minervacasterly:This is one of my favorite Seymour books and every time I get to the part of his cam

minervacasterly:This is one of my favorite Seymour books and every time I get to the part of his campaign in Scotland, as well as his self-appointments and those given to him prior to becoming Lord Protector, I can’t help but think ‘dude Somerset, you had good intentions but you should have been a better politician and been less trusting of the wrong people and more wary of your enemies.’ Like seriously, his whole campaign in Scotland was not wholly unsuccessful but it didn’t accomplish what he wanted, or what his late monarch had intended for his precious Edward VI for that matter.Not to mention all the enemies that attacked his wife. In 1550 the Spanish chronicle even said that Anne was so “proud” that she was “more presumptuous than Lucifer”. Again, dude you should have thought this through. Not saying Dudley was better, he was way more Protestant and it looks like Cranmer (despite being VERY Protestant) was more pragmatic when it came to certain things and was able to curb some of his intended reforms.Warnicke excuses some of Anne’s behavior regarding her dispute with Catherine Parr saying there probably was none and she gives a good argument for that pointing out how John Foxe who wrote about it later, changed his tune in his second revision since it wasn’t mentioned in his first. But I have to play devil’s advocate here. Sometimes when you bring a historical figure back from obscurity and try to rehabilitate him or her, you tend to make excuses or overlook their flaws. I don’t think Anne Stanhope was perfect but I don’t think she was as imperfect as Van der Defelt, Paget, the anonymous chronicler of the Spanish chronicler, and many others including Nicholas Sander from later in the sixteenth century made her out to be. I think she was a woman of her times with the same prejudices and self-interest. Her husband was a politician playing for keeps, there is evidence that he confided in her as she worked very hard to secure his release following his downfall. Her half brother Sir Michael got a boost in his career, especially after Edward became Lord Protector and he became groom of the stool for the new King.What she did to Catherine Parr -and again, I do believe she did that- is wrong in our eyes. She had no business demanding the queen’s jewels from her. She wasn’t the Queen, Catherine was. But on the other hand, Thomas Seymour was very ambitious and Catherine Parr was one of the leading figures in the Reformation. It was a very risky business. And the king was very fond of her. Furthermore, the man had two important heiresses in his house. After Elizabeth left, Catherine died of puerperal fever days after giving birth to their only child (a girl named Mary after her eldest royal stepdaughter), he demanded Lord Grey return his eldest daughter, Jane Grey to him. And he began working very close to people who felt disenchanted with the Protectorate.Again, I don’t agree with what she did but I can see *why* she did that.For my review of the book check on the book reviews album or read it on this link: https://tudorsandotherhistories.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/ordeal-by-ambition-an-english-family-in-the-rise-of-the-tudors-by-william-seymour/ -- source link

More pics about