So, when we left off Richard III had named himself King of England. His son and heir was named Prince of Wales and everyone seemed to be happy, more or less. However, plots to dethrone Richard and put the young Edward V on the throne began to develop. Elizabeth Woodville, conniving queen that she was, plotted with Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry Tudor to bring Henry back into England from France with an army he would raise on the continent and together with the Duke of Buckingham and his forces and those raised by other lords Henry would take the throne of England and marry Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV. This would not make Elizabeth Woodville's son king, but it would make her daughter queen. This plot was discovered, however, and the discovery, in addition to rain which flooded much of the north of England prevented Henry Tudor's forces from moving south towards London. Buckingham was arrested and inevitably executed. Everyone else seems to have been granted clemency, including Margaret Beaufort, who was married to Lord Stanley, a powerful lord who owned so much land in England that his eventual abandonment of Richard on the battlefield at Bosworth would lead to his downfall. Such powerful landowners commanded legions of troops and their allegiance could make or break a king.
Time passed and later that year Richard's only son died followed by his wife, Anne Neville. Anne and Richard were cousins who grew up together and he most likely mourned the loss of a wife he truly loved. More time passes and a second rebellion against Richard is raised by Woodville and Beaufort. Henry Tudor came into Wales with his uncle Jasper Tudor, who himself was a great lord in Wales. The Tudors marched down through England collecting troops as they went. They met Richard's army at Bosworth where the king himself was leading his army. At the last minute Lord Stanley ordered his troops to switch sides and start fighting against Richard and his men and Richard, who had been unhorsed, was killed. It is said he went down fighting and yelling for a horse. Henry Tudor rode into London in triumph after being crowned king Henry VII on the battlefield. Five months later he married Elizabeth of York and united the red and white roses of England, or the houses of York and Lancaster, Tudor and Plantagenent.
Henry quickly moved to have the act of Titulus Regius destroyed, not repealed, but destroyed. If the act were left in existence it would draw into question the legitimacy of his wife, and if it was repealed it would declare Edward V to be the rightful king of England. It was a double edged sword for Henry. So he did the only thing he could do and obliterated the memory of such a law. He passed a bill of attainder against Richard III accusing him of tyranny and cruelty but supposedly not of killing the two princes. I have not been able to verify this fact, but if it is true and the princes were in fact missing and had been killed by Richard why would Henry not charge him with the crime? It would be his biggest smoking gun and would make people loathe Richard and gladly accept their new king, whose claim to the throne was tenuous. Anyhow, Henry's queen Elizabeth gave birth to Prince Arthur after they had been married for about a year and the succession was safe.
In 1489 Henry suddenly had Elizabeth Woodville put away in a nunnery, perhaps she started asking too many questions about her sons. Prior to this he had granted her a hefty annual income and all of the rights and privileges of a dowager queen. Around this time, in 1502, a man named Sir James Tyrell was arrested for treason and executed. After his death a "confession" was published saying that he had been sent by Richard III to the tower with two other men to kill the young princes. He relieved the constable of the tower, one sir Robert Brackenbury of the keys to the fortress for one night and the two hired thugs killed the young princes. He supposedly buried them under a set of stairs. The skeletons of two children were found in the 1700s and they were believed to be those of the princes. It has never been proven however, but they are interred in state in Westminster Abbey. They were not the only two skeletons found in the tower though, there is a tale from the time of Elizabeth I of the skeletons of two children being found laid out on a table in a walled up room. What became of them is not known however.
So, was Richard guilty of the murder of his nephews or not? Did only one of them die? In the time of Henry VII a young man named Perkin Warbeck appeared on the international scene claiming to be the younger prince, Richard, Duke of York. He was believed by many people in high places, but his claim remains unsubstantiated one way or the other. All accounts of Richard as a murderer were written under the Tudor regime, the regime that usurped Richard's throne. So who was the real killer? Richard? Henry Tudor? Neither one? I don't know that we will ever know but it makes for a really great mystery!
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Centuries of Lies? Part 1
The subject of today's post is the guilt, or lack thereof, of Richard III. Perhaps you are familiar with the story of Richard III from Shakespeare's play or from your world history books. Perhaps you have seen one of the various movies about him. He is generally portrayed as a murderous, hunch-backed fiend who killed his nephews in order to become king. However, in reading a book this week I have discovered that this may be all propaganda brought about to discredit the Yorkist claim to the throne by Henry VII. But back to the beginning and where it all started.
