Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite. Part Two: So many Old Testament names!

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

“Judith's father King Gideon … the Jewish King of the Jewish Kingdom of Semuin married Esat (Esther) the daughter of the Christian Solomonic Emperor … 930 AD.  

Mar David …. in about 948 decided to visit Fatimid Jerusalem ….  

Mar David's wife was a Bagratuni princess called Tamar …”.

 

 

 

 

Gideon, David, Solomon[ic], Tamar, Judith, Simeon (“Semiun”), Esther, Jerusalem!

What a horrible mish-mash of biblical names, BC time, all rolled up (like queen Cleopatra), into a (time-defying magic) carpet, and then rolled out in AD time.

Tenth century (c. 1000 BC) King David, for instance, rolled out into the tenth century AD.

 

Thus we read at: http://alternativegenhist.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/judith-jewish-queen-empress-of-ethiopia.html

 

Judith the Jewish Queen-Empress of Ethiopia

 

In the 10th century in Ethiopia in the Jewish Kingdom of the Beni Hamwiyah (also called Beta Israel and Semuin) a long line of Jewish kings had reigned since the 4th century. It was in the fourth century that the Christian Solomonic Kingdom began while the Jewish branch continued at Semuin. It is in the 10th century that the figure of the great conquering Jewish Queen known as Judith or Gudit appears. She restores Jewish rulership to the whole of [Ethiopia] under the Zagwe Dynasty. ….

 

I have already suggested that this “Gudit” (or Judith) was simply a later appropriation of the original Judith of Bethulia:

 

World Renowned Judith of Bethulia

 

https://www.academia.edu/12785080/World_Renowned_Judith_of_Bethulia

 

The article continues, introducing a second Tamar, the renowned Queen Tamara, and even a - wait for it - Moses. Oh, and also, Aaron. Oh, and there’s a Ruben tossed in for good measure:

 

Judith's father King Gideon (Gedajan) the Jewish King of the Jewish Kingdom of Semuin married Esat (Esther) the daughter of the Christian Solomonic Emperor Wedem Asfare around 930 AD.  Mar David the Khazar King of Taman's son Tzul (Zenobius / Tzul ben David /Zavid) in about 948 decided to visit Fatimid Jerusalem and then to head further south to Egypt, Nubia and Ethiopa.  He visited the Kingdom of Georgius II of Makhuria (Nubia) and where he took an additional name of Georgius in honour of the great hospitality of the King. Mar David's wife was a Bagratuni princess called Tamar the daughter of Bagrat II of Kartli (r.976-978) and Abkhazia (978-1008) and his wife Rhipsime of Armenia sister of Ashot III. 

 

Historians have confused Bagrat II with his grandson Bagrat III (the son of Empress Judith and Georgius Tzul). When Gurgen (Bagrat II's natural father) died in 1008 it was the grandson Bagrat III who became the King of all Georgia and his grandfather Bagrat II died soon after.

 

Queen Tamara of Georgia

 

Next Georgius Tzul (Zenobius) visited the Jewish kingdom in Northern Ethiopia where he married Gudit (Judith/ Gurandukht/ Duka) the daughter of King Gideon and Queen Esther of the Falashas.  Zenobius (Tzul ben David /Zavid) as a trained and experienced Khazar warrior aided the Jews of Ethiopia in their fight with the Christian south. However Georgius Tzul received word around 988 that his father's Khazar Kingdom of Taman was under attack and he left Ethiopa to go to the aid of his father. Judith then led her Jewish warriors into battle and established her son Mar Takla Haymanot on the Imperial Throne and she married him to Masoba Warq the daughter of Dil Naod the last emperor of the older Solomonic Christian Dynasty.

 

The Zagwe Dynasty was also known as the House of Moses as they claimed male descent from Moses. However this Moses was the Khazar King Moses (also known as Morovec and Marot) who was the ancestor of Georgius Tzul of the Khazars. Other writers claimed that the Zagwe Dynasty descended from Moses and Aaron and in fact the Khazar King Moses (Marot /Marovec) was the father of King Aaron I (Aharon) of Khazaria. David the Khazar King of Taman was a son of King Aaron II of Khazaria.

