Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
11:27 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Look at Matthew Parker too, he became Elizabeth I’s Archbishop of Canterbury and that would never have happened if Anne has not been his patron back in the 1530s.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
12:26 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
I should clarify that I’m not suggesting Anne didn’t have influence. I think she had enormous influence, as had the people she and her faction promoted, such as Cromwell and Cranmer. But that influence was dependant on Henry allowing it. He went along with Cromwell’s advice regarding the Cleves marriage because he saw the merit in it, and he went along with the plot against Anne because he wanted to, just as he went along with the ideas of Cromwell and Cranmer in order to achieve his marriage to Anne. That’s what I mean when I say it was all down to Henry in the end. Nothing could be achieved without his consent, and he approved advice which resulted in him getting what he wanted. Whatever influence anyone had had over him the Reformation would never have happened if he hadn’t have been prepared to go down that path.
9:05 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Louise said
Nothing could be achieved without his consent, and he approved advice which resulted in him getting what he wanted. Whatever influence anyone had had over him the Reformation would never have happened if he hadn’t have been prepared to go down that path.
Oh definitely, Henry was always the one calling the shots.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
12:34 am
September 8, 2012
Offline
Anne’s Death was NOT JUSTIFIED!!!! If one reads Ives and Starky’s book ( as well as the 7 others I have read-Denny-Warnicke-Frasier-Weir etc…) she was obviously “set up”. I find it interesting that the charges were NOT divulged to her when she was arrested!!!! The case against her was, In Roman historian opinion, at best weak!!!! Also the Charges were just plain ludicrous!!!! Thanks
6:55 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
The only death that was fully justified in the whole of Henry’s reign, was his own. Seriously I’ve no doubt that everyone here if we could travel back in time would have lynched the fat barperson for what he did to Anne.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
10:56 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Boleyn said
Equally so she didn’t deserve to die and neither did Dereham after all what had they actually done wrong? .
One of the charges against Dereham was treason since he’d tolld his friend Davenport “I’m sure I might marry her” should the king die.( Jane Boleyn, the true story of the infamous Lady Rochford, p 274)
THat simple statement was enough to condemn him in the same way that Anne’s similar words to Norris were.
It's always bunnies.
11:37 am
April 17, 2012
Offline
I think the real question is, is it ever acceptable for someone to die at the hands of anyone other than God? Is the hand of an anointed King (or Queen) the representation of God on earth? And therefore, does the anointment at the coronation ceremony make a King (or Queen) infallible? This is not a necessarily a question of religion, but a question of ethics. How deeply did Henry VIII believe himself to be the hand of God on earth, and did he therefore believe himself and his actions to be infallible? Reformation or not, were Henry’s subjects entitled to believe his actions were susceptible to the same morality as their own, or was their faith in God ingrained with their faith in their King, and therefore, despite moral ethics, were they obliged to take his actions as infallible? This was a time without uniformity of laws, of corruption due to irregular legal standards between those with wealth and nobility and those without, at this time, were the immoral actions of a King entirely excusable due to his being crowned King? Is it possible for people today to make accurate judgments of personal morality regarding actions made at a time when there was only one unique and mandatory moral belief system? Even if we knew definatively every fact and detail regarding the death of Anne Boleyn, and indeed any person put to death by Henry VIII, would it be possible for us to make an objective judgement despite these detrimental moral differences? Is it possible that the question of the justification of Anne Boleyn’s death is really a very simple one afterall? Could it really be a simple question of humanity, and is that why to this day we all have a deep rooted opinion as to whether her death was justified? Could any fact or detail change the immorality of any man, even a King, putting his wife, or indeed any person to death no matter what their crime? Is it fair for us to make judgement on the guilt and sentence of a woman, regardless of how much we think we know her and her story, or should we just all admit that no matter what the circumstances, no matter what our thoughts and beliefs on the subject, a man putting his wife to death is fundamentally wrong?
