Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
12:32 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
After seeing some of the comments and reviews that Claire has had to read, I’m having a rant:
The Anne Boleyn Files has been running since February 2009. I first noticed it around October of that year, at which stage it was relatively established. Claire Ridgway would be the first to acknowledge that her own knowledge of the Tudor dynasty has grown with the site. At the very beginning, when I first found the site, I wasn’t overly impressed. I felt, after researching George Boleyn for years, that I was better informed, and if I’m honest I was somewhat disparaging about the research that went into it. I believed it was run by a woman playing at being a historian and that the site would run it’s course once the novelty wore off. That was my arrogance and lack of tolerance at play; sorry, Claire!
I’ve watched the site grow, and Claire’s expertise increase over the last 3 1\2 years until The Anne Boleyn Files has become a wonderful research tool, run by a woman with a passion for her subject. Claire isn’t a historian and has never professed to be one. Irrespective of that she devotes her whole working life to researching the Tudors, and in particular the Boleyns. She has written 2 books on the subject. The first is a compilation of the most popular articles on the site. The second deals specifically with Anne Boleyn’s fall. It relies primarily on primary sources, which are quoted and referenced.
Yet irrespective of the dedication and commitment to documenting facts, which come from primary sources, and to researching thoroughly those sources, I can see in some of the comments I read a clear indication that there are people who continue to feel as I did in October 2009. Claire isn’t a historian. She does not have the gravitas, experience or longevity of the likes of the great and sadly missed Eric Ives. Therefore, what she says cannot be trusted in the same way. I find these assertions staggering. Historians research history. Plain and simple. Some of them, whether they consider themselves historians or not, aren’t very good at it, others are brilliant at it. Being a recognised historian doesn’t mean you’re a good historian. Claire Ridgway researches history. She does it well. It would, therefore, be wonderful if the historical world could put it’s prejudices, bias and downright snobbery behind it and stop seeing the Anne Boleyn Files as nothing more than a fan club, but as the invaluable information site that it has become.
Claire is regularly accused of bias where Anne Boleyn is concerned. I think that is probably quite accurate, just as I am biased where George Boleyn is concerned. To take the trouble to start, and to continue, a site specifically dedicated to a particular woman means that Claire respects and admires Anne Boleyn. If she didn’t then what the hell would be the point? You take the trouble to write about people because you are not only fascinated with them, but also because you care about them. If you didn’t then you shouldn’t be writing about them in the first place. Caring about people means you want to tell the truth about them. There is nothing wrong with bias, provided it doesn’t interfere with your research. To deliberately misconstrue extant sources to prove a point takes bias to a new level. To ignore evidence which flies in the face of your preconceptions also takes bias to a new level. It then becomes a lie, whereby the research can’t be trusted as impartial. You don’t need to be impartial about your subject matter in order to be impartial about your research. Many historians have fallen down on that, but Claire is not one of them.
Setting out all the available evidence, and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence, is not bias. Another writer could come up with a different conclusion on the same set of facts, but that’s a matter of interpretation. Claire, based on the evidence available to us, believes Anne and the men charged with her were innocent. The majority of historians come to the same conclusion. Are they biased? Is their research and are their conclusions looked at down turned up noses? Claire also believes, from her own research, that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the men accused with Anne were either bisexual or homosexual. Does that make her homophobic? In my mind saying someone is homophobic, as Claire has been accused of, for merely saying there is no evidence to support a theory of homosexuality, is completely ridiculous.
Claire is also accused of criticising other writers and historians. That is because, based on her own extensive research, she sometimes disagrees with others conclusions. Yet by pointing out inaccuracies in other work she is accused of ‘bashing’ authors. Again, I find that accusation staggering. No one is the holy grail of history, and no one should hold themselves out as someone above criticism. If a mistake is discovered in another writers work then what are we supposed to do? Ignore it because someone is beyond being challenged? There are people who adore fiction, and who can’t cope with inaccuracies in their heroes work being pointed out. So do we ignore the inaccuracies for fear of upsetting those people, and instead pretend fiction is historically accurate. I find that conclusion terrifying because it smacks of bigotry.
Claire has the strength of her convictions in trying to set aside myths which are continually being perpetuated. She must sometimes feel that she is pushing against a closed door. She should be applauded for her continued commitment to finding the truth about the Boleyns and the Tudors; a commitment to truth that some people find difficult to accept.
5:41 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Thank you, that means so much to me. I think most people like me though, it’s just an odd few who I think find it hard to categorise me – I’m not an academic, I’m an author who has come to writing history books through blogging and that’s a bit weird for many people. I also write about a controversial subject, Anne Boleyn, who brings out very strong feelings in people and I challenge some of what people simply accept. I think people also mix up disagreeing with an author and bashing an author. I disagree with Alison Weir, so people assume I hate her, but then Eric Ives didn’t hate G W Bernard and yet they disagreed and did so very publicly and passionately.
