Have fun with that.  I think it's tougher watching our children go through those years than it was being a teenager ourselves.  Keep in mind they eventually become human again.

Sharon said:

These women seemed to have a blind spot when it came to remembering how vindictive and mean he could be even towards people he called 'friend.' In Henry's mind, it wasn't him that turned on his friends.  It was his friends who turned on him.  Anne would have had no reason to believe he was wrong.  She would have believed his side of the story.  After all, he had shown her nothing but love and kindness for years.  She was safe and secure in his love. It was the same with Katherine and Mary.  Safe and secure in Henry's love.  Except Henry turned on them, and they never saw it coming.

  Henry and Anne were in that “honeymoon period” for many years. They would not have thought Katherine and Mary blameless.  They were a hindrance to Henry's desires.  Hence, they were a hindrance in Anne's book, too.  Anne would have seen it the same way Henry saw it.  He encouraged Anne to speak her mind.  He treated her as an equal.  Why would she think she had to stop doing that?  She thought Henry loved her.  Foolishly maybe, but she did think she was 'different.'  Henry had treated her different for years.  He led her to believe she was 'exceptional.'  He wanted her as his Queen.  Therefore, it would have been her belief that she was on equal footing with Katherine, if not more so because Henry didn't want Katherine as his Queen anymore.  She became overconfident of Henry's love. 

I'm not saying Anne was right to be cruel to Katherine and Mary; and I'm not saying it was right for Katherine and Mary to say cruel things about Anne.  They loved this guy and they were fighting to protect their positions.

I do believe that Anne thought she would give Henry a son.  She always felt she was going to have a son while pregnant with Elizabeth. 

If we rely on the theory Henry VIII was a sociopath or suffered narcissistic personality disorder, his dysfunctional relationships fit that profile.  His subjects were already “programmed” to believe in and to blindly follow their annointed ruler's dictates.   Sociopaths are the “used car salesmen” and “confidence men” of the mentally disturbed.  With their charismatic, dominant personalities and high verbal intelligence, they often come across as very convincing and sincere.  They also tend to build relationships based upon impossible ideals only to “devalue” people (friends, relatives, love interests, employees, etc.) and brutally betray and/or discard them. 

So, yes, I can see a wary Anne Boleyn gradually seduced and won over by Henry over their lengthy courtship.   I can see her trusting his word, even in the face of compelling circumstances suggesting things were actually very different from what Henry claimed them to be.  If she came to genuinely love Henry VIII (I believe she did love him, or at least she loved the man Henry pretended to be to win her over) she would have naturally resented people and/or entities she viewed as obstacles in her path to marriage and queenship.  

I will never disagree with anyone citing Henry VIII with the lion's share of responsibility and/or “blame” for his country's sufferings during his Reformation.  At the end of the day, respondeat superior.  His signature validated orders regardless of what others thought, said, or did.  If he'd ordered Anne to cease bad-mouthing and even uttering veiled threats against his wife and his daughter, Anne would have probably shut up.  (NOTE:  the fact that Henry did not demand this speaks volumes about his devious character and political savvy because it became ammunition to use against Anne later)

With that said, Anne had a choice as to how she comported herself  in public and in private.  This became more and more important as her association with Henry drew her farther into the public eye.  Just because Henry supposedly liked her to speak her mind didn't mean everybody else did.  A monarch, even a queen consort whose legal position is subject to doubt, is a public figure.  Property of the state, so to speak.

Regardless of whether Henry “allowed” Anne to express hatred and threats to Catherine of Aragon and Mary Tudor, Anne apparently chose to hate them and to threaten them.  That was her choice and it doesn't speak well of her.  I understand she made some efforts to reconcile with Mary, and that's to her credit that she may have come to understand her attitude wasn't right.   Unfortunately for Anne, it may have been too little too late.     

Louise said:

Cruelty to anyone is obviously wrong, although we're all guilty of it at some time or another. If we add in the pressure of a precarious position and the knowledge that the woman you are replacing is more popular than you, then attack often seems the best form of defence. It wasn't an admirable trait in Anne, but it was understandable.

