Who knows? Chapuys claimed she did, but he was extremely prejudiced against Anne and repeated all kinds of scurrilous rumours and lies about her and all his information was at best second hand as he never actually spoke to her. At this distance it’s impossible to know how much of it was actually true, but I would be wary of taking that as fact. Chapuys wanted the emperor to invade England to make Mary queen, and he told him anything he could think of to encourage that to happen. I find it unlikely she actually urged Henry to kill her, she was a very religious woman – just not a Papist. The pro-Catholic faction liked to believe she was evil and corrupt and capable of any kind of atrocity but there is no actual evidence she was.

It’s also very telling that after Anne was killed Henry continued to insist on Mary conforming to his will. The Catholic faction assumed that with Anne dead, he would go back to being ‘Mr Nice Guy’, that he would reinstate Mary in the succession and go back to the Roman church. They were very shocked when he didn’t as they had all assumed Anne was responsible for Henry’s actions. They found out the hard way that had not been true.

Wasn’t it the Duke of Norfolk (Detestable little man) who said that if Mary was his daughter he would bang her head against the wall until it was as soft as a baked apple?
Mary like her mother was extremely stubborn, and in some respects I think Henry admired that trait, as he himself had it too.
If you think about it More, Fisher and most of Cathesian Monks were executed almost from the time they told Henry to go do one. With Mary he should have done the same, but he didn’t. Why?
Well for a start off if he did the whole of Catholic Europe would have risen against him and due to the fact that he had seperated himself from the Church of Rome he was on his own, with few freinds and even less allies, so if he had killed Mary his throne would have no doubt been lost and the bloody wars of the Roses would have started all over again. He could have of course had her poisoned, due to the fact that she was always ill (only because she was under so much stress) if she was poisoned covertly he could just claim that she had sucummed to one of her many illnesses and died. The people would have perhaps grumbled a little and the Catholic monarchs may have had a few fire and brimstone moments. On the other hand perhaps Henry hoped that Mary might die from one of her illnesses then he would be spared the task of having to put her death if she didn’t submit.
I think Mary’s change of heart and submitting to Henry’s request was 1 because her mother had died and was therefore no longer the concern of the Emperor or of Catholic Europe and 2 she was lonely she was lost without her mother’s guidence, all the while her mother was alive Henry would have never put her to death. Once KOA was dead Mary’s life was in real danger and she knew it. I believe Chapuys gave her the solution on how to deal with the situation of submitting to Henry..
He said if she signed the submission, the Pope would forgive her as she had been made to sign it under duress to save her life.. If she was put to death by Henry the Catholics of England would lose hope for a better future, she was all the Catholics of England had. Most of the Catholic families submitted and perhaps ever since had felt guilty about it with Mary’s submission she was guarenteeing their absolution from the Pope when the time came. If the Pope could forgive her submission to a man gone mad, as she would be the highest in the land after God and the Church then her people would also be forgiven. If she was executed by Henry she would have no doubt become a Martyr in Catholic eyes, but equally so the sin her Catholic subjects had commited by signing away their religion would never be forgotten and their souls would forever be in purgatory..
Mary’s submission would also guarentee peace. The Emperor would no longer poke his nose in as Mary was no longer a Catholic, she had excepted that KOA marriage to Henry was illegal and that she was a bastard.

Hi eparrillo, and welcome.
Oh dear, Weir again! This woman should stick to writing fiction.
Anne did not always treat Mary with calculated cruelty. Anne tried to make peace with Mary and Mary insulted her. I think Chapuys hated Anne and filled his letters home with his hate and disdain for her. Most of his comments about Anne are his private thoughts and beliefs, things he heard from the people who also hated Anne, with very little truth to them. I think he is responsible for scaring Mary with his beliefs. I take Chapuys with a grain of salt.
Chapuys at one point did want the Emperor to invade England. What did he want to happen to Henry? This just shows how little Chapuys respected the authority of England’s king.
It must have killed Chapuys to tell Mary she should sign the oath after Anne was gone. Talk about underestimating Henry. The Catholic faction must have been quite shocked to find that Henry was the one who wanted to force Mary to sign.
Boleyn,
I do not think Henry would have ever killed Mary. I think he was treating her as a disobedient child who would come around to his way of thinking if he kept her from everyone she loved. I have read that Norfolk threatened her as you said, but he had no respect for any woman who didn’t conform to his commands. Lucky Mary wasn’t his.

Sharon I rather think that Weir and SWMNBN must be related somewhere along the line as both are extremely annoying writers…
Perhaps they are the bastard offspring of a humped back purple whale with a hair lip and a dwarf leprecaun with curly toes from the planet Zog…
somewhere near Alpha centuri…..

Gill said

I gave up reading Weir some years ago because I swear she just makes stuff up and convinces herself it’s ‘fact’. She treats suspect evidence as gospel when it suits her pet theory, and totally ignores other evidence that doesn’t. In my opinion she is easily the least credible historian of Tudor England, but unfortunately her books sell well so that’s the version most people end up reading (along with the garbage spewed out by SWMNBN).

