History myths that persist.

[Pyan]

He is certainly one of our most famous monarchs, who had a lasting influence on our culture via his reforms of the church..

And was, as I may have said before, a foul-tempered, gluttonous, bloodthirsty tyrant who, as well as ordering the executions of two of the women who had the misfortune to marry him (on trumped-up charges and for his own selfish ends), had an estimated 57,000 people executed during his 36-year reign. Horrible man.

 

[paranoid marvin]

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

Good points. I think that what defines Henry as the most powerful is that he had complete comtrol over church and state. He also had both France and Spain vying for his friendship, and it was this that helped gain England much influence.

Also in England, Henry was incrediblt popular with both his lords and his people. Even during uprises, it was never Jenry wjo was criticised (usually Cromwell). It probably helps that in Wolsey and Cromwell he had such able advisers.

But Henry was genuinely loved by his people, because he had the common touch; he could speak to people and make them love, admire and respect him. If you see the painting at Hampton Court Palace with Henry surrounded by his family, and staring out of the picture towards the viewer (something that wasn't the norm back then), you can't help but be struck by his presence.

 

[CupofJoe]

One of my favourites is that England/Britain/United Kingdom hasn't been invaded since 1066.
Even a very conservative counts means there have been at least 2 successful invasions.

 

[paranoid marvin]

And was, as I may have said before, a foul-tempered, gluttonous, bloodthirsty tyrant who, as well as ordering the executions of two of the women who had the misfortune to marry him (on trumped-up charges and for his own selfish ends), had an estimated 57,000 people executed during his 36-year reign. Horrible man.

Absolutely this as well. Even for a man of his time, he was excessive in all respects.

 

[Karapace]

One of my favourites is that England/Britain/United Kingdom hasn't been invaded since 1066.
Even a very conservative counts means there have been at least 2 successful invasions.

True. There have been several. Matilda and Henry II (1153), Prince Louis of France (1215), not to mention others going into exile and coming back. Other than the 1066 one though I would say the "Glorious Revoution" when William of Orange came over was the only one to have any major effect (Though Henry II might count as well.
One of my more obscure fun facts is that there were four non-canon monarchs to rule (albeit briefly) - Edgar II (nominated by the Witan after Harold was killed but before William had consolodated power), Matilda (daugther of Henry I), Louis (who spent nearly a year as king after John in 1215 but was never crowned), and Lady Jane Grey,

 

[paranoid marvin]

It's lauggable that Stephwn gets to be recpgnised as king even though Matilda doesn't. Same with Edward V but not Jane Grey.

Any coincidence that they were women?

 

[Vladd67]

It's lauggable that Stephwn gets to be recpgnised as king even though Matilda doesn't. Same with Edward V but not Jane Grey.

Any coincidence that they were women?

Wasn't that part of the reason for the war with Stephen and Matilda?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Wasn't that part of the reason for the war with Stephen and Matilda?

Yes. Henry I got his barons to swear that Matilda - his only child - would be Queen when he died.

But they didn't think much of a woman being in charge, so when Stephen - William the Conqueror's daughter's son - rushed to England to be crowned, not a lot was said.

Basically men took precedence with the succession.

The problem was this though: Matilda was a woman, and wouldn't usually be counted. "Ah, said others. If women don't count, then William the Conqueror's daughter - and any issue that comes from her - should be ineligible. Because even though Stephen was a man, he came from an ineligible - ie female - line of succession."

"Who cares?," says Stephen. I'm now King, and you can't un-king a king."

So there was a big war between those staying loyal to their oaths to Henry and Matilda, and those who preferred a man in charge. Until with only one surviving male heir between Matilda and Stephen, it was agreed that he would stay King, but Matilda's son Henry II would succeed him.

 

[thaddeus6th]

The Stephen-Matilda thing might be because he got crowned and recognised, then the agreement (when his son died) was that Stephen was king but would be succeeded by Henry II. Sometimes, king/emperor lists can be oddly tricky. Whether or not to include Quintillus after Claudius II, or various contenders in the multiple major civil wars of Rome, can be debated a lot.

It also depends on whether one considers a monarch to need a crowning/coronation. Usually, this was the case and happened immediately (see Henry I, distraught over his brother's 'hunting accident', getting crowned the same day). The first time it didn't happen was Edward I, over a hundred years after the Stephen-Matilda situation. That was because he was in the Holy Land having a spot of crusading and had no rival to dispute it.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Once you've bern made king, thrre's no going back. Stephen knew ghis, and rushed to Winchester to be crowned. Matilda, having had Henry nominate her as heir, and having had the barons swear oaths to uphold this, probably didn't think the matter was that urgent.

Of course, once you are king - especially a disputed king - you have a huge target over your head. Because the only way to 'un-king' a king is to kill them.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Yeah, Stephen was a bit weird. Super fast off the mark to yoink the crown, but then weirdly merciful (to a detrimental level as it cost him support). But that mercy also ensured the survival of a young hostage called William Marshal whom Stephen should've had killed when William's father reneged on a promise of loyalty. And yet, William ended up as regent of England and saved the country by winning the Battle of Lincoln. /endramble

 

[BAYLOR]

And was, as I may have said before, a foul-tempered, gluttonous, bloodthirsty tyrant who, as well as ordering the executions of two of the women who had the misfortune to marry him (on trumped-up charges and for his own selfish ends), had an estimated 57,000 people executed during his 36-year reign. Horrible man.

if Arthur Tudor had not died, Henry would have most likely have ended up in the Church .

 

[paranoid marvin]

Yeah, Stephen was a bit weird. Super fast off the mark to yoink the crown, but then weirdly merciful (to a detrimental level as it cost him support). But that mercy also ensured the survival of a young hostage called William Marshal whom Stephen should've had killed when William's father reneged on a promise of loyalty. And yet, William ended up as regent of England and saved the country by winning the Battle of Lincoln. /endramble

Ah William Marshal (or William the Marshal) was a real character in English history.

 

[sknox]

>Basically men took precedence with the succession. The problem was this though...

This is a point worth, er, pointing out. It's easy to say men took precedence with succession, but the practice of this principle was not nearly so easy to implement. Inheriting through the female line is but one example.

It's also worth noting that women could and did inherit, and could and did wield power. There was another Matilda, down in Italy, who comes to mind, but there were others. I'm not at all arguing there was some sort of gender equality in the Middle Ages! But it's very easy to get so caught up in English history that one starts to believe that was the pattern all across Europe.

Since the British Isles are not my stomping grounds, I'll ask this: are there examples of female inheritance of title and land *outside* the royal houses (Scotland and Ireland included)? Non-royal nobility, that is. And if there was inheritance, are there examples of wielding of active power by those women? For convenience, let's cut off at 1500.

 

[Danny McG]

Gorillas capturing Ostriches.

Sausages!