Am just watching The Tudors and depending upon what I read and watch, I vacillate as to whether Henry ever did love Anne or not. Was Anne the conniving bitch a lot of historians depict her as? Villain or victim?

I personally feel she has been totally villified and romantic as Henry was, prone to falling in love easily, what mattered to him more was securing the Tudor line of succession and having a son. He seemed to fall in and out of love at the drop of a hat.

*ponders further on this issue and goes back to watch the rest of the Tudors*

The Tudors?? Hmmm, not exactly a great source of historical fact.

Anne Boleyn will have been given some pretty bad spin by those who wrote the history at the time as it's a given in history that the victors always write their version of events and the losers don't get to say much at all.

Especially headless losers.

Am just watching The Tudors and depending upon what I read and watch, I vacillate as to whether Henry ever did love Anne or not. Was Anne the conniving bitch a lot of historians depict her as? Villain or victim?

I personally feel she has been totally villified and romantic as Henry was, prone to falling in love easily, what mattered to him more was securing the Tudor line of succession and having a son. He seemed to fall in and out of love at the drop of a hat.

*ponders further on this issue and goes back to watch the rest of the Tudors*

I think Henry loved Anne (for a while at least) as much as he was capable of loving anyone.

He always struck me as a monstrously selfish man - even more so than most royals of the time.

StarSparkle

Yes, he went through a whole lot a women just to get a son.:rolleyes:

Women were just breeding sows to him, its the same with all royalty, sons are more important and women were merely a means to get a son.

I couldn't watch the tudors. It was the Dynasty style opening credits and the princess Di quotes that put me off.

The Tudors?? Hmmm, not exactly a great source of historical fact.

Anne Boleyn will have been given some pretty bad spin by those who wrote the history at the time as it's a given in history that the victors always write their version of events and the losers don't get to say much at all.

Especially headless losers.

Yes thank you Alistair, I recognise this.:rolleyes: It was watching the Tudors that prompted the thread. I have read every biography going of Anne Boleyn and the usual historical heavy weight biographers such as Alison Weir, Antonia Fraser and David Starkey. Add to that the ifctional accounts of her life from the like of Phillipa Gregory et al.

I couldn't watch the tudors. It was the Dynasty style opening credits and the princess Di quotes that put me off.

I saw an episode the other work where Anne bemoaned to Henry that there are not 3 people in a marriage.:rolleyes: I mean really, I laughed out loud. I'm sure there was reference to Catherine of Aragon being Queen of Hearts too.:rolleyes:

The Tudors is really like a Hollywood costume drama,but theres some serious bonking in it, thats why I watch it.;)

I think Henry loved Anne (for a while at least) as much as he was capable of loving anyone.

He always struck me as a monstrously selfish man - even more so than most royals of the time.

StarSparkle

I agree (again!) - but I think she really only held his interest during the years he vigorously pursued her. She also promised him a son and as soon it became apparent that she couldn't deliver, his interest waned. If only they'd known then what they know now, that it is the man who determines the sex of a child and not the woman. But knowing him, he'd have even then chalked it up to some witchcraft or some such nonsense.

Yes Henry was a spoilt, monstrous man, a meglomaniacal ogre, who ironically Anne helped create.

The Tudors is really like a Hollywood costume drama,but theres some serious bonking in it, thats why I watch it.;)

You'll go blind:hihi::hihi:

The Tudors is really like a Hollywood costume drama,but theres some serious bonking in it, thats why I watch it.;)

I agree, it really annoys me as there's no need for the numerous historical innaccuracies and revisionism. I only watched it tonight as I'd promised to tidy up our bedroom and put the TV on to take the edge of this hideous task. (Mr S tripped over my numerous discarded handbags, boots, shoes and sandals in his attempt to navigate this way to his chest of drawers this morning).

The Tudors is really like a Hollywood costume drama,but theres some serious bonking in it, thats why I watch it.;)

As bonkbusters go, it's even rubbish on that score.:rolleyes:

Also I would have liked the actor who played Henry to have had red hair.It just doesnt look right somehow.

