Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
1:54 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Ok so I’ve been having a good pick at my brains again for the last few days, and there does seem to be a lot of Deja Vu, where history is concered.
As we knnow, when Henry decided to get shot of KOA, Wolsey thought the reason being was because Henry had decided that enough was enough was the Emperor (KOA’s Nephew) was concerned and that England would not gain anything from this alliance, plus he was annoyed that KOA hadn’t produced a son, and thought well sod it I’ll make an alliance with France, marry Renee and have a son. Wolsey went on several diplomatic ventures to France and Frances and Wolsey came to a sort of agreement that once Henry was divorced from KOA he would happily allow Renee to marry Henry and therefore it would ensure peace between the 2 countries.
However in truth Henry had decided all the above, but Renee was not part of the deal, he had most adamently decided that he would marry A.B and there’s an end to the matter, the people could put up and shut up and that went for his councillers and lackeys too.
Once it became known that Henry wanted to marry A.B Wolsey started to play for time and stalled things somewhat concerning the divorce I can only think that he had some sort of deal going on in the background with Francis which all hinged on the condition that Henry married Renee, maybe something to do with the Vatican or something, as we know Wolsey wanted to become Pope.
We all know Wolsey fate, and that A.B was blamed for it, but to be honest although a great statesman I think Wolsey could be as underhanded and shifty as the next man, which of course happened to be Cromwell, whose fate was sealed over AOC.
Anyway the Deju Vu bit I mentioned comes from Edward 4th, as we know he married Elizabeth Woodville, but in secret with only a handful of witnesses who he could trust to keep their mouths shut until he was ready to tell everyone that he was married and to whom. In the meantime his councillers had decided that a marriage alliance with Portugal with would be the best option for England and sent Ambassadors to the court there to get an agreement between the 2 countries, which was done and dusted, and it only needed the kings signiture and rubber stamp for the Princess to leave the country and become England’s Queen. The Ambassadors from Portugal were met by Edward and given the usual parties and treatment that one would give any Ambassador from a distant land, and on the day of him actually going to seal the deal, Edward then said “I can’t marry the Portuese Princess because I’m already married, sorry”, The Ambassadors and Edward’s own people were extremely embarrassed by it all too.
Edward and Henry did the same thing kept secret their intentions although in Edward’s case he was married, from everyone who were working to secure deals for forgien marriages.
I’m not entirely sure but I believe King John did the same too, when he divorced Hadwisa, I think his council were given to believe he would marry one of the French Princesses and thus keep his French processions in his hand via his wife. Again unknown to all and sundry John had decided he was going to marry 12 year old Isabella of Angollume and to hell with France. The French Princess possibly being Philip’s youngest daughter by his disputed 3rd wife Agnes, who was called Marie born in 1197.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
5:12 pm
May 16, 2011
Offline
I kind of get this feeling too especially with this specific time in history. I find alot of similarites with Wydeville and Anne…
• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.
7:10 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Maybe Henry looked back at the monarchs who did marry their choice of bride to see how they handled these things. Henry admired his grandfather Edward. He may have looked to see what Edward did to have the woman he wanted, saw how he handled his subjects when it came to these matters, and decided to act in a similar fashion. It seems like these kings were saying, look over here, don’t look behind the curtain. Henry knew, as his grandfather had known, that negotaitions for marriage with these women from foreign countries was not going to ever take place. They allowed the negotiations to continue to placate the foreiegn courts and their own court.
12:28 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
I thought of another case of Deja Vu. As we all known Ferdinand of Aragon was reluctant to send Katherine to England to marry Arthur, because he felt that the tudor dynasty was basically going to be a one king deal. The only way that Ferdinand would agree to send Katherine to England is H7 eliminated all those that were a threat to the throne. Ergo the hapless Duke of Warwick Edward, son of George Duke of Clarence and Isabella Neville had to die, although given out that he and the pretender Warbeck had tried to escape the Tower I feel personally that his death was more to do with securing and reassuring Ferdinand and Isabella K.O.A for Arthur’s bride and that the Tudor Dynasty was here to stay.
