 |
|

04-02-2009, 04:07 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,406
|
|
|
I would assume that most people are as woefully ignorant of their history as Americans are. (The only exception I have observed is among the Chinese graduate students I've met, who don't understand why Americans complain about having to learn a mere roughly 500 years of history.)
__________________
|

04-02-2009, 04:58 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,944
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman
I've always wondered: how much of British history do children learn in British schools? I mean, the British history itself is rich, let alone the rest of the history of Europe and Asia. So, how much details of British history were you taught? Did you need learn all the British monarchs by heart and such things?
|
It seems to depend on the type of school and which year. I went to public school and we learned names, dates, the times, as they were then understood/known. The British dominance and misuse of other nations was glossed over, luckily, I had a brilliant Professor he was more than happy to 'spill the beans'. I have to say most of it gets forgotten the older you get, clearly I can't speak for other schools in modern times.
|

04-02-2009, 07:57 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman
I've always wondered: how much of British history do children learn in British schools? I mean, the British history itself is rich, let alone the rest of the history of Europe and Asia. So, how much details of British history were you taught? Did you need learn all the British monarchs by heart and such things?
|
Here is an interesting web site of nursery rhymes that children were taught for their history.
Nursery Rhymes lyrics, origins and history
__________________
|

04-04-2009, 04:58 PM
|
 |
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: *****, United States
Posts: 586
|
|
|
|

04-04-2009, 06:28 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,406
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeralds and Opals
|
I don't see what's so exciting about this discovery. H8 was "Defender of the Faith" after all. And it wasn't so much that H8 was against the Church of Rome as that he was for H8.
And I think it's a bit much to expect a teenaged prince to have fully developed religious views.
__________________
|

04-04-2009, 07:32 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa, United States
Posts: 462
|
|
|
I agree that when he was younger he believed in traditional Roman Catholicism. In fact, he wrote a book ( I suppose it was actually ghostwritten, but it had his name on it and he argreed with it) against Martin Luther/heresy I believe. I never doubted that he did believe in traditional Roman Catholicism. The only reason he ever broke with the church was because he wanted to be his own authority and not accept the pope's authority, in regards to in particular, his marriage to Catharine of Aragon, which he wanted ended. When the pope was relunctant to do this, partly because the pope was a prisoner of Catharine's nephew Emperior Charles V, Henry had had it. His break with Roman Catholicism was never about religious doubts. It might never have happened, in fact, had Catharine of Aragon given him a male heir.
|

04-05-2009, 07:27 AM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 416
|
|
|
I understand that Henry VIII broke off with Roman Catholicism, but never with Catholicism. That's why Anne of Cleves had to convert to Catholicism and that's why Catherine Parr hid her interest in Protestantism. Am I right?
|

04-05-2009, 11:25 AM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa, United States
Posts: 462
|
|
|
Yes, that's true. He broke with the pope and abolished monasteries and the like ( so he could sieze the church's wealth, it was all about him), but he remained Catholic, just not Roman. So the article really revealed little that was new as he never really had eligious differences with the church. To him, it was all about who the power belonged to.
|

04-06-2009, 07:57 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,406
|
|
|
I don't think you can be a traditional Roman Catholic without acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope. That's a key.
__________________
|

04-07-2009, 12:14 AM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa, United States
Posts: 462
|
|
|
I don't think he had any issues with the Pope either though before he wanted a divorce from Catharine of Aragon. The Pope actually thought he was a good Catholic monarch before that, and was pleased with his book against Luther. Henry was always very interested in theological issues even more so than usual in the 16th century, long before he broke with Rome.
|

04-07-2009, 05:39 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a city on the Great Silk Road, Kazakhstan
Posts: 4,564
|
|
|
I agree with the article stating that the reasons, which prompted Henry VIII to get rid of Anne Bolyen, will remain unclear. It is amazing that he spared no effort to marry her and then just tossed her away as if she were of no importance at all.
__________________
Perfection is "simplicity devoid of unnecessary elements".
|

04-07-2009, 08:42 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina
I agree with the article stating that the reasons, which prompted Henry VIII to get rid of Anne Bolyen, will remain unclear. It is amazing that he spared no effort to marry her and then just tossed her away as if she were of no importance at all.
|
Because her main purpose was to breed an heir.
__________________
|

04-07-2009, 08:53 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a city on the Great Silk Road, Kazakhstan
Posts: 4,564
|
|
|
You are right ... but still why to resort to a complicated judicial process followed by an execution to get rid of a wife? Does it mean that he never had sincere feelings for Anne in the first place? He could have divorced her or got rid of her in a less painful way.
__________________
Perfection is "simplicity devoid of unnecessary elements".
|

04-07-2009, 08:55 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina
You are right ... but still why to resort to a complicated judicial process followed by an execution to get rid of a wife? Does it mean that he never had sincere feeling for Anne in the first place? He could have divorced her or got rid of her in a less painful way.
|
Maybe because he rocked the world by divorcing already and she was still alive (not for long though)?
__________________
|

04-07-2009, 08:59 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Anywhere, United States
Posts: 952
|
|
|
I think part of the reason that he had her executed was to make sure that any children born to a subsequent marriage would be unquestionably legitimate. He divorced Katharine of Aragon, but those who didn't believe that he had the right to divorce his wife considered Elizabeth illegitimate.
Having Anne executed solved the problem simply (albeit horribly) for Henry. And since she wasn't a foreign princess, he didn't have to risk any international alliances by doing so. When he married Jane Seymour, both his previous spouses were dead, and so there were no grounds for calling Edward illegitimate.
__________________
"I have to be seen to be believed." HM The Queen
|

04-07-2009, 09:08 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a city on the Great Silk Road, Kazakhstan
Posts: 4,564
|
|
|
I see your points. At the same time, Henry VIII allowed to drag the name of a woman he once loved through the mud. He could have used some other method ... "accidents could happen" method, which would not tarnish her name, to physically remove Anne Bolyen. It appears that he needed an official setting to throw Anne out of his life.
__________________
Perfection is "simplicity devoid of unnecessary elements".
|

04-07-2009, 09:11 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Anywhere, United States
Posts: 952
|
|
|
I think the "official setting" part was key. Because the execution was "public" (I think it was inside the Tower, so it wasn't as much of a spectacle, but there were still many witnesses), there could be no question that she was dead. Otherwise he'd have been dealing with rumors that Anne was still the true queen, alive, somewhere, and that could have led to problems politically (and with the legitimacy of Edward).
It's still a disgusting piece of history, Al_bina, you're right about that.
__________________
"I have to be seen to be believed." HM The Queen
|

04-07-2009, 09:14 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a city on the Great Silk Road, Kazakhstan
Posts: 4,564
|
|
|
Right you are ...
__________________
Perfection is "simplicity devoid of unnecessary elements".
|

04-08-2009, 09:24 AM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa, United States
Posts: 462
|
|
|
I think he loved Anne, in the letters he wrote her before they were married, he seems genuinely affectionate. But, he was the kind of person who loved himself the most. Perhaps one reason why her end was so bad, with all the lies he had said about her and then having her executed, was because he did honestly love her and then her not having the male heir was just too much of a blow. Sometimes they say that with great love goes great hate. Just my theory. But I also agree he wanted his children to be unquestionably legitimate ( any children who came after his marriage to Anne) and that was the real reason, as everyone said.
|
 |
|
|
Tags
|
anne boleyn, anne of cleves, biography, british history, catherine howard, catherine of aragon, catherine parr, catholicism, church of england, elizabeth i, henry viii, jane seymour, pope, queen consort, syphilis, tudor  |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional Links |
|
|
|