Thursday, March 29, 2012

The Katherine Parr Stereotype!


Our beloved Queen Katherine Parr is becoming stereotyped thanks to Agnes Strickland!

When you hear the words "Katherine Parr", what do you think of?
 Do you think of a kindly noblewoman who played nurse to her sick old husband and singlehandedly brought the royal family back together? or do you think of a proud reformist who liked children and was using her position as queen to promote the Reformation? If you thougth the first ideal you believe the stereo-type! Back in the Victorian age, the world's worst historian, Agnes Strickland, created a description of Katherine Parr as a kindly 'ol widow who was mainly a nurse and a caregiver. There is, however, no evidence that's supports Katherine ever acted as nurse to Henry VIII. Also, it wasnt her idea alone to re-legitamatize Mary and Elizabeth. Yeah, she supported it but, she didnt do it single-handedly! I do have to give thanks to a historian i dont usually complement, David Starkey, for pointing this out to me a few years back in his book "Six Wives: the Queens of Henry VIII". After reading that i changed my opinion on Queen Katherine and researched more into her life. The more i research the more the stereotype seemed false. Please, when you hear about Katherine Parr, remember she's a reformist, not a nurse! :)

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Remember C.I.B.T.A.F!!!

For those who are new to the wonderful world of Tudor History, the "Great Matter" might be a little confusing. especailly remembering who's biased towards who! Luckily, i am here to help! If their last name is Boleyn (with the exception of Mary Boleyn) they are biased towards the Boleyn faction. If their name sounds Spanish or they are proudly Catholic, they are more than likely Aragonsese Faction members. And the most important one of all to remember is Chapuys!!! Who doesnt love Chapuys??? :) and the easy way to remember which side he's on is C.I.B.T.A.F! It stand for...
Towards the
Hope it helps! (oh, and i'll be using this acronym alot so...yeah...)

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

An Unanswered Question...

Tudor History is filled with unanswered questions. How exactly did Darnley die? Was Amy Robsart murdered? Did Jane "Lady Rochford" Parkey really testify agaisnt Anne Boleyn? Were Robert Dudley and Douglass Sheffield really married? but, one question seems to bug me more than any other...

Why is William Maitland referred to as "Maitland" and never by his title, Lethington? (he was the earl of Lethington)

Every book on MQoS (Mary Queen of Scots) I read referes to him as Maitland. But, people like Moray are still called "Moray" and Huntly and Bothwell and Darnley are also referred to as their titles. I dont know, maybe "Maitland and Moray" sounds better than "Lethington and Moray". If i ever write a book on MQoS (and I plan on doing so) i'll refer to him as "Lethington" just cuz i can :)

Random Maitland Fact: in the ending credits of the 1936 movie "Mary of Scotland" it lists characters Maitland & Lexington. ???? Not only do they not know Maitland and Lethington are the same person, they don't know how to spell Lethington...

Monday, March 26, 2012

Elizabeth Wydeville & Anne Boleyn: History Repeats It's Self

Anne Boleyn

Elizabeth Wydeville
Elizabeth Wydeville and Anne Boleyn, both Queens of England, Both have a direct connection to the Tudors. But, what most people overlook is that they have a lot more in common than just that! Their stories seem almost parralell to each other. People say history repeats it's self, Who knew it would be so soon! :)

Elizabeth Wydeville

Elizabeth Wydeville came from an obscure commoner family. No one had ever heard of her until she married someone from the noble family of Grey. But, that marriage didnt last long as her husband died. I'm not sure exactly how, but, the Yorkist king, Edward IV met Elizabeth and fell in love with her. Edward's original plan was to add Elizabeth to his list of mistresses (include the famous Elizabeth "Jane Shore" ) Elizabeth refused, in fact, she didnt really care for him at first. But, Edward eventually wore her down and they were married. Elizabeth then gave birth to their first child, a girl, named Elizabeth. (later the wife of one of my faaaaaaaaavourite Tudor characters Henry VII :) ) Of course, Edward was upset that he still didnt have an heir. Elizabeth then gave birth to more daughters (Cecilly, Katherine, Anne Etc.) Then, during the crisis of 1470, She gave birth to Edward's namesake and heir (later Edwarrd V, one of the Princes in the Tower). After that came the other prince in the tower, Richard, Duke of York, and the youngest daughter, Bridget (who later became a nun). Elizabeth outlived her husband and survived into the reign of Henry VII

