Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
8:13 am
June 19, 2009
Offline
The article on Mary Boleyn was so in depth and interesting Claire, well done for your articles and objectiveness as always. While there is little written in History about the Boleyn sisters and indeed on the Boleyn family. As more and more research is done I am sure that more information will come to light. The AB files is the definitive repository for all this information for sure. I am glad to hear that Alison Weir is researching a new book, maybe the title is a bit unfortunate? I personally think that the term “wh*re” is a little strong, perhaps “English Mare”? Anyone seeing the title and not having a particular interest in the subject, could possibly get the wrong impression of someone who might have had a bearing on history in the reign of Henry VIII?
Please indulge me while I look at Mary Boleyn as something more than sexual. The Hever portraits of both Boleyn girls are in close proximity on the wall of the castle. The portrait of Anne is very beautiful, however, Mary’s portrait beams out along side and shows her as a stunning beauty. Looking at the portrait of Mary, the word “wh*re” would never enter my mind.
With the lack of information currently available on Mary Boleyn and indeed the sometimes coloured written history of the Tudor era it is difficult to not go into flights of fancy. I would be the first to admit to when I am delving into the gaps in Tudor history, I often add 2+2 and I get the phone number of the Tower of London!
I do however have had a view always that the Boleyn sisters (in their formative years) and particularly Mary had a more important role in England’s history.than written accounts give her credit for. Regardless of the label “my English Mare” by Francis 1, think of the closeness that Mary had to the centre of the court of France at that time. If she had an affair with Francis, she could move around the French court without raising suspicion. I can only imagine what information she must have been privy to. We can put many labels on Henry VIII, one that was very obvious was his ability to use people and he was quite cunning in his use of so many in his reign. Thomas Boleyn was a diplomat and Ambassador to France (1516-1521) Quite an elevation for the High Sheriff of Kent, as he had been.. One can only imagine that he would have met with Mary often in the shadows of the French court and if I were in his position, Taking the recent troubled past between the two countries, I would have many questions on the state of that nation and its attitudes towards England and Henry, who at that time was married to the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, France’s great enemy at that time.
France was one of Europe’s most strategic powers and its proximity to England and must have mattered to Henry VIII, this could be seen by his consent of the marriage of his sister to Louis XII of France. Thomas Boleyn was a trusted Diplomat of Henry’s, when one looks at his political career, most notably, the input he had into “The fields of cloth of gold”, the meeting of the two young Kings and two powerful kingdoms. If I was in Henry’s position, I would want to get as much information as possible on France’s new King's attitude to him. Mary has to have been valuable to her father who was one of the diplomatic mission from Henry's side.
Taking Mary Boleyn’s time in the French court, knowing Francis well and the other players of the Court, she must have been a mine of information for Henry. I would suggest that it would stand to reason that they would have met often on her return to England. While I have no doubt that a relationship flourished, and Henry has proved himself to be a very red blooded male in the company of beautiful women, I am sure that it was real business first. I would think also that the marriage to William Carey was a marriage of convenience and Henry was the father of her children, Henry and Catherine. There must have been some tongues in cheek when those babies were brought to the christening font, or maybe someone had a point to make there, I do think, even if it was popular to name children after Kings and Queens.
After the death of Her husband William Carey, I do think that Mary married William Stafford for Love. He was just a soldier and while he had connections to the Dukedom of Buckingham, he would have been considered a commoner. With so many people elevated by Henry, did Mary foolishly think that her special relationship with Henry would bring her and William Stafford towards a better standing in society?
Regardless, the last words are not yet written on Mary Boleyn her history and life are intriguing and match her beauty.
Sorry to be so long winded and thanks to those who read my post!
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
8:36 am
August 3, 2010
Offline
Hmm, interesting point ipaud. Your French Court theory is especially neat, I've never heard it before. I think that's possible, even probable, and if so, would classify Mary as a secret Tudor heroine (in the eyes of the English, not the French, of course!). I don't think we'll ever know whether it's true or not though.
