Would Jane Seymour have Survived? | Page 3 | 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
Would Jane Seymour have Survived?
April 6, 2015
11:18 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I will give the fat git, a modicum of credit, he kept his mistresses (few that they were) very secretive, and it’s really only Mary Boleyn, that we know was his mistress for a time. We know this basically because when Henry wanted to marry Anne, (before the split with Rome, Henry took it a little forgranted that the divorce was literly in the bag) he asked the Pope for a dispansation to marry Anne, due to his close association, with anohther member of the Boleyn family, this could of course only mean either Mary B or Elizabeth B (the mother of both girls). In fact I heard a rumour so time again that it was believed that Anne was in fact Elizabeth B’s and Henry’s love child.. Ha Ha Ha..(sounds like something SWMNBN, would come out with.)

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 6, 2015
4:03 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

I will give the fat git, a modicum of credit, he kept his mistresses (few that they were) very secretive, and it’s really only Mary Boleyn, that we know was his mistress for a time.

Bessie Blount was Henrys mistress for several years ending around the time she gave birth to Henry Fitzroy and her marriage.

It's always bunnies.

April 6, 2015
6:49 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yes, we cannot forget Bessie. Then there is the ever mysterious, imperial lady, who Chapuys mentions. I wish I knew who this woman was.

Nicolas Sander wrote during Elizabeth I’s time that Elizabeth Boleyn and Henry had an affair and the result was Anne. He was a staunch Catholic, writing in a foreign country. He wrote many terrible things about Anne that were not true. He wrote that she had six fingers, had a huge wen on her neck, and had moles all over her body. Three of things which made her a witch.

April 7, 2015
8:34 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Boleyn said

I will give the fat git, a modicum of credit, he kept his mistresses (few that they were) very secretive, and it’s really only Mary Boleyn, that we know was his mistress for a time.

Bessie Blount was Henrys mistress for several years ending around the time she gave birth to Henry Fitzroy and her marriage.

How could I have forgotten BessieFrown(Once again my brain has done the time warpYell) She is perhaps the best known of the bunch, certainly when it came to their child. Little Fitzroy, was the rubber stamp on Henry’s marriage doubts with K.O.A. Up until that point Lard Arse, had no case so to speak to argue. His Leviticus arguement held no merit until Fitzroy was born, because he turned the “They will be childless” arguement into the meaning of having no son.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 8, 2015
4:39 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn,
Brain freeze. It happens to all of us. Wink

Does anyone else wonder who the imperial lady was, or is it just me? Any guesses? Chapuys would have known who she was, yet he never mentions her by name. I wonder if she was Spanish? One of Katherine’s or Mary’s attendants? I have always been curious about her. She must have been something in order for Chapuys to give her that title. Anne was Henry’s wife, and yet he called her the concubine, or Lady Anne. He gives this one a mysterious title. There is a fictional story here just waiting to be written.

April 8, 2015
5:34 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Is it possible that Chapuys could have meant Maria De Salinas.?

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 8, 2015
8:41 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Boleyn,
Brain freeze. It happens to all of us. Wink

Does anyone else wonder who the imperial lady was, or is it just me? Any guesses? Chapuys would have known who she was, yet he never mentions her by name. I wonder if she was Spanish? One of Katherine’s or Mary’s attendants? I have always been curious about her. She must have been something in order for Chapuys to give her that title. Anne was Henry’s wife, and yet he called her the concubine, or Lady Anne. He gives this one a mysterious title. There is a fictional story here just waiting to be written.

Katherine’s and Mary’s attendants were no more at court, unless they were now Anne’s. And at they case they were surely not Spanish.

April 8, 2015
8:47 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

Is it possible that Chapuys could have meant Maria De Salinas.?

Maria was probably about same age as Katherine, so she was older than Henry, so why would he would have interested in her? And even if he were, Maria was loyal to Katherine and it is unlikely that she would have hurt her by an adulterous affair with her husband (as he from Katherine’s POV still was).

April 9, 2015
6:47 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Maria de Salinas was one year older than Henry. (born in 1490) It is true that Maria was no longer a member of Katherine’s household after Katherine was banished, but she was very much a part of Henry’s court. Her husband was up in the ranks and they would have been at court often. She was held in high regard by both Katherine and Henry. Henry named a ship after her. The HMS Mary Willoughby entered the Navy list in 1535.

