Talk:Doomed Queen Anne

Problems with the synopsis
The plot summary suffers from a number of problems. Chief among them is the utter lack of references. I guess people have just read the story and dumped their book reports here. The tag is appropriate, since the article's hardly reliable without some verifiable references.

But even that's not its biggest problem. The article's not even useful if the content is not readable. I stumbled in here and saw a few grammar errors I wanted to quickly fix, but when trying to improve the summary I realized I couldn't even discern the plot it was describing.

I think the incoherence of the summary stems, in part, from contributors inserting text and replacing or deleting other bits from previous edits, without completely reviewing the resulting text. Those who don't know the story won't have a clue. Like me.

Please, somebody (1) who has found actual references on the novel's plot, or, failing that, (2) somebody who has read the novel and can offer accurate details, or, in absence of such contributors, (3) somebody who knows Tudor history better than I, or as a last resort, (4) someone who's better at guessing than I am, please check the bold assumptions I made (based largely on the current and previous versions of this article and other WP research) and read the current plot summary. Do make any corrections as necessary or discuss my errors here. Best of all, of course, is if somebody rewrites the whole darned thing. JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious "true facts" in the Historical Inaccuracy section
In the criticism of the novel's accuracy, these little factoids appear:

"The first report of Anne Boleyn having any kind of deformity was brought up by Nicholas Sanders, fifty years after her death."

Problem: Sanders died only 45 years after Anne, according to WP's own articles. Is the arithmetic wrong here, or are some years documented incorrectly somewhere?

"Sanders never met or saw her, being born after she had already died."

Problem: WP's Sanders article puts his birth at 1530; Anne's execution is documented as 1536. This sentence looks ripe for deletion, unless there are things I don't now (and there usually are...)

It would be great if whoever added this debunking (or somebody else who knows its source) could tweak or remove these arguments against the book's accuracy. Thanks. JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

These facts also seem quite biased towards Anne and need to be re-written from a more neutral point of view.Wickedfan101 (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No great beauty
Anne is described as "having no great beauty" which is followed by (olive skin, dark hair, dark eyes). How do these physical traits preclude her having had beauty?! The article needs to state why those particular traits were considered unattractive in the 16th century as the modern reader won't understand why they are being presented as negative.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dating the King
I didn't realise people went on dates in the 16th century. nor dropped heavy hints of marriage. The wording needs to be changed, less slang needs to be employed; in fact, the entire article could greatly benefit from a major rewrite.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)