{Download PDF} Jane Boleyn: the Infamous Lady Rochford

JANE BOLEYN: THE INFAMOUS LADY ROCHFORD PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Unfortunately, there was apparently little to unearth. In over pages, Jane is quoted exactly Julia Fox. As powerful men and women around her became victims of Henry's ruthless and absolute power, including her own husband and sister-in-law, Queen Anne Boleyn, Jane's allegience to the volatile monarchy was sustained and rewarded. But the price for her loyalty would eventually be her undoing and the ruination of her name. For centuries, little beyond rumor and scandal has been associated with "the infamous Lady Rochford. Born to aristocratic parents in the English countryside, young Jane Parker found a suitable match in George Boleyn, brother to Anne, the woman who would eventually be the touchstone of England's greatest political and religious crisis. Although to be fair the issue with Fox is the complete lack of sources, not her critical evaluation of them and their biases and reliability which is frequently the problem with other 'historians' e. So overall I really enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it - but treat it like a Philippa Gregory novel rather than researched and verified 'history'. Aug 27, Maggie rated it it was ok. However, Jane herself appears precious little in this account. This is not so much a biography of Jane as a retelling of the rise and fall of the Boleyn and connected families through the lens of what Jane may or may not have possibly seen whilst at court. Again, this is history that reads more like a novel, so I was often unsure as to what was documented fact and what was a probably but unconfirmed situation. Jane herself appears, briefly and tantalizingly, towards the end of the book when Fox goes into a discussion of how Jane secured her financial situation following the downfall of George. I appreciate that Fox might not have had much primary source material to work with that pertained specifically to Jane, but I still felt her absence throughout the entire work. I continued on hoping that Fox would untangle the question as to why Jane allegedly betrayed the Boleyns and yet aided and abetted Katherine Howard in her scandalous end. Again, Fox touches on this only at the very end of the work, though the discussion of how history came to portray Jane is an admirable piece of work. I just wish she had given the rest of the book a similar treatment. Jun 27, Caroline rated it it was ok Shelves: nonfiction , prose , audio , library. I've been trying to reconstruct the process by which this book was published, and I've come to the conclusion that a few years ago, somebody was buying everything with the name "Boleyn" in it. There's still some worthwhile material here -- the first half of the book is a decent enough account of Anne Boleyn's rise and fall, and since the author clearly has more to say about Anne than about her sister in law, I kind of wish she'd written that book, or one about the lives of ladies-in- waiting in general, or basically any focus but this! May 30, Iset rated it really liked it Shelves: renaissance-agetoce-fact. Although there is no disputing that Jane Parker was an accessory to the adultery of Queen Catherine Howard, there is actually no evidence to suggest that she was involved in the downfall of the Boleyns: the aforementioned witness was never named and only identified, by Imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys, as an unnamed lady, and could well have been the Countess of Worcester whose public and out-of-hand argument with her brother had provided some hearsay that had fuelled the invented charges, or Lady Wingfield. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that Jane remained loyal to the family she had married into, writing to her imprisoned husband and pleading for clemency. The writing style is wonderfully smooth, the narrative style flowing and engaging. Indeed, Fox paints a real picture of events, and gets rather creatively imaginative on that front — to the point where I found myself genuinely enjoying the remarkably evocative portrait being painted, but I wonder whether such style would be considered professional for an academic non-fiction history. I had to caution my enthusiasm for the book as a result. Also, Fox unfortunately gets a pretty big fact wrong, which always sets me on my guard when reading histories. This is a pretty big boo-boo, although I have seen worse. The problem is that when a non-fiction history author makes a mistake this big, one has to question how accurate the rest of the book, and their other works, are. Whilst it is clear that the evidence is so patchy that we cannot definitively exonerate Jane, Fox points out that there is simply no evidence to suggest her involvement, and that later historians and biographers who created the myth of Jane as scapegoat did so based on unreliable or non-existent sources — unless they had access to unknown sources that are no longer available to us in the modern age. Moreover, Fox points out that there would have been no logic in Jane desiring to bring down her own husband and impoverish herself — there would have been other options available to her and George had their marriage been unhappy, such as separation, and there is an entire lack of evidence to suggest that it was unhappy. I listened to this as an audiobook narrated by Julia Barrie. Barrie was a mixed bag as a narrator. I took to her immediately: generally speaking, Barrie has a smooth and engaging voice which really brings the fluid, evocative writing to life. However, her voices whenever quoting are somewhat put on, and she persistently mispronounced certain names and words. All in all, a couple of minor negatives, but a worthy addition to my bookshelves and an important historical work. Mar 27, Cynda rated it really liked it Shelves: women , history , read , biography-or-memior. So many other reviewers have pointed out that Julia Fox has not written so much about Jane Boleyn as much as around Jane Boleyn. While they are right in their assessment, the same assessment would be made of anyone's writing of Jane Boleyn. Jane Boleyn was a woman