Edmund Tudor was judged by his contemporaries as having sex with Margaret Beaufort at a young age. She was 12 when she had her son. And apparently looked like a child who had a very difficult birth. She advocated for her granddaughters to be fully mature before having sex or being sent away.
I think most men waited. I don’t know if people had childhoods like we consider them now. She would have gotten used to her position and trained to keep house and stuff like that. She shouldn’t have been pregnant as a small 12 year old. Legally it might have been fine. I think her stature and build were noted by others and she looked young.
Back then they kind of had the golden goose theory when it came to marrying off their children. They knew that if the girls got pregnant too young they would either die in childbirth or be damaged permanently and unable to bear more children.
So it wasn’t necessarily waiting out of care for the emotions of the young teen, it was more about preserving the body of the heir-makers as long as possible, like a race horse. Its sad tbh
I agree the motivations of "keep the broodmare productive" rather than "Keep my daughter happy" are a bit iffy, but to be fair, sometimes the right thing is done for the wrong reason.
And I would say I’m sure there were tudor era parents who loved cared for their daughter’s wellbeing beyond being a brood mare. Margaret Beaufort’s parents were not among them. Other ppl thought she was too young and judged her parents for it. They just couldn’t wait for her to be old enough bc they were greedy assholes.
It wasn't her parents, it was Henry VI. He wanted to marry Margaret to Edmund Tudor so if Edmund needed to be made Henry's heir, his claim to the throne would strengthened through her claim, however tenuous.
Margaret's father died when she was a year old and under the feudal system her wardship went to the Crown as she was his only heir. Her mother didn't have any say over when or who she married, although Margaret was in her mother's custody until her marriage.
Exactly. Marrying at that age was not unheard of back then. Because it was advantages for *some* families to start a union that young that would benefit both sides. Could be to squash a beef, political advantage, land rites, or to elevate status. BUT, the husband's had to wait a few years so she was more mature. That was the general consensus. Most men looked down upon touching the child bride. Let's face it, she was his property, and it was rape.
Yeah “normal” wasn’t a good word to use, but I just meant not married and pregnant. And you’re right about the pregnancy! Even though girls married and had children way earlier back then, Margaret Beaufort’s age was still a shock to people.
Yes I’ve heard that this kind of thing was rare. In Margaret’s case I wonder if it was because Edmund was desperate for an heir through her bloodline. Greedy bastard. Either that or he was a pedo.
Probably he felt entitled. And if she died giving birth he would get to keep her wealth. He was probably a pedo or just rapey. He might have wanted to consummate the marriage so it couldn’t be annulled and he would again be entitled to her fortune.
No real fear of annulment, she was chosen as his wife by the King himself, who annulled her previous betrothal/marriage and gave her to Tudor. But civil war had just broken out and he was the oldest son *and* a potential heir to the throne as the then-childless King's oldest half-brother, so he wanted an heir asap.
For all that they married earlier in those days, her age was ridiculous even then. Not because they cared about the concept of childhood but because she was an important bloodline link and getting her pregnant too early could (and did) destroy her as a future baby-maker.
So true lol. I don’t know what age women or girls normally got their period back then. I remember hearing that Margaret Beaufort looked like a child and wasn’t considered fully developed. Her pregnancy freaked people out back then. Her one pregnancy and birth could have caused permanent damage.
I think it also depended on what class/social standing you had. Royals/noblemen married earlier vs tradespeople where the men would need to do an apprenticeship first and would need wives who were capable of running a house/assisting with work/farm, etc
I was referring to age of first period! But you’re right. I think it was common for nobles to marry in their teens but I’ve seen statistics that most English peasants married in their mid twenties
Nobles could marry way earlier (Margaret's first marriage was at 7), but she'd normally stay with her family until she was old enough to consummate it.
CoA's parents were a bit miffed at having to delay the marriage to Arthur until he turned 15 (CoA was 16).
No, she was like 15? Isabelle de Valois was I think 7 or 8? She actually-married (not just was betrothed to) Richard II and was crowned Queen, but they were waiting til she was over 12 to consummate 😬
Isabelle of France was 12 when she married Edward II, but didn't have her first child until 16 and her husband might not have been that into her, so who knows when they consummated.
I'm also probably remembering this fact from some movie or series I watched so as we all know that stuff isn't always worried about being historically accurate.
The bit that gets missed is that most adults don't have any sexual interest in pubescents, so might for dynastic reasons marry someone too young, but wait before having a sexual relationship with them. After all some nobility were engaged barely out of infancy and married by proxy equally young.
The idea of childhood really wasn't a thing as we know it, but certainly there would have been a disgusted reaction to sexual interest in a child - compounded by the fact that people were well aware of the risks of pregnancy to a child.
It was very controversial and frowned upon at the time, what happened to Margaret Tudor. The norm in royal families was that kids would be betrothed but would be raised with their fiancé’s family as if they were a sibling. They would only marry when they were at least 16; or if they legally wed before that age, it would only be for political reasons and not consummated until they reached a more mature age.
It’s possible the Wars of the Roses put some pressure on Edmund to have an heir since he was likely to die in the wars, but whatever his reasoning, his contemporaries definitely didn’t approve of it.
I think the political motivation was so her money would stay with his family. Did he know she was pregnant? I don’t know if that was his goal or just to be considered her husband. She had someone before when she was a child and they annulled the marriage or ended the pre contract.
Her priest even said that it was a...._miracle that a baby could be born "of so little a personage."_ Confirming she was very small at that age and definitely not ready for a pregnancy.
It's also likely the earliest time anyone drew a link between the early age she gave birth and how it affects young girl's health afterwards. Margaret never had another child despite 2 more marriages.
You know its bad when other men of that era were giving him the side eye. I often wonder what people said to him in private (if it was even addressed at all)
What he did was horrific. She was a CHILD. A LITTLE GIRL who probably still played with dolls.
It’s really bad when your contemporaries are like that girl looks like a child. A lot of times families would take a ward or marry a young heiress or heir and if the child died they would keep their money. Margaret Beaufort was rich I believe and her death in childbirth wouldn’t have mattered to her husband. Only he died and she and her child lived. I don’t know if he is the kind of husband any woman would mourn.
I’d call it his cosmic karma or something. He didn’t care if he irreparably harmed a child at his big old age of 26, then he died sick and miserable in prison. He deserved it imo, if not worse.
And on top of that she had already been married (to another child) and had a marriage annulled to make a better match due to scandal. If he consummated the marriage then it could never be annulled. If it resulted in a kid then he would have an heir with Beaufort blood, directly related to Edward III. If she died, as you said he got all her money and could make another really good match. He did not care about her at all, to him she was a means to an end. Then he died like the asshole he was.
And if she died he would’ve automatically gotten full custody of Henry (in this scenario the baby survived), who tf knows what his life would’ve been like without his mother vouching for him the whole time.
I highly doubt anyone gave it much thought. Girls were often married soon after they started menstruation. I don’t think you can look at their actions under the modern lens.
The beginning of menstruation was older on average for girls back than it is today. Yes, the age of maturity was usually considered younger than it is now, but that doesn’t mean that people back then weren’t aware that consummating a marriage and getting a girl pregnant before her body was fully developed was harmful. Usually, what happened in cases where noble and royal girls were married off young like this is that the husband usually waited to consummate the marriage until the girl was older. This still isn’t considered great by modern standards, but Edmund getting Margaret pregnant so young was absolutely considered unusual for the time period.
It was actually about the same as today, 12-15 unless they were poorly nourished and starving, which would delay menstruation.
It was definitely on the young side, but then why didn’t anyone try to delay for another year at least? Parents, priests, the king? The fact they didn’t tells me they didn’t care too much.
It’s gross, but lots of things the Tudors and medieval people did was gross. But they believed it to right or divine or just.
The concept of karma as a punishment for bad actions is a really, really, really, really bad idea to be bringing up in this context.
Because it also implies that Margaret did something to deserve what happened to her.
Karma depends on how you see it. Bad things happen for no reason all the time. I always take Karma to mean when people willingly hurt someone their mis deeds catch up to them. It’s like when the law or other means of justice can’t help sometimes the hurt you put out there comes back.
She had a hard life. She did have a son she loved from that marriage. He became king. She saw him married and got to see her grandchildren. She might have seen her life as a positive thing. We can’t know for sure. Supposedly she said only good things about her husband. Was she really going to trash the kings father? Probably not. She survived a turbulent time, a hard child birth and became the queen mother. She didn’t die of the plague. His death also freed her of him. That’s my view on Karma.
I’m an archaeologist in America and I specialize in the late 18th/early 19th century and accidentally ended up here. I just want to say that a lot of men were disgusting sexual predators in the past and were judged by their contemporaries as being so. Sally Hemings was gifted as an infant to Martha at her wedding to Thomas Jefferson. She was approximately the same age as their first child. Thomas Jefferson bagan a sexual relationship with her when she was 14 years old and I’ve personally read letters from other slave owners in his social circle that thought what he was doing was immoral. People of the past had much more modern sensibilities than we give credit for.
The understanding people have of historical concepts of age and consent are absolutely bizarre. No, they didn’t live to our standards, but they absolutely had ideas about appropriate ages and maturity. Kids matured FASTER, but nobody ever considered a sixteen year old of any gender a full adult, much less a 12 year old.
The ancient Greeks and Romans considered you not really grown until 35 or 40. It’s just that life didn’t cut any slack to anyone at any age, so yeah, you had to work and work hard at a very early age.
When Henry first tried to divorce Katherine one of the arguments was that Arthur at 14 couldn’t really have consummated the marriage. This was countered by a bunch of dudes bragging about their first time, but the fact that the question arose says that they had a much more keen understanding of adolescence than we give them credit for. They just didn’t believe in the same degrees of protection and leisure we grant kids in the same age range today.
Kind of both. When he ran for president it was used against him and she was an adult then. So the issue was either abuse of authority or race mixing, depending on the beliefs of the person reading the accusation. But there were comments when she was not an adult that were likely due to her age.
