To Masme/ The Tudor Guy

English as a Second Language What do you want to talk about?
41

Were the remains found of Richard III?

2 Likes
42

The royal children, Edward V and his brother Richard of York, were conveyed to the Tower for supposed safety by their uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester in 1483. After that, the 12-year old king and his 9-year old brother were never seen alive again. Yet, in 1647, the bones of the children were found in the White Tower in the Tower of London. Although it is generally assumed that these are the remains of the children, their identities have not been conclusively confirmed. That Richard III murdered them is still a matter of historical debate and has, as I see it, also become popular believe, yet contrary to that, Henry VII is also suspected of killing them, after they’d disappeared mysrteriously. Up until today there is no proof that the children were killed and if they were there is no proof that either Richard III or Henry VII took their lives.
Yes, the remains of Richard III were found within the site of the former Grey Friars Priory in Leicester in September 2012.

2 Likes
43

Thanks. Masme, don’t you think it is time you started writing a book on this? Next question: I read about Yorkist rebellions during the reign of Henry VII? Can you say something more about them?

2 Likes
44

After Henry had defeated Richard III, he married Elizabeth of York. Their marriage resulted in three children: Arthur (1486), Margaret (1489), Henry (1491) and Mary (1496) and established the Union of the Two Noble and Illustrious Families of Lancaster and York, which was praised with eloquence by the Tudor chronicler, Edward Hall.
However, political stability demanded more than just Henry’s marital accession. Rather than merely being a primus inter pares, he had to rule the country now as a rex imperator, making crucual decisions and judgements.
The Wars of the Roses had caused negligible damage to the country, but to restore the monarchy’s credibility, Henry had to quell Yorkist rellions. The first rebellion, led by Francis Lovell, the brothers Humphrey and Thomas Stafford lacks clarity regarding its purpose, however, those of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck hold significant importance.
Lambert Simnel, a 10-year old son of an Oxford salesman, proclaimed himself King Edward VI. He garnered support from the Irish, particularly the Earl of Kildare and Edmund de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, who raised an army against England. A fierce battle between Simnel’s forces and the English army ensued, culminating in Stoke-upon-Trent in 1487. Recognizing that Lambert Simnel was too young to orchestrate such an event, Henry pardoned him and granted him membership in the Tudor household.
Perkin Warbeck claimed to be Richard of York, son of Edward IV, and received backing from James IV of Scotland and Margaret of Burgundy. Warbeck was given refuge in Scotland and France, but was finally captured in 1499 in England where he met his fate on the gallows.

There you go and I don’t know if writing yet another book on the Tudors would do much good.

2 Likes
45

What were the consequences of these rebellions for Scotland, Ireland and Burgundy?

2 Likes
46

First, allow me to set the record straight. Actually, Perkin Warbeck was not pardoned by Henry VII and his rebellion unfolded between 1491 and 1499. So, for ther rest I’ll come back to you later. I’ll change my previous explanation. Sorry.

1 Like
47

Hi,
Scotland’s involvement in the Yorkist uprisings was part of a broader conflict between the Yorkists and the Tudor dynasty. Scotland’s financial support for military actions strained its resources, likely resulting in economic repercussions. Despite this, Henry VII maintained diplomatic relations with Scotland and avoided direct conflicts. In 1497, he solidified a union between England and Scotland by signing the Treaty of Ayton, which included the marriage of his elder daughter, Margaret Tudor to James IV of Scotland. This union was celebrated in William Dunbar’s poem, ‘The Thrissil and the Rois’. (The Thistle and the Rose).
Ireland’s participation in the uprisings disrupted trade and commerce. The unstable environment affected economic activities, diverting resources from development to rebellion-related matters. Henry pardoned those involved in the Simnel uprising due to minimal damage to England. However, Perkin Warbeck, who’d sought refuge in Burgundy, Brittany and Ireland, fell into Henry’s hands and before he could abuse his leniency, he met his fate on the gallows in 1499.
Henry curtailed Burgundy’s influence by forming alliances with Spain and France. These alliances allowed him to pressure Burgundy and limit its support for Yorkist rebellions. As a result, The Merchants Adventurers were forced to relocate their operations from Antwerp to Calais to weaken the wool trade and reduce Burgundian merchant influence. Henry’s leniency towards Margaret of Burgundy may have been a strategic move to prevent further conflict and maintain stability.

2 Likes
48

Interesting. I heard someone once say that there is a connection between Elizabeth I and the existence of Belgium. Could you tell me what this means? And thanks again for your answer.

2 Likes
49

Well, Elizabeth gave financial support and military aid to the Dutch rebels in the Netherlands during her reign, but there are many other factors that led to Belgium becoming an independent entity in 1830 when it separated from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. You could say, however, that she and her historical context helped shape the European landscape, but this is not what one calls a direct cause-and-effect relationship. So,there is only an indirect connection between Elizabeth I and modern-day Belgium.

