Does The White Queen novel have any accuracies | Page 2 | Movies and Books | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Does The White Queen novel have any accuracies
September 3, 2013
8:20 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The thing is Olga although we abbor the apsolute horror of wife beating and rape in this modern age, wife beating was quite common in fact it was expected back then. A woman back then was treated like a disobeient puppy sat next to a pile of poo (for want of a better word). I believe the sentiment behind this was the more you beat your wife the better wife she becomes. Rape happened King John raped plenty of woman in his day, but unless it was a girl of noble blood, the word Rape was pretty ignored and the girl would be blamed for the most part for using her un-natural behaviour to incite the man to carnal lust with her. Unfortunately that feeling is still viewed as being the case in some cases of rape today, and it frost my cookies too, especially when it come to girls as young as 9 being abused by a man, who then in turn claims the girl led him on. Grrr don’t get me started on this one.
Love the Mills and Boon analogy from Dr Dave (Starkey) about S.W.M.N.B.N. LOL, a sentiment I actually agree with too.
I think the title historian is one that is very difficult to define to be honest. S.W.M.N.B.N holds the credientials to that title, and all praise where praise is due she put the graft in to earn it, but I feel that opinion and interpretation on what history actually is, is extremely floored. It just seems to me at least that what she has read about the factual side of things is not what has actually read and she has made up the facts to fit what she wanted to it read (if that makes sence)
But then couldn’t we all be accused of doing the same thing here? we can call ourselves historians yes, but we haven’t got the credentials to go with that title.
Certainly we are all well read, and are highly intelligent and articulate, but our opinions differ about certain things, but then unlike S.W.M.N.B.N we agree to disagree and don’t get upset or annoyed with each other and will at least understand and respect each other opinons. S.W.M.N.B.N seems to have an almost stubborn belief in what she feels to be true, and to me at least won’t hear of any other opinion other than her own. I guess that’s the reason to why she winds me up so much, and her books end up being used for something other than the purpose they were originally designed for.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 4, 2013
12:48 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

The thing is Olga although we abbor the apsolute horror of wife beating and rape in this modern age, wife beating was quite common in fact it was expected back then.

Rape was not expected back then, that’s a bit of a myth. It was punishable by law. The church itself abhorred it and did not tolerate it. You may have been “allowed” to beat your wife in certain circumstances but you need to think about Henry’s court and the notion of chivalry. Henry himself wouldn’t have beaten his wives, let alone forced or raped anyone. I don’t know much about King John, I haven’t gone that far back in my reading yet. War-rape is a different matter but it doesn’t apply here.

Boleyn said
I think the title historian is one that is very difficult to define to be honest. S.W.M.N.B.N holds the credientials to that title, and all praise where praise is due she put the graft in to earn it, but I feel that opinion and interpretation on what history actually is, is extremely floored. It just seems to me at least that what she has read about the factual side of things is not what has actually read and she has made up the facts to fit what she wanted to it read (if that makes sence)

If you mean her fictional books there, sure she does. She’s writing fiction in those cases. You can’t really find a novelist who doesn’t do that. You can find plenty of historians who also take facts out of context to suit their theories as well, or who doesn’t get defensive about their own theories. Considering a good portion of history books I have read spend time slamming other historians theories.

