#retha warnicke

[fideidefenswhore]

Among those believing that Anne Boleyn was innocent was Matthew Parker, her chaplain, who, when Elizabeth’s Archbishop of Canterbury, claimed that Anne’s soul was in “blessed felicity with God.” About six days before her arrest, he recalled, she asked him to look after her daughter, a plea he took seriously. He confided to Burghley, if he had not “been so much bound to the mother,” he would not have agreed to serve her daughter as archbishop.

Wicked Women of Tudor England: Queens, Aristocrats, Commoners, by Retha M Warnicke

[tudorblogger]

Monthly Reading Summary – June 2024

[richmond-rex]

Hi there! Just recently found your blog and I love it 🩷 you've probably answered this before but I was wondering if you had any insight on why Elizabeth of Yorks cornation was delayed almost two years. People who are anti Henry VII say it's becasue he didn't want to share power with Elizabeth or that he was jealous of her popularity etc. But from what I read there were good reasons for the delay. First Elizabeth became pregnant near instantly after getting married and couldn't go through the ceremony until after the birth and recovery period. Then the Simnel rebellion happened. After the battle of stokes she was crowned 5 months later which doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. Anyways just wondering if you had any further insights or details.

Hi, anon! First of all, I'm so very sorry for taking so long to reply to this ask. Thank you for letting me know you love this blog 🤍 I've discussed Elizabeth's delayed coronation before but I don't think I've ever organised my thoughts in a single post. I'm going to discuss the circumstances of the first two years of Henry's reign so we can look at them together. All in all, the delay in Elizabeth's coronation seems a logical outcome of the political circumstances of Henry VII's early years and not spite-motivated as Francis Bacon claimed in his work and what the scholarship based on Bacon usually repeats.

Regarding Henry's jealousy/insecurity, one of the theories is that Henry wanted to avoid a joint rule by avoiding a joint coronation. It's not that simple because such a coronation was simply not feasible at that time. For a joint coronation in October 1485, Henry and Elizabeth had to have been already married by that time, and that couldn't happen before he had re-legitimised her in parliament—for that to happen in turn, Henry had to sit in parliament as a crowned ruler. It was paramount to acquire the spiritual legitimacy only a coronation could give to boost his own authority. Edward IV had done the same (had crowned himself before sitting in his first parliament), and we can tell how much of a rushed affair Henry's coronation was by the simple fact that they used the same device for his predecessor's coronation: they literally simply crossed out Richard's name and wrote Henry's instead. A platform inside the church collapsed and several spectators were hurt during the occasion.

That's not to say Henry couldn't shake his shoulders at all those impediments and marry and crown Elizabeth immediately after Bosworth despite the legitimacy and dispensation issues hanging over them: although unorthodox, it could (theoretically) be done, but it's clear Henry had to tread carefully to establish his own legitimacy independent from the house of York if he wanted to be seen as an indisposable ruler in his own name. Whether it was the technical difficulties or Henry's wish to be seen as more than Elizabeth's husband—someone who could be booted off the throne in the case of her death—or both the technical difficulties and Henry's need for self-assertion, it seems unreasonable to expect a double coronation at that time and attribute this fact to Henry's malice and/or jealousy.

A coronation could have happened right after Henry and Elizabeth's marriage as it customarily happened. There are clear signs that indicate that this is what Henry had originally intended: in December 1485, he ordered horses for Elizabeth's coronation, and the plan was still in motion in January 1486 when he ordered 'tawnings of ermyns', 'canapye stavez', 'cherez of estate', 'skarlate rede clothe' as well as the 'furryng of dyvers of ye quenes robe' and diverse other items 'agenst the coronation of our soverayne lady ye queen'. It seems clear they weren't prepared for a coronation straight after their wedding (which seems to have been a rather more diminished affair comparatively)—Henry being short of cash and entagled in debts from his own previous coronation seems like a possibility, and even Edward IV, who married for love and had no reason to want to obfuscate his consort, took almost a whole year to be able to crown his own wife. What's unclear is why the coronation plans didn't advance through 1486.

