Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
2:04 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
It's occurred to me that of all the historical personalities referred to here, there isn't a specific mention of George, save for reference to his scaffold speech.
I'm a great admirer of George and he's been a huge part of my life for the last four to five years. I find him as fascinating as Anne, and I hate the way he's depicted in fiction. He's vile and cruel in The Tudors and has the charisma of a dry roasted peanut in The Other Boleyn Girl. The George I know from researching him was nothing like either of these portrayals. It concerns me when I read on other sites that some people cheered when George died in The Tudors because of the way he had been portrayed. That leaves a lasting impression, which is difficult to overcome.
George was a diplomat, politician and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports from June 1534 onwards. He was a poet and an articulate supporter of the reform movement. He was one of the most powerful and influential members of Henry's circle at the time of his death, and the Privy Purse Expenses show his closeness to the King. Henry was not the most tolerant of men and he certainly wouldn't have put up with the company of a man he didn't personally like, irrespective of who that man's sister may have been.
He had his faults, just like Anne, but I think he was an extraordinary individual. I'm interested to hear what other people think of George and whether you feel you have initially been influenced by fiction and the writings of Warnicke and Weir, who have portrayed George in a manner which neither can back up with evidence, and which has influenced fiction. The more I discovered about the real George, the more I admired him. I'd love to hear what everybody else thinks.
2:51 pm
March 26, 2011
Offline
I too think George is fascinating and really want to find out more about him. I think it's unfair that people either just presume that he was a complete villain, or it's like oh well, he's just…another Boleyn. I think people are influenced very much by fictional portrayals of George, and it's a lot more difficult to find information about George than the other Boleyn's, and so, I imagine that this really has created a lasting impression for a lot of people.
George was clearly an extremely talented and highly educated individual, and as you say Louise, he was incredibly influential and close to the King, and the King did not just allow anyone to enjoy influence and position at court. My impressions of him first started to form from what I had read in books about Anne Boleyn by Ives etc. I was never was influenced by the way he was portrayed in 'The Tudors' as there is no historical evidence to back it up. Truthfully, I have found out very little about George but I really do want to find more, and certainly wish that there was more research done as I believe that he is overlooked.
I'm definitley going to do some more research of my own and try to discover the real George Boleyn.
4:22 pm
June 7, 2010
Offline
Much like Anne, George's legacy is one full of lies, myths, and half-truths. It is about time that someone resurrected George's reputation, like historians have done for Anne, so that his righftul place in history can be appreciated. The popular representations of him sicken me, since his characterisations are often devoid of humanity. Why would a man so devoted to religious reform and the Renaissance be an empty shell? I cannot imagine him to be anything but the male version of Anne. Starkey has noted that George had some of Anne's talents and all of her pride. That's one of the nicest things I've read about him.
For me, George was on the losing end of history. It was paramount to Henry's (and Cromwell's) scheme to destroy not only Anne's reputation, but that of her brother. But, I cannot accept George as less than the perfect courtier: accomplished, intelligent, passionate, creative, and popular. Was George perfect as a person? No. Was he beyond sin? No. Did he lie, cheat and steal to get ahead? Yes. Was he capable of cruelty and kindess? Aren't we all?
However, that does not make George the monster of historical fiction or film. He was human, probably a ladies man, not in love with his wife (but who was?), and his sister's champion and confidante.
I think much has been made of George's character from his scaffold speech. Much ado about nothing, frankly! I think people have read too much into his speech, looking for the smoking gun.
Just my opinion…
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
5:25 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
I think you're on to something Duchess, mentioning George's scaffold speech. I think that's where a lot of the negative portrayals of him may have originated, with him saying something along the lines of 'if i've sinned then I deserve to die' (or something similar, can't quite recall of the top of my head) but that was completely conventional and expected of the time and doesn't in any way imply that he was guilty of having an incestuous relationship with Anne, was gay, was a notorious womanizer or a wife-beater, etc. Poor George – he's been posthumously thought of in some pretty awful ways.
But what blackens George's (and the rest of the Boleyn's) reputation would also taint Anne's of course by association. And history is always written by the winners – even if they have to make up a whole lot of lies in order to do it 
8:47 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
IMHO, George suffers a lack of awareness as he was the brother of not 1 but 2 glamourous and romantic sisters. In the same way, Willliam Carey is overlooked , GB is.
Had he been any other courtier than Anne and Mary's brother, he would be known as a competant advisor to the king. Not in the same league as Wolsey or Cromwell but certainly an advisor H8 would have relied on due to both his intelligence and charm.
It's always bunnies.
