OK Political Season is here, but we are not going to talk Modern politics, we are going to discuss Tudor politics of the Renaissance.
So to start this off lets discuss beliefs on Anne Boleyn, King Henry VIII most famous wife in most accounts. I have read many books about Anne and it is my belief that Anne was an overly ambitious woman wronged by King Henry and the people of England.
Anne had been a part of King Henri the XII's court because of his wife Mary Tudor, Henry Tudor's youngest sister who was married to the French king. It is believed that Anne learned many of her secrets of sexual play here in this court, and who can blame her being under the French and their ways.
Anne's sister Mary was already believed to being having a tiff with King Henry that may have produced a child, but Henry was a typical powerful man of his time and got what he wanted. Since Mary was now pregnant he needed someone to satisfy him and being loyal to ones spouse was never something men of noble birth ever did.
When Anne came back to England she fell in love with a young noble named Henry Percy. It is my belief that Anne and Henry Percy loved each other. To Henry Percy it was a step down to marry Anne as some report. And he and Anne went against family and noble rules to try and marry each other.
Sometime before this happened, Anne Boleyn caught the eye of King Henry and Henry being... well Henry wanted Anne Boleyn for his own. He forbid the marriage of Anne and Henry Percy through Cardinal Wolsey so he could have his way with Anne Boleyn.
It is my belief that Anne did in no way want to be with King Henry VIII, but was pushed onto him by a family looking to climb the royal and political ladder of Renaissance England. Like any young woman of the time, Anne had no choice and she decided to get even with King Henry and Cardinal Wolsey. She made the best of a situation and figured that if she had to be wronged for her family she would make everyone pay including Queen Katherine, King Henry's current wife.
While many called Anne a whore, it is well documented that she never had sex with Henry Tudor until after she knew she could get the crown for her own. It was only when she knew she could be Queen did she have sex with him and produced the greatest queen of England history if not greatest monarch. Not to mention Anne was being pushed by her family and being a good daughter she did as she was ordered, but she would make them pay once she got where they wanted her to be.
Anne being a very vindictive personality knew that Wolsey had ruined her 1st love interest with Henry Percy was going to make him pay. And pay he did with his life. While never executed, he was on his way to the tower when he died of sickness.
In time I think Anne grew to love Henry Tudor, but she was a woman ahead of her times i.e. very ambitious once pushed to it. Once she could not produce in heir, Henry grew tired of her and while pregnant Henry being Henry decided to have his way with court woman. Since he could not have a 2nd divorce and look good he had Anne's head taken instead on trumped up charges.
It is my belief that Anne was totally innocent of all charges against her. She was to smart do do the things said about her by having affairs with Henry Percy and others, and of being a witch which we all know do not existed in the form that the Renaissance believed them to exist in (Charms, potions, summoning)
Now as I say many called Anne a whore, but it is widely believed that Jane Seymour was having sexual tiffs with King Henry while he was married to Anne. But yet Jane is far more loved by the English people during this time. Thus would Jane then not be the real whore.
So I pose this question, Do you believe Anne was innocent of her charges, and do you think that she was a woman ahead of her times, mean very ambitious, In today's world would she be the head of a cooperation or politically minded. Or could she have ended up a Prime Minister under the situations that dictated her climb to queen hood.
Personally I admire Anne Boleyn and believe her to be innocent of all charges. She was afraid of Henry, but was not going to stand around while he had tiffs. It is after all wrong in most all Christian relegions to have extra marital affairs.
Of course Anne was innocent of the charges she was ultimately convicted of.
It is afterall good to be King. King Henry VIII used his power and priveledge to get "rid" of all of his wives save his last.
Anne's crime was her inability to produce a male heir. Which, as far as I know, was never made a "legal" crime in any society...just a moral and ethical one.
I'm not sure if I would even call that a moral or ethical crime. I would call it ignorance on the part of the father as there is no way of knowing exactly what sex the child is going to be for at least the first 2 trimesters of the pregnancy, and even then mistakes can be made.
Anne got a raw deal. Shortly before her execution on charges of adultery, her marriage to the King was dissolved and declared invalid.
That being the case, the adultery charge should have flown out the door.
No marriage.
No adultery.
