Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
1:29 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
It’s fairly well known that Buckingham always fancied he was more Royal then Henry, and it could therefore been argued he was a possible claimant to the throne (as one of the last Plantaganants Via his mother Catherine daughter of Edward 4th) if Henry was to die without a male heir. It is also rumoured that he had planned to actually kill Henry to take the throne. This what if question comes from that rumour..
What if Buckingham had actually killed Henry as he had planned to do?
Would he have actually been successful and become King or would have Mary been declared Queen and Buckingham been executed for Regicide?
How different would have England been if Buckingham had murdered Henry?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:46 pm
October 1, 2012
Offline
My “limited” view of 16th Century England had roughly four classes of citizens. The lowly serfs farming the soil and keeping the bees and sheep, the artisans, potters, bakers, masons, spinners, etc, and then a huge gulf up the ladder to the knights, earls, dukes, etc, just beneath the truly royal family. And the gentry just outside the royal family were constantly striving to “get a piece of that pie”, by doing most anything to enter into that inner circle of the monarchy. I think that’s what Thomas Boleyn and his family were attempting to do. History is filled with various attempts of individuals and whole families endeavoring to gain that most saught after position.
I think if the Buckinghams had accomplished what you are suggesting, the struggles would have continued within that “lower” upper crust in the same manner we see evidence in the families circulating around Henry’s court. We would just see different players but using the same “lines’ in their attempts of seeking favor for themselves and their families. Just some rambling thoughts. (Kinda like: what would today’s USA be like, had Europeans not invaded North America, and the various Indian tribes developed their own forms of civilization and industrial complexes? How different America would have been?)
Larry
4:54 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Ok Bo it depends what you mean by killed. Sneakily murdered him, or defeated in battle?
9:52 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
I’ve read somewhere that Buckinghams father had sort of planned to stab Richard to death whilst bowing to him and I believe that this what Buckingham had planned to do to Henry, either that or poison him.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
6:39 am
April 1, 2011
Offline
Charles Knevet gave evidence that Buckingham had said in 1520 that if he were imprisoned for breaking the laws against livery and maintenance by retaining Sir William Bulmer, Buckingham “would have done what his father intended to do to Richard III at Salisbury, when he made suit to come to the King’s presence, having upon him secretly a knife, so that when kneeling before the King he would have risen suddenly and stabbed him.” Knevet may have borne a grudge against Buckingham–he had been dismissed from his household–so his testimony should be taken with a grain of salt. It may also be that Buckingham was simply ranting–he apparently had a bad temper.
Susan Higginbotham
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
11:26 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
You could well be right. Buckingham certainly wasn’t a happy bunny, when Henry had seduced his sister. He felt that Henry had seriously insulted not just him but his family name. Buckingham may have been all Bluster and Ballast, but I actually feel that if he could he would have killed Henry.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:50 pm
April 1, 2011
Offline
We actually don’t know whether Henry had an affair with Buckingham’s sister. The only source we have for their relationship is an ambassador’s report, and it’s impossible to tell from that whether the two were actually sleeping together or having no more than a flirtation (if that). Buckingham never uttered the famous line ““Women of the Stafford family are no game for Comptons, no, nor for Tudors either!”. The historian Garrett Mattingly made the comment in his description of the incident, and subsequent historians started putting the line straight into Buckingham’s mouth.
Susan Higginbotham
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
5:07 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Again equally true. I think perhaps their “relationship” was more along the lines of a game of sexual innuendo, than actually getting down to horizontal jogging. Henry had as we know a very somewhat warped sence of humour and it’s possible this game was to send a message to Buckingham to say “Look Pal you may be Royalty, but that doesn’t mean you are better than me. The Stafford woman are as much game for me as any other woman”.
Either way whatever the nature of that relationship it was enough for Buckingham to order his sister’s husband to take her from court and put her in a convent for a while to cool her un-natural passions. Woman remember in those days weren’t supposed to get any enjoyment out of sex.
I am also of the opinion that although Henry may have flirted with other woman in the early years of his marriage to KOA, that’s as far as he went.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
9:19 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Boleyn said
Woman remember in those days weren’t supposed to get any enjoyment out of sex.
Slightly off-topic, but they weren’t actually such kill-joys. It was believed that org*sm was necessary (in the woman) for conception.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
2:52 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Even so they still weren’t supposed to enjoy having sex. They still saw sex as the a neccessary evil in order to pro-create.
I read somewhere many years ago, that when a woman had had intercourse, she felt it neccesary to go and spend some time on her knees, perhaps to ask God to to make her pregnant but also from the fact that they felt that sex was a sin, and that they had sullied their relationship with God by having sex with another man, even through he was her husband.. I hope that makes sence, and that you get what I’m trying to say..
I think what I’m trying to say is sex for pleasure was a big no no and those that did enjoy it were bound for hell…
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
3:08 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Claire said
Boleyn said
Woman remember in those days weren’t supposed to get any enjoyment out of sex.
Slightly off-topic, but they weren’t actually such kill-joys. It was believed that org*sm was necessary (in the woman) for conception.
I can’t help thinking that if female org*sms were necessary for conception then the human race would have died out long before the Norman Conquest, let alone the battle of Bosworth.