Richard III was the youngest brother of King Edward IV of England. He was known for his loyalty to his brother the king and his great valor in battle. George and Edward had another brother, George, Duke of Clarence, who was executed by Edward's order due to the fact that he raised multiple rebellions against his brother the king, making his own bid for the throne. George and his heirs were disinherited before his death and were not re-instated for some time. Edward IV died unexpectedly in 1483 leaving behind a wife, two sons, and five daughters. The older son and heir to the throne, Edward V was in Wales at the time. The queen, Elizabeth Woodville, fearing an uprising, took her younger son and daughters into Westminster Abbey and took sanctuary there. She ordered her brother, Earl Rivers, who was the boy's guardian, and her son by her first marriage, the Marquise of Dorset, to bring the new boy king back to London. The party was supposed to meet up with Richard III and his men somewhere in the north of England and proceed to London. Richard had been named the Lord Protector of the young prince until he reached manhood. This gave him full rights to the body of the prince, in today's terms he had legal custody of the child.
Rivers and his men did not meet up with Richard's party, who was coming down into England after fighting the Scots, instead forging ahead and leaving a messenger for Richard. Richard promptly caught up to the Prince's party and arrested Rivers and Dorset for not handing over the young king. He proceeded with him into London where he housed him at a bishop's palace while he himself stayed at his mother's family home at Baynard's castle. He began to plan a coronation for the young king and asked that his younger brother Richard, Duke of York be brought out of sanctuary to keep the young king company. The two boys were moved to the Tower of London, still a royal residence at the time, for safekeeping. It was traditional for monarchs to sleep there before their coronation.
The coronation, however, never took place. During a council meeting in June of that year Stillington, a priest in the Plantagenent household told Richard that he could not in good conscience allow Edward V to inherit the throne because he was in fact illegitimate due to the fact that the late King, Edward IV, had been secretly married to a lady named Eleanor Butler, who at this time was in a nunnery or possibly dead, (that is unknown) and therefore his marriage to the queen was bigamous. The next in line to the throne was Richard's other nephew, the Earl of Warwick, his brother George's son. Since the child had been disinherited Richard overlooked him and named himself heir to the throne. Instead of his nephew being crowned he himself was crowned. He quickly sent for a large force of soldiers to hold the city of London because he feared the boy's mother, the dowager queen, would encourage her many relatives at court to stage an uprising in favor of her son, which, in all likelihood she would have. She was hated by many in power for bringing her relatives to court when she became queen and having titles bestowed upon them.
Anyhow, Richard is crowned, his wife and son are brought to court, and Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters come out of sanctuary. The family, by all contemporary accounts seems to be getting along well, at times living in the palace and the princesses attended many palace functions. No mention is made however, of the boys who are still locked in the tower one supposes. Surely if they were missing scandal would have broken out, especially with a mother like Elizabeth Woodville on the loose. There are no contemporary accusations, however, that the boys have disappeared or that Richard has done anything to them. If I was a mother I would not keep quiet about my children having disappeared. I would not come out of sanctuary with my daughters, I would sail quietly away to France in the middle of the night and raise an army on the continent. None of this happened. Everything went along normally. The only rumors at the time seem to have appeared on the continent, where many of Richard's enemies fled upon his accession to the throne. Most notably John Morton, the man who provided the information to Thomas More, who wrote a history of Richard III. It is important to note that More himself, though a great man and a great mind, was a child in 1483, so he is not a contemporary historian and he was writing under a Tudor regime, a regime that usurped the Plantagenent one.
More tomorrow, more evidence, more treachery, more lies?
Sources: Richard III Society
http://www.richardiii.net/
Richard III was the youngest brother of King Edward IV of England. He was known for his loyalty to his brother the king and his great valor in battle. George and Edward had another brother, George, Duke of Clarence, who was executed by Edward's order due to the fact that he raised multiple rebellions against his brother the king, making his own bid for the throne. George and his heirs were disinherited before his death and were not re-instated for some time. Edward IV died unexpectedly in 1483 leaving behind a wife, two sons, and five daughters. The older son and heir to the throne, Edward V was in Wales at the time. The queen, Elizabeth Woodville, fearing an uprising, took her younger son and daughters into Westminster Abbey and took sanctuary there. She ordered her brother, Earl Rivers, who was the boy's guardian, and her son by her first marriage, the Marquise of Dorset, to bring the new boy king back to London. The party was supposed to meet up with Richard III and his men somewhere in the north of England and proceed to London. Richard had been named the Lord Protector of the young prince until he reached manhood. This gave him full rights to the body of the prince, in today's terms he had legal custody of the child.
Rivers and his men did not meet up with Richard's party, who was coming down into England after fighting the Scots, instead forging ahead and leaving a messenger for Richard. Richard promptly caught up to the Prince's party and arrested Rivers and Dorset for not handing over the young king. He proceeded with him into London where he housed him at a bishop's palace while he himself stayed at his mother's family home at Baynard's castle. He began to plan a coronation for the young king and asked that his younger brother Richard, Duke of York be brought out of sanctuary to keep the young king company. The two boys were moved to the Tower of London, still a royal residence at the time, for safekeeping. It was traditional for monarchs to sleep there before their coronation.
