What do you think? Is the letter real or fake? Is it a copy of a lost original, or did the Cotton manuscript actually come out of the Tower of London in May 1536? Let me know in the comments below and remember to SUBSCRIBE and check out my PATREON at www.patreon.com/historycalling
I remember reading this in Weir's book, "The Lady in the Tower" also, and I'm still suspicious of this letter being Queen Anne's. I guess the first thing that makes me go "oh heck nah", is-- where was this letter for 100 years? Surely, anything she did write ended up w/ Cromwell at the end, but that still doesn't explain what happened to it after his death. Furthermore, at this time in her life (the end being right around the corner, and sadly, she was fully aware of that fact), her only concern would have been about her daughter's future, and so that's the main reason why I just don't think this is from her at all. No way would she have been (as you say) as combative and "judge-y" to the piece of poop who was in charge of what happened to their daughter. So, I absolutely agree w/ you in that, nope. If she did write anything at all, it would've all been about Elizabeth. I'm currently reading Weir's "The Life of Elizabeth I", and it brings me such joy just thinking of how Queen Anne was victorious (through her daughter) after all. Suck it, Henry Poopy Pants Percival of Gangrene-y Leg the VIII. Again, thanks for the fabulous work that you do, HC. I hang on every word. Enjoy a relaxing weekend.
Since I have a literary background, I would approach this question by analyzing the letter as a text. I've checked the few actual letters that are accepted as being written by Anne. It may be a small sample, but it does give you a sense of her "voice" and pattern of composition and also the more general style of writing in the 1530s. The Tower letter doesn't match this voice and sounds more Elizabethan to me in tone. When I checked the British History Online's version of the Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10, January-June 1536, the editor (1897) noted the document to be "in an Elizabethan hand" and that other later copies were to be found elsewhere. He obviously had no time for such nonsense - "That this letter was not really either written or composed by Anne Boleyn, the handwriting and the style alike indicate beyond any reasonable doubt." My guess is that this may have originated as a document that could be presented to Elizabeth I as a memento of her mother in order to curry favor. If this were the case, it would fit with the way "Anne" is describing herself in the letter, which would present her in a sympathetic light to Elizabeth.
It is funny that many don't mention John Rogers, The First Protestant Martyr of many, burned at the stake by Queen Mary I in 1555, who set out to edit the errors and publish William Tyndale's New Testament Bible who was an influence on Queen Anne Boleyn. Of course, King Henry VIII turned against Pope Clement VII when he founded The Church of England and whose eldest daughter, Queen Mary I, Mary Tudor, executed 88 of the approximately 200 Protestant Martyrs. Of course, my direct ancestor, Rev. Edward Wightman, burned at the stake by King James I was The Last Protestant Martyr whose son backed Ollver Cromwell before he came to America in 1654 and was on Roger William's Petit Jury in 1661. Of course, John a.k.a. Johannis Wightman was the father of Rev. George Wightman (m. Elizabeth Updyke) who had sons named Rev. John Wightman (m. Jane Bentley) & Rev. Valentine Wightman (m. Susannah Holmes). Of course, Susannah Holmes was the daughter of Mary Holmes, daughter of Mary Sayles, daughter of Roger Williams who was once a student of Sir Edward Coke before coming to America in 1630. Of course, Sir Edward Coke introduced The Petition of Rights in 1628, in which, years later became The Parliament Bill of Rights in 1689 honored by The Magna Carta. Of course, Roger Williams introduced The Separation of Church & State onboard The Lyon in 1631 after coming to America in 1630. Of course, John or Johannis Wightman lived during the time of The 30 Year's War and The English Civil War when King Charles I (Anglican) was executed along with his wife, Henrietta Maria, in 1649. Of course, King Charles I was the brother of King James II. The British Library UK in their article on The Parliament Bill of Rights mentions that King James II was removed from the throne replaced by his nephew, Prince William or Orange (a.k.a. Prince William III) due to Sir Edward Coke's Petition of Rights that became The Parliament Bill of Rights. Of course, I believe that both Sir Edward Coke and Roger Williams did what they did due to those Protestant Martyrs during The European Persecutions during The Protestant Reformation Era sparked by Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Queen Anne Boleyn, William Tyndale, and John Rogers. Of course, Pope Leo's corruption in 1514 led to Martin Luther's 95 Theses, and there were those that claimed that Anne Boleyn was more of a Protestant than Martin Luther was. Of course, when Thomas Cromwell accused Anne Boleyn of committing adultery with her brother, George Boleyn, King Henry The VIII was engaged more so in seeing Jane Seymour than Anne Boleyn. Of course, George was executed a few days before Anne Boleyn, and a after Anne Boleyn's execution....King Henry VIII married Jane Seymour. Of course, it is interesting how one thing ends up sparking another thing throughout history which even led up to The Mayflower, Speedwell, and The Fortune. Of course, there were only about 25,000 Catholics in 1776 out of 4,500,000 people in The First 13 British Colonies that became The First 13 U.S. States according to The Encyclopedia Britannica. Of course, The Pew Research Center argues that the population of Catholics during 1776 was just a bit over 20%. Of course, I've been researching into trying to figure all that out when it comes to the past.
The same with why nobody mentions King Frederick II of Hesse Kassel out of Germany (Prussia) who funded "Hessian Troops" against our U.S. Founding Fathers who occupied Newport, Rhode Island during The American Revolution. King Frederick II married Princess Mary, the daughter of King George II. Of course, our U.S. Founding Fathers fought against King George III, the son of King George II. Also, Alexander Hamilton, who was shot and killed by Aaron Burr in a dual, once said, "King Frederick II should be King of The United States." (Archives Dot Gov, TIME Magazine). Of course, Alexander Hamilton set out to establish The First Bank of The United States. Of course, Mayer Amschel Rothschild was an agent of Prince William Landgrave IX of Hesse Kassel (Cassel) who funded British Troops against our U.S. Founding Fathers. Mayer Amschel Rothschild was the father of Nathaniel Rothschild who connived his way into winning the bid on the loan for The Reparations of France after The Battle of Waterloo (1815). Of course, Napoleon defeated France in 1799, but France still sided with our U.S. Founding Fathers during The American Revolution - Encyclopedia Britannica. Oh...Hessian Troops are mentioned on George Washington's Website, Mount Vernon Org as well as through Battlefields Dot Org. The term 'Hessian' is also mentioned through The Merriam Webster Dictionary, and one can do a time span search through Google Books from 1776 to 1850 or later after clicking on The "More" button and "Tools" button.
It is also interesting that The Biography Channel's Documentary on J.P. Morgan don't mention the business dealings that J.P. Morgan had with The Rothschild Banking Barons, John D. Rockefeller, Jacob Schiff, Felex M. Warburg, and Paul M. Warburg. Oh there are many many books through Google Books unspoken of from the past. Of course, G. Edward Griffin through CSPAN Books in his video interview mentioned that Paul Warburg was an agent of The Rothschild Banking Barons who worked their way into The United States through August Belmont (August Belmont - Encyclopedia Britannica). Oh...my direct ancestor, Rev. John Wightman's brother, Rev. Valentine Wightman, married the great grand daughter of Roger Williams, Susannah Holmes, the cousin of Mary Sayles who Abe Lincoln is a descendant of. Susannah fell under Obadiah's son John and his son John Jr.
Anne had enough intelligence to know once she was imprisoned her fate was sealed. She was innocent and it was known during Henry’s life time. His ego was so large putting Anne to death seemed not to bother him in the least. Anne’s daughter Elizabeth is regarded as one of the greatest England’s monarch. That is Anne’s revenge!
As much as he wanted to be rid of her, I do believe he had some guilt, and wiping out her memory completely would help him to deal with any guilt. A quick, merciful death, then silence her forever.
Yes, I'm sure Henry would roll in his grave if he knew that his great successor was Elizabeth (and Anne would do a fist pump - or the 16th century equivalent).
Actually her great revenge is that Elizabeth ended the Tudor line. I love that she refused to marry and produce an heir. Also that her reward to having had to behead Mary Queen of Scott's, that she united the 2 countries by having her son be the heir.
In her desperation, I can imagine Anne begging Thomas Cromwell’s leave to write to Henry and he could have assured her that he would personally deliver it, when he never intended to give it to Henry and instead stashed it away and forgot about it. .
I could imagine that too, though it would be a risky manoeuvre as so many other people would have known that she had written the letter and might have mentioned it to Henry.
This is why I write in such a crab-fisted hand. When future historians are trying to discern whether letters attributed to me were in fact written by me, they'll be able to point to my uniquely and indeed aggressively dreadful penmanship and say: "Yeah, that's him alright...Nobody wrote as awfully as he did!"
One other thing - Bordo's "this is how spouses talk to each other" argument struck me as odd - this wasn't an ordinary marriage, but one involving a MASSIVE power imbalance between the two parties and while I know Anne was headstrong and willing to talk back to Henry, I have to believe she was not so naive not to be aware that he had the power of life and death over her and that this would inform how she would communicate with him in a situation like this. That, combined with the fact that cultural norms surrounding how modern, developed world middle class people expect to interact with each other in a marriage would be quite different from those prevailing among royalty five centuries ago makes it hard for me to credit the "this is how I would talk to my spouse approach."
Yes, I thought much the same thing. We have some letters his other wives wrote to him and they are couched in very deferential terms. We always have to be careful not to apply modern social norms to the past, as you so astutely point out.
I agree, especially in the part where Anne seemingly upbraids Henry should she be condemned. As you said, the imbalance in their relationship means that she would never dare to say that, especially given that the life of their daughter Elizabeth was in his hands.
Catherine of Aragon also defied King Henry openly but unlike Anne, her status and connection to the Spanish Royal family protected her. King Henry did not dare to execute CoA because he knew it would start a war with Spain. Anne of Cleaves also had similar protection. The Boleyns and Seymours were subjects of King Henry so he did not fear retaliation much if he executed one of their family members.
I agree with your arguments here. The third person portion of the letter doesn't make any sense, since I don't think Anne Boleyn would've written a whole paragraph about herself and Henry IN third person, and it sounds more like an added paragraph that someone wrote as a tribute to the ill-fated Queen. Plus, the writer of this letter has included topics of her execution and her innocence, and to be honest, I don't think Anne Boleyn exactly knew what was going on and what was happening to her until her trial. The signature is definitely not hers, too. The whole letter, to me, sounds like a letter full of paragraphs that kind of shed light on Anne Boleyn and how serious the position she was in actually was, and the added paragraph below the letter, like I said before, was a final small tribute to Anne.
I have been obsessed with Anne since I first heard her story at like 7 years old. I have no idea why it’s so fascinating to me, but thank you for your videos because I love hearing things that I’ve never heard before ☺️
I am obsessed with Anne, too. I had read 📚 novels about real Kings and queens 👑. Then I saw another novel, The Other Boleyn Girl and it was ON after that. I know à lot of people are not fans of that book's 📚 author, but I loved it and wanted to learn more about Anne. So when I learn of à book 📚 about her, fiction or non, I get it and eagerly read it.
I’ve been completely fascinated by Anne since I was little too. My interest started with a book of ghost stories that featured the Tower of London though. I used to quite frequently tell all my classmates about her in probably first or second grade. My teacher had to tell everyone that ghosts weren’t real because I scared some of them 😂
When I first read this, I immediately thought it is real. During the long 6 year courtship, Anne and Henry were in each other’s company constantly. The tone is so much the feisty, clever Anne. Chapuy’s reports that The lady’s word was law to the king. Her sparkling personality and wit so different from the constant adoration of other women. Of course she addresses the king using her name Anne Boleyn. His anagrams alone were proof that her name was entrancing for 6 years.
I don’t know if Henry ever saw this letter but nothing was going to change his mind. He had her enemies in his ear, she was never going to produce a living son, and he had already chosen his next wife. I think he was also feeling foolish for having allowed himself to be convinced to treat Catherine so badly and tore the country in half.
I highly doubt Henry felt foolish. The proof is in what happened to Katherine Howard when she made Henry look foolish. Henry cried and threatened to run her through with a sword. He didn’t do that with Anne. Chapyus noted that he wore the horns of the cuckold to well when faced with the fallout from Anne
I’d vote for a fake. To me, the tone of the letter is what so strongly struck me as wrong. While Anne, when she was secure in her knowledge of her place, Henry’s affections and her safety, might have had a relationship with Henry that permitted this level of tone, I don’t think she would play it that way in a letter written from the tower in her then situation. Especially not as accusatory as the letter is. But I think the kernel of truth about it may be the story that it came from Cromwell’s possessions. I could very well imagine Cromwell drafting the original to have in reserve to use if Henry weakened in his resolve to be rid of Anne. And in that case, the tone of the words would be calculated to piss Henry off. Which might also explain why it didn’t come to light for so very long…it wasn’t used/needed at the time after all.
I vote for it NOT being her's. When I was listening to you read it, I thought it was accusatory....which I think she was smart enough NOT TO DO. Also, if she had written such a long letter while in the tower, I feel it would have been noted by her ladies or the jailer. To me, these are the most important points.
Let me play devil’s advocate here and say that it is precisely the fact that it was “accusatory” (although I think that it is more Anne’s knowledge of Henry’s faith and superstitious nature than accusatory) that it could be real. Who would write a forgery and include that language? A fake letter would be more conciliatory, don’t you think?
@@reverie6034 I don’t know if the letter is real or not, but I do know what you say in a public forum is not what you say to your most intimate acquaintances one-on-one.
Yes but we can't really be sure her jailer never mentioned the letter. Some of Kingston's papers were damaged or destroyed by fire, including anything noteworthy about the date 6/5/1536! Isn't that annoying?
It seems only fair to point out that Kingston's account of Anne's imprisonment is incomplete - we can't be sure he never mentioned Anne writing a letter. Some pages from his account are badly damaged ; others completely destroyed by fire (was it the same one?!). That specifically includes anything he recorded on the 6th May, 1536. It's so frustrating ! Great video though. Thank you!
Anne stoked the intensity of Henry's affection by holding out for marriage when every woman at court (including her elder sister) knew the "rules" dictated she sacrifice her immortal soul to the King's desire. She counter-intuited that Henry's vanity could be piqued by a woman of equal intelligence and self-worth. She was proved correct in that when combined with his quest for a legitimate male heir he chanced eternal damnation to force the marriage upon Christendom itself. Tragically, she couldn't hold that degree of value once his lust was sated without bearing a son. Nor could she have understood the degree to which Henry's pathological ego had already consumed any empathy or compassion he may have had. To my mind the tone of the letter is in keeping with Anne's character and the strategic nature of their relationship. If the letter is a fake, it's forger had keen insight and an incomprehensible motive.
Thank you for your work! This was an amazing analysis and I love how it feels very rooted in facts, as you provide very good sources and argument for both sides.
