Talk:George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford

George's possible child

Why is there no mention of George and Lady Jane Rochford's child? There was only one--a son, I believe, who is not well known because people preferred to believe that George was either: a.) a homosexual b.) a womanizer, but a wife-hater. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KEB (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2006 July 12.

There is no mention of it because it isn't true. Neither is there any evidence that George was a homosexual or that he had a bad relationship with his wife; there is evidence he was, like many young men of the period (and now), a womaniser. He and Jane had no children. When a man named George Boleyn, dean of Lichfield later gained prominence, some later historians assumed he was their son; he was a distant cousin. If there had been a son, there would have been records of it, and he would have inherited the earldoms of Ormonde and Wiltshire. Boleyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Henry Carey, Mary Boleyn's son with William Carey (or King Henry VIII, as some would see it), not inherit Will Carey's lands and titles? So, isn't it possible for George's son not to have inherited the lands? And while the user didn't say George was a womanizer or wife hater, I think there is sufficient evidence that George and Jane Parker didn't have a good relationship--namely, the fact that she gave a testimony that he'd had a sexual relationship with Anne, which was (most probably) a lie. There's also evidence in numerous of my Boleyn-centered history books. I'm just trying to see what evidence there is that he wasn't their son because I have books that say he was, and I think if there's not sourcable evidence then the facts I have about George's son should be included rather than having the article out-and-out say George of Lichfield wasn't George Boleyn's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.76.79 (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Will Carey had very few possessions to pass onto his children, but they were passed on. It was some of Henry Carey's grandfather's possessions that weren't passed on in full. There is no definitive evidence that Jane Boleyn gave evidence against her husband and sister-in-law; she was not a witness at the trial. The 'information' they said they had gained from her was read out, but this may have been as twisted or completely made-up as the dates and places Anne was said to have committed adultery, which could not possibly have ben true. The main 'evidence' from her was that they had spent time together alone in Anne's rooms. If they asked her specifically if this had ever happened and she replied yes, then there is no indication of malice, and this is the argument of Julia Fox in the only biography of Jane Boleyn. I may be wrong, but I think you'll find most of your books stating the 'fact' that George was their son are over twenty years old and based on an outdated idea, but I'd be interested to be proved wrong on that. Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The book "The Other Boleyn Girl" sparked the rumors that George was gay. It's a very good book, but very inaccurate. In real life, he wasn't gay, and probably never slept with his sister, Anne.71.66.230.44 (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have gone to enormous effort since April to totally revamp this page with a view to overcoming uninformed comments like the one above. I really feel like hitting my head against a brick wall. The constant speculation regarding George's sexuality comes solely from Retha Warnicke's unsustantiated theories. Gregory merely incorporated these discredited theories into her unpleasant novel 'The Other Boleyn Girl' for the sole purpose of supposed entertainment. There are so many biographies on the life of Anne Boleyn that in order to make a name for themselves and make money, anyone writing a new one must put a different slant on the story. Hence Warnicke's deformed feotus, homosexual ring theory, which owes less to proper research and more to an ill conceived attempt to deliberately misconstrue extant evidence in order to prove a pre-conceived theory. A historian comes up with theories based on evidence. You do not have to be a historian to do it the other way around; any idiot can do that.--81.157.193.217 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Angus replies: Not wishing to cause further frustration, but to show that there is in fact some evidence (albeit not resolved) to imply the possibility that George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford did have a son named George, firstly I would like to mention the Bullyn tomestone found near Clonony Castle in Ireland which states:

HERE UNDER LEYS ELIZABETH AND MARY BULLYN DAUGHTERS OF THOMAS BULLYN SON OF GEORGE BULLYN THE SON OF GEORGE BULLYN VISCOUNT ROCHFORD SON OF SIR THOMAS BULLYN EARLE OF ORMONDE AND WILSHIRE

Links to the account of this tombstone are: https://archive.org/stream/jstor-25497775/25497775#page/n5/mode/1up https://archive.org/stream/anecdotesaristo02burkgoog#page/n252/mode/1up

If the tombstone is correct (and that remains the issue), then George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford did have a son, albeit not necessarily by Jane Parker.

