Talk:Anne Boleyn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Her children

I have changed the information on Anne's offspring. I have never come across a source from a professional historian saying that the two stillborn boys had been named 'Henry ' and 'Edward'. If someone's got references otherwise (and not just from the internet), then please add them back in. 'Edward Tudor' was linked to a son of Henry VII and 'Henry Tudor' to a disambiguation page which did not feature any children of Anne's. Boleyn (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, somebody is pushing a rather odd line here. It is certainly not normal practice to give names to stillbirths, or include them in a list of people's children. To compound the problem, there appears to be a degree of uncertainty or dispute about just how many miscarriages or stillbirths Anne may have had (this could also be true of a few other historical figures). PatGallacher (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Names were only given as part of the Baptism ceremony and stillborn babies were not baptised so they could not have had names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.27.116 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling on someone to indicate the pronunciation of Boleyn

Would someone please add an indication of pronunciation of 'Boleyn' to the opening sentence? Thank you. Hurmata (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's normally pronounced Bull'in. At least, that is how I've always heard it pronounced. As to it's being included in the opening sentence, I have no problems with the inclusion, but the other editors would need to agree.--jeanne (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

From everthing I've read over the years, the pronunciation at the time was BULL-n or BOHL-n. Nowadays, the more common pronunciation on both sides of the Atlantic seems to be bow-LINN. I suspect this is because it's more melodious when combined with "Anne": ANNE bow-LINN -- DUH-duh-DUH. My take on it, anyway. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always heard Bull-LINN, with the accent on the second syllable. Sounds more harmonious upon the ears than BO-linn or BULL-n.--jeanne (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The pronounciation I have always heard and used is Bow-Linn. I've never actually heard of another pronounciation, although it doesn't surprise me there are other claims, historical figures are notoriously debated like this. Sky83 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Anne's Heart in Suffolk?

I read someone say that Anne's heart ended up being buried under a church organ somewhere in Suffolk, but I haven't been able to find any reliable verification. I'd be checking my Ives and Starkey, but that would require my local bookstores to carry something on Anne Boleyn that wasn't written by Philippa Gregory. Can anybody help? KyrieEleison (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would Anne's heart be buried in Suffolk? She had no associations with the county of Suffolk. Norah Lofts, in her biography on Anne Boleyn, claims there was a legend that Anne's body was secretly buried in Norfolk, but nothing about her heart or Suffolk.--jeanne (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

KyrieEleison is right - there is a legend/rumour her heart was stolen and hidden in a church near Thetford, in Suffolk. I have heard this mentioned many times, but of course it can never be proven. The only source for this I have at hand is Williamson's "British Royalty". If I can found more I may place it in the article if no-one strongly objects. Paul75 (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as you stress that's it's a rumour you may, providing a reliable source.--jeanne (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I'm curious as to how her heart could have ended up in Suffolk when she had no personal or familial links with that county. Wolsey was a native of Ipswich but Anne's paternal forebears were from Norfolk. They have, in point of fact, been traced to a hamlet called Salle. I have wished to mention the fact that after Matilda of Scotland, Anne Boleyn was the first Queen consort of England to possess a significant amount of English ancestry, from the Boleyns (Bullens) as well as the Howards who were originally of Saxon origin and formerly spelled their surname Hereward.--jeanne (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why her heart ended up in Suffolk, if indeed it did. Possibly some of her supporters/friends thought it would be safer in a place with no connection to her life. I'm sure if it was her family who took it, it would have ended up in Kent or Norfolk. I would imagine it was a crime to steal the body part of a condemned traitor, hence the secrecy. As I said, I only have one book to hand that mentions this rumour, although I have read it many times. I'll do some more digging and see what I can find. Paul75 (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jane was buried immediately after her beheading, in the chapel nearby. I don't think there was any opportunity for her heart to be removed, which would have been a very tricky and time-consuming operation that could not have been done in secret. No doubt the authorities buried her quickly to prevent any legends, relics, etc., creating a cult. qp10qp (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, first things qp10qp, I think you need to look a bit closer at the article and get Anne's name correct. Secondly, it is entirely feasible that Anne's heart was removed from her body before burial. After her beheading, Anne's body was left, deserted, on the scaffold. It was up to her ladies-in-waiting to remove the body, and place it in an arrow box and then convey it to the church for burial. There would easily have been time and opportunity to remove the heart. Despite this, it is only a rumour and it quite possibly not true. On the other hand, with the facts we have of her execution, it is also possible to be a fact. Paul75 (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Thetford legend/ rumour I have not heard before and with the little research I have just done Thetford has always, like now, been in Norfolk. The locals of the Shotley peninsular have always been aware of the link and burial story, (the old street and house names etc tell a story) , but it still might just be a legend.Edmund Patrick – confer 16:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Boleyn or Bullen

Wasn't Anne's surname originally Bullen, and changed to Boleyn to give it a more aristocratic and less plebian appearance? Almost all of her biographers say this. The Bullens were of old Anglo-Saxon ancestry which was not a plus in the 16th century. The version Boleyn appeared more Norman.--jeanne (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What do the other editors think about including the various spellings of Boleyn in the article? Bullen, Bulleyne, Boleyne, Boulleyne, Boullaye,etc. It's just an idea. I shall not add it unless I get the green light from Boleyn, Pat Gallacher, Ian Rose, etc.--jeanne (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Providing they're sourced, yes, I'd agree with including the alternate spellings. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can source them, but where should they be placed? In the opening paragraph or Early years section?--jeanne (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think either would be fine; my personal preferences is for early years. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I was only able to source Bullen and Boullan. I cannot locate the other books that give Bulleyne and Boullaye.When I find them, I'll add the other names. How does it look ? I placed them as you sugggested in the Early years section.--jeanne (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it, thank you, Jeanne. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine to address this, so long as it's in the right place and not too lengthy. I'm not convinced, personally, that there was a family decision to change 'Bullen' to 'Boleyn', particularly as there were various versions used during Anne's lifetime - the portrait has 'Anna Bollina' - but as people are interested in this, I think it's worth adding a couple of sentences. Thanks, Jeanne. Boleyn (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Media

I think that this is a very informative article thank you. I would however like to seek clarification on the following passage: " ... In the film she is shown as an opinionated and ambitious character. When Anne finally does marry the king, she realises she is not as high as she once was. (The book does not depict Anne as much of a tyrant as the film does). "

The section in brackets does not make sense to me, someone else may be able to suggest a more correct phrasing, however I think it is trying to say that "the book does not depict Anne as as much of a tyrant as the film does", ie that the film depicts Anne as more of a tyrant than the book.

If this is what is intended by the passage, I would also have to disagree. The book definitely delves further into Anne's character, and depicts many more cruel and calculating aspects of her behaviour (however fictitious). The film skims over much of this and depicts an ambitious young girl who goes after what she wants, but lacks the detail included in the book.

This is just my opinion but I would like to see the passage clarified a little.

Ozigirlinchina (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the wording a bit, so that it doesn't need the duplicate "as". It now read "The book depicts Anne as less of a tyrant than the film does." As for the statement's accuracy, I haven't read the book so I offer no opinion. However, given that this is opinion in the first place, I wouldn't object if somebody deleted the sentence. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Other issues

The dates of some of the British productions may well have accurately reflected their American release, but they didn't match the dates for the original British release given in IMDB. I changed the dates to match IMDB's dates. I also presented them in order, and clearly separated the books from the dramatic productions. (I almost deleted one entry that sat neatly between two films because I couldn't find in IMDB. Then I realized it was a book.)—MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary picture

I think for the picture in the info box, we should try and at least get a contempary one, such as:http://www.marileecody.com/sixwives/annehorenbout.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe2kaii7 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the picture that is already there? Would you not agree that the current image is far more attractive and easily recognisable as Anne Boleyn than the one you propose?--jeanne (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matte rf it's attrcative, it is not a contempary imgae it was painted after she died by someone who never met her. I thought you wanted a good artcile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe2kaii7 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have a more attractive picture of this notable piece of Tudor tottie? Perhaps in a 'naughty nightie' or a neglige? Let's have a good gawp at those little duckies that put lead in Henry's pencil. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe they had Playboy magazines in the 16th century, so to find a topless portrait may prove a bit difficult. The image in the Info box is the most recognisable of the many portraits of Anne Boleyn or Tudor tottie as you rather sexistly refer to her. Encylopedias are normally not written to pander to male lust, but if you're interested in knowing "what put lead in Henry's pencil", I suggest you read the article. It explains her powerful charisma, which is usually more sexually stimulating than a pair of bare breasts. Oh, btw, sorry to take lead out of your pencil, but Anne was rather flat-chested.--jeanne (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Boleyn picture

What do the other editors think about including an image of Anne's father in the article?--jeanne (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support it, personally. Sky83 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

The fourth sentence of the second paragraph of the Introduction makes no sense to me. Have some words been dropped? It currently reads: Anne parried the King's advances, refusing to beget an annulment of his marriage to Catherine. I am sure it means something more along the lines of: Anne parried the King's advances, refusing to give way until he had received an annulment of his marriage to Catherine. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't make sense. Feel free to change it. Your phrasing sounds good to me.--jeanne (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say very nice job to the person(s) responsible for the current introduction. Overall this is one of the best written Wikipedia articles I've seen and the introduction in particular is excellent. So thanks! Daqron (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Gorvernment Reforms

On the DVD of "The Other Boleyn Girl", in the "Character Biographies" section, Dr. Polly Ha, professor of early modern British history at USC says: "She was a political player in her own right, and whatever can be said of her motives, it's clear that she had a hand in a number of reforms which would have an enduring impact on English history."

The article should say something about these reforms. Aside from her clear influence in Britain's break with Rome, the article doesn't say much about her political legacy. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I fel this article is very biased, i have had to remove down right lies in this. People dont want to see anything bad about her in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellothereimchloe (talk • contribs) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We have had this discussion before. Please do not remove sourced information without first discussing it here on the talk pages. Even if you do believe the article contains down right lies. Thanks.--jeanne (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly added information regarding Anne Boleyn's political impact, but unfortunately, there seems to be a group (?) of individuals determined to turn this Wiki article into a biased, gossipy rag. I completely revised the entry in October, but found gross errors - both factual and interpretive - had been reinstated by December, 2008. Obviously by people who consider Philippa Gregory and Alison Weir as legitimate sources. I re-wrote the entry on Friday, December 19, correcting the majority of errors, but they were all removed within a day, and again replaced with biased and erroneous information. Please note I am a historian (two MAs in Anne Boleyn subject matter), and have studied her life for forty years. --IRheinwald (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

I have reverted to the previous image of Anne Boleyn in the info box. The image somebody used was awful and completely unrecognisable as Anne.--jeanne (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeanne, Im Chloe (Well my real name is Chloe-Marie but I just go by Chloe), I'm new to Wiki. It's a shame you don't like the image so I've made a consensus (sorry if that isn't the correct spelling. but I have never really come across the word before.)