From the Internet--
ANNE BOLEYN'S SPEECH AT HER EXECUTION
MAY 19, 1536, 8 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING
Good Christian people, I am come hither to die, for according to the law, and by the law I am judged to die, and therefore I will speak nothing against it. I am come hither to accuse no man, nor to speak anything of that, whereof I am accused and condemned to die, but I pray God save the king and send him long to reign over you, for a gentler nor a more merciful prince was there never: and to me he was ever a good, a gentle and sovereign lord. And if any person will meddle of my cause, I require them to judge the best. And thus I take my leave of the world and of you all, and I heartily desire you all to pray for me. O Lord have mercy on me, to God I commend my soul.
After being blindfolded and kneeling at the block, she repeated several times: To Jesus Christ I commend my soul; Lord Jesu receive my soul.
Quote from: Julianne on September 18, 2008, 02:12:57 PM
Of course Anne was innocent of the charges she was ultimately convicted of.
It is afterall good to be King. King Henry VIII used his power and priveledge to get "rid" of all of his wives save his last.
Anne's crime was her inability to produce a male heir. Which, as far as I know, was never made a "legal" crime in any society...just a moral and ethical one.
"...just a moral and ethical one." Not sure it's even that. I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure they haven't perfected a way to ensure which sex the baby will be now. I DO know they weren't able to do that back then.
What is truly ironic is that we now know that the sex of a child is determined by the male. So it was all Henry's fault in the first place.
I've always felt kind of sorry for Anne Boleyn as well.
Most historians agree that Anne was innocent of all charges. She probably did have sex before their marriage, to Percy at least, but that was not uncommon at the time, if someone thought they were to marry.
Quote from: Sir Ironhead on September 18, 2008, 03:46:34 PM
Quote from: Julianne on September 18, 2008, 02:12:57 PM
Of course Anne was innocent of the charges she was ultimately convicted of.
It is afterall good to be King. King Henry VIII used his power and priveledge to get "rid" of all of his wives save his last.
Anne's crime was her inability to produce a male heir. Which, as far as I know, was never made a "legal" crime in any society...just a moral and ethical one.
"...just a moral and ethical one." Not sure it's even that. I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure they haven't perfected a way to ensure which sex the baby will be now. I DO know they weren't able to do that back then.
Actually there is a almost 100% way to tell and that is with the amniosyntesis. It is not usually done on women unless they are 35 years of age or older. It's usual use is to test for down syndrome in a child but it pulls a sample of the genetics around the baby and the sex and any other issue can be found. It is a rather painful process to do on a woman and can be risky on the unborn child. I have had personal experiences with this test and it is scary and not fun for anyone, but sometimes must be done. But no not back then, which is funny as they had seer's which could really be seen as witches telling the gender of the baby.
Now back to the topic.
I often think if science knew even 10% of what we know today back then if Henry would have so cruel to Anne. If they only knew it was all up to the male to decide the gender.
As far as the adultry I can fully understand how this could be considered a traitorous act. if a woman were to have sex with a man whom she was not married to and produce a child, you would then have an ursurper to the throne and not of true royal blood. But then again what makes a royal bllod so much better than anyone else? Inbreading?
An excellent source on the Tudors--
http://www.the-tudors.org.uk/index.htm
You have to admire Anne. She held out and got what she wanted all the while bringing the religious faction to its knees.
But Elizabeth is yours. Watch her as she grows; she's yours. She's a Tudor! Get yourself a son off of that sweet, pale girl if you can - and hope that he will live! But Elizabeth shall reign after you! Yes, Elizabeth - child of Anne the Whore and Henry the Blood-Stained Lecher - shall be Queen! And remember this: Elizabeth shall be a greater queen than any king of yours! She shall rule a greater England than you could ever have built! Yes - MY Elizabeth SHALL BE QUEEN! And my blood will have been well spent!
OK so it's from Anne of a Thousand Days.
But I like to think that she really told Henry this.
edited to: Referring to Lady DeLaney's post above:
This is actually why, in the Jewish faith (at least in Orthodox opinion), to be truly Jewish, you must have a Jewish mother, since paternity wasn't as provable (back in the day).
Indeed, when too much inbreeding happens, all kinds of odd things come up in the mix. Like hemophelia, for one. So much of what happened to Tsar Nicholas and Alexandra of Russia was because of their hemopheliac son and their dependence on Rasputin to ease him of his suffering.
