The DISGUSTING EVIL Of Thomas Seymour - The Abuser Of Elizabeth I 

Wiser words were never spoken.

Thomas Seymour proved there are worse husbands than Henry VIII.

Great comment!

😂

Poor woman!

I share your revulsion.

Tbh, the fact Elizabeth actress is in her 20’s, makes you lose the innocence of the real scenario. If they had used an actress who appeared to be 14-16, it would have been way more realistic and creepy. Credit to the Thomas actor because I am actually really creeped out by his little smirks and manipulations. If I know anything about teenage girls, having the advances of an attractive older man can be quite flattering, so Elizabeth’s behaviour in the show is potentially not unrealistic, especially as Thomas is supposed to be attractive by Tudor standards. But all these shows skirt the boundaries of reality and romanticise things that are in reality not acceptable.

The whole creation of the church of England and the numerous schisms belies that

I suspect that it was who Catherine Parr had secretly married which added to the scandal. Besotted woman didn't realise he was using her as a stepping stone, although fate disallowed him to progress.

But a waiting period was needed, and expected of Catherine, to determine whether or not she was pregnant by Henry, before she could marry again. Her marrying too soon after Henry’s death could throw the paternity of any offspring she had into doubt.

@@angr3819 Seymour was using Elizabeth as a stepping stone too, to get to the throne. It was treason, and he could have taken Elizabeth down with him.

We talking about the same court that had Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard beheaded over trumped up adultery and incest charges as if the royal families aren’t known for their incest and Henry had literal mistresses.

Yes, marrying Bluebeard, bad-tempered, decaying Henry VIII was good by comparison. But even today, there are women who discover too late that they made a horrible mistake and married the wrong man. Ask any woman whose marriage at first looked rosy but soon turned into domestic abuse.

Agreed

What about Richard Rich?

Different rules for males!

What a SOB!

My understanding of this interrogation episode of Elizabeth was that she could have easily thrown Kat Ashley under the bus while her persecutors searched for co-conspirators, potentially saving herself in the process, but she didn't because of her intense loyalty to her lady-in-waiting. Any hesitance or doubt from Elizabeth would surely have guaranteed a horrible death for Kat. This shows that true loyalty shines downwards and sideways as well as up. Elizabeth displayed incredible courage and composure, especially for someone her age.

Exactly, they say she had a lot of her Fathers toughness in her and even at 12 years of age she instinctually knew the swamp that was going to be or was already surrounding her. I read that she already had men telling her that they were going to marry her at age 12 whether she liked it or not.

But she also helped him abuse Elizabeth, which is inexcusable.

@@ardenalexa94 exactly Catherine Parr didn't try to protect Elizabeth from Thomas Seymour advances

@@Mashka14 and she was in a position where she should’ve protected her. It’s sad when you realize how betrayed Elizabeth must have felt.

Y'all forget it was a patriarchal world back then and she was pregnant. My own incubator used me as a commodity to keep her disgusting boyfriend around, then blamed me for his attraction to me and his leaving her years later (she is a schizophrenic nightmare of a sub-human). I was only 8 when it started, about 12, 13 when it was over. I honestly don't get the vibe, if you will, that Parr was like my incubator. Sending Elizabeth away was the best thing she could have done after realizing that she was married to a monster. Times were messed up for women back in her day. If anything, the experience was a valuable lesson for Elizabeth not to marry and give up her rights to her husband as was the expectation back then.

@@jujubees5855 I haven’t forgotten it was but I still find it disturbing. Even more so that that behavior still happens today.

Marriage means the wife transfers all her property to her husband

Well, what evidence did she have that for a woman marriage was anything but a disaster? Certainly not her father's wives. Cleves was the only one who got out alive and went on to live a contented life ... single. Then there was her sister and cousin Mary Stuart. Elizabeth Jenkins in her book Elizabeth the Great opined that Elizabeth believed that if a woman gave herself to a man she could and probably would die, ie marriage was dangerous even lethal. The experience with Seymour and the aftermath no doubt convinced her.

