Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
3:59 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
I don’t think Henry was a sociopath. Henry was far too emotional for a sociopath. I don’t agree he had an incapacity to love either, he was a romantic and fell in love with each woman he had an affair or relationship with. It was just conditional.
Quite frankly I think he had Daddy issues. But anyway
Boleyn said
Henry in my opinion was a very shallow vain self obsessed great pile of lard.
2:30 am
June 15, 2012
Offline
I don’t know…I think Henry liked to imagine himself in love because of his self-image as a romantic, but I think his emotions were very shallow and he certainly never loved deeply. When things went pear shaped, his principal emotion was self pity, and he felt that in great big shovelfuls.
10:52 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Sorry to interrupt the train of discussion… But going back to what Louise said about how a theory can just be made up and then can’t be disproved, I’ve always wondered how Retha Warnicke’s theory went from a theory which actually doesn’t make sense to being one that is so accepted that you’re seen as mad for arguing against it. It’s become part of the world view of George and is based on him lending a book to Smeaton. The whole sexual heresy thing, and the men being involved in witchcraft etc. makes no sense either as none of them were charged with anything other than adultery with the Queen and plotting to kill the King, except George and the whole incest charge. There was no blackening of their names at the time with whispers of bestiality, homosexuality, witchcraft etc.
Re Henry. With regards to women, I see him as a hopeless romantic wanting to be the great chivalric hero and the women just not living up to his very unrealistic expectations.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
7:09 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Claire,
That’s where the fiction writers have stepped in. They find a theory like Warnicke’s, write that George was definitely gay, and there it is. In the back of their books they say that some historian believes George was gay…and it becomes a fact to the reader who does not check the facts.
Did Warnicke ever back off this theory?
I do think Henry was a hopeless romantic. Certainly not a realist when it came to love. That’s what bothers me about him. He was in love with the thought of love, but had no idea how to truly love. I’d make a bet that the women in his life didn’t think he quite lived up to the chivalrous romantic hero that he thought he was.
7:43 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Sharon, Warnicke never provided any logical or rational evidence regarding George Boleyn’s sexuality.
What amuses me, and what I find ironic, is that no one has ever, to my knowledge, advanced a theory regarding Henry’s sexuality. If you are going to rely on circumstantial evidence then there is a far better argument for suggesting Henry was bisexual than George Boleyn. George gave/lent a book to Mark Smeaton, which Warnicke suggests means they had a sexual relationship. Yet Henry’s generosity to his favourite male courtiers was substancial. He granted and gave huge sums of money, sinecures and properties to his favourites, including Mark Smeaton who he fed and clothed.
He regularly slept with favourite pages and courtiers when he was lonely, many of whom were little more than boys.
He had periods of impotency with women, but perhaps those periods were when he found it impossible to ignore his sexual preferences?
I don’t believe Henry was bisexual and I’m not suggesting it as a theory. I’m just making the point that any theory can be made when you choose to distort facts to try and prove a point. If I did put Henry’s bisexuality forth as a theory I would be abused and vilified by Henry lovers, but in reality who is going to successfully and irrevocably challenge it. The argument, which so many choose to accept about George Boleyn, is far more logical, and has far more circumstantial evidence to support it than the theory relating to George.
10:31 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Sharon, if I remember rightly, Warnicke did distance herself from The Other Boleyn Girl after Gregory named her as her source, not sure…
Louise, now there’s a theory and it definitely has more going for it than the George was gay theory. I feel a novel coming on. We’ve had Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard getting it on, so why not Henry and Culpeper? That’s why Culpeper got away with rape and murder, I see it now…
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
12:10 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Claire said
Sharon, if I remember rightly, Warnicke did distance herself from The Other Boleyn Girl after Gregory named her as her source, not sure…
Louise, now there’s a theory and it definitely has more going for it than the George was gay theory. I feel a novel coming on. We’ve had Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard getting it on, so why not Henry and Culpeper? That’s why Culpeper got away with rape and murder, I see it now…
Lies and Lust in the Tudor Court by Margaret Doner has AoC trying to seduce KH…Still with a BFA and MA in dance and choreography makes for a well researched novel…
It's always bunnies.
2:10 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
Just out of curiousiity and cause I wasn’t wrapped up in the Tudors at the time, was there any outcry from the TOBG fans that George WASN’T presented as gay in the movie. I will admit that if death’s not an option I would have preferred they presented him as gay as opposed to contemplating incest. That’s one positive I can see with the movie, that perhaps it will help some people avoid ‘learning’ that George was gay, just a pity it has to teach them he would have contemplated incest, but at least that story angle has some historical merit since he was found guilty of that charge, even if the majority of historians don’t believe there was any truth to it.
10:28 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Hello Bill,
I did see one comment from someone who was concerned that George wasn’t gay in the film. She felt that was the only thing about the film which was historicallly inaccurate. I banged my head against the desk so much after reading that comment that I nearly brained myself.
By the way, I seem to have subscribed to this post. I didn’t intend to and don’t know how I did it. In fact I didn’t know you could subscibe to a particular post. Could anyone enlighten me on how I did it?’
11:54 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
Thanks forthat info Louise glad you didn’t brain yourself. Even as someone who hadn’t been researching The Tudors since High School, knew there was plenty of historical mistakes in that movie, and George not being gay was not one that I noticed.
