The ultimate irony .... | Anne Boleyn | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
The ultimate irony ....
June 11, 2013
5:22 pm
Avatar
That it comes to this
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 5
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The ultimate irony…

Henry was a very healthy young man,
and as was his royal prerogative,
he bedded and wenched many young ladies..
his boots as they say, were large and he did indeed fill then heartily..

and therein lies a clue to what may have been the ultimate irony in his life

contraception was available to a degree, in middle England,
there were ways and means of preventing unwanted pregnancy’s,
pebbles douche cloth etc etc ….

and yet according to “history”
Henry only sired one child with anyone other than a wife,

Bessie Blount, a good time girl, who frequented the tavern’s of London
became pregnant to Henry and gave birth to a son..Henry Fitzroy,

but was King Hal’ the only fella to bed Miss Blount,
it’s unlikely, being that her profession/career was….a good time girl…

so there must be a possibility that the child sired by Henry
was perhaps not his but taken as such to benefit Ms Blount,

given that Hal’ was bedding everything in sight from an early age
it’s remarkable that he did not have hoards of offspring running around London town,

medical science of today would, given his activities, suggest that Henry was
suffering from a very low sperm count and given his future history with regard to male sires
it would also be a fair assumption that he was a carrier of a male chromosome fault,

today IVF could have provided him with a male heir,
and surely Hal’ would have ignored the moral dilemma of choosing a baby’s sex,

he (and Katherine) had many mis -carriages
and could only sire a female child…

which brings us to Anne Boleyn,
once Anne “gave in” they were, as they probably said in those days
“at it like rabbits” yet it still took a while for Anne to become with child…

and then she gave birth to a female child…

try again next year and unfortunately for Anne (and Henry)
she mis-carried and then a few months later again she mis-carried
and history records that it was male deformed foetus..

the genetic fault more than likely coming from Henry
(his past medical history with Katherine would suggest this etc )

and then to Jane Seymour, the most tragic of his Queens,

how soon Henry was bedding Jane is just a guess
but she certainly wasn’t as chaste, for as long as Anne had practised,

and finally after all the years of bedding every wench he desired
(and there were many), finally, Jane gave birth to healthy male child from the seed of King Hal’

after perhaps 25 years of wenching …
Henry finally managed to produce a sperm that wasn’t defective

or did he,

medical science would today, be more than surprised to hear of a patient
with the history of Henry managing to eventually sire a male child…

In the world of today’s’ statisticians, it’s said that
1 in 10 children born are not actually the progeny of the actual father/husband
they are the result of an adulterous liaison…
and that, given the nature of stats, is probably slightly lower than the actual number…

Henry the Eighth, King of England signed the death warrant of his Queen, Anne Boleyn
because according to historical records, he believed that his Queen had been unfaithful
and had indulged in sexual relations with other men..

an offense of treason that still exists today (as does the death penalty for said crime)

Is it credible however to suggest that a woman (Anne) known for her haughty arrogance
would really cuckold the one guy who could remove her arrogance with a single stroke of a pen

she may not have been the cleverest woman in Britain
but she certainly was womanly wise, (she caught the biggest fish in the pond..!!)
and would be fully aware of the repercussions of cheating on her husband,
she may well have cheated, but for a few stolen moments of illicit pleasure
would she really have risked her status her throne and her life ?

and so to Jane….
behind Jane was the Seymour family,
perhaps no better nor no worse than those that had gone,
but for them, they had the good fortune to have seen what went before
and they, and Jane , were fully aware of the Kings’ need…..

a son, a male child , an heir to the Tudor throne,

if Jane could not provide Henry with what he wanted, needed and demanded,
then perhaps she to would go the way of Anne, and the Seymour family also,
would fall from the grace of the King…

given Henry’s’ previous medical history,
it’s somewhat of a miracle that he finally managed,
after all the women he’d bedded,
to produce a male heir….

nowadays many a husband would be demanding a DNA test…

was Jane “studded” by an unknown profligate of male children ?

Was the ultimate irony in Henry’s life,
the fact that he executed his 2nd wife for adultery
when it was in fact his 3rd wife who may have indulged
in such actions to procure and protect her own life ?

we shall never know….

June 11, 2013
10:44 pm
Avatar
Kaz
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
June 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Wow, what a spin!!! Exactly, it seems Henry kept producing girls….I never thought of it like this before! Awesome theory!!!!

