It sickens me that there ever existed a time when it was perfectly acceptable to violate children. You would have thought at the very least royal children would be guarded.
Catharine Howard, Henry's 19yo 5th wife had certainly been molested/taken advantage of as a tween. She was then beheaded for being "promiscuous" a year after they were married.
Richard II had a very young wife, Isabel of Valois, when he remarried, but she lived separately from him with governess and nurse. It was intended for an alliance with France of some sort. John Lackland had a very young wife, Isabella of Angoulême, but it was noted of him as further evidence of his degeneracy and evil, although Isabella was herself blamed by some, liked to Messalina, the young wife of Claudius. The ordinary run of people appear to have married at a young age, but one that is legal even more. Kings married young, because betrothals fell through.
@@flyingisaac2186 After usurping Richard II's throne, Henry IV wanted Isabel of Valois to marry his heir in order to maintain the alliance with France. Fond of her much older first husband, Isabel refused to marry the future Henry V. She returned to France, married her cousin and died young. Isabel's younger sister Catherine eventually married Henry V.
When you remember that to live to age 45 was pretty old its kind of different. Girls over 25 were considered mostly too old for a first pregnancy and would often be considered old maids Girls expected to be married in mid teenage. And its been that way throughout human history until very recently due to improved medical care extending average lifespans. Girls in the past wouldnt consider themselves children beyond age 12 and would expect to work or marry very young. Even when I was a kid a lot of girls married straight out of school at 16
It doesn’t matter if she was willing or not, she was not mature enough to give consent to any sexual activity, even sexualized “play”. Thank goodness things are better now, at least in some countries, although I just saw a special that child marriage, which is often forced, is still legal in most of the US. It’s almost always between a young girl and a much older man, how disgusting.
@Roger Clemens Neither is right, but how many marriages between 40 something year old women and teen boys have you've seen? Which society hints that's it's okay to force a young male into marriage to a elder woman, and also encourages cutting off his education lest he be wiser than his wife?
You can get some buddies together and grab a child for the weekend today in the UK if you're the right ethnicity. Police might even help you keep her quiet and protect you from their fathers. That doesn't really happen in the US. If only we could progress to that point and take the guns from all the father's then the fun can really start. 🙄🤬
I doubt that it is reasonable to measure the 16th century by the standards of today. Even in the 19th century, it was still quite normal for a boy of 12 years to work as a seaman or soldier on a man-o-war. This was also true for children of the upper class. By the standards of today that seems unimaginable. But for them, this was normal and even a prospect for a career in the navy!
Just awful how unfair they were. And poor Princess Elizabeth should have been protected more from this man who was harassing her. Today he would go to jail.
Good grief! Even Elizabeth was not safe from this behavior!! - -Horse play, indeed. A child of 13 years - -even a "woman" of 13 years - -could hardly bring herself to fight off a man who had in essence been given leave by her guardians. The poor thing could only hide with the help of servants!
Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII mother was 13 at the time of his birth. Even in medieval times that was consider too young to birth a child. Needless to say, it surely prevented future children. She married 3 more times, never conceiving again as far as history knows.
The signs were there. What I don’t understand is how Catherine Parr, a protective and caring stepmother missed the mark on this until it was too late and she was shipping Elizabeth elsewhere
Or that Seymor manipulated her love for him to his advantage just like how he did with Elizabeth, to make it seem like it was all 'innocent fun' and that he meant 'no evil.'
Catherine Parr loved Seymour and he was a manipulative, power hungry man that was trying to get more power because he knew that soon Elizabeth would be Queen and if he could get control of her young...then he could control the power in the country (or so he thought). It didn't quite work out that way for him and poor Catherine Parr was too in love and had waited so long to be with the man she loved. So she put up with more than she should from her husband gaslighting her about it.
Catherine Parr was pregnant at the time, and it was a difficult pregnancy from all accounts. She may have been so focused on the pregnancy that she missed the signs
If society teaches you women are chattel & are of "breeding age" once menstruation begins, you create a society of men who think they can do what they want and God will not judge. If we allow ANYTHING in society as normal, but it obviously hurts people (mentally, physically, spiritually), we are part of the problem. Race, gender, sexuality, education - none of those things should be TOLD how to approach.
@@kaylajames9334 sadly so true...either she didn't want to see/ believe what was happening or was too much under her husband's thumb to object, which was the case for most wives then
I take it further. Elizabeth was clearly highly intelligent, considering her work in classical latin undertaken while imprisoned at Hatfield, and had come to understand, watching her elder half-sister's issues with Felipe, that her options in marriage were non-existant. Marriage to a foreign prince would betray both her father and Nation (Felipe's contempt for the Dutch and Flemish not having passed unnoticed), or to a local, the petty jealousies which had led to the War of the Roses. With the benefit of hindsight, not doing anything about the final option, James of Scotland (it wasn't just the girls who had to watch out, James had been corrupted as a youth by his guardians in every way imaginable, hoping to produce a broken and malleable personality).
I do not think Elizabeth would have taken part in this willingly..but a quick look at how Henry V111 wives were treated will show that women ..young or old had little choice..or say in such things.
Nicely done! Where did you find these images? They are spectacular. The drawing of Elizabeth, for example. Nice production value in your video. Lovely. I noted that you don't mention that during her step-mother's lying in, Elizabeth had been sent away to live with another family. The two women were close, which made it odd that the younger woman would be with the older one at such an intimate, dangerous time. There has been speculation that the reason for this was that the young Princess was with child showing the possible extent of Seymour's attempts at intimacy with her. And that the rumor about her pregnancy was so strong that she had had to testify to claim her innocence, many months after a changeling previously born to her could have been spirited away. Of course, the evidence is not sufficient to prove the claim. Anyway, I realize there is not always time to go off on such a tangent, Well done on this video!! Very nice. Robin Phillips
He became king and was under his Seymour uncles' protection. His sister's had their own households. He was just a kid but was king so he had his own household.
Elizabeth lived with Catherine Parr when her father died.....until her husband, Thomas Seymour advances toward Elizabeth were finally taken seriously by her.
(0:47) Today people don't use black paint, right out of the tube, so to speak. They create "black" with a combination of red, yellow, and blue or even blue and brown. In this painting of Thomas Seymour it is clearly black BLACK! For the non-painters it might seem silly but this is a throw back.
