Look at the records of various monarchs before, after, and in other countries. Institutional paranoia was part of the job.
A good summing up,when the English weren’t fighting the French,the Scots,The Welsh or the Irish we were fighting each other.
Our population at that time was minute but we still managed to kill twenty five thousand soldiers on both sides in twelve hours at the battle of Towton moor,just one of the battles of the Wars of The Roses,though to be fair there was no prisoner taking.
Henry knew that a disputed heirdom would result in us idiots going on yet another war orgy.
There are some aspects of our national character that we English are not overly proud about.
I also must comment on the allegation that Richard the third was a mincing gay,he was not a very nice person but he was an incredibly brave man and trained warrior,he charged into the main body of enemy in an attempt to kill Henry Tudor personally but lost,tossers dont risk their lives on an all or nothing tactics.
He was a typically stupid Englishman.
[HIJACK]
Sorry, but I can’t let this go. On what evidence do you base the “not a very nice person?” Or that he was stupid (which he manifestly was not - overly trusting, yes, stupid no)?
[/HIJACK]
Well, in order to usurp the throne, he did disinherit his neices and nephews, possibly killed two of them (the Princes in the tower), and definately killed one of his nephews (Richard Grey), his sister in law’s brother (Earl Rivers), and two of his brother’s most trusted advisors (Lord Hastings and Thomas Vaughn), all of whom were innocent of anything other than standing in Richard’s way to become king.
He also didn’t like poetry (see what happened to William Collingham) 
OK, I don’t want to derail the thread, but let’s just say that the truth of these accusations is arguable.
No it’s not. I mean, it’s arguable he killed the princes in the Tower (and he quite likely didn’t), but it’s not arguable that he executed Rivers, Grey, Vaughn, and Hastings, and it’s not arguable that he got his brother’s kids declared bastards.
It’s also not arguable that Collingham got executed for his piece of anti-Ricardian verse
Not arguable that they were executed. Arguable as to why. At that time, if someone was seriously plotting to kill me or dethrone me, I’d certainly have had them executed and I think most people would. Also arguable as to whether or not he trumped up the bastardy part.
Again, I really don’t want to argue this, especially not in this thread. I’m sorry I brought it up.
Well, if you’d like to open a new thread to discuss it, we can.
Nobody made any such allegation. I referred to the playwright character in the movie “The Goodbye Girl” making Richard Dreyfuss play Richard III as a mincing gay as an example of a personal obsession leading one to rewrite history. In the movie it was very clear that the playwright was taking Richard III in a whole 'nother direction than anyone else ever did because he personally was gay. I was speculating that someone with a similar obsession about Henry VIII being a nice man had written the PBS version of Henry VIII. (By “PBS version” I mean the version that aired on PBS last week, not that it was produced by PBS. I believe it was English in origin. I linked to the IMDB listing for it in the OP.)
Warning! Hijack extension!
One of his more recent biographers, Charles Ross, thinks it most probable that he did and I tend to agree. Like John and Arthur of Brittany it is unproveable, but he had every reason to do so and precious few reasons not to.
Richard III was far from stupid ( power hungry and duplicitous, but that describes most, if not all English kings and kings period ) and would have likely made a pretty solid ruler.
Alison Weir also makes a convincing case that - while he didn’t personally do it - he most likely arranged to have it done. It certainly wasn’t an event he was sorry for.
But like Henry VIII beheading his wives, Mary I beheading Jane Grey, or Elizabeth finally offing Mary, Queen of Scots - Richard was protecting his throne (which he sorta stole from his nephews to start with). People close to the crown were often at risk not for their own actions, but because they could be used as pawns by others - even if they themselves were relatively innocent (Jane Grey was the fourteen year old pawn of her parents).
