Seewalds 41: Christian Hero Ivy Jane

[JordynDarby5]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 2:20 PM, OyToTheVey said:

Technically speaking, they can appropriate any Old Testament name and name their daughter a Jewish name. I mean Jill already named a kid Israel, I wouldn't be surprised if any of them name their kid Nichama or even Sarah. 

I remember on NCIS when Ziva who is Jewish informing a prejudice hillbilly who had been hateful towards her for being Jewish after he mentioned his daughter's name was Sarah informing him that Sarah was Hebrew name. He admitted he didn't know that. I really loved her pointing that out to him. 

[Cat Damon]

I'm loving the Anne Boleyn / Tudor thread drift, just like I always do when it comes back around. If anyone is interested in podcasts, I just listened to a really good one on History Extra - the episode is from May 9th and is titled "The Rise and Fall of the Boleyns" and it's mainly about Anne's father and brother and who they were as people apart from Anne. It was really, really fascinating. My bachelors degree is in medieval history, and although I'm not a practicing historian I like to keep up with current research and whatnot, and that podcast is my favorite for finding new works coming out.

[CanadianMamam]

So I adore Jane Grey and it is what led me to being a history major. She is complicated and she was defintiely a pawn in other people’s schemes but there is also evidence that she was very strong willed and devoted to her faith and that the horror of letting Catholic Mary run the country is what made her agree to go along with the scheme in the first place and that Mary did offer to pardon her if she converted to Catholism and renounce all right to the throne and she refused and then the second rebellion by her father sealed her fate. So she was very much a pawn, destroyed by other people but she was also very stubborn with strong religious convictions (and a teenager, don’r Let us forget). It is because she has such a complicated and tragic story that I love her so much. 

[viii]

16 hours ago, fundiefan said:

She had to know her life depended upon it. 

She knew her marriage depended on it.

Anne was ordained Queen of England, and it was a very, VERY big deal that Henry had her ex-communicated. It was not a common practice in the least, and like @JordynDarby5 stated, Anne figured if she didn't produce a son, she would end up divorced and banished to a remote castle, separated from her family/friends and her daughter. I don't think anyone every dreamt that Henry would actually behead not only her, but five of his courtiers, some who were good friends with him. 

[VelociRapture]

2 hours ago, Cat Damon said:

I'm loving the Anne Boleyn / Tudor thread drift, just like I always do when it comes back around. If anyone is interested in podcasts, I just listened to a really good one on History Extra - the episode is from May 9th and is titled "The Rise and Fall of the Boleyns" and it's mainly about Anne's father and brother and who they were as people apart from Anne. It was really, really fascinating. My bachelors degree is in medieval history, and although I'm not a practicing historian I like to keep up with current research and whatnot, and that podcast is my favorite for finding new works coming out.

I’m loving this drift too. I’ve been interested in the Tudors for a long time now. My daughter’s name was mostly inspired by family, but it was also partly inspired by the Tudors - her first name is the Latin version of one Tudor woman and her middle name is the German spelling of that woman's daughter. My husband didn’t realize when he suggested it and I didn’t see a reason to inform him about that until he was completely committed to the name and unlikely to change his mind. ?

[viii]

I'm a name nerd, and so now I'm trying to decipher your daughter's name, ha. Love the Tudor connections - it's unlikely I will ever have children, but if I do ever have a daughter, I already know her name will have at least two Tudor references in it. 

The Tudor era is my greatest history passion, and I'm currently working on a Tudor novel. I want to get a Tudor tattoo once my book is accepted for publishing. 

[Angelface]

40 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

I’m loving this drift too. I’ve been interested in the Tudors for a long time now. My daughter’s name was mostly inspired by family, but it was also partly inspired by the Tudors - her first name is the Latin version of one Tudor woman and her middle name is the German spelling of that woman's daughter. My husband didn’t realize when he suggested it and I didn’t see a reason to inform him about that until he was completely committed to the name and unlikely to change his mind. ?

I’m a Tudor history nerd too. 

