History myths that persist.

My apologies if I generalised perhaps a little too much in my last post.

There are a number of rumours and suppositions and a great deal of political intrigue during this period of history. It's not certain that Elizabeth was involved in any of the plots against Mary, although it's probable that she was aware of them, and approached by those seeking her support in a rebellion against Mary. The only thing for certain was that in the event of Mary being deposed, the main benefactor would be Elizabeth and this had been reason enough to execute people in the past. Why didn't Mary execute Elizabeth? Possibly because there was no hard evidence, possibly because she had friends in high places at court, possibly because Mary feared instigating a significant Protestant uprising in Elizabeth's defence. If they had been able to get a confession from Elizabeth (and her inquisitors thought her guilty) none of this would have saved her from the block.

I agree that Mary Queen of Scots eventually brought about her own downfall, but by that time she had been driven to desperate measures. Desperate measures brought about in part due to Mary's naivety, but exacerbated by Elizabeth's treatment of her.

I also agree that Jane and Dudley were badly treated, but to be fair Mary didn't execute them until several months later, and only then after a substantial uprising instigated by her father. With both of their fathers (rightly) executed for treason, it was likely that no further threat would be posed by Jane; in fact with her alive, it actually improved Mary's position as any factions against her would have been divided between Jane and Elizabeth. So I agree that in all respects Mary was quite foolish (and harsh) in carrying out their executions; but this is what happened to anyone who was seen to usurp the throne, willingly or otherwise.

But to be honest, I stand by my description of Henry's dispute with the Pope as a 'petty dispute'. Henry had been a great supporter of the Church, and it was only after he couldn't get his own way in having his marriage annulled that he allowed the likes of Cromwell and Cranmer (and possibly Anne Boleyn) to persuade him that he could break away from Rome, make himself head of the Church, and make a fortune with the dissolution of the monasteries. And it all came about not because Henry was a Protestant (he remained a Catholic, and had been hailed as 'Defender of the Faith') but because the Pope said 'no' to someone who wasn't accustomed to rejection. If he'd said 'yes' to an annulment of his marriage, then the Reformation would never have taken place (at least not at that time).
 
I was somewhat disappointed when I learned that Molotov cocktail petrol bombs were not invented by the Russian politico, they were actually named that by the Finn's to mock him.
 
It's well said that many of these "myths" serve to make later persons enjoy a high conceit of themselves.
 
There was a minor reverse payback, though, after the war:

Post war railings in London.
1723504899851.jpeg

Source of the above:

1723504923345.jpeg
 
I've always thought, that the "spitfire drives", aluminium pot collections and taking down civic railing, was never about the material that would be reclaimed and reused.
It was probably no use in the aero or munitions industry.
What it was supposed to do was to drive home the message that this war was going to effect everything and to get every one involved.
 
Dave said:
Also, some of those "myths" quoted are as a result of Hollywood movies. it is unfortunate that dramatised versions of events become the generally accepted versions when they play so loosely with history.
Click to expand...
Shakespere was an early exponant of historical myths. Henry V was not welsh but Henry VII was. Shakespere used his plays to legitimise the current rulers (sensibly as they were paying)
 
Karapace said:
Shakespere was an early exponant of historical myths. Henry V was not welsh but Henry VII was. Shakespere used his plays to legitimise the current rulers (sensibly as they were paying)
Click to expand...

Shakespeare wrote plays to make money. Very little of his work was based on English history; but when he did write about it, he tended to cover the kings with whom his audiences were familiar.

It's interesting to note that in his play about Richard III - which brought about the beginning of the rule of the Tudor dynasty - Henry VII hardly appears at all.

But it's entirely plausible that 'William Shakespeare' was a pseudonym used by several writers at court. Maybe some day people will think that Harper Collins was a prolific author.
 
paranoid marvin said:
Very little of his work was based on English history; but when he did write about it, he tended to cover the kings with whom his audiences were familiar.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say very little. 11 out of 39 currently known and accepted plays (Edward III being recently added to the canon) are about English kings, just over a quarter. It is interesting that he skips over henry VII but covers Henry VIII.
 
Pyan said:
Perhaps the Queen respected her grandfather, but didn't care what was said about her father after what he did to her mother..
Click to expand...


It's quite remarkable just how much love and respect gained considering how tyrannical he became. But he was the larger than life king who had the greatest power of any ruler of England, and they all realised that.

Henry VII was the unpopular one, who brought peace to his kingdom by taxing people rather than fighting them. He amassed a huge fortune and healed the rifts caused by the civil war, but as far as his people were concerned, he was not a notable monarch.

Most of Henry VIII' reign was spent with religious reform and finding a wife who would give him a son; topics he wisely refrained from covering in much detail. Heretics ended up tied to a stake or on the block, and who knew what religioys belief the next monarch would expect from his people.
 
Karapace said:
I wouldn't say very little. 11 out of 39 currently known and accepted plays (Edward III being recently added to the canon) are about English kings, just over a quarter. It is interesting that he skips over henry VII but covers Henry VIII.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to his total amount of sonnets and plays which total over 200. His historical plays only amount to about 5% of his overall writings.

He does mention Henry VIII, but he is a bit part player in Richard III. Considering the bravert, charm, wit and cunning he gave Richard, it's a little suprising he got away with it.
 
paranoid marvin said:
He does mention Henry VIII, but he is a bit part player in Richard III. Considering the bravert, charm, wit and cunning he gave Richard, it's a little suprising he got away with it.
Click to expand...
I thought there was a whole play about Henry VIII, co-written by John Fletcher.
 
paranoid marvin said:
It's quite remarkable just how much love and respect gained considering how tyrannical he became. But he was the larger than life king who had the greatest power of any ruler of England, and they all realised that.
Click to expand...
He is certainly one of our most famous monarchs, who had a lasting influence on our culture via his reforms of the church, but I would argue that Henry II had more actual power in terms of lands ruled. However that being said Henry II still bowed to the Pope (apart from that little incident with Thomas Beckett) whereas Henry VIII said sod you I'm going to be the head of the church
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Foxbat History's (almost) Forgotten Heroines History 12
Extollager Hawking's Brief History of Time 1990 -- still worth reading? Book Discussion 20
L Cannot find a 1990s/early 2000s story about (ultimately erroneous) biological differences between Catholics/Protestants/ alternate history Book Search 5
Astro Pen Good book on the history of Penguin cover design Publishing 0
sknox Public school history History 62

Similar threads


Back
Top