I must have interpreted PG's George very differently to others. As when I was reading TOBG, I felt a lot of sympathy for him and felt a lot of conflict between the George he wanted to be and the George he had to be. And by this I'm not talking about the angle that PG used that George was gay, but I felt that George had love and warmth for his sisters and cared deeply for them which is in strong contrast to the way The Family expected him to treat them. They wanted George to treat his sisters like the bargaining tools they saw them as. Yes, at the start George was very cold but I felt as the story progressed and he saw what happened to Mary and then a similar thing happening to Anne , he started to question the way he was supposed to be teating his fellow kin. I felt there was a lot of conflict with George and he didn't feel comfortable treating his sisters meanly, but as a younger man in an established family, he knew his place and had to at the way he did. But yet in private, we saw a softer George. Even during the controversial incest subplot, I got the feeling that George had only done it to help his sister, he wasn't proud of it and he did't want to do it but if it meant his sister's survival as a queen at the stage he was all for it. It was his equivalent of laying his life on the line. While Anne in TOBG was treated very one dimensionally as the hissable villain, George had more depth. To the point that I wished PG had gone into greater detail about George's hearing and execution from Mary's view. And to be honest, it is because of the way PG presented George, that I am super keen to learn more about him, in fact it is George that allowed me to discover this great forum.

Louise said:

I know I wrote a mushy tribute to George on his last day before execution, but for anyone interested, he was genuinely worried about his debts and people he owed money to. In fact his distress was so acute that the Constable of the Tower, William Kingston wrote to Cromwell on two separate occasions asking him to ease George's conscience. In particular George had acted as a go between for the appointment of a monk and had charged a fee of £200.  £100 had been paid but £100 was outstanding, and as the Abbey at which the monk had been appointed had been 'supressed' as George put it, the monk had no way of repaying the debt. George was begging, through Cromwell, for this debt not to be pursued.  I think it's a tribute to George that at the most terrifying moment of his life his primary concern was for those who may have been ruined by his death, and at least George's jailer hadsome compassion towards his young charge by writing to Cromwell:-

'You must help my Lord of Rochford's conscience'

George was right to be concerned because Henry was quick to call in his debts. Shortly after George's death the Bishop of Dublin, who owed George £250, was forced to write to Cromwell who, on the King's orders, was calling in the debt, meaning George's last request was denied.

I would definitely like to hear more stories like this about George.  He usually gets such bad press.  I knew George was worried about his debts at the end of his life and that Kingston was very concerned for him.  And what a surprise…Henry would not even grant George's last request.

Louise, I love your post. This is exactly how I feel. George deserves better than Hirst or Weir: two people who would not know real history is if bit them…. okay, I'll be nice. I concur with your feelings at Lady in the Tower and I believe I did reply to your thread about the book. So I don't need to say more. I feel it is imperative to fan the flame for Anne and George. It is about time people learned the truth behind the lies (and imaginations).

Lousie, you made my day. So true, so true. Apparently to sell books (and make money) it is best to feed s**t to the masses who willingly eat it up, and never question the sources. Nothing like perpetuating rumors, innuendo, lies, and accusations when clearly there's not a shred of evidence to do so. For me, the Boleyns are an easy target. Anything written about Anne will make money, and most stuff written about her is totaly BS, below par, and not worth the paper it's written on. Anything that smells of sex, lies, and intrigue will sell because people love watching a train wreck. Ultimatley, and sadly, the good sources (Ives, Starkey, Loades, Lipscombe, etc.) are ignored, called “too academic,” and only read by niche groups. However, they are the best authorities on the subject of the Boleyns, but they can never outsell a PG, AW, etc.

Louise said:

1536

Anne Boleyn is found guilty of adultery and incest……..based on no reliable evidence whatsoever.

2011

1.  G W Bernard.  Anne Boleyn was guilty of adultery…….based on no reliable evidence whatsoever.

2.  Retha Warnicke.  George Boleyn was a homosexual…….based on no evidence whatsoever.

3.  The PG person.  Anne Boleyn was guilty of at least one murder…….based on no evidence whatsoever.

4.  The Tudors (Hirst).  George Boleyn was a rapist and wife abuser…….based on no evidence whatsoever. 

5.  Weir.  George Boleyn was a wife abuser and possible rapist…….based on no evidence whatsoever.

And we criticize the lack of legal process in the sixteenth century! Do you think this shows that we haven't actually progressed much in the last five-hundred years? In fact it would be easy to think we've actually gone backwards into a neanderthal world. I prefer to think of these historians this way:-

1.  G W Bernard sitting naked round a camp fire, smacking Warnicke round the head with a club and dragging her into a cave to

     be ravaged (although she may prefer to be ravaged by the PG person.)  