Also I would have liked the actor who played Henry to have had red hair.It just doesnt look right somehow.

I know, it's bizarre. It would be like seeing Liz Taylor play Elizabeth I.:rolleyes:

I know, it's bizarre. It would be like seeing Liz Taylor play Elizabeth I.:rolleyes:

Exactly. !!!!:thumbsup:

Henry sired male children with Anne's elder sister, Mary, and a number of his other mistresses. (yes, he even worked his way through sister-groups!)

I think the situation was twofold:-he "Lusted" Anne rather than "loved" her IMO, and was desperate to prove his virility, by siring legitimate male heirs, hence his rejection of Catherine of Aragon.

I think Anne, wrongly, thought she could "tame" him.

I think Anne became disillusioned when she realised Henry was an overindulged, spoiled, capricious brat-in-a-man's-body, and that there was no way he would give up his "wenching" ways, and stop his screwing around with all and sundry skirts in the area.

Coupled with the fact that, until she could produce the obligatory male heir, her own position was as precarious as Catherine's had been, and that it hung by a thread, utterly dependent on Henry's whims. (As proven when she indeed, did fail to give Henry an heir)

Jane Seymour was "lucky" in one sense:- She died of puerperal fever, after giving birth to Henry's legitimate son. This meant that Henry didn't have the chance to grow weary of her, as he did with Catherine, Anne, and Katherine Howard, so a beheading was I think averted. (even though she still didn't make it out alive of the marriage to Henry)

Dying whilst she was still "in favour" meant that Henry could idolise her, and she attained a form of "saintliness" in his eyes.

Katherine Howard was a bit vapid, a bit of an airhead, and fairly easily led.

Okay, in mitigation, she was very young, only fifteen or sixteen when she was married to Henry, and about 17 when she was executed, meeting the same fate as her cousin Anne.

You have to remember that Anne Boleyn had an advantage over most of the other ladies of the court, she had the eclat of being at the French court, could speak French, so had the extra sophistication, she also had the benefit of the French fashions of the time, and stood out. Henry was probably infatuated, and also very importantly she was advised by her family not to become his mistress.

It is in part mainly due to her that we became a protestant country, and broke with Rome.

It is also interesting that Catherine Howard, who also lost her head - Henry VIII'S fifth wife, was Anne Boleyn's cousin.

He probably expected healthy, robust male heirs - well he got his then! His son, Edward VI, (by Jane Seymour, 3rd wife, died after giving birth) died in his teens.

Good summary PT.:thumbsup:

I know Bessie Blount bore him a son, but there are different schools of thought as to whether Mary Boleyn's son was in actual fact Henry's or not, it depends on which historian you read.

I think Anne probably did 'tame' him for a while, until she succumbed to his sexual advances. He was never going to remain faithful though, even when she was still in favour when she was pregnant with Elizabeth, he had mistresses. I'm sure he'd have tired of Jane Seymour eventually, who was treading a dangerous path I gather in being committed to the old church.

As for Katherine Howard, another victim of the dynastic ambitions and machinations of her beloved Uncle Norfolk. As you say, totally misled, misguided and naive. Another one who thought she would be beyond reproach as the King was so utterly besotted with her, until he discovered her infildelity and the fact he'd been lied to about her virginity. Anne of Cleaves was the lucky one, although her fate hung in the balance for a while whilst they figured out what to do with her. Would Katherine Parr have lived to tell the tale had Henry not died? Poor woman, she didn't have much luck as didn't she die of puerperal fever herself when she bore Thomas Seymour's child?

I suspect that Henry was perhaps more in love with the idea of being in love than with the woman herself in question.

You have to remember that Anne Boleyn had an advantage over most of the other ladies of the court, she had the eclat of being at the French court, could speak French, so had the extra sophistication, she also had the benefit of the French fashions of the time, and stood out. Henry was probably infatuated, and also very importantly she was advised by her family not to become his mistress.

Well they learnt from Mary's mistake. From what we know about Anne, she was also not typical looking of that time. She was dark, had dark eyes and a sallow complexion and small breasts when the antithesis of these physical traits was considered to be beautiful at the time. She was also, apparently incredibly witty and a match for all men. And most importantly, she held out, played the king like a violin until such a point came that she realised he'd lose interest in his quarry if she didn't do the deed.