Back to Anne, I wonder if they'd been able to do in vitro then if Henry would have stayed married to her, especially if they could have ensured the sex of the child, or if he would have still followed that wandering eye of his to greener pastures anyway.
And referring to Welsh Wench's posts:
Talk about religion and politics being touchy subjects! Especially those subjects who were touched by flames and the sword. Yikes!
I would bet that she said something the like. Plus if she did, how incredibly true it was!
Some of Annes probles with losing the children she did was undo stress caused by Henry. Once again if the Renaissance knew just 10% of what we know today.
Stress hurts boththe mother and child. Sticking them a blackened room with stale air does not help. HAd they let a woman have some fresh air and some excersive and a proper not so rich diet, then Anne may have not lost the one son she did carry. But Henry brought on so much stress to her, it caused them both harm.
And it is great that Elizebeth did turn out to be the greatest monarche ever in most oppinions and she came from a so called whore and witch.
Ah, the use of women as political pawns. ;)
You brought up the concept of maternal health. I've always wondered if these royal women nursed their infants or if they were immediately ferried off to wet nurses, thus missing the all important first days of immune boosting colostrum.
Lady Jyne
mmmmmm good people!!!!...the "moral and ethical" statement was indeed meant for the era that we were discussing!
Even then it wasn't a legal crime for a woman not to be able to produce a male heir....it was simply expected...and that was what I was inferring to when I said that Anne had commited a moral and ethical crime.
I really believe that Henry VIII had become so delusional with his obsession of providing England with a legitimate male heir that he used all within his power to get rid of the women that could not give him that. Only Jane Seymour gave him a son and she died for it. Ultimately Henry's son ruled for only a blink in time.
Karma has a quirky way of delivering justice....only his daughters ruled England and both delivered substantial moments in the annals of history.
Addendum: 'Bastard" royals have always been a fact. In the past the male offspring of these ilicit unions were given the surname of Fitzroy. The girls unfortunately rarely received any recognition at all until the 20th century. Camilla, the wife of heir apparent Prince Charles is the great-grandaughter of one of King Edward's mistresses. Thus Camilla and Charles are related.
Charles II, of the House of Stuart, acknowledged at least twelve illegitimate children by seven mistresses. Five of them were from Barbara Palmer, Countess of Castlemaine.
Charles II's kingship passed to his brother James and then to James' daughters Mary and Anne respectively, then on to the house of Hanover.
It makes one wonder what turn history would have taken if the children born on the wrong side of the blanket could inherit the kingship.
Interesting topic!
I think the whole mess should have been avoided from the beginning -- once Katherine was no longer capable of having children, I think she should have voluntarily gone into a nunnery and let Harry remarry.
While I can grant that she truly loved Harry, she was foremost and truly a royal princess ... and understood the urgency of royal politics. She could have acknowledged the political necessity for Harry to have a son to avoid future civil war and understood and accepted her role in it. She knew that royal folk had to be guided by political reasons.
This would have in no way affected Mary's position as princess -- she would have kept her place in the succession. I've never really understood why Katherine didn't adopt this course.
Quote from: Pascal on September 19, 2008, 04:57:30 PM
Interesting topic!
I think the whole mess should have been avoided from the beginning -- once Katherine was no longer capable of having children, I think she should have voluntarily gone into a nunnery and let Harry remarry.
While I can grant that she truly loved Harry, she was foremost and truly a royal princess ... and understood the urgency of royal politics. She could have acknowledged the political necessity for Harry to have a son to avoid future civil war and understood and accepted her role in it. She knew that royal folk had to be guided by political reasons.
This would have in no way affected Mary's position as princess -- she would have kept her place in the succession. I've never really understood why Katherine didn't adopt this course.
Actually, Catherine was offered this. She refused.
It was always the option of the Queen to decide she had received the "calling" and retire herself to the nunnery so that her husband may take on a younger bride.
This "arrangement" had been going on for centuries.
If there is anything I admire about Catherine of Aragon is that she stood her ground. She was indeed the product of a rich and proud nobility and would not compromise her place and position. She did martyr herself because of this.
She was also much loved by the English people and the first monarch of foriegn birth to be admired as much as she was.
It's truly a shame that her own daughter, Mary, the first woman to rule England in totality, didn't share in her mother's compassion for "her people".