The coronation, however, never took place. During a council meeting in June of that year Stillington, a priest in the Plantagenent household told Richard that he could not in good conscience allow Edward V to inherit the throne because he was in fact illegitimate due to the fact that the late King, Edward IV, had been secretly married to a lady named Eleanor Butler, who at this time was in a nunnery or possibly dead, (that is unknown) and therefore his marriage to the queen was bigamous. The next in line to the throne was Richard's other nephew, the Earl of Warwick, his brother George's son. Since the child had been disinherited Richard overlooked him and named himself heir to the throne. Instead of his nephew being crowned he himself was crowned. He quickly sent for a large force of soldiers to hold the city of London because he feared the boy's mother, the dowager queen, would encourage her many relatives at court to stage an uprising in favor of her son, which, in all likelihood she would have. She was hated by many in power for bringing her relatives to court when she became queen and having titles bestowed upon them.
Anyhow, Richard is crowned, his wife and son are brought to court, and Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters come out of sanctuary. The family, by all contemporary accounts seems to be getting along well, at times living in the palace and the princesses attended many palace functions. No mention is made however, of the boys who are still locked in the tower one supposes. Surely if they were missing scandal would have broken out, especially with a mother like Elizabeth Woodville on the loose. There are no contemporary accusations, however, that the boys have disappeared or that Richard has done anything to them. If I was a mother I would not keep quiet about my children having disappeared. I would not come out of sanctuary with my daughters, I would sail quietly away to France in the middle of the night and raise an army on the continent. None of this happened. Everything went along normally. The only rumors at the time seem to have appeared on the continent, where many of Richard's enemies fled upon his accession to the throne. Most notably John Morton, the man who provided the information to Thomas More, who wrote a history of Richard III. It is important to note that More himself, though a great man and a great mind, was a child in 1483, so he is not a contemporary historian and he was writing under a Tudor regime, a regime that usurped the Plantagenent one.
More tomorrow, more evidence, more treachery, more lies?
Sources: Richard III Society
http://www.richardiii.net/
Sunday, June 20, 2010
And So It Ends...
The last episode of the Tudors ends with Henry's approaching death and his view of himself as
king. He stands before Holbein's great portrait in the chapel and sees his life flash before him. His death is not seen, but foretold by his dream of a pale horse with death as a rider coming for him. For those of you not familiar with the symbolism death rides a pale horse when he rides with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. The pale horse is just yet another of Hirst's beautiful use of imagery and symbolism in this epic series. He used it before when Anne Boleyn was executed. There was a flash of swans and feathers as she died. Swans are said to burst into song before dying, thus the term "Swan Song" to describe the end of something. Crows or ravens also flew from the top of the tower after she died. Crows are said to carry the souls of the dead to the other side. Hirst is truly an amazing writer and director.
The other fabulous thing about tonight's episode were the visits Henry received from three of his four dead wives. Katherine of Aragon came first. She chided him for being cruel to their daughter Mary and for not allowing her to marry and become a mother. She also told him that she was his true wife in the eyes of God when she was alive and still was. Needless to say, he was not happy about this, but I liked that she got that barb in one final time.
Anne Boleyn came next. She appeared to him in the night as he was preparing for sleep. He appears to be preparing some sort of tincture no doubt for his health, but one must wonder if he thinks he is losing his mind. He asks her why she has come and she says to see her daughter. She tells Henry she is so proud of her, how clever she is, how strong, how beautiful. She asks Henry if he is proud and he admits that yes, indeed he is but that he cannot always love her because she reminds him too much of Anne and what she did to him. Anne is shocked and replies that she did nothing to him, that she was innocent and the accusations against her were false. Then she looks at him and says "I thought you knew." It is not clear if he knew or not, but he does now. She also tells him that poor Catherine Howard lies in the ground next to her and that what happened to her was not her fault either. Anne looks at Henry almost with pity, but she still has that amazing strength that will not allow her to give in to the emotion. He turns and speaks her name and asks her not to go, but she is gone. He had not spoken her name in years. He is left to live with the fact that he killed an innocent woman, a woman he dearly loved, and that he never got the chance to apologize, which he does not deserve. Let him die with the guilt.
Jane Seymour is the last to appear and she tells him that all of his coddling of Edward has killed him. He will die young and he never lived much of a life shut away from the world. Henry is devastated by the news and turns away from his most beloved wife. He then orders his council to bury him next to her. Guess he really didn't have any choice since he either divorced or executed all of his other wives that were no longer alive and he knew his current wife would outlive him.