September 4, 2013
2:27 am
Avatar
Tash Wakefield
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 90
Member Since:
April 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A devil descended Duke of Anjou, putting a flower in his cap and crossing the channel to start a royal family line called Plantagenet. It sounds like a fairy tale in itself! I think ‘hysteria’ was the exact term that sprang to my mind when thinking of the witch trials in Salem. And I totally support Boleyn’s idea that it may have been caused by mass hallucination due to a lack of proper organic food supplies. We had something similar happen at a school in Australia in the 70’s I think, bad cafeteria soup making a whole school hallucinate an alien invasion. I also always suspected the Fatima miracle being due to the children eating funny mushrooms while they played in the fields. Olga you are right, when it comes to a mix between popular culture and self professed historians, there is going to be a huge demographic of people basing their ideas of history on fiction. I also agree with some of the scenes from PG as being mills and boon like, the sexual tension she tried to envisage occurring between Margaret Beaufort and Jasper Tudor seemed as though it was an attempt to put some sort of romance into the novel, either to make Margaret seem a little more human or womanly, and not such a cold hearted bitch. And the romantic sex scenes between Mary Boleyn and both her husbands William in the Other Boleyn Girl seemed to me somewhat uneccessary. But i feel that way about the majority of sex scenes in films. I also found the scenes of cat like physical violence between the Boleyn sisters as reminiscent of a bad afternoon soap opera, but I guess she was attempting to humanise the characters, and indicate some sort of fierce sisterly rivalry between the two sisters who shared the King of England as a lover. I guess her trying to find fact in the incestuous relationships within the Boleyn family, ie the sharing of a lover between sisters, then a love affair between brother and sister must have to her seemed a natural progression, but I do not believe at all that Anne Boleyn and her brother George ever shared a bed as lovers. I also support Claire’s view that there is no real basis except popular belief that George Boleyn was gay. I think it far more likely that his niece Elizabeth I was. Perhaps one day when I have written a few more books I will start calling myself Dr. Natasha, professor of Tudor history, and all things literary. It seems the personae is easily attained if one has a tendency towards true showmanship….

September 4, 2013
11:42 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga King John was a real rotter (mildly put) The maid of Dunmow was a prime example of just how nasty he was. Basically he kidnnapped her from her family the daughter of Baron Robert Fitzwalter, she was only about 18 when he kidnapped her and kept her imprisoned in a tower with the intention of having his way with her. In his mind it was his way of showing her father that no one could tell him what he could and couldn’t do, and what better way of doing that than turning the baron’s daughter into a whore so to speak. Anyway the girl refused John’s sexual advances, leaving John with no choice but to get rid of her. He poisoned her and sent her body back to her parents, who were naturally heartbroken. This murder was the catylist that started the whole business of Magna Carta. Although the Barons were displeased by the whole kingship of John long before this anyway, as many of them had lost land in France due to John’s nochalant attitude towards the French king Philip’s taking what he believed was his, whilst John stayed in bed with his wife Isabella, who herself was but a child of around 11 or 12, although some believe she was perhaps even younger than that when he married her, whom by the way John stole (for want of a better word) from Hugh the Brown, causing no end of hassle in the Angoulume region of France.

Tash, going back to the Ergot theory, I also believe that Ergot poisoning may have even played a part in Henry’s behaviour. There were a few bad harvests in 1534/35 I believe, and before then too, but it could have course been highly possible that any grain that was rescued could well have had Ergot growing on it and Henry ate it, which may have played a small part in Henry’s illogical and un rational behaviour towards Anne, and many others until the end of his reign. I believe that Henry often hallucinated about seeing Monks everywhere, and held conversations with them and Thomas More. The last words he was of alledgely said was “Monks everywhere, Monks.” or something like that anyway.

It’s difficult to gague the relationship of Jasper Tudor and M.B certainly it was a close one, but was it of a sexual nature? I doubt it somehow, being as she was religious zealot, she would have been aware of the bible’s interpetation of marrying her dead husbands brother.
I’ve heard the term of tossing a woman in difficult labour in a blanket. Why? what exactly did this do? Was it a form of perhaps what is now called a vontouse induction?

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 4, 2013
11:50 am
Avatar
Steve Callaghan
UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 146
Member Since:
May 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Just a general point on historians/writers: I’m reading Joanna Denny’s Anne bio at the moment. I’m astonished, for a variety of reasons, to find that this book/hagiography is apparently well-regarded. It’s certainly audacious and entertaining but so much of it is contentious (at best). Anne, according to Denny, was an entirely selfless person, and was in ‘fact’ a martyr for her faith (along with being a victim of Catholic factions; it’s rather depressing when Tudor scholars (and novelists) bring their own religious biases into play – whatever side they’re on – and so frequently at that). Well…perhaps this is the last place* in which one should call for a truly objective view on Anne but, really, it’s surely possible to admire AB without turning her into the kind of plaster saint that KoA is presented as by many people? Years of misrepresentation shouldn’t be wiped out by even more misrepresentation; a balance is highly necessary. Sometimes, merely having a new angle on certain historical matters isn’t enough to justify publication and debate…

Sure, centuries of ‘black propaganda’ and sexist smears must be addressed and rectified (I’m reminded of a picture the Guardian recently used to grace a witch-trial book review, showing women alone, judged by men – I can’t help but view the ‘witch craze’ as anything else but another awful chapter in the perennial ‘war on women’. See linked picture below); however, it’s surely possibly to consider the many facets of Anne’s life & personality without making her into what we’d like her to have been. Opinions welcomed, folks.