What a weird comment! Of course we painters use black pigmented paint! For instance 'Lamp Black" is actually made from burnt carbon, like soot from a candle. The color produced when mixing all colors is frequently gray, as there is often not enough pigment in paint to achieve black. In addition there are some times that our eye perceives a type of flat, incomprehensible black produced by a light absorbing material or a substance like coal, that no mix can portray it. To get that illusion, or to use this 'color's for an emotional/visual concept within a painting, black paint must come out of that tube. In general, it's best to mix a black from colors in the painting because it creates visual 'harmony' or cohesiveness. But this is not a requisite. In fact, deadflat, fathomless black is fetishized and pursued by artists, see the article, "Black 3.0 is a "black hole in a bottle" that challenges Anish Kapoor's Vantablack pigment."
@@mariebernier3076 Okay, No Hypotheticals now. If you were commissioned to due this portrait of Thomas Seymour TODAY- would you come up with a black BLACK coat and black buttons?
@@kevinbergin9971 What do you mean? BTW, that IS an example of a hypothetical. If zi were to paint him in a coat that appears black it would depend on what's around him. But yes, I always begin black objects with 'out of the tube' black paint and add it gradually to another color or colors until the color reads as 'black' in the painting. Straight out of the tube black paint almost always needs to have other colors mixed in because the rest of the painting wasn't done with colors from the tube, so they're just not as stark. If you're painting the rest of the image with colors out of the tube, have to use just unmixed tube black or it would not have the same energy to equal the other colors and would appear dead, or lifeless..
I love your channel but tbh, i couldnt finish this one. The revolting nature turned my stomach. He should have been drawn and quartered for what he did
Deflowering a Royal virgin was a crime resulting in imprisonment or death. Even poor Elizabeth had to undergo interrogation as they suspected she complied willingly.
There were a lot of rumors Including one where she is actually a boy. I honestly don’t think there was a baby. There were too many servants who would be eager to report something like a pregnancy in exchange for cash.
Elizabeth was sent away for approximately 9 months, causing rumors that Elizabeth begged the government to deny. I doubt that she was pregnant but I can understand she was removed from Katherine Parr's care.
Keep in mind that Thomas Seymour was Catherine Parr's husband and she was deeply in love with him even before she was married to Henry VIII. So there was certainly an element of denial involved on her part in terms of accepting that her beloved spouse would be inappropriate with her stepdaughter. This is a common reaction to this type of abuse even now. But 500 years ago it was much more typical for people to overlook this type of behavior from a high ranking noble, especially considering that the "girl" in question was not just of marital age but also considered illegitimate by much of the kingdom, with no true claim to the throne. So you are probably correct in that assertion.
Elizabeth and her sister Mary were returned to the Line of Succession by Act and King Henry’s will in 1544. Though neither were legitimized, they were recognized as part of the line of succession after Edward. They could not marry without the agreement of Parliament. What Thomas Seymour did was not acceptable and the reaction of Edward in sending the Tyrewitts to investigate indicates this. Unfortunately it was part of the prevailing attitude to blame the victim. This along with Seymour’s grooming and his subsequent execution as well as her mother’s disgrace... All of this along with the example of her sister Mary’s unhappy marriage makes her desire to remain unwed natural.
@Gary Allen True but she was restored to the line of succession via Henry's will. Granted, this did not legitimize her in any official way but she was restored and therefore her virginity had to have been maintained. I don't think there's any record of Elizabeth having been raped by Thomas Seymour, only that he would visit her chambers in the early morning (and it was highly unlikely that she would have ever been 100% alone or out of immediate earshot of her ladies at any point) and probably speak to her and touch her inappropriately, and there are witness accounts of his visits and of him displaying behaviors like these.
It would be fascinating to know if Henry VIII suffered from McKellan’s Syndrome and if so how this would have been expressed in Elizabeth and Mary. I also wonder about whether Elizabeth had an eating disorder since anorexia can interfere with normal menstrual cycles.
@Gary Allen Elizabeth the Empress of Austria had an eating disorder, she also exercised vigorously. The two things are not mutually exclusive. The eccessive exercise was one of the ways her anorexia manifested itself.
@@verot8444 Many anorexic persons exercise vigorously. Combined with starvation it definitely keeps their weight dropping, sometimes to the death. Seen it happen.
We can not view this thru today’s culture and mindset it’s completely different. A women’s life expectancy was around 40. I like your videos and we have to be careful getting ppl emotional about this. Her brother was 11 and the King…. Either way Katherine parr was so wrong 😑 and Kat Ashley was OK with the marriage so… not sure what to make of it 🙏🏽 Blessings
a quick google search about life expectancy shows: "Average life expectancy in the 16th century was roughly late 30's early 40's. However, this number is skewed by the extremely high rate of child and infant immortality. Many people lived to be quite old, into their 80's. Life expectancy would have been longer for men rather than women due to the high number of deaths in childbirth." I imagine the rich had more chances of living to an older age.
You're joking, right? Life expectancy has nothing to do how willing you are to overlook sexual abuse of a minor. Unlike you might think the average marrying age of regular people in the 16th century was not adolescence. Most peasants and other normal folk married as young adults. The aristocracy often married young for political reasons, and that was made legal for those same reasons, but it was well accepted even then that children were still children and you didn't get sex into the picture until you were in your late teens or early twenties. Framing this as "normal for the age" is not only morally absurd, it's also historically incorrect.
How are you talking about viewing this through a modern lens when even people back then thought it was creepy and felt the princess had to be protected. Child molestation was child molestation even in the 1600s.
Was it not possible for Elizabeth to lock her room and therefore avoid Seymour's attentions? I am presuming Elizabeth kissed Seymour willingly and only after she witnessed this did Catherine Parr have her removed from her house. Katherine Parr had strong religious convictions, so I find it difficult to believe that she would have knowingly allowed Elizabeth to be abused by her husband. When Elizabeth became queen she did not treat women very well. She once stabbed the hand of a woman with a fork because she had served her badly, and broke the finger of another woman in a fit of jealousy. Robert Dudley was most probably Elizabeth's lover. He proposed marriage to her but she refused. My guess is that she wanted him to continue to be her secret lover on the side while publicly pretending to be a virgin. His wife died in mysterious circumstances. When Elizabeth refused him, he secretly married her cousin Lettice Knollys. When Elizabeth found out she boxed her ears and banished her from court. If Elizabeth got angry she did not hesitate to strike out. When she wanted to get rid of Mary Queen Of Scots a plot was hatched to make Mary's life of house arrest so unbearable that she joined a plot to kill Elizabeth and take the English throne. It was a trap and the plot was intercepted. Mary was then executed. What would Elizabeth herself have done if she had discovered a 15 year old girl kissing Dudley? She would have attacked her and then banished her from court.