 

Leaving her eldest son on the throne of Ethiopia Queen Judith went to join her husband in the Crimea with two of her younger sons Bagrat and David. Through their Bagratuni blood through their grandmother Tamar both of her sons were to become Kings -Bagrat III of Georgia and David I of Lori.  

 

Bagrat III's son George I of Georgia had a daughter Gurandukht who married Prince Smbat of Lori a brother of King George (Kyurike) II of Lori. Prince Smbat and Gurandukht's daughter was also called Gurandukht and she married Alp Arshan the Muslim Sultan of the Great Seljuks. 

 

Prince Smbat of Lori and Princess Gurandukt of Georgia also had a son called Ruben who was to become the first Rubenid King of Armenia. His daughter Princess Rusudan of Armenia was the first wife of King David IV the Builder of Georgia. King Ruben I of Armenia married Euphrosyne of Polotsk the daughter of Vseslav Prince of Polotsk. Queen Euphrosyne was the aunt of the famous St. Euphrosyne (Efrasinnia) of Polotsk.

 

Alp Arshan's daughter Gurandukht married King Atraka of the Cuman-Kipchaks. Atraka's daughter Gurandukht was the second wife of David IV King of the Georgians.  David IV's daughter Gurandukht (Judith/Gudit) married Prince Mairari of Ethiopa (son of the Jewish Emperor Harbe of Ethiopia). 

 

Prince Mairari of Ethiopa was the father of Duka or Judith (possibly Qirwerne) who married Andronicus Komateros Doukas (the Byzantine Ambassador to Jerusalem). The Doukas used in her husband's name refers to his wife Duka (or Judith) rather than the Doukas family. An earlier Andronikos Doukas was a son of Georgius Tzul (remembered as Gregoras Doukas in some genealogies) and Judith (Duka/Guran-dukht) Queen-Empress of Ethiopa. Andronikos was the father of Emperor Constantine X Doukas. The Kamateros family had long been associated with the Khazars since their ancestor was the chief engineer of the Khazar city of Sarkel.  

 

Qirwerne  (or Duka / Judith) is also said to be the second wife of Grand Duke Iziaslav II of Russia. Many genealogists state that she was the daughter of King Demetrius of Georgia whereas she was in fact his niece by his sister Gurandukht. In fact Princess Duka and Princess Qirwerne may not be the same person but two sisters or half sisters. Duka or Judith being the Emperor Lalibela's sister who went to Jerusalem and Constantinople with him and Qirwerne his half sister who tried to poison him. 

 

Duka and Andronikos's daughter was Euphrosyne Kamertera Dukaina who married her kinsman the Byzantine Emperor Alexius III Angelos. Queen Charlotte of England the wife of George III is a direct female line descendant of Princess Duka of Ethiopia and Georgia. Euphrosyne's sister Clementia (Kamartera / Clemencia) married Aimon I Count of Faucigny and the direct female line ancestress of Mary Queen of Scots.

 

Another daughter of Duka (Gurandukt) was also called Gurandukt who married Khuddan the King of Ossetia. Their daughter Burdukhan (also called Gurandukt) married King George III of Georgia and she was the mother of the famous Queen Regnant St. Tamara (Tamar) the Great of Georgia …. 

 

Had enough?

But it appears that some aspects of the real Judith history have also been dragged into the legends of Queen Tamara. For instance:

 

Tamar [Tamara] became the sole monarch in Georgia and was crowned a second time at the Gelati cathedral near the city of Kutaisi. She was called a “king” in their language as she ruled alone and not as a consort.

 

Cf. Judith 16:22: “Many wished to marry [Judith], but she gave herself to no man all the days of her life from the time her husband, Manasseh, died …”.