during a time when even queens were little more than brood mares. Queens were still being placed in nunneries when kings got tired of them or when they would not bear sons. Just a century before, Queen Isabella of Arragon learned as an So many other reviewers have pointed out that Julia Fox has not written so much about Jane Boleyn as much as around Jane Boleyn. So just around the s do we even start to have letters from queens to ambassadors and their family members. Jane Boleyn was no queen. No one cared what some lady-in-waiting had to say. We are lucky that we have what we have. After George, Jane's husband, dies, Jane makes financial and land deals on her on as a widow and land-holder. So we do know what residences she had, what places she sometimes went to to get away from court. In addition to the money and land and marriage contracts, we have royal protocol. Due to to protocol, Julia Fox can make some good assumptions based upon what was happening for the queens Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. And in turn Fox was able to make good surmised about what Jane Boleyn was doing. The Big Thing. Because Fox has done the best historical research possible We know Jane Boleyn to be human and not a she-monster. Fox has set out to determine Jane's character and her part in the downfall of her husband and sister-in-law. When examiners started trying to find smut against Anne, Jane made a pragmatic decision to reveal Anne saying something against the king. This bit of information was stretched out to the very furthest length which led to accusations of incest between Anne and George. Treasonous act for queen to bed someone else and for someone else to bed queen. And then add incest for good measure. Now Henry can may his 3rd queen and free up some land and titles for new wife's family. Double Whammy. This clarification gives a better overall historical picture of how Anne Boleyn really fell and cleared up the name of Jane Boleyn. It never sat right with me why Jane Parker Boleyn would have to be so mean. Now I better understand. Thank you. Nov 24, Shawn Thrasher rated it did not like it. This book is full of little stinging bugs that fly out and bite the reader all the time. Little annoyances. Let's start with this one: "When she attended the Field of Cloth of Gold, Jane had wandered through the Great Hall of Henry's temporary palace at Guisnes, spellbound by what she had seen. According to the notes for Chapter 2, Fox guesses that Mistress Parker from the records present with the English court at the Field of Cloth of Gold is indeed Jane Par This book is full of little stinging bugs that fly out and bite the reader all the time. I'm good with the guessing about the identity of Mistress Parker; I think the records come close enough to proving this. And maybe Fox can even guess that Jane wandered through the Great Hall. But spellbound? She was a teenage girl at the time - maybe she was catty about everything and giggled at inappropriate times. Maybe she shat upon the cloths of gold. My guesses about Jane Boleyn's feelings are as good as Fox's. Biting flies: here's another: The sack of Rome by Emperor Charles, Fox claims that "Jane was as horrified as the rest of the court by these outrages. How does Fox know she was horrified? Maybe she hated the pope. Maybe she didn't even care. Maybe cared more about clothes and boys than the faraway pope. Biting flies. Horses stamp nervously - twice. Jane Boleyn is a shadowy figure; if you know anything about Tudor history, you know that she's a supporting character at best. Her portrayal in historical fiction, whether literarily by Hilary Mantel or scandalously by Philippa Gregory is always a gossipy, scheming, unpleasant and at the end treacherous bitch. Julia Fox's subtitle would lead you to believe that we're going to hear the true story of Lady Rochford's infamy. But I'm calling bullshit on this book. Or maybe even sympathetic. Fox just made her boring. Apr 27, Cari rated it it was ok Shelves: history , Too much conjecture, not enough fact. Despite the title, this book was more about Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard than Jane Boleyn, doing little more than tying Jane's whereabouts and functions to the more well-known figures around her. Nearly everything else about her as an individual is guessed by the author, who usually goes for the optimistic view of Jane as a pawn and leaves little room for the fact Jane might just have been a bad, if not somewhat dumb, human being. And, as many others hav Too much conjecture, not enough fact. And, as many others have mentioned, despite in depth research, there just isn't much known about the personal life of Jane Boleyn, which put the author at a disadvantage from the start. Still, a lack of resources and information is not an excuse for passing mere guesses off as historical fact. Too much "maybe," too little "we definitely known. Not recommended. Jul 20, Chrys rated it it was ok. I was so excited to read this book to finally get some insight into the motives and life of this historically fascinating yet mysterious woman. Unfortunately, she is apparently mysterious because there is not much information about her in the historical record and this book does little to shed light on who she actually was, what role she played in her husband and sister-in-law's deaths, and what her motives were. Instead this is simply a poorly told history of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard th I was so excited to read this book to finally get some insight into the motives and life of this historically fascinating yet mysterious woman. Instead this is simply a poorly told history of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard that occasionally tries to tie Jane in by saying things like "Still, as even Jane knew, the Duke of Norfolk would not put himself at risk by opposing Anne. She presents theories contrary to popular view such as hypothesizing that Jane and George had a happy marriage, that Jane and Anne were trusting friends, and that Jane did not present information to support the incest claim during George's downfall with scant historical records to back them up. Fox presents the