by Julia Fox
And the list cannot stop there. Christy Fletcher, my agent, supported my desire to tell Jane’s story and gave me the confidence to attempt to do so. My editor, Susanna Porter, was unstinting with her time and advice, and I am grateful for her painstaking efforts to iron out so many crinkles in my manuscript. I must take full responsibility for those that remain. To Richard Guy who labored so hard to produce the family trees from my rough drafts, to Audrey Kimberley who read the finished work with an eagle eye, to Jessica Sharkey who so willingly translated pages and pages of Latin text for me, and to so many of my long-suffering friends who endured hours of discussion about Jane and her dilemmas, I offer my sincerest gratitude. The involvement and interest shown by my brother and sister-in-law went far beyond the call of family duty and I thank them both. But it is to my husband that I am most indebted. His assistance with the Notes and Bibliography has been crucial, and if I have gone any way toward redressing the balance, and removing any of the stigma attached to Jane’s name, it is because of his constant love, encouragement, and acceptance of her right to be a constant presence in our lives for over three years.
APPENDIX
The Likeness of Jane Boleyn
Among Holbein’s chalk drawings in the Royal Collection is a study of a young woman, just under half length. She looks straight toward the viewer. Her features are delicate, her soft eyes wide apart, her nose perhaps slightly retrousée, and her full lips form a perfect cupid’s bow. There is a suggestion of high cheekbones. Her hair is fastened beneath a flattering French hood, her dress modestly high-necked but with a V-shaped collarlike opening. Her fashionable full sleeves billow out from just above her elbow. She is a very pretty girl, anywhere from about seventeen to twenty-six or so years old. It is difficult to be precise. The drawing is inscribed The Lady Parker. There is no corresponding oil portrait extant.
The sitter’s identity has been disputed. Most experts suggest that she is Grace Newport, Jane’s brother’s first wife, although she could be Elizabeth Calthorpe, whom Sir Henry Parker married after Grace’s early death. However, one authority, G. S. Davies, has stated categorically that she is Jane.
It is tempting to believe him as that would provide the only likeness we have of her. The name is not necessarily an insuperable obstacle. Holbein did not inscribe them on the drawings himself. We do not know who did but many of the identifications were provided by John Cheke, who became tutor to the future Edward VI in 1544. Because he knew some, but not all, of the figures, some remain blank. Cheke was not always reliable, though, and a few are labeled incorrectly. It is tantalizing to speculate that Cheke was wrong in this instance and that this Lady Parker is in fact Jane. Lord Morley was drawn by Albrecht Dürer while in Germany on his sovereign’s business, so he was not averse to portraiture, and Jane’s marriage meant that she was closely connected to the royal circle. In such circumstances a sketch, perhaps followed by a lost portrait or, as is the case with several of the chalk drawings, not followed up at all, is credible.
Unfortunately, the girl in the picture is far more likely to be one of Sir Henry Parker’s wives, with Grace the favored candidate. Holbein’s first visit to England was between 1526 and 1528, the period in which he made the chalk drawings of the More family and produced the family group portrait. Those who employed him at this time, notably Archbishop Warham and Sir Henry Guildford, were very much art connoisseurs at a time when most of the wealthy still preferred tapestries and wall hangings. His second visit to England was not until 1531 or 1532, after which, some foreign excursions apart, he remained until his death in 1543. For Jane Rochford to be the girl in the drawing, it would make much more sense if she had been sketched on his first visit or early in the second, because only then was she about the right age. By the time Holbein was undertaking more regular court commissions, she was a more mature woman. Conversely, Grace, who was ten years younger than Jane, would have been too young during Holbein’s first visit to England but would fit neatly more or less anywhere after his return. And the color of the paper points to the second visit rather than the first: Holbein’s early drawings are on white paper, whereas he used pink-primed paper from the 1530s onward. As The Lady Parker is on pink-primed paper, she was, therefore, probably sketched on the second visit.