By most accounts Henry VIII was really in love with his first wife - who was far from barren. But she could not give him a son - several children died in infancy or were stillborn, and was unwilling to go quietly away on a trumped up annulment for Henry to get his son. That made her look like she didn’t have Henry’s (or England’s) best interests at heart. By the time she was exiled, Henry was convinced she was a shrew and had little fondness left for her - but his dismissal of Anne Boylen may have been driven by the realization of how much he was played by her - and guilt at how he treated Catherine. And Catherine Howard likely was engaging in treasonous affairs. Yes, these guys did care that it was THEIR seed that sat on the throne - not the biological son of someone else passed off as their own.
As a young man, Henry was apparently charming but quick to temper. He was a Prince, but a second son, and unsure in his role as King (Catherine was a great help to him - keep in mind that as a second son, he was as much at risk of having his head cut off by his older brother - had he lived - as any of his wives were). As he aged, he apparently lost much of his charm and became much more comfortable being King - which gave him the ability to have his whims met. As he aged, he probably went a little insane from syphilis.
(Anne’s subsequent miscarriages point to the possibility of her being Rh negative - only capable in that era of bearing one healthy child).
(Ehr, re the Rh-: only capable of bearing one healthy Rh+ child… if the kidlets had been Rh-, she could have borne a football squad, hooligans and all)
There was a Queen of Castille who was claimed to be the product of an adulterous relationship, approved and even incited by the King (Juana la Beltraneja, the cousin and immediate predecessor of Isabel I) - but what nobody ever doubted was her “maternage.” That is the unfakable part, the way royal deliveries of the time turned into something resembling a public show.
The reason I tend to doubt that he did it was because of a lack of followup. He had reason to kill the kids, but only if everyone knew they were dead. If he had displayed the bodies and said, “Oops, the royal bastards died of cholera! Shame that. I guess all the pro-Edward V people and royal pretenders can go home.”, that would have made more senes to me.
This way, if they’re dead and nobody knows their dead, he still risks an uprising by loyal Edwardians, plus the anti-Ricardians can still spread the rumor that he killed the kids. So it’s a worst of both worlds for him.
And, not apropos of anything, but can I just say I really like Anthony Woodville as a historical figure? Smart guy, Tony.
The 1194 birth of Frederick II was literally a public show. Because his mother, Constance, was an older mother (in her 40s by some counts) and significantly older than his father, HRE Henry VI, who was in his 20s, there was a lot of speculation that she was faking pregnancy and one of her courtier’s children or a bastard of her husband was going to be passed off as her child. She remedied the gossip by giving birth under an open tent near their castle in Ancona (on the Adriatic coast of Italy) so that all of the town could bear witness she was the mother.
If I may hijack the historical discussions, which are fascinating, may I recommend that the OP (and anyone who hasn’t seen it yet) try to rent the original BBC production of The Six Wives of Henry VIII, starring the inestimable Keith Michell? While the production is old-fashioned by today’s standards – it’s far more like a filmed play (similar to I Claudius and the likr) – the acting is stellar, and the characterization of Henry is waay more believable. Michell runs the gamut from likeable to detestable to sexy to repulsive to brilliant to gullible. Sure, you feel for Henry at times, when some of his advisers are manipulating his weaknesses or when Jane dies, but they don’t attempt to make him a sensitive blubberer like Ray Winstone (who I guess is in the version mentioned in the OP?) or worse an emo tubercular as with Jonathan Rhys-Davis.
And of course the follow-up, Elizabeth R with the unmatchable Glenda Jackson, is a must-see as well. I saw these two productions when they first aired, and I was a mere child, and I credit them for turning me into a Tutorphile. Barely understood a word of what was going on, but I was captivated nevertheless. Now that I’m older and know the history, I adore them even more.
That and Elizabeth are both fantastic, and they use the same cast for the overlapping characters which also helps.
I love the Catharine of Aragon episode. She’s red haired for once (as in life- in movies they tend to show her as really dark, but she was actually fair), they show them when they were really in love, and then her exile- all beautifully realized.
