Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Tudors => Topic started by: Helen_Azar on July 16, 2005, 02:50:47 PM

Title: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 16, 2005, 02:50:47 PM
Although Anne Boleyn is not be the most well-liked or admired of Henry's wives, to me she is  probably the most interesting and certainly one of the most intelligent of the six.    
 
In a way, I feel that Anne was just as much a victim as Catherine of Aragon was, even before she was executed. After all, initially she had no intention of going after Catherine's husband, she wanted very badly to marry Henry Percy and just live her life. Henry changed all that, and she was almost forced - indirectly - into the situation she ended up in. I think that she tried to make things as difficult for Henry as possible (at least initially), hoping that he would leave her alone. But he didn't. So finally she may have decided to make the best of her situation... Very often Anne is vilified, and Catherine of Aragon is sanctified, but I think there is a lot more to what happened than meets the eye.    
Recently I visited Hever Castle, where Anne grew up, and it was very interesting to see her room and generally what her life was like when she was young, including some of her embroidery, etc. I was hoping to have a thread here dedicated specifically to discussing Anne Boleyn.    
 
P.S. I want to add that I am also really excited about the Tudors thread - as I love to talk about them!  :D
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Christopher on July 16, 2005, 04:20:10 PM
I agree with you, Helen, about Anne being forced into her situation with Henry.

After Elizabeth was born, I think Anne quickly realized what a desperate situation she was in, and probably knew her days were numbered, if she didn't produce a son soon.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lexi4 on July 16, 2005, 05:36:05 PM
It was the movie "Anne of 1,000 days" that sparked my interest in English history. I know it a movie and not necessarily accurate, but nonetheless, it sent me to the library. So I have always loved Anne because she started me down a the wonderful road of learning about English history.
If I remember, not sure about this, wasn't Anne's sister pregnant with Henry's child??? Or was she at one time Henry's mistress?? Help me out here. Thanks
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 16, 2005, 05:47:28 PM
Quote
If I remember, not sure about this, wasn't Anne's sister pregnant with Henry's child??? Or was she at one time Henry's mistress?? Help me out here. Thanks


Well, Henry's mistress Elizabeth Blount gave birth to a boy who was acknowledged as his son. Anne's sister Mary was a one time mistress of Henry's too, but whether she had a child by him varies from source to source. Some say yes, her first child was Henry's, others say it was her husband's... Either way, Henry never officially acknowledged Mary's child as his. We'll never know I suppose.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 16, 2005, 05:51:16 PM
Quote
After Elizabeth was born, I think Anne quickly realized what a desperate situation she was in, and probably knew her days were numbered, if she didn't produce a son soon.

Yes, this is true. Anne also realized that her days were even more numbered when Catherine of Aragon died. At that point, if Henry wanted to get rid of her and marry someone else, nothing would stand in his way. As long as Catherine was alive, Henry had to keep Anne around otherwsie he may be pressured to go back to Catherine. Once Catherine was dead, Anne was fair game... At this time Anne already had a pretty good idea that Henry was involved with Jane Seymour, and only a couple of days after Anne's death, if I recall correctly, Henry and Jane were betrothed.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lexi4 on July 16, 2005, 05:54:28 PM
Quote

Well, Henry's mistress Elizabeth Blount gave birth to a boy who was acknowledged as his son. Anne's sister Mary was a one time mistress of Henry's too, but whether she had a child by him varies from source to source. Some say yes, her first child was Henry's, others say it was her husband's... Either way, Henry never officially acknowledged Mary's child as his. We'll never know I suppose.

It appears Anne was a little smarter than her sister Mary.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on July 16, 2005, 05:55:39 PM
The thing was, Anne's personality was just too volatile for Henry. I think that it in part led to her downfall. Didn't Henry say she would have to endure his affairs 'as her betters had done' (i.e. Catherine of Aragon). Despite her cruelty to Mary, I still can't help but feel sorry for Anne.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 16, 2005, 06:05:41 PM
Quote
It appears Anne was a little smarter than her sister Mary.


Yes, she was, but as Prince Lieven said, this was also her downfall. Henry liked her personality traits when she was the mistress, but once she became the wife, these same personality traits repelled him. He expected her to change overnight and become a docile wife who accepted all his infidelities, etc... Anne couldn't do that, it was not in her nature. So things that attracted Henry to her, also doomed her... I think that yes, there is a lot to feel sorry for. She was mean to Mary more out of desperation than anything else. She was prepared to accept Mary and be nice to her, if only Mary agreed to accept her, which of course Mary wouldn't (and hwo can blame her?), so Anne became desperate and in her desperation cruel. This was a no win situation, for any of these women, and it was created by Henry and his whims. Henry had no regard for any of them, only for himself, and because of that he ruined the lives of both his wives as well as both his daughters, to a certain extent...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on July 16, 2005, 06:11:49 PM
Ironically, wouldn't Mary Boleyn have made a better wife for Henry than Anne? She might have given him a son (she had two healthy children with William Carey) and she would have been docile and obedient. Then Anne could have been his mistress, instead of vice versa.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 16, 2005, 06:27:14 PM
Quote
Ironically, wouldn't Mary Boleyn have made a better wife for Henry than Anne? She might have given him a son (she had two healthy children with William Carey) and she would have been docile and obedient. Then Anne could have been his mistress, instead of vice versa.


It was like catch 22 though. Henry was really attracted by Anne because of her volatile personality, while Mary bored him. Plus Anne would not be his mistress only his wife, so that wouldn't have worked. Also, I am not so sure that Mary would have been able to have a healthy son with Henry as it seems that all Henry's sons were not very healthy, a few dying at birth or even before birth, the two who survived died very young, no matter who the mother was. While the daughters were pretty healthy, at least for the first part of their lives. It could have been some sort of a genetic disorder that was passed to the males, but not to the females, so Mary may not have managed a healthy son either. She may have met the same fate as Anne or perhaps Katherine of A... But as it happened, after Carey's death, Mary married another man she really loved and was actually happy with him. Turned out she was better off than her sister, although she didn't get to make history...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on July 17, 2005, 04:24:09 AM
Quote
She was mean to Mary more out of desperation than anything else. She was prepared to accept Mary and be nice to her, if only Mary agreed to accept her, which of course Mary wouldn't (and hwo can blame her?), so Anne became desperate and in her desperation cruel. This was a no win situation, for any of these women, and it was created by Henry and his whims. Henry had no regard for any of them, only for himself, and because of that he ruined the lives of both his wives as well as both his daughters, to a certain extent...


I agree with you, Helen. Indeed, it's not clear to me to what extent the cruel treatment of Catherine and Mary was really the fault of Anne and how much of it should be laid directly at Henry's door. Just to give one example, Anne supposedly demanded from Catherine of Aragon her daughter Mary's christening robe for Elizabeth's christening. But for all we know, Anne made this demand at Henry's insistence. What is telling to me is that after Anne's execution, Mary's situation, rather than immediately improving, actually worsened, to the point where the Spanish ambassador, Chapuys, feared for her life. It was because the threat of imminent execution hung over her head that Mary finally caved into her father's demands and signed the document proclaiming Henry Supreme Head of the Church of England and herself a bastard. (As I recall the pope gave Mary a special dispensation for signing this document that rendered it null and void in the eyes of the Catholic Church.)

So I am inclined to give Anne the benefit of the doubt in her treatment of Mary. I think Henry showed time and time again throughout his reign that he was an exceedingly cruel man who never hesitated to harm those around him if they became obstacles in his path. I also believe that much of Anne's volatility was not because of her personality but because she had to function under so much stress, first during the six-year struggle for the divorce, and afterwards, during the three-year struggle to produce a male heir. It's not surprising that she failed in the latter attempt. I, too, am convinced that Henry had some sort of genetic problem that made it virtually impossible for him to father healthy sons, but also, given the burden of expectations placed on Anne, it doesn't surprise me that she could not carry a second child to term.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: ilyala on July 17, 2005, 07:06:49 AM
i don't know about this genetic disorder... everyone has this impression that edward the 6th was a frail child but he wasn't. he was an active child and took an active role in matters of the state at ages when other children only know how to play (he was indeed a bit too serious for his age...)... apparently he participated to state councils a lot, to the point where he annoyed the regents who didn't know how to get him out of there!

i read somewhere (a book about early tudors - off the top of my head i can't remember the name) that he was actually a healthy kid until he got the illness that ended his life  :-/... am not saying that was it, but i think it was likely...

as for anne, i agree. she was too smart and too proud. jane seymour was smart too but because she wasn't proud she managed to pose as the weak wife. anne wouldn't do that - it was below her. that was her downfall...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 17, 2005, 08:56:13 AM
Quote
i don't know about this genetic disorder... everyone has this impression that edward the 6th was a frail child but he wasn't. he was an active child and took an active role in matters of the state at ages when other children only know how to play (he was indeed a bit too serious for his age...)... apparently he participated to state councils a lot, to the point where he annoyed the regents who didn't know how to get him out of there!

i read somewhere (a book about early tudors - off the top of my head i can't remember the name) that he was actually a healthy kid until he got the illness that ended his life  :-/... am not saying that was it, but i think it was likely...
 


Yes, I remember reading this too, ilyala, and this certainly could well have been the case. Henry Fitzroy, Henry's other son, was also reportedly pretty healthy until the age of about 16, when he succumbed to disease and died. It could have been a coincidence that both Henry's sons died at around the same age from similar conditions (although we don't really know for sure what it was, many historians believe it was some sort of a lung disease). But it could be something genetic, even if it didn't manifest itself until they were teenagers.

Remember Henry's brother Arthur, who also died at about 15 or 16 years old? He too, according to some sources was healthy until that time (although according to other sources he was sickly), and then suddenly died as a teenager. Three cases start to sound like a pattern... Of course we will never know unless their remains are exhumed and studied, but that will never happen.  Fact is that none of Henry's sons survived, from any wife, and he had at least three sons with three different women... and a couple who were not carried to full term. Of course also it could be due to the fact that males, whether fetuses or full term children, are usually weaker than females and have less chance of survival, but it seems like a little more than that in this case. Anyway, just  a theory, no way to prove or disprove it.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 17, 2005, 12:20:03 PM
Just wanted to share a few photos I took when I visited Hever Castle, where Anne grew up and where Henry VIII used to visit. On the outside, the castle is pretty much intact and looks as it did when Anne lived there.  

Hever Castle:
(http://img315.imageshack.us/img315/7813/hevercastle7ui.jpg)  
The courtyard:
(http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4601/hevercourtyard0hr.jpg)


The chapel near the castle which the Boleyn family attended:
(http://img315.imageshack.us/img315/4113/chapel9ft.jpg)

The tomb of Thomas Boleyn, Anne's father:
(http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/7141/tomb2yn.jpg)

I also have some shots of the inside the castle from a book I bought there, as you weren't allowed to take pictures inside the castle. I can post some of those later if anyone is interested in seeing them...

Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Finelly on July 17, 2005, 01:00:29 PM
Thank you for posting these!  They are wonderful and let me put pictures to the facts I know!!!!!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lexi4 on July 17, 2005, 01:07:58 PM
Thank you Helen. Please do post pictures of the inside of the castle. I would love to see them.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on July 17, 2005, 03:13:19 PM
Hi there,I have always pondered wether Anne was RH  negative so that after the birth of a first healthy child she became "sensitised" and her blood cells "attacked" every foetus she carried from then on. So she never really stood a chance. Of course,these days RH negative mums get an injection of Anti- D after the birth  of each child thus preventing the problem. ( well thats my two penny worth anyway)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lexi4 on July 17, 2005, 04:17:39 PM
Interesting theory Kimberly. I think it is possible that this was the case.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 17, 2005, 05:21:45 PM
Hever Castle interiors

Entrance Hall:
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9310/entrancehall0bz.jpg)

Drawing Room:
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/769/drawingroom6hi.jpg)

Dining Room:
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9237/dininghall1dj.jpg)

Anne Boleyn's Books of Hours Room:
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1127/anneboleynbooksofhours4ys.jpg)

Henry VIII Room:
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4132/henryviiiroom9kh.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Lanie on July 17, 2005, 05:25:12 PM
Thanks for the pictures of Hever Castle, Helen!  Is the furniture from the 1500s, or is it later or just re-created? :)  I'm curious as to what things would have looked like in Anne's time.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lexi4 on July 17, 2005, 05:25:19 PM
Thank you Helen.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Arianwen on July 17, 2005, 05:25:47 PM
Quote

I agree with you, Helen. Indeed, it's not clear to me to what extent the cruel treatment of Catherine and Mary was really the fault of Anne and how much of it should be laid directly at Henry's door. Just to give one example, Anne supposedly demanded from Catherine of Aragon her daughter Mary's christening robe for Elizabeth's christening. But for all we know, Anne made this demand at Henry's insistence. What is telling to me is that after Anne's execution, Mary's situation, rather than immediately improving, actually worsened, to the point where the Spanish ambassador, Chapuys, feared for her life. It was because the threat of imminent execution hung over her head that Mary finally caved into her father's demands and signed the document proclaiming Henry Supreme Head of the Church of England and herself a bastard. (As I recall the pope gave Mary a special dispensation for signing this document that rendered it null and void in the eyes of the Catholic Church.)

So I am inclined to give Anne the benefit of the doubt in her treatment of Mary. I think Henry showed time and time again throughout his reign that he was an exceedingly cruel man who never hesitated to harm those around him if they became obstacles in his path. I also believe that much of Anne's volatility was not because of her personality but because she had to function under so much stress, first during the six-year struggle for the divorce, and afterwards, during the three-year struggle to produce a male heir. It's not surprising that she failed in the latter attempt. I, too, am convinced that Henry had some sort of genetic problem that made it virtually impossible for him to father healthy sons, but also, given the burden of expectations placed on Anne, it doesn't surprise me that she could not carry a second child to term.


I'm going to make board history on this one...I agree completely. ;D ;) Hope you're having a lovely trip abroad, luv!

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Arianwen on July 17, 2005, 05:27:25 PM
Quote
Hi there,I have always pondered wether Anne was RH  negative so that after the birth of a first healthy child she became "sensitised" and her blood cells "attacked" every foetus she carried from then on. So she never really stood a chance. Of course,these days RH negative mums get an injection of Anti- D after the birth  of each child thus preventing the problem. ( well thats my two penny worth anyway)


I had the exact same theory, but never a way to prove it. I know agglutination during pregnancy results in termination, so it would only make sense...glad to know I'm not alone on this one!

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Arianwen on July 17, 2005, 05:29:45 PM
Quote

Well, Henry's mistress Elizabeth Blount gave birth to a boy who was acknowledged as his son. Anne's sister Mary was a one time mistress of Henry's too, but whether she had a child by him varies from source to source. Some say yes, her first child was Henry's, others say it was her husband's... Either way, Henry never officially acknowledged Mary's child as his. We'll never know I suppose.


I've heard four different possibilities on Mary Boleyn Carey's children...

1) Both children were Henry VIII's.

2) Only the first child was William Carey's.

3) Both children were William Carey's.

4) The first child was Henry's, the second William Carey's.

I hear MUCH more of Options #1 and #2, with a LOT more frequency on #1.

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Arianwen on July 17, 2005, 05:44:46 PM
Helen, I find myself agreeing completely with your thoughts about Anne. She tends to be a favourite among the wives, beating Catherine of Aragon by a surprising margin, and among our Six Wives Club, I was Anne. ;D

My thoughts are these: Anne's choice was Harry Percy, and he wanted her. I tend to think they were at least lovers, if not pre-contracted somehow, which is what Harry Percy meant about 'having gone too far before too many honourable witnesses, that he knew not how to withdraw himself'. The king, Wolsey, and Daddy the Earl put their collective feet down, Percy was whisked away, and Anne sent off to Hever. She probably held one bloody huge grudge, especially when Percy was married off to Mary Talbot.

Then, Henry starts making his moves. I agree that Anne was basically trying to get him angry enough to leave her alone, but not angry enough to retaliate against her family. This just enthralled him, and Anne realised she wasn't going to get out of it that easily. Then, she says she won't be his mistress, only his wife, thinking that's never going to happen, or that she refuses to just be cast aside like her sister, that if she's going to have to sleep with Henry, she's going to look out for her future children, and making him marry her is the best way.

Finally, in 1532, matters hit the boiling point with the Calais trip. Anne gives in and gets pregnant sometime in December. At that point, her only out is gone. She can't claim a pre-contract with Percy, despite Mary Talbot claiming one to get out of her marriage, so Anne says there are no impediments, and Henry rushes the divorce along to marry Anne in secret on or around 25 January 1533. The marriage is kept secret for a few months, until Anne comes out with her famous 'apples' comments, and until Easter, when for the first time, congregations are told to pray for 'Queen Anne'. Now, as long as she bears a son, she's safe.

7 September 1533. Elizabeth is born, and Henry is suprisingly not upset. He shows her off proudly, says that they'll have sons eventually, and saves face. Then, the miscarriages begin, but as long as Catherine of Aragon is alive, Henry can't get rid of Anne. January of 1536 is really when the end comes, because in addition to Catherine's death, Anne has her last miscarriage, claimed to have been a boy. Also, Jane Seymour has entered the scene. Anne is arrested in the beginning of May, and executed on 19 May. Henry and Jane are betrothed the next day and married on 30 May.

I don't think the only reason Henry executed Anne was because she failed to bear a son. I think it was also because Anne was her own person, and he didn't 'own' her. He had never really conquered her, and he couldn't stand for that. He had to be the master, she had to be completely dominated by him, and she wasn't. For that, in Henry's eyes, she deserved to die.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/Arianwen430/AnneBoleyn.jpg)
Arianwen as Anne Boleyn

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on July 17, 2005, 06:08:13 PM
Wow, great assessment Arianwen! Everything you say is right! Do you agree that Anne was a bit too volitile with Henry with regard to his affairs, and that a more meek stance would have been better?

P.S:  that shade of purple is definitely your colour! : - )
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Arianwen on July 17, 2005, 08:14:01 PM
Quote
Wow, great assessment Arianwen! Everything you say is right!


Thanks! It's just my opinion, at least.

Quote
Do you agree that Anne was a bit too volitile with Henry with regard to his affairs, and that a more meek stance would have been better?


I think that perhaps turning a blind eye would have slowed things down, but once Catherine was dead, Jane entered the picture, and Anne miscarried her son, there was no hope for her. Being that meek would have meant changing who she was, something she didn't seem the type to do for anyone.

Quote
P.S:  that shade of purple is definitely your colour! : - )


Thanks! ;D And actually, it's burgundy, slightly more red than purple. The camera just turned it a brownish-purple.

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on July 18, 2005, 04:53:28 AM
It was Anne's volitility and sexual magnetism that surely drew Henry towards her. it would (imho) have been against her very nature to have become meek and totally submissive. Jane Seymour played a clever game by being the opposite of Anne -White to Anne's black. Honey to Anne's vinegar.Poor Anne, she could see what was coming but, but she was absolutely powerless to stop it-no amount of feigned meekness on her part would produce the boy who would be her saviour.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on July 18, 2005, 04:57:39 AM
Arianwen, wow, how creative you are, I cannot sew a button on to save my life...... mind you i am a mighty fine cook so my lot say they won'put me out to pasture just yet. ;D
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Martyn on July 18, 2005, 10:45:00 AM
Nice gown Arianwen but it should really have a visible petticoat, or forepart!  (just kidding...it looks very good)

Anne is a complex woman and perhaps the most colourful of all the wives.  Her time at the French court may well have give her a gloss and sophistication that contrasted with the sober and pious ways of his first wife, and with that of the other ladies at the English court.