Image changed?

If you want the image changed to an image of Anne painted from life that is contempary, then say so if you want one that was painted over 64 years after her death, by an artist that had never met or had any connection with her. I strongly support the changing of it.Hellothereimchloe (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not so straightforward. Roy Strong only identified the Horenbout as Anne tentatively, and with a question mark. The two images at present in the article may postdate Anne, but scholars agree they are derivatives of a lost original portrait. In the circumstances, the latter are therefore preferable, in my opinion. Personally, I'm a believer in the curved chin Holbein drawing, but scholarship is highly conflicted on it.qp10qp (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Most people believe this to be Anne, it has her badge the falcon, The truth is that identification of many 16th century portraits is a tricky thing. Experts within the field often disagree; modern-day x-ray studies have also contributed to a reassessment of traditional attribution. I understand that many visitors have a definite 'idea', a fixed idea, of Anne Boleyn's appearance. But the truth is that no one knows what she looked like. Even the famous Holbein sketches cannot be definitively identified as Anne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellothereimchloe (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter so much what most people believe, but what scholars believe, and few have the authority to judge. Strong certainly does, and don't forget that it was Strong who first identified this portrait—which was previously thought to be of Katherine of Aragon or Jane Seymour—as possibly of Anne. Since you have Strong to thank for this scholarship, I believe you should respect his question mark, which means "possibly". I see no reason why the portrait couldn't be added to the article (perhaps there could be a gallery of "possibles" at the bottom, including the two Holbeins?), so long as the caption reflects Strong's caution (I have a reference, if you need it); but it should not go in at the expense of the two derivatives of an original. qp10qp (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I opt to go along with the traditional image of Anne which has always been used for the info box, and is displayed in the National Portrait Gallery, although my personal favourite is the one of her holding the rose. Experts, including her biographer Ives, believe this one is the closest to the original portrait, and it certainly corresponds with contemporary descriptions of Anne. The Horenbout portrait is not only ugly but is of too poor quality and resolution to be placed in the info box.--jeanne (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe Ives is actually in favour of the small portrait in a ring of Elizabeth I to be the most accurate portrayal of Anne. Paul75 (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that the ring and coin images are 3D and therefore copyright. qp10qp (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading Ives, I think he is too dismissive of the Holbein portraits; Holbein's biographer Derek Wilson thinks the one at Windsor is possible, since Cheke named it as Anne in 1542 (Cheke did make mistakes, but not many). There is a theory that the sitter cannot be Anne because she is dressed poorly; but several of Holbein's portraits of reformers have the same characteristics (some of the men are bare-chested, even) so it has been argued that some kind of religious point is being made.qp10qp (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I note that John Rowlands (the finest English-language Holbein scholar, in my opinion) remarks: "As proposed by myself and Starkey, the portrait drawing at Windsor with the inscription Anna Bollein Queen has much about it to recommend its reinstatement as the Queen's portrait. Its rejection by Ives in his brilliant historical study is based on a mistaken disregard of the widely varying value of different supposed likenesses of the Queen; for it is not wise to rely too readily on inferior Elizabethan portraits to form a basis for establishing her appearance ... The circumstantial grounds in favour of the Windsor drawing are really very compelling, and one cannot necessarily cast aside John Cheke's authority for the identification merely because of the confusion over a sitter in the Windsor series being called by him in error 'Mother Iak', Amy Jackson, Edward VI's nurse, whom he did know, with another sitter, Margaret Giggs, foster daughter of Sir Thomas More, whom he almost certainly did not know" (John Rowlands, The Age of Dürer and Holbein, 1988, p. 236). Rowlands is alluding to a mistake made by Cheke which has been used to devalue his identifications; but it seems to me that Giggs, an obscure member of the executed (1535) More's sidelined anti-reformation family, would never have crossed paths with the reforming Cheke, who came from Cambridge to be Edward VI's tutor. Even if Cheke had never seen Anne Boleyn himself, on the other hand, he knew plenty of people who had. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that this portrait, with attached reservations in caption and note of conflicted scholarship, should be in this article. Opinions? qp10qp (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article seems reasonable, but maybe not the infobox. I have qualified & linked the caption to the Michael Sittow K of Aragon, for which the evidence is arguably even less strong, though Vienna accept it with a "?". Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. No, not the infobox; we've got the best sourced one there, though there are enigmas about its derivation. I must do something about that one's image description, which is round itself, now I come to look at it.qp10qp (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, here's a new scan of the drawing (right). I've set out the conflicted scholarship on the image page. I'll put the image into this article soon (with appropriately cautious caption), if no-one objects. Whoever it is, it's a lovely drawing, I think. qp10qp (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not? The more the merrier, although I must confess, it's not my favourite portrait of Anne. My personal favourites are the one with her holding the rose, and the classic portrait which is used in the info box. Holbein always rendered his sitters so unattractive, don't you think? But go ahead and add it to the article. I've no objections to it. What about the portrait of her father, should that be added as well?--jeanne (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

She looks rather matronly and drab to be Anne, but it's possible Holbein painted her in her latter stages of pregnancy, hence the double chin, downcast eyes, and matronly cap. --jeanne (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it might very well not be her, but there's sufficient support from scholars for it to be included as a possible. One theory about the attire is that it was a religious statement, because Holbein drew several other reformers in undergarments, night garments, or even bare-chested (men, in the latter case, of course!). The fact that her hair is coloured blond is a little problematic; but in fact much of the colouring in of Holbein drawings was done by later hands, and I do not think it was his practice to just colour in a strip of hair like this. The picture at the top of the article shows Anne with brown hair, and the rose portrait with black: this is odd because both portraits are thought to have been derived from the same original. Description of her with swarthy looks may have been influenced by prejudice against her. What an enigma she was: it's impossible to pin her down. (Oh, and speaking for myself, I find the Holbein sitter highly attractive. But I probably have odd tastes: this is my kind of gal.) qp10qp (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't believe it's Anne. Doesn't match contemporary descriptions of her. It was accepted that she was dark-haired and dark-eyed. If it is her, it's obviously a bit of a PR job to appease her female subjects. Make her appear modest, drab, matronly, and fair-haired (dark hair being associated with witches). I really don't think it's Anne (I hope not-LOL)--jeanne (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Added now. I agree that the portrait of her father might be worth adding; I'll check it out. I need to alter the image description for our top image, which follows the plainly bonkers NPG caption "late 16th century (circa 1533-1536)". The scholarship shows that this is probably an Elizabethan copy of a lost original done in the 1530s. The same is true of the rose image at Hever, which is clearly derived from the same lost original. The caption to the latter rather gives the impression that the image is contemporary; I think the article needs to make it clear that neither of these images is contemporary. I'll look into it. qp10qp (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed the image description date for the NPG portrait to: "late-16th-century copy of a lost original of c. 1533-1536". qp10qp (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now also changed the caption on the rose portrait to: "Late Elizabethan portrait of Anne Boleyn, probably derived from a lost original of 1533–36". The previous caption quoted Ives's "real Anne Boleyn", but he wasn't talking about this painting in isolation. He was referring to the sequence: ring–Hever/NPG–Hoskins. I think it is better—taking the sum of scholarship into account rather than Ives's opinion alone—to be more cautious and make clear that this portrait is not contemporary.

Something else that struck me, reading through the scholarship, is that (Ives's analysis being challenged by the likes of Rowlands) the hack Elizabethan copies that fulfilled a demand for galleries of kings and queens have no scholarly ascendancy over the sequence of medal-Horenbout-Bradford-Elstrack print, which represents the alternative pattern (the one with the gable hood). I think we should include an image from this tradition, though the medal is 3D and so not available for use. I have a coloured reproduction of the miniature but can find only a black and white of the Bradford Art Gallery picture so far. Anne seems to me ridiculously ugly in the print, but so she does on the medal, which is the only verified contemporary image of her. Medals had very inaccurate likenesses, though, and I think Ives is wrong to deduce so much from the medal image (I mean, even with the change in tastes, I can't believe that Anne Boleyn looked like Nora Batty).qp10qp (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that we have no existing portraits of Anne Boleyn, only the 1534 (damaged) medal, which must more accurately be termed a likeness. We seem to have two basic types of Anne Boleyn portraits: 1.) NPG related images, ostensibly based on a lost Holbein original (all have virtually identical costume, but unfortunately, entirely different faces), and 2.) paintings based upon the Holbein gable hood drawing, labelled as "Anna Bollein" in the late 17th C., which bears no resemblance to the NPG prototype. My conclusion is that the latter must be dismissed. There are others, such as the elaborately costumed "Anne Boleyn" of the George Wyatt biography (Singer edition), also attributed to be a copy of a Holbein; the face, however, is of a distinct and idealized 19th C. female. The Horenbout miniature, despite Sir Roy Strong's assertion, must be dismissed: it was created c. 1525- 1527, bears a pelican (not a falcon, which Anne Boleyn did not adopt until Queen); as well, Horenbout, at the time, was restricted to royal portraits; and dare I say it is antithetical to contemporary descriptions of Anne Boleyn. The c. 1575 ring double portrait is intriguing, but we have no idea how the image was created, or from what source - so it must be approached with great caution. But the strong chin/jaw certainly resembles a full face Holbein drawing of Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey - which is highly significant. It is, nonetheless, the earliest verifiable image of Anne Boleyn. The other Holbein drawing is truly puzzling due to the informal dress and the jawline are inconsistent with what is known of Anne Boleyn. However, I have experimented with it, redrawing the jawline to a more natural position, and have found, surprisingly, the face is not inconsistent with the NPG "Rose" portrait at Hever. In my research on Anne Boleyn's image/iconography, I've also examined paintings of her maternal relatives, the one definitive likeness of Sir Thomas Boleyn (brass at St. Peter's - the Holbein ink drawing of the man in the red cap is not of Sir Thomas), paintings of Elizabeth, and her skeletal remains, as excavated in 1876. However, even though Cheke identified the drawing (a closer attribution than the English hood drawing), I remain ambivalent. I know Drs. Starkey and Ives are also at odds with the work.

