This week in YouTube: May 4
23:31 Share

This podcast is brought to you by Aura. Imagine waking up to find your bank account drained, bills for loans you never took out, a warrant for your arrest, all because someone stole your identity. Hackers aren't waiting.

Why are you? That's why we're thrilled to partner with Aura. Your personal data is a goldmine for hackers, and Aura helps lock it down. Aura monitors the dark web, blocks data brokers from selling your information, includes a VPN for private browsing, and a password manager to secure your accounts before criminals break in. For a limited time, Aura is offering our listeners a 14-day free trial plus a dark web scan to check if your personal information has been leaked.

All for free at aura.com slash safety. That's aura.com slash safety to sign up and start protecting yourself and your loved ones. That's A-U-R-A dot com slash safety. Terms apply. Check the site for details.

Hey friends, welcome to the Renaissance English History Podcast. This is the weekly highlight reel of videos that I have put out on YouTube. So in case you don't know, you can go over to YouTube and watch all my videos. The channel is History and Coffee, and you can just search for my name as well, Heather Tesco, History and Coffee, and you will get it. And you can subscribe there. Thank you to the many people who already subscribe. And then what I've started doing is

weekly highlight reels of some of the videos that have gone out on YouTube that would be of interest to the podcast listeners as well. So thanks for listening. And you can also, like I said, go over and join me on YouTube history and coffee and search for Heather. And there I am. So let's get right into it.

Today, we are going to do another conspiracy theory deep dive. I love these conspiracy theories. I've enjoyed digging into some of these. I'm not really a conspiracy theorist myself. I don't really buy them. I've said before, I think it takes far too much, I don't know, competency than most people have to keep a secret that long. And there's like too many people involved. And I just, I just don't think that most conspiracy theories hold much water. But

They're fun to think about and they're fun to, uh, they're fun thought experiments. So I do have, I do have fun with them. And today we are going to talk about the conspiracy theory that Anne Boleyn had six fingers. Did Anne Boleyn have six fingers? Where does this theory come from? Who believes it? How has it held up this long?

And like, really, it kind of blows my mind. When I first started reading about the Tudors in the 90s, when I was in college, I still read things about Anne having six fingers. Like it was written about as if it was real, right? Like it was just part of history was that Anne had six fingers. And this wasn't that long ago. It kind of blows me away that this has held up this long. So we're going to talk about it today.

All right, so let's get into it. Anne Boleyn, one of the most famous queens in history, but was she also a witch who had six fingers, moles, and an unnatural deformity? History's word, not mine.

Yeah, no. The idea that Anne had an extra finger has been circulating for centuries. It's often used as supposed proof that she was marked by witchcraft, cursed from birth, or simply too strange to be the queen.

But where does this myth actually come from? Today, we're going to talk about its origins, explore how it was used against Anne, and look at what the real evidence says. Because, spoiler alert, Anne didn't actually have six fingers.

So let's start with where this myth comes from. The earliest mention of Anne's supposed sixth finger comes from Nicholas Sander. He was a Catholic exile. He was writing in 1585, when Elizabeth was queen, nearly 50 years after Anne's execution. By the time he wrote his book, Anne had been dead for decades, and her daughter, Elizabeth, was on the throne. Sander hated but hated Elizabeth and wanted to destroy her legitimacy.

What better way than to attack her mother's reputation?

Sander described Anne as having a projecting tooth, a large goiter swelling on her neck, and an extra finger, and an overall hideous appearance. His goal, of course, was to portray Anne as an unnatural, deformed woman who should never have been queen. The implication was clear. Anne was so monstrous that Henry VIII must have been bewitched into marrying her.

There's just one small problem. Nobody who actually knew Anne ever described her this way. Sander wasn't born until the year after Anne died, so he never saw her, never met her, had no first-hand knowledge of what she looked like. His account is pure Catholic propaganda written to make Elizabeth seem like the daughter of a cursed woman.