Do we really think that Anne had no aspirations to be queen?  That she was trapped into marrying Henry?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: ilyala on July 18, 2005, 11:10:52 AM
i think she grew used to the idea and started to like it. but i don't think she set out to be a queen from the start
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 18, 2005, 03:59:24 PM
Quote
Thanks for the pictures of Hever Castle, Helen!  Is the furniture from the 1500s, or is it later or just re-created? :)  I'm curious as to what things would have looked like in Anne's time.


Lanie, it's a little bit of both. There are some restored pieces from the 16th century, most notably Henry VIII's bed. Others are from different time periods, the legacy of various owners of the castle throughout the centuries. In the early 20th century the castle was owned by the Astors, who put in the gardens. Currently it is owned by John Guthrie.

Here is the Hever Castle website:

www.hevercastle.co.uk
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 18, 2005, 04:03:56 PM
Quote

Do we really think that Anne had no aspirations to be queen?  That she was trapped into marrying Henry?


IMO, she didn't want to marry Henry in the beginning because she wanted to marry Percy. When she saw that this was impossible, and Henry continued to pursue her, she probably started to warm up to the idea. I am sure that the thought of getting back at those she perceived as her enemies (like Wolsey) didn't hurt... Maybe she started to feel her own power and wanted more. Power can do strange things to people.

But no, she wasn't trapped into marrying Henry. By the time they married, I think that she wanted it as much as Henry, if not more! She was also already pregnant with Elizabeth by the time they married  ;).
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Martyn on July 19, 2005, 08:23:07 AM
Thanks for that Helen - that seems like a very logical explanation.  I was going to add that I am sure that Anne enjoyed the power that came with being queen, plus the opportunity to settle some old scores.

How I envy you the visit to Hever.  I have always thought it such a romantic place, from the images that I have seen.  Your photos suggest a place of great charm; in some respects a typical English country establishment that has evolved over the centuries, retaining a little of each century in its style.  Very lovely.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 19, 2005, 09:06:43 AM
Quote
How I envy you the visit to Hever.  I have always thought it such a romantic place, from the images that I have seen.  Your photos suggest a place of great charm; in some respects a typical English country establishment that has evolved over the centuries, retaining a little of each century in its style.  Very lovely.


Yes, it was a great place to visit, the gardens are beautiful too, although not part of the 16th centrury backdrop. Martyn, you can probably go down there for a weekend one of these days. I think you live up north whereas Kent is south, but it's not too far if you stay over a night or two. There is nifty little inn near the castle, called - what else - "Henry VIII Inn"  :). Hever is a quaint little town, pretty small it seems. We took the train, and had to walk along a country road for about 1.5 miles from the train station to the castle as there was no public transportation. There were no signs for the castle until later on, so for a while we weren't even sure if we were going the right way! Luckily, we were. But it was nice to walk it because you really got to see the town that way. I would imagine it doesn't look all that different than it did 500 years ago when the Boleyns lived there: houses with thatched rooves, fields and lots of sheep. I bet the road we took was the same road (more or less) that Henry VIII used when he went there! You also get to go inside the chapel where the Boleyns went, still pretty much intact.

I'll see if I can post some of my pictures of the town later...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 20, 2005, 11:46:32 AM
Some more pictures of Hever, the castle and the gardens...

(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4071/thatchedroof9uq.jpg)

King Henry VIII Inn:
(http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/8180/henryviiiinn7ae.jpg)

(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5905/heverchurchsign9jj.jpg)

Entrance to Hever Church:
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/466/entrancetoheverchurch4rd.jpg)
Thomas Bullen's tomb:
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3023/signonbullenstomb6op.jpg)

Another view of the castle:
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1251/anotherviewofcastle8wl.jpg)
View from the castle window:
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9394/viewfromwindow2na.jpg)

The Hever Gardens:
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8097/hevergarden2vk.jpg) (http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3220/morehevergarden0zw.jpg)

Tudor chess set:
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4512/tudorchessset7vr.jpg)

The lake:
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2513/viewonthelake0za.jpg)


Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: ilyala on July 20, 2005, 11:54:04 AM
was their name actually bullen?  ???
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 20, 2005, 11:55:32 AM
Quote
was their name actually bullen?  ???


Yes.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: ilyala on July 20, 2005, 11:57:46 AM
so where does boleyn come from?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 20, 2005, 12:00:21 PM
Quote
so where does boleyn come from?


It came about later, maybe to make it sound more French, less "merchant" (?). I think that in the 16th century the spelling of words and names was flexible.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: ilyala on July 20, 2005, 12:03:03 PM
bullen doesn't sound very noble ;D
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: TampaBay on July 20, 2005, 12:44:51 PM
Quote
Hi there,I have always pondered wether Anne was RH  negative so that after the birth of a first healthy child she became "sensitised" and her blood cells "attacked" every foetus she carried from then on. So she never really stood a chance. Of course,these days RH negative mums get an injection of Anti- D after the birth  of each child thus preventing the problem. ( well thats my two penny worth anyway)


This has been studied by many historical pathologists, written up and published in several medical/ pharmaceutical journals. I myself have read several of these journal articles.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on July 20, 2005, 01:34:40 PM
I dont think the Bullens were particularly noble to begin with were they?I think one of Anne's forebears was a Mayor of London. They "frenchified" the name to make it sound "up market"
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 20, 2005, 01:37:31 PM
Quote
I dont think the Bullens were particularly noble to begin with were they?I think one of Anne's forebears was a Mayor of London. They "frenchified" the name to make it sound "up market"


On her father's side, Anne descended from a family of merchants. On her mother's side she descended from the Howards.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on July 20, 2005, 01:37:59 PM
Quote

This has been studied by many historical pathologists, written up and published in several medical/ pharmaceutical journals. I myself have read several of these journal articles.

TampaBayWow,thats very interesting.I only wondered because I come across a lot of RH neg. mums at work and it is no problem thanks to anti-D.Would love to read some of those articles. Would a google search do it ( i am a bit of a computer Luddite)

:-[ :-[
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on July 20, 2005, 01:38:42 PM
As you can see from above  ;D
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: ilyala on July 21, 2005, 07:42:47 AM
Quote

On her father's side, Anne descended from a family of merchants. On her mother's side she descended from the Howards.



weren't the howards noble? earls of norfolk and all...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 21, 2005, 07:54:31 AM
Quote


weren't the howards noble? earls of norfolk and all...


Yes. But generally, I think that the "pedigree" was considered more from the father's line rather than the mother's, although in Anne's case, I believe that her mother's side was promoted and her father's downplayed, - when she became the candidate for the post of Queen of England  ;).

Actually, Anne's uncle was the Duke, not an Earl, of Norfolk.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Silja on August 01, 2005, 10:26:13 AM
Quote

Do we really think that Anne had no aspirations to be queen?  That she was trapped into marrying Henry?


No, I actually don't believe this. To me, too, Anne is the most interesting and fascinating of Henry's queens, but from what we know (not so very much really), I cannot believe that she did not aspire and work towards becoming queen from a much earlier point. We know that it was Anne who provided Henry with banned  books that would support his right to break with Rome. And a considerable time before 1532 she would not make it a secret that she no longer acknowledged Katherine as her lawful sovereign. Anne was certainly not the romantic character of Anne of the Thousand Days. She may or may not have been in love with Henry Percy. The fact is we don't really know. She may just have considered him a good match. This is really the greatest problem concerning Anne. We simply know so little about her motives and emotions.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lexi4 on August 01, 2005, 10:58:04 PM
It's too bad she didn't keep a diary. We know so little, yet she is my favorite of his harem. Elizabeth too remained silent about her mother. I don't recall ever reading anything that Elizabeth said or wrote about her mother. But I would imagine that at some point Anne did set her sights on the throne. How could she not have?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: stacey on October 24, 2005, 06:30:03 AM
WONDERFUL pictures of Hever Castle and environs. I would so love to go there someday and look around and try to see what Anne saw. Thank you SO MUCH for posting them!!!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 08:36:48 AM
You're welcome, Stacey, it's my pleasure!

I've also been meaning to post this photo below, but kept forgetting. These are allegedly the steps that Anne Boleyn was taken down to the barge when she was arrested for treason in 1536, to be taken to to Tower.

(http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/5032/steps6nr.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 08:58:20 AM
Most likely everyone has seen these photos somewhere, but I will post them here too since they are connected to Anne.


This of course is the Traitor's Gate and the steps by which all prisoners accused of treason were led up into the Tower, including Anne and her daughter Elizabeth 20+ years later.

(http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/4800/traitorsgate11ds.jpg)(http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/8406/traitorsgate9he.jpg)

Below, left,  is the Tower Green area, where some were kept before the execution, including Jane Grey and Anne Boleyn (?). And on the right and below is the spot where the scaffold was built where Anne was executed (also Catherine Howard and Jane Grey in the same spot). In the background the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincular can seen, where both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were interred after the execution...

(http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/3346/scaffold23eq.jpg)(http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/596/scaffold6gq.jpg)
(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/174/scaffold6yt.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 09:09:00 AM
In case some of you couldn't tell, I am an AnneBoleynophile. I even own a canvas replica of that famous portrait  ;)
(http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/5541/annebullen0010iu.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on October 25, 2005, 09:33:40 AM
I'm with you there Helen A. I also am a bit of a fan of hers too, fascinating woman ;)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 25, 2005, 10:17:19 AM
Oooh, great pics of the Tower Helen! I was their last year and got some cool pics too! It's a wonderful building . . . :)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on October 25, 2005, 11:04:05 AM
Quote
In case some of you couldn't tell, I am an AnneBoleynophile.


So am I. In fact, I bet if we took a poll, Anne Boleyn would be the #1 Favorite Wife among Tudor fans.  ;)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 25, 2005, 11:09:23 AM
Quote

So am I. In fact, I bet if we took a poll, Anne Boleyn would be the #1 Favorite Wife among Tudor fans.  ;)


:o I like Anne but I'm a Katherine of Aragon fan at heart. <Prince Lieven runs before all the Anne Boleynites beat him up>  ;D
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 11:16:56 AM
Quote

 :o I like Anne but I'm a Katherine of Aragon fan at heart. <Prince Lieven runs before all the Anne

Boleynites beat him up>  ;D


I am sure Catalina was a nice enough lady, but a bit too fanatical for my taste... I also didn't like her approach in the whole divorce matter: she blamed everyone but Henry for her troubles - even until she was on her death bed,  whereas he should have been the one she blamed all along.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 25, 2005, 11:18:04 AM
Quote

I am sure Catalina was a nice enough lady, but a bit too fanatical for my taste... I also didn't like her approach in the whole divorce matter: she blamed everyone but Henry for her troubles - even until she was on her death bed,  whereas he should have been the one she blamed all along.


That's love for you . . .  ;D I guess I admire Katherine more than I 'like' her.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: bell_the_cat on October 25, 2005, 11:19:39 AM
Anne Boleyn first, but Catharine of Aragon second. The others are not very interesting to me somehow.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 11:24:28 AM
Quote

That's love for you . . .  


Once one gets past the teenage years, they usually realize that something like this is not really "that's love for you...." She should have known better at the age of 40 something or 50, or whatever, but IMO her personality was too fanatical and she saw things too much in black and white, and that's part of it, I suppose... Anne Boleyn was very different and had a lot more insight.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 25, 2005, 11:27:10 AM
Oh, ok . . . sorry . . . perhaps I'll be more wise in four years or so . . . It was a joke, hence the ' ;D' at the end . . .
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 11:29:36 AM
Quote
Anne Boleyn first, but Catharine of Aragon second. The others are not very interesting to me somehow.


I also like Anne of Cleves, she seemed to have the insight too, although we don't know as much about her as we do about Anne Boleyn. Katherine Parr, even though very book smart, was sort of iffy everywhere else, especially based on her behavior with Elizabeth and Seymour, while Catherine Howard was completely without a clue. Jane Seymour is just an enigma, who knows what she was thinking...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 11:30:27 AM
Quote
Oh, ok . . . sorry . . . perhaps I'll be more wise in four years or so . . . .


That's right, you seem to be forgetting once again that children should be seen and not heard!  ;) ;D j/k
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 25, 2005, 11:31:34 AM
Yes, must remember that in future . . .  ;)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on October 25, 2005, 11:39:00 AM
Anne and George Boleyn fascinate me because they were both so precocious, clever, and charismatic... also conniving, true children of their father. Multi-dimensional, in other words, neither totally good nor totally bad and I guess that makes them more accessible to the modern sensibility, which tends to see things in shades of grey rather than in terms of absolute black and white.

Tell me, does anyone know if a portrait of George Boleyn survives? I have never come across one and I've often wondered how much he physically resembled his sister, since in terms of temperament they were so similar. I admire George very much because at his trial he had the nerve to read aloud the charge that he and Anne had discussed the king's impotency... what a shocker that must have been for Henry - I'm sure he didn't expect such a departure from the script! But that's a Boleyn for you - totally unpredictable and irreverent!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 11:42:14 AM
Quote
Tell me, does anyone know if a portrait of George Boleyn survives? I have never come across one...  


That's a good question! I don't think so... I've never seen one either. Even one of their sister Mary survives but not of George. I wonder if that had anything to do with his "treason"...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 25, 2005, 11:42:47 AM
Yes, the Boleyns were a law unto themselves! Sadly, I've never seen a picture of George . . . his wife was quite a cat.  >:(
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 25, 2005, 11:43:40 AM
Quote

That's a good question! I don't think so... I've never seen one either. Even one of their sister Mary survives but not of George. I wonder if that had anything to do with his "treason"...


Probably. Anne got portraits because of her status with Henry, Mary lived long enough as a society lady to get them, but George did neither . . .
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 11:44:11 AM
Quote
 his wife was quite a cat.  >:(


Speaking of whom, is there a portrait of Jane Rochford (sp?) that survived? I don't think I've ever seen one either...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 11:46:06 AM
Quote

Probably. Anne got portraits because of her status with Henry, Mary lived long enough as a society lady to get them, but George did neither . . .


But then again, they still have portraits of Tom Wyatt and William Parr, etc., so I am sure George had several that were painted of him, I wonder if they were all destroyed after his fall from grace?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 11:49:46 AM
This painting is called: "Anne Boleyn receiving proof of Henry's passion for Jane Seymour." by George Cruikshank, 1844. Does anyone have a larger image of this?  


(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/2859/henryandanne1no.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on October 25, 2005, 12:01:56 PM
Quote

But then again, they still have portraits of Tom Wyatt and William Parr, etc., so I am sure George had several that were painted of him, I wonder if they were all destroyed after his fall from grace?


I think you're right, Helen, I think they had a purge... Makes me wonder how many portraits of Anne also bit the dust around the same time. Probably we only have as many portraits of Anne as we do because her daughter eventually became Queen Elizabeth I.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: bell_the_cat on October 25, 2005, 12:04:30 PM
Quote
This painting is called: "Anne Boleyn receiving proof of Henry's passion for Jane Seymour." by George Cruikshank, 1844. Does anyone have a larger image of this?  

(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b68/bell_the_cat/2319102115590061.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on October 25, 2005, 12:27:29 PM
Quote

Speaking of whom, is there a portrait of Jane Rochford (sp?) that survived? I don't think I've ever seen one either...

Yep, I have seen one that is supposed to be her. I will go look. Never seen one of george though
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on October 25, 2005, 12:40:09 PM
(http://www.asn-ibk.ac.at/bildung/faecher/geschichte/maike/treffpunkt/buch2-599.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 25, 2005, 12:40:43 PM
It says Lady Parker - that was her maiden name wasn't it?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on October 25, 2005, 12:43:03 PM
Jane Boleyn nee Parker,the Lady Rochford. I think this picture looks like it was drawn by a 12 year old 8)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 25, 2005, 12:46:53 PM
Yes, very disproportianate. :-/
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 01:07:36 PM
Quote
Yes, very disproportianate. :-/


Perhaps this is what she actually looked like  ;)  ;D
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on October 25, 2005, 01:12:07 PM
Her eyes are too far apart....no wonder George didn't like her ;D
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 01:34:42 PM
Actually she kind of looks like one of those B'way CATS characters  ;D
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 01:37:09 PM
(http://www.asn-ibk.ac.at/bildung/faecher/geschichte/maike/treffpunkt/buch2-599.jpg)(http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9168/cats8ac.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on October 25, 2005, 01:40:58 PM
LMAO you are sizzling tonight Helen :-*
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 25, 2005, 01:42:47 PM
Quote
LMAO you are sizzling tonight Helen :-*


No, just trying very hard to procrastinate doing my very boring homework assignments!  ;D
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on October 25, 2005, 01:45:32 PM
Surely it is gin and tonic time 8)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 25, 2005, 01:57:36 PM
Quote

No, just trying very hard to procrastinate doing my very boring homework assignments!  ;D


Just done mine.  :P :P ;)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Zanthia on April 01, 2006, 04:50:13 AM
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i201/Zanthia1982/HenryAnne1.jpg)

(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i201/Zanthia1982/HenryAnne2.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on April 01, 2006, 04:06:52 PM
Quote
Although Anne Boleyn is not be the most well-liked or admired of Henry's wives, to me she is  probably the most interesting and certainly one of the most intelligent of the six.  

I don[ch8217]t agree exactly that. I think Anne is well liked or admired by many Tudor fans or researchers on the periods. There are books, movies, novels, even internet groups on her. Personally, I am highly interested in Anne life and personality, she seems to have been a very interesting character in History. 
 
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on April 01, 2006, 04:17:58 PM
One of my drawings of Anne. Enjoy it!
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/gavimar/c61bc526.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on April 02, 2006, 06:05:31 AM
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/gavimar/54bfbfa9.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: imperial angel on April 02, 2006, 07:55:11 PM
Contemporaries for many reasons some not very personal, but more political, did not like Anne, and she was percieved badly due perhaps to the very qualities that seem so high in modern estimation. She may not have been liked then, for those reasons except by very few, but today we can see her modern qualities, qualities they coudn't have appreciated then, and like her for them. In many ways, she was a very modern woman, and we see that now, and perhaps that is why she has so much interest in her today.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2006, 08:19:47 AM
Quote
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/gavimar/54bfbfa9.jpg)


Lady, did you paint this one? It's wonderful.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2006, 08:20:26 AM
Quote
Contemporaries for many reasons some not very personal, but more political, did not like Anne, and she was percieved badly due perhaps to the very qualities that seem so high in modern estimation. She may not have been liked then, for those reasons except by very few, but today we can see her modern qualities, qualities they coudn't have appreciated then, and like her for them. In many ways, she was a very modern woman, and we see that now, and perhaps that is why she has so much interest in her today.

