Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
10:21 pm
March 9, 2011
Offline
MegC said:
I think to title Anne either victim or homewrecker is inaccurate.
Let's start with a couple of premises: A) Henry was over Katherine when Anne came along. He'd been taking mistresses for a long time by this point. I think it was clear, even to Henry, that Katherine was not going to produce a male heir. So the question is: How much of a role do you think the quest for a legitimate male heir played in the whole divorce? We know that Henry was all ready grooming Henry Fitzroy to possibly take the throne upon his death. He had received titles, had his own household, had been formally recognized by H8…I think that Henry was prepared to accept that H. Fitzroy was his only male heir if it had come down to that. Having said that, I think the only thing we can possibly surmise is that, really, the legitimate male heir issue was sort of a smoke screen and excuse. Henry wanted Anne. Simple as that. He isn't the first man in history to leave his first wife for a younger woman, and he's certainly not the last. The linchpin is that, without Anne, I don't know that divorce would ever have occurred to Henry.
B) Anne was not an idiot. I think, for the most part, she was aware of what was going on. I don't say this to malign her. She HAD to realize that when she told Henry that she would not be his mistress that there could be only two possible outcomes: Henry would lose interest and go away or Henry would choose to leave Katherine. Perhaps she never in her wildest dreams actually considered that Henry would try to leave KoA. After that, though, I think she realized that she was in it for the long haul.
Now, emotional affair or not, I think, long term, Katherine was much more hurt by Henry's dismissal of her and Mary.
Mary, meanwhile, by the time Anne actually married Henry, was something like seventeen. By 16th century standards, Mary was a woman in her own right who, really, probably should have been married herself (but that's a completely different topic). While Mary and Anne certainly didn't get along, I don't think that Mary cared two wits about what Anne thought of her or said about her. Mary never recognized Anne as queen or as Henry's wife. While Mary may have blamed Anne for most of the situation, I think that more damage was done to Mary by Henry himself. He's the one who said that Katherine and Mary were not allowed to see each other, he's the one who declared Mary illegitimate, he's the one who essentially wanted nothing to do with her. Anne or no Anne, Henry could have still included Mary in his life if he had so chosen. Not only that, but if it were merely Anne that was preventing Henry from seeing or interacting with Mary, then it wouldn't have taken him so long to reconcile with her after Anne's death. I just don't see Mary walking around, wringing her hands, thinking, “Why doesn't she like me?”
To term someone “damaged” because you question their moral fiber is sort of the pot calling the kettle black. Everyone makes poor moral decisions at some point in their life–that does not necessarily make everyone damaged.
You are correct. I'm doubtful Katherine of Aragon (a Spanish Infanta and Queen of England) and Mary Tudor (Princess of Wales) cared much what Anne Boleyn said about them. It's the equivalent of a well-connected socialite caring about her ex-husband's white trash trophy wife showing her behind in public.
Where DID it make a difference? Well, it probably made an enormous difference in how the public perceived Anne. People who might have held more neutral feelings about Henry anulling one family and forming another might be put off by the lack of class and civility Anne displayed. Primadonna attitude probably cost Anne friends and she was too inexperienced a courtier to comprehend Henry's fickleness.
3:48 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
As this is a site dedicated to Anne Boleyn I doubt there are many people who subscribe to it who think of Anne as white trash or as a woman who displayed lack of class or civility. She wasn't perfect, and I don't think many people think she was.
4:25 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
I agree with what Sharon said about it being impossible to judge someone's morality nearly 500 years after they lived. We know so little about Anne and Henry's courtship as we only have Henry VIII's letters and incomplete primary source evidence, we don't know what was really going on and what Anne was thinking and saying. What we do know is that Henry VIII was God's appointed King and therefore ge got what he wanted and a woman just could not say no to him. There were no choices for Anne. Whatever she believed in her heart about Henry being a married man, she could not take the higher moral ground and refuse to be in a relationship with a married man, she just did not have that choice. I believe that she made the best of the situation by holding him off and then by being committed to being a queen, and a good queen.