Anne Boleyn's life involved sex, betrayal, power, a shocking fall from grace, a dramatic death, and because of her sparking the English Reformation, world-historical importance. She lived one of the most consequential lives in human history - the world would probably have been a very different place if she hadn't been born. And yet, behind all that was a human being. It's breathtaking to consider. Also, those moving pictures are spooky!
I completely agree. It's easy to forget she was just a person like the rest of us. You're not the only one a bit freaked out by the pictures, but I quite like them :-)
Very little sex if you ask me. Ann was either 29 or 35 when she died. Depending on which birth date you believe is accurate. Ann was known to be quite devout and refused to be Henry's mistress. If Henry wanted her he'd have to marry her. They were only wed around 3 years and 3 months when she was executed. So...
@@HistoryCalling It's the lips moving thing after her beheading. Still goes to show the expertise of the swordsman. She was completely taken by surprise, if that was indeed what took place.
If it hadn’t been Anne it would have been another unfortunate young woman. Henry was obsessed with having a legitimate son by any means. If Henry’s elder brother hadn’t died, or even his illegitimate son (who could have been legitimised), then the world could be a very different place.
Éric Goodemote: As I read novels, the author gives the characters (in this case the real characters) feelings and this makes it à lot easier to know they lived, loved, (or hated), where non-fiction books states the cold hard facts. Makes it boring and mechanical. But I do read them if there's nothing else available.
Great video as always HC! I do wonder if it's possible to date any of the copies of the letters (such as dating the ink or the paper), as I'm sure a definitive date would either strengthen or weaken the arguments for it's authenticity, but I suppose that if it were possible it would've been done by now
Excellent point. There is carbon dating, however I think that just produces a range covering several decades, so I don't know that it would be precise enough to be super helpful here. You never know though. Maybe the type of paper used could be used as a pointer, depending on when it was produced?
THANK YOU so much for your continuing support Stephen and I'm delighted I found something new about Anne Boleyn for you (which is always a real challenge here on RUclips).
Oh my word! I'm so sorry about that. I've fixed it now. Please let's put that down to the fact that I'm currently fighting off a case of Covid and am a bit scatter-brained at the moment.
Thank you. I'm past the worst of it now, but I'm still mortified I made a boob like that. I can only assume that the comment above or below yours was by someone called Chris and my brain just caught it in my peripheral vision and inserted into the comment I was typing at the time :-(
I wish I could go back in time and let Anne know what she was in for... although that would definitely change the course of history. I just feel so sad that all that really signed her death warrant was that she didn’t produce a male heir. There’s no way Henry would have executed Anne had she had a son. It would have saved the lives of Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard too, as they likely would never ended up as a bride of Henry. RIP to all these innocent ladies.
Anne Boleyn wasn't exactly a nice person either. She made a lot of enemies at court by being rude, arrogant, condescending, and downright nasty to King Henry's other subjects. She also tormented Catherine of Aragon and her daughter Mary as well. It wouldn't surprise me if Anne herself caused the deaths of many innocent people as well.
Intresting! In a strange way you would have saved many more lives! Princess Diana comes from her sisters bloodline. Meaning you would have saved Diana in a strange way, because Charles wouldn’t have been born! Maybe if Ann had a son and he survived in too adulthood? The son would have been a Protestant king? So, Bloody Catholic Mary wouldn’t get in power and many live Protestant lives would have been saved. Only one thing: History needed Mary and Elizabeth to become queens! They where the first born female royals who got on the throne. Their unique position would make it possible at the time, too change that law. And one big other thing would have been different: America would have ended up Spanish speaking, and world wide: No colonization!!! 😅… Please go back in time on that note!!!!
I stumbled upon your channel by chance and I am absolutely loving your content! I love history and you do such a great job at explaining things and providing pictures too! Wonderful!!
loved this video and honestly have never seen the document until now. because of how little we have left of her, my mind wants this to be her words just to see some sort of glimpse into her. really wish there was more letters from her so the writing styles could be compared!
I would love it to be genuine too, for the same reason and I will say it's not impossible that it's a copy of a lost original. It just seems a bit too good to be true and there are the various issues with the provenance, tone and signature I mentioned.
@@HistoryCalling i hold out hope that one day a treasure trove of Anne’s writing and/or belongings that someone might’ve kept hidden away will come to the surface🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼unlikely but gives me something to hold onto 🤣
My thought would be: if it WAS from Cromwell's papers then there could be 2 possible solutions. Either 1) it was written by Anne and intercepted by Cromwell and never passed onto Henry to read for fear that Anne's words in her own hand would be enough to at least get the king to pause instead of continuing on with her condemnation and eventual execution or 2) it was a forgery by Cromwell himself intended to enrage Henry with its aggressive tone and accusations about Jane Seymour so that he would definitely commit to seeing Anne dead and not potentially change his mind. That's just my theories tho. As for its authenticity? I am also not entirely sure one way or the other.
I vote for the 2nd possibility. Anne was never popular. I think Cromwell wanted something in his back pocket. I think Anne was truly the only wife Henry, as much as he was capable, truly loved. At any time, Cromwell's plan to rid the royal court of Anne could have unraveled like an old sweater. Cromwell needed a "convincer". This letter in its tone would have sealed Anne's fate while leaving her daughter's in limbo.
@@HistoryCalling My thought was that it might be a copy of a lost original hence why it has an annotation essentially giving context to the letter. I'm just theorising.
Dwelling if the letter was in "Anne's hand" may be a fool's errand as monarchs, etc had secretaries. If Anne had wished to write a letter, a secretary would have been sent in at either Anne's or Cromwell's request.
Good discussion on this letter…it’s fascinating. And who knows what mischief was wrought in that chaotic time? Regarding the writing at the end (I love unravelling old writing from many years of researching my family tree!): It’s definitely not “to the King from the lady in the tower”. There’s more to it than that. I think maybe words at the end of the first two lines are faded/missing. A word at the end of the second line has faded. Looking at the shape of the ‘h’s and ‘e’s in the letter, that word begins and ends with ‘h’ and the second letter of it is an ‘e’. I would guess the word is ‘health’. So I think this small piece of writing is maybe incomplete, but says: “The Ladye …? (another word that ends in ‘d’?) To the King(s) health …? of the Tower” Just my guess. These old manuscripts and the ancient writing, plus the passage of time, possible light/water damage, fire damage, misuse…who knows. Very interesting. Thank you.
Spelling meant very little at that time. There was no definitive English dictionary until the Oxford English dictionary until late in the reign of Queen Victoria.
@@cherylhayden7363 yes but she would know how to spell Anne. In every other confirmed piece of writing she spelt it with an E. there’s no way that would have changed all of a sudden.
From a records and Genealogical standpoint, it’s kind of driving me crazy right now that I didn’t know Catherine’s name has been changed in spelling. We have fantastic records of the monarchy, but when people just change spellings can be very difficult to track down a persons family line. Another great video as always good job :-)
The English language is the last prominent language to have a definitive dictionary, but that said there are over 50 words where the spelling in Britain which continue to differ from that in the US. Therefore, I am not troubled by differences in spelling, even of names, as spelling was never important. Read letters written by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Franklin and you'd think they were barely literate. What has always troubled me about Henry's treatment of Anne was his crafting or acquiescence to Cromwell's crafting of Anne's demise. Why not a covent? It took a full 5 years for monasteries and convents to be closed, from 1536-41. She could have been sent to a convent in English controlled France or Ireland. Given her unpopularity vis a vis Henry's 1st wife, no one would have rallied to her cause. She was not a foreign born heir, etc. Surely, Henry could have negotiated with Anne to enter a convent in France or Ireland to ensure Elizabeth remain in the line of succession. The question then becomes in who's best interest does the letter serve? My money is on Cromwell. Despite the fact he shared religious beliefs with Anne, she was his sworn enemy. Could he have dictated the alleged last letter? Given its aggressive tone, was this something he could have put in his pocket to firm up the resolve of his King and Members of Parliament to ensure a vote of guilty. When in the end it wasn't needed, he could have easily put aside the original along until it was nearly lost to history.
I have had the EXACT same problem when doing my family tree. I once couldn't find an Alice on a 1901 census return for absolutely ages. Turns out it was because her parents had spelt it Allace (which I never would have thought of).
@@HistoryCalling My father had an aunt, Mina or Mena or Meana or Meena depending on how the semi-literate census taker spelled her name. Yep, 40 years of misspelling!
I'm more in favor of it not being authentic, but it really gave me pause just to consider what that poor woman was going through in the Tower. It must've been awful for her.
THANK YOU so much for your generous donation to the channel June-Lesley and I hope you enjoyed hearing the debates about whether or not this was Anne's last letter.
I love the idea that abject fear and despair, which I would imagine would have been likely to be Anne's circumstances when she was in the Tower, were believed by Henry Ellis as those that would "rouse a cultivated mind." I don't know how frequently Mr. Ellis had been under the impression that his life was imminently about to end, but I rather think those would not be ideal circumstances in which to compose one's magnum opus. I think what convinces me that the letter isn't truly by Anne, in addition to the points you raised, is how extremely perfect it is. If historians and laypeople alike had to agree on something they wanted Anne Boleyn to have written when she was in the Tower, they could not have come up with a more on-the-nose artifact than this. It has everything anyone could want from a hypothetical letter from Anne to Henry at that time; all it needs is a reference to Elizabeth as Henry's only true, lawful heiress, destined to be England's greatest queen. If something seems too good to be true, it often is, unfortunately 😞
Excellent points. I agree too that the kind of strain she was under would be generally expected to make someone a much better writer than they ever have been. Elizabeth I wrote a letter to her sister Mary whilst locked in the Tower and it comes across as far more desperate. It helps of course that we have the original document to look at and can see her spelling errors and the dark lines across the page in case anyone added in an incriminating postscript.
@@HistoryCalling I think the letter you are referring to was not written from Elizabeth to Mary from the Tower, but from one of the royal palaces (I believe Whitehall?). This desperate letter, in which Elizabeth passionately protests her innocence of any involvement in the infamous Wyatt rebellion, was her frantic attempt to avoid going to the Tower in the first place, where her young cousin Jane Grey had just been executed as a result of that uprising. The delay caused by the time taken to compose the letter by deliberate intent caused the men arresting her to miss the tide. She did indeed make mistakes through the letter----her thoughts must have been racing through her head as she struggled to compose it---and she famously crossed out the empty space at the bottom of the last page so no one could add anything incriminating to it. The imagination boggles as to what her state of mind must have been, let alone when' she actually was taken by barge to theTower the next morning----just as her mother had been. Anne's fate must have consumed her-----she even refused to enter the Tower when she got there, just sitting down on the stone steps in the pouring rain! An unfathomable ordeal to even attempt to imagine.
She actually did plenty wrong, but definitely did not deserve to die. She knowingly had an intimate relationship with a married man, and led him on, until he finally threw away poor old Catherine of Aragon, bastardizing his formerly beloved daughter with Catherine of Aragon, at Anne's assertions, I'm sure, and much more. Although, as I said before, she did not deserve to die and was very innocent of all of the charges which led to her execution!
If there were proof that it came from Cromwell's collection, despite many excellent points you made, I would be inclined to believe it was an authentic copy. Just based on what we do know of Anne (she was intelligent & seem to have no issue standing up for herself or reacting to emotions). With the addition to Cromwell being in his many positions; such as, an attorney, privy counsel, etc; it seems plausible he would copy & keep such documents in his possession for many reasons. Gosh, it would be awesome to KNOW for certain! And, as always, great video!
I tried to comment on a previous video, but the comment section wouldn't load. This video was on the subject of the birth of James lll and sponsored by Dan Snow's History Hit I just wanted to commend you on the growth of your channel. It is a great accolade when the likes of History Hit take notice of how much solid research and academic content goes into each episode of History Calling and want to invest in you. I would hope someday that I am listening to a podcast or watching one of your programs on History Hit TV. I would like to wish you every success for the future.
The fact she did not call herself queen, the fact it's clearly a copy, and the unlikelihood of her being able to compose it and send it makes me suspect its veracity. But it's a terrific letter.
Dear HC: I'm glad you're on the fence about this because so am I. You do raise excellent points as to its veracity. The handwriting has never been an issue to me - I always assumed it was written either by a scribe or was a copy of a lost original. However, I've always found it dubious that the author not only signs themselves "Anne Bullen" but KEEPS pointing out that their name is Anne Boleyn/Bullen. It's as if whoever wrote it wants readers to know: "THIS IS A LETTER WRITTEN BY ANNE BOLEYN, GODDAMNIT!" However, that's my only real doubt about the letter's actual content. If it's a forgery, I think most of us can agree it was an extremely good one. The tone is that of a woman positively seething and stewing over her predicament. The author sounds so passionately aggrieved and distraught - exactly how I'd imagine Anne to have felt but admittedly a good forger could have accomplished this. However,, Allison Weir wrote that adultery in a Queen was not actually punishable by death when Anne was arrested; my point in raising this is, would she have known on the 6th of May she was facing execution? Yes, probably ("Shall I die without justice?") but if not, it could account for the reckless, accusatory tone. Apologies for bombarding you with so many speculative questions & doing 180's all throughout this post. I don't have the answer to this mystery and I suppose I never will. I admit I want this letter to be real , but I can be objective about it also.
The many instances of the name appearing throughout the letter may be due to "Anne" trying to bring attention to/re-humanize herself. They don't strike me as weird. I agree with everything else :)
The numerous references to her maiden name seemed a bit on the nose for me too and I also wondered if she'd have known she was facing the scaffold at this point. The content is good in that it says everything I think we would want Anne to have said to Henry, but that in itself is a little bit fan-fictiony (as one of my other commenters put it). Nevertheless, as I said in the video, we simply can't rule out the idea that it's a copy of a lost original and it's certainly a great item to debate.
If I do puppy eyes (or at least tell you I am) can we get some videos on the Anglo-Saxons or Normans, if your comfortable with that topic of research? Amazing video as always though Dr Ms History! This one is hard to guess. I can’t remember if there are other letters by Queen Boleyn. Do they marry up in hand writing and writing style? It seems odd that it seems to carry no nicknames used between the two. She’s trying to endear him to her cause, but it feels like the letter has nothing of that desperation she must have felt.
Yes, there are a few other letters. The handwriting is definitely off and to be honest, I would say the style of this one is better, but something like style is of course a matter of opinion. I do have plans to look at some earlier royal history too, but shan't give away any details here :-)
@@HistoryCalling I thought so! I'd thought I'd imagined it but yeah, she has more than I believe any of the other of Henry's queen's, doesn't she? You got lucky. I was literally just about to take a picture of my dog with her big ol' puppy eyes on my Instagram and message you the link on Patreon. 😂
Henry the seventh went through all that drama to secure the marriage between Henry & Catherine-only for Henry to cast Catherine aside-and he ended up casting Anne aside.
I think Henry 7 would have been most interested in the dynasty continuing and had no problem ditching KoA when it looked to be a less prestigious match for Henry than she was for Arthur. H7 went through drama for Arthur to marry Katherine, not Henry... Henry 8 went through drama to marry her with H7.
