"The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

I think it was someone here (or perhaps over on Facebook) who recommended I read The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty" by G.J. Meyer.

Holy moley, even more I do not understand how Tudor historians and scholars can treat the Tudor dynasy as superior and much to be desired over Richard or the Plantagenet dynasty, et. al. Henry VIII's overweening hubris and unending tyranny, not to mention his total disregard for his subjects, is, all by itself, enough to make Richard look like a literal saint. I haven't gotten to Mary, Edward VI and Elizabeth yet.

Can't wait.

All I can think is that the mythos that the Tudors built up around Richard was a mirror for their own behavior. Nothing else is making sense to me, and that's based on the historical facts.

If we were to assemble a contrasty sort of table table listing Richard's (heck, shall we list the entire Plantagenet dynasty's?) proven cruelty and crimes, against the proven cruelty and crimes of Henry VIII, or Henry VII, or all of the the Tudors, what would it look like?

That Richard is vilified while the Tudors are all but worshiped... what is wrong with these people? Do they not do their research on the the dynasty they worship? Or do they trust that we won't? Or is what the Tudors did acceptable because hey, they managed to hold onto their crowns?

The whole thing is just crazy.

~Wed

Well said, Weds. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 6:51 PM To: Subject: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

I think it was someone here (or perhaps over on Facebook) who recommended I read The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty" by G.J. Meyer.

Holy moley, even more I do not understand how Tudor historians and scholars can treat the Tudor dynasy as superior and much to be desired over Richard or the Plantagenet dynasty, et. al. Henry VIII's overweening hubris and unending tyranny, not to mention his total disregard for his subjects, is, all by itself, enough to make Richard look like a literal saint. I haven't gotten to Mary, Edward VI and Elizabeth yet.

Can't wait.

All I can think is that the mythos that the Tudors built up around Richard was a mirror for their own behavior. Nothing else is making sense to me, and that's based on the historical facts.
If we were to assemble a contrasty sort of table table listing Richard's (heck, shall we list the entire Plantagenet dynasty's?) proven cruelty and crimes, against the proven cruelty and crimes of Henry VIII, or Henry VII, or all of the the Tudors, what would it look like?

That Richard is vilified while the Tudors are all but worshiped... what is wrong with these people? Do they not do their research on the the dynasty they worship? Or do they trust that we won't? Or is what the Tudors did acceptable because hey, they managed to hold onto their crowns?

The whole thing is just crazy.
~Wed

I could not agree more!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

Well said, Weds.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 6:51 PM

To:

Subject: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

I think it was someone here (or perhaps over on Facebook) who recommended I read The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty" by G.J. Meyer.

Holy moley, even more I do not understand how Tudor historians and scholars can treat the Tudor dynasy as superior and much to be desired over Richard or the Plantagenet dynasty, et. al. Henry VIII's overweening hubris and unending tyranny, not to mention his total disregard for his subjects, is, all by itself, enough to make Richard look like a literal saint. I haven't gotten to Mary, Edward VI and Elizabeth yet.

Can't wait.

All I can think is that the mythos that the Tudors built up around Richard was a mirror for their own behavior. Nothing else is making sense to me, and that's based on the historical facts.

If we were to assemble a contrasty sort of table table listing Richard's (heck, shall we list the entire Plantagenet dynasty's?) proven cruelty and crimes, against the proven cruelty and crimes of Henry VIII, or Henry VII, or all of the the Tudors, what would it look like?

That Richard is vilified while the Tudors are all but worshiped... what is wrong with these people? Do they not do their research on the the dynasty they worship? Or do they trust that we won't? Or is what the Tudors did acceptable because hey, they managed to hold onto their crowns?

The whole thing is just crazy.

~Wed

Verily it's all very strange...I mean if I had not been a fan of Richard and happen to think the wrong sIde won Bosworth after watching the recent documentary on HT...sorry cannot recall title at this moment in time...I would have come away with the distinct impression that Henry Snr was a rotten king...and everyone was mightily relieved when he popped his clogs...not to mention his even more vile son...I think people have muddled up Fat Henry with Charles Laughton...showing my age here..but he was one of the earliest actors to portray Henry as, well, quite a jolly sort really. We know that the winner writes history but when it goes down centuries later as the truth then you have to wonder really....Eileen

Daft as it may seem do you think it's to do with patriotism for the WWII and post-WWII British generation - ie Elizabeth's Armada speech? Churchill was very good at harnessing this sort of Shakespearean rhetoric which we associate with Henry V and Elizabeth and of course his 'history' had nothing good to say about Richard. As for Henry VIII, well it's all about the wives isn't it - but he was actually quite a complex character, in fact in his early days he was much 'kinder' than his father and very, one would have to say, like his grandfather Edward. It was perhaps that jousting bang on the head ......? For comfort, the questions on Pointless this evening were on the Wars of the Roses and Alexander Armstrong (the compere) said very smugly that Bosworth was won by........ Richard III! If only! H

Me neither.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"
Sent: Tue, Jul 22, 2014 7:41:13 PM

 

I could not agree more!

