Tumgik
#to believe it you'd have to believe she was his mistress in 1534; he rejected her/ended the tryst in favor of taking one up with m shelton
fideidefenswhore · 2 months
Text
Yet, even Chapuys, who gives us this information, says earlier in the same letter that ‘there had been… talk of a new marriage for this king… which rumour agrees well with my own news from the court of France, where, according to letters [I have] received, courtiers maintain that this king has actually applied for the hand of Francis’ daughter’. Chapuys himself therefore does not connect up the rumours of a ‘new marriage’ with Jane Seymour. In early April, Jane was still little more than a lady whom the king was pursuing. At best, in accordance with the conventions of courtly love, she was the lady whom ‘he serves’ – a telling phrase. At worst, she was a passing fancy, whom Henry may have hoped to make his mistress. Chapuys certainly didn’t think much of Henry’s choice. He described Jane the day before Anne’s execution as ‘no great beauty’ and ‘not a woman of great wit’; he implied that she was unlikely to be a virgin, and reported that people said she was inclined ‘to be proud and haughty’. Yet, by this point, the world had changed, and with it, Henry’s intentions towards Jane. It is highly improbable that before Anne was considered guilty of adultery, Henry had seriously begun to plan to make Jane his wife.
1536: The Year that Changed Henry VIII, Suzannah Lipscomb
"I hear that, even before the arrest of the Concubine, the King, speaking with Mistress Jane Semel of their future marriage [...]"
#suzannah lipscomb#things that make you hmmm...#yeah i remember this part in her first documentary and kind of being like...eh?#i mean. i suppose it's possible that before the arrest = *right* before; as in . once the investigation is completed to the level#of 'preponderance of evidence" needed for arrest warrant#like it is true that chapuys is not making that connection in april. but i'm not sure how instructive we should find that#eustace chapuys#although i think we should maybe find it instructive that he doesn't claim jane is mary's supporter until after anne's arrest#like it is certainly a ...conveniently timed. retrospective rumor/report#there are members of the faction around jane that seem to be interacting with mary or speaking for or with her much more directly in#the months leading up to these events...#it's carew and 'some persons of the chamber' that send a message to mary to be of good cheer#'bears great love and reverence towards the princess' is not a judgement he expresses ; again; until mid may#so it doesn't seem it was all that..evident; necessarily#(like#frankly. that unnamed mistress of 1534 during her time in the beam of royal favour#seemed to have more direct involvement/ communication with mary than jane did...? during the era as mistress.#which i think is why there's been this sort of propulsive instinct to#not only link them but insist they were the same person#but returning to a former mistress was just not something henry...did#one of many reasons it seems implausible--#not just that chapuys described them so differently--#is that it wasn't henry's modus operandi to return to any woman he'd ended things with romantically#to believe it you'd have to believe she was his mistress in 1534; he rejected her/ended the tryst in favor of taking one up with m shelton#and then absented himself from m shelton to return again#i get that the slow burn is a more compelling arc from a storytelling perspective#it just doesn't seem to fit the pattern/ evidence is all....)
1 note · View note