Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
2:21 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
I'm confused! I know that Anne was no angel but I have to admit to being slightly bemused by Alison Weir's podcast about the fall of Anne.
In the British Library podcast – see http://www.bl.uk/whatson/podca…..index.html – Weir talks of Anne's reputation of promiscuity and how easy it was for people to believe that she had committed adultery. Weir also states that Henry became disillusioned with his wife when he realised that she had been corrupted at the French Court and was not as virtuous as he had thought.
Now, I was always of the opinion that Anne had kept her virtue because she had seen her sister's behaviour and that of other women at the French court and had been determined not to end up like her sister. Ives talks of how Anne was maid to Claude and so was not really part of \”the blatant sexuality of Francis I's household\” and even George Cavendish, Wolsey's biographer, who did not like Anne, writes of how Anne was a virgin when she married. I haven't seen any evidence in my research to suggest that Anne came back from France with a promiscuous reputation, just that she had \”sex appeal\”.
I guess I'll have to wait until Weir's book comes out but I'd love to know what sources she is basing her theories on. Any ideas?
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
6:52 pm
June 20, 2009
Offline
I found that strange too…
She always maintained her virginity, so I thought. I haven't read anything that suggests she gave in to the blatant sexuality of the French court. I think she was trying to say that she was very sexually appealing to men, as she came from such a sophisticated court like France. And being that, it may be easier for those who accused her to believe she could commit adultery.
Maybe she has her lines crossed somewhere. Henry only became disillusioned when she miscarried their son, and the whispers of her alleged indiscretions came to his notice.
I listened to the Phillipa Gregory one too. It was interesting.
Let not my enemies sit as my jury
7:51 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
I haven't listened to the Philippa Gregory one yet, must do though.
Alison Weir also made out that Anne and Henry's marriage was unhappy from the start yet I don't get that impression from my research either. She implied that as soon as Anne became his wife that Henry went off her but I'm not sure that's true. Yes, they argued, they were known for that, but then they always had. Two passionate, intelligent, quick-tempered people are going to fight like crazy but I also imagine them passionately making up. I think Anne's only mistake was crossing Cromwell, and of course not providing Henry with a son – not her fault! I think she could also have done with curbing her temper a bit!
I just don't get the whole promiscuity thing though and I can't see any evidence to support it.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
8:36 pm
June 30, 2009
Offline
Maybe she can't distinguish between the two? Puts them in the same category! To me they are totally different things but with one you could make the mistake of assuming the person is the other too. Just because you are sexy it does not mean you are a sexual person, even women these days are accused of been 'sl*tty' just because they are sexy in how they act and look. It's how men get away with rape and sexual assault all the time, 'well she had a short skirt on', 'she was chatting me up' etc. A woman can flirt and appeal to men without having the intention to bed them! This is how I imagine Anne, men wanting her and wanting her even more because she didn't let them. Maybe it got to Henry eventually, what you look for in a mistress you maybe don't want in a wife esp a Queen
8:43 pm
June 20, 2009
Offline
maybe she can't distinguish the two. Anne was well known for playing hard to get, and giving up her virginity is something she wouldn't do lightly. And not just to anyone. Her book won't be available in the states until december, so I have to wait to see how she came up with this idea.
Either the Alison Weir or Phillipa Gregory one said that one of her portraits showed how much of a flirt she was. I can't remember. I've been listening to both.. LOL
Let not my enemies sit as my jury
9:05 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
On Amazon UK it says October so you could get it from them. I often order books from the US if they come out there first!
Interesting about her portraits! But her portraits are copies aren't they really because the originals were destroyed so perhaps the artists were slightly affected by what they'd heard about her.
