1536 - One of the Worst Years in British History?

[TheStinch16]

surely the years of marys and the beginning of elizabeths reign were equally as bad if not worse! mary burnt hundreds of people at the stake for being protestants whereas henry converted back to catholicism before his death to ensure he would spend as little time in purgetory as possible and arguably only implemented protestantism in order to marry and divorce regularly.

[alanheath]

I don't think the speaker goes far enough. I doubt your average peasant in the field would know much about Henry other than that he was king. On the other hand a lot would be known about the church which not only was the centre of life but also controlled access to heaven. People do not give up superstitions easily today, how much less so with the threat of hell and eternal damnation hanging over.

I cannot understand why Henry took the risk.

[WillShakespeare2007]

So we would be much better off with the Catholic Church running Europe? Lets bring back burning witches and murdering anyone that disagrees with the church. The changes might have been rough for superstitious peasants but staying attached to Rome would have been much worse for everyone on the planet. I suggest he moves to Iran as he clearly loves the idea of a theocratic dictatorship so much. He can stone women all day and reminisce how it could have been in Britain today.

[Krshwunk]

@WillShakespeare2007 Protestants burned more witches that the Catholic Church did. After the Reformation, witch-burning skyrocketed.

[WillShakespeare2007]

@Krshwunk - They were used as an aspect of war between Catholics and Protestant that is why. But how is that relivant if we had not freed ourselved from the Catholic Church they would still be happening today. Kids would be tauth that the sun revolved around the earth (the Catholic Church only accepted this was wrong in 1996). No condoms, no IVF and no medical care as only God can know how the human body works. Now go away and take your sky daddy with you.

[Krshwunk]

@WillShakespeare2007 No condoms. Amen.

The Catholic Church just condemned the idea that the sun was the center of the universe. Turns out it's not. Galileo was wrong.

Catholics don't condemn health care. In fact, 1 out of every 6 hospitals in the U.S. is a Catholic hospital.

[TheShadowParliament]

I would say that one of the worst years in British history was 1776..when the American Colonies declaired independence. England's original colonies were lost,and the United States Of America was created. The USA would one day surpass England in terms of strength and influence,and in today's world..England obeys America..what a role reversal.

[BritishBlue1]

@TheShadowParliament

I'd take your opinion with a grain of salt given your country of origin, you're highly biased. The revolutionary war mostly affected the aristocratic and wealthy classes (who had large amounts of money invested in the north american colonies) but for the average Briton the rebellion just wasn't a big deal.

The war with the French, led by Bonaparte, was much more traumatic for the British nation, the american rebels were a sideshow.

[Chicagoan444]

Very interesting!

[PeaceLoveSmile4]

Henry VIII was selfish and cruel, no wonder it was a horrible time in British history! God bless Katherine and Anne especially!

[gdholmfirth]

Another great book is "The Last Days of Henry VIII" by Robert Hutchinson. In response to xsexyminxyx, the word you were looking for is "Syphilus", and some historians now think Henry didn't have it; his symptoms recorded by his doctor more likely indicate Type II diabetes. 1536 was the year Henry had a bad jousting accident that made a wound on one of his legs that never healed. He fell and had a concussion also. Brain damage would account for some of his actions from this point on in his life.

[thinazzabird]

Is 1812 the year the summer of no sun?

[IDontLiveTodayJH]

That would be every year in Britain

[xsexyminxyx]

the only thing i thought was bad about 1536 was the loss of anne boleyn.

she was my favourite wife, aside from Katherine of Aragon.

if only she gave the king a son..

[ChoiFungWa]

She could have, but they said he gave her STDs~

Sigh...

[xsexyminxyx]

yeah. henry showed signs of having sitholis during the time he was with katherine of aragon.

so anne boleyn might have got it.

[elaine31347]

@xsexyminxyx What is sitholis? I can't find it anywhere on the net....

[whiskygurl13]

if you remember from health class its the sperm that chooses the sex of the baby not the woman......so he just had girly sperm ....

[xsexyminxyx]

yeah i know haha,

but lets face it they didnt no that and henry wouldnt have liked the idea of it being his fault

[SgtPepperGirl]

@xsexyminxyx What about Jane Seymour?

[xsexyminxyx]

ive commented 3 times so..

if you mean about the std's she probably caught it.

if you mean about me having favourites - no i didnt like jane seymour much.

and the third i cant really reply to? XD

[LeN0Re18]

@xsexyminxyx if you favorite queen gives the king a son, Elizabeth would never reign....

[FoxyPrincess321]

Can u post the rest of this conversation?

[FoxyPrincess321]

They said that the next year was 1812, what happened in 1812?

[NielsEbbesen]

That year was also decisive for some of the Nordic countries. After a 2 year civil war, the Danish king Christian the Third, who was a committed Lutheran, won control of Denmark, Norway and Iceland.

In 1536 he forced through the reformation in these countries, essentially crushing the Catholic church, who had been present in the region for more than 500 years. This was done so efficiently that, unlike Britain and many other countries, the catholics were never even able to attempt a comeback.