Anne Boleyn chose ermine trimmed grey damask robe to wear at her execution, ermine to symbolize royal status, and crimson kirtle (possibly to symbolize martyrdom). I don't believe Anne would sign a letter, without identifying herself as the queen, regardless of that title being stripped away from her upon receiving the charges and sentencing. While some of the context in the letter may coincide with what she was thinking and how she was feeling, it appears that there is a lack of consistency in the style to be written in her own hand. It was reported that Anne suffered hysteria understandably, extreme emotional ups and downs. It is understandable why she would plead with the king to show her mercy, and some of what is in that letter were things that she did speak, knowing that it would reach the kings ears, regardless of whether the letter in it's entirety were the solely the words spoken by Anne Boleyn.
I was intrigued by your conjecture about a possible motive for such a forgery. Could it possibly have "surfaced" during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, as a piece of propaganda supporting her mother's innocence? After all, Elizabeth may have been restored to the succession much earlier, but she still had her disgraced mother's memory to deal with when she became queen. She succeeded Queen Mary, a Catholic, and though she played down her religious prejudice, there was no doubt she intended to rule as a protestant. It seems possible a convincing "testimony from the grave" may have been useful to QEI, and may have even been offered to her as "genuine." Whoever proffered such a letter could have ended up in Elizabeth's good graces, not only for offering it, but for "preserving" it over the years before she ascended to the throne.
The tone for me really strikes me as odd. If Anne had actually written a letter to Henry, I would have expected it to be more like Anne of Cleves' letter (re: the dissolution of her marriage to Henry) or Catherine Parr's response to nearly being imprisoned herself. The actual letter reads more like 'fanfiction'- what someone (a fan of Anne Boleyn, possibly) *wishes* she would have said to Henry. In terms of motive, I definitely think it could have been created to sell, or perhaps an attempt at defending Anne's character (making her seem more confident and powerful than she actually was).
Exactly what I think. It's definitely possible Anne was _thinking_ things like that, but writing them to Henry? Not unless she was actually _trying_ to get executed! Fanfic is a very good description.
I lean toward it being a fake. But…I could think that perhaps she did. For argument sake, she knows the charges were false, if the king does believe this written plea, she could go free, if he does not, she is going to lose her daughter, her brother, her life. Perhaps she thinks he still cares for her. I mean, he is getting a French swordsman instead of an ax. Why not plead for her innocence? Anne made enemies (Cromwell), she was foolish in her words (speaking of the king’s death), and she was naive (thinking that her word alone would save her and that she could trust someone to get the letter to the king). It is so sad, a frightening storm with no possibility of shelter. Thank you HC, such a compelling video.
Thanks for a great, unbiased video presenting all the evidence on both sides. Very interesting and informative stuff. There will probably never be an answer unless an actual original copy were to show up, but my own personal crack theory is that someone decided to write an historical fiction novel a few years after Anne's death, realized that was a BAD idea given the political climate so stopped writing, and then these six pages were the only part that survived, but their origins got lost in the mists of time 😂 Seems as good an explanation as any...
Anne probably heard the rumblings that Henery was coming for her next. She knew about Jane Seymor. She was feeling desarate and isolated. She saw how Queen Catherines disposal went down. She knew Henery got what Henery wanted. (a son) That she dictated the letter prior to going to the tower to someone she trusted and had them post date it after the fact. She said her piece both bold and contrite as she knew the outcome was probably going to be the same. I think she might have been appealing to Henery by calling him out, that he might have some pitty on her and spare her life.
While I'm not particularly convinced of the letter's authenticity, I do have a question for you about the signature. Given that the letter is at best a copy of an original, would the letter necessarily be how Anne signed the letter originally, or could it have been changed? I'm not much of a historian, so I'm unsure if that is something that often or rarely occurs when making copies of letters, but I could see an argument that the signature was written as such because Anne was not considered the Queen any longer by Cromwell and his associates.
I am with Eric Ives on this one. The Tower was a profoundly scary place. Speaking in an accusatory tone when she was imprisoned there not only seems psychologically implausible (whaterever the views of modern feminists, who are in no danger of executiotn for treason - possibly by burning - for irritating the King), but would hardly have been the best way to protect the status of her daughter, which we know concerned Anne greatly.
That was my 1st thought, & it's totally consistent with feminism, which recognises that women had less power etc in the past, & that we're much better off today. And I don't think she _should've_ written something accusatory & disrespectful to Henry either- I certainly wouldn't! Either way, the only person I'm judging here is him.
Just 2 cents from a DV survivor. I was in a life threatening situation with a baby. She might have written this. I have written things in a similar tone. As have other DV victims/survivors throughout history. It’s complicated when your husband is the person that will hurt you and it always has been. To this day the number 1 cause of death for women is their partner. So no we aren’t free or live without fear of men. We just have the option of maybe being able to leave 💜
I think the only question I would have is, why would she not be allowed to write letters? There is history of people in the tower who were affluent being able to write letters. Also wouldn't her writing letters be a potential good source of ammunition for Cromwell against her? Anyway we know Cromwell would have taken the letters and read them and then would decide whether or not to send them on after having copied them. This was typical for how he worked in the past and how advisers worked in the future. I can see it being a fake and I can see it potentially being real. I do think that Anne was not in her right mind for much of her time in the tower; however, and I don't know if she would have been able to think straight enough to get her thoughts down on paper. I am mixed because of some of the points you brought up and the fact that she knew that her letters would be read by others and perhaps not ever delivered.
There are certainly points in favour of, as well as against the letter. As for whether any letter would be a good source of ammunition, I suppose it depends on what it said. It would be a dangerous manoeuvre on Cromwell's part though to basically steal Henry's post.
Thank you for your videos I really enjoy them. What we may have here is an academic Schrodinger's cat. It does sound like it could be a copy of an original letter made by made by Cromwell's Cromwell's secretaries. While the original would have been destroyed. We would just have to nail down the edge of the paper as well as the ink. I would use it for a A more generalized description of what the power dynamics of king Henry VIII court and the power dynamics were at work at the time.
Regarding the paper and ink, remember that the paper at least could have been produced in the 1530s but not written on until the 1630s (in fact paper from the 1530s could technically still be written on today). Ink wouldn't last as long admittedly and would have to date from much closer to the time the letter was written, but I don't think either have ever been tested in this case.
There is no way that this letter could be authentic, because the author has anne accusing her husband of grave sins, and warns him that he faces a stern judgment from God for falsely accusing her. Anne’s supposed assertion that he just wants her out of the way so he can marry her rival also sounds a false. No one writing such an angry and critical letter to Henry, a monarch with a huge ego and who brooked no criticism, could have expected a pardon from him. Anne was too smart and sophisticted to write such a letter to Henry if she hoped to receive a pardon from him
From all the known facts you have pointed out, I believe the letter from queen Ann to Henry, is a fake for all the reasons you mentioned but as with most Tudor mysteries we will never truly know for sure, Thank you as always HC 😊
@@HistoryCalling Tudor history is quite full of unsolved mystery which we sadly will never have answers to HC 😊I know your a busy lady thank you for your replie. 😊
Anne was never Henry’s “mistress” (although her sister, Mary, was). She slept with him for the first time in Calais only after he pledged to marry her when they returned to England.
I feel that if she signed as the Queen it may not have gone over well with Henry. It feels that her bringing up Jane is more telling him she would gladly step aside at this point and be allowed to live like Katherine of Aragon, outsude of court for the rest of her days. The thing that seens odd to me, is she does not press upon the point that they have a daughter to think about. Yes, she would care about her own life, but I think she would want her daughter protected. Not to mention what his daughter would think of him killing her mother.
The impression i have gained about Anne Boleyn is of an incredibly brave woman who recognised her fate and sought to protect those she cared for. What a Queen she would have made!
I believe the letter to be genuine, Anne could well have, given the letter to Cranmer, who,of course,because he valued his life, would pass it on to Cromwell. I never saw Anne as the type of person who would just sit quietly awaiting her fate,it wasn't in her nature. She would have found a way of having a pop at Henry,
A copy of a lost original is certainly possible. I'd be the first one to admit that there's not enough evidence to give any definitive answer on this, even though I lean towards a forgery myself.
I think the letter is a copy of the original. If Henry had read it he probably would have thrown it out or tried burning it as he would have believed she was a traitor and would never had kept it. It is possible Cromwell or someone else rescued it but it was so damaged, it was rewritten and filed away, hence the additional third person postscript.
I've noticed how my own hand writing changes pending underlying circumstances as well as how my focus / concentration changes when I'm aware I am emotional therefore I need to focus to make this legible.
When you say it changes though, it sounds like you mean that it just becomes a messier version of your handwriting (thus your need to focus on legibility), rather than that you actually alter the way you form your letters. I have neat and messy versions of my handwriting too, but I don't start constructing the letters in a different way and my handwriting today is even recognisable from things I wrote in school as a 10 year old. The handwriting in this case is so dissimilar to Anne's that it's really hard for me to believe it's her.
@@HistoryCalling I've actually noticed myself doing both, I had to write a letter to ask the Texas Rangers to look into my Uncles murder and the first draft was messy and then I tried to focus extremely so it was legible but still wasn't right (tears / ink not good). (Eventually I ended up typing it)
I think the ultimate revenge of his wives is that he is remembered throughout history as pathetic and disgusting, whereas his wives being exalted and role models.
Honestly, I think we have a mixed bag here. I think it possible Anne did actually write so shocking letter that it was copied and recopied but . . . I think it was historian Norah Lofts who said that there's a lot in this letter that should have been said but never was. It makes sense to me that we must have, at one time, had an original letter from Anne that was "copied" with additions made to add those things that should have been said but wasn't. It brings to my mind what the religious reformer Alesius told Anne's daughter, Elizabeth I, about seeing her as a baby with Henry and Anne shortly before Anne's arrest, despite there being no evidence that Elizabeth was anywhere but Hatfield (why would Anne send instructions about Elizabeth's attire to Hatfield if Elizabeth was with her at Greenwich?) at the time and no evidence that Alesius was at Greenwich in late April 1536. It seems to me that Alesius spun this story to ingratiate himself with Elizabeth. I believe, likewise, the embellishments to the original letter are in the same vein, that it was "copied" with additions by someone who wanted to get in good with Elizabeth. So, I believe some of this letter might be real but much is fabricated; and we cannot now untangle it. I do think that we can take both Alesius' comments and the "copies" of this letter as evidence that Elizabeth was at least interested, in a positive way, in information about her mother and that influential people around her knew that.
I'm absolutely with you on the issue of whether Elizabeth was with her mother, just before her arrest. I think that was just a sob story made up to interest Elizabeth as an adult. Of course it's shown in The Tudors, so I think a lot of people believe it now.
The Tudors' recreation of that scene was so very weird (and, yes, Alesius said he saw Anne, Henry and Elizabeth through a window, not along a garden path, and he certainly didn't say Anne was dressed in early Snow White, but . . . ) that it convinced me all the more that Alesius was just making it up. Anne no longer had her father nearby for advice (he'd gone back to Hever and that's an entirely other story), so she wasn't always making the best choices, but there is no way she would have thought making a scene with Henry by showing him Elizabeth (no idea what point that was supposed to make) was the right way to go. Anne was very high strung but she wasn't stupid.
I agree with the timing, I would trust the grief and belief of the boy's mother, if there is evidence of her reactions. How did she escape the sanctuary ? Thank you for these delightful stories.
I was going to say this is just and idea for future maybe like in a year time or something I hope one day you can maybe make a video on how Disney made their version of Pocahontas vs History and how Pocahontas life was an actual tragic and how Disney made her a character that fell in love with John Smith which isn’t really historical accurate well maybe not as much as they put their love story in the Disney film 🍿 maybe this can be another one of yours Hollywood vs History but this time Disney vs History
It depends on how you look at her life. She made a huge impact for dying so young. She was the first ‘princess’ of Native American origin that was presented on the world stage. She humanized the Native Americans. If not for her, I literally wouldn’t be here.
all Disney movies are based on real stories and they're not good stories either. Disney just had a way to turn them all around and make their lives happy happy joy joy....è
True. Pocahontas was about 12 when she stopped the war between her people and the Europeans. She married a military English man and died from disease in England when she was about 24.
The letter didn't seem plausible to me - it didn't feel like a letter which might be written to a queen who knew that her life was in her husband's hands. It almost feels like the sort of exercises we did at school, where we had to pretend we were a fictional character writing to another character in that universe (for me, it was My Fair Lady).
It does feel a little bit 'historical fiction' to me too, or as one of the commenters put it - fan fiction. It just says everything we would wish she'd said to him.
I’m rather curious to see if a handwriting professional or several have been able to determine the personality of the person writing this letter and does it match up with what we are aware of her personality? Is there any way of corroborating this? Very interesting video but since it’s inconclusive I feel that this might be an interesting way to discover some interesting details on this question. Love this channel and really appreciate both sides of this argument.❤️🍀🌈🙏🏻😇❣️
I have studied handwriting analysis in the past and, under the assumption that the letter is genuine and that is not an issue, will give you what I can as far as an interpretation of the writer goes: Writer is very intelligent and sensitive Strongest quality: Attractiveness to others She is looked at as desirable or even enthralling to many more than she actually trusts or considers a friend In fact, she has very few if any real friends at all She is aware of her attractiveness and her response to having that knowledge is that she is extremely gracious to others and will extend herself to them both intellectually and presentationally. Period. She doesn't want anything back in return. She's happy to please others any way she can. The worst thing that can be said for her is possibly she extends herself to them too much. She puts on a very attractive “performance” or presentation of herself which causes people to be intrigued by her and want to know more about her and she will do a great deal to entertain or help but isn’t interested in offers of intimacy and won’t accept them if made. She is not a liar but neither does she share a great deal of emotion or trust with anyone at all She spends a great deal thinking about higher spiritual, philosophical or moral issues but discusses these things with virtually no one. She has a very clear notion of her right to privacy and does not allow anyone really to break through that. She is a person who sees herself as being allowed to roam in vast areas of property and dwellings but feels she herself owns very, very little; perhaps nothing at all. This is why she offers so much of herself to others; it is her own charm that is all she believes she really has that belongs to her. She is trying to the ultimate degree in this letter to offer more sincere and unselfish love than anyone could possibly give for the chance to be taken back and allowed to live. She is at the same time fearful and wanting to do more in the day that can be done, and is thinking more than anyone should have to in the slim hope that her affection will be seen with the sincerity that it is offered and she may be saved. The letter says I am everything you believed me to be, and will still be to you everything you could possibly want me to be; please don't change or destroy what we are, it is for real, my feelings for you are sincere. SHE knows that sincere love offered is the greatest gift one person could give to another and is hoping deeply that the person she is writing the letter to will understand that also. But she has no guarantee of that so she is quite nervous. I do not get that the writer of the letter is interested in self-gratification at all and if I were to make the call as to whether the writer would cheat on her husband I would say no, however she would mix with as many people as possible in the hopes that her attractive presence would be of any kind of benefit to them and to herself. She feels she is in a position where her intelligence and capacity for clear thought has been rendered useless and this deeply, profoundly disturbs her. Her response to what is happening is not to trust anyone around her but again and again try to offer her sincere affection to the king as she did before. I have little doubt that she had been spending most of her time alone at the time this was written and not looking to others for company or coursel. She’s not a liar or a manipulator but she holds what she considers personal VERY close to her her own heart and doesn’t really let anyone else in there because she doesn’t feel it’s her responsibility to do so. She is a “giver: who chooses carefully who she decides to “give” a lot to. This can make her seem like a manipulator when in fact whatever she offers to anyone is actually sincere and could prove rewarding. She just doesn’t give absolutely all to anyone, which she feels is her right. I can see why some people might have thought she was manipulative. But that is not what I see here, I just see a person that was extremely generous but who no one else can intellectually or emotionally control or get their hooks into and that is probably why Henry could not deal with her any more. She was smarter than he was, better spoken, socially a jewel, personally a delight, and more popular than he was. After looking at this I have no problem suggesting that the reason he had her killed was not jealousy regarding fears of her being with other men, but instead jealousy of her ability to enthrall and captivate people - a quality he did not possess at all. She was extremely charming and everything he could not be.
