Anne Boleyn: villan or victim?

[Anonymous]

She was a homewrecker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Villian obv

She’s the ultimate home wrecker!

In fact, you could make the argument that Henry’s first divorce paved the wave for divorce in general. Without it, a lot of English people might still be Catholic.

She was a selfish opportunist.

She didn’t “deserve” her death but otoh you play stupid games, you’ll win stupid prizes.

Seriously? Henry VIII wanted to be rid of Catherine of Aragon -- she was much older than he was and she didn't give him the son he thought he needed. Anne and the reformation were convenient avenues for him to get divorced. Anne recognized the opportunity to raise her family up and took advantage of it. That was her job -- to raise her family's station through marriage.

And no, a lot of people in England wouldn't still be Catholic today without Anne. The reformation was coming one way or another.

Henry divorced Catherine because Anne wouldn’t sleep with him. She wanted marriage. This is historical fact.

Without a son, they would have put Mary on the throne.

No. Women did not rule alone and after Henry died Mary’s younger, sickly brother took the throne before she did.

The King got rid of Catherine because 20 years of marriage passed and no heir was born in a time where thrones passed to the eldest male.

[Anonymous]

I mostly agree with the detailed 17:30 poster. I think she comes off as a villain because she was largely a victim of her times (though perhaps not naively). She was too smart to merely live quietly in the time she did once she had dalliances with politics and power. She did not just quietly come and go at the bidding of the powerful men around her and hence her notoriety.

[Anonymous]

Anne Boleyn did more for the Protestant Reformation than she will ever get credit for.

She also fought against all odds to position Elizabeth to get the throne. She could have defied and "outed" Henry at the end, and maybe even saved her own life. (A convent was a possibility.) But she didn't. She signed everything he wanted her to sign, and "admitted" to everything he wanted her to admit, playing the long game--knowing that Elizabeth would have a shot at inheritence and possibly the throne. In fact, she probably saved Elizabeth's life; the poor child could have been condemned or burned as a witch herself.

She also was the first woman in England to ever hold a royal title--Marquis (not Marchioness, but Marquis) of Pembroke--in her own right.

[Anonymous]

Historians agree that she was a victim. Maybe she wasn't always innocent but she did not deserve her fate, nor did any of the other victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anne Boleyn did more for the Protestant Reformation than she will ever get credit for.

She also fought against all odds to position Elizabeth to get the throne. She could have defied and "outed" Henry at the end, and maybe even saved her own life. (A convent was a possibility.) But she didn't. She signed everything he wanted her to sign, and "admitted" to everything he wanted her to admit, playing the long game--knowing that Elizabeth would have a shot at inheritence and possibly the throne. In fact, she probably saved Elizabeth's life; the poor child could have been condemned or burned as a witch herself.

She also was the first woman in England to ever hold a royal title--Marquis (not Marchioness, but Marquis) of Pembroke--in her own right.

Marquess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Villian obv

She’s the ultimate home wrecker!

In fact, you could make the argument that Henry’s first divorce paved the wave for divorce in general. Without it, a lot of English people might still be Catholic.

She was a selfish opportunist.

She didn’t “deserve” her death but otoh you play stupid games, you’ll win stupid prizes.

Seriously? Henry VIII wanted to be rid of Catherine of Aragon -- she was much older than he was and she didn't give him the son he thought he needed. Anne and the reformation were convenient avenues for him to get divorced. Anne recognized the opportunity to raise her family up and took advantage of it. That was her job -- to raise her family's station through marriage.

And no, a lot of people in England wouldn't still be Catholic today without Anne. The reformation was coming one way or another.

Henry divorced Catherine because Anne wouldn’t sleep with him. She wanted marriage. This is historical fact.

Without a son, they would have put Mary on the throne.

No. Women did not rule alone and after Henry died Mary’s younger, sickly brother took the throne before she did.

The King got rid of Catherine because 20 years of marriage passed and no heir was born in a time where thrones passed to the eldest male.

Do you know anything about English history? It wasn't ideal obviously but they would have done it. They were actively planning on it. This is historical fact. They weren't excited about a female ruler but that's what they were going with. Obviously they would have married her to someone more palatable.

Henry wasn't looking to divorce Catherine until Anne came on the scene and demanded marriage as the price of intercourse. Until her, he was fine with having mistresses on the side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Historians agree that she was a victim. Maybe she wasn't always innocent but she did not deserve her fate, nor did any of the other victims.

They agree that the charges were bogus.

That's about all.

Henry killed a lot of people who didn't technically "deserve" to be executed.

Hell Catherine Howard actively cheated on him. Still doesn't mean she deserved to be killed for it.

Still, I wouldn't call Anne a victim. She knew what she was getting into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historians agree that she was a victim. Maybe she wasn't always innocent but she did not deserve her fate, nor did any of the other victims.

They agree that the charges were bogus.

That's about all.

Henry killed a lot of people who didn't technically "deserve" to be executed.

Hell Catherine Howard actively cheated on him. Still doesn't mean she deserved to be killed for it.

Still, I wouldn't call Anne a victim. She knew what she was getting into.

+ 1

I would say Catherine Howard was more of a victim than Anne.

She was only 19 at the time she was killed.

Anne had been at Court since she was a child, she had been with Henry for years before their marriage, and she was a grown women. She was the driving force behind Henry's decision to divorce the first Catherine and to delegitimize Mary.

She went into it with eyes wide open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:she had 6 fingers.

No, she didn't. She had some sort of protrusion on one of her pinkies. More like a bunion than an extra finger.

