Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
3:42 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
This sort of ties in with the topic, ‘Which Historians do we Trust’. For a start off you have to believe they won’t overlook evidence which doesn’t necessarily support the case they’re trying to put forward. I’ve read the Zupanec book (whatever she may choose to believe) and that’s exactly what she does.
I’m not an ‘Anne fan’. It makes me sound like a teenager at a Duran Duran concert. But I do admire her and her brother. Both had their faults, and I’m not stupid enough to think they were perfect. I’m not a gullible fool taken in my the romance of Anne’s tragic fall. She could be bad tempered and vindictive, but she certainly doesn’t deserve this hatchet job.
Zupanec takes every negative comment that has ever been written about Anne, including the remarks of Chapuys, and turns them into fact. She also relies heavily on Nicolas Sander who was 9 when Anne died. OK, fair enough, but she ignores anything positive. Gone is the religious reformer and the charitable Anne. Instead we are left with a caricature.
1. Anne was sent to France due to her behaviour (strong reliance on Sander).
2. All the negatives about Mary Boleyn’s behaviour and morals can be reinterpreted to refer to Anne (don’t ask how because that part really did my head in)!
3. Anne was unattractive and no beauty. New? I think most of us accept that Anne had an attraction that was not based on conventional beauty. But then again maybe we accept the beautiful Anne of fiction; silly us.
4. Anne was vicious, vindictive and manipulative with, as far as I could make out, no redeeming features. How Henry could have fallen in love with the hellcat is a miracle.
5. Anne was unable to control herself or her behaviour, making her entirely unsuitable to be queen. She actually exhibited none of the intelligence and wit she has become renowned for. That is a myth.
6. Her immoral and loose behaviour made it easy for everyone to believe in her guilt. She was incapable of controlling her sexuality or desist in flirtatous and unseemly behaviour (no mention of the art of courtly love).
7. Her bravery on the scaffold has been exaggerated over time. She was actually distracted and resigned.
8. Henry fell out of love with her quickly after they were married when he discovered she did not have what it took to be queen, and also because of her unpleasant personality and ruthlessness. He came to see how much she was hated.
9. In fact Anne was hated by everyone due to her pride, viciouness and overwheming desire to be queen. Oh yes, her plan was always to withold sex from Henry as her master plan was to be queen. Even her own father had reservations about her suitability to the role.
None of this, or at least very little, is new. Much of it relies on rumours and innuedo which circulated at the time and which we were starting to move away from. There’s nothing new in this book, and certainly no new evidence. It’s just a reassessment of existing evidence, and often not even that. It’s all been done before, only much better. This isn’t a balanced view of Anne. As I said above it’s a hatchet job, and a badly written one at that.
5:47 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Louise. One of my main problems with the book is that it is marketed as containing new evidence and I found none in it. She has reinterpreted evidence but that is very different.
I was bemused by the point she made about historians mis-translating Nicholas Sander regarding the swelling on Anne’s neck. She says that Sander said that Anne had a swelling there but that historians mis-translate that as “wen”, but the definition of “wen” IS “swelling” so it’s a perfectly adequate translation.
Anyway, I’m not going to say any more about it, it’s just not worth it. Feel free to carry on discussing it though.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
6:44 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
I think Pontius Pilot saying “What is Truth” comes to mind here. The truth is we can never really know the “truth” not just about Anne but every period in History. Granted there are well documented accounts about what went on, and there are many differing views. For instance if you look at say Cromwell’s account of Anne (having not read them this is purely for an example) he may have said that Anne was beautiful, Clever a very gifted musician and all round good egg, however then you look Chapuys view of Anne she was a bad Catholic a wh*re and a usurper, who would sell K.O.A to a glue factory or turn her into compost for the price of a gold sovereign. 2 very different views of the same person, so therefore all we can do is read these accounts and draw our own conclusions. Although the one thing we can agree on here is that Henry’s reign stated out as ok and ended as some sort of Greek tragedy purely because he appeared to go mad (loosely worded)
One of the good things about this forum is that it gives all us History Buffs somewhere to discuss our thoughts and opinions on what we feel may have happened and why such and such did or didn’t do this that or the other. Not just to do with Tudor History but other periods too, we are all a big bunch of happy scallywags who actually appreicate and enjoy sharing our thoughts with others, and equally so enjoy a good debate with no sign of prejudice or malice towards anyone if our opinions differ. It would be a very boring world if we were all the same and thought exactly alike too. Just think when we have all gone the way of the Dodo, everything that we have discussed here thus far and any future debates, will no doubt be discussed by future generations.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:04 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
Well put Boleyn. Old Henry really was the ultimate Greek Tragedy, wasn’t he?!
