Usually (and it quite continues today in modern times as well) powerful women are accused to witchcraft.  Of illusions and throwing glamours and seducing the 'poor' individuals involved.  No, she wasn't a witch in the classical sense or even today's Pagan arena, however her being outspoken, oppinionated and ready to act on her own ambitions, deemed her a witch.  Andof course is the everlasting reason ofthe quickest way to get rid of a 'pesky' female (especially in those times) was to accuse them of witchcraft.  I neither believe that she had any physical deormities that have been also attributed to her in support of the 'witchcraft' charges. 

Anne was a remarkable free thinking ahead of her times female. The only crime that she was guilty of was falling in love with a paranoid mysodgyst. Henry was mentally unstable in my opinion. He hid behind the mask of his royal status, but underneath it he was a coward and a bully.
Anne saw Henry for what he truly was too late to save her life. Anne in some ways was a tudor time Emmeline Pankhurst. She told woman that they didn’t just have to follow orders, that they too could have a life and a voice of their own, and basically shape their own destinies.
Anne was a herione and a martyr for womans rights.

Anyanka said

I don’t think Henry was a misogynist as such, more a product of his time. Women at the time were considered to be little more than walking wombs, sinful and spiritally weak.

The only real career choice was wife or nun. Some women were lucky enough to be talented and thier husbands or fathers allowed them to be craftswomen but those were by far in the minority.

Anne was fortunate that her father invested a lot into her education, more than the average father of the time did for his sons. That education combined with her natural interelect, charisma and flair made her stand out amongst the other damsels of the court.

I don’t think Anne would have seen herself as a feminist, more as a patron or mentor to younger women. While she encouraged her ladies to read the English translation of the Bible and was concerned with literacy in general, I never got the impression that she was for female equality. That would have been unthinkable in that era.

I agree Anyanka but you must admit Anne’s example on what a woman could do if she was determined enough to get it planted a few seeds in woman’s minds, that they could indeed be as equal in a male dominated world, and Elizabeth more than most hammered that point home firmly.
Mysodgyst was perhaps too strong a word to describe Henry, but love and hate to him in my opinion were one and the same thing to him.I don’t think he really understood the apsolute feeling of love, and if he did he took it very much forgranted. Meaning that woman should love just because he’s a King he should be revered as a God by them too.
I wonder how he would have coped if some woman turned around and called him a fat lump of stinking lard, with a microscopic doodle, who is so stupid he can’t even wipe his own bottom without a set of instructions and a compass. No woman was meant to say NO to the King it was just a big no no. If the King asked a woman to jump, she jumped, and didn’t question it. It’s good that Thomas B cared enough to give both Anne and Mary what would be considered given the times, a very radical and modern education. Although I don’t think Mary’s education was as advanced as Anne’s. I wonder why?

Applause said

She was definitely not a witch, the rumor that she had a sixth finger came from the Elizabethan era…no evidence she was a witch. But in the 1500s, when women had miscarriages, it is said the woman did something bad. But obviously that wasn’t the case for Anne. So that basically gave evidence in the 1500s that she was supposedly a witch. (She obviously wasn’t) She was put to much stress by Henry, I guess. That’s probably why she had miscarriages.

Anne was only called “The Great wh*re” because the english loved Catherine of Aragon and wanted Henry to go back to Rome. Heck, even Henry’s sisters hated Anne. Plus, Anne’s sister Mary was a mistress to Henry and was called “The Great Prostitute”. She was by no means, a wh*re.

Ok, Anne is definitely a martyr, though.

The sixth finger bit and the accusation of witchcraft was partly from Henry himself in my opinion, it was also rumoured that Anne also had a third nipple. Henry was desperate to get rid of Anne by any means possible, and an accusation of witchcraft was one of the quickest ways to do it. Anne so called crimes were certainly embellished in Elizabeth’s reign, but then look at the situation to why?

