The Smiler69/Chatterbox Tutored Read of "Wolf Hall": from June 1 until whenever we're done!
Discussie75 Books Challenge for 2012
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1Chatterbox
Anyone is welcome to lurk and follow on this thread and chip in to contribute answers to Ilana's questions about the context and themes of Hilary Mantel's novel, Wolf Hall. It's up to Ilana, however, how fast we move and whether she is OK with other people asking questions.
I'm launching the thread a bit early because Ilana has been asking about the history and background to the Tudor dynasty. So that anyone who's interested can follow along, rather than having to seek out my thread where this has come up of late, I'm doing an early launch and will summarize some of the questions that have come up.
As I noted there, the key things to know, IMO, about Henry are that he is only the second Tudor to sit on the throne, and that his own father had to fight off several actual or implicit threats to his right to rule from various Plantagenets. In many ways, some of Henry's nobles have a greater right to the throne than he does, at least when it comes to his father's side (the taint of bastardy on both his paternal grandmother's and grandfather's side....) So he feels insecure, and that's one of the reasons why an heir becomes so vital. Also important is the time period in which Henry is born -- it's the late Renaissance, and a time of relative peace, so he is able to grow up as a scholar prince, known for the agility of his mind and his talent for music as much for his physical appearance. (He was notably tall for his day, and extremely handsome as a young man; a replica of his grandfather, Edward IV.) So, by the time he is in middle age -- roughly the time Cromwell first moves into his immediate circle -- he is a vain man accustomed to adulation, yet someone who has been denied the very thing he knows he needs most -- a legitimate male heir. The religion is just the icing on the cake -- the arrival of Lutheranism -- to which Henry never subscribed -- simply makes it more possible for Henry to reject the Pope's authority. Prior monarchs had been excommunicated and their whole country put under the "interdict"; by 1533, Henry shrugs that off, and I think it's at least in part because Luther has demonstrated that the Pope isn't the only route to God.
Another important theme to realize is that it is really during the Tudor era that social mobility becomes possible. Yes, there had been isolated cases of relatively low-born individuals rising to power through the church (with one big example being Thomas Becket), but throughout the Plantagenet era, being of good or noble birth was significant. It remained so, of course, but there was considerably more social mobility, and Thomas Cromwell, the focus of Mantel's books, is a prime beneficiary of that. Unlike Thomas More, the son of a lawyer, Cromwell is the son of a blacksmith. This meant he was looked down upon by the nobles surrounding Henry, even as his abilities ensured his advancement. At this time, men of all kinds were accumulating wealth, and increasingly it would be wealth and talent -- ultimately allied with birth through strategic marriages -- that would forge the next generation of "nobility" in England. Think of Bess of Hardwick, a slightly older contemporary of Elizabeth I, whose first marriage to a wealthy knight who made his money at Henry VIII's court brought her tremendous prosperity. She later married the Earl of Shrewsbury; her descendants include the dukes of Devonshire and Newcastle. Thomas Cromwell is a beneficiary of these changes -- but he still must work within the old system.
I'm launching the thread a bit early because Ilana has been asking about the history and background to the Tudor dynasty. So that anyone who's interested can follow along, rather than having to seek out my thread where this has come up of late, I'm doing an early launch and will summarize some of the questions that have come up.
As I noted there, the key things to know, IMO, about Henry are that he is only the second Tudor to sit on the throne, and that his own father had to fight off several actual or implicit threats to his right to rule from various Plantagenets. In many ways, some of Henry's nobles have a greater right to the throne than he does, at least when it comes to his father's side (the taint of bastardy on both his paternal grandmother's and grandfather's side....) So he feels insecure, and that's one of the reasons why an heir becomes so vital. Also important is the time period in which Henry is born -- it's the late Renaissance, and a time of relative peace, so he is able to grow up as a scholar prince, known for the agility of his mind and his talent for music as much for his physical appearance. (He was notably tall for his day, and extremely handsome as a young man; a replica of his grandfather, Edward IV.) So, by the time he is in middle age -- roughly the time Cromwell first moves into his immediate circle -- he is a vain man accustomed to adulation, yet someone who has been denied the very thing he knows he needs most -- a legitimate male heir. The religion is just the icing on the cake -- the arrival of Lutheranism -- to which Henry never subscribed -- simply makes it more possible for Henry to reject the Pope's authority. Prior monarchs had been excommunicated and their whole country put under the "interdict"; by 1533, Henry shrugs that off, and I think it's at least in part because Luther has demonstrated that the Pope isn't the only route to God.
Another important theme to realize is that it is really during the Tudor era that social mobility becomes possible. Yes, there had been isolated cases of relatively low-born individuals rising to power through the church (with one big example being Thomas Becket), but throughout the Plantagenet era, being of good or noble birth was significant. It remained so, of course, but there was considerably more social mobility, and Thomas Cromwell, the focus of Mantel's books, is a prime beneficiary of that. Unlike Thomas More, the son of a lawyer, Cromwell is the son of a blacksmith. This meant he was looked down upon by the nobles surrounding Henry, even as his abilities ensured his advancement. At this time, men of all kinds were accumulating wealth, and increasingly it would be wealth and talent -- ultimately allied with birth through strategic marriages -- that would forge the next generation of "nobility" in England. Think of Bess of Hardwick, a slightly older contemporary of Elizabeth I, whose first marriage to a wealthy knight who made his money at Henry VIII's court brought her tremendous prosperity. She later married the Earl of Shrewsbury; her descendants include the dukes of Devonshire and Newcastle. Thomas Cromwell is a beneficiary of these changes -- but he still must work within the old system.
2Chatterbox
A note about the dynastic complications leading up to the Tudors, so that Ilana can understand why Henry VIII was so obsessed with having a son...
The problem was that Edward III had too many sons... and that the eldest amongst them didn't have enough of the right kind of heirs -- adult men to inherit the throne and be able to hold it. The first, the Black Prince, died before Edward III, and left behind only a young boy who became Richard II. He was childless, in his turn. Son #2, Lionel, had only a daughter, Philippa, who married the earl of March. (in a rather amusing little twist, her husband's great-grandfather, Roger Mortimer, had been the lover of Isabella of France, queen of Edward II and Philippa's great-grandmother.) This made them the power couple of the day -- but the problem was that Philippa was "only" a woman. Nonetheless, later monarchs felt threatened by her children. If you remember your Shakespeare, when Henry IV faced off against Hotspur, he was facing someone who, through his marriage to the daughter of March and Philippa may have had a solid claim to the throne. March & Philippa's granddaughter, Anne Mortimer, passed on a part of that claim to her son, Richard Plantagenet, the duke of York, who founded the short-lived House of York. Anne's two elder brothers had been, ahem, confined by Henry IV for much of their youth to prevent them being a challenge.
Now we come to son #3 -- John of Gaunt. (Gaunt is a corruption of Ghent, his birthplace.) He is annoyingly complicated. His first family included Henry IV, his son and acknowledged heir. (Also a daughter who became the mother of several notable Portuguese princes, including Henry the Navigator.) But while he married a second time for political reasons, he was having an affair with their governess, Katherine Swynford, sister-in-law of Chaucer. They had four illegitimate children together, three sons and a daughter, all of whom were known by the surname Beaufort - hence Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII and grandmother of Henry VIII, who was the great-grandaughter of John of Gaunt. Collectively, John of Gaunt's heirs can be thought of as the "Lancastrians". Henry IV ended up deposing Richard II and overlooking the claim of the young March heirs, with the agreement of those around him who preferred a strong adult male on the throne. The Beauforts -- who had been legitimized by both Richard II and by Parliament -- were fiercely loyal to the Lancastrian kings, even though Henry IV later amended their legitimation to add the proviso that they should not be able to inherit the throne -- something that would later prove a bit crucial. The one interesting note is that the Beaufort daughter became the mother of Cecily Neville and thus grandmother to Edward IV, who eventually deposed the Lancastrians.
Son #4 was Edmund Duke of York. He was a mildmannered man who was loyal to his nephew Henry IV; his elder son was killed at Agincourt fighting alongside Henry V. It's his youngest who is of interest to us: Richard of Cambridge was discovered to be plotting against Henry V and summarily executed just before the king headed off to Shakespearean fame at Agincourt. But he had had enough time to have children... the eldest of whom, Richard, succeeded to the dukedom on the death of his uncle. He became Richard of York, and in himself he united the claims to the throne of both the Yorks (son #4, via his father) and the Clarences (son #2, through his mother, Anne Mortimer). When married Cecily Neville, he ensured that their children would get a right of sorts to the throne (albeit one tainted by the Beaufort bastardy and via female descent) from son #3 as well. So the Yorks were a real threat to the Lancastrians -- especially when it turned out that Henry VI was more than a little feeble-minded, and had a bit of difficulty in the heir-generating department. (He basically preferred to live like a monk.) In contrast, Richard & Cecily had a bevy of children, seven of whom -- including four boys -- survived at least into their teens.
So we have the stage set for the Wars of the Roses, aka the Cousins' War, pitting York against Lancaster off and on for the 1450s and up until 1472, when it seemed Edward IV was finally secure on his throne, having finally overthrown Henry VI for good a second time. The latter died in the Tower of London days later; his "son" (who may have been illegitimate) had been killed in battle weeks earlier, or possibly killed by the king or his retinue afterwards to prevent him trying that again. It seemed that there were no more Lancastrian claimants around.
Except, that is, for one Henry Tudor. His mother, Margaret Beaufort, was one of the bastard Beauforts -- after the Wars of the Roses, she was one of the last survivors. Ironically, the eldest bastard Beaufort, John, had had 4 sons survive to adulthood, each of whom succeeded to his titles in sequence. (One of his daughters became Queen of Scotland.) The second son, John, had a single child -- Margaret. At a very young age, she was married off to a young man with a taint of bastardy in his own ancestry: Edmund Tudor. The widow of Henry V had had a fling with a Welshman in her retinue, Owen Tudor, and had had three sons with him (and possibly more children) before she died. The eldest of those was Edmund, and both he and his father would die fighting for the Lancastrian cause in the Wars of the Roses. But Edmund had left Margaret pregnant, and at the age of 13, she gave birth to the boy who would become Henry VII, the first Tudor king. He was the last Lancastrian.
Back to the Plantagenets. In contrast to the sudden paucity of Lancastrians, they seemed to be flourishing. Edward IV had two sons and five surviving daughters with his wife; his brother George had two children, a son and daughter; then came the Duke of Gloucester, who would become Richard III, who had his own young son. Edward also had sisters: most notably, Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, who had 9 children, five of whom were sons that were major thorns in the sides of the first Tudors. If Henry VIII didn't have a male heir, he feared the de la Pole clan would seize the throne. After all, John, the eldest of those brothers, was an early rebel against Henry VII; he died in 1487 at the Battle of Stoke, at which Henry held on to his throne. Henry VIII executed his younger brother Edmund de la Pole; Richard de la Pole fled to the continent and died at the battle of Pavia; Henry VIII kept William de la Pole locked up in the Tower until the latter's death around the time of Cromwell's own death.
So at the time Wolf Hall is set, Henry is still feeling under threat from a couple of places -- the de la Poles, and the Poles, the only survivors from the line of George of Clarence, Edward IV's younger brother. Eventually, he would imprison Margaret Pole, his cousin and an elderly lady, and have her executed: the axeman is said to have had to chase her around the block as she refused to bow her head to him. Her offense was multiple: not only did she have the wrong blood (passed on to her own children) but she supported Catherine of Aragon, his wife, in her refusal to accept a divorce and thus allow Henry to marry Anne Boleyn and get a male heir. There were some other dynastic problem areas, too. When Henry VII had defeated Richard III and founded the house of Tudor, he had married Edward IV's eldest daughter to consolidate his claim. (Hence the "Tudor rose" on the cover of the Wolf Hall editions, a mixture of red and white.) But Elizabeth of York had several younger sisters, one of whose offspring, the Courtenays of Devon, would prove troublesome and also ended up in the Tower.
To put it mildly, the Tudors had a rather feeble claim to the throne, and were surrounded by many challengers. Henry VII bought off some, killed off others and marginalized still more (marrying his wife's sisters to men of lower rank, for instance.) But until he had a son of his own, Henry VIII could not feel secure. Who could succeed him? His elder sister had married the King of Scotland -- who kept invading England, for heaven's sake; eventually, troops commanded by Catherine of Aragon ended up killing Henry's nephew in battle. Not a great solution, there. Or his younger sister, Mary, had married his best friend, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk. But their only son died young, leaving them with two daughters. (The eldest of those daughters would become mother to Lady Jane Grey, proof that Henry's paranoia was't ill-founded...) So, while Henry may have lusted after Anne, he needed an heir.
And hear endeth the boring history lesson..
The problem was that Edward III had too many sons... and that the eldest amongst them didn't have enough of the right kind of heirs -- adult men to inherit the throne and be able to hold it. The first, the Black Prince, died before Edward III, and left behind only a young boy who became Richard II. He was childless, in his turn. Son #2, Lionel, had only a daughter, Philippa, who married the earl of March. (in a rather amusing little twist, her husband's great-grandfather, Roger Mortimer, had been the lover of Isabella of France, queen of Edward II and Philippa's great-grandmother.) This made them the power couple of the day -- but the problem was that Philippa was "only" a woman. Nonetheless, later monarchs felt threatened by her children. If you remember your Shakespeare, when Henry IV faced off against Hotspur, he was facing someone who, through his marriage to the daughter of March and Philippa may have had a solid claim to the throne. March & Philippa's granddaughter, Anne Mortimer, passed on a part of that claim to her son, Richard Plantagenet, the duke of York, who founded the short-lived House of York. Anne's two elder brothers had been, ahem, confined by Henry IV for much of their youth to prevent them being a challenge.
Now we come to son #3 -- John of Gaunt. (Gaunt is a corruption of Ghent, his birthplace.) He is annoyingly complicated. His first family included Henry IV, his son and acknowledged heir. (Also a daughter who became the mother of several notable Portuguese princes, including Henry the Navigator.) But while he married a second time for political reasons, he was having an affair with their governess, Katherine Swynford, sister-in-law of Chaucer. They had four illegitimate children together, three sons and a daughter, all of whom were known by the surname Beaufort - hence Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII and grandmother of Henry VIII, who was the great-grandaughter of John of Gaunt. Collectively, John of Gaunt's heirs can be thought of as the "Lancastrians". Henry IV ended up deposing Richard II and overlooking the claim of the young March heirs, with the agreement of those around him who preferred a strong adult male on the throne. The Beauforts -- who had been legitimized by both Richard II and by Parliament -- were fiercely loyal to the Lancastrian kings, even though Henry IV later amended their legitimation to add the proviso that they should not be able to inherit the throne -- something that would later prove a bit crucial. The one interesting note is that the Beaufort daughter became the mother of Cecily Neville and thus grandmother to Edward IV, who eventually deposed the Lancastrians.
Son #4 was Edmund Duke of York. He was a mildmannered man who was loyal to his nephew Henry IV; his elder son was killed at Agincourt fighting alongside Henry V. It's his youngest who is of interest to us: Richard of Cambridge was discovered to be plotting against Henry V and summarily executed just before the king headed off to Shakespearean fame at Agincourt. But he had had enough time to have children... the eldest of whom, Richard, succeeded to the dukedom on the death of his uncle. He became Richard of York, and in himself he united the claims to the throne of both the Yorks (son #4, via his father) and the Clarences (son #2, through his mother, Anne Mortimer). When married Cecily Neville, he ensured that their children would get a right of sorts to the throne (albeit one tainted by the Beaufort bastardy and via female descent) from son #3 as well. So the Yorks were a real threat to the Lancastrians -- especially when it turned out that Henry VI was more than a little feeble-minded, and had a bit of difficulty in the heir-generating department. (He basically preferred to live like a monk.) In contrast, Richard & Cecily had a bevy of children, seven of whom -- including four boys -- survived at least into their teens.
So we have the stage set for the Wars of the Roses, aka the Cousins' War, pitting York against Lancaster off and on for the 1450s and up until 1472, when it seemed Edward IV was finally secure on his throne, having finally overthrown Henry VI for good a second time. The latter died in the Tower of London days later; his "son" (who may have been illegitimate) had been killed in battle weeks earlier, or possibly killed by the king or his retinue afterwards to prevent him trying that again. It seemed that there were no more Lancastrian claimants around.
Except, that is, for one Henry Tudor. His mother, Margaret Beaufort, was one of the bastard Beauforts -- after the Wars of the Roses, she was one of the last survivors. Ironically, the eldest bastard Beaufort, John, had had 4 sons survive to adulthood, each of whom succeeded to his titles in sequence. (One of his daughters became Queen of Scotland.) The second son, John, had a single child -- Margaret. At a very young age, she was married off to a young man with a taint of bastardy in his own ancestry: Edmund Tudor. The widow of Henry V had had a fling with a Welshman in her retinue, Owen Tudor, and had had three sons with him (and possibly more children) before she died. The eldest of those was Edmund, and both he and his father would die fighting for the Lancastrian cause in the Wars of the Roses. But Edmund had left Margaret pregnant, and at the age of 13, she gave birth to the boy who would become Henry VII, the first Tudor king. He was the last Lancastrian.
Back to the Plantagenets. In contrast to the sudden paucity of Lancastrians, they seemed to be flourishing. Edward IV had two sons and five surviving daughters with his wife; his brother George had two children, a son and daughter; then came the Duke of Gloucester, who would become Richard III, who had his own young son. Edward also had sisters: most notably, Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, who had 9 children, five of whom were sons that were major thorns in the sides of the first Tudors. If Henry VIII didn't have a male heir, he feared the de la Pole clan would seize the throne. After all, John, the eldest of those brothers, was an early rebel against Henry VII; he died in 1487 at the Battle of Stoke, at which Henry held on to his throne. Henry VIII executed his younger brother Edmund de la Pole; Richard de la Pole fled to the continent and died at the battle of Pavia; Henry VIII kept William de la Pole locked up in the Tower until the latter's death around the time of Cromwell's own death.
So at the time Wolf Hall is set, Henry is still feeling under threat from a couple of places -- the de la Poles, and the Poles, the only survivors from the line of George of Clarence, Edward IV's younger brother. Eventually, he would imprison Margaret Pole, his cousin and an elderly lady, and have her executed: the axeman is said to have had to chase her around the block as she refused to bow her head to him. Her offense was multiple: not only did she have the wrong blood (passed on to her own children) but she supported Catherine of Aragon, his wife, in her refusal to accept a divorce and thus allow Henry to marry Anne Boleyn and get a male heir. There were some other dynastic problem areas, too. When Henry VII had defeated Richard III and founded the house of Tudor, he had married Edward IV's eldest daughter to consolidate his claim. (Hence the "Tudor rose" on the cover of the Wolf Hall editions, a mixture of red and white.) But Elizabeth of York had several younger sisters, one of whose offspring, the Courtenays of Devon, would prove troublesome and also ended up in the Tower.
To put it mildly, the Tudors had a rather feeble claim to the throne, and were surrounded by many challengers. Henry VII bought off some, killed off others and marginalized still more (marrying his wife's sisters to men of lower rank, for instance.) But until he had a son of his own, Henry VIII could not feel secure. Who could succeed him? His elder sister had married the King of Scotland -- who kept invading England, for heaven's sake; eventually, troops commanded by Catherine of Aragon ended up killing Henry's nephew in battle. Not a great solution, there. Or his younger sister, Mary, had married his best friend, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk. But their only son died young, leaving them with two daughters. (The eldest of those daughters would become mother to Lady Jane Grey, proof that Henry's paranoia was't ill-founded...) So, while Henry may have lusted after Anne, he needed an heir.
And hear endeth the boring history lesson..
3lyzard
Hi, Suzanne! I'll be following your tutoring with great interest, although not reading along at this time. As you may know, I'm currently mired in the travails of the Stuarts over at my blog, but my reading recently touched upon this period with instances of the use of the name "Perkin Warbeck" as a term of abuse for James Francis Edward Stuart, aka "The Old Pretender". That forced me to do a little reading around Henry VII and the princes in the tower, so I'm a bit better informed about the background than I otherwise would have been.
4Chatterbox
Yes, I didn't even get into the question of the pesky princes in the tower, did I??? The presumption is that they both died there, either before or shortly after Henry VII's victory. He would have had a vested interest in doing them in, or there are a raft of other possible candidates. The traditional villain is Richard III, although having labeled them as bastards, they weren't really a threat to his throne. An adult man was definitely preferable to a young boy -- and the job of being a Protector wasn't really a great one, either. Boy kings tended to grow up into weak kings -- Henry III inherited the throne aged only a few years old, and had to deal with civil war. Richard II was manipulated by his uncles, ended up being loathed by his nobles for his extravagance and his reluctance to go to war; Henry IV was a welcome contrast for a while. Henry VI was a baby when crowned, and ended up feeble minded. So why have a boy king? Especially when there's an adult man with a track record of being a great soldier and defender of England's northern borders??
But the disappearance of the boys left Henry VII with a problem: imposters. First, Lambert Simnel, then Warbeck (whom the king of Scotland supported until Henry bribed him with marriage to his elder daughter). It was the idea of Warbeck rather than the reality that mattered -- that someone could challenge the king.
ETA: re the Stuarts, admit I'm more interested now in reading about the 1715 and 1745 rebellions and Jacobite espionage in that era. Am no fan of the Hanoverians...
But the disappearance of the boys left Henry VII with a problem: imposters. First, Lambert Simnel, then Warbeck (whom the king of Scotland supported until Henry bribed him with marriage to his elder daughter). It was the idea of Warbeck rather than the reality that mattered -- that someone could challenge the king.
ETA: re the Stuarts, admit I'm more interested now in reading about the 1715 and 1745 rebellions and Jacobite espionage in that era. Am no fan of the Hanoverians...
5lyzard
Well, I've only just managed to get William and Mary onto the throne, so I've quite a way to go yet before I'll be dealing with any Jacobite rebellions.
Am no fan of the Hanoverians...
Oh, me neither - but I can't say I've any great affection for the Stuarts either! How anyone can study monarchy up close and remain a monarchist is beyond me! :)
But it is fascinating to see how much of history comes down to the vagaries of reproduction - too much, too little, the wrong kind....
Am no fan of the Hanoverians...
Oh, me neither - but I can't say I've any great affection for the Stuarts either! How anyone can study monarchy up close and remain a monarchist is beyond me! :)
But it is fascinating to see how much of history comes down to the vagaries of reproduction - too much, too little, the wrong kind....
6Chatterbox
Just bumping this up so that it doesn't get lost...
7lyzard
I've been horribly slack about updating the tutored reads thread lately, but I will try to get that taken care of this weekend.
8The_Hibernator
I just started reading Wolf Hall today so I'll be lurking! Great history lesson, though all the names made me go a little fuzzy-headed. I get the basic idea though. ;)
9katiekrug
I'll be lurking, though probably not reading Wolf Hall yet, though I do own a copy. My head is swimming from Suz's introductory posts - will have to go back and re-read them until I get it all straight!
10Chatterbox
There are all kinds of "what ifs" that kick in here. What if Richard II had been a strong king? If Henry VI had been in the mold of his father and grandfather and fathered a bunch of sons? What if Henry IV's other three sons had had legitimate male heirs? (Henry V had only one infant son at his death; the youngest of the four brothers had two illegitimate children and that was it. By Elizabeth's reign, one of the only surviving descendants of Henry IV was a highwayman in the Welsh marches. Really!
I confess I have found all this fascinating ever since I was a child. When I was about 8, the movie version of Henry VIII and his Six Wives came out and I desperately wanted to go -- but it was rated either A or AA (UK ratings, but not PG!) Ditto Anne of the Thousand Days. But I did make it to see Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson in "Mary Queen of Scots", which I loved despite one blatant historical inaccuracy -- the meeting btwn Elizabeth and Mary never happened. Just call me history geek.
I confess I have found all this fascinating ever since I was a child. When I was about 8, the movie version of Henry VIII and his Six Wives came out and I desperately wanted to go -- but it was rated either A or AA (UK ratings, but not PG!) Ditto Anne of the Thousand Days. But I did make it to see Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson in "Mary Queen of Scots", which I loved despite one blatant historical inaccuracy -- the meeting btwn Elizabeth and Mary never happened. Just call me history geek.
11lyzard
Nah, everyone knows that meeting never happened. :)
Still, I guess you can't entirely blame them for succumbing to temptation. How could you co-cast Vanessa and Glenda and not give them even one scene together??
Still, I guess you can't entirely blame them for succumbing to temptation. How could you co-cast Vanessa and Glenda and not give them even one scene together??
12Chatterbox
Liz, yes, and by the standards of "The Tudors", that kind of liberty looks downright boring! Whoever wrote those scripts did serious violence to historical fact.
13lyzard
Yeah, I actually don't see the point of watching anything so far from the truth - but then, I don't enjoy "re-imaginings", either.
14drbook
Chatterbox, thanks to a very kind Amazon reviewer I've discovered your tutored read (I nearly typed "tudored"); however, I have yet to determine how to link this thread to my homepage. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Also, since I know next to nothing about the Tudor dynasty (ouch, it hurts to say that) might you recommend a book that would inform my reading of "Wolf Hall" and "Bring Up the Bodies"? Thank you.
16Smiler69
Oh my... my head hurts. Not literally, mind you, but just from trying to keep all the facts straight. As I told you on your thread Suz, I've been listening to the episode of This Sceptered Isle that covers the period of British history from the Black Prince to Henry VIII. Today I sat in a park and listened with as much attention as I could muster to what happened between the death of Edward III to the end of the War of the Roses. I started reading your introduction earlier in the day, then, armed with what I'd learned from the audio recording, read your historical wrap-up again, and while I think I get the gist of it, it all still makes my head hurt. I tried seeking out family trees that would help clarify how everyone is related, but couldn't find one that includes all the principal actors on one document, quite understandably since they get much too populated to fit into one page. But I do understand enough about the history of the Plantagenets at this point to understand how vital it was for Henry VIII to have a male heir.
I don't mind other people coming in and asking questions. One main condition is that nobody can ask questions about a part of the novel I haven't myself asked questions about already and received answers to. Also, depending on how many lurkers decide to participate in the thread, we'll see if we might need to do as Liz does and call official "intermissions" when people can asks their questions, if only so we make sure to keep the focus on getting my questions answered first.
Thanks for getting this thread started Suz. I just finished reading Persuasion yesterday and am about to post a few last questions on the thread Liz had going for that tutorial, which will give me time to take a few days of break between tutoring session so that I can start fresh again with Wolf Hall for June. I need to get some other reading out of the way, which I'll try to do in the next few days. I'll do my best to start reading on the 1st, I can't promise I will. In which case, any questions lurkers want to ask will have to be limited to background information until I'm ready to begin.
This should be fun!
I don't mind other people coming in and asking questions. One main condition is that nobody can ask questions about a part of the novel I haven't myself asked questions about already and received answers to. Also, depending on how many lurkers decide to participate in the thread, we'll see if we might need to do as Liz does and call official "intermissions" when people can asks their questions, if only so we make sure to keep the focus on getting my questions answered first.
Thanks for getting this thread started Suz. I just finished reading Persuasion yesterday and am about to post a few last questions on the thread Liz had going for that tutorial, which will give me time to take a few days of break between tutoring session so that I can start fresh again with Wolf Hall for June. I need to get some other reading out of the way, which I'll try to do in the next few days. I'll do my best to start reading on the 1st, I can't promise I will. In which case, any questions lurkers want to ask will have to be limited to background information until I'm ready to begin.
This should be fun!
17Chatterbox
Erm, drbook, that Amazon reviewer would be me, if you are the person who posted on my review of Bring Up the Bodies! Amazon can be a bit of a wacky place, with more stalkers for reviewers to cope with than I wanted to invite over here, but it sounds as if you would have fun lurking on this thread. I'm afraid I'm the last person to advise on technical issues, but if you send a PM to drneutron, he may be able to help? Or I'm sure there's some stuff on the FAQ for this group.
A REMINDER TO ALL LURKERS: This thread is for Ilana's benefit, first and foremost, so I'd ask you all to PLEASE respect that. To me, that means that her questions take priority and NO ONE should post anything spoiler-ish here. If you've got another question, just shoot me a PM; I promise to respond. Especially once the formal reading gets going, we can keep the non-Ilana back and forth chat off this thread, I think, and on either our own threads or a separate discussion thread, as seems best. This is first and foremost a tutored reads thread and I hereby pledge to be ruthless when it comes to flagging posts that Ilana finds distracting...
Ilana, don't worry about the nitty gritty of it at this stage. The key takeaways is that via all these sons of Edward III, there were multiple possible lines of descent, and by the time of Bosworth, the battle that Henry VII won to seize the throne and form the Tudor dynasty, there were all kinds of combinations and permutations. Really, there was no one with a perfect right to the throne -- uncontested firstborn adult male son, direct line from Edward III -- but a lot of people with imperfect and muddled lines of descent from Lionel of Clarence, John of Gaunt, Edmund of York.
ETA: For drbook and anyone else looking for background, Alison Weir has two or three books that might be helpful. I'm recommending hers because while there are several, hers are general in nature and very accessible in terms of style. The first is The Wars of the Roses, which gets into all the background noted above. After that, there is Henry VIII: The King and His Court. There's also one that might be too spoilerish, about Henry and his wives. To fill the chronological gap in between the first two, if you're interested, there is the excellent just-published history by Thomas Penn, Winter King, which addresses all the challenges Henry VII faced in establishing his dynasty and thus the context in which the young prince was raised.
A REMINDER TO ALL LURKERS: This thread is for Ilana's benefit, first and foremost, so I'd ask you all to PLEASE respect that. To me, that means that her questions take priority and NO ONE should post anything spoiler-ish here. If you've got another question, just shoot me a PM; I promise to respond. Especially once the formal reading gets going, we can keep the non-Ilana back and forth chat off this thread, I think, and on either our own threads or a separate discussion thread, as seems best. This is first and foremost a tutored reads thread and I hereby pledge to be ruthless when it comes to flagging posts that Ilana finds distracting...
Ilana, don't worry about the nitty gritty of it at this stage. The key takeaways is that via all these sons of Edward III, there were multiple possible lines of descent, and by the time of Bosworth, the battle that Henry VII won to seize the throne and form the Tudor dynasty, there were all kinds of combinations and permutations. Really, there was no one with a perfect right to the throne -- uncontested firstborn adult male son, direct line from Edward III -- but a lot of people with imperfect and muddled lines of descent from Lionel of Clarence, John of Gaunt, Edmund of York.
ETA: For drbook and anyone else looking for background, Alison Weir has two or three books that might be helpful. I'm recommending hers because while there are several, hers are general in nature and very accessible in terms of style. The first is The Wars of the Roses, which gets into all the background noted above. After that, there is Henry VIII: The King and His Court. There's also one that might be too spoilerish, about Henry and his wives. To fill the chronological gap in between the first two, if you're interested, there is the excellent just-published history by Thomas Penn, Winter King, which addresses all the challenges Henry VII faced in establishing his dynasty and thus the context in which the young prince was raised.
18drbook
Thank you for the recommendations. I'm looking forward to lurking in the background and appreciate the invitation.
19Mr.Durick
I won't be rereading Wolf Hall, but I'll be following this discussion in anticipation of reading the sequel when it comes out in paperback.
Robert
Robert
20CDVicarage
I've started Wolf Hall on my kindle and I'm enjoying it very much. Audible UK has it on special offer for members at the moment, so I've got that ready to start too. I shall be lurking along, although my knowledge of this era is pretty good (I think!) other people always ask questions that I hadn't thought of but find useful.
21Athabasca
I'll be lurking too and hopefully learning more about an era I'm not all that familiar with! :0)
22ccookie
I want to join in but I am number 62/63 on the waitlist at the library for the book. I am however, 3 out of 3 on the list for the CD version and 10/10 for the Audiobook for my MP3. I'll ask around and see if I can borrow a copy from someone.
23cyderry
I'm reading Wolf Hall too, group read in 12 in 12 Challenge, so I'll be lurking just for fun.
Just a note because I have delved into this history for years, and read all your background information. You mention the War of the Roses but no explanation for those who haven't been there before. The Yorkists wore on their liveries a White rose and the Lancastrians (descendants of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster) wore a red rose. Thus the War of the Roses.
Here is a link to a family tree...
http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm
Just a note because I have delved into this history for years, and read all your background information. You mention the War of the Roses but no explanation for those who haven't been there before. The Yorkists wore on their liveries a White rose and the Lancastrians (descendants of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster) wore a red rose. Thus the War of the Roses.
Here is a link to a family tree...
http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm
24ccookie
> 23
can you post a link to the 12 12 group read? I can't seem to find the thread. Maybe there isn't one yet?
can you post a link to the 12 12 group read? I can't seem to find the thread. Maybe there isn't one yet?
25cyderry
Here's a link to the group read - http://www.librarything.com/topic/137797#
Everyone is welcome to join in!
Everyone is welcome to join in!
26Morphidae
I won't be reading Wolf Hall. I got 2/3 through it and quit. But I love the Tudors so will lurk in this thread.
27Chatterbox
A quick intro to the Wars of the Roses for all who are interested:
Although it was punctuated by some of the bloodiest battles ever fought on English soil, this civil war was actually a prolonged period of revolt, political strife and just general uncertainty, punctuated by years at a stretch of piece and quiet. It kicked off in 1450, with a revolt against the ineffective and corrupt reign of Henry VI. So ineffective was the central authority that nobles had been able to build up their own private armies, and routinely resorted to mini-wars with each other to settle scores. The king was seen as a kind of holy fool unable to rein in this behavior or punish it. Richard of York had emerged as one of Henry's main battle leaders in France, he was constantly nfuriated by the king's inability or unwillingness to provide funds and support for the war (as a result, England continued to lose territory won by Henry V 40 plus years previously) as well as the fact that Henry's favorites had a vested interest in excluding York from the inner circles of power and challenging the status that he believed he had as a probable heir (Henry was still childless). Then Henry lost his marbles -- and York became head of a regency council. During this time, Margaret of Anjou finally gave birth to an heir, a boy she named Edward, although rumors about the boy's paternity surrounded him until the day of his death. Henry's recovery in 1455 prompted the outbreak of actual battles, as Margaret and her Lancastrian allies (the bastard Beauforts, see above posts) took advantage of the opportunity to do exactly what York had feared, and cut back his power, influence and resources. After all, he wasn't the heir any more...
The first battle in what was known at the time as the Cousins' War was St. Albans, in 1455, a big Yorkist victory. The eldest of the Beaufort clan, the duke of Somerset, was among the most notable casualties. It's impossible to overstate the chaos that followed. The court was set up in the Midlands; the Yorkists ended up winning the loyalty of London; pirates were swarming on the coasts; the French were taking advantage of the chaos. The worst of the fighting wouldn't hit until 1459/1460 -- Blore Heath, Ludlow Bridge, Northampton. At the latter, the Yorkists discovered Henry sitting alone in a tent or under a tree (accounts vary) and with him in their control, had the edge. After calling Parliament, York made a claim for the throne -- and cited his descent from Lionel of Clarence (see above). That left everyone -- even his supporters -- gobsmacked. They wanted to reform Henry's government, not overthrow him. Only months later, having gone to the north to try to out manoeuver Lancastrian forces, Richard of York and his second son, Edmund, were killed. (The latter probably was murdered or executed after surrendering; he was 17 years old.) Their heads were stuck up on the city gates of York, with paper crowns on them. There followed two more battles -- Lancastrian victories -- at Mortimer's Cross and St. Albans (again). After the latter, Margaret discovered her husband and the Lancastrians again seemed to have the edge.
But Margaret hadn't reckoned on York's eldest son and heir, Edward. Only 18 years old, within a few months he and his cousin, the earl of Warwick ("Warwick the Kingmaker) had allied and scored a decisive victory, both political and military. Times had changed: entering London, Edward was promptly crowned Edward IV, and while he himself argued that Henry had forfeited the crown by allowing Margaret to take up arms against Richard of York (who had been acknowledged heir to the crown a year earlier, over Henry and Margaret's son), to many his accession was seen as a victory for the "real" Yorkist heirs, who had the stronger claim. There were now two kings in the same country, at least until a snowy Eastertide battle at Towton, which claimed 20,000 lives in what is said to still be the bloodiest battle on English soil. (I think it even beats the score of Naseby, in the mid 17th century.) Henry and Margaret fled; Edward returned in triumph to London. It all seemed to be settled.
Of course, it wasn't that easy. Edward had to put down a series of Lancastrian revolts and incursions in the North throughout this stage of his reign. Eventually, Warwick turned against him, partly because of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, a widow and not a foreign princess -- not a match that would bring powerful allies to the Yorkists. After failing to unseat Edward on his own and replace him with Edward's younger brother George -- conveniently betrothed to Isabel, Warwick's elder daughter -- Warwick ended up switching allegiances and supporting Henry VI (who had been back in Yorkist hands for a few years). Edward fled to Burgundy, where his younger sister was now married to its duke, but in less than a year he was back and defeated both Warwick and the main Lancastrian force under Margaret and her son Edward of Lancaster in two bloody battles; Warwick was killed in battle as was Margaret's son.
That should have marked an end to it all, especially as two of Edward's own sons survived their early childhood. But... Edward died young, in 1483, only a dozen years after vanquishing the Lancastrians. One thing he couldn't do to safeguard his realm from the Lancastrians (he married off Henry Tudor's mother to one of his supporters) was to wait to die until his heir was a man. Whether it was true or not, the boy's uncle and Protector, Richard of Gloucester (Edward's only surviving brother) claimed Edward was a bigamist and his children bastards; he himself then took the throne as Richard III while the two boys were kept in the Tower (and never seen again.) (There is a whole controversy as to who might have bumped them off -- Tudor, Richard, minions of either on their own initiative, troublemakers, etc.) Richard's own son died young, followed by his wife -- and then Henry Tudor invaded, precipitating the final battle of the Wars of the Roses in 1485 -- Bosworth. It was a close call for both men, but Richard, the last Yorkist monarch, was killed in his attempt to get to Tudor; the balance was tipped in Tudor's favor by his stepfather, the ally of Richard's that his mother had been forced to marry. Stanley betrayed Richard by holding back his troops until the last moment and then putting them into battle in support of Tudor. A kind of classic behavior pattern...
Henry VII apparently resolved to learn from the civil strife of past decades. He took steps to crack down on the power of individual nobles -- they could have status, sure, but not private armies. No one would ever be powerful enough to pull a Stanley on him or his heirs, he determined. One interesting note re Bosworth; among the fatalities during battle was the father of Charles Brandon, who would become the king's closest friend and his brother in law (marrying his younger sister, Mary, in secret), later duke of Suffolk. Brandon ended up becoming one of young Henry's mentors because of that loyalty on the part of his father.
A final note. The moniker "Wars of the Roses" was really only applied after the fact. It's true that followers of the house of york wore the white rose as their heraldic badge, while the Lancastrians wore the red rose (and then the tudors combined it in the Tudor rose), combattants wore other badges as well. For instance, Edward of Lancaster's followers wore the white swan; Warwick's men wore his badge of the bear & ragged staff. The roses were simply part of the mix. Shakespeare staged a scene where people picked roses to signal their allegiances, but that was drama and never happened in real life; nonetheless, it became one of those popular historical myths.
Although it was punctuated by some of the bloodiest battles ever fought on English soil, this civil war was actually a prolonged period of revolt, political strife and just general uncertainty, punctuated by years at a stretch of piece and quiet. It kicked off in 1450, with a revolt against the ineffective and corrupt reign of Henry VI. So ineffective was the central authority that nobles had been able to build up their own private armies, and routinely resorted to mini-wars with each other to settle scores. The king was seen as a kind of holy fool unable to rein in this behavior or punish it. Richard of York had emerged as one of Henry's main battle leaders in France, he was constantly nfuriated by the king's inability or unwillingness to provide funds and support for the war (as a result, England continued to lose territory won by Henry V 40 plus years previously) as well as the fact that Henry's favorites had a vested interest in excluding York from the inner circles of power and challenging the status that he believed he had as a probable heir (Henry was still childless). Then Henry lost his marbles -- and York became head of a regency council. During this time, Margaret of Anjou finally gave birth to an heir, a boy she named Edward, although rumors about the boy's paternity surrounded him until the day of his death. Henry's recovery in 1455 prompted the outbreak of actual battles, as Margaret and her Lancastrian allies (the bastard Beauforts, see above posts) took advantage of the opportunity to do exactly what York had feared, and cut back his power, influence and resources. After all, he wasn't the heir any more...
The first battle in what was known at the time as the Cousins' War was St. Albans, in 1455, a big Yorkist victory. The eldest of the Beaufort clan, the duke of Somerset, was among the most notable casualties. It's impossible to overstate the chaos that followed. The court was set up in the Midlands; the Yorkists ended up winning the loyalty of London; pirates were swarming on the coasts; the French were taking advantage of the chaos. The worst of the fighting wouldn't hit until 1459/1460 -- Blore Heath, Ludlow Bridge, Northampton. At the latter, the Yorkists discovered Henry sitting alone in a tent or under a tree (accounts vary) and with him in their control, had the edge. After calling Parliament, York made a claim for the throne -- and cited his descent from Lionel of Clarence (see above). That left everyone -- even his supporters -- gobsmacked. They wanted to reform Henry's government, not overthrow him. Only months later, having gone to the north to try to out manoeuver Lancastrian forces, Richard of York and his second son, Edmund, were killed. (The latter probably was murdered or executed after surrendering; he was 17 years old.) Their heads were stuck up on the city gates of York, with paper crowns on them. There followed two more battles -- Lancastrian victories -- at Mortimer's Cross and St. Albans (again). After the latter, Margaret discovered her husband and the Lancastrians again seemed to have the edge.
But Margaret hadn't reckoned on York's eldest son and heir, Edward. Only 18 years old, within a few months he and his cousin, the earl of Warwick ("Warwick the Kingmaker) had allied and scored a decisive victory, both political and military. Times had changed: entering London, Edward was promptly crowned Edward IV, and while he himself argued that Henry had forfeited the crown by allowing Margaret to take up arms against Richard of York (who had been acknowledged heir to the crown a year earlier, over Henry and Margaret's son), to many his accession was seen as a victory for the "real" Yorkist heirs, who had the stronger claim. There were now two kings in the same country, at least until a snowy Eastertide battle at Towton, which claimed 20,000 lives in what is said to still be the bloodiest battle on English soil. (I think it even beats the score of Naseby, in the mid 17th century.) Henry and Margaret fled; Edward returned in triumph to London. It all seemed to be settled.
Of course, it wasn't that easy. Edward had to put down a series of Lancastrian revolts and incursions in the North throughout this stage of his reign. Eventually, Warwick turned against him, partly because of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, a widow and not a foreign princess -- not a match that would bring powerful allies to the Yorkists. After failing to unseat Edward on his own and replace him with Edward's younger brother George -- conveniently betrothed to Isabel, Warwick's elder daughter -- Warwick ended up switching allegiances and supporting Henry VI (who had been back in Yorkist hands for a few years). Edward fled to Burgundy, where his younger sister was now married to its duke, but in less than a year he was back and defeated both Warwick and the main Lancastrian force under Margaret and her son Edward of Lancaster in two bloody battles; Warwick was killed in battle as was Margaret's son.
That should have marked an end to it all, especially as two of Edward's own sons survived their early childhood. But... Edward died young, in 1483, only a dozen years after vanquishing the Lancastrians. One thing he couldn't do to safeguard his realm from the Lancastrians (he married off Henry Tudor's mother to one of his supporters) was to wait to die until his heir was a man. Whether it was true or not, the boy's uncle and Protector, Richard of Gloucester (Edward's only surviving brother) claimed Edward was a bigamist and his children bastards; he himself then took the throne as Richard III while the two boys were kept in the Tower (and never seen again.) (There is a whole controversy as to who might have bumped them off -- Tudor, Richard, minions of either on their own initiative, troublemakers, etc.) Richard's own son died young, followed by his wife -- and then Henry Tudor invaded, precipitating the final battle of the Wars of the Roses in 1485 -- Bosworth. It was a close call for both men, but Richard, the last Yorkist monarch, was killed in his attempt to get to Tudor; the balance was tipped in Tudor's favor by his stepfather, the ally of Richard's that his mother had been forced to marry. Stanley betrayed Richard by holding back his troops until the last moment and then putting them into battle in support of Tudor. A kind of classic behavior pattern...
Henry VII apparently resolved to learn from the civil strife of past decades. He took steps to crack down on the power of individual nobles -- they could have status, sure, but not private armies. No one would ever be powerful enough to pull a Stanley on him or his heirs, he determined. One interesting note re Bosworth; among the fatalities during battle was the father of Charles Brandon, who would become the king's closest friend and his brother in law (marrying his younger sister, Mary, in secret), later duke of Suffolk. Brandon ended up becoming one of young Henry's mentors because of that loyalty on the part of his father.
A final note. The moniker "Wars of the Roses" was really only applied after the fact. It's true that followers of the house of york wore the white rose as their heraldic badge, while the Lancastrians wore the red rose (and then the tudors combined it in the Tudor rose), combattants wore other badges as well. For instance, Edward of Lancaster's followers wore the white swan; Warwick's men wore his badge of the bear & ragged staff. The roses were simply part of the mix. Shakespeare staged a scene where people picked roses to signal their allegiances, but that was drama and never happened in real life; nonetheless, it became one of those popular historical myths.
28Smiler69
Wow, great play-by-play of the War of the Roses, Suz. I found the family tree posted by Cheli (?) in #23 helped me make sense of all the relations. I didn't know it was Shakespeare who coined the name, but that makes sense. According to This Sceptred Isle (and wikipedia) the name was popularized in the 19th century by Sir Walter Scott in his book Anne of Geierstein. Apparently Scott based the name on a scene in William Shakespeare's play Henry VI (which I WILL read/listen to someday).
I'd like to have questions ready by tomorrow to get us started off, but we'll see. It's already getting late and I'm not sure I'll have much attention span tonight, but I'll certainly try to read at least the first (short) chapter.
This is very exciting, and I'm a little nervous knowing there's plenty of people watching! I'll just say for the record that I'll probably be asking lots of "stupid" questions and perhaps need reminding of things we've gone over as I try to sort it all out in my head, which is what I had a hard time with when I tried reading WH on my own a couple of years ago.
I'll be reading from the Harper Collins first Canadian edition (2009) ISBN 1554687732
I'd like to have questions ready by tomorrow to get us started off, but we'll see. It's already getting late and I'm not sure I'll have much attention span tonight, but I'll certainly try to read at least the first (short) chapter.
This is very exciting, and I'm a little nervous knowing there's plenty of people watching! I'll just say for the record that I'll probably be asking lots of "stupid" questions and perhaps need reminding of things we've gone over as I try to sort it all out in my head, which is what I had a hard time with when I tried reading WH on my own a couple of years ago.
I'll be reading from the Harper Collins first Canadian edition (2009) ISBN 1554687732
29Chatterbox
There is no such thing as a stupid question, Ilana. The only time stupidity enters into it is when you don't know something and DON'T ask the question. That's the most important thing I've told every young journalist I've ever encountered, and I figure it applies here, too! After all, if you were tutoring me on graphic arts, you'd be shaking your head in disbelief within half an hour -- if it took that long.
30Smiler69
:-)
eta: actually, I ran my own business for a long time as a designer/art director, and had to educate every single one of my clients on what good vs. bad design was, and why design mattered in the first place. Got pretty tired of that, which is when I decided to get a job in publishing, where I wouldn't have to keep explaining that. All this to say I would most probably NOT shake my head in disbelief.
eta: actually, I ran my own business for a long time as a designer/art director, and had to educate every single one of my clients on what good vs. bad design was, and why design mattered in the first place. Got pretty tired of that, which is when I decided to get a job in publishing, where I wouldn't have to keep explaining that. All this to say I would most probably NOT shake my head in disbelief.
31Chatterbox
Well, if I ever resort to self-publishing a book, I'll hire you to design the cover! Most of the ones I see out there are dreadful...
32Crazymamie
Ilana, I was lurking on your tutored read of Persuasion, and you asked GREAT questions. I don't know any of this stuff either, but I am looking forward to learning a lot.
33Nickelini
My copy of the novel is out on loan, but I'm marking this thread in case I have questions when I get around to reading the book. Looks like everyone is having fun!
34Smiler69
#31 Yes, that would probably because since home computers started to come loaded with a range of fonts, suddenly everyone thought they were a designer. But I should be fair, because we all know that even among all those book covers actually put together by professional designers out there, only a comparatively few are actually successful. But I might eat my words someday when someone asks me to actually design a book cover and people end up hating it!
#32 Mamie, I think we'll both be learning a lot with this book too. Since there are loads of books about the Tudors out there, I'm sure what we learn here will also come in handy for future reading, especially as Suzanne is obviously right in her element here, just the same way as Liz is right at home in the 19th century world of Jane Austen!
#33 Joyce, I'll be sure to keep an eye on this thread over time to see whatever other questions that I haven't thought of asking pop up on it!
#32 Mamie, I think we'll both be learning a lot with this book too. Since there are loads of books about the Tudors out there, I'm sure what we learn here will also come in handy for future reading, especially as Suzanne is obviously right in her element here, just the same way as Liz is right at home in the 19th century world of Jane Austen!
#33 Joyce, I'll be sure to keep an eye on this thread over time to see whatever other questions that I haven't thought of asking pop up on it!
35Smiler69
Right. So I've read the first chapter. All 13 pages of it, which would have been very quickly gotten through if it wasn't for all the notes I took. One thing I did a lot of for Persuasion was simply quote passages that I liked just for the sake of it, which was easy enough to do since I could copy/paste the text from Project Gutenberg. I've comes across lots of bits I thought were brilliant here already, but quoting them all will require much more typing than is practical here, so will sadly have to (mostly) forego that.
I don't know if it'll be useful to anyone but me, but I'll mention what pages the questions come from in hopes to help with navigation, and as I did with my previous tutored read, I'll also number the questions from 1 to 999,999 so that we can refer to various points already covered if need be, again for ease of navigation. I'll also be asking questions I could easily look up myself on wikipedia, just because Liz encouraged me to do so last month and I found it was much more fun that way.
So here goes nothing.
1. My first question is about the first of the two quotes that appear at the beginning of the novel. In it, Vitruvius explains the three kinds of theatrical scenes, tragic, comic and satyric and the kind of scenery which would be used to describe each of these. I have the impression what he describes was widely used well into the 20th century for the opera and theatre, and certainly in Shakespeare's time. Is this so?
PART ONE
I Across the Narrow Sea. 1500
pages 3 to 16
2. What does the title of Part I refer to? Where are we and across from which narrow Sea? How old was Thomas Cromwell in 1500?
3. p. 6: What does Kat mean when she calls Morgan Williams "you sorry loss to the magistrate's bench"?
4. p. 8: 'Oh, you Williamses!' Kat says. 'You think you're such big people around here'.
What place do the Williamses occupy in their community?
5. p. 9 "If he gets after me again I'm going to kill him, and if I kill him they'll hang me"
Did they hang people for killing in self-defence in those days?
6. p. 9-10 "Kat is repenting of her first offer"
They first offer Tom to stay with them, but then give him money to be on his way, so I gather they've changed their minds because they're scared of Walter?
7. p. 10 "Twice a day she could sweep through the Pegasus"
What is the Pegasus?
8. p. 14 "He sees three elderly Lowlanders struggling"
Where are they from? Holland?
9. p. 15 "Walter gets fined for bad beer at least twice a year"
What is bad beer? Past due date?
10. p. 15 "Kat has given him a holy medal to wear"
Why does he then drop it into the water?
I don't know if it'll be useful to anyone but me, but I'll mention what pages the questions come from in hopes to help with navigation, and as I did with my previous tutored read, I'll also number the questions from 1 to 999,999 so that we can refer to various points already covered if need be, again for ease of navigation. I'll also be asking questions I could easily look up myself on wikipedia, just because Liz encouraged me to do so last month and I found it was much more fun that way.
So here goes nothing.
1. My first question is about the first of the two quotes that appear at the beginning of the novel. In it, Vitruvius explains the three kinds of theatrical scenes, tragic, comic and satyric and the kind of scenery which would be used to describe each of these. I have the impression what he describes was widely used well into the 20th century for the opera and theatre, and certainly in Shakespeare's time. Is this so?
PART ONE
I Across the Narrow Sea. 1500
pages 3 to 16
2. What does the title of Part I refer to? Where are we and across from which narrow Sea? How old was Thomas Cromwell in 1500?
3. p. 6: What does Kat mean when she calls Morgan Williams "you sorry loss to the magistrate's bench"?
4. p. 8: 'Oh, you Williamses!' Kat says. 'You think you're such big people around here'.
What place do the Williamses occupy in their community?
5. p. 9 "If he gets after me again I'm going to kill him, and if I kill him they'll hang me"
Did they hang people for killing in self-defence in those days?
6. p. 9-10 "Kat is repenting of her first offer"
They first offer Tom to stay with them, but then give him money to be on his way, so I gather they've changed their minds because they're scared of Walter?
7. p. 10 "Twice a day she could sweep through the Pegasus"
What is the Pegasus?
8. p. 14 "He sees three elderly Lowlanders struggling"
Where are they from? Holland?
9. p. 15 "Walter gets fined for bad beer at least twice a year"
What is bad beer? Past due date?
10. p. 15 "Kat has given him a holy medal to wear"
Why does he then drop it into the water?
36Chatterbox
2. What does the title of Part I refer to? Where are we and across from which narrow Sea? How old was Thomas Cromwell in 1500?
Where are we when the story opens? In Putney, then a town outside the walls of London, several miles westward from the city walls and from the royal palace of Westminster.
This is a guess, as I'm not aware of whether during this time it was actually referred to as "the Narrow Sea", but based on English geography and what happens in this chapter, I'd guess Mantel is referring to the English Channel; the rather narrow strip of water that lies between England and French ports such as Calais (although, at the time, Calais was one of a tiny handful of towns in France still controlled by the English -- it was an English settlement.)
There's no firm date of birth for Cromwell, but a record for his parents' marriage has been found for 1474. He had two older sisters, and Thomas is believed to have been born in or around 1485 -- in other words, at around the same time as Bosworth was fought and the Tudors seized the throne.
3. p. 6: What does Kat mean when she calls Morgan Williams "you sorry loss to the magistrate's bench"?
She's being sarcastic. Morgan has just asked what Walter hit Thomas with, after Kat has already established he was hit from behind. The magistrate's bench is where men of great wisdom, theoretically, would lay down the law, and she is commenting ironically on the "wisdom" of the question.
4. p. 8: 'Oh, you Williamses!' Kat says. 'You think you're such big people around here'.
What place do the Williamses occupy in their community?
This is Kat being sarcastic, a little bit, but it seems likely that the family -- which Thomas later refers to being a big one -- are respected and reasonably affluent; there's a reference to Morgan being able to afford to let Kat be a lady of leisure, if she wanted to be. At the same time, they are Welsh, and not local, as Kat and the Cromwells are.
5. p. 9 "If he gets after me again I'm going to kill him, and if I kill him they'll hang me"
Did they hang people for killing in self-defence in those days?
Sure. Making it worse is the fact that for a time around the time of Thomas's birth, Walter was actually a local official and sometimes served as a juryman. He was probably exaggerating -- had his father died during a fight, the odds are that he might have escaped hanging given that Walter was a very dislikeable man who these days would probably be on the cops' watch sheets as a troublemaker, and after all, Thomas at this stage is a melodramatic teenager -- but men and women certainly were hung for manslaughter -- and for stealing even small items.
6. p. 9-10 "Kat is repenting of her first offer"
They first offer Tom to stay with them, but then give him money to be on his way, so I gather they've changed their minds because they're scared of Walter?
Yes, it's clear that they are worried that Walter will always be showing up and hollering like a banshee, destroying their business.
7. p. 10 "Twice a day she could sweep through the Pegasus"
What is the Pegasus?
It's unclear from this, completely -- either a pie shop (the kind of place where you'd buy a hot meat pie to eat) but more probably a tavern of some kind. They contemplate keeping Thomas as a "chucker out", which implies they needed someone to send drunken customers home at the end of the evening. The name would come from the sign -- in an age in which many people were only marginally literate, signs were still the way to tell people were to go -- at the sign of the Pegasus, for instance.
8. p. 14 "He sees three elderly Lowlanders struggling"
Where are they from? Holland?
Yup -- the Lowlands -- Low = "nether" = Netherlands. At the time, however, the region wasn't an independent country named Holland. Until a few years previously, it had been the independent duchy of Burgundy, but the death of Charles the Bold in battle meant that its independence was threatened. His only heir was the daughter from his first marriage, who wed Maximilian Habsburg, who went on to become Holy Roman Emperor. That brought the region under the control of the Habsburgs, first as provinces belonging to the Holy Roman Emperor. Ultimately they would pass to Spanish control when Mary and Maximilian's grandson, Charles V, becomes both King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor. That would end up being particularly important in Elizabethan days.
9. p. 15 "Walter gets fined for bad beer at least twice a year"
What is bad beer? Past due date?
In this case, watering it down to increase his profit margin per pint. I think specifically, Walter was fined for not submitting his ale to the quality control board of the day, which was charged with making brewed beer met certain standards before it was sold. That means probably that he was watering it down -- that would have been the usual reason.
10. p. 15 "Kat has given him a holy medal to wear"
Why does he then drop it into the water?
This is up for interpretation. Kat would have done what anyone did at the time for anyone traveling a long way away, and given them a holy medal. (Irish passengers on the Titanic emigrating were given holy medals...) It's unlikely that he tosses away because he thinks it is pointless -- after all, he kisses it for luck -- so my reading of this is that he is hoping to calm the sea before he sets out. After all, it's the first time he has seen it --- "a gray wrinkled vastness" -- and he is setting off in quest of the unknown.
Where are we when the story opens? In Putney, then a town outside the walls of London, several miles westward from the city walls and from the royal palace of Westminster.
This is a guess, as I'm not aware of whether during this time it was actually referred to as "the Narrow Sea", but based on English geography and what happens in this chapter, I'd guess Mantel is referring to the English Channel; the rather narrow strip of water that lies between England and French ports such as Calais (although, at the time, Calais was one of a tiny handful of towns in France still controlled by the English -- it was an English settlement.)
There's no firm date of birth for Cromwell, but a record for his parents' marriage has been found for 1474. He had two older sisters, and Thomas is believed to have been born in or around 1485 -- in other words, at around the same time as Bosworth was fought and the Tudors seized the throne.
3. p. 6: What does Kat mean when she calls Morgan Williams "you sorry loss to the magistrate's bench"?
She's being sarcastic. Morgan has just asked what Walter hit Thomas with, after Kat has already established he was hit from behind. The magistrate's bench is where men of great wisdom, theoretically, would lay down the law, and she is commenting ironically on the "wisdom" of the question.
4. p. 8: 'Oh, you Williamses!' Kat says. 'You think you're such big people around here'.
What place do the Williamses occupy in their community?
This is Kat being sarcastic, a little bit, but it seems likely that the family -- which Thomas later refers to being a big one -- are respected and reasonably affluent; there's a reference to Morgan being able to afford to let Kat be a lady of leisure, if she wanted to be. At the same time, they are Welsh, and not local, as Kat and the Cromwells are.
5. p. 9 "If he gets after me again I'm going to kill him, and if I kill him they'll hang me"
Did they hang people for killing in self-defence in those days?
Sure. Making it worse is the fact that for a time around the time of Thomas's birth, Walter was actually a local official and sometimes served as a juryman. He was probably exaggerating -- had his father died during a fight, the odds are that he might have escaped hanging given that Walter was a very dislikeable man who these days would probably be on the cops' watch sheets as a troublemaker, and after all, Thomas at this stage is a melodramatic teenager -- but men and women certainly were hung for manslaughter -- and for stealing even small items.