I agree there’s no way to know for sure, but I do think it’s plausible that this is a copy of a lost original, which could have been written either by Anne or one of her women, even if they were hostile to her. It seems especially cruel not to be able to write to your own husband who is allowing you to be put on trial for treason, but this is the Tudor period after all. Also take into account she was still the anointed Queen of England, even if in disgrace and imprisoned and this was an unprecedented situation. Would they really deny the Queen this one freedom? Maybe. If we assume, since we can only trace the letter to about 100 years after her death, that this is a copy, then we can ignore the fact that the handwriting doesn’t seem similar and we can also assume that perhaps some of the wording was even changed. If we think of how many different versions of her speech on the scaffold we have, we can theorize that the letter has some embellishments that make its tone bolder than the original. Anyway, we will never know for sure unless another, earlier version gets discovered, so for now I am happy to say ‘maybe, quite possibly unlikely, but I also won’t rule it out.’
I don't think it was her. In the first part of the letter, the author mentions that they aren't sure why they have made Henry mad and been arrested. Anne was clever-I'm sure that she would have known why she was in prison, and if not, I'm sure that someone would have told her.
That is reasonable but it could also be an attempt to tell her husband that she was innocent of the changes against her. Anne was a smart and clever woman and saying thst she didn't understand why she was in the tower would be more feminine than saying "I'm innocent, let me out of here!"
I'm not sure actually what exactly she knew and when she knew it. I know she wasn't given time to prepare a proper defence though before her show-trial.
You make a good case for the letter being a forgery, and I want to thank you. I'm working on a song based upon this letter. The song cycle also has doubtful words of Katherine Howard as well. Sigh. I'm not feeling very good about those pieces being historically accurate. You're certainly helping me explain in my program notes.
The reason I think it's real is because I don't think she would've just given up without a fight or to at least let Henry know her thoughts they had been through too much together and it may be that she thought one more try would work. Everything is conjecture of course but I think it's a good possibility that it is real.
Thank you for this very thoughtful video. On the whole I tend to think the letter is a forgery--it's so aggressive--and it's hard to believe that she was allowed to write anything to Henry. But as you say, if it is a forgery, why was it written? Maybe to support what became her position as a Protestant martyr??
In regards to her using the title Anne Rochford-- unmarried ladies take the precedence of their eldest brother and the Lord Chamberlain's Order of 1520 lists the daughters of an earl of the rank of viscount. Is it possible she was upping her prestige by naming herself after her brother's (or rather father's) viscounty?
I think it must have been a prestige thing yes. I've never seen a man's title used like that by his daughter (though I admit the whole titles system was a bit more fluid 500 years ago).
Lukas and I were visiting friends so my viewing of this excellent presentation was delayed. Wow - there was a lot to absorb. Unlike your more knowledgeable viewers, I was unaware of the letter and the surrounding controversy. I actually watched it twice before hazarding an opinion. I'm leaning toward the letter being a fake although the image of the headstrong Anne giving Henry "the finger" while facing death is attractive to me. 😉 What a strange and terrible time to live. Be well, HC. See you next week. 🙏🏼
Yes, there was a lot to get through. I felt a bit knackered by the end of putting this video together to, as 30 minutes (which it almost is) is really on the long side for me. I lean towards a later forgery too, but it's just possible it's a copy of a lost original.
I think this is the first time I have ever heard the entire document, having previously only heard parts. I have never read a copy of it. It sounds like the result of an interrogation. Various supposedly contemporary reports indicate that Anne had an emotional personality. The letter begins humbly but toward the end becomes harsh. Was she interrogated in such a way that she was goaded into saying something nasty about Jane Seymour? The only thing Anne admitted at her trial was that she had not always shown the King the respect he deserved. To me this means she was not properly deferential and humble as his wife and queen. Lots of us, 500 years later, agonize about how Henry treated his wives, especially when he executed two of them. Recently, someone who seemed to really grasp the Tudor era, replied to one of my comments. That person basically said Henry had to execute those wives. In Anne's case, he had overthrown a born princess and anointed queen and replaced her with basically a commoner. Had Anne produced a baby prince, her position would probably have been secure. When Catherine of Aragon died, Henry could wipe his slate clean and start over, the way I see it. Basically, in that age of chivalry and glittering courts, the whole thing was run like the Mafia. (The Mafia is said to have begun in medieval Sicily.) Additionally, some accepted Tudor era spectacles had to do with horrendous animal cruelty, including bear and bull baiting. Reverence for life and prevention of suffering was not a big thing. People from the lowest class to the highest must have been inured to death, cruelty and terrible punishments. Those who were executed, especially of the noble class were supposed to die well and praise the king. They were to behave as severely beaten dogs who crawl to lick the hands of abusers. I don't think Anne wrote the letter. If the content is the result of a harsh interrogation, perhaps we have a glimpse of her personality. However it is, Anne's reported speech from the scaffold is even more poignant. Toward the end the letter calls out Henry for dumping Anne, wife, mother and queen, in favour of Jane who is not named. In Anne's last speech she describes Henry as kind and gentle and always good to her, etc..... Yes, she had a 'good death' for the times. But even then I hope her glowing praise of the husband who was killing her, was seen as a bit farcical. Perhaps Anne gave all she had to try to plead for and protect the infant Elizabeth. On the other hand, the overly sweet praise sounds a bit like 'up yours Henry', to use an American crudity. Thus Anne Boleyn continues to live in our imaginations.
I think she probably wrote the letter. She probably started off trying to appeal to Henry viii, for her life,and the life of her friends but still angry that she was the tower.
You're absolutely right - "it sounds like the result of an interrogation." Kudos to you for pointing this out because that has never even occured to me. In this context it may be worth remembering that Anna of Cleves and Katherine Howard's "letters" to Henry obviously aren't private, personal letters they wrote to him either. Yet they're ostensibly presented as such. Katherine's confession and plea for leniency is 'the result of an interrogation'. Even hers contains a rather tactless gaffe. Rather than claiming she was blinded by love in marrying Henry, Katherine declared : "I was far too desirous of worldly glory to consider the grievous sin in concealing from Your Majesty my former faults" . That line can only have annoyed the spiteful, egomaniacal Henry . Anna of Cleves "letter" is a mini-masterpiece - but it's a formal statement given under duress. I know these comparisons may seem tenuous but I'm just throwing them into the mix. I agree with you about Anne's scaffold speech too - I'm glad she had the courage to complain about Henry's "great unkindness" in the Tower & that it later got back to him.
Although I tend to think the letter doesn't really come from Anne, I like your interrogation theory as a different way of looking at it. I also like the Tudor/mafia comparison. It was a bit like that at times :-)
I agree that Queen Ann's scaffold speech definitely sounds sarcastic. Gentle, kiindly Prince? Long may he reign over you? LOL. watch your head, you could be next. Tragic affair.
@@freshwater2101 I always attributed her flowery execution speech to her protection of her daughter, Elizabeth. Stroke the ego of Henry the maniac and hopefully he will not harm the child.
No, she was extremely intelligent and would never waste the opportunity on such an fruitless appeal. She knew what he was, she had been surviving him using her calculus for close to a decade by that point. She saw what he did to Katherine and Mary. She knew he was cruel and the extent of his vindictiveness- especially when it came to the obsessive vanity of a malignant narcissist. She wouldn't expose her daughter to any unnecessary wrath. If anything, her energies would be appealing to her 'ladies' (spies) to pass the message to her relatives to secure oversight of her child, in whatever way they could. Her only concern would be that Elizabeth not be mistreated after her death.
The spelling of "Bollen", it's really interesting that people could just change their names whenever before government officiating. My husband's ancestors changed their German names from "Bucher" to "Bucker" to "Buggar"
I always enjoy your videos. The letter is interesting but how will we ever know? I doubt it is Anne's letter. Maybe someone needed money so forged it. Have they done any dating on the paper and ink of the letter? That might help. Thank you for all your hard work in bringing these videos to us.
I don't think we ever will sadly. I haven't heard about any dating of the paper or ink, however things like carbon dating are only accurate to within a few decades, so likely wouldn't be precise enough to really help us (plus it could have been written on an old piece of paper, much later on).
I do not see how she could have written such an imprudent letter. If she had, it would have been used against her right away. This could not have been a private letter between spouses, because she was being accused of treason and was (supposedly) writing to the king to declare her innocence, knowing it would not go directly to him. Because it wasn't made public at the time and didn't turn up until years later, to me that's the biggest proof it was a fake. Anne certainly would have limited the letter to protesting her innocence and emphasizing her loyalty and her status as formally crowned queen consort; she would have been pleading for the king's mercy and for her daughter's status as heiress apparent. Instead, the letter berates the king for his infidelity, suggests that her soul was purer than his and suggests that his death would not be long in coming, which suggestion was treasonous in itself, was it not? If it did date from the period, it could have been composed by someone who wanted to add to the phony evidence against her, but I cannot imagine that Anne herself would have been so rash. Certainly not in the case where someone else was supposedly putting her up to writing the letter and there was no guarantee it would get to the king before her enemies saw it.
But if there are no less than six copies in existence, why would anyone assume that this is not also a copy of the lost original - thus explaining the postscript? Why does this have to be the original document to make it Anne’s authentic message to Henry, rather than a copy made at the time, possibly at the behest of Cromwell? At this stage she didn’t know what was going to happen to her, and it does sound like the way she’d have become used to speaking to the man previously in thrall to her. She would have been aware of what COULD happen to her - she’d lived with him long enough to understand the cruelty of his personality - but she could also have been hoping that he would never apply that cruelty to her, hence the tone of the contents.
I believe The Letter was dictated by Queen Anne. She was denied writing materials. IMO Anne knew she was doomed and had little to lose. Bishop (or Arch Bishop) Canmer was deeply connected to Anne and may have copied Anne's words. Surely Cranmer was allowed to privately hear Anne? Cranmer would have given this letter to Cromwell. The wording shows Anne is well aware why Henry put her in this position. Her wit and sarcasm show through. As in her desth speech "never hath been a gentler or more just prince". Forgive wrong quote please. 'And long may he reighn over YOU'. The letter begs for the lives of four innocent men. Sorry to rattle on. Only my opinion but I do believe it sounds like Anne Boleyn telling her husband she knows him well and wishes he had left her as her found her therefore signing Anne Boleyn.
What do you think? Is the letter real or fake? Is it a copy of a lost original, or did the Cotton manuscript actually come out of the Tower of London in May 1536? Let me know in the comments below and remember to SUBSCRIBE and check out my PATREON at www.patreon.com/historycalling
I remember reading this in Weir's book, "The Lady in the Tower" also, and I'm still suspicious of this letter being Queen Anne's. I guess the first thing that makes me go "oh heck nah", is-- where was this letter for 100 years? Surely, anything she did write ended up w/ Cromwell at the end, but that still doesn't explain what happened to it after his death. Furthermore, at this time in her life (the end being right around the corner, and sadly, she was fully aware of that fact), her only concern would have been about her daughter's future, and so that's the main reason why I just don't think this is from her at all. No way would she have been (as you say) as combative and "judge-y" to the piece of poop who was in charge of what happened to their daughter. So, I absolutely agree w/ you in that, nope. If she did write anything at all, it would've all been about Elizabeth. I'm currently reading Weir's "The Life of Elizabeth I", and it brings me such joy just thinking of how Queen Anne was victorious (through her daughter) after all. Suck it, Henry Poopy Pants Percival of Gangrene-y Leg the VIII.
Again, thanks for the fabulous work that you do, HC. I hang on every word. Enjoy a relaxing weekend.
Since I have a literary background, I would approach this question by analyzing the letter as a text. I've checked the few actual letters that are accepted as being written by Anne. It may be a small sample, but it does give you a sense of her "voice" and pattern of composition and also the more general style of writing in the 1530s. The Tower letter doesn't match this voice and sounds more Elizabethan to me in tone.
When I checked the British History Online's version of the Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10, January-June 1536, the editor (1897) noted the document to be "in an Elizabethan hand" and that other later copies were to be found elsewhere. He obviously had no time for such nonsense - "That this letter was not really either written or composed by Anne Boleyn, the handwriting and the style alike indicate beyond any reasonable doubt."
My guess is that this may have originated as a document that could be presented to Elizabeth I as a memento of her mother in order to curry favor. If this were the case, it would fit with the way "Anne" is describing herself in the letter, which would present her in a sympathetic light to Elizabeth.
