Suzannah Lipscomb's theories on Anne Boleyn

The highlight of the BBC's Talk Tudor day for me was Suzannah Lipscomb's theory on the fall of Anne Boleyn.  Later this month the BBC will show a drama/documentary on Anne's fall in which Suzannah takes part, and she recently wrote the cover article for April's BBC History magazine on Anne Boleyn.  This post is a short precis on the theories highlighted by Suzannah.

1.  That Anne was actually guilty.  There is no credible evidence for this, and the only historian who seriously considers Anne to be guilty is G W Bernard.  His recent book was titled 'Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions'.  Snappy title, but with weak arguments for Anne's guilt.  Bernard seems to be saying there was 'no smoke without fire' and thus condemns Anne.  Even though the dates Anne was supposed to have committed adultery prove it impossible for her to have done so, Bernard even tries to make the argument that the actual dates don't really matter.

2.  Thomas Cromwell conspired with the Seymours to displace Anne with Jane Seymour, and Anne's fall was the result of faction.   Anne supposedly found out that Cromwell was syphoning off money from dissolved monasteries.  This theory was the foundation of the recent Howard Brenton play 'Anne Boleyn'.  Lipscomb discards this theory in that she feels it represents Henry as a king easily manipulated by his ministers and courtiers.

3.  That Henry had tired of Anne, especially after her recent miscarriages, (although we don't know how many she had, and the report that the last one had been deformed can be discounted as being invented by the anti-Elizabeth  Catholic Nicholas Sander), fallen in love with Jane Seymour and asked Thomas Cromwell to rid him of Anne.  This is the theory that I have always subscribed to.  I think Anne's age, and I think she was born in 1502, would have been against her in 1536, and having miscarried on possibly as many as 3 babies,  Henry had tired of her, and his infatuation burnt out, decided to break from her.  He didn't want to jeopardise any future children with Jane Seymour, and so it wasn't enough for Anne to be divorced, she had to die.  She would never have gone quietly.  The fact that Henry would allow himself to be seen as a cuckolded husband I put down to the choice and number of victims - that Anne was so full of lust, and so vile, no man was safe from her - a lowly musician, Henry's friends, and worst of all, her own brother.

4.  Lipscomb believes that having been told by Thomas Cromwell there was gossip about his Queen, spread by Elizabeth, Lady Worcester, Henry instructed Cromwell to investigate, with the warning that should the gossip be untrue, he would destroy those who had spread malicious stories about Anne.  This was certainly an incentive for Cromwell to 'find' evidence.  What I find interesting about this theory is Lipscomb's take on Jane Seymour.  There is evidence that Henry paid court to ladies of the court, and may have taken some as his mistress.  Jane Seymour, by rejecting Henry in the first instance, became an idealised love for Henry - in the game of courtly love.  Lipscomb believes Henry was not serious about her.  And there is evidence that Anne's fall was sudden - and she had been in as much favour as ever with Henry in April 1536.  Having been charged with finding evidence against Anne on pain of death, Cromwell made certain he found it, even if he invented it.  The crux of Lipscomb's argument is the fall-out Anne had with Henry Norris, one of Henry's loyal friends.  Chiding him for not marrying one of her ladies, Anne is reported to have said 'you look for dead men's shoes, for if ought came to the king, you would look to have me'.  Playing her own games of courtly love, Anne had gone too far.  Norris was appalled at what she said.  Anne herself regretted what she had said in the Tower.  It was treason to even 'imagine' the king's death, whilst Anne had actually spoken of it.  It is this conversation that Lipscomb feels tipped Henry over the edge.  After abruptly leaving the May day celebrations, Henry questioned Norris himself - there is a story he even offered Norris his life if he confessed.  Norris would not.  Lipscomb feels that this conversation did not convince Henry - in fact, it had the opposite effect, and he became convinced Anne was guilty.  Lipscomb feels that Henry married Jane Seymour on the re-bound - he was certainly heard to regret his marriage when commenting there were other beautiful ladies at the court and he had married too hastily.  Hmmm, so Henry could play courtly love games, but not Anne!

Despite the countless books, films, tv programmes, we still don't know why Anne Boleyn fell.  Evidence has either been destroyed or lost.  I still think theory number 3 the most obvious, but look forward to reading more about theory number 4.  I asked Suzannah Lipscomb if she intended to write her own book on Anne Boleyn, but she said no.  I really think she should!

