Everyone loves a bitch. In one guise or another, bitches have occupied centre stage within every culture in civilisation. Medieval mean girls, ancient vixens, Renaissance shrews and modern Reginas reign supreme throughout their generations, tormenting, tantalising, manipulating, wreaking havoc, creating misery and doing it all with a stunning smile. Regina George, played by Rachael McAdams in Mean Girls, is the archetypal bitch of twenty-first century American culture: manipulative; beautiful; tormenting; ruthless; spiteful; and dizzyingly intelligent. Very much the "Queen Bee" of her school, where she rules the roost and throws every other female into the shade, Regina epitomises modern bitchiness in its every facet. For many, the Tudor equivalent of Regina George in modern America is the very mother of Elizabeth I herself, Henry VIII's second and most infamous wife: Anne Boleyn.
Susan Bordo, in her excellent, original and provocative book The Creation of Anne Boleyn, ponders why Anne continues to be represented in cultural works as hell on earth, asking 'who let the bitch out?' Eustace Chapuys, imperial ambassador during the majority of Henry VIII's reign, created a nightmare vision of Anne that has powerfully shaped, to one degree or another, every cultural representation of her since. Presenting her as 'that accursed she-devil' who used witchcraft and magic to lure Henry into marrying her, Chapuys suggested that Anne was craftily and cunningly planning the deaths of her rival Katherine of Aragon and her stepdaughter Mary Tudor. When she wasn't busy making threats and acquiring poison to do away with enemies, she was spreading Lutheranism throughout the kingdom, luring the king into ridding England of its rightful religion. As Bordo notes: 'What this view of Anne has done is create a vivid, provocative "template" which later generations have responded to in different, often highly polarized ways'. In short, Chapuys portrayed Anne in so vile and hostile a light that represented her as the bitch of the Tudor court, a woman who stopped at nothing to attain her own ends.
Chapuys's influence can be discerned in several contemporary works. Philippa Gregory's novel The Other Boleyn Girl presented Anne as a murderous, malicious and egotistical woman who bullied her siblings into doing what she wanted. She poisoned Katherine and several bishops, slept with her brother, and stole her sister's child in an act of coldblooded cruelty. The portrayal of Anne in Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies has been described as 'lethal' and so 'spitefully ambitious' that 'one feels any king would be justified in beheading her'. Yet there is very little to no evidence to support this. Aside from Chapuy's poison pen, and the later hostile account written by a Catholic priest, Nicholas Sander (who was himself a child when Anne was executed), contemporary accounts did not so vividly and fictionally present Anne as, in effect, the bitch of the Tudor court.
As Bordo notes, the femme fatale, the bitch, is an archetype of all cultures throughout the ages. Just perusing a GoodReads discussion entitled 'Why did everyone hate Anne Boleyn?' brought up the following claims:
'I... think she deserved to die though innocent of adultery and to other sexual misconduct but because she made C. of Aragon suffer so, slowly poisoning her to death, and treating Mary so badly. In those days queens seemed to have a Queen Bee syndrome and Anne was viciously true to form'.
'Today, she would probably be diagnosed as being a sociopath'.
'She was just cruel and crazy!'
'...She was definitely a wack job'.
'She was political and manipulative'.
'She was manipulative... today she would probably be diagnosed with a personality disorder'.
'She was a manipulator for sure'.
'Anne Boleyn was a horrible person... she stole someone's husband... she also treated Mary Catherine's daughter so badly...she deserved what she got in the end'.
What all of these views have in common is their underlying suggestion that Anne Boleyn was able to manipulate Henry VIII. She was the one who wielded power and control in their relationship. She pushed him around and made sure she got her own way. But, aside from the complete lack of evidence for this, this is in many ways an absurd and distorted characterisation of their relationship. Although some historians continue to view Henry VIII as malleable and easily led, they are very few and far between. Historians by and large generally agree that he held absolute power. Upon becoming king, he had two of his father's ministers summarily beheaded. He put to death two of his wives. He treated his elder daughter with remarkable cruelty. He put to death possibly as many as 72,000 people. He ordered the death of a 67-year-old woman innocent of any crime, who was then cruelly hacked to death. He was described as a 'tyrant' and 'worse than Nero'.
