• FREE Anne Boleyn Files Welcome Pack of 5 goodies
    sent directly to your inbox Free Tudor Book



    Includes 3 Free Reports, Book List and Primary Sources List Please check your spam box if you don't receive a confirmation email. PLEASE NOTE: Your privacy is essential to us and we will not share your details with anyone.

On this day in Tudor history videos

Posted By on January 7, 2019

As I like to have fun jugglings lots of things (as long as they’re Tudor related!), I have challenged myself to record an “on this day in Tudor history” video every day in 2019. I’m probably mad, and I may end up doing them in my pyjamas when I’m under the weather, but I thought it would be fun and I thought that people may have been getting bored of me writing the same “on this day” posts on social media every day, seeing as I’ve been doing it for years.

I’ve already recorded and posted seven, 1-7 January, and you can catch them on the Anne Boleyn Files and Tudor Society YouTube Channel. I’ve even created an On This Day in Tudor History playlist so it’s nice and easy to find them. To make sure you don’t miss out on any of these videos, you can subscribe to my YouTube channel by clicking the big red “subscribe” button underneath one of my videos.

Do feel free to leave comments on them too, it’s always good to get feedback.

I’ve had a few people mention on Facebook that they have problems with videos because they can’t/don’t want to have the audio turned on, or they have language/hearing problems. Well, on my videos you can turn on CC (closed captions/subtitles) to help with this. They’re not perfect (they like to put Amberley instead of Anne Boleyn, for example!), but they’re pretty good. You’ll find the CC button in the bottom right-hand corner of the videos (if you watch on YouTube’s site) or you can also turn on CC by clicking on the settings ‘cog’ icon (like in the video below).

Here is my latest video for you to enjoy:

21 thoughts on “On this day in Tudor history videos”

  1. CARRIE says:

    LOVE THIS THANK U !!!!!!!!

  2. Mary Davis says:

    What a delightful way to start the new year! I look forward to watching your videos and keeping up with the Tudors each morning. Thank you!

  3. Andrea Wright says:

    Thank you a great start to the year, I have the book and will be reading in about two minutes, Happy New Year.

  4. Christine says:

    I enjoyed it very much, the letter Katherine was said to have wrote Henry has never been found and iv a feeling he destroyed it in anger, yet there must have been surely some remorse for the woman who had been faithful to him for over twenty years, in the early days of their marriage he had loved her and she had been a good queen consort, she had saved England from the Scots when he was in France and he had often often heeded her advice when he needed it, in Giles Tremletts biography he says of how Katherines main attraction could have been having her illustrious father as an ally, and could have been why Henry was so eager to marry her, but they were both devoted to each other and it just the lack of sons that ruined their once happy marriage, if Katherine had written that letter and I believe she had, as the style of the words sound very like her, then I too find it like Claire very poignant and very sad that this woman, remarkable as she was could still have feelings for this man who had behaved like a complete ogre towards her, a princess of mighty Spain the daughter of two powerful and legendary monarchs, born in such splendour to die a miserable death in a bleak lonely castle, even though Henry knew she was dying he did not allow Mary to visit her and she was not even allowed to attend her funeral, an act of unforgivable cruelty on my part, it would be great if Katherines last letter were to turn up somewhere and be examined for its authenticity, but I have a feeling if it did exist once it was handed to the King, he promptly crushed it in his hand and threw it into the fire, surely such devotion and love was wasted on a man like King Henry V111?.