* By which I mean, it’s an unusual request by me, given that this is a website dedicated to Anne Boleyn. :D

Photo:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i…..it-010.jpg

Accompanying Guardian article:
http://www.theguardian.com/boo…..man-review

September 5, 2013
12:17 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tash Wakefield said
I also support Claire’s view that there is no real basis except popular belief that George Boleyn was gay.

The idea didn’t appear out of thin air, it was a theory put forth by historian Retha Warnicke, the popular belief has been perpetuated by TOBG and The Tudors, and whoever else will run with it next time.

Boleyn said
Olga King John was a real rotter (mildly put) The maid of Dunmow was a prime example of just how nasty he was. Basically he kidnnapped her from her family the daughter of Baron Robert Fitzwalter, she was only about 18 when he kidnapped her and kept her imprisoned in a tower with the intention of having his way with her. In his mind it was his way of showing her father that no one could tell him what he could and couldn’t do, and what better way of doing that than turning the baron’s daughter into a whore so to speak. Anyway the girl refused John’s sexual advances, leaving John with no choice but to get rid of her. He poisoned her and sent her body back to her parents, who were naturally heartbroken.

Boleyn said

I couldn’t find any evidence to support that when I had a brief look, it seems most of the men involved in the Magna Carter revolt accused King John of trying to seduce their daughters. It also looks like the tale of Matilda Fitzwalter is part of the Robin Hood stories
http://womenofhistory.blogspot…..alter.html

Boleyn said
It’s difficult to gague the relationship of Jasper Tudor and M.B certainly it was a close one, but was it of a sexual nature? I doubt it somehow, being as she was religious zealot, she would have been aware of the bible’s interpetation of marrying her dead husbands brother.
I’ve heard the term of tossing a woman in difficult labour in a blanket. Why? what exactly did this do? Was it a form of perhaps what is now called a vontouse induction?

There is no evidence they had a sexual relationship, it is not even worth speculating about. Margaret was very happily married to her second husband Staffors, they used to celebrate their wedding anniversary every year and she was devastated when he was killed.

I asked Amy Licence about the “blanket tossing”. She said it was possibly an old wives tale designed to scare the mother, and she has never come across an example of it actually happening, but it can’t be ruled out.

September 5, 2013
12:20 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

SteveJ said

Just a general point on historians/writers: I’m reading Joanna Denny’s Anne bio at the moment. I’m astonished, for a variety of reasons, to find that this book/hagiography is apparently well-regarded. It’s certainly audacious and entertaining but so much of it is contentious (at best).

Denny was a nutter. I am always torn between admiring her for her outrageous views and condemning her because most of it is completely. Read it like a fiction book and it is really enjoyable.
Yes it is well-regarded, I suspect people feel the same way I do Laugh

September 5, 2013
12:51 am
Avatar
Tash Wakefield
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 90
Member Since:
April 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

My favourite version of John Lackland (apparently trying to defy his birth as the later son and stealing land from others!) is in the Disney Cartoon of Robin Hood. King John is a lion without a mane, constantly sucking his thumb and crying ‘mummy’ and sulking cos mummy loved Richard best. I saw the film hundreds of times when i was a child, it was one of the only films my Russian heavily socialist father would let us watch when we were with him, and it became a personal fixture in my childhood. If you haven’t seen it, try and track it down and watch it, it’s incredibly hilarious! Better than ‘Men in Tights’ by far lol although I quite like that one too. I love historical satire, satire of any kind actually, we need to laugh about ourselves more as humans I think…

September 5, 2013
5:22 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

Boleyn said

The thing is Olga although we abbor the apsolute horror of wife beating and rape in this modern age, wife beating was quite common in fact it was expected back then.

