Anne Boleyn and The Other Boleyn Girl
Posted By Claire on September 22, 2010
My inspiration for this article comes from a discussion we’ve been having on The Anne Boleyn Files Facebook page, regarding the inaccuracies of the movie and novel “The Other Boleyn Girl”, and from the many emails I receive asking me my thoughts on Philippa Gregory’s portrayal of Anne Boleyn.
What concerns me about the emails I receive is that people take “The Other Boleyn Girl” as fact, even though it is marketed as a work of fiction, and I have even heard of people using it for reference when studying Anne Boleyn and the Tudor period!
I realise how tempting it is to take short-cuts when you’re studying a topic, e.g. read the study-notes rather than the actual book, but it is extremely dangerous to base your knowledge on something that is a novel and not the true story. I know that Philippa Gregory is seen by many as an historian BUT The Other Boleyn Girl is not a factual retelling of Anne Boleyn’s life or even that of Mary Boleyn. Although, in the author’s notes at the back of the book, Philippa Gregory talks about how her novel is based on theories outlined in Retha Warnicke’s book “The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn”, and various other secondary sources, there are many, many inaccuracies in the book, along with fallacies and story-lines that have no factual basis.
Let’s examine some of them…
Mary Boleyn the Virgin
In “The Other Boleyn Girl”, Mary Boleyn is the heroine, the “other Boleyn girl” who is telling her story. The book begins with Mary catching Henry VIII’s eye and her family plotting to make Mary his mistress, and the mother of his bastard, to gain status at court. Mary is worried about sleeping with the King and says to George and Anne, “I don’t know how to do it… You know, William did it once a week or so, and that in the dark, and quickly done, and I never much liked it. I don’t know what it is I am supposed to do.” Mary appears innocent and sexually inexperienced and it is Anne who later promises her father and uncle that she will “coach her well enough to get her into his bed”. “The Other Boleyn Girl” movie opens with Mary just about to marry William Carey and worrying about her wedding night because she is a virgin – not true!
Fact: Mary had been the mistress of King Francis I of France and gained a reputation for being promiscuous. The reputation may have been unfair and down to gossip, but she was the French King’s mistress and so was not sexually inexperienced when she arrived back at the English court.
Anne Boleyn Entraps Henry Percy
In the novel, Anne plots to attract Henry Percy so that she can be Duchess of Northumberland and be wealthy. She tells Mary, “I’m going to make him marry me” and Mary watches Anne with Percy and comments “I saw how she played him”. Anne does indeed attract Henry Percy and the couple are betrothed and then consummate the betrothal to make it legal. Cardinal Wolsey steps in and puts an end to the relationship and Elizabeth Boleyn, Anne’s mother, makes Mary forge a letter from Anne to Percy, saying that she has to give him up.
Fact: There is no evidence that Anne set out to trap Percy and it is likely to have been a love match – the two of them meeting at court and falling in love.
Fact: Mary Talbot, Percy’s wife claimed in 1532 that her marriage to Percy was invalid because he was already pre-contracted to marry Anne Boleyn. Henry Percy denied this by swearing an oath on the Blessed Sacrament, in front of the Duke of Norfolk, the archbishops and the King’s canon lawyers. There is no evidence that Anne and Henry Percy slept together.
The Boleyn Family Schemers
In “The Other Boleyn Girl” we see Thomas Boleyn, his wife, Elizabeth Boleyn, and her brother, the Duke of Norfolk, having family conferences and scheming, using Mary and Anne as pawns to raise the family’s status, what my good friend Rachel Fitzpatrick refers to as “Pimp Daddy Boleyn Syndrome”!
We also see them abandoning Anne to her fate at the end of the novel, with Thomas saying to Mary “Don’t you bring me into it… She went her own way, and him and you with her.”
Fact: There is no evidence that the Boleyns/Howards schemed and used the girls as pawns, or that the girls were “coached”. It is likely that Mary caught the King’s eye with her pretty looks and Anne attracted him with her style and confidence, and that the families made the most of their favour. Women were seen as second-class citizens and daughters as chattels, but there is nothing to support the view that Thomas Boleyn set out to win favour through Mary and Anne.
Anne Boleyn and Her Sexual Stranglehold Over Henry
In the novel, when Mary is pregnant, Anne is ordered by her family to flirt with the King and keep him happy so that he does not take another mistress, a woman outside of the family. Elizabeth Boleyn comments to Mary, “Thank God Anne has him in her toils. She plays with him like you might tease the queen’s dog. She has him on a thread” and Anne tells Mary that she is going to “hold out till he sees that he has to make me an offer, a very great offer”. This suggests that Anne set out to trap and manipulate Henry VIII on her family’s orders and that she held out on him sexually as part of the plan to become queen.
Fact: There is no evidence to support this theory. I personally believe that Henry was attracted to Anne and that she wanted to keep her virtue and not end up like her sister, an abandoned mistress with a bit of a reputation. There is no way that Anne Boleyn could have guessed that Henry would ever offer to make her his wife and queen when she refused to be his mistress, how could she? Henry could have had any woman that he wanted, I’m sure Anne thought he would just move on to the next.
George Boleyn and Incest
The George Boleyn of “The Other Boleyn Girl” has an unnatural relationship with his sisters. He kisses Mary and then says “Kiss me again, kiss me like you kiss Henry” and he kisses Anne like a lover, not a brother:-
“He leaned forward and kissed her again. Her eyes closed and her lips smiled and then parted… his finger went to her bare shoulder and stroked her neck… his finger went into her smooth dark hair and pulled her head back for his kiss.”
Anne later taunts him:-
“Don’t you want to touch me… Wouldn’t you rather take me to your chamber?”
And although we do not have a scene with them actually committing incest, it is clear that we are meant to think that Anne’s third pregnancy is a result of incest. Anne says to Mary:-
“No one knows what went into the making of this baby, Mary. No one will ever know.”
and
“For I went on a journey to the very gates of hell to get him. You will never know.”
Mary then sees a guilty look on George’s face and concludes that “Anne had taken him as her companion on her journey to the gates of hell to conceive this child for England.”
Fact: Anne and George were found guilty of incest at their trial but there is absolutely NO evidence that they committed incest. The majority of historians believe that they were framed and Philippa Gregory is pretty much alone in believing that either of them would have contemplated it. George was a keen reformer, he would not have contemplated such an abominable sin, and neither would his sister.
Anne Boleyn and Incest
In the Q&A section of “The Other Boleyn Girl” is the following question:-
“How about Mary and Anne’s brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?”
and here is Philippa Gregory’s answer:-
“Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way—she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.”
Fact: The above answer is wrong in so many ways and on so many levels!! 1) There is no evidence that Jane Boleyn (Jane Parker) gave evidence against George and Anne. It does not appear that any witnesses were called at their trials and Jane is not named as the woman who provided the prosecution with evidence against them, it may well have been the Countess of Worcester. 2) “Not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way”! Anne was a very religious person who risked her life and position by having “heretical” books in her possession, there is no way that she would have contemplated incest, it would not even have crossed her mind! 3) What murder? 4) Why would George be the obvious choice? How many women out there having difficulty conceiving consider sleeping with their brother? Aaaaggghhh!
George Boleyn the Homosexual or Bisexual
It was historian Retha Warnicke who put forward the idea that the men who were executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn were libertines who committed sodomy, and in “The Other Boleyn Girl” George not only acts inappropriately with his sisters but he also has a sexual relationship with Sir Francis Weston. He tells his sisters that ” a boy is so clean and so clear” and then announces “I’m in love with a man”. Later in the novel, Mary knocks on George’s locked door and when George opens it, Sir Francis Weston is “straightening his doublet”, suggesting that the two men have been enjoying a sexual liaison.
Fact: There is NO evidence that George, or any of the other four men, were homosexual or bisexual. All of the men confessed to being sinners in their execution speeches and Sir Francis Weston mentioned living in “abomination”, but I think it is reading too much into their words to accuse them of what were illicit sexual acts.
The Deformed Foetus
In “The Other Boleyn Girl”, Anne Boleyn miscarries a “monster”, “a baby horridly malformed, with a spine flayed open and a huge head, twice as large as the spindly little body.”
Fact: There is no mention of a deformed foetus in the contemporary primary sources and the only historical mention of it is in the writings of Nicholas Sander, a man who was a Catholic exile in Elizabeth I’s reign and who set out to blacken Anne Boleyn’s name. He was also the one who described Anne as having a “projecting tooth”, “a large wen” and six fingers. The Imperial ambassador, Eustace Chapuys, who hated Anne and called her “the concubine”, simply reported that “the child had the appearance of a male about 3 months and a half old” and Charles Wriothesley said the same. The deformed foetus story is therefore nothing but a myth to make Anne Boleyn appear to be a witch or to back up the story that she had committed adultery or incest.