  5. Christine says:

    Have to comment on the recent videos too, the executions of in fact the complete obliteration of the Pole family was shocking, and iv said before that I find the execution particurlaly of Lady Margaret Pole downright heinous when all her crime was to be the mother of these so called traitors, an elderly genteel lady a cousin to the King and one time trusted governess to his daughter, and especially loved by her was told rather brutally one morning that she was to die that day, she had no time to prepare unlike other victims before her, and was escorted out of her prison to her scaffold, shock fear dismay and anger must have coursed through her veins at the terrible injustice of it all, a victim of Henry’s bill of attainder, really it was a complete travesty of justice, Anne Boleyn and Thomas More had trials, so had her co accused and Cromwell, but Lady Pole had no chance to plead her innocence she had no defence and like the wretched Catherine Howard three years later they were found guilty merely by this preposterous law, the executioner was not the usual one that day so another was found, a young and inexperienced lad who was extremely agitated about having to execute such a noble lady, the first stroke missed and hit into her shoulders and he struck again, and on the third stroke her head came off, it was nothing short of a bloody butchery, her end was dreadful like her father’s, the foolish George Duke of Clarence, whose body was drowned in a huge vat of malmsey, it could have been murder or accident but it possibly was murder, in memory of him she forever wore a little trinket in the shape of a vat like barrel on her person, she could have been wearing it when she went to her death, the last of the Plantagenets whose only crime really was that she had royal blood, whatever words Henry V111 and his councillors hid behind.

  6. rose says:

    This is a wonderful resource that you have provided. I cannot find Stricklands volumes, so it was great to see you holding a volume and reading from it. I will try the web. that is where I found Paul Friedmann’s bio of Anne Boleyn.
    I am sure this has been commented on – but Henry vIII comes across as a shallow man, in terms of his personal relationships. there is an end in sight, but only for him.

  7. Banditqueen says:

    Thanks for the many videos. I actually haven’t had much time to watch them as I have been wiped out by very strong antibiotics for two weeks, but I have watched many videos before and they are always very well done and researched with many of the references left as links for you to follow. Unlike many so called professional historians, that is those who have made names for themselves on TV, Claire actually does get things right and check her sources instead of stating known rubbish as if it was a fact and going off into wild speculation.

    I was once again disappointed in Dr Susanna Lipscomb who normally gets 90% of things right but whose assertions about the heads of Anne and George Boleyn in the Drama on Channel 5 last night have not been corrected from when it was first released a few years ago. Sorry but mini rant coming up.

    Instead of stating that the normal practice was to put the heads of traitors on spikes on London Bridge and other sites, but in this instance this didn’t happen according to the sources, she stated as if it was a given fact that following the practice of the time, the heads of George and Anne Boleyn were put up on spikes. Ugh! No they most certainly were not! I have a certain amount of tolerance for people who present historical documentaries just because they are famous getting stuff wrong because they are following a script. I believe very strongly that those so called doctors and professors of history who study for four years to get a degree and then another three or four for a PhD should know and do things better. I was outraged because this documentary was made four years ago and has been updated but this ending has not been remade and corrected. It is not as if other historians have not pointed this out with the relevant sources in Writhosley Chronicles and so on for example, all three agree that they were buried with their heads. The revealing of their bones in the nineteenth century proved they had heads. Just because something was normal practice doesn’t mean it was done in every case and as Dr Lipscomb claims to have studied all of these sources, she doesn’t seem to be very well informed on what happened after the execution of Anne and the men with her. I may be ranting about what some people think is a very little thing, but my teenage niece and nephew were watching for a school project and now I have to point out these errors so as they don’t fail. It’s no wonder the younger generations have no idea about history and people believe Philippa Gregory and Hilary Mantel and their wild inaccuracies, when so called proper historians make such obvious errors and present lazy speculation.

    Rant over!

    I have told them to watch your videos on U Tube instead and visit this site. As good a historian she and Tracy Borman are, they constantly made fundamental errors in their books and never bother to correct them. Are they too proud to admit they are wrong? The links to all of the sites and further research are always excellent on both of Claire’s sites.

  8. Christine says:

    I have just watched the documentary with Lipscombe and I noticed that about the heads of Anne and George and the others, no way would a once crowned and anointed Queen of England be treated with such disrespect, to have a head that had once worn a crown be set on a spike and putrefy and be a lunch for flys debases monarchy itself, Henry V111 would never allow such a thing to happen neither would any other king I believe, I was incensed when she said that in fact, I couldn’t believe it coming from a so called historian, it is an interesting point that whilst Catherine Howard’s alleged lover Culpeper and her old love Dereham did have their heads displayed on spikes, Anne’s alleged lovers did not, in this do we see Henry’s admission and guilt at their innocence? These men had to die because the queen had to, therefore let them not suffer the final indignity and Anne herself had the ultimate honour of death by a skilled swordsman, no clumsy axe for her, everything was done to make it as quick as painless and befitting to her royal station that her end would be as comfortable as possible, Henry was very generous to his second wife, I’m so sorry you haven’t been well Bq, I hope you soon feel better.

