I love the way Queen Catherine was portrayed. She seemed genuinely devout, she spoke English well but retained a distingtive Spanish accent. I believe she was good and devout, but when she spoke to Cromwell and said: "I didn't think they would send someone like you," one is reminded of her high birth and (genuine) title. I think it's important to realize in some sense, a royal's unequaled prestige is all they really own. Sadly, we see this only too clearly as Queen Catherine has everything else taken from her. As for King Henry, this whole thing about God punishing them because she had been married to his brother, he was being disingenuous because at the time of their marriage they were given a dispensation from the pope.
Cromwell was the son of a butcher. I don't think that in stratified 15th century England anyone who let him forget that much less Catherine who hard arguably the most exquisite pedigree at court and had reason to hate Cromwell.
I’m confused. I wonder if that’s what a queen is supposed to do in her coronation or is the show trying to foreshadow Anne’s fate because it looks a little similar to how a person bears their neck before execution.
it's a sign of submission before God . Many priests pray like this even today like the current pope he does this often , it's called prostration .kings and queens used to do this during their coronation , not sure if they still do .
@@Noblebird02 Now that I think about it , he is going to become Defender of the Faith in England and Governor of the Church of England , so he's probably going to do it .
Here, there are some people insulting a woman to defend a psycho king. He married six women. He murdered two of them and arbitrarily annulled his marriage to two others. As a true saint, can be seen.
With all due respect to Ms Foy, her acting was stellar but she didn't really look like Anne Boleyn. Anne was said to have had a long oval shaped face, a pointed narrow nose, eyes so dark that they where almost black, and black hair that was so long that she could sit on it. They could have at least given Ms Foy dark contact lenses and longer hair extensions (hair like Olivia Hussey circa 1969)
klassicalmuzik Natalie Dormer also has blue eyes and I never understood why they didn't give her contact lenses either, especially that the black eyes were a trade mark of Anne. But anyways, both of them had a magnificent acting, Ms Foy is absolutely divine, she really captured that charm Anne was said to have.
klassicalmuzik I think it's important to bear in mind that portraits and written accounts do not always reflect the way an actual person looked but the way that person wanted to be perceived or how the author or artist wanted them to be viewed. The same is true of Claire Foy's portrayal. She is what the writers wanted Anne to be
Anne's true appearance is uncertain as Henry ordered all portraits of her destroyed. There is debate if the existing ones purported to be her actually are.
Ha ha looks like Ms. Claire Foy got to be coronated not once but TWICE! Even Elizabeth Regina II can't claim that one lol. Poor Queen Anne Boylynn either, well she did tragically lose her head though because of her tyrant hubby.
I mean, She's one here, no? She's at least a plump-ish Redhead/Strawberry Blonde like the real Katerina was. I can't gage her height from the scenes but she isn't too tall.
Specially when she was Henry VII's mistress when Henry was still married with Catherine of Aragon. And after the decapitation, her head was rolling towards the slope. :D
you could ask yourself the same question for the tudors. answer? Gingers, as Henry VIII was, while in style at the time, are not attractive enough for the modern casual tv audience. That's where you get the Johnathan Rhys-Meyers and Eric Bana stock nowadays
Actually nobody trully knows if Anne had dark brown hair. She was only described as darkhaired in her lifetime and blackhaired by same person who said she had six toenail. She might have been auburn and the copy of original Hever potrait also depicts her as such. Historians have agreed, that it is her probable looks as matched by people's description of her at her lifetime. And no, people wouldn't have definitely describe her as ginger, if she was. Yes gingers were viewed as evil by some, but Henry was ginger and so was his mother who was greatly respected and Henry's own daughter Mary was ginger as well, even Catherine had hair with ginger tint.
@@j.c.h.3257 Actually Henry's mum Elizabeth of York wasn't ginger, she was blonde. Henry himself was auburn haired rather than being an actual ginger - his daughter Elizabeth was a real carrot top though. Katherine of Aragon was auburn as well.
No. It’s with a K. She even wears jewelry in on of her portaits with K initials. When she lived in Spain she was known as Catalina, but when she travelled to England she was called Katherine. She even signed her name with a K
it depends on the spelling. Back then, there was no standardized way to spell in English, thus why it's a pain in the ass to read their documents. It's only now in the modern era that we stuck to spelling it with a C.
Spelling wasn't consistent back then. Catherine Howard signed her famous love letter to Thomas Culpeper "Kateryn" and even Anne Boleyn signed documents "Anne the Quene". Jane Seymour's name is also engraved on one of her goblets as "Ioanna"
I think Katherine saying she never slept with Arthur was the biggest lie of all time. She did it to protect Mary. There was even a waiting period after Arthurs death to see if she was pregnant. Smh
Whether it was a lie or not, they got necessary papers from the pope of the time and dispensation to marry. Henry using it as a preverbial stick to beat her with years later was typical of the tyrant he was. Don't think this Catherine was a patch on Catherine from The Tudors.
