Talk:Anne Boleyn/Archive 1

Clean-up of article
Apologies. I was asked to fix this article a few weeks ago and finally got round to it. I basically cleaned up some of the article's more purple/schmultzy paragraphs and the cluttered narrative - there was a lot of repitition, unnecessary trivia or contradictory points. I've also added some more references. Hope people think it's ok. Gboleyn 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fall alterations
Someone has removed the brief description of Warnicke's 'deformed fetus' theory from the section on Anne's fall. This is not right, no matter what one may think of her findings. User:Gboleyn
 * That no doubt accounts for 'four' theories which were only three, suh! When I made my last edit I did selectively go through a page or two of earlier versions to see if there was a fourth theory that had been removed but couldn't spot it. Might have to leave it to you to reinstate. By the way, could you sign your comments with 4 tildes (~) which will embed your name and the date/time of your edits in the Talk page? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pop History
What this article needs is an historian to look it over. It is riddled with opinion.

I agree! How do we get Eric Ives or David Starkey?!

I don't think they'd look over an article like this. But I'd be happy to take a look over it. I'm an undergrad at Oxford, in my final year and I've be doing my thesis on historical receptivity and extended essays on Marie-Antoinette, the Virgin Mary and Anne Boleyn. I'm no Starkey, obviously, but if people would like, I'll take a look through this AB article? User:Gboleyn

You get to write an essay on Anne Boleyn? That's amazing. All I get to study is WWII over and over again. Feel free to look over this article. I'm sure you could enlighten us with your degree-level knowledge!

In general, I found this article to be fair and balanced -- "riddled with opinion" only in the sense that it reports what opinion was at the time, which is not only a common practice in discussing history, but a vital one. I studied Tudor history in college quite extensively, and think this article is a good start (though in need of some commas in a few places). Except... the only problem is that a great many citations are missing; events that are, in fact, well-documented have been related here, but not cited. It does need some help in that regard. --Hiraeth 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mary Boleyn
I'd be interested to see the reference and cites for the statements made in the 'Royal Love Affair' section of this page, such as that there is NO truth in the 'rumours' that Mary's children were Henry's bastards...to my knowledge there is still speculation, not without substantial evidence, that the children were parented by Henry VIII and Mary Boleyn.Luceo 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is odd the Mary's husband is referred to as 'a common soldier' and that because of this there was some coldness between Mary and her sister Anne. In fact, as his own entry in Wikipedia states, Sir William Carey was a 'prominent courtier', and it is more than likely that the marriage was arranged to ensure her status and respectability after her affair with the king finished. If there was any coldness between the sisters might it not be because Anne had supplanted Mary in the King's affections, or because Mary ( a compliant mistress) disapproved of Anne's ambitions to persuade the King to marry her? HJD 19 May 2006.

Hmm. Perhaps the 'common soldier' refrence is speaking of Mary's second husband, who was, in fact, a common soldier. Long after Carey's death, Mary married the soldier, which many say caused a rift between the sisters--Anne felt that Mary had demeaned herself (that is, Anne) and the Boleyn name.

Clearly, Mary Boleyn's second husband was a common soldier and the article refers to that as the source of their feud- why would a prominent courtier as a husband cause such a stir?

Lady in Waiting
Was she ever a lady-in-waiting to Marguerite of Navarre? It says so on the latter's page, and mentions Anne recieving an origional manuscript of Marguerite's Miroir de l'âme pécheresse. Miroir was written in 1531, but on Anne's page it says she left to England in 1521. I'm confused... Nowhere on Anne's page does it mention Marguerite of Navarre (unless I missed it). Can someone help me figure this out?--Qtoktok 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that Anne spent some time with Marguerite of Navarre, but I've never seen proof of this. Many books that say Anne was Marguerite's Lady-in-Waiting say that Anne and Marguerite respected one another, a friendship blossomed, and Anne was quite upset when Marguerite refused to meet her when Henry and Anne sailed to France shortly before their marriage.

She was a maid-of-honour to Mary, Queen of France (Henry VIII's sister), Claude of France (Francois I's wife) and Louise, duchess d'Alencon (Francois I's mother.) She would certainly have met Marguerite, Francois' sister, but she never worked for her. Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Marquess or Marchioness
This refers to Anne being granted the title Marquess of Pembroke; however, Marquess is a male title. Was she really granted the male title, or did she become Marchioness of Pembroke (the female equivalent)? - Montrealais

Marchioness is more commonly quoted, including in Burkes Peerage and Britannica. However the only original text I've found on the Web refers to her as Marquess in a text by chronicler Edward Hall. Unless destroyed, the original letters patent should be in some archive and would give the definitive answer. However there is no doubt that it was she who was awarded the title (whichever it was), rather than her being a Marchioness due to being married to a Marquess. Since it was the first (and only?) time it happened, there's no precident so hence the importance of original texts. 80.43.217.110 03:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure it's Marquess, but not sure enough to revert it. I'll check... Hackloon 02:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It's "Marchioness". The "Marquess" business is the peerage equivalent of an urban legend, probably not helped by the fact that "Marquess" was at one time one possible term for the wife of a "Marquis". (The letters patent, of course, would have used neither form, as they would have been written in Latin.) Proteus (Talk) 17:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC) IT'S MARQUESS!!! WHERE'D ANYONE HEAR OTHERWISE??? Everywhere I've read, it's Marquess... www.englishhistory.net and Dr. David Starkey say so, and so has every other book I've read. It's Marquess. Wikipedia is the only place that uses marchionessthat I've seen.


 * How nice. Unless you can actually quote a Peerage reference work, however, it's all completely irrelevant. Proteus (Talk) 21:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So where'd you see that she was a marchioness? Just wondering, since even the Tudor chronicler Edward Hall uses "marquess" when he wrote an account describing her coronation.


 * Debrett's and the Complete Peerage call her "Marchioness of Pembroke", and the editor of Cracroft's Peerage has specifically stated that she was not "Marquess of Pembroke". Proteus (Talk) 22:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How on earth would she have been a "Marquess"? Was Margaret Pole the Earl of Salisbury, as well? john k 23:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're thinking with 21st. century definitions, not as a historian. It was not an exclusively male term then, although it was usually used for a man.Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to start a fight, but later on in this article it refers to her being granted the title "Marquess of Pembrooke", so which title is correct? Also, every biography that I have read on Anne, it has mentioned the male version when refering to her peerage title.Prsgoddess187 12:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought she was granted the title "Marquess" as a nod to her being a peer in her own right, as opposed to most women in England's having their right to a title by virtue of marriage to a peer? --SaraFist

According to the Dictionary of National Biography she was created Marchioness, not Marquis. -- Necrothesp 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

SaraFist, that is what I have always read, too. Henry made her "Marquess," a peer in her own right, further scandalizing the court. For her trial she faced the peers because she was one herself. --Amy

From David Starkey's Elizabeth:The Struggle for the Throne, page 15:

"In October 1532, Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (newly created Marquess of Pembroke for the occasion) met Francis at Boulogne and were given a lavish reception."

