Henry VIII - The Mind of a Tyrant (episode1, part1/5)

[littleangel7900]

hey now history could be inaccurate! richard couldve been a nice guy,have you seen the horrible histories king richard the third song. shakespear wrote the bad play about him to please queen elizabeth to make it seem like hey gandfather had been right in taking the throne away from him. now im not saying im a richard fan but thats just my veiw on things.

[ElvenAngel]

Thank you for posting this series! I'm a bit of a history nerd and Henry VIII is one of my bigger interests. :) It's always great to get access to a series I otherwise would be unable to enjoy! You're awesome!

[Miss65boo]

The princes in the tower were declaired illigitamate (sp?) after their parents marriage was considered invalid, this was before Richard III was crowned, so they weren't a threat to his becoming king, therefore why would he have had them murdered. It makes no sense. Much of what was written about Richard III was Tudor propaganda, including Shakespeare's play.

[califotec]

@Miss65boo From what I remember, the princes were declared illegitimate not because their parents' marriage was considered invalid, but because their father, King Edward IV was said to have been illegitimate by some (due to his marked lack of resemblance to his father and siblings because of his exceptional height, whereas most members of the House Of York were not known to be very tall) However, Edward was said to bear some resemblance to his younger brother, George.

[Miss65boo]

@califotec That is very interesting, I had not heard that before. Thank you for your response. I'll do some more research on it.

[califotec]

@Miss65boo In this way,Richard declared his brother Edward illegitimate several months after his death, and therefore his children as well, who 'disappeared' from the Tower in a month or so after he was declared the legitimate heir to the throne in parliament, prior to his succession.

[califotec]

@Miss65boo They (the princes) were slowly removed from public view increasingly before their supposed death, probably because Richard was afraid of any opposition to his accession, and wanted to remove them from the "hearts and minds" of the people in the hope of destroying or stopping any who would attempt to undermine or question his power. I agree with you that Shakespeare may have altered facts here and there in the play to villainize Richard, but it is a largely accurate account.

[ElvenAngel]

@califotec Shakespearean-era propaganda aside, there still isn't enough evidence to support that theory in a concrete way. There just isn't enough facts to say what really happened and whether it was Richard himself or his circle that did away with the princes. The incident of the princes is just too steeped in popular myth, hearsay, and most of all, a lot of Tudor propaganda that keeps us from discerning what really happened around that time.

[califotec]

@ElvenAngel I agree! History is written by the victors (the Tudors and their supporters in this case) - for the most part anyways.

[DarthFanta]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Forcroi]

pity that there are not any real equivalents of BBC in other European countries. I would very much like to see a documentary of this sort about the monarchs of France, Spain & Holy Roman Empire (sigh)

P.S. many thanks to the uploader :)

[CherryBlossomBlyue]

I think that Henry VIII is a great example of the Phrase absolute Power Absolutely Corrupts. I think cause no on ever tolds him No and he was being pulled in so many directions it messed with his head and made him a monster.

[324wilson]

Starkey brings history to life!

[SharnsiR]

If you like this, watch the show "The Tudors". It's freaking amazing and fairly factually accurate. They only took some small dramatic license in things like they showed Henry VIII's sister Margaret as married to Charles Brandon, when that was actually Mary. Mary wasn't in it at all. I think they did that because the real Margaret had such an amazing history it would compete with Henry's story.

[tiki8761]

@SharnsiR They did it because they thought the viewers would get confused between her and Henry VIII's daughter. I guess they wanted to avoid having two Mary Tudors.

[ShayLee0501]

@tiki8761 It's very common in royalty to pass names down the family, so I don't think it would have been too confusing, especially as Mary was a little girl. Also, unless speaking directly to the person, they are usually announced or talked about with their full title, which would allow the writers to clearly show the audience which Mary they were talking about. Henry's sister Mary would have been the Queen of France (not Portugal) and then the Duchess of Suffolk.

[tiki8761]

@ShayLee0501 Well the people who made the show thought it was confusing enough haha. And they never even mentioned Margaret Queen of Scots, nor that the Margaret in the Tudors who had Mary's story had any children before she died. I think it's one of the reasons why the show couldn't continue, a lot of key people who were born from Margaret Queen of Scots, and Mary Tudor the king's sister are involved later in history.