Arthur was actually suffering from tuberculosis at the time of his marriage and thus unlikely to have been capable of shagging Katherine like a rabbit, despite what Phillipa Gregory writes. And as K of A pithily pointed out at the trial; considering they had been married for twenty years, if Henry thought she was not a virgin at their marriage, then he had kept his doubts silent for a very long time. Perhaps we will never know for sure but I'm inclined to believe K of A.
@@violettippet5246 , you're absolutely right. Now, I'm confused, because I thought Henry used a Bible verse to try to make a point that he SHOULDN'T have married his brother's widow?
Wolf hall may have a more accurate story line than shows like the tudors, but their costunes are horrific. They look cheap and not accurate, especially the French hoods, which look like cheap headbands with fabric covering them
Anne was a marchioness in her own right (which was unheard of for a woman back then)--Marchioness of Pembroke; and she was the first queen to be crowned with St. Edward's crown. She was a queen in her own right--equal to that of King Henry VIII.
The only reason she was crowned with St. Edward's crown is because she was already with child and it was thought to be a boy, so they were actually crowning her heir.
Katheryne Koelker she was noble but not enough. Her father was a huge carreist who married that family and used his children, to the point his daughter Mary was called the greatest whore and she was the previous mistress of Henry. Thats why the king had to give her that title, or he couldnt have married her
It has many flaws One of those flaws is to portray Thomas Moore as a villain and I do not put all the good things about that man very different in the Tudors who also have their faults but at least portray us the good and the bad. Thomas Cromwell in this series is taken from a fanfic and clarifying that the author of that book has many prejudices towards religion (do not get me wrong I am an atheist) but I would never let my scruples get in the way of adapting, much of what was shown It is quite false, especially in trying to make Cromwell a good person, I am not saying that he is not a subject ahead of his time but he was a very Machiavellian type
eh how can you say that it is false to make Cromwell a good person, when it has been well established that all his bad rep is a Victorian remain. Thomas Moore on the other hand did burn people for owning a book in english, he did torture people, but somehow he gets a pass? Also the series portrays Cromwell quite machiavellian, but i dont see how that makes him a good person?
I will explain why The Wolff Hall has several errors in 3 points Judging by the comments of fans of Wolf Hall (and its sequel Bring up the Bodies), 70% of readers believe that the book portrays true events. Thomas Cromwell is perceived as a good man who avenged his friends, and who maintained a constant struggle with his wicked queen and the infamous Thomas More. Four of the six episodes that make up Wolf Hall's television adaptation have been dedicated to the Moro-Cromwell match. The series ends by summarizing Cromwell's life as a rivalry between Good Tom and Tom the Bad. Was it necessary to distort history so biasedly to sanctify the villain? This goes beyond literary licenses. Dame Hilary Mantel has written alternative history, but she does not confess it. It's true, Ana Bolena had declared war on the Secretary Secretary and Moro was a giant flea on Henry VIII's gigantic ass. Master Cromwell had to take care of both, but until the end, it was not a personal matter. However, the series and the books describe Ana and Moro as such mean people who deserve to be boiled like crabs. It is expected that the reader applauds when they get their due. Although "the Tudors" did not dodge neither the faults nor the dark histories of the Saint and the Boleyn, they managed to show also the virtues of both. On the other hand, "Wolf Hall" affirms that Ana lacked qualities, and those of Moro fit them to Cromwell! Distortion of the relationship of Katherine de Aragon and Thomas Cromwell In the series, when Cromwell's wife tells him that Catalina de Aragón continues to darn the shirts for her husband, The good Tom murmurs that if she were the queen she would leave the needle stuck in the cloth. In a later scene, Cromwell tells Enrique that he is opposed to the king's divorce. It sounds nice, but there is no historical proof that Cromwell has ever cared for Catherine's fate. He was a fundamental part of the degradation and ruin of the Spanish queen. He did everything possible to keep her and her daughter away from the throne, the court, and the goodwill of the king. I admire and respect the attempts of Dame Hilary to present this compassionate Cromwell, but I hate that to get it, I have to remove feathers from Tomás Moro's tail and transfer them to the butt of his protagonist to make him a bigger peacock. There is no mention in "Wolf Hall" of the esteem that St. Thomas felt for Catherine of Aragon. In real life, among the charges against him was to keep in touch with her and to favor an imperial invasion of England. By the time Tomás Moro was imprisoned, she could not see her only daughter. One of Moro's reasons for refusing to abide by both The Law of Supremacy and The Law of Succession, was to protect Catherine and support the rights of her daughter Maria to the English throne. Although I do not measure up to the shiperos of the "TomKat" and I imagine a romantic tale between the mistreated queen and her most loyal vassal, it is true that Tomás Moro was very fond of the woman he considered his sovereign, until the day of his death. Moro met a Catalina, still a teenager, when she arrived in England to marry Arthur, Prince of Wales. In his writings, the humanist praises the beauty and charm of the young princess. Like most Englishmen of his time, the future saint learned to admire a woman who, not only was charitable to her people, but also knew to be a courageous and wise ruler. Both laws, that of Supremacy and of Succession, confirmed the marriage of Henry and Anne Boleyn at the same time that declared the previous marriage union of the king null. We should not see this as a modern divorce, but as an act with serious ramifications. The annulment of Henry's marriage left Catherine as a liar who had falsely claimed that her first marriage had not been consummated. Marrying Enrique, pretending to be still a maid, made her a harlot capable of carnal relations with a man who was not her legal husband, and being a single mother, her Maria automatically became a bastard daughter. Tomás Moro could not become an accomplice of so much injustice, so his reasons for not swearing or signing laws went beyond his religious fanaticism.
