Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log Insp_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
sp_Feed Topic RSSsp_TopicIcon
Are we feminising Henry VIII's reign?
June 19, 2009
4:21 am
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 958
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If you have read David Starkey's article in the Uk's Daily Telegraph, you will know that female authors (and people like me!) are being accused of feminising history. David Starkey said:

One of the great problems has been that Henry, in a sense, has been absorbed by his wives. Which is bizarre. But it's what you expect from feminised history, the fact that so many of the writers who write about this are women and so much of their audience is a female audience. Unhappy marriages are big box office.

He also thinks that such authors, and shows like The Tudors, are making a soap opera out of Henry's reign and that Henry and his politics should be given centre stage, not his wives.

What do you think? Is The Anne Boleyn Files feminising history? Are we reducing it to a soap opera?

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

June 19, 2009
11:51 pm
Avatar
Sabrina
California
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 205
Member Since:
June 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don't think we are feminising Henry. He was CONSTANTLY surrounded by women. Whether it was his mother, mistresses, or his wives, they were there. We see things in a different light than the \”male\” historians. I think David Starkey is great, and I love his work. I personally see it as they were a major part of his life, and his history. He married six different women. They influenced him in some way, whether it was major like Anne Boleyn, or just a little like Jane Seymour. We are a part of this world, whether historians like it or not.

Let not my enemies sit as my jury

June 20, 2009
2:16 am
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 958
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yes, I do think it's funny that Starkey can say that and yet he's written a book on the Six Wives, made a TV series, dedicated a whole chapter of his Henry VIII book (personalities and Politics) to Anne Boleyn and dedicated a whole episode of his recent series Henry VIII:Mind of a Tyrant to Henry the Lover and his relationship with Anne. Starkey admits to being guilty himself but also says in other articles that Henry was obsessed with women and that this may stem from his childhood of being surrounded by women.

My reasoning is that if Henry was obsessed with women (he had six wives and a definite six mistresses, probably many more) then we have got to factor that in to his reign. Anne Boleyn had a mjor influence over him, his thoughts and actions (break with Rome etc.) and he trusted Catherine of Aragon enough to leave her dealing with the Scots while he dealt with the French. Henry's women definitely deserve a mention!

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

July 8, 2009
7:06 pm
Avatar
Pansy
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
July 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If you look at the historical fact, it WAS a soap opera! Six wives, countless affairs, powerful and rich people: Isn't that what a soap opera is?

Not to mention, when you look at a historical drama like The Tudors, it's not meant to be historically accurate. It's meant to be entertainment. In fact most books written are meant to be entertaining.

July 8, 2009
9:05 pm
Avatar
Emma_pug
Pennsylvania, USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 51
Member Since:
June 21, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Claire said:

 that Henry was obsessed with women and that this may stem from his childhood of being surrounded by women.


I've wondered about that myself.  With Arthur being primed for Kinghood, Henry grew up under the care of some very strong, influential women, like Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort.  Perhaps none of his wives could live up to that standard?  Tyrant or not, he is a really fascinating character from a psychological standpoint (there is another thread for that!).

I have a wee bit of trouble taking David Starkey too seriously.  I respect him as a historian, but watching the Six Wives DVD had me in fits of giggles because of his melodramatic storytelling (ie, his eyeballs popping out as he spoke breathlessly).   It's impossible not to judge Henry's reign by his romances.  Say you want to write about the English Reformation, and why Henry wanted to break with Rome… oops, you'd have to talk about wives 1 and 2.  His need for an heir to continue to Tudor dynasty?  Well, you can't leave out Anne Boleyn or Jane Seymour.  It's hardly \”bizarre\”, as Starkey says.  I'd like to see someone give a good summary of Henry's reign without delving into his relationships with women.  I 'm female, and I think a lot about the heart of it all:  how can a man love a woman so madly, then put her to death?

Besides, what's wrong with feminization?  Women were kept muffled for so long, allow us to think and question for ourselves now.  Deal with it, Mr. Starkey! 😉

I recently read the book Divorced, Beheaded, Survived:  A Feminist Reinterpretation of of the Wives of Henry VIII by Karen Lindsey.  It was an interesting read, though I didn't agree with some of the more extreme viewpoints (ie, that Anne didn't love Henry at all, and was using him purely to become queen). If you are looking for a new Tudor book, you might give it a shot!

Pansy, I have to agree with you – it WAS a soap opera!  That's the thing, no tv show today could take such a story and make it believable.

Noli me tangere

July 9, 2009
8:54 am
Avatar
Rochie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 114
Member Since:
June 24, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It could be argued that history has been severely 'masculinised' for centuries and that the current trend, though perhaps a little large a swing of the pendulum for some, goes some way to redressing the balance.
For me, the conventional telling of history seems at times little more than a litany of struggles, wars and various knock-abouts by people who if they were alive today would be rioting on the terraces of football stadia. Woman played an important part in history – they are history! It is good that this fact is now being explored by fictional writers and historians alike and that we are beginnig at last to appreciate history from a feminine perspective and to explore its meaning as women might have perceived it at the time.

