Wolf Hall TV series

[gam197]

It makes you wonder how someone with such a poor and abusive childhood could have risen so far and earned the trust of the King. I wondered why he wanted the post at the Jewel House so badly. Is he wanting to have access to the jewels? To sell for income? I guess he was ambitious!

As mentioned earlier by another poster, he came from a family that at one time had money so maybe he had connections. I am not sure about the jewels but he was ambitious and they elude to his acquired wealth…

The last episode of The Tudors is on youtube and there are no sex scenes.

youtube.com/watch?v=1O5CGhRCw54

Catherine Parr is interesting as she later marries Tom Seymour, caregiver of King Edward. Bishop Ridley is shown as he gives the letter to the queen which is intended for the king.

 

[7_Sorrows]

As mentioned earlier by another poster, he came from a family that at one time had money so maybe he had connections. I am not sure about the jewels but he was ambitious and they elude to his acquired wealth…

The last episode of The Tudors is on youtube and there are no sex scenes.

youtube.com/watch?v=1O5CGhRCw54

Catherine Parr is interesting as she later marries Tom Seymour, caregiver of King Edward. Bishop Ridley is shown as he gives the letter to the queen which is intended for the king.

Thanks!

 

[gam197]

Not sure if I will watch the next episode of Wolf Hall.

In Wolf Hall I I did not like the way that More was played as cruel and how Mary was played as sickly as I don;t think that is correct or that she had woman problems . She was 38 when she married. No future queen would have waited that long.

She did not get betrothed until she was Queen of England in 1544 . All the others including King Henry did not want Anne to marry, She certainly would have been married at age 15 but they held her from doing so because of the fear of heirs to the throne. They go into in great detail on this in The Tudors.

The new Lord Chancellor Thomas Audley that takes More’s place was the head of the reformation parliament. We see how that works. Each person switches sides so the King knows exactly who is on his side, makes it easy to know your enemy.

Still haven’t figures out Catherine Parr. She was married to John Neville, Lord Latimer who sides with the northern rebels but gets pardon so does the King take her as his wife to make an alliance with the north of England.? She is protestant?

According to this, Tynsdale (Tynsdale English bible) did not approve of the King’s marriage.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I am still going to watch.

 

[Cailte]

Not sure if I will watch the next episode of Wolf Hall.

In Wolf Hall I I did not like the way that More was played as cruel and how Mary was played as sickly as I don;t think that is correct or that she had woman problems . She was 38 when she married. No future queen would have waited that long.

.

I am a little surprised here on the forum about the lack of real criticism against this series. It is clearly anti-catholic and full of bias and invented ‘history’.

Here is the view from the Catholic Bishops -

America’s Catholic bishops denounce popular British TV drama ‘Wolf Hall’

(Catholic Online) Calling it a “prejudice-laden presentation of the past,” criticism flew heavy after the acclaimed BBC drama was broadcast in the U.S. for the first time. U.S. bishops called the series “a work of fiction that adopts a narrow, revisionist and anti-Catholic point of view toward the religious turmoil of the Tudor period in which it’s set.”

cathnewsusa.com/2015/04/americas-catholic-bishops-denounce-popular-british-tv-drama-wolf-hall/

I would also add to be careful of putting any trust in Wikipedia. It’s a notoriously wrong headed site. Full of errors.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I am a little surprised here on the forum about the lack of real criticism against this series. It is clearly anti-catholic and full of bias and invented ‘history’.

Here is the view from the Catholic Bishops -

America’s Catholic bishops denounce popular British TV drama ‘Wolf Hall’

(Catholic Online) Calling it a “prejudice-laden presentation of the past,” criticism flew heavy after the acclaimed BBC drama was broadcast in the U.S. for the first time. U.S. bishops called the series “a work of fiction that adopts a narrow, revisionist and anti-Catholic point of view toward the religious turmoil of the Tudor period in which it’s set.”

cathnewsusa.com/2015/04/americas-catholic-bishops-denounce-popular-british-tv-drama-wolf-hall/

I would also add to be careful of putting any trust in Wikipedia. It’s a notoriously wrong headed site. Full of errors.

It is a work of fiction. Entertainment. As long as you look at it that way.I know the bias going in so I am carefully scrutinizing each episode. I have no problem watching it. I am finding Cromwell is not necessarily portrayed as an angel.