Anna Duch has speculated Elizabeth's possible difficult pregnancy halted the plans for her coronation. A couple of queens were indeed crowned whilst pregnant: Anne Boleyn, who had a secret wedding and was in urgent need of legitimacy (so that her child could be seen as legitimate in turn), and Philippa of Hainault, who was married amidst the chaos of the power struggle between her in-laws and had held little visibility up to that point. It seems it was the news of Philippa's pregnancy that led to her coronation, and I don't see why the same wouldn't have happened to Elizabeth of York if what they claim to have been Henry's intention—to reduce Elizabeth to be simply the bearer of his heirs and hold no power whatsoever—was true.

Henry didn't rush to crown her at that point, although we don't know if Elizabeth's medical condition would have allowed her to go through a coronation. Not only Elizabeth's pregnancy might have prevented her from going through a coronation, but she also didn't follow the king in his northern progress despite arrangements for her appearance by his side at York where Henry's device of the red and white rose would come together for the first time. Maybe Elizabeth's mobility in the first trimester was hindered by morning sickness or the like, and soon Henry had other problems to worry about. As pointed out by Retha Warnicke, 'it is possible that Henry did not wish to expose his queen in a public ceremony that would draw great, sometimes unruly, crowds during a time of so many disturbances'.

By mid-1486 Henry had to deal with various rebellions in the north and even an assassination attempt at York. His northern progress, besides being conventional for a newly crowned king, was also motivated by Henry's need to show himself and impose his royal will onto his rebellious and disaffected subjects. A month before Henry set out north, contemporary correspondence circulated that 'the king purposyse northward hastyly after the Parlement, & it is sayd he purposses to doe execution quickly ther on such as hath offended agynst him'. The same letter, dated from February 1486, suggested that he intended to lead north a great company of men 'in harnesse' (in armour) together with some 200 lords and knights. Correspondence dated from December 1485 shows that Henry and his advisors feared a major outbreak of violence around that time, and back in October, Henry had written of his 'knowledge that certeyne our rebelles and traitours being of litell honour or substance conferred with our auncient ennemyes the Scottes… made insurreccion and assemblies in the north portions of our realme'.

By the time Henry approached York, he was reportedly surrounded by 'great noblesse, as above saide, and merveolous great nombre of so short a warnyng of esquires, gentlemen and yeomen in defensible array'. Lovell's rebellion was already underway, and frankly, it sounds like quite an unsafe atmosphere for Henry's pregnant queen to make an appearance. At the same time, Henry had to spend money on ordering materials and clothes for his public appearances in the cities he visited in his northern progress, and considering the royal treasury was still suffering from the expenses of the previous years I wonder if Elizabeth's coronation plans were also put on hold because of that royal progress in spring 1486. By the time Henry and his lords returned to London, Elizabeth's pregnancy was already advanced and his top priority seems to have been to get her to Winchester safely before her delivery.

After Arthur's birth and christening, Elizabeth's subsequent illness and churching, etc, the court could barely go back to a normal schedule as talks of Edward of Warwick's escape were circulating in London already by November 1486. Correspondence from January 1487 makes it clear that Henry had known of certain developments of the new rebellion since the beginning of that year. There were disturbances in Devon and Cornwall in early February and in Ireland in March. Henry had to call for a general council to discuss the security of his kingdom in February because of the boy pretender they already knew to be in Dublin at that time. By mid-March, Henry was already on the road to make arrangements for a foreign invasion, and it wouldn't be until after the Battle of Stoke in June that Henry would be able to devote his attention to his wife's coronation.