Another theory that may takes forever to dispel is that Frances Brandon was a tyrant and a big fat meanie to her wholesome pur virginal little girl Jane.
re: your dilemma when you type a reply, in the bottom right corner there is a button to subscribe to this topic. I imagine by clicking it, you can unsubscribe as well
12:24 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Claire said
Sorry to interrupt the train of discussion… But going back to what Louise said about how a theory can just be made up and then can’t be disproved, I’ve always wondered how Retha Warnicke’s theory went from a theory which actually doesn’t make sense to being one that is so accepted that you’re seen as mad for arguing against it.
I’d say there’s a trail to follow. Warnicke’s book published in 1989, The Other Boleyn Girl published in 2001, The Tudors 2007. Bring Up the Bodies 2012. (I didn’t read Wolf Hall so I’m not sure if she presented George that way) And so on.
Of course I think the television series actually did the most damage as it appealed to a much wider audience. There’s not many men (no offence Bill) that are going to read a book with a cover that looks like a romance book. Without knowing about the content of the book and seeing the cover they are not likely going to even pick it up. In all my years of bookselling I have never sold one to a male, unless it’s been online and they’re using their wife’s account and I don’t know about it. The Tudors on the other hand had a large and mixed audience.
That is also why Hilary Mantel’s books skip the traditional depiction of a historical fiction novel and have ambiguous covers. obviously the publishers don’t want to pigeon-hole her with the “romancey” types of historical fiction authors.
I’m curious, being new to Tudor History, if Warnicke’s theory was so widely accepted before the publication of TOBG? And help me out here, was there anything in between Warnicke and Gregory’s books that perpetuated the myth? Because I am also curious as how The Tudors evolved the myth to wife-beater and rapist status.
1:58 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Bill1978 said
Thanks forthat info Louise glad you didn’t brain yourself. Even as someone who hadn’t been researching The Tudors since High School, knew there was plenty of historical mistakes in that movie, and George not being gay was not one that I noticed.
Another theory that may takes forever to dispel is that Frances Brandon was a tyrant and a big fat meanie to her wholesome pur virginal little girl Jane.
re: your dilemma when you type a reply, in the bottom right corner there is a button to subscribe to this topic. I imagine by clicking it, you can unsubscribe as well
You are right Bill about Frances Brandon.. I for one am very guilty of believing that Frances Brandon, was a horrible daughter beating bitch. But thankfully I’ve opened my eyes and realised that it’s possible that was just bunkum.. She may or may not have beaten the be jebus out of Jane, but if that was true why did she just single out Jane for this treatment? I’m inclined to think that perhaps Frances was frustrated with Jane at times as Jane didn’t seem to want to follow in her mother’s footsteps, and perhaps despaired of finding a suitable husband for her due to her ways.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
10:53 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Following Claire’s suggestion I have started my first novel. The working title is:-
Henry: Man in Tights
4:11 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
One thing you have to remember about Tudor England, was that wife-beating wasn’t considered to be anything less tham a husband’s right. No-one would have raised an eye-brow HAD George beaten Jane. That doesn’t mean I think George was a wife-beater, though.
Maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t, I don’t know for definate but to his contemparies he wouldn’t have been seen in that light. He would have been seen as doing ” the right thing”….
In the same way, marriage gave a man the right to his wife’s sexual services. He couldn’t rape her since that wasn’t a crime in those times
In so many ways I’m glad to be bringing up the little venenge demons in the 21st century. Though some of the things I’m reading about the extreme religious right in USA makes me worry at times.
It's always bunnies.
4:47 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Louise said
Following Claire’s suggestion I have started my first novel. The working title is:-
Henry: Man in Tights
4:49 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Anyanka said
One thing you have to remember about Tudor England, was that wife-beating wasn’t considered to be anything less tham a husband’s right. No-one would have raised an eye-brow HAD George beaten Jane. That doesn’t mean I think George was a wife-beater, though.
Maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t, I don’t know for definate but to his contemparies he wouldn’t have been seen in that light. He would have been seen as doing ” the right thing”….
It’s different when it’s depicted in a television show Anyanka, because not everyone is beating or raping their wife in it, only George, to make him stand out. It was certainly not shown as common on the Tudors, as it may have been historically, therefore George still looks like a scumbag.
10:07 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Yep I agree Anyanka. In today sociaty however the thought of a man hitting a woman is completely abborant and simply not tolerated. But back then it was perfectly exceptable for a man to hit hiis wife if he felt she was getting above her station, or had denied him his marital rights I.e sex.
Is there anything anywhere to suggest that Henry used to hit his wives? He was very vocal and threatening but did he actually clout them one too?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
5:32 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Anyanka said
In so many ways I’m glad to be bringing up the little venenge demons in the 21st century. Though some of the things I’m reading about the extreme religious right in USA makes me worry at times.
You worry about the religious right in the US, Anyanka? They scare me silly. I feel like I have taken multiple steps backwards sometimes! 
6:02 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Boleyn said
Is there anything anywhere to suggest that Henry used to hit his wives? He was very vocal and threatening but did he actually clout them one too?
Boleyn,
I have never read that Henry hit any of his wives. I’m sure he was tempted a few times, but I gotta hand it to him, he seems to have kept his temper in check as far as lambasting them goes.
6:21 pm
October 1, 2012
Offline
Sharon~
If you are worried living in New York — try to think what it’s like living in “THE BIBLE BELT”! Scary doesn’t begin to describe it! For example: The Wet/Dry issue has been raging in this area for about 10 years. We just passed the “Packaged Stores” question, a few months back. We’ve only had liquor By-the-drink for about 7-8 years. That’s how far behind this area is. Still have “Blue Laws” meaning we cannot buy drinks or bottles on SUNDAY, all bars are closed, and no drinks in restaurants — and people talk about the separation of Church and State???????? OK, I’m through venting
1 Guest(s)
