What do you think?
Rate this book
Mistress Anne
As Maureen Quilligan wrote in the New York Times Book Review of The First Elizabeth, Anne Boleyn "was a real victim of the sexual scandals her brilliant daughter escaped, and a subject Ms. Erickson's sensitivity to sexual and political nuance should well serve." Indeed, Carolly Erickson could have chosen no more fascinating and appropriate a subject. Alluring and profoundly enigmatic, Anne Boleyn has eluded the grasp of historians for centuries.
Through her extraordinarily vivid re-creation of this most tragic chapter in all Tudor History, Carrolly Erickson gives us unprecedented insight into the singuarlity of Anne Boleyn's life, the dark and overwhelming forces that shaped her errant destiny, and the rare, tumultuous times in which she lived.
Through her extraordinarily vivid re-creation of this most tragic chapter in all Tudor History, Carrolly Erickson gives us unprecedented insight into the singuarlity of Anne Boleyn's life, the dark and overwhelming forces that shaped her errant destiny, and the rare, tumultuous times in which she lived.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
31 people are currently reading
2386 people want to read
About the author
Carolly Erickson
32 books709 followersDistinguished historian Carolly Erickson is the author of The Hidden Diary of Marie Antoinette, The First Elizabeth, Great Catherine, Alexandra and many other prize-winning works of fiction and nonfiction. She lives in Hawaii.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/caroll...
http://us.macmillan.com/author/caroll...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews
February 5, 2021
I thought I never could dislike a book about the Tudors but here we are. It's have facts that are not true and it wasn't enjoyable to listen to. Found it to be a rather messy account of Anne's life. When I read or listen to a non fiction I wants the facts being told to be true or otherwise stated that they might not be! There is a lot of better ones out there!
August 10, 2015
The author's bias toward Anne Boleyn reaches "look at this bitch eating crackers like she owns the place" status within the first twenty pages.
June 7, 2009
For non-fiction book, this reads like a romance novel, and some times it doesn't make sense. For instance, Anne was a loose woman, but careful of her honor, but everyone but Henry knew she was sleeping around. Huh?
It is a good history for a high school student, I suppose, but there are better biographies out there.
It is a good history for a high school student, I suppose, but there are better biographies out there.
June 3, 2018
Fresca biografia di quella che secondo me è stata la moglie più sfortunata di Enrico VIII. Scritta in modo scorrevole e piacevole la consiglio a tutti gli appassionati!
February 11, 2018
Valutazione 2,5 stelline
Sicuramente non la migliore biografia della Erickson, chiaramente obsoleta essendo stata scritta ben 36 anni fa, quindi molti degli accadimenti narrati nella biografia stessa non sono attendibili o comunque superate da tesi più recenti che hanno soppiantato quelle vecchie. Inoltre la bio, a differenza delle altre dell'autrice, manca totalmente di note e fonti bibliografiche dovutamente elencate e questa è sicuramente una pecca. E' anche vero che la figura di Anna Bolena è molto nebulosa, non si ha certezza nemmeno della sua data di nascita. Probabilmente se la sua vita non si fosse intrecciata a quella di Enrico VIII, storicamente preminente, sarebbe rimasta una figura confinata nell'ombra, accanto a quelle di tante altre donne di cui pullulava la sua corte. Quindi la considererei più che altro una biografia di base per chi poi volesse approfondire più dettagliatamente questa vicenda storica quasi leggendaria, magari avvalendosi di testi e quindi di tesi più recenti...
Detto questo si legge comunque con molto piacere come fosse una bio romanzata ( cosa che, in parte, per forza di cose è, dato che mancano testimonianze dirette) grazie al suo stile narrativo molto creativo ma comunque rispettoso della realtà e del clima storico inerenti alla vicenda...
Sicuramente non la migliore biografia della Erickson, chiaramente obsoleta essendo stata scritta ben 36 anni fa, quindi molti degli accadimenti narrati nella biografia stessa non sono attendibili o comunque superate da tesi più recenti che hanno soppiantato quelle vecchie. Inoltre la bio, a differenza delle altre dell'autrice, manca totalmente di note e fonti bibliografiche dovutamente elencate e questa è sicuramente una pecca. E' anche vero che la figura di Anna Bolena è molto nebulosa, non si ha certezza nemmeno della sua data di nascita. Probabilmente se la sua vita non si fosse intrecciata a quella di Enrico VIII, storicamente preminente, sarebbe rimasta una figura confinata nell'ombra, accanto a quelle di tante altre donne di cui pullulava la sua corte. Quindi la considererei più che altro una biografia di base per chi poi volesse approfondire più dettagliatamente questa vicenda storica quasi leggendaria, magari avvalendosi di testi e quindi di tesi più recenti...
Detto questo si legge comunque con molto piacere come fosse una bio romanzata ( cosa che, in parte, per forza di cose è, dato che mancano testimonianze dirette) grazie al suo stile narrativo molto creativo ma comunque rispettoso della realtà e del clima storico inerenti alla vicenda...
February 19, 2018
Questa è più una storia popolare che una biografia storica basata su fonti di riferimento, di qualunque genere, come per esempio il fatto che Anna avesse un sesto dito e un grosso neo sul collo. La narrazione va avanti con ipotesi gratuite sulle idee e sui comportamenti di Anna Bolena, ipotesi delle quali non vengono forniti riscontri nei documenti. Troppi presumiamo, si pensa e non ci è dato sapere.
December 8, 2025
Fascinatingly regal and humane, an excellent biography by one of the leaders in royal non-fiction.
September 27, 2021
Sono una fan delle biografie della signora Erickson da quando lessi la sua biografia di Caterina la Grande, uno dei libri più interessanti che abbia mai letto, mi ha riportato indietro nel tempo nella Russia Imperiale, ricreando tutto un mondo.
Essendo Anna Bolena una dei protagonisti della storia inglese che maggiormente mi affascina, questa sua biografia non poteva non finire nella mia libreria. Devo dire, però, che ne sono uscita un po' delusa.
Parto col dire che ho comunque letto questo libro praticamente in 24h, scorrevole e piacevole da leggere, molto interessante nella ricostruzione storica e della psicologica dei personaggi ma anche molto romanzato!
C'è maggiore risalto al periodo pre-matrimoniale, con le sfide che Enrico VIII e Anna Bolena hanno dovuto superare per sposarsi, mentre la parte dalla nascita di Elisabetta I in poi fino alla morte è davvero molto striminzita. Inoltre, mi dà l'impressione che l'autrice abbia scritto la biografia di un personaggio che lei detesta, diverse volte viene sottolineato quanto Anna Bolena fosse odiosa, cattiva, quanto fosse vanagloriosa e arrivista, quanto facesse tutto con il solo scopo di diventare la moglie del re... insomma, sono sicura che non fosse un'innocente ragazzina, ma mi sembra chiaro da che parte sta la simpatia dell'autrice.
Insomma, rispetto alla biografia di Caterina la Grande c'è un abisso!
Di sicuro non sarà l'ultima biografia di questa autrice che leggerò, ho già pronta la biblioteca dell'altra figlia di Enrico VIII, Maria la Sanguinaria, ma spero che sia migliore e il punto di vista sia più oggettivo.
Essendo Anna Bolena una dei protagonisti della storia inglese che maggiormente mi affascina, questa sua biografia non poteva non finire nella mia libreria. Devo dire, però, che ne sono uscita un po' delusa.
Parto col dire che ho comunque letto questo libro praticamente in 24h, scorrevole e piacevole da leggere, molto interessante nella ricostruzione storica e della psicologica dei personaggi ma anche molto romanzato!
C'è maggiore risalto al periodo pre-matrimoniale, con le sfide che Enrico VIII e Anna Bolena hanno dovuto superare per sposarsi, mentre la parte dalla nascita di Elisabetta I in poi fino alla morte è davvero molto striminzita. Inoltre, mi dà l'impressione che l'autrice abbia scritto la biografia di un personaggio che lei detesta, diverse volte viene sottolineato quanto Anna Bolena fosse odiosa, cattiva, quanto fosse vanagloriosa e arrivista, quanto facesse tutto con il solo scopo di diventare la moglie del re... insomma, sono sicura che non fosse un'innocente ragazzina, ma mi sembra chiaro da che parte sta la simpatia dell'autrice.
Insomma, rispetto alla biografia di Caterina la Grande c'è un abisso!
Di sicuro non sarà l'ultima biografia di questa autrice che leggerò, ho già pronta la biblioteca dell'altra figlia di Enrico VIII, Maria la Sanguinaria, ma spero che sia migliore e il punto di vista sia più oggettivo.
July 25, 2018
It's weird, that so long after her life, people are still biased against her.
May 24, 2024
Anne Boleyn is the most famous of King Henry VIII’s wives. She has also been one of the most controversial figures in English history. In order to marry her, King Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church. Yet, Anne’s reign as Queen would prove to be short-lived. Three years after her marriage, she was sent to the execution block. This biography of Anne Boleyn, tells the story of Anne Boleyn from her early years in France to her death in the Tower of London.
