The Lady in the TowerBefore I give you a quick Friday Round Up of what has been going on in at The Anne Boleyn Files and in the Tudor world, so many people have been asking me for my thoughts on Alison Weir’s “The Lady in the Tower” that I thought I’d better let you know! Please bear in mind that I’ve only read the first few chapters!

Alison Weir’s “The Lady in the Tower”

Yes, Weir’s long awaited book is finally out and I’ve already got my hands on it. When I have finished reading it, I promise I will write a proper book review but here are a few things that have struck me so far:-

  • Weir’s belief that Anne and Henry’s marriage was unhappy from the start – I can’t say that I’m entirely sure about this one but Weir believes that Anne and Henry’s relationship deteriorated as soon as they were married. Anne was a disappointment once Henry had attained her, his passion cooled and he started to take mistresses as soon as Anne became pregnant.
  • Weir describes Anne as “haughty, overbearing, shrewish and volatile”, perhaps due to hormonal imbalances caused by pregnancies and miscarriages – Harsh words!
  • Weir’s belief that Anne was not chaste and virtuous – Weir writes of how Anne’s famous virtue, the “tactical weapon” she had used to catch the King, was not genuine and that Henry was shocked and disenchanted when he realised that Anne was actually experienced. Henry believed that Anne had duped him, she had lied.
  • Weir’s ideas about Anne’s appearance – Weir writes about Anne’s sixth fingernail and her moles which could have been seen as marks of the devil. Now, I’m not an historian with loads of primary sources at my fingertips and I know that George Wyatt wrote of an extra fingernail, but would Henry have really risked chasing and marrying someone with such defects? With all of the superstitions of the time, and the fact that he felt that his first marriage was cursed, I just cannot see Henry risking everything to marry a woman with an extra fingernail and questionable moles!
  • The idea that Anne was Rhesus negative – not a new idea as it was put forward by Retha Warnicke, but it’s interesting that Weir is also discussing it. It could explain why Anne had only one surviving child.
  • Anne’s malice towards Mary – Weir writes of how Anne ordered Lady Shelton to treat her badly and to give Mary “a good banging on the ears, like the cursed bastard she was”.
  • Chapuys – I always thought that historians might be giving too much credence to the words of Chapuys, an man who hated Anne Boleyn, and Weir does imply that although his letters are great primary sources Henry VIII’s secretary wrote of Chapuys’ “Tale-telling, lying and flattering”. His reliance on gossip and rumour, and the fact that he was often mistaken, means that we should take his letters with a pinch of salt.
  • Jane Seymour – Hallelujah! Alison Weir also believes that Jane Seymour may not have been the meek, demure, “sugar and spice and all things nice” woman that she is often portrayed as. Weir points out that even Chapuys, who saw Jane as a way of removing “the concubine” from power and helping Mary, wondered if she really was demure and hoped that “no scorpions lurk under the honey”.
  • Henry’s accident – Weir makes the interesting point that Henry’s serious jousting accident at Greenwich, the shock of which may have caused Anne to miscarry, may have brought home to the King how he was without an heir. If Henry had died in this accident, there would have been “dynastic chaos”, so Henry realised that he urgently needed a son. Did this make him question his marriage to Anne?

And that’s only reading the first few chapters! Any thoughts?

By the way, although the book is not available in the US yet, you can still order it through Amazon UK who ship worldwide – just click on the book cover above.

