The Other Boleyn Girl - is it historically accurate? (Slight spoiler alert)

According to David Starkey in his book the SIx Wives of Henry VIII (better than a blockbuster) Anne was accused of adultery with loads of people, including a music master at court who had made a flirty remark to her.

As far as anyone knows, Anne wasn't unfaithful to Henry at all - partic not with her brother. Her crime was to have two miscarriages, the last one of which was a boy. She had to pay somehow.

Henry genuinely thought Anne had bewitched him and wanted her dead.

Incidentally, Anne didn't have six fingers, which I was always told she did. Disappointing eh.

Admittedly, Anne pissed off a lot of people in positions of power and the power she got did to some extent go to her head.

Similar was Elizabeth Woodvylle, Edward IV's wife, the difference was that Elizabeth was very fertile.

NO. It's 'historical fiction'.

There's no evidence that Catherine of Aragon was not telling the truth wrt to the consummation of her marriage to Arthur.

Arthur was well-known to be of weak constitution, often ill, indeed he died months after their marriage.

Further, Catherine was extremely religious and swore many oaths that the marriage was not consummated. If she were lying it would be considered a mortal sin, a very very grave thing to someone living back in that day.

Henry had all written references to Anne painted over or blacked out and never mentioned her again.

Shortly after his incarceration in the Tower, from which he was not to emerge except for his trial and subsequent execution, Sir Thomas Moore was asked if he born Anne, who was influential in his execuation, any ill will. He stated not, and quite rightly predicted she'd come to an end similar to his soon enough.

Henry bitterly regretted having Thomas executed, and held Anne responsible for his own actions.

There are a lot of myths and half truths surrounding Anne Boleyn and her death. apparently she never had 6 fingers on one hand,that was just made up by people at the time to try and discredit her/brand her a witch.

Also, no one is sure where her body lies in the church of St peter ad vincula in the grounds of the tower of london so I don't think it's been exhumed.

Also, Mary's children were never acknowledged by the king as his and as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, she never got custody of Elizabeth.

I'm only basing this on books i've read on the tudor period (Eric Ives has written a good one). I don't think we'll ever know what really happened. I think anne was treated appallingly just because she knew her own mind and wasn't afraid to speak up in a time when women basically had no rights.

She would've been so proud of her daughter wouldn't she?

I know what you mean! I'd never even thought of it that way until MiL pointed it out.

She has her uses

CaveMum, you know, I'd never considered that Katherine might have been telling the truth about the non-consummation but you've made me think of this in a completely different way! I'm actually a bit .

It's like when I first read Rebecca - I couldn't really work out why it was so crucial to prove that Max DeWinter hadn't killed her as he'd only (only!!!) be imprisoned but, of course, they still had the death penalty when the book was written.

Wandering off topic there... There are times when I am spectacularly thick!

Jingle, I think you are right. My MiL is a big fan of this period of history and often points out that it is very likely that the marriage (between Arthur and Katherine) was not consummated. Katherine herself gave evidence that she was "still a maid" and as a devout Catholic she would have believed that lying, particularly about such an important matter, would have condemned her eternal soul to Hell.

There was a telly version of The Other Boleyn Girl on a few years back which was much better than the film, I thought.

With regard to the incest point that LRD raised earlier, I think Henry had to get some sort of Papal dispensation to marry Katherine of Aragon because she had previously been married to his elder brother (Arthur). I think they claimed that the earlier marriage had never been consummated but I may have remembered that incorrectly. It's been a while since I read about this.

Henry VIII is probably one of my least favourite historical figures. I think he was an absolutely vile man.

Reading through the Wiki link, it seems her body was exhumed by the Victorians and given a better grave. They say she did not have six fingers, so it is interesting where that came from.

It's like a murder/mystery that I suppose we will never get to the bottom of.

That's just it - the accusations of incest with her brother are suggestible, as are the witchcraft, deformed babies, affairs with courtiers etc. There is no proof of any of these things and it is extremely likely that they were invented (as LRD says "people would have known they were pinning it on her" at the time) as a reason for having her (and her brother and others) executed.

In the film they certainly seemed to suggest she was keen on having incestuous relations with her brother although he appeared less enthusiastic. I was madly googling while watching I have to say. I had never heard of Mary Boleyn I'm ashamed to say

With regard to the incest, though it is impossible to prove, I can see how a woman in Anne's position (having usurped the previous wife and been unable to "provide" a son so far) would be so desperate to have that son that she would sleep with another man.

You could hypothesize that the only man she could trust to say nothing would be her brother. Not a nice thought though!

(Probably) the reason Anne Boleyn and her brother were (falsely) accused of incest and executed was because of their joint political and religious leanings, which, were an enormous threat to Thomas Cromwell in particular.

Henry shagged Mary before Anne. This means his relationship with Anne counts as incest under church law at the time. However, you could get dispensations for most things.

Re. the witch thing - imo, people did believe in witches, but rather the way we might believe in, say, cold war spies. We know there's a few real ones out there, but we also suspect, mythologize, and quite enjoy the idea of them. And sometimes we're pretty sure people are getting framed when they're not guilty.

In the period I work on (which is a little earlier but not much), there's a conflicting attitude towards physical 'proofs' of witchcraft: you could as easily see Anne's 6th finger, or a deformed baby, as evidence of a person to be pitied and cared for, as evidence of witchcraft. In fact, sometimes deformity (in adults, generally), is associated with power: the idea that someone is marked by God in their suffering.

So - whew, I am long winded - basically I'm saying they pinned it on her and people would have known they were pinning it on her.

I've always found the story of Lady Jane Grey to be a more interesting, and often overlooked, part of Tudor history.

I loved the book, but missed the film last night.

Wasn't the incest 'proved' by the fact that the baby that was conceived had serious congential abnormalities at birth and the midwives drowned it immediately?

Or was she proved to be witch - same reason as above - but baby turned out like that because she had 'lain with devil'.

Also, is there not some documentary evidence from the execution that said her had stayed alive for ages after it was cut from her body?

I find the story of Anne fascinating.

I know Wikipedia is not always the most accurate of sources, but this is their page on Mary Boleyn.

Anne's page is here and includes the charges laid against her.

Elfpants, you beat me to it! I think, also, it's widely known that Henry the Misogynist VIII had Mary B as his mistress a long time before Ann came on the scene.

I think Henry probably did want to destroy the whole family. I think he thought he'd been made to look a fool. Ann (like Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard) was, in my opinion, just a political pawn in her family's desire for power. That said, I suspect this was the case for all royal brides.

I thought Anne was the younger sister.

This confused me for the first 20 mins of the film, kept wondering 'Who is this third Boleyn sister?'

I think the aspect of their family forcing them into the King's bed was a bit over-egged as well.

Incest was just one of the charges against Anne; I think four other men were named as her lovers (all probably completely innocent). A 'confession' was got from one under torture. Henry didn't need proper evidence though, cos he was the King innit.

I didnt know she was charged with incest, we were taught at school she was executed for being a witch.....i suppose i should have recapped on the tudors since yr 4!

I wasn't joking about the Usborne book -- they were flicking through it when I went to get ye olde headdress fitted.

I know someone with a PhD in history who advises film makers on this stuff, and he reads the scripts and researches the facts meticulously, but he is also adamant that they should make the film they want to make -- it's storytelling. I agree wombly that it might be good to signal the fictionality, or at least the unknowns, so that books and films like this are interpreted in that spirit. It's also true though that they stimulate people to ask questions (like this thread!) and go and find out more for themselves, so perhaps it all works out in the end.

Think it's up there with Braveheart as far as accuracy is concerned. Love them both though!