[jlalewicz]

I have a question that it sure would be nice to get a 'first-hand' British opinion about, without having to try to figure out what internet sources are reliable & which aren't for the answer. How is Henry VIII remembered or viewed in England today in retrospect by the people there? Do they believe he made any worthwhile & lasting contribution?How does he rank among the British monarchs?

[ShayLee0501]

@jlalewicz I hope my opinion is good enough as I'm Australian, but my parents are British, I have a child with a Pom (what we call English ppl) & I've been over there a couple of times. Henry VIII is still beloved by the English but is seen mainly as 'the King who chopped off the heads of all his wives'. There are plenty of non-educated Poms out there who think he cut heads off all 8 wives, even though he only had 6 & only 2 of those lost their heads (the two who were cousins & he loved most).

[jlalewicz]

@ShayLee0501 Well thank you so much. Wasn't sure I'd get an answer since it had been a while. I do understand why he is beloved. I first watched the Tudors then went in search for something more factual Considering his childhood & these were very different times than today, that he was raised to believe that he was a king 'by the will of God & his birthright'; I come away with the idea that he loved his country & his 'people'. Sure he had a huge ego but must be viewed in historical context.

[ShayLee0501]

@jlalewicz Well yes & no on if he truly loved his people. He loved BEING loved by them. He didn't take good care of them & could be quite the tyrant at times. His father was hated for being a miser, even though this made the country rich. The people loved the glittering "Bluff King Hal", pageants, free wine flowing through drains at celebrations, but they also grew poor under his rule. The man himself was very complex. He had a strong conscience but it was flexible to reflect what he wanted.

[jlalewicz]

@ShayLee0501 Ugh. Perhaps I didn't phrase my response very well. lol. I do agree he was a tyrant & an extremely conflicted man. Since having read up on him tho' I no longer view him as the monster I once did but rather view him thru the proper historical framework. I believe he was molded by circumstances of his youth as well as I suppose we all are but yes like I said, HUGE ego & definitely hedonistic. Agree he placed his own pleasure above all on his priority list.

[ShayLee0501]

@jlalewicz Hard to talk about that because if you go by his upbringing he should NOT have had the sense of overwhelming ego that he did. He was raised to be the 'spare' out of the 'heir and spare' mentality that royals had. Arthur was the heir (and first husband of Catherine of Aragon) which meant Henry was raised as a relatively unimportant second son. Personally I think he was born to be brash and arrogant as some people just are, as was his sister Margaret. Mary seems to have been sweeter.

[jlalewicz]

@ShayLee0501 btw...Pom?? lol. I like that:)

[ShayLee0501]

@jlalewicz It's generally believed to be "prisoner of mother england" or POME which some sources claim was stamped on convict uniforms. There is no evidence to support this. It's meant affectionately and is 'warmer' than Yank, which is what we call ALL Americans, north and south. That isn't meant to be offensive but it's not affectionate either, just a statement. Does that make sense? Anyway, some Poms argue that it's actually Australian's who're Poms because we are owned by England.

[jlalewicz]

@ShayLee0501 Yes! After I read your first response I just HAD to google the etiology of the 'pom' reference:) Wow. So many different opinions out there on how the expression originated! Read something about pomegranates as well. That the inside of a pomegranates is reddish in color, the color a 'Brit' will turn in the Aussie sun:) I too wondered if this would be considered offensive but it does appear that no if anything they find it 'amusing'. Thanks for sharing that, I learned something today.

[ShayLee0501]

@jlalewicz That's accurate as theories go. The 2 major theories r the writing on prisoner's clothing (debunked as no historical evidence supports it... but it did gain colloquial popularity) or yes, that whitey English folk turn red under our sun. That latter doesn't really fit though bc we used the term long ago when most of us were directly descended from English & therefore have the same pasty complexion. It could also be that Catherine of Aragon had a Pomegranate as her emblem from Spain.

[ultradumbass]

the story that richard 3 killed his nephew is pure rubbish. even most historians of the tudor area now question it. king richard how no need to kill them, as he was already a successor higher than his nephews, however some speculate henry 7 or several other subjects to have been suspected to have been the true plotters.

[ShayLee0501]

@ultradumbass Richard was not higher in the succession to his nephews. However, he had already proclaimed them bastards on the pretext that Edward was pre-contracted to another woman before he married Elizabeth (possible but doubtful). Once they'd been largely accepted as bastards, he did not need to kill them, though to be safe he may have. Personally I believe Henry VII or his controlling Lancastrian mother & her supporters arranged for their murders. Richard seems less scheming.

