Bibliography: Updated and Annotated

OK, PEEPS! THE PROCRASTINATION IS OVER!

If looking at the above picture gives you a worse headache than looking at the rough draft of my paper, then I'm off to a good start. If not, I won't be surprised because it has a long way to go. 

In my attempt to expand my sources, this is what I have found:

 

Social Proof: Finally, Someone to talk to!

 

As some of you may have noticed, I have been having difficulty finding people to talk to about my topic. However, I did follow up on Dr. Burton's hint to post our "tweethis statements" on the internet, and I have been doing so on Facebook, and this caught the attention of my cousin Gloria. One of the small miracles that happened around my grandfather's funeral last weekend was being able to discuss this with her. Gloria's family has never been active in the LDS Church. Gloria attended a ministerial college and has studied religious history, and she told me when she was visiting me that she is currently an all-but-confirmed Anglican. That's what set my radar off, so I asked her a few questions about the Tudors and the start of the Church of England. From what I remember of our conversation off the top of my head, she said that when considering the Tudors it is important to separate the religious from the political. The pope had no reason to not grant Henry VIII a divorce other than the fact that the Holy Roman Emperor was leaning on him to say no, and Henry separating the English Church from Rome was a bluff. Henry needed a male heir more than anything else. If he had to have one legitimate heir, the other child had to become illegitimate. His divorce from Katherine of Aragon estranged him from his daughter Mary and estranged her from Elizabeth. Gloria says it is Mary we need to remember to be sorry for: had the divorce and its aftermath not been so traumatic, she might have been a more competent ruler. Henry made a lot of mistakes, and he realized this in later life, but although his wives Jane Seymour and Katherine Parr attempted reconciliation and Henry made room for Mary and Elizabeth in his will, the damage had already been done. Had he attempted to reconcile himself with his daughters--and reconcile them as well--things would have been better. *wants to cry*

Scholarly Articles: I found these two right when I got back from Arizona and read them during breaks at work (because my coworkers take notoriously long breaks).

• • Neill, Michael. “'In Everything Illegitimate:' Imagining the Bastard in Renaissance Drama.” The Yearbook of English Studies. 23: Early Shakespeare Special Number. 1993: 270-292. Web. 1 April 2013. In case you haven't inferred from the title, this paper is all about THE HORROR OF BASTARDS! ...Specifically in Renaissance Drama. Plenty of discussion about Edmund in King Lear.
   
  • Trace, Jacqueline. “Shakespeare's Bastard Faulconbridge: An Early Tudor Hero.” Shakespeare Studies. 13. 1980: 59-70. Web. 1 April 2013. The author of this article is mainly trying to discuss the possible historical figures relating to the Bastard in King John, but it does discuss the Bastard's motivations and loyalties. 
  
  
  Books: 
  
  
  • Pierce, Robert. Shakespeare's Histories: The Family and the State. Ohio State University Press, 1971. Print. Pierce talks about the family dynamics of the women in the history plays. A beneficial source on Richard III and King John as well as on ideas about the family in Elizabethan times.
  •  Loades, David. The Tudor Queens of England. London: Continuum, 2009. Print. A biography and analysis of the women who shaped pre-Tudor and Tudor England. This will be my reference for the specific historical discussion of the Tudors. I was going to use The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir but it only focuses on the six wives and it is also to detailed. This other book is much more succinct.