Customer Reviews

Anne Boleyn: A New Life of England's Tragic Queen

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

This makes me want to reread my Tudor biographies and histories. One of the most amusing things about reading history is seeing the number of different ways various writers can spin the same facts. This is interestingly contrary to much of what I have read; the support for Denny's assertions varies in quality and the work has serious flaws. I would not read this either as a first or only biography of Anne Boleyn, but it raises thought-provoking issues of sources and interpretations.

Denny seems to have done a great deal of research. She also cites some original sources that I don't believe I've seen referenced before, uses others that are often ignored, and points out flaws in others. In common with most histories, I think it is insufficiently documented: what is "common knowledge" to the historians of a period may be virtually unknown to the general public. I think that if there are, say six historic documents attesting to the same fact, the helpful historian will cite at least one of them as an example. It is also my inflexible rule that where there are quote marks, there should be a citation.

It is the interpretation of facts that is open to question. Denny brings up the issue of Anne's possibly having a stepmother, which I thought had been a dead issue for about 70 years. She also argues that Anne had auburn hair (well perhaps VERY dark auburn hair and questions the authenticity of any portrait with a gable headdress. She also portrays Henry VIII as very promiscuous, when most historians argue that he was actually relatively chaste and discreet for a king, more of a serial monogamist, and did most of his straying at times when his wife was unavailable for sex.

Denny, one gathers, is an Evangelical and she sometimes gets rather vitriolic. I believe it was enough to describe certain fraudulent relics, without adding the opinion that "This proves that the Church ignored biblical warnings against idolatry ... " complete with references to Bible verses. This, of course, is no worse than those who assert that all Evangelicals were self-serving hypocrites, but I'd rather have balance than a second wrong.

I am of two minds about authors who are so clear about their own point of view on issues. On the one hand, it casts doubt upon their ability to make reasoned interpretations, on the other, at least one knows where they stand. Using carefully neutral language is no guarantee of being unbiased.

There has been a tendency to view Anne as a grasping seductress and superficial party girl, at least up until shortly before her death. When I first read that one of her silkwomen complained that during Anne's time, the court had not been so frivolous, I felt cheated that this was not in any biography that I had previously read. Ives argues in his monumental work that standard scenario whereby Anne's relationship with Henry is supposed to have deteriorated steadily (based mainly on certain of Chapuys' letters) is wrong and ignores many contradictory statements in other letters. Denny makes much of the argument that Chapuy had little access to court and understood English only poorly. This does not mean that his information was all wrong, Denny recounts that he had a string of informants (as any good ambassador does), but this does mean that his information was less reliable than if it were first hand. [added 5/2/2010: Even it Chapuys did not speak English, one supposes that he probably spoke Latin, as most educated people did, so he would be able to talk to some people in that language, widening his contacts.]

Another problem is that Catharine of Aragon preferred to assert that her marriage with Henry was reasonably happy and that Anne was entirely responsible for leading him astray: without Anne, Henry would never have considered an annulment or behaved so badly to his wife and daughter. One can think of several reasons why she would say so, among them the common desire to blame all marital discord on a villainous outsider rather than one's own, at least equally guilty, spouse. I think that many people have accepted this view too uncritically. Henry's brutality even after Anne's death has been laid to her corruption of his character. I think that the judicial murder of two of his father's unpopular tax collectors as part of his coronation festivities at 18 makes this interpretation questionable. Denny chiefly blames Henry for his own conduct, and I think rightly so.

I have always found it difficult to believe that Anne's initial refusal of Henry was with the intention of causing him to abandon Catharine of Aragon. As Denny says, "No one could ever have imagined that a king could put aside wife of 20 years' standing, and with such high foreign connections, for an unknown Englishwomen." I have always believed that for whatever reason, Anne really wasn't willing to be his mistress. I therefore find Denny's interpretation of Anne as a truly pious and virtuous woman plausible and give Denny high marks for the rare look at Anne as she might have seen herself. She wasn't "the other woman" if Henry really wasn't married to Catharine. I don't know how to prove her inmost thoughts. I find the positive portrayal of Anne's father interesting: he is usually portrayed as being so cold and self-serving as to be almost a psychopath, but reading this makes me recall that most of those portrayals are not well-documented. Likewise, I have never thought that Jane's undisputed conduct was virtuous, so I like Denny's interpretation.

