Friday, September 6, 2019
Tudors Paper Essay Example for Free
Tudors Paper Essay The English history would not be as it was colorful and interesting today had it not been for the two of the most important icons in the History of United Kingdom: King Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Their personal life and their political strategies not to mention their contributions to English history is one of the most unparalleled in any time. The royal life had been transmuted to the world of political maneuvers, religious conflict and personal decisions. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, were not just members of the same Tudor royal clan, more importantly both of them had shaped modern England today. Two leading biographers and historians Garrett Mattingly and Lacey Baldwin Smith, recalled the lives of two monarchs and wrote a biography, in a convention peculiar to their tastes. Other English royal biographers might have treated their works different from the styles of the two, but surely, Mattingly and Baldwin elevated the taste of biographical writing in another playing field. Henry VIII was born on June 28, 1491 from the Tudor family. Elizabeth I, his daughter was born September 7, 1533. Coming from the family of nobility of Welsch, the Tudors reunited the whole of England during their reign. However, their family’s contribution was overshadowed by scandal and impunity. Mackie and Clarendo(1990, p. 190), clearly view the Tudors as the royal family, headed by their predecessors were diplomats of their first rate. They have settled diplomatic relationship with their former enemies and made long lasting truce of peace. The evidence of which is the end of â€Å"War of the Roses†.  This view was kinder tone as a description of the House of Tudors. Historically speaking, during their reign, England made several important decisions for herself but actually personal preferences of her king. Yet, undeniably, the reign of the Tudors was full of their inclinations toward their interests that had strong impact to the national life, religion, system of politics and governance of the entire country. Tudors were not entirely viewed by Mackie, Mattingly, Smith and Garvin. All of them, while had distastes with the rule of each Tudor monarch, none of them actually condemned any sovereign. While Smith has strong words used to chronicle the life of Tudors, most especially King Henry, he left in his spaces room to be defended. In his book, â€Å"Henry VIII†he said: â€Å"For a king, do like a king; and when Henry learned that James V of Scotland besmirched the role of clean-fingered royalty with the filthy profits of sheep-raising, he warned that such actions cannot stand well with the honour of his estate, and that they would surely cause his subjects to mutter and mutiny. Henry instinctively knew that princes could survive the hatred of their subjects but never their scorn (1971, p. 43). Baldwin never saw Tudors, especially Henry the acclaim accorded to him by other historian-biographers. Henry VIII is the son of Henry VII, the latter being the first monarch in the House of Tudors. It was said that, Henry VIII lived a secluded life in the royal courthouses of the Tudors. He lived outside the confidence of his father’s privies and counselors. His growth as a monarch was characterized by his distinct personal convictions at the expense of his institutions. For instance, the divorce to Catherine of Aragon and the subsequent marriage to Ann Boleyn were the real reasons behind his defection to the Roman Pontiff’s authority. He asserted his royal right in his country and severed the Catholic Churches in England, outside the rule of the Papacy. But this is more personal than a stately decision. The refusal of the Pope to recognize his marital actions, lead him to justify himself and legalize his marital union to Ann Boleyn. However, this decision had made a positive impact to the religious life of the English. Since, the Church of England is under no authority except the king the Church of England was more open and flexible with in terms of changes and reformation the country has faced. Gavin (1935) had a subtle view, for her the plans of Henry VIII are more nationalistic impression than self-serving act. Gavin relates (p.25) that England is not yet prepared for a woman ruler. Henry VIII has to secure the throne for a male monarch who shall embody the entire nation. For Gavin, unlike Baldwin’s view, her stand on certain royal issues during the late medieval period was more defensive. Unlike Baldwin who used strong indicators of Henry VIII’s mistakes, but were only forborne by the results of his actions, Gavin and Smith had more defensive stance on King Henry’s action. To prove this point, Gavin made this chronicle: Catherine of Aragon, whom he had not chosen himself, failed him: one miscarriage or still-born child succeeded another, and in 1514, after five years of parental misfortune Henryor Wolseypetitioned Leo X to annul the marriage with his brothers wife which another pope had sanctioned, doubting the validity of his own dispensation. Then in 1516 came Mary, who was welcomed, not for her own sake, but as an earnest of the son to follow. No woman had yet reigned in England, and Henry VII had secured the throne, not only by ending a civil war, but by excluding from the throne his mother, from whom he derived whatever hereditary right he possessed. The expected heir never followed Mary, and by 1527 it was certain that Henry VIII would have no legitimate son so long as Catherine remained his wife. He ceased to cohabit, though not to live, with her from that date, and fell a victim to the one grand passion of his life. (p. 25 [italics and undersco re ours]). Note that, Gavin in this excerpt utilized the apologetic language she can use to defend the Tudor Monarch from criticisms. She openly defended the choice of Henry to secure a male heir, because no queen has lead England as sole sovereign. All of the previous queens were just consorts. The subtlety of Gavin as compared to being straightforward of Smith and Smith is evident in her last phrase, ‘victim to the one grand passion of his life’. This statement is but a magnification of her romantic conveyance of an act to justify the king’s directions to justify her marriage and to give religious validity to his separation to the Pope. On another light, Mattingly (1963) had picturesquely described the Tudors, so stately and assertively. Unlike Smith who openly gave emphatic characterization to the Tudors and King Henry, Mattingly gave the scenario with the comments unconsciously buried in the deep of his biography. For her implied diction, she described Elizabeth I, the Tudor, a wise-lady. In the work of Mattingly, Elizabeth I is a strategist than a military chief, a restorer of culture than procter of the land, a compromiser to advance her interest for England mutually than to lead a nation in war. Mattingly had this for a statement:  Elizabeth preferred to have the Spanish bear the burden. To the end, until Spanish guns were heard in the Channel, the English negotiators at Bourbourg were arguing desperately for the solution which seemed to the Queen no more than elementary common sense. Let the King offer his subjects a general amnesty, restore the ancient liberties of the Seventeen Provinces as they had been at the beginning of his fathers reign, and withdraw his troops except for garrisons in the frontier cities. In exchange, the rebellious provinces would return to their allegiance to their legitimate sovereign and declare the Roman Catholic faith the only established religion. Nothing need be said about the toleration of heretic sects (p. 7).  