I liked Mrs. Erickson’s depiction of Anne Boleyn. After Anne Boleyn returned to the English court, she rarely had a moment of happiness. Anne Boleyn could not marry the man she loved. Anne Boleyn was a pawn to her father and uncle. She had no choice but to continue her relationship to King Henry VIII. I like how Mrs. Erickson portrayed Anne Boleyn as a vulnerable woman who had no one to rely on except for King Henry VIII. Yet, when he tired of her, Anne Boleyn had no one. This put her in a dangerous situation which eventually led to her death.
I like that Mrs. Erickson also showed Anne Boleyn’s negative qualities. Anne Boleyn had a bad temper and made many enemies, including Princess Mary, but Mrs. Erickson explains that it relates to her fear. Even though she was the most powerful woman in England, she was insecure. She rose very high, but she could be brought down swiftly. Anne Boleyn knew that if she did not provide the king with a male heir, then her future was in jeopardy. However, she did not expect that it would lead to her execution but hoped that she would be sent to a nunnery. Thus, Mrs. Erickson’s portrayal of Anne Boleyn was very sympathetic.
Overall, this was a very short but comprehensive biography of Anne Boleyn. There were a few inaccuracies in this book that have been debunked. Also, there was some speculation and conjecture. However, it was still very engrossing. I really liked the courtship and marriage between Anne Boleyn and King Henry VIII. Mistress Anne was so compelling that I didn’t want to put it down! Mistress Anne is a great book for both those who do not know much about Anne Boleyn and for those that love to read any book about her! I recommend this for fans of Eric Ives, Alison Weir, and Susan Bardo!
I liked Mrs. Erickson’s depiction of Anne Boleyn. After Anne Boleyn returned to the English court, she rarely had a moment of happiness. Anne Boleyn could not marry the man she loved. Anne Boleyn was a pawn to her father and uncle. She had no choice but to continue her relationship to King Henry VIII. I like how Mrs. Erickson portrayed Anne Boleyn as a vulnerable woman who had no one to rely on except for King Henry VIII. Yet, when he tired of her, Anne Boleyn had no one. This put her in a dangerous situation which eventually led to her death.
I like that Mrs. Erickson also showed Anne Boleyn’s negative qualities. Anne Boleyn had a bad temper and made many enemies, including Princess Mary, but Mrs. Erickson explains that it relates to her fear. Even though she was the most powerful woman in England, she was insecure. She rose very high, but she could be brought down swiftly. Anne Boleyn knew that if she did not provide the king with a male heir, then her future was in jeopardy. However, she did not expect that it would lead to her execution but hoped that she would be sent to a nunnery. Thus, Mrs. Erickson’s portrayal of Anne Boleyn was very sympathetic.
Overall, this was a very short but comprehensive biography of Anne Boleyn. There were a few inaccuracies in this book that have been debunked. Also, there was some speculation and conjecture. However, it was still very engrossing. I really liked the courtship and marriage between Anne Boleyn and King Henry VIII. Mistress Anne was so compelling that I didn’t want to put it down! Mistress Anne is a great book for both those who do not know much about Anne Boleyn and for those that love to read any book about her! I recommend this for fans of Eric Ives, Alison Weir, and Susan Bardo!
October 30, 2023
La storia di Anna e di Enrico VIII è storia nota e ben conosciuta grazie ai libri su libri che ne sono stati tratti e i molteplici film, quindi non mi dilungherò sulla vicenda ma su come viene trattata in questa sede.
Questa biografia ha i suoi pro ed i suoi contro: tra i pro sicuramente c’è lo stile di scrittura, la Erickson ha una prosa molto lineare, descrittiva e che si legge molto bene. I capitoli scorrono via che è una meraviglia ed è narrata come se fosse un romanzo più che un trattato storico, alias biografia.
Tra i contro ci sono molti punti.
In primis la biografia stessa è stata scritta molto tempo fa, quindi non è aggiornata e risulta vecchia ed obsoleta. I dati e le vicende di Anna col tempo hanno avuto delle novità ed aggiornamenti che qui non si possono naturalmente trovare.
In secundis non vengono riportate molte fonti; tante cose sono messe su carta attraverso congetture e sentito dire quindi non mi risulta molto attendibile.
In ultimo si percepisce nettamente che l’autrice non provi molta simpatia per la protagonista. Non è chiaro se sia perché riporta esattamente le stesse sensazioni che si percepiva a corte e rendere tutto più chiaro al lettore la situazione di Anna oppure proprio perché anche la scrittrice non provasse simpatia per il suo soggetto, fatto sta che si può toccare con mano il senso di negatività che c’è nella corte inglese del 1500.
Sicuramente leggerò altri suoi libri, mi interessa davvero il suo stile e la sua scrittura ma sono anche sicura che approfondirò l’argomento Anna Bolena con altri libri che ho già in libreria.
Direi che lo consiglio a chi vi si approccia per la prima volta, come infarinatura preliminare, ma poi di buttarsi su altri libri scritti recentemente e più aggiornati.
Questa biografia ha i suoi pro ed i suoi contro: tra i pro sicuramente c’è lo stile di scrittura, la Erickson ha una prosa molto lineare, descrittiva e che si legge molto bene. I capitoli scorrono via che è una meraviglia ed è narrata come se fosse un romanzo più che un trattato storico, alias biografia.
Tra i contro ci sono molti punti.
In primis la biografia stessa è stata scritta molto tempo fa, quindi non è aggiornata e risulta vecchia ed obsoleta. I dati e le vicende di Anna col tempo hanno avuto delle novità ed aggiornamenti che qui non si possono naturalmente trovare.
In secundis non vengono riportate molte fonti; tante cose sono messe su carta attraverso congetture e sentito dire quindi non mi risulta molto attendibile.
In ultimo si percepisce nettamente che l’autrice non provi molta simpatia per la protagonista. Non è chiaro se sia perché riporta esattamente le stesse sensazioni che si percepiva a corte e rendere tutto più chiaro al lettore la situazione di Anna oppure proprio perché anche la scrittrice non provasse simpatia per il suo soggetto, fatto sta che si può toccare con mano il senso di negatività che c’è nella corte inglese del 1500.
Sicuramente leggerò altri suoi libri, mi interessa davvero il suo stile e la sua scrittura ma sono anche sicura che approfondirò l’argomento Anna Bolena con altri libri che ho già in libreria.
Direi che lo consiglio a chi vi si approccia per la prima volta, come infarinatura preliminare, ma poi di buttarsi su altri libri scritti recentemente e più aggiornati.
January 24, 2021
Anne Boelyn's life was a roller coaster. I've read a lot of books about Henry VIII, about Elizabeth I and summary books of Henry's wives and the Tudors in general, but I've never read a biography of Anne.
This book includes more detail that I needed, but it is well written and I didn't mind spending time with Anne.
This book includes more detail that I needed, but it is well written and I didn't mind spending time with Anne.
July 12, 2025
This book had potential but ended up as a messy account of Anne Boleyn’s life. I literally had to rage-quit my reading (there really is a first time for everything, never done that before) because of the false information in this book. I took notes down below.👇
Anne Boleyn is incorrectly described as having “embarrassing disfigurements”. There is no evidence that she had a sixth finger. In fact, when they exhumed her body there was nothing to suggest such deformities. Other people probably created the rumor as propaganda. This book is already making me mad with rumors that are presented as facts. Also there’s no way King Henry would go through so much trouble to divorce his wife for a lady that was deformed. (That sounds harsh, sorry).
This book is definitely going for more of the dramatic accounts. Now Queen Mary is begging and crying for Brandon to marry her? Some parts of this event are correct but we don’t know for sure if she resorted to begging.
The book states that Mary Boleyn gave birth to Henry VIII’s child. Many people have speculated that Mary’s first two children were Henry’s but this is JUST SPECULATION! NOT A FACT, as presented in this book.
Henry VIII never slept with Anne Boleyn’s mother. This isn’t even an allegated fact. It’s a straight up lie. When asked if he slept with Mary Boleyn and her mother he replied, “Never with the mother.”
When talking about Sir Thomas Wyatt on page 67 she misspelled his name as “waytt” once. On page 214 she states, “And since Anne’s survival could no longer by guaranteed by Henry’s love for her..” Another typo.
“One of Henry’s envoys in Rome even suggested that an illegitimate daughter of the pope might make the perfect match for Fitzroy, bringing the king and pope closer together and possibly smoothing the way for papal approval of Henry’s divorce from Katherine”.
Wrong, (again). Pope Clement VII never had any illegitimate daughters (that were recorded or even alleged). The only alleged illegitimate child of his was a son named Alessandro de' Medici. Or if she was talking about a different pope she should have specified that but Pope Clement VII was the pope at that time so I’m just assuming it was him.
The author claimed that Katherine died alone surrounded by strangers. This is not true. Although her daughter wasn’t able to be by her side, a close friend, Maria De Salinas, was. Eustace Chapuys was also there.
(I apologize if any of these are wrong, but these are just what I found to be wrong through my research.)
However, here are the things I found interesting or liked the way she worded it.
