Richard III remains confirmed

[charliechaplinfan]

Well he united the country and stabilised the monarchy but how much is down to him and his charisma or fear and how much is down to the England and Wales having no more stomach for a fight. without Richard the York claimants were weakened. Henry VII had a very strong woman behind him, his mother who had him at 13 but from what I've read he doesn't seem like a good king, strangely I was taught in school that he was a good king because he ended the War of the Roses.

Henry VIII had much potential and during his marriage to Katherine of Aragon he did do good but somewhere he lost it and became absorbed with his battle to divorce one wife and wed another. I do have some sympathy, not much given the way he went about it but we'd never had a Queen ruling by herself and he wanted his family to remain on the throne, it was impreative to him to have a son. I can understand him getting rid of Anne Boleyn for the same reason but he didn't need to behead her, she was very unpopular, the country would have been willing to blame everything on Anne and accept a new Queen. Elizabeth I is perhaps the best monarch we have ever had, she seems to have inherited to the steel of both parents and the brains of her mother. One mustn't underestimate Anne Boleyn, what she achieved and how she played Henry and how tenacious she was, if Elizabeth had been a son she may have saved her pretty head and Henry from 4 other marriages.

I'm probably telling you what you already know but when it comes to Henry VIII it astounds me that people can have a favourable opinion of him given his recklessness with his wife's lives and those of his advisers.

[JackFavell]

I think he was a brilliant man, with a poetic scholarly side, but unfortunately that was overridden by his all consuming passions and a childlike temperament.

Elizabeth by far seems to me to be the best monarch, if I may be so bold as to express an opinion.

[Maricatrin]

Henry VIII started out well, but sadly became (in the words to Charles Dickens) a disgraceful "blot of blood and grease upon the History of England."

Henry VII seems to have been a pretty thorough "cold fish", chock full of avarice and a several other character defects, but after the War of the Roses (aka
"Earls gone mad") he must have come as quite a relief. I think the following is a pretty balanced assessment;:

It was said of Henry that he had never been young; but a military upbringing at the hands of an uncle, followed by an adolescence and early manhood spent largely in exile and in constant danger of capture and execution, are hardly conductive to joie de vivre. Seldom if ever did Henry show any of the passions, the overwhelming emotions, the terrible rages of his son and granddaughters. Cruel and inflexible he could be, but his decisions were always ruled by the head rather than the heart; far more frequently he amazed his advisers by his mercy and tolerance - which sprang, however, not from any deep wells of kindness or compassion but from the conviction that his primary task must be to reconcile the old factions and, slowly and patiently, to bring the aristocracy to its senses. At long last, the country had a superb King; it had waited, heaven knows, long enough.

Shakespeare's Kings: The Great Plays and the History of England in the Middle Ages: 1337-1485, by John Julius Norwich

Besides looking something like John Carradine,

Henry VII started a massive shipbuilding program that helped get England on the path to "ruling the waves."

Kipling wrote an amusing poem called "King Henry VII and the Shipwrights": http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_shipwrights.htm

[RedRiver]

In Shakespeare's play about Henry VIII, the final scene features the birth of a certain baby girl. "My, what a beautiful princess! She will grow up to be a magnificent queen!" Gee, I wondered who commissioned this little piece!

[JackFavell]

Ha!

Thanks for relating some of Henry Tudor's finer points! Shipbuilding definitely goes on the plus side.

[charliechaplinfan]

I'm inclined to think that assessment of Henry VII is a little biased in his favour, history is like reading film biographies, it depends on the biographer/historian but then I might have read the material biased in the other direction. Henry VIII is such a contradiction, is his first marriage had been fertile and had he begot sons I wonder if we'd remember him so well. Elizabeth the greatest in my humble opinion too.

Do venture an opinion, I've found my friends here better informed on British history than anyone I talk to day to day. It's great to find people who are so interested about 'The King in the Carpark' and his relatives.

[moira finnie]

Hey, did anyone else hear the news report that York Cathedral may ask the Queen to decide where to park Richard III's bones permanently now? It seems that the people in Leicester feel he ought to belong there now, while York thinks he should come home. I haven't heard that Westminster is being considered though perhaps I missed that.

