Memoire Online - Does anne boleyn's representation in the tudors and wolf hall betray the historical figure ?

In 1533, several years after the beginning of their relationship and though the King was still legally married to Catherine of Aragon, he and a pregnant Anne Boleyn married during a private ceremony at Whitehall Palace (which stood where administrative buildings of the British Government stand today). To make Anne Boleyn a more suitable wife and Queen consort, Henry had previously given her the title of Marquess of Pembroke in September 1532⁶³ at Windsor Castle. This event was completely unprecedented, as no other woman had ever been granted such a title in her own right. Then, on June^1st 1533, during a lavish and expensive ceremony, Anne Boleyn was officially crowned Queen of England at Westminster Abbey⁶⁴. Yet, despite her pregnancy and the fortune Henry VIII spent to make the celebrations as luxurious as possible, Anne Boleyn's popularity was a disaster, for she was seen as the woman who forced the King to become a heretic and who sent away their rightful Queen. As the King and his new wife were certain that she would

give birth to a son and heir, the certificate of birth that was prepared in advance mentioned the birth of a Prince, a term that had to be modified on September 7^th 1533, when Anne Boleyn gave birth to a girl, the future Elizabeth I at the Palace of Placentia⁶⁵. Though the royal couple was disappointed, it was not the birth of Elizabeth which tore them apart.

Indeed, for the next three years the Queen miscarried at least two twice⁶⁶ and, like Catherine of Aragon before her, she failed to fulfill her promise to provide the King with a male heir. Moreover the couple is said to have had tensions as Anne tried to play a part in politics and the religious life in England⁶⁷, a behavior Henry VIII did not accept as it was not seen as a Queen's duty to meddle in politics. In the sixteenth-century the only purpose of a Queen was her ability to reproduce but essentially to have at least one son («Her essential function was to bear sons; otherwise she was a failure⁶⁸.»). In his biography of the Tudor Queen, Eric Ives also mentioned a criticism Henry may have made to his third wife, Jane Seymour; «When his new Queen pleaded for the preservation of religious houses, the king responded brusquely that she «should attend to other things, reminding her that the last Queen had died in consequence of meddling too much in state affairs⁶⁹». Yet, Anne Boleyn has never been raised as a future Queen consort like her predecessor, Catherine has in Spain, therefore she may not have understood that, once she became Henry's wife and Queen, she had not the same freedom she used to have while she was his mistress. To put it in a nutshell, her sole purpose was not to give her opinion and political advice to her husband, but to produce heirs to the Throne of England.

The last act of Anne Boleyn's life remains the main subject of debate as there are not enough concrete sources to answer these two fundamental questions: why was Anne Boleyn accused of treason and adultery, and executed? And was she guilty or innocent? Some historians like Eric Ives claim that the one who had Anne arrested was Thomas Cromwell because he believed that she had become an obstacle to his politics⁷⁰. Yet, others have another explanation for the Queen's arrest and execution. George W. Bernard, a British historian specialized in the reign of Henry VIII seems to be the only one who believes that, according to Ives, Anne Boleyn and some of the men accused with her were guilty of the charges:

«It remains my own hunch that Anne had indeed committed adultery with Norris, probably with Smeaton, possibly with Weston, and was then the victim of the most appalling bad luck when the Countess of Worcester, one of her trusted ladies, contrived in a moment of irritation with her brother to trigger the devastating chain of events that led inexorably to Anne's downfall»⁷¹

Despite sources which give us an idea of Anne's trial, what her peers said, and what she said, the reasons which led her to the Tower of London as a prisoner remain obscure. Every explanation concerning Anne's final weeks are pure speculation, we know the circumstances and some of the events but not for sure who is responsible for her downfall and execution.

On May 2^nd 1536, when she was at Greenwich Palace she was arrested and taken to the

Tower by several men⁷². A few hours later she was escorted to the Tower of London where she met Sir William Kingston, the Constable of the Tower whose duty was to report everything the Queen would do or say during her imprisonment to Thomas Cromwell⁷³. In a letter he wrote to the King's Minister, he mentioned her attitude when she arrived at the tower; «I went before the Queen into her lodging. She said unto me, «Mr. Kingston, shall I go into a dungeon?» I said, «No, Madam. You shall go into the lodging you lay in at your coronation.» «It is too good for me, she said; Jesu have mercy on me;» and kneeled down, weeping a good pace, and in the same sorrow fell into a great laughing, as she has done many times since»⁷⁴. As William Kingston was supposed to report back everything the Queen said during her imprisonment many details are known. One is particularly famous; when the Queen was told about the ability of the French executioner who was in charge of her beheading, she said «I heard say the executor was very good, and I have a little neck»⁷⁵ and started laughing afterwards. As we saw it earlier in the excerpt of Kingston's letter to Cromwell, Anne Boleyn's behavior during her imprisonment was quite intriguing, as she seemed to have had some sort of emotional breakdown as she laughed, cried, and said strange things several times during her imprisonment at the Tower. For instance, on May 7^th, William Kingston wrote to Thomas Cromwell and argued that Anne had said that it would not rain in England until she was set free from the Tower and then looked «determined to die»⁷⁶.

A few days after her arrival at the Tower of London as prisoner, Anne Boleyn was tried within the Tower, in the King's Hall. Her indictment accused her of «despising her marriage and entertaining malice against the King, and following daily her frail and carnal lust»⁷⁷, she was also accused of incest with her own brother, George, Lord Rochford. Her peers argued that she «tempted her brother with her tongue in the said George's mouth and the said George's tongue in hers.»⁷⁸ Though the Queen had alibis for several accusations of adultery she was found guilty by the court

presided by her own uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, who declared her guilty of all charges:

«Because thou has offended our sovereign the King's grace in committing treason against his person and here attainted of the same, the law of the realm is this, thou hast deserved death, and thy judgment is this: that thou shalt be burned her within the Tower of London, on the Green, else to have thy head smitten off, as the King's pleasure shall be further known of the same.»⁷⁹

Thanks to Charles Wriothesley who took part to the ceremony during which Anne became Marquis of Pembroke, to her coronation in 1533, but who was also present at her trial at the Tower, we have information concerning Anne's attitude that day. According to him the Queen spoke vehemently («And first the Kinges commission was redd, and then the Constable of the Tower and the Lieutenant brought forth the Queene to the barre, where was made a chaire for her to sitt downe in, and then her indictment was redd afore her, whereunto she made so wise and discreet aunsweres to all things layde against her excusinge herselfe with her wordes so clearlie, as thoughe she had never bene faultie to the same»⁸⁰).

Despite her capacity to defend herself she was found guilty and sentenced to death by burning or «have thy head smitten off» at the King's pleasure. It was the very first time a Queen of England was condemned to die, the second would be Anne's own cousin, Katherine Howard, Henry VIII's fifth wife in February 1542. After the Duke of Norfolk pronounced the sentence, Anne made one of her most famous speeches in which she claimed once more her innocence but also, surprisingly, admitted that she had disrespected and misbehaved towards the King:

«I do not say that I have always borne towards the king the humility which I owed him, considering

his kindness and the great honor he showed me and the great respect he always paid me; I admit too, that often I have taken it into my head to be jealous of him ... but may God be my witness if I have done him any other wrong.»⁸¹

Out of mercy, the King decided that she would not be burnt but beheaded and asked for a skilled French executioner (at Anne's request) to come to London for the execution. On May 19^th Anne went to the scaffold and made a speech in which claimed that she would not speak of the reasons why she had been condemned to die, she then praised her husband and asked the people to pray for the King and for her soul:

«Good Christian people, I am come hither to die, for according to the law and by the law I am judged to die, and therefore, I will speak nothing against it. I am come hither to accuse no man, nor to speak anything of that, whereof I am accused and condemned to die, but I pray God to save the King and send him long to reign over you, for a gentler nor a more merciful prince was there never: and to me he was ever a good, a gentle and sovereign lord. And if any person will meddle of my cause, I require them to judge the best. And thus I take my leave of the world and of you all, and

I heartily desire you all to pray for me. O Lord have mercy on me, to God I commend my soul.»⁸²

As Eric Ives argued in his book, we may be surprised that Anne chose to praise the King her husband who ordered her death. However, as the historian explains it, Anne submitted to the sixteenth-century conventions but she also may have been aware that her daughter, Elizabeth, would suffer the consequences if she claimed her innocence and spoke against Henry VIII⁸³. Indeed, just a few days earlier Elizabeth had been declared illegitimate⁸⁴, therefore her position was more than uncertain and criticizing the King could do nothing more than harm her. We might assume that Anne Boleyn's last action was to protect her daughter's future.

She was then blindfolded and knelt on the scaffold before the executioner beheaded her with one single stroke⁸⁵. Yet, despite Eric Ives's detailed abstract of the event which gives us an idea of what Anne said and did in her last moments on Tower Green, some historical sources tell another version of what happened on May 19th. On his website historian Gareth Russell bases his description of Anne Boleyn's death on the poem Epistre Contenant le Procès Criminel Faict a l'Encontre de la Royne Anne Boullant d'Angleterre written in French in 1545 by Lancelot De Carle, Bishop of Riez who witnessed Anne Boleyn's trial and execution. According to Russell the executioner in charge of Anne's beheading pitied her and decided to be merciful, he is said to have hid his sword where the Queen could not see it and killed her when she did not expect it («He assured her, with great kindness, that he would tell her before the fatal blow was delivered. It was a generous and merciful lie (...) Quietly, deftly, the executioner removed his shoes and took out his sword from the pile of straw, where he had tactfully hidden it from the Queen's view (...) The executioner stealthily picked up the sword and swung it around his head two or three times to pick up momentum in order to make a clean stroke of the royal head. He had already decided that he would not follow the custom of displaying the decapitated head to the crowd, nor would he utter the traditional, triumphalist cry of: «So perish all the King's enemies»'⁸⁶)

Though we do have different versions of her execution, we can claim without any doubt that Anne's death by decapitation on the scaffold forged to a certain extent her legend as she was the first Queen consort of England to die in such a violent way; on the order of her own husband who had gone so far as to divorce his first wife, break with the Papacy, and create his own Church to marry her just a few years earlier.

It is surprising that such a famous historical figure as Anne Boleyn remains a mystery as far as her appearance is concerned. Indeed, as we will see it later, when Anne was beheaded all representations of her were disposed of, surely destroyed. Therefore it is difficult to physically describe Anne Boleyn. However, thanks to primary sources written by people who met her, it is possible to have clues about her looks.

One of the most famous descriptions of Anne Boleyn's looks is the one written by Nicolas Sander in which he wrote the following statement:

«Anne Boleyn was rather tall of stature, with black hair, and an oval face of a sallow complexion as if troubled with jaundice. She had a projecting tooth under the upper lip, and on her right hand six fingers. There was a large wen under her chin, and therefore to hide its ugliness she wore a high dress covering her throat. In this she was followed by the ladies of the court, who also wore high dresses, having before been in the habit of leaving their necks and the upper portion of their persons uncovered. She was handsome to look at, with a pretty mouth, amusing in her ways, playing on the lute, and was a good dancer.⁸⁷»

In other words, Anne is depicted as having had an unusual and ugly physical appearance, moreover the mention of the «wen» and «projecting tooth» may be understood as a reference to the rumor that she was a witch. Yet, the veracity of Sander's description can be challenged; Nicolas Sander was born in 1530 and was, therefore, only six years old when Anne Boleyn was executed. According to The Anne Boleyn Files he had never met the Queen and was exiled when Elizabeth I came to power⁸⁸.

His testimony does not appear to be really trustworthy. Moreover, if Anne had such physical traits, would have she really been able to seduce the King of England at a time when warts were seen as a sign of the devil?

Another physical description of Anne Boleyn can be found on the British History Online website, which catalogues many primary sources. Apparently it was written by a Venetian ambassador in 1532 when Anne Boleyn, Marquis of Pembroke, and Henry VIII went to Calais to meet Francis I. The author's description of Anne is much more nuanced than the one of Sander or even Eustace Chapuys, whose letters we will study later. British History Online claims that the author made the following description of the future Queen of England:

«It is said that Madame Anne was not one of the handsomest women in the world. He describes her as being of middling stature, with a swarthy complexion, a long neck, a wide mouth, and a flat bust, in fact, she owed her position to the King's sensual appetite and to her eyes, which were black and beautiful»⁸⁹

This description of Anne's physical appearance does not claim that she was a great beauty, indeed, she was not the type of beauty praised by people in the sixteenth-century; for instance, back then, for a woman to be considered beautiful, she had to have an ample bosom, yet Anne had «a flat bust». The author of this description also mentioned Anne Boleyn's eyes which, in his mind, are one of the reasons why she climbed so high on the social ladder and managed to make the King fall for her.

It is impossible to compare these two descriptions to a portrait of Anne as it seems that none was painted from life. The only true depiction made during her lifetime is a medal from 1534 which might have been made to celebrate one of her pregnancies which resulted in a miscarriage. Yet, because of the small size of the medal and the fact that it was damaged, we are unable to have a true grasp of what Anne Boleyn really looked like. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to make up our own opinion based on the different testimonies which survive to this day, yet these sources, due to

the religion or nationality of the authors, cannot be considered to be truly reliable. To put it in a nutshell, Anne Boleyn's physical look remains largely a mystery.

As we saw it earlier in this dissertation, Anne Boleyn's journey from being a simple courtier to the Queen of England was at the core of many turmoils and talks between her contemporaries but also historians such as Eric Ives, Gareth Russell, David Starkey or George W. Bernard. Yet, the events that took place during her lifetime are not the only subjects of controversies: her personality, physical looks and character traits also create debates among scholars, historians and everyone who has an interest in Anne Boleyn's story. All of them have their personal opinion on Anne: an intelligent political woman, a she-wolf, a sexual predator, a whore, a witch, etc...

