Retha

What’s Up with “Made of” and “Made from”?

Good question, Retha. 

Let’s look at the following sentences to see what the difference is:

In the first example, the house is “made of” LEGO bricks, which means that the LEGO bricks are still LEGO bricks. They didn’t stop being LEGO bricks in the process of becoming a house.

But in the second example, the juice is “made from” grapes, which means that the grapes are no longer grapes 🍇; they have been transformed into a liquid form: juice. 🍷

Here is one more example:

The pearls are still pearls, so the purse is “made of” them. 👛

Sometimes, people ask, “What are you made of?” We reply, “Courage,” “hope,” “strength,” “love,” etc., meaning that each of these qualities remain intact within us. (💁🏻‍♂️ We could also respond with “organs,” “bones,” and “muscles,” since they also remain intact within us.)

We hope this answers your question. 👍🏻

8

the reign of the tudors  ♦ anne boleyn’s execution

Anne Boleyn, Queen consort of England, was charged with acts of treason and adultery and was executed on 19 may,1536.Why did England’s King Henry VIII, who risked his reputation and kingdom in order to marry her, have his beloved wife and queen charged with acts of treason and adultery, which swiftly led to her execution in May of 1536? According to Hester Chapman, an English historical biographer, the world in which Anne Boleyn lived was like that of a “…snake‐pit, of which nearly all the occupants were venomous…” In her 1974 book,The Challenge of Anne Boleyn, Chapman describes a sinister milieu without regard for the truth or kindness, and in which Anne herself was one of the major players.According to Chapman,Thomas Cromwell, concerned with the succession since Henry had no legitimate male heir by Anne, devised a plan to bring about “…Anne’s destruction.” Chapman asserts that Cromwell, knowing that if Anne was charged with “high treason,” there would be no escape.Chapman explains that during this time, those unfortunate enough to be charged with high treason were not allowed to have someone represent them, not allowed to interrogate any “witnesses”, nor allowed to see the proof of the alleged crime.The jurors themselves were not allowed to inquire about the validity of the supposed facts, or they themselves could be imprisoned. A guilty verdict was absolute.Through “bribery and threats,” as well as information freely given from her many enemies,Cromwell obtained the required evidence that he needed to make a damning case against Anne.Chapman asserts that Mark Smeaton, the court musician, only declared guilt because he was promised he would later be set free if he admitted to “carnal knowledge” with Anne.When Henry was told of the matter and shown the evidence, Chapman asserts that Henry was aghast, but believed the charges.Chapman concluded in her epilogue that, while Anne was innocent, there should be no “question of blame.”The King, Chapman claims, was bound by law to endorse her “death‐warrant.” While most historians share common themes or focus on the key players, Retha M. Warnicke, asserts in her 1989 book,The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII, that the primary reason for the fall of Anne Boleyn was that Anne gave birth to a deformed fetus in January of 1536.  According to Warnicke, most Europeans during this time believed in demons and witches, and that “…witches gave birth to deformed children…and committed incest.In conclusion,this was all a bad timing for Anne Boleyn,surrounded by such lies ,it only took her step by step closer to the grave.

Is meditation part of your practice? Do you want to learn how? At #Trappin101 you’ll meet Retha Fernandez! She’s a Chopra Cerfitifed Instructor that specializes in personal development through mindfulness and meditation instruction.
Retha is owner of Soul of Long Island, LLC (SOLI) a lifestyle company with a mission to promote mindful living at work, at school and in the home. Guiding others to live happily, to experience and do the things they thought were unachievable is her mission! JOIN US THIS SATURDAY.
#LinkInBio #RethaFernandez #grillzandgranola #SheDaresCo #TrapAerobics #meditation

2

Everything Wrong with Philippa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl

It’s no secret that most Anne Boleyn fans (and, for that matter, Tudor history fans) have serious issues with Philippa Gregory and her historical fiction novels. The biggest reason for this being that Gregory is almost single-handedly responsible for perpetuating and reinforcing Anne Boleyn’s image as a scheming “bad girl” into the twenty-first century. This image is nothing new - it began with Anne’s own contemporaries (most notably the imperial ambassador, Eustace Chapuys.) This image is problematic, however, because it is based mostly on concocted fictions. So, rather than bashing Gregory’s historical and literary ineptitude (and trust me, I’d love to), I’ll just stick to providing a list of major problems with one of her more famous novels, The Other Boleyn Girl.