entire narrative as if it were the script to a mini-series, with frequent details about dress and serving wear that could not possibly be backed up by historical references, rather than as a frank look at an historical figure. She seems to want to believe the best in Jane in the face of an almost complete lack of real information about who this woman truly was. As a reader of history, I would prefer to be told the facts and the possible conclusions that can be drawn from what is known about Jane Boleyn rather than being presented with fiction in the guise of biography. The only truly enlightening discussion in this book takes place in the bibliographical notes at the end. Of course, the story of Anne Boleyn, with the enduring mystery of her downfall, has been pored over from the sixteenth century to the present day. But who was Jane Boleyn? Her standing in Tudor history is clearly not as great as Anne's, and the historical documentation trail for Jane is extremely scant. Yet history has been equally malignant to both these women. Jane Parker served at court under Henry and Katherine of Aragon, when she married George Boleyn, younger brother of Anne, she became witness to intrigue and tragedy all the way to Katherine Howard's demise and Jane's own death on the scaffold. I really enjoyed this read. The author has trawled through a mass of state papers, national library records, manuscripts, public record office archives, all the way to contemporary publications. The bibliography is very comprehensive and she makes many references to E. Ives and David Starkey but also goes all the way back to John Foxe. With a subject who so often moves in the background of events much surmise and conjecture has been used to follow Jane Boleyn's story, but the investigative work pays off. Aug 02, di rated it liked it Recommended to di by: book group. Shelves: book-group I had a hard time seeing this as Jane's story. There just didn't seem to be enough hard documentation of Jane Boleyn's life to make a really good biography. So she never bounced out of the page in any real-life way for me. My s I had a hard time seeing this as Jane's story. My studies in the past have generally started with Queen Elizabeth, so I came to this book with only basic knowledge. I can't say I developed any super-great sympathy for Anne or really any of the figures written about. So many were mentioned I gave up trying to keep them straight! None of the queens earned my sympathy although maybe Katherine did to an extent. Over all, I think Fox would have done better had she based her book on the Boleyn family as a whole, rather than try to focus on Jane. An even better option in my opinion would have been to use her research to write an accurate historical fiction, something like Anna Lee Waldo's "Sacajawea. Told in this way, I would have still learned all I did, but probably would have enjoyed it a lot better. Not only that, but I probably would have felt something more of appreciation for the characters once they were more than names on a roll call. Jan 21, Wodandis rated it liked it. It's really hard to rate this book! The author's writing is lyrical, descriptive and thoroughly enjoyable, and she gives a vivid picture of the details of daily life for a noblewoman attached to the court of Henry VIII,. However, what other reviewers have said is true: most of this is pure conjecture. The book is filled with statements such as "Jane may have been there with Anne" or "Jane must have felt Ironically, what we do know about her possessions is probably due to the fact that they were inventoried after her execution as is also the case with Anne. There is a poignant note, however, in the author's conjectures about how Jane's father may have subtly conveyed his feelings about her death at the scaffold in one of his translated manuscripts, and the epilogue does offer a convincing argument with citations from the writings of her contemporaries for what we do NOT know about Jane, but what has apparently been falsely assumed on the basis of comments made during the reign of Elizabeth I: that Jane was instrumental in Anne's death. If the writer is correct, her greatest sins may have been poor judgement and cowardice, not the malice that has so often been portrayed. Mar 12, Sandi rated it liked it. So far, I'm astounded by how little paper and ink is devoted to Jane compared to her sister-in-law, Anne. George and Anne have been put to death and there hasn't been a single word--even conjectural--about the relationship between George and Jane! If no relationship can be deduced--despite rumors that a. Her father was an intellectual, with a great interest in culture and education. She is recorded as having accompanied the royal party on the state visit to France in , " The Field of the Cloth of Gold ". Although it has long been supposed that nothing is recorded of Jane's appearance and there is no surviving portrait that can be identified as her , her biographer Julia Fox , in Jane Boleyn: The Infamous Lady Rochford , suggests that there is a very remote chance that a Holbein painting represents a likeness of Jane pp. The seven performers were selected from the ladies of court in large part for their attractiveness. Two of the other performers included Jane's future sisters-in-law, Anne and Mary Boleyn. At this stage, however, Anne was not completely attached to the King, although she was already one of the leaders of fashionable society. As the Boleyn family's wealth and influence increased, the couple were given the Palace of Beaulieu in Essex as their chief residence, which George and Jane decorated with a lavish chapel, a tennis court, a bathroom with hot-and-cold running water, imported carpets, mahogany furniture and their own large collection of silverware. Their marital bed was draped in cloth of gold with a white satin canopy, linen quilts and a yellow counterpane. In the early s, it became the main residence of his eldest daughter, Mary , but when she was disgraced and banished to Hatfield House , George Boleyn was given the palace to live in, although the deeds were never formally signed over. Traditionally, George and Jane's marriage has been portrayed as an unhappy