The hunter of heretics Michael Hirst was a brave man in showing Thomas More to send heretics to the pyre, but he made a mistake in "The Tudors" by placing the Lord Chancellor at the foot of Simon Fish's bonfire. There are no documents that indicate that Moro has ever attended an execution and Simon Fish died in prison, a victim of the bubonic plague. However, there are documents, some of his own handwriting, where the future saint rejoices at the death of the heretics. Although this rejoicing sounds shocking to us, it must be placed in a historical context. The persecution and extermination of heretics was state policy. Moro always worked within the perimeters of the legal system of his country. From 1401, the English law considered heresy as the worst of seditions and punished with the stake. We are horrified by the idea of roasting humans, but it was an epic of atrocious torments. The adulteresses and those guilty of heresies were scorched at the stake: the poisoners were immersed in cauldrons of boiling water and the traitors to the Crown were hung without hanging them, then dropped to finally "quartered" (the latter it consisted in castrating them, gutting them and ripping out their hearts while they were still alive). At the time when Thomas More was chancellor, six men went to the stake: Thomas Hitton, Thomas Benet, Thomas Bilney, James Bainham, Richard Baysfield and John Tewksbury. It has been proved that Moro was personally involved in the trials of the last three. Moro approved the burning of Hitton, the first reformist martyr of England, but Bilney said he was "good, loyal and virtuous" which indicates that, despite his hatred for heretics, Moro did not fail to recognize the decency of the who he persecuted. Let's see the cases of Baysfield, Tewksbury and especially of Master Bainham, who figures prominently in "Wolf Hall". The three had recanted, fled to the European continent and returned to England to resume their public preaching. Paras Santo Tomás were the most despicable of the heretics. Those who feigned repentance to continue spreading their heresies, mocking the mercy that had been given them. As Moro de Baysfield said "It's a dog that goes back to where it's vomited!" Why was Thomas More so vehemently opposed to heresy? Until recently (and not only in Christianity) it was considered that heresy endangered the soul of those who believed in it. Moreover, during the Renaissance, it was feared that heresy could undermine the foundations of a state. As a pacifist, Thomas More was afraid that a religious schism would divide England and provoke a civil war as happened in France and Germany. Moro was convinced that extirpating heretical ideas and exterminating those who preached them was right, but he also believed in the power of contrition. In prison he wrote Consolation Dialogue in the Tribulation where he praises the relief provided by repentance as a way to avoid the dangers of hell. Of the forty heretics arrested during his time as chancellor, thirty-four were not executed, and three of the six who perished in the flames of the bonfire were refractory. What happened to the rest? Some died as Simon Fish, others remained in prison, John Frith and Thomas Harding were executed when Moro was no longer chancellor, and many after recanting, never again reoffended. Speak well of Moro's power of persuasion and eloquence, which so many have rectified (even if it was to save life). We also have the case of William Roper, son-in-law of More, who sincerely repented of his apostasy thanks to the patient intervention of his beloved father-in-law. There is a strange scene in "Wolf Hall". The recidivist James Bainham (who turns Mantel into lawyer and friend of Thomas Cromwell) has been arrested again. El Buen Tom is going to request the help of Tom, El Malo and for the first time he gives him a little respect. Recognize Moro's powers of conviction and beg him to convince Bainham to repent again. We did not know if Moro spoke not with Bainham. The latter is burned and Cromwell makes the Utopia author responsible. Which is evident in the most irritating monologue of the series when Good Tom puts aside the poker face and unleashes his sacred wrath. Obfuscated by Tomás Moro's phrase "I do not hurt anyone," Thomas Cromwell accuses him of being a hypocrite. "And what about Bilney?" Cromwell roars. "What happened to Bainham?" He accuses Tom, the Bad One, of so brutally torturing Bainham that the lawyer must have been carried on the ledge to the scaffold. There seems to be a sequence problem here. According to the chronology of the series, Bainham was subjected to torment in Moro's house, after which he repented. Weeks later, enjoying full health and in full mass, Bainham began to read the Bible of Tyndale to all mouth for which he was arrested. It is impossible that he has been subjected to torture again. The procedure was to execute the recidivists immediately. Impossible that Moro had put it back on the wheel. As for Thomas Bilney, although he recanted for fear of torture, he was never subjected to it. His interrogation, trial and execution took place in Norwich, under the orders of Bishop Dix. Tomás Moro had very little to do with his case. One of the maxims of Dame Hilary Mantel is that the author of historical fiction must always rely on, at least, two versions of the same event. Now he contradicts himself because all his evidence against St. Thomas More is based on a single source: The Book of Martyrs by John Foxe. It