What matters to me is that the people who my books are aimed at are enjoying them and that people enjoy using this site. I just let the haters go over my head now.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
6:30 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Louise,
Excellent article. Well said!
I don’t understand people sometimes. The remarks made about Claire are baffling to me. I put it down to people wanting to believe an untruth because it fits with their ideals. They would rather believe a falsehood because it fits with their logic, rather than believe what history tells us. And if they are unwilling to accept what was actually written in the history…well then they should stay in their own little world and stop insulting other people who base their opinion on facts. These remarks seem to be coming from people who believe fiction is historical fact. That should give one pause right there.
I have learned so much from this website. I have always trusted Claire’s work and her opinion because she is a thorough investigator. Something that can’t be said about some authors.
Claire may not profess to be an historian, but she is definitely an investigator extraordinaire.
I came to this group in January 2010. It is one of my favorite stops of the day. Claire is dedicated to getting the truth out about the Boleyn’s and the Tudors. Every once in a while people come on here and insult all the good work she does. Well Claire, I just want you to know that I love all the work you do here. This site has given me endless hours of enjoyment. In the last 2+ years that I have been coming here, I have learned more that I ever thought I could.
8:26 pm
February 24, 2012
Offline
I haven’t been here very long, but I was so excited when I found Claire’s site. I had finally found a place where people think of Anne as I do. I have never regretted one minute that I’ve spent here. I’ve learned so much from Claire and so many knowledgeable people here and I can’t thank you all enough.
Claire, you may not call yourself an historian, but that is how I think of you. You put down facts and back them up and have led me to go looking for more. Thank you for all that you do. 
9:51 pm
June 15, 2012
Offline
I too haven’t been here long, but I have a lot of respect for your research Claire. I agree with Sharon that sometimes people would rather believe a falsehood that fits with their pre-conceived ideas, even if the facts fly directly in the face of it. You can never persuade those people because their minds are closed, so I suppose ignoring them is the best policy.
11:08 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Well said, both Lousie and Sharon.
Basically as I said in another post these people who have tore into Claire are apathic morons and their temperment should be put down to a combination of sheer bloody mindedness and pig ignorance.
Basically they are to scared to face up to the reality of what the real world is.
Just because they have read 1 or 2 books of historical fiction or maybe watched the odd historical film they truely believe that what has been written or portrayed is the real deal and that they are now the experts on everything to do with history from the time of the barbarians right up to modern day history, I could go as far to say they even know how the universe and coporial life came into exsistance etc..
Another term for these people are know it all’s but no F all..
Of course there could be another reason entirely to why they have decided to take exception to 1 Claire and 2 our home, just plain old jealously.
In short are frigtened by the fact that we are all a damn site cleverer than they are.
Claire you will get the support from everyone here because you deserve it. We all owe a debt of gratitude in setting up this site so that all us scallywags can share our views and opinions with each other in an adult and freindly manner. I think we can all agree that each one of us here feels like we’ve know each other for ages, so we are in affect one big happy family and as you know families always stick by each other in times of trouble.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
6:09 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
Having arrived at this delightful sight almost 18 months ago I must attest to the fact that this place rocks. As I have said before The Other Boleyn Girl (the book) bought me here, mainly because I was curious to know if George was gay as depicted in the book. I am so glad that Google directed me here. Claire has done an amazing site that makes the Tudor Period accessible to everyone. I came curious about George and left with my Tudor/Stuart obsession reignited after it was turned to a simmer after finishing Year 8 History. I now own oodles of non-fiction books on personalities from the era, something I would never imagine I would own as I’ve always viewed them as intellectually challenging in their writing. And that must be a good thing.
When reading a fictional account of the period, if something seems a bit dubious this is the first place I visit to check the facts. I visit here every day – I may not post every day but I am reading comments and This Day In History (although I still can’t seem to post on those articles, even though I submit them, maybe the koalas are being bloked at customs, its no big deal). I have found this site to be extremely well balanced and accepting. Something I can’t say with other site dedicated to Historical figures *coughTheRomanovscough*
And I don’t think you need to be have a history degree to be knowledgable or be able to put forward your own thinking on a subject. In fact, I have been told my numerous English teachers that I would be a really good English Teacher and the last time I did English was in Year 12 (and I have no desire to teach the subject, I love Science too much)
And correct me if I’m wrong but ‘disagreements’ should be encouraged in History cause you never know when a fresh idea may appear. Sure Warnicke has a lot to answer for with her theory on Anne’s Men but that’s all it can be a theory and theories are designed to be argued against. And without her theory, we may not have been blessed with this site. So when Claire disagrees with a certified Historians, I never see her as bashing them, I see her as presenting an alternate viewpoint and a lot of times she has evidence that supports her theory and it just so happens to blow the certified Historians arguments out of the water. Just like what should happen in a good debate, one side wins because they are more convincing.
