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

[CenterLeftLawyer]

I too am a fan of Anne Boleyn and her role in the History of the Reformation and Freedom of Religion.

During the 1984 election a Democrat, when asked why he was leaving the party of the New Deal and voting for Reagan said, in a Southern drawl, "Walter Mondale ain't no FDR."

Well, Hillary Clinton ain't no Anne Boleyn.

Anne Boleyn faced an ecclesiastical (read: Kangaroo) court and defended herself, and her principles, to the end.

Hillary Clinton held her tongue, and thus became the biggest recipient of her "accuser's" political contributions.

She is also the poster-child for lack of principle.

I would support for Anne Boleyn. Hillary Clinton-not so much.

[macmcd]

Great analogy. Thanks for an enjoyable read. After endless Hillary-bashing, it was a pleasure to read something that made sense.

[spunkster]

Fascinating piece, thank you. I'm sorry that it will be largely wasted on the so-called liberals who frequent this blog who pounce on every chance to repeat yet again how they liked Hillary at one time but now find her manipulative and a threat to the country. She actually has the temerity to play politics like the big boys! The non-stop whining here about how Bill and Hillary have wronged Saint Obama (heaven help them when there really IS a cause to cry dirty politics) is telling. Bill has been nothing other than a gadfly during the campaign and you'd think, to hear others tell it, he and Hillary were hooded executioners, themselves. The press dislikes Hillary, always has (Lawrence O'Donnell and Pat Buchanan have discussed this at length) and one can see the results as blogsters here and elsewhere parrot the daily MSM talking points damning her. Of course, like the English citizenry at the time of Boleyn, they parrot the talking points but insist the conclusions are entirely their own. To reject the obvious talent and brilliant grasp of foreign and domestic policy of Hillary for the charismatic yet essentially vague pep talks of Obama seems foolish. As another poster in these pages made clear, JFK had many years of experience in the House and Senate, as well as military experience. It is wishful thinking to compare the two men. Why should the Republicans worry about having to dismantle Hillary when there are so many Dems already hard at work on it?

[clevelandchick]

What I find really disturbing is that someone who I gather supports Hillary's campaign cannot find a more contemporary example of feminism..­seriously you reach back to Anne Boleyn? Oh.My.God. Because if that's the closest feminist Icon you can match with Hillary we are in serious trouble.

What about comparing Hillary to Elizabeth Cady Stanton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cady_Stanton

The problem is you can't. Stanton took much stronger stances for female and racial equality. And she never let her mate get in the way.

Better luck next time.

[Ides]

So two outspoken women are attracted to jerks and that binds them across time? Uh, a lot of women are attracted to jerks...pa­rticularly the women that those jerks are cheating on them with.

[altohone]

Boleyn was working to challenge the establishment.

Hillary voted for Bush's war and helped sell it.

The analogy is far from apt.

The four million Americans who marched on the House on the Potomac weren't marching to oppose the corrupting influence of a woman on our leadership­... rather, they were marching because the leadership corrupted and influenced Hillary.

Don't we want a leader who is DOING the influencing?

[modmom]

She hasn't been quiet on NAFTA and free trade which she helped push despite the fact it has hurt families by sending well paying jobs overseas to the benefit of her corporate sponsors ( Opensecrets can provide you of all her top lobbyists receipts)

She has been quiet about war-she supported Bush's immoral IWR (and never apologized for this vote) and despite the strongly worded speech from the militarily knowledgeable Senator Jim Webb, she joined with Bush et al in the Kyl-Lieberman vote. Yet she attempts to make herself out as an anti-war candidate when it's politically expedient.

Obama's corrrect in stating she is divisive. She is the only candidate that will force me to NOT vote for the Dem nominee. I would rather write -in a name knowing it probably won't mean anything, than to be a part of the corporatism that is ruining this country! I would never vote for another DLCer. They are destroying the party and country at the expense of the very wealthy and well connected.

[krissymax]

Ms. Maxwell I really loved reading your post. It was a great comparison and very interesting. Hillary bears the scars of the healthcare fight as she likes to call them. It was totally courageous in the 90's to speak out for a safety net for Americans who need health care. Just think if she had won that fight perhaps it could have saved many people from Bankruptcy and perhaps even saved the lives of the uninsured and underinsured who don't get treatment early enough because they just can't afford to go to the doctors.

[TrudeauSpawn]

Excellent and well-written analogy, Robin: I enjoyed thank.

[blueraven]

"Proverbial" is right, if you mean "non-existent" sixth finger. And "reviled"? Anne Boleyn was enshrined as a martyr by the Protestants. There were protests during her trial that she was being unfairly accused. Your comparison is as flawed as your assessment of Queen Anne's life. Universal health care is hardly Lutheran tracts on pain of death. Especially since Mrs. Clinton's concept of it remains far too deep in the pockets of the pharmaceutical lobby.

[BobLargomarsino]

As someone who came in to this election planning to vote for whoever won the Democratic nod, I have a much different view of Hillary than apparently you do. Like so many, I always thought she was this horribly wronged victim of the mean right. But then I saw her say "I am right and they are wrong", support a lawsuit in Nevada meant to prevent people from voting, and stand by quietly when Bob Johnson compared her opponent to Sidney Pointier's character in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner."

I began to realize that she just wasn't a decent human being. And I have to say when you get on the other side of the Clintons you start to see them in an entirely different light. The Clintons are not bold. They are a couple of narcissistic poll-tested opportunists who will use people and then turn around and triangulate them. The animosity towards both Bill and Hillary, though over the top, is well earned. And it is not because Hillary is a woman.

[dbredes]

Good Grief!

First Hillary is RFK now she's Anne Bolyn

Well If my memory serves me...After Hillary's attempt at healthcare failed...t­here was a huge outcry...a­bout Hillary's co-presidency with Bill...Rep­ublicans pounded Clinton about it...I think it was right before the infamous - Gingrich Contract on America...­.you know when dems lost the house and senate....

And while Hillary now says that she was in fact a co-president (35 years etc etc)...

at the time...

Hillary's response was...Get out of the limelight.­..retreat to the kitchen and
to drive the point home that she understood her place...

no kidding...

She released a chocolate chip cookie recipe...

True Story...

I can hardly wait to see the next column...H­illary and Mother Theresa have so much in common....­.

[KevinQ]

If I read this article a year ago at the begining of the primaries, I would be inclined to agree with you and the treatment of Hillary by the media. However, after seeing her judgement in action throughout the year, I could not disagree more. She is certainly no innocent bystander of the hostile media. One would have to have their eyes closed, to believe this annalogy currently. Although supporters of the Clintons seem to think the media conspiracy is swaying public opinion against them, it is the facts and details of what has happened since some time this December that has swayed public opinion. Only figures like Clinton and Bush have been able to hold back the tide of reality for a significant period of time. However, as we have seen with Bush, that push back against reality does not last forever.

In the begining of this race and through the summer I would have enthusiastically supported Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, or Joe Biden. I of course would voted for but not been as excited about the rest of the Democratic field. After what the Clintons have shown me (someone not swayed by the analysis of the media) I would not cast my vote for a Clinton ever again.