Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
9:37 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Seriously?? Are we STILL talking about this?
Having said that: Nasim: Great post! I was seriously hoping you'd jump in here at some point because I knew you'd have something to throw in the rest of us couldn't!
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
9:44 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Yes!!
I did try and stop it because I felt it was getting silly but that was when I was having complaints regarding the tone of some posts, however, I am happy to let it run as things seem to be back to normal.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
9:53 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Nasim said:
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.
Exactly, spot on, Nasim! I wish I had your way with words! It is imperative that we look at things from the perspectives of the people in the 1530s. Anne had every right to demand respect, she was Queen and had no idea that her marriage was going to end up being annulled.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
10:39 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
Nasim, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
5:01 am
February 3, 2011
Offline
Thank you! It is imperative to consider contemporary political/religious tensions when looking at why Anne and Mary loathed one another, otherwise it is impossible to judge either's behaviour. This was certainly not a simple case of wicked stepmother and abused stepchild.
"Much as her form seduc'd the sight,
Her eyes could ev'n more surely woo;"
6:52 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
And we must remember that politics were not the party politics that we know today, it was personal politics. Alliances were made more for the personal reasons of the kings and less for the reasons of state.
Henry based all of his actions on one fact…What's good for Henry is good for England. REcover his French inheritance, ally with Spain/Aragon. Annoyed with Ferdinand/Charles…ally with France.
It's always bunnies.
12:38 am
March 9, 2011
Offline
Claire said:
Yes!!
I did try and stop it because I felt it was getting silly but that was when I was having complaints regarding the tone of some posts, however, I am happy to let it run as things seem to be back to normal.
It is too bad some people choose not to respect the right of all posters to state their opinions freely. However, in the interest of being fair to everyone and not excluding anyone, it might be prudent to lock a thread if so many people are so put off by particular posters' tones or comments.
For my part, I do not believe in complaining about the tones and comments of other posters (although there are certainly some posters quite active on this site who are somewhat abrasive and annoying.) I respect the right of all posters to state their thoughts frankly and without fear of reprisal. I don't believe someone should be silenced or threatened simply because I hold a separate opinion from that person. I am an adult and quite capable of bypassing comments I don't consider worth reading, but I understand not everyone possesses the emotional intelligence necessary to respect their peers' right to speak frankly.
Just remember, the true test of tolerance occurs when someone's opinion doesn't work for you.
12:49 am
March 9, 2011
Offline
Nasim said:
Thank you! It is imperative to consider contemporary political/religious tensions when looking at why Anne and Mary loathed one another, otherwise it is impossible to judge either's behaviour. This was certainly not a simple case of wicked stepmother and abused stepchild.
Anne Boleyn is alleged to have expressed remorse for her mistreatment of Mary Tudor and apologized. If this is fact, Anne herself must have recognized her actions and attitudes were not the right ones.
12:58 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
La Belle Creole,
Please don't dredge this all up again, we had just got back to discussing things normally. The whole point of this forum is for discussion and that obviously stops if I lock a thread so I prefer to handle issues by contacting the poster concerned and asking them to tone down their posts as they are offending people. If they carry on upsetting people then I would obviously have to consider banning them from the forum.
I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to interrupt the discussion with this comment, which is not helpful.
Back to the discussion…
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
1:09 am
March 9, 2011
Offline
Claire said:
Nasim said:
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.
Exactly, spot on, Nasim! I wish I had your way with words! It is imperative that we look at things from the perspectives of the people in the 1530s. Anne had every right to demand respect, she was Queen and had no idea that her marriage was going to end up being annulled.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. Just because I recognize Anne's perspective does not mean I must endorse it. Anne had no right whatsoever to demand respect, and she most certainly did not show any. This behavior revealed her low, common origins in comparison to the ladies she persecuted and abused. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Anyone who wants to can offer excuses, but you know what they say: il s'excuse s'accuse.
If Anne honestly didn't believe Henry VIII couldn't cast her off after he cast off a blameless wife of 24 years, a well-connected, well-pedigreed lady of royal blood beloved by the English people, she could not have been very bright. I consider Anne very bright and I believe she knew the absence of a male heir meant no more queenship for her. I imagine she didn't expect a death sentence out of the deal, but divorce wasn't out of the question.
1:29 am
March 9, 2011
Offline
MegC said:
Seriously?? Are we STILL talking about this?
What an excellent question.
2:20 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Hello everyone,
It seems La Belle Creole wants the last word, so shall we just let her, because quite honestly I'm getting bored with this. Plus the fact I love this forum because of the feel good factor, even when there are comments I don't agree with, because I know I can disagree with people and they can disagree with me in a way that we can all live with side by side. I don't want that damaged, and I'm sure you all feel the same. So let's just agree to disagree and move on.
