Rachael Dickzen

I’ve started doing an online Tudor Watch Party! I plan to do these once a month or so and host a virtual discussion for about a week.

Here’s everything I wrote about the first selection for it, The Other Boleyn Girl.

This 2008 film starring Natalie Portman and Scarlet Johansson brought Philippa Gregory's novel to the big screen and was part of a revival of interest in Tudor stories at the time (as also indicated by the TV show The Tudors, which ran from 2007-2010).The Other Boleyn Girl tells the familiar story of Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII's "Great Matter" through the eyes of her sister Mary Boleyn, spinning historical rumor about Mary and Henry into a scandalous, sexy story.

The #1 New York Times bestselling novel the film is based on was the first book Philippa Gregory wrote about the Tudors/Plantagenets. Gregory has now written 15 of them, which have been turned into at least four separate TV series (a TV version of The Other Boleyn Girl, The White Queen [which actually combined three of her novels]), The White Princess, and The Spanish Princess [based off of The Constant Princess]).

Warning: A lot of this film is based on historical rumor instead of fact and a ton of it is fictionalized. But that should give us a ton to talk about!

The Other Boleyn Girl is up on Amazon Prime to rent for $2.99. I'll try to pick selections that are free to stream every other week so this doesn't get too expensive for anyone, promise!

Various notes from my watch of The Other Boleyn Girl:

So it’s actually been YEARS since I’ve watched this film. I would guess probably at least 6. I know much much more about Tudor history and Anne Boleyn in particular than I did upon watching it for the first time. This film and the book it is based upon is /not/ meant to be a historical documentary, so I won’t go into every little thing they get wrong, but I’ll try to talk through the big things I notice as I watch through.
The film portrays Anne as the eldest child, but historically, it’s a bit more iffy. We don’t even know the exact year Anne was born, and she was by far more well known than her sister. Most historians seem to believe that Mary was the eldest child, as she was indeed married first, and her descendants later acted as if she was the eldest by claiming their titles based on that ranking. In addition, when Anne was created a Marchioness in 1532, she was referred to as one of the daughters of Thomas Boleyn; if she was the eldest, that probably would have been explicitly stated.
The film portrays Anne as being present at Mary’s wedding to William Carey and being sent off to France as a punishment later, for her relationship with Henry Percy, and then only for a few months. In reality, Anne was sent to Europe at a much younger age, such treatment was an honor and not a punishment, and she wasn’t even in the country at the time of Mary’s wedding in 1520. Anne was actually sent off to Europe in 1513, where she served in the court of Margaret of Austria in the Netherlands. She was transferred to France in 1514 to attend Henry VIII’s sister Mary, who married Louis XII. Louis died only a few months into his new marriage, and then Anne moved to serve Queen Claude. She stayed in France until 1522.
Costuming Note: Anne is very often shown in shades of green, as a nod to the historical myth that Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves for her. This isn’t accurate at all, as we know that Greensleeves was based off of a romanesca, an Italian style of musical composition that did not reach England until after Henry VIII's death.
From what I can tell as someone who’s researched Tudor fashion a lot at this point but is admittedly still an amateur on the subject, the film is pretty accurate at least in the shapes and styles shown. Its characters are generally shown wearing some sort of head covering (as opposed to “The White Queen,” where no one ever wears a hat) and those head coverings look pretty realistic, as opposed to the much more fanciful headwear sometimes sported by Anne Boleyn in the TV show “The Tudors.”