Henry's situation in 1486-1487 was, as described by Emma Cavell, 'ominously reminiscent of his own challenge to Richard III only two years earlier: a challenge in which the pretender had defeated the king'. All through this period we can identify the influence of unforeseen circumstances on Henry's actions and plans for his public appearances, especially where rebellion and challenges to his rule were concerned. It's clear too that Elizabeth's coronation was a grand affair, very likely bigger than Henry's own coronation, and an occasion where the yorkist symbols of the white rose and sun in splendour were displayed in great pomp for all to see. It sounds illogical to think Henry had been up to that point consumed with fear for Elizabeth's rights but after exactly what had been a yorkist rebellion and invasion, he would simply forget about his fear/jealousy and proceed with legitimising the yorkist inheritance in the public imagination.

What we have evidence of—and what I think we should focus on—are Henry's own words regarding 'ye quenes coronacyon' that he was planning as early as December 1485, and the various items that he bought for the occasion. Why the coronation didn't go ahead until 1487 is a matter of speculation but what is certain is that Henry didn't wait for Elizabeth to become pregnant to 'reward' her with a coronation (and thus reduce her to a human oven), as has been so often claimed. What do you all think? 🌹x

[wonder-worker]

Elizabeth of York got Elizabeth Wydeville's properties in 1487 by Henry VII?

(don't reblog)

Hi! Yes, Elizabeth Woodville’s dower lands were transferred to her daughter in 1487. However, it doesn't seem that Elizabeth of York received all the properties her mother possessed during her time as queen.

Mainly because J.L Laynesmith said that “Elizabeth of York received a portion of her mother's lands and fee farms and an annuity from the town of Bristol, which amounted in total to less than half of her mother's income”.

Derek Neal’s analysis amounts to something similar. He wrote that Elizabeth Woodville’s properties were confiscated by Richard III, and after 1485, “Henry VII restored 27 properties and added seven new ones, meaning that Elizabeth lost at least 70 per cent of her pre-1483 estate, though she regained almost all her original fee-farms. By 1486, however, there was a new queen needing a dower of her own, and when Elizabeth Woodville left court the next year*, her daughter received these 34 lands along with the fee-farms.”

Likewise, Michele Seah wrote that after recognizing Elizabeth Woodville as dowager queen, Henry VII "re-granted to her most, but not all, of the lands initially granted in 1465." (I presume the numerous lands and income Elizabeth had additionally acquired across her queenship weren't included). These were the lands then transferred to Elizabeth of York in 1487.

So it seems that other historians have oversimplified and/or misunderstood what the transfer entailed, first assuming that Elizabeth Woodville was granted all her former lands by Henry VII, and then that Elizabeth of York received the lands her mother had as queen rather than the ones that had been specifically granted to her in 1485.

Either way, Elizabeth of York was additionally granted some of her aunt Isabel Neville’s property during the Earl of Warwick’s minority in 1489, followed by a grant of Fotheringhay (a property her father was known to have enjoyed, and which she may have thus been attached to) in March 1495. The death of her grandmother Cecily Neville in that same year significantly improved her estate, giving her an additional annual income of around £1,399, as was the case in 1496.

Also, while Elizabeth did struggle with debts, this was not unusual at all among queens, and it was Henry VII who regularly repaid them for her. It's worth keeping in mind that while some former queens who were struggling financially ended up having to reduce the size of their household (eg: Joan of Navarre, Margaret of Anjou) or merge it with the King's (eg: Philippa of Hainault), Elizabeth of York was not made to do any of those things and maintained unchanged autonomy of her household until her death.

Anon asked: I read that Elizabeth of York's last year finance was actually for half year?

Again, it's unclear. This comes from Retha Warnicke's book Elizabeth of York and her Six Daughters-in-Law: Fashioning Tudor Queenship, where she wrote “After [Elizabeth's] death in February 1503, Richard Decons noted in her privy purse accounts that he had collected £3,535, 19 shillings, 10 1/2 pence. Since the financial year had begun at Michaelmas (September 29) in 1502, as it did every year, this sum was not inconsequential.”