Why did people believe it? Even though Sanders' account was clearly biased, the six-finger story spread, and there are a few reasons why. First, the witchcraft connection. In Tudor England, people who had some kind of physical differences were seen often as a sign of witchcraft. The idea of Anne having an extra finger or a strange mark helped to reinforce the claim that she bewitched Henry VIII.

and even though Anne wasn't officially charged with witchcraft, this rumor helped to justify her downfall. Also, it fit the narrative. After Anne's execution, Henry worked hard to erase her from history. She was labeled a seductress, a traitor, someone who had bewitched the king. The six-finger story made her seem even more unnatural and therefore undeserving of being queen.

Third, as we all know from social media, gossip, anything sensational, spreads faster than facts. Sanders' account was repeated over and over in later writings, which made it seem true. Victorian historians especially loved it, and a lot of what we get about the Tudors now, in the time period that we're living in, comes from the Victorians. The Victorians were fascinated with the story of Anne and

often romanticized her downfall, making her seem like she was perhaps doomed or cursed from the start. The more times the story was repeated, the more people assumed that it must be true, even though there's zero evidence. So if Anne didn't have six fingers, what did she actually look like? Unfortunately, most portraits of Anne were destroyed after her fall, so we don't really have many surviving images from her lifetime.

But there is a piece of evidence, the most happy medal. The medal was created during Anne's reign. It's the only undisputed image of her made while she was alive. It shows Anne with a long, elegant neck, delicate features, and no sign of anything on her neck or anything like that. The medal was officially commissioned, meaning it had royal approval. It was meant to show her strength and her legitimacy as queen.

Then there's also eyewitness accounts. Ambassador Eustace Chapuis, who was not her friend, in fact, might have been one of her biggest enemies, admitted that she was not conventionally beautiful, but she had an expressive face and black flashing eyes.

A Venetian diplomat described her as having medium height, dark hair, and a striking presence. No one in her lifetime mentioned a six-finger, a goiter, or anything that was at all out of the ordinary.

If Anne had had an extra sixth finger, it would have been impossible to hide in the court. And people would have talked about it. Ambassadors would have talked about it. Do we honestly think that the king is going to marry this person who has six fingers and but nobody's going to write about that? And all of the letters we have of Chapuis that he wouldn't have written about it?

No firsthand accounts show any sign of it at all. Did the Tudor people see Anne Boleyn as a witch? Anne was never officially accused of witchcraft, but there was this idea that she bewitched Henry, and that was definitely floating around at the time. And given that, if there would have been some physical evidence, we would also make the assumption, it would make sense that people would talk about that as well. If they're just talking about her bewitching him, if there's actually physical evidence to back that up, they would have brought it up, I would think.

Henry was obsessed with Anne for nearly a decade before he married her, and many believed that his devotion was unnatural. Some of Anne's enemies claimed she had cast a spell on him, which explained why he was willing to break from the Catholic Church just to marry her. And the rumor became even more useful once Henry wanted to get rid of Anne. If she had seduced him through unnatural means, he wasn't responsible for his mistakes.

The witchcraft idea was also conveniently timed. Henry never accused Anne of witchcraft while they were together, but after the marriage soured, he started complaining that he had been seduced into the marriage. When Anne couldn't give him a son, some people whispered that she was cursed or possibly even a changeling. And the six-finger Ruber fit perfectly into this idea, making her seem unnatural and other.

Her trial didn't include witchcraft, but the official charges against Anne were adultery, incest, and conspiring to kill the king. The idea that she was a dangerous, unnatural woman helped to justify why she had to be removed. The Tudor court didn't need to burn her at the stake for witchcraft. They just needed for people to believe that she was a danger to England.

So Anne's downfall was totally political, but the myth of her being cursed or physically marked made it easier to destroy her reputation. So why do people still believe that this exists? Why are there still people out there floating around this idea that Anne actually did have six fingers?

First, like I said, from social media we know this, scandal sticks better than facts. Facts are boring. A queen with six fingers and witch-like marks? That is so much more of a juicy story than, Ian Boleyn was a normal-looking woman caught in Tudor politics. Also, once a sensational rumor takes off, it's hard to erase it.