You’re completely ignoring half of the history here, while also semi-blaming a 13yrold girl for the advances of a man 25 years her senior? I’m sorry but you can’t presume that if a 13yrold kisses a grown man who is actively pursuing her, she’s automatically complicit in his desires. We know today that grooming is based on fear cultivation and oppressive behaviors against the one being groomed. You’re really going to say something so offhandedly like “Oh, why couldn’t she lock her door?” First of all she had a very close relationship with her stepmother and certainly didn’t want do anything to purposely create tensions in the household that was her safe haven away from the speculation of her sisters court. Elizabeth had to walk on eggshells and avoid excessive suspicion much of her young life. Anything she did could have consequences and anyone could turn on her and accuse her of plotting if she did anything that angered even the ones closest and most caring of her. Back in those days especially within the royal court it was too easy for people to lose their heads to those they trusted the most. She learned to that from her own parents relationship, whether her mother was guilty or not; she knew she needed to navigate things efficiently and with minimal suspicion. And just because a person has strong religious convictions you think they don’t have issues with ignorance and doubt when they don’t want to confront something they can’t handle the truth about? Katherine was deeply in love with Seymour by all accounts. She didn’t want to go straight into believing this man that she would be lucky enough to marry right after King Henry would actually be doing something like this. Unfortunately she did discover certain things he was doing along with grooming Elizabeth and she was devastated because she could no longer try to believe anything else about his actions. The evidence about his own plotting was all too clear. Her willful ignorance and subsequent heartbreak is not unlike many unfortunate relationships we see today between a predator and the spouse or significant other they’ve easily manipulated and lied to for years. All because of love and blind trust. Yes, Elizabeth inherited the Tudor Temper - the apple never fell too far from the tree. Yes, many accounts show Robert Dudley to be her main lover and the only one who could be trusted to be that close to her. But she wasn’t about to marry someone who her court could try to negotiate with and use to sway her into any direction they desired. She repeatedly reminded them that she married England first and that was the duty she would not allow to be influenced by anyone other than God. Elizabeth had every right to be as protective as she was about her rule, especially with Catholic sympathizers forever seeking to overthrow her. Mary Queen of Scots was a staunch follower of the Catholic faith who was also not by any means blameless. The woman did help orchestrate the murder of her husband and there is much historical evidence which supports that fact. No he was not a good man and everyone knew that, but her actions were highly inflammatory even for the Scotland court. Am I going to then say “Oh but she was such a religious woman why would she be complicit in a plot to have him killed and then run away with her new lover; couldn’t she have sought aid from those she trusted?” She may have been Queen but she was not protected the way her son was. And her husband had many friends of his own at court to keep her from getting rid of him so easily. These two women had their own struggles ruling and surviving in a world that sought to blame the woman first even if she’s royal, let alone on the throne itself. If you read more deeply into the history you can see it, plain as day. Also Elizabeth did NOT want to execute her cousin because she took forever to even sign the death warrant - in fact there is no actual proof or statement that she ever formally signed it. Historical accounts recorded that she was completely distraught to be pressed to execute a member of her family and cousin (syngicide) as well as an anointed Queen (regicide) - something she fervently believed was sacred and holy and no one other than God could interfere with. This is a known fact about her own religious convictions. Since the day she was anointed as Queen Elizabeth she made it clear to her court that she believed the placing of a person on the throne was a sacred act of God and that she intended to rule under no other assumption. If she beheaded the Queen of Scots so willingly what would that say about her beliefs then? It would say she was an even bigger hypocrite and her own throne would be pushed into further jeopardy. Unfortunately the evidence of Mary’s role in the plot was proven true and Elizabeth was finally backed into a corner that she tried desperately to get out of. There was no celebration or relief from Mary’s demise… it was the most regretful day of Elizabeth’s life as she even tried to send Mary back to Scotland but the Scots would kill her regardless. Mary had no where to go but she also could not be set free as she was a pawn in further plots against the English throne. James VI knew this which is why he never sought to dampen her legacy when he ascended the throne. He erected a grand memorial and statue to her while also erecting an even greater one to his mother. James seemed to understand the political struggles and delicacies which effected the choices and actions of his female predecessors. Surviving in the royal court was a lot more complicated of a game than people today can ever imagine.
@@meggystardust123 Elizabeth was 14. It was not unusual in those days for girls to marry at that age. Although young, judging by Elizabeth's character, I don't believe that she would have kissed someone if she had not wanted to. Why did she not request to leave the house and go elsewhere if she was unhappy? Yes, Mary Queen Of Scots was indeed a Catholic. Elizabeth kept Mary imprisoned for 19 years but wanted rid of her. So, to reiterate, a plot was hatched to make Mary's life so unbearable that she would join a plot to kill Elizabeth and put her on the throne. It was intercepted and Mary was executed. Elizabeth had been in Mary's position when her half sister Mary was on the throne. Elizabeth had been involved in the Babington plot to kill Mary and take the throne. When the plot was uncovered and the conspirators were arrested and executed, Elizabeth had ensured that no proof of her involvement could be found. Therefore, Elizabeth knew every trick in the book and exactly how to trap Mary. Mary on the other hand had lived a somewhat sheltered life in France until she came to Scotland as queen, after her mother died. Unlike Elizabeth, Mary had no political acumen. Elizabeth had a problem with signing the death warrant because she herself was an anointed queen; this meant anointed by God and given the divine right to rule. If one queen could be executed then so could another. It had nothing to do with her concern for Mary. It was about self preservation. So Elizabeth signed the death warrant then put it down - it was taken away. After the execution, Elizabeth claimed that she had not intended to sign it and the secretary who took it was made the scapegoat. There is no proof that Mary was involved in her husband's murder. Robert Dudley's wife Amy was found dead in highly suspicious circumstances, at a time when Dudley was involved with Elizabeth. Suspicion fell on Dudley and Elizabeth. I reiterate that if Elizabeth had caught Dudley kissing a 14 year old girl, Elizabeth would have attacked her and then banished her from court, as she did to her cousin Lettice. She would not have been as graceful as her stepmother Katherine Parr was towards her. Elizabeth had a very violent nature and did not hesitate to strike. One one occasion, a young girl came to court and confided something personal to Elizabeth which she asked to be kept a secret. Elizabeth promptly spread this around the court. I agree that it is wrong for an older man to take advantage of a 14 year old girl. However, if Elizabeth had been a victim, there were certainly many victims of her cruelty when she came to power.