However, Michele Seah's newer article "Gifts and Rewards: Exploring the Expenditure of Late Medieval English Queens" explicitly states that the household accounts kept by Decons were for the months March 1502 to February 1503.

But again, I'm not super familiar with this topic and so my answer may be off-balanced. I hope that Seah’s upcoming book Financing Queenship in Fifteenth-Century England will shed more light on the situation!

*We don't know much about Elizabeth Woodville's situation after 1487, including whether she truly left court. See here for a longer explanation.

[edwardseymour]

— Retha Warnicke, Wicked Women

[thetudorslovers]

"Anne and Wyatt shared a love of poetry and literature. They were intellectual equals who engaged in lively conversations about politics, religion, and the arts." - Eric Ives, "The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn"

Anne Boleyn and Thomas Wyatt had a close friendship that has been the subject of much speculation over the years. They were both members of the intellectual circle at court, and they shared a love of poetry and literature. Some historians believe that they may have been romantically involved, but there is no concrete evidence to support this theory. Yet Thomas was one of Anne's closest confidants, and he was a loyal supporter throughout her rise and fall at court. He wrote several poems about her, including "Whoso List to Hunt," which is believed to be a coded message about his love for her. In the poem, Wyatt compares Anne to a deer that he can never catch, suggesting that he is unable to win her heart.

"Anne Boleyn and Thomas Wyatt were kindred spirits who shared a love of literature and the arts. Their friendship was a rare and precious thing in a world dominated by politics and intrigue." - Joanna Denny, "Anne Boleyn: A New Life of England's Tragic Queen"

"Anne and Wyatt's relationship was a source of gossip at court, and many speculated that they were more than just friends. However, there is no evidence to suggest that their relationship was anything but platonic." - Retha M. Warnicke, "The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn"

[katharinepar]

Something I find odd about Retha Warnicke’s interpretation of Anne’s downfall is how much emphasis she places on Anne’s miscarriage in January of 1536. Even in Warnicke’s “Wicked Women of Tudor England: Queens, Aristocrats, Commoners (Queenship and Power)” the entirety of Anne’s execution re-routes to, you guessed it, that sole miscarriage and the fact it aligned at a time when Catherine’s death would’ve made Henry legally single in the eyes of most of Christendom. Which seems almost an abuse of 20/20 vision because at this time, Henry was still making strides to affirm his marriage to Anne both aesthetically and politically. 

While I think the miscarriage was certainly damning –– in terms of her security as queen, but also her relationship with Henry, hardly smooth sailing from then on out –– there was really no reason for Anne to ever believe she’d be executed for it. Not even Chapuys could’ve suspected that a queen of England would be so gravely discarded. I think in terms of actually being sentenced to death, Anne’s comments in May of 1536 had a large part to play. 

I’m running on 99% cough syrup and Vitamin C tablets rn so I’m not even sure if this makes sense but I just think it’s weird that Warnicke directly and emphatically cites Anne’s miscarriage as the sole reason for her execution when there were so many other factors at play and the pretext for her death (i.e. the “dead men’s shoes” comment) wouldn’t have even materialized for several months. 

[minervacasterly]

“Thomas and Alice had a comfortable relationship that suited them both. She managed his household, cared for his children, and sought to save his life when he was imprisoned. Margaret was a highly educated woman, following her father’s wishes , but she and her sisters also learned from Alice the modest and appropriate behavior expected of a gentlewoman and the domestic skills required of a wife and mother. Alice was not a shrew; she obeyed her husband, as her society expected, quite unlike the anonymous women in A Dialogue of Comfort. Thomas’s biographers and editors should praise her rather than demean her role as his wife . Young and beautiful she was not, but she was a kind, dutiful, pious woman with deep affection for Thomas, who lived comfortably with her until his imprisonment and death.” 

