Thomas Seymour: A Traitor in the Family?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Today I'm challenging myself to be as professional and impartial as possible, while discussing an individual who really grinds my gears!
I hope you enjoy this video and find it interesting!
Please subscribe and click the bell icon to be updated about new videos.
Also, if you want to get in touch, please comment down below or find me on social media:
Instagram: katrina.marchant
Twitter: @kat_marchant
Clubhouse: @kat_marchant
TikTok: @katrina_marchant
Email: readingthepastwithdrkat@gmail.com
Intro / Outro song: Silent Partner, "Greenery" [ • Greenery - Silent Part... ]
SFX from freesfx.co.uk/...
Images (from Wikimedia Commons, unless otherwise stated):
Portrait of Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley by Nicolas Denisot (from 1547 until 1549). Held by the National Maritime Museum.
Front cover of Hilary Mantel’s “Wolf Hall” as published by Fourth Estate.
Portrait of Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford (cr 1537), (later in 1547 created 1st Duke of Somerset & Lord Protector 1547-49); by unknown artist (16th century). Held in the collection of Marquess of Bath, Longleat House, Wiltshire.
Portrait of Jane Seymour by Hans Holbein the Younger (c.1536 -1537). Held by the Kunsthistorisches Museum.
Portrait of a lady, probably of the Cromwell family, perhaps Elizabeth Seymour, wife of Gregory Cromwell, 1st Baron Cromwell by Hans Holbein the Younger (c.1535 -1540). Held by the Toledo Museum of Art.
“The Family of Henry VIII” by an unknown artist (c.1545). Held at Hampton Court Palace.
The Procession for the Christening of Prince Edward 18th October 1537. Image produced in 1560 and held by the College of Arms.
Portrait of Edward VI of England attributed to William Scrots (c.1546), Held by the Royal Collection and displayed in the Queen's Drawing Room, Windsor Castle.
Portrait of Catherine Parr by an unknown artist (late 16th century). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Portrait of Elizabeth I attributed to William Scrots (between 1546 and 1547). Held by the Royal Collection and displayed in the Queen's Drawing Room, Windsor Castle.
Also consulted, were:
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Online (various entries)
#Tudor #History #Treason
I think it's really natural to dislike a person that has been known as a child molester. So don't be too hard on yourself. You are a human being before a historian.
Absolutely agree!
@@markanderson0022 This isn't the place or the time. Please stop leaving these comments.
Yup
@@sarahwatts7152 llñllñnlññlñññlpll
It's disgusting, what Thomas Seymour did to Elizabeth Tudor. She had rejected his marriage purposal, but Thomas
was a disgust after marry Katherine Parr. Going into Elizabeth's Bedroom, and slapping her butt. No respect for a
teen age gir
Katherine lost her head marrying him. Their baby daughter ended up with no parents after Katherine's death and
his execution.
I have no doubt that Elizabeth's experience with Thomas Seymour, combined with her astute observations of the fates of her mother, stepmothers, and even her own sister, led to her determination to remain single and reign, unfettered by the institution of marriage. Thus, she did not suffer any man to rule her and did not risk dying in childbirth.
Hey Kathy
You know what's sad? Even today a woman who complains of a man's unwelcome advances is suspected of inviting or welcoming them.
Naw only Stormy Daniels
Not as bad as it used to be. At least not in Australia. Its still could be better.
Why are they suspected? Couldn't have to do with the common experience of men experiencing false accusations?
@@2ndavenuesw481that's not a common experience. If you are accused of mistreating or abusing women on a regular base you might want to finally think about what you are saying and doing that feels so creepy, line-crossing and gross to them.
@@2ndavenuesw481 No. False accusations are so rare that it certainly wouldn't have formed a culture, for lack of a better word. It's more likely that it forms from the male idea that there's no way in hell that any woman would dare turn them down, so they must really want it deep down.
Shredding a child’s dress and frightening her is wrong on ANY level and there is no justifiable reason for it.
Elizabeth's response to the news of Thomas' beheading revealed a glimpse of the queen she would become. She managed to remain appropriately diplomatic without expressing her relief (perhaps joy) that her abuser was dead, and no longer a threat to her person.
I feel like we kind of glossed over Elizabeth’s reaction to Seymour’s molestation. I don’t feel like most people realize that Elizabeth herself was more than disturbed. It’s noted that she took insane “precautions” -surrounding herself with witnesses in hope he wouldn’t act, rising earlier and earlier to stop him from barging into her bedroom and molesting her. From all evidence we have, I bet that embrace Catherine Parr saw was unwilling on Elizabeth’s part. Not that I am accusing of Dr. Kat of implying otherwise. Unfortunately historians in the past (and an unfortunate few along with several historical fiction authors today) haven’t pointed out Elizabeth’s non consent enough. She was a child, an total orphan and a young woman who was vulnerable and preyed upon by Thomas Seymour. I sincerely hope Catherine Parr didn’t know the extent of what was happening until that embrace and I pray she didn’t blame Elizabeth.
elizabeth was also extremelye canny. We can read all those actions as ones taken to make sure her reputation stayed pure even if she was having conflicting feelings about the man himself. 14 is when your sexuality can be blossoming and you want to explore it, which is super natural, and if a man, even an older one, was chasing her, she probably would've been at least curious even if she knew she couldn't and wouldn't.
