Source: Paston Letters
Posted on 02/19/2010 7:43:21 PM PST by SunkenCiv
Thanks tlb. Parliament passed the Titulus Regius, delegitimizing “the little Princes” and naming Richard III the lawful king (after his brother died). After Henry VII seized power, he demanded all copies of the TR be burned and Richard III labelled illegitimate, then married Richard III’s niece. The act of relegitimizing her also relegitimized the little Princes, which meant the elder was the rightful king — so, he had them both murdered and disposed of quietly. It is no wonder his descendants were such bloodthirsty killers, given that he was.
Thanks for the ping. I have read that the location of the Battle of Bosworth Field was controversial.
Source: Paston Letters
 This is the original portrait, painted pre 1485. Richard sat for this portrait.
|
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The thrown?
Thanks for the tip. I’ll try find it at the library for some reading on my next trip.
Are you referring to Henry VII or Henry VIII?
Both were known as Henry Tudor.
Henry VIII was born in 1491, so he has a perfect alibi for anything wrong done in 1485.
Other than that, how did you like the . . . .
All true, but the Tudors finally brought an end to endemic civil war, navigated the Reformation and secured a Protestant succession to England with far less bloodshed than many places on the Continent and in the reign of Gloriana defeated a Spanish invasion and staved off a French invasion, they being the greatest European powers of the time.
To be sure there were a few things left to be worked out during the Stuart period, like a couple of revolutions and that England would be a constitutional and not an absolute monarchy, but by the end of the Tudor/Stuart period England was a modern nation and was emerging as one of the great powers of Europe.
Heh... Henry VIII was hideous in nearly all ways; he did however get fed up with the stupid bronze cannon and brought over German experts on iron metallurgy and coal mining, and revolutionized the British navy (iron guns). Everything the British empire became was built on that early work of Henry VIII. But he was still a monster. As he lay dying, he was surrounded by various throw pillows, daggers, and other booty confiscated to a number of his former close friends he’d had executed.
Elizabeth I didn’t have very many burnings at the stake, but did have some Catholic missionaries from the continent disemboweled and stuff. Her (Tudor) sister had some large number of Protestants burned alive, and Elizabeth lived in fear of her own execution (this was after backing Mary for the crown; oh, they had the pretender, another woman, executed; later on Liz had Mary Queen of Scots executed). Essex, whom she sent to Ireland, she had beheaded. One of the largest items of her budget (probably the largest single one) was for the network of spies and paid squealers she built as she turned England into a police state.
James I (VIth of Scotland) was a huge relief to everyone, not least because it meant that Elizabeth had finally kicked off. You’re right, she arranged for the defense of England against the Spanish Armada, but the speech attributed to her was written years after the fact, and Britain enjoyed the services of Drake and a number of others less well known talented captains, along with those iron guns. Drake’s idea for fire ships I think was taught to him by the Spanish, during his raid of one of the ports where the Armada was under construction. Heh. And of course, the deposing and probable execution of the bastard Elizabeth was the objective of the Spanish Armada.
There’s a very vague parallel between Elizabethan/Jacobian England and Sadat-era Egypt — Elizabeth was fairly tolerant of the Old Faith (this went on until the plot to blow up Parliament, at which time the anti-Catholic laws already on the books were enforced with rigor) but allowed and encouraged Protestantism to grow as a sort of balance.
The Puritans got stronger as time went on, and much more bold, and eventually Charles I had his forces defeated by Cromwell and his forces. The story goes that as Cromwell signed the writ of execution, he referred to the coming regicide as “a cruel necessity”. After his rule (often called the first modern dictatorship), an attempt to pass the Protector role to his son, a period of a year of direct rule by Parliament, finally they gave up (no clean break) and invited Chuck II to return to the throne. He demanded (and got) a large specific sum in specie, and had the trunks flipped open on the deck of his ship just to make sure the money was there. After he got esconced in power, he had Cromwell’s body dug up and the traditional penalties for treason were performed on it. What a sorehead.
Charles II was a tremendous adulterer, insatiable really (y’know, for an English guy) and wound up with VD, and no legitimate heir. His brother James II tried to drag the UK back to the Old Faith, and wound up getting replaced by his sister and her husband (William and Mary), an appointment made by Parliament. The Glorious Revolution was the transforming event (IMHO of course) in English politics. The steady decline in the power of the British monarchy to the present-day figurehead status began when they kicked out one ruler and anointed another.
Still, a Parliamentary system isn’t really a democracy, it’s merely a single-party state rule without the oppression (at least on paper) of not allowing other parties to exist. It’ll be nice, for example, when Gordon Brown gets the heave-ho. But there’s an old joke, Margaret Thatcher photo with this caption: in Britain we have the Labour Party, which you would call the Socialist Party, and the Conservative Party, which you would call the Socialist Party...
It only drifted a mile in 500 years. Its a safe bet, for the foreseeable future, the site will remain in England.
Your English History is sound...cough...nerd...
Don’t make me take off my pop-bottle-bottom glasses and propeller beanie to challenge you to a duel (with water balloons, of course).
LOL!! Hey you mind adding me to your ping list? Looks cool.
The Glorious Revolution was the transforming event (IMHO of course) in English politics.
I agree, with a big caveat that the stage for that event was set by the earlier, Cromwellian revolution. IMHO, the English Revolution was the first of the great European revolutions, but was a bit ahead of its time to result in the establishment of a Republic, in contrast to the American and French Revolutions.
a Parliamentary system isn’t really a democracy, it’s merely a single-party state rule without the oppression
True, that system allows the majority party to "get things done" but that can be despite majority opinion. The American system of checks and balances is much more frustrating but tends to result in legislation the majority can live with over a long term. It appears the Obama Party (a rogue wing of the Democrats) is going to illegally repeal the Senate filibuster rule to try to establish parliamentary rule in America. I suspect they have no idea the blowback that may result.
Actually, I agree that the Tudor/Stuart period is at least one of the most interesting, not least because it was the Renaissance, and we wound up with Shakespeare, Bacon, Newton, etc.
Note: this topic is from Friday, February 19, 2010. Just a re-ping three and a half years on because A) there's an update, and B) this is a pretty interesting thread, even with all of my drivel in it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
