History HubΒ permalink
The Tudor Age
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 24th July 2011
"The Tudor Age" is the name of the book I picked up in Harrogate in a book shop that had many books at very reduced prices. For example this book was marked to be sold at 10 Pounds, but had been reduced to just Pounds 1.99. Considering myself a bit of a English history buff, I picked it up immediately. It is quite a find.
You may have noticed that I quietly changed the previous string, from the account of my trip, to sections from this book. For example I gave Cass a bit on the Curriculum for boys in Tudor Grammar schools, I talked about the fact that even women were educated and able to read and write letters. As I go on with this book I find that the origins of many thing modern are embedded in the Tudor times. So as opposed to the views of many Ricardians, the defeat at Bosworth in 1485 was not a total loss, the usurper, The Earl of Richmond taking the throne in an illegitimate manner from King Richard III. His successors did bring about some meaningful changes in the English way of life, which brings up to modern times.
For example, the book writes that where as Canon Law and Classical law, meaning Roman and Greek Law, was only taught at Oxford and Cambridge, English Common Law was taught at the Inns of Court, Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, Lower Temple and Middle Temple. It says that even in the time of Henry VIII young Barristers were well payed; Sir Thomas More for example earning more than 400 pounds par annum in his early days. And that was a huge sum of money in those times.
Another interesting mystery is solved in that book: I have often wondered why Physician in England have the title 'Doctor' however, surgeons are addressed as plain 'Mister.' It turns out that in those days Physicians had little medicine except in theory; good living, praying, and some times bleeding, to remove the bad vapors from the body.
Originally barbers doubled as surgeons and there emerged a new class called Barber-Surgeons. Since they were no tin the upper classes, they did not worry about using their hands and learned several things on stopping blood. To amputate a hand or a leg, they just chopped it off, first by giving the patient lots of alcohol, then having some strong persons hold them up, a method still used in the American Civil War.
However, this was the period when the so-called barber surgeons were encouraged to study Anatomy and were provided four servants to help them dismember corpses. In this England had learned from Leonardo da Vinci.
Soon it was thought that barbers may bring some contamination, since they cut peoples' hair so Barbers were separated from surgeons. And surgeons were encouraged to put up their sign on their front door, so people could find them.
Apparently, Henry VIII demolition of the monasteries had a bad effect on many good things that they were doing, like funding Grammar schools, hospitals and poor houses. 'Sir Arthur McNalty as estimated that it took 250 years before the hospital accommodation was restored to the position that existed before Henry VIII's expropriations in 1545.
To me history is more than just the story of Kings, their Wars, the mistresses they had. It should be, at least partly, about how people lived in a particular period. And this book really tells us the things the Tudors did. I once started a string of this sort about the medieval period and got nowhere. It seems a lot of people are interested in Elizabeth of York, but not in how the ordinary person lived in those times. With the Tudors, I am having another go at this. Let us hope many of you will contribute to enhance our knowledge, or at least ask the right questions.
Tas -
Message 2
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Sunday, 24th July 2011
When I was at school, my mother and I thoroughly enjoyed a book called 'The Elizabethans at Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ'. Some years ago, seeing it in the library, I thought I would read it again. Oh dear! A short way in, the author speaks of how Elizabeth travelled round her kingdom. What a bloomer! She never went any further North than Warwickshire.*
Once you see a big mistake like that, it calls into question the rest of what you are reading.
*Was it Warwickshire? -
Message 3
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 24th July 2011
Hi Raundsgirl,
It may have been Warwickshire considering how difficult it was to travel at that time. One of the modes of travel, at least in India and probably also in England. People traveled by being carried in a Sedan Chair or riding a horse, or in India, traveling on an elephant.
It was only with the World Exhibition of 1851 that people in England started to travel because at that time the railways had also started.
On of the major problems with travel by some kind of cart was that the carts had no suspension. No one can travel large distances in a cart without suspension. Believe you me I have done it in India in my childhood. The bumps are simply horrific.
So I can not blame Queen Elizabeth I for remaining in London or Hampton Court, as the case may have been.
Tas -
Message 4
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Sunday, 24th July 2011
She went on royal progress in the summer months, Tas, for two reasons. One was to get out of London in summer (stinking and rife with diseases) and the other was to save money by letting her courtiers nearly bankrupt themselves vying with each other to see who could produce the most lavish entertainment.
I believe, but am not entirely sure, though, that she went no further North than Kenilworth. -
Message 5
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 24th July 2011
Hi Raundsgirl,
I read the same somewhere that the Tudors went to stay with their noblemen and the noblemen nearly bankrupted themselves in providing the great food and entertainment for the monarch.
It seems that Henry VIII had hurt himself in one of his tournaments in jousting and could not joust anymore. He was put on his horse by means of a crane-like mechanism, and still went outdoors for hunting and hawking. He would watch his falcon catching its prey. The king's armor shows he had a waist, at one time, of 63 inches, although he looks quite a handsome man in the Holbein painting.
No wonder Catherine Howard was looking for romance elsewhere. Her head was unceremoniously chopped off on Tower green, where also Ann Boleyn lost her head to a swordsman. Other people to loose their head at that spot were Lady Jane Grey and the Marchioness of Salisbury.
Tas -
Message 6
Posted by Hugh Mosby-Joaquin (U14258131) on Monday, 25th July 2011
"To me history is more than just the story of Kings, their Wars, the mistresses they had. It should be, at least partly, about how people lived in a particular period."
Quite so. History of any sort has to be put into some type of frame of understanding. That which happens in royal courts and bed-chambers is absolutely significant to the course of history, but largely exists as a fairy-tale in one's mind, and particularly in the minds of children.
With regard to giving picturesque and picaresque detail to how the majority lived in times various times past, I recommend the 'London' books by Liza Picard; Emily Cockayne's 'Hubbub' (" Filth, noise and stench in England"). Also I see Amanda Vickery is back on radio 4 with more similar detail regarding Georgian London. Her books bring that period to life. Lastly I recommend Ian Mortimer's "The time-traveller's guide to Medieval England".
Not that one want's to dwell on the unsavory aspects of life gone by, but it is quite necessary to understand the minutiae of life before one can get to understand the bigger picture.
And it's loads of fun.... -
Message 7
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 25th July 2011
And it's loads of fun... Β
History as loads of fun? What kind of liberal nonsense is that, Hugh Mosby-Joaquin?
