I remember reading this in Weir's book, "The Lady in the Tower" also, and I'm still suspicious of this letter being Queen Anne's. I guess the first thing that makes me go "oh heck nah", is-- where was this letter for 100 years? Surely, anything she did write ended up w/ Cromwell at the end, but that still doesn't explain what happened to it after his death. Furthermore, at this time in her life (the end being right around the corner, and sadly, she was fully aware of that fact), her only concern would have been about her daughter's future, and so that's the main reason why I just don't think this is from her at all. No way would she have been (as you say) as combative and "judge-y" to the piece of poop who was in charge of what happened to their daughter. So, I absolutely agree w/ you in that, nope. If she did write anything at all, it would've all been about Elizabeth. I'm currently reading Weir's "The Life of Elizabeth I", and it brings me such joy just thinking of how Queen Anne was victorious (through her daughter) after all. Suck it, Henry Poopy Pants Percival of Gangrene-y Leg the VIII. Again, thanks for the fabulous work that you do, HC. I hang on every word. Enjoy a relaxing weekend.

Since I have a literary background, I would approach this question by analyzing the letter as a text. I've checked the few actual letters that are accepted as being written by Anne. It may be a small sample, but it does give you a sense of her "voice" and pattern of composition and also the more general style of writing in the 1530s. The Tower letter doesn't match this voice and sounds more Elizabethan to me in tone. When I checked the British History Online's version of the Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10, January-June 1536, the editor (1897) noted the document to be "in an Elizabethan hand" and that other later copies were to be found elsewhere. He obviously had no time for such nonsense - "That this letter was not really either written or composed by Anne Boleyn, the handwriting and the style alike indicate beyond any reasonable doubt." My guess is that this may have originated as a document that could be presented to Elizabeth I as a memento of her mother in order to curry favor. If this were the case, it would fit with the way "Anne" is describing herself in the letter, which would present her in a sympathetic light to Elizabeth.

It is funny that many don't mention John Rogers, The First Protestant Martyr of many, burned at the stake by Queen Mary I in 1555, who set out to edit the errors and publish William Tyndale's New Testament Bible who was an influence on Queen Anne Boleyn. Of course, King Henry VIII turned against Pope Clement VII when he founded The Church of England and whose eldest daughter, Queen Mary I, Mary Tudor, executed 88 of the approximately 200 Protestant Martyrs. Of course, my direct ancestor, Rev. Edward Wightman, burned at the stake by King James I was The Last Protestant Martyr whose son backed Ollver Cromwell before he came to America in 1654 and was on Roger William's Petit Jury in 1661. Of course, John a.k.a. Johannis Wightman was the father of Rev. George Wightman (m. Elizabeth Updyke) who had sons named Rev. John Wightman (m. Jane Bentley) & Rev. Valentine Wightman (m. Susannah Holmes). Of course, Susannah Holmes was the daughter of Mary Holmes, daughter of Mary Sayles, daughter of Roger Williams who was once a student of Sir Edward Coke before coming to America in 1630. Of course, Sir Edward Coke introduced The Petition of Rights in 1628, in which, years later became The Parliament Bill of Rights in 1689 honored by The Magna Carta. Of course, Roger Williams introduced The Separation of Church & State onboard The Lyon in 1631 after coming to America in 1630. Of course, John or Johannis Wightman lived during the time of The 30 Year's War and The English Civil War when King Charles I (Anglican) was executed along with his wife, Henrietta Maria, in 1649. Of course, King Charles I was the brother of King James II. The British Library UK in their article on The Parliament Bill of Rights mentions that King James II was removed from the throne replaced by his nephew, Prince William or Orange (a.k.a. Prince William III) due to Sir Edward Coke's Petition of Rights that became The Parliament Bill of Rights. Of course, I believe that both Sir Edward Coke and Roger Williams did what they did due to those Protestant Martyrs during The European Persecutions during The Protestant Reformation Era sparked by Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Queen Anne Boleyn, William Tyndale, and John Rogers. Of course, Pope Leo's corruption in 1514 led to Martin Luther's 95 Theses, and there were those that claimed that Anne Boleyn was more of a Protestant than Martin Luther was. Of course, when Thomas Cromwell accused Anne Boleyn of committing adultery with her brother, George Boleyn, King Henry The VIII was engaged more so in seeing Jane Seymour than Anne Boleyn. Of course, George was executed a few days before Anne Boleyn, and a after Anne Boleyn's execution....King Henry VIII married Jane Seymour. Of course, it is interesting how one thing ends up sparking another thing throughout history which even led up to The Mayflower, Speedwell, and The Fortune. Of course, there were only about 25,000 Catholics in 1776 out of 4,500,000 people in The First 13 British Colonies that became The First 13 U.S. States according to The Encyclopedia Britannica. Of course, The Pew Research Center argues that the population of Catholics during 1776 was just a bit over 20%. Of course, I've been researching into trying to figure all that out when it comes to the past.

The same with why nobody mentions King Frederick II of Hesse Kassel out of Germany (Prussia) who funded "Hessian Troops" against our U.S. Founding Fathers who occupied Newport, Rhode Island during The American Revolution. King Frederick II married Princess Mary, the daughter of King George II. Of course, our U.S. Founding Fathers fought against King George III, the son of King George II. Also, Alexander Hamilton, who was shot and killed by Aaron Burr in a dual, once said, "King Frederick II should be King of The United States." (Archives Dot Gov, TIME Magazine). Of course, Alexander Hamilton set out to establish The First Bank of The United States. Of course, Mayer Amschel Rothschild was an agent of Prince William Landgrave IX of Hesse Kassel (Cassel) who funded British Troops against our U.S. Founding Fathers. Mayer Amschel Rothschild was the father of Nathaniel Rothschild who connived his way into winning the bid on the loan for The Reparations of France after The Battle of Waterloo (1815). Of course, Napoleon defeated France in 1799, but France still sided with our U.S. Founding Fathers during The American Revolution - Encyclopedia Britannica. Oh...Hessian Troops are mentioned on George Washington's Website, Mount Vernon Org as well as through Battlefields Dot Org. The term 'Hessian' is also mentioned through The Merriam Webster Dictionary, and one can do a time span search through Google Books from 1776 to 1850 or later after clicking on The "More" button and "Tools" button.

It is also interesting that The Biography Channel's Documentary on J.P. Morgan don't mention the business dealings that J.P. Morgan had with The Rothschild Banking Barons, John D. Rockefeller, Jacob Schiff, Felex M. Warburg, and Paul M. Warburg. Oh there are many many books through Google Books unspoken of from the past. Of course, G. Edward Griffin through CSPAN Books in his video interview mentioned that Paul Warburg was an agent of The Rothschild Banking Barons who worked their way into The United States through August Belmont (August Belmont - Encyclopedia Britannica). Oh...my direct ancestor, Rev. John Wightman's brother, Rev. Valentine Wightman, married the great grand daughter of Roger Williams, Susannah Holmes, the cousin of Mary Sayles who Abe Lincoln is a descendant of. Susannah fell under Obadiah's son John and his son John Jr.

As much as he wanted to be rid of her, I do believe he had some guilt, and wiping out her memory completely would help him to deal with any guilt. A quick, merciful death, then silence her forever.

That's actually something really nice to think about

Yes, I'm sure Henry would roll in his grave if he knew that his great successor was Elizabeth (and Anne would do a fist pump - or the 16th century equivalent).

Actually her great revenge is that Elizabeth ended the Tudor line. I love that she refused to marry and produce an heir. Also that her reward to having had to behead Mary Queen of Scott's, that she united the 2 countries by having her son be the heir.

POETIC JUSTICE

Haha, yes, having a distinctive hand can be - well - handy :-)

I could imagine that too, though it would be a risky manoeuvre as so many other people would have known that she had written the letter and might have mentioned it to Henry.

Omg that's a great theory! I can definitely see that as well

I agree. I could certainly imagine Cromwell burning 🔥 the letter.

She got exactly what she gave!

Honestly, Cromwell did Anne wrong.

Me too! My Mum bought me a book on the Tudors when I was 7 and I've been hooked ever since :-)

I am obsessed with Anne, too. I had read 📚 novels about real Kings and queens 👑. Then I saw another novel, The Other Boleyn Girl and it was ON after that. I know à lot of people are not fans of that book's 📚 author, but I loved it and wanted to learn more about Anne. So when I learn of à book 📚 about her, fiction or non, I get it and eagerly read it.

Same. I feel as tho he had her killed just to procure a son from a new wife

I’ve been completely fascinated by Anne since I was little too. My interest started with a book of ghost stories that featured the Tower of London though. I used to quite frequently tell all my classmates about her in probably first or second grade. My teacher had to tell everyone that ghosts weren’t real because I scared some of them 😂

I love the book The Other Boleyn Girl , I’ve read it a few times, it’s so good!

Yes, I thought much the same thing. We have some letters his other wives wrote to him and they are couched in very deferential terms. We always have to be careful not to apply modern social norms to the past, as you so astutely point out.

I agree

I agree, especially in the part where Anne seemingly upbraids Henry should she be condemned. As you said, the imbalance in their relationship means that she would never dare to say that, especially given that the life of their daughter Elizabeth was in his hands.

Catherine of Aragon also defied King Henry openly but unlike Anne, her status and connection to the Spanish Royal family protected her. King Henry did not dare to execute CoA because he knew it would start a war with Spain. Anne of Cleaves also had similar protection. The Boleyns and Seymours were subjects of King Henry so he did not fear retaliation much if he executed one of their family members.

You think Anne was famously headstrong because she was deferential and mindful of tone? LOL

Why was she never going to produce a living male child? Jayne Seymour did only a couple of years later ? She was young and fertile

I highly doubt Henry felt foolish. The proof is in what happened to Katherine Howard when she made Henry look foolish. Henry cried and threatened to run her through with a sword. He didn’t do that with Anne. Chapyus noted that he wore the horns of the cuckold to well when faced with the fallout from Anne

Yes, it might have been created to add interest to a later book about her, but the signature was a serious faux pas.

I'd love to know if it really did come from Cromwell too...

Yes, I think it's very telling that there's no supporting evidence to corroborate the idea that she wrote this, or any other letter, in the Tower.

Let me play devil’s advocate here and say that it is precisely the fact that it was “accusatory” (although I think that it is more Anne’s knowledge of Henry’s faith and superstitious nature than accusatory) that it could be real. Who would write a forgery and include that language? A fake letter would be more conciliatory, don’t you think?

I agree. She would never have accused Henry like that. She begged his forgiveness and honored him on the scaffold. I cannot get behind this at all.

@@reverie6034 I don’t know if the letter is real or not, but I do know what you say in a public forum is not what you say to your most intimate acquaintances one-on-one.

Yes but we can't really be sure her jailer never mentioned the letter. Some of Kingston's papers were damaged or destroyed by fire, including anything noteworthy about the date 6/5/1536! Isn't that annoying?

Spelling meant very little at that time. There was no definitive English dictionary until the Oxford English dictionary until late in the reign of Queen Victoria.

@@cherylhayden7363 yes but she would know how to spell Anne. In every other confirmed piece of writing she spelt it with an E. there’s no way that would have changed all of a sudden.

I vote for the 2nd possibility. Anne was never popular. I think Cromwell wanted something in his back pocket. I think Anne was truly the only wife Henry, as much as he was capable, truly loved. At any time, Cromwell's plan to rid the royal court of Anne could have unraveled like an old sweater. Cromwell needed a "convincer". This letter in its tone would have sealed Anne's fate while leaving her daughter's in limbo.

Just to play devil's advocate, it's so clearly not in Anne's hand though (which Henry would have known)???

@@HistoryCalling My thought was that it might be a copy of a lost original hence why it has an annotation essentially giving context to the letter. I'm just theorising.

Dwelling if the letter was in "Anne's hand" may be a fool's errand as monarchs, etc had secretaries. If Anne had wished to write a letter, a secretary would have been sent in at either Anne's or Cromwell's request.

Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it :-)

I completely agree. It's easy to forget she was just a person like the rest of us. You're not the only one a bit freaked out by the pictures, but I quite like them :-)

Very little sex if you ask me. Ann was either 29 or 35 when she died. Depending on which birth date you believe is accurate. Ann was known to be quite devout and refused to be Henry's mistress. If Henry wanted her he'd have to marry her. They were only wed around 3 years and 3 months when she was executed. So...

@@HistoryCalling It's the lips moving thing after her beheading. Still goes to show the expertise of the swordsman. She was completely taken by surprise, if that was indeed what took place.

If it hadn’t been Anne it would have been another unfortunate young woman. Henry was obsessed with having a legitimate son by any means. If Henry’s elder brother hadn’t died, or even his illegitimate son (who could have been legitimised), then the world could be a very different place.

Éric Goodemote: As I read novels, the author gives the characters (in this case the real characters) feelings and this makes it à lot easier to know they lived, loved, (or hated), where non-fiction books states the cold hard facts. Makes it boring and mechanical. But I do read them if there's nothing else available.

Ah, the old time travel conundrum. I think about that too sometimes, but the butterfly effect would just be too dangerous. :-(

Anne Boleyn wasn't exactly a nice person either. She made a lot of enemies at court by being rude, arrogant, condescending, and downright nasty to King Henry's other subjects. She also tormented Catherine of Aragon and her daughter Mary as well. It wouldn't surprise me if Anne herself caused the deaths of many innocent people as well.

Intresting! In a strange way you would have saved many more lives! Princess Diana comes from her sisters bloodline. Meaning you would have saved Diana in a strange way, because Charles wouldn’t have been born! Maybe if Ann had a son and he survived in too adulthood? The son would have been a Protestant king? So, Bloody Catholic Mary wouldn’t get in power and many live Protestant lives would have been saved. Only one thing: History needed Mary and Elizabeth to become queens! They where the first born female royals who got on the throne. Their unique position would make it possible at the time, too change that law. And one big other thing would have been different: America would have ended up Spanish speaking, and world wide: No colonization!!! 😅… Please go back in time on that note!!!!

@@Elly3981 I agree. She treated some people, especially Mary, horribly and there was no justification for it.

@@HistoryCalling )

Yes, lots of the things in it do sound like things she could have said. I can't imagine the psychological stress myself either.

Thank you. It's an interesting story, especially given how much attention this letter has received in recent years.

I'm sorry to hear you had a bad day. I hope you're doing better now and I'm glad the video provided a decent distraction.

She actually did plenty wrong, but definitely did not deserve to die. She knowingly had an intimate relationship with a married man, and led him on, until he finally threw away poor old Catherine of Aragon, bastardizing his formerly beloved daughter with Catherine of Aragon, at Anne's assertions, I'm sure, and much more. Although, as I said before, she did not deserve to die and was very innocent of all of the charges which led to her execution!

Oh but she did. I love her though

Thank you so much and welcome :-)

Thank you. Yes, I don't think it's super well known about, as so many people discount it as a forgery.

I would love it to be genuine too, for the same reason and I will say it's not impossible that it's a copy of a lost original. It just seems a bit too good to be true and there are the various issues with the provenance, tone and signature I mentioned.

@@HistoryCalling i hold out hope that one day a treasure trove of Anne’s writing and/or belongings that someone might’ve kept hidden away will come to the surface🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼unlikely but gives me something to hold onto 🤣

Thanks NaMa. Yes, I'm sure she was, but it makes her composure all the more remarkable.

@@HistoryCalling You are absolutely right i agree

Thank you :-)

Excellent point. There is carbon dating, however I think that just produces a range covering several decades, so I don't know that it would be precise enough to be super helpful here. You never know though. Maybe the type of paper used could be used as a pointer, depending on when it was produced?

Thanks Joshua :-)

The English language is the last prominent language to have a definitive dictionary, but that said there are over 50 words where the spelling in Britain which continue to differ from that in the US. Therefore, I am not troubled by differences in spelling, even of names, as spelling was never important. Read letters written by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Franklin and you'd think they were barely literate. What has always troubled me about Henry's treatment of Anne was his crafting or acquiescence to Cromwell's crafting of Anne's demise. Why not a covent? It took a full 5 years for monasteries and convents to be closed, from 1536-41. She could have been sent to a convent in English controlled France or Ireland. Given her unpopularity vis a vis Henry's 1st wife, no one would have rallied to her cause. She was not a foreign born heir, etc. Surely, Henry could have negotiated with Anne to enter a convent in France or Ireland to ensure Elizabeth remain in the line of succession. The question then becomes in who's best interest does the letter serve? My money is on Cromwell. Despite the fact he shared religious beliefs with Anne, she was his sworn enemy. Could he have dictated the alleged last letter? Given its aggressive tone, was this something he could have put in his pocket to firm up the resolve of his King and Members of Parliament to ensure a vote of guilty. When in the end it wasn't needed, he could have easily put aside the original along until it was nearly lost to history.

christmasina Yes spelling was not rigid even in 18th and 19th centuries.

@@stephanierichards1096 It is truly amazing English did not have standardized spelling until thr Oxford Dictionary.

I have had the EXACT same problem when doing my family tree. I once couldn't find an Alice on a 1901 census return for absolutely ages. Turns out it was because her parents had spelt it Allace (which I never would have thought of).

@@HistoryCalling My father had an aunt, Mina or Mena or Meana or Meena depending on how the semi-literate census taker spelled her name. Yep, 40 years of misspelling!

THANK YOU so much for your continuing support Stephen and I'm delighted I found something new about Anne Boleyn for you (which is always a real challenge here on KZfaq).

@@HistoryCalling 😆It's Steve, actually. No worries. No doubt Chris is one of your more well read viewers. 😉

Oh my word! I'm so sorry about that. I've fixed it now. Please let's put that down to the fact that I'm currently fighting off a case of Covid and am a bit scatter-brained at the moment.

@@HistoryCalling Oh no!! Give yourself credit for maintaining your work schedule. 👏👏Take care of yourself! 🙏🏼

Thank you. I'm past the worst of it now, but I'm still mortified I made a boob like that. I can only assume that the comment above or below yours was by someone called Chris and my brain just caught it in my peripheral vision and inserted into the comment I was typing at the time :-(

Thank you. The letter makes for an interesting topic.

@@HistoryCalling yes, I think it’s fake, nothing to tie it directly to her

Glad you enjoyed it :-)

Excellent points. I agree too that the kind of strain she was under would be generally expected to make someone a much better writer than they ever have been. Elizabeth I wrote a letter to her sister Mary whilst locked in the Tower and it comes across as far more desperate. It helps of course that we have the original document to look at and can see her spelling errors and the dark lines across the page in case anyone added in an incriminating postscript.

@@HistoryCalling I understand why everyone WANTS it to be real. I certainly do!

@@HistoryCalling I think the letter you are referring to was not written from Elizabeth to Mary from the Tower, but from one of the royal palaces (I believe Whitehall?). This desperate letter, in which Elizabeth passionately protests her innocence of any involvement in the infamous Wyatt rebellion, was her frantic attempt to avoid going to the Tower in the first place, where her young cousin Jane Grey had just been executed as a result of that uprising. The delay caused by the time taken to compose the letter by deliberate intent caused the men arresting her to miss the tide. She did indeed make mistakes through the letter----her thoughts must have been racing through her head as she struggled to compose it---and she famously crossed out the empty space at the bottom of the last page so no one could add anything incriminating to it. The imagination boggles as to what her state of mind must have been, let alone when' she actually was taken by barge to theTower the next morning----just as her mother had been. Anne's fate must have consumed her-----she even refused to enter the Tower when she got there, just sitting down on the stone steps in the pouring rain! An unfathomable ordeal to even attempt to imagine.

I know, right! If only H7 had known.

I think Henry 7 would have been most interested in the dynasty continuing and had no problem ditching KoA when it looked to be a less prestigious match for Henry than she was for Arthur. H7 went through drama for Arthur to marry Katherine, not Henry... Henry 8 went through drama to marry her with H7.

@@HistoryCalling I'm glad he didn't! He'd be spinning in his grave if he knew all the awful things his horrible son did.

Regarding the paper and ink, remember that the paper at least could have been produced in the 1530s but not written on until the 1630s (in fact paper from the 1530s could technically still be written on today). Ink wouldn't last as long admittedly and would have to date from much closer to the time the letter was written, but I don't think either have ever been tested in this case.

It depends on how you look at her life. She made a huge impact for dying so young. She was the first ‘princess’ of Native American origin that was presented on the world stage. She humanized the Native Americans. If not for her, I literally wouldn’t be here.

@Raumaan - I totally agree with you on this one.

all Disney movies are based on real stories and they're not good stories either. Disney just had a way to turn them all around and make their lives happy happy joy joy....è

True. Pocahontas was about 12 when she stopped the war between her people and the Europeans. She married a military English man and died from disease in England when she was about 24.

@@ginaandseason2774 - I believe her husband, John Rolfe, was a tobacco planter and exporter. There was no mention of him being in the military.

Thank you. I'm not sure how many they appear on now, but they come from the MyHeritage website.

THANK YOU so much for your generous support of the channel Julie and I hope you enjoyed the video.

Yes, there is much here that she might have said in a letter, even if it isn't actually genuine.

Yes, there are a few other letters. The handwriting is definitely off and to be honest, I would say the style of this one is better, but something like style is of course a matter of opinion. I do have plans to look at some earlier royal history too, but shan't give away any details here :-)

@@HistoryCalling I thought so! I'd thought I'd imagined it but yeah, she has more than I believe any of the other of Henry's queen's, doesn't she? You got lucky. I was literally just about to take a picture of my dog with her big ol' puppy eyes on my Instagram and message you the link on Patreon. 😂

Yes, it does make for a good mystery (which I suppose is why people keep coming back to it).

@@HistoryCalling Tudor history is quite full of unsolved mystery which we sadly will never have answers to HC 😊I know your a busy lady thank you for your replie. 😊

The many instances of the name appearing throughout the letter may be due to "Anne" trying to bring attention to/re-humanize herself. They don't strike me as weird. I agree with everything else :)

@@mac8697 Thanks Mac.

The numerous references to her maiden name seemed a bit on the nose for me too and I also wondered if she'd have known she was facing the scaffold at this point. The content is good in that it says everything I think we would want Anne to have said to Henry, but that in itself is a little bit fan-fictiony (as one of my other commenters put it). Nevertheless, as I said in the video, we simply can't rule out the idea that it's a copy of a lost original and it's certainly a great item to debate.

Yes, I think she was conscious of her royal status to the end as well, plus she hadn't been stripped of her title yet on 6 May.

@@HistoryCalling she had her dignity.

Exactly what I think. It's definitely possible Anne was _thinking_ things like that, but writing them to Henry? Not unless she was actually _trying_ to get executed! Fanfic is a very good description.

I love the fanfiction description too. I wish I'd thought to include it in the video now :-)

I think it must have been a prestige thing yes. I've never seen a man's title used like that by his daughter (though I admit the whole titles system was a bit more fluid 500 years ago).

There are certainly points in favour of, as well as against the letter. As for whether any letter would be a good source of ammunition, I suppose it depends on what it said. It would be a dangerous manoeuvre on Cromwell's part though to basically steal Henry's post.

Quite possibly, though if it was created that early on, I do wonder why it never popped up until well into the 17th century.

A copy of a lost original is certainly possible. I'd be the first one to admit that there's not enough evidence to give any definitive answer on this, even though I lean towards a forgery myself.

Cranmer would have burned it.

It does feel a little bit 'historical fiction' to me too, or as one of the commenters put it - fan fiction. It just says everything we would wish she'd said to him.

That was my 1st thought, & it's totally consistent with feminism, which recognises that women had less power etc in the past, & that we're much better off today. And I don't think she _should've_ written something accusatory & disrespectful to Henry either- I certainly wouldn't! Either way, the only person I'm judging here is him.

Just 2 cents from a DV survivor. I was in a life threatening situation with a baby. She might have written this. I have written things in a similar tone. As have other DV victims/survivors throughout history. It’s complicated when your husband is the person that will hurt you and it always has been. To this day the number 1 cause of death for women is their partner. So no we aren’t free or live without fear of men. We just have the option of maybe being able to leave 💜

I have studied handwriting analysis in the past and, under the assumption that the letter is genuine and that is not an issue, will give you what I can as far as an interpretation of the writer goes: Writer is very intelligent and sensitive Strongest quality: Attractiveness to others She is looked at as desirable or even enthralling to many more than she actually trusts or considers a friend In fact, she has very few if any real friends at all She is aware of her attractiveness and her response to having that knowledge is that she is extremely gracious to others and will extend herself to them both intellectually and presentationally. Period. She doesn't want anything back in return. She's happy to please others any way she can. The worst thing that can be said for her is possibly she extends herself to them too much. She puts on a very attractive “performance” or presentation of herself which causes people to be intrigued by her and want to know more about her and she will do a great deal to entertain or help but isn’t interested in offers of intimacy and won’t accept them if made. She is not a liar but neither does she share a great deal of emotion or trust with anyone at all She spends a great deal thinking about higher spiritual, philosophical or moral issues but discusses these things with virtually no one. She has a very clear notion of her right to privacy and does not allow anyone really to break through that. She is a person who sees herself as being allowed to roam in vast areas of property and dwellings but feels she herself owns very, very little; perhaps nothing at all. This is why she offers so much of herself to others; it is her own charm that is all she believes she really has that belongs to her. She is trying to the ultimate degree in this letter to offer more sincere and unselfish love than anyone could possibly give for the chance to be taken back and allowed to live. She is at the same time fearful and wanting to do more in the day that can be done, and is thinking more than anyone should have to in the slim hope that her affection will be seen with the sincerity that it is offered and she may be saved. The letter says I am everything you believed me to be, and will still be to you everything you could possibly want me to be; please don't change or destroy what we are, it is for real, my feelings for you are sincere. SHE knows that sincere love offered is the greatest gift one person could give to another and is hoping deeply that the person she is writing the letter to will understand that also. But she has no guarantee of that so she is quite nervous. I do not get that the writer of the letter is interested in self-gratification at all and if I were to make the call as to whether the writer would cheat on her husband I would say no, however she would mix with as many people as possible in the hopes that her attractive presence would be of any kind of benefit to them and to herself. She feels she is in a position where her intelligence and capacity for clear thought has been rendered useless and this deeply, profoundly disturbs her. Her response to what is happening is not to trust anyone around her but again and again try to offer her sincere affection to the king as she did before. I have little doubt that she had been spending most of her time alone at the time this was written and not looking to others for company or coursel. She’s not a liar or a manipulator but she holds what she considers personal VERY close to her her own heart and doesn’t really let anyone else in there because she doesn’t feel it’s her responsibility to do so. She is a “giver: who chooses carefully who she decides to “give” a lot to. This can make her seem like a manipulator when in fact whatever she offers to anyone is actually sincere and could prove rewarding. She just doesn’t give absolutely all to anyone, which she feels is her right. I can see why some people might have thought she was manipulative. But that is not what I see here, I just see a person that was extremely generous but who no one else can intellectually or emotionally control or get their hooks into and that is probably why Henry could not deal with her any more. She was smarter than he was, better spoken, socially a jewel, personally a delight, and more popular than he was. After looking at this I have no problem suggesting that the reason he had her killed was not jealousy regarding fears of her being with other men, but instead jealousy of her ability to enthrall and captivate people - a quality he did not possess at all. She was extremely charming and everything he could not be.

And I do not think she was well understood at all, by anyone -- admired, wanted, yes . . . understood, though, no.

I don't think we ever will sadly. I haven't heard about any dating of the paper or ink, however things like carbon dating are only accurate to within a few decades, so likely wouldn't be precise enough to really help us (plus it could have been written on an old piece of paper, much later on).

Hi Bea. Enjoy the video this week :-)

Yes, there was a lot to get through. I felt a bit knackered by the end of putting this video together to, as 30 minutes (which it almost is) is really on the long side for me. I lean towards a later forgery too, but it's just possible it's a copy of a lost original.

Thanks Beth. I do think it's more likely than not that it's a later forgery, but it's *just* possible that it's a copy of a lost original.

THANK YOU so much for your generous donation to the channel June-Lesley and I hope you enjoyed hearing the debates about whether or not this was Anne's last letter.

That is reasonable but it could also be an attempt to tell her husband that she was innocent of the changes against her. Anne was a smart and clever woman and saying thst she didn't understand why she was in the tower would be more feminine than saying "I'm innocent, let me out of here!"

I'm not sure actually what exactly she knew and when she knew it. I know she wasn't given time to prepare a proper defence though before her show-trial.

I'm absolutely with you on the issue of whether Elizabeth was with her mother, just before her arrest. I think that was just a sob story made up to interest Elizabeth as an adult. Of course it's shown in The Tudors, so I think a lot of people believe it now.

The Tudors' recreation of that scene was so very weird (and, yes, Alesius said he saw Anne, Henry and Elizabeth through a window, not along a garden path, and he certainly didn't say Anne was dressed in early Snow White, but . . . ) that it convinced me all the more that Alesius was just making it up. Anne no longer had her father nearby for advice (he'd gone back to Hever and that's an entirely other story), so she wasn't always making the best choices, but there is no way she would have thought making a scene with Henry by showing him Elizabeth (no idea what point that was supposed to make) was the right way to go. Anne was very high strung but she wasn't stupid.

Yes, I think her overriding concern was for Elizabeth too (though I'm sure she was terribly worried about her brother as well).

Yes, imagining the King's death was treasonous (and one of the charges against Anne). Excellent point!

I’m with you… I’m one of the few who doesn’t like Anne but she fascinates me. I believe her to be innocent. The same can not be said of Howard.

@@Annalyse74 Anne may not have been guilty of adultry, treason, etc. but she was not a good person either.