#(interesting that it's changed from 'mental' to a vaguer 'disabilities'...from whence)

[fideidefenswhore]

Just thought I would address this again because unfortunately, she repeats this claim in her latest book:

"Anne's own mother had lost several babies in infancy and her sister Mary had borne a son with disabilities who Anne would not suffer to be at court."

Anne Boleyn & Elizabeth I (2023), Tracy Borman

There is a primary source (not that she cites one...in either...) which alludes to AB 'not suffering [Henry Carey] to be at court' (it's not terribly definitive, however...the actual quote seems speculative, it's hearsay of another speculating that she "might not" suffer him at court, actually), but it certainly doesn't mention or imply any disability, much less disability being the reason he was not wanted at court:

"Finally, I confess the four bills by Mr. Feerne, Mr. Leeke, Mr. Skydmore, and Sir Thos. Mody to be true, and that by such seditious ways I have maliciously slandered the King and Queen and their Council; for which I ask forgiveness of God, king Henry VIII., and queen Anne, and shall continue sorrowful during my life, which stands only in the King's will. "Moreover, Mr. Skydmore dyd show to me yongge Master Care, saying that he was our suffren Lord the Kynge's son by our suffren Lady the Qwyen's syster, whom the Qwyen's grace myght not suffer to be yn the Cowrte."" [John Hale, Vicar of Isleworth, to the Council.] April 1535.

It's also not clear whether it was Mary Stafford or Henry Carey that Hale was referring to when he claimed Skidmore said AB "might not suffer [them] to be in the court". Natalie Grueninger posits that it was the former:

"While most of the rumours circulating were unfounded [...] Hale was right about one thing-- in 1535, Mary Boleyn was not at court with her family." The Final Year of Anne Boleyn, Natalie Grueninger

There's a thread about this claim on TudorQ&A also:

A commenter over at the Anne Boleyn Files blog asked the same question, only referencing Carolly Erickson's Mistress Anne rather than Borman's book. I checked it out and it looks like Borman utilized Erickson's book on this particular subject nearly verbatim, although she did not cite it [...] Mary Carey and her husband did apparently have the wardship of an "idiot" heir; I assume when William Carey died this reverted to the Crown. At around the same time, however, Mary's son Henry became a ward of his aunt, Anne Boleyn. Perhaps Erickson or her researchers may have confused the two separate wardships. It would be interesting to see kb's review of Borman's book; it's clearly directed at a popular audience, and the "mentally challenged" son comment does not inspire confidence, but it has interesting things to say about Elizabeth's familia throughout her life and I would like to see a qualified scholar assess the historical veracity of the work.

So, I was not able to find any clear evidence of Mary having wardship of a disabled person. Weir's biography of Mary Boleyn mentions that "at some point in her widowhood, Mary [...] was granted wardship of one William Bailey", but I was not able to verify this anywhere. Thomas Boleyn was granted wardship of William Strongman in 1529, but again, have found nothing that suggests the ward had any disability. The only wardship of William Carey's I was able to find was that of Thomas Sharpe of Canterbury, who was described as an "idiot", maybe(?) this did revert to Mary, at some point, but no academic biographies of the Boleyns mention this.

Regardless, whether Borman did get her wires crossed on whether or not she was referring to a wardship (certainly not someone Mary had 'borne', if so), this seems egregious, not least because there was a member of the Boleyn family who was disabled and was cared for:

"In September [1535], Thomas [Boleyn] again left court and spent time in Hever, taking care of his mother who was living out her final years [...]

Nicholas Harris Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta, Vol. II, 465. It was reported that, from 1519 onwards, Margaret [Butler] was unable to take care of herself or her affairs, and so Thomas moved his mother down to Hever, where he could care for her for the rest of her life.

It would seem that William [Stafford] had also petitioned Henry [VIII] for control of Thomas’ lands in Essex but Thomas had made it clear they were to go to his mother and, upon her death, his granddaughter, Elizabeth. This document suggests a far more proactive Mary [Stafford], as they had already taken possession of several properties before this document had been drawn up. Kent Archives." Among the Wolves of Court: The Untold Story of Thomas and George Boleyn, Lauren Mackay

So Anne Boleyn didn't want her nephew Henry Carey at court cause he was supposedly disabled? Just like Gregory, Borman turned a good thing Anne did for her sister into a nasty thing? What evidence does she shows for Henry being disabled, or Anne not wanting him around? And for goodness' sake, isn't it strange that some historians and fiction writers seem to hate Anne (like Borman or Weir) but can't help to end up writing about her, because, let's face it, ANNE BOLEYN SELLS! They must feel so bad for always having to return return to this woman they are so eager to portray as the Worst Human Being Ever.

Literally none, and I'm not even joking. There's no citation, no additional information or details, she doesn't even name this nephew so I don't even know if it's Henry Carey to whom she's referring, or one of the Stafford children (whose existence/survival remains disputed), or even the later Elizabethan priest, George Boleyn, dean of Lichfield, who has been erroneously labeled as the son of Viscount Rochford, George Boleyn(illegitimate at times, by marriage other times), Julia Fox has argued for the likelihood he was some distant Boleyn cousin, and I'm inclined to agree. The claim is dropped into a paragraph about the perils of childbirth to contextualize Anne's own potential fears as if from the sky:

Worse still, Anne's closest female relations had suffered an unfortunate history in this respect. Her mother had lost several babies in infancy and her sister, Mary, had borne a son with mental disabilities whom Anne would not suffer to be at court. But in her favour was the fact that her health was generally considered good, and as one observer remarked, she seemed 'likely enough to bear children.' --Elizabeth's Women, Tracy Borman

So...yeah, if who she meant here was Henry Carey, I have no idea what she's talking about, A, and B, this is the sole* "factoid" she chose to mention about their relationship? Not that she had wardship of him, not that she arranged for him to receive his education from the scholar she patronized, Nicholas Bourbon, alongside Henry Norris (the younger), Henry Dudley, and the son of Nicholas Harvey, her 'strong partisan' and the husband of her great friend, Bridget Wingfield...all signs which point to Carey being in Anne's favour. I have no idea if he was ever at court, but if there's no record of him at court while Anne was queen, does it not seem more plausible to attribute this to A) how brief that time was and/or B) that his mother was banished from court due to the marriage she had made without royal permission?

I just don't...know, with Borman, really? It'd be interesting to have the unedited interview footage from BSR because I was surprised how overall sympathetic she was towards the subject, honestly. And I can't speak to the new book, I haven't read it, but the PR push for it has centered around praise of AB as an individual, as to her character.

For Weir, I mean, she received the deal to do that fictionalized serial on the six Queens of Henry VIII, of course AB had to be included. If I'm being perfectly honest, I feel like everything she has done since Lady in the Tower has had this weird self-animus pushing behind it, guilt over having further popularized a figure she hates so implacably. Her original view ("a total bitch...she alienated so many people that that must be true") has been evident in all her subsequent works and interviews; from claiming in one in 2017 that there exists a letter extant in AB's own handwriting where she orders Lady Shelton to beat her stepdaughter (there isn't), to depicting AB in her latest novel as having been so ugly and "painfully thin" naked that it was an instant boner-killer for her poorest little meow-meow.

*I believe other sections of this book are dedicated to the Careys so hopefully she expands later...I can't remember if she does. So far in my current read she has not mentioned the wardship and it was in 1528 and the book is now in 1533, so....