Rape was not expected back then, that’s a bit of a myth. It was punishable by law. The church itself abhorred it and did not tolerate it. You may have been “allowed” to beat your wife in certain circumstances but you need to think about Henry’s court and the notion of chivalry. Henry himself wouldn’t have beaten his wives, let alone forced or raped anyone. I don’t know much about King John, I haven’t gone that far back in my reading yet. War-rape is a different matter but it doesn’t apply here.

Henry DIDN’T rape any of his wives since the concept of marital rape was ..weellllllll…unknown.

Once you said your vows regardless of how willing both parties, they were supposed to have sex when ever the hubby wanted it unless it was a saint’s day or another HolyDay when abstaining was a requirement..

A wife just could not SAY NO to her husband since that was against the teachings of both the Church and society of the time.

It's always bunnies.

September 5, 2013
12:31 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This is true Tash. Henry did at least treat his wives with respect (loosely worded) concerning sexual conduct. No did mean NO.
But rape sadly did happen, back then, as indeed it still does today. At least back then the perpertrators of such an abborant crime could expect severe punishment for it. Today it’s if rape is one of the twee words like doily which is largely ignored or so it seems to me at least. Today’s punishments for such an act do not in my opinion do anything to make up for the fact that a person has destroyed another life (sexually) if that makes sence. There was a case in the paper not long back where a man was accused of the rape of a girl and given just a year in prison, basically because the judge agreed with the defending barrister that the girl involved in the case was a sexual prediditor and had led the man on. Lets just say that words were said about it in Parliament.

Rape I agree was a big no no back then as it is now, but I guess that I confused the issue a little in the way I worded it. I did mean of course that the beating of a woman by her husband, or any other member of her family was quite common place. there is a rumour that poor Queen Jane Grey was beaten into submission to marry guildford Dudley but I have found no evidence to support this rumour. I don’t think that this occured girls back then did as they were told when they were told back then and that was that. We do know however that the Duke of Norfolk (odious little Cretin) did be the hell out of his wife and treated her shamefully.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 5, 2013
12:39 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said
It’s difficult to gague the relationship of Jasper Tudor and M.B certainly it was a close one, but was it of a sexual nature? I doubt it somehow, being as she was religious zealot, she would have been aware of the bible’s interpetation of marrying her dead husbands brother.
I’ve heard the term of tossing a woman in difficult labour in a blanket. Why? what exactly did this do? Was it a form of perhaps what is now called a vontouse induction?

There is no evidence they had a sexual relationship, it is not even worth speculating about. Margaret was very happily married to her second husband Staffors, they used to celebrate their wedding anniversary every year and she was devastated when he was killed.

I asked Amy Licence about the “blanket tossing”. She said it was possibly an old wives tale designed to scare the mother, and she has never come across an example of it actually happening, but it can’t be ruled out.

That is also my opinion of M.B and Jasper Tudor relationship. It was certainly a close one, but there was definetely nothing sexual about it. Yes I have read M.B marriage with Stafford was one of a very close and loving one, and that she devotedly nursed him till he died. Her 3rd marriage I believe was just one of protection for herself and her son.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 5, 2013
6:03 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If someone had tried to toss me in a blanket when I was in labor, I would have out-and-out killed them.

If rape was such an abhorrent crime back then, how did Thomas Culpeper get away with it? It may have been against the law, but if the rapist was connected, he walked away with no consequence. The woman was always blamed. She asked for it, or she wore clothing that just begged for a rapist to come along and take her. Or, in Culpeper’s case, he had the right because his boss was the king. Henry made the charge go away.
Unless the guy killed his victim, she was responsible for the rape. So as much as it was against the law in John’s time, or Henry’s time, it was easy for a man to walk away without punishment. Before the 1980’s, women had a tough time bringing their rapists to trial. They were afraid to do so because the courts were against them. In more and more cases today, as Boleyn has pointed out, blame is placed on the woman.
And until this past century, wives couldn’t accuse their husbands of rape. (at least not in the US.) A husband had the right to take his wife whenever and however he wished. If she ended up in the hospital…well he just got a little over enthusiastic in his lovemaking. **snicker, snicker* I remember people asking how a husband could rape his wife? That was impossible. GRRRRR!!!
I’m not saying that John raped anyone. I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but I think the nobility weaseled their way out of accusations of rape.
Off my soapbox now!
I agree with Olga about Denny’s book on Anne. I had to approach it as fiction and then I enjoyed it. Smile