[charliechaplinfan]

Worksop want him too because it's half way between Leicester and York. I haven't got a favourite, Westminister Abbey is the obvious place but it has enough kings there, it would be nice for him to come home to York from where he ruled over the North but then to have him buried in Leicester would be a big thing for them. Let the Queen decide.

[JackFavell]

Westminster has remained very quiet on the subject, while York and Leicester are starting another 100 years war over the remains, it seems. I can see why each would want him. My heart wishes that he could be interred in York, He spent his childhood in York, represented it through the war of the roses, and was born near there as well. but I do understand how Leicester feels, Richard is part of their claim to fame after all.

How did Henry Tudor claim the title of Lancaster during the war of the roses? I can see how Richard was York through and through, but Henry doesn't make sense to me. I believe the title came through his mother's side, and he was illegitimate.

[Maricatrin]

I'm inclined to think that assessment of Henry VII is a little biased in his favour, history is like reading film biographies, it depends on the biographer/historian but then I might have read the material biased in the other direction.

People are so self-effacingly polite here, it's a real pleasure to post. I figure anyone who writes history is bound to have their own personal opinions (hence their own particular bias) but if they seem to have a cautious regard for remaining truthful to the facts and not trying to stick their viewpoint down one's throat, I respect their work. I'm immediately on guard against anyone who says that they have the one and only true story and that everyone else is full of hooey.

Henry VIII is such a contradiction, is his first marriage had been fertile and had he begot sons I wonder if we'd remember him so well. Elizabeth the greatest in my humble opinion too.

I think Dorothy L. Sayers remarked that 'she was one of those rare people born into the right job at the right time.'

Do venture an opinion, I've found my friends here better informed on British history than anyone I talk to day to day. It's great to find people who are so interested about 'The King in the Carpark' and his relatives.

I think I saw a poll several years ago that said over fifty percent of English school children had no idea who Francis Drake was? Incredible.

How did Henry Tudor claim the title of Lancaster during the war of the roses? I can see how Richard was York through and through, but Henry doesn't make sense to me. I believe the title came through his mother's side, and he was illegitimate.

You're right that the claim came through his mother (Margaret Beaufort, given in marriage while still a child to Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond, and step-brother to King Henry VI), but he wasn't illegitimate himself.

The Beauforts claim to the throne was tenuous at best, as they were descended from John of Gaunt by his mistress Katherine Swynford. When the pair married, their children were legitimatized, but I think there was some provision made that their descendents could never inherit the throne.

[JackFavell]

Thanks very much for explaining that to me! Actually, the York line wasn't very direct either.

History just doesn't seem to be taught anymore, no matter where you live. It's a shame.

[Maricatrin]

Thanks very much for explaining that to me! Actually, the York line wasn't very direct either.

You're quite welcome; glad to help. Yes, by the time the smoke cleared, there just weren't many claimants left. Madness, madness.

My friends all know I'm a bit of a geek, perhaps the condition is catching - when we were kids, my older brother used to recite the names of the English Kings dating from the Norman Conquest up to Elizabeth II. Actually, he would sometimes go further back than that, but I can't even pronounce those names.

History just doesn't seem to be taught anymore, no matter where you live. It's a shame.

As Digory Kirke would say: "what do they teach them at these schools?"

As a minor digression, I think I'm hallucinating ... I posted two pictures in my first post on this thread, but every other time I look, only one shows up. At the moment, there are two of them again! (you've finally gone off your trolley, old girl. )

[JackFavell]

I think that it depends on whether you've updated your computer recently. I have that happen all the time, sometimes it just comes up and says 'image' but then when I update my computer, whatever app that is in charge of reading photos kicks in and lets me see it again.

[Maricatrin]

I think that it depends on whether you've updated your computer recently. I have that happen all the time, sometimes it just comes up and says 'image' but then when I update my computer, whatever app that is in charge of reading photos kicks in and lets me see it again.

Thanks for explaining that to me! It's nice to know I needn't be institutionalized just yet.

[JackFavell]

If you are, so are we all headed that direction...