She miscarried of her savior
For those who still deny the existence of climate change—and we know who they are—I would mention that while much of the US is suffering under some of the coldest temperatures ever recorded, Down Under they are enduring one of the worst heat waves in Australia’s history. The climate is indeed changing and we can expect greater volatility, wilder storms, devastating droughts, horrific flooding, much of which we are already experiencing. I hope my friends in the US and Canada stay safe and warm for the next few days, and that my friends in Australia get some relief from their hellish summer. Below is a post about Anne Boleyn; it goes back a few years, so I am hoping most of you won’t remember it. 😊
On January 29, 1536, Anne Boleyn was prematurely delivered of a stillborn son. Less than four months later, she was dead, sacrificed to Henry’s obsession with having a male heir—and possibly his roving eye, which had already alighted upon Jane Seymour, whom he wed eleven days after Anne’s execution. Henry was a class act. It is widely believed that Anne’s “failure” to give Henry a living son sealed her doom; this was the belief at the time, too, the Spanish ambassador Chapuys writing “She has miscarried of her savior.” However, the creator of one of the best websites about Anne, the Anne Boleyn Files, does not agree. You can read her argument for yourself here. http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the... I personally believe the miscarriage did mark a fatal turning point in their relationship, but then, I am certainly not an expert when it comes to the Tudors. In fact, when I typed the opening sentence in this post, I was amused to find I’d written that Anne Neville was the one delivered of a stillborn son. We know where my sympathies lie, of course, but I do spare some of it for Anne Boleyn. Whatever her flaws, she did not deserve the death she got, any more than Katherine of Aragon or silly little Katherine Howard did
On January 29, 1536, Anne Boleyn was prematurely delivered of a stillborn son. Less than four months later, she was dead, sacrificed to Henry’s obsession with having a male heir—and possibly his roving eye, which had already alighted upon Jane Seymour, whom he wed eleven days after Anne’s execution. Henry was a class act. It is widely believed that Anne’s “failure” to give Henry a living son sealed her doom; this was the belief at the time, too, the Spanish ambassador Chapuys writing “She has miscarried of her savior.” However, the creator of one of the best websites about Anne, the Anne Boleyn Files, does not agree. You can read her argument for yourself here. http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the... I personally believe the miscarriage did mark a fatal turning point in their relationship, but then, I am certainly not an expert when it comes to the Tudors. In fact, when I typed the opening sentence in this post, I was amused to find I’d written that Anne Neville was the one delivered of a stillborn son. We know where my sympathies lie, of course, but I do spare some of it for Anne Boleyn. Whatever her flaws, she did not deserve the death she got, any more than Katherine of Aragon or silly little Katherine Howard did
date
newest »
newest »
Chris, I imagine you are getting very cold weather, too, about now. I hope it isn't as cold as some of our Midwestern states!I was thinking of Donald Trump, who continues to deny that climate change is occurring; he once even claimed it was a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese. (I have always tried very hard to avoid discussing politics on Facebook and Goodreads, but that is simply not possible at times.) I do not agree that the why of climate change is still in contention. Scientists have concluded that human activity is the major reason--not the only one, perhaps, but definitely the major reason. I do agree with the rest of your comments, that there is no consensus as to how best to handle it. No easy answers for sure. I certainly don't have any!
Meanwhile, stay warm and safe. Spring has to come eventually...doesn't it?
Snow here in Cornwall, Sharon. We hardly ever have snow down this way.And a reason to celebrate: we have just completed fitting a solar energy system.
Sharon wrote: "Chris, I imagine you are getting very cold weather, too, about now. I hope it isn't as cold as some of our Midwestern states!I was thinking of Donald Trump, who continues to deny that climate cha..."
Sharon, I have to disagree that there is a scientific consensus on human activity being the major reason or even a minor one.
I find that the balance between wanting what is best for our planet and what is best for our species is a near impossible tightrope.
As someone who is looking into making a foray into the realm of being an author I have always dreaded having to navigate Social Media for fear of alienating readers on the basis of politics not even related to the body of work. The mere idea of it makes me a bit queasy. How do you manage?
Chrissy, why do you say that when in fact climate scientists have a very high level of confidence that humans are causing unprecedented levels of climate change? Not just some of them, but the vast majority of climatologists. It is actually a busted myth that "there is no consensus". The consensus is over 97%.