BBC’s Talking Tudor Day

On Sunday,  April 28^th I attended the BBC’s Talking Tudor event at the M shed museum in Bristol.  It was organised in conjunction with BBC history magazine, and sold out very quickly.  It was the chance to meet 6 acclaimed historians who have written about the Tudors.  They all gave a talk for about 35 minutes on various topics.  These were –

·         Chris Skidmore, author of ‘Bosworth’, ‘Edward VI’ and ‘Death and the Virgin’ (all of which I have).  He was there to talk about Bosworth and the birth of the Tudor dynasty.

·         Thomas Penn, author of the brilliant ‘Henry VII, the Winter King’, one of my recommended books.  He gave a talk on aspects of Henry VII financial policies.

·         Robert Hutchinson, author of books on Thomas Cromwell, the early and later life of Henry VIII and a very good book on Walsingham, Elizabeth’s spymaster, (again, I have all these).  He spoke about the Spanish Armada.

·         Suzannah Lipscombe, author of ‘1536, the year that changed Henry VIII’  a very good insight into Henry VIII’s character, and ‘A Visitor’s Companion  to Tudor England’.   Her focus was ‘The Anne Boleyn controversies’ (she’d written an article for the magazine in March).

·         Steven Gunn -  who has done research into accidents to ‘ordinary’ Tudor folk, and who assisted Chris Skidmore in his book on Amy Robsart by finding the documents on her inquest.

·         Anna Whitelock, author of a new book on Elizabeth 1^st, and the only one I did not have a book by.

The event was very well attended and each historian gave a talk and then took questions.  I enjoyed all the talks given by the historians,  and in particular the talk by Suzannah Lipscombe on Anne Boleyn, although I don’t necessarily agree on her conclusion as to why Anne had to die.   All were very engaging, and I surprisingly enjoyed Steven Gunn’s presentation about accidental death in Tudor times – it gave a good insight into the dangers of work faced by ordinary folk, be it falling from a tree to shake down acorns for pigs to feed on, to toppling into a stream trying to gather large leaves in order to put freshly baked loaves on to cool.  Particularly moving were the accounts of those accidents involving children,  for example a 9 year old child being taught how to handle a cart by his father, getting carried away and the cart over-turning, and the little girl making mud pies who fell back into a ditch. 

Of course, in choosing the Tudors, the BBC picked a ‘hot topic’, but it is to be hoped they carry on with these events.

 

 

Inside Tewkesbury Abbey

My last post focused on the battle of Tewkesbury in 1471, and as promised, here are some pictures from inside the Abbey.   It's a remarkable place when you consider who is buried there.  This brass plaque marks the resting place of the Lancastrian Prince of Wales, Edward, son of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou. He is buried near the altar but it is not known exactly where.

 

It isn't known if the prince was killed in battle or executed shortly afterwards.  One account mentions him seeking mercy from his treacherous brother-in-law, George, Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV.   George was married to the Earl of Warwick's elder daughter, whilst the prince had married the younger, Anne Neville, who would of course go on to marry Edward and George's younger brother, Richard, then Duke of Gloucester, later King.  Another account has the captured prince being brought before Edward IV and defiantly claiming his birthright.  Edward then allegedly struck him and his men then fell upon the prince and killed him.  Whatever happened, IMO, there was no way Edward would have left Tewkesbury alive.

 

 

Ironically, Clarence himself ended up being buried at Tewkesbuy when he again fell foul of his brother Edward.  Grief-stricken over the death of his duchess, Isabel, in childbirth, Clarence hanged the servant who had cared for her without any trial and antagonised the king.  He was arrested, taken to the Tower of London, and legend has it, drowned in a butt of malmsey wine.  His remains, and those of his duchess, are kept in a vault under Tewkesbury Abbey and there is no access.  They are contained in a glass case, and recently, research into them has claimed they may not be his remains as they appear to be of someone much older.  Edward IV and his brother George were completely ruthless, and it therefore makes sense to me that their younger brother Richard was influenced by them and was equally, if not more, ruthless than them.  

 

The grating that covers the resting place of George and his wife, Isabel, the plaque explaining their burial arrangements, and a picture of the glass case containing their remains.  You cannot see this glass case through the grill.

 

 

The Abbey is also the resting place for the many of the de Clare and Despencer families.  Eleanor de Clare was the niece of Edward II, and was married to Hugh Despencer, the later favourite of Edward II (after the murder of Piers Gaveston of course).  To find out more about Despencer, read Kathryn's well-researched blog Edward II,  here   For some reason, his tomb has another sarcophagus placed on top of it.