As to Thomas More, I think he has been all too thoroughly idolized as a selfless, otherworldly saint. He was brilliant and had numerous virtues, but I am baffled how someone presented as being so utterly without worldy ambition could have become Chancellor of England. Indeed, I wonder that there were any little Mores; one might think that he would have spent all his time living in a cave flogging himself through a hair shirt. I think that it is fine that Denny points out his unattractive qualities that are so often glossed over, but again, I would have preferred balance rather than another one-sided portrayal.

Lastly, Catharine of Aragon; I think people have an unfortunate tendency to view all conflicts as a battle between good and evil. Therefore if Anne is good, Catharine must be bad, and vice versa. I actually believe that it is possible that both women saw themselves as virtuous guardians of religious truth, and to respect both of them. From all accounts that I have seen, Catharine carried out her duties as Queen to the best of her very considerable abilities: generously supporting education, encouraging new craft industries, serving as an able regent. The English people loved her. I think Denny oversteps in insisting that Catharine "ought" to have be willing to give up Henry and that fighting for her marriage (and her daughter's inheritance) bordered on treason. It is one thing to criticize her if she discussed an invasion of England with the Emperor, but to fault her for seeking his advice and legal assistance when the annulment proceedings were first announced is unreasonable. Likewise, faulting Mary for her "unnatural" anger with his father over the sufferings he inflicted on her and her mother is incredibly unfair.

There is a lengthy bibliography and 16 pages of plates (probably about 30 images) I am a little surprised at the complaint by one reviewer about the number of Victorian images. About 6 seem to be 18th or 19th century. Most are clearly identified as such, and their flaws sometimes pointed out. Two, one of jousting and one of smuggling Bibles, are not clear; they are labelled as being at least set in the early 16th century, but appear to me to be in a later style. I don't think they are used in a manner that is misleading.

Where do I start? The premise, for one: Anne Boleyn's reputation has hardly suffered; she has unfortunately and inaccurately emerged as a romantic heroine. The vitriol dates back to Sander, writing in the reign of Elizabeth. Even Friedmann, with his opaque Victorian sensibilities, offers a modicum of respect, however grudging. George Wyatt, the poet's grandson, was the earliest, and very sympathetic, biographer. Hence, this much vaunted reappraisal is a few hundred years out of date. Indeed, the tone is hagiographic, which adds nothing to objective historical debate. Only in the realm of fiction do we glimpse a shallow, coarse and unsavoury Anne Boleyn ('The Other Boleyn Girl', 'Queen of Subtleties').

Denny's writing style is unfortunate, employing simplistic, girlish language, and incorrect word usage. "Illegitimating" is a word? Who would write such a word? Where were her editors? Disconcerting, also, is Denny's excessive use of quotations, giving the impression of laziness; historians must sift through primary and secondary materials and draw logical, supportable arguments - not merely regurgitate. She translates a letter written by a very young Anne Boleyn from French to English, and unfortunately makes it comprehensible. The original is exceptionally difficult, rife with bizarre, idiomatic expressions - a fascinating glimpse into Anne Boleyn's progress with a language she would later master.

