#if it's not even from a catholic recusant source then that is hysterically im ngl

[fideidefenswhore]

what is the difference btwn academic history and pop history?

Both Henry and Anne wore yellow, the color of mourning in Spain, as a mark of respect for the woman whom Henry insisted had been his sister-in-law.

Henry VIII was at Greenwich on that day, and he observed the funeral [of Catherine of Aragon] by wearing black mourning clothes and attending a solemn mass. Anne, however, donned yellow once more, and grumbled because nothing was spoken of that day but the Christian deathbed of her rival.

Weir, Alison. 1991. The six wives of Henry VIII.

Although he wept when he read [Catherine’s last] letter, [...] Henry appeared at court in [...] outfits of yellow [...]

Weir, Alison. 2010. Henry VIII: the king and his court.

He observed the day of her burial with solemn obsequies [...] himself attending dressed in mourning. 

Now I am indeed a queen!” Anne crowed in triumph, on hearing of her rival’s passing, and she had “worn yellow for the mourning.” It is a misconception that yellow was the color of Spanish royal mourning: Anne’s choice of garb was no less than a calculated insult to the memory of the woman she had supplanted.

Weir, Alison. 2010. The lady in the tower: the fall of Anne Boleyn.

(*doesn’t happen to mention it was her own misconception, which is hysterical to me...spiderman pointing.jpeg)

+

Recusant tradition preserves a different story. In this, it is Anne who wore the outrageous ‘yellow for mourning’ and Henry who, smitten with conscience, wept over Catherine’s last letter. 

It would be better for Henry’s reputation if all this were true. But alas, it is pious nonsense. Chapuys’s contemporary report alone proves that. So does Henry’s subsequent behavior. For he showed only two concerns for Catherine after her death. The first was to exploit her funeral to drive home, irrefutably and for the last time, that she had never been his wife nor Queen of England; and the second was to get his hands on what was left of her property. 

Starkey, David. 2003. Six wives: the queens of Henry VIII.

These are two different [if we can call...the former group that] 'assessments' of the veracity of Anglican Schism (Nicholas Sanders) + Vergil + Girolamo Pollini (born 1544) as credible contemporary Tudor sources. These are all different aspects of their accounts of the immediate aftermath of the death of Catherine of Aragon. All were written after the death of Henry VIII.

It’s in academic history that you’re going to find distinction between sources, that contemporary report (especially one from someone residing at or near the court they are reporting on), no matter how biased in favor or against whom they are speaking of, always trumps one recorded decades after the events in question, as Starkey states above. 

Academic history will also qualify what the source is (recusant tradition versus contemporary report, etc.)

Popular history is not really parsed in the same way. All sources are treated as if they are equally credible so that the narrative flow keeps a steady pace and for a more digestible, more entertaining read. 

It’s also the difference between thesis (ie, explicitly giving one’s opinion, ‘pious nonsense’, and why) versus giving one’s opinion implicitly. Weir doesn’t need to explicitly state that Anne Boleyn was a vindictive, heartless woman whereas Henry was a soft touch. Rather, the sources are massaged to say that in and of themselves and render the appearance of objectivity.