Possible Costuming Quibble: Men are shown sporting very heavy, wide coats that make them look rather boxy. Henry VIII IS known for making this fashionable, but I was under the impression that this fashion developed later in his reign, when he had put on weight and was no longer the trim young handsome man. Don’t get me wrong, there were still a lot of layers and bulk, but I didn’t think men’s fashion had gotten /quite/ this wide yet.
Costuming Note: It’s accurate that some women would be wearing the gable hood (as seen in Queen Katherine’s court) and some would be wearing a French hood (as seen worn by Mary and Anne). The French hood was likely brought to the Tudor court by Mary Tudor around 1516 ish, but the gable hood remained pretty popular until the 1530s or so. The French hood did become very strongly associated with Anne Boleyn, but she by no mean originated the fashion in England.
We don’t really know how much Thomas Boleyn (Anne and Mary’s father) and Thomas Howard (their uncle) were involved in pushing Mary into the king’s arms, and later, Anne. This is a very commonly portrayed dynamic, but no one really knows. The film portrays her father and uncle asking Mary very bluntly about her sex life with the King (and in front of her husband, mother, and brother too), which like, ick and ick forever, but again, we really don’t know
Mary Boleyn also went to France in 1514 to serve Princess Mary as she married Louis XII of france. She stayed on in France and served Queen Claude along with her sister until 1519. She began serving Catherine of Aragon then, even before her marriage.
Although her affairs were likely exaggerated, the French king did refer to her as a very great whore and the English Mare, so Mary may have been involved with the king himself. We do know that she slept with Henry VIII though, as it was based on this relationship that Henry’s marriage to Anne was later annulled. When Henry was trying to get the pope to annul his marriage to Catherine, he also requested dispensation to marry Anne, the sister of his former mistress. In any case, the choice to portray Mary as super shy is an interesting one.
It was rumored at the time that at least one of Mary’s children was the King’s, but there’s no evidence supporting this. Henry did not acknowledge them as his, as he did Henry Fitzroy, but then, Mary DID have a husband (while Henry Fitzroy’s mother, Elizabeth Blount, did not).
It’s shown in the film that Mary found out about Anne’s marriage to Henry Percy, told her father and uncle about it, then they put a stop to it. Historically, Anne was only betrothed to Henry Percy, but this betrothal was broken off when Percy’s father refused to allow it. There’s no evidence that they actually had sex (as happened in this film). Cardinal Wolsey, who was basically running England for Henry VIII at this point, helped put a stop to the match as well, which likely earned him Anne’s enmity for the rest of her life.
Other Tudor Pop Culture Note: Interestingly enough, this film doesn’t portray Cardinal Wolsey at all. He's mentioned like, once, as a courtier says Wolsey will draw up plans to send Catherine of Aragon to a nunnery, but we never see him. That’s really weird, given how much of a role Wolsey played in Anne Boleyn’s life. He generally shows up in any pop culture set during Henry VIII’s early reign, including The Tudors and Shakespeare’s Henry VIII.
Lady Elizabeth Boleyn does appear in this film and plays a pretty big role. I’m pretty sure she never shows up in the Tudors, or if she does, it’s very tiny, as I’ve watched that TV show several times now and don’t remember her at all.
Back to History: The film portrays Thomas Boleyn being made an earl because of Mary’s becoming pregnant with her first child, but in reality, he wasn’t elevated to the peerage until 1525, when Henry VIII was pursuing Anne, and at the time, he was only made a Viscount. He was made an Earl in 1529 and George Boleyn was only then given the title of viscount. Mary’s first child, Catherine, was born in 1524. Her second child Henry was born in 1526.
The marriage of George Boleyn and Jane Parker is very commonly portrayed as an unhappy one, but there’s really no contemporary evidence supporting that. She was believed for a long time to have had a role in the downfall of her husband and Anne Boleyn, but again, there’s no indication that it was actually the case.

