How much of our history is incorrect?

[Pessimistic]

Yes, no contemporary portraits of Anne Boleyn survive.

However we do have contemporary accounts of aspects of her life such as Lancelot de Carle, a secretary to the French Ambassador who was a witness to her trial and execution.

What examples of what we do know about her life are misleading and incorrect?

Thats the point, much was destroyed, so how can I possibly know, or anyone for that matter? Its not complete, I hope you agree to this.

But the OP is how much is correct? Its impossible to know, and I assume the account you quote was from a catholic?

 

[Roylion]

Thats the point, much was destroyed, so how can I possibly know, or anyone for that matter?

What was destroyed exactly?

 

[Pessimistic]

What was destroyed exactly?

How absurd is your question ?

 

[Pessimistic]

And dont get me started on the victorians.

How absurd that we slavishly heritage list victorian stuff today, when they didnt give a s**t about destroying any heritage they found

 

[Roylion]

How absurd is your question ?

Well in the case of Anne Boleyn how do you know what was destroyed? Or are you making an assumption?

 

[CM86]

How absurd is your question ?

Isn't it going to be hard to state what was destroyed and what never existed?

 

[Pessimistic]

Well in the case of Anne Boleyn how do you know what was destroyed? Or are you making an assumption?

Of course its an assumption, in the absence of primary sources, or absence compared to other prominent figures of the time.

Just as you cant prove nothing significant was destroyed.

I asume given that some destruction did happen, that they didnt confine the destruction to insignificant stuff


By the way, im getting the impression you would be a pretty good inquisitor. Is that the 1500-1600 equivalent of moderators?

 

[Pessimistic]

Reminds me how queen victoria put anti homosexual laws into the statutes, but declined to do the same for lesbianism because she couldnt see how it could possibly exist

..or so they say, I dint check any sources by the way

 

[Pessimistic]

Isn't it going to be hard to state what was destroyed and what never existed?

He obviously delights in arguing the unarguable. What i said was a well accepted example of historical information beng destroyed, or locked away, but is going the narrow bigfooty line if questioning to be some kind of keyboard hero

Give examples of actual things which were systematically destroyed ( or hoarded away)over 500 years ago indeed

 

[Pessimistic]

Well in the case of Anne Boleyn how do you know what was destroyed? Or are you making an assumption?

Also, the suspicion many have is that she was far more involves in protestant ideology than the perception which has survived, that is what a lot of people would like to know, and it is significant.

I can see from your posting, that your knowledge is more complete and deeper than mine, Im just surprised you do agree that destruction happened (and it happened a lot), but nothing much of significance was destroyed

If not of significance, why would they even bother?

 

[Roylion]

Of course its an assumption, in the absence of primary sources, or absence compared to other prominent figures of the time.

In the case of Anne Boleyn there are quite a few primary sources as to her appearance. And of other aspects of her life.

For example the Venetian diarist Marino Sanuto, who saw Anne when Henry VIII met Francis I at Calais in October 1532 (the year before she became Queen of England), described her as "not one of the handsomest women in the world; she is of middling stature, swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised... eyes, which are black and beautiful".

Simon Grynée wrote to Martin Bucer in September 1531 that Anne was "young, good-looking, of a rather dark complexion". Lancelot de Carle (i mentioned him before as actually witnessing Anne's trial and execution) called her "beautiful with an elegant figure".

Just as you cant prove nothing significant was destroyed.

No, I can't. I'm not trying to. What I am doing is not making assumptions. There may have been documents or portraits destroyed, but without corroborating evidence I am not going to definitely assume that actually took place.

Instead I'll look at the available evidence, assess the reliability of that evidence and make some conclusions from there.

I asume given that some destruction did happen, that they didnt confine the destruction to insignificant stuff

Some destruction of what?

By the way, im getting the impression you would be a pretty good inquisitor. Is that the 1500-1600 equivalent of moderators?

You mean because I ask questions?

 

[Roylion]

If not of significance, why would they even bother?

In the case of Anne Boleyn, how do you know they bothered at all?