- Retha Warnicke, Wicked Women of Tudor England

[feuillesmortes]

I’m almost finished with reading Okerlund’s biography of Elizabeth of York (I hadn’t had the chance to do it before because £££) and I think hers and Retha Warnicke’s view on the whole did-Henry-and-Elizabeth-do-it-before-the-wedding-or-not are one of the most balanced takes I’ve seen so far. I’ve read plenty of varied views, from an earlier consummation spurred on by Henry’s sensibility for his bride’s privacy and comfort (Amy Licence) to, ludicrously, his making sure that Elizabeth of York was fertile (Tracy Borman). Okerlund writes:

The baby may have been premature, or the couple may have consummated their relationship before the formal church ceremony. The church accepted marriage as legitimate if a couple privately exchanged words of commitment in each other’s presence: “I take you as my wife . . . I take you as my husband.” The vows had to be stated in the present tense and could not be merely an expression of intent. Alternatively, betrothal (a promise to marry) followed by sexual consummation also became a legal and binding marriage. Henry’s public betrothal in 1483, the Pope’s dispensation in March 1484, and Parliament’s endorsement of the marriage on December 10, 1485, provided every incentive for the couple to consummate their marriage before the public ceremony conducted by Archbishop Bourchier on January 18, 1486, a formality that made the union legally unassailable. 

I personally tend to think along those lines as well. It’s not a matter of whether they were sexually attracted to each other—much less of Henry ‘testing her fertility’ (such an atrocious take): for one, Henry would need to marry Elizabeth regardless of that if he was bent on appeasing the realm and joining the houses of Lancaster and York and secondly, Elizabeth’s fertile mother and grandmother were a testament to her childbearing abilities as it was commonly regarded at the time—but by accelerating his union with Elizabeth in a very real, concrete sense it would help to make their union uncontestable. It’s not a wonder that Henry would go on to declare a felony stealing and marrying an heiress against her will: any man that managed to marry Elizabeth of York (or her sisters) before him would have an uncontestable bid to the throne. There may also have been the issue of speedily conceiving an heir before Lent, as I pointed out here. If we add the estimate that perhaps almost 30% of medieval brides were already pregnant by the time of their wedding , Henry and Elizabeth’s case does not look so alien or against the norms of the time.

We can see Henry’s cautious steps in relation to marriage when he negotiated Arthur’s union with Catherine of Aragon. There was a treaty of marriage in October 1496, followed by a formal betrothal in August 1497, again followed by the swearing of another ‘indissoluble marriage’ ceremony in May 1499 when Catherine reached the marriageable age of 12, then a repetition of the same marriage vows when Arthur turned 14 in September 1501 and, finally, the wedding ceremony in November 1501. Okerlund comments that Henry “took every precaution to assure that this union was legally unassailable—absolutely binding—from betrothal through physical consummation.” This last statement might be implied by the fact that Henry appointed the Earl of Oxford to supervise the preparation of the bedchamber for the newly-wed couple during the wedding banquet. In the case of his son’s marriage, “Papal dispensations and multiple ceremonies rigorously enacted the bond”.

Henry VII was not a hasty, reckless man (nor a cruel one, if you’re going by his depiction in popular media), but a very careful, detail-oriented one. He did everything in his power to make it seem like he was acting according to his subjects’ wishes when he got to the throne. After Parliament endorsed his plans to marry Edward IV’s eldest daughter in December 1485, he is reported to have said: “Se juxta eorum desideria & requestus procedere fuisse contentum” / “According to their desires and requests, he himself equally was pleased to proceed.” The Crowland Chronicle reporter also confirmed that the discussion was held “with the king’s consent”. 

This was not Parliament pressuring Henry into marrying Elizabeth as many historians (and non-historians) have argued to be. Warnicke has also cleverly pointed out that Parliament did not discuss the sovereign’s marriage affairs without his consent. As she puts it, “even in Henry VIII’s reign, parliaments debated his marriage and the succession only at his request.” Indeed, Henry VII’s granddaughter Elizabeth I went a step ahead and “forbade her parliaments to discuss both her marriage and the succession” altogether.

