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

[wombly]

I'm afraid I only saw the film , but was struck by details I didn't know about Tudor history. AFAIK Catherine of Aragon's defence of her position was verbatim in the film. So how about the Boleyn incest stuff? How historically accurate was that?

I haven't seen the film but AFAIK she was accused of incest with her (half?) brother on the basis of absolutely naff all.

Good to bear in mind that Henry had his next wife lined up to marry just 11 or so days after Anne's execution. He wanted her out of the way.

Well, Anne Boleyn was charged with, and convicted of, incest with her brother George, and he was executed for it, so yes it's historically accurate in that sense. Whether or not they were actually guilty is another question, of course...

Thanks, I found it shocking - I didn't know her bro had been executed. Presumably we can't know the truth; but the version given in the film was plausible IMO.

I have not read the book either and don't know what Philippa Gregory's reputation is for historical research, but I definitely wouldn't take the visual elements to be accurate. Lots of the costumes were a bit bonkers and criticised by experts, and they definitely had less time and money for researching those aspects than some other period films do. It does look lovely though.

Sorry, that sounded a bit supercilious, and actually I'm not sure about the time spent on research. I was an extra in TOBG so spent some time hanging around the costumes and so on (mmmm, long furry sleeves), and it just all felt a bit more cobbled together than some others I've been around. I.e. Usborne book of the Tudors plus quite a lot of artistic licence.

Of course it's not historically accurate. Philippa Gregory happily admits there is a certain amout of poetic license in all of her "historic" novels.

It ends, IIRC, with Mary Boleyn taking on the responsibility for litte Princess Elizabeth's upbringing which is absolutely not correct... Who can say how many women Henry VIII shagged - maybe Anne's sister.

I think it's about as accurate as the fabulously watchable but utter bollocks that is "The Tudors".

I think it's widely accepted that Henry was shagging Mary Boleyn for ages before Anne. Anne wouldn't shag him, was holding out for marriage.

Just checked the dates and in just over 5 weeks Anne Boleyn was arrested, tried and executed and henry married Jane Seymour. They threw the book at Anne basically, including incest maybe in the hope that this would turn people against her, or perhaps he just wanted to destroy her family totally?

Probably both, ElfPants. I suppose it would make sense to neutralise the young male Boleyn in case he made trouble.

I am in the camp of critics who feel that writers of 'historical' novels should make clear in an appendix how many glaring fictions they have included to suit the plot, so readers aren't actively misled.

Winterval, I agree with you re the film. I asked dh why they didn't call for assistance on their mobiles when the king fell off his horse. He agreed that they could then have scrambled a helicopter.

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

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.

I'm not so fussed about films, as about books, tbh. I think the fact that some historical detail is bang on - eg Catherine's words - is confusing. That series The Tudors OTOH was clearly nothing to do with history, so you wouldn't imagine any of it really was likely to be true. So the series was more honest, IYSWM.

LOL at Usborne. They could've used Ladybird books if they were recent graduates.

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 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.

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 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.

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

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.

(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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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