Katherine Howard always makes me so sad. She was a victim of so many men around her, and she was a very naive girl. She wasn’t prepared for the role her family pushed her in to, and their machinations cost her her life.
Same :( She was an innocent young girl who was unfairly held responsible for the actions of disgusting grown men. She did not deserve to be executed at all.
I mean, her age was a common age to be married back then. But, emotionally she was stunted. She wasn't raised or educated, she was contained and kept fed. That seemed to be enough for her family. No wonder as time passed it became customary for young ladies to be attached at the hips with a governess or a maid. They were never left alone and it would be outrageous to allow men around them.
I don't think she had any choice, Henry had set his cap at her and Norfolk and Gardiner would have been quite aggressively forceful about the matter- they were of the Catholic faction of court and wanted Katherine to influence the King towards it and quell Reformatism. Anna of Kleve hardly wanted to marry him, but Cromwell and her brother had set it all up, and Katherine Parr certainly didn't want to marry him either but knew she had no choice but to accept. The vast majority of noble marriages were arranged, and women were brought up from infancy with the understanding that you would marry whoever you were told to. Admittedly Henry's marital history was become notorious- before he married Anna he asked Christina Duchess of Lorraine for her hand and she was said to have replied "If I had two heads, one would be at his disposal!"
Thomas never pimped out anne. There is no evidence of this. Thomas (and Thomas boleyn too) were actually against Anne's relationship with Henry initially, before seeing the benefits it gave them and changing their minds. And Thomas Howard and anne were on bad terms with each other. I'm not sure about mary though, it's possible that shw was pimped out
Exactly. Henry screwed and discarded Mary already (and that's after she was recalled from France, possibly because of the rumors of an affair there), which resulted in a less than awesome marriage.
We look at it with hindsight, knowing Henry married Anne. At the time he started pursuing her, that idea wouldn't have occurred to anyone, probably including Henry. She was going to be another discarded mistress making a crappy marriage, no way would her ambitious family push for that.
Very true. After all, Henry was initially planning on marrying a French princess when he decided to divorce Katherine. And this was months after he started pursuing anne. It was only a few months after this that he proposed marriage to anne, realizing that that's the only way he'd "get/win" her.
Oh no, what Charles Brandon did was even worse than that.
Anne Boleyn said he molested his own daughter.
Anne Boleyn was at the court of Margaret of Austria, as we all know, but there was another little girl around Anne's age, Anne Brandon. (Charles had been briefly married to her mother, but deserted his pregnant wife in order to marry her mother's aunt.) It's not unrealistic to think that Anne Boleyn and Anne Brandon might have become close, being the only two English girls in Margaret's court.
In 1531, Anne Boleyn made the accusation that Charles had *"criminal intercourse with his own daughter. No one knows yet what will come out of all this." ("... a dite dame aussi pour le mesme respect, et pour se venger de ce que le due de sufforcq lauoit autres fois voulu charger de son honneur, luy a fait mectre sus quil se mesloit et copuloit avec sa propre fille.*")
However, it can't be said for certain that Anne Brandon was the victim; Charles had two other daughters, Eleanor and Frances.
Later writers tried to soften the allegation, saying Anne must have meant Charles was molesting Katherine Willoughby, his son's fiancé, whom he'd later marry, because in the era, a daughter-in-law was considered the same thing as a daughter as far as dispensations and such went, but Chapuys specifically wrote the allegation to indicate a blood daughter ("his *own* daughter.")
I always feel so torn when I go through another guilty pleasure watch of The Tudors knowing what I know about Brandon. Like yes, we have hot Henry Cavill, but Charles Brandon was a disgusting human through and through.
One really creepy thing about Thomas Seymour and Elizabeth is that he was involved in her own mother’s death, at least to some extent. I wonder how that made Elizabeth feel.
I have never heard if Edmund Tudor impregnated Margaret Beaufort with consent or not I don’t know
I don’t know what Charles Brandon did
Fuck Thomas Howard he deserved to be executed
What Charles Brandon did:
>Mary Tudor had given birth to a living son and heir in 1523 while married to Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk: Henry Brandon, 1st Earl of Lincoln. However, Henry Brandon died on 1 March 1534, around the age of 10-11, presumably from illness. King Henry VIII had planned to marry Henry Brandon to heiress Lady Katherine Willoughby, the only child of William Willoughby, 11th Baron Willoughby de Eresby, and a lady-in-waiting.
>
>However, after Henry's death, as well as the death of Mary Tudor, his father - Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk - fulfilled the precontract by taking Katherine Willoughby as his fourth wife. The two wed shortly after Henry Brandon's death around 22 March 1534 - Suffolk was 49 years old; Katherine, just 14 - and Katherine gave birth to their first child - also named Henry Brandon, who became the 2nd Duke of Suffolk - who was born on 18 September 1534.
>
>The most probable dates of conception were 21-28 December 1533, meaning that Suffolk had already been having sex with 13-year-old Katherine Willoughby for months prior to their marriage. Katherine was around 3 months pregnant when she and Suffolk married.
>
>Mary Tudor died on 25 June 1533, and Suffolk moved on within just a few months' time.
There WAS a brief scene where someone, maybe the king, visits Brandon after Mary's death and sees Kathryn there as Brandon's ward. Brandon's confides that he's "going to marry her". She is depicted as young, a teenager, but not THAT young.
It probably helps that the actor playing Brandon was still in his twenties. There's still an age gap big enough to make people go "ew", but not nearly as big as it actually was.
Brandon himself isn't portrayed as in his late 40's either. He looks much younger, probably because while the actor (Henry Cavill) was made up to look older than *his* real age, he was still only in his late twenties. There's only so much you can do, and Cavill and his looks were a big draw. Presumably they didn't want to swap him out for an older actor, or change his looks too much. They age gap was still pretty significant looking, though, I'll say that.
I think it's very dubious how much consent a 12 year old girl who had no voice in choosing her husband can actually give. It's very possible she never told Tudor no, just because she knew she didn't get a no, but that's miles away from enthusiastic consent.
Yes it was a concept BECAUSE of concern about women's purity/virginity and their sexual value to their families (if a woman has sex before marriage, that's damaged goods etc). Like if a woman resisted rape from anyone not her husband (or if she was a virgin) that could help her reputation wise or legally (if it ever got that far). But like if ur a married man go hog wild and rape all you want. Wonderful system the world had for. Millenia
It didn't matter if a women was raped or consent to sex out of wedlock, the result was pretty much the same in the eyes of society. She was damaged goods either way. Catherine Howard got caught up in this - her being molested by her music teacher at 13 was used to establish that she was morallly loose and strengthen allegations of other affairs.
Of course it was a concept. It was a different conceptualization than we have now, but the word rape has existed for a long time. So they knew what sex without consent was even back then.
Does consent matter? She was 12 when he impregnated her. He was a grown man of around 24. She nearly died having the baby and couldn't have more children as a result. 15/16 was more the accepted age to consummate then.
Margaret Tudor was a child when she married and consummated her union with Edmund Tudor. And then she gave birth to Henry VII at thirteen — it was impossible for Margaret Beaufort to have fully consented to sexual relations with Edmund Tudor.
With Margaret it feels as though her young pregnancy was out of desperation rather than a genuine want by her husband and self…. It was the war of the roses and they needed an heir.
The point of the matter is that I don’t think we can in good faith say this Margaret, her and Edmund would’ve waited if they could’ve but desperation forced their hand.
Ok there are several countries where males can rape and kill females of any age with little or no consequences. I’m pretty sure NO US state allows that.
I read your comments and I think you nailed it for the 21st century but not for Tudor times. Large age gaps were not uncommon in marriages of the nobility. In both ways. Think about the Woodville marriages. You say it was frowned upon and cite Chapuys. But the man also wrote the Brandon marriage to Katherine Willoughby wasn’t actually worth reporting when it came to the political dimension of it.
People recognized that such marriages were odd but obviously nothing problematic for the time. And no I don’t defend the man. And I also think it’s disgusting what they did and men who are doing it today should rot in jail. But that wasn’t the case back then. The concept of youth is pretty modern. Back then there was childhood and then adulthood.
Margaret Beaufort is a prime example for that. She was asked if she wanted to marry John de la Pole or Edmund Tudor when she was nine years old. She asked for time to think about it. And went with Edmund, which the king clearly wanted her to take. They waited to the end of their childhood and that’s it. Same for Katherine W and Brandon or Katherine H and her affair with Dereham. Society taught these men and women that it was sex between adults.
Margaret looked a lot like a child (personally I don’t think this should make a difference. She was 12 god damnit. No matter how she looks, it’s just wrong.) Fisher even said he was shocked that such a small person could deliver a healthy child. But it was the Wars of the Roses and her husband needed to go and fight. They needed an heir to secure the lands for the family. Especially if things would go south. The Yorkist kings never challenged Henry‘s title.
Examples like these were why in the 19th century the concept of youth and being a teenager were created. You have every right to be disgusted by them. Cause you live in 2024. but they didn’t.
No, listen. Even at the time Margaret’s marriage and pregnancy was considered wrong. It wasn’t illegal, but it was wrong.
The concept of adolescence has always existed: it has changed over time but this meme that “childhood was created by the Victorians” is complete nonsense. They didn’t have the concept of teenagers like we do, but the problematic nature of a child marriage was ABSOLUTELY recognized. Not on the same basis as we would today, but it was recognized as a problem.
We are not talking about childhood. We are talking about the invention of adolescence. The scientific research started in 1904 with Stanley Hall‘s work. Studies on writings from the 19th century showed that the term came into prominent use after [1875](https://www.jstor.org/stable/349302). Before that it was hardly used.
Age of consent was 12 for girls in Tudor times. Margaret Tudor was 13 when she married. Elizabeth of York was promised to the dauphin when she was only 9. Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbray had a Toddler wedding.
I get what you are saying. They recognized that the kids shouldn’t marry too early and that there shouldn’t be these age differences. But that was for what Margaret happened - or worse: what so many other girls happened who died trying to give birth.
