Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
3:47 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
I was thinking (steady on I hear you cry)! It’s impossible to prove a negative. You can prove something exists, but you can’t prove something doesn’t exist. If there were any evidence to confirm it, it would be possible to prove George Boleyn was homosexual, but once the theory is made, irrespective of the fact that there’s no evidence to prove it, it’s impossible to categorically disprove it.
You could theorise that Anne Boleyn had three breasts. Unlike the Duchess of Cambridge, Anne was never photographed topless, so it’s impossible to disprove. You could theorise that Catherine of Aragon had an alcohol problem, hence the reason she kept miscarrying (that wasn’t a Spanish accent; she was permanently drunk)! It was 500 years ago; who’s going to prove me wrong?
Historians can come up with any theory they like in the knowledge that no one can categorically disprove it. I could say that Henry VIII liked his hunting dogs…..i.e. that he really really liked them. I have nothing to go on to prove that, but it doesn’t stop me saying so because no one can say I’m wrong. Henry slept with some of his pageboys during periods when he wasn’t married. It would be easy to advance a theory that he was a child abuser. I don’t believe it for a minute, but it’s possible. Anything is possible.
Historians are always trying to come up with something new to advance a book or show they have come up with something incredible that no one else has thought of. I just think a lot of it is a complete load of b*****ks.
5:34 pm
March 26, 2011
Offline
I agree, next thing people will be saying there may be some historically creditability to that book that claimed that Anne Boleyn was a vampire 
11:15 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Silly, Claire-Louise, every-one knows she was a vampire-slayer…..though Anne could have been both I suppose
It's always bunnies.
2:39 am
June 15, 2012
Offline
Yep, and once a popular historian puts forward any old theory, there are people who will defend that crackpot theory at all costs, no matter how illogical.
And Anne Boleyn was totally a vampire. I know it’s true because Claire-Louise said so. How dare you bash her, Anyanka! 
6:34 am
January 9, 2010
Offline
Of course Anne was a vampire. I read the book so it must be true!
(BTW, I don’t recommend it. Even as a piece of silly, fantasy fluff, it sucked. And not in a way that any self-respecting vampire would approve of.)
But getting back on topic, what about the person who’s put forward the idea that Henry had mcleods (sp?) syndrome, or whatever it was? I don’t know anything about that condition so I couldn’t say yay or nay but it seems pretty far-fetched to me. But some people could read that and think ‘Of course! That’s why Henry chopped people’s heads off and turned into a tyrant!’ And without digging up old Henry, how are we supposed to prove that he didn’t have mcleods syndrome and was kell positive or whatever?
8:13 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
In an unrelated spin-off rant, why are so many people desperate to find reasons for why Henry was a nutter? If it’s not the traditional blaming Anne, it’s some sort of disease or knock on the head.
Of course perhaps this one is a new theory. I do like this portrait
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Boo…..1444705201
All the publishers cashing in on the Tudor craze get some historians to write at least one book a year, and recycle stuff from three years ago. If they give it a different cover people might think it’s got something new. If it hasn’t got anything new, chuck out a wild theory and see if it sticks.
1:07 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
I don’t think Henry was mad. I know there are sources confirming he could get angry and sometimes lose his temper, but he wasn’t known to do this regularly and he never flew completely off the handle and acted irrationally. Likewise, save for very specific and rare incidents, he wasn’t famous for being personally violent. He let others do that for him. In the plot against Anne, George and the others he acted with blood curdling cold bloodedness. With so many of his most brutal acts, they were not carried out on the spur of the moment by an irrational mind; they were carried out over a period of time, sometimes years. They were the calculated actions of someone who knew exactly what he was doing. I think he knew exactly what he was doing throughout his entire reign.
As intelligent and rational people, we find it difficult to accept that an intelligent and rational man could have done what he did. Therefore, we try and give an explanation where an explanation isn’t necessarily there. But the most intelligent, rational, and sane of human beings are capable of the most appaulling crimes.
