The Creation of Anne Boleyn

by Susan Bordo

  It may seem like a huge leap to go from rejecting “victim feminism” to behaving like a housewife from hell. But ideas that are ripe for development move fast from conception to materialization in a consumer culture, and as they find their audience, they gather steam. A door is opened, taboos are lifted, something sounds a resonant note with buyers, and within short order, much more is permitted—even celebrated—than would have been dreamed of five years before. Popular culture, with its expert nose for profitable icons and images, skipped quickly from “power feminism” and its proponents to Sex and the City and Ally McBeal, which tested—and demonstrated—that old-fashioned feminism, with its horror of sexual “objectification,” was dead. Get out your short skirts, and show off those legs (shaved, of course)! Then came the Mean Girls books, a whole slew of them, dedicated to demonstrating that girls were just as aggressive as boys, only more underhanded. Desperate Housewives discovered that women plotting against other women would not sell as satire; we wanted our schemers straight up—and, ultimately, with the opportunities provided by reality television, “real.” And then, inevitably, came the self-help books celebrating the “inner bitch,” such as Sherry Argov’s Why Men Love Bitches, which argues that “releasing your inner bitch” can help you land the right male.99

  The headlines of the movie reviews of The Other Boleyn Girl almost all exploited this cultural moment: RIVAL SISTERS DUKE IT OUT FOR THE PASSION OF A KING (the New York Times),100 CATFIGHT IN THE HOUSE OF TUDOR (the Chicago Sun-Times)101, SISTERS FACE OFF IN “OTHER BOLEYN GIRL” (the San Francisco Chronicle).102 The Boston Globe describes the movie as having “the DNA of a ‘Gossip Girl’ episode.”103 Putting the novel in the context of a “power-feminist” celebration of female competitiveness and aggression may also explain why it seems, to Gregory and many of her most devoted readers, that her Anne is not a villainess, but rather—in contrast to earlier novels such as Plaidy’s and Maxwell’s—a bold, assertive, “nonvictim” (or, to put it in currently fashionable academic terms, an “agent”) who, in the final analysis, made her own bed. Explaining part of the success of her books, Gregory says that it’s appealing to readers “to see women empowering themselves with no help at all; they find it immensely inspirational.”104 The fact that this perspective doesn’t square at all with Gregory’s other comments about the triumph of Mary’s goodness over Anne’s ambition doesn’t seem to bother her, as she is equally capable of turning right around and celebrating Anne’s bid for power.

  Despite the gains made by feminism—and I am a feminist and great supporter of equal rights—you look at Anne Boleyn who gets from nowhere to be queen of England, and has the King of England dancing for six years—during which time he turns the history of England upside down in order that he might get into bed with her, and she won’t allow it! You know, that’s a woman who, well, I mean these aren’t wiles, this is campaign-level strategy.105

  “Just say no” as campaign-level strategy! You have to hand it to Philippa Gregory.

  13

  Anne Gets the Last Word (for Now)

  Viral Anne

  DESPITE THE FACT that the splashiest Annes of recent years have tended to reproduce some of the oldest, most negative iconography—the bitch, the schemer, the sexual temptress—they haven’t had the last word. The following is a smattering of comments from some of the members of The Creation of Anne Boleyn Facebook page, a site I created with historian Natalie Sweet in the spring of 2011, chiefly in order to survey young women’s impressions of Anne Boleyn for this book. Through e-mail interviews with girls and women ranging from twelve to twenty-six and on-site postings of questions to which women (and some men) of all ages, nationalities, and “political” persuasions responded, I discovered that Anne is an inspiration for many of this generation.

  Anne was beautiful, a spark of life, a feminist in a time when it was not accepted, a powerful woman. Why am I “obsessed” with her? Because that’s what I want to be. She makes me feel like I could be that, like I have power too.

  She had dreams and visions for her future and she went after what she wanted. And even in the end, knowing she’d pay the ultimate price, she was strong and brave and died boldly. I think that’s admirable in a woman, especially a woman living in such dark, chauvinistic times when men usually determined women’s fates. It’s great to have such a strong woman to look up to.

  She was a nobleman’s daughter, trained to “catch” a husband & to be the chattel of her father & husband. Yet she rose above that training and became a strong, independent woman with opinions of her own . . . Anne is fascinating for her intelligence and determination, and then finally the immense courage and grace with which she met her death.1

  To me Anne is unique because she had such a strong personality and voice at a time when women were essentially bargaining tools. She didn’t fit the societal norm and I think that’s what attracted Henry in the first place but also what made him stray in the end. People see her as either a victim or a vixen, but she was so much more complex than that. She wrote her own story and was uniquely in control of her life which makes her end all the more tragic. I see Anne as an inspiration . . . Her confidence and ambition have really driven me because if she, as a woman, in 1530 could be as much of a force and presence as she was, I can be one in 2011.2

  I am still amazed that she kept Henry VIII waiting for SEVEN YEARS, and refused to be a mistress to him. It’s quite an accomplishment for a woman to do that to a man in the fifteenth century, let alone for a woman to do that to a KING. I also admire her courage and bravery when facing her tragic end. The dignity she displayed in the face of her detractors is quite inspiring to me. She was essentially a powerful, strong, and independent woman in a world where all of those qualities were seen as deplorable for a female to possess. She did not change who she was, even for the king of England! I think Anne was a 21st century spirit born in a 15th century body!3