    1. Banditqueen says:

      Thanks Christine, I feel a bit better, especially now the antibiotics have finished. That’s an interesting point. Female nobles as far as we know didn’t have their heads put up, Queens certainly not, although men did. Women of other ranks probably did, the Holy Nun of Kent did. However, Queens didn’t usually get killed anyway so this was new. Anne was still part of Henry and up until recently he had loved her. Maybe he didn’t believe it dignified as you say it insulted her Royal state. He didn’t put Katherine Howard up there either. Her bones had vanished when they looked in the nineteenth century. Jane Grey was probably spared this indignity as well but her husband was put up. Was it a male thing? It is interesting about the heads of Anne’s alleged lovers. The sources agree and the known archaeology showed that George Boleyn was buried with his head as was Lady Jane Rochford even if others around them didn’t. I believe you are right. Henry wasn’t surprised by the charges, even if he was totally shocked, he was part of the plot along with Cromwell and the rest fell into place by accident. He certainly knew Anne was innocent and I think he suspected some of the others were as well. His treatment of them in death may well have been his private acknowledgement of her innocence. He may also have felt guilt and shame at her death and couldn’t abide the face of Anne looking down at him, his beloved wife and sweetheart and she looked like Elizabeth as well. He was haunted enough, he would remain haunted by Anne for the rest of his life, he had her letters destroyed and remains in the palace and a legend says he ordered her portrait destroyed, although no sources confirm this. Henry wanted to forget Anne and the others so maybe this extended to their heads. Anyway the sources said they were buried so a historian should get this right. Yes it was normal but obviously there were exceptions. The heads of Katherine Howard’s lovers, Francis Dereham and Thomas Culpeper were still up on spikes months later and the poor terrified Queen had to watch under on the way to the Tower. That must have been a terrible and traumatic experience. Her own head was not placed on a spike, due to her own Royal status.

      Historians, please, debate and speculate away, say something is normal but when there is clear evidence to the contrary, as in the case of Anne Boleyn and at least her brother, give people that information. Your reputation will be better for it. Some of us watching actually noticed and you have a duty to be correct because you are educators of the young.

      Anyway, I am feeling hungry so I must be feeling a bit better. Take care.

  9. Christine says:

    That must have been awful for Catherine when she had to pass by the heads I just hope she didn’t look, she must have closed her eyes when the barge neared, heads rotting on Tower Bridge must have been a fairly common sight in Henrys England, no doubt the Londoners grew use to it but how horrific, I’m glad your better now, iv caught a little cold and been feeling tired lately, colds do that to me, take care yourself.

    1. Banditqueen says:

      And you, Christine. Just watched a short but really good episode of an old series called Two Sisters. It looked at various famous historical sisters and this one looked at Anne and Mary Boleyn in contrast, with Kate Williams, Sarah Morris, Tracy Boreman and Kyra Kramer. It was really good, quite sympathetic to both sisters and at least it was four proper historians, not an actor and a novelist. I think I agree with one assertion, that Mary probably did turn out to be smarter than the rest of the family as in the end she kept away from the Court when it was all exploding and her head on her shoulders. If only Anne had been content to be a private citizen. Of course what happened to Anne wasn’t her fault and nobody ever questioned why Henry has his reputation in tact when he was the one running after these women, but that was the excitement and danger of running the gauntlet at Court. I don’t know how many episodes they did but I found them on Catch Up and I think there are six. The next one is on Mary I and Elizabeth I and then the Pankhursts. There is one on the Queen and Princess Margaret.