As you can tell, this \”slight\” on Anne's character is bugging me! I like to be able to see the facts behind a theory or opinion and I just can't with this \”promiscuity\” slur. I've been digging In Ives' book today, as I think that he's very fair – doesn't paint her as a saint – but all I can find is how Anne was not influenced by the behaviour of the French court because she was not really involved in it. I can't imagine Henry marrying her if there were rumours about her and she was known for being a \”sl*t\”, that would be acceptable perhaps in a mistress but not in a wife, and surely he would have used her reputation at her trial. Hmmm…
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
10:24 pm
July 9, 2009
Offline
I agree with MissisGG. Even today people cannot distinguish between \”sexy\” and \”sl*tty.\” I was one of the few virgins left in my high school but still got called a sl*t by the mean girls any time I wore a skirt (even floor length). I was called a sl*t constantly in middle school because I developed early. Now, looking back, I can see that the girls who said it were just hypocrites who ended up sleeping around. TMI? Sorry. But I see a lot of parallels with Anne's situation. I think French women in general had a bad reputation among the English, who were much bigger prudes. It has been said that you would have thought Anne was French, not English. That, combined with the fact that she did supplant the position of another woman, made it easy to think of her as a sl*t, a \”naughty paike.\” But in life things are never black and white. People wanted to believe she was just a homewrecker because it was easier to believe that than to believe that she could have actually loved and been loved by the king. Smart people are always viewed with suspician by those who aren't as smart.
Ainsi sera, groigne qui groigne.
10:49 pm
June 20, 2009
Offline
I agree. Those who are highly intelligent are usually suspected of things they wouldn't do. People who do not possess a higher intelligence are intimidated by those who do have it. They knew Anne could bring them down a notch with just a few words, knew how to get what she wanted, and that scared them. Silly men…
Let not my enemies sit as my jury
11:19 pm
June 24, 2009
Offline
And of course being promiscuous and a bit of a sl*t is good material for writers of certain kinds of historical fiction – not wanting to mention any names – rather than someone virtuous and prudent.
3:34 am
June 21, 2009
Offline
I suppose her contemporaries didn't have the highest opinion of her. Many people were reluctant to accept her and anyone who \”lured\” a man from his wife was considered promiscuous. Surely sex was how she hooked him?! Those labels and rumors were passed around more out of spite, jealousy, and resentment. Or just the fun of lurid gossip. Tudor court reminds me of Hollywood today. Imagine if TMZ and the Enquirer were around then!
So many theories have been presented by authors about Anne's virtue, and what exactly her relationship was with Thomas Wyatt and Henry Percy. I've always believed that a woman as smart as her held on to the most important thing that would make her marketable for marriage. And she saw her own sister's behavior and how it affected her reputation. I'm not quite sure what Weir means but maybe it's just the general \”wife stealer\” title and even Chapuys called the The Concubine.
I'm ridiculously excited about this book being released. I may take Claire's suggestion of ordering it from Amazon UK to get it early. Alison Weir is one of my favorite authors, and the fact that her new book is about Anne thrills me.
Noli me tangere
9:58 pm
June 19, 2009
Offline
What about if we look at Henry and Anne's relationship ant take away all the pomp and ceremony of court for just a little while.
Without the other people around and just see them both together for the relationship they had. I think the most accurate description of both of them is \”passionate\”. As their relationship was not sexual for many years, so there must have been much more to bond them together. We can see however, there did exist the necessary ingredients for a strong relationship,
Love, friendship and most importantly passion, for without these a relationship could not flourish.
The sexual aspect when intertwined with these ingredients is what making Love is in my experience, how great it is to arrive there. Anyone of us who has been in such a relationship will know the intensity of this and how consuming it can be. how many of us today would wait for as long as Henry and Anne did? how many of us have paid a high price for Love and at the time thought it worth every penny?
The biggest mistake one can make in any relationship it to live it for people outside it, then it is living a lie. i have a good and dear friend who believes that \”there is nothing like marriage to destroy a great relationship\”. We can chuckle at this and then dismiss it, but we can see it in lives around us every day. can we apply that to Henry and Anne's relationship?
I don't think it was Anne's cooking and sewing that attracted Henry to Anne. I can't buy into the idea that Henry was looking for his mother and grandmother's qualities in women, can what we know of them really stretch to Anne and how she was?
how refreshing it must have been for Henry though to meet someone as Anne, how she by personality and way of being must have stood out from the sheltered upbringing of the other ladies of his court.
for a King who could have breakfast, dinner and tea with as many beautiful ladies, married or single as he wished, there was more to Anne and he wanted to have her in his life regardless of the consequences. I believe that Henry at that time was every bit as passionate as Anne was and this also attracted Anne to him and Loved him dearly. the account of her last confession where she confessed that she sinned with no other against her husband and her profession of Love for him with her last breath on earth nullifies all arguments by those outside their relationship and we all share that bench my dear Alison.
