- Moderator
- #101
I've argued no such thing.
I'd look at the evidence for BigFooty's existence, see whether there was corroborating evidence that such a thing existed and then make an informed decision.
How much of our history is incorrect?
- Thread starter strung_out7
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I've argued no such thing.
I'd look at the evidence for BigFooty's existence, see whether there was corroborating evidence that such a thing existed and then make an informed decision.
- Moderator
- #102
But it was you who mentioned these "respected historians". I'm just wondering who exactly you are referring to.
And we wouldnt even discuss it at the time ie tudor times in public, for fear of being murdered for public entertainment.
I suppose youul now ask me to quote examples of that
By the way, i meant youd be arguing the non existance of accounts which werent in the public domain yet
The history of fairly old historical documents and other informative sources is asubject in itself
Documents which werent actually destroyed, but were out of the public domain for a long time, even centuries
In the case of Anne Boleyn, many writers would not have commented publicly at the time, because the consequences were likely to be fatal
This page gives a few hints about one set of documents. Henry VIII love letters to anne boleyn, now in the vatican facility, no one knows for sure how they got there, but they exist.
http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-vatican-love-letters-of-henry-viii-linda-holds-them/
Documents which werent actually destroyed, but were out of the public domain for a long time, even centuries
In the case of Anne Boleyn, many writers would not have commented publicly at the time, because the consequences were likely to be fatal
This page gives a few hints about one set of documents. Henry VIII love letters to anne boleyn, now in the vatican facility, no one knows for sure how they got there, but they exist.
http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-vatican-love-letters-of-henry-viii-linda-holds-them/
- Moderator
- #105
We might write it down though. Maybe even foreign visitors might write it down. Whether they did or not is unknown.
All I'm suggesting is that we have some contemporary accounts of what Anne Boleyn (who you brought up) might have looked like and that there is no evidence that any other account of her appearance was deliberately destroyed. Any suggestion that there definitely was other material as to her appearance that was deliberately destroyed is merely assumption on your part.
- Moderator
- #106
Ok. Good. If so, there's another piece of corroborating evidence about the life and times of Anne Boleyn that modern historians can use to piece together a more accurate picture of her life and times.
But was well out of the public domain for goodness how long
Do you also deny there might be more dociments either deliberately or accidentally lost, but yet to come to light.
Either on this or any other subject?
- Moderator
- #108
Possibly. I've never said there was not.
And as I said, not just assumptions on my part
If you can just restate your case, so can l. Neither carries much scholarly weight
So you just maintain no one has ever destroyed anything of significance, simply because such things dont exist?
- Moderator
- #111
Not at all. Again I've never said any such thing.
Thats how I read it. You kept demanding proof it had happened
Then I said there are cases where many think such destruction was very probable
Eg the lack of portrature of anne boleyn
When you visit hampton court, they tell you all traces of anne boleyn had been removed, but there is one reference, in the cieling of the great hall
Many documents of the time not surfacing till the 1800s
How many documents of what significance were destroyed, and how many still arent in the public domain?
Eg the lack of portrature of anne boleyn
When you visit hampton court, they tell you all traces of anne boleyn had been removed, but there is one reference, in the cieling of the great hall
Many documents of the time not surfacing till the 1800s
How many documents of what significance were destroyed, and how many still arent in the public domain?
- Moderator
- #114
In the case of a historical figure or event you can make an assumption that historical documents dealing with that event or figure MAY been deliberately destroyed, (and indeed that MAY have happened - anything is possible).
However you cannot definitely, say, without corroborating evidence of some kind, that such evidence about all historical events or figures (if it existed in the first place) was in fact actually deliberately destroyed. There are of course myriad examples of the wilful destruction of archaeological evidence and documents in various libraries such as the destruction of the Imperial Library of Constantinople in 1204 or the destruction of feudal records in France in 1789 during the Great Fear.
However that does not necessarily follow that because Henry VIII dissolved monasteries causing records to be lost or destroyed during his reign, that records of Anne Boleyn's life were also necessarily deliberately targeted for destruction and/or accidentally destroyed. They MAY have been, but we don't know for certain that they were. We cannot definitely say that they were.
But they probably were, we know that lots of stuff dissappeared into the vatican. We now know that as fact
I only quoted that case because its widely assumed that items related to boleyn were destroyed, and thers probaly evidence of that. Just baecause i cant be bothered finding it to submit to a pointless argument doesnt mesan it doesnt exist
Your inplication that Because I personally couldnt quote proof does not mean you are right either. If you took on someone more learnd in the area, theyd anhailate your arguments, and youd slope off to another argument.
