George Wyatt wrote the first ever biography of Anne Boleyn, entitled The Life of the Virtuous Christian and Renowned Queen Anne Boleigne, in the early seventeenth century.
Given that George Wyatt was writing quite some time after Anne Boleyn was executed, shouldn't he also be taken with a huge sugar lump the same way that Father Nicholas Sander is? The latter is dismissed because his account is anti Anne, anti Elizabeth and anti anything to do with them because he wrote to criticise the persecution of Catholics in England and to discredit the Queen of England. However, George Wyatt also has an agenda, to write Anne up in glowing terms. It's pretty obvious that his account is also full of patched over holes. So why dismiss one and not the other? Surely both works should come with the same warning of caution?
That's true! I agree that Wyatt was writing propaganda, just like Sander. Wyatt's account is pretty disappointing; he was just trying to deny the ugly rumours but didn't have anything substantial to counterbalance them. I wish we knew more!
Given that George Wyatt was writing quite some time after Anne Boleyn was executed, shouldn't he also be taken with a huge sugar lump the same way that Father Nicholas Sander is? The latter is dismissed because his account is anti Anne, anti Elizabeth and anti anything to do with them because he wrote to criticise the persecution of Catholics in England and to discredit the Queen of England. However, George Wyatt also has an agenda, to write Anne up in glowing terms. It's pretty obvious that his account is also full of patched over holes. So why dismiss one and not the other? Surely both works should come with the same warning of caution?
That's true! I agree that Wyatt was writing propaganda, just like Sander. Wyatt's account is pretty disappointing; he was just trying to deny the ugly rumours but didn't have anything substantial to counterbalance them. I wish we knew more!