As to Mary's marriage to William Stafford, I think it was a love match too. I like to believe that because she had a tough life previously in love: married someone she didn't love, fell in love with Henry and became his mistress, he dumped her for her own sister…sad.
"Grumble all you like, this is how it's going to be"
4:59 pm
June 19, 2009
Offline
Thank you Boleynfan, an interesting part of Mary's story is that all of Mary Tudor's maids except Mary were sent away a week after her marriage to Louis XII. The courts of Europe were full of people trying to gleam information. Her father one would presume had an influence as ambassador, but Mary Tudor must have also asked too? If so, on the advice of Henry her brother? Then, with Mary Boleyn remaining on with Queen Claude. she was ideally placed for her father to get any information that he needed for Henry. In England, Henry picked his Queen's lady's in waiting, a job he took very seriously. Not alone for the obvious reasons of furthering his liaisons, after all, its from here he found many of his partners and wives, but he had to be careful who he left in the sensitive areas of his court. He had dismissed many of Catherine of Aragon's Spanish maids for security reasons. Looking at Mary Boleyn with these eyes, she was ideally poised, there were no French equivalents to her in Henry's court.
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
10:09 am
June 19, 2009
Offline
Just thinking also, as Francis and Henry were doing everything possible to get one over on each other at the “Field of Cloth of Gold”, perhaps Francis was just trying to diminish Mary's standing in Henry's eyes? Just a thought…
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
4:06 pm
August 3, 2010
Offline
You really do put 2 and 2 together, ipaud: what a theory!! It's definitely probable, although I heard that the reason Mary Boleyn stayed at the French Court was that she was unmarried, and that only the married women were sent back to England. Still, your point is a good one. How I wish I could go back in a time machine to see if it is true. The only thing is, Francis I was a notorious ladies' man. Since his wife's appearance was almost deformity and he liked the ladies, it's possible that, even if your theory is true, Mary would have become his mistress.
"Grumble all you like, this is how it's going to be"
12:38 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Here's what I think. I believe that Francis was an egotistical bully. After he took this maid into his bed, (and God knows how do you say no to a King,) he makes fun of her. That is so uncouth. As much as I have a problem with Henry, I cannot recall him ever saying ugly things about the women he bedded. I do believe Francis called her his English Mare to get a rise out of Henry,but I wonder what went through Mary's head when she heard that? I just think it was beneath a King to say those things. Having vented my feelings about Kings who take what they want and think nothing of the pain they cause, let me say that I do think Mary was able to give Henry, and/or her Father, the secrets of the inner workings of the French court. I'm with ipaud on that.
Mary is a heroine in my book. When she gets home from France, she is married off and promptly taken to bed by another King. She has two children by….mmm, Henry the King who won't claim them because she has a husband, and maybe, just maybe, he is the Father. Implying, of course, that she was bedding both husband and King at the same time. Cute. Finally she gets free of both King and husband and falls in love with William Stafford. There is nothing in history that I can find where she was anything but an obedient daughter and Mistress. There are no recordings of Mary throwing temper tantrums. In fact, she was just the opposite. Always genial and happy. I don't blame her one bit for going behind her family's backs. She was finally allowed true happiness and she jumped at the chance. Good for her.
7:38 pm
June 19, 2009
Offline
Thank you for your insight Boleynfan and Sharon. Thomas Boleyn got to go on some serious diplomatic missions for Henry in his time after France, I can only presume it was based on performance. I think that he was regarded highly by Henry on results achieved rather than who his daughters were, but I'm sure that did not work against him. I was just saddened to see the term “wh*re” associated with Mary Boleyn, I feel it is not how she should be remembered. What do you think ladies?
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
7:38 pm
June 19, 2009
Offline
Thank you for your insight Boleynfan and Sharon. Thomas Boleyn got to go on some serious diplomatic missions for Henry in his time after France, I can only presume it was based on performance. I think that he was regarded highly by Henry on results achieved rather than who his daughters were, but I'm sure that did not work against him. I was just saddened to see the term “wh*re” associated with Mary Boleyn, I feel it is not how she should be remembered. What do you think ladies?
