Historical/Hysterical theories | Historical Debates | 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
Historical/Hysterical theories
October 2, 2012
3:47 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 612
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I was thinking (steady on I hear you cry)! It’s impossible to prove a negative. You can prove something exists, but you can’t prove something doesn’t exist. If there were any evidence to confirm it, it would be possible to prove George Boleyn was homosexual, but once the theory is made, irrespective of the fact that there’s no evidence to prove it, it’s impossible to categorically disprove it.
You could theorise that Anne Boleyn had three breasts. Unlike the Duchess of Cambridge, Anne was never photographed topless, so it’s impossible to disprove. You could theorise that Catherine of Aragon had an alcohol problem, hence the reason she kept miscarrying (that wasn’t a Spanish accent; she was permanently drunk)! It was 500 years ago; who’s going to prove me wrong?
Historians can come up with any theory they like in the knowledge that no one can categorically disprove it. I could say that Henry VIII liked his hunting dogs…..i.e. that he really really liked them. I have nothing to go on to prove that, but it doesn’t stop me saying so because no one can say I’m wrong. Henry slept with some of his pageboys during periods when he wasn’t married. It would be easy to advance a theory that he was a child abuser. I don’t believe it for a minute, but it’s possible. Anything is possible.
Historians are always trying to come up with something new to advance a book or show they have come up with something incredible that no one else has thought of. I just think a lot of it is a complete load of b*****ks.

October 2, 2012
5:34 pm
Avatar
Claire-Louise
UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 256
Member Since:
March 26, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree, next thing people will be saying there may be some historically creditability to that book that claimed that Anne Boleyn was a vampire Confused

October 2, 2012
11:15 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Silly, Claire-Louise, every-one knows she was a vampire-slayer…..though Anne could have been both I suppose

It's always bunnies.

October 3, 2012
2:39 am
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yep, and once a popular historian puts forward any old theory, there are people who will defend that crackpot theory at all costs, no matter how illogical.

And Anne Boleyn was totally a vampire. I know it’s true because Claire-Louise said so. How dare you bash her, Anyanka! Laugh

October 3, 2012
6:34 am
Avatar
Bella44
New Zealand
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 934
Member Since:
January 9, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Of course Anne was a vampire. I read the book so it must be true!
(BTW, I don’t recommend it. Even as a piece of silly, fantasy fluff, it sucked. And not in a way that any self-respecting vampire would approve of.)

But getting back on topic, what about the person who’s put forward the idea that Henry had mcleods (sp?) syndrome, or whatever it was? I don’t know anything about that condition so I couldn’t say yay or nay but it seems pretty far-fetched to me. But some people could read that and think ‘Of course! That’s why Henry chopped people’s heads off and turned into a tyrant!’ And without digging up old Henry, how are we supposed to prove that he didn’t have mcleods syndrome and was kell positive or whatever?

October 3, 2012
8:13 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

In an unrelated spin-off rant, why are so many people desperate to find reasons for why Henry was a nutter? If it’s not the traditional blaming Anne, it’s some sort of disease or knock on the head.
Of course perhaps this one is a new theory. I do like this portrait

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Boo…..1444705201

Laugh

All the publishers cashing in on the Tudor craze get some historians to write at least one book a year, and recycle stuff from three years ago. If they give it a different cover people might think it’s got something new. If it hasn’t got anything new, chuck out a wild theory and see if it sticks.

October 3, 2012
1:07 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 612
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don’t think Henry was mad. I know there are sources confirming he could get angry and sometimes lose his temper, but he wasn’t known to do this regularly and he never flew completely off the handle and acted irrationally. Likewise, save for very specific and rare incidents, he wasn’t famous for being personally violent. He let others do that for him. In the plot against Anne, George and the others he acted with blood curdling cold bloodedness. With so many of his most brutal acts, they were not carried out on the spur of the moment by an irrational mind; they were carried out over a period of time, sometimes years. They were the calculated actions of someone who knew exactly what he was doing. I think he knew exactly what he was doing throughout his entire reign.
As intelligent and rational people, we find it difficult to accept that an intelligent and rational man could have done what he did. Therefore, we try and give an explanation where an explanation isn’t necessarily there. But the most intelligent, rational, and sane of human beings are capable of the most appaulling crimes.
Regarding theories, then without evidence that’s all they can be. I just sometimes get grumpy when theories are advanced, not based on evidence, but more based on the fact that you can’t prove a negative. To me that seems like a bit of a cop out. I’m not including in this the likes of Suzannah Lipscomb. Her book on Henry is excellent. She cleverly interprets evidence to make a strong case for her argument that Henry’s bump on the head affected his personality from January 1536 onwards. I don’t agree, but that’s a different matter. It’s when a theory is advanced with no logic or rationale to back it up that I get grumpy. It’s like trying to argue with someone that the world’s flat. You simply can’t.