 

However, she was the first female rule in the country and that just stoked the fires of rebellion in the nobility. In several stories, this is glossed over in light of her later achievements.  However, Tamar was forced in short order to deal with the rebels and she did so in a decisive manner. One legend tells of how she sent two women to stall the rebels by pretending to negotiate long enough for her to gather her army.

 

Cf. Judith 10:11 “As the two women were walking through the valley, an Assyrian patrol met them”.

 

They were eventually pardoned, but not until their titles and wealth had been stripped.

Despite this violent beginning, Tamar wanted to rule well.

….

With the Church firmly behind her, Tamar married.  Unfortunately, the choice of Yuri, the son of Prince Andrei Bogoliubsky of Vladimir-Suzdal, was disastrous.  …. After his marriage was solemnized, Yuri was never found sober and he was a mean drunk. Yuri was … constantly picking fights, sleeping with anyone he could [manage] to get into bed …. Worse, he was constantly trying to get the country into war with their Muslim neighbors for no other reason than he was bored.  

 

 

Cf. Judith 3:8 “… Holofernes destroyed all their places of worship and cut down their sacred trees. He had been ordered to destroy all the gods of the land …”.

Judith 12:10, 11: “… Holofernes … said to Bagoas, the eunuch who was in charge of his personal affairs, ‘Go and persuade the Hebrew woman, who is in your care, to come to my tent to eat and drink with us. It would be a shame to pass up an opportunity to make love to a woman like that. If I don't try to seduce her, she will laugh at me’.”

Judith 12:20: “Holofernes was so charmed by [Judith] that he drank more wine than he had ever drunk at one time in his whole life”.

 

Tamar was quietly consolidating her power, and soon had had enough of her drunken ass of a husband and did the unthinkable.  In a devoutly Christian country where divorce was considered illegal, Tamar convinced the Orthodox Church to give her a divorce from Yuri. He was accused of addiction to drunkenness and sodomy and packed off to Constantinople.

 

Cf. Judith 13:8: “Then Judith raised the sword and struck him twice in the neck as hard as she could, chopping off his head”.

 

[Yuri] attempted a couple of coup d’etats by raising mercenary armies made up of wayward Vikings, Turks and disgruntled nobles.  

 

Cf. Judith 2:14-18:

 

“So Holofernes … called together all the commanders, generals, and officers of the Assyrian army … he chose 120,000 of the best infantrymen and 12,000 of the best mounted archers and arranged them in battle formation. He also took along a very large number of camels, donkeys, and mules to carry the equipment, as well as many sheep, cattle, and goats for food. Every soldier received plenty of rations and a large payment of gold and silver from the royal treasury”.

 

All [Yuri’s] attempts were put down by his ex-wife’s army, which was headed by her new husband Prince David Soslan. ….

 

Cf. Judith 15:4-5:

 

“Uzziah sent messengers to the towns of Betomesthaim, Bebai, Choba, and Kola, and throughout the land of Israel to tell everyone what had happened and to urge them to join in pursuing and destroying the enemy. When they received the message, they all attacked the Assyrians and chased them as far as Choba, slaughtering them as they went. Even the people of Jerusalem and others living in the mountains joined the attack when the messengers told them what had happened in the Assyrian camp. The people of the regions of Gilead and Galilee blocked the path of the retreating Assyrians and inflicted heavy losses on them. They pursued them as far as the region around Damascus”.

 

Queen Tamara has to do it all over again:

 

Under her rule, the Georgia began reclaiming fortresses and districts which had been previously conquered by the Ildenizids and the Shirvanshah. Georgia’s military successes were so great, the Islamic world decided to send a unified force to defeat them. It was led by Sultan Rukn al-Din, and to say he was arrogant was an understatement. He sent Tamar a lovely letter stating his intentions. He started off with a bang saying “every woman is feeble of mind,” and went onto demand Tamar immediately surrender and either convert to Islam to become his wife or stay Christian and become his concubine.