It is funny that many don't mention John Rogers, The First Protestant Martyr of many, burned at the stake by Queen Mary I in 1555, who set out to edit the errors and publish William Tyndale's New Testament Bible who was an influence on Queen Anne Boleyn. Of course, King Henry VIII turned against Pope Clement VII when he founded The Church of England and whose eldest daughter, Queen Mary I, Mary Tudor, executed 88 of the approximately 200 Protestant Martyrs. Of course, my direct ancestor, Rev. Edward Wightman, burned at the stake by King James I was The Last Protestant Martyr whose son backed Ollver Cromwell before he came to America in 1654 and was on Roger William's Petit Jury in 1661. Of course, John a.k.a. Johannis Wightman was the father of Rev. George Wightman (m. Elizabeth Updyke) who had sons named Rev. John Wightman (m. Jane Bentley) & Rev. Valentine Wightman (m. Susannah Holmes). Of course, Susannah Holmes was the daughter of Mary Holmes, daughter of Mary Sayles, daughter of Roger Williams who was once a student of Sir Edward Coke before coming to America in 1630. Of course, Sir Edward Coke introduced The Petition of Rights in 1628, in which, years later became The Parliament Bill of Rights in 1689 honored by The Magna Carta. Of course, Roger Williams introduced The Separation of Church & State onboard The Lyon in 1631 after coming to America in 1630. Of course, John or Johannis Wightman lived during the time of The 30 Year's War and The English Civil War when King Charles I (Anglican) was executed along with his wife, Henrietta Maria, in 1649. Of course, King Charles I was the brother of King James II. The British Library UK in their article on The Parliament Bill of Rights mentions that King James II was removed from the throne replaced by his nephew, Prince William or Orange (a.k.a. Prince William III) due to Sir Edward Coke's Petition of Rights that became The Parliament Bill of Rights. Of course, I believe that both Sir Edward Coke and Roger Williams did what they did due to those Protestant Martyrs during The European Persecutions during The Protestant Reformation Era sparked by Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Queen Anne Boleyn, William Tyndale, and John Rogers. Of course, Pope Leo's corruption in 1514 led to Martin Luther's 95 Theses, and there were those that claimed that Anne Boleyn was more of a Protestant than Martin Luther was. Of course, when Thomas Cromwell accused Anne Boleyn of committing adultery with her brother, George Boleyn, King Henry The VIII was engaged more so in seeing Jane Seymour than Anne Boleyn. Of course, George was executed a few days before Anne Boleyn, and a after Anne Boleyn's execution....King Henry VIII married Jane Seymour. Of course, it is interesting how one thing ends up sparking another thing throughout history which even led up to The Mayflower, Speedwell, and The Fortune. Of course, there were only about 25,000 Catholics in 1776 out of 4,500,000 people in The First 13 British Colonies that became The First 13 U.S. States according to The Encyclopedia Britannica. Of course, The Pew Research Center argues that the population of Catholics during 1776 was just a bit over 20%. Of course, I've been researching into trying to figure all that out when it comes to the past.
The same with why nobody mentions King Frederick II of Hesse Kassel out of Germany (Prussia) who funded "Hessian Troops" against our U.S. Founding Fathers who occupied Newport, Rhode Island during The American Revolution. King Frederick II married Princess Mary, the daughter of King George II. Of course, our U.S. Founding Fathers fought against King George III, the son of King George II. Also, Alexander Hamilton, who was shot and killed by Aaron Burr in a dual, once said, "King Frederick II should be King of The United States." (Archives Dot Gov, TIME Magazine). Of course, Alexander Hamilton set out to establish The First Bank of The United States. Of course, Mayer Amschel Rothschild was an agent of Prince William Landgrave IX of Hesse Kassel (Cassel) who funded British Troops against our U.S. Founding Fathers. Mayer Amschel Rothschild was the father of Nathaniel Rothschild who connived his way into winning the bid on the loan for The Reparations of France after The Battle of Waterloo (1815). Of course, Napoleon defeated France in 1799, but France still sided with our U.S. Founding Fathers during The American Revolution - Encyclopedia Britannica. Oh...Hessian Troops are mentioned on George Washington's Website, Mount Vernon Org as well as through Battlefields Dot Org. The term 'Hessian' is also mentioned through The Merriam Webster Dictionary, and one can do a time span search through Google Books from 1776 to 1850 or later after clicking on The "More" button and "Tools" button.
It is also interesting that The Biography Channel's Documentary on J.P. Morgan don't mention the business dealings that J.P. Morgan had with The Rothschild Banking Barons, John D. Rockefeller, Jacob Schiff, Felex M. Warburg, and Paul M. Warburg. Oh there are many many books through Google Books unspoken of from the past. Of course, G. Edward Griffin through CSPAN Books in his video interview mentioned that Paul Warburg was an agent of The Rothschild Banking Barons who worked their way into The United States through August Belmont (August Belmont - Encyclopedia Britannica). Oh...my direct ancestor, Rev. John Wightman's brother, Rev. Valentine Wightman, married the great grand daughter of Roger Williams, Susannah Holmes, the cousin of Mary Sayles who Abe Lincoln is a descendant of. Susannah fell under Obadiah's son John and his son John Jr.
Anne had enough intelligence to know once she was imprisoned her fate was sealed. She was innocent and it was known during Henry’s life time. His ego was so large putting Anne to death seemed not to bother him in the least. Anne’s daughter Elizabeth is regarded as one of the greatest England’s monarch. That is Anne’s revenge!
As much as he wanted to be rid of her, I do believe he had some guilt, and wiping out her memory completely would help him to deal with any guilt. A quick, merciful death, then silence her forever.
That's actually something really nice to think about
Yes, I'm sure Henry would roll in his grave if he knew that his great successor was Elizabeth (and Anne would do a fist pump - or the 16th century equivalent).
Actually her great revenge is that Elizabeth ended the Tudor line. I love that she refused to marry and produce an heir. Also that her reward to having had to behead Mary Queen of Scott's, that she united the 2 countries by having her son be the heir.
POETIC JUSTICE
In her desperation, I can imagine Anne begging Thomas Cromwell’s leave to write to Henry and he could have assured her that he would personally deliver it, when he never intended to give it to Henry and instead stashed it away and forgot about it. .
I could imagine that too, though it would be a risky manoeuvre as so many other people would have known that she had written the letter and might have mentioned it to Henry.
Omg that's a great theory! I can definitely see that as well
I agree. I could certainly imagine Cromwell burning 🔥 the letter.
She got exactly what she gave!
Honestly, Cromwell did Anne wrong.
This is why I write in such a crab-fisted hand. When future historians are trying to discern whether letters attributed to me were in fact written by me, they'll be able to point to my uniquely and indeed aggressively dreadful penmanship and say: "Yeah, that's him alright...Nobody wrote as awfully as he did!"
Haha, yes, having a distinctive hand can be - well - handy :-)
Are you a doctor? ;)
One other thing - Bordo's "this is how spouses talk to each other" argument struck me as odd - this wasn't an ordinary marriage, but one involving a MASSIVE power imbalance between the two parties and while I know Anne was headstrong and willing to talk back to Henry, I have to believe she was not so naive not to be aware that he had the power of life and death over her and that this would inform how she would communicate with him in a situation like this. That, combined with the fact that cultural norms surrounding how modern, developed world middle class people expect to interact with each other in a marriage would be quite different from those prevailing among royalty five centuries ago makes it hard for me to credit the "this is how I would talk to my spouse approach."
Yes, I thought much the same thing. We have some letters his other wives wrote to him and they are couched in very deferential terms. We always have to be careful not to apply modern social norms to the past, as you so astutely point out.
I agree
I agree, especially in the part where Anne seemingly upbraids Henry should she be condemned. As you said, the imbalance in their relationship means that she would never dare to say that, especially given that the life of their daughter Elizabeth was in his hands.
Catherine of Aragon also defied King Henry openly but unlike Anne, her status and connection to the Spanish Royal family protected her. King Henry did not dare to execute CoA because he knew it would start a war with Spain. Anne of Cleaves also had similar protection. The Boleyns and Seymours were subjects of King Henry so he did not fear retaliation much if he executed one of their family members.
You think Anne was famously headstrong because she was deferential and mindful of tone? LOL
I agree with your arguments here. The third person portion of the letter doesn't make any sense, since I don't think Anne Boleyn would've written a whole paragraph about herself and Henry IN third person, and it sounds more like an added paragraph that someone wrote as a tribute to the ill-fated Queen. Plus, the writer of this letter has included topics of her execution and her innocence, and to be honest, I don't think Anne Boleyn exactly knew what was going on and what was happening to her until her trial. The signature is definitely not hers, too. The whole letter, to me, sounds like a letter full of paragraphs that kind of shed light on Anne Boleyn and how serious the position she was in actually was, and the added paragraph below the letter, like I said before, was a final small tribute to Anne.
Yes, it might have been created to add interest to a later book about her, but the signature was a serious faux pas.
I have been obsessed with Anne since I first heard her story at like 7 years old. I have no idea why it’s so fascinating to me, but thank you for your videos because I love hearing things that I’ve never heard before ☺️
Me too! My Mum bought me a book on the Tudors when I was 7 and I've been hooked ever since :-)
I am obsessed with Anne, too. I had read 📚 novels about real Kings and queens 👑. Then I saw another novel, The Other Boleyn Girl and it was ON after that. I know à lot of people are not fans of that book's 📚 author, but I loved it and wanted to learn more about Anne. So when I learn of à book 📚 about her, fiction or non, I get it and eagerly read it.
Same. I feel as tho he had her killed just to procure a son from a new wife
I’ve been completely fascinated by Anne since I was little too. My interest started with a book of ghost stories that featured the Tower of London though. I used to quite frequently tell all my classmates about her in probably first or second grade. My teacher had to tell everyone that ghosts weren’t real because I scared some of them 😂
I love the book The Other Boleyn Girl , I’ve read it a few times, it’s so good!
When I first read this, I immediately thought it is real. During the long 6 year courtship, Anne and Henry were in each other’s company constantly. The tone is so much the feisty, clever Anne. Chapuy’s reports that The lady’s word was law to the king. Her sparkling personality and wit so different from the constant adoration of other women. Of course she addresses the king using her name Anne Boleyn. His anagrams alone were proof that her name was entrancing for 6 years.
I don’t know if Henry ever saw this letter but nothing was going to change his mind. He had her enemies in his ear, she was never going to produce a living son, and he had already chosen his next wife. I think he was also feeling foolish for having allowed himself to be convinced to treat Catherine so badly and tore the country in half.
Why was she never going to produce a living male child?
Jayne Seymour did only a couple of years later ?
She was young and fertile
I highly doubt Henry felt foolish. The proof is in what happened to Katherine Howard when she made Henry look foolish. Henry cried and threatened to run her through with a sword. He didn’t do that with Anne. Chapyus noted that he wore the horns of the cuckold to well when faced with the fallout from Anne
I’d vote for a fake. To me, the tone of the letter is what so strongly struck me as wrong. While Anne, when she was secure in her knowledge of her place, Henry’s affections and her safety, might have had a relationship with Henry that permitted this level of tone, I don’t think she would play it that way in a letter written from the tower in her then situation. Especially not as accusatory as the letter is. But I think the kernel of truth about it may be the story that it came from Cromwell’s possessions. I could very well imagine Cromwell drafting the original to have in reserve to use if Henry weakened in his resolve to be rid of Anne. And in that case, the tone of the words would be calculated to piss Henry off. Which might also explain why it didn’t come to light for so very long…it wasn’t used/needed at the time after all.
I'd love to know if it really did come from Cromwell too...
I really enjoy all your videos. Thank You!
תודה רבה לך!
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE VERY KIND DONATION and you're very welcome :-)
I really enjoy your videos every week and I am very excited for this one.
Thank you. It's an interesting story, especially given how much attention this letter has received in recent years.
I vote for it NOT being her's. When I was listening to you read it, I thought it was accusatory....which I think she was smart enough NOT TO DO. Also, if she had written such a long letter while in the tower, I feel it would have been noted by her ladies or the jailer. To me, these are the most important points.
Yes, I think it's very telling that there's no supporting evidence to corroborate the idea that she wrote this, or any other letter, in the Tower.
Let me play devil’s advocate here and say that it is precisely the fact that it was “accusatory” (although I think that it is more Anne’s knowledge of Henry’s faith and superstitious nature than accusatory) that it could be real. Who would write a forgery and include that language? A fake letter would be more conciliatory, don’t you think?
I agree. She would never have accused Henry like that. She begged his forgiveness and honored him on the scaffold. I cannot get behind this at all.
@@reverie6034 I don’t know if the letter is real or not, but I do know what you say in a public forum is not what you say to your most intimate acquaintances one-on-one.
Yes but we can't really be sure her jailer never mentioned the letter. Some of Kingston's papers were damaged or destroyed by fire, including anything noteworthy about the date 6/5/1536! Isn't that annoying?
It seems only fair to point out that Kingston's account of Anne's imprisonment is incomplete - we can't be sure he never mentioned Anne writing a letter. Some pages from his account are badly damaged ; others completely destroyed by fire (was it the same one?!). That specifically includes anything he recorded on the 6th May, 1536. It's so frustrating ! Great video though. Thank you!
Anne stoked the intensity of Henry's affection by holding out for marriage when every woman at court (including her elder sister) knew the "rules" dictated she sacrifice her immortal soul to the King's desire. She counter-intuited that Henry's vanity could be piqued by a woman of equal intelligence and self-worth. She was proved correct in that when combined with his quest for a legitimate male heir he chanced eternal damnation to force the marriage upon Christendom itself. Tragically, she couldn't hold that degree of value once his lust was sated without bearing a son. Nor could she have understood the degree to which Henry's pathological ego had already consumed any empathy or compassion he may have had. To my mind the tone of the letter is in keeping with Anne's character and the strategic nature of their relationship. If the letter is a fake, it's forger had keen insight and an incomprehensible motive.
Thank you for your work! This was an amazing analysis and I love how it feels very rooted in facts, as you provide very good sources and argument for both sides.
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it :-)
Your channel just gets better and better!! I absolutely love everything you upload ❤
Thank you for your video today. I’m having a really really hard day but this upload makes it a little more bearable.
I'm sorry to hear you had a bad day. I hope you're doing better now and I'm glad the video provided a decent distraction.
Anne Boleyn's life involved sex, betrayal, power, a shocking fall from grace, a dramatic death, and because of her sparking the English Reformation, world-historical importance. She lived one of the most consequential lives in human history - the world would probably have been a very different place if she hadn't been born. And yet, behind all that was a human being. It's breathtaking to consider.
Also, those moving pictures are spooky!
I completely agree. It's easy to forget she was just a person like the rest of us.
You're not the only one a bit freaked out by the pictures, but I quite like them :-)
Very little sex if you ask me. Ann was either 29 or 35 when she died. Depending on which birth date you believe is accurate. Ann was known to be quite devout and refused to be Henry's mistress. If Henry wanted her he'd have to marry her. They were only wed around 3 years and 3 months when she was executed. So...
@@HistoryCalling It's the lips moving thing after her beheading. Still goes to show the expertise of the swordsman. She was completely taken by surprise, if that was indeed what took place.
If it hadn’t been Anne it would have been another unfortunate young woman. Henry was obsessed with having a legitimate son by any means.
If Henry’s elder brother hadn’t died, or even his illegitimate son (who could have been legitimised), then the world could be a very different place.
Éric Goodemote: As I read novels, the author gives the characters (in this case the real characters) feelings and this makes it à lot easier to know they lived, loved, (or hated), where non-fiction books states the cold hard facts. Makes it boring and mechanical. But I do read them if there's nothing else available.
Thanks!
THANK YOU so much for your generous support of the channel Julie and I hope you enjoyed the video.