Secondly, while not constituting 'evidence', I mention Anna Bullein spouse of Sir Robert Newcomen 4th Baronet (1596 – 1677), who is supposed to be sister (or I suspect, more likely cousin) of the Bullyn sisters. Anna Bullein is quoted in a number of published genealogies as "collateral descendant of Queen Anne Boleyn", "great niece of Queen Elizabeth", "near relation to Queen Elizabeth" and "Anna Bullyn or Bullen kinswoman of Queen Elizabeth". Although I have not seen any 'primary sources' for Anna Bullein's birth, marriage, parentage and ancestry, most family trees trace her ancestry back to George Viscount Rochford.

Read my post for further links at: http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/forum/anne-boleyn-forum/anna-bullein-spouse-of-sir-robert-newcomen-4th-baronet-and-kinswoman-of-anne-boleyn/#ixzz2reuzAuTC

Lastly, concerning the possibility that George Boleyn, Dean of Lichfield was a son of George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford, these sources suggested the speculation: http://db.theclergydatabase.org.uk/jsp/persons/DisplayPerson.jsp?PersonID=24898 (under the +comments) "Perhaps s. of George, Lord Rochford. B. in London"

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Boleyn,_George_%28d.1603%29_%28DNB00%29 says "BOLEYN, GEORGE (d. 1603), dean of Lichfield, was not improbably the son of George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford [q. v.], who is usually reported to have left no male issue." and "that he was a kinsman of Lord Hunsdon, who was the grandson of Mary, eldest daughter of Sir Thomas Boleyn, father of the ill-fated Viscount Rochford."

Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900 (on-line database at Ancestry.com) states the following:

Name: George Boleyn College: TRINITY HALL Entered: Michs. 1544 More Information: Matric. sizar from TRINITY HALL, Michs. 1544. Perhaps s. of George, Lord Rochford. B. in London...

Although some of my references are speculative, I sensed that some were unknown to the above contributors and perhaps should be reconsidered. I have drawn out a family tree that shows how all the relationships could work both individually and in conjunction with each other. I hope as time transpires that more evidence from primary sources will come to light that may confirm or refute the uncertain parts of what I've mentioned. Kind regards, Jeff Angus.

Possibility that Boleyn girls could have been educated at Oxford

Sometimes Wikipedia descends to silliness. Women were not admitted to Oxford before the nineteeth century at the earlieat possible date. To suggest that (as the article does) that it was only a matter of choice or intellectual inadequacy that prevented the Boleyn girls from going to Oxford suggests that the users of the Wiki have no knowledge of history whatsoever. I suggested inserting the interpolation '(women couldn't)'. Chasnor15 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image of George Boleyn

I have removed this. It said it was based on historical references, but I could not find any sources which describe George's looks. Although if you click on the image, it explains that it is a recent portrayal and not a copy of a sixteenth-century portrait, I feel this could easily mislead people who don't click for more information. I found it interesting, but felt it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia article on the subject. Boleyn2 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimate son

It's possible the Dean of Lichfield was George's illegitimate son, given that he was an alleged womaniser.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Weir comes up with this suggestion in 'The Lady in the Tower' without coming up with any evidence to prove it. This is because there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest he was George's son. Like most of Weir's theories it has been plucked out of thin air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.79.34 (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We cannot exclude the possibility. Two people conceived the dean, they could very well have been George and an unknown mistress. After all, if one checks the Boleyn family's ancestors, the only two men bearing the name George, was the Dean of Lichfield and Queen Anne's brother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's possible but a historian's job is to look at what's probable by assessing the available evidence. To say what's possible, based on no evidence, is the job of a novelist. Perhaps Weir should stick to fiction because she seems to have fallen into the same trap as Warnicke.