From David Starkey's The Queens of Henry VIII, page 459:

"...before Anne met Francis as Henry's Queen- and Consort to be she should be given appropriate rank by being created a peer in her own right. The title chosen was MArquess of Pembroke, which had strong royal associations, since the earldom of Pembroke had been held by Henry's great-uncle, Jasper Tudor...."

From Carolly Erickson's Mistress Anne, page 177:

"...he(Henry)made her a peer in her own right, granting her the male title marquess of Pembroke...."

Anne held the title marquess of Pembroke. Anne would have been called Marchioness by courtiers out of courtesy.

From Carolly Erickson's Mistress Anne, page 193

"Although Anne was a marquess, a male rank, courtesy seems to have required that the courtiers use the feminine form of the title."

--MJR

Marquess is correct, and the title was given that way purposely- this way, she was a peer, and therefore the most powerful woman in England, giving Henry the license to marry her. Go to for this: 'On the first day of September 1532, she was created Marquess of Pembroke, a title she held in her own right.'

People arguing for 'Marchioness' are mainly using modern guides to ancestry; if you look at what Tudor historians have written, it is clearly 'Marquess' which, although usually used for a male, was not an exclusively male term.Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The 1970 BBC Series
It would take away from the main article to try to shoehorn it into the spot where this series is noted, but it is worth mentioning here. There is a scene towards the end of the Anne Boleyn episode where she has confessed her sins to Thomas Cranmer, as portrayed by Bernard Hepton, just before she is to be beheaded. He is visibly shaken by what she has told him, but we never learn what it is. It leaves us to enjoy, or be perplexed by, all of the possibilities of what historians, both before and after this series aired, have speculated on.MarnetteD | Talk 01:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The very tone of the way she says "my great sins" is meant clearly to convey that she only confessed the usual sorts of things people confessed, and definitely not anything for which she was being put to death. This is why he is shaken - he knows he has helped send an innocent woman to die so that Henry can marry again. The very next episode - that of Jane Seymour - shows that people knew Anne was innocent. FlaviaR 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)FlaviaR (I sure hope this signature stuff works).

Introduction to the article
"Anne Boleyn, Marchioness of Pembroke and Queen Consort of England" is not a very good way to introduce the article. I've never really seen someone referred to in this way; should we call Mary of Teck "Her Serene Highness Princess Mary of Teck, Queen Consort of England"? I suggest renaming the intro as "Anne Boleyn, 1st Marchioness of Pembroke (dates) was the queen consort of England blah blah blah". --Matjlav 22:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it - I put the titles in their correct order.FlaviaR 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)FlaviaR

Marquess Cont.
It was Marquess. Henry gave it to her because he wanted her to have a title no other woman could hold. Did you know that Anne started out as his mistress because she wanted her sister to be jealous? (Her sister was Mary Boleyn, the Kings former mistress after Bessie Blount.\

How do you know? Do you have a personal letter from her? o.- Just wondering. Please tell me you didn't get that from "The Other Boleyn Girl".

It clearly is from 'The Other Boleyn Girl.' Mary had been displaced as Henry's mistress at least two years before he noticed Anne, possibly longer. That's taken from the works of Eric Ives and Starkey. Gboleyn 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anne was never his mistress. She refused to become one out of virtue, or ambition, depending on which books you've read lately. WhatTheFace? 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If she was never his mistress, how do you account for the birth of Elizabeth barely six months after their marriage? FlaviaR 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)FlaviaR

Born in Ireland?
There is an Irish song from the 16thC., Cailin o cois tSuir me (I am a girl from the banks of the Suir - the song was popular in 1580's England, and the title is used as gobbledegook by Shakespeare in one of the Henry IV plays), which is supposed to be about Anne. The tradition is that she was born in County Tipperary and raised there for a time, when her family had inherited large parts of the Ormond estates. Can anyone assist in confirming this?--shtove 13:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't find any suggestion of this possibility in Ives's Life and Death..... It is said that Anne's great grandfather, Thomas Butler, 7th Earl of Ormonde, spent the years from 1505 to 1515 in England. While there, the 7th Earl was granted a fine manor house at Beaulieu in Essex by King Henry VII. He entertained Henry VIII there in 1510 and again in 1515, which was the year the Earl died. A pedigree of the Boleyn family. A web search shows many claims that she was likely born at her father's Blickling Hall in Norfolk. An alternative suggestion (if she was born after 1505) is Hever Castle to which the Boleyns moved. -- Op. Deo 12:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The Shakesepeare reference is Henry V act IV scene iv. I've tried a few biogs to confirm this notion, but they're all vague. I came across it in an edition of the periodical Éigse, but have lost the reference. Given the dates, perhaps it's unlikely to be true, but I'd still prefer something concrete. Historical writing on Tudor England is so feeble on the Irish dimension - English historians take one look across the sea and run away in despair at the strangeness and complexity of the task ahead of them (they're not so good at looking across the sea to the continent either).--shtove 23:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

According to some genealogical research I've done, I am a distant relative of Anne Boleyn and my maternal ancestors are Scots-Irish so she could well have had Irish blood.--MarshallStack 23:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I do believe Anne was (just a little?) Irish. One of her relatives had owned some estates in Ireland, I heard, and at the time of Anne's birth, the ownership of these estates couldn't be decided--they either belonged to her father, Thomas Boleyn, or to the Butler family. Thats why many people believe Anne was brought back to England, so she could marry James Butler, and their marriage would settle the dispute. When Anne gained favor with Henry VIII, he finally settled the fight and gave the estates to the Boleyns. But all accounts I've heard of her birth have her being born in England.

From David Starkey's Elizabeth:The Struggle for the Throne page 12:

"...in the female line she descended from the great Irish noble house of Butler...."

Her cousins Elizabeth and Mary Boleyn are buried at Clonony Castle at Cloghan, Co. Offaly in Ireland. The graves can be visited, the castle is partly in ruins. Paul75 20:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Boleyn or Bullen?
Isn't Bullen an alternative spelling of the surname?--shtove 02:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, yes, but so rare, <0.3% in Google and not at all in Ives's Life and Death .... as far as I can see, that it would not be appropriate to mention it in the article. There is a redirect from Anne Bullen.-- Op. Deo 10:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * She is referred to as Anne Bullen in Shakespeare's Henry VIII, however, so I feel that it is worth including Bullen as an alternative spelling of her name in the article. AmbExThErMaL 21:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - so I'm putting Bullen in as a bracketed alternative.--shtove 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As any genealogist knows, in the absence of an IRS or Social Security or phone books, there was no "official" spelling of a surname in the 16th century. In fact, I would be surprised if there were only two variant spellings. --Michael K. Smith 15:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Granted - the spellings of Shakespeare's name are legion. In this case, the two alternatives may represent the switch from English-country-squirishness to French-courtly-worthiness.--shtove 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

She was known affectionately by Henry as Nan Bullen and that is why the Bullen surname came up if memory serves me correctly.

