Henry VIII & Anne Boleyn & Thomas Cromwell

[cronus]

Fucking roundhead bastards. I fucking hate roundheads.

Roundheads are not bullet heads.

[laklak]

Bulletheads suck too. And squareheads, never could stand squareheads. Don't even bring up pinheads.

[Svartalf]

that's a bit cavalier to say

and pinhrads are great when you can count the angels dancing on top

[jamest]

Wtf are you talking about? My reference to Oliver Cromwell had nothing to do with the OP! I was just providing you with an example of how history continues to live through the present.

Either way, Oliver Cromwell was all about shifting power from the monarch to parliament.

That's what I said.

He did nothing to advance suffrage to the masses.

Not directly, no, but suffrage cannot emerge until after a parliament takes the power from the monarchy. Indirectly, Cromwell et al set the ball rolling... eventually enabling you to vote on Thursday.

[jamest]

If I wasn't born, then I wouldn't care, would I? What a dumb rebuttal.

You're having another algorithm moment. To claim that British history has no bearing on how you interact with the world, not least how you came into the world, is an utterly retarded viewpoint.

Where did I claim that, Mr Strawman? Seems YOU are having another algorithm moment.

You've explicitly stated that you have no interest in Henry VIII or [presumably] other similar history because it does not impact upon the way you live your life. Yet, it is demonstrably true that British history has had a massive impact upon your country and upon how you live your life, notwithstanding your very existence. So, you're being naive and talking nonsense.

To have no interest in that history is as dumb as a Briton having no interest in the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

Straw man.

I can't make it any clearer. What King Henry did in 17-fucking-whenever has absolutely no bearing on how I interact with the world on a day to day basis.

Do you actually think that Britain's history had no bearing upon the history of Australia, nor no bearing upon how you CAN interact with the world on a day to day basis? If so, then you're utterly deluded.

You can slobber all over Monarchist cock as much as you like, but don't try and inflict your sycophancy on us.

At no point have I stated my opinion wrt the British monarchy. The truth is that I personally would prefer to keep it, but only for sound economic reasons (tourism & trade). What you've done is mistaken my interest in the history of the monarchy (wrt the OP) to wrongly conclude that I'm an out-and-out royalist, which isn't true (my missus was shocked the other day to hear that I hadn't even realised that Kate - William's wife - had been pregnant again, such is my disinterest in such trivial matters). I also have an interest in the history of the Third Reich, but this obviously doesn't mean that I'm a nazi. You really do need to get a grip, squire.

[jamest]

And, fucking hell, rEv should be hung drawn & quartered for turning a thread about Anne Boleyn's execution into a trolling excuse to present his anti-royalist politics.

How this guy has the gall to berate Seth, astounds me.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Wtf are you talking about? My reference to Oliver Cromwell had nothing to do with the OP! I was just providing you with an example of how history continues to live through the present.

Either way, Oliver Cromwell was all about shifting power from the monarch to parliament.

That's what I said.

He did nothing to advance suffrage to the masses.

Not directly, no, but suffrage cannot emerge until after a parliament takes the power from the monarchy. Indirectly, Cromwell et al set the ball rolling... eventually enabling you to vote on Thursday.

Suffrage means the right to vote for parliament. It is independent of what power that parliament actually has.

The greatest factor increasing suffrage between the introduction of Forty Shilling Freeholders in 1430 and the 1832 Reform Act was inflation. The value of 40 shillings freehold was never increased in 400 years!

Apart from that, the only changes made were clarifications/expansions on the type of property that would qualify and the separate extending of suffrage to those in church service - a change that was made following the reformation - ie. by Cromwell's successors.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

By the way, I love history and find it fascinating. I just don't see it as anywhere near as "important" as you appear to.

Who cares if Anne Boleyn slept around? It affects nothing in today's world one way or another (apart from the scripts of historical dramas!)