Passionate people Love with great intensity, when the relationship goes sour, they hate with equal intensity, for it is the dark side of Love as I see it. From Henry's actions in 1536 the question for me is what caused this to happen within him? I think it is more than the stillbirth of his son and more than another woman that could steal this Love away?
I hope that I make sense…
from what I read in the forum we share one of Anne Boleyn's greatest qualities
Passion!
I think that if we put ourselves in Anne's shoes, we understand the relationship
Paudie.
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
12:32 am
June 23, 2009
Offline
Passionate people Love with great intensity, when the relationship goes sour, they hate with equal intensity, for it is the dark side of Love as I see it
I couldn't agree more. I also think that she was probably a huge flirt, but sleeping around and 'slumming' it wouldn't have been her style. I think she kept her virginity in tact and that was the lure of her to Henry. And I also agree that people will label any woman a wh*re just to smear her reputation whether or not it's true.
Diem et animus scire cupio: I desire knowledge of the soul.
11:31 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Hi Paudie,
Long time no see, you must have been busy! I really agree with you about A and H's relationship, it must have been very refreshing for Henry to meet a woman who he could really talk to about things, who didn't just say what she thought Henry wanted to hear and with whom he could have intelligent debates. An intelligent woman who also had sex appeal! Henry's mistake was to expect this amazing vibrant, passionate woman to reign herself in and to be more demure, and Anne's mistake was not to do this and to expect their relationship to carry on in the same way as it had before. However, I don't think that Henry would have been happy with a more demure Anne either, after all, it was her spirit that he'd fallen in love with!
I'm not sure what really happened in 1536 to turn Henry against Anne, perhaps Cromwell's whisperings got to Henry and he was truly hurt by Anne. A man who feels betrayed and feels that he's been made a laughing stock is bound to start hating the person who has hurt him. Did Henry really believe that Anne and George had been laughing at him? Was he so paranoid that he believed that Anne's flirtations were actually the outward sign of infidelity? Who knows? Anyway, I still believe that Anne was the love of his life and that she truly loved him too.
Hi Gwenne,
Yes, I think Anne was intelligent enough to know how important a repuation was. I think her flirtatious nature was down to what she had seen at the Hapsburg court which was known for its courtly love and there is definitely a big difference between harmless flirtation, and keeping the King's men happy and entertained, and sleeping around.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
1:39 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Hannele said
I must confess that I had many laughs reading some postings in this thread. It is an elemental mistake that one must understand and judge people, their choices and morals in history according according to today’s standards.
it’s interasting how the veiw of women and thier sexuality has changed from the early teachings of Christianity to the modern era. Medeaval teachings held to the same overall idea that women were the weaker sex, prone to sexual excess unless curbed by marriage and as such the devil coud lead them astray using sex into witch-craft and damnation.
Part of<url=http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/>Malleus maleficarum talks about the Latin for woman (femina) comng forrm fe =faith and minus=lesser, so women were naturally of less faith than men.
This view of women started to slowy disappear untl we hit the whole Angel of the House beloved by primarily Victorian middle classes., though there was ome overlap with the higher classes and nobility. The lower classes had always been to busy trying to survive to worry overmuch about the sexual and moral mores of either themselves or their betters.
Looking at the Purity Culture espoused by the Duggars amongst others , which appears to be modern day semi-rarranged marriage system wherein the parents select a suitable partner and hope the other parents are happy as well, the young couple have very little right of veto..seems like some people are heading backwards.
I like A daughter of time by Josephine Tey, a detective story about Richard III and Princes in Tower, but I find that she does not understand the crux of matter: instead of asking “how could a uncle and a honorable man murder his little nephews he knew”, we should concentrate on the power struggle where relatives had already been murdered by their relatives.
Richard and Edward had lost a father, uncle and brother to extra-judical murder at the hands of forces loyal to Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou. it’s not too surprising that either RIII or HVII could contemplate the removal of some-one who stood in the way to almost unlimited power in England., espcially some-one who had no-way of being avenged….