  10. Christine says:

    Yes I saw the one about Anne and Mary Boleyn, havnt watched the one about Elizabeth and Margaret, I must admit iv never liked Margaret, they made such a big thing about her giving up her true love for duty what duty? Had she married Peter Townshend she would have lost her own and her heirs claim to the throne, but that did not bother her it was the freebies she would have missed out on as being HRH she would have had to go without, as well as her title, had she truly loved him she would have married him, she was also extremely selfish staying up late to well past the early hours, and her poor staff had to stay up with her not being allowed to retire before her, I’m interested in seeing the one about Mary and Elizabeth because they seemed to have a very complex love hate relationship, I think Anne when she was in the Tower awaiting her death must have thought on how different her life might have been had she not been so ambitious, she could have given into Henry become his mistress, had showers heaped upon her and her family and possibly, after he began to tire of her she would have been married of to a courtier and had children, obviously that’s not what she wanted and that was her undoing, but we cannot see into the future, her name today would make no more significance than Henrys other loves, Bessie Blount her own sister etc, her name would not arouse such strong emotion and there would been no reformation, England would have stayed a catholic country and although Henry may well have tried to divorce Katherine as we know he was in mind to do so, before he met Anne his choice would have been a foreign princess no doubt, Katherines stance against Anne was I think due to her inferior social standing, she was one of her lady’s in waiting and possibly she thought a troublesome hussy as well, how could she a true princess allow such a one to step into her shoes, it was a very real insult to her as a princess of Spain, and to her own parents and Henrys too who had wanted the marriage and made it happen, had Anne been a princess maybe Katherines reaction would have been very different and it’s very interesting to speculate, would she have given in graciously who can say, but Anne whilst awaiting death must have pondered on ‘what if’ as so many of us do throughout our lives, it’s the most used word in the English language and the most useless, but had she been content to just be the Kings mistress she no doubt would have lived out her normal life span, had children and possibly seen her grandchildren grow up, what we know is that we would not been discussing this most fascinating of queens today because she would have faded into the pages of history, by her very refusal to become the King of Englands lover she started off a chain of events that led her to the scaffold on Tower Hill, such was the price of ambition but she cannot be blamed for that, by setting her sights high she in fact made herself more vulnerable to the dark forces around her, her shocking death was in a sense as violent as the way she had lived her brief turbulent life.

    1. Banditqueen says:

      The one on Mary and Elizabeth is very good, four experts, but of course its on for 40 minutes or so and you don’t get long on Elizabeth as Queen, about five minutes. It was very fair on Mary and their relationship was dealt with in a balanced way. Anne being the lady in waiting must have seemed just like any other relationship until it dragged on and on. The trial in public at Blackfriars was the real turning point because it marked the point when Henry was declaring he publicly wanted to end his marriage with his Queen “not because of any displeasure in her service” but because he deemed his marriage invalid and needed an heir.

      Cardinal Thomas Wolsey came off badly here because his associate Cardinal Campeggio had a secret agenda to sabotage the hearing and have the case heard in Rome, if Katherine didn’t want to enter a convent. It was both the insulting way Katherine was being treated, a proud Princess of Spain, one with ancient English Royal blood, the love of her people, it was her rights as Queen and the rights of the Princess her daughter, the heir and many other things which were at stake. Katherine saw Anne as well one quote was “the scandal of Christendom” . Her stance was also because to her she was validated as Queen. She thought Henry had lost his mind. A lot of people probably thought Henry had lost his mind. Katherine had been his wife of choice, he loved her, in fact I believe there is evidence, certainly between the lines that he never stopped, she was his tournament Queen, his partner, his counsel, she had suffered with him, laughed and cried with him and he had respected her. His affairs were temporary and discreet, we know this because we know nothing about them, only guesswork. We only know when Bessie Blount was his mistress because she gave birth to his son. We don’t really know when Mary Boleyn was his paramour. It is assumed to be between 1522 and 1524 but it could be earlier or later and the parenthood of her two children can’t be ascertained.