Did Henry VIII have any redeemimg features?

Did Henry VIII have any redeemimg features?

None whatsoever as far as I can make out. Other than an oversized codpiece.

None whatsoever as far as I can make out. Other than an oversized codpiece.

:)

Personally I preferred the drama with Ray Winstone (I think that is his name), and if I remember well, Helena...ermmm whats-her-name Carter actress played Anne Boleyn, and it was so good. Why? Because although like other dramas that have their own spin, this interpretation seemed more close to history, and the characters portrayed were more how I would have imagined them to be. I've watched only a bit of 'The Tudors', but I find it a bit unecessarily lewd, and my attention span is limited. Of course, the guy who plays Henry VIII is good looking in 'The Tudors', but I'm not convinced history of that monachy was this sexy.

Oh, and in response to the question, I'd guess probably yes. Yet, she may have mistaken the rejection of a previous wife as a devotion to her, rather than an example of his character. He was thinking from the potential fruit of his loins, and she had big dreams.

(As I understood it)

:)

Personally I preferred the drama with Ray Winstone (I think that is his name), and if I remember well, Helena...ermmm whats-her-name Carter actress played Anne Boleyn, and it was so good. Why? Because although like other dramas that have their own spin, this interpretation seemed more close to history, and the characters portrayed were more how I would have imagined them to be. I've watched only a bit of 'The Tudors', but I find it a bit unecessarily lewd, and my attention span is limited. Of course, the guy who plays Henry VIII is good looking in 'The Tudors', but I'm not convinced history of that monachy was this sexy.

Yes I remember that version, although the strong cockney accent of a monarch who was supposedly a renaissance man was a bit offputting.

It is a fascinating period of history. Turbulent doesn't even begin to describe it. Full of intrigue, sycophants jostling for the king's favour, plots, courtiers prepared to stab one another in back at ther drop of the hat etc.

I agree, the Tudors is ridiculous, the costumes worthy of pantomime and the historical inaccuracies bewildering as they're totally uncessary, it's not as if the story needs spicing up is it?:confused:

Oh, and in response to the question, I'd guess probably yes. Yet, she may have mistaken the rejection of a previous wife as a devotion to her, rather than an example of his character. He was thinking from the potential fruit of his loins, and she had big dreams.

(As I understood it)

Again it depends upon which historian's work you read. Some maintain that Anne was in love with Henry Percy (who does not even feature in the Tudors) and when her marriage to him was blocked by Wolsey & her family, she hated the King as she was being manoeuvred into position by her ambitious uncle (Norfolk) to be the King's new love interest when he tired of her sister. Eventually, she was caught up in the ambitious notion of her becoming queen but initially she didn't want any part of it.

Yes I remember that version, although the strong cockney accent of a monarch who was supposedly a renaissance man was a bit offputting.

It is a fascinating period of history. Turbulent doesn't even begin to describe it. Full of intrigue, sycophants jostling for the king's favour, plots, courtiers prepared to stab one another in back at ther drop of the hat etc.

I agree, the Tudors is ridiculous, the costumes worthy of pantomime and the historical inaccuracies bewildering as they're totally uncessary, it's not as if the story needs spicing up is it?:confused:

Renaissance man...but was the real one really that cultured? Or just a greedy crowned git in pompous clothing? I've always believed that we are to some extent, all victims of the circumstances we're born into. Perhaps the expectations on him, were more than he could handle. And he eventually became more concerned with what he could put into his own belly, than a woman's.

And no, not really. Six wives and several beheadings makes for more than than a life, even in a soap opera. :)

Renaissance man...but was the real one really that cultured? Or just a greedy crowned git in pompous clothing? I've always believed that were are to some extent, we are all victims of the circumstances we're born into. Perhaps the expectations on him, were more than he could handle. And he eventually became more concerned with what he could put into his own belly, than a woman's.