Anne Boleyn

What Tudor fan HASNT heard about Anne Boleyn? Most are at least familair with her story but, i shall tell it again, highlighting the parts the corrospond with Elizabeth's. Anne Boleyn also came from a obscure almost commoner family, and was born in 1501. She left for France to finish her education and serve Queen Mary Tudor (and later Queen Claude "The Good"). When she came back to England she starred in a pageant. This is where king Henry VIII first met her. His original plan was to add her to his list of mistresses (Include the famous "Bessie Blount" who was recently married off to one of the Talbots). Anne refused, in fact, she didnt even really care for him at first. But, after the "Great Matter" she eventually married him. She then gave birth to a daughter, named Elizabeth. Of course, Henry VIII was dissapointed. And, when Anne couldnt produce a male heir in the next few years, she was sent to the tower to be beheaded (on FALSE charges by the way) On May 19th (a day Anne Boleyn fans are all too familiar with) Anne was beheaded in the French style. By a sword.

So, can you see the similarity between these two queens? They came from two totally different worlds and yet, they have so much in common. :)

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Elizabeth I's successors (and all that ...)

  Now, let's take a moment to talk claims... (claims to succeed Elizabeth I, that is...). As every self-respecting Tudor fan knows, Elizabeth refused to name a successor. Some people think James VI/I was Elizabeth's only choice. Well, they would be... WRONG!!!!! There were lots of other options. (some, even, with Plantagenet blood!) Here's  a summary about each person's claim and wether or not i think she should've succeeded her:
  • Mary, Queen of Scots--  Who wanted the English throne more than her eh? :) Being named successor is what drove her more than anything but, how strong was her claim? When Elizabeth took the throne the direct (and legitimate) line of Henry VIII had just about died out. (Elizabeth was the last represenative). Henry VIII's will had excluded Margaret Tudor's desecedants however, there was some debate as to wether it actaully was to be used and stuff like that. So let's put "The Will" aside and her claim looks pretty good. she desedent from the eldest daughter of Henry VII and from her eldest child (James V). But, we have forgotten the most important thing. The law that no foreigner would rule England. Mary is a foreigner twice over, born in Scotland and  grew up in France. And, judging by the way she ruled Scotland, i dont want her on the English throne...

  • Lord Darnley: Now, i know what youre thinking... "Doestnt that foreigners cant rule thing apply to him too?".NOPE! Darnley was born in England and grew up in England. As far as heritiary claims goes, he desecedant form Margaret Tudor (The elder Tudor sister) from her second marriage to Archibald Dougals. (This is just a side note but, he also has Scottish royal blood). So if we (agian) put Henry VIII's aside, then Darnley is first in line for the throne. But, the least qualified. (Just look at his breif reign as king consort of Scots and you'll know why!)

  • Catherine Grey (and her sons): Catherine wanted the throne just as bad as Mary Queen of Scots, but, it was not her driving force. She made a secret marriage to Edward Seymour (son of Jane Seymour's brother) But, Catheirne was a girl and desecended from the younger Tudor sister, (Mary Tudor). Thus, put her way far done on the succession (and her sons as well) but, if we go by Henry VIII's will then she and her sons are the clear successors to Elizabeth.

  • Mary Grey: She didnt push her claim at all. She had no children and married for love to Thomas Keyes. According to Henry VIII's will she was right after Catherine Grey in the succession but, she never a threat nor wanted to. She wasnt qualified and thus, couldnt have to taken the throne

  • Arbella Stuart:  Unlike everyone else we talked about, she was still alive at the time of Elizabeth's death. She had been educated at Hardwick hall in a "Queenly Way". She was the daughter of Charles Stuart (Darnley's younger brother) and Elizabeth Cavendish. Through her father she had a undisputable cliam to the English throne. In my opinion, given that the surviving Yorkist claiments wanted nothing to do with the crown, Arbella should've succeeded Elizabeth. She had the quialifactions and the strongest claim. James VI/I was a foreigner (born in Scotland, remember?) so techiniqually he shouldn't even been a possiable successor. After Elizabeth, we should've have had Queen Arbella I....