SR

July 9, 2009
9:10 am
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 958
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I've just subscribed to an excellent magazine called \”Herstoria\”, whose motto is \”history that puts woman in her place\”, which had a great article entitled \”Where are the women historians on TV\”. This article points out that there are well over 800 female historians in the UK alone but they never seem to be asked to front TV programmes. Although David Starkey talks of the feminisation of history, just where are the women historians?

Like others have said, we are not feminising history by exploring the roles of women, we are simply redressing the balance and giving credit where it is due. As Emma says, how on earth can you really explore the reign of Henry VIII without exploring the influence of his wives and mistresses. He was a man who adored women and this passion was one of the things that made him tick. To ignore the women in his life is to completely discount a big part of who he was.

I also hate the fact that if we women are passionate about history we are accused of being too emotional. Well, David Starkey gets very excited and so does Simon Schama, why can't we get excited?

Pansy, I so agree with you, Henry VIII's time was like a soap opera. Although The Tudors sexes it up and makes entertainment of it, we know that Henry had lots of mistresses and that the clergy had secret wives and mistresses. There were also scandals like Jane Seymour's father sleeping with his daughter-in-law, Henry being accused of sleeping with Anne Boleyn's mother, blah blah blah – sounds like a soap opera to me! I know Starkey hates The Tudors and I know some websites/forums chuck you off if you mention Philippa Gregory but why can't people separate fact from fiction, entertainment from documentary? And why do we have to be so serious all the time. History should be fun, it should be exciting and we should get passionate. I've said it before but I'll say it again, if we can't get passionate about history then history is dead. Rant over! Sorry!

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

July 9, 2009
3:30 pm
Avatar
gwenne
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 56
Member Since:
June 23, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Abosl*tely I'm feminising Henry's reign.  It was women who surrounded him.  It was women who impacted his life.  And it was women he used as chess pieces throughout his reign.  If it weren't for the female element in his life the more 'masculine' elements of his policies would have never been insitituted, (by the way Mr. Starkey).  Throughout history it's has been exactly that HIS story.  Not hers, unless it only heightens 'his'.  That's utter nonsense.  If you want to know and understand who the man is and the nature of the events surrounding him (any him right now and not just Henry) you better take a good look at the women in his life.  You can't have one without the other, there should always be balance, and to leave Henry's wives out of ANY discussion about him or his monarchy is to have little next to nothing to talk about.  His wives and his treatment of them, is what ruled and decided British policy, not his (tongue in cheek sarcasm here) 'revered diplomatic skills' or his 'wise' administration of government policy.

Diem et animus scire cupio: I desire knowledge of the soul.

July 10, 2009
2:03 am
Avatar
missisGG
Yorkshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 70
Member Since:
June 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree with you about the the tudors, PG etc. Why can't it be made abit of fun? I get tired of people saying oh this bit is wrong and this bit, well they have to make the story fit into the series and to be fair I have learnt alot from the tudors that other films generally tend to gloss over. At least in the the Tudors it shows Anne and Henry happy together, most programmes show them fighting to get married and then the next minute she is getting her head chopped off! I think overall the the Tudors has done a great job and when I went to the British library I was suprised to read that Henry did actually fall into a pond and nearly die as he does in the the Tudors.

As for femanising it, I think you are all right. Henry's life revolved around women, what mans doesn't?! Starsky even argues Henrys life was shaped by women as child and he learnt to be centre of attention all the time and he could get his own way. I think he also learnt that women can have opinions too and maybe why he liked such strong women but then realised actually no they are a pain so i'll go for Jane Seymour 

Starsky even says in his book 'Six Wives' Henry reformed religion for love and nothing else, so of course women play a massive role

July 12, 2009
9:35 am
Avatar
Rochie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 114
Member Since:
June 24, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I really enjoy Starkey, and he is a great historian and presenter – but I've also often felt that he gives women short shrift whenever they inconveniently happen to crop up in the course of history. They kind of get in the way of the narrative. He seems not to – dare I say it – like them very much.

July 25, 2009
8:11 am
Avatar
cynthia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10
Member Since:
July 24, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Claire said:

What do you think? Is The Anne Boleyn Files feminising history?


Yes, we are and it's about time, isn't it?  And no one can cut off our heads for doing it!

Seriously, though, how can Henry's reign NOT be read (or watched) as a soap opera? 