 

[Cailte]

It is a work of fiction. Entertainment. As long as you look at it that way.I know the bias going in so I am carefully scrutinizing each episode. I have no problem watching it. I am finding Cromwell is not necessarily portrayed as an angel.

The problem with ‘fiction’ like this which uses real historical figures is that most people who don’t know history take it all at face value. It shapes hearts and minds - and that is the purpose of it. The author, Hilary Mantel, makes no bones about her aim to destroy the reputation of Thomas More and destroy the reputation of the Catholic Church. There are fake, contrived conversations in which More is described as misogynistic and without any compassion. More is ugly and intolerant - a complete non historical invention. Cromwell is the attractive figure.

Cromwell is being used as the voice of ‘truth’ in the script - his contemptible opinions on the monasteries, the Catholic church and the papacy are all put forward as true without anyone contradicting him or calling out the lies. He goes as far as to sneeringly claim that the Papacy has no biblical roots [not true], the monasteries are corrupt and that younger monks and nuns are very much in need of the reformers rescuing them from an evil life. It’s fairly outrageous stuff put into the mouth of the ‘hero’ of the series.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The problem with ‘fiction’ like this which uses real historical figures is that most people who don’t know history take it all at face value. It shapes hearts and minds - and that is the purpose of it. The author, Hilary Mantel, makes no bones about her aim to destroy the reputation of Thomas More and destroy the reputation of the Catholic Church. There are fake, contrived conversations in which More is described as misogynistic and without any compassion. More is ugly and intolerant - a complete non historical invention. Cromwell is the attractive figure.

Cromwell is being used as the voice of ‘truth’ in the script - his contemptible opinions on the monasteries, the Catholic church and the papacy are all put forward as true without anyone contradicting him or calling out the lies. He goes as far as to sneeringly claim that the Papacy has no biblical roots [not true], the monasteries are corrupt and that younger monks and nuns are very much in need of the reformers rescuing them from an evil life. It’s fairly outrageous stuff put into the mouth of the ‘hero’ of the series.

So are you watching it too?

 

[Cailte]

So are you watching it too?

I saw the UK airing so I have already seen it. I had to frequently stop watching it - fast forwarding - I thought it so bad, biased and untruthful.

 

[gam197]

Wikipedia certainly doesn’t have the story of Catherine Parr right and accuses the catholics of trying to kill her which is wrong… In The Tudors, it doesn’t say who is after her but it does show you that she almost lost her life over it.

Part of this confusion comes in because many see King Henry as a catholic king when in fact he has left the church and is now a protestant king who is head of the Church of England, latter to be called Anglican.

He destroys the monasteries but also goes after some protestant groups. We see that in one episode when one of the wives wants Thomas More killed because he is against the faith but whose faith. Not often mentioned is that there were a number of protestants who also were killed by the king. Anne Askew was tortured and killed for being too much of a protestant, reading the bible and preaching about what she read. " She burned to death, along with three other Protestants,[4] John Lassells, John Hemley (‘a priest’) and John Hadlam (‘a tailor’)."

That becomes the issue for Catherine Parr. She is reading too many protestant writers even though she is a protestant as well as the king.

Thomas Wriothesley, who help destroy the monasteries and later serve under Thomas Cromwell is very involved. He comes for the queen but is sent away. Archbishop Stephen Gardiner and bishop of Canterbury Thomas Cramner may have been involved but again we fail to see that they are now leaders in the Church of England

 

[Cailte]

He destroys the monasteries but also goes after some protestant groups. We see that in one episode when one of the wives wants Thomas More killed because he is against the faith but whose faith. Not often mentioned is that there were a number of protestants who also were killed by the king. Anne Askew was tortured and killed for being too much of a protestant, reading the bible and preaching about what she read. " She burned to death, along with three other Protestants,[4] John Lassells, John Hemley (‘a priest’) and John Hadlam (‘a tailor’)."

That becomes the issue for Catherine Parr. She is reading too many protestant writers even though she is a protestant as well as the king.

I find your post to be a little confusing becasue you seem to be cutting and pasting or quoting from some sources but it’s no clear where.

The issue for Henry and the new English Church was that the monarch was to be in place of the Pope - head of the church. There were groups who wanted to break from this hierarchical structure and form a more independent church or churches. This was the reason why some ‘protestants’ were being attacked in an attempt to stamp out any challenge to the Monarch’s role as head. These groups are where the Puritans evolved from.