Only joking. The Picard book - "Elizabeth's London" - is brilliant, as is "Time Traveller" (wish he'd do a Tudor Time Traveller). Mortimer is a great chap - I've heard him speak - he really makes history come alive.
Two other excellent books on Tudor England - "The Tudor Housewife" and "Food and Feast in Tudor England", both by Alison Sim.
Re Elizabeth's progresses: if you look for a book called "The Portable Queen: Elizabeth and the Politics of Ceremony" on Amaz*n, you'll see it's a "Look Inside" publication. Just a few pages in there is a complete list of LIz's expeditions. She actually travelled around a fair bit: she got as far west as Bristol and as far east as Norwich, but raundsgirl is right about Warwickshire - she did not get further north than Kenilworth (or maybe Chatsworth in Derbyshire (?) - can't remember now.)
I'm very interested in Tudor cess-pits. Apparently they would not have been as smelly as we imagine. At least that's what the chap who empties my septic tank claims. He says a properly maintained cess-pit is never smelly - especially in the days when the "good" bacteria were allowed to get on with their job. Modern cess-pits or septic tanks only smell because of modern detergents, shampoos and bleach that get emptied into them.
SST. -
Message 8
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Monday, 25th July 2011
<quote>I'm very interested in Tudor cess-pits.<quote/>
Better be careful where you say that! WE understand, but would others?
-
Message 9
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 25th July 2011
I know; I know - Tudor Parliaments or Tudor gong farmers - once I start there's no shutting me up.
But sewage (especially 1485 - 1603)* is* fascinating. -
Message 10
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 25th July 2011
Hi Temperance,
I understand, before the new Parliament was built, there used to be a really foul smell for the members. An engineer was charged to develop the London sewer system, and like a true engineer, he built s system that would last 150 years. That was around 1840. I guess the the 150 years are nearly up. Perhaps in preparing for the London Olympics, they can create a new sewer system to last another 200 years.
Like in modern subways, perhaps they can come up with an advanced system, which will provide London with a sweet scent. Would that not be wonderful: London, the only city in the World that smells great! That will be going one up on Paris!
Tas -
Message 11
Posted by Hugh Mosby-Joaquin (U14258131) on Monday, 25th July 2011
"gong farmers"
A favourite word!
When I first saw it, spelled something like 'Gongefermour', it took a while to realise a potential modern equivalent would be 'gunge-farmer'. How wondrously descriptive!
I like the theory that you suggest, that medieval cess-pits were not as unpleasant as we might assume. Possibly they were also more open to the atmosphere, which would help. And is it not feasible that they added earth or ashes to absorb? I reckon my bucket of fermenting comfrey liquid is about equivalent; pungent, but not as horrible as you think once you get used to it.
Doubtless London (say) was a smelly city in the 18th century, but most of the aroma was pretty organic, and not polluting chemicals, like today. It's just a pity that it took so long to realise that diseases were spread by polluted drinking-water. -
Message 12
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
When I was reading a book detailing scientific discoveries over the centuries, I felt that the biological ones had generally been slower than, say, astronomical ones, or chemistry. Physics has developed a lot this century (not that I understand a word of it) but still there was knowledge much earlier. It just seems to me that some fairly simple anatomical knowledge was late coming, possibly because it isn't visible without opening up the body and there was taboos about that for a long time.
Notwithstanding that, the doctor working out that typhoid (I think it was typhoid, perhaps cholera) was spreading from a specific water supply was really quite inspired, and also very determined. A wonderful example of science at the coalface.
Organic smells can still be pretty unpleasant. We drive past a silage factory frequently and chemical smells are easier to bear generally. And cowsheds are not one of life's most delicate aromas either.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 13
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Hi Caro,
Some smells are so annoying, I remember we driving a few miles past Darmstadt in Germany, and just the smell told us we were approaching that city. There must have been some great chemical works in that city.
Regarding anatomy, yesterday, at the hospital, I saw a film on gall-bader surgery being carried out robotically. it was very interesting to watch for a layman like me. I had my gall blader removed in Long Island about 20 years ago, by laser. They never cut me up, I did not feel anything at all, the next morning they sent me home. Tooth extraction would have been worse, so advance has surgery become in our time.
If you read Bernard Shaw's a "Doctor's Dilemma", one surgery had become very fashionable in his time, of some harmless part of the body, probably the appendix. Everyone wants to have it removed.
To think that these radical and life-saving procedures started from a barber shop in Tudor England, is simply amazing , is it not?
Physicians at that time had few arrows in their quiver; good living, prayers and blood letting. Blood letting was considered the most effective. Queen Victoria's father was killed from a fairly minor illness, as a result of excessive blood letting.
Tas -
Message 14
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Hi Tas
It was only with the World Exhibition of 1851 that people in England started to travel because at that time the railways had also started.Β
I think you're overstating the case here... The ruling classes (including scholars and churchmen), soldiers of all ranks and those who made a living through trade and transport had always travelled all over the country, as had some small minorities like Jews and Gypsies. The growth of cities was due to people migrating from elsewhere, eg the fictional Fanny Hill going to London from Lancashire in the mid 18th century. The railways did, of course have a huge impact, but more by facilitating leisure travel by ordinary people, following which people returned to where they'd come from, than by enabling people to migrate. The railways also brought far-off places to people who stayed at home, in some senses: I recall hearing a paper about salmon poaching in the Lake District in which the speaker said that it was only with the coming of the iron horse that it became practical to transport fresh Cumbrian salmon to the big cities.
-
Message 15
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Hi Tas,
Some smells are so annoying... Β
Well, lilies that fester, as someone clever once observed in a pome.
It's always a vexed question to decide how badly people - as well as their cesspits - smelt. Did those Tudor folk ever have a *thorough* wash? Well, the excellent Liza Picard says there were lots of recipes in household books for soap, and "washing balls" could be purchased for 2d each.
It was considered essential to wash one's hands both before and after a meal, but whether the average person ever abluted all over is debatable. But tubs and even bathrooms existed for the wealthy. Surely some form of washing was necessary after a hard day's hunting or jousting! Those wooden tubs with linen sheets which we've all seen in Shakespeare productions, or in films about the Tudors (Katherine Howard always gets to pose seductively in one, usually with rose petals!) really existed. Henry VIII had bathrooms installed at Hampton Court, Woodstock (sunken bath there) and Whitehall. Apparently the Whitehall bathroom was particularly luxurious; it was installed during the 1540s. And I've read somewhere that both men and women would be sponged down with rosewater by servants.
