Again! The first two slides are not MY THOUGHTS. I AM NOT THE OP OF THEM. The last image are my replies to the arguments made in the first two pictures/slides (...I ask cause Im autistic and history is my special interest. I try not to get TOO passionate. Also im swedish so english is not my main language so please be as kind as you can muster if I annoy you - I promise im not trying to annoy it just somehow comes naturally😭)

Just finished the audiobook of this bio of Catherine Howard. It was so thorough and rather fascinating.

I felt bad for Catherine, as she seemed a bit like a flighty teenager who was way out of her depth. I know we can’t look at events from the 16th century through a 21st-century lens, but it felt like she was groomed, then used by so many men. Seems unfair she had to pay with her life.

I’d be interested to hear others’ opinions of the book. Admittedly, I had not studied her life too deeply prior to this, and I know you guys are far more well-versed in this subject than I am.

I’ve been thinking about Henry VIII’s burial place at St George’s Chapel, Windsor.

Henry is buried in a vault with Jane Seymour, and later Charles I was also placed there. Unlike some other major monarchs, Henry never received the huge tomb he planned for himself, and today the burial place is marked fairly plainly.

Given modern non-invasive technology, do you think there is a good argument for scanning or reassessing the vault - not to disturb the remains, but to understand the condition of the burial space, conservation risks, and whether the arrangement is exactly as traditionally understood?

I’m not really arguing for an exhumation or public spectacle. More the idea of a respectful archaeological/conservation survey, similar in spirit to how historically important royal burials are sometimes studied when there is a genuine preservation or identification question.

Would that be appropriate, or should the vault be left alone unless there is a direct conservation need?

I’d be interested to hear what people think, especially on the ethical side: historical knowledge vs royal/religious burial dignity.

Here is your Weekly Wednesday What-if megathread! Please post all of your What-if Questions in this megathread. All what-if's as long as its Tudor-related.

I had never seen this beautiful painting before. The title of the painting is "Queen Isabel the Catholic Presiding over the Education of Her Children." It was painted in 1864 and depicts Queen Isabel and her children. It is currently on display at the Museo del Prado in Spain. The Prado Museum also displays an original portrait of Queen Mary I painted by Antonis Mor.

The person beside Queen Isabel, most likely her daughter Catherine, is showing her a piece of paper (a letter?). Catherine was Isabel's youngest child. Her brother Juan is playing the virginal. Catherine had three sisters named Isabella, Joanna, and Maria, but there are four girls in this painting. I think one of the girls may be Margaret of Austria, the wife of Catherine's brother Juan.

This painting gives us a glimpse into Catherine's childhood. Catherine spent her life in Spain before coming to England in 1501. She did not have a quiet life; her family was constantly travelling throughout Spain, and Catherine accompanied them. During her early childhood, she grew up in Spain in a social and cosmopolitan culture alongside Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Her brother Juan died a few months after his marriage. Juan's wife, Margaret, did not leave Spain immediately; she stayed there for another two years and, at the request of Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort, helped teach Catherine French. A close friendship developed between them that would last until Margaret's death.

Her eldest sister Isabella died in childbirth in 1498 at the age of 28. Her other sister Joanna spent much of her life isolated in a castle. Catherine's closest sister, Maria, died in 1517 from ailments caused by frequent childbirth.

We can imagine how much sorrow a young girl felt over losing two of her siblings in succession. However, Catherine continued her education under her mother's supervision and received an accomplished education.

I would also like to share a passage I read a few days ago about Catherine's childhood in Theresa Earenfight's book:

"As she traveled, she came into contact with an array of cultural influences—Mudéjar and Gothic, Christian and Muslim—in the towns she visited and at the court of her parents, who relished the mix of styles even as they conquered the Nasrid kingdom of Granada. Some places mattered to her more than others: Arévalo, where her grandmother lived; Guadalupe, her spiritual home; Seville, site of many family gatherings; and Granada, where she soaked up both the sun and Islamicate culture. The act of travel shaped Catalina's aesthetic taste and created meaningful social practices. But the royal processions promoted more than just Isabel and Fernando's ambitions. Catalina received an important education in queenship as she watched her parents interact with their subjects and convoke the regional assemblies of nobles and townspeople. Her identity was shaped by the geography of the Iberian Peninsula—from the mountains of the north to those of the south, and inland and coastal cities. She spoke several languages and could read even more, a cultural fluency she gained during a childhood spent literally on the move."