12:23 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Thanks for your comments everyone. Like Duchess said he certainly wasn't perfect. He was proud and was probably a womaniser. He was ambitious, although I don't see that as a fault, and I think he was capable of being quite ruthless. But in all my research I have come across nothing to suggest he was cruel or that he had a temper. In fact, his correspondence is filled with politeness and humour.
Duchess, the quote by Starkey is actually that George had 'many of Anne's talents and all of her pride.' It's often misquoted as him having 'some of her talents', and that is another thing which has formed peoples views of George because 'some' sounds like a slight, and 'many' sounds like a compliment, which is what I think Starkey intended.
I find it extraordinary that Mary is more famous and more written about than her brother. She was the King's mistress for a while, but her only real historical significance is that she formed the basis of Henry's divorce from Anne. There is very little about Mary in the state papers, yet when I researched George there is a significant amount of original documents where his name crops up, whether as a diplomat or as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports.
He was Anne's closest ally in their joint commitment to reform of the Church. It was George who Henry chose to argue his case before convocation and George who sat in Parliament more times than any other Lord during the mid 1530's. In addition to which his bravery on the scaffold needs to be recognised. His speech has been appallingly misinterpreted by both Warnicke and Weir in order to try and demonise him, when all he was doing by saying he was a sinner who deserved to die, was trying to make sense of his needless death.
4:34 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
Louise said:
Duchess, the quote by Starkey is actually that George had 'many of Anne's talents and all of her pride.' It's often misquoted as him having 'some of her talents', and that is another thing which has formed peoples views of George because 'some' sounds like a slight, and 'many' sounds like a compliment, which is what I think Starkey intended.
Louise,
Thanks for the correct quotation from Starkey. I did not have the book with me, and thought I'd wing it from memory. Never a good thing, really.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
6:02 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
I totally agree with you!
The fact that he and Anne were so close…they weren't just brother and sister, but true friends…says loads to me about George's character. You don't choose who your siblings are, but you can choose your friends, and it doesn't seem that Mary was as close to Anne as George was (otherwise, she probably would have been up there on the scaffold with Anne and George).
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
4:25 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
Just a quick curious question. Even though I know the idea that George was bisexual has been debunked or tossed onto the whatever file, my question is linked to that.
In The Other Boleyn Girl, George's lover is Sir Francis Westion while in The Tudors it's Mark Smeaton. For those people who hypothesized about this alleged group of bixexuals/homosexuals, did they ever mention who was with who. Or have the creators of these two works of fiction just randomly picked one of the four to be George's lover?
7:53 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
MegC said:
I totally agree with you!
The fact that he and Anne were so close…they weren't just brother and sister, but true friends…says loads to me about George's character. You don't choose who your siblings are, but you can choose your friends, and it doesn't seem that Mary was as close to Anne as George was (otherwise, she probably would have been up there on the scaffold with Anne and George).
I thought Mary was in disgrace at the time due to her marrying William Stafford without permission and had retired to the country to live.
But certainly Anne and George where very close. I wonder if Henry was a touch jealous which helped fuel his acceptance of thier guilt.
It's always bunnies.
8:14 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Bill1978 said:
Just a quick curious question. Even though I know the idea that George was bisexual has been debunked or tossed onto the whatever file, my question is linked to that.
In The Other Boleyn Girl, George's lover is Sir Francis Westion while in The Tudors it's Mark Smeaton. For those people who hypothesized about this alleged group of bixexuals/homosexuals, did they ever mention who was with who. Or have the creators of these two works of fiction just randomly picked one of the four to be George's lover?
In the 1980's an historian named Retha Warnicke came up with a theory that the men accused of adultery with Anne were bi-sexual, including George. She came up with this theory based solely on the contents of their scaffold speeches when they said they were sinners deserving of death. Warnicke believed that they must have been admitting to homosexuality. To me this is just nonsense, and to be fair, all other reputable historians that I know of have accepted that there is no evidence to support Warnicke's theory. She believed George's 'lover' was Smeaton because George owned a book which had been endorsed by other courtiers, including Smeaton. The fact that George and Smeaton both had access to this book is, again, the sole piece of 'evidence' Warnicke relied upon to suggest they were lovers. Again, to me, this is nonsense.
Unfortunately this 'what if' theory, based on no evidence, which Warnicke herself accepted was nothing more of an academic thesis, has been picked up by fiction writer's. Gregory plucked out of thin air her suggestion that George and Francis Weston were lovers, and Hirst in The Tudors took Warnicke's discredited theory and had George having a relationship with Smeaton.