2.  Retha Warnicke being ravaged in a cave by G W Bernard (oh, what a disappointment!)

3.  The PG person beating a woolly mammoth to death with an extra thick copy of the Other Boleyn Girl (quite frankly if I was a woolly

     mammoth I would probably commit suicide just to get away from the bloody thing.)

4.  Hirst being forced to watch The Tudors, performed by great apes.

5.  Weir…No, I can't imagine Weir being ravaged by anyone. I prefer to think of her sat around the camp fire cooking up a pile of

     s**t.  

Someone save us from these people!!!

I'd rather Warnicke was beaten to death with the ” Children of Earth” series….too many Mary Sues maketh me ill…

Indeed, why do we need to make up ANYTHING about these people??  The facts of the situation are enough to make a fantastic soap opera without embellishment.

KoA marries Arthur who dies shortly afterward.  KoA is stuck in England, treated horribly by her father-in-law, and finally weds her brother-in-law when H7 dies.  

KoA and H8 are married for YEARS, KoA has several miscarriages, stillbirths, etc. before Mary is born.  In the midst of all this, H8 has mistresses on the side and eventually fathers a son, whom he recognizes, through Bessie Blount. All is well and then…

Enter AB…

Whose relationship with H8 upsets the whole order of things.  SEVEN YEARS LATER…Henry is finally granted a divorce from KoA, he forms the Church of England and is excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and marries AB who gives him another daughter.  And Mary is declared illegitimate.

Anne miscarries two more times, H8 tires of her and has her murdered (legally, but murdered nonetheless), declares his other daughter illegitimate, and before his second wife's body is cold, has married JS.

JS finally succeeds in getting pregnant and finally delivers to H8 the longed-for legitimate heir to the throne.  JS dies.

H8 goes looking for wife #4 and selects for his bride AoC, a Protestant girl who is really just grateful to be out from under the thumb of her brother.  Unfortunately, AoC doesn't fit in with the English court, doesn't really speak the language, and H8 doesn't like her.  So, they never consummate the marriage and H8 even goes so far as to declare that she's not a virgin.  Enter divorce #3 (since he had his marriage to AB annulled before she was executed).

Fortunately AoC is smart enough to know when to walk away.  Somewhere in the midst of all this, H8 has Cromwell executed.

Wife #5 turns out to be a pretty, young, vivacious thing who is, ironically enough, distantly related to wife #2.  Unfortunately, KH sneaks around and has an affair with TC with the aid of JP–another member of the Boleyn family, though only through marriage.  H8 is not happy to learn that his wife (whom he swore up and down was a virgin when they got married) is sleeping with someone else.  KH, JP, and TC are all executed.  Before it's all over, four people associated with the Howard/Boleyn connection, either through blood or marriage, are executed by H8.  You can't tell me that doesn't send chills down your spine.

Wife #6 manages to firmly reunite H8 with all his children, but is almost killed herself because of her Reformist leanings.  Fortunately, CP is a smooth talker and manages to save herself.  And then H8 dies.

This is merely the basic truth.  Why would you even need to dramatize that????  I realize if you're writing historical fiction, you have to sort of invent your characters' personalities, but there is absolutely no need, especially in this situation, to invent the events that occurred.

I think the section in Wikipedia of George really sums up the issue regarding his sexuality:

Metrical Visions are Cavendish's interpretation of George's scaffold speech when George said he was “a wretched sinner deserving of death”.Despite the current vogue for believing Cavendish was speaking of homosexuality, his 16th century interpretation was that George was apologising for his promiscuity, which he may or may not have been. To use Metrical Visions and George's scaffold speech as the sole pieces of evidence to support an argument for homosexual activity is problematic in that it creates a paradox. The verses in metrical visions are on the basis of Cavendish's interpretation of George's scaffold speech, and now, nearly five hundred years later, Warnicke and Weir re-interpret George's scaffold speech on the basis of Cavendish's metrical visions; hence the paradox

So George makes a speech, Cavendish interprets the speech, people hundreds of years later interpret George's speech based upon the interpretation of the speech. I think my head just exploded.

I think I understand the paradox as well. The best analogy I could think of to help me get my head around is the following:

Take a comment from English, translate it to French literally. Now take the literal French version and translate it into English literally. Now make a judgement on the original English comment but use the translated literal English as your basis. Sit back and wait for your head to explode…

After a good night's rest, and a reread of your post Bill, I believe I understand. So let me see: without Cavendish's writings, George's scaffold speech would just be that: a scaffold speech. But, with the two put together (and a biased and questionable interpretation), they two became co-mingled as justified support for George's sexuality. The two as separate entities can claim nothing to support the argument.

Anywhere close????