|
||
Hillary Boleyn: Has Anything Changed in Half a Millennium?
As a writer of historical fiction, spending half my time in the present and half in the sixteenth century affords me an excellent platform for comparing two of my favorite female titans -- Anne Boleyn and her twenty-first century counterpart, Hillary Clinton.
Of course, the most obvious connection that the two women share is their attraction to rascals. Bill Clinton and Henry VIII (in the days before bloodlust got the better of him) were both big, handsome and brilliant. They were politicians extraordinaire, show-offs, charismatic and sexy, and adored by the masses. Henry wrote Greensleeves while Bill went on late night TV and played his sax. And both had the propensity for flinging away their codpieces the moment the "cod" beneath them stirred.
Shortly after Londoners realized their dear monarch, Great Harry, was taking counsel about marriage, foreign policy and religion from Miss Boleyn -- wrapped around Anne's proverbial sixth finger -- six thousand of them, armed with pitchforks and clubs, stormed the house on the Thames where she lived. Anne escaped with her life in a river dinghy. But that was the end of the young lady's reputation.
Her crime? Holding heavier sway over Henry's opinion than anyone else alive. Daring to go toe-to-toe with the English establishment. Blatantly flaunting her influence with the king. And this at a time when women were considered frail, inferior human beings who gave into lewd temptations -- entirely unfit by their very physical nature to hold power over men.
Shortly after moving into the White House with her man, Hillary Clinton walked straight into a hornet's nest reminiscent of Lady Boleyn's. Her husband deeply respected her opinions and gladly took her counsel, which she was only to happy to give.
And exactly like Anne, Hillary would not keep her mouth shut. She refused to bake cookies. She dared to be bold. She put the full brilliance of her mind on display. And God forbid, she dared to be ambitious.
The offense that garnered Anne Boleyn the most enemies in high places was her liberalism. In this case, religious liberalism. She was sick of the Catholic Church's chokehold on every soul in England and believed there was a better way to commune with God -- directly, without the necessity of priests.
So she did the unthinkable. In a country where Henry's title was not only "King" but "Defender of the Faith," she tucked into his meaty hands Lutheran tracts -- heretical books that were best read under the covers by candlelight, whose discovery could get a person burned at the stake.
She even went so far as to mark certain relevant passages with her fingernail, passages that showed her man he had every right to wrest the tall hat off the Holy Father's head and set it down on his own. That's exactly what came to pass. Henry crowed himself the Pope of the spanking new Church of England.
The Protestant Reformation was off and running.
It was good for England to finally have a choice. But Anne Boleyn became the most despised woman in her country's history.
Like Anne, Hillary took on a greater cause than her own personal betterment. She confronted America's "Megachurch with Two Heads" -- the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. In her case, reprisal was swift. The press and the Republican Party descended on the White House like Anne's pitchforked rabble of six thousand. The First Lady was villainized, excoriated, lampooned and pilloried -- "Hilloried," if you will -- for that most dastardly of desires -- that all Americans receive universal health care.
Bring on the executioner!
Mrs. Clinton was cut off at the knees. Told in no uncertain terms to shut up. Anne Boleyn's fate was far darker than Hillary's. The once-proud Queen of England fell victim to her many jealous enemies and had a blind date with the swordsman from Calais.
Political muckrakers and spin doctors five hundred years ago had their way with Anne and her "legacy," saddling her for all posterity with the vilest of charges -- adulterer, traitor and perhaps most damaging, "witch." But using the "w" word could never happen in twenty-first century America. Could it?
A few weeks ago when our first female presidential candidate shed a few emotional tears on camera, one TV newscaster blithely reported that Hillary "melted like the Wicked Witch of the West." A cute turn of phrase, I wondered, or a premeditated choice of words meant to subconsciously fix a hateful image in the minds of millions of television viewers... and voters.