one. One modern historian has suggested that George was homosexual. In fact, according to George Cavendish, he lived in 'bestial' fashion, forcing widows, deflowering virgins The exact nature of her relationship with her royal sister-in-law is not clear either, and there is no evidence as to what she thought of her other sister-in-law, Mary Boleyn , who had been at court with Jane since they were both teenagers. It is generally assumed that Jane was not overly fond of Anne, allegedly because of Jane's jealousy of her. Regardless, Jane plotted with Anne to banish one of the King's young unnamed mistresses from court in When the King discovered her involvement, Lady Rochford was herself exiled for a few months. After 11 years of marriage, George Boleyn was arrested in May and imprisoned in the Tower of London , accused of having had sexual intercourse with his sister, the Queen. Elizabeth Somerset, Countess of Worcester is said by contemporaries to have provided the evidence against the Queen and her brother. There was no truth in these rumours, according to the vast majority of contemporary witnesses, but they provided the legal pretext that the Boleyns' enemies needed to bring about the execution of Lord Rochford. Jane was mentioned only once during the trials, when George Boleyn was asked if the Queen had relayed information about Henry's sexual troubles to her. The first mention of any tensions between Jane and her husband came long after their deaths, when George Wyatt called her "wicked wife, accuser of her own husband, even to the seeking of his own blood," [13] [14] in his biography of Queen Anne, but this view would have been informed by the disastrous Catherine Howard episode, when both she and the queen were executed for treason, and Wyatt's own attempts to exonerate the late Queen. Subsequent generations of historians also believed that Jane's testimony against her husband and sister-in-law in was motivated by spite rather than any actual belief in their guilt, hence her generally unfavourable historical reputation. A century later, an historian asserted that Jane had testified against them because of her "inveterate hatred" of Queen Anne, which sprang from jealousy at Anne's superior social skills and George's preference for his sister's company to that of his wife. Georgian and Victorian histories pointed to Jane's execution in to suggest that moral justice had triumphed because "the infamous Lady Rochford This negative view of Jane was rejected nearly years later by her biographer, Julia Fox , who believes that Jane actually enjoyed a warm and supportive relationship with Queen Anne and that terror of the palace coup against the Boleyns in provoked Jane's testimony, which in any case was twisted by the family's enemies. In her book, Fox writes:. Jane Rochford found herself dragged into a maelstrom of intrigue, innuendo and speculation. For when Cromwell sent for Jane, he already had much of what he needed, not only to bring down Anne and her circle, but to make possible the King's marriage to Jane Seymour Faced with such relentless, incessant questions, which she had no choice but to answer, Jane would have searched her memory for every tiny incident that occurred to her Jane had not been quick to tell tales, but she had buckled under the pressure of relentless questioning And it was her weakness under interrogation that gave her future detractors - happy to find a scapegoat to exonerate the King from the heinous charge of callously killing his innocent wife - the ammunition to maintain that it was her evidence that had fooled Henry and destroyed Anne and George George Boleyn was beheaded on Tower Hill on 17 May before a large crowd. His final speech was chiefly concerned with promoting his new-found Protestant faith. Four other men, one of them a commoner, were executed alongside him, also accused of having been Anne's lovers. Only the commoner, Mark Smeaton , a musician, had confessed, and it was reported that he had been savagely tortured into doing so. Anne was executed two days later, beheaded by a French swordsman, within the walls of the Tower of London. Anne's poise and courage at the scaffold were much commented upon, and public opinion in the weeks and months after often "made of Anne a persecuted heroine, bright with promise and goodness as a young woman, beautiful and elegant. According to Julia Fox, this mindset explains how Jane's actions were construed as being those of a cruel and jealous intriguer. The immediate aftermath of the fall of the Boleyns was hard for her, both socially and financially. The lands which the Boleyns had built up during Anne Boleyn's reign and over the previous four generations, including the titles Earl of Wiltshire and Earl of Ormond were to pass through the male line only, and thus were lost to the family with George's death. Jane continued to use the courtesy title of Viscountess Rochford but without a son she could not really benefit from what remained of the Boleyn family fortune. Modern rumours that George Boleyn, Dean of Lichfield , a colourful character, was the child of Jane and George are now thought to be false. After her husband's execution, Lady Rochford was absent from court for several months. She spent this time securing her financial position by negotiations with her father-in-law, Sir Thomas Boleyn , but mainly with Thomas Cromwell , the king's chief minister. It is unknown when she returned to court, but she was a lady-in-waiting to Queen Jane Seymour , so she probably returned within a year of her husband's death. Jane Seymour died soon after childbirth, within eighteen months of becoming Henry's wife. Fine meals were provided for her every day from the budget of the queen's household. However, Henry soon wanted to be rid of Anne, and sought an annulment. In July , Lady Rochford testified that the Queen had confided in her that the marriage had never been consummated. Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford - Wikipedia