Friday Round Up

Renaissance Jewelry
Renaissance Jewelry

Here’s some news from The Anne Boleyn Files and the Tudor world:-

  • New jewelry – As always, Daniela has been busy with new designs for the site including some new Renaissance pieces based on portraits. See our new Renaissance Jewelry section.
  • Only 9 rooms left now for The Anne Boleyn Experience 2010 tour – more details on our special tour site
  • British History Timelines – For those of you interested in finding out more about where the Tudor era actually comes in British History, I’ve done some timelines/charts with short bios of monarchs and “ages” from Ancient Britain to Queen Victoria. I’m hoping to get the final timeline done over the next week.
  • The Elizabeth Files – 2 guest articles for you to enjoy over at our sister site: the first “Did They or Didn’t They?” is about Elizabeth I and Dudley and is by historical novelist Jeane Westin, and the second article is about Blanche Parry and is written by Anne Boleyn Files visitor Rochie. Thanks to both Jeane and Rochie for writing them, they’re wonderful!
  • On my desk- I’m often asked what I’m reading or using for research, so here is what I am surrounded by at the moment: “The Virgin and the Crab” by Robert Parry, which is my escape book (what I read at the end of the day with a bit of chocolate and a glass of wine!) and is wonderfully written. I cannot recommend this work of historical fiction highly enough! I’m also surrounded by Alison Weir’s “The Lady in the Tower”, Eric Ives’ “The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn”, David Loades’ “The Six Wives of Henry VIII”, Alison Weir’s “Elizabeth, the Queen” and Richard Rex’s “Elizabeth I: Fortune’s Bastard”.
  • “The Early Loves of Anne Boleyn” by Josephine Wilkinson is delayed – This book was due out on 30th Sept but has been slightly delayed. According to Amberley Books and Josephine, who is speaking at The Anne Boleyn Experience 2010, it should be out in about 2 weeks. I’m excited about reading this one!
  • BBC History Magazine Quiz – It’s that time of the week again! Click here to test your history knowledge.

Spotted any interesting news in the history world this week? Comment below and let us know. Thanks!

Have a great weekend!

Related Post

18 thoughts on “The Lady in the Tower”
  1. Eric Ives, Starkey and Loades are the real authoritive books re AB. As an historian myself, I find other authors rely too much on the more romantic and personalised versions of her life and relationship with HV8 etc. The less academic books are interesting and entertaining from an armchair point of view but for historically accurate and well researched reading stick to the above.

    1536 is also a very interesting read, written by an academic using source material to support her interpretation of AB, HV8 et al.

  2. Hi Jane,

    Yes, I much prefer Eric Ives to Retha Warnicke and Joanna Denny, and the Loades and Starkey books are great on the six wives.

    I have actually got Suzannah Lipscomb’s “1536: The Year that Changed Henry VIII” in the pile on my desk but I have only dipped into it, not read it properly yet. I’m glad you think it’s an interesting read, I’ll move it to the top of my pile!

  3. hi ladies and sirs,

    unfortunately in trinidad there is a limited amount of resource on king henry and his wives but i am absolutely facinated by english history and more so court history so this site has been like fodder to me. i am usually transported to another world when i am on this website, loving it .
    thank a lot

  4. I enjoyed reading your thoughts Claire. I’ve gotten the idea from Weir’s other books that she may be the biggest “Anne supporter.” Just seems like she has some things to say about her that are rather harsh. Also, in regards to the thought that their marriage was unhappy from the start, I kind of think that Henry expected Anne to change after marriage, and when she didn’t, he grew tired of her temper and her outspokenness. I also always thought there was more to Jane Seymour than we’ve been led to think. That she was quiet and obedient. I remember reading in another book that Jane spoke out about something in regards to a rebellion in 1537 and Henry told her to be quiet and remember what happened to her predecessor. Anybody else remember that?

  5. Hi Carrie,
    I’ve only read the first few chapters of the Weir book so can’t comment on the rest apart from bits I’ve dipped into by using the index. I think that Joanna Denny has got to be Anne’s biggest fan (apart from us!) but her book is too biased that way really. Eric Ives is also obviously very fond of Anne and I think is very fair and balanced and I too thought that Weir was a major Anne supporter but I suppose she has to be true to what teh evidence is telling her and perhaps it was telling her that Anne was a shrew!
    I agree with what you say about Henry. Awful confession now, but as a teenager I used to fancy boys and then as soon as they started fancing me I’d go off tehm and run in the opposite direction! Perhaps I enjoyed the thrill of the chase and perhaps it was this combined with Anne’s unsuitable and unqueenly behaviour that turned Henry off her.
    Yes, I read that about Jane, he definitely put her in her place and he did the same with Anne when she complained about his infidelity. He knew how to shut his women up!
    Thanks for the comments, Carrie!

