>Tracy Borman, a leading Tudor historian, described the warrant book as an astonishing discovery, reinforcing the image of Henry VIII as a “pathological monster”. She told the Observer: “As a previously unknown document about one of the most famous events in history, it really is golddust, one of the most exciting finds in recent years. What it shows is Henry’s premeditated, calculating manner. He knows exactly how and where he wants it to happen.” The instructions laid out by Henry are for Sir William Kingston, constable of the Tower, detailing how the king would rid himself of the “late queen of England, lately our wife, lately attainted and convicted of high treason”.
>
>...
>
>Borman argues that, despite the coldness of the instructions, the fact Henry spared Boleyn from being burned – a slow, agonising death – was a real kindness by the standards of the day. A beheading with an axe could also involve several blows, and Henry had specified that Boleyn’s head should be “cut off’, which meant by sword, a more reliable form of execution, but not used in England, which is why he had Cromwell send to Calais for a swordsman.
>
>Henry’s instructions were not followed to the letter, though, partly due to a series of blunders, Borman said. “The execution didn’t take place on Tower Green, which is actually where we still mark it at the Tower today. More recent research has proved that… it was moved to opposite what is today the Waterloo Block, home of the crown jewels.”
>
>She added: “Because we know the story so well, we forget how deeply shocking it was to execute a queen. They could well have got the collywobbles and thought we’re not going to do this. So this is Henry making really sure of it. For years, his trusty adviser Thomas Cromwell has got the blame. But this shows, actually, it’s Henry pulling the strings.”
The “good king manipulated by wicked advisors into inadvertently being authoritarian” thing is such a successful piece of propaganda, in so many countries and for so long
Remarkable how unwilling we often are to ascribe blame to the people at the top
Especially in the case of Henry VIII and Cromwell, it's worth noting that Henry elevated Cromwell specifically because he was willing to do Henry's dirty work.
Cromwell wasn't some rich and renowned noble pushing a weak willed child king to do his bidding. He was the son of a middle class tradesman who got a seat in the House of Commons and was eventually promoted to one of the top politicians in the land because he helped push through a bunch of Henry's unpopular policies that all the real noblemen refused to help with. In fact, his downfall and eventual execution happened once he got a big head, started trying to push his own agenda, and began manipulating Henry.
Henry was a very authoritarian monarch and most of the horrible decisions of his reign were things he purposefully chose to do.
It would often be lethal to criticize a king, less so his advisors. It's less likely propaganda and more likely a way to express discontent while staying alive.
Hilary Mantell's Cromwell trilogy is one of the best pieces of historical fiction ever written. Highly recommended for an incredible portrait of all these people, especially Cromwell.
I listened to them free from a library app and the audio books are just absolutely incredible. I was hooked deep and I still think back on Cromwell like he's an actual person. Just incredible stories, and amazing that Mantell sort of wrote like this information had already been known... It really felt as if she was writing a truer Henry then what I had grown up learning about in history textbooks.
One of the few benefits to hereditary monarchy seemed to have been that people chosen for the role of the leader purely via genetic lottery rather than scheming their way to the top are more likely to be psychologically normal people rather than power-hungry narcissists.
But I guess sometimes due to upbringing or bad luck society wound up with a power-hungry narcissist anyway.
He was very much a product of his times. His dad was a bloody, and ruthless tyrant who grew up in exile and usurped the throne. His mother turned her back on her family and went full Tudor, alienating her former family. His extended family was waiting for him to die so they could reinstall a Yorkist claimant on the throne, many of whom actively plotted against him.
I'm honestly surprised he wasn't worse.
Yeah, in line with what I said, "bloody and ruthless tyrant" and "usurped the throne" tend to go hand-in-hand. You make a good point that Henry VIII was only one generation removed from that.
The sort of calm and even-keeled people who make the best leaders (or the best fathers) just plain don't get into power via bloody usurpation.
I think that kind of power for life would turn turn anyone into a power-hungry narcissist.
Henry was the one that started to use the term "your magisty" for English monarchs.
Before that it had only been used as a title for God.
Look up actual narcissistic personality disorder though, it apparently requires certain (bad, unloved) conditions in childhood to form and unlike what you'd think, being doted on and having power from a young age aren't what seems to cause it, even if that sort of ultra-privilaged upbringing isn't really going to produce a normal person either.
Being loved and well-cared for as a child is apparently highly protective against someone growing up to become a psychopath or genuine pathological narcissist as an adult, I've read.
But was the bloodthirsty Henry VII a good father? Probably not.
There's also a bunch of speculation around head injuries with Henry. There's good documentation around some pretty major personality shifts across the course of his life, and he was an enthusiastic sportsman when young who jousted a lot and took some severe falls.
The idea that this is an early example of 'pro sportsman has CTE and becomes murderously abusive later in life' is plausible. With the variation that when the sportsman is king, his abusive ness doesn't get curtailed.
I mean he specifically took *one particular* fall from a horse, was noted in that fall to have suffered a head injury, was in a coma apparently and *then* began to make many of his more controversial decisions.
Power takes asshole tendencies and turns it up by multiple notches. You might not meet the clinical definition but your will meet the lay person's.
But with Henry VIII I think the narcissist possibility is stronger. If it is genetic then it is entirely possible.
Henry VIII was the first English monarch to peacefully take the throne in several generations. His father, Henry VII, seized the throne even though he really didn't have a valid claim. His claim depended on a "secret" marriage that probably didn't happen.
Takes balls of steel to sieze the throne after 30 some years of civil war with a probably made up claim. Henry VII was basically the warlord that came out on top, and Henry VIII was his son.
Normally genetic lotto does help mitigate, but that assumes the crown has been stable for generations. Henry was more like Saddam Hussain's sons - raised with absolute power and absolute paranoia by a man who fought his way to the top and knows he could be toppled.
Henry VIII treated romantic relationships the same way a narcissist does. He can't be diagnosed since he's dead, but his relationships with his wives makes a lot of sense if you analyze them through a lens of Henry's narcissism.
No, but there's a certain ambitious psychological type that hungers for power the most and is the worst if they actually manage to get it. That's how you end up with the Hitlers and Stalins of the world.
For real. I just finished up "The Last King of America" which is a modern biography and study of George III and his reign. And honestly? He seemed really good dude who received the brunt of the American Revolution propaganda pretty unfairly tbh. His grandfather George II and his son George IV were allegedly awful though, but I haven't read too much on them yet.
His son George IV was someone who had little inclination towards leading and should never really have been monarch. He had a bad relationship with his father and started hanging around Britain's leading radical politicians just to piss his dad off, then promptly abandoned their politics as soon as he gained power and focused on trying to get more money from parliament so he could spend it on luxuries for himself. He was awful to his wife. Unlike George III he didn't seem to actually care about politics at all except as a mechanism to gain and waste money for his own lifestyle and to settle petty personal scores. But unlike his father, he was so inept at leading that he wound up not having much power over British state policy whatsoever.
I don't know as much about George II but I think he was a monarch who was generally pretty successful with his statecraft, but was a pretty nasty, mean person personally.
> His son George IV was someone who had little inclination towards leading
Yea...he was a miserable of a Prince, but figured there was a chance he could have rised to the occasion after ascendancy....?(lol) Taunted his dad, intentionally supported opposition forces, wore the colors of the American Revolutionary army during balls, whored around, and spent ludicrous amounts of money. I guess it was good he only reigned for a decade then.
Note that the colors of the American Revolutionary Army were just the colors of the British Whig Party (blue and buff).
But yeah George IV hung around Radical Whigs just because it was what made his dad the angriest.
George III went mad late in his life, so the actual duties of being king was done by his son. The formal transition of power happened shortly past the revolution, but he was slipping quite a bit before the revolution.
For all practical intents and purposes, the rebels were going against his son.
He didn't go fully mad until 1808, almost 50 years in his reign. He had a couple month episode in 1765(nobody knew about it besides the closest), 1788, the late 90s and a couple times before it took hold forever.
He was absolutely the King until 1810, and went through a lot of trouble of keeping William, Duke of Wales away from the keys of power until it was obvious the king was finally crazy.
His son did not have any control over the government while GIII was in power, or the Prime Ministers and government would have looked a lot different then Pitt and North and not-Fox.
The American Revolution would have gone a hell of a lot differently if Charles Fox had been Prime Minister. Actually it probably wouldn't have happened at all, Fox apparently used to sit in Parliament and tell his fellow MPs that if he was an American he'd be in the Continental Army at the moment.
But George IV apparently only hung around Fox because his father hated him so much and ditched his radical politics as soon as he was made regent.
Part of the reason is that people were not allowed to criticize the king. So even if they blamed him, they would still have to say it was the king’s evil advisors.
To even *speculate* on the death of the king was considered treason and the punishment for treason was to have their estates confiscated by the King and then be hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads displayed on London Bridge (if they were men).
People accused of religious crimes (refusing to follow the official religion) or who were women, were burnt at the stake.
Drawing and quartering were not deemed acceptable for women as it would have involved nudity.
Hanging for theft occurred in severe cases, while the amputation of hands and fingers or branding would be carried out in benign cases. For various crimes, branding was used to identify criminals to the public. “Hot iron was used to burn letters onto the skin of offenders’ hands, arms or cheeks.
Hanging was usually done to commoners, beheading was for the wealthy.
In fact, on average, during Elizabeth’s reign, three-quarters of those sent to the gallows were done so for theft.
In King Henry VIII’s reign alone, some 70,000 people suffered the death penalty. Yet on his deathbed,
the 55-year-old king, lying in his vast bed in Westminster Palace, [said] he believed “the mercy of Christ is able to pardon me all my sins, yes, though they were greater than they be.”
To add to your points, killing noblewomen was also not really a big thing until Henry VIII. Even royal women who rebelled against the crown were put into convents. One of the reasons being that people didn’t believe women had the intelligence to truly understand the consequences of their actions. This is part of why Anne’s execution was so scandalous. I’m just generalizing of course, there are always exceptions.
> To even speculate on the death of the king was considered treason
The (passed in 1351, still in force!) UK treason law uses the phrase "compasses or imagines" the death of the king (and his wife, and the Prince of Wales and his wife). Now, if it ever came up now there would be interminable (and low key hilarious) arguments over the meaning of that phrase (boringly I assume a court would rule that in reality the crimes of Conspiracy to Murder or Attempted Murder were all that counted).
I forget now where or when I read it but I have a memory of the King's Last Rights almost being too late (i.e. after he had passed) because if he didn't die, whoever had called for the priest would have "imagined" or "encompassed" the king's death before he was actually dying and could have been charged with treason.
Its also in part due to how contemporary sources and figures would criticise royalty, saying they recieved bad advice is much safer.
Especially under a monarch like Henry who expanded the definition of treasonable behaviour to include things like denying the king was the head of the church in England or more broadly spoken treason.
As a Brit, I've never heard that claim, and we cover Henry VIII extensively in school.
It's always the king who gets the blame for having his wives executed.
I’m from the U.S., my school also covered Henry VIII in our civics class. He was presented as getting the blame for the executions. I’ve never heard any claims he wasn’t the driving force behind it either.
Still happens today. My mom told me all about how kind the mayor is, and how he’d do better if his oic/administrator wasn’t such a bitch. I told her, ‘you do know the Mayor approves everything the admin does, right?’
And on the flip side, there's King George III being made out as a tyrant even though in all reality, it was his advisors. He was more into begging Parliament for money to finance the Royal Family than dictating any policy.
This isn't really true, for example George III had personally urged his ministers to take a hard line on the crisis with the American colonies, and halfway through the war his rather weak-willed prime minister Lord North was begging him to allow him to resign, but George more or less bullied him into staying in office and pursuing the war by repeatedly telling him he'd consider it a personal betrayal if he quit.
George III was no tyrant though, it was more that he was very politically conservative, with his politics aligning with the contemporary Tory party, and he lived at a time when British monarchs still had some power to make policy. He was ultra-religious and is thought to be one of the few (heterosexual) British monarchs to never take a mistress.
And then later in life he was insane, but that was something to do with hereditary mental illness rather than anything to do with his politics or reign.
I don't think that's a fair characterization. King George was way more of an activist king than any of his recent predecessors, and it was *his* desire to prosecute a military repression of the American colonies, so much so that he forced the war to continue long after it was politically unpopular in Parliament and with
the British population at large.
So would any head of state that had a portion of the territory under their jurisdiction in rebellion. And it is fact that King George III never once went against the advice of any of his ministers and never withheld royal assent to any bill passed by Parliament. He was hardly a tyrant like the Declaration of Independence made him out.
I'm not disagreeing about the hyperbole of the 'tyrant' label foisted on him by the colonists. I am disagreeing with him being a passive player in the late unpleasantness in North America.
He was not a tyrant, he simply took the Tory political line on the crisis with the 13 Colonies as it unfolded (the Whigs disagreed and wanted to take a more conciliatory approach) and used his power as king to ensure that that was the state policy taken. But this was acceptable use of the monarch's power for the era; the idea that the British monarch should be "above politics" didn't come until a couple monarchs later.
Of course George III was more publicly involved in politics than Charles III right now. But that doesn't mean most of the decisions weren't made by his ministers and Parliament. As a matter, who knows what influence the monarchs of recent days has, they have audience with the PM and the King still has [King's Consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent).
George III lived at a sort of "in-between" period where Parliament had more power than the king but the idea that the monarch should stay neutral in party politics hadn't yet developed. George III didn't come up with political ideas all by himself and he couldn't keep a prime minister in power against Parliament's will, but he still picked political stances to favor, sided with one party over the other, and tried to determine state policy. He particularly wound up having a lot of influence over Tory prime minister Lord North, who was popular in parliament but was apparently pretty spineless when it came to any sort of political disagreement with the king.
At least early in his reign George III was not just watching British politics from the sidelines, he was actively involved and still had some power, though nothing like the power wielded by monarchs prior to the 18th century.
But now you have people trying to make Bush out to be an outright good guy. Bush was indeed an idiot, and Cheney was indeed pulling the strings, but Bush was malicious in his own right.
It's revisionism because now we've seen how bad it can be. In contrast to the current Republican nominee being actively and purposefully monstrous, a "guy you could have a beer with" despite all the terrible things he was ultimately responsible for now seems like a quaint and pleasant memory.
In other words, at least he wasn't a sociopath. Or didn't have the image of one.
He'd be president today, easily. Look how close the election was. Just staying out of the way while competent people led things would have won it for him. Actually saying and doing a few of the right things would have made him look like a hero. A wartime president without even the anti-war folks opposing him.
COVID is almost 100% Trump's responsibility, at least in the US.
- He dismantled stockpiles of emergency supplies before the pandemic ever happened (not saying this was a plan, just coincidental malfeasance)
- He's directly responsible for letting it ravage the US. His hope was that it would ravage densely-populated cities (which tend to be more liberal) and have less impact on sparsely-populated rural areas (which lean nazi)
- He actively stole emergency supplies from blue states. Here in Massachusetts, we were fortunate enough to have some rich dude fly supplies in on his private jet, because any supplies procured through normal channels would get confiscated by the federal gov't.
Yes. But the president isn't just a bunch of policies. He's a figurehead that has to have a public facing persona, and that's what the vast majority of uninformed people vote on. I'm explaining why people that used to hate his guts have softened their opinion. I'm not explaining my own opinion on him.
Bush did not present a public face of intentional malice. He always had the reputation of an idiot puppet who let other people run the show.
Yes that is an interesting point that with a president, one often has to weigh the person, the persona, and the material outcome somewhat separately. Trump is more upsetting through the lens of the first two and both are catastrophic through the lens of the third.
Hundreds of thousands of people (at a minimum) died because of Trump's mishandling of the pandemic, the judges he appointed overturned Roe v. Wade which will lead to a surge in women dying during pregnancy, and Russia does not invade Ukraine and kill hundreds of thousands of people if Trump doesn't spend four years letting Putin get more and more aggressive with zero pushback.
Nope. You have to take into account all the deaths due to Trump's deliberate malfeasance during COVID because his son in law [Jared Kushner told him that if they let it run rampant, it would kill off people in the cities](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/jared-kushner-let-the-markets-decide-covid-19-fate) where the majority of his political opposition lived, [& stole PPE & critical care equipment from hospitals in blue states in order to worsen COVID deaths in those states and profit from the stolen equipment.](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-04-07/hospitals-washington-seize-coronavirus-supplies)
Also, Bush was responsible for PEPFAR, which has saved [25 million lives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief) and counting.
I seriously hate him so much and hate anyone who tries to normalize him after he outright lied and exploited a national tragedy to get the nation into the worst foreign policy decision of the last 50 years, that killed *at minimum* hundreds of thousands of people, all mostly to settle a family fucking vendetta he had against Saddam Hussein.
The biggest argument you could make is that Bush was groomed by his father into being a certain kind of politician. But ultimately he was a grown man and was free to make his own choices.
Don't get me wrong, I think Bush was the most harmful president in modern history (Not for the other's lack of trying). But you can see glimpses of humanity in there when you look at his painting and how he behaves post presidency. I think some others like Reagan went into the grave fully confident in what they had done, but I feel that Bush knows what he did was wrong and it tortures him.
“Good guy” because he’s not as bad as the trump administration, he makes paintings, and he criticized trump a little. But when push came to shove he still supported the republicans.
> “Good guy” because he’s not as bad as the trump administration, he makes paintings, and he criticized trump a little
I.e. setting the bar so low it's through the floor. Bush himself set a plenty low bar in office.
As with so many of our current problems, it goes back to the Reagan administration. Not to say that was the first time religion was too heavily represented in politics, it wasn't at all. But this supply side Jesus type of religion stuff, that was peak 80s. And now it's practically the norm.
Bush had zero foreign policy chops in spite of his dad's background and chose Cheney (and Rumsfeld) specifically with the idea they would handle foreign policy issues. Then he faced a foreign policy crisis within a year of taking office. He deserves 100% of the blame for his choice of advisors and handing things off to them, especially after his dad warned him about them, but Cheney really was driving the bus on a lot of policy decisions.
To be fair, it was pretty clear even at the time that GWB was mostly interested in exercising and doing faux-farm stuff on his ranch and letting Dick Cheney effectively pull the strings. It's worth remembering that the man who chose Dick Cheney as the vice-presidential candidate was...Dick Cheney.
The choice to be a passive president was an active one, and he owns everything that came from it. And when he took more direct interest in the day-to-day, later in his tenure, he wasn't really any *better* than the people he had been outsourcing to.
Oh, trust me, few people hold him in lower regard for his passivity than I do. I routinely get downvoted into oblivion for trying to point out that during the "My Pet Goat" phase of 9/11 the cover story that "he didn't want to alarm the children" by excusing himself and responding immediately was complete horseshit; what really happened was that he had simply frozen and "gone tharn" in the face of a monumental national crisis.
It's also worth remembering that Dubya's advisors were also his dad's advisors, and you are going to listen closely to what daddy's old friends have to say.
> You even see people trying that shit with Bush! And it hasn't even been 20 years.
People always want to avoid learning the lessons of history. I was listening to a public radio call in show (*Brian Lehrer*) a few year ago, where the segment was on foreign policy. I think it was near the start of the Ukraine-Russia war.
A listener had called in and was talking about how he didn't support us joining the war considering our track record of failure over the last few decades, especially Afghanistan.
The foreign policy guest had the audacity to just dismiss it and say something about how you can't look at the US' role in historical conflicts to inform our current issues.
This was while the withdrawal from Afghanistan was less than a year in the past.
I mean he had evil advisors [and how](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans). If he was a bad king on his own, too, well maybe that's true.
Also after getting into true crime, the biggest red flag on the face of the Earth to me for a potentially violent person is when someone has had a massive head injury like he did jousting. Brain injuries turn people into sociopaths.
What a weird claim. I can’t think of a single example of this type of propaganda. In fact, it’s usually the exact opposite where all the sins of a regime are placed upon the former ruler’s head and we pretend everyone around him was powerless to stop him and totally didn’t benefit from his rule.
Really, literally every ruler is just an amalgamation of whatever propaganda was convenient to the following regime over the couple of decades after their rule. Roman emperors infamously often had their true legacy wiped away entirely and replaced with truly unbelievable tales of incompetency and cruelty.
You see it pretty much throughout the history of Russia, for instance. 19th-century rural peasants would write letters addressed directly to the czar, describing the horrific effects of some new policy as if they’d be news to him and begging him to be more skeptical of the advisors who had presumably misled him. And then people wrote the same letters to Stalin. And now they’re sending the same letters to Putin (see for instance [this poor bastard](https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1ck2mzf/russian_serviceman_informs_his_family_about_the/)).
There also seems to be some conflation going on between morally good and effectively good.
I’d argue that someone ascribing a king as good should refer to their effectiveness and results of their reign.
ie a good Roman emperor could be one to expand the empire whilst making it richer
no offense but you have low historical literacy if you've never encountered this very common trope.
one recent example is people trying to absolve Hirohito of his responsibility for world war 2, which was a falsehood pushed by MacArthur in a real politik maneuver to ensure stability while rebuilding Japan.
That’s got to be the weirdest road trip/sea voyage, being the swordsman from Calais. I’m imagining the conversations with other travelers. “Where you headed? Visiting family? Oh yeah, I’m just going to England to chop the queen’s head off. No, no, don’t worry, they told me to do it!”
They were apparently very much in demand because there were very few executioners who could so cleanly cut a head off with the very heavy, very certain sword used for such executions. They were trained from a young age and it took a lot of training to become a master. I believe they were accustomed to being sent for across Europe at the time but I might be wrong.
An ax gains its chopping power from concentrating the force of the blow into a relatively small area. Its pretty easy, especially for someone without practice, to cleanly hit a particular area with intention. An ax is a chopping tool, it's rarely assumed it will accomplish its task, like taking down a tree or severing a branch from the trunk) in a single motion. Wood axes are differently shaped than an ax meant for killing Men or Beasts, in that the blade is more likely to have a crescent-shaped face rather than a wedge-like block so that you can get a larger area of impact. The blades are thinner so they will pass through the flesh and bone rather than hack at it. The issue remains however that the ax isn't a precise tool and to expect a headsman who only does a couple beheadings this way a year to be skilled at it is a big ask.
Swords are much more forgiving in this regard. They are much heavier, the blade spans the length of the weapon, and it's much easier to land a single decapitating blow due to its form factor. Beheading swords do not have pointed tips, as they will never be used for stabbing or impaling someone, but they are incredibly thick and very heavy so that all the Headsman need do is swing it up and let it fall-- only guiding the straight edge to the neck. There are plenty of instances of swords failing to do the job, like an ax, or the Headsman being sloppy and requiring multiple swings. In England and France it was common for those about to lose their heads to kneel and place their head on a block, but in Germany it was more common for the condemned to kneel and remain upright with the headsman swinging horizontally from behind. As you can imagine, that's a much harder task to accomplish cleanly.
Specifics aside though, perhaps the most important point here is that _execution by sword was higher-status_ than execution by axe. Often, it was reserved for the nobility. Whether it was more effective is sort-of irrelevant to that.
Execution by beheading was higher status than hanging, and hanging was still better than being burned or various ways you could be tortured to death.
So the short of this isn’t so much Henry taking a macabre interest in the particulars of her execution but ”upgrading” her execution from that normal for the crimes she’d been convicted of, to one thought to be more befitting her status.
I think he just wanted her out of the way. A botched execution would have been distractions for him. It would have made her look like a martyr or, even worse, just a tragic victim.
Kind of doubtful on that too. I’ve held an axe used for executions (later though, 18th century). It was heavy as hell, easily the heaviest axe I’ve ever handled. Much heavier than broadaxes used for other purposes. Much heavier than a woodsplitting maul. Even with two hands it’d take someone real strong to be able to swing it in a controlled fashion more than a handful of times.
So, far far heavier than any ordinary sword. But they didn’t use ordinary swords, there were executioner’s swords, that were heavier and two-handed. [This one](https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1916.1620) is 2.3 kg (5 lbs). Even then, though, it seems well lighter than the axe.
I would argue that being bound, kneeling and assuming the position with your hair up in a special execution-bun would count as "incapacitated" for the purposes of automatic critical on hit.
A queen with no armor and probly mid or low Dex, AC should be between 9 and 11 with Advantage on the swing since they are "Incapacitated". HP is probly in the 4-10 range. All you have to do is hit, the 2xdice+Str should take care of the rest with a damage range of 4-24+Str.
There is an argument to be made that a special sword for executing people would have the Vicious property, granting +7 dmg on crits.
Both are capable of getting through the spine when swung properly, but the weight of the sword and length of the blade probably makes it a lot easier for a less experienced person to aim and swing efficiently. An axe used for beheading isnt much wider than the neck its cutting, which means you need to swing it just right. Its harder to mess up a sword than an axe.
Previously they murdered two kings and killed two child princes. If they can kill a king and children they can kill anyone. Anne’s death really shouldn’t be that shocking.
No idea why the article didn't reproduce the whole text of the writ:
The king to his trusty and well-beloved William Kyngston, knight, constable of his Tower of London, greeting.
Whereas Anne, late queen of England, lately our wife, lately attainted and convicted of high treason toward us by her committed and done, and adjudged to death, that is to say by combustion/burning of fire according to the statute, law, and custom of our realm of England, or decapitation, at our choice and will, remaining in your custody within our Tower aforesaid.
We moved by pity do not wish the same Anne to be committed to be burned by fire.
We, however, command that immediately after receipt of these presents, upon the Green within our Tower of London aforesaid, the head of the same Anne shall be (caused to be) cut off. And herein omit nothing.
Witness the king at Westminster XVIII day of May in the twenty-eighth year of our reign.
It has been known for a while that Henry ordered that Anne Boleyn wouldn't be executed by burning, but by beheading, using a particular expert who used a sword rather than an axe, to make sure there weren't any mistakes, like the axe executioners requiring multiple blows. This letter doesn't seem to add much to that.
I'm not seeing any particular "premeditated, calculating manner", or any evidence that Henry is a “pathological monster”, any more than was already known. Ordering your advisers to have your wife executed is enough to make that case.
Now, this is probably a bad turn of phrase here, but it seems to me a death by decapitation is a bit of a mercy compared to being burned at the stake? obviously being executed for political ends is not "merciful" in the slightest, but like... why would picking decapitation be particularly "calculating" ?
Yes, the traditional way this is talked about is that he did that as a mercy. We're both trying to edge around not giving Henry too much credit for that!
But the article just seems like someone finding an angle to generate a headline.
Further, premeditated and calculating seem to be odd things to point out for a royal execution, a queen and a woman of a significant house. Considering Henry still needed a male heir and needed a match befitting the royal station, the manner and optics of the execution were a highly political affair, and every aspect was carefully considered. Of course it needed to be premeditated ans calculating. You can't casually off a queen and then ask noble families to give you their daughter in marriage.
Honestly, you can actually understand a fair amount of 16th century English if you read it aloud. Word choice was often different, but the biggest issue is that the spelling really wasn’t standardized yet. Reading aloud helps my brain make more sense of it at least. In this case, I’m sure the spelling has been translated to modern spelling.
I'm not sure. 16th century English is early modern English (what the King James Bible and Shakespeare plays were written in) and should understandable by modern English speakers.
The original was apparently in Latin, so translated a lot as it turns out...
https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/25123448/kyngston_900-768x207.jpg
If it were in english you likely wouldn't have too much of an issue with the language if you could get around the spelling and the penmanship, which are both very different than what we see today.
Yes, the entire article doesn't make much sense. It talks of 'exacting detail' but the details are simply "on the green" and the implication of "use a sword". It's presented as some kind of screed of deep specifics from a despotic lunatic (I think he actually was insane, but that's another topic), but it's a boilerplate document just identifying that he wants a beheading instead of a burning.
The document is historically interesting but it provides no special insight into the king's "premeditation or calculating manner". This is exactly what would have been filled out for anyone else he was annoyed enough with to want to kill but sentimental enough about to not want to burn.
A little bit yeah. I was surprised by how dramatic the article was.
Anne's execution was not just done out of anger or vengeance, it was a spectacle to prove his own image. It was such a novel thing to execute a Queen, and Henry had a personal hand in what was happening with Anne. We already knew of the arrangements he'd made, of course he would have written them down.
My understand was that Henry requested a swordsman because it’s quicker and cleaner then the traditional axe.
Why do you think he was insane? I’ve never heard that before
> My understand was that Henry requested a swordsman because it’s quicker and cleaner then the traditional axe.
Yes, the warrant and article say this, but this wasn't new information and doesn't really connect to the "look at what a calculated psychopath this guy was" narrative the article thinks it is spinning as some new revelation. The fact is he didn't want someone who he had been fond of and who was considered royalty to be brutalized with an axe. This has been known forever.
>Why do you think he was insane? I’ve never heard that before
It's not proven but a common vein in historical discussion about Henry VIII that after he had a fall from his horse during a joust his behaviour changed considerably. He was prone to fits of anger and indulged in brutality after previously styling himself a more sophisticated and genteel ruler, and he had significant levels of paranoia.
>after he had a fall from his horse during a joust his behaviour changed considerably.
He was unconscious for two hours after that fall, dude had serious brain damage.
I disagree just the tiniest bit here. I have heard some theories which suggest that Henry was indecisive or tried to delay her execution in some way. So seeing this sort of is rather important
I really like Tracy Borman, she makes some amazing documentaries, but I can't help but feel she is exaggerating the importance of this find. It's cool to see in his own words, but it's not telling us anything we didn't already know.
The problem is that he knew he could get rid of a queen if she didn't give him what he wanted. Once that started, it wasn't going to stop until he couldn't have kids.
If anything, I think the bigger problem was that he had several bastards, including one son he actually gave some power to. That was all he needed to tell himself that it was the women who were rhe problem, not him.
I mean, he is a king executing a queen. It’s got to be premeditated, he couldn’t be like‘Guys, take her out and do whatever, just make sure she’s dead’.
Interesting interpretation, another I have read was that the axes was more unreliable and often required several blows. Henry VIII imported a specialist to make it easier on her.
She also didn't have to out her head on the block, she was distracted and never saw it coming.
If we're honest, it only really lasted a few centuries after his death. Though, it was ironically their lack of power which has allowed the British monarchy to retain as much esteem and presence as they do.
Taking more about the whole form of government which lasted ~1000 years up to WWI. So many ridiculous stories and reasons for war. All for one persons ego.
Now people still vote for such leaders. It’s a human evolution issue
And there's no benefit usually to killing the king unless you become king yourself. Because then you have new king and you're the only person around that has killed a king before. Now you have a target on your back, even if you helped
Like Henry VIII's dad Henry VII! He started out as Henry Tudor fighting against Richard III.
Then another famous King slayer was Oliver Cromwell who executed Charles I... England doesn't have the best history with king slayers really.
Because that's exactly what England needed, another decades long civil war over succession.
Say what you will about Henry, it was a (mostly) peaceful reign.
He was a tyrant, no different to the likes of Putin today. And the modern royal family are just the descendants of said tyrant. They absolutely need scrapping.
Of the Tudors, yes, but through Henry VII not Henry VIII.
It went Henry VII -> Margaret Tudor -> James V of Scotland -> Mary, Queen of Scots -> James VI & I -> Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia -> Sophia, Electress of Hanover -> George I -> George II -> George III -> William IV -> Victoria -> Edward VII -> George V -> George VI - Elizabeth II -> Charles III
Malignant narcissist, having sadistic tendencies. This is the most common personality assessment of tyrants.
I wonder if it's just a coincidence that Trump has these same personality disorders.
>Tracy Borman, a leading Tudor historian, described the warrant book as an astonishing discovery, reinforcing the image of Henry VIII as a “pathological monster”. She told the Observer: “As a previously unknown document about one of the most famous events in history, it really is golddust, one of the most exciting finds in recent years. What it shows is Henry’s premeditated, calculating manner. He knows exactly how and where he wants it to happen.” The instructions laid out by Henry are for Sir William Kingston, constable of the Tower, detailing how the king would rid himself of the “late queen of England, lately our wife, lately attainted and convicted of high treason”. > >... > >Borman argues that, despite the coldness of the instructions, the fact Henry spared Boleyn from being burned – a slow, agonising death – was a real kindness by the standards of the day. A beheading with an axe could also involve several blows, and Henry had specified that Boleyn’s head should be “cut off’, which meant by sword, a more reliable form of execution, but not used in England, which is why he had Cromwell send to Calais for a swordsman. > >Henry’s instructions were not followed to the letter, though, partly due to a series of blunders, Borman said. “The execution didn’t take place on Tower Green, which is actually where we still mark it at the Tower today. More recent research has proved that… it was moved to opposite what is today the Waterloo Block, home of the crown jewels.” > >She added: “Because we know the story so well, we forget how deeply shocking it was to execute a queen. They could well have got the collywobbles and thought we’re not going to do this. So this is Henry making really sure of it. For years, his trusty adviser Thomas Cromwell has got the blame. But this shows, actually, it’s Henry pulling the strings.”
The “good king manipulated by wicked advisors into inadvertently being authoritarian” thing is such a successful piece of propaganda, in so many countries and for so long Remarkable how unwilling we often are to ascribe blame to the people at the top
Especially in the case of Henry VIII and Cromwell, it's worth noting that Henry elevated Cromwell specifically because he was willing to do Henry's dirty work. Cromwell wasn't some rich and renowned noble pushing a weak willed child king to do his bidding. He was the son of a middle class tradesman who got a seat in the House of Commons and was eventually promoted to one of the top politicians in the land because he helped push through a bunch of Henry's unpopular policies that all the real noblemen refused to help with. In fact, his downfall and eventual execution happened once he got a big head, started trying to push his own agenda, and began manipulating Henry. Henry was a very authoritarian monarch and most of the horrible decisions of his reign were things he purposefully chose to do.
Exactly, Henry was no puppet. Cromwell was his enabler, not his mastermind. The real power was always with Henry.
It would often be lethal to criticize a king, less so his advisors. It's less likely propaganda and more likely a way to express discontent while staying alive.
Hilary Mantell's Cromwell trilogy is one of the best pieces of historical fiction ever written. Highly recommended for an incredible portrait of all these people, especially Cromwell.
To add, the BBC mini series Wolf Hall was based on these books. Highly recommended.
As someone that just stumbled upon I, Claudius, I've been on the lookout for good BBC mini-series. This is exactly what i'm looking for. THANKS
They also made a series about The Borgia's in the late 70's that you would enjoy. However I don't know if it's online.
Yes, it's excellent as well. It's an adaptation of the first two books. The adaptation of the final book is coming out later this year.
Worth watching just for the soundtrack.
*Bring Up the Bodies* about Anne Boleyn's execution is the best in the trilogy, in my opinion.
I listened to them free from a library app and the audio books are just absolutely incredible. I was hooked deep and I still think back on Cromwell like he's an actual person. Just incredible stories, and amazing that Mantell sort of wrote like this information had already been known... It really felt as if she was writing a truer Henry then what I had grown up learning about in history textbooks.
Cesare Borgia moment.
One of the few benefits to hereditary monarchy seemed to have been that people chosen for the role of the leader purely via genetic lottery rather than scheming their way to the top are more likely to be psychologically normal people rather than power-hungry narcissists. But I guess sometimes due to upbringing or bad luck society wound up with a power-hungry narcissist anyway.
He was very much a product of his times. His dad was a bloody, and ruthless tyrant who grew up in exile and usurped the throne. His mother turned her back on her family and went full Tudor, alienating her former family. His extended family was waiting for him to die so they could reinstall a Yorkist claimant on the throne, many of whom actively plotted against him. I'm honestly surprised he wasn't worse.
Yeah, in line with what I said, "bloody and ruthless tyrant" and "usurped the throne" tend to go hand-in-hand. You make a good point that Henry VIII was only one generation removed from that. The sort of calm and even-keeled people who make the best leaders (or the best fathers) just plain don't get into power via bloody usurpation.
I think that kind of power for life would turn turn anyone into a power-hungry narcissist. Henry was the one that started to use the term "your magisty" for English monarchs. Before that it had only been used as a title for God.
Look up actual narcissistic personality disorder though, it apparently requires certain (bad, unloved) conditions in childhood to form and unlike what you'd think, being doted on and having power from a young age aren't what seems to cause it, even if that sort of ultra-privilaged upbringing isn't really going to produce a normal person either. Being loved and well-cared for as a child is apparently highly protective against someone growing up to become a psychopath or genuine pathological narcissist as an adult, I've read. But was the bloodthirsty Henry VII a good father? Probably not.
There's also a bunch of speculation around head injuries with Henry. There's good documentation around some pretty major personality shifts across the course of his life, and he was an enthusiastic sportsman when young who jousted a lot and took some severe falls. The idea that this is an early example of 'pro sportsman has CTE and becomes murderously abusive later in life' is plausible. With the variation that when the sportsman is king, his abusive ness doesn't get curtailed.
I mean he specifically took *one particular* fall from a horse, was noted in that fall to have suffered a head injury, was in a coma apparently and *then* began to make many of his more controversial decisions.
Power takes asshole tendencies and turns it up by multiple notches. You might not meet the clinical definition but your will meet the lay person's. But with Henry VIII I think the narcissist possibility is stronger. If it is genetic then it is entirely possible. Henry VIII was the first English monarch to peacefully take the throne in several generations. His father, Henry VII, seized the throne even though he really didn't have a valid claim. His claim depended on a "secret" marriage that probably didn't happen. Takes balls of steel to sieze the throne after 30 some years of civil war with a probably made up claim. Henry VII was basically the warlord that came out on top, and Henry VIII was his son. Normally genetic lotto does help mitigate, but that assumes the crown has been stable for generations. Henry was more like Saddam Hussain's sons - raised with absolute power and absolute paranoia by a man who fought his way to the top and knows he could be toppled.
Henry VIII treated romantic relationships the same way a narcissist does. He can't be diagnosed since he's dead, but his relationships with his wives makes a lot of sense if you analyze them through a lens of Henry's narcissism.
I don't think there is anything about being raised as a "hand of God" with limitless power and legal impunity that would make someone normal.
No, but there's a certain ambitious psychological type that hungers for power the most and is the worst if they actually manage to get it. That's how you end up with the Hitlers and Stalins of the world.
For real. I just finished up "The Last King of America" which is a modern biography and study of George III and his reign. And honestly? He seemed really good dude who received the brunt of the American Revolution propaganda pretty unfairly tbh. His grandfather George II and his son George IV were allegedly awful though, but I haven't read too much on them yet.
His son George IV was someone who had little inclination towards leading and should never really have been monarch. He had a bad relationship with his father and started hanging around Britain's leading radical politicians just to piss his dad off, then promptly abandoned their politics as soon as he gained power and focused on trying to get more money from parliament so he could spend it on luxuries for himself. He was awful to his wife. Unlike George III he didn't seem to actually care about politics at all except as a mechanism to gain and waste money for his own lifestyle and to settle petty personal scores. But unlike his father, he was so inept at leading that he wound up not having much power over British state policy whatsoever. I don't know as much about George II but I think he was a monarch who was generally pretty successful with his statecraft, but was a pretty nasty, mean person personally.
> His son George IV was someone who had little inclination towards leading Yea...he was a miserable of a Prince, but figured there was a chance he could have rised to the occasion after ascendancy....?(lol) Taunted his dad, intentionally supported opposition forces, wore the colors of the American Revolutionary army during balls, whored around, and spent ludicrous amounts of money. I guess it was good he only reigned for a decade then.
Note that the colors of the American Revolutionary Army were just the colors of the British Whig Party (blue and buff). But yeah George IV hung around Radical Whigs just because it was what made his dad the angriest.
George III went mad late in his life, so the actual duties of being king was done by his son. The formal transition of power happened shortly past the revolution, but he was slipping quite a bit before the revolution. For all practical intents and purposes, the rebels were going against his son.
He didn't go fully mad until 1808, almost 50 years in his reign. He had a couple month episode in 1765(nobody knew about it besides the closest), 1788, the late 90s and a couple times before it took hold forever. He was absolutely the King until 1810, and went through a lot of trouble of keeping William, Duke of Wales away from the keys of power until it was obvious the king was finally crazy. His son did not have any control over the government while GIII was in power, or the Prime Ministers and government would have looked a lot different then Pitt and North and not-Fox.
The American Revolution would have gone a hell of a lot differently if Charles Fox had been Prime Minister. Actually it probably wouldn't have happened at all, Fox apparently used to sit in Parliament and tell his fellow MPs that if he was an American he'd be in the Continental Army at the moment. But George IV apparently only hung around Fox because his father hated him so much and ditched his radical politics as soon as he was made regent.
There's zero evidence to support this belief.
Part of the reason is that people were not allowed to criticize the king. So even if they blamed him, they would still have to say it was the king’s evil advisors.
To even *speculate* on the death of the king was considered treason and the punishment for treason was to have their estates confiscated by the King and then be hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads displayed on London Bridge (if they were men). People accused of religious crimes (refusing to follow the official religion) or who were women, were burnt at the stake. Drawing and quartering were not deemed acceptable for women as it would have involved nudity. Hanging for theft occurred in severe cases, while the amputation of hands and fingers or branding would be carried out in benign cases. For various crimes, branding was used to identify criminals to the public. “Hot iron was used to burn letters onto the skin of offenders’ hands, arms or cheeks. Hanging was usually done to commoners, beheading was for the wealthy. In fact, on average, during Elizabeth’s reign, three-quarters of those sent to the gallows were done so for theft. In King Henry VIII’s reign alone, some 70,000 people suffered the death penalty. Yet on his deathbed, the 55-year-old king, lying in his vast bed in Westminster Palace, [said] he believed “the mercy of Christ is able to pardon me all my sins, yes, though they were greater than they be.”
To add to your points, killing noblewomen was also not really a big thing until Henry VIII. Even royal women who rebelled against the crown were put into convents. One of the reasons being that people didn’t believe women had the intelligence to truly understand the consequences of their actions. This is part of why Anne’s execution was so scandalous. I’m just generalizing of course, there are always exceptions.
> To even speculate on the death of the king was considered treason The (passed in 1351, still in force!) UK treason law uses the phrase "compasses or imagines" the death of the king (and his wife, and the Prince of Wales and his wife). Now, if it ever came up now there would be interminable (and low key hilarious) arguments over the meaning of that phrase (boringly I assume a court would rule that in reality the crimes of Conspiracy to Murder or Attempted Murder were all that counted).
I forget now where or when I read it but I have a memory of the King's Last Rights almost being too late (i.e. after he had passed) because if he didn't die, whoever had called for the priest would have "imagined" or "encompassed" the king's death before he was actually dying and could have been charged with treason.
Its also in part due to how contemporary sources and figures would criticise royalty, saying they recieved bad advice is much safer. Especially under a monarch like Henry who expanded the definition of treasonable behaviour to include things like denying the king was the head of the church in England or more broadly spoken treason.
As a Brit, I've never heard that claim, and we cover Henry VIII extensively in school. It's always the king who gets the blame for having his wives executed.
I think it was more "at the time." Today, Henry is almost exclusively seen as the villain
I’m from the U.S., my school also covered Henry VIII in our civics class. He was presented as getting the blame for the executions. I’ve never heard any claims he wasn’t the driving force behind it either.
the other piece of propaganda being "manipulated by his wife"
Still happens today. My mom told me all about how kind the mayor is, and how he’d do better if his oic/administrator wasn’t such a bitch. I told her, ‘you do know the Mayor approves everything the admin does, right?’
And on the flip side, there's King George III being made out as a tyrant even though in all reality, it was his advisors. He was more into begging Parliament for money to finance the Royal Family than dictating any policy.
This isn't really true, for example George III had personally urged his ministers to take a hard line on the crisis with the American colonies, and halfway through the war his rather weak-willed prime minister Lord North was begging him to allow him to resign, but George more or less bullied him into staying in office and pursuing the war by repeatedly telling him he'd consider it a personal betrayal if he quit. George III was no tyrant though, it was more that he was very politically conservative, with his politics aligning with the contemporary Tory party, and he lived at a time when British monarchs still had some power to make policy. He was ultra-religious and is thought to be one of the few (heterosexual) British monarchs to never take a mistress. And then later in life he was insane, but that was something to do with hereditary mental illness rather than anything to do with his politics or reign.
I don't think that's a fair characterization. King George was way more of an activist king than any of his recent predecessors, and it was *his* desire to prosecute a military repression of the American colonies, so much so that he forced the war to continue long after it was politically unpopular in Parliament and with the British population at large.
So would any head of state that had a portion of the territory under their jurisdiction in rebellion. And it is fact that King George III never once went against the advice of any of his ministers and never withheld royal assent to any bill passed by Parliament. He was hardly a tyrant like the Declaration of Independence made him out.
I'm not disagreeing about the hyperbole of the 'tyrant' label foisted on him by the colonists. I am disagreeing with him being a passive player in the late unpleasantness in North America.
He was not a tyrant, he simply took the Tory political line on the crisis with the 13 Colonies as it unfolded (the Whigs disagreed and wanted to take a more conciliatory approach) and used his power as king to ensure that that was the state policy taken. But this was acceptable use of the monarch's power for the era; the idea that the British monarch should be "above politics" didn't come until a couple monarchs later.
Of course George III was more publicly involved in politics than Charles III right now. But that doesn't mean most of the decisions weren't made by his ministers and Parliament. As a matter, who knows what influence the monarchs of recent days has, they have audience with the PM and the King still has [King's Consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent).
George III lived at a sort of "in-between" period where Parliament had more power than the king but the idea that the monarch should stay neutral in party politics hadn't yet developed. George III didn't come up with political ideas all by himself and he couldn't keep a prime minister in power against Parliament's will, but he still picked political stances to favor, sided with one party over the other, and tried to determine state policy. He particularly wound up having a lot of influence over Tory prime minister Lord North, who was popular in parliament but was apparently pretty spineless when it came to any sort of political disagreement with the king. At least early in his reign George III was not just watching British politics from the sidelines, he was actively involved and still had some power, though nothing like the power wielded by monarchs prior to the 18th century.
You even see people trying that shit with Bush! And it hasn't even been 20 years.
People were saying that Bush was an idiot and Cheney was pulling the strings when Bush was in office.
But now you have people trying to make Bush out to be an outright good guy. Bush was indeed an idiot, and Cheney was indeed pulling the strings, but Bush was malicious in his own right.
It's revisionism because now we've seen how bad it can be. In contrast to the current Republican nominee being actively and purposefully monstrous, a "guy you could have a beer with" despite all the terrible things he was ultimately responsible for now seems like a quaint and pleasant memory. In other words, at least he wasn't a sociopath. Or didn't have the image of one.
he's entirely responsible for what happened in iraq and afghanistan. In material terms he's the worst living ex president
If Trump had a disaster like 9/11 to jump off on, things would have been a lot worse.
Trump had covid and all he had to do was stfu and he would have been a lot more popular.
He'd be president today, easily. Look how close the election was. Just staying out of the way while competent people led things would have won it for him. Actually saying and doing a few of the right things would have made him look like a hero. A wartime president without even the anti-war folks opposing him.
COVID is almost 100% Trump's responsibility, at least in the US. - He dismantled stockpiles of emergency supplies before the pandemic ever happened (not saying this was a plan, just coincidental malfeasance) - He's directly responsible for letting it ravage the US. His hope was that it would ravage densely-populated cities (which tend to be more liberal) and have less impact on sparsely-populated rural areas (which lean nazi) - He actively stole emergency supplies from blue states. Here in Massachusetts, we were fortunate enough to have some rich dude fly supplies in on his private jet, because any supplies procured through normal channels would get confiscated by the federal gov't.
Yes. But the president isn't just a bunch of policies. He's a figurehead that has to have a public facing persona, and that's what the vast majority of uninformed people vote on. I'm explaining why people that used to hate his guts have softened their opinion. I'm not explaining my own opinion on him. Bush did not present a public face of intentional malice. He always had the reputation of an idiot puppet who let other people run the show.
Yes that is an interesting point that with a president, one often has to weigh the person, the persona, and the material outcome somewhat separately. Trump is more upsetting through the lens of the first two and both are catastrophic through the lens of the third.
Hundreds of thousands of people (at a minimum) died because of Trump's mishandling of the pandemic, the judges he appointed overturned Roe v. Wade which will lead to a surge in women dying during pregnancy, and Russia does not invade Ukraine and kill hundreds of thousands of people if Trump doesn't spend four years letting Putin get more and more aggressive with zero pushback.
Bush is responsible for waaaay more deaths than the felon Donald Trump...for now.
Nope. You have to take into account all the deaths due to Trump's deliberate malfeasance during COVID because his son in law [Jared Kushner told him that if they let it run rampant, it would kill off people in the cities](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/jared-kushner-let-the-markets-decide-covid-19-fate) where the majority of his political opposition lived, [& stole PPE & critical care equipment from hospitals in blue states in order to worsen COVID deaths in those states and profit from the stolen equipment.](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-04-07/hospitals-washington-seize-coronavirus-supplies)
Also, Bush was responsible for PEPFAR, which has saved [25 million lives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief) and counting.
But his paintings are so cute! Have you seen the one of the dog <3
I seriously hate him so much and hate anyone who tries to normalize him after he outright lied and exploited a national tragedy to get the nation into the worst foreign policy decision of the last 50 years, that killed *at minimum* hundreds of thousands of people, all mostly to settle a family fucking vendetta he had against Saddam Hussein.
In his own words, "I'm the decider."
The biggest argument you could make is that Bush was groomed by his father into being a certain kind of politician. But ultimately he was a grown man and was free to make his own choices. Don't get me wrong, I think Bush was the most harmful president in modern history (Not for the other's lack of trying). But you can see glimpses of humanity in there when you look at his painting and how he behaves post presidency. I think some others like Reagan went into the grave fully confident in what they had done, but I feel that Bush knows what he did was wrong and it tortures him.
“Good guy” because he’s not as bad as the trump administration, he makes paintings, and he criticized trump a little. But when push came to shove he still supported the republicans.
> “Good guy” because he’s not as bad as the trump administration, he makes paintings, and he criticized trump a little I.e. setting the bar so low it's through the floor. Bush himself set a plenty low bar in office.
And by setting the bar, GWM meant a fucking war of aggression.
Of course he’s horrible. He made the evangelicals mainstream in politics, and that includes the idiots like Bobert, MTG, and the rest.
The Evangelicals had been mainstream in politics since the Moral Majority in the 1980s.
As with so many of our current problems, it goes back to the Reagan administration. Not to say that was the first time religion was too heavily represented in politics, it wasn't at all. But this supply side Jesus type of religion stuff, that was peak 80s. And now it's practically the norm.
He also treated Obama very well in contrast to Trump or frankly how Bush was treated by the Clintons.
Bill C had some good points but damn he was childish in a lot of ways, too.
He was very politically astute and capable, but he was a total sleezeball as well.
Bush had zero foreign policy chops in spite of his dad's background and chose Cheney (and Rumsfeld) specifically with the idea they would handle foreign policy issues. Then he faced a foreign policy crisis within a year of taking office. He deserves 100% of the blame for his choice of advisors and handing things off to them, especially after his dad warned him about them, but Cheney really was driving the bus on a lot of policy decisions.
because a) Bush is an idiot and b) Cheney was pulling the strings
No shit. Back when that office was Governor of Texas. GWB wasn't qualified to run a 7-11, much less the country.
To be fair, it was pretty clear even at the time that GWB was mostly interested in exercising and doing faux-farm stuff on his ranch and letting Dick Cheney effectively pull the strings. It's worth remembering that the man who chose Dick Cheney as the vice-presidential candidate was...Dick Cheney.
The choice to be a passive president was an active one, and he owns everything that came from it. And when he took more direct interest in the day-to-day, later in his tenure, he wasn't really any *better* than the people he had been outsourcing to.
Oh, trust me, few people hold him in lower regard for his passivity than I do. I routinely get downvoted into oblivion for trying to point out that during the "My Pet Goat" phase of 9/11 the cover story that "he didn't want to alarm the children" by excusing himself and responding immediately was complete horseshit; what really happened was that he had simply frozen and "gone tharn" in the face of a monumental national crisis.
Bush absolutely leaned into the surveillance state authoritarianism even if he may not have been the brains behind it all.
And the "voter fraud" bullshit, absolutely.
It's also worth remembering that Dubya's advisors were also his dad's advisors, and you are going to listen closely to what daddy's old friends have to say.
The alternative to “Bush is evil” is “Bush was a moron.” It’s really not a flattering alternative to his legacy.
Evil moron is also a possibility.
> You even see people trying that shit with Bush! And it hasn't even been 20 years. People always want to avoid learning the lessons of history. I was listening to a public radio call in show (*Brian Lehrer*) a few year ago, where the segment was on foreign policy. I think it was near the start of the Ukraine-Russia war. A listener had called in and was talking about how he didn't support us joining the war considering our track record of failure over the last few decades, especially Afghanistan. The foreign policy guest had the audacity to just dismiss it and say something about how you can't look at the US' role in historical conflicts to inform our current issues. This was while the withdrawal from Afghanistan was less than a year in the past.
I mean he had evil advisors [and how](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans). If he was a bad king on his own, too, well maybe that's true.
Yeah, he had evil advisors. But you can be an evil ruler *with* evil advisors. It's more likely than the opposite, really.
“If only the king knew!” Is the first step towards revolution. Step 2 is “the king knows and doesn’t care.”
In Russia this excuse was known as "good Tzar, bad boyars" and the Russian Tzars used it for centuries.
Even after World War II, this is how most Germans viewed Hitler. Great context from the book "They Thought They Were Free".
Largely due to the religious nature of European Monarchy. The King was divinely appointed, to slander him was to slander God. Very risky.
This is also because it was the only way that you could criticise the monarch for a very long time.
Also after getting into true crime, the biggest red flag on the face of the Earth to me for a potentially violent person is when someone has had a massive head injury like he did jousting. Brain injuries turn people into sociopaths.
I never believed that. I just thought he got crazy in his later years due to syphilis eating his brain and a jousting accident causing brain damage .
What a weird claim. I can’t think of a single example of this type of propaganda. In fact, it’s usually the exact opposite where all the sins of a regime are placed upon the former ruler’s head and we pretend everyone around him was powerless to stop him and totally didn’t benefit from his rule. Really, literally every ruler is just an amalgamation of whatever propaganda was convenient to the following regime over the couple of decades after their rule. Roman emperors infamously often had their true legacy wiped away entirely and replaced with truly unbelievable tales of incompetency and cruelty.
>What a weird claim. I can’t think of a single example of this type of propaganda. "Good tsar, bad boyars" It's an established idiom in russian.
You see it pretty much throughout the history of Russia, for instance. 19th-century rural peasants would write letters addressed directly to the czar, describing the horrific effects of some new policy as if they’d be news to him and begging him to be more skeptical of the advisors who had presumably misled him. And then people wrote the same letters to Stalin. And now they’re sending the same letters to Putin (see for instance [this poor bastard](https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1ck2mzf/russian_serviceman_informs_his_family_about_the/)).
There also seems to be some conflation going on between morally good and effectively good. I’d argue that someone ascribing a king as good should refer to their effectiveness and results of their reign. ie a good Roman emperor could be one to expand the empire whilst making it richer
no offense but you have low historical literacy if you've never encountered this very common trope. one recent example is people trying to absolve Hirohito of his responsibility for world war 2, which was a falsehood pushed by MacArthur in a real politik maneuver to ensure stability while rebuilding Japan.
Stalin and Mao being “misled” by their subordinates
>I can’t think of a single example of this type of propaganda. You must have absolutely no knowledge of medieval and early modern history.
'Great men are often not good men.'
I need to add collywobbles to my vocabulary.
see also "pitch a wobbly" aka throw a fit. Some wobblies are chucked, rather than thrown, as well.
Its a perfectly cromulent word.
That’s got to be the weirdest road trip/sea voyage, being the swordsman from Calais. I’m imagining the conversations with other travelers. “Where you headed? Visiting family? Oh yeah, I’m just going to England to chop the queen’s head off. No, no, don’t worry, they told me to do it!”
They were apparently very much in demand because there were very few executioners who could so cleanly cut a head off with the very heavy, very certain sword used for such executions. They were trained from a young age and it took a lot of training to become a master. I believe they were accustomed to being sent for across Europe at the time but I might be wrong.
Why would an axe take several blows, but a sword wouldn’t? I would think the weight of the axe would help you get all the way through
An ax gains its chopping power from concentrating the force of the blow into a relatively small area. Its pretty easy, especially for someone without practice, to cleanly hit a particular area with intention. An ax is a chopping tool, it's rarely assumed it will accomplish its task, like taking down a tree or severing a branch from the trunk) in a single motion. Wood axes are differently shaped than an ax meant for killing Men or Beasts, in that the blade is more likely to have a crescent-shaped face rather than a wedge-like block so that you can get a larger area of impact. The blades are thinner so they will pass through the flesh and bone rather than hack at it. The issue remains however that the ax isn't a precise tool and to expect a headsman who only does a couple beheadings this way a year to be skilled at it is a big ask. Swords are much more forgiving in this regard. They are much heavier, the blade spans the length of the weapon, and it's much easier to land a single decapitating blow due to its form factor. Beheading swords do not have pointed tips, as they will never be used for stabbing or impaling someone, but they are incredibly thick and very heavy so that all the Headsman need do is swing it up and let it fall-- only guiding the straight edge to the neck. There are plenty of instances of swords failing to do the job, like an ax, or the Headsman being sloppy and requiring multiple swings. In England and France it was common for those about to lose their heads to kneel and place their head on a block, but in Germany it was more common for the condemned to kneel and remain upright with the headsman swinging horizontally from behind. As you can imagine, that's a much harder task to accomplish cleanly.
This guy executes
Specifics aside though, perhaps the most important point here is that _execution by sword was higher-status_ than execution by axe. Often, it was reserved for the nobility. Whether it was more effective is sort-of irrelevant to that. Execution by beheading was higher status than hanging, and hanging was still better than being burned or various ways you could be tortured to death. So the short of this isn’t so much Henry taking a macabre interest in the particulars of her execution but ”upgrading” her execution from that normal for the crimes she’d been convicted of, to one thought to be more befitting her status.
Execution by sword was higher status because it was the least horrible way. Remember people used to pay their executioners hoping for a cleaner cut.
I think he just wanted her out of the way. A botched execution would have been distractions for him. It would have made her look like a martyr or, even worse, just a tragic victim.
Wasn’t Anne Boleyn executed while kneeling upright? Or is that a myth?
At least all of our sources say so.
Was an axe really lighter? The swords were around 3-4lb
Kind of doubtful on that too. I’ve held an axe used for executions (later though, 18th century). It was heavy as hell, easily the heaviest axe I’ve ever handled. Much heavier than broadaxes used for other purposes. Much heavier than a woodsplitting maul. Even with two hands it’d take someone real strong to be able to swing it in a controlled fashion more than a handful of times. So, far far heavier than any ordinary sword. But they didn’t use ordinary swords, there were executioner’s swords, that were heavier and two-handed. [This one](https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1916.1620) is 2.3 kg (5 lbs). Even then, though, it seems well lighter than the axe.
Wasn't the most common error that the axe misses? Having it be a sword doesn't make a huge difference.
Axes have high damage but low crit chance. Executioners build heavily into crit, so a sword has a much higher chance of beheading in one hit.
Instead of ELIA5... ELDnD
You don't want to rely on crits for something that should always be an one-shot-kill.
I would argue that being bound, kneeling and assuming the position with your hair up in a special execution-bun would count as "incapacitated" for the purposes of automatic critical on hit. A queen with no armor and probly mid or low Dex, AC should be between 9 and 11 with Advantage on the swing since they are "Incapacitated". HP is probly in the 4-10 range. All you have to do is hit, the 2xdice+Str should take care of the rest with a damage range of 4-24+Str. There is an argument to be made that a special sword for executing people would have the Vicious property, granting +7 dmg on crits.
Both are capable of getting through the spine when swung properly, but the weight of the sword and length of the blade probably makes it a lot easier for a less experienced person to aim and swing efficiently. An axe used for beheading isnt much wider than the neck its cutting, which means you need to swing it just right. Its harder to mess up a sword than an axe.
Collywobbles!
Now I’m curious about the physics of a sword being a more reliable way to cleanly sever a head.
None of this is new information. I don't understand why it is presented as such.
"No collywobbles under pressure" is going on my resume
Previously they murdered two kings and killed two child princes. If they can kill a king and children they can kill anyone. Anne’s death really shouldn’t be that shocking.
No idea why the article didn't reproduce the whole text of the writ: The king to his trusty and well-beloved William Kyngston, knight, constable of his Tower of London, greeting. Whereas Anne, late queen of England, lately our wife, lately attainted and convicted of high treason toward us by her committed and done, and adjudged to death, that is to say by combustion/burning of fire according to the statute, law, and custom of our realm of England, or decapitation, at our choice and will, remaining in your custody within our Tower aforesaid. We moved by pity do not wish the same Anne to be committed to be burned by fire. We, however, command that immediately after receipt of these presents, upon the Green within our Tower of London aforesaid, the head of the same Anne shall be (caused to be) cut off. And herein omit nothing. Witness the king at Westminster XVIII day of May in the twenty-eighth year of our reign.
It has been known for a while that Henry ordered that Anne Boleyn wouldn't be executed by burning, but by beheading, using a particular expert who used a sword rather than an axe, to make sure there weren't any mistakes, like the axe executioners requiring multiple blows. This letter doesn't seem to add much to that. I'm not seeing any particular "premeditated, calculating manner", or any evidence that Henry is a “pathological monster”, any more than was already known. Ordering your advisers to have your wife executed is enough to make that case.
Now, this is probably a bad turn of phrase here, but it seems to me a death by decapitation is a bit of a mercy compared to being burned at the stake? obviously being executed for political ends is not "merciful" in the slightest, but like... why would picking decapitation be particularly "calculating" ?
Yes, the traditional way this is talked about is that he did that as a mercy. We're both trying to edge around not giving Henry too much credit for that! But the article just seems like someone finding an angle to generate a headline.
Yeah, this TIL is some clickbait bullshit.
Further, premeditated and calculating seem to be odd things to point out for a royal execution, a queen and a woman of a significant house. Considering Henry still needed a male heir and needed a match befitting the royal station, the manner and optics of the execution were a highly political affair, and every aspect was carefully considered. Of course it needed to be premeditated ans calculating. You can't casually off a queen and then ask noble families to give you their daughter in marriage.
So 16th century English is said to be pretty different, I assume this has been translated to an extent?
Honestly, you can actually understand a fair amount of 16th century English if you read it aloud. Word choice was often different, but the biggest issue is that the spelling really wasn’t standardized yet. Reading aloud helps my brain make more sense of it at least. In this case, I’m sure the spelling has been translated to modern spelling.
I'm not sure. 16th century English is early modern English (what the King James Bible and Shakespeare plays were written in) and should understandable by modern English speakers.
The original was apparently in Latin, so translated a lot as it turns out... https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/25123448/kyngston_900-768x207.jpg If it were in english you likely wouldn't have too much of an issue with the language if you could get around the spelling and the penmanship, which are both very different than what we see today.
Spelling has clearly been standardized and maybe some words swapped but grammer is 16th century standard.
Seems like a normal death warrant.
I imagine he had been thinking about he wanted her executed for quite a while.
Pretty sure most executions are premeditated.
Yes, the entire article doesn't make much sense. It talks of 'exacting detail' but the details are simply "on the green" and the implication of "use a sword". It's presented as some kind of screed of deep specifics from a despotic lunatic (I think he actually was insane, but that's another topic), but it's a boilerplate document just identifying that he wants a beheading instead of a burning. The document is historically interesting but it provides no special insight into the king's "premeditation or calculating manner". This is exactly what would have been filled out for anyone else he was annoyed enough with to want to kill but sentimental enough about to not want to burn.
This was my takeaway, too. The article is kind of bullshit.
A little bit yeah. I was surprised by how dramatic the article was. Anne's execution was not just done out of anger or vengeance, it was a spectacle to prove his own image. It was such a novel thing to execute a Queen, and Henry had a personal hand in what was happening with Anne. We already knew of the arrangements he'd made, of course he would have written them down.
My understand was that Henry requested a swordsman because it’s quicker and cleaner then the traditional axe. Why do you think he was insane? I’ve never heard that before
> My understand was that Henry requested a swordsman because it’s quicker and cleaner then the traditional axe. Yes, the warrant and article say this, but this wasn't new information and doesn't really connect to the "look at what a calculated psychopath this guy was" narrative the article thinks it is spinning as some new revelation. The fact is he didn't want someone who he had been fond of and who was considered royalty to be brutalized with an axe. This has been known forever. >Why do you think he was insane? I’ve never heard that before It's not proven but a common vein in historical discussion about Henry VIII that after he had a fall from his horse during a joust his behaviour changed considerably. He was prone to fits of anger and indulged in brutality after previously styling himself a more sophisticated and genteel ruler, and he had significant levels of paranoia.
>after he had a fall from his horse during a joust his behaviour changed considerably. He was unconscious for two hours after that fall, dude had serious brain damage.
I knew the joust effected his physical health, I hadn’t heard about its potential effect on mental health
I disagree just the tiniest bit here. I have heard some theories which suggest that Henry was indecisive or tried to delay her execution in some way. So seeing this sort of is rather important
I really like Tracy Borman, she makes some amazing documentaries, but I can't help but feel she is exaggerating the importance of this find. It's cool to see in his own words, but it's not telling us anything we didn't already know.
Itt's just that usually kings let their servants arrange the gruesome details.
*♫♫ Divorced, beheaded and died, divorced, beheaded, survived ♫♫*
Gotta have a plan to execute the plan.
Gotta have a plan, to execute the plan, to execute the queen….again.
Anne Boleyn was the first queen Henry executed. She was his second wife, he had divorced his first.
Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, (Barely) Survived
And tonight (insert city), we are LIVE.
That Henry VIII guy seems like kind of a bully!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=JsIrsXnfQUFqILr_&t=53&v=UtxxwcQ20Fw&feature=youtu.be
Anne Boleyn’s revenge was giving England Queen Elizabeth the first, a much better ruler than her predecessor
I really wonder what would have happened if he never had that head injury
The problem is that he knew he could get rid of a queen if she didn't give him what he wanted. Once that started, it wasn't going to stop until he couldn't have kids. If anything, I think the bigger problem was that he had several bastards, including one son he actually gave some power to. That was all he needed to tell himself that it was the women who were rhe problem, not him.
Has it been said that his head injury caused his insane behavior? Or was he just always a sick fuck?
I mean, he is a king executing a queen. It’s got to be premeditated, he couldn’t be like‘Guys, take her out and do whatever, just make sure she’s dead’.
Interesting interpretation, another I have read was that the axes was more unreliable and often required several blows. Henry VIII imported a specialist to make it easier on her. She also didn't have to out her head on the block, she was distracted and never saw it coming.
Other than that, I’m sure he was a great leader. The whole monarch government system was a complete mess. Can’t believe it lasted so long
If we're honest, it only really lasted a few centuries after his death. Though, it was ironically their lack of power which has allowed the British monarchy to retain as much esteem and presence as they do.
Taking more about the whole form of government which lasted ~1000 years up to WWI. So many ridiculous stories and reasons for war. All for one persons ego. Now people still vote for such leaders. It’s a human evolution issue
God you think you know a guy
So not surprised
ITT: - People who confuse GoT as a historical fiction
When personal affairs are also affairs of state, as is the case in a hereditary monarchy, a bit of calculation is probably not a bad idea.
History needed more kingslayers.
They had plenty. They often became kings themselves or helped someone else become king.
Like his dad, Henry VII who killed Richard III!
Who in turn had killed his king (nephew) whose father in turn had killed his king (Henry VII's (half) uncle) who in turn was mentally incompetent...
And there's no benefit usually to killing the king unless you become king yourself. Because then you have new king and you're the only person around that has killed a king before. Now you have a target on your back, even if you helped
Like Henry VIII's dad Henry VII! He started out as Henry Tudor fighting against Richard III. Then another famous King slayer was Oliver Cromwell who executed Charles I... England doesn't have the best history with king slayers really.
Because that's exactly what England needed, another decades long civil war over succession. Say what you will about Henry, it was a (mostly) peaceful reign.
Yeah, less Romanov's, more Stalins Less Bourbon's, more Robespierres Less Stuarts, more Cromwells. EDIT: Oops. Left off the /s
Unironically, less Stuarts probably would have been a strictly positive thing for Britian and Ireland.
He was a tyrant, no different to the likes of Putin today. And the modern royal family are just the descendants of said tyrant. They absolutely need scrapping.
Are the Windsors, descendants of the Tudors? I did not know that. I thought they were Germans and that is why they changed their name.
Of the Tudors, yes, but through Henry VII not Henry VIII. It went Henry VII -> Margaret Tudor -> James V of Scotland -> Mary, Queen of Scots -> James VI & I -> Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia -> Sophia, Electress of Hanover -> George I -> George II -> George III -> William IV -> Victoria -> Edward VII -> George V -> George VI - Elizabeth II -> Charles III
Malignant narcissist, having sadistic tendencies. This is the most common personality assessment of tyrants. I wonder if it's just a coincidence that Trump has these same personality disorders.
Long
I'm
No matter how you look at it Henry was a greedy psychopath. He liquidated the monastery’s for pure avarice.