Was Jane Seymour Henry\'s True Love? | Page 5 | 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

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Was Jane Seymour Henry's True Love?
January 4, 2014
1:31 pm
Avatar
TudorFan
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 56
Member Since:
January 2, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Why would Henry say Jane was his true love, if she wasn’t? He was very religious by all accounts and for him to ask to be buried next to her must be significant. I agree that things may have been very different had she lived beyond the birth of Edward, but we simply cannot know … it’s all just speculation. Who knows – Jane might have provided him with a whole host of sons to secure his dynasty, and been elevated even further in his esteem.

But we can only deal with the facts, can’t we? Yes, Henry may well have been looking back with rose-tinted spectacles on his time with Jane, but regardless of that, if that’s how he felt, and he made that feeling public, then I don’t think we should try to re-write history and make someone else his true love just because we want them to be.

How would we like it if someone disputed our feelings?!

January 4, 2014
10:25 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

TudorFan said

Why would Henry say Jane was his true love, if she wasn’t?

Convention. In those days when the majority of noble marriages were arranged for family advantages or political power, you were lucky if you liked your spouse. Many married people rubbed along in some kind of harmony together but sometimes marriages were total farces..see Percy/Talbot marriage.

He was very religious by all accounts and for him to ask to be buried next to her must be significant. I agree that things may have been very different had she lived beyond the birth of Edward, but we simply cannot know … it’s all just speculation. Who knows – Jane might have provided him with a whole host of sons to secure his dynasty, and been elevated even further in his esteem.

Given that Jane came from a family of 9, of whom 6 at least lived to adulthood, the chances of Jane repopulating the royal nursary was high. And as she would have more likely to have turned a blind eye to Henry’s wandering one, she would have been the perfect consort. Quiet, obident and constantly pregnant. She may have become a more forceful personality in private but having been told to mind her knitting in public, I doubt she would have followed her predecessors in trying to change public policy.

And while she appeared to like Mary and want to return her to the succession, we don’t know how she would have treated Elizabeth.

But we can only deal with the facts, can’t we? Yes, Henry may well have been looking back with rose-tinted spectacles on his time with Jane, but regardless of that, if that’s how he felt, and he made that feeling public, then I don’t think we should try to re-write history and make someone else his true love just because we want them to be.

How would we like it if someone disputed our feelings?!

Again, in a socety where preteens wrote each other love notes n a courtly style, smply because they were bethroahed and hadn’t even met, it’s hard to say what are facts and what were the expected phrases used on these occassions. Certainly Henry was calling Anne his “entirely beloved wife” several days after Cromwell had set up the Oyer and Terminer against Anne .

When Henry married Katherine Parr, he mentioned only one true wife before her, namely Jane. Whether Henry’s feeling were true or what tradition demanded that he said is speculation since we don’t actually know his true feelings, only political sound-bites.

I’m trying not to dismiss Henry”s feelings just trying to build a social and political framework as to why Henry said those words and my reasons as to why they fit into a Tudor framework of studied religious and personal projections of Henry’s peronality as I view it.

It's always bunnies.

January 5, 2014
12:24 am
Avatar
Always_the_Same
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9
Member Since:
January 4, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

well, interesting discussion, I don’t have much to add, except that I don’t believe in one “true love”, there may be one or several great loves, Henry had great esteem for Jane, possibly because she give to him his so dreamed son, not mean he did not like her, her early death made her ​​even more idealized, he wouldn’t need to deal with disappointment or boredom in the future. Jane is to me the most uninteresting wife, who entered history only by marrying one of the most controversial kings of the story, I feel sorry that she didn’t live to, at least, enjoy his son and his status. I think natural that he wanted to be buried beside the mother of his long-awaited heir

January 5, 2014
11:15 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Having thought about why Henry was buried next to Jane….There was no other wife he COULD be buried next to.

Katherine of Aragon he decided wasn’t his wife but his sister-in-law.
Anne Boleyn was an executed adultress.
Anne of Cleves was still alive.
Kathryn Howard likewise an executed adultress.
Catherine Parr was likely to wed Thomas Seymour ASAP once Henry was dead.

Out of 6 wives, he only had one choice…

It's always bunnies.

