Talk:Anne Bourchier, 7th Baroness Bourchier

"Death Penalty"
Again it would be the wonderful Alison Weir who states that "he [Parr] was pressing the King to authorize the highest penalty for her offense, which in those days was death" in her "Six Wives" book which is full of inaccurate information on the Parr's. What is interesting is that Weir gives no support or citation as to where she found the info. Adultery wasn't punishable by death back then or else everyone would have been sent to the block. Adultery by non-royals did not carry an assumption of being a capitol offense. For details of the actual account and reference to the primary sources that document what actually happened between Parr and Bourchier, see Susan James's Catherine Parr, Henry VIII's Last Love, pages 50-52 and 82. You could also take a look at this page: http://queryblog.tudorhistory.org/2009/07/question-from-marie-when-did-adultery.html -- Lady Meg (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC) FYI -- at the time that Catherine intervened on behalf of Anne she was not queen yet. She was still Lady Latimer. Lady Meg (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weir actually does state where she got the information regarding the king and the imposition of the death penalty-it was from the Spanish Calendar. In point of fact, the death penalty could be implemented if the adulterous wife in question was also guilty of plotting her husband's death in which case the king could indeed sentence her to death. Yes, I'm aware that Catherine was still Lady Latimer at the time she intervened on behalf of Anne and the article does state that she was being courted by the king. Oh, and blogs are not considered to be Reliable Sources.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blogs may not be good sources but Susan James, biographer of Catherine Parr, is. From the Spanish Calender? Where does it say that? Weir has so much incorrect info when it comes to Catherine Parr; she doesn't even have the right person for her first husband. I suppose you are someone who still supports her although she lacks in documentation and is quick to inventing stories. Whatever, I do blog posts that hopefully people bi-pass Wikipedia for. First off, James never states anything about an execution and that Parr used his influence with Catherine to secure a separation. It then says that after all that was done with Anne, Parr embarked in an affair with Dorothy Bray. It was after Anne had committed adultery and run off, not before! -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a copy of the Calendar of State Papers for Spain handy. However, as the volumes are available online, I'll have to hunt down the right volume to find the page number where Weir alleges she got her info from. At the moment though I'm working very hard on this article here: 1972 and 1973 Dublin bombings which requires my full attention. Blogs are not only "not good sources", they are not accepted as sources at all by Wikipedia. Full stop. I don't support Weir, but unfortunately, she is one of the few biographers who mention the Anne Bourchier affair. Where does Susan James obtain 'her information, BTW? It's really hard to determine almost five hundred years later the exact moment when a person first had sex with another.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your additions look good. They show that the execution account comes from Weir who provides just a vague reference to the Spanish Calendar Papers. OK. I will try to track down Weir's source. Good work, Lady Meg. Thanks for pointing this out and using Susan James as a source. I've done some checking and her sources are good ones and she has a solid academic background. Now let e get back to the Dublin tragedy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the translation of Chronica del rey Enrico otavo de Inglaterra, published 1889 by G. Bell and sons, the "story" is about an "Earl of Rochford" who was in love with the daughter of Lord Cobham. No names are mentioned. The only reference to making the story possibly about Parr is the quote calling the person "brother of Queen Katherine, the last wife of King Henry." Parr was not Earl of Rochford and he didn't have a servant that fooled around with his wife and then left and died in Wales. Anne left Parr for another man and went into exile with him in Essex at the manor of Little Wakering where she became pregnant and had an illegitimate child. There are also NO dates present in this Chronica. It also doesn't state "Parr prosecuted.." it states "the Earl..". Anne was prosecuted against to keep her illegitimate children from inheriting Parr's inheritance and estates; he also wanted a legal separation from Anne. The fact that Anne continued in adultery and had illegitimate children is recorded in the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII. I seriously think something either got lost in translation or I'm guessing by the time the news got to Spain it had been twisted into a completely different story which happened all the time in accounts of history. It's like the Crusades -- the 5 different accounts of the Speech of Pope Urban II at Clermont. The way word travels and the accounts of stories change over time unless they are immediately recorded at the time; which in England they were seeing how something was written in the LP's of Henry VIII which deals nothing with Parr wanting Anne executed, just wanting her child declared illegitimate and wanting a separation. Unless you go into researching what Weir has to say, you are bound to agree with her and think that she knows what she's talking about. This "account" is completely inaccurate and full of errors; somehow Weir twisted her story without really researching this document and then quotes it as a source when anyone who reads it can clearly see the constant errors. I'm quite amazed at the claims coming out about her now. I can clearly see that things need to be double checked now when it comes to Weir due to her wording and use of "sources." -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm...sounds as if Weir could have got her story from this account which is clearly full of blatant errors: Lord Rochford instead of William Parr, and so on... Lady Meg, before we continue this discussion, let me point out that I am in no way, shape or form, a champion of Alison Weir nor am I prepared to pick up sword and shield, and defended her word against all challengers as you appear to be suggesting. I am, like most serious editors of Wikipedia, only interested in presenting an accurate article based on facts. Weir wrote the account in her book as if she knew what she was talking about. However, she failed to back it up with firm sources which include page number, volume etc. which could be checked and verified, rather than a vague reference to the Spanish Calendar. This I acknowledge as having been a grave error on her part. Therby I suggest that the information is removed until it can be positively verified. If what she alleged can be backed by a reliable source, it can be re-inserted. I shall do it now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's done. All references to Weir have been removed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material
I wish editors wouldn't remove sections without prior discussion. This is the major reason why I have stopped creating new articles for Wikipedia. It is hours, days and weeks of one's life one will never get back thanks to overzealous editors. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)