Hirst also did an amazing job of directing the cast. Princess Mary stands strong with her hands clasped as her mother always did. She has that backbone of steel they both inherited from Isabella of Castile. Elisabeth though is truly amazing. She has her mother's dignity and that way of thrusting her chin forward and holding her head high when she hears news that is not to her liking that Natalie Dormer as Anne perfected. The gestures of these two actresses are so similar that they really appear to be mother and daughter. A truly amazing series has come to an end. It goes out while a pale horse approaches from behind.
king. He stands before Holbein's great portrait in the chapel and sees his life flash before him. His death is not seen, but foretold by his dream of a pale horse with death as a rider coming for him. For those of you not familiar with the symbolism death rides a pale horse when he rides with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. The pale horse is just yet another of Hirst's beautiful use of imagery and symbolism in this epic series. He used it before when Anne Boleyn was executed. There was a flash of swans and feathers as she died. Swans are said to burst into song before dying, thus the term "Swan Song" to describe the end of something. Crows or ravens also flew from the top of the tower after she died. Crows are said to carry the souls of the dead to the other side. Hirst is truly an amazing writer and director.
The other fabulous thing about tonight's episode were the visits Henry received from three of his four dead wives. Katherine of Aragon came first. She chided him for being cruel to their daughter Mary and for not allowing her to marry and become a mother. She also told him that she was his true wife in the eyes of God when she was alive and still was. Needless to say, he was not happy about this, but I liked that she got that barb in one final time.
Anne Boleyn came next. She appeared to him in the night as he was preparing for sleep. He appears to be preparing some sort of tincture no doubt for his health, but one must wonder if he thinks he is losing his mind. He asks her why she has come and she says to see her daughter. She tells Henry she is so proud of her, how clever she is, how strong, how beautiful. She asks Henry if he is proud and he admits that yes, indeed he is but that he cannot always love her because she reminds him too much of Anne and what she did to him. Anne is shocked and replies that she did nothing to him, that she was innocent and the accusations against her were false. Then she looks at him and says "I thought you knew." It is not clear if he knew or not, but he does now. She also tells him that poor Catherine Howard lies in the ground next to her and that what happened to her was not her fault either. Anne looks at Henry almost with pity, but she still has that amazing strength that will not allow her to give in to the emotion. He turns and speaks her name and asks her not to go, but she is gone. He had not spoken her name in years. He is left to live with the fact that he killed an innocent woman, a woman he dearly loved, and that he never got the chance to apologize, which he does not deserve. Let him die with the guilt.
Jane Seymour is the last to appear and she tells him that all of his coddling of Edward has killed him. He will die young and he never lived much of a life shut away from the world. Henry is devastated by the news and turns away from his most beloved wife. He then orders his council to bury him next to her. Guess he really didn't have any choice since he either divorced or executed all of his other wives that were no longer alive and he knew his current wife would outlive him.
Hirst also did an amazing job of directing the cast. Princess Mary stands strong with her hands clasped as her mother always did. She has that backbone of steel they both inherited from Isabella of Castile. Elisabeth though is truly amazing. She has her mother's dignity and that way of thrusting her chin forward and holding her head high when she hears news that is not to her liking that Natalie Dormer as Anne perfected. The gestures of these two actresses are so similar that they really appear to be mother and daughter. A truly amazing series has come to an end. It goes out while a pale horse approaches from behind.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
A Life Lived Misunderstood is Still a Life Lived
I was reading a book this evening about Anne of Cleves. Anne of Cleves is Henry VIII's fourth wife and they were married about six months. Henry called the poor woman "The Great Flanders Mare" and famously said "I Like Her Not!" upon meeting her for the first time. No one knows why this meeting went so badly, perhaps she was sick from a long sea voyage. Perhaps she was dressed oddly in Flemish clothing. Perhaps he did not like her because she had dark hair and her name was Anne, reminding him a little too much of Anne Boleyn, his great love and the most hated woman in his life, as far as appearances go anyway. Perhaps he did not like her because she did not realize the great fat man in front of her was the king and her husband dressed as a commoner so that he could surprise her. Who knows. Her portrait, painted by Holbein, is not ugly by any means. She looks quiet and attractive, and perhaps that was her downfall. Henry liked his women to sparkle, to be conversationalists and knowledgeable, not quiet and sensible. Although, his beloved Jane Seymour is said to have been "mousy." Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard certainly sparkled, Katherine of Aragon fairly glittered, so this woman from Cleves who studied all things practical but not much as far as the arts were concerned must have been quite a change for him. However, by all accounts she was a kind and loving person. She continued to mother his children even after Henry divorced her, she agreed to the divorce amiably (although she did manage to keep her head this way) and she maintained a good relationship with Henry, Mary, Elisabeth and Edward until her death.