 

Shades of Judith and Holofernes again.

 

Well.  Isn’t he sweet?  The Georgian court wasn’t pleased with this message, and in fact one of the nobles present when it was delivered hauled off and punched the messenger. Despite these demands, Tamar did neither of these things and promptly handed him his ass at the battle of Basiani.

Between battles, Tamar influenced much of Georgian culture. The national Georgian epic, The Knight in the Panther’s Skin, was said to be inspired by her. The capital of Tblisi was flooded with gold and silver pouring in from their conquered lands, and became an important crossroads between East and West.

 

Cf. Judith 15:11: “It took the people thirty days to finish looting the camp of the Assyrians. Judith was given Holofernes' tent, all his silver, his bowls, his couches, and all his furniture. She took them and loaded as much as she could on her mule; then she brought her wagons and loaded them too”.

Judith 16:21, 23-24: “For the rest of her life [Judith] was famous throughout the land of Israel….. Her fame continued to spread …”.

 

 [Tamara] also endowed many churches and monasteries, and in the new monasteries the captured battle flags from the Muslim armies she conquered hung as trophies.  

 

Cf. Judith 16:19: “Judith dedicated to God all of Holofernes' property, which the people had given to her. And as a special offering in fulfillment of a vow, she presented to the Lord the mosquito net which she had taken from Holofernes' bed”.

 

However, despite her warlike nature she was very concerned with doing charitable works for her people.  

 

Cf. Judith 16:23-24: “Before she died, Judith divided her property among her husband's and her own close relatives and set her slave woman free”.

 

[Tamara’s] burial place is also a mystery …. Other legends say her body was taken to the Holy Land ….

 

Cf. Judith 16:23-24: “When she died in Bethulia at the age of 105, she was buried beside her husband, and the people of Israel mourned her death for seven days”.

 

Judith was certainly buried in the Holy Land. We learn from 8:3 where was buried her husband, Manasseh, beside whom Judith was buried:

 

“Manasseh had suffered a sunstroke while in the fields supervising the farm workers and later died in bed at home in Bethulia. He was buried in the family tomb in the field between Dothan and Balamon”.

 

Saint Clement I of Rome may need mini re-dating



 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“It is quite remarkable that he cites names of those involved in the Neronian persecution that allegedly occurred about thirty years previous to his own day, but that he is strangely silent about the names of those who died in the Domitianic persecution – even though they are supposed to have been prominent members of his own congregation!”

Kenneth L. Gentry

 

 

A typical introduction to Saint Clement of Rome reads like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

 

“Pope Clement I (Latin: Clemens Romanus; Greek: Κλήμης Ῥώμης; died 99), also known as Saint Clement of Rome, is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as Bishop of Rome, holding office from 88 to his death in 99.^[2] He is considered to be the first Apostolic Father of the Church.^[3]

Few details are known about Clement's life. Clement was said to have been consecrated by Saint Peter,^[3] and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century. Early church lists place him as the second or third^[2][4] bishop of Rome after Saint Peter. The Liber Pontificalis states that Clement died in Greece in the third year of Emperor Trajan's reign, or 101 AD”.

 

For more on emperor Trajan, see my:

 

Vespasian and Trajan. Part One: Re-setting the Roman Empire

 

https://www.academia.edu/33282142/Vespasian_and_Trajan._Part_One_Re-setting_the_Roman_Empire

 

Now, there are some highly competent biblical scholars-theologians (e.g., Arthur S. Barnes, George Edmundson, John A. T. Robinson) who would concur in suggesting that Clement of Rome needs to be dated.

The best argument for this, though, I find in Kenneth L. Gentry’s:

https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf

 

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL

 

(beginning on p. 176):

….

Objections to the Thesis

 

Despite the above observations, it is frequently argued by many that the Revelation 11 indication of the Temple’s existence does not demand a pre-A.D. 70 date. And this for several reasons.