      Katherine was the daughter of course of the most powerful and pious and respected monarchs in Europe, a proud daughter of Spain and their Catholic Majesties, as stubborn as they come, the Aunt of the most powerful man in Europe, Charles V and a devout Catholic. What was Henry thinking? Cardinal Wolsey hoped to match Henry with a French Princess so your comments on Anne being one may have been different are entirely on the right track. I don’t think Katherine would have been any easier to persuade to accept an annulment but Anne being of lower status and her maid was certainly part of her resentment towards her. A French Princess for example would be more innocent in the entire affair and more distant. Katherine would not have her under her feet every day. She would not be happy but we tend to show our disdain more towards those we know or on meeting people who have hurt us than those who are out of sight and minds. To Katherine Princess X would be a name, not constantly present. The same could be said of the Court and even the country because her name could be kept discreet until such time as any annulment was agreed and a new treaty signed. Whether Katherine would have said yes even then is, I think, doubtful, but maybe such a candidate would be more real to Katherine, whose fighting was futile, especially after she was banished. Rome ultimately said Katherine was Queen, but then it was too late.

      (By the way I don’t think Anne was fully to blame, Henry was as much to blame and was obsessed with her but she did give him the idea that she would only accept if as a husband, before they fell in love)

  11. Christine says:

    The trial of Henry Howard was I think more due to the Kings increasing paranoid state of mind regarding the succession, he only had little Edward and two daughters, he was in ill health and knew he was not long for this world, Surreys foolish act in quartering his arms with the Confessor cost him his life, although really he had a good defence, but everyone knew the Kings paranoia and bad temper, all through the Tudors reign there were contenders to the throne, Buckingham it was said had lost his life more to the fact he was of royal blood, Henry feared for the safety of his vulnerable son, he had not to look far back in history to see how easy thrones could be usurped, his own uncles the little King Edward V along with his brother the Duke of York had mysteriously vanished possibly murdured and he feared for his vulnerable son, Surreys arrogance brought home to the King how shaky in fact the throne could be for those who sat upon it, still it was a waste of a talented life and maybe in the early days of the Kings youth he would have just been imprisoned in the Tower for a year or two, he would have been ordered to dismantle the arms of Edward and his spell in prison would have been a warning to those who claimed to be every bit as or more Royal than Henry Tudor, those days were long gone and the King was in no mood to pardon anyone, the old Duke of Norfolk must have wept for his foolish young son, I can see maybe some of Anne Boleyns spirit in Surrey, they were both bold people, his death was a tragedy for the Howard family and to the poet world who lost one of its brightest stars, he has a magnificent Tomb in Framlingham worthy of his noble lineage and his poetic genius.

    1. Banditqueen says:

      Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, the son of our third Duke of Norfolk was a guy I fancy having a pint with. His colourful behaviour, drinking, whoring, singing, putting windows in and anything else put him in prison a number of times but his poetry was wonderful. He was sent to France as a hostage for some or other treaty with France and remained to serve there. He served in Ireland and he was with the King during the French campaign of 1544. He was popular and admired by everyone save the new men like the Seymours and so on, who may or may not have had a hand in his fall, but there is also the fact that he was proud and outspoken.

      HH had every right to quarter his arms with those of Edward the Confessor and the Plantagenets, more than Henry Viii, who did indeed know a crown could be stolen, his father had done that. He was only the second Tudor, as historians are fond of reminding us, so his lack of male heirs had always put him on guard for the sake of peace and the kingdom. Henry was far more paranoid in his later years, everyone was now a danger to young Edward, a threat to those wanting to take charge of the new minority regime and the Howards were targeted again. Surrey had put his leopards in the second quarter and collared them to distinguish them from Royal leopards.

      The trial was the usual farse, but he was supported by most of his judges who came to the Council and expressed concern. They could find nothing they said to constitute the charge of treason. However, they were ordered to get on with it. Henry was also in the Tower, but refused to remain there. He tried to escape down the shoot under the loo in his cell. The escape failed and he was charged with this capital crime as well. It was almost inevitable that he was found guilty. The only concession he would receive from the crown was being spared the full extremism of the penalties for treason. He was beheaded. He wasn’t buried in Saint Peter’s in the Tower grounds but nearby in All Hallows. Later his family had him moved to Framlington and he lies by his father and wife.