Bullen is "Medieval English"? What is that supposed to be? It links to Middle_English but both Shakespeare and Anne spoke Early_Modern_English - just a variant of what we speak today. Middle English is almost something else entirely. Eriathwen 18:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Anatomical urban legend?
I have heard it said over the years that she had three breasts. Is there anything to substantiate this or is it just an urban legend?--MarshallStack 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not mentioned in Ives's Life, although he does mention some slightly unpleasant descriptions given by religous opponents long after her death. He dismisses the idea that she wore a high neckline just to cover a "wen" on her neck. Op. Deo 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I always heard it was an extra finger on one hand. Sounds like the sort of canard advanced by her enemies. --Michael K. Smith 15:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they said she had a wen on her neck and an extra finger on her left hand, next to her small finger. However, no such disfigurations were noted until after her death, I believe. Therefore, the infamous marks which helped contribute to the idea that she was a "witch" were probably just made up to do just that (that is, make her a witch).

Don't forget, Henry VIII was terrified of disease. If ever there was plague in London, the King was the first to know and the first to run. Ever since his brother had died before coming to the throne (followed closely by his mother) he had understood his own mortality, and had feared it vehemently. This was a king who wanted a perfect male heir, and was willing divorce two wives, kill another two, and allow the other to die just to get one. He was willing to ransack monasteries, and perhaps worst of all; break with the church in Rome and potentially damn his immortal soul. All of this for a male heir. Considering this, is there really any possibility he would put aside a wife of 16 years to marry a disfigured woman? Would he risk his reputation in this way? Would he risk tainting the perfection of any child he may gain by her? He refused to consummate his marriage with Anne of Cleves because he found her unattractive, so what chance could a disfigured lady-in-waiting stand against such high standards? It is extremely unlikely and probably impossible that Anne was deformed, and if she had been, her family most probably would not have allowed her to court in the first place.

Without doubt, this was a rumour cultivated by those who wished to destroy her. Many people, especially the public, had never liked Anne. When she was accused, it was to their amusement to enhance the myth of witchcraft. Why should Henry care? As long as he was rid of her, the public could say what they wanted.--Anne1536 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that Anne Boleyn had three breasts.

Norreys/Norris
Can the anonymous user contribute to the debate at John Norris (soldier)?--shtove 00:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research
This article used to have the tag "original research". Was it because of the lack of references in the section called "==Portraits=="? If so, I agree and think there should be references to the information provided from a source like the BBC or from a major art museum. Otherwise it does read like original research. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest edit 21 Feb 06
I put in the alternative spelling of the surname (see Boleyn or Bullen? above), and edited out some unsourced/POV bits, particularly the poison death conspiracy theory - what's that about?--shtove 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant Article!
This is one of the best articles I have read in Wikipedia thus far. Keep up the good work!

Link removed
I have removed a link to the Luminarium encyclopedia article on Anne Boleyn. I read through it and it is based on the work of J.A. Froude or A.A. Pollard, both of whom have been discredited in this field by much later research. User:Gboleyn

Mistresses
Shouldn't we add Mary Boleyn and Bessie Blount to the list (on the side)? Because, even though he did not technically marry them, they were his mistresses, and important in their own right.

No, that would be inaccurate. They were mistresses, not wives, so they don't belong on a list of Henry's queens. By 16th century standards there was a world of difference between a wife and a mistress and as for Mary Boleyn's importance, it's been massively exaggerated by her modern day romantic admirers, particularly fans of 'The Other Boleyn Girl.' You only have to look at how infrequently she is mentioned in surviving documentary evidence, especially the usually gossipy ambassadors' reports, to see that she was more of a "fling" than a long-term mistress. User:Gboleyn

Peer
"making her the first English woman ever to be a peer in her own right." Is this accurate? There'd been other women who'd been Peers before Anne. Michaelsanders 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anne WAS the first woman to hold a peerage in her own right, rather than through a husband. This is fairly basic and undisputed historical fact. Paul75 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Joan of Kent. Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk. Catherine Willoughby. And a few others in England. Not to mention various others outside. Michaelsanders 01:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have written it slightly more clearly. Anne was the first female created a peer in English history.  She did not  INHERIT her title.Paul75 01:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk. Inherited title of Countess of Norfolk, created Duchess of Norfolk for life two years before her death. And the point remains, you phrased it very badly and misleadingly (I did say when I removed it that it might need rephrasing, if it was not wrong altogether). What is historically basic and undisputed is that she was (probably) "the first female commoner in English history to be created a Peer." Slipshod phrasing does none of us any favours, it merely serves to distort the presentation of the subject. Michaelsanders 01:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, who was created Countess in her own right in 1513. If she really was 'created' rather than simply assured her inheritance (I doubt this is the only article guilty of slip-shod phrasing), then she would presumably be the first non-Peer to become a Peer - not Anne Boleyn, who was merely the first female commoner to be created a noble (I would assume that Margaret Pole, a great-great-great-grandchild of a King, would nonetheless be considered 'royal' rather than 'common', i.e. non-royal - nobles are and were commoners, despite their titles - if not then Anne would slip down another notch). Michaelsanders 02:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Margaret Pole was the daughter of the Duke of Clarence and as such is automatically granted a title. Her title was simply changed at a later date to the Countess of Salisbury, an entirely different situation to Anne Boleyn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul75 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