 

 

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

 

 

Well said, Weds.

 

Sandra

=^..^=

 

From: mailto:

Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 6:51 PM

To:

Subject: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

 

 

I think it was someone here (or perhaps over on Facebook) who recommended I read The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty" by G.J. Meyer.

Holy moley, even more I do not understand how Tudor historians and scholars can treat the Tudor dynasy as superior and much to be desired over Richard or the Plantagenet dynasty, et. al. Henry VIII's overweening hubris and unending tyranny, not to mention his total disregard for his subjects, is, all by itself, enough to make Richard look like a literal saint. I haven't gotten to Mary, Edward VI and Elizabeth yet.

Can't wait.

All I can think is that the mythos that the Tudors built up around Richard was a mirror for their own behavior. Nothing else is making sense to me, and that's based on the historical facts.

 

If we were to assemble a contrasty sort of table table listing Richard's (heck, shall we list the entire Plantagenet dynasty's?) proven cruelty and crimes, against the proven cruelty and crimes of Henry VIII, or Henry VII, or all of the the Tudors, what would it look like?

That Richard is vilified while the Tudors are all but worshiped... what is wrong with these people? Do they not do their research on the the dynasty they worship? Or do they trust that we won't? Or is what the Tudors did acceptable because hey, they managed to hold onto their crowns?

The whole thing is just crazy.

 

~Wed

I think that's part of it. That seems to be when the modern mythologising of the Tudors began (before that, you get Dickens referring to Henry VIII as a spot of blood and grease on our national history.) And, from that, comes the Laughton image of Henry VIII, or Flora Robson as Elizabeth - the whole island nation thing, bravely standing against foreign tyranny. I'm not sure that holds much sway now, though. I think the main reason for the "popularity" (I use the term advisedly) of the Tudors comes from a combination of the evolution in portraiture, a greater preponderance of personal letters and nice frocks. They're easier to relate to in human terms, glamorous and provoke a kind of appalled fascination. I don't think they're loved, with the possible exception of Elizabeth.
Jonathan

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2014, 22:20
Subject: RE: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

Daft as it may seem do you think it's to do with patriotism for the WWII and post-WWII British generation - ie Elizabeth's Armada speech? Churchill was very good at harnessing this sort of Shakespearean rhetoric which we associate with Henry V and Elizabeth and of course his 'history' had nothing good to say about Richard. As for Henry VIII, well it's all about the wives isn't it - but he was actually quite a complex character, in fact in his early days he was much 'kinder' than his father and very, one would have to say, like his grandfather Edward. It was perhaps that jousting bang on the head ......? For comfort, the questions on Pointless this evening were on the Wars of the Roses and Alexander Armstrong (the compere) said very smugly that Bosworth was won by........ Richard III! If only! H

Jonathan, I think you hit that exactly right. Henry VIII was so, shall we say, interesting. The wives, the children, the beheadings, all the drama made him so much easier to portray. Elizabeth was much the same, although I find Eleanor of Aquitaine, so much more interesting. And the times Henry VIII lived in, more printing, more records, more of EVERYTHING!
On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:07 AM, "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <> wrote:

I think that's part of it. That seems to be when the modern mythologising of the Tudors began (before that, you get Dickens referring to Henry VIII as a spot of blood and grease on our national history.) And, from that, comes the Laughton image of Henry VIII, or Flora Robson as Elizabeth - the whole island nation thing, bravely standing against foreign tyranny. I'm not sure that holds much sway now, though. I think the main reason for the "popularity" (I use the term advisedly) of the Tudors comes from a combination of the evolution in portraiture, a greater preponderance of personal letters and nice frocks. They're easier to relate to in human terms, glamorous and provoke a kind of appalled fascination. I don't think they're loved, with the possible exception of Elizabeth.
Jonathan

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2014, 22:20
Subject: RE: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

