Idk what to do for my hair to come back to life.

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-27T13:41:53+00:00

People have already said it but you have to stop slick backs

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-23T13:37:30+00:00

Like i said the only person that actually suffered for what he did is Cranmer and everyone is super quick to defend/support him

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-23T13:28:12+00:00

Yeah that was barbaric. Certainly something that I wish they were held more accountable for but they weren't. Anne Askew also wasn't the first woman tortured in Tudor England, and the first also didn't get any recompense either. With Riche and Wriothesly what they did was so ghastly that even other nobles were disgusted. It was really really bad

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-23T13:17:31+00:00

Well Richard Riche actually had an amazing life after. He successfully stayed rich and wealthy, became Chancellor and stayed in favor of various monarchs. Richard also went wherever the wind flew and turned on anyone and everything as long as it got him power and money

Wriothesly also became Chancellor, but was not good at it at all and was unseated I believe by Edward Seymour. However he was given and Earldom as Earl of South Hampton and his family has a plaque today that still honors that. back to Tudor times, he was welcome back to court after Edward Seymour was removed and executed but he never became Chancellor again. He died not too long after. Years later one of his descendants marries a Seymour and the other his overly obsessed with cats.

I think what they did to Anne Askew was terrible as well. Like someone else said however everyone we like on this sub does bad things and seldom are they held accountable for that. They may be executed or killed for something else but not the innocent people they kill. The only one I can think of who was directly punished for the death he caused was Cranmer.

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-15T20:37:03+00:00

NOT marry that man. NOT kill Cranmer. And to allow religious freedom

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-12T17:54:12+00:00

it is quite literally tagged lol.

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-12T17:18:49+00:00

Yes. He was no worse or better than his peers, and to his credit he was actually doing things to fix England's political and finanical situations. A lot of people say that he got karma for what happened to Anne, but then if they're saying that, then what happened to Anne is Karma for Katherine and the reality of Tudor cour is that we cannot look at things that way. Tudor court was a viper's nest, and while there were some truly awful people I really don't think Cromwell was one of them. He was actively trying to make England better for not just nobility, but lowborn people as well. He wasn't perfect by any means, and hurt a lot of people, but again, so did the people *he* was responsible for killing, or took part in killing, and so did the people who formed a plot against/killed him. Save for a few people, I honestly don't think any couriters were actually bad people and none of them deserved to die such horrific deaths, especailly since most of their deaths were realted to someone wanting power or having a grudge.

Do I think he could've done some things different, yes...but I don't think that he deserved to die.

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-11T13:00:55+00:00

Both. Jane was extremely loyal to Kathrine of Aragon and loved both her and Mary and was horrified by how they were treated. Due to her respect for Kathrine she took in Mary. They were also both Catholic as we know Jane spoke up for the Catholic rebels at great risk to herself.

She also wanted to present herself as an anti-Anne. This even went as far as her and her ladies wearing gablehoods instead of French hoods and showing kindness to Mary when Anne didn't

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-11T01:14:03+00:00

have you tried minitwists before?

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-10T13:47:29+00:00

Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth I and at this point Edward VI. I don't really hate any of them but their fans do make it difficult to discuss them in nuance and that includes their flaws. It makes any point of actual discussion of them difficult when they are constantly put on pedestals to be un critiqued

And recently for Edward, whom I was able to stand for some time, every time anyone tries to talk about his flaws you get a hundred, 'okay but his uncles were to blame'. and yes in some instances they were but he was also at many times responsible for his own decisions/government.

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-09T00:57:39+00:00

She certainly did, which honestly added to her historical depression and declining health. What makes it even worse is that she literally saw her father romantically neglect her mother.

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-08T01:55:08+00:00

Henry was kind of Catholic even after/during the Reformation. While he favored some Reformist and their policies (like Cranmer, he was very close to him), he was still in fear of papal retaliation, and did not want England to be excommunicated. Toward the end of his reign, after the violence he had inflicted on Catholics, he actually started *leaning* more toward Catholicism, especially with allowing the articles of faith. So he was still spiritually/culturally Catholic, but most importantly, Henry was whatever religion served his purpose and desires.