That comment was self-contradictory. No Duke's daughter is automatically granted any title other than 'Lady'. And Clarence was attainted - all his titles were confiscated. However, after the attaintment of Clarence, Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick was granted the titles of his maternal grandfather, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick and Salisbury (Salisbury having been inherited from his mother, the de jure Countess, and Warwick being held by Neville in jure uxoris, having been inherited by his wife from her brother). The titles were confiscated with Edward's attaintment and execution in 1499 - Margaret was plain Lady Margaret Pole, wife of Sir Richard Pole. Where the matter gets confusing is that, in her article, Henry is described as reversing the attainder on Edward upon his accession i.e. 1509. The same article then says, "and, in 1513, made her Countess of Salisbury in her own right." One would expect that she would have simply inherited the title, and she is listed as 8th Countess (which suggests, though does not specifically confirm, continuity of inheritance rather than reissue). However, the space of time suggests otherwise; the phrasing seems to specifically state that she was Countess by direct creation, rather than by a recognition of rights. The phrase, "Her title was simply changed at a later date to the Countess of Salisbury" is a ridiculous one - defiant of events, law and understanding, it also if anything hacks further at the nonsense that 'Anne was the first ever female Peer, wow!' (her title was 'changed', was it? For that to happen, she'd have needed to be 'created' the Countess. Meaning that she would definitely be a predecessor to Anne). And of course the situation is different to that of Anne - Margaret was a cousin of Elizabeth of York, and Henry considered her his aunt - it would be stupendously repellent if the situations were the same. The point remains, Anne was neither the first ever female peer, nor the first created female peer; she was merely the first female commoner to become a peer (unless Margaret was considered a commoner, and does count as being created. In which case, Anne would be the "first female commoner without close blood-ties to the royal family to be created a Peer." Michaelsanders 15:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Have it your way! This was simply a discussion, not an agressive point scoring "i have more historical knowledge than you" contest. Paul75 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Who's trying to score points? I'm trying to make sure that the article is accurate - which it wasn't. Now, on this point at least, it seems to be - although someone with better knowledge will probably correct it further later. Who knows? I'm sorry if you feel offended. Michaelsanders 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article On Hold
I'd like to see a separate reference section listing all of the books used in the article and ISBN numbers before I feel comfortable passing this. Otherwise, the article looks very good. --Bookworm857158367 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Looking through the history I have NO idea what books those are referencing. I'll try to find what those refs are from.-- Wizardman 19:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Found them, back in an edit from over a year ago thay add all those books. Somehow got lost.-- Wizardman 00:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Passing it for GA. It more than meets all the criteria. I think the separate list of references is needed so people can continue to edit the article, so it's good you found it.--Bookworm857158367 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Queen of England
Anne Boleyn was Queen Consort of England and it is childish, irresponsible and historically innaccurate to continually remove this. Don't use arguments about her marriage being declared null and void at her execution blah blah, endless royals have had their status stripped at some point over the centuries such as Edward V, Edward VIII and Katharine of Aragon (indeed several of Henry VIII's wives) yet they are not referred to as the Earl of March, the Prince of Wales or the Princess of Wales. And as a certain Wikipedian is fond of ramming down throats of over users, Wikipedia rules state that the MOST COMMON FORM should be used when it comes to titles. So until someone can prove that Anne Boleyn is more commonly known as the Marchioness of Pembroke, I am reverting her title back to the correct one.Paul75 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue has already been discussed - I introduced the style 'Queen consort of England' into the bold title, it was removed by User:Berks105 - citing the Manual of Style, and - more importantly - the precedent that all other articles refer to deceased consorts by their maiden names/form of name prior to marriage. Michael Sanders 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Her marriage wasnt technically legal, Henry was still married to catherine at the time of their marriage making henry a bigamist. -chloe2kaii7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.118.239 (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the laws of the Catholic Church - Archbishop Cranmer annulled Henry and Katherine's marriage, freeing him to marry Anne. - Holly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.147.48 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Chloe, the Church in England annulled his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, and as he 'knew' he had never been married to her anyway, it was acceptable that he contracted a marriage at this time, in god faith that his first marriage had never been legally valid. According to the law of the land, Henry and Anne were free to marry. This was as the law was decided by the King and the Parliament - who did as Henry told them. Therefore by the law of the Church he recognised then, and the law of the state, he was free to marry Anne Boleyn and was not a bigamist. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1501/1507
There is an extensive section discussing "the birth controversy". (As an aside, is that the right wording? What's controversial about it? It gives the idea that she'd faked her age to make an impression on Henry or so. Perhaps "Uncertainty of her date of birth"? ) Further in the text it says: "Archduchess Margaret of Austria ... offered ... Anne a place in her household. Ordinarily, a girl had to be 12 years old to have such an honour, but Anne might have been somewhat younger, as Margaret affectionately referred to her as "La petite Boleyn" (it is not known, however, if the quote refers to her age or her stature). She made a good impression in The Netherlands ... and lived there from the spring of 1513". I'd say that this would be a major boost for the "1501" field, as a 1507 birth would have made her 5 or just 6 years old in the spring of 1513, which is more than just "somewhat younger" than 12. This should be mentioned in that first paragraph. Also, the only "argument" made for the 1507 date is "These findings are contested by Warnicke in several books and articles". Given the rather strong reasons for a 1501 or earlier birth, it would probably good to see Warnick's best point or two. Afasmit 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would be interested in Wendy J. Dunn's essay on Anne Boleyn's birthdate; she gives a very convincing argument in favour of the 1507 date of birth and does so far more eloquently than I ever could.
 * Almost all of the arguments I have read in favour of a 1500/1501 date of birth for Anne cite the fact that ladies in waiting generally had to be twelve or thirteen to support that theory but there are exceptions on record for that period; Anne Brandon would have been no more than six years old when she joined Margaret's court. Thomas Boleyn was known to be an extremely ambitious man so it is not improbable that he would have seized the opportunity to send his very intelligent daughter to Margaret to give her a head start at court life.
 * What I do find improbable is that Henry VIII, whose obsession with fathering a male heir has become infamous, would vest his hopes for the future of his dynasty in a woman who, if she was born c. 1500/1501, would have been around the same age as his first wife was when she was delivered of her last stillborn child, old enough to be a grandmother by the standards of the time. : —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.218.210 (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Oscar Nominated"
The use of "oscar nominated" when naming actresses who have played Anne Boleyn is quite (though unintentionally) misleading.

When reading, in an article about Anne Boleyn, that an actress has played Anne and has been nominated for an Oscar, one naturally assumes that she was nominated FOR playing Anne.

Saying "Merle Oberon (oscar-nominated)" or "Natalie Portman (oscar-nominated)" in this context is as relevant as saying "Merle Oberon (owned a dog)" or "Natalie Portman (is a bit on the short side)".

I suggest it should perhaps be removed to curb ambiguity. Mip | Talk 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair - removal would be okay by me. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Referring back to the point that Anne would of been considered old enough to be a grandmother by the standards of the Tudor era if born in 1501- isn't there evidence to suggest that in fact she was born in 1507?

Charges of Incest
Although I can find no other sources to back it up, a teacher I once had many years ago while studying in England had an interesting theory regarding the incest charges brought again Anne and her brother. While the prevailing, and most likely, view is that these charges were false, the teacher did point out that Anne knew that her life was on the line if she could not provide a male heir. Past history showed that Henry VIII did not do that well in that regard, regardless of what woman he was with. To protect her life, Anne may have decided to provide Henry an "heir" from a different father. However, a child that looked neither like Anne or Henry, or worst of all, looked like someone Henry knew, would be disasterous. However, enough was known about genetics at the time that Anne giving birth to a child that resembled her brother would not necessarily arouse suspicion. More than likely this is not what happened, but I always thought it interesting, even if I can find the theory mentioned in any detail anywhere else. Timawalker (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its an idea, but I think the idea of nailing your brother was as distasteful then as it is now and probably risked a trip to hell, so it isn't very likely.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it well known that if you decide to have an incestuous relationship and evolve in sexual intercourse, there is mostly going to be at LEAST one problem let alone a disability with the baby?...A lot of information that historians have gathered from the whispered rumours of Anne Boleyn's ladies in waiting and midwives that the baby was horrifcally malformed and "monstrous." This is a masjor piece of evidence for today's modern society, and perhaps it can help us work out who Anne Boleyn decided to frame for the providing of an heir for the King, and perhaps we will be able to righteously point the finger for once, for the evidence is enough to go delving a few hundred years back and figure out the truth, is it not??Sweetlife31 (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, but back then people didn't know how a baby develops and changes inside a the womb. They tought that babies look the same way during those nine months. I think the baby wasn't malformed, he was just still developing. Remember, a 3 months old fetus looks very different than a 3 months old baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.125.21 (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The people of the era had plenty of experience with miscarriages, so I doubt the "monstrous" appearance of any stillborn baby would have around suspicion. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If Anne had wanted to provide an heir from a different father, and knew to choose a father who was unlikely to sire a child who looked too different, she wouldn't have been limited to her brother by any means; a man with colouring similar to hers or to Henry's would have been enough. It's not like they had photos back then, and portraits weren't the most reliable depiction of their subjects, so who could say that the baby wasn't a dead ringer for Anne's great-great-uncle, or similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.15.86 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Ejeanne (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)xactly.Besides,Anne had plenty of cousins about Court to choose from,including Thomas Wyatt.One only has to look at the Howard and Boleyn family tree.There were cousins everywhere.Not to mention her Butler relatives in Ireland.