There were even deodorants of sorts: the roots of the fleur de lys, more commonly called orris root, "taketh away the strong savour coming from the armholes." "Artochoke" (sic) did the same, according to the amazing Thomas Hill* "Of the rank savour of the armholes, this vice in many persons is very tedious and loathsome." The first essential was to rebalance the offender's humours, then "wash the armholes oftentimes with the water wherein wormwood hath been sodden, together with camomile and a little quantity of alum". That last ingredient is interesting and it probably worked: alum is still used today in our modern deodorants.
SST.
PS * This Thomas Hill chap was a real character. He wrote several books which were hugely successful. One, his "Natural and Artificial Conclusions", apparently gave instructions on how to walk on water (!), how to determine whether a maid be a maid or no, and - probably the most useful - how to get hens to lay more eggs. He also wrote the very first book on gardening to be printed in England - his "Most Briefe and Pleasaunte Treatise, Teaching how to Dresse, Sowe and Set a Garden" first appeared in 1563, although his later work, "The Gardener's Labyrinth" (1577) is probably better known. It was a bestseller and Hill dedicated it to William Cecil.
Must now shut up and go and dress, sowe and set my garden. Compost heap is cooking nicely in the hot sun, and is not at all smelly - surely a good sign. -
Message 16
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Hi Catigern,
I think you may have misunderstood, probably because I did not explain myself well.
Clearly, people did travel in all ages; Otherwise how would Cleopatra have traveled to Rome?
I meant what your rightly call "leisure travel." During the Great Exhibition in 1851, people for the first time traveled with their families to London to enjoy the exhibits; It really was a pretty remarkable exhibition for that time. I think it was the first Great Exhibition any where; later we had Expo 67 in Montreal, the Expo in Brussels, the World exhibition in Seattle, the one in New York, etc., etc.
However, travel was quite difficult in Tudor times over land. That is why they opened some canals and had quite a bit of travel on Rivers and over seas. However, even that travel was fraught with uncertainty and some times danger. There were pirates and unfavorable winds and sea storms. These uncertainties will be illustrated by the following:
When Henry VIII and his army crossed the narrow seas to launch an attack on France in 1513, the 300 ships sailed from Dover at 4 p.m. on June 30 and arrived at Calais at 7 p.m.
However, when Gardiner and Edward Fox made the same crossing in February 1528, having been sent by Wolsey on an important mission to persuade the Pope to grant an annulment to Henry VIII, Fox and Gardiner set out from Westminster on Tuesday February 11. They sailed for Calais the next morning. But when they were half way across, the wind turned against them and they were forced to return to Dover. They sailed again on Thursday Morning but were again blown back and waited for 36 hours and then when the wind was favorable, immediately seized the opportunity. They were within four miles of Calais on Saturday and Sunday, then a tremendous tempest rose and they were driven to the coast of Flanders, and even then for a long time unable to land. Eventually they did manage to land at Dunkirk hungry for two days and very seasick. Even their horses were too sick to travel. They did manage to hire horses but it had been four and a half days since they set out from Dover.
Such were the hazards of travel even on a small journey, which in theory could be accomplished in three or four hours.
Tas -
Message 17
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Bearing in mind that with our dependence on modern cleaning and cosmetic products we have become over hygenic and over sensitive to most natural odours like sweat, compost heaps, cess pits etc.
I think many of the smells we would balk at our ancestors would not have really noticed, they were just the background of most people's existance. -
Message 18
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
SST,
I got into trouble once with an aunt because I wrote, in a series of little family stories, that my great-uncle seldom bathed. She was unhappy with this put in print; I thought I had been very discreet, since my great-uncle, working on our farm with my father, actually NEVER bathed. It is no real wonder my grandmother, from the other side of the family, objected to washing his long johns! (He was a lovely old man so at the time we had no sympathy with Gran. I feel a little differently now.) She only ever had what she called 'sponge baths' too - standing in the bath washing herself. We didn't have a shower. I don't recall anyone smelling particularly. You do get very used to smells quickly, so people wouldn't have noticed the smells in the streets after the first minute or two (assuming it was different from the smell in their home - would it be? Or would lack of windows etc mean the smells permeated everywhere?
I don't often get to pick you up on anything, Temperance, but will quibble over your dates for Hill's garden manual. My wonderfully-researched book on roses (by Jennifer Potter) which I am still slowly getting through, says, "Gerard tells us nothing about how he cared for the many roses in his garden; for this we must turn to other authors such as Londoner Thomas Hill, who is credited with writing the first English gardening manual (or at least the oldest still surviving) - a tiny book, small enough to tuck into a jerkin, which he called A most breife and pleasaunte treatise, teachyng how to dresse, sowe, and set a garden." Published around 1558, it appeared in a second edition of 1563 with a delightful frontispiece of a square garden within a garden surrounded by an outer paling and containing stock Elioxabethan garden features such as geometric plats and flowerbed, a simple knot, an arbour and a well." He wrote others, including The Gardeners Labyrinth in 1577 which was reprinted for over a century, despite its 'vulgare stile', for which he apologised.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 19
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
i can't go back to Tudor times by I can remember when a bath was a weekly event and not something to be eagerly anticipated in a freezing draughty bathroom. The daily process was what was called 'two lengths in the sink', carried out in the slightly warmer kitchen and not involving total nudity, each half being undressed and washed in succession. My great aunt used to say that a lady always travelled with two face cloths - one for each hemisphere as it were.
-
Message 20
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 27th July 2011
Hi Caro,
I am sure your Jennifer Potter is right: I got the 1563 date from the link given below, but I notice that under "Other Items of Interest", that date is given again, but followed by a question mark. The lovely pictures you mention are reproduced here. I also like the remark quoted by Rosemary Verey (of blessed memory) -- "You feel you are stepping into an Elizabethan garden with the sun shining, the bees flying and the gardeners at work digging the raised beds."