@@scz1770 yup, we call that grooming now. It is never the child who is at fault. Catherine Parr was her guardian and she failed her. I'm tired of people pretending Catherine is some kind of scorned woman. A child got molested under her watch and she knew it and it still happened. Thomas is most guilty, Catherine failed as a guardian and Elizabeth did nothing wrong.
Catherine was helping her husband groom Elizabeth, even if she didn't know it.
@@cl5470 Yes. I can't imagine the guilt she must have felt when she realized what was happening (I can't make myself believe that she, a loving stepmother, did so approving of his intentions. I believe she truly loved Elizabeth as a daughter.). I think it's sort of telling that Seymour grew more bold after Catherine was pregnant, meaning she wasn't probably around as much to see what was truly going on. I think that betrayal- she left him with the stepdaughter she adored and he used that trust to abuse Elizabeth, and Catherine's only (acceptable for the time period) recourse was to send Elizabeth away to safety- was one of the main things on her mind when she told him off on her deathbed.
Princess Mary 1 Tudor warned Elizabeth and likely Katherine Parr about Thomas Seymour. Katherine ignored her.
You adressed matters of child birth repeatedly in this video (confinement, first movement of the child, death of the mother in the aftermaths). I'd love to hear more about child birth in Tudor Times. It must have played a huge role in a woman's life. Thanks for your great videos!
And, too often, spelled the end of a woman’s life, too!
Margaret Beaufort apparently wrote the book on royal confinement at the time. I'd like to know what the average woman dealt with myself. Horrific either way...
Huge & horrendous
@@pamelaoliver8442 I think maybe the ordinary women may have been better off, particularly those working in the fields. They just let the baby come naturally without the filthy hands of doctors & midwives.
@@jeanmyers1787 Peasant midwives would have been a better choice. The doctors were notorious for their unsanitary and harmful practices. Humans are the only species that requires assistance to give birth. Midwives have been necessary since we became human, that is, with larger heads and presenting backwards from other mammals. One could say that without midwives, we couldn't BE human.
Unlike his brother Edward, who at least, when in power tried to help the poor, Thomas Seymour was simply a monster of selfishness. It’s hard to find any redeeming qualities in him, I can’t stand him, either. Nor Henry VIII, whom I don’t think was much better as a human being. As a historian, it’s appropriate to present both or all sides, but that doesn’t mean you have to like a historical person, some people are just worthless.
Edward Seymour had another advantage over Thomas, the support and advice of his second wife Anne Stanhope who was very intelligent [ though prone to arrogance ].
You are judging this person on the reports of others - try to remember that the victorious or winner write the history. Equally there is a very high probability that Henry VIII's behaviour was a symptom or result of injury (head) or illness, perhaps a little compassion may be in order. However, your choice.
@@susanneduffy8157 I understand he may have acted in some ways due to his brain injury, but even before that, he wasn’t a great person.
I despise Henry 8. I never heard anyone say they did not like him. He was a serial killer who abused his power and a self righteous hypocrit who used religion to justify his actions. This was a common routine with those folks. Back then. Kill, kill, kill just to get their way. The whole Tudor family is distasteful starting with that sneaky rat Margaret Beaufort and her creepy son. Historians write about these evil people like they admire them. I don't admire them but like with a train wreck. I can't turn away.
I was just listening to Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb’s “Not Just the Tudors” podcast, and one of her guests mentioned that when Thomas Seymour and Catherine Parr were shredding Elizabeth’s dress, it was a mourning dress and a different take on that otherwise horrific scene is that they were telling her to stop mourning and be happy. Another take that was presented in that podcast was that Parr knew that Elizabeth shouldn’t be alone with Seymour, and was there to make sure that Thomas wouldn’t be alone with Elizabeth, and was looking out for her in her own way. I’ve always wondered about the dress-shredding thing, but I have never thought about it in those ways, so I thought I would share it here.
That’s where I heard that detail! I remembered the same tidbit about mourning dress but couldn’t remember where I’d heard it. It was definitely that podcast, thanks!
I think the interpretation of the scene as being about stopping mourning and being happy is, unfortunately, wishful thinking on Susan James' part. We have no evidence that that was the intent: it wasn't the done thing to tear up your mourning clothes (Cloth was expensive, after all.) Kat Ashley asked Elizabeth how her dress got in such a state, and if it was a custom to destroy your mourning dress she probably wouldn't have to ask that question. Elizabeth herself only said it wasn't her fault the dress was ruined, not that it was a game or a joyful occasion.
We also don't actually know for certain that the dress was even a mourning dress, it varies from source to source.
@@frances081097 I have to agree with you here, particularly as instead, if the dress scene can be considered accurate, the more likely interpretation has always seemed, from other historians, that Thomas enlisted Catherine to aid him in the act as a way to further the narrative that the antics were all innocent, if teasing, fun. Under a modern lens, it could be considered gaslighting.
Katherine sent Elizabeth away because she thought she was trying to seduce her husband is what I read
I may be viewing this through my modern 21st century lense, but I highly doubt that was a way to tell her to stop mourning. And I kinda agree with the comment saying that Thomas made Catherine do these things with him in order to make everything appear as innocent and just a game.