October 3, 2012
1:35 pm
Avatar
Barnettbuff
Murray, Kentucky USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 89
Member Since:
October 1, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louise, I think you are exactly right; Henry always knew what he was doing and did so with calculated certainty. We must remember he lived in a totally different age and the actions and thoughts of the peoples of that time were so very different than ours, we seem sometimes to be totally unable to comprehend their actions and motives. Or at least so, here in the Civilized Western World.
Henry was not the only monarch to use the axe and the match. They was being used by the Royal Families and their henchmen throughout the entire European community. And not only used by Royalty but we must remember, by the Church, as well. If Henry had a “mental disorder”, then so did about half the population at that time. One half was capable of “doing” the dastardly deeds, while the other half were capable of “watching”! What a “festive” time in which they lived!

October 3, 2012
2:01 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louise said
In the plot against Anne, George and the others he acted with blood curdling cold bloodedness. With so many of his most brutal acts, they were not carried out on the spur of the moment by an irrational mind; they were carried out over a period of time, sometimes years. They were the calculated actions of someone who knew exactly what he was doing. I think he knew exactly what he was doing throughout his entire reign.

That’s actually why I think he wasn’t completely sane Louise, so we’ll have to disagree. Anyone would have a hard time convincing me that a man so completely obsessed with his own self, his image, his power and his authority is 100% sane. I also think he had instances of bordering on delusional. It doesn’t mean he didn’t know what he was doing, I also think he knew exactly what he was doing.

I’m not bagging Lipscomb by the way, I know you’ve told me about her book and I trust your judgement. It’s how people take theories and run with them and spin new theories off them, and in a decade or so everyone will think Henry was a poor sick man who can’t be held responsible for his actions.

An amazing theory Loades threw out there in his book on the Boleyns was that Jane testified against George because and uncomfortable with his reformist views, loosely based on the fact that Morley had a friendship with Mary and that Jane was apparently arrested at a protest for Mary (which has been cleared up for me here of course). This could start a whole new trend in Tudor fiction. Jane the secret Catholic ridding the world of reformists.

October 3, 2012
2:08 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Barnettbuff said
If Henry had a “mental disorder”, then so did about half the population at that time. One half was capable of “doing” the dastardly deeds, while the other half were capable of “watching”! What a “festive” time in which they lived!

Hi Barnett :) I think it’s fair to say one had to obey one’s monarch at the time. We all know what happened to people who stood up to him. I wouldn’t judge anyone who valued their life and did as he said, quite frankly.

October 3, 2012
2:13 pm
Avatar
Barnettbuff
Murray, Kentucky USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 89
Member Since:
October 1, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yes Olga,
I see your point: “Do or Die”.Smile

October 3, 2012
4:38 pm
Avatar
Claire-Louise
UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 256
Member Since:
March 26, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Silly, Claire-Louise, every-one knows she was a vampire-slayer…..though Anne could have been both I suppose

Lol Laugh Maybe we should ask Phillippa Gregory, I’m sure she would have some interesting thongs to say about the vampire theory, maybe even throw a werewolf into the mix Wink

October 3, 2012
5:30 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anne was a vampire. Elizabeth was a vampire slayer. I read the books. Wink
Henry was more like a modern day seriel killer. He was missing something in his makeup. People close to him seemed to care for him a great deal. So he had enough social skills to pass himself off as a charmer. Sort of like Ted Bundy. Good looking, charming, and deadly.

October 3, 2012
5:47 pm
Avatar
Neil Kemp
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 447
Member Since:
April 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Anne was a vampire. Elizabeth was a vampire slayer. I read the books. Wink
Henry was more like a modern day seriel killer. He was missing something in his makeup. People close to him seemed to care for him a great deal. So he had enough social skills to pass himself off as a charmer. Sort of like Ted Bundy. Good looking, charming, and deadly.

