This week I read a book I've been wanting to get my hands on for a while, The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown by Claire Ridgway. I am big admirer of Claire and her site theanneboleynfiles.com She writes really, really well, bringing together passion for Anne with hardened historical research. She digs deep into the people and cultural context of the times. I really appreciate the level of detail Claire brings to every article she writes. Her book is written on that same level of academic integrity and creative ingenuity, with details I've never read anywhere else. I especially appreciate how she dissects every character involved with Anne Boleyn's fall stating their relationship to her, their early history and life as well as how they fared after the Boleyn faction fell from power. I especially learned a lot about Sir Henry Norris and Francis Bryan. Ridgway makes thoughtful inquiries regarding Anne's actions, ecnouraging the reader to think deeply and draw their own conclusions about Anne's life and history. I really enjoyed this book, I encourage everyone to pick it up!
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
On This Day in Tudor History
On this day in Tudor history 1534 Queen Anne Boleyn spent
her first full day in confinement. Confinement, in the historical sense, meant
that a woman had retreated to her chamber for the remainder of her pregnancy. She
would be attended only by her ladies in waiting and close female relatives; no
men would be admitted other than the Queen’s priest who stood behind a screen
to preach and hear confession. The amount of time spent in confinement ranged
anywhere between four and eight weeks. Surprisingly, in Anne’s case, she
retreated into her chamber just two weeks before daughter Princess Elizabeth
was born. This could be because she calculated her dates incorrectly, easy to
do in Tudor times when prenatal care was virtually non-existent, because she
purposefully altered the time of conception or because Elizabeth was premature
(unlikely as she would have been weak if born nearly a month early)
On August 26th the Queen had made a great ritual
of the “taking to the chamber ceremony which took place at Greenwich palace.
The pregnant queen attended a special mass at the Chapel Royal and then went
with her ladies in tow, to the Queen’s chamber. Refreshments were served before
the chamberlain prayed with the Queen and her maids for the safe delivery of a
healthy baby prince. In Tudor times there was stringent restrictions on women
after they entered the birthing chamber, as well as how the room should be set
up.
According to the Royal Book, which dictated decorum (largely edited by Margaret Beaufort) the room must:
§
Be carpeted
§
Have its walls, ceiling and windows covered with
arras, the tapestries should depict calming images
§
Have one window slightly uncovered to let in
fresh air when necessary.
§
Be furnished with a large bed for the queen to
recover in and a pallet at the foot of the bed which is where the queen would
actually labor and give birth.
§
Have a font was required in likely case of a
sickly child who would need immediate baptism
§
Have soft furnishings of dark crimson satin
embroidered with the Queen’s respective arms
§
Have a cupboard specifically to hold the
birthing equipment and swaddling bands
The room was kept dark and shut up
against fresh air, it was thought by Tudor midwives that creating an atmosphere
reminiscent of the womb would keep the baby from becoming sick as well as keep
away evil spirits. Confinement was often a social time for the women involved.
There would have been drinking, embroidery, gossip and much prayer. Despite the
company and rest, I can only imagine Anne would have been hot and bored in the
chamber where she was required to stay for a month after the Princess’ birth.
Friday, August 23, 2013
On This Day in Tudor History
August 23, 1485 marked the first day of the reign of the Tudor dynasty. The day before Richard III, the last York king, fell at Bosworth Field to the halbert blow of a Welsh commoner, ushering in the reign of Henry Tudor, father to the famous Henry VIII. The Tudors would rule over England for the next one hundred and eighteen years. The monarchs, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I, would change the social, religious and cultural landscape in enormous ways!
![]() |
| Henry VII Unknown, ca 1501 |
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Secrets of the Virgin Queen: A Documentary
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Anne Boleyn by Norah Lofts, A Book Review
I’ve tried, throughout the course of this blog, to stay
professional. I’ve worked hard to always evaluate sources, others’ opinions and
available information in the most unbiased way possible. However, today I feel
the need to rant. I recently read a book entitled Anne Boleyn: The Tragic Story
of Henry VIII Most Notorious Wife by Norah Lofts. This book is an absolute travesty.
Though marketed as a biography it perpetuated lies about Anne that have been
disproven and the entire premise of the book is that Anne Boleyn was a witch.