 

The Objection from Clement of Rome

 

Both Guthrie and Mounce … for example, argue that Clement of Rome spoke of the Temple as still standing, even though he wrote around A.D. 90+. Clement’s relevant statement is as follows: “Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks unto God, maintaining a good conscience and not transgressing the appointed rule of his service, but acting with all seemliness. Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the alta.q and this too through the high-priest and the aforesaid ministers, after that the victim to be offered bath been inspected for blemishes.” ….

This language in 1 Clement, however, opens the whole question of the actual date of 1 Clement itself. Unfortunately, there is almost as serious a question over the dating of Clement’s letter as there is over the dating of Revelation. …. Coxe, who himself opts for an A.D. 97 date for the letter, is quite cautious: “I have reluctantly adopted the opinion that his Epistle was written near the close of his life, and not just after the persecution of Nero.” …. Though Lightfoot accepts the late date of 1 Clement, he recognizes some unusual factors of the letter (which we will consider below) that are quite curious if the letter is to be dated late. …. Three noteworthy scholars who have opted for an early (A.D. 70) date for Clement are: historians Arthur S. Barnes … and George Edmundson, … and theologian John A. T. Robinson. …. Robinson observes in this regard: “Yet in fact its [late date] basis is a great deal weaker than it appears and the case against it has been powerfully stated by Edmundson, whose book seems to have been ignored at this point as at others. . . . The sole question is whether he wrote it when he was bishop or at an earlier stage. Edmundson argues strongly that the evidence points to the latter alternative”. ….

Let us now look at the leading early date evidences for 1 Clement.

If the evidence is compelling, then Clement would be removed as an obstacle to regarding the Temple reference in Revelation as indicating a pre-A.D. 70 date. If it is less than persuasive, however, yet the argument will have served a purpose in at least diminishing the effectiveness of the reference to 1 Clement 41 as a tool for undermining the establishment of the above Temple argument in Revelation.

The first line of evidence regards an ex silentio matter. If the letter were written after A.D. 90 – when Clement was appointed the bishop of Rome – then an unusual ecclesiastical silence in the letter must be accounted for.

….

Robinson is persuaded by the silence: “At no point in the epistle is appeal made to episcopal authority. . . . Not only is the author not writing as a bishop, but the office of bishop is still apparently synonymous with that of presbyter (42.4f; 44.1, 4f.; 54.2; 57.1), as in the New Testament and all the other writings we have examined. . . . If this is really the state of affairs in Rome in 96, then we are faced with a very remarkable transition within less than 20 years to that presupposed by the epistles of Ignatius. . . . It is easier to believe that 1 Clement, like the Shepherd of Hermas, reflects an earlier period.” …. The point is well-taken. The evidence, such as it is, is more suggestive of a pre-bishopric era than for a later era.

Second, it would seem that in Clement’s letter the internal evidence is suggestive of a more primitive Christian era.

 

In the organisation of the Church only ‘bishops and deacons’ are mentioned, exactly as they are in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, while the title ‘bishop’ is to the same extent interchangeable with that of ‘presbyter’ as it is in the Acts and Pauline epistles, and the word ‘rulers’ has the same sense as in the Epistle to the Hebrews….. 

 

We can also note reference to Christ as the “child of God,” the primitive form of Scripture quotations, the reference to the phoenix (which had been exhibited in Rome under Claudius), and other such matters, all of which lend themselves to the earlier period more readily. …. Barnes added to these the reference to one Fortunatus (a friend of Paul in 54, cf. 1 Cor. 16:17), the selection of Claudis and Valerius (who were of the household of Claudius the Emperor, according to Lightfoot) as messengers, and other such indications. ….

Third, in 1 Clement 5:1 we read: “But to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest our times. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealously and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.” Clement thereupon mentions the deaths of Peter and Paul, which indisputably indicates that he is referring to the Neronic persecution.

