like intercessors on behalf of their subjects, to engage in appropriate charity and almsgiving, and to provide "models of womanhood for the realms' female subjects"****. If Elizabeth of York was "popular" due to the reaction of crowds gathered to watch her coronation, or because of the gifts she was frequently given by her subjects, or because she was hailed as the "most gracious and best beloved Princesses in the world" after her death, her popularity means that Elizabeth was successful as queen and is an indication of how much her queenship supported and endorsed Henry VII's kingship. A popular queen benefitted the King, not the other way around.*****

(What's especially funny about this traditional interpretation is that the only actual way Elizabeth of York's position and popularity could potentially worry Henry and become a genuine "threat" to his authority is if Elizabeth herself was actively opposed to Henry and was using them against him to undermine his rule (for whatever hypothetical reason). Which would automatically indicate agency on her part and ALSO end up contradicting the "trophy wife" image. So....?)

Enough with the traditional patronizing dismissal of Elizabeth of York. Give her the credit she's due.

*What's particularly silly about hyper-focusing on the point/purpose of Elizabeth of York's marriage (a political alliance and dynastic unification) is that fundamentally, its purpose was ultimately no different from the vast majority of other English royal marriage since the Norman conquest (sans, say, her parents'). Most of them were politically arranged and/or politically motivated, just like Henry and Elizabeth's. It would be ridiculous to judge Isabella of France or Philippa of Hainault's lives and queenships solely based on how politically important their marriages were, right? They obviously had an impact apart from that and beyond that. What exactly is different about Elizabeth of York? Admittedly, her and Henry's situation wasn't exactly the same: he needed her as a potential bride to cement his position as a threat to Richard III and as a King of England; and an English princess becoming an English queen consort was unprecedented at that juncture. But ultimately, there's no reason for why Elizabeth of York's entire life and queenship should be defined and decided on the basis of how and why she married Henry VII. She lived for almost two decades after that. It's more than a little frustrating.

**From what I can make out, so much more evidence has luckily survived for Elizabeth of York's diplomatic activities compared to many of her predecessors, and with far more details. I would literally kill to get similarly detailed evidence for Elizabeth Woodville. So it's certainly strange when Elizabeth of York's role in diplomacy is not emphasized more when it comes to her queenship - especially because it is, ultimately, an expected element of queenship which queens were traditionally meant to excel at. My guess is that it's not highlighted as much because it actually gives Elizabeth agency, which historians often refuse to do.

***Edward IV definitely wasn't the first or only one to claim the red dragon (it was used for/used by many others, and some poets used it for Henry himself in the early 1460s). However, at that point in time in England specifically, it would have very much been Edward IV who was most commonly and universally associated with it; after all, he was the one who won the throne and ruled for more than two decades. Its association with Edward IV is also what would have been the most familiar to Caxton, who established himself in England only in the 1470s, and who was a supporter of Edward IV's family (aka: the Woodvilles) during that time. His support of Henry (who he did not know) during this time would have been through that context as well, rather than loyalty to Henry in his own right.

****Obviously, we can recognize how problematic such inherently gendered expectations are now, but contextualization is important.

*****Elizabeth of York's popularity as queen, at least in the beginning, may have been partly due to the fact that she was English princess who grew up in the public eye, was the daughter of a fairly well-liked king, and the fact that her marriage played a vital role in "uniting" the two rival dynasties. So her circumstances probably played a role in her popularity as well. But we shouldn't discount Elizabeth's own affability and charm, nor her evident generosity, nor the fact that however this popularity emerged, it was Elizabeth who maintained it, and it ultimately signified the success of Elizabeth's queenship and bolstered her husband's kingship.

Sources:

Lauren Rose Browne, "Elizabeth of York: Tudor Trophy Wife", "Tudor and Stuart Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty

Derek Neal, "The Queen's Grace: English Queenship 1464-1503"

J.L. Laynesmith, "The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1545-1503"

Retha M. Warnicke, "Elizabeth of York and her six daughters-in-law: Fashioning Tudor Queenship

[malkaleh]

Elizabeth Boleyn-Tudor-Cromwell in OT3 verse is definitely doing the Tudor equivalent of a carefully colour coded pro/con list re potential husbands @theladyelizabeth

*has it always been Robert, ultimately? Yes but she wants to consider all the angles and options! Also as she’s always a princess etc.