6. p. 9-10 "Kat is repenting of her first offer"
They first offer Tom to stay with them, but then give him money to be on his way, so I gather they've changed their minds because they're scared of Walter?
Yes, it's clear that they are worried that Walter will always be showing up and hollering like a banshee, destroying their business.
7. p. 10 "Twice a day she could sweep through the Pegasus"
What is the Pegasus?
It's unclear from this, completely -- either a pie shop (the kind of place where you'd buy a hot meat pie to eat) but more probably a tavern of some kind. They contemplate keeping Thomas as a "chucker out", which implies they needed someone to send drunken customers home at the end of the evening. The name would come from the sign -- in an age in which many people were only marginally literate, signs were still the way to tell people were to go -- at the sign of the Pegasus, for instance.
8. p. 14 "He sees three elderly Lowlanders struggling"
Where are they from? Holland?
Yup -- the Lowlands -- Low = "nether" = Netherlands. At the time, however, the region wasn't an independent country named Holland. Until a few years previously, it had been the independent duchy of Burgundy, but the death of Charles the Bold in battle meant that its independence was threatened. His only heir was the daughter from his first marriage, who wed Maximilian Habsburg, who went on to become Holy Roman Emperor. That brought the region under the control of the Habsburgs, first as provinces belonging to the Holy Roman Emperor. Ultimately they would pass to Spanish control when Mary and Maximilian's grandson, Charles V, becomes both King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor. That would end up being particularly important in Elizabethan days.
9. p. 15 "Walter gets fined for bad beer at least twice a year"
What is bad beer? Past due date?
In this case, watering it down to increase his profit margin per pint. I think specifically, Walter was fined for not submitting his ale to the quality control board of the day, which was charged with making brewed beer met certain standards before it was sold. That means probably that he was watering it down -- that would have been the usual reason.
10. p. 15 "Kat has given him a holy medal to wear"
Why does he then drop it into the water?
This is up for interpretation. Kat would have done what anyone did at the time for anyone traveling a long way away, and given them a holy medal. (Irish passengers on the Titanic emigrating were given holy medals...) It's unlikely that he tosses away because he thinks it is pointless -- after all, he kisses it for luck -- so my reading of this is that he is hoping to calm the sea before he sets out. After all, it's the first time he has seen it --- "a gray wrinkled vastness" -- and he is setting off in quest of the unknown.
37Smiler69
Great first round Suz. I'll have to go back and read your answer to #8 again when I'm more rested, because this is entirely new information to me. I'd heard of the duchy of Burgundy I'm quite sure (isn't it mentioned in Katherine maybe?) but had no idea this what what later became Holland. And if it becomes important during Elizabethan days, then I want to remember your explanation as I'll be doing reading about those times down the line.
I'll try to post questions most days, but of course there'll be days when I won't either. I think we've discussed this before though. Chapter 2 is pretty short too, so I'll try to write down questions tonight before sleep. I also started The Observations by Jane Harris last night, and the first chapter was pretty exciting stuff. I just hope I don't end up mixing the two sotrylines somehow! :-)
I'll try to post questions most days, but of course there'll be days when I won't either. I think we've discussed this before though. Chapter 2 is pretty short too, so I'll try to write down questions tonight before sleep. I also started The Observations by Jane Harris last night, and the first chapter was pretty exciting stuff. I just hope I don't end up mixing the two sotrylines somehow! :-)
38Chatterbox
Burgundy and England had an important relationship in this era. England produced an incredible amount of wool for export, but for a long time lacked the artisans in weaving to produce the kind of find cloth that was woven in the low countries (eg Burgundy and around there.) You'll see a lot of references to tapestries or "arras", made in Flanders (more or less part of Burgundy; borders shifted around a lot); the cities of Bruges, Ghent and Ypres were among Europe's wealthiest in the 15th century because of this. (Ypres' gorgeous medieval "Cloth Hall", restored from scratch after WW1, is testimony to the importance of the trade and the wealth it generated.) And yes, the word "arras" for tapestries does come from the French city's name, as it, too was part of the old duchy of Flanders and part of Burgundy, and a hub of the business.
Burgundy became important in the late 14th century, so around part of the time that Anya Seton covers in her novel. The dukes of Burgundy originated way back in the Merovingian dynasty, although then the territory in question was primarily that near the German-French border of today. (Think, Dijon.) In the 14th century, there was a complicated spat over succession to the dukedom, which wasn't part of the kingdom of France, but independent. The heir acceptable to Burgundians, however, was the king of France... but they still didn't want to become French. The king slashed through this Gordian knot by bestowing the duchy on his youngest/fave son, Phillip, who went on to marry the heiress of Flanders. That created two interesting phenomena: suddenly, Burgundy was a truly powerful little state surrounding France, geographically, and yet its rulers also owed a duty of fealty to the kings of France. During the early 15th century, the Burgundians and Orleanists would feud bitterly over who ruled the king, enabling Henry V to consolidate his gains (again, Agincourt.) The duchy and the kingdom became estranged and rivals, which was important during the wars of the roses -- France tended to be sympathetic to the Lancastrians, Margaret of Anjou was a relative of the French king. That meant Burgundy was a natural Yorkist ally (as well as an important trading partner); that's why Edward IV married his youngest sister, Margaret, to its widowed Duke in 1468. Three years later, the Burgundians offered refuge to him and members of his family when Warwick seized control and put Henry VI back on the throne briefly. Unsurprisingly, Burgundy would prove to be a hotbed of Yorkist intrigue during the early Tudor days, as Margaret continued to oversee the duchy on behalf of her stepdaughter, Mary, and the latter's two children. When Charles had died in 1477, the French refused to recognize Mary's right to the title (Salic law in France barred women from inheriting a throne); hence Margaret's decision to marry Mary off to Maximilian, a counterweight to French power. Nonetheless, the "Burgundy" of old became a kind of rump state -- Charles had lost his life trying to keep the Swiss from seizing some territory, and the original territory that we think of as Burgundy belonged to France from this time onward. By the time Charles V inherited the Spanish throne, and especially under his son, Phillip II, the provinces of the "Spanish Netherlands" were trouble spots, for religious and nationalist reasons. It wasn't until 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia, however, that the house of Orange (the title also originated in France, based on the city of the same name!) managed to establish the United Provinces in the north of what had been Burgundy as an independent nation -- and the future Holland/Netherlands. Hence the orange flags waved by Dutch olympic supporters...
Here's a map showing how significant Burgundy was at its height:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png
Burgundy became important in the late 14th century, so around part of the time that Anya Seton covers in her novel. The dukes of Burgundy originated way back in the Merovingian dynasty, although then the territory in question was primarily that near the German-French border of today. (Think, Dijon.) In the 14th century, there was a complicated spat over succession to the dukedom, which wasn't part of the kingdom of France, but independent. The heir acceptable to Burgundians, however, was the king of France... but they still didn't want to become French. The king slashed through this Gordian knot by bestowing the duchy on his youngest/fave son, Phillip, who went on to marry the heiress of Flanders. That created two interesting phenomena: suddenly, Burgundy was a truly powerful little state surrounding France, geographically, and yet its rulers also owed a duty of fealty to the kings of France. During the early 15th century, the Burgundians and Orleanists would feud bitterly over who ruled the king, enabling Henry V to consolidate his gains (again, Agincourt.) The duchy and the kingdom became estranged and rivals, which was important during the wars of the roses -- France tended to be sympathetic to the Lancastrians, Margaret of Anjou was a relative of the French king. That meant Burgundy was a natural Yorkist ally (as well as an important trading partner); that's why Edward IV married his youngest sister, Margaret, to its widowed Duke in 1468. Three years later, the Burgundians offered refuge to him and members of his family when Warwick seized control and put Henry VI back on the throne briefly. Unsurprisingly, Burgundy would prove to be a hotbed of Yorkist intrigue during the early Tudor days, as Margaret continued to oversee the duchy on behalf of her stepdaughter, Mary, and the latter's two children. When Charles had died in 1477, the French refused to recognize Mary's right to the title (Salic law in France barred women from inheriting a throne); hence Margaret's decision to marry Mary off to Maximilian, a counterweight to French power. Nonetheless, the "Burgundy" of old became a kind of rump state -- Charles had lost his life trying to keep the Swiss from seizing some territory, and the original territory that we think of as Burgundy belonged to France from this time onward. By the time Charles V inherited the Spanish throne, and especially under his son, Phillip II, the provinces of the "Spanish Netherlands" were trouble spots, for religious and nationalist reasons. It wasn't until 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia, however, that the house of Orange (the title also originated in France, based on the city of the same name!) managed to establish the United Provinces in the north of what had been Burgundy as an independent nation -- and the future Holland/Netherlands. Hence the orange flags waved by Dutch olympic supporters...
Here's a map showing how significant Burgundy was at its height:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png
39Chatterbox
Ilana, I've been re-reading further into the book and picked up another reference to the Narrow Sea -- Mantel clearly is referring to the English Channel.
40ccookie
Wolf Hall is at the library for me on CD and the book in transit. I'll be able to follow along soon!
41Smiler69
Well... ask and ye shall receive indeed!
Suz, I certainly hope there are plenty of people lurking on this thread who can benefit from your vast knowledge, because I almost feel like it's lost on my little ol' self. I knew all along you'd be a great tutor, but I'm still impressed by what a fount of knowledge you are.
Just one thing, I think you missed question #1...
Ok then, on to round 2.
PART ONE
II
Paternity
1527
pages 17-33
11. About the title of this chapter "Paternity": I know that by then Cromwell is a father, but I get the sense that the title refers more to the relationship he has with Wolsey since there is no mention of his family to speak of here and I believe that Wolsey was his mentor, am I right?
12. Who is Stephen Gardiner?
13. It took me a while to realize that the cardinal in question was Wolsey. I get a strong sense with these first couple of chapter that Mantel wrote this book assuming her readership was already strongly steeped in English history. Can you remind me what role Wolsey had played for HVIII until then? I believe that in This Sceptred Isle they said he gained tremendous wealth and power under HVIII until he wasn't able to give him what he wanted. He certainly comes off as a fascinating character here no matter what.
14. p. 18 "He's been to his clerks at Gray's Inn and borrowed a change of linen."
I take it to mean "linen" in this context refers to clothes and not bedclothes?
15. p. 19 About Wolsey: "His height impresses"
I gather men weren't very tall in the 16th century, so what would have been considered an impressive height then?
16. p. 19 "shoulders upon which rest... the great chain of Lord Chancellor of England."
What was the role of the Lord Chancellor?
17. p. 19 "'Filthy'. He sits down. 'Weather. People. Manners. Morals.'"
It's been mentioned early on that Cromwell speaks in monosyllables. Are we to take it this is the way he's actually talking to the cardinal right now, or is it a stylistic shorthand of Mantel's?
18. p. 20 "Have you set fire to Whitby, on a whim?"
What is Whitby?
19. p. 20 "where he is well remembered as the scholar son of a prosperous and pious master butcher"
So I take it Wolsey also worked his way up from a "low" birth?
20. p. 21 "Behind the cardinal is a tapestry... King Solomon... is greeting the Queen of Sheba."
is the theme of the tapestry relevant to the story?
21. p. 21 "I shall not give up my project... Those who object misunderstand my intention".
Just what is this project and what is his intention?
22. p. 22 "His corpse will lie... in a sarcophagus of porphyry".
Do I understand he intends to be mummified? Is this usual for a cardinal at the time? What is porphyry?
23. p. 24. What do Deutoronomy and Leviticus talk about? Did HVIII really marry Katherine because he was in love with her?
24. p. 25. "I might send Master Stephen to Rome to sound out the Curia'"
What does this mean?
25. p. 26. "But you know the king was the most uxorious of men."
Was he really? This seems hard to believe in light of what transpired over the years and successive marriages and beheadings...
Not a word that's much in fashion nowadays by the way...
26. p. 26 "Wolsey can't contradict him. He has never felt the chill at the nape of the neck... he fells, sometimes, fortunate to have escaped that city with his should intact."
Can you explain what she's talking about here?
27. p. 27 "If he were Clement, he would borrow heavily this year to hire in troops to ring his territories... fro the summer season's fighting, you need to be recruiting by Candlemas."
The pope recruits soldiers? Fights? When is Candlemas?
28. p. 28 "Young Emperor Charles, Katherine's nephew"
Who is this?
29. p. 28 "He did not, of course; he was born on or about the date of the old king... fought his way to an unlikely throne."
Please explain?
30. p. 29 "Thomas thinks, he was being unnecessarily Welsh."
What was the opinion about the Welsh at the time?
31. p. 30 "It's sad, they both know it's sad. The old king freezing her out, keeping her in the kingdom and keeping her poor, unwilling to pay her widow's portion and let her go."
Please explain this?
32. p. 30 "I have married a virgin"
Did he assume she was a virgin, or did he decide it was convenient for him for her to be one so he could marry her?
33. p. 31-32 "By the way, the talk at court... His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is complaining that I have raised an evil spirit, and directed it to follow him about."
Huh? Who is the Duke of Norfolk and what is this evil spirit business, and why should this tidbit make Cromwell happy?
34. p. 32 'How was Yorkshire?'
I forgot to ask what he'd been doing there. And what makes Yorkshire so bad?
One thing I wasn't able to appreciate the first time around is how humorous they're being. Very clever and quite funny actually. This was lost on me while I was struggling to figure out who was who and who said and thought what the first time I tried reading it in 2010. I still have to read sections over and over to figure that out, but am finding a lot to enjoy along the way. Will that part of it get any easier?
Suz, I certainly hope there are plenty of people lurking on this thread who can benefit from your vast knowledge, because I almost feel like it's lost on my little ol' self. I knew all along you'd be a great tutor, but I'm still impressed by what a fount of knowledge you are.
Just one thing, I think you missed question #1...
Ok then, on to round 2.
PART ONE
II
Paternity
1527
pages 17-33
11. About the title of this chapter "Paternity": I know that by then Cromwell is a father, but I get the sense that the title refers more to the relationship he has with Wolsey since there is no mention of his family to speak of here and I believe that Wolsey was his mentor, am I right?
12. Who is Stephen Gardiner?
13. It took me a while to realize that the cardinal in question was Wolsey. I get a strong sense with these first couple of chapter that Mantel wrote this book assuming her readership was already strongly steeped in English history. Can you remind me what role Wolsey had played for HVIII until then? I believe that in This Sceptred Isle they said he gained tremendous wealth and power under HVIII until he wasn't able to give him what he wanted. He certainly comes off as a fascinating character here no matter what.
14. p. 18 "He's been to his clerks at Gray's Inn and borrowed a change of linen."
I take it to mean "linen" in this context refers to clothes and not bedclothes?
15. p. 19 About Wolsey: "His height impresses"
I gather men weren't very tall in the 16th century, so what would have been considered an impressive height then?
16. p. 19 "shoulders upon which rest... the great chain of Lord Chancellor of England."
What was the role of the Lord Chancellor?
17. p. 19 "'Filthy'. He sits down. 'Weather. People. Manners. Morals.'"
It's been mentioned early on that Cromwell speaks in monosyllables. Are we to take it this is the way he's actually talking to the cardinal right now, or is it a stylistic shorthand of Mantel's?
18. p. 20 "Have you set fire to Whitby, on a whim?"
What is Whitby?
19. p. 20 "where he is well remembered as the scholar son of a prosperous and pious master butcher"
So I take it Wolsey also worked his way up from a "low" birth?
20. p. 21 "Behind the cardinal is a tapestry... King Solomon... is greeting the Queen of Sheba."
is the theme of the tapestry relevant to the story?
21. p. 21 "I shall not give up my project... Those who object misunderstand my intention".
Just what is this project and what is his intention?
22. p. 22 "His corpse will lie... in a sarcophagus of porphyry".
Do I understand he intends to be mummified? Is this usual for a cardinal at the time? What is porphyry?
23. p. 24. What do Deutoronomy and Leviticus talk about? Did HVIII really marry Katherine because he was in love with her?
24. p. 25. "I might send Master Stephen to Rome to sound out the Curia'"
What does this mean?
25. p. 26. "But you know the king was the most uxorious of men."
Was he really? This seems hard to believe in light of what transpired over the years and successive marriages and beheadings...
Not a word that's much in fashion nowadays by the way...
26. p. 26 "Wolsey can't contradict him. He has never felt the chill at the nape of the neck... he fells, sometimes, fortunate to have escaped that city with his should intact."
Can you explain what she's talking about here?
27. p. 27 "If he were Clement, he would borrow heavily this year to hire in troops to ring his territories... fro the summer season's fighting, you need to be recruiting by Candlemas."
The pope recruits soldiers? Fights? When is Candlemas?
28. p. 28 "Young Emperor Charles, Katherine's nephew"
Who is this?
29. p. 28 "He did not, of course; he was born on or about the date of the old king... fought his way to an unlikely throne."
Please explain?
30. p. 29 "Thomas thinks, he was being unnecessarily Welsh."
What was the opinion about the Welsh at the time?
31. p. 30 "It's sad, they both know it's sad. The old king freezing her out, keeping her in the kingdom and keeping her poor, unwilling to pay her widow's portion and let her go."
Please explain this?
32. p. 30 "I have married a virgin"
Did he assume she was a virgin, or did he decide it was convenient for him for her to be one so he could marry her?
33. p. 31-32 "By the way, the talk at court... His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is complaining that I have raised an evil spirit, and directed it to follow him about."
Huh? Who is the Duke of Norfolk and what is this evil spirit business, and why should this tidbit make Cromwell happy?
34. p. 32 'How was Yorkshire?'
I forgot to ask what he'd been doing there. And what makes Yorkshire so bad?
One thing I wasn't able to appreciate the first time around is how humorous they're being. Very clever and quite funny actually. This was lost on me while I was struggling to figure out who was who and who said and thought what the first time I tried reading it in 2010. I still have to read sections over and over to figure that out, but am finding a lot to enjoy along the way. Will that part of it get any easier?
42Chatterbox
Got these! Give me half an hour or so to eat my "lunch", and I"ll be back with some answers...
43Smiler69
No rush Suz. I'll be starting on the next chapter in a few minutes, but really, no rush.
I eat my meals at pretty strange hours too. "Breakfast" is anytime from 11 to 3. "Lunch" if I have any, from 4 to 7. Dinner...
I eat my meals at pretty strange hours too. "Breakfast" is anytime from 11 to 3. "Lunch" if I have any, from 4 to 7. Dinner...
44Chatterbox
Here goes...
11. About the title of this chapter "Paternity": I know that by then Cromwell is a father, but I get the sense that the title refers more to the relationship he has with Wolsey since there is no mention of his family to speak of here and I believe that Wolsey was his mentor, am I right?
Yes, I think in this case paternity refers to Cromwell's own role as father, to his relationship with Wolsey, and to the fact that Wolsey is a priest and thus a "father" in a different sense, as well.
12. Who is Stephen Gardiner?
Mantel refers in passing to him as the king's "unacknowledged cousin", which is probably true. While his father was a cloth merchant, his mother is said to have been an illegitimate daughter of Jasper Tudor, the uncle of Henry VII and great-uncle of Henry VIII; that would make them second cousins. You'll see a reference later to the other illegitimate daughter's offspring; keep an eye open for that! Gardiner also was one of the most successful and influential of the king's advisors in that he actually managed to survive his reign and navigate between the various extremes. For instance, while he supported Henry's assumption of the role of head of the church in England (rather than the pope), he was a fierce opponent of the suppression of the monasteries, and was really a staunch Catholic. Under Mary, he did rather well, for instance; he was bitterly opposed to Catherine Parr, Henry's last wife and probably the most Protestant of the lot. Gardiner became bishop of Winchester; he died in the first years of Mary's reign.
13. It took me a while to realize that the cardinal in question was Wolsey. I get a strong sense with these first couple of chapter that Mantel wrote this book assuming her readership was already strongly steeped in English history. Can you remind me what role Wolsey had played for HVIII until then? I believe that in This Sceptred Isle they said he gained tremendous wealth and power under HVIII until he wasn't able to give him what he wanted. He certainly comes off as a fascinating character here no matter what.
Wolsey was easily the most powerful man in the kingdom in the early years of Henry's reign; his legacy can be seen in Hampton Court, which he built and then ended up being manoeuvered into "giving" to the king. There was a ditty that was sung in the streets at the time: "Why come ye not to court? Which court -- the king's court or Hampton Court?" Wolsey had gone into Henry VII's service as royal almoner just a few years before Henry VII's accession just a few months before the latter's 18th birthday. Henry wasn't all that interested in the practicalities of governing; Wolsey was extremely bright and charismatic, and practiced at making possible the king's whims, from wars to hunting parties. Unlike the nobility, he knew he needed the king's favor to survive and thrive, and was very adept at doing what was needed to keep it -- and keep the kingdom on a more or less even keel. But... as you'll read, he pissed off Anne Boleyn, very badly. And he wasn't able to convince the Pope to give Henry a divorce. It does speak volumes about Henry's charisma and charm that he was able to win such love and utter loyalty from Wolsey. Of course, Wolsey was rewarded, and as a very able/capable man, he turned every penny he made to a profit, something the nobles weren't skilled at doing. Hence, there was a lot of envy... The queen, for her part, was wary of him even before the "Great Matter"; after a war with France, he had organized "The Field of the Cloth of Gold", a ceremonial sealing of the friendship between Francis I of France and Henry, including the betrothal of Mary to the dauphin. Catherine, of course, was reluctant in the extreme; her loyalties lay with Spain, as the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, and Spain and France were mortal enemies in this era. Wolsey arguably wielded more power than any other non-royal figure up until this time -- and for generations afterward. But he was also a secular kinda guy -- he had a mistress and children, for instance. That was the norm for cardinals in Rome, but less typical in England.
14. p. 18 "He's been to his clerks at Gray's Inn and borrowed a change of linen."
I take it to mean "linen" in this context refers to clothes and not bedclothes?
Specifically to "underlinen" -- essentially a shirt.
15. p. 19 About Wolsey: "His height impresses"
I gather men weren't very tall in the 16th century, so what would have been considered an impressive height then?
Henry was seen as a giant, being 6 feet tall (perhaps an extra couple of inches). So I'd say that anything north of 5'6" or so would have been seen as reasonably tall.
16. p. 19 "shoulders upon which rest... the great chain of Lord Chancellor of England."
What was the role of the Lord Chancellor?
He was the grand poobah; until very recently he still was, and to this day, the person who holds the title takes precedence over pretty much every one except the king and the royal family and the archbishop of canterbury. The title goes back to about Edward the Confessor; essentially, by this era, he was the ultimate legal authority in the kingdom, responsible for overseeing the courts. He was seen as the person who had influence over the king, moving him to justice and mercy; he also held the Great Seal on behalf of the king. Up until this time, virtually all Lords Chancellor had been clerics of some kind -- they tended to be literate! -- but often of noble families. For instance Henry Beaufort -- one of the "bastard Beauforts" born to John of Gaunt -- became a cardinal and also served as Lord Chancellor to his great-nephew, Henry VI. For a long time, the Lord Chancellor also presided over the House of Lords -- even if he wasn't a lord himself. (Although most were, with some exceptions in this era and up to the 18th century, and then in the last decade or so.)
17. p. 19 "'Filthy'. He sits down. 'Weather. People. Manners. Morals.'"
It's been mentioned early on that Cromwell speaks in monosyllables. Are we to take it this is the way he's actually talking to the cardinal right now, or is it a stylistic shorthand of Mantel's?
Well, I think it's Mantel's view of how Cromwell communicated to Wolsey. He is comfortable enough to use this kind of shorthand.
18. p. 20 "Have you set fire to Whitby, on a whim?"
What is Whitby?
Whitby is a seafront town in Yorkshire.
19. p. 20 "where he is well remembered as the scholar son of a prosperous and pious master butcher"
So I take it Wolsey also worked his way up from a "low" birth?
Yes, absolutely -- indeed, he was probably handpicked by Henry VII as a counterweight to those of noble birth, as well as for his abilities. His birth was slightly better than that of Cromwell; his father was more prosperous and not a brawler; he sent his son to a good grammar school and on to Magdalen College in Oxford. (There is a school of thought that his father actually died at Bosworth and was a higher status cloth merchant, and that the butcher story was used to stigmatize Wolsey; I've not read an account of this, just heard of it from friends, so I don't know if that's true or not.) Either way, Wolsey would not have been the same as a Howard (eg the Norfolk clan). But if he had been the son of a merchant, he wouldn't have been that far removed in status from Thomas Boleyn, Anne's father, who before his marriage to a Howard, had simply been descended from well born merchants rich enough to acquire land. (Incidentally, I'm distantly related to the Boleyns, if not the Howards.)
20. p. 21 "Behind the cardinal is a tapestry... King Solomon... is greeting the Queen of Sheba."
is the theme of the tapestry relevant to the story?
Less the theme than its nature. Wolsey is a cleric, and this would be a very secular subject to have as a tapestry in a prominent place. A religious scene from the New Testament, sure; or perhaps a very plain vanilla scene of chivalry. But you kinda know what Solomon and the Queen of Sheba are going to be getting up to soon, and that's seen as un-canonical.
21. p. 21 "I shall not give up my project... Those who object misunderstand my intention".
Just what is this project and what is his intention?
He has begun to shut down some religious institutions and funnel the income they had enjoyed into his own educational institutions, with the OK of the Pope. His intention isn't to toss the monks out on the roadways, but to place them in other institutions.
22. p. 22 "His corpse will lie... in a sarcophagus of porphyry".
Do I understand he intends to be mummified? Is this usual for a cardinal at the time? What is porphyry?
Nope, not mummified. A sarcophagus is simply the word used to describe a carved stone above-ground tomb; it doesn't need to contain a mummy. In this case, the tomb will be carved out of porphyry, which is a stone that is very dark red, almost purply. If you've ever seen Napoleon's tomb in the Invalides, I think it's porphyry. Or at least, that's what has stuck in my mind!
23. p. 24. What do Deutoronomy and Leviticus talk about? Did HVIII really marry Katherine because he was in love with her?
Henry was -- or liked to think of himself as a theological scholar. So when he wanted to divorce Katherine, he immediately found solace in leviticus: "If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness, they shall be childless." In this case, Henry chose to interpret "childless" as lacking a male heir -- a double rationalization. But in Deuteronomy, there is a passage that commands that "her husband's brother shall go into her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her." Possibly one of the most debated contradictions in terms of its ramifications. In the case of Henry, John Fisher chose to see Levicticus as an absolute, EXCEPT when the first marriage had been without children. That's important, because it put him on Katherine's side in the debate, while acknowledging that the King had some valid qualms.
Henry and Katherine: he certainly imagined himself in love with her, from very early on. Henry, as a boy of 10 or so, escorted her on her state entry into London when she arrived to marry Arthur, and was apparently very jealous that his brother was going to marry her. Then, when she was widowed within months, the plan came to be to betroth her to Henry and he was delighted -- she was beautiful, had high status and was an older woman... Henry VII played games here; Ferdinand and Isabella had never coughed up the whole dowry for Katherine, and the king didn't want to waste his only son on a marriage that could be bettered. So he required Henry VIII to repudiate her; the latter, however, was romantically attached to his vision of Katherine as a damsel in distress, and one of his first actions as king was to tell her he intended to follow through on their early betrothal. In their early years of marriage he was a devoted husband; he treated Katherine as a kind of courtly ideal. As the years passed, she aged poorly and her age told against her; by the early 1520s, this marriage was on the rocks, from H's point of view. Six pregnancies, but only one living child; she had taken to wearing a hair shirt and being far more devout than was traditional.
24. p. 25. "I might send Master Stephen to Rome to sound out the Curia'"
What does this mean?
The curia was/is the adminstrative arm of the Vatican -- think cardinals as legal eagles. The idea was to get them to rule on the legality of the marriage/dispensation.
25. p. 26. "But you know the king was the most uxorious of men."
Was he really? This seems hard to believe in light of what transpired over the years and successive marriages and beheadings...
Not a word that's much in fashion nowadays by the way...
See above. The king routinely spoiled Katherine, wouldn't do anything without consulting her. He even made her regent when he went to fight in France. He trusted her and he idealized her.
26. p. 26 "Wolsey can't contradict him. He has never felt the chill at the nape of the neck... he fells, sometimes, fortunate to have escaped that city with his should intact."
Can you explain what she's talking about here?
I think it reads "with his soul intact". He's referring to the fact that Rome and the Vatican were notoriously, epically corrupt, to the point of electing as Pope Rodrigo Borgia, who may not have even been a believer at all (certainly, he never behaved as if he did, although he was an able administrator and diplomat.) Borgia was the tip of the iceberg; many popes at this time had mistresses; one was certainly gay. They would describe their children as "nephews" or "nieces". Then there was the corruption and lavish living. Little there to feed the soul... That's the reason that Luther became irate -- including the sale of indulgences, through which people who couldn't really afford it, were encouraged to cough up money to the priests and bishops so their souls could get out of Purgatory earlier... The church took ruthless advantage of these prerogatives.
27. p. 27 "If he were Clement, he would borrow heavily this year to hire in troops to ring his territories... fro the summer season's fighting, you need to be recruiting by Candlemas."
The pope recruits soldiers? Fights? When is Candlemas?
Oh yes, at this time, the papacy actually had temporal powers, governing/owning large swathes of territory. Some regions of Europe had even been papal fiefdoms, such as Naples and Sicily. Under the early Renaissance popes (Alexander, Julius, Leo, Clement), the papacy had shifting alliances with most major powers, and used them to win territory, such as the Romagna and Parma. Definitely, there were papal forces, and the papacy had its own territory right up until the 19th century (and the reunification of Italy). It's only in the last hundred or so years that the papacy has accepted that its temporal powers are confined to the Vatican.
Candelmas: Church feast at the beginning of February.
28. p. 28 "Young Emperor Charles, Katherine's nephew"
Who is this?
Katherine's elder sister was Juana of Castile; on the deaths of both her mother and her elder sister, she had become heir to the crown of Castile, which allowed female succession. (her father didn't get the throne; he remained king of Aragon.) As mentioned above, Juana had married Philip of Burgundy, heir to the Holy Roman Empire; their eldest son, Charles, would become one of the most powerful men in the world when he was still only a boy. His father died, and his mother allegedly went mad (lots of debate about whether she really was), so Ferdinand, her father, confined her to a castle for the rest of his life, and her son never let her out either. Charles inherited the Habsburg empire from his father and Castile and later on Aragon from his mother.
29. p. 28 "He did not, of course; he was born on or about the date of the old king... fought his way to an unlikely throne."
Please explain?
The "old King" in question is Henry VII; what Cromwell is referring to is the battle of Bosworth (see msg 27, above) when he won the crown.
30. p. 29 "Thomas thinks, he was being unnecessarily Welsh."
What was the opinion about the Welsh at the time?
The Welsh were seen as a bit melodramatic; classic Celts -- great talkers, they were known to be marvelous bowmen (archers with the longbow) and fabulous musicians ( the Welsh harp) and great storytellers.
31. p. 30 "It's sad, they both know it's sad. The old king freezing her out, keeping her in the kingdom and keeping her poor, unwilling to pay her widow's portion and let her go."
Please explain this?
See answer to #23, above. When Arthur died, Henry VII didn't want to return her (and what he would have had to pay her as a widow of his son) but he didn't want to close off other lucrative options for his surviving son by pledging him to an older woman, either. So he kept her in England, and her father (Isabella died soon after) never really made much of an effort to get her back. So Katherine was in limbo for seven years, and given that Henry was a real miser, ended up selling off some of her silver and gold "plate" (dishes, ewers, etc.) that was part of her dowry to finance her household.
32. p. 30 "I have married a virgin"
Did he assume she was a virgin, or did he decide it was convenient for him for her to be one so he could marry her?
A bit of both. But actually, she had asserted it at the time. No one will ever know the truth, of course, but Katherine was adamant throughout her life. Certainly, Arthur wasn't the healthiest of boys, and their governors had orders to limit the time they spent together, so it could have been true. I suspect Henry wanted it to be true, and wasn't sexually experienced enough (he had slept in a room only accessed via his father's right up until the latter died) to know the difference. Later on, he wanted to believe differently.
33. p. 31-32 "By the way, the talk at court... His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is complaining that I have raised an evil spirit, and directed it to follow him about."
Huh? Who is the Duke of Norfolk and what is this evil spirit business, and why should this tidbit make Cromwell happy?
The dukes of Norfolk were powerful nobles -- the Howard family. When the last of the Mowbray earls died without a male heir a few decades earlier, the title ended up going to a cousin of sorts, John Howard, who along with most of his kin, were big Yorkist supporters. Howard/Norfolk fought at Bosworth; on his tent, he allegedly found the following rhyme pinned before the battle: "Jock of Norfolk, be not so bold; for Dickon your master, is bought and sold" -- Dickon being Richard III. It took nearly 30 years for the Howards to get the dukedom back (they were referred to in the period in between as the earls of Surrey, a secondary title that would then be taken by the eldest son of the dukes). This duke was Thomas Howard, 3rd duke of Norfolk, and the premier noble of the realm. He was notoriously proud, and envious of anyone who exerted more influence on the king than the nobles, and himself in particular -- he was, as Mantel portrays him, jealous of the rights of the nobility and wary of the interlopers (including the Tudors!) Not delivering any spoilers here, but the Howards would go on to have major problems right through the Tudor era. When Henry died, Norfolk was within a day of being beheaded himself; his son and grandson were both beheaded (decades apart) for treason. The current duke of Norfolk, the 18th, is directly descended from this Norfolk; the family is said to descend from Hereward the Wake, who fought the Norman invasion. There are all kinds of Howards around to this day -- they have other earldoms and baronies; a descendant is Earl of Suffolk.
The evil spirit idea is a way of commenting on Norfolk's superstitious side. Mantel is portraying him as not all that bright, and quite able to believe that Wolsey could do this, while Wolsey and Cromwell laugh at his guillibility. Cromwell is happy as he is well aware Norfolk would like to pull down the uppity Wolsey (and after all, Anne Boleyn is his niece...) and that Norfolk loathes self-made men rising above their station.
34. p. 32 'How was Yorkshire?'
I forgot to ask what he'd been doing there. And what makes Yorkshire so bad?
See answer to #21, above. Cromwell had been overseeing this business; as he noted, everything was filthy. At the time, although the great monastic institutions had once been amazing places, Yorkshire would have been far from the center of power, which is why Wolsey would never have gone himself, even though he is archbishop of York.
Phew. That took longer than I had planned! OK, off to do some work, some cleaning and some laundry...
11. About the title of this chapter "Paternity": I know that by then Cromwell is a father, but I get the sense that the title refers more to the relationship he has with Wolsey since there is no mention of his family to speak of here and I believe that Wolsey was his mentor, am I right?
Yes, I think in this case paternity refers to Cromwell's own role as father, to his relationship with Wolsey, and to the fact that Wolsey is a priest and thus a "father" in a different sense, as well.
12. Who is Stephen Gardiner?
Mantel refers in passing to him as the king's "unacknowledged cousin", which is probably true. While his father was a cloth merchant, his mother is said to have been an illegitimate daughter of Jasper Tudor, the uncle of Henry VII and great-uncle of Henry VIII; that would make them second cousins. You'll see a reference later to the other illegitimate daughter's offspring; keep an eye open for that! Gardiner also was one of the most successful and influential of the king's advisors in that he actually managed to survive his reign and navigate between the various extremes. For instance, while he supported Henry's assumption of the role of head of the church in England (rather than the pope), he was a fierce opponent of the suppression of the monasteries, and was really a staunch Catholic. Under Mary, he did rather well, for instance; he was bitterly opposed to Catherine Parr, Henry's last wife and probably the most Protestant of the lot. Gardiner became bishop of Winchester; he died in the first years of Mary's reign.
13. It took me a while to realize that the cardinal in question was Wolsey. I get a strong sense with these first couple of chapter that Mantel wrote this book assuming her readership was already strongly steeped in English history. Can you remind me what role Wolsey had played for HVIII until then? I believe that in This Sceptred Isle they said he gained tremendous wealth and power under HVIII until he wasn't able to give him what he wanted. He certainly comes off as a fascinating character here no matter what.
Wolsey was easily the most powerful man in the kingdom in the early years of Henry's reign; his legacy can be seen in Hampton Court, which he built and then ended up being manoeuvered into "giving" to the king. There was a ditty that was sung in the streets at the time: "Why come ye not to court? Which court -- the king's court or Hampton Court?" Wolsey had gone into Henry VII's service as royal almoner just a few years before Henry VII's accession just a few months before the latter's 18th birthday. Henry wasn't all that interested in the practicalities of governing; Wolsey was extremely bright and charismatic, and practiced at making possible the king's whims, from wars to hunting parties. Unlike the nobility, he knew he needed the king's favor to survive and thrive, and was very adept at doing what was needed to keep it -- and keep the kingdom on a more or less even keel. But... as you'll read, he pissed off Anne Boleyn, very badly. And he wasn't able to convince the Pope to give Henry a divorce. It does speak volumes about Henry's charisma and charm that he was able to win such love and utter loyalty from Wolsey. Of course, Wolsey was rewarded, and as a very able/capable man, he turned every penny he made to a profit, something the nobles weren't skilled at doing. Hence, there was a lot of envy... The queen, for her part, was wary of him even before the "Great Matter"; after a war with France, he had organized "The Field of the Cloth of Gold", a ceremonial sealing of the friendship between Francis I of France and Henry, including the betrothal of Mary to the dauphin. Catherine, of course, was reluctant in the extreme; her loyalties lay with Spain, as the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, and Spain and France were mortal enemies in this era. Wolsey arguably wielded more power than any other non-royal figure up until this time -- and for generations afterward. But he was also a secular kinda guy -- he had a mistress and children, for instance. That was the norm for cardinals in Rome, but less typical in England.
14. p. 18 "He's been to his clerks at Gray's Inn and borrowed a change of linen."
I take it to mean "linen" in this context refers to clothes and not bedclothes?
Specifically to "underlinen" -- essentially a shirt.
15. p. 19 About Wolsey: "His height impresses"
I gather men weren't very tall in the 16th century, so what would have been considered an impressive height then?
Henry was seen as a giant, being 6 feet tall (perhaps an extra couple of inches). So I'd say that anything north of 5'6" or so would have been seen as reasonably tall.
16. p. 19 "shoulders upon which rest... the great chain of Lord Chancellor of England."
What was the role of the Lord Chancellor?
He was the grand poobah; until very recently he still was, and to this day, the person who holds the title takes precedence over pretty much every one except the king and the royal family and the archbishop of canterbury. The title goes back to about Edward the Confessor; essentially, by this era, he was the ultimate legal authority in the kingdom, responsible for overseeing the courts. He was seen as the person who had influence over the king, moving him to justice and mercy; he also held the Great Seal on behalf of the king. Up until this time, virtually all Lords Chancellor had been clerics of some kind -- they tended to be literate! -- but often of noble families. For instance Henry Beaufort -- one of the "bastard Beauforts" born to John of Gaunt -- became a cardinal and also served as Lord Chancellor to his great-nephew, Henry VI. For a long time, the Lord Chancellor also presided over the House of Lords -- even if he wasn't a lord himself. (Although most were, with some exceptions in this era and up to the 18th century, and then in the last decade or so.)
17. p. 19 "'Filthy'. He sits down. 'Weather. People. Manners. Morals.'"
It's been mentioned early on that Cromwell speaks in monosyllables. Are we to take it this is the way he's actually talking to the cardinal right now, or is it a stylistic shorthand of Mantel's?
Well, I think it's Mantel's view of how Cromwell communicated to Wolsey. He is comfortable enough to use this kind of shorthand.
18. p. 20 "Have you set fire to Whitby, on a whim?"
What is Whitby?
Whitby is a seafront town in Yorkshire.
19. p. 20 "where he is well remembered as the scholar son of a prosperous and pious master butcher"
So I take it Wolsey also worked his way up from a "low" birth?
Yes, absolutely -- indeed, he was probably handpicked by Henry VII as a counterweight to those of noble birth, as well as for his abilities. His birth was slightly better than that of Cromwell; his father was more prosperous and not a brawler; he sent his son to a good grammar school and on to Magdalen College in Oxford. (There is a school of thought that his father actually died at Bosworth and was a higher status cloth merchant, and that the butcher story was used to stigmatize Wolsey; I've not read an account of this, just heard of it from friends, so I don't know if that's true or not.) Either way, Wolsey would not have been the same as a Howard (eg the Norfolk clan). But if he had been the son of a merchant, he wouldn't have been that far removed in status from Thomas Boleyn, Anne's father, who before his marriage to a Howard, had simply been descended from well born merchants rich enough to acquire land. (Incidentally, I'm distantly related to the Boleyns, if not the Howards.)
20. p. 21 "Behind the cardinal is a tapestry... King Solomon... is greeting the Queen of Sheba."
is the theme of the tapestry relevant to the story?
Less the theme than its nature. Wolsey is a cleric, and this would be a very secular subject to have as a tapestry in a prominent place. A religious scene from the New Testament, sure; or perhaps a very plain vanilla scene of chivalry. But you kinda know what Solomon and the Queen of Sheba are going to be getting up to soon, and that's seen as un-canonical.
21. p. 21 "I shall not give up my project... Those who object misunderstand my intention".
Just what is this project and what is his intention?
He has begun to shut down some religious institutions and funnel the income they had enjoyed into his own educational institutions, with the OK of the Pope. His intention isn't to toss the monks out on the roadways, but to place them in other institutions.
22. p. 22 "His corpse will lie... in a sarcophagus of porphyry".
Do I understand he intends to be mummified? Is this usual for a cardinal at the time? What is porphyry?
Nope, not mummified. A sarcophagus is simply the word used to describe a carved stone above-ground tomb; it doesn't need to contain a mummy. In this case, the tomb will be carved out of porphyry, which is a stone that is very dark red, almost purply. If you've ever seen Napoleon's tomb in the Invalides, I think it's porphyry. Or at least, that's what has stuck in my mind!
23. p. 24. What do Deutoronomy and Leviticus talk about? Did HVIII really marry Katherine because he was in love with her?
Henry was -- or liked to think of himself as a theological scholar. So when he wanted to divorce Katherine, he immediately found solace in leviticus: "If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness, they shall be childless." In this case, Henry chose to interpret "childless" as lacking a male heir -- a double rationalization. But in Deuteronomy, there is a passage that commands that "her husband's brother shall go into her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her." Possibly one of the most debated contradictions in terms of its ramifications. In the case of Henry, John Fisher chose to see Levicticus as an absolute, EXCEPT when the first marriage had been without children. That's important, because it put him on Katherine's side in the debate, while acknowledging that the King had some valid qualms.
Henry and Katherine: he certainly imagined himself in love with her, from very early on. Henry, as a boy of 10 or so, escorted her on her state entry into London when she arrived to marry Arthur, and was apparently very jealous that his brother was going to marry her. Then, when she was widowed within months, the plan came to be to betroth her to Henry and he was delighted -- she was beautiful, had high status and was an older woman... Henry VII played games here; Ferdinand and Isabella had never coughed up the whole dowry for Katherine, and the king didn't want to waste his only son on a marriage that could be bettered. So he required Henry VIII to repudiate her; the latter, however, was romantically attached to his vision of Katherine as a damsel in distress, and one of his first actions as king was to tell her he intended to follow through on their early betrothal. In their early years of marriage he was a devoted husband; he treated Katherine as a kind of courtly ideal. As the years passed, she aged poorly and her age told against her; by the early 1520s, this marriage was on the rocks, from H's point of view. Six pregnancies, but only one living child; she had taken to wearing a hair shirt and being far more devout than was traditional.
24. p. 25. "I might send Master Stephen to Rome to sound out the Curia'"
What does this mean?
The curia was/is the adminstrative arm of the Vatican -- think cardinals as legal eagles. The idea was to get them to rule on the legality of the marriage/dispensation.
25. p. 26. "But you know the king was the most uxorious of men."
Was he really? This seems hard to believe in light of what transpired over the years and successive marriages and beheadings...
Not a word that's much in fashion nowadays by the way...
See above. The king routinely spoiled Katherine, wouldn't do anything without consulting her. He even made her regent when he went to fight in France. He trusted her and he idealized her.
26. p. 26 "Wolsey can't contradict him. He has never felt the chill at the nape of the neck... he fells, sometimes, fortunate to have escaped that city with his should intact."
Can you explain what she's talking about here?
I think it reads "with his soul intact". He's referring to the fact that Rome and the Vatican were notoriously, epically corrupt, to the point of electing as Pope Rodrigo Borgia, who may not have even been a believer at all (certainly, he never behaved as if he did, although he was an able administrator and diplomat.) Borgia was the tip of the iceberg; many popes at this time had mistresses; one was certainly gay. They would describe their children as "nephews" or "nieces". Then there was the corruption and lavish living. Little there to feed the soul... That's the reason that Luther became irate -- including the sale of indulgences, through which people who couldn't really afford it, were encouraged to cough up money to the priests and bishops so their souls could get out of Purgatory earlier... The church took ruthless advantage of these prerogatives.
27. p. 27 "If he were Clement, he would borrow heavily this year to hire in troops to ring his territories... fro the summer season's fighting, you need to be recruiting by Candlemas."
The pope recruits soldiers? Fights? When is Candlemas?
Oh yes, at this time, the papacy actually had temporal powers, governing/owning large swathes of territory. Some regions of Europe had even been papal fiefdoms, such as Naples and Sicily. Under the early Renaissance popes (Alexander, Julius, Leo, Clement), the papacy had shifting alliances with most major powers, and used them to win territory, such as the Romagna and Parma. Definitely, there were papal forces, and the papacy had its own territory right up until the 19th century (and the reunification of Italy). It's only in the last hundred or so years that the papacy has accepted that its temporal powers are confined to the Vatican.
Candelmas: Church feast at the beginning of February.
28. p. 28 "Young Emperor Charles, Katherine's nephew"
Who is this?
Katherine's elder sister was Juana of Castile; on the deaths of both her mother and her elder sister, she had become heir to the crown of Castile, which allowed female succession. (her father didn't get the throne; he remained king of Aragon.) As mentioned above, Juana had married Philip of Burgundy, heir to the Holy Roman Empire; their eldest son, Charles, would become one of the most powerful men in the world when he was still only a boy. His father died, and his mother allegedly went mad (lots of debate about whether she really was), so Ferdinand, her father, confined her to a castle for the rest of his life, and her son never let her out either. Charles inherited the Habsburg empire from his father and Castile and later on Aragon from his mother.
29. p. 28 "He did not, of course; he was born on or about the date of the old king... fought his way to an unlikely throne."
Please explain?
The "old King" in question is Henry VII; what Cromwell is referring to is the battle of Bosworth (see msg 27, above) when he won the crown.
30. p. 29 "Thomas thinks, he was being unnecessarily Welsh."
What was the opinion about the Welsh at the time?
The Welsh were seen as a bit melodramatic; classic Celts -- great talkers, they were known to be marvelous bowmen (archers with the longbow) and fabulous musicians ( the Welsh harp) and great storytellers.
31. p. 30 "It's sad, they both know it's sad. The old king freezing her out, keeping her in the kingdom and keeping her poor, unwilling to pay her widow's portion and let her go."
Please explain this?
See answer to #23, above. When Arthur died, Henry VII didn't want to return her (and what he would have had to pay her as a widow of his son) but he didn't want to close off other lucrative options for his surviving son by pledging him to an older woman, either. So he kept her in England, and her father (Isabella died soon after) never really made much of an effort to get her back. So Katherine was in limbo for seven years, and given that Henry was a real miser, ended up selling off some of her silver and gold "plate" (dishes, ewers, etc.) that was part of her dowry to finance her household.
32. p. 30 "I have married a virgin"
Did he assume she was a virgin, or did he decide it was convenient for him for her to be one so he could marry her?
A bit of both. But actually, she had asserted it at the time. No one will ever know the truth, of course, but Katherine was adamant throughout her life. Certainly, Arthur wasn't the healthiest of boys, and their governors had orders to limit the time they spent together, so it could have been true. I suspect Henry wanted it to be true, and wasn't sexually experienced enough (he had slept in a room only accessed via his father's right up until the latter died) to know the difference. Later on, he wanted to believe differently.
33. p. 31-32 "By the way, the talk at court... His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is complaining that I have raised an evil spirit, and directed it to follow him about."
Huh? Who is the Duke of Norfolk and what is this evil spirit business, and why should this tidbit make Cromwell happy?
The dukes of Norfolk were powerful nobles -- the Howard family. When the last of the Mowbray earls died without a male heir a few decades earlier, the title ended up going to a cousin of sorts, John Howard, who along with most of his kin, were big Yorkist supporters. Howard/Norfolk fought at Bosworth; on his tent, he allegedly found the following rhyme pinned before the battle: "Jock of Norfolk, be not so bold; for Dickon your master, is bought and sold" -- Dickon being Richard III. It took nearly 30 years for the Howards to get the dukedom back (they were referred to in the period in between as the earls of Surrey, a secondary title that would then be taken by the eldest son of the dukes). This duke was Thomas Howard, 3rd duke of Norfolk, and the premier noble of the realm. He was notoriously proud, and envious of anyone who exerted more influence on the king than the nobles, and himself in particular -- he was, as Mantel portrays him, jealous of the rights of the nobility and wary of the interlopers (including the Tudors!) Not delivering any spoilers here, but the Howards would go on to have major problems right through the Tudor era. When Henry died, Norfolk was within a day of being beheaded himself; his son and grandson were both beheaded (decades apart) for treason. The current duke of Norfolk, the 18th, is directly descended from this Norfolk; the family is said to descend from Hereward the Wake, who fought the Norman invasion. There are all kinds of Howards around to this day -- they have other earldoms and baronies; a descendant is Earl of Suffolk.
The evil spirit idea is a way of commenting on Norfolk's superstitious side. Mantel is portraying him as not all that bright, and quite able to believe that Wolsey could do this, while Wolsey and Cromwell laugh at his guillibility. Cromwell is happy as he is well aware Norfolk would like to pull down the uppity Wolsey (and after all, Anne Boleyn is his niece...) and that Norfolk loathes self-made men rising above their station.
34. p. 32 'How was Yorkshire?'
I forgot to ask what he'd been doing there. And what makes Yorkshire so bad?
See answer to #21, above. Cromwell had been overseeing this business; as he noted, everything was filthy. At the time, although the great monastic institutions had once been amazing places, Yorkshire would have been far from the center of power, which is why Wolsey would never have gone himself, even though he is archbishop of York.
Phew. That took longer than I had planned! OK, off to do some work, some cleaning and some laundry...
45Smiler69
Oh my! I see I've got a lot to take in. I've actually read chapter III and taken notes this evening, but I'll take a day to assimilate what you've written here and then post the next round of questions. No sense rushing through all this. I can see how this one book creates the need to read five more on every page... not a bad thing, but daunting!
I have a feeling we might be at this for a couple of months or more, unless I pick up speed along the way. If you don't mind, I don't mind either.
Do you think we should follow Liz's lead and create official intermissions so that others can come in and ask questions too? When do you think the most natural breaks could be created?
I have a feeling we might be at this for a couple of months or more, unless I pick up speed along the way. If you don't mind, I don't mind either.
Do you think we should follow Liz's lead and create official intermissions so that others can come in and ask questions too? When do you think the most natural breaks could be created?
46Chatterbox
Why don't we pick a day of the week at random as "intermissions" and throw it open to discussion or questions then? While the book is broken into sections, depending on your reading speed it may create long gaps otherwise. We could rule out book spoilers, but assume that everyone knows what happens to Anne Boleyn, Cromwell, Henry etc. in the long run.
Will look for yr queries tomorrow, but probably won't be able to get to them until later in the day.
Will look for yr queries tomorrow, but probably won't be able to get to them until later in the day.
47Smiler69
I don't know anything about Anne Boleyn's family tree and have never heard of the Howards before, though I gather they are an important family historically speaking? I thought Charles Brandon was the duke of Surrey (basing myself on your notes in message #3), so are the duke of Norfolk mentioned in the book and Brandon related?
Here's the next round of questions. Many of them have to do with the versions of the bible available at the time. I know very little about religion, so this part is most confusing to me.
PART ONE
III
At Austin Friars
1527
pages 34-44
35. "The king, Wolsey thinks, ought to be more ruthless with his women."
That wish certainly came true!
36. p. 37 What are declensions? I must have missed that at school as I went back and forth between continents.
37. p. 37 "because il principe.... is not very good at the basic business of thinking."
what does this mean?
38. p. 37 I gather Castile soap was a luxury item?
39. p. 38 "while he has been north among the slope-heads"?
40. p. 39 "Tyndale's book... you'll be surprised what's not in it."
They're talking about a version of the bible I think? Please explain who Tyndale was and what he omitted.
41. p. 39 Remind me who Thomas More was?
42. p. 40 "He did so, only last October... a holocaust of the English language..."
I gather Wolsey burned a great deal of English-language bibles? Why?
43. p. 40 "The testament he keeps in his chest is the pirated edition from Antwerp"
"It is surprising how much love there is, these days, between those who read German."
Please explain.
44. p. 41 "Here's a bargain. You can take him to a sermon..."
"Mercy, he suspects, comes from a family where John Wycliffe's writing are preserved and quoted"
What's going on here?
45. p. 42 "If you must take risks these days... eschew Monsieur Breakbone, known in Florence as the Neapoliatan Fever... Our lives are limited in this way, as the lives of our forefathers were not."
What disease are they talking about, and how and why are their lives limited?
Good idea to dedicate a day in the week to intermissions considering the natural breaks in this book are not all that regular. Since I've just finished part one, I suggest Tuesday be the intermission day for lurkers to comment on.
Here's the next round of questions. Many of them have to do with the versions of the bible available at the time. I know very little about religion, so this part is most confusing to me.
PART ONE
III
At Austin Friars
1527
pages 34-44
35. "The king, Wolsey thinks, ought to be more ruthless with his women."
That wish certainly came true!
36. p. 37 What are declensions? I must have missed that at school as I went back and forth between continents.
37. p. 37 "because il principe.... is not very good at the basic business of thinking."
what does this mean?
38. p. 37 I gather Castile soap was a luxury item?
39. p. 38 "while he has been north among the slope-heads"?
40. p. 39 "Tyndale's book... you'll be surprised what's not in it."
They're talking about a version of the bible I think? Please explain who Tyndale was and what he omitted.
41. p. 39 Remind me who Thomas More was?
42. p. 40 "He did so, only last October... a holocaust of the English language..."
I gather Wolsey burned a great deal of English-language bibles? Why?
43. p. 40 "The testament he keeps in his chest is the pirated edition from Antwerp"
"It is surprising how much love there is, these days, between those who read German."
Please explain.
44. p. 41 "Here's a bargain. You can take him to a sermon..."
"Mercy, he suspects, comes from a family where John Wycliffe's writing are preserved and quoted"
What's going on here?
45. p. 42 "If you must take risks these days... eschew Monsieur Breakbone, known in Florence as the Neapoliatan Fever... Our lives are limited in this way, as the lives of our forefathers were not."
What disease are they talking about, and how and why are their lives limited?
Good idea to dedicate a day in the week to intermissions considering the natural breaks in this book are not all that regular. Since I've just finished part one, I suggest Tuesday be the intermission day for lurkers to comment on.
48Chatterbox
OK, here goes....
III
At Austin Friars
1527
pages 34-44
35. "The king, Wolsey thinks, ought to be more ruthless with his women."
That wish certainly came true!
Yes, as Catherine Howard found to her cost...
36. p. 37 What are declensions? I must have missed that at school as I went back and forth between continents.
It applies in Latin, in German and in Russian, and probably other languages too, though none that I have any familiarity with. It's the process of taking a noun or pronoun and varying it depending on gender, on whether it's singular or plural and what role the word plays in the sentence -- subject, object, indirect object, etc. For instance, in Russian, a book is "K'h-NEE-gah" but the once famous bookstore, House of Books (House is "Dom") is "Dom K'h-Nee-gee" -- book has taken the genitive case, and plural. In Russian, if a noun follows an adjective, the declension calls for a different usage, too. It's not something that we do to our nouns and pronouns in English...
37. p. 37 "because il principe.... is not very good at the basic business of thinking."
what does this mean?
Essentially, that whichever might personage has launched this war, is doing so for grandiose political purposes or military greatness, and almost certainly he will be crap at organizing the logistics of it -- supply chains, transportation, etc.
38. p. 37 I gather Castile soap was a luxury item?
More or less. It was a bit of a rarity at the time, because it's based on olive oil (ergo not native to the English) and a product of Castile..
39. p. 38 "while he has been north among the slope-heads"?
Well, he's been up in Yorkshire (north), and slope-heads would be an insult (deformed skulls=brainless nitwits); sorry, no specialized insight beyond that.
40. p. 39 "Tyndale's book... you'll be surprised what's not in it."
They're talking about a version of the bible I think? Please explain who Tyndale was and what he omitted.
Tyndale was a very important and fascinating character of this period. He was a scholar whose lifelong goal was to translate the Bible into English; at the time, it was only available in Latin, and in the wake of the impact of Wycliffe's late 14th century translation (which led to the Peasants' revolt, as they chanted "When Adam delved, and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" while objecting to a new poll tax) church authorities in England were vigorously opposed to an English language Bible. The priest could read the scriptures, sure -- but that was because he was the officially sanctioned intermediary to God. It wasn't safe for ordinary people to imagine that they could understand the Bible without theological training, so it was safest to keep it in Latin. Tyndale left England in the 1520s, spent some time in Germany and fetched up in Antwerp. Ironically, he opposed Henry's effort to divorce Catherine. Let me know if you want to learn what happened to him; I will say that Cromwell was a big admirer.
41. p. 39 Remind me who Thomas More was?
The son of a London lawyer; raised in the household of Cardinal Morton, who was one of Henry VII's key advisors. Morton had intrigued to bring the Tudors to the throne, and More wrote a history of Richard III which seems to have been heavily influenced by Morton. More was one of the earliest humanists, along with Erasmus, Linacre, Colet, Vives, etc -- combining classical learning with a religious fervor. Famously wrote Utopia, which gave a name to the concept of utopia. More was a bit of an odd bloke. I won't tell you what happened to him as that is part of the book, but he ended up becoming a Roman Catholic Saint. He was famously principled, but also kept Protestants prisoners in his own home and tortured them himself to get them to abjure their "heresy". He married and had children -- but yearned to be a monk. He married a woman who was illiterate -- but taught his daughter not only Latin but Greek -- she was famously learned. There are some sympathetic views of him in Jean Plaidy's novel St. Thomas's Eve, and in the very good play, A Man for All Seasons. (Get the latter on DVD for an intriguing view of More, Henry and Cromwell.)
42. p. 40 "He did so, only last October... a holocaust of the English language..."
I gather Wolsey burned a great deal of English-language bibles? Why?
Essentially, because of the situation described above in #40; the vernacular Bibles wouldn't be approved until about 1540.
43. p. 40 "The testament he keeps in his chest is the pirated edition from Antwerp"
"It is surprising how much love there is, these days, between those who read German."
Please explain.
Essentially, this is a reference to the fact that Tyndale had fetched up in Antwerp and was publishing from there and having the Bibles smuggled into England. The second reference would be to the fact that German communities were becoming the core of what would become known as Protestantism -- Luther was a German monk. I read this as a sly reference to the affinity that people found on two fronts -- the linguistic commonality would parallel their shared religious convictions
44. p. 41 "Here's a bargain. You can take him to a sermon..."