I think the issue that has appeared recently can best be compared to what happens when you visit a site based around popular music. The moment you say one thing slightly negative towards an artist their Stans..er I mean overly devoted fans, go nuts and defend them at all costs. So when Claire for example points out an error in Weir’s work its the WeirStans who go nuts cause their Saint cannot be tarnished, most people even fans of Weir would probably sit there and go Hmm interesting, I’ll keep an open mind on that issue. A part of me thinks the Homophobic rant is actually a product of a GregoryStan who believes they have read a true story on the life of the Boelyns and is disgusted that Claire has shown them that what they read was a work of fiction and the only way they can make themselves feel better is by attacking Claire. Stans they make no sense.
I hope this site stays active and continues to inform. I love the group who is here and shares a similar passion for the era, it is so hard to find like minded people in a small country town, so its great to discuss things here without eyes glazing over with boredom (well I hope not anyway). And if my play ever makes it on to the stage (must start writing it first). I know who and what will be getting a very special thankyou in the program.
9:37 pm
February 28, 2013
Offline
Recently joined. Just read the book “The Anne Boleyn Collection The real truth about the Tudors. I do have a question and I’m sure that its been probably answered 100 times. I was reading about Thomas and Henry’s the brass, that were dated in 1520 and I noticed that when you were investigating both of the tombs and reviewing the history to see if they died as infants, you posted in the book several different spellings of the name Boleyn. My question is a 2 part one. What was the original spelling of the name and why is it spelled “Boleyn” now? I’ve seen it spelled in your book Bulleyn, p 203 and Bwllayen on page 197. I enjoyed the book and looking forward to reading your other book “The fall of Anne Boleyn” which I also have. I enjoy history books and but most that I read cure insomnia if you understand what I mean. Yours was interesting and kept me turning the pages which I thank you for.
3:54 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Hi Lori,
Welcome to The AB Files and I’m so glad you enjoyed my book.
There was no standardised spelling in the Medieval and Tudor eras and what’s really funny when reading documents from the time is that the same name or word can be spelled completely differently in the same sentence. Very odd! Rev. Canon Parsons, who researched the family and published his findings in 1935, commented on how, in the records, Boleyn was “spelt variously – Boleyn, Buleyn, Bolen, Bulleyne, Boleyne, Bolleyne, Boyleyn, Bowleyne, Bulloigne, and the modern form Bullen” and concluded that “Boleyn was the most common of the mediaeval forms.” You can read more about the family’s roots and their name in my article http://www.theanneboleynfiles……nes-roots/
It’s also the same with other names. Norris was spelt “Norreys” quite often and Brereton as “Bryerton” and of course Cromwell as “Crumwell”. It’s funny!
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
11:24 pm
Claire said
Thank you, that means so much to me. I think most people like me though, it’s just an odd few who I think find it hard to categorise me – I’m not an academic, I’m an author who has come to writing history books through blogging and that’s a bit weird for many people. I also write about a controversial subject, Anne Boleyn, who brings out very strong feelings in people and I challenge some of what people simply accept. I think people also mix up disagreeing with an author and bashing an author. I disagree with Alison Weir, so people assume I hate her, but then Eric Ives didn’t hate G W Bernard and yet they disagreed and did so very publicly and passionately.
What matters to me is that the people who my books are aimed at are enjoying them and that people enjoy using this site. I just let the haters go over my head now.
I agree with you, for what it is worth! Disagreement is always to be encouraged in history, but it must be based on genuine interpretation of the known facts or discovery of new ones, not ad hominem attacks on the person of the writer. Historical research proceeds best when everyone behaves with manners towards each other and concentrates their arguments on the arguments, not the person making them. Such insults imply that the person does not actually have a good case to make. In fact historians who disagree passionately on their subject are often good friends – I am a historian of the Victorian period, and a colleague and I have a long-running feud about aspects of Disraeli and Gladstone, but we get on very well together.
12:05 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Actually Alexandria, I find that having another person’s opinion is very useful, whether you agree with it in part or not.
Sometimes it’s better to agree to disagree, but we all have complete respect for each and share a common bond in our love for history.
I used to live in a place called Malvern, famous for it’s Victorian water cure. Dr James Gully was perhaps one of the best doctors of his time was highly spoken of, and many of the Victorian Gentry went to him for the water cure. Elizabeth Barrett Browning stayed in a house not far from where I grew up, when she was seeking the water cure, and Edward Elgar owned a house again not far from where I lived. It’s a beautiful old house, but very cold and draughty. Rumours have it that when Elgar wrote his Enigma Variations he was sat on the Malvern Hills, and to be honest I think there may well be an element of truth in it. I know every inch of those hills and the view from them is truly breathtaking, you can see three counties, and on a really clear day can see the black mountains of Wales.
As for James Gully, again rumour has it, that he and Doctor Crippen, were at one time freinds. As Doctor Crippen was hung for the murder of his wife, it’s rumoured that James Gully was likewise hanged for the murder of his wife.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
