The thing is Olga although we abbor the apsolute horror of wife beating and rape in this modern age, wife beating was quite common in fact it was expected back then. A woman back then was treated like a disobeient puppy sat next to a pile of poo (for want of a better word). I believe the sentiment behind this was the more you beat your wife the better wife she becomes. Rape happened King John raped plenty of woman in his day, but unless it was a girl of noble blood, the word Rape was pretty ignored and the girl would be blamed for the most part for using her un-natural behaviour to incite the man to carnal lust with her. Unfortunately that feeling is still viewed as being the case in some cases of rape today, and it frost my cookies too, especially when it come to girls as young as 9 being abused by a man, who then in turn claims the girl led him on. Grrr don’t get me started on this one.
Love the Mills and Boon analogy from Dr Dave (Starkey) about S.W.M.N.B.N. LOL, a sentiment I actually agree with too.
I think the title historian is one that is very difficult to define to be honest. S.W.M.N.B.N holds the credientials to that title, and all praise where praise is due she put the graft in to earn it, but I feel that opinion and interpretation on what history actually is, is extremely floored. It just seems to me at least that what she has read about the factual side of things is not what has actually read and she has made up the facts to fit what she wanted to it read (if that makes sence)
But then couldn’t we all be accused of doing the same thing here? we can call ourselves historians yes, but we haven’t got the credentials to go with that title.
Certainly we are all well read, and are highly intelligent and articulate, but our opinions differ about certain things, but then unlike S.W.M.N.B.N we agree to disagree and don’t get upset or annoyed with each other and will at least understand and respect each other opinons. S.W.M.N.B.N seems to have an almost stubborn belief in what she feels to be true, and to me at least won’t hear of any other opinion other than her own. I guess that’s the reason to why she winds me up so much, and her books end up being used for something other than the purpose they were originally designed for.

A devil descended Duke of Anjou, putting a flower in his cap and crossing the channel to start a royal family line called Plantagenet. It sounds like a fairy tale in itself! I think ‘hysteria’ was the exact term that sprang to my mind when thinking of the witch trials in Salem. And I totally support Boleyn’s idea that it may have been caused by mass hallucination due to a lack of proper organic food supplies. We had something similar happen at a school in Australia in the 70’s I think, bad cafeteria soup making a whole school hallucinate an alien invasion. I also always suspected the Fatima miracle being due to the children eating funny mushrooms while they played in the fields. Olga you are right, when it comes to a mix between popular culture and self professed historians, there is going to be a huge demographic of people basing their ideas of history on fiction. I also agree with some of the scenes from PG as being mills and boon like, the sexual tension she tried to envisage occurring between Margaret Beaufort and Jasper Tudor seemed as though it was an attempt to put some sort of romance into the novel, either to make Margaret seem a little more human or womanly, and not such a cold hearted bitch. And the romantic sex scenes between Mary Boleyn and both her husbands William in the Other Boleyn Girl seemed to me somewhat uneccessary. But i feel that way about the majority of sex scenes in films. I also found the scenes of cat like physical violence between the Boleyn sisters as reminiscent of a bad afternoon soap opera, but I guess she was attempting to humanise the characters, and indicate some sort of fierce sisterly rivalry between the two sisters who shared the King of England as a lover. I guess her trying to find fact in the incestuous relationships within the Boleyn family, ie the sharing of a lover between sisters, then a love affair between brother and sister must have to her seemed a natural progression, but I do not believe at all that Anne Boleyn and her brother George ever shared a bed as lovers. I also support Claire’s view that there is no real basis except popular belief that George Boleyn was gay. I think it far more likely that his niece Elizabeth I was. Perhaps one day when I have written a few more books I will start calling myself Dr. Natasha, professor of Tudor history, and all things literary. It seems the personae is easily attained if one has a tendency towards true showmanship….