The author has a poor grasp of source materials and re-interprets secondary evidence very loosely. For example, she twists Plowden ('Tudor Women') to an alarming degree in supporting a negative interpretation of Katherine of Aragon's character. The latter is labelled "arrogant, stubborn and bloody-minded", but Denny neglects to tell us that observation came from Henry's partisan supporters, which Plowden does. Why shouldn't the daughter of renowned princes be so if told she had been a whore for almost 20 years, and her beloved child was a bastard. What was she supposed to feel? Jane Seymour's character is cattily dismissed in a few prejudiced sentences. And that is the major problem with Denny: Anne is good, everyone who opposed her is bad. Thomas More is simply a foul mouthed masochist; no mention of his courageous convictions. Katherine is a manipulative liar; we will never know the truth about either her virginity or first pregnancy. Henry is "promiscuous" and a "philanderer" - hardly. Henry had few mistresses, and appeared to be more of a serial monogamist. Indeed, his emotional entanglements seem the product of too much gallantry, and not enough reality. Just compare him with Francis I.

The principles in this drama were so fascinating and multi-dimensional that to dismiss them so is a travesty. Denny makes the cardinal error of dragging her own religious prejudices into the mix, making her less than objective in examining one of the most intriguing events in English history.

Unfortunately, Anne Boleyn suffers, becoming flat and frilly. Her brilliance, ambition, temper, political acumen and vindictiveness, qualities which render her complex and three dimensional, are glossed over. She is pure, virtuous, a wonderful mother, saintly and - ugh - a victim. What happened to the able politician, the religious scholar/reformer, the wit and charisma? Impossible: a boring Anne Boleyn. Yes, Denny states she was intelligent, cultured, etc, but never supports the argument with concrete examples. And that is another difficulty: statements are made, never followed through logically; merely dropped. Maddeningly disorganized. Worse yet, Denny engages in the dangerous sport of presupposing intimate knowledge of the queen's inner motives and inclinations. That must remain a novelist's jurisdiction; we have no evidence regarding her mind and emotions.

Due to a poor grasp of documentary evidence and recent research, Denny makes glaring, sometimes bizarre errors. To name the simplest:

The stepmother myth was based on a misreading by Agnes Strickland (mid 19thC) of the Howard rolls (she relied on an inaccurate source). At the Howard aisle of Lambeth, Elizabeth Howard, Countess of Wiltshire, is buried. Date? 1538, not 1512. Sargent addressed the stepmother notion during the 1930s, yet does not appear in the limited bibliography.

Denny changes Anne Boleyn's colouring based on a Holbein drawing of a man labelled "Ormond", whom she believes to be Thomas Boleyn - a common error. Unfortunately, this is probably James Butler; at one point, while Holbein lived in England, both men held the title. Thomas Boleyn was in his fifties when he acquired the title; this is a much younger man. Also, the drawing does not resemble Thomas Boleyn's brass in St. Peter's. All contemporary descriptions of the queen mention her expressive black eyes and lustrous dark hair. Wolsey called her "the night crow". Not pretty, but evocative and exotic. Here, suddenly, she has reddish hair and hazel eyes. The NPG version is not contemporary and, although charming and lively, is by a lesser hand.

Doyne C. Bell's account of the Victorian renovations at St. Peter ad Vincula are also held suspect: Denny hints Anne Boleyn's corpse might have been removed (as did Norah Loft, the romance writer in her picture book biography). I own the Bell account, and find no incompatibility between the described skeleton and Anne Boleyn's appearance (based on comparisons with maternal relatives and Elizabeth). The skeleton was supposedly of a woman between 25 and 30, but with primitive forensic techniques, and Anne Boleyn being accepted as born in 1507, errors were likely. Little known fact: traces of elm wood - the infamous arrow chest - were found amongst the scattered bones.

To her credit, Denny dismisses the sixth finger nonsense, although George Wyatt mentioned a small deformity of one nail. Nothing extraordinary. It was the Catholic Sander who deserves blame for Anne Boleyn's alleged deformities. No-one who saw her described her as a physical monster.

And why so many cheesy, Victorian illustrations? Even famous works are represented by later, inferior copies. Credit them as later fantasies; only a few are properly identified. Anachronistic and sentimental. Why reproduce a letter from Henry VIII not written in his own hand?