January 6, 2014
12:39 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka in many ways Jane would have been like another K.O.A if she had lived, as K.O.A was more or less constantly pregnant and turned a blind eye to all of Lard arse dabbles with other woman. She saw them as no threat just a pastime for him. of course that changed when Anne B came along.
But did Jane know of Lard arse’s statement concerning her. “That if he had seen (for instance) Buenhilda before seeing Jane he wouldn’t have bothered marrying Jane anyway, and just what would have happened if Jane had miscarried or given birth to another daughter or a dead son? Would he turn once again to using the old get out of jail free card.
Jane was under enormous pressure to have a son, and it can’t have been a very easy pregnancy to know that your whole marriage hinged on producing a live child and especially a son.
Henry perhaps repected her because of it, but I don’t think she was his true love. after all K.O.A produced a living son, (well several actually) it was just rotton bad luck that they all died. I have also read somewhere that Anne B produced a living son but it died barely an hour old just enough time to baptise it really. I can’t say if this is true or not because most books say both of her pregnancies after Elizabeth ended in miscarriage.

Being buried with Jane does seem to suggest that he was her true love, but I think it’s a little more simple than that. He was buried with her to emphasize his point that he was right to divorce of K.O.A. His marriages to Anne B AOC and K.H were considered null and void for various reasons and Anyanka has pointed out, and I don’t think he was that daft to know that his marriage to K.P was one of convience really. He was a lonely old man who just wanted comfort in his dotage. He knew that K.P was passionately in love with Thomas S, but just as it was wth Anne B he couldn’t bear the though of someone else having the woman he wanted.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 29, 2014
2:10 pm
Avatar
Anastasia
Athens/Greece
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 5
Member Since:
June 12, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I must say, I ask myself this question all the time. Jane did prove her worth and provided the King with the male heir he had always wished for, something that Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn were eventually incapable of doing. Henry had the belief that a true wife would be an obedient one, one that would be his thrall, and Jane Seymour was just that. Being aware of what had happened to Anne she chose to be the exact opposite of her and chose the motto ‘Bound To Obey And Serve’. This did please Henry VIII, however, if Jane had not provided him with a son she would have been discarded. I would also like to add that, although Henry is said to have been heartbroken when Jane died, he met with his ministers at Windsor Castle to discuss marrying for the fourth time. Of course, he waited more than two years to marry again, but still – maybe Jane Seymour was someone Henry VIII could call his true wife if we think about his conceptions of what a true wife should be like but I highly doubt that she was his true love.

June 30, 2014
11:47 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jane was the love of his life, at that time yes. But then if you look back at H8 past record with wives they were all at one time (with A.O.C perhaps being the exception) they were all the love of his life. “Sir Loyal Heart” with K.O.A, Anne was known as the “most beloved.” Jane was his so called “true love”, K.H was his “Rose without a thorn” I don’t know how he referred to K.P. The point is there was only room in H8 world for one person when it came to love and that was himself. The fact that H8 was looking at other woman and made the statement to Cromwell, that if he had seen this woman or that woman first he wouldn’t have married Jane says to me at least the the whole “true love” statement is horse manure.
If he truly loved her as he said I don’t think he would have said that. H8 love was a very fickle thing and as changeable as the weather.
I agree she probably endeared herself more to H8 then his other wives, due to the fact she did give him the Son but if Edward had died in childhood I doubt he would have even given Jane another thought. Yes he waited nigh on 2 years before marrying again, but to be honest that was nothing to do with greif it was down to the fact that 1 there were very few suitable brides available and 2 no woman was fool enough to marry him.
Christina of Denmark was his favourite for a wife, but she said “If I had two heads he’d be welcome to dispose of one” or something like that.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 30, 2014
12:04 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Henry wanted his wife to be like his mother, perfect. Jane only fit the bill by breeding. He was happy enough to threaten her with violence when she irritated him.

My apologies for sounding grumpy but the topic of Henry’s ‘true love’ irritates me. Henry’s true love was himself. Up until his last breath. And Bo is right, Henry ‘loved’ all of his wives.

June 30, 2014
5:16 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I thought he called Jane his true wife, not his true love. To me there is a big difference. As his true wife, she did what she was supposed to do. She gave him his son. Plus in the short time they were married, she was a biddable wife.
And like Anyanka said above, his choice as to who he would be buried next to was quite limited.
Olga, I agree completely. I don’t know how the terms ‘true wife’ and ‘true love’ could be confused. They are two entirely different concepts.