Anne Boleyn the B**ch
There is no other way to describe the Anne Boleyn of “The Other Boleyn Girl”, she is a complete b**ch and it’s no wonder I get emails asking why I “defend” such a b**ch! Anne steals Henry VIII from Mary and then taunts her, she takes Mary’s son away from her without her permission, she treats her siblings like her slaves, she quite likely poisons Bishop Fisher and his dinner guests and perhaps Cardinal Wolsey, Princess Mary and Catherine of Aragon too, she is vindictive when Mary announces her marriage to Will Stafford and her pregnancy, saying that she will tell Mary’s son that his mother is dead, and she curses Jane Seymour, saying: “If she gets her hand on my crown and her arse on my throme I hope it is the death of her. I hope she dies young. I hope she dies in childbed in the very act of giving him a boy. And I hope the boy dies too.” Nice!
Also, in the Q&A section at the back of the book, Philippa Gregory says that Anne was “not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way – she was guilty of one murder… ”
Fact: We do know that Anne had a hot temper and she could be pretty nasty at times, e.g. instructing her aunt to box the ears of the “cursed bastard” (Mary) and starve her if she didn’t behave, swearing that “she would bring down the pride of this unbridled Spanish blood” and even put Mary to death while her father was in France, BUT this is a far cry from actually killing someone. Anne was careless with words, she had a quick temper and often said things without thinking. In my opinion, her words were simply bluster, spiteful but no actual truth to them. We’ve all said things that we regret, and don’t really mean, in the heat of the moment! Anne was no angel but she was no murderess either.
Religion
Anne’s faith and her reformist views are completely missing from this novel.
Fact: Anne was of reformist views. Her father and brother smuggled heretical books into England from the Continent, her brother translated reformist works for her, Anne helped reformist bishops get positions and she encouraged her ladies to read the Bible, which she left open in her apartments. She may not have been the Protestant martyr or revolutionary that some people think that she was, but there is much evidence to show that she had a real faith.
Anne Boleyn the Witch
In the novel, William Stafford says to Mary, “she [Anne] is certainly guilty of dabbling in witchcraft”, and we see Anne taking a potion to bring on the miscarriage of her baby which has died in the womb and later in the novel miscarrying a monstrously deformed baby. The midwife who is present when Anne miscarries the “monster” admits to Mary that she has actually been employed by Henry to watch Anne and that she is a “witch taker”. However, we never actually see Anne dabbling in witchcraft.
Fact: Giving birth to a deformed baby would have been seen as evidence of sexual sin or witchcraft, but there is no evidence that Anne did give birth to a deformed foetus.
Anne and Henry Carey
In Philippa Gregory’s novel, after the death of Mary’s husband, William Carey, Anne Boleyn suggests to her sister that she should adopt little Henry Carey and when Mary protests Anne tells her that it is already done. Mary says to Anne: “So that you have a son, Henry’s son. You have a son who is a Tudor by birth. If he marries you then in the same ceremony he gets a son” and this scene suggests that Anne has taken Mary’s son without her permission, and stolen him as part of her plan to marry Henry VIII.
Fact: Henry VIII appointed Anne Boleyn as Henry Carey’s ward in 1528, after the death of his father, William Carey. There was nothing unusual about this. Mary was a widow and Anne was in a position to provide for Henry and she could ensure that her nephew had a good education. He received education at a Cistercian monastery and also under the tutelage of the French poet, Nicholas Bourbon. She did not adopt him. We have discussed it on Facebook and Rachel Fitzpatrick pointed out that it was standard practice for the monarch to grant wardships to wealthy and influential courtiers, e.g. Lady Jane Grey was Thomas Seymour’s ward and Catherine Willoughby was Charles Brandon’s.
Jane Boleyn
The Jane Boleyn of “The Other Boleyn Girl” is a nasty busybody who is jealous of her husband’s relationship with his sisters. In the novel, George is not exactly keen on marrying her and he later describes her as “viley jealous” and “light-fingered”. Here is part of a scene where George is discussing Jane with his sisters:-
“It’s not like lust,” he said uneasily. “I can deal with lust. And it’s not variety—I like a little taste of the wild myself. But it’s as if she wanted some kind of power over me. The other night she asked me if I would like a maid brought in. She offered to bring me in a girl and worse: she wanted to watch.”
“She likes to watch?” Anne demanded.
He shook his head. “No, I think she likes to arrange. I think she likes to listen at doors, to spy through keyholes. I think she likes to be the one that makes things happen and watches others at the business. And when I said ‘no’…” He stopped abruptly.
“What did she offer you then?”
George flushed. “She offered to get me a boy.”
Now, you can see where “The Tudors” got their inspiration for Jane from!
Later in the novel, at Anne Boleyn’s fall, Madge Shelton tells Mary Boleyn of how Jane was interrogated the longest and that she wrote and signed a statement. Madge goes on to say, “It was after she had spoken to them that we all had to go in again and they were asking about George. Mary Boleyn, who is telling the story, tells the reader that at George’s trial, “the strongest evidence against him was a statement written by Jane Parker, the wife he had always despised.”
Fact: There is no evidence to support this characterization of Jane Boleyn and Jane did not confess to lying about George and Anne in her execution speech, that is a myth. Jane did tell Cromwell of Anne’s indiscretion about Henry’s sexual inadequacies, but we don’t know what else Jane told Cromwell and it is time to stop using her as a scapegoat. You can read more about Jane in my post Jane Boleyn and the Fall of Anne Boleyn.
Lack of Maternal Love
In “The Other Boleyn Girl”, Anne Boleyn is horrified when she gives birth to a daughter, ” “A girl,” Anne said in horror. “A girl. What good is a girl to us?” “, which is understandable when she knew how important it was to give Henry a son and heir, but there is no relationship between Anne and Elizabeth in the novel. Anne seems to lack maternal love and there is an awful scene where Anne strips little Elizabeth half naked to prove to everyone that she is perfect and beautiful, Elizabeth’s lip is trembling as Anne rages at Henry.
Fact: It was Henry VIII who paraded his naked baby daughter in front of ambassadors to show how perfect she was. Also, Anne loved her daughter dearly and was a keen and good mother in the short time she had with her. Historians David Starkey and Tracy Borman refer to a story of how Anne Boleyn wanted to defy convention by breastfeeding her baby herself, but was prevented from doing so by her husband. Tracy Borman also writes of how courtiers were often embarrassed by Anne’s displays of affection for her baby and that she loved to have Elizabeth next to her on a cushion, rather than shut away, out of sight and mind, in a nursery, and when Elizabeth was given her own household at Hatfield, Anne spent time carefully choosing fabrics for her daughter’s clothes and visited her whenever possible.
The Movie
“The Other Boleyn Girl” movie, starring Eric Bana, Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson is even worse for historical inaccuracies:-
- Henry VIII rapes Anne Boleyn
- Anne making Henry promise that he’d never speak to Mary again after she’s given birth to his son
- Mary Boleyn intercedes on Anne’s behalf and tries to get her pardoned
- Mary Boleyn walks into court and takes Elizabeth at the end
It makes me cringe and shout at the TV!
Don’t Knock Historical Fiction!
I know I’m going to get people saying that there’s nothing wrong with historical fiction and that I shouldn’t criticise it because people should be able to distinguish fact from fiction and I’m really not having a go at historical fiction. My bookcase is full of historical fiction: Jean Plaidy, C J Sansom, Robin Maxwell, Jeane Westin etc. BUT those authors are not saying that their novels are true and they carefully explain where they have deviated from the truth in their notes. Reading Philippa Gregory’s notes and interviews, she is suggesting that she is an historian and that “The Other Boleyn Girl” is not a distortion of the facts, but is a retelling of Anne and Mary’s story, and that is why I have such a big problem with this particular novel.
So, if you know someone who thinks they know Anne Boleyn’s story from reading “The Other Boleyn Girl” or you know a student who is doing a project on Anne Boleyn, please tell them about the Eric Ives book, “The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn”, or point them to this website. I don’t like to blow my own trumpet, but I am committed to telling Anne Boleyn’s true story by researching primary sources and the works of Tudor historians like Eric Ives, David Starkey, Alison Weir and David Loades.
I had read a few Philippa Gregory novels before reading TOBG and I was hugely disappointed by her take on Anne Boleyn. I could not believe that she could be so inaccurate and vindictive. My feeling is that she writes well and that she does her initial research but then abandons any pretence at accuracy for whatever she thinks will sell. In recent years most of what has been written about Anne Boleyn has been largely favourable; I think she deliberately set out to be controversial and different.
That’s a liberty that novelists are entitled to take, I suppose, although I have always preferred those who stick more closely to the facts. However, presenting herself in the guise of a historian is just misleading and plain wrong.
The best that can be hoped is that it will lead peple to find out more and that they will see how skewed her account is!
[Reply]
Thank you Claire! I am so glad that you mentioned PG’s constant need to reaffirm that she is a historian and her books are complete fact! Even Retha Warnick distances herself from PG. I think one of my favorite quotes of PG is her claiming that Anne Boleyn isn’t a feminist icon. While sometimes Anne Boleyn is over glorified, PG is working towards destroying all of the work historians have done to rehabilitate her image.