It is also impossible to know what really went on with Anne Boleyn and Mary. It appears from sources that Anne was spiteful at times and she certainly spoke out in anger against Mary and Catherine, but there is also evidence that she did try to form a relationship with Mary. Also, I'm sure that many women around the world have said things in anger and haste about their husband's exes! Yes, Anne should have guarded her tongue, but let's not make a fiery tempered woman into a monster.
Anne is too often blamed for the cruelty which Mary and Catherine suffered, yet the cruelty to Mary carried on way after Anne was dead and gone. Henry VIII was King, he made the decisions, not Anne, it was he who, time and time again, punished people for rebelling against him. He thought that Mary and Catherine were in the wrong, that they should have submitted to him and been obedient to him, so they were punished for their disobedience. I don't think that anything Anne could have said or done would have made a difference to that.
Anne was no angel, she was a flawed woman who coped amazingly well with being queen and having a volatile husband, and she is far from being a monster.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
5:53 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Where DID it make a difference? Well, it probably made an enormous difference in how the public perceived Anne. People who might have held more neutral feelings about Henry anulling one family and forming another might be put off by the lack of class and civility Anne displayed. Primadonna attitude probably cost Anne friends and she was too inexperienced a courtier to comprehend Henry's fickleness.
I have to disagree with Ane lacking civility, having a primadonna attitude and being an inexperienced courtier. She had spent her formative years in the courts of Margaret of Austria and Queen Claude of France so she knew what court was like and how to behave like a queen. Queen Claude's court was known for its morality and virtue so Anne would have had a good role model there. I think it's far too easy for us to think of Anne as the Anne of The Other Boleyn Girl and The Tudors and to forget what the real Anne was probably like.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
6:10 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Louise said:
As this is a site dedicated to Anne Boleyn I doubt there are many people who subscribe to it who think of Anne as white trash or as a woman who displayed lack of class or civility. She wasn't perfect, and I don't think many people think she was.
I would just like to expand this before anyone thinks I believe Anne was any of the things quoted. I don't think she was perfect, but in fact I think it's her imperfections which make her so fascinating, because they make her human.
7:42 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
La Belle Creole said:
MegC said:
I think to title Anne either victim or homewrecker is inaccurate.
Let's start with a couple of premises: A) Henry was over Katherine when Anne came along. He'd been taking mistresses for a long time by this point. I think it was clear, even to Henry, that Katherine was not going to produce a male heir. So the question is: How much of a role do you think the quest for a legitimate male heir played in the whole divorce? We know that Henry was all ready grooming Henry Fitzroy to possibly take the throne upon his death. He had received titles, had his own household, had been formally recognized by H8…I think that Henry was prepared to accept that H. Fitzroy was his only male heir if it had come down to that. Having said that, I think the only thing we can possibly surmise is that, really, the legitimate male heir issue was sort of a smoke screen and excuse. Henry wanted Anne. Simple as that. He isn't the first man in history to leave his first wife for a younger woman, and he's certainly not the last. The linchpin is that, without Anne, I don't know that divorce would ever have occurred to Henry.
B) Anne was not an idiot. I think, for the most part, she was aware of what was going on. I don't say this to malign her. She HAD to realize that when she told Henry that she would not be his mistress that there could be only two possible outcomes: Henry would lose interest and go away or Henry would choose to leave Katherine. Perhaps she never in her wildest dreams actually considered that Henry would try to leave KoA. After that, though, I think she realized that she was in it for the long haul.
Now, emotional affair or not, I think, long term, Katherine was much more hurt by Henry's dismissal of her and Mary.
Mary, meanwhile, by the time Anne actually married Henry, was something like seventeen. By 16th century standards, Mary was a woman in her own right who, really, probably should have been married herself (but that's a completely different topic). While Mary and Anne certainly didn't get along, I don't think that Mary cared two wits about what Anne thought of her or said about her. Mary never recognized Anne as queen or as Henry's wife. While Mary may have blamed Anne for most of the situation, I think that more damage was done to Mary by Henry himself. He's the one who said that Katherine and Mary were not allowed to see each other, he's the one who declared Mary illegitimate, he's the one who essentially wanted nothing to do with her. Anne or no Anne, Henry could have still included Mary in his life if he had so chosen. Not only that, but if it were merely Anne that was preventing Henry from seeing or interacting with Mary, then it wouldn't have taken him so long to reconcile with her after Anne's death. I just don't see Mary walking around, wringing her hands, thinking, “Why doesn't she like me?”