Boleyn, She was the one who I thought of too. But after reading more about her, I don’t think she would have become a mistress of Henry. She was totally committed to Katherine. She wrote to Katherine often letting her know how Mary was doing. She was with Katherine when she died. Very dedicated. Keeping in mind though that Jane was supposedly dedicated to Katherine’s cause as well.

I tried looking for comments about the “imperial” lady. All I could find was the story of the “mysterious” lady who had gained Henry’s heart for a moment. She was the lady who in 1534, Anne and Jane Boleyn tried to remove from court. This is when Jane was banished from court. The “mysterious” lady was one of Anne’s ladies. Chapuys said she had written to Mary to say all was well, do not worry, things are about to turn in favor of Mary. In Lauren Mac Kay’s book about Chapuys, or in Linda Porter’s book about Mary, (not sure which one I read it in) it is noted that no such letter was found in Mary’s possession, and the author guesses the mysterious lady may have been Jane Seymour. I don’t think Chapuys would call Jane imperial or mysterious, seeing as how he had nothing nice to say about her when he found out Henry had chosen her as a mistress/wife. And if it was Jane, why would Chapuys not confirm that she was the mysterious lady of two years prior? Were these two women one in the same?

April 11, 2015
11:43 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Personally, I don’t think Jane was the Imperial Lady. I can’t see Chapuys hiding the fact that Jane had been Henry’s mistress in any context prior to the spring of 1536 from Charles.

It's always bunnies.

April 12, 2015
8:59 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said Personally, I don’t think Jane was the Imperial Lady. I can’t see Chapuys hiding the fact that Jane had been Henry’s mistress in any context prior to the spring of 1536 from Charles.

One must remember that there was two kind of mistresses: mistress in the game of courtly love and a mistress with whom one had a sexual affair. Henry liked to pay court to ladies as befitted to his role of king, but keep his actual affairs private.

As for Jane Seymour, why would Henry want to marry his former mistress whom he had once so easily abandoned? And what she would she believe to win by playing virtuous if Henry already knew she was not such? Or, if she had earlier refused to become his mistress and he had not been interested enough to continue to pursue her, why would he have returned to her? One can understand that she kept Henry’s interest alive for months in 1536 but not years.

April 13, 2015
6:15 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Anyanka said Personally, I don’t think Jane was the Imperial Lady. I can’t see Chapuys hiding the fact that Jane had been Henry’s mistress in any context prior to the spring of 1536 from Charles.

One must remember that there was two kind of mistresses: mistress in the game of courtly love and a mistress with whom one had a sexual affair. Henry liked to pay court to ladies as befitted to his role of king, but keep his actual affairs private.

As for Jane Seymour, why would Henry want to marry his former mistress whom he had once so easily abandoned? And what she would she believe to win by playing virtuous if Henry already knew she was not such? Or, if she had earlier refused to become his mistress and he had not been interested enough to continue to pursue her, why would he have returned to her? One can understand that she kept Henry’s interest alive for months in 1536 but not years.

Yeah..I don’t see Henry as a “Double-Dipper” when it came to his mistresses.

It's always bunnies.

April 13, 2015
8:35 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Hannele said

Anyanka said Personally, I don’t think Jane was the Imperial Lady. I can’t see Chapuys hiding the fact that Jane had been Henry’s mistress in any context prior to the spring of 1536 from Charles.

One must remember that there was two kind of mistresses: mistress in the game of courtly love and a mistress with whom one had a sexual affair. Henry liked to pay court to ladies as befitted to his role of king, but keep his actual affairs private.

As for Jane Seymour, why would Henry want to marry his former mistress whom he had once so easily abandoned? And what she would she believe to win by playing virtuous if Henry already knew she was not such? Or, if she had earlier refused to become his mistress and he had not been interested enough to continue to pursue her, why would he have returned to her? One can understand that she kept Henry’s interest alive for months in 1536 but not years.

Yeah..I don’t see Henry as a “Double-Dipper” when it came to his mistresses.

No, it doesn’t make any sense at all. Ives discusses and dismisses the theory that the mistress might have been Jane. Apparently this theory has been around for a while. He does say that Chapuys claims the mysterious lady is a woman who had the king’s affection previously. He means it in a courtly love manner and not as a mistress.

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