“Like a nun she [Katherine] roused herself several times during the night to pray, kneeling on the cold stone floor without allowing herself the luxury of a cushion. It was the rigorous, uncompromising piety of an embattled woman, but though it increased Katherine's inner strength it drained her physical resources and made her look worn out and unappealing.”
“According to Cavendish, Katherine hid her anxiety behind a gracious exterior.
‘It is no doubt but good Queen Katherine,’ he wrote, having ‘both heard by report and perceived before her eyes the matter how it framed against her,’ showed no ‘spark or kind of grudge or displeasure’ toward either her husband or Anne. She accepted the attraction between them ‘in good part,’ and wisely decided to be patient and pretend that she had nothing to worry about. Instead of avoiding Anne she went out of her way to show increased regard for her ‘for the king's sake,’ countering injury with honeyed courtesy.”
“The English people, strongly attached to their queen, were ‘greatly excited at the rumors of war’ and would react with fury to any assault on Katherine's position.”
“For the sweating sickness had come again.
The reports from the capital were terrifying. Everywhere there was panic, with people shutting up their shops and boarding up their houses and feeing into the country, taking only what they could carry. Some collapsed even as they fled, others as they made plans to get away. Even the luckiest of the citizens, those who somehow managed to avoid infection, were caught in the macabre web as relatives, friends, colleagues and associates were carried off, leaving their goods and responsibilities to the living. Ordinary life was suspended as the city gave itself up to death and the fear of death. Within days thousands died, and the ceaseless tolling of church bells, ringing for the dead, the carts that rolled through the streets, piled high with corpses on their way to common graves, the fires burning at streetcorners to purge the foul air that hung over the city all gave warning of the pestilence.”
“No one could count on being spared; the doctors did what they could, but the priests were far busier, rushing from one sickbed to the next to administer the last rites and often arriving too late.”
“The excitement and commotion Katherine's speech generated in the great hall was mild compared to the uproar that greeted her once she left it. A huge crowd was waiting for her, shouting approval and encouragement. ‘Good Katherine!’ ‘How she holds the field!’ ‘She's afraid of nothing!’ And the queen, heartened by the boisterous show of support, smiled and nodded to the crowd in acknowledgment, sending the people into fresh outbursts of noisy congratulation.”
“Nothing made Anne more short-tempered and snappish than to be reminded of Katherine and her daughter. Encountering one of Katherine's ladies, Anne told her ‘that she wished all the Spaniards in the world were in the sea.’ ‘For the honor of the queen, she should not say so,’ the woman answered. Anne burst out ‘that she did not care anything for the queen, and would rather see her hanged than acknowledge her as her mistress,’ ending the exchange.' “
“Much as he desired Anne and feared to think that she might leave him, Henry could not help but compare her to Katherine, whose behavior toward him, even during quarrels, was far different. Katherine was a more worthy opponent, she handled him with much greater finesse. She wore him down, waiting her chance and then turning his own weapons against him. Anne bludgeoned him with threats and accusations, arousing his fears yet never coming close to delivering a mortal wound. Anne troubled him, but she also made him resentful-and his resentment was dangerous.”
“But Henry could not control his sister, Suffolk's wife. Perhaps recalling another journey to France years earlier, when Anne had been the youngest and most insignificant of her attendants on her way to marry the French king, the duchess
‘stoutly refused’ to serve Anne, and insisted on staying home.“
“To many people Anne's coronation was more than a venerable ritual of monarchy, it was a symbol of the triumph of evil over good. Katherine, their virtuous and embattled heroine, had been destroyed by Anne, a vice-ridden wench and England's nemesis. Katherine was a saint, Anne a witch. The witch was to be crowned, setting off psychic crosscurrents fearsome to con-template.”
“Anne found these tactics inadequate and told the woman (who was Anne's paternal aunt Lady Shelton) to slap Mary and call her the ‘cursed bastard’ she was, and not to allow her to preserve her self-respect by eating in her own room or in other ways avoiding comparisons with her infant sister.”
“As Anne's pregnancy advanced, Mary's recalcitrance seemed to increase. She was turning out to be a more stubborn adversary than Katherine, for she had more at stake. It was not only that she was fighting to preserve her right to the throne, to preserve her future. Her behavior was regally defiant. She was showing, by her unwavering, consistent opposition to her downgrading in rank, that she deserved to rule. To do otherwise would mean losing her faith in what sustained her and gave her strength— her Catholicism, and her belief that God was protecting her so that she might fulfill a particular destiny.”
“Prophecies foretold that a queen of England was to be burned, Anne said again and again. She wanted to make certain that queen was Katherine, ‘to avoid the lot falling upon herself.’ Anne swore she ‘would not cease until she has got rid of her,’ and her threats against Mary were equally murderous.* “I am her death and she is mine,’ Anne said of Mary. Whether or not Elizabeth, or any other child Anne bore, inherited the throne would depend on how successful Anne was in removing Mary from the scene, either by breaking her will or thrusting her aside by violence. And since Anne's survival could no longer by guaranteed by Henry's love for her, it had to depend on her child's preeminence in the succession. It was in this sense that Anne's simple, fateful statement was true. Anne and Mary faced each other across the battle zone of Henry's capricious will. Theirs would be a struggle to the death.”
“Poor as she was, and disowned by her family, Mary's [Boleyn] story had come to a happy ending.”
“Both Fisher and More had international reputations as men of learning and sagacity, admirable men prepared to face death for conscience's sake. That Henry should order them to their deaths went beyond tyranny: it put him beyond the pale of honor, even of sanity, In his inhumanity he had taken leave of his reason.”
“Six days after hearing of it she suffered a miscarriage. The dead fetus, the midwives who examined it said, ‘had the appearance of a male.’ How and why they determined this, whether at Henry's request or Anne's (both had reportedly been ‘almost sure’ that Anne was carrying a boy), we don't know. But from the moment he heard of it, his ‘great disappointment and sorrow’ manifest, Henry seems to have closed his heart and his life to Anne. ‘I see that God will not give me male children,’ he muttered, and did not contradict the generally expressed opinion that Anne had a ‘defective constitution,’ and was incapable of bearing a liveborn, healthy son.”
“Carrying Elizabeth in her arms, she tried to approach Henry on April 30, six days atter the treason commission convened.
The court was at Greenwich, and Henry stood looking out a window of the palace into the courtyard below, his face a mask of suppressed anger. He was aware of Anne and Elizabeth, but did not acknowledge them or speak to them. For he was also aware that Mark Seaton was to be arrested that day and that Cromwell was on his way to conduct Smeaton's interrogation.
Smeaton would be made to confess, and his confession would be used to counteract the denials of Norris, Weston, Brereton and George Boleyn. Anne would be taken away and locked in the Tower, and in a little while he would never have to see her again.”
Anne Boleyn is incorrectly described as having “embarrassing disfigurements”. There is no evidence that she had a sixth finger. In fact, when they exhumed her body there was nothing to suggest such deformities. Other people probably created the rumor as propaganda. This book is already making me mad with rumors that are presented as facts. Also there’s no way King Henry would go through so much trouble to divorce his wife for a lady that was deformed. (That sounds harsh, sorry).
This book is definitely going for more of the dramatic accounts. Now Queen Mary is begging and crying for Brandon to marry her? Some parts of this event are correct but we don’t know for sure if she resorted to begging.
The book states that Mary Boleyn gave birth to Henry VIII’s child. Many people have speculated that Mary’s first two children were Henry’s but this is JUST SPECULATION! NOT A FACT, as presented in this book.
Henry VIII never slept with Anne Boleyn’s mother. This isn’t even an allegated fact. It’s a straight up lie. When asked if he slept with Mary Boleyn and her mother he replied, “Never with the mother.”
When talking about Sir Thomas Wyatt on page 67 she misspelled his name as “waytt” once. On page 214 she states, “And since Anne’s survival could no longer by guaranteed by Henry’s love for her..” Another typo.
“One of Henry’s envoys in Rome even suggested that an illegitimate daughter of the pope might make the perfect match for Fitzroy, bringing the king and pope closer together and possibly smoothing the way for papal approval of Henry’s divorce from Katherine”.
Wrong, (again). Pope Clement VII never had any illegitimate daughters (that were recorded or even alleged). The only alleged illegitimate child of his was a son named Alessandro de' Medici. Or if she was talking about a different pope she should have specified that but Pope Clement VII was the pope at that time so I’m just assuming it was him.
The author claimed that Katherine died alone surrounded by strangers. This is not true. Although her daughter wasn’t able to be by her side, a close friend, Maria De Salinas, was. Eustace Chapuys was also there.
(I apologize if any of these are wrong, but these are just what I found to be wrong through my research.)
However, here are the things I found interesting or liked the way she worded it.
“Like a nun she [Katherine] roused herself several times during the night to pray, kneeling on the cold stone floor without allowing herself the luxury of a cushion. It was the rigorous, uncompromising piety of an embattled woman, but though it increased Katherine's inner strength it drained her physical resources and made her look worn out and unappealing.”
“According to Cavendish, Katherine hid her anxiety behind a gracious exterior.
