Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
6:17 pm
August 27, 2012
Offline
Hi guys, i thought it would be an interesting idea to get a thread together on historians who work or have done work on the Tudor era and covered Anne Boleyn in some shape whether going into much detail about her or not much at all, and whether they consider her innocent/guilty/or undecided, i know most tend to be on the innocent side ( thankfully) and so far i only know of one or two who consider her guilty or at least partly so ( Bernard and Ackroyd ) i thought it would be interesting to put their theories down as well as many feel differently as to whether it was Cromwell saving his own neck, a political coup for an alliance with Spain or Henry’s own paranoia.
I am still to read many history books and so far have only read- Eric Ives, David Starkey, Alison Weir, who all believe her innocent ( although Weir otherwise does not think highly of her at all), so will be interested to hear others views and get some recommendations- i’m particularly keen to read Suzannah Lipscomb and John Schoefield’s works ( 1536 and Thomas Cromwell) and see their theories and evidence they present 
8:18 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Yeah I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Anne was NOT guilty of anything she was accused of. Her only crime as far as I’m concerned was that she fell in love with a mysogynist.
Of course you get authors like SWMNBN who believe that Anne was guilty of everything she was accused of as well as being guilty of poisoning Fisher, Bad Harvests, Murdering KOA and Henry Fitzroy, by slow acting poisoon. Witchcraft and whatever else she feels like inventing to fit what she laughingly calls facts, it’s a wonder she hasn’t come out with the that Anne Boleyn parents were homosexual Martians from Alpha Centuri.
Anne was a unique woman who was extremely erudite and her ideas spawned a whole new world especially when it came to the position that woman could have in the world. Elizabeth blazed that trail but it was Anne who lit the fuse wire that started it.
Vivat Anne…
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
11:30 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
I know of no historians who suggest Anne was guilty, save for G W Bernard (I’ve not read Ackroyd). I’m not sure whether Bernard genuinely believes in her guilt. His book was very wishy-washy, and not very persuasive. I’m not sure that he even managed to persuade himself. I think a lot of it was simply to be different and controversial.
There are some fiction writers, such as Gregory and Mantel who portray Anne as guilty, or partially guilty, of the crimes alleged against her. I think that’s more to do with making the story more juicy to us silly little readers. After all, why spoil a good story with annoying little things like evidence (or lack of).
A number of authors, even when portraying Anne as innocent, show her in a negative light. Weir is extremely biased against her, as is the new book, ‘The daring Truth About Anne Boleyn’. Some people are so polarised in their views that they are unable to portray Anne as a rounded figure with good and bad aspects to her personality and behaviour. Weir is biased against all of the Boleyns, and constantly shows then in a negative light in order to show Henry in a positive light. I think there are often ulterior motives at play when it comes to certain depictions of Anne and her family.
4:00 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Quite right Louise. A lot of authors look at Anne as being a woman driven by greed and power, who would not allow anything or anyone to stand in her way. Anne was nothing of the sort. When Henry made his intentions known to her that he desired her, she bluntly told him “Get stuffed Lard Boy” in fact she distanced herself from him and basically kept it at arms length, was that a ploy on her part to inflame his ardour? No She was astute enough to know that she could be nothing to him other than a casual mistress.
Henry was the one who took that she was playing hard to get and he was also the one who did the chasing. To him Anne was a conquest to be had, and in his way he bullied her into loving him. I’m not saying she didn’t love him because she did but it took her time to fall in love with him, at first she could see all Henry wanted was her body and she was determined not to be used and abused by him and then spat out at the end, when he’d eaten his fill of her. Anne loved Henry with such a passion but it was that passion that destroyed her too.
If you look at her family, the Boleyns did have some standing at court. Her father was a trusted and very capable diplomat. George was shaping up to be every bit as good as his father in that department as well. Her Mother was the daughter and sister of a Duke annd I doubt her father would have agreed to their marriage taking place if he didn’t think that Thomas Boleyn wasn’t any good. Mary well it’s a matter of debate if she did indeed have an affair with the French King but as we know Francis was a braggart and it’s possible that the “English Mare” statement he made to Henry at the Val Dor was just an empty boast and just made to upset Henry.
If Mary was Francis’s lover then that would be even more reason for Anne not to follow down that route as Mary gained nothing from it and basically became known as the great wh*re, a name that would have been almost impossible for her to live down. Anne had nothing to prove about herself and the fact that Henry Percy fell in love with her and initially before the King’s/Wolsey’s intervention the marriage was all but agreed between them, shows to me at least his family thought her good enough to be married into their family.
Anne WAS NOT a scheming bitch out for everything she could get she was a beautiful young woman who fell in love with a king, and it was him who changed the world to marry her, and ultimetely changed the world to kill her as well.