Daft as it may seem do you think it's to do with patriotism for the WWII and post-WWII British generation - ie Elizabeth's Armada speech? Churchill was very good at harnessing this sort of Shakespearean rhetoric which we associate with Henry V and Elizabeth and of course his 'history' had nothing good to say about Richard. As for Henry VIII, well it's all about the wives isn't it - but he was actually quite a complex character, in fact in his early days he was much 'kinder' than his father and very, one would have to say, like his grandfather Edward. It was perhaps that jousting bang on the head ......? For comfort, the questions on Pointless this evening were on the Wars of the Roses and Alexander Armstrong (the compere) said very smugly that Bosworth was won by........ Richard III! If only! H

I do see minds changing since the discovery of Richard's body though.
Amongst those who care about such things.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"
Sent: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 11:28:36 AM

 

Jonathan, I think you hit that exactly right. Henry VIII was so, shall we say, interesting. The wives, the children, the beheadings, all the drama made him so much easier to portray. Elizabeth was much the same, although I find Eleanor of Aquitaine, so much more interesting. And the times Henry VIII lived in, more printing, more records, more of EVERYTHING!
On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:07 AM, "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <> wrote:

 

I think that's part of it.  That seems to be when the modern mythologising of the Tudors began (before that, you get Dickens referring to Henry VIII as a spot of blood and grease on our national history.)  And, from that, comes the Laughton image of Henry VIII, or Flora Robson as Elizabeth - the whole island nation thing, bravely standing against foreign tyranny.  I'm not sure that holds much sway now, though.  I think the main reason for the "popularity" (I use the term advisedly) of the Tudors comes from a combination of the evolution in portraiture, a greater preponderance of personal letters and nice frocks.  They're easier to relate to in human terms, glamorous and provoke a kind of appalled fascination.  I don't think they're loved, with the possible exception of Elizabeth.
Jonathan

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2014, 22:20
Subject: RE: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

  Daft as it may seem do you think it's to do with patriotism for the WWII and post-WWII British generation - ie Elizabeth's Armada speech? Churchill was very good at harnessing this sort of Shakespearean rhetoric which we associate with Henry V and Elizabeth and of course his 'history' had nothing good to say about Richard. As for Henry VIII, well it's all about the wives isn't it - but he was actually quite a complex character, in fact in his early days he was much 'kinder' than his father and very, one would have to say, like his grandfather Edward. It was perhaps that jousting bang on the head ......?   For comfort, the questions on Pointless this evening were on the Wars of the Roses and Alexander Armstrong (the compere) said very smugly that Bosworth was won by........ Richard III!     If only! H 

Yes,and we may live to see a dramatic shift in the feelings of people, as more and more information is found, published and reviewed. And his reinterment will certainly be a grand celebration, or it SHOULD be.
On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:45 AM, "Jessie Skinner janjovian@... []" <> wrote:

I do see minds changing since the discovery of Richard's body though.
Amongst those who care about such things.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"
Sent: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 11:28:36 AM

Jonathan, I think you hit that exactly right. Henry VIII was so, shall we say, interesting. The wives, the children, the beheadings, all the drama made him so much easier to portray. Elizabeth was much the same, although I find Eleanor of Aquitaine, so much more interesting. And the times Henry VIII lived in, more printing, more records, more of EVERYTHING!
On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:07 AM, "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <> wrote:

I think that's part of it. That seems to be when the modern mythologising of the Tudors began (before that, you get Dickens referring to Henry VIII as a spot of blood and grease on our national history.) And, from that, comes the Laughton image of Henry VIII, or Flora Robson as Elizabeth - the whole island nation thing, bravely standing against foreign tyranny. I'm not sure that holds much sway now, though. I think the main reason for the "popularity" (I use the term advisedly) of the Tudors comes from a combination of the evolution in portraiture, a greater preponderance of personal letters and nice frocks. They're easier to relate to in human terms, glamorous and provoke a kind of appalled fascination. I don't think they're loved, with the possible exception of Elizabeth.
Jonathan

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2014, 22:20
Subject: RE: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

Daft as it may seem do you think it's to do with patriotism for the WWII and post-WWII British generation - ie Elizabeth's Armada speech? Churchill was very good at harnessing this sort of Shakespearean rhetoric which we associate with Henry V and Elizabeth and of course his 'history' had nothing good to say about Richard. As for Henry VIII, well it's all about the wives isn't it - but he was actually quite a complex character, in fact in his early days he was much 'kinder' than his father and very, one would have to say, like his grandfather Edward. It was perhaps that jousting bang on the head ......? For comfort, the questions on Pointless this evening were on the Wars of the Roses and Alexander Armstrong (the compere) said very smugly that Bosworth was won by........ Richard III! If only! H

