Jane Seymour? | Page 2 | The Six Wives | 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
Jane Seymour?
June 29, 2011
10:48 am
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said:

A fact I find annoying since Starkey, being gay, suffers some of the same discrimination that women have done in the past.


It is annoying.  Sometimes when people are discriminated against, they become the worst discriminators.

June 29, 2011
11:13 am
Avatar
Elliemarianna
Corsham, Wiltshire
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 316
Member Since:
June 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said:

Neil Kemp said:

Duchess,

I believe that Starkey is a fine historian, however he does view a lot of Henry's actions in a sympathetic manner, whilst his stance on women in general seems to come from the viewpoint of another century. Just my opinion, but I think a lot of Starkey's opinions and interpretations of the facts are biased in favour of a male perspective.

Any room on your soapbox, please.Wink


A fact I find annoying since Starkey, being gay, suffers some of the same discrimination that women have done in the past.
 


Would it not be though? Considering he is male – of course he is going to see things from a male perspective. I think its fitting, considering the female perspective didn't matter during the Tudor period.

"It is however but Justice, & my Duty to declre that this amiable Woman was entirely innocent of the Crimes with which she was accused, of which her Beauty, her Elegance, & her Sprightliness were sufficient proofs..." Jane Austen.

June 29, 2011
2:49 pm
Avatar
Neil Kemp
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 447
Member Since:
April 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Really? So our viewpoint of history will depend on the gender of the teacher, as that will influence their teaching? I believe any good historian or teacher can present the facts without distortion appropriate to their gender. Just my opinion though.

June 29, 2011
6:48 pm
Avatar
MegC
Georgia, US
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 426
Member Since:
October 31, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Neil Kemp said:

Really? So our viewpoint of history will depend on the gender of the teacher, as that will influence their teaching? I believe any good historian or teacher can present the facts without distortion appropriate to their gender. Just my opinion though.

I totally agree.  If you can't be impartial, then you need to get out of the business.


"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"

June 30, 2011
4:37 am
Avatar
DuchessofBrittany
Canada
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 846
Member Since:
June 7, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Neil Kemp said:

Really? So our viewpoint of history will depend on the gender of the teacher, as that will influence their teaching? I believe any good historian or teacher can present the facts without distortion appropriate to their gender. Just my opinion though.


Totally agree, Neil. Starkey, a trained historian with a PhD, should know better, and be able to look beyond certain lenses, and consider history with an impatriality. But, Starkey has an image to keep up, and he loves to get everyone riled up, and keep his sharp tongue employed.

Furthermore, just because I am female does not mean I see everything through a feminist perspective. I may see the world differently because of experiences, but when I conduct research, I need to leave my assumptions and cultural baggage behind. They cannot follow me into the field.

Theories must suit facts; facts cannot be made to fit theories. Apparently Starkey missed that rule somewhere along the way. My criticism does not diminish my respect for him, or his work on Henry. I prepare myself to not take everything he says seriously, and try to understand the sources for myself.

"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn

June 30, 2011
5:46 pm
Avatar
Impish_Impulse
US Midwest
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 595
Member Since:
August 12, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Excellent points, all. Starkey is very watchable and readable, and I respect that he is a true historian who has consulted the original sources, but I've come to recognize when he may be filtering events through his own biases. It doesn't mean I disregard his work, it means I sometimes take it with a grain of salt.

                        survivor ribbon                             

               "Don't knock at death's door. 

          Ring the bell and run. He hates that."    

June 30, 2011
6:05 pm
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

My motto for anything to do with history is 'History is in the eye of the beholder' I don't think anybody can really study history without approaching it with some sort of bias, no matter how hard they try. It's not like we are computers and just need to regurgiate facts, we want to know why an individual did something which leads to conjecture which comes about through natural bias in my opinion.

I hate using this example but quite often Germany in WWII is painted with the negative brush, especially hthese days because the population has been exposed to so much 'Garmany Bad' material that it is hard to look for anything positive to come out of Germany during that time. It doesn't mean there wasn't any good, but could you imagine the uproar if some Historian decided to present a piece on WWII Germany that painted it in a good light?

Another question: Why did Diana cheat on Charles? There are potentially numerous answers to this question, each with supporting material but a historian is obviously going to go with the material that supports what they are leaning towards as it would make it more enjoyable for them to research. And it all begins with the historian having a natural preference to being either in Diana's Camp or Charles' Camp.

Having said all that, I think what makes a good historian great is that through their research they can admit that perhaps their preconceived idea has changed. Or they are happy to admit that perhaps there are alternate explanations to the situation

December 28, 2011
12:05 pm
Avatar
WelshieHollie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 13
Member Since:
December 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think that Jane Seymour had no say in anything when she became the object of Henry's affection  and still didn't have a say in it when her family realised the power of it also the ambition. I don't think she realised what would happen to Anne till it happened. Jane must have had some steely determination when it comes to reunite Mary and Elizabeth with with their father & on the abbey's but not to provoke Henry's temper.

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