Great video as always HC! I do wonder if it's possible to date any of the copies of the letters (such as dating the ink or the paper), as I'm sure a definitive date would either strengthen or weaken the arguments for it's authenticity, but I suppose that if it were possible it would've been done by now
Excellent point. There is carbon dating, however I think that just produces a range covering several decades, so I don't know that it would be precise enough to be super helpful here. You never know though. Maybe the type of paper used could be used as a pointer, depending on when it was produced?
Thanks, HC! I knew nothing about this letter and your presentation had me glued to the screen.👏👏
THANK YOU so much for your continuing support Stephen and I'm delighted I found something new about Anne Boleyn for you (which is always a real challenge here on RUclips).
@@HistoryCalling 😆It's Steve, actually. No worries. No doubt Chris is one of your more well read viewers. 😉
Oh my word! I'm so sorry about that. I've fixed it now. Please let's put that down to the fact that I'm currently fighting off a case of Covid and am a bit scatter-brained at the moment.
@@HistoryCalling Oh no!! Give yourself credit for maintaining your work schedule. 👏👏Take care of yourself! 🙏🏼
Thank you. I'm past the worst of it now, but I'm still mortified I made a boob like that. I can only assume that the comment above or below yours was by someone called Chris and my brain just caught it in my peripheral vision and inserted into the comment I was typing at the time :-(
I wish I could go back in time and let Anne know what she was in for... although that would definitely change the course of history. I just feel so sad that all that really signed her death warrant was that she didn’t produce a male heir. There’s no way Henry would have executed Anne had she had a son. It would have saved the lives of Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard too, as they likely would never ended up as a bride of Henry. RIP to all these innocent ladies.
Ah, the old time travel conundrum. I think about that too sometimes, but the butterfly effect would just be too dangerous. :-(
Anne Boleyn wasn't exactly a nice person either. She made a lot of enemies at court by being rude, arrogant, condescending, and downright nasty to King Henry's other subjects. She also tormented Catherine of Aragon and her daughter Mary as well. It wouldn't surprise me if Anne herself caused the deaths of many innocent people as well.
Intresting! In a strange way you would have saved many more lives! Princess Diana comes from her sisters bloodline. Meaning you would have saved Diana in a strange way, because Charles wouldn’t have been born!
Maybe if Ann had a son and he survived in too adulthood? The son would have been a Protestant king? So, Bloody Catholic Mary wouldn’t get in power and many live Protestant lives would have been saved.
Only one thing: History needed Mary and Elizabeth to become queens! They where the first born female royals who got on the throne. Their unique position would make it possible at the time, too change that law.
And one big other thing would have been different: America would have ended up Spanish speaking, and world wide: No colonization!!! 😅… Please go back in time on that note!!!!
@@Elly3981 I agree. She treated some people, especially Mary, horribly and there was no justification for it.
@@HistoryCalling )
I stumbled upon your channel by chance and I am absolutely loving your content! I love history and you do such a great job at explaining things and providing pictures too! Wonderful!!
Thank you so much and welcome :-)
loved this video and honestly have never seen the document until now. because of how little we have left of her, my mind wants this to be her words just to see some sort of glimpse into her. really wish there was more letters from her so the writing styles could be compared!
I would love it to be genuine too, for the same reason and I will say it's not impossible that it's a copy of a lost original. It just seems a bit too good to be true and there are the various issues with the provenance, tone and signature I mentioned.
@@HistoryCalling i hold out hope that one day a treasure trove of Anne’s writing and/or belongings that someone might’ve kept hidden away will come to the surface🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼unlikely but gives me something to hold onto 🤣
Very interesting - I had never heard of this letter before. Thanks! Love your channel. 💕
Thank you. Yes, I don't think it's super well known about, as so many people discount it as a forgery.
My thought would be: if it WAS from Cromwell's papers then there could be 2 possible solutions. Either 1) it was written by Anne and intercepted by Cromwell and never passed onto Henry to read for fear that Anne's words in her own hand would be enough to at least get the king to pause instead of continuing on with her condemnation and eventual execution or 2) it was a forgery by Cromwell himself intended to enrage Henry with its aggressive tone and accusations about Jane Seymour so that he would definitely commit to seeing Anne dead and not potentially change his mind.
That's just my theories tho. As for its authenticity? I am also not entirely sure one way or the other.
I vote for the 2nd possibility. Anne was never popular. I think Cromwell wanted something in his back pocket. I think Anne was truly the only wife Henry, as much as he was capable, truly loved. At any time, Cromwell's plan to rid the royal court of Anne could have unraveled like an old sweater. Cromwell needed a "convincer". This letter in its tone would have sealed Anne's fate while leaving her daughter's in limbo.
Just to play devil's advocate, it's so clearly not in Anne's hand though (which Henry would have known)???
@@HistoryCalling My thought was that it might be a copy of a lost original hence why it has an annotation essentially giving context to the letter. I'm just theorising.
Dwelling if the letter was in "Anne's hand" may be a fool's errand as monarchs, etc had secretaries. If Anne had wished to write a letter, a secretary would have been sent in at either Anne's or Cromwell's request.
Great video! thank you!
Good discussion on this letter…it’s fascinating. And who knows what mischief was wrought in that chaotic time?
Regarding the writing at the end (I love unravelling old writing from many years of researching my family tree!):
It’s definitely not “to the King from the lady in the tower”. There’s more to it than that. I think maybe words at the end of the first two lines are faded/missing. A word at the end of the second line has faded. Looking at the shape of the ‘h’s and ‘e’s in the letter, that word begins and ends with ‘h’ and the second letter of it is an ‘e’. I would guess the word is ‘health’.
So I think this small piece of writing is maybe incomplete, but says:
“The Ladye …? (another word that ends in ‘d’?)
To the King(s) health …?
of the Tower”
Just my guess. These old manuscripts and the ancient writing, plus the passage of time, possible light/water damage, fire damage, misuse…who knows.
Very interesting. Thank you.
Oh also…the fact that Anne’s first name wasn’t spelled the way she usually did is the main evidence that it wasn’t written by her
Spelling meant very little at that time. There was no definitive English dictionary until the Oxford English dictionary until late in the reign of Queen Victoria.
@@cherylhayden7363 yes but she would know how to spell Anne. In every other confirmed piece of writing she spelt it with an E. there’s no way that would have changed all of a sudden.
I just love how beautiful was the way of speaking and writing English, it is so eloquent. I wish we could speak that way again!💕
She was trying to protect her daughter without actually mentioning her for fear that it would give henry the idea to get rid of her also..
From a records and Genealogical standpoint, it’s kind of driving me crazy right now that I didn’t know Catherine’s name has been changed in spelling. We have fantastic records of the monarchy, but when people just change spellings can be very difficult to track down a persons family line. Another great video as always good job :-)
The English language is the last prominent language to have a definitive dictionary, but that said there are over 50 words where the spelling in Britain which continue to differ from that in the US. Therefore, I am not troubled by differences in spelling, even of names, as spelling was never important. Read letters written by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Franklin and you'd think they were barely literate.
What has always troubled me about Henry's treatment of Anne was his crafting or acquiescence to Cromwell's crafting of Anne's demise. Why not a covent? It took a full 5 years for monasteries and convents to be closed, from 1536-41. She could have been sent to a convent in English controlled France or Ireland. Given her unpopularity vis a vis Henry's 1st wife, no one would have rallied to her cause. She was not a foreign born heir, etc. Surely, Henry could have negotiated with Anne to enter a convent in France or Ireland to ensure Elizabeth remain in the line of succession.
The question then becomes in who's best interest does the letter serve? My money is on Cromwell. Despite the fact he shared religious beliefs with Anne, she was his sworn enemy. Could he have dictated the alleged last letter? Given its aggressive tone, was this something he could have put in his pocket to firm up the resolve of his King and Members of Parliament to ensure a vote of guilty. When in the end it wasn't needed, he could have easily put aside the original along until it was nearly lost to history.
christmasina Yes spelling was not rigid even in 18th and 19th centuries.
@@stephanierichards1096 It is truly amazing English did not have standardized spelling until thr Oxford Dictionary.
I have had the EXACT same problem when doing my family tree. I once couldn't find an Alice on a 1901 census return for absolutely ages. Turns out it was because her parents had spelt it Allace (which I never would have thought of).
@@HistoryCalling My father had an aunt, Mina or Mena or Meana or Meena depending on how the semi-literate census taker spelled her name. Yep, 40 years of misspelling!
I'm more in favor of it not being authentic, but it really gave me pause just to consider what that poor woman was going through in the Tower. It must've been awful for her.
Yes, lots of the things in it do sound like things she could have said. I can't imagine the psychological stress myself either.
Happy to see a new video from you. And it is about Anne Boleyn💚👑👸What a strong and amazing woman. She must be so affraid at the end 🏰💎
Thanks NaMa. Yes, I'm sure she was, but it makes her composure all the more remarkable.
@@HistoryCalling You are absolutely right i agree
Thanks
THANK YOU so much for your generous donation to the channel June-Lesley and I hope you enjoyed hearing the debates about whether or not this was Anne's last letter.
I love these videos. Thank you ❤
I love the idea that abject fear and despair, which I would imagine would have been likely to be Anne's circumstances when she was in the Tower, were believed by Henry Ellis as those that would "rouse a cultivated mind." I don't know how frequently Mr. Ellis had been under the impression that his life was imminently about to end, but I rather think those would not be ideal circumstances in which to compose one's magnum opus.
I think what convinces me that the letter isn't truly by Anne, in addition to the points you raised, is how extremely perfect it is. If historians and laypeople alike had to agree on something they wanted Anne Boleyn to have written when she was in the Tower, they could not have come up with a more on-the-nose artifact than this. It has everything anyone could want from a hypothetical letter from Anne to Henry at that time; all it needs is a reference to Elizabeth as Henry's only true, lawful heiress, destined to be England's greatest queen. If something seems too good to be true, it often is, unfortunately 😞
Excellent points. I agree too that the kind of strain she was under would be generally expected to make someone a much better writer than they ever have been. Elizabeth I wrote a letter to her sister Mary whilst locked in the Tower and it comes across as far more desperate. It helps of course that we have the original document to look at and can see her spelling errors and the dark lines across the page in case anyone added in an incriminating postscript.
@@HistoryCalling I understand why everyone WANTS it to be real. I certainly do!
@@HistoryCalling I think the letter you are referring to was not written from Elizabeth to Mary from the Tower, but from one of the royal palaces (I believe Whitehall?). This desperate letter, in which Elizabeth passionately protests her innocence of any involvement in the infamous Wyatt rebellion, was her frantic attempt to avoid going to the Tower in the first place, where her young cousin Jane Grey had just been executed as a result of that uprising. The delay caused by the time taken to compose the letter by deliberate intent caused the men arresting her to miss the tide. She did indeed make mistakes through the letter----her thoughts must have been racing through her head as she struggled to compose it---and she famously crossed out the empty space at the bottom of the last page so no one could add anything incriminating to it. The imagination boggles as to what her state of mind must have been, let alone when' she actually was taken by barge to theTower the next morning----just as her mother had been. Anne's fate must have consumed her-----she even refused to enter the Tower when she got there, just sitting down on the stone steps in the pouring rain! An unfathomable ordeal to even attempt to imagine.
Wonderful as always :) thank you!
Thank you :-)
If I could meet anyone in history. It would be Anne. I wish I could just give her a hug and tell her she didn’t do anything wrong.
She actually did plenty wrong, but definitely did not deserve to die. She knowingly had an intimate relationship with a married man, and led him on, until he finally threw away poor old Catherine of Aragon, bastardizing his formerly beloved daughter with Catherine of Aragon, at Anne's assertions, I'm sure, and much more. Although, as I said before, she did not deserve to die and was very innocent of all of the charges which led to her execution!
Oh but she did.
I love her though
Amazing as always ❤️
Thanks Joshua :-)
If there were proof that it came from Cromwell's collection, despite many excellent points you made, I would be inclined to believe it was an authentic copy. Just based on what we do know of Anne (she was intelligent & seem to have no issue standing up for herself or reacting to emotions). With the addition to Cromwell being in his many positions; such as, an attorney, privy counsel, etc; it seems plausible he would copy & keep such documents in his possession for many reasons. Gosh, it would be awesome to KNOW for certain! And, as always, great video!
I adore your videos. I love history. Especially British history!
I tried to comment on a previous video, but the comment section wouldn't load. This video was on the subject of the birth of James lll and sponsored by Dan Snow's History Hit I just wanted to commend you on the growth of your channel. It is a great accolade when the likes of History Hit take notice of how much solid research and academic content goes into each episode of History Calling and want to invest in you. I would hope someday that I am listening to a podcast or watching one of your programs on History Hit TV. I would like to wish you every success for the future.
I love the moving pictures, how many videos do you have them on?
Thank you. I'm not sure how many they appear on now, but they come from the MyHeritage website.
The fact she did not call herself queen, the fact it's clearly a copy, and the unlikelihood of her being able to compose it and send it makes me suspect its veracity. But it's a terrific letter.
Thanks for the interesting video. 🙂
Glad you enjoyed it :-)
Dear HC: I'm glad you're on the fence about this because so am I. You do raise excellent points as to its veracity. The handwriting has never been an issue to me - I always assumed it was written either by a scribe or was a copy of a lost original. However, I've always found it dubious that the author not only signs themselves "Anne Bullen" but KEEPS pointing out that their name is Anne Boleyn/Bullen. It's as if whoever wrote it wants readers to know: "THIS IS A LETTER WRITTEN BY ANNE BOLEYN, GODDAMNIT!" However, that's my only real doubt about the letter's actual content. If it's a forgery, I think most of us can agree it was an extremely good one. The tone is that of a woman positively seething and stewing over her predicament. The author sounds so passionately aggrieved and distraught - exactly how I'd imagine Anne to have felt but admittedly a good forger could have accomplished this. However,, Allison Weir wrote that adultery in a Queen was not actually punishable by death when Anne was arrested; my point in raising this is, would she have known on the 6th of May she was facing execution? Yes, probably ("Shall I die without justice?") but if not, it could account for the reckless, accusatory tone. Apologies for bombarding you with so many speculative questions & doing 180's all throughout this post. I don't have the answer to this mystery and I suppose I never will. I admit I want this letter to be real , but I can be objective about it also.
The many instances of the name appearing throughout the letter may be due to "Anne" trying to bring attention to/re-humanize herself. They don't strike me as weird. I agree with everything else :)
@@mac8697 Thanks Mac.
The numerous references to her maiden name seemed a bit on the nose for me too and I also wondered if she'd have known she was facing the scaffold at this point. The content is good in that it says everything I think we would want Anne to have said to Henry, but that in itself is a little bit fan-fictiony (as one of my other commenters put it). Nevertheless, as I said in the video, we simply can't rule out the idea that it's a copy of a lost original and it's certainly a great item to debate.
Great job, you do great work!
Thank you. The letter makes for an interesting topic.
@@HistoryCalling yes, I think it’s fake, nothing to tie it directly to her
If I do puppy eyes (or at least tell you I am) can we get some videos on the Anglo-Saxons or Normans, if your comfortable with that topic of research?