This still does not entirely rule out Jane as the sitter. The exact chronology of Holbein’s relationship with the royal court is uncertain. There are no confirmed Holbein likenesses of Anne Boleyn. He worked on the court festivities of 1527, and in 1533 produced the designs for one of the pageants that greeted Anne on her coronation. He was involved in planning an elaborate cradle intended for Henry and Anne’s first son, and he designed a table fountain that she presented to the king as a New Year’s gift in 1534. In spite of this, Holbein’s record as an established court artist, producing royal portraits, cannot definitely be traced back before the time of Jane Seymour. Then, of course, his work became the height of fashion; suddenly everyone who was anyone scrambled to commission him. Yet he had undertaken private work before then, so perhaps Jane was drawn between 1533 and 1536, although the costume that this Lady Parker is wearing hints at a later date. The main problem is that Jane had slipped out of favor once the Boleyns fell. Since she was also a widow, it is difficult to see who would have wanted a portrait of her after her husband’s death, especially one that shows her as a young girl.
Moreover, while the names on the chalk drawings can be entirely wrong, Jane was never Lady Parker. When Holbein first arrived, she had already been married to George Boleyn for over two years; she was Lady Rochford by the time the artist returned.
So, while there is always a chance that the girl who stares out at us is Jane, it is a very remote one indeed. We are almost certainly looking at Grace. Perhaps a picture of Jane will eventually surface, or maybe she will one day be identified from one of the handful of anonymous faces who still beguile us. Time will tell.
Meanwhile, the best impression we can have of Jane Rochford is Holbein’s drawings of an unknown woman in Tudor dress, which perhaps he wanted as costume illustrations. The woman is wearing the gable headdress; she has full-slashed sleeves with a little lace cuff, a pendant at her neck, and golden chains across her bodice. In one pose, she faces us, almost as though she has paused specially to do so; the back view shows her raising her hand as if to emphasize a point in an engrossing conversation. She is elegant, poised, and animated. It is not Jane, but it is the way she was.
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
A modified Harvard system is used in citing references to sources. Abbreviated citations of printed primary and secondary materials identify the works listed in the Bibliography, where full references are given. For example, Carley (2000) refers to J. P. Carley(2000), The Libraries of King Henry VIII, London; Carley (1989) refers to J. P. Carley (1989), “John Leland and the Foundations of the Royal Library: The Westminster Inventory of 1542,” Bulletin of the Society for Renaissance Studies, 7, pp. 13–22. Manuscripts are cited by the reference numbers used to request the documents in the archives and libraries. In citations, the following abbreviations are used:
BL
British Library, London
Bodleian
Bodleian Library, Oxford
CRO
Cornwall Record Office
CSPF, Elizabeth
Calendar of State Papers, Foreign: Elizabeth, 23 vols. (London, 1863–1950)
CSPSp
Calendar of Letters, Dispatches, and State Papers Relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain, Preserved in the Archives at Vienna, Brussels, Simancas and Elsewhere, 13 vols. in 19 parts (London, 1862–1954)
CSPSp Supp
Further Supplement to Letters, Dispatches and State Papers Relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain, edited by G. Mattingly (London, 1940)
CSPVenice
Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Relating to English Affairs in the Archives and Collections of Venice and in Other Libraries of Northern Italy, 38
vols. (London, 1864–1947)
CUL
Cambridge University Library
CWE
Collected Works of Erasmus, 76 vols. (Toronto, 1974–)
ERO
Essex County Record Office
HEH
Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California
HLRO
House of Lords, Record Office
HMC
Historical Manuscripts Commission
KCAR
King’s College Archives Centre, King’s College, Cambridge
Lambeth
Lambeth Palace Library, London
Longleat
Longleat House, Warminster, Wiltshire (microfilm at Cambridge University Library)