The important bits of history are the parts that border on current events and directly influence them. The history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, for example - this is extraordinarily important and vital to an understanding of the middle east. (In actual fact, the different belief systems held by the current actors in the region regarding those events are the important bits. Historical fact is bordering on irrelevant compared to the propaganda and justifications built upon dubious versions of it!) But the history of the Boxer Rebellion? The Mongol Hordes? The details of the Domesday Book? These are of academic interest only. They impact on nothing happening now.

[klr]

There's very few things I give less of a shit about than the British Royal Crown.

Back in the days of absolute monarchies, royal families were extremely important, and much of the history that matters revolves around them.

[klr]

I'm fuckin' annoyed. I've just this minute finished watching a BBC documentary about the aforementioned people, in which several noted historians (including David Starkey) argued whether Anne was a slut, was [politically] dislodged by a disgruntled Cromwell (the primary King's advisor), or was simply discarded by a ruthless/unfaithful Henry. Apparently, the historians can't agree. However, the producers of the documentary chose to hide this information from the viewer until the very last minute of the documentary:

11 days after Anne was executed, Henry married Jane Seymour.

Also, such was Henry's loyalty and love to/for Cromwell, he had him executed just 4 years later (for something else).

So, wtf is up with these historians?! Isn't it bleedin' obvious that when someone marries another woman just 11 days after his wife has been executed, that the man in question (the king of England, no less) is the guilty party?! Further, isn't it bleedin' obvious that Cromwell couldn't have had the sway some propose he had upon the king when the king himself had the aforementioned executed just 4 years after Anne's execution?!

Also, in Anne's last religious confession/statement, just before her death, she continued to proclaim her innocence. Here, at the last moment before meeting her maker/God (please don't undervalue the meaning of this final confession/statement in 16th century England), Anne would have been only concerned with saying the right thing for God's sake.

...

In my opinion, garnered [almost] solely from this documentary, Anne Boleyn was simply gotten rid of by order of a King who had fallen in love with one of his [apparently] several mistresses and who had [also] simply fallen out of love with Anne (notwithstanding her failure to produce a heir). Also, let's not forget that Anne was his 2nd wife, such that Henry did not give two fucks about Roman religious politics by this stage. That is, he already knew that his own marital politics would dance to his own tune.

I must be missing something here, because these surely obvious 'conclusions' are apparently dumbfounding some/most of the top historians who are interested in this issue. And, as I said, I know very little about this issue other than what I've heard in the documentary. So, someone please explain to me why the historians are right to disagree or be skeptical, because for the life of me I cannot fail to conclude that Anne (notwithstanding the 4 or 5 blokes accused of sleeping with her - including her own brother - who were also executed) was simply shafted in order to satisfy Henry's desire to legitimately put another woman into the Royal bed.

Why do they disagree/express scepticism? Because they simply don't have enough facts, which is an occupational hazard for historians.

Re Thomas Cromwell: 4 years was an eternity in Tudor court machinations. Henry had previously turned against both Wolsey and More, who were also high in his favour.

Henry did care about religious politics - a lot. There were many reasons for this, not least the religious leanings of other states, both allies and enemies, actual and potential.

No, it's not obvious that he was the prime mover in having Anne arrested and executed. To appreciate this, just look at how long it took him to marry Anne in the first place.

You can't reduce history to such simplistic, black and white interpretations, just because you (by your own admission) have only the most basic understanding of the story.

[jamest]

By the way, I love history and find it fascinating. I just don't see it as anywhere near as "important" as you appear to.

It's important to the extent that an individual cannot understand and evaluate his/her own immediate identity/behaviour without having a grasp of their local-ish history. Ultimately, it's almost of psychological importance. For me, that's significant. But, I'm a deep sort. I want to understand everything which contributes to my/our nature. Though not to the detriment of every other pursuit.

Who cares if Anne Boleyn slept around? It affects nothing in today's world one way or another (apart from the scripts of historical dramas!)