Amazing video as always though Dr Ms History!
This one is hard to guess. I can’t remember if there are other letters by Queen Boleyn. Do they marry up in hand writing and writing style?
It seems odd that it seems to carry no nicknames used between the two. She’s trying to endear him to her cause, but it feels like the letter has nothing of that desperation she must have felt.
Yes, there are a few other letters. The handwriting is definitely off and to be honest, I would say the style of this one is better, but something like style is of course a matter of opinion. I do have plans to look at some earlier royal history too, but shan't give away any details here :-)
@@HistoryCalling I thought so! I'd thought I'd imagined it but yeah, she has more than I believe any of the other of Henry's queen's, doesn't she?
You got lucky. I was literally just about to take a picture of my dog with her big ol' puppy eyes on my Instagram and message you the link on Patreon. 😂
Henry the seventh went through all that drama to secure the marriage between Henry & Catherine-only for Henry to cast Catherine aside-and he ended up casting Anne aside.
I know, right! If only H7 had known.
I think Henry 7 would have been most interested in the dynasty continuing and had no problem ditching KoA when it looked to be a less prestigious match for Henry than she was for Arthur. H7 went through drama for Arthur to marry Katherine, not Henry... Henry 8 went through drama to marry her with H7.
@@HistoryCalling I'm glad he didn't! He'd be spinning in his grave if he knew all the awful things his horrible son did.
Even if the letter had actually been found among Cromwell's papers, we still don't know why it was there or whether it was authentic.
Anne Boleyn chose ermine trimmed grey damask robe to wear at her execution, ermine to symbolize royal status, and crimson kirtle (possibly to symbolize martyrdom). I don't believe Anne would sign a letter, without identifying herself as the queen, regardless of that title being stripped away from her upon receiving the charges and sentencing. While some of the context in the letter may coincide with what she was thinking and how she was feeling, it appears that there is a lack of consistency in the style to be written in her own hand. It was reported that Anne suffered hysteria understandably, extreme emotional ups and downs. It is understandable why she would plead with the king to show her mercy, and some of what is in that letter were things that she did speak, knowing that it would reach the kings ears, regardless of whether the letter in it's entirety were the solely the words spoken by Anne Boleyn.
Yes, I think she was conscious of her royal status to the end as well, plus she hadn't been stripped of her title yet on 6 May.
@@HistoryCalling she had her dignity.
I was unfamiliar with this letter but found the story fascinating.
I was intrigued by your conjecture about a possible motive for such a forgery. Could it possibly have "surfaced" during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, as a piece of propaganda supporting her mother's innocence? After all, Elizabeth may have been restored to the succession much earlier, but she still had her disgraced mother's memory to deal with when she became queen. She succeeded Queen Mary, a Catholic, and though she played down her religious prejudice, there was no doubt she intended to rule as a protestant. It seems possible a convincing "testimony from the grave" may have been useful to QEI, and may have even been offered to her as "genuine." Whoever proffered such a letter could have ended up in Elizabeth's good graces, not only for offering it, but for "preserving" it over the years before she ascended to the throne.
The tone for me really strikes me as odd. If Anne had actually written a letter to Henry, I would have expected it to be more like Anne of Cleves' letter (re: the dissolution of her marriage to Henry) or Catherine Parr's response to nearly being imprisoned herself. The actual letter reads more like 'fanfiction'- what someone (a fan of Anne Boleyn, possibly) *wishes* she would have said to Henry. In terms of motive, I definitely think it could have been created to sell, or perhaps an attempt at defending Anne's character (making her seem more confident and powerful than she actually was).
Exactly what I think. It's definitely possible Anne was _thinking_ things like that, but writing them to Henry? Not unless she was actually _trying_ to get executed! Fanfic is a very good description.
I love the fanfiction description too. I wish I'd thought to include it in the video now :-)
I lean toward it being a fake. But…I could think that perhaps she did. For argument sake, she knows the charges were false, if the king does believe this written plea, she could go free, if he does not, she is going to lose her daughter, her brother, her life. Perhaps she thinks he still cares for her. I mean, he is getting a French swordsman instead of an ax. Why not plead for her innocence? Anne made enemies (Cromwell), she was foolish in her words (speaking of the king’s death), and she was naive (thinking that her word alone would save her and that she could trust someone to get the letter to the king). It is so sad, a frightening storm with no possibility of shelter. Thank you HC, such a compelling video.
Yes, there is much here that she might have said in a letter, even if it isn't actually genuine.
Thanks for a great, unbiased video presenting all the evidence on both sides. Very interesting and informative stuff. There will probably never be an answer unless an actual original copy were to show up, but my own personal crack theory is that someone decided to write an historical fiction novel a few years after Anne's death, realized that was a BAD idea given the political climate so stopped writing, and then these six pages were the only part that survived, but their origins got lost in the mists of time 😂 Seems as good an explanation as any...
Anne probably heard the rumblings that Henery was coming for her next. She knew about Jane Seymor. She was feeling desarate and isolated. She saw how Queen Catherines disposal went down. She knew Henery got what Henery wanted. (a son) That she dictated the letter prior to going to the tower to someone she trusted and had them post date it after the fact. She said her piece both bold and contrite as she knew the outcome was probably going to be the same. I think she might have been appealing to Henery by calling him out, that he might have some pitty on her and spare her life.
While I'm not particularly convinced of the letter's authenticity, I do have a question for you about the signature. Given that the letter is at best a copy of an original, would the letter necessarily be how Anne signed the letter originally, or could it have been changed? I'm not much of a historian, so I'm unsure if that is something that often or rarely occurs when making copies of letters, but I could see an argument that the signature was written as such because Anne was not considered the Queen any longer by Cromwell and his associates.
I am with Eric Ives on this one. The Tower was a profoundly scary place. Speaking in an accusatory tone when she was imprisoned there not only seems psychologically implausible (whaterever the views of modern feminists, who are in no danger of executiotn for treason - possibly by burning - for irritating the King), but would hardly have been the best way to protect the status of her daughter, which we know concerned Anne greatly.
That was my 1st thought, & it's totally consistent with feminism, which recognises that women had less power etc in the past, & that we're much better off today. And I don't think she _should've_ written something accusatory & disrespectful to Henry either- I certainly wouldn't! Either way, the only person I'm judging here is him.
Just 2 cents from a DV survivor. I was in a life threatening situation with a baby. She might have written this. I have written things in a similar tone. As have other DV victims/survivors throughout history. It’s complicated when your husband is the person that will hurt you and it always has been. To this day the number 1 cause of death for women is their partner. So no we aren’t free or live without fear of men. We just have the option of maybe being able to leave 💜
I think the only question I would have is, why would she not be allowed to write letters? There is history of people in the tower who were affluent being able to write letters. Also wouldn't her writing letters be a potential good source of ammunition for Cromwell against her? Anyway we know Cromwell would have taken the letters and read them and then would decide whether or not to send them on after having copied them. This was typical for how he worked in the past and how advisers worked in the future. I can see it being a fake and I can see it potentially being real. I do think that Anne was not in her right mind for much of her time in the tower; however, and I don't know if she would have been able to think straight enough to get her thoughts down on paper. I am mixed because of some of the points you brought up and the fact that she knew that her letters would be read by others and perhaps not ever delivered.
There are certainly points in favour of, as well as against the letter. As for whether any letter would be a good source of ammunition, I suppose it depends on what it said. It would be a dangerous manoeuvre on Cromwell's part though to basically steal Henry's post.
Thank you for your videos I really enjoy them. What we may have here is an academic Schrodinger's cat. It does sound like it could be a copy of an original letter made by made by Cromwell's Cromwell's secretaries. While the original would have been destroyed. We would just have to nail down the edge of the paper as well as the ink. I would use it for a A more generalized description of what the power dynamics of king Henry VIII court and the power dynamics were at work at the time.
Regarding the paper and ink, remember that the paper at least could have been produced in the 1530s but not written on until the 1630s (in fact paper from the 1530s could technically still be written on today). Ink wouldn't last as long admittedly and would have to date from much closer to the time the letter was written, but I don't think either have ever been tested in this case.
There is no way that this letter could be authentic, because the author has anne accusing her husband of grave sins, and warns him that he faces a stern judgment from God for falsely accusing her. Anne’s supposed assertion that he just wants her out of the way so he can marry her rival also sounds a false. No one writing such an angry and critical letter to Henry, a monarch with a huge ego and who brooked no criticism, could have expected a pardon from him. Anne was too smart and sophisticted to write such a letter to Henry if she hoped to receive a pardon from him
From all the known facts you have pointed out, I believe the letter from queen Ann to Henry, is a fake for all the reasons you mentioned but as with most Tudor mysteries we will never truly know for sure, Thank you as always HC 😊
Yes, it does make for a good mystery (which I suppose is why people keep coming back to it).
@@HistoryCalling Tudor history is quite full of unsolved mystery which we sadly will never have answers to HC 😊I know your a busy lady thank you for your replie. 😊
Anne was never Henry’s “mistress” (although her sister, Mary, was). She slept with him for the first time in Calais only after he pledged to marry her when they returned to England.
I feel that if she signed as the Queen it may not have gone over well with Henry. It feels that her bringing up Jane is more telling him she would gladly step aside at this point and be allowed to live like Katherine of Aragon, outsude of court for the rest of her days.
The thing that seens odd to me, is she does not press upon the point that they have a daughter to think about. Yes, she would care about her own life, but I think she would want her daughter protected. Not to mention what his daughter would think of him killing her mother.
The impression i have gained about Anne Boleyn is of an incredibly brave woman who recognised her fate and sought to protect those she cared for. What a Queen she would have made!
I believe the letter to be genuine, Anne could well have, given the letter to Cranmer, who,of course,because he valued his life, would pass it on to Cromwell. I never saw Anne as the type of person who would just sit quietly awaiting her fate,it wasn't in her nature. She would have found a way of having a pop at Henry,
A copy of a lost original is certainly possible. I'd be the first one to admit that there's not enough evidence to give any definitive answer on this, even though I lean towards a forgery myself.
Cranmer would have burned it.
I think the letter is a copy of the original. If Henry had read it he probably would have thrown it out or tried burning it as he would have believed she was a traitor and would never had kept it. It is possible Cromwell or someone else rescued it but it was so damaged, it was rewritten and filed away, hence the additional third person postscript.
I've noticed how my own hand writing changes pending underlying circumstances as well as how my focus / concentration changes when I'm aware I am emotional therefore I need to focus to make this legible.
When you say it changes though, it sounds like you mean that it just becomes a messier version of your handwriting (thus your need to focus on legibility), rather than that you actually alter the way you form your letters. I have neat and messy versions of my handwriting too, but I don't start constructing the letters in a different way and my handwriting today is even recognisable from things I wrote in school as a 10 year old. The handwriting in this case is so dissimilar to Anne's that it's really hard for me to believe it's her.
@@HistoryCalling I've actually noticed myself doing both, I had to write a letter to ask the Texas Rangers to look into my Uncles murder and the first draft was messy and then I tried to focus extremely so it was legible but still wasn't right (tears / ink not good). (Eventually I ended up typing it)
Maybe it was done by Elizabeth I or one of her courtiers to rehabilitate Anne for posterity.
I think the ultimate revenge of his wives is that he is remembered throughout history as pathetic and disgusting, whereas his wives being exalted and role models.
Honestly, I think we have a mixed bag here. I think it possible Anne did actually write so shocking letter that it was copied and recopied but . . . I think it was historian Norah Lofts who said that there's a lot in this letter that should have been said but never was. It makes sense to me that we must have, at one time, had an original letter from Anne that was "copied" with additions made to add those things that should have been said but wasn't. It brings to my mind what the religious reformer Alesius told Anne's daughter, Elizabeth I, about seeing her as a baby with Henry and Anne shortly before Anne's arrest, despite there being no evidence that Elizabeth was anywhere but Hatfield (why would Anne send instructions about Elizabeth's attire to Hatfield if Elizabeth was with her at Greenwich?) at the time and no evidence that Alesius was at Greenwich in late April 1536. It seems to me that Alesius spun this story to ingratiate himself with Elizabeth. I believe, likewise, the embellishments to the original letter are in the same vein, that it was "copied" with additions by someone who wanted to get in good with Elizabeth. So, I believe some of this letter might be real but much is fabricated; and we cannot now untangle it. I do think that we can take both Alesius' comments and the "copies" of this letter as evidence that Elizabeth was at least interested, in a positive way, in information about her mother and that influential people around her knew that.
I'm absolutely with you on the issue of whether Elizabeth was with her mother, just before her arrest. I think that was just a sob story made up to interest Elizabeth as an adult. Of course it's shown in The Tudors, so I think a lot of people believe it now.
The Tudors' recreation of that scene was so very weird (and, yes, Alesius said he saw Anne, Henry and Elizabeth through a window, not along a garden path, and he certainly didn't say Anne was dressed in early Snow White, but . . . ) that it convinced me all the more that Alesius was just making it up. Anne no longer had her father nearby for advice (he'd gone back to Hever and that's an entirely other story), so she wasn't always making the best choices, but there is no way she would have thought making a scene with Henry by showing him Elizabeth (no idea what point that was supposed to make) was the right way to go. Anne was very high strung but she wasn't stupid.
When that portrait blinked I almost died
I agree with the timing, I would trust the grief and belief of the boy's mother, if there is evidence of her reactions. How did she escape the sanctuary ? Thank you for these delightful stories.
Thank you.
I was going to say this is just and idea for future maybe like in a year time or something I hope one day you can maybe make a video on how Disney made their version of Pocahontas vs History and how Pocahontas life was an actual tragic and how Disney made her a character that fell in love with John Smith which isn’t really historical accurate well maybe not as much as they put their love story in the Disney film 🍿 maybe this can be another one of yours Hollywood vs History but this time Disney vs History
It depends on how you look at her life. She made a huge impact for dying so young. She was the first ‘princess’ of Native American origin that was presented on the world stage. She humanized the Native Americans. If not for her, I literally wouldn’t be here.
@Raumaan - I totally agree with you on this one.
all Disney movies are based on real stories and they're not good stories either. Disney just had a way to turn them all around and make their lives happy happy joy joy....è
True. Pocahontas was about 12 when she stopped the war between her people and the Europeans. She married a military English man and died from disease in England when she was about 24.
@@ginaandseason2774 - I believe her husband, John Rolfe, was a tobacco planter and exporter. There was no mention of him being in the military.
The letter didn't seem plausible to me - it didn't feel like a letter which might be written to a queen who knew that her life was in her husband's hands.
It almost feels like the sort of exercises we did at school, where we had to pretend we were a fictional character writing to another character in that universe (for me, it was My Fair Lady).
It does feel a little bit 'historical fiction' to me too, or as one of the commenters put it - fan fiction. It just says everything we would wish she'd said to him.