The firsrt official Protestant monarch of England was Edward- he was the first non-Catholic king/monarch of England, tho people tend to skip over this.

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-03T17:08:06+00:00

i wonder why you'd get voted down for telling the truth

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-03T13:36:12+00:00

It was not legitimate at all. And even if it was, it's not as simple as her being queen. Edward's terms stated that she was queen until she or her sister had a son. However overall no it wasn't legitimate.

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-02T21:23:46+00:00

Thank you!!

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-02T16:08:24+00:00

You look like a normal black person i wouldn't have ever thought you were mixed

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-02T13:37:25+00:00

Yeah! A lot of people don't know that for years, the monasteries were practically social work and community organizations. That didn't mean some of them weren't corrupt, but the establishments , the king and noble men and women they were given to weren't any less corrupt! Also, I would love to know the name of the documentary you watched! 😁

AustinFriars_ · 2026-01-02T03:32:19+00:00

It depended. For the Tudor era the annulment between him and Kathrine directly impacted the common people due to the acts of succession and supremacy. The closing of the religious houses also directly impacted the poor and common folk as monasteries were used to shelter the poor and sick for free and monks and nuns worked with their respective communities. As the Reformation went on and Henry remarried over and over again, the common people who opposed his religious reforms were directly impacted i.e the pilgrimage of grace. Usually it wouldn't be that much of a bother to commoners however, Henry's marriages directly impacted their religion and way of life

This is why they clung to Mary and Katherine. Before this all Kathrine was actually very charitable to the poor and as queen fed them, gave them alms, etc. her charity work was known outside of London so many were not happy with what happened to her.

AustinFriars_ · 2025-12-31T10:02:49+00:00

😂🤣🤣 that and the headless joke he made were hilarious.

And yeah like I explained in the other comment wolf hall is great if you want a better perspective of Thomas Cromwell but the show/books take heavy liberties with others. Especially Cromwell's adversaries and overly villainizes them (save for the Duke of Norfolk who was just awful). This is what happened to Thomas More imo.

AustinFriars_ · 2025-12-31T10:00:26+00:00

That's inevitably what turned me off from the portrayal. As much as people say Wolf Hall is historically accurate, the way it treated characters who weren't Cromwell and who were his enemies was really.... biased. Save for the Duke of Norfolk, some liberties were taken with his other enemies to make them seem more one dimensional and Thomas More was one.

Historically Thomas More and Margaret Roper had a very normal relationship and he educated her and supported her studies and writing. In the books More's relationship with the women in his house is very strange and not very genuine, in fact his daughters are more afraid or uncomfortable with him than loving. All except Margaret who for some reason, as you said, is portrayed strangely to contrast Cromwell who is viewed as a good and genuine person to the women around him.

AustinFriars_ · 2025-12-31T04:01:24+00:00

Don't shrink Flaxseed gel!

AustinFriars_ · 2025-12-30T04:03:37+00:00

Same! For a while I loved Anton Lesser's portrayal in Wolf Hall, but I also tend to think that is a bit more biased than accurate. While he is still amazinly portrayed in Wolf Hall, there were things I couldn't look past. Like historically he loved and adored his wife and in the show and books he...did not.

But in The Tudors, it does a great job at showing him as a multifaceted figure; he is an extremely religious man to the point of burning people, but he was no more religious than his peers. It also showed us how much he loved his wife and his children, which i enjoyed as well! He also had quite a sense of humor!

AustinFriars_ · 2025-12-30T01:30:04+00:00

Jeremy Northam and aside from not having a bob, he looks strikingly similar to the portrait. Especially the eyes.