Of course Anne’s remarks of Catherine and Mary are nasty, but she had cause to be afraid: it was either them or she and her daughter. And she could not have done them nothing by herself – it was Henry who did.
Excatly…the king had the power…rid himself of one wife semi-legally…what’s to stop him doing the same to a second, third , fourth.. once he didn’t want her any more..
It's always bunnies.
2:07 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Hannele said
Claire said Did Henry really believe that Anne and George had been laughing at him?
If Henry was (sometimes) impotent, any ridicule would have been hard, but especially that of the wife. In any case, if something went wrong, it was never Henry’s fault, he always blamed on others.,
He certainy blamed AoC by climly he had had nocturnal emissons and thought himself capable with another woman..his blustering to Chapuys about “being a man, like any other” during his marriage to AB shows he ws worried a bit ..
Yes, I think Anne was intelligent enough to know how important a repuation was. I think her flirtatious nature was down to what she had seen at the Hapsburg court which was known for its courtly love and there is definitely a big difference between harmless flirtation, and keeping the King’s men happy and entertained, and sleeping around.
I do not doubt that. But I wonder if Anne had women friends or if not, was the cause that she thought that it was OK to flirt with an admirer from another woman. And if she succeeded, the women of course blamed on her, not on him. Is this the background of the story of Norris and Madge Shelton?
A lady of high rank was normally suposed to be the object of suppressed desire and ritualised courtship, her very unobtainiblity was part of the game. Flirting wasn’t considered to be a big deal unti it was too late.
I don’t see AB as having bosom buds amongst her women in the same way KoA did. Katherine’s women suffered with her during the years of her not knowing what was going to happen which forged a strong bond with a select few.
Anne’s friends I believe would be more assoicated with her views on Church Reform .
There were a lot of rumours around Fleet Street regarding the guards officers and other acceptable escorts of both Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York during thier respective marriages ..
It's always bunnies.
4:07 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Hannele said
Aud said Now depending on whose side you were on during this time period, if Henry had died before casting Anne aside, in some people’s view she would have been Queen Dowager of England, which would be an attractive position to other male courtiers.
To them yes, but to Anne? As an ambitious woman, the only reason to remarry would have been to have a powerful ally (say, a duke) to support her daughter’s position if needed against Mary. But rather, she would have ruled alone.
That, however, was no means a certainty as the Queens were Regents only when the King was away in the war (like KOA), but not during their child’s minority.
Unless you discount Margaret Beaufort for the 2 months before H8 came of age…
It's always bunnies.
5:23 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
That is why the whole divorce case between Henry and K.O.A is so laughable. He used the whole thing in 2 ways Firstly he tried to convince the world that his marriage to K.O.A was wrong because she was married to his brother. But then asked the Pope to allow him to marry Anne even though he had had a sexual relationship and possibly fathered a child with Anne’s sister. Am I missing the label here or does that not sound like a complete oxymoron?
I’m not sure but when he went about annuling his married to Anne he used the very same reasons he used against K.O.A it seems that he used or translated in Anne’s case the Leviticus text as his own personal get out of marriage free card.. Given half a chance I reckon he would have found a way to use the Levicitus text to ditch Jane, if she hadn’t got pregnant when she did, and even if she survived he perhaps may have used it at some point in the future to get shot of her, when he got bored. I suppose her death did save Henry did save that hassle..
Perhaps Henry should have adpoted the middle name of Leviticus or got Cromwell to open a business venture for him with the slogan “If you want to get out of marriage free come on down to “Leviticus are us.” No matter how big or small your problem “Leviticus are us” can help. Very competitive prices. Half price for marriages over 20 years old and for senior citizens over the age 30. Opening hours 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday. Saturday 9am to 1pm. Our lawyer is here to help you…..”
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:36 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
I lean towards them using Mary, but it is a personal opinion.
Percy had heard the Saturday before Anne was tried that the old story of the supposed pre-contract was being bandied about. He wrote to Cromwell saying that he would stick by his previous testimony that there was no pre-contract. He would swear to it to his damnation. I think they used another reason due to Percy’s testimony. He was standing firmly in the way of this excuse being used.
