quote queen

Heir of Fire page 356

Gods, she had no interest in him like that (HA), and she was certain he had no inclination to take her to his bed, either (HAHA). Maybe it wasn’t just from spending so much time in her Fae body (HAHAHA) that she still felt… Territorial (HAHAHAHA).

Originally posted by rainhagretchen

HUFFLEPUFF: “But what kept them on their feet when there was no sane reason for hope were the bonds between them, loyalty to one another, the knowledge others depended on them even as they depended on those others. And sometimes, all too rarely, it came down to a single person it was simply unthinkable to fail. Someone they knew would never quit on them, never leave them in the lurch.” –David Weber (Honor Harrington: The Honor of the Queen)

anonymous asked:

I find it very telling that H8 later threatened Jane Seymour by implying Anne's downfall was due to her meddling in politics and not the more personal crimes she was put on trial for. Do you think this is the slip of a guilty conscience or that Henry was just trying to save face by this time?

yeah, it’s very interesting. i know a lot of people disagree (and i’m not saying he wasn’t cruel before the accident), but i really do think that jousting accident in 1536 caused some possible…damage to him. i think after it he was more paranoid than he had been before. he had had an accident before that (in the 1520s, iirc) that left him with frequent migraines and headaches for years after, so i think it’s possible the 1536 accident exacerbated the effects of the former as well.

the theory that it was because of her involvement in politics partially is one ives supports (although he thinks cromwell played a bigger hand in it than henry), as well as gareth russell (he believes she was born in 1507, and that given that; her age suggests something more sinister than that she was getting near too old for childbearing):  

“At 28, Anne Boleyn was still undeniably in her childbearing years. Yes, she would have been at the tail-end of them by Tudor standards, but she would have had at least four or five more years before she was considered infertile, and so the idea that it was just her “failure” to produce a son which led to her death in 1536 suddenly becomes a good deal less convincing and the idea that it was her husband who orchestrated her monstrously unfair death becomes infinitely more likely.”

it could have just been a ‘don’t forget you could be replaced’; i’m honestly not sure. here’s what the book i got it from says. 

‘A claim that Anne had died for meddling too much with state affairs would serve as a warming to Jane to cease and desist. Of course, the claim would not actually mean the meddling with affairs of state was the reason for Anne’s execution. Yet Henry’s bringing it up when Jane asked him to restore the abbeys would not have been accidental, for it now can be said that Anne was opposed to the despoiling of the religious houses.’

it’s hard to know what a historic figure felt, but there a few things that may suggest guilt:  by Good Friday 1539, “’he was able to take part in that strange pre-Reformation liturgical rite of ‘crawling to the cross’’”, despite the significant pain and injuries he was suffering from at the time (but then, this could mean nothing– one of the deepest ironies about him creating the church of england is that he was a deeply religious man, devoted enough to the church to be named ‘defender of the faith’, even). he kept items of anne’s in his inventory, and she was referred to as ‘the late quene’ in documentation

and before his last days, there was this exchange:

It was thought also imperative that a man have time to prepare his soul and so Sir Anthony Denny undertook the perilous task of warning his master that ‘in man’s judgement, he was not like to live’ and should remember his sins, ‘as becometh every good Christian man to do’. Henry responded by saying that he believed that Christ in all His mercy would ‘pardon me all my sins, yea, though they were greater than can be’”

sometimes i find myself wondering if some of his actions in his nadir years were influenced not only by dynastic pride but also possibly masochism: 

‘In March 1544, the ulcers on Henry’s legs flared up yet again, confining him to bed with a fever. The royal doctors urged him not to personally lead the 42,000 English troops then being assembled for the Anglo-Spanish invasion of France and his ministers flapped about in the same cause, ever fearful of provoking another of the king’s rages….. The practical and realistic Chapuys urged his imperial master to intervene to persuade Henry against taking to the field of battle, with all the discomforts and inconveniences of campaigning. The emperor sent a special envoy who ‘found Henry so determined upon the voyage that he dared not try to dissuade him’. Once again, with a grim fortitude, Henry recovered and in early June wrote to his ally, promising that he was sufficiently well to embark for Calais ‘where he would resolve whether to go further’. ’ 

of cromwell henry said: ‘on light pretexts, by false accusations, they made me put to death the most faithful servant i ever had.’ how does this tie in w/ anne, i wonder? was cromwell the orchestrator of her downfall, acting as part of a conservative faction, with no influence from henry, as ives suggests? or was he behaving as henry’s ‘most faithful servant’ by orchestrating her downfall at his command?

anyway, sorry. that’s more questions than answers. back to your question: i don’t think it was a slip of a guilty conscience. what i think this encounter demonstrates is really, a stark contrast: he honestly respected anne’s opinions during both their courtship and marriage (up till 1536, or earlier, perhaps) and she influenced him greatly. he more than let her have a say, she was actively involved in architecture and design of certain houses, and an incredibly active queen, politically and otherwise– he would let his current wife stick to her sphere (domestic, her ladies, etc.). he was done, basically, with having women/his spouse ‘meddle in his affairs’.