cross posted to blog:
Background:
Going into this, I was not especially familiar with Clare Cherry’s work. However, I was very familiar with Claire Ridgway, and as far as collective Tudor resourcing goes, her website Anne Boleyn Files is the very best. She is always very fair and balanced in her assessments, considering sources from all sides, and she doesn’t omit sources if they don’t adhere to her view– she simply explains why it is they don’t.
The Assessment:
Well, I have never read a George Boleyn biography before, so I have little to compare it to. I have read other biographies before, but they have been about figures on who we have more information. This one doesn’t have all the answers, but one thing I liked about it was that it didn’t fill in the gaps of what we don’t know; but rather, acknowledged those gaps for what they were. This book is more a comprehensive list of what we do know; and the analysis of the information thereof.
The book is split into three parts: Beginnings (including family background, birth and childhood, laying the groundwork for personality, court life, marriage, religion, etc.), Career and Influence (mainly, his court career and politics, and a bit on his relationship with Anne), and The End of an Era (the downfall in 1536 and all leading up to it; execution and aftermath/ his impact).
Very helpfully, at the end of the book there are many sources. There is a chronology/timeline, the poetry of George Boleyn, Cavendish’s verses on George Boleyn, George Boleyn’s scaffold speech, Thomas Wyatt’s poetry and, of course, sources.
Likes/Dislikes (what can I say, I’m basic):
I won’t say George came to life on the page, because, frankly, this work was a little dry. But I will say I came to have a better sense of him, particularly his career and importance in not only English history; but European history as well. I don’t think we have enough information on him to get to a solid read of his personality. He was witty and intelligent and gracious, charming and tenacious and there is a joie de vivre that comes across…he was passionate about religion, and that his biggest concern upon his death sentence was making sure his debts were paid, and the debts of those that owed him money dismissed, speaks a lot to his strength of character.
And yet, still…he is more than a cipher, but not quite tangible. I don’t feel that I really know him. There’s simply not enough documents written in his own hand, enough letters, for me to get a really solid sense of him. It’s not necessarily the fault of the bio; I think it is just that there is, sadly, not enough information that relates to him personally available, to make such an assessment.
I didn’t care for the treatment of Henry VIII. The animosity the author clearly feels towards him as a person and figure came across a bit too clearly for my taste in nonfiction. That surprised me, and I was a bit disappointed by it, because Claire Ridgway, despite running a website called The Anne Boleyn Files; has always taken a very balanced approach to Henry, and usually contextualizes him. My best guess is that this view comes mainly from Cherry; it may have been Ridgway that righted the misconception that “no one dared lose against Henry in games/gambling/sporting events” (actually, as Privy Purse Expenses show, he lost quite often).
“Henry was a selfish, self-centered man with little patience.”
And etc., etc.– selfish and self-centered, certainly (although it would be a challenge to find a nobleman, much less a monarch, of this time that wasn’t, at the very least, a little of both). “Little patience”? Well, I think years of being Rome’s favorite chewtoy would test the patience of any 16th century king. Kings had gotten annulments much more quickly, and for much more fantastical reasons, in times past– Henry IV of Castile had received one by saying his wife had put a spell on him making him impotent with her only, that had included testimony from sex workers that he could ‘get it up’ otherwise. And that’s just a for instance…
Another thing that bothered me was that Eustace Chapuys was taken at 100% face value in regard to Anne Boleyn. He wasn’t very fond of George after he learned who he was, or the Boleyns in general, but his animosity towards Anne was greater– it was Anne, after all that had “seduced Henry away from his rightful marriage” and was the sole reason for his ill treatment of his eldest daughter, etc. etc. etc. George did no such seduction, so Chapuys’ animosity towards him is marginally less than that towards his royal sister. And so, it seems a bit convenient that an anecdote provided by Chapuys in which George comes off as better than Anne (the one in which Anne says she could have Mary executed, and George is the Voice of Reason) is the one the taken at 100% face value in a George bio.
Overall, though, this is a very well-sourced, mainly accurate*, and enjoyable read and I’m happy to have it in my collection. It also did some mythbusting of popular Tudor lore, which I always appreciate.
*I say ‘mainly’ accurate because I cannot find any other source for a quote from a letter by Henry referring to Mary and Thomas Boleyn (’his natural daughter, now in her extreme necessity’) other than Agnes Strickland. The letter it is connected to there, does not include such a passage, in the Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4, 1524-1530. Rather, it reads:
"The cause of my writing at this time, good sweetheart, is only to understand of your good health and prosperity, whereof to know I would be as glad in manner as mine own; praying God that (and it be His pleasure) to send us shortly together"—(he was then at Hunsdon, and she at Hever);—"for I promise you I long for it; howbeit, trust it shall not be long to (until it be). And seeing my darling is absent, I can no less do than send her some flesh representing my name, which is hart's flesh for Harry, prognosticating that hereafter, God willing, you must enjoy some of mine, which, He pleased, I would were now." "... No more to you at this time, mine own darling, but that a while I would we were together of an evening;"
And no mention of it.
Edit:
"He pleased, I would were now. As touching your sister's matter, I have caused Water Welze to write to my Lord my mind therein, whereby I trust that Eve shall not have power to deceive Adam; (fn. 4) for surely, what soever is said, it cannot so stand with his honor but that he (fn. 5) must needs take her his natural daughter now in her extreme necessity. No more to you at this time, mine own darling, but that a while I would we were together of an evening. With the hand of yours."
-- Henry VIII: June 1528, 21-30
Pages 1929-1947
Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4, 1524-1530.
However, the author implies that the Carey children had Henry VIII's paternity (to definitively make her point that Henry was shirking responsibility and 'discarded those he no longer derived pleasure from', meaning Mary in this instance, and by extension her children), when we really have no way of knowing. So I would still say this was a nearly, if not wholly, accurate work.