Chapuys heard two other reasons. One was Elizabeth was Norris’ child, and the second reason was Henry’s relations with Mary.No papers survived so it is hard to say which excuse was used.
Levitcus was used for the specific verse that said you cannot marry your brother’s wife and if it happened no children would be forthcoming. Not exact, but that’s the gist. Even though Mary was born of this marriage, Henry didn’t count her, she was just a girl. The other marriages dealt mostly with consanguinity. Related by blood.
1:31 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Hannele said
Boleyn said
That is why the whole divorce case between Henry and K.O.A is so laughable. He used the whole thing in 2 ways Firstly he tried to convince the world that his marriage to K.O.A was wrong because she was married to his brother. But then asked the Pope to allow him to marry Anne even though he had had a sexual relationship and possibly fathered a child with Anne’s sister. Am I missing the label here or does that not sound like a complete oxymoron?
I’m not sure but when he went about annuling his married to Anne he used the very same reasons he used against K.O.A it seems that he used or translated in Anne’s case the Leviticus text as his own personal get out of marriage free card.. Given half a chance I reckon he would have found a way to use the Levicitus text to ditch Jane, if she hadn’t got pregnant when she did, and even if she survived he perhaps may have used it at some point in the future to get shot of her, when he got bored. I suppose her death did save Henry did save that hassle..
Perhaps Henry should have adpoted the middle name of Leviticus or got Cromwell to open a business venture for him with the slogan “If you want to get out of marriage free come on down to “Leviticus are us.” No matter how big or small your problem “Leviticus are us” can help. Very competitive prices. Half price for marriages over 20 years old and for senior citizens over the age 30. Opening hours 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday. Saturday 9am to 1pm. Our lawyer is here to help you…..”Even if we find Henry’s arguments laughable, he believed them. However, that was not the crux of the matter.
The annulment of marriage among nobles was not unusual. If there was need, it was always found a pre-contract or some technical reason. Also the Pope usually was quite keen to arrange the marital problems of the kings. In Henry’s case, the real problem was that the Pope was influenced by the Emperor, KOA’s nephew.
Considering the religious turmoil in Germany, the Pope made a grave mistake, though he evidently could avoid it in the circumstances.
I agree, an annulment amongst the nobels could usually be brought for a price from the Pope, but i’m not entirely sure if, the Pope was being held to ransom (loosely worded) by K.O.A’s nephew when Henry decided to get shot of her.. To be honest he hadn’t got much interest in the affairs of English politics or had any family loyalty to be outraged etc at this point, maybe if he had still be betrothed to Mary or even married to her, then maybe it could be argued that he was protecting his interests I.E the crown of England.
The Emperor wasn’t a fool he figured out very early on when he first came to England to go through with the betrothal to Mary, that first England was broke or at least was getting that way. The vast fortune H7 built up his reign, H8 I believe all but spent in about 4 or 5 years maybe a little more. So finanically England could offer him nothing there. He also know that if he had married Mary the English would never tolerate a foreign ruler, so he would have to deal with troubles with his wife’s people, as it was if I have remember rightly when Mary decided to marry Philip the Spanish ambassadors were pelted with snowballs and other rubbish. I don’t know if Philip was treated to this form of abuse but I do know he wasn’t popular amongst the people and that even extended to Mary’s Catholic Nobles. Again another of those not sure thought but I believe that when the ambassadors were pelted with snowballs, there were some concerns that they were dangerous and that they may contain poison etc..
I rather think that the Emperor stepped in with the Pope to stop him from granting the divorce, but more to stop K.O.A keep moaning at him, about doing nothing. I think if Henry had have been able to grease the Pope’s palm, with enough money (Which was doubtful due to the fact Henry was all but brassic) he would have anulled the marriage. I also think that at the time he still had a need for Henry in the sence he wanted money (Again Henry was brassic all but) but mre importantly he wanted men and motors to help him fight his battles. Why should the Emperor Charles get his own men killed when his uncle was so gung ho wanting to fight battles and win the honour and glory of being called a hero, just so he could rule as the Golden Sod. Charles’s father knew that Henry was all mouth and no hose, but he did provide him with soliders who he didn’t have to pay for, not to mention all the war motors etc to go with it.