Regarding husbands and name choices, my husband was adamant “ none of this Matthew, Mark, Luke or John stuff and no disciples either”. Our first child, a son, is named after a disciple and the second choice of name,  if he arrived on St Andrew’s Day, was Andrew (hubby is Scottish). I just decided that if my husband didn’t know that he’d agreed to a choice between two disciples names who was I to tell him!

[karen77]

17 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

@Bad Wolfand @Curious thanks for sharing your beautiful work.  I imagine people will cherish those as family heirlooms.  I would.

I am a knitter.  I wonder if that cat blanket comes in a knit pattern?  I'd love to make one.

I'm a knitter, crocheter and a weaver, (and a little sewing, still new to it) plus I write knitting patterns! 

Crafting is so much fun!

 

You could probably turn it into a knitting pattern... every time there is a chain stitch in teh pattern, do a YO, k2tog instead, should give you holes in the same places. you'd have to experiment.

Edited June 7, 2019 by karen77

[libgirl2]

3 hours ago, viii said:

I'm a name nerd, and so now I'm trying to decipher your daughter's name, ha. Love the Tudor connections - it's unlikely I will ever have children, but if I do ever have a daughter, I already know her name will have at least two Tudor references in it. 

The Tudor era is my greatest history passion, and I'm currently working on a Tudor novel. I want to get a Tudor tattoo once my book is accepted for publishing. 

If I had a daughter she would have had Elizabeth for either her first or middle name. When I had my confirmation, we needed to choose a saint name. I chose Elizabeth for St. Elizabeth of Hungary (I always loved her story) and for Elizabeth I whom I admire. It was a win win for me! 

11 hours ago, JordynDarby5 said:

Definitely. Anne probably loved her daughter but she knew she needed a son to secure her position. As long as she had miscarriages, stillbirths and daughters she knew she'd never be secure. Henry could always find another, younger woman who could and would bear him sons. As she had done just that to Katherine with the help of Henry. I would laugh if fundies claimed her as Protestant martyr. She definitely knew what she was doing. She saw mistresses come and go and end up with nothing for it. Like her sister. She took her shot at Queen and won. I don't like that she gets all the blame since Henry is equal or more. He was a man and King, he didn't have to ditch Katherine. Anne learned early on how much it sucks to be Queen. All the pressure of being an heir and having to say nothing while the King beds who ever he wants which of course she couldn't do that. She tried, won and then lost. But the only thing she didn't count on was the beheading. She really thought she'd end up like Katherine. Banished, divorced and dropped to a lower title. She had no idea that he'd have her beheaded. I do love how many biographies and documentaries on the beheading add that Henry loved her enough to send for a French man more skilled in beheadings so it would be quick. Gee, that's romantic.  After she dead everyone assumed Henry would go back to the same Henry he had been before Anne. They blamed her for the change. But of course he didn't. Not even after finally getting his son and heir.  Which while I hate all the murders and crap to come but people could no longer blame Anne for it.  

I have always wondered if it was God or karma or both Henry tried to ditch his loving, supportive wife and treated her like crap for an heir only to get another daughter and string of miscarriages and still births. Henry had Anne beheaded, he gets a son finally with the next wife, who dies 12 years later and he's never able to father anymore children. Edward only lasts a few years before dying and without an heir. All that work for nothing. Maybe God didn't approve of wife beheadings Henry? Leaving two daughters. Because he never allowed Mary to marry, he pretty much doomed her chances of having an heir, leaving Elizabeth who never married; can't imagine what about seeing her father's marriages, her sister's marriage and cousin Mary of Scots marriages would make want to never get married. 

I lean towards them just liking the name Jane Grey, but then Fundies are weird. The poor girl never would have been beheaded if not for her parents and in-laws. Having no choice but to do what her parents made her is what screwed her over. Not being Protestant. Even Mary knew that which is why she waited so long before ordering it. She knew Jane wasn't behind the uprising and had been forced into it. She originally planned on sparing her or keeping her in the tower. She didn't want to execute her. But Jane's stupid father trying another attempt and Mary's interested in marrying Philip ended up forcing her hand. I understand feeling sorry for her. I do too. That was messed up and not her fault. But she really isn't a Protestant martyr. She wasn't killed because she was Protestant. She was killed because her stupid father and everyone else in the plan assumed everyone would just go long with Jane being declared Queen. When no that was never going to happen, they had none of the popularity, and everyone knew the crown belonged to Mary. Hell, even Jane knew that and tried to refuse the Crown. I do love that she never did make her husband King. 

