Letting the Sources Speak: A Review of Alison Weir’s “Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn”

On 1 May 1536 Anne Boleyn and her husband Henry VIII attended the merry May Day jousts. At some point in the afternoon Henry got up and left. It was the last time Anne saw her husband–she died 19 days later, her abrupt fall still breathtaking even from a distance of 500 years.

Alison Weir’s magnificent biography focuses on the last month of Anne’s life and the events leading up to the charges of adultery and incest for which she was beheaded. Weir’s painstaking research is evident: the book examines every angle and cites source bias, credibility, and access to defend her analysis.

Weir first looks at how rocky was the marriage between Anne and Henry? Answer – quite rocky, given Henry’s sudden desire for an alliance with the Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor; Anne’s recent miscarriage; Henry’s dalliance with Jane Seymour, among other factors. But it was not necessarily doomed—in fact, Henry and Anne had a trip to Calais planned for early May that was only cancelled one week before its scheduled date.

Second, Weir looks at the various accusations against Anne, for example that she was a witch, a whore, a harlot… and again debunks these characterizations. Anne was, however, unpopular with the people and increasingly at Court. In April 1536 she still had supporters at Court, although she had alienated many over the years—including her Uncle the powerful Duke of Norfolk and of course the gossipy Eustace Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador and, fatally, Thomas Cromwell.

Third, who orchestrated Anne’s downfall? It is usually portrayed as something Henry was complicit in, yet Weir suggests Cromwell, at odds with Anne over religion, disbursement of the booty from the dissolution of the monasteries, orchestrated the events beginning in mid-April 1536, and did it so well that the Boleyn faction at court did not know what hit them. The coup itself was not planned until mid-April, which seems such a short time to prepare the “evidence.” Once initial findings were compiled, Henry VIII—sometime in the third week of April—asked for further investigation.

New light is cast on the other victims: Smeaton, Brereton, Weston, Norris and Anne’s brother, Lord Rochford. Each of these men had done something to upset Cromwell and his cronies. The reader comes to understand that there was rhyme and reason to the men who were selected as Anne’s co-adulterers, whose lifestyles made them easy targets for Cromwell.

Could Anne have been guilty? Weir also considers the deathbed confession from Bridget Wiltshire, Lady Wingfield may have been the first evidence that led to Anne’s downfall. In other words, Cromwell may have fabricated most, but there was perhaps a kernel of truth, enough to build upon.

Weir’s books are always compelling reading, because not only does she write clearly and engagingly, but she weighs the facts in evidence and consider the bias of multiple sources, and lets the sources speak. For example Spanish Ambassador Eustace Chapuys wrote reams of letters about “La Ana” or “The Lady” but he hated her. Weir assesses his reports to his master in light of his bias, and compares them with others. The result is a measured, thoughtful and well-written account of Anne Boleyn’s destruction. It is a must-read for any fan of the Tudors and their times.

“The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn” by Alison Weir (C) 2009 Random House.

Not Just the Facts, But Don’t Forget the Facts

Here it is: I like facts—historical facts, more facts and maybe some logical assumptions or reasonable leaps in historical fiction. And that is the litmus test I apply to the medieval and renaissance historical fiction and non-fiction that I read or watch.

This blog will include—at least in part—reviews of what I consider the best historical fiction, or non-fiction, focused on Europe—particularly England, Scotland, Wales and France in the 15th and 16th centuries. Most reviews will be on books, but I’ll include the odd film or TV show that captures my attention.

In fact, my first blog post focuses on a new US TV show called “Legend Quest” where a Scottish symbologist and archaeologist, Ashley Cowie, and his intrepid producer Kinga go off in search of relics. Not just any relic, mind you, but the most sought-after finds in the history of—well—mankind. The Holy Grail, Solomon’s Spear and Ring, Mayan Talking Cross, Stone of Scone, Excalibur and Merlin’s Tomb & Treasure. Oh yes! and the Ark of the Covenant. To say it is ambitious is an understatement. Cowie tackles two relics per show, which gives him 30 mins of screen time to find each item. How could a history lover not watch? (According to Wikipedia the first show got 1.2 million viewers and boosted the SyFy channel’s ratings by 19%.)

I work as an analyst by day, and I must painstakingly make sure I do not make statements without the facts to substantiate them. Cowie does not seem to get too worried about the details. His leaps of logic completely blow my mind.

In one episode he is looking for Solomon’s Ring, supposedly given by the Archangel Michael to King Solomon to defeat a demon. The seal on the ring—the Star of David—is referred to as the “Seal of Solomon.” It disappeared on the King’s death, no one has seen it since.

Cowie does a nice job of explaining the background of the ring, and how Solomon once threw it to the fishes, before it came back to him (inside a fish). He seizes on the fish symbol and sets about looking for it, or the Star of David. At one point—probably the most annoying part of the show—he looks at a sign of two fishes over a doorway and declares, “This must be the place, here’s the symbol of Jesus (fish) and the symbol of Solomon (fish). Two fishes=the ring.” He eventually decides he believes Solomon’s ring is in the Vatican. Do two fishes=a ring? You tell me.

I’m not saying it isn’t good TV – he leaps down caverns, crawls up hills hither and yon, and clearly has an awesome production budget. But he never finds anything. Nothing. It is like opening an old Cracker Jack box, enjoying the whole box only to find there is NO PRIZE at the end. No Stone of Scone. No Holy Grail. No Spear or Ring. No cross, talking or otherwise. If he found at least one artifact, or debunked one myth, I’d be happier.

The show drives me nuts! (But I admit I’ve seen every episode.) If ever a show put two and two together to get six, it is this show. And perhaps I’d like it better if he put a little less razzle dazzle on the history and a little more history in the history! By contrast, I watch a show with the “British Indiana Jones” Tudor Parfitt, who painstakingly (over 2 hours) sought the Ark of the Covenant and although I do not know I can agree with his conclusions (he’ll be gutted, I know), I did think his logic was sound and some of his assumptions were reasonable.

Ashley Cowie, I ken yer laughing all the way t’the bank and I could listen to you talk all day long, but I wish you’d take a deep breath and talk some sense man! Or FIND SOMETHING and stuff my criticism down my throat! Tonight’s the season finale – I’ll be watching, ever hopeful!

What historical leaps of logic or assumptions do you see in books, blogs, or other media?