I agree with you on this.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on April 05, 2006, 05:06:06 PM
No, Helen, I did not paint it. But I did the drawing above it.
You can find this paint in Ludlow, I learnt that from AnneBoleyn_Regina a Yahoo Group.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 05, 2006, 05:22:02 PM
Quote
No, Helen, I did not paint it. You can find this paint in Ludlow...

I never saw this version, this is why I thought it may be your own rendition  :). Thanks for posting it and your drawing!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on April 06, 2006, 10:48:25 AM
Lovely picture Lady!  :D

And, I have to add, today is the birthday of our very own Kimberly, so let's all hope the wishes of this charming, humourous and very YOUNG woman come true.  ;D ;D :-* :-* :-*
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on April 06, 2006, 10:58:35 AM
Happy Birthday, Kimberly! Looks like you and I were born under the same sun sign, Aries. I drink to your health!

BTW, I am currently having an argument via email with Silja, so perhaps you can help out. I insist that the National Portrait Gallery picture of Anne shows her with dark auburn hair. Am I right or am I wrong? Of course all her contemporaries said that Anne had black hair, but brunettes often have red highlights and you could interpret the NPG portrait that way... at any rate, it's a copy of an original, not an original itself, so something might have got lost in the translation. Wasn't red hair by Elizabeth's reign considered highly fashionable? So why wouldn't a later portraitist have shown Elizabeth's mother sporting red hair, after a fashion?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: bell_the_cat on April 06, 2006, 11:03:00 AM
Quote
Happy Birthday, Kimberly! Looks like you and I were born under the same sun sign, Aries. I drink to your health!

BTW, I am currently having an argument via email with Silja, so perhaps you can help out. I insist that the National Portrait Gallery picture of Anne shows her with dark auburn hair. Am I right or am I wrong? Of course all her contemporaries said that Anne had black hair, but brunettes often have red highlights and you could interpret the NPG portrait that way... at any rate, it's a copy of an original, not an original itself, so something might have got lost in the translation. Wasn't red hair by Elizabeth's reign considered highly fashionable? So why wouldn't a later portraitist have shown Elizabeth's mother sporting red hair, after a fashion?

It looks like Anne has six fingers on her left hand in that portrait! :o

Happy birthday, Kimberly!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on April 06, 2006, 11:31:23 AM
Thank you thank you, I have had a fabbo day, but the bank account hasn't because we went to Hay- the town full of book shops and bought sooo many history books, we had to make two journies to the car ;D ;D
We have alerted the fire brigade for tonight, on account of all the candles required for my chocolate birthday cake. Lots of love, Kim.xxx :-*
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on April 06, 2006, 12:14:15 PM
Re Anne Boleyn's hair; The NPG one surely shows Anne with auburn hair with a paler streak of reddish along the left side of the face (the portrait with the "B" necklace). The fashion in those times was very much for blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin  and a "rose-bud" mouth, so Anne was definately unfashionable in colouring with her dark hair and olive (sallow) skin. The Hever portrait with Anne holding a rose, shows her with very much darker hair.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: imperial angel on April 07, 2006, 08:55:23 AM
Every book does say that she had black hair, but her hair while dark, wasn't black, judging from portraits. Her colouring was unfashionable, you were supposed to have white skin, she was very sallow. I don't think red hair was ever fashionable, in particular, although most of the later Tudors had hair that could be described as shades of red. Elizabeth in portaits of her as a young woman, and later, does have red hair, but she also has very pale skin, which was the fashion I think. Didn't Tudor women sometimes wear wigs back then too?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on April 07, 2006, 11:01:44 AM
Hmmm good question about wearing wigs Imperial Angel. I am not sure Tudors before Elizabeth did wear them. There were rigid rules regarding hair and dress, for instance, a plunging neckline was acceptable but sleeves had to come to the wrist. Likewise, an unmarried woman could wear her hair unbound but hair had to be covered once married except on state occasions (Anne's hair was said to be so long she could sit on it). Even Anne wore hoods and veils although she favoured the "French Hood" which allowed a greater expanse of hair to be shown and I think this was to "titillate" men.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: imperial angel on April 07, 2006, 11:13:52 AM
It would be interesting to know if they did wear wigs before Elizabeth, who did wear them in later years, and also Mary, Queen of Scots who did. I think if they did wear wigs, it was for a change of pace among other things, since back then it wasn't that easy to change your hairstyle in terms of colour, or too much else. I once read in a book, about six years ago, although I don't remember the book, that the reason why some contemporaries said that Anne Boleyn's hair was black, and some said it was red, was because she sometimes wore wigs. That's just what I read.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on April 07, 2006, 11:40:16 AM
IMHO I don't think Anne would wear a wig. I think contemporary sources say that it was HER EYES that were "black and very beautiful". If beauty was seen as being blonde haired and blue eyed, Anne with her dark eyes and hair was "un attractive" in their eyes particularly if "they" were supporters of Catherine of Aragon. I also wonder wether the wearing of wigs was a hygiene thing....you know ...lice and all that :o
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: imperial angel on April 09, 2006, 08:29:30 PM
I agree that she may not have worn a wig, it wasn't as common then as it would later be at the English court to wear wigs. There is little evidence she did. You could be right about the eyes, I could be mixing things up, it's been awhile since I read this. I don't know if any sources that were contemporary said that she had black hair, perhaps they just meant dark, even if they said so.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on April 22, 2006, 07:48:18 PM
Anna, I sincerely believe, would never have worn a wig.  It simply was not done until the reign of her daughter (you try getting those hairstyles with your natural hair!)  Personally, I think the debate over her haircolor comes down to the perception of the times.  Either you were fair-haired (blonde) or you weren't.  If you weren't, then you might as well have black hair because anything other than blonde was ugly anyways.  I also haven't seen a description of someone having anything other than the three basic types of hair color (blonde, red, brown).  It was one or another.  It also could be that all descriptions of Anne with black hair were basically exaggerated digs at her appearance.  She wasn't blonde, she was a dark gypsy.  A dark evil gypsy who seduced men.  The painter, in his addition of a reddish tint, may have shown her hair's true color simply because there was nothing underlying his attempt except the pursuit of truth in advertising.  
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: imperial angel on April 24, 2006, 10:43:16 AM
I agree that the debate over her hair colour, could be to make her look bad, by associating her with dark looks. Certainly, not many were fans of her, and what better way than to say she was dark, meaning it in colouring transparently, but really meaning that she was dark, everything a woman shoudn't be by implication. I can see that, and it fits the way that age acted. Thanks for your insight.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on April 24, 2006, 12:47:03 PM
I'd never thought of Anne as anything but black haired, so it was very interesting to hear that when looking at the painting(s) in person there appears to be a reddish hint to her hair.  Thinking about this, I began to wonder about her daughter.  I've always seen Elizabeth's color attributed to Henry, which is understandable.  But now it seems possible she may take more after her mother than previously thought (especially in eyes, skin color and now maybe the hair).  It's obvious she's Henry's daughter, but how did she compare to her mother's side of the family?  What was the coloring of her maternal ancestors?  Was Anne a good representation of the family, or was her darkness an anomoly (I think I've read she was said to have taken after an Irish grandmother)?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: imperial angel on April 24, 2006, 05:26:23 PM
Well, I thought the same when I first saw that portrait of Anne Boleyn with the reddish tint in her hair. I think it is agreed that although Elizabeth I was mostly and mainly a Tudor in looks and such, that she had some of her mother's family in her, mentally and physically. After she became Queen, she was always nice to her Boleyn relatives with good positions and things like that. She may have prefered to emphasize her Tudor heiritage though, because of what had happened to her mother.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on April 24, 2006, 07:54:20 PM
When I look at Elizabeth, I see her mother.  The only thing I see of her father in her is her stare and the general appearance from the nose up.  And obviously the coloring, even though I've always thought of her as rather sallow like her mother.

Are there any personal comments Anne made on her own appearance?  Did she ever speak about liking it, or hating it?  Or was that something she generally left to her detractors?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: imperial angel on April 25, 2006, 10:21:20 AM
I think that Elizabeth was indeed much like her mother, perhaps more than she would acknowledge, or wanted to admit. She wanted herself seen in public as King Henry's daughter, invoking the better aspects of his reign, at least in popular memory. There are, of course, lots of comments about Anne's appearance from her enemies ( which were many). I have never read any comments she made on her appearance herself, but it would be interesting to research that.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on May 04, 2007, 06:54:59 AM
Another fan of her majesty, Queen Anne, here.  ;D

It has been asked why her daughter never said anything. Well, I've been wondering about it. Could it be due to the fact that Anne was considered by the a traitor -after all, adultery to a king was treason, IIRC- and sexual intercouse with so many men and, worse of all, those accusations about incest?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on May 04, 2007, 10:49:35 AM
Everybody knew the accusations - especially the incest ones - were ridiculous to say the least. I think Elizabeth did mention Anne, twice or something, but I don't know what she said.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on May 04, 2007, 11:13:33 AM
Also, we don't know what she said privately, or what her thoughts were.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on May 04, 2007, 12:15:49 PM
It has been asked why her daughter never said anything. Well, I've been wondering about it. Could it be due to the fact that Anne was considered by the a traitor -after all, adultery to a king was treason, IIRC- and sexual intercouse with so many men and, worse of all, those accusations about incest?

I think you're on the right track, Kurt. IMO, Elizabeth's dilemma regarding her mother was both political and psychological. She could not bring up the subject of her mother without on some level "betraying" her father, who had condemned Anne Boleyn to death for high treason and who, moreover, was not only Elizabeth's father, but also her king and predecessor on the throne of England. Indeed, I think the political rationale more than anything else prevented Elizabeth from publicly referring to her mother under any circumstances (although as I recall there were a few veiled references to Anne Boleyn in the popular celebrations attending Elizabeth's coronation, as far as I know there are, at most, only one or two records of Elizabeth ever mentioning her mother in conversation with others - in fact, isn't Camden the only one?). To bring up the subject of her mother in public would almost inevitably have been perceived to be a subversion and a denigration, however subtle, of the all-powerful image of her father in the public mind. Which in turn might very well have brought up questions about the divine right of kings - and queens. (Consider this: if Henry could be so wrong about a major decision such as that of executing his second wife, couldn't Elizabeth also be wrong about certain major decisions, such as executing the Duke of Norfolk or Mary, Queen of Scots?) Moreover, any public acknowledgment of her mother's undeserved fate would have been perceived as personally disloyal to Henry's memory, which I believe Elizabeth could never have tolerated. For all these reasons, when all's said and done, Elizabeth was more her father's daughter than her mother's.

We should also remember that Elizabeth, who lost her mother before she was three years old, was raised to believe that her mother was guilty of high treason. In fact she probably always believed this to be the truth. At the very least I'm sure Elizabeth had very ambivalent feelings about Anne Boleyn. I seriously, seriously doubt she romanticized her as an innocent victim of Henry, as some modern novelists would have us believe.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Tsarfan on May 04, 2007, 01:48:45 PM
I agree with everything you have said, Elisabeth . . . and would add one more very compelling reason for her to stay publicly mute on the topic of her mother.

Elizabeth's right to rule derived from being Henry's daughter.  The strongest argument against that right was her being the daughter of a woman the opposition felt was not legally married to Henry.

Her grip on the throne, especially in the early decades of her reign, was rather tenuous.  While we today find it hard to imagine anyone but Elizabeth ruling England in the latter half of the fifteenth century, she and her contemporaries could imagine several alternatives.  Never one to tempt fate unnecessarily, Elizabeth was not likely inclined to tempt it by reminding people of her matrilineage if she could avoid it.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on May 05, 2007, 07:09:44 AM
I hope I won't make a fuss of all of it.

I think you're on the right track, Kurt.

Thank you very much for your kindness, Elizabeth. Sometimes I rush a bit on my conclussions, I'm glad to see that this is not the case ;D

I think you're on the right track, Kurt. IMO, Elizabeth's dilemma regarding her mother was both political and psychological. She could not bring up the subject of her mother without on some level "betraying" her father, who had condemned Anne Boleyn to death for high treason and who, moreover, was not only Elizabeth's father, but also her king and predecessor on the throne of England.

...and the piece, so to speak, of the puzzle who made her queen. However, my doubt. If Henry has his marriage with Anne declared null and void, I wonder about the situation of Elizabeth as a presumptive heiress. I bet that this has been discussed previously. I'll do a quick search...

Furthermore, I guess that Elizabeth would feel divided about this mother that she never met and that father who murdered her mother. Of course, those feeling would have been digged deep inside of her.


Indeed, I think the political rationale more than anything else prevented Elizabeth from publicly referring to her mother under any circumstances (although as I recall there were a few veiled references to Anne Boleyn in the popular celebrations attending Elizabeth's coronation, as far as I know there are, at most, only one or two records of Elizabeth ever mentioning her mother in conversation with others - in fact, isn't Camden the only one?).

Once I read that many English nobles displayed pictures of Anne in their homes, in order to show their loyalty to Elizabeth -is this true, by the way?-, but I cannot remember the source, shame on me.

. To bring up the subject of her mother in public would almost inevitably have been perceived to be a subversion and a denigration, however subtle, of the all-powerful image of her father in the public mind. Which in turn might very well have brought up questions about the divine right of kings - and queens. (Consider this: if Henry could be so wrong about a major decision such as that of executing his second wife, couldn't Elizabeth also be wrong about certain major decisions, such as executing the Duke of Norfolk or Mary, Queen of Scots?)

That's the key. In the beginning of her times as queen, IIRC Elizabeth was in an unestable position -she  was illegitimate under both canon law and statute, the religious situation, the threat from Spain, France and Scotland, the Northern Rebellion, the Ridolfi Plot- to risk allienating the people, the Church or the nobility. Perhaps when the situation was less dangerous -1590s, perhaps?- it was too late. Anne was dead for too long, who but her daughter would care?

At the very least I'm sure Elizabeth had very ambivalent feelings about Anne Boleyn. I seriously, seriously doubt she romanticized her as an innocent victim of Henry, as some modern novelists would have us believe.

i absolutely agree with you here. She may have felt pity for her, but Elizabeth was too busy ruling the country and keeping the balance of power to do anything else.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on May 05, 2007, 07:12:47 AM
Elizabeth's right to rule derived from being Henry's daughter.  The strongest argument against that right was her being the daughter of a woman the opposition felt was not legally married to Henry.

That's the key.

Her grip on the throne, especially in the early decades of her reign, was rather tenuous.  While we today find it hard to imagine anyone but Elizabeth ruling England in the latter half of the fifteenth century, she and her contemporaries could imagine several alternatives.  Never one to tempt fate unnecessarily, Elizabeth was not likely inclined to tempt it by reminding people of her matrilineage if she could avoid it.

And which would have been the reason to do it? To restore Anne's reputation and honour? Appart from Elizabeth, who would care? And to do it, you need to ruin Henry... undermining your position on the process...

No, Elizabeth had no choice, methinks. Poor queen Anne neither.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on May 06, 2007, 05:51:41 AM
Looking at the monologue by G.S. Stuart at "Tudor England", I heard that he claimed that Anne was called something like "Nanne".

Has anyone heard or read anything about it?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: basilforever on May 06, 2007, 06:09:51 AM
I think Elizabeth must have felt some love/attachment to her mother Queen Anne. She wore a ring with both her and her mother's portraits in it. I'll try to find a picture of it later.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: basilforever on May 06, 2007, 06:32:46 AM
Some pictures of Her Majesty Queen Anne, who I feel so much empathy for.  :'(

I love her B gold and pearls necklace. I want one like that!

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_abhever.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/abhever.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_abnpg.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/abnpg.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_aboleyn.gif) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/aboleyn.gif)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_aboleyn3.gif) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/aboleyn3.gif)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_abtutin_black.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/abtutin_black.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_anneb.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/anneb.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_anne_boleyn.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/anne_boleyn.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_annebmin.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/annebmin.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_anneboleyn3.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/anneboleyn3.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_AnneBoleynj.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/AnneBoleynj.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_anneboleynyu.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/anneboleynyu.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_anneboleynyy.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/anneboleynyy.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_boleyn1.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/boleyn1.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_bookbelongingtoanneboleyn.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/bookbelongingtoanneboleyn.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on May 06, 2007, 07:54:23 AM
Looking at the monologue by G.S. Stuart at "Tudor England", I heard that he claimed that Anne was called something like "Nanne".

Has anyone heard or read anything about it?
"Black Nan" was one of the epithets used I believe.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on May 06, 2007, 10:12:19 AM
"Black Nan" was one of the epithets used I believe.

Thank you very much, Kimberly!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on May 12, 2007, 01:29:59 PM
A silly doubt. If I remember correctly, Cranmer declared  that Anne was never actually married to Henry, on account of an alleged precontract between Henry Percy and Anne, on one side, and Henry's involvement with Anne's sister, on the other.

So, could have this fact been enough to finish off the marriage as it has never existed? Why not using the same old excuse that worked to get him rid of Catherine? Why killing her?

Perhaps he needed to exclude any kind of doubt about the "truth" behind his actions? Perhaps because his first Succession Act decreed Henry's marriage with Catherine invalid and his union with Anne legitimate, stating the throne would go to the sons and then the daughters of the later marriage? he needed a male heir, so he had to got rid of her by killing her?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Silja on May 23, 2007, 04:24:45 PM
A silly doubt. If I remember correctly, Cranmer declared  that Anne was never actually married to Henry, on account of an alleged precontract between Henry Percy and Anne, on one side, and Henry's involvement with Anne's sister, on the other.

So, could have this fact been enough to finish off the marriage as it has never existed? Why not using the same old excuse that worked to get him rid of Catherine? Why killing her?

Perhaps he needed to exclude any kind of doubt about the "truth" behind his actions? Perhaps because his first Succession Act decreed Henry's marriage with Catherine invalid and his union with Anne legitimate, stating the throne would go to the sons and then the daughters of the later marriage? he needed a male heir, so he had to got rid of her by killing her?

I believe he thought he couldn't afford to have another marriage only annulled when before he had done everything to present that marriage as legitimate.  Might have turned him into a laughing stock, especially as Henry had obviously been aware of his relationship with Mary Boleyn when he decided to marry Anne. Convicting Anne of plotting the king's death, I believe, was the more expedient method since everybody would have pitied the poor king who had been lured into a marriage with a depraved traitor. Moreover, Anne alive might have proved a thorn in the king's side, with potential supporters of her possibly questioning the validity of  the King's subsequent marriage(s).
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on May 24, 2007, 03:00:07 AM
That's what I was beginning to think. Better to be the victim of a treachery than a killer.

And Anne had powerful enemies, too. While Henry was searching for a Spanish allilance with the Emperor, she still kept for a French one, IIRC.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on June 16, 2007, 06:03:20 AM
The part of Anne Boleyn that I have always admired was her courage.

QUEEN ANNE BOLEYN ON THE DAY OF HER EXECUTION
FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1536


This morning she sent for me, that I might be with her at such time as she received the good Lord, to the intent I should hear her speak as touching her innocency alway to be clear. And in the writing of this she sent for me, and at my coming she said, "Mr. Kingston, I hear I shall not die afore noon, and I am very sorry therefore, for I thought to be dead by this time and past my pain ". I told her it should be no pain, it was so little. And then she said, "I heard say the executioner was very good, and I have a little neck", and then put her hands about it, laughing heartily. I have seen many men and also women executed, and that they have been in great sorrow, and to my knowledge this lady has much joy in death. Sir, her almoner is continually with her, and had been since two o'clock after midnight.


