There is so much "history" to see in Great Britain, otherwise known today as the more 'PC'-minded "United Kingdon," that it helps to have a way to organize the sites in my opinion. One interesting way to do it is via historical figure. In the case of Tudor England, seeing the sites that have any connection to Henry VIII reduces the potential number of them from thousands to less than a dozen. The following, in my opinion (having recently visited all of them for this very purpose), is a collection of tourist destinations that put a concrete spin on this larger-than-life historical figure.
TRAVEL DESTINATIONS FOR FANS OF HENRY VIII
For a guy that had a big impact on history, Henry VIII didn't actually leave that much of a permanent mark on the world (not that many of us do). Many of the properties that he had built have either been torn down or remodeled past the point of being something that he would have recognized. But to a careful tourist of Britain, there is enough left to get a flavor for the lost world that he was a part of.
Henry himself was born at Greenwich palace, which no longer exists - the spot today is the home of a naval museum. As a child he spent time at Dover and Ludlow Castles, which of course have few traces of the monarch. To get an idea of Henry's world, in addition to the few traces of him in London, there are four main categories of sites to visit: the homes of his wives, Hampton Court Palace, his existing military defenses, and the shipwrecked Mary Rose.
These can be integrated into an approximately five-day trip (calculated conservatively assuming other destinations of interest) that can include some of the places already mentioned.
5-DAY TOUR OF HENRY'S ENGLAND
(2-day stay in London)
Day 1: Tower of London
The tower dates back to William the Conqueror and so Henry isn't responsible for it, but for anyone interested in British history in general, which Henry was a big part of, the Tower should be done at least once. It includes Tudor structures that probably included the room that Anne stayed in before her coronation and execution. The
animated tour guides (called Beefeaters) usually give a rousing narrative of the gory events associated with Henry and Anne.
Whitehall Wine Cellar.
Whitehall, the great palace where he spent much of his time in London is now the home of government structures that were built during successive reigns, but there are a few traces of architecture dating back to the period. The vaulted wine cellar, where he kept his all important beverages, is preserved under the current Minister of Defense building. In the financial district is also a glassed in Tudor pillar that was discovered during relatively recent renovations.
The remnants of Tudor architecture around the Westminster area don't take a long time to see. Other things that could be added if there is time are the Jewel Tower, Westminster hall, St. Stevens and Westminster Abbey.
Day 2: Hampton Court Palace
Hampton Court palace was built by Cardinal Wolsey in the early 1500's. He gave it to Henry to appease him as he started to get into hot water when he wasn't able to be forthcoming about the divorce. The oldest portions of the castle contain a large lodge that Henry entertained in, a chapel that he worshiped in (including his private box) and a vast
Tudor-style kitchen which would have prepared his all-important meals.
Hampton can be visited with a short day trip out of London either on one's own or as a part of the many organized tours that go there. It might be a treat to travel back to London via boat on the Thames, which would at least partly replicate how Henry traveled to and fro. There are several small Bed and Breakfast Inns nearer to Hampton Court including The Kings' arms, or others a bit further away in Richmond.
Days 3 and 4: Southeast Britain
Hever Castle and Penshurst Castle
Because all of the properties dating to the Tudor era ended up being so heavily used and updated, places in the country fared better. There is some historical value to paying a visit to homes occupied by two of his wives, Anne Boleyn and Anne of Cleves. Hever Castle to the southeast of London is the Anne Boleyn's childhood home where he visited her on several occasions. He also stayed at nearby Penshurst place, the home of the Duke of Buckingham who
Henry also had beheaded. The Anne of Cleves house in Sussex is a gem of surviving Tudor architecture and has many exhibits relating to the history of her brief marriage with Henry.
Deal Castle
Later in his reign, Henry got into a number of tangles with France, who historically had attacked from the sea either on the east or west of the island. Henry had defenses built to watch for invading ships, and a few of them survive partially today. Deal castle on the southeastern shore near Dover is one of the better preserved. It employs Henry's signature clover-leaf design, by which he could watch the action from a central tower that was protected by four lower towers clustered around him.
Day 5
Anne of Cleves House
The Mary Rose Museum
St. Mawes Castle
Day 5 could be done in one day if one has a car and doesn't linger, but if there is any question of being able to see it all or there are other destinations of interest, it may be best to take an extra day. The Anne of Cleves house is conveniently located on the way from London to the south. St. Mawes castle is another of his well-preserved defenses as a twin to deal castle on the east.