The fact that he mentions the deaths of “the good Apostles” in “our generation” suggests a very recent occurrence that is quite compatible with a date around A.D. 69 or 70. And although possible, the “generation” would be on the outside reach of a date of A.D. 96 (which would be close to thirty years after the events).

Furthermore, it is more than a little interesting that Clement names a few of those who died in the Neronian persecution. In 1 Clement 5 he names Peter and Paul, but also in 1 Clement 6 we read of the names of a couple of other martyrs now virtually unknown, Danaids and Dircae. It is quite remarkable that he cites names of those involved in the Neronian persecution that allegedly occurred about thirty years previous to his own day, but that he is strangely silent about the names of those who died in the Domitianic persecution – even though they are supposed to have been prominent members of his own congregation!

In both sections five and six Clement devotes many sentences to explication of these Neronian woes. But it is quite curious, on the supposition of a Domitianic date, that in 1 Clement 1 he uses only ten words (in the Greek) to refer to the Domitianic persecution, the persecution through which he and many of his friends were allegedly going. That reference reads: “by reason of the sudden and successive troubles and calamities which have befallen us.” If the letter were written sometime approaching or in early A.D. 70, however, then the

first, fifth, and sixth sections would all speak of the Neronian persecution. ….

….

Finally, there is the very Temple reference in question in 1 Clement 41 (cited above). It may be that an “ideal present” is intended by Clement; but all things considered, the reference to the Temple services as if they were still being conducted is best construed as demanding a pre-August, A.D. 70 dating. Edmundson insists that “it is difficult to see how the evidential value of c. xii. can be explained away”. ….

It would seem that, at the very least, reference to the statement in 1 Clement 41 cannot discount the possibility of our approach to Revelation 11, in that the date of 1 Clement is in question. And as is probably the case, Clement did write his epistle prior to the Temple’s destruction.

 

 

Anne Boleyn rhymes with Angoulême

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

 

“Henry VIII was not the first monarch to divorce their spouse from the throne. That auspicious honor goes to none other than King John, who, upon ascending the throne in 1199, divorced his wife, Isabel of Gloucester, and married the young Isabella of Angouleme. There are a few reasons why this divorce is of less fame, though it was its own 13^th century scandal at the time. For one, this would be John’s only divorce and he stopped at two wives. ….

Which brings us to Isabella of Angouleme, who had one notable characteristic in common with Anne Boleyn – they were both wildly detested by the public”.

 

 

 

 

Anne Boleyn seems to have been very closely associated with Angoulême:

http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/2011/12/21/marguerite-de-navarre-and-anne-boleyn/

 

… Marguerite de Navarre (also known as Marguerite of Angoulême and Margaret of Navarre) ….

….

Some historians have interpreted Anne Boleyn’s service at the French court to mean that she must have been close, not only to Queen Claude whom Anne served for 6-7 years (the wife of King Francis I) but also to Marguerite d’Angouleme. The fact that Marguerite was a noted supporter of religious reform only served to further cement this assumption.

Eric Ives notes that even ‘careful’ scholars like Herbert of Cherbury ‘took it as a fact that Anne served in the household of the Duchess of Alencon, sister to Francis’ (Pg. 32) ….

‘When reporting Francis I’s complaint in January 1522 about Anne leaving France, the imperial ambassadors described her quite unequivocally as one of his wife’s ladies, just as she had been in 1515.’ (Pg. 32)

Although it is unlikely that Anne was in service to Marguerite, it is likely that they knew each other.

In June 1519, Thomas Boleyn was Henry VIII’s representative at the christening of Claude’s second child, the future Henry II, Marguerite’s nephew.

Ives believes that Thomas would have taken this opportunity to introduce his daughter to Marguerite. What she thought of her sister-in-law’s lady in waiting is unknown but in 1532, when Marguerite was Queen of Navarre, the English tried to get her to accompany her brother to Calais to meet Henry and Anne, but their efforts were in vain – Francis came alone.

Some historians have concluded that this ‘dismissal’ shows that Marguerite was ‘bitterly hostile to the projected marriage’ (Pg. 32) ….

