#not to mention louise of savoy's diary entries

[fideidefenswhore]

or, to be extremely clear:

i don't dispute that "no matter Anne’s role in what happened to Mary, it existed, [and] impacted her".

but what has always seemed strange to me is that chapuys' dispatches on the matter are treated as if they are definitive. because we have no corroboration of them (and we don't, despite what weir has claimed-- nothing 'corroborates', there are reports from those such as dr. ortiz, the imperial ambassador to rome, that are relaying what chapuys has already sent him, not corroborating them, as he's not in england himself); the extent of her role is always going to be ambiguous, barring further found evidence on the matter. the only aspect that is definitive is that she was not-- again-- the sole author of mary's treatment, because henry followed an amplified version of the same policy regarding his eldest daughter after anne's execution, and followed it to the extreme.