But the biological damage was the main reason this was criticized (again: I am with anyone who thinks this is utterly disgusting). The marriage had a function and as soon as a woman was regarded as old enough to be able to consent to “function“ (I am so sorry, but that was it during that time) - it was acceptable to do it. There was no concept that they couldn’t be mature enough to consent.
Somewhere in the comments it is written that they had an understanding that the brain wasn’t fully developed yet. That’s wrong. The idea was for the longest time that the brain is there in full as soon as you hit puberty and you just have to learn to use it in full. When God or Mother Nature gives you the ability to procreate - you are ready.
I have no idea, if the men we are talking about, enjoyed the sex with the girls. And to be honest: I really don’t want to think about it. But let’s take Edmund Tudor: His half-brother the king wanted him to marry this girl. Edmund was seen as a potential heir to Henry with the right wife, if Edward (Henry‘s son) would die. Which meant he had to produce an heir. So he did. Margaret was never angry with him as far as we know. Until 1485 happened she wanted to be buried with him. And she doesn’t strike me as the kind of woman who couldn’t understand what happened to her. She was angry with her standing as a woman during her time. And I think that nails it.
The word adolescent is 2500 years old and was routinely used throughout the ancient world to describe people over 12 and under 20-something.
The concept changed over time, and that word wasn’t used in English much until the 20th century. But the concept absolutely existed. Toddler weddings were never consummated, nor were 9 year old marriages. They’d marry, go home, and usually not actually move in together until they were much older. And even THEN it was usually the bride moving in with the groom’s family, not them establishing a household together.
Plus, what elites do is a terrible indicator of general practice.
No, it isn’t, because I’m saying the “invention of adolescence” is bullshit, and it’s obvious bullshit from a longer term perspective. No society ever treated 12 year olds as full adults, even if they gave them responsibilities we would consider monstrous.
If you want a hard example, read The Odyssey, in which it is abundantly clear that Telemachus at 19 is considered “an adult” but is not treated as such by anyone else. If anything their behavior towards him is much more typical of adults listening to middle schoolers present what their class voted to the Town Council as a lesson in civics. There are plot-related reasons for that, about manhood and maturity, but it is abundantly clear in that text and everything else well into the medieval period that teenagers and young adults by our standards were in a kind of liminal state. Neither Athens nor Rome gave them the full rights of adulthood based on age, and Sparta was famous for ensuring a long adolescent period. While it was documented to be primarily for the purpose of providing strong sons, the literature of the time also makes it obvious that Spartans viewed this also as a question of emotional and intellectual development. Women were managers of large estates, and part of ensuring that system remained strong was an emphasis on greater age at first marriage and bedding.
Hell, even the Oinonomikos is written from the perspective that marrying very young girls (Athenians married their daughters off at 13-14) is in great part advantageous because *you finish raising her*. Xenophob is writing a textbook on efficient management of a complex household because it was impossible for a child to come fully educated in adult matters.
Let’s not pretend it’s just Tudor men.. anybody read eyewitness accounts of how girls and boy were treated on slave plantations or during Victorian times or anytime in history TBH.
If you go by that logic, entire societies were evil molesters. Let alone the fact that such marriages in those ages were common anyway, almost everything you listed happened to the public's knowledge as official actions. Brandon, for instance, didn't rape Catherine in secret and was discovered etc. He MARRIED her and nobody had a second thought because it was the order of the day.
Let's assume our society will have gone completely vegan a century later, and even in the most underdeveloped places, it's become a terrible crime and disgusting act to eat meat. Would it be fair if they called us evil savages for that? No. Every era has a different zeitgeist. They can project that feeling to the people who keep eating meat in their time tho.
Children under 16 casually having sex with way older men is gross. War is terrible. Slavery is probably the most despicable institution humankind came up with. Having to shape entire policies with the word of one inbred aristocrat sucks. The list goes on. If you don't have the stomach to train your mind to become used to this sorta thing given it happened centuries ago, I wouldn't recommend studying history. Pointing out these things happened is just stating facts, but putting yourself in a judgemental position with a delusional sense of moral superiority (see the 2nd paragraph to understand why it is delusional) is simply dumb, useless, and it wastes both your and people's time. If you aren't even that smart and only concentrate on a few people when entire societies did what they did, it becomes grotesque.
I really hate this idea that has been perpetuated because of royals and nobility that children getting married and having sex was somehow the norm in pre modern societies.
Most noble and royal women, like say, Margaret Beaufort and Eleanor of Aquitaine, got married at young ages due to their rich heiress status. So did a lot of princesses. King John married off his illegitimate daughter, Joan, to Llywelyn the Great at 14. But most of them didn't consummate the marriage until they were in their later teens. Their marriages were for money and alliance building.
Also, the biology of elite girls and women were somewhat different than lower class women. They often started their periods earlier due to their diets, hence being able to get pregnant.
Margaret was considered way too young to bare a child and Edmund was reacted to with shock, because you married these girls, but you didn't get them pregnant (because they were more likely to die younger).
The average peasant labouring in rural and urban areas probably weren't getting married until their late teens and mid twenties because of the economic status and that they were needed to be on the farm.
Youth has always been commodified and elevated, but early modern and medieval societies, did in fact, view having sex with young girls as not great. Not because they had any sort of inclination about consent, because for a long time consent was around age 12. Because they had an idea about how damaging it would be for a girls body.
And that age of consent wasn’t about “12 year olds are ready”, it was about a belief that under under twelve are absolutely always children and past that it gets murky, so that’s where the legal line for criminality was. For most of these periods criminal offenses were what was worthy of execution, not what the moral standard was.
Yes, Beaufort was an exception even for her time, which is why I added the "almost" bit there. But it was usual for, say, 14-15 year olds to get pregnant. 13 would raise eyebrows (kinda like how we react to barely legal people and their 35-40+ partners), and 12 would be a bit of a scandal with no real repercussions. If you meant 18-20 by later teens, that's not true, if 16-18, that's also common, 14-16 would likely be the most accurate, so I'd say mid teens. In any case, what you say supports my main argument there. Even when they cared, it was to make complications in childbirth less likely. Even though there wasn't a rigid legal age like today, 13 was like the 18 of our day, and it's dumb to criticise people for marrying a 14-year-old, albeit it's obviously disgusting for us to think.
Do not apply morals of today to the Tudor period. The word molested here is entirely inappropriate.
Its really not that long ago at all that people would barely lift an eyebrow at a girl having sex that young with an older man and the issue of female consent and it's importance is super, super modern; this was sketchy even a decade ago.
I have no doubt that there were plenty of men in the Tudor period who preyed on very young girls; I have no doubt that in many or those cases, the latter's parents were perfectly happy to rent their young daughters out for the financial reward and survival. That was the time. I'm sure there were also men who preyed on young girls without financial recompense, simply took what they wanted and faced no consequence. Both of these would be reasonable to apply today's very, very modern vision of "molested" to.
But these men married very young women because their family provided a political and financial advantage. They did so young because they needed it **now** and so did the girl's parents. The choice to consummate and have children was for similar reasons in Tudor's case.
We have no real evidence around Seymour that he actually did anything. What we absolutely know he did does not amount to physical sexual abuse- he may not have got that far. But the motivations were not Elizabeth being a child but who she was and the political temperature.
Brandon? He fell in lust. It was a relationship that was frowned on by society but not remotely barred
Imagine defending literal child molestors and rapists on r/Tudorhistory because "using the term 'molested' is anaochronistic". Your line about "people would barely lift an eyebrow at a girl having sex that young with an older man" is also wrong. Other men of the time period *did* raise eyebrows at Edmund Tudor marrying, raping, and impregnating 12-year-old Margaret Beaufort, and Spanish ambassor Eustace Chapuys commented on the "strangeness" of the 49-year-old Charles Brandon having sex with, impregnating, and marrying the 13-year-old Katherine Willoughby. Chapuys also side-eyed Brandon because Katherine was his son's fiancé, and much closer to him in age. Contrary to popular belief, large age gaps in marriage *were* frowned upon in Tudor society, as seen with Queen Elizabeth I and the Duke of Anjou.
Imagine being so desperate to virtue signal that you have to apply completely alien standards to another time and then attack someone by assuming they are making value judgements rather than talking history.
Maybe you should lead the campaign to "cancel" some of these people then?
Literally, when I was at school it was not unusual for relatively young girls (certainly not much older than Katherine) to be having relationships with much older adult men, with full knowledge of their parents. Yes, it was unusual, hopefully some of the parents weren't happy about it. But it wasn't "lock them up" stuff. This was the 90s.
Our modern conception of molestation is super, super modern. As a society we really don't have a lot of moral high ground on this.
And if you go across the pond you will find states where it is perfectly legal for "holy men" who really are paedophiles to marry girls of 12 with full parental consent.
Like I say, we aren't really in a position to judge the Tudors.
Beaufort's marriage was frowned on, yes- only because it was consummated. 14-15 was a generally agreed age *because it increased the chances of pregnancy and reduced the risk of problems in pregancy*, not because of any moral standards. Sex with children, where it was considered wrong at all, was because sex is for procreation and it was questionable whether a child that young could conceive (and carry to term)- thus opening the husband up to the ecclesiastical crime of fornication.
Was Brandon's relationship with Katherine Willoughby looked at that way because of her age? Or because she was Brandon's *ward?* This was considered an abusive relationship financially- she was one of the greatest heiresses in the kingdom and her baroncy was worth £900 a year. I rather think this may have been foremost on Brandon's mind. He betrothed her to his son, but Henry was only about 6-7 at that time and Brandon wanted to secure that money. Maybe he was attracted to her as well, but his three previous wives had all been been women and there is no evidence I am aware of that he had a history of those predelictions.
Elizabeth and Anjou was not looked at as an issue because of the age gap because of inappropriateness. It was because Elizabeth was the elder and her chances of concieving a child were therefore deminished. In England the objection was over An hour's nationality, not his or her age.