To term someone “damaged” because you question their moral fiber is sort of the pot calling the kettle black. Everyone makes poor moral decisions at some point in their life–that does not necessarily make everyone damaged.
You are correct. I'm doubtful Katherine of Aragon (a Spanish Infanta and Queen of England) and Mary Tudor (Princess of Wales) cared much what Anne Boleyn said about them. It's the equivalent of a well-connected socialite caring about her ex-husband's white trash trophy wife showing her behind in public.
Where DID it make a difference? Well, it probably made an enormous difference in how the public perceived Anne. People who might have held more neutral feelings about Henry anulling one family and forming another might be put off by the lack of class and civility Anne displayed. Primadonna attitude probably cost Anne friends and she was too inexperienced a courtier to comprehend Henry's fickleness.
Anne was not well-liked anyway, it probably wouldn't have mattered what her behavior was. Jane Seymour was, by all accounts, very well behaved and was also not initially well-received by the public. I don't approve of Anne's behavior towards Katherine and Mary, but I also think that Henry created a climate at court where it was acceptable to say whatever you wanted about Katherine and Mary with no fear of retribution from Henry. I have heard more than one modern-day woman strike out verbally at her husband or boyfriend's ex–why do we think that things would be different 500 years ago? And, let's be honest, neither Katherine nor Mary was above flinging their own arrows at Anne. I don't think it was classy for any of the women to be doing it, and that includes Katherine.
What makes you think that Anne was an inexperienced courtier? Everything we know about Anne's early life and education indicates the contrary.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
8:11 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
MegC said:
La Belle Creole said:
MegC said:
I think to title Anne either victim or homewrecker is inaccurate.
Let's start with a couple of premises: A) Henry was over Katherine when Anne came along. He'd been taking mistresses for a long time by this point. I think it was clear, even to Henry, that Katherine was not going to produce a male heir. So the question is: How much of a role do you think the quest for a legitimate male heir played in the whole divorce? We know that Henry was all ready grooming Henry Fitzroy to possibly take the throne upon his death. He had received titles, had his own household, had been formally recognized by H8…I think that Henry was prepared to accept that H. Fitzroy was his only male heir if it had come down to that. Having said that, I think the only thing we can possibly surmise is that, really, the legitimate male heir issue was sort of a smoke screen and excuse. Henry wanted Anne. Simple as that. He isn't the first man in history to leave his first wife for a younger woman, and he's certainly not the last. The linchpin is that, without Anne, I don't know that divorce would ever have occurred to Henry.
B) Anne was not an idiot. I think, for the most part, she was aware of what was going on. I don't say this to malign her. She HAD to realize that when she told Henry that she would not be his mistress that there could be only two possible outcomes: Henry would lose interest and go away or Henry would choose to leave Katherine. Perhaps she never in her wildest dreams actually considered that Henry would try to leave KoA. After that, though, I think she realized that she was in it for the long haul.
Now, emotional affair or not, I think, long term, Katherine was much more hurt by Henry's dismissal of her and Mary.
Mary, meanwhile, by the time Anne actually married Henry, was something like seventeen. By 16th century standards, Mary was a woman in her own right who, really, probably should have been married herself (but that's a completely different topic). While Mary and Anne certainly didn't get along, I don't think that Mary cared two wits about what Anne thought of her or said about her. Mary never recognized Anne as queen or as Henry's wife. While Mary may have blamed Anne for most of the situation, I think that more damage was done to Mary by Henry himself. He's the one who said that Katherine and Mary were not allowed to see each other, he's the one who declared Mary illegitimate, he's the one who essentially wanted nothing to do with her. Anne or no Anne, Henry could have still included Mary in his life if he had so chosen. Not only that, but if it were merely Anne that was preventing Henry from seeing or interacting with Mary, then it wouldn't have taken him so long to reconcile with her after Anne's death. I just don't see Mary walking around, wringing her hands, thinking, “Why doesn't she like me?”
