Written by Harry Fry
Anne of Cleves, fourth wife of Henry VIII, is understudied and too often misunderstood. Not only is the majority of research about her brief—a broad sweep of all of Henry’s wives—but her life upon entering England is likewise inaccurately narrated. Revisionist scholarship has done well to cement new suggestions: her appearance was not unattractive, as populist, arguably misogynistic, portrayals outline. Henry, an ageing fifty-two-inch waist King suffering from ulcers, who chose to meet his new wife dressed as a kidnapper, was in fact the unappealing one. It is unlikely Anne would have reacted well to this reality or that Henry would have taken well to her critical acknowledgement of him. Recent historiography has also woven in scrutiny on her visible appearance and how the Tudor court would have viewed her as a foreigner, with contrasting attire and social behaviour. This investigation will attempt to draw out these proposals more firmly, viewing Anne of Cleves in the context of her treatment. Can we locate xenophobic and/or misogynistic perceptions of her from Tudor England’s high society? And how differently should her life be interpreted as a result?
The extent to which Anne of Cleves’ treatment reveals themes of xenophobia and misogyny is up for debate. Additionally, this decision should be grounded in racial and gender sociology studies, contextualised to Tudor England, or merely an evaluation of Anne’s particular story. A comparison between Henry’s five other wives is beneficial, as all are critiqued in popular belief differently to Anne: Catherine of Aragon as old and clutching onto marriage; Anne of Boleyn as provocative and cunning; Jane Seymour as dull and uninteresting; Catherine Howard as a young adulterer; and Catherine Parr as nurse-like. Anne of Cleves is conveyed in even some secondary scholarship, notably License, as a foreigner “ignorant of the ways of the World”. Whilst all these narratives are flawed, Anne holds a level of criticism which cannot be held by the rest: someone unfamiliar and out of place, solely due to her background. When handling Anne’s story in a correct methodological manner, the meaning behind her descriptions should be activated rather than being ignored as a general criticism thrown at women in Tudor England. She faced the same struggles that all women—elite and non-elite—faced; but because of her unique positioning as a wife, the complexity of her story requires further scrutiny. In cementing these methods, leading perspectives on Anne will be drawn out within evaluation on her story: from the perspective of Henry VIII, on her marriage and her life in court towards divorce, and her post-divorce life — all of which are often too simplified in historiography.
Henry VIII’s viewpoint on Anne served to extinguish any critique on himself and remains effective in damaging modern historical narratives. The reality of his perspective needs to be understood as a King not working alone, but alongside his factions. These noblemen, closest and most influential to him, is a theme brought out in Tracy Borman’s research. Following her argument, factions within the Henrician court founded a brutal environment: Henry would constantly be protected from onslaughts. Yet, he and his advisors simultaneously launched rumours at any person threatening this institution. Anne of Cleves is a typical instance of this, and her treatment by them exemplifies unrepeated descriptions placed on her as a wife. Henry’s court crafted fiction on her bizarre personality, almost out of tune with society, and exhibiting odd sexual behaviour. Furthermore, her ladies in waiting are virtually described as outlandish people that have unfortunately ended up there: they “dress so heavily and unbecomingly that they would almost be thought ugly even if they were beautiful”, commented Marillac, a contemporary writer with access to the royal court. An evaluation should be posed against this relating to Catherine of Aragon, and her similar positioning as Henry VIII’s non-English Queen, that she was engaged to Henry’s brother Arthur prior. However, being from a highly established dynastic family and Henry’s first wife, her eventually officiated Queenship made her absent of critique placed on Anne of Cleves. Whilst all wives face misogynistic objectification in sources, Anne of Cleves is narrated through another dimension exclusively, and this is particularly evident in analysis from Henry’s perspective.
