|
|
 |
Reply
| |
I just finished reading Jean Plaidy's "Rose of Anjou" about Margaret wife of Henry VI. Not only was she more "forceful" than I had previously thought, but with the exception of Henry being totally out of it for about a year during his reign, he wasn't as bad as I thought he was.....It tells in the book that during his 9 years between reigns he spent several of them wandering around the north of England going from monestery to monestery.....I checked on the wikipedia site to see if that was so, but it didn't say.....If he was able to do that I don't see him as the complete incompetent that he seemed to be, though he was definitely no ruler for the times....Does anyone know if he did spend those years in monesteries before being betrayed and imprisoned by Warwick?  |
|
 First
Previous
2-14 of 14
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
Mark, Thanks, I really enjoyed this Jean Plaidy book like I have all of the ones I have read in the past......Now I have wikipedia.com to look up to see if there is something I am not sure of, which is great! But it said nothing about Henry going from monestery to monestery....Now I know! |
|
Reply
| |
Henry VI is one of those arguments against hereditary monarchy. There was just something seriously wrong with him mentally, which is probably why Margaret of Anjou became such a force to be reckoned with in this reign. She grabebd her chance for power when it became clear her husband wasn't up to the rigors of kingship & all it demanded. |
|
Reply
| |
Perhaps not so much an arguement against hereditary monarchy as an arguement for looking at a family's genetics. After all, his maternal grandfather was Charles the Mad of France, who suffered from periods of mental illness throughout his life. During one attack in 1393, Charles could not remember his name, did not know he was king and fled in terror from his wife. He did not recognize his children, though he knew his brother and councillors and remembered the names of people who had died. In later attacks, he roamed his palaces howling like a wolf, refused to bathe for months on end and suffered from delusions that he was made of glass. Doesn't some of those symptons sound like poor daft Harry? But, not much was known of genetics then, after all, one of Katherine's older sisters was married to Richard II, so the English obviously weren't worried about the strain of mental illness being transferred to their royal family. And who would have thought that such a warrior king as Henry V would have a son that would not be able to follow in the footsteps of his father? |
|
Reply
| |
True enough, and something I think we've discussed before on these boards. But why is that, do you think? In the case of Edward III, he saw his father overthrown and perhaps was determined to "be his own man" so to speak. But as for the weak son following a strong father, is it possible that a strong king such as Edward I was unwilling to let go of the reins enough to allow his son to learn how to lead? I've just finished reading a biography of Nicholas & Alexandria, the last rulers of Russia, and Nicholas' father saw no value in letting Nicholas (in his 20s even) learn anything about state affairs. While that was not the only reason Nicholas' reign was troubled and ended horribly, it certainly didn't help for a 28 year old young man to become an autocrat with his main pastimes being goofing off with his friends! |
|
Reply
| |
How true about strong Kings and weak sons, or ineffectual, to follow. I can think of one father and son reigns where this was not true - that of Henry VII and Henry VIII. They were both successful in their own ways (very different ways). Of course if Arthur would have lived and Henry entered into the church, Arthur would probably have fallen into the category of the weak or ineffectual son to follow a more powerful King. |
|
Reply
| |
After reading Alison Weir's book "The Wars of the Roses", I was impressed with Margaret of Anjou. She certainly was the dominant partner of her marriage with Henry VI. It is too bad that she could not have been the ruling force with him as the consort. He would have been so happy to just study prayer and spend time with his devotions. He seemed to want only a quiet and peaceful life and I got the feeling that he performed his royal duties unwillingly and only because he must. Margaret on the other hand, releashed taking the reins whenever necessary and "assisting" him in his duties and even though she considered him to be weak and ineffectual, she appears to have had a true affection for him. |
|
Reply
| |
I agree with dzhistory. I haven't read Weirs book but will hve a look about Margaret, who was a very strong person to contend with. Unfortunately Tewksbury was her downfall in her attempt to put the Lancasters back on the throne.
Henry VI is assassinated as with his son, and Henry V11 comes to the throne, though he was a Lancastrian, he claimed Welsh heritage through Edmund Tudor 1st earl of Richmond, who married margaret Beaufort. His father was OKwen ap Maredudd ap Tudur, squire of North Wales.(dd in Wales is pronounce dth). I have two passions. The Plantagenets, and the Tudors.
Don’t waste time standing in line—try shopping online. Visit Sympatico / MSN Shopping today! |
|
Reply
| |
Sorry abut last letter. Just realized I should have sent it to Tudor web page. Which I will do so now
David
Don’t waste time standing in line—try shopping online. Visit Sympatico / MSN Shopping today! |
|
Reply
| |
Reposted for chthonic....this is what comes of posting directly from email.....MSN will just toss it anywhere & you are never sure it will hit the correct thread....more than often it will NOT! | From: chthonic (Original Message) | Sent: 9/26/2006 9:29 AM | | I agree with dzhistory about Margaret. She was a very strong woman. Though I haven't read the book dz has read, I will have a look. There is a book called The Tudor Chronicles edited by David Loades."The Tudor Dynasty from 1485 to 1553 | |
|
|
First
Previous
2-14 of 14
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to The Plantagenets