 * Timawalker said "...an interesting theory regarding the incest charges...giving birth to a child that resembled her brother would not necessarily arouse suspicion." This is exactly the storyline in The Other Boleyn Girl which I just saw though they didn't go through with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.22.153 (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. This article is a mess, and I almost delisted it out of hand. If it is to survive the seven day period then I will need to see a concerted effort to deal with these many problems. If this is being done I will happily give indefinate extensions and further reviews provided work continues.
 * The lead needs work - the first paagraph is fine, but after that it jumps straight to a list of movies she features in and then what a long list of historicans said about her. This information is relevant to the article, but not for the lead. Instead give a brief summary of her life, talk more about the major issues surrounding her and only then discuss briefly the ongoing effect on popular culture (and when you do, reach further back than 1968).
 * I see at least one embedded link. This and any others should be brought out and attached as footnotes instead. If they are contemporary poems, take them to Wikisource and give an internal link to that.
 * In the first paragraph of "Early life", given that it is conflicting historians who are being discussed, inline citations are vital.
 * The writing is not good. See [User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a here] for advice. I realise this article is not going for FA, but following this will help the contributors get is closer to GA, which at the moment it is not.
 * The paragraphs in "Childhood & Family" are strangely unconnected and almost read like a list - why is the family status not discussed when the family members are listed at the start? This needs reorganising.
 * Although the early sections are reasonably cited, many more should be used, especially from such a controversial historical figure.
 * All Fact tags must be addressed.
 * Link to people where they first appear (i.e. Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon)
 * Some links (i.e. George Cavendish) go to disambiguation pages. Check them all and make sure they go to the right person.
 * "historians are divided" is a bit weaselly, use names where possible, even if only in footnotes.
 * "The power behind the throne" - one of the most controversial sections, is totally uncited.
 * As the article goes on, the citations dry up almost completely. For an article this controversial which features the opinions of many historians, I would expect to see at least one per paragraph and more on controversial points, direct quotes, statistics and indirect attributions (i.e. Starkey says . . .).
 * "Execution" has unattributed quotes, a huge omission.
 * The lists at the end should be turned into prose or, better, diverted into their own "Anne Boleyn in popular culture" article.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll pick this up and run with it. The article should be fixable. -- SECisek (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the sentiment, but it has been seven days since I put up the list of problems and you haven't made any edits to the article. Please indicate in the next couple of days what you planning to do at least or I will have to delist this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was on holiday until last Friday. I will begin with citations and small clean up. I have 10+ GAs under my belt and I know what needs to be done here. If I can't get it there, I'll delist it myself. In the mean time, how about reviewing my GA candidate Henry Martyn? -- SECisek (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, good luck. I'll see if I can get to your GA candidate tomorrow, but while we're about it, how about you review Eliab Harvey? Its been there over a month.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. -- Secisek (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting close, give me some suggestions. BTW, this required much more work than I thought it would. I see I made over 100 individual edits! -- Secisek (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Passed
That is an astonishing amount of work to do in just two days! Amazing. I have no problem passing this now, but I have left some comments below for the article's future improvement. (I'd also like to mention in passing that should we meet in future, I would rather you didn't strike through my comments during a review but left it for me to do instead once I am satisifed the point has been addressed).
 * I have given the article a copyedit, mainly to deal with a few missing words etc, although I have changed "king" to "King" when it refers specifically to Henry VIII (although I've probably missed several). (Likewise with Pope and Emperor when they refer to specific people).
 * If there are plans to take this to FA (and I see no reason why that should be unfeasible) then I would request some copyediting from other people as well. The text is good, but has some redundancy and the occassional melodramamtic phrase.
 * Those sources found on the internet need publication infomation. In fact those which are in the public domain (i.e. Wyatt's poem) should be transcribed to Wikisource and linked to from there.
 * "the king grew tired of her" in the lead is a little oversimplified, and sums up another problem which will become a serious issue at FA review. Anne is a very controversial historical figure and in places the article can be a little bit simple in its dealing with complex issues (I'm not saying that this quote isn't accurate, only that editors supporting other viewpoints will insist on close textual referencing for all these points covering all points of view).
 * I have added one Fact tag, for a quote in the lead. Quotes must always be referenced, no matter where they appear.
 * Why is she listed in Category:Women composers? The article makes no mention of this distinction.

These points are fairly minor, and this is a very nicely cleaned up article. Very impressive. Having sat through the drivel of The Other Boleyn Girl last night, it's refreshing to discover some real history here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Probable birthdate
I have discoved Anne Boleyn's probable birthdate. On the web, there are many sites which display her horoscope;they all give her a birthdate of 5 May 1501 at 11:30 AM.She was born at Blickling Hall,Norfolk.Mary was the elder sister; having been born in the spring of 1500.Anne Boleyn has been my personal heroine for over thirty years and I've been on a hunt for her exact birthdate.Anyone out there is free to challenge my discoveries.jeanne (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not how Wikipedia works, you need to provide a reliable source. Please read Reliable sources. By all means, if you can cite this properly, it should be included. If you can't, the article should stay as is. None of the scholarship I have examined on her suggests an exact date and historians cannot even agree on a year. Let us know what sources you turn up. -- Secisek (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

the French Astrotheme site says 5 May 1507 11:30AM but as she was born in 1501 I cannot cite them for 100% accuracy.I am an astrologer.Exact birthdates are extremely important to mejeanne (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a book with that date? Even an Astrology book by a well known author could merit a mention in the article. -- Secisek (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Prof. Retha Warnicke, has her own beliefs regarding Anne Boleyn,[] Kansas Bear (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

i'll get going on finding name of astrology book-it's in my old computerjeanne (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Warnicke material is discussed in the article already. -- Secisek (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As further proof regarding the 5 May birthdate; remember there were always tournaments and festivities for the week commencing May Day-perhaps in honour of Anne's birth? Even she herself declared to Norfolk when he arrested her 2 May how cruel to be arrested at that time "of all times". Another ref to her birthday? And Beltane, the Celtic pagan festival is celebrated 1 May; remember Anne was said to have been a witch all her life. am still looking for that document but Astrotheme shows the 5 May birthdate-just with the (what I believe to be the incorrect year)jeanne (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We need a published, scholarly, book - this is all WP:OR. Moreover, Anne was not "said to have been a witch all her life" not that has anything to do with her birthday. -- Secisek (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I phrased that badly.Anne was never openly accused of practising witchcraft but it had often been whispered as the author Marie L. Bruce states in her well-written yet out-dated book on Anne that many thought ,for example her choice of name Orian jeanne (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)for her greyhound was an indication of her secretly being in league with the devil.The 16th century was a supersticious era.As for her being born in May, I read a book on her when I was young that mentions Anne being born on or near the feast of Beltane.I'm not being antagonistic-I respect your wish for a reliable, published source; but as an astrologer, I have been searching for her birthdate since 1974!!!!Hence my desire to pin a date on her.:well,I came across one source(am still looking for the other)that states Anne was born on or around 1 May 1501.It is a book called" The May Days of Anne Boleyn" by Deborah O' Toole.And there is also Astrotheme which vouches for it's accuracy(as I said before they claim 5 May 1507)Could Wikipedia not just state her birth as early May 1501!1507 once it verifies my sources?15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