We'll never know the truth, unless a document turns up that states the fact. I said it was possible based on the usage of the name George. I agree that Weir isn't the most thorough of historians, while Warnicke I disagree with, especially in her assignation of 1507 as the birthdate of Anne Boleyn. Eric Ives and Antonia Fraser are excellent researchers IMO.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I also disagree, as you can see above, with Warnicke's deformed miscarrige/homosexual ring theory, again based on no evidence whatsoever to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.79.34 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Angus replies: Given my reply above to the questions of George Viscount Rochford having a son, and that son's possible identity as the Dean of Lichfield, I think an illegitimate son is more likely than a legitimate one. Not wishing to repeat myself, I think that the Bullyn sisters tombstone inscription, Anna Bullein's (Spouse of Sir Robert Newcomen) possible relation to these sisters and as a possible descendant of Viscount Rochford (or at least near relation of Queen Elizabeth I) and lastly the Dean of Lichfield's Will stating his being a kinsman of Lord Hunsdon and Queen Elizabeth's mentioning of him as "my cousin" and the fact that she appears as his sponsor in one period of his career, all should point (at least) to reconsidering the possibility of a son being born to Viscount Rochford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangusnz (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Birthdate

An April birthdate for George makes sense as the feast of St George falls on 23 April. There were no other Georges in the Boleyn family, therefore it's very likely that he was named for the English patron saint, due to his date of birth falling on or about 23 April. There is also a tradition that Anne was born in May; this fits in with Sir Thomas Boleyn's statement that "every year his wife brought him a child".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"A title is a title"

Is this true? No specific enoblling takes place with a courtesy title. As the article on courtesy titles makes plain, in law, the person using such a "title" by courtesy remains a commoner. It is his father that was created Viscount. His decision to style himself by his more senior titles of Earl in no way takes from his possession of the title Viscount. Two living men cannot hold the same title. So styling george as a Viscount is a fiction, a polite convention that has no standing in law. So the "by courtesy" qualification should be restored. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's entirely true, of course and the "by courtesy" qualification must be restored. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Boleyn did not style himself Earl; he was created Earl of Wiltshire by Henry VIII. Upon him becoming the Earl of Wiltshire on 8th December 1529, George, as his heir, was automatically created Viscount Rochford. Initially this was a courtesy title until it was endorsed the following year. For confirmation of this you need to read Ives 'life and Death of Anne Boleyn' 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.65.184 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I have just clarified the position from the state papers. Thomas's creation as Earl Wiltshire is referred to in L&P, volume iv no's 6083 and 6085. Doc 6085 even sets out the witnesses. It also states that the title is 'in tale male' as was his title of Viscount Rochford. In other words, he held the titles 'in tale' for his eldest surviving son i.e. George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.65.184 (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how accurate it is, but Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII's Mistress claims that George was created Viscount Rochford while his father was created Earl of Wiltshire. In fact, I'm having difficulties finding a source which claims that George Boleyn was Viscount Rochford by courtesy only. However, there are sources which claim that Thomas Boleyn was created Viscount Rochford. I doubt that father and son were granted viscountcies with the same territorial designation. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Boleyn's elevation to the peerage is referred to in L&P, volume iv, no: 6113 dated 16th June 1525. The point is that he ceased being Viscount Rochford on 8th December 1529 after he became the Earl of Wiltshire. His new title superceeded the old title: hence George became the new Viscount Rochford, a title which he naturally inherited from his father. The reason it was initially a courtesy title was that it was not originally granted to Thomas in perpetuity (I made a mistake above when I said that it, like the Earlship, had been made 'in tale'). Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.65.184 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, a person only ceases to hold a peerage title if he/she dies or if he/she is deprived of the title by a special Act of Parliament. A person does not cease to hold a title when he/she acquires a higher title, unless, of course, the higher title is the Crown itself. Just see how many titles the Duke of Norfolk holds alongside the Dukedom of Norfolk! Anyway, George could not succeed to his father's viscounty until the death of his father. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Can one inherit from the living? I thought that one only inherited from the dead. Until then, one is no more than an heir presumptive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Or heir apparent, which is what George was. Surtsicna (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"The reason it was initially a courtesy title was that it was not originally granted to Thomas in perpetuity". This is untrue. The perpetuity or otherwise has nothing to do with the use of the title by his son while the father was still living. Had it been granted in perpetuity, George would still not be the de jure Viscount - he would still in law be Sir George, a commoner. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When Thomas was created Viscount Rochford there was no indication in the grant that the title was 'in tale'. When he was created Earl of Wiltshire it was. If Thomas had died then George would have become Earl of Wiltshire automatically and not merely by courtesy. However, if Thomas had died as Viscount Rochford the title would not have automatically been taken by George. George, therefore, took the title Viscount Rochford upon his father being elevated to the Earl of Wiltshire, but this was initially a courtesey title. We know he took his father's title because in October 1529 he is described in the state papers as Sir George Boleyn, Gentleman of the Privy Chamber, and by March 1530 he is being described as George, Lord Rochford. This ceased to be a courtesy title the following year (see Eric Ives). There can be no doubt that George was indeed enobled because by the time of his death he was a member of the House of Lords! --81.154.65.184 (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So you admit that it was a courtesy title (initially). We're making progress. At what point did the title cease to be a courtesy title and become a real title? How was this possible with his father still living? Who says he was a member of the House of Lords? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You will note that from my very first post I accepted it was initially a courtesy title. I never suggested anything else. Ives states that it ceased to be a courtesy title the following year, and at some stage it must have been because, as I say George was a member of the House of Lords. This can be found in G.E.C Peerage, ed V Gibbs (1910-49). Lehmberg also mentions him voting as a Lord Temporate in the 5th session of the 1534 Parliament. His name also crops up regularly in the Journal of The House of Lords for 1534 (which is a primary source that can be accessed online). I never actually knew this could be accessed so I would like to say thanks for this discussion because without it I may not have found it. I would like to think that this is a friendly debate because we are all fascinated with this era of history, and although we may have differnebt views, we all basically want the same thing i.e. to gain as much knowledge as we can. And for the record, I accept that I used the word perpetuity incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.65.184 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What a find that online resource is. "Grant by Wolsey to George Boleyn, knt., viscount Rochford, son and heir apparent of Thomas earl of Wiltshire and Ormond, of an annuity of 200l. out of the lands of the bishopric of Winchester, with power to distrain for nonpayment." From: 'Henry VIII: December 1529, 16-29', Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4: 1524-1530 (1875), pp. 2720-2737. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=91385&strquery=%22Viscount Rochford" Date accessed: 05 May 2010." Why would it refer to George firstly as "knt"? If he was truly a Viscount in his own right, that style ought to have precedence. This points more to a courtesy tile, after a real title being acknowledged. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

