Did Henry VIII conspire against Anne? | Henry VIII | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Did Henry VIII conspire against Anne?
June 28, 2009
4:43 am
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 959
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I can't make up my mind about this.

In his biography on Anne Boleyn, Eric Ives holds Cromwell responsible for the conspiracy and plotting against Anne, and of course the Catholic conservatives who were roped in. Ives states that Cromwell only moved against Anne Boleyn when Henry's behaviour over Easter 1536 showed him that while Anne influenced the King there was danger to both England and Cromwell personally. It sounds like Henry did not really have anything to do with the plotting and his only involvement was when Cromwell convinced him that there was evidence against the Queen.

Warnicke, in her book, talks of how the King must have believed that Anne Boleyn was guilty of witchcraft and adultery to behave as he did. Again, this sounds like Cromwell did the plotting and then convinced the King.

Was the King innocent? Did he really believe Cromwell or did he know it was all a plot? Did he play a part in it?

These are the questions that bother me!

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

June 28, 2009
8:45 am
Avatar
Rochie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 114
Member Since:
June 24, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think that tyrants throughout the ages have always been flattered and inspired by people who can give them what they really want. The genius of people like Cromwell and Wolsey is that they had a natural instinct of how to give their boss what they truely needed and desired – even at times when the boss himself perhaps didn't quite know himself what it was he needed and desired. That is the seductive genius of your typical 'brown-noser.' And Henry was always susceptible to this. A truly great leader and statesman is aware of it. But Henry did not fall into this catagory.

SR

June 28, 2009
10:51 am
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 959
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

\”Cromwell the Brown Noser\” – ha! Sorry, that amused me! Yes, I think that Henry was very easily flattered and I suppose that Cromwell also fed Henry's fears – Henry was already doubting his marriage because of Anne's miscarriages and worrying about why God was not blessing him with a son, so Cromwell just fed these doubts and fears by little whispers.

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

June 28, 2009
8:58 pm
Avatar
gwenne
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 56
Member Since:
June 23, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The very fact that he had her executed and was neither moved nor felt any remorse about it, alludes to the fact that he conspired against her.  Of course he had everyone whispering in his ear as other families pushed their fertile nubile daughters in his direction.  He was a big fat spoiled child who tired of his 'toys' quickly and wanted new ones.  His ego was the only thing he truly cared about.  He was always suseptible to flattery.  Anne strikes me as the type of woman who told him like it was and didn't bow and scrape to his every whim.  That was her undoing in the end.  With his 'Great Matter' he had every last restraint on him lifted, and he could do anything he wanted, including brutally murdering his wives.

Diem et animus scire cupio: I desire knowledge of the soul.

June 30, 2009
12:18 am
Avatar
Sabrina
California
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 205
Member Since:
June 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think Cromwell expidited her demise… 

It was only after their falling out that things began to move. Henry may have been thinking about it, but he went through with it after things between them went bad. 

I think Henry would've done something himself eventually, as she did not provide him with the desired child. He was selfish and spoiled, and honestly should've stayed single. I don't think any of his relationships were healthy, and they usually ended badly. He showed no remorse at her death, and was hanging with his new fiancee while she was nobly facing her death. 

sorry, but he makes me sick sometimes.. LOL

Let not my enemies sit as my jury

July 2, 2009
1:12 pm
Avatar
ipaud
Ireland
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 212
Member Since:
June 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Still don't know how to regard Henry in the death of Anne and the time leading up to it. Maybe writing something will give me some food for thought?

Henry had an accident and had serious head trauma in January of 1536 that by all accounts changed his attitude and he had a severe personality change. I think that there was much more going on in Henry's court behind the scenes than we will ever know about. I also think that it was very hurried and not well thought out, at least on Henry's part. By dissolving  his marriage to Anne just prior to her death, Elisabeth would have no claim to the throne for example. The others put to death relating to the trumped up charges, may also hold a clue to what was really going on, not only in Henry's head but also in court.

Henry certainly did nothing to help Anne, she was not send to an obscure and remote castle as Catherine of Aragon was If he could have gotten away with killing Catherine, would he have done it?. The only concession Henry made was allowing Anne to be beheaded by a swordsman instead of an axe, that was the limit of his compassion. He had a cannon fired at the Tower to signal to him Anne's death. England was in turmoil with the plague, the break from Rome and many who would be king if Henry did not wake from his coma that January in 1536, were there plans made at that time in court?

To do nothing is still doing something, so yes, to my thinking Henry has a good share in Anne's death.

Paudie. 

If it was not this, then it would be something else?

