I know I’m a little late getting this posted…
From The Guardian:
Anne Boleyn was guilty of adultery, new biography claims
Charges for which she was executed, long thought to have been cooked up, are likely to have been true, says historian George Bernard
A new biography of Anne Boleyn is set to claim that, far from being framed for adultery, Henry VIII’s second queen may not have been innocent of the affairs for which she was sentenced to death.
The widely held view among contemporary historians is that the charges brought against Anne
When I read this I thought it rather intriguing but certainly counter to conventional wisdom/research.
But because it’s from Bernard it’s worth discussing. I would have dismissed this if it weren’t written by him. I haven’t read the book either but find it fascinating that he’s taking such a different view point.
Yes, he has got me too. I will have to read this one.
But I have to wonder how exactly he is going to define Anne’s adultry? If I was married to Henry, I would entertain malice too.
Bernard’s claim that Anne was guilty was published in a article a few years ago. He bases his claim on a French poem written in 1536 about her downfall.
Eric Ives has challenged his theory saying that the poem is more literary than historical. Ives and Bernard have been sniping at each other back and forth in historical journals over the issue of Anne’s guilt.
Awesome. Where can I get a “Team Ives” shirt?
I thought it was Retha Warnicke against Ives and Bernard on the French Poem issue? at least it was in the early 90s. Has Ives changed his opinion?
I am on team Warnicke! I love her books.
Ives is against both Warnicke and Bernard. He is against Warnicke on the issue of Anne’s “deformed foetus,” with his main argument over the cause of Anne’s downfall being that had a falling out with Cromwell over the dissolution of the monasteries, since she wanted the funds to go to uses other than as favours to the court. Of course then Cromwell had to destroy her before she could destroy him. Ironically, of all the historical liberties taken by The Tudors TV series, Anne’s fall is not one of them – they faithfully stick to Ives’ theory (excluding the men involved – they didn’t mention Weston and Brereton apparantly was a Papist assassin trying to kill Anne).
I must say that in my opinon though, Ives’s conclusion is the one I find the strongest – certainly Warnicke’s sometimes borders on the ridiculous – she even cites Nicholas Sander’s slanderous nonsense comments as a source. He never knew Anne, and was focused on Catholic propaganda during Elizabeth’s reign. Would Henry VIII really have fallen passionately in love with a monstrously deformed woman and then have chosen her to bear the future heirs of his dynasty? I don’t think so.
As for the new Bernard book, I wonder what his argument will be?
I’ll have to read it, to believe it. This is a completley different and interesting point of view on the charges against Anne Boleyn. I would love to read his book 🙂
I have always believed that Anne Boleyn was innocent of both treason and adultery with the five men that she was condemned with. One vital fact in favour of her innocence is the fact that she declared at her last communion with the Host of Christ, before Cramner and the constable of the Tower, Kingston that she was innocent of all charges against her, and she was only guilty of lack of respect of the King. The times and dates presented in the 100 pages of charges that Cromwell presented to the court are also problematic, especially in the early days, as she was shut up after the birth of Elizabeth in a virtual tomb, surrounded by attendants for several months. She could not have had a man anywhere near her and she was pregnant again soon after with the King’s second child that she lost.
However, there may be some truth to some of the allegations later on when the marriage went sour and I also agree that she slept with the King prior to her marriage. She also slept with Thomas Wyatt and was no innocent. She flirted with men and she may have acted a little rashly with them, but I am not convinced that she did anything that lead to her committing adultery in its fullest sense: that is of a sexual nature. It would have come out a lot earlier than it did, and most of those who gave evidence against her were her enemies or related to her enemies. And the Countess of Worcester was known to be a person who did not know what the truth was. I have read Bernard’s book three times and while I find his arguments compelling and that he looks at the evidence with care, I am still convinced that she did not commit adultery.
