Book Review - Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, by G.W Bernard

I've read a lot of Bernard's previous work, including his short articles where he claims that Anne Boleyn probably did commit adultery with at least one of the five men accused alongside her. I didn't find the argument particularly convincing, mostly because the dates on which Anne was meant to have done the dirty deed were not compatible with when she was actually at the royal palaces mentioned, and I have always believed that the poor woman, her brother, and the others, were simply destroyed on a whim by a King who'd become infatuated with yet another mistress. I'd even written an essay on Anne and Henry's relationship whilst studying for my masters, and vowed to defend her to the very last, bitter word. She has always been, ironically along with Katherine of Aragon, one of my heroes. 

So it was with great interest that I opened Bernard's latest book Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, wondering what on earth he'd come up with now to paint Anne as an adulteress. In fact, the first 124 pages of the book are not concerned with Anne's fall, but with other aspects of her life, such as her early relationship with the King, and her religious beliefs. I actually found these parts of the book very well argued, as Bernard consistently shows evidence to prove that it was Henry, not Anne, who held back from full sexual relations during their early relationship, and that it was Henry, not Anne, who drove the divorce proceedings and subsequent religious change. Of course, putting Henry in the driving seat fits neatly with Bernard's much more complicated theory in The King's Reformation, which is that Henry was not manipulated by factions but directed policy himself. So perhaps we should be wary of taking all of his conclusions about Anne's religion etc at face value.

The last part of the book deals exclusively with the theories surrounding Anne's sudden fall and her execution. By this point, funnily enough, I really wanted Bernard to come up with some watertight arguments about why he thinks Anne might have been guilty. However, after refuting the other theories behind her fall - that it was the work of Cromwell, for example - he then goes on to offer no more than the 'might have beens' that he so criticises. He even ends the book by stating that his theory is a 'hunch' and that Anne 'probably' commited adultery (with Henry Norris, for example). We must remember that the sources that survive from the time are fragmentary and, in the case of Anne's fall, it was hardly likely that she would have confessed even if she had been guilty. But there is still nothing to raise Bernard's conclusions above other historical interpretations - the interpretations he was so quick to discard. He places an unreasonable weight on gossip, especially that of the Countess of Worcester, who denounced Anne's morals and way of life. Yet, even if Henry did believe this gossip, instead of destroying Anne because he was bored with her, it does not mean that the gossip was in fact true! 

I still greatly respect Bernard as a historian. I even cornered him whilst he was having his lunch during the Henry VIII conference in 2009 to bombard him with questions about the King's divorce. But I can't help feeling that his ideas about Anne's fall are still barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. Anne was no saint - it's the fact she wasn't that makes her so interesting - but in my opinion there is still no concrete evidence to prove that she was guilty of any of the crimes that she was charged with, and that her death was nothing less than murder.

Oops I forgot I had a blog. Oh yeah, and I got engaged.

I must be the worst blogger ever, as I keep forgetting I have this thing. Perhaps if my life were more exciting then I'd be more inclined to update it. At least now I have something to write about, which is that my boyfriend Michael and I got engaged yesterday :). 

November 1st was the 3 year anniversary of when we met, and we'd always said we'd get engaged once we'd been together for three years, so we did. This was in no way a 'traditional' engagement, as it was something we'd talked about for a while, so Mike didn't suprise me by getting down on one knee. There was no 'popping the question' either. Mike doesn't feel comfortable with the showy, traditional romanticism expected of the man in this situation and, to be honest, neither do I. So instead we went together to one of the big jewellery shops in the centre of Bristol and purchased a very modest engagement ring. And I do mean very modest. I find the idea of being wearing a ring covered in silly diamonds which cost more than a month's mortgage, quite utterly stupid. What's important about engagement, and then marriage, is the love between the two people, not the jewellery they wear. On the other hand, it's sometimes nice to have a pretty thing occasionally, which is why I didn't forsake the ring entirely. 

We do have a picture of the thing somewhere, but at the moment it's on Mike's phone and he's unable to email it to me because... well because he can't be bothered. The actual ring is currently being resized because I have ugly fat sausage fingers and the one at he shop didn't fit. So now I get to embark on the interesting journey that is wedding planning. Not that the wedding will be for at least another two years. A world of tacky tiaras, uncomfortable dresses, and needless decorations await, and I'm sure I will find it rather irritating at times, which is why I intend to blog about it because, lets face it, angry blogs are the most fun.