Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
2:40 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
DuchessofBrittany said:
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????
Spot on, clever clogs!
3:49 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
The other thing that blurs the line is the change in meaning of words over time. George mentioned in his speech that he had sinned. Cavendish in his poems decides to use a word like besti*l to represent the sin. During the Tudor period, this word was obviously known to just represent sin, a word to say the person has committed a naughty act but what that act was who cares becuase the person sinned no need to be specific.
This is all well and good until you get to the modern era the researchers and academic decide to view words like besti*l in its modern context, which apparently they have decided can represent homosexual acts. I do look forward to the day when some biographer decides to out somebody as a homosexual because some article written in the 1930s described the person as being 'gay and full of life'
5:32 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said:
I do look forward to the day when some biographer decides to out somebody as a homosexual because some article written in the 1930s described the person as being 'gay and full of life'
Gay has had the meaning immorality of since the 17th century.wikiThough for homosexual since the 1920's.
The word had started to acquire associations of immorality by 1637[1] and was used in the late 17th century with the meaning “addicted to pleasures and dissipations.”[8] This was by extension from the primary meaning of “carefree”: implying “uninhibited by moral constraints.” A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer and a gay house a brothel.
The use of gay to mean “homosexual” was in origin merely an
extension of the word's sexualised connotation of “carefree and
uninhibited”, which implied a willingness to disregard conventional or
respectable sexual mores. Such usage is documented as early as the
1920s, and there is evidence for it before the 20th century,[1] although it was initially more commonly used to imply heterosexually unconstrained lifestyles, as in the once-common phrase “gay Lothario“,[9] or in the title of the book and film The Gay Falcon
(1941), which concerns a womanizing detective whose first name is
“Gay.” Well into the mid 20th century a middle-aged bachelor could be
described as “gay”, indicating that he was unattached and therefore
free, without any implication of homosexuality. This usage could apply
to women too. The British comic strip Jane was first published in the 1930s and described the adventures of Jane Gay. Far from implying homosexuality, it referred to her free-wheeling lifestyle with plenty of boyfriends (while also punning on Lady Jane Grey).
It's always bunnies.
6:29 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
Thanks for that little bit of info Anyanka. I picked 1920s as I thought I would be safe with that date, unfortunately not, should have gone for 1820s LOL. Found it hilarious that bachelors were once called gay with no offence about their sexuality. Whereas today they use the words 'confirmed bachelor' to hint at the man's sexuality.
9:36 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said:
Thanks for that little bit of info Anyanka. I picked 1920s as I thought I would be safe with that date, unfortunately not, should have gone for 1820s LOL. Found it hilarious that bachelors were once called gay with no offence about their sexuality. Whereas today they use the words 'confirmed bachelor' to hint at the man's sexuality.
A bit of my family's story….
A cousin of my grand-ma(GMC) was engaged in early 1914. Her beloved signed up as soon as war was announced and sadly he died in 1916 before they had a chance to marry.
My GM's cousin then trained as a nurse and met another young nurse (OYN) who had also lost her love.
After the war, OYN trained as a teacher while GMC continued nursing.They roomed together, never married, carved careers..
It wasn't until OYN died in the early 1980's …we realised they had been …lovers.
Because we knew a lot of women who shared houses who had lost thier fiancees in WWI/WWII it just never occured to us to speculate about thier sexuality.
It's always bunnies.
4:20 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Bill1978 said:
The other thing that blurs the line is the change in meaning of words over time. George mentioned in his speech that he had sinned. Cavendish in his poems decides to use a word like besti*l to represent the sin. During the Tudor period, this word was obviously known to just represent sin, a word to say the person has committed a naughty act but what that act was who cares becuase the person sinned no need to be specific.
Actually Bill the definition of the word besti*l in tudor England was in referance to having sexual relations with animals, i.e. besti*lity, which was made illegal in the same Act which outlawed buggery. However, I doubt that Cavendish was suggesting George and half the court were involved in deep and meaningful relationships with their hunting hounds. As you say, it's just a word Cavendish used without clearly thinking through the actual meaning
10:05 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Sorry I missed out on this thread about one of my favourite historical characters, George. Louise, your letter to him was so moving, what a wonderful tribute. He deserves so much more than the utter rubbish that has been written about him by historians and authors, and TV screenwriters, and it is heartening to know that so many people are interested in him and feel that he too has been maligned. I saw red the other day when I saw the following comment on the site:-
“George Boleyn was in fact a bi-sexual if not straight out gay. It is fact in his last words. Please search for them and you will see that he was indeed gay and his lover “Francis” was indeed executed with him. George cried for the loss of his true love. I have searched for the facts of this book and that was one fact that continued to come up over and over again.”
See comments section of /anne-boleyn-and-the-other-boleyn-girl/6685/ if you want to reply. I took a few deep breaths and a strong coffee before replying and hope I did an ok job.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
12:42 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Thanks for this, Claire, and your unerring support of our George. xx
6:54 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Claire said:
“George Boleyn was in fact a bi-sexual if not straight out gay. It is fact in his last words. Please search for them and you will see that he was indeed gay and his lover “Francis” was indeed executed with him. George cried for the loss of his true love. I have searched for the facts of this book and that was one fact that continued to come up over and over again.
Some-one owes me for a jaw-uplift and my eyes being unrolled….and it isn't you, Claire.
It's always bunnies.
11:16 pm
August 12, 2009
Offline
Anyanka said:
Someone owes me for a jaw-uplift and my eyes being unrolled… and it isn't you, Claire.
LOL. Yeah, I read that and dropped my jaw, too. Where the hell did she get that? Is that in TOBG?
