Thomas More, like Thomas Wolsey, had enormous influence over Henry in Henry’s early reign. They kept him grounded by telling him “what he should do, unstead of what he could do”. But More could not accept Henry as head of the church over the Pope, while others were telling Henry he was entitled to be head of the church in his own land. Henry accepted the advice which he wanted to hear, so by putting God above Henry and not submitting to Henry’s will, More was charged with treason. That’s why Henry killed him. It wasn’t because Henry was mad, it was because Henry was prepared to kill a loyal servant and friend who he believed, in his egotism, had shown disloyalty by loving God more than he loved Henry. I don’t think Henry was mad or that he became mad. He just became more and more corrupted by his own power.

How strange..that’s the next book in my pile. I’ll read it and post my feelings in the next weeek or so..shame, his ideas about women were far too entrenched in the old school religion of woman=fe-mina= fe(faith)+ mina(less)….

Luckily his daughters were highly educated..

Oh I forgot about More’s book, I saw it when I was browsing online and considered buying it (more for a lark) Weir mentioned it in her last novel. Something full of propaganda being her style of course

Moore wasn’t even born until 1478, so would have been only 7 years old when Richard died. His ‘memories’ of Richard must be those of a child. I don’t think he could have known Richard well at all, unless he was living in his household, which he didn’t seem to be. I don’t think he actually meant to outright lie about Richard, but I think he did abuse his position by writing what he did, which was gossip that he’d heard as a child, rather than facts. I find it odd that he wrote that history of Richard around the same time he was writing “Utopia”. Was the only reason for writing it as a piece of Tudor propaganda? I think that because of his position and associates, people took for granted that it was the truth and through the years it’s been taken as truth because of the author, not the facts.

Janet said

Moore wasn’t even born until 1478, so would have been only 7 years old when Richard died. His ‘memories’ of Richard must be those of a child. I don’t think he could have known Richard well at all, unless he was living in his household, which he didn’t seem to be. I don’t think he actually meant to outright lie about Richard, but I think he did abuse his position by writing what he did, which was gossip that he’d heard as a child, rather than facts. I find it odd that he wrote that history of Richard around the same time he was writing “Utopia”. Was the only reason for writing it as a piece of Tudor propaganda? I think that because of his position and associates, people took for granted that it was the truth and through the years it’s been taken as truth because of the author, not the facts.

My thought exactly, Janet. I don’t believe he intended to lie about Richard, rather that he probably genuinely believed the contemporary reports of that time, “facts” that he would have grown up with as a boy and had no reason to doubt given the bias against Richard during the Tudor period.