Marrying without the monarchs permission was a big no-no at the time they were other incidents not just with Elizabeth like that and Mary Queen of Scots was not entirely as innocent as you’re making her out to be she was probably involved in plots against her what was Elizabeth supposed to think it sounds like to me you’re blaming the victim here not to mention that scarred her for The rest of her life And as for locking the door Some historians believe he had the key to her bedroom since he was her guardian they couldn’t stop it
@Susan Gavaghan simply put, no. She couldn't "just lock the door". Even if her door had a lock (a complicated and expensive piece of equipment for the time), privacy was very much not a thing for a girl of her age and time. You're blaming a child - barely a teen - for the lechery of a grown man, and frankly you are nothing but a grooming apologist. You should be ashamed of yourself. Adults do not always protect their charges, in some cases they encourage "relationships" for their own ends. The reason for the modern age of consent is that we understand that a child canot give informed consent, even if they act as the adult wants them to act. People often don't listen to children now and certainly not then. Elizabeth couldn't just up and demand to live elsewhere. You are crediting a thirteen year old girl with the power of the monarch she would later become, at a time when no-one knew she would even be required to rule. Examine your own need to frame a child as a whorish villain.
@@Nyctophora Looking at her track record of her treatment of other women, I reiterate that if Elizabeth had caught Dudley in the embraces of a 14 year old girl, I am certain that she would have attacked the girl and banished her from court. Indeed, when she got older, Elizabeth banned younger women from court altogether, saying she didn't want these 'flouting wenches' around. In other words younger women who were more attractive to men. If Elizabeth was groomed by Thomas Seymour, then I am not apologizing for him. However, I am pointing out that Elizabeth herself was guilty of far worse things when she came to power. She was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Catholics in England and Ireland she was involved in the slave trade and enjoyed watching bear baiting.
You are imposing modern standards on the past. What happened to Elizabeth is abhorrent by modern standards, but it was not necessarily condemned by standards of the time. I'm not defending what happened to Elizabeth, but what happened to her has to be placed into historical context. According to Wikipedia: In the 12th century, Canon law jurist Gratian, stated that consent for marriage could not take place before the age of 12 years old for females and 14 years old for males; and consent for betrothal could not take place before the age of 7 years old for females and males, as that is the age of reason. The Church of England, after breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, carried with it the same minimum age requirements. Age of consent for marriage of 12 years old for maidens and of 14 years old for youths were written into English civil law.[22] The first recorded age-of-consent law, in England, dates back 800 years. The age of consent law in question has to do with the law of rape and not the law of marriage as sometimes misunderstood. In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, the Statute of Westminster 1275, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age", whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years old.[23] A 1576 law was created with more severe punishments for ravishing a girl for which the age of consent was set at 10 years old.[24] Under English common law the age of consent apart of the law of rape was 10 or 12 years old and rape was defined as forceful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. To convict a man of rape, both force and lack of consent had to be proved, except in the case of a girl who is under the age of consent. Since the age of consent applied in all circumstances, not just in physical assaults, the law also made it impossible for an underage girl (under 12 years old) to consent to sexual activity. There was one exception: a man's acts with his wife (females over 12 years old), to which rape law did not apply.[25] Jurist Sir Matthew Hale stated that both rape laws were valid at the same time.[26] In 1875, the Offence Against the Persons Act raised the age to 13 years in England; an act of sexual intercourse with a girl younger than 13 was a felony.[27]
Thank you for writing this. I love history but find it irritating when people attempt to modernize it, with their opinions. They should not put there thoughts/opinion in, or todays standard. It should just be about the era, and their standards.
@Alondra S The average lifespan was much shorter then. Children were given responsibility at a younger age had to grow up much faster back then. Furthermore, Elizabeth was no lightweight in terms of knowledge, maturity, and life experience even her young age. (She survived intense interrogation after Thomas Seymour's arrest, for example.) She was at the point of her life when she was at the end of childhood and the beginning of adulthood. People should be considered in accordance with the times they lived in. I also believe that we don't have the full story of everything that happened.
@Alondra S Yes, the question is whether she was interested in him. I don't think we can really know the answer to that. Then, if she did have an interest, how much weight can we give to that considering her age? These are the questions that we just can't answer.
![Lil Uzi Vert - We Good [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DrSfBULAsek/mqdefault.jpg)
It sickens me that there ever existed a time when it was perfectly acceptable to violate children. You would have thought at the very least royal children would be guarded.
Catharine Howard, Henry's 19yo 5th wife had certainly been molested/taken advantage of as a tween. She was then beheaded for being "promiscuous" a year after they were married.
Richard II had a very young wife, Isabel of Valois, when he remarried, but she lived separately from him with governess and nurse. It was intended for an alliance with France of some sort. John Lackland had a very young wife, Isabella of Angoulême, but it was noted of him as further evidence of his degeneracy and evil, although Isabella was herself blamed by some, liked to Messalina, the young wife of Claudius. The ordinary run of people appear to have married at a young age, but one that is legal even more. Kings married young, because betrothals fell through.
@@flyingisaac2186 After usurping Richard II's throne, Henry IV wanted Isabel of Valois to marry his heir in order to maintain the alliance with France. Fond of her much older first husband, Isabel refused to marry the future Henry V. She returned to France, married her cousin and died young. Isabel's younger sister Catherine eventually married Henry V.
Still goes on today. There’s a certain someone’s laptop that has info of grooming in their family in the states.
When you remember that to live to age 45 was pretty old its kind of different. Girls over 25 were considered mostly too old for a first pregnancy and would often be considered old maids Girls expected to be married in mid teenage. And its been that way throughout human history until very recently due to improved medical care extending average lifespans. Girls in the past wouldnt consider themselves children beyond age 12 and would expect to work or marry very young. Even when I was a kid a lot of girls married straight out of school at 16
It doesn’t matter if she was willing or not, she was not mature enough to give consent to any sexual activity, even sexualized “play”. Thank goodness things are better now, at least in some countries, although I just saw a special that child marriage, which is often forced, is still legal in most of the US. It’s almost always between a young girl and a much older man, how disgusting.
This is the land of the „ unlimited“ possibilities.
@Roger Clemens Neither is right, but how many marriages between 40 something year old women and teen boys have you've seen? Which society hints that's it's okay to force a young male into marriage to a elder woman, and also encourages cutting off his education lest he be wiser than his wife?
You can get some buddies together and grab a child for the weekend today in the UK if you're the right ethnicity. Police might even help you keep her quiet and protect you from their fathers.