[ultradumbass]

@ShayLee0501 honestly i don't think either richard 3 or henry 7 did it since if any of them did do it and people found out it could tarnish their reputation and possibly have a rebellion take them out of power and possibly cause their life. i think it may have been a deranged servant who for whatever reason may have killed them on their own.

[ShayLee0501]

@ultradumbass You're correct there. When people say "Richard the III did it" or "Henry the VII" did it, they don't mean that these rulers did it themselves! Of course they mean that a servant did it. In fact it would be a servant or mercenary hired by a more obscure branch of the family who stood to gain. The servant or mercenary would be in the employ of a family member who was far enough from the throne not to be highly suspect. Royals usually don't do their own dirty work!

[starrynightz]

OMG thank you so much! I've been wanting to see this!

[idis91]

gold worth for a real history lover. thank you !:)

[MrSelfDestrukt7]

Henry the VIII - The original separator of Church and State.

[stonewindimmortal]

Henry got fat, couldn't see his Penis, got angry and became Henry the 8th we all know today.

[ShayLee0501]

@stonewindimmortal Bwah hahahahaha. So true methinks.

[84ccipollini]

Richard III was my favorite monarch. Henry is overrated.

[destyrian]

@84ccipollini Henry isn't "rated" as such, just famous because of his Tyranny and arrogance. Though he did some goods in our country (i.e getting rid of Catholicism, even if it was for the wrong reasons). Richard III was no saint either.

[liona5]

@84ccipollini

and he got owned by Henry's dad! :D

[ShayLee0501]

@84ccipollini Richard the III was your favorite? I find him kind of boring. I much prefer Edward II, the one who died with the hot poker up the arse as an ironic way to be rid of the gay king, who had showed off his lovers too much (to the financial detriment of the country and leading to him getting poor advice). OK, maybe he wasn't killed that way, but it's my favorite theory and I think the She-Wolf was capable of it. Elizabeth I is my favorite. Such a brilliant, patient, strong woman.

[Ceri40]

Thank you very much for posting this series! My province aired this series last year, but I only just found out about it & couldn't find it until I found your up links. Merci beaucoup!

[henry8freak]

thank you so much for posting this. We have the book in australia, but I have no idea if we'll be getting the tv series, which so fascinating as well as informative. I really appreciate this, so thanks again :)

[PomfretAli]

Thank you so much! In the US, despite the most disgusting PBS beg-a-thons supposedly raising money for good programming, we will never see this series. Too busy making Wayne Dyer and God only knows what other person stating the obvious we want to make a millionaire, to show such well done and fascinating work.

[SharnsiR]

@PomfretAli I love educated Americans. Good on you for having more taste than most of your nation! Actually I shouldn't insult America. The whole world is as bad. I got such a shock to see that not only is there a British Idol and "Australian Idol", but there's even Vietnamese Idol, Chinese Idol, and many european versions of Idol, Big Brother and many other mindlessly boring mass produced pulp reality tv. :(

[gdholmfirth]

@PomfretAli Agree with everything you said. I turn the TV off and read. I have a couple of books by this fellow (David Starkey), also Robert Lacey, Robert Hutchinson ("The Last Days of Henry VIII"), Alison Weir's "Henry VIII", and about a hundred other books on English history. My advice: turn off your TV and read, before your brains turn to porridge. Just because I'm an American doesn't mean I must watch the horrible TV programs that could only entertain the mind of a 5-year-old.

[ShayLee0501]

@gdholmfirth Have u read Alison Weir's "Innocent Traitor"? That's my favourite by her. It's a really well researched historical fiction on Lady Jane Grey & how she was forced at just 14 to be Queen for 9 days between Henry's son Edward & Bloody Mary, leading to her execution. She was a sad loss to educated, bright women everywhere in the world at that time. Ms. Weir does a fantastic job of using evidence to build a picture of Lady Jane's character & how she would not have wished to be a traitor.

[tiki8761]

@ShayLee0501 I recently just finished that novel! Really great, but so sad. Poor Jane, going through so much in her brief and short life. I of course already knew what would happen in the end, but it still got some tears out of me. I also finished reading The White Queen by Philippa Gregory. It's really interesting how she portrays Elizabeth Woodville. I have yet to get the sequel, The Red Queen. I read the first chapter though and liked it already.