….

It was at around this time that Francis I was trying to negotiate a match between his son Henry and Catherine de Medici – the Pope’s niece… Probably not the best time for it to appear that he was endorsing Anne’s position.

Other indications that Anne favoured Marguerite are:

In 1533, the Duke of Norfolk had two five-hour consultations with her and was convinced that she was ‘as affectionate to your highness as if she were your own sister, and likewise to the queen…My opinion is that she is your good and assured friend.’ (Pg. 33)

In 1534, Anne Boleyn confided to Marguerite that she was expecting a child and so a planned meeting between Henry and Francis had to be postponed, as she could not travel and needed Henry with her at the time of her confinement. Ives suggests that the real reason might have been that Henry feared trouble at home but nevertheless, George Boleyn delivered the message to Marguerite and insisted that Henry was still determined to meet with Francis:

‘Her Grace is now driven to her sheet anchor in this behalf, that is, to the only help of the said Queen of Navarre, and the goodness of the good King her brother, for Her Grace’s sake, and at this Her Graces’ suit and contemplation, to stay the King’s Highness her husband, and to prorogue their interview till a more commodious and convenient time for all parties.’ (Pg. 33)

In 1534, Anne had assured Marguerite that although at the 1532 meeting there had been ‘everything proceeding between both kings to the queen’s grace’s singular comfort, there was no one thing which her grace so much desired…as the want of the said queen of Navarre’s company, with whom to have conference, for more causes than were meet to be expressed, her grace is most desirous.’ (Pg. 33)

A message from Anne to Marguerite in 1535 stated ‘that her greatest wish, next to having a son, was to see you again’ (Pg. 33).

Are these remarks evidence of a close friendship between Anne and Marguerite? Or, as Ives suggests, could these remarks be Anne’s attempts to turn ‘mere acquaintance into a bosom friendship’ (Pg. 33).

Ives also points out that many of the books that Anne collected during her time as Queen, came from authors and printers that had been ‘encouraged by the Queen of Navarre.’ Ives even speculates that Anne would have possessed a copy of Marguerite’s Le Miroir de l’aime pecheresse, published in 1531, and claims that this exact copy might have been the one her daughter Elizabeth would use in 1545, when translating this work for her step-mother, Katherine Parr (Pg. 278).

Ives believes that there are also parallels between ‘Anne expressing her faith in fine illuminated manuscripts and Marguerite doing the same’ (Pg. 278).

It seems likely then that Anne saw Marguerite as a role-model, although Ives does not agree with earlier writers whom assumed that Marguerite was responsible for Anne’s interest in French reform (Pg. 277).

The true nature of Marguerite’s feelings towards Anne and the extent of their ‘friendship’ remains a mystery but what the evidence suggests is that during Anne’s reign Marguerite was ‘favourable to England, and to Anne.’

….

 

Certain parallels can be found between Isabella of Angouleme and Anne Boleyn:

https://rebeccastarrbrown.com/2017/06/07/a-legacy-of-destruction-king-john-isabella-of-angouleme/

 

Henry VIII was not the first monarch to divorce their spouse from the throne. That auspicious honor goes to none other than King John, who, upon ascending the throne in 1199, divorced his wife, Isabel of Gloucester, and married the young Isabella of Angouleme. There are a few reasons why this divorce is of less fame, though it was its own 13^th century scandal at the time. For one, this would be John’s only divorce and he stopped at two wives. Secondly, there was no religious component – the annulment, for all its detractors, was approved. And finally, instead of casting aside a princess and marrying an Englishwoman, John did the reverse. Isabel of Gloucester was no Katherine of Aragon and she didn’t have the familial ties of claiming relation to the Holy Roman Emperor. For that matter, we don’t know whether Isabel had any desire to stay married to John in the first place.

Which brings us to Isabella of Angouleme, who had one notable characteristic in common with Anne Boleyn – they were both wildly detested by the public.

 

Just like Anne Boleyn, too, Isabella of Angoulême has been called a “Jezebel”. See my:

 

Isabella of Angouleme ‘more Jezebel than Isabel’

 

https://www.academia.edu/35156760/Isabella_of_Angouleme_more_Jezebel_than_Isabel_

 

Anne Boleyn has acquired, apart from 'a Jezebel and harlot', a multitude of unhappy epithets:

https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/anne-boleyn-the-mysterious-and-maligned-one/

 

• Whore – The imperial ambassador never referred to Anne Boleyn by name and instead called her “the concubine”, “the she-devil” and “the whore”, the Abbot of Whitby called her “Common stewed [professional] whore”, a lady called Margaret Chanseler (quoted in Eric Ives “The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn”, p200) referred to Anne as “The Goggle Eyed Whore” and she was also known as “The Great Whore”, “The King’s Whore” and a “naught paike”!
• “The Scandal of Christendom” – This is what Catherine of Aragon called Anne.
• Homewrecker or the other woman – This is the kind of label you see in Team Catherine vs Team Anne type arguments. People who give Anne this label feel that Anne purposely broke up Henry’s marriage to Catherine.
• Seductress, plotter, tease and sexual predator – The belief that Anne Boleyn set out to purposely seduce and trap Henry VIII so that she could be queen.
• Poisoner – In “The Other Boleyn Girl”, Philippa Gregory, suggests that Anne poisoned Bishop Fisher and his dinner guests, Cardinal Wolsey and Catherine of Aragon.

• Witch – The idea that Anne Boleyn was a witch who put Henry under a spell. If you are eagle-eyed, you will have spotted Anne Boleyn’s portrait on the wall of Hogwarts in the first Harry Potter film, “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” (The Sorcerer’s Stone).
• Deformed – Nicholas Sander, a Catholic recusant in Elizabeth I’s reign, wrote of Anne Boleyn having six fingers, a projecting tooth and a large wen under her chin.
• Adulteress – Anne was charged with adultery and incest and some people believe that ‘there’s no smoke without a fire’.
• Traitor – She was executed as a traitor, as someone who had not only committed adultery and slept with her brother, but also as someone who had plotted against the king.
• Bigamist – In “The Other Boleyn Girl”, Anne Boleyn marries Henry Percy and they consummate their union, therefore, according to Philippa Gregory, Anne was a bigamist.
• Kidnapper – In “The Other Boleyn Girl” (do you get the idea that many of the stereotypes and labels can be blamed on this novel?!), Anne adopts her sister Mary’s son, Henry, without Mary’s permission. She steals him.
• That she gave birth to a monster – The idea that Anne gave birth to a monstrously deformed baby and that this was a sign that she had committed incest or was a witch.
  ….

• Protestant martyr and saint – One website (Reformation.org) claims that Anne’s “only ‘crime’ was breaking up an incestuous relationship between King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon”, that her death was part of a conspiracy to keep England under the Catholic Church, that her doctor made sure that she did not have a male heir and that Anne should therefore be seen as a saint and martyr.
• Victim of poison – The same website I mentioned a minute ago speaks of how Anne was given the cantarella of Borgia (poison) to make her miscarry.
• A Sibyl or prophetess – I heard that one radio show on Anne Boleyn was claiming that Margaret of Austria ran a spiritual academy for sibyls (seeresses and prophetesses), a Renaissance version of Hogwarts, and that Anne was educated as a sibyl and groomed to be queen.
• The Leader of the Reformation in England – Some people believe that not only was Anne groomed to be queen by the likes of Margaret of Austria and Marguerite of Angoulême, but that she was also groomed to break the Catholic Church in England and lead the Reformation.
• Vampire – I had to add this as there seems to be a trend at the moment in fiction for Tudor characters to be portrayed as vampires. A kind of Twilight meets Sookie Stackhouse meets The Other Boleyn Girl! Hmm…