Considering that her year of birth isn't known, any attempt at choosing a birthday would be pure guesswork. According to Jane Dormer, lady in waiting to Mary I, (http://members.optushome.com.au/peterpanandwendy/the_age_of_anne_boleyn.htm) Anne wasn't quite twenty-nine when she died, which would indicate a birthday not long after May 19th. Personally, my guess would be late May or June 1507, but since we have so little to go on, I don't think we should set down a specific date.83.71.15.86 (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly Anne Boleyn had RH negative blood? Antonia Fraser in her well-researched " The Wives of Henry VIII" states that this might have caused the deaths and miscarriages of all her children after Elizabeth.It's possible.RH negative blood is common amongst the Western Irish also it is said to have been prevalent amongst the original inhabitants of England; the earlier people of Ancient Britain were described as dark-haired-and-eyed; Anne Boleyn as we all know possessed that same colouring and the Boleyn's and Howards were of old English stock whereas the Butlers were Irish. If she had been RH negative and Henry RH postive, well all her children after the first would've been born dead. A sad but true fact.jeanne (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read that, and it's certainly a very interesting theory and a definite possibility, but I think that Anne's miscarriages could easily have been a result of stress, diet and the fact that Henry wouldn't have been a young or particularly healthy man when he fathered the children without any other factors needing to be in play.83.71.15.86 (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC):You make a good point; especially in light of the fact that all of Katherine's children suffered the same fate bar Mary. It's highly unlikely that Katherine would also possess RH negative blood.jeanne (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry didn't have much luck when it came to fathering healthy children; his two sons (Fitzroy and Edward VI) died in their teens and Mary doesn't seem to have enjoyed good health, especially later in life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.143.133 (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was certainly strange.Also, Mary herself wasn't capable of bearing children.jeanne (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Mary bore two children, Anne one. There is also a possiblilty that both of Mary's children (Catherine and Henry) were fathered by Henry VIII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.139.37 (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne is referring not to the Boleyns, but to Henry's children. Mary Tudor did not have any children.Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This question intrigues me, as I have a great interest in plugging holes like these. But in this case, I'd have to question where the French astrology site got its information from.  The rest of the scholarly world admits it simply doesn't know when Anne was born, and arguments abound even about the year, let alone the date, let alone the exact time!  If they had access to some document that establishes the true date and time of birth, surely that document would have found its way to the attention of historians.  I can't imagine an astrologer stumbling across it in some musty library archive somewhere, noting the details, casting the horoscope, and saying nothing to anyone else about their discovery.  My guess is that they've made a number of assumptions, came up with what sounds like a good candidate for a date, and then used a process of rectification to arrive at the exact time.  That may be a valid practice within astrology, but it doesn't hold the slightest drop of water for historians, or for Wikipedia.  If you can find out more about where the French astrology site's information comes from, I'd be most interested.  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that an astrological site cannot be cited as a reliable source for an encyclopedia or biography. Yes, it's likely that rectification was used to derive at the date given for Anne Boleyn as it does not say where they obtained the birth information. That is how charts were drawn up for Jesus Christ as well as other historical personages. I have tried to discover where Astrotheme gets it's birth data but to no avail.--jeanne (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)--jeanne (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)--jeanne (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Has this date been adjusted for the changes to the Gregorian Calendar? Do we do this for dates prior to 1582? I know that historical documents give G. Washington's birthday in the Julian calendar, and the date we use today has been converted to our modern calendar. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Deborah O'Toole
A quick google of this source shows that The May Days of Anne Boleyn is not in fact a book. It was an article published in Ambermont Magazine which is self-described as "free online magazine on RPG and PC Games". Role Playing Games as history? On her own self-published website O'Toole admits to not being a historian, but rather an author of fiction:

Deborah O'Toole is the author of three fiction novels, as well as nine short stories for children ("Short Tales").

To prevent any confusion about the accuracy of the date she also adds:

This article is meant for entertainment purposes only and expresses the sole opinions and observations of the author. This article is not meant to be a historical essay of Anne Boleyn, but rather a piece about the generalities of popular history.

I support the 1501 date, our article presents both scholarly opinions and lets the reader conclude which case is stronger. There is still no reliable source for an exact birth date. If we can find it should be included, if we can't...--Secisek (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please excuse my oversight;I assumed she would have provided her sources.Anyway ,I'm convinced of the 5 May 1501 birthdate,jeanne (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC) but until I find sources other than Ms.O'Toole...Let's hope one of us comes up with something concrete!


 * No problem, I wish all suspect content was so easily confirmed or dismissed. -- Secisek (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am just curious why MAY is constantly stressed?!I once read a novel YEARS ago and it had her born in-MAY!I wonder if her birthdate will ever be unearthed?Perhaps in the Vatican records?Have all Henry's letters to Anne been perused carefully? jeanne (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * May is not constantly stressed, few academic (WP:RS) books even conclude a year, let alone a month. -- Secisek (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The closest thing I know of to a hint at Anne's month of birth is that Jane Dormer, one of Mary I's ladies-in-waiting, said that Anne was nearly twenty-nine when she died, indicating that she was born in late May or in June 1507, maybe July. Maybe that's where the novelist whose book jeanne read got his or her information.86.47.42.32 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boleyn
Geoffrey Boleyn was indeed a wool merchant before becoming Lord Mayor of London. The article states that the merchant origins for the Boleyn family is a myth and they were in fact, aristocrats. But the author is mistaken. The Boleyn men married aristocratic women,but every biography on Anne Boleyn,including Alison Weir's "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", confirm the fact that Geoffry Boleyn, Anne's paternal great-grandfather was a prosperous wool merchant. It cannot be overlooked in the article. Therefore the article as it currently stands, needs to be altered. jeanne (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Every biography on Anne" does not state this as Anne Boleyn by Professor Eric Ives (1986) disproves this theory with evidence on p. 3 of his book. Do you have a page number for Weir? We can insert the aternate theory if we have a page number. -- Secisek (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weir states this on page 145;also, Antonia Fraser in her book "The Wives of Henry VII" discusses Geoffrey Boleyn's mercer origins on pages 116-117.Marie L. Bruce in her 1975 biography on Anne speaks of his background in trade as does Francis Hackett in an earlier biography. jeanne (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it ASAP. Thank you for your research. -- Secisek (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome.Any research concerning Anne Boleyn is a pleasure.I must also point out that the article fails to mention her proposed alliance with her Irish cousin,James Butler.This idea derived from Henry VIII to resolve a dispute over the title of the Earldom of Ormond.Thomas Boleyn,as legitimate grandson of the previous Earl,promptly claimed the title for himself when the old Earl died;whereas another Butler cousin was contesting it.Therefore,Henry beleived the quickest solution to what could well become a major problem in Ireland,was a marriage between Anne and her Butler cousin.Marie L Bruce discusses this at length in her book as did the Irish author Hackett. jeanne (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