Iset wrote: "Chrissy, why do you say that when in fact climate scientists have a very high level of confidence that humans are causing unprecedented levels of climate change? Not just some of them, but the vast..."Hi Iset, I say that because many scientist do not in fact agree that human activity is a major factor or even that this level of of climate change is unprecedented.
Even in the event that what you state is in fact accurate and 90% of scientists did agree that humans were/are a major driver climate change; science is not a democracy. Facts do not become facts because we agree that they are. Copernicus was right and the scientific community was wrong.
I'm in no way saying that I am correct or that the facts are with ME. Only that dissent =/= denial and consensus=/= correct.
I can provide sources if needed that consensus on human caused climate change is over 90% among climatologists.However, as you say that is really a side issue to the main event. Considering the vast weight of evidence that indicates humans are a primary driver of current climate change, it is more than credible. I find it unusual that anyone would dismiss that evidence when it is so considerable. But what can I say that would change your mind if you don't want it to be changed? I mean, I highly doubt we're both on GoodReads for an open-minded discussion about climate change. I hope we can at least both agree that whatever the cause, we should be doing anything that can be done to mitigate negative effects.
Iset wrote: "I can provide sources if needed that consensus on human caused climate change is over 90% among climatologists.However, as you say that is really a side issue to the main event. Considering the v..."
Were I to concede to the premise that hypothetically humans are a significant part of the problem... that we should should be doing 'anything' is the most unnerving part of this whole controversy. What is 'anything'? The road to hell is paved with good intentions and a willingness to do 'anything' is a sure route to a 9 car pile-up.
Well you are quite right there, Chrissy. I was not as careful in my speech as I should have been. I have a clear idea of my own ethics, and among them is the acute awareness that there is nothing that is ever worth "any" cost, and in my mind what I meant was actions that are feasible, reasonable, and ethical, and that we shouldn't be inactive purely from laziness or selfishness - but people who do not know me don't know that, so you are quite right to add that caveat.
Iset wrote: "Well you are quite right there, Chrissy. I was not as careful in my speech as I should have been. I have a clear idea of my own ethics, and among them is the acute awareness that there is nothing t..."Skeptical though I may be of the science in question. The same caution that holds me back from joining in on the assigning a cause suggests that reasonable, measured and ethical steps should be taken to do what we can to alleviate unnecessary pressures on this lovely world we find ourselves to stewards to .
Either way our wonder host probably doesn't want us blowing up her feed with politics.
So lets focus on something we can all find an accord on.
Henry VIII what a asshat, yes?
What frustrates me about Henry is that he was intelligent and educated before his slide into corruption.Susan Bordo's book about Anne Boleyn observes that theirs was very much a new kind of relationship - instead of the wife being Medieval helpmeet as Catherine of Aragon was in the model of, there was a growing appetite (at least among the royals and nobles of Europe) for a more equal partnership, for a woman to be witty, educated, and good conversation, for a wife to be an intellectual companion. And Bordo notes that this new thinking is evident in the relationship between Henry and Anne.
I don't personally believe that Cromwell pulled the wool over Henry's eyes, I think Henry was too smart for that. What's truly chilling about Henry is that it seems to me that he was capable of callously cutting someone out of his life, and then creating a fictional narrative around it - for the sake of the world and to justify it to himself - that he was poor naive Henry who'd been deceived and yet somehow suspected treachery all along. Crocodile tears, if you will. That kind of deliberate selfishness is really disgusting. It shows real lack of empathy, dare I suggest, even sociopathic tendencies.
Iset wrote: "What frustrates me about Henry is that he was intelligent and educated before his slide into corruption.Susan Bordo's book about Anne Boleyn observes that there's was very much a new kind of rela..."
Iset, I believe you described Henry very well and I really have to agree with you, which is (in my opinion) why Henry equally fascinates and revolts us even today
I think we all recognise a time - usually when we're children and then we grow up to know and do better - when we just decided to do something really horrible and selfish, and when the world asked us for an explanation we made something up, knowing full well it was a lie.I think that's what Henry did. Many of us leave it behind when we grow up and gain a better empathy for others and understand that beings outside ourselves have and deserve their own agency. But sadly there are some adults who continue to behave in this manner and follow a pattern of deliberate malice combined with absurd lies.
Iset wrote: "What frustrates me about Henry is that he was intelligent and educated before his slide into corruption.Susan Bordo's book about Anne Boleyn observes that theirs was very much a new kind of relat..."
