Hannele said

Anyanka said Looking the charges…many of them required Anne to be in 2 places at once and/or one or more of her paramours to be gifted with a prehensile male endowment..

Yes, and Anne wanting sex before being churched, or being pregnant (which in that age meant a danger a baby, and Anne’s whole position depended on her giving birth a healthy son).

Honesty as a 21st C mother, those few weeks after giving birth were lifesavers. There was no way I wanted sex in those few weeks. recovering from the birth and doing basic household chores was all I was good for….

I can’t understand why Bernard thinks that he can simply miss the dates as unimportant. Even if a fact of being alone with a man is not a proof of adultery, it is at least the first condition.

Sounds like it ties into the belife that men and women only ever see the opposite sex as potential bed-mates and not as people..

Apart from Smeaton’s confession, the dates could have only come from the Queen’s ladies who were constantly with her. While it is true that one can usually not remember what happened, say, in 19th October 2011, that is, one cannot remember if it was a quite usual day, but one certainly remembers if something unusual happened. Or, if one does not remember an exact date, then one at least remembers “it was a day after we played cards and I for once won”. Before all, at least somebody of the Queen’s ladies would have known even more because without her help, having an affair, still less having many affairs, would simply have not been possible to Anne.

True..I used to commute along the M25 twice a day for however many working days/weeks of a year for 6 years..I can barely remember a handful of journeys during that time.

I remember what I was doing the day Diana, Princess of Wales died…(being bored by all the news reports),,though I can’t remember anything other than it was a Sunday in August in the late 1990’s..

Excellent posts ladies.
Henry did look bad to the European courts. His desire to marry again immediately was going to fix that. In order to stop the rumors brought out in the trials, he was going to marry Jane immediately and prove he could have relations and sons with another wife. And Henry believed the shame was to fall on Anne. She was the evil woman. She was the wh*re. That is why Mark Smeaton was accused. Anne would bed anyone including a lowly musician. Poor Henry didn’t know what she was like when he married her. She fooled him completely. (despite the 7 previous years before he married her. Rolling eyes to heaven) Nothing was ever Henry’s fault.
Henry did not act like the cuckhold at all. He partied from the day Anne was arrested. He also was very involved in the decisions about Anne’s execution. He planned it right down to how high the scaffold should be, and he also sent for the swordsman in France. That was his choice and the order could only have come from him. (Which somewhere on these pages there is a discussion on how long that took and he would have been sent for before Anne’s trial. He arrived 9 days after he was sent for.) This wasn’t a man who was worried about what was said about him.
Henry did not want to go through another messy annulment like he did with Katherine. We don’t know whether Anne would have accepted Henry’s terms and walked away. Henry must not have thought she would. He never gave her the option. His choice was to eliminate her.
It is my opinion that Henry knew right from the beginning what was going on and he condoned it. He walked away and allowed Anne to be humiliated and then he put her to death. He was beyond cruel.

Whatever the grounds were for the annulment, in the end adultery was not what condemned Anne. True, the annulment meant she was never married to Henry.
Even though she was accused of adultery, it was not a crime at this time. If Anne consented to sleep with 100 men, that was not a criminal offence. If she had not consented, that would be treason, but not against her. The queen was not treasonably violated according to the charges. She consented. That was a sideshow to ruin Anne’s reputation. There was to be no sympathy for her.
Rumors that Anne was going to poison Henry and the stories that Mary and Katherine were to be poisoned were brought in, but Anne wasn’t charged with any poisoning charges. They were rumors and were brought in to ruin Anne.
The fact that she danced with the men, and that George had lead Anne into the dance,which was not a crime, was brought up. Her writing to George to tell him she was pregnant, was brought in.
Every piece of information they could think of, that meant very little in respect to the charges, was brought up at the trial to vilify Anne.
The crime was talking about the king’s death, which she was charged with, along with Norris when she said ‘you look for dead man’s shoes.’ Then there is the incest charge.

I have to ask What exactly did K.H die for? She certainly hadn’t committed adultery all she had done was live an immoral life before her marriage to the King. She hadn’t plotted with anyone to kill the King, and I don’t think she had actually said “I wish Henry was dead” she may have thought it but surely couldn’t be constued as plotting.

Thank you Sharon but the whole case against K.H was like Anne’s totally unfair.
The accusations leveled at Anne and her trial (Ha Ha) Were that she had comitted treason by adultery with many of Henry’s freinds, Incest with her brother, and that she was supposed of said words that were constued (and twisted) into that she plotting the Henry’s death. Henry wanted Anne dead so the last charge leveled at her was enough to swing the deal. Anne was a dead woman whatever she said or did.
All K.H did was have diddle with Dereham, and fumble (Furtive gropings) with Mannox. I don’t believe that K.H and Culpepper had sex although as Culpepper confesses the intention was there. Nothing and no one had said K.H had said “I wish the king was dead” which Aud had rightly pointed out, had to be said in order for the charge of treason to stick with Anne’s trial.
Admitting Dereham into her household was a bad move on K.H’s part, but he had proved himself whilst he was in the Duchesses household to be a very able secutary, plus it wasn’t as if K.H had asked for him personally to join her household, he joined her household at the request of the Duchess. I agree it was in bad taste for K.H to take Katherine Tylney into her household and even worse Joan Bulmer, but you can understand why she did. A young woman stuck in a court with a load of old crumblies (Henry being the most crumbliest of all) Court at first for K.H was exciting full of light, colour and music but I should imagine that once the novelty had worn off she felt very much like a fish out of water, in a world that despite all the light, colour and music was very dull and boring. She had nothing in common with anyone in court, she couldn’t talk to anyone about fluffy bunnies or kittens. In short she was lonely and made the fatal mistake of asking her old freinds of coming to court to keep her company.
But even that wasn’t enough to warrant her death. That wasn’t in my opinion reason to charge her for treason, or I believe it was called presumptive treason. How can you guess the motives for another person’s actions? You can’t.
In short she did nothing wrong, she did the best job she could and tried to make the best of a bad situation.. Henry murder of her was nothing more than pure and utter vindictive spite, jealously and most of all his over inflated ego.