Save your money. Read Ives' revised biography. Or, for something truly controversial, try Warnicke. Dr. Warnicke advances some outlandish theories, which I cannot support, but her arguments are well researched, cogent, and compelling. This book, however, adds nothing to the debate, and simply goes over old ground. And not very well. Denny is simply a poor historian.

I understand Denny has written a biography of Anne Boleyn's cousin, Katherine Howard. Considering how little is known of her, the prospect is disheartening; just because Denny's ancestor served in court, it does not give her special knowledge.

This is probably the worst biography of Anne Boleyn I have ever read, and I've read lots of them.

Denny spends most of her time flogging several very dead horses. She seems to think that most people actually believe the charges of adultery brought against Anne, which ultimately led to her execution. From my extensive reading on the subject, I find that most people, whether they are admirers of Anne or not, don't believe the claims. In fact a number of biographers have taken the pains to point out that based on actual Tudor court records, many of Anne's so-called lovers were not even in the same county as she during their alleged trysts. Almost all experts agree that Henry executed Anne on "trumped-up" charges, so why is Denny so passionate in insisting that Anne was innocent? She appears to be unaware that she is "preaching to the choir"!

She also makes a strenuous effort to paint Anne as motivated by nothing but selfless devotion to the newly emerging evangelical faith. True, Anne's sympathies did appear to lie with the Reformers, but was her motivation pure devotion to her religious beliefs? I think Anne was far more complex than that, she was also ambitious, willful, eager to raise her family's social standing, etc. But Denny will have none of that. She will not even consider that part of Anne's "devotion" to Protestantism was the fact that her rival, Catherine of Aragon, was a devout Catholic and thus backed by the "Catholic faction" at court and abroad.

Which brings me to the part of the book which disturbed me most. The book informs the reader that Denny has degrees in several fields, including theology. One has to wonder where on earth she received her theology degree?? Her bias against any and all Catholics--and the Catholic Church itself--is shockingly extreme. Of course she is entitled to her own theological views, but it is unthinkable for any serious historian or biographer to make her own prejudices so evident. And "prejudice" is not too strong a word--in fact, it is hardly strong enough. Denny shreds the characters of every Catholic in the book--Catherine of Aragon (whom she criticizes for refusing to be cast aside by her husband, King Henry!), the pope, nuns and priests whom she paints in the most lurid colors, accusing them of every vice under the sun, and as for poor Sir Thomas More---well, one has to wonder how he ever managed to become a saint. Denny portrays him as nasty, deceitful, amoral and, yes, a "pervert"--in her words, a "sadomasochist". Because he wore a hair shirt beneath his fine court clothing (a medieval practice intended to induce humility and piety in the wearer) she leaps to the assertion that he thoroughly enjoyed being flogged--by his own daughter!!!

Martin Luther himself never showed as much disgust for the Catholic Church as Denny does. She appears to think that the Reformation is still ongoing and that Protestants and Catholics must use any weapon handy to bludgeon the other side into defeat. (Well, at least, those evil and perverted Catholics!)

Was there corruption in the Catholic Church during Anne Boleyn's lifetime? Absolutely, and if Denny had merely pointed out the recognized abuses, she would only be doing her job as a historian. But she is not content to do that. Her belief seems to be that the Church was (and is) corrupt and un-Godly to the core--that the outward corruptions were just the obvious signs of the rot within. I cannot recall ever reading a supposedly "historical biography" which showed such venom towards a particular religion.

I actually had to re-read a number of passages to make sure that I wasn't just becoming paranoid!

Like I said, though, Denny is welcome to her own beliefs--and frankly, she can keep her book, too.

If you want to read some scurrilous attacks on the Catholic Church, there are some readily available "religious" tracts which I can assure you are much cheaper. And frankly, much more honest in their own way than in this supposed work of history.