  I was a relative latecomer to the online community of Tudorphiles, which emerged out of the tentative seedings of longtime Tudor fans and, after The Tudors caught hold, sprouted limbs and shoots all across the Internet. Lara Eakins, whose Tudorhistory.org was among the first, began in 1994 with “a little GIF of Elizabeth I” and a “very simple page about the Tudors.”4 Lara’s initial impulse, as she describes it, was just to share: “Here’s something that interests me.”5 She was surprised when numerous e-mails began arriving, some asking for help with school assignments, but many from people for whom the Tudors had been a secret passion. “I thought I was the only one interested in Tudor history!” wrote some; “My friends and family are tired of me talking about it.”6 Now they would have a place to indulge freely without driving others away. Lara began to suspect that her site had tapped into a community of Tudor fans, each one thinking he or she was the “only one.” Then, the publication of The Other Boleyn Girl turned Anne Boleyn into “one of the biggest topics of interest” among the followers of her Q-and-A page, and “once The Tudors started, the questions started flooding in.”7 Many were interested in sorting out fact from fiction in Gregory’s novel and the television show, and that delighted Lara. “It was nice to know that there is at least some fraction who will dig deeper and try to learn more about the actual history.”8

  As part of the prepublicity for The Tudors, Showtime created a number of websites in 2007, one of which was a wiki—like Wikipedia, a compendium of knowledge built by viewers themselves. In addition to informational postings about the show and Tudor history, the moderators posted questions soliciting readers’ opinions. Discussions ranged from the historical controversies that had engaged longtime Tudor scholars—was Anne born in 1501 or 1507? Did she sleep with her first love, Henry Percy? Was her last stillbirth deformed?—to playful questionnaires such as “If Henry’s wives were alive today, what jobs would they have?” and “What magazines would they read?” Participants, at one point, were asked to submit the question they would most want to ask Anne if she was contacted in a séance. Their questi
ons reveal their personal engagement, even sympathetic identification, with Anne. “Was Henry good in bed?” “Did you really have extra toes and fingers?” “If you had to do your life again would you marry the king if you knew all we know today?” “Do you think you had an impact in your daughter’s life?” “How did you find the strength to endure the trial and imprisonment without any support from your family?” “Did the beheading hurt?”9

  Not everyone was a fan of Anne’s, however. Claire Ridgway, who started The Anne Boleyn Files in 2009, encountered a good deal of hatred of Anne and, by extension, her site. “Being someone who runs an Anne Boleyn site has left me open to abuse, offensive e-mails, and even death threats because I dare to defend a woman who for some really is the ‘scandal of Christendom.’”10 Either encouraged or angered by The Tudors’ tendency to sanctify Katherine and Jane Seymour, “Team Boleyn” members and “Team Aragon/Team Seymour” members became mean, squabbling girls themselves. Sue Booth, one of the first moderators of the Tudors Wiki, was struck by the “fierce loyalties” that arose among the members of the Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn “camps.”11 “It never ceased to amaze me,” she recalls, “how strongly these women felt about something that happened more than four hundred years ago.”12 Natalie Sweet, who joined the wiki in 2008 while she was studying for a master’s degree in history, remembers these battles as proving the truth of the comment made by sportswriter Clay Travis that “the dark corners of the Internet message board made talk radio seem like a midday stroll in a well-kept garden.” Viewers, encouraged by the anonymity of Internet conversations, didn’t hold back on slinging mud at one another, and for moderators of the site, it became a “challenge maintaining the line between constructive criticism and negative character bashing.”13 Barb Alexander, who runs The Tudor Tutor, is puzzled by all this. “I can never figure out why there is such a ‘fangirl’ or ‘bully’ attitude toward any of these people—they have been dead for about five hundred years! I like to see an educated passion for a historical figure, and if that figure is not your cup of tea, a respectful disagreement is fine. But they lived centuries ago, in a different climate than ours, and so I don’t feel it’s fair to judge them or their actions by modern standards.”14 That may be true, but it’s never stopped writers from the seventeenth through twenty-first centuries from taking sides; why should it be any different now?

  Despite the wife fights, the Tudors Wiki was Natalie Sweet’s “sanity” during graduate school, and it taught her that she should “never discredit the research and knowledge of another just because she did not hold a history degree . . . and who made me a better historian for the perspectives they provided to me.”15 Undoubtedly the most convincing proof of that statement is The Anne Boleyn Files. Although it began as “just a blog” that Claire Ridgway was writing for herself—a “journal of my journey into finding out more about Anne Boleyn . . . people started finding me and commenting on the site. I was blown away! There were other people out there who were just as fascinated by Anne! My research became all consuming, a passion that had taken hold, and by the summer of 2009 I had given up my freelance writing career and was researching Tudor history on a full-time basis. I’ve never looked back!”16 Today, 23,000 people visit the site each month, and in response to reader demand, it has become much more than “just a blog.” The Anne Boleyn Files provides links to other sites where one can purchase books and Tudor-themed products, buy such items as replicas of Anne’s famous “B” necklace and pajamas and hoodies with her image on them, and sign up for yearly events such as the Anne Boleyn Experience Tour. It is also a clearinghouse for every kind of Tudor resource. Claire’s own “journey,” too, has evolved. Just in the few years I’ve been following the site, I’ve seen her blossom from a respectful reporter of the theories of published authors to an investigative historical journalist whose blog—recently made available in book form—is more rigorous than that of many professional historians.