June 30, 2014
11:53 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think because now we don’t separate love and marriage Sharon *shrug* we generally marry for love these days. Historians tend to be pretty sympathetic towards Henry when it comes to him grieving for Jane but I can’t get past the fact he was preoccupied with going hunting while Jane was dying painfully.

He could have been reacting out of shock or fear of course, he did seem to have a fear of disease.

July 1, 2014
6:26 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Put simply Olga, Henry couldn’t give a toss. To borrow a line from Charles Dickens film A Christmas Carol “If they (she) is to die then let them (her) die.” I don’t doubt he greived, but his greif wasn’t for her it was for the fact that she had not lived long enough to produce the spare heir or that he hadn’t been the one to ditch her first.
H8 used woman that was his forte, He used Anne to get rid of K.O.A, then used Jane to get rid of Anne. When he was marrie to A.O.C he used K.H to get rid of her. When he married K.P, I’ve no doubt he would have used some other woman (I heard somewhere that he was thinking of marrying Mary Howard his estwhile daughter in law) to get rid of her, if death hadn’t of caught the fat useless stinking lump up first.
H8 couldn’t afford to share of his love with woman as that would mean there would be less for himself. His true love was himself utterly and completely and the thing is he was so good at being in love with himself he believed everyone else loved him too.
He believed Jane was his true wife, but did he not say that about K.O.A, Anne, K.H and K.P too? The speech on All Hallows of 1542 says something like “I give thanks to God for she who is my most true and loving wife as I do have now” or somesuch jiggery pokery. I believe he said something similar about K.P when he came back from ponching about France capturing a town of little or no significant value to England.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

July 1, 2014
2:26 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You know what the problem is? (and going wildly off-topic as usual) Henry’s subtle rehabilitation has a lot to do with Anne Boleyn. People love Anne Boleyn so much, and KOA for that matter, that they figure he must have had some redeeming qualities and that we need to look for an explanation for his actions. So they pass the buck to Anne for ruining his marriage with KOA, to Cromwell for setting up Anne or to Jane Seymour for dancing on her grave. Yet when everyone is trying on the ‘Henry was not a psychopath’ argument they gloss over the fact that very soon after murdering his first wife and five innocent men with her he threatened to lop off the next wife’s head if she didn’t behave. So we’re not allowed to attribute terms like ‘psycho’ or ‘abusive husband’ to Henry VIII because they’re modern yet I should sit around musing whether he had some fancy blood disease or a bang on the head that suddenly caused him to change.
And of course everyone always passes the term of ‘tyrant’ on to Henry VII because he taxed people heavily. You know, because taxes are worse than the physical abuse and murder of women.
Yeah okay I will stop ranting now because I could go on for three pages.

July 1, 2014
3:49 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You have hit the nail on the head there, Olga. I don’t know how anyone can avoid considering what he did to these women as being anything but cruel and heartless. What is so good about that? For people who say it was a different time, well that just doesn’t fly. The whole world was shocked by Henry’s actions towards his wives. And not only the ones he killed. What he did to KOA, AOC, and his daughters shocked people as well. So why, today, are people, many of them women, which really gets me going, especially eager to make him into a romantic hero? There was no other king at this time who did what Henry did to his wives and daughters. By saying that Henry was a great man and king, his wives can be trashed, they don’t count, and he was right to do to them what he did. That is just plain wrong! No excuse for what this guy did. None.
Now I’m done also because if I don’t stop, I could go on for days.

July 1, 2014
4:16 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Totally agree Olga. It’s always easier to blame someone else for his fault, as you say, Anne. B is the big villian because she broke up his mrriage with K.O.A and Jane is the villian because she broke up his marriage with Anne B, the truth is H8 himself broke up his own marriages no forced him to or tied him to a cannon and flogged him (now there’s a thought) he was the one who told the Pope to go do one. He was the one who signed the death warrents that sent innocent men woman and children to their deaths. Everything H8 did was because he wanted and made it happen.

He was abusive to his wives, in the modern term of things, shouting at them or threatening to lop off their heads if they didn’t shut their traps. But back then it was perfectly acceptable if not expected, that a man should lay down the law, and giving your wife and children especially girls a clout or 2 was perfectly normal. If he had tried this crap today he would end up with a fist related teeth disorder. (Just got a image in my head of H8 wearing false teeth LOL)

Remember woman were not considered a man’s social equal. There were the odd exceptions to that rule but they were very few and far between and they were generally frowned upon anyway. If the rumours about tha arrogant jumped up poppingjay cretinious arsehole Norfolk are true, he treated his wife with the upmost contempt, beating her on an almost daily basis and encouraging his servants to treat her just as contemptiously.