Katherine claimed she was a virgin when she married Henry. He played the incest card since she was married to his brother but she claimed it was not consummated. All indications were that it was a happy marriage that she had with Henry.
Katherine may have been willing to overlook Henry's dalliances but something went wrong.
Henry became enamoured of Anne.
Now Katherine is probably thinking, 'Why should I make it easy for him?'
We see it today in divorce courts all the time.
Henry then used everything he could to free himself. Katherine dug in and refused to let go. If her marriage was declared nulll and void, her daughter Mary would be a bastard and not able to inherit.
Incest seems to be Henry's favorite trump card.
Personally, I don't believe that Katherine's motivation was that at all. I think she was a product of her upbringing and felt sincerely that she was doing the right thing. Having her parents I can't imagine any other recourse for her then abiding by her royal oath.
Queens didnt "overlook" dalliances...it was a matter of course. And the Queen's of history themselves had their own "private lives".
As I mentioned before...Henry became obsessed with the male lineage. He'd already produced royal male children albeit bastards. Anne was ripe. That is all. She was quickly replaced. I disagree that Henry was "enamored" with Anne...any more then he was "enamored" with the subsequent 4 wives....simply it was a question of healthy fertility.
All of the sucession laws were just power plays during Henry's lifetime. It was a promise made to each wife to ensure that HER child would rule England.
As it is...we know what happened....each of Henry's children ruled accordingly and in their time.
"...just a moral and ethical one." Not sure it's even that. I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure they haven't perfected a way to ensure which sex the baby will be now. I DO know they weren't able to do that back then."
I thought this was referring not to finding out once the pregnancy was in place, but insuring that from the very beginning the sex of the child conceived, i.e. "I'm going to make a son tonight".
There are multiple ways of nudging the odds, although none are absolute. One way is to do as Orthodox Jews do, abstain until 14 days after the start of menses, which seems to cause an increase in the proportion of male fetuses. Also, the female achieving orgasm can boost the odds of a male sperm being the winner.
The most technological way is to spin the semen, therefore the heavier sperm sink to the bottom and the lighter ones float on top. I don't recall which are which, I think it's the heavier sperm that are male, so by suctioning off that layer and using it to inseminate the woman makes the odds much greater of the offspring being male, but not guarantee. This was at least 10 years ago that I read about this, it could be twice that long ago or more though.
Dayna
But how would he know she was fertile? She had never born a child.
As far as not enamoured, he did send her love letters.
http://englishhistory.net/tudor/lovelett.html
Of course, he could have been trying the tired old lines.
Fertility was often measured by vitality in those times. A young maid be she of royal blood or not would be a choice bride for any man given she had not any "infirmity".
oh please......sexual reputations were garnered then as they are garnered now. Much has been said about their "education" in France. Perhaps more it was the urging of the Boleyn girls father that made them so ubequitiously ambitious. Who knows? Ultimately Anne gave birth the one of the greatest monarchs in all of history.
Anne Boleyn, while her fate was cruelly unfair, reaped what she sowed.
She made promises she couldn't deliver...and she paid dearly for them.
We can speculate, reason and discuss all we want but we will never really know the feelings and emotions of people who lived over four hundred years ago.
But we can with our 21st minds and our love of the aforementioned subject successfully reason and speculate about the people that we choose to emulate today. I just see no need to further romantisize the politics of the era.
And how nice we can all discuss, agree and disagree so politely on this fascinating subject.
Thank you everyone for respecting all viewpoints.
Is it true Anne had six toe's one one of her feet? I head this some were long a go.
http://fine-eyes.net/anneboleyn/myths.html
Myth: Anne Boleyn had six fingers on one hand and many growths (moles) on her body.
Reality: It is highly unlikely that this is true. Any deformation in the Tudor era was seen as a mark of disease or even God's disfavor, and Henry VIII would not have wanted the mother of his children to be thus marred. There is some evidence that there was an irregularity on one of her fingers, but even if this is true it is very far from having a sixth finger. This myth, present even during her lifetime, was probably spread by those who wanted to find evidence of her witchcraft or ties with Satan.
