I get asked this question pretty regularly as soon as people
find out I spend a lot of my time reading about her and have devoted my
education to researching her. My very first reaction is to ask “Why not Anne
Boleyn?” She was a fascinating woman, a woman who was ahead of her times in
terms of learning and thought, ideals and politics. Then I recall that most
people do not know this version of Anne.
I have now prepared myself with the following LB Smith quote
on Anne, “Anne Boleyn was the crucial catalyst for three of the most important
events in modern [British] history: the break with Rome causing the English
Reformation, the advent of the nation state and the birth of a daughter whose
forty-three years on the throne stand as England’s most spectacular literary
and political success story….”
For the historical outsider, this answer is satisfactory.
Only those who choose history and research as their lifeblood will understand
my true reasoning; Anne is my historical perfect storm. A woman whose actions
and life so changed the landscape of an entire country, yet one we know so
little about that even the year of her birth cannot be confirmed. Anne inspired
such hatred, and such devotion, during her time that it is no surprise that she
continues to fascinate myself and scores of other scholars. Anne is ethereal,
more myth and hypothesis than established fact. Digging for her story is a
never ending challenge as little primary source material about her exists and
the ones that do are colored by pro-Catholic and pro-Katharine of Aragon
leanings. One of the most extensive primary sources on Anne is the series of
letters between Eustace Chapuys, imperial ambassador to England, and his
master, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (nephew to Katharine). Chapuys sees fit
not to use Anne’s name in this correspondence; referring to her only as the
Concubine, the lady and in some cases worse nomenclature. We scholars and
lovers of Anne have constant debates about how seriously we can take the claims
of one of Katharine’s most ardent supporters. With the elimination of Chapuys’
letters we are left with almost no other contemporary, personal accounts of
Anne’s life making the hunt for answers about her even more difficult.
We know from surviving budget accounts that Anne was
generous with her money, both in support of the poor and in patronage of
artists, writers and theologians. She favored men of the Reformation, whether
as a means to an end, (reformation ultimately meant Henry’s divorce) or because
she truly believed that a more liberal, personal relationship with God was
needed has also been hotly debated. Her downfall, naturally dramatic and the
subject of intense sensationalism, has become the stuff of legend. Anne had six
fingers, she was a witch, she gave birth to a malformed child, and she had a
sexual relationship with her brother. These mythologies have enmeshed
themselves so completely with established facts about Anne that most of the
general public have a distorted perception of her. There are the people who want
to vilify Anne, who claim she was guilty as charged, such as historian GW
Bernard, a fact any historian who has explored the evidence will refute. Then there are those that put her on a perhaps undeserved pedestal
such as martyrologist John Foxe. These factions are miles apart with most
historians not able or willing to work towards a middle ground that would be
representative of both truth and fact. Anne,
for the first 20+ years of her life was rather unremarkable. She lived only to
the age of 36 and died tragically, yet her story and the unanswered questions
that accompany it, reach across a span of nearly 500 years to enthrall
movie-goers, novelists and historians alike.
Anne, when examined, is fascinating. The search for her
story is hard work and sometimes frustrating; which makes it all worthwhile
when I come up with a conclusion about her life or discover a new source about
her. And that my friends, is why Anne Boleyn.