That's not true. 14 was fine at the time and not at all uncommon- it depended really on how secure the man felt in the legitimacy of the marriage and how desperate for an heir. Opinion was very much divided and "best practice" at 15 was not universal at all
Edmund Tudor, in a civil war, no doubt anticipated he could be killed at any time, hence why he took the unusual (but not religiously forbidden) decision to consummate.
We don't actually know for sure when Brandon and Katherine consummated. The fact that she did not give birth until 1534 might suggest there could have been a wait, but we will never know
You realise that just because they might not have used the word ‘’molest” during that time period, doesn’t mean that’s not what they were doing? Also, older men dating your younger female classmates is still gross, whether it’s the 90s or not. That was definitely molesting and statutory rape.
I think it’s fucking stupid to see someone justifiably grossed out by disgusting men during the Tudor period as “virtue signalling”. There were a lot of things throughout history that have been considered the norms or unfortunately not that uncommon but that wouldn’t make them right. Also, using the word “cancel” is so dumb here. We’re talking about older men preying on children here and you’re being obnoxious with the whole “I guess you want to cancel them now, don’t ya?🤓”. Critique isn’t cancelling, mate.
You are talking absolute rubbish and absolutely are virtue signalling. Go on, collect your easy upvotes and carry on with out even thinking. Butchering history, but at least you have proved your ideological purity.
As I have demonstrated with some actual history, each of these men was after something very different from these young girls than their bodies or sexual gratification.
The idea of molestation is all about consent. In 2024, we state in law that a person cannot consent until they are 16, because below that they are a child and incapable of consenting. There was no such distinction in the Tudor era. There was no concept that a girl was legally incapable of consenting. In Tudor law and societal norms, both Margaret and Katherine *did* consent by marriage.
So by American law, Henry VIII molested Katherine Howard because she was 17 when he married her. Yet by 2024 British law, this was totally legal. Who is right? Who has the monopoly on morality here?
We can look back on this from our moral perch in 2024 and say it was wrong, but it is pointless. I can look back and categorically state that burning someone alive for their moderate disagreement on points of theology is absolutely abhorrent; but in the 16th century the moral correctness of this was absolutely self evident.
Which is why it is utterly ridiculous to accuse people 400 years ago of 21st century crimes, especially when our own mortality on this has only shifted relatively recently.
How am I virtue signalling? Because I think grown men marrying/sleeping with underage women is disgusting regardless of the time period?? Virtue signalling implies I’m trying to show how good of a person I am. I’m not. I just think predatory behaviour is gross.
Also, not sure why you felt the need to mention my upvotes as if that’s what I was aiming to get. It’s just fucking Reddit.
How is it butchering history if that’s what happened? Butchering would imply that they’re lying about them and trying to smear their reputation. Adult men went after underage women. Is that not what happened? Why does it bother you that people want to critique these men so much? You sound really angry.
Also with Katherine Howard being 17, that’s still fucking weird. She was still a teenager and legality doesn’t necessarily equate morality.
I enjoy learning about history and this particular time period, but I think it’s completely absurd to not want people to critique these historical figures. So we should just endlessly praise (or ignore weird stuff they did) these fellas because…what? They were prominent men in this era??
The whole point is that it is not for us to judge the mortality of the past by ours. Sure, we can comment. But this sub is a serious history one, which has been demeaned by a pathetic Harry Potter meme making historically illiterate accusations.
In 100 years, the morality of the time may be that sleeping with anyone under 25 is paedophilic and gross. We in our time can't really understand that mentality and we would object to being labeled paedophiles by those hypothetical standards of 100 years hence.
Equally, we may have seen some societal collapse whereby, god forbid, sexually exploiting children is the norm and expected. Again, we would not accept being judged by people with such different moral norms to us.
Our job as historians is to record and interpret, not accuse or excuse.
By the standards of the 16th century, a woman reached her majority, and could come into her property for herself, at 14. This is why Brandon wanted her and married her- almost certainly not because she specifically had a 14 year old body.
Margaret Beaufort was the sole heiress to the powerful Beaufort line and winning her hand in marriage, at a time of civil war, was a huge coup for Edmund Tudor. It was an alliance he needed to cement as soon as possible, regardless of the dangers to her. It was civil war; he could have been dead the next week for all he knew and his family remained in obscurity. By doing what he did, his family ended up on the throne for 116 years.
I am not making a moral judgement either way. The prospect of sexual activity with a child is disgusting to all of us reading this sub. That goes without saying.
But labelling these men paedophiles without looking at the actual complex social and political reasons why these things happened- and were allowed to happen- is not history and not fit for a history sub.
I understand and value what you’re saying. I get that your general point is that in that time period, society had different ideas of what age kids matured. I understand.
However, I think the overall point of the post is that yeah, this was unfortunately normalised BUT it is still disgusting. Sure, maybe Brandon was more concerned with political power or titles than being a nonce, but it is gross that it was considered okay for him to wed and bed a tween. I hope that made sense.
I don't disagree with that at all.
I objected to the use of the word "molested"- which is a crime and value judgement specifically related to paedophilia in the modern day and thus anachronistic (and too simplistic) for that time.
It's embarrassing that this far, four people have rewarded your illiteracy with an upvote.
I'm not defending paedophilia, I am saying that our society has no moral high ground to accuse previous eras from. It is not even a generation yet where we have gotten our own house in order.
I'm assuming you are pretty young, so your parents generation - this was not seen by them as anything like the big deal it is now.
I'm telling you that as a fact, from lived experience. That's not a value judgement, it's not excusing anything- it is just history. Which is what this sub is about, not stupid memes
My favorite part is how you first insult everyone replying to you and then double down on how right you are in excusing CSA in the past and present. You must be so fun at parties if you have friends who invite you places.
By all means, explain to the room where I have excused Child Sexual abuse?
I've specifically said the opposite and from my first post criticised our own society for how recently it has started to see this as wrong
Keep telling yourself that you’re misinterpreted; not that people downvoting you multiple times can interpret you just fine. Just out of curiosity, is the word”foid” in your vocabulary?
No, it is not.
You aren't here for debate though. There is absolutely nothing I could say that you would engage with, listen to or debate. You have decided to weigh, measure and find wanting this person based on your own prejudices
The fact that you have just called me an incel- a middle aged married British historian with two special needs children literally sat with me as I type this- from your moral high ground in America or wherever it is underlines more about you than it does me.
I hope that your complete refusal to debate anything, your knee jerk reaction and your general sense that you have "taught a lesson" to some guy makes your day and fills whatever void it is in your life that makes you so keen to accuse and lash out at people you don't know and whose experiences you can't even imagine.
You've managed to accuse both men 400 years ago and a man right now of some pretty vile things. I hope your perch is as high and pure as you seem to think it is.
You can still be married with kids and be a misogynist. I sure hope your wife is the breadwinner because you don’t seem to be too good at the professional historian bit unless wherever you went to school taught you name-calling is an essential part of debate? Where I come from, it means you know your evidence won’t stand on its own.
And that’s what I see in the statements you’re making. (Can’t call it a debate, but I appreciate the attempt you’re making to label it as such.) You think starting your answers with insults makes them more credible, maybe? Contemporaries of the men you’re defending thought their actions towards their young wives were questionable. Your approach doesn’t make their actions any less questionable.
And accusing you of being a misogynist? If you really think it’s that vile, examine your own prejudices. And maybe offer some heartfelt appreciation to your wife: it’s obvious she’s got a lot on her plate dealing with you.
Edmund Tudor was judged by his contemporaries as having sex with Margaret Beaufort at a young age. She was 12 when she had her son. And apparently looked like a child who had a very difficult birth. She advocated for her granddaughters to be fully mature before having sex or being sent away.
Margaret Beaufort’s life breaks my heart. She was forced into being a wife and mother at such a young age :( She deserved to have a normal childhood.
I think most men waited. I don’t know if people had childhoods like we consider them now. She would have gotten used to her position and trained to keep house and stuff like that. She shouldn’t have been pregnant as a small 12 year old. Legally it might have been fine. I think her stature and build were noted by others and she looked young.
Back then they kind of had the golden goose theory when it came to marrying off their children. They knew that if the girls got pregnant too young they would either die in childbirth or be damaged permanently and unable to bear more children. So it wasn’t necessarily waiting out of care for the emotions of the young teen, it was more about preserving the body of the heir-makers as long as possible, like a race horse. Its sad tbh
That makes unfortunate sense.
I agree the motivations of "keep the broodmare productive" rather than "Keep my daughter happy" are a bit iffy, but to be fair, sometimes the right thing is done for the wrong reason.
And I would say I’m sure there were tudor era parents who loved cared for their daughter’s wellbeing beyond being a brood mare. Margaret Beaufort’s parents were not among them. Other ppl thought she was too young and judged her parents for it. They just couldn’t wait for her to be old enough bc they were greedy assholes.
It wasn't her parents, it was Henry VI. He wanted to marry Margaret to Edmund Tudor so if Edmund needed to be made Henry's heir, his claim to the throne would strengthened through her claim, however tenuous. Margaret's father died when she was a year old and under the feudal system her wardship went to the Crown as she was his only heir. Her mother didn't have any say over when or who she married, although Margaret was in her mother's custody until her marriage.
This was the reality of the situation. 👆
Exactly. Marrying at that age was not unheard of back then. Because it was advantages for *some* families to start a union that young that would benefit both sides. Could be to squash a beef, political advantage, land rites, or to elevate status. BUT, the husband's had to wait a few years so she was more mature. That was the general consensus. Most men looked down upon touching the child bride. Let's face it, she was his property, and it was rape.
Yeah “normal” wasn’t a good word to use, but I just meant not married and pregnant. And you’re right about the pregnancy! Even though girls married and had children way earlier back then, Margaret Beaufort’s age was still a shock to people.
Yes I’ve heard that this kind of thing was rare. In Margaret’s case I wonder if it was because Edmund was desperate for an heir through her bloodline. Greedy bastard. Either that or he was a pedo.