September 5, 2013
8:58 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree Sharon it does seem that the nobility did get away with more or less anythng. For the most part the saying money talks was as good then as it is today. King John caused no end of trouble in Ireland so he is a prime example of how nobility really could get away with murder. He allegedly did murder his nephew Arthur, although no proof could be found to back up that arguement, it does seem very strange that Arthur disappeared a few nights after John arrived in Rouen Castle. There was also the case where John imprisoned a number of people in Pembroke? and left them to starve to death, as a punishment for trying to escape. He was at loggerheads with all but one of his barons William Marshall who was perhaps the only one who tolerated him for any period of time, and even his paitence was pushed to the limit. John flouted the Church authority with impunity and refused to except Stephen Langton as the Pope’s chosen elect for the Archbishop of Cantabury, so much so in fact that Pope Innocent excommunicated John and put the whole of England under a papal edict. It was only when the Barons cried out enough was enough and asked King Philip of France to come and take England from John by force, that John finally wised up to the situation and not only excepted Stephen Langton but gave himself into the hands of the Pope and promised to straighten up and fly right that things in England sorted themselves out. The Magna Carta was John’s death knell as once that was signed he had no choice but to obey it or once again risk his kingdom.
King John was allegedly poisoned so it was said by the abbot of the monastry he was staying at, the reason was again allegeded that he had told the abbot of his carnal desires towards a nun that he had seen at the convent he stayed at the night before. The nun was the abbot’s sister and he was not a happy bunny, that the King had planned to ravage not just his sister but a daughter of the church too, and gave him poisoned peaches to eat. John died in October of 1216 and is buried in Worcester Catherdral, I know it well. his tomb is very beautiful and if you look at his effigy you can see a man who was a as tyranical as is believed.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 6, 2013
3:24 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said
If someone had tried to toss me in a blanket when I was in labor, I would have out-and-out killed them.

I think that was the point Laugh

Culpeper is the only case I have heard of Sharon, and all the more shocking because he got away with not only raping the woman but murdering her husband. I haven’t come across a lot of recorded cases of rape in my reading to be honest, I am not saying it didn’t happen, I am just pointing out that it was still actually illegal. In some very brief reading I did when I was doing some research for an article, if my memory serves me correctly, the concept of the shame of rape was so heavy a woman was allowed to enter a convent to “cover her shame” if she had been raped.
The fact is I think society is far worse now, they still had a sense of chivalry back then.

King John died on campaign, of dysentery. I don’t think he had time to ravage any nuns on the way.

September 6, 2013
6:31 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga I believe dysentary was given as the cause of John death and it could well of been, but the poisoned peaches story was put about at the time.
It could well be that the story was put about to further blacken John’s name for being a tyrant. However I would not put anything past John and there could well be a element of truth in the poisoned peaches story. It may well be that the peaches he had eaten did not help the illness he already had, and his body already weakened by Dysentary simply gave up. Strangely enough John is meant to have died in a monastry in Newark, which is an anagram for what H8 is and a total one at that.
Yeah I believe you are right Olga, I think there were actually 2 options open to a woman who had been raped, 1 to marry her rapist, or 2 to enter a convent.
I’m not to sure but I think that rape (for the woman at least) meant that you had committed a sin against God and that only marriage to either rapist or the church was a way of exspunging that sin.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 6, 2013
7:02 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I know what you are saying, Olga, and I agree with you. Rape, as well as murder was illegal.
It is obvious, however, that the law didn’t apply to everyone. That was the point I was trying to make.
The only case of rape I have ever read about is Culpeper’s. It is the only one I can go by. And it doesn’t say much for Henry, chivalry, or the maintaining of the law. If rape as well as murder was illegal, Henry didn’t act in a lawful or a chivalrous manner by not arresting Thomas and throwing away the key. Where was Henry’s sense of chivalry in this case? Had he acted the least bit chivalrous in that case, had he just followed the law, we wouldn’t even know Culpeper’s name. And poor KH may very well have kept her head.
Henry was a romantic, and I’m sure he thought he was quite chivalrous, but I think this case proves different.
Got off-track here a bit. Sorry everyone! Frown

