Talk:George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford

message: Why is there no mention of George and Lady Jane Rochford's child? There was only one--a son, I believe, who is not well known because people preferred to believe that George was either:
a.) a homosexual
b.) a womanizer, but a wife-hater.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KEB (talk • contribs).
There is no mention of it because it isn't true. Neither is there any evidence that George was a homosexual or that he had a bad relationship with his wife; there is evidence he was, like many young men of the period (and now), a womaniser. He and Jane had no children. When a man named George Boleyn, dean of Lichfield later gained prominence, some later historians assumed he was their son; he was a distant cousin. If there had been a son, there would have been records of it, and he would have inherited the earldoms of Ormonde and Wiltshire. Boleyn  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book "The Other Boleyn Girl" sparked the rumors that George was gay. It's a very good book, but very inaccurate. In real life, he wasn't gay, and probably never slept with his sister, Anne.71.66.230.44 (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  George's possible child 

message: Sometimes Wikipedia descends to silliness.  Women were not admitted to Oxford before the nineteeth century at the earlieat possible date. To suggest that (as the article does) that it was only a matter of choice or intellectual inadequacy that prevented the Boleyn girls from going to Oxford suggests that the users of the Wiki have no knowledge of history whatsoever.  I suggested inserting the interpolation '(women couldn't)'.
Chasnor15 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibility that Boleyn girls could have been educated at Oxford

message: I  have removed this. It said it was based on historical references, but I could not find any sources which describe George's looks. Although if you click on the image, it explains that it is a recent portrayal and not a copy of a sixteenth-century portrait, I feel this could easily mislead people who don't click for more information.   I found it interesting, but felt it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia article on the subject. Boleyn2 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of George Boleyn

message: It's possible the Dean of Lichfield was George's illegitimate son, given that he was an alleged womaniser.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot exclude the possibility. Two people conceived the dean, they could very well have been George and an unknown mistress. After all, if one checks the Boleyn family's ancestors, the only two men bearing the name George, was the Dean of Lichfield and Queen Anne's brother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll never know the truth, unless a document turns up that states the fact. I said it was possible based on the usage of the name George. I agree that Weir isn't the most thorough of historians, while Warnicke I disagree with, especially in her assignation of 1507 as the birthdate of Anne Boleyn. Eric Ives and Antonia Fraser are excellent researchers IMO.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Illegitimate son

