Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
6:34 am
February 10, 2010
Offline
Louise – thanks for the info, I shall get reading.
Bill – I know what you mean. I'm a writer but not a historian so while I can see myself writing a fictional account of George's life, I wouldn't have the gravitas to be accepted as George's biographer. Also being fundamentally lazy it would be so much easier to read an account in 21st Century English rather than 16th Century English (and I can't read Latin or French either, which would give me a problem with some of the sources).
I'm in two minds about the book – what made Starkey's six wives for me was the fact he went and re=examined the original papers and added new research. It's also what marks Ives out. A new book with no new research is unlikely to do George much justice – but I suppose it might reinterpret some of the existing research to officially debunk Warnicke.
4:18 am
April 11, 2011
Offline
Yes, Anne fan, I believe there is enough scope in simply looking again at the existing research and coming to a conclusion that would debunk Warnicke. After all, Warnicke used the same source as Ives (Friedmann) in coming to her biased and wrong conclusions, whilst Ives came to a totally different standpoint based on the same evidence. It is with hope therefore that this new book will achieve the same in reversing Warnicke's crass and groundless theory.
5:44 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Hello Neil,
I know all human beings see what they want to see. Look at Henry VIII! Historians are no exception. Bernard 'proved' Anne was guilty by using a poem. He was selective in the evidence he put forward but if you take the evidence he chose to adduce then, yes, he had a point. Likewise Weir portrays Anne as a singularly unpleasant woman by quoting extensively from Chapuys. So again, if you solely take the evidence Weir relies upon then, yes, she has a point too. You can almost always put forward an arguable case if you try hard enough. After all, it's almost impossible to prove a negative.
The thing with Warnicke, copied by Weir, is that she plucked a theory completely out of thin air and ran with it by using a really bizarre interpretation of two extant records, i.e. Cavendish and George's scaffold speech. I know everyone can interpret things differently. I'm a lawyer, so if they didn't I'd be out of a job. But there is a limit to interpretation when you actually make no sense whatsoever. And where the Hell did Weir come up with the suggestion George abused his wife. She doesn't attempt to provide any evidence for that little gem, unless she relied solely on The Tudor's.
To take a theory and then interpret evidence to fit that theory is the job of fiction writer's not historian's. It's to take the evidence and come up with a theory based on that evidence which is the job of a historian, which is why I just don't understand Weir or Warnicke when it comes to George Boleyn. To rely on the knowledge that it is almost impossible to prove a negative seems to me to be a rather cheap shot.
6:18 am
April 11, 2011
Offline
Just as an add-on to my previous post and another angle of thought. I was always taught that if you had one eye-witness to an event, you ran with that version, which was then backed up or otherwise by any physical and/or circumstantial evidence, which allowed you to ascertain the true facts. However, if you have six eye-witnesses, then you will get six different accounts of the same event, based on their physical proximity to the incident and the time frame in which they saw it, but also based on the slant they would subconsciously give an event based on their life experiences and/or prejudices.
Isn't history just the same? The fact that Ives and Warnicke can arrive at very different conclusions about events and people whilst using the same source is proof of this. I dread to think what Warnicke's personal prejudices and life experiences are for her to reach the conclusions she has, but it has obviously allowed her to preclude any alternative viewpoint other than her own. In doing so she has now created another source for others to follow (yes, PG, I do mean you as one of those that has!) and so it goes on. Why can't anybody stand up and say that certain so called historical references are in fact rubbish and are very skewed versions of real history? Is there some private club mentality amongst writers where one would be ostracised for so doing, or are the reasons more venal, in regard to mutual back-slapping and book sales?
I don't expect anything to ever change, so we must judge for ourselves, read what we consider to be good and true versions of history (not counting fiction of course, which we can enjoy in the knowledge that it is fiction!) and spurn the rest, in the hope that their sales diminish (fat chance, I know).
Well, must dash, I've just twisted my ankle falling off the soapbox.
Hello Louise, I was obviously still writing this comment while yours was being posted, however it still fits in rather well, so I have left it unchanged, whilst being in total agreement with everything you have said.
12:15 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Hello Neil.