  12. rose says:

    Christine, good post. and not too long! and think about what Henry’s daughter Elizabeth did to her Gray cousin, Catherine. Ruined her life. no kindness there. but Elizabeth did treat her aunt Mary’s children well at least.

    1. Christine says:

      Thankyou Rose, yes iv always felt sympathy for Lady Catherine Grey as well, her relatives on her mothers side were treated a lot kinder as she had real affection for them, her paternal relatives were considered a threat, the Grey sisters were not very lucky, they had lost their elder sibling to the executioner and Catherine angered Elizabeth by making an unwise marriage with the Earl of Hertford, unwise because it was done without the sovereigns consent, she was a very pretty girl with big blue eyes and blonde hair, there is an exquisite miniature of her and a painting of her with her son, she was incarcerated in the Tower and then when released was kept under guard with her husband, she had two sons but sadly died of TB at the very young age of twenty seven, Elizabeth never trusted her and after her second child was born she was seperated permanently from her husband, her younger sister also was quite an unhappy woman, though they all had a very good education they were not lucky in love and poor Jane as we know was killed along with her equally tragic husband.

      1. Banditqueen says:

        Elizabeth really does fall for some serious criticism here, not without good reason but she maybe felt justified. The Greys had Royal blood, the children of Mary Boleyn and her husband, Sir William Carey didn’t. They were cousins but Mary wasn’t a Princess or daughter of one and any potential blue blood from Henry Viii was never acknowledged and that would make them illegitimate and unable to inherit property or the crown. Elizabeth, I suspect thought of them as being her half siblings, especially Catherine Carey, but it has always been doubted by historians, who debate it.

        Jane, Katherine and Mary Grey were the legitimate granddaughters of Mary Tudor, sister of Henry Viii and her second husband, Sir Charles Brandon,Duke of Suffolk and so had legitimate claims to the throne. Henry named their mother in his will as heiress if his three children didn’t have heirs. When his son changed that, excluding his two half sisters, Lady Frances Grey was set aside in favour of Jane and her potential male heirs. Without going into a long history, Jane was replaced by the lawful Queen, Mary I and the Greys were in disgrace. Frances and her husband were pardoned but Jane and her husband arrested. Tried and found guilty, they were placed in luxury at the Tower but a second rebellion six months later confirmed their sentences and Jane was executed. The two young sisters would always remain under suspicion.

        Katherine Grey was beautiful and charismatic. Many deemed her to be the heir and Katherine Grey thought of herself in the same way. She met and fell in love with another Tudor cousin, Edward Seymour, Earl of Hereford and they married without the permission of Queen Elizabeth I. She should have sought permission so her arrest was legally justified, if a bit over the top. Elizabeth was paranoid and always remained so. She later herself almost died of smallpox and was to be subject to various plots, which may have coloured her treatment of Katherine on her release from the Tower. While Elizabeth may have felt justified to arrest and detain Katherine and her husband and to separate them, she was cruel in her subsequent treatment of the Grey sisters. Katherine Grey gave birth to a son and that threatened the jealous Queen even more, she also found the way to meet with her husband and have another son. The couple were released and Katherine became ill and they were kept apart. The marriage was somehow made invalid but is recognised today and Katherine became very seriously ill. Her husband and children were not allowed to visit and comfort her and I blame Elizabeth for her demise.

        Mary Grey made a low status marriage to a Mr Thomas Keyes the Queen’s porter and he was arrested and put in the Fleet prison. Mary was put under house arrest for many years. Her husband was released in 1571 but died soon afterwards. Elizabeth obviously felt guilty because when Mary died in London in 1578 the Queen had her buried with pomp and circumstance in Westminster Abbey.

        Being the wrong blood didn’t gain you the royal embrace, but the royal mistreatment and suspicion. I guess poor Mary thought that if she married a nobody for love before several witnesses it would be acceptable and she would escape her sisters fate.