is known that Foxe's report is riddled with inaccuracies. The same author confessed that his reports were based on rumors that ran by word of mouth. In this case, the mouth belongs to a bandit priest named George Constantine who was engaged in the sale of Protestant books in what today we would call the black market. Moro learned it and kept him prisoner in a shed in his garden Constantine, who despite his many lies never accused his jailer of torturing him, betrayed all his acquaintances who propagated the New Faith. It was he who denounced Tewksbury, Baysfield and Bainham. Later, Constantin managed to flee, provoking the laugh of Thomas More. The future saint said that obviously his prisoner had been well treated and fed since he had enough energy to get rid of the stocks and jump the fence of the garden. The fugitive fled to the Continent. After Moro's execution, he returned to England and entered the service of the unfortunate Sir Henry Norris (one of the defendants in the trial of Anne Boleyn). Already in Isabel's days, Constantine had become an informer of Catholics and after such an illustrious career, he managed to die in his bed. In his days in Europe, Constantine began to spread a story that in the Chancellor's garden there was a tree to which prisoners were tied and then beaten. Constantine swore that he saw Tewksbury and Bainham being tortured. Curious, because by the time they arrived at Moro's house, Constantine had fled. Bainham and Tewksbury were put on the wheel, but that happened in The Tower of London and Moro was not present. However, Dame Hilary Mantel wants us to believe that Tom, the Poor, had built a torture chamber in his basement, just as there are those who install a gym today. Let's give the woman credit because she is a good slanderer. In Moro's life, his enemies circulated the story of the tree and the whipping. Although he bragged about hunting heretics, and knew that torture in those cases was part of his legal system, he refuted those rumors. In his Apology, he confesses to beating two servants for religious reasons, but he assures that this is all the physical damage that he has been guilty of in his life By erasing the line between the real and the imagined, Hilary Mantel wants to convince us that Tomás Moro was a dirty-haired fundamentalist who walked, like any Lady Melisandre, burning and torturing those who fell ill. And whoever has created him! I have found pages and websites where Moro is told how he burned hundreds of heretics or burned (alive) Mathew Tyndale. It does not stop them, nor Mantel, the fact that Tyndale was executed (in Belgium) a year after the beheading of Thomas More, who died strangled and then his body was seized by flames. Even in the series, Cromwell accuses Moro of having collaborated in the arrest and execution of Tyndale, who at that moment was in good health! All this pantomime illustrates us about the dangers of speculative fiction. Above all, if the author claims to have done her homework in regards to the investigation of historical facts Now that you read point two, do you understand the problem with the show? I'm not saying it's entertaining and this beautifully done but it's just a fanfiction Wait for part 3
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 4](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e7Oqqo90x_w/mqdefault.jpg)
As Anne bows and bares her neck...who can help but remember what will happen to her in the end? Fantastic cinematography.
Dude!! That actress is 2 British queens!! (Anne and Elizabeth II)
The other actress Joanne Whalley played too two quenns : Catherine of Aragon and Queen Mary (Bloody Mary).
liane51100, I didn't know that! Awesome!
Tell that to Helen Mirren and Judi Dench
Yep, mother and daughter lol
and Olivia now
I love the way Queen Catherine was portrayed. She seemed genuinely devout, she spoke English well but retained a distingtive Spanish accent. I believe she was good and devout, but when she spoke to Cromwell and said: "I didn't think they would send someone like you," one is reminded of her high birth and (genuine) title. I think it's important to realize in some sense, a royal's unequaled prestige is all they really own. Sadly, we see this only too clearly as Queen Catherine has everything else taken from her. As for King Henry, this whole thing about God punishing them because she had been married to his brother, he was being disingenuous because at the time of their marriage they were given a dispensation from the pope.
thats always how catherine is portrayed lol
Cromwell was the son of a butcher. I don't think that in stratified 15th century England anyone who let him forget that much less Catherine who hard arguably the most exquisite pedigree at court and had reason to hate Cromwell.
YES, AND WHO IS THE TALENTED ACTRESS?
Katherine from the Tudors owned this part
Katherine knelt at the kings feet as she made her impassioned speech, not standing at the bar.
She was just born to play various queens!
Anne grew too confident that it cost her, her head.
I’m confused. I wonder if that’s what a queen is supposed to do in her coronation or is the show trying to foreshadow Anne’s fate because it looks a little similar to how a person bears their neck before execution.
it's a sign of submission before God . Many priests pray like this even today like the current pope he does this often , it's called prostration .kings and queens used to do this during their coronation , not sure if they still do .