Re your unwashed great-uncle (he sounds like a mate of the infamous Titus), he probably would have agreed with Ian Mortimer's observation that for men of former times "an unwashed smell indicated virility". Mortimer was writing of medieval times - reign of Richard II - and I wonder if the average heterosexual male then was terrified of washing and perfuming himself *too* much for fear of being taken for a French or (even worse) Italian influenced minion type. Skelton, a couple of centuries later, mocks the effeminate chap who spends ages washing and doing his hair: his Courtly Abusion is a hopeless dandy who speaks doggerel French and who twirls about elegantly:
"My hair busheth
So pleasantly,
My robe rusheth
So ruttingly (fashionably dashingly!)
Meseem I fly,
I am so light
To dance delight."
You can imagine the scathing comments from the straight guys in their manly chain mail!
Mortimer also makes the interesting comment that most people, although concerned about the cleanliness of face of hands, were more concerned about "their internal or spiritual cleanliness." Good excuse as any for not bothering with personal hygiene, I suppose. But it didn't wash, certainly not with Francis Bacon. He wrote that cleanliness of the body was necessary as a mark of respect to God. I looked up the origin "cleanliness is next to godliness", presuming it was an expression coined by some despairing woman in the Old Testament, but apparently no - it's from John Wesley.
SST. -
Message 21
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 27th July 2011
Hi Caro, SST,
I like to compare things at similar periods in India and in Britain. However, India has an intensely hot climate and therefore things have to be different: regarding washing and bathing, in Indian Hindu culture,if a person came to your house to stay, even in villages, where you had to fetch water from a well on your head from the village well, the person was immediately provided a bucket and asked to refresh himself with a bath, which was basically emptying the bucket on top of your head, taking off just few clothes.
I was lucky enough to see the Royal Bath of the princesses at the Red Fort in Delhi during the British Raj: there was a lovely pond, which was apparently heated in Mughal times. On one side was where the princesses dressed. Their dresses were hanging from the ceiling and in the floor below was a kind of floweral system with some holes and air-currents were directed to flow from the floor to the ceiling. In the marble flower were exotic perfumes of 'Hinna' in winter and 'Khus' in summer; so the air would be laden with 'Hinna' or 'Khus' and embed itself in the ladies garments up above.
However, any romance was absolutely 'Verbotten' for the Royal Princesses. One of them, the daughter of the strict Emperor Aurangzeb, had a liason with a handsome young noble man from the court. His name was 'Aqil Khan', roughly to be translated as 'Wise Khan'. The Emperor learnt from one of his palace spies that Aqil was visiting the princess. He went unannounced to visit the princess. She had a huge vessel being prepared for her bath, with everything ready for a fire underneath. Aqil, on hearing about the Emperor ,sought refuge inside the vessel. The palace spy signaled to Aurangzeb that the unfortunate man was inside the bathing vessel. The Emperor asked his daughter what she was going to do. The princess replied she was about to have a bath. The Emperor said "Go ahead light the fire and prepare", so the fire was lit under the vessel. Poor Aqil was boiled alive in the bath water. The wags of Delhi, who were always quick to put anyone's misadventure to an amusing couplet said, " How could a wise man like Aqil, do something so stupid that he would regret."
We talk about Catherine Howard getting the axe under Henry VIII; In the Ottoman Empire, about the same period, if one of the Sultanas was found to be having any kind of romance, she was sewed up inside a sack and dumped into the Bosporus. I would say it was safer to be one of Henry's Queens than an Ottoman princess at that period.
Tas -
Message 22
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Wednesday, 27th July 2011
<quote>When Henry VIII and his army crossed the narrow seas to launch an attack on France in 1513, the 300 ships sailed from Dover at 4 p.m. on June 30 and arrived at Calais at 7 p.m.
However, when Gardiner and Edward Fox made the same crossing in February 1528, having been sent by Wolsey on an important mission to persuade the Pope to grant an annulment to Henry VIII, Fox and Gardiner set out from Westminster on Tuesday February 11</quote
Tas, might have been down to the fact that the first journey you mention was in mid summer and the second was in February, often a bad time for weather in England and for sea trips. -
Message 23
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 27th July 2011
Hi Jenny,
You would not believe what misadventures that would befall Gardiner and Fox in just going to Calais from Dover. To be within a few miles of Calais for two days watching the shore yet not be able to disembark, to be blown to Dunkirk and be hungry and even the horses sea sick!
Since then I have been reading about the ships that Henry VIII ordered to be built. The largest French ships of the period were 750 tons or less. Henry ordered one ship to be 1,000 tons, another with four masts to be 1,500 tons. One of them had a victory in a sea battle but after the Victory, Capsized, killing most of the crew.
He then built the Mary Rose, which was named by his sister Mary (the Queen of France) to be the 'Virgin Mary,' but became the 'Mary Rose.' It took sank with a lot of artillery and the King made several attempts to raise her, to no avail. It was raised in recent times.
One ship built by Sir Walter in Elizabeth I's reign, was supposed to be named the 'Ark Raleigh,' but was sold to the Queen for 5,000 pounds, and named the 'Ark Royal.'
Many ocean going voyages took place then, mostly financed by the Kings of Spain or of Portugal, but Henry VII did fund one successful voyage, I think by Frobisher or perhaps John Cabot, who was actually Giovanni Caboto but anglicized his name when he moved to England. He had originally refused Columbus when he came to him with his proposal; funded by Spanish King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.
Tas -
Message 24
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 27th July 2011
Thomas Wolsey once made an incredibly "speedy despatch" to the Emperor Maximilian. Wolsey's biographer, George Cavendish, tells how this was Thomas's first mission for Henry VIII and he was desperate to please - to be *noticed*. He certainly succeeded in that! Here are the details of his journey.
Left Richmond at 4pm.
Barge to Gravesend - arrived 7pm.
Post-horse to Dover.
Dover to Calais - arrived just before noon next day.
Post-horse to the Court of the Emperor - arrived that evening.
Met with Emperor and accomplished necessary business.
Started return journey - that *same* night!!
Arrived back in Dover about 11am the next morning.
Presented himself at Richmond that evening.
The king was annoyed to see him and angrily asked why he had not yet started on his journey. He could not believe his ears at Wolsey's reply - that he had started and returned, business complete. "Sir," quoth he, "if it please your Highness, I have already despatched your affairs, I trust to your Grace's content."