Natalie Portman and Eric Bana in *The Other Boleyn Girl*

In the film, the plotting Thomases say that the king will no longer bed Mary now that she’s lying in, so they need Anne to come in to get his attention. First, they generally called the time before the baby was born confinement, rather than lying in. Second, many people in Tudor times believed that any sex during pregnancy could be dangerous for the baby, so in reality, Henry probably stopped “bedding” any of his wives or mistresses the moment they knew they were pregnant. The film also mentions that Henry visits Mary during her lying in, and shows George visiting her as well. During a queen's pregnancy, anyway, no men would be allowed into her rooms during the confinement. I'm not sure if the same rules would be applied to a royal mistress. The rooms were very dark though, as George observes in the film, as it was practice to draw all the curtains and block out the sun during a queen's confinement (I actually have no idea if this was the practice for other, non-queen noble women as well).
Anne talks about “the queen” she served in Europe providing her ladies a broad education and introducing her to scholars and philosophers. Henry refers to them as Lutherans and heretics. The plotting thomases refer to the queen as “the dowager queen.”
It seems that they’re conflating the French court of Queen Claude (a very catholic woman who was NOT a widow at the time and thus wouldn’t have been called a dowager) with the court of Margaret of Austria, in the Netherlands (remember, Anne Boleyn served them both). Claude was pregnant almost her entire marriage and had a strict moral code for everyone in her household.
Margaret, a widow, served as governor of the Habsburg Netherlands from 1507-1530. She had a famously large library, was patron to numerous artists and musicians and also had several humanists visit her court. Erasmus was a humanist and a progressive who believed the Roman Catholic church needed to be reformed, but he was also definitely a traditional Catholic who believed in transubstantiation, and disagreed quite openly with Martin Luther and other big name Protestants. She also was a patron of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, who was a theologian with some controversial ideas and interest in the occult, but also …was definitively Catholic, albeit one who criticized abuses of the catholic church and sympathized with Martin Luther. I really can’t pin down what the script is referencing here.
With more research…maybe they’re referring to Marguerite de Navarre? It’s possible that Anne served Marguerite rather than Claude, as their courts may have overlapped, but it’s not fully known. We do have a letter from Anne (post being made queen) where she said some very nice, affectionate things about Marguerite, so it’s possible. Marguerite was a princess of France and Queen of Navarre (whose husband in 1525, so...conceivably she could be referred to as a dowager queen). Marguerite was also a huge patron of the arts and DID indeed serve as a mediator between Roman Catholics and Protestants. She advocated for reforming the church but was not actually a reformer herself.
So okay, I think the film is referring to Marguerite de Navarre, just…in a very weird round about way, as I don’t think they ever refer to Navarre rather than France. Navarre is not in France, but is in Spain, although it is on the border, so if they're trying to refer to Marguerite, they're not doing it very accurately or clearly.
I am actually really enjoying how many British actors who later became known for other things show up in here. Benedict Cumberbatch plays Mary’s husband William Carey, who appears for maybe half an hour and then disappears. Eddie Redmayne plays Mary’s second husband, William Stafford, and pops in every once in a while. Alfie Allen (Theon in Game of Thrones) shows up just as a messenger trying to deliver a gift to Anne from the queen.
Wow, Anne really is a bitch to her sister in this film. The bit where she actually secures Henry’s promise to never bed his wife again and never speak to Mary again in exchange for her someday maybe being his lover, RIGHT after Mary has given birth, so Henry literally walks away from Mary and his son with her without talking to her at all? GOOD LORD. (to be fair, it was Henry’s idea, not hers)
Historical note: Mary’s first child was a daughter, not a son.
Is it weird that in this film about a quintessentially English story, the main three actors aren’t English? Natalie Portman is a citizen of both Israel and the US, Scarlet Johansson is American, and Eric Bana is Australian. I bet people were pretty pissed about that at the time. Most of the secondary actors are English though: Jim Sturgess (George Boleyn), Kristen Scott Thomas (Elizabeth Boleyn), Mark Rylance (Thomas Boleyn – and also, he famously played Thomas Cromwell in Wolf Hall), David Mark Morrissey (Thomas Howard), Benedict Cumberbatch (William Carey), Oliver Coleman (Henry Percy), Juno Temple (Jane Parker), and Eddie Redmayne (William Stafford).
Catherine of Aragon is played by Ana Torrent, a Spanish actress. She’s also portrayed as a brunette woman with a heavy Spanish accent. Historically, Catherine of Aragon was known to have auburn hair and after 15+ years in England, probably wouldn’t have that deep of an accent.
Okay seriously, WHAT HAPPENED to Mary’s husband William Carey in the film? He’s just sent away by the king one day on a mysterious assignment and literally never mentioned again. In real life, he died in 1527 (several years after the king began pursuing Anne Boleyn and 5 years after Mary had their first child) of the sweating sickness. What a weird thing to just drop and never talk about at all.
What the heck is the timeline in this film anyway? It’s natural that it would be compressed, as in real life, Henry VIII pursued Anne Boleyn starting in 1525, the trial at Blackfriars of Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon didn’t occur until May 1529, and they weren’t able to get married until late 1532-early 1533. Their story lasted a really long time and it makes sense that everyone speeds through it. But they’ve flipped several events and changed things enough that it’s hard to tell exactly what happens when.
Queen Catherine of Aragon, a Spanish princess and daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand, would probably not stoop so low as to talk directly to Anne and Mary Boleyn and call them whores for sleeping with her husband. I don’t think we have any evidence of her directly confronting any of her husband’s mistresses.
I will say, I haven’t actually read the novel this is based on, so I don’t actually know how much it differs from the original Philippa Gregory story. I AM currently marathoning through the Gregory Plantagent/Tudor books though, albeit slowly, as I read other books too, and am currently on The White Princess, so TOBG will be in two more books.