Thomas Seymour: executed. Edward, Duke of Somerset: executed. Queen Jane: died post-childbirth. Edward VI: died young. The Seymours paid a price for their dalliance with the Tudors.
There are still Seymours around, descendants from Edward and his wives.
@estrellagarciazamora8721 The late Queen Mother Elizabeth was descended from a Seymour,, so King Charles has a Seymour ancestor and so does Prince William and Prince George, of course.
A creeper and a dog killer? Yeah, not a fan. One thing that I’ve always found disturbing is how the relationship of Thomas and Elizabeth has been so romanticized in the past as supposed “forbidden love” with there even being an old Hollywood movie about this called “Young Bess.”
And we wonder why women then and now are reluctant to report abuse? It all comes down to the same old story where abusive men are concerned; it must be the woman’s fault. It happened then and now. He was a creep and she was a child (by our standards), but even though she was considered grown by their standards, she was certainly an innocent (then or now). Both she and Edward thought little of his beheading which tells us so much.
Aw don't feel bad about actively disliking long dead historical figures. I actively dislike Henry VIII and I can't make myself stop. For a lot of the same reasons, in fact. Poor Katherin Howard.
I heartily dislike Thomas Cromwell.
@@franm.8343 I actively dislike Oliver Cromwell.
Me too. Not a fan of his at all.
Exactly.
Thank you for this. I was disheartened to hear another researcher on a different podcast dismiss the whole issue with Elizabeth as just the “ rambling” of Kat Ashley meant to discredit him. There is plenty of evidence in his treatment of Edward to show that he was manipulative toward children, and pretty much anyone who provided a route to power. It’s also ironic that people have projected sexual precocity onto Elizabeth, essentially because Anne Boleyn was accused of adultery. She was innocent after all. And Elizabeth must have been so protected until her father died. You are right to say it must have been confusing for her. One of the worst things I know about Katherine Parr is the sword slashing incident, which would be incredibly humiliating. The only excuse is that she might have been trying to protect Elizabeth by lending her presence and making it seem like a game. What might have happened if she had walked away? I have mixed feelings though. The responses of both Elizabeth and Edward to his death are telling.😳
This is what I tend to point out whenever people cry out to demand why Katherine Parr isn't better known and or held in higher regard. It's not that she isn't a figure worthy of study, but her name is, unfortunately, permanently blemished from association to Thomas Seymour. The excuse for the sword slashing incident that I've come across most commonly is that Thomas, in defending himself after Kat Ashley reported his behavior to Katherine, insisted he wouldn't stop his actions as he meant no evil by them. So, having Katherine come along could be a way of proving to her that there that the antics were "all in good fun", but, of course, it also meant a trusted figure of Elizabeth's was another way to confuse the young girl as well. If she tried to stand against him, he could point to Katherine and say, if she allowed his actions, then surely they couldn't be bad. (Also, yeah, anytime Elizabeth somehow "inherited" her mother's "traits" I want to scream because nothing convinces me more that you know nothing.)
How he still has apologists is amazing, isn't it? It scares me when women especially seem so quick to buy into him.
Yes,totally agreed!Anne Boleyn was totally set up and Jane Boleyn(Lady Rochford-Anne's brother George's wife) played a major part in this as she did in the case of Catherine Howard,enabling her (Catherine's) probable adultery.
Knowing of the allegations around Thomas' behaviour against Elizabeth, it always made me worry for Lady Jane Grey, the nine days Queen, as she was a ward of Thomas'. Never could generate much respect for the man of 'much wit but little judgement'.
Recently I read The Taming of the Queen and I can say now I find Thomas even more despicable and lacking a moral compass. He seems to possess no redeeming qualities, his treatment of Katheryn Parr was appalling and she was just another pawn in his game to be as close as possible to the throne. His lack of respect for boundaries in his behaviour towards Elizabeth, shows what a vulgar and deprave man he was. He was a manipulator and a greedy scoundrel.
Both Seymour brothers were opportunists, their only goal being to possess or govern the body of the boy king Edward (and further, Mary and Elizabeth) for personal gain. Given the tenor of the times, it seems amazing that so many people were willing to intrigue for the crown despite knowing that failure could lead them, or their children (see: Jane Grey), or any other family members, to the block.
Thomas tried to groom an heiress to the throne and kidnap the boy king, yet he had wealth, lands and titles. The psychology is mystifying.
I think Princess Elizabeth's interrogation by King Edward's ministers would have instilled terror in her and her close servants. I also think Thomas Seymour's behaviour to his family was appalling by any standards. He betrayed everyone he came into close contact with, but he got his comeuppance in the end. As it is known, do not betray the Crown and those who wear it.
Victims so often fall in “love” with their abusers and Kat Astley’s encouragement of Elizabeth marrying Thomas after Parr’s death has always left me with a pit in my stomach. She, like Parr, knew how far it had gone. All abusers have their flying monkeys and when those monkeys are mother figures, it’s all the more egregious.
I don’t feel like Astley was being a flying monkey here. I think she was looking out for Elizabeth’s future politically. Nobody knew Thomas would fall, nobody knew that Edward would die young and nobody knew that Elizabeth would become The Virgin Queen. With what knowledge Astley had, it seemed that the Seymours would remain in power and thus the best option for Elizabeth politically, in Astley’s mind, would have been to marry Elizabeth into the Seymour family so that she could remain politically relevant and perhaps create a son who’s claim to the throne would dislodge Mary as heir until Edward was of age to have his own children.