But interestingly, one of the best glimpses of the world of Henry VIII was the Mary Rose, a ship that he named either after his sister or Daughter (or perhaps after Mary Boleyn, but no one knows). It was to be his flagship, nothing like it had ever before been built. He watched it sail into battle on its maiden voyage to do battle with King Francis, and was horrified to see it unexplainedly lurch and sink within seconds. Nearly all of the 1500 men
aboard were lost. But because the ship was relatively well preserved in the boggy bottom of the area, much of the ship structure and artifacts remain. There are probably more actual items dating from the period here than in any other museum, including plate ware labeled with his royal monogram: HRH.
OTHER DESTINATIONS
If one were to wish to round out the trip to an even week, there are several other locations around Britain that give a feel for the important historical periods before and after Henry's life. The Battle Abbey in Battle (the name of the town) in addition to history on the historic battle of Hastings, gives a vivid glimpse of the consequences of the dissolution of the monasteries, which Henry ordered to send Rome a message about his divorce. Also because
few everyday Tudor homes exist in London as most were either destroyed by fire, time or renovation, it might pay to take a trip to a smaller town where more original buildings dating to the period are preserved. Stratford upon Avon is a good example, and if you are very lucky you might catch a performance of Henry VIII by the Royal Players.
All in all it is hard to wander too far without running into a location that hasn't been influenced by Henry's reign directly. But if one wants to get a feel for the times and circumstances of his life and kingdom during the half century or so that he walked the earth, about a week at these properties will be an excellent start.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Hampton Court Palace Kitchens, Musicians
If anyone stubles on this via google, I am trying to remind myself in this post to try and track down some of the photos I took of the HCP living history exhibit in the Tudor Kitchens. One of the most awesome parts of this was that the guys that were dressed up in real Tudor threads and demonstrating delicious looking authentic recipes talked with me for about three hours after their rather grueling shift dealing with other ignorant questions from tourists like myself.
But one of the gentleman that I ran into was the soul other human being that I have run into in my life that thinks Elizabeth I was a total disaster of a monarch and witch of a person. The only thing about her that keeps her from having the tyrannical reputation of her father (ok because he was a man) and her sister (not ok because she was no) is that history is written by the winners, and if you are the absolute monarch for a long enough time during a relatively stable period of English history, you have a fairly good name going for yourself. Unless you are Charles I, in the which case, ouch.
But very few other monarchs who reigned as long as Elizabeth I did have similarly diferent reputations. Even her father bluff Hal everyone knew was a disaster but he was clearly in charge so he earned some good press for himself even if it was bought and paid for. You didn't cross Elizabeth. She said that she wasn't going to make windows into men's souls, but that is because in her opinion if you were Catholic you didn't even deserve a window and had to live in what was called a 'priest hole' or a small hovel behind false Tudor panneling.
Her father also spent the entire treasury entertaining the royal court lavishly, and Elizabeth developed the very shrewd idea of being continually on 'Progress' which means that your terrified host basically bankrupts himsef to make sure you have a very good stay. And add to that if you are Catholic hide the crucifixes because she is also personally (she was too cheap not to do it herself) spying on you so she can more readily apply usurous extortion rates for your expensive scruples.
Her sister Mary being one clear example of the fact that if you aren't in charge for long enough you aren't in charge at all (ex all American one term presidents), and eventually people will wipe you off the map altogether.
But one of the gentleman that I ran into was the soul other human being that I have run into in my life that thinks Elizabeth I was a total disaster of a monarch and witch of a person. The only thing about her that keeps her from having the tyrannical reputation of her father (ok because he was a man) and her sister (not ok because she was no) is that history is written by the winners, and if you are the absolute monarch for a long enough time during a relatively stable period of English history, you have a fairly good name going for yourself. Unless you are Charles I, in the which case, ouch.
But very few other monarchs who reigned as long as Elizabeth I did have similarly diferent reputations. Even her father bluff Hal everyone knew was a disaster but he was clearly in charge so he earned some good press for himself even if it was bought and paid for. You didn't cross Elizabeth. She said that she wasn't going to make windows into men's souls, but that is because in her opinion if you were Catholic you didn't even deserve a window and had to live in what was called a 'priest hole' or a small hovel behind false Tudor panneling.
