Henry VIII & Anne Boleyn & Thomas Cromwell

[jamest]

I'm fuckin' annoyed. I've just this minute finished watching a BBC documentary about the aforementioned people, in which several noted historians (including David Starkey) argued whether Anne was a slut, was [politically] dislodged by a disgruntled Cromwell (the primary King's advisor), or was simply discarded by a ruthless/unfaithful Henry. Apparently, the historians can't agree. However, the producers of the documentary chose to hide this information from the viewer until the very last minute of the documentary:

11 days after Anne was executed, Henry married Jane Seymour.

Also, such was Henry's loyalty and love to/for Cromwell, he had him executed just 4 years later (for something else).

So, wtf is up with these historians?! Isn't it bleedin' obvious that when someone marries another woman just 11 days after his wife has been executed, that the man in question (the king of England, no less) is the guilty party?! Further, isn't it bleedin' obvious that Cromwell couldn't have had the sway some propose he had upon the king when the king himself had the aforementioned executed just 4 years after Anne's execution?!

Also, in Anne's last religious confession/statement, just before her death, she continued to proclaim her innocence. Here, at the last moment before meeting her maker/God (please don't undervalue the meaning of this final confession/statement in 16th century England), Anne would have been only concerned with saying the right thing for God's sake.

...

In my opinion, garnered [almost] solely from this documentary, Anne Boleyn was simply gotten rid of by order of a King who had fallen in love with one of his [apparently] several mistresses and who had [also] simply fallen out of love with Anne (notwithstanding her failure to produce a heir). Also, let's not forget that Anne was his 2nd wife, such that Henry did not give two fucks about Roman religious politics by this stage. That is, he already knew that his own marital politics would dance to his own tune.

I must be missing something here, because these surely obvious 'conclusions' are apparently dumbfounding some/most of the top historians who are interested in this issue. And, as I said, I know very little about this issue other than what I've heard in the documentary. So, someone please explain to me why the historians are right to disagree or be skeptical, because for the life of me I cannot fail to conclude that Anne (notwithstanding the 4 or 5 blokes accused of sleeping with her - including her own brother - who were also executed) was simply shafted in order to satisfy Henry's desire to legitimately put another woman into the Royal bed.

[jamest]

Hopefully, this is a correct link to the documentary in question:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p015vhp1

[pErvinalia]

There's very few things I give less of a shit about than the British Royal Crown.

[jamest]

This is history, mate, not contemporary politics.

[jamest]

Like it or lump it, the British Royal Crown was massively influential in shaping the way the world turned out to be. So, to have no interest in that only reflects detrimentally upon yourself.

[cronus]

A lot happened in the past. Much is designed and more a accident in history. What was the criticality of commodities? Was there a shortage of toilet paper? Too many scribes? These fine grain detailings intertwine with the standard picture presented to the rude masses as boxed and set history. Yes, names and celeb cultrue of the times was part - but more a bobbin in the water than the wave of intentions treading a path through the years. Then as now, what we see is only part of what is happening. With so many centuries it is probably impossible to recover the truth as it would be a objective in a mathematics journal. Subjectivity makes fine movies though. And that is why the names.

[surreptitious57]

History is less about what happened [ though that is obviously important ] and more about why it
happened. And that is why historians may not be able to agree on particular events. Especially if
the individuals associated with them are currently in a permanent state of non consciousness. So
therefore cannot relay the precise reason or reasons as to why they did what they did all so long
ago back in the mists of time. Ironically it is this very lack of primary source material that makes
history so interesting. For not everything can be known and so speculation is therefore inevitable

[pErvinalia]

Like it or lump it, the British Royal Crown was massively influential in shaping the way the world turned out to be. So, to have no interest in that only reflects detrimentally upon yourself.

That old canard....

History is great and all, but the idea that one must give a shit about something that happened in another country hundreds of years ago (or whenever it was) else one is somehow deficient, is retarded logic. The history of Henry VIII has absolutely no bearing on how I interact with the world. It's simply unnecessary. I know enough about Monarchy in general to inform my politics.

[pErvinalia]

A lot happened in the past. Much is designed and more a accident in history. What was the criticality of commodities? Was there a shortage of toilet paper? Too many scribes? These fine grain detailings intertwine with the standard picture presented to the rude masses as boxed and set history. Yes, names and celeb cultrue of the times was part - but more a bobbin in the water than the wave of intentions treading a path through the years. Then as now, what we see is only part of what is happening. With so many centuries it is probably impossible to recover the truth as it would be a objective in a mathematics journal. Subjectivity makes fine movies though. And that is why the names.

This is about the only time in the last few months that I've understood anything you've said. And I agree with the part that I understand.

[jamest]

Like it or lump it, the British Royal Crown was massively influential in shaping the way the world turned out to be. So, to have no interest in that only reflects detrimentally upon yourself.

That old canard....

History is great and all, but the idea that one must give a shit about something that happened in another country hundreds of years ago (or whenever it was) else one is somehow deficient, is retarded logic. The history of Henry VIII has absolutely no bearing on how I interact with the world. It's simply unnecessary. I know enough about Monarchy in general to inform my politics.

If it were not for the way history panned-out over here, you wouldn't even have been born... at least, not in Australia. I'm quite surprised that you don't give a shit, but each to his own.

[pErvinalia]

If I wasn't born, then I wouldn't care, would I? What a dumb rebuttal.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Every iron atom, in every molecule of Hæmoglobin in your body came from a star, jamest. Does it matter which one?

How we got where we are is interesting but not really important. The value of history lies solely in avoiding making the same mistakes again - something we seem incapable of in most cases!

[jamest]

If I wasn't born, then I wouldn't care, would I? What a dumb rebuttal.

You're having another algorithm moment. To claim that British history has no bearing on how you interact with the world, not least how you came into the world, is an utterly retarded viewpoint. To have no interest in that history is as dumb as a Briton having no interest in the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

[jamest]

Every iron atom, in every molecule of Hæmoglobin in your body came from a star, jamest. Does it matter which one?

I'm an idealist, so none of that gels with me anyway.

How we got where we are is interesting but not really important.

Of course history is important because it gives meaning and value to every facet of a society, which in turn establishes what is possible for each and every individual to do.

Are you going to be voting on Thursday? Well, you can thank Oliver Cromwell and untold thousands of 17th century Englishmen for that privilege (well, the vote came later, but it all started here).

How many more examples do you want?

The value of history lies solely in avoiding making the same mistakes again

You can't avoid making mistakes if you have no interest in history, so tell this to rEv.

[pErvinalia]

If I wasn't born, then I wouldn't care, would I? What a dumb rebuttal.

You're having another algorithm moment. To claim that British history has no bearing on how you interact with the world, not least how you came into the world, is an utterly retarded viewpoint.

Where did I claim that, Mr Strawman? Seems YOU are having another algorithm moment.

To have no interest in that history is as dumb as a Briton having no interest in the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

Strawman.

I can't make it any clearer. What King Henry did in 17-fucking-whenever has absolutely no bearing on how I interact with the world on a day to day basis. You can slobber all over Monarchist cock as much as you like, but don't try and inflict your sycophancy on us.