 

 

 

 



Tales of Tewkesbury

I've been to Tewkesbury about 3 times in the last 4 years.  Before that, I hadn't been for quite some time.  My interest in the place was re-ignited after reading Susan Higginbotham's novel 'The Queen of Last Hope', about Margaret of Anjou.  Of course, it was at Tewkesbury that Margaret's last hope was lost - her 17 year-old son was killed at the battle, and her husband Henry VI 'died' in the Tower of London shortly after and Margaret herself was taken captive.  You can read about the battle here -
Battle of Tewkesbury .

Last Year, I decided to walk the battlefield - easier said than done!  I naively assumed it would be well sign-posted and there would be plenty of others walking the route on a sunny July day.  This was mainly because I'd walked Bosworth and that walk was well signposted with lots of information and the standards of those taking part were flying so you could gauge what it might have been like.   It turned out to be just me, which was unfortunate, because I have huge problems reading maps - and very few signposts or even memorials.  It took me through a huge housing estate, pass a  graveyard, (not form the time of the battle), across the main road into Tewkesbury, onto a hew housing estate, through a very muddy field, pass local government offices and then through a small wooded area.  I was trying to get an idea of the battle - the camp of Queen Margaret etc, but it proved very difficult, and signposts were few and far between.  Anyway, it took me a good hour.  I only passed one memorial and the odd plaque.  Strangely enough, the lasting memorial to the battle is on the new housing estate - the names of the roads are called 'Battle Way', 'Meadow Road', etc, and I wonder if the people living there realised the view from their windows was of 'bloody meadow'.  My imagination running away from me, I wondered if they ever heard anything at night.  Maybe they know nothing of what happened there.

I did a short study of the battle for my dissertation, and being the staunch Lancastrian I am,  was appalled at the behaviour of the Yorkists after the battle - dragging Lancastrians from the sanctuary of Tewkesbury Abbey (which was an important fact for me in my study of Richard III - the Yorkists were no respectors of sanctuary, and Elizabeth Woodville must have known if she did not hand over her younger son to Richard III, he wouldn't hesitate to break the sanctuary at Westminster Abbey),  and executed them without trial.  I'll re-visit this in another post.  There's a memorial to those victims in Tewkesbury.  In the meantime, here are some of my photos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latter picture shows the memorial in the town centre.  The museum is  worth a visit, as it has some artifacts from the battle - but don't expect too much.  The town is a pretty town and is known as the town with the flags as it flies all the colours of those who took part in the battle.  I find it quite ironic that the Abbey contains the remains of George, Duke of Clarence and his brother-in-law, Edward, the Lancastrian Prince of Wales.  It is also the final resting place of Hugh Despencer, the younger. I'll post pictures from inside the Abbey next time.

 

 

The Prince in the Pay and Display

Just got back from Tewkesbury and have exciting news regarding the burial and discovery of the remains of Edward, Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou, killed in the battle of Tewkesbury 1471.  I took these pictures from the window of the John Moore museum in Tewkesbury, and as a staunch Lancastrian,  rushed in and congratulated the museum attendant.  The pictures speak for themselves.

I do hope you are all able to read the writing and see the pictures clearly.  Clicking on the pictures should enlarge them.  What a wonderful day to be in Tewkesbury, Monday, APRIL 1st.

Liebster Blog Award

Many thanks to  Kathryn  for giving me a Liebster (German for 'favourite') Blog Award!  It's going to be tough for me!

The rules of the Liebster Award are as follows :

1. Thank your Liebster Blog Award presenter on your blog and link back to the blogger who presented this award to you.
2. Answer the 11 questions from the nominator, list 11 random facts about yourself and create 11 questions for your nominees.
3. Present the Liebster Blog Award to 11 blogs of 200 followers or less who you feel deserve to be noticed and leave a comment on their blog letting them know they have been chosen.
4. Copy and Paste the blog award on your blog.

So here goes with answering the Kathryn's questions -
1. What's your favourite novel and what do you love about it?

I'm afraid I have to go with one of the most popular novels of all time - 'Wuthering Heights' by Emily Bronte.  I studied it for A Level English, and have read it so many times since.  I love the use of the different narrators to tell the story - Nelly Dean, and the total outsider, Lockwood.  The speech where Cathy talks about her love for Heathcliff  is so powerful, and reveals for me how egotistical Cathy is.  I'm afraid I have very little sympathy for her.  I visited Bronte Parsonage last year, and was quite moved to see the fantasy world invented by the sisters.