"Mercy, he suspects, comes from a family where John Wycliffe's writing are preserved and quoted"
The reference just before is Mercy prohibiting him from taking Master Wykys to see "no banned preachers in cellars." Essentially, that's the kind of covert activity that she knew he might indulge in -- Cromwell was a freethinker, or at least, had seen too much of the church's underside to not feel sympathy with those who wanted to strip away some of the abuses. But this kind of stuff was dangerous. However, Mercy goes on to say that a preacher is better than a brothel -- prompting Cromwell's musing about Wycliffe. As mentioned above, Wycliffe was a late 14th century scholar at Oxford, and an early Protestant. He advanced the theory of predestination long before Calvin and others jumped on board; he felt that the domain of the church should be spiritual, not temporal, and that it should be as poor today as it had been in the time of Jesus. Unsurprisingly, Wycliffe made powerful enemies, even as he accumulated powerful allies, including John of Gaunt. But even the Duke of Lancaster couldn't prevent him from being tried at the behest of Rome; still, his punishment was minimal and I don't think he was ever excommunicated. He did lose his post at Oxford, however. His Lollard followers continued to push for reform of the church -- long before Luther's birth -- and when he died, Jan Hus and his followers took up the challenge. The Hussites proved to be an even greater threat, though, and Hus was arrested at the Council of Constance and burned at the stake in Prague. (There is still a monument to him there.) Wycliffe's efforts to create an English Bible were the first; Tyndale was his heir. But anything with Wycliffe's name attached to it was dangerous; the authorities saw his work as subversive of secular authority because of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. If men could read the scriptures, then they could think for themselves and challenge authority, right? Well, that wasn't what Wycliffe really believed -- in fact, he argued that a king's authority came from God and thus couldn't be questioned. But the label stuck
45. p. 42 "If you must take risks these days... eschew Monsieur Breakbone, known in Florence as the Neapoliatan Fever... Our lives are limited in this way, as the lives of our forefathers were not."
What disease are they talking about, and how and why are their lives limited?
I am fairly sure that Cromwell is referring here to syphilis (although I've heard various tropical fevers described as breakbone fevers.) The first time that syphilis pops up in recorded history is in about 1495 in Naples (hence the Neapolitan Fever reference); at the time, the French were invading (they had a habit of doing that in Italy around this era) and the French troops spread it around as they retreated and went home. So in England it became known as the French disease or the French pox. Francois I of France probably had syphilis; Henry VIII is sometimes said to have suffered from it, but all his later maladies can be explained by a toxic combination of other maladies and he probably didn't, today's doctors believe. This was the AIDS of the day; up until the 1980s and the advent of AIDS, no one felt that sex could kill (well, you'd have had to get a very nasty strain of VD...); the arrival of AIDS dramatically changed and limited the lives of all of us today, esp. those my age or older, who came of age before AIDS.
Re Howard and Charles Brandon:
Brandon was the Duke of Suffolk, not Duke of Surrey.
Brandon and Howard weren't related at all. But Brandon's line of heirs eventually dwindled and died out -- his son with Mary, the king's sister, died as a youth, and his two sons by his next wife (the very young teenage daughter of one of Katherine of Aragon's ladies in waiting) died shortly after Brandon himself, on the same day, of the sweating sickness. (You'll get to that in this book...) The Suffolk title went to the husband of his elder surviving daughter, Frances Brandon Grey. When Lady Jane Grey, their eldest daughter, was proclaimed queen and then ended up deposed after nine days, her father ultimately was convicted of treason and beheaded; his title was forfeit. The Suffolk title was revived as an earldom by James I (Elizabeth's heir) in 1603 and bestowed on the second (younger) son of the 3rd Duke of Norfolk -- so the Norfolk clan/the Howards ended up getting the Suffolk title.
The Howards had been landed gentry for generations, when John Howard's father married well -- he married Margaret de Mowbray, daughter of the first duke of Norfolk. When the Mowbray line dead-ended (see above posts), and Edward IV had died, Richard III took the Norfolk title and gave it to Howard. His descent was respectable -- knights, gentlemen, and even, waaay back in the 13th century, an ancestress who was the illegitimate daughter of the younger brother of Henry III of England -- but not spectacular. The Norfolk title, however, made him instantly one of the senior peers of the realm, because it gave him a call on the title of Earl Marshal -- he was the leader of the monarch's military forces, and had responsibility for organizing state occasions. Up until the Tudors, the holders of the Norfolk title -- Bigods, Mowbrays, and one royal son of Edward I, Thomas of Brotherton, -- had mostly always held the title of Earl Marshal. (One fascinating woman held the duchy and the role of earl marshal in her own right, too, in the 14th century; she abandoned her first husband for another man and tried to divorce husband #1; lived to be 80 years old -- an overlooked Eleanor of Aquitaine?) Howards have held the Earl Marshal title ever since the early 1600s, without any interruption, to this day. When the queen dies, the current duke of Norfolk will be in charge of all the related ceremonies -- the funeral and coronation.
But by the time of this novel, there were a LOT of Howards around the place. The current duke had married very advantageously indeed -- Anne of York, a younger daughter of Edward IV, and sister in law to Henry VII. While they had no children themselves, the duke had about a dozen siblings, and then there were his own children by wife #2. He married his daughter to the king's illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond, for instance. The Boleyns were children of his sister, Elizabeth. Catherine Howard was daughter of his brother Edmund, one of six children. A half-brother, William, had 10 children. The Howards are interesting, because they have remained Catholic up to the present day. The sister of the current duke is married to David Frost (of Frost/Nixon fame). Hmm, can't help thinking I'd be rather good at Jeopardy-style trivia, as long as bizarre genealogical facts were the focus!
OK, on Tuesday, it will be open season for comments & questions from lurkers...
Only ground rule is NO SPOILERS PLEASE!!!
And bear with me if it takes a bit of time to get back to you; it's a busy day for me.
III
At Austin Friars
1527
pages 34-44
35. "The king, Wolsey thinks, ought to be more ruthless with his women."
That wish certainly came true!
Yes, as Catherine Howard found to her cost...
36. p. 37 What are declensions? I must have missed that at school as I went back and forth between continents.
It applies in Latin, in German and in Russian, and probably other languages too, though none that I have any familiarity with. It's the process of taking a noun or pronoun and varying it depending on gender, on whether it's singular or plural and what role the word plays in the sentence -- subject, object, indirect object, etc. For instance, in Russian, a book is "K'h-NEE-gah" but the once famous bookstore, House of Books (House is "Dom") is "Dom K'h-Nee-gee" -- book has taken the genitive case, and plural. In Russian, if a noun follows an adjective, the declension calls for a different usage, too. It's not something that we do to our nouns and pronouns in English...
37. p. 37 "because il principe.... is not very good at the basic business of thinking."
what does this mean?
Essentially, that whichever might personage has launched this war, is doing so for grandiose political purposes or military greatness, and almost certainly he will be crap at organizing the logistics of it -- supply chains, transportation, etc.
38. p. 37 I gather Castile soap was a luxury item?
More or less. It was a bit of a rarity at the time, because it's based on olive oil (ergo not native to the English) and a product of Castile..
39. p. 38 "while he has been north among the slope-heads"?
Well, he's been up in Yorkshire (north), and slope-heads would be an insult (deformed skulls=brainless nitwits); sorry, no specialized insight beyond that.
40. p. 39 "Tyndale's book... you'll be surprised what's not in it."
They're talking about a version of the bible I think? Please explain who Tyndale was and what he omitted.
Tyndale was a very important and fascinating character of this period. He was a scholar whose lifelong goal was to translate the Bible into English; at the time, it was only available in Latin, and in the wake of the impact of Wycliffe's late 14th century translation (which led to the Peasants' revolt, as they chanted "When Adam delved, and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" while objecting to a new poll tax) church authorities in England were vigorously opposed to an English language Bible. The priest could read the scriptures, sure -- but that was because he was the officially sanctioned intermediary to God. It wasn't safe for ordinary people to imagine that they could understand the Bible without theological training, so it was safest to keep it in Latin. Tyndale left England in the 1520s, spent some time in Germany and fetched up in Antwerp. Ironically, he opposed Henry's effort to divorce Catherine. Let me know if you want to learn what happened to him; I will say that Cromwell was a big admirer.
41. p. 39 Remind me who Thomas More was?
The son of a London lawyer; raised in the household of Cardinal Morton, who was one of Henry VII's key advisors. Morton had intrigued to bring the Tudors to the throne, and More wrote a history of Richard III which seems to have been heavily influenced by Morton. More was one of the earliest humanists, along with Erasmus, Linacre, Colet, Vives, etc -- combining classical learning with a religious fervor. Famously wrote Utopia, which gave a name to the concept of utopia. More was a bit of an odd bloke. I won't tell you what happened to him as that is part of the book, but he ended up becoming a Roman Catholic Saint. He was famously principled, but also kept Protestants prisoners in his own home and tortured them himself to get them to abjure their "heresy". He married and had children -- but yearned to be a monk. He married a woman who was illiterate -- but taught his daughter not only Latin but Greek -- she was famously learned. There are some sympathetic views of him in Jean Plaidy's novel St. Thomas's Eve, and in the very good play, A Man for All Seasons. (Get the latter on DVD for an intriguing view of More, Henry and Cromwell.)
42. p. 40 "He did so, only last October... a holocaust of the English language..."
I gather Wolsey burned a great deal of English-language bibles? Why?
Essentially, because of the situation described above in #40; the vernacular Bibles wouldn't be approved until about 1540.
43. p. 40 "The testament he keeps in his chest is the pirated edition from Antwerp"
"It is surprising how much love there is, these days, between those who read German."
Please explain.
Essentially, this is a reference to the fact that Tyndale had fetched up in Antwerp and was publishing from there and having the Bibles smuggled into England. The second reference would be to the fact that German communities were becoming the core of what would become known as Protestantism -- Luther was a German monk. I read this as a sly reference to the affinity that people found on two fronts -- the linguistic commonality would parallel their shared religious convictions
44. p. 41 "Here's a bargain. You can take him to a sermon..."
"Mercy, he suspects, comes from a family where John Wycliffe's writing are preserved and quoted"
The reference just before is Mercy prohibiting him from taking Master Wykys to see "no banned preachers in cellars." Essentially, that's the kind of covert activity that she knew he might indulge in -- Cromwell was a freethinker, or at least, had seen too much of the church's underside to not feel sympathy with those who wanted to strip away some of the abuses. But this kind of stuff was dangerous. However, Mercy goes on to say that a preacher is better than a brothel -- prompting Cromwell's musing about Wycliffe. As mentioned above, Wycliffe was a late 14th century scholar at Oxford, and an early Protestant. He advanced the theory of predestination long before Calvin and others jumped on board; he felt that the domain of the church should be spiritual, not temporal, and that it should be as poor today as it had been in the time of Jesus. Unsurprisingly, Wycliffe made powerful enemies, even as he accumulated powerful allies, including John of Gaunt. But even the Duke of Lancaster couldn't prevent him from being tried at the behest of Rome; still, his punishment was minimal and I don't think he was ever excommunicated. He did lose his post at Oxford, however. His Lollard followers continued to push for reform of the church -- long before Luther's birth -- and when he died, Jan Hus and his followers took up the challenge. The Hussites proved to be an even greater threat, though, and Hus was arrested at the Council of Constance and burned at the stake in Prague. (There is still a monument to him there.) Wycliffe's efforts to create an English Bible were the first; Tyndale was his heir. But anything with Wycliffe's name attached to it was dangerous; the authorities saw his work as subversive of secular authority because of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. If men could read the scriptures, then they could think for themselves and challenge authority, right? Well, that wasn't what Wycliffe really believed -- in fact, he argued that a king's authority came from God and thus couldn't be questioned. But the label stuck
45. p. 42 "If you must take risks these days... eschew Monsieur Breakbone, known in Florence as the Neapoliatan Fever... Our lives are limited in this way, as the lives of our forefathers were not."
What disease are they talking about, and how and why are their lives limited?
I am fairly sure that Cromwell is referring here to syphilis (although I've heard various tropical fevers described as breakbone fevers.) The first time that syphilis pops up in recorded history is in about 1495 in Naples (hence the Neapolitan Fever reference); at the time, the French were invading (they had a habit of doing that in Italy around this era) and the French troops spread it around as they retreated and went home. So in England it became known as the French disease or the French pox. Francois I of France probably had syphilis; Henry VIII is sometimes said to have suffered from it, but all his later maladies can be explained by a toxic combination of other maladies and he probably didn't, today's doctors believe. This was the AIDS of the day; up until the 1980s and the advent of AIDS, no one felt that sex could kill (well, you'd have had to get a very nasty strain of VD...); the arrival of AIDS dramatically changed and limited the lives of all of us today, esp. those my age or older, who came of age before AIDS.
Re Howard and Charles Brandon:
Brandon was the Duke of Suffolk, not Duke of Surrey.
Brandon and Howard weren't related at all. But Brandon's line of heirs eventually dwindled and died out -- his son with Mary, the king's sister, died as a youth, and his two sons by his next wife (the very young teenage daughter of one of Katherine of Aragon's ladies in waiting) died shortly after Brandon himself, on the same day, of the sweating sickness. (You'll get to that in this book...) The Suffolk title went to the husband of his elder surviving daughter, Frances Brandon Grey. When Lady Jane Grey, their eldest daughter, was proclaimed queen and then ended up deposed after nine days, her father ultimately was convicted of treason and beheaded; his title was forfeit. The Suffolk title was revived as an earldom by James I (Elizabeth's heir) in 1603 and bestowed on the second (younger) son of the 3rd Duke of Norfolk -- so the Norfolk clan/the Howards ended up getting the Suffolk title.
The Howards had been landed gentry for generations, when John Howard's father married well -- he married Margaret de Mowbray, daughter of the first duke of Norfolk. When the Mowbray line dead-ended (see above posts), and Edward IV had died, Richard III took the Norfolk title and gave it to Howard. His descent was respectable -- knights, gentlemen, and even, waaay back in the 13th century, an ancestress who was the illegitimate daughter of the younger brother of Henry III of England -- but not spectacular. The Norfolk title, however, made him instantly one of the senior peers of the realm, because it gave him a call on the title of Earl Marshal -- he was the leader of the monarch's military forces, and had responsibility for organizing state occasions. Up until the Tudors, the holders of the Norfolk title -- Bigods, Mowbrays, and one royal son of Edward I, Thomas of Brotherton, -- had mostly always held the title of Earl Marshal. (One fascinating woman held the duchy and the role of earl marshal in her own right, too, in the 14th century; she abandoned her first husband for another man and tried to divorce husband #1; lived to be 80 years old -- an overlooked Eleanor of Aquitaine?) Howards have held the Earl Marshal title ever since the early 1600s, without any interruption, to this day. When the queen dies, the current duke of Norfolk will be in charge of all the related ceremonies -- the funeral and coronation.
But by the time of this novel, there were a LOT of Howards around the place. The current duke had married very advantageously indeed -- Anne of York, a younger daughter of Edward IV, and sister in law to Henry VII. While they had no children themselves, the duke had about a dozen siblings, and then there were his own children by wife #2. He married his daughter to the king's illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond, for instance. The Boleyns were children of his sister, Elizabeth. Catherine Howard was daughter of his brother Edmund, one of six children. A half-brother, William, had 10 children. The Howards are interesting, because they have remained Catholic up to the present day. The sister of the current duke is married to David Frost (of Frost/Nixon fame). Hmm, can't help thinking I'd be rather good at Jeopardy-style trivia, as long as bizarre genealogical facts were the focus!
OK, on Tuesday, it will be open season for comments & questions from lurkers...
Only ground rule is NO SPOILERS PLEASE!!!
And bear with me if it takes a bit of time to get back to you; it's a busy day for me.
49PaulCranswick
Ilana / Suz - Read through all Suz's commentary on TWOTR and the background to Henry's rule and must say that even from my own largely biased point of view I find her comments to be even-handed, fair minded and a great general introduction to the matter - well done Suz!
Not going to interefere in the excellent job that Suz is doing but would point out that Edward IV's rule was a high water-mark for York and largely frittered away in the excesses that undoubtedly lead to his early fall. Richard's role subsequently has been the source of great debate ever since and his decision to sully the reputation of the dead king (after having been steadfastly loyal to him earlier) was, I would surmise, a reaction to Edward's widow whom he hated with a passion and his belief that only he could secure the throne for York. The death of his wife certainly seemed to have made the stalwart Richard a little too hot-headed in the 1485 battle of Bosworth and his lack of restraint basically played into the double-dealers hands and lost the throne to the Tudors. Henry VIII's father had done a good job already removing much of the more likely contenders to the throne but Henry was under pressure certainly to produce a male heir and had despaired of it coming from Katherine.
Not going to interefere in the excellent job that Suz is doing but would point out that Edward IV's rule was a high water-mark for York and largely frittered away in the excesses that undoubtedly lead to his early fall. Richard's role subsequently has been the source of great debate ever since and his decision to sully the reputation of the dead king (after having been steadfastly loyal to him earlier) was, I would surmise, a reaction to Edward's widow whom he hated with a passion and his belief that only he could secure the throne for York. The death of his wife certainly seemed to have made the stalwart Richard a little too hot-headed in the 1485 battle of Bosworth and his lack of restraint basically played into the double-dealers hands and lost the throne to the Tudors. Henry VIII's father had done a good job already removing much of the more likely contenders to the throne but Henry was under pressure certainly to produce a male heir and had despaired of it coming from Katherine.
50Chatterbox
Paul, tks. I think the data dump has frightened any lurkers off...
I admit to a slight bias in favor of the Yorkists, though Edward's behavior post 1471 often makes me wonder. But then, it was still better than Henry's mental vacuity, so... One wonders what might have happened had Edward lived another decade...
I admit to a slight bias in favor of the Yorkists, though Edward's behavior post 1471 often makes me wonder. But then, it was still better than Henry's mental vacuity, so... One wonders what might have happened had Edward lived another decade...
51norabelle414
I'm not scared of Paul! I don't have any questions this week though . . .
52Smiler69
Suz, I'll be reading the first chapter of part 2 shortly after a quick dinner. I hesitate to ask you to explain things more in depth, because as it is am having trouble taking it all in. There are a lot of names and positions and family relations to take in, something which has never been one of my strong suites. I'm very visual, as you must know, so if you have any charts or family trees that can show connections, I'll probably understand better that way. That being said, I find you're really going out of your way with sharing some of your vast knowledge as it is, and if anything, would say you needn't take such pains for my sake, and I sincerely hope this all benefits others as I feel a bit guilty about not being quite up to the task, with lots of this going over my head. That being said, I'm slowly making connections from my brief history course on This Sceptred Isle and Anya Seton's excellent research in Katherine and the information you're sharing here. For instance, the revolt following the implementation of the polle tax is something I've recently been exposed to, but I didn't understand why the quote about Adam and Eve, so in the context you've given about the publication of the bible, newly available to the masses, it suddenly makes more sense. That being said, I've had trouble understanding what they were chanting about with the saying "When Adam delved, and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?", but I think I get it now... they meant the was no nobility when Adam and Eve came about, correct?
53The_Hibernator
I'm still around too, I just missed the whole Tuesday-lurking day thing. :) I'll be ready next week, though. ;)
54Smiler69
#53 It's still Tuesday here in Montreal (AND in New York) for the next 4 hours, so don't be shy to post away!
55Crazymamie
I'm here, too, and reading every word!
57cushlareads
I'm reading too and I should be elsewhere! Ilana, your questions are great and Suz so are your explanations. (Am in the middle of BUTB). No questions from me, just lurking.
58Chatterbox
I'll see what I can do re family trees, Ilana. If you let me know which ones you're particularly interested, I'll google away. I do have a genealogy program, but don't know if I could come up with a graphic that I could paste here, but I could e-mail you a file, possibly. Or once you give me the names, I can see what I can find online.
Norabelle, I know that Paul's info was helpful -- I was worried about genealogical wars of the roses data dump! it is, actually, a bit worrying that I appear to have as much of this at my fingertips, or nearly so. A bit strange...
Re "Adam delved..", yes, that's exactly what was meant. If Eden was, well, Eden -- it was an Eden without social classes. Adam didn't have serfs to do his digging; Eve didn't hire women to spin cloth, so that they could lie back and admire the gorgeous view. Implicit in that chant was the idea that social classes couldn't have been created by God. And yet, at the time, social classes were an inherent aspect of religion. There was a chain of command -- God, the king and the pope; then on down the ranks, with each role having god-like obligations toward those beneath him. You still see this in some fundamentalist Christian households, where the father takes on the responsibility for the morals and the religious faith of his wife and children as part of their reciprocal obligations. A sin they commit is a sin that he allowed to be committed.
I'm heading for bed as I'm exhausted, but will be around tomorrow..
Norabelle, I know that Paul's info was helpful -- I was worried about genealogical wars of the roses data dump! it is, actually, a bit worrying that I appear to have as much of this at my fingertips, or nearly so. A bit strange...
Re "Adam delved..", yes, that's exactly what was meant. If Eden was, well, Eden -- it was an Eden without social classes. Adam didn't have serfs to do his digging; Eve didn't hire women to spin cloth, so that they could lie back and admire the gorgeous view. Implicit in that chant was the idea that social classes couldn't have been created by God. And yet, at the time, social classes were an inherent aspect of religion. There was a chain of command -- God, the king and the pope; then on down the ranks, with each role having god-like obligations toward those beneath him. You still see this in some fundamentalist Christian households, where the father takes on the responsibility for the morals and the religious faith of his wife and children as part of their reciprocal obligations. A sin they commit is a sin that he allowed to be committed.
I'm heading for bed as I'm exhausted, but will be around tomorrow..
59PaulCranswick
Nora - my own wife and children, my maid, driver, sister-in-law, and staff will attest I am an absolute pussy-cat - no-one is scared of me (except maybe our own pussy cats!).
Suz - Your "data dump" was lively, informative and written with your inimitable vigour - certainly no ocular fatigue there. btw I knew you were far too sensible not to have slight Yorkist leanings.
btw2 good questions Ilana.
Suz - Your "data dump" was lively, informative and written with your inimitable vigour - certainly no ocular fatigue there. btw I knew you were far too sensible not to have slight Yorkist leanings.
btw2 good questions Ilana.
60Smiler69
Thanks Paul. I'm sure a lot of the questions I'm asking must seem simplistic to an Englishman, but so it goes.
And Suz, hope you're getting the rest you need. I'll post my next round of questions before heading off to bed myself. Answer whenever is convenient, no rush. No worries about the family trees for now. I'll probably just revisit some of what you've posted above down the line, when I've absorbed more of the story and it'll probably sink in better by then.
By the way, interesting tidbit about the Howards having remained Catholics through the ages. Really surprising, considering how vilified they were in England (wasn't it dangerous to be a Papist through the ages once the C of E was in place?)
PART TWO
I
Visitation
1529
pages 47- 64
46. p. 47 "They are taking apart the cardinal's house".
I read further on that it is to be given to Anne Boleyn, did I understand correctly? But why?
47. p. 48 Who is and what is the roll of the Master of the Rolls?
48. p. 48 "But the tide of men flooding in by the water stairs"
I like this sentence, but what are the water stairs?
49. p. 49 "Sir William Gascoigne, the cardinal's treasurer... any press and chest that he thinks they may have overlooked."
If he's the cardinal's man, why is he helping them find things they might have missed?
50. p. 49 What is a gentleman usher (talking about Cavendish)?
51. pp. 49-50 "The raiders knock down each one as if they are knocking down Thomas Becket."
Why are they knocking them down? and I forget who Thomas Becket was...
52. p. 50 What does the colour red signify? Is it the colour normally worn by cardinals? I gather it was a very expensive dye at the time?
53. p. 51 "This is not Putney, you know."
What does he mean by that?
54. p. 52 "Whatever we face at journey's end, we shall not forget how nine years ago, for the meeting of two kings..."
What is he talking about here?
55. p. 53 "and we all know what you thought about our campaigns, Thomas."
What campaigns and what did he think?
56. p. 54 What are the Cornish choughs? Never seen that word "choughs" before.
57. p. 55 "You make him sound like Nero."
Who was Nero again? A Roman emperor I think, yes? Wasn't he a tyrant? And what is the reference to him playing music? Was Nero a lover of music? I think I must have known about this at some point, but it's all very far away.
58. p. 58 Why "Henricus Rex" I don't remember what that word means.
59. p. 58 What is a reliquary?
60. p. 59 "What will they have next? His benefices?"
What are benefices?
61. p. 59 'You know my lord cardinal is indicted under the statutes of praemunire, for asserting a foreign jurisdiction in the land.'
Huh?
62. p. 61 Who was Bishop Wayneflete?
63. p. 62 'They will be Italian. It will be violent at first'
What does he mean by that?
64. p. 63 'He's frightened of her, you know. She's a witch.'
Was this really a common belief and how and why did it come about?
65. p. 63 "there's no home to go to, he's got no family left."
Why does he think that? Does he identify Wolsey so closely to family?
66. p. 64 "If you should see the coals on which St Lawrence was roasted"
What did St Lawrence do and why is Cromwell referring to him now?
67. p. 64 'if we can help it, my lord won't be poisoned.'
Is this a real concern at this point? Who would do the poisoning?
And Suz, hope you're getting the rest you need. I'll post my next round of questions before heading off to bed myself. Answer whenever is convenient, no rush. No worries about the family trees for now. I'll probably just revisit some of what you've posted above down the line, when I've absorbed more of the story and it'll probably sink in better by then.
By the way, interesting tidbit about the Howards having remained Catholics through the ages. Really surprising, considering how vilified they were in England (wasn't it dangerous to be a Papist through the ages once the C of E was in place?)
PART TWO
I
Visitation
1529
pages 47- 64
46. p. 47 "They are taking apart the cardinal's house".
I read further on that it is to be given to Anne Boleyn, did I understand correctly? But why?
47. p. 48 Who is and what is the roll of the Master of the Rolls?
48. p. 48 "But the tide of men flooding in by the water stairs"
I like this sentence, but what are the water stairs?
49. p. 49 "Sir William Gascoigne, the cardinal's treasurer... any press and chest that he thinks they may have overlooked."
If he's the cardinal's man, why is he helping them find things they might have missed?
50. p. 49 What is a gentleman usher (talking about Cavendish)?
51. pp. 49-50 "The raiders knock down each one as if they are knocking down Thomas Becket."
Why are they knocking them down? and I forget who Thomas Becket was...
52. p. 50 What does the colour red signify? Is it the colour normally worn by cardinals? I gather it was a very expensive dye at the time?
53. p. 51 "This is not Putney, you know."
What does he mean by that?
54. p. 52 "Whatever we face at journey's end, we shall not forget how nine years ago, for the meeting of two kings..."
What is he talking about here?
55. p. 53 "and we all know what you thought about our campaigns, Thomas."
What campaigns and what did he think?
56. p. 54 What are the Cornish choughs? Never seen that word "choughs" before.
57. p. 55 "You make him sound like Nero."
Who was Nero again? A Roman emperor I think, yes? Wasn't he a tyrant? And what is the reference to him playing music? Was Nero a lover of music? I think I must have known about this at some point, but it's all very far away.
58. p. 58 Why "Henricus Rex" I don't remember what that word means.
59. p. 58 What is a reliquary?
60. p. 59 "What will they have next? His benefices?"
What are benefices?
61. p. 59 'You know my lord cardinal is indicted under the statutes of praemunire, for asserting a foreign jurisdiction in the land.'
Huh?
62. p. 61 Who was Bishop Wayneflete?
63. p. 62 'They will be Italian. It will be violent at first'
What does he mean by that?
64. p. 63 'He's frightened of her, you know. She's a witch.'
Was this really a common belief and how and why did it come about?
65. p. 63 "there's no home to go to, he's got no family left."
Why does he think that? Does he identify Wolsey so closely to family?
66. p. 64 "If you should see the coals on which St Lawrence was roasted"
What did St Lawrence do and why is Cromwell referring to him now?
67. p. 64 'if we can help it, my lord won't be poisoned.'
Is this a real concern at this point? Who would do the poisoning?
61thornton37814
I haven't started reading Wolf Hall yet, but I found some online family trees of the real families that might be useful. I don't know how fictionalized the book is, so these may or may not help.
Tudors (Henry VII/Henry VIII): http://www.raucousroyals.com/lookandlearn/familytrees/tudors.pdf
Plantagenets/Lancaster/York (includes Edward IV): http://www.britroyals.com/plantagenet.htm
Tudors (Henry VII/Henry VIII): http://www.raucousroyals.com/lookandlearn/familytrees/tudors.pdf
Plantagenets/Lancaster/York (includes Edward IV): http://www.britroyals.com/plantagenet.htm
62Chatterbox
Hi Ilana,
Don't have the book handy, so I'll start on those that I don't need the book to consult to get the full context, and mark the others as response TK (journalism-ese for "to come") and get back to you later.
46. p. 47 "They are taking apart the cardinal's house".
I read further on that it is to be given to Anne Boleyn, did I understand correctly? But why?
Because Henry wanted to give her a magnificent independent residence, and York House was it... (the icing on the cake would have been that Anne loathed Wolsey, so taking another of his homes after the King had nabbed Hampton Court....)
47. p. 48 Who is and what is the roll of the Master of the Rolls?
A top official responsible for the courts; at the time, he was responsible for keeping track of the Chancery court, one of the top courts, and would often physically be responsible for keeping the Great Seal of England.
48. p. 48 "But the tide of men flooding in by the water stairs"
I like this sentence, but what are the water stairs?
Many of London's fine residences of the era were built alongside the River Thames, and in the days before roads and reliable cars, traveling by water was often swiftest. there were lots of little boats that would take people up/down/across, and if you were wealthy you had a barge. So there was a big scandal when Henry gave Katherine's barge to Anne, and Anne had the queen's arms chopped off it. The water stairs, therefore, were the entrance by which people came and went by water. Often, noble visitors were more likely to arrive by water, especially if the road was likely to be muddy or crowded, or privacy was sought. Why go through the narrow streets of London if you could sail down the Thames?
49. p. 49 "Sir William Gascoigne, the cardinal's treasurer... any press and chest that he thinks they may have overlooked."
If he's the cardinal's man, why is he helping them find things they might have missed?
Because all of this was given at the king's pleasure, and Gascoigne would be responsible for accounting for the items, which technically prob. belonged to Wolsey as part of his job rather than to him, personally. (As a churchman, theoretically, his property belonged to his see/bishopric, or to the jobs, rather than to him personally.)
50. p. 49 What is a gentleman usher (talking about Cavendish)?
Essentially, a wellborn man who was a member of a senior nobleman's household, but not among his retinue. (In other words, he was an employee.) He was a senior employee, hired to oversee senior servants directly responsible for serving the earl, cardinal, duke, or whatever. His responsibilities would include making sure that the minions left his employer's bedchamber impeccable, for instance. Akin to today's butler, I suppose, except that there might be more than one per household.
51. pp. 49-50 "The raiders knock down each one as if they are knocking down Thomas Becket."
Why are they knocking them down? and I forget who Thomas Becket was...
Becket was the closest parallel to Wolsey -- lower-born, became the closest friend of Henry II, and his chancellor (I think) and his main advisor. When Henry insisted on naming him archbishop of Canterbury, however, Becket began taking the Vatican's sides in the squabbles between king and pope -- infuriating Henry II. The relationship between the two deteriorated so rapidly that at dinner one night, Henry allegedly cried out in fury "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Four of his household knights took him at his word, and set out for Canterbury, where they murdered Becket. Henry, after being excommunicated, had to do public penance for his crime; Becket became St. Thomas. So the reference here is very well thought out; clearly, Cromwell is thinking of the way a 12th century king turned against Beckett and now a 15th century king is turning against Wolsey, another former close ally and church leader. The wording would refer to the actual murder of Becket.
52. p. 50 What does the colour red signify? Is it the colour normally worn by cardinals? I gather it was a very expensive dye at the time?
Cardinals always wear red -- the color signifies their willingness to die for their faith. It wasn't the priciest dye - that would be indigo, or some of the others in the blue/purple category -- but it was seen as a flamboyant color, and not suited to everyday wear by the general public. (It wouldn't have been terribly practical, either...)
53. p. 51 "This is not Putney, you know."
What does he mean by that?
Answer TK
54. p. 52 "Whatever we face at journey's end, we shall not forget how nine years ago, for the meeting of two kings..."
What is he talking about here?
I'm pretty sure that he's referring to the Field of Cloth of Gold, the meeting btwn Francois I of France and Henry. It was a flamboyant affair, and involved the creation of an entire tent city in France. Ultimately futile, of course -- the lasting friendship pledged there didn't last all that long.
55. p. 53 "and we all know what you thought about our campaigns, Thomas."
What campaigns and what did he think?
The refers to the French wars that led up to the peace sealed at the Field of Cloth of Gold -- the capture of a few meaningless towns like Therouanne by Henry. Cromwell thought the campaigns couldn't be afforded, and were bad ideas -- that conquering parts of France was no longer possible, given the lack of a foothold beyond Calais. He thought the campaigns were a waste of money.
56. p. 54 What are the Cornish choughs? Never seen that word "choughs" before.
Ha, this I know because in Cornwall they're trying to bring back the breed! It's a black bird, I think part of the crow or jackdaw family, with red bills. I believe they pop up in the Arthurian legend -- when Arthur died, the story goes he became a chough.
57. p. 55 "You make him sound like Nero."
Who was Nero again? A Roman emperor I think, yes? Wasn't he a tyrant? And what is the reference to him playing music? Was Nero a lover of music? I think I must have known about this at some point, but it's all very far away.
All emperors were absolute rulers; many were tyrants. Nero was an unpredictable tyrant who bumped off all kinds of people -- he forced Seneca to commit suicide and killed his own mother. He was the stepson of Claudius and the last member of the Julian clan -- relations of Julius Caesar and descendants of Augustus -- to occupy the imperial throne in Rome. He was a music lover and so convinced of his own greatness that he would perform for hours (on his flute, I think), and anyone who didn't like it, or who appeared bored, could end up dead. The famous saying is that he fiddled while Rome burned; there was a massive fire during his reign, and the saying addresses the fact that Nero didn't raise a finger to help. (He may have been responsible? I don't know enough to say.)
58. p. 58 Why "Henricus Rex" I don't remember what that word means.
It's Latin -- Henricus for Henry; Rex means king. (Regina being queen.) Still used today. Victoria would sign Victoria R.I., with the I standing for whatever the female form of imperator or emperor is; she became empress of India. The current queen just signs state documents Elizabeth R, as the empire ended under her father's rule.
59. p. 58 What is a reliquary?
It's the fancy gizmo created to hold a relic of a saint -- St. Jerome's tooth, or a fragment of the True Cross. Often these were caskets -- gold, ivory, bejewelled.
60. p. 59 "What will they have next? His benefices?"
What are benefices?
Also known as livings. A senior cleric would have under his control a bunch of parishes, each of which would send him a share of their tithes as income.
61. p. 59 'You know my lord cardinal is indicted under the statutes of praemunire, for asserting a foreign jurisdiction in the land.'
Huh?
Praemunire will become very important here later on. It's a law originally passed abt 150 years earlier, when Richard II was borrowing heavily from abroad, and Parliament wanted to make sure that foreign creditors' rights didn't take precedence over the rights of the monarch in England -- no one could claim that they had a right to tell an English monarch what to do, specifically, no one foreign. This quickly came to include the pope... Anyone whose will ran counter to the king's, and who could be seen as representing a foreign entity (the Vatican/Papal States), could be vulnerable to being seen as violating the Praemunire statute.
62. p. 61 Who was Bishop Wayneflete?
Will have to check text for specific reference, but think there was a bishop of that name at Magdalen, Wolsey's alma mater. Does that make sense in context?
63. p. 62 'They will be Italian. It will be violent at first'
What does he mean by that?
Italians had a reputation for being violent; quick with their fists and with the stiletto.
64. p. 63 'He's frightened of her, you know. She's a witch.'
Was this really a common belief and how and why did it come about?
Anne? I'll have to check the text.
65. p. 63 "there's no home to go to, he's got no family left."
Why does he think that? Does he identify Wolsey so closely to family?
Answer TK; must check text. If Cromwell, by this point his wife is dead, his two daughters are dead; his son is away being educated.
66. p. 64 "If you should see the coals on which St Lawrence was roasted"
What did St Lawrence do and why is Cromwell referring to him now?
St. Lawrence was an early Christian martyr; his method of death was on a grille. When he refused to hand over church relics, apparently including the Holy Grail, to the then emperor, he was burned to death on some kind of grille, so in religious art, he's usually seen with a gridiron. (He's the patron saint of cooks and cooking...)
67. p. 64 'if we can help it, my lord won't be poisoned.'
Is this a real concern at this point? Who would do the poisoning?
Well, maybe a real concern. There certainly had been poisonings on the continent; in that era, it could be hard to distinguish between real illness and poison. The Italians, like the Borgias, were known for their poisons. Later in the 16th century, Catherine de Medici was said to be an expert poisoner, who had poisoned her husband's elder brother so that she and her husband would inherit the French crown. Certainly, Wolsey was still seen as inconvenient. Who would have done it? Any of Anne's eager servants, whether at her command or independently. ("Who will rid me of this turbulent pries?")
Don't have the book handy, so I'll start on those that I don't need the book to consult to get the full context, and mark the others as response TK (journalism-ese for "to come") and get back to you later.
46. p. 47 "They are taking apart the cardinal's house".
I read further on that it is to be given to Anne Boleyn, did I understand correctly? But why?
Because Henry wanted to give her a magnificent independent residence, and York House was it... (the icing on the cake would have been that Anne loathed Wolsey, so taking another of his homes after the King had nabbed Hampton Court....)
47. p. 48 Who is and what is the roll of the Master of the Rolls?
A top official responsible for the courts; at the time, he was responsible for keeping track of the Chancery court, one of the top courts, and would often physically be responsible for keeping the Great Seal of England.
48. p. 48 "But the tide of men flooding in by the water stairs"
I like this sentence, but what are the water stairs?
Many of London's fine residences of the era were built alongside the River Thames, and in the days before roads and reliable cars, traveling by water was often swiftest. there were lots of little boats that would take people up/down/across, and if you were wealthy you had a barge. So there was a big scandal when Henry gave Katherine's barge to Anne, and Anne had the queen's arms chopped off it. The water stairs, therefore, were the entrance by which people came and went by water. Often, noble visitors were more likely to arrive by water, especially if the road was likely to be muddy or crowded, or privacy was sought. Why go through the narrow streets of London if you could sail down the Thames?
49. p. 49 "Sir William Gascoigne, the cardinal's treasurer... any press and chest that he thinks they may have overlooked."
If he's the cardinal's man, why is he helping them find things they might have missed?
Because all of this was given at the king's pleasure, and Gascoigne would be responsible for accounting for the items, which technically prob. belonged to Wolsey as part of his job rather than to him, personally. (As a churchman, theoretically, his property belonged to his see/bishopric, or to the jobs, rather than to him personally.)
50. p. 49 What is a gentleman usher (talking about Cavendish)?
Essentially, a wellborn man who was a member of a senior nobleman's household, but not among his retinue. (In other words, he was an employee.) He was a senior employee, hired to oversee senior servants directly responsible for serving the earl, cardinal, duke, or whatever. His responsibilities would include making sure that the minions left his employer's bedchamber impeccable, for instance. Akin to today's butler, I suppose, except that there might be more than one per household.
51. pp. 49-50 "The raiders knock down each one as if they are knocking down Thomas Becket."
Why are they knocking them down? and I forget who Thomas Becket was...
Becket was the closest parallel to Wolsey -- lower-born, became the closest friend of Henry II, and his chancellor (I think) and his main advisor. When Henry insisted on naming him archbishop of Canterbury, however, Becket began taking the Vatican's sides in the squabbles between king and pope -- infuriating Henry II. The relationship between the two deteriorated so rapidly that at dinner one night, Henry allegedly cried out in fury "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Four of his household knights took him at his word, and set out for Canterbury, where they murdered Becket. Henry, after being excommunicated, had to do public penance for his crime; Becket became St. Thomas. So the reference here is very well thought out; clearly, Cromwell is thinking of the way a 12th century king turned against Beckett and now a 15th century king is turning against Wolsey, another former close ally and church leader. The wording would refer to the actual murder of Becket.
52. p. 50 What does the colour red signify? Is it the colour normally worn by cardinals? I gather it was a very expensive dye at the time?
Cardinals always wear red -- the color signifies their willingness to die for their faith. It wasn't the priciest dye - that would be indigo, or some of the others in the blue/purple category -- but it was seen as a flamboyant color, and not suited to everyday wear by the general public. (It wouldn't have been terribly practical, either...)
53. p. 51 "This is not Putney, you know."
What does he mean by that?
Answer TK
54. p. 52 "Whatever we face at journey's end, we shall not forget how nine years ago, for the meeting of two kings..."
What is he talking about here?
I'm pretty sure that he's referring to the Field of Cloth of Gold, the meeting btwn Francois I of France and Henry. It was a flamboyant affair, and involved the creation of an entire tent city in France. Ultimately futile, of course -- the lasting friendship pledged there didn't last all that long.
55. p. 53 "and we all know what you thought about our campaigns, Thomas."
What campaigns and what did he think?
The refers to the French wars that led up to the peace sealed at the Field of Cloth of Gold -- the capture of a few meaningless towns like Therouanne by Henry. Cromwell thought the campaigns couldn't be afforded, and were bad ideas -- that conquering parts of France was no longer possible, given the lack of a foothold beyond Calais. He thought the campaigns were a waste of money.
56. p. 54 What are the Cornish choughs? Never seen that word "choughs" before.
Ha, this I know because in Cornwall they're trying to bring back the breed! It's a black bird, I think part of the crow or jackdaw family, with red bills. I believe they pop up in the Arthurian legend -- when Arthur died, the story goes he became a chough.
57. p. 55 "You make him sound like Nero."
Who was Nero again? A Roman emperor I think, yes? Wasn't he a tyrant? And what is the reference to him playing music? Was Nero a lover of music? I think I must have known about this at some point, but it's all very far away.
All emperors were absolute rulers; many were tyrants. Nero was an unpredictable tyrant who bumped off all kinds of people -- he forced Seneca to commit suicide and killed his own mother. He was the stepson of Claudius and the last member of the Julian clan -- relations of Julius Caesar and descendants of Augustus -- to occupy the imperial throne in Rome. He was a music lover and so convinced of his own greatness that he would perform for hours (on his flute, I think), and anyone who didn't like it, or who appeared bored, could end up dead. The famous saying is that he fiddled while Rome burned; there was a massive fire during his reign, and the saying addresses the fact that Nero didn't raise a finger to help. (He may have been responsible? I don't know enough to say.)
58. p. 58 Why "Henricus Rex" I don't remember what that word means.
It's Latin -- Henricus for Henry; Rex means king. (Regina being queen.) Still used today. Victoria would sign Victoria R.I., with the I standing for whatever the female form of imperator or emperor is; she became empress of India. The current queen just signs state documents Elizabeth R, as the empire ended under her father's rule.
59. p. 58 What is a reliquary?
It's the fancy gizmo created to hold a relic of a saint -- St. Jerome's tooth, or a fragment of the True Cross. Often these were caskets -- gold, ivory, bejewelled.
60. p. 59 "What will they have next? His benefices?"
What are benefices?
Also known as livings. A senior cleric would have under his control a bunch of parishes, each of which would send him a share of their tithes as income.
61. p. 59 'You know my lord cardinal is indicted under the statutes of praemunire, for asserting a foreign jurisdiction in the land.'
Huh?
Praemunire will become very important here later on. It's a law originally passed abt 150 years earlier, when Richard II was borrowing heavily from abroad, and Parliament wanted to make sure that foreign creditors' rights didn't take precedence over the rights of the monarch in England -- no one could claim that they had a right to tell an English monarch what to do, specifically, no one foreign. This quickly came to include the pope... Anyone whose will ran counter to the king's, and who could be seen as representing a foreign entity (the Vatican/Papal States), could be vulnerable to being seen as violating the Praemunire statute.
62. p. 61 Who was Bishop Wayneflete?
Will have to check text for specific reference, but think there was a bishop of that name at Magdalen, Wolsey's alma mater. Does that make sense in context?
63. p. 62 'They will be Italian. It will be violent at first'
What does he mean by that?
Italians had a reputation for being violent; quick with their fists and with the stiletto.
64. p. 63 'He's frightened of her, you know. She's a witch.'
Was this really a common belief and how and why did it come about?
Anne? I'll have to check the text.
65. p. 63 "there's no home to go to, he's got no family left."
Why does he think that? Does he identify Wolsey so closely to family?
Answer TK; must check text. If Cromwell, by this point his wife is dead, his two daughters are dead; his son is away being educated.
66. p. 64 "If you should see the coals on which St Lawrence was roasted"
What did St Lawrence do and why is Cromwell referring to him now?
St. Lawrence was an early Christian martyr; his method of death was on a grille. When he refused to hand over church relics, apparently including the Holy Grail, to the then emperor, he was burned to death on some kind of grille, so in religious art, he's usually seen with a gridiron. (He's the patron saint of cooks and cooking...)
67. p. 64 'if we can help it, my lord won't be poisoned.'
Is this a real concern at this point? Who would do the poisoning?
Well, maybe a real concern. There certainly had been poisonings on the continent; in that era, it could be hard to distinguish between real illness and poison. The Italians, like the Borgias, were known for their poisons. Later in the 16th century, Catherine de Medici was said to be an expert poisoner, who had poisoned her husband's elder brother so that she and her husband would inherit the French crown. Certainly, Wolsey was still seen as inconvenient. Who would have done it? Any of Anne's eager servants, whether at her command or independently. ("Who will rid me of this turbulent pries?")
63Smiler69
This is wonderful Suz. I want to comment on some of your answers, but will have to come back at another time to do so as I must get ready for sleep. I have a big day tomorrow, so don't know if I'll have time to read more and ask more questions, but we'll see. I've learned a lot tonight and feel just a little bit smarter for it. :-)
64Chatterbox
Well, I still owe you some answers, so no rush!
65Chatterbox
53. p. 51 "This is not Putney, you know."
What does he mean by that?
Answer TK
62. p. 61 Who was Bishop Wayneflete?
Will have to check text for specific reference, but think there was a bishop of that name at Magdalen, Wolsey's alma mater. Does that make sense in context?
OK, the full answer took a bit of research. This probably was the same Wayneflete, as the tower referred to in the text was built 1465-1480, or thereabouts. Apparently, the bishop's palace there was famous at the time. Waynflete was the guy I was thinking of, connected with Magdalen, but he also was the Bishop of Winchester and Lord Chancellor for the Lancastrians (Henry VI) at the time that the Wars of the Roses became a shooting war (so to speak...), from 1456 to 1460. He lived until 1486, retaining the see of Winchester (a very prominent one) until his death. His early patron was the bastard Beaufort (I really need to stop calling them that, although it's a quick and easy way to remember of whom we're speaking!) who was a cardinal, Henry Beaufort, but he wasn't anathema to the Yorkists. He does seem to have been a bit of a coward and maybe an appeaser. But he was a great educationalist, and apparently a big supporter of Eton in its early years. (He made the students swear to reject the heretical teachings of Wycliffe....)
64. p. 63 'He's frightened of her, you know. She's a witch.'
Was this really a common belief and how and why did it come about?
Anne? I'll have to check the text.
OK, yes, the reference is clearly to Anne. Few people who knew her thought she was really technically a witch (although the common people did); to the extent the epithet was applied to her it was because clearly she had enchanted and enslaved the king in a way that no one who knew him really understood. She wasn't a raving beauty, she wasn't complaisant, she had few of the charms that Henry had found attractive before. And she held him off, sexually, for six or seven years... and that just inflamed him more. Her eyes were said to be compelling and beautiful, she had grace, wit and intellect, but she wasn't the blonde/blue-eyed type that Henry had found attractive thus far. Ergo, it must be witchcraft! The commoners certainly believed it; what else could make a loyal and devout king abandon his wife and daughter and reject the authority of the Pope? It was easier to blame Anne than Henry. There was a rumor she had a sixth finger, and some kind of mole on her neck that she covered with a jewelled collar, but that is far from certain; the belief is that this largely stemmed from an account written by a Catholic apologist in the next century.
65. p. 63 "there's no home to go to, he's got no family left."
Why does he think that? Does he identify Wolsey so closely to family?
Answer TK; must check text. If Cromwell, by this point his wife is dead, his two daughters are dead; his son is away being educated.
Yes, that's the context. This is 1530; the later chapters jump back and forth in time, so we get a sense of his past life, but yes, most of his immediate family is dead now, and he hasn't yet formed a new and more extended family made up of his nephew Richard and others.
If I missed anything, let me know...
What does he mean by that?
Answer TK
62. p. 61 Who was Bishop Wayneflete?
Will have to check text for specific reference, but think there was a bishop of that name at Magdalen, Wolsey's alma mater. Does that make sense in context?
OK, the full answer took a bit of research. This probably was the same Wayneflete, as the tower referred to in the text was built 1465-1480, or thereabouts. Apparently, the bishop's palace there was famous at the time. Waynflete was the guy I was thinking of, connected with Magdalen, but he also was the Bishop of Winchester and Lord Chancellor for the Lancastrians (Henry VI) at the time that the Wars of the Roses became a shooting war (so to speak...), from 1456 to 1460. He lived until 1486, retaining the see of Winchester (a very prominent one) until his death. His early patron was the bastard Beaufort (I really need to stop calling them that, although it's a quick and easy way to remember of whom we're speaking!) who was a cardinal, Henry Beaufort, but he wasn't anathema to the Yorkists. He does seem to have been a bit of a coward and maybe an appeaser. But he was a great educationalist, and apparently a big supporter of Eton in its early years. (He made the students swear to reject the heretical teachings of Wycliffe....)
64. p. 63 'He's frightened of her, you know. She's a witch.'
Was this really a common belief and how and why did it come about?
Anne? I'll have to check the text.
OK, yes, the reference is clearly to Anne. Few people who knew her thought she was really technically a witch (although the common people did); to the extent the epithet was applied to her it was because clearly she had enchanted and enslaved the king in a way that no one who knew him really understood. She wasn't a raving beauty, she wasn't complaisant, she had few of the charms that Henry had found attractive before. And she held him off, sexually, for six or seven years... and that just inflamed him more. Her eyes were said to be compelling and beautiful, she had grace, wit and intellect, but she wasn't the blonde/blue-eyed type that Henry had found attractive thus far. Ergo, it must be witchcraft! The commoners certainly believed it; what else could make a loyal and devout king abandon his wife and daughter and reject the authority of the Pope? It was easier to blame Anne than Henry. There was a rumor she had a sixth finger, and some kind of mole on her neck that she covered with a jewelled collar, but that is far from certain; the belief is that this largely stemmed from an account written by a Catholic apologist in the next century.
65. p. 63 "there's no home to go to, he's got no family left."
Why does he think that? Does he identify Wolsey so closely to family?
Answer TK; must check text. If Cromwell, by this point his wife is dead, his two daughters are dead; his son is away being educated.
Yes, that's the context. This is 1530; the later chapters jump back and forth in time, so we get a sense of his past life, but yes, most of his immediate family is dead now, and he hasn't yet formed a new and more extended family made up of his nephew Richard and others.
If I missed anything, let me know...
66ccookie
Got the audio CD version a couple of days ago and am at chapter 3. I am starting to see the humor here. Hard to focus though, my rewind button is getting a lot of use! The real book is in for me at the library so will pick that up for reference.
67Chatterbox
There definitely is humor here; a lot of it is of the deadpan variety, or very wry/dry humor, rather than silliness.
Oh, the reference to Putney: that's just a reference to what might pass in Putney for normal behavior wouldn't be considered acceptable in more elevated circles. A kind of nudge at Cromwell's background -- the idea that Putney is full of battlers and bruisers.
Oh, the reference to Putney: that's just a reference to what might pass in Putney for normal behavior wouldn't be considered acceptable in more elevated circles. A kind of nudge at Cromwell's background -- the idea that Putney is full of battlers and bruisers.
68Smiler69
When it comes to humour, I rarely enjoy the silly kind but definitely take to the deadpan/dry variety that the English are known for. Hence, when I use the word "humour", that's usually what I'm referring to. Otherwise I call it silliness. Not a bad thing, it has it's place too, but dry humour is so much more clever generally, isn't it?
I've had a long day today, in painting class for the better part of it, then running a bunch of errands, and consequently quite out of it tonight, so will come back tomorrow when I'll have time to go over all your answers again Suz. I'll also read another short section and have more questions ready, probably later on in the day or evening.
Thanks for all the effort you put into this. It's definitely much appreciated!
I've had a long day today, in painting class for the better part of it, then running a bunch of errands, and consequently quite out of it tonight, so will come back tomorrow when I'll have time to go over all your answers again Suz. I'll also read another short section and have more questions ready, probably later on in the day or evening.
Thanks for all the effort you put into this. It's definitely much appreciated!
69Chatterbox
Just FYI, I'm heading to DC tomorrow late afternoon/early eve, meeting a friend for a drink and then going to another friend's. There may be a lag of a day or so before I can get back, just logistically.
70Smiler69
Suz, that's fine. I may have a lag too, as I thought I had the whole evening to myself, but forgot I'd been invited to a concert. I'll see if I can fit it in within the next couple of hours, otherwise my questions will come tomorrow.
71ffortsa
Hello, all. I'm going to be lurking a bit as I read through Wolf Hall myself, which is due for one of my book groups the week after July 4th. Suz, great details about the history behind the book - my basic knowledge comes from Shakespeare, mostly, and the extra goodies are appreciated.
A late note about a reference to the dramatic conceit of the meeting between Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart (sp?). I think the original of that scene is from Schiller's play "Mary Stuart", and it's a humdinger of a meeting, with a lot of Romantic points going to Mary, I think. I haven't seen the opera, but I bet it's rousing singing there as well.
I've read through part I, and will stop at post 60 until I read through the next chapter. I don't know if the page numbers on my Kindle match yours, Ilana, so I'll restrict myself to chapters just to be safe, and won't post again until the next 'audience participation'!
A late note about a reference to the dramatic conceit of the meeting between Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart (sp?). I think the original of that scene is from Schiller's play "Mary Stuart", and it's a humdinger of a meeting, with a lot of Romantic points going to Mary, I think. I haven't seen the opera, but I bet it's rousing singing there as well.
I've read through part I, and will stop at post 60 until I read through the next chapter. I don't know if the page numbers on my Kindle match yours, Ilana, so I'll restrict myself to chapters just to be safe, and won't post again until the next 'audience participation'!
72Smiler69
Hi Judy and welcome! It'll take me a little while to get through chapter II in part 2 as it's about 90 pages long and I'm reading at a pace of about 20 pages a day... at this rate, it looks like it'll take a couple of solid months to get through the whole book, unless I have a few bursts of more prolonged reading sessions along the way, though I'm not counting on it. There's a lot there for me to absorb and digest, so this slow pace suits me just fine. All this to say that you'll probably have to read ahead of me to make it on time for your book groups.
The concert last night was a horror. I might write more about it on my own thread later, but let's just say I doubt I'll be attending any more performances of this particular ensemble. My time would have been better spent reading at home, but for the fact that I enjoyed being with a wonderful friend during the ordeal.
Suz, the explanation about how people got around (by boat, on the Thames) was enlightening. I'd come across many references to people navigating that way on this particular river, but somehow never linked it to the fact that it was the more popular choice of travelling routes.
I did suspect that Anne was considered as a witch because of the hold she has on the king. I guess in those days, any woman who disturbed people's expectations was accused of witchcraft, because of course a normal woman wouldn't/couldn't possibly stand out for the norm or be very clever or talented or attractive without consorting with the devil... I came across this same accusation in Seton's Katherine, as she too apparently was accused of bewitching first her husband, then John of Gaunt, though in her case, according to Seton anyway, she was a great beauty in her day.
Coming up: the next round of questions.
The concert last night was a horror. I might write more about it on my own thread later, but let's just say I doubt I'll be attending any more performances of this particular ensemble. My time would have been better spent reading at home, but for the fact that I enjoyed being with a wonderful friend during the ordeal.
Suz, the explanation about how people got around (by boat, on the Thames) was enlightening. I'd come across many references to people navigating that way on this particular river, but somehow never linked it to the fact that it was the more popular choice of travelling routes.
I did suspect that Anne was considered as a witch because of the hold she has on the king. I guess in those days, any woman who disturbed people's expectations was accused of witchcraft, because of course a normal woman wouldn't/couldn't possibly stand out for the norm or be very clever or talented or attractive without consorting with the devil... I came across this same accusation in Seton's Katherine, as she too apparently was accused of bewitching first her husband, then John of Gaunt, though in her case, according to Seton anyway, she was a great beauty in her day.
Coming up: the next round of questions.
73Smiler69
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 65- 84
68. p. 65 Is the "history" she recounts at the beginning of the chapter a famous story, or is it a creation by Mantel? I suspect the former...
69. p. 66 "This Arthur married Katherine the princess of Aragon, died at fifteen and was burried..."
How did Arthur die? I always thought he'd gotten married and died as an adult and had no idea he'd been so young!
69. p. 66 "His younger brother Henry would likely be Archbishop of Canterbury, and would not... be in pursuit of a woman of whom the cardinal hears nothing good: a woman whom, several years before the dukes walk in... he will need to comprehend."
We are talking about Anne, yes? I don't understand this passage.
70. p. 67 Who was Queen Claude?
71. p. 67 "Now she speaks her native tongue with a slight, unplaceable accent..."
What was her native tongue?
72. p. 67 "Soon she has a little trail of petty gentlemen following her; and one not so petty gentleman."
If she wasn't particularly attractive, why were they following her? Who was the not so petty gentleman?
73. p. 67 Who was Harry Percy? Was he the "not so petty gentleman" in question?
74. p. 67 Why did they want to marry Anne into Ireland? Who were the Butlers?
75. p. 67 'Why does she tarry?'
What was she doing to hold things up?
76. p. 68 "Half the world is called Thomas"
Was this in honour of Saint Thomas?
77. p. 68 Who was Mary Talbot?
78. p. 69 "Marry the girl into Ireland before the Butlers hear any rumour that she's spoiled goods."
Was this a rumour that stuck?
79. p. 70 "Which is why I open all his letters, an shave done for years."
Who's letters? The king's or Boleyn's?
80. p. 71 "Laughing, the cardinal pushes back his chair, and his shadow rises with him... The cardinal bows his head, frowns at a paper on his desk; he is allowing time for the difficult moment to pass..."
This whole passage had me most confused the first time around, and still does. Did the cardinal actually mean to hit Cromwell for not speaking up? What does it all mean?
81. p. 72 Who was Miles Revell?
82. p. 72 "Would a bishop abash you... A deacon disconcert?"
What does he mean by this?
83. p. 72-73 If I understand correctly here, basically Cromwell admits to the cardinal that he killed a man 20 years earlier, during his time as a soldier. Is this significant?
84. p. 75 "He has a boy from John Blount's daughter"
Who were John Blount and his daughter? You've already explained about Henry Fitzroy of course.
85. p. 79 "It is a method of remembering. I learned it in Italy."
What does he mean by this?
86. p. 80 "The Lady Anne, whom he has chosen to amuse him, while the old wife is cast off and the new wife brought in, refuses to accommodate him at all."
This is confusing. The old wife is Katherine. But what is this talk about a new wife, since they're obviously not talking about Anne? Do they mean while Wolsey was trying to find Henry another princess?
88. p. 81 "Sometimes, says the cardinal, the king speaks of his mother... so meek under the misfortunes God sent her."
What misfortunes—having lost children? Didn't children frequently die in those days? Why would this make her misfortune worthy of note?
89. p. 83 (of Katherine) "where she herself almost died in that year's epidemic."
Which epidemic was this?
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 65- 84
68. p. 65 Is the "history" she recounts at the beginning of the chapter a famous story, or is it a creation by Mantel? I suspect the former...
69. p. 66 "This Arthur married Katherine the princess of Aragon, died at fifteen and was burried..."
How did Arthur die? I always thought he'd gotten married and died as an adult and had no idea he'd been so young!
69. p. 66 "His younger brother Henry would likely be Archbishop of Canterbury, and would not... be in pursuit of a woman of whom the cardinal hears nothing good: a woman whom, several years before the dukes walk in... he will need to comprehend."
