There is a story/urban legend about Henry VIII doing that very thing with a maiden on the road, but whether it is true or was made up by his enemies / an illustration of people's opinions on his morality is unclear.
Regarding the scene itself -- didn't it state that they were engaged?
Personally, I doubt Henry did anything like that. He was not actually the rampant man-whore made out to be on the show; he had only two known mistresses (Bessie Blount and Mary Boleyn, though he wanted Anne as one), and was a deeply romantic man who formed romantic attachments to people. He was certainly delusional, in believing any woman surely would find him attractive, but in comparison to the genuine man-whore of the time (King Francis of France), Henry was ... extremely well behaved and even downright "moral."
"The Tudors" emphasis on sex, sex, and more sex, gives him far less credit than he actually deserves. Don't get me wrong, I don't LIKE Henry or want to defend him, but this series goes way overboard and doesn't really capture the true monarch's personality at all. :P
Of course, it also makes Anne Boleyn out to be the biggest hypocrite on the planet (one hand fondling the Bible, the other fondling the King), it gives Katharine of Aragon a much nastier / biting temperament than she had (in reality she was extremely good-natured, loved to laugh and dance, and Henry actually got on her for being "too happy" in public during the divorce proceedings), it has Wolsey commit suicide (nope), it has Thomas More burning people at the stake (he never attended such executions), and turned George Boleyn into a rapist, so... what can one expect? :P
reply
share
contact-258
8 years ago
You bring up a great point about Thomas More. You say he didn't attend the executions by fire. But did he order them? If he was responsible for many people being burned alive, the fact that he didn't bother to witness them does not redeem him in any way in my eyes.
Was he responsible for such barbaric executions? If so, I find his sins nearly as bad as Henry VIII.
reply
share
KatharineFanatic
8 years ago
Thomas More arrested six suspected heretics and turned them over for official inquiries and trials. He had nothing to do with them after their arrest. So no, he didn't order their executions.
reply
share
Fiery_Boycs
8 years ago
From an article by historian John Guy:
Even more controversial was More's role in events leading up to several burnings for heresy. In close co-operation with Stokesley, More arrested George Constantine for heresy in 1531. Constantine was a dealer in Protestant books, who gave away much information about his fellow reformers before escaping in early December. More had had him imprisoned in the stocks at his house in Chelsea, which he kept in his porter's lodge. But Constantine broke the frame, scaled More's garden wall and fled to Antwerp. Sir Thomas joked in his Apology that he must have fed the heretic properly for him to achieve this feat of strength. Yet More's humour was sadly inappropriate. It was on information gleaned from Constantine that Richard Bayfield, a Benedictine monk and book pedlar, was seized, interrogated by Stokesley and burned at Smithfield. Bayfield had been converted to Lutheranism by Robert Barnes, and when caught had in his possession books by Luther and Zwingli. Being a relapsed heretic, More described him in his Confutation as 'a dog returning to his vomit'. Next Sir Thomas caught a leather-seller named John Tewkesbury, who was also held at Chelsea until tried by Stokesley. On sentence, he was handed back to the secular arm and burned on December 20th, 1531. James Bainham, a Middle Temple lawyer, was then reported to More. Examined by Stokesley at More's house, he was found to own books by Tyndale, Frith and Joy. At first Bainham abjured and performed his penance, but later reaffirmed his Protestant faith. He was tried and burned at the stake in April, 1532. More's apologists cannot thus deny that Sir Thomas was personally involved in detecting three out of the six cases of heresy which resulted in burnings during his chancellorship. Neither was he inactive in two of the remaining cases. He railed in the Confutation at Sir Thomas Hitton, burned at Maidstone in 1530, as 'the devil's stinking martyr' who 'hath taken his wretched soul with him straight from the short fire to the fire everlasting'. He also launched a most irregular Star Chamber investigation into the question of Thomas Bilney's supposed recantation prior to his being burned in the Lollards' Pit in Norwich in August, 1531, using his powers as Lord Chancellor inquisitorially and in a style contrary to the Star Chamber's accepted procedure.
108 193 23 8114 246* 47.73 22 42
reply
share