So, as context, or the need to use the past to understand the present is my greatest strength according to "Strength Finders", intellect coming in second, I realized something while I was reading this afternoon. Today I saw someone that I have not seen in quite a while. This person causes me to roll my eyes often as they talk non-stop about work and we have butted heads several times. However, when I was reading I realized that I have misjudged this person. Anne of Cleves was a woman denied a chance at marriage and motherhood, something women of her time wanted very much. I realized, while speaking with this person today that I actually really enjoyed our conversation, which is somewhat a new phenomenon for me. Thinking back to my past encounters with this person I remembered that once, only once, I saw her smile fade and I saw her tears. Tears of frustration at another wedding that was not hers, another child born to friends that would not be hers. This, I realized is why she talks about work all the time, to hide what is lacking. Stand on your strengths we are told, and so she does, she is good at what she does. She loves her job and this is what is important to her so this is what she talks about and this is ok. She, like Anne, has thus far been denied marriage and children, something women want both then and now, but she smiles and continues to love life.
Thinking more I thought about how I know that I am often misunderstood. I work in a very pro-cheerful environment, but one that I love dearly. Not being an over the top cheerful person, I think many people think that I am bitter and old before my time. Cynical too perhaps. This is not true, I just have nothing to match the enthusiasm which comes from four cups of coffee and several diet cokes a day. If I drank all of that caffeine my heart would explode. I sometimes wonder what is behind the smiles of the super happy, I know there are other emotions. Am I happy? Yes. Am I super duper chirpy happy? Umm, perhaps on a Europe bound flight or at the Pink concert earlier this year, otherwise, I am just living in reality, and reality for me is a calm, sedated place where bad things do exist, I can't pretend they don't. But every day life includes so many small joys, and I experience and love them, I am just quiet about it. I am who I am, and that is ok. Those who are always cheerful are who they are, and that is also fine. I think we exist in mutual acceptance and humor. I have a dry sense of humor, sometimes it is rather black, I talk ALOT and if someone is lucky enough to get into my heart, I will love them forever. But I also battle depression, it's a battle that never ends, and I do the best I can. I am reminded of that old commercial about "This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs, any questions?" I feel like, this is me on drugs that help me not live in blackness, So some days I live in light and some days I live in grey, any questions? But it does not mean that overall I am unhappy.
I compare myself to Anne Boleyn frequently, as I think she was much like me. She was smart, not beautiful but not unattractive, had a temper, and was very misunderstood and much maligned. A great smear campaign was conducted after her death and she became seen as a social climber, a shrew, and a mean spirited person. I don't think she was. She set up many charities to help the poor, I think she very much wanted to be liked and wanted to be a good queen. She had a personality that was very strong, and she either drew people in all the way, or pushed them away beyond reach. People either loved her enough to die for her or they hated her enough to ensure her death, there was no gray area. I have this type of personality, I am either loved or loathed, nothing much in between. Some say I am lazy, or become displeased because I do not do as they wish. Perhaps though, they should examine their own actions, who wants to feed those who bite your hand? I think Anne felt much the same way. She did not make much effort to charm those who did not like her. In fact, for several weeks she took as her motto "Ainsi sera, groigne qui groigne" which translates to "Grumble all you like, this is how it's going to be." She had it embroidered on her servant's livery, just to make sure everyone got the message. You have to love her somewhat dark wit, I must admit I laughed a good bit when I read this. I think the difference is, however, I have learned to back down, internalized some of my frustration, and chosen to ignore the slights of those who wish me ill. I know I have those about me who love me, and for this I love them, so to me, it is very simple. I often find myself thinking "Grace of a queen, you will sit here with the grace of a queen," though at that time I am thinking more of Katherine of Aragon than Anne. I often wonder how much I should endure though, before I run the risk of being put away, pushed away, not seen as valuable. Silence is not always healthy, but I try to pick my battles carefully. I wonder, however, how strong and careful I would be if I were left to stand on my own as Anne was. I would probably react somewhat the same way and lash out in fear and sadness, that appears to be anger. I know my friends and their love and acceptance give me strength to deal with difficulties. Anne did not have so many friends, she was closest with her brother, and people twisted this in order to do away with her. How wrong to twist the love of a brother and sister and true friends. Poor woman, misunderstood until the end.
I also have to admit, I did not want to take the Strengthfinders quiz and there was much grumbling and eye-rolling about it. I had to do it for work. However, I loved the outcome and how accurate it was. I love that it brought this strength to light, or articulated it so well for me. I guess it's something I always knew about myself but never put into words, figuring others would find it weird. But it's not weird, apparently it's somewhat common as it is listed in the results of this test that people pay to take. I like that it brought that to light. I also liked that it recognized empathy as one of my strengths. Maybe I don't show it everywhere, but the phone rings here day and night with my friends and their problems, because I love them, without judgement. Who knows when I could be in whatever their situation is? Like I said, once you are in my heart, I will love you forever, with a fierce loyalty. But that's my view on myself, my strengths, and how I need the past to understand it. Below is Holbein's portrait of Anne of Cleves. It hangs in a small alcove in the Louvre. I love her quiet serenity. She looks kind and pretty. Nothing like a Flanders mare.