Much the same sort of thing happened in 1554 when Mary Tudor was on the throne. She had wanted to marry Philip of Spain (her cousin) he was of course not interested with either her or with England only the cash that England had. But he refused to come to England unless Mary eliminated her rival claiment to the throne, in this case Lady Jane Grey. Poor Jane was executed for love basically, althought the Spanish ambassador tried to get Mary to kill Elizabeth as well. Of course we all know that Philip came to England did his considered duty and buzzed off back to Spain or anywhere else as long as he didn’t have to be anywhere near Mary.
It made me laugh when I read about Philip’s marital history. We all know he actively persued Elizabeth to marry him after Mary died, and eventually ended up marrying Elizabeth of France instead. Anyway when Elizabeth of France died in 1568, Catherine De Medici Regent of France offered her daughter Margaret as a replacement bride. Philip’s answer was no thanks because he felt marrying his dead wife’s sister was against God’s laws. and yet he didn’t think that when he was persuing Queen Elizabeth, who was Mary’s sister. Strikes me at least that Philip was being being a tad hypocritial here.
There is of course another joke about Philip’s quip. When Manual of Portugal was first married to Isabella of Spain and when she died in 1500, not long after in 1501 he married Maria of Spain Isabella’s sister. Did Manual feel any qualms about marrying his dead wife’s sister?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:34 pm
May 3, 2013
Offline
Another theme, a convenient and predictable one for their enemies & rivals, is how women like Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth Woodville had their names and reputations blackened by blatantly obvious propaganda. A hypocritical age: men could openly admire so-called she-devils like Caterina Sforza for their militant natures; respect women like Catherine of Aragon and AB for their intelligence; and yet, these remarkable women were still considered ‘mere women’, disposable and unimportant in the wider sphere. Did it not occur to said men that these very women would have made for better monarchs than the weak, egocentric and entitled males who actually ruled? I venture that here is more to this mindset than mere sexism, though, despite appearances; by implication, the mindset is a sign of insecurity.
8:59 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Steve J. That’s where Elizabeth turn these egotisical hypocritic men’s attitudes towards woman rulers arse about face. They must have felt very cynical about the whole idea of woman rulers right from the beginning and considering the pig’s ear that Mary made of ruling that cynicism was well founded. Elizabeth however showed a very different attitude towards woman rulers and from the moment she received Mary’s ring she set about this hypocrical odious little runts with a piece of 4×2 and showed them and the whole world just what a real woman could do.
The reason I think to why woman were viewed with scorn was because to give them God like powers (loosely worded) was behaving above one’s given station in life, in a woman’s case that was to have babies and do as they were told, and to cop the flack when their husband’s had a hissy fit, and beat them up.
Elizabeth on the other hand said “Hey I’m equal to you and no man will ever rule or try to dominate me, try it and you will be taking your testicles home in a bag.”
I’ve said this before but I do feel it is very apt here. Anne B started what is now woman’s equality, she took on the almighty Lard mountain called Henry who considered himself master of all the world, and beat him with a shitty stick to show him that woman were just as good as men at getting a job done. Anne’s death at his hands was a travesty, but her sacrifice for her daughter’s inheritence changed the world. Elizabeth’s mind was simply incredible and she made it possible for woman to speak out and say what they wanted to do and who they wanted to marry, although it took really up until the Victorian age for woman to actually be taken seriously, I’ve no doubt in my mind, that if Anne hadn’t have sacrificed herself as she did, woman today would still be subservient little woman with no mind or will of their own that they were before Anne’s impact on the world.
These days woman hold high flying jobs, own property etc. but again none of that would have been possible without either Anne.B or Elizabeth.
Vivat Anne, Long Live Good Queen Bess.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
9:34 pm
November 22, 2011
Offline
SteveJ said
Another theme, a convenient and predictable one for their enemies & rivals, is how women like Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth Woodville had their names and reputations blackened by blatantly obvious propaganda. A hypocritical age: men could openly admire so-called she-devils like Caterina Sforza for their militant natures; respect women like Catherine of Aragon and AB for their intelligence; and yet, these remarkable women were still considered ‘mere women’, disposable and unimportant in the wider sphere. Did it not occur to said men that these very women would have made for better monarchs than the weak, egocentric and entitled males who actually ruled? I venture that here is more to this mindset than mere sexism, though, despite appearances; by implication, the mindset is a sign of insecurity.
