The Dates of the Alleged Offences
If we combine the Kent and Middlesex Indictments, we get a clearer picture of the dates of the alleged offences:
6th and 12th October 1533 – Anne and Sir Henry Norris at Westminster.
16th and 27th November 1533 – Anne and Sir William Brereton at Greenwich.
3rd and 8th December 1533 – Anne and Sir William Brereton at Hampton Court.
12th April 1534 – Anne and Mark Smeaton at Westminster (date for Anne procuring Smeaton).
8th and 20th May 1534 – Anne and Sir Francis Weston at Westminster.
6th and 20th June 1534 – Anne and Sir Francis Weston at Greenwich.
26th April 1535 – Anne and Mark Smeaton at Westminster.
13th and 19th May 1535 – Anne and Mark Smeaton at Greenwich.
31st October 1535 – Anne and some of the men plotted the King's death at Westminster.
2nd and 5th November 1535 – Anne and her brother George Boleyn,Lord Rochford at Westminster.
27th November 1535 – Anne gave gifts to the men at Westminster.
22nd and 29th December 1535 – Anne and her brother George Boleyn, Lord Rochford, at Eltham Palace.
8th January 1536 – Anne plotted the King's death with Rochford, Norris, Weston and Brereton at Greenwich.
These dates actually do not make sense. Historian Eric Ives2 comments that three quarters of the alleged offences can be disproven because Anne Boleyn or the man involved were actually somewhere else, as shown below.
The Case for the Defence
On 6th and 12th October 1533, Anne Boleyn would still have been unchurched after giving birth to her daughter, Elizabeth, the previous month. Furthermore, at the time she was at Greenwich, not Westminster.
3rd and 8th December 1533 – Records3 show that the royal court was at Greenwich on 8th December, so Anne could not have been committing adultery with Sir William Brereton at Hampton Court Palace.
April, May and June 1534 - A letter from George Taylor to Lady Lisle dated 27th April 1534 says that "The Queen hath a goodly belly, praying our Lord to send us a prince"4 and in July, Anne's brother, Lord Rochford, was sent on a diplomatic mission to France to ask for the postponement of a meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I because of Anne's condition: "being so far gone with child she could not cross the sea with the King".5 So, there is evidence that Anne was visibly pregnant at this time, a time when she was allegedly seducing and sleeping with Mark Smeaton and Sir Francis Weston. Sexual intercourse was not commonly practised when the woman was pregnant.
Anne could also not have slept with Weston on 20th June at Greenwich when the court was at Hampton Court from 3rd to 26th June.
13th and 19th May 1535 – It would have been difficult for Anne to be sleeping with Mark Smeaton at Greenwich on the 19th when she was in Richmond at the time.6
27th November 1535 - Seeing as Anne Boleyn miscarried a baby of 15 weeks' gestation on the 29th January 1536, she would have been pregnant at this time, although in the early stages. If she had had an inkling that she was pregnant, what benefit would it be for her to give gifts to the men to get them on side? Also, Anne was not at Westminster on this date, she was at Windsor.
22nd and 29th December 1535 - Would a woman in the early stages of pregnancy really have the reason or the inclination to seduce her brother?
8th January 1536 – Would Anne really be plotting the King's death while also celebrating Catherine of Aragon's death with Henry?
The dates listed in the indictments are pure nonsense, but the catch-all phrases "and on divers other days and places" and "on several days before and after" meant that if the dates were challenged then the indictment was still valid. Interestingly, the date that Anne Boleyn argued with Sir Henry Norris and accused him of looking "for dead men's shoes", the 30th April, is not in the indictments, yet Anne admitted to talking to Norris on that day and mentioning the King's death. Odd!
Looking at the dates of Anne's alleged adultery I find it difficult to believe that a woman, never-mind a queen, could hop from bed to bed like that over a period of just over 2 years and not be caught sooner. How could she possibly have had five lovers and not have been gossiped about? It beggars belief.