Iset wrote: "What frustrates me about Henry is that he was intelligent and educated before his slide into corruption.
Susan Bordo's book about Anne Boleyn observes that theirs was very much a new kind of relat
Are you saying that Catherine wasn't witty well educated a good conversationalist and intellectual? She was all of these and politically astute-she wasn't as forthright as Anne and didn't argue with Henry as much which is probably why their marriage lasted a lot longer
Are you saying that Catherine wasn't witty well educated a good conversationalist and intellectual? She was all of these and politically astute-she helped guide Henry in the early years of his rule and he valued her opinion. She wasn't as forthright as Anne and didn't argue with Henry as much which is probably why their marriage lasted a lot longer
No. I am not saying that. Susan Bordo says the following and I find it an interesting observation about the differences between Henry's dynamic with Katherine and his dynamic with Anne that is somewhat convincing:Henry’s attraction to Anne, in any case, seems to have been fueled not only by sexual attraction but by common enjoyments, compatible interests, intellectual stimulation, and shared political purpose. In our own time, this ideal of love is so familiar... But in Henry’s time, people didn’t expect to find such a match in one person... The medieval marriage, whose conventions were still largely in place in Henry VIII’s time, was a working relationship, with intercourse added to ensure the procreation of legitimate children. Mistresses were for uncomplicated sex (and, for Henry, to produce some backup bastard heirs should the legitimate route fail). Queens were satellites to their husbands, arranged for dynastic purposes; if the couple was lucky, they might find affection and sexual satisfaction in the match, but it was certainly not required...
Anne of France’s Lessons for My Daughter, written around 1498 but first printed around 1520, lays out the requirements of behavior for a future queen very clearly... In outlining the duties of a queen, she emphasized not only chastity and obedience, but also silence. Not that a queen should never speak; but when she does, it is not to be for the purpose of entertaining or debating, but to comfort, reassure, and serve others... We don’t know if Katherine was familiar with Lessons for My Daughter. But we do know that she was on intimate terms with Juan Luis Vives’s Education of a Christian Woman, which had been written in 1523 expressly for Princess Mary... Vives’s book purports to offer instruction for all women, but was clearly written with Katherine’s strict Catholicism as its model. In it, young girls, reminded that they are “the devil’s instrument,” are given strict instructions for how to protect themselves and their chastity from temptation. The essence of the instruction: Do not read anything other than Scripture or philosophers of high moral worth and employ no artifice of any sort in the “vainglorious” pursuit of physical beauty (adornments, perfumes, and ointments) that would “despoil her soul of the splendor of virtue.” For “she who rouses allurement in those who behold her does not possess true chastity.” Bland food was recommended, so as not to “inflame the body,” and children’s movements should be disciplined against “unseemly gesture” or a “proclivity to talkativeness.” And above all else, avoid the kind of witty conversation with men cultivated in court, which Vives viewed as a prelude to sexual abandon. Heterosexual conversation is so much the devil’s tool that Vives advises that “it is not to be permitted that a young woman and a man should converse alone anywhere for any length of time, not even if they are brother and sister.” Indeed, it is “best to have as little contact with men as possible.” For married women, he prohibits interest in “dances, amusements, and banqueting,” even on the day of their wedding: “There is no need of dancing and all that hubbub of drinking and uncontrolled and prolonged gaiety … Marriage was permitted as a remedy for lust, and we have made of the wedding day an occasion for unbridled lust.” Once married, she should leave the home as little as possible, speak “only when it would be harmful to keep silent,” and at home “administer everything according to the will and command of her husband.”...
While in the French court, [Anne Boleyn] had perfected a very different set of rules of female comportment, described by Baldassare Castiglione in his 1528 The Book of the Courtier as the cultivation of “a certain pleasant affability” designed to please men... She should be physically desirable and could engage in flirtatious, even sexually provocative talk (and should, when to do otherwise would shame the men or mark her as a prude), but her social performance must never raise doubts about her virtue. To guard against this, constant vigilance — in precarious tension with the “vivacity” expected of her — was required. Having been “finished” as a court lady, Anne’s sense of propriety was very different from Katherine’s. In France, Anne had learned that clever, provocative talk was an art, not a transgression. Katherine, raised much more strictly in Spain and with her royal status always in mind, had learned that it was a sin. Her everyday regimen was organized around goodness, duty, obedience, and silence. All that, of course, was what was expected of a good Tudor wife — especially of a queen. But Eros rebels at such conventions. Whatever their affection for each other, Henry and Katherine were not exactly vibrantly in tune. Neither one expected that, however, for neither “falling in love” nor “being in love” was the norm for Tudor marriage, particularly not for an arranged royal marriage. They probably were delighted to discover what appears to have been some real mutual attraction when they were young and Henry’s inexperience matched Katherine’s. Had Katherine been able to deliver a male heir, that — and Henry’s mistresses — probably would have kept the marriage alive indefinitely. But they were not soul mates...