-"Trust in those who offer you service, and in the end my maidens, you will find yourselves in the ranks of those who have been deceived" - Archduchess Margaret of Austria.

June 12, 2013
12:14 pm
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Now this is more a plausible conspiracy theory than Elizabeth was a boy

June 12, 2013
3:19 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 612
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Poor Bessie Blount! She wasn’t a good time girl. She was much younger than Henry, and was very young when their relationship started. There is no way Henry would have ‘shared’ an acknowledged mistress, and there is no way he would have recognised Fitzroy as his son if he had not been completely confident of that the child was his. After Henry’s relationship with her came to an end she was married off very quickly. Her profession/career was certainly not that of a good time girl.

June 12, 2013
4:04 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louise, How old was Bessie when she became Henry’s mistress? I read somewhere many years ago that she was about 13, when she first caught the eye of Henry, and that a sexual relationship started when she was almost 14 and continued for about a period of 10 months. I find this a little difficult to stomach although it could well be true. Margaret Beaufort H7 mum was only around 13 when she gave birth to him, so it’s not a complete impossibilty.
I’m inclined to think she was around 16 maybe 17ish when Henry slept with her.
I also agree with you that Bessie wasn’t a good time to be had by all girl. Henry’s court whatever else it was wa one of strict morals and a code of conduct. It was known by everyone that Henry had mistresses and who they were bt his sexual encounters with them were kept very discreet.
My opinion is that a prositute wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the royal apartments and least of all given the modus operendi to be anywhere near the King.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 12, 2013
5:52 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2119
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bessie came to court in March of 1512 and by 1513 she became a maid of honor to KOA. Her parents were members of the gentry. She was born between 1500 and 1502. The affair started with Henry in 1514-15. She would have been about 13 or 14. She gave birth to Fitzroy in 1519. This is one of the longest affairs that Henry was known to have had until Anne. She married Baron Gilbert Tailboys in 1522. He died in 1530 and she married Baron Edward Clinton.
Boleyn it is hard to tell exactly how old she was when Henry spied her. The exact year of her birth is unknown. Henry was 23.

June 14, 2013
4:37 pm
Avatar
That it comes to this
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 5
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

..
re :
Bessie Blount a slapper…
i must have read that in “Ye Olde News of the Worlde “

if i slur her memory forgive i know only what i’m told etc ..
and now i’m told differently I shall trumpet her virtue if called upon,

however it’s amusing to see how ..in a “Wolseyian manner”
the post becomes more concerned with Bessie Blount’s honour etc

oh how Henry must have rued the day he banished Wolsey…
the behind the scenes machinations of Wolsey
make todays’ spin doctors appear as dilettantes in an adult world

Bessie’s age would raise eyebrows today
but obviously it’s relevant to the times
a 14year old girl would be considered a woman back then,
is it any wonder though, that death due to childbirth was so frequent…

there was line of script said by Henry last night in the Tudors series…

he referred in the ghost sequence to Anne, that Elizabeth reminded him of her…

personally i’ve always found it curious …….
as a generalisation…
a female child tends to grow in the image of her mother..
a slightly improved version …

but mother and daughter do tend to look the same..

the daughter may have her fathers nose or eyes feet etc..
but the overall image is ..

“you look just like your mum”

Henry would have seen (if he saw Elizabeth more than the few times he actually did)
he would have seen Anne in the child…..

but more curious is that as Elizabeth grew and became in her 20’s….

she MUST have looked like a younger version of Anne Boleyn….

and yet no one ever mentions this…

to see the portrait of Elizabeth the virgin queen in all her glory
probably means you’re seeing an older version of Anne ….

the “spin” put out about Elizabeth and recorded in history
..was that she was a clone of her father….

but that might not be so….

Henry was the victor..
history is written by the victorious

the condemnation and vilification of Anne throughout history as “bad”
meant any association with her was seen as “negative press”
and so Elizabeth is forgotten by many to be the child of Anne Boleyn

but if Anne had lived and stood next to Elizabeth in all her glory

i think the gasp from around the court would be

“Oh my , she’s the spits of her mum isn”t she just”

To see Elizabeth…see Anne.

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
12 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2345

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2119

Bella44: 934

DuchessofBrittany: 847

Mya Elise: 782

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 426009

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1696

Posts: 23623

Newest Members:

Wayne, Louiss, sadamalam646, MagnusJ, oliverwright, Safarao

Administrators: Claire: 998