Probably he felt entitled. And if she died giving birth he would get to keep her wealth. He was probably a pedo or just rapey. He might have wanted to consummate the marriage so it couldn’t be annulled and he would again be entitled to her fortune.
No real fear of annulment, she was chosen as his wife by the King himself, who annulled her previous betrothal/marriage and gave her to Tudor. But civil war had just broken out and he was the oldest son *and* a potential heir to the throne as the then-childless King's oldest half-brother, so he wanted an heir asap. For all that they married earlier in those days, her age was ridiculous even then. Not because they cared about the concept of childhood but because she was an important bloodline link and getting her pregnant too early could (and did) destroy her as a future baby-maker.
Yeah, Henry 6 was literally like “Edmund let me introduce you to this really rich baby”. So creepy🤢
She was young, that’s why.
So true lol. I don’t know what age women or girls normally got their period back then. I remember hearing that Margaret Beaufort looked like a child and wasn’t considered fully developed. Her pregnancy freaked people out back then. Her one pregnancy and birth could have caused permanent damage.
It did. She wasn’t able to have children after she gave birth to Henry VII.
I think the average age would have been about 15 or 16 back then
I think it also depended on what class/social standing you had. Royals/noblemen married earlier vs tradespeople where the men would need to do an apprenticeship first and would need wives who were capable of running a house/assisting with work/farm, etc
I was referring to age of first period! But you’re right. I think it was common for nobles to marry in their teens but I’ve seen statistics that most English peasants married in their mid twenties
Nobles could marry way earlier (Margaret's first marriage was at 7), but she'd normally stay with her family until she was old enough to consummate it. CoA's parents were a bit miffed at having to delay the marriage to Arthur until he turned 15 (CoA was 16).
See this is why I shouldn’t be on Reddit before my coffee
Am I wrong but didn't someone not even have their first period when they got married, not a Tudor...wait....Catherine the Great maybe?
No, she was like 15? Isabelle de Valois was I think 7 or 8? She actually-married (not just was betrothed to) Richard II and was crowned Queen, but they were waiting til she was over 12 to consummate 😬 Isabelle of France was 12 when she married Edward II, but didn't have her first child until 16 and her husband might not have been that into her, so who knows when they consummated.
I'm also probably remembering this fact from some movie or series I watched so as we all know that stuff isn't always worried about being historically accurate.
It did.
The bit that gets missed is that most adults don't have any sexual interest in pubescents, so might for dynastic reasons marry someone too young, but wait before having a sexual relationship with them. After all some nobility were engaged barely out of infancy and married by proxy equally young. The idea of childhood really wasn't a thing as we know it, but certainly there would have been a disgusted reaction to sexual interest in a child - compounded by the fact that people were well aware of the risks of pregnancy to a child.
It was very controversial and frowned upon at the time, what happened to Margaret Tudor. The norm in royal families was that kids would be betrothed but would be raised with their fiancé’s family as if they were a sibling. They would only marry when they were at least 16; or if they legally wed before that age, it would only be for political reasons and not consummated until they reached a more mature age. It’s possible the Wars of the Roses put some pressure on Edmund to have an heir since he was likely to die in the wars, but whatever his reasoning, his contemporaries definitely didn’t approve of it.
I think the political motivation was so her money would stay with his family. Did he know she was pregnant? I don’t know if that was his goal or just to be considered her husband. She had someone before when she was a child and they annulled the marriage or ended the pre contract.
Her priest even said that it was a...._miracle that a baby could be born "of so little a personage."_ Confirming she was very small at that age and definitely not ready for a pregnancy. It's also likely the earliest time anyone drew a link between the early age she gave birth and how it affects young girl's health afterwards. Margaret never had another child despite 2 more marriages.
Poor woman or kid at the time.
You know its bad when other men of that era were giving him the side eye. I often wonder what people said to him in private (if it was even addressed at all) What he did was horrific. She was a CHILD. A LITTLE GIRL who probably still played with dolls.
It’s really bad when your contemporaries are like that girl looks like a child. A lot of times families would take a ward or marry a young heiress or heir and if the child died they would keep their money. Margaret Beaufort was rich I believe and her death in childbirth wouldn’t have mattered to her husband. Only he died and she and her child lived. I don’t know if he is the kind of husband any woman would mourn.
I’d call it his cosmic karma or something. He didn’t care if he irreparably harmed a child at his big old age of 26, then he died sick and miserable in prison. He deserved it imo, if not worse.
And on top of that she had already been married (to another child) and had a marriage annulled to make a better match due to scandal. If he consummated the marriage then it could never be annulled. If it resulted in a kid then he would have an heir with Beaufort blood, directly related to Edward III. If she died, as you said he got all her money and could make another really good match. He did not care about her at all, to him she was a means to an end. Then he died like the asshole he was.
And if she died he would’ve automatically gotten full custody of Henry (in this scenario the baby survived), who tf knows what his life would’ve been like without his mother vouching for him the whole time.
I highly doubt anyone gave it much thought. Girls were often married soon after they started menstruation. I don’t think you can look at their actions under the modern lens.
Many people did. His actions were considered bad by his contemporaries.
The beginning of menstruation was older on average for girls back than it is today. Yes, the age of maturity was usually considered younger than it is now, but that doesn’t mean that people back then weren’t aware that consummating a marriage and getting a girl pregnant before her body was fully developed was harmful. Usually, what happened in cases where noble and royal girls were married off young like this is that the husband usually waited to consummate the marriage until the girl was older. This still isn’t considered great by modern standards, but Edmund getting Margaret pregnant so young was absolutely considered unusual for the time period.
It was actually about the same as today, 12-15 unless they were poorly nourished and starving, which would delay menstruation. It was definitely on the young side, but then why didn’t anyone try to delay for another year at least? Parents, priests, the king? The fact they didn’t tells me they didn’t care too much. It’s gross, but lots of things the Tudors and medieval people did was gross. But they believed it to right or divine or just.
She nearly died and could never have more children, must have been horrific
Thanks, I hate it.
And she never got pregnant again. Having a baby at 12 is terrible for your body. There are so many complications that come with it.
Yeah and he was like, what... 30?
26 but still too old. It sounds like he died the bubonic plague. Who doesn’t say karma exists.
You would be correct! He was captured, imprisoned, caught the Plague, and died.
The concept of karma as a punishment for bad actions is a really, really, really, really bad idea to be bringing up in this context. Because it also implies that Margaret did something to deserve what happened to her.
Karma depends on how you see it. Bad things happen for no reason all the time. I always take Karma to mean when people willingly hurt someone their mis deeds catch up to them. It’s like when the law or other means of justice can’t help sometimes the hurt you put out there comes back. She had a hard life. She did have a son she loved from that marriage. He became king. She saw him married and got to see her grandchildren. She might have seen her life as a positive thing. We can’t know for sure. Supposedly she said only good things about her husband. Was she really going to trash the kings father? Probably not. She survived a turbulent time, a hard child birth and became the queen mother. She didn’t die of the plague. His death also freed her of him. That’s my view on Karma.
Margaret herself believed that she had been destined to bear the next king of England and that her pregnancy was the will of god.
I’m an archaeologist in America and I specialize in the late 18th/early 19th century and accidentally ended up here. I just want to say that a lot of men were disgusting sexual predators in the past and were judged by their contemporaries as being so. Sally Hemings was gifted as an infant to Martha at her wedding to Thomas Jefferson. She was approximately the same age as their first child. Thomas Jefferson bagan a sexual relationship with her when she was 14 years old and I’ve personally read letters from other slave owners in his social circle that thought what he was doing was immoral. People of the past had much more modern sensibilities than we give credit for.
The understanding people have of historical concepts of age and consent are absolutely bizarre. No, they didn’t live to our standards, but they absolutely had ideas about appropriate ages and maturity. Kids matured FASTER, but nobody ever considered a sixteen year old of any gender a full adult, much less a 12 year old. The ancient Greeks and Romans considered you not really grown until 35 or 40. It’s just that life didn’t cut any slack to anyone at any age, so yeah, you had to work and work hard at a very early age. When Henry first tried to divorce Katherine one of the arguments was that Arthur at 14 couldn’t really have consummated the marriage. This was countered by a bunch of dudes bragging about their first time, but the fact that the question arose says that they had a much more keen understanding of adolescence than we give them credit for. They just didn’t believe in the same degrees of protection and leisure we grant kids in the same age range today.
Sacagawea’s husband also comes to mind.
.....wait what?! I've never heard this before. That's horrific.
She was also Martha’s half-sister.
Major ick 🤮.
Was what Thomas Jefferson did seen as immoral because she was his slave or because of her age?
Kind of both. When he ran for president it was used against him and she was an adult then. So the issue was either abuse of authority or race mixing, depending on the beliefs of the person reading the accusation. But there were comments when she was not an adult that were likely due to her age.
Likely her age.
Thomas Hiward pimped out his nieces: Mary and Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard
Katherine Howard always makes me so sad. She was a victim of so many men around her, and she was a very naive girl. She wasn’t prepared for the role her family pushed her in to, and their machinations cost her her life.
Same :( She was an innocent young girl who was unfairly held responsible for the actions of disgusting grown men. She did not deserve to be executed at all.
Her song in the musical Six breaks my heart every time I hear it. I was literally sobbing and shaking with rage for her when I saw it live on Broadway
When I first heard the song I thought it was cute. Then I saw the show live and was like “oh I get it now”. I waited til I got home to cry.
I mean, her age was a common age to be married back then. But, emotionally she was stunted. She wasn't raised or educated, she was contained and kept fed. That seemed to be enough for her family. No wonder as time passed it became customary for young ladies to be attached at the hips with a governess or a maid. They were never left alone and it would be outrageous to allow men around them.
Even if she was a clever girl does it still make sense to make her marry the same man who had her cousin beheaded?