George Boleyn was a Knight. He was Knighted sometime between late September 1529 to early October 1529. From 8th December onwards he was Sir George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford. That's what the grant says so I don't understand your point. In any event, we know that immediately upon him taking the title it was by courtesy, that has already been established.--81.154.65.184 (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Does this mean that you now support the restoration of the qualification "Viscount Rochford (by courtesy)"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, because as from 1530 it wasn't a courtesy title.--81.154.65.184 (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Either way, courtesy title does not belong in the leading sentence! Here is an example of someone having been granted a courtesy title: Françoise-Marie de Bourbon. Nowhere does the name courtesy title appear in the lead, but rather in the main body of the article. Anyway, if it was a courtsey title it need only be mentioned once (not in the lead), to avoid giving undue weight to the matter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Laurel, I have been doing a Google search, and it appears that IP 81 is indeed correct, in that George's title ceased to be a courtesy title in 1530. Therefore I strongly oppose the restoration of the qualification (by courtesy).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the page where you found that information? How did it cease to be a courtesy title? Was George summoned to Parliament by writ of acceleration? That's the only way I can think of, besides an Act of Parliament. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Like Surtsicna, I too would be concerned that Google searches would just be a form of unverifiable Original Research which is forbidden. The on-line database above was useful, but nowhere in it did I find something that said he had been specifically ennobled in his own right. All references to a "Lord Rochfort" or "Lord Rochford" or "Viscount Rochford" could be attributed to polite, fawning use of a courtesy title to curry favour with a powerful family. This is a reasonable explanation for those references. Barring a "smoking gun" document listing the ennoblement or Act of Parliment, I think that this reasonable, commonly accepted convention should prevail. That is, the commonly understood usage of the law of succession should stand in the absence of explicit evidence to the contrary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We do know Henry VIII ennobled Anne's family prior to making her his queen; as obviously the daughter of an earl enjoyed higher status than the daughter of a knight. In 1532, he created a suo jure title for her: the Marquess of Pembroke for herself and her descendants. What we know of Anne's character, it is highly unlikely that she would not insist upon the ennobling of her brother; especially as she had not yet become the King's mistress at the time, and Henry was still in thrall to her. I really am not concerned about whether or not George Boleyn held his title by courtesy or not; what I care about is its placement in the article. It should not be in the opening sentence after his name as it makes it too long and unwieldy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A notable person of the Tudor era who did use a courtesy title was Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey and it doesn't say (by courtesy) in the lead. George Boleyn doesn't need to be the exception to the rule.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

George Boleyn was summoned to Parliament by a writ dated 5th February 1533. Even if his title did remain a courtsey title during 1530-1532, that in itself made him a peer in his own right, hence his trial before the Lords.--81.154.65.184 (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy title?