Regarding theories, then without evidence that’s all they can be. I just sometimes get grumpy when theories are advanced, not based on evidence, but more based on the fact that you can’t prove a negative. To me that seems like a bit of a cop out. I’m not including in this the likes of Suzannah Lipscomb. Her book on Henry is excellent. She cleverly interprets evidence to make a strong case for her argument that Henry’s bump on the head affected his personality from January 1536 onwards. I don’t agree, but that’s a different matter. It’s when a theory is advanced with no logic or rationale to back it up that I get grumpy. It’s like trying to argue with someone that the world’s flat. You simply can’t.
1:35 pm
October 1, 2012
Offline
Louise, I think you are exactly right; Henry always knew what he was doing and did so with calculated certainty. We must remember he lived in a totally different age and the actions and thoughts of the peoples of that time were so very different than ours, we seem sometimes to be totally unable to comprehend their actions and motives. Or at least so, here in the Civilized Western World.
Henry was not the only monarch to use the axe and the match. They was being used by the Royal Families and their henchmen throughout the entire European community. And not only used by Royalty but we must remember, by the Church, as well. If Henry had a “mental disorder”, then so did about half the population at that time. One half was capable of “doing” the dastardly deeds, while the other half were capable of “watching”! What a “festive” time in which they lived!
2:01 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Louise said
In the plot against Anne, George and the others he acted with blood curdling cold bloodedness. With so many of his most brutal acts, they were not carried out on the spur of the moment by an irrational mind; they were carried out over a period of time, sometimes years. They were the calculated actions of someone who knew exactly what he was doing. I think he knew exactly what he was doing throughout his entire reign.
That’s actually why I think he wasn’t completely sane Louise, so we’ll have to disagree. Anyone would have a hard time convincing me that a man so completely obsessed with his own self, his image, his power and his authority is 100% sane. I also think he had instances of bordering on delusional. It doesn’t mean he didn’t know what he was doing, I also think he knew exactly what he was doing.
I’m not bagging Lipscomb by the way, I know you’ve told me about her book and I trust your judgement. It’s how people take theories and run with them and spin new theories off them, and in a decade or so everyone will think Henry was a poor sick man who can’t be held responsible for his actions.
An amazing theory Loades threw out there in his book on the Boleyns was that Jane testified against George because and uncomfortable with his reformist views, loosely based on the fact that Morley had a friendship with Mary and that Jane was apparently arrested at a protest for Mary (which has been cleared up for me here of course). This could start a whole new trend in Tudor fiction. Jane the secret Catholic ridding the world of reformists.
2:08 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Barnettbuff said
If Henry had a “mental disorder”, then so did about half the population at that time. One half was capable of “doing” the dastardly deeds, while the other half were capable of “watching”! What a “festive” time in which they lived!
Hi Barnett 
I think it’s fair to say one had to obey one’s monarch at the time. We all know what happened to people who stood up to him. I wouldn’t judge anyone who valued their life and did as he said, quite frankly.
2:13 pm
October 1, 2012
Offline
Yes Olga,
I see your point: “Do or Die”.
4:38 pm
March 26, 2011
Offline
Anyanka said
Silly, Claire-Louise, every-one knows she was a vampire-slayer…..though Anne could have been both I suppose
Lol Maybe we should ask Phillippa Gregory, I’m sure she would have some interesting thongs to say about the vampire theory, maybe even throw a werewolf into the mix 
5:30 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Anne was a vampire. Elizabeth was a vampire slayer. I read the books.
Henry was more like a modern day seriel killer. He was missing something in his makeup. People close to him seemed to care for him a great deal. So he had enough social skills to pass himself off as a charmer. Sort of like Ted Bundy. Good looking, charming, and deadly.
5:47 pm
April 11, 2011
Offline
Sharon said
Anne was a vampire. Elizabeth was a vampire slayer. I read the books.
Henry was more like a modern day seriel killer. He was missing something in his makeup. People close to him seemed to care for him a great deal. So he had enough social skills to pass himself off as a charmer. Sort of like Ted Bundy. Good looking, charming, and deadly.