As Claire has so eloquently said, Anne did not cause the breakdown of Henry's marriage to Catherine, but once put in that position she fought, not only for herself, but also for her daughter in the same way that Catherine fought for herself and her daughter. All very unpleasant, but understandable nonetheless.

I don't consider it admirable or understandable.  It was certainly poor diplomacy and promotional effort on Anne's part.  She would have done better to remain carefully neutral on the subject of her predecessor and her stepdaughter.  Did her behavior demonstrate her own insecurity and fear?  Absolutely, but that was her own fault. 

Let's take the “Anne fandom factor” out of the equation to further examine this issue. 

I live in Louisiana, the state with the most liberal self-defense laws in the U.S.  Louisiana also has forced heirship laws to prevent citizens from disinheriting children or grandchildren in favor of other children or grandchildren. 

Let's say, for sake of argument, I am the former wife of an extremely well-to-do, middle-aged man and we have a teen daughter.  My ex-husband's new wife is anxious to secure the best advantages for herself and her own child in the succession.  State law works against her to this end.  She discovers that even the wealth she and her new husband build together (community property) will legally belong in part to my daughter as well as her own child/ren should her husband pass away.

New Wife resents my daughter who cannot be legally disinherited save under extreme circumstances (ie, a criminal conviction, attempted murder or battery of her father, etc.)   New Wife goes out of her way to make my daughter feel unwelcome and isolated whenever my daughter visits her father's home.  New Wife confiscates my daughter's cel phone and computer and forbids her to contact me while she stays with her father's new family.  New Wife monopolizes my ex-husband's attention and affection and my ex-husband, eager to maintain harmony in his household, doesn't go out of his way to correct New Wife's behaviorj resulting in his neglect of his firstborn.  New Wife forces my daughter to babysit her child and clean up behind her child.  When New Wife and Hubby go out on the town, one of New Wife's cousins or friends stays at the home to chaperone the children.  New Wife introduces my daughter as her husband's “bastard,” labels her a “snobby Daigo,” and advocates corporal punnishment for any “insolence” or “misbehavior.”  New Wife frequently confines my daughter to her room, locking her in overnight.  If my daughter complains of illness, New Wife refuses to take her to the doctor.

With no intervention from my ex-husband, the abuse graduates to New Wife advocating ridiculous punnishments for real or imagined offenses, culminating with her verbally threatening my daughter's life. 

Does this sound like understandable, acceptable behavior to you?  Take away the glamor and romance of Anne Boleyn's mystique, pretend the same behavior is committed by just anybody.  Is it “understandable?”  Even if my daughter isn't particularly friendly to or cooperative with her abusive stepmother — are children SUPPOSED to cooperate with and respect abusive family members? — is it EVER justified for an adult to threaten someone's life? 

Make no mistake, if such a situation occured for real, the moment I found out about it, New Wife's ass is grass.  I would beat her to a bloody pulp and I would slap her AND my ex-husband with so many civil suits and criminal charges, she'd be wishing she'd never heard of me.  And if her friends want to give me dirty looks or bad-mouth, that's fine.  If my ex-husband is peeved because I'm “messing up his home life” that's fine, too.  I won't lose a second's sleep over it.   

Anne did the same thing hypothetical New Wife did.  She demanded the impossible.  She demanded that Royal women acknowledge her and her daughter as their superiors when she clearly was not superior in any rational sense I can imagine.  Now, Henry VIII did not stop her, and Henry VIII is just as guilty of abuse/neglect of Mary, but Anne should have stifled her ego and just let Henry handle it. 

La Belle Creole said:

 

I live in Louisiana, the state with the most liberal self-defense laws in the U.S.  Louisiana also has forced heirship laws to prevent citizens from disinheriting children or grandchildren in favor of other children or grandchildren. 

We really can't equate 21st century laws made in a democratic society and compare them to a 16th century absolute monarch…

Most of the laws in western countries would horrify any-one who lived in Tudor England.