  6. Hi Claire!

    Thanks for the update on the book, I was thinking of checking that out and this helps me decide to read it or not.

    I’ve recently read Robin Maxwell’s 2 novels: Mademoiselle Boleyn and The Secret Diary of Anne Boleyn. Both were really interesting, but I really liked the first one. They’re not historically accurate, but I really liked them because I think she accuratelly portrays Anne’s personality and thoughts. She makes her very understandable, its really nice to read something about Anne that’s not attacking her constantly.

    I suggest them, if you ever get some extra time.

  7. The Lady in the Tower seems like its gonna be a great read. I can’t wait! Looking forward to reading your review when it comes

    In regards to Jane Seymour: I would love to find some archives of letters between Somerset Sudley Sir John Chapuys Cromwell and Jane to whomever in regards to Jane wooing Henry away from Anne and the true story of the downfall. That would make a great historical read.

    Haven’t had a chance to pick up Weir’s Six Wives yet. I hope to get it for Christmas. Is it a good read? Better than Starkey or Fraser?

  8. I’d like to read that – I’m interested in basically everything Anne Boleyn so a new book is always like a new promise to me, because it’s interesting to see all these different views! Thanks for posting the review!
    By the way that Renaissance necklace is beautiful!

  9. My copy of the Anne Boleyn book is on its way from The Book Depository (free worldwide shipping!) and I”m looking forward to reading it – just to see what Weir’s thoughts are.

    Oh no – not more jewelry! Daniela is doing some serious damage to my American Express and I see it’s just going to continue! She is so talented.

  10. Hi Gloria,
    I’m sorry that you haven’t got many history resources where you are but I’m glad that The Anne Boleyn Files helps you with that. Thanks for your comment, I love getting feedback on the site.

    Hi Christina,
    I would definitely recommend the book so far because it is a factual “guide” to Anne’s fall and what led to it. I’ll be reading more of it over the weekend and hopefully getting a proper full review done in the week.
    I’ve read “The Secret Diary of Anne Boleyn” but not “Mademoiselle Boleyn” – is it good?

    Hi Di,
    Did you see the resource link I posted last week – see my post
    The website I mention has documents from Henry’s reign so it might be worth searching for the Seymours and seeing what comes up. Obviously it will not have letters that the Seymours sent to each other and to Jane but I think it will still be interesting to search for mentions of them. I warn you, once you start searching it is pretty addictive!

    Hi Natalie,
    I promise I will post a full review when I’ve finished it, which should be soon. Yes, I’m always on the look out for new books on Anne too. Thanks for your comment on the Renaisance necklace, I think that flower one is so pretty.

    Hi Daphne,
    I too use the Book Depository but I don’t find them quite as reliable as Amazon. I often do a price check between them and on older books I often buy through Amazon marketplace to save a bit of cash. I am enjoying the Weir book – interesting ideas!
    Sorry about the jewelry additions!! Daniela just keeps designing more! She is very talented and such a nice person too.

  11. I have just started reading Alison Weir’s book with some trepidation since seeing the review and the comments in the front cover. I believe that Weir may bring something new to the discussion but hope she does not become too subjective to grab the headlines. She does say in the introduction that she has concentrated on primary sources, however lest we forget that history is written by the victors and therefore positive primary sources will be difficult to find, hence why some of the statements she has already made may seem to paint Anne in a negative light. I will plough through this book but as always will savour anything written about the Lady Anne my heroine! I would like to add that in the context of historical writing on this subject I believe Ives book is the comprehensive i have ever read and all his suppositions are backed up by reasoned and qualified evidence.