[Henry and Anne's relationship] was a partnership. And an unusually “modern” one that did not fit into any of the available cultural patterns.
Chrissy and Iset, thank you both for being so polite and respectful in your disagreement about this hot-button topic. I have found that there are some subjects that do not lend themselves to civil discourse. I stopped arguing about politics with people years ago, for very few of us are going to change our minds as a result of such arguments, and I really don't like to quarrel with people, especially with friends and readers! This is a fascinating conversation about Anne Boleyn. I sometimes find myself thinking how astonished medieval kings and queens would be to learn that they continue to attract so much attention centuries after their deaths.
Iset, you are quite right about the perils and pitfalls of social media, especially for writers. A writer friend once made a mildly critical comment about a controversial political figure--more humorous than offensive--but a woman reader was outraged and let him know in very hostile language. He politely expressed his regrets for upsetting her, but said he'd merely been exercising his First Amendment rights. She shot back that he did not have any First Amendment rights, being a writer, and she was going to warn all of her friends and family away from his books, telling them that he was anti-woman. That was an extreme example, thankfully, but writers need to be a bit cautious in what they post on-line. In the past, when people posted very political comments on my Facebook pages, I would gently remind them that we try to stay away from current politics and make a joke about concentrating on the Plantagenets vs the Tudors, although I admit it is more challenging because of Trump. I always have had a few exceptions--I have never seen human rights or climate change or racism or misogyny as political issues, so I have occasionally commented upon them, but in general I would recommend not venturing out into deep waters on social media. For example, I would not discuss Brexit if I were you! Whatever you said, you'd be bound to offend someone, so it would be a lose-lose situation for you. You and I are more fortunate than many writers, though, for I think it is easier for historical novelists to shun current politics. Authors whose books could have been pulled from newspaper headlines probably find that to be much more challenging.
Me again. I forgot to say that I agree with Anduine--your psychological diagnosis of Henry's personality was spot on, Iset. Very insightful.
Thank you, Sharon.As for when it comes to social media nowadays, I find the biggest pitfall to be the assumption of rational equivalency in 'balanced discourse' to be the one people fall into the most. Say, for example, a topical programme will have a guest from NASA on one side of the table, and then a Flat Earther on the other side of the table. People often fall into the pitfall of believing that both sides have good strong points, or that the truth must be somewhere in between any two positions... but actually, sometimes it really isn't. The middle position is not always the most accurate one.
I have often been tempted to swear off engaging with people who hold, shall we say, views that do not have the weight of evidence behind them, or even a sense of moral fairness. But I do continue to engage occasionally, if I see any chance of civil discourse (I avoid those who seem like they cannot be civil). It can be difficult to have a conversation with someone who is, for example, biased on grounds of traits that people are born with - racism, sexism, sexuality. I simply try very very hard to treat them as I believe all people deserve to be treated and have a calm dialogue that acknowledges where we agree and encourages them to think about alternative perspectives without insulting their opinions. I admit this approach has not always won me friends - some people are just determined to see enemies everywhere. But I have had a surprising number of helpful and productive conversations. I have had some people of what we might call dubious biases, say to me that I am the first person from my "side" to speak to them reasonably without insults, and that because of that they have changed their mind about hating all people from the "other side", that they admire the fact I practice the ethics I claim to hold, and that they are thinking about other points of view.
I consider that payoff to be too valuable to stay safe and remain silent on important issues, even if silence would buy me more peace and quiet. Reaching productive cooperation and resolving conflict is, I think, key to tackling humanity's problems. No one wants to feel personally attacked or have their firm beliefs dismissed as worthless, and trust has to be earned, so I always try to be fair and ethical - even to people who ironically may not be fair in their views to others.
Sharon Kay Penman's Blog
- Sharon Kay Penman's profile
- 4037 followers
Sharon Kay Penman isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
I hope this note finds you well.
Best regards from a fan in chilly Canada.