To term someone “damaged” because you question their moral fiber is sort of the pot calling the kettle black. Everyone makes poor moral decisions at some point in their life–that does not necessarily make everyone damaged.
You are correct. I'm doubtful Katherine of Aragon (a Spanish Infanta and Queen of England) and Mary Tudor (Princess of Wales) cared much what Anne Boleyn said about them. It's the equivalent of a well-connected socialite caring about her ex-husband's white trash trophy wife showing her behind in public.
Where DID it make a difference? Well, it probably made an enormous difference in how the public perceived Anne. People who might have held more neutral feelings about Henry anulling one family and forming another might be put off by the lack of class and civility Anne displayed. Primadonna attitude probably cost Anne friends and she was too inexperienced a courtier to comprehend Henry's fickleness.
Anne was not well-liked anyway, it probably wouldn't have mattered what her behavior was. Jane Seymour was, by all accounts, very well behaved and was also not initially well-received by the public. I don't approve of Anne's behavior towards Katherine and Mary, but I also think that Henry created a climate at court where it was acceptable to say whatever you wanted about Katherine and Mary with no fear of retribution from Henry. I have heard more than one modern-day woman strike out verbally at her husband or boyfriend's ex–why do we think that things would be different 500 years ago? And, let's be honest, neither Katherine nor Mary was above flinging their own arrows at Anne. I don't think it was classy for any of the women to be doing it, and that includes Katherine.
What makes you think that Anne was an inexperienced courtier? Everything we know about Anne's early life and education indicates the contrary.
Meg, you make a very good point about Katherine and Mary striking out against Anne. It worked both ways. They were both quite nasty and quite vocal in their hatred of her. For all the cursing and swearing that went on amongst these women, you would think they would have figured out that they were fighting to stay with a loser. That being Henry.
8:14 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Yes, Anne may have lashed out against Catherine and Mary but Catherine also called Anne “the scandal of Christendom” which, in those days, was a rather nasty comment.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
8:14 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
@ Sharon: ROFL!! Isn't that how it always goes? The girls who argue the most over a guy are always fighting over the biggest LOSERS!! Can't tell you how many times I've seen it!!
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
8:23 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
MegC said:
@ Sharon: ROFL!! Isn't that how it always goes? The girls who argue the most over a guy are always fighting over the biggest LOSERS!! Can't tell you how many times I've seen it!!
@ Sharon and @MegC and is it a case of women thinking that they can change a bad boy?
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
8:30 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
Absolutely! You would think that after 500 years men and women would have changed in that respect. But no! Women still think they can change men. And bad boys never get any better. Not that that's a bad thing. 
Women should enjoy bad boys and then walk away.
8:33 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Sharon said:
Women should enjoy bad boys and then walk away.
He he!
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
8:59 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Claire said:
MegC said:
@ Sharon: ROFL!! Isn't that how it always goes? The girls who argue the most over a guy are always fighting over the biggest LOSERS!! Can't tell you how many times I've seen it!!
@ Sharon and @MegC and is it a case of women thinking that they can change a bad boy?
I don't know. Was Henry really considered a “bad boy”? I mean, he certainly had an image to maintain, but I don't know if it was so much a rehab thing.
Katherine I believe was fighting for a lot of things. She was fighting to maintain her own crown as Queen of England. I mean, she had been bred to be a queen–this was her destiny. It must have been very difficult for Katherine to see that slipping away and it probably brought back a lot of bad memories of her treatment at the hands of Henry's father after the death of Arthur. Not only that, but it was embarassing to have your family find out that you had essentially failed in your biggest responsibility as Queen: bare a son. Add to that the double embarassment of having your bedroom affairs aired out in public! It wasn't long before everyone (EVERYONE!) knew that Henry had stopped sleeping with Katherine, no longer found her desirable, and was openly taking mistresses. I cannot imagine the humiliation that poor Katherine suffered. She was fighting for her daughter's legitimacy, and any mom will tell you that you can mess with them, but you better not mess with their kids! Emotionally, it's just devastating as a mom for a man to turn their back on their children. She was fighting for her immortal soul and that her of husband. Whether or not we agree with her doctrinally, it's what she believed. She and Henry had been together for so long, I can't help but believe that, what may have started as a marriage of convenience, did eventually, at least for Katherine, develop into a somewhat loving relationship. I don't think that Katherine, despite everything Henry had done, wanted to see him burn in hell for it.