July 3, 2009
1:31 am
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 959
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The disturbing thing to me is what seemed to be his indifference to Anne's plight and death. He just moved on with his life and pretended she didn't exist. I can understand him really hating her if he thought that he had been betrayed by a witch or adulteress, but his attitude seems to be one of complete indifference, yet this was the woman he had fought so long to have.

I think I've written about it before but there was a great article in the UK newspaper, The Independent, about Henry's jousting accident and how it could have caused his Jekyll and Hyde personality. The article says:-

“But the jousting accident may have affected his whole personality, the experts suggest. “We posit that his jousting accident of 1536 provides the explanation for his personality change from sporty, promising, generous young prince, to cruel, paranoid and vicious tyrant,” Lucy Worsley says. “From that date the turnover of the wives really speeds up, and people begin to talk about him in quite a new and negative way. “After the accident he was unconscious for two hours; even five minutes of unconsciousness is considered to be a major trauma today.” Henry may have suffered a brain injury, Dr Worsley says. “Damage to the frontal lobe of the brain can perfectly well result in personality change.”

Was the accident responsible for what he did to Anne?

The full article can be read at http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..70421.html

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

July 12, 2009
6:08 pm
Avatar
gwenne
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 56
Member Since:
June 23, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You know I can see how brain injury would and does defintely change patterns of behavior.  My grandfather in the later stages of dementia (he being a gentle soft spoken man all his life ) tried to murder his wife of 62 years, (she was able to stop him thank God).  The brain and it's misfirings certainly cause all manner of illness and illusion.  I think that yes, he was a tyrant, a murdering one, a tyrant that was quite probably plummeting into madness.  My opinions of him haven't changed, however, the court around him knew how to manipulate him also.  They knew all about his moods and his rages, I believe even the King's bowel movements were recorded.  As was mentioned in another post it was a shark tank, with all of them swimming around smelling blood in the water. 

Diem et animus scire cupio: I desire knowledge of the soul.

January 5, 2010
9:23 pm
Avatar
Hannah
Belfast
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 127
Member Since:
December 8, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I can`t believe just how much Henry gets away with this, almost scot free because theres this ultra-convenient scapegoat (Cromwell), on hand to take all the blame.

If you look at the example of Katherine Parr, who came within a whisker of going the same way as Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard, it proves that there was no way a Queen could fall without Henry`s full support and connivance. In the case of Katherine Parr, Henry knew full well she was being investigated (refused to step in and stop the torture of Anne Askew), let Wriothesley and Riche gather all the \”evidence\”, let the pair of them get into a position where they truly believed that Parr was going to be brought down just as Boleyn had been, and then suddenly Henry changes his mind and ends up turning his wrath on the two would-be conspirators instead. Henry was no idiot, and knew when he was being spun a line. Nothing happened at that court without his say-so. It wasn`t just Cromwell whispering things about Anne Boleyn, it was just about everyone (and had been since the moment it became clear Henry wanted her).

Be daly prove you shalle me fynde,nTo be to you bothe lovyng and kynde,

February 3, 2010
7:54 am
Avatar
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 959
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

So, if we think that Henry did have something to do with it, when do you think he decided to move against Anne and why?

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn

February 6, 2010
8:49 am
Avatar
Gina
Lindenhurst, USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 78
Member Since:
October 3, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi All!

I always think back to all that Henry had to do to be with Anne & the fact that it didn't work out, made him look like an idiot who basically turned the world upside down to what result? No Male Heir, a woman he became to resent, and a Queen most people would not even acknowledge! He had to be completely rid of her! He could not put her in a nunnery or show more compassion to her than he did to Katherine of Aragon who was a loyal queen who the people loved!

I think that he convinced himself that Cromwell  the whole thing but I don't believe he had no hand in it!

XO-Gina

February 24, 2010
3:27 pm
Avatar
AnnesAdmire1024
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don't believe Henry had anything to do with the death of Anne after all hes not the one who provided the guilty verdict. Its true he became unhappy with her only because she did not give him a son as once thought and I think Cromwell fueled that fire. Also those confessions were torch er induced I probably would admit to something I hadn't done if I were torchered like that. Also Lady Rochford was jealous of the queens relationship with her husband and also the rumors that he was gay Anne did not hold Jane Parker in high regard and mad no attempt to be friends with her she also confessed upon her death that she had lied about the queen Anne's adultery and incest. So that right there tells you Henry was just listening to what his so called “advisers” said after all that's what they were there for to advise him what to do. I think his mental state didn't help and also other “noble” families throwing themselves in front of him didn't help he was desperate for a male heir something I also think was causing his emotions to run wild it is frustrating to know you need a male heir to carry on the line and now two wives were not able to produce one for him he was running out of options and time.Frown

Anne's Admirer

February 24, 2010
6:50 pm
Avatar
Sabrina
California
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 205
Member Since:
June 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Henry had the power to stay her execution, but he did not. He could've told his council to stop the inquiries, but again, he did not. no matter how little he had to do with the process, he did not lift a finger to save her. he let his issues take over, and because of that, she died.