Sharon, I think that’s spot on. We like our monsters to look like monsters not just act like them. They shouldn’t be clever, handsome, charming, intelligent and well versed in social skills. That’s why Ted Bundy got away with it for so long, he didn’t fit our perception of a serial killer and I think that’s the problem a lot of people have with Henry. Hence the need to try and find other reasons for his actions.
6:05 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Totally agree Sharon, that’s it exactly.. Of course the other way of looking at it from the tudor point of view.. What Henry did or didn’t do when read from the tudor thinking was wonderful. he did what he felt was best for his people and no one would dare say he was doing anything wrong.
Mistakes are made when people try to put modern day thining into what happened back then and that leads to all sorts of issues.
The instance just lately where poor Claire has been put throuh the mangle proves that.. such as George lent a book to Smeaton so therefore George must be Gay men don’t lend other men books unless there is something sexual going on between them. 21st century thinking by uneducated morons., When in truth looking at it from the Tudor perspective as we educated and enlightened people do here it’s a simple case of George lending a book to Smeaton, because Smeaton has shown an interest in the book. There was nothing sexual or perverted about it in the least.
George was not Gay.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
2:43 am
June 15, 2012
Offline
Sharon said
Anne was a vampire. Elizabeth was a vampire slayer. I read the books.
Henry was more like a modern day seriel killer. He was missing something in his makeup. People close to him seemed to care for him a great deal. So he had enough social skills to pass himself off as a charmer. Sort of like Ted Bundy. Good looking, charming, and deadly.
You’ve just described a sociopathic personality Sharon. I think it’s entirely possible Henry was a sociopath – there are more around than most people realise, and they are not all killers by any stretch of the imagination. These are common traits of a sociopath – keep in mind not every sociopath will exhibit all of the signs… http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Doesn’t that sound like Henry?
5:51 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Sharon said
Anne was a vampire. Elizabeth was a vampire slayer. I read the books.
Henry was more like a modern day seriel killer. He was missing something in his makeup. People close to him seemed to care for him a great deal. So he had enough social skills to pass himself off as a charmer. Sort of like Ted Bundy. Good looking, charming, and deadly.
I read a summary of a book in which H8 is a zombie killer..links into the whole AB as undead…coincidence…I think not!
It's always bunnies.
5:52 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Gill said
Yep, and once a popular historian puts forward any old theory, there are people who will defend that crackpot theory at all costs, no matter how illogical.
And Anne Boleyn was totally a vampire. I know it’s true because Claire-Louise said so. How dare you bash her, Anyanka!
my mummy(of tutankhamnon) said it was true
It's always bunnies.
2:05 pm
October 1, 2012
Offline
Gill said
Sharon said
Anne was a vampire. Elizabeth was a vampire slayer. I read the books.
Henry was more like a modern day seriel killer. He was missing something in his makeup. People close to him seemed to care for him a great deal. So he had enough social skills to pass himself off as a charmer. Sort of like Ted Bundy. Good looking, charming, and deadly.You’ve just described a sociopathic personality Sharon. I think it’s entirely possible Henry was a sociopath – there are more around than most people realise, and they are not all killers by any stretch of the imagination. These are common traits of a sociopath – keep in mind not every sociopath will exhibit all of the signs… http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Doesn’t that sound like Henry?
“Incapacity to love” pretty much sums it up for Ol’ Henry. Seems like every point about him being a sociopath is true. Thanks for sharing.
3:10 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Henry’s perception of love was a very twisted one.. I’ve no doubt that he did truly love Anne B but it was that love that also destroyed her.
The only real person Henry truly loved was himself, but I also feel like he loathed himself as well, and because of it other people suffered. He blamed them for his problems and his haphazard love life and killed them. He refused to see that he had done anything wrong. Everything he did he could justify. He had a pain in his big toe it the bloke who had brought him a goblet of wine fault so therefore he must die.. Chop his head off.
Henry in my opinion was a very shallow vain self obsessed great pile of lard.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