I dont particularly enjoy someone just demanding proof proof proof in some adolescent game
You may think you won the argument by selective posting, but you kid yourself really
I only quoted that case because its widely assumed that items related to boleyn were destroyed, and thers probaly evidence of that. Just baecause i cant be bothered finding it to submit to a pointless argument doesnt mesan it doesnt exist
Your inplication that Because I personally couldnt quote proof does not mean you are right either. If you took on someone more learnd in the area, theyd anhailate your arguments, and youd slope off to another argument.
I dont particularly enjoy someone just demanding proof proof proof in some adolescent game
You may think you won the argument by selective posting, but you kid yourself really
Last edited:
https://abluteau.wordpress.com/2009...-letter-that-split-england-from-roman-church/
Quite a bit of stuff has been hidden for one reason or another in the vatican.
Quite a bit of stuff has been hidden for one reason or another in the vatican.
- Moderator
- #117
What sort of reference? A portrait?
Many of her badges were removed and replaced by those of Jane Seymour. But we know from other evidence what her badges looked like.
Exactly my point. How do we know that as fact? Because there are other pieces of corroborating evidence that they existed in the first place? Or they have been since re-discovered or announced that they exist?
But is there evidence of that? That's what I am asking. And if there isn't what evidence is there that your claims are beyond assumption?
And until evidence is provided by anyone how do we know that they do exist?
Right about what? I'm not saying that evidence in relation to Anne Boleyn wasn't destroyed. I'm suggesting in the absence of any corroborating evidence any claim that it existed in order to be destroyed is little more than assumption. Are you disputing this?
If they provide compelling irrefutable evidence, then sure, I'd accept the premise that contemporary pictorial evidence as to Anne Boleyn's appearance existed and was destroyed. However just assuming that such evidence existed and was subsequently destroyed is problematic.
All my point has been is that if a historical claim is made, it needs to be based on more than just supposition. I'm not trying to argue that there definitely no destroyed contemporary pictorial evidence of Anne Boleyn's appearance. I'm just asking how you suppose that there was.
I'm sure you don't. But when a claim (and I didn't make any counter-claim) is made, most generally try and back it up with some sort of empirical evidence. I'm just asking what that might be.
I'm not trying to win any argument. I'm just asking on what basis you suppose/assume that there was contemporary pictorial evidence of Anne Boleyn's appearance that was subsequently destroyed beyond supposition/assumption. If there's evidence that there was and it was destroyed by Henry VIII, then great! What is it though?
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #118
Didn't this article say that a second, more damaged, copy of the same document is in England’s National Archives in Kew? So historians already knew that such a document existed?
So what are you trying to say Roylion? Particularly in relation to the ops question?
- Moderator
- #120
All my point has been is that if a historical claim about an event or personage is made, it needs to be based on more than just supposition /assumption.
So as an example I'm asking on what basis you suppose/assume that there was contemporary pictorial evidence of Anne Boleyn's appearance that was subsequently destroyed beyond supposition/assumption. If there's evidence that there was and it was destroyed by Henry VIII, then great! What is it though?
But whats your point?
Btw, I didnt suggest it was henry VIII doing the destroying
Btw, I didnt suggest it was henry VIII doing the destroying
- Moderator
- #122
All my point has been is that if a historical claim about an event or personage is made, it needs to be based on more than just supposition / assumption.
But its just an example of where stuff has probably been destroyed, one which a lot of people dont challenge. All well and good but if you really feel strongly that thye are wrong, seek them out and challenge them, theres lots of them.
Youd be doing the historical world a big favour
So whats ypur point in relation to the OP ?
Youd be doing the historical world a big favour
So whats ypur point in relation to the OP ?
- Moderator
- #124
So who were you suggesting?
Im not suggesting anyone, thats not my point.
My point is my point despite you trying to focus on it through your own lens.
The absence of portraiture, whats your take?
Katharine howard was beheaded but plenty of authenticated portrats survive, as do most of the tudors, even the ones who made enemies on the other side
My point is my point despite you trying to focus on it through your own lens.
The absence of portraiture, whats your take?
Katharine howard was beheaded but plenty of authenticated portrats survive, as do most of the tudors, even the ones who made enemies on the other side