4:36 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Bo, back then they also thought a woman would suffer from ill-humours if she didn’t have regular intercourse and it was a husband’s duty to have regular intercourse with his wife. A child was a blessing from God, if a couple was barren then that was the will of God. But they were still supposed to do their duty as a husband or wife. Therefore sex within marriage was necessary even if there was no chance of conceiving.
Obviously they were still conservative, I have read only the missionary position was “allowed” although I am not sure if it’s 100% correct, but is doesn’t sound outrageous with all the odd things they thought back then.
Claire that’s hysterical
5:20 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Louise said
I can’t help thinking that if female org*sms were necessary for conception then the human race would have died out long before the Norman Conquest, let alone the battle of Bosworth.
Ha! 
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
5:44 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Claire said
Louise said
I can’t help thinking that if female org*sms were necessary for conception then the human race would have died out long before the Norman Conquest, let alone the battle of Bosworth.
Ha!
Ha! That was my first thought, too!
9:52 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Sex back then was just so damn clinical. There was no spontananity. If Henry fancied a bunk up with KOA, he would tell his men to tell her woman to tell her he would visit her bed that night. Then when he had finished his supper he would go back to his room at the other end of the palace, crawl into bed and go to sleep. I can sort of understand the idea behind the ill humours bit with woman being cured by have sex in some ways it is a great stress reliever, which to be honest was probably what most of these bad humours were. A woman was expected to run a home efficently,behave with apsolute decorum and basically put up with any (C)rap that was thrown at her, as well produce healthy children, prefebrably boys but a few girls were handy for bargaining counters. Her behaviour if she was in court must be perhaps a lot different to if she was in her country home as if she behaved in an inaproppiate manner her behaviour would reflect on her husband and could quite possibly cost him the favour of either the King or Duke if he was a member of their household.
If she didn’t feel like sex, it was a case of tough she could not refuse her husband’s advances except of course if she was pregnant or having her menstral cycle, in which case it was perfectly exceptable for the husband to take a mistress, another stress to add to the stresses that everyday life that were a woman’s lot back then. It must have taken a lot of strength for a woman to except that her husband had a mistress, although they had to endure it and that was that.
I know that Norfolk’s wife (How I hate that odious little man) was really upset about his mistress (Bess Holland) and during one arguement she said that she wasn’t going to put up with it and gave him a choice, either her or Bess had to go.. Norfolk had kind of toyed with the idea of divorcing his wife anyway but she refused to even consider it…
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:35 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Olga said
Bo, back then they also thought a woman would suffer from ill-humours if she didn’t have regular intercourse and it was a husband’s duty to have regular intercourse with his wife. A child was a blessing from God, if a couple was barren then that was the will of God. But they were still supposed to do their duty as a husband or wife. Therefore sex within marriage was necessary even if there was no chance of conceiving.
Obviously they were still conservative, I have read only the missionary position was “allowed” although I am not sure if it’s 100% correct, but is doesn’t sound outrageous with all the odd things they thought back then.Claire that’s hysterical
I think the “missionary” position was generally accepted as the only way conception would actually happen. There is a sort of method in that madness if you think about it as in the position there is almost a straight line, between the end of the man’s doodle and the woman’s womb, so that when he ejactulated, his sperm would be implanted into her womb. Of course these days we know that’s hog wash, it doesn’t matter what position a woman has intercourse in, if the time and tide are right a woman will conceive.
It’s also possible that reason to why the “missionary” position was the general norm of things is to perhaps help the woman to acheive org*sm, as the man all the time he is busy is rubbing her freckle, thus increasing her chance of obtaining an org*sm, which was back then generally needed and assumed to conceive.
It was also perhaps about dominance a woman underneath her man was his way of telling her he was in control and he was the master etc.
The Karma sutra was around at that time and I’m sure that people were aware there were other sexual positions. but I believe that they were not considered natural or normal to be used by the upper classes, and it was only woman of the lower classes or wh*res that used them.
I could of course be barking entirely up the wrong tree and dancing around the proverbial Mulberry bush, but anything is possible.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
5:31 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Boleyn,
I love your post, I’m going to have to remember “doodle” and “freckle” for future reference. I quite like “dooberries” for the man’s other bits, what do you think?
Sorry, that’s me in my Friday nonsensical mood. I’m going to have to read “In Bed with the Tudors” that I’ve got in my ‘to read’ pile on my desk and see if it talks about positions at all because now I really want to know if the missionary position was the norm.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
9:22 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Claire said
Boleyn,
I love your post, I’m going to have to remember “doodle” and “freckle” for future reference. I quite like “dooberries” for the man’s other bits, what do you think?Sorry, that’s me in my Friday nonsensical mood. I’m going to have to read “In Bed with the Tudors” that I’ve got in my ‘to read’ pile on my desk and see if it talks about positions at all because now I really want to know if the missionary position was the norm.
I think Dangleberries is a little more descriptive, considering that’s what they generally do, unless it’s too cold in which dooberries would be acceptable as they wouldn’t be able to DO anything.
Anyway it would be interesting to find out if other sexual postions were used by the upper class sociaty, it’s just a feeling I have that missionary would have been the norm of things, it would have just been another way of telling the woman that he was master, despite what she may have thought privately.
Everyday is a non senisical day for me Claire, that what happens when you are married to a Dinosaur LOL
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