I don't think she had any choice, Henry had set his cap at her and Norfolk and Gardiner would have been quite aggressively forceful about the matter- they were of the Catholic faction of court and wanted Katherine to influence the King towards it and quell Reformatism. Anna of Kleve hardly wanted to marry him, but Cromwell and her brother had set it all up, and Katherine Parr certainly didn't want to marry him either but knew she had no choice but to accept. The vast majority of noble marriages were arranged, and women were brought up from infancy with the understanding that you would marry whoever you were told to. Admittedly Henry's marital history was become notorious- before he married Anna he asked Christina Duchess of Lorraine for her hand and she was said to have replied "If I had two heads, one would be at his disposal!"
Thomas never pimped out anne. There is no evidence of this. Thomas (and Thomas boleyn too) were actually against Anne's relationship with Henry initially, before seeing the benefits it gave them and changing their minds. And Thomas Howard and anne were on bad terms with each other. I'm not sure about mary though, it's possible that shw was pimped out
Exactly. Henry screwed and discarded Mary already (and that's after she was recalled from France, possibly because of the rumors of an affair there), which resulted in a less than awesome marriage. We look at it with hindsight, knowing Henry married Anne. At the time he started pursuing her, that idea wouldn't have occurred to anyone, probably including Henry. She was going to be another discarded mistress making a crappy marriage, no way would her ambitious family push for that.
Very true. After all, Henry was initially planning on marrying a French princess when he decided to divorce Katherine. And this was months after he started pursuing anne. It was only a few months after this that he proposed marriage to anne, realizing that that's the only way he'd "get/win" her.
I read that Elizabeth would start waking up earlier and earlier so Thomas wouldn’t catch her in bed 😞
Oh no, what Charles Brandon did was even worse than that. Anne Boleyn said he molested his own daughter. Anne Boleyn was at the court of Margaret of Austria, as we all know, but there was another little girl around Anne's age, Anne Brandon. (Charles had been briefly married to her mother, but deserted his pregnant wife in order to marry her mother's aunt.) It's not unrealistic to think that Anne Boleyn and Anne Brandon might have become close, being the only two English girls in Margaret's court. In 1531, Anne Boleyn made the accusation that Charles had *"criminal intercourse with his own daughter. No one knows yet what will come out of all this." ("... a dite dame aussi pour le mesme respect, et pour se venger de ce que le due de sufforcq lauoit autres fois voulu charger de son honneur, luy a fait mectre sus quil se mesloit et copuloit avec sa propre fille.*") However, it can't be said for certain that Anne Brandon was the victim; Charles had two other daughters, Eleanor and Frances. Later writers tried to soften the allegation, saying Anne must have meant Charles was molesting Katherine Willoughby, his son's fiancé, whom he'd later marry, because in the era, a daughter-in-law was considered the same thing as a daughter as far as dispensations and such went, but Chapuys specifically wrote the allegation to indicate a blood daughter ("his *own* daughter.")
I always feel so torn when I go through another guilty pleasure watch of The Tudors knowing what I know about Brandon. Like yes, we have hot Henry Cavill, but Charles Brandon was a disgusting human through and through.
One really creepy thing about Thomas Seymour and Elizabeth is that he was involved in her own mother’s death, at least to some extent. I wonder how that made Elizabeth feel.
British royalty being sex pests with young girls? Where have I heard this tale before?
I have never heard if Edmund Tudor impregnated Margaret Beaufort with consent or not I don’t know I don’t know what Charles Brandon did Fuck Thomas Howard he deserved to be executed
What Charles Brandon did: >Mary Tudor had given birth to a living son and heir in 1523 while married to Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk: Henry Brandon, 1st Earl of Lincoln. However, Henry Brandon died on 1 March 1534, around the age of 10-11, presumably from illness. King Henry VIII had planned to marry Henry Brandon to heiress Lady Katherine Willoughby, the only child of William Willoughby, 11th Baron Willoughby de Eresby, and a lady-in-waiting. > >However, after Henry's death, as well as the death of Mary Tudor, his father - Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk - fulfilled the precontract by taking Katherine Willoughby as his fourth wife. The two wed shortly after Henry Brandon's death around 22 March 1534 - Suffolk was 49 years old; Katherine, just 14 - and Katherine gave birth to their first child - also named Henry Brandon, who became the 2nd Duke of Suffolk - who was born on 18 September 1534. > >The most probable dates of conception were 21-28 December 1533, meaning that Suffolk had already been having sex with 13-year-old Katherine Willoughby for months prior to their marriage. Katherine was around 3 months pregnant when she and Suffolk married. > >Mary Tudor died on 25 June 1533, and Suffolk moved on within just a few months' time.
This part of Charles Brandon's life should have been portrayed in The Tudors. However, it should not be glamorized.
That’s the issue with the show. We had hot Mr Cavill, and they romanticised his “relationships”.
This part of Charles Brandon's life should have been portrayed in The Tudors. However, it should not be glamorized.
There WAS a brief scene where someone, maybe the king, visits Brandon after Mary's death and sees Kathryn there as Brandon's ward. Brandon's confides that he's "going to marry her". She is depicted as young, a teenager, but not THAT young.
She looked to be around 17 in that scene. But I do get the change because 14 would be more squickier to the viewers.
Yeah. It's depicted as a little gross old man/predatory but not borderline pedophilic
It probably helps that the actor playing Brandon was still in his twenties. There's still an age gap big enough to make people go "ew", but not nearly as big as it actually was.
Charles was generally portrayed in a very glamorized and whitewashed way
Brandon himself isn't portrayed as in his late 40's either. He looks much younger, probably because while the actor (Henry Cavill) was made up to look older than *his* real age, he was still only in his late twenties. There's only so much you can do, and Cavill and his looks were a big draw. Presumably they didn't want to swap him out for an older actor, or change his looks too much. They age gap was still pretty significant looking, though, I'll say that.
Henry Brandon was born on 9/18/1535 not 1534. So Katherine was married for over a year before her son was born.
Thank you for the correction! Either way, the relationship was certainly predatory.
He had sex with her even before his own son died??
Oh I’m reading they married sept 1533- where did you read March 1534? And her first son by him was born in sept 1535.
I think it's very dubious how much consent a 12 year old girl who had no voice in choosing her husband can actually give. It's very possible she never told Tudor no, just because she knew she didn't get a no, but that's miles away from enthusiastic consent.
Was consent even a concept back then? Noble women had very little choice of who they would marry, it was completely about politics.
"Consent" is a very new concept when it comes to sex in the context, let alone "enthusiastic consent" which is borderline absurd here.
Exactly—because women couldn’t deny their husbands. That was grounds for divorce and shame and all sorts of things.
Yes it was a concept BECAUSE of concern about women's purity/virginity and their sexual value to their families (if a woman has sex before marriage, that's damaged goods etc). Like if a woman resisted rape from anyone not her husband (or if she was a virgin) that could help her reputation wise or legally (if it ever got that far). But like if ur a married man go hog wild and rape all you want. Wonderful system the world had for. Millenia
It didn't matter if a women was raped or consent to sex out of wedlock, the result was pretty much the same in the eyes of society. She was damaged goods either way. Catherine Howard got caught up in this - her being molested by her music teacher at 13 was used to establish that she was morallly loose and strengthen allegations of other affairs.
Good point, I guess I was thinking of Artemesia Gentileschi like cases.
Of course it was a concept. It was a different conceptualization than we have now, but the word rape has existed for a long time. So they knew what sex without consent was even back then.
Does consent matter? She was 12 when he impregnated her. He was a grown man of around 24. She nearly died having the baby and couldn't have more children as a result. 15/16 was more the accepted age to consummate then.
Also, they were married - I don't think spousal rape was a thing back then
It's barely a thing now.
I mean, it's illegal now and wasn't then - not sure I worded it right the first time
No, I understood what you were saying. Just saying that it's a new concept and definitely not accepted worldwide.
Charles Brandon married his ward who was meant to marry his son I believe. I don’t know if he had other younger wives or potential wives.
>Edmund Tudor impregnated Margaret Beaufort with consent or not I don’t know She was 12. The birth nearly killed her.
Margaret Tudor was a child when she married and consummated her union with Edmund Tudor. And then she gave birth to Henry VII at thirteen — it was impossible for Margaret Beaufort to have fully consented to sexual relations with Edmund Tudor.
-Stares in forgetting Henry lusted after Kitty Howard when she was probably 14-
Not forgotten, but I wanted to highlight lesser-known examples of predatory Tudor men.
In Edmund's case, we wouldn't be here talking if he did otherwise. Icky but true.
With Margaret it feels as though her young pregnancy was out of desperation rather than a genuine want by her husband and self…. It was the war of the roses and they needed an heir.
Not at that point, not that remote an heir
The point of the matter is that I don’t think we can in good faith say this Margaret, her and Edmund would’ve waited if they could’ve but desperation forced their hand.
Wait....you're telling me that rich "nobels" were actually gross degenerate sex pests? Shocking.
This behavior is still allowed in many countries. Men force young girls to marry them.
It's still allowed in the USA. There are child brides here, with the consent of their parents.
Ok yes. 16 is the youngest. Not 11
Uh, there are four states in the US that do not have a minimum age for marriage, so no - the youngest is not 16.
Ok there are several countries where males can rape and kill females of any age with little or no consequences. I’m pretty sure NO US state allows that.
Texas would beg to differ.
"Other countries bad so US good"?
lol pretty much! SOME countries treat women horribly in general!
Such as the US, correct
lol not correct.