[ShayLee0501]

@tiki8761 OMG, that's so interesting because I just finished reading the Red Queen, but haven't read the White Queen yet. I've read a lot about Elizabeth Woodville by Jean Plaidy but not so much about Henry VII's mother (the Red Queen). I love that Gregory runs with the theory that Henry VII's mother was largely behind the murder of the little princes in the tower. That makes so much more sense than Richard doing it.

[tiki8761]

@ShayLee0501 I think that Richard the 3rd's rule is a case of history being told by the winners. We only got to hear the propaganda spewed by the Tudors for such a long time. I am almost done with reading the Boleyn Inheritance and afterwards it's The Queen's Fool I have next to read. I got quite a few books more afterwards to keep me occupied xP

[ShayLee0501]

@tiki8761 I agree 100%. History is written by the victor! Who wrote those 2 books? I'd like to read them. I highly recommend anything by Eleanor Hibbert under pen name Jean Plaidy (don't bother with Victoria Holt, Phillipa Carr etc. as they're pure fiction). JP's very historically accurate & does a lot of research to make the protagonists' personalities close to what they must have been. She contradicts these a little btwn different books, which makes sense as who can be sure how they were like?

[tiki8761]

@ShayLee0501 They are also by Philippa Gregory ^.^ I also started watching the Borgias. It was recommended to me to watch since I loved The Tudors, I knew a bit already about Pope Alexander VI so it was interesting watching this show.

[ShayLee0501]

@tiki8761 You're shitting me? The Borgias is out??? I've been waiting for it! I thought Phillippa Gregory but then remembered she also had a pen name of Carr. I swear Eleanor Hibbert was the most prolific writer in the universe!!! LOL

You REALLY need to read Madonna of the Seven Hills & Light on Lucrezia by Jean Plaidy. Lucrezia has been demonized unfairly by history. Also a rare nonfic book by JP, 'A Triptych of Poisoners' has a section on Cesare Borgia, who I have a post mortem crush on LOL

[tiki8761]

@ShayLee0501 I know, poor Lucrezia. I have Sins of the House of Borgia in my pile of books but I haven't gotten to reading it yet. The Borgias just had their season finale so you got 9 episodes to watch ^-^ it's pretty good.

[ShayLee0501]

@tiki8761 Who wrote Sins of the House of Borgia? It sounds intriguing but it must be very large as their sins were inumerable if history can be believed. I'm so excited to hear it's out! I missed your reply until now!!! *goes searching*

[ShayLee0501]

@tiki8761 Oh and did I mention the game Assassin's Creed II & Assassin's Creed Brotherhood? I'm playing the latter now. In the first you have to beat up the pope!!! It's Okay though as it's only Roderigo Borgia whom even the most devout Catholics surely would not accept as a pope worthy of the title or even as a remotely pious or godly man (ROFL). In the second you see a great deal of Cesare, who is your arch enemy and also Lucrezia, though so far she is portrayed as fairly wicked.

[CherryBlossomBlyue]

@tiki8761 Whoa I have read both of those books, They a re pretty good, probably very historically inaccurate but still good

[ShayLee0501]

@PomfretAli Oh really? If I were u I'd be very worried that if the American programmers ever decide to air this, they will remake it with American writers, American cast & reflect American culture, just like they do with every other awesome British show. You'd be amazed how many US shows are remakes of British ones. Shameless is a good example. They even did a pilot for an American Red Dwarf with Lister collecting baseball cards and a female tough guy Cat! This could be called 'the Hiltons'!

[ShayLee0501]

@PomfretAli oh wait, I'm sorry I take that back. I thought this link in my email was to a clip from "The Tudors". If you haven't seen that I highly recommend it.

[324wilson]

Starkey is amazing!

[poo0115104]

aww were can I find the entire episode

[lg3704]

Thanks for posting this. I just came back from seeing the Tower of London :D

[IrishEyez01]

clap clap clap!!! Awesome! I abs adore Tudor history! TY so much for the post! Glad I subbed!! ((hugs))

[beretta1342000]

This is so intresting! I was wondering where is the rest so I can watch it! I love stuff about Henry the eighth and that whole period. It's so intresting. Kinda of an obession with me! History is the best!

[Daniella26able]

@beretta1342000 It's my obsession too!!