Just a general point on historians/writers: I’m reading Joanna Denny’s Anne bio at the moment. I’m astonished, for a variety of reasons, to find that this book/hagiography is apparently well-regarded. It’s certainly audacious and entertaining but so much of it is contentious (at best). Anne, according to Denny, was an entirely selfless person, and was in ‘fact’ a martyr for her faith (along with being a victim of Catholic factions; it’s rather depressing when Tudor scholars (and novelists) bring their own religious biases into play – whatever side they’re on – and so frequently at that). Well…perhaps this is the last place* in which one should call for a truly objective view on Anne but, really, it’s surely possible to admire AB without turning her into the kind of plaster saint that KoA is presented as by many people? Years of misrepresentation shouldn’t be wiped out by even more misrepresentation; a balance is highly necessary. Sometimes, merely having a new angle on certain historical matters isn’t enough to justify publication and debate…

Sure, centuries of ‘black propaganda’ and sexist smears must be addressed and rectified (I’m reminded of a picture the Guardian recently used to grace a witch-trial book review, showing women alone, judged by men – I can’t help but view the ‘witch craze’ as anything else but another awful chapter in the perennial ‘war on women’. See linked picture below); however, it’s surely possibly to consider the many facets of Anne’s life & personality without making her into what we’d like her to have been. Opinions welcomed, folks.

* By which I mean, it’s an unusual request by me, given that this is a website dedicated to Anne Boleyn.

Photo:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i…..it-010.jpg

Accompanying Guardian article:
http://www.theguardian.com/boo…..man-review

SteveJ said

Just a general point on historians/writers: I’m reading Joanna Denny’s Anne bio at the moment. I’m astonished, for a variety of reasons, to find that this book/hagiography is apparently well-regarded. It’s certainly audacious and entertaining but so much of it is contentious (at best).

Denny was a nutter. I am always torn between admiring her for her outrageous views and condemning her because most of it is completely. Read it like a fiction book and it is really enjoyable.
Yes it is well-regarded, I suspect people feel the same way I do

Olga said

Boleyn said

The thing is Olga although we abbor the apsolute horror of wife beating and rape in this modern age, wife beating was quite common in fact it was expected back then.

Rape was not expected back then, that’s a bit of a myth. It was punishable by law. The church itself abhorred it and did not tolerate it. You may have been “allowed” to beat your wife in certain circumstances but you need to think about Henry’s court and the notion of chivalry. Henry himself wouldn’t have beaten his wives, let alone forced or raped anyone. I don’t know much about King John, I haven’t gone that far back in my reading yet. War-rape is a different matter but it doesn’t apply here.

Henry DIDN’T rape any of his wives since the concept of marital rape was ..weellllllll…unknown.

Once you said your vows regardless of how willing both parties, they were supposed to have sex when ever the hubby wanted it unless it was a saint’s day or another HolyDay when abstaining was a requirement..

A wife just could not SAY NO to her husband since that was against the teachings of both the Church and society of the time.

Boleyn said
It’s difficult to gague the relationship of Jasper Tudor and M.B certainly it was a close one, but was it of a sexual nature? I doubt it somehow, being as she was religious zealot, she would have been aware of the bible’s interpetation of marrying her dead husbands brother.
I’ve heard the term of tossing a woman in difficult labour in a blanket. Why? what exactly did this do? Was it a form of perhaps what is now called a vontouse induction?

There is no evidence they had a sexual relationship, it is not even worth speculating about. Margaret was very happily married to her second husband Staffors, they used to celebrate their wedding anniversary every year and she was devastated when he was killed.

I asked Amy Licence about the “blanket tossing”. She said it was possibly an old wives tale designed to scare the mother, and she has never come across an example of it actually happening, but it can’t be ruled out.

That is also my opinion of M.B and Jasper Tudor relationship. It was certainly a close one, but there was definetely nothing sexual about it. Yes I have read M.B marriage with Stafford was one of a very close and loving one, and that she devotedly nursed him till he died. Her 3rd marriage I believe was just one of protection for herself and her son.