Anne was fighting for different things. Initially, I think she was just fighting for her man. I don't understand it, but I think Anne eventually fell in love with Henry. Not at first, but eventually. I don't know if she initially cared about being queen, but it was an added perk of marrying a king. Once it became apparent that Anne was pregnant, she, too, began fighting for her child. This was an important move on Anne's part, if you think about it, because she had just witnessed Henry summarily dismiss his eldest daughter as though she were nothing. She had to know, somewhere in the back of her mind, that he could do the same to their children. I think her biggest fault was failing to believe that he would.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
10:22 am
March 9, 2011
Offline
Louise said:
As this is a site dedicated to Anne Boleyn I doubt there are many people who subscribe to it who think of Anne as white trash or as a woman who displayed lack of class or civility. She wasn't perfect, and I don't think many people think she was.
I don't think of Anne Boleyn as white trash either. I offered that scenario as a modern-day equivalent. In terms of birthright and social position, Anne was definitely “beneath” Katherine and Mary. It was beneath the dignity of either woman to notice her much.
10:43 am
March 9, 2011
Offline
MegC said:
La Belle Creole said:
You are correct. I'm doubtful Katherine of Aragon (a Spanish Infanta and Queen of England) and Mary Tudor (Princess of Wales) cared much what Anne Boleyn said about them. It's the equivalent of a well-connected socialite caring about her ex-husband's white trash trophy wife showing her behind in public.
Where DID it make a difference? Well, it probably made an enormous difference in how the public perceived Anne. People who might have held more neutral feelings about Henry anulling one family and forming another might be put off by the lack of class and civility Anne displayed. Primadonna attitude probably cost Anne friends and she was too inexperienced a courtier to comprehend Henry's fickleness.
Anne was not well-liked anyway, it probably wouldn't have mattered what her behavior was. Jane Seymour was, by all accounts, very well behaved and was also not initially well-received by the public. I don't approve of Anne's behavior towards Katherine and Mary, but I also think that Henry created a climate at court where it was acceptable to say whatever you wanted about Katherine and Mary with no fear of retribution from Henry. I have heard more than one modern-day woman strike out verbally at her husband or boyfriend's ex–why do we think that things would be different 500 years ago? And, let's be honest, neither Katherine nor Mary was above flinging their own arrows at Anne. I don't think it was classy for any of the women to be doing it, and that includes Katherine.
What makes you think that Anne was an inexperienced courtier? Everything we know about Anne's early life and education indicates the contrary.
Hi, Meg. Yes, I agree Henry definitely contributed to the “let's blame everybody else” climate in court simply by his being there and being Henry. I wonder if the English people, had they felt free to speak their minds without penalty, would have been so quick to tar and feather Anne Boleyn as the alleged cause of Henry's behavior. How many of them would have just said, “King Henry is a lecherous, bloated old fool besotted with a younger lady and obsessed with passing his throne to a boy.” (It's an emotionally charged comment, but probably much closer to what ordinary people would have thought had they not been taught kings were above criticism.)
Regarding Anne's inexperience, I did not mean to imply she lacked experience with court machinations. I believe, somewhere down the road she traveled with Henry, Anne forgot who she was dealing with. She'd seen or heard of Henry using women like toliet paper. With her own eyes she witnessed his reprehensible mistreatment to his blameless wife and his beautiful young daughter (both better born and better connected than Anne herself.) She witnessed him railing and turning against long time friends and order their deaths. And yet, somehow, she seemed to buy into the idea that she was “different” or “exceptional.” Henry probably led her to believe this during their “honeymoon period.” I don't know, perhaps she was gambling on the idea that at some point she was certain to produce a male child and secure her own position and place.