You know the drill, add it with a source and page number, or if you want to, stick it here on this page with the source and page number and I will be happy to add it for you. Be bold. -- Secisek (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So glad to see my addition was kept in the article; some authors speculate as to whether or not the king himself stopped the marriage from taking place, due to his growing attraction to Anne. It's quite possible he did, seeing as that would've been the time he would have come into direct contect with her at court. But, seeing as there's really no firm evidence to support that likely theory, I had no choice but to leave it out of the article. It does make sense; because the marriage was very practical and James was said (by Fraser) to have been about the same age as Anne-another clue as to her birthdate?!
 * About the origins of Geoffry Boleyn.I just saw it stated in two other books that he had been a wool and silk merchant before becoming Lord Mayor.Francis Hackett's bio on Henry VIII says this on page 154;Marie L. Bruce in her bio on Anne,says it on page 15.Therefore the article, as it stands,jeanne (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC) greatly minimises the fact that he almost certainly was a wool and silk merchant.

Netherlands
The article states that Anne was referred to by Margaret of Austria as petite. Now while I believe in the 1501 date, I also have read in quite a few descriptions of Anne that she was "of middling height". Hmn, could petite have also meant small-boned, given that many women in the Netherlands are a bit big-boned and Anne was said by all to have been extremely small-boned ("I have such a little neck")? Sometimes words had different meanings back then. jeanne (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Margaret of Austria also mentioned in a letter to Thomas Boleyn that Anne was "so well spoken and so pleasant for her young years." If she was twelve, old enough to marry and as old as girls usually were when they went to court, I can't see her age being commented on, and given that her father was a very ambitious man, I could see him sending his daughter to court earlier than usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.143.133 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A twelve year old is still a twelve year old-even if they were physically old enough to marry.Perhaps, Margaret was referring to Anne's remarkable intellect?.Not many 12 year olds -of any era-would be able to discuss a variety of topics.Anne was very brightjeanne (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but coupled with the nickname 'petite', I get the impression than Anne was younger than usual - especially given that Anne Brandon would have been in Margaret's court at the time and she was six when she arrived, around 1512. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.92.138 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still hard to imagine a seven year old being sent to France with Mary Tudor and having conversations about theology with Marguerite d'Angouleme.Also, there is the question of her cousin, James Butler, said to be her own age.A 1500/01 date fits him as well.In 1522,he visited the English Court and was described as a man,not a boy of 15.jeanne (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anne Bullen?
Shouldn't the fact that Anne was born Anne Bullen be put somewhere on the page? I don't want to mess things up on this page and my only reference is a tour of Hever castle and the fact being mentioned on that page. As far as I remember we were told she changed names because she admired French culture and felt her English name was too plain. I can't remember whether before or after she went to France. I'll put a link in to Hever castle in the "see also" section. But if an admin/expert in charge of this page comes across this s.o. might want to add a sentence. Lisa4edit--71.236.23.111 (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC) O.k. The link I tried to put in to Hever Castle didn't take. I guess the protectors of "proper knowledge" struck again. Pity. --Lisa4edit (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the correct pronunciation of the name is Bullen. This is a slightly different point to what her name was at birth, but I believe that Bullen is the correct pronunciation for the name Boleyn. Certainly Diarmaid MacCulloch always speaks of her in this way. This is confirmed by a printed source, Factfile, compiled by Theodore Rowland-Entwistle and Jean Cooke, ed. Rachel Picher (rev. edn, London: Grisewood & Dempsey for W.H. Smith Exclusive Books, 1991), p. 365.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that she chose to change her name. It was spelt various ways - Bullen, Boleyn, Boullant, as many people of the sixteenth century did not have a set way to spell their surname.Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The sweating sickness
The article doesn't mention Anne's brush with death when she fell ill of the sweating sickness in June 1528.Her brother-in-law,William Carey also came down with it and died.Henry sent his own physician,a Mr.Butts to Hever Castle to cure her.Marie Louise Bruce discusses this on pages 94-100, in her biography on Anne Boleyn.jeanne (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll add it. Let me know if you approve. -- Secisek (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect Secisek,I only changed broken up to dispersed.You gave enough details about the illness without using to many lines.It needed to have been mentioned that she had it and was cured.You wrote it well.jeanne (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you. Truth is I stole the main of it from an old public domain, XIX century source. --Secisek (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Marquess of Pembroke
Was she really the Marquess of Pembroke? I know the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Normandy, not the Duchess, but I'm not convinced about Anne Boleyn. The article E.W. Ives, 'Anne (c.1500–1536)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004) accessed 4 May 2008, by Eric Ives, Emeritus Professor of English History in the University of Birmingham, who might be expected to have got it right, says, 'in September 1532 Anne was created marchioness of Pembroke'.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been raised before and there was debate (see archives) as some historians have used the feminine form for simplicity's sake. The term 'marquess' was not then an exclusively male term and 'marquess', 'lady marquess' and 'marchioness' were all used. On the original document the term used was 'marquess'. This isn't meant to have had significant meaning.Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Chances are, even if she was invested with the male title, Anne would have been addressed by some as Marchioness or Lady Marquess out of courtesy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.92.138 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been more courteous to address her as marchioness or lady marquess than marquess - marquess was not considered an exclusively male term. It was probably used for Anne's investiture because the title was being given to her directly and not because she was marrying someone of rank. It was also not anticipated that she would marry, and thus would acquire a husband who would be the marquess - it was expected that she would marry and then not use the title 'marquess of Pembroke' but Queen instead.Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. I see there has already been extensive discussion of this point.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Many historians have speculated that the title was created for her shortly after Anne physically became Henry's mistress, to provide for any children born to her while he was still legally wed to Katherine.jeanne (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there has, and all the authoritative sources say "Marchioness". (Oh, and don't add comments to the archives to make it look like the previous discussion ended with your comment.) Proteus (Talk) 07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proteus, was that directed at me? If so, I find it really rude. I added comments to the discussion a few weeks ago before it was archived. I realised afterwards that the other posts were quite old and so there had been little post. I had wanted to explain why I was changing it back to 'marquess'. The archiving was done soon afterwards. Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that several sources to refer to Anne as the Marchioness of Pembroke; however, this title was a feminine form reserved for the wife of a male Marquess. Anne did, in fact, earn this title herself and held it in her own right, therefore she is indeed a Marquess. As previously stated, historians use it for simplicity's sake. Two sources that utilize the title Marquess and the exact passages are listed below. 1) Fraser, Antonia. The Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Knopf, 1992.