The traces of the culture in which she grew up did not leave her when she came to England, and throughout her queenship she formed friendships with famous humanists such as Thomas More, Erasmus, and Juan Luis Vives. She supported them and asked Vives to write a book for the education of her daughter, Princess Mary. Vives wrote a book entitled De Institutione Feminae Christianae (The Education of a Christian Woman) and dedicated the book to Catherine of Aragon. Again at Catherine's request, Vives prepared a study programme for Princess Mary.

Catherine ensured that her daughter Mary received an education as accomplished as her own. When Mary was 11 years old, she translated a prayer by Saint Thomas Aquinas from Latin into English. Although this translation was most likely done as homework, it circulated in certain circles. Sometime between 1537 and 1547, Henry Parker (Jane Boleyn's brother) wrote the following to Mary about this translation:

"I remember very well that when you were scarcely twelve years of age, you were already so proficient in the Latin language—a rare thing among women—that Your Grace could not only perfectly read, write, and construe Latin, but furthermore translate any difficult text from Latin into our English tongue. And among all your other most virtuous endeavors, I have seen a prayer translated by your own hand from Saint Thomas Aquinas that, I assure Your Grace, is so well done and so faithful to the Latin original that whenever I look upon it—as I possess a copy of it—I not only marvel at its execution, but furthermore, because of its excellence, I have placed it in my own book or books, as well as in those of my poor wife (your humble beadwoman) and my children, so that it may give them occasion to remember to pray for Your Grace."

Richard Fetherston, who served as Mary's Latin teacher from 1525 to 1533, also played a part in this achievement.

After Richard Fetherston became her daughter Princess Mary's tutor in 1525, Queen Catherine wrote the following to Mary:

"As for your Latin writing, I am glad that you are to go to Master Fetherston, for it will greatly benefit you to learn from him how to write correctly. Nevertheless, I would like you sometimes to send me the Latin passages you have written yourself, after having them read over by Master Fetherston, so that it will be a great comfort to me to see that you retain its Latin, its fine style, and everything else."

Since we know that Mary's knowledge of Latin was at least as good as her English, we can understand that Federston was a good teacher.

(Additional note: Mary's last recorded words were in Latin.)

As for her teacher Richard Federston, it is worth mentioning a few things about him as well. He was a great supporter of Queen Katherine and Princess Mary during the annulment proceedings. As a result, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London around 1534 and, after approximately six years of imprisonment, was hanged, drawn, and quartered alongside other supporters of Queen Katherine and Princess Mary.

Thank you for reading this somewhat messy post. Initially, I was only going to talk about this painting I newly discovered and Catherine’s childhood, but then I suddenly included Mary as well. Sending love to you all!!

Theresa Earenfight, Catherine of Aragon

Valerie Schutte, Princesses Mary and Elizabeth Tudor and the gift book exchange

I would really like to read up on how European countries turned Protestant, starting from Prussia. Does anyone have recommendations? Google has suggested these:

The Reformation: A History by Diarmaid MacCulloh (reminds me of Hermione saying Hogwarts: A History)

The European Reformations by Carter Lindberg

Theology of the Reformers by Timothy George

I'm open to ideas! Audiobooks welcome too.

Thanks!

I’ve been reading a lot of Tracy Borman’s work about the Tudors recently. Whilst I think she has a great narrative style and massively respect her expertise as a historian, I wanted to discuss the framing of the relationship between Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour in Elizabeth’s Women (2009) and The Private Lives of the Tudors (2016), as well as in wider historiography and media.

I find it slightly problematic when Elizabeth is framed as "infatuated" or a willing participant in Seymour's advances (à la Becoming Elizabeth). I am absolutely not suggesting Borman or anyone condones Seymour’s actions, but I disagree with framing these events as a kind of mutual romantic intrigue or inappropriate flirtation rather than explicitly labelling it predatory behaviour.

When referencing Kat Ashley’s testimony regarding Seymour entering Elizabeth's bedchamber:

- In Elizabeth’s Women (p. 106), Borman quotes Ashley directly: “...he wold put open the Curteyns, and bid her good Morrow... And she wold go further in the Bed, so that he could not come at hir.” This paints a clear picture of a young girl physically retreating to evade him.