September 6, 2013
8:25 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon Henry Romantic? He was about as romantic as an exocet missile, and about as deadly as one too.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 7, 2013
5:41 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Making sure you were paying attention, Boleyn! Wink I figured that would get a rise out of you.

Actually, I think that Henry would have thought himself quite romantic. Henry was in love with being in love. He idealized what he thought love should be and when his relationships were not what he imagined they should have been, he quickly discarded them, and quickly moved on to his next love. He looked for the perfect love all of his life, but his view of love was skewed.
Definition of a Romantic:
1. of, relating to, imbued with, or characterized by romance
2. evoking or given to thoughts and feelings of love, esp idealized or sentimental love a romantic woman a romantic setting
3. impractical, visionary, or idealistic a romantic scheme
4. Often euphemistic imaginary or fictitious.

September 7, 2013
7:48 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Making sure you were paying attention, Boleyn! Wink I figured that would get a rise out of you.

Actually, I think that Henry would have thought himself quite romantic. Henry was in love with being in love. He idealized what he thought love should be and when his relationships were not what he imagined they should have been, he quickly discarded them, and quickly moved on to his next love. He looked for the perfect love all of his life, but his view of love was skewed.
Definition of a Romantic:
1. of, relating to, imbued with, or characterized by romance
2. evoking or given to thoughts and feelings of love, esp idealized or sentimental love a romantic woman a romantic setting
3. impractical, visionary, or idealistic a romantic scheme
4. Often euphemistic imaginary or fictitious.

Couldn’t help myself there Sharon LOL ;)
But in all seriousness yeah you are right there, Henry was very much self obsessed, by the idea and concept of love, he wanted woman who would literely worshi at his feet and hang on every word he said. He fell in love with what he percieved as love and just as quickly fell out of his type of love. If you think about the only wife that did nothing to challenge his warped perception of things was AOC.

COA tested his paitence to the limit over the Divorce.
A.B died due to what he called her “meddling” in affairs, that he felt were none of her business.
J.S was warned by him to shut her trap over the her “meddling” in Mary’s cause, and to remember the fate of A.B.
K.H cruelly in his opinion betrayed him and lied about her life before he decided to marry her.
K.P very nearly lost her her head for her religious views and her arguements on how she perceived things within the church.
Only AOC earned his respect and maybe even admiration over the fact that she calmly took the shit he threw at her and retired gracefully from court.
What he wanted in his twisted warped perception of love and marriage was an empty headed woman who saw him as a God and would just open her legs and do or say nothing without his say.
However I do actually wonder if he did manage to find a woman like that would he have been truly happy? I somehow doubt it. Henry’s love was a very fickle thing. What was love to him one minute was hatred the next. The only person Henry truly loved wholeheartedly was himself, in his twisted world of fantasy there was no room for anyone else, and there never would be. Henry’s fantasy world was simply not big enough for two people.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 9, 2013
2:18 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said …John died in October of 1216 and is buried in Worcester Catherdral, I know it well. his tomb is very beautiful and if you look at his effigy you can see a man who was a as tyranical as is believed.

drivel.

you cannot possibly derive charactor from appearence – John might be the ultimate shit (and was, in my view..), but his looks, or indeed the looks the stonemason decided to give him, have no place whatsoever in determining his actions.

you’re getting into the territory of that lunatic woman who’s in love with Richard III – ‘is this the face of a tyrant?’

i know Johns’ tomb well as well, it reveals nothing about him apart from him being dead.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427592

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1712

Posts: 23076

Newest Members:

DennisDorie, vitushatault, oghmaniusVom, Urocchxae, Puimignog, Emma3456

Administrators: Claire: 959