Did Starkey quote any other sources to back up this claim? As you said, we all know that Chapuys was incredibly biased, and prone to exaggeration where Anne was concerned (this being the man that never actually referred to Anne by her name, preferring “The Concubine” or “The wh*re”).

It wouldn't surprise me if a toned down version of this story was true. At the end of the day Anne would have known that until she either produced a son or Katherine and Mary were dead, she wasn't 100% secure in her position. Not to mention Anne herself was also prone to losing temper  and saying things she probably shouldn't have. It wouldn't surprise me if she had lost her temper with Henry once or twice, said something about having Katherine and Mary executed within earshot of Chapuys, and all of a sudden it was twisted into her chasing Henry around constantly, insisting on their heads.

Not to mention that Anne doesn't seem, to me personally, to be someone that pestered people into giving her what she wanted. If she had really set her mind to it, I'm sure she would have been far more subtle in her approach. 

I take everything Chapuys says with a grain of salt.  He hated Anne and was always accusing her of something malicious. Isn't he the one who wrote home that Anne had miscarried a monstrously deformed male baby and therefore it couldn't possibly be Henry's child?  The only thing that actually surprised me about him is that he admitted he thought the charges against Anne were exaggerated. Plus he did call her courageous once. 

He spread every ugly rumor he heard about Anne whether it was true or not. He assumed it was true.  He claimed that Henry was barely speaking to Anne (either late 1535 or early 1536) and yet, others said the two of them were together and merry. He appears to me as an outsider who will say anything to be involved with the court insiders.(in this case the Anne haters) When he first came to court, Katherine warned him that “too open zeal on her behalf could only make her predicament worse.”  But he ignored that warning. He said of Anne,  “No word was too coarse for her, no motive too low.”  “She is a wh*re, a vengeful harpy who harried her opponents from the Court, a murderess, in thought if not deed, who would not stop at poison to rid herself of her rival Katherine, and above all a heretic, who was the bitterest and the most dangerous enemy of the Faith of England.”  His opinion was that Anne would see the end of Katherine and Mary.  In a way he was correct.

As to what Anne may have said.  At one point she did wish all Spaniards at the bottom of the sea.  She may have wished them dead in a fit of temper.  Anne was openly hostile towards Katherine and her supporters. She may have said many horrible things about her wishes for Katherine.  I think they were just that…wishes.  Anne was not afraid to speak her mind to Henry. She may have broached the subject of moving Katherine away from court.  I can't imagine her hounding Henry to kill Katherine and Mary.  Anne was not a killer.

I try to keep in mind that strong women who gave men a hard time in those male dominated times, were considered murderers, witches, and/or wh*res. It helps to keep things in perspective for me.  Men used this language when they were faced with women they hated.  Chapuys really hated Anne.

Since neither do I take with no reservations Chapuy's comments,since many of them are his own prejudices,I was thinking that Anne was pretty much secure until Katherine's death.I mean,before that she was positive that she would have more children and that Henry wouldn't take back Katherine.If he left Anne,that would only mean that he admitted his mistake and return to his first wife.It seems to me that although Anne's position and marriage was in jeopardy as long as Katherine lived(I think I read somewhere that Mary has stated that after her mother's death she would recognise Anne as a queen only if she were to remarry Henry,since she considered the marriage invalid and if any children came after that she would accept them as legal.I am not sure if it is true,just read it somewhere).Anne,already losing influence by early 1536,after Katherine's death,she was left the only woman claiming the title of the Queen.But it seemed to me that with Katherine gone,she was in more danger,since if Henry grew displeased,he would get rid of her without the fear of getting back Katherine and become a derision.Ever since Henry grew out of passion and get displeased by Anne's inability to present him with a prince in 2 years time(as if having a child is so easy),the only thing that kept him was the promise of a son since Anne was reported as still young and avoiding Katherine(and thus humiliate himself to Spain,the Emperor and Rome)

Chapuys was an ambassador at Henry's Court. his job was to look out for the interests of Spain in what ever way he possibly could. The blackening of Anne Boleyn's name did not start after her death, there were many who would have liked to see her cast aside by Henry.

Katherine was as safe as the ravens of the Tower as Spain would war with England if anything happened her. I am sure Henry toyed with the idea of putting Katherine out of his misery, Katherine not taking the oath would have been part of this process, I do think. To have done so, would have isolated England even more.

the truth in times Tudor, was some times the most believable lie.

Yes, I agree Boleynfan, Chapuys was quite the “spin doctor”

There was a purge of anything related to Anne and for that matter anything Boleyn. As little exists of what was written at that time, too much credence is given to people like Chapuys and their colored opinions…

That is until we came along!

Boleynfan said:

I agree 🙂 Opinions of Anne were so biased–to be fair, some in her favor, though most were against her–and, therefore, we must absorb comments from her contemporaries minding who they are and what position they held with Anne, whether they were Protestant or Catholic, whether they were of the Boleyn or KoA and Mary faction, etc.

The advantage of 20;20 hindsight.

We have the ability to look at comtemporary sources and determine the lies from the spin and come to a better middle ground. And hope our biases don't colour our views either.

I have just posted on another part of the forum and said that the purge of anything Anne Boleyn was so intense, what remained was not any way in her favor. the people writing at that time would need to be considered for the outcome that they or their masters desired. Even Annes birth and place of birth are unclear.

Boleynfan said:

But, ipaud, Chapuys always put a negative edge on Anne, calling her in documents and letters to the Holy Roman Emperor 'wh*re,' 'concubine,' etc. Also, he pretty much worked against her the entire time she was Henry's love interest and Queen, trash-talking her at Court as much as he could without getting in complete trouble with Henry.

It's important to take into account that Chapuys was not calling Anne insulting names to be offensive (to her) or to gain/retain favor (Katherine's, the HRE's, etc.).

Chapuys (and many others) referred to Anne Boleyn as a “wh*re” or as Henry's “concubine” because he believed this to be the truth according to his politics and to his religious faith.

As far as Chapuys, the HRE, and the Catholic Church were concerned, Henry VIII's lawful wife and queen was Katherine of Aragon.  Since they believed Henry and Katherine's marriage was valid and just, Henry's marriage to Anne could only be a sham, and Anne was, indeed, a “scandal to Christendom,” a “wh*re,” a “pretended queen,” and any other terminology identifying her relationship with Henry as illicit and unsanctified by church authority.