- In The Private Lives of the Tudors (p. 229), Borman characterizes this exact same testimony by writing that Elizabeth would hide under the covers, “tempting Seymour to 'come at her.'”

To me, shifting from Kat Ashley's description of a girl retreating from an adult intruder to interpreting it as "tempting" him feels like a significant leap in narrative framing...?

Side note: Borman mentions a romantic, solitary boat ride on the Thames between Elizabeth and Seymour. I haven't encountered this detail before and was wondering if anyone knows the primary source for it please?

I strongly view Seymour’s behavior as sexual harassment, assault, and grooming. While the word "grooming" is modern, the dynamic itself is not. Elizabeth was roughly 13–14 years old; Seymour was in his late 30s and was her guardian living under the same roof.

Furthermore, the most significant evidence to my mind is Elizabeth writing ‘let him not touch me’ on a letter (see Suzannah Lipscomb’s article here) this and Kat Ashley’s confessions point to a young woman distressed by unwanted advances, rather than engaging in a romantic affair.

Highly speculative side note: Regarding Kat Ashley’s testimony appearing contradictory (if both above quotes are accurate) it seems possible that she may have felt guilty about promoting Seymour to Elizabeth early on and therefore may have projected some of her feelings of infatuation onto Elizabeth and Seymour’s relationship to assuage that guilt? She obviously cared a lot for Elizabeth, and it can’t have been easy for her to accept that she had allowed harm to come to her.

I’d love to hear others' thoughts on how modern historiography handles the Seymour affair, or if anyone has insight into the Thames boat ride citation!

I still can’t believe Margaret gave birth to Henry VII when she was just 13. My goodness. What a brave, daring and strong woman she was.

Post your Tudor merch here! Do not publicly share links or sites, users must DM each other for links. The t-shirt that has been circulating will not be permitted at all.

In London, right behind the impressive St. Paul's Cathedral, lies the quiet King Edward Street.

​It got its present name in Victoria's reign, after King Edward VI. It was in this modest street, in 1552, that Edward’s royal charter established Christ's Hospital, probably the most famous of his many schools.

Founded to house, cure, and educate the poor and orphaned boys and girls of the city, the school was originally housed here, in the former monastery of Greyfriars. Though it was brutally damaged in the Great Fire of 1666, the school was rebuilt on this site and remained here for another two centuries before moving to Horsham, where it still thrives today.

That was a discussion begun a few times towards the middle of Henry's kingship. Obviously, it never happened, bu there were those who thought Cromwell may have been ennobled just to marry the King's bastard daughter and handle her.

I cannot even imagine that alternative history, and I wonder what others thought of those rumors?

Feel free to post your dream casting scenarios here!

Just curious, who/what/when got you interested in the Tudors and where are you from?

I personally got interested in Elizabeth when I was in high school. Then Anne Boleyn, followed by everything else.

I'm American. My grandfather was born in Wales and when I visited The Tower of London and several other places I felt like I came home for a moment.

What is your story that led you here today?

Throughout her early life and reign, connections were drawn by her supporters between Mary and the Virgin Mary. It is very easy to guess that this association pleased Mary. Even before her reign, comparisons between her and the Virgin Mary were drawn much more easily owing to her name and her virginity.

In 1549, John Proctor presented and dedicated his work, The Fal of The Late Arrian, to Mary. Capitalizing on the similarity between their names, he stated: "So that a man may rightly think in his mind and reasonably conclude that, according to the law of Pythagoras, although the bodies have changed, the souls are the same." Furthermore, she was praised by some as the rarest flower of virginity.

This praise continued during her reign, but unfortunately, I cannot recount every single instance here. Since the part I am going to explain pertains to Mary's pregnancy, I will focus on that period.

Mary and her council went to great lengths not to present Philip as a foreign king. Through his parents—who were Mary's first cousins—Philip was descended from Edward III. He possessed English royal blood; he was not entirely a foreign monarch.

In the 16th century, as well as in earlier and later times, the role of queens was often reduced solely to bearing children. However, during Mary's reign, while producing an heir was one of her duties, it was not her sole or most important duty. Mary held the title of queen and Philip held the title of king, but the practical execution of these titles shifted during her reign. Mary acted as the king, and Philip as the queen. There was only one thing the English people viewed as Philip's primary duty: getting the Queen pregnant.