I genuinely look forward to your Friday uploads each week. Thank you!
The reactions of Elizabeth and Edward to Thomas Seymours death have always been represented as unnatural, but now im wondering if their reactions are because he harmed them directly. Certainly in the case of Elizabeth, it’s usually presented that she was complicit in Seymours behaviour.
I hate it when people do present Elizabeth as complicit. We have testimonies of the exact opposite. Getting up earlier and earlier so he couldn’t get to her before she was dressed, surrounding herself with witnesses in the form of maids. I for one would like Hollywood and authors to present it as it was - a full grown man preying upon an orphaned vulnerable child. I think it’s slanderous to her to do otherwise.
Didn't a young Elizabeth suffer from an illness that affected her skin? Maybe as a result of nerves associated with trauma. It makes sense to me but I have no proof of course. If she was attacked with a knife and couldn't get away because she was restrained that would have lasting psychological effect.
Catherine Parr's actions in all of this, if the scissors incident did indeed happen, are very disturbing. I can't imagine what she was thinking. Sometimes I wonder if she knew what was going on but was in denial at the same time, and this was her way of trying to pretend to others, and perhaps even convince herself, that Seymour's behaviour was normal and it was all some silly game. It's really very difficult to understand why she let Elizabeth, and herself, down so badly.
I mean, if we consider the time and how many of the standards were so so different, it’s actually quite likely this was normalized. I mean children married older men as matters of money, state and normality. That plus women not having a voice beyond being beside a man I’d have to agree. I’ve read so much on this particular situation and I can’t help but feel Catherine totally knew and didn’t have a healthy reaction to it. I wonder as well if there was any true resentment from her to Elizabeth as a matter of jealousy. It’s very predatory on the part of both of them.x
IIona Whedale England Catherine Parr sent Elizabeth away and accused her allegedly of seducing Thomas
Neither Katherine or Thomas had any respect for Elizabeth when Thomas cut up Elizabeth's dress. Elizabeth would have been better to go to Hatfield
with her household.
Elizabeth would have been better off to have gone to Hatfield than live with Queen Katherine and Thomas Seymour. Katherine was shameful in
letting Thomas cut up Elizabeth's dress.
@@markmode2568yeah why don’t we not blame Katherine since clearly u know nothing about her
Dr. Kat, thank you for your argument that Catherine Parr was a political person and not a one dimensional object. She took her opportunity and her chances when she married King Henry VIII. She managed to save her own life when she threw herself at Henry's feet upon finding out that opposing powers were coming to arrest her on heresy charges. This woman was not a fool for love. She may have been attracted to Thomas Seymour, but that would not have been enough to cause this intelligent, ambitious woman to marry him. SHE was the ultimate smooth operator.
Katherine Parr had been in love with Thomas since before she came to the attention marrying Henry. Henry sent Thomas abroad on a diplomatic mission to get him out of the way to woo Katherine. She still wanted Thomas but knew the king wouldn’t allow it. She was a VERY wealthy widow before Henry and a financial prize for Thomas. After Henry she was even more appealing for her money and role as the only mother role Edward knew. The stories of his behavior with Elizabeth a 14 yo young lady (13 was a marriageable age then) make me doubt his actual love with Katherine. I also think he was constantly looking to move further up the power chain and Elizabeth was the next highest level. She seemed to genuinely love Mary, Elizabeth and Edward as a devoted step mother and perhaps felt being involved with the dress cutting episode would keep Thomas from going too far by himself with Elizabeth. She sent her away to protect her marriage and step daughter. I have the same attitude towards him and imagine most of the court felt the same way as talk of behavior with Elizabeth circulated. They definitely knew after the Edward abduction plot.
Katherine was better off to not have married Thomas Seymour. Katherine was wealthy. Henry VIII had set her up for the rest of her life.
She could have taken in Elizabeth and Lady Jane Grey, and given them the finest education. The widowed Queen didn't need a child. Molested
for a husband.
I agree. She was madly in love with him but he was more interested in money and power. His predation of Elizabeth and how brazen he was in their home shows he was always looking how to move up higher and higher. If memory is correct Katherine was one of the 4 richest women in England after Henry’s death. When his plan to seduce and marry Elizabeth failed, he looked to seize power through young Edward.
Between the intrigue and the machinations it is a wonder that the Tudors had any time to purge heretics, debase the currency, get involved with wars on land and sea.
When I read what he was doing with Elizabeth, I thought who else did he do it to. Did he marry Katherine truly for love or was it to get close to Elizabeth?
I think that Elizabeth was becoming an attractive young teenager, a temptation that Seymour couldn't resist. As for Katherine Parr, the problem was becoming larger, & larger, & she didn't want to give up her marriage. She ignored the growing problem, plus played along to keep her marriage. According to history, Katherine found them both in an embrace, & Katherine sent Elizabeth away.
Bless you for being a little touch of normalcy while Europe and the world reel with the shock of the atrocities committed in Putin's barbaric war in Ukraine. I've been glued to the news for the past two weeks, as though watching and worrying and willing Putin's forces to give up and go home would make any difference for the millions of Ukrainian families displaced and terrorized. A little change of input scenery is so welcome.
