Contents:
MY QUTN REGARDS GEE BOLEYN. IN THE SERI, THE TUDORS, THEY TOUCH ON THE POSSIBILY THAT ANNE’S BROTHER WAS GAY…. THERE ANY PROOF THAT THIS WAS THE SE…I HAVE FOUND NOTHG TO BACK UP THIS DITN….?? ALTHOUGH, THE BOLEYN’S WERE A HIGHLY DISFUNCTNAL FAY AND NOTHG WOULD SURPRISE ME.
What I regularly see time and aga is the ment that there were mours he was eher homosexual or bisexual. To clare my life every effect, Shame rtras me the plas to nfs, Least the abomatn would all the world fect:It is so vile, so ttable words to exprs, For which by the law, nmned I am doubtls, ’Dpe the fact that the first verse only refers to alleged womanisg, Warnicke’s theory works on the premise that when Cavendish refers to Gee’s unlawful lechery and btialy he is actually vertly referrg to homosexual activy. Cavendish isn’t talkg about homosexual activy, he is talkg about adultery.
’3Dpe the fact that the sixteenth century was nsired an honourable ath for the nvicted man to accept ath as served, Warnicke theoris that Gee is obvly vertly referrg to homosexual activy. I agree whole-heartedly wh Clare’s ments here on the whole homosexual/bisexual theory and would jt like to add the followg pots:-There is no evince that Sir Henry Norris, Sir Francis Wton, Sir William Brereton or Mark Smeaton were what Warnicke terms as “libert” only evince for the formed foet is Nicholas Sanr wrg 1585.