[ladymorghul]

You know, as a reader books and someone who's in both the book and show fandom, so to speak, it's kind of sad that VERY little is said about powerful female political figures like Jeyne Arryn and Johanna Lannister as potential characters in the show. Yes, they mostly talk about Daeron or Cregan Stark, but if we take the female ones, then these are: Nettles, Alys Rivers and Sara Snow. No, I totally understand why they are talked about more often, and the fact that all three of them are love interests upsets me.

tbh i did not read the books so all my info on these two comes from wiki pages but yeah, i get what you mean

speaking of johanna lannister, i was just tweeting yesterday how it would be lovely to see her in a scene like the one elizabeth of york has in the white princess, where she convinces henry tudor's men to march back to him by making a speech to them and is ultimately what aids in henry's military victory.

and imagine johanna whose husband dies early and she has a young son with her seeing the lannister men's morality is low and convincing them they need to keep fighting and basically leading them on. and then having to manage such an important seat while also caring for her son.

i think she would be a really interesting character if done well, but that's if they don't cut her out :/

jeyne arryn is also interesting from what i read and what i was told about her, and could play an interesting part in rhaenyra's pov.

[cheapreplicamovadowatchesu658x]

What Caused Mary Tudor's Fake Pregnancy? An In-Depth Look

Mary Tudor, also known as Mary I of England, was a monarch whose reign was marked by political intrigue, religious conflict, and personal tragedy. Among the many tales that surround her life, one of the most intriguing is the story of her alleged fake pregnancy. This article explores the circumstances surrounding this incident, the motivations behind it, and its implications for Mary Tudor's legacy.

The Background of Mary Tudor

Born on February 18, 1516, Mary Tudor was the daughter of King Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Her early life was marked by her father's tumultuous marital history, which ultimately led to the English Reformation. After being declared illegitimate and disinherited, Mary fought to reclaim her status as heir. In 1554, she married Philip II of Spain, hoping to secure a powerful alliance and produce an heir to the throne.

The Allegations of a Fake Pregnancy

In 1555, Mary announced that she was pregnant, a claim that was met with skepticism. The timing of her pregnancy was crucial, as it came after several years of marriage without any indication of a child. The rumors intensified when Mary’s health began to decline, leading many to speculate that she was not truly pregnant. The situation culminated in a dramatic moment when Mary supposedly gave birth, but no child was ever produced. This led to widespread belief that the pregnancy was fabricated.

Reasons Behind the Allegations

There are several theories as to why Mary might have staged a false pregnancy. One of the primary motivations was her desperate desire for a legitimate heir. Mary was acutely aware of the precariousness of her reign and the potential for political instability if she were to die without an heir. By claiming to be pregnant, she aimed to secure her position and quell dissent among her subjects and political rivals.

Another factor was the immense pressure she faced from her husband, Philip II, and his desire for a powerful dynasty. The marriage was politically motivated, and the lack of a child could have jeopardized their alliance. Additionally, Mary was deeply influenced by the expectations of her role as a woman and a queen, where motherhood was often seen as a paramount duty.

The Impact of the Allegations

The allegations of Mary Tudor's fake pregnancy had significant repercussions for both her reign and her legacy. The controversy surrounding her claim further tarnished her reputation, leading to the perception that she was a ruler incapable of fulfilling her primary duty. This narrative would contribute to her historical image as “Bloody Mary,” a queen who ruled with fear and who was ultimately unsuccessful in her attempts to establish a Catholic dynasty.

Moreover, the incident affected her relationship with her subjects. Many viewed her as a ruler lacking credibility, which undermined her authority. The public’s skepticism about her pregnancy reflected deeper anxieties about her rule and the political climate of England at the time, characterized by religious conflict and power struggles.

Conclusion

Mary Tudor's alleged fake pregnancy remains one of the more scandalous chapters in the annals of English history. While the exact reasons behind her claims are still debated among historians, it is clear that the incident reveals much about the pressures faced by female monarchs in a male-dominated society. As we explore the complexities of her reign, it’s essential to understand the personal and political stakes involved.