This brutal treatment of woman back in the Tudor age was sort of highlighted in the film Lady Jane when poor Jane was beaten by her parents into submission to marry Guildford. I have read no evidence to suggest this did actually happen in real life, but the point was it was to show that back then woman/girls were seen as chattels to be brought and sold as their peers saw fit. A woman/girl who thought, could quite possibly get ideas above her station, therefore in order to make sure that doesn’t happen you must chastise them the minute they step out of line. A woman/girl with a brain was a dangerous thing.
This behaviour really only became unacceptable after the First World war, during which time woman had to work on the land and do jobs that were normally considered a man only type of job. Woman proved to a male dominated sociaty that a woman was just as good as any man at doing a man’s job.

But then that actually started back in 1558 with Elizabeth, who not only proved to be every bit as good as any man and in my opinion far outstripped her father’s acheivements (easy enough considering the fat lying cheating sad sack of lard acheived very little when he ruled England anyway) However it was emeline Pankhurst who brought the woman’s lib movement forward, and now thanks to people like her sice then Woman have got the same rights as men and are considered their social equals.
Unfortunatly there are some men today who think it’s good to beat a woman senceless, and be grateful for the fact they even have them in their lives. This is abborant and should never be tolerated, but in Tudor times this would be seen as right and proper.

Is there any evidence that H8 actually did give any of his wives a backhander or 2? or did he just settle for giving them verbal and mental abuse instead?
His treatment of Mary suggests he was certainly very mentally and verbally abusive towards woman I just wondered if it mutated beyond that?

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

July 1, 2014
7:40 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

No there is no evidence that Henry hit his wives.
Norfolk treated all women with contempt as far as I can tell. (Except his first wife)
Yes, women were supposed to obey their parents and their husbands. It was not easy to be a woman back then.
Henry didn’t just threaten to lop off their heads, he did lop them off. Kings didn’t go about killing their wives. In that Henry was the exception. How can anyone respect the man for that? How can anyone today think that this was okay? Not many thought it was okay at the time.
We can talk all day about what rights women didn’t have, but no one would have thought a king at this time in history would kill his wife/wives. Well maybe after the first time they did expect it.
As I said previously, Henry shocked the world (in his own time) with his actions against his wives and daughters. We were just talking about the fact that Henry would have probably killed Mary had she not folded. That was not normal behavior for a king, and certainly not the actions of a great king.
I don’t know how his actions in this can be ignored, and how he can be raised so high in people’s estimations of him. And I refuse to believe that he turned suddenly into the nasty person he became due to that jousting accident. He was always heading in that direction.

July 2, 2014
3:17 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree Sharon, his manic and somewhat volatile behaviour had always been evident, it just became more obvisous after his jousting accident. So it was easier to blame his jousting accident as the cause for his mood changes. Thing is the joust of 1536 wasn’t the first accident he’s had in the tilt yard was it? Plus he contracted Smallpox or Measles when he was about 22/3 I believe which may have affected his virility.
Mercury poisoning has at one point or other has reared it’s head over a possibe cause for his behavioural changes. Not to sure but I believe long term exposure to Mercury can cause mood swings, similar to the ones experienced in Henry’s reign. I’ve mentioned this a few times now, but Ergot poisoning could also account for Henry volatile behaviour, Ergot is a fungus that grows on rye, and as Bread was or did contain rye it’s possible that he may have injested it at some point during towards the end of 35 early 36, as the harvests at that time were bad. Ergot poisoning, produces affects similar to that of LSD and makes the person sussessible to suggestion. I.e “Here Henry old boy Anne’s been diddling with others” which he believed, not because they were true (cause they weren’t) but because at the time he was having a major trip.
Another probable cause may have been he was infected with porthia, and as daft as this sounds this is at least plausable, after all his great grandfather Charles the Mad of France was known for his odd behaviour, at one point things were so bad that he believed he was made of Glass and would shatter if someone touched him. Porthia is a very odd disease and can skip many generations before rearing it’s head. It has been noted that Mary Queen of Scots during her illnesses had purple or plum coloured urine, and this fact was also noted in that of her son’s James.
I don’t believe there is any mention of odd or discoloured urine in Henry’s medical records. Porthia would be a reasonable hypothisis, as George 3rd during an attack would become extremely violent and at one point threatened or tried to kill his eldest son. George the 3rd when he was well was quite an amiable sort of chap really, and as long as things were running as Henry wanted them to run he was a happy go lucky sort of guy, Bluff King Hal as he was known. This is purely an opinion mind you. But none of these are solely responsible for his behaviour, they perhaps wouldn’t have helped him. in fact they probably added to them, and made his usual behaviour ie bad tempered illogical cowardly overbearing spiteful malicious, vindictive etc behaviour worse than it was. His jousting accidents curtailed his sporting activities and he was perhaps very frustated by that but that is no excuse for lopping heads off or being a total git to his wives just because he couldn’t cheat at real tennis or take the praise for riding past someone as they fell of their horse.
His treatment of Buckingham showed that he was perfectly able to lop off heads like cabbage stalks without so much as a backward glance, and of course there is his treatment of Empson and Dudley, when he came to the throne in 1509. Why did he lop their heads off? Ok so they weren’t very popular and perhaps got right up the bugles of the nobles with their high demands for tax etc, but you must agree they were effective in what they did.

