| This possibly maligned king got a reputation as the epitome of evil via the writings of Sir Thomas More and William Shakespeare, the main reason
being that he was on the losing side at Bosworth Field, which ended the Plantagenets and established the Tudor dynasty. He was probably no better or worse than similar potentates of his
generation, and is actually remembered with some respect in the City of York (he was Duke of
York, and treated that domain very well -- one of the best pubs in town is named after him). But given the times and his background, he certainly
didn't lack for deviousness and ruthlessness. No doubt he had his uncle (cousin?), Clarence,
drowned in the butt of malmsey, and indeed married the widow of his brother (was it?). Judging by
the picture, although the painter wouldn't have depicted it, he wasn't deformed, although he might
have had a weak arm. There are plenty of Richard III societies who spend time trying to prove
other people committed the atrocities (such as the murder of the two Princes, his nephews) attributed to Richard; no doubt we will never know the full truth. It is much more fun to think of
Richard III as the consummate villain of Shakespeare's than as a generous and able administrator.
|
The first Tudor king was a Welshman, so gaining the racist reputation for stinginess (they are supposed to be worse than the Scots). This is probably not wholly
true; it's more likely the treasury was strapped for cash after all those years of civil war. He did
build the beautiful chapel behind the main altar at Westminster Abbey (well, I don't mean personally), for which we should be grateful. He also was a peacemaker who brought the country
back together again after all the turmoil; he didn't even execute Lambert Simnel, who led a rebellion
in the Lake District claiming to be the lost Prince Edward. Whether Henry Tudor had an actual right to the throne is very
problematical -- something about being descended from John of Gaunt or somebody via the female line or by marriage. Anyway, it didn't really matter, since there were conveniently no Plantagenet
heirs after Richard. (Some people say HE's the one who had the Princes murdered, but that doesn't seem very convincing.) About all one can say about him is that he was the transitional monarch between the Middle Ages and the Modern Era; America was discovered during his reign, and the mercantile class grew ever stronger. |
Our Harry is most famous for two things: his many wives and
his plundering of the Church. As for the latter, the Tudors always had treasury problems, especially
since they were engaged in a naval arms race with the French, Dutch, and Spanish (Henry VIII in
many ways could be called the founder of the British Navy, and we know the result of that!). He
did not lead a Protestant Reformation, but merely appointed himself administrator of the Church as
opposed to the foreign Pope. His chancellor Cromwell took the opportunity to replenish the
exchequer and reward Henry's political allies by confiscating the properties of the monasteries,
which were abolished ostensibly on the grounds that they were corrupt. More fun is the business
of his six wives: (1) Catherine of Aragon, whom he divorced when she became barren after the birth of Mary; (2) Anne Boleyn, mother of Elizabeth, who was beheaded for being a scheming witch;
(3) Jane Seymour, the sweet nothing mother of his long-sought heir Edward, who inconveniently
died; (4) Anne of Cleves, the Flanders Mare, divorced for her ugliness; (5) Catherine Howard, executed for adultery (Henry was more than twice her age, and pretty gross and disgusting by now); and (6) Catherine Parr, married in effect as a nursemaid, who survived him. There is probably
no inner meaning to the fact that there were three Kates.
|
