Oh well I don’t think anyone can profess to be perfect on that score Louise, I can think of quite a few historical figures I am too hard on – Norfolk for example – I joke he managed to to outlive Henry VIII and forget he spent many years imprisoned as an old, old man. It’s impossible to be perfectly balanced all the time and I think your book does a fantastic job of delivering fair opinions on many historical figures as well as George.
And with that said I know authors have to expect a certain amount of criticism, but I just took apart someone’s book piece by piece and psychoanalysed it, so you know.

There’s an interesting section in Bordo’s book where Natalie Dormer said Michael Hirst thought he had not written a sexist version of Anne Boleyn and had no idea what she was talking about it when Natalie pulled him up on it (or the like). I haven’t read the whole book yet but I found the sections on The Tudors very interesting. I mean Hirst appears to have a great respect for Anne Boleyn and look at what he did to her…

Louise said

Mariette and Anyanka, I hope that our book doesn’t unfairly vilify anyone, just as I hope is doesn’t unduly glorify anyone, including George Boleyn. We have tried to paint as fair a picture as possible of him and haven’t shied away from his flaws and less admirable qualities.
As for Cromwell, I don’t believe we vilify him. We certainly allow him to be a far better man than he is portrayed by Mantel. With regards to the sentence referred to, we felt that Cromwell begging Henry for ‘mercy, mercy, mercy’ showed a lack of the dignity exhibited by the Boleyns, Norris, Brereton and Weston when they faced their own ordeal. Having said that I agree, when taking into account Cromwell’s performance on the scaffold, that we probably went too far by suggesting he wasn’t courageous or dignified. I will mention it to Claire for future editions. Thanks for raising it as a concern Mariette and I hope it didn’t detract from your enjoyment of the book.

The book was wonderful, Louise and my comments reflect my own impression of Cromwell’s plea for mercy and weren’t intended as a criticism of the authors. The book was meticulously researched and well-written, your passion for your subject was evident and a credible George Boleyn emerges from the pages.

Clare and Claire i must apologise for my comments since I haven’t read your book yet..

(I’m in the middle of a WWI buying binge which is taking up my book buying cash along the the memory card space in my kindle. i had hoped to get your book for my birthday/mother’s day pressie but hints and commmands fell on oblivious ears..)

I was basing my remark simply on the quote provided earlier in this thread. and for that I should be ashamed at making a huge leap in my own baises..

For myself..I don’t see Cromwell as being anything less than pragamatic with regards to his letter requesting mercy.
He wasn’t a noble..his death could have been far worse than a “simple” beheading that George and company had. There was the potential of the fate suffered by Francis Dereham as well as the monks earlier in Henry’s reign. It takes a brave person to face being hung, drawn and quartered.

Again..i’m sorry if either of you think I’m judging your book on a single quote..and the book now awating for the next pay day to be bought…whch sadly is the end of august…

Anyanka, I’m so sorry if gave the impression that Clare and Claire’s book was biased. It’s a very balanced account and you’ll find that it’s well worth waiting for. I share your opinion regarding Cromwell’s plea for mercy and don’t see it as lacking in dignity. A lot depended on his remaining alive and he had nothing left to lose: The continuation of the reform of the church was at stake, he feared for the safety of his followers, and he was concerned for the welfare of his family and hundreds of servants. He couldn’t protect anyone if he was dead, and his fears re reform and the reformers proved to be well-founded… Stephen Gardiner loomed large until 1547.

Boleyn, Stephen Gardiner was someone for whom I have a very hard time finding anything to admire. Henry VIII kept him around because he was useful (no-one at court had a better knowledge of the law). The king certainly didn’t trust him (only he could rule him, *cough*) and did’nt include him in his son’s council. Imo he was a ruthless zealot, with an oversized ego and little trace of compassion for others. The treatment Anne Askew was inexcusable.

Mariette said

Boleyn, Stephen Gardiner was someone for whom I have a very hard time finding anything to admire. Henry VIII kept him around because he was useful (no-one at court had a better knowledge of the law). The king certainly didn’t trust him (only he could rule him, *cough*) and did’nt include him in his son’s council. Imo he was a ruthless zealot, with an oversized ego and little trace of compassion for others. The treatment Anne Askew was inexcusable.

IIRC, Gardiner was also playing a cat and mouse game with Cranmer with henry’s semi-tacit support but was out-foxed at the last minute again by Henry switching his favour back to Cranmer.

To be honest S.G gives me the creeps. There was definetely something sly and vindictive about him, erhaps that’s why Henry kept him around because Henry could be just as vindictive when he wanted to be. S.G’s treatment of Anne Askew just goes to prove how vindictive he truly could be. He knew the law about the limits he could go to when a woman was involved and yet he cruelly for want of a better word butchered Anne Askew all because he was so hell bent on discrediting the Queen, and therefore trying to worm his way back into Henry’s favour. I also agree that Henry played a game of Cat and mouse with both S.G and T.C, I kind of think Henry got a perverted sence of pleasure watching his 2 little mice dangling on a rope, never knowing which ones noose would tighten. Basically because Henry was a sick sadistic bastard. I also think that he had had enough of S.G’s interference and perhaps the petty squabbles that T.C and S.G had over the matters of religion, and even of K.P arguements over religion and decided to teach them all a lesson.. Basically it was a case of my way or the highway, or should that be the axe way.
What happened to Anne Askew was just barbaric, but I feel that Henry had told him to rack her but not to the extent that S.G did. By racking Anne Askew, Henry meant it to serve as a warning to K.P to keep her gob shut on matters of religion, and also to tell T.C “don’t push it boy or’ll have you for breakfast” The reason I say this is because T.C interpetation of the church was very diffirent to Henry’s interpetation. Henry saw himself at the centre of it all and everything and everybody revolved around him and his mood swings. His morning moods were very different to those in the evening and it took a careful man to recognise the danger point with Henry. Henry still saw the Church as Catholic, only he was the Pope not the man wearing a dress with a pointy hat in Rome.
T.C accepted that but felt that Henry could do so much more with the reforms of the church. S.G on the other hand wanted to fully return to Rome and perhaps even suggested as much, that man wearing a dress with a pointy hat in Rome would happily forgive Henry Blah Blah. As for Henry he was happy enough wallowing in his own crapulance, and raking in the pennies. I pretty sure that T.C got Henry’s point and backed off admitting that he was wrong to push forward his opinions which were all wrong, and that Henry was the big Cheese (Stilton I should think by the smell of him) However S.G didn’t see Henry’s point and simply pulled the noose tighter and then got rid of him.
Sending men to arrest K.P was again a point hitting home exercise, she narrowly avoided taking her head home in a Harrods carrier bag and she knew it too. Like T.C she backed off and shut her gob a bit rapid.
If you look at how T.C influenced Edward’s religious reforms, you can see just how different they were to what Henry believed, religion wise.
For the most part Henry left the Catholics alone providing they accepted him as head of the church, and they had their smells and bells and religious images to a certain degree, and largely followed the Catholic form of worship. Henry saw himself as Catholic. Edward on the other hand did away with all the Catholic Claptrap and seriously and radically reformed what Henry’s church was. Cramner I would say really came into his whole element body and soul when Edward came to the throne. If Edward had lived long enough to procreate, I stongly believe that England would be very different to what we have today.. I sort of think it might have been something along the the lines of Cromwell’s England, very puritan. A little like the Amish comunities in America.

Boleyn said

The utterance of total, unabashed bullshit, while maintaining the appearance of unwavering belief in what you are saying.
Kind of sums old lard arse right up I think….

Boleyn said
S.G’s treatment of Anne Askew just goes to prove how vindictive he truly could be. He knew the law about the limits he could go to when a woman was involved and yet he cruelly for want of a better word butchered Anne Askew all because he was so hell bent on discrediting the Queen, and therefore trying to worm his way back into Henry’s favour.

The racking of Anne Askew by Wriothesley and Rich, almost certainly at Gardiner’s instigation, was illegal, the Constable of the Tower, Sir William Kingston (imo a very decent man) wanted no part in it and tried to put a stop to it, taking the matter to the king. The vicious sods were never punished so it would appear Henry approved of their actions in his cat and mouse game.

Olga said

I can think of quite a few historical figures I am too hard on – Norfolk for example – I joke he managed to to outlive Henry VIII and forget he spent many years imprisoned as an old, old man. It’s impossible to be perfectly balanced all the time …

Norfolk didn’t deserve what happened in 1546, he was loyal to the king, though he was an obstacle to Edward Seymour’s ambitions. The poor man had to plead for a pair of sheets and a few books to be allowed him (I hope he had at least a blanket – it was winter!). You’re so right, it’s hard to be balanced at times.

I have a friend who keeps bringing up the genetic mutual attraction theory when we discuss this in relation to Richard III and EoY – which causes much argument .
The problem with Mantel and Gregory’s take on it is that they are firstly trying to present it as a normal cultural thing – which it was not. And secondly it’s not really correct all siblings from noble families didn’t grow up together, they may have become separated at a younger age being warded out to different households but they would generally share the same nursery. The exceptions usually being royal families, when the heir was sent off to his own household. Henry VIII’s children were a bit unusual there but that was due to them all having different mothers. Looking at the 15th and 16th century, the two largest royal families were EW’s and EoY’s children, and all of the youngest were brought up together.

In more modern cases like the one you’ve pointed out Anyanka, these are people who had never met and found out after they had formed relationships. I know it happens quite a bit, but knowing someone is your sibling would generally give one more pause beforehand. Especially in a time where people genuinely feared for their souls.