We are talking about Anne, yes? I don't understand this passage.
70. p. 67 Who was Queen Claude?
71. p. 67 "Now she speaks her native tongue with a slight, unplaceable accent..."
What was her native tongue?
72. p. 67 "Soon she has a little trail of petty gentlemen following her; and one not so petty gentleman."
If she wasn't particularly attractive, why were they following her? Who was the not so petty gentleman?
73. p. 67 Who was Harry Percy? Was he the "not so petty gentleman" in question?
74. p. 67 Why did they want to marry Anne into Ireland? Who were the Butlers?
75. p. 67 'Why does she tarry?'
What was she doing to hold things up?
76. p. 68 "Half the world is called Thomas"
Was this in honour of Saint Thomas?
77. p. 68 Who was Mary Talbot?
78. p. 69 "Marry the girl into Ireland before the Butlers hear any rumour that she's spoiled goods."
Was this a rumour that stuck?
79. p. 70 "Which is why I open all his letters, an shave done for years."
Who's letters? The king's or Boleyn's?
80. p. 71 "Laughing, the cardinal pushes back his chair, and his shadow rises with him... The cardinal bows his head, frowns at a paper on his desk; he is allowing time for the difficult moment to pass..."
This whole passage had me most confused the first time around, and still does. Did the cardinal actually mean to hit Cromwell for not speaking up? What does it all mean?
81. p. 72 Who was Miles Revell?
82. p. 72 "Would a bishop abash you... A deacon disconcert?"
What does he mean by this?
83. p. 72-73 If I understand correctly here, basically Cromwell admits to the cardinal that he killed a man 20 years earlier, during his time as a soldier. Is this significant?
84. p. 75 "He has a boy from John Blount's daughter"
Who were John Blount and his daughter? You've already explained about Henry Fitzroy of course.
85. p. 79 "It is a method of remembering. I learned it in Italy."
What does he mean by this?
86. p. 80 "The Lady Anne, whom he has chosen to amuse him, while the old wife is cast off and the new wife brought in, refuses to accommodate him at all."
This is confusing. The old wife is Katherine. But what is this talk about a new wife, since they're obviously not talking about Anne? Do they mean while Wolsey was trying to find Henry another princess?
88. p. 81 "Sometimes, says the cardinal, the king speaks of his mother... so meek under the misfortunes God sent her."
What misfortunes—having lost children? Didn't children frequently die in those days? Why would this make her misfortune worthy of note?
89. p. 83 (of Katherine) "where she herself almost died in that year's epidemic."
Which epidemic was this?
74Chatterbox
Hiya,
Just picked these up. Look for answers late int he day.
Just picked these up. Look for answers late int he day.
75Chatterbox
OK, just came back from meeting the DC meetup folks for a national gallery excursion; had to decamp early due to irritable bowel nonsense making itself felt for the first time in 15 plus years. So answering these will distract me. I don't have the book with me, and the kindle pages don't correspond to your pages, so there may be some points I have to find the text and dig into it before I can address fully.
68. p. 65 Is the "history" she recounts at the beginning of the chapter a famous story, or is it a creation by Mantel? I suspect the former...
If I recall correctly, this is the giants Gog and Magog, and the son of Aeneas (or descendant of aeneas) arriving in Britain and creating a super race? Yes, that's a mythical historical tradition that was famous; interestingly, at the Folger Library yesterday and there was a reference in one of the exhibits on display, to those myths, and how they weren't really questioned until Elizabethan days.
69. p. 66 "This Arthur married Katherine the princess of Aragon, died at fifteen and was burried..."
How did Arthur die? I always thought he'd gotten married and died as an adult and had no idea he'd been so young!
The two had been betrothed since they were children, and it was fairly routine to marry them off after puberty, and for a young princess to complete her education at her husband's court. That said, there was also often a delay in consummation, so as not to tax the strength of either -- it really depended on health. Margaret Beaufort had given birth to Henry VII at the age of 13, and the birth had nearly killed her. Certainly, she never bore another child, despite marrying twice more. Cause of death is still unclear. The most common belief is that it was TB or consumption, but it's hard to believe that such a chronic and relatively common illness wouldn't have been visible early on, and it's unlikely that Arthur would have been allowed to travel to Ludlow, away from the king's physicians. Moreover, Katherine herself also became sick but recovered. It seems that Arthur's health was never as robust as that of Henry, so the odds are it was some kind of virus or pneumonia -- maybe the sweating sickness.
69. p. 66 "His younger brother Henry would likely be Archbishop of Canterbury, and would not... be in pursuit of a woman of whom the cardinal hears nothing good: a woman whom, several years before the dukes walk in... he will need to comprehend."
We are talking about Anne, yes? I don't understand this passage.
Will have to review this, sorry, can't grasp this without finding the exact wording.
70. p. 67 Who was Queen Claude?
Daughter of the previous king of France; that king had had no sons, and French law was that a woman couldn't inherit the throne. This became an issue when Charles VIII died with no male heirs in 1497 or thereabouts; Louis XII inherited for that reason. He married three times (the third was to Henry VIII's sister, Mary, who later married Charles Brandon; the saying was that she danced her first husband to death within a few months.) His second wife was Anne of Brittany, by whom he had two daughters. The elder, Claude, was Duchess of Brittany in her own right, but couldn't inherit the throne. So Louis married her off to Francois, who was then duke of Angouleme, and although a somewhat distant cousin of the king's, his heir presumptive. (Heir presumptive: PRESUMING the monarch has no direct heirs of his body; heir apparent: will APPARENTLY succeed because he is in the direct line of descent from the monarch. In England, Prince Charles is the heir apparent; had the queen not had children when she inherited the throne, her sister, Margaret, would have become heir presumptive.) So, Claude by our standards should have become queen regnant; she became instead queen by marriage. She died very young, at about 25, having given birth to 7 children, of whom 3 survived into their teens.
71. p. 67 "Now she speaks her native tongue with a slight, unplaceable accent..."
What was her native tongue?
This is Katherine, I think? Castilian.
72. p. 67 "Soon she has a little trail of petty gentlemen following her; and one not so petty gentleman."
If she wasn't particularly attractive, why were they following her? Who was the not so petty gentleman?
Sorry, TK. will need to check the next.
73. p. 67 Who was Harry Percy? Was he the "not so petty gentleman" in question?
Could well have been. Certainly, he was son and heir to one of the biggest earldoms in the country. the Percys owned the north, and their loyalty was perpetually a question; during the wars of the Roses, they had appeared to accept a Yorkist king but then fought with Lancastrians. and Hotspur had fought Henry IV, and was the heir to that earldom. So, who knew? And they were the first lines of defense against the Scots... But definitely not petty...
74. p. 67 Why did they want to marry Anne into Ireland? Who were the Butlers?
The Butler were distant relations to the Boleyns, or at least to Anne. Her great-grandfather had been the 7th Earl of Ormond, a Butler. His daughter, Margaret Butler, married William Boleyn and became mother to Thomas Boleyn, Anne's father. But the 7th earl had no sons.... So when he died, there was a dispute between his "heirs general" (as Thomas Boleyn would have been -- the collection of people with some right to the title but all of whose right is somehow more distant and convoluted than those of children or grandchildren) and another branch of the family, James Butler's father, Piers. Piers seized the earldom by force. Henry wanted to show favor to Boleyn who had been an able negotiator for him, and proposed that to resolve the dispute over the earldom, that Anne would marry Piers's son and heir. That would mean Anne would become a countess, and meant that while Boleyn wouldn't get the earldom, their next-gen descendants would.
75. p. 67 'Why does she tarry?'
What was she doing to hold things up?
Answer TK
76. p. 68 "Half the world is called Thomas"
Was this in honour of Saint Thomas?
Yes, and the Apostle Thomas, and Thomas Aquinas, and... well, you get the picture.
77. p. 68 Who was Mary Talbot?
Daughter of the earl of Shrewsbury, another important peer. It was definitely a strategic alliance, although the Percys were an older family than the Talbots. Mary Talbot's ancestor, the original earl, had been the Winston Churchill figure of his day, and was killed in 1453 in a battle against the French.
78. p. 69 "Marry the girl into Ireland before the Butlers hear any rumour that she's spoiled goods."
Was this a rumour that stuck?
Kind of... Certainly, those who didn't like Anne would refer to her as a whore. Those who knew her wondered what had happened between her and Percy, and for that matter, with Thomas Wyatt.
79. p. 70 "Which is why I open all his letters, an shave done for years."
Who's letters? The king's or Boleyn's?
Will have to check text. Answer TK
80. p. 71 "Laughing, the cardinal pushes back his chair, and his shadow rises with him... The cardinal bows his head, frowns at a paper on his desk; he is allowing time for the difficult moment to pass..."
This whole passage had me most confused the first time around, and still does. Did the cardinal actually mean to hit Cromwell for not speaking up? What does it all mean?
Answer TK -- need to re-read segment.
81. p. 72 Who was Miles Revell?
Answer TK -- no idea, so I'll re-read the text and see if anything there springs to mind.
82. p. 72 "Would a bishop abash you... A deacon disconcert?"
What does he mean by this?
Answer TK-- can't answer without the words in front of me.
83. p. 72-73 If I understand correctly here, basically Cromwell admits to the cardinal that he killed a man 20 years earlier, during his time as a soldier. Is this significant?
I think what Wolsey is most concerned about is that Cromwell might have committed murder and not made a "proper confession"; that, in other words, he didn't confess sincerely, didn't really repent. And in this scene, Cromwell isn't stating what actually happened; he is leaving a space there into which Wolsey reads that Cromwell committed murder, and Cromwell allows that to go unchallenged, thus reinforcing Wolsey's confession. It's significant in the context of other remarks made later by other characters -- we see inside Cromwell's mind, but comments like this enable us to understand how he was perceived by others around him -- as potentially violent, aggressive, etc. (It's like the view we have of ourselves, and how others see us.)
84. p. 75 "He has a boy from John Blount's daughter"
Who were John Blount and his daughter? You've already explained about Henry Fitzroy of course.
John Blount was a rather unmemorable knight in Henry's entourage; his beautiful daughter "Bessie" (Elizabeth) was a maid of honor to Katherine and Henry's mistress for many years; she was Fitzroy's mother.
85. p. 79 "It is a method of remembering. I learned it in Italy."
What does he mean by this?
He's talking about the idea of the "memory palace", which Cicero and Quintillian relied on in the heyday of ancient Roman oratory. You link each memory, or point you want to make, or something else, to a specific physical location that you know well. For many people, it's their home. The idea is that when you walk in the door of your home, you know instantly where each item is located, right? So you associate an object or idea or whatever you need to remember, to each item, and when you need to recall them, you take a mental walk. So if you're talking for an hour without notes, you are going on a mental walk -- what argument is attached to the mirror in the hall, the umbrella stand, the small table just inside the living room, etc. I think Mantel quotes the famous example of Simonides, who remembered just where each of his fellow guests had been sitting when the wall of the dining room collapsed upon them, obliterating their identities? It's the same idea -- linking one concept to something familiar to you.
86. p. 80 "The Lady Anne, whom he has chosen to amuse him, while the old wife is cast off and the new wife brought in, refuses to accommodate him at all."
This is confusing. The old wife is Katherine. But what is this talk about a new wife, since they're obviously not talking about Anne? Do they mean while Wolsey was trying to find Henry another princess?
Yes, this was certainly the Boleyn fear. It's clear Wolsey may have wanted the king to be free, but he didn't want Anne Boleyn as queen (mistress fine, but not queen.) He would have preferred (in the early stages) for Henry to marry a French princess, and probably let it be thought that was Henry's intent (to distract people from the unpalatable truth, that Henry's marriage wouldn't be dynastic.
88. p. 81 "Sometimes, says the cardinal, the king speaks of his mother... so meek under the misfortunes God sent her."
What misfortunes—having lost children? Didn't children frequently die in those days? Why would this make her misfortune worthy of note?
Elizabeth of York was the eldest daughter of Edward IV. She had spent a year of her childhood living in sanctuary in Westminster during the Lancastrian inter-regnum of 1470/71; then in 1483, her father died suddenly. Within a few months, her father's brother had seized the throne, had executed her mother's brother (Anthony Woodville); her older half brother by Elizabeth Woodville's first marriage; and a man she must have known well and thought of as an uncle, her father's closest friend, Lord Hastings. Then her two young brothers are taken into the Tower, and are never seen again. She and her sisters and mothers are back in sanctuary; when they emerge again, it is when her mother is conspiring to marry her to Tudor and then she is lady in waiting to Queen Anne, Richard III's wife. Anne is dying; and the rumor is that Richard wants to marry young Elizabeth, his niece - incest even in those days. Then comes Tudor -- not a prepossessing guy at all -- and she has to deal with living with a miser and under the thumb of his dicatatorial mother. Losing three of her six children (including the daughter born dead which led to her own death in childbirth) was just the tip of the iceberg. Oh, her husband also executed her cousin, Edward of Warwick, whom she would have known well. He also ensured her mother was shut up in a convent in Bermondsey.
89. p. 83 (of Katherine) "where she herself almost died in that year's epidemic."
Which epidemic was this?
I'm pretty sure it was the sweating sickness, but I'll have to check when I can spend a bit of time digging through to find all these bits and pieces of the text. We really should have found a way to be reading from the same edition with the same page nos!
68. p. 65 Is the "history" she recounts at the beginning of the chapter a famous story, or is it a creation by Mantel? I suspect the former...
If I recall correctly, this is the giants Gog and Magog, and the son of Aeneas (or descendant of aeneas) arriving in Britain and creating a super race? Yes, that's a mythical historical tradition that was famous; interestingly, at the Folger Library yesterday and there was a reference in one of the exhibits on display, to those myths, and how they weren't really questioned until Elizabethan days.
69. p. 66 "This Arthur married Katherine the princess of Aragon, died at fifteen and was burried..."
How did Arthur die? I always thought he'd gotten married and died as an adult and had no idea he'd been so young!
The two had been betrothed since they were children, and it was fairly routine to marry them off after puberty, and for a young princess to complete her education at her husband's court. That said, there was also often a delay in consummation, so as not to tax the strength of either -- it really depended on health. Margaret Beaufort had given birth to Henry VII at the age of 13, and the birth had nearly killed her. Certainly, she never bore another child, despite marrying twice more. Cause of death is still unclear. The most common belief is that it was TB or consumption, but it's hard to believe that such a chronic and relatively common illness wouldn't have been visible early on, and it's unlikely that Arthur would have been allowed to travel to Ludlow, away from the king's physicians. Moreover, Katherine herself also became sick but recovered. It seems that Arthur's health was never as robust as that of Henry, so the odds are it was some kind of virus or pneumonia -- maybe the sweating sickness.
69. p. 66 "His younger brother Henry would likely be Archbishop of Canterbury, and would not... be in pursuit of a woman of whom the cardinal hears nothing good: a woman whom, several years before the dukes walk in... he will need to comprehend."
We are talking about Anne, yes? I don't understand this passage.
Will have to review this, sorry, can't grasp this without finding the exact wording.
70. p. 67 Who was Queen Claude?
Daughter of the previous king of France; that king had had no sons, and French law was that a woman couldn't inherit the throne. This became an issue when Charles VIII died with no male heirs in 1497 or thereabouts; Louis XII inherited for that reason. He married three times (the third was to Henry VIII's sister, Mary, who later married Charles Brandon; the saying was that she danced her first husband to death within a few months.) His second wife was Anne of Brittany, by whom he had two daughters. The elder, Claude, was Duchess of Brittany in her own right, but couldn't inherit the throne. So Louis married her off to Francois, who was then duke of Angouleme, and although a somewhat distant cousin of the king's, his heir presumptive. (Heir presumptive: PRESUMING the monarch has no direct heirs of his body; heir apparent: will APPARENTLY succeed because he is in the direct line of descent from the monarch. In England, Prince Charles is the heir apparent; had the queen not had children when she inherited the throne, her sister, Margaret, would have become heir presumptive.) So, Claude by our standards should have become queen regnant; she became instead queen by marriage. She died very young, at about 25, having given birth to 7 children, of whom 3 survived into their teens.
71. p. 67 "Now she speaks her native tongue with a slight, unplaceable accent..."
What was her native tongue?
This is Katherine, I think? Castilian.
72. p. 67 "Soon she has a little trail of petty gentlemen following her; and one not so petty gentleman."
If she wasn't particularly attractive, why were they following her? Who was the not so petty gentleman?
Sorry, TK. will need to check the next.
73. p. 67 Who was Harry Percy? Was he the "not so petty gentleman" in question?
Could well have been. Certainly, he was son and heir to one of the biggest earldoms in the country. the Percys owned the north, and their loyalty was perpetually a question; during the wars of the Roses, they had appeared to accept a Yorkist king but then fought with Lancastrians. and Hotspur had fought Henry IV, and was the heir to that earldom. So, who knew? And they were the first lines of defense against the Scots... But definitely not petty...
74. p. 67 Why did they want to marry Anne into Ireland? Who were the Butlers?
The Butler were distant relations to the Boleyns, or at least to Anne. Her great-grandfather had been the 7th Earl of Ormond, a Butler. His daughter, Margaret Butler, married William Boleyn and became mother to Thomas Boleyn, Anne's father. But the 7th earl had no sons.... So when he died, there was a dispute between his "heirs general" (as Thomas Boleyn would have been -- the collection of people with some right to the title but all of whose right is somehow more distant and convoluted than those of children or grandchildren) and another branch of the family, James Butler's father, Piers. Piers seized the earldom by force. Henry wanted to show favor to Boleyn who had been an able negotiator for him, and proposed that to resolve the dispute over the earldom, that Anne would marry Piers's son and heir. That would mean Anne would become a countess, and meant that while Boleyn wouldn't get the earldom, their next-gen descendants would.
75. p. 67 'Why does she tarry?'
What was she doing to hold things up?
Answer TK
76. p. 68 "Half the world is called Thomas"
Was this in honour of Saint Thomas?
Yes, and the Apostle Thomas, and Thomas Aquinas, and... well, you get the picture.
77. p. 68 Who was Mary Talbot?
Daughter of the earl of Shrewsbury, another important peer. It was definitely a strategic alliance, although the Percys were an older family than the Talbots. Mary Talbot's ancestor, the original earl, had been the Winston Churchill figure of his day, and was killed in 1453 in a battle against the French.
78. p. 69 "Marry the girl into Ireland before the Butlers hear any rumour that she's spoiled goods."
Was this a rumour that stuck?
Kind of... Certainly, those who didn't like Anne would refer to her as a whore. Those who knew her wondered what had happened between her and Percy, and for that matter, with Thomas Wyatt.
79. p. 70 "Which is why I open all his letters, an shave done for years."
Who's letters? The king's or Boleyn's?
Will have to check text. Answer TK
80. p. 71 "Laughing, the cardinal pushes back his chair, and his shadow rises with him... The cardinal bows his head, frowns at a paper on his desk; he is allowing time for the difficult moment to pass..."
This whole passage had me most confused the first time around, and still does. Did the cardinal actually mean to hit Cromwell for not speaking up? What does it all mean?
Answer TK -- need to re-read segment.
81. p. 72 Who was Miles Revell?
Answer TK -- no idea, so I'll re-read the text and see if anything there springs to mind.
82. p. 72 "Would a bishop abash you... A deacon disconcert?"
What does he mean by this?
Answer TK-- can't answer without the words in front of me.
83. p. 72-73 If I understand correctly here, basically Cromwell admits to the cardinal that he killed a man 20 years earlier, during his time as a soldier. Is this significant?
I think what Wolsey is most concerned about is that Cromwell might have committed murder and not made a "proper confession"; that, in other words, he didn't confess sincerely, didn't really repent. And in this scene, Cromwell isn't stating what actually happened; he is leaving a space there into which Wolsey reads that Cromwell committed murder, and Cromwell allows that to go unchallenged, thus reinforcing Wolsey's confession. It's significant in the context of other remarks made later by other characters -- we see inside Cromwell's mind, but comments like this enable us to understand how he was perceived by others around him -- as potentially violent, aggressive, etc. (It's like the view we have of ourselves, and how others see us.)
84. p. 75 "He has a boy from John Blount's daughter"
Who were John Blount and his daughter? You've already explained about Henry Fitzroy of course.
John Blount was a rather unmemorable knight in Henry's entourage; his beautiful daughter "Bessie" (Elizabeth) was a maid of honor to Katherine and Henry's mistress for many years; she was Fitzroy's mother.
85. p. 79 "It is a method of remembering. I learned it in Italy."
What does he mean by this?
He's talking about the idea of the "memory palace", which Cicero and Quintillian relied on in the heyday of ancient Roman oratory. You link each memory, or point you want to make, or something else, to a specific physical location that you know well. For many people, it's their home. The idea is that when you walk in the door of your home, you know instantly where each item is located, right? So you associate an object or idea or whatever you need to remember, to each item, and when you need to recall them, you take a mental walk. So if you're talking for an hour without notes, you are going on a mental walk -- what argument is attached to the mirror in the hall, the umbrella stand, the small table just inside the living room, etc. I think Mantel quotes the famous example of Simonides, who remembered just where each of his fellow guests had been sitting when the wall of the dining room collapsed upon them, obliterating their identities? It's the same idea -- linking one concept to something familiar to you.
86. p. 80 "The Lady Anne, whom he has chosen to amuse him, while the old wife is cast off and the new wife brought in, refuses to accommodate him at all."
This is confusing. The old wife is Katherine. But what is this talk about a new wife, since they're obviously not talking about Anne? Do they mean while Wolsey was trying to find Henry another princess?
Yes, this was certainly the Boleyn fear. It's clear Wolsey may have wanted the king to be free, but he didn't want Anne Boleyn as queen (mistress fine, but not queen.) He would have preferred (in the early stages) for Henry to marry a French princess, and probably let it be thought that was Henry's intent (to distract people from the unpalatable truth, that Henry's marriage wouldn't be dynastic.
88. p. 81 "Sometimes, says the cardinal, the king speaks of his mother... so meek under the misfortunes God sent her."
What misfortunes—having lost children? Didn't children frequently die in those days? Why would this make her misfortune worthy of note?
Elizabeth of York was the eldest daughter of Edward IV. She had spent a year of her childhood living in sanctuary in Westminster during the Lancastrian inter-regnum of 1470/71; then in 1483, her father died suddenly. Within a few months, her father's brother had seized the throne, had executed her mother's brother (Anthony Woodville); her older half brother by Elizabeth Woodville's first marriage; and a man she must have known well and thought of as an uncle, her father's closest friend, Lord Hastings. Then her two young brothers are taken into the Tower, and are never seen again. She and her sisters and mothers are back in sanctuary; when they emerge again, it is when her mother is conspiring to marry her to Tudor and then she is lady in waiting to Queen Anne, Richard III's wife. Anne is dying; and the rumor is that Richard wants to marry young Elizabeth, his niece - incest even in those days. Then comes Tudor -- not a prepossessing guy at all -- and she has to deal with living with a miser and under the thumb of his dicatatorial mother. Losing three of her six children (including the daughter born dead which led to her own death in childbirth) was just the tip of the iceberg. Oh, her husband also executed her cousin, Edward of Warwick, whom she would have known well. He also ensured her mother was shut up in a convent in Bermondsey.
89. p. 83 (of Katherine) "where she herself almost died in that year's epidemic."
Which epidemic was this?
I'm pretty sure it was the sweating sickness, but I'll have to check when I can spend a bit of time digging through to find all these bits and pieces of the text. We really should have found a way to be reading from the same edition with the same page nos!
76Smiler69
I'm sorry to hear you're having more health problems Suz, as if the migraines weren't quite enough to deal with!
68. Yes, that was exactly the myth I was talking about. So are you telling me that people in Britain took this as being a true history until then? Amazing what kind of beliefs there were in the past. I wonder what people will find incredible about our current beliefs in future?
69. Gasp! Only 13 when she had Henry VII!!! That seems barbarous!
What was the sweating sickness?
69. Sorry, I abbreviate the passages to save on time, but if you need me to quote fully while you're away I can do so too.
70. Thanks for explaining the difference between heir Presumptive and heir Apparent, something else I was not aware of. It seems unthinkable to me for a woman to have had 7 children by the age of 25, but then, she probably started having them as soon as she hit puberty, right? There are still places in the world (many) where this still goes on. Boggles the mind.
#71 Actually, it was about Anne, which had me quite confused.
#73 Sorry, but who was Hotspur? And how did the Percy's all keep their heads if they were playing around with loyalties?
#85 Interesting stuff, this memory palace. Had never heard of it before. Do you use this technique? If I tried it, I bet I would suddenly completely forget what the layout of my place is like...
#86 to distract people from the unpalatable truth, that Henry's marriage wouldn't be dynastic.
What does that mean?
#88 Oh my. Poor woman. I look back at my question and want to smack myself. But I won't, because it won't help my current migraine.
We really should have found a way to be reading from the same edition with the same page now!
Agree it would probably make things easier for you, but I'm pretty sure neither one of us can really afford to buy another copy. Would it be more helpful if I quoted longer sections? I don't mind, but it will definitely slow me down even further. What do you suggest?
68. Yes, that was exactly the myth I was talking about. So are you telling me that people in Britain took this as being a true history until then? Amazing what kind of beliefs there were in the past. I wonder what people will find incredible about our current beliefs in future?
69. Gasp! Only 13 when she had Henry VII!!! That seems barbarous!
What was the sweating sickness?
69. Sorry, I abbreviate the passages to save on time, but if you need me to quote fully while you're away I can do so too.
70. Thanks for explaining the difference between heir Presumptive and heir Apparent, something else I was not aware of. It seems unthinkable to me for a woman to have had 7 children by the age of 25, but then, she probably started having them as soon as she hit puberty, right? There are still places in the world (many) where this still goes on. Boggles the mind.
#71 Actually, it was about Anne, which had me quite confused.
#73 Sorry, but who was Hotspur? And how did the Percy's all keep their heads if they were playing around with loyalties?
#85 Interesting stuff, this memory palace. Had never heard of it before. Do you use this technique? If I tried it, I bet I would suddenly completely forget what the layout of my place is like...
#86 to distract people from the unpalatable truth, that Henry's marriage wouldn't be dynastic.
What does that mean?
#88 Oh my. Poor woman. I look back at my question and want to smack myself. But I won't, because it won't help my current migraine.
We really should have found a way to be reading from the same edition with the same page now!
Agree it would probably make things easier for you, but I'm pretty sure neither one of us can really afford to buy another copy. Would it be more helpful if I quoted longer sections? I don't mind, but it will definitely slow me down even further. What do you suggest?
77Chatterbox
Well, it's a matter of one of us maybe having to slow down a bit, and what you will find less frustrating at your end. It's a bit simpler for me to check in my hard copy, even without corresponding page numbers, than it is for me to try and find the references on my Kindle version. So if you wouldn't mind quoting longer passages when it's clear that the query pertains to something that is text-dependent or interpreting the meaning of Mantel's language, etc., just while I am traveling, that would be helpful. My edition is the large paperback UK original, and quite heavy, so I don't want to schlep it, but finding references on my Kindle is a bit of a pain. So if we can do this until the 19th, when I'm back in NYC to stay, that would be fab -- and again, just in the queries where it's about the wording. Obviously, questions like who was Claude or Elizabeth of York, etc. don't need big references.
Happily, the stomach seems to have settled down quietly now; hopefully that was an aberration this afternoon, albeit an untimely one. And (touch wood) no migraine since I arrived!!
OK, back to the fray.
68. Gog/Magog -- yes, relatively literally.
69. What was the sweating sickness?
A mysterious disease, to this day, because it seems to have flared up from nowhere in 1485 and vanished by the 1560s or 1570s. It does seem to have arrived with Henry VII's troops from the continent, and flared up in summer. It started with chills and other nasty flu-like symptoms, then within a few hours, sweating, headache, thirst, rapid pulse. Ultimately collapse and death. Some say it was a disease born by ticks and lice and related to "relapsing fever"; I've also read recently that some medical historians argue it was a hantavirus. But it was a summertime feature of Tudor England.
#71 Actually, it was about Anne, which had me quite confused.
Aha, then that is fine. It's a reference to Anne speaking English with a slight accent, not necessarily French, but French-inflected? What is unclear is to what extent the accent was put on or assumed by Anne to make herself different or superior in some way, and to what extent it might have been simply that for so many years, French was de facto her only language.
#73 Sorry, but who was Hotspur? And how did the Percy's all keep their heads if they were playing around with loyalties?
You can take a look at the top of message #2, where I mentioned Hotspur in passing, as someone with some claim to the throne via his wife, a Mortimer. Hotspur died in battle, and they didn't all keep their heads... Hotspur's father died in another battle against Henry IV in 1408; Hotspur's son was killed in battle during the first battle of the wars of the Roses -- St. Alban's. Then Hotspur's grandson died at Towton. Although the latter was related to the Yorkists very closely, he fought for the Lancastrians (although his grandfather and great-grandfather had died in battle OPPOSING the Lancastrians...) So, that was 4 generations dead in battle. Then comes the 4th Earl, generation #5. He was at Bosworth, but failed to commit his troops, possibly one of the factors that determined Tudor's victory. But Henry VII still kept him in prison for a short while after Bosworth, to ensure that he knew who was boss. the 5th earl, the father of Anne's lover/suitor, was jailed for a while by Henry VIII on suspicion of being too friendly with the duke of Buckingham, whom Henry had executed for treason. But he was freed after a year or so. To anticipate your question: Buckingham ran afoul of Henry VIII in part because of his Plantagenet blood and in part because of his arrogant behavior; Henry personally oversaw the investigation and trial. The Plantagenet links were largely through daughter, or through the illegitimate Beaufort lineage, but still, after the events of the 15th century, he was someone who had some kind of claim to the throne and who may have been a threat to Henry -- at least in Henry's eyes.
#85 Interesting stuff, this memory palace. Had never heard of it before. Do you use this technique? If I tried it, I bet I would suddenly completely forget what the layout of my place is like...
Nope, have never used it. Think it would actually distract me...
#86 to distract people from the unpalatable truth, that Henry's marriage wouldn't be dynastic.
What does that mean?
At the time, the idea was firmly lodged that royal blood was different than that of ordinary folks. So marrying a commoner was not doing honor to your dynasty -- it was tainting the blood line. Even Edward IV had done better -- although Elizabeth Woodville's father was only a knight, her mother was a princess of Luxembourg (then still a powerful regional house in Europe) who was the widow of Henry V's younger brother and herself married down after John of Bedford's death.
#88 Oh my. Poor woman. I look back at my question and want to smack myself. But I won't, because it won't help my current migraine.
Hey, you weren't to know!
69. p. 66 "His younger brother Henry would likely be Archbishop of Canterbury, and would not... be in pursuit of a woman of whom the cardinal hears nothing good: a woman whom, several years before the dukes walk in... he will need to comprehend."
We are talking about Anne, yes? I don't understand this passage.
Yup, we're talking about Anne. This is a way of bridging the gap between "real time" -- during which the dukes have arrived to take away his palace at York House, i.e. to despoil him -- and the history/context of Anne, Percy, Wolsey and the King. (Had Arthur lived, Henry was supposed to become a churchman -- traditional fate of younger sons and younger daughters.) The message here is that Wolsey had underestimated Anne when he first encountered her and that Cromwell will need to understand what went amiss with Wolsey's judgment in order to make sense of current events.
72. p. 67 "Soon she has a little trail of petty gentlemen following her; and one not so petty gentleman."
If she wasn't particularly attractive, why were they following her? Who was the not so petty gentleman?
Anne had charm and wit, and attracted a following. Think of a woman who charms without necessarily having great beauty; who sets fashions instead of following them. And yes, that is a reference to Percy.
75. p. 67 'Why does she tarry?'
What was she doing to hold things up?
She wasn't doing anything really, I suspect. Had her father insisted, the marriage would have happened. This is purely my conjecture, but certainly it makes no sense for Wolsey to say this, since he knows that a father can order his daughter to marry, so he may be making a jab at Boleyn and his ambition to find an even better match for his daughter? still there is no evidence that Boleyn thought any such thing, so I'm a bit bemused by this.
79. p. 70 "Which is why I open all his letters, an shave done for years."
Who's letters? The king's or Boleyn's?
Boleyn's.
80. p. 71 "Laughing, the cardinal pushes back his chair, and his shadow rises with him... The cardinal bows his head, frowns at a paper on his desk; he is allowing time for the difficult moment to pass..."
This whole passage had me most confused the first time around, and still does. Did the cardinal actually mean to hit Cromwell for not speaking up? What does it all mean?
OK, I think what Mantel is saying here is that Wolsey reached out, possibly to shake him in a friendly fashion or give him a mock cuff on the ear -- laughing, kind of saying come on, tell me the news, don't make me beg, you're my employee! What Wolsey intends is a friendly jostle, but what Cromwell reads into it is something darker, because of his personal history, both at the hands (literally!) of his father and poss. because of his later experiences in Italy, etc.-- hence the "Thomas, also Tomos, Tommaso and Thomaes Cromwell" -- referring to his various past identities. He believes instinctively that Wolsey means to hit him -- hence he shies away. Because blows have never been jovial in his experience, only actually violent. Hence Wolsey's comment: "I really would like the London gossip. But I wasn't planning to beat it out of you." Wolsey has seen Cromwell's instinctive fear of a violent intent.
81. p. 72 Who was Miles Revell?
Answer TK -- no idea, so I'll re-read the text and see if anything there springs to mind.
OK, have re-read. I think this is just an anecdote. Perhaps it's a name Mantel plucked from some archive or even invented to provide an anecdote. It has no meaning for the story, other than as a way for Wolsey to make Cromwell more comfortable with his instinctive gesture of fear and unease. Zero meaning/relevance to the broader story; maybe the person never existed; maybe Mantel invented an invention by Wolsey.
82. p. 72 "Would a bishop abash you... A deacon disconcert?"
What does he mean by this?
Oh, he is playing with words -- again, in an attempt to disarm Cromwell and make him comfortable once again. He is implying that it is the fact that he is a churchman that was getting physical in some way that Cromwell finds threatening. Wolsey has just explained he finds people with florid complexions make him uneasy and want to burst into tears today because of his childhood fear of Revell; he's now suggesting that Cromwell's fearful response to a well-intentioned gesture might be an extrapolation of some irrational fear of churchmen (bishops, parish clerks, deacons, are all clerics.)
89. p. 83 (of Katherine) "where she herself almost died in that year's epidemic."
Which epidemic was this?
OK, as I thought, this seems to indicate that Mantel believes that Arthur's death was sweating sickness (see my previous answer to Arthur's cause of death). Katherine was certainly very ill at this time, so it's possible, or else possible that she picked up the disease while Arthur died of something else. There was a major outbreak of the sweat in 1502, however.
If I have missed anything, let me know...
Happily, the stomach seems to have settled down quietly now; hopefully that was an aberration this afternoon, albeit an untimely one. And (touch wood) no migraine since I arrived!!
OK, back to the fray.
68. Gog/Magog -- yes, relatively literally.
69. What was the sweating sickness?
A mysterious disease, to this day, because it seems to have flared up from nowhere in 1485 and vanished by the 1560s or 1570s. It does seem to have arrived with Henry VII's troops from the continent, and flared up in summer. It started with chills and other nasty flu-like symptoms, then within a few hours, sweating, headache, thirst, rapid pulse. Ultimately collapse and death. Some say it was a disease born by ticks and lice and related to "relapsing fever"; I've also read recently that some medical historians argue it was a hantavirus. But it was a summertime feature of Tudor England.
#71 Actually, it was about Anne, which had me quite confused.
Aha, then that is fine. It's a reference to Anne speaking English with a slight accent, not necessarily French, but French-inflected? What is unclear is to what extent the accent was put on or assumed by Anne to make herself different or superior in some way, and to what extent it might have been simply that for so many years, French was de facto her only language.
#73 Sorry, but who was Hotspur? And how did the Percy's all keep their heads if they were playing around with loyalties?
You can take a look at the top of message #2, where I mentioned Hotspur in passing, as someone with some claim to the throne via his wife, a Mortimer. Hotspur died in battle, and they didn't all keep their heads... Hotspur's father died in another battle against Henry IV in 1408; Hotspur's son was killed in battle during the first battle of the wars of the Roses -- St. Alban's. Then Hotspur's grandson died at Towton. Although the latter was related to the Yorkists very closely, he fought for the Lancastrians (although his grandfather and great-grandfather had died in battle OPPOSING the Lancastrians...) So, that was 4 generations dead in battle. Then comes the 4th Earl, generation #5. He was at Bosworth, but failed to commit his troops, possibly one of the factors that determined Tudor's victory. But Henry VII still kept him in prison for a short while after Bosworth, to ensure that he knew who was boss. the 5th earl, the father of Anne's lover/suitor, was jailed for a while by Henry VIII on suspicion of being too friendly with the duke of Buckingham, whom Henry had executed for treason. But he was freed after a year or so. To anticipate your question: Buckingham ran afoul of Henry VIII in part because of his Plantagenet blood and in part because of his arrogant behavior; Henry personally oversaw the investigation and trial. The Plantagenet links were largely through daughter, or through the illegitimate Beaufort lineage, but still, after the events of the 15th century, he was someone who had some kind of claim to the throne and who may have been a threat to Henry -- at least in Henry's eyes.
#85 Interesting stuff, this memory palace. Had never heard of it before. Do you use this technique? If I tried it, I bet I would suddenly completely forget what the layout of my place is like...
Nope, have never used it. Think it would actually distract me...
#86 to distract people from the unpalatable truth, that Henry's marriage wouldn't be dynastic.
What does that mean?
At the time, the idea was firmly lodged that royal blood was different than that of ordinary folks. So marrying a commoner was not doing honor to your dynasty -- it was tainting the blood line. Even Edward IV had done better -- although Elizabeth Woodville's father was only a knight, her mother was a princess of Luxembourg (then still a powerful regional house in Europe) who was the widow of Henry V's younger brother and herself married down after John of Bedford's death.
#88 Oh my. Poor woman. I look back at my question and want to smack myself. But I won't, because it won't help my current migraine.
Hey, you weren't to know!
69. p. 66 "His younger brother Henry would likely be Archbishop of Canterbury, and would not... be in pursuit of a woman of whom the cardinal hears nothing good: a woman whom, several years before the dukes walk in... he will need to comprehend."
We are talking about Anne, yes? I don't understand this passage.
Yup, we're talking about Anne. This is a way of bridging the gap between "real time" -- during which the dukes have arrived to take away his palace at York House, i.e. to despoil him -- and the history/context of Anne, Percy, Wolsey and the King. (Had Arthur lived, Henry was supposed to become a churchman -- traditional fate of younger sons and younger daughters.) The message here is that Wolsey had underestimated Anne when he first encountered her and that Cromwell will need to understand what went amiss with Wolsey's judgment in order to make sense of current events.
72. p. 67 "Soon she has a little trail of petty gentlemen following her; and one not so petty gentleman."
If she wasn't particularly attractive, why were they following her? Who was the not so petty gentleman?
Anne had charm and wit, and attracted a following. Think of a woman who charms without necessarily having great beauty; who sets fashions instead of following them. And yes, that is a reference to Percy.
75. p. 67 'Why does she tarry?'
What was she doing to hold things up?
She wasn't doing anything really, I suspect. Had her father insisted, the marriage would have happened. This is purely my conjecture, but certainly it makes no sense for Wolsey to say this, since he knows that a father can order his daughter to marry, so he may be making a jab at Boleyn and his ambition to find an even better match for his daughter? still there is no evidence that Boleyn thought any such thing, so I'm a bit bemused by this.
79. p. 70 "Which is why I open all his letters, an shave done for years."
Who's letters? The king's or Boleyn's?
Boleyn's.
80. p. 71 "Laughing, the cardinal pushes back his chair, and his shadow rises with him... The cardinal bows his head, frowns at a paper on his desk; he is allowing time for the difficult moment to pass..."
This whole passage had me most confused the first time around, and still does. Did the cardinal actually mean to hit Cromwell for not speaking up? What does it all mean?
OK, I think what Mantel is saying here is that Wolsey reached out, possibly to shake him in a friendly fashion or give him a mock cuff on the ear -- laughing, kind of saying come on, tell me the news, don't make me beg, you're my employee! What Wolsey intends is a friendly jostle, but what Cromwell reads into it is something darker, because of his personal history, both at the hands (literally!) of his father and poss. because of his later experiences in Italy, etc.-- hence the "Thomas, also Tomos, Tommaso and Thomaes Cromwell" -- referring to his various past identities. He believes instinctively that Wolsey means to hit him -- hence he shies away. Because blows have never been jovial in his experience, only actually violent. Hence Wolsey's comment: "I really would like the London gossip. But I wasn't planning to beat it out of you." Wolsey has seen Cromwell's instinctive fear of a violent intent.
81. p. 72 Who was Miles Revell?
Answer TK -- no idea, so I'll re-read the text and see if anything there springs to mind.
OK, have re-read. I think this is just an anecdote. Perhaps it's a name Mantel plucked from some archive or even invented to provide an anecdote. It has no meaning for the story, other than as a way for Wolsey to make Cromwell more comfortable with his instinctive gesture of fear and unease. Zero meaning/relevance to the broader story; maybe the person never existed; maybe Mantel invented an invention by Wolsey.
82. p. 72 "Would a bishop abash you... A deacon disconcert?"
What does he mean by this?
Oh, he is playing with words -- again, in an attempt to disarm Cromwell and make him comfortable once again. He is implying that it is the fact that he is a churchman that was getting physical in some way that Cromwell finds threatening. Wolsey has just explained he finds people with florid complexions make him uneasy and want to burst into tears today because of his childhood fear of Revell; he's now suggesting that Cromwell's fearful response to a well-intentioned gesture might be an extrapolation of some irrational fear of churchmen (bishops, parish clerks, deacons, are all clerics.)
89. p. 83 (of Katherine) "where she herself almost died in that year's epidemic."
Which epidemic was this?
OK, as I thought, this seems to indicate that Mantel believes that Arthur's death was sweating sickness (see my previous answer to Arthur's cause of death). Katherine was certainly very ill at this time, so it's possible, or else possible that she picked up the disease while Arthur died of something else. There was a major outbreak of the sweat in 1502, however.
If I have missed anything, let me know...
78Smiler69
Hi Suz, sorry it took me a while to get back to you. I've read over all your answers a couple of times, and it looks like you've covered everything. I'll quote larger sections where I think it'll help you situate context better while you're away on your trip, as you suggest. I'll be reading the next 20 or so pages today and will come back with my questions soon, either later in the evening or tomorrow.
79Chatterbox
I will be around later in the evening tonight, out pretty much all day tomorrow (flying to Toronto late afternoon, but have a midday meeting.)
80Smiler69
I really enjoyed today's reading session. I'm finally starting to see the pieces fitting together and not stopping at every other sentence wondering who's who or what is happening. I know the page numbers aren't helpful to you, but I'm still including them anyway if anything for my own navigation. Here are my latest questions:
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 84-116
90. p. 84"There are many precedents, the cardinal says, that can help the king in his current concerns. King Louis XII was allowed to set aside his first wife. Nearer home, his own sister Margaret, who had first married the King of Scotland, divorced her second husband and remarried. And the king's great friend Charles Brandon, who is now married to his youngest sister Mary, had an earlier alliance put aside in circumstances that hardly bear inquiry."
I did not know that there was such a thing as divorce before Henry VIII. How did those mentioned above manage to obtain dispensation?
91. p. 86 "The idea that he or anyone else might come to have Wolsey's hold over the king is about as likely as Anne Cromwell becoming Lord Mayor. But he doesn't altogether discount it. One has heard of Jeanne d'Arc; and it doesn't have to end in flames."
What is the reference to Jeanne d'Arc here? Because she was in the good graces of Charles VII? Isn't that a strange comparison to make considering she was an enemy to the English?
92. p. 87 Describing the sack of Rome: "Thomas More says that the imperial troops, for their enjoyment, are roasting live babies on spits. Oh, he would! Says Thomas Cromwell. Listen, soldiers don't do that. They're too busy carrying away everything they can turn into ready money."
Finally something that is at least remotely familiar to me. I'm not sure I should bring this up, because the source may be questionable, but I read about the sack of Rome in Sarah Dunant's In the Company of the Courtesan a number of years ago, where she described in great detail what is mentioned here; the raping and killing of women including nuns, the extensive plundering, the imprisonment of Pope Clement and I do remember her mention of roasting babies too. Has this last horrible detail been verified, or was it indeed just a rumour? By the way, if you know of other good works of fiction set during that time and place, I'd be interested to add them to the WL.
93. p. 91 "These are good days for him (i.e. Cromwell): every day a fight he can win. 'Still serving your Hebrew God, I see,' remarks Sir Thomas More. 'I mean, your idol Usury.'"
This comes after Mantel's description of Cromwell's dealings as a businessman. Wasn't usury indeed a sin for a Christian and isn't it precisely why only the Jews were seen fit to lend money in the middle ages?
94. p. 91 There's mention of Cromwell having spent a summer with Cesare Borgia, obviously from the powerful Borgia family (another topic I'd love to read more about...) which is how he ended up with an injury that still afflicts him. In what capacity would he have come to know Borgia?
95. p. 94 Here Wolsey begins to talk about England with Cromwell: "You can't know Albion, he says unless you can go back before Albion was thought of."
Another mythical personage?
He also goes on at length about Edward Plantagenet, son of the Duke of York, who came after Henry VI and seized the kingdom at the age of 18, because of a sign he received. His father and youngest brother had been slaughtered by the Lancastrian forces.
Then he describes his kingship: "Dazzled, he stumbled through his kingship as through a mist. He was entirely the creature of astrologers, of holy men and fantasists. He didn't marry as he should... One of them was a Talbot girl, Eleanor by name, and what was special about her? It was said she was descended—in the female line—from a woman who was a swan.... And why did he fasten his affection, finally, on the widow of a Lancastrian knight? Was it because, as some people thought, her cold blonde beauty raised his pulse? It was not exactly that; it was that she claimed descent from the serpent woman, Melusine, whom you may see in old parchments..."
Which Edward is this? The IVth, as you've described in #2? I can't keep them straight. And did even royalty believe in myths such as Melusine? Would he really have married her for that reason?
96. p. 96 Still talking about England's History: "By your account, my lord, our king's Plantagenet grandfather beheaded his Tudor great-grandfather.'
'A thing to know. But not to mention.'
Help me straighten this out please.
97. p. 97 "He talks about King Edward's two vanished sons, the younger of them prone to stubborn resurrections that almost threw Henry Tudor out of his kingdom."
I'm sorry, but this is where my faulty memory stumps me. I'm assuming the two sons are the ones who were killed in the tower on Richard III's orders, yes? What's this business about resurrections? Henry would be Henry VII? Did you mention this here already?
98. p. 103 Some pages back, we're taken into Cromwell's musing about the time he picked up a snake on a bet. There's a lot of talk about serpents in this entire section. Then Mercy describes Liz's quick sickness and death to Cromwell:
"At one o'clock, she called for a priest. At two, she made her confession. She said she had once picked up a snake, in Italy. The priest said it was the fever speaking."
Was she confusing Cromwell's life stories with her own? Is there a broader significance to the theme of the snake in this section?
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 84-116
90. p. 84"There are many precedents, the cardinal says, that can help the king in his current concerns. King Louis XII was allowed to set aside his first wife. Nearer home, his own sister Margaret, who had first married the King of Scotland, divorced her second husband and remarried. And the king's great friend Charles Brandon, who is now married to his youngest sister Mary, had an earlier alliance put aside in circumstances that hardly bear inquiry."
I did not know that there was such a thing as divorce before Henry VIII. How did those mentioned above manage to obtain dispensation?
91. p. 86 "The idea that he or anyone else might come to have Wolsey's hold over the king is about as likely as Anne Cromwell becoming Lord Mayor. But he doesn't altogether discount it. One has heard of Jeanne d'Arc; and it doesn't have to end in flames."
What is the reference to Jeanne d'Arc here? Because she was in the good graces of Charles VII? Isn't that a strange comparison to make considering she was an enemy to the English?
92. p. 87 Describing the sack of Rome: "Thomas More says that the imperial troops, for their enjoyment, are roasting live babies on spits. Oh, he would! Says Thomas Cromwell. Listen, soldiers don't do that. They're too busy carrying away everything they can turn into ready money."
Finally something that is at least remotely familiar to me. I'm not sure I should bring this up, because the source may be questionable, but I read about the sack of Rome in Sarah Dunant's In the Company of the Courtesan a number of years ago, where she described in great detail what is mentioned here; the raping and killing of women including nuns, the extensive plundering, the imprisonment of Pope Clement and I do remember her mention of roasting babies too. Has this last horrible detail been verified, or was it indeed just a rumour? By the way, if you know of other good works of fiction set during that time and place, I'd be interested to add them to the WL.
93. p. 91 "These are good days for him (i.e. Cromwell): every day a fight he can win. 'Still serving your Hebrew God, I see,' remarks Sir Thomas More. 'I mean, your idol Usury.'"
This comes after Mantel's description of Cromwell's dealings as a businessman. Wasn't usury indeed a sin for a Christian and isn't it precisely why only the Jews were seen fit to lend money in the middle ages?
94. p. 91 There's mention of Cromwell having spent a summer with Cesare Borgia, obviously from the powerful Borgia family (another topic I'd love to read more about...) which is how he ended up with an injury that still afflicts him. In what capacity would he have come to know Borgia?
95. p. 94 Here Wolsey begins to talk about England with Cromwell: "You can't know Albion, he says unless you can go back before Albion was thought of."
Another mythical personage?
He also goes on at length about Edward Plantagenet, son of the Duke of York, who came after Henry VI and seized the kingdom at the age of 18, because of a sign he received. His father and youngest brother had been slaughtered by the Lancastrian forces.
Then he describes his kingship: "Dazzled, he stumbled through his kingship as through a mist. He was entirely the creature of astrologers, of holy men and fantasists. He didn't marry as he should... One of them was a Talbot girl, Eleanor by name, and what was special about her? It was said she was descended—in the female line—from a woman who was a swan.... And why did he fasten his affection, finally, on the widow of a Lancastrian knight? Was it because, as some people thought, her cold blonde beauty raised his pulse? It was not exactly that; it was that she claimed descent from the serpent woman, Melusine, whom you may see in old parchments..."
Which Edward is this? The IVth, as you've described in #2? I can't keep them straight. And did even royalty believe in myths such as Melusine? Would he really have married her for that reason?
96. p. 96 Still talking about England's History: "By your account, my lord, our king's Plantagenet grandfather beheaded his Tudor great-grandfather.'
'A thing to know. But not to mention.'
Help me straighten this out please.
97. p. 97 "He talks about King Edward's two vanished sons, the younger of them prone to stubborn resurrections that almost threw Henry Tudor out of his kingdom."
I'm sorry, but this is where my faulty memory stumps me. I'm assuming the two sons are the ones who were killed in the tower on Richard III's orders, yes? What's this business about resurrections? Henry would be Henry VII? Did you mention this here already?
98. p. 103 Some pages back, we're taken into Cromwell's musing about the time he picked up a snake on a bet. There's a lot of talk about serpents in this entire section. Then Mercy describes Liz's quick sickness and death to Cromwell:
"At one o'clock, she called for a priest. At two, she made her confession. She said she had once picked up a snake, in Italy. The priest said it was the fever speaking."
Was she confusing Cromwell's life stories with her own? Is there a broader significance to the theme of the snake in this section?
81Smiler69
By the way, I just want to remind lurkers that tomorrow is Tuesday (coming up in a couple of hours actually), which is our intermission day when you are free to make any comment you like or ask questions on the sections I've already covered.
82lyzard
97. p. 97 "He talks about King Edward's two vanished sons, the younger of them prone to stubborn resurrections that almost threw Henry Tudor out of his kingdom."
I'm sorry, but this is where my faulty memory stumps me. I'm assuming the two sons are the ones who were killed in the tower on Richard III's orders, yes? What's this business about resurrections? Henry would be Henry VII? Did you mention this here already?
Whoo-hoo! A question I could answer!
Won't step on Suz's toes, though. :)
I'm sorry, but this is where my faulty memory stumps me. I'm assuming the two sons are the ones who were killed in the tower on Richard III's orders, yes? What's this business about resurrections? Henry would be Henry VII? Did you mention this here already?
Whoo-hoo! A question I could answer!
Won't step on Suz's toes, though. :)
83cyderry
It has never been determined how the princes in the tower met their end.
Some believe that they were killed by Richard III and others believe that Henry VII was to blame. For many years there were "impostors" that surfaced claiming to be either Edward VI or Richard, Duke of York. Henry VII had to eliminate their influence before he lost his hold on the throne.
Some believe that they were killed by Richard III and others believe that Henry VII was to blame. For many years there were "impostors" that surfaced claiming to be either Edward VI or Richard, Duke of York. Henry VII had to eliminate their influence before he lost his hold on the throne.
84Chatterbox
Let's tackle the princes in the tower first, since folks are chomping at the bit! Even the chronicles vary on this -- and they aren't altogether reliable, since two of the major sources were actually written later (i.e. in Tudor England). Still, it does seem clear that after the summer of 1483, the young, never crowned Edward V and his brother, Richard, duke of York, were never seen again within the precincts of the Tower. The odds are very high that they died there, and high that at least one if not both were murdered. By whom, and why? Well, everyone has their favorite candidate. Shakespeare opted for Richard III. Paul Murray Kendall, a historian of the period who has written a major bio of Richard III and a tome about daily life in the Yorkist age, favors the Duke of Buckingham. (See above for notes on his royal blood; he would rebel against Richard III, his cousin, only about a year later, and was executed; his son was executed by Henry VIII, as noted above.) If Buckingham, did he do it off his own bat -- to improve his own path to the crown or to curry favor with Richard? -- or at the behest of either Richard or Tudor's allies? On the face of it, Richard III had no reason to dispose of the boys as his act, Titulus Regius, had bastardized them. But... children as bastards is one thing, but adult bastards in good health are quite another. That was especially true after his own wife and son died. By the time he could have remarried and had a new heir, the boys would have been adults -- dangerous adults. Bastards? Sure, but depending on how Richard's reign had gone, foci for discontent. Again, someone could have done this on their own responsibility vs on Richard's orders (see Henry II and Beckett). Then there is Tudor, who had a clear motive. When he beat Richard at Bosworth, he knew he needed to marry Elizabeth, the boys' sister, to ascend the throne and consolidate his claim. But to do so, he needed to reverse the illegitimacy and repeal Titulus Regius. Which meant making the boys -- if they were still alive -- legitimate.
Could the boys -- one or both -- have been smuggled out of the Tower? That's a thesis for which there is a lot of fictional support today, and there were some conspiracy theories back then. Stubborn insurrections come in here. People unhappy with Henry tried to cast young boys as the younger prince, or some other Yorkist. (There was never an Edward V imposter.) the first rebellion against Henry was only a year after Bosworth, and led by Richard's great friend, Francis, Lord Lovell, as well as members of the Stafford family (the Buckingham clan). That was easily crushed. Then a year or so after that came the Lambert Simnel rebellion -- a young boy was presented as Edward of Clarence; the son of George of Clarence, younger brother to Edward IV, older brother to Richard III. George had been allowed to choose the method of his own death after being found guilty of treason against Edward IV; he chose to be drowned in a vat of wine. Edward had become a royal ward, but was "attainted" by his father's treason and theoretically not entitled to the throne. (He was also dim-witted.) Edward was actually in protective custody in the Tower at the time. All Henry had to do was parade him through the streets of London to prove he wasn't Edward. Simnel's revolt collapsed, and the boy ended up working in Henry's kitchens. The Perkin Warbeck case was far more serious, and some historians believe the boy may actually have had Plantagenet blood -- an illegitimate child of Edward IV? He appeared first in about 1490, and in the next few years acquired a lot of supporters -- the French, the Burgundians; the king of Scotland married him to a relative of his. But the final sally to seize the throne in 1497 failed. (you'll read references to Cromwell's memories of that period, when he refers to Cornishmen marching on London.) Perkin ended up in the Tower, ultimately; Henry seems to have tried to co-opt him, but whether that was an act or whether Perkin wouldn't let that happen is up for debate. Once in the tower, Perkin was caught apparently trying to escape and plotting with Edward of Clarence. Again, it's perfectly possible Henry set them both up -- the last thing he needed was inconvenient surplus heirs or rivals to his own dynasty, however flawed or false. So both Warwick (Edward of Clarence's title) and Perkin were executed. It was clear that Ferdinand and Isabella wanted this to happen before they would allow Catherine of Aragon to sail to England and join her betrothed husband, Arthur. It's tempting to speculate on what would have happened had the marriage been delayed and never taken place because of Arthur's death... Would Henry have married Catherine but been unable to put her aside?
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 84-116
90. p. 84"There are many precedents, the cardinal says, that can help the king in his current concerns. King Louis XII was allowed to set aside his first wife. Nearer home, his own sister Margaret, who had first married the King of Scotland, divorced her second husband and remarried. And the king's great friend Charles Brandon, who is now married to his youngest sister Mary, had an earlier alliance put aside in circumstances that hardly bear inquiry."
I did not know that there was such a thing as divorce before Henry VIII. How did those mentioned above manage to obtain dispensation?
These were annulments rather than divorces; they occurred with the blessing of the Pope, even though in most cases there was no reason other than political convenience, personal preference, etc. Louis XII's case was deeply nasty -- he claimed his first wife was deformed, that he had been forced to marry at a young age, etc. The Borgia pope, Alexander, granted the annulment. (An annulment almost always bastardizes any children, because it implies that the marriage was never legal.) The case of Brandon was also seedy. He was apparently about to be betrothed to a young woman when he decided he preferred her older (wealthier) aunt, and married the latter instead. A year later, he changed his mind and got an annulment. Then he married the girl, who gave him two daughters and died. Then he was engaged to another woman (in the days when a betrothal was tantamount to marriage) and THAT had to be annulled. Then he secretly married the king's sister. As for poor Margaret Tudor, the widowed Scottish queen, she remarried in haste and repented at leisure: husband #2 was a witless fool, cheated on her constantly and spent all her money. The pope granted a divorce -- not an annulment, or else a form of annulment that left her child by husband #2 legitimate. Her grandson in that line would be Lord Darnley; her granddaughter by her first husband was Mary, Queen of Scots. The two married; Margaret is an ancestress of the current queen, therefore.
How did you get a divorce or annulment? You had to be powerful, and usually you had to bribe the Pope and cardinals and convince them it was in some way necessary to the survival of a kingdom or noble house.
91. p. 86 "The idea that he or anyone else might come to have Wolsey's hold over the king is about as likely as Anne Cromwell becoming Lord Mayor. But he doesn't altogether discount it. One has heard of Jeanne d'Arc; and it doesn't have to end in flames."
What is the reference to Jeanne d'Arc here? Because she was in the good graces of Charles VII? Isn't that a strange comparison to make considering she was an enemy to the English?
It actually reads to me as a reference to Anne Cromwell -- the idea that a woman could be a powerful figure and leader and thus, in this analogy, might become Lord Mayor because of her talents. And if that was possible, then maybe Cromwell could become a power in Henry's court. He's using analogies to work his way back to the core idea of inheriting Wolsey's clout.
92. p. 87 Describing the sack of Rome: "Thomas More says that the imperial troops, for their enjoyment, are roasting live babies on spits. Oh, he would! Says Thomas Cromwell. Listen, soldiers don't do that. They're too busy carrying away everything they can turn into ready money."
Finally something that is at least remotely familiar to me. I'm not sure I should bring this up, because the source may be questionable, but I read about the sack of Rome in Sarah Dunant's In the Company of the Courtesan a number of years ago, where she described in great detail what is mentioned here; the raping and killing of women including nuns, the extensive plundering, the imprisonment of Pope Clement and I do remember her mention of roasting babies too. Has this last horrible detail been verified, or was it indeed just a rumour? By the way, if you know of other good works of fiction set during that time and place, I'd be interested to add them to the WL.