Clearly Wolsey was very lucky with the tides, weather, good horses etc., but it's still pretty impressive! And I bet he wrote a great long report for Henry during the return Channel crossing! Sort of stuff that wins "The Apprentice 1512". -
Message 25
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 27th July 2011
Hi Temperance,
In thinking of the trouble Gardiner and fox had in trying to land in Calais, when they were within sight of it, reminds me of the time I was in Marseille with my wife. There was a tourist ferry going to Chateau D'If, which once was a French prison on an Island off the coast of Marseille. It is mentioned in one of my favorite French novels, in which there is this young sailor Edmond Dantes who is put away in this prison, meets the AbbΓ© Faria, is shown how to escape and eventually escapes by pretending to be the corpse of the AbbΓ©. He is thrown in a sack into the sea.You will remember it no doubt.
I wanted to see that Island and its prison for myself. However, when the Ferry left Marseille, the weather became so bad, even one dog on board was sick. As we approached the Island, there were flashing lights warning us not to approach the island because of the danger of being shipwrecked. So we never got to the Island at all. Just got horribly seasick.
It was pretty horrible being able to watch the shore of the island but not being able to land.
Tas -
Message 26
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 27th July 2011
I just remembered the name of that Novel: "The Count of Monte Cristo!"
Tas -
Message 27
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 28th July 2011
Hi Folks,
This story is going to knock your socks off:
Ivan the Terrible, the notoriously cruel Russian Czar, fell in love with one of Elizabeth I's Ladies-in-waiting, Lady Mary Hastings. I was just wondering how such a long-range romance was at all possible. I imagine he had heard from someone that Lady Mary was a real knockout. When Elizabeth did not acquiesce, Ivan got very angry and kept the English envoy, Thomas Hastings sent to meet him, he was confined in a house as a virtual prisoner for 5 months. However, when the Czar eventually agreed to see Thomas Randolph, he succeeded in charming the Czar and the Czar became very friendly. One problem with Ivan was that he regarded every other sovereign as his inferior, including Elizabeth.
I imagine Lady Mary must have baulked, although she was offered the position of being the Czarina of all the Russias. She may have heard stories of Ivan's cruelties, and perhaps sensed some danger to herself in case she displeased Ivan in any thing. Also there was a big cultural barrier. Any way this is a very amusing story in my view, one of Elizabeth's Ladies-in Waiting being involved, no matter how reluctantly, in such a long-range romance with a monster.
Tas -
Message 28
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Friday, 29th July 2011
Hi Tas,
I knew nothing at all about your Mary Hastings, so I did a spot of googling this morning. May I share my "research" findings with you? I hope it's not too boring - I'm very aware that what I find utterly fascinating often acts as a powerful soporific on others!
Did you know that Mary Hastings of Ivan the Terrible fame was the great, great-granddaughter of an old friend of ours from the Elizabeth of York/Monstrous Richard threads - none other than William, Lord Hastings executed so unreasonably on Friday 13th June, 1483 by the Wicked Usurper?
William Hastings
|
Edward Hastings
|
George Hastings, 1st Earl of Huntingdon
|
Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon
|
Mary Hastings
Mary was also descended, on her mother's side, from the Duke of Clarence, Richard III's brother, and Clarence's daughter, that most unfortunate lady who later became the Countess of Salisbury:
George, Duke of Clarence
|
Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury
|
Henry Pole
|
Catherine Pole (married Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon)
|
Mary Hastings
Royal blood! Because of his clear Plantagenet descent, Mary Hastings's brother, Henry Hastings, was a claimant to the English throne. In 1562 - when Elizabeth I was thought to be dying of smallpox - the Council seriously considered him to be a possible successor to Elizabeth - anyone was better than Mary Stuart!
I've also found reference to the Russian "courtship" of Mary in an extract from Sir Jerome Horsey's "Observations of Certain Transactions in Russia" - this mentions that she was of "the blood royal". Will type it out if you're interested!
SST.
PS I didn't know Ivan the Terrible had *eight* wives. Henry VIII seems to have been his role model! He also sent a very unpleasant letter to Elizabeth which didn't amuse her one bit - you can read about it here in this Telegraph article called "Ivan the Terribly Rude":
-
Message 29
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Friday, 29th July 2011
The Telegraph article says Ivan had only *six* wives, but Wiki lists the names of eight "consorts" ??? -
Message 30
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 29th July 2011
Hi Temperance,
Once I had unearthed this bit on Ivan and Lady Hastings I wanted to ask you who Mary Hasting, in fact was, since you know so much about the Tudors. It seems we had mental telepathy, since you answered that whole question. I enjoyed the entire story, including the insulting letter to Elizabeth from Ivan. One thing puzzles me: why did Ivan choose Lady Mary Hastings of all her ladies-in-waiting?
One question Temperance: Would you call Elizabeth, in her prime, a good-looking woman? Was she pock-marked after her bout of small pox? We know Mary Queen of Scots has been termed an extremely good-looking woman. What about Elizabeth?
I believe Thomas Seymour had some kind of Affair with Elizabeth, did he not?
Tas -
Message 31
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
Hi Tas,
I don't think anyone actually took the courtship of Mary Hastings by Ivan the Terrible (or rather the courtship of her by his ambassador) seriously! The best account I've found of what went on is from Sir Jerome Horsey who wrote "Observations of Certain Transactions in Russia". Sir Jerome (1550 - 1626) led an amazing life. You can read about him here:
This is what Horsey has to say about the Russian wooing :
"...Juan Vassillivich, great duke and emperor of Russia, having a desire to marry an English lady, was told of the Lady Mary Hastings, daughter to the earl of Huntingdon: whom, being of the blood royal, he began to affect: whereupon, making his desires known to Queen Elizabeth (who did well approve thereof), he sent over Theodore Pissemskoie, a nobleman of great account, his ambassador; who in the name of his master offered great and advantageous terms to the Queen, in case the marriage took effect; and promised that the issue by this young lady should inherit. The ambassador thus arriving in England was magnificently entertained, and admitted audience. The Queen hereupon caused the lady to be attended with divers ladies and young noblemen, that so the ambassador might have a sight of her, which was accompplished in York House Garden, near Charing Cross, London. There was he (attended also by divers men of quality) brought before her; and, casting down his countenance, fell prostrate before her, and rising back with his face still towards her. The lady, with the rest, admiring at his strange salutations, he said, by an interpreter, it 'sufficed him to behold the angelical presence of her, whom he hoped should be his master's spouse and empress'; seemingly ravished with her angelical countenance, state and beauty. She was after that by her friends at court called Empress of Moscovia. But the Queen, as well as the young lady, understanding (according to the laws of those countries) he might put away his wife* when he pleased, took occasion to put a stop to that overture."
