Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
1:30 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
I am working my way through G.W Bernard’s book on Anne Boleyn. I will state I dislike it greatly, but will finish it…eventually. But something struck me as odd. In two different places, Bernard notes Anne’s execution as 15th of May (page 3 and 131 of my copy). I’ve always understood her trial to be on 15 May, and her execution on the 19th. Bernard does not include citations with this information, so I assume he is incorrect. He also, on page 3, claims that George and Anne were both executed on 15 May. What the hell?
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
7:56 am
June 7, 2011
Offline
DuchessofBrittany said
I am working my way through G.W Bernard’s book on Anne Boleyn. I will state I dislike it greatly, but will finish it…eventually. But something struck me as odd. In two different places, Bernard notes Anne’s execution as 15th of May (page 3 and 131 of my copy). I’ve always understood her trial to be on 15 May, and her execution on the 19th. Bernard does not include citations with this information, so I assume he is incorrect. He also, on page 3, claims that George and Anne were both executed on 15 May. What the hell?
I found an essay written by Bernard online. It is the same subject, which he obviously submitted to university in 1991. I have a feeling he was looking for some extra cash so thought he would elaborate on this ‘theories’ and publish a book. I assume he didn’t pay his editor enough, since it is their job to ensure against ‘fatal mistakes’ (excuse the pun) and the loss of respect one has for a historian who makes such simple errors.
The essay is here; http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/…..l.pdf+html
In a book where he give Anne Boleyn the ‘tabloid treatment’ and basically finds her guilty without evidence, you would think he would make more of an effort to ensure it is at least accurate in its simple details. I feel that book is nothing but a man trying to clutch at straws to give himself an edge in the historical community, that or he suffered under an unfaithful wife and needs to vent a little bitterness, while slandering an obviously innocent party.
"It is however but Justice, & my Duty to declre that this amiable Woman was entirely innocent of the Crimes with which she was accused, of which her Beauty, her Elegance, & her Sprightliness were sufficient proofs..." Jane Austen.
9:44 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
There are so many books written about Anne that historians think that in order to stand out they have to come up with a different slant on the story. There’s Ives and his political coup, Warnicke and her deformed stillborn/homosexual circle and Bernard with his, ‘she was guilty’. I think he tried so hard to establish reasonable cause that he forgot about the more mundane things, such as accuracy.
Ellemarinna, what does irritate me is that Bernard suggests there was evidence brought against the accused which hasn’t survived. He points out that the indictments and verdicts survive but not the exact nature of the evidence or details of the actual trials. He doesn’t question why that may be. If the evidence had been so compelling that six people were found gulity on the strength of it, then why hasn’t it survived, and why do no eyewitnesses comment on it? If the evidence had been sufficient for convictions does anyone seriously think it would have been ‘lost’ or that it wouldn’t have become common knowledge? There were two thousand witnesses. It would have come up in dispatches, in the letters passing between England and France, and in general through the writings of the court Chroniclers. Yet it is all incredibly wooly, and the only information we have stems from people who suggest that there was very little in any of it. The evidence wasn’t lost because it never existed in the first place.
11:03 am
May 7, 2010
Offline
Is this the book which it was claimed would reveal a poem which ‘proved’ Anne was guilty? I remember reading about it somewhere and forgetting until now but I am sure the name if the author was something like Bernard now I read these posts.
Let us show them that they are hares and foxes trying to rule over dogs and wolves - Boudica addressing the tribes Circa AD60
3:51 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Yes that’s the book. I think he and Hilary Mantel are good buddies. She likes to go on and on about how we “don’t know if Anne was guilty” and furthermore, “Anne sounded like a guilty woman” (or something along those lines, not the exact quote) She quotes Bernard as an inspiration along with others in her author notes. Wait for even more fiction inspired by Bernard.
I haven’t read the book yet but I saw him in the TV series about the Tower recently and I found his argument very weak when pared down.
4:45 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
It’s so frustrating that fiction writers will quote Bernard as vindication for any sordid and detailed allegation they want to throw at Anne. Yet despite relying heavily on de Carles poem, which suggests a comment by lady Worcester started the whole incest allegation, Bernard doesn’t actually argue that Anne and George were guilty of incest. So Mantel may well quote Bernard but by suggesting the siblings could have been guilty she is actually going one step further than Bernard did.
2:02 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
I read somewhere, in a discussion, that Warnicke has backed off on her theory about George being gay after the publication of TOBG. Does anyone know if that’s correct? because if so it is pretty interesting, although I think it might be unlikely.
I think it’s difficult Louise, when authors start quoting historians as inspiration because they often don’t go on to tell us exactly how far they “ran” with it. In one instance it’s a good thing because some people might be interested enough to read the historians book, but in other cases it might be quite negative. I didn’t know Bernard hadn’t accused them of incest, I thought he had. As I haven’t read his book I wouldn’t know, so I’m assuming Mantel has gotten more of her theory from him, than what she has actually imagined.