One of the most important and famous people who met Anne was Charles V's ambassador at Henry VIII's court from 1529 to 1545⁹⁰, Eustace Chapuys. He was born in Annecy, in France, in 1490 and, at the age of seventeen, he entered Turin university where he «became doctor of civil and canon laws»⁹¹. After several years working for different important figures such as Jean de Savoie or the Duke of Bourbon, Chapuys entered the service of Charles V in 1527⁹². Two years later, because

of his knowledge of the Law and ability to speak Latin, Eustace was sent to England by the Emperor to advise Queen Catherine of Aragon whose marriage was on trial⁹³. However, his job was not only to advise the Queen consort of England but to also report what happened at Henry's court to his master, Charles V, Catherine of Aragon's nephew, which he did in many letters that have survived to this day.

Eustace Chapuys' numerous letters are available on the website British History online, among many other precious documents such as letters to or from Henry VIII or written by Thomas Cromwell. Though the question of reliability may be raised as Chapuys was the Spanish ambassador under the authority of Charles V, an ally of Catherine of Aragon and, therefore, a Catholic, his writings are ones of the rare ones dealing a lot with Anne Boleyn.

One of the first striking aspects about Chapuys' letters is that he never calls Anne by her name. When he refers to her he writes «the concubine»⁹⁴ or «the lady»⁹⁵ to insult her but also to enhance his dislike of her, he does the same when he mentions Henry and Anne's daughter, Elizabeth, whom he calls «the little bastard»⁹⁶. In a letter which, according to the British History online website, may have been written by Eustace Chapuys, the author describes Anne Boleyn's coronation day on June 1^st 1533 in very negative terms.

There the author enhances several times the reaction of the people of London to their new Queen, according to him they clearly and vehemently disrespected Anne:

96 'Henry VIII: May 1536, 16-20', in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10, January-June 1536. Op.Cit.

«Thought it was customary to kneel, uncover, and cry «God save the King, God save the Queen,» whenever they appeared in public, no one in London or the suburbs, not even women and children did so on this occasion»⁹⁷

This statement indicates very well Anne Boleyn's popularity and the way her people felt about her. Yet, it also tells us a lot about the author's opinion on the new Queen of England who does not stop her his negative description of the event and gives a couple of details but the veracity of which might be questioned. To start with, after he mentioning the attitude of rejection from the people of London, the author describes Anne Boleyn's coronation gown, which, according to him, «was covered with tongues pierced with nails, to show the treatment which those who spoke against her might expect»⁹⁸. Right afterwards another precise detail about Anne's physical aspect is given to the recipient of this letter, indeed, the author claimed that the Queen had a wart on her body and a swelling she hid behind jewels⁹⁹.

Claiming that Anne Boleyn had several deformities such as moles, warts or a sixth finger, was very common for her opponents. It might be seen as a tactic to degrade the woman they called «the concubine» or «the great prostitute», but it was also a way to justify another nickname and insult used against her. Considering that Anne was not from a foreign royal family as Catherine of Aragon was, and that marrying her would not grant him any political alliance or a considerable dowry, many of Anne's detractors argued that she was a witch who had bewitched the King to marry her and make her his Queen. And during the sixteenth century people used to believe that birthmarks, moles or warts were devilish signs.

Though there is no proof that the author of this letter is indeed Eustace Chapuys it is a possible theory considering his despise and nearly hatred of Anne and the Boleyn family, especially if we analyze the letters that, we know for sure, were written by him. In a letter written in January 1531 to the Emperor, Eustace Chapuys reported a discourse allegedly pronounced by Anne Boleyn:

«She is braver than a lion. She said to one of the Queen's ladies that she wished all the Spaniards in the world were in the sea; and on the other replying, that, for the honor of the Queen, she should not say so, she said that she did not care anything for the Queen, and would rather see her hanged than acknowledge her as her mistress»¹⁰⁰

This extract of Chapuys' letter is particularly interesting as it seems to be a bit paradoxical. When the Imperial ambassador mentions Anne's bravery it could be argued that, despite his despise of «the lady» as he keeps calling her in every single one of his letters, he seems to admire her courage and strength somehow as he compares her to a lion. Yet, this following description of a potential encounter between Anne Boleyn and Catherine's ladies-in-waiting shows his deep feelings concerning the King's mistress. Though there is no way to claim that what Chapuys mentioned in this letter really took place, the fact that he decided to report this event to the Emperor clearly indicates that it is a technique to undermine Anne and expose her scandalous behavior towards Catherine who was still Queen of England at that time.

In every letters written by Eustace Chapuys in which Anne Boleyn is mentioned, she is always depicted negatively the way she is in the letter we just mentioned. A few years earlier, in 1531, when Cardinal Thomas Wolsey lost the royal favor because of his failure to get the King his divorce, Chapuys wrote to his master to tell him that Anne sent someone to visit the Cardinal who was ill. Afterwards he gave his personal interpretation of her behavior and argued that she claimed to be «favoring him with the King»¹⁰¹ but that he does not trust her because he knows she is an enemy to the Cardinal. Moreover he added «She must have thought he was dying, or shown her dissimulation and love of intrigue, of which she is an accomplished mistress.»¹⁰² This letter written by Chapuys on February 26^th does not really tell a lot about Anne Boleyn, her personality or personal feelings towards Thomas Wolsey but it does show how she was perceived by some of her contemporaries who disliked her. For many she was a very gifted schemer who enjoyed plotting against those she despised. Chapuys even implied in this particular document that Anne Boleyn enjoyed the idea that, perhaps, Cardinal Wolsey was dying¹⁰³.

Though Eustace Chapuys' reliability cannot be taken for granted considering his Catholic faith and his allegiance to Charles V, his letters are particularly interesting to read to understand how Anne Boleyn was perceived by those who met her. As far as Chapuys is concerned, the future Queen of England is depicted as a manipulative woman who enjoyed scheming against her opponents and bringing them down. The Imperial Ambassador insists on Anne's devious behavior to enhance Catherine of Aragon's virtue and her status as rightful and deserving Queen of England. However Eustace Chapuys' desire to blacken Anne Boleyn's name and reputation had a very paradoxical effect. Yet, when we read the excerpts of his letters which mention Anne we have this very dark and negative vision of her but his writings are ones of the few documents which still exist today and allow us to know more about her. In other words it can be argued that Eustace Chapuys' correspondence with Charles V plays an important part in the study of Anne Boleyn's life and in keeping her alive, in the popular culture for instance.

However the question of the reliability of these letters can be raised. Anne Boleyn's biographer, Eric Ives mentioned his opinion on these reports in his biography of the Queen. He acknowledges the appeal of Eustace Chapuys' writings and points out the fact that his sources were «individuals who share a single point of view¹⁰⁴» but also that it is plausible that Chapuys let his personal feelings about Anne Boleyn interfere in his envoys and that, instead of telling about facts and events, he distorted them with his own opinion on «the concubine»¹⁰⁵.

104 «The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: 'the Most Happy'.» op. Cit., pp. 55-57

While some of Anne's contemporaries criticized her in their letters or testimonies, her allies praised her with the same certitude. In 1558, when Elizabeth was crowned Queen of England after the death of her half-sister, Mary I, she received a letter from Alexander Alesius, a Scottish theologian who was present in London the day Anne Boleyn was executed. In the letter he sent to the Queen he mentioned several times her mother as «The most serene Queen¹⁰⁶» or «Your most religious mother¹⁰⁷» and claims to have witnessed a conversation between Anne and Henry just a few days before the Queen's arrest. Alexander Alesius also argues that Anne was carrying the young Elizabeth in her arms and that «The King was angry¹⁰⁸». This document completely contrasts with the writings of Eustace Chapuys as Alesius emphasizes Anne Boleyn's religious faith and virtue and describes her as a loving mother towards Elizabeth. This letter also tells us about an encounter, which took place the day Anne died, between Alexander Alesius and Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury who was Anne Boleyn's strong ally. According to Alesius, Cranmer wept the Queen's death and had said to him that «She who has been, the Queen of England upon earth will to-day become a Queen in heaven¹⁰⁹» before bursting into tears. Alexander Alesius' letter echoes the one written by Thomas Cranmer to Henry VIII on May 3^d 1536, the day after Anne Boleyn's arrest. In this letter he sent to the Monarch, Cranmer carefully tries to defend the Queen, arguing that he «had never better opinion of woman¹¹⁰» but also that he cared a lot about her¹¹¹ but also «loved her not a little for the love which I judged her to bear towards God and His Gospel¹¹²».

These opinions on Anne Boleyn which describe her as a very religious woman are interesting to compare to the ones of her enemies who claimed that she was a witch or a whore. In other words the image of Anne embodies perfectly the idea of the dichotomy of the angel and the whore. Indeed, there is no middle ground; either she is a very pious and respected Queen, either she is a heretic whore. To put it in a nutshell, the opinion on Anne Boleyn do not seem to represent her personality and faith but the ones of Chapuys, Alesius or Cranmer. Such a conclusion complicates our attempts to understand who truly was Anne Boleyn, especially as there are very few documents written by her that survived to this day.

However the name of Anne Boleyn was not just blackened to undermine her, there were also various aggressive attempts to erase her completely from history after her death in May 1536. Considering that she was accused of adultery, incest and high treason (but also accused of witchcraft) Anne Boleyn was seen by her contemporaries as a sinful witch, which led to a strong desire to eradicate everything that was linked with her, a process led by Henry VIII himself.

When the King married Anne Boleyn and crowned her Queen of England in 1533, he decided to build a Great Hall at Hampton Court Palace in honor of his new wife and Queen. Workers worked day and night for several years to finish it and many ornaments which praised the Queen were added, such as wooden entwined initials of Henry and Anne, or her own emblem, a crowned falcon. When she was sent to the scaffold three years later the King had the initials and falcons destroyed and replaced with his new wife's, Jane Seymour's, initials and emblem, a phoenix.

It is possible to visit the Great Hall of Hampton Court Palace and to see that one initials was forgotten by the workers and is still visible on the woodwork. Moreover, the guides who work at the Palace are always eager to show the initials to the visitors, they also explain that there was also a falcon which remained on the left side of the Hall. The guides also argue that, when Henry VIII ordered for his second wife's falcon emblem to be removed from the building, they simply cut the bird's head and replaced it with the head of a phoenix. This decision might be seen as a symbolic way to behead Anne Boleyn over and over through her emblem. One might argue that it can be perceived as a fierce determination from the King to utterly destroy Anne's memory.

Yet, Anne Boleyn's initials and emblem were not the only artifacts destroyed on the order of the King, her portraits were also disposed of, and, as a result, this makes it impossible for us to know what she really looked like.

One of the most famous aspects of the relationship of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn is that, at the beginning of their affair, they frequently wrote to each other, whether it was letters or notes on Books of Hours. Many of Henry's letters to Anne have survived to this day, some are in the Vatican secret archives, but none of Anne Boleyn's replies to the King have been found. This disappearance triggers many theories, including one which is very plausible: they were probably destroyed

alongside the initials, the emblems and the portraits in 1536. Though there is no proof to validate this theory, the fact that Henry VIII removed from his Palaces everything that was associated to his late wife indicates that he may have destroyed these letters, or had someone destroy them for him.

Another document may also have been a target for those who desired to destroy everything that was associated with Anne Boleyn. Indeed, considering the state of preservation of the page of a book of prayer on which Anne Boleyn wrote a message to Henry VIII during their courtship, it is possible to induce the possibility that someone may have tried to erase Anne's writing. Indeed, if we compare Henry VIII's writing to Anne's, we easily notice that it is easier to read what the King wrote. Perhaps there was an attempt to erase her message which clearly indicated that she would bear Henry a son if he married her.

One may think that when Anne's daughter, Elizabeth, became Queen in 1558, her mother's memory and reputation would have been rehabilitated. Yet, it was not really the case. Anne was still considered to be a traitor by many Englishmen but also by European monarchs, especially the Spanish Emperor, the Queen's former brother in law, and Elizabeth herself was seen as her bastard, the daughter of one of her many alleged lovers. There is no trace in historical sources that Elizabeth

I ever spoke publicly of her mother. However, some signs and actions taken by the Queen could indicate that she had not forgotten her mother who died a traitor's death when she was not even three years old.

To start with, a locket ring worn by Elizabeth and known as the Chequers Ring hides two portraits. On one hand, there is a portrait of the Queen herself from around 1575, and on the other hand, a portrait of an unknown woman wearing a French hood, a hairpiece famously associated with Anne Boleyn herself.

Once more, there is no evidence which proves that the woman represented in this miniature is Elizabeth's mother but the French hood and the fact that it was hidden in a locket ring strongly indicates that it could be someone important for the Queen, and that it might be Anne Boleyn herself. This piece of jewelry, though Elizabeth was the only one who could see the portrait of the woman known as «The great whore», was a strong symbolic gesture for it proves that, despite the attempts to make Anne a «non person» as Eric Ives argues in his biography of the Queen¹¹³, her mother was not entirely forgotten.

However, though Anne Boleyn's name remained taboo in England, as we mentioned it earlier, many Elizabethan artists painted her portrait. None of them had met her during her lifetime but it can be interpreted as an attempt to reestablish the memory of their Queen's mother. The most famous one is on display at Anne Boleyn's childhood home in Kent, Hever Castle. The Tudor Queen is depicted as a young brunette holding a rose in her hand and wearing a dark French hood (Anne's favorite headpiece) and the worldwide famous B necklace. The unknown artist chose to portray Elizabeth I's mother as a beautiful woman with no wart or sixth finger but with wide dark eyes and a long slender neck, two physical traits usually associated with Anne. Though we have no information concerning this painting beside the fact that it was not painted from life by someone who knew Anne Boleyn, we might claim that it could be seen as an attempt to rehabilitate Henry VIII's second wife and her memory. Indeed she is not depicted as the ugly witch described in Eustace Chapuys' letters or by Nicolas Sander for instance, on the contrary she is beautiful (Eric Ives argued in the French documentary Secrets d'histoire dedicated to Henry VIII that, for him, she was depicted as some sort of a Hollywood beauty¹¹⁴)

Yet, though portraits of her were destroyed after her fall in spring 1536, there are recent theories that some depictions painted from life of Anne Boleyn survived to this day. Indeed, some people tries try to solve the mysteries concerning the portraits and depiction commonly said to be depicting Anne Boleyn. An article published in February 2015 on The Guardian website focused on the use of an American facial recognition software to analyze one of the many portraits from the Tudor period. The software used the Moost Happi medal on display at the British Museum in London which is sure to represent Anne, and compared it to some portraits suspected to be of her.