Jane Seymour on the other hand was seen as a soothing balm etc but lets take a look at her family. Who were they exactly? A very minor nobility family whose father gained a knighthood though his talents on the battle field I believe he was with Henry when he went to have a stab at the French 1513 which by the way wasn’t a battle at all as such, the French basically ran away when they saw the size of the English Army hence the name “The Battle of the spurs” Ok so Henry captured a few frennch dukes, but it weren’t no big deal. As Katherine put it so aptly “You send me a few live Dukes and I send you a (the Coat of) dead King”. Anyway even after Sir John Seymour recieved his knighthood his family didn’t get very far in court circles both Thomas and Edward were just Gentlemen of Henry’s household, whilst Jane was just a lady in waiting, one of many in KOA’s and then Anne’s household. It was Thomas and Edward who pushed Jane forward, although to be fair I believe Jane was perhaps very different to the rest of Anne’s ladies being a quiet and passive sort of girl and that perhaps made her stick out like the proverbial sore thumb from the rest of Anne’s ladies. I wouldn’t say Jane was a beauty, but she was pleasing to look at, but she certainly had none of Anne’s tempestious or passionate nature, and to be honest here I think Henry perhaps found her a little boring at times.
I think it’s easier for authors to see Anne in an unfavourable light basically because of the length of time he was married to COA and perhaps because Anne was seen from COA point of view as a commoner. After all Prince’s and King’s were to to be married to either’s Princess’s or Queen’s not humble knight’s daughters.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
4:02 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
I haven’t read Ackroyd’s book James, what’s the title? Is it worth a read?
I will probably skip Bernard too, quite frankly I think the theory is so flimsy I’m not sure I can be bothered with it. Otherwise I agree with Louise, I’m not sure anyone has gone out of their way to say Anne was guilty.
Weir, however, accuses Anne of a lot of other things, including murdering Fisher. I couldn’t put her on the “side” of Anne.
Norah Lofts, who I shouldn’t be including as a historian, but have to, as Amberley have decided to republish her appalling book on Anne again, thinks Anne was guilty, and a witch to boot. Technically it is non-fiction.
Antonia Fraser I think often gets glossed over because her Six Wives book is a bit dated. But I think it’s well worth reading, just keep in mind it was written about 20 or so years ago and won’t include some new evidence. It s very thorough though, and I have found it really balanced compared to some other texts.
Warnicke also thought Anne was innocent, although she has that homosexual theory about George etc.
Joanna Denny is so “pro” Anne that she spends most of the biography slamming poor Katherine of Aragon and accusing her and Mary of plotting to overthrow Henry. I kind of enjoyed that book though, it was very entertaining.
10:12 pm
August 27, 2012
Offline
Hi Olga
Ackroyd’s book i believe is called ‘The Tudors’ i haven’t read it personally, but i was at a talk where someone in the audience mentioned that Ackroyd’s opinion was something like ‘there’s no smoke without fire’, or something along those lines ( although he did also say that he didn’t agree with Ackroyd’s opinion which was a good thing )
I’m really interested to read Suzannah Lipscomb’s 1536 and John Schofield’s Thomas Cromwell, i got them both for Christmas and will be very interested to read their views and opinions on Anne’s, especially Schofield’s.
I agree with Louise regarding Gregory and Mantel, although i really feel with Mantel that she likes to reassure herself with the ‘we don’t know if Anne was innocent or guilty’ line so she can continue to view her beloved Cromwell with a nice little halow around his head :p as for Gregory, well i think it’s best for me to leave that one :p
I have read some interesting reviews on Joanna Denny’s book on Anne, it sounds like maybe she should have written a novel as apparently she doesn’t really back many of her claims up with notes or resources? Might be an interesting read though, different from the usual ‘evil Anne’ we can sometimes get.
I think their are some historians who view Anne favorably like our dear departed Eric Ives, and David Starkey seems to be quite an admirer of hers, but in general it does seem that the ones who believe her innocent of her ‘supposed crimes’ are Ives, Starkey, Loades, Denny, Weir, Fraser Warnicke, have pretty well felt strongly and in their own way proved (or tried to in their own way) Anne’s innocence. Whilst Bernard and Lofts believe Anne was guilty, Lofts sounds slightly insane though on some of her theories.
9:18 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Well I don’t rate Gregory or Mantel when the discussion is about historians James, there’s enough discussion about those two about. But as for actual Tudor historians there are probably very few who actually believe Anne was guilty.
As for Lofts, witchcraft was a popular topic in the seventies
She’s a very famous old historical novelist, so I think that leaked into her perception a bit. But she could have been batty. The book does have excellent pictures, I picked it up in an op shop, and I am keeping it for that reason.