I kind of get the feeling that because of the methods they used it kept the nobles from getting big ideas. Without money none of them could hope to raise sufficent funds to hire an army to rebel against the King in the first place. From what little I know about Buckingham his only crime was to go about claiming he had more right to the throne than Henry did, basically bluster and brag etc.. but then didn’t Henry bluster, blubber and brag too?

Strangely Henry did set the presedence for being able to execute an annoited Queen. Cromwell would have never got away with regiside if it hadn’t have been for Henry’s chopping spree with his wives, and neither could have Elizabeth with Mary Queen of Scots.

I agree that I think he would have been perfectly able to have signed Mary’s death warrant, but would he actually allowed it to be carried out? Such an action would bring about terrible consequences and he would have known that. All out war with Spain (in defence of Mary or more likely the Catholic faith) and his own people who dearly loved Mary at that time, might and probably could result in the loss of his throne. It all boils down to one thing with Henry. He was a Craven Coward.

I think he would have held Mary under a strict form of house arrest, with the sword of Damacles hanging perpetually over her head, in a way he would have used her to keep the Catholics in check, whilst she was alive they would more or less keep their gobs shut, but would know the minute they kicked off in anyway or form he would give the order for Mary’s bucket to be kicked. Possibly then finding scapegoats to cover up execution, by saying she had been murdered by such and such, thus preventing war. Her death warrant and all to do with it would then would do a Harry Potter and evaporate.

Actually looking at his whole reign I have to ask what exactly did he acheive?
Yes he had 6 wives, but then King Philip of Spain had 4 wives, and Ivan the terrible I believe had 8, 3 of whom he allegedly murdered, not to mention the allegded murder of his son. As it goes at one point Ivan the terrible was thinking about asking Elizabeth to marry him! The mind boggles to how such a suggestion would have been dealt with by Elizabeth.?
Yes I agree he brought about Religious reformation, but that would have happened anyway, he just happened to bring it forward a little faster than it would have done if it had come forward naturally. The world was a changing place, the Lutherans bite and message had taken hold.

His French campaigns were basically a waste of time and money. A few victories on capturing very minor and insignificant cities, which he had fitted out with all the latest weaponry etc, then sold them back to the French. So he got some money out of it, but not enough to cover the cost of the money he had put into kitting the city out in the first place. I wouldn’t even call the Val Dor a victory as such, as the peace between France and England was very short lived, and as it was he sulked because Francois beat him in a wrestling match, serves the fat git right, they always say the bigger they are the harder they fall. (I wonder if they felt a tremor in England when Henry got knocked on his arse by Francois? Possibly a 8.2 on the Ricter scale tremor)
He can’t claim the victory against the Scots at Flodden, 1 because at the time he was poncing about France playing at being a soldier (Bah Humbug)
and 2 it was K.O.A who was directing traffic concerning what the army were doing.. I would have loved to have seen his face when he recieved K.O.A’s letter concerning her victory at Flodden. I know that a week or so before he sent her a long letter saying “Here look what I have done. I have sent you the Duke de Longville and a few others aren’t I brilliant?” and in reply she sent him the bloody coat of the King of Scotland, saying ” I’ve defeated the King of Scots and kept England safe. Live Dukes? Get off out of it Henry you stupid ****wit, you ain’t done sod all.”
I dfon’t think he would have been too happy and he certainly made sure that his French victories (ha ha) out shadowed that of K.O.A’s victory over Scotland. K.O.A had shown the Scottish people that it’s best not to mess with England or else. How did Henry defeat France exactly? Quick Answer he didn’t. He married his sister to the French spider King Louis instead, thereby acheived a big fat zero.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