One of my favorite history professors used to come into the classroom, take his watch off, throw it down on the table, and then begin weaving the most interesting tales, which happened to be true.  As he talked, Katherine of Aragon and Henry VIII came alive for us.  Thomas More was introduced to us in all his complexity.  By the time we had to read Utopia and do our papers on it, we knew all about the world Thomas More had inhabited, and felt that we ourselves had lived in it.

For me,  it's difficult to keep history impersonal, which is why I am always so appreciative of biographical authors who manage not to put their own slant on things.

July 25, 2009
10:55 am
Avatar
Rochie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 114
Member Since:
June 24, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

cynthia,

That sounds like one great history teacher!

Yes, it is difficult to keep history impersonal, like you say. I sometimes feel it is like being at the head of a great army going forward into life, with all those characters and people that have come before right behind us all the while, urging us on! Or like being at the top of a great pyramid, with all that weight of history beneath us.

Ooops! This is all getting to sound a bit Freudian, so I better pack up.

July 26, 2009
11:25 pm
Avatar
ipaud
Ireland
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 212
Member Since:
June 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

from a mans point of view, I don't think that one can separate Henry's life from the women in it, regardless of how he is most remembered, for having 6 wives. I think that the Tudors TV show has given us an ability to get the Tudor experience in so far as understanding how they lived and what life was like to a degree. some of the shows inaccuracies are really dangling carrots and most people can have their own interpretation.

I think that a king that had so many Lovers not to mind wives needs that aspect of his life looked at if we are to understand Henry. Marrying for Love was a luxury in Tudor nobility, with royals of that time I think this was most true. For all I have written on this forum against Henry,ironically though, I do think that he was in Love with Anne for the most part of their relationship. I don't think history can gloss over this and label it as \”feminising Henry VIII’s reign\” as it shows that Henry had an ability to Love and was prepared to break from Rome to prove it. The argument for the break from Rome can be made for many reasons at that time, but lets not fool ourselves as to the real reason. Henry's court I think, would have given The Playboy Mansion\” a run for its money if they were next door to each other. after the sedate court of his father it was the only party in town.

So, I believe to understand Henry, look at his women to see the man he was, for to ignore them is the same folly as Captain Smith of the Titanic ignoring icebergs.

Paudie. 

If it was not this, then it would be something else?

March 2, 2010
11:26 am
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Does David Starkey's idea of “femminising history”  mean it cannot be historically true? Wouldn't that be just like a man? (a little joke) If history is being femminised, it is about darn time.  How is it possible to separate Henry's politics from Henry's wives?  Why shouldn't we ask what these women were like?   Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn both died miserably because of Henry's politics.  Jane played dumb and her family was raised most high due to Henry's politics.  Because Henry was disappointed in Cromwell's choice of  Anne of Cleves for a  wife, he was put to death.  And on and on.  Yes, there were certainly other reasons for each political move. Yet each move revolved around these women and their families.  It's impossible to separate one from the other.

March 3, 2010
6:51 pm
Avatar
Bella44
New Zealand
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 933
Member Since:
January 9, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If Henry had stayed with Katherine of Aragon the course of British history – and by extension, a gigantic chunk of the world's history – would be vastly different.  And probably have been a mediocre and somewhat unmemorable king.  His wives, and Anne especially, ensured that he got what he always craved – greatness.

Too bad none of them were fully appreciated at the time.

March 9, 2010
11:10 am
Avatar
Hannah
Belfast
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 127
Member Since:
December 8, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bella44 said:

If Henry had stayed with Katherine of Aragon the course of British history – and by extension, a gigantic chunk of the world's history – would be vastly different.  And probably have been a mediocre and somewhat unmemorable king.  His wives, and Anne especially, ensured that he got what he always craved – greatness.


Henry was a great King before long before Anne Boleyn came along. In his youth, Henry was celebrated for his learning, sportsmanship and courtly finesse. Throughout his life, Henry spearheaded the Ranaissance movement in England, which transformed the culture, architechture and even faith of the people forever. Hardly mediocre and unmemorable (just check the field of cloth of gold for “unmemorable” events).

You also hint at the Reformation. The reasons behind the reformation were not exclusively to do with the marraige to Anne Boleyn (the key arguments were to do with Henry's ancient rights as King), who is to say it wouldn't have happened anyway?

Be daly prove you shalle me fynde,nTo be to you bothe lovyng and kynde,

March 9, 2010
6:23 pm
Avatar
Impish_Impulse
US Midwest
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 595
Member Since:
August 12, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

He was trying to get out of his marriage with Katharine before he fell in love with Anne. Also, I believe “obtaining” Anne might have been the push he needed, but agree he would likely have gone there anyway. No one must defy him and all…. Wink

                        survivor ribbon                             

               "Don't knock at death's door. 

          Ring the bell and run. He hates that."    