And no, not really. Six wives and several beheadings makes for more than than a life, even in a soap opera. :)

Apparently so, yes, a very learned erudite man, hard to believe I know. It wasn't until Charles Laughton's portrayal of him that he became the blundering, lumbering, Calibanesque bloated creature (although he was undoubtdedly obese in his latter years) that we know him as, apparently. I read this recently although can't remember where. Will look for the reference.

Apparently so, yes, a very learned erudite man, hard to believe I know. It wasn't until Charles Laughton's portrayal of him that he became the blundering, lumbering, Calibanesque bloated creature (although he was undoubtdedly obese in his latter years) that we know him as, apparently. I read this recently although can't remember where. Will look for the reference.

Right...learned and erudite. Maybe his conscience became even bigger than his body, then. (?)

The early years were probably more appealing and sexier, than the latter.

Did Henry VIII have any redeemimg features?

Abolishing the Roman Catholic church and the monastaries was a good thing, regardless of motive.

Abolishing the Roman Catholic church and the monastaries was a good thing, regardless of motive.

In your opinion....

And why do you think so?

Right...learned and erudite. Maybe his conscience became even bigger than his body, then. (?)

The early years were probably more appealing and sexier, than the latter.

Can't find the quote. But found this:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4430389.ece?openComment=true

He was apparently 6'3", which in those times was a giant.

Abolishing the Roman Catholic church and the monastaries was a good thing, regardless of motive.

What about the poor 'heretics' who were burned at the stake etc as a result of refusing to pledge to the new church? Granted, the Catholic church was totally corrupt, even so . . .

Wasn't Anne Boleyn instrumental in enabling the average person's access to the English version of the bible?

Well, I don't know about you guys, but if Henry had looked like Johnathon Rhys Mehers, I'd have happy been the 7th wife...

Well, I don't know about you guys, but if Henry had looked like Johnathon Rhys Mehers, I'd have happy been the 7th wife...
He doesn't do it for me at all. He has a cruel air about him.

Can't find the quote. But found this:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4430389.ece?openComment=true

He was apparently 6'3", which in those times was a giant.

That is hilarious...

"How on earth did those titans of testostersone and derring-do allow themselves to be kitted out in baggy nappies with willie pouches and tights, beanbag shoes and bolero jackets with Worzel Gummidge hats-or worse big dressing gowns with mad-granny-jewellery?"

"A cross between a dutch brothel and Star Wars"....

:hihi:

He doesn't do it for me at all. He has a cruel air about him.

Maybe that's what I like about him ;) lol

He is too beautiful to be Henry, as are the women who are playing his wives.... in fact, as are most people on the programme full stop...

That is hilarious...

"How on earth did those titans of testostersone and derring-do allow themselves to be kitted out in baggy nappies with willie pouches and tights, beanbag shoes and bolero jackets with Worzel Gummidge hats-or worse big dressing gowns with mad-granny-jewellery?"

"A cross between a dutch brothel and Star Wars"....

:hihi:

Gill at his best.:hihi: The costumes are outlandish and outrageous though.

Just stumbled across this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2505947/Joss-Stone-set-for-royal-role-in-The-Tudors.html)

In your opinion....

And why do you think so?

Abolishing the Catholic church and monastaries removed one layer of oppression and allowed the English revolution to take place well ahead of any of the European revolutions.

Abolishing the Catholic church and monastaries removed one layer of oppression and allowed the English revolution to take place well ahead of any of the European revolutions.

And look what happened? Restoration of the monarchy.:(

MM I have to teach all this and more about why did Henry have six wives this forthcoming term but all in childspeak... can lead to some VERY interesting discussions!

And look what happened? Restoration of the monarchy.:(

Revolutions have a habit of taking two steps forward then one back. The power shift between parliament and the crown was permanent though.

Good summary PT.:thumbsup:

I know Bessie Blount bore him a son, but there are different schools of thought as to whether Mary Boleyn's son was in actual fact Henry's or not, it depends on which historian you read.

I think Anne probably did 'tame' him for a while, until she succumbed to his sexual advances. He was never going to remain faithful though, even when she was still in favour when she was pregnant with Elizabeth, he had mistresses. I'm sure he'd have tired of Jane Seymour eventually, who was treading a dangerous path I gather in being committed to the old church.