This is partly why I am not madly keen on historical fiction, not because of the inaccuracies but because of the depictions of the characters.
8:40 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Anyanka said:
MegC said:
I totally agree with you!
The fact that he and Anne were so close…they weren't just brother and sister, but true friends…says loads to me about George's character. You don't choose who your siblings are, but you can choose your friends, and it doesn't seem that Mary was as close to Anne as George was (otherwise, she probably would have been up there on the scaffold with Anne and George).
I thought Mary was in disgrace at the time due to her marrying William Stafford without permission and had retired to the country to live.
But certainly Anne and George where very close. I wonder if Henry was a touch jealous which helped fuel his acceptance of thier guilt.
Was she exhiled in disgrace or is this something that's just trumped-up Philippa Gregory nonsense? I honestly don't know, so I'm asking. 😀 I mean, I'm sure her family wasn't at all thriled with her unapproved marriage to Stafford, but was she truly exhiled/disowned by the rest of her family or had she chosen to remove herself from Court of her own volition to sort of distance herself from all the drama going on there. Maybe no one knows so it's all conjecture.
Although, I guess if she was exhiled then that lasted until Thomas Boleyn realized that she was his only remaining child. How sad…
I cannot imagine being a parent and watching two of my children be executed in disgrace. Knowing that I would not even be allowed to have their bodies to lay them to rest…I think it would probably kill me.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
8:43 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Certainly we can't know for certain another person's sexuality. Even now, some-one “coming out” causes a lots of comment. So we an guess and never be sure about people who have been dead for nearly 5 centuries.
My take on why the whole homo/bi-sexual is suddenly so popular in the current telling* of the Tudor story is due to some people still being of the idea that guy men will have sex at the drop of a hat. This turns into no sexual act being taboo…which means that to some people adultery and even incest are acceptable to gay men….And that along with Warnicke's theory makes for extra talking points.
* I was watching Mary Queen of Scots (1971) the other day and that had a scene with Darnley in bed with Rizzo….but most modern retellings keep to strictly straight sex.
It's always bunnies.
8:55 am
March 9, 2011
Offline
Anyanka said:
MegC said:
I totally agree with you!
The fact that he and Anne were so close…they weren't just brother and sister, but true friends…says loads to me about George's character. You don't choose who your siblings are, but you can choose your friends, and it doesn't seem that Mary was as close to Anne as George was (otherwise, she probably would have been up there on the scaffold with Anne and George).
I thought Mary was in disgrace at the time due to her marrying William Stafford without permission and had retired to the country to live.
But certainly Anne and George where very close. I wonder if Henry was a touch jealous which helped fuel his acceptance of thier guilt.
I've often wondered this same thing. I've also considered that maybe sibling affection and friendship was less common at the time, thus making their friendship unusual or questionnable. Henry VIII was known for his fondness for his own sisters.
I'm always appalled at the treatment George Boleyn receives in film and fiction. Is it that people think portraying him as a pervert or as a wimp makes him more interesting?
7:02 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
La Belle Creole said:
I've often wondered this same thing. I've also considered that maybe sibling affection and friendship was less common at the time, thus making their friendship unusual or questionnable. Henry VIII was known for his fondness for his own sisters.
I'm always appalled at the treatment George Boleyn receives in film and fiction. Is it that people think portraying him as a pervert or as a wimp makes him more interesting?
Again, we don't know…But personally,making George “less than a man” is a very late 20th C homomsexual panic tihng…12
It's always bunnies.
1:31 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Anyanka said:
making George “less than a man” is a very late 20th C homomsexual panic tihng…12
I totally agree with you, Anyanka. That's the main difficulty with historical fiction. It projects twenty-first century morality upon sixteenth century personalities. And that's never really going to work.
In addition to that, it can get away with theorising about an historical personality in a way they couldn't get away with with a person living or recently dead. It's possible George was homosexual, just as it's possible Anne enjoyed lesbian relationships, because anything's possible. Perhaps Churchill or George Washington enjoyed the odd romp with male members of their Government, and come to that maybe the current President enjoys the same thing, but without very clear evidence in support, I wouldn't like to be the person putting that forward as a theory. I think I'd be spending a very long time in America's equivalent of the Tower!!
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that historical characters are easy pickings, because they're never going to sue!
4:37 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
Thank you Louise for the answer regarding why the fictional George had been paired with Mark Smeaton in The Tudors. So that match up is 'more factual' than pairing him up with Sir Francis Weston. Although for some reason, the pairing with Weston felt more real and natural in Other Boleyn Girl than his pairing with Smeaton in The Tudors.