There aren’t even words for how distressing it must be for people who are endangered and displaced by conflict! There is a project underway to do a 24-hour live stream history marathon to raise money to support those affected by the war in Ukrain in some way. If you head to @history4ukraine on Twitter there should be updates soon ♥️
@@ReadingthePast sounds great!
@32:08 King Edward marked this occasion in his diary with the following phrase: *COMMERCIAL* "TRY OUR NEW WHOPPER AT BURGER KING!"
Also first timd viewer and now official fan and subscriber! Love the way you present your videos and the subject matter! Also I love the way you've suggested that maybe Katherine Parr wasn't some naiive whispy romance heroine but a politically astute former Queen. It's something I've never seen and it's super refreshing.
I enjoy the frequent bits of "I don't care" ... 🤣
I listened to this whilst doing chores this morning, hearing your calm voice in these crazy times is a balm. What an awful fella Thomas was, the princess Elizabeth escapades were alarming! No wonder she didn't want to be married.
Thomas Seymour is one of my very strong dislikes (and that's putting it mildly) too. Self-centered, manipulative and abusive individual. What's not to hate. The dynamics between Thomas, Catherine Parr and Elizabeth are sadly common to many households where the husband/father is a manipulative abuser. Everyone is afraid of him, especially the wife, and she first tries to mitigate circumstances (onlookers thinking she colludes with him), then gets caught in her own game and starts to think that the child is the temptress/temptor
I'll just say this. In the musical Six, Catherine Parr has a song directed at Thomas called I Don't Need Your Love that's written as a letter she's sending him upon her marriage to Henry. about how she would choose him if she could but is setting her feelings aside. But she didn't need Thomas' love either, in my opinion
Exactly!
Agreed. I could never get to I don’t need your love knowing how terrible Thomas is too.
Wow. Your alignment of the dates for confinement and Elizabeth being sent off speaks volumes. Wonder why I don't remember Weir or Fraser mentioning the court gossip or this expedient re-homing of er1. Thanks Dr. Kat.
Edward VI’s diary completely blows my mind. So interesting that he could be so disciplined but also betray emotion in his words in so many ways.
After writing that then my diary I would be dancing And tears of celebration would be Running down my face. As a Woman Creeps are Creeps No matter your status!
I think there are some people who have been objectively hateful in the past, who left a mark on history, who sometimes left a mark specifically by being hateful. They've earned the right to be disliked.
Ala Henry.
Dr Kat, you open the video with one of the most important observations a historian can have: that our own knowledge and experience will inform our analysis of people and events. It is so important that voices such as yours turn their gaze (do voices have gaze?) to figures such as Seymour and his offences. To paraphrase Cersei, "all over the world they hurt little girls" but when history is recorded and repeated by those who don't realise that, we blind ourselves to the obvious. Thank you.
Another amazing video, Dr. Kat! I enjoyed this one and the details you provide.
I'm with you on not liking Thomas Seymour! I adore the Tudor times yet I DESPISE King Henry 8th. He's the huge monster in my thoughts and Thomas Seymour is just a skosh below Henry's level of monstrosity.
Thank you for such a wonderful video. I hope you are healthy & happy!
Thomas,was a rogue,cad,devil,and all around weenie.I would guess just about all courtiers were the same.Great post,thanks.
Quite the naughty gentleman. Great information, looking forward to hearing more about the cast of characters!!
I read a wonderful novel, years ago, about queen Kathryn Parr, called “The Queen’s Grace”, by Jan Westcott.
It was well written, but very romantic, and paints the relationship between Thomas and Kathryn as tempestuous but loving.
The more I find out about him, the more of a complete cad and jerk he seems to be, and, as his plot to kidnap Edward shows, not all that bright!
I LOVE that novel. It plays fast and loose with the facts, but it’s so compellingly written, it has no equal.
Your impression of Edward VI is sending me 😂 It really drives the point home about how young he was! Boy kings were such a bizarre (and often disastrous) phenomenon… 21:22
Wonderful! I had never thought that Katherine Parr might have actually succumbed to Thomas as a savvy political maneuver. That supposition adds greatly to the narrative.
I’m familiar with this man’s alleged activity with Elizabeth. I’ve always wondered if that was a reason why Elizabeth never wanted to trust any man and would never marry because of what she grew up seeing and experienced
Its all the more sad when you think that the Seymor scandal was effectively the end of Elizabeth's childhood. What little there was left of it that is.
Since stumbling upon your channel I have been binge watching. It is rare to find history presented so clearly, honestly and without an ax to grind. Thank you.
Exquisite. Well done! Your fun wit combined with a twinge of sarcastic eye-rolling 🙄 makes this episode really stand out. Thank you.
Thank you 😊
@@ReadingthePast could you do one video on Anne Stanhope? Thankyou Dr Kat 😊
I think Elizabeth decided not to marry way earlier than when she went to stay with the Seymour's at age 14. Dudley her childhood friend and possibly lover said she declared at age 8 she will never marry. We can agree Elizabeth was extremely precautious, and wise beyond her age. She was made to be a Queen!
