#anne boleyn being referred to as queen anne still.................mmm watcha sayyy

[fideidefenswhore]

Hello! I hope you’re having a nice day and I’m not bothering you. Regarding this post, I haven’t read Sarah Gristwood’s book so I was really surprised to see that it’s possible Henry didn’t have an affair with Mary Boleyn? I was wondering what the evidence is for this? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I’m still pretty new to Tudor history and I’m only just recently learning that most of the things I’ve read in historical fiction novels aren’t strictly factual.

I mean, it's pretty much what she says? The Latin has been interpreted in those two ways, but more commonly as alluding to Henry's sexual past with Mary Boleyn. It's not the first time Latin in a dispensation has been interpreted variously, either. The wording of the dispensation for Henry VIII to wed Catherine of Aragon is so questionable that hers remains the Bermuda Triangle of Virginities to this day:

“The word translated as ‘perhaps’ is forsan. Its root is fors (‘chance’ or ‘luck’) and its usual meaning is indeed ‘perhaps’ or ‘perchance.’ In this usage, forsan expresses a strong doubt about the marriage  having been consummated. But forsan is sometimes used to state a fact, just as in English we say ‘something chanced or fortuned,’ when we mean ‘something happened.’ In which case the meaning becomes the opposite: ‘This marriage happens to have been consummated.'

Make sense? No? Well, it didn’t clear things up in the 16th century either, so you’re in good company."

So, it's not a stupid question, but it's very hard to prove something didn't happen, she is just stating (as most do not) that we don't actually have definitive proof that Mary Boleyn was ever Henry's mistress. What we do have is a collection of circumstantial evidence, most of which, taken altogether (and this is my opinion, fwiw) makes that seem rather likely.

I think what's easier for your question is just to lay out all the evidence, timeline-wise:

A series of land grants given to her husband, William Carey. To me, this is one of the weakest of Eric Ives' arguments as laid out in his AB biography. Very circumstantial, Henry made land grants to a lot of noblemen.... it is true he granted many to Bessie Blount and her husband after her marriage (more often in her favor, and sometimes to his exclusion, which was rare, the same with her daughter). But, if we're following that MO for Henry, then these land grants, if anything, seem more likely to be granted, if they're in connection with Mary Boleyn, after their affair, not during, much like again, with Blount.

The dispensation request in 1527, this is generally treated as the "smoking gun": "Of this there is no direct proof, but the statement rests upon contemporary belief and chiefly upon the extraordinary terms of the dispensation granted to Henry to marry Anne Boleyn, which included the suspension of all canons relating to impediments created by "affinity rising ex illicito coitu in any degree even in the first." Here's, since it was asked, arguments against this specifically referring to Mary Boleyn-- some of them are decent (I do think the question of why would Catherine never bring this up is a salient one, the argument could be made that she didn't want to 'shame' her husband-- and she did always see him as her husband-- but I think by the point the hero-worship dimmed enough that she was actively petitioning for his excommunication, she surely would have brought this up, if she knew of it), some are weak. I brought up that 1504 dispensation because if C.O.A partisans want to claim the "perhaps consummated and perhaps not" does not mean anything and that it was just her parents 'covering all their bases in the wording to any objections that could possibly be raised in the future’, as one typically did with dispensations, then that has to apply here, too. Food for thought.

I mentioned earlier that since the focus is always on the 'first degree of affinity', the "second or third degree of consanguinity" is interesting, too. I believe it refers to a dispensation covering that Henry had a previous sexual relationship with one of Anne's first cousins. Looking at all the rumored mistresses altogether, I believe the most likely candidate is Elizabeth Carew.

This one is not spoken of much, I'm not going to dig up the specific quotes right now, but I do recall several comments by Chapuys in his dispatches that referred to the marriage of Henry and Anne being 'more incestuous and unlawful' than the former. He never specifically refers to Mary Boleyn as the reason for this belief, but I assume that was what he was getting at. If it was left at just 'unlawful' I would assume he was referring to bigamy.

To bring up Chapuys, a general argument is that this is what was brought up by the Aragonese/ Seymour faction. If they were clever, I don't think it was: "She is also advised to tell the King boldly how his marriage is detested by the people, and none consider it lawful; and on the occasion when she shall bring forward the subject, there ought to be present none but titled persons, who will say the same if the King put them upon their oath of fealty." So, I think if they understood Henry, they wouldn't claim the marriage was unlawful either because it took place while Catherine was alive (I don't think Jane quite understood how vehemently he felt about the invalidity of that marriage when she asked for Mary's reinstatement, but that came later), and they wouldn't claim it was unlawful or unpopular because it was known that Mary Boleyn was his mistress. Both of those things would have been critical of him, and he didn't really take well to that. In all likelihood, what they probably brought up was the rumors of precontract with Henry Percy...tellingly, that is the Achilles' heel Cromwell goes for during the Boleyn downfall.