It would have certainly added to it, I think. I agree with you.

Seymour also went after Mary 1️⃣ before Elizabeth. When Mary turned him down, it became Elizabeth's turn.

Definitely.

Her father, with how he treated women, was also one as well.

I think you are right! Elizabeth experienced many tragic loses. All of her immediate family died. Kat Ashley defended her young charge and that bonded them.

Not really. The King killing off her mother and then killing Catherine Howard (and almost killing Catherine Parr) was what gave Elizabeth pause on marriage. It's because she knew that her husband could kill her at any time and take over the thrown. Plus, Mary's own loveless marriage had an influence on Elizabeth's decision not to marry.

Well that and she wouldn’t get the best ideal of marriage growing up and seeing Henry marry 4 more women after her mother’s execution.

@@robinson4979 Elizabeth I terrifies me and also makes me admire her a bit. That girl straight up refused to give her power away to a man.

What in particular do you thinks is nonsense?

@@angr3819 it's the relationship between Elizabeth and Thomas.They are making it seem like it's something she enjoyed and wanted. She's 14 and from what I read he wanted he's a creep.

Yes, I feel exactly the same. I cannot respect this woman after knowing she enabled Thomas. When she was married to Henry, she appeared to be a good wife but she may have been just looking out for herself, staying in Henry’s favour and protecting her own life.

@@Grace-tc1lq So far I’m enjoying a tv series on Starz Becoming Elizabeth. It starts when all of Henry’s children are being told that their father has died. Of course there are inaccuracies. If you follow the Anne Boleyn files on RU-vid Claire Ridgeway breaks what’s fiction and what is not. It’s refreshing to get historian’s perspective. Also it’s the first tv series I’ve have seen where you see Edward VI’s reign. We’re seeing Lady Jane Grey. I hope we get to see Mary’s reign and ends with Elizabeth I’ Coronation since the title is Becoming Elizabeth.

@@Grace-tc1lq I doubt that was her motive. She was very close to her step children. She probably enabled it because he said it was harmless. This was in the 16th century. They had very different ideals back then. Always remember this, when judging history, do not apply our standards. Once you do, you strip history of all it is.

@@ButtonsCasey I agree. And please don't forget that Catherine was in love with Seymour; that's why she believed him when he said it was harmless. Also, she was in denial. She was pregnant at the time, too. She probably thought that if she went along with Seymour to 'visit' Elizabeth it wouldn't look so bad. Then she realized the truth and later accused Seymour of never loving her, which I think is true. All he wanted from Catherine was her money 💰, and access to Elizabeth.

@@leticiagarcia9025 I used to get Starz for free and was enjoying a series about the Tudors based on Phillipa Gregory's novels. Then, IDK why, I couldn't get Starz anymore unless I paid for it. This series you are referring to sounds like something I'd love.

Then why did she send her away. That Elizabeth story so how do you know she was lying. Because there was a letter which said other wise!

You know it is accurate how? You are aware that it is fiction correct?

Maybe he did.......

He was a stalker, pest and passive aggressive in his forcefulness toward Elizabeth.

@@angr3819 Right..he was pretty aggressive. I didn't see him as passive aggressive at all...

@@ThePharaoho No doubt he was when there were no witnesses. I think he acted passive aggressive by pretending to be a fatherly figure who only wanted to tickle Elizabeth, at least when others were present. He was a creep.

@@angr3819 😂 ok, I see. He was aggressive I think toward her, particularly after Catherine died. I just feel he had no honor. Ambition was the only thing that consumed him, and cost him his head in the end.

@@ThePharaoho All in all a lot of them were nasty pieces of work, weren't they? How unfortunate to have been a. Girl or woman around them.

When you've got the princess in your very household, you would get ideas about marrying her and getting the crown.