Paying court to a 14/15 year old was pretty commonplace for pre 20th century life. The Tudor dynasty was founded by a 12 year old Margaret Beaufort being married to a 25 year old Edmund Tudor.
Margaret Beaufort was married to Owen Tudor's son Edmond. Owen was married to Catherine Valois, the widow of Henry V.
@@mariemahler3881 Thanks- I knew it wasn't Jasper- but only other name that came to me was Owen... I edited my comment accordingly- though the point is still relevant- she was only 12.
Thank you for covering the Duke. Everyone focuses on Thomas and I hear so little of Edward.
Hi Dr Kat! I really enjoy your channel. Being an American, I love your accent! Your talks are well-written and well-presented. Sometimes I wish I could go back in time and talk with these historical figures. Thanks for all you do! Best wishes!
I love the refreshing honesty of this disclaimer. All videos have biases, of course, but few are so upfront about it. I love Dr Kat, I really do
I had always wondered about the contrast between true lovers finally united vrs his attempts to sexually abuse Elizabeth. This makes sense of that. Thanks.
I was previously unaware of Elizabeths reaction to Thomas’ death and now I’m going to giggle about it all day.
I really enjoy your content. Watch them over again and still great, informative, and easy to follow. Thanks Dr. Kat, hope you and your family are well and happy. :)
Clearly, there were (and still are) many unhappy people in positions of power. Sad that "trust" can be such a nebulous thing. Thank you for providing additional insights and a "balanced" approach, as best as anyone can, given the topic. Much appreciated... have a wonderful weekend! 😊 💖
I’ve been learning from your uploads, and laughed out loud when you said, “…at your core, you just don’t like this bloke.” I’ve had mixed feelings about Thomas Seymour. One question: Did you ever read Jean Plaidy novels before you entered this profession? Care to express an opinion on her books? (We used to read them in middle school.) Thanks.
My goodness what a weasel this man was. I hadn't thought through the impact on the adolescent Elizabeth before (I'd been considering it from Catherine's viewpoint, but she was a mature woman - former regent, fer hevvingsakes - and would know her own mind, and be better able to navigate through the world than Elizabeth. ) but yes, you make a good case that this would make Elizabeth wary of ALL men.
So interesting to look into whether the marriage to Parr was a love match or a political marriage!
By that time of his life, Henry viii needed a nursemaid and caretaker.
Considering the fear, persecution, and physical privations she experienced, I would say the lady Elizabeth had the right of it. Yes, it does seem dismissive. Then again, don’t we all want to defeat the monsters in our closet and feel proud in a way, stronger, if we do?
I find myself wondering if this misadventure had something to do with how paranoid queen Mary was after taking the throne. Betrayals by close relatives would make anyone suspicious, and Mary could never have completely trusted that Elizabeth was innocent.
Lovely! It’s always a good day when you upload.
Thank you, Dr. Kat - greetings from Germany! 💕🙋♀️
No wonder Elizabeth was a mess as an adult who never let anyone know her true feelings or trusted anyone fully. Henry VIII scarred both his daughters for life. Mary could at least fall in love and trust enough to marry, but not Elizabeth as an orphan at 13 - 14.
It’s still shocking to me how quickly they get on with the business of marriage and the production of a male heir. If they only knew what we know now about baby making and the role of the male “seed”. Thoroughly enjoy watching your videos!
Wonderful research on facts of Thomas Seymour's life. Very good narration .Today got to know so much of his betrayal and lechery. Elizabeth's wise words about this " bloke " of a man ( as Dr. Kat puts it ) is praiseworthy, she being only fourteen then .
AWESOME HISTORY KAT!! Thank You!
My wife is a direct descendant of the Denny (Anthony) Family through her Mother's side. Henry Denny as well as Sir Edmund Denny. Her Denny Family came to the Virginia Colony during the 16th-17th Centuries.
The Lord Edward Denny was a familiar of Captain John Smith.
I am curious... at 2:55 , the portrait of Elizabeth Seymour is most often said to be of Katherine Howard. It drives me crazy how various unidentified portraits get passed off in books and videos as known portraits of famous people for whom portraits may not exist or are improperly identified. I very much trust information from Dr. Kat, so I assume the portrait of Elizabeth Seymour has provenance? It would be interesting to know more about this portrait.
When I was an eighth grader I read a library book about Lady/Queen Jane Grey. The book's cover had a portrait now definitively said to be of Katherine Parr. This is the painting where the woman has lavish lynx fur sleeves. Until recently I kept this portrait in mind when I mentally pictured Jane.
On history channels I see a number of fine portraits getting recycled to illustrate various personages. Recently one was said to be of Elizabeth Boleyn, mother of Anne. So far as I know, reputable historians have said there is no known portrait of Elizabeth Boleyn. This same portrait is said to be of Anne in some other videos.
There are a half dozen of these portraits that keep surfacing. I was surprised to see Katherine Howard become Elizabeth Seymour, especially since there have been deep discussions about why that painting is definitively Katherine! It would be wonderful if Dr. Kat did a whole video on these portraits and gave us the most knowledgeable, educated information available to date! Whoever is portrayed in these paintings, they must have been important persons in the court of Henry VIII and it would be great to know who they were.