I don’t know if Bernard really thinks Anne was guilty. I think he is arguing for arguments sake, let’s sell a book on a far-flung theory. It worked too.
Denny’s book is a bit like a novel. I reckon she would have given Weir a big run for her money were she still about, she had a better writing style. But it is pretty outrageous. I read her book on Kat Howard too, and again while it has no actual footnoting, I was pleased to see her backing the poor girl up. Starkey too for that matter. But that’s another conversation.
Schofield is on my list. I have Lipscomb’s book here but haven’t started it, I promised myself I’d read some other things this year, I went overboard in my new interest last year
On another historian, Julia Fox, who I think is brilliant, doesn’t ever make out she thinks Anne was guilty, she doesn’t seem too sympathetic towards the Boleyns. She made some fairly cutting remarks about Thomas and George in her last book Sister Queens
4:50 pm
August 27, 2012
Offline
I have Julia Fox’s book, i will get round to reading it eventually, it has created quite a debate- some people have been very strongly critical of it . I read somewhere that she thought Jane and George had quite a loving marriage? Apparently there was some controversy over a supposed conversation she says took place between Jane and George in bed or something? And of course many people feel Jane to be mad and evil that they do not wish to believe that her words could have been manipulated by Cromwell.
I agree about Bernard, by the sound of it, it’s like he’s just trying to be controversial- quite a few reviews i have read, including ones on Amazon say he’s just trying to be controversial and doesn’t really put much evidence across to convince people that she could have been, also apparently one of the big controversies of the book is that it was advertised saying something like “new evidence to show Anne Boleyn could have been guilty of at least one of her crimes”, and yet there is no new evidence at all, and really just all based on a poem.
It will be interesting to see if Historians will continue to bring out books researching on Anne, i mean obviously they will, but will they show any new evidence at all? Should they perhaps rest it for a while?
5:45 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Hi James,
Don’t let other people turn you away from reading Julia Fox’s book. It completely changed my perception of Jane. Fox said there is no evidence to prove that Jane and George’s marriage was not a happy one. There is no recording of anyone saying they did not get along. There is certainly no evidence that George beat and raped Jane, or that Jane was a jealous dissatisfied wife. They may have shared a marriage that was good for the both of them. I’m not sure about the conversation in bed between Jane and George. I may be remembering this wrong, but I think Fox was saying that Jane and George may have spoken of Henry’s impotence quietly between the two of them.
I am of the belief that Cromwell twisted every bit of testimony he gathered from all parties involved in the trials.
I enjoyed Fox’s book and I think you will, too.
7:45 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
I’m another who enjoyed the Fox book on Jane Boleyn. Part of it deals with what a Tudor woman of her pedigree would expect from life which is intereasting but made the first part drag a bit.
It’s nice to see Jane getting a bit of positive attention for once.
It's always bunnies.
8:53 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Sharon said
Hi James,
Don’t let other people turn you away from reading Julia Fox’s book. It completely changed my perception of Jane. Fox said there is no evidence to prove that Jane and George’s marriage was not a happy one. There is no recording of anyone saying they did not get along. There is certainly no evidence that George beat and raped Jane, or that Jane was a jealous dissatisfied wife. They may have shared a marriage that was good for the both of them. I’m not sure about the conversation in bed between Jane and George. I may be remembering this wrong, but I think Fox was saying that Jane and George may have spoken of Henry’s impotence quietly between the two of them.
I am of the belief that Cromwell twisted every bit of testimony he gathered from all parties involved in the trials.
I enjoyed Fox’s book and I think you will, too.
With you on this one Sharon, that is my feeling too where Cromwell is concerned. Henry told Cromwell to get rid of Anne and more or less gave Cromwell Carte’ Blanc to use any means neccessary even if it meant lying through his teeth to do it.
Yep again I agree with you about Jane and George, they may or may not have been happy I personally feel that their marriage was one of perhaps mutral arrangement, they were simply satified with each other, whether or not that can be constued as love I don’t know? But I do feel that Cromwell betrayed Jane in the cruelest possible way. Jane I feel was used a scapegoat at Cromwells expence, and because of it K.H and Culpepper used Jane as a sort of cat’s paw to try and save their lives, after all who would believe a woman who had all but sent her husband and Sister in law to the scaffold, was innocent. Having got to know Jane through these forums I feel that she was badly treated NOT by George or Anne but by others, who saw her as wicked, vicious, jealous shrew. I think in truth she was a kind and generous woman who perhaps wore her heart too firmly on her sleeve and was made use of
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
5:08 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
To me, that’s always been the problem of arranged marriages..they either work or they don’t. Mind you, marriages for love have the same problem..
