WHEN WAS ANNE BOLEYN BORN? Six wives documentary | Amazing women of history | History Calling
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ม.ค. 2021
- Details of the BIRTH OF ANNE BOLEYN are hazy to say the least. Was she born in 1501 or 1507? Despite being the second wife of Henry VIII, the mother of Queen Elizabeth I and one of the most amazing women of history, there is much we don't know about this famous Tudor Queen and at the time of Anne Boleyn's execution at the Tower of London, no one is quite sure how old she was. Find out why historians can’t agree on the question 'when was Anne Boleyn born' and see the letter she wrote to her father, Thomas Boleyn, which should have solved the issue of 'how old was Anne Boleyn', but which throws up more problems than it solves. Learn about her life on the continent with Margaret of Austria, Queen Mary Tudor and Queen Claude of France, her dalliances with Lord Henry Percy and the poet Thomas Wyatt and of course, about Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn's affair which led to the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
Patreon: / historycalling
Instagram: / historycalling
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
DID CATHERINE OF ARAGON SLEEP WITH PRINCE ARTHUR TUDOR? WAS HENRY VIII A BIGAMIST? • DID CATHERINE OF ARAGO...
Did Jane Seymour STEAL HENRY VIII from Anne Boleyn? • DID QUEEN JANE SEYMOUR...
Was Anne of Cleves Henry VIII’s LUCKIEST WIFE? • WAS ANNE OF CLEVES HEN...
WHAT DID KATHERINE HOWARD LOOK LIKE? • WHAT DID KATHERINE HOW...
Catherine Parr: The Queen who SURVIVED HENRY VIII and the SCANDAL of Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour • CATHERINE PARR: The Qu...
LEARN MORE:
Image of the letter written by Anne Boleyn to her father, c. 1514: parker.stanford.edu/parker/ca...
BUY OR RENT
The Tudors, season 1 amzn.to/3rFmveg (UK link) OR amzn.to/2VCwQ0j (US link)
The Tudors, season 2 amzn.to/3m64HIn (UK link) OR amzn.to/2VMPnHw (US link)
The Tudors, season 3 amzn.to/3wiwPwi (UK link) OR amzn.to/3BijsPB (US link)
The Tudors, season 4 amzn.to/3rNeggF (UK link) OR amzn.to/3z16S58 (US link)
Henry VIII and his Six Wives (2016 docu-drama) amzn.to/3jiCkag
Six Wives with Lucy Worsley (2016 docu-drama) amzn.to/3hd93vd (UK link) OR amzn.to/3wH2mr2 (US link)
Wolf Hall (2015) amzn.to/2UJ9Mwz (UK link) OR amzn.to/3B70Qlp (US link)
Anne of the Thousand Days (1969) amzn.to/3dAIlf9 (UK link) OR amzn.to/3z5xt18 (US link)
Henry and Anne - The Lovers Who Changed History (2014 docu-drama) amzn.to/2Stho5w (UK link) OR amzn.to/2USJc3Z (US link)
READ
Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005) amzn.to/3h9efQD (UK link) OR amzn.to/3xLivgr (US link)
Retha Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII (Cambridge University Press, 1991) amzn.to/2NuS8Jj (UK link) OR amzn.to/2VcvKIw (US link)
Antonia Fraser, The Six Wives Of Henry VIII (2nd edn, Phoenix, 2009) amzn.to/3atiEfi (UK link) OR amzn.to/36IqD5r (US link)
David Starkey, Six Wives: the Queens of Henry VIII (Vintage, 2004) amzn.to/3k9uD4Z (UK link) OR amzn.to/3wImKIh (US link)
Alison Weir, The Six Wives of Henry VIII (Vintage, 2007) amzn.to/2NzLem2 (UK link) OR amzn.to/3hOcutX (US link)
Suzannah Lipscomb, 1536: The Year That Changed Henry VIII (Lion Books, 2006) amzn.to/3yRhCmp (UK link) OR amzn.to/3wXWARP
Hilary Mantel, Wolf Hall (Fourth Estate, 2010) amzn.to/3AbIr6D (UK link) OR amzn.to/2UQmA48 (US link)
Hillary Mantel, Bring Up the Bodies (Fourth Estate, 2012). amzn.to/2ZsBhJM (UK link) OR amzn.to/3xQRkAW (US link)
Hillary Mantel, The Mirror and the Light (Fourth Estate, 2020). amzn.to/3jYRXlI (UK link) OR amzn.to/3kzLtMB (US link)
DVDS
The Tudors complete collection: amzn.to/3gWs4Ty (UK link) OR amzn.to/3z3Ef7n (US link)
Wolf Hall (2015) amzn.to/2ZrOJxu (UK link)
Henry VIII (2003) amzn.to/2ZrjK4U (UK link) OR amzn.to/3z73ndj (US link)
Henry and Anne - The Lovers Who Changed History (2014 docu-drama) amzn.to/3qrqyw5 (UK link) OR amzn.to/3kpkR0I (US link)
Six Wives with Lucy Worsley (2016 docu-drama): amzn.to/3h7Qh8z (UK link) OR amzn.to/3xKuBGA (US link)
Learn more about the secrets of Anne Boleyn in this Tudors documentary from History Calling. It is the second in a series on the six wives of Henry VIII looking at the unsolved mystery of Anne Boleyn's age. It draws on primary sources including those written by Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria; Nicholas Sander; John Weever; Edward Herbert and William Camden.
For Creative Commons licenses used see creativecommons.org/licenses/
NB: Links above may be affiliate links. This means that if you choose to make a purchase through one of these links, I earn a small commission. It does not affect the price you pay.
When do you think Anne Boleyn was born? Let me know in the comments below and check out my PATREON site for extra perks at www.patreon.com/historycalling
That would make sense as to around her correct age.
I think she was born around 1502
I have a souvenir book on The Six Wives of Henry VIII that I bought when I was in London, England. The date given for Anne Boleyn is 1502 with a question mark after it, so 1501 or 1502 would seem more likely along with the history presented here.
I really think all the evidence points to 1501. Thanks very much for the comprehensive video.
1507.
You have a beautiful voice. As a musician I hear the natural rhythm.. So easy to listen to.
Thank you. I love telling my family and friends when I get nice comments like this, as they never say that about my voice out here in the real world! :-)
@history calling Agree! Your voice is very soothing
It helps put my baby to sleep. Very important right now 😂😂
I'm really kucky, as I can do all sorts of accents, and I can sing, as well. When friends have asked about the accents, I've always said that I've been able to do them since I was very young, and it's all about listening to the rhythm of the accents. To me, they're like muaic, and once you have the rhythm, it's easy.
You are right though; this lady has a really lovely voice.
She most certainly does. Even the entry about Henry's exploding corpse is just lilting. Her beautiful voice adds a great deal of atmosphere to the subjects, and documentary filmmakers should come calling.
I read about Anna's date birth long time ago and I WOULD say 1507 is more probable, BUT this letter... it's really hard to believe that seven years old girl would do it... However not impossible. Anyway, it's really inetresting topis and fascinating mystery!
Thanks for show arguments for either case! Love your channel for that you always try to show every case so objectively as it possible and also in very interesting way! ❤❤❤
Also, in my country (Poland) we have very similar story to Anne's, of Queen Barbara Radziwiłł (1523?-1551) (so also from 16-th century!!!).
As Anne, Barbara was initally mistress of King Sigismund II August (1520-1572) and later became his second wife (just like Anne became second wife of Henry). It was second marriage for both of them, and they were both widowed after first, unloved spouses.
Just like in Anne case, union of Barbara and August was scandalous, because Polish noblemen demanded annulment as they didn't want aristrocrate as a queen and also couldn't stand she was king's lover before wedding.
During their marriage (again - like in Anne's case) Barbara probably lost two pregnancies, however it didn't affected her spouse love for her, nor it didn't stop his fight with opposition. Sigismund August ultimately enjoyed victory over opponents and Barbara was crown Queen of Poland.
However, like in case of Anne and Henry, their marriage lasted only around four years. But Barbara wasn't killed by her husband - she died of natural causes, just few months after coronation, possibly of cervical cancer or severe inflammation (she never fully recovered after two presumed miscarriages and she was also said to use shady medications to get pregnant again, which could cause infection).
She died in arms of her husband, who was devastated at her death.
King Sigismund August later remarried with woman named (again, ironically) Katherine, great-niece of Katherine of Aragon (yes, exactly!), whom he later tried (unsuccessfully) divorced as he hadn't had living child with her. (He tried on the ground that she was the sister of his first wife, Elisabeth. Hmm... where I heard something similar?)
I wrote all of this, because King August's story seems in many way paralled struggle of Henry VIII for an heir (though August didn't kill any of his wife, nor broke with church).
And as we don't know Anne's date of birth, the same case is with Barbara!
In her coffin there was document that states she was 27 at time of death, but some of biographers point out that it would mean she was just 13 when she married her first husband, and although it was possible, it would be strange in that time in her region, so in reality she could be some 2-3 years older. As of today, her age is still mystery. She married King when she was between 23 and 27. He was 27.
There's even more parralels, as Barbara was hated by her contemporaries and romanticied by later generations. There is even sliglthy flavour of religious reformation, because, while Barbara herself was Catholic, her family had Protestant sympathies. Poland was back then very tolerant country, but Sigismund August to have pope support of coronation of Barbara, released pro-catholic decree (something opposite what Henry did).
EDIT: I did little mistake - August had a suppport of pope, what he neeeded was support of primate, the highest of rank catholic priest of Poland.
And if writing from her grave is to believe, and also if Anne was born in 1507, both queens would be around the same age at time of death (27-28).
Ok, I see I reaaaallllly overwrote (I hope someone will read it and won't become bored😅), so I end this post with really beautifull epitaph which Sigismund August order for Barbara. The plate in her tomb states:
"She died prematurely, and even if she did not, August would say: she died prematurely" .
It is show how much Sigimund August loved and missed for the wife for whom he fought some much, in tragic contrast to Henry who also fought very hard for Anne, but in the end it turned out he fought more for himself, and while Barbara died being loved to the end despite lack of living children, Anne was brutally cast out of her new world because of king's selfish desires 💔💔
Interesting story. Thanks for sharing
@@pinkvivi9345 OMG, someone really read my over-long comment! 😍😍😍
I liked reading this. So many parallels! Wow. Thank you for sharing. History repeats itself, but it can also occur simultaneously as in this case. Wow what a story! Also, it shows that in that same situation, just in a different country, the other King didn't kill his wives. That speaks volumes about the character of Henry VIII.
FC inning
In regards to the letter, Anne's daughter Elizabeth was exceptionally advanced in her learning. Some of that could be from Anne's genetics. Didn't Elizabeth translate a book into several languages as a gift for her father at only 11?
She did indeed. See my video on Catherine Parr which mentions this book and shows its front cover.
I believe it is possible that Anne was born at the later date and was extremely advanced for her age.
Sarah Allen 1507.
Yes Elizabeth was extremely intelligent and so was her mother Anne Boleyn but Elizabeth was 11 years old when translating this book 📚as a gift to her father your saying Anne was only 7 years old when writing a letter in French 📨📨📄to her father there’s a difference of four years and as you know that’s a big difference in a Child 👧............kim🇬🇧
@@kimberleyheadland4639 i was born English speaking. Moved to France at age seven, not speaking a word of French. Within 9 months I was writing letters in French. So, definitely a possibility.
1501 is my guess. That letter and the handwriting does indicate of an older person than a child of only 7 years old.
And I doubt that Henry would have gotten rid of her so early, if she would have been less than 30 years old then. But if she were already 35, no wonder Henry didn't believe that she would give him a son and heir anymore, let alone a spare. After all being "a spare" himself, Henry full well knew that having one son was hardly enough, so I believe that he wanted more sons than just one.
Thank you so much for such an interesting video! Started subscribing! 😊🥰
Yes, I think being a spare himself surely played on Henry's mind too. Thank you for your support.
I said 1504 because I split the difference...
I agree
@@tudortalks but I think she may have been younger than her brother...
@@tudortalks true
I agree with you about 1501. It's not just the letter being too improbable, but one can't imagine a 15- or 16-year-old being able to navigate court intrigues as skillfully as she was reported to be. To first hold Henry off, then manipulate their relationship to her advantage speaks of an older, experienced mind. As a side note, the digits 1 and 7 would have been quite easy to confuse, would they not, explaining why many reports stick to 1507.
I always wondered why Jane Seymour was not married before she married Henry. She was like you said, 27, that’s extremely old for those days to still be a maiden.
I've wondered the same actually, as you're correct that it was old for the time period. Late teens or early 20s was the norm and often a bit younger for royalty or extremely wealthy heiresses such as Lady Margaret Beaufort. Then again, Anne of Cleves was 25, which just goes to show that there are exceptions to every rule. I suppose it's possible that estimates of Jane's age are slightly off.
@@HistoryCalling but Anne of Cleves was a marriage of diplomacy as were so many royal marriages of that time period. Very young children could be positioned to make diplomatic connections in marriage long before the marriage itself. The children of royalty, it appears, were either seen as an asset or a burden. It must have been a terrible weight to be a girl during the reign of Henry VIII because he treated women like a resource. That must have set a terrible precedent.
It is believed that Jane at some point was contemplating becoming a nun. In addition, the Seymours were members of the rural nobility, and in those areas, marriageable men were scarce. The Seymours were originally not a high ranking family, and it was Henry who elevated their status.
Yes,I agree!King Henry the viii did treat women as a resource!I never thought of this,before!It sad 😞 to know that women(like Anne)were treated little more then 🐮 cattle!In today’s world,they would be divorced if they had a man as difficult 😞 as Henry!Unfortunately,these type’s of men are out there!
I think it's worth pointing out with Jane Seymour that her father had created a scandal by running off with a younger woman perhaps that tainted her reputation.
I love LOVE your suggestion that Anne may have lied about her own age, that's such a simple but plausible explanation for the various discrepancies in documentation of her age! I wonder if you would consider doing a video about the average age of marriage of women in England (or even Europe, if you feel that's manageable) at this time? I know that many people assume that before the 20th Century, women would often marry very young in their early or mid-teens, but that in fact this is incorrect, at least for women of most social classes at most times in history. The 16th century is interesting because, at least in Henry VIII's family, many women seem to have married even older than their early 20's, including Anne Boleyn (of course), Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves (who of course wasn't English but at 24 was older than most people would guess a noblewoman would be at her first marriage), Mary I, and Margaret Douglas. I would love to see you address this subject, if that's something that you would find interesting to do.
I can't be sure, but I feel like Dr Kat on Reading the Past maybe has a video about marriage which would cover what you're talking about. You're quite right by the by; women didn't usually get married as teenagers unless they were royal or very wealthy heiresses. It's a common misconception. I guess people think marriage ages were very low generally because the royal women get the most attention and we don't hear a lot about the wider population.
I'm an amateur genealogist, and nearly very female ancestor lied about their age on some document. The US census is taken every 10 years, yet my female relatives seem to only age by 7 or 8 years in between each one! 😂
@@clarebo as a professional genealogist, I have to add that there is high probability they were not intentionally lying, esp. in the older times (like before ca. WWI) - the age was never that important as we think about it today (even the concepts of time were different in past, that's actually quite interesting topic about changes in general thinking "patterns" of people). You needed to know when you were legally adult (which was mostly 24 in Europe), but even then it was mostly the paperwork between the office and your "guardian" (I almost wrote owner) if you were a woman.
E.g. for marriage, imagine you went to the priest for the marriage examination, but he was actually the one holding your paperwork (and often you were nearly illiterate even after mandatory years of education) - so if he saw you were minor, he asked your legal guardian (father, godfather or some kind of office) to give a permission. If he saw you were legally adult, he would simply proceed with the marriage preparations. So for none of that, you yourself might have been asked to provide your data from your memory - either you gave him a baptismal certificate from your original parish, or he used his parish books to find your birth record (and often with the custom of giving repeatedly the same name to younger siblings if the older one died, he might have been wrong himself, that's actually very common, they even issued baptismal certificates using such mistake).
For catholics it was more important who was your saint patron and quite often there was a naming pattern that children were given names of the next following saint of the same sex in liturgical calendar after the day of their birth, esp. in situations when the "strong" saint was already taken by their older siblings who managed to be still alive.
I also happen to collect records of young brides when I meet them (15 yo or less) and even though I cannot of course tell for every case in whole Europe, what I found out is that often they started to have children at the same age as their mates who married a bit later (like in 18 yo or more), which is consistent with my information about the average age of first menstruation in central Europe (which was ca. 17 yo at the end of 19th century, probably even older before that due to malnutrition, hard work etc.). Also one of the contemporary writers (female, btw) who collected folklore tales and knowledge etc. wrote in one of her books that the child brides were not allowed to be touched by their husband until they were considered adult (which is in general the first menstruation) and were sometimes even sleeping in one bed with their mothers in law.
I hope this may give some answers, even though it's months later :D
1501. The letter, & the age she was sent to the continent- I find it incredibly difficult to believe those things if she was born in 1507.
Hi Beth, I agree. I went into the video thinking 1501, had a moment where I wavered as I was doing the research, but ultimately came back to 1501 because, like you, I just don't think that letter was written by a 6 or 7 year old. Her age at being sent to the continent was always a problem for me too. Little princes and princesses might be sent away very young (think Mary Queen of Scots), but I've never come across an instance of a toddler being sent so far away from a noble family this young, or for this long. She'd have struggled to speak English by the time she got home if she'd left that early in life. Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@HistoryCalling Is it possible that Henry himself was unaware of her true age? He was desperate for male heirs, and marrying a woman already in her thirties would not have been the logical choice. I agree she was probably born around 1501, but did Henry know that?
@@8698gil Sorry for such a slow response. I've discovered that TH-cam only notifies me about brand new comments, rather than comments which are part of a conversation stream. Annoying! Anyway, to answer your question, she might have been able to shave off a couple of years, but probably not too much, given that she'd been at court since the early 1520s and Henry knew her sister too. He knew she was pregnant before he married her, which I suspect soothed any concerns he had about her age and childbearing abilities.
It all adds up to 1501. For me these are the reasons - first that letter as you rightly suggest. No seven year old could have written that themselves. The "little" Boleyn as distinct from the older sister also adds up. But to me there's another thing - the already-mentioned fact that Henry suggested he'd get no more children on her, shortly before she died; but furthermore, presumably knowing her real age he surely also recalled the pattern of Katherine of Aragon's childbearing capabilities and how they had diminished by her early-to-mid 30s. The problem was he'd burned up all that heat and passion - and years - waiting for Anne, only to find her a terrible disappointment in every way. I think that did something to sour his character and helped to make him so awful.
Poor Ann, people don't even know her age, only Ann really knows how she felt and what went on
Definately 1501, clincher for me was her wanting to appear young enough to have several 'child bearing' years ahead of her. She would have been fully aware that Henry desperately wanted a son, and that she would need to keep conceiving, year on year, until she bore him one. She took an awful risk in marrying this monstrous monarch!
I know. Poor Anne. I don't think anyone realised how dangerous Henry was until he had her executed. He'd never treated any of his women so badly before, so she probably didn't realise how wrong things could go for her and her family when she married him. I'm sure she believed him all those times he must have told her he loved her and trusted him to look after her. There is some speculation that his head injury from jousting in January 1536 caused brain damage and a personality change and that this contributed to his decision to kill her, but we'll never know for sure.
@@HistoryCalling I forget. Was he wearing a helmet at the time?
Supposedly he was, but the horse fell on him. He was unconscious for a long time, long enough for Anne to be told he was dead, causing her to miscarry.
@@HistoryCalling Having seen TBI first hand I believe this and the possibility that he has STDs that he had some definite personality changes. I believe that Anne was his first real adult love, but brain damage changed that.
@@HistoryCalling I agree. I think Henry had some bad personality traits that weren’t helped by being King (absolute power and all); but he didn’t go off of his rocker until the jousting accident. I think he had a TBI as well. No one expected him to execute her-not even Chapuys.
Im not surprised the letter seems too grown up for a six year old, but back then children were bought up so differently they were throw into a grown up world at such a young age, they were mothers at 12/13 xx
Absolutely. It was unusual to get married quite that early but it definitely happened. Just look at Henry VII's mother, Margaret Beaufort, after all. Married at 12 and a mother (and widow) at 13. Not an easy life.
@@HistoryCalling My *only* quibble with the letter is to compare it with those of Elizabeth's. If hers are not as good as that letter, then I would be forced to agree with the 1501 birthdate.
@@SafetySpooon Good point, Elizabeth had a high IQ and it is documented she did some very adult letters as a child.
If Anne was six when she wrote it, is it not possible that she didn’t write it by herself? She might have had some help from an adult.
@@kate_cooper exactly what I was thinking, but she would need a lot of help.
Maybe the birth dates for the Boleyn siblings were like this:
Mary: 1500
Thomas: ?
Henry: ?
Anne: 1504
George: 1506
I believe Anne was older than George due to her parents wanting to marry her first before him to her cousin and bringing her back from France.
I find the confusion on the birth order of the 3 Boleyns to be even more interesting.
More than anything, I find that while Henry VIII definitely married women who were significantly younger than him, they were in fact mostly already nearly spinsters by their contemporary standards
I knew about the age discrepancy but I didn’t know about the letter. I agree with you, thank you.
You're very welcome.
I admit I do prefer the 1507 date. We know that Charles Brandon brought his own daughter Anne to burgundy too, and she was born 1507. I can’t see why Thomas Boleyn couldn’t have sent his own young daughter as well. She was known to be close to the French princess Renee, born 1510, and a 1507 birthdate would reconcile that friendship without a huge age gap. Chapuys never leveraged Anne’s age against her during the annulment proceedings, which a 1501 birth year would have been easy pickings for a man who vehemently hated her. At the end of the day, we don’t know for certain. But that’s my preference.
One thing I think we need to remember, most children of the aristocracy had tutors and were not sent to a "schoolhouse". Also, schooling in this age was and is completely different from today's schooling.
I think the 1501's have it. Thank heavens that she gave us Elizabeth 1st, an amazing woman.
Yes, it's just such a shame she never got to see how Elizabeth grew up.
The narrator’s voice is amazing.
Thank you :-)
Smooth like chocolate 🍫🍫
Well presented and researched. I liked the fact that you presented the documents for the viewer to see during your discussion.
The music was muted or silenced during the discussion. I believe that she was older so the earlier date seems likely. Since she had a few miscarriages, she reminded Henry of his experience with his first wife. One other thought is that Henry waited as He fought for an annulment. This delayed the marriage some years as Ann aged. Good work.
Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I'd always assumed a link between "the little Boleyn" and "I have such a little neck" and the delicacy of the bones found that were thought to be Anne's. I assumed it meant generally petite and delicate, not to her being young.
I'm definitely a 1501 supporter
She was supposed to be around 5'3 in height, so not very tall
I personally think an earlier birth day is probably most accurate. Thanks for the lovely video explaining both sides.
This has become my favorite channel. Thank you for the time and attention to detail. I thoroughly enjoy each video
given the remarkable language and skills of Anne's daughter, Elizabeth, at a very young age... i don't think it impossible that she could write such a letter (especially when it was being dictated to her) whether born in 07 or in between the two dates.
her tutor very likely was trying to boast about how advanced HIS teachings were, that this little girl was so well along in her studies.
in addition: i believe she was at Margaret's to get that extra education, because she was not yet old enough to go to the court as a lady in waiting! the relative equivalent of a finishing school to prepare her to be a lady in a FRENCH court.
one reason i think this is that the Boleyn family would not have squandered their daughters marriageability by shuffling her about foreign courts without even trying to marry her off, until she was so old. while many women married very young... marrying in her early 20s was quite normal! so the idea that she came to England as a lady in waiting, with an eye toward a good marriage? in her early 20s is quite sound.
also? i don't think age had anything to do with Henry's issues: Anne was a tempestuous, and somewhat temperamental woman. Henry hated being disagreed with in the slightest, and having Anne complain about any mistresses would have been intolerable. PLUS two miscarriages in a row would have reminded him horribly of his wife Katherine's constant miscarriages.
One must not compare a 16th century child to a 20th century child of equal status
Regarding the letter, though, she was being helped by her tutor, a person who stood to gain by making her sound very literate and well-educated. And I've seen handwriting samples of noble and royal children as good as that, perhaps better.
Enjoyed, TYVM!
I really enjoyed this!
your videos are the only things i have been watching lately your so good at explaining things, and I am especially invested with the 6 wifes of Henry VII/
Love your videos!!!♥️🥰👸🏻🇬🇧 1501👍🏼
Thank you so much :-)
Great video! You did a good job. Thank you.
Thank you too!
I’m obsessed with these videos!!!!
Great video, thank you!
You're very welcome. Glad you liked it :-)
I still believe in the 1507 date. The sources for that date are more reliable than the ones for the 1501 date, and the conjectures around Anne’s letter don’t take into account how mature children were in the 1500s and how specific their education was. A young girl of high birth would have been taught to read and write at a very young age and the Boleyn’s were notoriously ambitious. It’s clear Anne is self conscious about the poor quality of her letter and that she still has a tutor. She was described by Margaret as being very accomplished for her ‘very young age’. Is this the letter of an accomplished 13 year old? I don’t buy it
Yes, you can certainly make that argument and in fact I went back and forth myself whilst making the video, because you're correct that the sources for that date are very good and I think they themselves probably believed what they were saying (ie 1507). She is apologetic about the letter, but I take that to me more to do with the very poor quality of the French, rather than the handwriting and that learning French is why she has a tutor. Her apologetic tone could be for the handwriting too however.
Yes I believe 1507 too
With regard to your question: I've always believed (from what I've read...) that she was born in 1507. As always, a beautifully narrated&well researched video. 💕 (I've binged watched over a dozen of them in the last 3 days! 😂😁😉)
I think 1501 is way more likely than 1507. That hand-writing can´t be of a child.
I think so too.
It is frustrating they didn’t have good record-keeping in those days. Controversy still rages as to whether Anne or her sister was the older sister. The general consensus is that Anne was born 1501.
Quite an interesting vid! Just found your channel & I am excited 😁 to see the content you post, so I subscribed. Keep up the great work!
Hi, thanks for the kind words and for watching, commenting and subscribing. I hope you enjoy the upcoming content.
Agree! I’m currently learning about this former queen so that I can talk about her in my next Henry Viii TH-cam video. This video has been a great learning for me 👍
@@bodyofalegend Glad you enjoyed it. I'll look out for your next video. :-)
I truly appreciate your deductions and how you have come to the conclusion about Anne’s age. It makes total sense to me that she lied about her age. Tale as old as time!
That letter! I don’t think a child wrote that letter either.
Great video!
I agree with you. I think she was born in 1501. I am a teacher and have seen both Pre teen handwriting and young children’s handwriting A LOT and the reading and writing comprehension is very different from these age groups. Even a well educated child back in time could not have written this letter. The cognitive abilities again is very different from these two groups of children. A child of seven or six would not be able to form the thought process needed to articulate what was written in this letter much less the quality of penmanship that is portrayed. Straight lines and the quality of the cursive lettering.
I wonder if "la petite" Boleyn simply means "the younger" as it's generally accepted sister Mary was the elder and French tends to use "little" in that sense. Cicumstantial evidence of the ages of others around her is useful as you point out with Jane Seymour. If her brother is accepted as being born circa 1503/4 then it would mean three children born at intervals of approx 2 years, quite possible. Her first love Henry Percy would be roughly her age and possibly more likely to be fascinated by the sophisticated intelligent woman we all know in her very early 20s than a girl in mid teens. Circumstance and not proof of course.
Yes, I've often thought it's probably just a reference to her age relative to Mary's too.
La Petite is also be used as a term of endearment, especially for precocious children. Source: I speak French.
@@HistoryCalling I think I once read that Anne's mother had multiple pregnancies, but that Mary, Anne and George were the only ones of all the children that she bore her husband, to survive past infancy and into adulthood. Have you ever read something like this? I forget where I read this, as this was years ago and don't remember what article or possibly book I read this from.
@@cindyaraya7317 0
I've read elsewhere that when Anne was charged with adultery one of the things Henry did before he executed her was to declare his marriage to her null because she was pre-contracted to Percy. If the marriage to Henry was null (as it must be from the beginning to obtain an annulment in the first place; divorce didn't exist in those days in the CofE) then whether she slept with the whole palace guard wouldn't have mattered -- you can't commit adultery unless you're validly married. Supposedly this gave Anne some hope that she wouldn't be executed. Henry was trying to have it both ways. Anne's execution was more political than we recognize. We look at the need for a son as the only reason, but there were powerful political undercurrents regarding religion, and Anne was involved somehow in these political wars.
with that letter i would say 1501 is more like it
Yes, the letter is what sealed it for me too. I've never seen a 7 year old who could write like that.
I believe 1501 as well
1501. I remember reading The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Antonia Fraser that a foreign diplomat to England called her "that thin, old woman" by the time of her execution. I forgot who the ambassador was, but that was what he said. Of course, this is a giveaway of his hostility towards Anne and what she represented to him, but he wouldn't have called a woman any younger than her those words. Anne had gone through a lot of peril from the time she knew she was losing Henry's interest and his love, and it took a toll on her appearance, possibly prematurely aging her to a degree. People in their 30's back then -- especially women -- were considered "over the hill" by the standards of the time, and just like in show business, they were not treated with the same respect for something so natural in life, called aging. I say 1501 was her year of birth, with 1502 also being credible.
Just think. If she’d married Henry Percy as she wanted to do, no one would know who the heck she was today, would they? 👍👍👍👍🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Precisely. It could have all been so different.
But she would most likely have lived longer..
True..but it's very sad what happened to all of them.
Indeed...many people suffered either in King Henry's name..or at his hands.
Thank you.
Has anyone thought of the possibility that she might have been born at some point between those two years? If she was around 20 when she returned from France, wasn't that a bit old not to be married or at least betrothed? It seemed that so many daughters of the nobility and gentry married in their teens. Also, however besotted Henry was with her, he had to be aware that younger women were generally capable of bearing more children----and he must have hoped for more than one son----so choosing a woman already past thirty as a wife was not the wisest choice for healthy multiple babies to secure the succession. Perhaps she did lie to him about her age, but her close family members who knew the truth would have to have supported the deception, and tried to guard against slip-ups which could give the game away. It is worth noting that, if she did lie about her age, no one found out about it, because it would have been a tool in the arsenal of her enemies and probably mentioned at her trial as proof of her being a dishonest woman, so who could believe her protestations of being innocent of adultery?
The problem with reasoning that a young child could not have been writing in such a way ignores the fact that there are children who are very advanced for their age and that in those days children were treated as small adults and were expected to behave and speak older than they were. I can believe that she was the younger. Her difficulties with pregnancies most likely were her husbands, as his former wife and mistress also had the same issues.
She could have been a very smart and precious child, but she'd still have been very young to be sent to Europe. We'll never know for sure of course, but I think it's an interesting discussion to have.
I believe that 1501 is the right date. That letter sounds too polished to have been written by a seven year old despite some of the errors. I also can't imagine a seven year old writing so well in her second language.
I am going to be an oddball and state that I think Anne was born in 1504/1505 and that would make her 31/32 at the time of her death. There is a difference between saying you are 2-3 years younger than you actually are than saying you are 6 years younger when it comes to childbearing. That would put her at the age of 9-10 in the court of Margaret of Austria because 12 was the youngest she could have joined her household as a lady of honor and from Margaret's writings, Anne seemed to have been younger than that, so I think she would have been one of the girls attending Margaret's court for education. The letter doesn't strike me of that of a 7-year-old but the spelling mistakes in it are not that of a 14-year-old who is immersed in French culture. I have graded the writings of 10-year-olds with very nice handwriting in their second language and so it is not out of the realm of possibility. I am also going to put forward her daughter, Elizabeth's letter that she translated at age 11 in perfect Italian as another reason why I think the date is after 1501. Also the phrase "La Petite" does not always denote age or size but can also be used as an affection term for someone who is precious which a 10-year-old writing her second language would be.
I feel like the 1501 age is more likely, visiting different courts as a lady in waiting was fairly common for the period while being schooled in a foreign court wasn't by my understanding? it would seem odd to send her abroad for schooling only to bring her back to england without her spending much time as a lady in waiting. She seems to have been well known in the courts she attended (I know I've read a few comments about her from the people who met her abroad) and people would hardly have noticed a school child while they would have remembered a lady in waiting.
I love your videos I love Tudor history, the first book I read was about Anne Boleyn Can't remember who wrote it, The name Eveline Anthony, come to mind, Anne has been my favourite ever since. Thank you for the research you do.
Thanks Tracy and you're welcome :-)
Hi definitely 1501,there is no way a 6 or 7 year old could've written that letter so I am with you and it make sense that she would want to seem younger to the King to have more child bearing years in her
Yes, I think a little bit of fibbing about her age in the 1520s and 1530s makes sense too :-)
You do wonderfull research! Would you mind doing a video about the princes in the tower? I am sooo on the fence about what really happened to them. Did one of them live? Did they both die in the tower? Although we will probably never know the truth, its still interesting to hear opinions and facts on the subject. Thank you again :)
Thank you. That's very kind of you to say. You'll be happy to hear that the Princes in the Tower are already on my to do list. I love a good historical mystery too! :-)
Sir Thomas More wasn't a liar. They were smothered.
@Melanie McNamara Hi Melanie, thanks for your comment. I'm aware of the book you're referring to and if I do a video on the Princes, I'll certainly be discussing it.
@@Mim-om6pq Sir Thomas More wasn't alive when they died. He would have no firsthand knowledge.
@@SafetySpooon actually he was. Thomas More was born in 1478 and Richard III (in comparison to the Princes) died in 1485. He was just a year or so younger than Richard Duke of York, the younger Prince in the Tower.
Thanks!
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE DONATION LAUREL. I hope I helped you to decide if you think she was born in c. 1501 or 1507 :-)
1501 or 1507 hmm, still scratching my head. Could be 1500 or 1502 - if she was 15 by the time she went to France. Great content!
Thank you. Yes, 1501 is just a rough estimate. You could certainly go a little bit earlier or later.
So first of all, I've absolutely been loving watching your videos. Thanks so much.
Secondly, I'm quiet divided on her age and really couldn't say one or the other, but I would like to give my own opinion as to why she "could" have been born in 1507, and thereby written that letter at a young age. I am an ESL teaching living abroad, teaching children from 4-18 years of age. Anne was described as speaking French so well you would never have known she was not French. This is difficult to achieve if you begin intensive language study after the age of 12. But on the other hand, a child growing up in the French court would have been much more French than English, which is exactly how Anne was described.
Addressing the idea that a young child of 6/7 could not have composed the letter being in her second letter. I have a young student, 9 this year, who reads and write both her native language and English equally well, including the complexities of English phonetics. She is basically on the same level of a child whose native language is English. I have been teaching her since she was 4, and by the time she was a young 7,i could dictate to her in English and she could copy perfectly.
Elisabeth was noted for being exceptional in languages and it was often noted that she had her mother's whit and intelegence. This shows that Anne could have very probably been able to write such a letter. As far as the vocabulary, a child simply copies the language style of those they are surrounded by. I have heard many young children speaking like a child several years older because that is how their parents speak to them.
Anyway, I'm not convinced she was born later, but just some thoughts from a teacher to small children.
Hi, thank you for commenting. I went back and forth myself (a lot) on her age while I was making this video. Although I settled on 1501, there's certainly a good argument to be made for 1507. The only thing I would add is that I would imagine she'd had some schooling in the French language before she left England.
@@HistoryCalling ohhh thanks for commenting and reading my very long comment 💖 she most definitely would have had training before leaving. The English were rather big I to sending their children abroad at that time, and it appears to me that they are still rather keen on sending them away to further their education through boarding schools and such. This has always been of great interest to me.
PS. I'm totally binge watching your channel at the moment
Yes this women or girl's has really does have a wonderful voice
👏👏👏 Well done!
Thank you! 😃
Thanks
THANK YOU so much for your very generous support of the channel Terry. It's much appreciated :-)
I lean towards 1501. She was a little girl and too young to have gone to France and written a sophisticated letter like that. Therefore, she was around 32 years old when Elizabeth was born certainly not old and still probably youthful, I remember being 32 and looking and feeling young (sigh)
I would be inclined to agree with 1501 as the year she was born. The letter written to her Father is more that of a 12 year old rather than a
7 year old, Also if she was born in 1507 then she would be only a year or so older than her Sucessor Jane Seymour and still have a fair few
years left to bear more childrren.
Yes, the letter is what sealed it for me and I've always thought too that it would be a bit daft to dump a 28/29 year old for a 27/28 year old if you're worried that 28 or 29 is too old to reproduce.
As I’d like to believe the birth year to be 1501 due to evidence, I must point out an interesting fact. I grabbed a pen at a very early age and could (read and) write in 3 languages in perfect cursive handwriting before I went to school at 6 years old. That doesn’t prove anything on Anne’s case, but it is possible. The content of Anne’s letter however suggests she probably was older than 6-7 years old.
1507 - people grew up faster in those days. Especially those of high rank and ambitious relatives. Both of which Anne had.
I know I ultimately lean towards 1501 myself, but plenty of people agree with you. It's a tricky one to call given the number of sources which say 1507. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Thank goodness MOST people understand that children are children these days.
@@JennRighter - I disagree. Children grow to meet the expectations of their parents & society. In the 21st Century, we have failed our children by lessening our expectations.
@@wcfheadshots240 I think so too!
I’m 65, but ‘children’ were not children back when I was growing up, as opposed to today.
I’m talking about over 16’s obviously.
These days, they’re still viewed as ‘children’, when in their 20’s ?
You only have to watch Love Island , once or twice to see that!
No , they’re not ‘boys and girls’, they’re men and women!
The way they refer to them as boys and girls?
Nowadays,,, a great deal of so called children,, have grown into a bunch of selfish, spoilt brats. Imo
@@wcfheadshots240 I disagree so strongly, it could warp the space time continuum. Unrealistic expectations destroy ALL sorts of relationships and children are their own peeople, so they shouldn’t have to meet any expectation if they don’t want. I never did and I’m happier for it. :p
Your videos are so enjoyable! I wonder if you’ve been able to see the whole 1514 letter from Anne’s father to Margaret of Austria, in which he uses “la petitte Boulain”? You say (at 11m25s) that he asks Margaret to send Anne “to wait on Mary Tudor” - the exact text would be interesting, because “wait on” is obviously different to “school with”, and might confirmation of the former (ie. a maid of honour, not a school child) not strongly counter the 1507 argument that Anne was there to school (and was therefore younger)?
I'm leaning towards the 1507 birthdate,because, when Anne was exumed, in the 19th century,the doctor who examined he remains, said it was that of a woman between 25 and 30
This might seem like an obvious comment, but a side-product of your examinations of these questions is a history of the scholarship itself, which always adds even greater interest.
Maybe "the little Boleyn" to distinguish her from Mary?
I have been under the impression that Anne was younger than Mary and older than George by two years in both instances.
didn’t margaret of austria write a letter to anne’s father? i forget when she wrote it or what excatly it was about but wouldn’t that give us a really good idea of how old anne was?/what she was doing in austria (learning or maid of honor)
According to our family lore,Anne Boleyn 's birthday was 27th April 1503, George boleyn was 3rd May 1506 and Mary on 6th May 1507.
Thank you for combining historical facts ..or rumour with human behavior and psychology... Yes a woman would lie about her age especially in the circumstances Anne might have been in... Henry could have gotten as many 16-year-old lovers as he wanted..but an older and therefore smarter ..well travelled. Experienced. woman etc would have been so more enticing...human nature and psychology... We should combine it more often. ..
We can't take one letter and automatically say a child couldn't have written it, unless we compare it to other gifted children (which Anne was always described as being) from her time period, not to the way children write now. There are numerous sources that state Anne was born in 1507 and none as far as I'm aware that state 1501. She was 'so well spoken and so pleasant for her young years' according to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy. Why describe her as young if she was the accepted age of maids of honour at that time? I find it odd that historians have all mostly switched to the 1501 date based on a theory from one person on a letter that I don't happen to agree with.
Think about this. Yes, Henry was besotted with Anne, but a big motivating factor to considering her for marriage was not that she refused him sexually, but that she was young enough to produce children. If she was about 25 or 26 when Henry eventually proposed marriage to her, she'd be pretty 'mature' in terms of her likelihood to have children in those times. Women got married as young as 15 or 16 or maybe even younger. One site says the average age for girls to marry was 12! Wouldn't Anne be really old for her not to have been married at age 26? I can't believe her ambitious family wouldn't have been panicked to get her married by this point. Yes, they tried with James Butler and were blocked by Wolsey on it, but that was the only possible alliance they were considering, and left it up to Anne to try to find a husband in Henry Percy? This just seems inconceivable to me that she would have still be unmarried at age 26, and that Henry, desperate for a male heir, would be willing to consider her as a bride, even if he was in love with her. Even more unbelievable, that he'd stick with her and marry her after 6-7 years of very complicated and frustrating negotiations and challenges. She would be 32 at the time of her marriage... surely that was an 'old maid' and she would have had only about 6-8 years of potential childbearing before she too would be too old to have children. He's going to cast off a Spanish princess for the low odds of getting a son from her, no matter how much he loves her? No, I think a 1507 birthdate is far more believable, in that she would have been about 18 or 19 when Henry proposed, and still only about 25 or 26 when she became queen.
Thank you for watching and for such a detailed comment. I think this is one of those great little mysteries we'll never quite get to the bottom of (barring new evidence coming to light). I went back and forth myself on the issue as I put the video together and ultimately came to a different view of the letter than yourself, however I respect your opinion that it could have been written by a seven year old. On marriage ages, there are a couple of things I would add. One is that 12 was the absolute legal minimum age a girl could marry and co-habit with her husband, but I would definitely disagree with the site you mention that it was the average. For royalty and women of very high rank, a marriage in their teenage years was certainly common, but it also wasn't uncommon to be married later. Anne of Cleves was 25 for instance and Jane Seymour was about 27 (making her potentially only 1 year younger than Anne). It's worth bearing in mind too, that Henry only publicly married Anne when he was sure she was pregnant, so the odds that he would have children by her wouldn't have seemed too low, as he knew she could conceive. She may also have shaved a few years off her real age when she met him. As I said, an interesting little mystery we're unlikely to ever get a definitive answer for, but it's fun to debate. :-)
My guess is 1501. If she’d been born 1506, she’d have been only 29 when she died and Henry probably would have given her more time to bear a son. But if she was 35, the chances of her doing so with her two recent miscarriages was slim.
Ahh this is so interesting. I still don’t know where I stand. I feel like she was a bit younger though. The letter was most likely written by her but it also could have been written by a servant or something to try and impress her dad. Or she could have had her tutor watching her & helping. She might have had an aid of a ruler to help her get them so straight too. But I’m just throwing out ideas!
Some other people in the comments mentioned she could have been older since Henry threw her away so easily for Jane but I think that might be because he realized he couldn’t control Anne like he wanted to and Jane was more submissive to him.
Anyways this video was amazing and definitely has me thinking!
The video about Anne on TH-cam about being exhumed in the 1800s and the description of the bones and skull saying that they were of a woman aged around 35 maybe another point of reference
true i watched that.
I read that letter a few years ago during a visit to Corpus Christi college in Cambridge (together with the largest collection of Medieval manuscripts). The librarian explained that 1501 was likely the real birthdate, but the latter date was a lie told to Henry VIII since her age needed to be younger as Henry wanted someone of ‘child bearing age’, a male heir being his obsession. That lie and it’s consequences / inability to produce a male heir were enough to have her executed
Yes, I think 1507 was probably a fib told by Anne or those around her as well (unless it was just a genuine error made by a later 16th century historian that got picked up on by his/her successors).
@@HistoryCalling a 1 can look like a 7...very easily mistaken with a quill and a handy lie.
I lean towards the 1507 birth, because Henry would have been a bit cagey about a woman coming close to being too old for child bearing. That letter could have been written a few years later
Love your voice
Thank you :-)
Ones and sevens often get confused
They do, but it was written in Roman numerals, so that wouldn't be an issue in this case.
I have my parents on hand too and my dad can't remember my age, even with the amount of records we have on hand nowadays. I could totally believe Anne wasn't certain herself and her parents eyeballed it on the young side, especially if they liked the idea of having their daughter as a queen. If the Boleyns were the kind of people that lost track of time, then we'll never really know
What I would really like to know is.... wheres the Boleyn Family Bible? After all, from the time in the Middle Ages, when books first started to be owned by the very rich outside of churches/convents etc, it was a tradition for such families to have a "Family Bible", both for the status of being able to afford it (at first, by the time Anne was born, owning books had become very commonplace among not just the nobility, but also merchants and other well off commoners) and to be used as family records.
It was a common tradition to use the Family Bible to record births and deaths within the family for several generation. Something picked up by the lower classes, as they became able to afford their own Bible, and continued up until quite recent times, tho especially among the lower classes, as I understand it, who had no other records and possibly owned only that 1 book.
However, I also believe, that just as the top of society first had access to books and started the tradition with recording the births and deaths (and often marriages too) of the family in their Family Bible, they were also the first to abandon that tradition, probably due to them having access to so many other sources of records, including becoming owners of entire libraries with their own librarians, secretaries etc to keep their records. Unfortunately, its been a long time, since I studied this, so Im somewhat fuzzy on, when these traditions approximately started, and for how long a period they were common.
I haven't looked at the original source nor a copy of it but I am wondering how likely is it that the last digit in the year is a seven being mistaken for a one? Of course if it's in Latin that goes out the window. 🙄
Thank you :)
The sad truth is that we're more likely to find information about the births of SONS in higher-up families in that time period, than we are about DAUGHTERS. I've heard a few people say they'd like to know Anne's birth date, or at least her birth SEASON, because they're curious as to what her star-sign was. I must admit that I include myself in this. It would be a way of us knowing her better, of wagering a guess about her real personality by guessing her horoscope.
There's speculation, based on Dormer's comment, that her birthday was late May or perhaps June, but as this straddles multiple star signs I guess it's not much use to you. Sorry :-( Thanks for watching and commenting though.
@@HistoryCalling
I just looked it up. Late May and most of June are dominated by Gemini. Women born under that sign are usually very sociable and talkative, and they have a way of making everything they do look easy. They also tend to be a bit closed-off and shy with their romantic side, and they're famous for their sharp tongues. That DEFINITELY sounds like most of what we've been told about Anne.
@@daniellemusella1594 my daughter is a Gemini. I can confirm the sociable and talkative aspects 🤦😂
@@glow4200 My mom has a Gemini moon and is Gemini Rising, and I'm amazed at how easily she draws in people for a conversation. We could part ways in a store, and when I eventually meet back up with her, I find her talking with someone. When that person leaves, I ask her if she knew them. Nine times out of ten, she''ll reply, "No." (1/14/2022)
@@daniellemusella1594 yes!!! My child does NOT meet a stranger. From a mother's perspective, it's terrifying 🤦🙄 zero concept of stranger danger
😢 I've forever been a loyal Royal watcher. thus I thank you for my continuous education
There are good points going either way. What makes me think 1501 is that letter she wrote in 1513/1514. I agree that her handwriting was much better than that of a 7 year old.
I think we might be seeing the letter through modern eyes. I've been astonished at what some children were capable of in these times at incredibly early ages. The other evidence leads me to lean towards 1507, and I wonder whether the letter would be possible for a gifted, educated and precocious child of the era. Do we have other examples of written texts from royal or noble children of a similar age? It's a fair argument for the earlier date, but I do wonder if we're considering it in the context of its time.
Excellent subject and presentation! I have thought deeply on this subject and think her birth year might be 1503. (We could also factor in calendar discrepancies from those days. What if she was born early in the year?)
The Boleyns were very ambitious. I mean this in a positive way, NOT the nasty, Thomas Boleyn was pimping his daughters idea. Education was valued. Experience and training was to be sought. Whatever education brother George had, it was commented that he was very young to be an ambassador. I picture very intelligent young Boleyns who were eager for education and learning of any kind. (Maybe Mary Boleyn is less known to us because she did not have those same drives, and in the end, a quiet marriage with a man she loved was her best path.)
A 1503 birth date would allow Anne to be close to 12 in 1514. If her mental age and accomplishments were precocious, the actual years may not have mattered as much.
I am not sure much can be made of Henry discarding Anne because she was getting too old to give him a son. As said in this video, Jane Seymour was around 27, some sources say 25, when Henry chose and married her. Think of all the things that could delay a first pregnancy and birth, not to mention, Jane's first child or two could have been girls. With a few months and years lost one way or another, Jane could easily have been 30 before a son was born, and much older before she produced a spare. (I have no idea why Henry, desperate for a son, chose a woman in her mid to late twenties. It seems, even in those less enlightened ages, that basic biology would indicate a woman in her very early twenties would have been the best prospect for childbearing.)