Anne wasn't royal like Katherine of Aragon, turning a blind eye to Henry's affairs. She also didn't know how to play the part of the Queen, she was hot and passionate and let her heart rule her. Katherine knew she being queen meant behaving a certain way and rising above it, turning a blind eye, don't argue with the king, be a safe refuge for him. After the hotness of Anne, he kind of went back to a woman who would just bring him peace, Jane Seymour. 

[libgirl2]

20 hours ago, fundiefan said:

Like any time period and any person, things are far more complicated than they appear on the surface. And, seemingly opposing / conflicting feelings can exist simultaneously. 

I don't doubt that Anne was proud of her daughter and loved her and glad to have her. Everything I've read over the years indicates that to be true. 

But, Anne married  a man who altered history so he could divorce his first wife, who couldn't give him a son, in order to marry someone who he thought could - Anne. By being part of that process and married to the King, she had a "duty" to produce a son and there is no doubt that it consumed her in many ways. Even as she loved her daughter. She knew what Henry would/could do to get what he wanted - she was part of his attempts - a key player, before and during her marriage. There is no way she lived a life that wasn't consumed with producing a male heir. She had to know her life depended upon it. 

Even Henry wasn't too overly disappointed with his two daughters at birth - while always expecting a prince, he was said to have loved Mary & Elizabeth both and had the outlook that "next time" it will be a boy. Unfortunately for the women in his life - and all life - next time is not guaranteed. 

I wish I could remember which fundies played dress up and went as Anne as a hero of the faith...I swear it was a Botkin. They've already latched onto her - as if she fed Henry Protestant information just to get him to break with Rome instead of helping him find ways to divorce his wife and marry her. 

Update: a quick Google search found the link - it was the Botkins.

https://botkinsisters.com/2009/07/resurrecting-two-great-queens

 

So the fact that she was cheating with a married man and worked with him to set aside his wife, who he married in the eyes of God, is okay? Katherine Parr would be a better Protestant heroine. She was very learned and encouraging of the Protestant movement. She might have been in love with Thomas Seymour but she behaved with dignity and accepted her fate as Henry's queen. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by libgirl2

[JordynDarby5]

21 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

If I had a daughter she would have had Elizabeth for either her first or middle name. When I had my confirmation, we needed to choose a saint name. I chose Elizabeth for St. Elizabeth of Hungary (I always loved her story) and for Elizabeth I whom I admire. It was a win win for me! 

Anne wasn't royal like Katherine of Aragon, turning a blind eye to Henry's affairs. She also didn't know how to play the part of the Queen, she was hot and passionate and let her heart rule her. Katherine knew she being queen meant behaving a certain way and rising above it, turning a blind eye, don't argue with the king, be a safe refuge for him. After the hotness of Anne, he kind of went back to a woman who would just bring him peace, Jane Seymour. 

No, she didn't. All the things she did were what eventually got her Henry. Hot and passionate, arguing with the King, all things that attracted him to her. As a mistress you can be all those things. She didn't realize as Queen she had to change and couldn't be that person.  Not being royal she probably didn't really understand it. To be fair it is stupid. He was happy with her being that way for years until after they were married and then suddenly didn't like her arguing with him and expecting her to turn a blind eye. She couldn't do that. Of course his affairs were going to tick her off. Because she was the mistress who just displaced a Queen. She knew it could happen again. If the mistress got pregnant she could easily find herself divorced, and banished to a remote castle. It was easy for Katherine to ignore she was royal and been trained to ignore it. But also never thought she had to worry. Mistresses come and go. Queens generally don't. Until Anne. She wasn't entirely wrong to be worried about his affairs especially since Elizabeth's birth she had been having miscarriages and stillbirths. Until she had a son she would have to worry.