As for this book, it sounds dreadful. Will avoid it like the plague.
7:15 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Bella44 said
Well put Boleyn. Old Henry really was the ultimate Greek Tragedy, wasn’t he?!
As for this book, it sounds dreadful. Will avoid it like the plague.
Bella, don’t not read it because of my mini review. I think it’s as important, perhaps more so, to read something you don’t agree with. It’s certainly challenging to do so and sometimes your attitude can change. I read Julia Fox’s book on Jane Boleyn. Before that I had a very negative view of Jane. Fox’s book made me look at Jane differently and objectively and I changed my views. This book didn’t change my views of Anne but that’s not to say don’t read it. I started off grumpy, but Anne is so unremittingly horrid that I found it quite funny as it progressed and every comment relating to her was negative. I’ve never thought of Anne as a super villan before, but now I will always think of her as a kind of Blofeld, stroking a white fluffy cat!
7:25 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Louise said
Bella44 said
Well put Boleyn. Old Henry really was the ultimate Greek Tragedy, wasn’t he?!
As for this book, it sounds dreadful. Will avoid it like the plague.
Bella, don’t not read it because of my mini review. I think it’s as important, perhaps more so, to read something you don’t agree with. It’s certainly challenging to do so and sometimes your attitude can change. I read Julia Fox’s book on Jane Boleyn. Before that I had a very negative view of Jane. Fox’s book made me look at Jane differently and objectively and I changed my views. This book didn’t change my views of Anne but that’s not to say don’t read it. I started off grumpy, but Anne is so unremittingly horrid that I found it quite funny as it progressed and every comment relating to her was negative. I’ve never thought of Anne as a super villan before, but now I will always think of her as a kind of Blofeld, stroking a white fluffy cat!
How about Miss Havisham from Great Expectations?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:26 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
Anne as a Bond villain! Maybe I should read it just for the comedy aspect!!!
7:32 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
Boleyn said
How about Miss Havisham from Great Expectations?
Miss Havisham, heh! Oh dear, now I can see someone writing a book where Anne personifies all the mad/bad/sad characters from popular book and films 
7:39 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Bella44 said
Anne as a Bond villain! Maybe I should read it just for the comedy aspect!!!
Ian Fleming wouldn’t use her as a villain, Bela. She’s too evil for that. It wouldn’t be believable.
Oh, I forgot, Henry only married her because she was pregnant.
Oh and Mary Boleyn’s reputation came about because it was really Anne who was the wh*re.
Oh and Henry named ‘The Mary Boleyn’ ship after his mistress. No, he bought it from Thomas Boleyn and it was already named.
Oh and it was Anne who orchestrated Wolsey’s fall.
Oh and the Anne we think of was an invention created in Elizabeth’s reign.
I could go on and on and on and……….
7:47 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
That Mary Boleyn thing makes no sense. Sounds rather bizarre.
7:54 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Elizabeth never cleared her mother’s name because she knew she wasn’t virtuous
Anne invented the story that she served queen Claude in order to make herself more important.
Every positive view of Anne we have is pure propaganda.
Anne was not a reformist. That was a later invention by reformists during the reign of Elizabeth.
7:58 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
Are we sure Nicholas Sander is dead?!!!
8:34 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Bella44 said
Are we sure Nicholas Sander is dead?!!!
LOL with views like he’s put forward he should be. “Off with his head” I say.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
4:27 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Louise said
7. Her bravery on the scaffold has been exaggerated over time. She was actually distracted and resigned.
It’s possible to be both…I’d be pretty distracted and resigned …but I could also be brave at the same time. Ask any service person about to take part in an attack where the chances of losing your life is fairly high….
As for her being resigned..she knew she was innocent and her belief in Jesus and God gave her that calm acceptance that a lot of people who are about to die unpleasantly but for a real reason are capable off..
This was the first of Louise’s points that jumped out at me…I’ll probably post about the others when I’m not about to head to bed.
It's always bunnies.
9:56 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
One thing I forgot to say in my article on Anne Boleyn, Margaret of Austria and Queen Claude, and was reminded of by Olivia Peyton, was Anne’s use of the motto “Ainsi sera, groigne qui groigne” (Let them grumble, that is how it is going to be) which, as Eric Ives and Joanna Denny point out, was a play on Margaret of Austria’s motto “Groigne qui groigne, Vive Bourgogne!’ (Grudge who Grudges, Long Live Burgundy). Why would Anne make use of a motto of a woman she’d never met and whose court she never attended?