Anne Boleyn is fascinating. On the one hand, you have a woman who was the pawn of her male relatives. You'd think the Duke of Norfolk (her uncle) would be disinclined to support anyone suspected of interest in reforming religion, but no. He saw Anne, and first, her sister, Mary, as a chance to undermine the powerful and corrupt Cardinal Wolsey while advancing his familial interests. Wolsey had H8 twisted around his little finger for years.

Norfolk was lucky in Anne. She was smart enough to try to take command of her future with her scheme to marry the future Duke of Northumberland, and she was attractive to men. He totally lost control of the situation, of course. She was smarter than he was. Smarter than H8, too.

So, on the other hand from the helpless pawn, she was fierce and independent. She was also manipulative, ruthless, and too quick to turn on her supporters. Norfolk was like first out the door. She helped bring Cromwell to power and turned on him after a disagreement, too. She was sort of megalomaniacal. (Sounds familiar, right?) The schism with the Catholic Church also robbed her of any support from the Vatican when H8 turned on her. The HRE would never acknowledge her. Francois I of France was noncommittal because it suited his purpose.

The ultimate issue wasn't that she couldn't bear a son. It was that she had no powerful backers. Catherine of Aragon and Princess Mary had the Holy Roman Emperor, who could have declared war on England had either woman been executed. Anne was a Johnny-come-lately Boleyn with no support. Her grandfather, while mayor of London, was a merchant. Disposing of her was easier than keeping her alive as a rallying point.

TL;DR: Very flawed hero, villainous tendencies, but ultimately a victim

No historians dispute this. She was no one's pawn.

You've been influenced by reading or watching The Other Boleyn Girl.

Anne was an active player in her fate.

[Anonymous]

She wasn't a passive pawn, but I doubt she fully "knew what she was getting into." Henry had divorced his first wife, after all. Why would anyone expect him to execute his second wife on trumped-up charges? Plus, if she'd had a son, that would have changed history--with a male heir, Henry would not need to get rid of her, and there would have been good reasons not to. He could cheat on her as much as he wanted once the line of succession was secure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historians agree that she was a victim. Maybe she wasn't always innocent but she did not deserve her fate, nor did any of the other victims.

They agree that the charges were bogus.

That's about all.

Henry killed a lot of people who didn't technically "deserve" to be executed.

Hell Catherine Howard actively cheated on him. Still doesn't mean she deserved to be killed for it.

Still, I wouldn't call Anne a victim. She knew what she was getting into.

I think she knew what she was getting into and decided to play it for all she was worth - but to be fair, she had no choice in the matter. She was her father's property, and he bowed to the will of his brother in law Howard. They pushed her and her sister toward the King. It's not like she could say no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:she had 6 fingers.

No, she didn't. She had some sort of protrusion on one of her pinkies. More like a bunion than an extra finger.

Anne Boleyn is fascinating. On the one hand, you have a woman who was the pawn of her male relatives. You'd think the Duke of Norfolk (her uncle) would be disinclined to support anyone suspected of interest in reforming religion, but no. He saw Anne, and first, her sister, Mary, as a chance to undermine the powerful and corrupt Cardinal Wolsey while advancing his familial interests. Wolsey had H8 twisted around his little finger for years.

Norfolk was lucky in Anne. She was smart enough to try to take command of her future with her scheme to marry the future Duke of Northumberland, and she was attractive to men. He totally lost control of the situation, of course. She was smarter than he was. Smarter than H8, too.

So, on the other hand from the helpless pawn, she was fierce and independent. She was also manipulative, ruthless, and too quick to turn on her supporters. Norfolk was like first out the door. She helped bring Cromwell to power and turned on him after a disagreement, too. She was sort of megalomaniacal. (Sounds familiar, right?) The schism with the Catholic Church also robbed her of any support from the Vatican when H8 turned on her. The HRE would never acknowledge her. Francois I of France was noncommittal because it suited his purpose.

The ultimate issue wasn't that she couldn't bear a son. It was that she had no powerful backers. Catherine of Aragon and Princess Mary had the Holy Roman Emperor, who could have declared war on England had either woman been executed. Anne was a Johnny-come-lately Boleyn with no support. Her grandfather, while mayor of London, was a merchant. Disposing of her was easier than keeping her alive as a rallying point.

TL;DR: Very flawed hero, villainous tendencies, but ultimately a victim

No historians dispute this. She was no one's pawn.

You've been influenced by reading or watching The Other Boleyn Girl.

Anne was an active player in her fate.

Agree she was an acitve player in her fate, but I think she was also a pawn. She was raised , as were all women of her class, to obey men in her family. She saw the had they dealt her an \d she had the intelligence to make the best of it. But there is no way she played on a level field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She wasn't a passive pawn, but I doubt she fully "knew what she was getting into." Henry had divorced his first wife, after all. Why would anyone expect him to execute his second wife on trumped-up charges? Plus, if she'd had a son, that would have changed history--with a male heir, Henry would not need to get rid of her, and there would have been good reasons not to. He could cheat on her as much as he wanted once the line of succession was secure.

This. I don't think she ever would have predicted she'd be executed by axe. Like what Queen of England has been physically murdered after a legal trial before? Even Catharine of Aragorn, his first wife, was allowed to die in her sleep.

Now wives 3 - 6? They have NO excuse. If he could put aside two other wives and outright murder one, they had to know there was nothing protecting them.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of wives 3-6, to the person who recommended Wolf Hall - WTF it stopped right at the end of wife 2?!?! I've never seen a show based on Henry VIII not cover all six wives.

Even if the show was only focusing on Cromwell...he lived another four years and to see three more wives!! I want the rest.