The results were surprising as, according to The Guardian article, no true likeness was found between the medal and the portraits on display at Hever Castle and at the National Portrait Gallery which are usually the first ones we think of when we think of the Tudor Queen. However, the software found similitudes between the medal and the portrait known as the Nidd Hall portrait which, according to the article, was sometimes considered to be a depiction of Henry VIII's third wife, Jane Seymour.

Yet, Claire Ridgway, the administrator of The Anne Boleyn Files website she created in 2009, wrote an article in which she argued that she sent an email to Professor Conrad Rudolph of the Department of History of Art from the University of California who is also the project director of FACES (Faces, Art, and Computerized Evaluation Systems). In the email, Professor Rudolph wrote to Mrs Ridgway, he claimed that the results of this analysis had been misinterpreted by journalists and that the work of the FACES team on portraits supposedly of Anne Boleyn has been considered to be inconclusive¹¹⁵. In the end, even new technologies and twenty-first century science are still unable to determine for sure which portrait said to depict Anne is a true depiction. Once more, the mystery which surrounds her physical characteristics remains but still triggers a vivid interest, even in the United States.

These violent and numerous attempts to make Anne Boleyn a «non person», to completely erase her and her impact from history and collective memory but also the various grey zones about her life, may be at the heart of the issue of portraying her in a number of contemporary productions, such as historical TV series. Yet, as we will see it in our study of The Tudors and Wolf Hall, historical accuracy is not the only obstacle that producers, screenwriters, and directors have to overcome to create a television series based on true events.

The concept of TV series was born in the United-States in the middle of the twentieth-century, in the 1940s. At first, they were called «soap operas» as they were sponsored by soap companies and the targeted audience was mainly housewives. Though many aspects have changed throughout the decades, the «recipe» remains the same; the story is divided in several episodes, there are different storylines, twists and suspense¹¹⁶. During the first decades, after the creation of this new medium, it started to diversify and three genres emerged: soap operas, sitcoms and dramas. The first project which really triggered the public's interest for this innovative medium was the sitcom I love Lucy created in 1951 which shaped the TV series world until the beginning of the 2000s¹¹⁷.

A major turning-point happened towards the end of the twentieth-century with two major projects: Twin Peaks created by David Lynch and Matt Groening's The Simpsons. Indeed, for the first time, these series pushed the boundaries of television series medium; for instance the audience was given a more active role as they were not given all the answers and the notion of irony was added¹¹⁸. As the Upopi website argues in its analysis of the history of series, Twin Peaks and The

Simpsons have a more complex purpose than their predecessors. For instance, The Simpsons is a harsh and comical criticism of the American society¹¹⁹. Yet, it will take a decade for these new kinds of series to be truly accepted by society and the audience¹²⁰.

According to the Collins English Dictionary website, a historical period drama is «a drama set in a particular historical period¹²¹». Though historical television series work exactly as sitcoms, for instance, they can be considered as submitted to what is called historical accuracy as their plots are based on true events and historical figures. Usually the aim of such a series is not to create a plot from scratch but to base it more or less on what really happened in the past.

In an article written by Ioanis Deroide and entitled Les séries historiques entre la fiction et le réel: quand les scénaristes rivalisent avec les historiens it is said that «la série possède un avantage sur d'autres formes d'expressions (...) Elle favorise une immersion sur le long terme dans l'époque passée là où le cinéma, qui peut certes nous plonger plus rapidement dans un autre monde grâce à ses salles obscures et ses grands écrans, doit aussi nous en laisser ressortir plus vite, avant même peut-être que le dépaysement ait produit tous ses effets¹²²».

122 «Séries historiques : entre la fiction et le réel.» Accessed May 26, 2019.

Indeed, the advantage of TV series is that the audience spends much more time with the characters, they can understand them and sometimes even care for them. For instance, The Other Boleyn Girl movie lasts for about 115 minutes, therefore, the audience does not really have the time to fully understand the characters of Anne Boleyn or Henry VIII and what motivates them as it was impossible to develop their storylines in such a short screen time. On the other hand, in The Tudors, Anne Boleyn is depicted in 21 episodes of 50 minutes each which allowed the screenwriters to develop her personality, her storylines and relationships with the other characters.

Yet, though depicting history in TV series have many advantages, such as screen time, there are as many obstacles to overcome. The first one which is worth mentioning is the issue of historical accuracy which, as we will see it, triggers many debates between screenwriters and historians who point out the several mistakes and inaccuracies they noticed in the show. Indeed, portraying an historical period such as, for instance, the Tudor period, is tricky and problematic as many aspects and details remain unknown to us. This is where screenwriters need to fill in those gaps and imagine, for example, what type of dress Anne Boleyn wore for her secret wedding to Henry VIII, or the nature of her relationship with her sister-in-law, Jane Parker.

Writing a TV series requires many different talents and people: creators, screenwriters, producers, make-up artists, actors, executives, hair dressers, etc ... However when it comes to creating an historical TV series it is necessary for the creators and executives to hire what is called a historical consultant whose job is to oversee the work of everyone else on the show to make sure that it is as historically accurate as possible.

The Tudors was overseen by Justin Pollard, a British historian and writer who works in the movie industry on films and series. He is best known for his work on Elizabeth (1998) and its sequel Elizabeth: the Golden Age (2007), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) but also the four seasons of Showtime's The Tudors and Michael Hirst's new TV series: Vikings¹²³.

As far as we know, Justin Pollard was never interviewed about his job on The Tudors, but in a video broadcast on Youtube concerning his work on the set of Vikings, he explains how he sees his job as an historical consultant on a show. According to Pollard he is involved right into the beginning of the project as he works with the writers «to provide the historical outline¹²⁴». In other words, Justin Pollard's job is to create a base of historical events and facts on which the screenwriters can build up and develop the narratives they are interested in. In the same video the historian confesses that what he enjoys about working on a historical TV series is that he gets to see this historical figures he has been writing about for years «come to life¹²⁵», it seems quite obvious that he is truly passionate about his job and that his opinion and remarks are taken into account by the writers and creators of the show

This video deals with his current job on TV series Vikings, but what about his experience on the set of The Tudors? Many historians and scholars, such as David Starkey who described Showtime's series as «gratuitously awful», criticized the TV series, arguing that it was not accurate at all, or that the purpose of the drama was to make it appealing for the American audience¹²⁶. Indeed, some choices were made to make it easier for the viewers to understand what was going on. For instance they did not depict Henry VIII's two sisters, Mary and Margaret, they portrayed only one named Margaret and mixed both sisters' lives to portray Gabrielle Anwar's Margaret Tudor on the show. Another alteration from what truly happened during Henry's reign is that the writers, perhaps to add some pathos into the script and enhance Henry VIII's tragic family life, decided to depict Henry Fitzroy, the King's illegitimate son by his mistress, Elizabeth Blount, as a young child

of about five-years old when he dies of the sweating sickness. Yet, the real Fitzroy died at the age of seventeen and was even already married¹²⁷.

Concerning the research on primary sources made for the production of Wolf Hall, the series is based on Hilary Mantel's novels and, in a New Yorker article based on her life and work as a writer, the journalist argues that, «Only rarely did she make something up out of nothing - almost always there was some hint in the sources to suggest it¹²⁸», to stress Hilary Mantel's meticulousness when it comes to research. To illustrate her argument, the New Yorker journalist mentioned a scene from Bring Up the bodies in which Jane Seymour is courted by the King:

«Even many of her tiny, novelistic details came from the archives--often from the gossipy letters sent by ambassadors to their home courts. There was a scene in the sequel to «Wolf Hall,» «Bring Up the Bodies,» for instance, in which a messenger gave Jane Seymour a love letter and a bag of money that Henry had sent her, although he was still married to Anne Boleyn; Jane gave back the money, then took the letter and kissed it, but gave it back unopened. That came straight from an ambassador's correspondence.¹²⁹»

Therefore, somehow, Mantel was the historian of the drama as she is the one who checked the primary sources and the events which took place during the period depicted in the six episodes. Yet, the success of her research has been highly criticized by British historian David Starkey. Starkey confessed he never read the books or seen the BBC TV series but believes it to be good fiction, however, he claimed that Wolf Hall is a «deliberate perversion¹³⁰» of history and that some events depicted are based on no true evidence. For example, the historian regrets that Mantel told the story

of the death of Cromwell's family as an event which hurt him badly when, for him, there is no «scrap of evidence for it at all¹³¹».

While David Starkey used this example to illustrate his negative opinion on both the novels and series, it is impossible to claim that Hilary Mantel rushed her research on this pivotal Tudor period. The six episodes series added many details into the storyline that are nearly never mentioned, even by historians. For example, Wolf Hall shows that Anne Boleyn had a dog named Purkoy that died in an accident (in the series, the dog appears to have been thrown threw a window), and that its death moved her a lot.

This fact about the Tudor Queen is not even mentioned in Eric Ives' The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, which proves that Hilary Mantel must have spent a lot of time reading primary sources such as the Lisle letters in which the death of Anne's lapdog is mentioned («Also she saith that the Queen's Grace setteth much store by a pretty dog, and her Grace delighted so much little Purkoy that after he was dead of a fall there durst nobody tell her Grace of it, till it pleased the King's Highness to tell her Grace of it.¹³²»). Also, in the final episode, during the trial of Lord Rochford, George Boleyn, a detail of the event is portrayed in the series. Indeed, while on trial, George was given a paper Cromwell asked him not to read out loud, but he did anyway. This part of George Boleyn's trial is mentioned in Eric Ives' biography of Anne Boleyn¹³³ but it is usually overseen when Lord Rochford's last days are mentioned. This choice to add very specific details into the plot gives us the feeling that Mantel and Kosminsky wanted the readers and the audience to be given as many historical accurate informations about this period. It is as if their aim was not just to entertain us by showing the backstage of the English Reformation and Henry VIII's divorce, but to also teach us history as they believe it to be.

Obviously, Hilary Mantel is a novelist and not a historian, moreover, she wanted her novels to be entertaining but also to be as accurate as possible. The fact that, at least, two small details are depicted onscreen proves that she did her job as an «amateur» historian. However, it is essential to stress the fact that she never intended to write a biography of Cromwell's life and importance during the reign of Henry VIII. As a novelist, she knew she had to fill in the gaps when primary sources

failed (they do not tell about Anne Boleyn's personality or Cromwell's feelings for instance) and use her imagination.

Michael Hirst, an English screenwriter and producer, is the head writer, creator and executive producer of The Tudors. Yet, this series is far from being his first project which deals with the powerful Tudor dynasty. In the 1990's the «passionate chronicler of Elizabethan and Tudor England¹³⁴» wrote the script for the Academy Award rewarded film about Anne and Henry's daughter; Elizabeth directed by Shekhar Kapur and with Australian actress Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth I. In 2007 he repeated the experience and penned the sequel; Elizabeth the Golden Age. In an article written on the Vancouver Sun website about his work on The Tudors, the journalist mentioned Michael Hirst's desire to write a script about the story of Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII but that «he just had no idea it would be for television¹³⁵». Indeed, before he accepted to create The Tudors for the Showtime network, Hirst had several prejudices on the use of the medium of television to tell the story of the Tudor King;

«A young American producer asked me if I could turn The Tudors into an American soap opera, and I said 'I don't know what you mean. What kind of standard are you talking about here ? Do you want me to dumb it down ?' I said 'Could you send me lots of examples of good, recent American TV shows ?' And he sent me lost of different episodes, but they were all episodes of The West Wing. I thought 'Okay, I'm supposed to do something entertaining that can also be intellectual.¹³⁶'»

Hirst's interest for history made him work on different television projects such as The Borgias (2011-2013), a series he produced which is based on the Borgia family, especially the Pope Alexander VI and his children; Cesare, Lucrezia and Juan. When the series was canceled he started working on Vikings (2013-present) which tells the story of the legendary Viking hero, Ragnar Lothbrok. Michael Hirst's choice to work on projects based on true events is relevant of his interest for history he seems to have studied a lot.

In the book written by several historians and specialists of Tudor England and entitled History, Fiction, and the Tudors, Sex, Politics, Power, and Artistic License in the Showtime Television Series, William B. Robinson wrote in his introduction that several members of Michael Hirst's team who worked with him on The Tudors had already been involved in historical series or films¹³⁷. For instance, the score composer, Trevor Morris had already worked on 2004 King Arthur movie before he created the music of The Tudors (he worked again with Hirst on The Borgias and is currently the score composer of Vikings) or Jeremy Podeswa a film and television director who had directed an episode of HBO's famous TV series Rome in 2005.

This choice to hire people who have already worked on historical programs could be interpreted as a desire to create a team of entertainment professionals who are aware of the obstacles and the difficulties one can have to deal with when writing a series based on true events. We can assume that working with people like Jeremy Podeswa reflects Michael Hirst's desire to make a television series of good quality.

137 «History, Fiction, and The Tudors: Sex, Politics, Power, and Artistic License in the Showtime Television Series», edited edited by William B. Robinson, 2009, p.3

Judging by some storylines from The Tudors, it appears that Michael Hirst may also be interested in reading history books written by historians specialized in the Tudor period. In the second season, when Anne Boleyn and Henry's marriage is hanging by a thread as she has not given birth to a male heir, Henry meets one of his subjects in the wood and his wife called Beth. The King seems besotted with the woman and kisses her in front of her husband before taking her some place else where they have sex. At first sight, for an audience not really knowledgeable on Henry's reign and the sixteenth-century, they might think it is a scene based only on the screenwriters' imagination considering how shocking it is to see the King taking a stranger he met in the woods as his lover. However, according to the chapter entitled William Webbe's Wench in The Middle Ages On Television: Critical Essays written by Shannon McSheffrey, this small extract is based on a book written by Alison Weir, a Tudor historian and writer which tells the tale of Henry VIII who, at the end of the 1530's met William Webbe and his wife and «took immediate fancy to the pretty wench, pulled her up onto his horse and rode with her where he ravished her and kept her for some time¹³⁸».

