Henry VII - was he all that bad?

He's had quite a bad press when you think about it. Certainly, on
this forum. More didn't like him. Shakespeare wouldn't write a play
about him. Starkey has done every other Tudor on TV, but not the
Welshman! Yet he founded a dynasty which was arguably the best that
English monarchy produced.

Wasn't a key point about Henry that he stopped private armies through
fines, the type of private army that Richard of Gloucester used to
take the crown?

--- In , "David"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> He's had quite a bad press when you think about it. Certainly, on
> this forum. More didn't like him. Shakespeare wouldn't write a
play
> about him. Starkey has done every other Tudor on TV, but not the
> Welshman! Yet he founded a dynasty which was arguably the best
that
> English monarchy produced.
>
> Wasn't a key point about Henry that he stopped private armies
through
> fines, the type of private army that Richard of Gloucester used to
> take the crown?

It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private armies
was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae tranquillity of
his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman and his
dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
Wales. . . .

And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland with a
good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors who did for
my O'Donnells . . . )

Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well off in the
16th century as in the 15th.

And all that religious persecution!

I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being IMPORTANT.
Or self-important.

I bet this'll cause a stir.

Marie

I think you're trying to cause the Third World War. I may set David
Starkey onto you. Many would say that Elizabeth I was someone who
raised the prestige of England to an all time high.

You would agree that the removal of private armies by Tudor was a good
thing I take it?

I know that the Welsh often were promoted in towns like Conway under
Tudor.

I think the Tudors would've argued that they were trying to civilize
Ireland. The Paddies were troublemakers almost forever!!!!

What evidence is there that the average English peasant was less well
off in the 16th century? What about the rise of the middle class?

Henry VIII was of course opposed to Papal idolatry and foreign
domination.

The Tudors were good at was being IMPORTANT. But didn't Edward IV
start this self-aggrandizement image?

And what did Richard III contribute to History? He illegally took the
crown and got himself killed & humiliated after about a mere 2 years!

A broch!

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "David"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > He's had quite a bad press when you think about it. Certainly, on
> > this forum. More didn't like him. Shakespeare wouldn't write a
> play
> > about him. Starkey has done every other Tudor on TV, but not the
> > Welshman! Yet he founded a dynasty which was arguably the best
> that
> > English monarchy produced.
> >
> > Wasn't a key point about Henry that he stopped private armies
> through
> > fines, the type of private army that Richard of Gloucester used to
> > take the crown?
>
> It's horses for courses, David. Of course, stopping private armies
> was something Henry did for his own safety, not thae tranquillity of
> his subjects. Also it has also been said that your Welshman and his
> dynasty were actually the worst thing that ever happened to
> Wales. . . .
>
> And I think it would be difficult to find anyone in Ireland with a
> good word to say about the Tudors. (And it was the Tudors who did
for
> my O'Donnells . . . )
>
> Nor was the average English peasant anything like so well off in the
> 16th century as in the 15th.
>
> And all that religious persecution!
>
> I sometimes think what the Tudors were best at was being IMPORTANT.
> Or self-important.
>
> I bet this'll cause a stir.
>
> Marie

Apologies, I don't seem to be able to bring up the rest of this
thread so I am sorry if this has already been said. Henry actually
didn't manage to end bastard feudal problems and private wars,
indeed there are indications that they were as bad in his reign as
at any point in the 15thC, and at least one historian suggests they
were noticeably worse. Secondly Henry made himself sufficiently
unpopular through his financial policies (to the point where an
Italian observer reported that revolt was simmering just under the
surface and he would be lucky not to meet the same fate as Richard
III) to warrant Polydore Vergil dropping criticism that Henry VIII
did not disallow, since he wished to appear the golden boy in
comparison with is parsimonious (not to say stingy!) father. In any
case, many of Henry's policies were merely developments of those
begun by Edward IV, so he deserves no credit for these. The original
authour of this thread (I think) suggested the Tudors were one of
the greatest ruling dynasties. I think they were sucessful and they
made sure they were remembered as such - thay knew a thing or two
about propaganda! But Mary was, in my view, a failure, Edward VI was
almost irrelevant, although his two proxy rulers, Somerset and
Northumberland were not, and Henry VIII was an egotistical self-
centred bully whose only interest in ruling was what was best for
Henry not for England. I think Elizabeth was great, in the correct
sense of the word, but no other Tudor is in her league. Whilst the
Plantagenet dynasty produced idiots like Henry VI, Edward II and
Richard II who were either mad, odd or incompetent or a combinaton
thereof, they also produced skilled rulers like Henry II, Edward I,
Edward III, Edward IV (assuming he was legitimate!) and the great
heroes Richard I and Henry V. The three Norman kings, Williams I and
II and Henry I were probably the most successful Dynasty in that of
the 3 none were either an idiot, incompetent or insane.