It is a debated attribution but I find the argument for Elizabeth Seymour compelling. It’s really well explained in this open access article: queenanneboleyn.com/2019/08/18/all-that-glitters-hans-holbeins-lady-of-the-cromwell-family-by-teri-fitzgerald/#_ednref26
@@ReadingthePast Thank you!
Thank you! Interesting, well researched and wonderfully personal.
Hey Dr. Kat and Happy Friday to you.😊😊 I love history and I have to come back to England again.😊 It must of been bad that Thomas' line ran out with daughter Mary, but the Somersets survived and thrived, but only thorough Edward's first wife Catherine and not his second wife Anne.😊I love being a smarty pants and hello from Canada!!😊🇨🇦
Fabulous......yet again you have woven a fascinating piece of history......
Thanks...xxx
You explaining your innate dislike of him just makes me respect you even more.
I love your honesty.
I am new to this channel and truly enjoy it .did read the book Queen of the realm by Jean Plaidy and many of the details is there ,that's what makes me interested in Tudor 's history . And what I observed that Queen Elizabeth never married due to the power that her father shows badly on his wife's and so many so she decide that no man power will be over hers .
When coming across Thomas Seymour’s relationship with the Princess Elizabeth, while finding it disturbing that Thomas tries to make a play for the throne via a liaison with his 15 year stepdaughter, I also find it perplexing that a man who in May 1536 helped to orchestrate her mother’s downfall in order for his sister to marry her father would 12 years later in 1548 try to marry the daughter of the same lady. I also find it perplexing that Elizabeth would want to marry the brother of the woman who displaced her mother.
Ah, Dr Kat, you always make me think. I am now taking another look at Parr. Is it possible this published author, this regent of Henry's realm could have orchestrated a marriage?
Yes! Why didn't I see that before??
❤
This was wonderful! So interesting to consider the Seymour family dynamics behind the scenes.
@Dr. Kat: I was wondering: Why was he almost immediatly suspected as the dogkiller and possible kidnapper? There must have been loads of people with motives for kidnapping og murdering the regent? Or were there obvious evidence/indications that he was the one? Eagerly awaiting answers to theese questions! :)
All the information I can find says he was arrested on the spot by a guard after shooting the dog.
@@Itcouldbebunnies he stabbed the dog, there were no firearms at that time .
men in that time carried a sword, dagger , and smaller knife .
@@berenlevia8486
Yes, there were firearms during that time. Muskets, matchlocks and wheellocks to be exact.
@@Itcouldbebunnies yes I agree , the only reason i didnt mention them, as the firearms at that time peroid especilly what we would know as pistols now were rare , expensive , combersome , faulty, misfired , inaccurate and dangerous to operate - its said about the firearms of that time peroid, that more people died in battle shooting rifles and pistols than being shot by them ; because of that , the favorate form of weapons at that time still were swords , daggers , and a knife, either bealted or cloaked ..
Personally i take Thomas Seymour as a bit of a bumbler through life , that is harsh to say of a far removed relation, but his only ambition was to out do his older brother instead of simply being content with the title " lord of an estate ' somewhere in England '
The comment Elizabeth made about Seymours death , was wisely netural , but i can't help but think what went through her mind was : ' Damn ,Im glad that bastard is dead! "; as for Edward's comment about Thomas Seymores' death, made it clear he didn't care for, nore liked this uncle of his
i'm going with , Seymour had a dagger which could be anywhere from 12 - 18' long when he went sneaking through the Kings appartments and stabbed the Kings dog with - which since ithe dog was the Kings best loved pet , the dog would have been considered the ' King's person = the King himself ;to harm what belonged to the King was harming the King himself , that why Thomas Seymour died the most painful , gruesome death as a traider of his country .
@@berenlevia8486
You can go with whatever speculative ideas you like, but historians will continue to stick to the facts.
The first part really made me laugh because I'm exactly the same 😂😂. Love the video, always fantastically done, whatever the subject. I love your top too! ❤️
Blimey it's a tudor version of Harry and William. Could you do Catherinr de Medici.
I am totally blown away with yr thoughts regarding the "power" marriage idea involving Katherine Parr & Seymour!! Wow! Absolutely brilliant!
❤️❤️ you Dr. Kat!
I think KP was isolated more than we realize after the marriage. It was too quick as far as the court was concerned. And afterwards she was really no longer the dowager in her own right. She was thomas’ wife. I’m not sure how much she could have done to protect Elizabeth.
Thank you Dr Kat from Northumberland
Dr. Kat, have you done a video about Edward Seymour's first wife and his father? I find that whole story absolutely mind boggling, but only know a little about it.
Let's face it this man was a power hungry monster. How he convinced Catherine Parr to participate in the terrible gown shredding shows his ability to manipulate others to his desires. He was a totally vile individual.
I always gave been curious Thomas Seymour snd Jane too. I didn't know a lot about them but wanted to learn more about them.
