Re: “Anne was stupid to stake everything and lose” — didn’t just about every queen consort “stake everything” on the chances of having a son? Obviously not all of them were risking what Anne risked, but the consequences — annulment, divorce, banishment, soured relations between home countries — were still dire, if not as unprecedented as execution.

I don’t know if I would say “stake everything”. The consequences could certainly be dire for foreign royal consorts as well, sure…but they weren’t usually “everything”. 

To have a son was, to use an anachronistic term, a vital part of the “job description” of Queen Consort. More so than being loved, although that certainly helped (people often mention that ambassadorial account of COA being well-loved by the English people with a tone of “how could he ever thought of annulling the marriage”– but their love of the Queen in no way guaranteed there wouldn’t be a civil war in the event of no male heir). But she wouldn’t have expected to be executed for failing to meet it (although I’m not of the mind it was the sole cause of her downfall; rather just one on a list of contributing factors that made her more vulnerable); at most I suppose she might have feared being placed in lodgings far from the main court, as COA had been. 

And she wouldn’t have expected to not be able to. Childbirth could be dire, too, but her closest female relatives– her mother, and sister– had survived it with only a few miscarriages. Both had sons, and Anne was young– realistically, she probably expected she’d be able to do the same. 

I think she had a better, more sharp take on how long exactly things could stall re: the annulment of Henry’s first marriage, though– he seems like he was more hopeful about it. I don’t think she believed it would take six years, though.