It was the very first time that this tale of William Webbe's wench is tackled in any Tudors-based fiction and it proves that, despite the critics of Tudor historian, David Starkey for example, The Tudors does not just depict fictitious fights or sex scenes but events that may have happened and which are mentioned in authentic primary sources. Indeed, this event is the subject of a letter written by Harry Atkinson to Thomas Cromwell, the Lord Privy Seal, in 1537, who decided not to believe Atkinson whose story has been considered to be more a tale than a true event. Yet, The Tudors depicts this story as if it truly happened. However, we could argue that Hirst decided to add this tale in his storyline to stress the fragility of the royal marriage, to show the audience that Henry had no scruple to cheat on his wife with anyone, and that her position was more threatened than ever but also that her anxiety was justified. Maybe it was also a way to emphasizes Anne Boleyn's innocence through the cruelty and lust of her husband.

Anyway, in the various interviews he gave concerning his job on The Tudors, we notice Michael Hirst's dedication to this project but also that he knows his history and desired to give his personal version of Henry VIII's reign ... after being convinced by Showtime.

138 Pagès, Meriem, and Karolyn Kinane. The Middle Ages on Television: Critical Essays. McFarland, 2015. Op.Cit., p.64

Showtime is an American television network created in 1976 which broadcasts, among other things, films and television series. This network is used to broadcast programs which display many sex or violent scenes such as, for example; Dexter, Masters of Sex, Secret Diary of a Call Girl or The Borgias. Showtime could be compared to its rival, HBO which released the phenomenon series Game of Thrones among other innovative programs with explicit contents.

In 2005 HBO released its new series; Rome which dealt with the lives of two fictional soldiers during the reign of Julius Caesar. Though nothing proves it, it could be assumed that Showtime wanted to create a new series that could compete with HBO's Rome considering that The Tudors started at the same time as the second season of HBO's new historical television series. Moreover the recipe used for Rome is exactly the same used for Michael Hirst's series; sex scenes, violence, betrayals, schemes, executions, and the portrayal of powerful historical figures (Julius Caesar and Henry VIII).

According to Michael Hirst himself, when he was first approached to create a series based on the reign of Henry VIII, he was very skeptical as his opinion of American TV series was very poor¹³⁹, moreover he was more used to work on films. In an interview he argued that they wanted him to «turn The Tudors into an American soap opera¹⁴⁰», in his mind Showtime was asking him to «dumb it down¹⁴¹». Michael Hirst's first opinion about Showtime's project was also the one of many other people, from viewers to historians, who pointed out what they considered to be aberrations, such as the casting.

139 «Michael Hirst Tries Not to Lose His Head over The Tudors success., Op.Cit.

It was the casting of Irish actor Jonathan Rhys-Meyers to portray Henry VIII which caused much debate. Indeed, as we saw it earlier, Henry is infamous for being an obese redhead tyrant who enjoyed nothing more than eating an estimated five thousand calories a day¹⁴² and sending people to the scaffold. Yet, Jonathan is far from being morbidly obese, on the contrary he is attractive and athletic, moreover he does not have red hair or a beard similar to the one worn by the King on his portraits. In several interviews, Rhys-Meyers gave to talk about the series, his character and his storylines, he argued that he knows that he does not look like Henry as Hans Holbein depicted him in his paintings but that such portrayal has «already been done¹⁴³» (referring to Richard Burton in 1969's Anne of the Thousand Days or Ray Winston in the TV serial Henry VIII from 2003 who both have Henry's massive corpulence).

Though the choice of Rhys-Meyers to portray Henry has been criticized a lot, Michael Hirst does not regret his choice as his desire was not to portray Henry as the obese and repulsive man he was at the end of his life and who is known worldwide. On the contrary, Hirst really wanted to introduce the audience to who Henry was towards the beginning of his life (he was fond of sports and very athletic before an injury which forced him to live a sedentary life) and of his reign, his goal was to depict Henry VIII not just as the King of England but also as a man who had to deal with the burden of the crown, the death of his sons, and the rivalry with Francis I and Charles V.

In an interview Hirst gave, he mentioned similarities between Henry and Jonathan; «I think Henry was like Jonathan and Jonathan is like Henry: a young man¹⁴⁴», and he may be right. The Tudors portrays a young, dynamic and violent young Henry VIII and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is

142 «Inside the Body of King Henry VIII. - YouTube.» Accessed May 26, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=845SszVoN M.

144 «The Tudors: Royal Cast of Characters - YouTube.» Accessed May 26, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=qtCfmStiWHw&t=155s.

known to have a chaotic private life. Indeed, the actor have been struggling with his alcoholism for several years and it has been said that the loss a child hit him so hard that he was sent to rehab quickly afterwards.

Moreover, Rhys-Meyers is also used to portray complex characters. In 2005 he was cast as Chris Wilton in Woody Allen's film, Match Point, his character is a young British penniless man who marries a wealthy woman to climb the social ladder. Yet, he falls in love with Nola Rice who becomes his mistress, but when the latter tells him that she is pregnant with his child, she asks him to leave his wife. Torn between his wife and his lover, Chris goes mad and decides to kill Nola and her neighbor to hide his affair from his wife and her wealthy family. After the murders Jonathan Rhys Meyers' character angrily destroys everything in the flat and falls apart, crying. This scene echoes perfectly with a memorable one from the first season of The Tudors when, after Francis I defeated him in a wrestling match at the Camp du Drap d'Or, Henry VIII angrily destroys every object around him, screaming and growling like an animal, and scaring even his own guards¹⁴⁵. Moreover when he started to work on The Tudors, Jonathan Rhys Meyers was already used to period dramas as he portrayed a historical figure, the King of France, Philip II in the 2003 film, The Lion in Winter.

When he mentioned his role in The Tudors, Rhys-Meyers argued that it was complicated for him to dissociate himself from the role of Henry VIII during the filming of the series. He explained that he does not «come home in the evening and become Jonathan Rhys-Meyers very quickly» and that it is «difficult to live with», moreover, for him the only moment he is not Henry is when he plays soccer during the weekend¹⁴⁶. These statements show clearly his involvement in the series and his desire to portray Henry VIII as well as possible. Though Jonathan does not look like Henry VIII (at least like the Henry everyone knows from Holbein's portraits) it is possible to argue that the aim was not to match people's expectations and the image they have of the Tudor King but to introduce them to who Henry was before his obesity, his six marriages and his tyranny.

145 Hirst Michael, Morris Trevor, Rhys-Meyers Jonathan, Neill Sam, and Blue Callum. Les Tudors. Intégrale Saison 1. Suresnes: Columbia Tristar home vidéo éd, 2008. S1E2

In other words, The Tudors focused on the King's personality, his feelings and dilemmas so the audience may understand how he became the legendary and repulsive monster who killed two of his six wives. This focus is explained through the opening credits and Jonathan Rhys Meyers' voiceover which is a sort of warning for the audience:

«You think you know a story, but you only know how it ends. To get to the heart of the story, you have to go back to the beginning¹⁴⁷»

Though the series is named after the Tudor dynasty it only focuses on nearly most of Henry VIII's reign (from the 1520's to probably 1547, the year Henry died). The opening credits of the series explain perfectly to the audience the subject of the program.

The opening music composed by Trevor Morris, who worked on the score for the four seasons, is catchy but also very modern, obviously the objective was not to use sixteenth-century instruments for the music as it was created in a studio (apparently Morris' aim was to match «the very modern sensibilities of the director's and actors' conception of the project¹⁴⁸»). Indeed, it seems obvious that Morris wanted to create a track easy to remember, with a simple rhythm, and it worked as we right away recognizes the opening music when we hear it during Anne Boleyn's coronation in the third episode of the second season.

147 «The Tudors - Season 1 - Opening Intro - YouTube.» Accessed May 26, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=V7VS1026K6k&t=9s.

The striking aspect about the opening credits of The Tudors is that it gives us all the informations we need to know what we are about to see. The credits open on an empty throne on which a crowns rests. Yet, extremely quickly, the portraits of the historical figures of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn appear on the screen as a flash. This addition in the opening credits could be seen as a way to tell the audience that the series will draw inspiration from historical figures and events.

This portrait of Anne Boleyn at the beginning of the opening credits of the first season

This artistic choice is a way to tell us that we are about to watch a historical television series mostly based on the infamous blue-beard Tudor King and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Afterwards we are given a great number of details inducing that the series will be about a young Henry VIII who enjoys hunting, the company of women, but who, as the sword he holds before the name of the actor appears onscreen tells us, is a powerful and dangerous ruler.

What is interesting about the opening credits of the series is that they tell us a lot about the characters we are about to meet; Henry VIII is powerful, he has mistresses and enjoys exercise, Charles Brandon is reduced to a sort of playboy because several images of half naked women are shown just before Cavill appears onscreen. The introduction of Cardinal Wolsey is also relevant of the character; we see him in a corner, in an apparently private conversation and then holding coins. These brief images induce that this character will be a rich schemer who cannot be trusted. The presentation of Natalie Dormer's character also embodies how she will be depicted in the series; we see her hiding from the King, what seems to be her with her corset undone and then someone is caressing her neck. The message is clear for the viewers; she will be a beautiful love interest who plays hard to get, but the neck image could also be some sort of game with the audience who already know that Anne's neck will eventually be cut off.

Screen captures of Natalie Dormer's Anne Boleyn presentation in the opening credits of the first season of The Tudors

Yet, the opening credits do not just visually depict the characteristics of the main characters. They also tell a lot about the plot itself. The viewers right away understand that the series will tackle men and women relationships (probably many sex scenes), but also religion as the close-up on the rosary held by Catherine of Aragon or Thomas More's bible suggest. The presence of several swords indicate that the television series will also be about violence, a theory enhanced by the quick appearance of the shadow of an executioner cutting someone's head. Somehow, someone who does not know anything about the plot does not need to read the synopsis, all they have to do is look at the credits which can be considered as a synopsis in itself.

Catherine of Aragon's rosary and Thomas More's bible in the opening credits of the first season of The Tudors

The first season starts towards the middle of the 1520's just before the King met Anne Boleyn when he has been married to Catherine of Aragon for several years with whom he had a child, Mary. At the beginning of the series the King is a young dynamic man who does not seem very interested in politics and ruling, he prefers spending his time with his mistress, Elizabeth Blount and practicing sports with his courtiers and friends. His Chief Minister, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, appears to be in charge of the Kingdom and the affairs of Henry VIII and his position at court triggered the hatred of several nobles, including Thomas Howard, the Duke of Norfolk and Anne Boleyn's uncle who decides, with the help of Thomas Boleyn, to use Anne to bring the Cardinal down. The main storyline of the first season is about Anne and Henry's relationship, when he realizes that she will not become his mistress and that the future of the Tudor dynasty is jeopardized by the lack of a male heir, he orders Wolsey to have his marriage annulled. When the latter fails to get the King his divorce and due to Anne's growing influence over Henry, he is banished from court and kills himself at the Tower of London while Henry decides to take unprecedented actions: He wants to rule England without being submitted to the Pope's authority. It is the premise of the Reformation.

The first season has a fundamental importance as it paves the way for the rest of the series but it also tells us about the characters, who they are, or what the creator decided to do with the historical elements we have on this period. This is why, in order to fully understand the characters, it is more than essential to focus on their first scenes as they set the pace for the characters' characterization.

The case of Anne Boleyn is particularly interesting to focus on. She is barely mentioned until she appears onscreen towards the end of the pilot; the King asks Thomas Boleyn how he manages to protect his daughters virtue and reputation at the decadent French court. We are finally introduced to her when her father visits his daughters in Paris where they live to tell them about the Field of the Cloth of Gold during which the King of France will meet Henry VIII. Thomas Boleyn tells Mary and Anne that they will have the opportunity to meet the King of England. He then proposes a toast to their future.

This scene is fundamental as it is the one which presents to us the character of Anne Boleyn. The first detail to be noticed is that the script deliberately stressed her name when Thomas says « Mary ... and Anne Boleyn to your futures¹⁴⁹ ». The effect is immediate as it will ring a bell for the audience who know, at least, a few things about English history. The fact that Thomas Boleyn mentions the futures of both his daughters is a strong indication that they (or one of them at least) will play an important part in the future episodes. The viewer who does not know anything about Tudor history is told that this family will play an essential parts in the storyline. Moreover, the way screenwriters wrote this sentence stresses Anne's name and enhances even more her importance in the following episodes. Her importance is also visually palpable because of the close-up of her face.

However, it seems that the scriptwriters played with the audience's expectations as, despite the important role she played in Henry VIII's reign and the Reformation, she rarely appears onscreen and does not speak. Indeed, for the first episodes the Boleyn sister who is the focus is Mary as she becomes the King's mistress during the Field of the Cloth of Gold, after Francis I mentioned his relationship with her to Henry.

This delay and wait to see Anne Boleyn becoming one of the main characters of the series creates a feeling of mystery, as the audience surely wonders why she appears in the opening credits but barely in the first episodes and could keep watching the series to know more about this character. Therefore, somehow, this narrative choice could be interpreted as a strategy to shed light on Dormer's character and kindle the audience's desire to know more about her and to see the moment when the King will finally notice her. It is an intelligent strategy to keep the audience interested and make them stick around to see the second episode, and then the third, etc... Indeed, the first couple episodes of a series is essential, in terms of narration but also to make the viewers « faithful » to the program.

Keeping Anne in the background for the first two episodes seems to have been a way to prepare her first real introduction scene when her father asks her to leave the French court and come back to England so that he can give her the mission to seduce the King but especially to keep « his interest more prolonged ». It feels as if Hirst wanted to recreate Anne Boleyn's story as it happened in the 16th century; she was just a courtier among others and then she made a spectacular «entrance» when the King fell for her.

The second season starts as Henry is struggling to convince the clergy to accept him as Head of the Church of England, eventually they give up and Henry is able to divorce himself from Catherine he banishes from court, and to marry a pregnant Anne Boleyn before he crowns her Queen of England. Yet, Anne does not give birth to the promised son, but to a daughter, Elizabeth. Soon the royal couple starts to struggle as Anne miscarried twice, tries to interfere in political and religious matters and is becoming more and more jealous and suspicious of her husband who has several mistresses throughout the season. To force his subjects to accept Anne as their Queen and him as the Supreme Head of the Church, Henry sends several of his counselors such as his friend, Thomas More and John Fisher, to the scaffold, which enhances even more the hatred and distrust of the English people and some courtiers for the Queen. The season ends with the King who encounters Lady Jane Seymour he eventually falls in love with and the arrest of Anne for adultery, incest and high treason. During the last episodes she, her brother and other men are beheaded on the order of the King.