As for Katherine Howard, another victim of the dynastic ambitions and machinations of her beloved Uncle Norfolk. As you say, totally misled, misguided and naive. Another one who thought she would be beyond reproach as the King was so utterly besotted with her, until he discovered her infildelity and the fact he'd been lied to about her virginity. Anne of Cleaves was the lucky one, although her fate hung in the balance for a while whilst they figured out what to do with her. Would Katherine Parr have lived to tell the tale had Henry not died? Poor woman, she didn't have much luck as didn't she die of puerperal fever herself when she bore Thomas Seymour's child?

I suspect that Henry was perhaps more in love with the idea of being in love than with the woman herself in question.

Yes, of all the wives, I think the "Flanders Mare", Anne of Cleves, got off the most lightly. The marriage was apparently unconsummated, as she was not the "dainty, girl-like" type that he favoured. she was not as sophisticated /witty/ erudite as some of the wives.

Anne of Cleves was created "the King's beloved sister" if I remember my history right, which averted the need for her to return to Flanders in ignominy and shame. It also gave her a measure of independence over her overbearing and controlling family. Sadly once Henry died, she fell into poverty, as the following monarchs didn't feel obliged to support her as Henry had done.

Katherine Parr survived Henry, but, sadly, as so many women did in that time, she did die of puerperal fever, shortly after giving birth to Thomas Seymour's child. There are rumours that Seymour tried to molest the young Princess Elizabeth when she was in her teens, and under the care of Katherine and Seymour.

Katherine Parr died just 18/20 months after Henry, in September 1548. She was only 36.

You can examine Henry VIII in a feminist, revisionist way if you like, but what you must not forget is that securing the succession was vital. Like it or not, women were not held in high regard in those days and a female line of succession would leave England vulnerable to being taken over by any number of more powerful nations. It wasn't very long before Henry that England was engaged in conflict over the very question of the line of succession so it's no surprise that he wanted this to be secure. The irony is that Elizabeth was one of the greatest monarchs England has had. And because of his need for a male heir, we shook off the shackles of Rome, too!

It was also not at all unusual for a King to take mistresses, and 'love' was rarely a reason for marriage. Upper class families were still using what was effectively arranged marriage into the Victorian era - and there are some who argue that Prince Charles had one. Such love as there was in Tudor times would have been courtly love.

Anyway, The Tudors doesn't set out to be historically accurate, just to be entertaining. And it is. Watch a documentary if you want the 'truth'. Personally I like to see a portrayal of Henry VIII that does not show him as a Big Oaf! He was a well educated and cultured man.

Revolutions have a habit of taking two steps forward then one back. The power shift between parliament and the crown was permanent though.

This is true.

Personally I like to see a portrayal of Henry VIII that does not show him as a Big Oaf! He was a well educated and cultured man.

I mentioned in an earlier post how the popular image of Henry stems from Charles Laughton's portrayal of him, which Keith Mitchell then took up, as you say, a lumbering oaf rather than the man for all seasons, who is his heydey was apparently a sight to behold, given his stature and good looks.

Were there also not many factions in England jockeying for position and trying to claim the throne? Henry, as was his father, was in a very precarious position. I believe that he legitimised his son by Bessie Blount, lest he never had a legitimate male heir. Henry Fitzroy was his name wasn't it? Didn't he make him Duke of Richmond? For some reason the Tudors had him killed him in early childhood, when in actual fact he lived until his late teens/early 20s from what I recall.:confused:

Redeeming features?

Well, Henry was reckoned to have been an incredibly good looking young man, and was apparently highly-thought of and respected when a young man. He was supposedly very charming and romantic and, by all accounts, was very much in love with his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, for the first few years.

He was supposedly very gifted musically, and composed "Greensleeves", for example. In fact, he was the perfect example of what a young price of the day was ideally supposed to be like.

Then at some point - he caught syphilis. It was downhill all the way from there. By the end of his life, he was as mad as a badger, and had been fast heading that way for many, many years.