Knowing why Anne Boleyn was executed is not merely an exercise in trying to assess Anne Boleyn's moral standards. It's an exercise in trying to better-understand the mindset and politics of 16th century England, not least of Henry VIII himself. Indeed, if you read the OP, you'll see that I think that she was royally shafted. Thus, such 'trivial' matters give us a chance to grasp why England (its monarchs) went the direction that it did, instead of just knowing that England/they went in that direction. Historical facts are cold and uninteresting unless understanding underpins them. That's why many people choose to visit places like Auschwitz, as I did, just a few years ago. In my opinion, one cannot 'do' history without due consideration to human nature. That is, history is meaningless without recourse to the kind of characters who forged it. So, for me, 16th century England is a desolate place to ponder unless I have a chance to know the characters who walk that stage. That is exactly why I find a certain fascination in Anne Boleyn's execution.

The important bits of history are the parts that border on current events and directly influence them. The history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, for example - this is extraordinarily important and vital to an understanding of the middle east.

It's definitely a myopic mistake to think that history has no importance/value until it begins to give rise to a particular present which threatens a [desired] status quo, for a particular mindset. It's that kind of myopia which precisely leads to those threats to everyone's status quo. The real point of history is to learn from it before it can return to haunt you.

(In actual fact, the different belief systems held by the current actors in the region regarding those events are the important bits. Historical fact is bordering on irrelevant compared to the propaganda and justifications built upon dubious versions of it!) But the history of the Boxer Rebellion? The Mongol Hordes? The details of the Domesday Book? These are of academic interest only. They impact on nothing happening now.

The details of a book impact upon nothing happening now, but the people and behaviour upon which that book was based influenced everything which is happening now. The domino effect.

[jamest]

Why do they disagree/express scepticism? Because they simply don't have enough facts, which is an occupational hazard for historians.

True, but one fact we do know about is human nature. In the aforementioned documentary, for instance, we/I learn that Henry married Jane Seymour just 11 days after Anne is executed. You can't make anything of that fact unless you understand human nature. You can make even more of that fact when you also know what powers Henry possessed at that time. For instance, if I had his powers, and my current wife was to be executed, only to be replaced 11 days later by another lady, I would expect anyone with a semblance of intelligence to understand my agenda. But no, because we don't have video evidence of it, we're slow (or even averse) to condemn Henry. Pathetic evaluation, imo.

Re Thomas Cromwell: 4 years was an eternity in Tudor court machinations. Henry had previously turned against both Wolsey and More, who were also high in his favour.

The point was that Henry was the independent type, confident enough to shaft his advisors when push comes to shove. In other words, Cromwell couldn't have talked Henry into shafting Anne Boleyn. Only Henry could have talked himself into shafting her.

Henry did care about religious politics - a lot. There were many reasons for this, not least the religious leanings of other states, both allies and enemies, actual and potential.

No, it's not obvious that he was the prime mover in having Anne arrested and executed. To appreciate this, just look at how long it took him to marry Anne in the first place.

You've obviously missed a significant point I made in the OP, in which I state:

Also, let's not forget that Anne was his 2nd wife, such that Henry did not give two fucks about Roman religious politics by this stage. That is, he already knew that his own marital politics would dance to his own tune.

... Clearly, it was going to be a difficult [political/religious] decision to marry Anne. To kick Rome in the balls, for the first time. But, thereafter, a piece of cake. If you get away with a 'crime' once, you're not so nervous the second time.

You can't reduce history to such simplistic, black and white interpretations, just because you (by your own admission) have only the most basic understanding of the story.

I'm using my understanding of human nature to make sense of those limited facts. Something the aforementioned historians seem reluctant to do. But how the fuck can you purport to be depicting the history of humanity without embracing its nature into that depiction? Lemons who cannot see Henry running the show because they have no 'records' supporting this fact, are not worthy of the title '[human] historian', imo.