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
1:28 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
I'm so glad that you liked the Mary Boleyn series of articles, Paudie, I have soft spots for all of the Boleyn family and I thoroughly enjoyed researching Mary.
As far as the title of Alison Weir's book is concerned, I think she likes to pick provocative titles which are the stereotypes and labels that these character have and then she debunks them, e.g. her talks on Anne and Elizabeth entitled “The wh*re and the Virgin”. You're right, it can backfire in that people can just look at the title and think that Mary was a wh*re and never read the book!
Hmmm… Mary 007, perhaps so. Interesting theory. I'm sure that she would have had very useful information on Francis and the French court.
As far as Francis's words about her being a famous prostitute are concerned, in Alison Weir's recent talks on Mary Boleyn, she points out that if Mary had really been that bad then there would more reports on her behaviour, and also that this quote from Francis came out in 1536 when Henry was leaning towards an alliance with the Empire and Mary's behaviour may have been exaggerated in order to denigrate the Boleyns.
In regards to her marrying for love, I think that Mary did finally follow her heart with William Stafford. She had been used and abused by two European monarchs, had always toed the line and done what she could do help raise her family's status and now, like Mary Tudor, her former mistress, she wanted to have the man she loved – good for her! I hope she was happy in those last years.
Alison Weir makes an interesting point about the portrait at Hever. She points out that the sitter is wearing ermine and that Mary Boleyn was not of the right class to be able to wear ermine. She also points out that there are other copies of this painting and why would a painting of a nobody like Mary Boleyn be copied so many times? Hmmm… interesting. Perhaps Mary's appearance is a complete mystery too.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
5:51 pm
August 3, 2010
Offline
In Robin Maxwell's Mademoiselle Boleyn, a novel about Anne at the French Court, Anne is asked to spy on Duchess Marguerite and King Francois for Thomas Boleyn. Why couldn't he have asked Mary? It seems even more likely than the Anne possibility since Mary was Francois' mistress. The term “wh*re” associated with Mary makes me sad, too. I see what Claire is saying–Alison Weir is trying to sell books, and she needs a gripping title–but it still makes me rather indignant. In my opinion, she should have chosen a less offensive word to describe a fairly unimportant (in the eyes of people who wrote, I mean) woman who lived 500 years ago and therefore whose personality cannot be fairly analyzed.
"Grumble all you like, this is how it's going to be"
9:33 am
June 19, 2009
Offline
Thanks Claire and BoleynFan,
My feeling is that there was so much at stake for Henry that he needed both Mary and Anne to have open ears through their father. Thomas Boleyn was well able to use them after France when the girls were back on English soil.I can only imagine that the girls would have spoken French well by then and been invaluable. Interesting also that Thomas Boleyn (and for that matter Mary) were spared the fate of Anne and George.
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
10:36 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
I understand how Mary escaped the axe. She had practically been disowned by her family. She hadn't been an intriguer like the rest of the family was. Maybe Henry still had a soft spot for her. She was certainly not a threat to the faction involved with Cromwell. I'm not even sure if she had ever stated any interest in politics and religion. Definitely not a threat.
I have always wondered why Thomas wasn't taken down with his children. He was ambitious. He had risen high. The only thing I can think of was that Cromwell and Henry thought killing his children would be enough to finish him. Cromwell seemed to have some sort of friendship with him. (wwhich makes me ill) Even after his children were killed, Thomas had dinners with Cromwell. There's that ambition again. I don't know. If my children were killed like Boleyn's were, you wouldn't catch me eating dinner with the man associated with their deaths.
On another thread here, there was a question as to why Elizabeth Boleyn wasn't buried with Thomas. I have no doubt as to the reason. She was done with him and his ambition. There is no way I would have ever wanted to see Thomas' face again. I would have preferred a convent.
