It’s time to get your Anne Boleyn undearwear [1] on and ponder the importance of the life and death of Anne Boleyn. It certainly seems strange to us, but nearly 500 years ago a young woman, the second wife of King Henry VIII of England was beheaded for commiting the lese majeste of having adultery with several men, including a court musician, her brother, and a couple of lords who were almost certainly homosexual, at least according to the testimony of many recent historians. I once read a book on revisionist English history that, among other things, concluded that Elizabeth I was the daughter of that particular court musician, a man by the name of Mark Smeaton [2].

People at the time were shocked that the Queen of England could commit adultery with such a low man as a court musician of commoner blood. It was thought in those backward times that royalty had some sort of elite blood that made them special and above ordinary humanity, and that this blood was contaminated by being soiled with the blood of mere commoners. More significant is how Mark Smeaton and Anne Boleyn both showed the hypocrisy of the social system of their time in ways that are rather relevant to our own time.

It is difficult to understand the sacral importance of the monarchy to the mentality and religious worldview of the time of King Henry VIII. During this period of history the competence of a ruler was considered a vital matter in ensuring the stability and health of the universe by overly superstitious people. This sort of superstition was encouraged by the rulers and their supporters. As part of this overinflated belief in the dignity of rulership, there was a clear hierarchy where power was centralized in the palace and then spread to the king’s relatives, and then lesser nobles, with gentry below and commoners still further below.

Very few societies today have this sort of sacramental importance for rulers. The Saudis have a civil-religious split that gave Islamic fundamentalists religious control in exchange for religious noninvolvement in politics, and a clear “two sphere” society. Swaziland is a society with fairly primitive beliefs and a correspondingly important monarchy. Thailand is a successor state of Angkor and its syncretism of Hindu cults of divine monarchy atop a Buddhist religious order. In these countries acts of lese majeste can be expected to be very dangerous, whether fatal in the barbaric sharia code, or merely 15 to 20 years in a Thai prison if you are unfortunate enough to offend the dignity of the Thai monarch or his family, or their privy council, or the military leaders that consider themselves the defenders of the monarchy.

This mindset is not very far removed from 16th century England, if at all. Those who offended the royal dignity of a prickly monarch like King Henry VIII could expect at best exile or a spell in the Tower of London. At worst, it was execution, as was the case for Anne Boleyn. Never mind that the king was unfaithful, he was above the law, but his queen had to remain above even the suspicion of infidelity. Likewise, the overinflated importance of the monarch or royalty in general made commoners or lower nobles who married monarchs appear like social climbing nouveau riche types [3]. Though one would like to think that these ideas are dead and buried, this is still the portrayal of the demure former Kate Middleton and her family today in England.

Let us therefore reflect upon the importance of the death of Anne Boleyn. There is great power being close to the throne, close to the center of power, but also great danger. Those who rise beyond the state of their birth in such societies can only survive the envy and hatred of others so long as their royal backing is secure. Once this is gone, people will be happy to tear down those who sought to rise up ‘above their place.’ Likewise, we ought not to think that we are any more rational in our own thoughts about power or leaders now than they were in the 1600’s. Do we not tend to absolve leaders of their crimes or say that they were ‘seduced’ or ‘bewitched’ by their lower class lovers, rather than actively involved themselves in whatever was lacking of credit in their actions? Do we not tend to look down on those who rise above their station, especially if they have a colored past like an Evita or a Camilla Parker-Bowles, apart from the immorality of their behavior? For we might have been among the crowd that hollered for the death of a social climbing young woman out of bloodlust and envy had we lived in those times. It should not be so.

[1] http://madameguillotine.org.uk/2012/03/19/the-perennial-fascination-of-anne-boleyn/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Smeaton

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/anne_boleyn_01.shtml#three