Did all her power come from her son being King? And because many supported her son as King (prior to his ascension)? Or because of how she was viewed as an individual and her own cunning and diplomacy skills? Did she yield power over political affairs through her son and how much say did she have over the state of affairs? Or was her main goal to grant herself autonomy?

I am not expecting any of these questions to be answered with a simple yes or no by the way, but I was having a bit of an alternate history thought:

Margaret did not see her son for several years prior to his ascension though they did oft write, and when reunited upon his ascention, famously had a very strong relationship.

But what if they hadn't had a strong relationship? Credit due to Margaret that I am sure she would have helped greatly in her son's ascension regardless, but what if when they reunited, their relationship wasn't as strong? I know it's an extremely specific question we'll never have an answer to, but I was just wondering how much of her power came from her direct and personal influence over her own son. Did they ever disagree on important matters (that we know of)?

And thinking of how their relationship is so different from say, Catherine the Great and Paul I (different circumstances I know, but being so distant and politically opposed is what I mean)

In The Tudors, we see Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn giving golden coins to the poor (two women comment on Anne giving them more than "the old queen"...). When Henry is on progress to the North, he tells a guard to give a coin to a little boy, and also hands out coins personally when he's "healing" people.

Did royals really do this and if yes, how valuable were those coins? Did they hand out e.g. a peasant's yearly income or was it more like sponsoring one good meal for their family?

I want to plan a trip to England, what are some must see places to visit?

Henry VIII was attracted to beautiful women, so if Elizabeth Taylor, for some reason, was born around 1500, would Henry seek her out as a mistress instead of Anne Boleyn? To make this realistic, Elizabeth is the daughter of an earl or duke.

I know she’s more Tudor-adjacent, but can anyone recommend a good nonfiction biography of Anne Neville?

Is there any truth in the rumors that Arthur Tudor was poisoned by his father so Henry viii could be king.

By modern standards, a first-time mother of 37 is older than average, but not unusual. One of my relatives had her first baby in the 1960s aged 41, which definitely did surprise people but was a completely natural occurrence after she had married in her late thirties.

Whilst we think of Late Medieval/Early Modern women all being married off aged 14, this is not true and most did not marry until they were well into their 20s. This was partly because the husband had to provide an income and support a wife - so the upper echelons of society could marry earlier due to familial wealth, but that doesn't mean they always did.

The examples I have been able to find, however, nearly all have women marrying by 30 if they were to have children. I've looked for examples of women Mary I would have been aware of, but they are slim pickings and ages arent precise, and of course prior miscarriages may have gone unrecorded.

The oldest I have found are:-

• Maria de Salinas (38)
• Catherine Parr (36)
• Anne Boleyn (32)
• Anne Hastings (31)

So by contemporary standards, Mary becoming pregnant would have been almost miraculous. Not unbelievable, but very unlikely, and increasingly so as she neared 40.

I am not a historian and this is far from a complete record; especially with my own family bucking this trend, I would love to know of any other examples amongst Mary's contemporaries.

There are stories in the Catholic Bible of women having children at extreme ages (Sarah at 90, Elizabeth at 88) which may have influenced Mary to hope for divine intervention, but the real question is how many non-miraculous first pregnancies reflected her situation?

All of the comments on our history relating to race are justified,it puts me off watching anything authentic,let's keep it pure to our historical value. I could not be further from being racist,I just feel it's all becoming silly, stop ticking boxes.It just puts me off watching.

I was reading a book about the tudors that said that well it was propaganda a surprising amount of it even some of the most insane parts like babys being burned alive alongside there mothers was true.

Costumes and casting were perfect. The rest... I know how I feel, what do you guys think?

In October 1483, Henry Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham incited a rebellion against Richard III with the support of Henry Tudor and Lady Margaret Beaufort after the final confirmed sighting of the Princes in the Tower in August 1483 and Richard III’s accession.

In real-life, the Duke of Buckingham’s 1483 plots failed and he was executed. Yet had Tudor and Buckingham successfully co-ordinated, would Henry VII’s earlier accession have a significant impact on historical events?

All kings or future kings invited to the event is in their youth, late teens to early 20s.

Ursurpers, will be invited and presented with the status they had at that time (before taking the throne).

For example Henry Bolingbroke would not be Henry IV, he would be the Earl of Derby. He himself have zero ideas that he will be a future king. And he wont discover it either.

======-------======

Would guys like Henry IV, Henry VII and Edward IV feel intimidated to be surrounded by so many kings?

Would they have a harder time getting along with the other kings? Them not being of equal status? Or would that work better?

That they would maybe not have the same clash of egos? Beacuse they were not born to believe that the world centered around them.

========----------========

I think Henry VIII would gotten along with men like Edward(future IV).

And maybe other kings like Edward III and Henry (future IV) who liked to joust and have a good time.

A good balance with the big egos too.Two young kings and two men of high nobility, not sons of a king

Which kings do you think Henry VIII would get along with? Who would he want to be friends with?

Unlike other counties in Europe, the Protestant Reformajron in England seemed pretty top down.

Henry VIII demanded that everyone go along with his new church, because the Pope wouldn’t grand him a divorce. He dissolved monasteries and convents, threw out priests and monks and nuns, and paved the way for the demolsihment of ancient areas of pilgrimage that had been in use since the Anglo- Saxon times.

Everyone talks about how corrupt the medieval church was. What group of human beings aren’t corrupt? It is true though that the Catholic Church took care of many poor people in England who were suddenly cast to the backroads and persevered a lot of ancient manuscripts that were lost for good.

While probably some good came out of Henry’s break with the church ( universal literacy comes to mind) there seems to be a lot of destruction of cultural heritage and customs. Ireland arguably would have been less brutally treated in the coming centuries if they and their English oppressors shared the same faith.

Any things? Was the near extinction of Roman Catholicism in England and Wales a good or bad thing?

“You know, I sometimes wish all Spaniards were at the bottom of the sea. I care nothing for Katherine. I would rather see her hanged than acknowledge her as my mistress”

Elizabeth I - Survived but was left scarred resulting in her use of lead makeup.

Mary, Queen of Scots - Survived and not scarred.

Rank them

part 1 : who has suffered most in life?

part 2 : who would feel most regret when looking back at their life,? When they grew older, or when close to death.

Henry I Henry II Henry III Henry IV Henry V Henry VI Henry VII Henry VIII.

I think a few of them would not have felt very "fufilled" when near their death.

I've been reading The Seventh Wife of Henry VIII by Betty Yunis. When I first started reading it, I thought it would be about how Henry almost married Katherine Brandon. However, it started in 1509, a day before Arthur Tudor's and Henry's secret proposal to a lady called Elizabeth de Grey. Is this true?

I watched this movie on YouTube, very bad quality could barley hear anything but I still found it interesting. In the movie it claims Edward was ill, which I had heard before but I couldn’t make out what they were saying about it. During flashback scenes warbeck pretending to be prince Richard, they showed Edward’s teeth falling out? Like I said it was such a bad quality version on YouTube so it was hard to hear at some parts. Does anybody know anything about Edward’s illness?

Also, Towards the end of the film, they mention King Edward IV had an acknowledge bastard named Arthur? Does anyone have more info on that?

I am aware that Edward V was a Plantagenet, not a Tudor. Yet I am curious as to how do historians view Edward V and if there are any scholarly opinions as to how his reign could have unfolded if Richard III had not chosen to usurp the Princes in the Tower? And how would the lives of his siblings unfold under a living Edward V?

Lets say "he" or "she" replace Robert Baratheon.

====

My brain is trying to create a fanfiction..😅