--IRheinwald (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much but not all of that. I would take Strong over Ives when it comes to art, though both should be reffed if we mention the miniature (not necessary to mention it, I think). The trouble is that we cannot dismiss things (for the purposes of the article—of course, we can say what we think on this talk page), being only 'umble Wikipedia editors whose job is to summarise positions. I must say I agree with you that the Windsor Holbein is not utterly incompatible with the Hever portrait. I do not think, though, that we have grounds for assuming that this pattern stems from a lost Holbein, only that it stems from a lost original by artist unknown. Ives thinks the Hoskins goes back to a Holbein, but I don't know on what grounds, and I think he is speculating there. I don't think the Holbein gable hood drawing has much scholarly support as Anne, and I have not read that the gable hood tradition relates to it in the way you suggest. The gable hood tradition is entirely separate, starting with the medal and continuing with the Bradford Art Gallery portrait into the Elstrack print. Nice to meet someone else who's interested in such things. qp10qp (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes to "Anne Boleyn"

In October of 2008, I edited the article to a great extent in the interest of balance and historical accuracy. However, I discovered most of my changes had been edited out on December 17, and replaced with massive amounts of erroneous, negative/biased, and often grammatically incorrect information.

The author of these changes relies far too much on Alison Weir's exceptionally poor "Six Wives": Weir is not a historian by any means, only having a teaching certificate and no university training in any subject, let alone history. Her methodologies are deeply flawed and terribly disorganized in "Six Wives", as she makes numerous factual errors, is biased against Anne Boleyn, and reiterates apocryphal stories as absolute truth. Indeed, Weir's book is more assumption than researched historical facts: it must be remembered Philippa Gregory used Weir's account as the basis for her "The Other Boleyn Girl". I have absolutely no idea how Weir obtained some of her information, particularly as the vast majority does not appear in any primary sources. A few examples: she attributes Anne Boleyn's comment "she is my death and I am hers" refers to Mary, not Katherine of Aragon; she mentions a Mrs. Orchard as crying out when Anne Boleyn was sentenced (no such person existed); she implicates Anne Boleyn in Katherine of Aragon's death, and the attempted poisoning of John Fisher without evidence; she places Anne Boleyn in the Queen's House of the Tower of London; she gives Anne Boleyn a block; she claims Henry VIII "strayed sexually" during their marriage (no proof); she claims Lady Margaret Lee, Thomas Wyatt's sister, attended her in the Tower (not true), etc. And that is the tip of the iceberg - virtually every page has factual errors and sweeping assumptions completely out of the scope of responsible methodology. She's utterly irresponsible, and as much a historian as Philippa Gregory.

Dr. Eric Ives is considered the definitive biographer of Anne Boleyn; Dr. David Starkey and Lady Antonia Fraser also deserve high praise, although they do not provide as much detail - Fraser is simply a good, basic introduction. Dr. Ives' methodologies are exceptional, and cannot, under any circumstances, be compared to Weir. They are simply not equals.

To sift and sort primary sources in a critical fashion is the historian's first responsibility; with secondary sources, one must exercise even more caution. Having two MAs in subjects related to Anne Boleyn (MA in history: Anne Boleyn's early years in the Renaissance courts of Margaret of Austria and François I; how they affected her later notions of queenship and monarchy; MA in art history on Anne Boleyn iconography) and forty years of research, I am acutely aware of fact vs. fiction on this subject. Particularly since I've read every source, primary and secondary, on the subject.

I must admit to some distress in seeing the repetition of so many myths/stereotypes and outdated information regarding Anne Boleyn. Historical accuracy and objectivity must remain paramount. After all my hours of work to ensure up to date historical accuracy, I hope this will not happen again. Alison Weir MUST be avoided at all costs - I noted this in the reference list. I had done so before, but discovered the notes had been removed.

I had no choice but to remove the offending errors (again!) and replace virtually everything with accurate information. Some sections still puzzle me, as they are not referenced, and I have never come across the information - even after forty years of research and my grad studies. As a writer and historian, I will not act until I have definitive and objective proof. The Irish heritage in particular; from whence did that spring? The author should have referenced this information. But I will not change it until I know more.

I am frankly horrified to learn that "an army of fifteen year old girls" decided to hijack this entry after seeing that execrable movie. Thankfully, I missed it all, not having looked at this Wikipedia entry for months. I think my next job will be to guard as Cerberus. Ives has certainly dabbled in art history and Anne Boleyn's image - I have an article he published in either 'Apollo' or "Burlington Magazine" (it's a photocopy, and top/bottom parts are missing). Starkey, though, makes art history a secondary passion, and delves much further. In summary, Weir should simply be removed - she is truly horrendous as a historian, and wrong more often than right. Best use early sixteenth century documentation and Dr. Eric Ives.

--IRheinwald (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

--IRheinwald (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Fraser is superior to Weir as a biographer, and I believe that, to date, Dr. Ives is the most reliable authority on Anne. I confess, that I have used Weir as a source, however, I much prefer to cite Fraser as she provides more factual details on Anne's life, and probes deeper into the character and motives of Anne, as well as Henry's other wives--jeanne (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC).

Many thanks for your input to the article, IRheinwald. Your point about Weir and Ives is entirely correct, though Ives is not as strong as certain art historians on the history of Anne's image. The trouble is that "popular" articles like this one draw a lot of poor editing. I don't watch this one closely, being mainly interested in the images, but I try to look after Elizabeth I of England and James I of England, and the job is impossible in the face of constant edits that deteriorate those featured articles. The only way to be really effective on Wikipedia, in my opinion, is to adopt certain articles and guard them like Cerberus. Of course, this leads to accusations of ownership, but the editor with the best sources has a big advantage and should prevail. I'd like to really improve this article myself one day, but it would be two months' work and there are things above it on my list at the moment. In the short-term, by all means change anything back where necessary. qp10qp (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I saved this article from being delisted from GA with some tough love - more or less a complete rewrite by myself. This was needed shortly after that film came out and the article was attacked by an army of 15 year old girls, all eager to "correct" the article. The article passed th GA sweeps and I kept it up (without owning it) until I left wiki about 8 months ago. I may look back to the article that passed the GA sweep and see what has been added that hasn't been cited. The Anne in Popular culture section, for example, was all booted to a sub article because the article couldn't pass GA with it in due to citation problems. I see the section has been replaced and it has now regrown LONGER than the sub article it is supposed to summarize. Also, I see quite a few qualifing statements have been inserted behind citations that are meant to neutralize the very statements that are actually supported by the citations. I'll take a look at it all when I get a chance. BTW, Fraser, Weir, & Ives are all acceptable for this article's purposes. -- Secisek (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Anything said by Weir needs corroborating from another source, in my opinion. Thanks for moving the popular cruft out. qp10qp (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely correct, Qp10qp. Fir instance, Weir describes Anne as petite in stature when contemporary reports say she was of middling height. I use Weir, but prefer to source Fraser. I must obtain Dr. Ives book. Oh, welcome back Secisek. I do recall those girls. They were determined to turn the article into a Mills and Boon/Harlequin romance, complete with poor grammar and spelling. We had to keep up a constant vigil against their disruptive forays. Did you see what they did to the Catherine of Aragon article?--jeanne (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean you have never read Dr. Ives book on Anne Boleyn?!?! It rather takes away any credibility of your arguments if you have never read the most trusted book on Anne....

If you read through the archives and above in earlier discussions I felt that Ives trumped Weir, but I think we may be in for trouble if we dismiss a major, albiet popular and not scholarly, source. Then again, if we have consensus - and it seems we may - then by all means, eliminate the Weir references from the article in favor of "better" ones. -- Secisek (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Complete revert to GA

I will be very, very BOLD. I have reverted the article to the version that passed the GA sweeps review. If anyone feels this is out of hand, be bold and revert my revert. If you feel this was over all a good move, but we have lost some quality, cited material - by all means add it back in. DO as you will. -- Secisek (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Anne's procession through the streets of London and her coronation should be added back in.--jeanne (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone presented cited evidence that Luther opposed the annulment. If this was legit, it NEEDS to be returned to the article. All graphic (artistic) development should be restored as well. -- Secisek (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just added the procession through London back in as it was a dramatic moment of Anne's life, especialy as the cool reaction of the public was not what she and Henry had hoped for.--jeanne (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intent to wipe out months of work, just months of cruft. Please, if this was a good reset, make it more so by adding back any progress that was lost. This article may not be too far from FA if the GA skeleton has the subsequent flesh added back on. -- Secisek (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is never the way to go. You are asking other people to do the tough job of reading through all the edits since the GA and selectively adding them back. This makes hours and hours of work and will further disillusion contributors such as IRheinwald (see their post higher up). Since we all have different sources, we won't be able to check all the refs. I can easily add back the Holbein image with its references and the reffed caption to the Hever image, but I'm a bit miffed about it because I went through a consultation process on this talk page. Reverting referenced material is never the way to go. The article is miles from featured quality in either version.qp10qp (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It was just a thought as it seemed editors felt the article was in a very polluted state. By all means, revert my revert and I AM sorry if this attempt at clean up helped more than hurt. It was done as an honest good faith effort to put the article in a clearly graded spot to move it forward.

"You are asking other people to do the tough job of reading through all the edits since the GA and selectively adding them back." I am in the process of doing thia and have found that the vast majority of material lost was not cited. I will continue to add lost citation to his article.

Apologies agin if most feel this was bad. Please restore the diff of your choosing if you have not done so already.