The Prisoners Interrogated
Sometime shortly before their trials, Anne Boleyn, George Boleyn, Sir Henry Norris, Sir Francis Weston, Sir William Brereton and Mark Smeaton were visited in the Tower of London by members of the King's council. The Spanish Chronicle records that Thomas Cromwell, the Duke of Norfolk, Chancellor Thomas Audley and Archbishop Cranmer were the ones chosen for this mission and were ordered by the King "to treat her with no respect or consideration".1 Cranmer was chosen as the spokesperson and he addressed the Queen:
"Madam, there is no one in the realm, after my lord the King, who is so distressed at your bad conduct as I am, for all these gentlemen well know I owe my dignity to your good-will;"
Anne interrupted him, saying, "My lord Bishop, I know what is your errand; waste no more time; I have never wronged the King, but I know well that he is tired of me, as he was before of the good lady Katharine."
Archbishop Cranmer, responded, "Say no such thing, Madam, for your evil courses have been clearly seen ; and if you desire to read the confession which Mark has made, it will be shown to you."
Anne then replied to him "in a great rage", crying "Go to ! It has all been done as I say, because the King has fallen in love, as I know, with Jane Seymour, and does not know how to get rid of me. Well, let him do as he likes, he will get nothing more out of me; and any confession that has been made is false."
According to the Chronicle, the men then decided to leave because they knew that they would get nothing further from Anne, but Norfolk couldn't resist having another go at the Queen, saying, "Madam, if it be true that the Duke your brother has shared your guilt, a great punishment indeed should be yours and his as well." To which Anne replied, "Duke, say no such thing; my brother is blameless; and if he has been in my chamber to speak with me, surely he might do so without suspicion, being my brother, and they cannot accuse him for that. I know that the King has had him arrested, so that there should be none left to take my part. You need not trouble to stop talking with me, for you will find out no more."
When they reported Anne's words back to the King, he allegedly commented that she had a "stout heart" but that she would "pay for it".
A French poem2 in Letters and Papers corroborates the Spanish report, in so far as saying that the Queen and the five men were interrogated. It records that when they spoke to George Boleyn, Lord Rochford, he raised his eyes to heaven and denied the accusations. Norris, Weston and Brereton also continued denying the charges laid against them.
12th May 1536 – The Trial of Norris, Weston, Brereton and Smeaton
On 12th May 1536, Mark Smeaton, Sir Henry Norris, Sir Francis Weston and Sir William Brereton were tried at a special commission of oyer and terminer, just a day after the Grand Jury of Kent had assembled and only eight days after Weston and Brereton had been arrested. The legal machinery had worked incredibly quickly.
The four men were tried separately from Anne Boleyn and George Boleyn, Lord Rochford, who, as members of the aristocracy, were entitled to be tried in the court of the Lord High Steward of England by a jury of their peers. Sir William Kingston, Constable of the Tower of London, escorted the four men by barge along the Thames and brought them to the bar of the special commission of oyer and terminer at Westminster Hall, where all four were arraigned for high treason.
The Jury
The men's hearts must have sunk into their shoes when they saw the jury. Any hopes they had held of being acquitted and released must have been dashed as soon as they saw the men sitting in judgement on them. Although the jury included Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire, a man who would certainly not benefit from these men being found guilty when it would prejudice the trial of his son and daughter, it also included men who owed Cromwell or the King a favour and those
who would love to see the Boleyn faction spectacularly brought down. There were no two ways about it; the jury was a hostile one.
Those who could be described as hostile included:-
Sir William Fitzwilliam – The man who had interrogated Smeaton and Norris and persuaded them to confess, if indeed Norris had ever confessed.
Edward Willoughby, foreman – This man owed Sir William Brereton money so it was definitely in his interests to get rid of him.
Sir Giles Alington – Husband of Sir Thomas More's stepdaughter. More had been executed for treason for refusing to swear the oath of succession.
William Askew – A religious conservative and supporter of the Lady Mary. Interestingly, he was also the father of the Protestant martyr Anne Askew.
Walter Hungerford – Eric Ives describes this man as "a scape-grace dependant of Cromwell's and a homosexual"1 and Paul Friedmann describes him as "the son-in-law of Lord Hussey, Anne's bitter enemy".2
Sir John Hampden – A man whose daughter was sister-in-law to the comptroller of the royal household, William Paulet.