        1. Christine says:

          Could be, Lady Mary Grey was a little hunchback without the beauty and grace of her two older sisters, she had no suitors but her royal blood made her an attractive prospect for an ambitious would be bridegroom, there is a book I would like to read on them, I think it’s by Leanda De Lisle, Iv always been quite interested in the three unfortunate Grey sisters, even Mary although maybe considered a bit of a freak by her parents was given the same education as her sisters, Mary was foolish to think she could marry without the queens permission just because her husband was of no account, she sounds like she longed for love, no oil painting she grabbed the first man who would have
          her, it’s true Katherine’s marriage was declared null and her children illegitimate thus placing them out of the succession, both sisters first placed in the dreaded Tower, then under house arrest, their story is so alike and parallels rather eerily with that of another doomed lady of royal blood, the Lady Arbella Stuart who herself lived out her life in incarceration having incurred the wrath of her cousin King James, Elizabeth’s treatment of the Grey sisters I agree was not to her credit, as her long incarceration of that other doomed lady Mary Queen Of Scots, however she was much more merciful than her sister and father, it took parliament nearly twenty years before they managed to persuade her to cut off poor Mary’s head!

  13. Christine says:

    Thomas Seymour was I think an opportunist, possibly jealous of his older brother and the position he held as Lord Protector, he could not wait to get the widowed Catherine Parr in his snare as through her he had a chance for glory, though I believe he was fond of her he always set his stakes high, he then began courting the Lady Elizabeth after her death, not really the behaviour of a grieving husband, I think he had charm and was a bit of a ladies man, Elizabeths maid Kat Ashley would tease her young charge about him, I think Kat herself was a little charmed by him as well, handsome and enigmatic an adventurer with many a tale to tell about the seven seas, he was enough to turn any woman’s head, he even offered marriage to the Lady Mary at one point, Mary however saw in this man something dangerous I believe, she promptly rejected him she did not like Elizabeth living with him and their stepmother and wrote her a letter inviting her to live with her instead, Elizabeth I could well imagine was a bit alarmed by that, she did not want to spend most of her days in prayer and dismissed the request, everything about Seymours behaviour does smack of ambition and Edwards council knew it, his own brother knew it, his motives about visiting the King in the dead of night, having sent most of his attendants away are sinister, his poor little dog was shot, Edward was in no mood to forgive his merry uncle who he had once been very fond of, he had given him pocket money and other treats and it was said of Thomas Seymour that he was the young kings favourite uncle, his pleas for innocence fell on deaf ears as well it would, I believe he had been trying to kidnap him and hold him to random, maybe seeking to gain an advantageous marriage with Elizabeth out of it, one can marvel at his folly, it was inevitable he ended up where he did, on the scaffold on Tower Hill, it is his baby daughter little Mary Seymour I feel pity for though she maybe did not live long enough to learn of her father’s disgrace, a very very foolish man was Thomas Seymour but whilst critical of his arrogance I also have to pay homage to him as Admiral of England, no doubt he was brave too his life must have been put in danger many a time when he was on the seas, he possessed that recklessness of spirit which epitomises the soul of the adventurer, no wonder some women found him irresistible, the twinkle went out of his eyes when he laid his head on the block that day in March, Elizabeth uttered on hearing the news of his death,’a man of much wit but very little judgement’, King Edward it was reported shed not a tear,

  14. Pamela Thompson says:

    I absolutely love your Videos. Thank you so much. It seems to me once Henry was done with his wife his feeling towards them was no more. A narsarttic personality trait. He didnt care and in my eyes he just wanted them dead no matter what he had to do to get them there. Henry the Tyrant a cold Hearted calculus murderer. Im sure I know where he ended up in the end. Im also sure his concenence played on him at the end. I believe he yelled monks monks monks before his death. He put monks to Death to. I man well I mean Tyrant with nothing good to say about him. All those gifts he gave Ann and Catherine he got back. They didnt have much choice but to marry him to refuse him would be more consequences. He hunted his women like the were game. Once he conquered them he devoured them.

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.