Sharon said:

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.

It's not human nature to strike out when being attacked.  Animals (and usually not the smartest, strongest ones) lash out with defensive aggression and/or redirected aggression when they experience stress.  Was Anne under a mountain of stress?  Heck yeah!  The point is queens are supposed to be made of sturdier stuff, not throw tantrums and abuse children because they feel disrespected.

It's interesting to note that Mary did not abuse Elizabeth, but treated her quite tenderly in their youth.  What if Mary had copied Anne's example toward Anne's toddler? It's a sorry day's work when a seventeen year old girl has greater command of her passions and is better able to control her behavior and rationalize circumstances than an adult woman.   Then again, Mary was born and raised a princess, not an ambitious, entittlement-minded social climbing lady-in-waiting. 

I cannot pin Anne's every shortcoming on her husband.  Yes, Henry could have (and should have) warned her against speaking ill of Mary or advocating her mistreatment.  Henry is a miserable excuse for a man, a horrible husband, and a lousy father.  Henry is primarily responsible for the entire Jerry Springer-esque misadventure he made of his private life.  That doesn't absolve Anne of responsibility for her own wrongdoing.

Anne took things too personally. It impacted her perspective and affected her actions.  The real character of a person is revealed more by how s/he behaves toward people over whom she holds advantage than behavior towards equals or superiors.

In her mistreatment (particularly of Mary) Anne also fails herself, her husband, and her country.  Anne knew when she entered marriage with Henry that Henry had another family and at least two children (possibly more children if Anne's own sister Mary conceived 1 or both of her children with Henry.)  Anne had a duty (accoding to commonly accepted social mores and her own Christian faith) to be a helpmeet to her husband, to make his home a comfortable place, and to be a mother/friend (of sorts, at least) to his acknowledged children.  Instead, she got all hung up on being Queen when she knew darn well many people considered her position a joke.

If she so despised Henry's daughter, maybe she should not have married Henry. 

Be that as it may, I think it's safe to say that no one is changing anyone's mind on this topic.  

And, personally, I find further debate on the topic pointless since we're all just repeating what we've all ready said.

At least we can all agree on something:  We all are fascinated by Tudor history and the long-term reach that this man, Henry VIII, and all of his wives have had.

Whether you think Anne was a victim, homewrecker, or something else entirely, we all know that, without her, there would have been no Elizabeth I–and Elizabeth was, without a doubt, one of the strongest rulers the western world has seen.  

To say that you admire Anne Boleyn does not necessarily mean that you DON'T admire Henry's other wives.  I admire Katherine of Aragon tremendously, but for different reasons than I admire Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves, or Catherine Parr.  I even have a begrudging respect for poor Jane Seymour (but I will never be able to say her name without prefacing it with “poor”).

I think that we have some fairly strong feelings on this topic, and perhaps, it's time to just let it go??

Just a thought. 

Claire said:

I agree with MegC that this is just getting to the point of us all repeating the same arguments over and over so I'll play Devil's advocate.

What if, as some believe, Catherine of Aragon lied about not consummating her marriage to Arthur? What if her marriage to Henry VIII was invalid in that it was contrary to Biblical law, as Henry truly believed it was? That would make Anne Boleyn the real queen in everyone's eyes, not just hers and Henry's and their supporters. I really believe that Henry and Anne felt that their marriage was the real deal and the only valid one, therefore she was not the rival, she was the rightful queen. 

It's no good us seeing this with our 21st century eyes and thinking about juries today etc. we have to see this situation through the eyes of those who were in it. Catherine felt that Anne was the usurper, Anne felt that Catherine was not the rightful queen, Henry felt that his marriage to Catherine was invalid and had never existed. They were all acting on their own beliefs.

The King's Great Matter is/was a legal issue, not a question of how Henry felt, how Anne felt, or how Catherine felt.

As the plaintiff, Henry had the obligation to prove his case.  He did not prove his case even to himself. 

However, if we're expected to go by “feelings” instead of by laws and social norms …  Henry “felt” his marriage to Anne was invalid and that Elizabeth was not his legitimate child.  So, if Henry's “feelings” about his first marriage are right and just, I suppose we have to assume his “feelings” about his second marriage are the same.  Which would make Anne a true usurper and rival aspiring to a position to which she was not entitled.

Claire said:

Ah, but it's not just going on feelings is it? It IS a legal issue, I agree, and convocation ruled that Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was unlawful, that it was contrary to Biblical law and that a papal dispensation should never have been issued. Cranmer's court then annulled the marriage and that means that it never took place. That is what the law of the time decided. Therefore, Anne was no usurper, she was the rightful queen in Henry's eyes and according to law.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just trying to look at it the way that it was.