Re Elizabeth - I think she was considered to be a *handsome* woman, Tas, but not a beautiful one. Mary Stuart's portraits do not show her to be obviously lovely either ( I'm thinking of Elizabeth Woodville's portrait - she was *exceptionally* beautiful even to our modern eyes), but Mary's charm and femininity was such that no man (with the exception of John Knox, Cecil and Walsingham of course!) could resist her.
Re Elizabeth and Seymour - see the end of the recent Virgin Queen thread - we discussed that unhappy episode in ET's life there.
SST.
* I think Ivan was still on Wife Number Two at the time. -
Message 32
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
Tas - sorry, I forgot to answer your question about smallpox. Elizabeth was very seriously ill indeed, but thanks to the care she received from the German physician, Dr. Burcot, she not only survived, her skin was relatively unmarked by the disease. Her devoted friend, Lady Mary Sidney, nee Dudley (Robert Dudley's sister), was not so lucky. She nursed the queen, caught the sickness herself and was left horribly scarred.
The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ's famous "Elizabeth R" series, starring Glenda Jackson, shows all these dramatic events:
Not so "flashy" as "The Tudors" and I suppose rather dated now, "Elizabeth R" was nevertheless historically accurate and very well acted (apart from Thomas Seymour who appeared in the first episode: he was a dreadful ham. The same actor - can't remember his name - also appeared in the other famous Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ production of "The Six Wives of Henry VIII").
SST. -
Message 33
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 1st August 2011
Mary Stuart was interested to know whether Elizabeth's complexion had survived the ravages of the smallpox. She was obviously kept informed because, on 2nd November 1562 (Elizabeth had been unwell since October 10th), the Queen of Scots wrote to her English rival a letter full of feminine concern - a concern perhaps more tactful than sincere - expressing her delight "that your beautiful face will lose none of its perfections". -
Message 34
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 1st August 2011
Hi Temprance,
Every time you bring up Mary, Q of S, it makes me so sad. That lovely woman had certainly failings of her character but also was so strong. Her escapes from her various imprisonments were so daring. Her one clear failing was that of her heart in marrying that rake and idiot Darnley. Boswell apparently raped her according to Antonia Fraser.
That she had spent her youth in the court of France as the young Dauphine and then to fall into the hands of the great boors of the period, the Scottish lords was truly a misfortune. If after she had escaped she had gone to France instead of trusting her cousin Elizabeth.
There was a tableau of her execution in the old Madame Tussaud was museum. It looked so poignant, with the big axeman standing over her little form and she about to put her fragile neck on the block. What a sad fate!
Tas -
Message 35
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 1st August 2011
With respect, Tas, it's very easy to be sentimental about Mary, Queen of Scots - I have been myself in the past (I've been sentimental about one or two other people too!). It's true of course that Mary was very young, and the situation she faced in Scotland was difficult, but it was going to take an exceptional woman to survive - and prosper - in that ruthless man's world. Mary was not exceptional. She was intelligent enough, but not brilliant like her English cousin and, although she was well educated, she did not have Elizabeth's natural flair (or should that be genius?) for politics. Perhaps more important for survival, Elizabeth's nightmarish upbringing had taught her to trust no one, whereas Mary's upbringing - the pampered darling of the French Court - had taught her that it was fine to trust everyone. In the real world of 16th century politics, being a pretty, delightful and charming woman counted for nothing. -
Message 36
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 1st August 2011
Hi Temperance,
You are probably right!
However, there are always interesting stories in my book, 'The Tudor Age.' Here is another one: Apparently thee was a rebellion in Devonshire during the reign of Edward VI, and during the protectorship of the Duke of Somerset. He appointed Lord Russel and Sir William Hebert to defeat the rebels. The Government sent Sir Anthony Kingston to try the rebels by Court Marshall and execute them.
The Mayor of Bodmin, to avoid that fate, invited Kingston to dinner at his house. Kingston accepted the invitation, and told the Mayor to erect a scaffold in his court yard since it may be necessary to hang some rebels. After the dinner, the mayor told Kingston that the scaffold had been erected. Kingston ordered the Mayor to go up to the scaffold, as it was he who was to be hanged on it.
How strange for a man to assist in his own hanging!
Tas -
Message 37
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 1st August 2011
Hi Tas,
The Great Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549 started just down the road from where I lived until very recently - at Sampford Courtenay near Exeter!
Actually the rebellion - which could easily have turned into a nationwide civil war - was as much about economic hardship as religion. The enclosure of common land was causing widespread misery - Thomas More's predictions about sheep eating men were definitely coming true in the late 1540s and early 1550s.
It wasn't just Devon men who rebelled - many Cornish folk were still Catholic at heart and many Protestants were forced to flee the West Country. One such was a sailor who later became a churchman - he was Edmund Drake and he had a little boy named Francis. The family fled to the safer county of Kent where Francis - luckily for England - was still able to learn how to sail - on the Medway! -
Message 38
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 1st August 2011
Hi Temperance,
I have almost the identical words about Sir Frances Drake in my book.
I am learning so many interesting facts about the Tudor Age and things that happened then.
History is indeed delightful!
Tas -
Message 39
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Monday, 1st August 2011
Tas, I'm sorry to be pedantic, but it's a Court MARTIAL, ie a military (as opposed to Civil) court.
The plural is Courts Martial
Ok, ok, I'll go quietly now............ -
Message 40
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
Hi Raundsgril,
"Courts Marshall" it is!
I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the Tudor if any one would like to take them on:
One question is regarding Queen Mary I daughter of Henry VIII. Was she a popular figure in England considering all the people who were burned at the stake during her time.
Were the English people even familiar with the name of Lady Jane Grey when she was proposed as their queen?
Tas -
Message 41
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
1. It's M-A-R-T-I-A-L, Tas!
2. Mary 1. Only if you were Catholic. I expect ordinary people felt a certain amount of relief to have the church they were used to back again, but her marriage to Philip of Spain was very unpopular, and the burnings didn't impress folk much. I am going to stick my neck out and say that I think the English were on the whole inclined towards Protestantism judging by the short time it took for the C of E to become well established (and at first it was rather like Catholicism without the Pope)
I was trying to explain to my granddaughter (aged 10) why the Gunpowder Plot happened, and why some Catholics could not accept the C of E and consequently suffered as recusants. She isn't religious, but I used the analogy of her Muslim school friends being told to give up their beliefs -
Message 42
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
Thank you Raundsgirl! What a bad mistake and I am sure I have been guilty of that for a very long time. From now on it will always be 'Martial' not 'Marshall.' It is because I type with out thinking.