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Mary Queen of Scots: the Movie

Mary Queen of Scots
Maybe you're like me and love it when Tudor movies stick to the facts. If it's not accurate, i wont watch it. I do have to give the 1971 movie "Mary, Queen of Scots" credit for TRYING to stick to the facts and yet, it failed...epically... How so? you might ask. I have seen this movie countless times and have over 150 things wrong. Here's a list:

  • Vanessa Redgrave is the WORST possiable choice to play Mary, she looks nothing like her and Mary wasnt blonde!!
  • Moray looked nothing like his portrait
  • Where was Lennox? (Mathew Stuart)
  • Where was Randolph?? and Throckmorton??
  • Mary was supposed to be about 6 feet tall but, didnt look it in the movie
  • Ruthven, (around the time of Rizzio's murder) was suppossed not to look healthy and trouble walking. The movie didnt protray this.
  • Where was James Balfour?
  • Where was Melville? and Bess of Hardwick? and MAITLAND!!!!!!!???
  • There were two women who gave (sorta) independant testimony to the Darnley murder but, the movie left them out.
  • Francis II looked much to old (and too healthy! :) )
  • Jean Gordon looked nothing like her portrait
  • Morton needed more hatred for Darnley
  • Bothwell also didnt seem evil enough
  • When Mary was supposed to be pregnant she didnt look it
  • Rizzio needed to be shorter
  • two words... MORE WALSHINGHAM!!!
  • Mary was suppossed to have poor posture but, the movie forgot this too...
  • Darnley didnt appear to want the crown matirmonial as badly as he actaully did.
  • Catherine De Medici was never mentioned by name.
  • They made Robert Dudley too ambitious
  • Where was Bothwell's servent "Paris"?
  • While in Scotland, Mary was suppossed to have acquired a Scottish accent but the movie didnt portray this
  • In one of the earlier scenes, Elizabeth I is wearing a ruff of a later (1580's) style.
  • The movie portrayed Mary and Bothwell as being in love when they NEVER WERE!!!!
  • They called Moray, Mary's brother when he's actaully her half-brother.
  • They left out the scene where Mary coaxes sick Darnley out of Glasgow and back to Edinburgh
  • Elizabeth and Mary were NOT suppossed to meet each other, EVER!!!
  • Mary didnt write the Casket Letters as the movie claim's she did. (They're forgories)
  • When Mary left France the movie made it sound as if she was forced to go to Scotland by Catherine De Medici
  • It never showed Mary miscarrying of twins by Bothwell
  • There should've been a scene where Mary escapes form Loch Leven but there wasnt it.
  • They also forgot Mary's brush with death at Jedburgh
  • While Mary was in captivity she was suppossed to do a lot of sewing but, i never saw her once pick up a needle
  • Mary loooooooved dogs but in the movie i only saw her with a dog once
  • They needed to stress Mary's intial popularity with the commoners more!
  • Mary was suppossed to be sleeping when Darnley was murdered but the movie claims she wasnt
  • Mary's marriage to Bothwell was overlooked and never shown
  • Before Mary gave birth to James VI/I she was supposed to have drawn up a will
  • The skipped over the whole Mary and Norfolk thing...
  • They also left out Mary's comment to Paris on her way out of the Old Provost's Lodging
  • The forgot that John Knox actuall came to court during Mary's early reaign
  • Mary didnt pretend to misscarry DIRECTLY after the Rizzio murder as the movie claims she did
  • When Mary left Old Provot's Logining she said she was going to Mary Fleming's wedding BUT she ACTAULLLY was going to the wedding masque of Christina Hogg and Bastian Pagez
  • Mary was suppossed to have worn black when she married Darnley and changed clothes afterwards
  • The lady at Mary's dinner party (the one in which Rizzio was murdered) was Mary Seton in the movie but to be acurate it needed to be the Countess of Argyll (Mary's half-sister)
  • They claim Mary wanted Darnley murdered when she didnt
  • Mary was suppossed to exile Moray AFTER she married Darnley, but of course the movie gets this wrong and TOTALLY OMITS the Chase-About-Raid
  • It actually took more than 1 blow to cut off Mary's head.
  • She (Mary) never mentioned marrying Don Carlos
  • When Darnley was murdered, where was William Taylor???? and the pear tree????
  • When Darnley was murdered, where were his other personal belongings?
  • They didnt specify the Darnley had chosen to go to Old Provost's Lodging (O.P.L.) or that he was going there at all. They simplely said, "Kirk-O-Field"
  • The gunpowder used to blow up O.P.L. was suppossed to be put in Mary's chamber, not spread all around the house.
  • The movie claims it was Darnley who put the gumpowder at OPL but, it was acutally Bothwell and his helpers.