Her father also spent the entire treasury entertaining the royal court lavishly, and Elizabeth developed the very shrewd idea of being continually on 'Progress' which means that your terrified host basically bankrupts himsef to make sure you have a very good stay. And add to that if you are Catholic hide the crucifixes because she is also personally (she was too cheap not to do it herself) spying on you so she can more readily apply usurous extortion rates for your expensive scruples.
Her sister Mary being one clear example of the fact that if you aren't in charge for long enough you aren't in charge at all (ex all American one term presidents), and eventually people will wipe you off the map altogether.
Interesting reading on Thomas More - you won't find this anywhere else folks
It is often fairly interesting after having been on an insomnia bender to log onto my posts and see what I wrote a few days ago, as I normally have no memory of it whatseover. Last night I was at my finest, apparently having spent about forty minutes trashing the reputation and good name of one of history's most beloved idealists.
But I make some fairly interesting points that the reason that Thomas More is talked up and others are talked down or not talked about at all is because of the propoganda machine currently undertaken by his descendents, real or fancied.
http://thevonmorganstones.blogspot.com/
But I make some fairly interesting points that the reason that Thomas More is talked up and others are talked down or not talked about at all is because of the propoganda machine currently undertaken by his descendents, real or fancied.
http://thevonmorganstones.blogspot.com/
TOTAL BURN on THOMAS MORE
Ok, it has been about five hundred years, and I know ALL of us are thinking the EXACT SAME THING: who in the HELL decided that Thomas More was some kind of great guy? Much less a saint or something?
Not only do I risk the wrath of the world's largest religion here, so I admittedly get some ice water in my veins as I type this, I also risk sounding like the idiot kid who points out the emperor has no clothes. This guy was one of history's most self righteous JERKS and here he has people in the twentieth century eulogizing his memory even in full presence of the terrible things he did?
I feel like this is some kind of 'Behind the Music' version of More but the evidence really speaks for itself. And not only am I doing the equivalent of posting grainy paparazzi photos of this terrible Tudor, it makes me look like some sort of meanie that should be exposing the real story behind Brittany Spears. Brittany Spears hasn't gone down in history, recent or ancient, as being some kind of 'Saint' or something, literally. This is a guy whose terrible cold-hearted grasp was only limited by his reach. In the brief period that Henry VIII decided he was deserving of the office of right hand man, the king gave him a free hand to deal with religious heretics as he saw fit.
So the end result was that this hypocrite was mincing words with the king about whether or not his royal divorce should be sanctioned (on the which matter he could have made a big difference if he actually had spoken out like Cardinal Fisher did, he did so while he was BURNING PROTESTANTS like Simon Fish. Now to be fair to history, Simon Fish died of the plague (phew what a relief) but More did condemn him to death, after which his widow married his best friend, who was then in turn actually among the burning victims of More. That story would be exquisitely depressing if someone wanted to make a movie of it someday. Fish and his compadre usually get the press of some type of composite protestant martyr but individually each story is still fairly illustrative of the types of terrible things More did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fish
Let's see what we might be missing. What is the REAL RAP on why we all think that this cruel bigoted monster is getting an overly sanitized reputation.
I really think that this self righteous hypocrite's actual character is NOT up for debate because among other egregious crimes he goes down in history saying that the only reason that he didn't go into the clergy even though he believed it was the only profession worthy of himself is that he didn't want to look bad for not keeping his hands off the ladies.
This is why, for a lesser sacrifice, Tom More ended up with the movie about all the stupid 'Seasons' et. and Cardinal Fisher ended up with only obscure but dignified martyrdom. The only thing that I can think of is that Cardinal Fisher, who was actually LESS equivocal about Henry's divorce, didn't get much sympathetic press because he actually WAS a devout Roman Catholic who had never married or fathered children despite his better religious scruples.
And thus because Margaret Roper and his other WHINY, BRATTY descendants have had five hundred years to polish this thug's memory, his reputation looks a bit brighter than poor Cardinal Fisher's whose righteous celibate lifestyle resulted in no one really giving a damn about him at all. Fisher went to the block more valiantly than More, but no kids equals nobody really cared one way or the other.
And yeah, he was beheaded by Henry VIII but what else is new. I actually think Thomas Cromwell is a much more sympathetic figure, even though Hal had him done in specifically by a teenaged axman who was doing it for the first time with a dull axe. Thomas Cromwell's last words are pure guts, as Henry had probably given the signal that if he said anything critical a much worse job should be done on purpose, etc. Thomas Cromwell said that he was about to go out having
"Most patiently suffered the axe by a most cruel boocher."