  12. Hi Catherine,
    I’m reading the book with pencil in hand to underline interesting bits! Weir does have some very interesting things to say particularly about Anne’s pregnancies, Anne’s reputation, the dates of various events leading up to the coup and why Henry acted in the way he did. I’ll post a review and my thoughts as soon as I’ve finished and it would be interesting to hear your thoughts too.
    Yes, I’m a huge Ives fan too!

  13. Alison Weir makes me want to hiss…like a cat. I really hate the way she demonizes Anne, like she’s at fault for all the stuff that happened. I very much prefer and believe Eric Ives, much MUCH more. I don’t understand why she has such negative views on her, I honestly think she’s dead wrong about Anne, I just sense it, ya know. I read the Six Wives book that she wrote and augh! It wasn’t bad but Anne got played as the villain again! I think Eric Ive’s book is a lot easier to believe and much closer to the truth. I just can’t stand how, it seems, the majority just want to demonize her! Also, I remembered how my interest started, it was either with “The Other Boleyn Girl” or “The Tudors” and it was because I had a hard time believing that Anne was so bad and awful, it really disturbed me, so I decided to try and find out for myself, and I think Ive’s is more “on the money” than just about any other’s I’ve read. Sorry about ranting, but I really adore Anne, she’s like my herione too! Also, hopefully you’ve talked to Daniela about the “lover’s knots” and they may possibly be coming soon too? 😉 I really hope so! I love all the jewelry too! Just not having moolah is the problem! 🙂

  14. Hi Ashley,
    It’s so hard to know what Anne was actually like when even eminent historians can’t agree on her! Having nearly finished the Alison Weir book, I still prefer Eric Ives’ biography. Weir does mention Ives and agrees with him a lot, she does not agree with many of Retha Warnicke’s ideas and I can’t say that I do either – too much sex and witchcraft!
    About the lovers’ knots, Daniela has not been able to find anything from her suppliers to help her makes jewelry with lovers’ knots but she’ll keep an eye out – sorry!

  15. I have read quite a few chapters of the new Anne book by Alison Weir, and, apart from the RH negative theory (which I had not known about; Rhena Warnicke’s book made me too angry to read much of it, I’m afraid), most of it was, IMO, very anti-Anne. I *had* read somewhere (perhaps in a reading guide/interview in another of AW’s book?) that AW doesn’t like Anne. At all. So…..I take what she says with a grain of salt. I loathe Chapys (that oh-so-catty source of malicious gossip), but on the other hand, I don’t quite buy “Anne the Reformist Saint”, either. I think if you take the 2 extremes and meet in the middle, you get what is probably a more likely version of Anne. The biggest problem I have with most books about Anne in the last 20 or so years is the fact that most historians seem wedded to the 1501 birthdate for Anne, whereas I persist in my belief that 1507 is the more logical alternative for many reasons (I can’t wait for Gareth’s book on Anne to come out; he also believes in the 1507 date, and gives very good reasons for doing so.). I can’t help wishing that they would give permission for doing what Italian historians and scientists have been doing for years, and exhume what is allegedly Anne’s body. Do a DNA test (there have *got* to be some descendants of Mary Boleyn still alive, right?) and find out once and for all if that is really Anne buried beneath the altar of St. Peter ad Vincula, and if so, how old she was at her death. The other thing in AW’s book that annoyed was her insistance that the “Nidd Hall” portrait is of Anne. I have the National Portrait Gallery reproduction of Anne in many books, and held one up the the Nidd Hall. The NH is, to me, obviously Jane Seymour. The nose does not have the bridge that Anne’s does, and the shape of the chin, and the mouth, are different. (I find it hard to believe that one could not have jowls in their 20s and suddenly have them in their early 30’s, even if the 1501 date is correct.) IMO, AW put that portrait in the book to bolster her belief in the 1501 birth date. Oh, and that quote from Chapys, “that thin old woman”? Enough already; as an Anne admirer, I cannot tell you all how sick to death I am of seeing that in so many books about Anne. *sigh* Sorry this turned into such of a rant, but I just had to get this off my chest. Thanks for reading, everyone.

