|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:13 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:15 pm
 |
|
|
|
Honestly, my own opinion is kind of divided.
On the one hand, history vilifies her as a whore, a home-wrecker, and, as you said, an adulteress. I think that a very large part of this was because the common English people so loved Katherine of Aragon that no matter who the "other woman" was, I believe she would have suffered the same fate. In no small part was it also due to the fact that wives all over the country felt threatened by what Henry was trying to do: if the King could put aside his wife - his God-given Queen - for love of another woman, what was to prevent their own husbands from doing the same?
On the other hand, Henry was such an egotistical tyrant, besides being King, that to refuse him would have meant political death not only for her, but her entire family.
Thus the men in her family would have (and most likely did) schemed to put first Mary in Henry's bed, then Anne.
Whether Anne actively and enthusiastically took part in this scheming, we will never know.
On the one hand, I would like to believe that she was simply a sort of victim, a pawn played by and fought over by powerful men.
On the other, I'm loathe to undermine a woman's intelligence by thinking and hypothesizing that she just sat by and let the men decide her life.
Innocent or guilty of adultery? I say she was innocent. If there was one thing that she would not do, it would be that. Any taint of that kind of scandal would have meant that her child would possibly never see the throne he/she was born to.
Innocent or guilty of witch-craft? This is hard to say. She would have turned to it in her desperation to provide a living son. Or she would have stayed away for the same reason as above: to avoid the smallest taint of scandal.
Innocent or guilty of incest? Innocent. Her brother looked nothing like Henry, and back then, it was definitely to the good if the child looked like the father, rather than the dubious fortune of looking like its mother.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:45 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:49 pm
|
|
|
|
XDcoco puff_100XD the fact that King Henry wanted only boys to take is throne
Quote: that he beheaded one wife before Anne
Quote: But then again, women didn't have equal rights back then so it wouldn't really have mattered what her feelings were. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:11 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:34 am
|
|
|
 |
slaki I feel that Anne Bolyne was innocent. I mean, who was he to call her an adultress when her sister was his mistress while he was married to Katherine of Aragon? Okay, I know what woman didn't have and rights back then and blah, blah, but I'm sure if this happened in a common household the wife would be quick about getting rid of the problem, wouldn't she? So since by Henry's standards that he wasn't committing adultery with Mary, Anne's sister, then Anne should be innocent een with seven men (I'm sure Henry had more than one mistress...). By the way, wasn't she also accused of witchcraft?
Ever heard of the term "double standard" ?
Yeah, back then they had double standards for men and women. Men could sleep around as much as they wanted: it was their right and their prerogative.
Women? No. Women weren't allowed to even look at another man the wrong way.
No, not even in a common household could the wife do anything about it. Precisely because her husband had every right to a mistress.
Yes, Henry had more than one mistress. He had a whole slew of them, though not all of them are named. Bessie Blount was before Mary Boleyn, but was sent away when she got pregnant (her son was named William FitzRoy, after Henry acknowledged the baby as his son). Then was Mary, then when Anne came into the picture is when all the marital drama started, so people just didn't care about his mistresses.
Yes, Anne was accused of witchcraft, along with incest and treason. Henry and his spiritual officers were grasping at straws just so Henry could get rid of Anne and pursue Jane Seymour. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:46 pm
|
|
|
|
connielass slaki I feel that Anne Bolyne was innocent. I mean, who was he to call her an adultress when her sister was his mistress while he was married to Katherine of Aragon? Okay, I know what woman didn't have and rights back then and blah, blah, but I'm sure if this happened in a common household the wife would be quick about getting rid of the problem, wouldn't she? So since by Henry's standards that he wasn't committing adultery with Mary, Anne's sister, then Anne should be innocent een with seven men (I'm sure Henry had more than one mistress...). By the way, wasn't she also accused of witchcraft? Ever heard of the term "double standard" ? Yeah, back then they had double standards for men and women. Men could sleep around as much as they wanted: it was their right and their prerogative. Women? No. Women weren't allowed to even look at another man the wrong way. No, not even in a common household could the wife do anything about it. Precisely because her husband had every right to a mistress. Yes, Henry had more than one mistress. He had a whole slew of them, though not all of them are named. Bessie Blount was before Mary Boleyn, but was sent away when she got pregnant. Then was Mary, then when Anne came into the picture is when all the marital drama started, so people just didn't care about his mistresses. Yes, Anne was accused of witchcraft, along with incest and treason. Henry and his spiritual officers were grasping at straws just so Henry could get rid of Anne and pursue Jane Seymour.
I never heard of the term double standards, but heard that the men could be lazy and all that other good stuff. It kind of makes you admire Elizabeth I even more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:10 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:33 pm
|
|
|
|
nadine sendal you see though jane seymore gave him the son he always wanted.... it wasnt his son who was the almighty ruler of england it was elizebeth annes daughter talk about some karma there...... and in all honesty the whole witchcraft thing (she had 6 fingers and moles) i think that was mostly chapyues(dont think i spelled that right) the spanish abassator its in some of his letters to charles the holy roman emporer and king of spian and kathrines nephew that we get these discriptions......so he was partial to the other side im mean do you seriuosly think that a woman with a 6th finger and moles all over her neck coud attract a king who was notorius for bedding the most beautiful women in england?????
I'd forgotten about the sixth finger (which was true, btw), but I believe she only had one mole - if that - and it wasn't on her neck. That wasn't the only reason she was charged with witch-craft, though: there were rumors (probably unfounded) that she took potions to help her conceive a son.
Further, it was never said they were the most beautiful women. To Henry, they likely were beautiful to some extent, but in my estimation, he simply took what was given him, and where he was taunted, he gave chase because he was a sportsman, and hated losing.
Lastly: Henry's son Edward did rule, however briefly. He was king for six years, being crowned in February of 1547 at nine years of age, and died at the age of 15, succeeded by his cousin, Lady Jane Grey. Granted, it was in name only, not being of legal age, but as I stated above: his reign lasted six years, and was enough that Mary, when she ousted Jane Grey, had a time of undoing what was put in place during Edward's tenure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:31 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:10 pm
|
|
|
|
It wasn't that she was a slave to sex. IF she did it, no doubt she was desperate for an heir. Her ambition, and her plans for it, all hinged on having an heir. Her cousin, however, WAS somewhat of a nymph, having married Henry well after his middle age when he was less attractive than he'd been during his marriage to Anne.
The charge of witch-craft, as I said, was based on three things:
1) She had a sixth finger
2) She had a mole, which at the time was believed to be the Devil's mark.
3) There were rumors that she took a potion (maybe more than one) in order to ensure the conception of a son.
No matter what happened, though, or what she did or didn't do, it's the truth that these were the charges trumped up by Henry and his bishops in order to attain Henry's goal: permanent separation from his wife, in order to pursue another woman and marry her.
Whether those charges held any truth, we will never know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:15 pm
|
|
|
|
I really feel that I can add some input here:
Contrary to popular belief it was not against the law for women to have extramarital affairs. Nor was it unheard of to have premarital affairs. As many of you should know because of Catherine Howard who was, quite possibly, the only queen executed who confessed her guilt for having fornicated with men other than the king. The only law that did have an affect on Anne Boleyn was the the jeopardy that she put on the succession. Any offspring created through an affair would jeopardize Henry's lineage, thus bringing down his line and the Tudor Dynasty, that would get her executed. The men would have been killed regardless, as they would have been in violation of the Queen's person, she would have just been put away unless they could find more evidence against her. They trumped up the charges as best they could with what little evidence they had, rumors and jealous slander, claiming that she had had an incestuous relationship with her brother just to be rid of her, after all, that is what Henry wanted, and none of the "guilty" admitted to anything so they needed something to condemn her with. It wasn't until after Anne's execution that Henry changed that law, thereby making lawful to put your wife aside after she committed adultery or to have her killed for adultery. (Which in my opinion is barbaric).
The reason being that Henry wanted Jane Seymour because she was the opposite of Anne and it turns out an alliance (marriage) with her would create an easing of the tension with the French, who disliked Anne (most of Europe did), and as luck would have it were having difficulty with another part of Europe (another country who was against England).
Therefore, having Anne executed, and a Catholic bride to "restore" ties with Catholic Europe would be welcome move to Henry and his council as they would have France again as an ally and have Jane (who was just as guilty of Anne in the backstabbing your queen department). Trust me, she promised him sons. But she was past her prime, being near to 24 or 25 when she married Henry and that would have had a huge part in why her birth of the future king killed her, along with ignorant doctors and midwives. Not washing hands....gross).
Many years later, several of the men responsible for Anne's death made mention of her innocence, in fact, one wrote to Elizabeth I of just this subject telling her how innocent her mother truly was in his eyes. Honestly, I cannot recall the book he wrote, but it can be found in, "The Wives of Henry VIII", by Alison Weir.
On the subject of love or hatred of Anne Boleyn by the English people, it was not because of what she was doing. Yes, many English women would have disliked the idea of a husband putting aside an honest wife, but it wasn't as though their opinion really mattered anyway. It was the men's opinions that mattered, and it was well known, that the Boleyn's were reformist in their opinions and actions, regardless of their Catholic performances at mass. England didn't want to be "reformed." It had ties to Rome, and the Pope. We all know it, Henry split England for Anne. He destroyed churches and holy relics. He murdered men of the cloth for a woman. And a lesser born one at that! Because let's face it, Catherine of Aragon was born royal. She was reared to be a queen, and a Catholic queen. Don't get me wrong, Anne did marvelous things as queen, but to turn her into a queen, well, the ends didn't justify the means.
Anne knew that she was essentially putting aside a queen for her own gains. And she wanted Catherine and Mary killed too, "to protect her, and Elizabeth", which was something that Henry probably wanted to do, but he knew that the English people would stomach her being put aside, but not beheaded or worse. Catherine was stubborn to the end, denying Henry his divorce (which history tells us wasn't legal until he made it so and in fact Mary overturned his ruling and made her parents marriage legal, her first act as queen after her little brother's death), something that Jane and the wives after her knew that they couldn't be.
Henry put Catherine aside knowing her health would fail, and he quite probably hoped (if not prayed) that the castles that he kept her in would aid in her illness and finish the job (which it did, so essentially he killed her too, through neglect). It is reported and a popular belief that he was pleased when she died. I do recall that Anne and Henry feasted to celebrate her death.
Anne was accused of poisoning several important figures during her role as queen. She was the one blamed for the ill health of Margaret Pole? (who had the real right to the English throne, though she never pressed her right to rule). It wouldn't matter anyway because, much like Henry's wives, the Pole family would be sought out imprisoned and murdered to ensure his claim to the throne was the only one left.
Henry, regardless of his treatment of his wife at the end of each marriage, loved each of his wives in some way. But Henry got what he wanted. He was the king. But it's pretty well understood that a king must have male heirs, and it was not uncommon for a man to put away his wife for the chance to have the sons he wanted by another woman.
Take the recent Duchess movie and book, true story. Man keeps mistress who gives him male heirs and her own male children he keeps too! What about Marie Antoinette? Same thing, people ticked off that she wasn't giving the kingdom a male heir, she did eventually though, little good it did her because he died of illness while imprisoned as a young boy during the revolution.
It's a little known fact that marriage contracts of royalty and upper class women have clauses in them that the family of the bride are given large sums for the birth of each child. And more so for male babies. Marriages were made of politic, and that made many women rich(er). Think of it as a business arrangement, you agree to be my wife, you only have sex with me to create my heirs. If you stray and create a child you can be put aside or beheaded (whatever means to be rid of you), because your lover is essentially stealing the offspring that I'm paying you and your family for. As Henry VIII put it, "poor men can choose their wives, and I must do things I care not to for the good of my realm regardless of how distasteful." Not even Henry could marry whoever he wanted. Not really. Each wife gave something he needed. They knew what they were getting into. Not that they deserved what they got. He was rather pig headed and an egocentric.
In retrospect I'm sure that she was innocent of adultery, and incest, but she was quite guilty of ambition and heresy (as far as the council was concerned). It was her drive and ambition, something to be admired of a woman today, that put the final nail in her coffin. No way was she going to bow out for Henry like Catherine had done. She would have fought to the end, something Henry didn't want. He had enough thorns in his side, and I'm sure Anne would have been a big one. Better to have her dead and out of the way.
This does not mean that I disliked her. She was without a doubt, one of my favorite queen consorts of all time. Sadly, I fear, she was born in the wrong age. While it may have been the in thing for women to be educated, it was still outrageous that a woman should share her opinions with her husband and his peers, let alone try to lead the king along a heretical and enormously controversial path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
