I recently, and somewhat belatedly, watched the Showtime tv series “The Tudors” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758790/. Pretty good series, on the whole, and an excellent introduction to the reign of Henry VIII. It should, I reckon, be made compulsory viewing for the following people:
1 those who think religion should play a much bigger role in our society.
2 those who support monarchic/autocratic government
3 those who support laissez faire economics
4 those who think justice should be decided by public opinion not courts
5 those in favour of death penalty
6 those comfortable with huge wealth disparities
7 those against feminism
8 those against public education for all
9 those against science and medicine
10 those who believe in trickle down economics
There, I’m sure you guys can think of other lessons from history as we seemed doomed to repeat it.
I’d like to suggest those with axes to grind, but I suspect you’re serious
Executioner – one of those traditional trades now sadly lost. What happened to their children, expecting to go into their father’s trade, only to be cruelly disappointed, no matter what their skill with axe or knife.
Public education for all? Can you elucidate? Do you mean no private school institutions?
No, I meant education for the public as distinct from merely the aristocracy and senior clergy. And indeed only for men.
The Tudors, as a history makes great entertainment. Not often that I disagree with you David but this is not history. Time spans, dates, character traits and even motives are twisted and convoluted. Having said that, I enjoyed it as entertainment so much that a bought the series. I see it as a Game of Thrones in the Tudor period. What we really need, and I am passionate about, is for well researched and minimal bias history to be put into the main stream media so that more people can look at the evidence of the past. In this way they can be better informed re the list you compiled. I know the more I have read history the more I have changed my mind on several of those issues.
Rob, sure I know it is “fictionalised history”, and there are certainly bits and pieces that have been altered to simplify, or add some colorful touch and so on. But having thought about it a lot the minor changes seemed to me of little importance, really, while on the other hand the main story is pretty accurate and seems to me to reflect pretty well on personalities, motives and so on. Or, at least, reinforced my own views on, say, Thomas Moore, Ann Boleyn, Bishop Gardener and so on, while giving me an alternative view of, say, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer, Ann of Cleves.
With the reservations about such things as Henry’s sister/sisters, Henry Howard/Thomas Howard, the behaviour of the wives of Edward Seymour/Charles Brandon, I still think the overall thrust of it, and the real Tudor World, is good enough to ask the questions I ask here.
Being cognisant of your views please don’t think that I would ever state you would call this history. In my opinion you are too well read to fall for that trap, although some viewers probably weren’t. I was having a discussion on the personality of Henry VIII only the other day with my supervisor at university. (Probably doing a thesis on events that will include our dear Henry). In history we can often make conclusions based on linear, cause and effect circumstances, However, looking at our own lives, twe know that decisions or events have a many interacting circumstances. I fear for poor Henry that he had a lot on his mind, not the least being that his claim to the throne was tenuous. His constant diplomatic manouevring also seems to be the sign of a man insecure in his position and unsure of what direction to take his nation.
On a purely entertainment note I did enjoy the character development of Charles Brandon. He seemed a wonderful foil for the development of Henry’s character. The luscious amoral behavoiur of Nick Dunnings’ Thomas Boleyn and the sad ambition of Wolsey also struck home. Let me just take up a trifle more of your time to state that I felt sorry for Thomas More although his lack of judgement or political acumen in real life was appalling. Hey sounds like today doesn’t. cheers David and keep the blogs coming.
Re-read Schama an Tudors. His narrative and interpretation very closelly match series, which is encouraging.
Sorry for Thomas More? Maybe, he couldn’t help himself. But I’ve always thought him an arsehole. If he was alive now he would be suicide bombing someone whose religion he didn’t like. Brandon I liked, and think would have liked them. Henry – certainly a man trapped in all kinds of ways, as men at historical turning points often are. I think his treatment of both Ann Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell was abysmal, and hope the series correct that he did have regrets later.
in their world, with no safety nets, progression through patronage was all important. This will lead to a different mind set and in many ways this is an alien culture to us. Thomas More died for his beliefs – I wonder what comfort that was for his family? Taking the role of Chancellor in the first place doomed him. Thomas Cromwell marks for England an example of the great ministers which were to rise in the courts of Europe during the 17th century (eg. Richelieu and Maransin). In there own ways these men would have to be self serving to protect their patch, and their underlings, relying on the patronage of these great men, would have equally been jockeying for position. The wonder is that many more of them did not get the chop. Out of it all I think Henry comes of badly. His support of the Reformation was different to many other mainland princes, and personal rather than political. His chasing of a dream that had died in the 1450′s (kingship of France) was a financial drain on his country and led to many unnecessary deaths. He proved an unreliable ally at best. And of course the insecurity over his claim to the throne led to many people being executed. I suppose we are getting off topic but it is of course interesting.
Because history is no longer taught in schools,
young people live only in the present and for
the future. The are ignorant of what has gone
before. So politicians can easily manipulated them by using fear alone.
Great point Ros! In the US it seems like “history” for students is what has occurred within the time span of their life.
never a truer word spoken
I’m with Rob on this one; historical lessons from a Showtime TV series?
But, just get rid of harsh egotistical monarchs and most of those problems go away. It was hardly a time of free market economics though.
Hi Eric. I wasn’t using the series as an historical textbook (though, as these things go, you could do a lot worse) but it just prompted me to compare present day conditions in western countries to those of 450 years ago. We take a lot for granted which has been the result of enormous effort and indeed sacrifice by a lot of people over the centuries. There are glib Tea-Party-style voices everywhere who would happily undo all that and take us back.
Getting rid of kings was just one element in those changes, and perhaps, since the monarchy is retained in countries like Britain, Holland, Denmark, and, in a sense, Austalia and Canada, not an essential one. I love your touching faith in the “free market”, but it is also a minor part of the story, and these days is not a positive force.
In a not unrelated event, so sorry to hear about Paul Ryan…
Always enjoy your wry sense of humor David!