‘It is no doubt but good Queen Katherine,’ he wrote, having ‘both heard by report and perceived before her eyes the matter how it framed against her,’ showed no ‘spark or kind of grudge or displeasure’ toward either her husband or Anne. She accepted the attraction between them ‘in good part,’ and wisely decided to be patient and pretend that she had nothing to worry about. Instead of avoiding Anne she went out of her way to show increased regard for her ‘for the king's sake,’ countering injury with honeyed courtesy.”
“The English people, strongly attached to their queen, were ‘greatly excited at the rumors of war’ and would react with fury to any assault on Katherine's position.”
“For the sweating sickness had come again.
The reports from the capital were terrifying. Everywhere there was panic, with people shutting up their shops and boarding up their houses and feeing into the country, taking only what they could carry. Some collapsed even as they fled, others as they made plans to get away. Even the luckiest of the citizens, those who somehow managed to avoid infection, were caught in the macabre web as relatives, friends, colleagues and associates were carried off, leaving their goods and responsibilities to the living. Ordinary life was suspended as the city gave itself up to death and the fear of death. Within days thousands died, and the ceaseless tolling of church bells, ringing for the dead, the carts that rolled through the streets, piled high with corpses on their way to common graves, the fires burning at streetcorners to purge the foul air that hung over the city all gave warning of the pestilence.”
“No one could count on being spared; the doctors did what they could, but the priests were far busier, rushing from one sickbed to the next to administer the last rites and often arriving too late.”
“The excitement and commotion Katherine's speech generated in the great hall was mild compared to the uproar that greeted her once she left it. A huge crowd was waiting for her, shouting approval and encouragement. ‘Good Katherine!’ ‘How she holds the field!’ ‘She's afraid of nothing!’ And the queen, heartened by the boisterous show of support, smiled and nodded to the crowd in acknowledgment, sending the people into fresh outbursts of noisy congratulation.”
“Nothing made Anne more short-tempered and snappish than to be reminded of Katherine and her daughter. Encountering one of Katherine's ladies, Anne told her ‘that she wished all the Spaniards in the world were in the sea.’ ‘For the honor of the queen, she should not say so,’ the woman answered. Anne burst out ‘that she did not care anything for the queen, and would rather see her hanged than acknowledge her as her mistress,’ ending the exchange.' “
“Much as he desired Anne and feared to think that she might leave him, Henry could not help but compare her to Katherine, whose behavior toward him, even during quarrels, was far different. Katherine was a more worthy opponent, she handled him with much greater finesse. She wore him down, waiting her chance and then turning his own weapons against him. Anne bludgeoned him with threats and accusations, arousing his fears yet never coming close to delivering a mortal wound. Anne troubled him, but she also made him resentful-and his resentment was dangerous.”
“But Henry could not control his sister, Suffolk's wife. Perhaps recalling another journey to France years earlier, when Anne had been the youngest and most insignificant of her attendants on her way to marry the French king, the duchess
‘stoutly refused’ to serve Anne, and insisted on staying home.“
“To many people Anne's coronation was more than a venerable ritual of monarchy, it was a symbol of the triumph of evil over good. Katherine, their virtuous and embattled heroine, had been destroyed by Anne, a vice-ridden wench and England's nemesis. Katherine was a saint, Anne a witch. The witch was to be crowned, setting off psychic crosscurrents fearsome to con-template.”
“Anne found these tactics inadequate and told the woman (who was Anne's paternal aunt Lady Shelton) to slap Mary and call her the ‘cursed bastard’ she was, and not to allow her to preserve her self-respect by eating in her own room or in other ways avoiding comparisons with her infant sister.”
“As Anne's pregnancy advanced, Mary's recalcitrance seemed to increase. She was turning out to be a more stubborn adversary than Katherine, for she had more at stake. It was not only that she was fighting to preserve her right to the throne, to preserve her future. Her behavior was regally defiant. She was showing, by her unwavering, consistent opposition to her downgrading in rank, that she deserved to rule. To do otherwise would mean losing her faith in what sustained her and gave her strength— her Catholicism, and her belief that God was protecting her so that she might fulfill a particular destiny.”
“Prophecies foretold that a queen of England was to be burned, Anne said again and again. She wanted to make certain that queen was Katherine, ‘to avoid the lot falling upon herself.’ Anne swore she ‘would not cease until she has got rid of her,’ and her threats against Mary were equally murderous.* “I am her death and she is mine,’ Anne said of Mary. Whether or not Elizabeth, or any other child Anne bore, inherited the throne would depend on how successful Anne was in removing Mary from the scene, either by breaking her will or thrusting her aside by violence. And since Anne's survival could no longer by guaranteed by Henry's love for her, it had to depend on her child's preeminence in the succession. It was in this sense that Anne's simple, fateful statement was true. Anne and Mary faced each other across the battle zone of Henry's capricious will. Theirs would be a struggle to the death.”
“Poor as she was, and disowned by her family, Mary's [Boleyn] story had come to a happy ending.”
“Both Fisher and More had international reputations as men of learning and sagacity, admirable men prepared to face death for conscience's sake. That Henry should order them to their deaths went beyond tyranny: it put him beyond the pale of honor, even of sanity, In his inhumanity he had taken leave of his reason.”
“Six days after hearing of it she suffered a miscarriage. The dead fetus, the midwives who examined it said, ‘had the appearance of a male.’ How and why they determined this, whether at Henry's request or Anne's (both had reportedly been ‘almost sure’ that Anne was carrying a boy), we don't know. But from the moment he heard of it, his ‘great disappointment and sorrow’ manifest, Henry seems to have closed his heart and his life to Anne. ‘I see that God will not give me male children,’ he muttered, and did not contradict the generally expressed opinion that Anne had a ‘defective constitution,’ and was incapable of bearing a liveborn, healthy son.”
“Carrying Elizabeth in her arms, she tried to approach Henry on April 30, six days atter the treason commission convened.
The court was at Greenwich, and Henry stood looking out a window of the palace into the courtyard below, his face a mask of suppressed anger. He was aware of Anne and Elizabeth, but did not acknowledge them or speak to them. For he was also aware that Mark Seaton was to be arrested that day and that Cromwell was on his way to conduct Smeaton's interrogation.
Smeaton would be made to confess, and his confession would be used to counteract the denials of Norris, Weston, Brereton and George Boleyn. Anne would be taken away and locked in the Tower, and in a little while he would never have to see her again.”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 2, 2024
I hated every minute of this, at moments I wanted to gorge my eyes out rather than to continue reading this piece of literature.
August 7, 2023
Carolly Erickson is a fantastic writer of British history. Her penchant for telling the stories of their royal family becomes even more compelling when she is writing about Britain's female monarchs and personalities, and Mistress Anne is no exception.
The book delves into the life and tragic ending of King Henry VIII's second wife. It uses a different strategy than most readers will be accustomed to; instead of looking at Anne Boleyn's rise and fall from the perspective of the Tudor king, it instead presents things through the lens of her own experience.
Anne's early years in the court of King Henry VIII and his queen Catherine of Aragon took place during a rapprochement between Britain and the Holy Roman Empire. Since Catherine was Holy Roman Emperor Charles V's aunt, any desire to remain in the empire's good graces required Henry to be on his best behavior toward Catherine.
But Catherine's stock began to slide as she increasingly struggled to give birth to a healthy male heir (her daughter Mary would be the only one able to survive past childhood) and it tanked when Henry began drawing close to France's King Francis I as a counterweight to Charles V and the Germanic lands.
Anne Boleyn had spent time in the courts of France during her formative years, speaking the language and becoming accustomed to their morays when by the time came back to Britain. Her father Thomas Boleyn was Henry's court treasurer, and Anne was sent to France to serve King Henry VIII's sister Mary Tudor following her marriage to France's King Louis XII. Although Louis was to die shortly after the wedding, Anne stayed on in the household for seven years as a maid to the royal French daughter.
Anne's knowledge of French customs would prove a benefit to the British king were he to continue allying closer to the ancient continental rival.
Erickson examines a romantic tryst between Anne Boleyn and earldom of Northumberland heir Hugh Percy in the mid-1520s during her time in Henry and Catherine's court. The British poet Thomas Wyatt's verses about Anne are recorded, and they assist in showing the attractive, desirable nature of this lady-in-waiting during the interim between her return from France and her marriage to Henry. An alleged romance between Henry and Anne's sister Mary Boleyn works its way into the narrative as well, with Henry's seemingly nonstop dabbling and taking of mistresses an unavoidable aspect of the book.
Things go from bad to worse for Catherine of Aragon when Henry decided it was time to cut her loose thanks to a lack of male heirs. The trickiness of doing this was explained well in Mistress Anne, as Henry's attempts to get permission from Pope Clement VII created a tortuous mess. Henry insisted the marriage to Catherine was invalid thanks to Catherine's previous marriage to his since deceased brother Arthur, Prince of Wales. Henry and his deeply cynical lawyers insisted this meant his current marriage violated Leviticus 20:21 and therefore should be annulled.