The Victorians made it popular again. Like I said, in the 19th century, the Victorians became obsessed with Tudor history, especially Anne's story. And many Victorian historians repeated Nicholas Sanders' lies without questioning them.

They loved the idea of Anne being marked from birth as a doomed queen. Agnes Strickland herself, who was a Victorian historian who helped to popularize Anne Boleyn for the Victorian, talked about Anne wearing long sleeves, you know, these long hanging sleeves to hide her sixth finger. And some people say she actually like designed the sleeves herself so that it would cover the sixth finger.

Even today, pop culture keeps it alive. TV shows and movies love to include the idea of Anne's six fingers because it makes her seem a little bit more mysterious. Some versions of the Tudors actually reference her having six fingers. And novels often describe Anne as having unnatural beauty. Even though historians have debunked it, pop culture refuses to let it die.

So let's wrap this up. So did Anne have six fingers on one hand? It's funny. It's a riddle. It's the kind of thing my daughter would jump at because like, yes, she had six fingers, not all on one hand. Anyway, Anne Boleyn, no, she did not have six fingers on one hand. Was she accused of witchcraft and unnatural traits? Yes, but only after her death. Why? Because it made her downfall seem that much more inevitable, like she had been doomed from the start.

Anne Boleyn was a strong, intelligent woman in an era when that made people uncomfortable. The six-finger, on one hand, myth wasn't about appearance. It was about making her seem like someone who never should have been queen in the first place. But the real reason she was executed? Politics. Not witchcraft. Not any kind of differences with her body. Just plain old Tudor backstabbing.

So there we go. Anne Boleyn conspiracy theory debunked.

That's why we're thrilled to partner with Aura. Aura is an all-in-one digital safety solution that monitors the dark web for your phone number, email, and social security number, sending real-time alerts if your info is found. It also includes a VPN, password manager, and data broker removal to help keep you safe.

For a limited time, Aura is offering a 14-day free trial plus a dark web scan to check if your personal information has been leaked, all for free at aura.com slash safety. That's aura.com slash safety to sign up and protect your loved ones. That's A-U-R-A dot com slash safety. Terms apply. Check the site for details.

So today we are going to talk about something a little bit different. We're going to talk about why France supported Henry Tudor in his bid for the English throne. You might know that when Henry Tudor set sail, he had been living in exile in Brittany. Then he went to France. There was all this diplomatic negotiations between England. Edward IV wanted him back. Richard III wanted him back.

He had to flee. Eventually, he set sail to claim the throne, and he has the support not just of the Yorkists in England, but also of the French. So why did France support him? It seems surprising because

The French and the English had been at odds for centuries. The Hundred Years' War was still very fresh in people's mind. In fact, people didn't really know that the Hundred Years' War was over. Henry VI had, you know, kind of been fighting the Hundred Years' War unsuccessfully, lost a lot of land, but there were still ideas that it might be rekindled. Even Henry VIII eventually wanted to rekindle the Hundred Years' War. So it wasn't clear that it was over until

Henry's path to the throne was shaped as much by European politics as it was by his own determination to claim the throne. And today we are going to dive into the diplomatic chess game that saw France becoming Henry's unlikely ally. We'll look at how Brittany first provided shelter to him, why France took over that role, and the political calculations that led to French support for Henry's invasion of England.

It's a story rooted in the final chaotic years of the Wars of the Roses as rival factions vied for the crown and foreign powers eyed opportunities. So let's get into it. All right. So Henry's journey to the English throne began in Brittany, where he found himself living in exile after the Yorkists defeated his Lancastrian allies.

Following the final collapse of the Lancastrian cause in 1471, Henry and his uncle Jasper fled to the continent, seeking safety from Edward IV's pursuit. Brittany, under Duke Francis II, offered them a refuge. The Duke was sympathetic to the Lancastrian cause,

Partly because of Margaret Beaufort influencing him and also partly because Henry's presence could serve as a valuable diplomatic tool.

