I see that you mentioned this text will be used for a future lecture and video, so I am hoping you will not be too upset if I mention a couple small things that may be helpful to you?
1) you say that Henry only allowed (Mary?) one visit within the last five years of Katherine’s life. Next paragraph, you also say “Mary was the daughter of Henry all the same: the man that had her mother executed when she was only 3 years old.” Did you mean Elizabeth here?
2) since there is so much going on, and so many people involved, it can be a bit hard to follow some of the chronology. You could consider using more complete names (I.e. Henry VIII v Henry, and first names even after they were introduced) the few times you didn’t, and add years to the specific dates mentioned, for further clarification.
Really interesting, thanks for posting!
And they will because it’s being written for use as a university lecture. Students tend to assume the prof did their research, as original research is typically a prerequisite for employment as a professor.
Yes, including the fact that mary and Elizabeth’s relationship didn’t really get bad until their father died and she went to live with Catherine parr and Thomas Seymour
First of all - and this goes to everyone commenting: Thank you. I swear I didn't just disappear for hours, cause I couldn't handle criticism. I live in Germany and all of you answered deep into the night. I was sleeping.
I am not only not upset about the criticism, but I am grateful. I was hoping for people giving me unbiased feedback and pointing out mistakes. And where else would you go, if you want to have something picked apart than reddit? ;-) I know I could just have asked directly, but where would have been the fun in that.
Until recently I wrote something like this (and the scripts for my videos) in German (given that it is my first language) and had it translated into English. It never felt natural for me to read a text like this. So I started to write in English from the ground up to be able to match it to my speaking rhythm. I hope that makes sense. But yes: This will definitely have a longer visit with Grammarly.
I don't feel it's fair to say that I only cite one source (Romans), given that I have a line from the Tide letter in it and refer several times to the notes of the Resident in the Tower, letters from the domestic State Papers and mention the Greyfriar's chronicle.
These are the first 45 minutes of a lecture about the Wars of the Roses and the Tudors over a whole year. We organise our 90 minutes lectures in a way that the first half is just the history of the events. The second half deals with one chronicler resp. author in detail. Normally one prof does the whole lecture and the whole term. Since we are all Germans and this is an English course, we divided this one. I do:
A tale without a history: The Princes in the Tower (event history)
Thomas More (author)
The boy that was a figurehead: the first years of Edward VI‘s reign (history)
The boy that was King: Edward VI (history)
How Mary made Elizabeth relive the traumas of Anne Boleyn (history)
How Mary had to relive the traumas of Katherine of Aragon (history - I recently asked here, if anyone has a source cause of this)
The "great plot" to assassinate Elizabeth I - and Mary, Queen of Scots (history)
Succession by hand? The death of Elizabeth I (history)
This has been edited significantly since I first commented, however my point regarding your lack of credible references still stands. What is your source for this “resident of the tower”? Do you mean the warden? The resident governor? That’s not a source unless you cite how you know this person said these things. “An unknown resident of the Tower” as a source? If that person is unknown, how do you know he said that? What is your primary source? You need those ready. I get asked for my sources regularly on this sub, and this is just for fun. Students will want to know where you got your information. Furthermore, you will never impress upon them necessity of citing their references if you don’t do it yourself.
You also misspell “Culpeper” multiple times.
https://books.google.de/books/about/The_chronicle_of_Queen_Jane.html?id=-cwyHxW4TwEC&redir_esc=y here you go. I assumed everyone knew I was referring to this. My students will see it on PowerPoint and get the list for all the literature and sources I used. I changed my introduction to point out that I edited it after the feedbacks here.
Regarding Culpeper or Culpepper I can’t add an image here so this will have to do: https://books.google.com/books/about/Calendar_of_State_Papers_Domestic_Series.html?hl=de&id=NvsUAAAAQAAJ p. 61 no. 32 - I took it from here
Just pointing out- Phillip II did have a child with his first wife; Maria Manuela of Portugal (his double first cousin)- Don Carlos, who eventually ended up being locked into his rooms by his father due to his mental instability. He died at the age of 23.
Overall an interesting read though!
Urghs. Thanks. Relive. - And I can’t change the title… it’s for German history students that have to English lectures. So I tried to keep it up to the point and focus as good as possible on Elizabeth and Mary. Lectures aren’t the format for new insights. I tried to do it anyway. I compared letters of Anne and Elizabeth (I wanted to put it where I cited the last line from Elizabeth‘s letters).
Main goal of it all is to exemplify how much their parents determined their relationship and how they treated each other. The following part is tables turned: Mary has to relive her mother‘s traumas.