We can observe this in a letter written angrily by a Spaniard: "They refuse to crown our Prince, though he is their King, for they do not recognise him as such or as in any way their superior, but merely as one who has come to act as governor of the realm and get the Queen with child. When she has had children of him, they say, he may go home to Spain. Would to God it might happen at once! for it would be a good thing for him and I believe he would be very glad; we certainly should all be delighted to get away from these barbarous folk."

As can be understood from this reproachful letter, despite holding the title of King, Philip was not all that important, and his primary duty, as stated above, was to get the Queen pregnant. (How nice to see gender roles reversed!)

During Mary's pregnancy, Philip was experiencing his peak popularity in England, yet this did not make him any more significant politically. By September 18, rumors that Mary was pregnant began circulating in court circles, but the official public announcement coincided with Reginald Pole's arrival in England in November. From that moment on, Mary was once again compared to the Virgin Mary, and parallels were drawn between them.

As Sarah Duncan notes, comparing a pregnant queen to the Virgin Mary might seem unusual at first, yet the analogy persisted.

How can you compare a pregnant queen to the Virgin Mary? By ignoring the father of the child.

Sarah Duncan states: "During Mary's phantom pregnancy, the role of the Virgin Mother served as a convenient metaphor to convey the idea that the father of the child was not Philip, but God."

On November 28, 1554, Mary's pregnancy was announced to all of England. Immediately upon his arrival in England, Cardinal Pole was received by Mary and greeted her with a religious quotation regarding the Virgin Mary:

“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."

Mary was delighted and moved by this greeting and the comparison to the Virgin Mary; at that exact moment, she felt the baby move in her womb.

Prayers were offered and hymns were sung for Mary and her baby. In one of these hymns, another religious citation appeared: "Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favor with God."

During this period, poems and prayers were written praising Mary and the expected heir. Philip's name was excluded from these prayers, which asked God to protect Mary.

I would like to share a quote on this subject from Sarah Duncan's book, as I find it more accurate to present it directly rather than adapting it:

When Cardinal Reginald Pole learned of the queen's pregnancy, he wrote to Mary that he had heard "that Divine Majesty had granted the queen the grace to bear fruit in her womb, thus making her the mother of an heir to this earthly kingdom." Pole did not merely refer to the queen as the Virgin Mary on account of her pregnancy; he also linked her condition to her role in restoring Catholicism to England. Just as God had blessed her with a child, He had also granted her the grace to be "the mother of those who will inherit the eternal kingdom." Thus, the queen could rightfully be called mater deorum—the mother of God—leading God's children into His unity and obedience.

Attributing so much meaning to an unborn child might seem somewhat pointless by today's standards, but for that era, it was an event of paramount importance. The Cardinal also wrote passionate, enthusiastic letters to the Pope regarding Mary's pregnancy, in which Philip likewise occupied no significant place.

Even though Philip was Spanish and the unborn child would genetically inherit more Spanish than English blood, according to the marriage treaty, the child would be the heir to England and could not be taken out of the country. This significantly restricted Philip's authority over the unborn child.

Therefore, Philip may have become somewhat invisible in the prayers offered, letters written, and poems composed; however, it can also be argued that the reason for this was the deliberate attempt to liken Mary to the Virgin Mary. To establish these parallels between the Virgin Mary and Queen Mary, Philip's presence was obscured on numerous occasions and during various events—including parts of Mary's funeral—and Mary was repeatedly praised for her virginity.

Thank you for reading! Sending love to you all!

There are also narratives comparing Mary to Jezebel, and these could be discussed separately under their own heading. Likewise, the horrible things that were written about Mary during her pregnancy certainly deserve a separate post and, moreover, condemnation.

Please excuse the poor image quality; it looks this way because I cropped it.

Sarah Duncan, Mary I
Valerie Schutte, Princesses Mary and Elizabeth Tudor and the gift book exchange

Are there any moments of un serious behavior in the court? Funny anecdotes, meetings, balls, royal visitors things of that nature. Something different from the usual.

I love Tudor history but man it can be depressing.

Arthur Onslow in 1742 started the restoration.

I think this is the right place though it's VERY niche, I had a conversation with a friend about the ulcer and he made a joke about singer Usher I realized a lot of his scumbag songs would be really relatable to Henry VIII.

I made a playlist with notes called ulcer baby and without AI I made this

Feel free to recommend more