Initially, Brittany seemed secure. Duke Francis treated Henry with relative kindness, but Henry was never truly free. The English crown was repeatedly demanding his return. Edward IV was pressuring the Duke to extradite the young Tudor claimant. I mean, he wasn't really a claimant at that point. It was clear that Edward IV had won. The Yorkists had won. Edward IV was young. He was healthy. He had a whole bunch of kids.

There was no concept at this point. That's something that comes up a lot is that Margaret Beaufort was scheming all of this time to have Henry be the next king.

The Yorkists looked pretty darn secure in the mid-1570s. What they wanted, what Margaret wanted, was security for Henry and to know that he could come back because he did have this Lancastrian blood. There was a potential claim there. And she wanted to know that if he came back to this very secure Yorkist base, he wasn't going to be killed.

So Brittany played a very careful game during this time, balancing the demands of the English king with recognizing Henry Tudor's value as a bargaining chip. At one point, under immense pressure, Duke Francis appeared ready to hand Henry over. However, loyal Breton courtiers, understanding the danger of

secretly warned Henry and helped him escape. It's one of those scenes that when you read historical fiction novels from this time, it's a very interesting scene, Henry being warned by the courtiers in Brittany and escaping. He was quickly recaptured though, and this pattern of half-hearted compliance continued as Brittany sought to use Henry without completely surrendering him.

But Brittany's ability to protect Henry began to falter as the landscape changed. Duke Francis was unwell, and he grew increasingly unwell, and French ambitions to annex Brittany became more evident. As the Duke's health was deteriorating, Brittany's power weakened, and the risk of Henry falling into hostile hands grew. It was into this very dangerous situation that France saw an opportunity to

and stepped in to claim control of the young exile.

So France was starting to see Henry Tudor as a valuable asset. We are now in the mid-1480s, so Edward IV has died. Richard III has seized the throne under highly controversial circumstances. From France's perspective, Richard III was not just a usurper, but an unpredictable and potentially hostile ruler. The sudden death of the princes in the tower had tarnished Richard's reputation, and the

Charles VIII, who was Louis XI's successor in France, saw an opportunity to support an alternate claimant whom might be able to destabilize England. Richard III was aware of Henry's threat and sought to neutralize him. He sent envoys to Brittany and to France, hoping to secure a treaty that would see Henry return to English custody.

Richard even dangled the possibility of a trade agreement and political cooperation, trying to present himself as a stable monarch. But France remained unconvinced.

From the French perspective, Henry Tudor offered something that Richard III could not, a potential return to a Lancastrian regime that might be more amenable to French interests. Louis XI had long pursued a policy of weakening England through internal conflict, and his successor Charles II.

sought to continue that plan, ensuring that England would remain unstable and an unstable England is less capable of interfering in French interests on the continent.

Once Brittany's position became untenable, France took over, moving Henry to their territory. The support moved from passive to active, no longer just harboring Henry but actively equipping him for an invasion. France provided financial assistance, troops, and a safe base from which Henry could plan his return to England.

This podcast is brought to you by Aura. By the time you hear about a data breach, your information has already been exposed for months. On average, companies take 277 days to report a breach. That's nine months where hackers have access to your personal data.

That's why we're thrilled to partner with Aura. Aura is an all-in-one digital safety solution that monitors the dark web for your phone number, email, and social security number, sending real-time alerts if your info is found. It also includes a VPN, password manager, and data broker removal to help keep you safe.

For a limited time, Aura is offering a 14-day free trial plus a dark web scan to check if your personal information has been leaked, all for free at aura.com slash safety. That's aura.com slash safety to sign up and protect your loved ones. That's A-U-R-A dot com slash safety. Terms apply. Check the site for details.

This was a strategic decision. Not only would this create instability for Richard, but it also could foster a potentially more favorable relationship should Henry succeed, which was just a teeny, teeny, teeny, tiny chance back then. But should a miracle happen and Henry succeed, then there could be potentially a better relationship.