In her words, Elizabeth I,  was still female, she cannot lead a nation to war. But that took her to an advantage. She (Elizabeth) strategize her connections and empowered her military fortresses.            The defeat of the Spanish Armada, shocked the entire European kingdoms, the female virgin queen, who had no king consort had defeated the vast naval strength of the Spanish crown, Mattingly described it as Elizabeth’s opportunity to lead the entire England under her own spell, than to be subdued by a foreign king. The efforts and the achievement of Elizabeth I was seen by Mattingly, impliedly as usual courses in the history of her reign. Mattingly gave the comment that, though much celebrated, the defeat of the Spanish Armada should not be seen so heavily as Elizabeth’s legacy. For Mattingly, the defeat of the Spanish people had little or no greater impact to England’s solidarity as a people. Noticeably, unlike Smith or Gavin, Mattingly sees the perspective of common notions of other historians in a different, yet solid view. Note that in the last sentence of this statement, she was convincingly of the belief that Elizabeth’s actions, specifically the defeat of the Spanish Armada, in many ways futile. Mattingly said: It is probable, too, that the victory gave a lift to English morale. It may be that a good many Englishmen, like a good many other Europeans, though not like Elizabeths sea dogs, had doubted that the Spanish could ever be beaten. Now they knew that they could. The thoughtful and the well-informed understood, however, that England had not won a war, only the first battle in a war in which there might be many more battles. England was braced for the struggle. But to say that the defeat of the Spanish Armada led to a sudden outburst of buoyant, self confident patriotism is to read the interpretation of later centuries back into the past. One would search the records of the next two or three years in vain for any specific evidence in support of such a view (p.23)             Thus, it becomes clear that the leaning of Smith was somewhat skeptical if not negative in his narration to the achievement of the Tudors. More so, Smith’s view on King Henry’s creation of the Church of England was seen more personal than nationalistic. Gavin has taken a lighter view, for her, the Tudors and the reign of Henry VIII, needs no less than understanding. These choices made by the King while personal were to secure the succession of the throne and the safety of the English throne. She (Gavin) has taken a more benign stance. On the other hand, Mattingly gave Elizabeth the treatment she portrays. As a woman, she may not have the power to lead the army with dauntless acts but surely she will stage a strategic plan to advance her kingdom’s interests. Mattingly, may not openly be a feminist advocate but her treatment was also fair, yet opposed to the main projection of Elizabeth I, as the pomp, untouchable queen. The latter view of Mattingly is so laid-back compared to Carole Levin’s (1994) biographical notes on Elizabeth I. She (Levin) openly justified and even sees the reign of Elizabeth, as power struggle of sexes. For Levin the succession of Elizabeth I in the throne is but a clear, manifestation (perhaps the earliest) of the women’s role. During Elizabeth I time, women were subservient to their husbands, but Elizabeth not only transcended her personal tragedies but also penetrated through the norms of domestic views on women to a global and effective female leadership. Thus, her view is to support active gender roles, equality and sex issues. Her concern has a direct leaning, feminist point of view. Levin has this for a chronicle:   A central concern is how gender construction, role expectations, and beliefs about sexuality influenced both Elizabeth’s self-presentation and others perception of her. A crucial question this study examines is how such issues affected the methods of power used by a woman ruler as opposed to the traditional king. The way people regarded a queen and her use of power will also be valuable in answering more general questions about attitudes toward women during the English Renaissance (Levine, p.3).    The sensitivity of Levin to social constructs leads her to be the most gender sensitive of all.            Lastly, the epitaphs of these biographers will surely vary. For instance, Smith will describe Henry VIII, as â€Å"The Ruler, whose hands are not tied with anyone†. For his views truly reflect the strong will of King Henry to assert his own beliefs. Mattingly may use the lines â€Å"Here lieth a queen, who reign without fear†as Elizabeth I, epitapth. This is only apt for a queen who defied norms and social expectations. Perhaps it will be the same as Levin’s, â€Å"A Queen who outlived, outwit any Kings on earth†, she would strongly assert it for the same reasons. And lastly, Gavin, who is the most laid back of all of the biographers would name, King Henry’s tomb, engraved in gold, which reads: â€Å"A King who died, and believed his own mind and lived by it†¦Ã¢â‚¬            The history, intricacies, scandals of the English monarchy might be totally different from their counterparts in Asia or Middle East. Yet their weaknesses and their personal legends bespeaks of one thing: No person in this earth has walked so glorious to ascribe them the power that belongs to God’s.                                                                             SOURCES Smith, Baldwin L. (1971). This Realm of England. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co, Vol. II Levin, Carole. (1994). The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press Mattingly, Garret, (1963). The Armada . USA: Cornell University Press Garvin, Katherine. (1935). The Great Tudors. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.