William Musgrave – A man keen to do the right thing and win favour with Cromwell and the King after failing to make stick the treason charges against Lord Dacre. He had also signed a bond for 2,000 marks to Cromwell and others of the King's officers: Friedmann makes the point that this could be demanded at any time.
Robert Dormer – A religious conservative who had opposed the Break with Rome.
Thomas Palmer – A client of William Fitzwilliam and also one of the King's gambling buddies.
Richard Tempest – A relation and ally of Lord Darcy (a conservative) and a man close to Cromwell. According to Friedmann, he was also related to Lady Boleyn, Anne Boleyn's aunt, but no friend of Anne.
William Sidney – A friend of Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk, who was known to be hostile to the Boleyns.
Anthony Hungerford – A relation of the King's new love, Jane Seymour.
We also have to take into account the Tudor legal machinery. Defendants did not have counsel, they were not aware of what evidence was being presented against them, they could not prepare their defence case and all they could do was react to what was said in court.3 Talk about being at a disadvantage! When you combine this disadvantage with the hostile jury and the fact that the onus was on the accused to prove their innocence, rather than the Crown proving their guilt,4 then there was little chance of justice for these men. They were dead men even before the trial began.
The Trial
Unfortunately, records of this special commission of oyer and terminer no longer exist. They may have been destroyed in the same fire that damaged Sir William Kingston's letters to Cromwell in 1731, or perhaps they were purposely destroyed. However, we do have some accounts of what happened at Westminster Hall on the 12th May 1536. From Letters and Papers, we know that:
"Noreys, Bryerton, Weston, and Smeton were brought up in the custody of the constable of the Tower, when Smeton pleaded guilty of violation and carnal knowledge of the Queen, and put himself in the King's mercy. Noreys, Bryerton, and Weston pleaded Not guilty. The jury return a verdict of Guilty, and that they have no lands, goods, or chattels.
Judgment against all four as in cases of treason; execution to be at Tyburn."5
On the 19th May 1536, Eustace Chapuys, the Imperial Ambassador, wrote to Charles V to keep him up to date with events, saying:
"On the 11th were condemned as traitors Master Noris, the King's chief butler, (sommelier de corps) Master Ubaston (Weston), who used to lie with the King, Master Bruton (Brereton), gentleman of the Chamber, and the groom (varlet de chambre), of whom I wrote to your Majesty by my man. Only the groom confessed that he had been three times with the said putain and Concubine. The others were condemned upon presumption and certain indications, without valid proof or confession."6
He gets the date wrong, but both Chapuys and the records in Letters and Papers agree that Mark Smeaton confessed and pleaded "guilty" to sleeping with the Queen, whereas Norris, Brereton and Weston pleaded "not guilty" to all charges. According to George Constantine, Sir Henry Norris's manservant, when Norris was presented with his confession he declared "that he was deceived" into making it by Sir William Fitzwilliam, the Earl of Southampton, and thus retracted it.7 Mark Smeaton did not retract his confession.
All four men were found guilty on all charges, declared traitors and sentenced to the usual traitor's death, to be hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn.8 A date was not set due to the forthcoming trial of Anne Boleyn and Lord Rochford, but the axe was turned towards them and their fates were sealed.
Another Event
Also on 12th May 1536, the Duke of Norfolk, uncle of Anne and George Boleyn, was appointed Lord High Steward of England in readiness for ruling, as Lord President, over the trials of his niece and nephew.9
13th May 1536 – Henry Percy and the Pre-contract
On 13th May 1536, Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland wrote to Thomas Cromwell. The subject of his letter was the alleged pre-contract which was said to have existed between himself and Anne Boleyn before she married Henry VIII. From his home in Newington Green, Henry Percy wrote:
"I perceive by Raynold Carnaby that there is supposed a pre-contract between the Queen and me; whereupon I was not only heretofore examined upon my oath before the archbishops of Canterbury and York, but also received the blessed sacrament upon the same before the duke of Norfolk and other the King's highness' council learned in the spiritual law, assuring you, Mr. Secretary, by the said oath and blessed body, which afore I received and hereafter intend to receive, that the same may be to my damnation if ever there were any contract or promise of marriage between her and me."1
Percy had already denied the existence of such a pre-contract when interrogated by the Duke of Norfolk and two archbishops in 1532. His wife, Mary Talbot, had sought an annulment from their very unhappy marriage by claiming that he had previously been contracted to marry Anne Boleyn who was, at that time, being courted by the King. Percy had denied this by swearing an oath on the Blessed Sacrament, in front of Norfolk, the archbishops and the King's canon lawyers.