But Catholics were the prime target as they represented a real danger and possibly a powerful challenge to the newly established Church of England. England did not become Protestant without a lot of bloodshed.

Contrary to what is depicted in Wolf Hall - there was in fact initially huge opposition to the change and the dissolution of monastic life. The Monasteries were vital to community life and average people were greatly assisted by the monks for food and in times of sickness. None of this is mentioned in Wolf Hall.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I watch the show with my neighbor and I point out the errors I see and I
did mention to her about how the monasteries helped provide food to the poor and helped the sick and once there were no more monasteries the poor and the sick had nowhere to go.
And you are correct. There were still some groups who felt the Church of England was too Catholic and probably some still do to this day. The king changed very little about the holy communion service. It still mirrored the Catholic Mass very closely. And the structure of the liturgical worship today in the Episcopal and Anglican church still closely mirrors the Catholic Mass to this day.

 

[gam197]

I find your post to be a little confusing becasue you seem to be cutting and pasting or quoting from some sources but it’s no clear where.

The issue for Henry and the new English Church was that the monarch was to be in place of the Pope - head of the church. There were groups who wanted to break from this hierarchical structure and form a more independent church or churches. This was the reason why some ‘protestants’ were being attacked in an attempt to stamp out any challenge to the Monarch’s role as head. These groups are where the Puritans evolved from.

But Catholics were the prime target as they represented a real danger and possibly a powerful challenge to the newly established Church of England. England did not become Protestant without a lot of bloodshed.

Contrary to what is depicted in Wolf Hall - there was in fact initially huge opposition to the change and the dissolution of monastic life. The Monasteries were vital to community life and average people were greatly assisted by the monks for food and in times of sickness. None of this is mentioned in Wolf Hall.

Sorry for the confusion but I agree that when King Henry ordered the dissolution of the monastic life, this destroyed charity as a local level from the churches.

Catholics were the prime target but as we can see from the archbishops and others, many signed his paper owing allegiance to the king and the Church of England.
So many times, I have heard King Henry was a catholic no he was not, he chose to become a protestant ruler. King Henry was a protestant when he killed his wives.
King Henry was a smart ruler and he kept the masses similar to the catholic mass for a purpose. He brought Mary around to the churches but would not allow her to marry.

As far as opposition we see the" Pilgrim of Grace" when the northern part of England rose up with 40,000 catholics willing to fight in a nation of only 2 million, that was a major threat. There was a reason the leaders heads were put on stakes for all to see.

Then we have King Henry wife, Catherine Parr who almost gets beheaded because she is reading protestant books. This was very confusing but if you look at it closely, the story is correct.

I apologize for the confusion, I am watching both “Wolf Hall” and parts of “The Tudors” at the same time. The Tudors really depicts the persecution of the catholics with many violent scenes. Also I am looking at sources, wikipedia and others to try to get a better understanding.

 

[Cailte]

. Also I am looking at sources, wikipedia and others to try to get a better understanding.

Wikipedia is no good. I would not recommend that as a source. It tends to be dominated by a few - who are not at all necessarily scholars - who push their own opinions and agendas.

If you are serious about looking at this period I would recommend the work of historian Eamon Duffy. He is Professor of Christian history at Cambridge University, He is native Irish but works now in Britain.

His books include “The Strippng of the Altars” - this book was used as part of the evidence by some reviewers that Wolf Hall was historically incorrect and biased.

He also has a newer book :“Saints, Sacrilege and Sedition: Religion and Conflict in the Tudor Reformations”. His work is well respected amongst historians.

 

[gam197]

Wikipedia is no good. I would not recommend that as a source. It tends to be dominated by a few - who are not at all necessarily scholars - who push their own opinions and agendas.

If you are serious about looking at this period I would recommend the work of historian Eamon Duffy. He is Professor of Christian history at Cambridge University, He is native Irish but works now in Britain.

His books include “The Strippng of the Altars” - this book was used as part of the evidence by some reviewers that Wolf Hall was historically incorrect and biased.

He also has a newer book :“Saints, Sacrilege and Sedition: Religion and Conflict in the Tudor Reformations”. His work is well respected amongst historians.

Thanks, bought both books from Amazon.