From a letter from Sir W. Kingston, Constable of the Tower, to Thomas Cromwell, May 19th, 1536. (spelling modernized)


Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on June 16, 2007, 12:32:03 PM
Indeed. Her courage was admirable till the end.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on July 14, 2007, 09:00:07 AM
Anne Boleyn is my fave Queen. Her personality in XVI should have been overwhelming. What a life!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: azrael7171918 on July 22, 2007, 08:06:32 AM

 I have recently read a quote from Thomas Cramner Archbishop of Canterbury concerning Anne's execution.

"She who was queen on earth will this day be queen of heaven"

This is said to come from a recent book by Joanne Denny. I have found that this book has terrible reviews.

Is there another source for this quote?


Azrael
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on July 22, 2007, 08:31:00 AM
I brought over my question instead of posting it under Tudor Queens! About Anne Boleyn being argumentative...I have read that She was a very jealous person and that is one of the reason's Henry VIII tired of her. However I haven't read that much about general personality. As I mentioned above I admired her terribly for her bravery..but are there sources from contemporaries that tell us if she was: outgoing...talkative...quiet...funny...dressed well...etc.?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on July 22, 2007, 09:10:47 AM
I can't remember any direct quotes, but I think the general thinking was that she was witty, 'fiery', lively, that kind of thing.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on July 23, 2007, 07:11:06 PM
Yes Anne Boleyn was indeed a tragic figure. How different her life would have been had the son that was born still born been able to live. Medicine in those days was so primitive. 
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 08, 2007, 06:26:39 PM

Perhaps he needed to exclude any kind of doubt about the "truth" behind his actions? Perhaps because his first Succession Act decreed Henry's marriage with Catherine invalid and his union with Anne legitimate, stating the throne would go to the sons and then the daughters of the later marriage? he needed a male heir, so he had to got rid of her by killing her?

Yes, he did get rid by killing her in my opinion. I also think that he was ardent in his case that she was a witch who practiced black magic (though I doubt it). It was probably Anne's sixth finger that convinced him; speaking of that sixth finger, was it even real?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 08, 2007, 06:37:44 PM


"She who was queen on earth will this day be queen of heaven"

This is said to come from a recent book by Joanne Denny. I have found that this book has terrible reviews.

Azrael

I haven't read Denny's book, but I did read the reviews. I heard that the book was well-written, but biased.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 09, 2007, 03:08:35 AM

 I have recently read a quote from Thomas Cramner Archbishop of Canterbury concerning Anne's execution.

"She who was queen on earth will this day be queen of heaven"

This is said to come from a recent book by Joanne Denny. I have found that this book has terrible reviews.

Is there another source for this quote?


Azrael

Anne was Cranmer's patroness and he wanted to plead for Anne. He had to take a fine line between pleading for her to whom "he owed everything next unto the King" and yet he couldn't be made to look as if he was questioning Henry's actions.By defending her over much, he would have destroyed himself. He wrote to Henry that he was "clean amazed, for I never had better opinion in a woman than I did in her". According to Starkey, Anne was a victim who had to be sacrificed so that the Reformation could continue.
I haven't read Denny's book by the way ;)






Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on August 09, 2007, 10:41:39 AM
Poor Anne Boleyn went due to the birth of her still born son. I wonder whether such a child would have been born dead in 2007 with all the modern medical monitoring equipment? I wonder whether it was strangled in the womb with the umbilical cord around its neck? That happens sadly sometimes. I have never heard any details on this child apart from the fact it was born dead. If the boy had lived and been healthy I believe Anne would have survived and Jane Seymour probably would have only been a mistress and Edward VI a bastard son if he had been ever born at all. The sad thing is Henry VIII did have a healthy son for a time but he was a bastard son. It is interesting to note that Henry's sister Mary gave birth to healthy sons who all died young. Frances Brandon, mother of Lady Jane Grey survived them.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 09, 2007, 11:50:06 AM
It was a miscarriage. Chapuys reports that it "seemed to be a male child which she had not borne three and a half months."
Stillbirths always will happen, there is often no reason for them, it seems as if the placenta just "gives up".
Dmitri, there is an interesting theory that Anne was Rh negative, making antibodies that were lethal to the foetus after the birth of her daughter, Elizabeth.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 09, 2007, 04:25:47 PM

Stillbirths always will happen, there is often no reason for them, it seems as if the placenta just "gives up".


That's really sad to hear. Alas, it's true... I have an aunt who had two pregnancies; in the first one the baby died in her stomach, in the second the child was, like, about four months premature and therefore it was another miscarriage.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on August 12, 2007, 05:43:15 AM
Perhaps if Anne has given birth to a male child he would have been as weak (healthy speaking) as Edward VI. Anyway, he would have giver her a new life, so to speak, don't you think?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on August 12, 2007, 07:27:04 AM
I found this " Boleyn's second misfortune was the miscarriage of a son, in 1536. Some sources trace the miscarriage to an incident when Anne was falsely told that her husband had died. She fainted and collapsed. This further strained that already rocky marriage" and then this quote below from another source Answers.com under Henry VIII.

"She miscarried of a baby boy on Jan. 27, 1536, 6 days after fainting at the news that Henry had been knocked unconscious in a jousting accident in which the king fell under his mailed horse. It was a costly miscarriage, for Henry was already interested in Jane Seymour."
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on August 12, 2007, 11:38:34 AM
Yes I read that one as well. Certainly Jane Seymour was no innocent and was being manipulated by her family. Perhaps her early death was poetic justice for her part in the treachery that brought Anne Boleyn down. 
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 12, 2007, 12:20:46 PM
Didn't Anne's Uncle Norfolk say something like: "She miscarried her saviour" ?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on August 12, 2007, 03:52:56 PM
Didn't Anne's Uncle Norfolk say something like: "She miscarried her saviour" ?

I think so. IIRC, Norfolk was the one who told her about Henry's accident. If I'm right, I think he told her about the "news" in a quite disgusting way, that made her be too anxious and worried. The rest...

Or perhaps I'm confused. Ouch. I've to check some sources...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 12, 2007, 04:19:43 PM
Kurt, you are correct, it was Norfolk who told Anne about the jousting accident. He probably took great delight in it.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 12, 2007, 07:03:27 PM
Yes, I'm pretty sure he did. He cared not for his niece, but really for himself and his family fortune... he's a figure in Tudor history I totally hate. Especially what he did to Katheryn Howard...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on August 14, 2007, 05:49:19 AM
I'm glad not to be the only one to have this opinion about Norfolk. He was absolutely disgusting.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on August 14, 2007, 07:09:53 AM
I think Catherine Howard did herself in by so openly committing adultery. She tried to get a child by any means and was caught out and paid the price. Her poor cousin Anne Boleyn was totally set up and went to the scaffold innocent. 
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 15, 2007, 03:14:30 PM
But dmitri, Katheryn Howard was young and foolish---she simply got carried away as a typical girl would have. Of course, in doing so it led to her execution; whereas,Anne Boleyn was not guilty of adultery, incest and witchcraft, but she was very haughty and the way she treated Mary Tudor, if you ask me, was unacceptable. She knew how to play the role of the mistress, but being the submissive wife just wasn't her thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Anne blame her husband for the death of her baby boy? I thought she said that she was overcome by anxiety when she heard Henry fell off his horse... I'm not sure about this, so someone confirm this if you can...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Russophile on August 15, 2007, 07:12:04 PM
I had read that Henry had syphillis and that was the reason why so many babies were stillborn. That, and, of course inadequate health care.
I believe that Catherine Parr was the most intelligent of the 6 but Anne Boleyn was certianly the most colorful.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on August 15, 2007, 09:51:24 PM
Catherine Howard was more than foolish. She was conniving and knew very well what she was doing. She had already had lovers before Henry and was used by the Duke of Norfolk to regain power for the Howard family. She deserved the block. As for Anne I don't think her treatment of Mary was a problem. Mary had been declared a bastard and refused to come to heel. Her father was King and she openly caused trouble not only in his lifetime but also after his death. She was a dreadful monarch.   
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 16, 2007, 02:03:47 AM
There is no evidence that Henry had syphillis. We have discussed this somewhere here before.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on August 16, 2007, 09:25:48 AM
One wonders where you get this lack of evidence from?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 16, 2007, 10:29:38 AM
The medieval treatment for Syphilis was Mercury. There is NO mention of Mercury being used as a treatment for Henry's ailments in the contemporary sources.
Syphilis typically attacks the mucus membranes-genitals,eyes,nasal lining- resulting in typical genital lesions, blindness and a collapse of the nasal cartilage (saddle nose). Henry's recurrent leg ulcer is far more indicative of Advanced Diabetes (type I or Type II). Rumours of Henry's venereal disease began about a century after his death.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on August 16, 2007, 10:32:52 AM
Well have read about Henry being "clapped out" in a number of different sources.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 16, 2007, 10:49:14 AM
Dmitri, I am clapped out....but I haven't got "it" :)
Modern thinking tends towards "Uraemia"(renal failure) and Cushings Syndrome among other things but not venereal disease. Now I reckon Francois 1st is a more likely candidate for that ;)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Russophile on August 16, 2007, 01:14:46 PM
I can't remember where I read it, might have been Weir's "6 wives", I have Garrett Mattingly's "Catherine of Aragon" and my Oxford book of the British Monarchy, and of course, I've read many, many more books on the Tudors, but there was a suggestion that Henry might have an STD that would cause a rather abnormal amount of miscarriages. Catherine was pregnant throughout her marriage to Henry, remember, and, with the exception of Mary, all died.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 16, 2007, 01:50:12 PM
I don't know wether you can blame an STD for this. Remember that married women in medieval times probably had a pregnancy every year and there are many many reasons for miscarriage. As for Catherine's tragic obstetric history, I think 2 were miscarriages and 5 were stillbirths or very early neonatal deaths (the babies dying the same day or in Prince Henry's case, a month or so after delivery.) Death rates were high and childbirth a dangerous business for both mother and baby.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Russophile on August 16, 2007, 02:19:24 PM
I don't disagree, I am just saying that there might be other factors as well. Henry was a notorious run around.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 16, 2007, 02:21:45 PM
Well, he wasn't actually. He didn't have that many mistresses.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 16, 2007, 02:38:32 PM
Kim is right, by the standards of royalty in those days Henry was virtually chaste. Also, I read somewhere (several sources in fact, but can't remember exactly which ones at the moment) that Henry's alleged STD was nothing but an "urban legend", there is no evidence one way or another that he had it. It was just one of the speculations as to why his male children were not very healthy.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Russophile on August 16, 2007, 03:17:52 PM
Quick reference of David Starkey's "Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII" on page 160, Chapter 29. "On the Shelf"
Catherine was now on the shelf--in the sense that she was stuck in that limbo reserves for wives whose husbands do not much care about them one way or another. She became uglier and duller and more devoted to learning and religion. Meanwhile, Henry took mistresses, spent time with the boys and even occasionally, immersed himself in the serious business of government.

In the above paragraph, mistresses is in bold. This is plural. This is before he met Mistress Anne.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 16, 2007, 03:23:27 PM
Catherine Howard was more than foolish. She was conniving and knew very well what she was doing. She had already had lovers before Henry and was used by the Duke of Norfolk to regain power for the Howard family. She deserved the block. As for Anne I don't think her treatment of Mary was a problem. Mary had been declared a bastard and refused to come to heel. Her father was King and she openly caused trouble not only in his lifetime but also after his death. She was a dreadful monarch.   

But she was only eighteen!  What Katheryn did was wrong but she didn't have to DIE for it. Yes, I am aware Katheryn had lovers before the marriage, and that proves that old habits die hard.
And Anne's treatement of Mary was, as I said before, unacceptable;  yes, true she was a dreadful monarch, but maybe if Anne had not treated Mary thus the latter would have been a better Queen. Mary recognized her mother as the true Queen. Plus, how could Mary have just accepted that she was a bastard because her father put her aside for a woman who was but a knight's daughter? I am not being biased, for I truly do admire Anne Boleyn---I'm not on Team Katherine or anything---but what she did to Mary was pushing the limits a bit too far. I believe that Henry used the whole 'I married my brother's widow' thing as an excuse to get the women he lusted after.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 16, 2007, 03:24:09 PM
Quick reference of David Starkey's "Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII" on page 160, Chapter 29. "On the Shelf"
Catherine was now on the shelf--in the sense that she was stuck in that limbo reserves for wives whose husbands do not much care about them one way or another. She became uglier and duller and more devoted to learning and religion. Meanwhile, Henry took mistresses, spent time with the boys and even occasionally, immersed himself in the serious business of government.

In the above paragraph, mistresses is in bold. This is plural. This is before he met Mistress Anne.

Oh yes, Henry had mistresses, of course he did, but compared to say, Francis I, it was child's play. We are talking you can count them on one hand, which is nothing for a king. Most of his mistresses were either long-term (Bessie Blount, Mary Boleyn) or he married them...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 16, 2007, 03:26:42 PM
Quick reference of David Starkey's "Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII" on page 160, Chapter 29. "On the Shelf"
Catherine was now on the shelf--in the sense that she was stuck in that limbo reserves for wives whose husbands do not much care about them one way or another. She became uglier and duller and more devoted to learning and religion. Meanwhile, Henry took mistresses, spent time with the boys and even occasionally, immersed himself in the serious business of government.

In the above paragraph, mistresses is in bold. This is plural. This is before he met Mistress Anne.

Of course Henry had many mistresses, but that does not mean he engaged in very sexual activities with everyone of them if you know what I mean. His first mistress was Elizabeth Stafford, and he used his friend William Compton as his shield so no one could find out (they did eventually though). The most famous of his mistresses are Bessie Blount, whom he had a son with, and Mary Boleyn.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 16, 2007, 03:29:59 PM
His first mistress was Elizabeth Stafford

I don't think things even went as far as ES becoming his mistress. He was "discovered" when he tried to approach her, there was a scandal and she was sent away from court. I think his first real mistress was Bessie Blount... Remember that for quite a few years Henry was faithful to Catherine of A...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 16, 2007, 03:31:32 PM
Of course Henry had many mistresses

I really don't think it was "many". It was a handful really, and by the standards of the day he was pretty undersexed... He had more wives than mistresses.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 16, 2007, 03:40:00 PM
OK , its a bit O/T but what the heck.
1) David Starkey, Six Wives;
P615. "Henry had developed a severe ulceration on the calf of his left leg.Not syphilitic as some have supposed.
2) Mistresses; he was positively chaste compared to some. Bessie Blount
                                                                                 Lady Elizabeth Fitzwalter??
                                                                                 Mary Boleyn
                                                                                 Madge Shelton??
His soiled reputation springs from his multiple marriages.

                                                                                 
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 16, 2007, 03:50:55 PM
David Starkey, Six Wives;
P615. .. ... he was positively chaste compared to some.

Wow, Starkey used almost identical words to describe Henry as I did  ;D.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 16, 2007, 03:55:27 PM
Ooops sorry the syphilis bit was Starkey. The rest was my shocking typing skills, but you get the gist.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Russophile on August 16, 2007, 04:57:59 PM
OK , its a bit O/T but what the heck.
1) David Starkey, Six Wives;
P615. "Henry had developed a severe ulceration on the calf of his left leg.Not syphilitic as some have supposed.                                                                           
I already knew that. Catherine Parr frequently massaged his calf to make him feel better.
I shall have to get back to you on the STD question. I am at work and haven't the resources to do the topic justice.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 16, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
His first mistress was Elizabeth Stafford
Remember that for quite a few years Henry was faithful to Catherine of A...

How many years, exactly?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Silja on August 19, 2007, 03:31:25 PM
As for Anne I don't think her treatment of Mary was a problem. Mary had been declared a bastard and refused to come to heel. Her father was King and she openly caused trouble not only in his lifetime but also after his death. She was a dreadful monarch.   

From Henry VIII's point of view also Anne "caused trouble" after becoming queen, not only by nagging all the time, but also by not giving him a son and increasingly becoming a threat to potential new alliances with the empire. I think Henry's point of view is hardly an objective criterion in judging either Mary's or Anne's behaviour in this particular context.
Anne could indeed be a very arrogant person, and her treatment of Mary was pretty shameful. But such behaviour was not unusual at the Tudor court where faction fight and intrigue were the most common things.   
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on August 19, 2007, 06:32:27 PM
Anne Boleyn's main problem was not giving birth to a son who survived. Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon because she could give him no living son. Jane Seymour gave Henry a son but died. Anne of Cleves was not sexually interesting for Henry and Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr did not fall pregnant to Henry although Catherine Parr did have a child after Henry died by another man. How different things would have been for Catherine of Aragon had she the benefit of modern medicine. Most of her children would have survived today. How different history would have been as well.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 20, 2007, 01:29:15 PM
dmitri, we do have a 'what if' thread entitled 'Kathrine and Anne', where we discussed exactly what your talking about.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on September 09, 2007, 07:19:14 AM
One of my save pics of my fave Queen
(http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2679/anabolenaoc5.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on September 09, 2007, 09:14:47 AM
I do think in the long run England won out as she ended up with Elizabeth I as her Queen. No doubt Anne Boleyn would have been very proud of her daughter had she lived to see her become Queen.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on September 21, 2007, 02:57:47 PM
It's extremely sad that Anne didn't see her daughter as Queen... has anyone noticed that the most famous love stories end in bloody deaths? Examples: Paris and Helen, Antony and Cleopatra, Anne and Henry, Romeo and Juliet etc...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dolgoruky18 on September 21, 2007, 04:06:10 PM
Just a few details about Anne Boleyn  -  who was, as posters have been saying, a fascinating and enigmatic woman.

Date of birth: There seems to be no absolute agreement on this. Anytime from 1501-1509. The year 1507 seems to be a current favourite.

Background: Although the Boleyns were of mercantile origin in the male line, they were highly upwardly mobile, Anne's father married a Duke's daughter (Norfolk), his father an Earl's daughter (Ormonde) and his father a Baron's daughter. She was, in fact descended from King Edward I.

Siblings: Again there is no agreement as to the order of birth of Anne's surviving brother and sister. Both Mary and Anne spent time at the French Court, but there is no direct evidence as to when they went, how old they were or who educated them. It is thought that Anne was brought up with the children of Queen Claude, the wife of Francis I. Mary left France under a cloud. She had, it seems, been the mistress of several men including King Francis who referred to her in Italian as "una grandissima ribalda... infama sopra tutte". She had, in short become a laughing stock even at that immoral Court. She became Henry's mistress and was quickly married off to William Carey, a Gentleman of the King' Chamber. The son she bore, Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon, was widely believed to be Henry VIII's.

There were ugly rumours that Henry and Anne's mother had been lovers  -  and that Anne was his own daughter. Henry denied the allegation. He was not altogether believed.

Henry changed the name of all the Boleyns to "Rochford" before creating Anne Marquess of Pembroke in her own right.

Anne's fall: A fairly recent study of Anne has put forward a persuasive theory that she gave birth to a grossly deformed foetus in the weeks before her arrest and that this was the basis for the witchcraft/incest charge.