Like so many women of this time, her actions and thoughts weren't recorded or kept, but we do know a Unfortunately, there was apparently little to unearth. In over pages, Jane is quoted exactly Julia Fox. As powerful men and women around her became victims of Henry's ruthless and absolute power, including her own husband and sister-in-law, Queen Anne Boleyn, Jane's allegience to the volatile monarchy was sustained and rewarded. But the price for her loyalty would eventually be her undoing and the ruination of her name. For centuries, little beyond rumor and scandal has been associated with "the infamous Lady Rochford. Born to aristocratic parents in the English countryside, young Jane Parker found a suitable match in George Boleyn, brother to Anne, the woman who would eventually be the touchstone of England's greatest political and religious crisis. Once settled in the bustling, spectacular court of Henry VIII as the wife of a nobleman, Jane was privy to the regal festivities of masques and jousts, royal births and funerals, and she played an intimate part of the drama and gossip that swirled around the king's court. But it was Anne Boleyn's descent from palace to prison that first thrust Jane into the spotlight. No one cared what some lady-in-waiting had to say. We are lucky that we have what we have. After George, Jane's husband, dies, Jane makes financial and land deals on her on as a widow and land-holder. So we do know what residences she had, what places she sometimes went to to get away from court. In addition to the money and land and marriage contracts, we have royal protocol. Due to to protocol, Julia Fox can make some good assumptions based upon what was happening for the queens Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. And in turn Fox was able to make good surmised about what Jane Boleyn was doing. The Big Thing. Because Fox has done the best historical research possible We know Jane Boleyn to be human and not a she-monster. Fox has set out to determine Jane's character and her part in the downfall of her husband and sister-in-law. When examiners started trying to find smut against Anne, Jane made a pragmatic decision to reveal Anne saying something against the king. This bit of information was stretched out to the very furthest length which led to accusations of incest between Anne and George. Treasonous act for queen to bed someone else and for someone else to bed queen. And then add incest for good measure. Now Henry can may his 3rd queen and free up some land and titles for new wife's family. Double Whammy. This clarification gives a better overall historical picture of how Anne Boleyn really fell and cleared up the name of Jane Boleyn. It never sat right with me why Jane Parker Boleyn would have to be so mean. Now I better understand. Thank you. Nov 24, Shawn Thrasher rated it did not like it. This book is full of little stinging bugs that fly out and bite the reader all the time. Little annoyances. Let's start with this one: "When she attended the Field of Cloth of Gold, Jane had wandered through the Great Hall of Henry's temporary palace at Guisnes, spellbound by what she had seen. According to the notes for Chapter 2, Fox guesses that Mistress Parker from the records present with the English court at the Field of Cloth of Gold is indeed Jane Par This book is full of little stinging bugs that fly out and bite the reader all the time. I'm good with the guessing about the identity of Mistress Parker; I think the records come close enough to proving this. And maybe Fox can even guess that Jane wandered through the Great Hall. But spellbound? She was a teenage girl at the time - maybe she was catty about everything and giggled at inappropriate times. Maybe she shat upon the cloths of gold. My guesses about Jane Boleyn's feelings are as good as Fox's. Biting flies: here's another: The sack of Rome by Emperor Charles, Fox claims that "Jane was as horrified as the rest of the court by these outrages. How does Fox know she was horrified? Maybe she hated the pope. Maybe she didn't even care. Maybe cared more about clothes and boys than the faraway pope. Biting flies. Horses stamp nervously - twice. Jane Boleyn is a shadowy figure; if you know anything about Tudor history, you know that she's a supporting character at best. Her portrayal in historical fiction, whether literarily by Hilary Mantel or scandalously by Philippa Gregory is always a gossipy, scheming, unpleasant and at the end treacherous bitch. Julia Fox's subtitle would lead you to believe that we're going to hear the true story of Lady Rochford's infamy. But I'm calling bullshit on this book. Or maybe even sympathetic. Fox just made her boring. Apr 27, Cari rated it it was ok Shelves: history , Too much conjecture, not enough fact. Despite the title, this book was more about Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard than Jane Boleyn, doing little more than tying Jane's whereabouts and functions to the more well-known figures around her. Nearly everything else about her as an individual is guessed by the author, who usually goes for the optimistic view of Jane as a pawn and leaves little room for the fact Jane might just have been a bad, if not somewhat dumb, human being. And, as many others hav Too much conjecture, not enough fact. And, as many others have mentioned, despite in depth research, there just isn't much known about the personal life of Jane Boleyn, which put the author at a disadvantage from the start. Still, a lack of resources and information is not an excuse for passing mere guesses off as historical fact. Too much "maybe," too little "we definitely known. Not recommended. Jul 20, Chrys rated it it was ok. I was so excited to read this book to finally get some insight into the motives and life of this historically fascinating yet mysterious woman. Unfortunately, she is apparently mysterious because there is not much information about her in the historical record and this book does little to shed light on who she actually was, what role she played in her husband and sister-in-law's deaths, and what her motives were. Instead this is simply a poorly told history of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard th I was so excited to read this book to finally get some insight into the motives and life of this historically fascinating yet mysterious woman. Instead this is simply a poorly told