MegC said:

I agree with you that Anne's behavior, by today's standards, were reprehensible and she pretty much played “the evil stepmother” role to a tee.  However, I also have accepted the fact that TONS of things were done in Tudor England that I can't even begin to fathom.  I also think that her behavior was exacerbated by the physical separation imposed upon Mary and Katherine by Henry.  If Mary and Katherine had been alllowed to remain together, I HIGHLY doubt that Anne would have said a lot of the things she said in public.  I think Anne felt threatened by Katherine because she knew that Katherine had the breeding and pedigree that she did not.  But, because Katherine and Mary were not allowed to be together, Mary didn't really have anyone in her corner.  I doubt Katherine knew half of what Anne did to Mary.

Exactly…again 21st century morals and mores mean we see things so very much differently to our 16th century counterparts.

Henry bears most of the blame for the situation. He seperated KoA and Mary. He allowed and encouraged the physicalk and mental bullying of both of them.

KoA was well aware that rich and powerful men were expected to have mistresses and she had seen several come and go , she probably thought AB would make a token protest before doing her duty . Katherine was better able to act as a dutiful wife , since IMHO, her love for H8 was not a romatic love but a dynastic love. She had been raised to be the queen of England with all the pleasures and pains that the title gave her.

Mary had to rely on the less than sympathetic support of Emperor Charles.While his aunt was alive, Charles was prepared to use his power to stop H8 gettting an annulment. Once she was dead, then Charles was prepared to re-negociate the terms of his treaties and effectively abandon Mary in the short-term.

MegC said:

To break it down to its simplest form I think is to say this (and it is one of the negative aspects of Anne's personality):  Anne hated Katherine.  I think she hated everything she stood for and blamed her for pretty much everything.  She didn't like her religion, she didn't like her nationality, she didn't like anything about her.  And, poor Mary, was an extension of Katherine.  Anne couldn't strike out at Katherine except verbally–Katherine had too many supporters, but she could strike out at Mary and she certainly did.  I've seen other people do this in different circumstances, and, inevitably, I find that such behavior is, generally, uncharacteristic for them.  It's not something that, under other circumstances, they would normally do.  I don't think that generally Katherine made it a habit to speak ill of people, either.  Everyone was under so much stress and tension, that, inevitably, out of that stress they began to do things that were uncharacteristic and unusual.  I know that I've called people names and said things to people that, in retrospect, I realized were completely not me, and I've regretted that I represented my character in such a manner.  Perhaps apologies would have gone a long way if all three women (Mary, Katherine, and Anne) weren't so proud.

eryone. 

Initally I don't think AB hated KoA. Katherine was considered to be a wonderful woman to “work” for. She was at the centre of the court and had access to all the young, and not so young, men who hung round looking at women.

I think Anne grew to dislike and then hate Katherine, when Henry's brash assumptions didn't pan out. Being told that you only have to wait a short while and everything will be rosey is a trap many women have fallen into over the years…I just need to look at my 2 SMs to know that…LOL!

Anne spent ITRO 6 years being called the foulest names of the time. Her character and reputation was dragged though the mud and at no time did she have the abilty to break off this relationship, such was the power of an absolute monarch like Henry. Se lost her youth and child-bearing years waiting in vain for some small change in the ever shifting alliances of Europe and beyond. That alone would have soured the temperment of many people.

KoA had the breeding and political power behind her but once she was dead the Charles realised he needed to repair the allience between him and Henry. Katherine's death was , sadly, the way forward for both of them to start afresh…

Anyanka said:

MegC said:

To break it down to its simplest form I think is to say this (and it is one of the negative aspects of Anne's personality):  Anne hated Katherine.  I think she hated everything she stood for and blamed her for pretty much everything.  She didn't like her religion, she didn't like her nationality, she didn't like anything about her.  And, poor Mary, was an extension of Katherine.  Anne couldn't strike out at Katherine except verbally–Katherine had too many supporters, but she could strike out at Mary and she certainly did.  I've seen other people do this in different circumstances, and, inevitably, I find that such behavior is, generally, uncharacteristic for them.  It's not something that, under other circumstances, they would normally do.  I don't think that generally Katherine made it a habit to speak ill of people, either.  Everyone was under so much stress and tension, that, inevitably, out of that stress they began to do things that were uncharacteristic and unusual.  I know that I've called people names and said things to people that, in retrospect, I realized were completely not me, and I've regretted that I represented my character in such a manner.  Perhaps apologies would have gone a long way if all three women (Mary, Katherine, and Anne) weren't so proud.

eryone. 