[Reply]
I think the most disgusting part of the movie was when Henry VIII raped Anne. As much as it was inaccurate, it was also a disgusting disservice to history. There is absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever and furthermore, if anyone’s bothered to know anything about Henry VIII’s actual personality, he was pretty incapable of doing something so aggressive. It’s just the perpetual characterization of him as a monster, but in reality he can’t really be seen that way until much later than when the movie portrays. And how anyone could think Anne would just kind of be like “oh hey that’s okay i’ll still marry you!” is absolutely beyond me.
[Reply]
Well said Claire. I actually can’t agree with people who say that inaccuracy in historical fiction is ok, because ‘it’s just a novel’ etc.etc. I think when you are writing fiction about real people you have an absolute duty to be as accurate as possible; adhere to all known facts and only invent in so far as does not contravene those facts. I mean, imagine how we’d feel if someone reinvented our lives in fictional form; suggested we’d commited incest, didn’t care about our kids, saddled us with lovers and deeds and opinions we never had! Because we’re alive we could sue, the dead don’t have that privilege, but they still have as much right to respect and honesty.
If people want to invent stories that don’t stick to known facts then why not just make up fictional people and write about them? if you are writing about someone who really lived, then common decency demands you respect their real lives.
That’s the main reason I can’t bear PG, or the damn Tudors.
[Reply]
This was so well written Claire! Thank you! I must admit that the book is what made me get interested in Anne Boleyn in the first place because she was so cartoonishly played as the Villianess! So I began to read, watch and devour everything I could about her aftewards! Hence, my discovery of your website! I fell completely in love with her as a result of that book so I can’t say I hate it! but when I think about the inaccuracies now I makes me cringe!!
I read Ms Gregory’s books still, knowing full well that they are hokum and LOOSELY based on facts!!! but I am an avid reader and also read books about vampires lol which I don’t put any stock in either! LOL!!
- XO Gina
[Reply]
Riah Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Oh my, I absolutely agree! That is exactly what happened to me as well. I just re-read the book and re-purchased the movie, it was a dissappoint now that I know so much more about her.
[Reply]
I love how you’ve set all of this right!! I do love Philippa Gregory’s books and I’m on the second to last one. At first I thought mostly all of it was true until I started to do more and more research (how I found your website
). I find it irritating that even hundreds of years later people are STILL calling Anne a witch and having 6 fingers etc etc.
.
Thank you for commenting on Eric Ives’ book on Anne it’s now in my collection
[Reply]
Great article, Claire!
I first read fiction about Anne in 1971, when I was 10 years old. I was inspired after watching “Masterpiece Theatre’s The Six Wives of Henry VIII” (IMO, Dorothy Tutin is still the best Anne of tv and film; her black eyes are gorgeous and you could believe men being mesmerized by them); I’ve loved Anne ever since. My parents warned me that fictional history was often romanticized, and not to take it as fact. They then suggested I read non-fiction about Anne, which I did (I was lucky enough to have a mother who would check out adult books from the library for me to read).
That, to me, is the chief benefit of historical fiction: to inspire someone to want to read nonfictional works about the person or time period of interest to them.
My favorite fictional books about Anne are “Anne, the Rose of Hever” by Maureen Peters (1969; my paperback copy is from 1971), “Anne Boleyn” by Evelyn Anthony (1960; mpc 1974), “Brief Gaudy Hour” by Margaret Campbell Barnes (1949; mpc 1972), “The Concubine” by Norah Lofts (1963; mpc 1972), and “Threads” by Nell Gavin (2001).
I was so angered by PG and TOBG; I’m glad I’m not alone!
[Reply]
Well done Claire! Although this book/movie does keep people talking about Anne, I wish it were factual and not all the sad made-up stories about her. I just detest this book, it is so inaccurate in every way, shape, and form!
Has anyone ever read Gregory’s book “The Boleyn Inheritance”??
I have to say, I enjoyed that book far more. It’s still full of inaccuracies, but the thing I find VERY interesting about it is that Gregory portrays Jane Boleyn as having a guilty conscience and, in the end, going mad over the fact that she falsely accused and brought evidence against Anne and George because she was jealous of their close relationship. She goes on to say that she hated all three of the Boleyns, and that they never included her in their little circle. How childish!
I just find it utterly amazing how you can write all these fallacies in one book, claiming them as historical facts, and then in the next book, completely negate them and claim them as facts…… WTF?
I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with Gregory if she wasn’t so full of herself to presume she is a “historian”. Write a novel.
[Reply]
Riah Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
I agree about ‘The Boleyn Inheritance’, it is the other PG book I have read and it was entertaining. Jane Boleyn was quite annoying and childish in both books in my opinion. I thought her character was SO over done.
[Reply]
I was just looking at Anne’s ghost page. I hope Anne’s ghost haunts P Gregory for slandering her name. I won’t go anywhere near any of her books around the Tudor period. She is just as harsh on Elizabeth making outlandish claims that are not true. It’s irresponsible and wrong not to mention delusional as she seems to believe all that she writes. That is interesting Christina about the Boleyn Inheritance. How can anyone take anything that she says seriously.
[Reply]
I haven’t read a few of those so thanks for the recommendations, Maggie. I love Jean Plaidy’s “Murder Most Royal”.
[Reply]
Claire,
I so agree with you about historical inaccuracies-even in historical fiction. For those who are not familiar with Tudor history, it might make them think all of them are acutal fact! Tudor history is so dramatic and interesting “as Is’, that writers such as PG certainly don’t need to embellish it. Thank you for your article.
[Reply]
Your post inspired me to reread ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’ which was not the first but one of the first books that got me interested in Anne Boleyn. Knowing what I know now about Anne I am horrified with the liberties Philippa Gregory has taken with the truth, though,dare I say it…I like some of her other novels and the points of view they provide. Like the Virgin’s Lover, which I feels shows a lot of the different sides of Anne’s daughter. Or The Queen’s Fool which tries to humanize Mary I as something other than ‘Bloody Mary.’ But I agree with you entirely that I cannot stand it when people take this novel as fact and see Anne not as the amazing women she was but an ambitious blood thirsty whore. I do not think that Mary Boleyn was the right person’s point of view to use because history knows her not as the innocent 14 year old used for her family’s ambition but as first the mistress of Francis I of France then later the mistress of Henry VIII, mother to his two bastards. What I do like about this novel is that it makes people ask questions about this period and the amazing people who lived in it.
[Reply]
Neil Kemp Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 10:31 am
I (for my sins ) have also read “The Queen’s Fool” and found the device to “humanize” Mary interesting, as was the fall of Calais, mixing a real event with fictional characters.
There are many faults to the book, as with TOBG, which would not be a problem if authors were honest about their source material and to what extent is fiction and which is fact (yes, PG I do mean you!). I also found Warnicke’s “The Rise And Fall Of Anne Boleyn” to be heavy going at times with rather too many assumptions made by the author. A far lighter book by Suzannah Dunn is “The Queen Of Subtleties”, centering around Mark Smeaton. Fluffy, but fun, and never pretending to be something it isn’t (Oh dear, PG again?). Regardless of the accuracy, or otherwise, of television or books at least it produces debate (sometimes heated) and interest about a subject we all love, and that cannot be a bad thing, can it? I think the motto must be keep reading, keep watching and above all enjoy, be it historical fiction or historical fact, just don’t mix up the two by misleading claims by some authors (nameless!).
[Reply]
I like this article very much – just the dish that I need to make the Tudor dinner complete
It is always really nice to be able to read both sides of the story, knowing where the yardstick is and how far a the deviation has takem themselves to. A very very crucial article for me personally in understanding the Tudors’ more 
Thanks so very much for publishing this 
[Reply]
Claire,
You’re welcome! Thanks for reminding me of “Murder Most Royal.” I knew there was at least one old favorite of mine that I’d left off of the list…
Calista12,
I agree with you re: Mary Boleyn. It was one of the things that annoyed me so much about TOBG. Mary was no innocent, and no saint, either. Still…she seems to come off better in TOBG, believe it or not, than in Hilary Mantel’s “Wolf Hall”, where Mary seems to come off as a vindictive little witch who undermines Anne to Cromwell every chance she gets, while batting her eyes at him and conveying a “Poor Little Me” attitude while she flirts with him. Ugh. A horrid character, who makes me grateful I never had a sister. “With friends like that”, etc. (I did, however, like the physical description of Anne in this novel; it seems closer to the truth than most novels of the past 20 years of so have gotten, when it comes to what Anne probably looked like.)
[Reply]
I did like how they physically described Anne too. When she was first coming home Mary seemed to capture the very essence of Anne Boleyn-that you feel very strongly about her(either positive or negative). She was alive and vibrant. Mary hated yet loved Anne. But what I really don’t like was Anne was all ambition and no heart-even when it came to Henry, her family, or Elizabeth who we known she loved very much. But it did show an aspect that I haven’t seen in some other the other novel. The game physically changed and weakened her. Slowly she turned into a ghost. In the novel it wore down on her morals-if in the novel she ever had any! I did like how they did George(the funny flirt!) except for the part where he kissed and slept with Anne. I think that was very over the line. But how she used one of the theories about him being homosexual(and in a dangerous time like that!) was very interesting.