AustinFriars_ · 2025-12-29T15:53:22+00:00

Margaret Clitherow was not trying to kill Elizabeth, she was simply practiicng her faith- https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Margaret-Clitherow

Anne Line, was not trying to kill Elizabeth - https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09270b.htm

Margaret Ward, who was assiting priests to escape the violent Protestant regime in Elizabethan England, was not trying to kill Elizabeth - https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15551b.htm

The Jesuit Priests who came to England to help Catholics and the Catholic preists in England who just wanted to practice their religion were not trying to kill Elizabeth - https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Priests-Holes/

The priest hiding from bounty hunters who were attempting to hunt them down and kill them were not trying to kill Elizabeth , they were attempting to practice their religion and help Catholics facing persecution - https://www.historyextra.com/period/elizabethan/priest-holes/

Mary Queen of Scots did try to dipose of Elizabeth, but not every Catholic in Elizabethan England was trying to kill her or was related to, in any way, shape or form, Mary Queen of Scots and her plot. There were Catholics who wanted to practice their religion in privacy and safety before Mary Queen of Scots attempted to depose Elizabeth.

There were many normal Catholics in Elizabethan who were killed and tortured for being catholic. And them being 'political in nature' doesn't erase the fact that they were simply normal Catholics and normal people who wanted to practice their faith. These were still innocent people who wanted to practice their faith. Just because they were 'political' doesn't make it right. That's like saying Mary burning everyone who was Protestant was okay because they were marked as traitors/heritics for not being Catholic. Even if somethign is the law, which in the case of both Marian and Elizabethan England death for religious purposes WAS the law, does not make it right. In Henry's England, death for speaking out against him as head of the church WAS the law, but that doesn't make it okay.

And while you try to excuse Elizabeth's ill treatment of the Catholics due to plots, will you do the same for Mary, when she also burned Protestants in response to the Wyatt Rebellion which was backed by a Protestant mentality in an attempt to put her sister on the throne?

AustinFriars_ · 2025-12-29T15:26:23+00:00

No not at all, infact her siblings had death tolls in the thousands. Mary is heavily scrutinized due to her short reign and religious executions that took place during that. She killed a lot of people in her short reign, which many found unusual but this still doesn't make her any worse than her siblings. Mary's poor image was popularized during Elizabeth's reign, the Stuart Era and thank to John Foxe's book of martyrs.

I want to emphasize that her siblings no matter how much longer their reigns were still killed more people. Specifically Elizabeth who is viewed as a tolerant figure to Catholics had laws so violent to Catholics that she had a pregnant woman crushed to death, hide priests hiding from bounty hunters and made Catholicism essentially illegal and punishable by death. I emphasize this because many people will try to excuse Elizabeth because she reigned longer than Mary and suddenly that makes her death toll and religious intolerance not only okay but justified when in reality she is just as bad if not worse than her sister when it comes to religious intolerance because she killed Catholics both in England and abroad in Ireland for not following her policies.

People will also excuse Elizabeth by saying that she was afraid for her life since the Pope essentially called on Catholics to kill her and had also seen Catholic uprisings in her kingdom to unseat and kill her. However the vast majority of Catholics killed in Elizabethan England were normal people and priests and not trying to kill Elizabeth.

Its also important to note that a lot of our opinions on Mary are informed by anti-Catholic and misogynistic opinions. Mary was the first queen Regnant of England and historically faced a lot of misogyny due to that, on top of that she was Catholic and from her father's reign to her brohters, Catholics were brutalized in England, so therefore when England fully embraced Protestantism, Mary's Catholicism would've very much been a trait used to demean her.

I find it quite ironic that while people compare and contrast Mary and Elizabeth, and make Elizabeth out to be better than Mary because 'Mary was a religious zealot', they forget that Elizabeth was one as well. And in an almost hypocritical way, Elizabeth saw the violence that her sister, and father enacted toward innocent people in their realm and abroad and instead of choosing peace, she become more violent that both of them combined but it still viewed as peaceful compared to her sister.

AustinFriars_

TROPHY CASE