I must admit when I read Weir’s book about Henry and his wives I liked it but then I read the incompable Starkey’s book I realised that the only use for Weir’s book would be toilet paper. Like SWMNBN, Weir’s book are just a complete and utter fabrication of what they want to see as the truth.

Olga, I can understand why you like Gregory’s books and think she is a decent author of historical fiction, however it’s the fact that she promotes herself as an historian that gets people going. If she was honest about what she is and what she’s writing then I believe people wouldn’t have the problem they’ve got with her.
Her official website biography states that; …”she is an established historian …and has a commitment to historical accuracy”…
Olga, I like historical fiction, but what I and many others don’t like is that PG passes off fiction or speculation under the guise of true and accurate history. I don’t hate her personally, only for not being honest about what she writes and her expertise in the field of history, that’s all.

I wasn’t sure whether I liked Weir’s book on Mary Boleyn. She was very cautious with this one. She had some very interesting and believable thoughts on where Mary may have been at certain points in her life and she backed up why she believed it. I find myself referring to it often. I think I liked it.
Weir is an excellent storyteller. That’s why so many people who are not history majors can read her books. Her delivery is easily read and absorbed. Olga, I hope you are right, and we can expect better from her in the future. And I disliked Lady in the Tower.

I know Starkey says Chapuys is Anne’s best biographer. Many people agree. I find Chapuys to be a great source of information, but a very prejudiced source when it comes to Anne. I find it an unfair biography. However, that’s just me.

Gill said

I flicked through her Lady in the Tower in a bookshop a few weeks ago. I stumbled upon a page where actually appeared to be discussing the possibility that Anne really might have used witchcraft to ensnare Henry! It went back on the shelf PDQ at that point. I am frankly gobsmacked that a twenty first century historian would give any credence to such a medieval idea (although she did conclude that on balance, Anne probably didn’t! )

LOL Gill you aren’t on your own there. My daughter got it out of the Library for me after reading the first 20 or so pages I told to take it back.. I didn’t like it one bit..
It’s funny really but I can usually tell within the first chapter if a book is going to be worth reading or not. Sometimes I stick at it in a hope that it may get better but generally if the first chapter is awful you can guarentee the rest of the book will be just as bad. Or in certain cases worse as the SWMNBN book that WNBN (will not be named) proved. I was glad to have read it as at least that way I can say with all honesty in the immortal words of Comic book Guy worse book ever!! Don’t bother with it unless you have to use it in an emergency in a public toilet…

I know, Olga, and I understand your position. I wish I could write books as well as PG and make the money she does!
Her writings have got a lot of people interested in history who perhaps wouldn’t have been otherwise, which has to be a good thing. I just worry that many of these people haven’t got the knowledge of history that you have and will therefore regard all of her writings as factual.
Anyway, enough of that, let’s enjoy fiction for what it is and have the knowledge to know it when we see it. I don’t discount her education, she’s probably a lot brighter than me! I do hope I haven’t caused you any offence with my comments regarding PG, it’s just her honesty I have a problem with (and I promise to shut up about her now!).

Chapuys, really hated Anne. I’m not sure but I think when Elizabeth was baptised he was asked by someone if the bastard (Meaning Elizabeth) was baptised in hot water or cold? Chapuys replied “Hot but not hot enough”.
I suppose you can understand his loathing for Anne after all KOA was the Emperor’s Aunt and he was there to make sure that Anglo/Spanish relations were kept freindly. Anne in his eyes was the fly in the oinkment if it wasn’t for Anne, KOA would still be Queen, and his master would be able to twist Henry’s ears now and again to get him to do the hard work I.e give the French a kicking, whilst the Emperor could just waltz in and take what he wanted.
To give Henry some credit (albeit very reluctantly) I think he could see what the Emperor was up to from the first time the Emperor betrayed him, and he had to make peace with France through marriage, using his sister Mary as the bait..
If you think about it each time the Emperor put a new idea to Henry about giving the French a kicking it was always a case of “Well you take your troops here and give the French a kicking”. We’ll be over there giving the French a kicking and then we’ll meet up and take back France” but the reality was very different. Henry did his bit as he promised the Emperor Charles, but in the meantime Charles was in peace talks with the French King and as a result sealed a peace treaty that left Henry out in the cold.
So in some ways you can understand Henry’s anger towards the Spanish since he couldn’t go and clout Charles one he got at him through KOA. I feel a lot of the hatred that Henry developed for KOA wasn’t so much to do with Anne or his (laughable) marriage woes but because of the fact he felt betrayed by Charles’s actions when they had pledged to support one another when it came to France. Even more so when it came to the point that the Emperor had actually captured Francis, and had perhaps given Henry some indication that Henry could now go and be crowned in France as their King too. Of course once again Francis and Charles came to an understanding and once again left Henry out in the cold and to cap it all Charles dumped Mary in spectacular fashion and married Isabella of Portugal instead..