[Reply]
I am kind of torn. Yes, I agree that novelists and hollywood types do have a responsibility to portray things accurately, but on the other hand, I love to play the “what if” game and reimagine many historical moments in my own brain, and kind of like seeing it actually played out in another person’s perspective. Not to mention the fact that I love Tudor history so much, that I love any kind of attention it gets. Because at least that way, it’s getting into people’s minds. They also have a responsibility (people who read/watch) to go out there and look for themselves and not believe everything they see. Personally, I love PG’s books, because its such a nice little treat after reading all the non-fiction, kind of like reading those nasty romance novels, LOL. But I take it all with a grain of salt and know that first and foremost, she is a novelist, not a historian even if she claims it. Her Margaret Beaufort book was awesome and made me really want to delve in to her history. TOBG was what got me hooked into Tudor history, but I think it’s her worst book. And I am always telling my husband “that’s not true!” when we watch the movie, LOL but I still had to buy the special edition when it came out on DVD and saw it twice in the theatre. But yes, authors should denote whether things are historically accurate or not because not everyone devours those nonfiction books like we Tudor Lovers do!
[Reply]
im 14 and obsessed with the anne boleyn/ tudor thing and come on people do you seriously believe anne boleyn wasn’t planning this the whole time! she wouldnt have paraded around henrys court for 6 years as his almost lover and let people call her a witch if she thought he was just going to say ‘ok im done now time for jane seymour’ no she was definitly planning it the whole time. as for the murders there was an account of a certain bishop and like 6 of his friends being poisoned and he barely surviving. what a coincidence that anne really needed to get rid of him to become queen! and katherine of aragon was also believed to be poisoned and when she died anne had the court wear yellow. also, when she had the cardinal wolsey charged with treason and he died, she presented a masque entitiled ‘sending the cardinal to hell’
do you still think she wasnt planning this and she wasnt a bitch?
[Reply]
Kim Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 7:17 am
Elizabeth,
I’m sorry, I simply couldn’t let you comments slide:
1. Anne resisted Henry’s advances for a long time. At the time she could have had no possible way of knowing that Henry would have offered her marriage. It’s extremely unlikely that the thought even crossed her mind. The best she could have possibly hoped for from him was to be his mistress, and she turned that down.
2. Katherine died from cancer. Not poisoning. Katherine’s death was actually one of the contributing factors to Anne’s downfall, but not for the reason that you seem to think. While Katherine was alive, Henry couldn’t cast Anne aside. If he did, he would be admitting that he was wrong and pretty much forced to go back to Katherine. However, once his first wife was dead, he could cast Anne aside and take on a new wife, Jane Seymour, without any troubles from those that believed that Katherine was his true wife.
3. Wosley was old and had been in ill health. It’s hardly surprising that he died. Also, Anne didn’t have the power to charge ANYONE with treason. That wasn’t her role, even if she had been Queen at the time (which she wasn’t).
4. Why on earth would Anne have poisoned anyone? She had the King on her side. She didn’t need to do away with anyone.
My only suggestion to you would be to take the time to read some non-fiction accounts of Anne’s life (such as Ives or Starkey) so that you can get a better idea of the real and true events that took place during Anne’s life.
[Reply]
Claire Reply:
December 5th, 2010 at 4:49 am
Elizabeth,
I agree with Kim and here are my replies to your points:-
1. “come on people do you seriously believe anne boleyn wasn’t planning this the whole time” – Yes, I do seriously believe that Anne was not plotting. It is clear from the love letters that Henry sent Anne that she was very upset when he offered to make her his official mistress, that she refused and that she left court and went to Hever. She had the courage to reject him and there’s no way that it could have been a ploy because Henry would have been more likely to have moved on and found a woman who was willing rather than pursue Anne. How on earth could she have known that he would pursue her?
2. What murders? – Whatever Philippa Gregory says, there is no evidence that Anne murdered anyone and if she had been considered a murderess then she would have been accused of this at her trial and it would have been a good reason to get rid of her. Anne was hot tempered and made threats in fits of rage but they were empty threats and she was too intelligent to act on them.
3. Katherine of Aragon was not poisoned – Her heart was black and that was thought, at the time, to be proof of poisoning, but we know that it is down to cancer/heart disease today.
4. Anne did not have the court wear yellow – Some sources have Henry wearing yellow, others have Anne wearing yellow, but sources also say that Anne wept privately.
5. Anne may have had a part in Wolsey’s downfall but it was ultimately Henry’s decision to have him arrested. As Eric Ives says Wolsey “lost Henry’s confidence from late August onwards by miscalculating the king’s mood and by mishandling the Treaty of Cambrai, in which Francis I totally deceived him and caused him, in turn, to mislead his master” so Wolsey made some big mistakes and this turned Henry against him.
Please do not trust The Other Boleyn Girl as an account of what happened.
[Reply]
Riah Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Personally I think that you have simply just watched and/or read The Other Boleyn Girl and have watched The Tudors because all of the “facts” you suggest are from such things. I agree with Kim and Claire completely, reading the facts first is best. Then you may tell what books are elaborating and which aren’t. Maybe even find entertainment from it but figure out the facts first.
[Reply]
I like this article very much. I’m kind of embarrassed to admit I believe TOBG as an accurate description of not only our beloved Anne, but her family as well. I read it when I was quite young, probably not even a teen yet. It’s only very, very recently that I’ve been reading about the true Anne. And I’ve fallen in love with her. Even CENTURIES after death, she still has the power to make women and men alike adore her!! She’s someone I admire very much, and I’m committing to long hours on this site and reading books that you suggest to find out about this grealy wronged lady.
[Reply]
Ironically, it was my disgust towards this particular film that led me to this website. I watched the movie when it first came out, seriously contemplating throwing things at the screen at certain scenes. It was only this week that I was able to actually watch it again AND write a scathing review of all the most irritating historical inaccuracies and the absolutely wretched character assassinations. I blame all of you and your excellent articles for my impatience with this portrayal of Anne and I thank you for it. It’s led to my reading more on the fascinating lady herself.
[Reply]
Having read all the comments, I feel they seem to be missing the point about historical fiction. Its exactly that…fiction! These novels are meant to entertain, surely, whatever the accuracies/inacuracies.
If you want facts, then read nonfiction…such as David Starkey’s books and others like him. I think Starkey is the foremos historian on the Tudor period.
Many books have been written about Anne Bullen/Boleyn and she, like many other historical figures, has been romanticized. Over centuries, it happens. What is one man’s accuracy is another man’s innacuracy. No-one will ever know all the actual facts of the Tudor period or any other.
[Reply]
Hi Gill,
I completely agree with you when looking at historical fiction as a whole, but Philippa Gregory has made a big deal in her notes and interviews about TOBG being based on fact, therefore she is not marketing it as historical fiction and that’s where the problem lies.
[Reply]
I agree that fiction is fiction and shouldn’t be taken seriously, but the point I make above is that irrespective of the fact that The Tudors doesn’t hold itself out as factual, if Anne had been depicted in it as she is in The Other Boleyn Girl it would not be as popular with Anne fans. Fiction or not, I think that is a fact. I’m not suggesting the Hirst is as bad as Gregory, because he admits the programme is lighthearted and inaccurate, whereas Gregory portrays her fiction as factual. It’s the popularity I question, because if we’re honest, enjoyment of fiction is dependent on how they depict our favourites. If our favourites are portrayed as cruel or/and sexually depraved it makes it very difficult to enjoy it even if we tell ourselves it’s just fiction.
[Reply]
Well….as a historian I would say that in all honesty there is no truly accurate way of either affirming or denying either this website’s defense of Anne nor PG’s version. History is written either by the vanquishers or the vanquished, rarely by the impartial.
What we do know is that 1) she was a maid to the same queen whose husband she later married and some would say “stole”. This does not make her a saint no matter how many books on church reformation she carried in her possession. 2) We know that she had a violent temper, and while the website’s author would say this does not equate to murder we also know that there were people who died rather conveniently around her. This always casts individuals in a bad light–even with modern police departments. 3) We know that she died with a great deal of dignity by all accounts. 4) We know she was considered enchanting by all accounts. 5) We know her husband was a tyrant and that she was considered “the most happy” married to a man who was a murderous tyrant who had either beheaded or harmed people in his life he once cared for. If this were a love match…what does that say about her own character?
I think she was probably part sinner, part saint as are we all.
[Reply]
Just as Richard 111, in the Elizabethan era, I fear Philippa Gregorys book The Other Boylen Girl is set to paint a unjust image of Of Anne. It is my hope that others may read other books to get a better more factual image. After reading her version of Anne , I will never read another book wtitten by her again.
I cannot be sure of getting a fair picture of any of her subject she writes about. She made Mary the heroine. In any event they were both victims of Henry v111, In my opinion the other Boylen Gilrl is simply rubbish and lies.
[Reply]
I have many friends who are livid that they did not see the historically overweight Henry in the later seasons. My opinion however is such: Henry was sexually active allegedly until Kathryn Parr (but that is speculation, of course, since his will did mention any offspring of Lady Parr to be in the line of succession after Edward, and unless he was truly just that mad, they ….well, you get my point). And like any television series and/or most movies you see today, how often are we entertained with ‘fattened’ love scenes. Please, I am not criticizing. I am large as well, so I could understand the insult. This is merely an observation. I am not sure, as deliciously handsome as Rhys-meyers is that I could enjoy him playing a fat man rolling about sweaty and out of breath on top of sweet seductresses.
