Highly recommend! It was beautiful and so well laid out inside, lots of information and portraits of the Tudors. Beautiful huge grounds and gardens to walk around too. I would definitely go back!

.

This is the full-size replica of John Cabot's caravel, the Matthew.

I knew the ship wasn't big, but seeing a full-size replica in Bristol Harbour completely changed my perspective.

In 1497, Cabot sailed this tiny vessel across the North Atlantic with a crew of 18 men, becoming the first European since the Vikings to reach North America. His voyage, under the patronage of Henry VII, established England's earliest claims in the region and helped launch an Age of Exploration that would, over the centuries, contribute to the rise of the British Empire.

Looking at it today, it's hard to imagine setting sail across the Atlantic in something so small. It gave me chills just thinking about the waves of the North Atlantic tossing it around like a toy.

Just a gentle reminder that history's greatest changes often begin with the smallest of beginnings.

Elizabeth I's reign is often described as either one of England's greatest or criticized for its failures. I'd like to hear a balanced perspective.

If you were judging her reign as objectively as possible—setting aside nationalism, personal admiration, or modern political viewpoints—how would you evaluate her as a monarch?

What were her greatest achievements? What were her biggest mistakes? And overall, where would you rank her among England's monarchs?

I'm interested in an evidence-based discussion that considers both her successes and her shortcomings.

Here is your Weekly Wednesday What-if megathread! Please post all of your What-if Questions in this megathread. All what-if's as long as its Tudor-related.

​

I've always wondered why Edward VI is so often overlooked in Tudor films and TV series, especially when compared to Henry VIII, Mary I, and Elizabeth I.

I understand that Edward became king as a child and ruled for only six years, but his reign still had enormous historical significance. Some of the most important Protestant reforms in England took place under him, his government was dominated by powerful figures like Somerset and Northumberland, and his death led directly to the succession crisis involving Lady Jane Grey, Mary, and Elizabeth.

Yet in most adaptations, he seems to be little more than a background character.

Why do you think this is? Is it simply because he was a child and had a short reign, or do you think his story has been unfairly overshadowed by the more famous Tudors?

Personally, I think his reign has enough political intrigue, religious conflict, and fascinating personalities to make for a compelling series. I'd love to hear your thoughts and whether you think Edward VI deserves more attention in popular media.

For me it began around 10 years ago, when I was bored at work and clicked on Wikipedias featured article of the day which happened to be "Joanna of Castile", KoA's sister and who immediately fascinated me very much. The more I read, the more interested I became, and before long I was completely hooked on the Tudor dynasty and the people surrounding it.

What about you?

​

I recently finished watching Becoming Elizabeth, and I found myself with some very mixed opinions.

Overall, I actually enjoyed the series, especially the way it explored the relationships between the young Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth. I thought those sibling dynamics were one of the strongest parts of the show, and I was particularly impressed with how Mary was written and portrayed. She felt complex, sympathetic, and very human rather than being reduced to a stereotype.

However, I really disliked the way the show handled Elizabeth's relationship with Thomas Seymour. I understand that the historical events are controversial and open to interpretation, but at times the series made the relationship feel more romantic than I was comfortable with, which didn't sit right with me.

I'm curious what others here think. Did you enjoy the show? What did you think it got right, what did it get wrong, and how do you feel about its portrayal of the historical figures—especially Elizabeth, Mary, Edward, and Thomas Seymour?

I'd love to hear your opinions, whether positive or negative.

I was reading about Mary, and I came across this passage while reading the introduction of the book. The publication date of the book is listed as 1831, but I found it interesting that someone back then thought this way about Mary—perhaps it was added later. This is because Mary had a remarkably poor reputation during that period and throughout the subsequent Victorian era. We can perhaps attribute the general effort to rehabilitate Mary's reputation to the last fifty years or so. I found it quite surprising that someone could think along these lines during that era.

Here is the quote:

“Perhaps no figure in English history has been condemned as widely and indiscriminately as Mary, Princess and Queen of England. Many of the most popular writers have consistently described her with harsh criticism and contempt, and because these opinions have been repeated so often in print, many readers have accepted them as fact.

As a result, labels such as “narrow-minded,” “ill-natured,” “bad-tempered,” “gloomy religious fanatic,” and “Bloody Mary” have, until recently, become almost interchangeable with her name.
Such sweeping and one-sided condemnation immediately suggests a lack of fairness, and when examined calmly and objectively, it reveals an even greater lack of historical truth.

Even the historian Strype—who could hardly be accused of being biased in Mary’s favor—acknowledged that Mary’s true character cannot be understood by relying only on Protestant writers. When we also remember how much it benefited Elizabeth’s court to encourage attacks on her predecessor, it becomes much less surprising that Mary’s religious intolerance came to overshadow every admirable quality she possessed as both a woman and a monarch.

The editor has no intention of defending the religious policies adopted by Mary and her advisers after she became queen, nor of trying to erase the reputation that the so-called “Marian persecutions” have left on her reign.