history of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard that occasionally tries to tie Jane in by saying things like "Still, as even Jane knew, the Duke of Norfolk would not put himself at risk by opposing Anne. She presents theories contrary to popular view such as hypothesizing that Jane and George had a happy marriage, that Jane and Anne were trusting friends, and that Jane did not present information to support the incest claim during George's downfall with scant historical records to back them up. Fox presents the entire narrative as if it were the script to a mini-series, with frequent details about dress and serving wear that could not possibly be backed up by historical references, rather than as a frank look at an historical figure. She seems to want to believe the best in Jane in the face of an almost complete lack of real information about who this woman truly was. As a reader of history, I would prefer to be told the facts and the possible conclusions that can be drawn from what is known about Jane Boleyn rather than being presented with fiction in the guise of biography. The only truly enlightening discussion in this book takes place in the bibliographical notes at the end. Of course, the story of Anne Boleyn, with the enduring mystery of her downfall, has been pored over from the sixteenth century to the present day. But who was Jane Boleyn? Her standing in Tudor history is clearly not as great as Anne's, and the historical documentation trail for Jane is extremely scant. Yet history has been equally malignant to both these women. Jane Parker served at court under Henry and Katherine of Aragon, when she married George Boleyn, younger brother of Anne, she became witness to intrigue and tragedy all the way to Katherine Howard's demise and Jane's own death on the scaffold. I really enjoyed this read. The author has trawled through a mass of state papers, national library records, manuscripts, public record office archives, all the way to contemporary publications. The bibliography is very comprehensive and she makes many references to E. Ives and David Starkey but also goes all the way back to John Foxe. With a subject who so often moves in the background of events much surmise and conjecture has been used to follow Jane Boleyn's story, but the investigative work pays off. Aug 02, di rated it liked it Recommended to di by: book group. Shelves: book-group I had a hard time seeing this as Jane's story. There just didn't seem to be enough hard documentation of Jane Boleyn's life to make a really good biography. So she never bounced out of the page in any real-life way for me. My s I had a hard time seeing this as Jane's story. My studies in the past have generally started with Queen Elizabeth, so I came to this book with only basic knowledge. I can't say I developed any super-great sympathy for Anne or really any of the figures written about. So many were mentioned I gave up trying to keep them straight! None of the queens earned my sympathy although maybe Katherine did to an extent. Over all, I think Fox would have done better had she based her book on the Boleyn family as a whole, rather than try to focus on Jane. An even better option in my opinion would have been to use her research to write an accurate historical fiction, something like Anna Lee Waldo's "Sacajawea. Told in this way, I would have still learned all I did, but probably would have enjoyed it a lot better. Not only that, but I probably would have felt something more of appreciation for the characters once they were more than names on a roll call. Jan 21, Wodandis rated it liked it. It's really hard to rate this book! The author's writing is lyrical, descriptive and thoroughly enjoyable, and she gives a vivid picture of the details of daily life for a noblewoman attached to the court of Henry VIII,. However, what other reviewers have said is true: most of this is pure conjecture. The book is filled with statements such as "Jane may have been there with Anne" or "Jane must have felt Ironically, what we do know about her possessions is probably due to the fact that they were inventoried after her execution as is also the case with Anne. There is a poignant note, however, in the author's conjectures about how Jane's father may have subtly conveyed his feelings about her death at the scaffold in one of his translated manuscripts, and the epilogue does offer a convincing argument with citations from the writings of her contemporaries for what we do NOT know about Jane, but what has apparently been falsely assumed on the basis of comments made during the reign of Elizabeth I: that Jane was instrumental in Anne's death. If the writer is correct, her greatest sins may have been poor judgement and cowardice, not the malice that has so often been portrayed. Mar 12, Sandi rated it liked it. So far, I'm astounded by how little paper and ink is devoted to Jane compared to her sister-in-law, Anne. George and Anne have been put to death and there hasn't been a single word--even conjectural--about the relationship between George and Jane! If no relationship can be deduced--despite rumors that a. George was gay or b. We know more about Jane's ancestor's than we know about her. If for example no physical description survives, the So far, I'm astounded by how little paper and ink is devoted to Jane compared to her sister-in-law, Anne. Don't presume that she must have been pretty and graceful because she was a success??? This is biography, not fiction, and one needs to be careful about speculation. Jane was also favored because she was a part of the Boleyn family who all profited mightily when Henry was besotted by Anne e. If I change my mind about this book, I'll let everyone know. Julia Fox is a good writer and does keep up the flow--sometimes too much so. The book becomes more of an overview of part of Henry's reign. That being said, Jane had to keep her own counsel, especially after the executions of her husband and sister-in-law. She hung on at the court by the skin of her teeth. I'm looking forward to how Fox delves into Jane's notorious relationship with Queen Katherine Howard May 25, Stefanie rated it liked it. A paper, stretched into a