I think that Henry didn't really believed in the incest and adultery accusation, it was only a mean for him to get rid of what he considered as an useless womb. He wanted to marry Jane, and have an heir. Had Anne been pregnant, he would have taken her back at her side. he was a child who only loved people who gave him what he wanted; he got rid of Katherine and Anne only because of their unability to present him with a son.

By the way, executing a pregnant woman have almost always been unlawful, haven't it? You can't kill the little being for the sin of its mother, and in such a pious time, destroying God's doing without the baptism that gave him the right to enter Heaven couldn't be done.

Yes, Anne probably was not pregnant. But had she been … and had Henry suspected it would have been by another man other than himself, then that would have reinforced his determination to have her executed. If he believed it, he would not have been swayed by a pregnancy – that is what I am trying to say.

I don't think she was pregnant. I think Henry's remark to the ambassador was either a veiled reference to Jane or, as Ives suggests, was made before Cromwell revealed his \”suspicions\” of Anne's infidelity, and made Henry determined to get rid of her. Him angrily telling Chapuys \”You do not know all my secrets\” could also be a veiled reference to Jane, or simply a slap-down to an ambassador that Henry thought was being too familiar or disrespectful to him.

I don't think Anne was pregnant.  If she was she would've said so in an attempt to save herself.  Unless she didn't know she was expecting.  She probally would've been excuted either way, but if Anne was expecting Henry would probaly have waited until the child was born.

Claire said:

I find it interesting that Alison Weir does not go into this in her latest book on Anne's fall “The Lady In the Tower” – do you think she changed her mind about her theory? Seeing as it is a book focusing on Anne's fall, you'd think that this would be a major theory to explore. Very strange.

I'm only two weeks late to this thread, but better late than never.  Even though I don't believe Anne was pregnant, I still find the argument fascinating.  Claire – I am disappointed to know that it isn't discussed in Weir's new book!  No, I haven't gotten it yet, probably will wait for US release.  Anyway, I had just assumed she would go into detail on her theory, since she makes a point of it in Henry VIII.  I believe it was Weir that pointed to Henry's \”You do not know all my secrets\” statement to Chapuys, as though Henry were dropping hints that Anne was pregnant again.  Very curious, perhaps she did change her mind.

Even if Anne were pregnant, I don't think it would have saved her.  I think by that point,  Henry just wanted her gone, every trace of her swept from his life.

ipaud said:

If Anne was pregnant, would it not have made headline news when the floor of St. Peter ad Vincula was excavated and her remains were identified?

If Anne had been pregnant, it would have been very early. And with the passage of several hundred years, no embalming, or even a proper coffin provided, it's a wonder there was any of Anne left, much less any evidence of an early pregnancy.

ipaud said:

Is there any substantive evidence given in Alison Weir's book to back this up?

From what I read and have heard in her pod casts, she seems to have many views that seem to be a bit off the mark. I would have to bow to the research that she must have done, but this one would have my forehead hitting the ground!

When I read Henry VIII, it seemed that it was mostly based on her theory of what Henry could have meant by various remarks, and whether a pregnancy could have physically fit into that time frame. Maybe it hadn't occurred to her how else they might be interpreted that wouldn't require Anne to be pregnant, or didn't think those were compelling; but after that book came out and people disagreed with her conclusions, she reconsidered. And maybe she's hoping that no one will notice that she's quietly dropped that theory in this new book.

Claire said:

I find it interesting that Alison Weir does not go into this in her latest book on Anne's fall “The Lady In the Tower” – do you think she changed her mind about her theory? Seeing as it is a book focusing on Anne's fall, you'd think that this would be a major theory to explore. Very strange.

In the notes at the back of the Lady In The Tower, Weir admits that She was wrong about this theory (after having spoken to another historian, John Guy about it).

The frustrating thing I find in all of Weir`s books, is her incomplete sources, and her plucking theories seemingly out of thin air, as she did on this occaision.

Eh, by the way, I've recently read an article about an axperience made by French scientists: using royal mistress Agnes Sorel's skull and the same informatic program that criminologists use to recreate faces. Why don't they do the same thing for Anne? We are so eager to know her real look and watch her in the eyes!