Aud rumour has it that Henry offered Anne the chance of going abroad and taking Elizabeth with her. Something which knew would mean death for both of them anyway. If she had accepted Henry’s proposal 6 months down the line once Jane had got pregnant he would have sent his assassins to kill her and Elizabeth. Henry couldn’t take the risk of having any rivals for his throne. It would be a repeat performance of the hassle with the pretenders in H7 reign. Anne knew that the only way she could save Elizabeth’s life was to sacrifice her own. He couldn’t kill Elizabeth for she was just a child not even 3 yet and it wasn’t her fault that her mother was according to Henry was the biggest incestious wh*re and witch in christendom. Anne telling Henry to poke his get out of Marriage free card right up where the sun don’t shine saved Elizabeth and safegarded her future (despite being named a bastard), as future Queen.

But he only named them as such in 1544, knowing he had no other choice.
Unpleasent isn’t the word I would call Henry, it’s one of the many words I would call him however. I won’t say what words I think about him because 1 Anyanka will get out her Iron Maiden, 2 Sharon will oil up the rack again (Which given how my back is today will probably do it some good.) and 3 I don’t like the taste of soap much LOL…
I think he would have killed Mary if she had of continued to defy him, he was capable of anything in my opinion, after all he killed many of his own family members, Cousins mainly and I don’t think he would have allowed family sentiment to get in his way. Although I don’t think he would have actually chopped their heads off or burnt them at the stake. I rather think he would have them poisoned. Mary was often ill with one malady or other, (mainly down to stress and mental anquish I think) Elizabeth too had a few illnesses in her childhood so if they suddenly died, it would be seen as just one of things.
Look at his treatment of Margaret Pole for instance, she was a cousin of sorts and yet he chopped her up, and he happily signed the death warrants of 2 of his wives.

Hannele said

Sharon said

HaHa! I knew what you were asking Boleyn, but I do not have good answer. I don’t know where the treason comes in, but the indictment continued after mention of Jane to say “For these treasons, Culpeper and Dereham have been convicted and executed, and the Queen and Lady Rochford stand indicted.” Is the queen’s abominable lifestyle treason? It seems that way.
Supposedly, Henry believed Katherine had committed adultery with Dereham and Culpeper. However, Katherine confessed to sleeping with Dereham, but not with Culpeper.
There was no trial. The indictment in the Bill of Attainder is all we have. Parliament approved that they were guilty and condemned them.
Was there treason on the part of Katherine and Jane? I don’t see it. Neither Jane nor Katherine were allowed to defend themselves. It looks like the women were being convicted on the treason of Culpeper and Dereham. Maybe someone else understands the charges? I got nothin’!

Catherine Howard had behaved in such a way (she been alone with Culpepper in the middle of nigh, not once but many times) that, as she was not inexperienced, common sense would tell that she had had sex with him. By that, they had put the royal succession in danger.

And if they had not had sex, they had intent to do do, as Culpepper confessed. And an intent was defined as treason.

Thank you Hannele. That’s it.

Cromwell knew darn well that in order to get an adultery conviction, Mark Smeaton would be the one who he could get to confess. The other men would not confess. They would not be bullied. My opinion is that Mark was told he was going to die anyway, but if he stuck to his confession, his death would be by beheading and he would not face being hanged, drawn and quartered.

I personally don’t think Smeaton was tortured, but the threat was there. He, of all the men, was chained the entire time he was in the Tower. Why do that unless you are trying to scare the man to death? He could be bullied and threatened. I do think Smeaton was enamored of Anne. I also think he was a hanger on, a wanna be. And I think Cromwell knew this and used it to his advantage at the trial. Cromwell knew that with Mark’s confession that people would be sickened by the thought of Anne bedding a musician. He needed to use this against Anne. It was demeaning, and that’s what Cromwell was looking for by accusing Smeaton of bedding her.

Anne, George, and the others were the victims here and I find it hard to blame them. Yes, she did blabber in the Tower. She was trying to figure out what she was doing there. Her so-called attendants were put there with her to record everything she had to say. What was said by her in the Tower was used as evidence against her. And who knows how those words were twisted before they were used at trial?

It is my personal belief that Henry was well pleased when this whole thing came about. I think he did order Cromwell to put a case together and that it had better be airtight against Anne, and I think he was in on every single part of Anne’s demise. So, no, I don’t blame Anne for any of this, and I am not an apologist for her. She was innocent. Blame belongs on the heads of the accusers.

Hannele said

Sharon said It is my personal belief that Henry was well pleased when this whole thing came about. I think he did order Cromwell to put a case together and that it had better be airtight against Anne, and I think he was in on every single part of Anne’s demise.

It may be that Henry was pleased that he could get rid of Anne and marry again, but I find it hard to believe that any man, much less a king, would be pleased when all the world knew him to be a cuckold instead simply annulling the marriage.

But Henry had already gone down the anullment route with Katherine. He probably thought it would be better to have been regarded as a sincere man brutally betrayed by a devious wh*re, than to risk international amusement at getting out of a second marriage. Also by killing Anne, and with Katherine already dead, any children by Jane Seymour would have been unquestionably legitimate. If Anne had lived, with just her marriage anulled (and remember Henry had Cranmer annul the marriage anyway before her execution) then there would always have been people willing to say Jane’s children were not legitimate.