I'm giving this book two stars instead of one just to record my gratitude to Denny for combatting the Anne-as-trashy-whore image most recently rehashed in the tawdry, sexist, and grotesquely inaccurate novel The Other Boleyn Girl. (Can you tell I hate that book?) Still, though well-intentioned, Denny's work is quite pedestrian as history. But then again, she's a novelist, not a historian; if you want genuine historiography about Anne Boleyn, go to Eric Ives or David Starkey. (Retha Warnicke's work is useful in some regards, but, as others have commented, unfortunately makes bizarrely unsubstantiated claims.)

As for the anti-Catholic bias that some readers have commented on, this is an embarrassment, a blast-from-the-past of British anti-papist propaganda. I'm surprised that an editor didn't try to dilute the insensitive tone. I have to say, though, that I think the anti-Catholicism is largely an aspect of Denny's childish attempt to vilify Catherine of Aragon in order to polish Anne's halo by contrast. The tone of Denny's comments on Catherine is completely out of control; she accuses the poor woman of lying about the consummation of her marriage, for gosh sake, and plotting treason just because she objected being swept aside to make room for a trophy (and presumably more fertile) wife. One would think Denny was Henry's PR person! As for the claim about Catherine's lies: did Denny have access to a surveillance tape of Catherine's wedding night with Prince Arthur?

One irony of Denny's anti-Catholicism is that she makes much of the Church's misogyny while attributing all sorts of feminist ideals to the early Protestants. While I would certainly agree that the Western Christian tradition unfortunately has often been sexist, at least Catholicism offered women options other than being wives. Nuns were the female intellectuals and powerful women of the period, but reformers discarded the celibacy option for women and confined them instead more exclusively to the role of wife (if they didn't slot them in the role of whore instead).

As in all cartoon versions of history, there is a lot of oversimplication here. Yes, Anne did play a role in bringing religious reform to England, but she was not the sole catalyst of the movement. No one person--not even Henry VIII--had that much power. The forces that create change are infinitely complicated and subtle. It's much easier to create a few cardboard characters and attribute everything to them.

If you're new to Anne Boleyn and Tudor history, this is not a place to start. If you've a Tudorphile you'll definitely want to keep your distance unless you're up for a few laughs.

This is not a work of scholarship but neither is Norah Loft's biography. The difference is that Loft's biography keeps the facts straight and attempts to assess Anne Boleyn and her times in the context of her times. Loft's book is also readable. Denny interprets the facts loosely, very loosely. She actually likens the common head dress worn by Tudor women as burkas. She even draws similarities between prevailing Tudor ideas and the Taliban. If would be laughable if it weren't masquerading as non-fiction.

To summarize: Mary Boleyn was an international trollop, Katherine of Aragon was a shrew, Thomas More enjoyed a sound flogging, Chapuys is a queenie gossip, etc. One could make the case that the previous list was the result of interpretation. Not so the many, many other facts Denny gets just plain wrong. Anne did not have a stepmother, for example.

If you want a feminist reinterpretation of Anne Boleyn, read Retha Warnicke's scholarly yet very readable biography. It has it's share of controversial opinions but Warnicke bases her theories in reasoned interpretation of the facts. Eric Ives' recent biography of Boleyn is more mainstream in terms of conclusions but readable and intelligent. Dig up a copy of Loft's or Chapman's biographies from the 70', read a few chapters from Weir's or Fraser's collective biographies of all 6 wives but don't waste your time and money on this silly, silly book

I normally don't write reviews for books I have not read, but I sat down in Borders last night with this title and flipped through it for about 15 minutes. Within the first 5, I was convinced I didn't want to buy it, but kept reading because I could hardly believe what I was seeing. Even the illustrations signal red flags: the famous National Portrait Gallery painting of Anne Boleyn is called "the original," when even we amateur armchair historians know it's a copy; photostats of typescripts of Henry VIII's love letters are not historical documents; the "Thomas Boleyn" portrait misidentified again; plenty of irrelevant and/or non-contemporary illustrations that look like they're just there to fill space. Denny actually revisits the old did-Henry VIII-have-syphilis "debate," which has not been a debate for at least a century. She does this by strongly implying that he did, giving us a little history lesson on the background and symptoms of the disease, and ending the issue with a brief "though maybe he didn't"-type statement. It reads more like an undergraduate history paper done at the last minute than a serious piece of scholarly research.

