to me, no.

accepting the limitations of the consort role, she still didn’t actually achieve much for anyone outside her immediate family/friends despite having the Kings ear for 10 years – you could easily make a good argument that he greatest acheivement was her promotion of proto-protestantism in a very heavily RC environment, but even then that could be argued to be as much about her private interests in marrying Henry as it was about promoting a ‘new learning’ for the good of all.

is she interesting? yes. was she remarkably determined, sexy, hugely intelligent with a razor sharp wit, intellectually/philosophically curious, and probably a right handful in bed? yes – but that does not make her a ‘great’ consort: it could easily be argued that her promotion of proto-protestantism was both preaching to the choir of a self-obsessed monarch who brooked no limitition of his sovereignty, and helped start more than 100 years of religous warfare in England as well as destroying great swathes of Englands most incredible and historically important architecture.

then theres the most basic issue – she manged to remain queen for only 3 years, and she only produced one child in an age where even in the richest households, only half of all children born alive made it to adulthood.

hardly a spectactular record…

Steve Callaghan said

That doesn’t strike me as a truly objective view, Bob…and I’m not one who idolises Anne. And besides, successfully providing male heirs is a matter of luck, not talent.

i think there’s probably a degree of talent involved in not offending your husband so much that he cuts your head off after only 3 years of marriage…

i didn’t specify male heirs, as you can see from my post, i noted that she managed to stay married to Henry VIII for only long enough to produce one heir in a time when the odds of that child surving into adulthood were 50/50. had she managed to convince Henry VIII to not feel like cutting her head off, its reasonably likely she would have produced more heirs (whether male or female), meaning its much more statisticly likely that one of them would survive long enough to succeed to the throne.

as it is she was lucky that Elizabeth survived, had she not, and died in childhhod instead, Anne Boleyn would be a footnote in history like Anne of Cleeves, or even Jane Seymour…

There is a big difference between Queen ie Elizabeth and Queen Consort Anne. She did what other consorts did:
She couldn’t come out and make policy on her own. But Anne had the ear of the king and everyone knew it. She did help her uncle Norfolk with the marriage between Mary Howard and Fitzroy, and Henry gave wardship of Fitzroy to Norfolk free of the large payment the king would have normally expected. She was petitioned by many courtiers all the time for help. The Duke of Milan told his ambassadors that she should be treated as a force in her own right. She was involved in diplomatic talks with France. English envoys were anxious to keep in with her.
She and Cromwell worked hand in hand to solve property disputes and whatever other types of petitions came across their desks. She helped many women who petitioned her about property disputes. Three of them being: after a husband’s death she stepped in to help over the property dispute, another whose husband was in debt, another who was trying to secure a separation from her second husband. She wrote to Cromwell and asked him to help in the career of a young man who had been deserted by his family saying that “he could not do a better deed for the increase of his eternal reward in the world to come.” People would write to Cromwell asking for the queen’s help. If a commission wasn’t going through quick enough, she interceded to move it along. Where she could, she helped people get the commissions they asked for and in some cases offered another more successful solution. She did ask the king to intercede in some cases and he did.
She did what she could as consort to help those who petitioned her, and her advice and help was much sought after.

I don’t idolize Anne, but I won’t minimize her either.

People idolise Anne Boleyn because she is one of history’s underdogs. Same reason people have that sort of celebrity worship for Richard III. Had Anne lived she probably would have been far less interesting.

Nicely said Sharon. Anne “did” as much as any Queen consort was expected to do although I think she was probably the most intelligent of Henry’s wives bar Katherine Parr.

I wouldn’t think she would have made an exemplary Queen consort had she lived though. When I think of exemplary I think of Elizabeth of York. Being a successful consort also means having the love of your people. Anne’s pride was a serious flaw in her character, although that would have put her against her nobles rather than her subjects. But I don’t think Anne would have ever been wholly accepted by the people because of Katherine of Aragon. I don’t think she ever would have won them over entirely.

Bob to be fair Henry was not exactly malleable, I don’t think any amount of convincing on Anne’s part would have done it. Had someone powerful taken her side, maybe. I know Kat Parr managed to talk herself out of being arrested but then I think Henry was bullying her and trying to force her to submit to him rather than being intent on getting rid of her. Had he wanted to he would have done. Had he wanted to forgive Anne he would have done, as it was he sent Cromwell off to invent evidence.