So, as context, or the need to use the past to understand the present is my greatest strength according to "Strength Finders", intellect coming in second, I realized something while I was reading this afternoon. Today I saw someone that I have not seen in quite a while. This person causes me to roll my eyes often as they talk non-stop about work and we have butted heads several times. However, when I was reading I realized that I have misjudged this person. Anne of Cleves was a woman denied a chance at marriage and motherhood, something women of her time wanted very much. I realized, while speaking with this person today that I actually really enjoyed our conversation, which is somewhat a new phenomenon for me. Thinking back to my past encounters with this person I remembered that once, only once, I saw her smile fade and I saw her tears. Tears of frustration at another wedding that was not hers, another child born to friends that would not be hers. This, I realized is why she talks about work all the time, to hide what is lacking. Stand on your strengths we are told, and so she does, she is good at what she does. She loves her job and this is what is important to her so this is what she talks about and this is ok. She, like Anne, has thus far been denied marriage and children, something women want both then and now, but she smiles and continues to love life.
Thinking more I thought about how I know that I am often misunderstood. I work in a very pro-cheerful environment, but one that I love dearly. Not being an over the top cheerful person, I think many people think that I am bitter and old before my time. Cynical too perhaps. This is not true, I just have nothing to match the enthusiasm which comes from four cups of coffee and several diet cokes a day. If I drank all of that caffeine my heart would explode. I sometimes wonder what is behind the smiles of the super happy, I know there are other emotions. Am I happy? Yes. Am I super duper chirpy happy? Umm, perhaps on a Europe bound flight or at the Pink concert earlier this year, otherwise, I am just living in reality, and reality for me is a calm, sedated place where bad things do exist, I can't pretend they don't. But every day life includes so many small joys, and I experience and love them, I am just quiet about it. I am who I am, and that is ok. Those who are always cheerful are who they are, and that is also fine. I think we exist in mutual acceptance and humor. I have a dry sense of humor, sometimes it is rather black, I talk ALOT and if someone is lucky enough to get into my heart, I will love them forever. But I also battle depression, it's a battle that never ends, and I do the best I can. I am reminded of that old commercial about "This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs, any questions?" I feel like, this is me on drugs that help me not live in blackness, So some days I live in light and some days I live in grey, any questions? But it does not mean that overall I am unhappy.
I compare myself to Anne Boleyn frequently, as I think she was much like me. She was smart, not beautiful but not unattractive, had a temper, and was very misunderstood and much maligned. A great smear campaign was conducted after her death and she became seen as a social climber, a shrew, and a mean spirited person. I don't think she was. She set up many charities to help the poor, I think she very much wanted to be liked and wanted to be a good queen. She had a personality that was very strong, and she either drew people in all the way, or pushed them away beyond reach. People either loved her enough to die for her or they hated her enough to ensure her death, there was no gray area. I have this type of personality, I am either loved or loathed, nothing much in between. Some say I am lazy, or become displeased because I do not do as they wish. Perhaps though, they should examine their own actions, who wants to feed those who bite your hand? I think Anne felt much the same way. She did not make much effort to charm those who did not like her. In fact, for several weeks she took as her motto "Ainsi sera, groigne qui groigne" which translates to "Grumble all you like, this is how it's going to be." She had it embroidered on her servant's livery, just to make sure everyone got the message. You have to love her somewhat dark wit, I must admit I laughed a good bit when I read this. I think the difference is, however, I have learned to back down, internalized some of my frustration, and chosen to ignore the slights of those who wish me ill. I know I have those about me who love me, and for this I love them, so to me, it is very simple. I often find myself thinking "Grace of a queen, you will sit here with the grace of a queen," though at that time I am thinking more of Katherine of Aragon than Anne. I often wonder how much I should endure though, before I run the risk of being put away, pushed away, not seen as valuable. Silence is not always healthy, but I try to pick my battles carefully. I wonder, however, how strong and careful I would be if I were left to stand on my own as Anne was. I would probably react somewhat the same way and lash out in fear and sadness, that appears to be anger. I know my friends and their love and acceptance give me strength to deal with difficulties. Anne did not have so many friends, she was closest with her brother, and people twisted this in order to do away with her. How wrong to twist the love of a brother and sister and true friends. Poor woman, misunderstood until the end.