---

Initally I don't think AB hated KoA. Katherine was considered to be a wonderful woman to “work” for. She was at the centre of the court and had access to all the young, and not so young, men who hung round looking at women.
 

I think Anne grew to dislike and then hate Katherine, when Henry's brash assumptions didn't pan out. Being told that you only have to wait a short while and everything will be rosey is a trap many women have fallen into over the years…I just need to look at my 2 SMs to know that…LOL!

 

Anne spent ITRO 6 years being called the foulest names of the time. Her character and reputation was dragged though the mud and at no time did she have the abilty to break off this relationship, such was the power of an absolute monarch like Henry. Se lost her youth and child-bearing years waiting in vain for some small change in the ever shifting alliances of Europe and beyond. That alone would have soured the temperment of many people.

 

KoA had the breeding and political power behind her but once she was dead the Charles realised he needed to repair the allience between him and Henry. Katherine's death was , sadly, the way forward for both of them to start afresh…

I agree!  I think before Anne got involved with Henry, she probably liked KoA.  But, yeah, as the years dragged on and so little progress was made, I think the need to blame someone/something began to grow, and Katherine was the most logical target for Anne and Henry both.

I have always felt bad for Katherine that her nephew more or less just paid her lip-service.  I always imagine him sitting there, reading her letters, going, “Oh, jeez, it's Aunt Kathy going on about her marriage again.  Just write something back to her to appease her and I'll sign it.  Doesn't she realize I have better things to do than worry about her divorce?”

I personally can't see how a twenty-first century love triangle between commoners can be equated to Henry VIII and his split from Catherine and marriage to Anne in the sixteenth century.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that is it acceptable to be cruel to anyone. I certainly did not say it was admirable, I merely said it was understandable in the circumstances, which is entirely different. In the extraordinary circumstances in which they lived, yes I do think their behaviour was understandable, and that is not the same as condoning it.  All three women were strong, opinionated and determined. In fighting for their places in a man's world they no doubt spoke and acted in a way they later regretted. Yes Anne was wrong in her treatment of Mary, and I think most people accept that, but I think most people also accept that Anne's character cannot be defined simply by an error of judgment. There was more to her than that, which is why we can't focus solely on her treatment of Catherine and Mary in trying to establish her character. 

Hello Sharon,

I completely agree.

Sharon said:

La Belle Creole said:

 

Does this sound like understandable, acceptable behavior to you?  Take away the glamor and romance of Anne Boleyn's mystique, pretend the same behavior is committed by just anybody.  Is it “understandable?”  

---

No, it is not acceptable behaviour.  I think that has been said over and over again in this discussion.  It is understandable because  we see it happenning today. (your case in point) We can understand how it can happen. Nobody thinks it's good behaviour. It is human nature to strike out when being attacked. One doesn't have to be a fan to understand that these women, all of them, were in pain.

 Anne was not getting the respect from KOA and Mary that she felt she deserved.  Whether she deserved it or not, as queen she wanted respect and tried to demand it.  It doesn't work that way, but that's the way she saw it.  When all she received was disrespect, she lashed out.  She may have felt that as long as Henry had made her his queen, no one had the right to demean her.  

Being quiet was not Anne's style.  If Henry thought Anne was going too far, he damn well could have stopped her.  (He didn't hesitate to tell Jane to mind her own business!) I think the problem was ego…Henry's ego.  Henry must have enjoyed the “cat fight” atmosphere or else he would have stifled it.  Even after Anne was gone, he treated Mary like a piece of dirt.  Mary saw that it was not because of Anne that she wasn't in favor.  It was Henry's doing.  There is a lot of blame to go around in this case, but most of it should be placed at Henry's feet.

Henry was not beyond reproving Anne when she stepped outside what he thought was acceptable boundries WRT his current mistress. His words were as brutal as those he used to KoA. Reminding Anne how much he had raised her and how quickly he could make her less than she was before.