Well said SteveJ. The combination of insecurity in these rulers and their almost absolute power proved to be a dangerous combination.
10:19 pm
May 3, 2013
Offline
That’s the trouble though, Bo – even with the stellar example of Queen Elizabeth before them, influential men nevertheless still viewed female excellence as an exception to a biased so-called rule & not representative of women as talented & intelligent beings. It seems to have been the way, with these men, that they considered ‘strong’, outspoken women as merely troublesome, and more considered female thinkers as weak or cowardly; less than men, no matter what these women did or said. As I hinted, this was a convenient myth which preserved the status quo – women were expediently classed as unfit to be leaders in any & every sphere: home, battle front, church, seats of royal power etc etc. Nothing could shake this knowing prejudice which arguably stemmed from the overstatement of male authority in the Bible & the airbrushing and marginalisation of female/feminine influence in that book (except when it comes to demonising any woman who was thought of as ‘uppity’).
So, it saddens me to write that I believe Anne’s brilliance and independence made little difference when it came to later Feminism except as a ‘passion bearer’ (as it were) rather than a genuine martyr to the cause. This is, of course, merely my opinion, and I can’t blame modern women for viewing Anne in a different light. We all need our heroes and heroines, and our devotion is often touching…but perspective has an annoying habit of keeping us honest. For example, Oscar Wilde is one of my heroes. Despite wishful-thinking, I know that Oscar was – at best – a self-made martyr to the homosexual cause rather than a true martyr; this doesn’t affect my admiration of him, his work and his spirit of independence in any way…and my being heterosexual makes me, hopefully, an unbiased observer. In conclusion, it’s a comfort to all right-minded people to think of Anne as a trailblazer regarding freedoms which should ideally have been every woman’s birthright; the less-comforting, probable truth is that she could only have made a true mark on her world by force or the sheer good fortune to have been surrounded by weaker personalities and intellects (as, it could be argued, Elizabeth did). Sadly, only the weaker weapons – a makeshift & make-do curious arsenal of compromise, good behaviour, familial duty, seduction, intrigues, witchcraft etc – have always been available to women, be they commoners, nobles or rulers. Such was always Womankind’s lot; people like Anne and her daughter simply wielded certain of those weapons with more art and guile than the contemporaries of their sex.
12:18 am
November 22, 2011
Offline
Sharon said
Maybe Henry looked back at the monarchs who did marry their choice of bride to see how they handled these things. Henry admired his grandfather Edward. He may have looked to see what Edward did to have the woman he wanted, saw how he handled his subjects when it came to these matters, and decided to act in a similar fashion. It seems like these kings were saying, look over here, don’t look behind the curtain. Henry knew, as his grandfather had known, that negotaitions for marriage with these women from foreign countries was not going to ever take place. They allowed the negotiations to continue to placate the foreiegn courts and their own court.
Henry does seem to have followed Edward IV’s example and when it came to his excesses, the student surpassed the master!
The words to the song “Smoke and Mirrors” (with a minor change) seem appropriate here, lol
You’re a fraud and you know it
But it’s too good to throw it all away
Any King would do the same
You’ve got ’em going
And you’re careful not to show it
Sometimes you even fool yourself a bit
It’s like magic
But it’s always been a smoke and mirrors game
Any King would do the same
1:08 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Elizabeth was lucky to be born into a time when the monarch was the absolute ruler.His/her advisors could offer up thier solutions to the problem at hand and the king/queen could ignore them if he/she wanted too.
It would have been intereastng to see how Queen Anne or Queen Victoria or even Elizabeth II could have reacted as being a true absolute ruler in the way that medeaval monarchs were..
Equally looking at how Georges V and VI would have handled the World Wars as an absolute monarch of what was then the British Empire raises a lot of questions…
It's always bunnies.