Jonathan Evans wrote:
I think the main reason for the "popularity" (I use the term advisedly) of the Tudors comes from a combination of the evolution in portraiture, a greater preponderance of personal letters and nice frocks. They're easier to relate to in human terms, glamorous and provoke a kind of appalled fascination. I don't think they're loved, with the possible exception of Elizabeth

I totally agree with Jonathan and Pamela. It is the glamour and drama that attract people to the Tudors. Actually, the fascination is mostly confined to Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, who were 'larger than life' characters, and. there is a soap opera element to Henry's and his wives, Elizabeth and her favourites and the rivalry between her and Mary Queen of Scots. That said, fascination with historical characters doesn't necessarily mean that people like them. Elizabeth is more controversial, Henry VIII always comes across as a nasty, probably mentally unstable tyrant. All the sympathy is with the wives. As for Henry Tudor most people have probably never heard of him.


On Wednesday, 23 July 2014, 12:28, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:


Jonathan, I think you hit that exactly right. Henry VIII was so, shall we say, interesting. The wives, the children, the beheadings, all the drama made him so much easier to portray. Elizabeth was much the same, although I find Eleanor of Aquitaine, so much more interesting. And the times Henry VIII lived in, more printing, more records, more of EVERYTHING!
On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:07 AM, "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <> wrote:

I think that's part of it. That seems to be when the modern mythologising of the Tudors began (before that, you get Dickens referring to Henry VIII as a spot of blood and grease on our national history.) And, from that, comes the Laughton image of Henry VIII, or Flora Robson as Elizabeth - the whole island nation thing, bravely standing against foreign tyranny. I'm not sure that holds much sway now, though. I think the main reason for the "popularity" (I use the term advisedly) of the Tudors comes from a combination of the evolution in portraiture, a greater preponderance of personal letters and nice frocks. They're easier to relate to in human terms, glamorous and provoke a kind of appalled fascination. I don't think they're loved, with the possible exception of Elizabeth.
Jonathan

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2014, 22:20
Subject: RE: "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty"

Daft as it may seem do you think it's to do with patriotism for the WWII and post-WWII British generation - ie Elizabeth's Armada speech? Churchill was very good at harnessing this sort of Shakespearean rhetoric which we associate with Henry V and Elizabeth and of course his 'history' had nothing good to say about Richard. As for Henry VIII, well it's all about the wives isn't it - but he was actually quite a complex character, in fact in his early days he was much 'kinder' than his father and very, one would have to say, like his grandfather Edward. It was perhaps that jousting bang on the head ......? For comfort, the questions on Pointless this evening were on the Wars of the Roses and Alexander Armstrong (the compere) said very smugly that Bosworth was won by........ Richard III! If only! H

Jonathan wrote :

"I think the main reason for the "popularity" (I use the term advisedly) of the Tudors comes from a combination of the evolution in portraiture, a greater preponderance of personal letters and nice frocks. They're easier to relate to in human terms, glamorous and provoke a kind of appalled fascination. I don't think they're loved, with the possible exception of Elizabeth."
Carol responds:

I remember in fourth grade learning two stories about Elizabeth I, presented with equal seriousness as historical facts. One was the possibly mythical story about Sir Walter Raleigh placing his cloak on the ground so that Elizabeth could cross a puddle (we weren't told about the contents of such "puddles" on London streets!), with Raleigh as the epitome of chivalry (this was in the 1950s before chivalry became "sexism") and the other was the defeat of the Spanish Armada.

And I'm American!

I guess the mystique of "Good Queen Bess" (whose encouragement of privateering--piracy by another name--we didn't learn about in any history class I recall taking) is as ubiquitous as the belief in the villainous Richard (for which we're indebted mostly to Shakespeare and "the sainted Sir Thomas," as Josephine Tey called More.)

Carol

---In , <pbain@...> wrote :

Jonathan, I think you hit that exactly right. Henry VIII was so, shall we say, interesting. The wives, the children, the beheadings, all the drama made him so much easier to portray. Elizabeth was much the same, although I find Eleanor of Aquitaine, so much more interesting. And the times Henry VIII lived in, more printing, more records, more of EVERYTHING!