It is a pity there isn't a book about George's life. After reading The Other Boleyn Girl, I actually discovered I really wanted to know more about Anne's brother but it seems he is destined to be relegated as a footnote to Anne's execution. The information at this site on him is brilliant and fantastic.
making George “less than a man” is a very late 20th C homosexual panic thing
It's interesting that you use this term, as I don't view the notion that George being homosexual makes him 'less than a man' and I know you don't believe it does. I've viewed the presentation of him having relationships with men as a possible explanation to why his marriage to Jane was unhappy and possibly explain why they didn't have any children. BUT and it's a big BUT that view is only applied to George as a fictional character and I view it as character development/background history necessary to give the character a bit of dimensonality as opposed to being a footnote.
5:41 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
I agree that if George was a homosexual it would certainly explain his unhappy marriage to Jane. However, I also got the impression that NO ONE in the Boleyn clan liked Jane much. Of course, we know less about Jane than we do about George it seems, so perhaps that's pure speculation as well.
I never understood why George was married off to Jane when they seemed so ill-matched for each other. I mean, I know George essentially had no say in the matter, but were there not better options??
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
12:04 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said:
making George “less than a man” is a very late 20th C homosexual panic thing
It's interesting that you use this term, as I don't view the notion that George being homosexual makes him 'less than a man' and I know you don't believe it does. I've viewed the presentation of him having relationships with men as a possible explanation to why his marriage to Jane was unhappy and possibly explain why they didn't have any children. BUT and it's a big BUT that view is only applied to George as a fictional character and I view it as character development/background history necessary to give the character a bit of dimensonality as opposed to being a footnote.
I have read that George was a womanizer, but I do not believe there is any evidence to prove it. Just as I do not think his being a womanizer makes him less of a man, I do not think his being a homosexual makes him less of a man. But I do think authors throw these ideas of theirs out there to sell books. They have to have something that will make a person look up and take notice. It's not knowing the facts that lead to filling in the blanks with guesses.
The fact that George may have been a womanizer or a homosexual does not offend me. If he was neither, it is an offence to him. If he lived his life in the 16th century as a good and faithful christian, he might be offended to think that history has portrayed him as it has. In his time, womanizing and homosexuality were both frowned upon. (and/or illegal) With his strong reformist beliefs maybe George would be offended by the accusations, and then again, maybe not. We just don't know.
If it is true that George was a homosexual, I do agree with you, it would be a good explanation for why he would not sleep with Jane. Again…if it is true. His lack of interest in Jane's bed…if it is true…could be because he was too busy with other women. What if he couldn't stand her and just stayed away from her? Or…What if Jane lied? George and Anne have had their names sullied for so long, and by so many, it is hard to know what is true when trying to understand an apparently frustrated wife who lived 500 years ago, authors who want to sell their books, and readers who take their writings as gospel.
12:42 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest George was either homosexual or bi-sexual. It's like saying Anne was a lesbian just because she might have been. This whole rumour came about due to the unsubstantiated ramblings of Warnicke. As Sharon said this theory sold books despite no evidence to back it up.
George probably was a womaniser, as was Henry VIII and many of his friends. Cavendish described George as a womaniser, so there is some evidence to support this. However, Cavendish was the only source for this information so it may well have been exaggerated over time. Even if George were a womaniser or practising homosexual it wouldn't make him less than a man, except to fiction writers, but the theories about him would certainly have George spinning in his grave, because in the sixteenth century homosexuality was considered an offence against God. George was deeply religious and so the theories about him do offend me, but only because they would have offended him. If there was any evidence to suggest he indulged in homosexual activities then fair enough, but there isn't. I just wish writers with a lack of integrity would leave the poor young man in peace.
Regarding George's wife, there is very little evidence to suggest Jane gave evidence against the Boleyn's, other than saying that Anne had told her the King was impotent. Likewise there is no evidence about the state of the marriage of George and Jane. Most of what has been written about them is fiction. There is nothing to suggest that George hated his wife or that he wouldn't sleep with her. Again this comes straight from the pages of fiction. George had known Jane for years before they were married, and although it was an arranged marriage there is nothing to suggest it was enforced. George was an only, and much loved son. If he really hated Jane there were other eligible women at court he could have been married to. I find it difficult to believe Thomas would force his charismatic son to marry a woman he loathed. Perhaps it was, or became, a marriage of relative indifference but I have never found any evidence that it was a marriage of out and out dislike. The state papers are virtually entirely silent about Jane. Perhaps it was an unhappy marriage, but that is pure speculation.