Going further on this point, the person that voiced the petition addressed to the king during that session was Sir Thomas Lovell, speaker of the Commons but also a member of Henry’s trusted council. He had spent time in exile with Henry before Bosworth and at the time of the petion he was Henry’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Treasurer of the Household, and esquire of the body. If anything, it seems like he was a trusted friend. Perhaps we should conclude this issue as per Okerlund’s observation:

A literal translation of the king’s response, “Se juxta eorum desideria & requestus procedere fuisse contentum” confirms that Henry had already determined to act, since the perfect infinitive fuisse indicates that his agreement preceded his response. Henry orchestrated Parliament’s endorsement of his marriage as a shrewd political move to emphasize that king and Parliament were acting together in joining the divided houses of Lancaster and York and assuring England’s future peace. 

[fideidefenswhore]

Two early-modern authors identified 1507 as her birth year. In the margin of his history of Elizabeth, published in 1615, William Camden inserted this date. In the text, he noted Henry was 38 and Anne only 22 when they fell in love. An expert genealogist, Camden was the Clarenceux king of arms, a principal officer in the College of Arms, and began this study at the behest of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, who provided him with materials.

Wicked Women of Tudor England: Queens, Aristocrats, Commoners, by Retha M Warnicke

[ednyfedfychan]

Tudor Consorts: The Politics of Matchmaking, 1483–1543, Retha M. Warnicke

[richmond-rex]

Hi there!

I was wondering if you have any book recommendations about Elizabeth of York? You always cite a lot of different authors/books/articles in your posts, and I was wondering which ones you would recommend, or consider the best.

Hi! I've mentioned a few recs for Elizabeth of York before here and elsewhere but I will put them all together in this ask since there aren't so many of them after all and I will mention a few articles or chapters that are useful too. Obligatory disclaimer that I don't agree 100% with everything that is said in those books/articles/chapters etc but they're all useful sources of information that allow you to draw your own conclusions.

Mandatory biography: Elizabeth of York by Arlene Okerlund (alternatively, Elizabeth of York: The Forgotten Tudor Queen by Amy Licence)

Elizabeth of York and her six-daughters-in-law by Retha Warnicke

The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503 by Joanna L. Laynesmith

 In Bed With the Tudors: The Sex Lives of a Dynasty from Elizabeth of York to Elizabeth I by Amy Licence

From Birth till Death: Royal Ceremony in the Life of Elizabeth of York, Queen of England (article) by Anna Duch

Margaret Tudor, Countess of Richmond, and Elizabeth of York: Dynastic Competitors or Allies? (chapter) by Retha Warnicke

The Queen’s Grace: English Queenship 1464-1503 (MA thesis) by Derek Neal

Elizabeth of York (chapter) in Queenship at the Renaissance Courts of Britain by Michelle Beer

All the Queen’s Jewels, 1445-1548: Power, Majesty and Display by Nicola Tallis

Happy reading 🤍x

[queencamden]

I’m pretty sure she was the progenitor of the gay George theory so..... yeah probably.

Retha Warnicke: full of shit? Discuss.

[wonder-worker]

 It was not just because Arthur was his heir that Henry VII began to grant him titles and offices; he adopted these tactics for his younger son as well. As the king’s second son, Henry was first ennobled as the duke of York and gained several offices while Arthur was still alive: warden general of the Marches of England, lieutenant of Ireland, constable of Dover Castle, and warden of the Cinque Ports. It is interesting that to this point no tradition existed for the second son to be named duke of York, the only exception having been Edward IV’s second son. Henry VII chose to honor his wife’s family by granting that title to his namesake second son, thus beginning a tradition that lasted through the seventeenth century and that was resumed intermittently later."

-Retha Warnicke, "Elizabeth of York and her Six Daughters-in-Law: Fashioning Tudor Queenship"

*I mean, if Edward IV was the first one to do this and Henry followed his example, I really don't think we can say that Henry began the tradition, lol.