There is another avenue to explore if more information could be found. At some time in the year, alms were given to the poor and a certain amount of pennies or whatever small coins, were given away that equaled the age of the giver. There is a record of Anne giving such alms on one occasion but we do not know how much she gave or if her age was part of the equation. However, if other records could be found and if notations indicated her age, we might have another piece of the puzzle.
Thank you for such a detailed, well thought out comment and for your kind words. 1503 is certainly possible, as 1501 is just an estimate and she would still (just about) have been old enough to be a maid of honour to Margaret of Austria, if her family made out she was slightly older than she actually was.
@@HistoryCalling Another oft cited tidbit is that Thomas Boleyn said, after his marriage to Elizabeth, God sent them a child every year. The estimated date of their marriage is late 1490's. The Boleyns had at least five children, Mary, Anne, George and two sons who were stillborn or died soon after birth. It seems historians accept 1504 for George's birth year. One possibility on the two babies that did not survive, is that if a child came every year, Elizabeth may have been physically worn out and the last two babies did not survive. So far as we know the Boleyns did not have more children. Is it possible Elizabeth could have no more children?
If so, the births may well have been Mary, Anne, George in 1504 and the two who did not survive after 1504.
Or we could suggest Anne was called 'le petite Boullan' because she was the youngest.
I children were precocious, what were the possibilities they could advance in life based on merit more than age? Anne and George may have had genius level IQ's. Considering findings in child development, it may well be true that a 6 year old could not have written the letter to Anne's father. I was a young artist and believe I could have written that good, if I had been heavily tutored, at age 8 and certainly by 9, 10, or 11.
Hi Anna, thanks for your comment. Yes, I've seen the quote about a child every year too and think it lends itself to the idea that Anne was born at the start of the 16th century, rather than a few years later in 1507. It is indeed possible that Elizabeth had eventual childbearing problems, or that she and Thomas weren't sleeping together as much any more. She may also have had later pregnancies we just don't know about. Personally, I think Anne was younger than Mary, but I doubt she was younger than George, though it is possible if we take a 1507 birth year. As for handwriting, certainly some children get the knack of it more quickly than others and Anne was undoubtedly clever. I guess it's a case of whether or not you think she would have been heavily tutored in handwriting just so that she could write better more quickly. It would have meant time away from her other studies after all.
1507. It sounds weird for Henry VIII to merry a 31 years old woman.. at that time women were considered too old to have kids in their 30's and all he wanted was a son.. and then there were the Duchess of Feria and William Camden both saying she was born in 1507.. I find it difficult to dismiss what they said but of course this is just my opinion..
Women in their early 30s weren’t considered too young. Henry’s own mother died at 37 after giving birth. Jane Seymour was around 27 or 28. It was around the late 30s early 40s that most women would have started menopause
I split the difference in the scholars debatable years of birth for Anne Boleyn & came up with a birth year of 1504 making her 29 when she as crowned & gave birth to Elizabeth I...
Interesting conundrum.
i'd say somewhere in the middle like 1503
Mary is my 12th great grandmother actually (:
That's amazing! You'll share a little bit of DNA with Anne and Elizabeth too then :-)
put in a claim for the real monarch !! Better than the imported germans we have now.....lol your majesty.
@@antonyjones4259 I joked about it with my partner but honestly I’m so far removed they wouldn’t even look at me. Plus I don’t think they’d want a Gay Jew 🤣🤣
I watched this video like a month ago but I just realized something that might prove Anne is born in 1501. If Anne is born in 1501 then she would have a 10 year age gap with Henry. Anne’s lover Henry Percy was born in 1502 and that would make the two be close in age and they are mostly shown to be close in age in films.
its meeee
Haha, it is indeed. Well done for somehow getting that username. I wouldn't have thought it was still available. Well 'Anne', perhaps you can just settle this for us and tell us when you were born, cause I have a lot of dissenting opinions here in my comments section?
@@HistoryCalling i was born in 1501
@@anneboleyn2387 Ah, I thought so! :-)
The real question.....is what happened to your necklace with the 'B' that is on your picture ?? Who did you give it to......Elizabeth or her sister Mary ?
I believe it's more likely Anne was born in 1501. The letter clinches it for me too. "The little Boleyn," since written to the prominent Margaret of Austria, probably was not referring to size, but instead meant the younger of the two Boleyn sisters, if she was indeed younger. Why would her father refer to her physical size with Margaret of Austria?
Dormer. What an ironic name there!!!!
Off topic: Lord Burghley was one of my favorites too. Anne had great taste! Those of my ancestry were great enemies of the Grey family. In my own genealogy research, I discovered that Burghley, also an attorney, represented a man in my family in court. To back up, and to paraphrase briefly, apparently a Grey killed a man in my family. A short while after, my family ambushed a group of the Greys, probably on horseback, about another issue. A fight ensued, and low and behold one in my family 'accidentally' killed a Grey, who succumbed to his injuries from the fight. At the murder trial, where Burghley represented my family member, the Judge tossed the case, based on the theory likely argued by Burghley - eye for an eye, you're even!!
Well it also makes it rather interesting why Henry was so desperate to hurry up and get rid of Catherine of Aragon as his wife because Anne Boleyn wasn't getting any younger. This also makes it makes sense why she would have had a secret wedding in November and finally slept with Henry to put aside his fears that she would give him a child.
If the earlier date is correct and she was older
If Anne had composed and written the letter described at age 6 or 7, why would she feel the need to ask her father's pardon for it's contents? It seems to me that anyone who believes the 1507 date hasn't had much experience of children, highly accomplished or not. Most children of this age are still struggling to dress themselves. While they may indeed be bi-lingual, and able to read and translate in both languages, (and such would be accomplishment enough for a genius) writing and composing a letter involves entirely different skills. Additionally, the sophistication of the language of the letter suggests a much older child.
The apology may have been a form of humble brag.
I also agree with you
What you did not mention here is that Henry's 19 year old sister Mary only agreed to marry the 50 year old King of France on condition that she could choose her second husband when Louis died, and Henry agreed but then went back on it! While he forgave her and Charles Brandon (which was a love match) he hit them with a fine that they spent the rest of their lives paying off. Now with regard to Anne, is it likely that a 6 year old would be sent to a foreign Court. I think not, and I think 1501 is her true birth date. I agree with your conclusions regarding the letter.
Look up the earliest surviving letter written by Elizabeth I in Italian at the age of 10. It's very impressive. I think the amount of focus they placed on letter writing was significantly different than today. They private tutors and didn't spend time on as many subjects, especially girls. Girls of noble birth would focus, but be expert on just a few subjects. To me Elizabeth I oldest surviving letter shows it might have been possible for a younger child to write that letter. Although, I don't disagree with the evidence for 1501 completly. I just don't think the letter proves that it absolutely was 1501. Also, I think it has been said that both Anne and Elizabeth were likely above average in their intelligence.