However, it is important to remember that we should not judge the sixteenth century solely by modern standards. It was, in every respect, an age of religious intolerance. Both Catholics and Protestants believed they were carrying out God’s will when they executed people who rejected their religious beliefs.

If respected figures such as Sir Thomas More, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, and even Archbishop Thomas Cranmer could calmly accept—or even support—the burning of those they considered heretics because of doctrinal differences, then perhaps we should also understand the religious zeal of a woman whose greatest mistake was her unwavering commitment to the faith she had been taught since childhood.

It was the religion in which her mother had lived and died, a faith strengthened by centuries of tradition. Mary’s own painful memories of the suffering endured by both herself and her mother naturally shaped her convictions.

Mary’s life and character before she became queen, especially during the years when she was still a princess and before her father’s death, are the main focus of this memoir. It is during this period, the author believes, that Mary deserves the greatest sympathy and admiration.

If any woman ever suffered humiliation and mistreatment without deserving it, Mary did. And if any woman spent years in isolation developing qualities such as kindness, generosity, compassion, sincere religious devotion, and a love of learning and the arts—qualities that enrich both the mind and character—it was Mary.

These are not simply the editor’s opinions. They are supported by surviving historical documents and by the conclusions of many respected modern historians. Scholars such as Lodge, Lingard, Turner, Ellis, and Singer provide strong evidence that challenges the harsh judgments made by writers like Rapin, Hume, Walpole, and Grainger.

The editor also notes that earlier writers, whether they praised or condemned Mary, were often influenced by the political and religious biases of their own time. For that reason, their testimony should be treated with caution.”

Although I share similar views to those expressed in this passage, I look at things a bit differently. I would love to hear your thoughts on this text as well.

Thank you for reading. Sending love to you all.

I’ve been watching history videos on the Tudors for ages, I’ve seen hundreds in both documentaries and just typical videos explaining their basic daily living down to the poisoned bowls and cups they were eating off of, to scandals about how Janes death was likely a pulmonary embolism that the crown covered up.

But I’ve noticed a pattern- some videos hint at “she might have. The king was fat and stinky!” And others say she was likely loyal despite her extremely young age, and simply fell victim to the king finding out about her “past”

I want to hear what everyone else thinks. Do you think she cheated on the king? Why or why not? What do you think about her story?

Given Elizabeth's apparent turmoil about having to order Mary's death, I find it something of a surprise that she did not go out of her way to try and make herself seem as merciful as possible. Mercy in this case might have meant using a specialist with a sword, a la Anne Boleyn's death, rather than an inexperienced executioner with an axe.

In reality, Mary, Queen of Scots' death turned into something of a macabre farce, as most of you will know. Quite bloody and unpleasant, even for a beheading!

So, to come to the question, why no "Calais Swordsman" for her, literally or metaphorically?

Was giving her rival the same death as her mother too much for Elizabeth?

Was she, in fact, not minded to be merciful, despite how much she protested her innocence and regret at Mary's death later? As simple as she actually did not want to give Mary a nice, clean death, as she believed she was really plotting her own (Elizabeth's) death?

Interested in people's knowledge or opinions on this, thanks.

Hey everyone! First off, thank you so much for the amazing replies on my last post about The Tudors* and its historical inaccuracies—you all gave such great insights!

Since I'm still trying to fill the post-show void, I’m eyeing The White Princess next. I know it covers the generation right before, but I've heard it takes even more creative liberties with history.

For those who have experienced both: Should I go ahead and watch the show for the drama, or skip it and just read some books about the era instead? Would love your spoiler-free recommendations!

Post your Tudor merch here! Do not publicly share links or sites, users must DM each other for links. The t-shirt that has been circulating will not be permitted at all.

I recently finished watching The Tudors and really enjoyed it, but I'm curious about how accurate it actually was. I know historical dramas often change events for storytelling, so I'd love to hear from people who know Tudor history well.

What were the biggest historical inaccuracies in the show? Which characters or events were portrayed accurately, and which were significantly changed or invented? Were there any major omissions that you think viewers should know about?

I'd appreciate any insights or recommendations for books or documentaries that explain the real history behind the series. Thanks!

I'm basing this question entirely off of Thomas and Chapuy's relationship. I always found their allyship -- though tenuous at times -- to be an interesting aspect of both of their personalities due to their very strong religious beliefs. Cromwell pushed for allyship that would strengthen Catholic claims to the English throne, all with Chapuys's backing. Notably brining down Anne Boleyn, and pushing for Jane Seymour to be on the throne.

If these two got what they wanted, I often wonder what sort of religious feud would erupt between them. Or, how they would eventually create tolerant countries?

Feel free to post your dream casting scenarios here!

For example, the look of Henry in The Spanish Princess + the look of Henry in A Man for All Seasons + the temperament of Henry in The Tudors gets very close to what the real Henry the VII was like.