I also have to admit, I did not want to take the Strengthfinders quiz and there was much grumbling and eye-rolling about it. I had to do it for work. However, I loved the outcome and how accurate it was. I love that it brought this strength to light, or articulated it so well for me. I guess it's something I always knew about myself but never put into words, figuring others would find it weird. But it's not weird, apparently it's somewhat common as it is listed in the results of this test that people pay to take. I like that it brought that to light. I also liked that it recognized empathy as one of my strengths. Maybe I don't show it everywhere, but the phone rings here day and night with my friends and their problems, because I love them, without judgement. Who knows when I could be in whatever their situation is? Like I said, once you are in my heart, I will love you forever, with a fierce loyalty. But that's my view on myself, my strengths, and how I need the past to understand it. Below is Holbein's portrait of Anne of Cleves. It hangs in a small alcove in the Louvre. I love her quiet serenity. She looks kind and pretty. Nothing like a Flanders mare.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Been Away for a While
It's been a while since I've posted, almost two weeks! I have spent a lot of time trying to write a post about Jane Rochford but I just can't figure out exactly what I want to say. I have been bored with the Tudors lately, Henry is married to Katherine Parr, and his complacency is boring. I know it's about to get more exciting with a protestant burning and I am beyond absolutely beyond thrilled that Anne Boleyn is back and talking to Elisabeth in the last episode, how amazing!
I am looking at going on a trip next year called "The Anne Boleyn Experience" and I am so excited! I will update again when I get something good written. Check out the video below, Thomas Wyatt's poem "These Bloody Days" runs throughout it. It is beautiful and sad and heart wrenching because he did love those who died so, especially Anne and he watched them all die. Survivor's guilt probably killed Henry Percy, he died not long after Anne. Perhaps Thomas's poetic soul allowed him to vent his grief and kept him from an early grave. Regardless, the sadness is palpable in his words. Hearing them read aloud by his character from "The Tudors" makes it even more powerful. What a beautiful soul he had.
I am looking at going on a trip next year called "The Anne Boleyn Experience" and I am so excited! I will update again when I get something good written. Check out the video below, Thomas Wyatt's poem "These Bloody Days" runs throughout it. It is beautiful and sad and heart wrenching because he did love those who died so, especially Anne and he watched them all die. Survivor's guilt probably killed Henry Percy, he died not long after Anne. Perhaps Thomas's poetic soul allowed him to vent his grief and kept him from an early grave. Regardless, the sadness is palpable in his words. Hearing them read aloud by his character from "The Tudors" makes it even more powerful. What a beautiful soul he had.
Monday, May 17, 2010
When You're 15, or 17, or 22...
In my last post I discussed the death of Katherine Howard, Henry VIII's 17 year-old fifth queen. I think, in previous posts I have been rather hard on the girl, calling her frivolous, which she was, and undignified. I think though, I have been guilty of the sin I railed against my own mother for, forgetting what it's like to be young. Although this girl was totally unfit to be queen at 17, she was just that, only 17. She was a young girl coming into what was not a young court. Perhaps if she had been Henry's first queen, when he was but 17 himself it would have been different. Henry filled his court with young and interesting people. He patronized musicians and entertainers and spent loads of money on lavish feasts and dances. How I think Katherine would have loved being his wife at that time and how I think she would have enjoyed this court much more than the one she presided over. Instead she was the wife of an aging, fat man with a festering leg in a court that was not so bright as it once was. I think it was still a magical and malicious place but it no longer held the glimmer of youth.
So many monarchs came to the throne at a young age, Juana of Castile married Felipe the Fair at the age of 16, he was all of 17. How can a girl so young approach marriage to a young handsome man without falling totally in love with him? She fell a little too in love and went mad after his death but, so did her grandmother. When I think back to myself at 17 what did I know? I thought I knew everything and I got into loads of trouble but if I had been queen would it have been different? The answer is no, I don't think so, not so much. Youth does not bypass someone just because they are slated to be a monarch, or are thrust into the situation as Katherine Howard was. She thrived on the thrill of meeting Culpepper in private, she loved keeping secrets and she loved being in love. When young girls fall in love they do so wholeheartedly, their entire world revolves around the object of their affection, there is no one else. This I remember. Poor Katherine Howard, her love was forbidden to her, and like most teenagers, whatever is forbidden only becomes more attractive. Most of us, however, don't have to pay the ultimate price for it. It's like the song says "When you're 15, and somebody tells you they love you, you're gonna believe them. I didn't know who I was supposed to be at 15." Or at 17, or at 22, that's why young monarchs make so many mistakes. Henry VIII executed many of his father's advisers, why? Because he could mostly. He married a woman several years older than himself never thinking of the future, not such a great idea in the end. Poor Katherine Howard believed Culpepper loved her, and maybe he did, we'll really never know. She didn't know who she was supposed to be either, she was a lonely girl left to her own devices for much of her life, suddenly told she was to be queen. She had no idea what that really meant or what was expected of her. She was much deceived I do believe.