  16. Maggie R.. interesting, but 1507 is so illogical, how could a fairly unimportant nobleman’s daughter go abroad at just six? Yes Thomas Boleyn was fairly powerful and growing in influence at the time, and Gareth Russell does give the example that Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk’s daughter Anne Brandon went to the French Court at roughly the same age as Anne Boleyn, but what this fails to take into account is that Suffolk was the King’s favourite, his closest friend from his childhood, he was also extremely well born and thus was afforded privileges that the likes of Thomas Boleyn would not have been accorded. Yes, Anne may have been precocious and her father obviously recognised her talent at a very early age, but if Anne Boleyn had been born in the summer of 1501, she would have been only 11 or 12 anyway when she went to France in 1513; when a maid of honour had to be 13, this was considerably younger than most girls had to be. Furthermore, throughout the 1520s she was described as ‘young’, but let’s remember, had she been born in 1500-1, she would have been at least 15 years younger than Queen Katharine, so the contrast in ages was always something to be likely addressed.

    We don’t know if the Nidd Hall portrait is a true likeness of Anne, but I think what should be considered is the ONLY contemporary likeness of Anne Boleyn – her face, on a medal, in 1534, inscriped with ‘The Moost Happi’. It does bear a similarity to the Nidd Hall portrait of Anne, and if Chapuys was biased and had a negative perspective in relation to the ‘Concubine’, as he referred to the Queen, it does not negate the point that Anne was middle-aged in the 1530s What should be considered is that several sixteenth and seventeenth century sources clearly state that Anne was either 20 when she returned home in 1521 or that she was born in at least 1500, if not possibly 1499. As Antonia Fraser – convincingly – tells us, only great, highborn heiresses were married in their teens or early twenties, it was not a matter of distinct urgency to marry at a young age – look at Jane Seymour, who was married finally at the age of 28. Elizabeth of York, Henry VIII’s own mother, was described by her husband as ‘young’ in 1502, when she was actually 36. Looking at the sheer evidence open to us, I think it is so much more likely that Anne Boleyn was certainly born in 1500-1.

  17. “like” or “hate” has no place in historical research or writing. It is provable or it is not (so far). Those who Like or Love an historcal person and get upset when negative things are discovered should stick to fiction. In “Mary Boleyn” AW suggests that Anne was anorexic (“thin old woman”). She puts Chapuys in his place also. I think that Anne was quite smart, but she tripped herself several times. She was not chaste at the court of Francoise I (that letch had everybody including Mary B, but not including Mary Tudor), Anne learned to hold out for marriage. When Henry finally got her, he was disappointed that she was not as advertised. What Henry thought was exciting in a Love interest was not what he wanted in a wife. He also told Anne to shut up at least once. Anne seemed not to understand the difference in being a teasing love interest and what was expected in a wife who was a Queen. In those times, as soon as pregnancy was discovered, intercourse stopped. Henry had a history of hunting for a new “love” when his mistress or wife was pregnant. Anne did not “suck it up”. The RH- factor makes sense.

  18. I do enjoy Weirs writing but I am sorry to say that it is rather hard for me to believe that she is a huge “Anne supporter” regarding someomes comment to be able to describe Anne way she does. I have passionately been researching this woman for the last few years and just feel so much credit has bypassed. My mother is also huge on History though she does not hold the same passion as I do for Anne. In fact, she explained Anne to as this “bit@!” that as cold, calculating, ambitious, had her eye on the crown from the start, and that tried to poison Mary. I knew what author fan she was… Weir. So this image that my mother obtained was basically from Weir. Which really makes me angry. Now, granted she was more a sympathizer of Catherine it seems from the start but I just feel that authors like Weir know that a large amount of the population take their work at face value and should not have been so heavily judgemental and biased towards her. I’m not saying worship her or be biased to the opposite effect but take her at face,value for a woman that may have had both good qualities and bad.