I have just broken this discussion up into two sections. The problem I have is the undue weight being given to the matter. As I pointed out, Henry Howard's title was a courtesy one, and it wasn't given any weight at all in his article. It should not be in the opening sentence after George Boleyn's title, especially with the unwieldy round brackets.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It should not be in the main sentence, but it should be noted in the article, preferably in the lead. After all, it is significant. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It would need to be sourced. As long as its not in the leading sentence; that was my initial objection.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The source to confirm George was a peer in his own right by at least February 1533 is L&P, Vol vi. no's 119 and 123.--81.154.65.184 (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That should be in the article after it's explained that his title was a courtesy one prior to that. It needs to be pointed out he was a peer in his own right, by at least February 1533. OK, have we consensus that it was initially a courtesy title, but by February 1533 he was a peer in his own right? That way we can end this discussion and add the info to the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes; brilliant! Thank you. At least one thing can be said about this debate, at least people care, which, after nearly five-hundred years, is wonderful.--81.154.65.184 (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

True. I think Anne Boleyn-and anybody closely related to her-will continue to fascinate people for yet another 500 years. Such is the power of personal charisma.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Do as proposed. But for the sake of consistency, ought the same treatment be done to Henry Howard? Should he not have a courtesy mention somewhere also? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he should. Seeing as his father outlived him, the Earl of Surrey was just that-a courtesy title, although he is known to history by that title alone, rarely as Henry Howard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename article "George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford" - GEC Peerage

I have read all the above interesting discussions on this topic and (based on consultation of new source GEC) wish to suggest the article be renamed "George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford", which is the correct way to state a courtesy title. It is clear he was never the second Viscount Rochford, so it's just plain wrong to call him "2nd Viscount Rochford". The definitive source for such matters is usually taken to be GEC Complete Peerage, vol XI of which states (under "Rochford", p.51) that George Boleyn was styled Viscount Rochford (i.e. courtesy title), but also states that he was created before 13 July 1530 "Lord Rochford" (deliberately vague wording, as no peerage title "Lord" exists). By footnote (a) the text refers the reader onwards to GEC vol.IX, appendix B ("English baronies created by Henry VIII"), p.18 "1530, Rochford", which states that he "was Lord Rochford as early as 1530 when he was the second of the barones" (Latin, vague word, see below) "who signed the letter to the Pope", and thus "presumably had some other form of creation" prior to his writ of summons to Parliament dated 5 Feb 1532/3 - (which automatically creates the addressee a baron in the peerage). However based on my own input, it should be noted that the more famous Barons' Letter of 1301 to the Pope is known to have been signed and sealed by many persons who were not members of the peerage and had never been summoned to parliament, thus "baron" in this context in Latin means merely "magnate" (baro, baronis).

I would suggest therefore that the logical position is that George (as was usual) used his father's junior title of Viscount Rochford (cr.1525) as a courtesy title from 1529 (when his father was promoted to Earl of Wiltshire & Ormonde), but even though George himself was subsequently created a baron between 1530-3, he did not discontinue calling himself "Viscount" - as it would have been considered a humiliating demotion going from viscount to mere baron. So effectively his barony peerage title he treated as a mere formality. It is clear he was never the second Viscount Rochford, he predeceased his father so could never have inherited that title. I suggest the article be renamed "George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford", which is the correct way to state a courtesy title, and we effectively ignore the barony of 1530-3 as a technicality. Thus I have renamed the page under WP:BOLD. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Commoners

"The four commoners implicated in the plot, Sir Henry Norris, Sir Francis Weston, Sir William Brereton and Mark Smeaton" This is misleading. Mark Smeaton, a musician was of a much lower class than these first three. They are not exactly commoners. Certainly, Sir Henry Norris and Sir Francis Weston were gentlemen of the privy chamber and good friends of the king. They were not peers but it isn't very accurate to call them commoners, they were courtiers. 129.67.137.35 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tudors series