So many monarchs came to the throne at a young age, Juana of Castile married Felipe the Fair at the age of 16, he was all of 17. How can a girl so young approach marriage to a young handsome man without falling totally in love with him? She fell a little too in love and went mad after his death but, so did her grandmother. When I think back to myself at 17 what did I know? I thought I knew everything and I got into loads of trouble but if I had been queen would it have been different? The answer is no, I don't think so, not so much. Youth does not bypass someone just because they are slated to be a monarch, or are thrust into the situation as Katherine Howard was. She thrived on the thrill of meeting Culpepper in private, she loved keeping secrets and she loved being in love. When young girls fall in love they do so wholeheartedly, their entire world revolves around the object of their affection, there is no one else. This I remember. Poor Katherine Howard, her love was forbidden to her, and like most teenagers, whatever is forbidden only becomes more attractive. Most of us, however, don't have to pay the ultimate price for it. It's like the song says "When you're 15, and somebody tells you they love you, you're gonna believe them. I didn't know who I was supposed to be at 15." Or at 17, or at 22, that's why young monarchs make so many mistakes. Henry VIII executed many of his father's advisers, why? Because he could mostly. He married a woman several years older than himself never thinking of the future, not such a great idea in the end. Poor Katherine Howard believed Culpepper loved her, and maybe he did, we'll really never know. She didn't know who she was supposed to be either, she was a lonely girl left to her own devices for much of her life, suddenly told she was to be queen. She had no idea what that really meant or what was expected of her. She was much deceived I do believe.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Another One Bites the Dust
So, a new episode of "The Tudors" aired tonight and we saw the execution of Katherine Howard. Poor ridiculous girl. What can one really say except that? She was practically fed the opportunity to save herself, Bishop Gardiner was almost begging her to say she was precontracted to Derham, and she would not say it. (This really happened by the way.) She didn't get it. The execution of Derham and Culpepper was sad, if only because it had Katherine's voice behind it as narration. The poor girl was practicing her dancing while they were being executed. It was one of the only things she was good at, one of the only things she truly enjoyed. It almost seemed like she didn't know what else to do. Derham, horrid little man that he was, he didn't need his fingernails pulled out and his intestines ripped from his still breathing body, but such is the death of a traitor.
Lady Rochford was executed before Katherine, and she had little to say. A law actually was passed in England allowing those who were insane to be executed just so that she could be put to death. She is said to have gone mad in prison, and at some point saying she deserved death for bringing down her husband and his sister and unjustly accusing them of incest, thereby ensuring their deaths. If you ask me, she got what she had coming. Remember how I feel about karma? Well, it came for her. One woman brought down two queens. Hardly seems possible, but jealousy twists the heart until it turns black from lack of blood or love.
Katherine spends the night in the tower, one night it seems, but I am sure it was more than that. Master Kingston is still there, I wonder how he felt about having to take charge of the executions of two of Henry's queens? One a dignified and much maligned woman, and one, her cousin, a foolish and panicky young girl? I think his heart broke for Anne and he could not let it do the same for Katherine. Plus, Katherine does not inspire the same loyalty or love that Anne did. Katherine repeated Anne's speech in her first words to the crowd "I am come here to die." But she goes on to say that she dies a queen but would rather die the wife of Culpepper.
Katherine was never crowned queen and had no powerful faction standing behind her. She was not afforded some of the dignities that Anne was, at least in this show. No ladies to attend her, no cloak of ermine and crimson velvet, no swordsman from Calais. Katherine was, however afforded justice in real life. The whole affair of the queen's indiscretions was discovered in November but she was not executed until February 13, 1542. Anne was arrested at the beginning of May and died on the 19th. No justice there, her death was a foregone conclusion. Katherine died a girl and Anne died a queen crowned, but neither deserved the death they were dealt.
Lady Rochford was executed before Katherine, and she had little to say. A law actually was passed in England allowing those who were insane to be executed just so that she could be put to death. She is said to have gone mad in prison, and at some point saying she deserved death for bringing down her husband and his sister and unjustly accusing them of incest, thereby ensuring their deaths. If you ask me, she got what she had coming. Remember how I feel about karma? Well, it came for her. One woman brought down two queens. Hardly seems possible, but jealousy twists the heart until it turns black from lack of blood or love.
Katherine spends the night in the tower, one night it seems, but I am sure it was more than that. Master Kingston is still there, I wonder how he felt about having to take charge of the executions of two of Henry's queens? One a dignified and much maligned woman, and one, her cousin, a foolish and panicky young girl? I think his heart broke for Anne and he could not let it do the same for Katherine. Plus, Katherine does not inspire the same loyalty or love that Anne did. Katherine repeated Anne's speech in her first words to the crowd "I am come here to die." But she goes on to say that she dies a queen but would rather die the wife of Culpepper.
Katherine was never crowned queen and had no powerful faction standing behind her. She was not afforded some of the dignities that Anne was, at least in this show. No ladies to attend her, no cloak of ermine and crimson velvet, no swordsman from Calais. Katherine was, however afforded justice in real life. The whole affair of the queen's indiscretions was discovered in November but she was not executed until February 13, 1542. Anne was arrested at the beginning of May and died on the 19th. No justice there, her death was a foregone conclusion. Katherine died a girl and Anne died a queen crowned, but neither deserved the death they were dealt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