Although we do not know what was going on in his mind, I would think he had to know that she would not jeopardize her status or relationship with him. She became paranoid when she found out that he “loved others”. There were better ways to go about this, but they chose to just get rid of her.

I don't mean to get on the soapbox, but I do not agree with killing an innocent woman because she did not give him a son. Wink It's not right.

Let not my enemies sit as my jury

February 24, 2010
7:22 pm
Avatar
Impish_Impulse
US Midwest
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 595
Member Since:
August 12, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

LadytoAnneBoleyn said:

I don't mean to get on the soapbox, but I do not agree with killing an innocent woman because she did not give him a son. Wink It's not right.


Preach it, sister!. Quite a few of us are on the soapbox about this.

                        survivor ribbon                             

               "Don't knock at death's door. 

          Ring the bell and run. He hates that."    

February 24, 2010
7:39 pm
Avatar
Impish_Impulse
US Midwest
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 595
Member Since:
August 12, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

AnnesAdmire1024 said:

I don't believe Henry had anything to do with the death of Anne after all hes not the one who provided the guilty verdict. *snip*

Also Lady Rochford was jealous of the queens relationship with her husband and also the rumors that he was gay Anne did not hold Jane Parker in high regard and mad no attempt to be friends with her she also confessed upon her death that she had lied about the queen Anne's adultery and incest.

So that right there tells you Henry was just listening to what his so called “advisers” said after all that's what they were there for to advise him what to do.

I think his mental state didn't help and also other “noble” families throwing themselves in front of him didn't help he was desperate for a male heir something I also think was causing his emotions to run wild it is frustrating to know you need a male heir to carry on the line and now two wives were not able to produce one for him he was running out of options and time.Frown


He didn't stand in the courtroom and pronounce her guilty, but he didn't have to – he and Cromwell simply packed the trial jury (for all of the accused) with enemies of the Boleyn faction and/or people allied with or trying to curry favor with Cromwell. And had Anne's executioner hired and on his way before the trial started. I absolve him of nothing. YMMV (your mileage may vary), obviously.

Prior to Reitha Warnicke and the Showtime series, The Tudors, there weren't these pervasive rumors of George being gay. On the contrary, he was well-liked and regarded as a lady's man. Rumors of his contentious marriage are also disputed, as is his wife's involvement in giving testimony against George and Anne. And Jane's alleged confession on the block is fictitious – it didn't happen.

So, it's all his advisors' fault? He just does whatever they say, and if they're wrong – “Oops, oh well?”

I'll concede every one of those last points and still say it absolves him of nothing. He murdered his wife, and then spent the rest of his life trying to pretend she had never existed. That's horrifying behavior, to me.

                        survivor ribbon                             

               "Don't knock at death's door. 

          Ring the bell and run. He hates that."    

February 24, 2010
8:55 pm
Avatar
Bella44
New Zealand
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 933
Member Since:
January 9, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I really don't know where to stand on the whole issue and it really bothers me!!!  But I do tend to think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  I can't quite believe that Henry was totally innocent and didn't have a clue what was going on but nor do I think Cromwell was only carrying out Henry's orders.  After all Cromwell had his own agenda.

What I do think was that Henry at that particular point hated Anne.  Possibly as he'd never hated anyone or anything before.  How he came to so violently hate the woman he'd once loved so passionately I think is where the true mystery lies.  Was it Anne's failure to produce a son?  Did he suffer some kind of brain damage when he fell off his horse?  Had he had enough of Anne's forthright opinions and flirtatious ways?  Was he really that much in love with Jane Seymour?  Or was it a mixture of everything?

Henry must've hated her to believe the charges against her, for I'm pretty certain he did.  I cannot believe he'd have her put to death if he thought she were innocent, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise.  So in his mind he was entirely justified in killing her.  Not that it makes it right, and even some people at the time thought it was going too far.

Gah, trying to come to grips with Henry's self-righteous, self-serving conscience makes my brain hurt! 