I am always a bit leery of people who are a little bit fanatical about their religious beliefs. I much prefer the live and let live attitude.
In Tudor England there was a lot of burning of people for their religious beliefs. That is why I think Elizabeth was like breadth of fresh air. No more burnings and floggings for one's beliefs.
Tas -
Message 43
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
I am going to stick my neck out and say that I think the English were on the whole inclined towards Protestantism judging by the short time it took for the C of E to become well established (and at first it was rather like Catholicism without the Pope)Β
Mmm, not so sure about that. Anti-catholicism began with the Act of Supremacy which made the King the supreme head of the Church in England and any further alliegance to the Pope was thereafter considered treason. I think it was under this act that Thomas More was executed.
Those who still wished to follow the "old way" were forced to do so in private so possibly we'll never know precisely how rapidly the population turned toward the new?
Although, as you say, Henry's version was Catholicism without the Pope but that wasn't to last long. -
Message 44
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 3rd August 2011
Hi folks,
I am now coming to the part of the book when the English Long bow was beginning to replaced first, by the Hagbut and then by the musket. it appears that in the middle of the 16th century there were still many proponents of the long bow. The principal reason was its high rate of fire and also its range of about a furlong (220 yards). As against this the Hagbut had to be mounted on a stand and had be loaded, then the gunpowder had to be ignited for it to be discharged. The advantages were its long range of about 400 yards, the noise it made, which demoralized the troops on the opposite side, and the fact that armor was not of much use.
In the 17th century the musket took over and was a lot more effective, so that armor was of no avail. However, soldiers still wanted to wear some kind of breast armor, because they felt more secure for psychological reasons.
Up to the 16th century mounted soldiers charged with lances; then the pistol was invented and the mounted soldiers charged with loaded pistols . They stopped before they came to the opposite army and when in pistol range, discharged their pistols. However, in the 17th century Prince Rupert taught his soldiers to charge with drawn swords. So war fare was constantly evolving. However, the long bow lasted a very long time.
Henry VIII was himself of two minds about the long bow. He was himself an excellent archer and his natural conservatism made him favor the traditional weapon, the long bow. However, he was also fascinated with new weaponry.
The bowmen of England won their last great victory when they defeated the Scots at Flodden in 1513; but by the time of Henry VIII's last war in1544, hagbuts were being increasingly used by the English army.
Tas -
Message 45
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 4th August 2011
...but by the time of Henry VIII's last war in 1544, hagbuts were being increasingly used by the English army. Β
That's interesting, Tas. I know absolutely nothing about guns and I was very confused by all the firearms being waved about in the last series of "The Tudors". So they actually got it right?!
SST. -
Message 46
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 4th August 2011
Hi Temperance,
I was always wanting to know how the English and Welsh Long Bow was superseded and when. This book provides the answer.
It seems the long bow served the English army for a long time, just as the mounted archers served the mongols for a long time. It must have been pretty lethal and also unnerving to find that hail of arrows falling on you as you tried to mount a charge as at Agincourt in 1415. It was also a matter of class as the mounted knights were all of upper class, whereas the archers were primarily of the lower classes.
It seems in Henry VIII's time there was also a change in the rules for tournaments. The knights entering the tournament used much heavier armor and bigger helmets with just a couple of slits for visibility. There was a wooden partition between the two knights charging each other. Their lances were made of more brittle wood so they broke if the two knights charged each other properly. There were many occasions when Henry fought with his brother-in-law, the Duke of Suffolk in the tournament, and they broke lances. However, I believe in 1536, Henry fought in a tournament and badly hurt himself and he never fought again.
It seems the ladies of the court played a bigger role in tournaments than I had thought; some times they funded the tournaments and often they cheered their champion into taking a bigger risk.
The French King, while fighting in a tournament, got a sliver in his eye and died of that. It was lucky that nothing like that happened to Henry and he survived.
Tournament were then like the sports of our day, however the poor people were not supposed to take part in them. They were supposed to practice their archery skills in case they were needed for a battle. In Tudor even games were regulated for the masses.
Tas -
Message 47
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Friday, 5th August 2011
Dearest Tas!
You raise some really interesting points as usual. As you probably know it was Henry II of France who was killed in 1559 when his eye was pierced by a jousting stick, can't remember its proper name but I don't believe these tools were actually used in battle, too unweildly! But it raises an interesting point. Knights travelled all over Europe during the medieval period to make a lucrative, if dangerous living out of "jousting" but by the time of Henry VIII these jousts appear to have become more theatre than actual training for real battles. Armour etc., became more for show and pageantry than actual battle. More leight weight as you point out.
Richard III for example didn't appear to take part in "Jousts" at Smithfield, we know that people came here to actually "fight" against him like Niclas Von Popplau from Silesia, due to his fame as a soldier, yet he appears to have taken part in these acts only on special occassions!
And so when the Tudors did not actually engage in warfare personally, standing safely well away from the action, issueing orders, The Jousts became more important for their panoplay.
When Henry VIII was thrown from his horse during that joust in 1536, he was 45, not in the full flush of youth. His state of health has interested me for some time, as has that of all the other Tudors. We know that he established a head wound during this fall and it also appears that his behaviour became more erratic and ferocious from this time. Having got the "brush off" from Antonia Frazier about Mary Queen of Scots and her proposal that she suffered from "the porphyrias" which I suggested may have been handed on to James II, nose bleeds, erratic behaviour etc., at times of stress, I've now asked my own long suffering GP about inherited illnesses.
For example we know that Queen Katherine de Valois' father suffered from catatonic scizophrenia and this is probably what she passed on to her son Henry VI. Without going into too much detail, it is a dormant gene which can be triggered by stress and or a blow to the head. Violent mood swings are one of its major features. Perhaps this is one of the few things we can all agree upon which was common to the Tudor Monarchs. What do you think?
After 1536 Henry VIII did become distinctly unpredictable!