That doesn't really happen in the US. If only we could progress to that point and take the guns from all the father's then the fun can really start. 🙄🤬
I doubt that it is reasonable to measure the 16th century by the standards of today. Even in the 19th century, it was still quite normal for a boy of 12 years to work as a seaman or soldier on a man-o-war. This was also true for children of the upper class. By the standards of today that seems unimaginable. But for them, this was normal and even a prospect for a career in the navy!
What kid do you know in America that is a child bride!? Maybe with the Muslims and they should not be here if they are pedos
Just awful how unfair they were. And poor Princess Elizabeth should have been protected more from this man who was harassing her. Today he would go to jail.
In his day, he went to the block for it.
Good grief! Even Elizabeth was not safe from this behavior!! - -Horse play, indeed.
A child of 13 years - -even a "woman" of 13 years - -could hardly bring herself to fight off a man who had in essence been given leave by her guardians. The poor thing could only hide with the help of servants!
Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII mother was 13 at the time of his birth. Even in medieval times that was consider too young to birth a child. Needless to say, it surely prevented future children. She married 3 more times, never conceiving again as far as history knows.
The signs were there. What I don’t understand is how Catherine Parr, a protective and caring stepmother missed the mark on this until it was too late and she was shipping Elizabeth elsewhere
I can only guess she was smitten so overlooked and didn’t take on the seriousness.
Or that Seymor manipulated her love for him to his advantage just like how he did with Elizabeth, to make it seem like it was all 'innocent fun' and that he meant 'no evil.'
Catherine Parr loved Seymour and he was a manipulative, power hungry man that was trying to get more power because he knew that soon Elizabeth would be Queen and if he could get control of her young...then he could control the power in the country (or so he thought). It didn't quite work out that way for him and poor Catherine Parr was too in love and had waited so long to be with the man she loved. So she put up with more than she should from her husband gaslighting her about it.
Catherine Parr was pregnant at the time, and it was a difficult pregnancy from all accounts. She may have been so focused on the pregnancy that she missed the signs
She was quite manipulative herself
Some men, especially back then were disgusting and scary. That poor little girl 👧! A baby being groomed by a man with limitless power!
You know it still happens a ton today, right? It's called forcing kids to be LGBTQ
@@e.e.s.6076 Thank God someone sees it! 🙏
If society teaches you women are chattel & are of "breeding age" once menstruation begins, you create a society of men who think they can do what they want and God will not judge.
If we allow ANYTHING in society as normal, but it obviously hurts people (mentally, physically, spiritually), we are part of the problem.
Race, gender, sexuality, education - none of those things should be TOLD how to approach.
@@TK-ij2xi Exactlyyyy
@@e.e.s.6076 no ones forcing anyone to be lgbtq i could say the same thing about people forcing kids to be straight so pls what exactly are u saying
this is interesting, I’m very happy that a lot of people are interested in history things like this one nowadays
No wonder Elizabeth never wanted to marry!
Well she didnt want to give up her power as an umarried Queen either.
It's so sicking that she was treated so badly. She was abused
She never married because of what happened to het mother Anne Boleyn
@@tatumfromkoreaplays2768 And also what happened to her sister Mary.
It would make sense why she never took a husband, if she had been abused and molested.
I love learning something new, something old in history with new and interesting background information is wonderful.
Catherine Parr did not deserve this dangerous cad for her last husband, and with her charge and in her marital home no less
@@helend7542 but out of all of her other husbands this one was the one that she actually chose on her own. And she let his behavior continue.
@@kaylajames9334 sadly so true...either she didn't want to see/ believe what was happening or was too much under her husband's thumb to object, which was the case for most wives then
Sadly she's not the first (and God knows not the last) to fall for an abusive man's charms. 😢
Subjecting a child of 15 years of age under suspicion of treason? Absolutely preposterous and idiotic!
This was a really good video. You have such a talent for making complex times understandable.
At least she got to see her predator arrested and killed.
It’s so disturbing that this man was able to do that. I feel so bad for Elizabeth.
Another great informative interesting well done video.
So much I didn’t know, thank you for educating me
I take it further. Elizabeth was clearly highly intelligent, considering her work in classical latin undertaken while imprisoned at Hatfield, and had come to understand, watching her elder half-sister's issues with Felipe, that her options in marriage were non-existant. Marriage to a foreign prince would betray both her father and Nation (Felipe's contempt for the Dutch and Flemish not having passed unnoticed), or to a local, the petty jealousies which had led to the War of the Roses. With the benefit of hindsight, not doing anything about the final option, James of Scotland (it wasn't just the girls who had to watch out, James had been corrupted as a youth by his guardians in every way imaginable, hoping to produce a broken and malleable personality).
I do not think Elizabeth would have taken part in this willingly..but a quick look at how Henry V111 wives were treated will show that women ..young or old had little choice..or say in such things.
I couldn't imagine living in the middle ages. Its crazy to me how luxuriously and yet how simply and sloppily they lived.
Nothing has changed if you think about it
@@jonwek4332 I think that's the craziest/wildest thing. How history repeats itself when people are in power.
She wasn’t from the Middle Ages. That’s like pre 1400s. This was the Renaissance.
Considered Early Modern Period ...
Plenty countries still like this.
Nicely done! Where did you find these images? They are spectacular. The drawing of Elizabeth, for example. Nice production value in your video. Lovely. I noted that you don't mention that during her step-mother's lying in, Elizabeth had been sent away to live with another family. The two women were close, which made it odd that the younger woman would be with the older one at such an intimate, dangerous time. There has been speculation that the reason for this was that the young Princess was with child showing the possible extent of Seymour's attempts at intimacy with her. And that the rumor about her pregnancy was so strong that she had had to testify to claim her innocence, many months after a changeling previously born to her could have been spirited away. Of course, the evidence is not sufficient to prove the claim. Anyway, I realize there is not always time to go off on such a tangent, Well done on this video!! Very nice. Robin Phillips
The woman pictured at 2:06 had strawberry blonde hair and green eyes; probably Catherine Howard. Portrait at 3:03 is Katherine Parr.
This lecher needed some proper Mediaeval punishment.
Did Elizabeth & her brother grow up together (until he died), or were they separated?
He became king and was under his Seymour uncles' protection. His sister's had their own households. He was just a kid but was king so he had his own household.
They were known to have lived in the same household with his sisters when he was a toddler
Elizabeth lived with Catherine Parr when her father died.....until her husband, Thomas Seymour advances toward Elizabeth were finally taken seriously by her.
