Anne Boleyn

[Marie_Gregg]

Hello, All. This is my first thread. Be kind.

I adore the Tudor era, and the thread on King Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon prompted me to ask my own question. Among Protestants, Anne Boleyn is usually hailed as one of the scions of the English Reformation. I have a problem with that. Not only was she probably not as Protestant as people like to think, but she also probably wasn’t quite as religious as is usually believed. (She did hound a man for years to divorce his wife, after all…) The family connections from whence she came seemed to have viewed religion as a matter of political expediency, being rather willing to change “sides” as needed.

Of the two women, I think Catherine comes out the true heroine of it all. She was faithful to her husband and loyal to her faith. What are your thoughts? (I know that this is a bit off-topic, but you can’t discuss religion without discussing history, right?)

 

[GKC]

Hello, All. This is my first thread. Be kind.

I adore the Tudor era, and the thread on King Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon prompted me to ask my own question. Among Protestants, Anne Boleyn is usually hailed as one of the scions of the English Reformation. I have a problem with that. Not only was she probably not as Protestant as people like to think, but she also probably wasn’t quite as religious as is usually believed. (She did hound a man for years to divorce his wife, after all…) The family connections from whence she came seemed to have viewed religion as a matter of political expediency, being rather willing to change “sides” as needed.

Of the two women, I think Catherine comes out the true heroine of it all. She was faithful to her husband and loyal to her faith. What are your thoughts? (I know that this is a bit off-topic, but you can’t discuss religion without discussing history, right?)

I’m Anglican and the Tudors are a small hobby of mine, warts and all.

Not divorce; decree of nullity

Anne was reformed, to the extent she was anything. Catherine is a far more admirable character. Henry was a fascinating train wreck. Politics pervaded almost all things. To discuss religion is often to discuss history.

So say I.

GKC

 

[Marie_Gregg]

Henry was a fascinating train wreck.

GKC

Ha! No kidding.

Oh, and thanks for the correction on divorce/nullity. I usually just jump to divorce because it’s more readily understood by those outside the Anglican/Catholic bodies, especially if you haven’t done any study on the Tudor era.

 

[GKC]

Ha! No kidding.

Oh, and thanks for the correction on divorce/nullity. I usually just jump to divorce because it’s more readily understood by those outside the Anglican/Catholic bodies, especially if you haven’t done any study on the Tudor era.

It’s a knee-jerk reaction for me.

GKC

 

[LemonAndLime]

Hello, All. This is my first thread. Be kind.

I adore the Tudor era, and the thread on King Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon prompted me to ask my own question. Among Protestants, Anne Boleyn is usually hailed as one of the scions of the English Reformation. I have a problem with that. Not only was she probably not as Protestant as people like to think, but she also probably wasn’t quite as religious as is usually believed. (She did hound a man for years to divorce his wife, after all…) The family connections from whence she came seemed to have viewed religion as a matter of political expediency, being rather willing to change “sides” as needed.

Of the two women, I think Catherine comes out the true heroine of it all. She was faithful to her husband and loyal to her faith. What are your thoughts? (I know that this is a bit off-topic, but you can’t discuss religion without discussing history, right?)

There is some evidence that Anne Boleyn’s father pushed first her sister, and then Anne herself, into trying to “hook” King Henry VIII. And then in turn that Anne’s influence was cultivated by reformers.

From what I’ve read, I am leaning towards believing that Anne was taken advantage of by her father for his own personal gain, and then naturally as she got influence herself others tried to buy her. Whether she was a reformer herself I’m not certain.

 

[FrDavid96]

Ha! No kidding.

Oh, and thanks for the correction on divorce/nullity. I usually just jump to divorce because it’s more readily understood by those outside the Anglican/Catholic bodies, especially if you haven’t done any study on the Tudor era.

The marriage of Henry and Catherine (of Aragon, since he had 3 “wives” named Catherine of different spellings) was a valid Sacrament, although it was annulled in terms of English civil law, it was still a valid sacramental marriage, and it remained so until Catherine’s death. In that sense, it was never truly annulled. The annulment was a legal fiction.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Honestly, I’m surprised anyone still finds first generation of royal actors in the English Reformation admirable. I would think if I were an Anglican/Episcopalian (and it may not be fair for me to put myself in their shoes when I in fact am of a different conviction, though I feel connected through my English heritage and Methodist upbringing) I would emphasize the experience of the common English people over the centuries rather than the likes of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.

 

[Della]

The marriage of Henry and Catherine (of Aragon, since he had 3 “wives” named Catherine of different spellings) was a valid Sacrament, although it was annulled in terms of English civil law, it was still a valid sacramental marriage, and it remained so until Catherine’s death. In that sense, it was never truly annulled. The annulment was a legal fiction.

Anne herself seems to have understood this, even if she had to deny it for various reasons, because when Catherine died she reportedly said, “Now I am a wife indeed.” It didn’t save her, though, or most of Henry’s other wives. The man was rapacious and an egomaniac, easily manipulated by those who used him to gain control of monastery lands through goading Henry into breaking with the Church and giving in to his lusts. Anne was no angel, but she definitely was a pawn who paid the ultimate price. If she had had a son, things might have turned out quite differently, but she didn’t, and so the sorry story didn’t end there, but dragged on, taking more lives and moving England farther and farther away from her true spiritual home.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t know if it correctly depicted her character but the movie “Anne of a Thousand Days” is a pretty good watch.

 

[GKC]

There is some evidence that Anne Boleyn’s father pushed first her sister, and then Anne herself, into trying to “hook” King Henry VIII. And then in turn that Anne’s influence was cultivated by reformers.

From what I’ve read, I am leaning towards believing that Anne was taken advantage of by her father for his own personal gain, and then naturally as she got influence herself others tried to buy her. Whether she was a reformer herself I’m not certain.

I think she was. And I also think you’re correct.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Honestly, I’m surprised anyone still finds first generation of royal actors in the English Reformation admirable. I would think if I were an Anglican/Episcopalian (and it may not be fair for me to put myself in their shoes when I in fact am of a different conviction, though I feel connected through my English heritage and Methodist upbringing) I would emphasize the experience of the common English people over the centuries rather than the likes of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.

I didn’t say admirable. I said I found Hank a fascinating train wreck.

GKC

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I didn’t say admirable. I said I found Hank a fascinating train wreck.

GKC

I wasn’t refering to you, but to the people mentioned by the OP.

 

[Rascalking]

Hello, All. This is my first thread. Be kind.

I adore the Tudor era, and the thread on King Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon prompted me to ask my own question. Among Protestants, Anne Boleyn is usually hailed as one of the scions of the English Reformation. I have a problem with that. Not only was she probably not as Protestant as people like to think, but she also probably wasn’t quite as religious as is usually believed. (She did hound a man for years to divorce his wife, after all…) The family connections from whence she came seemed to have viewed religion as a matter of political expediency, being rather willing to change “sides” as needed.

Of the two women, I think Catherine comes out the true heroine of it all. She was faithful to her husband and loyal to her faith. What are your thoughts? (I know that this is a bit off-topic, but you can’t discuss religion without discussing history, right?)

My thoughts are that this is a really fascinating topic…great first post! I enjoy reaidng all the responses.

 

[GKC]

I wasn’t refering to you, but to the people mentioned by the OP.

Sorry for the knee-jerk response.

If I look (as I do) at the whole historical period, circa the 16th century, I find the entire scene fascinating, as personalities, politics, dynasties, nascent nationalism, and religion collided. Makes for a very full bookcase.

GKC

 

[bz5]

I think the whole group is interesting, as well. I wonder if Anne would have married Henry knowing she’d end up murdered 3 years later but that her daughter would be one of the most well-known, long-lived monarchs England had. Would it have been worth it to her? If it were me, I’d say no, but I don’t think I’m particularly power hungry.
Why do you suppose we speak of “Bloody Mary” and “Good Queen Bess”? From the little I know, they both sound very intolerant and “bloody.” Is this a case of ‘the winner writing history,’ or was Elizabeth’s reign long enough that the good accomplishments outshone the bad?

 

[Kaninchen]

Is this a case of ‘the winner writing history,’ or was Elizabeth’s reign long enough that the good accomplishments outshone the bad?

From whose perspective?

 

[GKC]

I think the whole group is interesting, as well. I wonder if Anne would have married Henry knowing she’d end up murdered 3 years later but that her daughter would be one of the most well-known, long-lived monarchs England had. Would it have been worth it to her? If it were me, I’d say no, but I don’t think I’m particularly power hungry.
Why do you suppose we speak of “Bloody Mary” and “Good Queen Bess”? From the little I know, they both sound very intolerant and “bloody.” Is this a case of ‘the winner writing history,’ or was Elizabeth’s reign long enough that the good accomplishments outshone the bad?

Both were representative of the times. Mary ran up her record in a far shorter time, Elizabeth having more years to be in charge, as you note.

As to your question, I’d say no, too.

GKC

 

[Sufjon]

Of the two women, I think Catherine comes out the true heroine of it all. She was faithful to her husband and loyal to her faith. What are your thoughts?

I think those were simply good survival strategies for someone married to a homicidal warthog like Henry.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[GKC]

I think those were simply good survival strategies for someone married to a homicidal warthog like Henry.

Your friend
Sufjon

Catherine was a little deeper than that. If survival was all she sought, acquiescing to Henry’s (and Rome’s) idea of taking the veil and not contesting his quest for a decree of nullity would have worked just fine.

GKC

 

[Marie_Gregg]

Hmm…the “Bloody Mary” thing is interesting. It probably is a case of the winners writing history to a certain extent, but she definitely did have some major issues. I think that these had far more to do with her turbulent adolescent years and the disappointments in her marriage than her faith, though.