Henry literally bought his desired verdict when he could not achieve his goal via traditional avenues.  He appointed the right men and enacted the right legislation to get what he wanted.
If that qualifies as right and proper to you, so be it.  We are obviously at more than one moral impasse concerning the issue.  

However, if you do subscribe to Henry's right to appoint officials of his choice to carry out his desired orders, then you must also support Henry's right to charge Anne Boleyn, Lord Rochford, and the other gentlemen with treason, to convict them as traitors, and to execute them as criminals.  You must also support Cranmer's anullment of Anne Boleyn's marriage to Henry VIII, which means Anne and Henry's marriage never took place.  That is what the law of the time decided.  Both the Holy Catholic Church AND Henry's own courts proclaimed Anne and Henry's marriage null and void.  If you support the laws and the legal authority that nullified Catherine's marriage, you must also support that same authority's anullment of Anne's marriage.  By that reasoning, Anne was never Henry's wife, Anne was never Queen Consort of England, and Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales or a legitimate child of the King.  

So, presuming we agree neither Katherine of Aragon nor Anne Boleyn were legally wed to Henry VIII (according to Henry's law), Anne's mistreatment and uncivil, abusive attitude towards Mary Tudor is even MORE reprehensible and improper.  Katherine and Mary STILL outranked Anne and STILL boasted royal blood.   Who was Anne Boleyn to demand precedence over Katherine and to expect Katherine's bastard daughter (according to Henry's law, not to anybody else) to wait upon Anne's bastard daughter (according to everybody else AND according to Henry's law)?

I personally don't view the situation this way.  I view Cranmer's various decisions as bogus, kangaroo affairs manufactured to provide Henry with whatever marital status his fickle heart desired.  Cranmer's anullment of Katherine's marriage is hogwash.  Cranmer's validation of Anne's marriage and its later anullment are also hogwash.  The ridiculous criminal prosecution of Anne Boleyn, her brother, and the other alleged conspirators is a calumny ESPECIALLY since Anne Boleyn was NEVER Henry's legal wife (in Henry's eyes OR in Rome's eyes.)   Katherine's marriage was legally upheld by the Church, at least.  

Oops, sorry Claire, I posted the above without seeing your last two posts. I agree this should be brought to an end. It's starting to feel like a tennis match!

La Belle Creole said:

Claire said:

Ah, but it's not just going on feelings is it? It IS a legal issue, I agree, and convocation ruled that Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was unlawful, that it was contrary to Biblical law and that a papal dispensation should never have been issued. Cranmer's court then annulled the marriage and that means that it never took place. That is what the law of the time decided. Therefore, Anne was no usurper, she was the rightful queen in Henry's eyes and according to law.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just trying to look at it the way that it was.

---

Henry literally bought his desired verdict when he could not achieve his goal via traditional avenues.  He appointed the right men and enacted the right legislation to get what he wanted.

So how is that different to buying a Papal Dispenation? Popes rarely gave those things out for free. They were valuable in keeping kings faithful to the Holy See since the Pope had a monolopy on all matters canon.

La Belle Creole said:

 

So, presuming we agree neither Katherine of Aragon nor Anne Boleyn were legally wed to Henry VIII (according to Henry's law), Anne's mistreatment and uncivil, abusive attitude towards Mary Tudor is even MORE reprehensible and improper.  Katherine and Mary STILL outranked Anne and STILL boasted royal blood.   Who was Anne Boleyn to demand precedence over Katherine and to expect Katherine's bastard daughter (according to Henry's law, not to anybody else) to wait upon Anne's bastard daughter (according to everybody else AND according to Henry's law)?

 

Wait!    What????

When these actions took place Anne was Henry's wife. Her actions echoed those of Henry, not the other way round. Henry and Anne demanded precedence because she was anointed queen under the law both secular and religious.

She out-ranked all other women in the country.All other women, even a Spanish princess and her daughter.

La Belle Creole said:

So presuming we agree neither Katherine of Aragon nor Anne Boleyn were legally wed to Henry VIII (according to Henry's law), Anne's mistreatment and uncivil, abusive attitude towards Mary Tudor is even MORE reprehensible and improper.  Katherine and Mary STILL outranked Anne and STILL boasted royal blood.   Who was Anne Boleyn to demand precedence over Katherine and to expect Katherine's bastard daughter (according to Henry's law, not to anybody else) to wait upon Anne's bastard daughter (according to everybody else AND according to Henry's law)?

(Apologises if I have repeated what anyone has said; haven’t read all this thread)

I don't really understand the arguement you make here.

Your post implies that because of the later annulment of her marriage, Anne should not have treated Katherine and Mary as she did because they held exalted positions. But this is speaking with hindsight here.

Even counting Cranmer’s annulment of the Boleyn marriage in May 1536, it still stands that for the space of three years – from May 1533 with the ruling at the court in Dunstable to May 1536 – Anne and Henry’s union and issue were recognised as legitimate. Yes this was later voided, but between those years (so for most of her marriage) Anne enjoyed the backing of English law.