The third season starts just after Anne Boleyn's execution with Henry VIII's wedding to Jane Seymour who quickly gives birth to a son before dying from puerperal fever, leaving the King heartbroken. Though Henry is now officially Head of the Church of England there are still many people in England who remain Catholics and cannot accept the situation, they decide to express their discontent by going on a pilgrimage, known as the Pilgrimage of Grace which ends with the execution of many of them. This season also tackles the story of Henry's fourth wife; Anne of Cleaves he marries despite his disgust for the young woman he calls «The Flanders mare», he blames his Chief Minister, Thomas Cromwell for this failed match and have him executed. He annuls his marriage to Anne and sends her to live at Hever Castle before he meets Catherine Howard and marries her right away.

The series' fourth and last season depicts Henry's short lived marriage to the young Catherine Howard he calls his «Rose without a thorn» but who is having an affair with the King's groom of stool, Thomas Culpepper. When her affair is discovered the King angrily sends her to the Tower where she is accused of adultery and executed with her lover, and Francis Dereham, her former one. The focus is also put on Henry's decreasing health as he suffers from a leg ulcer and who, as a result, becomes more and more irritable. He then meets and marry his sixth and last wife, Catherine Parr who is depicted as a Lutheran and is nearly arrested because of her religious convictions. The series ends with the King who is at the end of his life and starts to remember his past and his mistakes, especially his wives. Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, and Jane Seymour appear to him as ghosts, blaming him for how he mistreated them and their children. The last scene shows him discovering the famous Holbein portrait of himself as the man we associate with the figure of Henry VIII: middle-aged but impressive and powerful.

To put it in a nutshell, The Tudors is a sort of fresco that depicts the major turning-points of Henry VIII's private life (his marriages, his children, his health problems) and politics (the Reformation, the relationship with Francis I and Charles V and the executions of Thomas More, John Fisher, Thomas Cromwell or Anne Boleyn) using young and attractive actors, but also sexy and fabulous costumes, steamy sex scenes and many schemes to attract their targeted audience.

One of the weaknesses of Michael Hirst's Showtime version of Henry's reign is that it is not filmed in real historical English castles, indeed it is not even filmed in England at all but in Ireland. Most of the indoors scenes which take place at Henry's court (if not all of them) are shot on a set built from scratch at Ardmore Studios in Ireland where many films and TV series such as Penny Dreadful has been filmed for more than fifty years.

Indeed, it would have been complicated to film The Tudors at Hever Castle or Hampton Court Palace because these places are open to the public and it would be quite difficult to restrict some areas for the show for months. Instead of filming in Hampton Court to depict Henry VIII's palace, they decided to recreate it through special effects. However, the quality of these effects is far from being convincing and it does not really help the audience to immerse into the world created by Michael Hirst.

This decision not to use real places to film the series has many advantages. Indeed, for example, there is no restriction concerning the schedule, they can film whenever they want and they do not have to be as careful as if they were filming at Hever Castle for instance where they would have to be extra cautious given the fragility of some furniture, tapestries, etc ... Moreover, the filming crew had total control over the lightning, camera angles or the size of, for instance the throne room or the great hall.

However, some scenes were shot in real locations. Indeed, some Irish historical buildings and castles are depicted in the show. For instance, the Tower of London where Anne Boleyn was executed has been replaced by Kilmainham Gaol, a prison located in Kilmainham where many Irish prisoners were executed by the British at the beginning of the twentieth century during the Easter Rising events of 1916. This choice to film Anne Boleyn's execution gave more depth to the scene as the viewer right away sees and feels that the place has not been built up from scratch but that it has a history (Anne was not beheaded there but many people were executed at Kilmainham). Moreover it also helped the actors to film such a heavy and key scene. In her book about Anne Boleyn's depiction in popular culture, The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England's Most Notorious Queen, Susan Bordo mentioned that, in an interview, Michael Hirst spoke about Natalie Dormer's interpretation during the execution scene. He argued that Natalie was very emotional that day and claimed that she told him, crying, that she felt that Anne was with her¹⁵⁰. Though we know that Natalie was very dedicated to her role and knows her Tudor history very well, one could argue that filming such a scene at a place where many people lost their lives might have helped her «get into the mood» and bring a true emotional dimension to her final scene as Anne Boleyn.

The Tudors has many strengths; dedicated actors who know their history, a creator who is used to historical projects and has read many history books, but also a historian who included many historical sources and mostly unknown details to the show. Such a dedication to a project is also the case for the 2015 BBC series; Wolf Hall.

150 «The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England's Most Notorious Queen», by Susan Bordo, Mariner Books pub., 2014, p. 217

Wolf Hall is based on Hilary Mantel's novels which tell the story, not of Anne Boleyn's rise and downfall but of Thomas Cromwell's which is as spectacular as Anne's. The British novelist explained that she got the idea of Wolf Hall as a title before she even started to write the story, to her it was the perfect title as it completely sums up the atmosphere at the Tudor court¹⁵¹.

Hilary Mantel is an English writer who wrote, among others, short stories and historical novels. In the 1970's she wrote a novel which dealt with the French Revolution; A Place of Greater Safety. She wrote several books of different genres; Every Day is Mother's Day is inspired by her job and experience as a social work assistant in a geriatric hospital, and Eight Months on Ghazzah Street tells about life in Saudi Arabia which led her to live there for a few years with her husband afterwards. In other words, Mantel is an author who does not dedicate herself to a single literary genre but who follows her inspiration wherever it leads her.

In 2009 she published the first novel of the Wolf Hall trilogy composed of Wolf Hall published in 2009 (when the United-Kingdom celebrated the 500^th anniversary of Henry VIII's reign), Bring Up the Bodies in 2012, and The Mirror and the Light which, apparently, will be finished for 2020. This series of books tells about the rise of Thomas Cromwell, the son of a blacksmith, at Henry VIII's court and his relationship with the King, Anne Boleyn or Thomas More. Like Anne Boleyn Cromwell's image is far from being a positive one, indeed, for most people Thomas Cromwell was a ruthless and cunning man partly responsible for the break with Rome, the harsh treatment of those who dared to speak against the King or Anne Boleyn's execution. In many interviews Mantel claimed that she did not write the books to rehabilitate Thomas Cromwell's

image but to tell his story not just as Henry VIII's Chief Minister but as a man. In an interview she gave to The Guardian newspaper, the novelist argued that she wrote the story in a way that «the camera was behind his eyes», this statement sums up pretty well not only the book but also the series as Thomas Cromwell is our only anchor in the story; we only have access to what he sees, hear or does. Indeed, unlike The Tudors, this series focus on Henry's subjects, the «poor ones», those who are usually secondary characters or completely left in the dark.

Though this choice of narration and focus is innovative, it is the first main issue to Anne Boleyn's portrayal as she is only a secondary character depicted through Cromwell's eyes. In other words we see her the way he does.

The second issue concerning the character of Anne Boleyn, portrayed by Claire Foy in the series (who also played Elizabeth II in the Netflix series The Crown), is that she is not the main character of the novels and series, she is not a character as developed as Cromwell is, therefore it is much more complicated to analyze how she is portrayed for she does not appear on the screen as much as Thomas does. Moreover, though Mantel claimed that her aim was not to change people's vision of Cromwell, he appears to be a caring man who does not enjoy, for instance, his role in Anne Boleyn's fall. It may not have been Mantel's purpose to rehabilitate him but it seems to be the result of, at least, the series. Yet, while Wolf Hall depicts a rather kind and human Cromwell, it also portrays an Anne Boleyn who appears to be cold, cruel, violent, and who tries to intimidate those she believes to be her enemies. However the fact that we do not see Anne in private when Cromwell is not around might influence the audience who does not know many things about the Tudor Queen, indeed she may be perceived as an ambitious and violent woman as her involvement in charities and religious matters are not tackled at all in the series.

Yet, though Wolf Hall focuses more on Cromwell than on Henry's second Queen, Hilary Mantel did write an article published on The Guardian website on May 11^th 2012 in which she tells the story of Anne and gives an insight of her opinion on her, a paper that could be useful to get clues on Wolf Hall's Anne Boleyn. First of all, the very title of the article is a clue in itself: Anne Boleyn: witch, bitch, temptress, feminist, Hilary Mantel seems to be aware of the complexity of Anne Boleyn as a historical figure. Moreover, in the introduction of her article, Hilary Mantel explains that «We argue over her, we admire and revile her - we constantly reinvent her. Henry VIII's second wife is one of the most controversial women in English history¹⁵²». These elements allow us to

152 Mantel, Hilary. «Anne Boleyn: Witch, Bitch, Temptress, Feminist.» The Guardian, May 11, 2012, sec. Books.

understand that the British novelist spent some time studying Anne and her story but also her portrayal in fiction and ended up having a clear opinion about her («She is a real woman who has acquired an archetypal status and force¹⁵³»). In the end, though she does not focus on Anne and that her character is not really nuanced, she truly is aware of the controversies and complexity of her historical figure. And it seems to have also been the case in Peter Kosminsky's adaptation of Mantel's novels.

Peter Kosminky is a British director and producer quite unknown to the public, his most famous project is the film adaptation of Emily Brontë's only novel, the infamous Wuthering Heights, which starred Ralph Fiennes as Heathcliff and Juliette Binoche as Catherine Earnshaw. However, despite the fame of the book and of the actors, Wuthering Heights did not really stood out, on the contrary it received many negative reviews and even Kosminky himself revealed later that he does not consider his film as a good one and that he was «out of his depth¹⁵⁴». Because of this movie he sees as a failure, he did not work on another period drama until Wolf Hall, and what convinced him to accept this project was the talent of Mantel he describes as a «true rebel».

Therefore, his first big project is the adaptation of Hilary Mantel's novels as a TV series for the BBC which starred in 2015. Peter Kosminsky's view on the series was to do everything he could to immerse his audience into sixteenth-century Tudor England and to make everything as historically accurate as possible. For instance, unlike Michael Hirst in The Tudors, he decided to use only natural lightning: many scenes are filmed by candlelight as, for instance, the tensed scene of Anne Boleyn's trial in the last episode, which added more tension and created a gloomy atmosphere which represented perfectly the severity of the event and the tragedy which took place at this very moment. In an interview he gave to The Guardian, Peter Kosminsky explained his aim; he wanted to film in this particular atmosphere, in real historical places, with actors wearing «real» costumes so that the acting of his actors would be «natural¹⁵⁵» but also «contemporary¹⁵⁶». Such details concerning the production and making of the series make us come to the conclusion that Peter Kosminsky seems to have been deeply involved in directing Wolf Hall and that he had his own personal view on this period and the historical figures depicted in Mantel's novels. Moreover, he had a very reliable guideline to help him direct the episodes: Hilary Mantel's books which are the fruit and result of years of intensive research.

Though Wolf Hall is mainly based on the life, rise and fall of Thomas Cromwell, the focus is regularly put on other historical characters such as, of course, Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn or Thomas More and the relationship they had with the King's Minister.

What is striking when we see the first episode is that it is Mark Rylance who portrays Cromwell. Indeed, Wolf Hall is not Rylance's first Tudor-based project as he is mostly known for his portrayal of a weak, easily manipulated, but ambitious Thomas Boleyn in The Other Boleyn Girl movie by Justin Chadwick. Though he does not seem to have mentioned his experience in

portraying a Tudor historical character, it might be argued that he already knew the story of the King's «Great Matter», of Anne Boleyn's downfall and maybe of Cromwell's as well. Moreover, he was used to wearing typical sixteenth-century costumes which, as Claire Foy confessed in an interview, can be quite difficult given the many layers and the weight of the clothes¹⁵⁷. What is exceptional in Mark Rylance's casting is that he was not chosen to portray Henry's close adviser among other potential actors, on the contrary, as Cromwell is in the series, he is at the center of the production for Wolf Hall was constructed around him. Moreover, Rylance is the one who asked Peter Kosminsky to direct the adaptation:

«I felt that his knowledge and interest in political intrigue is focused on that old conflict of what your duty to the community is and what your duty to your intimate family or yourself is (...) In a way, that's very much (the key conflict in) Wolf Hall, not only for Cromwell but for a lot of people in it and I thought Peter would take it¹⁵⁸».

This argument proves that the British actor had analyzed the plot of Mantel's novels but also the characters, and not only his, but also his dedication to the project. Obviously, to portray Mantel's version of Thomas Cromwell, Mark Rylance had to agree with her depiction of Thomas he describes not as hero, but as a historical figure he empathizes with. In The Guardian interview he explains clearly that he sides with Henry VIII and Cromwell's Reformation as it gave more power and freedom to England and the English people instead of letting Rome and the Pope decide for England and its religious but also political life. Rylance then explains the journalist his personal political opinion; he considers that the way the United-Kingdom is ruled is similar to how things were «before Cromwell and Henry changed the time¹⁵⁹».

In other words, Mark Rylance seems to relate a lot to Thomas Cromwell, especially as far as politics is concerned, therefore one may argue that such a deep involvement in the production of Wolf Hall gives more authenticity and realism to the series as Rylance has a real understanding of his character.

Understanding one's character can be a tricky challenge, especially when it is a historical figure such as Thomas Cromwell or the woman he may have schemed the fall: Queen Anne Boleyn.

Claire Foy, who is mostly known for her role as Elizabeth in first two seasons of Netflix's hit series, The Crown, is very realistic when it comes to her character in the series. In an interview she states that the Anne Boleyn we get to see in Wolf Hall is «Cromwell's Anne» and tells about the difficulty not to be able to portray the character as she would like to because of this choice to put the audience in Thomas Cromwell's shoes¹⁶⁰. Indeed, it seems fair to state that Foy's character is perhaps the trickiest to portray as the novels written by Mantel depict a cruel and scheming Anne, but it is only because we see her through the character of Cromwell that we get this very cliché image of her. Yet, despite the very negative representation of the Tudor Queen she had to do, Claire Foy expressed her admiration for Anne, her determination and her ability to argue and get what she wants¹⁶¹. Though she did not say if she has read biographies or seen documentaries to know more about Henry VIII's second wife, she seems to have a good understanding of her character and her personality.

