alicehoffmans:

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. 

Also, I don’t really think it can be compared to other Queen Consorts– even other Queen Consorts of Henry VIII, because the earlier ask is in reference to this post. 

Because I’ve never heard or read anyone say anything similar to “She played the game and she lost” to Henry’s other wives. 

COA ended her life in de facto exile, didn’t receive a funeral where she was recognized as Queen, and died with her daughter bastardized and not reinstated to her former title until much later. No one says she "played the game and lost.”

Nor for Jane or AOC– not that they (or COA) should.

Katherine Howard is spared this kind of condescension, too (in this very slim regard). Because the marriage to AOC was such a hot second (vs. COA and Henry’s marriage of decades) and he probably would’ve annulled it eventually without a fifth wife in mind, because the turnaround between Marriage 4 and 5 was so quick (rather than the drawn out period of 1527-33), because the age gap between Katherine and her husband was so much larger than that between Henry and Anne Boleyn, Katherine isn’t painted as “setting out to get Henry” and “stealing him from his wife” in the same way.  

Anne is viewed as “playing the game and losing” because she “dared to rise above her station” (or, in continuance of that vein “dared to think she could usurp COA”). It’s meant as a smug, moralistic hot take of all hot takes– that “social climbers always get theirs” (occasionally, extended to George Boleyn as well). 

Not only is this stupid, but it’s thoroughly wrong (even with the limited example of the Tudor Court). Anne hardly qualifies as the most egregious example of a “social climber”. The “social climber” title would, actually, probably be more fitting to someone like Charles Brandon, the son of a standard-bearer promoted to a Duke by Henry that later thanked him for this favor/honor by later marrying his sister– a Princess– without royal permission. 

Charles Brandon hardly “got his”– there was no punishment for this treason (as it had the danger of causing future issues with the succession– which, spoiler alert flash-forward to Lady Jane Grey– it did) other than a slap on the wrist (fines), he went merrily along to marry his 14-year-old ward after Mary died; and lived a considerably long life.