Thomas Cromwell decided to resurrect the issue in May 1536, in an effort to get Anne's marriage to the King annulled. He sent Sir Reynold Carnaby to exert some pressure on Henry Percy and to try and make him confess that he and Anne had been pre-contracted to marry. Carnaby was a King's officer in the north of England, and someone Percy knew well, but Percy refused to be bullied into confessing. His letter to Cromwell shows Percy affirming that in no uncertain terms.
Cranmer's Light Bulb Moment
As Percy wouldn't play ball, Cromwell had to give up on the idea of getting the marriage between Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII annulled on the grounds of a pre-contract. There was just no evidence to prove that a precontract had existed. Cromwell was not ready to give up yet though, so he asked Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to find another way round it. Cranmer must have been torn. After all he knew the Boleyns well and his rise had been due to Anne's patronage and support. He knew, however, that he had to do his job and give Cromwell what he wanted and needed. It was not enough for Cromwell and the King to merely get rid of Anne by execution. They needed her marriage to the King to be erased; to be annulled and declared invalid. Complete annihilation was what was required. Fortunately for Cranmer, he had a brainwave, and used the King's past relationship with Mary Boleyn, Anne's sister, as an impediment of consanguinity to the marriage. The marriage could be seen as incestuous because Henry had already slept with Mary. Clever!
13th May 1536 – The Queen's Household is Broken Up
On 13th May 1536, two days before Queen Anne Boleyn was tried and found guilty, her household was broken up. The chronicler Charles Wriothesley wrote:
"And the morrowe after, beinge Satterdaie, and the thirtenth daie of Maie, Maister Fittes-Williams [Sir William Fitzwilliam], Treasorer of the Kinges howse, and Mr. Controoler [Sir Edward Poynings], deposed and brook
e upp the Queenes househoulde at Greenewich, and so discharged all of her servantes of their offices clearlye."1
Fitzwilliam and Poynings would only have broken up Anne's household on the King's orders, so the King was obviously confident that Anne was going to be condemned. Of course, some of the Queen's staff would be back at court within just a few weeks to serve the new queen, Jane Seymour. William Coffin, Anne's master of the horse and the husband of one of her attendants in the Tower, went on to serve Jane Seymour, as did her vice chamberlain, Sir Edward Baynton, and her surveyor, John Smith. Ladies who moved on to serve Queen Jane, included Anne's sister in law, Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford; Anne Gainsford, Lady Zouche; Bess Holland and Margery Horsman.
14th May 1536 – Jane Seymour
On 14th May 1536, Henry VIII sent Sir Nicholas Carew to fetch Jane Seymour and to install her in a house in Chelsea, within a mile of the King's own lodgings. Eustace Chapuys, the imperial ambassador, wrote to his master Charles V, that Jane was "most richly dressed" and "splendidly served by the King's cook and other officers".1 Her sumptuous dress, her proximity to the King and the way she was being served by the King's own servants, suggest that Jane was being treated like the Queen of England and thus that Henry VIII knew that this position would need filling soon.
The gossip around court in early May had been that the King was trying to rid himself of Queen Anne Boleyn so that he could replace her with Lady Jane Seymour, but until this point the King had been careful to distance himself from Jane, going so far as to even spend time with other women. Chapuys reported that Henry VIII had "been going about banqueting with ladies, sometimes remaining after midnight, and returning by the river" and that he had also "supped lately with several ladies in the house of the bishop of Carlisle, and showed an extravagant joy".2 The King also spoke about Anne Boleyn's arrest with the bishop, telling that "he had before composed a tragedy, which he carried with him". Chapuys wondered if this was a book of "certain ballads that the King has composed, at which the putain and her brother laughed as foolish things, which was objected to them as a great crime". Making fun of the King obviously did not help their cause.
The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown Page 13
