the TUDOR TUTOR
Your cheeky guide to the dynastyArchive for Anne Boleyn
The Genuine Article
News in the world of royal portraits yesterday: Art dealer Bendor Grosvenor (@arthistorynews) shared with me on Twitter that the above drawing by Hans Holbein the Younger has now been formally identified by himself and David Starkey as Anne Boleyn.
Further, it is the only likeness of Anne to have been made from life!
Well, the news coming “yesterday” was news to me and others, but apparently this goes back to 2007; here’s an article in the Daily Mail and another from United Press International.
The first thing that strikes me about this portrait is the tiny bump just under the bridge of Anne’s nose, so like the one in the Darnley portrait of her daughter.
UPDATE: Bendor was kind enough to print this on the Art History News site this morning, which should answer all your inquiries.
UPDATE, PART DEUX: Going by all the social networking sites’ chatter on this topic today, many of you are passionate one way or another about the Anne Boleyn portrait identification issue — Passion is a good thing!
Several are hesitant to believe that “this plumper” or otherwise non-glamorous sitter might be the great AB; remember that pregnancies (current or past) can alter a woman’s face. Also, when Anne biographer Eric Ives dismissed this, he’d compared it to the [very damaged] portrait medal. Add to this that the king & queen accepted guests whilst in their nightclothes, on occasion!
Can anyone be 100% sure? Probably not. But I think the latest (as in, since 2007) conclusion makes a good case. Thanks for all your discussion on the matter, here or elsewhere in cyberspace! Our Tudors never seem to lose relevance.
That’s Why the Lady is a … Traitor
Being a former teacher, I like to mull around the education section of the bookstore, which is exactly what I did this morning at Barnes & Noble (after having sat down for a while with my hazelnut latte and a pile of magazines). I flipped through an interesting book by Ron Clark called The End of Molasses Classes: Getting Our Kids Unstuck — 101 Extraordinary Solutions for Parents and Teachers and came across a tidbit I just had to share with my fellow Tudorphiles:
Whilst teaching a roomful of 6th graders about Anne Boleyn’s demise, Clark asked the class what we would call a person who did what Anne was accused of having done. When met with silence, he emphasised that Anne had been accused of being unfaithful to the king and therefore betrayed her country, so she would be a …. (nope, nothing but silence again).
Clark asked once more tried but tried a bit of spelling help: ”C’mon, she would be a T – R – A …”
A little light went on for the whole class as they finally responded in unison, “Tramp!!”
Digit-al Anne Boleyn
Can we please clear something up? Anne Boleyn did not have an extra finger on either hand.
Twitter seems to be a popular mill for this particular rumor. Today I actually found a tweet which claims that she had “an extra one on each hand. Must have looked like an octopus when they buried her with no head.”
A similar tweet from last week reads “Henry VIII’s 2nd wife, Anne Boleyn, had six fingers on one hand. Special gloves all her life.. She also had three breasts.” He goes on to defend this claim and insists that “there was MORE about her which I am not at liberty to reveal.” Oh, the mystery!
Another recent tweet gushes that Anne “had 3 nipples and an extra finger on one hand. lol cool.” Nah, not so much.
I also came across this fallacy whilst watching “Steel Magnolias” one night last week.
Anne’s enemies in the 16th century and beyond talked quite a bit of smack about her, claiming that she had excessive moles, warts, and superfluous fingers.
In Tudor times, such irregularities might have indicated a bent toward witchcraft. Do we really think that Henry VIII would have changed the entire belief system of his country for a gal with [what would have been described at the time as] a deformity?
However, since I do subscribe to the idea that we learn something new every day, I will leave you with this tidbit: The name for having an extra finger on one or both hands? Hexadactyly. There — I feel better now.
Her Grace Under Pressure
On Friday morning, the 19th of May 1536, that maid of the marvellous moxie took her place at the scaffold inside the Tower walls. Was she unhinged and flipping out, as portrayed in “The Other Boleyn Girl”?
Not from most accounts. Although it was said she looked absolutely wiped (lack of sleep can do that) and kept checking over her shoulder (perhaps for a last-minute reprieve?), she is said to have been the picture of composure and strength. That’s why I’m partial to Natalie Dormer’s portrayal from “The Tudors” and think that scene is so very touching.
Onlookers described Anne as having “a devilish walk” and “never look[ing] more beautiful,” “full of much joy and pleasure.” Her final speech was heartfelt yet professional.
And because the swordsman hid his sword in the straw and distracted Anne with the infamous “Hey, what’s that over there?” trick, she never saw it coming. Her Grace was poised to the end.
It Could Be Worse
Today in 1536, four men went on trial and were to come out on the short end of the stick, for sure. Henry Norris, William Brererton, Francis Weston, and Mark Smeaton were all found guilty of having their trousers around their ankles in the company of Queen Anne Boleyn.
Their trial was at Westminister Hall; Anne and her brother George, however, would be tried by their peers in a separate event because of their social standing. So although the siblings had to endure humiliating charges against them, at least there was more dignity in the setting than for the other four men.
And what of the sentence? Norris, Brereton, Weston, and Smeaton were meant to be part of a veritable circus of horrors before they actually died. They would individually be dragged by a horse-drawn cart to a scaffold where they’d be hanged…almost. The executioner would take them down just before the rope actually killed them, only to chop off their naughty bits and then hack them into quarters. Such drama!
Fortunately (?), Henry VIII commuted all their sentences to just beheading. Whew! Aristocratic Anne and George were of course given the privilege of beheading as well. And not one of those Tower Hill executions in front of the riff raff, but a private execution on Tower Green. Prestige has its rewards, no?
Not only would Anne enjoy the dignity of a beheading, she would be beheaded by The Best: a master swordsman sent from France. Merci!
“B” is for Boleyn
Image by lisby1 via Flickr
I have to get this out of my system because it is making me crazy: On ”Ugly Betty” (which I have never seen, though I’ve seen still shots) the title character wears a large pearl-adorned ”B” around her neck. Some Bettyphiles have gotten a hold of “The Other Boleyn Girl” (which I have also not seen) and thought it a cute in-joke that Natalie Portman’s Anne Boleyn wears “the Betty necklace.”
Heck, someone must have even continued the joke into “The Tudors” with Natalie Dormer!
Here’s the scoop: Anne Boleyn herself wore that necklace, as you can see in the title picture above. Personalized jewelry was all the rage at the time; Henry’s second wife also had an “A” necklace as well as an “AB” one. Its present-day whereabouts are unknown, although popular belief says it was handed down to her daughter Elizabeth — a very different “Betty.” Now that that’s cleared up…
Shakespeare’s Secret
The Folger Theater’s production of the oft-hidden “Henry VIII” is part of the happy hoopla surrounding the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII’s accession, along with the Vivat Rex! exhibit in the same building. I’ve seen the exhibit, and this past Saturday night, I was thrilled to take in the show. (There’s an official trailer here.)
Maybe it is out of superstition, since the Globe Theater burned down during a performance of “The Famous History of the Life of King Henry VIII” (or maybe because it’s a subject we’ve seen in a thousand different places so why should Shakespeare’s version stand out?) but the Shakespeare/John Fletcher take on the Tudors between the Duke of Buckingham’s arrest and Princess Elizabeth’s birth (spanning the dates from early 1521 to September 1533) is scarcely seen on the stage.
Since the play is called “Henry VIII,” you would expect the Big Guy to be the strongest character. Not so much. Henry, as played by Ian Merrill Peakes, has his intimidating moments and does a fair amount of storming the stage (and turning on the charm), but overall this is a more tame Henry than we might expect. This isn’t a slam against the terrific Peakes, but rather a fact of the character. Henry is the reason for the events in the play, but not usually the focus of the action. Plus, Shakespeare was not about to offend the memory of his patron: Henry’s daughter, Elizabeth I.
Louis Butelli (who made me envision a hypothetic love child of Michael Stipe and a gangly Brad Pitt) is delightful as top jester Will Sommers, a character not in the original play. Sommers is the portal into the events: He plops down on the edge of the stage from time to time and uses puppets to clue us in to the coming drama, breaks that 4th wall regularly, and dons various other hats (literally) to play an old lady, a cardinal, and even Cromwell. See video of Butelli’s fool here.
Catherine of Aragon, as played by Naomi Jacobson, is both regal and grounded, has both gravity and sweetness. Her court scene puts the audience into, well, the courtroom audience and is one of the best moments of the play. Her downfall is, of course, nothing less than heartbreaking.
The undeniable standout, however, is Anthony Cochrane as Cardinal Wolsey. His strength and confidence are a marvel through most of the play, but it’s his breakdown that is a true work of art. When you’ve got the Royal Shakespeare Company on your resume, I expect no less! A true Renaissance man, Cochrane is also the composer and sound designer, and here I have to praise the powerful use of music in this “Henry VIII.”
I wish I could say good things about Karen Peakes, who plays a modern-day favorite from the Tudor era, Anne Boleyn. Whereas, say, Genevieve Bujold and Natalie Dormer really brought Anne’s charm, wit, and magnetism to audiences, Peakes is stiff as wood. Charmless. A real disappointment. Is this because she is opposite her real-life husband? Well, apparently they’ve shared the stage over a dozen times before, so someone must think this is a good idea. I’m not one of them, though.
The show’s outstanding and effective set design (below) is another star. The traditional Tudor design of the theater takes on a slightly dark and gothic tone with the iron side “curtains” and simple cross serving as a powerful centerpiece on the back wall. The huge iron chandelier above is also used as an acting space. The costumes are equally impressive (and heavy!); a true treat for the eyes. Here’s a 4-minute video on Ian Merrill Peakes’ costume.
Before the play began, and during intermission, it was a nice treat to pop into the Great Hall, just outside the theater doors, for another look at the Golden Gospels of Henry VIII and the rest of the Vivat Rex! exhibit. A true evening with Henry VIII it was, thanks to the Folger Theater, Shakespeare, and well, John Fletcher!
* A few glimpses of the play can be seen in a video review at the bottom of this page, and in the official trailer.
* The cast gives an awesome summary of the play in under a minute here.
Be My Guest, Claire Ridgway! Part 2
I hope you all enjoyed Part 1 of Claire Ridgway’s guest post on Alison Weir’s “Tudor women” talk (click here if you missed it). Let’s go to Part 2!
——————————————-
Henry’s Queens:
Obviously King’s wives were not like the average Tudor woman, but even though they were in charge of large households and budgets, Alison pointed out that the decisions were still made by the King. The queen’s role was to produce heirs and be the perfect model wife for the court.
But, what was the model wife? Here, Alison used Catherine of Aragon’s words when she pleaded with Henry VIII at the divorce hearing, saying that she was his “true, humble, obedient wife.” This summed up what a wife should be and her accepted role in the divine order. Even Catherine Parr applauded this ideal in her book Lamentations of a Sinner, writing that young women should be “sober-minded.” Alison pointed out the mottoes of Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard – “Bound to Obey and Serve” and “No Other Will but His” – these women accepted their role!
Adultery:
Alison emphasised that on marriage a woman became a man’s property and that it was even a man’s legal right to kill his wife on the spot if he caught her in the act of adultery. An adulterous woman brought shame on her family. Here, Alison mentioned Catherine Parr’s brother, William Parr, and his call for his unfaithful wife to be put to death. Fortunately, a divorce was granted instead! But look at Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, both accused of adultery and both executed. The man’s word was law and although Weir stated that Anne was the “victim of a bitter court struggle” and was “framed by her enemies,” the adultery charge stood and Anne lost her life. After Catherine Howard was executed, a law was passed that it was high treason for a woman of dubious past to marry the king.
Education
In Medieval times, people believed that women should not be taught to write unless they were nuns and that the only education they needed was in home-making, to make them fit to be a good wife. However, the Renaissance made education for women more acceptable and Alison gave the examples of Margaret Roper (Sir Thomas More’s daughter), Catherine of Aragon, and Catherine Parr as models of educated and virtuous women. Too much learning could get a woman into trouble though–take the example of Catherine Parr, who was plotted against.
Mary and Elizabeth:
Alison pointed out that the only experience England had had of a female ruler was Empress Matilda in the 12th century and she didn’t last long. Mary I was England’s first real female monarch and she had many difficulties to contend with. For example, she couldn’t even do the ceremony of the Knights of the Bath because she couldn’t get into a bath with a bunch of men! Then, there was the question of marriage because of the traditional roles of husband and wife, with the woman being submissive to the man, yet she was Queen of England!
Alison spoke of how it was Elizabeth I who proved that a woman could rule successfully, but she wasn’t afraid of using her femininity to her advantage and using her feminine wiles to get her own way. The marriage issue was still a problem for Elizabeth though, but she solved it by remaining single while encouraging suitors to gain political advantage. Alison quite rightly noted that Elizabeth paved the way for future queens and that she was “one of the most important women to wield power.”
Final Words:
Alison Weir concluded her talk by stating that although 16th century women were seen as second to men, they still managed to rule countries and run businesses and estates. Life certainly was not easy for Tudor women, but, according to Alison, it did have its compensations and many marriages were loving relationships.
It really was a joy to hear Alison speak and to talk to her afterwards. She has so much knowledge and is happy to share this and answer questions. It was a great night and it raised £600 for the Mary Rose Appeal too.
———————————————————
Claire Ridgway writes The Anne Boleyn Files (blog here, Facebook page here) and the Elizabeth Files (blog here, Facebook page here). Thanks again, Claire, for your fantastic article!
Be My Guest, Claire Ridgway! Part 1
My friend Claire Ridgway, of The Anne Boleyn Files, recently had the opportunity to listen in on a talk by Tudor author extraordinaire, Alison Weir on 1 July at the Mary Rose Museum at the historic dockyard at Portsmouth (and lunch with her afterward!). Claire was kind enough to share the experience with me so I may share it with you. Today, in part 1, we have Weir’s take on women in Tudor England in general, and on marriage. Take it away, Claire…
——————————–
I’ve been wanting to catch one of Alison Weir’s talks for a long time so I was really excited when I managed to get a ticket for this talk to aid the Mary Rose Appeal. Alison explained that this talk was not based on any particular book, but on research she has done dating back to the 1970s, and it was a truly enlightening talk, educating the listeners about what it was really like to be a Tudor woman.
Alison started with a quotation from John Knox’s “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women”, a treatise directed at Mary of Guise but which also could be applied to Mary I and her successor, Elizabeth I, a diatribe against the “monstrous regiment” of female rulers. This quotation set the scene for the talk, a talk about the roles that Tudor society expected women to play versus the roles that they actually did play.
Alison explained how men were traditionally seen as the hunters, gatherers and protectors, whereas women were descended from Eve and were the cause of Adam leaving Paradise. Women were viewed as instruments of the Devil, temptresses and “the only imperfection in God’s creation”. Alison quoted Vincent de Beauvais from the 13th century:-
“Woman is the confusion of man, an insatiable beast, a continuous anxiety, an incessant warfare, a daily ruin, a house of tempest and a hindrance to devotion”
and this belief, that women were more prone to sin and could lead men astray, was still prevalent in Tudor England. Tudor women were given little freedom and Chaucer’s character, Patient Griselda, was held as the ideal that girls should aspire to.
Marriage:
Alison went on to discuss betrothals, pre-contracts, dowries and marriage, explaining that a marriage ceremony was not needed to legalise a marriage, even a verbal contract witnessed by two people and then consummated was enough. This helps us to understand the concerns over Anne Boleyn’s alleged pre-contract to Henry Percy and Catherine Howard’s to Francis Dereham.
Alison pointed out that sex before marriage was forbidden but that it was seen as acceptable for a man to sow his wild oats before settling down; however, a woman was expected to be virtuous and guard her reputation with her life, and this is why Henry VIII courted Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard in front of chaperones, to guard their reputations. Talk about double standards!
For the woman, sex was seen as simply necessary for procreation and it was believed that women were not meant to experience sexual pleasure. Alison stated that when someone in the 16th century questioned this belief and said that women were made to experience pleasure, he was accused of heresy. Also, a shocking fact – women with sexual experience could not accuse a man of rape!
Marriage for love was seen as pure insanity and arranged marriages were the norm. Henry VIII bucked tradition by following Edward IV’s example and marrying for love, but this certainly was not normal. Boys could cohabit from 14 and girls were deemed ready for a sexual relationship from 12, and Alison noted that there was a very practical reason for this: life expectancy. In Tudor times, women had a life expectancy of around 30 so it was sensible to marry young.
——————————————
Part 2: Henry’s queens and adultery, stay tuned!
“You Just Wait Until Your Father Gets Home [from Sacking the Monasteries]!”
“Our first-born is the greatest ass, the greatest liar, the greatest canaille, and the greatest beast in the whole world and we heartily wish he was out of it.”
Whew, tell us how you really feel about your son, George II! Two hundred years post-Tudor, the Hanoverians were famous for poor father-son relations, but George II’s feelings toward his son (who died before he could become George III, so it went to his own boy) were probably the most extreme. Victoria’s male successors weren’t about to win any father-son awards, either. And although Henry VIII was very proud of his intelligent and talented children, we see how he used the girls in a genetic shuffleboard when it came to the succession, and famously obsessed over the XY chromosome.
Under the crown, children were primarily potential heirs and/or devices to marry into other royal families. Most royals did not have hands-on parenting experience either, as their kids were raised by nannies, and even breastfed via a wet-nurse. No attachment parenting for them! (And I suspect no “mommy wars,” either.)
Regardless of norms in royal parenting, it’s a good weekend* to hail those women who carried and gave birth to some of the biggest names in history. Let’s have a roll call of prominent Tudor moms…
- Lady Margaret Beaufort (mom to Henry VII)
- Elizabeth of York (mom to Henry VIII)
- Catherine of Aragon (mom to Mary I)
- Anne Boleyn (mom to Elizabeth I)
- Jane Seymour (mom to Edward VI)
- Mary de Guise (mom to Mary Queen of Scots)
- Lady Francis Brandon (mom to Lady Jane Grey)
These moms may not have received macaroni necklaces made with sticky fingers, but I suppose “look at me, Mom, I’m the ruler of the whole country” had a certain caché.
(* Mother’s Day is this Sunday, 9 May, in the U.S. Mothering Sunday in the U.K. is celebrated on the 4th Sunday of Lent; this year that date was 14 March.)