book, about a person who even with very thorough research by the author has left little source material for historians. Often it is more a story of Anne Boleyn and the other queens Jane Boleyn has served, than about the protagonist herself. This is to be expected with a book this size about a woman who has not left enough material to warrant a whole biography by herself, but one wonders why this was turned into a book in the first place. When the author does come back t A paper, stretched into a book, about a person who even with very thorough research by the author has left little source material for historians. When the author does come back to Lady Rochford, it sometimes feels as though she herself has almost forgotten who the book was supposed to be about and rushes on to telling the stories of other people. I would have liked more detail on the letter Jane wrote to Cromwell - print it out in its whole length or at least quote long passages. Instead we only get a short passage about the style the letter uses. I would also have liked more thoughts on the fact that Jane's marriage to George Boleyn remained childless as well. For a woman of her times, she must have been under pressure over this, but the author brushes this aspect of her life mostly aside. Three stars for a more or less entertaining read about things I mostly already knew about. Jan 21, Andrea rated it liked it Shelves: nonfiction , history , zread-list. For having read so much fiction and nonfiction on the court and wives of Henry VIII, I was surprised how much there was here to learn about the daily lives of the lesser players and the constant instability of their positions as political favors changed, queens came and went, and families gained and lost power. ETA - I have acclimatised to the reading voice enough to concentrate on the content. It was fun to count how many times the word 'said' was, erm, said, and tally lists were argued over in the playground. I wish I had started a tally list for 'gold' in this tale. Some parts of this was truly interesting but such a lot we already knew mp3 I'm going to have to grit my teeth to get past this narrator. Some parts of this was truly interesting but such a lot we already knew extensively from other sources so I skimmed. I would not necessarily recommend this to anyone. Jul 15, Tara rated it it was ok. I am really eager to read this, although I've only read the first chapter and I am a little apprehensive already. My other problem is I'm afraid this book will be more speculation than history. I feel sure that if there was sufficient information on Jane, there would have been a book by now. I think I am really eager to read this, although I've only read the first chapter and I am a little apprehensive already. I think almost everything we know about her is in all likelihood apocryphal. Regardless, I have to check this one out. Edit: I cannot read one more page of this book. I'm sorry. I appreciate what Fox was trying to do: use the success of Philippa Gregory to propel a fascinating yet obscure Tudor figure to life. It really just rehashes what we all already know about the events of Henry VIII's court, with some feeble attempts to tie Jane into the thread. There simply is not enough information to go on; Fox should have realized this, instead of publishing several hundred pages of supposition. While Jane Rochford may deserve a defender and to my knowledge, she's never had one , she may not. And that's again where this book fails. Fox makes the case for Jane's reputation, and could possibly be correct, but fails to prove anything. Any assertions she makes are far from convincing. Pet peeves: 1. Please don't tell me "Jane was elated when she saw this and that and Field of Cloth of Gold blah blah. I don't know. For all we know, she was seasick and barfing everywhere, forever tarnishing her view of France forever. I want to read a history, not speculative nonfiction. I really couldn't take the little footnotes telling me what things like cloth of silver and gold are. If I'm reading a book on obscure figures from English history, chances are excellent that I'm a huge dork and already know what those things are. Sorry to be harsh, but I did my best to quit my Tudors obsession cold turkey. But once in awhile, I see something and can't stop myself. The reviews for this are kind of meh, and what I've heard so far features the words "probably" and "very well could have" and blah blah blah. But who cares! If you're picking up a book on Lady Rochford, you have some semblance of an idea of Tudor history. They're going straight for the meat, not the peas. If you're even remotely familiar with Tudor history, this book is a yawnfest. You know all this already. Hell, even if all you've read is Phillipa Gregory's Tudor books, which are historical fiction , this is well-tread territory. I liked the tiny snippets we got into who Jane was. I like the explanation of her upbringing, and the intricacy of her dowry. I like that, after George was gone, she fought by proxy with Thomas Boleyn to get a decent stipend. I like that she made connections to stay within the court to keep herself relevant. But here's the thing. Did all of that actually happen? I realize there are records that have her name in them. Here's what I don't like. That's saying, "Well, bitch was related, so obviously she was there! I'm sure! And you know. She was her sister-in-law, so they must have been BFFs, so she was most likely in the bed chambers when the little princess was squeezed out! I'm giving the book two stars because it fed the fires of my never dying Tudor love, but it really isn't recommendable for anyone wanting to learn more about Tudor history. Oct 11, Kim rated it did not like it Shelves: era-tudor-nf , location-england. I saw this book on my library shelf and quickly became excited. Most of what I knew of Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, stemmed from the two times in her life that she became a part of the center stage in the court of Henry VIII -- when she gave evidence against her husband and helped send him, his sister, and several other men to the scaffold, and then later when she too faced the axe with another of