Tag: anon

Would you consider Anne Boleyn a feminist martyr? Or a Protestant martyr? Or a martyr of any sort?

No, because a martyr is:

 a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion

Anne Askew was a martyr, because she refused to renounce her belief that 
“the communion was a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, that the bread and wine remained thus in substance and it was a spititual memorial of the death of Christ only”; even when she was told that she would be spared if she recanted.

Anne Boleyn did not ‘voluntarily suffer death’; she was accused, brought to trial, pled ‘not guilty’, and was condemned by that trial. She was not given the option of keeping her life in exchange for something else. 

I’ve been thinking about The Tudors (the family not the show) and I find some opinions from the general public about them to be very ill founded. For example: them being very paranoid about being dethroned and people saying it was a flaw of their character or because their line wasn’t legitimate in the first place. Henry VII and Elizabeth I had every right to fear it. (Perkin Warbeck) (Lady Jane)(and many other events) Mary Stuart herself was dethroned and she was queen since she was only days

[part 2] and her claim was never put in question but there she was – losing her crown. Like… they had a solid reason to be paranoid about that. Or The Tudors being very jealous and dynastic but of a “barren stock”.  

Yeah, I agree there are a lot of generalizations that are taken as gospel that are…you know, digestible but oversimplify a lot. 

I mean, “not legitimate in the first place” I read a lot but like you can’t have it both ways? 

By which I mean, dynastically it’s so messy like…that post that went viral about how MQOS was the ‘true queen’ and Elizabeth I was ‘the pretender’ (i.e. from the dreaded BASTARD LINE~).

Like there were definitely people that thought that, just not enough for it to matter (like, was she overthrown by her own people, or ever, for that matter? Non), but this argument be like a souffle– it falls apart as soon as you poke at it. MQOS was descended from Margaret Tudor. Margaret Tudor was the daughter of Henry VII (who’s royal line through Catherine of Valois I guess ‘ “ didn’t count “ ‘ because it’s through CoV making it with a Welsh thot) and EoY (who even some others say wasn’t a ‘ “true royal” ‘ because Edward IV ‘shouldn’t have been king, rightfully Henry VI was’ and then her mother was an English noblewoman and only royal/Queen Consort by marriage– like four out of six of Henry VIII’s wives).

Anyway, all that to say that if the Tudors are an ‘inherently bastard line’ and any fruit of that tree will only live to be bad, illegitimate apples unfit to rule– then MQOS is also precluded from the ‘fit to rule’ basket by that same argument. 

Frank Randall?

I haven’t gotten past like– a few episodes into s2 of Outlander?

So far that I, too, think Claire is hot. Interest in history bordering on obsession and love to research. Dissimilarities…idk, they haven’t really gone much in depth on his character and I kinda don’t want to find out 😂 (I’ve heard he becomes the worst, so,)

Anne Boleyn being a real queen. A powerful woman in a world ruled by man , knows how to stand up for herself and express her opinions.

Is this for the Tudors accuracy thing?

If so, I mean, yeah, she was definitely Queen of England (despite the fact that she was not acknowledged as such by the Vatican; even Chapuys eventually acknowledged her as such by bowing to her). I would say she was…I mean, she didn’t have the powerful relations that KOA did, or the Vatican’s acknowledgement that she was Henry’s wife and Queen, but otherwise I’d say she was nearly, or as powerful, as KOA had been? Very influential, to say the least, had the English Bible on display in her household, was referred to as “that gracious lady Queen Anne’s, the which hath the name to be as mediatrix betwixt Your Grace and high justice” in a letter to Henry by an English subject. 

Too expressive of her opinions, was the opinion of some others…stood up for herself? Likely, I think she stood up for others often as well and I wish we’d seen that more, they did at least include that her confrontation with Cromwell was based on where the funds from the Dissolution were going, and that not enough were going towards charity (her ‘even Wolsey did that’ delivery made me laugh, heh); even if they didn’t include that she had interceded with Henry to pardon those involved in the Elizabeth Barton conspiracy, with the exception of the instigator of it. 

how different do you think their relationship would be if Anne had accepted Henry’s proposal to be his maitresse-en-titre? do you think he would’ve kept to that promise? or would he have lost interest eventually?

I’m wary about giving my honest thoughts on this matter because they’re kind of…controversial (like, I’ve gotten a lot of backlash for expressing my views on this before), tbh, so imma just–

First, we don’t actually know with 100% certainty that she rejected that offer (I mean, obviously she rejected at the very least the public title of only mistress, but privately is another matter). That’s kind of just the prevailing idea that’s put forth based on the Vatican letters (but these are probably not the only ones Henry wrote, also we don’t have hers, also we don’t have definite dates for any except the one dated by the remark about the papal legate, and another dated by its remarks about when she contracted the Sweat), based on her leaving for Hever for the summer (which, wasn’t, honestly, unusual? There were usually way fewer courtiers on the court’s summer progress, a lot of them left for their family homes), based on also, imo, the implication that 

a) Henry would never have married someone that had ‘put out’ before their marriage

b) He only married her because it was the ‘only way’ to have sex with her. And for literally no other reason. 

It’s entirely possible that she was his mistress (which is a pretty broad definition w/ a lot of possibilities attached as well– a mistress in the sense of courtly love? a mistress in the sense of what was allowed within the parameters of a courtship 
dans la chambre? variations in between?) before he actually proposed marriage. 

And if this did happen, I actually think in any scenario in which he had yet to have a son by K(o)A, he would have eventually proposed, realizing that she was a well-suited choice of a Queen Consort and also that he wanted to spend his life with her. Basically, that he would have had that dawning realization in 1527, or 28, or whatever, that Chapuys spoke so eloquently of in 1530:

…the love of the King for the Lady is so great that he would not give her up for the eldest daughter of France, or anyone else in the world.

