the TUDOR TUTOR
Your cheeky guide to the dynastyArchive for Anne Boleyn
The Final Countdown
Today in 1536, Anne Boleyn was arrested and shipped off to the Tower of London. I’m afraid it’s all downhill from here, kids. I have a clearer idea of Anne’s final weeks after having read Alison Weir’s The Lady in the Tower a few years ago — Have you read it yet? I really like how it concentrates on such a short period of time, all leading up to a [dreadfully] iconic moment in Tudor history.
Whilst I will try to refrain from approaching Weir’s record for suspect or absent sources, as well as her muddling of hypothesis and fact (oh dear, I’ve said too much!), this book was a quick read with a great focus. Plus, I read it during May so it was nice (eerily nice?) to be in the same time of year as the book’s setting.
For an early May refresher on the events to come, do check out my previous posts on the fates of the men Anne was found guilty with, the day of her execution, and her fabulous final fashion statement.
This extensive page from the Institute of Historical Research details all the ‘Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic’ for Henry VIII from the 11th-15th May, 1536. You know what those dates mean. Here’s an excerpt: “Your man George has arrived, who confirms the news touching the King’s concubine, and, as we suppose that the King will put her and her accomplices to death and take another wife, as he is of amorous complexion and always desires to have a male child.” Eeesh.
** Please tell me that the title of this post was your musical cue for this! I’m off to download it from iTunes right now. And perhaps I can teach my son to play the riff on his Fender?
Let’s Kick Off the Anne Boleyn Collection Book Tour!
I am psyched and honoured to be the kick-off point for the Anne Boleyn Collection book tour! My friend Claire Ridgway has just published her first book, The Anne Boleyn Collection, and she’s whisking around cyberspace this week answering your questions, chatting in interviews, and giving away signed copies of her hot new book and other Tudor-y goodies.
Anyone who sent me questions for Claire is eligible to win a signed copy of the book PLUS another surprise! The winner will be announced on Friday. For now, sit back and enjoy reading this Q & A as Claire tackles some of your questions …
Q: Do you think Henry ever regretted what happened to Anne (and her family) and do you think he suffered from some sort of mental illness? There were so many heads rolling that he had to have had some regrets. Even his good “friends” were subject to the hatchet! – Cathy
Claire: It is tempting to believe that Henry was mentally ill or that he suffered some kind of brain damage as a result of his jousting accident, but I don’t believe that his behaviour was down to illness or injury. In my opinion, Henry had always had that side to him. We have to remember that his father had come to the throne through challenging the king and defeating him in battle, so there were those who believed that the Tudors were usurpers. Henry VIII had to put forward a strong and dominant image; he had to tackle any challenges quickly and brutally.
As for Anne Boleyn’s fall, I do think that, in private, Henry must have regretted it. I just can’t see how you can go from loving someone so passionately to having them executed without feeling remorse at some point.
Q: Why did so many of his wives lose so many babies so young? — Fran
Claire: I think the miscarriages and stillbirths were simply a sign of the times. They were just unlucky. There are a multitude of reasons for miscarriage, stillbirths and infant mortality, and Catherine and Anne were living in times when antenatal and postnatal care were pretty basic, infections were rife and good hygiene was not a priority. Even today, many women experience miscarriage after miscarriage with no real medical reason for them, and infant mortality rates are high in developing countries. Pregnancy and childbirth are still dangerous for both mother and baby.
Q: We know Henry VIII’s height but what about his wives? It helps put it all into perspective. –Karissa
Claire: I’m not sure of their exact heights but Anne Boleyn was described as being of middling stature, Chapuys described Jane Seymour as of “middle stature”, Catherine Howard was supposed to be plump and petite, Anne of Cleves was described by Marillac (the French ambassador) as tall and I read that Catherine Parr’s tomb suggested a height of around 5’2”. I’ve read that Catherine of Aragon was short but I’m not sure of the source for that.
In his report of his examination of the remains thought to have been of Anne Boleyn, Dr Mouat noted that she was about 5′ to 5′ 3” in height.
Q: I know this question sounds blokie, sorry about that, but was Anne sexually trained like Nell Gwynne was? I ask because she spent time in France (where it was much more sexually outgoing) and she kept Henry dangling for so long, I just wondered how she did it. — Simon
Claire: There is no evidence that Anne was sexually trained or that she had any kind of sexual experience before Henry VIII. The French court may have had a reputation but Anne’s mistress, Queen Claude, was known for her moral and virtuous household and would have expected her ladies to guard their reputations. We just don’t know how far Anne let Henry go before they consummated their relationship in late 1532 but neither would have wanted to risk an illegitimate child and Anne wanted to keep her virtue intact.
Q: I am always curious to know if there is any evidence to what type of relationship that Anne had with her sister Mary? Did they even like each other? — The Tudor Cafe
Claire: We just don’t know the details of their relationship. If we take 1499/1500 as a birthdate for Mary and 1501 for Anne then they were obviously close in age and spent their childhood together. They were separated when Anne went to the Low Countries in 1513 but would have met again in France in 1514 when they served Mary Tudor temporarily. We don’t know what happened to Mary when Mary Tudor returned to England in 1515. It could be that she also returned to England leaving Anne in France, but the sisters met again at court in 1522.
Mary was chosen to accompany Anne and Henry VIII on their trip to Calais in 1532 and attended Anne at her coronation in 1533, so the sisters must surely have been close at that point. Obviously, Mary was banished from court in 1534 after her secret marriage to William Stafford without Anne’s permission, and we don’t know if the sisters were ever reconciled.
Q: I would like to know about Anne’s relationship with her mother. You hear so much about her father and his influence, but where was mom through all of Anne’s challenges? — Claudia
Claire: Anne’s mother, Elizabeth Boleyn (née Howard), acted as Anne’s chaperone during Anne and Henry’s courtship so she was right there with her daughter. Elizabeth also attended her pregnant daughter at her coronation in 1533, riding in one of the carriages in the procession.
Anne’s love for her mother is again shown in words she spoke to Sir William Kingston at her arrival at the Tower after her arrest on the 2nd May 1536: “O, my mother, [thou wilt die with] sorow” LP x.793 So I think the two women were very close and I’m sure that Anne would have confided in Elizabeth during those years of waiting.
Q: I think that Margaret of Austria and Marguerite of Navarre are strong intelligent fascinating women . Which one of these women made a stronger impact on Anne’s view of religion and role of women in politics/govt? — Rebecca H.
Claire: Tough one! I think that Anne’s short time at the highly-cultured court of Margaret of Austria showed her that a woman could be powerful and also gave her her love of art, illuminated manuscripts and music. She also learned about the tradition of courtly love there. Her time there, and her time with Queen Claude, would have prepared her for running her own household.
We don’t know the extent of Anne’s relationship with Marguerite of Navarre but I suspect that Marguerite’s passion for Reform and her belief in having a personal relationship with God had an impact on Anne. Marguerite never separated herself from Rome, she was passionate about reform within the Catholic Church, and the same can be said of Anne. Anne’s ‘flavour’ of Reform was definitely more French than German and Anne’s links with protégés of Marguerite’s, men like Clément Marot and Nicholas Bourbon, and books printed under Marguerite’s patronage, show how similar the women were in their religious outlook. Historian James Carley sees Marguerite as “an intellectual model” for Anne and I have to agree.
Q: When you were doing your research for your books…what is the favourite/most exciting thing that you uncovered/found that you didn’t know before you started? — Heather
Claire: Another tough one because there have been so many! Recently, I think it’s been Thomas Boleyn’s links with Reformers. Often, Thomas Boleyn is seen as a political animal who was only interested in religion in a political way, and even as a man who did not agree with George and Anne’s reformist beliefs, but it’s just not true. Eric Ives mentions correspondence between Thomas Boleyn and Thomas Tebold so I started digging into this relationship. In an index of Kent wills, Tebold is listed as a vicar, scholar and godson of Thomas Boleyn, and Ives writes of how Thomas Boleyn supported Tebold’s travels around Europe.
We know from letters that Tebold sent Boleyn a copy of an epistle by French Reformer, Clément Marot, who had been forced to flee France due to his religious views and it appears that a Reformist printer, Reyner Wolf, acted as a go between for their correspondence – very cloak and dagger! Anyway, it made me realise that Thomas Boleyn was risking his reputation and his life by corresponding with Reformists like this so his faith was real.
Q: What was the first book or movie that got you so interested in the Tudor era, specifically Anne Boleyn? — Rebecca A.
Claire: I first got interested in Anne Boleyn at school when I did a project on Henry and his six wives when I was 11, but it was watching “The Tudors” which I think must have sparked off the dream I had about Anne’s execution. That very vivid dream then led me to set up The Anne Boleyn Files to share my research.
Q: Henry VIII supposedly destroyed all portraits of Anne Boleyn. Do you think one will ever be discovered that he possibly missed? I know we have the NPG one, the coin with her image and the miniature in Elizabeth I’s ring, I’m talking about a real portrait done at the time she was Queen. — Lois
Claire: I believe that there is still one in existence in a private collection. Eric Ives writes of how a full-length portrait is known to have been in the possession of Lord Lumley in 1590 and existed as late as 1773.
Q: At the end of the day, are you convinced that Henry married Anne out of love? If so, what evidence (in your mind) supports this? Furthermore, are you convinced that Anne was Henry’s true and only love? — Lynn
Claire: Yes, I am 100% sure that Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn out of love. I don’t think he would have been willing to move heaven and earth to marry Anne if he hadn’t loved her. The couple had to wait around 7 years to be together properly and faced a great deal of opposition, so I feel that it was more than infatuation.