The Catholic faith had more or less been restored to England under Queen Mary. (If Mary had been given maybe 2 or 3 more years of life I believe that England would have been wholely Catholic and the England we have today would be very different) For the Catholic people Elizabeth was a bastard and a heretic, she had no right or claim to the title of Queen in their opinion. After Mary died the throne if we follow the Catholic line should have gone to Mary and Elizabeth 2nd cousin Mary Queen of Scots, but we know that wasn’t the case.
So the Catholic people spent a great deal of time trying to blacken Elizabeth and her mother etc in any means possible so that the people would turn against Elizabeth stand with the Catholic nation, turf Elizabeth off the throne, have her either murdered or executed, and put Mary Queen of Scots on the throne in her place. The main trouble to this was that the although the English Catholics believed that Mary QoS was the next true heir, they would in no way whatsoever except a forgien ruler, (Philip of Spain was detested by the English) and especially not a French one. Mary QoS was married to the French Dauphin, and in time became Queen of France as well. She was also Scottish and the Scots and the English had been at each other’s throats for centuries. So who would have ruled England instead if Mary QoS was rejected? and bear in mind that old Blubberguts(Henry) had also disherited his sister Margaret’s children from inheriting the throne Mary QoS was after all Margaret’s Grandaughter.
So who could rule instead? to my mind that would only leave Henry Lord Darnley as the nearest male claiment to throne. but again Darnley was from Margaret’s bloodline. I believe Henry’s will was quite specfic in his disinheriting of Margaret’s bloodline to therone, and that being so there would be trouble in excepting Lord Darnley as king even if he was a Catholic, or in my opinion pretended to be.
Possibly one of the Grey sister could have taken the throne, but they weren’t Catholic plus the fact their sister had been convicted and executed as a traitor, so there would be a few eyebrows raised, to why the Grey sisters were now being considered as heirs to the throne? So that in my opinion wasn’t an option.
Whatever way you look at it Elizabeth was by far the best option for England at that time, so all the propaganda and sedition that was thrown around by the Catholic faction, calling Elizabeth a bastard, and a wh*re, and calling Anne a witch blah blah blah was just a case of very sour grapes on the Catholic side of things. They uderestimated the love of the English people for their King or Queen and country, and hoped that they could destroy Elizabeth with words, in much the same as her mother had been. Anne was executed on one man’s testamony which was obtained through torture, which as we all know is inadmissible evidence in in law court trials today..
So just who would the Catholic faction put up as Queen or King? It would have to be someone English, Catholic, and of the bloodline of Tudor stock.
As blubberguts had chopped so many possible claiments up, there were few left. In short it would be the Wars of the Roses all over again.

Anyanka said

After the Grey sisters, was thier cousin Margeret Stanley nee Clifford, daughter of Frances Brandon’s younger sister, Eleanor). Margaret died in 1596 leaving a son as heir to the throne under the Third Succession act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…..l_of_Derby)

Thank you Anyanka, I had forgotten about her as it goes.
But I still feel there would been a lot of blood spilt if the Catholics had managed to unseat Elizabeth. If Margeret Clifford’s son did manage to replace Elizabeth you have to admit that his royal blood was somewhat watered down, a little like Henry 7th’s was. H7 was lucky in the sence that Elizabeth of York was stll available to marry and strengthen his claim or I’ve no doubt he himself would have been ousted sooner or later, and at that time there were still many claiments to the throne who felt they had more right to the throne than he did.
Margaret’s son would have had to marry a member of royality to do the same as H7 did. He could have indeed married Mary QOS, but again she wasn’t pure Tudor stock, and I doubt that she would have been accepted by the English people anyway.
So who could he marry? whoever he married it would cause conflict, half the reason to why I believe Elizabeth chose not to marry was because she knew whoever she married, be they Catholic or Protestant from a country freindly or not with England it would cause issues with the rulers of the countries she shunned so to speak. What I mean is that Spain and France weren’t happy with each other, relatons between France and England weren’t exactly freindly either but at least they were diplomatic with each other, Spain and England’s relationship was rocky. (Elizabeth certainly gave Philip a headache with her Surla Burla attitude) So if she married a France man that would upset Philip and give him a migraine, as theorectically France and England could combine forces and cause havoc in the Spanish terrorties, and much the same could be said if Elizabeth choose a Spanish bridegroom, the French terrorties could be threatened, and perhaps Elizabeth would regain Calais.

SteveJ said

Boleyn said

I wonder how he would have coped if some woman turned around and called him a fat lump of stinking lard, with a microscopic doodle, who is so stupid he can’t even wipe his own bottom without a set of instructions and a compass.

Call me radical but I reckon you’re not a fan of Henry’s, Bo.

How did you guess Steve? What’s to like about a man who chopped up 2 of his wives just because they have insulted his over inflated ego? and left 4 other woman nervous wreaks, not to mention destroying everything he couldn’t have, buy or roger just because he was a selfish fat pig.
No seriously I will admit that Henry did bring the country out of the dark ages so to speak. Before the reformation England had a very narrow outlook on life, so at least in that he did broaden the whole outlook of life for everyone, and gave people the chance to choose their own direction in life. Personally I would have loved to darken Henry’s outlook on more than one occation with the way he was, but I suppose he only did what he felt was best.

Sharon said

Boleyn said

Boleyn said

I wonder how he would have coped if some woman turned around and called him a fat lump of stinking lard, with a microscopic doodle, who is so stupid he can’t even wipe his own bottom without a set of instructions and a compass.

Henry would stomp down the halls of Hampton Court yelling, “I want that woman calling herself Boleyn beheaded now! Where’d she come from anyway? Didn’t I rid the world of those Boleyn’s? Off with her head!”

LOL Sharon. Henry stomp, roll yes but not stomp. For some strange reason I have a mental image of Henry throwing a supersize (well in his case a jumbo super,super size) fit and blowing up like a giant balloon( a little like the girl in the 1st Charlie and the Choclate factory film) before floating off into the statusphere, make a good weather balloon or a kite for little Eddy to play with. Trouble is with him stinking up the atmosphere Global warming would be the least of our worries.

Yeah that would be good, could play skittles with him on a rainy day.

Mary Tudor’s dislike of Anne Boleyn could well be summed up in a very human way. Never underestimate the power of jealousy!