Historical facts: I can’t really recall any movie that truly diverges the facts precisely. Elizabeth I was confounded with misinformation, as well as Braveheart, the Titanic, etc…however, much like you, as well as, Borman state, it entices you into that stunning Tudor environment, rich with beauty, scandal and curiosity. While I know some portrayals in the series were so far-fetched that it left you dumfounded, it still made it worth while to see someone else’s outlook on The Great Matter, his illnesses, his mindset.
Also, you mentioned Phillipa Gregory. I had learned the hard way that her work is made of up convoluted misinterpretations and so many historical wrongs that I almost desire to burn her books. I own three of them. The third, ‘The Boleyn Inheritance” I cannot even finish. It was her that reared me back into the love of the 16th Century though, sending my thirst for Anne Boleyn’s facts and innocence into a raging need, but only to learn that all that she had written was so inaccurate! I was appalled. I do realize that it is fiction, but to change facts completely for the satisfaction of your readers?? That does nothing but dummy down and mislead any of whom look to her book for answers, as I did in my naivety. Happily, I am now set in reading as many ‘truer’ books that I can find in hopes to mediate this informational betrayal while still enriching my senses with possibilities and wonders. I welcome any and all author and book suggestions. In fact, I just read The Autobiography of Henry VIII by Margaret George. I did not do a background check on her before reading, so if anybody has an opinion of her work, I would LOVE to hear it.
[Reply]
My apologies, the aforementioned response was for an article regarding “The Tudors” series.
[Reply]
Well as much as I think that there is nothing wrong *cough* artistic liscene with certain historical facts and I appreciate that it would be impossible to stick to the facts as there is so much we don’t know…(like who was the father of Mary’s eldest daughter?) I hate the fact that PG seems to ignore them and pretend they don’t exist.
As an author she has every right to be tweek known facts and explore her own interpretation but she also has a duty to the history to state exactly WHERE she has strayed from the history books!
As far as I can see…Anne was a facsinating and beautiful woman. She may not have been a saint but she def wasn’t an adulteress, murderer or capable of incest!
[Reply]
I am so glad you wrote this article! I can’t stand Philippa Gregory’s books! In each and every single one she completely butchers the facts in favour of disproven, outlandish gossip and scandal. I’m actually an historian myself, but most people aren’t and will have no idea that what they are reading is wrong – and being an historian naturally for my leisure time I love to read historical fiction and watch historical based films/tv shows (most of them inaccurate but an historian has to take entertainment where she can!), but, it’s been said before in the comments here, the big problem is that Philippa Gregory claims in her notes that what she’s just written is not imaginative but untrue fiction that she’s made up to make the story more salacious, but that it’s true, or at least the most likely version of events, and she says things like she’s dedicated to historical accuracy above all else! ARGH!
It then makes me want to tear my hair out when I hear people referring to her as “an historian”!!!! NO! She is NOT an historian. Her PhD is in 18th century literature, NOT history! You might say “well, she’s sort of an amateur historian because she does all that research when she goes to write her novels” which she then changes, yes, but I’ve seen inaccuracies in her novels which were obviously oversights and not deliberate changes, meaning that Gregory’s research is definitely not up to scratch and does not make her an historian. I even saw her on a factual history programme recently in which she was brought forwards to be one of those “talking heads” on the basis that she was “a Tudor historian” and an “expert on the death of Amy Dudley”.
That’s where the problem is – that she claims that what she’s written isn’t untrue (or indeed complete fantasy in some cases!) but that it is completely accurate or at least the most likely version of events, so anyone who isn’t actually an historian won’t know the difference and will just basically accept what she’s saying, and now the general public’s perception of Anne has just been thrown back 100 years and for the next generation we’re going to have to put up with people thinking she had 6 fingers or was a witch all over again… Urgh, all the work done to rehabilitate her image and uncover the REAL Anne Boleyn – not a saint, not an evil harpy, but a real, complex woman – ruined!!! As an historian, who fell in love with historical factual books about the Tudors from age 5 (and Anne and her daughter Elizabeth particularly), and who has been working on this period for 17 years, you can understand why I’m annoyed.
I commend you for writing this article debunking TOBG! I’ve written reviews on Amazon but the Gregory fans always nobble me with their unhelpful votes! I think it’s quite despicable how some people use the unhelpful vote not to actually point out a flaw in a review, a review that has missed covering something or similar, but as punishment against people who simple didn’t have the same opinion as they did but whose review actually does cover all the pertinent points. It would make so much more sense to have JUST a helpful vote, that way if you don’t get any then people can still see if your review was unhelpful but it would prevent people using the unhelpful button as “punishment” just because people in the world like different things from one another!
[Reply]
If only she wouldn’t claim to be a historian whose books
were based on fact and just admitted half of it’s fiction. As for
the film, some of those scenes were plain disturbing, but at least
there is a note at the end that explains: ‘This is a work of
fiction. The characters, incidents, and locations portrayed and the
names herein are fictionous, and any simularity to or
identification with the location, name, character or history of any
person, product or entity is entirely coincidental and
unintentional.’ Not quite true methinks! How could anyone make up
the life of Anne Boleyn? Also, it controdicts strongly with what PG
say… So that all got me confused, how exactly could any of it be
coincidental and unintentional?? It was obviously meant to be
LOOSELY based on historical fact. Hmm…
[Reply]
I agree with most of what is said but incest and rape
occurred frequently. Women were second-class citizens and many
parents still make such decisions for their children as a part of
arranged marriage. As for homosexuality, according to many pieces
I’ve read on that time period it was not unusual for men to have
sex. I am not disagreeing with your research I am simply stating
that nothing is certain and to disagree with an author based on
your facts which reflect what is “likely true” does not necessarily
reflect the reality either.
[Reply]
I know that both movies “The other Boleyn girl” are not of
fact, but I think what they tried to do with these movies is just
make them more entertaining than anything. I watched both movies
and they are both completely different from one another but both
have historical fiction in them. Let’s just hope that people that
watch either movie knows that its all just a movie and not fully
based on real events etc. I personally didn’t care for either
movie, but I love Eric Bana, so he was fun to look at..lol but he
looks nothing like Henry. Neither does Jonathan in “The Tudors”. I
can’t remember if Jared Harris looked close or not. I have tried to
wipe those movies out of memory. When my daughter was doing a
report on the 6 wives of Heny VIII, I made sure she researched
everything twice for verification due to so many peoples personal
views verses facts.
[Reply]
I hesitated to write this response and even deleted it before posting a few days ago, but I was taught that to allow ignorance to stand out of fear of being remonstrated for speaking up is something we should all fight against.
Steff, please don’t take this as anything personal because I’m sure you’re a nice person and I do think it’s great that you’re interested enough in the Tudors to be on the website… but quite a lot of what you say in your post is wrong. Incest and rape did not occur frequently – undoubtedly it did more than today because of the lack of law enforcers in the form of a police force that we have today, but especially in the case of incest it would have been minimal occurrence. The overwhelming majority of people were religious, and whether it was Catholic or Protestant or other, piety was extremely important, and incest was considered a grave sin (think for example of Henry VIII who tried to get a papal dispensation to marry Anne because he’d previously been involved with her sister, today we wouldn’t consider that to be incest but back then even tenuous connections like that could be counted as incest). You might think that maybe Anne was one of those people who wasn’t particularly religious, but even people who aren’t religious wouldn’t think it was normal or acceptable to commit incest, and actually Anne was a devoted and very pious Protestant.
It’s obvious that homosexuality is older than history itself, but it was not commonplace in Tudor England. Don’t forget, even people with that orientation, not all of them would have acted on it as religion would have been teaching them that it was sinful, and as aforementioned the vast majority of people were very religious. And my apologies if this sounds harsh, but your statement “according to many pieces I’ve read on the time period” is a pretty empty statement. WHICH books? What are their names and who are they by? When were they published? What sources do they use and what evidence do they dismiss? You see, we can’t consult these “many pieces on the time period” without names, and the date matters because they might be outdated studies, and the sources they use are important because we don’t know what evidence these books have used and what evidence they’ve chosen to ignore, and fact of the matter is that in the academic world also if you give me an artefact I’ll give you 101 different interpretations and opinions from different scholars about what that artefact means or implies. And at the end of the day, one has to treat reading about history through books with caution as the information and interpretation is filtered through the conclusions that the author makes – you can’t beat going straight to the source and getting your hands on the unedited evidence. I didn’t want to disappoint anybody, but reading a few books on a period doesn’t make you a specialist on it; it actually takes years and decades of in-depth continuous study and making a profession out of it. So unless you’re a qualified historian who’s devoted a considerable effort to studying both the original material and all the varying interpretations and opinions on a period, I’m gonna trust the professional over the casual hobbyist who’s read a couple of books.
[Reply]
Raquel Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Well said!