As a reviewer, what areas do you think need improvement to bring the article up to FA? --Secisek (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that I see you are going through the diffs and checking everything, I withdraw my objection. qp10qp (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

All cited additions from previous diffs, except a few Weir ones - per discussion, have been carried forward to the present version. Some non-cited material was dropped and much cited material that had been lost over the months has been restored. Disturbingly, I found a number of uncited comments cleverly placed behind existing, but unrelated citaitions. They have all been removed. It is my hope this article stands better than it a few days ago. -- Secisek (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Anne's height

There is a contradiction in the article regarding Anne's height. Fraser says she was of middling height, based on a contemporary desciption from a visiting Venetian who saw Anne; whereas Weir says she was petite but does not say where the description came from. I think we should leave Fraser's middling height in the article but remove Weir's petite. It's citation number 31. What do the other editors think about it?--jeanne (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not come across petite. The Venetian diarist Sanuto, who saw her in Calais in October 1532, described her as "of middling stature". The historian and polemicist Nicholas Sanders, less reliably because he was writing in 1586, described her as "rather tall of stature". qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Only Weir describes her as petite without saying from where or whom it derived. I shall remove it as it's not only a contradiction but is obviously incorrect.--jeanne (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone one step further and removed the quotes from popular historians that elaborate on what is known about her looks. I'm familiar with the few contemporary descriptions of Anne Boleyn's appearance (none matching the portraits very well, as it happens, making this a tricky area), and these quotes are partly romanticised. qp10qp (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but everyone, including the Venetian diarist describes her as being dark haired and eyed. The portraits all show her with dark hair and dark eyes.--jeanne (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

But if you look at the portrait in the infobox, she has mid-brown hair and hazel eyes. What I mean by tricky is that it is not easy to match portraits to recorded descriptions. The closest match is Sanders and the Hever portrait, but one is suspicious that his description might have been based on the portrait (or possibly vice versa), since they are both Elizabethan.qp10qp (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fraser did not originally describe Anne Boleyn as being of "middling" height: that is a contemporary description she quoted - the Venetian ambassador in 1532. There are no portraits of Anne Boleyn in existence - the portrait in the infobox, with mid-brown hair and hazel eyes, does not date to her lifetime.

"Petite" should be left in: Margaret of Austria described Anne Boleyn as "la pettite Boulan" in a letter: one cannot conclude it is "obviously incorrect", if it is a contemporary source, someone who knew her well. Of course, it must be remembered she was only thirteen or fourteen years of age at the time. "Middling" meant average, neither short nor tall, and 5'3" fits an average height for the time. See Doyne C. Bell for details of Anne Boleyn's skeleton - I referenced it, but someone keeps taking out the information.

--IRheinwald (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}

I have added a paragraph encapsulating what we know of descriptions of Anne, using Ives and Strong (the latter is a leading scholar on Tudor portraits and meticulous about appearance history). Wikipedia readers can now make up their mind what is what, without the "guidance" of popular historians. For the moment, I have removed the following, reffed to Fraser: "and was said to have inherited her dark hair and eyes from her Irish grandmother Margaret Butler". I haven't got Fraser, but I suspect this is her own opinion rather than anything said at the time. I haven't come across any contemporaries saying that they thought Anne owed her dark looks to her Irish grandmother. I stand to be corrected, but I want to be careful. qp10qp (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the portrait of her uncle, the 3rd Duke of Norfolk shows that he had brown eyes, so obviously her dark eyes did not just come from the Butlers. Is the standard portrait of her father really of him or Piers Butler? I have heard it is the latter but want your opinion as you know so much about Tudor-era art. BTW, your description of Anne is good and comes from primary sources.--jeanne (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's tricky and not solvable (scholars go each way for Thomas Boleyn and James Butler, with one going for George Boleyn). The chief objection to its being Thomas Boleyn is that the guy looks too young. The picture dates from about 1535, when he would have been 57. On the other hand, there are examples of Holbein drawing people to look much younger than they were (this was a normal sixteenth-century practice). The sitter also looks too young to be Piers Butler, who would have been 67 in 1535, but it is conceivably of his son James. However, the title of Earl of Ormonde ("Ormond" is inscribed on the drawing) was transferred from the Butlers to the Boleyns in 1529 (Butler becoming Earl of Ossory), and this is too late a drawing for Holbein to have done it before then. So, it's a conundrum. I'm instinctively against the attribution as James Butler because Holbein was in with the Boleyns, and Butler, who was often in Ireland and on the continent, was not part of the Boleyn and Cromwell circles where Holbein found his customers (though a marriage between him and Anne had once been mooted). I'd be nervous about adding this picture to the article, because, unlike with the Anne-in-cap portrait, I can find no confident scholarship on it.qp10qp (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would go along with Holbein having painted Thomas Boleyn to appear as a much younger man even though he was in point of fact, 57. Of course, this is just my opinion. Anne would have inherited her dark colouring from the Howards, as this portrait shows her father (if it is indeed Thomas Boleyn) to have had light (blue-grey) eyes, whereas the portrait of her maternal uncle shows him to be rather swarthy with brown eyes . As for your Holbein drawing of Anne, I saw it the other day on the hard-cover edition of Evelyn Anthony's historical romance Anne Boleyn which I obtained years ago at a second-hand bookshop in Los Angeles.--jeanne (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as colour goes, a lot of Holbein's drawings were coloured in by later hands, sometimes by much later hands. It is easy enough to see the inferiority of the coloured parts here, particularly on the hat, hair, and the tunic front (there's an atrociously painted white band beneath the chin). This guy has almost black hair, brown sideboards, and a ginger front beard. To be honest, I have never met anyone with that combination in my life, even when I was dropping acid. This drawing has been left out of a couple of complete surveys of Holbein, which makes me wonder if there are some who doubt this is a Holbein at all. Although it is coloured and some of the lines have been gone over, I am pretty sure this is a Holbein. I've been looking at Holbeins solid for the last month, working on the Hans Holbein the Younger article, and for me the penwork on the tunic is unmistakable. And, anyway, nobody else in England could draw like that at the time. But nothing is ever straightforward with Tudor portraits. qp10qp (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, my Irish ex-husband had jet-black hair and a reddish-brown stubble.--jeanne (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's possible (though it raises a question that I'm not going to ask :). But this here guy has three colours. I once went out with an Irish girl with black hair and freckles (but that was only because she dyed her hair black, and I was never able to talk her into going ginger again—nothing wrong with it in my view); black hair and freckles is actually quite cute. qp10qp (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

One of my sisters has black hair, green eyes and loads of freckles. You see dark hair and freckles in Ireland quite often. My daughter has medium brown hair and freckles-which she got from me.--jeanne (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Could Margaret of Austria have been referring to Anne's age and not height when she described her as petite? Remember words had different meanings back in the 16th century as I'm sure you know. Or else it could have been due to Anne's fragile body structure--jeanne (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Anne Boleyn

As a historian and art historian specializing in Anne Boleyn (see above), I am disconcerted by the constant removal of my contributions, and the inclusion of frankly erroneous and/or anachronistic, incomplete information.

- the inclusion of terms such as "neurotic" (very Freudian, and completely unknown at the time - unless one is a psychiatrist specializing in Freudian analysis, the term should be avoided), or "nervous breakdown" - a loose idea, never used in a clinical setting. It is more objective to state she collapsed upon arrest, and asked where her father and "swete broder" were.

- the political dimensions of her fall should be included - her execution was not merely due to the whole adultery/incest, Henry's disaffection, and no son cliché, but rather, a clash with Cromwell over Church revenues, religious reform, and foreign policy (Cromwell was interested in opening relations with Spain following Katherine of Aragon's death), whereas Anne Boleyn favoured a French alliance. She was about to strike Cromwell - but he acted first. Henry VIII's behaviour in the spring of 1536 still puzzles historians: in April, he wanted Charles V to accept Anne Boleyn as his "entirely beloved" and legitimate wife. This critically important information has been repeatedly removed. Wikipedia is therefore left with outdated, incomplete information. Her fall was much more precipitous than previously believed; a question that plagues historians nowadays is Henry VIII's sudden indifference/silence to his wife's fate (notwithstanding his blatant courting of Jane Seymour).

- Anne Boleyn had three known pregnancies: Elizabeth, a stillbirth/miscarriage in 1534 (commemorated by a medal), and again in January of 1536.

- generally, many believe Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery/treason, assuming both were treasonous offenses. Untrue: under English civil law, adultery/incest was not a civil crime necessitating capital punishment; an ecclesiastical crime punishable by whipping/fines. Of course, no such precedent existed for a Queen of England. The actual "crime" was plotting the King's death to ostensibly marry one of her putative lovers after. I do wish to correct the assumption, but the information has been repeatedly removed.

- I did take the liberty of identifying the "Semmonet" mentioned in Anne Boleyn's letter to her father in the Netherlands - a male tutor, a member of Margaret of Austria's household. I discovered a mention of him in Margaret's household rolls.

- I've noted some negative interpretations of Anne Boleyn's conduct towards Thomas Wolsey - the entry reads as though she must shoulder much of the blame for his downfall, which again is misleading. Wolsey was torn in terms of loyalty - Church or State - and prevaricated, thus angering Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, and his many enemies at court. It's more correct to identify a massive anti-Wolsey faction at the English court, which had developed long before Anne Boleyn's significance. She was a central figure around whom the faction rotated, though. But it was ultimately Henry who brought down Wolsey - even though he long hesitated.

- I also reworked the extremely negative and incorrect assumption Anne Boleyn had excessive tastes: this is a superficial reading of her notions regarding monarchy and display, entirely consistent with Renaissance humanist philosophy (which she absorbed on the continent). England, unfortunately, was still under the influence of medieval asceticism. This is a complex area which needs mention.

- no evidence exists supporting Mark Smeaton being tortured - he might have been, or was simply promised freedom if he "confessed".

- there are a number of versions of Anne Boleyn's speech on the scaffold - the one Weir quotes is from Lancelot de Carles, who was not an eyewitness, but might have been in contact with observers.

- the entire idea of the executioner calling out to his assistant to distract her is not mentioned in any eyewitness account of her execution - it's an apocryphal story that arose after her death, a legend included in "Anne of The Thousand Days". Although not mentioned here, the whole Jane Seymour sitting on Henry's lap story was also invented long after Anne Boleyn's death. It is a problem: many less than impeccable sources do not do sufficient research, and rely on incorrect secondary accounts. Primary source documentation is essential, but even so, must be approached with caution (eg, the Spanish Calendar, Chapuys in L&P).

