Talk:Anne Boleyn/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Confusing sentence in lead

The sentence, Anne resisted the King's attempts to seduce her and refused to become his mistress as her sister Mary Boleyn had done is slightly confusing as it reads as though Mary had also refused to become Henry's mistress, which was not the case.--jeanne (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new section

Seeing as there's so much discussion about Anne's heart, why not create a new section in the article entitled Myths and legends of Anne Boleyn. It could mention the rumour about her heart, as well as the numerous, documented accounts of her ghost being sighted at Hever, Blickling and the Tower of London. In fact, Hans Holzer, the Austrian ghost-hunter has related in his book, Ghosts I Have Met, the story of a guard who fainted while on duty at the Tower. He was only saved from a court-martialing when he claimed he had seen the ghost of Anne Boleyn coming towards him. This event occured in the 19th century.--jeanne (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea, since she figures in so many legends. Maybe it would be a good place to mention the heart story, with scholarly opinions and evidence for or against it. (What do you think Paul?) GingerSnapsBack (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to suggest that Paul write the heart story, I'll add the ghost legends. I tink we should get a few more opinions here though before we start. Qp10qp, Boleyn, what do you think about the idea?--jeanne (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been extremely Bold and have gone ahead and added it to the article. How does it look? Paul can write in the part about Anne's heart, which would be a nice addition, especially as I believe he has the references on hand, complete with scholarly opinions as to the validity of the rumour. I have heard about other legends but I think the heart, secret burial and ghost sightings are enough for now. I shall wait for feedback from other editors before I add more material.--jeanne (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in favour of this at all. I do not find this sort of section in academic history books, and it reduces the credibility of the article. We should use best sources, not the type being used for this section. Rumours and traditions are of academic interest insofar as they shed potential light on history, but they should be filtered by academic historians first; and as far as I can see, these particular myths are beneath the interest of academic historians. Nora Lofts' Anne Boleyn and a book called Ghosts I Have Met do not qualify as academic books. At the very least, this topic should in mny opinion be made into a separate article, as was the popular culture stuff. The section would cause problems were there ever a Good Article review.

My idea of a myth about Anne Boleyn would be that she told Henry she wouldn't sleep with him until she was married, or the notion that she had an extra finger. Academic historians do address these points, but there is no reason to place them in a separate section. For an exemplary treatment of myths within the body of an article, see the last paragraph of William Shakespeare#Early life, which is properly referenced to scholarly sources.qp10qp (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was just an idea. I went ahead and created a new section to see what you and the other editors thought about it. The story about the court-martial does have merit IMO, seeing as a soldier and a General saw the same thing. A separate article would be interesting.--jeanne (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There was another myth that said she had a third breast which was the devil's teat. Others included a greyhound by the name of Orion that was said to be her familiar. I also heard one about her hating the sound of church bells. It seems that Anne was the Jim Morrison of the 16th century with a strong cult following!--jeanne (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for a myths and legends section or new page, but I think we have to be careful that it doesn't become a bloated list of ghost stories. There are legends of her ghost at Blicking, and her heart being removed  :) which I think is fine to have, it is important we don't go overboard and have reports of how Marjorie from Idaho felt Anne's presence on a twilight tour of the Tower. This section may be a handy way to debunk myths as well that persist in the general public's mind, such as the fact she had a sixth finger, an extra breast and was a witch etc etc. Paul75 (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I agree that the ghost stories shouldn't dominate the section. The account of the guard, however, is valid, seeing as Anne's phantom was witnessed by a guard on duty at the Tower as well as a Major General who testified as to what he saw at the guard's court-martial. You should add the legened about her heart being removed.--jeanne (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the court martial case is fine to be added, I think any major, or well publicised incidents are acceptable, but once again it should be controlled tightly. Paul75 (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a few of the other legends, which were sourced to Antonia Fraser. I also mentioned the myths surrounding her alleged deformities, which have been largely credited to Sanders defamatory account made in 1586. I agree, the section does need to be tightly controlled, with all legends sourced.--jeanne (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Jeanne! It bears worth mentioning to all that, with the superstitions of 16th century Europe, it is highly unlikely that Henry would have consorted with, much less, married, any woman with any type of deformity, as this was seen at the time to be a sign of witchcraft. I think that any such reference should be referred to as slander to Anne's character, as most, following the horrific lies by Philipa Gregory, are wont to do.Babyboy160 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates?

The Early Years section in labled as beginning in 1501. Should it not be 1501/07 or something similar, or maybe if this is confusing just do away with the dates alltogether? Or could someone give me an explaination as to why this is? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm new to the Anne Boleyn articleGranadasPomegranate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

There has been much scholarly debate as to whether she was born in 1501 or 1507. Most historians and many of Anne's biographers, such as Eric Ives, favour the 1501 date; however, there are others such as Warnicke, who argue on behalf of the later date. Personally speaking, as someone who has been obsessed with Anne Boleyn from childhood, I favour the 1501 date, but the article needs to give both years.--jeanne (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Image of Elizabeth

Why not include an image of Elizabeth I in the article? Many articles display images of the offspring of the subjects, especially if the offspring were themselves notable. Do any of the other editors agree with me on this?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overkeen, because their lives were so briefly shared. If only we could add an image of Elizabeth's ring, with the (assumed) pictures of both of them, but it's 3D and so not Public Domain. qp10qp (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)-

What about the young portrait of Elizabeth, painted when she was about 13?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a nice portrait, but the article isn't about Elizabeth when she was 13. However, I don't have really strong feelings on this. qp10qp (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I, it was just a thought.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for intruding in your convo. but I don't think and image of Elizabeth is needed, as Anne died when she was only 3 and had little impact on her life.GranadasPomegranate (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If a historian noted any simmilarities between portraits of Anne and Elizabeth, I would support including an image of Elizabeth I in this article. Surtsicna (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Be bold (but not while on frontpage)

I won't do a direct edit while this in on the front page but I suggest we replace

As a result of this marriage, the Church of England broke with Rome and was brought under the King's control.

with

As a result of this marriage and these excommunications, the first break between the Church of England and Rome took place and the Church of England was brought under the King's sole control.

Reasons: the text is POV, both sides had to renounce each other for the break to take place, also the King did have some prior control on the Church of England, also it was temporary: the Church of England returned to Rome and communion between them was restored 1553-1570 until Elizabeth was excommunicated too. --BozMo talk 12:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Marchioness/Marquess

I notice that this has caused some edit swapping and a citation request. Could I just point out that some historians call her marquess and some call her marchioness, so there's no right or wrong in this. I've reffed the present version to Ives, a respected biographer of Anne. qp10qp (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But when did she cease to be Marquess of Pembroke? Did she cease to be Marquess of Pembroke

• when she married Henry (perhaps he became Marquess iure uxoris and the peerage merged with the Crown)?
• when she was annointed and crowned Queen of England?
• when she was found guilty of high treason (perhaps she forfeited the title at that point)?
• at the moment of death? Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question, Surtsicna. I would say technically she ceased to be Marquess at the moment of death, however, I have no reference to back up my opinion. Perhaps another editor can answer this question.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merged with the crown on marriage to Henry. qp10qp (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Qp10qp. I had imagined the title was ether forfeited to the crown when she died or her marriage annulled. Wasn't the title meant to pass to the heirs of her body legitimate or otherwise? If so, wasn't Elizabeth I technically the Marquess of Pembroke?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that your opinion, Qp10qp, or do you have a source?

Elizabeth I was female and, although the original holder was also a female, Elizabeth couldn't succeed to the title (just like the daughters of Jemima Yorke, 2nd Marchioness Grey, couldn't succeed to their mother's title). Do you have a source which says that the title of Marquess of Pembroke could be inherited by illegitimate children? Surtsicna (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the title, in effect, merged with the crown on marriage. In fact, no one knows—but there are only two possibilities: that the title merged with the crown on marriage or that it fell to the crown with Anne's conviction for treason, by attainder. There are secondary sources (all incidental) for either possibility as well as for both, but this is not information we should try to put in the article because what happened to the title is not documented. Also, historians do not seem very interested in it. Ives does mention at one point that Cromwell did not want a solution that would leave Anne as Marquis (his usage) of Pembroke, so perhaps she still technically owned the title after marriage. I have removed the information that the title was confiscated because this is a highly problematic but not very important detail. I don't know how to edit the succession box, where there is a citation tag. qp10qp (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I begin to sense a solution to the marquess/marchioness conundrum. Several books say that Anne was referred to in contemporary accounts as "the lady marquess". If we regard that as her style, as opposed to just "marquess", then the problem of a female with a male title evaporates. Anne was not given the title "Earl of Pembroke", a male title, even though her investiture amounted to the same thing. For this reason, I propose (original thought alert) that Henry conceived "Lady Marquess" as a female style and never thought of marquess as a male title for Anne. If he'd wanted to give Anne a male title, he could have just made her "Earl of Pembroke". Although a number of historians do call Anne "Marchioness"—which would, I suppose, verify its use in this article, if someone insisted—I suspect that they're over-rationalising the evidence. She was a lady marquess. qp10qp (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now strengthened the note on this. The references are:

• Ives, 388, note 32: Quotes a contemporary source: "wherever I find occasion to oblige the king or any pertaining to my lady marquess [Anne], I do my duty as Mr Barlow and Mr Taylor her servants can testify".

• Ives, 389, note 53: "Anne was described as both 'marquis' and 'marchioness' of Pembroke. The point in the former title was that she held a newly created peerage in her own right, not (as was the case otherwise) by virtue of marriage. But for convenience I have used 'lady marquis' or the female form."

• Warnicke, 116: "A few days before they departed for Calais, the new lady marquess gave a banquet for the king and the French ambassador."

It appears that in the 16th century even wives of Marquesses used Marquess rather than Marchioness. For example, Cecily Bonville, Marchioness of Dorset, signed herself as the Marquess of Dorset in her will.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

16th century English isn't modern English. Uses of "Marquess" to refer to women ought to use "Marchioness," I thi`nk. john k (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But Anne lived in the 16th century, and Marquess was her proper title, therefore it should be used in the article, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, Jeanne. I agree with you, but then I don't. Both Maria and Maria Theresa were crowned King of Hungary, and the latter was also crowned King of Bohemia. Should we refer to them as kings or queens? Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And Jadwiga was king of Poland. I think we have to choose one or the other to use in the article. At the moment we have "marquess", with "marchioness" given as an alternative in the note. Or we could do it the other way round. As I said before, they both seem to be used by historians. I don't think it's important, so long as we are consistent within the article. qp10qp (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

According to (The Six Wives of Henry VIII By Alison Weir) [1] it was 'marquess' - the male style ClemMcGann (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence "She was also Marquess of Pembroke in her own right" would give the impression that she had the title by right of birth. Particularly as the text then discusses how 'royal' she was. Whereas the title was created for her in September 1532 - by Henry. ClemMcGann (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We should use Marquess.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalised

I cannot undo the series of disruptive edits to the article. Could another editor please help me? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Which ones? Since late sept they all seem to be undone. From Sept 1st they seem mostly reasonable. There is one subtle date change that needs your expertise. ... Elizabeth Tilney (before 1445–1497) ref name="ladyelizabethhoward" was... 1447-1497. regards Autodidactyl (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just compared Jeanne Boleyn's version of September 19 with the current version, and I only see a handful of minor differences none of which constitute vandalism. PatGallacher (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I undid manually the mess they had made in the lead as the edits could not be undone by rollback.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As regards the birth year for Elizabeth Tilney, before 1445 is correct as her mother married Elizabeth's stepfather before December 1446.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

James Butler as a clue to Anne's actual birthdate

When the King had proposed that Anne should marry her Irish cousin, James Butler, 9th Earl of Ormond, it was noted that the pair were about the same age. Antonia Fraser states that James and Anne "were roughly the same age" on page 122 of The Wives of Henry VIII. Butler was born sometime between 1496 and 1501, so that should be further proof that Anne was not born in 1507.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Antonia Fraser quote a contemporary source that indicates that Anne and James Butler were close in age, or is this something that she states herself? If she was working on the basis that Anne was born c. 1501 when she stated that Anne and James Butler were close in age, then it can't be taken as proof, one way or another. A contemporary source would be more helpful, but if James Butler was born in 1501 and Anne was born in 1507, six years would probably not be considered a large age gap between a prospective husband and wife (especially when the woman is the younger of the two) in the sixteenth century. 86.47.42.32 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, James Butler was born in 1496, which would have made him five years older than Anne had she been born in 1501. I don't know if Fraser quoted a contemporary source when she said Anne and James were close in age. She may well have been basing her statement on her personal conviction that Anne was born in 1501. Most historians, including Dr. Eric Ives, favour the 1501 birthdate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Holbein portrait

Can somebody please replace the Holbein portrait image which has been deleted? Thanks. I've tried to no avail.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I 'fixed' it whilst editing in the section, but after saving and viewing the whole page it was gone again. There must be something in the previous section, but I have to go out for several hours. I'll look again later but somebody will have done it by then. Regards Chienlit (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. It was caused by the vandalised image of her sister mary, 2 or 3 sections earlier :-/ I don't understand why. Regards Chienlit (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon changes

An anon user is persistently attempting to add some rather dubious changes to this article, e.g. I don't think this is an accurate summary of Fraser on strains in her marriage. Although was she ever Lady Anne Rochford? PatGallacher (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

She was known as Lady Anne Rochford after her father's elevation to Viscount Rochford. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Her father was elevated to Earl of Wiltshire and Earl of Ormonde. Her brother took the courtesy title Viscount Rochford. In any case, the family surname remained Boleyn, so why would she not have been known as The Lady Anne Boleyn? "Lady Anne Rochford" does not follow the format for the style of an earl's daughter, Lady + given name + surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.197.0 (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I appologize for not knowing how to make a new topic or if I put this under the wrong one but this passage: "The music book contains three secular chansons and thirty nine Latin motets" makes absolutely no sense to me and I doubt it is meant to be in there. If it is, please explain what it has to do with Anne at the court of King Henry VIII. 70.176.82.43 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Another anonymous user, writing on January 18, 2010, would like to point out something to the Cerberus-like guard dog of this site: Anne's tenure as queen cannot be said to have begun on January 25, 1536, the (likely) date of her bigamous marriage to the King. Like it or not, Henry was LEGALLY married to Catherine of Aragon on this date - no historian will dispute this. Under any form of recognized law applicable to this situation - Church law, English common law - a person, whether King or pauper, cannot have two legal spouses at the same time. Therefore, Anne did not legally become Queen of England until the Archbishop of Canterbury declared the marriage of Henry and Catherine annulled (which occurred on May 23, 1536) and the marriage of Henry and Anne valid (May 28). Had Henry viewed the ceremony that took place on January 25 to be legally binding, he would have immediately (and publicly) declared her Queen. Instead, he waited until after the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest legal authority in England on what we today would refer to as "family law," ruled on the validity of the marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.227.91.54 (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Martyr

Anne's political work for Protestantism etc motivated her enemies to get her killed. Did she know she was risking her life? Henry VIII hadn’t a reputation for executing his wives before her. If she knowingly risked her life she is close to being a martyr. [2] Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Henry only had one wife before Anne, and it wouldn't have been wise to execute the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor. I believe her enemies wanted the King to form closer relations with the Imperialists rather than the French of whom Anne and her faction supported. Anne was never a true Protestant such as Catherine Parr. Her views on religion were not more radical than those of the King.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Anne realised her life was in danger because she failed to provide Henry with a son, and he had grown tired of her. I wouldn't describe her as a martyr such as Latimer and Anne Askew.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Anne's noble ancestry

Anne's ancestry, while obviously not as noble as Catherine of Aragon or Anne of Cleves, certainly surpassed that of Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr. Anne's mother was Lady Elizabeth Howard, daughter of the 2nd Duke of Norfolk; whereas Jane's mother was Margery Wentworth and Catherine's was Maud Green. I think we can all agree that Anne was of far more aristocratic birth and lineage than Seymour and Parr, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC) No, we do not all agree on that one -- with Jane, yes, but with Catherine, no -- see below. Meg E. McGath (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with the dates in Ancestry, about (28. Sir Philip Tilney (1437 - c1453)) who is married to (29. Isabel Thorp (? - 1436)) having their child (14. Sir Frederick Tilney). Indeed, how Isabel could have married Philip, since she died before Sir Philip's birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.15.57 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The birthdate is obviously an error and I have just removed it!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly are you getting your information Jeanne Boleyn? It sounds like you have only done your research on Anne Boleyn hence the name Jeanne Boleyn. Catherine Parr was just as noble as or even more than Anne Boleyn -- Anne Boleyn descended from Edward I, but that was far back -- Not only did Catherine descend from Edward I but she did by both his wives, not just one. She also descended from numerous children of these Kings, not just one in some cases like Anne. Catherine Parr descended straight from Edward III and Philippa of Hainault down through his descendants of John of Gaunt. Her lineage is just as prominent as Anne's -- Jane Seymour's lineage was of lower birth and rank. I would appreciate it if you would take Catherine's name out of the comparison because there is no comparison. You are only comparing mothers -- when you forget to compare the lineage of their father's. Catherine was of noble and royal birth through her grandmother, Elizabeth Fitzhugh, daughter of Henry 6th Lord of Fitzhugh and Lady Alice Baroness Ravensworth Neville who was daughter of Richard Neville 5th Earl of Salisbury and Lady Alice Montague Countess of Salisbury. Thus making Catherine a direct descendant of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford through their daughter Lady Joan of Westmoreland Beaufort and her husband Sir Richard Neville, Earl of Westmoreland. Anne's connection to actual royalty, meaning Kings and Queen's is further back so if you are talking nobility, yes she is I suppose of more noble birth only because her mother was the daughter of a Duke, but not in any way more royal. Catherine is directly connected to almost every King and Queen up to Edward III and Philippa of Hainault -- meaning she is a direct descendant of EVERY King and Queen that was on the throne that had descendants up until Edward III... did Anne's family have this, no, they did not. There direct connection to royalty stopped at Edward I. So you really need to take her name out of this article as being of "lower birth and rank". Here are some calculations so far about Catherine and her ancestors:

• King Edward III of England m. Philippa (Avesnes) of Hainault =
• Prince John (Plantagenet) of Gaunt m. Lady Katherine Swynford =
• Lady Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmoreland m. Sir Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland =
• Sir Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury m. Lady Alice Montagu, Countess of Salisbury =
• Lady Alice Neville, Baroness Fitzhugh m. Lord Henry Fitzhugh, 5th Lord of Ravensworth =
• Lady Elizabeth Fitzhugh, Baroness Vaux of Harrowden m. Sir William Parr of Kendal =
• Sir Thomas Parr of Kendal m. Lady Maud Green

= Catherine Parr, Queen Consort of England

Catherine was also a direct descendant of every King from William 'the Conqueror' of England, except for William II, Stephen I, Henry 'the Younger,' Richard 'the Lionheart,' Richard II(their offspring if they had any did not continue on to become King), and Henry IV Plantagenet through Henry VIII Tudor(as they were all her cousins including William II, Stephen I, Henry 'the younger', Richard I, and Richard II.) Catherine was also a first cousin of the last Plantagenet Queen Consort, Anne Neville.

I honestly think the only reason you are putting this fact in is because your name, if that is even your real name, is Boleyn.

• Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2004), page 566. Hereinafter cited as Plantagenet Ancestry.
• Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy (London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), page 154. Hereinafter cited as Britain's Royal Family.
• Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 587. Hereinafter cited as Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 107th edition.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Parr
• http://thepeerage.com/p335.htm#i3345

Meg E. McGath (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also would like to add: John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk: His titles were declared forfeit after his death by King Henry VII, but his son, the 1st Earl of Surrey, was later restored as 2nd Duke (the Barony of Howard, however, remains forfeit). John Howard was created a Duke, it was not inherited. Also, Catherine's ancestors were of direct descent of the House of Beaufort AND the House of Plantagenet. Her great-great grandmother was a Montague; her great-great-great grandmother was a Beaufort just like Henry VIII's grandmother, Lady Margaret Beaufort and Catherine's great-great-great-great grandfather a Plantagenet -- John of Gaunt, father/grandfather of the next generations of Kings until the Tudor reign. Meg E. McGath (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Church of England was now under Henry's control, not Rome's

This is a silly statement that should be deleted. The Church of England was never under Rome's control. Rome only controlled the Roman catholic Church in england. The state sect created by Henry was naturally under Henry's control. This is not contested. To suggest that Rome may have tries to control the state established sect called Church of England is misleading. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed this to "Church in England", which I think is an accurate response to your query. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Spouse?

The article clearly states that "On 14 May, Cranmer declared Anne's marriage to Henry dissolved.". Why then does the lead and other sections constantly refer to her as Henry's wife? If a supposed marriage is dissolved, then it never happened. Why else would parliament have declared Elizabeth to be illegitimate? So the article should use phrases like "the supposed wife of". No? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Common English usage dictates that you're right, but we always call her his wife anyway. What if we changed instances of "wife" to "queen consort"? It does seem more accurate. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I don't think that "queen consort" fits the bill either though. A queen is the wife of a king. But we've already established that she was never his wife. Logically, she was no more than the "supposed queen consort". Practically speaking, i admit that it would beinelegant to substitute the words "supposed wife of" or "supposed queen consort" every time the word wife or queen was mentioned. Might this be overcome by having a note near the lead that explains the dilema and advises a modifiacation to the golden rule? For example, "For "the supposed wife of" read "wife". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be left alone. RSs all call her his wife; Antonia Fraser's "The Wives of Henry VIII" and Petronelle Cook's "Queen Consorts of England" both consider her wife/queen consort. Moreover, this issue was brought up in archived discussion on this page (Archive 1, thread 21) and was quickly quashed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the archived thread that you pointed out. It's possible that I did not pick up th ethread that you had in mind. I found one that seemed close. It had the following comment: "Her marriage wasnt technically legal, Henry was still married to catherine at the time of their marriage making henry a bigamist.". If this is the discussion that you had in mind, then I don't think that it relates to my concerns here. I never raised this as an issue. Parliament and state ministers can declare what they wish to declare to be the law of the land. Whether or not these declarations and laws conform to the Divine plan, we shall never know. That's not the point. The point is that when Cranmer nullifed Anne's marriage, he was declaring the law. So are we to ignore the law of the land in writing this article? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the thread I meant; it just seemed relevant to whether or not she should be called 'wife' or not. And I think the best way to stop calling her his wife is to find RS that uses another term. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

History records that Henry VIII had six wives; Anne Boleyn was the second of these wives, ergo she can be referred to as his wife in the article. Or should we perhaps emulate the Vatican and instead call her Henry's concubine!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The English law says his wives were Catherine of Aragon (because Mary I had their marriage proclaimed valid retroactively), Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr. But is that relevant? I would oppose describing Anne Boleyn as anything but Henry's wife. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. I very much do not like the idea that post facto declarations get to determine these kind of things. Anne Boleyn married Henry in a ceremony which was considered legally binding at the time, and was treated as his wife for three years. What he did afterwards seems irrelevant. One could more or less make exactly the same argument about Catherine of Aragon; do we really want to say that Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr were Henry's only wives? john k (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If we were to say that Henry had only two wives, it would be a case of blatant OR on our part.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dueling sources/Peacock Terms

There seems to be some confusion on the actual location of Anne Boleyn's execution across WP. This article states that she was beheaded "not upon Tower Green, but rather, a scaffold erected on the north side of the White Tower, in front of what is now the Waterloo Barracks." The citation given [3] points to information from the great Eric Ives's The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn. However, in the WP article for Tower Green, Queen Anne Boleyn is listed among the notable executions at that location. ( [4] Source: Denny, Joanna. Anne Boleyn: A New Life of England's Tragic Queen..) So the question now is: which location is historically accurate - or, at least, most widely accepted to be so? I really don't know, so if someone else does, please let me know or edit the pages accordingly. I'm really picky about the uniformity of information on Wikipedia.

Also, the "Recognition and legacy" section is just a mess. It's had a peacock tag since April 2010. I first noticed this- "...it is unlikely that Anne Boleyn would have gained Henry's romantic attention" -with a hidden text comment simply stating "EUPHEMISM." What is/are the weasel word(s) here - "romantic attention"? I was under the impression that weasel words and euphemisms were separate concepts in WP. Maybe "...it is unlikely that..." is the assumed weasel phrase and "romantic attention" is the euphemism? At present it just reads like "romantic attention" is accused of being both and I very firmly believe it's NEITHER. "...it is unlikely that..." can easily be viewed as weasel-ish, but if it's supported in the reference given (not to mention the claim itself is supported by common sense and history), I don't think there is a weasel infraction here. I could really use some insight as to why this particular tag was added - what specifically is the problem? If I know, then I can fix it. (I did correct the peacock term later in the paragraph.)

A couple paragraphs later, there's this...

"Upon exhumation in 1876, no abnormalities were discovered: her frame was described as delicate, approximately 5'3", with finely formed, tapering fingers. Elizabeth I certainly inherited her mother's frame, height, facial structure and hands. No contemporary portraits of Anne Boleyn have survived: the only likeness is a medal struck in 1534 to commemorate her second pregnancy; it is, however, severely damaged."

I have a couple issues here (beyond the interesting usage of colons to separate two independent clauses.) First, I removed "Elizabeth I certainly inherited her mother's frame, height, facial structure and hands" from the third paragraph. Mostly because it was unsourced, but also because the information is absolutely irrelevant to the topic and was written in a very colloquial way. I can't imagine a circumstance in which that statement would be appropriate in this article so I hope no one objects to its removal.

Now, on to: "No contemporary portraits of Anne Boleyn have survived: the only likeness is a medal struck in 1534 to commemorate her second pregnancy; it is, however, severely damaged." At the end of the sentence there is a citation given that isn't actually a citation at all - just a recommendation for further reading, I think. ([5] - "For a full description of Anne Boleyn's remains, see Doyne C. Bell: "Notices of the Historic Persons Buried in the Tower of London", John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1877.") If anything, I think this "reference" is maybe trying to support the opening sentence of the paragraph ("Upon exhumation in 1879...") but it doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the rest of the information. A quick search turned up [an online copy of the book [6] (God Bless Google!) so I was able to actually cite the first sentence but there is nothing in the book to back up the others.

Since I don't have a clue how many "contemporary" likenesses of Queen Anne have survived - if any - I don't know how to go about citing that claim. Many of you seem much more sell versed in this area that I am. Honestly, I'm inclined to delete everything in the paragraph after the initial sourced statement. Since the word "contemporary" can have two almost conflicting meanings, I'm not sure which the original editor intended. While there are little to no representations of Anne created while she was actually alive, there are obviously scads of modern representations. So I'm torn. Usually I just kinda delete first and ask questions later, but since this is such a great article with a really impassioned group of core editors, I really don't want to step on any toes. And I definitely don't want to see the page lose its GA status because a few small errors start snowballing. Feel free to point me toward any sources that would allow the claims to stay in the article or give me the thumbs up to remove them.

(Yikes...what a book I wrote.) ocrasaroon (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Anne's titles

Why was the section listing Anne's titles removed and why? There was no consensus to do so.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture.

I think that we can make room for a slim sub-section on her representation in Pop culture. Perhaps in the Legacy section? Nothing as florid as the section recently removed. But something more succinct is appropriate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is already an article Anne Boleyn in popular culture as I have been trying, to no avail, to point out to the editor who keeps adding this superfluous section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK then. Perhaps a "See main article" re-direct might meet his needs while not spoiling the look of the main article as a token of peace? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to participate in a discussion here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead is too long.

Really, it is. Somebody needs to take the pruning knife to it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it is. The quote Henry made about Anne's dislike of Wolsey actually needs to be in the main body of the article and not the lead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The line "She resisted all his attempts to seduce her, refusing to become his mistress as had her sister" should say "as her sister had" surely?Paddycomeback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddycomeback (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just fixed it. Thanks!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Life as a ghost?

Under the "Myths and Legends" section, there is a paragraph concerning Boleyn's life as a ghost - where she's been sighted, what she looks like, and how some guard claims to have seen her. It serves as a dramatic last-minute about-face from what is otherwise a pretty good article. I removed the nonsense, and Jeanne_boleyn reinstated it (diff). Here's what my case boils down to: claims about paranormal activity are strikingly out of place here, sticking out like a sore thumb and taking the whole article down a few pegs. The paranormal stuff needs to go. Anyone in favor of keeping it or adding more ghost stories to the article can post their reasons below. --Alexwebb2 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I had added the entire section Myths and Legends back in 2009. Before I included it I had obtained consensus here on the talk page (See archive 3). The information about her ghost having been sighted is sourced and is under the appropriate section Myths and Legends.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you link us to this consensus? Because when reading this article the ghost part struck me as quite out of place as well. It definitely downgrades the article's credibility in general in my opinion. --Feuerrabe (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is new consensus to leave it out, well we can leave it out. It's no big deal to include it. The consensus is in Archive 3. But as I said, if other editors feel it lowers the tone of the GA article, we shouldn't have it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read the discussion in Archive 3 now. In my opinion some of the problems this section has: 1. it makes an unsound ending to an otherwise good article, 2. it has overlapping themes with the section right above it (After her death a number of myths sprang up about Anne vs. Many myths and legends about Anne Boleyn have survived over the centuries) 3. it makes it sound like the existence of ghosts is a given fact (i.e: Anne's ghost has reportedly been sighted) - I would suggest changing that to a number of people have claimed that... or something along those lines.

Perhaps some rephrasing and/or merging with the section above would already be a solution as opposed to deleting it completely.--Feuerrabe (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I support your suggestions. The reason I had included the ghost sighting in the first place is because it was claimed to have been seen by two military men at the Tower, not some overly-imaginative tourist. The fact that Major General Dundas' eyewitness account of having seen "a whitish, female figure...." saved the guard (who had fainted after charging through the apparition) from a prison sentence was also pertinent in my decision to include it. Your rewording: a number of people have claimed that.... does indeed sound less sensational.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made a few changes. How do they look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Marquess of Pembroke

I will check the sources here; but I think this is wrong. She was indeed called Marquess, among other spellings; but this is the feminine form, like Duchess.

Henry VIII had already struck a blow for equality by giving her (and Margaret Pole) lands and titles in their own right; he didn't reform the language. The English for marquis/marquise was still being worked out; there hadn't been that many English Marquesates. The male peers of that rank were spelt marques, marquys, marquoys; their wives, like Anne, were spelt marquess, marquesse, marquisess and so on; the modern differentiation, marchioness is not attested in English before her daughter's reign. To deal with the confusion, lady marquess is occasionally seen; but as much for Dorset's wife as for Anne. (So Cokayne and the OED; their first quotation for Marquess in this sense is from Lady Hastings' will: "My lady marquys Dorset") Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither Ives nor Warnicke, the sources cited, discusses this explicitly - and they are primarily involved in justifying their own usage, including Ives' modernizing marchioness. Comments? I do not think we need make a point of this explicitly; but the point the other way is unfounded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What other alternative is there to Marquess besides the incorrect Marchioness which was used to describe the wife of a Marquess? Marquis is clearly an anachronism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Marchioness is an anachronism; but we are writing (like Ives, who uses it) for people who do not speak Tudor English. Marquis and Marquise are what the contemporary sources intend, through the mists of Tudor orthography. I think, with careful writing, the point can be avoided, and explained in a footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And on a similar note: Most prestigious non-royal woman is iffy: how about her aunt, Elizabeth Howard, Duchess of Norfolk? If the Howards are royal (which is arguable), so was Anne; if not, her aunt is a grade higher. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Howards were not royal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On that definition, she is less prestigious than non-royalty; on the other hand, the title and family descend (with a promotion) from Thomas of Brotherton, 1st Earl of Norfolk, son of Edward I. But stating the facts may be more effective than any generalization. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

All six of Henry's wives descended from Edward I; however, only Catherine of Aragon was royal, having been the daughter of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Spain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Antonia Fraser in The Wives of Henry VIII calls Anne Marquess of Pembroke on p.184, on this same page she explains that the wife of a Marquess was known as a Lady Marquess.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Marquess is definitely used as the masculine form. Deb (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will consult Frazer; there is no question that Tudor sources also call Anne Lady Marquess. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

She is correct in saying that the wives of Marquesses then called themselves Lady Marquess; and she also quotes Lady Dorset's Will. But in assuming this to be the male title, rather than an old form of the feminine, she contradicts better authority; the OED quotes "The Foure Englishe ladies sworne of her Bedchamber are the Duchesse of Buckingham, the Marques Hamiltoun and the Countesses of Carlile and Denbigh." Marquess is a female as well as a male form; and the Complete Peerage calls her "MARCHIONESS OF PEMBROKE". But I think this can be edited towards consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

CP notwithstanding, Marchioness was not Anne's title; Henry created her a de jure Marquess. I think we should stick with this rather than venture into the realms of OR and anachronisms. Other eyes are needed here in order to achieve a well-rounded debate on the issue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, he created a female peer. He was not alone in doing so - or in doing so for his mistress. But that does not mean she was a Marquess, except in the spelling of the time, any more than Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester was an Earl. Antonia Fraser is not sufficiently reliable on such points; not against Cokayne and the OED. But I believe I have given her claim due wieght. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PMAnderson. I've never seen any evidence (as opposed to random assertions by modern writers) that any male sense was implied by the spelling "Marquess". Indeed, it would be bizarre in the extreme for any such sense to be meant. What purpose could it serve? There wasn't anything new about women either holding peerages or being created peers; there was no question that giving a woman a male title (and therefore presumably pretending that she was a man) would allow her to be treated legally as a man (Anne didn't gain a seat in the Lords, for instance); and apart from anything else this was someone Henry VIII wanted to marry, so suggesting that she was in any sense male would seem to be a rather odd thing for him to do. Frankly, I see it as pointless to use "Marquess" when (in this case) it's simply the Tudor equivalent of "Marchioness" (for instance, we don't refer to Duchesses in the 18th century as "Dutchesses", the standard spelling at that time), but if some editors are really that set on it remaining then it should (for the benefit of those of us reading this in modern English, i.e. everyone) come with a very clear warning that this didn't imply anything out of the ordinary. Proteus (Talk) 22:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

He created her a peer in her own right, the title of which would descend to the heirs of her body, legitimate or otherwise. This last clause was the crucial part of the title's creation as it allowed for any illegitimate children born to Anne to legally succeed. She held the title of Marquess in her own right; it does not mean that Henry had metamorphised her into a man! I think her title Marquess of Pembroke needs to be restored to the lead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was in her own right. So what? Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk held that title in her own right. She wasn't Duke of Norfolk. And I don't see what the remainder of the title has to do with its name. Proteus (Talk) 12:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Margaret held the title for life only, Anne's would be passed to heirs male of her body. The name Marquess is the only possible name for the title she held which is not an anachronismism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain to me why that makes a difference. Are you suggesting it would be fine to call her "Marchioness of Pembroke" if it had been a life peerage, but because it was hereditary it has to be "Marquess of Pembroke"? That's a pretty bizarre argument. (And anyway, it's also contradicted by the same person - Margaret was also (hereditary) Countess of Norfolk, not Earl of Norfolk.) Proteus (Talk) 14:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I said no such thing as she was not a Marchioness; please don't twist my words. My only interest in continuing this discussion is for the article to say that Anne Boleyn was the Marquess of Pembroke high up in the lead where it was prior to this going nowhere debate which unfortunately led to its removal sans consensus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This GA class article is lacking information useful to readers. Her title of 1st Marquess of Pembroke needs to be restored to where it was in the sentence following her introduction as Queen consort. 1st Marquess of Pembroke and her descendants was fine the way it was, now it's been removed and repalced with Marquessate of Pembroke further down the page. How can a GA article justify this lack of vital information? Readers come here and go away still not knowing her title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jeanne. I think I've read every book on Anne Boleyn and historians nearly always refer to her as 'Marquess' - if it's the common term experts use for her, it should be used here. This has been debated more than one before, and there's never been any consensus to change 'marquess'. Boleyn (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Incest

Did Henry just completly make up the incest thing or did it have some base? A normally wouldn't ask but the royal families in the Middle Ages could be pretty screwed up Lenosy (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Lenosy

No, it is generally believed that Thomas Cromwell came up with the idea of charging Anne with both adultery and incest, in order to prevent the King from being labelled a cuckold. By depicting Anne as a wanton who even engaged in carnal relations with her own brother, it served to preserve Henry's masculinity as well as making him out a victim of Anne's "evil machinations".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for clearing that up. That makes a lot of sense.

Lenosy (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Lenosy

You're welcome. I'm glad I could be of help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Noble Birth"

I noticed that this line was put back in "She was certainly of more noble birth than Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr, Henry VIII's later wives." This quote comes from Agnes Strickland who's research has been found to have flaws in it. Is this the only person who has quoted this? Catherine Parr's lineage was "better" than Anne's. In fact Anne's paternal line was less impressive than Catherine. Anne's father was not born an Earl, simply Sir Thomas Boleyn, like Catherine's -- Catherine's paternal lineage along with her mother's trace back to royalty. Her father's lineage goes back to Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury. From him to Alice Neville, Lady FitHugh, sister of Warwick the Kingmaker, to Catherine's grandmother, Elizabeth FitzHugh, Lady Parr and Lady Vaux of Harrowden. David Starkey: A Courtier's Daughter -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

All of Henry's wives trace their line back to King Edward I. The fact that Anne Boleyn as the granddaughter of the Duke of Norfolk (the premier ducal family in England even today) and the great-grandduaghter of the Irish Earl of Ormond made her of far more noble birth than either Catherine Parr or Jane Seymour. As I said before, all of Henry's wives had a common ancestor in Edward I. The granddaughter of a duke would take precedence over the granddaughter of commoners, notwithstanding royal blood in the latter several generations back.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Dukes of Norfolk where back then NOT the premier dukes and they did not even hold the title between 1485 and 1514. The premier duke was until his execution in 1521 the duke of Buckingham and from 1525 to 1536 Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond and Somerset. During Anne's lifetime her ducal relations would have been considered the premier dukes of England for all of four years (1521-25) and when she was born she was the granddaughter of an Earl, not a duke.--Feuerrabe (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Anne as the granddaughter of the Earl of Surrey, who would in her lifetime be restored to his dukedom (1514), still outranked Parr and Seymour, which is really what this debate is about. Upon his death in 1524, the 2nd Duke of Norfolk was described by Cokayne as England's wealthiest and most powerful peer. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this whole "who had the better ancestry"-fight and I frankly don't care, but it seems the only source for the claim that Anne was more 'noble' is Strickland, as Lady Meg says. If not even Eric Ives makes this claim, it should not be included. It's not exactly a relevant fact either.--Feuerrabe (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't own a copy of Eric Ives' book, so cannot say whether or not he claims her lineage was more noble than that of her successors. We can always compromise by describing Anne, Jane, and the latter two Catherines as commoners, which is what they were.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just asked a friend, who owns Ives' book. He says: "She was better born than Henry VIII's three other English wives." on page four, so that's resolved then. You might want to put that in as a reference.--Feuerrabe (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Feuerrabe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have since added it to the article. Hopefully this will prevent future battles of the bloodlines on this article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction/Lead too long

That's about it. But it is. No reason to remove content, just a little bit of cutting and pasting work into the body I suppose.64.138.208.142 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC).

I moved the Wolsey paragraph from the lead into the main body of the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh Death Rock Me Asleep

The article claims it is generally believed to have been authored by Anne, while the source recited claims it had been authored by George Boleyn. ירון (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources cited differ on which person authored it, which is more or less consistent with what is said in the article. None of the sources offered are particularly good, or more reliable than the others. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Mistress?

Is it correct that Anne Boleyn was not the mistress of Henry VIII? On (at least) the page for Catherine of Aragon, there is an early passing claim that she was the mistress. Neither statement is sourced that I can see, and I'm not competent to make a correction. Dylan Thurston (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• At least according to A World Lit Only by Fire (which may not be the most trustworthy historical source), Anne was indeed the King's mistress while his first marriage was still ongoing. I am inclined to beleive this is true as Anne's pregnancy with Elizabeth I was one of the factors driving Henry to seek a hasty divorce from Catherine. Kernsters (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

It is rather unplesant to see an explained edit reverted without an explanation. Not only did I explain it, I also presented a link to the template documentation, where it clearly says that "predecessor" and "successor" fields should not be used for titles held by marriage. Only infoboxes in articles about English queens consort use those fields and that's due to a series of unilateral, undiscussed and unexplained edits made by a user in April 2012. Infoboxes in articles about all other queens consort omit those fields, per Template:Infobox royalty/doc. 92.36.169.45 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your link where it says it's against WP to use "predecessor" and "successor" for queens consort. The infobox is a tool to provide quick and basic information which included predecessor and successor. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not against WP to remove the entire infobox or to replace it with Infobox person or to do countless other things. The names of predecessor and successor are not basic information when the title was held by marriage. In many (if not most) cases, the subject never met her predecessor or her successor and those women had no impact on the subject's life. The name of the paternal grandmother would, in many cases, be more useful, for that matter. Anyway, there is a reason why such fields were omitted for many years and why they still are omitted from a vast majority of articles, including those about French, Scandinavian, German, Italian and Spanish queens consort. 92.36.169.45 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Again you are confusing WP with your personal opinion. And how would replacing "predecessor" and "successor" with Anne Boleyn's paternal grandmother be more useful to a casual reader?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not my personal opinion. It is how the infobox is supposed to be used according to the documentation I keep linking you to; it is how the infobox has been used ever since it was created; it is how the infobox is used in every relevant article except (since April 2012) those about English queens consort. It is more than obvious that it is your personal opinion that, after many years of usage, the infobox should be used differently and only as a special exception for English queens consort. 92.36.144.159 (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Noble Birth"