For those interested in the rich tapestry of history, from royal scandals to the intricacies of power dynamics, a visit to Luxe Replica Watche can offer a glimpse into the elegance of bygone eras. Our collection encompasses timepieces that reflect the grandeur of historical figures like Mary Tudor, allowing you to wear a piece of history.

Tags

Mary Tudor

Fake Pregnancy

History

Royal Scandals

British History

Monarchs

Religious Conflict

[blsm-m]

British historian Amanda Glover says she loves mysteries. And there is A research paper she published in FebruaryShe may be beginning to unravel one of the greatest historical mysteries of England's Tudor dynasty, which lasted from 1485 to 1603. The mystery in question concerns the unfortunate Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's second wife, who was accused of adultery by her husband and executed. While imprisoned in the Tower of London awaiting execution, Anne wrote impassioned letters to her husband in which she vehemently protested her innocence. But after analysing the paper the letter was written on, Glover discovered that the distinctive watermark on it was only used in the early 17th century, nearly 70 years after Anne Boleyn's execution, meaning she couldn't have written the letter. It is not yet clear whether the letter contains the Queen's genuine words or is a forgery. Who was Anne Boleyn? Henry VIII's second wife, Anne Boleyn, ascended to the English throne in 1533. However, shortly thereafter, Henry accused her of adultery and incest, and she was ultimately executed by her husband in 1536 at the age of 35. Today, most historians believe that she Almost certainly innocent Among the accusations against her were that she had slept with five men other than Henry. The king was desperate for a male heir, and when Anne Boleyn gave birth to a daughter (now Queen Elizabeth I), the king supposedly sought a way to get rid of her and find a wife who could give him a son. One of the few clues we have about Anne Boleyn's state of mind during this time is her famous letter from the Tower of London, "The Lady of the Tower to the King." Supposedly written during her imprisonment in the Tower of London on May 6, 1536, the letter was addressed to Henry VIII and proclaimed her innocence and loyalty. read more: Could brain damage explain Henry VIII's tyrannical behaviour?Analyzing the Letter from the Tower For decades, researchers have tried to verify the authenticity of Anne Boleyn's letters using a variety of methods, from handwriting matching to analysing language style. But when Glover set out to investigate the letters, she took a different approach: analyzing the paper they were written on. In Tudor England, paper was made using molds, with each mold leaving a unique watermark design on the finished paper. As Glover details in an article for the Tudor Society, the molds would wear out and need replacing within a year or two. This means that by analyzing the paper used in a letter, it's possible to pinpoint with great precision when the paper was used. After viewing the original letter and examining the watermark on the paper, Glover found the proof: a watermark depicting a two-handed pot full of grapes. Glover then said, Paper Memory He finally found a match on a website that gave him access to a database filled with hundreds of thousands of watermarks. The database revealed that the watermark on the letter indicated that the paper was made between 1606 and 1609, well after Anne Boleyn is said to have written or dictated the letter. "When I first discovered that this piece of paper didn't exist until at least 1600, my first thought, like most people, was that it was a forgery," Glover said of his shocking discovery. "But I haven't determined that it's a forgery, I've just determined that it certainly wasn't dictated by Anne... it could be a much later copy." read more: Three historic hoaxes that fooled the public, scientists, and the mediaAnne Boleyn's last words Whether or not the letter contains Anne Boleyn's original text, its impact on British history is undeniable. In 1824, British historian and author Henry Ellis called it "one of the greatest pieces ever written in the English language." In the letter, Anne details her thoughts during her time in "the miserable prison of the Tower," and in it she strongly maintains that she is innocent of the crimes she is accused of having committed. “Your Majesty, do not ever imagine

that your poor wife will admit to a fault which she has never before considered,” the letter read, “and, to tell the truth, no prince ever had a wife more faithful in duty and true affection than Anne. [Boleyn]. " Anne Boleyn pleads with Henry to give her a fair trial and not to "put her sworn enemy on trial." [her] She also asks Henry not to unjustly punish men accused of adultery. Many historians who believe the letter is a forgery say the language used in it does not match Anne's typical writing style, and it is much bolder than some of her other well-studied writings. But Glover says he can't imagine Anne Boleyn cowardly "begging for her life." "I can see her writing these letters. She was full of energy, and Henry loved that about her," Glover says. "She had strong opinions. She would talk back and argue." Still, given Glover's discovery, many questions remain unanswered. If the letter that exists today is a copy of Anne Boleyn's original, how did it end up in Thomas Cromwell's library, where it was kept for hundreds of years before being moved to its current location at Cotton Library? And if Anne herself didn't write the letter, who did? Uncovering the full Tower letter could be crucial in determining whether it was actually written by Anne Boleyn. Until then, Glover says he and others will keep looking for evidence. "There are hundreds of thousands of documents in official and unofficial archives. The original letter may be out there somewhere," she says, "but it's like looking for a needle in a haystack." read more: Cryptographer decodes Mary Queen of Scots' letterArticle SourceOur writers Discover Magazine Our articles use peer-reviewed research and high-quality sources, and our editors review them for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Please check out the following sources used in this article:

[tindogpodcast]

TDP 1238: 79. Torchwood: Poppet

This title was released in January 2024. It will be exclusively available to buy from the Big Finish website until 31 March 2024, and on general sale after this date.

A child goes missing in a small Welsh town. As Rhys grows closer to the traumatised Catherine and her husband, he discovers that something is badly wrong in their remote cottage. There are scratches in the plaster, little wooden figures hidden in the walls, and next-door neighbour Mr Collins isn’t what he seems.

Will you join them at the festival of darkness?

Recorded on: 9 June 2023

Recorded at: The Soundhouse

  Stewart Pringle said: "We've really been enjoying writing for the characters who are slightly on the periphery of the Torchwood organisation. The ones who have a more ambiguous, precarious relationship to the weirdness that's going on around them. Rhys feels like the ultimate example of that.

“When we meet Rhys in Poppet he's also a man on the run, in hiding after the events of Children of Earth, and here he's briefly separated from Gwen and Anwen too. He's vulnerable, anonymous, he has none of the power or protection of Torchwood. He misses his family. He misses them so much. And he's going to meet something absolutely horrifying.”

Lauren Mooney added: “We've written about folk traditions before, like the Mari Lywd in our first Torchwood story, The Grey Mare, and poppets are from the same sort of world, I guess.

“They're little wooden dolls, human effigies used in sympathetic magic and, pleasingly, they sometimes turn up in the chimneys of old houses. Sometimes they’ve been put there for protection, and sometimes quite the opposite.

“There's something quite spooky about the thought that you could be living alongside these old charms and symbols for years and years without knowing they were there, and that was where the story began.”

Actor Kai Owen said: “The story of Poppet is an absolute belter. A story full of witchcraft and mystery and some very creepy characters. Rhys gets involved – as he always does – and finds himself landed in a world where he's sort of lost without his wife but his own experience of being in the world of Torchwood somehow gets him out of it.

“I think it's entertaining to see somebody out of their comfort zone – a normal guy in this extraordinary world and I think that's what makes it interesting. It's been a joy to record.”

 Arbel Jones, Kai Owen, Scott Arthur, Emily Burnett, Sion Tudor Owen

A new Tin Dog Podcast

[une-sanz-pluis]

What do you think of Anne Neville What I mean is, all the articles I read about her are about the men around her, her father, her two husbands... Anne's two biographies are mixed with the author's biases and feel more like novels. (When it comes to her novels, in all the works I know, Anne's role is to shape her "perfect" second husband... Her marriage with Edward was a disaster...)

The thing is there's very little that survives about the "real" Anne Neville. As far as contemporary chronicle accounts, the best comment about Anne is by Kavita Mudan Finn in The Last Plantagenet Consorts:

... about Anne herself there is little information. She remains an empty space at the center of these accounts, a definite and ultimately unexplored source of political and economic capital.

As an empty space, she can be anything anyone wants her to be. But like almost everything about the Wars of the Roses, she's become stereotyped into a collection of literary tropes and constructions that supposedly is her "real self" but try to trace them back and scrutinise them and the evidence will fall part apart or feeds a circular narrative.

In Tudor times, Anne's story was shaped by the narrative around Richard III. She is yet another of the monster's victims, the murdered wife casually disposed of by the cruel husband seeking a new bride - or else she and her son don't appear, their absence heightening Richard's alienation from humanity. The Ricardian movement has reshaped her into Richard's tragic and loyal wife who has loved him all her life. In this stories, Anne has been ailing since childhood and struggles through adversary and trauma - dragged hither and thither into danger by her uncaring, power-hungry father, married off to a vicious husband who abused her and maybe raped her (the debate on the marriage's consummation sure is... a thing that exists), endured the cruelties of Evil Queen Margaret, imprisoned by her own sister and brother-in-law - before Richard rescues her and she receives a brief few moments of married bliss before the recurring miscarriages and her frail health collapses ruin this bliss before she finally and tragically dies in a heartbroken Richard's arms.