12:36 pm
August 3, 2010
Offline
I agree with you, Sharon, on how Mary escaped the axe. To add to why, I think her children might have been a factor. After all, Henry had no way of knowing whether or not they were his, and if they were, I believe he would be loathe to kill their mother. One of Mary's two children, Henry, had extra suspicion about his father because he had the “Tudor look,” with red hair. Also, she had been living quietly in the country with her unimportant husband for a while, since her marriage, when Anne threw her from Court. In regard to Thomas Boleyn, I think you covered it.
As to Elizabeth Boleyn…how horribly sad for her, to watch two of her three children being executed, mostly because of her husband, their father's ambition. I completely understand her choice to not be buried with Thomas.
"Grumble all you like, this is how it's going to be"
4:05 am
June 19, 2009
Offline
Yes I agree, Sharon and BoleynFan, Henry himself knew first hand that there were no guarantees in the life of royals and succession, he was destined for obscurity, (or notoriety without a crown) before Arthur his brother died. The Tudor claim to the throne after all was dubious for the same reasons. With the sweating sickness taking so many lives of Nobles as well as commoners, he would do well to keep some heirs to one side. Some historians almost have enough heirs for a football team though!
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
8:52 pm
March 9, 2011
Offline
I'm doubtful Henry spared Mary Boleyn out of fond memories or concern for her children. He had no comparable concern for Elizabeth's mother.
The more I think about Anne, George, and the remaining four “offenders,” the more convinced I am Henry acted in rage and revenge. He gained nothing politically in executing Anne; he could just as easily set her aside. The legality of Henry and Anne's marriage was always in doubt and never fully accepted by England or by the rest of the world. Consequently, so was Elizabeth's legitimacy.
My point is that Anne and the other accused posed no threat to Henry or to the succession. Katherine of Aragon and Mary Tudor, part of a powerful, influential royal family, were probably a legitimate threat, but Anne's marriage was easily discredited and the Boleyns easily neutralized unless Henry feared the Howards pressing Elizabeth's right to the throne against his anticipated legitimate sons.
The executions appear more and more a vindictive, malicious act. Kind of like one of those psycho guys who kills his wife or girlfriend a la “If I can't have you no one can.”
It's possible Henry feared involving Mary Boleyn in the case would call attention to his past indiscretions.
11:38 am
June 19, 2009
Offline
this is becoming topical again, as alison weir seems to be launching the book with the title ‘The Great and Infamous wh*re’. I think this is so, so, unfortunate and the book launch is at Hever. Am i the only one???14
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
12:49 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Well, the title is provocative, I'll give Weir that. Unnecessary, but provocative all the same. There were apparently tons of great and infamous wh*res in history, weren't there? If they were not given the title of wh*re, they were called she-wolves. It is unfortunate that authors still feel the need to call these extraordinary women by these unacceptable titles. Being a woman, Weir should have a care about the names she attaches to the brave women who came before us.
Is this a work of fiction or non-fiction?
3:31 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
Non-fiction – a biography on Mary Boleyn. The English edition is subtitled 'The Great and Infamous wh*re'. That's what it says on my copy anyway. But apparently the US edition is to be sub-titled 'The Mistress of Kings'. So I'm thinking that maybe it's more of a marketing thing rather than a decision of Alison Weirs.
6:53 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Sharon said:
Well, the title is provocative, I'll give Weir that. Unnecessary, but provocative all the same. There were apparently tons of great and infamous wh*res in history, weren't there? If they were not given the title of wh*re, they were called she-wolves. It is unfortunate that authors still feel the need to call these extraordinary women by these unacceptable titles. Being a woman, Weir should have a care about the names she attaches to the brave women who came before us.
Is this a work of fiction or non-fiction?
Sadly it's a quote from King Francis whose mistress Mary was supposed to be before she was Henry's…
Men and thier double standards!
It's always bunnies.
7:25 am
June 19, 2009
Offline
Any dictionary that I have looked up, gives a definition that refers fo receiving money for favour. I don't wish to defend Mary's moral life, but I do think to use this word in any way to describe her, is most, most unfortunate. Claire has mentioned that the book has a different title in the USA?
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
