Talk:George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford

Why is there no mention of George and Lady Jane Rochford's child? There was only one--a son, I believe, who is not well known because people preferred to believe that George was either: a.) a homosexual b.) a womanizer, but a wife-hater. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KEB (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2006 July 12.

There is no mention of it because it isn't true. Neither is there any evidence that George was a homosexual or that he had a bad relationship with his wife; there is evidence he was, like many young men of the period (and now), a womaniser. He and Jane had no children. When a man named George Boleyn, dean of Lichfield later gained prominence, some later historians assumed he was their son; he was a distant cousin. If there had been a son, there would have been records of it, and he would have inherited the earldoms of Ormonde and Wiltshire. Boleyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Henry Carey, Mary Boleyn's son with William Carey (or King Henry VIII, as some would see it), not inherit Will Carey's lands and titles? So, isn't it possible for George's son not to have inherited the lands? And while the user didn't say George was a womanizer or wife hater, I think there is sufficient evidence that George and Jane Parker didn't have a good relationship--namely, the fact that she gave a testimony that he'd had a sexual relationship with Anne, which was (most probably) a lie. There's also evidence in numerous of my Boleyn-centered history books. I'm just trying to see what evidence there is that he wasn't their son because I have books that say he was, and I think if there's not sourcable evidence then the facts I have about George's son should be included rather than having the article out-and-out say George of Lichfield wasn't George Boleyn's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.76.79 (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Will Carey had very few possessions to pass onto his children, but they were passed on. It was some of Henry Carey's grandfather's possessions that weren't passed on in full. There is no definitive evidence that Jane Boleyn gave evidence against her husband and sister-in-law; she was not a witness at the trial. The 'information' they said they had gained from her was read out, but this may have been as twisted or completely made-up as the dates and places Anne was said to have committed adultery, which could not possibly have ben true. The main 'evidence' from her was that they had spent time together alone in Anne's rooms. If they asked her specifically if this had ever happened and she replied yes, then there is no indication of malice, and this is the argument of Julia Fox in the only biography of Jane Boleyn. I may be wrong, but I think you'll find most of your books stating the 'fact' that George was their son are over twenty years old and based on an outdated idea, but I'd be interested to be proved wrong on that. Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The book "The Other Boleyn Girl" sparked the rumors that George was gay. It's a very good book, but very inaccurate. In real life, he wasn't gay, and probably never slept with his sister, Anne.

Possibility that Boleyn girls could have been educated at Oxford

Sometimes Wikipedia descends to silliness. Women were not admitted to Oxford before the nineteeth century at the earlieat possible date. To suggest that (as the article does) that it was only a matter of choice or intellectual inadequacy that prevented the Boleyn girls from going to Oxford suggests that the users of the Wiki have no knowledge of history whatsoever. I suggested inserting the interpolation '(women couldn't)'. Chasnor15 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image of George Boleyn

I have removed this. It said it was based on historical references, but I could not find any sources which describe George's looks. Although if you click on the image, it explains that it is a recent portrayal and not a copy of a sixteenth-century portrait, I feel this could easily mislead people who don't click for more information. I found it interesting, but felt it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia article on the subject. Boleyn2 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)