Tag: allegoriesinmediares

What are your favorite historical Tudor burns, if you can think of any? Ik “I would rather die…” and “if I had two heads…” are apocryphal but still awesome tho.

Idk how many of these are “burns”, mainly just ones I think are Funny:

Unpopular opinion: even if KoA was childless by the great Matter, she would have still fought to remain queen bc it was as much about her pride and want for status as defending Mary’s rights. (Not my opinion, but one I’ve seen kicked around.)

Hmm…yeah, I’d say I don’t know about this, honestly?

I actually think for KoA it was more about her pride and the feeling that she deserved her status, that it was her right to be Queen (it wasn’t like…her birthright but you know, she’d been anointed by holy oil at her coronation so ostensibly, that which is God-given can’t be taken away), than it was about or ‘for’ Mary but at the same time…

Without Mary she wouldn’t have had much of a case; her sort of counterargument to the whole Leviticus thing was like ‘if our marriage is so punished by God, and it says if I consummated the marriage with Arthur we’d be cursed with no children, then doesn’t Mary prove that I didn’t’; also ostensibly in the future Mary could wed herself and secure the line by having her own male heir. 

IIRC, Henry’s counterargument to that was, if I’m not mistaken, that the Hebrew translation specificed ‘sonless’ rather than ‘childless’ and I’m not a theologian/linguist/expert so idk if that was true but anyways;

I guess I’d say I disagree with that; I don’t think she would fought it to the same extent if she’d have no living children by Henry (actually, I think if she’d had no living children by like….1520, that probably would’ve been around the time he’d have asked for an annulment instead, so it might have been a moot point). I think also she might not have fought it as much because she probably wouldn’t have had the same foreign support despite her familial connections; it would have seemed more reasonable to annul a childless marriage had that been the case.

Do you think Henry believed Mary’s submission to be genuine? He did leave her a place in the succession although he would have known that she was still a papist at heart and would undo all his work. Or is it a matter of Henry’s sentiments not really being anti-Catholic as they were anti-Pope? Or did he view England falling into the hands of Scottish relatives or others as a worse fate than his own daughter sitting on the throne?

Hmmm….I don’t really know but I honestly don’t think it matters, that much? What was most important about Mary signing the Acts was the symbolism of those signatures; not so much whether they were genuine (so long as she wasn’t also publicly speaking against him).

The reason More was executed, despite his former close relationship with Henry VIII, was due mainly to the symbolism of that act of defiance. He couldn’t, as a ruler, demand all his subjects sign but make exceptions for those close to him. This would undermine the Church of England, and his kingship, in the following ways:

A) it would have made Henry look a fool/incompetent leader, one that could not gain loyalty from his subjects

B) it would have given others that may have dissented but signed out of self-protection, and also rebels, a rallying point/figure to center around, and possibly offer support to– it would give them a symbol of rebellion

I don’t think he thought, in all honesty, that it was likely that Mary would become ruler. It was a fail-safe. However, Henry did care about the security of England (I’ll challenge anyone that says he didn’t– I’m so tired of people reducing the succession crisis/Great Matter to Henry’s megalomania, given the precedence of the WOTR and the civil war that erupted after Empress Matilda was left as heir apparent, I cannot even tell you), and he had known the death of male heirs/family close to him, even after they’d survived to teenage years, with Arthur Tudor and Henry Fitzroy. 

So, yes, I would say Henry viewed England falling into the hands of Scottish relatives or other relations as a worse fate– because it would jeopradize the security of England. 

He knew it was possible, and on what he viewed as the slim chance that Edward VI wouldn’t survive, or would survive but wouldn’t have issue by whoever his future consort would be for whatever reason, he knew a secure line of succession was vital. Mary had been his de facto heir for a time, the North had known her and loved her (and did still), and Edward was his only legitimate son (only legitimate child, actually, by the law and in his eyes, I suppose). If he’d had another, of course then the second in line would be another legitimate son, then Mary (most likely, I think)– but he hadn’t. 

Failing Edward, it was Mary, then Elizabeth for the succession because they were the most likely heirs that English subjects would unify under and accept. They were the ones that could, if duty and tragic circumstance called, secure the Tudor line and continue out the legacy with their own issue. The issue of either of Henry’s sisters probably wouldn’t have; there was neither enough recognition of them by the people to warrant such a thing, nor was it as direct a descendancy as Henry’s own issue (and Mary Tudor’s were solely female besides– hence Edward VI choosing Jane Grey).

Re: “Anne was stupid to stake everything and lose” — didn’t just about every queen consort “stake everything” on the chances of having a son? Obviously not all of them were risking what Anne risked, but the consequences — annulment, divorce, banishment, soured relations between home countries — were still dire, if not as unprecedented as execution.

I don’t know if I would say “stake everything”. The consequences could certainly be dire for foreign royal consorts as well, sure…but they weren’t usually “everything”. 

To have a son was, to use an anachronistic term, a vital part of the “job description” of Queen Consort. More so than being loved, although that certainly helped (people often mention that ambassadorial account of COA being well-loved by the English people with a tone of “how could he ever thought of annulling the marriage”– but their love of the Queen in no way guaranteed there wouldn’t be a civil war in the event of no male heir). But she wouldn’t have expected to be executed for failing to meet it (although I’m not of the mind it was the sole cause of her downfall; rather just one on a list of contributing factors that made her more vulnerable); at most I suppose she might have feared being placed in lodgings far from the main court, as COA had been. 

And she wouldn’t have expected to not be able to. Childbirth could be dire, too, but her closest female relatives– her mother, and sister– had survived it with only a few miscarriages. Both had sons, and Anne was young– realistically, she probably expected she’d be able to do the same. 

I think she had a better, more sharp take on how long exactly things could stall re: the annulment of Henry’s first marriage, though– he seems like he was more hopeful about it. I don’t think she believed it would take six years, though.