It's hard to tell. I haven't read any of the primary sources, and the idea of sacking the holy city was so horrific that it was exaggerated. (Think of the stories told about German soldiers in WW1 raping nuns and bayoneting babies...) But the sack was horrific. The Swiss Guards, who defend the Pope, were nearly annihilated, and nearly every major palace was completely looted, many were burned; it was sheer anarchy. Did babies die in the fires? Probably. Did this become exaggerated to become babies being roasted on spits? Probably. One note: there was a medieval tradition of sorts that if a city that was besieged didn't surrender, but was conquered, the troops had the right to sack it for 3 days. What was different about Rome was that the pope wasn't just a conquered figure, but the spiritual leader of all the combatants; and the fact that the sack didn't end after 3 days. You could look at Leo Africanus by Amin Maalouf; I think the siege is in there.
93. p. 91 "These are good days for him (i.e. Cromwell): every day a fight he can win. 'Still serving your Hebrew God, I see,' remarks Sir Thomas More. 'I mean, your idol Usury.'"
This comes after Mantel's description of Cromwell's dealings as a businessman. Wasn't usury indeed a sin for a Christian and isn't it precisely why only the Jews were seen fit to lend money in the middle ages?
By this day and age, usury had become tolerated as long as it was within bounds established by law. Still, it was frowned on by purists. But yes, you're right about the medieval era. It's why so many medieval monarchs found themselves in debt to Jewish merchants and bankers.
94. p. 91 There's mention of Cromwell having spent a summer with Cesare Borgia, obviously from the powerful Borgia family (another topic I'd love to read more about...) which is how he ended up with an injury that still afflicts him. In what capacity would he have come to know Borgia?
Probably in his career as a soldier of fortune. His father, the Pope, had decided that Cesare should have a state of his own to govern in Italy, and thus began Cesare's campaigns in Romagna. (he got some work out of Leonardo da Vinci on siege engines, if I recall correctly.) That would have been too early for Cromwell, but by the time of his death, Borgia was fighting for the king of Navarre. That was 1507. There are references in the book to Cromwell speaking Spanish, so...
95. p. 94 Here Wolsey begins to talk about England with Cromwell: "You can't know Albion, he says unless you can go back before Albion was thought of."
Another mythical personage?
A place, and not a mythical one. It's one of the earliest names given to the island that is England, Wales and Scotland today. Goes back to maybe 300/400 BC? Peter Ackroyd used it in the title of his book about the English and their culture/society.
He also goes on at length about Edward Plantagenet, son of the Duke of York, who came after Henry VI and seized the kingdom at the age of 18, because of a sign he received. His father and youngest brother had been slaughtered by the Lancastrian forces.
Then he describes his kingship: "Dazzled, he stumbled through his kingship as through a mist. He was entirely the creature of astrologers, of holy men and fantasists. He didn't marry as he should... One of them was a Talbot girl, Eleanor by name, and what was special about her? It was said she was descended—in the female line—from a woman who was a swan.... And why did he fasten his affection, finally, on the widow of a Lancastrian knight? Was it because, as some people thought, her cold blonde beauty raised his pulse? It was not exactly that; it was that she claimed descent from the serpent woman, Melusine, whom you may see in old parchments..."
Which Edward is this? The IVth, as you've described in #2? I can't keep them straight. And did even royalty believe in myths such as Melusine? Would he really have married her for that reason?
This is Edward IV, and it's an interesting view of him. He was def. a lady's man, but the night before one of his key battles (second battle of St. alban's), he claimed he saw 3 suns in the mist -- 3 suns standing for the three surviving sons of York -- himself, George and Richard. It was widely seen as a device to encourage superstitious troops. (I've started work on a novel about Eleanor Talbot, incidentally...) Basically, this is another example of people trying to explain what they don't understand -- why would Edward marry or agree to marry ordinary women like Eleanor or Elizabeth Woodville? The fact that Edward was captivated by her couldn't possibly be all... So I think Mantel is giving us a view of how those at the time saw this aberrant behavior -- the product of an enchantment of a supernatural kind. It's unlikely that Edward was this kind of person, however, based on the record. Some people may have believed in Melusine. Certainly, there were rumors about Elizabeth's mother, Jacquetta of Bedford, but contrary to what Philippa Gregory writes in her novels, it is VERY unlikely there was witchcraft, enchantment, etc., and DEFINITELY she was never found guilty of witchcraft.
96. p. 96 Still talking about England's History: "By your account, my lord, our king's Plantagenet grandfather beheaded his Tudor great-grandfather.'
'A thing to know. But not to mention.'
Help me straighten this out please.
From my note above in msg 2: At a very young age, Margaret Beaufort was married off to a young man with a taint of bastardy in his own ancestry: Edmund Tudor. The widow of Henry V had had a fling with a Welshman in her retinue, Owen Tudor, and had had three sons with him (and possibly more children) before she died. The eldest of those was Edmund, and both he and his father would die fighting for the Lancastrian cause in the Wars of the Roses. But Edmund had left Margaret pregnant, and at the age of 13, she gave birth to the boy who would become Henry VII, the first Tudor king. He was the last Lancastrian.
In this case, Owen Tudor (as I think I may have mentioned earlier), the queen's lover/husband, was captured in the fighting in the wars of the roses, and beheaded by the Yorkists. He had been fighting for his stepson, naturally enough.
97. p. 97 "He talks about King Edward's two vanished sons, the younger of them prone to stubborn resurrections that almost threw Henry Tudor out of his kingdom."
I'm sorry, but this is where my faulty memory stumps me. I'm assuming the two sons are the ones who were killed in the tower on Richard III's orders, yes? What's this business about resurrections? Henry would be Henry VII? Did you mention this here already?
See above.
98. p. 103 Some pages back, we're taken into Cromwell's musing about the time he picked up a snake on a bet. There's a lot of talk about serpents in this entire section. Then Mercy describes Liz's quick sickness and death to Cromwell:
"At one o'clock, she called for a priest. At two, she made her confession. She said she had once picked up a snake, in Italy. The priest said it was the fever speaking."
Was she confusing Cromwell's life stories with her own? Is there a broader significance to the theme of the snake in this section?
This is one of those questions that requires crawling inside the head of the author, rather than a knowledge of the time/period, and I'm bad at squeezing into skulls, so I'll just guess at this. I don't see a broader significance here, at least not in the context of Liz's death. (Cromwell picking up the snake could represent his wilingness to embrace danger.) I think it's there to illustrate the rapidity of her death, to tell us about what the sweating sickness was like for its victims, and to make us feel empathy for Cromwell, who is listening to this recitation.
To Tuesday commentators: I will try to be around, but tomorrow is a deeply scary/busy day for me, which includes flying to Toronto in late afternoon (I hope.)
Could the boys -- one or both -- have been smuggled out of the Tower? That's a thesis for which there is a lot of fictional support today, and there were some conspiracy theories back then. Stubborn insurrections come in here. People unhappy with Henry tried to cast young boys as the younger prince, or some other Yorkist. (There was never an Edward V imposter.) the first rebellion against Henry was only a year after Bosworth, and led by Richard's great friend, Francis, Lord Lovell, as well as members of the Stafford family (the Buckingham clan). That was easily crushed. Then a year or so after that came the Lambert Simnel rebellion -- a young boy was presented as Edward of Clarence; the son of George of Clarence, younger brother to Edward IV, older brother to Richard III. George had been allowed to choose the method of his own death after being found guilty of treason against Edward IV; he chose to be drowned in a vat of wine. Edward had become a royal ward, but was "attainted" by his father's treason and theoretically not entitled to the throne. (He was also dim-witted.) Edward was actually in protective custody in the Tower at the time. All Henry had to do was parade him through the streets of London to prove he wasn't Edward. Simnel's revolt collapsed, and the boy ended up working in Henry's kitchens. The Perkin Warbeck case was far more serious, and some historians believe the boy may actually have had Plantagenet blood -- an illegitimate child of Edward IV? He appeared first in about 1490, and in the next few years acquired a lot of supporters -- the French, the Burgundians; the king of Scotland married him to a relative of his. But the final sally to seize the throne in 1497 failed. (you'll read references to Cromwell's memories of that period, when he refers to Cornishmen marching on London.) Perkin ended up in the Tower, ultimately; Henry seems to have tried to co-opt him, but whether that was an act or whether Perkin wouldn't let that happen is up for debate. Once in the tower, Perkin was caught apparently trying to escape and plotting with Edward of Clarence. Again, it's perfectly possible Henry set them both up -- the last thing he needed was inconvenient surplus heirs or rivals to his own dynasty, however flawed or false. So both Warwick (Edward of Clarence's title) and Perkin were executed. It was clear that Ferdinand and Isabella wanted this to happen before they would allow Catherine of Aragon to sail to England and join her betrothed husband, Arthur. It's tempting to speculate on what would have happened had the marriage been delayed and never taken place because of Arthur's death... Would Henry have married Catherine but been unable to put her aside?
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 84-116
90. p. 84"There are many precedents, the cardinal says, that can help the king in his current concerns. King Louis XII was allowed to set aside his first wife. Nearer home, his own sister Margaret, who had first married the King of Scotland, divorced her second husband and remarried. And the king's great friend Charles Brandon, who is now married to his youngest sister Mary, had an earlier alliance put aside in circumstances that hardly bear inquiry."
I did not know that there was such a thing as divorce before Henry VIII. How did those mentioned above manage to obtain dispensation?
These were annulments rather than divorces; they occurred with the blessing of the Pope, even though in most cases there was no reason other than political convenience, personal preference, etc. Louis XII's case was deeply nasty -- he claimed his first wife was deformed, that he had been forced to marry at a young age, etc. The Borgia pope, Alexander, granted the annulment. (An annulment almost always bastardizes any children, because it implies that the marriage was never legal.) The case of Brandon was also seedy. He was apparently about to be betrothed to a young woman when he decided he preferred her older (wealthier) aunt, and married the latter instead. A year later, he changed his mind and got an annulment. Then he married the girl, who gave him two daughters and died. Then he was engaged to another woman (in the days when a betrothal was tantamount to marriage) and THAT had to be annulled. Then he secretly married the king's sister. As for poor Margaret Tudor, the widowed Scottish queen, she remarried in haste and repented at leisure: husband #2 was a witless fool, cheated on her constantly and spent all her money. The pope granted a divorce -- not an annulment, or else a form of annulment that left her child by husband #2 legitimate. Her grandson in that line would be Lord Darnley; her granddaughter by her first husband was Mary, Queen of Scots. The two married; Margaret is an ancestress of the current queen, therefore.
How did you get a divorce or annulment? You had to be powerful, and usually you had to bribe the Pope and cardinals and convince them it was in some way necessary to the survival of a kingdom or noble house.
91. p. 86 "The idea that he or anyone else might come to have Wolsey's hold over the king is about as likely as Anne Cromwell becoming Lord Mayor. But he doesn't altogether discount it. One has heard of Jeanne d'Arc; and it doesn't have to end in flames."
What is the reference to Jeanne d'Arc here? Because she was in the good graces of Charles VII? Isn't that a strange comparison to make considering she was an enemy to the English?
It actually reads to me as a reference to Anne Cromwell -- the idea that a woman could be a powerful figure and leader and thus, in this analogy, might become Lord Mayor because of her talents. And if that was possible, then maybe Cromwell could become a power in Henry's court. He's using analogies to work his way back to the core idea of inheriting Wolsey's clout.
92. p. 87 Describing the sack of Rome: "Thomas More says that the imperial troops, for their enjoyment, are roasting live babies on spits. Oh, he would! Says Thomas Cromwell. Listen, soldiers don't do that. They're too busy carrying away everything they can turn into ready money."
Finally something that is at least remotely familiar to me. I'm not sure I should bring this up, because the source may be questionable, but I read about the sack of Rome in Sarah Dunant's In the Company of the Courtesan a number of years ago, where she described in great detail what is mentioned here; the raping and killing of women including nuns, the extensive plundering, the imprisonment of Pope Clement and I do remember her mention of roasting babies too. Has this last horrible detail been verified, or was it indeed just a rumour? By the way, if you know of other good works of fiction set during that time and place, I'd be interested to add them to the WL.
It's hard to tell. I haven't read any of the primary sources, and the idea of sacking the holy city was so horrific that it was exaggerated. (Think of the stories told about German soldiers in WW1 raping nuns and bayoneting babies...) But the sack was horrific. The Swiss Guards, who defend the Pope, were nearly annihilated, and nearly every major palace was completely looted, many were burned; it was sheer anarchy. Did babies die in the fires? Probably. Did this become exaggerated to become babies being roasted on spits? Probably. One note: there was a medieval tradition of sorts that if a city that was besieged didn't surrender, but was conquered, the troops had the right to sack it for 3 days. What was different about Rome was that the pope wasn't just a conquered figure, but the spiritual leader of all the combatants; and the fact that the sack didn't end after 3 days. You could look at Leo Africanus by Amin Maalouf; I think the siege is in there.
93. p. 91 "These are good days for him (i.e. Cromwell): every day a fight he can win. 'Still serving your Hebrew God, I see,' remarks Sir Thomas More. 'I mean, your idol Usury.'"
This comes after Mantel's description of Cromwell's dealings as a businessman. Wasn't usury indeed a sin for a Christian and isn't it precisely why only the Jews were seen fit to lend money in the middle ages?
By this day and age, usury had become tolerated as long as it was within bounds established by law. Still, it was frowned on by purists. But yes, you're right about the medieval era. It's why so many medieval monarchs found themselves in debt to Jewish merchants and bankers.
94. p. 91 There's mention of Cromwell having spent a summer with Cesare Borgia, obviously from the powerful Borgia family (another topic I'd love to read more about...) which is how he ended up with an injury that still afflicts him. In what capacity would he have come to know Borgia?
Probably in his career as a soldier of fortune. His father, the Pope, had decided that Cesare should have a state of his own to govern in Italy, and thus began Cesare's campaigns in Romagna. (he got some work out of Leonardo da Vinci on siege engines, if I recall correctly.) That would have been too early for Cromwell, but by the time of his death, Borgia was fighting for the king of Navarre. That was 1507. There are references in the book to Cromwell speaking Spanish, so...
95. p. 94 Here Wolsey begins to talk about England with Cromwell: "You can't know Albion, he says unless you can go back before Albion was thought of."
Another mythical personage?
A place, and not a mythical one. It's one of the earliest names given to the island that is England, Wales and Scotland today. Goes back to maybe 300/400 BC? Peter Ackroyd used it in the title of his book about the English and their culture/society.
He also goes on at length about Edward Plantagenet, son of the Duke of York, who came after Henry VI and seized the kingdom at the age of 18, because of a sign he received. His father and youngest brother had been slaughtered by the Lancastrian forces.
Then he describes his kingship: "Dazzled, he stumbled through his kingship as through a mist. He was entirely the creature of astrologers, of holy men and fantasists. He didn't marry as he should... One of them was a Talbot girl, Eleanor by name, and what was special about her? It was said she was descended—in the female line—from a woman who was a swan.... And why did he fasten his affection, finally, on the widow of a Lancastrian knight? Was it because, as some people thought, her cold blonde beauty raised his pulse? It was not exactly that; it was that she claimed descent from the serpent woman, Melusine, whom you may see in old parchments..."
Which Edward is this? The IVth, as you've described in #2? I can't keep them straight. And did even royalty believe in myths such as Melusine? Would he really have married her for that reason?
This is Edward IV, and it's an interesting view of him. He was def. a lady's man, but the night before one of his key battles (second battle of St. alban's), he claimed he saw 3 suns in the mist -- 3 suns standing for the three surviving sons of York -- himself, George and Richard. It was widely seen as a device to encourage superstitious troops. (I've started work on a novel about Eleanor Talbot, incidentally...) Basically, this is another example of people trying to explain what they don't understand -- why would Edward marry or agree to marry ordinary women like Eleanor or Elizabeth Woodville? The fact that Edward was captivated by her couldn't possibly be all... So I think Mantel is giving us a view of how those at the time saw this aberrant behavior -- the product of an enchantment of a supernatural kind. It's unlikely that Edward was this kind of person, however, based on the record. Some people may have believed in Melusine. Certainly, there were rumors about Elizabeth's mother, Jacquetta of Bedford, but contrary to what Philippa Gregory writes in her novels, it is VERY unlikely there was witchcraft, enchantment, etc., and DEFINITELY she was never found guilty of witchcraft.
96. p. 96 Still talking about England's History: "By your account, my lord, our king's Plantagenet grandfather beheaded his Tudor great-grandfather.'
'A thing to know. But not to mention.'
Help me straighten this out please.
From my note above in msg 2: At a very young age, Margaret Beaufort was married off to a young man with a taint of bastardy in his own ancestry: Edmund Tudor. The widow of Henry V had had a fling with a Welshman in her retinue, Owen Tudor, and had had three sons with him (and possibly more children) before she died. The eldest of those was Edmund, and both he and his father would die fighting for the Lancastrian cause in the Wars of the Roses. But Edmund had left Margaret pregnant, and at the age of 13, she gave birth to the boy who would become Henry VII, the first Tudor king. He was the last Lancastrian.
In this case, Owen Tudor (as I think I may have mentioned earlier), the queen's lover/husband, was captured in the fighting in the wars of the roses, and beheaded by the Yorkists. He had been fighting for his stepson, naturally enough.
97. p. 97 "He talks about King Edward's two vanished sons, the younger of them prone to stubborn resurrections that almost threw Henry Tudor out of his kingdom."
I'm sorry, but this is where my faulty memory stumps me. I'm assuming the two sons are the ones who were killed in the tower on Richard III's orders, yes? What's this business about resurrections? Henry would be Henry VII? Did you mention this here already?
See above.
98. p. 103 Some pages back, we're taken into Cromwell's musing about the time he picked up a snake on a bet. There's a lot of talk about serpents in this entire section. Then Mercy describes Liz's quick sickness and death to Cromwell:
"At one o'clock, she called for a priest. At two, she made her confession. She said she had once picked up a snake, in Italy. The priest said it was the fever speaking."
Was she confusing Cromwell's life stories with her own? Is there a broader significance to the theme of the snake in this section?
This is one of those questions that requires crawling inside the head of the author, rather than a knowledge of the time/period, and I'm bad at squeezing into skulls, so I'll just guess at this. I don't see a broader significance here, at least not in the context of Liz's death. (Cromwell picking up the snake could represent his wilingness to embrace danger.) I think it's there to illustrate the rapidity of her death, to tell us about what the sweating sickness was like for its victims, and to make us feel empathy for Cromwell, who is listening to this recitation.
To Tuesday commentators: I will try to be around, but tomorrow is a deeply scary/busy day for me, which includes flying to Toronto in late afternoon (I hope.)
85PaulCranswick
Thoroughly enjoyable treatise on the Princes in the Tower debate. Of course it is sheer conjecture but you are right that on the face of it Richard had no motive and the removal of eventual grown rivals is less convincing given the death of his own heir. Hard to think that Henry Tudor would have wielded sufficient influence at the time to have taken out the boys although it is likely that they may have fallen foul of Lancastrian sympathisers, but even this is implausible given that the focus of enmity would have been Richard. If it was a scottish court I guess Richard would be found "not proven".
86cyderry
I think that most people are inclined toward the story of Richard III killing his nephews because of Shakespeare, no matter whether there was a plausible reason for that action or not. But we have to remember that Shakespeare was writing for a Tudor Queen and it wouldn't look good if Grandpa was a murderer.
Me, personally, I say Henry VII did it.
Me, personally, I say Henry VII did it.
87Chatterbox
There actually was a modern day trial of Richard III back in the 1980s; think it was televised and there is certainly a book about it. the Trial of Richard III. Shall I tell you all the verdict?? :-)
88Smiler69
Hm. I guess there weren't any takers Suz! I'm curious to know, but I don't feel I'd appreciate the answer as much as someone who is really steeped in that whole period and this particular mystery.
Haven't gotten ahead at all in the past couple of days, but will make time for it tomorrow, which is a rest day. I'll probably post my questions later on in the day.
Haven't gotten ahead at all in the past couple of days, but will make time for it tomorrow, which is a rest day. I'll probably post my questions later on in the day.
89Chatterbox
No probs. Am out again tonight, but will get to them when I can. Not really much Internet access over the weekend, however...
91Chatterbox
They found him "not guilty"! (There was no Scottish option of "not proven")
ETA: Internet access at this friend's place turns out better than expected. Still, my time is a bit tricky. But I'm braced for the next round!!
ETA: Internet access at this friend's place turns out better than expected. Still, my time is a bit tricky. But I'm braced for the next round!!
92Smiler69
I finally made some headway on the book. I was finding with the beginning of the novel that I couldn't read a whole sentence without stopping to wonder what was being discussed, and taking all these notes was really interrupting the flow and getting to be a lot of work. But I think I'm starting to settle into a bit more of a comfort zone now and being able to concentrate on story and characters more, which is a welcome transition.
Suz, I know you said that you won't have internet access over the weekend, but that's fine. I'll still post my questions now to get them out of the way, but it's not like I'm hanging on your answers to continue forging ahead at this point, so get back to me whenever is most convenient, no rush.
I did forget to ask a question in the last round:
99. On page 113, Mantel is describing Cromwell's childhood, when he often went to Lambeth Palace to make himself useful in the kitchens. Then it says:
"Each dinner time the household officers formed up in procession in the passages off the kitchens, and they carried in the tablecloths and the Principal Salt." What is this?
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 116-142
100. p. 116 "1527. When the cardinal comes back from France, he immediately begins ordering up banquets. French ambassadors are expected, to set the seal on his concordat." What is this?
101. p. 119 Describing Wolsey's time in France, she recounts how thieves were a constant threat:
"Every thief in France seemed to converge on his baggage train; at Compiègne, though he mounted a day-and-night guard on his gold plate, a little boy was found to be going up and down the back stairs, passing out the dishes to some great robber who had trained him up.
'What happened? Did you catch him?'
'The great robber was put in the pillory. The boy ran away. Then one night, some villain sneaked into my chamber and carved a device by the window...' And next morning, a shaft of early sun, creeping through the mist and rain, had picked out a gallows, from which dangled a cardinal's hat."
What is his gold plate? What exactly happened there? What kind of "device" is she talking about?
102. There's a long passage where Cromwell is approached by Mary Boleyn, whom he saw running and showing some of her green stocking. She then tells him about the king's infatuation for her sister Anne, of the letters he writes to her. Her affair with the king is suggested at, they discuss her recently deceased husband and he suggests she should ask Wolsey for the kind of husband she'd like to have next to keep the tongues from wagging.
I understand from what transpires that Mary knew she was pregnant and was manipulating him during this exchange, but I couldn't help thinking that this exchange in question seemed highly unlikely to have happened, considering that Cromwell had still not been introduced to the king and was still a relatively minor figure at court (or so I believe). And never mind that, but it seems to me the whole tenor of the conversation is highly inappropriate considering their standing, the fact that they are strangers to one another having never been introduced to one another, and the time period. Comments?
Suz, I know you said that you won't have internet access over the weekend, but that's fine. I'll still post my questions now to get them out of the way, but it's not like I'm hanging on your answers to continue forging ahead at this point, so get back to me whenever is most convenient, no rush.
I did forget to ask a question in the last round:
99. On page 113, Mantel is describing Cromwell's childhood, when he often went to Lambeth Palace to make himself useful in the kitchens. Then it says:
"Each dinner time the household officers formed up in procession in the passages off the kitchens, and they carried in the tablecloths and the Principal Salt." What is this?
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 116-142
100. p. 116 "1527. When the cardinal comes back from France, he immediately begins ordering up banquets. French ambassadors are expected, to set the seal on his concordat." What is this?
101. p. 119 Describing Wolsey's time in France, she recounts how thieves were a constant threat:
"Every thief in France seemed to converge on his baggage train; at Compiègne, though he mounted a day-and-night guard on his gold plate, a little boy was found to be going up and down the back stairs, passing out the dishes to some great robber who had trained him up.
'What happened? Did you catch him?'
'The great robber was put in the pillory. The boy ran away. Then one night, some villain sneaked into my chamber and carved a device by the window...' And next morning, a shaft of early sun, creeping through the mist and rain, had picked out a gallows, from which dangled a cardinal's hat."
What is his gold plate? What exactly happened there? What kind of "device" is she talking about?
102. There's a long passage where Cromwell is approached by Mary Boleyn, whom he saw running and showing some of her green stocking. She then tells him about the king's infatuation for her sister Anne, of the letters he writes to her. Her affair with the king is suggested at, they discuss her recently deceased husband and he suggests she should ask Wolsey for the kind of husband she'd like to have next to keep the tongues from wagging.
I understand from what transpires that Mary knew she was pregnant and was manipulating him during this exchange, but I couldn't help thinking that this exchange in question seemed highly unlikely to have happened, considering that Cromwell had still not been introduced to the king and was still a relatively minor figure at court (or so I believe). And never mind that, but it seems to me the whole tenor of the conversation is highly inappropriate considering their standing, the fact that they are strangers to one another having never been introduced to one another, and the time period. Comments?
93Chatterbox
The principal salt is a giant salt cellar -- one of those ornate carved thingummies, in which salt was literally stored for use to flavor food. Someone sitting "above the salt" had a high status in the household; "below the salt" meant that you were a minion of some kind. So at every meal the big salt cellar -- the Principal Salt -- would be carried in. Salt was often rather expensive (tho not as much so as pepper or some of the exotic spices) and so being invited to take salt from the cellar was a sign of honor. I remember my grandparents still had little salt cellars with tiny spoons rather than salt shakers -- that was seen as something you kept for the kitchen.
More later. Have to go meet my mother.
More later. Have to go meet my mother.
94Chatterbox
100. p. 116 "1527. When the cardinal comes back from France, he immediately begins ordering up banquets. French ambassadors are expected, to set the seal on his concordat." What is this?
A concordat is simply a fancy word for a high level diplomatic agreement. When Hitler and the Pope reached an agreement regarding recognition for Nazi Germany in exchange for recognition of the Catholic church, it was a concordat. I think the word is generally used to refer to agreements between the Vatican and sovereign states, but I've heard it applied to other diplo-pacts. In this case, the use of the word might be linked to Wolsey's status as a cardinal.
101. p. 119 Describing Wolsey's time in France, she recounts how thieves were a constant threat:
"Every thief in France seemed to converge on his baggage train; at Compiègne, though he mounted a day-and-night guard on his gold plate, a little boy was found to be going up and down the back stairs, passing out the dishes to some great robber who had trained him up.
'What happened? Did you catch him?'
'The great robber was put in the pillory. The boy ran away. Then one night, some villain sneaked into my chamber and carved a device by the window...' And next morning, a shaft of early sun, creeping through the mist and rain, had picked out a gallows, from which dangled a cardinal's hat."
What is his gold plate? What exactly happened there? What kind of "device" is she talking about?
Gold plate would be the salvers on which food was served; ewers containing wine and water, and increasingly in this era, plates (which replaced thick slices of bread that served as "trenchers" or de facto plates). Essentially, a little boy snuck through all his precautions and smuggled the gold objects out to his boss/owner, etc. When the boss was caught (and stuck in the pillory, a gizmo in which your head and arms were held fixed in a kind of wooden vise, so that people could pelt you with rotten vegetables), the assumption -- unspoken -- is that the boy crept back into vandalize the woodwork in the cardinal's room. A "device" in the sense of this is some kind of symbol by which the person is recognize -- it's a heraldic term. For instance, as I think I mentioned earlier, the sun in splendour was Edward IV's "device"; the white boar was Richard III's and the Tudor Rose -- the white inside the red rose -- was that of the Tudor dynasty. Katherine of Aragon's was the pomegranate. It's distinct from the arms (the coat of arms), and is a simpler quicker way for someone to recognize whose entourage an individual belonged to. The badge or device would be sewn on retainers' garments. In this case, it's "a device", rather than Wolsey's device, and essentially, the message that was being sent was that Wolsey (represented by the cardinal's hat) deserved to be hung (hence, the gallows).
102. There's a long passage where Cromwell is approached by Mary Boleyn, whom he saw running and showing some of her green stocking. She then tells him about the king's infatuation for her sister Anne, of the letters he writes to her. Her affair with the king is suggested at, they discuss her recently deceased husband and he suggests she should ask Wolsey for the kind of husband she'd like to have next to keep the tongues from wagging.
I understand from what transpires that Mary knew she was pregnant and was manipulating him during this exchange, but I couldn't help thinking that this exchange in question seemed highly unlikely to have happened, considering that Cromwell had still not been introduced to the king and was still a relatively minor figure at court (or so I believe). And never mind that, but it seems to me the whole tenor of the conversation is highly inappropriate considering their standing, the fact that they are strangers to one another having never been introduced to one another, and the time period. Comments?
At this point, Cromwell is a rising member of Wolsey's entourage, and Wolsey is still the single most powerful man in the kingdom. Mantel portrays Mary as an opportunist (and a bit of a good-time girl); it would have been OK for her to speak to him as he was her social inferior, but clearly not in the way she does. Still, Mary is observant, and sees Cromwell as a potential player in this great game; she has an ambivalent relationship with Anne and her other family members, and she seems to be trying to establish some kind of relationship with Cromwell in case he becomes powerful -- or perhaps even in case she can help him become powerful, so that in turn he can help her achieve greater independence from the Howards/Boleyns who rule her life. Having been a king's mistress, she is able to break some of the rules; being the kind of woman Mantel portrays her as, she is willing to break those rules, and being seen as a flibbertigibbet enables her to break them with fewer consequences. Cromwell is clearly a recognizable figure by now at court, too, even if the King hasn't turned to him officially.
A concordat is simply a fancy word for a high level diplomatic agreement. When Hitler and the Pope reached an agreement regarding recognition for Nazi Germany in exchange for recognition of the Catholic church, it was a concordat. I think the word is generally used to refer to agreements between the Vatican and sovereign states, but I've heard it applied to other diplo-pacts. In this case, the use of the word might be linked to Wolsey's status as a cardinal.
101. p. 119 Describing Wolsey's time in France, she recounts how thieves were a constant threat:
"Every thief in France seemed to converge on his baggage train; at Compiègne, though he mounted a day-and-night guard on his gold plate, a little boy was found to be going up and down the back stairs, passing out the dishes to some great robber who had trained him up.
'What happened? Did you catch him?'
'The great robber was put in the pillory. The boy ran away. Then one night, some villain sneaked into my chamber and carved a device by the window...' And next morning, a shaft of early sun, creeping through the mist and rain, had picked out a gallows, from which dangled a cardinal's hat."
What is his gold plate? What exactly happened there? What kind of "device" is she talking about?
Gold plate would be the salvers on which food was served; ewers containing wine and water, and increasingly in this era, plates (which replaced thick slices of bread that served as "trenchers" or de facto plates). Essentially, a little boy snuck through all his precautions and smuggled the gold objects out to his boss/owner, etc. When the boss was caught (and stuck in the pillory, a gizmo in which your head and arms were held fixed in a kind of wooden vise, so that people could pelt you with rotten vegetables), the assumption -- unspoken -- is that the boy crept back into vandalize the woodwork in the cardinal's room. A "device" in the sense of this is some kind of symbol by which the person is recognize -- it's a heraldic term. For instance, as I think I mentioned earlier, the sun in splendour was Edward IV's "device"; the white boar was Richard III's and the Tudor Rose -- the white inside the red rose -- was that of the Tudor dynasty. Katherine of Aragon's was the pomegranate. It's distinct from the arms (the coat of arms), and is a simpler quicker way for someone to recognize whose entourage an individual belonged to. The badge or device would be sewn on retainers' garments. In this case, it's "a device", rather than Wolsey's device, and essentially, the message that was being sent was that Wolsey (represented by the cardinal's hat) deserved to be hung (hence, the gallows).
102. There's a long passage where Cromwell is approached by Mary Boleyn, whom he saw running and showing some of her green stocking. She then tells him about the king's infatuation for her sister Anne, of the letters he writes to her. Her affair with the king is suggested at, they discuss her recently deceased husband and he suggests she should ask Wolsey for the kind of husband she'd like to have next to keep the tongues from wagging.
I understand from what transpires that Mary knew she was pregnant and was manipulating him during this exchange, but I couldn't help thinking that this exchange in question seemed highly unlikely to have happened, considering that Cromwell had still not been introduced to the king and was still a relatively minor figure at court (or so I believe). And never mind that, but it seems to me the whole tenor of the conversation is highly inappropriate considering their standing, the fact that they are strangers to one another having never been introduced to one another, and the time period. Comments?
At this point, Cromwell is a rising member of Wolsey's entourage, and Wolsey is still the single most powerful man in the kingdom. Mantel portrays Mary as an opportunist (and a bit of a good-time girl); it would have been OK for her to speak to him as he was her social inferior, but clearly not in the way she does. Still, Mary is observant, and sees Cromwell as a potential player in this great game; she has an ambivalent relationship with Anne and her other family members, and she seems to be trying to establish some kind of relationship with Cromwell in case he becomes powerful -- or perhaps even in case she can help him become powerful, so that in turn he can help her achieve greater independence from the Howards/Boleyns who rule her life. Having been a king's mistress, she is able to break some of the rules; being the kind of woman Mantel portrays her as, she is willing to break those rules, and being seen as a flibbertigibbet enables her to break them with fewer consequences. Cromwell is clearly a recognizable figure by now at court, too, even if the King hasn't turned to him officially.
95Smiler69
Wonderful! Great timing too as I was just having my end of day visit through a few threads. It's been a busy day with no opportunities for reading, but tomorrow should allow me to post more questions.
I just learned a new word here: "flibbertigibbet". Very amusing. Though I have no idea how to pronounce it, which doesn't really matter as I can't really see myself ever placing it in spoken conversation without seeming like I'm trying too hard!
I just learned a new word here: "flibbertigibbet". Very amusing. Though I have no idea how to pronounce it, which doesn't really matter as I can't really see myself ever placing it in spoken conversation without seeming like I'm trying too hard!
96Chatterbox
In case you ever feel tempted -- flih-burr-tih-jib-it. Although you will probably feel like a refugee from the 1920s...
97ChelleBearss
HI Suz and Ilana
Just wanted to say thanks for doing this thread! I'm a chapter behind Ilana and I'm finding this thread to be very helpful!
Just wanted to say thanks for doing this thread! I'm a chapter behind Ilana and I'm finding this thread to be very helpful!
98Smiler69
#96 Suz, on which syllable is the emphasis then? I don't mind seeming like a throwback, but I don't want to sound all wrong when I do!
#97 Glad it's helping you out Chelle. I just got a bit further ahead tonight, so here's the next round coming up now!
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 142-153
103. p. 149"On the last day of July, Cardinal Campeggio adjourns the legatine court. It is, he says , the Roman holidays. News comes that the Duke of Suffolk, the king's great friend, has hammered the table before Wolsey, and threatened him to his face. They all know the court will never sit again. They all know the cardinal has failed.
I'm not sure I understand what the cardinal's failing is. And why was the court proceeding not taken up again?
III
Make or Mar
pages 154-158
104. p. 157 George Cavendish has just approached Cromwell as the latter was crying over the loss of his wife and children. He's given him an accountancy problem to solve: how to pay the servants. Then Cromwell says he must go make a place in Parliament, essentially to save Wolsey from losing his head.
"He says, 'I can only try. I'll make or mar, before I see you again.'
George almost bows. 'Make or mar,' he murmurs. 'It was ever your common saying.'
What does it mean?
PART THREE
I
Three-Card Trick
Winter 1529-Spring 1530
pages 161-174
105. p. 163 Cromwell has been summoned to meet the duke of Norfolk who begins by saying:
"'Cromwell, I am content you are a burgess in the Parliament.'"
Then he mentions the Commons. What does the above expression mean, and please explain to me what the Commons were? I can never seem to keep it straight.
106. p. 164 Cromwell has just told the duke he was fighting with the French army. The duke asks him how he got out of that mess:
"'I went north. Got into...' He's going to say money, but the duke wouldn't understand trading in money. 'Cloth,' he says. 'Silk, mostly. You know what the market is, with the soldiers over there.'
'By the Mass, yes! Johnnie Freelance—he puts his money on his back. Those Switzers!'" etc.
Several things I don't understand here. Why would the duke not understand trading in money but cloth and silk yes? "Johnnie Freelance" I take it is not an actual individual—was this moniker used specifically to describe soldiers of fortune? And did soldiers really wear silk to go into battle??
107. p. 165 "The king's advisers are preparing no fewer than forty-four charges against the cardinal. They range from (etc) — to buying beef for his household at the same price as the king."
Please explain this and why it was a violation?
108. p. 170 There are a couple of pages describing how Cromwell and his wife used to prepare for New Years Eve by thinking of costumes for the Three Kings. What is that celebration?
109. p. 172 Cromwell has just finished writing a letter and it says he must "sand and seal" it. What is the sand part? I've seen it somewhere before I think...
110. p. 174 He's been talking to his son Gregory, who asks him what the Cornhill maypole was. He answers that they took it down the year of the riots, on Evil May Day. What riots is he referring to and what was Evil May Day?
#97 Glad it's helping you out Chelle. I just got a bit further ahead tonight, so here's the next round coming up now!
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 142-153
103. p. 149"On the last day of July, Cardinal Campeggio adjourns the legatine court. It is, he says , the Roman holidays. News comes that the Duke of Suffolk, the king's great friend, has hammered the table before Wolsey, and threatened him to his face. They all know the court will never sit again. They all know the cardinal has failed.
I'm not sure I understand what the cardinal's failing is. And why was the court proceeding not taken up again?
III
Make or Mar
pages 154-158
104. p. 157 George Cavendish has just approached Cromwell as the latter was crying over the loss of his wife and children. He's given him an accountancy problem to solve: how to pay the servants. Then Cromwell says he must go make a place in Parliament, essentially to save Wolsey from losing his head.
"He says, 'I can only try. I'll make or mar, before I see you again.'
George almost bows. 'Make or mar,' he murmurs. 'It was ever your common saying.'
What does it mean?
PART THREE
I
Three-Card Trick
Winter 1529-Spring 1530
pages 161-174
105. p. 163 Cromwell has been summoned to meet the duke of Norfolk who begins by saying:
"'Cromwell, I am content you are a burgess in the Parliament.'"
Then he mentions the Commons. What does the above expression mean, and please explain to me what the Commons were? I can never seem to keep it straight.
106. p. 164 Cromwell has just told the duke he was fighting with the French army. The duke asks him how he got out of that mess:
"'I went north. Got into...' He's going to say money, but the duke wouldn't understand trading in money. 'Cloth,' he says. 'Silk, mostly. You know what the market is, with the soldiers over there.'
'By the Mass, yes! Johnnie Freelance—he puts his money on his back. Those Switzers!'" etc.
Several things I don't understand here. Why would the duke not understand trading in money but cloth and silk yes? "Johnnie Freelance" I take it is not an actual individual—was this moniker used specifically to describe soldiers of fortune? And did soldiers really wear silk to go into battle??
107. p. 165 "The king's advisers are preparing no fewer than forty-four charges against the cardinal. They range from (etc) — to buying beef for his household at the same price as the king."
Please explain this and why it was a violation?
108. p. 170 There are a couple of pages describing how Cromwell and his wife used to prepare for New Years Eve by thinking of costumes for the Three Kings. What is that celebration?
109. p. 172 Cromwell has just finished writing a letter and it says he must "sand and seal" it. What is the sand part? I've seen it somewhere before I think...
110. p. 174 He's been talking to his son Gregory, who asks him what the Cornhill maypole was. He answers that they took it down the year of the riots, on Evil May Day. What riots is he referring to and what was Evil May Day?
99EBT1002
Sneaking in to say thanks to you both. I've been reading the very first posts in the thread -- getting the background -- in preparation for starting the book tonight. Ilana, like you, the complicated family tree, etc., can make my head metaphorically hurt. Even if you finish the novel way ahead of me, I am glad to have this thread to reference for my own benefit as I snail my way along.
Suzanne, thanks for sharing your "history geek" knowledge and passion. :-)
Suzanne, thanks for sharing your "history geek" knowledge and passion. :-)
100Chatterbox
Glad that the factoids that have lodged themselves in odd crannies of my brain are of help!!
Herewith, some more:
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 142-153
103. p. 149"On the last day of July, Cardinal Campeggio adjourns the legatine court. It is, he says , the Roman holidays. News comes that the Duke of Suffolk, the king's great friend, has hammered the table before Wolsey, and threatened him to his face. They all know the court will never sit again. They all know the cardinal has failed.
I'm not sure I understand what the cardinal's failing is. And why was the court proceeding not taken up again?
The Cardinal has failed to get the king his divorce. It was his idea that a papal legate (Campeggio; who was entrusted with the power to hear the divorce case by the pope) would come to England; the assumption was that Campeggio would render the verdict that the king wanted. Instead, Campeggio shows that he isn't influenced by Wolsey (that Wolsey's power doesn't extend as far as the king had wanted it to). He has punted the whole issue to Rome, in the wake of the queen's appeal of her case to Rome and her claim that no one in England can judge her case fairly. Once the queen had done that and Campeggio had adjourned the court, it was clear that this last-ditch effort had failed and that when Campeggio left the country, he wouldn't be back. The decision went back to Rome.
III
Make or Mar
pages 154-158
104. p. 157 George Cavendish has just approached Cromwell as the latter was crying over the loss of his wife and children. He's given him an accountancy problem to solve: how to pay the servants. Then Cromwell says he must go make a place in Parliament, essentially to save Wolsey from losing his head.
"He says, 'I can only try. I'll make or mar, before I see you again.'
George almost bows. 'Make or mar,' he murmurs. 'It was ever your common saying.'
What does it mean?
Simply that Cromwell had a reputation for action -- for better or for worse. "to make" as in the sense to make something turn out well, or "to mar", to harm or damage something. Again, this is simply my reading of the text, but Cavendish seems to me to be suggesting that Cromwell is not the kind of guy to sit around and agonize; he'd rather act, and try to find solutions to problems, even if he ends up making a misstep. There's a possibility Cavendish is suggesting that Cromwell also can be a bull in a China shop.
PART THREE
I
Three-Card Trick
Winter 1529-Spring 1530
pages 161-174
105. p. 163 Cromwell has been summoned to meet the duke of Norfolk who begins by saying:
"'Cromwell, I am content you are a burgess in the Parliament.'"
Then he mentions the Commons. What does the above expression mean, and please explain to me what the Commons were? I can never seem to keep it straight.
In this context, it simply means the elected representative of a borough -- in other words an MP in the Commons. Think of the Canadian house of commons - it's exactly the same thing. Parliamentary democracy today is very similar, although the elected body has infinitely greater powers today than it did then, obviously. Canada got its bicameral (two body/two rooms) legislature from England, with the Canadian version of the House of Lords being the Senate. When Norfolk refers to the Commons, he is referring to the House of Commons. If you go all the way back to about 1300, a reform at that time enabled each borough to send not only knights but also "burgesses" to represent them in Parliament (if you need lots more on this, I'd just suggest googling Runnymede and King John for the origins; it's vastly complex and long). About 40 or 50 years later, the parliament was split in two, with the nobility forming the House of Lords (along with the clergy) and the rest of the folks in the Commons. Cromwell, as a burgess, would have been among the lower ranking members. Still, over the generations, the Commons had begun throwing their weight around -- as early as Richard II's reign, the king was forced to dismiss ministers by the Commons, who conducted what was essentially a kind of coup d'etat. By the mid 17th century, kings avoided calling Parliament except when they desperately needed tax revenue for wars, etc. When Charles I tried to impose taxes from above, but then still had to call Parliament for more money for war in Ireland, that prompted the Civil War. Tremendous simplification...
As for what Norfolk means, my reading of it is that he is being patronizing, saying it's OK with him that Cromwell hold this role. Implicit (IMO) is that he is suggesting Cromwell not aspire to a higher rank.
106. p. 164 Cromwell has just told the duke he was fighting with the French army. The duke asks him how he got out of that mess:
"'I went north. Got into...' He's going to say money, but the duke wouldn't understand trading in money. 'Cloth,' he says. 'Silk, mostly. You know what the market is, with the soldiers over there.'
'By the Mass, yes! Johnnie Freelance—he puts his money on his back. Those Switzers!'" etc.
Several things I don't understand here. Why would the duke not understand trading in money but cloth and silk yes? "Johnnie Freelance" I take it is not an actual individual—was this moniker used specifically to describe soldiers of fortune? And did soldiers really wear silk to go into battle??
I think Cromwell is suggesting that the duke wouldn't understand the intricacies of finance. (probably no different today!) Money and interest rates and the associated complexities are abstractions to noblemen, especially during an era in which wealth was tied to land, and earls and dukes had men of business to manage all the nasty details. Cloth, however, was something they understood -- something tangible that they wore on their backs. A nobleman might not know the price per yard of what he wore (and throughout the book, you'll see Cromwell constantly gauging the value of what someone is wearing) but he'd know quality. I think the phrase "Johnnie Freelance" is Mantel's own, but yes, your guess at the meaning is correct. "Freelance" is centuries earlier than the phrase was used (It was coined by Sir Walter Scott, although it was in the context of the medieval age), thus an anachronism. Mantel here is playing on a certain kind of Englishman, the bluff stay-at-home, England is best, Eton and Army kind of guy, who might call someone from another country "Johnnie Foreigner". (Very much a first half of 20th century phrase, though you might still have found some older folks from a certain class using it into the 70s.) I don't think soldiers necc. wore silk into battle, but what Mantel is referring to here is what happened after the death of Charles the Bold of Burgundy in battle (if you remember, he was married to Edward IV's sister, and his death put Burgundy into Spanish hands, ultimately.) His nobles wore silk into battle, they were slaughtered by the Swiss (Mantel's Switzers), who tore the silk off the bodies and used it to liven up their own costumes. This is what started the fashion for slashed sleeves through which brightly-colored puffs of silk were visible and emerged. I'm not sure whether the origins were the Swiss mercenaries simply trying to repair the damage to their own clothing, or whether they just thought it looked good! But in any event, they started a trend. Men and women alike would wear doublets or gowns of a dark colored material, but that had slashes in patterns up and down the arms or elsewhere, enabling little bits of a brightly colored undergarment to emerge.
107. p. 165 "The king's advisers are preparing no fewer than forty-four charges against the cardinal. They range from (etc) — to buying beef for his household at the same price as the king."
Please explain this and why it was a violation?
I have absolutely no idea and have no idea how to find out, without finding & digging up statutes of the realm in this era, not doable from here. I'm assuming the King was trying to throw everything at Wolsey in hopes something would stick. I wouldn't worry much about it -- it's used as an example of how ridiculous Cromwell felt the charges were. I'm sure in practice many many people bought beef more cheaply than the king, but I suppose there was some ancient statute that stipulated the king should always get the best price. It may also imply (since the cardinal managed the king's household) that he got better terms for himself than he negotiated for the king, but without being able to peruse the original statutes and the actual charges, there's no way to tell. Perhaps someone else can weigh on this, but you prob. need a legal historian or other specialist scholar.
108. p. 170 There are a couple of pages describing how Cromwell and his wife used to prepare for New Years Eve by thinking of costumes for the Three Kings. What is that celebration?
Genny could add some more here, but this refers to Epiphany (also known as Twelfth Night). It's the 12th night of the Nativity/Christmas celebration, and in many traditional Christian churches, marks the end of the season. (In some Hispanic cultures, I think it goes on to Candlemas, which is Feb 2.) The date marks the day the three wise men -- the Magi -- showed up in Bethlehem to honor Jesus; in this era, the three wise men were, of course, kings, ergo, costumes for the Three Kings. There would be dress up pageants in homes and in the streets sometimes.
109. p. 172 Cromwell has just finished writing a letter and it says he must "sand and seal" it. What is the sand part? I've seen it somewhere before I think...
Way up until the 19th century, I think, someone who had a lot of correspondence would keep a shaker containing sand on their desk. When they finished writing, they would sprinkle the sand on the ink so that it would soak up any excess and prevent blotting. They would then remove the sand from the paper and it would be ready to fold up and seal without risk that the ink would run and become illegible. Blotting paper removed the need for this; I remember using it as a child in the early 70s. Of course, today, we don't use pens dipped in ink or with ink cartridges to write -- the ink dries very rapidly.
110. p. 174 He's been talking to his son Gregory, who asks him what the Cornhill maypole was. He answers that they took it down the year of the riots, on Evil May Day. What riots is he referring to and what was Evil May Day?
This took place in the early years of Henry's reign. There was a riot against foreigners triggered by a sermon of some kind preached on behalf of someone whose business was being hit by the influx of foreign merchants. Tremendous amount of looting and mayhem, but no one was killed. That is, except those deemed the worst troublemakers. It led to one of the scenes that Henry delighted in (and that testify to his affection for Katherine in their early years together), when the remaining culprits were brought before the court, with halters around their necks (i.e. the ropes with which they would be hung) and first the nobles pleaded for mercy; Henry granted only when Katherine begged him to spare their lives. It was a tremendous set piece; had the king not intended to pardon them, it would never have taken place, but it allowed him to look publicly merciful, without being weak (because he acceded to pleas for mercy from his wife.) Their offense would have been against the peace of the realm, thus a form of treason.
OK, now off to write about the Greek elections...
Herewith, some more:
PART TWO
II
An Occult History of Britain
1521 - 1529
pages 142-153
103. p. 149"On the last day of July, Cardinal Campeggio adjourns the legatine court. It is, he says , the Roman holidays. News comes that the Duke of Suffolk, the king's great friend, has hammered the table before Wolsey, and threatened him to his face. They all know the court will never sit again. They all know the cardinal has failed.
I'm not sure I understand what the cardinal's failing is. And why was the court proceeding not taken up again?
The Cardinal has failed to get the king his divorce. It was his idea that a papal legate (Campeggio; who was entrusted with the power to hear the divorce case by the pope) would come to England; the assumption was that Campeggio would render the verdict that the king wanted. Instead, Campeggio shows that he isn't influenced by Wolsey (that Wolsey's power doesn't extend as far as the king had wanted it to). He has punted the whole issue to Rome, in the wake of the queen's appeal of her case to Rome and her claim that no one in England can judge her case fairly. Once the queen had done that and Campeggio had adjourned the court, it was clear that this last-ditch effort had failed and that when Campeggio left the country, he wouldn't be back. The decision went back to Rome.
III
Make or Mar
pages 154-158
104. p. 157 George Cavendish has just approached Cromwell as the latter was crying over the loss of his wife and children. He's given him an accountancy problem to solve: how to pay the servants. Then Cromwell says he must go make a place in Parliament, essentially to save Wolsey from losing his head.
"He says, 'I can only try. I'll make or mar, before I see you again.'
George almost bows. 'Make or mar,' he murmurs. 'It was ever your common saying.'
What does it mean?
Simply that Cromwell had a reputation for action -- for better or for worse. "to make" as in the sense to make something turn out well, or "to mar", to harm or damage something. Again, this is simply my reading of the text, but Cavendish seems to me to be suggesting that Cromwell is not the kind of guy to sit around and agonize; he'd rather act, and try to find solutions to problems, even if he ends up making a misstep. There's a possibility Cavendish is suggesting that Cromwell also can be a bull in a China shop.
PART THREE
I
Three-Card Trick
Winter 1529-Spring 1530
pages 161-174
105. p. 163 Cromwell has been summoned to meet the duke of Norfolk who begins by saying:
"'Cromwell, I am content you are a burgess in the Parliament.'"
Then he mentions the Commons. What does the above expression mean, and please explain to me what the Commons were? I can never seem to keep it straight.
In this context, it simply means the elected representative of a borough -- in other words an MP in the Commons. Think of the Canadian house of commons - it's exactly the same thing. Parliamentary democracy today is very similar, although the elected body has infinitely greater powers today than it did then, obviously. Canada got its bicameral (two body/two rooms) legislature from England, with the Canadian version of the House of Lords being the Senate. When Norfolk refers to the Commons, he is referring to the House of Commons. If you go all the way back to about 1300, a reform at that time enabled each borough to send not only knights but also "burgesses" to represent them in Parliament (if you need lots more on this, I'd just suggest googling Runnymede and King John for the origins; it's vastly complex and long). About 40 or 50 years later, the parliament was split in two, with the nobility forming the House of Lords (along with the clergy) and the rest of the folks in the Commons. Cromwell, as a burgess, would have been among the lower ranking members. Still, over the generations, the Commons had begun throwing their weight around -- as early as Richard II's reign, the king was forced to dismiss ministers by the Commons, who conducted what was essentially a kind of coup d'etat. By the mid 17th century, kings avoided calling Parliament except when they desperately needed tax revenue for wars, etc. When Charles I tried to impose taxes from above, but then still had to call Parliament for more money for war in Ireland, that prompted the Civil War. Tremendous simplification...
As for what Norfolk means, my reading of it is that he is being patronizing, saying it's OK with him that Cromwell hold this role. Implicit (IMO) is that he is suggesting Cromwell not aspire to a higher rank.
106. p. 164 Cromwell has just told the duke he was fighting with the French army. The duke asks him how he got out of that mess:
"'I went north. Got into...' He's going to say money, but the duke wouldn't understand trading in money. 'Cloth,' he says. 'Silk, mostly. You know what the market is, with the soldiers over there.'
'By the Mass, yes! Johnnie Freelance—he puts his money on his back. Those Switzers!'" etc.
Several things I don't understand here. Why would the duke not understand trading in money but cloth and silk yes? "Johnnie Freelance" I take it is not an actual individual—was this moniker used specifically to describe soldiers of fortune? And did soldiers really wear silk to go into battle??
I think Cromwell is suggesting that the duke wouldn't understand the intricacies of finance. (probably no different today!) Money and interest rates and the associated complexities are abstractions to noblemen, especially during an era in which wealth was tied to land, and earls and dukes had men of business to manage all the nasty details. Cloth, however, was something they understood -- something tangible that they wore on their backs. A nobleman might not know the price per yard of what he wore (and throughout the book, you'll see Cromwell constantly gauging the value of what someone is wearing) but he'd know quality. I think the phrase "Johnnie Freelance" is Mantel's own, but yes, your guess at the meaning is correct. "Freelance" is centuries earlier than the phrase was used (It was coined by Sir Walter Scott, although it was in the context of the medieval age), thus an anachronism. Mantel here is playing on a certain kind of Englishman, the bluff stay-at-home, England is best, Eton and Army kind of guy, who might call someone from another country "Johnnie Foreigner". (Very much a first half of 20th century phrase, though you might still have found some older folks from a certain class using it into the 70s.) I don't think soldiers necc. wore silk into battle, but what Mantel is referring to here is what happened after the death of Charles the Bold of Burgundy in battle (if you remember, he was married to Edward IV's sister, and his death put Burgundy into Spanish hands, ultimately.) His nobles wore silk into battle, they were slaughtered by the Swiss (Mantel's Switzers), who tore the silk off the bodies and used it to liven up their own costumes. This is what started the fashion for slashed sleeves through which brightly-colored puffs of silk were visible and emerged. I'm not sure whether the origins were the Swiss mercenaries simply trying to repair the damage to their own clothing, or whether they just thought it looked good! But in any event, they started a trend. Men and women alike would wear doublets or gowns of a dark colored material, but that had slashes in patterns up and down the arms or elsewhere, enabling little bits of a brightly colored undergarment to emerge.
107. p. 165 "The king's advisers are preparing no fewer than forty-four charges against the cardinal. They range from (etc) — to buying beef for his household at the same price as the king."
Please explain this and why it was a violation?
I have absolutely no idea and have no idea how to find out, without finding & digging up statutes of the realm in this era, not doable from here. I'm assuming the King was trying to throw everything at Wolsey in hopes something would stick. I wouldn't worry much about it -- it's used as an example of how ridiculous Cromwell felt the charges were. I'm sure in practice many many people bought beef more cheaply than the king, but I suppose there was some ancient statute that stipulated the king should always get the best price. It may also imply (since the cardinal managed the king's household) that he got better terms for himself than he negotiated for the king, but without being able to peruse the original statutes and the actual charges, there's no way to tell. Perhaps someone else can weigh on this, but you prob. need a legal historian or other specialist scholar.
108. p. 170 There are a couple of pages describing how Cromwell and his wife used to prepare for New Years Eve by thinking of costumes for the Three Kings. What is that celebration?
Genny could add some more here, but this refers to Epiphany (also known as Twelfth Night). It's the 12th night of the Nativity/Christmas celebration, and in many traditional Christian churches, marks the end of the season. (In some Hispanic cultures, I think it goes on to Candlemas, which is Feb 2.) The date marks the day the three wise men -- the Magi -- showed up in Bethlehem to honor Jesus; in this era, the three wise men were, of course, kings, ergo, costumes for the Three Kings. There would be dress up pageants in homes and in the streets sometimes.
109. p. 172 Cromwell has just finished writing a letter and it says he must "sand and seal" it. What is the sand part? I've seen it somewhere before I think...
Way up until the 19th century, I think, someone who had a lot of correspondence would keep a shaker containing sand on their desk. When they finished writing, they would sprinkle the sand on the ink so that it would soak up any excess and prevent blotting. They would then remove the sand from the paper and it would be ready to fold up and seal without risk that the ink would run and become illegible. Blotting paper removed the need for this; I remember using it as a child in the early 70s. Of course, today, we don't use pens dipped in ink or with ink cartridges to write -- the ink dries very rapidly.
110. p. 174 He's been talking to his son Gregory, who asks him what the Cornhill maypole was. He answers that they took it down the year of the riots, on Evil May Day. What riots is he referring to and what was Evil May Day?
This took place in the early years of Henry's reign. There was a riot against foreigners triggered by a sermon of some kind preached on behalf of someone whose business was being hit by the influx of foreign merchants. Tremendous amount of looting and mayhem, but no one was killed. That is, except those deemed the worst troublemakers. It led to one of the scenes that Henry delighted in (and that testify to his affection for Katherine in their early years together), when the remaining culprits were brought before the court, with halters around their necks (i.e. the ropes with which they would be hung) and first the nobles pleaded for mercy; Henry granted only when Katherine begged him to spare their lives. It was a tremendous set piece; had the king not intended to pardon them, it would never have taken place, but it allowed him to look publicly merciful, without being weak (because he acceded to pleas for mercy from his wife.) Their offense would have been against the peace of the realm, thus a form of treason.
OK, now off to write about the Greek elections...
101Chatterbox
A reminder: Tuesday is "intermission day", during which lurkers are welcome to join in the debate with questions, comments, or simply to put me in the pillory myself! The only rule? No spoilers....
102AlaMich
I recently discovered your thread and have been lurking and enjoying it (and Wolf Hall) a great deal. A question not precisely book-related: is there a trick that nobody ever shared with me to keep all the Edwards, Richards, Henrys, etc. straight? I am hopeless at it, no matter how many books I read or documentaries I watch.
103CDVicarage
I'm really enjoying this thread as well as the book. I'm British and studied this period for History A-level (though more than 30 years ago, admittedly) and I used to be a voracious reader of historical novels, so I know the historical details quite well, but Ilana's questions, and Suzanne's answers, are still raising interesting points for me - things I didn't know that I didn't know and points of view that I hadn't taken.
You (we) are going on to the next one, and the next, aren't you?
You (we) are going on to the next one, and the next, aren't you?
104Smiler69
#102 is there a trick that nobody ever shared with me to keep all the Edwards, Richards, Henrys, etc. straight? I am hopeless at it, no matter how many books I read or documentaries I watch.>
Agreed, I'd like to know too. They certainly weren't thinking of us down the ages when they kept using the same names!
#103 I guess being Canadian and relatively new to British history (or ANY history, as it used to be a subject I had no interest in, though I can't imagine why now!) I'm bound to ask questions that someone like you, who has been thoroughly schooled in it wouldn't think to bring up. With every subject I think I know something about, when someone new to the topic asks questions I'm always thrown off a bit. We tend to take our knowledge for granted sometimes, don't we?
