Ironically, of course, out of the next four reigns after Henry's death, three of them were women: Jane Grey (his great-niece), then his daughters Mary I and Elizabeth I.

Jane only lasted 9 days, as she wasn't supposed to be queen anyway. Mary started well enough but ended with a whimper, & Liz had a (mostly) spectacular 40+ years, as reigns go.

So the prevailing thought at the time was that not only were women not really fit to rule, but if they did rule, the nation would fall into bloody chaos again. https://www.royal.uk/stephen-and-matilda

But if you put his actions in the larger context of what was going on in both England & Europe at the time, & what his father had to deal with as king, then it makes more sense why Henry himself was so desperate for an heir. And if you wonder why he needed a *male* heir, well - women weren't barred from inheriting a throne by law, but the last time that happened in England, there was another civil war.

Henry wasn't even supposed to be king in the first place - his older bro Arthur was. Well, Arthur died, & instead of going into some kind of religious service, Henry got the throne. & underpinning everything he did was a very real fear that England would fall into civil dynastic war again. It doesn't mean he *wasn't* a tyrant, or wasn't power-hungry, because he was those things too.

Truth is, Henry was born only 4 years after a major dynastic war in England, the Wars of the Roses. Europe was plagued with bloody, violent dynastic conflict all over the continent at the time, & Henry's father (Henry VII) did all he could to stabilize his realm & avoid even more bloodshed. He was putting down rebellions during Henry VIII's lifetime, when the boy was just a prince.

It's easy to look back at Henry & see his TBI & his tyranny & all the shit with his 6 wives & how he dealt with Cromwell & More & the various cardinals & think he was a power-hungry tyrant who couldn't keep it in his pants... & that isn't quite an accurate picture.

I took an info design class a couple of years ago & produced a timeline of Henry's marriages, mistresses & children as the final project. The project had to include the timeline, plus a chart or graph, a map, & a header line or area with intro text. After putting it together it was astonishingly clear just why Henry pulled all the shenanigans he did over his reign.

I'm also into information design (used to be a graphic designer, earlier in my career) & this map is one of those examples of how effective visual representations of something can be. The sheer number of dots across the map is visually staggering. Gives a good, quick impression of the real impact of Henry's purge.

@mcfate Plus a lot of whatever was made between the Viking era & the Tudor period. Gotta be a lot of swag right there.

Tudor history is a personal interest & I had no idea there were even that many monasteries in England & Wales at the time, much less just how many Henry got rid of. I can't imagine the wealth he pilfered either. That's gotta be a lotta bling, even from the less wealthy houses.

Found a cool history nerd thing: a map of all the monasteries Henry VIII dissolved. I don't know the source.

All right y'all, time for me to head out & have some dinner. Later gators.

@mcfate Oh man, I'd almost love to be a court reporter in *that* trial... almost.

Maritime law was changed after the Titanic disaster, based on the lessons learned from the sinking. I certainly hope the lost Titan will teach some similar lessons, & that we take them to heart.
https://www.noaa.gov/gc-international-section/rms-titanic-history-and-significance

What is true about both the Titanic & the Titan is that hubris. In the Titanic's case, it was a larger social phenomenon, while with the Titan, it was down to one man & the company he headed - perhaps along with a belief in deregulation that has certainly plagued my country since the 1980s.

The VP of White Star did say at the time that he believed the ship was unsinkable. I'd say that this wasn't unique to that ship though, or even that company, or that particular man. It was more the hubris of the wealthy industrialists of an entire age. There, perhaps, is some comparison to the Titan, for the CEO of Oceangate seems to have had the same attitude. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/RMS-Titanic-the-unsinkable-ship/

Here's a really boring paper about the Titanic's hull steel here, if you're into metallurgy: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-17a17f71ae2f9d4316c52e62d4650c9f/pdf

Did Harland & Wolff use shoddy materials to cut costs? There have been studies done on the quality of steel used to make her hull, and while it's extremely brittle (especially at low temperatures), I haven't found anything yet which says her hull materials were that different from others of the time. It looks more like people built with the quality of metal they had, & didn't even know about thermal changes.

We perhaps forget that air travel didn't really become a thing until the 1960s, & before then, people of *all* social & economic classes traveled by ship. Most of the folks on board the Titanic weren't just there to go on a cruise, they were actually trying to go somewhere - like the New World, to establish a new life.

It's may be easy to say the Titanic was populated by a bunch of rich fucks who were just interested in the latest, greatest, biggest thing - & while that may be true, her captain was no slouch & her crew had good seagoing experience under their belts. Moreover, the rich fucks didn't make up the entire passenger list. https://www.lva.virginia.gov/exhibits/titanic/passengers.php