Getting a papal dispensation involved delegates engaged in tireless work to reach a resolution by men like Cardinal Wolsey and papal legate Lorenzo Campeggio. The hearing at Black friars maddened Henry and did not proceed to his liking, and it was complicated by the relationship between Charles V (the nephew of Catherine) and Rome, which were in cahoots not least because of the growing threat posed by Lutheranism to the Catholic faith.
The book shows the public largely taking Catherine's side, holding her up as a lady they perceived being wronged by her libidinous husband. That the king had already taken Anne Boleyn-a lady whose sister he had also had relations with-as a sort of concubine during the time he spent trying to annul the marriage to Catherine made him look even worse. To hear Erickson tell it, Henry saw Anne as the newest, nubile thing (not the last time he would view a woman this way) and was willing to do whatever it took to acquire her hand in marriage and, he hoped, a male heir by her.
As those even slightly acquainted with British history are aware, Henry would maneuver things to go over the head of the papacy in Rome to gain the desired annulment. The Act of Supremacy not only let him make this official, it also had the long term effect of breaking England away from the Catholic Church. Although Anne is the book's central character, Henry's impulsiveness and unwillingness to not get his way are elements which come through strong in the storyline.
It appears the king began to tire on Anne even before Catherine was sent away from court. She would give him a daughter, Elizabeth, but the frustration continued when she had a phantom pregnancy and continued to produce no boy children. Henry had secretly married her even before the separation from Catherine was made official (courtesy of his break from Rome). This secrecy factor did not favors to the health of their union.
Erickson outlines how Anne was never fully accepted by the court, and she was contrasted with Catherine in an unflattering manner. The former queen is presented as a put together, cerebral wife; Anne comes across as prone to frequent outbursts and rages toward everyone from Catherine to Catherine's daughter Mary to Henry himself. Her insecurity is a frequent reoccurrence in Mistress Anne.
And this insecurity was warranted. Before long Jane Seymour, yet another lady in his court, caught Henry's eye. Within four years of their secret (and later publicized) marriage, Henry, with the help of his royal advisor Thomas Cromwell, had plotted how to get rid of Anne. The king dredged up her former dalliance with Hugh Percy, accused her of also having relations with her own brother, and threw in treason charges by alleging that she had plotted to have him killed so she could take the throne.
Whereas Catherine had merely been sent away in peace, Henry had Anne and her alleged co-conspirators put to death. She was decapitated before a crowd on Tower Green on May 19th, 1536. Before the month of May was out, Henry had already moved on and married his newest paramour, Jane Seymour.
Mistress Anne tells the sordid tale of Anne Boleyn with a relentless forward momentum. It works in mentions of the foreign and domestic policy implications of Henry's union with Anne, but overall maintains a tight focus on Anne.
This focus ensures readers gain a feel for the tight spots (some of her own making) Anne was placed in and gain an appreciation for the roller coaster she was put on by Henry VIII. The book's very specific subject matter becomes a strength, creating a fractal of how so many of Henry's dealings played out during his reign.
It is immensely readable and does sufficient justice to its subject matter to earn four stars.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
The book delves into the life and tragic ending of King Henry VIII's second wife. It uses a different strategy than most readers will be accustomed to; instead of looking at Anne Boleyn's rise and fall from the perspective of the Tudor king, it instead presents things through the lens of her own experience.
Anne's early years in the court of King Henry VIII and his queen Catherine of Aragon took place during a rapprochement between Britain and the Holy Roman Empire. Since Catherine was Holy Roman Emperor Charles V's aunt, any desire to remain in the empire's good graces required Henry to be on his best behavior toward Catherine.
But Catherine's stock began to slide as she increasingly struggled to give birth to a healthy male heir (her daughter Mary would be the only one able to survive past childhood) and it tanked when Henry began drawing close to France's King Francis I as a counterweight to Charles V and the Germanic lands.
Anne Boleyn had spent time in the courts of France during her formative years, speaking the language and becoming accustomed to their morays when by the time came back to Britain. Her father Thomas Boleyn was Henry's court treasurer, and Anne was sent to France to serve King Henry VIII's sister Mary Tudor following her marriage to France's King Louis XII. Although Louis was to die shortly after the wedding, Anne stayed on in the household for seven years as a maid to the royal French daughter.
Anne's knowledge of French customs would prove a benefit to the British king were he to continue allying closer to the ancient continental rival.
Erickson examines a romantic tryst between Anne Boleyn and earldom of Northumberland heir Hugh Percy in the mid-1520s during her time in Henry and Catherine's court. The British poet Thomas Wyatt's verses about Anne are recorded, and they assist in showing the attractive, desirable nature of this lady-in-waiting during the interim between her return from France and her marriage to Henry. An alleged romance between Henry and Anne's sister Mary Boleyn works its way into the narrative as well, with Henry's seemingly nonstop dabbling and taking of mistresses an unavoidable aspect of the book.
Things go from bad to worse for Catherine of Aragon when Henry decided it was time to cut her loose thanks to a lack of male heirs. The trickiness of doing this was explained well in Mistress Anne, as Henry's attempts to get permission from Pope Clement VII created a tortuous mess. Henry insisted the marriage to Catherine was invalid thanks to Catherine's previous marriage to his since deceased brother Arthur, Prince of Wales. Henry and his deeply cynical lawyers insisted this meant his current marriage violated Leviticus 20:21 and therefore should be annulled.
Getting a papal dispensation involved delegates engaged in tireless work to reach a resolution by men like Cardinal Wolsey and papal legate Lorenzo Campeggio. The hearing at Black friars maddened Henry and did not proceed to his liking, and it was complicated by the relationship between Charles V (the nephew of Catherine) and Rome, which were in cahoots not least because of the growing threat posed by Lutheranism to the Catholic faith.
The book shows the public largely taking Catherine's side, holding her up as a lady they perceived being wronged by her libidinous husband. That the king had already taken Anne Boleyn-a lady whose sister he had also had relations with-as a sort of concubine during the time he spent trying to annul the marriage to Catherine made him look even worse. To hear Erickson tell it, Henry saw Anne as the newest, nubile thing (not the last time he would view a woman this way) and was willing to do whatever it took to acquire her hand in marriage and, he hoped, a male heir by her.
As those even slightly acquainted with British history are aware, Henry would maneuver things to go over the head of the papacy in Rome to gain the desired annulment. The Act of Supremacy not only let him make this official, it also had the long term effect of breaking England away from the Catholic Church. Although Anne is the book's central character, Henry's impulsiveness and unwillingness to not get his way are elements which come through strong in the storyline.
It appears the king began to tire on Anne even before Catherine was sent away from court. She would give him a daughter, Elizabeth, but the frustration continued when she had a phantom pregnancy and continued to produce no boy children. Henry had secretly married her even before the separation from Catherine was made official (courtesy of his break from Rome). This secrecy factor did not favors to the health of their union.
Erickson outlines how Anne was never fully accepted by the court, and she was contrasted with Catherine in an unflattering manner. The former queen is presented as a put together, cerebral wife; Anne comes across as prone to frequent outbursts and rages toward everyone from Catherine to Catherine's daughter Mary to Henry himself. Her insecurity is a frequent reoccurrence in Mistress Anne.
And this insecurity was warranted. Before long Jane Seymour, yet another lady in his court, caught Henry's eye. Within four years of their secret (and later publicized) marriage, Henry, with the help of his royal advisor Thomas Cromwell, had plotted how to get rid of Anne. The king dredged up her former dalliance with Hugh Percy, accused her of also having relations with her own brother, and threw in treason charges by alleging that she had plotted to have him killed so she could take the throne.
Whereas Catherine had merely been sent away in peace, Henry had Anne and her alleged co-conspirators put to death. She was decapitated before a crowd on Tower Green on May 19th, 1536. Before the month of May was out, Henry had already moved on and married his newest paramour, Jane Seymour.
Mistress Anne tells the sordid tale of Anne Boleyn with a relentless forward momentum. It works in mentions of the foreign and domestic policy implications of Henry's union with Anne, but overall maintains a tight focus on Anne.
This focus ensures readers gain a feel for the tight spots (some of her own making) Anne was placed in and gain an appreciation for the roller coaster she was put on by Henry VIII. The book's very specific subject matter becomes a strength, creating a fractal of how so many of Henry's dealings played out during his reign.
It is immensely readable and does sufficient justice to its subject matter to earn four stars.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
March 6, 2010
I remember liking Carolly Erickson's biography of Elizabeth I, The First Elizabeth (though it's been a while since I read it); unfortunately, I can't say the same for her biography of Elizabeth's mother Anne Boleyn.
Part of the problem, I think, is Erickson's avowed practice of allotting as much space to a subject's earlier years as to the later ones, which she refers to as trying "to preserve the natural arc of the life as my subject lived it". However, since very little is known about Anne Boleyn's early life, Erickson ends up spending a lot of time saying that Anne "must have" felt this or "might have" done that. Even when she gets to Anne's better-documented later years, her portrait is surprisingly shallow, lacking the detailed look at the politics of Henry VIII's court which I would have expected.
And why in the world did the publisher include in the illustrations portraits of Catherine Parr (Henry VIII's sixth wife) and Mary, Queen of Scots, neither of whom come into Anne's story at all?