For a biography that claims to present Anne as a highly literate, feminist reformer, etc., there is still distressingly little mention of her mentor, the brilliant Marguerite of Navarre (who Anne clearly loved and admired throughout her life, and whose example she tried to follow). Feminism does not mean playing good-guys/bad-guys (or gals).

I strongly suspect this biography was written to "correct" the drubbing that Anne's character has recently received at the hands of Gregory's novel "The Other Boleyn Girl," which paints her as a shrewish monster. Gregory in turn claims to have used Retha Warnicke's scholarship as a source; a few people here have suggested Warnicke as an alternative read to Denny. I suggest Karen Lindsay's "Divorced, Beheaded, Survived" as the best example of feminist scholarship on the Tudor period that I have read.

This was an interesting biography in its interpretation and possible chronology of Henry's undated love letters to Anne. On the whole, however, Anne's complex character and motivations are lost in Denny's one-dimensional portrayal of Anne's evangelical religious piety as almost her sole raison d'etre. And, having read many Tudor histories, I wonder why Katherine of Aragon is portrayed so negatively. Surely her 20+ years of marriage and her anguish at seeing her daughter tagged as illegitimate entitles her to some compassionate understanding.

Not only that, many of the more negative aspects of Anne's character are dismissed as the inventions of her Catholic enemies when her virulent tongue has been well documented by other historians.

I think that this is an interesting book although it reflects too much black-and-white thinking about the major historical figures.

Read Eric Ives' "Life and Death of Anne Boleyn" for a more well-rounded look at Anne's life.

One of my students asked me to read this and see what I thought. I am baffled that this book has even one positive review. This is not a "revisionist" history based on a new reading of the historical record, it is a whole-cloth fabrication rife with inaccuracies that any student of the period would find as gasp-inducing as the author's bold-faced religious bigotry. You have been warned.

What struck me most about this bio was the incredibly blatant anti-Catholic bias. Without exception the Catholics were portrayed as deceitful, greedy, Godless people, while Anne (who had one of the most unfair trials in the history of law) was a reformer, blameless, saintly....as a biography it was hardly objective. An author has a right to try and cast her subject in a positive light, but not at the expense of others (and of history!). You could almost put this book on the fiction shelf, as it reads like a novel. If you want a book to read on a rainy weekend, go ahead and buy it, but take it with a grain of salt. There are better bios of Anne out there.

Anne Boleyn: A New Life of England's Tragic Queen

by Joanna Denny (2004)

There are any number of excellent biographies of Queen Anne Boleyn: this treatment by Joanna Denny is not one of them. Rather, this work suffers from a number of deficiencies, including factual errors, weak writing, and a systematic assumption, never supported, that Anne Boleyn was herself an ardent Protestant/Lutheran. Further, the entire book is permeated with the view that the early Protestants were, without exception, upright and virtuous individuals while all Catholics were superstitious dupes of a false and oppressive Catholic Church.

Simple factual errors that appear throughout the book are unfortunately not difficult to spot. For example, Jean Du Bellay is described as being the Imperial Ambassador (p. 178); in fact he was the French Ambassador. Discussing the birth of Mary Tudor in 1516, it is suggested "That time was running out for Catherine. She was fast approaching 40, while Henry was still very much in his vigorous early 30s." (pp. 82-83). Catherine of Aragon was born in December, 1485. At the time of the birth of Mary Tudor in February, 1516 she was 31 years old (which is not, by any measure, "fast approaching 40"), and Henry was in his mid twenties, having been born in 1491. There is referenced a bull issued by Pope Innocent VII in 1484 (p.60). It is rather curious that Innocent VII issued a bull in 1484 as he was pope from 1404 until his death in 1406. Rather, it was Innocent VIII, elected in 1484, who issued that bull in question, Summis Desiderantes. Wolsey is described as having been the son of a butcher (pp. 44, 155). This suggestion of a "low birth" is thought by many historians to have been a later scurrilous charge against Wolsey. In fact his father, Robert Wolsey of Ipswich, likely was either a wealthy cloth merchant; such a background would justify the fact that he was recorded as having been killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field, or a cattle farmer (a "grazier" is the term employed in the Historical Dictionary of Tudor England, 1485-1603).