The "swiftboating" of an uppity woman in Tudor England worked then, and its influence continues today around the world. Most people don't recall Queen Anne for having given us Elizabeth, perhaps the greatest monarch of the last millennium, or her help in providing England its first taste of religious freedom.
No. She is most often remember as described in the refrain from the Kingston Trio's song: "With `er `ead tucked underneath her arm, she walks the Bloody Tower." And as recently as a few years ago, the nastiest of the rumors were revived as Anne sashayed through the pages of the mega-bestseller The Other Boleyn Girl, as an evil, brother-humping child-stealer who deserved her fate.
The modern day press and spin doctors have been having a ball spinning the "Hillary as Harridan" story to the outer limits of sensibility. Despite being vindicated in her early health care initiative -- with all the major Democratic candidates claiming some version of it for themselves - Hillary Rodham Clinton is "polarizing," "unelectable," "the Robo-Candidate."
For having the audacity to be a bold and ambitious woman, Anne Boleyn suffered the final indignity of burial in an arrow box so short that her severed head ended up in her lap.
If Hillary survives and receives the Democratic nomination, in November she may become the victor. As history is said to be "written by the victors," her presidency will no doubt be given a fair shot.
Heaven help her if she loses.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is time for a woman President! Sexism is way older than racism, and exists in every race today. Hillary is twice as intelligent and competent as any candidate out there, and would easily win if it were truly a level playing field. We need more estrogen and less testosterone in the Oval office!
Nooo! This Clinton as victim trope again?
CHANGE THE RECORD PLEASE.
This is ground well trod upon. If you want to practice being a critical thinker please go over the details of her "35 years" of experience."
For every "inspirational" act this is a greasy, grimey unethical act that undercuts it.
So please CHANGE THE RECORD.
Elizabeth I "the greatest monarch of the last millenium"? Greater than Catherine of Russia, Frederick II of Prussia, Napoleon, Philip Augustus, Saladin, Ghengis Khan, Suleiman, Edward Longshanks, Henry II of England, Roger II of Sicily, John Komnenos . . .
I think you've grown a bit too close to your subject.
Are you kidding? Hillary Clinton's problem has nothing to do with her being a woman -- certainly in a primary race against an African-American son of a white single mother. Hillary's problem is very simple, and it's got nothing to do with having a beer with her or spending a night in front of the tube with her. Hillary absolutely exudes "attitude." An attitude of "know-it-all," an attitude of superiority, an attitude of clique-like exclusivity, an attitude of being "in the know" with stuff going on in the back room that we don't "know" about, an attitude of slipperiness in the sense of knowing she's putting one over on you -- such as the charade in Florida. Hillary is robo-candidate because she lacks any personality we can touch and feel. Male or female, people don't like her "attitude." And that's why -- win, lose or draw in the Democratic nomination race -- she will NEVER win a general election. If the Democratic mainstream is choking on her, the country will surely say "Thanks, but no thanks." Sad, perhaps, but an unavoidable, irrefutable fact nevertheless. And the choice Democrats face is whether they figure it out now (thanks for the memories, Hillary and Bill) or in November (shame on all of us -- we deserve what we get).
This is HYSTERICAL!!!
She confronted America's "Megachurch with Two Heads" -- the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries"
right ...sure she did
AND she's so mad that they thwarted her that she's taking MILLIONS from them in Campaign contributions. More than ANY other candidate. HillaryHeathcare Failed becuase it was spearheaded by THE most unpopular & secretive member of The Clinton White Houuse.....HILLARY CLINTON (Read Gail Sheehey's book, "Hillary's Choice" for some further insight)
Anne Boleyn was exceedingly unpopular with the masses because she forced a rightful, loyal, ordained by God, Queen, Catherine of Aragon, off her throne. Henry VIII tired of her because he had already fallen in love with Jane Seymour.
What the hell this has to do with Hillary Clinton is beyond me & certainly not explained in this post.