message: An April birthdate for George makes sense as the feast of St George falls on 23 April. There were no other Georges in the Boleyn family, therefore it's very likely that he was named for the English patron saint, due to his date of birth falling on or about 23 April. There is also a tradition that Anne was born in May; this fits in with Sir Thomas Boleyn's statement that "every year his wife brought him a child".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: Is this true? No specific enoblling takes place with a courtesy title. As the article on courtesy titles makes plain, in law, the person using such a "title" by courtesy remains a commoner. It is his father that was created Viscount. His decision to style himself by his more senior titles of Earl in no way takes from his possession of the title Viscount. Two living men cannot hold the same title. So styling george as a Viscount is a fiction, a polite convention that has no standing  in law. So the "by courtesy" qualification should be restored. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's entirely true, of course and the "by courtesy" qualification must be restored. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I am not sure how accurate it is, but Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII's Mistress claims that George was created Viscount Rochford while his father was created Earl of Wiltshire. In fact, I'm having difficulties finding a source which claims that George Boleyn was Viscount Rochford by courtesy only. However, there are sources which claim that Thomas Boleyn was created Viscount Rochford. I doubt that father and son were granted viscountcies with the same territorial designation. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, a person only ceases to hold a peerage title if he/she dies or if he/she is deprived of the title by a special Act of Parliament. A person does not cease to hold a title when he/she acquires a higher title, unless, of course, the higher title is the Crown itself. Just see how many titles the Duke of Norfolk holds alongside the Dukedom of Norfolk! Anyway, George could not succeed to his father's viscounty until the death of his father. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can one inherit from the living? I thought that one only inherited from the dead. Until then, one is no more than an heir presumptive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Or heir apparent, which is what George was. Surtsicna (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The reason it was initially a courtesy title was that it was not originally granted to Thomas in perpetuity". This is untrue. The perpetuity or otherwise has nothing to do with the use of the title by his son while the father was still living. Had it been granted in perpetuity, George would still not be the de jure Viscount - he would still in law be Sir George, a commoner. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: So you admit that it was a courtesy title (initially). We're making progress. At what point did the title cease to be a courtesy title and become a real title? How was this possible with his father still living? Who says he was a member of the House of Lords? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: What a find that online resource is. "Grant by Wolsey to George Boleyn, knt., viscount Rochford, son and heir apparent of Thomas earl of Wiltshire and Ormond, of an annuity of 200l. out of the lands of the bishopric of Winchester, with power to distrain for nonpayment."   From: 'Henry VIII: December 1529, 16-29', Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4: 1524-1530 (1875), pp. 2720-2737. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=91385&strquery="Viscount Rochford"  Date accessed: 05 May 2010."  Why would it refer to George firstly as "knt"? If he was truly a Viscount in his own right, that style ought to have precedence. This points more to a courtesy tile, after a real title being acknowledged. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused. Does this mean that you now support the restoration of the qualification "Viscount Rochford (by courtesy)"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, courtesy title does not belong in the leading sentence! Here is an example of someone having been granted a courtesy title: Françoise-Marie de Bourbon. Nowhere does the name courtesy title appear in the lead, but rather in the main body of the article. Anyway, if it was a courtsey title it need only be mentioned once (not in the lead), to avoid giving undue weight to the matter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Laurel, I have been doing a Google search, and it appears that IP 81 is indeed correct, in that George's title ceased to be a courtesy title in 1530. Therefore I strongly oppose the restoration of the qualification (by courtesy).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide a link to the page where you found that information? How did it cease to be a courtesy title? Was George summoned to Parliament by writ of acceleration? That's the only way I can think of, besides an Act of Parliament. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Surtsicna, I too would be concerned that Google searches would just be a form of unverifiable Original Research which is forbidden. The on-line database above was useful, but nowhere in it did I find something that said he had been specifically ennobled in his own right. All references to a "Lord Rochfort" or "Lord Rochford" or "Viscount Rochford" could be attributed to polite, fawning use of a courtesy title to curry favour with a powerful family. This is a reasonable explanation for those references. Barring a "smoking gun" document listing the ennoblement or Act of Parliment, I think that this reasonable, commonly accepted convention should prevail. That is, the commonly understood usage of the law of succession should stand in the absence of explicit evidence to the contrary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We do know Henry VIII ennobled Anne's family prior to making her his queen; as obviously the daughter of an earl enjoyed higher status than the daughter of a knight. In 1532, he created a suo jure title for her: the Marquess of Pembroke for herself and her descendants. What we know of Anne's character, it is highly unlikely that she would not insist upon the ennobling of her brother; especially as she had not yet become the King's mistress at the time, and Henry was still in thrall to her. I really am not concerned about whether or not George Boleyn held his title by courtesy or not; what I care about is its placement in the article. It should not be in the opening sentence after his name as it makes it too long and unwieldy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A notable person of the Tudor era who did use a courtesy title was Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey and it doesn't say (by courtesy) in the lead. George Boleyn doesn't need to be the exception to the rule.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "A title is a title"

message: I have just broken this discussion up into two sections. The problem I have is the undue weight being given to the matter. As I pointed out, Henry Howard's title was a courtesy one, and it wasn't given any weight at all in his article. It should not be in the opening sentence after George Boleyn's title, especially with the unwieldy round brackets.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be in the main sentence, but it should be noted in the article, preferably in the lead. After all, it is significant. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would need to be sourced. As long as its not in the leading sentence; that was my initial objection.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: That should be in the article after it's explained that his title was a courtesy one prior to that. It needs to be pointed out he was a peer in his own right, by at least February 1533. OK, have we consensus that it was initially a courtesy title, but by February 1533 he was a peer in his own right? That way we can end this discussion and add the info to the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

text: True. I think Anne Boleyn-and anybody closely related to her-will continue to fascinate people for yet another 500 years. Such is the power of personal charisma.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Do as proposed. But for the sake of consistency, ought the same treatment be done to Henry Howard? Should he not have a courtesy mention somewhere also?  Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he should. Seeing as his father outlived him, the Earl of Surrey was just that-a courtesy title, although he is known to history by that title alone, rarely as Henry Howard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Courtesy title?