Meanwhile, I've pushed ahead and finished chapter I from part three. Would you believe it?—NO questions at all! Only one comment: that I was glad to see there was an explanation for why he had thrown the medal his sister had given him into the water. I'm finding that many of the questions I ask are often addressed as I read further along, though clearly not in as much detail as Suzanne can provide. Will start on chapter II today, so may have questions to post later.
Agreed, I'd like to know too. They certainly weren't thinking of us down the ages when they kept using the same names!
#103 I guess being Canadian and relatively new to British history (or ANY history, as it used to be a subject I had no interest in, though I can't imagine why now!) I'm bound to ask questions that someone like you, who has been thoroughly schooled in it wouldn't think to bring up. With every subject I think I know something about, when someone new to the topic asks questions I'm always thrown off a bit. We tend to take our knowledge for granted sometimes, don't we?
Meanwhile, I've pushed ahead and finished chapter I from part three. Would you believe it?—NO questions at all! Only one comment: that I was glad to see there was an explanation for why he had thrown the medal his sister had given him into the water. I'm finding that many of the questions I ask are often addressed as I read further along, though clearly not in as much detail as Suzanne can provide. Will start on chapter II today, so may have questions to post later.
105Chatterbox
In airport lounge, so dashing this answer off...
There used to be a fun little rhyme: "Willy, Willy, Harry, Steve; Harry, Dick, John, Harry 3;" etc etc. that was a memory device of sorts. It doesn't help with the I, II, III, IV, bits, but if you really want to memorize this, I'll try and regurgitate it...!
One thing to ponder is that the Henrys were Plantagenet and Tudor; the Edwards went through a lull for several hundred years (1483 to 1901, to be precise), there were two Norman Williams, a Dutch William and a William of German descent (Queen Victoria's uncle). But sadly, no real "trick" to make it simpler.... You can think of Henry IV, V and VI being the 3 Lancasters and subjects of Shakespeare plays; of Edwards I, II and III being grandfather, father and son; of Edward II and Richard II both being deposed and probably murdered. Of there not being a Charles or a James until the Stuarts take the throne, etc. Of Stephen and John being solo monarchs of that name in part because monarchs avoided giving the name to a child in case it jinxed the kid (both were considered bad kings, albeit for different reasons.) For roughly the same reason, firstborn sons aren't named Richard, post Richard III. The Georges are all Hanoverian -- there weren't any until the 18th century, then we had four in a row.
OK, must scramble to get on plane & fly home to NYC...
There used to be a fun little rhyme: "Willy, Willy, Harry, Steve; Harry, Dick, John, Harry 3;" etc etc. that was a memory device of sorts. It doesn't help with the I, II, III, IV, bits, but if you really want to memorize this, I'll try and regurgitate it...!
One thing to ponder is that the Henrys were Plantagenet and Tudor; the Edwards went through a lull for several hundred years (1483 to 1901, to be precise), there were two Norman Williams, a Dutch William and a William of German descent (Queen Victoria's uncle). But sadly, no real "trick" to make it simpler.... You can think of Henry IV, V and VI being the 3 Lancasters and subjects of Shakespeare plays; of Edwards I, II and III being grandfather, father and son; of Edward II and Richard II both being deposed and probably murdered. Of there not being a Charles or a James until the Stuarts take the throne, etc. Of Stephen and John being solo monarchs of that name in part because monarchs avoided giving the name to a child in case it jinxed the kid (both were considered bad kings, albeit for different reasons.) For roughly the same reason, firstborn sons aren't named Richard, post Richard III. The Georges are all Hanoverian -- there weren't any until the 18th century, then we had four in a row.
OK, must scramble to get on plane & fly home to NYC...
106AlaMich
The rhyme does sound fun! My knowledge of mnemonic rhymes begins and ends with "divorced, beheaded...etc."
I actually do have a question from Part III, Chapter 1...at the end, when Cromwell is leaving Bonvisi's home and he is thinking "...the whole purpose of the evening has been to warn him: to warn him off." Does he believe he's being warned not to continue working for Wolsey?
I actually do have a question from Part III, Chapter 1...at the end, when Cromwell is leaving Bonvisi's home and he is thinking "...the whole purpose of the evening has been to warn him: to warn him off." Does he believe he's being warned not to continue working for Wolsey?
107The_Hibernator
>104 Smiler69: history...used to be a subject I had no interest in, though I can't imagine why now!
I hated history when I was in school, but I am very interested in it now. I think it's because the history texts in schools are sooooooo boring. They're just filled with facts about the basic ideas, they don't hold the passion and intrigue of real history. The idea is to pump a general set of facts into the brains of children, and then emphasize that it's MUCH more important to study math and science than the stupid old "arts" anyway. At least, that's the impression I got from my American school.
About the medal...when I got to that point in the book I thought about how you'd asked that question and I laughed. :)
I hated history when I was in school, but I am very interested in it now. I think it's because the history texts in schools are sooooooo boring. They're just filled with facts about the basic ideas, they don't hold the passion and intrigue of real history. The idea is to pump a general set of facts into the brains of children, and then emphasize that it's MUCH more important to study math and science than the stupid old "arts" anyway. At least, that's the impression I got from my American school.
About the medal...when I got to that point in the book I thought about how you'd asked that question and I laughed. :)
108Smiler69
#106 That's definitely the impression I got, that they were warning him to drop Wolsey.
#107 Yes, it was just dry facts and dates to memorize, most of them being related to wars beginning and ending, something I had absolutely no interest in as a child. But later on, when I took an art history course, it suddenly started making history exciting to me when seen through the prism of specific artworks and movements and how they were influenced by their times.
#107 Yes, it was just dry facts and dates to memorize, most of them being related to wars beginning and ending, something I had absolutely no interest in as a child. But later on, when I took an art history course, it suddenly started making history exciting to me when seen through the prism of specific artworks and movements and how they were influenced by their times.
109Chatterbox
He is basically being warned "you will be a man without a master" and told "the king is an inconstant lover". I think he's actually being warned about something broader: that his career up to this point has been because of his allegiance to Wolsey, and that Wolsey is falling out of favor. On the one hand, he needs to find a new star to which to hitch his wagon; on the other hand, the options are unpalatable (refer to the section where Cromwell is imagining a hypothetical dinner, with places set for dukes and Anne Boleyn and the Pope and Tyndale -- people who are anathema to each other. So my reading of this would be that it's a multiple warning -- to caution him that Wolsey is doomed, and to be careful of which allegiance he takes up next.
I was lucky; for some reason I always was aware that history was real people. I think it started as early as the Canadian Centennial of 1967, when I was very young; then a year or so later, we moved to London, and the places we visited were all old, had all been occupied by real people. I also had a teacher who gave me historical fiction (Jean Plaidy etc) to read, and encouraged me, and a good history teacher. But I think that history is like art -- you need the structure of dates and places and names at first, and then when you have it in the back of your mind, you get to ignore it. It's like learning grammar -- eventually, speaking/writing more or less properly becomes instinctive, and you're not always wondering whether what you are writing is a clause or whether that word is a gerund. You have internalized the rules, and they are part of you. So, if someone mentions the date 1400 to me (at least with respect to European history!) I can tell you pretty much what kinds of things were happening. That means I can make sense of the context; I don't need to worry about the details but can draw on what I do know to form opinions or thoughts about stuff. So, if I read about the Spanish government circa 1600, I know that at this time Spain was wealthy thanks to its silver and gem mines in South America; it also was embroiled in religious wars and trying to maintain its dominance of sea routes. So if I stumble over something that's about an English pirate in that era, those facts are immediately to hand, and shed light on what kinds of stuff an English pirate MIGHT be dealing with.
I was lucky; for some reason I always was aware that history was real people. I think it started as early as the Canadian Centennial of 1967, when I was very young; then a year or so later, we moved to London, and the places we visited were all old, had all been occupied by real people. I also had a teacher who gave me historical fiction (Jean Plaidy etc) to read, and encouraged me, and a good history teacher. But I think that history is like art -- you need the structure of dates and places and names at first, and then when you have it in the back of your mind, you get to ignore it. It's like learning grammar -- eventually, speaking/writing more or less properly becomes instinctive, and you're not always wondering whether what you are writing is a clause or whether that word is a gerund. You have internalized the rules, and they are part of you. So, if someone mentions the date 1400 to me (at least with respect to European history!) I can tell you pretty much what kinds of things were happening. That means I can make sense of the context; I don't need to worry about the details but can draw on what I do know to form opinions or thoughts about stuff. So, if I read about the Spanish government circa 1600, I know that at this time Spain was wealthy thanks to its silver and gem mines in South America; it also was embroiled in religious wars and trying to maintain its dominance of sea routes. So if I stumble over something that's about an English pirate in that era, those facts are immediately to hand, and shed light on what kinds of stuff an English pirate MIGHT be dealing with.
110CDVicarage
What a good analogy, Suzanne!
112Chatterbox
Thanks... I confess I'm addicted to analogies. They are so helpful...
113Smiler69
I have a very hard time with trying to retain facts, dates, names, all those useful things that help put information together. Added to that, terrible memory. For that matter, I skipped around between continents so missed some instruction and never properly learned grammar in any of the three languages I studied in. I wasn't lucky enough to have great history teachers. Mostly, they made it sound incredibly boring, although I did live in Israel, where every single inch of land has countless layers of history and stories built in, and I was very much aware and awed by that as a child. But seeing the big picture is often difficult for me because I stumble so much over the details. The more I delve into history though, the more the pieces are starting to come together. Slowly, very slowly. We don't all have super brains like you do Suz, though if we did the human race would likely be much better off! :-)
I'm keeling over from fatigue and the incredible heatwave over here. But I've read some more and have a handful of questions which I'll try to post as quickly as possible. Consequently, apologies in advance for all the typos!
PART THREE
II
Entirely Beloved Cromwell
Spring—December 1530
pages 198-220
111. p. 198 The chapter begins with: "He arrives early at York Place. The baited gulls, penned in their keeping yards, are crying out to their free brothers..."
What were the gulls kept for?
112. p. 199 "Eight anterooms: in the last, where the cardinal should be, he finds Anne Boleyn. Look, there are Solomon and Sheba, unrolled agin, back on the wall. There is a draught; Sheba eddies towards him, rosy, round and he acknowledges her: Anselma, lady made of wool, I thought I'd never see you again."
Who is Anselma? Another name for Sheba?
113. p. 200 "Her father (Anne Boleyn's) is abroad, on diplomatic business; so is her brother George, now Lord Rochford; so is Thomas Wyatt, the poet whom she tortures."
He's been mentioned before, and once on this thread, but help me figure out who he is again? And why a reference to her torturing him?
114. p. 206 "He (Cromwell) is above riding across the country, carrying food himself; but not that much above it. It's not so many years since the Frescobaldi kitchen in Florence..."
what is this referring to?
115. p. 219 Henry and Cromwell are talking about the monasteries and how they've kept a skewed account of history, in favour of Rome. Henry says, 'Dogholes, then?'
What is he referring to?
115. p. 220 A bit further on in the same passage, Cromwell says to the king:
"'There is more tax to be raised when trade is good. And if taxes are resisted. there may be other ways.'
Henry nods. 'Very well. Begin with the colleges. Sit down with my lawyers.'"
What is Henry talking about?
I'm keeling over from fatigue and the incredible heatwave over here. But I've read some more and have a handful of questions which I'll try to post as quickly as possible. Consequently, apologies in advance for all the typos!
PART THREE
II
Entirely Beloved Cromwell
Spring—December 1530
pages 198-220
111. p. 198 The chapter begins with: "He arrives early at York Place. The baited gulls, penned in their keeping yards, are crying out to their free brothers..."
What were the gulls kept for?
112. p. 199 "Eight anterooms: in the last, where the cardinal should be, he finds Anne Boleyn. Look, there are Solomon and Sheba, unrolled agin, back on the wall. There is a draught; Sheba eddies towards him, rosy, round and he acknowledges her: Anselma, lady made of wool, I thought I'd never see you again."
Who is Anselma? Another name for Sheba?
113. p. 200 "Her father (Anne Boleyn's) is abroad, on diplomatic business; so is her brother George, now Lord Rochford; so is Thomas Wyatt, the poet whom she tortures."
He's been mentioned before, and once on this thread, but help me figure out who he is again? And why a reference to her torturing him?
114. p. 206 "He (Cromwell) is above riding across the country, carrying food himself; but not that much above it. It's not so many years since the Frescobaldi kitchen in Florence..."
what is this referring to?
115. p. 219 Henry and Cromwell are talking about the monasteries and how they've kept a skewed account of history, in favour of Rome. Henry says, 'Dogholes, then?'
What is he referring to?
115. p. 220 A bit further on in the same passage, Cromwell says to the king:
"'There is more tax to be raised when trade is good. And if taxes are resisted. there may be other ways.'
Henry nods. 'Very well. Begin with the colleges. Sit down with my lawyers.'"
What is Henry talking about?
114Chatterbox
Hi,
Heatwave v. bad here, too -- temps over 100 with humidex reading for two days. Nearly fainted on the sidewalk this afternoon; still not sure how I made it home.
111. p. 198 The chapter begins with: "He arrives early at York Place. The baited gulls, penned in their keeping yards, are crying out to their free brothers..."
What were the gulls kept for?
No idea. They could have been caught to use to train hawks and other birds of prey for the noblemen who indulged in hawking (one of Henry's fave sports). That seems likely.
112. p. 199 "Eight anterooms: in the last, where the cardinal should be, he finds Anne Boleyn. Look, there are Solomon and Sheba, unrolled agin, back on the wall. There is a draught; Sheba eddies towards him, rosy, round and he acknowledges her: Anselma, lady made of wool, I thought I'd never see you again."
Who is Anselma? Another name for Sheba?
Anselma is Cromwell's former lover in Flanders, who modeled for the artist who created the "cartoon" for the tapestry. There are references to her scattered throughout the book -- she probably is not a historical character. A sentence later, Mantel writes "He had sent word back to Antwerp, applied discreetly for news; Anselma was married, Stephen Vaughan said, and to a younger man, a banker. So if he drowns or anything, he said, let me know."
113. p. 200 "Her father (Anne Boleyn's) is abroad, on diplomatic business; so is her brother George, now Lord Rochford; so is Thomas Wyatt, the poet whom she tortures."
He's been mentioned before, and once on this thread, but help me figure out who he is again? And why a reference to her torturing him?
Thomas Wyatt is the son of a neighbor of the Boleyn's in Kent. (If you go to Hever today, Anne's home, it's a short hop to also visit Penshurst Place, the former Wyatt house.) He was a noted poet, known to be a ladies' man, dashing & debonair. Henry envied him in some ways -- not least because Wyatt had known Anne before Henry did. The reference to torture is that Wyatt clearly adored Anne and made no secret of his passion for her -- he wrote a famous poem that ends with him essentially abandoning any claim to her affections: "Graven in diamonds with letters plain, There is written her fair neck round about, Noli me tangere, Caesar's, I am". (A curious side note: his son would lead a revolt against Mary Tudor/Mary I, and as a result of that Elizabeth, Anne's daughter, ended up in the Tower, suspected of treason. She came v. close to being beheaded, although she probably wasn't active in that plot.)
114. p. 206 "He (Cromwell) is above riding across the country, carrying food himself; but not that much above it. It's not so many years since the Frescobaldi kitchen in Florence..."
what is this referring to?
It's referring to his time spent in a noble merchant household doing menial tasks, probably after his time as a soldier of fortune. Just a few sentences later, there's a moment when he thinks back to what Mantel probably invents as a critical juncture to his life, when he is summoned into his Italian master's office and begins to earn his keep in a more "white collar" role.
115. p. 219 Henry and Cromwell are talking about the monasteries and how they've kept a skewed account of history, in favour of Rome. Henry says, 'Dogholes, then?'
What is he referring to?
He is suggesting that the monasteries are fit places for only dogs to live -- referring to Cromwell's view of the monks' real characters vs the public perception, and their utility in the realm.
115. p. 220 A bit further on in the same passage, Cromwell says to the king:
"'There is more tax to be raised when trade is good. And if taxes are resisted. there may be other ways.'
Henry nods. 'Very well. Begin with the colleges. Sit down with my lawyers.'"
What is Henry talking about?
Reading between the lines, he is suggesting that Henry take steps to ensure that trade is good -- and in that way, his revenues will rise. "there may be other ways" -- I take that in two ways, firstly as a sign that Cromwell already is intent on finding ways to extract wealth from the monasteries for the king as he has already done for Wolsey's college and other foundations; secondly, I'd read it as an indirect reference to the tactics of Empson and Dudley (referred to a few sentences later), the v. unpopular folks who had raised funds via extortion from noblemen and rich merchants for Henry VII; Henry VIII had them executed on his accession, in large part to curry favor with his new subjects. When Henry says "begin with the colleges", I read this as a reference to the church wealth redirected to the colleges by Wolsey that Henry has made it clear he wants access to; talking to his lawyers will help Cromwell come up with a legal pretext for this.
Hope this is helpful!!
I dunno that my brain is any bigger or smarter than anyone else's; it just works in a particular way. I also tend not to let details distract me from the bigger picture -- the name of a servant, etc. But that's just my brain. Hardly a model for anyone else!
Heatwave v. bad here, too -- temps over 100 with humidex reading for two days. Nearly fainted on the sidewalk this afternoon; still not sure how I made it home.
111. p. 198 The chapter begins with: "He arrives early at York Place. The baited gulls, penned in their keeping yards, are crying out to their free brothers..."
What were the gulls kept for?
No idea. They could have been caught to use to train hawks and other birds of prey for the noblemen who indulged in hawking (one of Henry's fave sports). That seems likely.
112. p. 199 "Eight anterooms: in the last, where the cardinal should be, he finds Anne Boleyn. Look, there are Solomon and Sheba, unrolled agin, back on the wall. There is a draught; Sheba eddies towards him, rosy, round and he acknowledges her: Anselma, lady made of wool, I thought I'd never see you again."
Who is Anselma? Another name for Sheba?
Anselma is Cromwell's former lover in Flanders, who modeled for the artist who created the "cartoon" for the tapestry. There are references to her scattered throughout the book -- she probably is not a historical character. A sentence later, Mantel writes "He had sent word back to Antwerp, applied discreetly for news; Anselma was married, Stephen Vaughan said, and to a younger man, a banker. So if he drowns or anything, he said, let me know."
113. p. 200 "Her father (Anne Boleyn's) is abroad, on diplomatic business; so is her brother George, now Lord Rochford; so is Thomas Wyatt, the poet whom she tortures."
He's been mentioned before, and once on this thread, but help me figure out who he is again? And why a reference to her torturing him?
Thomas Wyatt is the son of a neighbor of the Boleyn's in Kent. (If you go to Hever today, Anne's home, it's a short hop to also visit Penshurst Place, the former Wyatt house.) He was a noted poet, known to be a ladies' man, dashing & debonair. Henry envied him in some ways -- not least because Wyatt had known Anne before Henry did. The reference to torture is that Wyatt clearly adored Anne and made no secret of his passion for her -- he wrote a famous poem that ends with him essentially abandoning any claim to her affections: "Graven in diamonds with letters plain, There is written her fair neck round about, Noli me tangere, Caesar's, I am". (A curious side note: his son would lead a revolt against Mary Tudor/Mary I, and as a result of that Elizabeth, Anne's daughter, ended up in the Tower, suspected of treason. She came v. close to being beheaded, although she probably wasn't active in that plot.)
114. p. 206 "He (Cromwell) is above riding across the country, carrying food himself; but not that much above it. It's not so many years since the Frescobaldi kitchen in Florence..."
what is this referring to?
It's referring to his time spent in a noble merchant household doing menial tasks, probably after his time as a soldier of fortune. Just a few sentences later, there's a moment when he thinks back to what Mantel probably invents as a critical juncture to his life, when he is summoned into his Italian master's office and begins to earn his keep in a more "white collar" role.
115. p. 219 Henry and Cromwell are talking about the monasteries and how they've kept a skewed account of history, in favour of Rome. Henry says, 'Dogholes, then?'
What is he referring to?
He is suggesting that the monasteries are fit places for only dogs to live -- referring to Cromwell's view of the monks' real characters vs the public perception, and their utility in the realm.
115. p. 220 A bit further on in the same passage, Cromwell says to the king:
"'There is more tax to be raised when trade is good. And if taxes are resisted. there may be other ways.'
Henry nods. 'Very well. Begin with the colleges. Sit down with my lawyers.'"
What is Henry talking about?
Reading between the lines, he is suggesting that Henry take steps to ensure that trade is good -- and in that way, his revenues will rise. "there may be other ways" -- I take that in two ways, firstly as a sign that Cromwell already is intent on finding ways to extract wealth from the monasteries for the king as he has already done for Wolsey's college and other foundations; secondly, I'd read it as an indirect reference to the tactics of Empson and Dudley (referred to a few sentences later), the v. unpopular folks who had raised funds via extortion from noblemen and rich merchants for Henry VII; Henry VIII had them executed on his accession, in large part to curry favor with his new subjects. When Henry says "begin with the colleges", I read this as a reference to the church wealth redirected to the colleges by Wolsey that Henry has made it clear he wants access to; talking to his lawyers will help Cromwell come up with a legal pretext for this.
Hope this is helpful!!
I dunno that my brain is any bigger or smarter than anyone else's; it just works in a particular way. I also tend not to let details distract me from the bigger picture -- the name of a servant, etc. But that's just my brain. Hardly a model for anyone else!
115Smiler69
Thanks for all that Suz. The heat here is driving me insane. Though lack of hunger is a great weight management tool. It might be a couple of days before I come back as didn't have time to read more today, and probably won't tomorrow either with a planned outing taking up the better part of my day. Though I'm enjoying the book more and more and look forward to, well, MORE! :-)
116Chatterbox
Have fun on your day out! It's still warm here, but doesn't feel as oppressive (though I confess I haven't been outdoors yet...)
117Smiler69
Well, the weather has been good these past couple of days as it's cooled down, but I didn't go anywhere as I've been suffering with migraine all bloody weekend. I wish the thunderstorm they've been predicting would just make it's appearance already to lighten to atmosphere a bit. Grrr. I did manage to do a bit of reading though, so will post a few questions before doing some more.
PART THREE
II
Entirely Beloved Cromwell
Spring—December 1530
pages 220-241
116. p. 221 Gregory is reading Le Morte D'Arthur and looking at the image on the cover, there's a man on a horse behind which a woman rides "pillion". What does that mean?
117. p. 222 The king asks Cromwell to send a message to Wolsey about a case he oversaw, a Breton merchant who's ship was seized with a cargo of powdered pearls for ballast and some "unicorn's horns" (lol—did people actually believe in unicorns and did the merchants knowingly fleece those who did?) the merchant is complaining about not having received compensation (why was the ship seized to begin with?). Cromwell says:
"'If the sums are in doubt, or indeed the whole case, may I look after it?'
The king hesitates. 'I'm not sure you have a locus standi in the matter.'"
What does that expression mean?
118. When Cromwell visits More's house, there is a fool there. This particular fool may just be a simpleton, it's not clear. But not for the first time, I wonder again what the purpose of fools were? Ok, for amusement, but what would someone as refined as Wolsey do with one? On p. 227 it say "normally you take in a fool to protect him" what kind of fool are they talking about here?
119. p. 235 Stephen Gardiner and our man are discussing the goings on with More's family members as they make their way back together on a barge.
Stephen says: "'Aren't you looking forward to the wife Alice (More) will find you? She is warm in your praises.'
He fells afraid. It is like Mark, the lute player: people imagining what they cannot know. He is sure he and Johane have been secret."
Did I miss something? Have he and Johane been having an affair? I remember it crossing him mind earlier on, something about taking her up as a wife next if her husband passes or something...
120. p. 239 Johane complains of her daughter's poor sewing, as she's devised "an awkward little backstitch which you would be hard-pushed to imitate. She gets the job of sewing up his dispatches for the north."
I thought they sealed their letters with wax? Did they actually sew them up as well?
121. On the same page it says "On 2 October the cardinal reaches his palace at Cawood, ten miles from York. His enthronement is planned for 7 November."
What's this about an enthronement? Isn't he disgraced?
PART THREE
II
Entirely Beloved Cromwell
Spring—December 1530
pages 220-241
116. p. 221 Gregory is reading Le Morte D'Arthur and looking at the image on the cover, there's a man on a horse behind which a woman rides "pillion". What does that mean?
117. p. 222 The king asks Cromwell to send a message to Wolsey about a case he oversaw, a Breton merchant who's ship was seized with a cargo of powdered pearls for ballast and some "unicorn's horns" (lol—did people actually believe in unicorns and did the merchants knowingly fleece those who did?) the merchant is complaining about not having received compensation (why was the ship seized to begin with?). Cromwell says:
"'If the sums are in doubt, or indeed the whole case, may I look after it?'
The king hesitates. 'I'm not sure you have a locus standi in the matter.'"
What does that expression mean?
118. When Cromwell visits More's house, there is a fool there. This particular fool may just be a simpleton, it's not clear. But not for the first time, I wonder again what the purpose of fools were? Ok, for amusement, but what would someone as refined as Wolsey do with one? On p. 227 it say "normally you take in a fool to protect him" what kind of fool are they talking about here?
119. p. 235 Stephen Gardiner and our man are discussing the goings on with More's family members as they make their way back together on a barge.
Stephen says: "'Aren't you looking forward to the wife Alice (More) will find you? She is warm in your praises.'
He fells afraid. It is like Mark, the lute player: people imagining what they cannot know. He is sure he and Johane have been secret."
Did I miss something? Have he and Johane been having an affair? I remember it crossing him mind earlier on, something about taking her up as a wife next if her husband passes or something...
120. p. 239 Johane complains of her daughter's poor sewing, as she's devised "an awkward little backstitch which you would be hard-pushed to imitate. She gets the job of sewing up his dispatches for the north."
I thought they sealed their letters with wax? Did they actually sew them up as well?
121. On the same page it says "On 2 October the cardinal reaches his palace at Cawood, ten miles from York. His enthronement is planned for 7 November."
What's this about an enthronement? Isn't he disgraced?
118Chatterbox
Hi Ilana,
We'll see if I can answer these off the bat; I may have to take some time later in the day to circle back with more info.
116. p. 221 Gregory is reading Le Morte D'Arthur and looking at the image on the cover, there's a man on a horse behind which a woman rides "pillion". What does that mean?
Off and on, esp. before the development of the side-saddle, it was considered not always respectable for women to ride. Riding pillion was the solution. Think of a kid carrying another kid on the crossbar of his bicycle -- that's roughly what happened. Usually, the pillion passenger sat behind the rider on a special kind of platform seat, facing sideways, with a little ledge for the feet. Women could travel pillion or they could ride in a litter (a kind of bed on posts that could be carried or drawn by horses) and then later there were very rudimentary carriages. Early sidesaddles kicked in by the late 14th century, so this was probably an earlier image Gregory is looking at.
117. p. 222 The king asks Cromwell to send a message to Wolsey about a case he oversaw, a Breton merchant who's ship was seized with a cargo of powdered pearls for ballast and some "unicorn's horns" (lol—did people actually believe in unicorns and did the merchants knowingly fleece those who did?) the merchant is complaining about not having received compensation (why was the ship seized to begin with?). Cromwell says:
"'If the sums are in doubt, or indeed the whole case, may I look after it?'
The king hesitates. 'I'm not sure you have a locus standi in the matter.'"
What does that expression mean?
I'm pretty sure that locus standi refers to whether someone has a stake in the outcome of a legal case and thus a basis for being heard in the legal matter in question. Any lawyers out there who can elucidate further?? In this context, I'm pretty sure that it means the king isn't certain Cromwell has grounds for taking on Wolsey's role in this matter. As for the seizure, there's no information here. The merchant may not have paid some kind of tax or fee; he may have violated some rule -- there are several reasons a cargo or ship could be impounded, and without looking at Mantel's original research or finding the court files, there's no way to know; I don't think it's all that relevant to the story itself as it's just a detail for versimilitude.
118. When Cromwell visits More's house, there is a fool there. This particular fool may just be a simpleton, it's not clear. But not for the first time, I wonder again what the purpose of fools were? Ok, for amusement, but what would someone as refined as Wolsey do with one? On p. 227 it say "normally you take in a fool to protect him" what kind of fool are they talking about here?
the idea of having a fool is much like turning on the television to watch a sitcom, or Colbert or Jon Stewart today. A good fool was responsible for the entertainment of the company -- he'd make pointed jokes (but rarely ever crossed certain lines) A fool could be a "natural fool", in which case the humor came in part from the fact he was simple minded. (That's the kind being referred to in the phrase you cite). But some were very clever and astute, and it's likely that Wolsey's would have been of this variety, I would suspect. Will Somers, Henry's main fool, couldn't have survived at that court had he not been canny and adroit. James I, when he was still only King of Scotland, had a bad habit of signing papers automatically, without reading them -- the legacy of being raised by rather dictatorial Scottish peers. Then one day his own fool tricked him into abdicating for 15 days in favor of the fool... and James always read every paper thereafter. I dunno if it's apocryphal or not, but it's an anecdote that pops up a lot.
119. p. 235 Stephen Gardiner and our man are discussing the goings on with More's family members as they make their way back together on a barge.
Stephen says: "'Aren't you looking forward to the wife Alice (More) will find you? She is warm in your praises.'
He fells afraid. It is like Mark, the lute player: people imagining what they cannot know. He is sure he and Johane have been secret."
Did I miss something? Have he and Johane been having an affair? I remember it crossing him mind earlier on, something about taking her up as a wife next if her husband passes or something...
That was my reading of this. Cromwell is lonely; Johane reminds him of his late wife. It's very oblique, but you'll see more specific references to it later.
120. p. 239 Johane complains of her daughter's poor sewing, as she's devised "an awkward little backstitch which you would be hard-pushed to imitate. She gets the job of sewing up his dispatches for the north."
I thought they sealed their letters with wax? Did they actually sew them up as well?
If you're writing a dispatch as opposed to a letter, it's going to be longer (more pages), so sewing it up in some kind of fabric makes it more secure. (think of trying to squeeze a lot of pages into an envelope, or trying to fold up many sheets of paper securely.) Also, for a letter that had to go a long way, it offered a measure of protection against rain and other inclement weather.
121. On the same page it says "On 2 October the cardinal reaches his palace at Cawood, ten miles from York. His enthronement is planned for 7 November."
What's this about an enthronement? Isn't he disgraced?
Although Wolsey has been Archbishop of York for some 15 years -- since early in Henry's reign, anyway -- he has never actually set foot in Yorkshire! He has been too busy with his secular job of running the kingdom to run his bishop's see. But when Henry takes all his political offices away, this is the one that is left to him -- so he sets off to York, for the first time in his life. So although he has held the position for many years, he has never been crowned & annointed in the cathedral at York. So that's what is being referred to. It's a church rite. which he could have undergone at any time in the past, and now forges ahead with because he might as well -- after all, somebody still owes him deference, even in his disgrace.
We'll see if I can answer these off the bat; I may have to take some time later in the day to circle back with more info.
116. p. 221 Gregory is reading Le Morte D'Arthur and looking at the image on the cover, there's a man on a horse behind which a woman rides "pillion". What does that mean?
Off and on, esp. before the development of the side-saddle, it was considered not always respectable for women to ride. Riding pillion was the solution. Think of a kid carrying another kid on the crossbar of his bicycle -- that's roughly what happened. Usually, the pillion passenger sat behind the rider on a special kind of platform seat, facing sideways, with a little ledge for the feet. Women could travel pillion or they could ride in a litter (a kind of bed on posts that could be carried or drawn by horses) and then later there were very rudimentary carriages. Early sidesaddles kicked in by the late 14th century, so this was probably an earlier image Gregory is looking at.
117. p. 222 The king asks Cromwell to send a message to Wolsey about a case he oversaw, a Breton merchant who's ship was seized with a cargo of powdered pearls for ballast and some "unicorn's horns" (lol—did people actually believe in unicorns and did the merchants knowingly fleece those who did?) the merchant is complaining about not having received compensation (why was the ship seized to begin with?). Cromwell says:
"'If the sums are in doubt, or indeed the whole case, may I look after it?'
The king hesitates. 'I'm not sure you have a locus standi in the matter.'"
What does that expression mean?
I'm pretty sure that locus standi refers to whether someone has a stake in the outcome of a legal case and thus a basis for being heard in the legal matter in question. Any lawyers out there who can elucidate further?? In this context, I'm pretty sure that it means the king isn't certain Cromwell has grounds for taking on Wolsey's role in this matter. As for the seizure, there's no information here. The merchant may not have paid some kind of tax or fee; he may have violated some rule -- there are several reasons a cargo or ship could be impounded, and without looking at Mantel's original research or finding the court files, there's no way to know; I don't think it's all that relevant to the story itself as it's just a detail for versimilitude.
118. When Cromwell visits More's house, there is a fool there. This particular fool may just be a simpleton, it's not clear. But not for the first time, I wonder again what the purpose of fools were? Ok, for amusement, but what would someone as refined as Wolsey do with one? On p. 227 it say "normally you take in a fool to protect him" what kind of fool are they talking about here?
the idea of having a fool is much like turning on the television to watch a sitcom, or Colbert or Jon Stewart today. A good fool was responsible for the entertainment of the company -- he'd make pointed jokes (but rarely ever crossed certain lines) A fool could be a "natural fool", in which case the humor came in part from the fact he was simple minded. (That's the kind being referred to in the phrase you cite). But some were very clever and astute, and it's likely that Wolsey's would have been of this variety, I would suspect. Will Somers, Henry's main fool, couldn't have survived at that court had he not been canny and adroit. James I, when he was still only King of Scotland, had a bad habit of signing papers automatically, without reading them -- the legacy of being raised by rather dictatorial Scottish peers. Then one day his own fool tricked him into abdicating for 15 days in favor of the fool... and James always read every paper thereafter. I dunno if it's apocryphal or not, but it's an anecdote that pops up a lot.
119. p. 235 Stephen Gardiner and our man are discussing the goings on with More's family members as they make their way back together on a barge.
Stephen says: "'Aren't you looking forward to the wife Alice (More) will find you? She is warm in your praises.'
He fells afraid. It is like Mark, the lute player: people imagining what they cannot know. He is sure he and Johane have been secret."
Did I miss something? Have he and Johane been having an affair? I remember it crossing him mind earlier on, something about taking her up as a wife next if her husband passes or something...
That was my reading of this. Cromwell is lonely; Johane reminds him of his late wife. It's very oblique, but you'll see more specific references to it later.
120. p. 239 Johane complains of her daughter's poor sewing, as she's devised "an awkward little backstitch which you would be hard-pushed to imitate. She gets the job of sewing up his dispatches for the north."
I thought they sealed their letters with wax? Did they actually sew them up as well?
If you're writing a dispatch as opposed to a letter, it's going to be longer (more pages), so sewing it up in some kind of fabric makes it more secure. (think of trying to squeeze a lot of pages into an envelope, or trying to fold up many sheets of paper securely.) Also, for a letter that had to go a long way, it offered a measure of protection against rain and other inclement weather.
121. On the same page it says "On 2 October the cardinal reaches his palace at Cawood, ten miles from York. His enthronement is planned for 7 November."
What's this about an enthronement? Isn't he disgraced?
Although Wolsey has been Archbishop of York for some 15 years -- since early in Henry's reign, anyway -- he has never actually set foot in Yorkshire! He has been too busy with his secular job of running the kingdom to run his bishop's see. But when Henry takes all his political offices away, this is the one that is left to him -- so he sets off to York, for the first time in his life. So although he has held the position for many years, he has never been crowned & annointed in the cathedral at York. So that's what is being referred to. It's a church rite. which he could have undergone at any time in the past, and now forges ahead with because he might as well -- after all, somebody still owes him deference, even in his disgrace.
119Smiler69
Aha, now I understand about Wolsey's entronement. It didn't make sense to me at all, but your explanation provides the bits of information I was missing, as I had no idea he hand't be to Yorkshire before (this may have been mentioned and I may very well have missed it).
Just as an aside, I do want to say that I know I ask many questions that aren't necessarily relevant to the story. In some cases I know when I ask them that they aren't, but just want to satisfy my curiosity, while in other cases, I simply don't know what may or may not become important details. I hope this isn't a problem either way.
There were another couple of things I wanted to ask about in that section I covered above, one of which I decided to skip over because I decided it was too complicated to put my question forward as it's about an entire section that I didn't quite understand, but then I decided it was probably a matter of interpretation and obviously some artistic license on Mantel's part. The other question I had though I simply forgot to ask:
122. p. 241 I'm not sure, so you'll tell me, whether this is just meant as a joke (in which case it makes sense), though Norfolk doesn't seem to me the type to make jokes with Cromwell, in which case the man is even more distasteful than he seemed so far. He says:
"'Look here, Cromwell, I wish you would come down and see me at home at Kenninghall, and talk to my lady wife. She's a woman of monstrous demands. She thinks I shouldn't keep a woman in the house, for my pleasant usage, you know? I say, where else should she be? Do you want me to disturb myself on a winter's night and venture out on the icy roads? I don't seem to be able to express myself correctly to her; do you think you could come down and put my case?'"
I have just a couple of questions for the rest of the chapter and will be starting on chapter III today.
PART THREE
II
Entirely Beloved Cromwell
Spring—December 1530
pages 241 - end of chapter
123. p. 243 Anne Boleyn shows a drawing she has found in her bed, of the king standing between two women, one of which has no head. She says there is a prophecy that a queen of England will be burned, but it doesn't frighten her. Was there indeed such a prophecy?
124. p. 245 Dr Cranmer and Cromwell having left Anne Boleyn, Cranmer shares the snacks he's kept for his horse with Thomas and says 'You asked why I would not come to your college.' to which Cromwell says he was just making conversation. Then he says:
"'Still ... as we heard it in Cambridge, you performed such labours for the foundation ... the students and Fellows all commend you ... no detail excapes Master Cromwell. Though to be sure, this comfort on which you pride yourselves ... ' His tone, smooth and unemphatic, doesn't change. 'In the fish cellar? Where the students died?'"
What is he talking about?
Just as an aside, I do want to say that I know I ask many questions that aren't necessarily relevant to the story. In some cases I know when I ask them that they aren't, but just want to satisfy my curiosity, while in other cases, I simply don't know what may or may not become important details. I hope this isn't a problem either way.
There were another couple of things I wanted to ask about in that section I covered above, one of which I decided to skip over because I decided it was too complicated to put my question forward as it's about an entire section that I didn't quite understand, but then I decided it was probably a matter of interpretation and obviously some artistic license on Mantel's part. The other question I had though I simply forgot to ask:
122. p. 241 I'm not sure, so you'll tell me, whether this is just meant as a joke (in which case it makes sense), though Norfolk doesn't seem to me the type to make jokes with Cromwell, in which case the man is even more distasteful than he seemed so far. He says:
"'Look here, Cromwell, I wish you would come down and see me at home at Kenninghall, and talk to my lady wife. She's a woman of monstrous demands. She thinks I shouldn't keep a woman in the house, for my pleasant usage, you know? I say, where else should she be? Do you want me to disturb myself on a winter's night and venture out on the icy roads? I don't seem to be able to express myself correctly to her; do you think you could come down and put my case?'"
I have just a couple of questions for the rest of the chapter and will be starting on chapter III today.
PART THREE
II
Entirely Beloved Cromwell
Spring—December 1530
pages 241 - end of chapter
123. p. 243 Anne Boleyn shows a drawing she has found in her bed, of the king standing between two women, one of which has no head. She says there is a prophecy that a queen of England will be burned, but it doesn't frighten her. Was there indeed such a prophecy?
124. p. 245 Dr Cranmer and Cromwell having left Anne Boleyn, Cranmer shares the snacks he's kept for his horse with Thomas and says 'You asked why I would not come to your college.' to which Cromwell says he was just making conversation. Then he says:
"'Still ... as we heard it in Cambridge, you performed such labours for the foundation ... the students and Fellows all commend you ... no detail excapes Master Cromwell. Though to be sure, this comfort on which you pride yourselves ... ' His tone, smooth and unemphatic, doesn't change. 'In the fish cellar? Where the students died?'"
What is he talking about?
120Chatterbox
Hi,
Don't mind about being asked about the extraneous details, as long as you'll forgive me for not being able to answer! In some cases, it's just going to be a matter of shrugging off the fact that an incidental character has a name that I can't even check or verify, and that it may even be invented; in others, simply lack of access to the original historical documentation. In some other cases, it will be impossible to answer bec. the response lies in Mantel's brain.
122. p. 241 I'm not sure, so you'll tell me, whether this is just meant as a joke (in which case it makes sense), though Norfolk doesn't seem to me the type to make jokes with Cromwell, in which case the man is even more distasteful than he seemed so far. He says:
"'Look here, Cromwell, I wish you would come down and see me at home at Kenninghall, and talk to my lady wife. She's a woman of monstrous demands. She thinks I shouldn't keep a woman in the house, for my pleasant usage, you know? I say, where else should she be? Do you want me to disturb myself on a winter's night and venture out on the icy roads? I don't seem to be able to express myself correctly to her; do you think you could come down and put my case?'"
It's Norfolk kind of joking/kind of serious. He's saying Cromwell could negotiate anything, so why not this? Norfolk treated his wife notoriously badly. I remember reading something about forcing her to have sex with him while he was partly clad in armor or something like that. Norfolk may be joking, may be part serious, but it does reflect just what kind of unpleasant kind of manipulative SOB we're dealing with.
I have just a couple of questions for the rest of the chapter and will be starting on chapter III today.
PART THREE
II
Entirely Beloved Cromwell
Spring—December 1530
pages 241 - end of chapter
123. p. 243 Anne Boleyn shows a drawing she has found in her bed, of the king standing between two women, one of which has no head. She says there is a prophecy that a queen of England will be burned, but it doesn't frighten her. Was there indeed such a prophecy?
Yes, there was -- either popular legend or attributed to Merlin (who was the Nostradamus of the world, before there was Nostradamus...)
124. p. 245 Dr Cranmer and Cromwell having left Anne Boleyn, Cranmer shares the snacks he's kept for his horse with Thomas and says 'You asked why I would not come to your college.' to which Cromwell says he was just making conversation. Then he says:
"'Still ... as we heard it in Cambridge, you performed such labours for the foundation ... the students and Fellows all commend you ... no detail excapes Master Cromwell. Though to be sure, this comfort on which you pride yourselves ... ' His tone, smooth and unemphatic, doesn't change. 'In the fish cellar? Where the students died?'"
What is he talking about?
There is an anecdote earlier on about how Wolsey imprisoned some heretic students in a cellar in the college, where they were forgotten about and died, possibly of the sweating sickness? I'll try to go back over this tonight and find it, although our page references will be different. Cranmer is making a dig at Cromwell.
Don't mind about being asked about the extraneous details, as long as you'll forgive me for not being able to answer! In some cases, it's just going to be a matter of shrugging off the fact that an incidental character has a name that I can't even check or verify, and that it may even be invented; in others, simply lack of access to the original historical documentation. In some other cases, it will be impossible to answer bec. the response lies in Mantel's brain.
122. p. 241 I'm not sure, so you'll tell me, whether this is just meant as a joke (in which case it makes sense), though Norfolk doesn't seem to me the type to make jokes with Cromwell, in which case the man is even more distasteful than he seemed so far. He says:
"'Look here, Cromwell, I wish you would come down and see me at home at Kenninghall, and talk to my lady wife. She's a woman of monstrous demands. She thinks I shouldn't keep a woman in the house, for my pleasant usage, you know? I say, where else should she be? Do you want me to disturb myself on a winter's night and venture out on the icy roads? I don't seem to be able to express myself correctly to her; do you think you could come down and put my case?'"
It's Norfolk kind of joking/kind of serious. He's saying Cromwell could negotiate anything, so why not this? Norfolk treated his wife notoriously badly. I remember reading something about forcing her to have sex with him while he was partly clad in armor or something like that. Norfolk may be joking, may be part serious, but it does reflect just what kind of unpleasant kind of manipulative SOB we're dealing with.
I have just a couple of questions for the rest of the chapter and will be starting on chapter III today.
PART THREE
II
Entirely Beloved Cromwell
Spring—December 1530
pages 241 - end of chapter
123. p. 243 Anne Boleyn shows a drawing she has found in her bed, of the king standing between two women, one of which has no head. She says there is a prophecy that a queen of England will be burned, but it doesn't frighten her. Was there indeed such a prophecy?
Yes, there was -- either popular legend or attributed to Merlin (who was the Nostradamus of the world, before there was Nostradamus...)
124. p. 245 Dr Cranmer and Cromwell having left Anne Boleyn, Cranmer shares the snacks he's kept for his horse with Thomas and says 'You asked why I would not come to your college.' to which Cromwell says he was just making conversation. Then he says:
"'Still ... as we heard it in Cambridge, you performed such labours for the foundation ... the students and Fellows all commend you ... no detail excapes Master Cromwell. Though to be sure, this comfort on which you pride yourselves ... ' His tone, smooth and unemphatic, doesn't change. 'In the fish cellar? Where the students died?'"
What is he talking about?
There is an anecdote earlier on about how Wolsey imprisoned some heretic students in a cellar in the college, where they were forgotten about and died, possibly of the sweating sickness? I'll try to go back over this tonight and find it, although our page references will be different. Cranmer is making a dig at Cromwell.
121Chatterbox
And a brief reminder to our invisible crowd: tomorrow is Tuesday, or open question/comment day here on the tutored read. The only rule: no spoilers; please keep in mind where Ilana has reached in the book. Happy to address spoilersh stuff for anyone who thinks I can help via PM.
122AlaMich
I'm curious about the extent of Henry's (and maybe Wolsey's) knowledge of Cromwell's true religious beliefs. They knew he was a "reformer" I think, but the impression I get from the book is that he was much closer to Lutheran beliefs than people probably knew. I don't know if my impression is accurate though. My understanding of Henry's beliefs is that he was actually quite conservative, and reform for him was more about having the power of the head of the church than any true Protestant belief.
123Chatterbox
#122 -- You are absolutely right in your assessment of Henry's religious tendencies/convictions. He hated the idea of married priests (so Cranmer concealed his wife from him); he believed absolutely in the doctrine of transubstantiation (sp??), or the conversion of bread and wine into the blood and body of christ at communion. But he hated having to defer to the power of someone he increasingly saw as a foreign power. That's the intriguing thing about the Papacy at this point: it had always had temporal power, and was never shy about interfering in domestic spats, but increasingly the Pope was emerging as a de facto monarch, with his own armies. (When Italy finally became united in the 19th century, some of the battles the revolutionaries fought were against Papal forces, for instance; it took many more decades for the Vatican to accept the loss of physical territory and reach an agreement with the Italian government.) Henry as a young man had been an ardent anti-Lutheran -- the "Defender of the Faith" title he was given and that Queen Elizabeth still carries was given by the Pope in honor of a response to Luther that Henry wrote (allegedly with the help of Thomas More). Katherine of Aragon was notably devout (she was the daughter of Spain's "catholic kings", after all!). But when the pope blocked what Henry saw as something reasonable and necessary for his kingdom -- his divorce -- there was an about face on deference to the Pope.
Cromwell, it's clear, had seen a lot of the catholic church in operation, both in Rome and at home, and was left cold by the idea that someone might have to go through these corrupt and sinful people to reach god. Well, reading between the lines as Mantel writes his character, I'd say it was more that he sees this as a bigger problem for others, who are more vulnerable than he is and who he believes are being extorted (here, give me your money and you can buy your way out of purgatory...) Definitely, he had strong Lutheran tendencies; he was quite eager to help Wolsey dis-establish a handful of monasteries in Yorkshire, for different reasons than Wolsey (who wanted the revenues for his colleges). With respect to Henry, I think that Henry realized Cromwell's convictions, but as long as he didn't flaunt them -- or become a rabid idealist -- he wasn't going to make an issue of it. Don't ask; don't tell. Above all, however, Cromwell was a pragmatist. What religious orientation was best for England? for the monarchy? Cromwell was an Englishman and servant of the crown; he owed his livelihood and prosperity to that. So, what did England need? Revenues, an heir, peace and stability. It's clear from his actions in this two books and his later actions that he found alliances with Protestants at home and abroad to be in the long-term interests of the country. Was he right? Well, the English would still be wavering about this until the end of the 17th century, having veered far toward Protestantism under Edward VI, back to Catholicism under Mary I, what would be called Anglo-Catholicism under Charles I; die-hard Presbyterianism under Cromwell (Oliver; his great-great nephew or something of that kind.) The country would have a Catholic monarch again in the shape of James II, but for only two years; the prospect of a Catholic heir was enough to push them to invite a Dutch prince (and son in law of the King) to come and take the crown. In the wake of that, the ordinance was put in place barring anyone Catholic from the succession, which still exists today.
OK, rambling. Henry ended up executing monks who defied his supreme authority over the English church; he also executed radical Lutherans, Calvinists, etc., who denied the core doctrines of the English church. (Google "Anne Askew" for one famous example.)
Cromwell, it's clear, had seen a lot of the catholic church in operation, both in Rome and at home, and was left cold by the idea that someone might have to go through these corrupt and sinful people to reach god. Well, reading between the lines as Mantel writes his character, I'd say it was more that he sees this as a bigger problem for others, who are more vulnerable than he is and who he believes are being extorted (here, give me your money and you can buy your way out of purgatory...) Definitely, he had strong Lutheran tendencies; he was quite eager to help Wolsey dis-establish a handful of monasteries in Yorkshire, for different reasons than Wolsey (who wanted the revenues for his colleges). With respect to Henry, I think that Henry realized Cromwell's convictions, but as long as he didn't flaunt them -- or become a rabid idealist -- he wasn't going to make an issue of it. Don't ask; don't tell. Above all, however, Cromwell was a pragmatist. What religious orientation was best for England? for the monarchy? Cromwell was an Englishman and servant of the crown; he owed his livelihood and prosperity to that. So, what did England need? Revenues, an heir, peace and stability. It's clear from his actions in this two books and his later actions that he found alliances with Protestants at home and abroad to be in the long-term interests of the country. Was he right? Well, the English would still be wavering about this until the end of the 17th century, having veered far toward Protestantism under Edward VI, back to Catholicism under Mary I, what would be called Anglo-Catholicism under Charles I; die-hard Presbyterianism under Cromwell (Oliver; his great-great nephew or something of that kind.) The country would have a Catholic monarch again in the shape of James II, but for only two years; the prospect of a Catholic heir was enough to push them to invite a Dutch prince (and son in law of the King) to come and take the crown. In the wake of that, the ordinance was put in place barring anyone Catholic from the succession, which still exists today.
OK, rambling. Henry ended up executing monks who defied his supreme authority over the English church; he also executed radical Lutherans, Calvinists, etc., who denied the core doctrines of the English church. (Google "Anne Askew" for one famous example.)
124lyzard
That's a lovely clear summary, Suz.
The country would have a Catholic monarch again in the shape of James II, but for only two years; the prospect of a Catholic heir was enough to push them to invite a Dutch prince (and son in law of the King) to come and take the crown. In the wake of that, the ordinance was put in place barring anyone Catholic from the succession, which still exists today.
The restriction on Catholics was - finally! - revoked last year.
The country would have a Catholic monarch again in the shape of James II, but for only two years; the prospect of a Catholic heir was enough to push them to invite a Dutch prince (and son in law of the King) to come and take the crown. In the wake of that, the ordinance was put in place barring anyone Catholic from the succession, which still exists today.
The restriction on Catholics was - finally! - revoked last year.
125AlaMich
So Henry basically hated the Pope and his power and wanted the wealth of the monasteries for himself, but didn't really subscribe to most of the beliefs of the true Protestants. And Cromwell hid his true feelings to the extent that it was practical and expedient (for him and others) and didn't feel the need to proselytize. Well, not that anyone really could at the time, if they were fond of their heads.
Thank you for such a thorough explanation, I really appreciate it. The Reformation is something I have recently become very interested in, after being fairly ignorant about it for most of my life, and the book is making it come alive for me.
Thank you for such a thorough explanation, I really appreciate it. The Reformation is something I have recently become very interested in, after being fairly ignorant about it for most of my life, and the book is making it come alive for me.
126Smiler69
Just thought I'd check in to say I finished Part Three today (no questions) and started on Part Four... should come back tomorrow with some questions.
127Chatterbox
Cromwell, both the historical version and the Mantel version, was at heart a pragmatist. It's unlikely that he ever felt any urge to proselytize. I find Mantel's view of him as the kind of man who has identified a view of religion he can accept vs. someone who has great faith, to be very convincing in light of the historical personage.
Wow, lyzard, thanks for the update!! So Michael of Kent is back in the succession??
OK, off to bed. Headachey and it's been a long day.
Wow, lyzard, thanks for the update!! So Michael of Kent is back in the succession??
OK, off to bed. Headachey and it's been a long day.
128lyzard
So Michael of Kent is back in the succession??
Yes, I suppose so! (The Kents' children were raised Protestant, of course, just like Charles forced on James with respect to Mary and Anne.)
Yes, I suppose so! (The Kents' children were raised Protestant, of course, just like Charles forced on James with respect to Mary and Anne.)
129Smiler69
I'm back with the next round of questions...
PART FOUR
I
Arrange Your Face
1531
pages 287-313
125. p. 293 Talking with Wriothesley aka Call Me Risley, who has informed him that the king has already decided to separate Katherine from her daughter:
"Rafe says, 'It is harsh. To use the little girl against her mother. '
'Harsh, yes ... but the question is, have you picked your prince? (etc) If you don't like Henry, you can go abroad and find another prince, but I tell you — if this were Italy, Katherine would be cold in her tomb.'"
What's this business about finding another prince? And why would Katherine be dead if she was in Italy?
126. p. 296 Now we come to talk about Sir John Seymour and there's a first mention of Wolf Hall. Who are they in relation to the king and what and where is this Wolf Hall?
127. p. 297 Not a question, just a quote:
"Adulterers don't stop for Lent."
Wonderful! :-) Who said Anne doesn't have a sense of humour? (It is Anne uttering the above, right?)
128. p. 297 Anne asks Cromwell if it's proper for him to send a gift to Jane Seymour and he says:
"It is not as if it is tales out of Boccaccio"
She laughs 'They could tell Boccaccio a tale, those sinner at Wolf Hall.'
Naughty tales then?
129. p. 302 Lucy Petyt has just been over to visit Cromwell in hopes he'll speak to the king or Anne about her husband, who's been imprisoned by More. Johane worries that John Petyt might give names if he is put under torture, and he responds "What's that to me? He already knows my name"
By "he" we're talking about More, right? Did he actually know about Cromwell's beliefs? Can her afford not to worry?
130. p. 308 He and Johane are talking about their affair, and she clearly states that she would be happy to marry him if her husband were to pass away... but then the church wouldn't allow it, nor the law, she concludes. Was it illegal to marry a dead spouse's sibling? Why?
131. p. 310 A memory comes back to him, about something his father Walter told him... how his mother had a carved saint which she turned away before she got into bed with him. "Walter had said, dear God, Thomas, it was St fucking Felicity if I'm not mistaken, and her face was to the wall for sure the night I got you."
Who was St Felicity and what was Walter implying? (nothing good I'm sure)
PART FOUR
I
Arrange Your Face
1531
pages 287-313
125. p. 293 Talking with Wriothesley aka Call Me Risley, who has informed him that the king has already decided to separate Katherine from her daughter:
"Rafe says, 'It is harsh. To use the little girl against her mother. '
'Harsh, yes ... but the question is, have you picked your prince? (etc) If you don't like Henry, you can go abroad and find another prince, but I tell you — if this were Italy, Katherine would be cold in her tomb.'"
What's this business about finding another prince? And why would Katherine be dead if she was in Italy?
126. p. 296 Now we come to talk about Sir John Seymour and there's a first mention of Wolf Hall. Who are they in relation to the king and what and where is this Wolf Hall?
127. p. 297 Not a question, just a quote:
"Adulterers don't stop for Lent."
Wonderful! :-) Who said Anne doesn't have a sense of humour? (It is Anne uttering the above, right?)
128. p. 297 Anne asks Cromwell if it's proper for him to send a gift to Jane Seymour and he says:
"It is not as if it is tales out of Boccaccio"
She laughs 'They could tell Boccaccio a tale, those sinner at Wolf Hall.'
Naughty tales then?
129. p. 302 Lucy Petyt has just been over to visit Cromwell in hopes he'll speak to the king or Anne about her husband, who's been imprisoned by More. Johane worries that John Petyt might give names if he is put under torture, and he responds "What's that to me? He already knows my name"
By "he" we're talking about More, right? Did he actually know about Cromwell's beliefs? Can her afford not to worry?
130. p. 308 He and Johane are talking about their affair, and she clearly states that she would be happy to marry him if her husband were to pass away... but then the church wouldn't allow it, nor the law, she concludes. Was it illegal to marry a dead spouse's sibling? Why?
131. p. 310 A memory comes back to him, about something his father Walter told him... how his mother had a carved saint which she turned away before she got into bed with him. "Walter had said, dear God, Thomas, it was St fucking Felicity if I'm not mistaken, and her face was to the wall for sure the night I got you."
Who was St Felicity and what was Walter implying? (nothing good I'm sure)
130Chatterbox
Some answers:
125. p. 293 Talking with Wriothesley aka Call Me Risley, who has informed him that the king has already decided to separate Katherine from her daughter:
"Rafe says, 'It is harsh. To use the little girl against her mother. '
'Harsh, yes ... but the question is, have you picked your prince? (etc) If you don't like Henry, you can go abroad and find another prince, but I tell you — if this were Italy, Katherine would be cold in her tomb.'"
What's this business about finding another prince? And why would Katherine be dead if she was in Italy?
He's using "prince" in the sense of king, monarch, ruler. (The sense that Machiavelli used it in his book.) Katherine would be dead because she would have been quietly disposed off, possibly by poison. That was the conventional view of Italy, and it happened frequently enough. (See Murder of a Medici Princess, where it was actually murder...)
126. p. 296 Now we come to talk about Sir John Seymour and there's a first mention of Wolf Hall. Who are they in relation to the king and what and where is this Wolf Hall?
You're talking of the scene where Anne tells Cromwell of Sir John's indiscretions, right? I'm unclear what "we" you are talking about -- Anne and Cromwell in relation to the king? or the Seymours in relation to the king? If the latter, the Seymours were landed gentry with a good pedigree. Sir John Seymour's wife was a Wentworth, and a great-granddaughter of Lionel of Clarence, son #2 of Edward III. (See the pedigree above.) So Jane had royal descent. Indeed, these days, her right to inherit would have been seen as stronger than Henry's own (although she would have had many ahead of her via that line of descent!) as being from son #2 as opposed to #3 and #4. The Seymours also were related to the Howards and Boleyns.
Wolf Hall was/is in Wiltshire. Also known as Wulfhall. It's near or in the Savernake Forest there.
127. p. 297 Not a question, just a quote:
"Adulterers don't stop for Lent."
Wonderful! :-) Who said Anne doesn't have a sense of humour? (It is Anne uttering the above, right?)
Anne was noted for her wit...
128. p. 297 Anne asks Cromwell if it's proper for him to send a gift to Jane Seymour and he says:
"It is not as if it is tales out of Boccaccio"
She laughs 'They could tell Boccaccio a tale, those sinner at Wolf Hall.'
Naughty tales then?
Boccaccio's Decameron is a famous work, crafted in the aftermath of the great plague of 1348/49. It's the story of 10 young people who flee the plague and end up taking refuge in an Italian manor house, where they spend their days telling each other stories -- a total of 100 of them, ranging from tragic love to the downright bawdy/naughty.