I agree Sharon it does seem that the nobility did get away with more or less anythng. For the most part the saying money talks was as good then as it is today. King John caused no end of trouble in Ireland so he is a prime example of how nobility really could get away with murder. He allegedly did murder his nephew Arthur, although no proof could be found to back up that arguement, it does seem very strange that Arthur disappeared a few nights after John arrived in Rouen Castle. There was also the case where John imprisoned a number of people in Pembroke? and left them to starve to death, as a punishment for trying to escape. He was at loggerheads with all but one of his barons William Marshall who was perhaps the only one who tolerated him for any period of time, and even his paitence was pushed to the limit. John flouted the Church authority with impunity and refused to except Stephen Langton as the Pope’s chosen elect for the Archbishop of Cantabury, so much so in fact that Pope Innocent excommunicated John and put the whole of England under a papal edict. It was only when the Barons cried out enough was enough and asked King Philip of France to come and take England from John by force, that John finally wised up to the situation and not only excepted Stephen Langton but gave himself into the hands of the Pope and promised to straighten up and fly right that things in England sorted themselves out. The Magna Carta was John’s death knell as once that was signed he had no choice but to obey it or once again risk his kingdom.
King John was allegedly poisoned so it was said by the abbot of the monastry he was staying at, the reason was again allegeded that he had told the abbot of his carnal desires towards a nun that he had seen at the convent he stayed at the night before. The nun was the abbot’s sister and he was not a happy bunny, that the King had planned to ravage not just his sister but a daughter of the church too, and gave him poisoned peaches to eat. John died in October of 1216 and is buried in Worcester Catherdral, I know it well. his tomb is very beautiful and if you look at his effigy you can see a man who was a as tyranical as is believed.

Olga I believe dysentary was given as the cause of John death and it could well of been, but the poisoned peaches story was put about at the time.
It could well be that the story was put about to further blacken John’s name for being a tyrant. However I would not put anything past John and there could well be a element of truth in the poisoned peaches story. It may well be that the peaches he had eaten did not help the illness he already had, and his body already weakened by Dysentary simply gave up. Strangely enough John is meant to have died in a monastry in Newark, which is an anagram for what H8 is and a total one at that.
Yeah I believe you are right Olga, I think there were actually 2 options open to a woman who had been raped, 1 to marry her rapist, or 2 to enter a convent.
I’m not to sure but I think that rape (for the woman at least) meant that you had committed a sin against God and that only marriage to either rapist or the church was a way of exspunging that sin.

Sharon Henry Romantic? He was about as romantic as an exocet missile, and about as deadly as one too.

Sharon said

Making sure you were paying attention, Boleyn! I figured that would get a rise out of you.

Actually, I think that Henry would have thought himself quite romantic. Henry was in love with being in love. He idealized what he thought love should be and when his relationships were not what he imagined they should have been, he quickly discarded them, and quickly moved on to his next love. He looked for the perfect love all of his life, but his view of love was skewed.
Definition of a Romantic:
1. of, relating to, imbued with, or characterized by romance
2. evoking or given to thoughts and feelings of love, esp idealized or sentimental love a romantic woman a romantic setting
3. impractical, visionary, or idealistic a romantic scheme
4. Often euphemistic imaginary or fictitious.

Couldn’t help myself there Sharon LOL
But in all seriousness yeah you are right there, Henry was very much self obsessed, by the idea and concept of love, he wanted woman who would literely worshi at his feet and hang on every word he said. He fell in love with what he percieved as love and just as quickly fell out of his type of love. If you think about the only wife that did nothing to challenge his warped perception of things was AOC.

COA tested his paitence to the limit over the Divorce.
A.B died due to what he called her “meddling” in affairs, that he felt were none of her business.
J.S was warned by him to shut her trap over the her “meddling” in Mary’s cause, and to remember the fate of A.B.
K.H cruelly in his opinion betrayed him and lied about her life before he decided to marry her.
K.P very nearly lost her her head for her religious views and her arguements on how she perceived things within the church.
Only AOC earned his respect and maybe even admiration over the fact that she calmly took the shit he threw at her and retired gracefully from court.
What he wanted in his twisted warped perception of love and marriage was an empty headed woman who saw him as a God and would just open her legs and do or say nothing without his say.
However I do actually wonder if he did manage to find a woman like that would he have been truly happy? I somehow doubt it. Henry’s love was a very fickle thing. What was love to him one minute was hatred the next. The only person Henry truly loved wholeheartedly was himself, in his twisted world of fantasy there was no room for anyone else, and there never would be. Henry’s fantasy world was simply not big enough for two people.