Lofts implies that witchcraft is the only way Anne could’ve snared Henry and
held her influence over him for so long. History, and the study of it requires
us to PROVE our theories, not rely upon superstition to support our assertions.
Lofts asserts that Anne Boleyn had a Wolfhound called Urian,
meaning the “Devil’s Helper”. She is wrong in two ways, first of all Urian was
a greyhound given to her by William Brereton who was later executed with her. Second,
Urian is an old Celtic name meaning “from a privileged family” ironic as Brereton’s
family was on the rise and Urian was his eldest brother’s name. I cannot
imagine why the author chose to pervert the meaning of Anne’s beloved pet’s
name but wolves were often associated with sexual predation in mythology so
Lofts’ change in the breed of the animal makes sense in a diluted way, not in
the researched ways of a professional historian.
Lofts presents the idea that Anne not only had a sixth
finger, but that she also had large moles on her neck. On the first page of the
book She says, Anne “…had two flaws; on that long slender neck a mole, said the
be the size of a strawberry, and described by one of her detractors as ‘a great
wen’, and on her right hands a rudimentary sixth finger of which again, much is
made…” She backs this up with “evidence” saying the description came from a man
whose grandfather saw Anne Boleyn once. What a load of trash. This rumor was
started by Nicholas Sanders during the reign of Elizabeth I, Sanders was a
Catholic priest in exile for plotting the overthrow of the Queen. Sanders
sought to blacken the reputation of Elizabeth by associating her mother Anne with
witchcraft. Physical deformities, including moles, were associated with those
who had knowledge and/or participated in the craft. At the end of the book
Lofts even suggests that Anne Boleyn came back after death and presented
herself as a large hare, an animal which most during Tudor times thought a
witch could transform into.
In addition to her ridiculous claims that Anne was a witch,
Lofts is careless with her historical facts as well. She states that Anne’s
first voyage abroad was as a lady in waiting to Mary Tudor as she sailed the
channel to become queen of France. Primary source documents tell us this is not
true, Anne first crossed the ocean to become a member of the household of Margaret
archduchess of Austria. The archduchess’ home was viewed almost as a finishing
school for the elite’s and quasi-royals of Europe during the time.
Another section I found repugnant as well as historically
inaccurate, was Lofts’ idea that not only did Anne French kiss her brother but
that incest was not uncommon during this time. She writes, “It was not that incest
was so rare and unnatural a thingsto be unbelievable, everybody knew it
happened, but in overcrowded hovels with brothers and sisters sharing beds,
among people who lives were so isolated, or their appearance so unattractive,
as to make normal sexual contact difficult…” so according to the author, people
who lived in the country, or were ugly, often resorted to incest.
Another complaint of mine was the several pages Lofts spent
asserting that the king’s eye had already fallen upon Anne in 1523 and that he
was the reason for the heart wrenching breakup between Anne and Henry Percy.
This, we know, is completely untrue. Most historians, myself included agree
that Henry did not meet or begin showing attention to Anne until 1526. In 1523
Henry was in the midst of a passionate love affair with Mary Boleyn and celebrating
his young son, the illegitimate Henry Fitzroy.
You’d think I would be out of complaints by now, but the
author fueled deeper anger in me later in the book. The most offensive portion
of this book is when the author is discussing Anne taking her last communion.
Anne was a devout woman; that much is clear to all of us who admire and
research her. Norah Lofts, feels differently writing, “There is, of course,
just another possibility – that she was in fact the witch that Henry said she
was; that she had gone over to the Devil…in this case taking the sacrament and
telling a lie at the same time, could have been one more tribute to her Dark Master,
offered perhaps at the hope of some magical even at the at the eleventh hour…It
is a matter of history that some witches did die with exceptional courage and
defiance…” Not only does the author’s assertion that Anne took the host as a
tribute to the devil deeply offend me, it is also ridiculous. Anne used her
last communion as a means of protesting her innocence of the disgusting crimes
she was accused of. Anne took her duties and blessings as a Christian very
seriously.
This book is not only riddled with lies and superstitions.
It is also poorly researched with almost no notations as to sources. The author
makes a complete mockery of true historical writing by portraying her trash as
legitimate research. This work is a complete
waste of time and money. Do yourself a favor, never read it. End Rant.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)