6 hours ago, Cat Damon said:

I'm loving the Anne Boleyn / Tudor thread drift, just like I always do when it comes back around. If anyone is interested in podcasts, I just listened to a really good one on History Extra - the episode is from May 9th and is titled "The Rise and Fall of the Boleyns" and it's mainly about Anne's father and brother and who they were as people apart from Anne. It was really, really fascinating. My bachelors degree is in medieval history, and although I'm not a practicing historian I like to keep up with current research and whatnot, and that podcast is my favorite for finding new works coming out.

Me too. I love Tudor history, its fascinating. I still can't imagine how after Anne's fate more women weren't running from Henry. 

 

Thank you all for not pointing out my big error in my post about Henry and his wives. Jane Seymour died 12 days after giving birth to Edward not 12 years. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by JordynDarby5

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, JordynDarby5 said:

No, she didn't. All the things she did were what eventually got her Henry. Hot and passionate, arguing with the King, all things that attracted him to her. As a mistress you can be all those things. She didn't realize as Queen she had to change and couldn't be that person.  Not being royal she probably didn't really understand it. To be fair it is stupid. He was happy with her being that way for years until after they were married and then suddenly didn't like her arguing with him and expecting her to turn a blind eye. She couldn't do that. Of course his affairs were going to tick her off. Because she was the mistress who just displaced a Queen. She knew it could happen again. If the mistress got pregnant she could easily find herself divorced, and banished to a remote castle. It was easy for Katherine to ignore she was royal and been trained to ignore it. But also never thought she had to worry. Mistresses come and go. Queens generally don't. Until Anne. She wasn't entirely wrong to be worried about his affairs especially since Elizabeth's birth she had been having miscarriages and stillbirths. Until she had a son she would have to worry.

Exactly, what he found attractive while he pursued her lost its charm when he got her. I read in one of the many Tudor books I have been reading for 40 years that Henry loved the chase, once he caught what he wanted he got bored. 

Yes, you didn't divorce, especially as your wife is of royal blood and you are Catholic. Anne changed all that. Once it happened, it could easily happen again. Her throne was no longer a secure thing. Don't produce a male child, you can follow Katherine out the door, but Henry couldn't just let her live. It would make him a laughing stock, by having charges brought against her, it made him the injured party. He could marry Jane saying he was never really truly married before (he did annul his marriage to Anne) and come out the winner. 

[JordynDarby5]

2 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

Exactly, what he found attractive while he pursued her lost its charm when he got her. I read in one of the many Tudor books I have been reading for 40 years that Henry loved the chase, once he caught what he wanted he got bored. 

Yes, you didn't divorce, especially as your wife is of royal blood and you are Catholic. Anne changed all that. Once it happened, it could easily happen again. Her throne was no longer a secure thing. Don't produce a male child, you can follow Katherine out the door, but Henry couldn't just let her live. It would make him a laughing stock, by having charges brought against her, it made him the injured party. He could marry Jane saying he was never really truly married before (he did annul his marriage to Anne) and come out the winner. 

Given how much Anne was hated, so many people were happy to go along with it to get rid of her. I do really think they blamed Anne for everything and expected Henry to go back to the person he was before he took up with her. I guess when your usually sane King suddenly becomes a cruel murdering psycho who treated his Queen so badly, its easy to blame the mistress who arrived when those changes made. They got a surprised when Anne was beheaded and he didn't change back.

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, JordynDarby5 said:

Given how much Anne was hated, so many people were happy to go along with it to get rid of her. I do really think they blamed Anne for everything and expected Henry to go back to the person he was before he took up with her. I guess when your usually sane King suddenly becomes a cruel murdering psycho who treated his Queen so badly, its easy to blame the mistress who arrived when those changes made. They got a surprised when Anne was beheaded and he didn't change back.

No, he didn't change. He seemed to get worse. I have heard a lot of that had to do with his ulcerated leg. He was in constant pain (not to mention the smell) and I guess that would make me not a happy person either.  I think there was also more to it than that. 

[JordynDarby5]

3 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

No, he didn't change. He seemed to get worse. I have heard a lot of that had to do with his ulcerated leg. He was in constant pain (not to mention the smell) and I guess that would make me not a happy person either.  I think there was also more to it than that. 

So do I. Its just too much of a change to be from one thing. 