It then invites disbelief to suggest, as these readers commenting do, that Anne was able to manipulate and control Henry. People continue to believe that she was responsible for Mary's ill treatment. Yet, when Anne was beheaded, Henry continued to treat his daughter cruelly. There were even rumours that he would put her to death for refusing to recognise him as Supreme Head of the Church and because she refused to agree that her parents' marriage was invalid. This is apart from the complete lack of evidence that Anne had in any way, shape, or form, what resembled a 'personality disorder'.
So why do these views of Anne Boleyn persist? Partly, I suggest, is because history loves a bitch. Bitches are scapegoats. Queens are often closely aligned with bitchdom: consider Empress Matilda, Isabella of France, Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Wydeville just in relation to medieval England. They were blamed and condemned for their male relatives' behaviour. There remains a strange and very obvious reluctance to hold Henry VIII responsible for his actions. People automatically assume that he was a weak and easily led man who was manipulated by both his wives and advisers. When she wasn't luring him into bed, people think, Anne Boleyn was encouraging Henry to kill his first wife and her child. Evidence? None.
It's worth remembering, then, when readers stumble across a vengeful, demented Anne hellbent on revenge in a novel, or a particularly negative account of her actions in a serious academic study, or a TV portrayal of her as manipulative and sexually cunning, that these depictions of Anne the bitch are not grounded in, or informed by, any historical evidence. They derive from a culturally constructed archetype that has remained influential in every culture. Everyone loves a bitch, and for many, Anne Boleyn was the bitch of the Tudor period.
Everyone loves to “bitch bash” and which bitch is bashed quite often from Tudor England? Anne Boleyn. The previously mentioned adjectives of manipulative, mean, crazy, sociopath, cruel —may describe her, but perhaps they are colored through the life lenses (perspectives) of the 15th century called awe, jealousy and incredulity. After all, Anne was from common stock and she was a woman, so it was expected of her to do as she was told when it came to the King. And make no mistake; Anne’s “push” toward Henry VIII was a business enterprise with Anne as the CEO as well as the “goods for sale” and her family played the role of vocal, active partners who reaped rewards and benefits as she rose to the top. It was Anne’s good fortune that her family “invested” in her by providing her the “best” education they could as well as the goods and trappings that she required which would help her along the way. That Anne was smart, politically saavy and attractive in an unconventional way were attributes in her favor. What people view as negative traits (the pragmatic push to get what she wanted, the goal to keep what she got and the drive to keep all her plates spinning and making it seem effortless) were all a part of her family machine to supply what they felt she needed to be successful in the family quest for power. That she lost it all in such a short time was due to the impatience and suspicions of one man who could be distracted by others. And let’s face it —genetics is a 50:50 game at best and pregnancy in the 15th century was like playing Russian Roulet with your life. You were lucky to come out of a pregnancy unscathed with a healthy child. Too bad for Anne that so much emphasis was placed on her having a male hei rand as history showed us one of lifes little ironies —Anne’s daughter Elizabeth I, was one of Englands greatest monarchs.
ReplyDeleteHi Connor – Great Article this! And Thank you for the book recommendation of “Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford” by Julia Fox. IT is providing great insight into the Tudor period in general and as it relates to Jane Parker/Lady Rochford in particular.
I think Anne probably was ambitious, though not as manipulative as she is portayed as being. i don't think she poisoned anyone though.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog! Love reading you!