LP
Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, edited by J. S. Brewer et al., 21 vols. in 32 parts, and Addenda, with revised edition of vol. 1 in 3 parts (London, 1862–1932)
MS
Manuscript
NA
The National Archives, Kew
NPG
The National Portrait Gallery, London
ODNB
The New Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, edited by Colin Matthew and Brian Harrison, 60 vols. (Oxford, 2004)
STC
A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland and Ireland, and of English Books Printed Abroad, edited by W. A. Jackson et al., 2nd ed., 3 vols. (London, 1976–91)
WAM
Westminster Abbey Muniments
WRO
Worcester Record Office
Manuscripts preserved at National Archives are quoted by the call number there in use. The descriptions of the classes referred to are as follows:
C 1
Chancery, Early Chancery Proceedings
C 54
Chancery, Close Rolls
C 65
Chancery, Parliament Rolls
C 66
Chancery, Patent Rolls
C 82
Chancery, Warrants for the Great Seal, Series 2
C 142
Chancery, Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series 2
C 193
Chancery, Miscellaneous Books
CP 25
Court of Common Pleas, Feet of Fines
CP 40
Court of Common Pleas, Plea Rolls
DL25
Duchy of Lancaster, Deeds, Series L
E 36
Exchequer, Treasury of the Receipt, Miscellaneous Books
E 40
Exchequer, Treasury of the Receipt: Ancient Deeds, Series A
E 41
Exchequer, Treasury of the Receipt, Ancient Deeds, Series AA
E 101
Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Various Accounts
E 150
Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer: Escheators’ Files, Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series 2
E 163
Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Miscellanea
E 179
Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Subsidy Rolls
E 315
Exchequer, Augmentation Office, Miscellaneous Books
E 404
Exchequer of Receipt, Warrants and Issues
IND 1
Public Record Office, Indexes to Various Series
KB 8
Court of King’s Bench, Crown Side, Bag of Secrets
KB 9
Court of King’s Bench, Ancient Indictments
KB 27
Court of King’s Bench, Coram Rege Rolls
KB 29
Court of King’s Bench, Controlment Rolls
KB 145
Court of King’s Bench, Files, Recorda
LC 2
Lord Chamberlain’s Department, Special Events
OBS
Obsolete Lists and Indexes
PRO 31/3
Public Record Office, Transcripts from French Archives
PROB 2
Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Inventories
PROB 11
Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Registered Copy Wills
PSO 2
Warrants for the Privy Seal, Series 2
SC2
Special Collections, Court Rolls
SC 6
Special Collections, Ministers’ Accounts
SC 12
Special Collections, Rentals and Surveys
SP 1
State Papers, Henry VIII, General Series
SP 2
State Papers, Henry VIII, Folio Volumes
SP 6
State Papers, Henry VIII, Theological Tracts
SP 9
State Papers, Williamson Collection
SP 46
State Papers, Supplementary
WARD 7
Court of Wards and Liveries, Inquisitions Post Mortem
NOTE ON DATES
In giving dates, the Old Style has been retained, but the year is assumed to have begun on January 1, and not on Lady Day, the feast of the Annunciation (i.e., March 25), which was by custom the first day of the calendar year in France, Spain, and Italy until 1582; in Scotland until 1600; and in England, Wales, and Ireland until 1752.
NOTE ON TRANSCRIPTION
The spelling and orthography of primary sources in quotations are always given in modernized form. Modern punctuation and capitalization are provided where there is none in the original manuscript.
NOTES
PROLOGUE
The printed sources from LP, I.i, nos. 670, 671, 678, 707, give details on the young prince and his funeral. NA, LC 2/1, fols. 159–74fv. is the fullest original document providing significant information omitted by the printed abstracts. Hall (1904, I, pp. 2–27) gives a vivid account of the young prince’s life and death. For royal funeral protocol, Royal Book (1790) is an excellent starting point. Starkey (2004, pp. 120–23) provides the political background. For the life of Robert Fayrfax, see ODNB. For what Westminster Abbey was like in 1511, Perkins (1938–40) is invaluable. Annenberg School (1972) provides a useful context. Monumenta Westmonasteriensia (1683) is crucial to an understanding of the Abbey’s historical topography, describing where the tombs are located, including Prince Henry’s.