Even by the cruel standards od his time, he was an utter brute. How much of that was how he was naturally, and how much of it was his brain being destroyed by syphilis, who knows?

I always thought it was such a great shame the way he turned out, when he had such a very hopeful beginning.

StarSparkle

Redeeming features?

Well, Henry was reckoned to have been an incredibly good looking young man, and was apparently highly-thought of and respected when a young man. He was supposedly very charming and romantic and, by all accounts, was very much in love with his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, for the first few years.

He was supposedly very gifted musically, and composed "Greensleeves", for example. In fact, he was the perfect example of what a young price of the day was ideally supposed to be like.

Then at some point - he caught syphilis. It was downhill all the way from there. By the end of his life, he was as mad as a badger, and had been fast heading that way for many, many years.

Even by the cruel standards od his time, he was an utter brute. How much of that was how he was naturally, and how much of it was his brain being destroyed by syphilis, who knows?

I always thought it was such a great shame the way he turned out, when he had such a very hopeful beginning.

StarSparkle

Yes by all accounts he was a really charismatic, erudite, caring man in his youth. It would appear that his violent mood swings and tantrums in later life were attributable to tertiary stage syphilis and may account for why Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn had so many miscarriages. Although I did read somewhere that perhaps Anne was rhesus negative which is why she only bore one live baby.

that's an interesting premise, that he had tertiary syphilis, which, yes, could have accounted for the tyrannical and capricious behaviour, and the tantrums.

I read somewhere that the ulcers on his legs may have been attributable to Type 2 Diabetes. (a highly possible point, given his diet, and his immense size as he entered middle age) and that also could account for the tantrums and moodiness.
Drops or raises in blood-sugarlevels can do that.

Yes, in his younger days, he was tall, blonde, incredibly handsome, athletic,and well-read, composing music, and writing religious treatises to the pope. However, it did not stop him thinking of himself as infallible, and acting like a spoiled brat.

Yes by all accounts he was a really charismatic, erudite, caring man in his youth. It would appear that his violent mood swings and tantrums in later life were attributable to tertiary stage syphilis and may account for why Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn had so many miscarriages. Although I did read somewhere that perhaps Anne was rhesus negative which is why she only bore one live baby.

Really? That's quite shocking! So Elizabeth was Rh Positive and every subsequent baby suffered for that? Being A- and having an O+ son, I'm glad of the Anti-D! :o I wonder how many women lost babies through something as easily dealt with?

MM I have to teach all this and more about why did Henry have six wives this forthcoming term but all in childspeak... can lead to some VERY interesting discussions!

I bet it does !!!! :hihi::hihi::hihi:

Really? That's quite shocking! So Elizabeth was Rh Positive and every subsequent baby suffered for that? Being A- and having an O+ son, I'm glad of the Anti-D! :o I wonder how many women lost babies through something as easily dealt with?

my mother nearly lost the sister -down from me, because of RH factor incompatibility..

I inherited my mother's blood-type, (A) but my father's Rh typing which was positive. (my mother was A -Ve, father was O +Ve) the sister down from me was the same blood type as me; A Rh+Ve.

My mother had a reaction, and my mother had to have a blood transfusion to save her and my sister's lives, whilst sister was still in utero. My mother lost at least two between me and my sister, and at least one, after my sister.

I think that henry 8th was a fat, bearded, lizard tossbag of the highest order who was a total nobhead to the women in his life. And i'd still think that without the numerous ciders i've necked this fine evening. As for any of the birds being worth a poke? Well, probably most of them. Oh, sorry, was that not the question? Balls.

More revisionist history here (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4641310.ece):rolleyes:

I suppose fashions change, and perhaps being hoisted onto a horse, could have been vision of romance and chivalry in the 16th century.

Or perhaps such visions provided at least some comfort to the women of his time.

Again it depends upon which historian's work you read. Some maintain that Anne was in love with Henry Percy (who does not even feature in the Tudors) and when her marriage to him was blocked by Wolsey & her family, she hated the King as she was being manoeuvred into position by her ambitious uncle (Norfolk) to be the King's new love interest when he tired of her sister. Eventually, she was caught up in the ambitious notion of her becoming queen but initially she didn't want any part of it.

