This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Why has the hobby-horse of a random American academic (that Anne was born in 1507) been given equal billing with the consensus view of 1501? Warnicke has presented her evidence and failed to convince the academic community. It is extremely unlikely that Anne was a maid-of-honour aged 5 or 6, or that she could've written the letter aged 7 (in her second language). TheMathemagician (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course, correct me if I am mistaken, please. I believe that you are mistaken and referring to the opposite ages, vice versa, as is apparent to me after checking the citation, that the consensus supposedly used to be AD1507 CE and an academic has supposedly proven that Anne was not a child-prodigy but rather was born in AD1501 CE.W124l29 (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I have just searched, and found numerous sources stating that Warnicke said 1507, in contrast to a consensus for 1501, and not a single one giving it the other way round, so it seems that the original post above was right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia style question: New style versus Old style dating
Looking at the coronation date, some other dates aswell, this article not standing alone with regard to my question: are Old style & New style, Julian & Gregorian respectively, to be noted and/or differentiated? If not, then why? If not, then being as that it's not a rule I'd assume, then I would like to argue to amend accepted policy.W124l29 (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The 'Downfall and execution' says 'Another possible cause of the miscarriage was an incident in which, upon entering a room, Anne saw Jane Seymour sitting on the lap of Henry. After flying into a rage, Henry soothed her, saying "peace be sweetheart, and all will be well."' The wording makes it sound like Henry flew into a rage and then soothed Anne, but I assume Anne flew into a rage? If so, can the wording be clarified? Sadiemonster (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
In the template at the bottom of this article, Henry Percy is listed as Anne's husband. Why? Even if someone was attempting to argue canon law, if we list Percy this way, we'd have to list the Duke of Lorraine as Anne of Cleves's husband as well, and so on. Chaos would ensue.
I guess I'm just very confused as to how this ever got there or why it's stayed. Any objections to its removal? History Lunatic (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)History Lunatic
The template was edited to remove Percy as "Husband," then after further discussion on the template Talk page, he was removed as "Betrothed" as well because no actual pre-contract was ever proven. On 13 June user TonytheTiger undid the edit, pointing out that the article does refer to a "secret betrothal" between Anne and Percy, but we should have had discussion on whether to relist Percy as Betrothed or edit the article to reflect that said betrothal was never proven. As I said on the template Talk page, Percy's wife Mary Talbot claimed in 1532 that her marriage was invalid because Percy had a pre-contract with Anne; Percy took an oath on the sacrament in front of the Duke of Norfolk, the archbishops, and the king's cannon lawyers that there was no pre-contract. Chapuys wrote in July 1532 that the oath was taken before the king's Council. And in 1536 Percy was questioned again on the matter by Archbishop Cranmer and again swore there was no pre-contract. He and Anne may have planned to marry, but a "secret betrothal" with no contract or consummation is very different from a binding betrothal under canon law. This is an important point because if such a betrothal did exist, Percy could have been executed in 1536. Unless someone can show proof that there was a pre-contract, Percy should be removed from the template.
"A verbal contract ain't worth the paper it's written on", as Sam Goldwyn didn't quite say. You are clearly right that Percy cannot be listed as betrothed unless the majority of sources say the engagement happened. What he himself says proves nothing in a sense, what would he say? It would be good to list Percy in some capacity as involved in the story, and I wonder if a more accurate description could be found. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Having read the linked article, it seems an informal betrothal, or private intent to marry, took place. Mmmmmmmmm??? Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)