[Reply]
TOBG was one of the reasons that make me researche more about the Tudors, mostly because when I finished the book, I just couldn’t believe that Anne was such a bitch, even without knowing about Tudor history. To me, Anne Boleyn was a very complex woman, which definately was no saint, but she wasn’s a heartless witch either. I found funny that many people calls her a whore, while the same time they say her refusal to be Henry’s mistress was just plotting, how can she be a whore if she refuse to have sex with him, till the very end. Was she plotting? In a way I think yes, maybe not in the begging but likely in the time of the king’s great matter, I do believe she say no at first due to virtue, and because she wanted something else for her life, not to end like her sister, and at first she probably believe the king would find some other women, but when the king keep insisting, welll part of me believe that she keep saying no because she realized she could assure herself a better ending than what she may have imagine, its hard for anyone not get what you can in an unexpected and lucky situation, like the one she found herself when the king fell in love with her, but that doesn’t make her a monster. Even if she married the king not for love, something we cannot know, love marriages were not the rule back then, and when the king propose how could she have not accepted? After all she was claiming her virtue was for her husband, what exucse could she have use to turn him down after that? To me what PG does is just going with the easy exit with a character she can’t actually write in all its complexity,sorry but to me is a lack of her skills in writing the result we get in TOBG, I love to write and I would be awsome to explore a character such as Anne Boleyn, with all her good and bad traits. Instead PG goes to the extremes describing Mary as such a good girl and Anne as a total bitch. I was a radical surprise to me to find out the reputation mary had after finishing the book, i was like: “Can’t believe she dare to do that”. That’s why I prefer the Tudors, as innacurate as they might be, I think their characters, are slightly closer to reality.
Sorry for my possible grammar mistakes, I’m from latinamerica and still iimproving my english. And also…thanks for creating this site, I loved it!
[Reply]
I agree with Anya! Even though you say you don’t speak English very well, I understood you perfectly and I though you made some really good points. I also think that Philippa Gregory takes her characters to extremes too much, when in reality people are much more complex than that. I think she does that half because she can’t write subtle characters very well, and the other half of the reason is because she lets her own favourites get into her work – so whoever she really likes from history she makes the heroine in her books and makes them a really good person and she leaves out all the things they did that weren’t so nice, and whoever she really dislikes she turns into an evil bitch and leaves out all the good things they did. A real historian will try hard not to do this (though sometimes it still happens because we’re all only human!) because in factual books and academic papers you’ve got to make sure that you don’t let your bias creep in to your conclusions.
[Reply]
I love this site and thank baby jesus i stumbled across it looking for more information on George Boleyn. I fell in love with Anne Boleyn and the tudors when i as 11 and i firmly believe to this day and cannot be dissuaded from the belief the trial was a gross miscarriage of justice! Anyhoo back to TOBG! I hate that film with a raw passion which has lead me to vow to burn that book if its ever presented to me! Mary a saint? I almost fell off my sofa in shock! It really upsets me that PG won’t just accept and admit her book is pure fiction based on theories that have been disproved! I have read many historical fiction books my particular favorite being Jean Plaidy but TOBG took it to far for me, it was just gross! I will never read one of her books! EVER! She wouldn’t know historical fact if Eric Ives’ book (a beloved crimbo presnt) hit her on the head!
As you can see i really am disgusted by this so called historian!
[Reply]
Faye Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Did you know that in her latest books on the Wars of the Roses period, if you look on the inside jacket of the book where they do the little author profile thing, it actually now reads “Philippa Gregory was an established historian in the Tudor period before she wrote the best-selling The Other Boleyn Girl”? How many times must it be reiterated: Philippa Gregory is NOT an historian! Her PhD was in Eighteenth Century Literature, not History. As if rewriting and spreading misinformation about history long-past wasn’t bad enough, she’s now retroactively altering her own personal history!
[Reply]
I have stated more than once that it is not necessary to make up events when writing about the Tudor era. It is complex and interesting enough without fictionalized accounts of events that never happened. I believe an author of historical novels have a duty to respect the known facts and within rthe paramenters of known facts can add fictionalize dialog that might be a reasonable version of what actually took place. Example: When Anne confronted Henry while holding Elizabeth just days before her arrest, an eyewitness wrote that he appeared to be angry while Anne appeared to be pleading with him. The witness could not hear what was being said and later reported to Queen Elizabeth it was a scene he would never forget as she was but a “babe” in the arms of her mother. Whatever was said between Henry and Anne can be imagined in dozens of ways and would make an interesting read. A perfect example of taking a known fact and based on fact, make a reasonable assumption of what took place. I have always thought Anne had tried to plead with Henry to find out what was going on and why she was being ignored by him. She might have also pleaded with him to patch their damanged relationship for the sake of Elizabeth and give her another chance to give him a son. Anne was probably beginning to realize that events were happening around her that she had no control over and was desparate to find out what Henry was planning; she also probably felt out of control of her emotions and wanted assurance that he still had feelings for her. Just this particular event could be written in so many interesting ways and still be based on the eyewitness account. And this is how fictionalized historical novels should be written, speculation based on known fact. And at no time should the author of fictionalized historical novels announce it is the truth. History was not written in detail. Many people wrote letters, journals,and reports but they did not write down each word spoken very often. Even the execution speeches differ from one report to another. I have kept a journal for many years; I do not write complete conversations in detail; rather I write about the topic of conversation, who was involved in the conversation, and only use an exact quote when I feel it is important enough to write it down word for word.
So I hope that PG and other authors of historical novels will take this to heart and realize that within these parameters, they can write amazing novels that are based on known fact and give the reader things to contemplate by trying to figure out what might have happened within the context of known facts.
Ummmm. Maybe I should just write a book using this prinicipal and see if I can knock PG off the NY Times Best Seller lists!!!!! Maybe a story about Henry’s court as seen through the eyes of a cleaning maid or the son or daughter of a council member or lady in waiting. Someone no one would normally even notice and so they were able to witness events and hear conversatons because the nobility did not even consider their presence worth worrying about.
Sorry this is so long. I am in bed with 5 herniated disks, taking pain meds, and trying to keep my mind off the fact that in less than a week a surgeon will but into my back and fiddle around with my spine. I can only give thanks that I am not living in Tudor England with this problem!!!! The doctors back then would not have had any clue as to what to do for this!!!
[Reply]
What I think is the most funny thing about ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’ is the fact that it was what got me into King Henry the 8th! See, I’m seventeen(almost eighteen) and in history class there was a small paragraph about King Henry the 8th and that was it. So when I heard about the fact that he was the first king to kill his wives, I was intrigued. Ironically it was around the time when the movie was being casted and started filming so I wanted to finish the book before the movie came out so I could compare, which I like to do. So I thought that the book was decent(at the time) and I was very much intrigued by Anne. Just because of the power and confidence she had after coming back from France. Natalie Portman’s monologue about great men is my favourite part in the movie and I have done that speech several times when I needed to for class. (I will continue this when I can, gotta go)
[Reply]
(Opps, sorry I had to break in my rant…) Back to what I was saying. Oh after reading that book and seeing the movie I really wanted the necklace. So I started searching the internet and that is how I found this website and have been visiting all the time now. Once I started reading the articles I noticed how wrong Mrs. Gregory was. I have yet to read ‘The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn’ or any other books recommended but I will very soon. I just think it is ironic how the book started my “obsession” and now I just bought the movie after not watching it for about a year and being sadly disappointed. I still love the intensity in Anne Boleyn played by Natalie Portman but other than it was just awful. Also I am suppose to do my senior paper on The Other Boleyn Girl but I might change that if I get the opportunity to. My teacher might not let me but I am hoping so.
[Reply]
I am personally on the side that Anne Boleyn was a very misunderstood and is a very misrepresented woman. I think that since in that time period women were perceived as meek and bended to the will of their masters (fathers, husbands, etc), a strong-willed woman (a quality that gave her daughter Elizabeth I the ability to bring england into the golden age) was something to criticize and turn into a problem. Hence: people coming up with all sorts of rediculous rumors: adultery, witchcraft, etc, etc.
I think she was a beautiful, intelligent, strong, (sometimes too fiery with her temper lol) woman. Never a murderess, never a harlot, never a witch.
I have a great respect and adoration for the Tudors, every one of Henry’s wives and his children and all the great people of that era. But I do have to say, the adultery rumer…thats up in the air, something we can never prove nor completely discourage. No disrespect, everone can argue that she never committed adultery as much as they’d like, but technically unless you were there, you dont really know. I beleive she was subject to Henry’s advances, and that honorably she turned him down as mistress. But do remember that Katherine of Aragon was STILL alive when Anne and Henry married, in secret, and without Papal decree stating that Katherine and Henry’s marriage was null and void. In fact the Pope decreed that Katherine and Henry’s marriage was legal and binding. Katherine of Aragon was imprisoned in less that suitable conditions for years while Henry worked to get his legal marriage nullified based on a thin excuse that he wasnt supposed to marry his brother’s widow.