Henry VIII's queens. So, I was thrilled at the chance to learn more about this controversal woman. I I saw this book on my library shelf and quickly became excited. I came out of this book with a headache. Though Fox clearly researched her topic, there remained two problems -- most of Jane Boleyn's life is shrouded in mystery her birth, her childhood, etc , and Fox's style, which is more suited to writing a fictional novel about Jane than a piece of nonfiction. The constant "supposedly", "probably", "perhaps", and so on did a great deal to detract from the book. Where Fox found holes in her research, she filled with claims that she had no way of backing up, which also didn't help matters. The fictionalized style of the book doidn't help matters. Brief little fictionalized accounts that last maybe a page or two in a nonfiction book don't bother me, but when practically the whole book is written like that? There's a problem. If you want to write a researched, nonfiction book, do it. If you want to write a fictional version of this or that person's life, fine. Don't mix the two. It only weakens the entire package. Shelves: audiobook , history , audible , bio-and-memoir. This one might beget a new sub-genre: historical extrapolation. Fox starts with the somewhat scant factual historical record mentioning Jane directly, and proceeds to fill out the narrative with Tudor doings of which Jane was "likely" to have been a part. This is a case where listening to the audio may have been a different experience - Fox goes "into Jane's head" to use a writing term often enough that the book straddles a gray area between well-researched non-fiction, and outright "histori This one might beget a new sub-genre: historical extrapolation. This is a case where listening to the audio may have been a different experience - Fox goes "into Jane's head" to use a writing term often enough that the book straddles a gray area between well-researched non-fiction, and outright "historical fiction" genres. Landor's breathy, suspenseful tone edges the listener even more towards the latter I'd say. Frankly, I'm surprised that Jane was able to "come back" from being the wife of a traitor, but it's not inconceivable that Henry gave her a "second chance", realizing at least sub-consciously that she took a fall for him to be able to get another chance with a more docile wife. Fox is a tremendous researcher; her extrapolations are probably valid assumptions in most cases. I had never previously heard the term "cloth of gold", and by the time the book was halfway through, I'd heard it uttered enough to last a lifetime! May 02, Elaine rated it it was ok. I must say I agree with most of the reviews here regarding this book. Obviously very little is known about Jane Boleyn and really Julia Fox didn't seem to uncover anything new. Philippa Gregory has been criticised for taking great liberties with history but at least she writes fiction. Here Julia Fox was writing a nonfiction, biographical account I must say I agree with most of the reviews here regarding this book.

Jane Boleyn: The Infamous Lady Rochford - Julia Fox - Google книги

But the price for her loyalty would eventually be her undoing and the ruination of her name. For centuries, little beyond rumor and scandal has been associated with "the infamous Lady Rochford. Born to aristocratic parents in the English countryside, young Jane Parker found a suitable match in George Boleyn, brother to Anne, the woman who would eventually be the touchstone of England's greatest political and religious crisis. Once settled in the bustling, spectacular court of Henry VIII as the wife of a nobleman, Jane was privy to the regal festivities of masques and jousts, royal births and funerals, and she played an intimate part of the drama and gossip that swirled around the king's court. But it was Anne Boleyn's descent from palace to prison that first thrust Jane into the spotlight. Impatient with Anne's inability to produce a male heir, King Henry accused the queen of treason and adultery with a multitude of men, including her own brother, George. Jane was among those interrogated in the scandal, and following two swift strokes from the executioner's blade, she lost her husband and her sister-in-law, her inheritance and her place in court society. Now the thirty-year-old widow of a traitor, Jane had to ensure her suvival and protect her interests by securing land and income. With sheer determination, she navigated her way back into royal favor by becoming lady-in-waiting to Henry's three subsequent brides, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, and Catherine Howard. At last Jane's future seemed secure - until an unwitting misstep involving the sexual intrigues of young Queen Catherine destroyed the life and reputation Jane had worked so hard to rebuild. Julia Fox. Jane Rochford was sister-in-law to Anne Boleyn and Lady of the Bedchamber to Katherine Howard, whom she followed to the scaffold in Hers is a life of extraordinary drama as a witness to and participant in the greatest events of Henry's reign. She arrived at court as a teenager when Katherine of Aragon was queen. Even before Henry's marriage to Anne, her own marriage to George Boleyn brought her into the closest royal circles - and there she remained through the unfolding spectacle and tragedy of Henry's succession of marriages. She survived the trauma of Anne and George's executions and despite briefly being banned from Court managed to regain her place there to attend on Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves. Her supposed part in both Anne Boleyn's and Katherine Howard's downfall has led to her being reviled through centuries.

https://files8.webydo.com/9585679/UploadedFiles/6E0C524D-4BFE-B1C8-1C0B-2948BCB460B2.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4640672/normal_60213d7db80e4.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9589077/UploadedFiles/9783151A-2740-EF7C-9124-A162E25964DF.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/73a4c437-925b-4ae0-bebf-e6ba3ec5f728/kritik-des-herzens-857.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9587078/UploadedFiles/E627DBC2-7020-2996-6234-CA3D717641F5.pdf