Damn girl what a channel, amazing vids
Thank you for your kind words! It means a lot 😃
Thank you
(0:47) Today people don't use black paint, right out of the tube, so to speak. They create "black" with a combination of red, yellow, and blue or even blue and brown. In this painting of Thomas Seymour it is clearly black BLACK! For the non-painters it might seem silly but this is a throw back.
Totally interesting and a great catch, thank you!
What a weird comment! Of course we painters use black pigmented paint! For instance 'Lamp Black" is actually made from burnt carbon, like soot from a candle. The color produced when mixing all colors is frequently gray, as there is often not enough pigment in paint to achieve black. In addition there are some times that our eye perceives a type of flat, incomprehensible black produced by a light absorbing material or a substance like coal, that no mix can portray it. To get that illusion, or to use this 'color's for an emotional/visual concept within a painting, black paint must come out of that tube. In general, it's best to mix a black from colors in the painting because it creates visual 'harmony' or cohesiveness. But this is not a requisite. In fact, deadflat, fathomless black is fetishized and pursued by artists, see the article, "Black 3.0 is a "black hole in a bottle" that challenges Anish Kapoor's Vantablack pigment."
@@mariebernier3076 Okay, No Hypotheticals now. If you were commissioned to due this portrait of Thomas Seymour TODAY- would you come up with a black BLACK coat and black buttons?
@@kevinbergin9971 What do you mean? BTW, that IS an example of a hypothetical. If zi were to paint him in a coat that appears black it would depend on what's around him. But yes, I always begin black objects with 'out of the tube' black paint and add it gradually to another color or colors until the color reads as 'black' in the painting. Straight out of the tube black paint almost always needs to have other colors mixed in because the rest of the painting wasn't done with colors from the tube, so they're just not as stark. If you're painting the rest of the image with colors out of the tube, have to use just unmixed tube black or it would not have the same energy to equal the other colors and would appear dead, or lifeless..
@@mariebernier3076 I get you the gig and you'll blow it. There goes my 10% and "off with your head! too"
I love your channel but tbh, i couldnt finish this one. The revolting nature turned my stomach. He should have been drawn and quartered for what he did
Deflowering a Royal virgin was a crime resulting in imprisonment or death. Even poor Elizabeth had to undergo interrogation as they suspected she complied willingly.
Very interesting topic. I just couldn't listen to it past "and so go forth" spoken twice in the same sentence.
this is so sad 😭😭😭😭
Too bad Henry VIII did not get to Thomas Seymour first.
I have read rumours that there was a baby, that was swiftly disposed of by Seymour, according to a midwife!
There were a lot of rumors Including one where she is actually a boy. I honestly don’t think there was a baby. There were too many servants who would be eager to report something like a pregnancy in exchange for cash.
Elizabeth was sent away for approximately 9 months, causing rumors that Elizabeth begged the government to deny. I doubt that she was pregnant but I can understand she was removed from Katherine Parr's care.
Could I point out that “Attainder” ( in Bill of Attainder) is pronounced with the emphasis on the middle of the word, so - att-AYN-der!
Everyone: Poor Elizabeth....
Me: Poor doggy.
It was his favorite spaniel puppy.
Yemen child brides, still happening.
Did most people back then feel the way Catherine Parr did, that it was no big deal?
Keep in mind that Thomas Seymour was Catherine Parr's husband and she was deeply in love with him even before she was married to Henry VIII. So there was certainly an element of denial involved on her part in terms of accepting that her beloved spouse would be inappropriate with her stepdaughter. This is a common reaction to this type of abuse even now.
But 500 years ago it was much more typical for people to overlook this type of behavior from a high ranking noble, especially considering that the "girl" in question was not just of marital age but also considered illegitimate by much of the kingdom, with no true claim to the throne. So you are probably correct in that assertion.
Centuries later this is still the case - perhaps some will always be like that.
Elizabeth and her sister Mary were returned to the Line of Succession by Act and King Henry’s will in 1544. Though neither were legitimized, they were recognized as part of the line of succession after Edward. They could not marry without the agreement of Parliament. What Thomas Seymour did was not acceptable and the reaction of Edward in sending the Tyrewitts to investigate indicates this. Unfortunately it was part of the prevailing attitude to blame the victim. This along with Seymour’s grooming and his subsequent execution as well as her mother’s disgrace... All of this along with the example of her sister Mary’s unhappy marriage makes her desire to remain unwed natural.
The virginity of female royals had to be protected and above reproach. So what happened here?
@Gary Allen True but she was restored to the line of succession via Henry's will. Granted, this did not legitimize her in any official way but she was restored and therefore her virginity had to have been maintained.
I don't think there's any record of Elizabeth having been raped by Thomas Seymour, only that he would visit her chambers in the early morning (and it was highly unlikely that she would have ever been 100% alone or out of immediate earshot of her ladies at any point) and probably speak to her and touch her inappropriately, and there are witness accounts of his visits and of him displaying behaviors like these.
Please a videos about war of roses and fuedalism
Who's here because of the new series "Becoming Elizabeth"?
Royal pains
was Elizabeth unfertile?
We will never know. It is not uncommon even today (about one in every 12 to 20 women, depending upon how you define it)....so maybe.
It would be fascinating to know if Henry VIII suffered from McKellan’s Syndrome and if so how this would have been expressed in Elizabeth and Mary. I also wonder about whether Elizabeth had an eating disorder since anorexia can interfere with normal menstrual cycles.
@Gary Allen Elizabeth the Empress of Austria had an eating disorder, she also exercised vigorously. The two things are not mutually exclusive. The eccessive exercise was one of the ways her anorexia manifested itself.
Was she perhaps affected by her father’s syphilis, passed on to Anne Boleyn, which rendered her infertile?
@@verot8444
Many anorexic persons exercise vigorously. Combined with starvation it definitely keeps their weight dropping, sometimes to the death.
Seen it happen.
We can not view this thru today’s culture and mindset it’s completely different. A women’s life expectancy was around 40. I like your videos and we have to be careful getting ppl emotional about this. Her brother was 11 and the King…. Either way Katherine parr was so wrong 😑 and Kat Ashley was OK with the marriage so… not sure what to make of it 🙏🏽 Blessings
I am not viewing it by today's standards but I am grateful that circumstances are better for women and girls today
a quick google search about life expectancy shows: "Average life expectancy in the 16th century was roughly late 30's early 40's. However, this number is skewed by the extremely high rate of child and infant immortality. Many people lived to be quite old, into their 80's. Life expectancy would have been longer for men rather than women due to the high number of deaths in childbirth."