I can understand that with the printing press and desire for a bible not in Latin but in one’s own language, there were many issues. such as annulments and married clergy… The lay poor may have looked as becoming protestant clergy as a means to gaining respect in a world with little to no middle class.

We do get basic fact from wikipedia… Many of the Irish when they came to US were thrown into the American Civil War, in fact this year 2015 commemorates 150 year of that war.

I had never even heard of the Irish military diaspora

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_military_diaspora

By the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, well over one-third of the military forces of the British Army consisted of Irishmen

The world history education in our US public schools has been very little and is slanted.

 

[gam197]

Would like also to get this book but way too expensive at $129.00.

Cranmer’s Godly Order: The Destruction of Catholicism Through Liturgical Change by Michael Davies

This one paragraph from a great review on Amazon on book “Saints, Sacrilege and Sedition” helps explain I believe the almost death of Catherine Parr(6th wife).

The Reformation marked, for England, the end of the notion of Christendom. The foundation of the English Reformation was neither sola scriptura nor sola fide, but the Royal Supremacy: Henry VIII utterly rejected justification by faith and burned those who preached it, and he understood the authority of scripture to reside chiefly in the fact that the scriptures taught obedience to the king

.

 

[Cailte]

I didn’t read the wiki link but it’s wrong if it says the Flight of the Earls happened under Elizabeth. The Flight of the Earls happened in September 1607 under James I. Elizabeth had died even before Hugh O’Neill signed the Treaty of Mellifont in 1603 after the Irish defeat at Kinsale.

 

[Cailte]

Thanks, bought both books from Amazon.

I can understand that with the printing press and desire for a bible not in Latin but in one’s own language, there were many issues. such as annulments and married clergy… The lay poor may have looked as becoming protestant clergy as a means to gaining respect in a world with little to no middle class.

We do get basic fact from wikipedia… Many of the Irish when they came to US were thrown into the American Civil War, in fact this year 2015 commemorates 150 year of that war.

I had never even heard of the Irish military diaspora

Quote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_military_diaspora

***By the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, well over one-third of the military forces of the British Army consisted of Irishmen

---

The world history education in our US public schools has been very little and is slanted.

I notice that in the wiki link it said "citation needed’ as indeed it should. I would like to see where that figure comes from! The historic reality is that Catholic Irish were not permitted to take any commissions in the British Army. There were laws against Catholics holding any level of command. They could enlist only at the lowest levels and many Catholics were reluctant to do so.

The Irish who came to the US formed a brigade in the Union Army. It consisted of three regiments. Thomas Meagher was Brig. General. He was originally from Waterford, Ireland. Many of the recruits were native Irish.

 

[gam197]

I didn’t read the wiki link but it’s wrong if it says the Flight of the Earls happened under Elizabeth. The Flight of the Earls happened in September 1607 under James I. Elizabeth had died even before Hugh O’Neill signed the Treaty of Mellifont in 1603 after the Irish defeat at Kinsale.

The wiki article states that. They give two dates, one for the Flight of the Wild Geese in 1691 and one for the Flight of the Earls in 1607.

 

[gam197]

I notice that in the wiki link it said "citation needed’ as indeed it should. I would like to see where that figure comes from! The historic reality is that Catholic Irish were not permitted to take any commissions in the British Army. There were laws against Catholics holding any level of command. They could enlist only at the lowest levels and many Catholics were reluctant to do so.

The Irish who came to the US formed a brigade in the Union Army. It consisted of three regiments. Thomas Meagher was Brig. General. He was originally from Waterford, Ireland. Many of the recruits were native Irish.

They give a date of 1745 when British stopped all Irishmen from being recruited overseas. They give a source for that figure (1/3 of all British troops were Irish in 1800) - Murphy, David: Irish Regiments in the World Wars (Osprey Publishing (2007) ISBN 978-1-84603-015-4),

According to article,the Irish were sent to fight a war on behalf of Britain and at times would join the other side. I can relate to that in the Spanish American War when Irish joined the Spanish.

In America, there were 150,000 Irish recruits in the North and 25,000 recruits in the South so yes they did fight during the civil war. This is the 150 anniversary and no commemoration.

The population charts shocked me. There was 6 million in England in 1300’s only to go down to 2.5 million after the plague.The population or Ireland was 8 million while the population of England was 10 million during 1800’s. That surprised me.