2.  Do you have any pet peeves in historical fiction?

Where do I start?  I'm appreciative of interpretation, but when I get people telling me 'The Other Boleyn Girl' is a true story, and see Phillippa Gregory on chat shows talking how it could be possible Mary Boleyn's children were Henry VIII's, I seriously lose it.  I also hate lazy stereotyping whenever Piers Gaveston and Edward II are written about.  They are usually effeminate and weak, when in fact Piers was a knight who was praised for his graceful manners and had fought in wars and tournaments and clearly knew how to, whilst Edward enjoyed outdoor pursuits, clearly didn't mind getting his hands dirty and must have been extremely fit.  And coming back again to interpretation - the idea of Piers as some rent boy is too ridiculous for words!

3.  What are you most proud of?

Passing my driving test - yes, really.  Never had problems with anything academic - A levels, BA degree, Post grad diploma - but trying to pass my driving test was a nightmare - 3 attempts!  I'm afraid I have poor spacial awareness.

4.  Your favourite and least favourite people in history? (As few or as many as you like!)
Hmm, favs first - Anne Boleyn, Piers Gaveston, Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Cromwell, Henry VII, Katherine Parr, Edward II, King John, Prince Arthur (Tudors).

Least fav - Richard III, without a doubt!  Thomas of Lancaster,  Thomas More.

5.  The country, city or other place you'd most like to visit?

Moscow, and any country in South America.

6.  Which five people would you invite to your fantasy dinner party?

Anne Boleyn, Piers Gaveston, Edward II, Henry VIII and George, Duke of Clarence.

7.  Facebook or Twitter or neither?

neither - they cause alot of problems for people, and Twitter in particular seems so banal.

8.  What's one of your goals for the future?

To finally complete my Masters.

9.  What's your favourite season?

Autumn

10.  Dogs or cats or neither?

Cats, without a doubt.

11.  What's your favourite hobby?

Reading, when I get time.  If I can't give at least an hour to reading, I don't really bother.  Nothing like a 3 hour reading session - I just don't get enough time.


11 random facts, eh?  OK, here I go.

I live in Wales and wish I spoke 'proper Welsh'.

I'd love to take up horse-riding.

From the age of 10, I read every Jean Plaidy novel I could get my hands on - my fav being 'Murder Most Royal'.

If I won the lottery I'd open a small animal sanctuary.

Best holiday I ever had was in Cuba on the revolutionary trail.

Best castle I've visited - Warwick.

Best tv series ever for me is Blackadder, and I quote it endlessly.

My favourite music to listen to is the New Romantics from the early 1980s.

I'm a member of the Royal Historical Palaces society, and my most visited place is the Tower of London.

My favourite period of history is Tudor, and it's the one I know most about.  It's also the one I'm most disappointed in, in novels and 'factual' works - it's just so exploited and to have factual books about 'Mary Boleyn' and 'The Early Loves of Anne Boleyn' when there is so little information is just silly.  I tend to buy them, read them, and then discover I've learnt absolutely nothing new as it's all full of 'maybes, possibly', and I vow never to buy again - and then I do! 

My degree was in Medieval history, with the main focus on the Anjevin Empire and Medieval Peasant Revolts (Bohemia, Florence and Britain).

Now here's where I come unstuck - I don't know 11 blogs who haven't already been awarded the Liebster Award!  Sorry!

snippet of news on Edward II in BBC History magazine

The March issue of the BBC History magazine is consumed by the discovery of Richard III's skeleton and it's impact on history.  Mark Ormrod has written an article in which he questions whether the same investigations might now be carried on other royal burials.  The obvious one would be the urn in Westminster Abbey containing the bones of 'the little princes', but both the Queen and the Abbey say they have no reason to doubt they are the bones of the princes, and any examination would not answer any questions we might have.  Ormrod actually suggests something which has crossed my mind - an investigation into the tomb of Edward II, to discover whether -

1.  the body contained in it is Edward II

2.  and if so, the age of the king when he died.

This obviously stems from the story that Edward II survived after 13 27, and the body in the tomb is either a substitute or in fact Edward interred at a later date.  I obviously appreciate respect is needed for the opening/investigating of royal tombs, but the mystery of the possible survival of Edward II is as exciting to me as 'the princes in the Tower'.  Ian Mortimer and Kathryn on her superb blog - 
Death of Edward II - make a strong case that Edward did indeed survive, and one of the most compelling arguments for me is the fact that his son, Edward III, did not visit his father's tomb for many years, and it begs the question, why?   Because he knew the tomb did not contain his father's body?  and when he did visit, was it because his father had really died then and he was attending the actual funeral?  makes sense to me.