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
7:03 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Louise said
Bella44 said
Well put Boleyn. Old Henry really was the ultimate Greek Tragedy, wasn’t he?!
As for this book, it sounds dreadful. Will avoid it like the plague.
Bella, don’t not read it because of my mini review. I think it’s as important, perhaps more so, to read something you don’t agree with. It’s certainly challenging to do so and sometimes your attitude can change. I read Julia Fox’s book on Jane Boleyn. Before that I had a very negative view of Jane. Fox’s book made me look at Jane differently and objectively and I changed my views. This book didn’t change my views of Anne but that’s not to say don’t read it. I started off grumpy, but Anne is so unremittingly horrid that I found it quite funny as it progressed and every comment relating to her was negative. I’ve never thought of Anne as a super villan before, but now I will always think of her as a kind of Blofeld, stroking a white fluffy cat!
Louise,
I read Julia Fox’s book because it was recommended to me…by you. I was quite skeptical, but I read it and liked it very much. I have a very different opinion of Jane because of that book. This one seems a bit different. I have downloaded the free sample of The Daring Truth of Anne Boleyn. So far, I am not impressed. I love my amazon kindle for allowing me to read a free sample. I can decide after that if I want to pay for the book. I’m not sure I want to read this one. What I have read so far does not seem to have anything new in it. Like I said I just started it, but what I’ve read is that Anne was very dark skinned had six fingers and something swelling under her chin. What did Henry see in her? Well her eyes were very sexy. One of the men she is quoting, Grynaeous, a scholar/theologian, who was in England 1531 to collect opinions on the divorce. He claims the divorce from Katherine was the king’s troubled conscience and not that he wanted to marry another woman. He says it was rumored that Anne may have had children by Henry that were kept hidden away. That was the rumor at court. And it is his opinion, even after being told otherwise, Anne and Henry were bedmates before they were married. I think it was her eyes that told him that. 
So I’m a little put off.
Claire, Your article was excellent as usual.
4:01 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
That Mary Boleyn thing makes no sense. Sounds rather bizarre
Sounds like this historian is using that reliable primary source of Phillipa Gregory for her book. My memory is hazy but in TOBG doesn’t Henry build a ship and name it in Mary’s honour during their affair and presents it to her in front of everybody? I vaguley remember hopping on line to check that bit of history out and ended up with nothing so concluded in was another example of fiction dresssed as fact.
8:43 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
I couldn’t actually understand what Zupanec believed about the six fingers tradition, I think she thought it was an exaggeration. When she released the cover image on Facebook, I pointed out that Anne had six fingers and asked whether the fact that it had that image and the title “The Daring Truth” meant that she believed that Anne had six fingers, but she said it was just to show that it was a book about the myths. In the chapter on Anne’s appearance, Zupanec says:
– Anne had a swelling under her chin
– that Anne’s skin was not just sallow or swarthy, it was very dark
– She had black eyes and black hair
– She had some kind of malformation on one of her hands but the extra finger was probably an exaggeration
– She had moles that she was self-conscious about
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
10:38 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
If I had moles I’d be self-conscious too. They make a dreadful mess of your garden.
Anyanka, I agree you can be distracted and resigned as well as brave. This defines to me the problem with the book. It gives Anne no credit whatsoever. Everything is turned into a negative. Most human beings are a combination of good and bad. It’s what makes us human. But here Anne is portrayed as barely human. If this was a novel the character would be unbelievable.
3:50 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Bill1978 said
Sounds like this historian is using that reliable primary source of Phillipa Gregory for her book. My memory is hazy but in TOBG doesn’t Henry build a ship and name it in Mary’s honour during their affair and presents it to her in front of everybody? I vaguley remember hopping on line to check that bit of history out and ended up with nothing so concluded in was another example of fiction dresssed as fact.
I am pretty sure Wilkinson mentioned it in her book on Mary Boleyn, Bill, and I have read it elsewhere (but can’t remember exactly which one)
Don’t know who the original “source” was for it though. I’m sure Weir mentioned it earlier (but withdrew it in her Mary Boleyn book)
I’ll be giving that one a miss Louise, I read enough rubbish this year. I have enough to get through without reading yet another supposedly new book on Anne, thanks for the review.