Henry worked for if im not mistaken, 7 years to get the Pope to declare his marriage to Katherine deemed invalid so that he could marry Anne. I’m sorry, but no matter how amazing Anne was, how do you marry a man, that would get rid of his first wife in that manner? She KNEW Henry was trying to invalidate his marriage to Katherine. The whole country knew. Consider the facts that when Anne was at court, she may have not actually let Henry into her bed, but she accepted his favors, his presents, his bestowing the title of Marquess of Pembroke on her, (obvious signs of special attention, singling her out among women) when he was still a married man. Maybe not a homewrecker, but if she was trying to keep her honor, she could have turned down Henry’s attention a bit more. (I’m sure as a girl, it was flattering and any woman in that time would have killed for her position. But in accepting small favors like that, its like she was contradicting herself a bit) So she may not have been technically an adulteress, but she wasnt a saint. And I may be going out on a limb, but since the Pope never invalidated Henry and Katherine’s marriage, (Henry declared himself Head of the Church in England to serve his own marriage to Anne purposes), then technically he was still married to Katherine, and his marriage to Anne wasnt legal till Katherine died.
I can honestly say me and my mom are HUGE Elizabeth I lovers. I think she was God’s greatest gift to the English monarchy. But if Henry’s marriage to Anne wasnt legal by those standards, then technically (please dont kill me lol) Elizabeth was born out of legal wedlock.
The point about Henry and Katherine’s marriage being legal and valid, and that being just a thin excuse for Henry to get himself a new wife so he could try to produce an heir, is proven in the simple fact that Henry and Anne got married in SECRET. I still dont think she had any big fault in this. I hold in the opinion that she loved him, which is why she went along with it, and that she held out as long as she could and tried to keep her honor and dignity.
I think that mostly the big hate of her was fed off of Katherine of Aragon supporters. (Which had every right to be angry, but not at Anne, they should have directed it at Henry,….but then again, like I said before. Anne wasn’t blind. She knew what Henry was trying to do.) I cant completely condemn Henry in that either though. In that time period, monarchs needed heirs. SImple as that. And since he didnt have a male heir, he would do anything to have one. Which makes sense, but still. He didnt have to be quite such a brute about it. If he was done with Anne, why not give her a nice little pension and a house and divorce her and marry Jane Seymore. No need to kill her and ruin her reputation with false accusations Henry….
I’m torn. Cause in a way its amazing and touching and a bit endearing when you think of how badly Henry fought to be with Anne, this incredible woman. But then you think of how he killed her off for his desperate need for an heir and then I’m kind of like….WOW Henry.
Last point: Anne gave birth to Elizabeth just a year after being given the title of Marquess of Pembroke. They’d had a secret wedding, but in the eyes of the world, Henry was still married to Katherine of Aragon. Draw your own conclusions. Adulteress or not?
I dont like the word adulteress where it concerns Anne Boleyn. Too harsh a word. But definetely not a saint. Keep in mind people, though alot of stuff is fabricated for historical fiction, there are two sides to every story. And there is alot we’ll never know because WE WERENT THEREEEEEEE.
I’m torn and that way I’ll stay. I wont beleive EVERYTHING i read, especially not the psycho crap that Philippa Gregory writes, but I wont rule out either, that that time period was a complicated mess that we’ll never really know all the exact details of because the story has been twisted so much from all the versions there are of it.
SERIOUSLY THOUGH i dont agree with philippa gregory coming up with gross stuff like incest between anne and george or the witchcraft thing, or anne having george’s baby, or making mary out to be the virgin mary when she was the true harlot. But like somebody posted before, sometimes its nice to sit back and imagine ourselves what things really might have been like, what words were actually said, what the romances were really like. because we’ll never really know.
[Reply]
Thank you so much for posting this! I agree with you that fictional portrayals of history – movies, novels, television shows, etc – are good if they encourage people to learn more about the actual events; but in cases like this, where even the most basic facts are so distorted and changed to fit the author’s agenda…well, the book probably should come with a disclaimer! What especially rankled me was how Gregory claimed, in the Q&A at the back of the book, that everything in her book was based on fact except for the thoughts and emotions of characters. Acting as though she was writing about what really (or most likely) happened with only a few dramatic embellishments is irresponsible to her readers. I think her book has probably helped to revive the ‘Monster Legend’ of Anne Boleyn that dear old Nicholas Sanders started so many years ago!
[Reply]
Whoa at the PG hating.
She actually had no control over the film….she was a consultant and said herself they would call her and say Miss Gregory what do you think of this and she would say her piece and then they would still go off and do what they were going to do in the first place.
Having met Philippa herself and yes spoken about TOBG ( and she knows of her inaccuracies cos I pointed them out to her) she quite simply said that she does not ‘hate’ Anne Boleyn, she actually quite admires her and Anne’s portrayal in TOBG was written with how Anne was viewed by people when she herself was alive, and lets face it, she was hated and suspected of many a very mean thing. Incest, witchcraft and so on, yep they believed Anne was getting up to it.
The fact it, hate TOBG or not, (and I don’t-I know its inaccurate but it s a very good story regardless) it gave Anne Boleyn a massive boost of interest and made people interested in learning about the real Anne. I don’t doubt before that they could have written what they knew about her on the back of a postage stamp and still had room left over.
I wouldnt want to be a historical novelist. You can’t do right for doing wrong.
[Reply]
Claire Reply:
April 5th, 2011 at 1:58 am
I don’t hate Philippa Gregory, Sass, and I was not writing about the film, apart from at the end of this article, I am talking about the novel which Philippa Gregory does have to take responsibility for. Philippa Gregory blatantly says that her work is based on fact and that “Anne was clearly guilty of one murder”, that is what I protest to. I love historical fiction when it is presented as fiction or when the author explains in the notes which bits are historical and which are fictional, but I find that Philippa Gregory novels are very misleading in that she calls herself an historian and presents them as a retelling of history rather than as fiction.
[Reply]
Sass Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 3:49 am
I didnt mean you specifically hate PG Claire, I was just generalising.
PG does actually have a degree, cant remember in what however. I didnt defend the inaccuracies, she knows about them. I think the “clearly guilty of one murder” comment has been taken out of context, perhaps to PG Anne Boleyn was clearly guilty of one murder. Thats her perception and shes entitled to it the same as everybody else is to theirs.
and perhaps it would be better if PG added them. However, thats her choice. Some do, some don’t. (I think I enjoy those notes more than the actual novel sometimes lol) but more importantly, if somebody reads TOBG and thinks wow, ok I want to learn more about this person/these people then thats great and if someone reads TOBG and takes it all for gospel then uses it as fact, well, they should do their homework.PG’s job is that of a storyteller rather than teacher. She entertains, not educates and I think people should keep that in mind for ANY historical fiction novelist. I have been PG’s fiercest critic for innaccuracy, something she is very aware of and she says it does matter to her. (I did apologise for being so mean and sarcastic about her work face to face because shes very nice and not at all stuck up like some writer/historians)
I too prefer notes detailing departures from history
About the film….I think everyone can agree that it was just God awful and I myself came out of the cinema saying something along the lines of what.the.hell.was.that?
[Reply]
George Boleyn was in fact a bi-sexual if not straight out gay. It is fact in his last words. Please search for them and you will see that he was indeed gay and his lover “Francis” was indeed executed with him. George cried for the loss of his true love. I have searched for the facts of this book and that was one fact that continued to come up over and over again.
[Reply]
Claire Reply:
June 7th, 2011 at 1:49 am
Hi Lori,
Thanks for your comment but I have to disagree. I have researched George Boleyn in detail and there is absolutely no evidence that he was bisexual or gay or that he and Francis Weston were anything but friends. In George Cavendish’s “Metrical Visions”, Cavendish makes George out to be quite a ladies’ man and flirt, not bi-sexual or gay, and those who use Metrical Visions and George’s execution speech are twisting George’s words to fit their theory. Here is a quote from Louise, a regular commenter re Metrical Visions and she explains it so much better than me:-
“I agree with you that there is no evidence to suggest George was bisexual or indulged in any kind of sexual deviancy. Both Warnicke and Weir are very selective in their use of Metrical Visions when it comes to their theories regarding George. For anyone interested, Metrical Visions is available on the internet as a scanned document on Google book search. Cavendish’s terminology such as ‘bestial’ and ‘unlawful lechery’ are used frequently in his work to suggest any behaviour he considers inappropriate, such as adultery. These cannot be taken to mean buggery, because that was not Cavendish’s sixteenth century intention for these words. He even talks of Henry’s unlawful lechery on page 94, and presumably he wasn’t suggesting Henry indulged in same sex relationships!”
As for George’s execution speech, there are a few different versions of it but even if we go for the one in Metrical visions it certainly is not evidence of homo- or bi-sexuality:-
“Alas, to declare my life in every effect,
Shame restraynth me the playnes to confess,
Lest the abhomynation wold all the world enfect:
Yt is so vile, so detestable in words to expresse,
For which by the lawe condempned I am doughtlease,
And for my desert, justly judged to be deade”
George is simply following the usual scaffold protocol/choreography. He confesses that he has led a sinful life, as everyone has, that he had been judged by the law and condemned to die and that he deserves death, as do all sinners. He is not confessing to anything other than being a sinner and I think it is very wrong to read too much into his words. He was a man preaching to the crowd, using his last moments to speak “the language of Zion” and to urge the crowd not to make his mistakes and to follow the truth.