- all of the stories - six fingers, swollen neck, wen, goiter, tall (tall women were believed to be licentious), her being Henry VIII's daughter, the protruding tooth, etc., were entirely invented by Sander; no mention whatsoever of any such attributes prior to his book on the English Reformation (De Origine ac Progressu schismatis Anglicani). As well, there are no "meticulously detailed" descriptions of Anne Boleyn; her exact appearance has long puzzled historians and art historians. Not one portrait of her has survived, although one can trace her image from two prototypes: the NPG related images, and the gable hood Holbein drawing (which is not her - incorrectly labelled in the late 17th C.). The description of her skeleton, though, is fascinating and highly detailed.

I certainly realize my changes are unacceptable, but my only interest is in reducing the negative tone of this entry, and the factual errors. As well, the public must be extremely cautious regarding the references: Alison Weir, for example, is not recommended - her "Six Wives" is mind boggling in terms of assumptions and erroneous information. She's never studied at the university level in history or any other discipline, and it shows. Her methodologies are horrendous and lack scholarly rigour. I would also caution against Mary Louise Bruce or Hester Chapman, as they are exceptionally outdated and consequently incorrect (both written before Paget's watershed article, essential to understanding Anne Boleyn). Older sources (Friedmann, Sargent, Strickland, etc) are useful, but must be critically assessed. To date, the most thorough and compelling study of Anne Boleyn is Dr. Eric Ives - but one can't overlook Dr. Starkey or Lady Antonia Fraser (a good, general introduction). Neville Williams is general, and again, outdated. Dr. Warnicke did not write a biography per se, but rather, legitimate historical revisionism, which has not withstood the test of time.

Once more I've added my changes, once more I've added to the discussion boards here. I've heard something about an "army of teenage girls" determined to mold Anne Boleyn into Philippa Gregory creature, but my only interest is balance, facts, and objectivity. Perhaps I should give up - I don't have the time for this! :) This will be my last attempt.

--IRheinwald (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Many people overlook the political factor which precipitated Anne's speedy execution- namely (as you have correctly mentioned) a prospective alliance with Charles V, which would never come about with Anne as Queen. Also, the article needs to mention her numerous acts of charity towards the poor. As to her ancestry, I think it's been proven that her paternal great-grandfather, Sir Geoffrey Boleyn (Bullen) was a wool merchant prior to becoming Lord Mayor, but the article seems to be ambiguous on the issue. What is your opinion regarding a possible May birth for Anne?--jeanne (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IRheinwald, it is essential to provide specific citations for all edits. This will solve your problem of being reverted, and it will make your edits stick (because it is against policy to remove material cited to reputable sources). I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, which lists the requirements for best practice. The Anne Boleyn article is miles short of that standard, of course (see Edward VI of England for a comparable article that is of the requisite standard), but Wikipedia is a young and gradualist project, and someone with your obviously sophisticated knowledge of the topic can help this article improve. So, please go back through your changes (some reverted now) and cite everything explicitly; and never include your own commentary, as you did alongside certain books in the booklist. The way to address your criticism of Weir, Bruce, Williams, etc., is to replace cites to them with cites to, say, Ives; and to replace any material that you can supersede with something cited to a better source. Once all cites are replaced, these sources may be removed from the book list entirely. Please also check out the following three key policies:

1. Neutral point of view. Write from a neutral point of view. This is a fundamental principle, which allows us to make a fair representation of the world around us. Even if material is verifiable, it is still important to put it into a balanced and representative form so that it conveys a fair impression of the views of the many significant viewpoints on a subject.
2. Verifiability. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it.
3. No original research. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements — that serves to advance a position.

I wish you the very best. We will get there. qp10qp (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have in no way violated the "neutral point of view" position, but rather, have tried to modify an extremely negative bias into a fuller and balanced perspective - perspectives in keeping with the best recent, neutral research. Objectivity is my sole aim, based on years of rigorous training: information on Anne Boleyn should include information on her political role and influence on religious reform (still missing), and not just the "love gone wrong" view, replete with negative interpretations of her character. I have cited various reliable works to support my positions, and found them removed. Unfortunately, the majority of references used in this article are unreliable and/or outdated; with Weir being used so heavily, citing Ives, L&P, the Spanish Calendar, Burnet, Starkey, Wriothseley, estate Rolls, Lisle Letters, George Wyatt, Latimer's "Chronikille", Public Records, etc, to refute her arguments/ideas, the article would end up being twice as long. Weir is considered a popular "historian" with an engaging writing style, but makes a horrendous number of errors. Incorrect facts and sweeping, negative, assumptions which cannot be verified via primary sources. Very frustrating to see her used not just on Wikipedia, but almost everywhere! And she's believed to be reliable? As for the Semmonet comment, I can add a citation - although I discovered mention of a (male) Symmonet in Margaret of Austria's household, the only other source who verifies it is Dr. David Starkey ("Six Wives, the Queens of Henry VIII", p. 269), but only in passing.

I would love to see a passage added regarding her religious views and reforms (exceptionally important), and am willing to contribute, but the article will likely be too long. In closing, I have no position to advance except for historical accuracy - many of what I changed were unreferenced, highly negative, and one sided opinions that oversimplified complex developments. "The Tudors" and "The Other Boleyn Girl" have both contributed to the lack of balance.

--IRheinwald (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that you do not intend to contravene the neutral point of view, but you did so inadvertently by adding uncited critical comments on some of the sources; even the use of an adverb like "unfortunately" veers from the recommended neutral style. I agree with you entirely about the weakness of parts of the article and of many of the sources used. (I haven't edited the article much myself, I might say.) Please do not hold back on grounds of length or of multiplication of citations. If sections of an article become too long, we make them into a separate article, leaving an appropriate amount of material in the source article. That way, Wikipedia grows. To an academic, the proliferation of citations in some articles may seem absurd, but citations are a powerful weapon that helps offset suspicions that this amateur encyclopedia is unreliable. So please pile the citations on where necessary (see my citations and note for the image caption to the Holbein drawing for a way, albeit pedantic, to cover the angles).qp10qp (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as I said earlier, you do not have to add citations to balance the citations to Weir; you can add them to replace Weir citations. This is because policy says that we should use the best sources, and Weir is not accepted as one of the best sources. On the other hand, you may not remove citations to Weir without replacing them. You may supersede material cited to Weir where more reputable works contradict her. You only need to balance citations where sources of equal reputability are concerned. So, for example, where Rowlands, Wilson, and Starkey (the first specifically) refute Ives on the Holbein cap portrait, both they and Ives need citing, since Ives is equally reputable. qp10qp (talk) 16:17, 26

December 2008 (UTC)

I applaud you whole heartedly IRheinwald, you are to be commended on the work you are attempting to do. Unfortunately, this is Wikipedia, and you will never be allowed to do the correct, scholastic thing on here...I support you in your efforts though, good luck.....Paul75 (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, IRheinwald's comments led to my spending several hours expunging citations to the likes of Weir, Plowden, Denny, Bruce, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, and replacing them with references to better academic sources such as Ives, Graves, and Starkey. This also produced a number of improvements in the text. qp10qp (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to see improvement. Yesterday, I added back in a sourced statement that had been dropped seemingly with no explanation. If the source was a poor one, I am sorry and I encourage you to undo my edit. Keep up the good work. -- Secisek (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason was that Agnes Strickland is not only extremely out of date (mid 19th century) but was an non-academic historian and fiction writer. I was removing such sources where I could. Because it is a subjective, comparative comment, I was not able to find its equivalent in the books I have been using—mainly Ives, Starkey, and Warnicke. qp10qp (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done. -- Secisek (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anne's height-again

We should remember when discussng Anne's height as to whether she was petite or of middling height, that it's relative to the observer. In the Low Countries where the women are generally robust and tall, she may have indeed appeared to Margaret as petite, while to a Venetian, accustomed to smaller women, Anne seemed to be of middling height. One only has to note the difference between a female model of Da Vinci (such as Cecilia Gallerani) and one of Rembrandt.--jeanne (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that petite was used to describe her when she was a girl. All it means is "little", to describe a girl. "Middling height" is the verdict for her as an adult, I think. qp10qp (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't believe there is evidence that she was short of stature. Petite obviously referred to her delicate frame.--jeanne (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Margaret of Austria referred to Anne as petite in a letter to Thomas Boleyn while Anne was at her court. Anne was about 12 at the time.--jeanne (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

However, referred is not the same as described. Looking at a quote from IRheinwald above: Margaret of Austria described Anne Boleyn as "la pettite Boulan" in a letter - depends on the context, petit could be used to refer to "younger", "junior", "lesser" just as easily as it could refer to physical height. If I refer to someone as "that little bitch", I'm not necessarily describing their physical size. Franamax (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am saying. Little could also be used affectionatlely, as it's used in Italy piccola, without regard to height. In Northern Ireland, the word wee is also used frequently-again without a reference to height. The only actual description of Anne's stature comes from the above-mentioned Venetian Sanuto, who saw her in Calais in 1532, and described her as being of middling stature.--jeanne (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Article corruption?

I don't know what to do about this issue or who to contact, so I'll simply add this to the talk section in hopes that comeone can adress my problem.

I cannot read the article. When I try to open it, I am presented with the File Download window. I've downloaded the file to see if for some reason I am prompted to download the HTML file, but I cannot identify the format of the file; it clearly isn't HTML, though.

This is the second time this occurred to me within a month or so. Unfortunately, I do not recall the name of the other article.

93.104.95.59 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and as soon as I've finished writing this, I can access the article. I still don't know if it's a problem on my or Wikipedia's end, though. 93.104.95.59 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the neutrality tag?

Why does someone keep putting up the neutrality tag? The article is not biased in any way and contains reliable references from scholarly sources. It's obvious that a cabal of Catherine of Aragon fans would rather have an article where Anne Boleyn is vilified, so keep on placing this tag here. It gives readers the mistaken impression that the article contains false information (which it does not).--jeanne (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously, biased vs. not-biased is always a POV outlook, right. :) The latest was from User talk:SuzanneIAM, who is apparently semi-new and I have tried to speak with. I didn't see any particularly good edits from them and reverted most. As far as the POV tag, I was waiting a bit to see if back-up appeared here to explain the reasons for the tag. It has not, so your removal is appropriate. Patience is always good, since apparently this is a topic of interest to newcomers. Thanks for posting to talk to accompany your article edit, that's the best way forward! :) Franamax (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More changes - again!