March 11, 2010
12:18 am
Avatar
Bella44
New Zealand
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 933
Member Since:
January 9, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

When most people think of Henry Vlll today they only see him in terms of having six wives, being fat and chopping peoples' heads off.   At least they do here in New Zealand, if they've heard of him at all.  Not much is generally known about Henry the man and his accomplishments, which is sad because he's a fascinating and complex character in his own right even if he did have an ego the size of Mt Everest.  What Henry desired above all else (aside from a son) was greatness, a way to stand out from his renaissance peers.  He wanted military glory but any endeavors on that part were really only so-so and until his 'great matter' there wasn't much to distinguish him from his contemporaries, who were also well-rounded 'renaissance men'.  I've always kind of suspected him of laziness when he was younger, preferring hunting and jousting and leaving the machinations of government to men like Wolsey – but maybe that's just because he was young and foolish!

The Field of Cloth of Gold was in no way an unmemorable event and i may be wrong, but I've always seen that more as Wolseys brainchild rather than Henrys.  Sure, Henry played his part, but it seems most of his energies were devoted to trying to best Francis l  And at the time Wolsey was at the top of his game, whereas what we largely remember Henry for was yet to happen.

If Katherine of Aragon had delivered the crucial son/s then I honestly don't think the reformation in England would have happened, at least not in the way it did.  There just wouldn't have been the need for Henry to question the legality of his marriage so there wouldn't much point in breaking from Rome just for the sake of it.  Henry I think, was at heart a conservative and wouldn't gone have gone to the extremes he did without good cause.  And after all, he was the Pope's 'Defender of the Faith!'  Sure he might have tweaked a few things here and there and some degree of church reform may have occurred but without Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn pushing and pulling at him things would have been very different,

Sorry if this is sounding like a bit of a rant, I really don't mean it be, but I just don't see how you can divorce the man from his marital history and the impact of his quest for a son.  It's because of that that he was pushed to do the things he did and its why he still has the power to fascinate 500 years later.

I hope that makes some kind of sense!  Laugh

March 13, 2010
3:06 pm
Avatar
Hannah
Belfast
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 127
Member Since:
December 8, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well, okay Cloth of Gold, (and the idea of a peace conference in itself), was the brain child of Wolsey, but Henry was pragmatic enough to realise the potential of conferences over war. Henry is seen by pretty much everyone as a fat tyrant with marital issues. However, when you scratch beneath the surface, as most people here do; you can surely see beyond all that. To say that Henry was a “mediocre” king is a bit  unfair. Afterall, who can all the Royal Navy “mediocre”, and it was Henry who founded the Navy. Also, a lot of the money from dissolved monastries went in to the Navy, so we could call that money well spent. Its a myth that all that money was “squandered”. Henry also used a lot of money from dissolved monastries to set up the first grammar schools, which admitted boys from poor families who would never have had the chance of an education before hand (also, that other great Tudor “monster” Thomas Cromwell was heavily involved in this piece of legislation). This paved the way for full, state funded, free education for all. Hardly mediocre. If it wasn't for the fact that people refuse to see beyond the surface, then Henry's considerable achievements wouldn't be so sorely over-looked. Scandal sells, and this was never more true in the case of Henry.

As for whether or not the reformation would've happened if Henry had stuck with Katherine and Anne had never been born etc. My guess is it would've happened regardless. The Reformist faction had been building up since the time of the Lollards, and even Henry V dissolved small, failing Monastic houses to free up the cash as and when it was needed. What Henry VIII did was continue this pre-existing method on a much grander scale.  The Reformation solved more than one problem. It filled the coffers, it concentrated complete control in to Henry's hands and it freed  him to divorce Katherine. There was a lot more to the split with Rome than Anne Boleyn, whether Henry was a conservative or not.

Be daly prove you shalle me fynde,nTo be to you bothe lovyng and kynde,

March 14, 2010
11:45 am
Avatar
Gina
Lindenhurst, USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 78
Member Since:
October 3, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I have a weird take on this. I feel like if they didn't bring in Henry's loves and passions for the women in his life, he would have seemed even more of a tyrant and a madman. I almost feel like by stating  that he changed the whole religion and country for the woman he loved it almost humanized him!! As opposed to saying that he did it because he was a maniacal, egotistical, greedy pig!

He put the women who wronged him to death because of his hurt pride and love. (Not that he was a murdering psychopath.) It makes it more palatable.

Just a thought!

XO

Gina

Forum Timezone: Europe/London
Most Users Ever Online: 214
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 1
Top Posters:
Anyanka: 2333
Boleyn: 2285
Sharon: 2114
Bella44: 933
DuchessofBrittany: 846
Mya Elise: 781
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1
Members: 425906
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 13
Topics: 1679
Posts: 22775
Newest Members:
angelinacv69, leolaqn11, AlbertoNub, marcihq3, EsbePepus, debbiefx16
Administrators: Claire: 958