Anne's skeleton was uncovered along with many other Tudor victims when Queen Victoria ordered repairs on the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula within the Tower in the 1870s. It was described as "very delicate". There was absolutely no indication of a sixth finger on either hand. She was reburied by Katherine Howard before the altar.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on September 22, 2007, 05:08:54 AM
I guess the one great sadness was that Anne never gave birth to a son who lived. Had she done this her life would have been far more secure. There probably would have never been six wives of Henry VIII either. Sadly in those days it was not known that the male contributed to the sex of the child and it was not the fault of the female. Instead she was blamed for not being able to give Henry a son.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on September 22, 2007, 02:27:48 PM
True. She also was not fit to play the part of the docile, submissive wife, but rather the loving mistress, and this added to Henry's annoyance. I guess Henry felt more secure when both of them were married, and was free to do whatever he could with her, something Anne did not appreciate.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on September 22, 2007, 04:47:53 PM
I think Anne is more remembered even though her end was gruesome compared to Jane Seymour. Seymour is remembered as the woman who carried on an affair when Henry was married to Jane and then shamelessly got married to him basically straight after Anne's head came off. I never felt sorry for Jane when she died just after childbirth. It seemed rather like revenge from on high. Anne had the last laugh from heaven as Jane's on was sickly and did not last very long and Elizabeth was a great Queen. She was the son Henry wanted.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on September 22, 2007, 08:05:13 PM
Exactly. I've never liked Jane Seymour either because of what she did to Anne. She was also the complete opposite of black-eyed, beautiful and proud Anne Boleyn, but meek, blond, and undesirable. She pretty much copied Anne by telling Henry there was no way she was going to submit to being his mistress.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on September 23, 2007, 03:57:53 AM
"Anne Boleyn as a Witch," by Brian A. Pavlac.

Quote
Anne Boleyn's reputation for being a witch has been unfairly held against her.  In trying to find grounds to incriminate her, King Henry claimed that she had used witchcraft to make him fall in love with her.  He also said he feared that she would harm him with poison -- a common accusation against witches.  Her enemies also repeated charges of physical deformity, such as that she was too tall, had a sixth finger (which was probably just an extra fingernail), and had strange warts and growths on her body that could have been witch's teats.  The allegedly deformed male fetus of her last birth in 1536 was also used against her.  While raised as an issue at first, witchcraft did not end up among the charges used by the court which found her guilty of treason in conspiracy with her alleged lovers (including her brother).  That the first English law against witchcraft was passed just a few years after her trial, in 1542, reflects the growing fears about witches in England, in which Anne was also ensnared.  On Anne and witchcraft, see especially the book by Warnicke. "Anne Boleyn as a Witch,"  this is a quote from Brian A. Pavlac.

Witches were also accused of afflicting men, even their spouses with impotence, an act that was from the mid-twelfth century recognized by the canon law as a marriage impediment. The King reportedly confided to Richmond that Anne had planned to poison
both Mary and him (the Duke) of Richmond and displayed to the Bishop of Carlisle a tragedy about her death that he had allegedly written prior to her arrest. According to Warnicke the shock of a deformed fetus might have caused Henry impotence and she puts this forward "that Henry genuinely believed Anne guilty of the crimes"  Is there any proof that Anne tried to poison anyone? Also since Witchcraft was not used among her many charges according to Pavlac does anyone think Henry really believed all this?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on September 23, 2007, 10:25:30 AM
Henry wanted to get rid of Anne just because she could not give him a son, but started believing all the witch/incest/adultery accusations Anne was innocent of a little, then a bit more, till he fervently believed in all of this, though he knew that deep inside none of this was true.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: dmitri on September 23, 2007, 05:21:14 PM
Poor Anne was innocent and sent to the block to die so that Henry VIII could marry Jane Seymour. Catherine of Aragon got off lightly.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on September 24, 2007, 04:14:21 PM
oh, Katherine did not get off THAT lightly. She was seperated from her daughter who was tormented by Anne daily and sent to go from house to house, until she was sent to somewhere so worst that her poor old body eventually failed to live. Anne, of course, was innocent of the charges against her that were undoubtedly exaggerated. But that still does not mean that Anne Boleyn was a saint. She was haughty and all the people of England hated her and supported Katherine. Mary Tudor, who would become Mary I, or, more appropriately called "Bloody Mary", was tormented by Anne to a state that was pitiful, despite the deeds the princess-turned-bastard would do in the future.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on September 25, 2007, 06:56:02 AM
Anne Boleyn wasn't blameless, of course. Her bullying Mary wasn't fair, but, somehow, understable -after all, Katharine has given her a hard time, so to speak. Being said that, I think that Anne was a bit revengeful - ask Wolsey, for instance- and that helped to the bad consideration that some people had of her. She made mistakes that helped to her downfall. Nevertheless, I cannot blame her, I'm afraid...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on September 25, 2007, 12:37:23 PM
Anne Boleyn wasn't blameless, of course. Her bullying Mary wasn't fair, but, somehow, understable -after all, Katharine has given her a hard time, so to speak. Being said that, I think that Anne was a bit revengeful - ask Wolsey, for instance- and that helped to the bad consideration that some people had of her. She made mistakes that helped to her downfall. Nevertheless, I cannot blame her, I'm afraid...

In the current age of psycho-babble, we may even go as far as saying that this was her way of dealing with pressures she was under - she was lashing out. And believe me, she was under a lot of emotional pressure!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: anneboleyn1313 on December 17, 2007, 08:25:16 PM
Although Anne Boleyn is not be the most well-liked or admired of Henry's wives, to me she is  probably the most interesting and certainly one of the most intelligent of the six.    


Anne Boleyn is my personal favorite. She was independant and stood for herself when she was abandoned. I find myself kind of wanting to be like her  :-[

Could we maybe have a debate on her birth date? I want to know what others think she was born. I personally think she was  born in 1500.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on December 18, 2007, 02:26:59 AM
Hi Anneboleyn 1313 and welcome to the forum. We have already debated her birth date..here. Perhaps you would like to add something.
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,4072.0.html (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,4072.0.html)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: anneboleyn1313 on December 18, 2007, 05:55:58 PM
Oh, sorry, I will have to check it out. :)

I

Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on December 19, 2007, 01:16:18 AM
Oh, no need to apologise, it is a few pages back.xxx
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 31, 2007, 02:13:41 PM
I just came across this, not sure if it was posted somewhere already... Anne Boleyn as The Queen of Spades:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/queenofspades.jpg)



Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on January 03, 2008, 04:55:52 AM
lol, that looks pretty cool! I'm not sure whether this is off-topic or not, but did you know that Elizabeth of York is the Queen of Hearts?

(http://www.madore.org/~david/images/cards/english/queen-hearts.png)

Sure looks like her! ;)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 03, 2008, 09:05:44 AM
Yes, that's right!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yseult on January 04, 2008, 01:04:25 PM
Anyone of you knows what happened to Elizabeth Howard Boleyn when both her daughter Anne and her son George were sent to the Tower? I always wondered about the feelings of the poor lady...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on January 04, 2008, 01:44:03 PM
I think she just retired to the countryside (kept herself well out of Henry's way!) and died in 1538. I don't think she ever reconciled herself to Mary Boleyn either.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on February 06, 2008, 10:20:32 AM
Different pics of my fave Queen: Anne Boleyn
(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/4158/1969418851212daeefd8vz5.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/2900/19694189854e0f3e2f93mc2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on February 06, 2008, 10:22:11 AM
It is said they are Anne&Henry
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5226/1969542001b0364acaf9oi7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on February 07, 2008, 02:16:32 AM
Lady, when I click in to enlarge the pictures I am simply getting an advertisement. Thank you though for these do you know the year they were painted?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on February 07, 2008, 01:58:17 PM
When you click to enlarge you are directed to the page I uploaded the pics. It's imageshack. You can upload pics and it is not necesary  to register.
No, I don't have any idea about the date of those paintings.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on August 19, 2008, 05:40:10 AM
By the way, how many pregnancies had Anne after Elizabeth? IIRC, at least two (July 1534 and January 1536). Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on August 19, 2008, 08:57:19 AM
By the way, how many pregnancies had Anne after Elizabeth? IIRC, at least two (July 1534 and January 1536). Am I missing something?

Starkey states that there were 2 further pregnancies after Elizabeth.
Alison Weir on the other hand, states that there were 3. An almost full term stillbirth in August/September 1534. A miscarriage in 1535 and a son, miscarried in January 1536.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 19, 2008, 03:36:58 PM
There may have been one "false" pregnancy,  but I don't think there is any way to know for sure... The only thing we know for a fact is that there was at least one pregnancy after Elizabeth, which resulted in a miscarriage...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Romanov_Fan19 on August 19, 2008, 10:33:30 PM
Ive got to Admit since watching Season 1 of The Tudors im crushing on Natalie Dormer do you think hers is an accurate protrail?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on August 20, 2008, 07:29:02 AM
The Tudors has it's own thread, methinks...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: tom_romanov on August 20, 2008, 11:10:18 AM
lol, that looks pretty cool! I'm not sure whether this is off-topic or not, but did you know that Elizabeth of York is the Queen of Hearts?

(http://www.madore.org/~david/images/cards/english/queen-hearts.png)

Sure looks like her! ;)


they based playing cards on royalty!? then who's the king?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on August 20, 2008, 09:38:13 PM
Quote
I' ve got to Admit since watching Season 1 of The Tudors im crushing on Natalie Dormer do you think hers is an accurate protrail?
Quote

Apparently She had "great charm of manner" and sex appeal. Her greatest Asset might have been her black eyes although the French fashions she wore and perhaps even a slight  French Accent would certainly have helped. 

And strangely at her death She refused to wear a blind. The best She would do is close them but as she kept opening them the Executioner could not stand the look in her eyes and had a plan. He had someone appear to walk very heavily on the opposite side and he took off his shoes and approached silently enabling him to strike the fatal blow.

http://books.google.com/books?id=B-AsAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA342&dq=anne+boleyn%27s+eyes&ei=CNasSIuzHojcygSs9e3-Bg#PPA342,M1



Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: gogm on August 24, 2008, 05:07:33 PM
I finally saw "The Other Boleyn Girl" in which Anne is portrayed as a real scheming bitch along with her family.

I checked back the last few pages and saw nothing about the movie and this version of Ann as an evil woman. Any comments anybody?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on August 25, 2008, 05:56:31 AM
Some months ago I began the book and I couldn't stand it. Gregory uses too much gossip and to few history books, to put it midly.

Some weeks ago I saw the film. It gave me the same impression that the book caused me. Also it all looked so unreal, so out of context so, in a few words, so false that I can only say "if it could have been worse, I don't dare to imagine how". Catherine Scott Thomas, as it is usual, was superb, the only thing about the film I can cheer about.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: boleynfan on August 31, 2008, 10:57:19 AM
I thought Natalie Portman was ok as Anne, too pretty for the part, but she was better than I expected.  Eric Bana was disappointing, but the role wasn't written very well.

I was most offended that they showed her trying to actually seduce her brother.  Aside from the "ick" factor, it is widely held that this never happened. Just another falsehood that I'll have to debunk over and over thanks to Ms. Gregory.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on September 09, 2008, 05:46:23 AM
I agree. The so-called "seduction" scene is pitiful, to be polite. It's, in short, a quite irregular film, with some good moments, but, all in all, not quite remarkable.

Oh, by the way, I must confess that I'm awfully happy. Why? Because, after barely two weeks waiting, I finally got my copy of Mr. Ives' The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn. Just to good to be true to me, so I cannot skip looking at the book to be sure I'm not dreaming. Silly, but true.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on September 10, 2008, 01:28:03 AM
After you read it maybe you could share one description of Anne Boleyn. I have read She was witty but I would like to find an example of it! :)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on September 10, 2008, 04:11:41 AM
After you read it maybe you could share one description of Anne Boleyn. I have read She was witty but I would like to find an example of it! :)

I'll do it, I promise. I'm just in the beginning of the 2nd Chapter, which deals about her European education. The style of Mr Ives is simply outstanding.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: libgirl2 on September 11, 2008, 06:13:56 AM
I agree. The so-called "seduction" scene is pitiful, to be polite. It's, in short, a quite irregular film, with some good moments, but, all in all, not quite remarkable.

Oh, by the way, I must confess that I'm awfully happy. Why? Because, after barely two weeks waiting, I finally got my copy of Mr. Ives' The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn. Just to good to be true to me, so I cannot skip looking at the book to be sure I'm not dreaming. Silly, but true.

I could not bear to read the book or see the film.

I have Mr. Ives book on my to read list.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on September 27, 2008, 03:06:20 AM
Well, I'm back. I've finished Mrs Ives' book and I agree. It's excellent. I must say that my impressions and ideas about Anne Boleyn have changed as I've discovered a very different person -more active, more "alive", so to speak- that I thought she was. If before reading the book I was fascinated by Anne, now it's a bigger affaire, so to speak.

However, as all the good things, this reading has its bad side, of course. Even if the book more than 450 pages long -if you include footnotes-, to me it's a bit "short". Ok, it's a joke. I'll ahve to reread it again, because I stil lwant more. Now the real negative point. It's neither Mr Ives' fault nor the book, let's make it clear. After reading how the coup against Anne was prepared, staged and carried out, I cannot avoid feeling a great distaste for Henry VIII -he wasn't my favourite English king before, but now even Shakespeare's murderous Richard III seems to be a kinder fellow than Henry- nor a deep disliking of Cromwell. Ok, Anne wasn't a saint herself, but the whole affair of the funeral and getting rid of those who were on Henry/Cromwell way, well, it's sickening.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on September 28, 2008, 02:54:25 AM
Was Anne witty as described in other documents?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kurt Steiner on September 28, 2008, 07:01:30 AM
As I understood, Anne was more than witty. She was clever, intelligent, with a good measure of cold calculation, which doesn't mean she never made a mistake, of course.. However, even if this sounds a bit contradictory, her passion was what doomed her, as it has been stated before.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on October 12, 2008, 09:42:51 PM
I finally saw "The Other Boleyn Girl" in which Anne is portrayed as a real scheming bitch along with her family.

I checked back the last few pages and saw nothing about the movie and this version of Anne as an evil woman. Any comments anybody?

Natalie Portman was quite good as Anne IMO. Scarlett Johansson was fantastic as Mary.
And I don't think Anne was much of a bitch in the movie... I actually sympathized with her. But I think the problem was Mary's: she was too innocent. And Anne's "bitchiness" was sometimes directed towards her 100% innocent sister (which in my opinion was inaccurate)...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on November 17, 2008, 11:54:50 AM
Well i mostly like Anne Boleyn in the SHOWTIME production "The Tudors" and how Helena Bonham Carter portrayed her in "Henry VIII"  And Anne Boleyn as historical figure i must say that she was pretty smart and beautiful ofcourse.... she knew very well what is doing when she got marry to Henry.... about the troubles and about her duty to give a heir.... She couldn't give him and she suffered inside her.... I don't think it was fair to cut her head....
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: tom_romanov on December 18, 2008, 03:10:49 PM
i've read that Anne had an eating disorder ( Bulima i think) is this true?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on December 18, 2008, 03:34:49 PM
Thats a new one on me where did you hear that?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on December 18, 2008, 03:37:41 PM
I saw somewhere something like this... but nobody can prove it...It's just a hearing....
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: boleynfan on December 19, 2008, 04:59:31 PM
i've read that Anne had an eating disorder ( Bulima i think) is this true?

In my 30 years of reading about Anne, I have never seen this reported.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on December 31, 2008, 04:59:36 AM
I never heard it. Maybe it was a distorted report about her claim to eat apples at the beginning of her first pregnancy.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: tom_romanov on December 31, 2008, 05:31:59 AM
I first read it in a book about Kings & Queens by Terry Deary. In it he states - " Anne Boleyn had an eating disorder. She would very often eat a meal...then be sick before she could leave the table. Her ladies-in -waiting became to this and would hold a sheet up whilst she was sick in a bowl.


Like you guys said this is the only account I've ever heard of, that mentions it
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on December 31, 2008, 06:55:47 AM
Hmm i didn't know this.... Eric what do you think?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: jehan on December 31, 2008, 09:46:42 AM
I first read it in a book about Kings & Queens by Terry Deary. In it he states - " Anne Boleyn had an eating disorder. She would very often eat a meal...then be sick before she could leave the table. Her ladies-in -waiting became to this and would hold a sheet up whilst she was sick in a bowl.


Like you guys said this is the only account I've ever heard of, that mentions it

Given that Terry Deary's books, (The "Horrible Histories") , while fun to read, are not exactly scholarly or well researched, I would discount this unless you can find out his sources.  He  tends to exaggerate (And make up?)  all sorts of things to make a good story.  If one reads a fact such as this in a book, one should try to confirm the  source of it- check footnotes, bibliographies and such.  If it can't be confirmed somewhere more reliable- take it as a good story, but don't necessarily believe it.

And if the book doesn't HAVE any source notes - read it for entertainment, but not true information.  ;-)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on December 31, 2008, 10:03:48 AM
Actually, it was part of the duties of a lady in waiting to hold a napkin up thus enabling the Queen to spit out gristle and bone discretely. I remember reading somewhere that Jacquetta Woodville was called upon to perform this  signal honour(!) for her daughter, Queen Elizabeth Woodville (much to her chagrin).

I have never read anywhere that Anne had an eating disorder and I have read practically every bio there is of her, I agree with Jehan's comments above.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: tom_romanov on December 31, 2008, 11:21:09 AM
I first read it in a book about Kings & Queens by Terry Deary. In it he states - " Anne Boleyn had an eating disorder. She would very often eat a meal...then be sick before she could leave the table. Her ladies-in -waiting became to this and would hold a sheet up whilst she was sick in a bowl.


Like you guys said this is the only account I've ever heard of, that mentions it

Given that Terry Deary's books, (The "Horrible Histories") , while fun to read, are not exactly scholarly or well researched, I would discount this unless you can find out his sources.  He  tends to exaggerate (And make up?)  all sorts of things to make a good story.  If one reads a fact such as this in a book, one should try to confirm the  source of it- check footnotes, bibliographies and such.  If it can't be confirmed somewhere more reliable- take it as a good story, but don't necessarily believe it.

And if the book doesn't HAVE any source notes - read it for entertainment, but not true information.  ;-)

I totally agree with your points above. seeing I'm only 15 I still have all the books in my collection and like you said the books are fun but unreliable and this whole 'Anne's had an eating disorder' is a perfect example. I was 12 when I bought the book (Crule Kings & mean queens) and as youngsters do I believed every word of it, well now it looks silly because I made a fool of myself on this topic by believing the book. Perhaps Mr  Deary's books should include sources and them I and others who come to this forum wont waste yours/our time by posting trivia.

thanks anyway everyone,
tom
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on December 31, 2008, 11:54:11 AM

I totally agree with your points above. seeing I'm only 15 I still have all the books in my collection and like you said the books are fun but unreliable and this whole 'Anne's had an eating disorder' is a perfect example.

