Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
5:40 am
February 8, 2010
Offline
In my opinion, The Tudors were bastards – Henry VII was the son of Margaret Beaufort (descendant of the line of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford who although legitimatised by Henry VI were not permitted access to the throne of England) and Edmund Tudor, son of Owen Tudor and Catherine of Valois- ex queen of Henry V (and the marriage hasd never been confirmed).
Henry married Elizabeth Plantanget, eldest daughter of Edward IV and Elizbaeth Wydville. Bishop Stillington said that Edward IV had a pre-contract with another woman thus the marriage between himself and Elizabeth W. was null and void, leavinfg the children bastards.
On receiving the news Richard III invoked the law of “Titulus Regius” making all the children of EIV and Elizabath W. bastards.
So the son of two bastards (on the Beaufort/Tudor side) married a bastard on the Plantagent side and created the House of Tudor. IF the children of Edward IV had been legitimate then Elizabeth's younger brothers, first Edward, and then Richard, should have inherited the throne – But no mention wa made of their disappearance on the Tudor side until years later.
The Tudor dynasty lasted 118 years – With HVII lasting 24 years on the throne, his son HVII, 38 years. his son, Edward, a mere 6, Mary only 5 but Elizabeth who ended the Tudor domination a good 45 years.
Victoria, whom I intensely dislike, did manage 64 years by herself.
But both heralded new thoughts, experiences, discoveries, etc.
Despite my dislike for the Tudfors (with the exception of Elizabeth) I would go for them . But interesting to see the comparison
12:00 am
December 30, 2009
Offline
On assuming the crown, Henry VII ordered the Titulus Regis repealed and destroyed unread. One copy just happened to survive. Without it, we would never have known about Richard's claim to the crown based on Edward IV's pre-contract with Lady Eleanor Talbot.
Henry was careful to claim the crown through his descent, not based on his marriage with Elizabeth of York. He tried to make traitors of all who had fought for Richard by dating his reign from the day before the Battle of Bosworth. He delayed his marriage for some months to further distance his assumption of the crown from his union with a Yorkist Princess.
With regard to Victoria – I am curious as to why you dislike her, Jenny!
5:41 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Jasmine said:
With regard to Victoria – I am curious as to why you dislike her, Jenny!
Me too! I really admire Victoria, another strong woman. To have such an awful upbringing with the Kensington System, and not ever allowed to be by yourself or think for yourself, and then at the age of 18 become monarch in your own right is an amazing feat. In a BBC programme a couple of weeks ago, Fiona Bruce talked of how the Kensington System was about breaking Victoria's spirit and yet it actually made her stronger. I truly admire her.
I also like the Victorian period because Victorian life intrigues me, there was such a revolution in farming and in industry. So much change and progress. Fascinating!
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
6:34 am
February 8, 2010
Offline
Hi Jasmine and Claire,
Unfortunately, at present, I do not have time to sit down (and make sure I don't make so many spelling errors) to explain why I do disllike Victoria (who I have for some time named “Tricky Vicky”). Yes, her childhood was not the best but think could be compared to Edward VI and certainly not Elizabeth. She also married her cousin, Albert on whom she came to rely completely. Unlike Elizabeth, she did have children who seemed to suffer not nice lives. E1 could choose her counsellors, TV was tied to Prime Miinsters ( brought in by the Hannoverian dynasty) although some she streated well, others not so. She is considered to be the “GRandmother” of the Europan Royal Families, but althogh the Hannovarian dynasty had not trait of Haemophilia, the fusion of the blood of Albert and Victoria, spread the sickness around most of Europe and Russia.
When Albert died, for many years she was a wreck and this attracted the anarchists who were playing all over Europe at the time.
There are so many other thngs to say which I haven't got time. But she did rule a kingdom where, despite a hell of a lot of poverty and prostitution held sway, it was becoming an “enlightened society”, many discoveries, etc.
But as a woman, give me E1 – far more together with what she had to cope with and far more serioius in her choice of advisors.
12:22 am
December 30, 2009
Offline
One major difference between Elizabeth and Victoria regarding choice of advisers – Elizabeth was able to appoint anyone she chose to her council, Victoria was constrained in her choice of advisers by the operation of the voting system and by her time, the leader of the party with the most seats became PM and she had to work with them. Victoria had no free choice.
Early in her reign, she did have a hissy fit because convention said that the ladies of her household would have to change if a government changed as they were”political” rather than personal appointments. You might imagine how unsettling this would be for a young and inexperienced Queen. Victoria stood firm and Peel could not form a government. However, this only happened once and the convention eventually changed.
Regarding the spread of hemophilia, I think current scientific opinion is that a spontaneous mutation occurred in Victoria's genes (perhaps related to the age of her father) therefore it was not a result of her marriage to Abert and the hemophilia would have occurred whoever she married.