Overall, Mistress Anne was a disappointment; I have yet to read Erickson's biographies of Henry VIII and Mary I (Great Harry and Bloody Mary), but I certainly hope they're better than Mistress Anne.
Part of the problem, I think, is Erickson's avowed practice of allotting as much space to a subject's earlier years as to the later ones, which she refers to as trying "to preserve the natural arc of the life as my subject lived it". However, since very little is known about Anne Boleyn's early life, Erickson ends up spending a lot of time saying that Anne "must have" felt this or "might have" done that. Even when she gets to Anne's better-documented later years, her portrait is surprisingly shallow, lacking the detailed look at the politics of Henry VIII's court which I would have expected.
And why in the world did the publisher include in the illustrations portraits of Catherine Parr (Henry VIII's sixth wife) and Mary, Queen of Scots, neither of whom come into Anne's story at all?
Overall, Mistress Anne was a disappointment; I have yet to read Erickson's biographies of Henry VIII and Mary I (Great Harry and Bloody Mary), but I certainly hope they're better than Mistress Anne.
January 27, 2016
How this book made the Best of list in 1984 is beyond my comprehension. The writing is terrible, the information jumps from one person to another (many intertwining stories), part of this reads as non-fiction the rest as bad fiction (and you really never know which is which), and there is too much information that I believe was unnecessary.
Chapter Four: Page 45: "Never mind that, after several years, there was no conclusion in sight, or that her young charms were withering with every passing month." Give me a break! It was 1522 and the Boleyn was approximately 15-17 years of age.
The end of Chapter Six & beginning of Seven reads like an over emotional romance novel..... QUOTE:
Six: Page 75: "She was his elixir of hope. The jumbled fragments of of his disordered life fell into place once again around her.
Six: Page 75: "The new enchantments of love drove out the old sorceries that enchained Henry, putting him forever in his beloved's debt, and putting her Forever (?), in the lists of his loves and mistresses, in a class by herself."
Seven: Page 78: "The King was giddy with love. He thirsted for the sight of his beloved Anne, he longed for her as he had never longed for any woman....."
I'll tell you for someone who was touted as: "......one of America's foremost young historians, she has also been called 'a queen of storytellers'......" when writing non-fiction biographies she needed to put her fanciful imagination aside.
The first book I ever read by her was: "Last Wife of Henry VIII", which I gave three stars. Obviously her writing has improved....
Chapter Four: Page 45: "Never mind that, after several years, there was no conclusion in sight, or that her young charms were withering with every passing month." Give me a break! It was 1522 and the Boleyn was approximately 15-17 years of age.
The end of Chapter Six & beginning of Seven reads like an over emotional romance novel..... QUOTE:
Six: Page 75: "She was his elixir of hope. The jumbled fragments of of his disordered life fell into place once again around her.
Six: Page 75: "The new enchantments of love drove out the old sorceries that enchained Henry, putting him forever in his beloved's debt, and putting her Forever (?), in the lists of his loves and mistresses, in a class by herself."
Seven: Page 78: "The King was giddy with love. He thirsted for the sight of his beloved Anne, he longed for her as he had never longed for any woman....."
I'll tell you for someone who was touted as: "......one of America's foremost young historians, she has also been called 'a queen of storytellers'......" when writing non-fiction biographies she needed to put her fanciful imagination aside.
The first book I ever read by her was: "Last Wife of Henry VIII", which I gave three stars. Obviously her writing has improved....
May 7, 2011
I love reading about Tudor history, so I picked this up from my local library for a bit of light reading. It was exquisitely written. The author certainly could tell the life of Anne Boleyn without making it mundane. However there were a few things I felt were rather off, or inaccurate.
The book focuses entirely on Anne being unfit to be queen. It doesn't put her in any light other then a bad one. The author also assumes quite a bit about what Anne was "probably" thinking, and the same with Henry as well. She goes out on quite a few limbs with her suggestions on what was going on in their minds.
Also, within the first few pages the author claims Anne had an extra finger, and a grotesque mole growing on the side of her neck. I strongly doubt either is true. I do not have a degree in Tudor history, however I think it is safe to say that Henry VIII would not have married someone with deformities such as those, especially where deformities such as those were associated with witchcraft, and that was one the charges held against her and led to her getting executed. I doubt the King would have bothered with her in the first place had she actually had extra fingers and large moles.
I also felt that since there was so much attention given to Wolsey's downfall, that Cromwell's person could have been given more detail since he was the one to orchestrate the downfall of Anne herself. He played an integral role in getting rid of her, and I felt the author didn't fully explain who he was and the significance of his actions.
The book focuses entirely on Anne being unfit to be queen. It doesn't put her in any light other then a bad one. The author also assumes quite a bit about what Anne was "probably" thinking, and the same with Henry as well. She goes out on quite a few limbs with her suggestions on what was going on in their minds.
Also, within the first few pages the author claims Anne had an extra finger, and a grotesque mole growing on the side of her neck. I strongly doubt either is true. I do not have a degree in Tudor history, however I think it is safe to say that Henry VIII would not have married someone with deformities such as those, especially where deformities such as those were associated with witchcraft, and that was one the charges held against her and led to her getting executed. I doubt the King would have bothered with her in the first place had she actually had extra fingers and large moles.
I also felt that since there was so much attention given to Wolsey's downfall, that Cromwell's person could have been given more detail since he was the one to orchestrate the downfall of Anne herself. He played an integral role in getting rid of her, and I felt the author didn't fully explain who he was and the significance of his actions.
February 7, 2013
Reading this I thought, "what an exceptionally clear biography", not recognizing until pulling up the Goodreads database that I'd read an enjoyed a couple of other books--one on Mary, Queen of Scots, the other Erickson's The Medieval Vision--by this author.
It's also an opinionated one, the author fleshing out the evidence with informed suppositions in order to flesh out the figure of Henry VIII's second wife, Anne Boleyn.
The picture given of Anne is not particularly sympathetic, her intelligence and willfulness being represented as having turned to scheming selfishness once she saw the opportunity to turn the king's lusts to her own advantage. Never particularly popular, once Henry's desires (increasingly for a male heir) turned elsewhere even her position as commoner-queeen could not protect her.
Missing from this biography is some review of the intellectual side of Anne, represented in other books I've read as considerable, particularly as regards religion and as regards France, where she spent much of her youth.
Still, the picture, however slanted, is plausible.
It's also an opinionated one, the author fleshing out the evidence with informed suppositions in order to flesh out the figure of Henry VIII's second wife, Anne Boleyn.
The picture given of Anne is not particularly sympathetic, her intelligence and willfulness being represented as having turned to scheming selfishness once she saw the opportunity to turn the king's lusts to her own advantage. Never particularly popular, once Henry's desires (increasingly for a male heir) turned elsewhere even her position as commoner-queeen could not protect her.
Missing from this biography is some review of the intellectual side of Anne, represented in other books I've read as considerable, particularly as regards religion and as regards France, where she spent much of her youth.
Still, the picture, however slanted, is plausible.
November 30, 2018
The book is slow reading for those expecting a fast-paced story. It is well written and historically accurate. Her vocabulary is remarkably varied, and the images she evokes with her prose are rather impressive.
February 12, 2023
This is my first single work devoted to Anne - the others have covered all the wives at once.
What I liked:
I liked the first part about her childhood & upbrining. That is something I have recently started to enjoy - who was this person before they were famous? They existed before they came into Henry VIII's orbit. While not much is known about her childhood, the author did a great job of talking about what the atmosphere & culture of the time was, which give us a reasonable guess as to what this specific person's experience may have been. It is fascinating to me how different the different European courts were, and I'd love to read a book comparing them - French vs. English vs. Scottish vs. Spanish vs. Portuguese vs. German and so on. I did not realize Anne was so young (11) when she left for France with Mary Tudor's (the French Queen's) entourage. It was interesting to hear how the culture of the French court would have influenced her. The romances, scandals, intrigues, seductions. But also the harsh treatment of women by their fathers & husbands - uxoricide was seemingly common and permissible. Being one of the few English women remaining in the French court when Mary went home and Claude became queen definitely gave her an intriguing edge when she returned to England.
What I did not like:
Once again this book does not take into account WHY Anne was the way she was with Henry. The author talks around it, but doesn't dive into it completely. I know that the attitude of the time was that Anne was the seductress, the adultress, but I wish the author had better pointed out that HENRY is the one at fault. Henry made vows to Catherine that he broke, Henry tirelessly perused Anne. Anne didn't want Henry, she wanted Percy before she was thwarted by Wolsey. If Anne was put in Henry's path it was because her father and uncle pushed her there. What is a woman to do? She was intelligent, cultured, gifted - and all doors were closed to her - this was seemingly the only option available to her. She didn't want the life of her sister - to be the mistress to a king and then married off to a bland nobody and eventually forgotten. She is a woman of passion and wanted more out of life - how can she be blamed for that? She was told to seduce the king and she did. The book talks about how when her father and uncle changed their minds and abandoned her, she had no one on her side - no mentors. Maybe that is her fault for not seeking them out? But she put all her eggs in the basket with Henry (again, put there by her father and uncle, Henry an eager participant) and when things started to fall apart, Henry was her only friend, her only protector. No wonder she clung to that. Henry had made her promises and she ruined her reputation based on those promises. He damn well better deliver! Why is she so bad for not being submissive like Catherine, for demanding that he deliver on what he promised her time and again? In a world where the only thing for a woman to do was to obtain the best marriage she could, why do we blame Anne for doing this? No she was not a kind person, but it truly was Catherine or herself, Mary or herself. Of course she would try to take care of herself - no one else would!