The Book:

  • There is no evidence that Anne Boleyn stole Henry VIII from her sister, Mary Boleyn. The king’s affair with Mary ended long before he began to pursue Anne.
  • There is no evidence that Anne had sex with her brother, George Boleyn, in order to conceive a child. Although Anne and George were found guilty of incest in 1536, the evidence used at their trial has been almost universally discounted as faulty and invented.
  • It is unlikely that Mary’s two children - Catherine and Henry Carey - were the king’s offspring. Henry was born after the affair is believed to have ended. Also, it is likely that - had the children been his - the king would have recognized them publicly. At the time, Henry VIII was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Any proof that he could conceive a child with another woman would have been further damning evidence against his marriage to the queen. The king did not, however, recognize Mary’s children, as he had with Bessie Blount’s son, Henry Fitzroy.
  • There is no evidence that George Boleyn and Jane Parker had an unhappy marriage, or that he was homosexual.
  • Mary Boleyn was not the innocent, virginal sister. We have no evidence of Anne’s supposed sexual escapades in France, but there were rumors that Mary may have had an affair with Francis I.
  • There is no evidence that Anne gave birth to a deformed fetus. Although historian Retha Warnicke argues that this is true, the only source that states this is Nicolas Sander, who was not even alive in 1536. No contemporary source reported that the baby was deformed - despite many reasons for doing so. Ambassador Chapuys, who was very observant of everything to do with the king’s “concubine,” didn’t state that Anne’s miscarriage was abnormal. Most of all, Thomas Cromwell and the king (who, months later, were building a case against Anne), did not mention it. Considering sixteenth-century belief on pregnancy (in which the mother was usually blamed for problems with conception), this bit of evidence would have helped seal Anne’s fate.
  • There is no evidence of any rivalry between the Boleyn sisters. There is also no evidence of a planned conspiracy by the Boleyn family to make either of the sisters the king’s mistress.

The Movie:

  • There is no evidence (and it is extremely unlikely) that Henry VIII raped Anne Boleyn.
  • Mary Boleyn did not raise Princess Elizabeth after Anne’s death.
  • Henry and Anne’s marriage did not turn sour after she gave birth to a girl in 1533. There are many reports that the two were affectionate and still very much in love throughout most of their marriage.
  • Anne was not exiled to France after attempting to marry Henry Percy. She served at the French court from a young age, and only met Percy after returning to England in the 1520s.

anonymous asked:

What would of happened if Mary stuart and Francis II of france had a son/other children who would unite Scotland and France. Would they have successfully conquered England?

I must say that I am not sure that the union of King Francis II of France and Mary Queen of Scots could produce any children. It seems that Francis didn’t even hit puberty by the time of his death, which effectively means that Mary is unlikely to have been pregnant during their short marriage.

Francis and Mary’s marriage might have never been consummated, but we cannot know that for certain. According to contemporary sources, there was a bedding ceremony, but nobody knows what happened behind closed doors. This situation reminds me of Catherine of Aragon’s marriage to Prince Arthur, because in this case we will never know whether they slept together or not.

Francis was abnormally short, and he also stuttered while Mary was an excellent conversationalist and was eloquent. His health was very fragile while hers thrived. In addition, he was very inexperienced at 14-16, which didn’t make it easier for him to perform his husbandly duties. Definitely charmed by his wife, the young king might have tried to take Mary’s maidenhead, but, most likely, he failed. I think that they were engaged in some sort of connubial activity, but I doubt that they had full intercourse.

In Retha Warnicke writes about Mary Queen of Scots in Mary’s biography:

“In the early hours of the morning at the Hôtel of Guise, the royal family bedded down the bride and groom, as custom dictated. Scholars have assumed that the chronically ill and physically immature 14-year old dauphin was incapable of consummating the marriage and had probably not done so at his death in December 1560 when he was still 16. Even so, as Mary and her relatives deemed divine intervention necessary for conception, they could petition God to bless this union and make it fruitful. During their short marriage, two interesting but contradictory rumors, both of which lack confirmation, circulated concerning their marital relationship: some diplomats claimed she would never be able to bear children while others surmised that she had a miscarriage.”

Francis died young, at 16, and his health was deteriorating rapidly during the last months of their marriage. Even if we assume that they were intimate and he was able to take her virtue, they might have needed more time so that Mary could conceive. If Francis’ health was really as awful as some historical sources claim, they might have never had children.

However, I tend to think that Francis’ death at young age curtailed the couple’s chances to have children. Maybe if he was older than 16 at the time of his death, he would have reached puberty and Mary could have been pregnant at least once; then she might have had at least one child with him.

In the television series “Reign”, Francis is certainly not like an actual historical character – King Francis II of France. It is said that Francis’ health was fragile in childhood, but he is a healthy young man who had several mistresses throughout the series and who was quite happily married to Mary for some time. He doesn’t even resemble the historical Francis II of France, which surely makes it more appealing and fascinating for the show’s fans. That’s why you shouldn’t think that if Mary and Francis were intimate many times in “Reign”, they also were sexually active in real history.

Francis II was King Consort of Scotland as a result of his marriage to Mary from 1558 until his death. So if Mary and Francis’s marriage hadn’t been childless, their son – if they had a son – would have inherited the crowns of France and Scotland. However, I wouldn’t be bold enough to say that this child could conquer England because we cannot be sure that he would have lived to adulthood and because I cannot believe that England under Queen Elizabeth I could have been conquered by anyone.

ylva-stark  asked:

If you could venture a guess what month do you think Anne Boleyn could have been born in? Thanks for reading!

Anne’s birth year and the place of her birth are shrouded in the thick mist of history. They have long become topics of lively debate amongst Tudor historians. We also don’t know where Anne was born, but it is likely that she was born at Blickling Hall in Norfolk, for the property had been in the Boleyn family since its purchase by Sir Geoffrey Boleyn in 1452, and it passed to Sir Thomas Boleyn when he married.

It is generally accepted that Anne Boleyn was born between 1501 and 1507, though some historians put forward 1499 as the year of Anne’s birth.

In the biography “Anne Boleyn: A new life of England’s tragic Queen,” Joanna Denny wrote that Anne Boleyn was ‘born most probably in the early summer of 1501’. In his infamous book “The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn”, Eric Ives wrote that Anne was born in 1501 beyond question. Alison Weir, in her book “The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn” and in several other books, stated with confidence that Anne was born in 1501.

Why do so many renowned historians think that Anne Boleyn was born circa 1501?

One of the pieces of evidence about Anne’s birth in 1501 is the letter which she wrote to her father Thomas Boleyn in 1514, in which she thanked him for sending her to the court of the Court Archduchess Margaret in the Low Countries and promised to be an obedient and humble daughter and take advantage of all the opportunities offered at the court.

The text of the original letter in French is given below:

In his book “the Life of Anne Boleyn” Philip W. Sergeant translated Anne’s letter into English:

“Sir, – I understand by your letter that you desire that I shall be a worthy woman when I come to the Court and you inform me that the Queen will take the trouble to converse with me, which rejoices me much to think of talking with a person so wise and worthy. This will make me have greater desire to continue to speak French well and also spell, especially because you have so enjoined it on me, and with my own hand I inform you that I will observe it the best I can. Sir, I beg you to excuse me if my letter is badly written, for I assure you that the orthography is from my own understanding alone, while the others were only written by my hand, and Semmonet tells me the letter but waits so that I may do it myself, for fear that it shall not be known unless I acquaint you, and I pray you that the light of [?] may not be allowed to drive away the will which you say you have to help me, for it seems to me that you are sure [??] you can, if you please, make me a declaration of your word, and concerning me be certain that there shall be neither [??] nor ingratitude which might check or efface my affection, which is determined to [?] as much unless it shall please you to order me, and I promise you that my love is based on such great strength that it will never grow less, and I will make an end to my [?] after having commended myself right humbly to your good grace.

Written at [?Veure] by                      

Your very humble and very obedient daughter,

Anna de Boullan.”

Many historians think that this letter proves the fact of Anne’s birth circa 1501. 

The argument in favor of this opinion is that Anne’s handwriting cannot belong to a toddler. Her handwriting is small and confident, and her lines are quite remarkably spaced, which cannot be achieved by seven years olds. There are lengthy and complex sentences in the letter, even though Anne made some errors and then made corrections that were not clumsy. 

The idea is that if Anne were seven when she wrote this letter, her handwriting and the grammar patters would have been different, or perhaps she wouldn’t have been able to write in French, her second language, so well at all.

In his book “The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn”, Eric Ives wrote about Anne Boleyn’s age:

“In 1981, however, the art historian Hugh Paget successfully demonstrated that the letter was written in 1513 when Anne Boleyn left England to become a maid of honour in the court at Brussels, a position which was open to a 12- or 13-year-old.55 His conclusion has been challenged but is established beyond question because Anne’s letter is self-evidently in the formed hand of at least a teenager (plate 14).56 The correct date for Anne’s birth is therefore circa 1501. This means that she was significantly older than is usually imagined. The domestic triangle which developed in 1527 was between a 36-year-old king, a wife over 40 and a mature woman of 26, not a girl of 19 or 20. Similarly, in the spring of 1536 Anne was not rejected by Henry when she was, as Catholic tradition has it, less than 29, but as a possibly ageing 35, while her supplanter, Jane Seymour, was, at 27, marginally older than Anne had been when challenging Katherine for the first time.57 The gossip that credited Henry with a taste for younger women was evidently ill informed.”

There is one very important thing about education in the Tudor period we cannot forget. Nobles who invested in their children’s education wanted them to start studying at early age, so that they could show accomplishments and prove their capabilities at early age, which was especially important in the age of shorter life expectancy.

Elizabeth Tudor, Anne’s daughter, had a reputation for proficiency in foreign languages since she was very young. For example, she translated “Le miroir de l’ame pecheresse” (“The Mirror (Glass) of the Sinful Soul”) as a gift for her stepmother Catherine Parr when she was about ten. 

One personal thing: my French was already flawless by age of ten!

Why cannot Anne display high level of proficiency in foreign languages, in our case in French, in writing this letter to her father? Anne was tutored since she was very young, and it is very likely that Thomas Boleyn, an ambitious and intelligent courtier, invested in her education even before she departed to the Low Countries. Perhaps Anne could already speak or write in French a little bit when she arrived in Brussels.

My conclusion is that we cannot say for sure that this letter cannot be written by a seven-year-old child as there are examples of other children, the first one coming to my mind being Anne’s daugher Elizabeth, writing structured and relatively well written letters in foreign languages at young ages.

It is interesting that Thomas Boleyn referred to Anne as “la petite Boulaine” in a letter to Margaret of Austria in 1514! If Anne was born in 1501, then how could he refer to her in this way? It seems to me that Anne was probably a toddler in 1514. 

In her article “Anne Boleyn’s Childhood and Adolescence”, Retha Warnicke also argues that Thomas Boleyn would not refer to a 13 year old girl in this way. 

Later, Margaret of Austria wrote a letter to Anne’s father that Anne was “so pleasant for her young age that I {Margaret} am more beholden to you for sending her, than you are to me.”

There are two sources that don’t support the idea of Anne Boleyn’s birth in 15o1. Though they are not accounts from Anne’s lifetime, these sources come from the people who could have such information about her.

Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria and a personal friend of Mary I, dictated her memoirs to her English secretary, Henry Clifford. 

In these memoirs, there is something interesting about the executions of Anne Boleyn and her alleged lovers:

“Lord George Bullen, Viscount Rochfort, Francis Weston, Henry Norris, William Brereton and Mark Sweton, a  musician, all of the Privy Chamber, for which they all suffered death. Three days after that Anne Bullen herself was beheaded on 14th May, 1536, the Duke of Norfolk sitting High Steward.  She was convicted and condemned by twenty-six peers, whereof her father was one, who shortly after died of grief. She was not twenty-nine years of age.”

Jane Dormer was born two years after Anne’s death, and, therefore, this source may seem to be unreliable

Nevertheless, we know that Jane Dormer served as Mary Tudor’s lady-in-waiting for about twenty years and she was also her personal friend. Mary hated Anne Boleyn and always spoke about her with hatred, and it is very likely that she shared her memories about Anne with the ladies who were close to her. 

With age, Mary accumulated much bitterness in herself because her life wasn’t improving; she was not very happy in personal life even when she became queen. Here I see a solid case in favor of Mary telling Jane Dormer her recollections about Anne’ life, including Anne’s age.

In the end of the 16h century, William Camden, an English antiquarian, historian, writer, topographer, and herald, began to write the biography about Queen Elizabeth I with the permission and blessing of the English government. 

In the sections devoted to Elizabeth’s early life, Camden wrote in the margin that Anne had been born in 1507, and he could have excellent access to the original sources, perhaps better access than his contemporaries. Some may say that Camden is an unreliable source of information because he later commented that Anne had been twenty when the king (aged thirty-eight) had fallen in love with her, which changes her date of birth to 1509.

Anyway, William Camden points to the later dates than 1501, and at least his assertion about the 1507 date of Anne’s birth cannot be simply dismissed.

Gareth Russell wrote a fabulous article “The Age of Anne Boleyn”. The article can be found in Internet, but I want to present one important excerpt here:

“Examining all the evidence impartially it is impossible, I think, to accept that Anne Boleyn was born as early as 1500 or 1501. Any piece of evidence that has been put forward to support the idea that she was born at the turn-of-the-century can be refuted, once common sense is applied to the problem… Independently of one another and with absolute certainty, Jane Dormer and William Camden both stated that Anne Boleyn had been born in 1507 and to my mind there is no evidence whatsoever that has yet come to light which contradicts them.”

Gareth Russell also gives two very valuable arguments in favor of Anne being born in 1507

Firstly, Anne was escorted from Hever Castle to the Low Countries by a man, Claude Bouton, not by a female companion, which would have been proper only if Anne was a toddler at the time of her travel to Brussels. Secondly, Anne caught the king’s eye in 1525 or 1526 when she was still unmarried, and the birth date of 1501 would have made her an old maid by the standards of the time. So it seems logical that Anne was younger than 25-26 and, thus, was probably born circa 1507.

I tend to agree with Gareth Russell, considering that Anne was most likely born in 1507. However, we cannot say for certain that it was the case. 

But maybe it’s better if some mysteries in history are never unveiled?

Sources:

www.theanneboleynfiles.com, Claire Ridgway’s blog

The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, Eric Ives

The Age of Anne Boleyn, article by Gareth Russell

Anne Boleyn’s Childhood and Adolescence, article by Retha Warnicke