Richard became increasingly desperate to secure Henry's extradition. He knew that as long as Henry remained on the continent with foreign support, his own hold on the English throne would be lost.

precarious to say the least. Disaffected Yorkists were going to Henry and were giving him information, were supporting him. Richard needed to stop that. So he dispatched envoys to the French court, offering all kinds of incentives to bring Henry back to England. Trade agreements, like we said, even proposing marriage alliances to secure the French goodwill.

But France was not interested. Richard's reputation had taken a hit with the disappearance of his nephews, and the rumors and accusations surrounding their disappearance made Richard a deeply unpopular figure both domestically and internationally.

For France, this meant that backing Henry was a reasonable risk compared to the volatile and widely disliked Richard. But why did France ultimately take the leap from passive shelter to active support? The answer lies in strategic pragmatism. Henry represented the opportunity to destabilize England, which historically posed a threat to French interests.

His background also made him a relatively unthreatening figure. Unlike the Yorkists, his claim to the throne was weaker, rooted in a very tenuous Lancastrian heritage, descended from a line that was officially bastardized on one side, and Welsh relatively unknowns. I know in Wales there's this whole story that there was kings that he was descended from, but as far as the English were concerned,

there wasn't a very good claim. France could support him without risking the emergence of a new English powerhouse. Also, Henry had proven himself resilient and cautious during his years in exile, qualities that made him a potentially pragmatic ally. They thought perhaps if they got Henry in there, if he was successful, he could almost be like a little puppet for them.

So their support became increasingly open as Richard's position grew weaker. In the summer of 1485, Henry received crucial backing, French funds, troops, and a base from which to launch his invasion.

The timing was important. This was after Richard's wife, Anne Neville, had died. The rumors were swirling about his intentions to potentially marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, who, it should be said, was also kind of betrothed to Henry Tudor. The nobility was restless. Rebellion seemed likely. The French court recognized that this was the moment to strike, and Henry was their chosen instrument.

When Henry finally set sail from France, it was with the direct endorsement of a foreign power. This was a really bold and dangerous move. France knew that victory was not very likely, but the potential rewards outweighed the risks. Even if Henry wasn't successful, this invasion would cause a lot more instability in England, would set them back, maybe get the Wars of the Roses back fired up again and distract England.

England distract Richard from doing anything with France for a while. If Henry succeeded, France would have a grateful ally in the English throne.

So either way, it's a win-win. So in the end, France's support of Henry Tudor was a calculated strategy rooted in the chaos of the Wars of the Roses and the instability of Richard III's rule. France had little love for Henry personally, but supporting him offered a way to keep England distracted and divided. As it turned off, the gamble did pay off. Henry's victory at Bosworth marked the dawn of the Tudor dynasty.

France had little love for Henry personally, but supporting him offered a way to keep England distracted and divided. Now, relations between Henry and France weren't always as simple as France would have liked when they made that initial gamble. France, for example, supported Perkin Warwick, one of the pretenders to the throne, and things were a little bit tense between Henry and France

despite the French support. But in that initial 1485 gamble, I guess it did pay off for them. So there you go. All of the later stuff between Henry and France is a later story. Thanks so much for listening to this week's YouTube highlights. Remember, you can go over and subscribe. History and Coffee, Heather Tesco, you will find me there.

And we'll be back again next week with more highlights from what went out on YouTube throughout the week. Thanks so much. Have a great week.

This podcast is brought to you by Aura. Imagine waking up to find your bank account drained, bills for loans you never took out, a warrant for your arrest, all because someone stole your identity. Hackers aren't waiting.

Why are you? That's why we're thrilled to partner with Aura. Your personal data is a goldmine for hackers, and Aura helps lock it down. Aura monitors the dark web, blocks data brokers from selling your information, includes a VPN for private browsing, and a password manager to secure your accounts before criminals break in. For a limited time, Aura is offering our listeners a 14-day free trial plus a dark web scan to check if your personal information has been leaked.

All for free at aura.com slash safety. That's aura.com slash safety to sign up and start protecting yourself and your loved ones. That's A-U-R-A dot com slash safety. Terms apply. Check the site for details.