Based on our joint argument I've decided to write a book theorising that Henry VIII was bi-sexual. I base my ground breaking theory on three premises. Firstly, Cavendish, who says the same about Henry as he did about GB. So if GB was that way inclined then so was Henry. Admittedly Cavendish didn't say Henry was 'bestial' but then I don't think either Henry or George fancied their pets.
Secondly, between marriages Henry enjoyed the nightly company of his pageboys who slept in his chambers, including Thomas Culpepper. Very dodgy if you catch my drift!
Thirdly, Henry, if you believe the rumours, suffered certain disfunctions at various times, WITH WOMEN. Indeed by 1536 the only thing regularly erected in Henry's court was the scaffold.
By the way, I don't believe any of this for a minute, but if I did come up with the theory, which has some evidence to back it up, however tenuous, then who is going to effectively contradict me? No one can, because how can anyone disprove it as a possibility.
2:28 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Louise said:
Thirdly, Henry, if you believe the rumours, suffered certain disfunctions at various times, WITH WOMEN. Indeed by 1536 the only thing regularly erected in Henry's court was the scaffold.
*gigglesnort*….
It's always bunnies.
6:10 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
Louise said:
Thirdly, Henry, if you believe the rumours, suffered certain disfunctions at various times, WITH WOMEN. Indeed by 1536 the only thing regularly erected in Henry's court was the scaffold.
Hands down one of the best things I've ever read written about Henry VIII. Crackin' me up!!
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
3:18 am
August 12, 2009
Offline
I agree. I think the various interpretations tell us as much about the author as the subject. Starkey's a bit of a misogynist, so he tends to downplay the roles and influences of Henry's wives, while taking a very lenient (IMO) look at Henry's behavior and motives. Alison Weir has something stuck in her craw regarding Anne Boleyn, and that comes across in her works. And Retha Warnicke? Issues, methinks. Lots and lots of issues.
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
4:15 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
Louise said:
Thirdly, Henry, if you believe the rumours, suffered certain disfunctions at various times, WITH WOMEN. Indeed by 1536 the only thing regularly erected in Henry's court was the scaffold.
Best. Comment. Ever.
Louise, you made my day! Thanks for the laugh!
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
8:18 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
DuchessofBrittany said:
Louise said:
Thirdly, Henry, if you believe the rumours, suffered certain disfunctions at various times, WITH WOMEN. Indeed by 1536 the only thing regularly erected in Henry's court was the scaffold.
Best. Comment. Ever.
Louise, you made my day! Thanks for the laugh!
LOL…Are you sure that's not true? Best line ever!
9:24 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
Louise said:
Hello Neil.
Based on our joint argument I've decided to write a book theorising that Henry VIII was bi-sexual. I base my ground breaking theory on three premises. Firstly, Cavendish, who says the same about Henry as he did about GB. So if GB was that way inclined then so was Henry. Admittedly Cavendish didn't say Henry was 'bestial' but then I don't think either Henry or George fancied their pets.
Secondly, between marriages Henry enjoyed the nightly company of his pageboys who slept in his chambers, including Thomas Culpepper. Very dodgy if you catch my drift!
Thirdly, Henry, if you believe the rumours, suffered certain disfunctions at various times, WITH WOMEN. Indeed by 1536 the only thing regularly erected in Henry's court was the scaffold.
By the way, I don't believe any of this for a minute, but if I did come up with the theory, which has some evidence to back it up, however tenuous, then who is going to effectively contradict me? No one can, because how can anyone disprove it as a possibility.
On a more serious note, I wanted to say that I am in total agreement with Louise. It is amazing how people pick and choose what information to use about people to corrupt the truth of their character. It seems the Boleyns are often the victims of such behaviour. First, Cavendish and Warnicke with George. Then, de Carles and Bernard with Anne. In both cases, the so-called evidence is questionable; yet people have run with it for centuries, and few people have attempted to challenge the accepted version.
Luckly for Anne, there are people who have been carrying her torch for centuries (despite the best attempts by some.. PG, I'm talking to you here). Sadly for George, he finds himself in a different situation. I find it sad and frustrating.
Ironically, if Louise decided to write a book using the same sources used for George, the historical communitiy would be outraged. Fair is fair, and it would be bestowing the same treatment onto Henry that has been so wrongly placed upon George.
Stepping off my soap box….
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
6:49 am
February 10, 2010
Offline
Louise said:
Thirdly, Henry, if you believe the rumours, suffered certain disfunctions at various times, WITH WOMEN. Indeed by 1536 the only thing regularly erected in Henry's court was the scaffold.
That's going to keep me giggling all day!
1:44 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
DuchessofBrittany said:
On a more serious note, I wanted to say that I am in total agreement with Louise. It is amazing how people pick and choose what information to use about people to corrupt the truth of their character. It seems the Boleyns are often the victims of such behaviour. First, Cavendish and Warnicke with George. Then, de Carles and Bernard with Anne. In both cases, the so-called evidence is questionable; yet people have run with it for centuries, and few people have attempted to challenge the accepted version.
Luckly for Anne, there are people who have been carrying her torch for centuries (despite the best attempts by some.. PG, I'm talking to you here). Sadly for George, he finds himself in a different situation. I find it sad and frustrating.Ironically, if Louise decided to write a book using the same sources used for George, the historical communitiy would be outraged. Fair is fair, and it would be bestowing the same treatment onto Henry that has been so wrongly placed upon George.
Stepping off my soap box….
I'm chuffed people found the comment about the scaffold funny, although I think there might be an element of truth in it! Maybe for every inch Henry's armour increased in size, his codpiece decreased proportionately.
Anyway, thanks Duchess for summarising so articulately the frustration I also feel. Please continue to stand proudly on your soap box! x
8:58 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
I've been thinking about the reason why there has never been a bio solely about George. I think he was one of the most intelligent and gifted young men of his generation, but he was not allowed to live long enough to reach his full potential, unlike some of his lesser contemporaries who have had bios written about them.
Male historians write about those who have made a huge impact on history, and as I say, George was unlucky enough to be murdered when he was only about 31, so his main claim to fame is being falsely accused of incest (so sad). There are many female historians about, but on the whole women tend to write about women, which is why I think it unlikely George will ever have a biography of his own. Just as long as the Weir doesn't decide to go down that route and slaughter yet another Boleyn. I would rather George continued in ignominy than let that women have a go at him!
10:18 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
I agree, Lousie. I do not want Weir to get her hands on George. Her book on Anne was bad enough, but one on George would push me over the edge.
I can only imagine what George's accomplishments might have been had be lived a long life. It does seem the bios male historians write are about the greats of a certain era: Henry V, Henry VIII, Churchill, etc. Those unfortunate enough to never live up to their potential (whatever the reasons) are neglected.
I would like to see a female historian write about George. You are correct, Louise that women write about women, so that precludes George. Yet, I feel a female would have a different perspective on George, and see him in a new light.
Too bad I didn't take history in grad school. George would have been a great study for a future PhD dissertation!
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
5:52 pm
August 27, 2011
Offline
I love, Love, LOVE George Boleyn! The thing I have found most disappointing in my research about him is that there are no surviving portraits. I would love to put a face with that charismatic personality! He is one of my favorite people in the Tudor Dynasty! I am very close with my brothers and the relationship of the Boleyn siblings is reminiscent of my own. Got your back come Hell or High water….or Henry! I do have to say that I have even enjoyed the fictional accounts of him. Except the portrayal of him in THE MOVIE The Other Boleyn Girl…bit of a whelp in that picture wasn't he? But I loved him in THE BOOK The Other Boleyn Girl. I also adored the combined efforts of the actor and director of The Tudors series in their portrayal of him! He was fun in that show! And as adorable as all get out! (although the rape scene seemed out of place…it didn't even fit in with his character..it was like they got drunk, tossed it in and forgot to edit it out. It just didn't fit. Like they were trying to find a plausable reason for his wife to hate him but didn't want to spend too much time on it. They didn't know how to portray a maddening love/hate obsession on her part so they went for the solo hatred/abuse angle.) At any rate, George Boleyn was an exceptional man in history. As for his sexual exploits, I hardly think that makes the man be they straight, gay or bi-sexual. If anything it shows that he was so charming that everyone loved him…both men and women. I know I do!
Kimberly
9:49 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
George is definitely in my Top 3 Tudor personalities list. Depending on my mood, hs rank changes around with Edward VI and Jane Grey. I think part of his appeal for me, is that there isn't a lot written about him so he has a certain air of mystery. I'm continually amazed that he hasn't had a biography written on him, but yet his sisters have.
I understand Anne as she played a massive role in the reformation of the English church. But all Mary's fame i based upon is she slept with 2 Kings and fiction writer wrote a best selling book from Mary's view. If a number of different authors can write about Mary who has less recorded documents than her brother than surely, one of these authors could have tackled George.
Based upon his Wikipedia page and the stuff about him in the books about Anne I've read, there is enough to make decent book on his life. He has influenced English history a lot more than Mary, so it is sad to only read about him with the coverage of Anne's fall. I know Louise tried to write a biography on George, so I am always grateful when she shares info from her research
Hopefully Loades book on the Boleyn family, will shed more light on George or at least give a chapter dedicated solely to him. Regardnig Loades book, when is it due out? Does anyone know? Amazon at one stage had it as 1st August, then it was moved to Feb 2012. But today I saw that it has a new date of 28th September 2011.
Regarding the George of TOBG novel, I know people here have issue with his portrayal especially a religious man committing incest. While I find the incest plotline to be a laughable twist for any fictional 'villain' losing their grip on power, I found the presentation of Warnicke's 'theory' that George was gay, to be plausible within the book. George is presented as a very religious man, struggling with his feelings towards anther man and I really felt for him as his sisters told him not to follow his heart.I can also easily understand why someone who is too lazy to read up on the real person, as that aspect of the storyline is hadnled quite well and almost too realistically. And considering we are now in the era of every story needs a gay character, it's understandable why people reading it would just go with the flow and not question it or even get their knickers in a knot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying George IS gay, I'm just saying out of all the wacky theorie PG used in writing the book, that is the one she presented well.
The Tudor's George seemed pleasant enough. I missed Season 1 which is where the rape occurred right? But their potrayal of George as gay was laughable and very unrealistic, so watching that didn't make me believe George was a repressed homosexual man.
It will be interesting to read what Weir says about George this time around in her book on Mary.
2:45 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
I have a slightly random question for members regarding George and The Other Boleyn Girl novel. If you ignore the gay/bisexual aspect and the ridiculous incest plot point, what is your opinion of the way PG presented George and his character/personality?
6:30 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
He came across as a witty, pleasant young man with a slightly ruthless streak. So far so good. However, what so many purveyors of fiction fail to acknowledge, probably out of ignorance rather than anything else (and yes Hirst, I am talking to you too, you git), is that George was highly accomplished. By 1536 he was one of the most powerful and influential courtiers in Henry's court. This is never properly explored or acknowledged in fiction, therefore, George always comes across as one dimensional, when the truth was very different.
Pleasant and witty he may have been, but I think the real George would have been nearly as mortified by his portrayal in TOBG as he would have been by his evil portrayal in The Tudors. There he was a wife abusing rapist, and how anyone could find that portrayal of him as adorable is beyond my comprehension.
8:24 am
August 27, 2011
Offline
As it is “beyond your comprehension” I shall explain. Fiction is just that…make believe. I do not get myself worked into a tizzy over people taking creative license. There were things about George's that I thought were well played and the actor was very cute. I made specific mention that the rape/wife abuse was out of place. Aside from that I thought his relationship with Anne was endearing as always. He was charming and charismatic. Also in the show it was clear that he was very unlike his father and uncle but was made to go along with many things he was uncomfortable with. As for the bi-sexuality…I have no prejudices against a persons sexual preferences, so whether or not George was or was not gay is of no consequence to me. I love George Boleyn regardless! He was charming and charismatic in the Tudors. Unlike the whelp he played in the TOBG movie. In the TOBG book, I also found him to be charming and charismatic. When it comes to lechery…it was acceptable practice at court at the time…almost expected of the young men…roistering and gambling. In short…I don't let one persons portrayal sway my opinion. I hope that clears up and answers any questions. Although I know that there are people, you for example, who will disagree with me…and I am sort fine with that. I think George is magnificent!
Kimberly