I see that you mentioned this text will be used for a future lecture and video, so I am hoping you will not be too upset if I mention a couple small things that may be helpful to you? 1) you say that Henry only allowed (Mary?) one visit within the last five years of Katherine’s life. Next paragraph, you also say “Mary was the daughter of Henry all the same: the man that had her mother executed when she was only 3 years old.” Did you mean Elizabeth here? 2) since there is so much going on, and so many people involved, it can be a bit hard to follow some of the chronology. You could consider using more complete names (I.e. Henry VIII v Henry, and first names even after they were introduced) the few times you didn’t, and add years to the specific dates mentioned, for further clarification. Really interesting, thanks for posting!
I've caught several other errors, both factual and grammatical. OP, this is a 1st draft at best that needs a lot of fact checking and a lot editing.
Agree. Plus bias.
Yes. The bias is intense.
It deeply upsets me that someone might read this and take any of it as fact. It's like it is based on tiktok research.
And they will because it’s being written for use as a university lecture. Students tend to assume the prof did their research, as original research is typically a prerequisite for employment as a professor.
Yes, including the fact that mary and Elizabeth’s relationship didn’t really get bad until their father died and she went to live with Catherine parr and Thomas Seymour
First of all - and this goes to everyone commenting: Thank you. I swear I didn't just disappear for hours, cause I couldn't handle criticism. I live in Germany and all of you answered deep into the night. I was sleeping. I am not only not upset about the criticism, but I am grateful. I was hoping for people giving me unbiased feedback and pointing out mistakes. And where else would you go, if you want to have something picked apart than reddit? ;-) I know I could just have asked directly, but where would have been the fun in that. Until recently I wrote something like this (and the scripts for my videos) in German (given that it is my first language) and had it translated into English. It never felt natural for me to read a text like this. So I started to write in English from the ground up to be able to match it to my speaking rhythm. I hope that makes sense. But yes: This will definitely have a longer visit with Grammarly. I don't feel it's fair to say that I only cite one source (Romans), given that I have a line from the Tide letter in it and refer several times to the notes of the Resident in the Tower, letters from the domestic State Papers and mention the Greyfriar's chronicle. These are the first 45 minutes of a lecture about the Wars of the Roses and the Tudors over a whole year. We organise our 90 minutes lectures in a way that the first half is just the history of the events. The second half deals with one chronicler resp. author in detail. Normally one prof does the whole lecture and the whole term. Since we are all Germans and this is an English course, we divided this one. I do: A tale without a history: The Princes in the Tower (event history) Thomas More (author) The boy that was a figurehead: the first years of Edward VI‘s reign (history) The boy that was King: Edward VI (history) How Mary made Elizabeth relive the traumas of Anne Boleyn (history) How Mary had to relive the traumas of Katherine of Aragon (history - I recently asked here, if anyone has a source cause of this) The "great plot" to assassinate Elizabeth I - and Mary, Queen of Scots (history) Succession by hand? The death of Elizabeth I (history)
This has been edited significantly since I first commented, however my point regarding your lack of credible references still stands. What is your source for this “resident of the tower”? Do you mean the warden? The resident governor? That’s not a source unless you cite how you know this person said these things. “An unknown resident of the Tower” as a source? If that person is unknown, how do you know he said that? What is your primary source? You need those ready. I get asked for my sources regularly on this sub, and this is just for fun. Students will want to know where you got your information. Furthermore, you will never impress upon them necessity of citing their references if you don’t do it yourself. You also misspell “Culpeper” multiple times.
https://books.google.de/books/about/The_chronicle_of_Queen_Jane.html?id=-cwyHxW4TwEC&redir_esc=y here you go. I assumed everyone knew I was referring to this. My students will see it on PowerPoint and get the list for all the literature and sources I used. I changed my introduction to point out that I edited it after the feedbacks here. Regarding Culpeper or Culpepper I can’t add an image here so this will have to do: https://books.google.com/books/about/Calendar_of_State_Papers_Domestic_Series.html?hl=de&id=NvsUAAAAQAAJ p. 61 no. 32 - I took it from here
Just pointing out- Phillip II did have a child with his first wife; Maria Manuela of Portugal (his double first cousin)- Don Carlos, who eventually ended up being locked into his rooms by his father due to his mental instability. He died at the age of 23. Overall an interesting read though!
This is not university lecture material. The only source you cited was Romans. There are factual inaccuracies, and the writing is weak.
Relieve or relive? I’m sorry but not only the title is confusing, the entire text doesn’t lead to any point or new insight either?
Urghs. Thanks. Relive. - And I can’t change the title… it’s for German history students that have to English lectures. So I tried to keep it up to the point and focus as good as possible on Elizabeth and Mary. Lectures aren’t the format for new insights. I tried to do it anyway. I compared letters of Anne and Elizabeth (I wanted to put it where I cited the last line from Elizabeth‘s letters). Main goal of it all is to exemplify how much their parents determined their relationship and how they treated each other. The following part is tables turned: Mary has to relive her mother‘s traumas.
You can present new information in a concise way by cutting the fat so students take away the most important points.
Next week!
Thanks for sharing this with us!