Just wanted to add it's very challenging to prove or footnote something that did not happen, and is ultimately apocryphal. Often, we simply don't know when or how certain stories were created; for example, the Jane Seymour on Henry VIII's lap story. I can only state there is no record of a particular event in primary source documents, and that the story appeared an indeterminate number of years after Anne Boleyn's death. These kinds of things should not appear here.

Sorry for the use of the "unfortunately" - but sometimes, from both sides, events can be considered unfortunate. Or, it's the "unfortunately for him/her" situation; personally, I don't see that as biased (from the perspective of my training in history), but apparently I'm quite wrong.

I've added, several times, the issue of civil law (each time removed): a common misconception regarding Anne Boleyn is that she was executed for adultery. Impossible. Adultery was only considered an ecclesiastical crime at this point in time, punishable by whipping and/or fines; needless to say, no precedent for the Queen of England. The treason was plotting, with these putative lovers, to murder Henry VIII - this accusation solely lead to her execution. The adultery accusations were to make her seem a moral monster. Adultery, or any sort of illicit sexual behaviour (before and after marriage) on the part of an English Queen was not a civil crime (treason) until January, 1542: the Act of Attainder was specifically enacted for the execution of Katherine Howard. Although the indictment suggested her adultery was treasonous, it was not in the Treasons Act (1352; Edward III) and could not be formally used. The Treasons Act only considered deliberate actions to kill the monarch, the queen, their children or their representatives. Henry VIII, in 1534, did make changes in the Act, likely due to hostility directed at Anne Boleyn: it was now treasonous to even speak of doing such harm. Still no mention of adultery, though.

I've also had some difficulties with Sir Neville Williams being included here, as his work, like that of Chapman or Bruce, is terribly outdated and very general. The notion that Rochford was accused of incest over the period of one year is unsubstantiated by primary source documents - which is my preference for proof. We only know of two dates - one in November and one in December of 1535; perhaps he'd been accused of more, but no records survive to support this.

There's so many rumours regarding Anne Boleyn's deformities; I've tried changing the section, again without success. The first person to EVER mention any deformities was Nicholas Sander, a Catholic priest who lived most of life in exile from due to accusations of sedition. He passionately loathed Elizabeth I, and though nothing of slandering her mother. Sander, in his book on the Anglican Schism, described Anne Boleyn as Henry VIII's natural daughter (and Henry knew he married his own daughter), that she seduced many men since girlhood, that she was tall (tall women were thought licentious), had an ugly swelling of the neck, a projecting tooth, and had six fingers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the primary sources suggest any deformities whatsoever, even by Anne Boleyn's bitterest enemies. Eustace Chapuys, who frequently saw her, mentioned absolutely nothing. And, as I've noted, there was nothing unusual about her skeleton, according to those who saw it (which included a Dr. Mouat) - and her remains were rigorously examined and described (I have the records).

A note on Alison Weir, "The Six Wives of Henry VIII". She should NEVER be used as a reference; can't stress this enough! Anyone interested in Anne Boleyn or historical accuracy must avoid her. The execrable, pompous Philippa Gregory used Weir as the basis of that slanderous, badly written "The Other Boleyn Girl", along with Dr. Warnicke's revisionist theories (revisionist history is never a good starting point for research). Even when Weir quotes, it's not verbatim - words and sentences are completely altered. Here are some mistakes from pages 318 to 338 (can't list them all - there's TOO many):

- she places Anne Boleyn in the Queen's House/Lieutenant's Lodgings overlooking Tower Green - not built until 1542; she was kept in the apartments built for her coronation, on the other side of the Tower complex from arrest to execution.

- no record of her being attended by Margaret Lee, Wyatt's sister, or this fictitous "Mrs. Orchard" (who "shrieked" when she was sentenced); Lady Lee did not accompany her to the scaffold or receive the prayer book.

- too many value statements such as "[she] worked into a frenzy", or laughed "hysterically", "laughing uncontrollably", "violent mood swings", etc: we do not know how Anne Boleyn delivered her statements, except where William Kingston made an eyewitness comment in his letters to Cromwell.

- she assumes Henry VIII was desperate to "get rid of her"; it was more Cromwell, who acted without Henry VIII's directive; Henry's behaviour was curiously passive - he simply did nothing, which puzzles historians to this day - even though on April 25, Henry insisted Charles V accept her as "entirely beloved and legitimate wife".

- accuses Anne Boleyn of "hounding Wolsey to his death"; they disliked each other, yes, but Wolsey failed to secure the annulment, and had a great many enemies in court; Wolsey incurred Henry VIII's and Anne Boleyn's wrath due to what was perceived as divided loyalties.

- states Anne Boleyn "more or less admitted" complicity in Fisher's poisoning; no record of this, or any involvement on her part.

- states Anne Boleyn wanted Mary and Katherine executed - Anne Boleyn knew full well she was vulnerable if they died (Chapuys comments on this in L&P); Henry VIII's cruelty to the two was entirely spontaneous and can't be successfully linked to Anne Boleyn.

- mentions the incest started in 1534, which is incorrect; see above two dates.

- says the indictment stated the adultery started in October 1534: again wrong, as the first charge dated to October 1533, when Anne Boleyn was still in isolation, recovering from Elizabeth's birth.

- there is no record of Catherine Carey, Mary Boleyn's daughter, attending her aunt.

- states Lancelot des Carles (the future Bishop of Ruiz) was an eyewitness to the trial and execution; he was in London, but was not an eyewitness. That's the problem with this oft quoted scaffold speech; it's also extremely different in French (Histoire de Anne Boleyn Jadis Royne d'Angleterre), and based on official English government sources, which might have been skewed. Seeing it repeated here is inaccurate - we don't know exactly what Anne Boleyn said.

- Anne Boleyn was not moved to the Bell Tower to witness the executions of the men accused with her, including her brother; Wyatt, though, was imprisoned there - as well, it's still some distance between the Bell Tower and Tower Hill.

- no, Anne Boleyn could not see the scaffold as it was built: it was not erected on the current Tower Green location, and she was kept far away from the actual site.

- the executioner was paid £23, not £20 - a considerable difference in those days - almost six hundred pounds in today's money.

- Anne Boleyn wore the gable hood to the execution, not a French hood.

- no record of her wearing a necklace, which she "unclasped herself".

- Anne Boleyn was not executed with a block, as Weir insists (she also states this in "Henry VIII: King and Court").

And this is just a cursory overview of a small section! There actually is far more. As I've said, she's never studied anything, let alone history, at the university level. History is a discipline that calls for rigorous methodologies and objectivity - which she lacks. Weir interprets far too much, and bases those interpretations on errors.

Now, historians specializing in this period have noticed an exceptional rise in hostility towards Anne Boleyn - much of it based on the horrendously inaccurate "The Other Boleyn Girl" and Philippa Gregory's vehement assertions of being ENTIRELY accurate. She horrifies me. It's exceptionally frustrating to see such bias perpetrated across the internet, including Wikipedia. It's much better now, but things could easily change!

--IRheinwald (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, the best way to effect change is to do it yourself, but give citations. If you don't give citations, as with the original comment about adultery, the material is likely to be removed. I am formatting your (Harvard style) Ives refs to be consistent with the others in <ref>Ives, p. 344.</ref> style, but this is a minor matter, so the material is very welcome. Please remember, though, that this article will continue to evolve from inaccuracies to a higher standard over time. I haven't got time to give this article a thorough going over, but I have addressed some of your previous criticisms about sources (no Weir, look). Some of your comments above refer to material not included in the article. It is not a matter of urgency to remove citations to Williams, because he is up the ladder from Weir and Denny and co., though of course he's just a recycler of other other people's assumptions about Anne (I don't rate Christopher Hibbert as a serious historian either, and citations to him can also be replaced gradually). But I will work through these sometime. In the meantime, unles you or someone else gets stuck in, you will have to be very patient, because this article is not my priority or anyone else's as far as I can see. qp10qp (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, on the question of deformity, it depends what you call deformity, but she was already described as having warts and a goitre during her lifetime, so I have adjusted your edit on that point. I checked out the Warnicke citation and found that she actually says that Sanders was the "first writer to portray Anne publicly as deformed". The nuance "publicly" is the distinction. This passage will need eventually to be unified with that earlier in the article which provides coverage of the surviving descriptions of Anne's appearance. qp10qp (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of these warts and goitre, I have never encountered any mention of either - or any deformities anywhere - until Nicholas Sander's "Anglican Schism" - please provide me the exact primary source material, ie, from her lifetime. I've never seen such a report; as for citations stating she was not deformed (using primary documents) it's essentially proving a negative. The closest I've ever found is George Wyatt, who made a passing comment about "moles incident to the clearest complexions", and a prominent Adam's apple. But his short biography (which I have, the first one on Anne Boleyn) can't be compared to Chapuy's reports for obvious reasons. So I am very anxious to find out how "she was already described as having warts and a goitre during her lifetime." As a scholar specializing in both her images and her early life (how Renaissance culture humanism shaped her notions of monarchy), this is of great interest to me.

As for Dr. Warnicke, who did not write a biography per se, but rather, a revisionist account of Anne Boleyn's downfall: she makes a great number of persuasive arguments, which can easily be defeated by examining the evidence. She had an agenda in writing the book - presenting theories and interpretations - based on assumptions. She has revised her positions since the book was published in 1989. The "publicly" is a red herring.

As for evolving, this article was much better, more balanced and objective, a few years ago, although some finer points were off. Nothing particularly glaring. I noticed a severe deterioration in quality, and an exceptional negative bias based on erroneous facts and assumptions in September of 2008. I was frankly appalled, but have absolutely no idea who wrote this slander (my first thought was Philippa Gregory herself) - it's peculiar to be accused of the very thing I'm trying to correct! But I'm losing interest in this losing battle. I understand the article is low on the priority totem pole, but there has been a considerable rise in Anne Boleyn interest (disproportionately negative) from the popular media. Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate myths and errors, as many regard the site as a source of legitimate information. It would be ideal for this entry to eventually become a balanced counterpoint to the anti-Boleyn sentiment so prevalent nowadays on the internet.