I’m rather curious to see if a handwriting professional or several have been able to determine the personality of the person writing this letter and does it match up with what we are aware of her personality? Is there any way of corroborating this? Very interesting video but since it’s inconclusive I feel that this might be an interesting way to discover some interesting details on this question. Love this channel and really appreciate both sides of this argument.❤️🍀🌈🙏🏻😇❣️
I have studied handwriting analysis in the past and, under the assumption that the letter is genuine and that is not an issue, will give you what I can as far as an interpretation of the writer goes:
Writer is very intelligent and sensitive
Strongest quality: Attractiveness to others
She is looked at as desirable or even enthralling to many more than she actually trusts or considers a friend
In fact, she has very few if any real friends at all
She is aware of her attractiveness and her response to having that knowledge is that she is extremely gracious to others and will extend herself to them both intellectually and presentationally. Period. She doesn't want anything back in return. She's happy to please others any way she can. The worst thing that can be said for her is possibly she extends herself to them too much.
She puts on a very attractive “performance” or presentation of herself which causes people to be intrigued by her and want to know more about her and she will do a great deal to entertain or help but isn’t interested in offers of intimacy and won’t accept them if made.
She is not a liar but neither does she share a great deal of emotion or trust with anyone at all
She spends a great deal thinking about higher spiritual, philosophical or moral issues but discusses these things with virtually no one. She has a very clear notion of her right to privacy and does not allow anyone really to break through that.
She is a person who sees herself as being allowed to roam in vast areas of property and dwellings but feels she herself owns very, very little; perhaps nothing at all. This is why she offers so much of herself to others; it is her own charm that is all she believes she really has that belongs to her.
She is trying to the ultimate degree in this letter to offer more sincere and unselfish love than anyone could possibly give for the chance to be taken back and allowed to live. She is at the same time fearful and wanting to do more in the day that can be done, and is thinking more than anyone should have to in the slim hope that her affection will be seen with the sincerity that it is offered and she may be saved.
The letter says I am everything you believed me to be, and will still be to you everything you could possibly want me to be; please don't change or destroy what we are, it is for real, my feelings for you are sincere.
SHE knows that sincere love offered is the greatest gift one person could give to another and is hoping deeply that the person she is writing the letter to will understand that also. But she has no guarantee of that so she is quite nervous.
I do not get that the writer of the letter is interested in self-gratification at all and if I were to make the call as to whether the writer would cheat on her husband I would say no, however she would mix with as many people as possible in the hopes that her attractive presence would be of any kind of benefit to them and to herself.
She feels she is in a position where her intelligence and capacity for clear thought has been rendered useless and this deeply, profoundly disturbs her. Her response to what is happening is not to trust anyone around her but again and again try to offer her sincere affection to the king as she did before. I have little doubt that she had been spending most of her time alone at the time this was written and not looking to others for company or coursel.
She’s not a liar or a manipulator but she holds what she considers personal VERY close to her her own heart and doesn’t really let anyone else in there because she doesn’t feel it’s her responsibility to do so.
She is a “giver: who chooses carefully who she decides to “give” a lot to. This can make her seem like a manipulator when in fact whatever she offers to anyone is actually sincere and could prove rewarding. She just doesn’t give absolutely all to anyone, which she feels is her right.
I can see why some people might have thought she was manipulative. But that is not what I see here, I just see a person that was extremely generous but who no one else can intellectually or emotionally control or get their hooks into and that is probably why Henry could not deal with her any more. She was smarter than he was, better spoken, socially a jewel, personally a delight, and more popular than he was.
After looking at this I have no problem suggesting that the reason he had her killed was not jealousy regarding fears of her being with other men, but instead jealousy of her ability to enthrall and captivate people - a quality he did not possess at all. She was extremely charming and everything he could not be.
And I do not think she was well understood at all, by anyone -- admired, wanted, yes . . . understood, though, no.
I agree there’s no way to know for sure, but I do think it’s plausible that this is a copy of a lost original, which could have been written either by Anne or one of her women, even if they were hostile to her. It seems especially cruel not to be able to write to your own husband who is allowing you to be put on trial for treason, but this is the Tudor period after all. Also take into account she was still the anointed Queen of England, even if in disgrace and imprisoned and this was an unprecedented situation. Would they really deny the Queen this one freedom? Maybe.
If we assume, since we can only trace the letter to about 100 years after her death, that this is a copy, then we can ignore the fact that the handwriting doesn’t seem similar and we can also assume that perhaps some of the wording was even changed. If we think of how many different versions of her speech on the scaffold we have, we can theorize that the letter has some embellishments that make its tone bolder than the original.
Anyway, we will never know for sure unless another, earlier version gets discovered, so for now I am happy to say ‘maybe, quite possibly unlikely, but I also won’t rule it out.’
My take is that the letter was a forgery and that its purpose was to repair Anne's honor around the time her daughter came to the throne.
Quite possibly, though if it was created that early on, I do wonder why it never popped up until well into the 17th century.
Sharing is never a bad place 2 be. Thank you so much 🙂
I don't think it was her. In the first part of the letter, the author mentions that they aren't sure why they have made Henry mad and been arrested. Anne was clever-I'm sure that she would have known why she was in prison, and if not, I'm sure that someone would have told her.
That is reasonable but it could also be an attempt to tell her husband that she was innocent of the changes against her.
Anne was a smart and clever woman and saying thst she didn't understand why she was in the tower would be more feminine than saying "I'm innocent, let me out of here!"
I'm not sure actually what exactly she knew and when she knew it. I know she wasn't given time to prepare a proper defence though before her show-trial.
I have had a life long obsession with the Tudors. I can’t take in enough about them.
You make a good case for the letter being a forgery, and I want to thank you. I'm working on a song based upon this letter. The song cycle also has doubtful words of Katherine Howard as well. Sigh. I'm not feeling very good about those pieces being historically accurate. You're certainly helping me explain in my program notes.
The reason I think it's real is because I don't think she would've just given up without a fight or to at least let Henry know her thoughts they had been through too much together and it may be that she thought one more try would work. Everything is conjecture of course but I think it's a good possibility that it is real.
Thank you for this very thoughtful video. On the whole I tend to think the letter is a forgery--it's so aggressive--and it's hard to believe that she was allowed to write anything to Henry. But as you say, if it is a forgery, why was it written? Maybe to support what became her position as a Protestant martyr??
In regards to her using the title Anne Rochford-- unmarried ladies take the precedence of their eldest brother and the Lord Chamberlain's Order of 1520 lists the daughters of an earl of the rank of viscount. Is it possible she was upping her prestige by naming herself after her brother's (or rather father's) viscounty?
I think it must have been a prestige thing yes. I've never seen a man's title used like that by his daughter (though I admit the whole titles system was a bit more fluid 500 years ago).
I feel you have proven the case for this being a forgery. I love your scholarship!
Thanks Beth. I do think it's more likely than not that it's a later forgery, but it's *just* possible that it's a copy of a lost original.
Lukas and I were visiting friends so my viewing of this excellent presentation was delayed. Wow - there was a lot to absorb. Unlike your more knowledgeable viewers, I was unaware of the letter and the surrounding controversy. I actually watched it twice before hazarding an opinion. I'm leaning toward the letter being a fake although the image of the headstrong Anne giving Henry "the finger" while facing death is attractive to me. 😉 What a strange and terrible time to live. Be well, HC. See you next week. 🙏🏼
Yes, there was a lot to get through. I felt a bit knackered by the end of putting this video together to, as 30 minutes (which it almost is) is really on the long side for me. I lean towards a later forgery too, but it's just possible it's a copy of a lost original.
I think this is the first time I have ever heard the entire document, having previously only heard parts. I have never read a copy of it.
It sounds like the result of an interrogation. Various supposedly contemporary reports indicate that Anne had an emotional personality. The letter begins humbly but toward the end becomes harsh. Was she interrogated in such a way that she was goaded into saying something nasty about Jane Seymour?
The only thing Anne admitted at her trial was that she had not always shown the King the respect he deserved. To me this means she was not properly deferential and humble as his wife and queen.
Lots of us, 500 years later, agonize about how Henry treated his wives, especially when he executed two of them. Recently, someone who seemed to really grasp the Tudor era, replied to one of my comments. That person basically said Henry had to execute those wives. In Anne's case, he had overthrown a born princess and anointed queen and replaced her with basically a commoner.
Had Anne produced a baby prince, her position would probably have been secure. When Catherine of Aragon died, Henry could wipe his slate clean and start over, the way I see it.
Basically, in that age of chivalry and glittering courts, the whole thing was run like the Mafia. (The Mafia is said to have begun in medieval Sicily.) Additionally, some accepted Tudor era spectacles had to do with horrendous animal cruelty, including bear and bull baiting. Reverence for life and prevention of suffering was not a big thing. People from the lowest class to the highest must have been inured to death, cruelty and terrible punishments.
Those who were executed, especially of the noble class were supposed to die well and praise the king. They were to behave as severely beaten dogs who crawl to lick the hands of abusers.
I don't think Anne wrote the letter. If the content is the result of a harsh interrogation, perhaps we have a glimpse of her personality.
However it is, Anne's reported speech from the scaffold is even more poignant. Toward the end the letter calls out Henry for dumping Anne, wife, mother and queen, in favour of Jane who is not named.
In Anne's last speech she describes Henry as kind and gentle and always good to her, etc.....
Yes, she had a 'good death' for the times. But even then I hope her glowing praise of the husband who was killing her, was seen as a bit farcical. Perhaps Anne gave all she had to try to plead for and protect the infant Elizabeth. On the other hand, the overly sweet praise sounds a bit like 'up yours Henry', to use an American crudity. Thus Anne Boleyn continues to live in our imaginations.
I think she probably wrote the letter. She probably started off trying to appeal to Henry viii, for her life,and the life of her friends but still angry that she was the tower.
You're absolutely right - "it sounds like the result of an interrogation." Kudos to you for pointing this out because that has never even occured to me. In this context it may be worth remembering that Anna of Cleves and Katherine Howard's "letters" to Henry obviously aren't private, personal letters they wrote to him either. Yet they're ostensibly presented as such. Katherine's confession and plea for leniency is 'the result of an interrogation'. Even hers contains a rather tactless gaffe. Rather than claiming she was blinded by love in marrying Henry, Katherine declared : "I was far too desirous of worldly glory to consider the grievous sin in concealing from Your Majesty my former faults" . That line can only have annoyed the spiteful, egomaniacal Henry . Anna of Cleves "letter" is a mini-masterpiece - but it's a formal statement given under duress. I know these comparisons may seem tenuous but I'm just throwing them into the mix. I agree with you about Anne's scaffold speech too - I'm glad she had the courage to complain about Henry's "great unkindness" in the Tower & that it later got back to him.
Although I tend to think the letter doesn't really come from Anne, I like your interrogation theory as a different way of looking at it. I also like the Tudor/mafia comparison. It was a bit like that at times :-)
I agree that Queen Ann's scaffold speech definitely sounds sarcastic. Gentle, kiindly Prince? Long may he reign over you? LOL. watch your head, you could be next. Tragic affair.
@@freshwater2101 I always attributed her flowery execution speech to her protection of her daughter, Elizabeth. Stroke the ego of Henry the maniac and hopefully he will not harm the child.
No, she was extremely intelligent and would never waste the opportunity on such an fruitless appeal. She knew what he was, she had been surviving him using her calculus for close to a decade by that point. She saw what he did to Katherine and Mary. She knew he was cruel and the extent of his vindictiveness- especially when it came to the obsessive vanity of a malignant narcissist. She wouldn't expose her daughter to any unnecessary wrath. If anything, her energies would be appealing to her 'ladies' (spies) to pass the message to her relatives to secure oversight of her child, in whatever way they could. Her only concern would be that Elizabeth not be mistreated after her death.
Yes, I think her overriding concern was for Elizabeth too (though I'm sure she was terribly worried about her brother as well).
Another excellent narrative, thank you. I have to say that I found the moving pictures a bit creepy!
The spelling of "Bollen", it's really interesting that people could just change their names whenever before government officiating. My husband's ancestors changed their German names from "Bucher" to "Bucker" to "Buggar"
I always enjoy your videos. The letter is interesting but how will we ever know? I doubt it is Anne's letter. Maybe someone needed money so forged it. Have they done any dating on the paper and ink of the letter? That might help. Thank you for all your hard work in bringing these videos to us.
I don't think we ever will sadly. I haven't heard about any dating of the paper or ink, however things like carbon dating are only accurate to within a few decades, so likely wouldn't be precise enough to really help us (plus it could have been written on an old piece of paper, much later on).
I do not see how she could have written such an imprudent letter. If she had, it would have been used against her right away. This could not have been a private letter between spouses, because she was being accused of treason and was (supposedly) writing to the king to declare her innocence, knowing it would not go directly to him. Because it wasn't made public at the time and didn't turn up until years later, to me that's the biggest proof it was a fake. Anne certainly would have limited the letter to protesting her innocence and emphasizing her loyalty and her status as formally crowned queen consort; she would have been pleading for the king's mercy and for her daughter's status as heiress apparent. Instead, the letter berates the king for his infidelity, suggests that her soul was purer than his and suggests that his death would not be long in coming, which suggestion was treasonous in itself, was it not? If it did date from the period, it could have been composed by someone who wanted to add to the phony evidence against her, but I cannot imagine that Anne herself would have been so rash. Certainly not in the case where someone else was supposedly putting her up to writing the letter and there was no guarantee it would get to the king before her enemies saw it.
Yes, imagining the King's death was treasonous (and one of the charges against Anne). Excellent point!
But if there are no less than six copies in existence, why would anyone assume that this is not also a copy of the lost original - thus explaining the postscript? Why does this have to be the original document to make it Anne’s authentic message to Henry, rather than a copy made at the time, possibly at the behest of Cromwell? At this stage she didn’t know what was going to happen to her, and it does sound like the way she’d have become used to speaking to the man previously in thrall to her. She would have been aware of what COULD happen to her - she’d lived with him long enough to understand the cruelty of his personality - but she could also have been hoping that he would never apply that cruelty to her, hence the tone of the contents.
I believe The Letter was dictated by Queen Anne. She was denied writing materials. IMO Anne knew she was doomed and had little to lose. Bishop (or Arch Bishop) Canmer was deeply connected to Anne and may have copied Anne's words. Surely Cranmer was allowed to privately hear Anne? Cranmer would have given this letter to Cromwell. The wording shows Anne is well aware why Henry put her in this position. Her wit and sarcasm show through. As in her desth speech "never hath been a gentler or more just prince". Forgive wrong quote please. 'And long may he reighn over YOU'. The letter begs for the lives of four innocent men. Sorry to rattle on. Only my opinion but I do believe it sounds like Anne Boleyn telling her husband she knows him well and wishes he had left her as her found her therefore signing Anne Boleyn.
Henry was a narcissistic psychopath who ruined the lives of six women simply because he could.