In my opinion people on that age 15 ( i'm on the same age ) are rare fans of The Tudors and of history at all... ;) It's nice to see other interest in The Tudors... I want to thank you for the information Tom i didn't know that about Anne... Continue collecting books about Anne ;) And remember from early age you begin a great historian...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: tom_romanov on December 31, 2008, 11:56:10 AM
Oh it's so nice to find another person who is the same age who likes history! thank-you for your kind comments  :)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on December 31, 2008, 11:58:49 AM
You are welcome :) It's interesting how little are the people of that age interest in history... In my country (Bulgaria ) i still can't find only older people.... What a pity....
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on December 31, 2008, 02:22:06 PM
Yes, Tom. You are very welcome here, you are a refreshing change and you are not wasting anybodys time Happy New Year too you dear boy !!!xxx
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: tom_romanov on December 31, 2008, 03:43:23 PM
thank-you very much Kimberly ! I think i am blushing....
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: LaDuchesse on March 16, 2009, 03:49:50 PM
It's too bad she didn't keep a diary. We know so little, yet she is my favorite of his harem. Elizabeth too remained silent about her mother. I don't recall ever reading anything that Elizabeth said or wrote about her mother. But I would imagine that at some point Anne did set her sights on the throne. How could she not have?

First of all Elizabeth barely remembered her mother, if she did at all.  Also, I heard on some pbs show or something like it that despite Henry's harsh treatment of her Elizabeth idolized him.  Therefore, since Henry seamed to rather dislike any mentioning of Anne, and if i'm correct prefered to act as though she'd never existed, so i believe she probably wouldn't have wanted to give her mother much thought.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on March 18, 2009, 06:42:57 PM
Elizabeth certainly enjoyed referring to herself as 'Great Harry's Daughter' while she was queen. We'll probably never know what she really thought about Anne. After Henry's death, it was in Elizabeth's interest to remind everyone that she was Henry's daughter, without mentioning Anne, who was regarded variously as a witch, an 'adventuress' and an adulteress. Being Henry's daughter was an advantage; being Anne's daughter was not, from a political point of view, something to be particularly proud of. It should be remembered though that when she became queen she treated her Boleyn relatives - particularly Catherine and Henry Carey, Mary Boleyn's children - quite well, so she must have felt some sort of familial feeling towards them.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: mcdnab on March 21, 2009, 02:17:13 AM
By all accounts she had a miniature of Anne in either a ring or broach that she always wore. Also during Elizabeth's lifetime fervent Protestants idolized Anne Boleyn as a great heroine of the English Reformation (at the same time Catholic writers held her up as a whore and worse). There were depictions of Anne during Elizabeth's coronation procession aswell. She didnt ignore her mothers memory but naturally she preferred to make more of her father whose memory was highly regarded by his subjects .
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on March 23, 2009, 05:17:52 PM
her father whose memory was highly regarded by his subjects .

For some reason!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on March 24, 2009, 03:52:19 PM
I have one question...Never understood what happened with Anne Boleyn's mother...i know only for her father...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on March 24, 2009, 04:03:32 PM
I wonder in fact too,

and my view on Anne, she might perhaps have been selfish but not heartless or such. She was too much 'her own woman' for Henry to keep his love for her, since he liked to controle it all. and the fact she could not give him a son, or did not gave one....

Perhaps she was like portrayed in 'Anne of the Thousand Days' - That is how I like to see her in fact, a woman caught up in history and the feeling to get higher in life.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on March 24, 2009, 04:20:38 PM
Elizabeth Boleyn died in 1538. She retired from court after Anne's death.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on March 24, 2009, 05:19:34 PM
It's interesting how i haven't seen her in any of the movies about The Tudors. except "The Other Boleyn Girl" but very little....Nothing was speaking about her......She was my namesake :)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on March 25, 2009, 06:41:42 AM
I wonder how she reacted on Anne's death, and George's. Also not much is known about Mary Boleyn, The Other Boleyn Girl - movie(tv or theatrical), or book - tries to tell a story, though much is fiction - for as far as we know -, and it makes one wonder how the relationship was between the two of them, especially after Henry moved on from Mary to Anne.

Anyway, we know that after Jane Grey had been executed, like her father and husband, her mother remarried and remained at court. This is one way to handle such a situation, but how would Elizabeth deal with hers...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on March 25, 2009, 11:58:16 AM
Actually Mary is much more mentioned in the series "The Tudors" then their mother Elizabeth...Actually in "The Tudors" Only their father and brother were mentioned :)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on March 25, 2009, 12:23:21 PM
Actually Mary is much more mentioned in the series "The Tudors" then their mother Elizabeth...Actually in "The Tudors" Only their father and brother were mentioned :)

I love the Tudors(though I prefer historical more correct depictions, as in 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII), DVD-box is on my wish-list and I can't wait for season 2 to air here(I only saw Anne's execution, sad to look at, it got me teared up a bit).
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on March 25, 2009, 05:20:20 PM
Indeed true...My favourite show is "The Tudors"...You should see Season 2 you would love it.....I'm waiting for Season 3 on 4th April....
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on March 26, 2009, 02:52:40 AM
This may answer some of the questions about Mary Boleyn and Anne:

Mary Boleyn Timeline and Biography
   1503   Mary Boleyn was born at Blickling Hall, Norfolk, England. Mary was the youngest daughter of Sir Thomas Boleyn and Lady Elizabeth Howard and the maternal niece of the Duke of Norfolk, head of the great and noble Howard family

The siblings of Mary Boleyn were Anne Boleyn (1502 - 1536) and George Boleyn (1500 - 1536)
 
   1505   The Boleyn family moved to Hever Castle in Kent

Whilst young girls Mary Boleyn and Anne Boleyn were appointed as lady-in-waiting to Queen Claude of France, who was married to King Louis XII of France
 
   1500   1519: Mary Boleyn returned to England in some disgrace. Her morals were in question and there were strong rumours that she had had affairs with members of the French court including the French King Francis I
 
   1520   4 February 1520: Mary Boleyn married Sir William Carey a favourite courtier in the royal court of King Henry VIII. The wedding party included Henry VIII
 
   1525   Mary Boleyn Carey became the mistress of King Henry VIII. The Boleyn family prospered because of Mary's affair and her father, Thomas Boleyn, was made a Viscount
 
   1526   4 March 1526: Mary Boleyn Carey gave birth to a son, called Henry - he was widely assumed to be the son of King Henry VIII although was not acknowledged as such
 
   1528   Mary became pregnant again in 1528 presumably by her husband Sir William Carey
 
   1528   The marriage of Mary Boleyn Carey ended when William Carey died on 23 June 1528 of the 'sweats'
 
   1529   Mary's second child was born in 1529 and named Catherine. Both of the children of Mary Boleyn bore the surname of Carey. King Henry VIII granted Anne Boleyn the wardship of her nephew Henry Carey (and possibly his son)
 
   1532   Mary Boleyn was one of thirty ladies who accompanied King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn on a visit to Calais in France known as 'The Field of the Cloth of Gold'
 
   1533
    25 January 1533: King Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn and Mary Boleyn became sister to the Queen of England. Mary became a lady-in-waiting to her sister
 
   1534   Mary Boleyn secretly married a soldier and commoner called William Stafford, who she had met in Calais at the 'The Field of the Cloth of Gold'. Queen Anne Boleyn was absolutely furious as Mary had married without permission and below her station.

Mary Boleyn was banished from the court. She loved her new husband, William Stafford, but they had little money and Queen Anne was reluctant to provide any financial assistance

Mary and Anne were partly reconciled when Anne sent Mary a gold cup - but the sisters were never to met again...
 
   1536   15 May 1536: Queen Anne Boleyn tried for treason, adultery and incest in the Great Hall of the Tower of London

1536   17 May 1536: George Boleyn was executed on the charge of treason and incest
 
   1536   19 May 19 1536: Queen Anne was executed on Tower Hill
 
   1543   Mary died on July 19, 1543: Mary had lived her life with William Stafford away from the dangers of the court. She had another son and daughter by William Stafford

Mary was really in love with William Stafford: "She wrote Cromwell a letter explaining that the world set little store by her, but that her beloved William Stafford cared for her a great deal. She desired only to live a simple honest life with the man she loved, she wrote, although, "...well might I have had a greater man of birth and a higher, but I ensure you I could never a had one that should a loved me so well, nor a more honest man. I had rather beg my bread with him than be the greatest Queen christened ... and I believe verily he would not forsake me to be a king."

This is really interesting: http://www.palmspringsbum.org/genealogy/getperson.php?personID=I7427&tree=Legends
includes Paintings
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on March 26, 2009, 06:28:58 AM
That was great to put all dates and everything....Thanks...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: boleynfan on March 26, 2009, 11:48:14 AM
One point of clarification on the wonderful timeline provided.  There is ongoing dispute as to the birth order of the three Boleyn children.  Indeed, many think Mary was the older sister, as she was more, ahem, "advanced" than Anne, both at the French court and at Henry's, perhaps due to her being older.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on March 26, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
 The timeline does help much, though it is not known for sure when the Boleyn-siblings were born. But it is nice to know :)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Vecchiolarry on March 26, 2009, 01:27:56 PM
Hi,

One slight correction:-
Queen Claude of France was the wife of Francis I of France and the daughter of Louis XII of France...
She was known for her piety and so that may explain Mary's removal from her Court, if indeed Mary was a naughty girl!

Larry
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Prince_Lieven on March 27, 2009, 02:21:48 PM
What interests me is that Mary married Henry Carey before becoming Henry VIII's mistress (unlike, for example, Bessie Blount, who was 'married off' to the obliging Gilbert Tailboys after her affair with Henry had run its course). I wonder if there’s any record of Mary becoming pregnant after marrying Carey, but before her affair with the King. If not, the fact that she was married to him for 5 years without conceiving, but upon becoming Henry’s mistress became pregnant the following year would seem to indicate that Henry Carey was indeed the king’s son. This doesn’t necessarily follow with Catherine, and of course it’s quite possible that Mary did conceive with Carey before her association with the king, but it wasn’t remarked upon because she didn’t achieve “fame” till her affair with the king.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on March 28, 2009, 01:34:20 AM
This link I gave was more interesting then the time line and goes into the question of "Was the Child Henry VIII's?"   

This is really interesting: http://www.palmspringsbum.org/genealogy/getperson.php?personID=I7427&tree=Legends
includes Paintings
 
Mary matured into a fair, blue-eyed blonde with the legendary Howard good looks. Despite the restrictions the French Queen imposed on her entourage, Mary displayed an easy going personality. She was light-hearted yet spirited, without the calculation and cattiness that such sophisticated courts could breed. She was, according to one account, sweet, fresh and winning. About this time she caught the eye of the French King, whose ungallant sobriquet for Mary in later years was "my English mare."

Mary's final years at François' Court were no doubt thrilling. In 1517 François, triumphant from his victory at Milan, returned stuffed with ideas and breathing the rich air of the Italian Renaissance. His most treasured booty included the 65-year-old genius Leonardo da Vinci, whose works Mary must have known, whether or not she knew the Master himself. Then, too, the importance and influence of women were enhanced by the heady atmosphere of the French Renaissance as power glittered from François' mother and sister. Mary's sister, Anne, had earlier joined her in France, and in 1519 her father became French Ambassador and was frequently on the fringes of Mary's risqué life. That same year saw improved relations between the French and the English as delegations of nobles were exchanged between the two courts.

Mary's stay in France ended with the grandiose spectacle of The Field of the Cloth of Gold, held on a non-descript plain in Picardy in June 1520. Since she returned to London with the English contingent, it seems probable that she was among the 5,172 English visitors to this opulent three-week-long entente cordiale between the Houses of Valois and Tudor. By tradition, Mary and Anne Boleyn were first presented to Henry VIII at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Although the meeting was a political fiasco with nothing accomplished, for Thomas Bullen it proved a victory: The English sovereign had noticed Mary.

Now another man entered the 16-year-old Mary's life. He was the ultimate master, King Henry VIII himself. Busy in France, Thomas Bullen could not even attend Mary's wedding to a courtier named William Carey, which took place almost immediately upon her return to England. The King gave Carey some sources of revenue and an insignificant office in his Household which would allow the newly wedded couple to live at Court. In this way began Mary Bullen, Lady Carey's six-year liaison with the King that her father had served so assiduously.

Mary followed several other women into royal favour, but only one, Elizabeth Blount, who had borne the King his only living son in 1519, had made much impact. Like Queen Claude of France, Queen Catherine of Aragon had learned to tolerate "the situation". Yet, for Mary to continue a relationship with the King for such a lengthy period indicates that she had an attractive and alluring personality as well as physical beauty. Even in 1524 when Mary bore her first child, and later a second (an indiscretion which usually prompted the King to look elsewhere) their relationship was not severely impaired.

Henry Carey, 1º Baron HunsdonDespite the toll of time and pregnancies, Mary's attraction did not diminish, evidenced by her father's rapid rise in the realm. In 1522 Thomas Bullen fell heir to the goods of the executed Duke of Buckingham and became Treasurer of the Household; Ambassador to Spain (1522-1523); Knight of the Garter (1523); and Clerk of the King's Jewels (1524). Numerous stewardships and other sinecures swelled his purse, and in June 1525 he was elevated to peerage as Viscount Rochford. Although Anne was called back to England from the French court in 1522, she spent much time at Hever and on the Continent at the Court of Margaret of Austria, as had her sister before her. Contrary to the popular romantic beliefs about Anne's immediate influence over the King, it was probably his affair with Mary from which the early bounty flowed to the Bullen family.

Mary's eldest child, a son, remains an enigma. The birth of a male to an acknowledged mistress of the King could have created a scandal, but in this case there was none. It was not until Mary's son served his cousin Elizabeth I that he greatly impressed his sovereign and his nation. The King evidently chose not to believe he had fathered the child, although the baby was conceived during his relationship with Mary and was christened Henry in his honour. The King did, however, meticulously provide for Mary's son after her husband's death. The birth of Mary's second child, Catherine, seemed to cause hardly a ripple at the Court.

At what point the King transferred his affections from Mary to her sister Anne is uncertain, although by 1527 his passions had definitely transferred to Anne. After this period Mary became an embarrassment to her sister, her father and her King.

Rochfort Manor, residence of Mary Boleyn.When Mary's husband, William, died of the sweating sickness on 22 July 1528, worse was yet to come. No longer useful to her father, a constant reminder to her sister who knew enough to avoid the King's bed for the present, out of favour with her King and newly widowed, Mary faced bitter poverty in the midst of the opulent Court. The King gave away all the deceased William Carey's sources of income. Custody of Mary's son went to Anne who was to oversee the boy's upbringing during his minority. Young Henry Carey was to be raised at a religious house instead of at Court, and his mother would not even be able to see him.

After these initial blows Mary's situation seemed to improve slightly. She became Lady Mary Rochford when all the Boleyns were given honours as King Henry bestowed ever more preferments in an effort to placate the nervous Anne while he plodded towards divorce. Eventually Mary was given a small yearly allowance by Thomas Boleyn after Anne pleaded with the King that her father ought to help support her destitute sister. After Catherine of Aragon was displaced, Mary became one of Anne's companions at an annual income of £100. And she was chosen to travel to France in Anne's entourage on a visit to Francois I in 1532, shortly before Anne became Queen
Anne Boleyn
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Mari on March 28, 2009, 01:55:47 AM
By the time Mary went to comfort the distraught Anne at the birth of the stillborn son in early 1536, Mary had been secretly married for two years to Sir William Stafford, a young gentleman usher with little money and no rank. The marriage was not discovered until months later when Anne learned that Mary was pregnant again. Anne greeted the news with hysteria. Mary's relatives, the Bullens and Norfolks, disowned her. Mary Boleyn had dared to marry for love and to a socially unworthy man of her own choosing. Worse, she was already with child when one was urgently needed elsewhere. Mary and William Stafford were banished from Court in disgrace.

Only Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII's chief minister from 1533 to 1540, kept communication lines open between the Court and the newly independent Mary. She wrote Cromwell a letter explaining that the world set little store by her, but that her beloved William Stafford cared for her a great deal. She desired only to live a simple honest life with the man she loved, she wrote, although, "...well might I have had a greater man of birth and a higher, but I ensure you I could never a had one that should a loved me so well, nor a more honest man. I had rather beg my bread with him than be the greatest Queen christened ... and I believe verily he would not forsake me to be a king."

Thomas Cromwell, c. 1532Anne's anger at thinking Mary such a fool as to wed Stafford soon abated as her own plight became increasingly serious. Anne feared she could never bear the male heir which she knew would be the best ensurance for the preservations of her marriage, no matter how far the King wandered. In 1536 Henry had his Queen arrested at a tournament at Greenwich and sent to the Tower, charged with adultery and treason. Mary's brother George was also incarcerated on a charge of incest with the Queen.

Mary's insignificant marriage and the comparative privacy of her banishment from Court protected her from the dire and probably trumped-up charges facing her brother and sister, but her liaison with the King gave her importance during Anne's trial. The King's long relationship with Mary placed him in an ironical position. He had used the law to prove that his marriage to his brother Arthur's widow was invalid. "Impediments of affinity in the first degree collateral" had been the argument Henry's advocates put forward to speed his divorce from Catherine so he could marry Anne. Further, Leviticus stated: "Thou shalt not take the sister of thy wife as a concubine," which the King had clearly done when switching his attentions from Mary to Anne. But he plunged ahead with Anne's trial by decreeing that brothers' wives fell under Divine Law while mistresses' sisters did not. Still, because his long relationship with Mary worried him, he had his marriage to Anne annulled rather than simply becoming a widower on her execution.

Elizabeth I of England, niece of Mary Boleyn.The rest of the tragedy of Mary's family is well known. Anne and George were declared guilty and beheaded in May 1536. Of Thomas Bullen's once promising brood of children, Mary alone survived. On the deaths of her siblings and the ruin of her father, who retired a broken man to Hever, Mary Boleyn, Lady Stafford, steps offstage. It is known that in 1538 after the deaths of her parents, Hever Castle was "sold" to the King by Mary's uncle, Sir James Bullen, in what was a very unusual business transaction. By law the property would have automatically reverted to the Crown. From the sale the Patent Rolls record a sum paid to Mary Stafford. The King's reason for this gift of money is as unrecorded as the rest of Mary's years after the fall of the Boleyns.

Mary Boleyn's real legacy to her nation was through her children's services to her niece, Queen Elizabeth I. Catherine Carey became gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber at Elizabeth's accession, married Sir Francis Knollys, and became the grandmother of Lord Essex, the Queen's favourite in her later years. Henry Carey, 1st Lord of Hunsdon, served as trusted advisor and put down the Catholic Dacre rebellion against his royal cousin in February 1570. On that occasion the Queen wrote Henry Carey a touching letter of which his mother Mary Boleyn would have been proud: "I doubt much, my Harry, whether that the victory were given me, more joyed me, or that you were by God appointed the instrument of my glory; and I assure you that for my country's good, the first might suffice, but for my heart's contention the second pleased me ... you have done much for honour ... You loving kinswoman, Elizabeth R."

There had been other victories and joys, heart's contentions and honours, but interwoven with these had been greed, loneliness, cruelty and heartbreak. These intriguingly brief glimpses of Mary Boleyn, whose life touched so many important figures in the Tudor panorama, show her to have been a fascinating woman.

This article was written by Karen Harper for British Heritage magazine.