I imagine the rich had more chances of living to an older age.
You're joking, right? Life expectancy has nothing to do how willing you are to overlook sexual abuse of a minor. Unlike you might think the average marrying age of regular people in the 16th century was not adolescence. Most peasants and other normal folk married as young adults. The aristocracy often married young for political reasons, and that was made legal for those same reasons, but it was well accepted even then that children were still children and you didn't get sex into the picture until you were in your late teens or early twenties. Framing this as "normal for the age" is not only morally absurd, it's also historically incorrect.
She definitely was being sexually harassed.
How are you talking about viewing this through a modern lens when even people back then thought it was creepy and felt the princess had to be protected. Child molestation was child molestation even in the 1600s.
Ick. So glad I didn't live then (that I know of).
These 'royals' are hilarious. It's no different today, just more covert. Why don't ya talk about them
???
Was it not possible for Elizabeth to lock her room and therefore avoid Seymour's attentions? I am presuming Elizabeth kissed Seymour willingly and only after she witnessed this did Catherine Parr have her removed from her house. Katherine Parr had strong religious convictions, so I find it difficult to believe that she would have knowingly allowed Elizabeth to be abused by her husband. When Elizabeth became queen she did not treat women very well. She once stabbed the hand of a woman with a fork because she had served her badly, and broke the finger of another woman in a fit of jealousy. Robert Dudley was most probably Elizabeth's lover. He proposed marriage to her but she refused. My guess is that she wanted him to continue to be her secret lover on the side while publicly pretending to be a virgin. His wife died in mysterious circumstances. When Elizabeth refused him, he secretly married her cousin Lettice Knollys. When Elizabeth found out she boxed her ears and banished her from court. If Elizabeth got angry she did not hesitate to strike out. When she wanted to get rid of Mary Queen Of Scots a plot was hatched to make Mary's life of house arrest so unbearable that she joined a plot to kill Elizabeth and take the English throne. It was a trap and the plot was intercepted. Mary was then executed. What would Elizabeth herself have done if she had discovered a 15 year old girl kissing Dudley? She would have attacked her and then banished her from court.
You’re completely ignoring half of the history here, while also semi-blaming a 13yrold girl for the advances of a man 25 years her senior? I’m sorry but you can’t presume that if a 13yrold kisses a grown man who is actively pursuing her, she’s automatically complicit in his desires. We know today that grooming is based on fear cultivation and oppressive behaviors against the one being groomed. You’re really going to say something so offhandedly like “Oh, why couldn’t she lock her door?” First of all she had a very close relationship with her stepmother and certainly didn’t want do anything to purposely create tensions in the household that was her safe haven away from the speculation of her sisters court. Elizabeth had to walk on eggshells and avoid excessive suspicion much of her young life. Anything she did could have consequences and anyone could turn on her and accuse her of plotting if she did anything that angered even the ones closest and most caring of her. Back in those days especially within the royal court it was too easy for people to lose their heads to those they trusted the most. She learned to that from her own parents relationship, whether her mother was guilty or not; she knew she needed to navigate things efficiently and with minimal suspicion. And just because a person has strong religious convictions you think they don’t have issues with ignorance and doubt when they don’t want to confront something they can’t handle the truth about? Katherine was deeply in love with Seymour by all accounts. She didn’t want to go straight into believing this man that she would be lucky enough to marry right after King Henry would actually be doing something like this. Unfortunately she did discover certain things he was doing along with grooming Elizabeth and she was devastated because she could no longer try to believe anything else about his actions. The evidence about his own plotting was all too clear. Her willful ignorance and subsequent heartbreak is not unlike many unfortunate relationships we see today between a predator and the spouse or significant other they’ve easily manipulated and lied to for years. All because of love and blind trust. Yes, Elizabeth inherited the Tudor Temper - the apple never fell too far from the tree. Yes, many accounts show Robert Dudley to be her main lover and the only one who could be trusted to be that close to her. But she wasn’t about to marry someone who her court could try to negotiate with and use to sway her into any direction they desired. She repeatedly reminded them that she married England first and that was the duty she would not allow to be influenced by anyone other than God. Elizabeth had every right to be as protective as she was about her rule, especially with Catholic sympathizers forever seeking to overthrow her. Mary Queen of Scots was a staunch follower of the Catholic faith who was also not by any means blameless. The woman did help orchestrate the murder of her husband and there is much historical evidence which supports that fact. No he was not a good man and everyone knew that, but her actions were highly inflammatory even for the Scotland court. Am I going to then say “Oh but she was such a religious woman why would she be complicit in a plot to have him killed and then run away with her new lover; couldn’t she have sought aid from those she trusted?” She may have been Queen but she was not protected the way her son was. And her husband had many friends of his own at court to keep her from getting rid of him so easily. These two women had their own struggles ruling and surviving in a world that sought to blame the woman first even if she’s royal, let alone on the throne itself. If you read more deeply into the history you can see it, plain as day. Also Elizabeth did NOT want to execute her cousin because she took forever to even sign the death warrant - in fact there is no actual proof or statement that she ever formally signed it. Historical accounts recorded that she was completely distraught to be pressed to execute a member of her family and cousin (syngicide) as well as an anointed Queen (regicide) - something she fervently believed was sacred and holy and no one other than God could interfere with. This is a known fact about her own religious convictions. Since the day she was anointed as Queen Elizabeth she made it clear to her court that she believed the placing of a person on the throne was a sacred act of God and that she intended to rule under no other assumption. If she beheaded the Queen of Scots so willingly what would that say about her beliefs then? It would say she was an even bigger hypocrite and her own throne would be pushed into further jeopardy. Unfortunately the evidence of Mary’s role in the plot was proven true and Elizabeth was finally backed into a corner that she tried desperately to get out of. There was no celebration or relief from Mary’s demise… it was the most regretful day of Elizabeth’s life as she even tried to send Mary back to Scotland but the Scots would kill her regardless. Mary had no where to go but she also could not be set free as she was a pawn in further plots against the English throne. James VI knew this which is why he never sought to dampen her legacy when he ascended the throne. He erected a grand memorial and statue to her while also erecting an even greater one to his mother. James seemed to understand the political struggles and delicacies which effected the choices and actions of his female predecessors. Surviving in the royal court was a lot more complicated of a game than people today can ever imagine.