[libgirl2]

18 minutes ago, JordynDarby5 said:

So do I. Its just too much of a change to be from one thing. 

I think Henry always was a bit of an egoist to begin with. I think a lot of the reason he kept it under control was Katherine. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by libgirl2

[Angelface]

42 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

No, he didn't change. He seemed to get worse. I have heard a lot of that had to do with his ulcerated leg. He was in constant pain (not to mention the smell) and I guess that would make me not a happy person either.  I think there was also more to it than that. 

Henry fell from his horse whilst jousting and was unconscious for several hours. There was real fear amongst the courtiers that if Henry died there was no direct male heir. The stress of this situation may have partly contributed to Anne miscarrying a male fetus. This was the beginning of the end for her. Henry appeared to become more cruel and tyrannical after this event. 

Prior to attracting Henry’s eye, Anne appeared to have an “understanding” with Lord Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland.  Nothing came of this after Henry made his interest in her known. Percy was forced to be a juror at her trial; after pronouncing the verdict “guilty” he collapsed.  Perhaps they might have been happy if they had married before she caught Henry’s interest. One of the “what if” scenarios of history. 

[libgirl2]

I have also read that Anne was just as much a pawn in her family's quest for power as Katherine Howard was. Lets face it, many women's families were throwing their daughters in front of the king. The Seymours weren't much different either. They knew that someone so soft and gentle like Jane would be a big change from the Anne . 

Edited June 7, 2019 by libgirl2

[libgirl2]

Interesting, with all this Henry talk, an ad for Billions starring Damian Lewis popped up. He played Henry in Wolf Hall (which was very good). 

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, libgirl2 said:

So the fact that she was cheating with a married man and worked with him to set aside his wife, who he married in the eyes of God, is okay? Katherine Parr would be a better Protestant heroine. She was very learned and encouraging of the Protestant movement. She might have been in love with Thomas Seymour but she behaved with dignity and accepted her fate as Henry's queen. 

I don’t think it excuses her. As the husband and the King, however, Henry held power that none of the women in his life could match. He was the one married to Katherine, not Anne, and he was the one who had the power to destroy the family of a woman who might have dared to reject him outright without making it a courtly game. There’s also the fact that, while Anne certainly seemed to know what she was doing, she was also viewed as little more than a pawn to advance her family by her male relatives - she might have taken it further than they intended at first, but she probably wouldn’t have even started the pursuit if they didn’t push her to do so. Therefore, I do think Henry is the one who should be given the majority of the blame, not Anne. 

1 hour ago, libgirl2 said:

I think Henry always was a bit of an egoist to begin with. I think a lot of the reason he kept it under control was Katherine. 

I think it’s easy to see why he turned out that way to an extent. He went from the pampered and somewhat spoiled second son who didn’t have any real responsibility to suddenly being the heir apparent after his brother died. This wasn’t a job he was trained for from birth the way Arthur was, nor was it a job he had to fight tooth and jail for as his father did. I don’t think he had an easy childhood - the deaths of his brother, mother, and youngest sister must have been very difficult, as was the isolation he experienced by his father after becoming the heir - but suddenly having all that power at the young age of 17 or 18 when he wasn’t fully prepared for it likely played a big role in how massive his ego became. 

 

21 minutes ago, Angelface said:

Henry fell from his horse whilst jousting and was unconscious for several hours. There was real fear amongst the courtiers that if Henry died there was no direct male heir. The stress of this situation may have partly contributed to Anne miscarrying a male fetus. This was the beginning of the end for her. Henry appeared to become more cruel and tyrannical after this event. 

Prior to attracting Henry’s eye, Anne appeared to have an “understanding” with Lord Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland.  Nothing came of this after Henry made his interest in her known. Percy was forced to be a juror at her trial; after pronouncing the verdict “guilty” he collapsed.  Perhaps they might have been happy if they had married before she caught Henry’s interest. One of the “what if” scenarios of history. 

Yes. Head injuries are no joke. I find it very likely that his jousting accident played a significant role in the change, even if it was just the fact that it caused him to confront his own very real mortality - he strikes me as the type of person who wouldn’t have done well with that. Katherine, on the other hand, always strikes me as the type of person who would have handled confronting her mortality well. 