[Seth]

I'm fuckin' annoyed. I've just this minute finished watching a BBC documentary about the aforementioned people, in which several noted historians (including David Starkey) argued whether Anne was a slut, was [politically] dislodged by a disgruntled Cromwell (the primary King's advisor), or was simply discarded by a ruthless/unfaithful Henry. Apparently, the historians can't agree. However, the producers of the documentary chose to hide this information from the viewer until the very last minute of the documentary:

11 days after Anne was executed, Henry married Jane Seymour.

Also, such was Henry's loyalty and love to/for Cromwell, he had him executed just 4 years later (for something else).

So, wtf is up with these historians?!

What's up? Socialist revisionism of course. I just read about a new series that portrays Cromwell as a kind and generous man who was protecting Henry against the Catholic church and portrays Beckett as an evil machinator. Of course it's all revisionist anti-Catholic "history" just as this is revisionist "history" created to sell ads. Of course they waited to give you the McGuffin, they knew if they even mentioned what they were up to, you'd have tuned out. It's just Hollywood, or Bollywood or whatever they call it at the BBC. Lots of juicy fiction and very little fact.

[pErvinalia]

If I wasn't born, then I wouldn't care, would I? What a dumb rebuttal.

You're having another algorithm moment. To claim that British history has no bearing on how you interact with the world, not least how you came into the world, is an utterly retarded viewpoint.

Where did I claim that, Mr Strawman? Seems YOU are having another algorithm moment.

You've explicitly stated that you have no interest in Henry VIII or [presumably]

As I said, a strawman. No where did I claim in anyway that "British history has no bearing on how {I} interact with the world".

other similar history because it does not impact upon the way you live your life. Yet, it is demonstrably true that British history has had a massive impact upon your country and upon how you live your life, notwithstanding your very existence. So, you're being naive and talking nonsense.

Once again, that's not the point that is under discussion. Do you only have remedial English?? It's the concept that not knowing or caring about something in the past changes the way I live my life. It demonstrably doesn't as we all have different levels of knowledge of different historical events, yet my peers live a exist in a similar way to me.

To have no interest in that history is as dumb as a Briton having no interest in the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

Straw man.

I can't make it any clearer. What King Henry did in 17-fucking-whenever has absolutely no bearing on how I interact with the world on a day to day basis.

Do you actually think that Britain's history had no bearing upon the history of Australia, nor no bearing upon how you CAN interact with the world on a day to day basis? If so, then you're utterly deluded.

It's beyond my ken that you can be SO bad at parsing simple English. I have said absolutely NOTHING to indicate that "Britain's history had no bearing upon the history of Australia, blah blah blah". Were do you get this shit? Take your blinkers off, squire.

You can slobber all over Monarchist cock as much as you like, but don't try and inflict your sycophancy on us.

At no point have I stated my opinion wrt the British monarchy. The truth is that I personally would prefer to keep it, but only for sound economic reasons (tourism & trade). What you've done is mistaken my interest in the history of the monarchy (wrt the OP) to wrongly conclude that I'm an out-and-out royalist, which isn't true (my missus was shocked the other day to hear that I hadn't even realised that Kate - William's wife - had been pregnant again, such is my disinterest in such trivial matters). I also have an interest in the history of the Third Reich, but this obviously doesn't mean that I'm a nazi. You really do need to get a grip, squire.

Nah, you need to lift your game if you want to be taken as a serious intellect around here. Until that point, I'll rhetorically put you down as I see fit.

[pErvinalia]

And, fucking hell, rEv should be hung drawn & quartered for turning a thread about Anne Boleyn's execution into a trolling excuse to present his anti-royalist politics.

How this guy has the gall to berate Seth, astounds me.

All I did was state that my care factor = zero. That you, a remedial rationalist monarchist, took offence to that and went totally overboard with hyperbolic pronouncements isn't my problem. This is a rationalist site, James. You're not going to get a free pass to sprout irrational bollocks. Get used to it, champ.