    For example, not much is ever mentioned about Anne donating more money than any of the other Queens to the poor and college. She even made herself and her ladies smocks and shirts for the poor to be distributed on their.

    If you read all the primary sources (which I can admit I have not read all but have read a GREAT deal) you will clearly see her marriage was not declining from,the start and actually she seemed to,still hold much favor even weeks before her death!! This whole idea on this theory repeated OVER AND OVER that Henry tired of Anne because she did not change who she was when they married. That Henry expected her to behave differently as a wife. The expectation that Anne should have remained silent etc. I just don’t buy in to this theory one bit. Sure, Anne have Henry a run for his money but do you really think he wanted Anne to truly and heartfelt become suddenly docile, submissive and meek? I personally believe Henry loved every bit of Anne the way she was. Sure, they quarrled and bickered and sure he may have said angry words and vice versa (which may very well been the cause of her downfall but Henry didn’t want Anne to be a different woman. After Anne miscarried and she blamed him for her heart aching Henry comforted her and came running back. It just seems to me this couple were just passionate one another, both jealous, both outspoken, both stubborn and hard headed etc. For all we know, Jane could have been just something Henry was temporarily occupied with. There was no evidence whatsoever that it was ever anything serious . There are very few primary accounts of the relationship at all and are all written or spoken in regards of from within the circle of Anne’s enemies (chapyuis , cromwell, carew). And for all we know Henry could have been doing it delibertly (or in part) to arouse Anne and make her jealous. Do not men play this game even in today’s world? Regardless, there is no evidence of the theory that is so often repeated by everyone and historians alike that Henry tired of Anne and according to Warnicke tired as soon as he married her. Henry fought tooth and nail to proclaim to the world that Anne was his Queen, protected or tried to protect her reputation (or lest enforce it) , Proclomations and even made the entirety of England publicly and legally acknowledge Anne (and her heirs) as their rightful Queen regardless whether their was legality of not. Henry would not have taken the great lengths and troubles that he did ithroughout their entire marriage if he was “tired” of her from the start.