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
11:08 am
December 12, 2010
Offline
Must have been. Yet another person confusing fiction with fact? Warnicke and Weir both named Smeaton as his supposed lover didn't they? And I'm not buying their theories any more than PG's, as there's zero evidence whatsoever.
11:47 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
Claire, your reply was tactful, accurate, and passionate. Thank you again for seeking the truth about George (and Anne).
Another person who cannot disern fact from fiction, and is happily to be lead by the likes of PG to the slaughter. This woman is a plague upon Tudor history. Fiction as history, my a**.
I guess when something is repeated enough, some will come to accept it as true, even if there is no shred of evidence to support their convoluted theories.
Some day, maybe some day, the world will know the truth about George, and the ridiculous rumors and innuendos about his life will be permanently replaced by fact.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
4:32 pm
February 10, 2010
Offline
Hurrah! George Boleyn cleared of the homosexual/bisexual charge. What I liked about his scaffold speech (as with Anne's) is that he doesn't confess to the charges against him – only to general sins and to being found guilty by the law which isn't the same thing at all.
Louise – I'm intrigued by the amount of research you seem to have managed to do on him. I have Ives (both editions), Starkey, Fraser, Weir (six wives and the Lady in the Tower) and Bernard plus Fox – is there anywhere else you can point me to?
Thanks.
6:41 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
This is why I think a book dedicated to George's life would be fantastic. From my understanding there is the same amount of info regarding George as there is about his sister Mary. And Mary has lots of books out about her, while George is always being a footnote in Anne's life. Even his wife has a book about her and from my understanding there is less recorded about Jane that her husband it is crazy. But then we are talking about a section in historical biographies that hasn't seen a comprehensive biography on James I since 1974, so I'm not holding my breath for a biography on just George anytime soon.
7:09 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
I agree with you Bill. There should be a biography about George, then maybe it will bury the flat-out wrong rumours about him for good and people won't keep making idiots of themselves when naively regurgitating them as fact.
3:25 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
I was on Amazon.co.uk yesterday, and noticed that David Loades book on the Boleyns is planned for release in August. So, I immediatley pre-ordered it. I am hoping for some serious discussions on George, and a credible historical exploration of the rise and fall of the family. I thought you George fans would like to know. Now, I eagerly await the arrival of this book!
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
3:26 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Hello Anne fan and Bill.
There is much more in the State Papers about George than there is about Mary because he was one of Henry's busiest diplomats and had a huge involvement in the Reformation Parliament. He was also Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and Constable of Dover Castle so there is a lot of info about him with respect to these roles because he was very much hands on. By the way, he was officially appointed Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports on 23rd June 1534, so congratulations George for later this week!
He is mentioned frequently in Letters and Papers of Henry VIII and so it's possible to piece together his career. Chapuys also mentions him quite a lot in the Spanish Calender of State Papers. His name comes up a lot in the Lisle letters, which include a number of letters written by George. These are fascinating to read. He is also referred to a lot in the Privy Purse Expenses because he was one of Henry's regular sporting companions. Anne, you could also look at James Carley in 'Illuminating the Book' who has done the most fantastic work on George's religious influence. A lot of this, i.e. the state papers are on the internet. Neither Carley or the Lisle Letters are, but they are definately worth the expense of buying.
Obviously George is referred to in Cavendish's Metrical Visions, which is on line. His career can be found in G E C Peerage and mention of his poetry can be found in many contemporaneous references like Harington's 'Nugae Antiquae' and 'Tottel's Miscellany'. The court Chronicler's such as Charles Wriothesley mention him a lot. His involvement in the Schmalkalden League is mentioned by Rory McEntegart in his 2002 book on the Reformation. Stanford E Lehmberg's book on the Reformation is also really useful.
George is referred to in almost every contemporaneous record of the period so there are tons more, but I hope this helps as a starter, Anne fan. You can basically follow a thread which leads you on and on. I found it really exciting to find out so much about a person when it's assumed there is little information about him. That's simply not correct and I hope one day someone will write a book about him which will do him the justice he deserves.
7:33 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
So true, Lousie. There is more information on George than many historical figures who have books written about them. Mary Boleyn being one. But the same could be said for Jane Seymour, Katherine Swynford, etc. The limited primary sources did not stop Elizabeth Norton or Alison Weir from writing their books.
I feel George is blatantly neglected. Do historians not want to formally debunk Warnicke's homosexual theory? Her theory has been basically ignored by the historical community, so why does someone challenge it with research and scholary zeal? I have high hopes for David Loades book, but I am not sure how far he is willing to go. Lousie, what are your opinions on this?
Lousie, thanks for listing many sources on information about George. When I get the time, I shall check them out!
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
8:52 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Hello Duchess,
I've never read anything by David Loades so I don't know what his views on the Boleyn's are or whether he will use the opportunity as an excuse for a bit of 'Boleyn Bashing' like Weir did in 'The Lady in the Tower'. I hope not, but I was a bit worried by the Amazon blurb on this book. It mentions that George and Anne's great grandfather, 'Edward' Boleyn became Lord Mayor of London. It was of course Geoffrey Boleyn. It also says that Mary left one son, with no mention of Catherine. It's that type of preview that tends to put you off a book. I also read a mini interview with David Loades who admitted there was little by way of new research on the Boleyn's, but that his book was just looking at the Boleyn's in a different way. So who knows?
8:47 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
Wow Louise, there is a lot of information out there on George which makes it even more puzzling that someone hasn't decided to write a biography on him. If I was the academic type I would probably be knee deep in information writing a book on him right now. Instead I have to sit back and hope someone thinks of doing it for me.
I'll definitely be buying that Boleyn book, in hope it has stuff on George. Even if the blurb has some issues.
