I've written articles on a few ancestors. If you'd like further information about the people behind the names, hopefully my articles will be a great starting point.
Articles on Henry VIII:
The Cruelty of Henry VIII
Biography: Henry VIII
Lady Margaret Beaufort:
Biography: Lady Margaret Beaufort
Anne of Brittany:
Biography: Anne of Brittany
More article postings will follow in due course.
Until then, adieu.
The past is alive; the dead have a voice inside each of us.
Showing posts with label Tudor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tudor. Show all posts
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The Tudors and The Bells: Is it Fair to Take Liberties with Historical People's Lives for the Sake of Entertainment?
Has anyone ever watched The Tudors? 'Cause I have been lately. And I got to say, the show, entertainment-wise, is phenomenal. As for the historical accuracy, some things are very spot-on, such as their portrayal of Sir Thomas More in the early part of the first season. I can't testify to later portrayals of his character, as that's as far as I've gotten in the series. But the rest? Some inaccurate stuff is bothering me, such as the melding of Margaret and Mary Tudor (called Margaret on the show, the king's sister).
This annoys me greatly, because I'm a direct descendant of Margaret Tudor. She and Mary were separate people and it was Mary who married Brandon, not Margaret. And Mary wasn't the queen of Portugal, but the queen of France. (She was married to Francis' father, Louis. Margaret, in fact, was married to the Scottish king.) Furthermore, Margaret/Mary didn't kill her husband.
I understand that for the sake of entertainment, it's almost completely impossible not to take some liberties. But at what price? Is it fair to slander someone who's too dead to defend themselves?
Take my relation, John Bell, for instance. In the movie, An American Haunting, he's portrayed as an incestuous daughter-raper. If he was a daughter-raper, I would know about it, being a rather close relation. To go further still, his wife Lucy, in the extend/unrated version (whatever, I'm not sure, so don't quote me -- it could've been in the main film shown in theaters, but I don't remember it) is shown to have killed him. This did not happen. No one knows exactly what killed him, but I'm certain it wasn't his wife. There was a lot of interest in the Bells at the time. If she had done it, she would've been caught and prosecuted.
Again, is it fair to label John Bell a daughter-raper and Lucy Bell a murderess when they, like Margaret Tudor, are too dead to defend themselves? Those who think it's fine to do so would probably use the argument that it's all in good fun, for entertainment purposes, but what's the price? After all, these people have real, living relatives and descendants. Is it fair to tarnish our family -- my family -- like this? Remember: the majority of people watching this show and this movie thoroughly think that what they are watching are accurate portrayals of what really happened. Is it fair to purport ridiculous things for the sake of good viewing?
Don't get me wrong. I absolutely enjoy The Tudors and An American Haunting. I think the storytelling, acting, and direction is phenomenal. I enjoy it even more when I remember it's all in good fun. But still, there's always that nagging voice in the back of my mind that can't help but be offended when faced with made-up events that put my relatives in a less-than-stellar light.
This annoys me greatly, because I'm a direct descendant of Margaret Tudor. She and Mary were separate people and it was Mary who married Brandon, not Margaret. And Mary wasn't the queen of Portugal, but the queen of France. (She was married to Francis' father, Louis. Margaret, in fact, was married to the Scottish king.) Furthermore, Margaret/Mary didn't kill her husband.
I understand that for the sake of entertainment, it's almost completely impossible not to take some liberties. But at what price? Is it fair to slander someone who's too dead to defend themselves?
Take my relation, John Bell, for instance. In the movie, An American Haunting, he's portrayed as an incestuous daughter-raper. If he was a daughter-raper, I would know about it, being a rather close relation. To go further still, his wife Lucy, in the extend/unrated version (whatever, I'm not sure, so don't quote me -- it could've been in the main film shown in theaters, but I don't remember it) is shown to have killed him. This did not happen. No one knows exactly what killed him, but I'm certain it wasn't his wife. There was a lot of interest in the Bells at the time. If she had done it, she would've been caught and prosecuted.
Again, is it fair to label John Bell a daughter-raper and Lucy Bell a murderess when they, like Margaret Tudor, are too dead to defend themselves? Those who think it's fine to do so would probably use the argument that it's all in good fun, for entertainment purposes, but what's the price? After all, these people have real, living relatives and descendants. Is it fair to tarnish our family -- my family -- like this? Remember: the majority of people watching this show and this movie thoroughly think that what they are watching are accurate portrayals of what really happened. Is it fair to purport ridiculous things for the sake of good viewing?
Don't get me wrong. I absolutely enjoy The Tudors and An American Haunting. I think the storytelling, acting, and direction is phenomenal. I enjoy it even more when I remember it's all in good fun. But still, there's always that nagging voice in the back of my mind that can't help but be offended when faced with made-up events that put my relatives in a less-than-stellar light.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Unexpected Find: Regicide, Again
As previously posted, I lost every bit of my extensive family tree when my last computer completely died/exploded. So, this blog is sort of chronicling my rediscovery, as it were, finding people I've found years ago all over again. And you know what? I'm just as delighted as I was back in the day.