6:26 am
December 8, 2009
Offline
The Victorian era as a whole leaves me cold. She just sat there and watched a few million in Ireland starved to death (just imagine if Henry had done that!), and I hate that whole “imperialist” mentality that the Victorians embody. They basically plundered and massacred their way around the world. The shame of it still lingers to this day.
As for the Tudors being bastards. How long does bastardy last? I mean, Henry VII was born in wedlock, Henry VIII and his siblings were born in wedlock. Does it really matter?
Be daly prove you shalle me fynde,nTo be to you bothe lovyng and kynde,
9:38 pm
August 12, 2009
Offline
I don't think it matters, Hannah. The claims of bastardy were very political expedient for the vying claims to the throne, so I take them with a grain of salt. I don't consider that either Mary or Elizabeth were bastards. As for Victoria, she did have a lot of emotional problems; I compare her to Mary in that, although I think she was stronger under the pressure than Mary.
Apropos of nothing but that we're discussing Victoria, I'm reading a book called “Queen Victoria – Demon Hunter”, by A. E. Moorat. It's gory but funny at the same time and is definitely tongue-in-cheek. It also owes a nod to Buffy, The Vampire Slayer, which was a plus for me. The tag line is “She loved her country. She hated zombies.” Basically, when she inherits the crown, she also inherits the top-secret duty of Royal Demon Hunter. She's perplexed and dismayed, but finds that she's very good at it. But how to juggle government and a secret life, whilst being romanced by Albert? And what about the balls and parties she'll have to miss? I'm really enjoying it, for a light read.
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
12:01 am
June 20, 2009
Offline
Call me strange, but I have an issue with the word “bastard”. Henry VII was married to Elizabeth of York, and their children were born in wedlock. As for the prior claims of Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, well if they thought they were married, then they probably were. Records were not as accurate as they are today, so let's just say for arguments sake, they were.
As for Mary and Elizabeth, they were technically not “bastards”. Despite Henry's idiotic claims of the marriage not being vaild, the Pope gave them permission to marry, and for many years lived as a married couple. His desperate need for a male heir dominated his thoughts and decisions, thus affecting the lives of everyone around him. Henry and Anne were married, according to Henry's church, and at the time, it was legal. Claiming that someone was a bastard to get certain results is wrong. I have two kids out of “wedlock”, but I do not consider them bastards. They are my babies, and I'm sure Katherine and Anne felt the same way, regardless of inheirtance or position in life.
I have not studied the Victorian era, but Victoria seems like a mystery to me. She may have portrayed this image to the world, but I don't think she was really like that.
Every royal dynasty has some secrets. Whether we will discover them or not, well time will tell. As an American, we don't have a royal family, and have to live vicariously through others that do.. LOL
I'm off the soapbox now.. 
Let not my enemies sit as my jury
7:44 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
I was never a huge fan of the Victorian period either, its really only been in the last few years that I've developed more of an interest and come to see what an amazing time it really was. I particularly love the literature, Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins, the Brontes (are they technically Victorian?) etc.
As for Victoria herself I don't know an awful lot (apart from what I've seen in movies!) but she's a personality I'd like to learn more about. Unfortunately any spare time I have for these things usually gets taken up by the Tudors (and to a lesser extent the Medici) 
Impish – 'Queen Victoria – Demon Hunter' has been languishing in my to-read-pile for the past six months and I still haven't got around to reading it yet, (just couldn't resist picking it up on the basis of that tag line!) so would love to know if its any good! And I think I read somewhere that A. E. Moorats next book is 'Henry Vlll – Wolfman' but I'm not sure, haven't come across any more info on it.
6:01 am
February 8, 2010
Offline
Bella,
Whilst I find Charles Dickens particularly heavy going . his books do reflect the attitude if the victorian times – Wilkie Collins? Well interesting and the Bronte sisters – oh so sad stories – But brilliant poets at that period.
However, Queeen in Question still leaves me cold
6:26 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
The Victorian era is intereasting due to the huge leaps in technology and science. A lot of things we take for granted today started then.
The “Embedded War Reporter” of present day news casts had his/her counterpart in the Crimea War and later in the American Civil War and Boer Wars through to the current wars in Iraq and Afganistan.
Instanteous news reporting, the telegramme and e-mail.
The reporting of sex scandels of the royals, the rich and the (in)famous in tabloid newspapers.
The hype around a new musical, Gilbert and Sullivan vs any number of pop music stars.
It's always bunnies.
6:29 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Jenny said:
Bella,
Whilst I find Charles Dickens particularly heavy going . his books do reflect the attitude if the victorian times – Wilkie Collins? Well interesting and the Bronte sisters – oh so sad stories – But brilliant poets at that period.
Elizabeth Gaskell is a much easier though as gritty a read than Dickens. She focused more on the industrial poor of the North-West of England around MAnchester.
It's always bunnies.