The affairs of matrimony and spiritual needs were directly down to the Pope who was appointed By God to be his spokesperson, and if the Pope had decided that God had told him the marriage was to be annulled ( for a price of course) then that was it the marriage was anulled, no matter who or how big the relatives were. If they interferred in the laws of God then the Pope had the (God given) power to excommuniate them and their whole country, and to be honest the thought of dying without God’s protection and going to hell because of it far outweighed any moral outrage done to a family member who belonged to a time long gone.. King John and the people of England fell fowl to the Pope’s Godly wrath, when he excommunted King John and his whole family along with the whole of England (even going as far as dethroning him and inviting Louis of France as the only possible successor to come to England and take the throne, with his blessing I hasten to add) because John refused to accept the Pope’s chosen successor Stephen Langton as his Archbishop of Canterbury. I was only after John realised that the people themselves would turf him off the throne themselves, and an all out war would ensue for England between his own son and Louis of France that he backed down and grovelled and begged the Pope for forgiveness, that the Pope lifted the edict and gave him his crown back. If John hadn’t done that then I’ve no doubt that given that Louis had the Pope’s blessing as well as his own papal army at his disposal then the whole of England, would have changed, we would all be a French speaking non monachy democratic nation with the Queen just being Mrs Elizabeth Mountbatten Winsdor C/O Chateau Buckingham, Constitution Hill Londres. As the whole might of the Papal nations and their armies comming down on England who would perhaps would have been judged as heretics would have been completely wiped out. Little snippet which most of you probably know. John was so desperate not to back down to the Pope (loss of face job) that he even asked one of the rulers of the Islamic countries to help him, and offered to convert the whole country to Islam if they would help him. But in the end John had no other choice to back down and accept Stephen Langton etc.. I rather think that the whole sorry affair played a part in his death, it perhaps broke his heart that he had had to allow himself to be ruled instead of being ruler, if that makes sence.. In many way if John had had a better grounding or understanding of dynastic and church law (as Henry had) and more to the point the balls to stand his ground then England might well have become a Protestant state then, and H8 wouldn’t have had to go through all his hassle over the divorce.
However fear of God’s Wrath and the old fire and brimstone hell idea was still very much seen as a real tangible fear, and for many the thought of their soul going to hell again a very real place to them was just too much for them to think any other way.
Anyway back to sanity (well as close as I can get to it that is) K.O.A was a relic to an era gone by, I’m not being disrespectful here just mearly stating a opinion. Her usefulness as a diplomatic etc was long gone, she had Mary yes but to be honest Mary wasn’t really that useful as a diplomatic bargaining chip, if she had be married into Spain or France Henry would have to provide a large dowry to outway all the other offers of marriage given to the prospective bridegroom. England as I said due to Henry’s shopping sprees was all but brassic, and didn’t really have much lands (England wasn’t a big island and still isn’t really) at that time if we take England up to the border of Scotland (and I’m using Hadrian’s wall as the border here) England was just 485 miles long and just 535 miles wide from Norwich to Galway in Ireland, approximately. Considering that France/Spain/Germany/The Netherlands/Scandinavia and Russia occupied one hell of a lot of terriorities, England could in no way compete with countries like that, and again the foriegn rule idea was a great fear to the English, in short they wouldn’t have it.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:16 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Hannele said
Sharon said
Percy had heard the Saturday before Anne was tried that the old story of the supposed pre-contract was being bandied about. He wrote to Cromwell saying that he would stick by his previous testimony that there was no pre-contract. He would swear to it to his damnation. I think they used another reason due to Percy’s testimony. He was standing firmly in the way of this excuse being used.
Yes, but it could also be Anne who, against a promise of mercy of some kind, confessed pre-contract with Percy.
If Anne said yes, she had been pre-contracted to Percy, what happens to Percy’s marriage? Wouldn’t that dissolve the marriage between Talbot and Percy as well? If it annuls Anne’s marriage, I would think that by default, it would also annul Percy’s. How could it not?