I think we are giving too much weight to the highly imaginative and patently false depictions of the historical personages in the fantasy series The Tudors. The writers obviously never bothered to read up on Tudor history when they penned the screenplay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tudors is an extremely popular programme, which has peaked people's interest in the period. It is possible to mix great entertainment with education, but I agree with Jeanne that the Tudor's failed to do so, out of laziness and a desire to shock. The real events of the period are so interesting that I don't understand why The Tudors didn't stick to the facts. I find it really sad that such an an amazing opportunity was missed. And as for depicting George Boleyn as a rapist....well, enough said.--86.156.131.251 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I watched Braveheart last night (for about the 10th time), and that showed Isabella of France having committed adultery with William Wallace, although she was a child at the time of Wallace's exection and did not come to England until after Edward II had ascended the throne. The writers mixed Wallace up with Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, who was Isabella's lover, but well after the birth of her son, Edward III, who was fathered by the King.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

L&P?

What is the 'L&P' included in the references? WCCasey (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It stands for Letters and Papers of Henry VIII. It comes in 21 volumes and is available to read on the internet. It makes fascinating reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.52.231 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

scaffold speech

seems odd to put social & sexual weight on the phrase "wretched sinner deserving of death" - it's a standard abasement phrase found in Romans 7 & 1559 Book of Common Prayer concerning a petitioner's state in eternal terms, not the same thing as agreeing with a conviction. Background is Lutheran ideas of the Boleyns and the subsequent English Reformation. It's also found in Fox's Book of Martyrs, Ch 327. The Martyr's Prayer: "A prayer to be said at the stake, of all them that God shall account worthy to suffer for his sake." So he could have been suggesting he was a martyr. Just sayin' Manytexts (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

L&P reference problems

I've been trying to track down the reference given here:

During a conversation with Chapuys following the Boleyns' deaths, Cromwell boasted that he had gone to a great deal of trouble arranging the plot, suggesting he did so in order to assist an alliance with Spain. Yet despite his boasts, during the same conversation he greatly praised both Anne and her brother for their sense, wit and courage.[45]

[45] is given as L&P, x. 1069
This would appear to be Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, Volume 10, page 1069.

But Volume 10 seems to run out at page 645, at least according to this online archive. Can anybody explain or correct this?

(The reference is of particular interest because in the Anne Boleyn article Chapuys' conversation is reported as 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 - so it would be useful to have the actual quote so as to correct that article) Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It's not page 1069, it's document number 1069 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.243.225 (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Chapuys' letter, reporting his conversation with Cromwell is translated in L&P and CSP Spain (The translations do differ):

"Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 5, Part 2, 61, and footnote 1, 6 June, 1536". british-history.ac.uk. Retrieved 18 November 2013.

"Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, vol. 10, 1069, 6 June 1536". british-history.ac.uk. Retrieved 18 November 2013.

Suzannah Lipscomb wrote an excellent article that discusses this conversation:

Lipscomb, Suzannah (April 2013). "Why Did Anne Boleyn Have to Die". BBC History Magazine 14 (4).--Madame Bonheur (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

George Boleyn was not charged with buggery. That is incorrect, and I have removed it.

Incest

What evidence is there to suggest that Anne and George Boleyn actually committed incest? Can anyone provide a primary source that does not involve fictional accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.39.41 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Anna Roy says there is evidence to say that Anne and George Boleyn committed incest. Can anyone help with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.86.102 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

At the time of his birth…

When George was born, his parents were Sir Thomas Boleyn and Elizabeth Howard. Why are we still referring to her as “Lady Elizabeth Howard”? Yes, her father became a Duke later in life, but after she became “Lady Elizabeth Boleyn”. Her father had been restored as Earl of Surrey in 1489; and was created (or restored as) Duke of Norfolk in 1514 (2nd Duke of the Howard creation). In modern times a daughter of an Earl uses the courtesy title “Lady”, sure, but in Tudor times if your name was “Lady Elizabeth Howard”, that signified you were the wife of a Howard who had been knighted or above. Can I take out the “Lady”? Lady Meg (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)