ReplyDeleteGreetings from Croatia!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnne Boleyn was no saint, nore was she a bitch, she was human and she had some unfortunate moments of unguarded loss of temper, allowing her tongue to run away with itself and brashness. Even as queen she did not show close regard to her behaviour or views as she should have done as Queen and a Christian. For example during 1534/5 Anne was having trouble conceiving a child and she appears to have become obsessed and afraid of Princess Mary. She may have been depressed at the time and others remarked that her behaviour appeared to be erratic. If she was clinically depressed or insecure, for example, it is possible that she could have made remarks which she later regretted during times of crisis. There are signs also that she may also have turned to drink to mask her symptoms, as she was having problems sleeping, was erratic, had lapses of memory, nightmares and this was noted during a public visit of the ambassador of France when she made jokes at his expense. She did not hide the fact that she believed Henry was seeing other women and quarrelled with him openly, she became more critical and she showed abusive behaviour towards her ladies that she suspected of being his mistress. It was in the middle of this period that she sent for her brother in the middle of the night and made threats to order the death of Mary and complained that Henry did not proceed against Mary and Katherine. She imagined that they were a direct threat to her. Now all this makes her sound dangerous and terrible, but as has been pointed out, she was under a lot of strain and may not have really known what she was saying. A person in a psycotic crisis may not even remember what they have done or said, this could be the case with Anne. While making threats to have Mary killed is shocking, indeed it cannot be excused; there is another side to the character of Anne that would suggest that this threat could not be taken serious. Anne had made efforts to approach and help Mary, only to be rebuked and met with hardfaced defiance from the eighteen year old, defending her position and that of her mother. Anne in the end lost her temper and backed by Henry ordered Mary to be punished. For Mary, however, she was to learn that Henry was behind much of Anne's attacks on her as he continued to bully her after Anne was executed. Anne realized that her remarks were foolish and appears to have come through her dark period by the Summer of 1535 when she accompanied Henry on a triumphal progress and returned having conceivd Henry's son. It was the tragic loss of this son that allowed her enemies to bring her down with the lies against her in May 1536.
ReplyDeleteAnne was also very generous and intelligent, she was charming and is known to have helped people in prison for their reformed beliefs, she lent money to at least one lady in waiting; she doubled the amount of money given to the poor, although you can be synical about this as political movements; she held a high moral standard; she kept a Bible for everyone to read, she appears to have been gracious even when those who hated her came into her presence, she sought to do justice with the money and buildings from the monastries and not to give these to greedy nobles; she challenged Cromwell when he went too far and she gained a good reputation for social justice. Anne had periods of insecurity; she lashed out during these times, but she was not a hateful bitch and she did not deserve to die. She was innocent of the charges against her and the victim of a plot by her enemies. We don't know what sort of queen she would have been long term, she was cut off before she could really win people over. It is a shame that she did not give Henry a son; the alternative to him having another four wives would be fascinating.
Anne Boleyn was no saint, nore was she a bitch, she was human and she had some unfortunate moments of unguarded loss of temper, allowing her tongue to run away with itself and brashness. Even as queen she did not show close regard to her behaviour or views as she should have done as Queen and a Christian. For example during 1534/5 Anne was having trouble conceiving a child and she appears to have become obsessed and afraid of Princess Mary. She may have been depressed at the time and others remarked that her behaviour appeared to be erratic. If she was clinically depressed or insecure, for example, it is possible that she could have made remarks which she later regretted during times of crisis. There are signs also that she may also have turned to drink to mask her symptoms, as she was having problems sleeping, was erratic, had lapses of memory, nightmares and this was noted during a public visit of the ambassador of France when she made jokes at his expense. She did not hide the fact that she believed Henry was seeing other women and quarrelled with him openly, she became more critical and she showed abusive behaviour towards her ladies that she suspected of being his mistress. It was in the middle of this period that she sent for her brother in the middle of the night and made threats to order the death of Mary and complained that Henry did not proceed against Mary and Katherine. She imagined that they were a direct threat to her. Now all this makes her sound dangerous and terrible, but as has been pointed out, she was under a lot of strain and may not have really known what she was saying. A person in a psycotic crisis may not even remember what they have done or said, this could be the case with Anne. While making threats to have Mary killed is shocking, indeed it cannot be excused; there is another side to the character of Anne that would suggest that this threat could not be taken serious. Anne had made efforts to approach and help Mary, only to be rebuked and met with hardfaced defiance from the eighteen year old, defending her position and that of her mother. Anne in the end lost her temper and backed by Henry ordered Mary to be punished. For Mary, however, she was to learn that Henry was behind much of Anne's attacks on her as he continued to bully her after Anne was executed. Anne realized that her remarks were foolish and appears to have come through her dark period by the Summer of 1535 when she accompanied Henry on a triumphal progress and returned having conceivd Henry's son. It was the tragic loss of this son that allowed her enemies to bring her down with the lies against her in May 1536.