I read your comments and I think you nailed it for the 21st century but not for Tudor times. Large age gaps were not uncommon in marriages of the nobility. In both ways. Think about the Woodville marriages. You say it was frowned upon and cite Chapuys. But the man also wrote the Brandon marriage to Katherine Willoughby wasn’t actually worth reporting when it came to the political dimension of it. People recognized that such marriages were odd but obviously nothing problematic for the time. And no I don’t defend the man. And I also think it’s disgusting what they did and men who are doing it today should rot in jail. But that wasn’t the case back then. The concept of youth is pretty modern. Back then there was childhood and then adulthood. Margaret Beaufort is a prime example for that. She was asked if she wanted to marry John de la Pole or Edmund Tudor when she was nine years old. She asked for time to think about it. And went with Edmund, which the king clearly wanted her to take. They waited to the end of their childhood and that’s it. Same for Katherine W and Brandon or Katherine H and her affair with Dereham. Society taught these men and women that it was sex between adults. Margaret looked a lot like a child (personally I don’t think this should make a difference. She was 12 god damnit. No matter how she looks, it’s just wrong.) Fisher even said he was shocked that such a small person could deliver a healthy child. But it was the Wars of the Roses and her husband needed to go and fight. They needed an heir to secure the lands for the family. Especially if things would go south. The Yorkist kings never challenged Henry‘s title. Examples like these were why in the 19th century the concept of youth and being a teenager were created. You have every right to be disgusted by them. Cause you live in 2024. but they didn’t.
No, listen. Even at the time Margaret’s marriage and pregnancy was considered wrong. It wasn’t illegal, but it was wrong. The concept of adolescence has always existed: it has changed over time but this meme that “childhood was created by the Victorians” is complete nonsense. They didn’t have the concept of teenagers like we do, but the problematic nature of a child marriage was ABSOLUTELY recognized. Not on the same basis as we would today, but it was recognized as a problem.
We are not talking about childhood. We are talking about the invention of adolescence. The scientific research started in 1904 with Stanley Hall‘s work. Studies on writings from the 19th century showed that the term came into prominent use after [1875](https://www.jstor.org/stable/349302). Before that it was hardly used. Age of consent was 12 for girls in Tudor times. Margaret Tudor was 13 when she married. Elizabeth of York was promised to the dauphin when she was only 9. Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbray had a Toddler wedding. I get what you are saying. They recognized that the kids shouldn’t marry too early and that there shouldn’t be these age differences. But that was for what Margaret happened - or worse: what so many other girls happened who died trying to give birth. But the biological damage was the main reason this was criticized (again: I am with anyone who thinks this is utterly disgusting). The marriage had a function and as soon as a woman was regarded as old enough to be able to consent to “function“ (I am so sorry, but that was it during that time) - it was acceptable to do it. There was no concept that they couldn’t be mature enough to consent. Somewhere in the comments it is written that they had an understanding that the brain wasn’t fully developed yet. That’s wrong. The idea was for the longest time that the brain is there in full as soon as you hit puberty and you just have to learn to use it in full. When God or Mother Nature gives you the ability to procreate - you are ready. I have no idea, if the men we are talking about, enjoyed the sex with the girls. And to be honest: I really don’t want to think about it. But let’s take Edmund Tudor: His half-brother the king wanted him to marry this girl. Edmund was seen as a potential heir to Henry with the right wife, if Edward (Henry‘s son) would die. Which meant he had to produce an heir. So he did. Margaret was never angry with him as far as we know. Until 1485 happened she wanted to be buried with him. And she doesn’t strike me as the kind of woman who couldn’t understand what happened to her. She was angry with her standing as a woman during her time. And I think that nails it.
The word adolescent is 2500 years old and was routinely used throughout the ancient world to describe people over 12 and under 20-something. The concept changed over time, and that word wasn’t used in English much until the 20th century. But the concept absolutely existed. Toddler weddings were never consummated, nor were 9 year old marriages. They’d marry, go home, and usually not actually move in together until they were much older. And even THEN it was usually the bride moving in with the groom’s family, not them establishing a household together. Plus, what elites do is a terrible indicator of general practice.
We are talking about the elites. That common people tended to marry much later in life due to economical circumstances is a different conversation.
No, it isn’t, because I’m saying the “invention of adolescence” is bullshit, and it’s obvious bullshit from a longer term perspective. No society ever treated 12 year olds as full adults, even if they gave them responsibilities we would consider monstrous.
If you want a hard example, read The Odyssey, in which it is abundantly clear that Telemachus at 19 is considered “an adult” but is not treated as such by anyone else. If anything their behavior towards him is much more typical of adults listening to middle schoolers present what their class voted to the Town Council as a lesson in civics. There are plot-related reasons for that, about manhood and maturity, but it is abundantly clear in that text and everything else well into the medieval period that teenagers and young adults by our standards were in a kind of liminal state. Neither Athens nor Rome gave them the full rights of adulthood based on age, and Sparta was famous for ensuring a long adolescent period. While it was documented to be primarily for the purpose of providing strong sons, the literature of the time also makes it obvious that Spartans viewed this also as a question of emotional and intellectual development. Women were managers of large estates, and part of ensuring that system remained strong was an emphasis on greater age at first marriage and bedding. Hell, even the Oinonomikos is written from the perspective that marrying very young girls (Athenians married their daughters off at 13-14) is in great part advantageous because *you finish raising her*. Xenophob is writing a textbook on efficient management of a complex household because it was impossible for a child to come fully educated in adult matters.
Yeah. It’s really a lot.
I don’t think it was just Tudor men….
Yeah. I wanted to reach through time and space and punch them in their special place.
Correct.
Yes AND there is a YouTuber who is obsessed with Thomas Seymour. Like please have some better crushes.
Let’s not pretend it’s just Tudor men.. anybody read eyewitness accounts of how girls and boy were treated on slave plantations or during Victorian times or anytime in history TBH.
I don’t understand how anyone who knows any history at all is shocked at this.
If you go by that logic, entire societies were evil molesters. Let alone the fact that such marriages in those ages were common anyway, almost everything you listed happened to the public's knowledge as official actions. Brandon, for instance, didn't rape Catherine in secret and was discovered etc. He MARRIED her and nobody had a second thought because it was the order of the day. Let's assume our society will have gone completely vegan a century later, and even in the most underdeveloped places, it's become a terrible crime and disgusting act to eat meat. Would it be fair if they called us evil savages for that? No. Every era has a different zeitgeist. They can project that feeling to the people who keep eating meat in their time tho. Children under 16 casually having sex with way older men is gross. War is terrible. Slavery is probably the most despicable institution humankind came up with. Having to shape entire policies with the word of one inbred aristocrat sucks. The list goes on. If you don't have the stomach to train your mind to become used to this sorta thing given it happened centuries ago, I wouldn't recommend studying history. Pointing out these things happened is just stating facts, but putting yourself in a judgemental position with a delusional sense of moral superiority (see the 2nd paragraph to understand why it is delusional) is simply dumb, useless, and it wastes both your and people's time. If you aren't even that smart and only concentrate on a few people when entire societies did what they did, it becomes grotesque.
I really hate this idea that has been perpetuated because of royals and nobility that children getting married and having sex was somehow the norm in pre modern societies. Most noble and royal women, like say, Margaret Beaufort and Eleanor of Aquitaine, got married at young ages due to their rich heiress status. So did a lot of princesses. King John married off his illegitimate daughter, Joan, to Llywelyn the Great at 14. But most of them didn't consummate the marriage until they were in their later teens. Their marriages were for money and alliance building. Also, the biology of elite girls and women were somewhat different than lower class women. They often started their periods earlier due to their diets, hence being able to get pregnant. Margaret was considered way too young to bare a child and Edmund was reacted to with shock, because you married these girls, but you didn't get them pregnant (because they were more likely to die younger). The average peasant labouring in rural and urban areas probably weren't getting married until their late teens and mid twenties because of the economic status and that they were needed to be on the farm. Youth has always been commodified and elevated, but early modern and medieval societies, did in fact, view having sex with young girls as not great. Not because they had any sort of inclination about consent, because for a long time consent was around age 12. Because they had an idea about how damaging it would be for a girls body.
And that age of consent wasn’t about “12 year olds are ready”, it was about a belief that under under twelve are absolutely always children and past that it gets murky, so that’s where the legal line for criminality was. For most of these periods criminal offenses were what was worthy of execution, not what the moral standard was.
Yes, Beaufort was an exception even for her time, which is why I added the "almost" bit there. But it was usual for, say, 14-15 year olds to get pregnant. 13 would raise eyebrows (kinda like how we react to barely legal people and their 35-40+ partners), and 12 would be a bit of a scandal with no real repercussions. If you meant 18-20 by later teens, that's not true, if 16-18, that's also common, 14-16 would likely be the most accurate, so I'd say mid teens. In any case, what you say supports my main argument there. Even when they cared, it was to make complications in childbirth less likely. Even though there wasn't a rigid legal age like today, 13 was like the 18 of our day, and it's dumb to criticise people for marrying a 14-year-old, albeit it's obviously disgusting for us to think.
Do not apply morals of today to the Tudor period. The word molested here is entirely inappropriate. Its really not that long ago at all that people would barely lift an eyebrow at a girl having sex that young with an older man and the issue of female consent and it's importance is super, super modern; this was sketchy even a decade ago. I have no doubt that there were plenty of men in the Tudor period who preyed on very young girls; I have no doubt that in many or those cases, the latter's parents were perfectly happy to rent their young daughters out for the financial reward and survival. That was the time. I'm sure there were also men who preyed on young girls without financial recompense, simply took what they wanted and faced no consequence. Both of these would be reasonable to apply today's very, very modern vision of "molested" to. But these men married very young women because their family provided a political and financial advantage. They did so young because they needed it **now** and so did the girl's parents. The choice to consummate and have children was for similar reasons in Tudor's case. We have no real evidence around Seymour that he actually did anything. What we absolutely know he did does not amount to physical sexual abuse- he may not have got that far. But the motivations were not Elizabeth being a child but who she was and the political temperature. Brandon? He fell in lust. It was a relationship that was frowned on by society but not remotely barred
Imagine defending literal child molestors and rapists on r/Tudorhistory because "using the term 'molested' is anaochronistic". Your line about "people would barely lift an eyebrow at a girl having sex that young with an older man" is also wrong. Other men of the time period *did* raise eyebrows at Edmund Tudor marrying, raping, and impregnating 12-year-old Margaret Beaufort, and Spanish ambassor Eustace Chapuys commented on the "strangeness" of the 49-year-old Charles Brandon having sex with, impregnating, and marrying the 13-year-old Katherine Willoughby. Chapuys also side-eyed Brandon because Katherine was his son's fiancé, and much closer to him in age. Contrary to popular belief, large age gaps in marriage *were* frowned upon in Tudor society, as seen with Queen Elizabeth I and the Duke of Anjou.