Catherine of Aragon’s speech before Henry VIII at the Legatine court on her knees is almost word for word exactly what she said historically. It’s been heavily edited, as she said significantly more than that. However, the part at the end where she directly says the pope must rule on their marriage? That was not in her original speech, although she did insinuate that that was what she wanted. Some of what she actually said that points to that desire:
- “Sir, I beseech you for all the loves that hath been between us, and for the love of God, let me have justice and right, take of me some pity and compassion, for I am a poor woman and a stranger born out of your dominion, I have here no assured friend, and much less indifferent counsel: … Therefore is it a wonder tome what new inventions are now invented against me, that never intended but honesty. And cause me to stand to the order and judgment of this new court, wherein ye may do me much wrong, if ye intend any cruelty; for ye may condemn me for lack of sufficient answer, having no indifferent counsel, but such as be assigned me, with whose wisdom and learning I am not acquainted. Ye must consider that they cannot be indifferent counsellors for my part which be your subjects, and taken out of your own council before, wherein they be made privy, and dare not, for your displeasure, disobey your will and intent, being once made privy thereto. Therefore, I most humbly require you, in the way of charity, and for the love of God, who is the just judge, to spare the extremity of this new court, until I may be advertised what way and order my friends in Spain will advise me to take. And if ye will not extend to me so much indifferent favour, your pleasure then be fulfilled, and to God I commit my case!”
Okay so the insertion of Henry raping Anne into the film is really upsetting and insanely unnecessary and there’s no historical proof for it. I had forgotten that was in there and UGH. Is that in the original Gregory novel? God I hope not.
Henry and Anne’s wedding was a hell of a lot more private than it’s shown to be in the film. Think like, five people, not like the 50 shown in the film. There were actually probably two secret wedding ceremonies, both very small.
There’s no evidence of public boos of Anne at or around her coronation. Sure, people hated her (I mean, a mob tried to storm the house she was eating dinner in and kill her once), but that’s a little…public, to be booing the new queen. Although Henry wouldn’t really start beheading people for their views on Anne until a few years later, when people refused to sign and swear their allegiance to the parliamentary Act of Succession (which named Anne Boleyn the legitimate Queen of England and also made the king the head of the church of England), everyone knew he had the power to make it happen.
Anne wasn’t really called a witch during her lifetime. Honestly, if she was suspected to be a witch, we would have a lot more documentary evidence saying so. I mean. People called her everything else, why not that?
Pulling from an earlier blog post of mine: “However, in later years, various people spread the rumor. One Catholic writer Nicholas Sander described Anne Boleyn as having six fingers on her right hand and having a projecting tooth (but he said this in 1585, so like - how would he know?). He also alleged that she miscarried a monstrously deformed child. None of Anne’s contemporaries actually mention her having an extra finger, projecting tooth, or deformed child- and considering how much they hated her, wouldn’t they have mentioned it at the time if she did?” (excerpted from - https://www.rachaeldickzen.com/blog/2020/6/25/dontloseyourhead)
The portrayal of Anne sort of slowly slipping into more paranoia and hysteria about her relationship with Henry is pretty real. Anne had a notoriously sharp tongue and sudden temper. She and Henry really did have a stormy relationship. Another excerpt from my blog: “Reports from the time indicated that Anne and Henry had a very stormy relationship and had a tendency to have huge arguments and then later would reunite blissfully. One report described their relationship as “storm followed sunshine, sunshine followed storm.”
As I said earlier, there’s really no evidence that Jane Parker plotted with Thomas Cromwell to bring about Anne Boleyn and George Boleyn’s downfall, as the film portrays.
There’s of course also the plot device where Anne asks George to have sex with her to impregnate her and get her with child, in order to save her life. This is of course, absolutely did not happen. And even in the film, they don’t go through with it.
The way Anne is arrested and taken to the tower of London in the film is FAR more dramatic than it was in real life. They show her arguing with the king and him demanding his guards take her away. Historically, the last time Anne saw Henry was like, at a jousting tournament. He just left. And then all the other people she was accused with sleeping of were arrested slowly one at a time, and then they came for her. TOBG doesn’t even show the other people Anne was accused of adultery with, just her brother.
Okay, the costumes throughout this are mostly fine, but Mary wears one outfit towards the end with a very high blouse that appears to tie at the neck and that just…does not seem correct for 1530s England. Mary and Anne also both wear heavy damask print dressing gowns in an early scene, right after Mary’s wedding night with William Carey, that look incredibly off to me.
Sadly, Anne really was convicted by her uncle and her former fiancée Henry Percy. The jury unanimously convicted Anne Boleyn.
George’s execution was a lot more dramatic in this film than it was in real life. Historically, he got a chance to speak to the crowd before his death, he wasn’t just carried off by a mob and killed by an executioner immediately.
Mary goes to plead for Anne’s life to Henry in the film, and he seems to agree to her pleas. However, this did not happen in real life. After Mary married William Stafford secretly and became pregnant, she was banished from court and disowned by her family. I don’t believe she ever saw anyone in her family after that – there’s no record of Mary visiting her parents or her siblings in the tower all, and definitely no record of her interacting with the king again.
Anne’s speech before her execution in the film is pretty close to what she said in real life.
Mary Boleyn ABSOLUTELY DID NOT TAKE PRINCESS ELIZABETH AWAY WITH HER. WTF. That would never in a million years happen. Elizabeth fortunately had red hair like her father and looked enough like him that it was never seriously questioned that she was his daughter.