February 24, 2010
11:38 pm
Avatar
Impish_Impulse
US Midwest
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 595
Member Since:
August 12, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bella44 said:

Gah, trying to come to grips with Henry's self-righteous, self-serving conscience makes my brain hurt! 


I couldn't have said it better myself!

                        survivor ribbon                             

               "Don't knock at death's door. 

          Ring the bell and run. He hates that."    

February 25, 2010
7:24 am
Avatar
AnnesAdmire1024
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Impish_Impulse


He didn't stand in the courtroom and pronounce her guilty, but he didn't have to – he and Cromwell simply packed the trial jury (for all of the accused) with enemies of the Boleyn faction and/or people allied with or trying to curry favor with Cromwell. And had Anne's executioner hired and on his way before the trial started. I absolve him of nothing. YMMV (your mileage may vary), obviously.

Prior to Reitha Warnicke and the Showtime series, The Tudors, there weren't these pervasive rumors of George being gay. On the contrary, he was well-liked and regarded as a lady's man. Rumors of his contentious marriage are also disputed, as is his wife's involvement in giving testimony against George and Anne. And Jane's alleged confession on the block is fictitious – it didn't happen.

So, it's all his advisors' fault? He just does whatever they say, and if they're wrong – “Oops, oh well?”

I'll concede every one of those last points and still say it absolves him of nothing. He murdered his wife, and then spent the rest of his life trying to pretend she had never existed. That's horrifying behavior, to me.


Im not trying to defend what Henry did. I was merely stating that he was somewhat responsible for even listening to them and the opps oh well is exactly right once they were tried and dead it is oh well what can I do now  they are already dead. Iwasnt saying that he didnt conspire against her I believe the thoughts were put in there and he was already tired of her so it just fueled the fire. Now tell me if someone came to you and said your husband is cheating on you and I have proof would you or would you not be very angry, upset and have some sort of hate towards them. I know I would be furious and in his mental state  probably made it worse. Im not defending what he did but i dont believe it was only him

Anne's Admirer

February 25, 2010
4:54 pm
Avatar
Impish_Impulse
US Midwest
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 595
Member Since:
August 12, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I can understand that. I'm not married, but if I were, I do hope I would trust my husband enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least initially. I'd have to look hard and skeptically at this other person's so-called proof before just assuming the other person was telling the truth. Some people might have malicious reasons for stirring the pot and causing trouble. They might have something against either spouse, or they could be sickos who think it's entertaining (folks who've never emotionally progressed beyond high school). And if either spouse were prominent, it could be a power play, too. I would never just automatically believe allegations about a loved one. I don't know if that makes me loyal, gullible or pragmatic. Maybe a little of each. Smile

                        survivor ribbon                             

               "Don't knock at death's door. 

          Ring the bell and run. He hates that."    

February 25, 2010
5:32 pm
Avatar
AnnesAdmire1024
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Im married not saying anything against anyone who isnt or anything against loyality but when I was told that my husband was being unfaithful and this person had proof I was furious even though I hadnt seen the evidence yet I still lashed out at himand if it was back then I would have said off with his head  even though these accustations turned out to be false. Noone said anything to disprove Annes guilt she wasnt even able to speak with him to deny these allegations.Now Henry was told she was being unfaithful and that cromwell had proof which was cohersed by tourcher he lashed out. Things today are much different than back in those days. Maybe Henry was so distrought about these allegations that he didnt want to hear her name and destroyed all her things(or so I have heard) because he didnt want that painful reminder we all agree he was psycho and maybe could have stopped it but she was found guilty and this was a king who didnt back down from anything. The question was did he conspire against AnneMeaning did he devise a plan of action against her to get rid of her on purpose ? My answer is no he didnt conspire against I believe he was told things by those around him which upset and hurt him and given his mental state at the time sent him over the edge had he been rational at the time I think Anne would have remained and maybe even given him a son. Now did Cromwell conspire against her? how bout brandon did he conspire against her? Did the seymours conspire against her? Yes they all devised a plan to bring her down and all they had to do was convince the king. They wanted her completely gone with no ties whatsoever they saw an oppurtunity and took it and who tragically suffered for it Anne, her brother, a wonderful muscian smeaton, and elizabeth 1 and any one else who they said was guilty Cromwell got his in the end though what goes around comes around. Sorry if I sound kinda mean not meaning to be I dont condone Henry but in someway I can understand where he was coming fromEmbarassed

Anne's Admirer

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427592

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1712

Posts: 23076

Newest Members:

DennisDorie, vitushatault, oghmaniusVom, Urocchxae, Puimignog, Emma3456

Administrators: Claire: 959