Mark Rylance is not the only actor of the series who goes beyond the clichés and stereotypes usually associated with his character. Damian Lewis, who portrays Henry VIII, also explained his personal opinion on his character he sees not just as a King who can be «cruel¹⁶²» and «despotic¹⁶³» but also as a man who desires to have genuine relationships with Anne Boleyn or Thomas Cromwell with whom, according to the actor, he develops a sort of friendship¹⁶⁴. Lewis also argued that, the

more he learnt about the Tudor King, the more he thought that he shares some similarities with him¹⁶⁵, and we could assert that if the actor relates to his character, it is easier for him to portray him on screen as they may understand their motives, desires and feelings.

Wolf Hall tells the same story depicted in the first two seasons of The Tudors: the relationship between Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII, the struggle of the King and his adviser, Thomas Cromwell, to find a way to annul the marriage with Catherine of Aragon, the creation of the Church of England, the marriage with Anne Boleyn and her execution. It also mainly focuses on Thomas' private life; the death of his wife and children and how badly it affected him, his sympathy for Thomas Wolsey, his rivalry with Thomas More, his complex relationship with Anne Boleyn and his guilt over her downfall he orchestrated. The major difference with Showtime's version is that it tells the story from Cromwell's point of view, we do not see the intimate aspect of the relationship between Henry and Anne and her true personality; we only see what Cromwell sees, we hear what he hears and knows what he knows. This choice of narration allows us to discover more about Cromwell, the man, especially about his personal life such as his childhood and his modest family background, but at the same time, it depicts Anne Boleyn as she is usually thought to have been: an ambitious she-wolf who wants power at all cost.

Unlike The Tudors, the episodes of Wolf Hall do not start with opening credits. This artistic decision can translate Peter Kosminsky's desire to throw the audience right away into the Tudor period depicted in the series and not to introduce the characters and the actors first. Moreover, opening credits like The Tudors' give a first spectacular glimpse of the plot and its characters, yet, it is far from the point of view chosen by the director who filmed his adaptation more as a

The series is composed of six episodes which start after Henry VIII has decided to marry Anne and ends with her beheading. Unlike The Tudors the rhythm of Wolf Hall is slower, the screenwriters focus a lot on the relationships between the characters and their conversations. For instance, the scene in the first episode when Cromwell meets Anne Boleyn for the first time lasts about four minutes and paves the way for their alliance; they admire one another but there is still a lot of defiance. The aim of Kosminsky's adaptation is not to make a spectacular depiction of the Tudor court and its actors but to dissect the alliances, relationships and enmities. A French television program, Une série et au lit which studied several historical TV series such as Victoria, Reign or Versailles, also focused on the depiction of the Tudor dynasty in both The Tudors and Wolf Hall. The journalists argued that Wolf Hall was much more scholarly than Showtime's version, but one of them also pointed out the fact that the production could be considered to be a bit «empty» as there is barely any music¹⁶⁶ (an argument that is far from being true, considering the score composed by Debbie Wiseman).

In an interview she gave to The Guardian, Hilary Mantel described her story as if «the camera was behind his eyes» (meaning Thomas Cromwell), this statement sums up pretty well not only the books but also the series as it is as if the viewer was a fictional character standing by his side in nearly every scenes. Indeed, when watching Wolf Hall, we may have the feeling that a camera has been filming the real events in the sixteenth-century. This feeling is surely due to the fact that, in all episodes, a handled camera was used to film the scenes, indeed, if we pay attention, we easily notice some tremors.

In other words, Wolf Hall feels more like a documentary than a series as, as we have seen it, its key word is authenticity.

Peter Kosminsky's decision to film his adaptation of Mantel's work could be considered as one of the strongest suits of the series. Indeed, the series is only filmed in real castles and manors, some of them, such as Lacock Abbey, are even dated before the Tudor period¹⁶⁷. They have not been able to film, for example, at the Tower of London or Hampton Court Palace where the actual events took place in the sixteenth-century, but this choice enhances the feeling of authenticity we can feel while watching an episode.

According to the BBC website page dedicated to the television series, seventeen places were used by the filming crew such as, for instance, Lacock Abbey founded in the thirteenth-century which represent in the series the Seymour's family home; Wolf Hall¹⁶⁸. Some of them are even closely tied to the English history. For instance some scenes were shot at Berkeley Castle built during the eleventh-century and where, according to the legend, King Edward II was murdered in a cell in 1327¹⁶⁹.

Great Chalfield Manor built in the 15^th century, its interiors stood for Austin Friars, Cromwell's home in Wolf Hall

One of the advantages to use such filming locations is that the architecture of the manors and castles are genuine and do not require any work to make the set look more authentic. For instance, the corridor used for the scene when Cromwell meets Anne Boleyn who is standing down the hall spying on Thomas More and the King, is stunningly similar to the Hever Castle's Long Gallery constructed in the sixteenth-century.

Screen capture of a scene from the third episode of Wolf Hall

Hever Castle's Long Gallery

Such effort to make the production as authentic as possible surely helped the actors to immerse themselves into the Tudor period, but we may also argue that it could attract an audience who values most of all historical accuracy and wishes to see onscreen true Tudor buildings and architecture.

Yet, what triggers the interest of many viewers is that both series depict the famous Anne Boleyn's life as Queen of England and her spectacular downfall. However, as we have seen it with the storylines depicted in both dramas and the filming locations, a balance between historical accuracy and fiction must be found and it is especially true when depicting characters such as Henry VIII or Anne Boleyn who is a very tricky historical figure to portray due to the controversies and legends about her, her life, her physical appearance and feelings.

The Tudors gave British actress Natalie Dormer the role which will make her famous, and allowed her to join the cast of HBO's hit series, Game of Thrones, as Margaery Tyrell. Yet, at first, Natalie Dormer never intended to be an actress; she wanted to study history at Cambridge University but, apparently because she misread a question during the exam, she failed to score the A grade required¹⁷⁰. Her attempt to study history at university is interesting to link with her role as Anne Boleyn in The Tudors as she is obviously fond of English history and, particularly, Tudor England.

Indeed, in 2009, to celebrate Henry VIII's coronation anniversary, she participated to a project of several mini videos called «Behind the Tudors» filmed at the Tower of London, the British Library, and Hampton Court Palace, which told about Henry's life and reign. In the video filmed at the British Library in London, Natalie Dormer met Dr Andrea Clarke, a co-curator of the library who showed portraits but also documents such as a love letter written by the King to Anne Boleyn. Dormer expressed her vivid interest for the story of Henry and Anne as she told the Dr Clarke that it was a document she was particularly excited to see¹⁷¹. The fact that Natalie spent

170 The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England's Most Notorious Queen, by Susan Bordo, Mariner Books/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2014, p. 203

171 SHOWTIME. Behind the Tudors: The British Library. Accessed May 31, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=fumALoX7CrM&t=267s.

obviously a lot of time filming these videos indicates her strong interest for this period of English history, but also that she knew the story of her character when she filmed the series.

After she failed to enter Cambridge university, Natalie Dormer went to Webber Douglas Academy of Dramatic Arts in London to take acting class and her first role was in 2003 in Shakespeare comedy, The Comedy of Errors. However, she struggled to find roles and is said to have been unemployed for months before she landed the role of Anne Boleyn in 2007 which started her career as a successful actress in television series¹⁷².

It is obvious that Natalie Dormer managed to captivate the interest of The Tudors' audience as the ratings and audience rates decreased after the second season, when her character is executed¹⁷³. This fandom could be explained by her talent as an actress, but also by her dedication to the character of Anne Boleyn and her persistence to portray her as she saw her. Indeed, she had her own opinion about the late Queen which she describes in Susan Bordo's book The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England's Most Notorious Queen as «a genuine evangelical with a real religious belief in the Reformation»¹⁷⁴. Natalie Dormer does not agree with all the stereotypes and clichés associated with Anne which depict her as a femme fatale who used her sexuality to lure the King and get the crown. On the contrary, Natalie goes as far as describing Anne Boleyn as a «self-made woman»¹⁷⁵ and that is exactly how she tried to portray her on screen during the two first

173 The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England's Most Notorious Queen, op. Cit., pp. 217-218

seasons of The Tudors. When Susan Bordo interviewed the British actress, Natalie was no longer under contract with Showtime¹⁷⁶ and, therefore, she could speak freely about her experience and the conflicts which opposed her to the channel executives when it came to Anne Boleyn's image.

In 2007, when Natalie Dormer was told she was hired to portray Anne Boleyn in Showtime's next period drama, she right away decided to dye her blond hair as she knew that, according to primary sources and portraits, Anne was a brunette¹⁷⁷. However, when she arrived on set on her first day, the chief of the hair department was shocked to see that she has changed her hair color; «Okay, we've got a really serious problem - you dyed your hair. They are really unhappy. Really unhappy»¹⁷⁸. For Natalie, who knew her history, it was quite aberrant as she explains to Bordo;

«Anne's hair color is such an important detail! For one thing, it was the basis of a lot of nasty labels - Wolsey calling her the 'night crow' and so on. And also, in being a confident brunette she was defying the ideal of what it meant for a female to be attractive at that time»¹⁷⁹.

Anne's physical traits played a huge role in her reputation and the clichés that surrounded her. Indeed, as Natalie points out in the interview, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, one of Anne's enemies, used to call her «the night crow» as a reference to her hair color¹⁸⁰. Moreover, it was because of her hair that she also stood out from the other ladies at court as most of them were blond with a pale skin when Anne Boleyn was a dark skin brunette.

This first decision from the executives to portray a blond Anne Boleyn in the show might be explained by the fact that they wanted to depict this character as a femme fatale, an attractive home-wrecker, perhaps based on the twentieth-century Hollywood cliché of the sexy blond female character portrayed by, for instance, American actresses Marilyn Monroe or Grace Kelly. In other words, Showtime obviously considered that pleasing the audience by hiring attractive actors who embody the stereotypes of the sexy blond for instance, was more important than depicting historical

Moreover, it is possible to argue that, considering that Catherine of Aragon was depicted as a middle-aged brunette (when Catherine was actually blond), the creators of the television series wanted to stress the gap between her and the attractive mistress by choosing to depict a blond Anne Boleyn.

Indeed, this theory is enhanced by Natalie Dormer's revelation on the reasons why she was given the role of Anne. According to her it was the chemistry between her and Irish actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers who portrays King Henry VIII, which she describes as «a lot of heaving bosom stuff»¹⁸¹, that allowed her to get the job. Though Natalie did not clearly say it to Bordo, she implied that she was hired not because she understood the character and knew very well Anne's story, but because of her appearance and attractiveness. Therefore, we could argue that the executives and Michael Hirst considered that Anne's sexuality and beauty were the character's most important appeal and interest and that her personality, intelligence and the political role she played during her life did not matter as much.

Somehow, they reduced her to the clichés that characterized her throughout her life and long after her death, an opinion that Michael Hirst himself did not refute in an interview he gave to Susan Bordo. According to her he claimed that, at the beginning of the project, during the writing of the first season's script, he was not really interested in the character of Anne Boleyn. To him she was only a sexy young woman manipulated by her father who seduced Henry who grew tired of his first wife¹⁸². Though Natalie Dormer defends Hirst, arguing that his stereotyped depiction of her character was unconscious¹⁸³, she points out the fact that it clearly undermined her attempts to make Anne Boleyn a round character, a complex woman who was both sexy and smart^.

The fact that Natalie fought to be able to portray Anne as she saw her and that Michael Hirst listened to her for the characterization of the character in the second season, obviously had an impact on the depiction of historical facts.

The second season stresses Anne's mistrust of Catherine of Aragon and her daughter, Mary. Out of rage and despair she even tells her brother that she could easily have them executed if Henry would leave the country and make her Regent. Yet, a sequence set in the fourth episode of the season, is striking. When Anne visits her daughter she kindly offers Mary a deal; if she acknowledges her queenship she will welcome her back to court and reconcile her with Henry. Obviously, we can argue that this attempt to convince Mary to recognize her as Queen is a strategy to protect herself, but we cannot deny that it is still an attempt to sooth the strained relationship between them. Yet, no scholar ever mentioned such a fact, not even Eric Ives whose biography of Anne is extremely rich and full of details. Therefore, what does this sequence aim at?

Surely the objective here is to make Anne appear more sympathetic to the audience who saw her responsible for Mary being separated from her mother and being bastardized. This scene could be considered as a conscious distortion of historical facts in order to make the viewers love a character they may despise or feel pity for her as she is publicly humiliated. Apparently no information were given concerning this sequence, however, we could assume that Natalie Dormer's personal opinion about her character could explain this decision to add such a scene.

Indeed, during the first and also at the beginning of the second season, Anne is regularly portrayed on screen partially or entirely naked. For instance, in the third episode of the first season, Henry dreams of chasing Anne in an empty palace but she rejects him: «No, not like this (...) Write letters to me, and poems. I love poems. Ravish me with your words. Seduce me.¹⁸⁴» before appearing naked in front of him. This scene sets the tone and presents Anne as Henry's love interest and as a sexual object used by her male relatives and desired by the King. In other words, she is not a character in her own right, and is always represented through her relationships to men: Thomas Boleyn, her father, the Duke of Norfolk, her uncle, George, her brother and Henry VIII. The very first scene in which Anne appears is set in Paris, when her father comes back from England to tell his daughters that a meeting will take place between Henry VIII and Francis I. He then proposes a toast to their future which suggests that he intends to use Anne and Mary to obtain some favors. This introduction to Anne's character paves the way for the rest of the season as Anne is always seen plotting with her uncle or father or making out with the King. Throughout the first two seasons of the series the screenwriters exploited Anne's sexuality and the debate which divides people; was Anne already sexually experienced and no longer a virgin when she married Henry VIII?

In the second episode of the second season, when Anne is introduced to the French King at Calais as Henry's future wife and Queen, she has a private conversation with Francis I. Anne pleads Francis I not to reveal information to Henry concerning the time she spent at his court during her youth («Your Majesty is very gracious but there are some things, perhaps, which Your Majesty knows about me which I would rather you kept secret, and never mention to the king.¹⁸⁵»).