    I personally believe that Henry did not plan or engineer her downfall. I believe her enemies contrived the plot against her and honestly had the tyrant Henry that was already super paranoid, jealous and IMPULSIVE actually believe that she may have commuted the adulterous affairs. I believe ultimately what caused the callousal disaster was the things Anne may or may not have actually said or were manipulated by her enemies to hAve said that got Anne in the deepest waters. For example, the comment about Henry’s virility that was supposedly said by Anne to her brother. The comment about “you look for dead men’s shoes” or Anne making fun of Henry’s ballads and dress. Jane Rochford reportedly said that Anne supposedly made a joke about whether Elisabeth was actually the kings because of his virility of Henry (i read this somewhere so have no idea the actual reference or the truth) . Anyhow, all these things and words were most likely manipulated and twisted by her enemies but nonetheless Anne most likely laahed out at times regarding Henry because she was upset, angry or jealous. Henry on the other hand was also a egotistically, jealous, “manly” and wanted to prove his masculinity , and most of all paranoid and IMPULSIVE. His closest ministers and privy men knew this and knew very well how to arouse Henry’s suspicion slowly through his own ears and through “rumor” thAt knowingly would get back to the king. Carew (according to,chapyuis which I believe to be authenticate) was coaching Jane on how to act, what to say and respond and most of all to speak badly of Anne and their marriage. That right there proves not only,does Carew and the if he privy men knew Henry pretty well but also that they knew that because of Henry’s paranoia it would prepare him slowly (even if he dismissed it all at the time as hearsay and rumor) in the end to the plot that was contrived on Anne. I may this but if you think of even today’s reationships they can start and finish (not exaxtl quite like this). And I don’t refer to murder although you could actually argue the same in that. What I mean is you have a passionate couple with a jealous man. You can easily see how rumors and things said over and over could lay dormant and then something happens and boom the person overreacts impulsively believing the accusations before the facts and truth is actually presented. For example, if Anne really did drop her hankerchif as (i believe) one of the chronicles suggest and Norris picked it up you could see where if the King was already paranoid and had enemies whispering slander consistently in his ear or consistent slandered rumors always circulating about someone how this actually could have been impulsively seen as “oh maybe she is having an affair” and quickly reacted without much thinking… Cromwell began The investigation and took Smeaton to his house in Stepney and “questioned” him obtaining a confession. Afterwards, Henry took Norris himself from May Day. Did Henry think then was it possible that Anne was in fact guilty. The whole affair with Annes downfall was moved very FAST. For one thing, cromwell knew he needed to have it done quickly before Henry could change his mind, think things through and clear his clouded judgement. The “confession” with smeaton would only have strengthened his conviction of paranoia, jealousy and suspicians. His tearful decclaration to Henry Fitzroy on May 2nd that he and his sister owed God a great debt for having escaped death at the hand of that cursed and poisoning wh*re” reveals the strength of the revulsion he began to feel for her, just as the subsequent assertion that she had been unfaithful to him with one hundred men suggests the extremes to which his anger and self-pity would take him. No crime was unthinkable in a woman who could betray him. It was this personal sense of injury and dishonour that drove Henry to root out the whole story and pursue the offenders to the death. Henry then had to prove his masculinity to his realm (and mostly himself) by “banqueting with the ladies” on his barge “sometimes past midnight and returning by the river”. Anyhow, despite my “own” “theory” and thoughts there is no evidence whatsoever that Henry “tired of Anne at the beginning of during his marriage and even at the beginning of 1536 their are only Chapyuis statements regarding to the fact surrounding it. And we all know is hopeful and wishful captives. Anyhow, there is also be evidence to suggest that What Henry wished for in a “lover” he did not in a wife. None. I could hardly see Henry being happy in a relationship or marriage that did not involve some form of rebuke to him. In my opinion, he loved every bit of the feisty Anne whether he got angry at times or not with her.

    The other often repeated and apparent Weirs opinion of the fact that Anne basically “plotted” her tactic of witholding sexual intimacy with Henry so that he would want to marry her is a load of cram. None of us know what Anne’s thought even were when the attention of the King turned to her. Nor is there any evidence suggesting even that it was a tactic even used. None of us actually think of her just simply RESPECTING herself and she was going to be like that whether he was a king or not. And just because Anne was at the French court does not mean she did not mean she remained unchaste and what evidence is there that Henry ever described his sexual experience with her??? None. Ridiulous “opinions”. Actually, we don’t even honestly know for certain how old Anne actually was when she died much less the French court. She could have been but a child or barely a teen. I truly believe she was born later around 1507 but won’t go into detail of that now.

    The matter with many historians is they often leave off information tonsuite their theories, beliefs and purpose and what they want is to believe. For example, here Weir goes on to discredit Chapyuis but then basically takes his word for the likelihood that Anne attempted to poison Mary. That and what the king said but nothing of it was really regarded at the trial. She also neglects to mention Lady Shelton OWN frustration with Mary not necessarily anything that Anne ordered. Lady Shelton was frustrated and aggravated with Mary because of his she was acting whether Anne ordered any kind of I’ll treatment or not.

    I do completely agree with the fact that Jane wasn’t so much this meek and sweet woman she portrayed herself to be. And regardless of the comment that was made to Jane when she tried to speak for the rebels does not mean that Henry wanted an unopiniated woman but could be much that the opinion was completely against what he felt and what he wanted but also the fact that maybe he held little respect for her to begin with. Maybe he realized that Jane wasnt this chaste and innocent woman she had portrayed herself to be later on. We will never know what he thought as he only said and though aloud what he wanted others to believe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *