On This Day in Tudor History:

July 19, 1545, Henry VIII's Navy flagship The Mary Rose sank in the Solent Channel killing all but 35 of the crew on board.
During battle with the French the ship capsized due to a combination of poor design, open gun ports, bringing the ship about too quickly and bad luck. Other theories have stated the presence of Spanish mercenaries among the crew may have caused language communications problems in part leading to the gun ports being left open. Oddly, many sailors at that time could not swim: being superstitious, they regarded this as tempting fate!
On 11 October 1982 the wreck was lifted from the water by a team led by the Royal Engineers. Along with remains of around half the crew, a great number of artefacts were uncovered during excavation, including navigational and medical equipment, carpentry tools, guns, longbows, arrows with traces of copper-rich binding glue still remaining on the tips, cooking and eating utensils, lanterns, backgammon boards, playing dice, logs for the galley's ovens, and even a well-preserved shawm, a long lost predecessor of the oboe, from which a fully functioning model has since been replicated. These artefacts, and the wreck itself, are displayed at the Mary Rose museum located on the Royal Naval base in Portsmouth, England. The Mary Rose is the only 16th-century warship in the world to be recovered and put on display. The Mary Rose was likely named for Henry's sister - not his daughter as previously believed.

On July 19, 1553, Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII, replaced Lady Jane Grey as Queen of England. This day was, therefore, day 9 in the reign of "The Nine Days Queen" and the official date from which the reign of Queen Mary I is dated.
After being on the run from the machinations of the Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley, Mary had found sufficient support to ride into London in a triumphal procession. Parliament then declared Mary the rightful queen and denounced and revoked Jane's proclamation as having been coerced. Mary imprisoned Jane and her husband in the Gentleman Gaoler's apartments at the Tower of London, although their lives were initially spared. The Duke of Northumberland was executed on 21 August 1553.

Understanding Queen Elizabeth I

One of the reasons I feel so drawn to Anne Boleyn is because I understand her. I get her. I read biography after biography and always come to the same conclusion: had I lived in 16th century England or France, I would have been a lot like her. Yes, faults and all. (On a silly note, I have long suspected that Anne was a Gemini although we have no record of her birthdate. Recently, I read one book that confirmed that she must have been born in late May, early June.) I don't mean for this to be some sort of tribute to me, but I have often been complemented on attributes with which Anne is credited. I have long been praised for my wit, charm, cleverness and my best friend would certainly say my self-confidence and fearlessness. Hell, I made a career out of all of that in radio and TV!
I am in no way "beautiful" but I am attractive. Yes, even though I do not see myself as beautiful, I can still be quite vain. I am not above flirting to get what I want and that has sometimes led to trouble.
On an even more negative side, I have certainly had my moments of haughtiness and many have suffered my quick temper over the years. Sadly, my first reaction to stress or a grave situation can often be panic or irrational behavior. But it passes quickly. All of this adds up to understanding Anne's behavior and reactions to her life. I can see myself in her. Which is funny considering how often she is explained as an enigma or seeming to be very contrary.

Prior to learning about Anne, I had long been a fan of her daughter, Queen Elizabeth I. This is the perfect person with whom to contrast my feelings about Anne. I do not understand this woman very well at all. That's not to say that I don't "know" very much about her. I have read almost as much about Elizabeth as I have about her mother, Anne but I do not get that sense of "understanding" when I read about her decisions, comments and exploits. There are a variety of events in Elizabeth's life I do not quite understand, but none more than her attitude (or lack of) toward her tragic mother and her barbaric father.

It is often reported that Elizabeth made mention of her mother, Anne Boleyn, only once or maybe twice in her lifetime. She wore a locket ring which had her initial "E" outside and portraits of her mother and herself inside facing each other but she never discussed her nor did she ever reveal any true feelings on her mother's execution when she was only three years old. Granted, she wouldn't have much memory to draw upon but surely she deeply felt the loss?
Perhaps she spoke to close friends but they never betrayed her confidence? But even this I doubt because there are no stories of it and I think that would have been quite noteworthy.
Indeed, what's noteworthy is the lack of any stories. And this I just cannot fathom. My mother was the most imperfect soul whom I still love and miss more than words can describe. Despite her faults, I would defend her to my death.



Did no one ever ask her about her mother? Did she lash out at them or simply not reply at all?
By contrast, there is the intense respect and admiration Elizabeth always showed for her father, Henry VIII - the very man who had her mother killed!? It baffles me!

As Elizabeth grew up, she was often in the company of people who liked her mother - although they probably didn't admit this openly. Did no one try to communicate to Elizabeth her mother's deep love for her? How was this received?

Upon her accession to the throne, Mary I, daughter of Henry and Katherine of Aragon, went back and had her parents marriage validated and her bastardy erased. Elizabeth made no such moves, despite her exact same status. There is speculation by historians that Elizabeth did not follow in Mary's footsteps because this would have put into question her legitimacy and claim to the throne. Understandable - to an extent.

Wasn't her claim and legitimacy already questionable with the validation of Mary's parents' marriage? There were already many other "legitimate" claimants to the throne, couldn't she have helped her cause by validating her parents' marriage? Most of all, why didn't she have her mother's Act of Attainder reversed or thrown out?

Elizabeth - it is written - concerned herself only with the future, not with the past. Again, this is where we differ dramatically because my past colors my present and future, irrevocably. In her present and future were men whom she loved. Here again, we appear to have something in common: our desire to never marry and be treated badly by a man. But I simply can't relate to Elizabeth's suffering traitorous, vainglorious fools like the Earl of Essex. Robert Dudley, I'll give her because they shared so much from childhood. But Essex was just a glory-hound who loved nothing about her but her crown. It is said she had such vanity that she would entertains affection and attention from such fools as long as they showed devotion. Well, I can tell you that I may like the attention for a short time, but they would be out of my sight the moment they behaved the way the did toward her!!!

I will continue to read and research Elizabeth and I have the utmost respect for her work as Queen of England but like her sister Mary, I may never understand this woman as I feel I understand Anne.

Digging-up Dirt on Anne Boleyn?

As I visit various other Tudor and Anne Boleyn dedicated blogs and sites one of the topics which is raised quite often is the exhumation of those who were executed and buried in the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula.

In 1876, Queen Victoria authorized restoration of the chapel and in doing so, the builders exhumed the remains of some of those buried just beneath the floor. Afterward, reinterring the remains in a place more difficult to reach (as protection from grave robbers). Here is a description from a Tower heritage website:

Many of those who died in the Tower or perished on the scaffold were buried here, often with no marker. Identification was therefore difficult when the chapel floor was lifted and the bones exhumed. Those remains found in the nave were reburied in the crypt, while those of people of distinction known to have been buried in the chancel - Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard, Lady Jane Grey and the Dukes of Northumberland and Somerset among others - were replaced there beneath marble paving giving their names and armorial bearings.

Upon examination of the remains, conclusions were drawn by extremely crude means. Scientists in 1876 certainly didn't have the forensic tools we have today. Their description of one of the skeletons claimed it to belong to a beheaded woman, a delicate frame of middling stature (approximately 5'3" - that was considered middle height in the 16th century) with proportionate limbs and small, tapering hands and feet. There is NO mention of a sixth finger. That's it. That's the extent of the review of forensic evidence.

This is a major disappointment to me.

There are many lively debates and discussions on other sites about whether or not to re-exhume Anne (and others) to have the remains extensively tested with the advanced forensic tools we have now. In order to open the graves again and do anything with the remains, permission from Queen Elizabeth II (or the sovereign) is needed. There are excellent arguments for both sides of this debate, however, I fall on the side of those in favor of another exhumation.

Plainly put: when Anne Boleyn was crowned Queen of England, she gave up privacy - even in death. Her person, her body, her daughter, her life were no longer hers, they belonged to England.
I understand that for many this may be a sensitive, spiritual or even religious topic. Some see the stirring of her bones to be an invasion and would prefer to allow Anne to finally rest in peace. I do not disagree. I pray that Anne's soul found peace and that whatever came after death is - for her - paradise. However, I do not believe that this, in any way, is impacted by her remains here on this earth. That body was just a vessel to display her unparalleled intellect, wit, humor, cunning, talents and fascinating spirit to the world and worlds to come. That body has been put through execution, unceremonious burial in an arrow chest, exhumation and then thrown together with the bones of other so-called traitors. Has this changed our love or fascination with Anne Boleyn over the past 500 years? No. Nor will exhuming and testing her skeleton change the way we feel.

It could, however, answer questions and give us still more insight into a woman who is such an enigma.