ReplyDeleteAnne was also very generous and intelligent, she was charming and is known to have helped people in prison for their reformed beliefs, she lent money to at least one lady in waiting; she doubled the amount of money given to the poor, although you can be synical about this as political movements; she held a high moral standard; she kept a Bible for everyone to read, she appears to have been gracious even when those who hated her came into her presence, she sought to do justice with the money and buildings from the monastries and not to give these to greedy nobles; she challenged Cromwell when he went too far and she gained a good reputation for social justice. Anne had periods of insecurity; she lashed out during these times, but she was not a hateful bitch and she did not deserve to die. She was innocent of the charges against her and the victim of a plot by her enemies. We don't know what sort of queen she would have been long term, she was cut off before she could really win people over. It is a shame that she did not give Henry a son; the alternative to him having another four wives would be fascinating.
Anne Boleyn was a bitch, and I think she would have described herself as one, if she had the same vernacular as we do today. She had to be a bitch to become Queen of England.
ReplyDeleteMake no mistake, I'm not saying Anne was one-dimensional or straight-up evil or anything like that. She was a complex person like we all are. We are all made up of good and bad qualities. She was ambitious, intelligent, manipulative, determined, passionate, sexy... She was one helluva interesting woman.
Once Queen, she decided to try to rescue her reputation by becoming "Good Queen Anne"; making her ladies dress modestly, encouraging her ladies in waiting to read the bible, giving to the poor, opposing Cromwell in the dissolution of the monasteries. But it's a bit too late to be a saintly Queen when you court a married man for years and conceive your child with him out of wedlock, and marry him while he's still married to his first wife. Not to mention the poisoning of Fisher, and her hateful behavior to Mary Tudor, and of course Katharine herself.
A bit like trying to put the lid back on Pandora's box. She'd opened up the possibility of a maid of waiting marrying the King; and thus after, it was a possibility, which is something a lot of people find out when they enter into an adulterous liaison and end up marrying: you can't trust someone if your relationship was based on lies and adultery.
As far as her being completely innocent of the charges, I'm not entirely sure of that. Most of the books and movies don't mention this, but she was not raised with her brother. They were completely separated during childhood, and didn't meet until they were at least 20 years old (When Anne came back from France). There is a phenomenon of long-lost-relatives meeting and falling in love. As creepy as it sounds (seriously, EWWW) it happens, at an alarmingly high rate (somewhere around 50% of reconnected relatives have sexual/emotional feelings for one another. Ewww.) So, it's not as preposterous as it sounds. And besides, she had to have a son, at any cost. It was rumored the king couldn't perform his husbandly duties, and her only salvation was a son.... I mean, desperate times call for desperate measures. Who knows how far Anne would have gone to conceive a son?
I'm not saying it happened, but all I'm saying is, well, I find it highly possible.
Did she deserve to die? All I have to say is, when you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die. (Sorry to quote Cercei Lannister from "Game of thrones".) England's throne had a very violent and bloody history, which Anne as an educated woman knew as well as anyone else. She knew she was taking her chances with mortality in becoming queen, and it had nothing to do with Henry, and everything to do with the office of Queen. She knew the risks she was taking. She risked it all, and she ultimately lost. I don't think she would want us to remember her as some kind of saint, a woman who did no wrong and was painted wrongly by Tudor propaganda. I think she was a strong woman who would probably want to be remembered the way she truly was.
"She was a strong woman who would probably want to be remembered the way she truly was" - I agree, even Anne's enemies - such as Thomas Cromwell and Ambassador Chapuys - praised her courage and dignity during the terrible spring of 1536, which ultimately ended with her execution. Chapuys had written some years earlier that Anne had the courage of a lion, and while he did not necessarily mean it as a compliment to her, the picture that emerges of Anne is a determined woman of principles, who was not afraid to speak up about matters close to her heart.
DeleteRegarding your suggestion that Anne may have been guilty of incest, it's worth pointing out that none of her contemporaries appear to have been convinced by the charge - and Anne had many enemies who rejoiced in her downfall. Whether or not Lady Rochford did provide evidence to support the allegations, as some have argued, is open to question, but certainly writers later in the century and during the seventeenth-century believed that she had a part to play in the downfall of her husband and Anne.