"On 1 September the Lady Anne Rochford was formally created the Marquess of Pembroke: the expenses of the Privy Purse for that month included payments for her ceremonial robes of silk trimmed with fur. The use of the male title (instead of that of Marchioness) was not in itself significant: the word Marchioness was seldom used at this date, the wife of a Marquess being generally termed 'the lady Marquess'. The new Marquess was to be a person of property; she received five manors in Wales, another in Somerset, two in Essex, and five in Hertfordshire including Hunsdon and Eastwick; these were added to the two manors she had already received in 1532 in Middlesex" (Fraser 184).

2) Starkey, David. Six Wives: the Queens of Henry VIII. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.

"For it had been decided that, before Anne met Francis as Henry's Queen and Consort-to-be, she should be given appropriate rank by being created a peer in her own right. The title chosen was Marquess of Pembroke, which had strong royal associations, since the earldom of Pembroke had been held by Henry's great-unlce, Jasper Tudor, to whose lands he had succeeded as a boy. Anne's creation took place in the grand and already historic setting of Windsor on Sunday, 1 September 1532. In the morning, Anne was conducted in procession to the King; she was accompanied by the peers, headed by the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, by the French ambassador, De La Pommeraye, and by the heralds" (Starkey 459).

I am not disputing that she was Marquess of Pembroke, but why is this in bold at the start, when surely the most senior title she held in her lifetime was Queen of England? This would strike most people as a peculiar way to refer to her. I am not aware of any Wikipedia naming convention which states that, in relation to noble or royal women, any title they held in their own right trumps any title they held by marriage. PatGallacher (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. I agree with your point. Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed Marquess to Marchioness a minute ago. I don't care about that, you can revert it to Marquess. Just don't change "HM The Queen" to "HM Queen Anne, Marquess of Pembroke". She ceased to be styled Marchioness/Marquess of Pembroke when she became Queen. She was never styled "HM Queen Anne" because she was never queen dowager - during her marriage she was "HM The Queen". Surtsicna (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we cite this
"some have concluded this was to celebrate, others have pointed out that it was the Spanish colour for mourning."

It is weaslsey without a citation. -- Secisek (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations added.Boleyn (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Friendship with Marguerite d'Angouleme
Marguerite is often referred to as Marguerite d' Alencon or Marguerite de Navarre, but Marguerite d'Angouleme seems to be the preferred title so I used it.jeanne (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've another reference for Anne's friendship with Marguerite. Antonia Fraser mentions it on page 121 in "Wives of Henry VIII".jeanne (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Anne was indeed on conversational terms with Marguerite, isn't this additional proof that she was born in 1501 rather than 1507.Remember Marguerite was born 11 April 1492, so Anne would have been 9 years her junior. jeanne (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First truly English Queen-Consort
It should be mentioned that Anne Boleyn was in fact the first Queen-Consort with a substantial amount of English blood. The paternal Boleyn (Bullen) line of her great-grandfather Geoffrey Boleyn was English rather than Norman and the Howard (Hereward) family was Anglo-Saxon in origin, not Norman jeanne (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this should be mentioned. Aristocratic and royal families interbred a lot so it could be a hopeless task to establish or define the proportions of someone's ancestry beyond the first few generations. What about e.g. Matilda of Scotland, a great-granddaughter of Edmund Ironside, who was Henry I's queen? PatGallacher (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Pat, I had forgotten about Matilda of Scotland whose mother was indeed Saxon. Thanks. I meant that Anne did have a lot of pre-Norman English ancestry from the Boleyns, Howards and her maternal Tylney line. In fact, her own aunt by marriage, the Duchess of Norfolk often sneered at Anne's merchant class origins, which appear to derive from old-English Saxon stock. Of course, her paternal grandmother was Irish and her mother was a descendant of Marguerite of France and King Edward I, so there's a lot of aristocratic Norman blood as well as a Welsh connection. I just thought it was interesting that she had a lot of English in her which was not overlooked by the people when her daughter Elizabeth ascended the throne.jeanne (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Time of execution
Historians differ as to the time of her execution on Tower Green. Some give the time as nine o'clock in the morning while others say she was beheaded at noon.jeanne (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro too long
The introduction to this is currently too long (including a quoted speech). Please see Manual_of_Style_(biographies). We should make the intro much shorter. Most of this material should be placed in the main body of the article, or if already there, need not be in the intro also. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Queen and peer at the same time?
When did Anne cease to be Marchioness of Pembroke? In, 1533, when she became queen, or in 1536, when Henry annuled their marriage? I know that when, for example, the Duke of York becomes king, the title Duke of York merges with the Crown. But Anne was never a monarch. Surtsicna (talk)


 * First, a little correction. She never ceased to be the Marchioness of Pembroke because she was never the Marchioness of Pembroke to begin with.  She was, believe it or not, the Marquess of Pembroke.  This is as far as I know a unique case of a female being given a male title.  Why this happened, search me.  It's so odd that most people assume it's a misprint and make the correction to Marchioness; but that's the real error.  As for the substantive part of your question, I believe the title continued formally but it would not have been mentioned alongside "Queen Anne".  Consequently, when she ceased being queen consort, she would have reverted to Marquess of Pembroke.  But I'm no expert on these matters, so a different point of view may have more accurate comments to make.  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correction. Do you think that Anne was Marquess of Pembroke through her marriage and after the anullment? If she did, then why didn't Elizabeth inherit her title?
 * At a guess, I'd say it was because normally marquessates (and peerages generally, and baronetcies) are inherited only by males, unless there's a special remainder in the letters patent that stipulates it can be inherited by a female. She had no surviving male children, so the marquessate would have lapsed.  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Anne's title as Marquess of Pembroke was entailed to her "heirs male", instead of "heirs male legitimate" so if Elizabeth had been a boy, she would have been entitled to inherit Anne's title (assuming that it wasn't forfeited to the Crown) even if she was declared illegitimate. Of course, if she had been a boy, chances are that she wouldn't have been declared illegitmate in the first place.193.95.162.29 (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Before she was executed, I'm pretty sure she was attainted, so there would have been nothing to inherit. Accroding to the information in the article, she ceased being a marquess in 1533 (though perhaps she simply ceased to be known by this name). I think that was put on by User:Proteus, who I think is an expert on peerages. Boleyn (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on the Earl of Pembroke includes a note on Anne;

"Anne Boleyn, a few months previous to her marriage with Henry VIII, was created Marchioness of Pembroke in 1532. It is doubted by authorities on peerage law whether the title merged in the royal dignity on the marriage of the marchioness to the King, or became extinct on her death in 1536."

As near as I can figure (and I am by no means an expert on peerage law so I am almost certainly missing something) there are three options; (1) Henry VIII became Marquess of Pembroke when he married Anne, so the title merged with the royal dignity at that time, possibly unmerging once the marriage was annulled, (2) while Anne didn't actually use her title as Marquess during her time as Queen Consort, it remained hers up until she was convicted of treason, since that usually meant that goods and titles were forfeited to the Crown or (3) the title remained Anne's until her death.86.47.42.32 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)