Carol responds:

All of which contributes to the idea that Richard's death ended the Middle
Ages in England and brought the beginning of the Tudor Renaissance. No one seems to realize that Henry VII was "modern" only in the Machiavellianism misattributed to Richard and his careful distancing of the nobles from any sort of political power or influence. In some ways, he was a throwback to Richard II without the blood claim. And Henry VIII started out as "medieval," too, in his attitude toward heresy. It was only the perceived dynastic "need" to divorce Catherine of Aragon that brought about his cutting the ties with Rome and beginning what became the Anglican church--nothing to do with progressive religious ideas. (Please don't misinterpret me, anyone. I have nothing against either the Catholic or the Anglican churches and as a former Episcopalian retain a great fondness for the beautiful rituals in the old Book of Common Prayer.)

Anyway, printing, portraiture, and records do indeed make the Tudors more accessible, with the Yorkists and Lancastrians relegated to the mists of time along with King John and anyone else between William the Conqueror and Henry VIII. My only comfort is that Henry VII, too, is largely forgotten.

Carol

I never thought I'd defend Henry VIII but he actually wasn't into meddling that much with the Church, that is until Anne Boleyn came along. It was doing a pretty good job of pulling itself to bits over the impact of European Protestantism. Our lovely bishops would keep priests chained in their basements before subjecting them to the most horrible of deaths, and the sainted Thomas was one of those who enjoyed this. It was the young Henry who told them to behave themselves, or he'd intervene. There are two distinct parts of Henry's reign - before and after Boleyn, when he learned his true power and had his accident. As for the Tudors I have to say Starkey (and Glenda Jackson) did a pretty good job on Elizabeth. We like the story of a feisty, clever woman, who survived despite severe adversity. And of course she herself was the queen of rhetoric. One could say poor old Mary has been given the same sort of treatment as Richard - there is much more to her than burning heretics (which her siblings did too). H

Jan here after 5 weeks in Beijing.Try reading E Duffy The Stripping Of The Altars.I learned a lot about the religious practices of the late 15th/early 16th centuries from this. It opened my eyes to other ways of seeing all the Tudor monarchs. It is pro Sir Thomas More but there is a good deal else in it to consider. It's available on Kindle, I'm sure. Richard's Prayer gets a mention.

Sent from my iPad
On 23 Jul 2014, at 18:31, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

I never thought I'd defend Henry VIII but he actually wasn't into meddling that much with the Church, that is until Anne Boleyn came along. It was doing a pretty good job of pulling itself to bits over the impact of European Protestantism. Our lovely bishops would keep priests chained in their basements before subjecting them to the most horrible of deaths, and the sainted Thomas was one of those who enjoyed this. It was the young Henry who told them to behave themselves, or he'd intervene. There are two distinct parts of Henry's reign - before and after Boleyn, when he learned his true power and had his accident. As for the Tudors I have to say Starkey (and Glenda Jackson) did a pretty good job on Elizabeth. We like the story of a feisty, clever woman, who survived despite severe adversity. And of course she herself was the queen of rhetoric. One could say poor old Mary has been given the same sort of treatment as Richard - there is much more to her than burning heretics (which her siblings did too). H

Oh Carol, I agree. If the Pope had allowed him to annul his marriage to Catherine, Britain would still probably be a Catholic country. And, I think we have touched on this early on, the rumors that Queen Elizabeth I may have been a boy, hence her spinsterhood. I suppose we will NEVER know if that is myth or truth since it seems that the only "Royal" to have any testing performed is our Richard.

On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:13 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

---In , <pbain@...> wrote :

Jonathan, I think you hit that exactly right. Henry VIII was so, shall we say, interesting. The wives, the children, the beheadings, all the drama made him so much easier to portray. Elizabeth was much the same, although I find Eleanor of Aquitaine, so much more interesting. And the times Henry VIII lived in, more printing, more records, more of EVERYTHING!

Carol responds:

All of which contributes to the idea that Richard's death ended the Middle
Ages in England and brought the beginning of the Tudor Renaissance. No one seems to realize that Henry VII was "modern" only in the Machiavellianism misattributed to Richard and his careful distancing of the nobles from any sort of political power or influence. In some ways, he was a throwback to Richard II without the blood claim. And Henry VIII started out as "medieval," too, in his attitude toward heresy. It was only the perceived dynastic "need" to divorce Catherine of Aragon that brought about his cutting the ties with Rome and beginning what became the Anglican church--nothing to do with progressive religious ideas. (Please don't misinterpret me, anyone. I have nothing against either the Catholic or the Anglican churches and as a former Episcopalian retain a great fondness for the beautiful rituals in the old Book of Common Prayer.)

Anyway, printing, portraiture, and records do indeed make the Tudors more accessible, with the Yorkists and Lancastrians relegated to the mists of time along with King John and anyone else between William the Conqueror and Henry VIII. My only comfort is that Henry VII, too, is largely forgotten.

Carol