129. p. 302 Lucy Petyt has just been over to visit Cromwell in hopes he'll speak to the king or Anne about her husband, who's been imprisoned by More. Johane worries that John Petyt might give names if he is put under torture, and he responds "What's that to me? He already knows my name"
By "he" we're talking about More, right? Did he actually know about Cromwell's beliefs? Can her afford not to worry?
Yes, the reference is to More, who certainly suspected that Cromwell was neither devout nor orthodox. But neither is he overt in his actions or beliefs; he isn't preaching or smuggling English bibles, etc. So More would have a tough time proving anything, esp. given that Cromwell had been devoted to the Cardinal, a prince of the church.
130. p. 308 He and Johane are talking about their affair, and she clearly states that she would be happy to marry him if her husband were to pass away... but then the church wouldn't allow it, nor the law, she concludes. Was it illegal to marry a dead spouse's sibling? Why?
I think that marrying a dead spouse's sibling required a papal dispensation; if I recall correctly, it was also illegal in many contexts according to civil law in England right into the 19th century, but I can't immediately find a reference to that. In the late 19th century, the future George V married his elder brother's fiancee, after his brother died BEFORE the wedding.
131. p. 310 A memory comes back to him, about something his father Walter told him... how his mother had a carved saint which she turned away before she got into bed with him. "Walter had said, dear God, Thomas, it was St fucking Felicity if I'm not mistaken, and her face was to the wall for sure the night I got you."
Who was St Felicity and what was Walter implying? (nothing good I'm sure)
Well, I had to resort to the Catholic Encylopaedia for this one! (I'm not a catholic, and am quite bad on saints, aside from iconography...)
Felicity was the slave and fellow christian of St. Perpetua and arrested with her in Carthage.
From the Catholic encyclopedia:
"Felicity was also in torment. It was against the law for pregnant women to be executed. To kill a child in the womb was shedding innocent and sacred blood. Felicity was afraid that she would not give birth before the day set for their martyrdom and her companions would go on their journey without her. Her friends also didn't want to leave so "good a comrade" behind.
Two days before the execution, Felicity went into a painful labor. The guards made fun of her, insulting her by saying, "If you think you suffer now, how will stand it when you face the wild beasts?" Felicity answered them calmly, "Now I'm the one who is suffering, but in the arena Another will be in me suffering for me because I will be suffering for him." She gave birth to a healthy girl who was adopted and raised by one of the Christian women of Carthage."
Along with Perpetua and two others, Felicity was martyred in the arena -- although the crowd was appalled and they ended up having their throats slit rather than being tossed to the wild animals.
What does Walter mean? That's a bit fuzzier. Felicity seems to be a patron saint of mothers and children; he could be implying that his mother abandoned or didn't care for him? Or he could be making a broader point, that Cromwell's conception wasn't marked by signs of divine favor.
125. p. 293 Talking with Wriothesley aka Call Me Risley, who has informed him that the king has already decided to separate Katherine from her daughter:
"Rafe says, 'It is harsh. To use the little girl against her mother. '
'Harsh, yes ... but the question is, have you picked your prince? (etc) If you don't like Henry, you can go abroad and find another prince, but I tell you — if this were Italy, Katherine would be cold in her tomb.'"
What's this business about finding another prince? And why would Katherine be dead if she was in Italy?
He's using "prince" in the sense of king, monarch, ruler. (The sense that Machiavelli used it in his book.) Katherine would be dead because she would have been quietly disposed off, possibly by poison. That was the conventional view of Italy, and it happened frequently enough. (See Murder of a Medici Princess, where it was actually murder...)
126. p. 296 Now we come to talk about Sir John Seymour and there's a first mention of Wolf Hall. Who are they in relation to the king and what and where is this Wolf Hall?
You're talking of the scene where Anne tells Cromwell of Sir John's indiscretions, right? I'm unclear what "we" you are talking about -- Anne and Cromwell in relation to the king? or the Seymours in relation to the king? If the latter, the Seymours were landed gentry with a good pedigree. Sir John Seymour's wife was a Wentworth, and a great-granddaughter of Lionel of Clarence, son #2 of Edward III. (See the pedigree above.) So Jane had royal descent. Indeed, these days, her right to inherit would have been seen as stronger than Henry's own (although she would have had many ahead of her via that line of descent!) as being from son #2 as opposed to #3 and #4. The Seymours also were related to the Howards and Boleyns.
Wolf Hall was/is in Wiltshire. Also known as Wulfhall. It's near or in the Savernake Forest there.
127. p. 297 Not a question, just a quote:
"Adulterers don't stop for Lent."
Wonderful! :-) Who said Anne doesn't have a sense of humour? (It is Anne uttering the above, right?)
Anne was noted for her wit...
128. p. 297 Anne asks Cromwell if it's proper for him to send a gift to Jane Seymour and he says:
"It is not as if it is tales out of Boccaccio"
She laughs 'They could tell Boccaccio a tale, those sinner at Wolf Hall.'
Naughty tales then?
Boccaccio's Decameron is a famous work, crafted in the aftermath of the great plague of 1348/49. It's the story of 10 young people who flee the plague and end up taking refuge in an Italian manor house, where they spend their days telling each other stories -- a total of 100 of them, ranging from tragic love to the downright bawdy/naughty.
129. p. 302 Lucy Petyt has just been over to visit Cromwell in hopes he'll speak to the king or Anne about her husband, who's been imprisoned by More. Johane worries that John Petyt might give names if he is put under torture, and he responds "What's that to me? He already knows my name"
By "he" we're talking about More, right? Did he actually know about Cromwell's beliefs? Can her afford not to worry?
Yes, the reference is to More, who certainly suspected that Cromwell was neither devout nor orthodox. But neither is he overt in his actions or beliefs; he isn't preaching or smuggling English bibles, etc. So More would have a tough time proving anything, esp. given that Cromwell had been devoted to the Cardinal, a prince of the church.
130. p. 308 He and Johane are talking about their affair, and she clearly states that she would be happy to marry him if her husband were to pass away... but then the church wouldn't allow it, nor the law, she concludes. Was it illegal to marry a dead spouse's sibling? Why?
I think that marrying a dead spouse's sibling required a papal dispensation; if I recall correctly, it was also illegal in many contexts according to civil law in England right into the 19th century, but I can't immediately find a reference to that. In the late 19th century, the future George V married his elder brother's fiancee, after his brother died BEFORE the wedding.
131. p. 310 A memory comes back to him, about something his father Walter told him... how his mother had a carved saint which she turned away before she got into bed with him. "Walter had said, dear God, Thomas, it was St fucking Felicity if I'm not mistaken, and her face was to the wall for sure the night I got you."
Who was St Felicity and what was Walter implying? (nothing good I'm sure)
Well, I had to resort to the Catholic Encylopaedia for this one! (I'm not a catholic, and am quite bad on saints, aside from iconography...)
Felicity was the slave and fellow christian of St. Perpetua and arrested with her in Carthage.
From the Catholic encyclopedia:
"Felicity was also in torment. It was against the law for pregnant women to be executed. To kill a child in the womb was shedding innocent and sacred blood. Felicity was afraid that she would not give birth before the day set for their martyrdom and her companions would go on their journey without her. Her friends also didn't want to leave so "good a comrade" behind.
Two days before the execution, Felicity went into a painful labor. The guards made fun of her, insulting her by saying, "If you think you suffer now, how will stand it when you face the wild beasts?" Felicity answered them calmly, "Now I'm the one who is suffering, but in the arena Another will be in me suffering for me because I will be suffering for him." She gave birth to a healthy girl who was adopted and raised by one of the Christian women of Carthage."
Along with Perpetua and two others, Felicity was martyred in the arena -- although the crowd was appalled and they ended up having their throats slit rather than being tossed to the wild animals.
What does Walter mean? That's a bit fuzzier. Felicity seems to be a patron saint of mothers and children; he could be implying that his mother abandoned or didn't care for him? Or he could be making a broader point, that Cromwell's conception wasn't marked by signs of divine favor.
131CDVicarage
From the Church Times, August 2007:
"A letter from the High Tory, High Anglican, and high-camp Lord Hugh Cecil appeared in The Times on 22 August 1907: “I find it hard to believe”, he wrote, “that any person of Christian feeling or even civilized instincts can wish to inflict the sort of insult that would be involved in using our churches and our services for carrying out what is in our conviction only an act of sexual vice.”
The Deceased Wife's Sister Act was passed in 1907. It allowed a man to marry his dead wife’s sister. This had been permissible — if problematic — until 1835, when the Government had brought civil law into line with canon law, outlawing all marriages forbidden by the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the Book of Common Prayer."
The subject had been debated, on and off, for 60 years in parliament and even now (in 1907) the Church of England held that it was still not permitted under canon law and that any clergyman who celebrated such a marriage would be subject to disciplinary procedures.
I think the fuss has died down now.
"A letter from the High Tory, High Anglican, and high-camp Lord Hugh Cecil appeared in The Times on 22 August 1907: “I find it hard to believe”, he wrote, “that any person of Christian feeling or even civilized instincts can wish to inflict the sort of insult that would be involved in using our churches and our services for carrying out what is in our conviction only an act of sexual vice.”
The Deceased Wife's Sister Act was passed in 1907. It allowed a man to marry his dead wife’s sister. This had been permissible — if problematic — until 1835, when the Government had brought civil law into line with canon law, outlawing all marriages forbidden by the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the Book of Common Prayer."
The subject had been debated, on and off, for 60 years in parliament and even now (in 1907) the Church of England held that it was still not permitted under canon law and that any clergyman who celebrated such a marriage would be subject to disciplinary procedures.
I think the fuss has died down now.
132Chatterbox
Thank you for clarifying that! I was googling like mad, because I knew there had been a law actually banning it, but didn't know the name or when it was passed, repealed, etc. I knew that the canon law banned it in both Catholic and C of E churches, but... It all gets a bit trickier, too, in times and places where there is an established church and no alternative for legal marriages. (My research showed that in Israel today, a childless widow must sometimes go through an odd kind of ceremony with any unmarried brother of her late husband in which he relinquishes any "right" to marry her, in order to be free to remarry. One story I found referred to a widow whose brother in law, when she tracked him down, actually couldn't fulfill the terms of the ceremony because his legs had been amputated due to diabetes. Technically, she might have been banned from remarriage for that reason, had it not been that a sympathetic rabbi was willing to state that her brother in law was impotent.)
133Smiler69
Thanks Suz. And Kerry, thanks for your input as well. I still don't understand why this was considered inappropriate, any best guesses on that?
eta: I posted this before seeing your post above Suz. So, if I understand correctly, in Jewish custom a man should marry his dead brother's widow, correct? I think I vaguely remember something like that, which is why I have trouble understanding the Christian rule.
eta: I posted this before seeing your post above Suz. So, if I understand correctly, in Jewish custom a man should marry his dead brother's widow, correct? I think I vaguely remember something like that, which is why I have trouble understanding the Christian rule.
134Chatterbox
Yup, that would be the Jewish tradition -- Levirate marriage, I think it's called? Only when the widow and her husband were childless, and when the brothers are unmarried.
I think it's viewed as borderline incest in Christianity. The idea being that when a couple marry, the wife's sister becomes the "sister in law" of the husband -- the relationship changes. It goes back to Leviticus (see above...) that Henry drew on in his divorce action.
I think it's viewed as borderline incest in Christianity. The idea being that when a couple marry, the wife's sister becomes the "sister in law" of the husband -- the relationship changes. It goes back to Leviticus (see above...) that Henry drew on in his divorce action.
135CDVicarage
Yes, to those who objected, it was regarded as the thin end of the wedge - if a man married his dead wife's sister what other member of the family might he want to marry next.
I'm reading the Gil Cunningham series at the moment, which is set in late 15thc Glasgow and two people who were not blood related could not be married without an expensive dispensation because the prospective groom's father was godfather to the prospective bride's brother, which made them (bride and groom) legally brother and sister.
I'm reading the Gil Cunningham series at the moment, which is set in late 15thc Glasgow and two people who were not blood related could not be married without an expensive dispensation because the prospective groom's father was godfather to the prospective bride's brother, which made them (bride and groom) legally brother and sister.
136lyzard
I believe during the Interregnum, the Puritans expanded this idea to encompass ridiculously slight degrees of blood connection - so that if you married (for example) your sixth cousin, you were still guilty of incest which was punishable by death.
This situation was later reined in after the Restoration, but the in-law incest laws remained. This is why Aphra Behn could call her novel about the affair between Lord Grey and his sister-in-law, Henrietta Berkeley, Love Letters Between A Nobleman And His Sister. It wasn't just titillating, it was technically correct.
I've never really understood, though, why there was so much hysteria over the "marrying your dead spouse's sibling" situation, when cousin-marriage was commonplace.
This situation was later reined in after the Restoration, but the in-law incest laws remained. This is why Aphra Behn could call her novel about the affair between Lord Grey and his sister-in-law, Henrietta Berkeley, Love Letters Between A Nobleman And His Sister. It wasn't just titillating, it was technically correct.
I've never really understood, though, why there was so much hysteria over the "marrying your dead spouse's sibling" situation, when cousin-marriage was commonplace.
137Smiler69
I've never really understood, though, why there was so much hysteria over the "marrying your dead spouse's sibling" situation, when cousin-marriage was commonplace.
Exactly. Though... it would have been punishable by death at some point? Really?
By the way Suz, is Murder of a Medici Princess a book you recommend? I'd like to read about the Medicis eventually and noticed that you'd reviewed The Confessions of Catherine de Medici by C. W. Gortner and seemed to think it was quite good.
Exactly. Though... it would have been punishable by death at some point? Really?
By the way Suz, is Murder of a Medici Princess a book you recommend? I'd like to read about the Medicis eventually and noticed that you'd reviewed The Confessions of Catherine de Medici by C. W. Gortner and seemed to think it was quite good.
138lyzard
The Rump Parliament passed the "Adultery Act" in 1650, which allowed the death penalty for incest and adultery - and three months' imprisonment for fornication. (NB: "fornication" was what a man did; "adultery" was what a woman did.)
139Chatterbox
The book I mentioned is a non-fiction book; Gortner's novel, while about a Medici, isn't about THE Medici, but rather a member of the family who became queen of France, so mebbe not the same thing. I've read a series of novels in French that I thought were quite good, and was about to lament that they hadn't been translated when I realized -- duh -- you could of course read them in the original!! They are by Sarah Frydman: Contessina, Le lys de Florence and Lorenzo ou la fin des Medicis. They focus on 3 generations across the 15th century. Recommended, and lighter reading than Mantel!
140Smiler69
#138 Typical that men would keep their heads and not women. Because of course we know it's always a woman's fault if a man loses his head and stoops to fornication! Ha!
#139 Suz, thanks for the tip. I see they have all three books at the library, which are know as the trilogy La Saga des Medicis (eta: but of course you knew that already). Adding them to my wishlist de suite.
#139 Suz, thanks for the tip. I see they have all three books at the library, which are know as the trilogy La Saga des Medicis (eta: but of course you knew that already). Adding them to my wishlist de suite.
141Smiler69
Just a few questions for the rest of the chapter:
PART FOUR
I
Arrange Your Face
1531
pages 313 - end of chapter
132. p. 320 In this passage, Cromwell thinks of Erasmus, who advised to "put on a mask, as it were" before leaving the house each morning. He sends money to Erasmus as the Cardinal used to do and Erasmus is surprised as he's heard only bad things about Cromwell. Who is Erasmus?
133. p. 324 Henry Wyatt drops by for a visit and tells the children stories, including the one about his time in the tower when he devoured a pigeon a cat had caught. Why was he put in the tower and tortured?
134. p. 328 About Thomas Wyatt's wife who cheated on him: "so then of course he paid her in kind... the place is full of his doxies, open a closet at Allington and some wench falls out of it>" Never seen that word before. What does it mean? Is it still in use?
135. p. 330 "The legal terms closes. Anne says, come and eat a poor Advent supper with me. We'll use forks."
What does she mean by this?
136. p. 332 There's a long passage about how he helped his father at the forge to make arms to prepare for the coming of the Cornish army. What is this Cornish army?
PART FOUR
I
Arrange Your Face
1531
pages 313 - end of chapter
132. p. 320 In this passage, Cromwell thinks of Erasmus, who advised to "put on a mask, as it were" before leaving the house each morning. He sends money to Erasmus as the Cardinal used to do and Erasmus is surprised as he's heard only bad things about Cromwell. Who is Erasmus?
133. p. 324 Henry Wyatt drops by for a visit and tells the children stories, including the one about his time in the tower when he devoured a pigeon a cat had caught. Why was he put in the tower and tortured?
134. p. 328 About Thomas Wyatt's wife who cheated on him: "so then of course he paid her in kind... the place is full of his doxies, open a closet at Allington and some wench falls out of it>" Never seen that word before. What does it mean? Is it still in use?
135. p. 330 "The legal terms closes. Anne says, come and eat a poor Advent supper with me. We'll use forks."
What does she mean by this?
136. p. 332 There's a long passage about how he helped his father at the forge to make arms to prepare for the coming of the Cornish army. What is this Cornish army?
142Chatterbox
Arrange Your Face
1531
pages 313 - end of chapter
132. p. 320 In this passage, Cromwell thinks of Erasmus, who advised to "put on a mask, as it were" before leaving the house each morning. He sends money to Erasmus as the Cardinal used to do and Erasmus is surprised as he's heard only bad things about Cromwell. Who is Erasmus?
Erasmus is/was a famous humanist scholar of the day. He was a close friend of More's and the two corresponded frequently. He was a reformist, but, crucially, didn't support Protestantism. He tried to walk a road in between the two extremes, but never really succeeded in keeping either happy. For instance, he was ordained as a priest, but never really served as one. While More's great work is Utopia, Erasmus is known for In Praise of Folly, another satire. While More definitely had a dark side (as Mantel shows in this novel), Erasmus was a more tolerant man, and perhaps an even greater scholar. One of the great Dutch universities, in Rotterdam, is named in his honor. Erasmus would have heard bad things from More about Cromwell; Cromwell likely would have been drawn to Erasmus because of his humanism, humanity and scholarship.
133. p. 324 Henry Wyatt drops by for a visit and tells the children stories, including the one about his time in the tower when he devoured a pigeon a cat had caught. Why was he put in the tower and tortured?
Mantel here is choosing to take as gospel some vivid stories about Henry Wyatt, some of which may have been apocryphal. (As a child, I remember reading this story about the cat and the pigeon in a book of children's stories!!) Wyatt was an early supporter of Henry Tudor, during the reign of Richard III. You'll see above a reference to Buckingham's rebellion (in post #84); it's likely that Wyatt was caught up in that. Was he imprisoned? Almost certainly. In the Tower? Possibly. Racked? Many historians think not, as there aren't reliable references in contemporary documents. But he was a staunch and very early supporter of the Tudors, who put his life on the line by remaining in England during Richard's rule.
134. p. 328 About Thomas Wyatt's wife who cheated on him: "so then of course he paid her in kind... the place is full of his doxies, open a closet at Allington and some wench falls out of it>" Never seen that word before. What does it mean? Is it still in use?
Wench or doxy? Both mean roughly the same, although wench was a more commonplace word for a woman of ordinary birth -- i.e. a serving wench -- while doxy would have been used to describe a woman whose morals weren't quite what they should have been... Neither is in common use today, although people might still use "wench" in a joking way.
135. p. 330 "The legal terms closes. Anne says, come and eat a poor Advent supper with me. We'll use forks."
What does she mean by this?
It's a quip, referring to the gift of forks that Cromwell had given her -- an acknowledgment. Perhaps also a nod to the fact that the forks were a luxury item.
136. p. 332 There's a long passage about how he helped his father at the forge to make arms to prepare for the coming of the Cornish army. What is this Cornish army?
From message #84, above -- I know it's hard to keep track of all this stuff!
"The Perkin Warbeck case was far more serious, and some historians believe the boy may actually have had Plantagenet blood -- an illegitimate child of Edward IV? He appeared first in about 1490, and in the next few years acquired a lot of supporters -- the French, the Burgundians; the king of Scotland married him to a relative of his. But the final sally to seize the throne in 1497 failed. (you'll read references to Cromwell's memories of that period, when he refers to Cornishmen marching on London.) Perkin ended up in the Tower, ultimately; Henry seems to have tried to co-opt him, but whether that was an act or whether Perkin wouldn't let that happen is up for debate. Once in the tower, Perkin was caught apparently trying to escape and plotting with Edward of Clarence. Again, it's perfectly possible Henry set them both up -- the last thing he needed was inconvenient surplus heirs or rivals to his own dynasty, however flawed or false. So both Warwick (Edward of Clarence's title) and Perkin were executed."
A brief reminder -- Warbeck was either pretending to be Richard of York, the younger son of Edward IV and the younger of the Princes in the Tower, or he really was some member of the Yorkist family, whether the escaped prince or a bastard son of Edward or one of his brothers. The Cornish army is the last army Warbeck and his remaining allies commanded, but it was doomed. The Cornish were Celts, and throughout large chunks of English history, rather resistant to rule from London. They supported lots of rebellions, including that of the illegitimate son of Charles II, the duke of Monmouth, against his uncle, James II.
1531
pages 313 - end of chapter
132. p. 320 In this passage, Cromwell thinks of Erasmus, who advised to "put on a mask, as it were" before leaving the house each morning. He sends money to Erasmus as the Cardinal used to do and Erasmus is surprised as he's heard only bad things about Cromwell. Who is Erasmus?
Erasmus is/was a famous humanist scholar of the day. He was a close friend of More's and the two corresponded frequently. He was a reformist, but, crucially, didn't support Protestantism. He tried to walk a road in between the two extremes, but never really succeeded in keeping either happy. For instance, he was ordained as a priest, but never really served as one. While More's great work is Utopia, Erasmus is known for In Praise of Folly, another satire. While More definitely had a dark side (as Mantel shows in this novel), Erasmus was a more tolerant man, and perhaps an even greater scholar. One of the great Dutch universities, in Rotterdam, is named in his honor. Erasmus would have heard bad things from More about Cromwell; Cromwell likely would have been drawn to Erasmus because of his humanism, humanity and scholarship.
133. p. 324 Henry Wyatt drops by for a visit and tells the children stories, including the one about his time in the tower when he devoured a pigeon a cat had caught. Why was he put in the tower and tortured?
Mantel here is choosing to take as gospel some vivid stories about Henry Wyatt, some of which may have been apocryphal. (As a child, I remember reading this story about the cat and the pigeon in a book of children's stories!!) Wyatt was an early supporter of Henry Tudor, during the reign of Richard III. You'll see above a reference to Buckingham's rebellion (in post #84); it's likely that Wyatt was caught up in that. Was he imprisoned? Almost certainly. In the Tower? Possibly. Racked? Many historians think not, as there aren't reliable references in contemporary documents. But he was a staunch and very early supporter of the Tudors, who put his life on the line by remaining in England during Richard's rule.
134. p. 328 About Thomas Wyatt's wife who cheated on him: "so then of course he paid her in kind... the place is full of his doxies, open a closet at Allington and some wench falls out of it>" Never seen that word before. What does it mean? Is it still in use?
Wench or doxy? Both mean roughly the same, although wench was a more commonplace word for a woman of ordinary birth -- i.e. a serving wench -- while doxy would have been used to describe a woman whose morals weren't quite what they should have been... Neither is in common use today, although people might still use "wench" in a joking way.
135. p. 330 "The legal terms closes. Anne says, come and eat a poor Advent supper with me. We'll use forks."
What does she mean by this?
It's a quip, referring to the gift of forks that Cromwell had given her -- an acknowledgment. Perhaps also a nod to the fact that the forks were a luxury item.
136. p. 332 There's a long passage about how he helped his father at the forge to make arms to prepare for the coming of the Cornish army. What is this Cornish army?
From message #84, above -- I know it's hard to keep track of all this stuff!
"The Perkin Warbeck case was far more serious, and some historians believe the boy may actually have had Plantagenet blood -- an illegitimate child of Edward IV? He appeared first in about 1490, and in the next few years acquired a lot of supporters -- the French, the Burgundians; the king of Scotland married him to a relative of his. But the final sally to seize the throne in 1497 failed. (you'll read references to Cromwell's memories of that period, when he refers to Cornishmen marching on London.) Perkin ended up in the Tower, ultimately; Henry seems to have tried to co-opt him, but whether that was an act or whether Perkin wouldn't let that happen is up for debate. Once in the tower, Perkin was caught apparently trying to escape and plotting with Edward of Clarence. Again, it's perfectly possible Henry set them both up -- the last thing he needed was inconvenient surplus heirs or rivals to his own dynasty, however flawed or false. So both Warwick (Edward of Clarence's title) and Perkin were executed."
A brief reminder -- Warbeck was either pretending to be Richard of York, the younger son of Edward IV and the younger of the Princes in the Tower, or he really was some member of the Yorkist family, whether the escaped prince or a bastard son of Edward or one of his brothers. The Cornish army is the last army Warbeck and his remaining allies commanded, but it was doomed. The Cornish were Celts, and throughout large chunks of English history, rather resistant to rule from London. They supported lots of rebellions, including that of the illegitimate son of Charles II, the duke of Monmouth, against his uncle, James II.
143lyzard
"Doxy" meant prostitute (or whore, but with a definite implication of money exchanged, not just loose morals) - it was a word in use until the mid-19th century, until euphemisms came into fashion.
They supported lots of rebellions, including that of the illegitimate son of Charles II, the duke of Monmouth, against his uncle, James II.
I admire their convictions rather than their judgement. :)
They supported lots of rebellions, including that of the illegitimate son of Charles II, the duke of Monmouth, against his uncle, James II.
I admire their convictions rather than their judgement. :)
144Smiler69
Suz, I'm surprised I hadn't asked a question to which you'd supplied an answer to already before (or have I? lol). My mind is like cheesecloth and holding on to any information is a task often well beyond my capacity. Though I do retain impressions and with repetition things end up sticking, as long as you don't decide to quiz me, in which case the results would be disappointing. But yes, now I see what you were talking about.
I was familiar with the word "wench" which is quite often used in novels and also as you say in a joking way by our contemporaries. But Doxy was entirely new to me.
Wanted to read more today, but life intervened. So expect more questions tomorrow.
I was familiar with the word "wench" which is quite often used in novels and also as you say in a joking way by our contemporaries. But Doxy was entirely new to me.
Wanted to read more today, but life intervened. So expect more questions tomorrow.
145Chatterbox
OK, here's a sign that I'm overdosing on Cromwell. My generic migraine meds often give me vivid dreams, and last night these included one in which I was asked to step in and play Cromwell (yes, I know, wrong gender but things like this rarely seem to matter in dreams, do they??) in some kind of Broadway multi-media even based on Wolf Hall. I kept forgetting my lines.
147Chatterbox
Oh, I do hope not, given Cromwell's ultimate fate!!
148Smiler69
Right, onto chapter II:
PART FOUR
II
'Alas, What Shall I Do For Love?'
Spring 1532
pages 338-359
137. p. 340 "He has been to see Christopher St German the aged jurist, whose word is respected all over Europe."
Who was this?
138. p. 348 Thomas Wyatt is visiting him and says 'Is someone hiding behind the arras?'
What is an arras?
139. p. 350 "Thomas More says that in the reign of King John when England was placed under and interdict by the Pope, the cattle didn't breed, the corn ceased to ripen, the grass stopped growing and birds fell out of the air."
What was an interdict and in what years did King John reign?
140. p. 351 Thomas More visits Austin Friars but won't eat or drink anything. Cromwell thinks the cardinal wouldn't have taken no for an answer and would have made him sit down and eat syllabub. What is that?
141. p. 353 As a boy, Cromwell saw a woman being burned at the stake. He's told she was a "Loller", and a couple of examples of what that means are given. Could you tell me more?
142. p. 356 He was at the burning having run away from home because he was afraid of Walter who had made threats. "He wondered how you kill a person by inches, whether by burning them or cutting them up."
Just what does that expression mean?
PART FOUR
II
'Alas, What Shall I Do For Love?'
Spring 1532
pages 338-359
137. p. 340 "He has been to see Christopher St German the aged jurist, whose word is respected all over Europe."
Who was this?
138. p. 348 Thomas Wyatt is visiting him and says 'Is someone hiding behind the arras?'
What is an arras?
139. p. 350 "Thomas More says that in the reign of King John when England was placed under and interdict by the Pope, the cattle didn't breed, the corn ceased to ripen, the grass stopped growing and birds fell out of the air."
What was an interdict and in what years did King John reign?
140. p. 351 Thomas More visits Austin Friars but won't eat or drink anything. Cromwell thinks the cardinal wouldn't have taken no for an answer and would have made him sit down and eat syllabub. What is that?
141. p. 353 As a boy, Cromwell saw a woman being burned at the stake. He's told she was a "Loller", and a couple of examples of what that means are given. Could you tell me more?
142. p. 356 He was at the burning having run away from home because he was afraid of Walter who had made threats. "He wondered how you kill a person by inches, whether by burning them or cutting them up."
Just what does that expression mean?
149Chatterbox
OK, am stuck in work day from hell. Look for something late tonight.
150Chatterbox
OK, a brief lull while I wait for something to come flying back to me for a final edit.
137. p. 340 "He has been to see Christopher St German the aged jurist, whose word is respected all over Europe."
Who was this?
Pretty much as Mantel describes -- a legal scholar. He was a Protestant, had differed in print with More over religious issues.
138. p. 348 Thomas Wyatt is visiting him and says 'Is someone hiding behind the arras?'
What is an arras?
A tapestry or other wall hanging.
139. p. 350 "Thomas More says that in the reign of King John when England was placed under and interdict by the Pope, the cattle didn't breed, the corn ceased to ripen, the grass stopped growing and birds fell out of the air."
What was an interdict and in what years did King John reign?
It's a papal ban or nationwide excommunication -- the Pope would excommunicate an entire country, which meant that no one could be married or buried and no one could hear Mass. (The only exceptions were baptisms of newborns, and confession/absolution for anyone who was dying.) The cause was a quarrel with Rome over who had the right to appoint the next archbishop of Canterbury -- the king had a candidate, the cathedral's "chapter" -- the monks, deacons, deans, etc. -- had one, and the bishops had somebody else in mind. It all escalated when the Pope simply consecrated his own candidate and demanded that John accept him. It all dragged on for 4 or 5 years, and then a compromise was negotiated; John appeared to be penitent, but actually he won the pope's support for his ongoing squabbles with his barons. (John was a fairly bad king; under him, England's Angevin empire collapsed and he lost Normandy, William the Conqueror's duchy, to the French; his barons revolted and that led to the Runnymede charter that is at the heart of British democracy.) John reigned from 1199, the death of his elder brother Richard I, aka Lionheart, until 1216; he was succeeded by his toddler son, Henry III.
140. p. 351 Thomas More visits Austin Friars but won't eat or drink anything. Cromwell thinks the cardinal wouldn't have taken no for an answer and would have made him sit down and eat syllabub. What is that?
A dessert/drink based on milk or cream, with sugar and either wine or ale -- usually some kind of wine, I think. It was thick enough to eat with a spoon -- kind of pudding texture. I've seen it made with cider. A new new thing back in Tudor days.
141. p. 353 As a boy, Cromwell saw a woman being burned at the stake. He's told she was a "Loller", and a couple of examples of what that means are given. Could you tell me more?
The spectator means "Lollard". See the answers in #48, to queries from pages 40/44. Lollards were Wycliffe's followers -- or a name applied to them -- who believe in reforming the church.
142. p. 356 He was at the burning having run away from home because he was afraid of Walter who had made threats. "He wondered how you kill a person by inches, whether by burning them or cutting them up."
Just what does that expression mean?
I think it's intended literally. I'm not sure without checking the text whether he fears Walter will do this to him, or he will do it to Walter -- but he's referring literally to a slow way to kill someone, and wondering what that might mean. I read it as a child's literal interpretation of an adult's comment. In my childhood my mother would tell me "there's going to be a war if you don't behave", and I would wonder what a war really was.
OK, gotta dash... back later if any of this is confusing or incomplete.
137. p. 340 "He has been to see Christopher St German the aged jurist, whose word is respected all over Europe."
Who was this?
Pretty much as Mantel describes -- a legal scholar. He was a Protestant, had differed in print with More over religious issues.
138. p. 348 Thomas Wyatt is visiting him and says 'Is someone hiding behind the arras?'
What is an arras?
A tapestry or other wall hanging.
139. p. 350 "Thomas More says that in the reign of King John when England was placed under and interdict by the Pope, the cattle didn't breed, the corn ceased to ripen, the grass stopped growing and birds fell out of the air."
What was an interdict and in what years did King John reign?
It's a papal ban or nationwide excommunication -- the Pope would excommunicate an entire country, which meant that no one could be married or buried and no one could hear Mass. (The only exceptions were baptisms of newborns, and confession/absolution for anyone who was dying.) The cause was a quarrel with Rome over who had the right to appoint the next archbishop of Canterbury -- the king had a candidate, the cathedral's "chapter" -- the monks, deacons, deans, etc. -- had one, and the bishops had somebody else in mind. It all escalated when the Pope simply consecrated his own candidate and demanded that John accept him. It all dragged on for 4 or 5 years, and then a compromise was negotiated; John appeared to be penitent, but actually he won the pope's support for his ongoing squabbles with his barons. (John was a fairly bad king; under him, England's Angevin empire collapsed and he lost Normandy, William the Conqueror's duchy, to the French; his barons revolted and that led to the Runnymede charter that is at the heart of British democracy.) John reigned from 1199, the death of his elder brother Richard I, aka Lionheart, until 1216; he was succeeded by his toddler son, Henry III.
140. p. 351 Thomas More visits Austin Friars but won't eat or drink anything. Cromwell thinks the cardinal wouldn't have taken no for an answer and would have made him sit down and eat syllabub. What is that?
A dessert/drink based on milk or cream, with sugar and either wine or ale -- usually some kind of wine, I think. It was thick enough to eat with a spoon -- kind of pudding texture. I've seen it made with cider. A new new thing back in Tudor days.
141. p. 353 As a boy, Cromwell saw a woman being burned at the stake. He's told she was a "Loller", and a couple of examples of what that means are given. Could you tell me more?
The spectator means "Lollard". See the answers in #48, to queries from pages 40/44. Lollards were Wycliffe's followers -- or a name applied to them -- who believe in reforming the church.
142. p. 356 He was at the burning having run away from home because he was afraid of Walter who had made threats. "He wondered how you kill a person by inches, whether by burning them or cutting them up."
Just what does that expression mean?
I think it's intended literally. I'm not sure without checking the text whether he fears Walter will do this to him, or he will do it to Walter -- but he's referring literally to a slow way to kill someone, and wondering what that might mean. I read it as a child's literal interpretation of an adult's comment. In my childhood my mother would tell me "there's going to be a war if you don't behave", and I would wonder what a war really was.
OK, gotta dash... back later if any of this is confusing or incomplete.
151Smiler69
Suz, I've had a frantic week so far, so sorry for not responding sooner. Today is basically a loss, with nothing done at all. I should be back tomorrow with more questions. The replies you've given me above were just fine. It was Walter who had threatened Thomas to kill him by inches, btw.
152Chatterbox
No worries -- this is supposed to go at your pace, after all!
Meanwhile, I've had some PMs from Robertgreaves, who has been lurking, and has some additional contributions to make on some of my answers:
Message 44:
18. p. 20 "Have you set fire to Whitby, on a whim?"
What is Whitby?
More to the point there was a HUGE Benedictine abbey there, one of the biggest in the North of England.
He def. beat me on this! I was familiar with some of the Cistercian establishments, like Rievaulx, Jervaulx and Fountains (forgive me on spellings...) but while I had figured out that the monastery that Cromwell was dealing with on Wolsey's behalf was in/near Whitby, wasn't aware it was such a mammoth establishment.
57. p. 55 "You make him sound like Nero."
Who was Nero again? A Roman emperor I think, yes? Wasn't he a tyrant? And what is the reference to him playing music? Was Nero a lover of music? I think I must have known about this at some point, but it's all very far away.
He reminds me that Nero's instrument was the lyre, and notes that despite the rumors of him starting the fire, he actually was at the forefront of relief efforts.
Message 100
107. p. 165 "The king's advisers are preparing no fewer than forty-four charges against the cardinal. They range from (etc) — to buying beef for his household at the same price as the king."
Please explain this and why it was a violation?
"it does chime in with something I read recently (can't remember where, sorry). The King would naturally have the best of anything, which probably meant the most expensive. The implication of the charge is that by spending the same as the King for his beef, Wolsey is putting himself on the same level as the King. Even if there's no actual law referring to the price of beef, it could be construed as treasonous behaviour and would prejudice judges against Wolsey."
Ye-es... kinda sorta. That would be more the case with sumptuary laws, that governed what garments people could wear, what furs, what kind of hawks they could fly. If it wasn't a law, then it couldn't have been a formal charge, however. The reason for any law of this kind -- and it probably was an obscure one, honored more in the breach than the observance -- would have been on the same basis, certainly. And certainly, the king wouldn't have expecting to pay the highest price -- he'd demand the best quality at the lowest price.
Message 105
One thing to ponder is that the Henrys were Plantagenet and Tudor; the Edwards went through a lull for several hundred years (1483 to 1901, to be precise)
"Don't forget Henry's son, Edward VI."
Whoops. Which, of course, I did. So make that 1553 to 1901...
Message 118
117. p. 222 The king asks Cromwell to send a message to Wolsey about a case he oversaw, a Breton merchant who's ship was seized with a cargo of powdered pearls for ballast and some "unicorn's horns" (lol—did people actually believe in unicorns and did the merchants knowingly fleece those who did?) the merchant is complaining about not having received compensation (why was the ship seized to begin with?). Cromwell says:
"'If the sums are in doubt, or indeed the whole case, may I look after it?'
The king hesitates. 'I'm not sure you have a locus standi in the matter.'"
What does that expression mean?
"It doesn't say why the ship was seized but I think the point is that the Breton was grossly inflating his claim for compensation with all this talk of pearls and unicorn horns and that Cromwell was a tough negotiator who could persuade him to be more reasonable if not give up altogether. Incidentally I did read a couple of years ago that narwhal tusks were often sold as unicorn horns."
Excellent point..
OK, that's it for me for the day...
Robert, feel free to interject again if you want to clarify/add to an answer. I think the Tuesday stuff is really meant for lurkers with questions, rather than lurkers with answers!!
Meanwhile, I've had some PMs from Robertgreaves, who has been lurking, and has some additional contributions to make on some of my answers:
Message 44:
18. p. 20 "Have you set fire to Whitby, on a whim?"
What is Whitby?
More to the point there was a HUGE Benedictine abbey there, one of the biggest in the North of England.
He def. beat me on this! I was familiar with some of the Cistercian establishments, like Rievaulx, Jervaulx and Fountains (forgive me on spellings...) but while I had figured out that the monastery that Cromwell was dealing with on Wolsey's behalf was in/near Whitby, wasn't aware it was such a mammoth establishment.
57. p. 55 "You make him sound like Nero."
Who was Nero again? A Roman emperor I think, yes? Wasn't he a tyrant? And what is the reference to him playing music? Was Nero a lover of music? I think I must have known about this at some point, but it's all very far away.
He reminds me that Nero's instrument was the lyre, and notes that despite the rumors of him starting the fire, he actually was at the forefront of relief efforts.
Message 100
107. p. 165 "The king's advisers are preparing no fewer than forty-four charges against the cardinal. They range from (etc) — to buying beef for his household at the same price as the king."
Please explain this and why it was a violation?
"it does chime in with something I read recently (can't remember where, sorry). The King would naturally have the best of anything, which probably meant the most expensive. The implication of the charge is that by spending the same as the King for his beef, Wolsey is putting himself on the same level as the King. Even if there's no actual law referring to the price of beef, it could be construed as treasonous behaviour and would prejudice judges against Wolsey."
Ye-es... kinda sorta. That would be more the case with sumptuary laws, that governed what garments people could wear, what furs, what kind of hawks they could fly. If it wasn't a law, then it couldn't have been a formal charge, however. The reason for any law of this kind -- and it probably was an obscure one, honored more in the breach than the observance -- would have been on the same basis, certainly. And certainly, the king wouldn't have expecting to pay the highest price -- he'd demand the best quality at the lowest price.
Message 105
One thing to ponder is that the Henrys were Plantagenet and Tudor; the Edwards went through a lull for several hundred years (1483 to 1901, to be precise)
"Don't forget Henry's son, Edward VI."
Whoops. Which, of course, I did. So make that 1553 to 1901...
Message 118
117. p. 222 The king asks Cromwell to send a message to Wolsey about a case he oversaw, a Breton merchant who's ship was seized with a cargo of powdered pearls for ballast and some "unicorn's horns" (lol—did people actually believe in unicorns and did the merchants knowingly fleece those who did?) the merchant is complaining about not having received compensation (why was the ship seized to begin with?). Cromwell says:
"'If the sums are in doubt, or indeed the whole case, may I look after it?'
The king hesitates. 'I'm not sure you have a locus standi in the matter.'"
What does that expression mean?
"It doesn't say why the ship was seized but I think the point is that the Breton was grossly inflating his claim for compensation with all this talk of pearls and unicorn horns and that Cromwell was a tough negotiator who could persuade him to be more reasonable if not give up altogether. Incidentally I did read a couple of years ago that narwhal tusks were often sold as unicorn horns."
Excellent point..
OK, that's it for me for the day...
Robert, feel free to interject again if you want to clarify/add to an answer. I think the Tuesday stuff is really meant for lurkers with questions, rather than lurkers with answers!!
153Smiler69
Wow, that's wonderful! I also strongly encourage you to chime in here Robert, any time you have additional information to share. And yes, Tuesdays are more about questions... I'm more than happy for helpful comments to be posted here any day of the week!
154Robertgreaves
OK, thanks, will do.
155Smiler69
Well, I read a further 20 pages last night, and I don't know if it's because I wasn't paying such close attention of if I truly understood everything, but no questions so far. May be back later today.
156Chatterbox
Hurrah! I've been immersed in Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn -- much less literary, but a fab thriller...
157Chatterbox
Well, we managed to miss the Tuesday open-question day altogether -- I hope that means that y'all are having so much fun with this book that there's no need to pose any queries! But just in case, I'm going to unilaterally throw this open to questions from anyone tomorrow (Weds) instead. Hope it's going OK, Ilana?
158Smiler69
Hi Suz! Just coming in for an update. I've been very busy these past few days, but did manage to make a bit of progress on the book and am more or less halfway through chapter IV now. I don't know if it's because I genuinely don't have questions, or because was too tired to bother taking notes, but so far so good!
159AlaMich
What with going out of town for the 4th of July and my SO's birthday on the 6th and miscellaneous other things, I have gotten rather behind in my reading, but I am trying valiantly to catch up :-). Will continue lurking, however...
160CDVicarage
I'm a bit disappointed! - I like reading your questions, and Suzanne's answers.
I've finished Wolf Hall and am about to start Bring up the bodies, are you going on to that as well?
I've finished Wolf Hall and am about to start Bring up the bodies, are you going on to that as well?
161Chatterbox
I'm happy to go on to that, whether for Ilana, or (if she wants to take a break!) with anyone else who is interested.
Glad that you're finding it easier sledding, Ilana -- though not great that you are too tired.
Glad that you're finding it easier sledding, Ilana -- though not great that you are too tired.
162Smiler69
I'm a bit disappointed! - I like reading your questions, and Suzanne's answers.
Sorry to disappoint Kerry! I'll try harder to focus on those bits that leave me wondering and bring them up. But it is true that with much of the main issues out of the way, I'm having an easier time of it.
I'd love to read Bring Up the Bodies because really enjoying WH, but I doubt I'll want to follow up with it right away, especially as need to work through my tbr!
Sorry to disappoint Kerry! I'll try harder to focus on those bits that leave me wondering and bring them up. But it is true that with much of the main issues out of the way, I'm having an easier time of it.
I'd love to read Bring Up the Bodies because really enjoying WH, but I doubt I'll want to follow up with it right away, especially as need to work through my tbr!
163Chatterbox
Well, if anyone else needs a tutored read in the meantime, I'm happy to do that, although I'd prefer to wait for August to start. Or we can wait until Ilana is ready!
164Smiler69
PART FIVE
I
Anna Regina
Spring 1533
pages 451 - end of chapter
143. p. 455 Cromwell visits Katherine at her manor at Ampthill, where she has now been given the status of Dowager Princess. When he arrives, she has both a prayer book and some sewing in her lap. At one point, everything falls to the floor, and at the end of the interview, Cromwell hands her back a needle he's no doubt picked up from the floor, tip towards her.
Is there some significance that you know about to this?
144. p. 457 Cromwell, visiting More, discusses the young Maid who claims to have visions. It seems she told Lady Exeter that she would be Queen of England. Who is this lady?
145. So as I understand it, Henry went ahead and married Anne, then held her coronation while he was still technically married to Katherine? Why did he bother trying to get a dispensation from Rome if he went ahead and ignored the Pope after all?
146. p. 469 Another visit by Cromwell, this time to Anne just before the feast of her coronation. Anne is stretched out on her catafalque. What is this?
I
Anna Regina
Spring 1533
pages 451 - end of chapter
143. p. 455 Cromwell visits Katherine at her manor at Ampthill, where she has now been given the status of Dowager Princess. When he arrives, she has both a prayer book and some sewing in her lap. At one point, everything falls to the floor, and at the end of the interview, Cromwell hands her back a needle he's no doubt picked up from the floor, tip towards her.
Is there some significance that you know about to this?
144. p. 457 Cromwell, visiting More, discusses the young Maid who claims to have visions. It seems she told Lady Exeter that she would be Queen of England. Who is this lady?
145. So as I understand it, Henry went ahead and married Anne, then held her coronation while he was still technically married to Katherine? Why did he bother trying to get a dispensation from Rome if he went ahead and ignored the Pope after all?
146. p. 469 Another visit by Cromwell, this time to Anne just before the feast of her coronation. Anne is stretched out on her catafalque. What is this?
165Chatterbox
143. p. 455 Cromwell visits Katherine at her manor at Ampthill, where she has now been given the status of Dowager Princess. When he arrives, she has both a prayer book and some sewing in her lap. At one point, everything falls to the floor, and at the end of the interview, Cromwell hands her back a needle he's no doubt picked up from the floor, tip towards her.
Is there some significance that you know about to this?
There is all kinds of symbolism associated with needles, involving mending relationships; triggering pain, or the old saying about it being easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Can't see how any of these are associated with the way Cromwell hands the needle to her, however. What is significant is that Katherine continued to make Henry's shirts with her own hands, long after they had parted permanently. Odds are that whatever she was sewing was for him, so dropping the needle might be symbolic It's also conceivable that by pointing a needle at her, Cromwell is making a very small aggressive gesture toward her, the kind he would never dare make to a princess of Spain in words, or larger deeds. But that's just a hypothesis. Maybe someone else has another thought on this??
144. p. 457 Cromwell, visiting More, discusses the young Maid who claims to have visions. It seems she told Lady Exeter that she would be Queen of England. Who is this lady?
Lady Exeter, or the maid? I'm going to assume that you mean the former, as the Miad is extensively discussed here and her origins aren't really v. clear anyway. Lady Exeter would be the wife of the marquess of Exeter (A marquess being more important than an earl, but less important than a duke.) The title belonged to Henry's cousin, Henry Courtenay, who at this time was high in the favor of the king. (the link was via their mothers, who were sisters and both daughters of Edward IV.) His first wife, a woman named Gertrude Blount, defied her husband (who was pro Henry in the divorce action) and kept in touch with Catherine of Aragon, remained a devoted Catholic, and supported the Maid, Elizabeth Barton. Exeter was one of those folks who feuded with Cromwell, and Cromwell would use his wife's ties to the Maid to impeach Exeter. The meaning behind this -- the comment that Elizabeth Barton told Gertrude Blount she would be queen -- is that the Maid saw Henry dying without a son and Courtenay -- who, after all was descended from Edward IV and had lots of lovely Plantagenet blood, just like Henry -- becoming king in his place.
145. So as I understand it, Henry went ahead and married Anne, then held her coronation while he was still technically married to Katherine? Why did he bother trying to get a dispensation from Rome if he went ahead and ignored the Pope after all?
That's it in a nutshell! Well, it would have been a lot more straightforward to try and get a dispensation and an annulment of his first marriage -- then there would be no question of the legitimacy of any heirs. But it seems likely that Henry and Anne finally consummated their relationship sometime around the end of the year -- perhaps during or after the Calais trip -- and he was aware that the only way he could be certain of having any heir viewed as legitimate at least domestically was to present the country with a fair accompli. The groundwork had already been done - the previous year, in 1532, Parliament has made him head of the church of England. So he used that power to declare himself divorced -- force majeure. Of course, in the eyes of Roman Catholics, he was married to Catherine right up until the moment of her death in early 1536. Which made Elizabeth a bastard. Which was, of course, one of the reasons for all the plots against Elizabeth during her reign, particularly those involving Mary queen of Scots. In the eyes of Catholics, as a bastard, she had no right to the throne at all.
146. p. 469 Another visit by Cromwell, this time to Anne just before the feast of her coronation. Anne is stretched out on her catafalque. What is this?
This is actually an amazing choice of words, and a foreshadowing -- it's a bier, on which a dead body or coffin is placed before a burial, during a viewing or church funeral, etc. I imagine that in practice it was some kind of divan with a bolster on which she could sprawl, and Mantel is playing with us -- Cromwell sees it as something morbid, that is his mental association.
166Smiler69
I read on to Part Six today. I'll come back to post a handful of questions from Part Five, chapters II & III tomorrow. Too wretched to do so now (I blame it on raw garlic).
167Chatterbox
Migraine?? I'm blaming mine on lurking low pressure and the fact that the pharmacy can't get hold of the right kind of generic Fioricet. Sigh.
168Smiler69
Not migraine this time, no. I treated myself to a big order of Greek food for my bday this week, to last me for a few days, among which a dish of pikilia, forgetting all about my intolerance to raw garlic. Took me two days to figure out why I felt so sick, thinking I'd just eaten too much and too late at night. That's an end to tzatziki for me.
I'll be back with my few questions in a few minutes.
eta: oops, a few minutes came and went, and now I have to run off for some errands, so... will be back later!
I'll be back with my few questions in a few minutes.
eta: oops, a few minutes came and went, and now I have to run off for some errands, so... will be back later!
169Smiler69
PART FIVE
II
Devil's Spit
Autumn and Winter 1533
pages 484 - end of chapter
147. p. 499 Not directly related to the matter at hand, but on this page, Christophe asks Cromwell if there are any loups (sic) around, and Cromwell answers that the wolves all died when the great forests were cut down. Were there really great forests in England and when would they have been cut down?
148. A dispatch arrives for Henry from King Francis, who has "fallen at the Pope's feet and kissed his slippers. (...) He has persuaded the Pope to suspend his bull of excommunication. England has a breathing space." Henry says 'I wish Pope Clement in his grave. God knows he is a man of filthy life, and he is always ailing, so he ought to die. Sometimes,' he says, 'I pray that Katherine might be translated into glory. Is that wrong?'
What does he mean by that? (question pertaining to underlined section)
149. At the end of November, the Maid is at Paul's Cross with he principal supporters to do penance. There is a great crowd there, including Thomas More who "rubs his cold hands. He blows on them" and Cromwell wonders to himself why Alice let him out without his gloves. What is the significance of More not having his gloves on?
150. In the next paragraph, Cromwell asks More how he will frame the charges against the maid, Elizabeth Barton. More answers: 'The common law does not deal with women who say they can fly, or raise the dead. I shall put an act of attainder into Paliament.' What does this act entail?
As an aside, I finally watched A Man for All Seasons this week. What was most interesting to me was seeing how the story, here centred on More is seen so very differently. No hint of More's treatment of the "heretics". We see only a Noble man. A man of strong morals who would rather suffer than go against his beliefs. And Cromwell, predictably enough is the great villain.
As a funny anecdote, I just now realized that I made a mistake, and instead of getting the 1966 original version of the movie, which won 6 Academy Awards, I watched the Charlton Heston 1988 TV version... it was ok, though a bit silly, but Vanessa Redgrave was very good. I've just now reserved the other one which I think will be an altogether different experience!
II
Devil's Spit
Autumn and Winter 1533
pages 484 - end of chapter
147. p. 499 Not directly related to the matter at hand, but on this page, Christophe asks Cromwell if there are any loups (sic) around, and Cromwell answers that the wolves all died when the great forests were cut down. Were there really great forests in England and when would they have been cut down?
148. A dispatch arrives for Henry from King Francis, who has "fallen at the Pope's feet and kissed his slippers. (...) He has persuaded the Pope to suspend his bull of excommunication. England has a breathing space." Henry says 'I wish Pope Clement in his grave. God knows he is a man of filthy life, and he is always ailing, so he ought to die. Sometimes,' he says, 'I pray that Katherine might be translated into glory. Is that wrong?'
What does he mean by that? (question pertaining to underlined section)
149. At the end of November, the Maid is at Paul's Cross with he principal supporters to do penance. There is a great crowd there, including Thomas More who "rubs his cold hands. He blows on them" and Cromwell wonders to himself why Alice let him out without his gloves. What is the significance of More not having his gloves on?
150. In the next paragraph, Cromwell asks More how he will frame the charges against the maid, Elizabeth Barton. More answers: 'The common law does not deal with women who say they can fly, or raise the dead. I shall put an act of attainder into Paliament.' What does this act entail?
As an aside, I finally watched A Man for All Seasons this week. What was most interesting to me was seeing how the story, here centred on More is seen so very differently. No hint of More's treatment of the "heretics". We see only a Noble man. A man of strong morals who would rather suffer than go against his beliefs. And Cromwell, predictably enough is the great villain.
As a funny anecdote, I just now realized that I made a mistake, and instead of getting the 1966 original version of the movie, which won 6 Academy Awards, I watched the Charlton Heston 1988 TV version... it was ok, though a bit silly, but Vanessa Redgrave was very good. I've just now reserved the other one which I think will be an altogether different experience!
170Chatterbox
Oh, yes, you REALLY want to watch the original of that, which is fabulous, despite the fact that Bolt's play really does canonize More more effectively than the Vatican did. The ugly underside to More is well known, historically -- also, his vituperative and scatological ripostes to Luther aren't exactly edifying. But then, in Catholic eyes, especially at the time, one imagines he was simply defending the faith, which is what got one canonized!!
II
Devil's Spit
Autumn and Winter 1533
pages 484 - end of chapter
147. p. 499 Not directly related to the matter at hand, but on this page, Christophe asks Cromwell if there are any loups (sic) around, and Cromwell answers that the wolves all died when the great forests were cut down. Were there really great forests in England and when would they have been cut down?
This is actually an interesting comment, as the extinction of the wolves probably preceded the large-scale deforestation. The Norman kings (from 1066 onward) all commissioned people to kill wolves; people got land grants on condition that they would do away with wolves on their territory. I gather wolves were thought to have been largely extinct by 1500 in England, though they lingered on in Scotland for at least another century.
Re the forests -- this was a gradual process, up until about Elizabeth's rule and more intensively in the 17th century. As populations rose, surrounding areas were de-forested, to provide arable land and wood for building. The real killer, however, were enclosures of common land, which included forested land, which was then converted into agriculture, whether crops or sheepherding. Tremendous numbers of peasants were dispossessed. For instance, Sherwood forest once took up about 1/3 of Nottinghamshire and parts of neighboring counties; today, it's a relatively measly 1,000 acres or so. I just checked, and Nottinghamshire is about 830 square miles. I'm not sure my head is up to the math, but if you want to do it, it will probably tell the tell. Industrialization in the late 18th/early 19th century would have done tremendous damage. But yes, England was very heavily forested indeed -- remember Druids, who worshipped oak trees, flourished here.
148. A dispatch arrives for Henry from King Francis, who has "fallen at the Pope's feet and kissed his slippers. (...) He has persuaded the Pope to suspend his bull of excommunication. England has a breathing space." Henry says 'I wish Pope Clement in his grave. God knows he is a man of filthy life, and he is always ailing, so he ought to die. Sometimes,' he says, 'I pray that Katherine might be translated into glory. Is that wrong?'
What does he mean by that? (question pertaining to underlined section)
translated into glory simply means dying. In other words -- shuffle off this mortal coil in exchange for sitting at the foot of god in glory, etc.
149. At the end of November, the Maid is at Paul's Cross with he principal supporters to do penance. There is a great crowd there, including Thomas More who "rubs his cold hands. He blows on them" and Cromwell wonders to himself why Alice let him out without his gloves. What is the significance of More not having his gloves on?
I think it's simply another example of the degree to which More is apparently oblivious of personal comfort. We've already seen he tolerates what Cromwell sees as mediocre to bad food, I think there has already been a mention of his hair shirt. So he's without his gloves, whether on purpose, to mortify his flesh, or accidentally, because he doesn't have his mind on everyday matters.
150. In the next paragraph, Cromwell asks More how he will frame the charges against the maid, Elizabeth Barton. More answers: 'The common law does not deal with women who say they can fly, or raise the dead. I shall put an act of attainder into Paliament.' What does this act entail?
Attainder was/is a process in English law that involved parliament passing an act -- at the behest of the monarch, almost always -- charging someone with a capital crime. It was a way to get around the fact that the English nobility at the time were exempt from certain types of processes and crimes, and getting an attainder passed required a lower burden of proof. It was used largely against political enemies, and the hallmark was often a lack of what a court -- even in those days -- would have considered real evidence. Typically used against nobles, and whenever a king didn't want to turn the case over to a "real" jury. It hasn't been used in England since the 1790s and was abolished under Victoria, but the Tudors were pretty active in this, although Henry VII didn't always execute these folks, but extracted $$$ from them instead. Someone "attainted" couldn't pass their title or belongings on to their heirs.
II
Devil's Spit
Autumn and Winter 1533
pages 484 - end of chapter
147. p. 499 Not directly related to the matter at hand, but on this page, Christophe asks Cromwell if there are any loups (sic) around, and Cromwell answers that the wolves all died when the great forests were cut down. Were there really great forests in England and when would they have been cut down?
This is actually an interesting comment, as the extinction of the wolves probably preceded the large-scale deforestation. The Norman kings (from 1066 onward) all commissioned people to kill wolves; people got land grants on condition that they would do away with wolves on their territory. I gather wolves were thought to have been largely extinct by 1500 in England, though they lingered on in Scotland for at least another century.
Re the forests -- this was a gradual process, up until about Elizabeth's rule and more intensively in the 17th century. As populations rose, surrounding areas were de-forested, to provide arable land and wood for building. The real killer, however, were enclosures of common land, which included forested land, which was then converted into agriculture, whether crops or sheepherding. Tremendous numbers of peasants were dispossessed. For instance, Sherwood forest once took up about 1/3 of Nottinghamshire and parts of neighboring counties; today, it's a relatively measly 1,000 acres or so. I just checked, and Nottinghamshire is about 830 square miles. I'm not sure my head is up to the math, but if you want to do it, it will probably tell the tell. Industrialization in the late 18th/early 19th century would have done tremendous damage. But yes, England was very heavily forested indeed -- remember Druids, who worshipped oak trees, flourished here.
148. A dispatch arrives for Henry from King Francis, who has "fallen at the Pope's feet and kissed his slippers. (...) He has persuaded the Pope to suspend his bull of excommunication. England has a breathing space." Henry says 'I wish Pope Clement in his grave. God knows he is a man of filthy life, and he is always ailing, so he ought to die. Sometimes,' he says, 'I pray that Katherine might be translated into glory. Is that wrong?'
What does he mean by that? (question pertaining to underlined section)
translated into glory simply means dying. In other words -- shuffle off this mortal coil in exchange for sitting at the foot of god in glory, etc.
149. At the end of November, the Maid is at Paul's Cross with he principal supporters to do penance. There is a great crowd there, including Thomas More who "rubs his cold hands. He blows on them" and Cromwell wonders to himself why Alice let him out without his gloves. What is the significance of More not having his gloves on?