One thing people often ignore is that while people were married off young, that only really applied to the upper class, as peasants could generally marry for love and they didn’t have any alliances that needed making, so they generally married in their twenties or thirties. Secondly, while the upper crust married young, the couple would generally live apart till they were older, people did atleast understand that giving birth to young did severe damage more often then not, for example when Margret Beaufort gave birth at thirteen, contemporaries were outraged and there’s even evidence that Edmund Tudor may have died as a result of purposeful mistreatment as a result.

They make him appear to be so handsome,sexy,fun loving,so far,on HBO series *becoming Elizabeth*....oh fudge,I like their fictional Thomas so much more ☹️

Doesn't mean it didn't either . Seen as we weren't there. Hopefully historians are fully aware of baring things like that in mind I'm sure when disiphering through different documents.

@@ld8483 Historians generally have a bias of some form or another. For minor individuals like this the primary documents would be those from has trial, and trials in those days were primarily intended for legitimizing execuutions or attainments. There would not be much documentation other than from an individuals enemies.

@@Tugela60 I see what your saying this is said of lots of things in history.But a lot of historians aren't biased too. Sadly the rates of perpetrators today to go by of child abuse tell the story that it's highly likely it would have been just as prevalent then ,as of then as today people don't like to believe it .

Cookie for me 🍪

**high five

@@jujubees5855 never this early. Was having a woohol moment

Ohh I’m 14th

Some of these comments are way out of line about Thomas Seymour. I wonder how many of these negative comments were made by someone who have actually read any books about the Tudors, OR Thomas Seymour. or at least listened to podcasts about the him or the Tudor era. Unfortunately this was typical and accepted male behavior for the times. You cannot go back 600 years and compare that life to our life today. Women have come a long way from those days. Be thankful you live in the 21st Century, but don't be so quick to judge or be critical of those who lived in the past. Today is an entirely different world

Start your own history channel

Katie Johnson made it up . It was a hoax. Now get your TDS sorted out and get well soon. This is Tudor History, not American Presidents.

No it sound like Hillary Clinton

Shut up

Do you have something against feminism? Are you a girl? Because your comment is really sad.

@@strawberribubbletea Yes I do dislike modern feminism, and I dislike the invective that modern feminist used to vilify people in history. When the history was from a very different era. And yes I am a woman and I don’t need modern feminism to advance my own career to advance my own interests I am a self-made woman. I have fought in some very difficult male-dominated field thrived and benefitted from them. When I see comments like this your shame game is based on the facts that you do not do research into the history of these commentators. This was the tutor era, women were expected to stay at home and serve the family. If the owner of this channel does research and does a deep dive into the history, she would have found that there were many many many exceptions that there were prominent Tudor women Who held very high office and had very exceptional scholarly, and educational contributions to society. So when you see a title “the disgusting evil of Thomas Seymour“ we know the history of what he did we know that we don’t need to put an emphasis on it to further a narrative to show that back in the day women were the most downtrodden and horribly treated in society. They didn’t have the same rights and privileges but that doesn’t negate the fact that there are many women in that era who contributed and were very highly valued for their intellectualism their scholarship their leader ship and many other social attributes that you the modern feminist seem to vilify. You do this through the modern context of that the modern feminist are oppressed you are not oppressed you are the most privileged highly entitled group of women I have ever known in my life. And to promote a narrative through the retrospective historical lens is intellectually dishonest. And if you say I have a hatred against feminism not the earliest feminists not at all I value them I respect them and I admire them deeply for their what they’ve done. However you modern feminist are lazy entitled and completely intellectually dishonest with your positions about how oppressed you are you are the least oppressed people in society.

@@GrumpyKitten375 and yet in the u.s. they just lost their right to abortion. Feminism is an ongoing cause. It’s still needed to fight things like rape culture and people who want to take women’s rights away. You honestly sound a little unhinged. You are so angry from an accurate description of this awful man. People have described awful women in history as “evil” too. Who cares? Call a duck a duck. And so people remind others how awful it was for women back then- who cares? Sometimes people need to be reminded how awful it was back then so we don’t forget and don’t take our rights now for granted. What do you gain from being so angry at feminism?