The complex handling of Anne’s marriage to Henry until their divorce illustrates a switch in descriptions on her. Upon her arrival, Miguel Mercator sung “praise to God for the alliance with the most illustrious, beautiful and noble Anna de Cleves”. Later sources upon her arrival in court follow identical sentiments, namely the Earl of Southampton says, “her manner was like a princess” and even earlier sentiments from Marillac label her as “very assured and [of] resolute countenance”. Therefore, a direct connection between Henry dismissing her and open criticisms on her character exists. This not only adds further evidence of court gossip being a powerful and official device, but also proves inaccuracies within unfavourable accounts on her. Even the most progressive modern scholarship on Anne contains flaws, as Elizabeth Norton’s biography on her uses Henry’s distaste towards Anne and her resultant luck as key. The scope and nuance of historiography must be flipped into the correct view. There are extremely few reliable sources that suggest her beauty was not a leading trait of her, yet to uphold narratives on her as ugly or unappealing allows misogynistic portrayals, especially in Tudor women’s history, to persist.
Research cannot focus entirely on Anne’s physical appearance, something rarely paid attention to with male figures not at the forefront of macro-Tudor history; namely, Thomas Seymour, the Duke of Norfolk, and Thomas Cranmer. Instead, her tangible experiences should be prioritised. Even before Anne arrives in England, her life is either skipped through or given obscure speculations in historiography. Leading biographies such as Norton’s glides over her childhood, and Darsie’s focuses too much analysis on the issues with translating old German sources over actually considering Anne. Contrarily, but equally unproductive, Weir argued an ungrounded proposal that Anne of Cleves might have concealed a child before arriving in England. In reality, given she was a Duke’s daughter and thus sheltered by her mother throughout her childhood, there would have been a hugely small chance of her being able to hide a partner. Further, no evidence suggests any detail relating to this. Scholars should begin questioning the dynamics within the court at Cleves, the attitudes and personality of her parents as well as others that raised her, as well as what her individual character appears to be when she departs from home for the first time. Post-divorce, Anne’s life was largely prosperous: officially “The King’s sister”, with a longstanding capacity to decide who became ladies in waiting at court and multiple properties under her name. The intricacies of her life in England: never being able to return home, facing economic pressure under Edward VI, and passing away virtually alone, are rarely explored in enough depth. More importantly, wrongful stereotypes remain to take popular focus.
Misogynistic portrayals on all of Henry’s wives persist in scholarship and mainstream belief, including Anne’s depiction. However, whilst a sense of xenophobia is explicit, the actuality as well as how widespread it existed within English high society towards Anne is challenging to conclude. Whilst scholarly work on Anne largely acts cautiously when looping through the gaps in evidence, suggestions on there being clear hints of misogyny and xenophobia always ought to be presented. Anne of Cleves remains a complex figure to discuss: Old German language scholars understandably do not prioritise sources on her, and English scholars are often high in passion, yet lack capacity to access this evidence fully. A good starting point would involve locating the correct routes and scopes on her character, and a permanent shift away from backward inaccuracies on Anne.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Ambassador Marillac on Henry’s opinion of Anne, Accessed via: Norton. E, (2010), Anne of Cleves, Amberley Publishing, p.45.
Miguel Mercator on Anne of Cleves, Accessed via: Norton. E, (2010), Anne of Cleves, Amberley Publishing, p.59.
Spanish Chronicle on Cleve’s union, Accessed via: Borman. T, (2014),
Thomas Cromwell: The untold story of Henry VIII’s most faithful servant, Hodder Paperbacks, p.334.
Secondary Sources
Borman, T., (2015), Thomas Cromwell: The untold story of Henry VIII’s most faithful servant, Hodder Paperbacks.
Darsie, H., (2019), Anna, Duchess of Cleves, Amberley Publishing.
Norton, E., (2010), Anne of Cleves: Henry VIII’s Discarded Bride, Amberley Publishing.
Scarisbrick, J.,(1969), Henry VII, Yale University Press.
Weir, A., (2019), Anne of Kleve: Queen of Secrets, Headline Review.
Featured image credit: Betrothal portrait of Anne of Cleves by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1539. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_Anne_of_Cleves_by_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger_(Louvre).jpg
Retrospect Journal 
.jpg){kind=link}