We have to remember that George was very religious, an evangelical, and so would have believed that homosexuality or any deviance from the 16th century “norm” was a huge sin, it was also illegal and we have to remember that these men were not charged with or tried for sodomy or any sexual sin apart from adultery with the Queen, or incest in George’s case. There were no rumours at the time of George being gay or having an inappropriate relationship with Francis Weston, or another man. So, it is far from being a fact, it is a theory and I don’t believe there is evidence to back it up.
[Reply]
To be honest, I think the film is nowhere near as bad as the novel – not surprisingly. The film, in my opinion, portrayed Anne as more vulnerable despite her spitefulness – and I love Natalie Portman, I think she’s a great actress who actually did a good job portraying Anne. It was Johansson’s pathetic portrayal of Mary which irritated me the most.
I think the worst part of the book is the complete absence of Anne Boleyn’s religious faith, and how SHE actually contributed to the English Reformation. There is no mention, whatsoever, of her reformed views, her books, her contributions to Protestant bishops’ rise to the top – and there were no fewer than 10 in her time – as Alison Weir states, no one was burned as a heretic during Anne Boleyn’s queenship. Anne was devoted to religion, and I think it’s a real shame this was missed out, as religion was a vital aspect of sixteenth century life and was particularly important in this remarkable woman’s.
It seemed to me – and it still does – that Gregory was determined, at all costs, to portray Anne as evil, corrupt, nasty, spiteful, a homewrecker, a witch, etc etc, and Mary as innocent and almost a victim. AND, what I despise most, is the fact that the sisters were not close in real life. Now I eagerly await Weir’s book on Mary Boleyn, published this autumn, but having corresponded with her, it is clear that Mary and Anne Boleyn were NOT close.
They were not rivals, they may have been friends, but having been separated at childhood at the ages of about 14 and 13 respectively in foreign courts, to Mary’s banishment in 1534, it seems to me – tragically – that the sisters were, not strangers, but were not close. They certainly did not have the strong bond that Anne and George had. There’s another simple part I loathe – Gregory’s order of their births. It seems clear to me that Mary was born in 1499, Anne in 1500-1, and George no later than 1504.
And it is really horrible, actually, to turn an innocent yet intense relationship that Anne and George had into something incestuous and evil. How could she? They were both clearly intelligent, artful, intense, insightful people, who enjoyed a remarkable relationship, but to portray it as incestuous and sexual is very low in my opinion. It ridicules and shames them both.
Also, what is it with the Howards’ being involved?! You touched on this Clare, but it is clear from contemporary sources that Norfolk hated Anne, he referred to her as a whore, he seemed jealous of her, their religions were different, etc etc. So why does Gregory portray them as allies, working together for the benefit of the Howards? Has she got Anne mixed up with Katherine Howard, or something?
As you say, it is fiction. And I agree with Sass partly.
AND..
I know you may all hate me for saying this, I do agree with people who say that Anne may well have been close to how she is portrayed in the novel. She may well have been spiteful and vindictive to her family and friends, she could have committed adultery, she could have committed incest.
It is a COULD.
I don’t believe any of it for a second – I believe in basically all Clare has said. But it’s a possibility. However, the novel, it is entertaining, but not at all accurate, and is good reading, but should not be taken seriously. At all.
[Reply]
I enjoy historical fiction. It makes for entertainment, which is what they are.
I don’t think historical authors should be bashed for it. (Not implying the author of the post is, just saying as a general statement ) If people are not interested in it, why read it?
Some authors must skew the facts, because the truth is boring. If I want to read a history book, I will. I turn to historical authors for pure entertainment purposes. If some rely on this for accuracy, well, that’s their problem, but I don’t think these authors should have to take flack for something that is clearly stated is fiction.
For example, “the other boleyn girl” is clearly written as story. Nobody, should even ask about accuracy. It’s pretty obvious it isn’t.
[Reply]
Philippa Gregory’s book the other boleyn girl was a great read for me and thats what ignited my love for the tudors, i never knew before then about them and the facts and falses didnt mean anything to me until i looked them up
[Reply]
Hi guys,
I am myself a person drawn to research facts as a result of being intrigued by Philipa Gregory’s novels. I have to say It’s clear from your responses that intentional or not, factual or not….Anne Boleyn has become an unquestionable Feminist figure, and has inspired a great many succesful people, with the lies about her as much as the truth and we shouldn’t forget this.
But I do feel on reading these responses that too many people take the injustice of fabrications against her name to heart. We are talking of a time riddled with corruption and fear, a time when many documents were destroyed without a second thought, and there is no way any of us can know what is true fact and true fiction. To be anything other than what the monarch of the time proclaimed you should be was a dangerous thing, any evidence of this would have been destroyed with no trace, be it proof of soddemy, incest, and depending on the year, catholic or Protestant. Any proof of these things would have been cast from your home and never mentioned again. And in the meantime just like now, I’m sure there were enough corrupt men in court to falsify documents and make things seems far more simple than true events.
None of us, no matter the research we have done can say what kind of person she truly was, because she lived in a time when everyone kept their true thoughts at court to themselves. I personally think PG’s books are wonderful and capture your imagination in just the right way to you wanting all you can find about this intriguing time in our history. Who knows what relics might be found from this time in the future, and what new facts they may unfold? And in the meantime, I think we’d be better off agreeing that truth or fiction, her name was immortal for a lifetime in a corrupt court long before PG was old enough to put pen to paper. And that maybe it should be gossip and folk lore that is to blame for the story’s told about AB that seem to have no base in fact. But again who are we to cast that to one side? Gossip was once the fastest way for news to travel through villages…story’s of old passed down generation to generation in a population mostly illiterate. Isn’t that, the hidden mysteries of the time, what makes it all so enthralling…
[Reply]
I have just discovered this site and am absolutley thirlled with the views published. I have been interested in Anne Boleyn for a long time now and am always trying to sort fact from fction.
I too have read the other boleyn girl and was so dissapointed by the way that Anne was portrayed.
She was of course no saint but she was most certainly not as evil as she is made out to be in this book.
I will be a regular visitor to this site now.
Its nice to find like minded people.
[Reply]
I think the perception of history in modern media culture is fascinating. TOBG and The Tudors are prime examples of how history is twisted into sensationalism.
I think historical novels are interesting and fun to read (it’s acutally how I got interested into the Tudor period), however, I think what is forgotten is that these are real people that we’re dissecting and reading and writing about. They lived and breathed and felt, they were human and weren’t perfect. They weren’t angels but they weren’t devils either.
We risk over-glorifying Anne Boleyn and Queen Elizabeth but at the same time we also risk demonizing Mary I and Thomas Boleyn. That’s where I’m insulted but historical fiction. The inaccuracies aren’t necessarily the problem (God knows that there are enough lies about living celebrities) it’s the way that people take this inaccuracies and mold them to shape what they want people to be.
I’ve neither read nor seen TOBG but from the comments I’m reading and the article I assumed this is what happened. PG took her liberties (which is her right) but didn’t use them to condense the plot or to make Tudor politics more lucid to the modern reader. She specifically rewrote history to change people’s characters. And then said that this was an accurate portrayal of the Boleyn family despite the obvious inconsistencies.
Am I right?
[Reply]
I love the Tudor period. Before reading TOBG I had read works by David Starsky and Alison Weir, so when I picked up the Other Boleyn girl it was for a light hearted read. As a Tudor lover I really liked the book, yes there were huge departures from history, The character of Anne was I think misrepresented but I still found it an interesting read. What I don’t like is what others have said, that it has lead a lot of people to think that the image of Anne in TOBG is an accurate one, but if you read the Boleyn Inheritance PG does go back on most of the things she says in TOBG.
[Reply]
Claire, this is a fantastic post. Even though TOBG is what initially got me interested in Tudor history, upon further research I realized just how inaccurate it really is. I read the book years ago, so I don’t remember it as well as the movie, but one thing that stuck out to me (and INFURIATED me) was that right at the beginning, Anne said to Mary – “Younger than me, more beautiful than me, married before me…” – YOUNGER than Anne?! Anyone who’s researched Anne Boleyn AT ALL knows that Anne was the youngest Boleyn sibling. That one fact alone messed me up for years – I would always have to think twice about who was actually older, because I learned the WRONG way first! I don’t remember if they said the same thing in the book, but that was a complete disservice to viewers of TOBG. For me, I think fiction is a fun way to be introduced to parts of history – it’s creative and enjoyable, and it can make people WANT to pick up nonfiction books and really delve into the history. However, in this case (and really in the case of the ENTIRE movie/book), I think it only served to confuse people. I have friends now who know of my love for the Tudors and they say, “Oh, I know what you mean! I LOVED ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’!” …it makes me cringe! No disrespect to Philippa Gregory – I admire her writing style and I do enjoy her books, but ONLY because I have a passion for learning the truth about the stories she writes about.
[Reply]