Sharon, I think that’s spot on. We like our monsters to look like monsters not just act like them. They shouldn’t be clever, handsome, charming, intelligent and well versed in social skills. That’s why Ted Bundy got away with it for so long, he didn’t fit our perception of a serial killer and I think that’s the problem a lot of people have with Henry. Hence the need to try and find other reasons for his actions.

October 3, 2012
6:05 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Totally agree Sharon, that’s it exactly.. Of course the other way of looking at it from the tudor point of view.. What Henry did or didn’t do when read from the tudor thinking was wonderful. he did what he felt was best for his people and no one would dare say he was doing anything wrong.
Mistakes are made when people try to put modern day thining into what happened back then and that leads to all sorts of issues.
The instance just lately where poor Claire has been put throuh the mangle proves that.. such as George lent a book to Smeaton so therefore George must be Gay men don’t lend other men books unless there is something sexual going on between them. 21st century thinking by uneducated morons., When in truth looking at it from the Tudor perspective as we educated and enlightened people do here it’s a simple case of George lending a book to Smeaton, because Smeaton has shown an interest in the book. There was nothing sexual or perverted about it in the least.
George was not Gay.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 4, 2012
2:43 am
Avatar
Gill
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
June 15, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Anne was a vampire. Elizabeth was a vampire slayer. I read the books. Wink
Henry was more like a modern day seriel killer. He was missing something in his makeup. People close to him seemed to care for him a great deal. So he had enough social skills to pass himself off as a charmer. Sort of like Ted Bundy. Good looking, charming, and deadly.

You’ve just described a sociopathic personality Sharon. I think it’s entirely possible Henry was a sociopath – there are more around than most people realise, and they are not all killers by any stretch of the imagination. These are common traits of a sociopath – keep in mind not every sociopath will exhibit all of the signs… http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Doesn’t that sound like Henry?

October 4, 2012
5:51 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Anne was a vampire. Elizabeth was a vampire slayer. I read the books. Wink
Henry was more like a modern day seriel killer. He was missing something in his makeup. People close to him seemed to care for him a great deal. So he had enough social skills to pass himself off as a charmer. Sort of like Ted Bundy. Good looking, charming, and deadly.

I read a summary of a book in which H8 is a zombie killer..links into the whole AB as undead…coincidence…I think not!

It's always bunnies.

October 4, 2012
5:52 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gill said

Yep, and once a popular historian puts forward any old theory, there are people who will defend that crackpot theory at all costs, no matter how illogical.

And Anne Boleyn was totally a vampire. I know it’s true because Claire-Louise said so. How dare you bash her, Anyanka! Laugh

my mummy(of tutankhamnon) said it was trueWink

It's always bunnies.

October 4, 2012
2:05 pm
Avatar
Barnettbuff
Murray, Kentucky USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 89
Member Since:
October 1, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gill said

Sharon said

Anne was a vampire. Elizabeth was a vampire slayer. I read the books. Wink
Henry was more like a modern day seriel killer. He was missing something in his makeup. People close to him seemed to care for him a great deal. So he had enough social skills to pass himself off as a charmer. Sort of like Ted Bundy. Good looking, charming, and deadly.

You’ve just described a sociopathic personality Sharon. I think it’s entirely possible Henry was a sociopath – there are more around than most people realise, and they are not all killers by any stretch of the imagination. These are common traits of a sociopath – keep in mind not every sociopath will exhibit all of the signs… http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Doesn’t that sound like Henry?

“Incapacity to love” pretty much sums it up for Ol’ Henry. Seems like every point about him being a sociopath is true. Thanks for sharing.

October 4, 2012
3:10 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Henry’s perception of love was a very twisted one.. I’ve no doubt that he did truly love Anne B but it was that love that also destroyed her.
The only real person Henry truly loved was himself, but I also feel like he loathed himself as well, and because of it other people suffered. He blamed them for his problems and his haphazard love life and killed them. He refused to see that he had done anything wrong. Everything he did he could justify. He had a pain in his big toe it the bloke who had brought him a goblet of wine fault so therefore he must die.. Chop his head off.
Henry in my opinion was a very shallow vain self obsessed great pile of lard.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 70

Currently Online:
11 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2345

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 934

DuchessofBrittany: 847

Mya Elise: 782

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 426044

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1679

Posts: 23600

Newest Members:

darryluw16, jeannettefs16, HapunrU, levisthomas02, anntb60, normawe2

Administrators: Claire: 998