July 2, 2014
5:14 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

He executed his father’s advisers to garner favour, basically. He executed Buckingham because he wanted his lands. He may have executed his own daughter in the end, he had convinced himself she was illegitimate after all and she was refusing to submit to his will. He wasted money on campaigns because he wanted to prove himself better than his father, a sensible king who avoided war when possible and spent his life trying to build alliances instead.

If there is one amazing thing Catherine Howard did in her life it was to shatter his delusions about himself. But of course that never lasted long. In the end I like Starkey’s line on him in the recent doco on Anne, that Henry was a liar who believed his own lies.

July 2, 2014
6:37 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Totally agree Olga, especially when it came to K.H, personally I think that was part of the reason to why he had her executed, because she had blown away the illusion he had built up about himself. The Golden God he believed he was a Golden SOD after all. I believe that Henry’s behaviour after K.H’s execution got expenentionally worse and certainly more ruthless.
Henry wasn’t just a liar he was a hypocrite too.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

July 2, 2014
6:56 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

He executed his father’s advisers to garner favour, basically. He executed Buckingham because he wanted his lands. He may have executed his own daughter in the end, he had convinced himself she was illegitimate after all and she was refusing to submit to his will. He wasted money on campaigns because he wanted to prove himself better than his father, a sensible king who avoided war when possible and spent his life trying to build alliances instead.

If there is one amazing thing Catherine Howard did in her life it was to shatter his delusions about himself. But of course that never lasted long. In the end I like Starkey’s line on him in the recent doco on Anne, that Henry was a liar who believed his own lies.

Wonderful comment.Kiss

July 2, 2014
7:45 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The joust of 1524 was not serious they claim. However, he was hit in the head. Right above the eye and under his helmet. That must have hurt.
Mercury was never used as a cure for any of Henry’s illnesses.
Ergot poisoning would have affected the entire castle. Unless Henry ate every bit of the food that was served.
Charles of France thought he was made of glass…Henry was never ill like that. (although I am not sure the doctors would have known what it was. Some of Porphyria’s symptoms sound like run-of-the-mill illnesses. Except the mental changes, hallucinations, confusion, paranoia and the seizures. I doubt it, but it is possible I suppose.
Smallpox he had, but that disease doesn’t make people crazy. Not crazy enough to do what Henry did throughout his life.
He also suffered from Malaria at one point. This I know can return off and on during a lifetime, but again it doesn’t cause a person to kill his family and friends.
There was the leg issue, which worsened, and caused much pain. So he had that.
Then the joust of ’36 which is claimed to have damaged his frontal lobe.
Henry’s French war was a waste of all the money Empson and Dudley had gathered for Henry VI. Henry was hoping to make a name for himself.
How long would Mary have lasted under house arrest? Or in the Tower? One whiff of rebellion with her name attached to it and she would have been silenced for good. She would have died of natural causes, of course.

KOA didn’t hold out on the divorce just to be stubborn. Anne was not a home wrecker. Jane didn’t belligerently, nor selfishly step over Anne’s freshly dug grave to marry him. Henry told her when they were to be married. AOC did not smell, (the only one to mention that one was Henry) and she more than likely was a virgin. Katherine Howard, was not stupid, nor was she a whore. Katherine Parr was not married to him to be his nursemaid. These are all excuses made by people these days to allow Henry to look as if he was so much more than the tormented husband. He married all the wrong women, which wasn’t his fault, he was bewitched, blinded by love, and we should ignore his actions concerning his wives because they were, and they should remain, unimportant. His wives, and the way he treated them, are not important. Move along. Get to the part where Henry was so captivatingly important and one of the greatest monarchs to have graced the stage.
Sorry, I seem to have gone way off topic.

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: 427573

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1711

Posts: 23073

Newest Members:

LucasNorton, Smscum, tdleyz, Dular, Arisha, fgjkkbyfhbq

Administrators: Claire: 959