@@meggystardust123 Elizabeth was 14. It was not unusual in those days for girls to marry at that age. Although young, judging by Elizabeth's character, I don't believe that she would have kissed someone if she had not wanted to. Why did she not request to leave the house and go elsewhere if she was unhappy? Yes, Mary Queen Of Scots was indeed a Catholic. Elizabeth kept Mary imprisoned for 19 years but wanted rid of her. So, to reiterate, a plot was hatched to make Mary's life so unbearable that she would join a plot to kill Elizabeth and put her on the throne. It was intercepted and Mary was executed. Elizabeth had been in Mary's position when her half sister Mary was on the throne. Elizabeth had been involved in the Babington plot to kill Mary and take the throne. When the plot was uncovered and the conspirators were arrested and executed, Elizabeth had ensured that no proof of her involvement could be found. Therefore, Elizabeth knew every trick in the book and exactly how to trap Mary. Mary on the other hand had lived a somewhat sheltered life in France until she came to Scotland as queen, after her mother died. Unlike Elizabeth, Mary had no political acumen. Elizabeth had a problem with signing the death warrant because she herself was an anointed queen; this meant anointed by God and given the divine right to rule. If one queen could be executed then so could another. It had nothing to do with her concern for Mary. It was about self preservation. So Elizabeth signed the death warrant then put it down - it was taken away. After the execution, Elizabeth claimed that she had not intended to sign it and the secretary who took it was made the scapegoat. There is no proof that Mary was involved in her husband's murder. Robert Dudley's wife Amy was found dead in highly suspicious circumstances, at a time when Dudley was involved with Elizabeth. Suspicion fell on Dudley and Elizabeth. I reiterate that if Elizabeth had caught Dudley kissing a 14 year old girl, Elizabeth would have attacked her and then banished her from court, as she did to her cousin Lettice. She would not have been as graceful as her stepmother Katherine Parr was towards her. Elizabeth had a very violent nature and did not hesitate to strike. One one occasion, a young girl came to court and confided something personal to Elizabeth which she asked to be kept a secret. Elizabeth promptly spread this around the court. I agree that it is wrong for an older man to take advantage of a 14 year old girl. However, if Elizabeth had been a victim, there were certainly many victims of her cruelty when she came to power.
Marrying without the monarchs permission was a big no-no at the time they were other incidents not just with Elizabeth like that and Mary Queen of Scots was not entirely as innocent as you’re making her out to be she was probably involved in plots against her what was Elizabeth supposed to think it sounds like to me you’re blaming the victim here not to mention that scarred her for The rest of her life And as for locking the door Some historians believe he had the key to her bedroom since he was her guardian they couldn’t stop it
@Susan Gavaghan simply put, no. She couldn't "just lock the door". Even if her door had a lock (a complicated and expensive piece of equipment for the time), privacy was very much not a thing for a girl of her age and time. You're blaming a child - barely a teen - for the lechery of a grown man, and frankly you are nothing but a grooming apologist. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Adults do not always protect their charges, in some cases they encourage "relationships" for their own ends. The reason for the modern age of consent is that we understand that a child canot give informed consent, even if they act as the adult wants them to act. People often don't listen to children now and certainly not then. Elizabeth couldn't just up and demand to live elsewhere. You are crediting a thirteen year old girl with the power of the monarch she would later become, at a time when no-one knew she would even be required to rule.
Examine your own need to frame a child as a whorish villain.
@@Nyctophora Looking at her track record of her treatment of other women, I reiterate that if Elizabeth had caught Dudley in the embraces of a 14 year old girl, I am certain that she would have attacked the girl and banished her from court. Indeed, when she got older, Elizabeth banned younger women from court altogether, saying she didn't want these 'flouting wenches' around. In other words younger women who were more attractive to men. If Elizabeth was groomed by Thomas Seymour, then I am not apologizing for him. However, I am pointing out that Elizabeth herself was guilty of far worse things when she came to power. She was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Catholics in England and Ireland she was involved in the slave trade and enjoyed watching bear baiting.
Very difficult to understand because either her accent or the recording
I think she had trouble doing it because of the topic. Her voice was more emotional at times, understandably, so I think that could be why.
You are imposing modern standards on the past. What happened to Elizabeth is abhorrent by modern standards, but it was not necessarily condemned by standards of the time. I'm not defending what happened to Elizabeth, but what happened to her has to be placed into historical context. According to Wikipedia:
In the 12th century, Canon law jurist Gratian, stated that consent for marriage could not take place before the age of 12 years old for females and 14 years old for males; and consent for betrothal could not take place before the age of 7 years old for females and males, as that is the age of reason. The Church of England, after breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, carried with it the same minimum age requirements. Age of consent for marriage of 12 years old for maidens and of 14 years old for youths were written into English civil law.[22]
The first recorded age-of-consent law, in England, dates back 800 years. The age of consent law in question has to do with the law of rape and not the law of marriage as sometimes misunderstood. In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, the Statute of Westminster 1275, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age", whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years old.[23] A 1576 law was created with more severe punishments for ravishing a girl for which the age of consent was set at 10 years old.[24] Under English common law the age of consent apart of the law of rape was 10 or 12 years old and rape was defined as forceful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. To convict a man of rape, both force and lack of consent had to be proved, except in the case of a girl who is under the age of consent. Since the age of consent applied in all circumstances, not just in physical assaults, the law also made it impossible for an underage girl (under 12 years old) to consent to sexual activity. There was one exception: a man's acts with his wife (females over 12 years old), to which rape law did not apply.[25] Jurist Sir Matthew Hale stated that both rape laws were valid at the same time.[26] In 1875, the Offence Against the Persons Act raised the age to 13 years in England; an act of sexual intercourse with a girl younger than 13 was a felony.[27]
Presentism is a real issue for Historians, thanks for providing this background information.
Thank you for writing this.
I love history but find it irritating when people attempt to modernize it, with their opinions.
They should not put there thoughts/opinion in, or todays standard.
It should just be about the era, and their standards.
@Alondra S The average lifespan was much shorter then. Children were given responsibility at a younger age had to grow up much faster back then. Furthermore, Elizabeth was no lightweight in terms of knowledge, maturity, and life experience even her young age. (She survived intense interrogation after Thomas Seymour's arrest, for example.) She was at the point of her life when she was at the end of childhood and the beginning of adulthood. People should be considered in accordance with the times they lived in. I also believe that we don't have the full story of everything that happened.
@Alondra S Yes, the question is whether she was interested in him. I don't think we can really know the answer to that. Then, if she did have an interest, how much weight can we give to that considering her age? These are the questions that we just can't answer.
What’s your evidence to support this story?