That is not to say that I don't have sympathy for Catherine or Mary - I absolutely do. All the women in this story were treated abominably and deserved better. It's a shame that this world of men pitted women against each other like this. It's really not right to have to side with Catherine or Anne - I side with both. They both deserved better.
I also am disappointed there wasn't more discussed about her religious interest and her passion for religious reform and the significant role she played in changing the religious scene in England.
What I liked:
I liked the first part about her childhood & upbrining. That is something I have recently started to enjoy - who was this person before they were famous? They existed before they came into Henry VIII's orbit. While not much is known about her childhood, the author did a great job of talking about what the atmosphere & culture of the time was, which give us a reasonable guess as to what this specific person's experience may have been. It is fascinating to me how different the different European courts were, and I'd love to read a book comparing them - French vs. English vs. Scottish vs. Spanish vs. Portuguese vs. German and so on. I did not realize Anne was so young (11) when she left for France with Mary Tudor's (the French Queen's) entourage. It was interesting to hear how the culture of the French court would have influenced her. The romances, scandals, intrigues, seductions. But also the harsh treatment of women by their fathers & husbands - uxoricide was seemingly common and permissible. Being one of the few English women remaining in the French court when Mary went home and Claude became queen definitely gave her an intriguing edge when she returned to England.
What I did not like:
Once again this book does not take into account WHY Anne was the way she was with Henry. The author talks around it, but doesn't dive into it completely. I know that the attitude of the time was that Anne was the seductress, the adultress, but I wish the author had better pointed out that HENRY is the one at fault. Henry made vows to Catherine that he broke, Henry tirelessly perused Anne. Anne didn't want Henry, she wanted Percy before she was thwarted by Wolsey. If Anne was put in Henry's path it was because her father and uncle pushed her there. What is a woman to do? She was intelligent, cultured, gifted - and all doors were closed to her - this was seemingly the only option available to her. She didn't want the life of her sister - to be the mistress to a king and then married off to a bland nobody and eventually forgotten. She is a woman of passion and wanted more out of life - how can she be blamed for that? She was told to seduce the king and she did. The book talks about how when her father and uncle changed their minds and abandoned her, she had no one on her side - no mentors. Maybe that is her fault for not seeking them out? But she put all her eggs in the basket with Henry (again, put there by her father and uncle, Henry an eager participant) and when things started to fall apart, Henry was her only friend, her only protector. No wonder she clung to that. Henry had made her promises and she ruined her reputation based on those promises. He damn well better deliver! Why is she so bad for not being submissive like Catherine, for demanding that he deliver on what he promised her time and again? In a world where the only thing for a woman to do was to obtain the best marriage she could, why do we blame Anne for doing this? No she was not a kind person, but it truly was Catherine or herself, Mary or herself. Of course she would try to take care of herself - no one else would!
That is not to say that I don't have sympathy for Catherine or Mary - I absolutely do. All the women in this story were treated abominably and deserved better. It's a shame that this world of men pitted women against each other like this. It's really not right to have to side with Catherine or Anne - I side with both. They both deserved better.
I also am disappointed there wasn't more discussed about her religious interest and her passion for religious reform and the significant role she played in changing the religious scene in England.
May 1, 2025
Misogynistic pseudo-history
The sourcing here is atrocious, sources are left unexamined, and unreliable sources are often accepted without question. Any source that is anti-Anne Boleyn is automatically accepted without question, anything that has anything “nice” to say about her is an attempt to “save” her reputation and therefore shouldn’t be trusted. Erickson often expands upon already misogynistic sources as well, presuming a level of knowledge into Anne’s thoughts that is as improbable as anything else. Anne “must” have had lots of lovers before Henry, we just don’t have their names because she was so good at hiding it, the proof? People at the time called Anne a “whore”, ergo, whore (I am quoting her liberal use of “whore” here, the general language towards women in this books is, unpleasant to say the least). Francis I who had no particular reason to be fond of Anne called her sister a “whore”, therefore Anne must be one just like her sister. Apart from the complete acceptance of Francis I’s (very unreliable) word - Erickson paints women as either Madonna or whore throughout the text - and inherent misogyny, this makes zero sense?
Erickson presumes a bunch of things based on no source but, trust me bro. Wyatt and Anne definitely had a sexual relationship (prior to her being with Henry), the proof, Anne was “sensual”. Erickson also uses the poem “whoso list to hunt” as proof of their sexual relationship, which is a wild misinterpretation given that the Anne metaphor in that literally has the words “noli me tangere” (you cannot touch me) emblazoned on her. Similar shoddy sourcing is given for everything, apparently in the French court of Francis I every, and I mean every, woman had affairs, and often got killed by their husbands, any names of these individuals? Nah, just a book written decades later during the French wars of Religion, by someone not alive at the time, but his mum was a courtier so he is definitely the only trustworthy source here?
Just, I can’t even explain how shoddy this book is, rather than relying on biased misogynistic sourcing, Erickson decides there isn’t enough and needs to make up her own! This is historical castigation dressed up as non fiction, you can dislike historical women if you like, but this feels like an unpleasant and sexist hit piece based on very little evidence.
Sorry this is so long! This book honestly just got me feeling extremely heated.
The sourcing here is atrocious, sources are left unexamined, and unreliable sources are often accepted without question. Any source that is anti-Anne Boleyn is automatically accepted without question, anything that has anything “nice” to say about her is an attempt to “save” her reputation and therefore shouldn’t be trusted. Erickson often expands upon already misogynistic sources as well, presuming a level of knowledge into Anne’s thoughts that is as improbable as anything else. Anne “must” have had lots of lovers before Henry, we just don’t have their names because she was so good at hiding it, the proof? People at the time called Anne a “whore”, ergo, whore (I am quoting her liberal use of “whore” here, the general language towards women in this books is, unpleasant to say the least). Francis I who had no particular reason to be fond of Anne called her sister a “whore”, therefore Anne must be one just like her sister. Apart from the complete acceptance of Francis I’s (very unreliable) word - Erickson paints women as either Madonna or whore throughout the text - and inherent misogyny, this makes zero sense?
Erickson presumes a bunch of things based on no source but, trust me bro. Wyatt and Anne definitely had a sexual relationship (prior to her being with Henry), the proof, Anne was “sensual”. Erickson also uses the poem “whoso list to hunt” as proof of their sexual relationship, which is a wild misinterpretation given that the Anne metaphor in that literally has the words “noli me tangere” (you cannot touch me) emblazoned on her. Similar shoddy sourcing is given for everything, apparently in the French court of Francis I every, and I mean every, woman had affairs, and often got killed by their husbands, any names of these individuals? Nah, just a book written decades later during the French wars of Religion, by someone not alive at the time, but his mum was a courtier so he is definitely the only trustworthy source here?
Just, I can’t even explain how shoddy this book is, rather than relying on biased misogynistic sourcing, Erickson decides there isn’t enough and needs to make up her own! This is historical castigation dressed up as non fiction, you can dislike historical women if you like, but this feels like an unpleasant and sexist hit piece based on very little evidence.
Sorry this is so long! This book honestly just got me feeling extremely heated.
June 20, 2019
Zpočátku se nepříjemně protnula moje představa a realita. Myslela jsem, že beru do ruky historický román, ale to byl omyl. Jedná se o knihu faktickou. Moje rozčarování po prvních stránkách zmizelo a přestože jsem byla připravená na jiný druh příběhu, rychle jsem se dokázala přizpůsobit a ponořit do minulosti.
V nedávné době jsem četla mnoho knih od Alison Weir, která se soustředí na stejnou tematiku a přirozeně jsem porovnávala své dojmy. Zvláštní je, že ačkoliv si autorky v ničem zásadním neodporují a na věc jako takovou mají podobný náhled měla jsem při čtení úplně jiné dojmy. Určitě bych neřekla, že Weirová nějak přikrášluje realitu. Naopak čtenáři velmi podrobně a poctivě podává veškerá dostupná svědectví, nabízí východiska těchto situací, přibližuje tehdejší druh smýšlení, morálky a stavu věcí, což je nám dnes nesmírně cizí, jsme dnes úplně jinde. U knih Alison Weir mám rozechvělý a uctivý dojem, že tudorovská Anglie byla světem okázalé nádhery, rozkvetlých zahrad a nekončících zábav. S knihou Carolly Erickson mám husí kůži způsobenou zhnusením při pomyšlení na to, kolik špíny (fyzické i psychické) za tím divadélkem krásy, strojenosti a počestnosti skrývá. Nechápejte mě špatně; pochopitelně vím moc dobře, že postoj středověku k hygieně byl odlišný ;) Stejně tak neříkám, že Weirová podala vše v pohádkových barvách, i ona na tato témata naráží. Ale Ericksonová to do knihy pustila naplno. Postavy krále a Anny vychází z tohoto díla ve značně nelichotivých barvách.