"And besides, she had to have a son, at any cost" - Anne was married to Henry VIII for three years (1532/3-6). She was pregnant by him at least two times, possibly three (some historians believe she was not actually pregnant in 1534, but was experiencing a phantom pregnancy). Anne, like her predecessor Katherine of Aragon, did not struggle to conceive. At this point in his life, Henry VIII was probably not impotent. It was not Anne's fault that she miscarried in 1536, and she had given birth to a healthy daughter in 1533. So I disagree with that claim, especially since it seems to have been inspired by Philippa Gregory's novel "The Other Boleyn Girl" - an interesting read, but it is not factual.
Jane Seymour, by the way, initially struggled to conceive and there were rumours that the king was questioning his decision to marry her. Would she have considered sleeping with one of her brothers to become pregnant?
I have written about Anne Boleyn's reputation on this blog before - there is an article from October 2015 that may be of interest to you. Given the scarcity of source material and the gaps, I don't think we can say that she was a "bitch", a modern term that arguably cannot be applied to a sixteenth-century individual living in a very different culture, with different expectations and beliefs.
"She had to be a bitch to become Queen of England" - so, when Jane Seymour became involved with Henry VIII and married him eleven days after the execution of his wife, did she have to be a "bitch" to do so? Likewise, did Katherine Howard have to be a "bitch" to accept her husband's annulment of his marriage to Anne of Cleves in favour of marrying her?
"She decided to rescue her reputation" - there is evidence from before her marriage to Henry VIII that she was interested in evangelicalism. Chapuys believed that she and her father were more Lutheran than Luther himself. Much of what we know of Anne comes from hostile sources, or as I mentioned earlier, there are frustrating gaps. It's difficult to get a true sense of her as a person. I'm not sure you can make a claim like that without supporting evidence.
ReplyDelete"But it's a bit too late to be a saintly Queen when you court a married man for years and conceive your child with him out of wedlock, and marry him while he's still married to his first wife. Not to mention the poisoning of Fisher, and her hateful behavior to Mary Tudor, and of course Katharine herself."
There are so many issues with this claim. Firstly, there is zero evidence that Anne poisoned Bishop Fisher. Again, you seem to have taken that from Philippa Gregory's novel - no modern historian believes Anne was involved. You seem to be suggesting that Anne was responsible for the dissolution of Henry's marriage to Katherine - there is evidence that he had been contemplating an annulment as early as 1514 (when Anne was still a child), and Warnicke has convincingly argued that Henry's desire for an annulment preceded his affair with Anne, who appears to have hoped to marry Henry Percy, later earl of Northumberland. As for Anne's "hateful behavior", I agree that she had a sharp tongue and may have encouraged Henry's actions towards his first wife and eldest daughter, however, Mary's treatment became worse after Anne's execution and it was only after she agreed to sign a declaration testifying to the invalidity of her parents' marriage that Henry reconciled with her.
Again, I find it ironic that you accuse Anne of these things, and yet you do not mention Jane Seymour, who - as Kyra Kramer points out on her blog - did exactly what Anne did, except her marriage was made possible by a beheading, rather than an annulment. However, I recognise that these individuals lived in a very different culture and we cannot view them from a modern perspective, they did not have a wide range of choices available to them, and it is not the responsibility of the historian to sit in judgment on them.
Much of what you claim seems to be influenced by the novels you have read, because no modern historian has argued the points you have raised. There is no evidence that Anne was guilty of incest, and it is not true that she was singlehandedly responsible for the ill-treatment of Katherine of Aragon and her daughter Mary. There is also no evidence that she colluded in Bishop Fisher's poisoning. I suggest reading some serious historical works and then you might find your views become more balanced.
"As far as her being completely innocent of the charges, I'm not entirely sure of that. Most of the books and movies don't mention this, but she was not raised with her brother. They were completely separated during childhood, and didn't meet until they were at least 20 years old (When Anne came back from France). There is a phenomenon of long-lost-relatives meeting and falling in love. As creepy as it sounds (seriously, EWWW) it happens, at an alarmingly high rate (somewhere around 50% of reconnected relatives have sexual/emotional feelings for one another. Ewww.) So, it's not as preposterous as it sounds. And besides, she had to have a son, at any cost. It was rumored the king couldn't perform his husbandly duties, and her only salvation was a son.... I mean, desperate times call for desperate measures. Who knows how far Anne would have gone to conceive a son?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it happened, but all I'm saying is, well, I find it highly possible."