However back to the Tudor Age or as it often called the Golden Age of the Tudors. This obviously refers to the Renaissance and how it took root in the UK. When Byzantium fell in 1453, the re-birth of knowledge and what it was, led in all sorts of directions, through the Arts, Politics, Thought and Literature, it was a tidal wave of intellectual and artisitic achievement and how it affected the "creative" and intellectuals appears to me to be more an act of nature than nurture. One of its forms appears to be an unshackling from the Church with its control of information in Latin or Greek, an urge to be able to express these new concepts in one's own language. This would of course lead to the Reformation.
And yet we can almost see how how Henry VIII tried to prevent the intellectual Reformation in England and certainly Wales. Proud of being "Defender of the Faith" his break with Rome was NOT to do with religion but politics. Cranmer re-wrote the book of common prayer so that England had an Anglo Catholic stance rather than a Roman Catholic one. Henry VIII executed Thomas More NOT because he was opposed to the translation of the Bible into English but because he refused to accept Henry as Head of the Church of England. Henry was an Anglican. He still said his "Hail Marys" as he despised "the Bishop of Rome"! I for one was taught "Hail Mary" by my mainstream Anglican clergyman father before "Our Father"!
We cannot tell, yet, why different nations became masters in different artisitc feilds during the Renaissance but one thing is sure about English and that is, by being a wonderfully "mongrel race" it has more words than most other languages. Yet if, as is usually the case, we say that Shakespeare, that wizard of words who worked his rough, deep magic so well, is indeed the greatest writer ever to have lived, he peaked NOT during Tudor Times but under King James I of England, VI of Scotland. He wrote what many considered to be his Masterpieces then, not under Elizabeth I but under this king, who nurtured and rewarded his efforts. Renaissance Literature, when studying it Higher level, begins here with room for some earlier important plays and sonnets from the late Elizabethan period .
It wasn't until 1597 that "Romeo and Juliet" as well as "Richard III" were registered with the Stationer's Office. "Henry IV parts One and Two" 1598 and "Hamlet" wasn't registered until 1602! This leaves room for "The Tempest" , "King Lear" and others as Jacobean plays.
So saying, perhaps we should bear in mind that Richard III's one and only Parliament of January 1484, was the first to pass all of its Acts in English for all to understand and this king bought second hand books, not to impress but to read. He also wrote in the margins!
Born in 1452, the same year as Leonardo da Vinci, he was a Renaissance man, his reign of two years and two months showed so much promise, a rogue reporter on the Guardian noted in a recent July issue, his coronation was July 6th, "In an ultra short reign he did more for human rights than most of his predecessors put together....He bgan an early form of legal aid for those who could not afford representation and he insitgated a system of bail we would recognise today...."
"The Golden Age of the Tudors"? As always in the right place at the right time gaining all the credit. Unless of course one acts unlike a Tudor and puts truth before pomp and circumstance. Cheers Tas! -
Message 48
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 6th August 2011
The French King, while fighting in a tournament, got a sliver in his eye and died of that. It was lucky that nothing like that happened to Henry and he survived. Β
It very nearly did, Tas - in 1524! Henry unbelievably forgot to lower his visor - incredibly stupid mistake - when he rode out in response to a challenge by the Duke of Suffolk. Suffolk didn't notice until it was too late that the king's face was exposed and he hit Henry just above the eye. The lance shattered and the King's helmet was filled with potentially lethal wooden splinters. By a miracle not one splinter entered his eye - or brain.
It was a splinter lodged in the brain that did for Henry II. The French King was injured on the late afternoon of Friday, 30th June 1559, but he lay in agony for *ten* days before he died.
What is strange - and I'm sure all proper historians will pooh-pooh this of course - is that Henry's death had been foreseen, not just by one person, but by three - two professional seers *and* his wife! In 1552 Luca Guorico, the Italian astrologer of the Medici family, had warned Henry II that he must take particular care around his fortieth year to "avoid all single combat in an enclosed space", lest he risk a wound that could blind or even kill him. Henry was forty years and four months old when he died.
More famous is the 1555 prophecy from that bundle of fun, Nostradamus:
The young lion will overcome the old, in
A field of combat in a single fight. He will
Pierce his eyes in a golden cage, two
Wounds in one, he then dies a cruel death.
The "old lion" the King? The "cage of gold" his visor? "Two wounds" - one to the eye and one to the brain?
And Catherine de Medici herself , Calpurnia-like, had implored her husband not to take part in the jousting that day because the night before she had dreamt that her husband lay on the ground, his face streaming with blood. She is reported as saying, "Cursed be the magician who predicted so evilly and so well."
SST. -
Message 49
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 6th August 2011
Hi Minette,
I largely agree with you.
I am fascinated by this book on the Tudor Age that I picked for a song in Harrogate. It even gives a portrait of the Shakespeare's 'Dark Lady of the Sonnets,' Mary Futton, Maid of Honor to Queen Elizabeth. In her portrait she does look lovely and slightly mysterious; No wonder Shakespeare addressed so many sonnets to her. There is also a portrait of Elizabeth herself, looking quite nice and regal, Painted by Sir Henry Lee when she visited him at Ditchley, near Woodstock. He was her champion in tournaments.
There is also a portrait of Queen Mary, looking very ordinary, with a cross around her neck. There are portraits of some of Henry's wives. Except or Ann Boleyn, none of them look very beautiful to me; Jane Seymour looks like a school teacher.
I did see King Henry's armor in the armory in the Tower of London. He was a really big man.
I wish there was the armor that Richard III; perhaps the one that he wore during Bosworth. It was really interesting to visit Middleham Castle, knowing that our friend Richard's ghost was around some where and that of Ann Neville and his young son. A great visit it was!
Richard was probably the last English King who was a real battle-commander and worthy of saying to his men, "Follow Me!"
Tas -
Message 50
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 6th August 2011
Hi Temperance,
It seems there were, despite of all the precautions, the partition separating the combatants, the bigger armor suit, the bigger helmets with just two slits for the yes and a few holes for the nose, a serious danger with tournaments. I would imagine even if you were just thrown off your horse it would be quite a jolt, not only to your honor, but also to your entire seat. Jousting was not for the frail of heart.
I wonder if the opponents to kings were instructed to be very careful what part of the body they attacked.
Another question: If someone had the honor of being a particular lady's champion, what benefits did that imply? That the guy got a handkerchief from the lady, or did it imply romance to follow?
Tas
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.