Which means during her dealings with Mary in c.1533-6, Anne was the recognised queen (in the legal sense).

This meant that from 1533-6, Anne outranked both Mary and Katherine. Katherine may have been a Spanish infanta (Castilian and Aragonese infanta to be more precise), and the dowager princess of Wales, both high ranking positions, but Anne was the highest ranking woman in the realm for she was the queen consort. Mary’s position was even more ambiguous, for the 1534 Act of Succession implied she was no longer fit to be Henry’s heir (she was officially declared illegitimate in the 1536 Act of Succession). Again, Anne outranked her under English law.

This is imperative to consider when looking at why Anne treated Mary as she did, and why Mary acted in the manner that she did. Anne fully believed herself to be the monarch’s legitimate consort and her issue to be the only lawfully heirs to the throne. The fact that Mary (and Katherine) denied this was absolutely traitorous in her eyes, and Henry’s.

There are plenty of other reasons for Anne and Mary’s dislike for one another. Before divulging into them, it should be stated that there is no clear understanding of what Anne actually did towards Mary or what Mary did against Anne. Many studies have relied almost exclusively on the dispatches of Eustace Chapuys which is highly problematic. Firstly, they are often not using Chapuys’s original papers, but later transcripts and they are riddled with errors (as I discovered when attempting to record Mary’s movements between these years. The transcripts were frustrating and even the editors sometimes noted that they put some sources in the wrong place). Secondly, Chapuys contradicts himself on numerous occasions. For example he gives the impression at times that Mary is shut off from everyone, then he tells us of the numerous visitors from court she receives. He provides us with a very puzzling and deceptive picture. Thirdly, Chapuys was personal involved in the affair and highly prejudicial towards one party. Often he does not pause to consider the accuracy of the stories he relates. As he believed Anne was a wicked woman capable of doing any wrong, he accepted the majority of stories that depict her in a poor fashion. He frequently does not have such information verified to him by Mary.

So we have the problem of not really knowing what is true or false. But I think we can all agree that there were significant tensions between Anne and Mary and pressure on the girl to recant her views. We cannot be sure what indecencies Mary was subjected to, but what we do know is that critics of the King’s Great Matter and the break from Rome were often prepared to credit the view that Mary was being dealt with cruelly. This is significant for it helps to partly, though certainly not wholly, explain why she received the amount of support that she did (and reveals to us contemporary perceptions of Anne, though these perceptions cannot be taken as a definite true account of the woman).

Anne’s opposition to Mary was based on numerous factors. As I stated, the fact that Mary did not recognise Anne’s position and Elizabeth’s was central. We cannot blame Mary for her stance – it is very understandable why she refused to budge on this issue – but it was not, nor should it have been, understandable to Anne. After all this position on the matter absolutely undermined her, and Elizabeth’s, rights. In that political climate, there was no space for compassion. Mary certainly shared Anne’s dogmatism; until her dying day she refused to acknowledge Anne’s case. And why should she? And why should Anne have considered Mary’s?

Undoubtedly Anne’s stance was affected by fear. After all, Mary had the backing of the Catholic Church. Mary even had the backing of various individuals who accepted the break from Rome. The ‘bona fide parentum’ argument prevailed. It had been discussed in the early stages of the annulment and was certainly still around by 1536. We know that was deeply worrying to Henry VIII (hence having several courtiers interrogated in summer of 1536), and almost certainly was to Anne during her time as queen.

Mary was also coming into correspondence with various courtiers (in person and through letters), some of which notably loathed Anne. Mary remained well liked by many, even those with connections to Anne. There were continuous rumours that there was still a chance she could remain heir apparent. All this was damning news to Anne and Henry.

Others on this thread have repeated that to understand the situation, we need to consider the political and religious circumstance of that period. 1533-6 was a traumatic time, not just for Anne and Mary. Anne’s actions towards Mary have been regarded by some as illogical, foolish, in essence unprovoked behaviour. Far from it. It was born of real concerns. After all, Anne’s body was still fresh in the grave when a major rebellion was forming that had as one of its chief aims to have Mary declared legitimate again.

Was this whole affair pleasant? Of course not. But could Anne have acted differently; would that have helped in any way? My answer is no. Kindness towards Mary (which Anne attempted a few times) was fruitless, for the girl naturally and reasonably could not cave in whilst Anne lived. We may not like Anne’s fiery comments. But to her, this was exactly the way Mary should be treated. And in this she had the complete backing of her husband who allowed Mary to be talked to in an even worse manner after Anne had been executed. After all, this was a man who later openly admitted to the French ambassador that though he loved his daughter Mary, he appreciated himself, and the security of his position and that of his son’s, far more.