According to Holinshed, the cuddly Henry VIII ordered the executions of some 72,000 people. Adding in the effects of his father’s reign and those of his children might well take the total to about 100,000 although that may exaggerate their rate somewhat. What a good thing this wasn’t a recognised separate dynasty until Hume’s time, a century and a half later.

Still our friends in Cairo, who must have flowed into the Mediterranean by know, have been known to make excuses for this, when they are not sharing homophobic cartoons about prominent historians. Perhaps the Countess of Salisbury, More, Cromwell and others died trying to cut down trees? Were Lady Bulmer (nee’ Margaret Stafford), Tyndale, Anne Askew et al all misheard by waiters when they ordered well-done steaks? Did Anne Boleyn die asking for the sharpness of the Calais sword to be demonstrated, only for the swordsman to lose his balance? Was one of Henry’s cooks so short-sighted that he confused the poisoner Richard Rice (Roose) with a bag of rice? Was “bungee-jumping” invented at this time before it was realised that ropes should go around the wrists and not the neck?

What excuse do they make for all the other “Tudor” victims?


Subscribe to my newsletter

6 responses to “Those misunderstood “Tudors”?”

  1. And then there’s Richard Whiting, the last abbot of Glastonbury. He cooperated with Henry VIII and signed the Act of Supremacy. The crown assured him his abbey was not in danger of dissolution. I will leave it for the Cairo dwellers to discover what Henry and his minions thereafter did to this 78-year-old man. I lay one small detail at their table for consideration — one small detail among many: as Whiting was a member of the House of Lords and if he indeed had committed treason then the man should have been attainted (condemned) by an Act of Parliament passed for that purpose, but his execution was an accomplished fact before Parliament met. Some might argue that this was only one man. I direct your gaze to the post above. Yes, he was one man…in 72,000. If the Cairo dwellers would actually study their beloved Tudors, they might find that those Henry executed were actually the lucky ones. Those with less luck had to live under him.

    Like

  2. […] of Castile, John of Gaunt. He from whom the Beauforts, the House of Lancaster and the “Tudors“, are descended. I have never been very fond of him, not even after reading Anya Seton’s […]

    Like

  3. […] article may be about how the Tudors came to power, but it sits carefully (and, in general, sensibly) on the fence. By that I mean it […]

    Like

  4. […] single Tudor is much more deserving of being called a mass murderer. They even executed George of Clarence’s children, who had survived safe and well under Richard. […]

    Like

  5. […] have been objective about Margaret, but I fear I cannot be objective about Margaret’s legacy, the truly awful Tudors, who turned England into a virtual police state and spilled blood as a […]

    Like

  6. […] that Lucy wants to restore…and reclaim. For whom? Them? No. For the ‘other side’ i.e. the Tudors? Yes. Clearly. Lucy approaches the programme with her mind already made up that Richard III was the […]

    Like

Leave a reply to Merlyn MacLeod Cancel reply