 |
|
Reply
| |
I've read that it's "generally accepted" that George Boleyn was the YOUNGEST of the three Boleyn siblings, NOT the eldest. Recently I saw something where when they were doing renovations to the Tower's church of St Peter ad Vincula a while back, they had a look at the bones buried there. Most notably that I can recall, that would be Anne Boleyn, George Boleyn, Margaret Pole, Jane Boleyn, & Catherine Howard (there's probably others but those are the one who leap to mind). The age of the bones believed to be those of Jane were estimated to be about 40 years of age at the time of her execution (unfortunately what I read didn't mention the estimated ages of the rest of them). Now I am thinking I have never seen anything about Jane being OLDER than George, just that they were "of an age" which to me would be about the same age, right? I think it was Mark who mentioned Thomas Boleyn saying his wife had given him "a child a year"? Is there any evidence that Elizabeth Boleyn bore any other children who may not have survived infancy? Henry Carey claimed Mary was the eldest Boleyn child, & his son petitioned the Crown for the Ormonde title based upon that claim; Elizabeth did grant it to him, whereas had Anne been the eldest Boleyn, you'd think she would've hogged it for herself. Mary married William Carey, yesterday actually, in 1520, methinks (according to Weir). While I like 1507 as Anne's DOB simply because Henry was so eager for a son that I have a difficult time believing he would so rabidly pursue a woman hard on 30, methinks if Jane was that old at her death, it's a lean toward acceptance of 1501....tho Jane Dormer did make a comment that she was "not quite 29" when executed. I do wish this stuff had been written down....you'd think, being queen, it might have been recorded somewhere!  Jane was executed along with Catherine Howard in February 1542, which would put her as being born in 1502-1503. There's also debate about which Boleyn girl was the elder, Anne or Mary, so even accepting Anne's DOB as 1501 v. 1507, that would've been a tight squeeze to make George & Jane "of an age" were Anne the oldest Boleyn sibling. How close to the actual age of a corpse would a forensic examination get? Could we accept Jane's age of 40 as being correct, or is there some leeway of years in either direction? |
|
 First
Previous
2-9 of 9
Next
Last
|
Reply
| | From:  MarkGB5 | Sent: 2/5/2008 8:57 PM |
As far as I'm aware Anne Boleyn's bones were examined for the first and only time in 1876 when it was estimated that she was between 25 and 30 at her death. Forensic pathology was an inexact science back then. As I understand it the five children of Thomas Boleyn were : Mary born c. 1499. Thomas born c. 1500 he died in infancy. Anne born c. 1501. Henry born c. 1502 he died in infancy. George born c. 1503. |
|
Reply
| |
The bio of Jane Rochford I just finished suggests a birth date of circa 1505 for her, which would make her a wee bit younger than George if we accept the birth order Mark's laid out here. Where did you discover there were two more Boleyn sons, if I may inquire? That would've made Jane around 37 years old at her execution, which is close enough to 40. I wish they'd dredge all the residents of St Peter ad Vincula's tombs out & have a look at the bones again so that we could get a definitive date of birth on the Boleyns. I would also be interested in knowing how close an estimate like that is on remains. |
|
Reply
| |
My understanding of the birth order and dates is the same as Mark's, except I think George was born in 1504.
The thing with the remains at St Peter ad Vincula is that there was a rumor that the Boleyns came and got Anne, and reburied her elsewhere. I can't recall which biography mentioned that - I think there were two of them that did. So anything you find there may or may NOT be Anne, and doesn't provide any proof until the remains are identified by DNA evidence. |
|
Reply
| |
I was just thinking about people accepting a 1507 birth year for Anne because Henry VIII wanted someone younger than 1501 would have made her, as Greensleeves pointed out.
Consider that Catherine of Aragon was born in 1485 six years before Henry, who was born in 1491. Even if Anne was born in 1499, which some biographers suggest, Henry would have certainly thought of her as "young" because she was nearly 15 years younger than Catherine. So no matter how old she was, I'm sure Henry was completely tickled by her youth. |
|
Reply
| |
Ah, just in time to record Nicholas Carew's fatal trip to the Tower, then  <scampers off to start new thread > |
|
|
First
Previous
2-9 of 9
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to The Tudors