On the age as who was the older:

There has always been a certain amount of confusion between the Boleyn sisters at this period of their lives, and doubt over their dates of birth. Suggested birth dates for Anne vary between 150l and 1507, and although it is most likely that Mary was the elder of the two, there may have been no more than twelve months between them.

Hever Castle, childhood home of Mary and Anne BoleynAll we really know for sure is that both girls spent some part of their early years abroad. By 1512 their father was undertaking diplomatic missions to Europe and used his official connections to get the extra advantage of a Continental 'finish' for his daughters.

One of them, now generally thought to be Anne, lived for a time in the household of Margaret, Archduchess of Austria and Regent of the Netherlands, and in 1514 Mary Boleyn went over to France in the train of Henry VIII's sister (Mary) when the latter was briefly married to old Louis XII. Again information is scanty, but it is known that Anne presently joined Mary at the French court, entering the service of Queen Claude, wife of the new king Francois I.

Sources:
# [S109] Royal Genealogy, Brian Tompset, (Hull, England: University of Hull, 7 Mar 2005), http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal02339 (Reliability: 4).

# [S52] Tudor Place, Jorge H. Castelli, Mary Boleyn (Reliability: 3).

# [S316] HistoryNet, HistoryNet.com, (Leesburg, Virginia: The Weider Hisrtory Group, 2008), Mary Boleyn by Karen Harper (Reliability: 3).

# [S110] Leo's Genealogics Website, Leonardus Franciscus Maria van de Pas, (Perth, Australia: www.genealogics.org, 1990-2008).

# [S318] BBC history, British Broadcasting Corporation, (London, United Kingdom: www.bbc.co.uk, 2008), The Other Boleyn Girl (Reliability: 3).
by Alison Plowden, 27 Mar 03

# [S109] Royal Genealogy, Brian Tompset, (Hull, England: University of Hull, 7 Mar 2005).

# [S109] Royal Genealogy, Brian Tompset, (Hull, England: University of Hull, 7 Mar 2005), http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal02340 (Reliability: 4).


Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on March 28, 2009, 04:55:34 AM
WOOOW wholeeee novel.......Very very interesting information....Thank you  ::)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on May 04, 2009, 07:43:05 PM
Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII

(http://www.fineartprintsondemand.com/artists/hogarth/henry_viii_and_anne_boleyn-400.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on June 01, 2009, 03:21:39 PM
Wonderful one,

Now Anne is highly popular and the media again thanks to 'The Tudors' and always she is portrayed as a woman trying to catch the king's attention, which is correct, and then portayals get all too different - from a scheming woman to a person who just got catched in the moment of history. Nevertheless Anne's legacy is far more greater than just being culturaly 'exploited', she gave England a new Church, she gave England one of it's most famous and succesful Queens and her life will always be remembered for she was the one who changed England by her wish to reform. Also it is ironical that Anne was hated during her own lifetime, because of Queen Catherine of Aragon and her popularity among the people, but that after her death she became a martyr and highly popular thanks to books, movies, even an opera and television portrayals.

Either you hate or you like her.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on June 01, 2009, 07:15:12 PM
I hope that no one has posted it before, if no, excuse me :-)

(http://z.about.com/d/historymedren/1/0/J/boleyn.gif)

Other....

(http://imagecache.allposters.com/images/pic/CHRPOD/VIC12069225001~Henry-VIII-And-Anne-Boleyn-Observed-By-Queen-Katherine-1870-Posters.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on June 01, 2009, 07:17:24 PM
Paper doll of Anne

(http://www.royalpaperdolls.com/abblue9.gif)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Olga Maria on June 26, 2009, 02:13:57 AM
(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/51244968.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=444ED34A869CB970B35FE587B71DDD45)

(http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/50698162.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=4996399091E83186E67F62844A9FA22611D40A26B3E28636)

Anne (http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/51243380.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=444ED34A869CB9705F35CEABCB0C7810)
Anne (http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/51244362.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=444ED34A869CB97023CA299D16B4F753)
Anne (http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/51242213.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=444ED34A869CB9705B2897E1487E4997)
Anne (http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/51242212.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=444ED34A869CB9704E7844213478A5C5)
Anne (http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/78948915.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939DE8499A9090806418D1DD05D8E3352B)

Paintings can testify how pretty she really looked like. How much more if we see true pics of herself?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on June 26, 2009, 08:42:36 AM
(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/51244968.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=444ED34A869CB970B35FE587B71DDD45)

(http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/50698162.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=4996399091E83186E67F62844A9FA22611D40A26B3E28636)

Anne (http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/51243380.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=444ED34A869CB9705F35CEABCB0C7810)
Anne (http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/51244362.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=444ED34A869CB97023CA299D16B4F753)
Anne (http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/51242213.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=444ED34A869CB9705B2897E1487E4997)
Anne (http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/51242212.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=444ED34A869CB9704E7844213478A5C5)
Anne (http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/78948915.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939DE8499A9090806418D1DD05D8E3352B)

Paintings can testify how pretty she really looked like. How much more if we see true pics of herself?


Those aren't open for me
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Olga Maria on June 27, 2009, 05:46:52 AM
(http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_1002d.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/1002d.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_51244968.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/51244968.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_78948915.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/78948915.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_50698162.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/50698162.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_51242212.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/51242212.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_51244362.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/51244362.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on June 27, 2009, 06:05:31 AM
Now they work...Ihaa...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on June 27, 2009, 07:05:49 AM
Thanks for these images....I find them most peculiar
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Olga Maria on June 29, 2009, 12:46:01 AM
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/2849/be044782.th.jpg) (http://img195.imageshack.us/my.php?image=be044782.jpg) (http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4183/f9870.th.jpg) (http://img40.imageshack.us/my.php?image=f9870.jpg) (http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2707/aabr002288.th.jpg) (http://img188.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aabr002288.jpg)

You're both very much welcome!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on June 29, 2009, 02:57:28 AM
Once again those last are so rare and beautiful...
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on June 29, 2009, 06:24:24 AM
I must agree. Those are beautiful.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: jehan on June 29, 2009, 08:53:25 PM

Paintings can testify how pretty she really looked like. How much more if we see true pics of herself?


Except that none of those paintings were done in her lifetime- they are mostly Victorian images and were done hundreds of years after her death.  The artists are just guessing and imagining what she looked like, possibly basing them on the few contemporary paintings that do survive (and that are posted elsewhere in the thread). 
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Olga Maria on June 29, 2009, 11:46:43 PM
That's what I don't know about those paintings/drawings, jehan.Thank you so much for the new info! Whatever the situation is, we can still say that Anne is a very pretty woman. I'm so sad she died in the age of 29.  

(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4093/nw013324.th.jpg) (http://img37.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nw013324.jpg)
Hever Castle;Where she lived when she was young.

(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4236/sf11095.th.jpg) (http://img37.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sf11095.jpg) (http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6531/aabr002335.th.jpg) (http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aabr002335.jpg) (http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9127/hu061915.th.jpg) (http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hu061915.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on July 03, 2009, 07:50:48 PM
very nice pics :-)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Olga Maria on July 04, 2009, 02:09:54 AM
Anne Boleyn (http://images.npg.org.uk/790_500/6/4/mw124764.jpg)


Thank you so much, Alzbeta!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on July 06, 2009, 07:33:48 PM
This is nice, I just saw a little version on a dictionary with biographies :-)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: jehan on July 06, 2009, 11:05:42 PM
That's what I don't know about those paintings/drawings, jehan.Thank you so much for the new info! Whatever the situation is, we can still say that Anne is a very pretty woman. I'm so sad she died in the age of 29.  



In her own time, however, she was not considered particularly beautiful.  Some of the descriptions of her were written by her enemies, and so are biased, but generally the times considered the buxom blonde to be the feminine ideal of beauty.  Anne was sharp featured, dark with  a sallow complexion and flat chested.

I think that Anne's attraction was in her wit, her intelligence and her eyes (which even her enemies admitted were "black and beautiful").  She was "sexy" rather than pretty.  And that's not something that the portraits can generally capture (although Holbein managed to a bit, I think).
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on July 10, 2009, 06:45:36 PM
An I also knew that her character was attractive too:-)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: jehan on July 11, 2009, 10:21:24 AM
An I also knew that her character was attractive too:-)

Again, I'm not too sure about that.  One has to be careful about contemporary sources, because so many of them are biased.  But she certainly was NOT kind to Catherine of Aragon, or Princess Mary (referring to  the teenage girl as a "Cursed bastard", having her jewels taken from her, and according to one source, wanting her to be beaten into submission).  She was extravagant with money and clothes- certainly not giving lots to the poor as Catherine had done before her.  She showed no mercy to her enemies as well.
How much of this was Henry's doing, rather than Anne's is unknown, but certainly Anne did nothing to restrain Henry as her successors often did, particularly regarding Mary.

She was, I would say "complicated".  Intelligent, witty, certainly  inspiring devotion and loyalty among some.  But she had plenty of flaws, and was not exactly "nice".  That's what makes her interesting.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on July 14, 2009, 08:27:31 PM
Well,this is something that I read, but I really don't know
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on June 15, 2010, 02:35:07 PM
The Queen as Saint Barbara
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/RoyalLadies/StBarbara.jpg)
With Henry VIII
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/RoyalLadies/AnaHenry.jpg)
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/RoyalLadies/AnneHenry.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on June 15, 2010, 02:43:29 PM
A ring with her image and Elizabeth's  one
Click here (http://tudorhistory.org/groups/ring.jpg)
the king and queen
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/RoyalLadies/AnaBolena.jpg)
(http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt94/KaiserinCharlotte/RoyalLadies/AnaEnriqueVIII.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: rosieposie on June 17, 2010, 07:45:32 PM
I wasn't aware of these pictures just the more famous ones.   So I had a good lunch looking at these :p
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on June 23, 2010, 12:32:22 PM
Anne and Henry VIII
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/KaiserinAlzbeta/Empresses/AnaYEnrique.jpg)
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/KaiserinAlzbeta/Empresses/QueenKing.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Royal Bulgaria on June 23, 2010, 02:30:50 PM
While looking at those portraits-who can guess Henry was such cruel animal.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on June 23, 2010, 02:42:08 PM
They are romanticised and not contemporary
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on June 23, 2010, 03:21:33 PM
Sometimes is funny to see several portraits about both that were (noticeable) made centuries after they lived and they were idealized for the painters who made those paintings
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: jehan on June 24, 2010, 12:38:20 AM
They are romanticised and not contemporary

Exactly- very Victorian in style. I would say 1860s or so, but that's a guess- could be 20 years either side.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on June 24, 2010, 02:07:50 AM
This is the only known contemporary image of Anne Boleyn, struck in honour of the queen in 1534
http://www.elizabethan-portraits.com/AnneBoleyn4.jpg (http://www.elizabethan-portraits.com/AnneBoleyn4.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Adagietto on June 28, 2010, 02:28:51 PM
Not very flattering, is it? I expect the engraver had his head chopped off.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Grand Duchess Valeria on June 28, 2010, 02:39:16 PM
Its often said that she wasn't a beauty, but very charming. Guess that can't be fetched by an engraver :-)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on June 29, 2010, 07:54:39 PM
I'm so surprised at looking at it, she isn't as she is usually represented on her most famous (idealized) paintings made time after. Not a beauty. Surely her character was the thing that atracted the king to her
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 29, 2010, 08:02:18 PM
You are judging Anne Boleyn  by today's standards of beauty.  It was different in different ages.   We would not think the real Cleopatra  is an Elizabeth Taylor beauty, but she had men falling all over her. Look at  these things in perspective of their times.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Rani on July 17, 2010, 06:36:55 PM
(http://i947.photobucket.com/albums/ad313/Isana1988/1584.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Lady Nikolaievna on July 17, 2010, 11:11:26 PM
Anne Boleyn did not have the usual beauty of that time, that was blond hair, blue/green eyes... She had dark hair and eyes, and that was different, but it doesn't mean unattractive. I think she was really beautiful, for what I see in paintings and what I read in descriptions of those who met her. Besides her beauty, she was really charming, talkative, intelligent and had a strong personallity. Isn't that quite enough to catch the King's eye?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on October 18, 2010, 03:07:39 PM
The death of the queen
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/KaiserinAlzbeta/Queens/anabolena1.jpg)
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Grand Duchess Valeria on October 19, 2010, 01:09:17 PM
It looks like a marriage in the background...Henry and Jane maybe? how macabre
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on October 20, 2010, 03:46:39 PM
You are judging Anne Boleyn  by today's standards of beauty.  It was different in different ages.   We would not think the real Cleopatra  is an Elizabeth Taylor beauty, but she had men falling all over her. Look at  these things in perspective of their times.

Judging from the coins (the only true likenesses of her struck in her lifetime), Cleopatra of the Ptolemies had an even bigger and longer nose than Anne Boleyn (in her coins). The real Cleopatra was certainly no Liz Taylor, just as the real Anne Boleyn was no doubt no Genevieve Bujold. Sex appeal is always unquantifiable, and irreducible to perfectly symmetrical facial features. You only know real sexual charisma when you've encountered it in person. Only then is it indubitably the real thing - no matter what modern pop culture mags and rags want us to believe with their airbrushed images (Bradgelina? give me a break, fatty Liz and pock-marked Dick would have reduced them to tears and irrelevancy, both onstage and off, in a heartbeat!).
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Imperial_Grounds on October 20, 2010, 03:48:41 PM
It looks like a marriage in the background...Henry and Jane maybe? how macabre
Well, Henry married Jane Seymour almost directly after Anne's death, 11 days if I am correct.... I find that quite disturbing on its own.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on October 20, 2010, 03:54:27 PM
We would not think the real Cleopatra  is an Elizabeth Taylor beauty, but she had men falling all over her.
Sex appeal is always unquantifiable, and irreducible to perfectly symmetrical facial features.
Yes, I guess it can also be "conquering" a moderately sexy queen who is venerated as a godess to boot! In short, one hot "taboo"!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on October 20, 2010, 04:52:39 PM
We would not think the real Cleopatra  is an Elizabeth Taylor beauty, but she had men falling all over her.
Sex appeal is always unquantifiable, and irreducible to perfectly symmetrical facial features.
Yes, I guess it can also be "conquering" a moderately sexy queen who is venerated as a godess to boot! In short, one hot "taboo"!

Yes, taboos, at least when they deal with gods and goddesses, can be very sexy indeed... Think of making the Daughter of the God Ra fall in love with you, and you start to understand something of what was at stake in the ancient world, where these taboos and their violations counted to a degree I'm sure we in our modern times can only very remotely, very vaguely understand!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on October 20, 2010, 05:40:30 PM
Only then is it indubitably the real thing - no matter what modern pop culture mags and rags want us to believe with their airbrushed images (Bradgelina? give me a break, fatty Liz and pock-marked Dick would have reduced them to tears and irrelevancy, both onstage and off, in a heartbeat!).

All the leading actors and actresses of the Bradgelina type are indeed unfit to play in any movie, historical or contemporary, that claims to be realistic and not just a fairytale or solely about themselves. My hope is that Celebritydom will fall just like Tsardom because it has become an unrealistic cocoon with only the most vague idealistic link to reality.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on November 05, 2010, 08:25:58 AM
Has anyone else here read this new biography Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions by some professor in the UK named G.W. Bernard? It's quite scandalous, he argues that Anne might actually have been guilty of some of the crimes she was accused of. Indeed, according to him, it was not a frame-up, not a coup against Anne and her faction carried out by Cromwell, but something much simpler, more basic, and humiliating for the king -- his wife had been caught cheating on him with at least two, quite probably more male courtiers.

Frankly I find this entire argument absurd. Especially since the author spends the first half of the book arguing that Anne was always a very passive player when it came to the Great Divorce, that it was Henry who was the real mover and shaker. (Uh, excuse me, I always thought that this was obvious?) But suddenly, from being a very passive player, in the second half or so of this book Anne becomes this Nightmare Queen, the Scarlet Woman, bent on wreaking her sexual revenge on Henry (because he was cheating on her, perhaps even before the birth of Elizabeth) and/or trying desperately to get pregnant with a male heir (even though she was either pregnant with Elizabeth or had just given birth to her, a healthy baby girl, when the first so-called adulteries occurred). I think this guy has been reading Philippa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl, I honestly do!!!

What especially irritates me about this book is that every other line our esteemed professor is pleading "human psychology." I'm sorry, I have never met even one woman (and I have numerous girlfriends) who has ever cheated on a mate with more than one man. Multiple cheating with multiple partners is male psychology, not female. The only woman I can even remotely imagine doing such a thing is the Samantha character in Sex and the City and as all you gals out there know, even Samantha doesn't cheat multiply once she's in a long-term relationship (RE: Sex and the City the movie). In fact, she's reluctant (although extremely tempted) to cheat even once with even one man. Why did the writers of this (admittedly awful) first movie write it this way? 'Cause women aren't men and they don't cheat with multiple partners in a short span of time, much less when they're Queen of bleeding all Britain (pardon my French).

Now that's basic female psychology!
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on November 05, 2010, 11:43:30 AM
Hi Elisabeth. Never heard of the book until you flagged it.
Here is quite an interesting review of it
http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/marshall_04_10.html (http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/marshall_04_10.html)

Interesting that it says he "trawled through the diplomatic correspondence of Charles V ambassador.....hardly pro Anne then !!
I haven't read the book but I might pick it up and give it a go if it turns up in the local library.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: mcdnab on November 10, 2010, 06:10:16 AM
I'd read another review of it - personally i'll stick with the views of Ives and Starkey who at least give a fair interpretation based on historical fact than assume - but i am sure it will be welcomed by some
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: LadyAstraea on November 21, 2010, 11:53:45 PM
Bernard has never been a fan of Anne. Still, I think that this new "spin" is merely a ploy to sell more books by causing a controversy. I have not yet read it, but I cannot believe he would actually have come upon some definitive piece of damning evidence against her. I still think Ives did a most brilliant job of explaining her fall in his biography of her and various articles.  I can't see Bernard coming up with something to trump Ives' accepted version of events, other than to reinterpret some of Chapuy's reports. Anyway, like someone already mentioned, Chapuys wasn't the most reliable of sources. Yet, for many events, he is the only source we have.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on November 22, 2010, 10:41:17 AM
Bernard has never been a fan of Anne. Still, I think that this new "spin" is merely a ploy to sell more books by causing a controversy. I have not yet read it, but I cannot believe he would actually have come upon some definitive piece of damning evidence against her. I still think Ives did a most brilliant job of explaining her fall in his biography of her and various articles.  I can't see Bernard coming up with something to trump Ives' accepted version of events, other than to reinterpret some of Chapuy's reports. Anyway, like someone already mentioned, Chapuys wasn't the most reliable of sources. Yet, for many events, he is the only source we have.