Yes, I was reading something about Percy earlier today...that he sent her love letters, and was distraught at her beheading.

Maybe, desiring a crown is the kind of dream you have, when you forget your head.

I suppose fashions change, and perhaps being hoisted onto a horse, could have been vision of romance and chivalry in the 16th century.

Or perhaps such visions provided at least some comfort to the women of his time.

rofl.

I am nowhere near the size of henry, but I know how ungainly it can be when I am clambering six feet plus, onto a horse for my riding lessons, unencumbered with armour. I can imagine how much more undignified it would be, as hefty as henry was, (20 stone and Six feet -odd in height) plus the weight of his armour.

rofl.

I am nowhere near the size of henry, but I know how ungainly it can be when I am clambering six feet plus, onto a horse for my riding lessons, unencumbered with armour. I can imagine how much more undignified it would be, as hefty as henry was, (20 stone and Six feet -odd in height) plus the weight of his armour.

It's not so much the weight thing that makes me think, so much as the power one person could have-like beheading people of no further use, when the same person required the help of many to do, what I would consider in comparison, a relatively simple mission.

The bearing, and making a son must have been considered an almighty task at this time, in high positions.

And I'd guess a 20 hand horse, was the Porche of the the day.

More revisionist history here (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4641310.ece):rolleyes:

Thinking about it, looking beyond the programme makers' need to put a sexy young man into the role for grabbing audiences....it actually works having a lithe Henry. In this day and age we seem unable to understand how anyone with a figure larger than an emaciated pre-teen boy could be attractive, so if we had a realistic fat Henry nobody would believe these woman wanted him.

As for winching him onto the horse, almost everyone taking part in jousting would have been winched up due to the weight and lack of flexibility of the armour. And 20 stone on a six foot frame is not actually that big.

Thinking about it, looking beyond the programme makers' need to put a sexy young man into the role for grabbing audiences....it actually works having a lithe Henry. In this day and age we seem unable to understand how anyone with a figure larger than an emaciated pre-teen boy could be attractive, so if we had a realistic fat Henry nobody would believe these woman wanted him.

As for winching him onto the horse, almost everyone taking part in jousting would have been winched up due to the weight and lack of flexibility of the armour. And 20 stone on a six foot frame is not actually that big.

But women didn't find the older Henry attractive. Jane Seymour was a pawn in her family's dynastic ambitions, Anne of Cleaves apparently didn't realise he was the king upon their first meeting and Kathrine Howard found him repellent. The point is that these women had virtually no choice, Anne Of Cleaves was fleeing her overbearing & controlling brother and Kathrine Howard was a pawn in her Uncle Norfolk's ambitions to get another Howard (first one being Anne Boleyn) on the throne. They were hardly falling over themselves because they found him terribly attarctive and were seduced by him on this level

and "power" is supposed to be "sexy", apparently:- and that, supposedly, is why many pug-ugly and personality-deficient politicians manage to have so many affairs. ( :hihi: )

No he chopped her head off. Never a good sign in a relationship.

and "power" is supposed to be "sexy", apparently:- and that, supposedly, is why many pug-ugly and personality-deficient politicians manage to have so many affairs. ( :hihi: )

Quite. I think they set their sights on only 1 set of crown jewels (in Henry's case). Seriously, I gather they found it quite difficult to find him brides after Jane Seymour, such was his reputation. They weren't exactly queuing up.

Quite. I think they set their sights on only 1 set of crown jewels (in Henry's case). Seriously, I gather they found it quite difficult to find him brides after Jane Seymour, such was his reputation. They weren't exactly queuing up.

From what I have read, Katherine Parr had her sights set on marrying Seymour, even before Henry "set his cap at her", and was a bit reluctant to marry Henry instead.

After Henry had died, she finally got to marry Seymour, but sadly within about a year of the marriage, she had given birth to Seymour's daughter, but succumbed shortly after the birth, to puerperal fever.

