Anonymous
Post 01/25/2019 02:14     Subject: Anne Boleyn: villan or victim?
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Anne was executed by a French swordsman brought in specifically for the task.

She had a small neck and fond memories of her girlhood in France.

She was the first wife Henry executed and not many other Queens in history has been executed by their own husbands. Henry 8’s wife murdering spree was quite unusual for a monarch at any time in history. And the number of his wives was unusual for a “Christian” King.

She didn’t think she’d get executed because at that time in history Kings didn’t kill their wives. They’d have a different mistress every month and ignore their wives except for public or state occasions, but they wouldn’t kill them.

Henry didn’t kill Catherine and he really wanted rid of her. Anne didn’t suspect she’d be without her head soon.

After Anne, many foreign princess were loath to marry Henry. They knew then the danger. Anne of Cleves barely retained her head, but did, and ended up the king’s wealthy “sister,” so she was the clever one!
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2019 09:42     Subject: Anne Boleyn: villan or victim?
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


I mostly agree with this post. I think that Anne was mostly ambitious, but she would probably have been perfectly happy to marry Henry Percy because that was a plenty ambitious match for a woman of her station. She seems to have had a bit of a temper, which is hardly unique to her, but which alienated potential supporters. I think that she was banking on Henry never wavering in his affection for her, which I suppose any number of DCUM posters would have responded to with "IF HE CHEATS WITH YOU, HE WILL CHEAT ON YOU!"

I think that the ultimate issue was that she didn't have a son right out of the gate. I think if Elizabeth had been a boy, it wouldn't have mattered whether Anne had powerful allies or not. The Holy Roman Emperor certainly would have been an issue, but if she'd had at least one boy, the line of succession would have been stable.

Did any of you read Alison Weir's biography where she suggests that it is possible that Anne was Rh negative and that that is why she was not able to carry any pregnancies other than Elizabeth to term?
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2019 09:17     Subject: Re:Anne Boleyn: villan or victim?
Anonymous wrote: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.


I think it's because the rest of the books aren't done. The show is based on the books Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies. The final book, which is apparently supposed to be called The Mirror and the Light, will cover the death of Anne Boleyn through Cromwell's death, and a film version is expected. (Hopefully with Claire Foy and Mark Rylance reprising their roles!)
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2019 09:13     Subject: Anne Boleyn: villan or victim?
Anonymous wrote:
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.


To be fair, they didn't all have a choice in the matter. Noblewomen mostly married the men that their fathers told them to. Anne of Cleves was an arranged marriage. And I can imagine that it's hard to say no to the King if you are an English subject.
Anonymous
Post 01/23/2019 17:02     Subject: Anne Boleyn: villan or victim?
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.


Eventually. She was EVENTUALLY an active player in her own fate.

She didn't bring about serving the short-termed Queen of France or being recalled with the intention of being married to the Earl of Ormonde. She didn't bring about her sister's ... hmm ... tenure as mistress. But all of these things contrived to get her noticed.

Percy was her first big play. And she still didn't have control, because it didn't work out and Wolsey got her temporarily banished from court. Of course, she eventually seized what power she could. Hence the "eventually" in my opinion.

Sometimes I wonder whether the Reformation attracted her because she saw it as some sort of reflection of her own struggle.

She never really learned to be a politician, though, even though she understood the politics of the court.