  * * *

  An International Community of Myth Busters, Inspired by a Television Show

  It’s not surprising that, with the exception of Tudorhistory.org, the Tudor websites and Facebook pages postdate the April 2007 premiere of The Tudors and that some of the most popular sites were begun after the record-breaking second-season finale in June 2008, in which Anne’s execution drew 852,000 viewers—83 percent above the numbers for the season-one finale. Google Trends recorded a dramatic peak in surfers for “Anne Boleyn” during 2008. But even after the second-season finale, the numbers did not return to their pre-Tudors levels, and sites continued to flourish—among them Barb Alexander’s delightfully “cheeky guide to the dynasty,” The Tudor Tutor, and Natalie Grueninger’s On the Tudor Trail, which began as a place to document surviving locations that Anne Boleyn had once visited and now has grown to include interviews with authors and historians, its own line of Anne-inspired greeting cards, and plans to lead a tour, In the Footsteps of Anne Boleyn.

  The Tudor Facebook pages and websites constitute an international community of Tudor scholars, many of them disappointed by the lack of available materials and discussion in their home countries. Jessica Prestes, who is Brazilian, was introduced to the Tudors at the age of eleven, when her history teacher took the class to watch the movie Elizabeth. But at the time she knew nothing about the story of Anne Boleyn, only that Henry VIII was Elizabeth’s father. After The Tudors premiered, however, Anne became her “obsession.” She’s now a graduate student in history who runs several Facebook pages and sites with an international following.17 Sarah Bryson, in Australia, was having trouble finding people with an interest in Tudor history there; today, her Internet site and Facebook page is one of the most personally engaging, with reviews of the latest books alternating with warm conversations among members.18 Sylwia Sobczak Zupanec has been fascinated by Anne since she was thirteen, but with little information available in Polish, she was frustrated. Noticing the historical inaccuracies of The Tudors, she started purchasing books in English about Anne and joined a Polish forum about the show. “And then I thought: why not start my own website, where I could write about Anne and the Tudor period in Polish language?”19 Sylwia started her website—the only site about Anne Boleyn in Polish—in 2010. It ultimately led to Sylwia creating a sister site and a Facebook page in English.

  The Tudor websites and Facebook pages are far from being just “fan pages.” Because most of those who run them are not professional historians (although some are graduate students in history, and many are writing books), they are freer to allow curiosity and skepticism—rather than the demands of specialization or publication—to guide their thinking. Each new book, media presentation, or public controversy immediately becomes a subject of review and debate. And because the nature of the sites is collective exploration, particular issues are much more rapidly and thoroughly explored than they typically are in academic forums. Poked and prodded by members, who together constitute a phenomenally well-read critical community, these sites have become think tanks of Tudor research, questioning some of the most entrenched myths, raising serious issues about documentation, and delving into issues that appear only as footnotes in the scholarly literature. In many ways, they operate as the critical conscience of published Tudor research. A few prominent examples: Ridgway has exposed numerous scholarly soft spots in Alison Weir’s book about Mary Boleyn, Grueninger led a rigorous investigation into the historical meaning of the color yellow (which sources have claimed Anne and Henry wore after Katherine’s death), Zupanec was the first to notice that a famous quote about Anne attributed to Francis I and endlessly recyled in much of the literature has never actually been documented in any of the books that cite it. She presented her research and spearheaded a collective exploration that, despite the efforts of many scholars in many fields, has yet to be able to validate the quotation. These critical investigations are the stuff of scholarly findings of significance and potential widespread interest.

  * * *

  “Third-Wav
e” Anne/“Postmodern” Anne

  According to Princess Diana’s close friend Simon Berry, Diana confided one day that she was going to marry Prince Charles. Teased about how she could be so sure (she had met him just once), Diana responded (not knowing, apparently, about Henry and Katherine), “He’s the one man on the planet who is not allowed to divorce me.”20 Berry recalls their nocturnal drives. “One time we went past Buckingham Palace,” he says. “I remember her saying, just drive round a few more times. It was late at night. She said, ‘What do you think? What do you think? Do you think I stand a chance? It could be quite fun. It would be like Anne Boleyn or Guinevere.’”21 Did Diana not know how Boleyn met her end? Perhaps she did—and didn’t care. Life with Prince Charming, even if short, may have seemed worth it to her. More likely, though, Diana—like Anne, centuries before—wasn’t thinking of the end, only of the beginning. Which we, ironically, imagine as the end. “Happily ever after”—the fairy tales (including adult ones such as Pretty Woman) promise this perpetual bliss just at the point where, in real life, things often begin to go awry.