I actually think that Bernard is pretty sincere in his beliefs and that his theory of her downfall is not a mere ploy to sell a lot of books. In other words, IMO he's a serious scholar. But frankly, I don't believe his book will sell much, because the people who buy books about Anne Boleyn tend to admire her rather than denigrate her (whether or not that's the correct approach is beside the point, it's the reality). It's true that Bernard's book is very heavy on Chapuys's reports to the emperor, and yes, most of these are taken at face value. I think Bernard's main argument is that up until April 1536 Anne was still relatively safe, given the fact that Chapuys himself admits in one of these documents that she turned to him and he bowed to her during Easter church services, thus publicly acknowledging her as Queen of England for the first time, which was a great political coup for Anne, since Chapuys as the ambassador from Spain and the major supporter of Catherine of Aragon and Princess Mary was thus an arch-enemy of Anne. Moreover, the incident might very well have been deliberately staged in the interests of the Anglo-Imperial alliance. However one interprets it, it does tend to undermine Eric Ives's theory that Anne, as a long-time supporter of the French alliance, was an obstacle in the path of Cromwell, who wanted a new alliance with the Spanish emperor.

It is also hard to explain Chapuys's public acknowledgment of Anne as queen in the light of her very shocking downfall shortly thereafter, in early May. So I do think Bernard is more or less on solid ground in arguing that there might be some other explanation for what took place in Henry's brain between April and the beginning of May that ultimately led to Anne's sentence of death, and the death of her so-called paramours. I mean, for all we know Bernard could be right, and AB might have been guilty of some of the charges she was accused of. I just personally find the very idea absurd, because the dates are all wrong. Bernard pleads "human nature" and "human psychology" but AB would have had to be some kind of Messalina to start cheating on Henry one month after the birth of their healthy baby girl Elizabeth. The fact that Bernard doesn't (frankly, can't) claim that AB ever cheated on Henry during the six years of the Great Divorce is significant. If she really was so highly sexed that as queen she lost control of her appetites and committed major sexual indiscretions, then why is there no evidence of any sexual activity on her part with more than one partner (the king) before late 1533? At which time, for all intents and purposes, as Bernard argues, she was already 31 years old in 1532 (he takes 1501 as her probable date of birth) and one can reasonably assume that, if she was as highly sexed and transgressive as Bernard claims, she would have found it impossible to refrain from, well, basically cheating on the king, her lover, Henry VIII, at some point during this period. Especially since it's clear that Henry and Anne's intimate relationship never involved actual sexual intercourse until around the time of the conception of their daughter in the late autumn or early winter of 1532. And yet there's absolutely no evidence of Anne engaging in any sexual relationships outside of her commitment to Henry during this time, and indeed, in the official charges she wasn't accused of being promiscuous during this time. (Henry never seems to have doubted his paternity of Elizabeth.) Had she truly had been sexually insatiable, it would have been a different story all together, and indeed, I doubt AB could ever have become queen in these circumstances. She would have been just another one of the king's mistresses, easily used and just as easily discarded.

 
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: LadyAstraea on November 22, 2010, 09:40:12 PM
I am very well aware of the fact that Bernard is a serious scholar. Yet scholars do need to publish books, as everyone else does. Therefore, many who read it, will do so in order to disagree with his points. e.g. This is the same issue with Eric Ives and Retha Warnicke - they published continuous back and forth papers arguing the opposite reasons for Anne's fall, with Warnicke remaining steadfast to her deformed foetus theory, and Ives denouncing it as ridiculous.

The fact that Chapuys acknowledged Anne as queen by bowing to her does not actually invalidate Ives' theory that Anne stood in the way of an Anglo-Spanish alliance. Here, it is important to remember that Anne had stood for everything the Spanish opposed for too long. While the Katherine of Aragon may have been dead, the old wounds would not be healed so quickly. At Easter Anne indeed proclaimed she was supportive of a Spanish alliance, but this does not automatically mean that such an alliance could suddenly be brought about now by her change of heart. The point is that Charles agreed to acknowledge the validity of Henry and Anne's marriage, but only if Mary were to be reinstated into the line of succession. Yet, both were not possible at the same time. That Anne would have agreed to Mary taking precedence over Elizabeth is highly doubtful. While outwardly Anne was agreeable to this new alliance, she would have assuredly caused all manner of difficulties. This, combined with the fact that she had not produced the heir and had lost her allure to Henry, all made her destruction a politically advantageous move, especially with the meek and supposedly fertile Jane Seymour waiting in the wings. Also part of Ives' argument was the idea that Anne was causing difficulties over the closing of the monasteries, and it was over this point that she and Cromwell fundamentally disagreed. Therefore, with all the aforementioned reasons in combined, the easiest solution to all of them (or so mostly everyone at the time thought) would be to remove Anne.

The reason for Chapuy's acknowledgement of Anne as queen is perhaps that the conspiracy against Anne by Cromwell was not known to Chapuys, and so he merely was trying to make the best of Anne's new-found support of the Spanish alliance. His motives cannot be judged as overly sincere though, for at dinner afterwards, when Anne requested to speak to Chapuys, she found that he was elsewhere. Therefore, while he may have made an initial overture, he was not actually prepared to go through with any real plans with Anne.  
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on November 23, 2010, 03:39:25 PM
Of all the scholars you list -- Bernard, Warnicke, and Ives -- I have always regarded the latter as the most reliable source of information about the life and "queenship" of Anne Boleyn. That said, however, I do think there is something still very mysterious about the rapidity of her downfall in May 1536. Although it is, at least on the surface, dramatically compelling, Ives's explanation is not completely convincing... Because, let's face it, who really cared what AB thought about foreign alliances? She was a wife, not a reigning queen. Katherine of Aragon had to roll with the punches when Henry made an alliance with France against Spain back in the day... Therefore the Boleyn faction's traditional opposition to the imperial alliance cannot necessarily be regarded as a major explanation for its political downfall.

Of course, I don't believe Warnicke's theory of the deformed stillborn fetus suddenly causing Henry to decide that Anne was a witch. This seems to me a very fanciful, even naive, even, yes, outright condescending and anachronistic theory. In fact there must have been hundreds, even thousands of such "deformed" fetuses that passed through the hands of experienced English midwives and doctors throughout the 16th century. Because given the level of health care in the England of the time, there must have been hundreds, even thousands of stillborn fetuses every year, male and female alike... I'm sure that in reality nobody involved in the birthing of AB's last child shared any of the hideous details of it with her husband, the king. I'm sure that all those hideous details was swept under the rug, as was probably habitual, because even in this day and age men have been known to faint dead away at the sight of a healthy, natural childbirth, much less a miscarriage or stillbirth.

Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: LadyAstraea on November 23, 2010, 10:57:32 PM
I believe of all of the theories put forward, Ives' is the most convincing. I don't see any others that even come close to his. As for the effects of the traditional alliances - I do think these were always a factor. Certainly, Anne manoeuvred her family into a position of power, and certainly a fatal political mistake on her part (that of openly declaring her opposition to Cromwell's plans) would have caused them to lose that same power. Of course, this doesn't mean that one political mistake was the sole factor that decided her doom - merely one in a combination of factors, including the failure to produce the heir.

In any event, I think Anne's influence on policy should not be underestimated. Neither should Katherine of Aragon's, nor any other queen consort's for that matter. For that is just it, since a king was the ultimate authority, we will never know how much he is influenced by different people close him, especially his wife. Henry VIII was particularly vulnerable to be swept away by different factions. Indeed, that was why his court was as dangerous as it was - for he would turn on anyone, even his own wives and closest ministers the instant another faction slandered their enemies. For example - he acted very differently about his Reformation when Anne was alive, than he did even by 1539, when with his Six Articles he took a completely opposing stance.

I also think Warnicke's deformed foetus theory to be ridiculous, for how could the midwives have possibly decided that a premature foetus was actually deformed?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Silja on November 24, 2010, 03:23:17 PM


The fact that Chapuys acknowledged Anne as queen by bowing to her does not actually invalidate Ives' theory that Anne stood in the way of an Anglo-Spanish alliance. Here, it is important to remember that Anne had stood for everything the Spanish opposed for too long. While the Katherine of Aragon may have been dead, the old wounds would not be healed so quickly. At Easter Anne indeed proclaimed she was supportive of a Spanish alliance, but this does not automatically mean that such an alliance could suddenly be brought about now by her change of heart. The point is that Charles agreed to acknowledge the validity of Henry and Anne's marriage, but only if Mary were to be reinstated into the line of succession. Yet, both were not possible at the same time. That Anne would have agreed to Mary taking precedence over Elizabeth is highly doubtful.


But it would not have mattered a bit whether Anne had or had not agreed to Mary taking precedence because the only one to decide in this matter was Henry. Henry never intended to legitimise Mary. Nor did he restore her to the succession until very much later. Even after Anne was dead Mary took precedence over Elizabeth only because she was the elder sister, but not because she had the superior rank.


But I'm one of those who do not believe in Anne's fall having been so sudden anyway. I actually do believe Chapuys's earlier reports about Henry having shown signs of being tired of his wife.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on November 24, 2010, 06:08:20 PM
But I'm one of those who do not believe in Anne's fall having been so sudden anyway. I actually do believe Chapuys's earlier reports about Henry having shown signs of being tired of his wife.

Hi, Silja, it's so good to see you here again!

I think it's possible to believe Chapuys's reports about Henry's fatigue with his second wife and still regard the events of May 1536 -- the arrest, trial, and execution of Queen Anne and five of her so-called paramours -- as rather extraordinary. Arguably these events -- which, recall, sent shockwaves throughout Europe -- are only fully explicable if we take the following suppositions as facts:

1) that Anne Boleyn was born in or around 1501 and thus by 1536 was middle aged by 16th-century standards, therefore, especially given her history of recent stillbirth and miscarriage, considered by Henry unable to produce a healthy heir (I consider this quite likely);

2) that Henry VIII had become nothing short of megalomaniacal after the break from Rome and his own assumption of the role and title of Supreme Head of the Church of England; therefore, he would brook no obstacles, personal or political, in his quest to put his dynasty on a firm footing with a male heir (I consider this quite likely);

3) Cromwell's interests just happened to square very "happily" with Henry's, from Henry's point of view (I consider this highly likely).

I actually don't believe Henry was at all a weak king, the preponderance of the historical evidence shows that he was perfectly serious, and for that matter was taken very seriously by his subjects, when he said that if he thought his cap knew his counsel, he would throw it into the fire. Popular perception is everything in these situations -- either a ruler projects power and engenders fear in his subjects, or he doesn't. Henry, like Ivan IV the Terrible of Russia, could always be counted upon to do both. And it's interesting to see where such supposedly domineering advisors ("caps" who thought they knew the king's counsel) like Wolsey and Cromwell and Bishop Gardiner ended up. In the fire, basically. Cromwell lost his head and both Wolsey and Gardiner probably would have lost theirs as well if circumstances hadn't intervened: in Wolsey's case, his own premature death, and in Gardiner's, Henry's death in January 1547.

  
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: LadyAstraea on November 25, 2010, 12:22:03 PM
Quote
But it would not have mattered a bit whether Anne had or had not agreed to Mary taking precedence because the only one to decide in this matter was Henry. Henry never intended to legitimise Mary. Nor did he restore her to the succession until very much later. Even after Anne was dead Mary took precedence over Elizabeth only because she was the elder sister, but not because she had the superior rank.


But I'm one of those who do not believe in Anne's fall having been so sudden anyway. I actually do believe Chapuys's earlier reports about Henry having shown signs of being tired of his wife

Chapuys's reports are likely to have been true about Henry tiring of Anne, but at the time, as even Chapuys himself acknowledged, it was not necessarily significant. Particularly since Katherine of Aragon was still alive, and since Anne actually had produced one healthy child, there was no reason for Henry to contemplate getting rid of her early on. For if he got rid of Anne, there would be the expectation by many for him to take back Katherine, which he would not do. Of course, once Katherine had died and Anne had suffered several miscarriages, the situation changed. This supposed incapability of her to produce the heir was what really mattered in the end.

Concerning whether Anne's opinions mattered much - I think they very much did. In small matters: that Anne made increasing demands on Henry to obtain property of the queens of England that were in Katherine's possession, such as the royal jewels. Henry duly got them for Anne. In larger matters: Anne and her faction worked on destroying Wolsey for years, and eventually succeeded. One cannot say that Henry would have come to distrust Wolsey on his own.

But what is very important to remember, is that in the event of the King's death, Elizabeth would have succeeded him, with Anne becoming regent. Entrusting her with his kingdom was a huge matter - in fact, it says something about how Henry viewed her capabilities. Had she been entirely apolitical, then she would not have been entrusted with such responsibility. Of course, I entirely agree that Henry was the ultimate authority at all times, but he was at times susceptible to the influences of others, in particular, that of Anne. While Anne's death did not alleviate Mary's situation, as she and her supporters hoped, that doesn't prove Anne didn't influence Henry in his treatment of Mary while she was alive. It just means that Henry's desire to break Mary into accepting his role as Supreme Head of the Church of England and denouncing the Pope, outlasted Anne.

Of course, in the end, Anne's influence obviously disappeared, but that's not to say that before her fall she had not wielded considerable influence with the King. Under her influence, he even read books that were previously banned. Here, Anne would mark particular passages for him to read with her fingernail. For example, the King even read William Tyndale's Obedience of the Christian Man and declared it "a book for me and all kings to read."
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Elisabeth on November 27, 2010, 10:18:20 AM
I agree with you, LadyAstraea, that Henry was an individual who was influenced by others, but my own belief is that he was selectively influenced, that is, he was only ever influenced in so far as it advanced his own personal interests (which of course he would have termed the interests of state). Thus I'm sure he convinced himself that Cromwell was right, and AB was guilty of adultery and treason against his royal person, therefore unquestionably deserving of the death penalty. And I'm sure as well that he worked himself into a complete state of righteous anger and emotional distress over the entire matter, not only for the sake of winning popular opinion but also and most importantly because Henry was the ultimate self-deluding hypocrite, he always believed what he himself wanted to believe. Not only the downfall of AB but also the Great Divorce are cases in point.

But all this is not the same thing as saying that Henry VIII was easily influenced; on the contrary, the servants of state who worked best with him were those who anticipated and fulfilled his desires; once these men (or women!) fell short of this all-important goal - or worse yet, tried to overreach it - they were, again, just so many caps to be cast into the fire as far as Henry was concerned.



Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Silja on November 28, 2010, 01:59:46 PM

Chapuys's reports are likely to have been true about Henry tiring of Anne, but at the time, as even Chapuys himself acknowledged, it was not necessarily significant. Particularly since Katherine of Aragon was still alive,


Of course Anne was perfectly safe in her position as long as Katherine was alive. But after the latter's death and her own miscarriage she was doomed, and not because of Cromwell's machinations,  or because of some disputes over politics, but because Henry was convinced he wanted another wife who would give him a son.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: MademoiselleAndrea on December 29, 2010, 02:58:21 PM
Found this labeled as Anne-- I find that suspicious, first--the ruff she wears is plainly in the style of the later 1500s, when her daughter Elizabeth was queen, and secondly, her face looks too different to be in fact the personage it is labeled as.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Anne_Boleyn_2.jpg
What do you think?
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: boleynfan on December 29, 2010, 10:39:00 PM
Found this labeled as Anne-- I find that suspicious, first--the ruff she wears is plainly in the style of the later 1500s, when her daughter Elizabeth was queen, and secondly, her face looks too different to be in fact the personage it is labeled as.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Anne_Boleyn_2.jpg
What do you think?

Clearly not a contemporary portrait.  I have seen this one before though..
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on December 30, 2010, 12:25:07 AM
Its quite lovely but we have discussed this portrait on these boards somewhere.
it was painted by Frans Pourbus
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Suzanne on April 13, 2013, 01:10:25 PM
Excellent new book about the cultural history of Anne Boleyn

http://www.royalhistorian.com/the-tudor-book-reviews-11-the-creation-of-anne-boleyn-a-new-look-at-englands-most-notorious-queen-by-susan-bordo/
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Selencia on October 26, 2013, 10:16:46 PM
In looking at all the portraits of all the wives someone said that by modern standards Anne is the most attractive. I tend to disagree and think Anne of Cleves is #1 with Jane Seymour being last on the list.
I was trying to read Starkey's book on the six wives but he is too misogynistic and attributes actions and thoughts to Anne that he has no way of knowing about. One that immediately comes to mind is that Anne assured Henry that his 1527 arguments against his marriage to Wolsey's counsel would be successful. According to Starkey everything was Anne's fault.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Suzanne on November 19, 2013, 11:11:52 AM
New book on the Boleyn women - lots of info on Anne's aunts and female cousins

http://www.royalhistorian.com/the-boleyn-women-by-elizabeth-norton-review/
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Horock on December 04, 2013, 05:46:44 AM
The chapel shown in the photograph is actually St Peter's Church, Hever.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Suzanne on January 02, 2014, 11:42:57 AM
Has anyone else read "In the Footsteps of Anne Boleyn" - it covers over 70 places that Anne may have visited over the course of her life

http://www.royalhistorian.com/in-the-footsteps-of-anne-boleyn-by-sarah-morris-and-natalie-grueninger-review/
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: lady on May 11, 2014, 11:55:16 AM
(http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/05/11/140511063928156147.jpg) (http://www.subirimagenes.net/i/140511063928156147.jpg)
Anne Boleyn from an old Spanish magazine
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: GDLynn on September 22, 2015, 11:33:39 PM
Has anyone seen the "new" Anne Boleyn Picture? They are claiming its her at 14.

http://www.thereddotgallery.com/national-trust-blickling-exhibition/an-early-portrait-of-anne-boleyn/

Things that I think are odd, the style of hood seems off and it seem WAY to much like the "B" portrait (my avatar). Thoughts?

 
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on September 26, 2015, 01:20:59 PM
There is something definitely " off " about that portrait. It looks very naive for one thing. Would be interesting to know wether the portrait has been dated by art specialists wouldn't it?
Thanks for posting it GDLynn, very interesting.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: Kimberly on May 08, 2016, 03:36:44 AM
Well there are masses of good books out there to enjoy.
Six Wives of Henry VIII by David Starkey is excellent and imo the best out of a choice of Antonia Fraser and Alison Weir.
For Catherine of Aragon, my go to book is " Catherine of Aragon, Henry's Spanish Queen" by Giles Tremlett.
For Anne Boleyn, no Tudor bookshelf is complete without " The Life And Death of Anne Boleyn", by Eric Ives.
So there is a starter for you.x
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: TimM on July 20, 2016, 04:11:20 AM
I heard about an incident that allegedly happened in the late 19th Century.

A guard was on duty at the Tower Of London, when he saw the figure of a woman approaching him.  He had no idea who she was or what she was doing there.  He was about to challenge her, when he noticed that she had no head!

The accounts vary as to what happened to that poor guard.  Some say he dropped dead of shock, others say he went mad with fear.  Of course, this whole incident may be just an urban legend.

Poor Anne Boleyn has supposedly haunted the Tower Of London for almost 500 years now.  No doubt there are many stories like this.
Title: Re: Anne Boleyn
Post by: CeridwenLynne on December 15, 2019, 11:24:25 AM
Anne Boleyn for me is the most interesting of Henry’s wives. I’ll start off by saying that I don’t think she was guilty of the things Henry accused her of like witchcraft and adultery. She was an intelligent woman and very ambitious for a woman of her time. She was outspoken, sharp-witted, and knew how to use her assets to get what she wanted. I think Henry did love her at first but when she failed to produce a son he tired of her and decided to get rid of her for political reasons.