Chapuys, May 1536: “ Yesterday the archbishop of Canterbury declared by sentence that the Concubine's daughter was the bastard of Mr. Norris, and not the King's daughter. This already removes an obstacle in the way of the Princess, who, I hope, whatever difficulty the King has made hitherto, will be declared true heiress of the kingdom, not as born of lawful marriage, but as legitimate propter bonam fidem parentum. Others tell me that the said Archbishop had pronounced the marriage of the King and Concubine invalid on account of the King having had connection with her sister, and that, as both parties knew of this, the good faith of the parents cannot make the said bastard legitimate." (I’ll repeat my point about no official document that exists about either, and Chapuys, as he was wont to do, sheepishly tucking his tail between his legs to admit his 1st statement was false in the next dispatch)

Reginald Pole [this is the blueprint for the narrative framework we generally get regarding Anne & Mary Boleyn, and often just the former herself], 1536: “She, indeed, has said she will make herself available to you on one condition alone. You must reject your wife whose place she desires to hold. This modest woman does not want to be your concubine. She wants to be your wife. I believe that she learned from the example of her sister [...] how quickly you can have your fill of concubines.”

Where did he get that rumor, one might ask, and why bring it up so late? I believe the point of connection was George Throckmorton, who he was in correspondence with. This was GT, when under suspiction of treason in October 1537: “About six or seven years ago conversed with Sir Thos. Dyngley in the garden at St. John's about the Parliament matters. Dyngley wondered that the Act of Appeals should pass so lightly, and Throgmorton said it was no wonder as few would displease my lord Privy Seal. Told Sir Thomas he had been sent for by the King after speaking about that Act, and that he saw his Grace's conscience was troubled about having married his brother's wife. "And I said to him that I told your Grace I feared if ye did marry Queen Anne your conscience would be more troubled at length, for it is thought ye have meddled both with the mother and the sister. And his Grace said 'Never with the mother.' And my lord Privy Seal standing by said 'Nor never with the sister either, and therefore put that out of your mind.'" This was in substance all their communication. Intended no harm to the King, but only out of vainglory to show he was one that durst speak for the common wealth; otherwise he refuses the King's pardon and will abide the most shameful death.”

Anyway, I believe Throckmorton probably relayed this incident to Pole via letter before Pole wrote (7), or perhaps Peto did during his exile. The immediate denial of the former has been viewed as tacit admission of the latter ever since. 

(Thomas Dingley, btw, was “included in a bill of attainder passed under Henry VIII of England; another person on the same bill was Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury [...] accused, together with Robert Granceter, merchant, of "going to several foreign princes and persuading them to make war with the King".” One rather wonders, given the timeline, if Throckmorton sold him out, given Throckmorton was eventually cleared of suspicion)

Throckmorton also confirms where he got the story, which was Friar Peto: “Explains his conduct since the beginning of the Parliament of 21 Hen. VIII. Just before that Parliament friar Peto, who was in a tower in Lambeth over the gate, sent for him and showed him two sermons that he and another friar had made before the King at Greenwich, and reported a long conversation he had had with the King in the garden after the sermon. He said he had told the King that he could have no other wife while the Princess Dowager lived unless he could prove carnal knowledge between prince Arthur and her; which he said was impossible, as she, who knew best, had received the Sacrament to the contrary, and she was so virtuous that her word deserved more credit than all the other proofs; that prince Arthur's saying that he had been in the midst of Spain was probably but a light word; and that the King could never marry Queen Anne as it was said he had meddled with the mother and the daughter.”

As far as I’m aware, that is all the evidence that covers “contemporary belief”. My personal belief is that this much smoke ---> probably fire (it is interesting to note that in all these claims/accounts, there is never a mention that the Carey children are believed to have Henry’s paternity), but I do think his relationship with Mary Boleyn was probably brief, probably before she was married. 

Considering all the heinous shit Henry ending up doing, I do find it funny that he was so embarassed about it, though:

Interrogatories to be ministered to Sir George Throgmerton.

First where he says "that it is thought, &c.," let him be examined whom he ever heard say any such thing of the King. (2.) Where, when, and why he spoke "those words" to Sir Wm. Essex, and what conversation ensued. (3.) Ditto with Sir Wm. Barentyne. (4.) Whether he communicated the matter to any other. (5–6.) Whether he thought the words true and why. (7–8.) Whether he did not think the words very slanderous to any man's good name. (9.) Whether he knew not that Sir Thomas Dingley was a man sometime travelling in far countries, whereby he might the rather spread abroad the said infamy. (10–15.) Whether he thinks such reports conducive to the peace of the common weal or fitting for a true subject to spread.