11:01 am
March 9, 2011
Offline
Claire said:
Yes, Anne may have lashed out against Catherine and Mary but Catherine also called Anne “the scandal of Christendom” which, in those days, was a rather nasty comment.
Yes, but was it untrue?
Anne is alleged to have called Mary Tudor a “cursed bastard.” Mary was neither cursed nor a bastard, no matter how badly Henry and Anne wanted her to be. Not all Henry's machinations to determine Mary's illegitimacy ever gained popularity or acceptance outside his own court.
Mary called Anne “my father's mistress.” Quite a few people believed this to be the truth (and rightly so, given the shady machinations employed by Henry to marry Anne and “legitimize” Elizabeth.)
Katherine and Mary and their supporters may have had less than flattering things to say about Anne, but they were certainly truthful things. The truth hurts, especially in a PR war. Anne could have screamed “Bastard” at Mary for the rest of her natural life and she would have only appeared to be a pathetic, venomous woman reaching above her station to insult her “betters” (Henry VIII himself acknowledged Katherine and Mary as “better” than Anne.) Mary had only to cooly dismiss Anne as “my father's mistress” and she appeared a devout Christian, a dutiful daughter, and a dignified, tolerant princess.
11:09 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
MegC said:
Claire said:
MegC said:
@ Sharon: ROFL!! Isn't that how it always goes? The girls who argue the most over a guy are always fighting over the biggest LOSERS!! Can't tell you how many times I've seen it!!
@ Sharon and @MegC and is it a case of women thinking that they can change a bad boy?
I don't know. Was Henry really considered a “bad boy”? I mean, he certainly had an image to maintain, but I don't know if it was so much a rehab thing.
Katherine I believe was fighting for a lot of things. She was fighting to maintain her own crown as Queen of England. I mean, she had been bred to be a queen–this was her destiny. It must have been very difficult for Katherine to see that slipping away and it probably brought back a lot of bad memories of her treatment at the hands of Henry's father after the death of Arthur. Not only that, but it was embarassing to have your family find out that you had essentially failed in your biggest responsibility as Queen: bare a son. Add to that the double embarassment of having your bedroom affairs aired out in public! It wasn't long before everyone (EVERYONE!) knew that Henry had stopped sleeping with Katherine, no longer found her desirable, and was openly taking mistresses. I cannot imagine the humiliation that poor Katherine suffered. She was fighting for her daughter's legitimacy, and any mom will tell you that you can mess with them, but you better not mess with their kids! Emotionally, it's just devastating as a mom for a man to turn their back on their children. She was fighting for her immortal soul and that her of husband. Whether or not we agree with her doctrinally, it's what she believed. She and Henry had been together for so long, I can't help but believe that, what may have started as a marriage of convenience, did eventually, at least for Katherine, develop into a somewhat loving relationship. I don't think that Katherine, despite everything Henry had done, wanted to see him burn in hell for it.
Anne was fighting for different things. Initially, I think she was just fighting for her man. I don't understand it, but I think Anne eventually fell in love with Henry. Not at first, but eventually. I don't know if she initially cared about being queen, but it was an added perk of marrying a king. Once it became apparent that Anne was pregnant, she, too, began fighting for her child. This was an important move on Anne's part, if you think about it, because she had just witnessed Henry summarily dismiss his eldest daughter as though she were nothing. She had to know, somewhere in the back of her mind, that he could do the same to their children. I think her biggest fault was failing to believe that he would.
When I think of Henry, I would not characterize him as your typical bad boy. Usually one knows from the get go how it will end with a bad boy. At least one should know. With Henry, these women never knew what he was going to do until it was too late.
I agree with everything you have said here. Well put. Both women had to fight for their children. And both women were willing to do anything for them. I think both of these women loved Henry; and I do not think he was worthy of either one of them.
11:10 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
MegC said:
@ Sharon: ROFL!! Isn't that how it always goes? The girls who argue the most over a guy are always fighting over the biggest LOSERS!! Can't tell you how many times I've seen it!!
I was supposed to fight another girl for “our” boyfriend when I was 16…I didn't…He wasn't worth it.
It's always bunnies.