We have had this discussion before; in the article it states that "According to Eric Ives, she was certainly of more noble birth than Jane Seymour, Catherine Howard, and Catherine Parr, Henry VIII's three other English wives." When you look at the actual source [19], it says "She was better born than Henry VIII's three other English wives." I think what is in the article is rather misleading and a false statement. If you are going to quote Ives, use the actual quote. However, both historians Agnes Strickland and Dr. David Starkey disagree with this statement. I am not sure if Ives studied Parr's pedigree or family history, he seems to be only well informed on Anne Boleyn and Lady Jane Grey. Agnes Strickland quotes that Catherine Parr’s paternal ancestry was more distinguished than that of Thomas Boleyn and John Seymour. According to David Starkey, Catherine Parr’s lineage, "unlike that of Henry’s second wife, Anne Boleyn, was better and more established at Court." The "noble" birth I suppose refers to the fact that her mother was a "Lady" as a daughter of a Duke? That was her maternal lineage. Her cousin Katherine, was the daughter of Lord Edmund Howard, a male line. If you are referring to Anne's paternal grandmother, Lady Margaret Butler, sure she came from Earls, but they go back to Edward I at the highest. Even Catherine Parr descends from the 1st Earl of Ormonde. If you look at the ancestry of Catherine Parr or even Jane Seymour, you see that both descend from Edward III. Sure, Jane descends by her mother and it trickles down through females -- but Parr descended by her father, Sir Thomas Parr, who's mother was the niece of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, one of the most important figures in the War of the Roses. Parr was also a great-grandniece, however many times removed, of King Richard II as they shared his mother, Princess Joan of Kent, Princess of Wales; who married Thomas Holland, 1st Earl of Kent. Her family has a pretty "noble" back round and her family [The Parr's] were actually high up in the court scene [at this time, research traces back to Sir William Parr (c.1356-1405)] (a close confidant of Henry IV). We just don't see this because Parr is always seen as this "nobody who came from nowhere" when in actuality she was the daughter of a substantial knight [just like Thomas Boleyn]. Starkey even quotes, "like the family of King Henry's second wife, the Boleyns, the Parr family had gone up in the world as a result of royal favor and successful marriages." Catherine was just about related to every noble and royal at court who came before or during her time [including her husbands, number 2 and 3 which were within the "forbidden" fourth degree of consanguinity as 3rd cousins]; Edward IV and Richard III were first cousins, thrice removed of Catherine Parr. Their wives, Anne Neville and Elizabeth Woodville, as well, were both first cousins, twice removed.

In fact, Sir Thomas Boleyn and Sir Thomas Parr shared the same circle around Henry VIII and were knighted at the same time [1509]. If not for his early death in 1517, he would have been given the title settled upon his brother or that of another inheritance which to this day are still in abeyance between his daughter's descendants [the Earls of Pembroke] and that of his aunt, Alice, Lady Fiennes. We all know that those in favor, especially relatives of the King's wives were favored, and if not for Henry's want and need to marry Anne, her father and brother and even she would not have been elevated so high. Parr's brother, uncle, brother-in-law, and other family members were also elevated when Henry married Catherine. Fact: Catherine Parr descends from Edward I of England more than any other wife, including Anne Boleyn. It would be nice if the quote was changed and perhaps the sentences from Agnes Strickland and David Starkey could be put in. It is not entirely fair to Catherine Parr and it would be nice if for once we took a look at her family's history [even if she wasn't the mother of Anne Boleyn, but the one who influenced her the most] which if you look at it -- it's full of nobility and royalty. If anyone should be "downgraded" here it should be Katherine Howard and Jane Seymour. Obviously this will probably be ignored, but I am still publishing a blog because Wikipedia is not correct in more than a few things when it comes to Henry's wives and it is really starting to get on my nerves at how personal opinions count more than factual evidence. David Starkey Six Wives -- Lady Meg (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Charges vary

The charges against Anne Boleyn vary. Witchcraft is mentioned initially and then it vanishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.32.108 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Cousin of Thomas Wyatt?

On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Darrell_(maid-of-honour)#Thomas_Wyatt it says "Elizabeth became the mistress of the poet and cousin of the late queen Anne Boleyn, Sir Thomas Wyatt". I'm thinking this is incorrect, Anne Boleyn and Thomas Wyatt weren't cousins, but I thought I should leave it to someone more knowledgeable about Tudor history to edit it or not. I've posted this on the Anne Boleyn page because I wasn't sure it would ever be noticed on the Elizabeth Darrell page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.102.90 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Anne and Thomas were not cousins, though I have heard that claim before, it's thought to have arisen from a typo or error in an old biography of Anne. Or possibly from a suggestion that they may have been cousins by marriage, through Thomas's wife. Or even that they were "cousins", like how people who grow up near each other and are lifelong friends are "cousins" even though they are not blood related. In any event, it is inaccurate, and I definitely think should be removed from any Wikipedia article, unless the article is "Vague Unsourced Rumors About Anne Boleyn". Ella Plantagenet (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen many extended genealogies of Anne Boleyn, and I do recall having seen that Thomas Wyatt was related to Anne through the Boleyn side. When I get the time, I'll try to find it. At any rate they were certainly not first cousins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Anne and Thomas were third cousins in law: Thomas Wyatt's wife, Elizabeth Brooke, and Anne Boleyn were both great-great-granddaughters of Sir Robert Howard, of Stoke Neyland, and Margaret Mowbray (who were parents of the first Duke of Norfolk). Wdgwdgwdg (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Anne and Thomas were related through his maternal grandmother, Dorothy Heydon, daughter of Sir Henry and Anne Boleyn, daughter of Sir Geoffrey Boleyn and Anne Hoo. They were also related as stated above through Sir Robert Howard and Margaret Mowbray. -- Lady Meg (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The blood relationship between Anne and Thomas Wyatt was so tenuous, they may not even have been really aware of it. They had been close friends, though, and Thomas developed a crush on her (and wrote at least one love poem about her). He never had a chance with her, however, being already married. He related all this to his son, George Wyatt (also a writer), who later told the story to Elizabeth -- after she had become queen and it was safe to say positive things about Anne. --Michael K Smith^Talk 16:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Two words with similar pronouncation

I know that Anne Boleyn has the same pronouncation with the band Anberlin

the pronouncation is "an-ber-lin" Cokerox (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the pronunciation in her lifetime usually was BOW-lin, more or less, and it was often spelled "Bullen" or "Bowlyn." In our time, it's usually pronounced bow-LINN. These things change. --Michael K Smith^Talk 16:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Execution

Rombaud found it so difficult to proceed that to distract her and for her to position her head correctly, he is said to have shouted, "Where is my sword?" just before killing her

The other interpretation I've seen (taken from one of the witnesses) is that the executioner, who was very much a professional, deliberately distracted her, taking a step toward the edge of the platform and calling for his sword. When Anne turned her head blindly in that direction, he took off her head from behind. Gotta find the source for that. --Michael K Smith^Talk 16:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They're effectively the same theory, courtesy of The Tudors. Basket _Feudalist 14:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Does Chapuys really say Cromwell cooked it all up himself?

We currenty are told:

The conversations between Chapuys and Cromwell thereafter indicate Cromwell as the instigator of the plot to remove Anne; evidence of this is seen in the Spanish Chronicle and through letters written from Chapuys to Charles V.

In effect the article seems to say that Chapuys' conversation is evidence that Cromwell cooked it all up himself, but in a recent BBC2 discussion about Anne's fall, one of the historians insisted that such an interpretation is due to selective misquotation - once the full quote is included it is clear that Cromwell is saying he cooked it up on Henry's orders. It would be useful to have the actual quote so as to correct the article, but I've had trouble finding it as I document here. Does anybody know how to find this quote? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Charges "unconvincing” ?

I've always been led to believe the queen was innocent, based largely on the incredible nature of the charges. The article also gives that impression, and twice describes the charges against the queen as "unconvincing". But perhaps this presentation is too emphatic? After reading some of the counter-arguments of academic historians, I'm wondering if the popular image of a martyred queen can be safely assumed to be the correct one? I notice that some historians emphasise the point that the king himself appears to have found the charges against the queen convincing (e.g., G. W. Bernard, 'The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Rejoinder', English Historical Review, Vol. 107, No. 424 (Jul., 1992), pp. 665-674.)