One of the greatest scenes from the series is “the morning after” scene with Katherine Howard*. Henry’s apologies over his ‘performance’, and her beautiful acceptance of them… and then her later reaction (won’t ruin it)- fantastic acting all around. And it’s amazing how they made Mitchell believable as an athletic teenager and as a morbidly obese prematurely old man in the age before Eddie Murphy latex special effects, but they did. Final wife Parr is also very good and continues the role (as does her husband Seymour) in ELIZABETH R.
*Katherine was played by Lynne Frederick, who in real life was the much younger rose with thorns of actor Peter Sellers, who didn’t have the power to behead but could be a terror nonetheless. He actually died the day he was to sign divorce papers and so she inherited the vast majority of his very large estate (and fought his children and other relatives for years), making me wonder if maybe she learned a lesson from the character she played (i.e. get him before he gets you). She remarried twice (David Frost and Barry Unger respectively) and eventually died of alcoholism; too bad, for judging from HENRY VIII alone she had significant talent.
Agreed on all counts, Sampiro. Some beautifully played scenes in the C of A and KH eps. Though actually one of my favorites is Katherine Parr and her relationship with Henry – although her character is much less kind in Elizabeth R, with her creepy running around with Thomas Seymour and tearing Liz’s gown.
Wait, are you thinking of the movie? 'Cause in the TV series, I’m pretty sure Katherine Howard was played by Angela Pleasance, daughter of Donald Pleasance. No?
Hmm. You are right. I was looking at the movie credits- my bad. I’ve never seen the movie version and just assumed it was a condensing of the miniseries into movie length. Ever seen it and if so, any good?
In any case, the above should be read Angela Pleasance’s morning after performance as Catherine Howard was pitch perfect.
ETA: The confusion for those who don’t know (which included me until just now):
The 1970 Miniseries is called The Six Wives of Henry VIII
The 1972 Movie is called Henry VIII and his Six Wives
Both feature Keith Michell as Henry VIII and ubiquitous “it was against the law to make a low budget British miniseries without either him or Brian Blessed and preferably both” Bernard Hepton (Thomas Cranmer), but that’s about it for overlap. (There’s another actress who played the character of Annette in both, though I honestly don’t know who that character was.) The six wives were played by six different actresses in the miniseries and movie (a pity, since they were all excellent in the miniseries.
The liberties taken in the miniseries (which is filmed on videotape and on sound stages) are just absolutely nowhere near on par with The Tudors, and it deals a LOT more with actual history including some complex church matters, yet it’s more interesting than the Jonathan Rhys Meyers nonsense (though JRM undoubtedly looks better naked). I think the most liberties are probably taken with Anne of Cleves, who was portrayed as more intelligent and acute than she probably was in actuality. She’s usually portrayed in histories as a sort of good natured but rather dim bulb; by one account she actually thought she was pregnant even though she’d never had sex with the queen because he had “lain” with her (literally- he slept in the bed with her). However, she’s also usually portrayed as a woman who’d have gladly signed an oath stating that the king was Jesus Christ and could turn himself into a titmouse if it meant she didn’t have to go back to her brother’s court so Henry was quite generous to her and even had a sort of friendship with her in later years.
Another singled out actress: Alison Frazer, a sad faced but attractive red haired actress, played the Princess/Lady (depending on the year) Mary in the miniseries (long clip from the Jane Seymour episode- she enters and is reunited with her father at approximately 2:33). She gave a wonderful understated performance. In ELIZABETH R they did a great job of finding an older actress, Daphne Slater, who’s a lot more bitter and crazy seeming but also resembles Alison Frazer and an exceptional job of playing both the pitiable and the damnable side of now Queen Mary (YouTube clip showing a G-O-R-G-E-O-U-S Glenda Jackson as young Elizabeth; her aging to the bald hag in the clown makeup is as impressive as Michell’s aging and weight gain.)
Anyway, I’d recommend these a thousand times before THE TUDORS. (I watched the first season on DVD and had no idea to see the second.)
Well it does seem pretty certain that he was guilty of ordering the princes murder,as to the stupid Englishman I was to a degree being ironic.
I myself am a stupid Englishman in that we tend not to surrender even when it would be the sensible thing to do just as one example.