Anne and George were raised together until Anne left for the Continent in summer 1513 and even if they were not raised together why would that make two people go against the norms of their time and their religion to commit a sin like that?
Anne did not have to have a son at any cost. Anne and Henry had only been married for three years and she'd been pregnant three times, that shows that she was fertile and that Henry was able to make her pregnant. If Henry was suffering from erectile problems then it really would not have done Anne any good to get pregnant by another man as it would have been obvious to the king that it wasn't his.
"She knew she was taking her chances with mortality in becoming queen, and it had nothing to do with Henry, and everything to do with the office of Queen. She knew the risks she was taking. She risked it all, and she ultimately lost. I don't think she would want us to remember her as some kind of saint, a woman who did no wrong and was painted wrongly by Tudor propaganda. I think she was a strong woman who would probably want to be remembered the way she truly was."
But Anne didn't set out to play a game of thrones, to become queen. We know from Henry's letters to Anne that she refused his advances and retreated to Hever. He had to bombard her with letters and gifts, and if we take Wyatt's poetry into consideration he had to hunt her down until she submitted. I won't go as far as Karen Lindsey and suggest that Henry's pursuit of Anne Boleyn constitutes sexual harassment, but it was definitely him pursuing her and wearing her down. Once she had submitted to him, she did all she could to support the Great Matter and become queen. I think, like Catherine Parr, she felt it was God's plan for her.
Anne had served Queen Claude for over six years, she knew what it was to be a queen consort, and she fulfilled the role well, acting as an intercessor and patron.
"Once Queen, she decided to try to rescue her reputation by becoming "Good Queen Anne"; making her ladies dress modestly, encouraging her ladies in waiting to read the bible, giving to the poor, opposing Cromwell in the dissolution of the monasteries."
She acted as a patron while she was queen-in-waiting too and there's no evidence that she suddenly changed personality on becoming queen. She was sharing books like Tyndale's "The Obedience..." with ladies before she became queen, which is how it fell into Wolsey's hands, she was helping Reformers, helping rescue reformers who were in trouble for their beliefs (like Bourbon), before she became queen, there was no sudden change.
"But it's a bit too late to be a saintly Queen when you court a married man for years and conceive your child with him out of wedlock, and marry him while he's still married to his first wife. Not to mention the poisoning of Fisher, and her hateful behavior to Mary Tudor, and of course Katharine herself."
ReplyDeleteHenry VIII believed that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was contrary to God's law and that the Pope should never have dispensed of an impediment that was against God's law. He was advised by his canon lawyers that Leviticus had precedence over Deuteronomy, and he believed that his marriage was invalid and that he had never been married to Catherine legally or in the eyes of God. He would not have seen his marriage to Anne as bigamy and he was God's anointed sovereign. We don't know how Anne personally felt about his marriage to Catherine but God's anointed sovereign was telling her that he wasn't legally married. Both Anne and Henry would therefore have seen their union as legal and valid. Chronicler Edward Hall states that they got married in November 1532 on their return from Calais and it does appear that something happened then as it was from that point that they began co-habiting. Of course, at that time, all that was needed for a marriage was a promise between two people and then consummation, that was enough to make a marriage legal and binding.
There is no evidence that Anne had anything to do with the poisoning in Bishop Fisher's household.The cook, Richard Roose, certainly did not implicate the Boleyns.
Regarding Catherine and Mary, Henry VIII expected them to accept the situation as he was God's anointed sovereign and they were expected to submit to him as their husband/father and king. He punished anyone who defied him and they defied him. Was Anne responsible for their treatment? No, but she was of course guilty of not doing anything to prevent it and of encouraging Henry in what he did. Mary certainly blamed her stepmother for her treatment but we know that her treatment got worse after Anne's death and Chapuys even feared for her life, persuading her to submit to her father to save her.
"She knew the risks she was taking" - How so? How could Anne have had any idea of what would happen to her. When had a queen consort ever been plotted against and brought down in such a brutal manner. To paint Anne as someone who set to trap the king, to manipulate the king so that she could get the crown is to give her far too much power and to give Henry none.