Při čtení jsem se dozvěděla několik nových informací, což je velmi příjemné a mile překvapující. Mrzelo mě, že autorka některé skutečnosti více nerozvedla, ale alespoň jsem nucena dohledat to jinde a třeba se tak dozvědět něco dalšího.
Za mě velmi dobrá kniha, doporučuji.
V nedávné době jsem četla mnoho knih od Alison Weir, která se soustředí na stejnou tematiku a přirozeně jsem porovnávala své dojmy. Zvláštní je, že ačkoliv si autorky v ničem zásadním neodporují a na věc jako takovou mají podobný náhled měla jsem při čtení úplně jiné dojmy. Určitě bych neřekla, že Weirová nějak přikrášluje realitu. Naopak čtenáři velmi podrobně a poctivě podává veškerá dostupná svědectví, nabízí východiska těchto situací, přibližuje tehdejší druh smýšlení, morálky a stavu věcí, což je nám dnes nesmírně cizí, jsme dnes úplně jinde. U knih Alison Weir mám rozechvělý a uctivý dojem, že tudorovská Anglie byla světem okázalé nádhery, rozkvetlých zahrad a nekončících zábav. S knihou Carolly Erickson mám husí kůži způsobenou zhnusením při pomyšlení na to, kolik špíny (fyzické i psychické) za tím divadélkem krásy, strojenosti a počestnosti skrývá. Nechápejte mě špatně; pochopitelně vím moc dobře, že postoj středověku k hygieně byl odlišný ;) Stejně tak neříkám, že Weirová podala vše v pohádkových barvách, i ona na tato témata naráží. Ale Ericksonová to do knihy pustila naplno. Postavy krále a Anny vychází z tohoto díla ve značně nelichotivých barvách.
Při čtení jsem se dozvěděla několik nových informací, což je velmi příjemné a mile překvapující. Mrzelo mě, že autorka některé skutečnosti více nerozvedla, ale alespoň jsem nucena dohledat to jinde a třeba se tak dozvědět něco dalšího.
Za mě velmi dobrá kniha, doporučuji.
January 13, 2021
Questa biografia ha uno stile molto narrativo, come lo è del resto lo stile di Carolly Erikson. La storia di Anna Bolena è stata trasmessa essenzialmente da fonti ostili al personaggio, a differenza di quanto emerge dalle altre regine consorti come Caterina d'Aragona e da Jane Seymour (la quale ha una fama completamente positiva grazie alla Bolena, che altro non è che un precedente molto negativo). La biografia attinge a un corollario di documenti molto scarno. La personalità della regina emerge nelle reinterpretazioni dei suoi detrattori, che la descrivono in modo molto negativo.
Su queste basi, è molto difficile produrre una biografia oggettiva, ma l'autrice riesce almeno in parte nell'intento, e non è una cosa da poco. Onestamente ho trovato questa lettura molto interessante perché descrive una donna caparbia,ambiziosa, che alla fine viene lasciata al suo destino non appena non serve più. Ho apprezzato questa biografia perché rende bene l'immagine di una donna non simpatica, non piacevole, piena di difetti, ma umana...il che non è poco.
Su queste basi, è molto difficile produrre una biografia oggettiva, ma l'autrice riesce almeno in parte nell'intento, e non è una cosa da poco. Onestamente ho trovato questa lettura molto interessante perché descrive una donna caparbia,ambiziosa, che alla fine viene lasciata al suo destino non appena non serve più. Ho apprezzato questa biografia perché rende bene l'immagine di una donna non simpatica, non piacevole, piena di difetti, ma umana...il che non è poco.
August 3, 2022
Disclaimer: I know NOTHING about the Tudors and have zero interest in verifying the factual accuracy of Erickson’s writing.
I picked this book up at an estate sale. Little whispers told me I had once learned something about Anne Boleyn, King Henry’s plot(s) to divorce Queen Katherine and remarry, and the fissures between church & state. Must have been a college Brit Lit class. At any rate, the cover piqued my interest and it was $1.
My rating is because I never knew I could be interested in a whole ass book on the Tudors! This is a credit, entirely, to Erickson’s writing. The book is engaging and speculative, even juicy at times. I felt like I was getting the tea on some inner sanctum gossip. The political machinery is fascinating and I thought Erickson did a good job of keeping tabs on all the different players while also helping the reader keep everyone straight.
Is this a comprehensive history? Doubtful. But that’s precisely why it was able to be a more engaging read, IMO. What should I read next that hits in a similar way??
I picked this book up at an estate sale. Little whispers told me I had once learned something about Anne Boleyn, King Henry’s plot(s) to divorce Queen Katherine and remarry, and the fissures between church & state. Must have been a college Brit Lit class. At any rate, the cover piqued my interest and it was $1.
My rating is because I never knew I could be interested in a whole ass book on the Tudors! This is a credit, entirely, to Erickson’s writing. The book is engaging and speculative, even juicy at times. I felt like I was getting the tea on some inner sanctum gossip. The political machinery is fascinating and I thought Erickson did a good job of keeping tabs on all the different players while also helping the reader keep everyone straight.
Is this a comprehensive history? Doubtful. But that’s precisely why it was able to be a more engaging read, IMO. What should I read next that hits in a similar way??
September 13, 2025
Carolly Erickson ha scritto ottime biografie storiche e io amo leggere i suoi libri. Questo saggio su Anna Bolena è l'ultimo, in ordine cronologico, dei suoi scritti sui Tudor ed è il più debole. La mia idea è che lo abbia pubblicato utilizzando il materiale che aveva raccolto per i precedenti studi su Enrico VIII, Maria ed Elisabetta e che non abbia fatto approfondimenti specifici e mirati sulla figura di Anna Bolena. Penso anche che una storica statunitense, come era Carolly Erickson, non avesse il "sacro fuoco" che pervade gli studiosi britannici riguardo ad un vero e proprio mito nazionale come questo. Detto ciò, il libro scorre molto bene, narrato come un romanzo, senza note e rimandi in appendice. Per chi ha già letto altri saggi sull'argomento funge da compendio e ripasso, per cui ho scelto di ascoltarlo in audiolibro. Ottima la voce narrante, molto espressiva, di Michele Maggiore. Unico appunto: la pronuncia errata del nome "Chapuys", che deve essere francese e non inglese.
February 5, 2020
I don't know if you would call this a biography, but it was basically the story of Anne Boleyn's rise to power and her fall from power. It used a lot of factual data while yet developing the feelings that Anne may have had. It showed how she could be quite haughty and yet very insecure and frightened. She actually seemed a bit too modern a woman for her day. You can see why the people didn't really like her and flocked to Katherine, who actually seemed a bit more savvy of the way things were. She actually seemed very self-centered. However, her end is very tragic. It mainly happened, because of the vanity of a king and the greed of his councillors more than it did because of any wrongdoing by Anne.
July 26, 2024
In the first chapter (which is only 9 pages long) alone, Erickson refers to Anne Boleyn as a "dark child" five times! One of the times she makes a reference to her "unfortunate coloring." I get that for the time Anne was darker than the norm but this is truly excessive. And the whole extra finger thing... I thought it sounded familiar and then after coming here to read the reviews, I do remember learning about this untrue "fact" used by people who disliked Anne. Reading the reviews and seeing that people said the author herself was biased against Anne is disheartening and can also be seen from the first chapter of this book. I was so excited to check this out of my local library today but will be returning it tomorrow.
May 16, 2017
I really enjoyed reading about Anne Boleyn but I wished that Carolly Erickson started the novel off at the beginning of her life, where she was born and her early life with out mentioning King Henry VIII at all. The fact that she started it off when she is heading to France with Princess Mary Tudor (King Henry's sister) to be married to the very much older King Louis XII felt like she just didn't know where to start and decided to just drop us right in the middle of know where.
My younger sister loves Erickson and I understand why she knows how to write and knows her stuff hence why she has a PHD in medieval history. I'll be sure to pick up another book of hers soon.
My younger sister loves Erickson and I understand why she knows how to write and knows her stuff hence why she has a PHD in medieval history. I'll be sure to pick up another book of hers soon.
October 28, 2023
Why write a whole book about Anne if you like … hate her so much?
2 minutes of her demise and death, endless narrative about her time at French court tarting about.
No mention really of how she influenced the reformation? And about her strong religious beliefs?
I’m no history expert but this just felt a bit … cacky poo farts and lacking in any real evidence.
2 stars for the way it’s written. Quite narrative-like for non-fiction which I appreciated.
2 minutes of her demise and death, endless narrative about her time at French court tarting about.
No mention really of how she influenced the reformation? And about her strong religious beliefs?
I’m no history expert but this just felt a bit … cacky poo farts and lacking in any real evidence.
2 stars for the way it’s written. Quite narrative-like for non-fiction which I appreciated.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews