the TUDOR TUTOR
Your cheeky guide to the dynastyArchive for Henry VIII
Look What They Found in Ye Olde Tudor Family Attic (Part 1)
Finally, I made it to the Vivat Rex! exhibit at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington D.C. last week, and it did not disappoint! Most of the exhibit is in a gorgeous hallway panelled in dark wood with an ivory embossed ceiling, the perfect setting for these grand and historically-rich books and manuscripts.
The first case is, to me, one of the most interesting in the exhibit. It has just enough items linking the power-hungry man we know to his humble (?) beginnings. Elizabeth of York’s little prayer book has her loopy-scratchy writing inside: “Madam j pray yow Remember me in yowr good prayers yawr mastras Elyzabeth R.” (Now there’s a kreetiv spelling of that name I’d never seen before! Remember that even names weren’t spelled in a standardized way at the time.) There is a beautifully illustrated page from Hall’s Chronicle showing how Henry VIII eventually became the personification of Chez York plus Chez Lancaster.
And this copy of Cicero, on which schoolboy Hal marked his territory with charming loopy writing, “Thys Boke Is Myne Prynce Henry.” (click for a larger view)
I was pretty taken with one particular goodie in this case, though, and that is the list of, ahem, qualities that Henry VII told his ambassadors to look for in the young dowager Queen of Naples when he was back on the market after his dear wife, Elizabeth of York, died. The ambassors were to note the length of the girl’s fingers, if her hands were fat or thin, her breasts and “pappes” big or small, her complexion clear, and her neck “long or short or misshapen.”
There are several cases devoted to Henry as “Defender of the Faith” including (wait for it) the actual bull signed by Pope Leo X declaring Henry so. It is small but impressive, considering the weight it held and what was to follow. Then Leo said something like “But that’s not all! There’s more!” and presented the king with the real treasure in the same case, the Golden Gospels of Henry VIII.
This serious tome has satiny cranberry-coloured vellum pages stained with berries and gracefully decked out in neat gold Latin printing. Rumor has it this impressive book was made for the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III in 983. No way was Henry regifting this!
(Photos of the book aren’t allowed and for the life of me I haven’t been able to find a photo of it online. But there’s a formal page about its details on this page.)
Want to see pics of Henry VIII’s looooong holiday shopping list from the 1538-39 season? You’ve got to wait for the next blog post, coming tomorrow!
I Never Really Loved You Anyway
Image by stevecadman via Flickr
Remember middle school? When you’d have a crush on someone and, because preteens have wacky hormones, that someone might adore you one day and ignore you the next? Finally, this someone would make you so furious that you took it to that shrine of school memories, the yearbook. You may have scratched the face off their picture, or possibly have drawn devil horns and a goatee on it.
There! That showed ‘em. Didn’t you feel better? Well, probably not.
It was this kind of hurt and rage that spurred Henry VIII on to the four-year tirade known as the Dissolution of the Monasteries. From 1536-1540, over 800 holy houses in England were destroyed, Henry VIII’s version of drawing goofy glasses and demon eyebrows on the Pope’s picture to show him he didn’t need no stinkin’ sacrament.
For those of us who love the link to the past that historical sites offer, the destruction of these buildings is heartbreaking. My home in England was five minutes down the road from gorgeous, massive Ely Cathedral, which dates from the 11th century. Sweet, right? Especially for an American like me. If we have any buildings that go back even 300 years, that’s a stretch. I grew up in a house that was built in 1898 and I always thought that was really old! Anyhoo, I was overwhelmed to be so close to this medieval treasure. Cueing the new-world nerd in me, I’d press my hand to the stone walls and marvel at how much history they’d seen.
Inside Ely Cathedral is a small wing called the Lady Chapel, a common feature of medieval churches in England and mainland Europe. The “lady” is, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary. For those of you who aren’t Catholic, let me clarify that Catholics do not worship Mary over Christ (a common misconception)! We just greatly respect her as His mother. And in the medieval church, these chapels were built in her honor. The one in Ely Cathedral is peaceful and lovely, although with some interesting omissions if you are paying attention.
Heads. Of the statues carved into the walls. There are no heads.
During the Dissolution of the Monasteries, many statues of saints in religious houses were defaced, removed, or just smashed there on the spot. In the case of Ely’s Lady Chapel, the figures on the wall had their noggins crushed into oblivion. That in itself carries history with it, but at the same time I feel pretty resentful about the loss of the past that this event created. Ely Cathedral still has its walls, but some places were not so lucky. Reading Abbey, for instance, was reduced to ruins. Fortunately, it’s finally on the mend but the original structure is of course lost forever.
Why all the destruction, Hal? Well, parts of buildings and their decorative elements could be sold to finance the government instead of Rome. Besides that, the physical act of treating statues like The Who or Nirvana treated their guitars was a way of saying “no thanks” to icon worship.
Even today, there are people who believe that the Church worships actual statues and paintings, another myth I’d like to dispel. Afer all, do you think photographs of loved ones in your home are really those people? Or just a reminder of those people? Right. That’s how we approach our icons. Like the middle schooler who destroys the yearbook pic, Henry found satisfaction in ordering the destruction of statues because it got rid of the visual reminder. But it was also a symbolic gesture: We don’t need your idol worship — It’s forbidden by God. We’ve got the right idea and here’s what we think of yours.
Henry’s über-tantrum was not the only one of its kind. Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland, for example, also expressed their anger by wiping out the Church’s influence in their own countries. In any case, there’s no way to recover those stones and statues that witnessed so many centuries of history. Although Henry eventually came back to his original beliefs in all but name, his switcharoo can never bring back what he ultimately trashed.
(There’s a nice two-minute clip here from BBC’s ”History of Britain” with some before/after visuals at Holy Trinity Church in Suffolk.)
Royal Name-Calling
Image via Wikipedia
We could probably think of a lot of names to call Henry VIII, if we were into that kind of thing. But, name-calling isn’t nice, for one thing. For another thing, sticks and stones would bounce right off that tubby guy (sorry, I guess that counts as name-calling?) and I doubt names would hurt him either.
No, what I’m getting at is the official title used for the head honcho of Jolly Ol’. Today, if we are lucky enough to meet with the queen, we first address her as “Your Majesty,” and then further in the conversation we switch to, simply, “Ma’am.”
So then: ”Your Majesty, it is a pleasure to join you for martinis and scones this morning,” folllowed later by, “Yes, ma’am, I would love another martini though I must graciously turn down an additional scone. But please feel free, ma’am, to ask about a third martini. You are most kind.”
“Majesty” wasn’t a common form of address for English monarchs until the 16th century. Before that, the usual terms were “Highness” or “Grace” (in Scotland it was “Grace” as well). But when Henry VIII got wind of the king of France and the Holy Roman Emperor using “Majesty,” he snatched that right up and decided it should apply to him, too. And you know what happened if anyone disagreed with him! So “Majesty” it was and is still.
Incidentally, Elizabeth II is officially “Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
Henry VIII had a few incarnations, the last of which was “King of England and France, Defender of the Faith, Lord of Ireland, and Supreme Head of the Church of England and of Ireland.”
Because England’s territories changed so much, some titles got very flowery, such as that of Mary I, who at one point was “Queen of England, France, Naples, Jerusalem, and Ireland; Defender of the Faith; Princess of Spain and Sicily; Archduchess of Austria; Duchess of Milan, Burgundy, and Brabant; Countess of Habsburg, Flanders, and Tyrol.” Trying to remember all that deserves a martini in and of itself.
Be My Guest, Claire Ridgway! Part 2
I hope you all enjoyed Part 1 of Claire Ridgway’s guest post on Alison Weir’s “Tudor women” talk (click here if you missed it). Let’s go to Part 2!
——————————————-
Henry’s Queens:
Obviously King’s wives were not like the average Tudor woman, but even though they were in charge of large households and budgets, Alison pointed out that the decisions were still made by the King. The queen’s role was to produce heirs and be the perfect model wife for the court.
But, what was the model wife? Here, Alison used Catherine of Aragon’s words when she pleaded with Henry VIII at the divorce hearing, saying that she was his “true, humble, obedient wife.” This summed up what a wife should be and her accepted role in the divine order. Even Catherine Parr applauded this ideal in her book Lamentations of a Sinner, writing that young women should be “sober-minded.” Alison pointed out the mottoes of Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard – “Bound to Obey and Serve” and “No Other Will but His” – these women accepted their role!
Adultery:
Alison emphasised that on marriage a woman became a man’s property and that it was even a man’s legal right to kill his wife on the spot if he caught her in the act of adultery. An adulterous woman brought shame on her family. Here, Alison mentioned Catherine Parr’s brother, William Parr, and his call for his unfaithful wife to be put to death. Fortunately, a divorce was granted instead! But look at Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, both accused of adultery and both executed. The man’s word was law and although Weir stated that Anne was the “victim of a bitter court struggle” and was “framed by her enemies,” the adultery charge stood and Anne lost her life. After Catherine Howard was executed, a law was passed that it was high treason for a woman of dubious past to marry the king.
Education
In Medieval times, people believed that women should not be taught to write unless they were nuns and that the only education they needed was in home-making, to make them fit to be a good wife. However, the Renaissance made education for women more acceptable and Alison gave the examples of Margaret Roper (Sir Thomas More’s daughter), Catherine of Aragon, and Catherine Parr as models of educated and virtuous women. Too much learning could get a woman into trouble though–take the example of Catherine Parr, who was plotted against.
Mary and Elizabeth:
Alison pointed out that the only experience England had had of a female ruler was Empress Matilda in the 12th century and she didn’t last long. Mary I was England’s first real female monarch and she had many difficulties to contend with. For example, she couldn’t even do the ceremony of the Knights of the Bath because she couldn’t get into a bath with a bunch of men! Then, there was the question of marriage because of the traditional roles of husband and wife, with the woman being submissive to the man, yet she was Queen of England!
Alison spoke of how it was Elizabeth I who proved that a woman could rule successfully, but she wasn’t afraid of using her femininity to her advantage and using her feminine wiles to get her own way. The marriage issue was still a problem for Elizabeth though, but she solved it by remaining single while encouraging suitors to gain political advantage. Alison quite rightly noted that Elizabeth paved the way for future queens and that she was “one of the most important women to wield power.”
Final Words:
Alison Weir concluded her talk by stating that although 16th century women were seen as second to men, they still managed to rule countries and run businesses and estates. Life certainly was not easy for Tudor women, but, according to Alison, it did have its compensations and many marriages were loving relationships.
It really was a joy to hear Alison speak and to talk to her afterwards. She has so much knowledge and is happy to share this and answer questions. It was a great night and it raised £600 for the Mary Rose Appeal too.
———————————————————
Claire Ridgway writes The Anne Boleyn Files (blog here, Facebook page here) and the Elizabeth Files (blog here, Facebook page here). Thanks again, Claire, for your fantastic article!
Be My Guest, Claire Ridgway! Part 1
My friend Claire Ridgway, of The Anne Boleyn Files, recently had the opportunity to listen in on a talk by Tudor author extraordinaire, Alison Weir on 1 July at the Mary Rose Museum at the historic dockyard at Portsmouth (and lunch with her afterward!). Claire was kind enough to share the experience with me so I may share it with you. Today, in part 1, we have Weir’s take on women in Tudor England in general, and on marriage. Take it away, Claire…
——————————–
I’ve been wanting to catch one of Alison Weir’s talks for a long time so I was really excited when I managed to get a ticket for this talk to aid the Mary Rose Appeal. Alison explained that this talk was not based on any particular book, but on research she has done dating back to the 1970s, and it was a truly enlightening talk, educating the listeners about what it was really like to be a Tudor woman.
Alison started with a quotation from John Knox’s “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women”, a treatise directed at Mary of Guise but which also could be applied to Mary I and her successor, Elizabeth I, a diatribe against the “monstrous regiment” of female rulers. This quotation set the scene for the talk, a talk about the roles that Tudor society expected women to play versus the roles that they actually did play.
Alison explained how men were traditionally seen as the hunters, gatherers and protectors, whereas women were descended from Eve and were the cause of Adam leaving Paradise. Women were viewed as instruments of the Devil, temptresses and “the only imperfection in God’s creation”. Alison quoted Vincent de Beauvais from the 13th century:-
“Woman is the confusion of man, an insatiable beast, a continuous anxiety, an incessant warfare, a daily ruin, a house of tempest and a hindrance to devotion”
and this belief, that women were more prone to sin and could lead men astray, was still prevalent in Tudor England. Tudor women were given little freedom and Chaucer’s character, Patient Griselda, was held as the ideal that girls should aspire to.
Marriage:
Alison went on to discuss betrothals, pre-contracts, dowries and marriage, explaining that a marriage ceremony was not needed to legalise a marriage, even a verbal contract witnessed by two people and then consummated was enough. This helps us to understand the concerns over Anne Boleyn’s alleged pre-contract to Henry Percy and Catherine Howard’s to Francis Dereham.
Alison pointed out that sex before marriage was forbidden but that it was seen as acceptable for a man to sow his wild oats before settling down; however, a woman was expected to be virtuous and guard her reputation with her life, and this is why Henry VIII courted Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard in front of chaperones, to guard their reputations. Talk about double standards!
For the woman, sex was seen as simply necessary for procreation and it was believed that women were not meant to experience sexual pleasure. Alison stated that when someone in the 16th century questioned this belief and said that women were made to experience pleasure, he was accused of heresy. Also, a shocking fact – women with sexual experience could not accuse a man of rape!
Marriage for love was seen as pure insanity and arranged marriages were the norm. Henry VIII bucked tradition by following Edward IV’s example and marrying for love, but this certainly was not normal. Boys could cohabit from 14 and girls were deemed ready for a sexual relationship from 12, and Alison noted that there was a very practical reason for this: life expectancy. In Tudor times, women had a life expectancy of around 30 so it was sensible to marry young.
——————————————
Part 2: Henry’s queens and adultery, stay tuned!
This Calls for Birthday Cake … and Swan and Peacock and Rabbit…
Image via Wikipedia
Our very own Henry VIII entered our world on 28 June 1491 at the Palace of Placentia in Greenwich, London. (He married Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour there as well.) The heir to the throne, his older brother Arthur, had been shuttled off to a Welsh castle to live when he was just a child. There he learned Ruling England 101 while Henry was all set for a life with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It was understood at that time that an oldest son would be groomed to take over a father’s place, and the second son would head to the church for his life’s work. No coincidence, then, that the ginger king was a champion of the Catholic faith for so long. Ironic then, too, that he would turn religion in England on its head in an unprecidented display of drama.
The future Massive Monarch grew up surrounded by women. Go figure. But really, he was adored by his mother and his two sisters, Mary and Margaret. In the recent Henry VIII: Man and Monarch exhibit, David Starkey declared that Henry’s handwriting reveals a mummy’s boy whose early life with the ladies led to his future as a dysfunctional ladies’ man.
And when newlywed Arthur died and left the crown and the Spanish princess Catherine of Aragon, well, that’s when history took a wild turn indeed.
After You, Who?
Here’s a stellar 5:40 bit from Showtime on life after Henry VIII . He was a tough act to follow, for sure, but someone had to do it! Take a gander at how the succession went for the remainder of the Tudor period.
Thou Art the Tops, Pops!
Today is Father’s Day in the States, and on this day I’d like to draw attention to the prominent dads of the Tudor dynasty…
- Edmund Tudor (dad to Henry VII)
- Henry VII (dad to Henry VIII, Arthur Prince of Wales, Margaret Queen of Scots, and Mary Queen of France)
- Henry VIII (dad to lowly girls Mary I and Elizabeth I, and exalted boy Edward VI, not to mention the illegitimate Henry Fitroy)
- God the Father (heavenly dad to all those Catholics and Protestants who were killing each other during this time period)
- James V of Scotland (dad to Mary Queen of Scots)
- Henry Grey (dad to Lady Jane Grey)
While our modern dads are happy to spend time with their children and the rest of their families today, that tie or cologne or barbeque equipment is certainly appreciated. Back in the day, however, simply becoming a father (especially to a son for certain men, ahem!) and carrying on that bloodline was a gift in itself. Considering the grim truth about personal hygenie in the 16th century, it’s a shame that cologne wasn’t an option after all!
Royal Offspring, or Lack Thereof
How interesting and ironic that, save Henry VII, none of the Tudor monarchs passed on their colorful genes to a new generation of drama queens and kings. But while this fact gets lots of press for the 16th-century clan, they were hardly alone in their infertility issues.
William II (1087-1100*) was childless. He was also unmarried, probably because women weren’t his thing. Richard I “The Lionheart” (1189-1199) had no children, nor did Richard II (1377-1399).
Lancastrian superstar Henry V (1413-1422) had only one child, a boy. Lucky for the king, that kid made it to adulthood in time to rule as Henry VI (1422-1461, then 1470-1471, long story). He, too, only had a son. Sadly, that son became the only heir apparent to the English throne to be killed on the battlefield. Pre-Tudor king Richard III (1483-1485) had a single son who died as a tween.
Charles II (1660-1685) had no legitimate heirs but lent his DNA to about 12 illegimate children, via a slew of mistresses. James II (1685-1688) had 19 children with two wives, but couldn’t put any to good use as heirs because he was forced to high-tail his Catholic self into exile and make way for William and Mary (1689-1702), who also were childless. Their successor, Anne (1702-1714), endured 18 pregnancies but had only five live births. Only one lived past age two –but died nine years later.
Princess Charlotte, the only child of George IV (1820-1830), died in childbirth before she could succeed her father. George’s successor, William IV (1830-1837) kept his genetic code to himself.
On the flip side, royal rabbits include William I “The Conqueror” (1066-1087) who had 10 children, Edward I (1272-1307) with 19 children, Edward III (1327-1377) with 13 children, Edward IV (1461-1483, including a break) with 10 children, George II (1727-1760) with 10 children, and George III (1760-1820) with 15 children.
Even with “only” nine children, Victoria (1837-1901) was considered the Grandmother of Europe, once her kids started marrying into other royal families. Henry VIII would have killed for that kind of genealogical legacy. And as it turned out, that’s just what he did.
[*Dates in parentheses represent reign and not birth/death.]
What’s Inside That Body? 5,000 Calories a Day + A Fatty Liver, to Start…
While flipping through the channels today, I was crushed to find I’d just missed a special on the History Channel called “Inside the Body of Henry VIII.” This special first aired last spring but I hadn’t heard of it until now.
My spirits lifted when I found clips from the special on YouTube, about his illnesses, his diet, his sporting injuries, and the Syphillis Question. I hope you enjoy them!
