500 years ago Henry 7th died

Hello all,

Since no one else mentioned it, I guess I will, April 21, 1509, Henry VII (around here...the weasal) died. Not much of a 500 year anniversary, but, worth mentioning.

Howard

Party time!!!!! Three cheers!!!
Hooray!
Paul

On 21 Apr 2009, at 23:25, Howard Heller wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Since no one else mentioned it, I guess I will, April 21, 1509,
> Henry VII (around here...the weasal) died. Not much of a 500 year
> anniversary, but, worth mentioning.
>
> Howard
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , "Howard Heller" <howard_heller@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Since no one else mentioned it, I guess I will, April 21, 1509, Henry VII (around here...the weasal) died. Not much of a 500 year anniversary, but, worth mentioning.
>
> Howard
>
Well Howard, as Weasle doesnt have a Society dedicated to his memory I suppose this is the only place available. Weasle.....a mean, cold usurper not fit to lick the boots of his predessor, who stole the Crown from the rightful King with the help of his equally cold, manipulative mother, that viper of a man Morton and a couple of traitorous lords who betrayed and turned their backs on their true King on the battlefield (well I think one of them didnt event to turn up. Craven cowards the lot of them.
HOWEVER....Weasle may have triumphed over Richard in life but he has failed to triumph over him in death.....
LOYALTIE ME LIE
2nd time I have posted this message, sorry if it gets repeated...
Eileen

At 06:25 PM 4/21/2009, Howard Heller wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>Since no one else mentioned it, I guess I will, April 21, 1509,
>Henry VII (around here...the weasal) died. Not much of a 500 year
>anniversary, but, worth mentioning.

Not a moment too soon, but rather too late. It's sad to
think how much a well-aimed dagger before Bosworth might have
improved English history.

(Who, me bloodthirsty? Nah.)


Take care,
Kat

Er ............ frying pan ...... fire, anyone?

--- In , Rogue <roguefem@...> wrote:
>
> At 06:25 PM 4/21/2009, Howard Heller wrote:
> >Hello all,
> >
> >Since no one else mentioned it, I guess I will, April 21, 1509,
> >Henry VII (around here...the weasal) died. Not much of a 500 year
> >anniversary, but, worth mentioning.
>
> Not a moment too soon, but rather too late. It's sad to
> think how much a well-aimed dagger before Bosworth might have
> improved English history.
>
> (Who, me bloodthirsty? Nah.)
>
>
> Take care,
> Kat
>

He was mourned by few. In fact his death appears to have been celebrated.

Despite a fairy tale start to his reign - winning the crown in battle and marrying a Princess - he managed to make himself extremely unpopular by his meanness.

Henry VIII's main asset was that he was nothing like his father, but in fact took after his Grandfather Edward IV.

--- In , "Howard Heller" <howard_heller@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Since no one else mentioned it, I guess I will, April 21, 1509, Henry VII (around here...the weasal) died. Not much of a 500 year anniversary, but, worth mentioning.
>
> Howard
>

--- In , "Howard Heller" <howard_heller@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Since no one else mentioned it, I guess I will, April 21, 1509, Henry VII (around here...the weasal) died. Not much of a 500 year anniversary, but, worth mentioning.
>
> Howard

Well Howard, as the Weasle doesnt have a Society in his honour then I guess this is the only place available to mention it :0) This cold, mean, unworthy usurper only gained the Crown through the machinations of his equally cold/calculating mother, that viper Morton and a few treacherous others, who turned their backs/betrayed their true King on the battlefield. However Henry may have triumphed over Richard in life but he has NOT triumphed over him in death......
>Loyaltie me lie
Eileen

Err....I'll be the first to admit that I'm no scholar on Henry VII, but...

If by "meanness" you mean stinginess with money, you're right. He was very unpopular because he tended to have high taxes and hoarded money in his treasury and didn't spend it on frivolous things the people would have liked, such as anything from him dressing up and parading around in fine clothes, to war. While this certainly made him an unpopular king, it didn't really make him a bad king. In fact, it was the last time there was some money and stability in the country until Elizabeth I came along and tried to dig herself out of the debt her father and sister had gotten the country into. (I don't really know anything about Edward VI's spending habits, or how his protectors spent the royal budget).

So Henry VII's ideas about money may not have been popular, but they were more sound ideas than his son's (who I believe went through the entire surplus in less than a year after he became king?).

His death was celebrated because he was thought of as an old sourpuss no-fun guy, and Henry VIII was considered a glorious prince, handsome, fun-loving, intelligent, and young. (Which is why I detested The King's Daughter's portrayal of him so much...if he'd truly been a little sociopathic beast from day one, the people AND the establishment would not have been so obviously and incredibly thrilled at the thought of his reign).

Phew.

MAP

--- In , "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> He was mourned by few. In fact his death appears to have been celebrated.
>
> Despite a fairy tale start to his reign - winning the crown in battle and marrying a Princess - he managed to make himself extremely unpopular by his meanness.
>
> Henry VIII's main asset was that he was nothing like his father, but in fact took after his Grandfather Edward IV.

--- In , "siameseayesha" <siameseayesha@...> wrote:
>
> Err....I'll be the first to admit that I'm no scholar on Henry VII, but...

Yes I do think he was well known for being being mean with money except for the fabulous
amount spent on his tomb (estimated amount for the work to be carried out £1257 6s 8d , funeral expenses an unprecedented £7,000!!! This was the man that paid £10 for the tomb of his predecessor!! Selfish b............d. However, I am not really bothered with whether he can be considered "not a bad king" or otherwise. I really dont give a toss. What really riles me about Henry is the way he BECOME king. He was a usurper who had the cheek to date his reign from the day BEFORE Bosworth thus making the men that fought and died for their true King TRAITORS! Casting that fact aside for the moment he also allowed the body of King Richard to be treated no better than a dog that had died in the gutter. This was the body of an annointed king, yet treated with utter contempt by mere minions. Makes my blood boil.......
Eileen

>
> If by "meanness" you mean stinginess with money, you're right. He was very unpopular because he tended to have high taxes and hoarded money in his treasury and didn't spend it on frivolous things the people would have liked, such as anything from him dressing up and parading around in fine clothes, to war. While this certainly made him an unpopular king, it didn't really make him a bad king. In fact, it was the last time there was some money and stability in the country until Elizabeth I came along and tried to dig herself out of the debt her father and sister had gotten the country into. (I don't really know anything about Edward VI's spending habits, or how his protectors spent the royal budget).
>
> So Henry VII's ideas about money may not have been popular, but they were more sound ideas than his son's (who I believe went through the entire surplus in less than a year after he became king?).
>
> His death was celebrated because he was thought of as an old sourpuss no-fun guy, and Henry VIII was considered a glorious prince, handsome, fun-loving, intelligent, and young. (Which is why I detested The King's Daughter's portrayal of him so much...if he'd truly been a little sociopathic beast from day one, the people AND the establishment would not have been so obviously and incredibly thrilled at the thought of his reign).
>
> Phew.
>
> MAP
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > He was mourned by few. In fact his death appears to have been celebrated.
> >
> > Despite a fairy tale start to his reign - winning the crown in battle and marrying a Princess - he managed to make himself extremely unpopular by his meanness.
> >
> > Henry VIII's main asset was that he was nothing like his father, but in fact took after his Grandfather Edward IV.
>

I had the same idea in 1985 when watching the re-enactment of his march through Wales en route to Bosworth......

Richard G


--- In , Rogue <roguefem@...> wrote:
>
> At 06:25 PM 4/21/2009, Howard Heller wrote:
>
> It's sad to think how much a well-aimed dagger before Bosworth
> might have improved English history.
>
> (Who, me bloodthirsty? Nah.)
>
>
> Take care,
> Kat
>

I think he remained popular for the first few years of his reign...if Catherine of Aragon had given him two or three strong sons who lived to adulthood, perhaps his later years might not have been so unpleasant for his subjects. Although, of course, that might have led to another Roses-type war a few years later....

Richard G

--- In , "siameseayesha" <siameseayesha@...> wrote:
>
> Henry VIII was considered a glorious prince, handsome, fun-loving,
> intelligent, and young. (Which is why I detested The King's
> Daughter's portrayal of him so much...if he'd truly been a little
> sociopathic beast from day one, the people AND the establishment
> would not have been so obviously and incredibly thrilled at the
> thought of his reign).
>
> Phew.
>
> MAP