The king had an obvious motive, but he also had better information than modern historians about goings-on in his household. We aren't privy to the details, some of which would have been suppressed. If the king was genuinely convinced there was something in the charges, the queen's sudden downfall does become more explicable, and the elaborate conspiracy theories around Cromwell, the shortcomings in due process, or psychological speculations about a villainous Henry's "caprice" or "paranoia" start to seem redundant.

I was a bit shocked to discover the academic dissenters, which suggests something may have gone awry in the popular presentation. I'm concerned that too much weight in the article may have been given to theories about factional plots which, on reflection, do seem highly speculative. The king was instrumental; Cromwell was but his servant. Perhaps for balance the article should more clearly state that some modern historians find the charges unconvincing, but also that the king himself, and other contemporaries with privileged access, in all apparent sincerity, did not? Lachrie (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember the King had a very strong motive to find the charges against her convincing; however, even he professed doubts when it was claimed she'd committed adultery so shortly after childbirth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no definitive answer, but the queen was brought down with horrifying ruthlessness. There does seem to be evidence that the king believed the allegation of adultery, however unlikely the idea seems to us. G. W. Bernard draws attention to the king's apparent belief, and it may be significant. It creates a complication, but perhaps it makes the course of events a little more explicable. I wonder if the article should make that point clearer, as it seems to be lost among all the speculation about ulterior motives. It's not necessarily something to rush into. It may be the king just wanted others to think he believed the allegation, and going through the motions was for show, but that's also just speculation. Evidence should really come before speculation. As you say, if the king expressed doubts, that's also important. Lachrie (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any modern historian who seriously believes Anne was actually guilty of any of the adulteries or acts of treason with which she was charged. All that was manufactured by Cromwell, as some of his co-conspirators later confirmed (including Chapuys, who was always eager to slander Anne). Anne can be seen as guilty of damaging Henry's public image, questioning his decisions (especially regarding the way the monasteries' confiscated wealth was spent), not producing a male heir, and generally being too self-confident. Her other mistake was simply being the wrong person in the wrong circumstances at a particular stage in Henry's life, and of being a victim (like Wolsey, More, and Cromwell) of his "borderline" personality. I don't regard her as a martyr; she was certainly intelligent, educated, and ambitious, she played the power game, and she eventually lost. But if she had produced a son who lived, it would have been a different story and Henry VIII almost certainly would have stopped at two wives. --Michael K Smith^Talk 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In theory what we think shouldn't matter - as Wikipedians we're supposed to report what reliable sources think, and when they differ we should report both views, while mentioning which is the majority and which is the minority - so if there are reliable sources for the minority view, it should be reported (at least one historian argued the minority view in a recent BBC2 discussion, though I'm not sure whether that counts as a reliable source or not). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Test

I was wondering if DNA testing could be used at this late date, in view of the rumours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Location of execution

This article states, On the morning of Friday 19 May, Anne Boleyn was judicially executed, not upon Tower Green despite the fact it is the site of the execution memorial, but rather, according to historian Eric Ives, on a scaffold erected on the north side of the White Tower, in front of what is now the Waterloo Barracks.

However the Tower Green article lists Anne Boleyn as a noble executed there. Both claims are sourced. Who is right?

(Please note, this same question was raised in August 2010 with no response) Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider the evidence that Ives presents? However, looking at a contemporary plan of the Tower, the green can be seen stretching right round from the chapel, to the north of the White Tower? So maybe it's just that the green was that much bigger then? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Should we present it as other similar disputed facts? Add a sourced sentence to this article like, "Other sources maintain she was indeed executed on Tower Green" and the converse to Tower Green? Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the facts are disputed. Ives just seems to be more accurate? It's like disputing the location of this because the island isn't there any more? But what actual proof, or supporting evidence, does Ives have? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that Eric Ives is a noted historian of the Tudor period, and in researching this project I've read that his The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn is considered the bible of her life. I found the the book here, and he has extensive sources (Notes for Chapter 23, note 14 lists 8 accounts (p. 419), also Chapter 24 note 1 (p.423)).

Forgive my ignorance on the Tower geography; I couldn't get an idea of the scale of this map. But isn't the Tower Green a completely different area than the "north side of the White Tower, in front of the Waterloo Barracks"? Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Marriage dates and Legitimacy of Elizabeth

There seems to be a lack of clarity about marriage dates in the article. The article refers to a second marriage between Anne and Henry, but it is unclear in the article as to when/where a first marriage may have occurred ... I recall the David Starkey TV series claimed that the relationship was probably consummated in France prior to the Jan. wedding, though I don't know what his proofs are for this conclusion, apart from the early September birth.

The article says " Soon after returning to Dover, Henry and Anne married in a secret ceremony. She soon became pregnant and, to legalise the first wedding considered to be unlawful at the time, there was a second wedding service, also private in accordance with The Royal Book which took place in London on 25 January 1533.". If the January marriage was a second ceremony, when was the first ceremony and why do we believe it happened?

There is also confusion as to whether the article claims that Anne was CERTAINLY pregnant at the time of the January marriage, stating "there is no doubt that Anne was pregnant with Elizabeth (born on 7 September 1533) when she and Henry hastily and secretly married" .... but later saying "The child was born slightly prematurely on 7 September 1533." . Surely either Anne was undoubtedly pregnant in January OR the child was premature OR we simply don't know (and probably that Anne & Henry themselves would not have known with CERTAINTY that Anne was pregnant in January, late Jan-early Sept = approx 7.5 months).

There seems another claim in the article which seems dubious, namely "since any child born before she was queen would not be able to succeed to the throne." ... surely it is NOT the case that Anne needed to be Queen when she gave birth to Elizabeth to secure legitimacy, merely that she needed to have a legally recognised marriage to Henry before the birth .... being crowned would be merely the 'icing on the cake' in terms of public recognition of her position.

I have tidied some phrasing and renamed the 'Marriage' section to 'Premarital Role and Marriage', since the section seems MORE about her premarital political role than about the marriage itself, perhaps someone can think of a better section heading?

I don't have access to book sources at present but hope someone who knows the subject better might clarify these matters.Pincrete (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to the assertion that Anne was definitely pregnant at the time of her marriage, since the original sentence "Confusing the issue of whether or not Anne and Henry had a premarital sexual relationship is the fact that there is no doubt that Anne was pregnant with Elizabeth when she and Henry hastily and secretly married" This is a nonsense (unless we think either that someone OTHER than Henry was the father or that "The Virgin Queen" was an Immaculate Conception!).

Perhaps anyway, these speculations belong in the marriage or birth sections.Pincrete (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Anne's second child

The Henry VIII article states that their second child was Henry, Duke of Cornwall, born August/September 1534, whereas this article states "Miscarried son" born 1535. (Two of Katherine of Aragon's short-lived children were also named Henry Duke of Cornwall). Can anyone confirm the birth year and name of Anne's second child ? RGCorris (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't know the answer to that - but the article is a bit of a mess on still-births (if there were any) and miscarriages. The lead, the article proper and the infobox all say different things, and I don't think should that one source's "speculation" should be given undue weight against any general consensus. davidships [cannot log in at present] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.232.79.132 (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Davidships (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)