@@eglantinepapeau1582 I guess we will find out in a few days
@@Noblebird02 Now that I think about it , he is going to become Defender of the Faith in England and Governor of the Church of England , so he's probably going to do it .
Queen Katherine forever
Yas queen
Here, there are some people insulting a woman to defend a psycho king. He married six women. He murdered two of them and arbitrarily annulled his marriage to two others. As a true saint, can be seen.
Natalie Dormer will always be Anne to me.
And Clayre Foy will be Queen Elizabeth II always!!! :3
Cate Blanchette will always be Elizabeth I to me.
I agree, I think it's because she's portrayed Anne the longest, she was able to show Anne in different lights...That movies weren't able to do.
Wolf hall is much more accurate than the Tudors that I find it more like a soft porn with medieval them
@@margaretroseduchessofpough8485 may be true- but the protrayals in the Tudors are amazing- JRM did a fantastic job- and the cast was perfect!
With all due respect to Ms Foy, her acting was stellar but she didn't really look like Anne Boleyn. Anne was said to have had a long oval shaped face, a pointed narrow nose, eyes so dark that they where almost black, and black hair that was so long that she could sit on it.
They could have at least given Ms Foy dark contact lenses and longer hair extensions (hair like Olivia Hussey circa 1969)
klassicalmuzik Natalie Dormer also has blue eyes and I never understood why they didn't give her contact lenses either, especially that the black eyes were a trade mark of Anne. But anyways, both of them had a magnificent acting, Ms Foy is absolutely divine, she really captured that charm Anne was said to have.
So your suggestion is to change her face.
klassicalmuzik I think it's important to bear in mind that portraits and written accounts do not always reflect the way an actual person looked but the way that person wanted to be perceived or how the author or artist wanted them to be viewed. The same is true of Claire Foy's portrayal. She is what the writers wanted Anne to be
Anne's true appearance is uncertain as Henry ordered all portraits of her destroyed. There is debate if the existing ones purported to be her actually are.
klassicalmuzik she is not going to look exactly like her!
Ha ha looks like Ms. Claire Foy got to be coronated not once but TWICE! Even Elizabeth Regina II can't claim that one lol. Poor Queen Anne Boylynn either, well she did tragically lose her head though because of her tyrant hubby.
Ok, but Claire Foy cannot be _everybody_ , you guys!!!!🤨
Where can I watch this full?
What’s the name of the song that starts once Anne is set down?
What's the church music in Anne's coronation
it's called Fanfare N°1. You can find it in Wolf Hall: Tudor Music
Bert Camembert thanks but not that one I meant the renaissance choral bit
Bert Camembert I have the album
What’s this series called?
Cori Tom wolf hall
Wtf she was Elizabeth
Tony Carpenter Thank you I thought I was going crazy...
That's Claire foy
oh my.... i knew she was familiar thanks!
i notice some part of scenes is also where horwart harry potter movie taken
I wish for once theyd portray Aragon as the plump little ginger she was 🥰
I mean, She's one here, no? She's at least a plump-ish Redhead/Strawberry Blonde like the real Katerina was. I can't gage her height from the scenes but she isn't too tall.
She was the most badass of his wives 👑 A TRUE QUEEN
Specially when she was Henry VII's mistress when Henry was still married with Catherine of Aragon. And after the decapitation, her head was rolling towards the slope. :D
What movies or shows were these from? I would love to watch it all in it's entirety. Beautiful!
Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel, it's part of a trilogy.
amazing movie....
What movie is this from? Would love to watch it!
@@JMaeD72 Wolf Hall.
Did this actually happen like this?
The higher you climb the further the drop
I want her to play Elizabeth I and Mary I too
i thought henry had red hair. So how come Elizabeth got red hair if Ann also had dark brown?
you could ask yourself the same question for the tudors. answer? Gingers, as Henry VIII was, while in style at the time, are not attractive enough for the modern casual tv audience. That's where you get the Johnathan Rhys-Meyers and Eric Bana stock nowadays
sparkreno19 thanks for the answer.
Didn't Anne have dark Auburn hair?
Actually nobody trully knows if Anne had dark brown hair. She was only described as darkhaired in her lifetime and blackhaired by same person who said she had six toenail. She might have been auburn and the copy of original Hever potrait also depicts her as such. Historians have agreed, that it is her probable looks as matched by people's description of her at her lifetime. And no, people wouldn't have definitely describe her as ginger, if she was. Yes gingers were viewed as evil by some, but Henry was ginger and so was his mother who was greatly respected and Henry's own daughter Mary was ginger as well, even Catherine had hair with ginger tint.
@@j.c.h.3257 Actually Henry's mum Elizabeth of York wasn't ginger, she was blonde. Henry himself was auburn haired rather than being an actual ginger - his daughter Elizabeth was a real carrot top though. Katherine of Aragon was auburn as well.
They did the scene of harry potter was made half blood Prince
Which show is this?
Laura Ev Wolf Hall
Her name starts with a C not a K
It’s a “K”. Katherine, herself, signed her name in letters with a “K”.