2 Likes
50

Thanks. In the clip you provided, it became clear to me that it was not an easy matter for Henry to obtain a divorce from Rome. Why is that?

2 Likes
51

Henry VIII wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, but his argument was rather feeble; he claimend that the dispensation granted to his father, Henry VII, allowing him to marry his dead brother’s widow, held no value. Additionally, Pope Clemens VII wisely refrained from granting Henry’s divorce due to Catherine’s family ties; she was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, who had occupied Rome in 1527. Despite Henry’s open rejection of Martin Luther’s reformation in his work ‘Assertion of the Seven Sacraments’ in 1521, Clemens remained unmoved, because of fear of Charles V and the potential precedent to dissolve other royal marriages in Europe. Eventually, Henry had his marriage to Catherine declared null and void with the assistance of Archbishop, Thomas Cranmer.

2 Likes
52

Thanks. You say that Henry VIII openly rejected Luther’s reformation. I also read that the Nazis used his reformation to justify their actions. I know I digress, but was Martin Luther and anti-semite?

2 Likes
53

Hi,

Many people might find it surprising that the 16th century has a connection with the 20th century, even though World War II (1939-1945) shaped the latter period. However, this link is not as straightforward as it seems. Martin Luther, one of the influential figures of the Reformation, initially did not exhibit modern-style anti-Semitism and some scholars argue that his criticism of Judaism stemmed from theological differences rather than racial animosity. Nevertheless, as time passed, Luthers works - particularly his work titled ‘On the Jews and Their Lies’ (1543) - became increasingly anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, these writings were later exploited by the Nazis to justify their unspeakably horrific extermination of Jewish people. While it is not a direct cause-and-effect, Luther’s indirect influence through his writings left a dark legacy that resonated into the 20th century and beyond.

Hope this gives you an answer to your question.

2 Likes
54

Thanks Masme.

2 Likes
55

I have another question. Is it true that the common law has been developing from the 11 century and that England has no constitution. Please, hurry up, because I’m really anxious to know.

1 Like
56

Up until this very day, Great Britain has no written document, titled ‘The Constitution of Great Britain’. Since the 1st century A.D., Roman law, was, although in effect as in most European countries, never fully applied in England.
From the 11th century, the beginning of the Norman Conquest (1066), England’s legal system started to change significantly and the Common law began to develop, relying on precedents and not on statutes. It retained, however, some aspects of the Admiralty law, because it kept commerce with the Continent easy and flexible.
In a nutshell, Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy; the Common law started to develop during the Middle Ages - as I’ve mentioned in 1066 with the Battle of Hastings - and evolves over time.

2 Likes
57

Hi, what’s the difference between a statute and a precedent. Did England have a standing arming during the Tudor Era? Thanks in advance.

2 Likes
58

Hello,

As for your first question:

Statutes are pre-existing, formally written laws passed and enacted by a parliament or congress; they apply to everyone within the same jurisdiction and serve as the framework for law cases, from criminal offences to civil rights.
On the other hand precedents emerge from decisions made by judges in law cases. When a similar case arises, past decisions are examined. Precedents are binding within the same jurisdiction and may adapt to evolving legal principles.

As for your second:

England had no standing army until the Civil War in 1645. Oliver Cromwell’s new Model Army was well-trained and highly-disciplined, but it was disbanded by Charles II in 1660. Therefore, the Tudors recruited local men, trained by the nobility. In addition, the Norman feudal system persisted and skilled archers with their longbows - a significant innovation - played a crucial role.
As England shifted towards a more centralized and professional force, knights and mercenaries, who were nationally and internationally employed, remained part of military campaigns.

2 Likes
59

Hi. So, there was a geopolitical alliance between England and the Netherlands during the 16th century; what can you say about the cultural connection between them?

2 Likes
60

Throughout history, the relationship between Great Britain and the Low Countries has been remarkably close. From ancient times to the present day, these regions have maintained strong ties. During the 16th and 17th centuries the Low Countries encompassed the Seven United Provinces in the North, also called the States of Holland, as well as modern Belgium and adjacent French territories. Additonally, Luxemburg, Artois, Douai, Lille, Armentiers, Cambrai, Arras, Saint Omer, Valenciennes and Calais were part of this region. The German territories consisted of smaller principalities and states, including Cologne, Trier, Aachen, Cleves and JĂźlich.
The predominant languages spoken in this region were Nederlandish (or Flemish) and French. Its inhabitants were refered to as Flemings and Walloons. Notably, thousands of people, who faced religious persecution, sought refuge in England and therefore Daniel Defoe aptly called it ‘The Eternal Refuge of the Vagabond.’ The Dutch immigrants brought forth innovations in agriculture, horticulture, architecture, painting, music, etc.
Dear Siohbahn, for further details, stay patient, and in three months you’ll find more information on my upcoming website. I’m very happy I could already share some information on the matter and that you enoyed it. Hope to see you there.

Love,
Marc

2 Likes