What emphasizes the idea that Anne is hiding something and is not entirely honest with the King concerning her virginity is the way the sequence has been constructed. Indeed, when Anne starts to talk about her years at the French court with Francis, the camera follows them leaving the room and sit in a corner where they are isolated. The movement of the camera is interesting as, at the beginning of the scene, when the dance is over, we see Anne and Francis but among the crowd of courtiers and dancers. Then, slowly, the camera follows them leaving the crowd while zooming little by little on their faces. This movement indicates that we witnessed a public scene and that we are now about to see a more private moment between the two characters, a theory validated when Anne asks the King not to reveal some information about her and they sit in a corner where they are hardly visible for the other characters as they are partly hidden by a wall.

The emphasis put on Anne Boleyn's body, attractiveness and sex life can be explained by Laura Mulvey's theory of the male gaze she tackled in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Mulvey argues that, in cinema, the male gaze occurs when the audience is put in a heterosexual man's shoes and that, to please that sort of audience, the actresses are portrayed and filmed in a way which focuses on their bodies and curves¹⁸⁶. If we analyze the depiction of Anne Boleyn in The Tudors through the prism of Mulvey's theory we see that, the curves of Natalie Dormer's body are «highlighted with specific conventions such as slow motion, deliberate camera movements and cut aways¹⁸⁷» as we can see on some examples below.

185 All of Anne Boleyn's (Natalie Dormer) Scenes in the Tudors Part 4: The Queen. Accessed May 31, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF5q q2dJCs&t=2s.

Many scenes can be described as representations of the male gaze. The most eloquent one is the dream sequence when Henry dreams of chasing Anne in the empty corridors of the palace. When he opens a door, he finds a naked Anne Boleyn trying to cover her body from his sight. This moment can be seen as a way to show the audience how much the King desires Anne. Yet, it could also be argued that showing a naked Natalie Dormer is a manner to please the audience who is put in Henry VIII's shoes at this very moment. But what is the point of depicting Anne entirely naked? The previous scene when Henry chases Anne and is unable to catch her seems to be more than enough to make the audience understand that he wants her to become his mistress and that she ignores and rejects him. The only interest of this choice to portray a naked Dormer is surely to attract a heterosexual male audience as it adds nothing genuinely interesting or new to the storyline and the characters.

Another scene may have caught the audience's attention. At the beginning of the last episode of the first season, the King masturbates while thinking of Anne. To stress the fact that she is the object of his desire and fantasy, a cross-cutting sequence is used.

The episode starts with the camera focused on Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and then there is a cut which shows Anne sewing. The interest of the structure of this sequence is that the closer Henry gets to the orgasm, the closer are the shots of Natalie Dormer's body. It also puts the audience in Henry's mind as the focus of the camera is not put on the actress but on her cleavage and her breasts, enhanced by a sexy dress. At this moment Anne Boleyn is not a character in her own right, but just body parts fantasized by Henry VIII and, possibly, the audience as well.

Such a depiction onscreen can be compared to the depiction of the female body in poems called blazons that were very popular during the Elizabethan period. These poems focus on one or several physical attributes of a subject («Her goodly eyes like sapphires shining bright, her forehead ivory white¹⁸⁸»). Somehow we could argue that this sequence is a visual and modern blazon which catalogues Anne Boleyn's breasts.

In her essay Laura Mulvey explains that, that sort of representation of female characters denies their very own «women human identity»¹⁸⁹ and that their only purpose is to be admired for their attractiveness and good looks. Indeed, during the first season at least, it is more than obvious that Anne's physical appearance is much more developed and stressed than her psychology and personality. The costumes worn by Natalie Dormer are all very sexy and designed to make a clear visual distinction between the young, sexy and lustful mistress and the pious barren middle-aged wife. As the two pictures below show it, in most scenes Maria Doyle Kennedy's Catherine wears dark strict gowns which do not show her body, while Natalie Dormer's Anne Boleyn's costumes are mostly beautiful and colorful dresses which show her cleavage, shoulders, arms, etc ...

For instance, at the beginning of the second season, when Henry's court celebrates Christmas, the King and Anne Boleyn welcome courtiers and exchange gifts. Though it is a religious celebration, Anne, as we can see on the picture, is wearing a very provocative purple dress which shows most of her breasts. We may argue that this choice of costume does not match with the clothes the real Anne Boleyn wore in the portraits believed to be of her; Dormer's Anne never wears a French Hood for instance, let alone very provocative cleavage. When Susan Bordo interviewed Michael Hirst about the provocative depiction of Anne Boleyn and the overuse of sexy scenes, he explained himself by blaming «deep cultural projections¹⁹⁰». Yet, by making the character wear such

190 «The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England's Most Notorious Queen», op. Cit, p. 214

clothes, he obviously decided to stick to these projections, in total disregard for history.

This sort of sexualized representation is right away introduced in the opening of the series. When Natalie Dormer appears onscreen her character is right away associated with eroticism and sensuality; indeed, in the opening of the first season, a shot shows an unidentified woman whose neck is being caressed by a man. It could be argued that the creator of the series seems to have wanted to play with the audience who know their history and Anne Boleyn's fate, but to also present her to the viewers as the beautiful love interest of the King.

The same technique is used when it comes to promote the series with promotional pictures. Indeed, to present the first season, Showtime released a poster in which all key characters are depicted such Jonathan Rhys Meyers as King Henry VIII, Maria Doyle Kennedy as Queen Catherine or Jeremy Northam's Thomas More. The King is pictured on his throne, obviously he is the focal point of the photograph, and is surrounded by a part of his court.

Catherine of Aragon is sited next to him with their daughter, Mary Tudor. This representation of the Queen is quite typical as she associated with motherhood (because of the presence of Mary), piety and royalty. The representation of Queen Catherine is in total opposition with Anne Boleyn's who is on the floor, lying down at the King's feet, in a sexually connoted position. Natalie Dormer's costume is also extremely relevant of the way The Tudors' creators

wanted her character to be perceived; Anne is the only one who is not wearing a period gown, indeed all the other characters are dressed with heavy costumes more or less representative of the Tudor period but Anne only wears a white sheer nightgown. This was usually a piece of cloth women wore under their dresses and corsets as it was what we would call today a piece of underwear.

Another picture is also interesting as it could be linked with the accusations of witchcraft made against Anne when she was arrested. This poster reveals Anne, in an explicit position, revealing her bare legs, while the King is standing behind her, his hands resting on her shoulders as if he wanted to control her. The element which stroke many people is the black cat next to her, and the fact that it wears a cross around its neck.

Here, Anne Boleyn is not just a sexy and provocative female courtier, she is also associated with witchcraft as witches are usually depicted as lewd and evil human beings who usually have black cats as pets. This comparison is even more obvious when we focus on Natalie Dormer's face as she stares at us, looking evil, manipulative, cold and seductress.

This representation of a woman aware of her sexuality and who does not hide it, echoes with the typical representation of seductive women we can see in many Christian cultures. This association of women and the devil has its origins in the Malleus Maleficarum also known as the hammer of witches. This book based its ideology on the fact that «a greater multitude of withes is found among the weaker sex of women than among men¹⁹¹» and can be considered responsible for the fact that between 70 and 89% of people convicted and executed for witchcraft were women¹⁹². Its author also tells his readers how to recognize and kill a witch.

A chapter of a book written by Hans Peter Broedel and entitled The Malleus Maleficarum and the Construction of Witchcraft focused on the fact that many women considered as seductresses were accused to be witches. Apparently, the author believes that these accusations can be due to the fear and incomprehension of female sexuality in a patriarchal society¹⁹³. This argument could explain why Anne Boleyn was accused (but not condemned) of witchcraft. Indeed, it was unbelievable for many of her contemporaries that she, a simple commoner, would have managed to seduce the King and make him marry her without magic or supernatural powers. This is also because of the belief that she is often described as the woman with the sixth finger or with warts on her body.

And, in the end, the fact that this twenty-first century picture depicts an Anne Boleyn as some sort of witch indicates that our vision of women who assume their femininity and sexuality has not really changed since the Tudor period.

Despite Natalie Dormer's request to add extra layers to her character, the promotional poster of the second season, which aired in 2008 in the United-States, does not reflect the changes made concerning Anne Boleyn's storylines. The photograph depicts Henry and Anne, this time she is standing up with Henry's hand around her neck, probably suggesting her fate. Once more, Henry is the focal point of the photo and Anne is represented through him as his wife, his property, love interest, but also as Henry's grasp around her neck suggests, as his victim. Natalie Dormer's costume is once more extremely sexy and enhances the actress' body and curves and is not representative of her role as Queen of England or of the Tudor period. Obviously this dress was only chosen in order to please the twenty-first century audience and to fit her representation of a sexy and ambitious young courtier who uses her sexuality to climb the social ladder.

It is precisely that type of depiction of the Tudor Queen which annoyed Natalie Dormer who decided to fight before the beginning of the second season to be able to show a new side of Anne she believes to be more interesting and complex than a simple attractive and manipulative bitch.

However, though Natalie Dormer proved her dedication to the series and her character both on set and in the interview she gave Susan Bordo, her strong point of view of Anne Boleyn as a «self-made woman» or a «spirited young woman» could be seen as a «narrow minded» one.

When Dormer explains that «the original script had that tendency to polarize women into saint and whore¹⁹⁴», we can wonder if she is right as Michael Hirst claimed that his aim was to show that Anne was used by her ambitious family. Several scenes from the series undermine Dormer's argument as they clearly show the strategy used by Thomas Boleyn and the Duke of Norfolk to make the King notice Anne.

For instance, in the first season, a sequence shows us the two men whispering about their plan and Norfolk says that, after she will have convinced the King to banish Wolsey from court, she can «open her legs»¹⁹⁵. If Anne is shown several times wearing sexy gowns or making out with the King, it is not a depiction of her as a lewd woman but rather as a manipulated one who does what she is told to. Moreover, the audience is told about Anne's true feelings about her task. The sequence when she tells Thomas Wyatt that their relationship is over is extremely revealing of her opinion concerning her mission to seduce the King. Indeed, when Wyatt asks her if she is leaving him, a close-up is made on Dormer's face which clearly indicates that she does not leave him because she wants to, but because she has to.

194 The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England's Most Notorious Queen. Op.Cit., p. 214

195 Hirst Michael, Morris Trevor, Rhys-Meyers Jonathan, Neill Sam, and Blue Callum. Les Tudors. Intégrale Saison 1. Suresnes: Columbia Tristar home vidéo éd, 2008. S1E3

Indeed, during the filming of the first season of The Tudors, twenty-five year-old Natalie Dormer, who was only at the beginning of her acting career, did not dare to ask Michael Hirst to change Anne's portrayal. But, as she explains Susan Bordo, during a dinner with him she argued that it was important the audience would sympathize with Anne when she is falsely accused of high treason and executed despite being innocent¹⁹⁶. Hirst listened to her opinion and the character of Anne Boleyn became more complex and less stereotyped than in the first season.

The tone is set during the very first minutes of the second season, when the audience's first glimpse of Anne is her, kneeling in a church and praying with the King. What gives more depth to this apparently uninteresting sequence is that it is the very first time that Dormer's character is depicted praying in a church, when Maria Doyle Kennedy's Catherine of Aragon was seen several times in prayer during the first season. For the first time Anne Boleyn is no longer the frivolous seductress but a pious future Queen of England. To enhance her new representation, the prayer scene is shown in cross-cutting with Catherine who is also in prayer.

This staging shows that they are now somewhat equals and that Anne is no longer the «scandal of Christendom» as Catherine used to call her in the first season.

Yet, the characterization of Anne as a pious woman is even more stressed in the third

episode of the second season, in her first scene as Queen of England. In this sequence Anne lectures her ladies-in-waiting and male servants, asking them to be pious and to to have a perfect conduct;

«You will all be honorable, discreet, just and thrifty in your conduct. You will present a godly spectacle to others, attend Mass daily and display a virtuous demeanor. On pain of instant dismissal and banishment you must not quarrel, swear or say evil and lewd things. Nor ever behave lewdly. You will set a standard for everyone else (...) I will keep here a copy of Tyndale's English Bible, all of you are free to read it and draw spiritual nourishment from it for the old days are gone (...) Thanks to His Majesty, you have all been delivered from the darkness and bondage of papal thralldom, idolatry, and superstition. This is a new beginning. For me. For you. And for England»¹⁹⁷.

197 All of Anne Boleyn's (Natalie Dormer) Scenes in the Tudors Part 4: The Queen. Accessed May 31, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF5q q2dJCs&t=48s.

Here, she talks about the importance of religion and of the Reformation to her ladies-in-waiting and the men at her service. The fact that she also shows Tyndale's bible and put in the middle of the room, enhances that it is a precious object to her that she is proud to put on display. The Queen's speech is austere and sounds like a sermon as she commands her people to be serious and pious, but it also undermines Anne's reputation to be the evil temptress for she is portrayed as a responsible Queen consort who cares about the reputation of the English court and of its members, but also of the Reformation itself.

This scene echoes with another one set towards the end of the second season, when Anne catches Madge, her cousin and lady in waiting, reading one of Thomas Wyatt's love poems. The Queen lectures her cousin, arguing that she should read the Bible instead; «You should not be wasting your time on such trifles. If you must read when you are supposed to be attending on me, then you should read that book, you will learn a great deal more from it, perhaps even some wisdom¹⁹⁸».

The third and last one to be mentioned is when Henry has been injured during a tournament and that no one knows if he will survive. Anne Boleyn is depicted twice in prayer in the episode and even lies down despite her pregnancy as a sign of genuine devotion and can even be compared to

the sequence in which Catherine of Aragon kisses the floor of the chapel she prayed in.

These three sequences depict Anne's deep religious convictions but they are also interesting as they stress this aspect of her life that is rarely tackled in fiction¹⁹⁹. The Other Boleyn Girl, Anne of the Thousand Days or Henry VIII do not focus on Anne Boleyn's personal faith and involvement in religious matters. In his biography of Anne, Eric Ives dedicated an entire chapter to her personal religion in which he tells about her interest in Paul's epistles but also that the books she owned proved her deep faith in religion²⁰⁰. Ives also mentions that Anne followed the principles of the Ecclesiaste which emphasized «the responsibility of the elite to the poor», indeed, according to him the Queen's ladies-in-waiting sewn a lot of clothes that were distributed to the people and Anne was caring and ready to financially help her people when they needed it²⁰¹.

This interest for her people and their needs is depicted in The Tudors several times. Anne is shown with her ladies giving money to the poor (apparently more than Catherine used to give them) and washing their feet. Though it is not explicit, we regularly see the Queen or her ladies sewing, we can assume that the clothes are meant for her subjects. The fact that The Tudors focused a lot on

199 Robison, William B. History, Fiction, and The Tudors: Sex, Politics, Power, and Artistic License in the Showtime Television Series. Springer, 2017. pp. 214-215

200 «The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: `The Most Happy'.»,op. Cit., pp. 279-284

Anne's religious life and her interest for charities could be interpreted as a desire to show that the break with Rome was not just a way to become Queen, but that it was a deep religious conviction. The series invites the audience to see Anne as a religious and charitable figure, far from the image most people have of Anne Boleyn.

Several extracts depict Anne as a Queen consort who wants to play a part in the political sphere. Throughout the second season, Natalie Dormer portrays her arguing with either Thomas Cromwell, her father, and even the King himself about political matters such as the whereabouts of the wealth discovered during the dissolution of monasteries, her daughter Elizabeth's engagement, the alliance between England, France or Spain and even charities or the education of the English people. Two scenes are particularly interesting to mention. The first one is set in the seventh episode of the second season. Anne and Henry are having dinner together in the Queen's chamber and she tells her husband about their daughter's legitimacy and how many people in England refuse to recognize that she is the legitimate heiress to the throne. Anne then proposes to organize the

«But there is something we can do to change everything. If Elizabeth was betrothed to the King's Francis youngest son, the Duke of Angoulême, then her legitimacy and station would no longer be questioned by anyone.»²⁰²

Anne's argument is extremely representative of her political commitment as it is her and not Henry VIII who proposes this solution to secure Elizabeth's legitimacy. Moreover, the use of the pronoun «we» induces Anne Boleyn's desire to play an active part in the European political stage and marks a strong and firm will to break with the tradition of passive Queen Consorts whose only duties were to provide heirs to the Throne²⁰³. Indeed, before her marriage to Henry VIII, Anne had the freedom to give her opinion as she was not officially Queen of England, therefore she was not expected to follow the rules attached to this position and she used this freedom to give him Tyndale's forbidden book or to convince Henry to banish Cardinal Wolsey from court.

Indeed, Dormer's Anne Boleyn is regularly portrayed standing up to men and giving her opinion about politics to her husband, her father, and even the King's closest adviser, Thomas Cromwell. In the second season, Anne summons Cromwell in her chambers and asks him about the whereabouts of the money and treasures that were found during the dissolution of the monasteries. Cromwell explains that everything was transferred into the King's personal treasury and that his aim is to make the King «the most powerful and the richest King in Europe»²⁰⁴. Anne strongly disagrees with this decision and argues that the money could be used to help the people in need. She then threatens to have him beheaded; «You are far too high-handed Mr Cromwell, you ought to be careful or I will have you cropped at the neck»²⁰⁵.

This scene represents perfectly Anne's refusal to step aside when it comes to political matters. As we can see on the screen captures below, Natalie Dormer dominates Thomas Cromwell in this extract. While she talks to him she turns around him which enhances her dominant position as his superior and Queen and may be interpreted as a trick to intimidate him and to establish her power over him. The position of the camera shows this attempt of dominion; it is placed in front of Cromwell and subtly follows Anne's movements around him. This choice of filming puts the audience in a position in which we witness Cromwell being humiliated by Anne. Moreover, this view angle allows us to see everything; James Frain's facial expressions, Anne Boleyn's, but also her turning around him. The two times when the Queen faces the Chief Minister, we get to see close-ups of the actors' faces.

This choice to focus on their faces at these moments of the sequence is an indication for the viewer that what is being said at these moments is essential for the plot and will have an impact later on in the story. For instance, there is a close-up on Natalie Dormer's face when she threatens Cromwell to have him executed, this moment stands for the isolation of Anne Boleyn and the end of her political alliance with Thomas which will endanger her soon when the rumors of her adultery will reach the King.

Another aspect that is worth mentioning is the soundtrack used in this sequence. Indeed, for most of the scene there is no music at all; the focus is put on what the characters say. It only starts after Anne's threat to have Cromwell executed for his behavior. Moreover, the track is extremely relevant of the seriousness of the situation as the instruments creates a dramatic tension that the viewer automatically understand.

Moreover, though we have to wait until the third season to witness the horror of the dissolution of the monasteries (destructions of abbeys, degradation of a statue of the Virgin Mary or Huguenots stealing the treasures they found there), these scenes make us side with Anne who wanted this wealth to be used for charities. We cannot help but wonder what would have happened if she had succeeded her plan concerning the monasteries.

During a party that seems to have been organized to celebrate Catherine of Aragon's death, Thomas Boleyn reprimands his daughter for her argument with Thomas Cromwell. He reminds her that her duty is not to speak her mind; «Anne I did not bring you up to have opinions or to express them or to quarrel with those closest to the crown.»²⁰⁶. Anne does not accept or agree with her father's opinion that she should remain passive and not have any political ideas and answers in a vehement speech that it was because of her intelligence and opinions that she managed to attract the King and become his Queen:

«I know how I got there, and it was not all you. It was not all you or Norfolk or George or any other man you want to name. It was also me. He fell in love with me, he respected me. And my opinions»

Once more, a close-up is made on Dormer's face at the end of the sentence, which depicts her conviction and ruthlessness. It is also interesting to focus on how the actress says her script, stressing the words «it was also me.» which also stresses her role in the Boleyn family's plan and successes.

Though, when the viewers see these scenes, they might side with Anne who finally stands up for herself against her father's abuse, one of the concerns Natalie had concerning the reception of the audience and their feelings for her character was that, when Anne goes to the scaffold to be beheaded, the viewers would not feel any pity or empathy for Anne after her behavior in the previous episodes. To counteract this possible negative reception of the character of Anne Boleyn, and with Natalie Dormer's strong desire to show that she was more than a «bunny-boiler», the

execution scene was very well thought and filmed in order to appeal to the viewer's sympathy.

Anne Boleyn's execution scene has been filmed in order to convey the tragic dimension of the character. To start with, when Anne arrives in the courtyard, the camera is placed in front of her and follows Dormer walk towards the scaffold. This view angle allows the viewers to see both Anne and the crowd gathered around her. It also allows us to see that she tries not to show any emotion when some people touch her shoulder, but also the expression of disdain or pity of the crowd.

This shot is regularly cut to put her in Anne Boleyn's shoes; we see the scene from her point of view and the crowd ahead of her, staring at her. It is extremely disturbing as we can feel what she is feeling; overwhelmed, nearly claustrophobic. The objective of this view angle is crystal clear; to make us realize that she has to walk through a crowd of people who, for most of them, hate her. The sound effects also embody this desire to put us in her place as we barely understand what people say, we only hear a din.

However, the major interest of the scene is Anne's death and how the series depicted it. To start with, we right away notice the use of slow motion just after the executioner asked someone to fetch his sword, when Anne looks at a child among the crowd, and then at ravens flying away. Yet, the most interesting use of the slow motion technique is when Anne has just been beheaded. To show the audience the exact moment when Anne is dying and to show the shock on her face, an important close-up is made of Natalie Dormer's face. This choice of filming does not just give the

audience the opportunity to see the shock on the character's face, it also makes this short moment last longer and increases the audience's pity for this character.

Another filming technique is used in this sequence, it is called dissolve. The concept is simple; it is a slow transition from an image to another. In this execution scene it is used several times; first of all when the camera films Anne's face and we see in the background the movement of the sword about to cut her head. This image quickly fades to show us a swan, which is apparently being killed. Then this image fades out to show us the aftermath of the previous one which showed us the sword about to strike, that is the close-up on Anne's face. This zoom on Dormer's face then fades out to show her, as a young child smiling in her father's arms. These several uses of dissolve obviously aim at inspiring pity for the character but it convey also a very morbid feeling for the viewer who witness very closely a violent death scene.

The music chosen for this sequence also plays a major role, it starts when Anne says her last prayer while anxiously looking up at the executioner. Trevor Morris' track perfectly conveys the pathos and tragedy of this scene because it is only composed of a lament. This soundtrack echoes with the one used in the previous episode when Anne is arrested and taken to the Tower, thus increasing the idea of tragedy and her martyrdom.

All these elements combined; the music, the dissolve and slow motion techniques are used with one objective; appeal to our empathy for a character assimilated to a martyr and whose innocence is emphasized in every aspect of the sequence.

The scene of Anne's execution is the perfect example of the attempt made by Michael Hirst, the screenwriters and Natalie Dormer to make Anne Boleyn more sympathetic to the viewers. Her status of victim is showcased to put us on Anne's side, for the more we pity and see her as an innocent victim, the more Henry VIII appears to be a cruel and tyrannic wife killer (it could be interesting to wonder if such a pathos representation of Anne Boleyn does not simplify the character of the King and turns him into the cliché of «blue beard»). To enhance Anne's status of an innocent women sent to the scaffold, the series depicts the King as a heartless monster who orders his wife's execution and insults her: «Why should I care about my promises to that whore? (...) I still don't care! I ordered you to get someone else! I want her dead²⁰⁸».

But the blame is also put on another character: Anne's own father, Thomas Boleyn. For the two first seasons The Earl of Ormond has been depicted as an intelligent and merciless schemer who is ready to do everything it takes to climb the social ladder and become a powerful and wealthy man, including murdering people, threatening to kill innocent servants and their families, acting as a pimp towards his daughters to get royal favors but also to contribute to his own children's downfall and executions. Thomas Boleyn is portrayed as being arrested alongside Anne and her alleged lovers but he escaped the execution. Charles Brandon, depicted as an enemy of the Boleyn family, tells Thomas that he will not be tried or executed but only banished from court. The latter appears happy and even laugh which angers Brandon who seems to start feeling pity for the woman he despised and whose death he provoked unintentionally; «Did you watch your son die? What about your daughter? Will you watch her suffer? Will you watch her die? Tell me, Boleyn was it all worth it?». Later on Thomas Boleyn is released from the Tower and Anne sees him through the window of her cell, smiling and waving at him, obviously relieved to see that he will not be executed. Yet, her father coldly ignores her and walks away. The last two episodes of the second season aim to make a true cold and heartless character out of Thomas Boleyn to make Anne appear as an innocent victim of both her father and husband.

208 Hirst Michael. Les Tudors. Intégrale Saison 2. Clichy: Sony pictures home entertainment éd, distrib, 2009. S2E10

To stress even more Anne Boleyn's innocence and her unjust execution in Showtime's The Tudors the screenwriters used the tool of symbolism in the tenth episode but also in a couple of the following season. Throughout the episode, several scenes show Henry VIII staring at two swans peacefully swimming in a pond near the palace. The episode ends with a scene which depicts servants who bring the King's lunch to his table. When the cook uncovers the meal it turns out that it is a swan.

This part of the plot is quite symbolic as the swan might stand for Anne Boleyn herself as her head is cut right at the moment when the bird is apparently killed. The swan is an animal known to mate for life and therefore it is associated with loyalty and fidelity and when the audience sees this couple of swans throughout the episode they might compare it to Anne and Henry who believed they would remain married and have sons.

There is an expression called «the swan song» based on the legend that, just before they die, swans sing a beautiful song. This expression is usually used to characterize a last action, achievement or a speech by someone before they die. Yet, at the end of the episode, when Anne arrives on the scaffold, she gives a long speech in which she expresses her love for the King and refuses to blame him or to claim her innocence, she only asks for people to pray for her and for those who would meddle with her case to «judge it the best²⁰⁹». Anne Boleyn does not blame the King or defend herself which increases her status of martyr in the series.

When it comes to the swan served as a meal to the King, this scene embodies the stereotyped image of the cruel tyrannic ogre of Henry VIII most of us have in mind. Indeed, he seems to ravish the sight of the dead bird on his table while he tears its wings and plunges his hand into the «swan pie» and eats it so enthusiastically that some food drips on his chin. In other words, it could be argued that the King is not just eating the swan but his second wife as well, somehow he literally consummates the marriage.

Though it is much more subtle later on in the third season, the symbol of the swan and its association with Anne Boleyn remains in a few more episodes. The first one after Anne's execution deals, among other things, with the wedding of Henry VIII to his third wife, Jane Seymour. During the scene of the royal couple's wedding feast we clearly notice that there is a swan among the various food on a table. Another one can be spotted during the third episode of the season, when Jane Seymour tells the King that she is pregnant. The recurring presence of the swan in important moments of Jane and Henry's relationship indicates that Anne is the victim of both the King and Jane Seymour, and that it was her sacrifice on the scaffold which allowed him to remarry and have a son and heir.

Henry and Jane's wedding feast with a swan as a dish in S3E1 The figure of a swan on the left side of the table

According to The Tudors wiki website which dedicated a whole page on the hidden meanings and symbols one may find in the series, the white costume worn by Natalie Dormer during the third episode when she meets the King during the pageant of «The Chateau Vert» is inspired by a painting by Edgar Degas (1834-1917) which depicts ballerinas dancing Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake ballet. Though no declaration has been made by the costume department of the series to confirm this theory, it might be possible to believe that the inspiration for the costume is linked with the swan symbolism we can find later on in the series and which subtly claim her innocence.


Anne Boleyn's costume as Perseverance in S1E3
	Degas' painting

As The Tudors did at the beginning of the 2000s, Wolf Hall also stressed the complexity of Anne Boleyn and her innocence of the accusations made against her in May 1536. Indeed, though she is only a secondary character in Wolf Hall, her innocence and personality are tackled as much as Mantel's novels allow it.

Does anne boleyn's representation in the tudors and wolf hall betray the historical figure ?

1.1.4 Queen Anne