But, imagine my surprise when I come across a new find! Today, I was able to trace my Whaley line backwards and I found a surprising connection, historically speaking: they're Cromwells.
The Whaleys
Richard Whaley (born c. 1569) married Frances Cromwell (born August 5, 1675) around 1609. Together, they had seven children; I descend through them form their son, Major General Edward Whaley, the regicide.
The Regicide
Of course, when I saw sources affixing "regicide" to his name, I immediately knew he signed King Charles' execution warrant, given the time he was born. (Further research verified this.) However, I found it strange that my 10th great-grandfather would be signing the death warrant of my 13th great-uncle. It's not the first incident though. It was merely history repeating itself, in a way. In the previous century, Elizabeth I, my 1st cousin, 15 times removed, signed the death warrant of Charles's grandmother, Queen Mary of Scotland; Mary was my great-grandma's (and great-grandpa's -- but that's another story) great-great-great-great-grandma (plus several other greats, but I'm simplifying).
In genealogy, I find events go in circles: circumstances, birth dates, death dates. I was born on July 28. Many of my relatives were either born that day or died that day, which brings me to...
The Cromwells
As I said, Edward Whaley married Frances Cromwell. Her great-grandmother was Thomas Cromwell's sister. Thomas Cromwell was, incidentally, executed on my birthday on the orders of my my great-great-great (plus like twelve other greats) uncle, King Henry VIII (I descend from Margaret Tudor).
Interestingly, Edward Whaley was a prominent member of Oliver Cromwell's inner circle: he was also something like his third cousin (by marriage), twice removed.
Futhermore...
Crapper/Cropper
Edward's descendants married into a line of family always listed as "Crapper" in genealogy databases. By modern standards, and possibly old standards as well, that is a rather unfortunat-sounding last name (no offense to any Crappers out there!). However, Edward lists the surname as "Cropper" in his will; Cropper seems to be a more likely name. Especially when you take into account the fact that the name "Crapper" can't hardly be traced back.
Circles
Again, families go in circles. Especially in England. Yes, if you can trace yourself back to Tudor England, you're everyone's cousin. It should be noted that Thomas Cromwell's grandmother was a close cousin of Henry VIII. And thus, the circle just really never, ever ends.
And that's all I have to say on the matter tonight, but it's definitely something to think about -- I think.
But, imagine my surprise when I come across a new find! Today, I was able to trace my Whaley line backwards and I found a surprising connection, historically speaking: they're Cromwells.
The Whaleys
Richard Whaley (born c. 1569) married Frances Cromwell (born August 5, 1675) around 1609. Together, they had seven children; I descend through them form their son, Major General Edward Whaley, the regicide.
The Regicide
Of course, when I saw sources affixing "regicide" to his name, I immediately knew he signed King Charles' execution warrant, given the time he was born. (Further research verified this.) However, I found it strange that my 10th great-grandfather would be signing the death warrant of my 13th great-uncle. It's not the first incident though. It was merely history repeating itself, in a way. In the previous century, Elizabeth I, my 1st cousin, 15 times removed, signed the death warrant of Charles's grandmother, Queen Mary of Scotland; Mary was my great-grandma's (and great-grandpa's -- but that's another story) great-great-great-great-grandma (plus several other greats, but I'm simplifying).
In genealogy, I find events go in circles: circumstances, birth dates, death dates. I was born on July 28. Many of my relatives were either born that day or died that day, which brings me to...
The Cromwells
As I said, Edward Whaley married Frances Cromwell. Her great-grandmother was Thomas Cromwell's sister. Thomas Cromwell was, incidentally, executed on my birthday on the orders of my my great-great-great (plus like twelve other greats) uncle, King Henry VIII (I descend from Margaret Tudor).
Interestingly, Edward Whaley was a prominent member of Oliver Cromwell's inner circle: he was also something like his third cousin (by marriage), twice removed.
Futhermore...
Crapper/Cropper
Edward's descendants married into a line of family always listed as "Crapper" in genealogy databases. By modern standards, and possibly old standards as well, that is a rather unfortunat-sounding last name (no offense to any Crappers out there!). However, Edward lists the surname as "Cropper" in his will; Cropper seems to be a more likely name. Especially when you take into account the fact that the name "Crapper" can't hardly be traced back.
Circles
Again, families go in circles. Especially in England. Yes, if you can trace yourself back to Tudor England, you're everyone's cousin. It should be noted that Thomas Cromwell's grandmother was a close cousin of Henry VIII. And thus, the circle just really never, ever ends.
And that's all I have to say on the matter tonight, but it's definitely something to think about -- I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)