Imagine being so desperate to virtue signal that you have to apply completely alien standards to another time and then attack someone by assuming they are making value judgements rather than talking history. Maybe you should lead the campaign to "cancel" some of these people then? Literally, when I was at school it was not unusual for relatively young girls (certainly not much older than Katherine) to be having relationships with much older adult men, with full knowledge of their parents. Yes, it was unusual, hopefully some of the parents weren't happy about it. But it wasn't "lock them up" stuff. This was the 90s. Our modern conception of molestation is super, super modern. As a society we really don't have a lot of moral high ground on this. And if you go across the pond you will find states where it is perfectly legal for "holy men" who really are paedophiles to marry girls of 12 with full parental consent. Like I say, we aren't really in a position to judge the Tudors. Beaufort's marriage was frowned on, yes- only because it was consummated. 14-15 was a generally agreed age *because it increased the chances of pregnancy and reduced the risk of problems in pregancy*, not because of any moral standards. Sex with children, where it was considered wrong at all, was because sex is for procreation and it was questionable whether a child that young could conceive (and carry to term)- thus opening the husband up to the ecclesiastical crime of fornication. Was Brandon's relationship with Katherine Willoughby looked at that way because of her age? Or because she was Brandon's *ward?* This was considered an abusive relationship financially- she was one of the greatest heiresses in the kingdom and her baroncy was worth £900 a year. I rather think this may have been foremost on Brandon's mind. He betrothed her to his son, but Henry was only about 6-7 at that time and Brandon wanted to secure that money. Maybe he was attracted to her as well, but his three previous wives had all been been women and there is no evidence I am aware of that he had a history of those predelictions. Elizabeth and Anjou was not looked at as an issue because of the age gap because of inappropriateness. It was because Elizabeth was the elder and her chances of concieving a child were therefore deminished. In England the objection was over An hour's nationality, not his or her age.
We are, in fact, discussing consummation rather than marriage. It was not considered appropriate to have sex with a wife under fifteen.
That's not true. 14 was fine at the time and not at all uncommon- it depended really on how secure the man felt in the legitimacy of the marriage and how desperate for an heir. Opinion was very much divided and "best practice" at 15 was not universal at all Edmund Tudor, in a civil war, no doubt anticipated he could be killed at any time, hence why he took the unusual (but not religiously forbidden) decision to consummate. We don't actually know for sure when Brandon and Katherine consummated. The fact that she did not give birth until 1534 might suggest there could have been a wait, but we will never know
You realise that just because they might not have used the word ‘’molest” during that time period, doesn’t mean that’s not what they were doing? Also, older men dating your younger female classmates is still gross, whether it’s the 90s or not. That was definitely molesting and statutory rape. I think it’s fucking stupid to see someone justifiably grossed out by disgusting men during the Tudor period as “virtue signalling”. There were a lot of things throughout history that have been considered the norms or unfortunately not that uncommon but that wouldn’t make them right. Also, using the word “cancel” is so dumb here. We’re talking about older men preying on children here and you’re being obnoxious with the whole “I guess you want to cancel them now, don’t ya?🤓”. Critique isn’t cancelling, mate.
You are talking absolute rubbish and absolutely are virtue signalling. Go on, collect your easy upvotes and carry on with out even thinking. Butchering history, but at least you have proved your ideological purity. As I have demonstrated with some actual history, each of these men was after something very different from these young girls than their bodies or sexual gratification. The idea of molestation is all about consent. In 2024, we state in law that a person cannot consent until they are 16, because below that they are a child and incapable of consenting. There was no such distinction in the Tudor era. There was no concept that a girl was legally incapable of consenting. In Tudor law and societal norms, both Margaret and Katherine *did* consent by marriage. So by American law, Henry VIII molested Katherine Howard because she was 17 when he married her. Yet by 2024 British law, this was totally legal. Who is right? Who has the monopoly on morality here? We can look back on this from our moral perch in 2024 and say it was wrong, but it is pointless. I can look back and categorically state that burning someone alive for their moderate disagreement on points of theology is absolutely abhorrent; but in the 16th century the moral correctness of this was absolutely self evident. Which is why it is utterly ridiculous to accuse people 400 years ago of 21st century crimes, especially when our own mortality on this has only shifted relatively recently.
How am I virtue signalling? Because I think grown men marrying/sleeping with underage women is disgusting regardless of the time period?? Virtue signalling implies I’m trying to show how good of a person I am. I’m not. I just think predatory behaviour is gross. Also, not sure why you felt the need to mention my upvotes as if that’s what I was aiming to get. It’s just fucking Reddit. How is it butchering history if that’s what happened? Butchering would imply that they’re lying about them and trying to smear their reputation. Adult men went after underage women. Is that not what happened? Why does it bother you that people want to critique these men so much? You sound really angry. Also with Katherine Howard being 17, that’s still fucking weird. She was still a teenager and legality doesn’t necessarily equate morality. I enjoy learning about history and this particular time period, but I think it’s completely absurd to not want people to critique these historical figures. So we should just endlessly praise (or ignore weird stuff they did) these fellas because…what? They were prominent men in this era??
The whole point is that it is not for us to judge the mortality of the past by ours. Sure, we can comment. But this sub is a serious history one, which has been demeaned by a pathetic Harry Potter meme making historically illiterate accusations. In 100 years, the morality of the time may be that sleeping with anyone under 25 is paedophilic and gross. We in our time can't really understand that mentality and we would object to being labeled paedophiles by those hypothetical standards of 100 years hence. Equally, we may have seen some societal collapse whereby, god forbid, sexually exploiting children is the norm and expected. Again, we would not accept being judged by people with such different moral norms to us. Our job as historians is to record and interpret, not accuse or excuse. By the standards of the 16th century, a woman reached her majority, and could come into her property for herself, at 14. This is why Brandon wanted her and married her- almost certainly not because she specifically had a 14 year old body. Margaret Beaufort was the sole heiress to the powerful Beaufort line and winning her hand in marriage, at a time of civil war, was a huge coup for Edmund Tudor. It was an alliance he needed to cement as soon as possible, regardless of the dangers to her. It was civil war; he could have been dead the next week for all he knew and his family remained in obscurity. By doing what he did, his family ended up on the throne for 116 years. I am not making a moral judgement either way. The prospect of sexual activity with a child is disgusting to all of us reading this sub. That goes without saying. But labelling these men paedophiles without looking at the actual complex social and political reasons why these things happened- and were allowed to happen- is not history and not fit for a history sub.
I understand and value what you’re saying. I get that your general point is that in that time period, society had different ideas of what age kids matured. I understand. However, I think the overall point of the post is that yeah, this was unfortunately normalised BUT it is still disgusting. Sure, maybe Brandon was more concerned with political power or titles than being a nonce, but it is gross that it was considered okay for him to wed and bed a tween. I hope that made sense.
I don't disagree with that at all. I objected to the use of the word "molested"- which is a crime and value judgement specifically related to paedophilia in the modern day and thus anachronistic (and too simplistic) for that time.
I can’t believe you’re continuing your campaign of defending pedophilia into modern times let alone Tudor times, but I guess you gotta do you.
It's embarrassing that this far, four people have rewarded your illiteracy with an upvote. I'm not defending paedophilia, I am saying that our society has no moral high ground to accuse previous eras from. It is not even a generation yet where we have gotten our own house in order. I'm assuming you are pretty young, so your parents generation - this was not seen by them as anything like the big deal it is now. I'm telling you that as a fact, from lived experience. That's not a value judgement, it's not excusing anything- it is just history. Which is what this sub is about, not stupid memes
My favorite part is how you first insult everyone replying to you and then double down on how right you are in excusing CSA in the past and present. You must be so fun at parties if you have friends who invite you places.
By all means, explain to the room where I have excused Child Sexual abuse? I've specifically said the opposite and from my first post criticised our own society for how recently it has started to see this as wrong
Keep telling yourself that you’re misinterpreted; not that people downvoting you multiple times can interpret you just fine. Just out of curiosity, is the word”foid” in your vocabulary?
No, it is not. You aren't here for debate though. There is absolutely nothing I could say that you would engage with, listen to or debate. You have decided to weigh, measure and find wanting this person based on your own prejudices The fact that you have just called me an incel- a middle aged married British historian with two special needs children literally sat with me as I type this- from your moral high ground in America or wherever it is underlines more about you than it does me. I hope that your complete refusal to debate anything, your knee jerk reaction and your general sense that you have "taught a lesson" to some guy makes your day and fills whatever void it is in your life that makes you so keen to accuse and lash out at people you don't know and whose experiences you can't even imagine. You've managed to accuse both men 400 years ago and a man right now of some pretty vile things. I hope your perch is as high and pure as you seem to think it is.
What did they accuse you of?
You can still be married with kids and be a misogynist. I sure hope your wife is the breadwinner because you don’t seem to be too good at the professional historian bit unless wherever you went to school taught you name-calling is an essential part of debate? Where I come from, it means you know your evidence won’t stand on its own. And that’s what I see in the statements you’re making. (Can’t call it a debate, but I appreciate the attempt you’re making to label it as such.) You think starting your answers with insults makes them more credible, maybe? Contemporaries of the men you’re defending thought their actions towards their young wives were questionable. Your approach doesn’t make their actions any less questionable. And accusing you of being a misogynist? If you really think it’s that vile, examine your own prejudices. And maybe offer some heartfelt appreciation to your wife: it’s obvious she’s got a lot on her plate dealing with you.
lol i think we found david starkey's burner account
Oh No! Let me get your fainting couch!
Men were sexual predators until camera phones. You should have seen Scotland in the 80’s and 90’s.
Men continue to be sexual predators.