These and similar factual mistakes spread throughout the work greatly draw into question whether any of these suppositions and conclusions otherwise contained therein have any validity.

Denny seems to lose track of the roles being filled by various persons. For example, were Chapuys a loyal subject of Henry VIII, it might be possible to charge him with being duplicitous in his support of Catherine of Aragon (p. 189). That, however, was not his role. Rather, he was the Imperial Ambassador, and it was the policy of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, a nephew to Catherine of Aragon, that the divorce not be granted and that she remain Queen of England. Chapuys, far from being duplicitous, was as an agent carrying out the instructions of his principal. He was not charged to work for the interests of England as a whole or for the particular interests of Henry VIII, but rather for the Imperial interests, and that is exactly what he did.

As far as research goes, the so-called Calco Treatise, referenced at page 148, is nothing more than identified as existing. No citation to it else wise appears in this book.

It is charged, inter alia, that Richard Hunne, who died in jail after being arrested for possession of a Wycliffe Bible, was killed on instructions from unknown agents of the Catholic Church and that they thereafter hired Thomas More to "write a whitewash of the affair, his Dialogue Concerning Heresies of 1529." (p. 101). However, on page 128, Denny asserts a different provenance of this work. Further, Denny admits that it is a supposition that Henry VII made Henry (to shortly be Henry VIII) "swear not to marry his dead brother's wife," (p. 178) but in the next paragraph it is asserted that Henry undertook the marriage to Catherine of Aragon just to spite his father's deathbed wish. Here we see the author jump from an admitted supposition as to the deathbed statement Henry VII to Henry VIII acting specifically in opposition ("just to spite") that statement.

Particularly troubling is the degree to which there appears throughout this book pejorative statements with respect to those persons who were and or remained Catholic throughout the Tudor years as contrasted with the supposed virtuousness of all those who did or are claimed to have adopted some element of Protestantism. Initially, throughout it is asserted that, inter alia, Anne Boleyn was an ardent Protestant. However, no support is provided for this proposition. To this extent, it must be noted that a mere support for reading the Bible in the vernacular is not equivalent to a support for Protestant views with respect to the modification of dogma. Denny, however, appears to believe the two are the same. Further, it is asserted that Anne's objective in becoming Henry's consort and the queen of England was in order to support the Protestant faith, it being asserted (pp. 131-32) that "Least of all it was personal ambition to be allotted as Queen with all the riches and dazzling privileges which Henry could give her. All Anne's ambition was not focused on what she could achieve for her faith, should she be thrust into that exalted position." Inversely, it is charged that Henry had "A superstitious fear of excommunication" (p. 143) without acknowledging that, for any Catholic, the consequences of excommunication are far from superstitious. It if further asserted that:

The rediscovery of the written of God, put into the language of the people, was a liberation from the superstition and corruption of the establish Church. (pp. 172-73).

This statement makes several assumptions, including that the pool of persons literate at reading English was significantly larger and as well different from that pool of person capable of reading Latin, and further supposes that Catholic doctrine constitutes nothing more than "superstition and corruption." Of course, the Act for the Advancement of True Religion (1543), which had as its purpose limiting the pool of persons who could, even in English, read the Bible, was nowhere mentioned.

For those seeking a far better written and balanced review of Anne Boleyn, not withstanding its deficiency with respect to her date of birth, there can be recommended Retha M. Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn (Cambridge University Press 1989).