I think Thomas Seymour was selfish and ambitious to the core but I also think it's a mistake to judge him by modern standards ,because the ideals and norms of Tudor society were rather different to ours .It seems reasonable to me to consider the influences in his life ,he had a wildly successful older brother ,a sister who was a queen and lived in a court full of intrigue and plots .It isn't all that surprising that he coveted the titles and positions that were so near but just beyond his grasp .I think Elizabeth was right though ,he lacked judgement .If the accounts of his behaviour with her were true then he showed a startling want of intelligence and self control .He could just as easily have wooed and impressed her discreetly ,which might even have won her over ,rather than stopping little short of violently attacking her at times .She may have been just about of marriageable age, but even then I suspect many of his peers would have thought his conduct was pretty indecent .Perhaps that was his problem ,he had the ambition and the examples of success all around him but he lacked the ability ,understanding or maturity to advance further .Maybe his behaviour towards Elizabeth and his fanciful plans were born of desperation and frustration .It's often the way with people who believe they deserve something but the world is unjustly denying them .Wendy Langcake .
Thanks So much for telling the truth about Thomas Seymour ❤️ I would swear a lot but don’t want my post deleted He was an interesting historical figure that should be brought to light for the child endangering Bleep he was Again Thank you
Aah, my 10th great Uncle. I am descended from his brother Henry whos great grandson was one of the founders of Hartford, CT in 1640.
hope you and your family are well doc
We are, thank you 😊 same to you too!
One of the famous authors of Denmark, Thit Jensen (1876 to 1957), a medium and fighter for voluntary motherhood, said : "there are two men I never allow to cross my threshold : My brother Johannes [also a famous writer] and King Filip 2nd of Spain" + so if she can dislike a person who died that many years ago - so can you ;)
This one was a stunner!....Well done...
Just imagine how Elizabeth must have felt,being interfered by this awful man. Apart from being declared a bastard and kept away from her mother,it's no wonder she never wanted to marry,but she showed them all when she became a very successful Queen.
In most respects, Thomas was his parents' spare. As the oldest or first born male received everything important, i.e. estate, titles, kingship etc.. this more than likely increased the jealous aspects of Thomas's personality. Load on top of that a possible narcissistic personality it definitely led to very manipulative and controlling behaviors. Elizabeth exposed to the witnessed and untold unwitnessed attempts to sexually compromise her would have definitely sent her down the road of mistrusting men who wanted to control her. She probably understood more as she entered the social machinations of her time, that her mother had been killed on trumped up charges as her father did not get his "son". I totally understand her avoidance of marriage, as it would mean suborning her will to that of her husband. Instead she collected boy toys, made up her own mind and set the stage for England's domination of the world.
She also saw how her father treated not only her mother, but all his wives.
... the jealousy and narcissism of the "spare" ... now where's a recent example of such ... (as well ginger to boot!)
@@lb8781 Oh, yes, indeed. Second son syndrome is a very real thing. My sociopathic ex husband has a case of this too. So does one Prince....
Thank you for such detailed information. I have revised my opinion of Seymour as a result. Poor Elizabeth he damaged her reputation. I think Elizabeth's reaction to his death and comments are very true.
Thank you Dr. Kat, and I enjoy your videos very much! Thomas does appear to have been very politically grasping and who knows what would have happened if his ambitions had played out unchecked!
My husband is a descendant of Edward Seymour and I’ve always had a keen interest in Tudor history. This fascination actually predates my marriage and goes way back to childhood, when I watched the series “Elizabeth R.”
Am curious to know if you have ever watched the series starring Glenda Jackson as Queen Elizabeth I; and if so, what you think about its historical accuracy. In my unprofessional opinion it surely seems more true to actual events than many other more recent interpretations. Thoughts?
But “Elizabeth R” represents Elizabeth as enjoying Thomas Seymour’s interest in her.
I love your lectures. Passion + plain deciphering of events.
Amazing historical accuracy. Thankyou! My direct line is to 15xgreat grandparents are jane and Thomas's parents.
I've always thought he was a louse, so don't beat yourself over the head. Loved the video and wonder if you have already done one on Edward Seymour. If not I would love to know more about the way he had such a spectacular downfall. I think his first marriage was quite interesting too.
Having 6 months ago become an active representative-a conservator- to accompany underage females in court in matters where abuses of the young girls-usually ones whose custodial parent is in jail, prison, or drug rehab, Thomas Seymour's machinations are PERSONALLY abhorrent to me. His attempts to use Edward and Elizabeth and Catherine Parr are so repugnant they make the term MACHIAVELLIAN mild enough as to be inapplicable.
In other words, in my capacity as courtroom companion to young girls who had actually been molested by-typically the new husband or "boyfriend" of an incapacitated mother. it enrages me to incandescence to read of Seymour's disgusting behavior. Had he tried such chicanery during my involvement in the case, I would have both PEPPER-SPRAYED HIM and deployed my Court-assigned taser until his beard resembled a tumbleweed on fire.
And THAT would be for starters. To hear firsthand young girls' shamed stories of the horrors of having a drug-addled mother believe a "boyfriend" over their own daughter...
DR. KAT. Your revulsion toward the vile machinations of Thomas Seymour-even at 400 years' remove- does your sense of decency credit.
CHILD ABUSE-of ANY PERIOD OF TIME- SHOULD arouse strong feelings of DISLIKE.
I just love this, another view on Kathrine Parr, the Saint queen.
Very good alternative narrative to the one we all have read. Also is that a cod piece on the 12 year old? A wee bit large not? Thank you 🙏
Hello Charlotte, how are you doing
And that's why you're at your core are a very good person. Thank you for sharing. I'm with you on this.
Hello Deborah how are you