If you are brought up in the culture that your parents or guardians will provide you with your marital future, then it’s going to be easier to accept your chosen spouse without expecting the whole lurve stuff.
This can make a marriage stronger since both parties need to deal with the practicalities of marrying a stranger. It worked for most of European royal and noble families. welll except H8 and AoC..
Jane was lucky in may respects regarding her mariage to George..he was young, there were apparently no defects in his face or body, he was well educated and had been a member of court from a young age. He was a prize given his descent from not only the Howard dukes of Norfolk but from the Irish earls of Ormonde .
Sure, there were far more noble men at court than George but if he had the same good looks as his sisters and thier je ne sais pas ..he’d have been a lady-killer.
It's always bunnies.
5:18 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Boleyn said
<Having got to know Jane through these forums I feel that she was badly treated NOT by George or Anne but by others, who saw her as wicked, vicious, jealous shrew. I think in truth she was a kind and generous woman who perhaps wore her heart too firmly on her sleeve and was made use of
Oh this…so much this…Poor Jane has been though the washer and wringer of historical fiction..Something bad happens in Tudor England and Anne’s dead..Must be Jane Boleyn..
BTW..I like your take on JB in the novel you are posting here..She’s bit too sweet and nice but it makes a change from the she-devil in training or the total @r$e-licker normally seen…that’s not a critism BTW..your Jane is just a tad one dimentional
It's always bunnies.
9:47 am
August 27, 2012
Offline
It’s wonderful to read your opinions of Julia Fox’s book and how it changed your opinion of Jane, i think after reading so much where Jane is the bad/evil one i’m ashamed to say i think it’s rubbed off on me a bit!! It’s shocking really to think that so far this book by Julia Fox is the only work to show Jane in a clearer light, there’s so much anti-Jane work out there it’s incredible really- and i thought Anne usually had it tough in that field… Really she has it much, much easier. I shouldn’t let other people influence me reading a particular book, that is bad of me. There a page on Facebook i’m a member of, and the admin is writing a historical fiction book on Jane- and she’s a supporter of hers 
, which will make a refreshing change.
As to the other book i hope to start fairly soon- Suzannah Lipscombs 1536, does she go into Anne’s downfall much? Or does she focus more on Henry?
9:14 pm
January 18, 2013
Offline
James33 said
It’s wonderful to read your opinions of Julia Fox’s book and how it changed your opinion of Jane, i think after reading so much where Jane is the bad/evil one i’m ashamed to say i think it’s rubbed off on me a bit!! It’s shocking really to think that so far this book by Julia Fox is the only work to show Jane in a clearer light, there’s so much anti-Jane work out there it’s incredible really- and i thought Anne usually had it tough in that field… Really she has it much, much easier. I shouldn’t let other people influence me reading a particular book, that is bad of me. There a page on Facebook i’m a member of, and the admin is writing a historical fiction book on Jane- and she’s a supporter of hers
As to the other book i hope to start fairly soon- Suzannah Lipscombs 1536, does she go into Anne’s downfall much? Or does she focus more on Henry?
Hi, i’ve read that book by Syzanah Lipscomb. It does have a chapter called “The Fall of Anne Boleyn” and is about 30ish pages long but there are plenty of other chapters and events discussed from that year aswell. COA’s death, the Holbein portrait, Pilgrimage of Grace etc. Great read if your interested in the psychology of Henry.
Woohoo I'm normal...gotta go tell the cat!
4:57 pm
August 27, 2012
Offline
KellyMarie said
James33 said
It’s wonderful to read your opinions of Julia Fox’s book and how it changed your opinion of Jane, i think after reading so much where Jane is the bad/evil one i’m ashamed to say i think it’s rubbed off on me a bit!! It’s shocking really to think that so far this book by Julia Fox is the only work to show Jane in a clearer light, there’s so much anti-Jane work out there it’s incredible really- and i thought Anne usually had it tough in that field… Really she has it much, much easier. I shouldn’t let other people influence me reading a particular book, that is bad of me. There a page on Facebook i’m a member of, and the admin is writing a historical fiction book on Jane- and she’s a supporter of hers
As to the other book i hope to start fairly soon- Suzannah Lipscombs 1536, does she go into Anne’s downfall much? Or does she focus more on Henry?
Hi, i’ve read that book by Syzanah Lipscomb. It does have a chapter called “The Fall of Anne Boleyn” and is about 30ish pages long but there are plenty of other chapters and events discussed from that year aswell. COA’s death, the Holbein portrait, Pilgrimage of Grace etc. Great read if your interested in the psychology of Henry.
Thank you for the recommendation