From what I have read, Katherine Parr had her sights set on marrying Seymour, even before Henry "set his cap at her", and was a bit reluctant to marry Henry instead.

After Henry had died, she finally got to marry Seymour, but sadly within about a year of the marriage, she had given birth to Seymour's daughter, but succumbed shortly after the birth, to puerperal fever.

I've also read the same as well as reading that he had his sights set on the young Elizabeth. Henry should have realised his days were numbered given she was already at least twice widowed (if not 3, but can't remember).:hihi::hihi:

Mm it makes you wonder...
:wink:

Was she a bit of a black widow?

She buried her first two husbands before Henry...

First one died of eating poisonous mushrooms, the second one of a fractured Skull...

Really?

Yeah, he wouldn't eat the mushrooms! hehehe

Mm it makes you wonder...
:wink:

Was she a bit of a black widow?

She buried her first two husbands before Henry...

First one died of eating poisonous mushrooms, the second one of a fractured Skull...

Really?

Yeah, he wouldn't eat the mushrooms! hehehe

Knowing the Tudors, they'll show KP shagging Seymour in some dark corner beneath a sconce and the both be hatching some fiendish plot to kill off a ver svelte Henry as he's carousing with her ladies in waiting. He was already showing signs of impotence with Anne Boleyn, but no doubt that'll be glossed over as he continues his merry ways right up until his death.

Quite. I think they set their sights on only 1 set of crown jewels (in Henry's case). Seriously, I gather they found it quite difficult to find him brides after Jane Seymour, such was his reputation. They weren't exactly queuing up. My bold

That reminds of something reputedly said by a princess (I think) who was approached with a view to becoming his wife. She said that if she had two heads, she would gladly put one at Henry's disposal!! But I'm damned if I can remember who it was ....

My bold

That reminds of something reputedly said by a princess (I think) who was approached with a view to becoming his wife. She said that if she had two heads, she would gladly put one at Henry's disposal!! But I'm damned if I can remember who it was ....

Yes, I also read that. Was it some French Princess?

From what I have read, Katherine Parr had her sights set on marrying Seymour, even before Henry "set his cap at her", and was a bit reluctant to marry Henry instead.

After Henry had died, she finally got to marry Seymour, but sadly within about a year of the marriage, she had given birth to Seymour's daughter, but succumbed shortly after the birth, to puerperal fever.

I've also read that Seymour didn't like her but was courting her for her money!

I've also read that Seymour didn't like her but was courting her for her money!

Yeah, I read something along those lines, that he was using for personal gain and ambition. Nice bunch of people the Tudor courtiers.

Yes, I also read that. Was it some French Princess?

Found her!!! Christina, duchess of Milan (http://tudorhistory.org/people/christina/) (niece of the Holy Roman Emperor).

Found her!!! Christina, duchess of Milan (http://tudorhistory.org/people/christina/) (niece of the Holy Roman Emperor).

:thumbsup:

I always found it deeply galling that dear old Hal found Anne of Cleaves so repellent, yet by this time he was an obese, syphilitic monster of a man with fetid, festering open wounds on his legs.

I just fouund the picture of her, and it's really funny. (sorry :blush: ) She looks like matt lucas! :wow:

:thumbsup:

I always found it deeply galling that dear old Hal found Anne of Cleaves so repellent, yet by this time he was an obese, syphilitic monster of a man with fetid, festering open wounds on his legs.

Just goes to show that double standards have been alive and well for several centuries :hihi:

Just goes to show that double standards have been alive and well for several centuries :hihi:

Indeed.:rant::rant::rant:

I just fouund the picture of her, and it's really funny. (sorry :blush: ) She looks like matt lucas! :wow:

Heheheee! :thumbsup:

Heheheee! :thumbsup:

no, but, honestly, doesn't she? (rofl)

(edit, should that be "No, but, yes, but, no, but..?!" hehe)

Yes she does (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUDholbeinmilan.JPG) PT:thumbsup:

Yes she does (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUDholbeinmilan.JPG) PT:thumbsup:

Crikey o-reilley! The resemblance is even stronger in the close up Jen!