Henry VIII certainly gave up in a hurry on Anne. One daughter, one stillborn son, and one miscarriage (if I got it right) isn't conclusive, and she was young enough to keep going.
~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.
I've often thought about why Henry gave up so fast. By the time of her death Anne was no older than 36 which means she could have kept trying for a son. 3yrs of marriage was apparently enough for Henry, he found Anne to be a great disappointment and his love for her had turned to hate. She was a much better mistress than she was a wife and she refused to sit by quietly and hold her tongue which constantly angered Henry. Plus Anne had many enemies at court who were looking to get rid of her and were whispering in Henry's ear; once Thomas Cromwell turned against her it was all over.
I'm not a professional historian, and although I love history and studied it at school (though my love of the Tudors has come through my own further reading, not through anything I studied while a student) and whilst I wish I'd taken my history studies further (e.g. for my degree subject for my B.Ed intead of English) I'm still a relative novice in this period of history. Therefore, forgive me if I'm way off beam here. However, it's widely acknowledged that (for various reasons, e.g. Queen Katherine, the political and religious turmoils that were happening/threatening to happen, Anne's family and more) that Anne 'made' Henry wait for several years before succumbing to his 'charms'. Depending on what you believe it does seem to be partly responsible for her swift downfall. After all, if she'd have 'given in' earlier and produced a son, would Henry have been more positively disposed towards her and, still in the throes of passion, married her anyway and then recognised the bastard son as a legitimate son? And so Anne would have been 'safe' as long as she tolerated Henry's infidelities as Katherine had done?
Or am I missing something really obvious here? I'm sure I am, because as I say I'm only a keen amateur historian, and at not stage have I officially 'studied' the Tudors (although they will always be my favourite period of history) so I don't know if there were other factors. However, Bessie Blount's son was 'formally' recognised, and whilst Bessie herself never made it further than mistress, she wasn't inflaming the King's ardour as much as Anne was! Or is it really as simple as Henry wanted what he couldn't have (i.e. Anne carnally) and that's what kept him so fired up for so many years? And yet it's widely acknowledged that Anne was about 5 months pregnant when Henry married her, so she'd given in yet still married him.
Which takes me back to my first point - what if she'd have 'given in' (even against 'advice', from her father - as depicted in 'The Tudors', or otherwise) and had the time to produce a son? Elizabeth was only born because she was conceived at that time. Any baby conceived before that time stood an equal chance of being a boy. However, it would clearly have been a massive gamble on Anne's part - with her now-known history of miscarriages etc, it's probably likely she would have had this history anyway, only sooner. However, the worst that could have happened is that the King would have discarded her for a 'newer model'. At least she would have kept her head and her life.
So much is supposition, I know that, but I'd like to know what others think.
Jerseyporter
"The end is where we start from." (Captain Jack, "Torchwood")
What you're missing is the fact that Anne Boleyn didn't WANT to be the King's mistress.
England was not France where the maîtresse-en-titre was an official position which came with rights and powers of it's own. All she could hope for as Henry's mistress was to become (maybe) the mother of another bastard and then married off to some minor courtier when Henry grew tired of her. Elisabeth Blount's son did well through his father but as for her, she only ended up marrying a baron, the lowest title of the peerage. Where's the power in that? Anne was ambitious and when she saw an opportunity to become more than a woman of her station was supposed to be, she took it. If she had had a son she would have sat on that throne and wielded considerable power until the day she died; hate or no hate from the King, the mother of the Prince of Wales is treated considerably different than the mother of a "mere" Princess Royal. She rolled the dice and lost, unfortunately for her.
In that time period women who were over 35 was believed by some to be over their child baring years. It was a high risk and a lot more complicated to have children the older a women became,especially if that women have had previous miscarriages. However Anne's true age is not known. Some historians believed she was in her 30's while others believed she was much younger. I personally believe Thomas Moore's son in law. Anne was very young when she came to court.
Her actions,her understanding and her wild out bust seems to indicate that she was younger.
Anne had no Pope or Emperor to back her up or slow down the process. She also had Thomas Cromwell as an enemy. And she never had a majority of the populace with her as Katherine did. In the end, it was all too easy to get rid of her.
Men often expect different things of their wives than they do of their mistresses. That's just as true today as it was 500 years ago.
[deleted]
Well while Henry Vlll and Anne's marriage only last 3 years . They had been together for 7 years prior to them actually getting married. Which means they actually were together for 10 years. It was said that Henry VIII had grown tired of Anne soon after they were married,others said that he grew tired of her prior to them getting married and might have married her out of obligation.
share