Henry spoke of Jane being his true wife and I’m sure he loved her, particularly as she gave him the greates gift of all, a son, but I don’t think he loved her in the same passionate and intensive way that he loved Anne Boleyn. Perhaps it was just a different kind of love. Nobody knows exactly how Henry felt so it is hard to say and we have to respect Henry’s words on the matter. I believe that he loved each of his wives, except Anne of Cleves, and probably loved his mistresses too.
Q: Is there one historian that you actually follow or take advice from and why that person? And is there one particular place you have visited that makes you sit down and reflect on Anne Boleyn’s life and just takes your breath away? — Darlene
Claire: Eric Ives is my favourite historian. I love his book on Anne Boleyn and have had the pleasure of grilling him about her on a couple of occasions! He has so much knowledge and his book on Anne is excellent – my favourite. What I love about his work is that he fully references it so that the reader can look up the sources and then make up their own mind.
I was moved visiting Anne Boleyn’s resting place at the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula but it’s Hever Castle that takes my breath away. Just being there and knowing that it was Anne’s childhood home is a very special feeling. When I’ve run tours there, everyone comments on how magical it is and how at home you feel there.
Q: Do you think that Henry really believed that Anne had been unfaithful with 5 men or was that just a pretext for him to get out of the marriage? — Eliza
Claire: I go round and round in circles trying to figure out what Henry VIII’s role was in Anne’s downfall and what he actually believed. I can’t see how he could have believed it of Anne or of the men involved, men like Norris and George Boleyn who were very close friends of his. When I read of his reaction to news of Catherine Howard’s colourful past – how he wouldn’t believe it and wanted an investigation to clear her name and then how he cried like a baby when it was all proved true – and compare it to the indifference he seemed to show at the allegations concerning Anne, then I can only assume that he knew full well that Anne was not guilty. Cromwell was offering him the chance to get what he wanted, a new start and the possibility of having a son and heir, and he took it.
Q: Do you believe that Anne loved Henry or was it all politics? — Nora
Claire: I don’t think politics came into it as there’s no way that Anne could have known that she’d ever be queen. When Anne refused to be sexually involved with Henry VIII it was surely more likely that he would have moved on to an easier conquest rather than waiting for her and going through what he did to have her. I don’t think Anne loved Henry right from the start, but he was a good-looking, charming and intelligent man, and the two of them had lots in common so I think attraction turned to love quite quickly.
Q: What is your next academic or writing project going to focus on? — Robert
Claire: I’m finishing a book on Anne Boleyn’s fall at the moment.
Q: History likes to blame the infamous Lady Rochford for the fall of George Boleyn. Who really brought up the bogus charges that Anne Boleyn and her brother George committed incest? — Adriane
Claire: I don’t believe that Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, has anything to do with the claim of incest. I think that the “one woman” referred to by George Boleyn at his trial was Elizabeth Browne, Countess of Worcester, who accused the Queen of adultery and incest in an argument with her brother, Sir Anthony Browne, over her own misconduct. If she really did say that, I believe it was simply an attempt to justify her own behaviour and to deflect the attention away from her.
Q: Despite her brief time with Elizabeth, what do you think was Anne’s influence (or lack thereof) on Elizabeth as an adult and what do you think the adult Elizabeth thought of her mother? — Kerry
Claire: I believe that in charging her chaplain, Matthew Parker, with the care of Elizabeth if anything happened to her, Anne was actually ensuring that Elizabeth would have the support she needed to be a great woman. Parker was a member of a group of Cambridge men which included the likes of William Cecil and John Dee, men who would be important and influential in Elizabeth’s reign.
Elizabeth’s pre-accession household consisted of many Boleyn relatives so I’m sure that they would have spoken to her about her mother, and she was also close to her Carey cousins during her reign. Elizabeth’s coronation drew on elements from her mother’s coronation and she wore a locket ring containing an image of her mother so her mother was definitely important to her. I think the writings of John Foxe and William Latymer in Elizabeth I’s reign would echo Elizabeth’s belief in her mother’s innocence.
** Thanks so much to Claire for taking the time to answer these questions! You can find her complete book tour schedule here. Remember to check in this Friday, 9 March, when I will announce the winner of Claire’s signed book AND a special surprise!
Win an Autographed Copy of The Anne Boleyn Collection!
Have a question for Claire Ridgway of The Anne Boleyn Files ? Post it in the specified thread on my Facebook page, or e-mail it to me at barbDOTalexanderATyahooDOTcom from now until next Tuesday, 28 February, and become eligible to win an **autographed** copy of Claire’s brand spankin’ new book, The Anne Boleyn Collection!
My blog post with select questions & Claire’s answers will be part of Claire’s virtual tour on 5 March; winner announced on 9 March!
**The fine print: Winner will be randomly selected from all entrants. If your question is not chosen/featured, you are still eligible to win. Multiple questions submitted/chosen do not increase, nor affect in any other way, one’s chance of winning. Okay, I think that’s everything.
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.
