Thank you for that!

I too think George was a remarkable young man, which is why I find the portrayal of him in The Tudors so grotesque, particularly when I read on other sites the loathing for George which comes from how he was depicted in that programme. I find it very sad.  

As you say, we are all entitled to our own opinions. 

I am currently stood on my soapbox now that the steam has stopped coming out of my ears. David Loades new book, ‘The Boleyns, The Rise and Fall of a Tudor Family’ has now been released.

Apparently George Boleyn’s interest in religious reform and the Gospel was limited to persuing his sister’s cause, rather than any independent actions of his own.

Apparently the Dean of Lichfield was George’s illegitimate son despite there being no evidence whatsoever to confirm that.

Apparently apart from George’s skill as a translator, his only other skill was diplomacy. Well yes, George was a diplomat. Perhaps Professor Loades would have been more impressed if George had been skilled at bricklaying! 

Presumably the eminent Professor Loades did not feel the necessity to do any research before inflicting his book on the public. It seems he hadn’t bothered reading James Carley’s brilliant article in ‘Illuminating the Book’ before coming up with his sweeping statement regarding George’s religion. Presumably he hadn’t read in detail George’s translations, his dedication to Anne or his scaffold speech either? 

Likewise Loades seems to have forgotten George was a politician as well as a diplomat and that it was George who Henry sent to argue the case for supremacy at Convocation. Perhaps Loades also forgot that George was Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. Maybe he didn’t feel the necessity to explore George’s influence in the Reformation Parliament, his reputation as a poet to equal Wyatt, or his skill at sport, which can be seen from the contents of the Privy Purse Expenses.

To make sweeping statements and fail to back them up with any proper research is poor. If you go to the trouble of writing about someone then at least do them the courtesy of actually taking the time to research them properly, or else it just looks like a money making excerise.

I’m sorry for the rant, but I am so angry at the moment, and also very disappointed in an historian who I admire and who I think has let the Boleyns down by publishing a rushed job. 

Bill1978 said:

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I think it is time that a big name historian actually writes a bio on George. As I’ve said before if Mary can have mutiple books, than surely George can have one from a ‘respected’ historian.

 

 

I completely agree with you, Bill. Although I did a huge amount of research, I don't have the talent to really do George the justice he deserves. I would love a 'proper and respected' (so I don't mean you, Weir) historian to write a bio on George. With the best will in the world my effort isn't going to raise the general publics attitude towards George. It will take a known historian to do that. 

Claire, I was determined to do George justice too. The difference between us is that whilst I failed in my primary objective I have ever confidence that you will succeed. xx

George the rapist comes thanks to 'The Tudors', a complete character assasination, which is why I can't bring myself to watch it.

Oh no, Claire! You do realise that the next fictional installment of George will portray him incontinent with fear on the scaffold. Why, why!!!