  • Darnley's last words were incorrect
  • Darnley was not sent to Scotland to woo Mary but, to help his father (Lennox) with financal stuff
  • During the marriage scene of Mary & Darnley, Darnley was supposed to give Mary 3 rings, (The middle one being shiny red) but in the movie he just gave her a plain silver one
  • Darnley was also suppossed to be created Earl of Ross and Duke of Albany
  • The movie claims Darnley owned a house in Kirk-O-Field when he actually didnt
  • Pro-Lennox propaganda was never mentioned
  • When Darnley was murder he still had pock marks on his face when actaully they werent suppossed to be there
  • Before Mary married Darnley was suppossed to have gotten sick with measles
  • When Elizabeth introduces Danrley, she says "and a member of one of England's oldest Cathoic families:" THIS CANNOT BE TRUE!!!!! becasue Darnley's father was an exiled Scottish lord and his Mother was a Tudor and a Douglas (the Douglases are Scottish). So how can he be a member of an old English family when he's primarily Scottish and hasnt been in England that long?
  • In the scnen where Mary pardons Moray, Darnley says Moray hates and Bothwell says Moray hates him more. If so, why was Moray allied wtih Bothwell agaisnt Darnley at the time? :)
  • We never get to see Bothwell's trial for Darnley's murder
  • When Darnley was sick at OPL part of his treatment is medicinal baths. Why didnt i see a bathtub in his room at OPL
  • Darnley didnt hear of his murder by seeing gunpowder, he heard Paris and the duplicate keys
  • The Earl of Morton was not there at OPL the night of Darnley's murder, in fact he wasnt even in Edinburgh at the time
  • After Darnley was murdered his body was not layed out in the right posotion, (hasn't the movie people seen Drury's drawing?)
  • How would Bothwell know that Darnley was sick when he first fell ill at the Lennox stronghold of Glasgow?
  • In the movie Mary claims that, when she dies, Darnley will have no rights to crown. Actually, he will because Lennox descendants from the royal house of Stewart :)
  • The opening to Rizzio's murder is way off...  The secret staircase from Darnley's to Mary's room wasnt even used!
  • There werent enough dinner guests at Mary's party
  • Are you SURE they stabbed Rizzio 56 times??
  • The movie claims Rizzio dissaproves of the Darnley's marriage to Mary but acutally he supported it
  • Rizzio's murder bond was never in England
  • Rizzio was actually Mary's seceratary of French affiars, not her cheif minister
  • I didnt see anyone take Darnley's dagger during the Rizzio murder like someone was suppossed to
  • After the Rizzio murder, Mary didnt escape with Bothwell as the moive claims she did
  • Rizzio's last words were said in Italian, not Engish (Oh, and they were a little bit off)
  • Mary and Darnley escaped to DUNBAR not HERMITAGE!!!!
  • Huntly actually DIDNT help in Rizzio's murder
  • They totally forgot that Cecil was busying pushing the Grey sisters claim
  • Amy Robsart's death was explained in enought detail
  • I dont recall Elizabeth ordering a period of Court Mourning as the movie claims she did
  • Elizabeth was suppossed to sent Margaret Douglas to the Tower after Darnley refused to go back to England. Acutally, i didnt see Margaret Douglas at alL!!!
  • I only saw 3 of the 4 Maries
  • During the end credits the movie claims "The Throne (of england) passed to the only possiable claiment, James VI/I" but, they forgot about Arbella Stuart and Katherine Grey's sons, and the desendants of  Eleanor Brandon
  • They never did saw of Bothwell got his divorce from Jean Gordon
  • The Ridolfi plot was totally skipped over
  • "Ainsle's Tavern Bond" was never mentioned
  • They didnt stress the fact that Bothwell and Huntly were allies
  • James VI/I was suppossed to be born in the afternoon, the movies shows him being born at night.
  • How could Bothwell be at Darnley and Mary's wedding if he was acutally in exile at the tiime?
  • AND MORE!!!!
so as you can see, as far as accuracy goes, this movie epicall failed. however they did have a few good things giong for them

  • Walshingaham, the guy that plated him was PERFECT
  • Elizabeth I = Glenda Jackson.... need i say more?
and that's about it... if you haven't seen the movie yet... please... keep these things in mind while watching....

Friday, March 23, 2012

Hello Everyone! I'm Emily-TT, and I (like you probably) love Tudor History! This blog is dedicated to all things Tudor, from Edward IV to Arbella Stuart and everything inbetween. I'm going to be talking about Tudor events and people. Now, let's get one thing striaght right off the bat, NEVER trust Agnes Strickland (I'll get to that later...) Also remember, C.I.B.T.A.F. (that's also coming later). Stay tuned, more to come!