No, there are a number of written accounts of Anne and none mention these particular features, though there is mention by one account of her having a large Adams apple, and another account of her having a double nail on one finger...who knows. Regardless, she was considered to have beautiful expressive dark eyes and a swans neck and those qualities were commented upon often
I don't think Anne was overly ambitious. What woman would not want to be the Queen and bear the heir to the throne? The fact is though it was not she that pursued the crown but the crown that pursued her. She was in love and secretly bethrothed when Wolsey discovered this and repoted to the King. Ending with his being shipped off to the front.
Did Henry love her? There are 17 letters to that effect. More letters in his own hand than are found of royal documents. Sadly, by the time she got him to marry her she was aging (30) yes that aging back then and constantly pregnant and increasingly unnatractive to Henry.
She did though make a great Queen. This bit is quoted from this site http: http://www.nellgavin.com/boleyn_facts/ lest you think these are my own words I'll color them:
Anne was notoriously supportive of religious upstarts, read - and defended - censored writings, and was considered to be the "patron saint" of Protestants, who were being persecuted at the time. Henry VIII broke with Rome and formed the Church of England in order to legitimize their marriage when the Pope would not grant him an annulment from Katherine of Aragon. Ironically, Anne still apparently worshipped as a Catholic until her death.
She convinced Henry that the Bible should be translated into English and made available to common people instead of just the clergy.
According to Alison Weir, no religious heretics were burned at the stake during the period of time that Anne was queen. However, Henry VIII had heretics burnt both before and after her tenure. We can only speculate on how many lives Anne saved.
Anne distributed a fortune in charity among the English people. George Wyatt (grandson of Thomas Wyatt) estimated that she distributed more than £1500 per year to the poor alone. I don't have figures for living wages during the reign of Henry VIII. However, by the reign of Elizabeth I, a family's acceptable wage was two pounds ten shillings per year. Acceptable wages were less than this during Anne's lifetime because, from Anne's reign to the Elizabethan period, food prices rose by 120%. £1500 per year went quite far in 1532 to 1536.
So based on this, we can estimate that thousands and thousands of people received assistance of some sort from Anne throughout her reign. She also sewed clothing with her own hands for distribution to the poor, and was known on at least one occasion to have personally tended to the ill on her travels. Few of her biographies mention her charitable acts at any length, and these were also not much publicized during her own lifetime.
...and this totally cracks me up. I think I would have liked Anne. I love a good sense of humour. She certainly needed it in her life.
Anne was considered by most of her contemporaries to be extremely intelligent, witty and charming. In addition, it appears that she had a rather droll, sometimes twisted, dark sense of humor. A sense of humor like that can be easily misinterpreted, and in Anne's case, probably was. An example of this might be Anne's reaction to the protests against King Henry's choosing her as his queen. For a short time she took as her motto, and had emblazoned on her livery, a Latin phrase, "Ainsi sera, groigne qui groigne," which translated into "Grumble all you like, this is how it's going to be." A few weeks later, the phrase was removed. Most biographies interpreted that act as "defiant" and "arrogant". However, my interpretation and reaction to it was completely different. Each time I saw it mentioned, I laughed out loud. I viewed it as an irreverent and cheeky means of using humor to express exasperation and to make a very valid point about all the talk and complaints. After she made that point by use of her servants, who were essentially all walking sandwich boards advertising her opinion on their livery coats - and without having harmed anyone - she removed the motto. Based on other information about her, that kind of humor would seem to be in keeping with her personality.
Quote from: unilady on September 19, 2008, 05:42:03 PM
"...just a moral and ethical one." Not sure it's even that. I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure they haven't perfected a way to ensure which sex the baby will be now. I DO know they weren't able to do that back then."
As I stated above the amniocentethis will infact give 99.999% accuracy of the sex of the child but at a very high risk to miscarriage the child. The Dr incerts a needle into the mothers womb via her stomach and draws out the embreonic liquid around the fetus (It has to be 20 weeks along sometimes 18 will do) This fluid has the genetic make-up of the fetus. They can tell every chromosone about that fetus including its gender. This is how they test for down syndrome.
I have personal experience with this test.
About a month or so ago, I watched something on the "Lost Royals". The show researched and tested DNA to find people who were living today, that had royal ancestory. They were the illigitimate descendants of royalty from way back. Interesting.
Personally, I like looking at it both from purely historical/logical AND a romanticized viewpoint. I would imagine that the reality is somewhere in the middle, like most realities.
Signed, Hopelessly Romantic Lady Nicolette