--IRheinwald (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed the strong anti- Boleyn cabal on Wikipedia. It has replaced the pro-Boleyn sentiments which had been in vogue since the time of the film Anne of The Thousand Days and fostered by Fraser in her biography on Henry's wives. The Weir book was a disappointment compared to the better-researched Fraser one.--jeanne (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Irene, wiki articles constantly evolve, it's not really a "losing battle" so much as a constant search for the best viewpoint. Hopefully you won't lose interest, because probably the single best attribute to bring to Wikipedia is patience, and durability runs a close second. You've clarified some of the undesirable sources and have found support for that here, but someone will always need to be around to point back to previous consensus that those sources shouldn't be used. Everyone has their own priorities on the wiki, we'd be happy if you made this article your own priority, if you can help to maintain and improve it.

Remember though that this article will never (and should never) exactly reflect your own version of the "true history". As with historians, interpretations differ. We don't want a pro- or anti-Boleyn viewpoint, we want the neutral one. Adding sources for your changes will always be good. Of course, the "can't prove a negative" bit will always be a problem.

You may get better results if you separate the issues, take them one at a time with separate threads on this talk page. That will help everyone, including yourself - talk things over one at a time, then you can always point back to a specific thread here where the single issue was resolved, next time someone new brings it up. Also, it's easier for people to read one issue at a time, rather than try to get through a wall of text. For instance, address the "deformities" issue as a whole separate topic, and work for resolution just one that single issue. But do please keep at it, contribute your knowledge of the sources, and be patient! :) Franamax (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

IRheinwald: I am surprised that you question the description of the wart and goitre because it is well known. Ives talks about it on page 39 and Strong quotes the description in full on page 6, quoted and cited in our article. When Warnicke says that Sander was the first to write publicly of deformity, it is not a red herring because it distinguishes between his commentary in a book and the 1533 private account. There are many weaknesses in the article, but the description of Anne's appearance isn't one of them. 14:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I had always been under the impression that the warts were actally moles, which in the 16th century were believed to have been marks of the devil or devil's teats, hence the rumour that Anne Boleyn had been a witch.--jeanne (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If she even had a wart. The account was written for the imperial court at Brussels and so was very hostile; witch overtones may indeed have been involved. qp10qp (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In those days when the oppressive shadow of Torquemada still hovered over the Imperial court, it was no laughing matter to be accused of witchcraft or heresy. A mole or wart was enough proof back then.--jeanne (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ives confirms she had warts and a goiter???? Hardly; I stand by my comments, so don't be "surprised" - the assumption is incorrect. Ives mentions this hostile source and immediately dismisses it as "wilful misrepresentation"; L&P includes a copy from this now lost document, and identifies it as a hostile source. If you examine the L&P passage, other details are also at variance with eyewitness accounts of the coronation. Considering the circumstances, I've long questioned this L&P entry and if it was even produced during Anne Boleyn's lifetime - this passage must be dismissed, as it also states she wore a dress "covered with tongues pierced with nails, to show the treatment which those who spoke against her might expect". This short account might date from a much later era (it's undated, and only inserted into the coronation date), possibly during or after Sander, who, as I state, was the first person to identify any 'deformities'. Also, if one examines the posthumous inventory of her wardrobe, she did not wear high necks (again, contrary to Sander, who stated she wore high necked collars to hide the 'wen' under her chin). Her neck was described as "long" by another hostile source, and no other contemporary sources, as I said above, mention any deformities; Chapuys being the most notable. I do believe she had some moles. But she was never accused of witchcraft - significant, if she were somehow deformed by warts, moles, a sixth finger, a wen/goiter, etc.

So giving even a whisper of validity to Anne Boleyn's physical defects is fueling the fires of unsubstantiated rumours. I will not change this Wikipedia entry again, and leave the inaccuracies in place.

The current rise in ant-Anne Boleyn rhetoric is unprecedented, and, as I've mentioned many times, I am not either pro or anti Anne Boleyn. I am only interested in neutrality, although it's the perception here I'm not: after studying every primary/secondary source available, my "bias" is strict accuracy. When I read wildly negative interpretations and unsubstantiated rumours presented as facts on Wikipedia, my natural instinct is to correct them using facts found in primary source documents. It's my training as a historian and utterly impossible to discard.

--IRheinwald (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have always believed the deformities were just moles, which her myriad enemies magnified into warts, and a goiter so as to discredit her in the eyes of Europe, thus portraying her as a monster, hence the sixth finger myth. It is significant to note, that in all her portraits, she is shown wearing low, square-necked gowns. Anne was also descrobed as having had a long, graceful neck and beautiful, elegant hands. I heartily believe all the hostile reports, alleging deformities, etc. were instigated by the Vatican for the sole purpose of defaming her, Henry, Anne's daughter, Elizabeth, and the Protestant Reformation in general.--jeanne (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

IRheinwald, please note that the section of the article that deals with this does not endorse the coronation description or Sander's description: it warns the readers that these descriptions are not neutral but presents them as part of the evidence. If you read above again, you will see that I did not say that Ives "confirms" the description that she had warts and a goitre; I said they he mentions it. He mentions it while doubting its neutrality and our article does the same. As a historian you will know that we cannot just omit sources that we disbelieve; we have to present them as part of the evidence, while making it clear to readers where doubts exist.

You say that you will leave the inaccuracies in place, but please note that inaccuracies in the descriptions are not inaccuracies in the article. The descriptions are not presented as facts. The descriptions are in quotations, and the article introduces them as not neutral. We are accurately quoting sources and warning the reader that the sources might be biased. This is not inaccuracy but a responsible reporting of the problematic sources, following the approach to the matter in good history books and conforming to policy. qp10qp (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See Archive1 for discussion of Marquess/Marchioness issues. PatGallacher (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to present descriptions, and indicate they are not facts. I just wonder why - particularly as there is quite a lot of factual, primary source documentation and exceptional secondary sources (Paget, Ives, Starkey to a high degree) that "make mincemeat" of all the old chestnuts. Just curious as to why outdated/erroneous information is presented (even with all the requisite caveats) alongside the most up to date, heavily substantiated research. There are so many problems with Weir, Hester Chapman, Mary Louise Bruce, Sir Neville Williams, or Sir Roy Strong, etc. Many are outdated (eg, Mary Louise Bruce writes of Mary Boleyn being at the court of Margaret of Austria; Hester Chapman stating AB disliked reading and preferred picture books). I don't fault them, but it's just that the information is out of date. It's all part of a long tradition of evolving research - for example, Paul Friedmann's "Anne Boleyn: A Chapter in English History", a monumental two volume work, is now only an interesting piece of the puzzle. His moral judgements are highly biased due to Victorian sensibilities, but he was the first to push AB's birthdate back to 1503 from 1507 (the date adopted by Catholic sources during the 16th C. after AB's death). Taken with a huge pinch of salt, I still read it. The whole debate re: Anne Boleyn's age started during the mid-late 1870s, after the exhumation, only recently resolved by Paget. Dr. Warnicke's suppositions can't be substantiated. Convincing arguments, but when closely examined, no proof exists.

Perhaps in this way I'm biased: my preference will always be what has been substantiated by facts. Or what is minimally 95% correct, based on evidence and critical thinking (far more likely than not).

The statement "we cannot just omit sources that we disbelieve; we have to present them as part of the evidence, while making it clear to readers where doubts exist." I don't speak of anything "where doubts exist", but ideas that have been dismissed and discarded via impeccable recent research. I don't "disbelieve" facts, I disbelieve subjectivity. Must say, the Tower Guards are a great source of information, having access to things we rarely see: I was taken to the crypt of St. Peter's (not accessible to the public), and found out that AB's skeletal remains were found with traces of elm wood - the infamous arrow chest. Knowing royal protocol over the ages, they maintain absolutely no part of her remains ever left the Tower - several stated it was impossible.

Re: descriptions of Anne Boleyn. Her skeletal remains indicate a short but slender neck (er, that's problematic for obvious reasons) and ten tapering fingers (anyone interested in Anne Boleyn's remains MUST read Doyne C. Bell). I thoroughly believe Elizabeth's exquisite hands came from her mother, as did her build and face - although she inherited the set of Henry VII's eyes. What frustrates me is that we don't have a single extant portrait of AB from her lifetime. The medal? We can see the long narrow face and high cheekbones, at least. But it helps to look at Sir Thomas Boleyn's brass (not the Holbein drawing, which isn't of him), AB's maternal relatives and the most accomplished portraits of Elizabeth I: the "Sieve" portrait, the "Ermine" portrait, the "Darnley" portrait, etc. Both Holbein drawings are problematic - the gable hood one is highly suspect (identified in the late 17th C.) and the other is iffy (Cheke's mistakes). --74.56.245.209 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The portrait of the 3rd Duke of Norfolk (her maternal uncle), shows him to have had dark eyes. Obviously Anne inherited her dark eyes from the Howards.--jeanne (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Some good points, though also you criticise some historians who aren't referenced in the article anyway. Where we differ is that you think certain quotations about Anne's appearance should be omitted as being demonstrably false. In fact, the best historians do quote or refer to them as part of the evidence, even if they doubt them, and this article is just following suit. "My preference will always be what has been substantiated by facts. Or what is minimally 95% correct, based on evidence and critical thinking (far more likely than not)". That is a very high threshold. In order to substantiate by facts, we would need exceptional documentation. Unfortunately, the documentation of Anne 's appearance through quotations and portraiture is fragmentary, problematic, and contradictory. The best approach is to present all the clashing fragments together, even if the result is inconclusive. So long as we add caveats, it's the best we can do. qp10qp (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Anne's heart

