There are so many books written about Anne that historians think that in order to stand out they have to come up with a different slant on the story. There’s Ives and his political coup, Warnicke and her deformed stillborn/homosexual circle and Bernard with his, ‘she was guilty’. I think he tried so hard to establish reasonable cause that he forgot about the more mundane things, such as accuracy.
Ellemarinna, what does irritate me is that Bernard suggests there was evidence brought against the accused which hasn’t survived. He points out that the indictments and verdicts survive but not the exact nature of the evidence or details of the actual trials. He doesn’t question why that may be. If the evidence had been so compelling that six people were found gulity on the strength of it, then why hasn’t it survived, and why do no eyewitnesses comment on it? If the evidence had been sufficient for convictions does anyone seriously think it would have been ‘lost’ or that it wouldn’t have become common knowledge? There were two thousand witnesses. It would have come up in dispatches, in the letters passing between England and France, and in general through the writings of the court Chroniclers. Yet it is all incredibly wooly, and the only information we have stems from people who suggest that there was very little in any of it. The evidence wasn’t lost because it never existed in the first place.

Yes that’s the book. I think he and Hilary Mantel are good buddies. She likes to go on and on about how we “don’t know if Anne was guilty” and furthermore, “Anne sounded like a guilty woman” (or something along those lines, not the exact quote) She quotes Bernard as an inspiration along with others in her author notes. Wait for even more fiction inspired by Bernard.
I haven’t read the book yet but I saw him in the TV series about the Tower recently and I found his argument very weak when pared down.

I read somewhere, in a discussion, that Warnicke has backed off on her theory about George being gay after the publication of TOBG. Does anyone know if that’s correct? because if so it is pretty interesting, although I think it might be unlikely.
I think it’s difficult Louise, when authors start quoting historians as inspiration because they often don’t go on to tell us exactly how far they “ran” with it. In one instance it’s a good thing because some people might be interested enough to read the historians book, but in other cases it might be quite negative. I didn’t know Bernard hadn’t accused them of incest, I thought he had. As I haven’t read his book I wouldn’t know, so I’m assuming Mantel has gotten more of her theory from him, than what she has actually imagined.