However, treason is a separate charge and she could not have been executed without it. She was accused of plotting to kill the King and to rule with one of her lovers and place a bastard child on the throne. She was also accused of plotting to kill Princess Mary and of imagining the King’s death. These are treason under the Treasons Act of 1534, and adultery is not. It is this charge that has more validation given to it, as she was often in the company of those who could have been a threat to the king and who encouraged her in her rash behaviour. Had the men that she was accused with been plotting to bring down the king or to imagine his death, then she is also guilty as she should have reported these conversations to the king. There are several dates when these conversations are reported and it was not just in the imagination of the court. These charges are not as easy to dismiss, given the climate at the time and with the rival factions at court. Anne may be guilty of treason by reason of the fact that she boasted lies about the king and his performance in bed, for which there is no evidence, and by the fact that she did not report careless talk that put the King in danger.
I read this book several times and it’s not convincing. Anne Boleyn and the men accused with her were never in the same place at the same time on the dates mentioned. Anne reveled in being queen and knew Henry was her only protection from her many enemies. There is no way she would have risked alienating him. Not only that. she was a staunch protestant Christian. She kept a king at bay for 7 long years refusing to be his mistress. Why risk all after she got her crown? Its just not credible
Mmm I am not too sure
Reading the analysis by commentator Bandit Queen I was surprised to learn that adultery by the British king’s wife was not a treasonable offense.If Anne Boleyn was accused of treason as a separate matter why bother to attack her marital fidelity? By stacking the cards against her it appears to me that she was not guilty of anything. Torture will extort the rest.
Adultery by a Queen at that point in history was treason, because it affected the legitimacy of the heir (in theory). Putting another man’s child on the throne was treason in and of itself, even without the additional charge of imagining the king’s death (I believe it came from a conversation with Henry Norris about him looking to be her next husband.) Adultery by the wife of anyone else was justification for getting the marriage annulled or sending her to a convent. Just because the adultery charge didn’t say “Treason” it was an understood accompanying charge. The ‘imagining’ of the king’s death and the incest were added charges to make her look even worse to the public.
I have read this book and I agree with Bernard that the conspirricy theory people plotting to have an anointed queen murdered for no good reason. Is far more ludicrous an far fetched than a feisty and very human anne boleyn being some what guilty ad charged.
Anne was also made bold by the king’s law to punish anyone slandering his wife. Why were such extreme laws necessary. Bernard I believe was understandably nor convinced by theory an searched for truth. Thomas Cromwell was vulnerable without anne indeed he found himself in the same spot as anne soon after him feeling threatened by the Queen makes no sense also Smeaton repeated cofession on scaffold destroys the torture argument
Bernard could be onto something.
Perhaps she committed adultery with these men in a desperate hope to conceive a healthy male child. Other than Elizabeth, she lost all her children by Henry. Desperation makes people do things they normally wouldn’t.She knew that her place depended on having a son.and Henry had been tiring of her.
I feel that she may have done this as an act of desperation. After all her place depended on her bearing a male child. The King was tiring of her, and she had lost all of their children except Elizabeth.
I agree as I said earlier she was human and in such circumstances things can happen look at Catherine Howard,Anne was naturally flirtatious and in a court where dashing men paid court to the queen its easy to sometimes cross lines henry then reacted savagely out of pain and humiliation and although its seems monstrous to us it was a different time. This is what I think happened for cromwel or anyone else to acuse her falsley would have been mighty risky and not in his character to take such risks for what a Spanish alliance makes no sense
Also people make much of the last confession to cramner as bandit queen had done. But if Anne had indeed comited adultery she may not have thought shed go to heaven anyway its nottable that during the confession she asked cramner to ask her bishops to intercede on her behalf. I feel she did it hopping even at this late stage for the kings forgivness
She said she wished to go to a convent to repent.i think if henry had thought her innocent he would have allowed this. All writings of her innocence did not appear till elizabeths time in attempt to persuade her to futher religious reform
Also in reference to bandit queens reply to me on another blog, adultery in this case was treasonable as it compromised the succession and Anne was accused of planning to place another s child upon the English throne.