What I think is a total BURN on Thomas More, though, (HAHA, pun intended) is that he wrote a lot of his legal argument stuff about five years too early. It was right before the Gutenberg printing press (which was really responsible, more than any person could, for successfully ending the hold of Roman Catholicism), standardized English spelling for GOOD!
So even though Thomas More was like the pinnacle of enlightened humanist thinking and education at the time, via historical accident he goes down on record looking like a kindergartner that can barely read or write!
LOL... Burn on Tom More. Now no one says stuff like that, and whether or not it is a good thing, it is obviously a fact. Having an opinion that differs from half a millenia of a propoganda machine is not an easy thing to do. So pardon if I perform the office like a bit of a "boocher" myself.
Not only do I risk the wrath of the world's largest religion here, so I admittedly get some ice water in my veins as I type this, I also risk sounding like the idiot kid who points out the emperor has no clothes. This guy was one of history's most self righteous JERKS and here he has people in the twentieth century eulogizing his memory even in full presence of the terrible things he did?
I feel like this is some kind of 'Behind the Music' version of More but the evidence really speaks for itself. And not only am I doing the equivalent of posting grainy paparazzi photos of this terrible Tudor, it makes me look like some sort of meanie that should be exposing the real story behind Brittany Spears. Brittany Spears hasn't gone down in history, recent or ancient, as being some kind of 'Saint' or something, literally. This is a guy whose terrible cold-hearted grasp was only limited by his reach. In the brief period that Henry VIII decided he was deserving of the office of right hand man, the king gave him a free hand to deal with religious heretics as he saw fit.
So the end result was that this hypocrite was mincing words with the king about whether or not his royal divorce should be sanctioned (on the which matter he could have made a big difference if he actually had spoken out like Cardinal Fisher did, he did so while he was BURNING PROTESTANTS like Simon Fish. Now to be fair to history, Simon Fish died of the plague (phew what a relief) but More did condemn him to death, after which his widow married his best friend, who was then in turn actually among the burning victims of More. That story would be exquisitely depressing if someone wanted to make a movie of it someday. Fish and his compadre usually get the press of some type of composite protestant martyr but individually each story is still fairly illustrative of the types of terrible things More did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fish
Let's see what we might be missing. What is the REAL RAP on why we all think that this cruel bigoted monster is getting an overly sanitized reputation.
I really think that this self righteous hypocrite's actual character is NOT up for debate because among other egregious crimes he goes down in history saying that the only reason that he didn't go into the clergy even though he believed it was the only profession worthy of himself is that he didn't want to look bad for not keeping his hands off the ladies.
This is why, for a lesser sacrifice, Tom More ended up with the movie about all the stupid 'Seasons' et. and Cardinal Fisher ended up with only obscure but dignified martyrdom. The only thing that I can think of is that Cardinal Fisher, who was actually LESS equivocal about Henry's divorce, didn't get much sympathetic press because he actually WAS a devout Roman Catholic who had never married or fathered children despite his better religious scruples.
And thus because Margaret Roper and his other WHINY, BRATTY descendants have had five hundred years to polish this thug's memory, his reputation looks a bit brighter than poor Cardinal Fisher's whose righteous celibate lifestyle resulted in no one really giving a damn about him at all. Fisher went to the block more valiantly than More, but no kids equals nobody really cared one way or the other.
And yeah, he was beheaded by Henry VIII but what else is new. I actually think Thomas Cromwell is a much more sympathetic figure, even though Hal had him done in specifically by a teenaged axman who was doing it for the first time with a dull axe. Thomas Cromwell's last words are pure guts, as Henry had probably given the signal that if he said anything critical a much worse job should be done on purpose, etc. Thomas Cromwell said that he was about to go out having
"Most patiently suffered the axe by a most cruel boocher."
What I think is a total BURN on Thomas More, though, (HAHA, pun intended) is that he wrote a lot of his legal argument stuff about five years too early. It was right before the Gutenberg printing press (which was really responsible, more than any person could, for successfully ending the hold of Roman Catholicism), standardized English spelling for GOOD!
So even though Thomas More was like the pinnacle of enlightened humanist thinking and education at the time, via historical accident he goes down on record looking like a kindergartner that can barely read or write!
LOL... Burn on Tom More. Now no one says stuff like that, and whether or not it is a good thing, it is obviously a fact. Having an opinion that differs from half a millenia of a propoganda machine is not an easy thing to do. So pardon if I perform the office like a bit of a "boocher" myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