[edwardseymour]

Is it possible that the last letters written by Catherine and Anne Boleyn of Aragon to Henry VIII were forged?

✨ terfs/zionists fuck off ✨

it’s certainly possible.

i don’t know as much about catherine’s final letter. there’s definitely arguments for it being a forgery; giles tremlett calls it “almost certainly fictitious”. but i can’t speak in much detail regarding the debate surrounding it.

i think it’s probable that anne’s letter was a forgery; retha warnicke calls it “entirely imaginary” based on the tone and contents. others have pointed out anomalies such as the letter being signed ‘anne bullen’, instead of ’anne boleyn’ or ‘anne the queen’ — likewise, the letter being headed with ‘to the king from the lady in the tower’, instead of as the queen. amanda glover has recently pointed out the paper isn’t old enough (“the paper was most likely to have been produced no earlier than the first few years of the 17th century”) and concludes: “it cannot be an original of a letter dictated by anne, or a copy made for thomas cromwell”.

i think the letter singling jane seymour out for blame is revealing: the letter suggests that anne’s elevation was a result of henry’s interest in her… that same interest now waned as he looked to another woman to replace anne with — “for the ground of my preferment being on no surer foundation than your grace's fancy; the least alteration was fit and sufficient (i know) to draw that fancy to some other subject”. beyond this being a reckless and unhelpful thing to insinuate in a letter intended to garner sympathy (which, to be fair, seems characteristic of anne, who in some respects got herself into this mess by way of irrational and offensive outbursts) it is also simply not in-line with the facts. in the words of eric ives: “it would appear to be wholly improbable for anne to write that her marriage was built on nothing but the king’s fancy and that her incarceration was the consequence of henry’s affection for jane”. anne would surely never claim her rise was merely as a means of supplanting catherine of aragon, and nowhere else is henry’s desire to replace anne an acknowledged factor during her trial, as a fact as she would have been aware of. jane was not brought up in trial, nor was she/henry’s ‘fancy’ mentioned by anne in her execution speech. anne and henry were reported to be “merry” not long before her arrest, and her fall was swift, so it is not clear if anne even knew there was a replacement lined up to supplant her. did anne ever know jane waited along the thames for her to die? i hope not; i hope anne suspected/knew nothing of jane’s proximity — i would like to think she was spared awareness of that final indignity and betrayal.

[thetudorslovers]

"Anne's gowns were made of richly ornamented silks, brocades, and velvets, frequently embroidered with gold and silver thread, and garnished with pearls, jewels, and precious stones." - Retha M. Warnicke, "The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn"

Anne was known for her exquisite sense of fashion and style. She was a trendsetter in her time, and her clothing choices were often imitated by the ladies of the court. One of Anne's signature fashion statements was her French hood, which was a headdress worn by women in the 16th century. Her French hood was often decorated with jewels, beads, and gold embroidery. Anne also wore gowns with wide sleeves, which were known as "French sleeves."

Her gowns were often made of luxurious fabrics such as velvet, silk, and satin, and were adorned with intricate embroidery, lace, and beading. She also favored vibrant colors, such as deep blues, greens, and reds.

Anne's fashion sense was not just about dressing up, but it was also about conveying her status and power. As a queen, she had to maintain a certain level of grandeur and sophistication, and her wardrobe reflected that. She also used fashion as a tool to express her individuality and assert her authority, which was unusual for a woman of her time.

However, her fashion sense also played a role in her downfall. Some of her detractors criticized her for dressing too provocatively and accused her of using her clothing to seduce the king. Her French hood, in particular, was considered by some to be too risqué and suggestive.

Despite the controversy surrounding her fashion choices, Anne Boleyn's legacy as a fashion icon has endured. Her influence can be seen in the clothing of her time, as well as in modern interpretations of Tudor-era fashion.

"Anne's clothing was an outward sign of her power, and her style was emulated by women throughout England." - Antonia Fraser, "The Six Wives of Henry VIII"