In an AU where he gave this offer and K(o)A already had a son?

I do think he would have kept that promise. Because, during the entirety of his betrothal to Anne, he did. I think that was probably a big part of her anger at his affairs during their marriage– that he would be with no one else for at least six years (possibly at least a year of their marriage, too), but take a mistress during her second and third pregnancies (Madge Sheldon, I think it was? The Seymour affair was kept to courtship only) was unconscionable to her. She couldn’t reconcile it to how faithful he had been to her before. 

Would he have lost interest eventually? Maybe, it is hard to say with any certainty. It’s often said their relationship was weak, tenuous, and based on no real love, connection, or affection, and that this is so clear because it deteriorated/fell apart ‘so quickly’.

But the thing is, it didn’t fall apart ‘so quickly’. Their marriage was only three years, it’s true, and the last (even before May ‘36) was definitely worse than the first two, but before that they’d had a betrothal that defied the societal expectations for its length (betrothals were long processes if one of the betrothed was a child when it was made– otherwise, there were no ‘long engagements’ with the nobility of years, that simply wasn’t done), from 1527(at the latest)– 1532. 

They fought during that period of time, it’s true (this is usually mentioned as evidence that their relationship was always unstable, volatile, ‘only based on sex’). He grumbled once about how she’d spoken harshly to him, that Katherine had never spoken to him that way. Another fight had apparently been so bad that she refused to speak with him, until he was reduced to asking her relatives to intercede with Anne on his behalf, “with tears.”

And he could have thrown the towel in at any point. Could’ve said, “you know what, I’ve had enough of this” at any of the times she spoke sharply to him, and like…still continued to try for an annulment and marry a French royal (Francois was always eager to make an alliance against Charles V, for reasons both personal and political– he’d even offered Henry his sixteen-year-old daughter’s hand in marriage– a day, or mere days, after Anne’s execution), or a number of other alternatives. 

But he never did. And in a lot of ways, he would’ve had an easier going with the annulment process if he had, and it would’ve seemed more credible to a lot of people had he made clear that his intentions were to marry another foreign royal once it had been achieved. 

He didn’t, because he wanted to marry Anne specifically, and have an heir with Anne, specifically. So, I think he must have loved her just as specifically. 

It’s this that makes me believe he wouldn’t have ‘lost interest’ eventually had she accepted the title, in a world/AU without the obstacles he had (lack of a male heir, Charles V and others blockading his attempts to find solutions to this problem, etc.). 

do you think henry ever felt regret for killing anne? also, what do you think drove him to do it in the first place?

This is…a bit heavy for a Wednesday…

It’s hard to know because a lot of the evidence of Anne’s existence (portraits, etc.) was destroyed; likely most of this was done under his command (although we don’t have access to the official records for this, as such), but strangely enough not all of it was? Their initials are still over the fireplace in the Presence Chamber of St. James Palace, for instance. We could chalk this up to an accidental oversight, but as Henry had this palace remodeled in 1544, it would seem he had ample opportunity to take them down and never asked the renovators to do so. 

Anne was referred to as the “late Queen” in English warrants/records of Henry VIII’s reign as early as August 1536. This kind of begs the question of ‘how’–their marriage was annulled by Cranmer in May. If her marriage to Henry was never valid, then how was she the Queen? 

I’ve talked more about possible explanations here; also about items from her inventory he bought. 

The scene alluding to this in Tudors, while of course fictional, is interesting…if the figures of Anne and Elizabeth are not, in fact, ghosts, but rather images from his subconscious, Anne’s “I was innocent, all the accusations against me were false” is actually just what Henry’s known all along (or, perhaps, finally knows). And when he says he wishes he could love Elizabeth more, but from “time to time she reminds me of you, and what you did to me”, Anne’s “I did nothing to you” (and then the rest above) would indicate that his distance from Elizabeth stems not so much that Elizabeth reminds him of Anne, but more from how Elizabeth reminds him of his own guilt.

Idk, I just mention the scene because I admire its complexity and I think your question…has no simple answers, really. 

So…did he ever feel regret? We’ll never know. I tend to think that he did, but that at the same time, if we ever brought him back from the dead to ask him “Was it all worth it?” (’it’ being…well, what happened to Anne, and all of the best and the worst of his reign) his answer would be “yes”. 

As for The Million Dollar Tudor Question (why/how could he do it/ how did this all unfold?); I’ve touched on it in essay-length asks:

here

and here.

*edited version

Any advice for transfer students from community college? Curious what extracurriculars/other than grades stuff you’re putting on your app, if you’re willing to share!

I’d probably feel more comfortable giving advice if I knew it was good advice– i.e., I don’t know if I’ve been accepted to the uni I applied to yet.

I think it really depends on the university. I was all geared up and ready to ask my supervisor at my current job, supervisors from volunteer work I’ve done, for letters of recommendation…then found out that for my transfer app, they don’t even accept letters of rec. It’s just transcripts, and personal statements.

From what I’ve heard; it’s best to apply as a transfer student once you’ve actually acquired your Associate’s/two-year degree. 

I guess my best advice I could think of would be to keep up the GPA as much as you can, and really give some thought to what it is you want to major in and why, and what you’d like to do in your future field of choice, what you’re passionate about and why– that’s generally what the’re asking for in the personal statements. Maybe take some notes when you’re brainstorming about this, so that you have somewhere to start from/a jumping off point for the statement when you do apply.