No. It’s with a K. She even wears jewelry in on of her portaits with K initials. When she lived in Spain she was known as Catalina, but when she travelled to England she was called Katherine. She even signed her name with a K
@@graphiquejack it's ok.In Spain (Aragón) Catalina de Aragón.
it depends on the spelling. Back then, there was no standardized way to spell in English, thus why it's a pain in the ass to read their documents. It's only now in the modern era that we stuck to spelling it with a C.
Spelling wasn't consistent back then. Catherine Howard signed her famous love letter to Thomas Culpeper "Kateryn" and even Anne Boleyn signed documents "Anne the Quene". Jane Seymour's name is also engraved on one of her goblets as "Ioanna"
Could she not lay on the ground by herself?
+laylah li She was pregnant.
she was visibly pregnant at the time of the coronation, plus it's part of the ritual to have attendants help
What show is it?
Wolfhall
I think Katherine saying she never slept with Arthur was the biggest lie of all time. She did it to protect Mary. There was even a waiting period after Arthurs death to see if she was pregnant. Smh
Whether it was a lie or not, they got necessary papers from the pope of the time and dispensation to marry. Henry using it as a preverbial stick to beat her with years later was typical of the tyrant he was. Don't think this Catherine was a patch on Catherine from The Tudors.
Who cares.... the bible says to marry your brothers widow.
Arthur was actually suffering from tuberculosis at the time of his marriage and thus unlikely to have been capable of shagging Katherine like a rabbit, despite what Phillipa Gregory writes. And as K of A pithily pointed out at the trial; considering they had been married for twenty years, if Henry thought she was not a virgin at their marriage, then he had kept his doubts silent for a very long time. Perhaps we will never know for sure but I'm inclined to believe K of A.
I think the biggest lie of all time was about another pregnancy, and another woman called Mary...
@@violettippet5246 , you're absolutely right. Now, I'm confused, because I thought Henry used a Bible verse to try to make a point that he SHOULDN'T have married his brother's widow?
Wolf hall may have a more accurate story line than shows like the tudors, but their costunes are horrific. They look cheap and not accurate, especially the French hoods, which look like cheap headbands with fabric covering them
Thank you!!!
Anne was a marchioness in her own right (which was unheard of for a woman back then)--Marchioness of Pembroke; and she was the first queen to be crowned with St. Edward's crown. She was a queen in her own right--equal to that of King Henry VIII.
The only reason she was crowned with St. Edward's crown is because she was already with child and it was thought to be a boy, so they were actually crowning her heir.
Kate Maloney a queen of her own right? Are you kidding? The king had to made her marchioness because otherwise she was too humble to marry him
she wasn't a queen in her own right at all. She wasn't even royalty.
La Kellita La Kellita No, but she was noble-born: she was the Duke of Norfolk's niece (his sister was Anne's mother).
Katheryne Koelker she was noble but not enough. Her father was a huge carreist who married that family and used his children, to the point his daughter Mary was called the greatest whore and she was the previous mistress of Henry. Thats why the king had to give her that title, or he couldnt have married her
Anne died on a scaffold. To do such a good job with this show, they should have shown how it went down for real.
They also show the execution, masterwork of a series.
It has many flaws
One of those flaws is to portray Thomas Moore as a villain and I do not put all the good things about that man very different in the Tudors who also have their faults but at least portray us the good and the bad.
Thomas Cromwell in this series is taken from a fanfic and clarifying that the author of that book has many prejudices towards religion (do not get me wrong I am an atheist) but I would never let my scruples get in the way of adapting, much of what was shown It is quite false, especially in trying to make Cromwell a good person, I am not saying that he is not a subject ahead of his time but he was a very Machiavellian type
eh how can you say that it is false to make Cromwell a good person, when it has been well established that all his bad rep is a Victorian remain.
Thomas Moore on the other hand did burn people for owning a book in english, he did torture people, but somehow he gets a pass? Also the series portrays Cromwell quite machiavellian, but i dont see how that makes him a good person?
I will explain why The Wolff Hall has several errors in 3 points
Judging by the comments of fans of Wolf Hall (and its sequel Bring up the Bodies), 70% of readers believe that the book portrays true events. Thomas Cromwell is perceived as a good man who avenged his friends, and who maintained a constant struggle with his wicked queen and the infamous Thomas More. Four of the six episodes that make up Wolf Hall's television adaptation have been dedicated to the Moro-Cromwell match. The series ends by summarizing Cromwell's life as a rivalry between Good Tom and Tom the Bad. Was it necessary to distort history so biasedly to sanctify the villain? This goes beyond literary licenses. Dame Hilary Mantel has written alternative history, but she does not confess it.
It's true, Ana Bolena had declared war on the Secretary Secretary and Moro was a giant flea on Henry VIII's gigantic ass. Master Cromwell had to take care of both, but until the end, it was not a personal matter. However, the series and the books describe Ana and Moro as such mean people who deserve to be boiled like crabs. It is expected that the reader applauds when they get their due. Although "the Tudors" did not dodge neither the faults nor the dark histories of the Saint and the Boleyn, they managed to show also the virtues of both. On the other hand, "Wolf Hall" affirms that Ana lacked qualities, and those of Moro fit them to Cromwell!
Distortion of the relationship of Katherine de Aragon and Thomas Cromwell
In the series, when Cromwell's wife tells him that Catalina de Aragón continues to darn the shirts for her husband, The good Tom murmurs that if she were the queen she would leave the needle stuck in the cloth. In a later scene, Cromwell tells Enrique that he is opposed to the king's divorce. It sounds nice, but there is no historical proof that Cromwell has ever cared for Catherine's fate. He was a fundamental part of the degradation and ruin of the Spanish queen. He did everything possible to keep her and her daughter away from the throne, the court, and the goodwill of the king. I admire and respect the attempts of Dame Hilary to present this compassionate Cromwell, but I hate that to get it, I have to remove feathers from Tomás Moro's tail and transfer them to the butt of his protagonist to make him a bigger peacock.
There is no mention in "Wolf Hall" of the esteem that St. Thomas felt for Catherine of Aragon. In real life, among the charges against him was to keep in touch with her and to favor an imperial invasion of England. By the time Tomás Moro was imprisoned, she could not see her only daughter.
One of Moro's reasons for refusing to abide by both The Law of Supremacy and The Law of Succession, was to protect Catherine and support the rights of her daughter Maria to the English throne. Although I do not measure up to the shiperos of the "TomKat" and I imagine a romantic tale between the mistreated queen and her most loyal vassal, it is true that Tomás Moro was very fond of the woman he considered his sovereign, until the day of his death. Moro met a Catalina, still a teenager, when she arrived in England to marry Arthur, Prince of Wales. In his writings, the humanist praises the beauty and charm of the young princess. Like most Englishmen of his time, the future saint learned to admire a woman who, not only was charitable to her people, but also knew to be a courageous and wise ruler.
Both laws, that of Supremacy and of Succession, confirmed the marriage of Henry and Anne Boleyn at the same time that declared the previous marriage union of the king null. We should not see this as a modern divorce, but as an act with serious ramifications. The annulment of Henry's marriage left Catherine as a liar who had falsely claimed that her first marriage had not been consummated. Marrying Enrique, pretending to be still a maid, made her a harlot capable of carnal relations with a man who was not her legal husband, and being a single mother, her Maria automatically became a bastard daughter. Tomás Moro could not become an accomplice of so much injustice, so his reasons for not swearing or signing laws went beyond his religious fanaticism.
The hunter of heretics
Michael Hirst was a brave man in showing Thomas More to send heretics to the pyre, but he made a mistake in "The Tudors" by placing the Lord Chancellor at the foot of Simon Fish's bonfire. There are no documents that indicate that Moro has ever attended an execution and Simon Fish died in prison, a victim of the bubonic plague. However, there are documents, some of his own handwriting, where the future saint rejoices at the death of the heretics.
Although this rejoicing sounds shocking to us, it must be placed in a historical context. The persecution and extermination of heretics was state policy. Moro always worked within the perimeters of the legal system of his country. From 1401, the English law considered heresy as the worst of seditions and punished with the stake.
We are horrified by the idea of roasting humans, but it was an epic of atrocious torments. The adulteresses and those guilty of heresies were scorched at the stake: the poisoners were immersed in cauldrons of boiling water and the traitors to the Crown were hung without hanging them, then dropped to finally "quartered" (the latter it consisted in castrating them, gutting them and ripping out their hearts while they were still alive).
At the time when Thomas More was chancellor, six men went to the stake: Thomas Hitton, Thomas Benet, Thomas Bilney, James Bainham, Richard Baysfield and John Tewksbury. It has been proved that Moro was personally involved in the trials of the last three. Moro approved the burning of Hitton, the first reformist martyr of England, but Bilney said he was "good, loyal and virtuous" which indicates that, despite his hatred for heretics, Moro did not fail to recognize the decency of the who he persecuted.
Let's see the cases of Baysfield, Tewksbury and especially of Master Bainham, who figures prominently in "Wolf Hall". The three had recanted, fled to the European continent and returned to England to resume their public preaching. Paras Santo Tomás were the most despicable of the heretics. Those who feigned repentance to continue spreading their heresies, mocking the mercy that had been given them. As Moro de Baysfield said "It's a dog that goes back to where it's vomited!"
Why was Thomas More so vehemently opposed to heresy? Until recently (and not only in Christianity) it was considered that heresy endangered the soul of those who believed in it. Moreover, during the Renaissance, it was feared that heresy could undermine the foundations of a state. As a pacifist, Thomas More was afraid that a religious schism would divide England and provoke a civil war as happened in France and Germany.
Moro was convinced that extirpating heretical ideas and exterminating those who preached them was right, but he also believed in the power of contrition. In prison he wrote Consolation Dialogue in the Tribulation where he praises the relief provided by repentance as a way to avoid the dangers of hell. Of the forty heretics arrested during his time as chancellor, thirty-four were not executed, and three of the six who perished in the flames of the bonfire were refractory. What happened to the rest? Some died as Simon Fish, others remained in prison, John Frith and Thomas Harding were executed when Moro was no longer chancellor, and many after recanting, never again reoffended.
Speak well of Moro's power of persuasion and eloquence, which so many have rectified (even if it was to save life). We also have the case of William Roper, son-in-law of More, who sincerely repented of his apostasy thanks to the patient intervention of his beloved father-in-law. There is a strange scene in "Wolf Hall". The recidivist James Bainham (who turns Mantel into lawyer and friend of Thomas Cromwell) has been arrested again. El Buen Tom is going to request the help of Tom, El Malo and for the first time he gives him a little respect. Recognize Moro's powers of conviction and beg him to convince Bainham to repent again. We did not know if Moro spoke not with Bainham. The latter is burned and Cromwell makes the Utopia author responsible. Which is evident in the most irritating monologue of the series when Good Tom puts aside the poker face and unleashes his sacred wrath.
Obfuscated by Tomás Moro's phrase "I do not hurt anyone," Thomas Cromwell accuses him of being a hypocrite. "And what about Bilney?" Cromwell roars. "What happened to Bainham?" He accuses Tom, the Bad One, of so brutally torturing Bainham that the lawyer must have been carried on the ledge to the scaffold. There seems to be a sequence problem here. According to the chronology of the series, Bainham was subjected to torment in Moro's house, after which he repented. Weeks later, enjoying full health and in full mass, Bainham began to read the Bible of Tyndale to all mouth for which he was arrested. It is impossible that he has been subjected to torture again. The procedure was to execute the recidivists immediately. Impossible that Moro had put it back on the wheel. As for Thomas Bilney, although he recanted for fear of torture, he was never subjected to it. His interrogation, trial and execution took place in Norwich, under the orders of Bishop Dix. Tomás Moro had very little to do with his case.
One of the maxims of Dame Hilary Mantel is that the author of historical fiction must always rely on, at least, two versions of the same event. Now he contradicts himself because all his evidence against St. Thomas More is based on a single source: The Book of Martyrs by John Foxe. It is known that Foxe's report is riddled with inaccuracies. The same author confessed that his reports were based on rumors that ran by word of mouth. In this case, the mouth belongs to a bandit priest named George Constantine who was engaged in the sale of Protestant books in what today we would call the black market. Moro learned it and kept him prisoner in a shed in his garden
Constantine, who despite his many lies never accused his jailer of torturing him, betrayed all his acquaintances who propagated the New Faith. It was he who denounced Tewksbury, Baysfield and Bainham. Later, Constantin managed to flee, provoking the laugh of Thomas More. The future saint said that obviously his prisoner had been well treated and fed since he had enough energy to get rid of the stocks and jump the fence of the garden.
The fugitive fled to the Continent. After Moro's execution, he returned to England and entered the service of the unfortunate Sir Henry Norris (one of the defendants in the trial of Anne Boleyn). Already in Isabel's days, Constantine had become an informer of Catholics and after such an illustrious career, he managed to die in his bed. In his days in Europe, Constantine began to spread a story that in the Chancellor's garden there was a tree to which prisoners were tied and then beaten.
Constantine swore that he saw Tewksbury and Bainham being tortured. Curious, because by the time they arrived at Moro's house, Constantine had fled. Bainham and Tewksbury were put on the wheel, but that happened in The Tower of London and Moro was not present. However, Dame Hilary Mantel wants us to believe that Tom, the Poor, had built a torture chamber in his basement, just as there are those who install a gym today. Let's give the woman credit because she is a good slanderer.
In Moro's life, his enemies circulated the story of the tree and the whipping. Although he bragged about hunting heretics, and knew that torture in those cases was part of his legal system, he refuted those rumors. In his Apology, he confesses to beating two servants for religious reasons, but he assures that this is all the physical damage that he has been guilty of in his life
By erasing the line between the real and the imagined, Hilary Mantel wants to convince us that Tomás Moro was a dirty-haired fundamentalist who walked, like any Lady Melisandre, burning and torturing those who fell ill. And whoever has created him! I have found pages and websites where Moro is told how he burned hundreds of heretics or burned (alive) Mathew Tyndale. It does not stop them, nor Mantel, the fact that Tyndale was executed (in Belgium) a year after the beheading of Thomas More, who died strangled and then his body was seized by flames.
Even in the series, Cromwell accuses Moro of having collaborated in the arrest and execution of Tyndale, who at that moment was in good health! All this pantomime illustrates us about the dangers of speculative fiction. Above all, if the author claims to have done her homework in regards to the investigation of historical facts
Now that you read point two, do you understand the problem with the show? I'm not saying it's entertaining and this beautifully done but it's just a fanfiction
Wait for part 3