linkie

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006s5sf

This is why I have no respect for PG, it’s one thing to be a fictional writer and make up your little stories but to act like you know everything? That’s crossing the line to me. All she does is slam Anne and her name, she might as well tattoo ‘Henry’s team’ on her forehead. I’ll do it for her my brother owns a tattoo gun and i’m sure I could make it real pretty & big for her.
And as i’ve said oh so many time before, if she wanted to be a historian then why didn’t she? She could of but NO she chose to be a fictional author so she should stick to doing just like and keep her trap shut more often.
I’m fed up with that woman anymore….

I’m listening to it now… and finding it hard to keep from spluttering my coffee all over the keyboard…

I truly do not want to side with PG, but there are authors who are now questioning whether Francois actually said anything about Mary. This story originated with the Bishop of Faenza, Papal Nuncio, Rudolph Pio. He claimed in 1536 that “Francois knew Mary for a very great wh*re, and infamous above all.” He never said that Francois told him anything. There is no evidence to prove that Mary was this great wh*re in France. Had she been quite loose with her favors, as some writers imply, there would have been others who would confirm Pio’s remarks, but there are no other accounts of this. 1536 is a little late to start gossiping about something that supposedly happened 20 years earlier.

He made these statements only after saying that Anne, “that woman” as he called her, never had a miscarriage in 1536. He claimed she faked it. He also claimed that the only person she would allow to attend her when she was faking it, was her sister Mary. Mary was not at court at this time. She had been banished by Anne for marrying without permission. She was with her husband William Stafford.

Francois certainly loved the ladies. There is no doubt about that. His court was notoriously immoral; but a French historian claims Francois would have no slandering of women at his court. He insisted that they be honored and respected. I don’t think he was one to brag about conquests…but that’s just me. I’m not saying that Mary didn’t have an affair with Francois. I don’t know if she did or not. I’m just saying that the story that Francois called her a great and imfamous wh*re came from a Bishop. And it came 20 years after the fact when the Boleyn’s were about to fall. The story was later picked up by the anti-Boleyn faction and was repeated by the Catholics during Elizabeth’s time. If you repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it to be the truth.

It is guesswork. She may have stayed in France to finish her education or she may have come home with Mary Tudor. There are no records of her remaining with Queen Claude or anyone else in the french court. There is no evidence of her remaining in Mary Tudor’s employ. Nor is there evidence that she was in Katherine’s employ. I have no idea where she was.

I hear you on the one upmanship thing, Boleyn. I think Francois would have taken any woman from any court. Henry seemed to be the one who wanted to compare himself with Francois and come out ahead. Not the other way around. I think the rivalry began in 1520 when they met at the Field of Cloth of Gold. Francois was very self confident. Henry was not. He was always trying to prove he was better than everyone else. When he failed to win that wrestling match….well it was game on!

You may be right. I’m just going by what is written about Francois’ personality. Even though he was a rogue, I would like to believe he was protective of his women’s reputations. From what I have read he was. I have always thought he was a lover, not a destroyer of women, and that would include English women. It is the Bishop who thoroughly despised the Boleyn’s who I don’t trust. Despite the way Francois is portrayed in films and fiction, he did respect his wife. That’s more than we can say about Henry.

Francis was a bit of a flamboyant and colourful charater I must admit, and yes I agree the fact he had mistresses was well known. He was quite discreet though, unlike Henry who used to flaunt his conquests around the court. I love what Francis said to Henry in a letter when K.H’s behaviour became common knowledge.
He said that he was sorry to hear of the wanton and naughty behaviour of his Queen.
Was he rubbing salt into Henry’s wounds perhaps a little?

Boleyn said

Francis was a bit of a flamboyant and colourful charater I must admit, and yes I agree the fact he had mistresses was well known. He was quite discreet though, unlike Henry who used to flaunt his conquests around the court. I love what Francis said to Henry in a letter when K.H’s behaviour became common knowledge.
He said that he was sorry to hear of the wanton and naughty behaviour of his Queen.
Was he rubbing salt into Henry’s wounds perhaps a little?

Ha! I hope so. I love that comment.

Boleyn,
Maybe Mary didn’t do anything wrong. Thomas Boleyn may have thought that Anne would be the better choice to stay with Queen Claude and continue her education. He could have simply decided to bring Mary home. Since there was no talk about Mary having clandestine affairs during this time, I just don’t feel right accusing her of them. If there was more proof, I would change my mind. It wasn’t until much later that the stories about Mary came about. Well after her time in France.
Yes, the five year period is a mystery, but it could be that Mary was home at Hever learning wifely duties, and there was nothing to report. Mud sticking is a good analogy, but I don’t think either of these women tainted the other. The way to destroy a woman back then was to accuse her of being a wh*re. A woman would have no defence against this charge. If they could destroy Anne with the accusation of being a wh*re, then destroying Mary with the same accusation, was easy.
This is strictly my opinion, but this family has been ripped to pieces by history. Anne and George are finally being rehabillitated. (an uphill battle, I know) I think Mary certainly deserves the same.