message: I have read all the above interesting discussions on this topic and (based on consultation of new source GEC) wish to suggest the article be renamed "George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford", which is the correct way to state a courtesy title. It is clear he was never the second Viscount Rochford, so it's just plain wrong to call him "2nd Viscount Rochford". The definitive source for such matters is usually taken to be GEC Complete Peerage, vol XI of which states (under "Rochford", p.51) that George Boleyn was styled Viscount Rochford (i.e. courtesy title), but also states that he was created before 13 July 1530 "Lord Rochford" (deliberately vague wording, as no peerage title "Lord" exists). By footnote (a) the text refers the reader onwards to GEC vol.IX, appendix B ("English baronies created by Henry VIII"), p.18 "1530, Rochford", which states that he "was Lord Rochford as early as 1530 when he was the second of the barones" (Latin, vague word, see below) "who signed the letter to the Pope", and thus "presumably had some other form of creation" prior to his writ of summons to Parliament dated 5 Feb 1532/3 - (which automatically creates the addressee a baron in the peerage). However based on my own input, it should be noted that the more famous Barons' Letter of 1301 to the Pope is known to have been signed and sealed by many persons who were not members of the peerage and had never been summoned to parliament, thus "baron" in this context in Latin means merely "magnate" (baro, baronis). 
I would suggest therefore that the logical position is that George (as was usual) used his father's junior title of Viscount Rochford (cr.1525) as a courtesy title from 1529 (when his father was promoted to Earl of Wiltshire & Ormonde), but even though George himself was subsequently created a baron between 1530-3, he did not discontinue calling himself "Viscount" - as it would have been considered a humiliating demotion going from viscount to mere baron. So effectively his barony peerage title he treated as a mere formality. It is clear he was never the second Viscount Rochford, he predeceased his father so could never have inherited that title. I suggest the article be renamed "George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford", which is the correct way to state a courtesy title, and we effectively ignore the barony of 1530-3 as a technicality. Thus I have renamed the page under WP:BOLD. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename article "George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford" - GEC Peerage

message: "The four commoners implicated in the plot, Sir Henry Norris, Sir Francis Weston, Sir William Brereton and Mark Smeaton"
This is misleading.  Mark Smeaton, a musician was of a much lower class than these first three.  They are not exactly commoners.  Certainly, Sir Henry Norris and Sir Francis Weston were gentlemen of the privy chamber and good friends of the king.  They were not peers but it isn't very accurate to call them commoners, they were courtiers. 129.67.137.35 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Commoners

message: I think we are giving too much weight to the highly imaginative and patently false depictions of the historical personages in the fantasy series The Tudors. The writers obviously never bothered to read up on Tudor history when they penned the screenplay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched Braveheart last night (for about the 10th time), and that showed Isabella of France having committed adultery with William Wallace, although she was a child at the time of Wallace's exection and did not come to England until after Edward II had ascended the throne. The writers mixed Wallace up with Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, who was Isabella's lover, but well after the birth of her son, Edward III, who was fathered by the King.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Tudors series

message: What is the 'L&P' included in the references? WCCasey (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  L&P? 

message: seems odd to put social & sexual weight on the phrase "wretched sinner deserving of death" - it's a standard abasement phrase found in Romans 7 & 1559 Book of Common Prayer concerning a petitioner's state in eternal terms, not the same thing as agreeing with a conviction. Background is Lutheran ideas of the Boleyns and the subsequent English Reformation. It's also found in Fox's Book of Martyrs, Ch 327. The Martyr's Prayer: "A prayer to be said at the stake, of all them that God shall account worthy to suffer for his sake." So he could have been suggesting he was a martyr. Just sayin' Manytexts (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  scaffold speech 

message: I've been trying to track down the reference given here:
During a conversation with Chapuys following the Boleyns' deaths, Cromwell boasted that he had gone to a great deal of trouble arranging the plot, suggesting he did so in order to assist an alliance with Spain. Yet despite his boasts, during the same conversation he greatly praised both Anne and her brother for their sense, wit and courage.[45]
[45] is given as L&P, x. 1069
This would appear to be Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, Volume 10, page 1069.
But Volume 10 seems to run out at page 645, at least according to this online archive. Can anybody explain or correct this?
(The reference is of particular interest because in the Anne Boleyn article Chapuys' conversation is reported as evidence that Cromwell cooked it all up himself, but in a recent BBC2 discussion about Anne's fall, one of the historians insisted that such an interpretation is due to selective misquotation - once the full quote is included it is clear that Cromwell is saying he cooked it up on Henry's orders - so it would be useful to have the actual quote so as to correct that article) Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  L&P reference problems 

message: What evidence is there to suggest that Anne and George Boleyn actually committed incest? Can anyone provide a primary source that does not involve fictional accounts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.39.41 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incest 

message: When George was born, his parents were Sir Thomas Boleyn and Elizabeth Howard. Why are we still referring to her as “Lady Elizabeth Howard”? Yes, her father became a Duke later in life, but after she became “Lady Elizabeth Boleyn”. Her father had been restored as Earl of Surrey in 1489; and was created (or restored as) Duke of Norfolk in 1514 (2nd Duke of the Howard creation). In modern times a daughter of an Earl uses the courtesy title “Lady”, sure, but in Tudor times if your name was “Lady Elizabeth Howard”, that signified you were the wife of a Howard who had been knighted or above. Can I take out the “Lady”? Lady Meg (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  At the time of his birth…