CHAPTER 1
In the absence of church records, I have based my suggestion for Jane’s date of birth as c.1505 on the fact it is likely she was about sixteen or seventeen years old when she took part in a court pageant in 1522. This would also fit with Bell (1877, p. 27), which suggests that she was around age forty when executed, an estimate based on an examination of the bones discovered in the chancel and believed to be hers when the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula was repaired in 1876–77. I have also sited her at Great Hallingbury, the principal Morley residence, especially as Sir Edward Howard’s will says that Alice Lovel used Morley Hall in Norfolk. The precise date of construction for Morley’s new mansion at Great Hallingbury is unknown; although it is more likely that she spent some time in the new building, Jane could have been brought up in the much smaller house or even on a building site. Since Jane’s early life is undocumented, the details of her education are, inevitably, generic. Harris (2002, chap. 2, especially pp. 32–42) is invaluable. The details on the baptism come from Cressy (1997, pp. 100, 125, 135, 139, 141), from The Sarum Missal (1913, I, p. 13), and from the Manuale (1875, p. 11). Cavendish (1825, II, p. 71), asserts in Metrical Visions that Jane went to court early and, since he knew her and was concerned with her as a penitent, there is no reason to disbelieve what is, for him, a circumstantial detail. For Lord Morley’s life, see ODNB; Axton and Carley (2000, pp. 1–27), where Starkey shrewdly writes of him as an “attendant lord” see also Wright (1943, pp. ix–xlvii). Further family details come from the wills of Alice Lovel, Sir John St. John, and Sir Edward Howard: NA, PROB 11/17, PROB 11/19, PROB 11/21. The Morley mansion at Great Hallingbury is described by Cocks (1997, pp. 5–8, 14–15, 28) and Cocks and Hardie (1994, pp. 1, 7–10). The possible furnishings come from Alice Lovel’s will.
&n
bsp; CHAPTER 2
Until now, no one has identified Jane as the Mistress Parker mentioned in The Chronicle of Calais (1846, p. 25) and the Rutland Papers (1842, p. 38) but I believe that it was indeed her. There has been confusion with Margery Parker, one of Katherine of Aragon’s women and later rocker to Princess Mary, a fairly menial position. However, in both The Chronicle and the Rutland Papers, Mistress Parker’s name is juxtaposed with those who, like Mistress Carey, are not servants: Mistress Parker is the name under which Jane is listed at the 1522 pageant, and her fellow performers on that occasion, such as Mistress Dannet, are also listed with her at the Field of Cloth of Gold. If Cavendish is to be believed when he states that Jane spent her early years at court, she would have accompanied her parents to the great spectacle at Calais and Guisnes—everyone who was anyone was dredged up. Hall (1904, I, pp. 188–218) contains a very full account; LP, III.i, nos. 632, 704, 826, 852, 870, provide less emotive documentation; Anglo (1969, pp. 139–58) gives the best, fullest, and most meticulous account. The Musical Times (June 1, 1920, pp. 410–11) has details on the music played. Campbell (2007, chap. 8) identifies the King David hanging as one of Henry’s tapestries lining the walls of his palace at Guisnes. Food and victualling are taken from LP, IV.i, no. 2159. References to Wolsey are from Cavendish (1825, I, pp. 18–20, 43, 44, 50, 131). Henry’s description is from Hall (1904, I, p. 5) and LP, III.i, no. 402; his musical abilities are discussed by Starkey (1991a, p. 104). Francis is described by Knecht (1994, pp. 105–7, 170–75). Starkey (2004, pp. 160–63) gives an excellent account of Katherine’s deteriorating physique. Ives (2004, p. 31) suggests that George was likely to have accompanied his father and he also (p. 32) makes the persuasive suggestion that Anne Boleyn was probably present in Queen Claude’s suite. ODNB entries for Katherine of Aragon, Elizabeth Blount, Henry Norris, and Cardinal Wolsey give good basic background.