I think it's simply another example of the degree to which More is apparently oblivious of personal comfort. We've already seen he tolerates what Cromwell sees as mediocre to bad food, I think there has already been a mention of his hair shirt. So he's without his gloves, whether on purpose, to mortify his flesh, or accidentally, because he doesn't have his mind on everyday matters.
150. In the next paragraph, Cromwell asks More how he will frame the charges against the maid, Elizabeth Barton. More answers: 'The common law does not deal with women who say they can fly, or raise the dead. I shall put an act of attainder into Paliament.' What does this act entail?
Attainder was/is a process in English law that involved parliament passing an act -- at the behest of the monarch, almost always -- charging someone with a capital crime. It was a way to get around the fact that the English nobility at the time were exempt from certain types of processes and crimes, and getting an attainder passed required a lower burden of proof. It was used largely against political enemies, and the hallmark was often a lack of what a court -- even in those days -- would have considered real evidence. Typically used against nobles, and whenever a king didn't want to turn the case over to a "real" jury. It hasn't been used in England since the 1790s and was abolished under Victoria, but the Tudors were pretty active in this, although Henry VII didn't always execute these folks, but extracted $$$ from them instead. Someone "attainted" couldn't pass their title or belongings on to their heirs.
171Chatterbox
A quick reminder: It's Tuesday once more, and time for anyone with questions to lob them in my direction. Usual rules: no spoilers, please.
172Smiler69
A Man For All Seasons is apparently ready for me to pick up at the library. I really look forward to it now, and it'll be interesting comparing both versions (though I'm sure it'll be an unfair comparison).
I really appreciated you taking the time to answer my question about the wolves and forests of England. Since you do so much reading on a wide range of subjects, can you think of any good historical fiction that would somehow have these topics as important elements of the story (i.e. wolves, English forests, druids)? As an animal lover, it really saddens me that the wolves were systematically eradicated that way. They've been hunting down the wolves here in Canada forever too, with the excuse that they threaten caribou populations.
Whoever thought to write Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (King James Cambridge Ed.) did a serious disservice to all living matter. We've only been here on earth a puny amount of time and I've always found it incredible that humans have taken on the role of the lords of the universe. I think I would have preferred for the druids to stick around through the ages, but I imagine they were all slaughtered at some point.
Will be back tomorrow on topic with more questions.
I really appreciated you taking the time to answer my question about the wolves and forests of England. Since you do so much reading on a wide range of subjects, can you think of any good historical fiction that would somehow have these topics as important elements of the story (i.e. wolves, English forests, druids)? As an animal lover, it really saddens me that the wolves were systematically eradicated that way. They've been hunting down the wolves here in Canada forever too, with the excuse that they threaten caribou populations.
Whoever thought to write Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (King James Cambridge Ed.) did a serious disservice to all living matter. We've only been here on earth a puny amount of time and I've always found it incredible that humans have taken on the role of the lords of the universe. I think I would have preferred for the druids to stick around through the ages, but I imagine they were all slaughtered at some point.
Will be back tomorrow on topic with more questions.
173lauranav
I'm sure giving man dominion wasn't meant to be translated as wholesale slaughter. But the lazy way to keep control does mean a lot is destroyed.
I've been lurking and greatly enjoying the questions and answers. I read WH last year and loved it and was maddened by it at the same time. As has been commented before, using "he" and "Thomas" all the time when everyone in the scene is a he and half of them are named Thomas is really a tad confusing.
It was also a surprise to see a presentation of More where he wasn't the angel :-)
So, as I said, all this conversation has been very enlightening and enjoyable.
I've been lurking and greatly enjoying the questions and answers. I read WH last year and loved it and was maddened by it at the same time. As has been commented before, using "he" and "Thomas" all the time when everyone in the scene is a he and half of them are named Thomas is really a tad confusing.
It was also a surprise to see a presentation of More where he wasn't the angel :-)
So, as I said, all this conversation has been very enlightening and enjoyable.
174streamsong
I've hugely enjoyed all the questions and answers--thanks so much! It's a pleasure to lurk. I can't tell you how much I've learned.
One of the participants in the RL book group brought in several books of Hans Holbein's portraits. They are really stunning--Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, Erasmus, Jayne Seymour, Henry Vlll, the Ambassadors from France ..... I was amazed at how many of the portraits themselves are actually referred to by Mantel. Well worth a google or finding a book.
One of the participants in the RL book group brought in several books of Hans Holbein's portraits. They are really stunning--Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, Erasmus, Jayne Seymour, Henry Vlll, the Ambassadors from France ..... I was amazed at how many of the portraits themselves are actually referred to by Mantel. Well worth a google or finding a book.
175benitastrnad
Man is a predator. It is that simple. However, in defense of people living in the Middle Ages and before ... Life was tough back then. Before 1700 most people didn't have a gun and without a gun nature is much more threatening. I am sure that the wolves had a hard time finding food. As the population of Europe exploded during Roman times and then afterwards, they had to eat. They started hunting for meat. Eventually they killed all of the wild food animals in Europe taking away the food the wolves normally ate. (All of the wild elk were extinct in Europe by 1500.) The wolves had to turn to eating domesticated animals and or people. So a vicious downward spiral began. The gun in the hands of thousands of people is what changed things. With them the wild animals didn't have a chance.
I am sure that when Europeans came to the Western Hemisphere and found all those wild animals in such abundance they thought it was amazing, or else terribly frightening. Of course what destroyed the wild animal populations here is the increase in the population. Man needs to control his numbers and bring things more in balance.
I am sure that when Europeans came to the Western Hemisphere and found all those wild animals in such abundance they thought it was amazing, or else terribly frightening. Of course what destroyed the wild animal populations here is the increase in the population. Man needs to control his numbers and bring things more in balance.
176Smiler69
#173 Hi Laura, nice to "meet" some of the lurkers, so to speak! I'm glad you've been finding this thread interesting, and I agree that this "he" business is maddening. I'm nearing the end of the book and still having to do a bit of mental gymnastics each time to figure out who is thinking or talking. I wonder what Mantel was thinking when she did that? Though I vaguely recall reading about that very thing somewhere... but forgot what the answer was unfortunately!
#174 I'm glad you've been learning a lot here. Suzanne is certainly quite the fount of knowledge. We're all lucky that she is so willing to share it all so freely.
Thanks for the suggestion about Hans Holbein. I will indeed look into it. Will be interesting to put specific faces on these characters. One forgets (or I do, anyway), that they were all real people! ... Just had a quick look now, but will delve into it longer.
#175 Benita, apparently I share a typical trait with fellow animal lovers in that I tend to prefer animals to human beings. That being said, it's not quite true, because simply put, I never lose sight of the fact that we humans came from animals... and who's to say we aren't animals ourselves? It has always saddened me that nature and it's many creatures have not been, and still do not get treated with more respect. To me, every living thing is magical, but of course, there are too many humans who think otherwise. I'll always remain that flower child who dreamed of peace and love for all the creatures on earth. But I have no illusions either and think sometimes it would be just as well if we ceased to inhabit the earth altogether.
But all that is quiet apart from the topic at hand, so, next up, some questions.
#174 I'm glad you've been learning a lot here. Suzanne is certainly quite the fount of knowledge. We're all lucky that she is so willing to share it all so freely.
Thanks for the suggestion about Hans Holbein. I will indeed look into it. Will be interesting to put specific faces on these characters. One forgets (or I do, anyway), that they were all real people! ... Just had a quick look now, but will delve into it longer.
#175 Benita, apparently I share a typical trait with fellow animal lovers in that I tend to prefer animals to human beings. That being said, it's not quite true, because simply put, I never lose sight of the fact that we humans came from animals... and who's to say we aren't animals ourselves? It has always saddened me that nature and it's many creatures have not been, and still do not get treated with more respect. To me, every living thing is magical, but of course, there are too many humans who think otherwise. I'll always remain that flower child who dreamed of peace and love for all the creatures on earth. But I have no illusions either and think sometimes it would be just as well if we ceased to inhabit the earth altogether.
But all that is quiet apart from the topic at hand, so, next up, some questions.
177Chatterbox
Heavens, I should have thought to mention the Holbein portraits, given your own background, Ilana! Yes, these are amazing.. In addition to his paintings, there are some really remarkable drawings, sketches for the full portraits. 20 years or so ago, there was a big exhibit in Toronto featuring these, and I could swear that these were so vivid that had I turned around sharply I would have caught one of the figures in them moving...
Dover appears to have a book of these: http://store.doverpublications.com/0486249379.html
There are a lot on Google Images.
And here's the portrait of Cromwell:
http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/hans-holbein-the-younger/portrait-of-thomas-crom...
Dover appears to have a book of these: http://store.doverpublications.com/0486249379.html
There are a lot on Google Images.
And here's the portrait of Cromwell:
http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/hans-holbein-the-younger/portrait-of-thomas-crom...
178Chatterbox
Re wolves -- You might look for The Wolves of Willoughby Chase, which is an iconic YA fantasy novel set in an England that DEFINITELY has wolves! By Joan Aiken.
Re Druids, there are some but I need to dig through my books when my head doesn't ache to come up with some titles. Barbara Erskine is coming to mind, also Anya Seton. Forests -- let me think that through also. There's the mediocre book by Ken Follett about the construction of a cathedral -- I wouldn't recommend it as either great fiction or accurate historical fiction, but it does give a vivid sense of the forests at the time, if I recall correctly. It's a chunkster, though.
I'll circle back to you on this.
Re Druids, there are some but I need to dig through my books when my head doesn't ache to come up with some titles. Barbara Erskine is coming to mind, also Anya Seton. Forests -- let me think that through also. There's the mediocre book by Ken Follett about the construction of a cathedral -- I wouldn't recommend it as either great fiction or accurate historical fiction, but it does give a vivid sense of the forests at the time, if I recall correctly. It's a chunkster, though.
I'll circle back to you on this.
179Smiler69
PART SIX
I
Supremacy
1534
pages 531 - 579 (end of chapter)
151. p. 531 In the opening sentence, it says that "Charles Brandon is in the fens shouting at the door" What does this mean?
152. p. 531 In the same sentence, Cromwell is rereading Marsiglio of Padua, who wrote a text in 1324 putting forth forty-two propositions. Who was he, and what is the work called?
153. p. 531 The first paragraph ends with the sentence "We are breezing in to push our luck." What does this mean and who is included in the "we"?
154. p. 536 The king has called in Cromwell with Stephen Gardiner to look throughout the bill Cromwell proposes to put into Parliament to secure the succession of Anne's children. During the interview, Anne and Henry ignore Gardiner's comments: "The king seems to have invited Stephen to this conference in order to snub him. Tomorrow of course, it could go the other way; he could arrive to see Henry arm in arm with Winchester and strolling among the snowdrops."
Is Henry specifically displeased with Gardiner, or is he simply as changeable as Cromwell seems to think he is?
154. p. 554 Cromwell is sent to Hatfield by the king. He goes with his son and sees the Princess Elizabeth and "Lady Mary". When Gregory sees Mary, he says "She looks like Malekin." Next, Mantel says "Poor Malekin, she is a spirit girl; she eats at night, lives on crumbs and apple peel. Sometimes, if you come down early and are quiet on the stairs, you find he sitting in the ashes."
I suspect Malekin is some sort of character from folktales? I'm confused by the above sentence; does it describe the Malekin character or Mary herself?
155. p. 559 During the same visit to Hatfield, Cromwell has a conversation with Gregory about who would rule should Henry hypothetically die the next day. Gregory nods toward the infant Elizabeth.
'But would that happen? In practice? An unborn child? Or a daughter not a year old? Anne as regent? It would suit the Boleyns, I grant you.'
'Then Fitzroy.'
'There is a Tudor who is better placed.' (here Gregory understands Cromwell is talking about Mary).
Why would Gregory even mention Fitzroy as a possibility if he's known to be Henry's bastard son? And why would Cromwell suggest Mary if she's been stripped of her title and bastardized herself? (not sure that is the correct use of the term...) All I know of the situation I've learned here from you, but wouldn't the most likely situation be civil war, with everyone trying to make a grab for rulership?
156. p. 579 Last paragraph describing midsummer. Last sentence: "Dragons stalk the streets, puffing out smoke and clattering their mechanical wings." What is she talking about?
I
Supremacy
1534
pages 531 - 579 (end of chapter)
151. p. 531 In the opening sentence, it says that "Charles Brandon is in the fens shouting at the door" What does this mean?
152. p. 531 In the same sentence, Cromwell is rereading Marsiglio of Padua, who wrote a text in 1324 putting forth forty-two propositions. Who was he, and what is the work called?
153. p. 531 The first paragraph ends with the sentence "We are breezing in to push our luck." What does this mean and who is included in the "we"?
154. p. 536 The king has called in Cromwell with Stephen Gardiner to look throughout the bill Cromwell proposes to put into Parliament to secure the succession of Anne's children. During the interview, Anne and Henry ignore Gardiner's comments: "The king seems to have invited Stephen to this conference in order to snub him. Tomorrow of course, it could go the other way; he could arrive to see Henry arm in arm with Winchester and strolling among the snowdrops."
Is Henry specifically displeased with Gardiner, or is he simply as changeable as Cromwell seems to think he is?
154. p. 554 Cromwell is sent to Hatfield by the king. He goes with his son and sees the Princess Elizabeth and "Lady Mary". When Gregory sees Mary, he says "She looks like Malekin." Next, Mantel says "Poor Malekin, she is a spirit girl; she eats at night, lives on crumbs and apple peel. Sometimes, if you come down early and are quiet on the stairs, you find he sitting in the ashes."
I suspect Malekin is some sort of character from folktales? I'm confused by the above sentence; does it describe the Malekin character or Mary herself?
155. p. 559 During the same visit to Hatfield, Cromwell has a conversation with Gregory about who would rule should Henry hypothetically die the next day. Gregory nods toward the infant Elizabeth.
'But would that happen? In practice? An unborn child? Or a daughter not a year old? Anne as regent? It would suit the Boleyns, I grant you.'
'Then Fitzroy.'
'There is a Tudor who is better placed.' (here Gregory understands Cromwell is talking about Mary).
Why would Gregory even mention Fitzroy as a possibility if he's known to be Henry's bastard son? And why would Cromwell suggest Mary if she's been stripped of her title and bastardized herself? (not sure that is the correct use of the term...) All I know of the situation I've learned here from you, but wouldn't the most likely situation be civil war, with everyone trying to make a grab for rulership?
156. p. 579 Last paragraph describing midsummer. Last sentence: "Dragons stalk the streets, puffing out smoke and clattering their mechanical wings." What is she talking about?
180Smiler69
Thanks for the links to the images Suz. I just looked quickly to see what they have at the library, and seems they have a few options for books of Holbein's work, including a couple showing just the drawings. I'll borrow some very soon, when I'm awake enough to make my selection.
I read the mediocre Ken Follett book in question. It was bad. Very bad. I would have liked the story enough, but the writing! http://www.librarything.com/work/1051327/reviews/45466722
I'm glad you mention The Wolves of Willoughby Chase because it's been often recommended here and is already on my WL, so I'll move it up a notch, maybe even get my own copy instead of borrowing it from the library as I have a feeling I'll really like it.
Sorry about the headache. We've been getting lots of rain here and the clouds are always about, so it's affecting me too, but not too badly thank heavens. Hope it passes for you soon.
I read the mediocre Ken Follett book in question. It was bad. Very bad. I would have liked the story enough, but the writing! http://www.librarything.com/work/1051327/reviews/45466722
I'm glad you mention The Wolves of Willoughby Chase because it's been often recommended here and is already on my WL, so I'll move it up a notch, maybe even get my own copy instead of borrowing it from the library as I have a feeling I'll really like it.
Sorry about the headache. We've been getting lots of rain here and the clouds are always about, so it's affecting me too, but not too badly thank heavens. Hope it passes for you soon.
181Robertgreaves
I loved The Wolves of Willoughby Chase when I read it aged about 12. It's an adventure story set in an alternative history 19th century. The Stuarts had succeeded in regaining the throne in either 1715 or 1745 (I forget which), the Chunnel had been built and wolves had come back to England through it. Great stuff. IIRR it was the first in a series.
182Smiler69
Done! I've just ordered this upcoming release from Vintage Classics: http://www.bookdepository.com/Wolves-Willoughby-Chase-Joan-Aiken/9780099572879?b...
I like the cover illustration, but best of all, as says in the bibliographic details "Includes exclusive material: In ‘The Backstory’ you can discover a few things you didn't know about wolves". Perfect! :-)
I like the cover illustration, but best of all, as says in the bibliographic details "Includes exclusive material: In ‘The Backstory’ you can discover a few things you didn't know about wolves". Perfect! :-)
183Chatterbox
Got these queries & working on them. I need to refer to the book, so it may need to wait until later this afternoon.
184Chatterbox
151. p. 531 In the opening sentence, it says that "Charles Brandon is in the fens shouting at the door" What does this mean?
It refers to Brandon/Suffolk being dispatched to the fen country (eg, Cambridgeshire, etc -- East Anglia; fens are marshy areas) which is where Katherine is living. I can't remember whether Mantel dealt with this in the previous book, but Katherine barred the door and refused to allow Suffolk to enter, leaving him hollering at her from beyond the walls.
152. p. 531 In the same sentence, Cromwell is rereading Marsiglio of Padua, who wrote a text in 1324 putting forth forty-two propositions. Who was he, and what is the work called?
Ah yes, I'm more familiar with him as Marsilius, but he's a well-known political philosopher who became entangled with some papal/imperial politics back in the early 14th century. This was roughly at the same time as the Papal schism, when the first pope had set up his court in Avignon, abandoning Rome. Marsiglio/Marsilio/Marsilius was in the entourage of the man who was ultimately elected Holy Roman Emperor, Louis of Bavaria. Louis had a major wrangle with the Pope, and Marsilio wrote a famous work laying out a foundation for claims that a religious leader's authority didn't extend into the temporal realm. I think the work that had the propositions was Defensor pacis. Essentially, this would have interested Cromwell as an early philosophical basis for advocating "divorce" from the pope's authority.
153. p. 531 The first paragraph ends with the sentence "We are breezing in to push our luck." What does this mean and who is included in the "we"?
Breezing in is simply a turn of phrase that captures someone moving briskly and somewhat informally; it's also a reference to the "wind off the river like a knife in the face." (wind/breeze) To push our luck refers to the fact that they are going to put Marsilio's arguments in front of Henry, even though to the extent that he is familiar with them, he may have been taught to view them with suspicion. So they're pushing their luck by trying to get the king to look at them in a different way. There's also another layer of meaning -- winds and breezes push things, move them -- so Cromwell is trying to move/shift Henry's thinking.
154. p. 536 The king has called in Cromwell with Stephen Gardiner to look throughout the bill Cromwell proposes to put into Parliament to secure the succession of Anne's children. During the interview, Anne and Henry ignore Gardiner's comments: "The king seems to have invited Stephen to this conference in order to snub him. Tomorrow of course, it could go the other way; he could arrive to see Henry arm in arm with Winchester and strolling among the snowdrops."
Is Henry specifically displeased with Gardiner, or is he simply as changeable as Cromwell seems to think he is?
I think Mantel is showing that Henry himself is uncertain and hedging his bets. He is in uncharted waters, and finding it difficult to navigate. Historically, it is clear that Cromwell often nudged Henry further along various paths than he might have gone by himself, and further than he was comfortable with. Moreover, it's clear that Henry was susceptible to flattery. So yes, whoever seemed best able to serve him and deliver him what he wanted without him having to ask him would be in favor. But it also could be deliberate strategy on Henry's part. In this particular case, I think that part of Henry's response to Gardiner is being shaped by Anne's response to Gardiner's comments.
154. p. 554 Cromwell is sent to Hatfield by the king. He goes with his son and sees the Princess Elizabeth and "Lady Mary". When Gregory sees Mary, he says "She looks like Malekin." Next, Mantel says "Poor Malekin, she is a spirit girl; she eats at night, lives on crumbs and apple peel. Sometimes, if you come down early and are quiet on the stairs, you find he sitting in the ashes."
I suspect Malekin is some sort of character from folktales? I'm confused by the above sentence; does it describe the Malekin character or Mary herself?
I think it refers to a medieval fairy tale, having roots in something Celtic. It's a classic tale of a changeling; in this case, Malekin is stolen from her human parents by fairies; she is invisible and like a Brownie, scavenges among leftover food. I think the sentence that you attribute to Mantel is actually what Mantel gives us as running through Cromwell's head -- he is reflecting on the similarities between Mary and Malekin (Lady Shelton has just told him she won't eat with the household, so presumably she finds a non-fairy like way of scavenging); she is a shadow of herself, etc., and you wouldn't know she was in the house if you didn't seek her out because she scarcely leaves her room.
155. p. 559 During the same visit to Hatfield, Cromwell has a conversation with Gregory about who would rule should Henry hypothetically die the next day. Gregory nods toward the infant Elizabeth.
'But would that happen? In practice? An unborn child? Or a daughter not a year old? Anne as regent? It would suit the Boleyns, I grant you.'
'Then Fitzroy.'
'There is a Tudor who is better placed.' (here Gregory understands Cromwell is talking about Mary).
Why would Gregory even mention Fitzroy as a possibility if he's known to be Henry's bastard son? And why would Cromwell suggest Mary if she's been stripped of her title and bastardized herself? (not sure that is the correct use of the term...) All I know of the situation I've learned here from you, but wouldn't the most likely situation be civil war, with everyone trying to make a grab for rulership?
Intriguingly, in 1553, when Mary's younger brother Edward VI does die, that is precisely what will happen. Groups of Protestant noblemen are afraid of losing the power they have accumulated and some doubtless had real fears about being forced to abandon very genuine religious convictions and return to Catholicism. That's what drove Charles Brandon's widow to leave England during Mary's reign. (Interestingly, she was the daughter of one of Catherine of Aragon's most devoted Spanish attendants...) So, they put forward Lady Jane Grey as an alternative queen. But whatever the qualms about whether or not Mary was legitimate, or her religion, the vast majority of the country rejected that idea out of hand, and Jane Grey was deposed and imprisoned in the Tower. After another rebellion about seven months later, she was executed, along with a host of others. Elizabeth ended up in the Tower for a while, and in virtual house arrest for much of the remainder of Mary's reign.
I'd mentioned previously, I think, the fears associated with having (a) a child as ruler and (b) a woman ruler. (The idea of a woman ruling had been anathema ever since the mid 12th century, when Matilda, daughter of Henry I, waged a brutal civil war to try and claim the throne her father had made his nobles swear she would inherit, but that had been seized by her cousin, Stephen. It ended with the country so devastated that people said "Christ and his saints slept". Ultimately, the two reached an uneasy agreement that Matilda's son, Henry, would inherit at Stephen's death, by passing both her and Stephen's own son (who didn't outlive his father anyway.) But the idea of a woman ruling was still tied to this experience.
So yes, the outcome likely would have been some kind of civil war. After all, it had been only 50 years since the Wars of the Roses; less than that since the last armed revolt against Tudor rule. In hoping for son and taking this step, Henry is in a way being reckless -- he abandoning a certain heir, Mary, in hopes of a son, and of living long enough for that son to reach maturity.
Gregory mentions Fitzroy because there was idle chatter and speculation about the king try to legitimize him and make him his heir. At the time, the prospect was remote, as Henry hoped to have heirs from his marriage to Anne. I've read somewhere that the Pope was even prepared to provide a dispensation for Fitzroy to marry his half-sister, if it meant keeping England Catholic... *eyes roll* That said, a succession act passed after the events of 1536 that barred both Elizabeth and Mary from the succession gave Henry the right to declare his own heir -- legitimate or not -- and made it treason for anyone to question that right or his selection. (Interestingly, it also made it treason for anyone to say that More wasn't justly executed!!) That stood as law until its repeal in 1543.
Cromwell is, I think, aware that Henry is a pragmatic man. He needs an heir, and if Mary ultimately turns out to be all that is available, I think he expects the king to marry her off to a suitable man and make them his joint heirs. He is not going to let the Tudor dynasty die.
It is really astonishing to ponder the fact that more or less by this time, almost the only heirs to throne were women, and by the end of Henry's life, aside from his son, that was still the case. There were Elizabeth and Mary. Henry's elder sister had married three or four times (depending on whether one counts annulments) and had two children; her son was dead but her granddaughter, the future Mary Queen of Scots, was one possible heir. (She was born in 1542; Henry died in 1547.) The other was a woman, Margaret, by her second husband. Margaret did have two sons, including Henry, Lord Darnley, who got blown up after marrying Mary Queen of Scots, but only the elder was born, and he was an infant at Henry VIII's death. Henry's other sister had married Charles Brandon; her only son had died young, long before Henry did. That left Henry with two nieces as potential heirs: Frances and Eleanor. Frances had no living sons, only three daughters -- Jane (Jane Grey, above), Katherine and Mary. The latter two both ran afoul of Elizabeth during the latter's reign, for being too close to the throne and marrying without permission. That left Eleanor Brandon -- and she in turn had only a single child who survived infancy, another daughter! A Tudor curse -- at Henry's death, he had his 9 year old son, a toddler boy (Darnley) and no fewer than TEN female heirs...
156. p. 579 Last paragraph describing midsummer. Last sentence: "Dragons stalk the streets, puffing out smoke and clattering their mechanical wings." What is she talking about?
Midsummer was a festival period, marked by mumming, parades and other celebrations; dragons would have featured in that as symbolic of St. George, England's patron saint. So she's referring to people dressed up in dragon costumes, whether as part of an official parade or because the human underneath the costume thought it would be fun. While a literal observation, Mantel also may intend a reference to uncertainty and perils stalking the realm as people wait for the birth of the child.
Not much further to go!
It refers to Brandon/Suffolk being dispatched to the fen country (eg, Cambridgeshire, etc -- East Anglia; fens are marshy areas) which is where Katherine is living. I can't remember whether Mantel dealt with this in the previous book, but Katherine barred the door and refused to allow Suffolk to enter, leaving him hollering at her from beyond the walls.
152. p. 531 In the same sentence, Cromwell is rereading Marsiglio of Padua, who wrote a text in 1324 putting forth forty-two propositions. Who was he, and what is the work called?
Ah yes, I'm more familiar with him as Marsilius, but he's a well-known political philosopher who became entangled with some papal/imperial politics back in the early 14th century. This was roughly at the same time as the Papal schism, when the first pope had set up his court in Avignon, abandoning Rome. Marsiglio/Marsilio/Marsilius was in the entourage of the man who was ultimately elected Holy Roman Emperor, Louis of Bavaria. Louis had a major wrangle with the Pope, and Marsilio wrote a famous work laying out a foundation for claims that a religious leader's authority didn't extend into the temporal realm. I think the work that had the propositions was Defensor pacis. Essentially, this would have interested Cromwell as an early philosophical basis for advocating "divorce" from the pope's authority.
153. p. 531 The first paragraph ends with the sentence "We are breezing in to push our luck." What does this mean and who is included in the "we"?
Breezing in is simply a turn of phrase that captures someone moving briskly and somewhat informally; it's also a reference to the "wind off the river like a knife in the face." (wind/breeze) To push our luck refers to the fact that they are going to put Marsilio's arguments in front of Henry, even though to the extent that he is familiar with them, he may have been taught to view them with suspicion. So they're pushing their luck by trying to get the king to look at them in a different way. There's also another layer of meaning -- winds and breezes push things, move them -- so Cromwell is trying to move/shift Henry's thinking.
154. p. 536 The king has called in Cromwell with Stephen Gardiner to look throughout the bill Cromwell proposes to put into Parliament to secure the succession of Anne's children. During the interview, Anne and Henry ignore Gardiner's comments: "The king seems to have invited Stephen to this conference in order to snub him. Tomorrow of course, it could go the other way; he could arrive to see Henry arm in arm with Winchester and strolling among the snowdrops."
Is Henry specifically displeased with Gardiner, or is he simply as changeable as Cromwell seems to think he is?
I think Mantel is showing that Henry himself is uncertain and hedging his bets. He is in uncharted waters, and finding it difficult to navigate. Historically, it is clear that Cromwell often nudged Henry further along various paths than he might have gone by himself, and further than he was comfortable with. Moreover, it's clear that Henry was susceptible to flattery. So yes, whoever seemed best able to serve him and deliver him what he wanted without him having to ask him would be in favor. But it also could be deliberate strategy on Henry's part. In this particular case, I think that part of Henry's response to Gardiner is being shaped by Anne's response to Gardiner's comments.
154. p. 554 Cromwell is sent to Hatfield by the king. He goes with his son and sees the Princess Elizabeth and "Lady Mary". When Gregory sees Mary, he says "She looks like Malekin." Next, Mantel says "Poor Malekin, she is a spirit girl; she eats at night, lives on crumbs and apple peel. Sometimes, if you come down early and are quiet on the stairs, you find he sitting in the ashes."
I suspect Malekin is some sort of character from folktales? I'm confused by the above sentence; does it describe the Malekin character or Mary herself?
I think it refers to a medieval fairy tale, having roots in something Celtic. It's a classic tale of a changeling; in this case, Malekin is stolen from her human parents by fairies; she is invisible and like a Brownie, scavenges among leftover food. I think the sentence that you attribute to Mantel is actually what Mantel gives us as running through Cromwell's head -- he is reflecting on the similarities between Mary and Malekin (Lady Shelton has just told him she won't eat with the household, so presumably she finds a non-fairy like way of scavenging); she is a shadow of herself, etc., and you wouldn't know she was in the house if you didn't seek her out because she scarcely leaves her room.
155. p. 559 During the same visit to Hatfield, Cromwell has a conversation with Gregory about who would rule should Henry hypothetically die the next day. Gregory nods toward the infant Elizabeth.
'But would that happen? In practice? An unborn child? Or a daughter not a year old? Anne as regent? It would suit the Boleyns, I grant you.'
'Then Fitzroy.'
'There is a Tudor who is better placed.' (here Gregory understands Cromwell is talking about Mary).
Why would Gregory even mention Fitzroy as a possibility if he's known to be Henry's bastard son? And why would Cromwell suggest Mary if she's been stripped of her title and bastardized herself? (not sure that is the correct use of the term...) All I know of the situation I've learned here from you, but wouldn't the most likely situation be civil war, with everyone trying to make a grab for rulership?
Intriguingly, in 1553, when Mary's younger brother Edward VI does die, that is precisely what will happen. Groups of Protestant noblemen are afraid of losing the power they have accumulated and some doubtless had real fears about being forced to abandon very genuine religious convictions and return to Catholicism. That's what drove Charles Brandon's widow to leave England during Mary's reign. (Interestingly, she was the daughter of one of Catherine of Aragon's most devoted Spanish attendants...) So, they put forward Lady Jane Grey as an alternative queen. But whatever the qualms about whether or not Mary was legitimate, or her religion, the vast majority of the country rejected that idea out of hand, and Jane Grey was deposed and imprisoned in the Tower. After another rebellion about seven months later, she was executed, along with a host of others. Elizabeth ended up in the Tower for a while, and in virtual house arrest for much of the remainder of Mary's reign.
I'd mentioned previously, I think, the fears associated with having (a) a child as ruler and (b) a woman ruler. (The idea of a woman ruling had been anathema ever since the mid 12th century, when Matilda, daughter of Henry I, waged a brutal civil war to try and claim the throne her father had made his nobles swear she would inherit, but that had been seized by her cousin, Stephen. It ended with the country so devastated that people said "Christ and his saints slept". Ultimately, the two reached an uneasy agreement that Matilda's son, Henry, would inherit at Stephen's death, by passing both her and Stephen's own son (who didn't outlive his father anyway.) But the idea of a woman ruling was still tied to this experience.
So yes, the outcome likely would have been some kind of civil war. After all, it had been only 50 years since the Wars of the Roses; less than that since the last armed revolt against Tudor rule. In hoping for son and taking this step, Henry is in a way being reckless -- he abandoning a certain heir, Mary, in hopes of a son, and of living long enough for that son to reach maturity.
Gregory mentions Fitzroy because there was idle chatter and speculation about the king try to legitimize him and make him his heir. At the time, the prospect was remote, as Henry hoped to have heirs from his marriage to Anne. I've read somewhere that the Pope was even prepared to provide a dispensation for Fitzroy to marry his half-sister, if it meant keeping England Catholic... *eyes roll* That said, a succession act passed after the events of 1536 that barred both Elizabeth and Mary from the succession gave Henry the right to declare his own heir -- legitimate or not -- and made it treason for anyone to question that right or his selection. (Interestingly, it also made it treason for anyone to say that More wasn't justly executed!!) That stood as law until its repeal in 1543.
Cromwell is, I think, aware that Henry is a pragmatic man. He needs an heir, and if Mary ultimately turns out to be all that is available, I think he expects the king to marry her off to a suitable man and make them his joint heirs. He is not going to let the Tudor dynasty die.
It is really astonishing to ponder the fact that more or less by this time, almost the only heirs to throne were women, and by the end of Henry's life, aside from his son, that was still the case. There were Elizabeth and Mary. Henry's elder sister had married three or four times (depending on whether one counts annulments) and had two children; her son was dead but her granddaughter, the future Mary Queen of Scots, was one possible heir. (She was born in 1542; Henry died in 1547.) The other was a woman, Margaret, by her second husband. Margaret did have two sons, including Henry, Lord Darnley, who got blown up after marrying Mary Queen of Scots, but only the elder was born, and he was an infant at Henry VIII's death. Henry's other sister had married Charles Brandon; her only son had died young, long before Henry did. That left Henry with two nieces as potential heirs: Frances and Eleanor. Frances had no living sons, only three daughters -- Jane (Jane Grey, above), Katherine and Mary. The latter two both ran afoul of Elizabeth during the latter's reign, for being too close to the throne and marrying without permission. That left Eleanor Brandon -- and she in turn had only a single child who survived infancy, another daughter! A Tudor curse -- at Henry's death, he had his 9 year old son, a toddler boy (Darnley) and no fewer than TEN female heirs...
156. p. 579 Last paragraph describing midsummer. Last sentence: "Dragons stalk the streets, puffing out smoke and clattering their mechanical wings." What is she talking about?
Midsummer was a festival period, marked by mumming, parades and other celebrations; dragons would have featured in that as symbolic of St. George, England's patron saint. So she's referring to people dressed up in dragon costumes, whether as part of an official parade or because the human underneath the costume thought it would be fun. While a literal observation, Mantel also may intend a reference to uncertainty and perils stalking the realm as people wait for the birth of the child.
Not much further to go!
185AlaMich
Another vote for The Wolves of Willoughby Chase! I don't really remember much about it, though (back in the mists of time as it was), other than that I loved it.
186Smiler69
#185 That book has been recommended by so many LTers that I'll be incredibly disappointed if I don't enjoy it, but I think that is somehow unlikely. I'll have to drop everything and plunge right into it when it arrives in my mailbox!
I FINISHED THE BOOK!!! WOO HOO!!! I'm so happy I got through it. Sometimes, even with all the help, I have to admit to getting a bit discouraged because the simplest sentences sometimes had me going back over and over and over again before I could make any sense of them at all. I'm not sure why that is really. Is it just me, or does Mantel have a very individual style? Or is it simply that because I felt like I was out of my depth, everything seemed foreign as a consequence?
Re: 155: I'm pleased to say Suzanne, that one thing I do know a little bit about in Tudor history is what took place when Henry passed away until Elizabeth took the throne. I have Linda (Whisper 1) to thank for sending me a little book called Beware Princess Elizabeth, which is a YA title telling the story from young Elizabeth's point of view. I read it last year and it was really helpful, but though I knew that Mary and Elizabeth were from different mothers and that Henry had left Mary's mother for Elizabeth's, the whole religious upheavals etc, I didn't understand all the implications that had for Mary as a young girl, so I can now better appreciate why Mary would have been so cruel to her half-sister when she took over. Not only did she have valid fears of Elizabeth taking the throne away from her, but she must have truly detested her for all she represented as well.
Just a few questions left:
PART SIX
II
The Map of Christendom
1534
pages 580 - end of book
157. p. 581 "The court is amused to hear how the Romans have celebrated Pope Clement's death. They have broken into his tomb, and dragged his naked body through the streets."
Why did the Romans desecrate that pope's tomb and body this way?
158. p. 581 "Some fifty years after Henry had endowed the house, all Jews were expelled from the realm."
I'm a bit mortified that I somehow didn't know or remember about this particular expulsion. What can you tell me about it in a few lines? Was it done for similar reasons as in Spain later on... to take over their goods and property? How long were they expelled for? Were there any Jews in England in Cromwell's time? I'm also curious as to how if fits into the story at hand and what it's supposed to tell us about Cromwell that he should be thinking about these things.
159. p. 617 For the king's visit to Cromwell when he is sick, Mercy and Johane are apparently decked out "like the Walsingham madonnas on feast day."
I expect this to mean they are covered in jewels and expensive fabrics or some such? What are the Walsingham madonnas? Where is Walsingham?
I FINISHED THE BOOK!!! WOO HOO!!! I'm so happy I got through it. Sometimes, even with all the help, I have to admit to getting a bit discouraged because the simplest sentences sometimes had me going back over and over and over again before I could make any sense of them at all. I'm not sure why that is really. Is it just me, or does Mantel have a very individual style? Or is it simply that because I felt like I was out of my depth, everything seemed foreign as a consequence?
Re: 155: I'm pleased to say Suzanne, that one thing I do know a little bit about in Tudor history is what took place when Henry passed away until Elizabeth took the throne. I have Linda (Whisper 1) to thank for sending me a little book called Beware Princess Elizabeth, which is a YA title telling the story from young Elizabeth's point of view. I read it last year and it was really helpful, but though I knew that Mary and Elizabeth were from different mothers and that Henry had left Mary's mother for Elizabeth's, the whole religious upheavals etc, I didn't understand all the implications that had for Mary as a young girl, so I can now better appreciate why Mary would have been so cruel to her half-sister when she took over. Not only did she have valid fears of Elizabeth taking the throne away from her, but she must have truly detested her for all she represented as well.
Just a few questions left:
PART SIX
II
The Map of Christendom
1534
pages 580 - end of book
157. p. 581 "The court is amused to hear how the Romans have celebrated Pope Clement's death. They have broken into his tomb, and dragged his naked body through the streets."
Why did the Romans desecrate that pope's tomb and body this way?
158. p. 581 "Some fifty years after Henry had endowed the house, all Jews were expelled from the realm."
I'm a bit mortified that I somehow didn't know or remember about this particular expulsion. What can you tell me about it in a few lines? Was it done for similar reasons as in Spain later on... to take over their goods and property? How long were they expelled for? Were there any Jews in England in Cromwell's time? I'm also curious as to how if fits into the story at hand and what it's supposed to tell us about Cromwell that he should be thinking about these things.
159. p. 617 For the king's visit to Cromwell when he is sick, Mercy and Johane are apparently decked out "like the Walsingham madonnas on feast day."
I expect this to mean they are covered in jewels and expensive fabrics or some such? What are the Walsingham madonnas? Where is Walsingham?
187Chatterbox
Wowza -- we're done!!!
157. p. 581 "The court is amused to hear how the Romans have celebrated Pope Clement's death. They have broken into his tomb, and dragged his naked body through the streets."
Why did the Romans desecrate that pope's tomb and body this way?
After the sack of Rome, when Imperial troops basically ran amok murdering people and stabling their horses in St. Peter's, the population of the city blamed Clement for mishandling the political situation and setting the stage for the attack and ultimate devastation of the city. (It would take well over a century to recover...) He was widely viewed as a disastrous leader and an inadequate pope -- he couldn't defend the city, but he set it up for the sack.
158. p. 581 "Some fifty years after Henry had endowed the house, all Jews were expelled from the realm."
I'm a bit mortified that I somehow didn't know or remember about this particular expulsion. What can you tell me about it in a few lines? Was it done for similar reasons as in Spain later on... to take over their goods and property? How long were they expelled for? Were there any Jews in England in Cromwell's time? I'm also curious as to how if fits into the story at hand and what it's supposed to tell us about Cromwell that he should be thinking about these things.
This happened under the reign of Edward I, in 1290. If you want to read a very straightforward and interesting YA/children's book set around this theme, look for Red Towers of Granada by Geoffrey Trease, which has a plot based around a young English teenager who helps a Jewish physician try to bring back a life-saving medication from Granada (still Moorish) for Edward's beloved wife, Eleanor of Castile.
The reason almost certainly was economic, although as everywhere else, it was hatred of the "unchristian other" on top that gave it an extra gloss. Edward had returned from some very costly wars in France a few years earlier, and wanted to impose a tax on his landowners, eg, the knights. These folks were already in debt to the Jewish moneylenders (being a knight was expensive), who were exempt from the laws of usury. To make the new tax more palatable, Edward may have decided this would be a great quid pro quo. They were, I think, allowed to take portable goods with them, but that was it -- and certainly anyone trying to collect on debts wouldn't have been very successful. So instead of being in debt to the moneylenders, the knights owed money to the king. The expulsion was possible because of the anti-Semitism, but the immediate motivation probably was economic. (Interestingly, Simon de Montfort, who had challenged Edward's father's policies and ultimately rebelled against him, had been viewed as a kind of tenuous ally by some Jews.)
The Jews didn't come back to England until the time of OLIVER Cromwell -- there may have been some undercover, but very very few. (This is one reason a # of readers get annoyed with Philippa Gregory's novel, The Queen's Fool, which seems to argue there was a de facto underground community of hidden Jews during Mary's reign -- highly improbable. So it was very very unlikely that Cromwell would ever have met a Jew in Englnad, although almost certainly he would have during his travels.
159. p. 617 For the king's visit to Cromwell when he is sick, Mercy and Johane are apparently decked out "like the Walsingham madonnas on feast day."
I expect this to mean they are covered in jewels and expensive fabrics or some such? What are the Walsingham madonnas? Where is Walsingham?
Walsingham was a shrine, in Norfolk -- one of the most famous in England, dedicated to the Virgin Mary. I believe it goes all the way back to Saxon times. It would have contained statues of the Madonna, ornately dressed and hung with jewels that pilgrims had donated in hopes that their prayers would be answered. Henry would go on to destroy it (well ,really, Cromwell), but in recent years both the Catholics and the Church of England have restored shrines there. Walsingham is in Norfolk -- part of England that sticks out like a bump in the southeast.
So -- when do we start Bring Up the Bodies?? *grin*
157. p. 581 "The court is amused to hear how the Romans have celebrated Pope Clement's death. They have broken into his tomb, and dragged his naked body through the streets."
Why did the Romans desecrate that pope's tomb and body this way?
After the sack of Rome, when Imperial troops basically ran amok murdering people and stabling their horses in St. Peter's, the population of the city blamed Clement for mishandling the political situation and setting the stage for the attack and ultimate devastation of the city. (It would take well over a century to recover...) He was widely viewed as a disastrous leader and an inadequate pope -- he couldn't defend the city, but he set it up for the sack.
158. p. 581 "Some fifty years after Henry had endowed the house, all Jews were expelled from the realm."
I'm a bit mortified that I somehow didn't know or remember about this particular expulsion. What can you tell me about it in a few lines? Was it done for similar reasons as in Spain later on... to take over their goods and property? How long were they expelled for? Were there any Jews in England in Cromwell's time? I'm also curious as to how if fits into the story at hand and what it's supposed to tell us about Cromwell that he should be thinking about these things.
This happened under the reign of Edward I, in 1290. If you want to read a very straightforward and interesting YA/children's book set around this theme, look for Red Towers of Granada by Geoffrey Trease, which has a plot based around a young English teenager who helps a Jewish physician try to bring back a life-saving medication from Granada (still Moorish) for Edward's beloved wife, Eleanor of Castile.
The reason almost certainly was economic, although as everywhere else, it was hatred of the "unchristian other" on top that gave it an extra gloss. Edward had returned from some very costly wars in France a few years earlier, and wanted to impose a tax on his landowners, eg, the knights. These folks were already in debt to the Jewish moneylenders (being a knight was expensive), who were exempt from the laws of usury. To make the new tax more palatable, Edward may have decided this would be a great quid pro quo. They were, I think, allowed to take portable goods with them, but that was it -- and certainly anyone trying to collect on debts wouldn't have been very successful. So instead of being in debt to the moneylenders, the knights owed money to the king. The expulsion was possible because of the anti-Semitism, but the immediate motivation probably was economic. (Interestingly, Simon de Montfort, who had challenged Edward's father's policies and ultimately rebelled against him, had been viewed as a kind of tenuous ally by some Jews.)
The Jews didn't come back to England until the time of OLIVER Cromwell -- there may have been some undercover, but very very few. (This is one reason a # of readers get annoyed with Philippa Gregory's novel, The Queen's Fool, which seems to argue there was a de facto underground community of hidden Jews during Mary's reign -- highly improbable. So it was very very unlikely that Cromwell would ever have met a Jew in Englnad, although almost certainly he would have during his travels.
159. p. 617 For the king's visit to Cromwell when he is sick, Mercy and Johane are apparently decked out "like the Walsingham madonnas on feast day."
I expect this to mean they are covered in jewels and expensive fabrics or some such? What are the Walsingham madonnas? Where is Walsingham?
Walsingham was a shrine, in Norfolk -- one of the most famous in England, dedicated to the Virgin Mary. I believe it goes all the way back to Saxon times. It would have contained statues of the Madonna, ornately dressed and hung with jewels that pilgrims had donated in hopes that their prayers would be answered. Henry would go on to destroy it (well ,really, Cromwell), but in recent years both the Catholics and the Church of England have restored shrines there. Walsingham is in Norfolk -- part of England that sticks out like a bump in the southeast.
So -- when do we start Bring Up the Bodies?? *grin*
188Chatterbox
Oh, belated congratulations!!
Yes, Mantel does have a distinctive style, and if you're not familiar with the history and context, I can see it being more of a struggle. She's what I would call a dense writer, with layers of insight in each sentence. At the same time, I rarely find anything overdone.
Yes, Mantel does have a distinctive style, and if you're not familiar with the history and context, I can see it being more of a struggle. She's what I would call a dense writer, with layers of insight in each sentence. At the same time, I rarely find anything overdone.
189CDVicarage
#187 As soon as you can, please! School broke up yesterday so I am at home for the summer. My copy of Bring up the bodies is a large hardback (paperback and kindle editions were more expensive on Amazon) so I didn't want to start until I didn't have to carry it back and forth to work, but I'm ready now.
190Chatterbox
Kerry, LOL! Well, you can always be my next tutee, and Ilana can lurk this time, or refer back. Whatever works.
Or the two of us could combine to do tutored reads of the Chalet School books, which I see both of us have large quantities of??? LOL!
Or the two of us could combine to do tutored reads of the Chalet School books, which I see both of us have large quantities of??? LOL!
191Robertgreaves
Congratulations to you both.
192Smiler69
Thank you much. This was a satisfying experience, but I'm glad you're confirming that Mantel is a dense writer. Something I appreciate of course, but yes, trying to figure out the historical details while also navigating this complex writer's mind was quite a challenge.
I look forward to the next book, but having now embarked on another dense and long novel, East of Eden by John Steinbeck, I'm not ready to overload myself with Bring Up the Bodies, especially as I'm yearning for some light summer fare right now, along the lines of reading the entire Dr. Siri series by Colin Cotterill.
However, as Suzanne suggests Kerry, if you're keen on embarking on it asap, I'd be more than happy to lurk if you're wanting to avail yourself of her tutorials. Means less work for me, and by the time I'm ready to start on it, you'll probably be done with it so that if by any chance I have additional questions to ask, I'll be able to do so anyway.
Thanks ever so much Suz. As I'm pretty sure I've said already, I've learned a great deal in the process and now feel better equipped to jump into other books about the Tudor era, one such which I greatly look forward to being Dissolution by C. J. Sansom.
I look forward to the next book, but having now embarked on another dense and long novel, East of Eden by John Steinbeck, I'm not ready to overload myself with Bring Up the Bodies, especially as I'm yearning for some light summer fare right now, along the lines of reading the entire Dr. Siri series by Colin Cotterill.
However, as Suzanne suggests Kerry, if you're keen on embarking on it asap, I'd be more than happy to lurk if you're wanting to avail yourself of her tutorials. Means less work for me, and by the time I'm ready to start on it, you'll probably be done with it so that if by any chance I have additional questions to ask, I'll be able to do so anyway.
Thanks ever so much Suz. As I'm pretty sure I've said already, I've learned a great deal in the process and now feel better equipped to jump into other books about the Tudor era, one such which I greatly look forward to being Dissolution by C. J. Sansom.
193AlaMich
I am piping up again to say, Ilana, that the Matthew Shardlake books (Dissolution) are wonderful!! You are in for a treat.
And although I am still working my way through Wolf Hall, I have enjoyed this thread a great deal and will refer back to it as I finish the book. Thanks for letting me lurk!
And although I am still working my way through Wolf Hall, I have enjoyed this thread a great deal and will refer back to it as I finish the book. Thanks for letting me lurk!
194majkia
Yes, I've enjoyed lurking too :) I finished Wolf Hall earlier this month but have enjoyed the comments and questions.
195Chatterbox
Agreed -- the Shardlake books are great, and Mantel's opus gives you all the historical background you'll need. I think the first one picks up a year or so after the events in this book, when Cromwell and Henry are dis-establishing the religious foundations, but you'll be able to follow stuff easily.
196Smiler69
#193 Thanks for the vote on the Matthew Shardlake series. I have Dissolution on my tbr after seeing it touted by several LTers I follow in part because of their reading selections. I'm really glad that this thread is helpful to you. Lurking is always allowed of course!
#194 Glad it's been a good experience for you too Jean!
#195 Suz, it's safe to say I feel like I got a very good education here as far as Tudor history is concerned, among other things. I'm really happy about that, since it's a topic I intend on delving into some more; beyond Bring Up the Bodies, I mean, and I think I'll be quite able to grasp most of the essentials in future readings on the topic as with, for example The Autobiography of Henry VIII, sitting in my tbr. I'm sort of hoping Mantel decides to delve into the Elizabethan era as a future project, because the period in English history also quite fascinates me! I do have Elizabeth I by Margaret George in my tbr to look forward to also, come to think of it...
#194 Glad it's been a good experience for you too Jean!
#195 Suz, it's safe to say I feel like I got a very good education here as far as Tudor history is concerned, among other things. I'm really happy about that, since it's a topic I intend on delving into some more; beyond Bring Up the Bodies, I mean, and I think I'll be quite able to grasp most of the essentials in future readings on the topic as with, for example The Autobiography of Henry VIII, sitting in my tbr. I'm sort of hoping Mantel decides to delve into the Elizabethan era as a future project, because the period in English history also quite fascinates me! I do have Elizabeth I by Margaret George in my tbr to look forward to also, come to think of it...
197Chatterbox
When it comes to Elizabeth, I'd look for something that starts earlier in her life. Margaret Irwin has a trilogy starting with Young Bess that takes her up to the coronation, I think. But Margaret George's novel picks up in her later life, so you miss a fair amount. (And even I found it tough reading; it just isn't as good a novel as her earlier ones.) I'll try and think of a good novel about Elizabeth. I seem to remember that Legacy by Susan Kay falls into that category, so maybe I should make it a re-read.
198Smiler69
I've found the Margaret Irwin trilogy and almost went ahead an purchased it, but I have a huge shopping cart over at AbeBooks right now and decided to hold off for a bit. I remember now reading reviews about the Margaret George book and how it was about her later years, but I got it on sale for $5, thinking I didn't have much to lose. Adding Legacy to the wishlist. Would you recommend it over the Margaret Irwins?
199Chatterbox
It's more about Elizabeth as Queen, so yes, probably I'd suggest it in preference to the Irwins.
200Smiler69
Suz, the book I mentioned before that Linda had sent me Beware Princess Elizabeth covered the whole period from the death of Henry VIII till Elizabeth's coronation, so I do have a bit of knowledge of what took place then (what I can remember of it, anyway). If the Irwins are well written and engaging though, I wouldn't mind giving them a go as well, but otherwise no. I'll base myself on your opinion to make my decision—I've already got three very nice editions of all three books waiting over at my AbeBooks basket...
I just might try to get Bring Up the Bodies from the library sometime in August, if I can get my hands on a copy as it's obviously much in demand. Or I may cave and end up purchasing my own copy. Question: I prefer the cover on the American edition (happens so rarely!) but I always worry with English writers that American publishers put out an Americanized version... do you think this is the case here or no?
I just might try to get Bring Up the Bodies from the library sometime in August, if I can get my hands on a copy as it's obviously much in demand. Or I may cave and end up purchasing my own copy. Question: I prefer the cover on the American edition (happens so rarely!) but I always worry with English writers that American publishers put out an Americanized version... do you think this is the case here or no?
201Chatterbox
The Irwins are worth reading, but if you've recently read something covering that period, I'd save 'em and move along. Do try BUTB! bought the Canadian edition for my mother and the text didn't seem any different from my US ARC. I rather doubt they're tweaking Mantel's prose, given her status and the kind of book it is; my sense is you're safe! Certainly, there's no diff btwn the US kindle version and the UK first edition.
202Smiler69
I'd never been concerned about this before, but I read somewhere that a Barnes & Noble edition of some great classic or other (possibly a Jane Austen novel) had Americanized spelling (first example that comes to mind is colour/color) and I've been weary ever since...
eta: Canadian spelling is the same as British, btw (as I'm sure you must know). Must be a Commonwealth thing.
eta: Canadian spelling is the same as British, btw (as I'm sure you must know). Must be a Commonwealth thing.
203Chatterbox
Believe me, I know -- I used to run afoul of editors on multiple continents for this very reason!!! I couldn't vouch for the spelling, to be frank, since I've largely stopped noticing that.
204gennyt
Belatedly caught up on the end of this tutored read - thank you both for sharing your experience. Mantel's style is indeed dense, I found I took quite a long time with Wolf Hall when I read it two years back, even though I am pretty familiar with the context and the events. I found myself stopping to think about the ideas and the images a lot...
Bring up the bodies was rather less slow-going, I found - maybe just that it's shorter? I do hope you enjoy that when you get round to it eventually, Ilana.
I've been pondering your request for books about England's forests... One children's/YA series came to mind, which I much enjoyed many years ago, by Barbara Willard, the Mantlemass series, starting with The Lark and the Laurel. A description of the series from a website about British children's historical fiction:
"The Mantlemass series, set in the heart of Sussex in Ashdown Forest, follows two families, the Mallorys and Medleys, through nearly one hundred and sixty years of history, starting in 1485 just after the Wars of the Roses, and ending in 1644 with the events of the English Civil War. The books are strong family stories with a well-developed sense of history and place. Barbara Willard lived in Nutley, Sussex on the edge of Ashdown Forest for many years; she loved the area, having known it from childhood, and her books reflect this affection, being imbued with Sussex history and customs and forest dialect.
The Mantlemass novels deal with the effects of national politics on local concerns; this is shown through successive family generations during turbulent periods of history, when even a remote area in the heart of Ashdown forest was not immune from change and the influence of the wider world. Each book can be read as a stand-alone tale, but the complete story of the house of Mantlemass unfolds through the series, which is best appreciated read as a whole, in correct reading order."
These stories are therefore covering the period when the ancient forests were increasingly being encroached upon, as one of the changes taking place alongside other political and social upheavals. I seem to recall one of the books deals with the issue of enclosure and the deep divides this caused in the community.
So once you've read Wolves of Willoughby Chase with it's alternate reality history including wolves, if you can get hold of any Barbara Willard, you might enjoy her stories which do a good job of imagining how ordinary people's lives were affected by the events you've been reading about in Wolf Hall.
Bring up the bodies was rather less slow-going, I found - maybe just that it's shorter? I do hope you enjoy that when you get round to it eventually, Ilana.
I've been pondering your request for books about England's forests... One children's/YA series came to mind, which I much enjoyed many years ago, by Barbara Willard, the Mantlemass series, starting with The Lark and the Laurel. A description of the series from a website about British children's historical fiction:
"The Mantlemass series, set in the heart of Sussex in Ashdown Forest, follows two families, the Mallorys and Medleys, through nearly one hundred and sixty years of history, starting in 1485 just after the Wars of the Roses, and ending in 1644 with the events of the English Civil War. The books are strong family stories with a well-developed sense of history and place. Barbara Willard lived in Nutley, Sussex on the edge of Ashdown Forest for many years; she loved the area, having known it from childhood, and her books reflect this affection, being imbued with Sussex history and customs and forest dialect.
The Mantlemass novels deal with the effects of national politics on local concerns; this is shown through successive family generations during turbulent periods of history, when even a remote area in the heart of Ashdown forest was not immune from change and the influence of the wider world. Each book can be read as a stand-alone tale, but the complete story of the house of Mantlemass unfolds through the series, which is best appreciated read as a whole, in correct reading order."
These stories are therefore covering the period when the ancient forests were increasingly being encroached upon, as one of the changes taking place alongside other political and social upheavals. I seem to recall one of the books deals with the issue of enclosure and the deep divides this caused in the community.
So once you've read Wolves of Willoughby Chase with it's alternate reality history including wolves, if you can get hold of any Barbara Willard, you might enjoy her stories which do a good job of imagining how ordinary people's lives were affected by the events you've been reading about in Wolf Hall.
205Smiler69
Genny, thanks so much for that recommendation of the Mantlemass series. You've definitely sold me on it! In fact, I went to search for them right away, first at the libraries, both municipal and national (no luck) and then found a good copy of The Lark and the Laurel on AbeBooks for just $5 including shipping, so I jumped on it. I'll have to hunt them out used, and good copies don't come cheap. I wonder why they're no longer in print? The series sounds just wonderful.
As for Bring Up the Bodies, I'd completely forgotten I put an audio version on hold at the national library. I like the reader, Simon Vance well enough, but I'm not sure I really want to go with audio for this one. It'll cost me nothing to try, and audio is easier for me to fit into my daily routine, such as it is, so we'll see. I do very much look forward to reading this novel though as have seen nothing but good feedback on it so far.
As for Bring Up the Bodies, I'd completely forgotten I put an audio version on hold at the national library. I like the reader, Simon Vance well enough, but I'm not sure I really want to go with audio for this one. It'll cost me nothing to try, and audio is easier for me to fit into my daily routine, such as it is, so we'll see. I do very much look forward to reading this novel though as have seen nothing but good feedback on it so far.
206Chatterbox
And thinking about Druids -- I'm not sure about Druids per se but there are plenty of ancient forests in Avalon by Anya Seton. It's set about the 9th century AD, and Merewyn believes herself to be a descendant of King Arthur; she falls in love with Rumon (Rumieux of Provence), is entangled with court politics and a murdered British king, and has many other adventures.
The book that does deal with Druids in a kind of supernatural way combines a present day narrative with supernatural links to the past -- a twin narrative. The past strand is set in Wales during the Roman era, or rather, after the Romans had first "visited". Essentially, Barbara Erskine in Time's Legacy is playing around with the idea that Jesus visited Britain with Joseph of Arimathea, his uncle, who was a trader. It's an interesting theory, I suppose, but the idea of Jesus studying Druid scholarship rather strained my credulity. I'll try to come up with some others. Anything about Boudicca/Boadicea. I think Erskine has written others in the same vein -- women with eerie ties to past ancient lives.
The book that does deal with Druids in a kind of supernatural way combines a present day narrative with supernatural links to the past -- a twin narrative. The past strand is set in Wales during the Roman era, or rather, after the Romans had first "visited". Essentially, Barbara Erskine in Time's Legacy is playing around with the idea that Jesus visited Britain with Joseph of Arimathea, his uncle, who was a trader. It's an interesting theory, I suppose, but the idea of Jesus studying Druid scholarship rather strained my credulity. I'll try to come up with some others. Anything about Boudicca/Boadicea. I think Erskine has written others in the same vein -- women with eerie ties to past ancient lives.
