Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
3:16 am
March 26, 2011
Offline
Whilst flicking through Alison Weir's 'Lady in the Tower' I noticed her theory that the body that lies underneath Anne's memorial tile in the chapel at the Tower of London is very unlikely to be Anne Boleyn due to the woman's 'diminutive stature' and that Anne Boleyn's body is more likely to be the woman identified by the Victorians as Lady Rochford.
However I'm not sure I agree with this argument. The Victorians stated that the body of the woman that they believed to be Anne Boleyn was between 5″-5″3 in height. Now I know this may not be regarded as tall nowadays, however, people in the Tudor times where generally considered to have a smaller average height. I think for men it was about 5″7 or maybe less. Henry VIII unusually tall for the period.
Therefore a woman of a height between 5″-5″3 was surely at least regarded to be of medium height- and Anne Boleyn was described as being of a 'middling stature'. Thus I don't believe that this is a very strong argument presented by Weir.
Anyone else have any opinions on this?
2:11 pm
May 16, 2011
Offline
Wasn't it Weir who supported the idea that Anne had six fingers? Or was it Ives?…Because if Weir did than who knows if she's right about the height argument?
• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.
4:32 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
Mya said:
Wasn't it Weir who supported the idea that Anne had six fingers? Or was it Ives?…Because if Weir did than who knows if she's right about the height argument?
According to Weir in Lady in the Tower referencing Anne: “…and she had a double nail on one of her fingers…”(Weir, 2009, p. 5). This is an excerpt from a much longer section on Anne's apperance at the infamous joust in May 1536. Need is say more?
I question everything Weir writes. I don't trust her sources, research, or interpretation of material.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
5:29 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
If Weir footnoted so I could cross reference I'd be happier.
Most of her sources are legit since she uses most of those used by Starkey and Ives, but a few extra mins to link would be sooo much easier. Her interpretations of course.. are hers.
It's always bunnies.
2:33 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
I totally agree that Weir is impossible to cross-reference. Her endnotes are impossible to understand or to find the actual source sometime. Maybe if she was clearer in her references, then I could better explore the primary sources, but I remain leery when a writer is vague.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
4:10 am
August 12, 2009
Offline
DuchessofBrittany said:
Mya said:
Wasn't it Weir who supported the idea that Anne had six fingers?
According to Weir in Lady in the Tower referencing Anne: “…and she had a double nail on one of her fingers…”(Weir, 2009, p. 5). This is an excerpt from a much longer section on Anne's apperance at the infamous joust in May 1536. Need is say more?
I question everything Weir writes. I don't trust her sources, research, or interpretation of material.
And it's not the first time that she's gone haring off on a nutty theory. Remember when she thought Anne was pregnant when executed, and that Henry knew it? She had to back down on that one and admit that she was reading too much into things. She added 1 + 1 and got 3.
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
10:21 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
No, this is not a strong argument by Weir….again! Here are two great articles by Claire on this subject: /anne-boleyns-remains-the-exhumation-of-anne-boleyn/6426/
/anne-boleyn%e2%80%99s-body-found/6444/
12:59 pm
May 16, 2011
Offline
I just wouldn't believe what Weir writes all the time. I like Weir's writing but i have a hard time reading…lies about Anne, it's like watching 'The Other Boleyn Girl '. I love Natalie Portman and Scarlett J but i really dislike watching that movie because almost all of it is untrue and paints Anne as a demon, so I like Weir but i don't like that she supports the statements Anne was disformed.
• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.
6:05 am
March 26, 2011
Offline
Thanks everyone for your opinions, it does indeed appear to be a very weak argument by Weir. I must confess to not buying the book but just flicking through it at a bookstore and only reading the few pages regarding this argument-but it seems that not many people on here recommend the book, so I don't think I will buy it.
Sharon, thanks for the links to the articles by Claire- I think most people will agree that Claire makes a much stronger argument than Weir on this topic 
10:35 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
You are welcome. Claire's arguments are always the best.
5:26 am
June 24, 2009
Offline
Archeology at the time when they dug up the ramains in the Tower Chapel (Victorian times) wasn't what it is today. They were not too fussy. If only they had left all the bones where they found them for future generations to examine! Mixing them all up and putting them in boxes like they did would never be done these days – probably not.
3:20 pm
May 16, 2011
Offline
I guess long story short, we'll never know whether those remians were Anne's, nor will we ever know how she actually looked. It sucks but its true.
• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.