The only thing I see that these women have in common is that they both may possibly be labled: "Dream Killers"
As someone has pointed out, Hillary should aspire to be Elizabeth not Ann. Elizabeth started England on its way to become a powerful nation. Ann was executed. Who would you want to be compared to?
Yes, I'm quite sure if she loses she'll be marched straight to the Tower and have her head chopped off. Poor, poor Hillary. This article is really quite a stretch. I see that there's no mention that less than 20 years later, Ann's daughter became one of the greatest monarchs England ever had. Nope, nobody respects women at all. Yeesh (and by the way, I'm a middle aged woman).
Hillary doesn't take on the pharmaceutical companies and the health industry. She is instead, heavily funded by them.
"Hillary took on a greater cause than her own personal betterment ..." Hillary does noting if it does not help Hillary.
Hillary is not "bold and ambitious" she is instead ruthless.
I once liked Bill (not after his disgusting behavior on the campaign trail), but I have never liked Hillary. I just don't feel that I can trust her.
As a woman, I would love to be able to vote for Hillary, but I just can't.
No one should be critical of someone for being "bold and ambitious", but comparing Hillary to anyone in history as being someone who has given the country something to cheer about is far fetched. However, I don't see how she could possibly be worse than what we've been through. I would not vote republican again for any reason no matter who runs, but I really thought it was Monica who could'nt keep her mouth shut.
Just because some mean people say mean things about Hillary, that doesn't automatically make her a great candidate who'll be a good President.
If that were true, Roseanne Barr would be an even better President.
And doesn't mean that people who don't like her, feel that way because they think she's "uppity".
It could also be her Iraq War resolution vote; her water carrying for the Bush Administration; her triangulation on many other important issues; and the very campaign she's running against Obama.
I wish Edwards was still in this campaign. The media was still ignoring him, but he at least was bringing some semblance of attention to the issues. Now I cannot wait until this primary is over.
Could all be true, but that doesn't mean she'll make a good President, or even that she'll win in the Presidency.
And the way she's been running her campaign hasn't been all "Speaking to power". Quite the contrary, in fact.
So it would be nice if she were the rebel she could be - but since she's not, AND since it is vitally important to the future of our country that we don't have a GOP President *whatever* we do - Obama's got my vote in the primary.
as for 'brilliance;' i have several friends of somewhat mediocre intelligence that never failed the bar... hillary failed the dc bar the first time she took it.
Great piece of deep though, but most of the bloggers are missing the point: this is not about Hillary or Ann but about the incapacity of we men to process women that are smarter, bolder, an ambitious. We (men) can only see women as mothers or prostitutes, saints or sinners, we put then in a pedestal or in a pit and I think she is very close to the real deal. Sexual killers that are almost exclusive males praying on independent women are unfortunately an extreme expression of the collective sub conscience of the male: Shut up, obey me, or I will kill you Ha ha ha.
Isn't it Elizabeth Tudor she wants to be, not the doomed Anin (who spelled her name thus on a wall while awaiting death in the Tower)? Since 1600, no woman has held such sway as Hillary aspires to. It would be far more than Vicky commanded within a parliamentary system, thanks to Shrub's illegal extensions of executive dominance, which I don't see Hillary decrying daily or even now and then.
This woman scares the bejesus out of me, for I see no reason to believe she gives a damn about regular people. She represents the DLC wing of the party, as did her husband, who gave us NAFTA, GATT, PNTR with China, media conglomeration and the death of financial regulation -- all of which have combined to set us on a minefield today.
Of course I'm also stricken by the fact that Obama's campaign chest is stuffed with Wall Street cash, but he has my vote, now that Edwards is gone (alas).
To make this into cookie bakers vs non-cookie bakers is demeaning to women and bakers everywhere. Some of us old time feminists had to work every day to get attention and defy stereotypes. We know that true equality doesn't work if it's us vs them. Hillary needs to learn this before she can win. Until then many of us unsung feminists can't relate to her or this campaign of hers.
Loading comments…
|
||
Posted January 30, 2008 | 02:54 PM (EST)