Some novelists, such as Philippa Gregory and Annie Garthwaite, make a "feminist intervention" where, despite being still the tragically ailing heroine, Anne is also more ruthless or clever than Richard in the pursuit of power. Both authors depict Anne and Cecily Neville joining forces to push noble-hearted Richard into disinheriting his nephews in order to save him. The TV series based on Gregory's novels, The White Queen, depicts Anne as willing to have the Princes killed, though of course Margaret Beaufort gets there first and Anne later has a breakdown, having heard Elizabeth Woodville has cursed the murderers of her sons and rumours that Richard is having an affair with Elizabeth of York (which he pretty well is). Garthwaite, on the other hand, depicts Anne as the only woman Cecily Neville likes (and the only other woman the narrative doesn't depict as evil, stupid, selfish or hysteric - how is this feminist again?) and joins forces with Cecily to advise the kindly Richard to bring the Princes back from wherever he's sent them to prove that they're not dead. Richard, however, nobly refuses - displaying what seem to be post-Diana concerns about the right of royalty to privacy - as he insists to bring them back would expose them to the public eye, a cruelty he cannot countenance but one Anne and Cecily evidently can.

Historian Anne Crawford very recently proclaimed Anne the lone perfect queen of the Wars of the Roses - because not a hint of criticism of her behaviour survives, though I suspect this is because the brevity of her life and the sheer absence of evidence for her life, and it's easy to proclaim her the ideal when you reduce Margaret of Anjou to a shrew and Elizabeth Woodville to an invasive species as Crawford does. Some Ricardians, on the other hand, declare Anne was a "bad" wife and queen due to having only one child, thus failing to secure Richard III's dynasty, and then for dying, thus leaving him open to accusations he murdered her. I know people who love the the idea of a monstrous Anne and Richard as an evil super couple.

Are any of these interpretations of Anne likely to reflect the real, historical Anne? We know so little about Anne's life that anything could is possible. We can talk about whether there's evidence that Anne had a chronic illness or recurring miscarriages, that she was raped or mistreated, that she was the brains behind Richard III - but a lack of evidence proving these things is hardly surprising given how little evidence survives about Anne in general, and an absence of evidence is not proof that these things didn't happen. I don't say that to mean, "and therefore I think these things happened" because I don't. I think these are more literary constructions or pointless point-scoring than an attempt to draw out the real Anne or at least imagine her as a flesh-and-blood woman who could have believably lived in the 15th century and did more than act as a heroine in a tragedy or a heroine in a romance.

I've not read the biographies of Anne. The biography by Michael Hicks has not reputation for being absolutely rancid and the one by Amy Licence... well, I think Licence is a pretty bad historian (I've got to rant about her Red Roses book in my head, but I will give her props for actually saying that maybe Victorian historian who famously got a lot of things wrong wasn't right about Catherine de Valois being forced into an abbey which is more than some are doing.) I did read and somewhat like the chapter on Anne in Late Plantagenet and the Wars of the Roses Consorts by Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs but that very much was shaped by Ricardianism.

I actually see parallels between Anne and Catherine de Valois. Both reigned as queen-consorts for such a short time that we have very little knowledge of what their queenship looked like and they can be imagined as perfect queens or useless queens (Anne Crawford labels Catherine as stupid and lacking in personality, for the record). Both are imagined today as more important not so much for their lives but for their status as romantic heroines. And when push comes to shove, they both get thrown under the Ricardian bus - Anne was a "bad" wife for suffering fertility issues and then dying and Catherine's Tudor children were all secret Beaufort bastards, which means Henry VII was a secret incest bastard who never had the right to the throne.

Both women are fascinating to us - but they remain out of reach due a lack of evidence. They must have lived very complex lives, living through the turmoil of war and civil unrest. And yet all everyone cares about is how they might shape the reputation of their second husbands and, in Catherine's case, the dynasty that ensued.