[mmedefarge]

The Romans weren't that bad; they bought civilization to the British Isles, written language, sophisticated building techniques, roads and other technologies. Henry the VIII had about 72,000 of his fellow citizens put to death during his reign and countless others were imprisoned. The blitz killed 65,000 British citizens.

[fleurgi]

the romans were not bad at all they were the greatest and i consider them still to be the greatest of empires after Alexander. the british obviously didn't mind it bc they seem obbessed with creating a great empire like the romans

[mmedefarge]

I agree. They even had central heating & liked to bathe daily, something the world forgot until the end of the 19th century. I'd take living under the pragmatic Romans any day rather than living under the murderous, religious zealots who followed.

[goodgirlkay]

@fleurgi The Romans were savages! Murderous dogs! They make Medieval Europeans seems quaint by comparison...They considered it great entertainment to watch men, women and even children being devoured by wild beasts in their Arena, and of course, watching people hack each other to death was great sport...At least in the Middle Ages they had the decency to pretend they were torturing and burning people because God told them to, not just for kicks...

[fleurgi]

@goodgirlkay then why if there culture was so horrid did so many cultures after them try to emulate there ruling system/ take there many words and why did so many of these christian kings and queens commission paintings with themselves present among the many roman gods. they obviously admired roman culture. believe me the reasons for killing others no matter how u try to justify them do not make the act any better. they is no decency in hiding behind a cover to commit evil acts against others

[CULAVE]

1536 is certainly in there. Among other years would be 60 (Boudicca's rebellion- very violent year, bloodiest battle on British soil recorded at Watling St), 1349 (the Black Death), 1471 (the peak of the War of the Roses) 1642 (one of the bloodiest years of the Civil War) 1666 (The Great Plague AND The Great Fire of London) 1940 and 1941 (the deadliest years of the Blitz)

[rubyflipper]

1536--Was certainly considered one of the most fearful times to have lives in history. Both Catholics and Protestants suffered terribly.

[severyn1982]

at least get it right if youre doing a movie

[littlemisssunnydale]

Get what right?

[alanheath]

@littlemisssunnydale You got it absolutely right - well done!

[britneystars2]

Katharine of Aragon died in 1536

[jennifersheelah]

so did Anne Boleyn

[raceygofast]

So many years to choose from for this category.

[katharinethequene]

1536 - The Year of Three Queens

[lookinglass123]

How...Anne was crowned 33, died mid 36. Jane lasted until late 37...who is the third? Have I totally mind blanked

[katharinethequene]

It has been dubbed by some "The Year of 3 Queens" (Antoina Fraser mentions it in her book about the wives) ecause there were 3 women who could claim to be Queen that Year - Catalina of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, and Jane Seymour.

[MandyMaidstone]

Catherine of Aragon never accepted the divorce.

[lookinglass123]

Oh...bit weak argument, but fair enough!

[Gvanillavodka]

are those pictures in the beginning what castles are those?

[fatmaccam]

not castles...abbeys and monasteries, most probably.

[Gvanillavodka]

Thank you :)

[xxHistoryGirl23xx]

wonderful! Thank you for posting.

[littlemisssunnydale]

Thank you!

[bodicatudor]

close but not close enough...

he was a great king who gave us a great queen..

the bottom line i think ..was he didn't like being a catholic. and going by them today i can't say i blame him..

thanks for the video..any chance of putting the rest of the prince and the pauper on..please..pretty please..

[lookinglass123]

He was a great king...but he was also a tyrant. He didn't like being catholic because when he tried to marry Anne and he couldn't, he found that there was power outside his juridiction. He maintained catholicism as the official religion. Not that I blame him for splitting with Rome, master stroke, in my opinion :)

[coolbrian15]

1349ad was the plague

[CULAVE]

coolbrian15- good point.

[weeknightingale]

Very interesting!

[lookinglass123]

Awesome!!! What are the other years?

[littlemisssunnydale]

Thank you!

Overall, Wilson picked: 60 AD

1349

1536

1812

1937

[lookinglass123]

Interesting...Thanks :)

[aimei21]

What happened in 60 AD? I'm surprised he wouldn't have picked 1940/41 too, with all the Battle of Britain and all the bombings.

Also, do you know the title of his book? What were the controversial claims? I LOVE controversial history!

[littlemisssunnydale]

His argument for 60 AD was that this marked Emperor Nero's decision to forcefully strengthen the Roman invasion which, Wilson argued, had severe repercussions on Britain.

I'm in the middle of reading his new book on Henry and it is quite radical. Wilson adopts a very pro-faction view of Henrician politics and basically thinks that Henry was morally and intellectually limited and was almost absolutely governed by others. This is at odds with a lot of recent scholarship.

[aimei21]

I actually just thought of the Roman invasion right after I posted. That would have been a bad time to have been alive indeed.

Personally I don't think Henry was intellectually limited at all (morally is up to interpretation I guess!) He seems to have been very intelligent and every bit the "Renaissance man." But I'm an Americanist and I didn't concentrate on British history, so knows maybe he has some points.

[Kitty273]

How interestin.

I have always thought that Henry VII died eaxacty what he wanted and nobody tol him what to do.

Going by history,the man had balls and a mind of his own.

[CULAVE]

1642 and 1471 must rank in there somewhere; two very bloody years