ETA: I should add, that while Anne was clearly terrified in those final weeks of her life she also showed what I consider a pretty miraculous amount of courage and strength when the tine came for her execution. I think most of the women in Henry’s life were far more interesting and braver than he likely was and it’s a shame they’re only really known popularly for their links to a man like that. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by VelociRapture

[libgirl2]

2 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

I don’t think it excuses her. As the husband and the King, however, Henry held power that none of the women in his life could match. He was the one married to Katherine, not Anne, and he was the one who had the power to destroy the family of a woman who might have dared to reject him outright without making it a courtly game. There’s also the fact that, while Anne certainly seemed to know what she was doing, she was also viewed as little more than a pawn to advance her family by her male relatives - she might have taken it further than they intended at first, but she probably wouldn’t have even started the pursuit if they didn’t push her to do so. Therefore, I do think Henry is the one who should be given the majority of the blame, not Anne. 

I think it’s easy to see why he turned out that way to an extent. He went from the pampered and somewhat spoiled second son who didn’t have any real responsibility to suddenly being the heir apparent after his brother died. This wasn’t a job he was trained for from birth the way Arthur was, not was it a job he had to fight tooth and jail for as his father did. I don’t think he had an easy childhood - the deaths of his brother, mother, and youngest sister must have been very difficult, as was the isolation he experienced by his father after becoming the heir - but suddenly having all that power at the young age of 17 or 18 when he wasn’t fully prepared for it likely played a big role in how massive his ego became. 

 

Yes. Head injuries are no joke. I find it very likely that his jousting accident played a significant role in the change, even if it was just the fact that it caused him to confront his own very real mortality - he strikes me as the type of person who wouldn’t have done well with that. Katherine, on the other hand, always strikes me as the type of person who would have handled confronting her mortality well. 

No, she didn't really have too much of a choice. She could be his mistress and end up like her sister. Saying no only made him pursue her more.  I highly doubt Anne set out to get Henry, just as I doubt any of the other wives afterwards did. He should take the majority of the blame. 

[JordynDarby5]

12 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I have also read that Anne was just as much a pawn in her family's quest for power as Katherine Howard was. Lets face it, many women's families were throwing their daughters in front of the king. The Seymours weren't much different either. They knew that someone so soft and gentle like Jane would be a big change from the Anne . 

Oh, yes the Seymours were not much better. See how badly they messed things up during Little Edward's reign. They saw their chance with Henry getting annoyed with Anne and still needing an heir. Jane played her part well being everything Anne wasn't. She did make him angry once with a remark when Henry was ticked off at everyone ticked at him for raiding the churches or asking him to pardon the Pilgrimage of Grace and he reminded her of her predecessors and she never said anything again to tick him off.

[libgirl2]

3 minutes ago, JordynDarby5 said:

Oh, yes the Seymours were not much better. See how badly they messed things up during Little Edward's reign. They saw their chance with Henry getting annoyed with Anne and still needing an heir. Jane played her part well being everything Anne wasn't. She did make him angry once with a remark when Henry was ticked off at everyone ticked at him for raiding the churches or asking him to pardon the Pilgrimage of Grace and he reminded her of her predecessors and she never said anything again to tick him off.

I think Jane was a smarter cookie than we give her credit for. She played the same game as Anne but she knew just how far she could go and what would appeal to him. She played him just like Anne did.

He had one wife who adored him, Katherine of Aragon. How sad. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by libgirl2

[Granwych]

7 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I think Jane was a smarter cookie than we give her credit for. She played the same game as Anne but she knew just how far she could go and what would appeal to him. She played him just like Anne did.

He had one wife who adored him, Katherine of Aragon. How sad. 

I liked reading about Christina of Denmark.  Considered by Henry as a possible bride, she had the spunk to refuse due to her not having a spare head to lose.

[libgirl2]

4 minutes ago, Granwych said:

I liked reading about Christina of Denmark.  Considered by Henry as a possible bride, she had the spunk to refuse due to her not having a spare head to lose.

I think a lot of women were not exactly happy to get the king's attention!