Despite my anitpathy to the cabal that now have control over the Anne Boleyn article, I foolishly added in some text yesterday regarding rumours that Anne's heart was removed prior to her burial and was buried in a church in Norfolk. Rumours have persisted that her heart was removed after her death and later buried in a church in Thetford, Norfolk, where it was discovered in 1830 and reburied. This was sourced from two publications. It was removed by qp10qp who insisted I did not succeed in winning consensus for this on the talkpage. qp10qp, firsty I was not out to receive consensus on this matter on the talkpage - someone else mentioned this rumour and I commented that I had read it before as well, and that I might add it to the article. I wasn't in a battle to receive permission, and in all honestly I don't need anyone's permission or consensus to put things in an article. Please assume good faith - as someone who called Anne 'Jane' throughout your brief and, frankly inaccurate, comment on the original discussion, I don't feel you are in any position to dictate what goes into this article. As it seems I need permission to edit this article now, if anyone else out there has opinions on the whole "heart in Norfolk" issue, please discuss. I am more than willing to be disproved (politely of course!)Paul75 (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul75, you don't need permission to edit any Wikipedia article. But by the same token, no-one else needs permission to revert your changes. It's best not to think of any of this as a battle - it's a search for the most accurate presentation. Qp10qp is indeed correct that the best way forward is to get consensus on the article talk page first. I'll restate that - it's always OK to be bold and make the change, but if it gets reverted, that's the time to calm down and talk it out. We have a thing for that: WP:BRD. Franamax (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is part of policy that we use the best sources, and your sources are not the best. "Rumours have persisted that her heart was removed after her death and later buried in a church in Thetford, Norfolk, where it was discovered in 1830 and reburied". Not among scholarly sources they haven't. It sounds like something for the article about that church. As I said before, Anne Boleyn's burial is documented. Having said that, if Boleyn scholars had addressed this rumour, its inclusion in the article as speculation would be reasonable; but they don't. Starkey doesn't; Ives doesn't; Loades doesn't; even that gullible historian Antonia Fraser doesn't. The only cabal protecting this page is the cabal of best sources. qp10qp (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Qp10qp, why do you consider Antonia Fraser gullible? She is quite good at historical analysis. I like the way she laid to rest those daft rumours, in her biography on Mary, Queen of Scots, that James was a warming pan baby or alternatively, that Rizzio was the father of James. Do you know that many Italian historians choose to believe, obviously out of nationalism, that Rizzio was James's father! I tell you.--jeanne (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

She is OK but sometimes not as scholarly as she could be. For example, she sometimes takes contemporary sources at face value rather than subject them to appropriate scrutiny. She also sometimes selects one contemporary source over another to suit her argument. Her reading of the documents concerning Anne of Cleves, for example, is partial (she omits certain counter-evidence). On James I, she calls him gay throughout, whereas it would be more scholarly to balance the evidence for and against his homosexuality. She also takes a very pro-Catholic view of the Gunpowder Plot, presumably because she is a Catholic herself. However, she is certainly an acceptable source for Wikipedia. And she makes no mention of rumours about Anne Boleyn's heart. qp10qp (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont believe the rumour about someone having removed Anne's heart. Who could have done it as there were no surgeons with her body on Tower Green? Unless Jack the Ripper was a time-traveller.--jeanne (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me naive, but I think anyone with a knife could cut open a dead body and remove the heart. Paul75 (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean her ladies-in-waiting, as they were the only people left with her body? They only had an arrow chest in which to place her body and head.--jeanne (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I must agree that the story of the heart being removed is very flawed. Firstly we have no contemporary evidence for it – in fact was it not the Victorian historian Agnes Strickland who first recorded it?

Anne had died in disgrace and her family showed no momentum to have her body, or her heart transported to a private chapel, or some respectable burial place. This renders the question of who could have removed her heart and why. The women attending her in her final hours and who helped to bury her were not her close confidents. Anne had even voiced her distress over the fact that none of her own ladies were allowed to attend to her. And we know that Lady Kingston was acting as a spy, and recorded Anne’s remarks to her husband, the constable of the Tower (who in turn passed Anne’s comments on to Cromwell as evidence against her).

So why would these women remove her heart? The act of removing her heart was incredibly personal. Unfortunately for Anne she was abandoned in her final days, and her friends and family were busy trying to protect their own positions/causes then give concern as to the her welfare and details regarding her burial.

Ultimately though the complete lack of evidence for the heart story is disconcerting. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but I would not be completely surprised if this was a story devised in Kent, where Anne originated from, to give a particular area/parish church some prominence. After all it does sound impressive that a remote church houses Anne Boleyn’s heart...--Little miss sunnydale (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well argued. The sixteenth century was a time of martyrdom narratives, and mythology proliferated. It makes it very difficult territory for historians; but in this case, the implausibilities are overwhelming. Historians are helped by the fact that Anne was buried straight away and within the Tower. Also by the fact that her friends, as you say, had no access to her. Not all rumours can be ignored, but I think this one safely can. qp10qp (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--jeanne (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

It does seem that the story is part of local myth (and a tale to attract tourists):

http://norfolkcoast.co.uk/location_norfolk/vp_salle.htm http://norfolkcoast.co.uk/myths/ml_blickling.htm

With the lack of evidence, I'm inclined to reject the story.--Little miss sunnydale (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

While everyone is adamant the story is false by stating the evidence does not match or simply because they don't believe it, no-one seems to be grasping the point that the evidence quite strongly does not disprove the story either. I am not for or against the story of Anne's heart being removed, I'm not particularly bothered either way, but I do object to people blindly asserting they are right because Ives said so. Ives categorically does not state that Anne's body was buried immediately after her execution. What he does say is that all her clothes were removed prior to her being placed in the arrow chest. I have read in other works that she was not buried until the afternoon - possibly true, possibly a load of rubbish. We also do not know every single person present at Anne's execution, Ives states over 1000 people were present. So little eyewitness accounts of Anne's execution exist at all. It is entirely possible that some of Anne's friends or supporters or even family were at the execution and were able to gain access to the chapel and her body afterwards. There is no real evidence to suggest that Anne's family and friends totally abandoned her and did not care for her welfare. A bribe could have been paid, an insider may have assisted, maybe the chaplain was in on it. We were not there and we do not know what happened. Her clothes were removed which gave easy access to the flesh, and if her body was not buried until the afternoon, there was ample time and opportunity to remove her heart. We also should bear in mind that in this period it was quite common to remove organs from the body before burial and bury the heart/stomach/entrails in an entirely different location to the body. Warnicke mentions a church in Essex which has a commeration to the event of Anne's body passing through the village. It would be interesting to know where all these rumours started - perhaps there is something in it.

And just to play devils advocate, we don't even know that Anne's body remained at St Peter's. The Victorian assessment should be treated with the utmost caution (these are the same people who identified monkey bones as the bones of The Princes in the Tower), and a present day academic has stated he was shown unidentified bones strewn under the tiles of the part of the chapel not accessible to the public. I guess what I am trying to say is that we actually know very very little about Anne's death and burial, and I would never say a rumour of several hundred years standing was a fallacy simply because I didn't believe it.

And if the information I found previously from relatively decent sources were not acceptable, I really don't think we can rely on www.norfolkcoast.co.uk as proof the whole episode is a tale to attract tourists. The story may very well be a load of old tosh, fine. But it would be nice if people opened their minds slightly and looked at the situation from the wider perspective. And yes, I know Wikipedia has to deal with verified facts only, please don't throw that one at me again... Paul75 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is Starkey who says she was buried "immediately". The church was a few yards away from the scaffold.

You underestimate the ruthless efficiency of the Tudor execution and propaganda machine. The authorities, who included some of Anne's own relatives (her uncle, Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, presided at her trial), were fully aware of the need for total efficiency. Though George Boleyn was executed on Tower Green, Anne was executed within the Tower walls so that security could be controlled. (On the other hand, a crowd was essential so that her death could be witnessed.) I imagine the crowd, from which foreigners were barred, was as closely marshalled as a football crowd would be today: they couldn't have strolled into the church. The security applied to Anne had already been tight. She was not allowed any of her own attendants but instead was allotted five women who were ordered to report everything she said—she called them "wardresses". They included an aunt (Anne Shelton) who, like the rest of her family (apart from her brother but not apart from his wife, Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford, who testified to his incest with Anne) regarded Anne as guilty. These women attended her at her death and carried her into the church. She was horribly alone from the moment of her arrest and had no supporters—even Cranmer, with regret, collaborated with the king and arranged the divorce. It was not until Elizabeth's reign that the martyrdom stories began to crystallise—the various traditions and rumours multiplied over the centuries following. qp10qp (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are still missing the point of what I am trying to project - we do not know what happened at Anne's burial, and anything about it (yes, including the story of her heart) cannot be confirmed one way or another. You are using your own opinion, by repetition, to get your point across. We do not know that security was as closely marshalled as a football crowd today, and we do not know that someone could not just "stroll into the church", that is only original research. I'd go as far as to say quite the opposite was true - churches in England have always been "open houses" as such, even today you can "stroll" into the chapel of St Peter, for religious reasons, without paying a penny for admission to the Tower, joining the queues or having to fight your way past security guards (I've done it). Anne was executed within the Tower instead of on Tower Hill for the same reasons as Jane Grey and Catherine Howard - because of who she was, a former Queen, not because of security reasons. There is still no firm evidence that Anne's friends or family deserted her - how do we know they didn't join the crowds at her execution? Ives mentions that along with the nobility"Englishmen and Englishwomen" came to watch the execution. There is also no firm evidence that Anne's family considered her guilty. The way people behave in public is not always an indicator of their true feelings. The evidence of Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford should also be treated with caution. There are no records of her even attending the trial, even in reports written by people who were there. She doesn't appear in any documents relating to the trial until the late 1500s, when Foxe began his rather over zealous Protestant revoution. Anne may have depsied her "wardresses", but they are reported to have been "weeping" as they helped her on the scaffold - is that the behaviour of women who hate and have no regard for their charge? They were with the body the whole time, did one or more of them indeed feel sympathy for Anne and allow someone access to remove the heart? We know they were employed to spy on Anne, but nothing else - how do we know what they truely felt about the Queen's situation? Like I said before, the story of the heart is not particularly important to me - I only wish people could open their minds a little and not see things in black and white. Ives nor Starkey were around in 1536, anything could in fact be the truth. It is entirely possible that the myths and legends only begun in Elizabeth's reign because it wasn't until then that people felt safe enough to talk about what they had done 20 years earlier (like removing a heart).Paul75 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you would do better in arguing this business of the removal of Anne's heart if instead of depending on the gaps in the documentation you traced the rumour back to its source. As a graduate in Medieval History, where contemporary evidence is often scant, I can assure you I'm aware of the importance of traditions and rumours; but the way to make them part of a historical article is to treat them like any other form of information. The rumour or tradition therefore needs to be traced back through its documentation to its earliest manifestations. The closer the earliest occurrence of the rumour to the relevant events, the more intriguing. The reason, for example, why Sanders' story about the extra finger makes it into the history books is that it is datable to a period relatively close to Anne's lifetime. That doesn't necessarily make it believable, but it makes it worth mentioning. qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)