|
|
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Certainly intriguing, 22 Nov 2003
There is no denying that Professor Warnicke's book has an almost revolutionary outlook on both the rise and fall of Anne Boleyn. The key areas in which Warnicke's thesis challenges conventional historical opinion on Anne Boleyn's life are on the subjects of her date of birth, physical appearance and fall from power.It has to be said that for the first part of the book, Warnicke is remarkably successful. She convincingly demonstrates that the current historical belief that Anne Boleyn was born sometime around 1501 is incorrect, and that the more likely date is 1507. Similarly, few can dispute her arguments that refute the age-old rumours of certain deformities (namely the infamous sixth finger/extra nail and warts.) However, it is in her assessment of Anne Boleyn's demise that Professor Warnicke disappoints. Her entire thesis is based on the assumption that Anne Boleyn gave birth to a deformed foetus in early 1536, something that led to her arrest on charges of witchcraft, incest and adultery in May of that year. She also alleges that the men arrested with her were known homosexuals, something that allowed their 16th-century contemporaries to accuse them of gross sexual indecency. However, there is almost no evidence at all that Anne Boleyn's "lovers" were homosexuals, indeed some of them were active womanisers. The evidence for the deformed foetus idea is also disappointingly scarce, and Warnicke bases much of her idea on 'ifs' and a kind of 'if A happened, then B,C,D and E must also have happened' mentality, often disregarding evidence that she finds inconvienient. She latches onto a comment made in the virulently anti-Boleyn work of Nicolas Sander, who Warnicke spent the rest of her book discrediting (and very convincingly, it has to be said.) Therefore, it seems utterly ludicrous that she should suddenly place such emphasis on his comments that alleged Anne Boleyn gave birth to a "shapeless mass" in January 1536. Other areas of the book are disappointing. It is at times dry and ponderously academic. Warnicke also fails to place enough emphasis on Anne Boleyn's role in religion and instead focuses on "harem politics" at the king's court, whilst ignoring the wider socio-economic impact of the king's marriage. Nonetheless, despite these draw-backs, Warnicke's work on the rise of Anne Boleyn should be commended - even if her work on the fall remains seriously questionable.
|