 

[Roylion]

Also, the suspicion many have is that she was far more involves in protestant ideology than the perception which has survived, that is what a lot of people would like to know, and it is significant.

'Suspicion' based on what?

 

[Pessimistic]

In the case of Anne Boleyn, how do you know they bothered at all?

Your suggestion that after destruction, they would sit down and document it? Not all destroyers were as kind to historians as william the bastard

 

[Subutai]

But all you've offered as an alternative is a piece of skull (recovered in 1946) that probably was a woman's. That doesn't disprove the generally accepted theory that Hitler committed suicide on 30th April with his wife and that their remains were doused with petrol and buried in a crater to be discovered by the Soviets on May 4th 1945.



Eyewitness accounts, a jawbone, official SMERSH records, dental records and x-rays all exist.

if they do have dental evidence, ill grant that is proof

the word of his inner circle is hardly beyond reasonable doubt for mine

 

[Roylion]

Your suggestion that after destruction, they would sit down and document it? Not all destroyers were as kind to historians as william the bastard

Ok. So you're making an assumption that documents / portraits etc. were destroyed without any evidence to support that assumption.

 

[Pessimistic]

Roylion, your two contemporary accounts, which seem to contradict by the way, where are they located and when did they become available for public viewing, or available to historians at least?

 

[Roylion]

the word of his inner circle is hardly beyond reasonable doubt for mine

OK. So be it.

 

[Subutai]

OK. So be it.

its like asking essendon leadership group is jobe watson a drug cheat

... "did Hitler fly to Spain. before that Russians penetrated to two rings of defense around the city?"

" no no! we burned him, his dog and his wife. We are the most pro-Nazi/Hitler people in history. But take our word for it anyway " ...

 

[Pessimistic]

Ok. So you're making an assumption that documents / portraits etc. were destroyed without any evidence to support that assumption.

Im repeating an assumption that a lot of respected historians make.
I cant believe you are even arguing this point

 

[Roylion]

Roylion, your two contemporary accounts, which seem to contradict by the way, where are they located and when did they become available for public viewing, or available to historians at least?

Two different men commenting on a woman's "handsomeness" are likely to have differing opinions. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Marino Sanuto's The Diarii, his most important work, which covers the period from 1 January 1496 to September 1533, and fills 58 volumes began to be published for the consumption of the general public by Rinaldo Fulin in 1879, in collaboration with Federigo Stefani, Guglielmo Berchet, and Niccold Barozzi. The last volume was published in Venice in 1903.

Bucer's letters both outwards and inwards (e.g. from Simon Grynée) have been translated, re-produced and read since his death in 1551.

 

[Roylion]

Im repeating an assumption that a lot of respected historians make.

About Anne Boleyn? Like who?

 

[Roylion]

its like asking essendon leadership group is jobe watson a drug cheat

... "did Hitler fly to Spain. before that Russians penetrated to two rings of defense around the city?"

" no no! we burned him, his dog and his wife. We are the most pro-Nazi/Hitler people in history. But take our word for it anyway " ...

Yes...and that's why historians where possible, use a number of pieces of evidence to corroborate the historicity of an event.

 

[Pessimistic]

Two different men commenting on a woman's "handsomeness" are likely to have differing opinions. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Marino Sanuto's The Diarii, his most important work, which covers the period from 1 January 1496 to September 1533, and fills 58 volumes began to be published for the consumption of the general public by Rinaldo Fulin in 1879, in collaboration with Federigo Stefani, Guglielmo Berchet, and Niccold Barozzi. The last volume was published in Venice in 1903.

Bucer's letters both outwards and inwards (e.g. from Simon Grynée) have been translated, re-produced and read since his death in 1551.

So something was published in 1879 or later

This is a big IF, but if bigfooty existed in 1875, before this was published, you would be stubbornly arguing, that without proof, that it doesnt exist?

Then each time I respond, youd say prove that. This is bigfooty at its worse

 

[Pessimistic]

About Anne Boleyn? Like who?

You are more conversant with the subject than me, you know very well who. Just being cute