Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford

by Julia Fox

  CHAPTER 21

  The causes of Anne’s fall have long been debated by historians, who give myriad reasons ranging from her failure to produce a son, the possibility that she miscarried a deformed fetus, Henry’s infatuation with Jane Seymour, the potential for a foreign policy switch toward the Holy Roman Empire now that Katherine of Aragon was dead, the chance that Anne may have been guilty, the disagreement over the use of monastic funds, all the way through to Cromwell taking over a plot to topple the queen and then toppling the conspirators. The most important literature is by Bernard (1991, 1992), Ives (1992, 2004, pp. 319–37), Starkey (2004, pp. 554–73), Walker (2002), Warnicke (1985b, 1987, 1989, 1993).

  There is something to be said for many of these theories or, indeed, for a fusion of several. My own view inclines toward Henry’s growing dissatisfaction with a marriage that had not given him the son he craved, combined with Anne’s failure to give up the role of mistress, which had so enchanted him, and become the more staid wife that was the Tudor ideal, all coinciding with his falling for the quiet, submissive Jane Seymour. And Henry always was fickle: I feel he enjoyed the chase but tired of the kill. Of course it mattered that there might be a foreign policy shift and that the mere existence of Anne was a thorn in Charles V’s flesh, but even a cursory reading of Chapuys’ correspondence shows that she was not an insuperable obstacle. The use of monastic funds was again important but Anne was a consort, not a ruling monarch: she could not have influenced policy for the rest of Henry’s reign. I very much doubt that she was foolish enough to risk playing away from home, even if she saw it as offering the opportunity to conceive with a more potent man. Norris, though, does have the intriguing heraldic link with the merlin, which in the context of the Baynton letter suggests that he might have been a more flirtatious character than previously thought. My hunch is that Anne’s letter to Lady Wingfield is extremely significant, simply because it ends up in Cromwell’s papers, a point unnoticed until now, and because it is couched in such unusually subservient tones for someone of her social status. If Bridget Wingfield possessed information that could be dangerous, it is likely to refer to Anne’s behavior with Wyatt or Percy. In considering the letter important, I concur (if for different reasons) with Retha Warnicke (who also believes no concrete evidence exists against Lady Rochford). I still, however, remain unconvinced by Warnicke’s major thesis that Anne’s last miscarriage was abnormal. All this said, no one can deny that Cromwell’s role in Anne’s fall was vital. He was a superb tactician, utterly ruthless if he believed his own survival was at stake. It is entirely within character for him to act as Ives believes, masterminding the entire plot once he had quarreled with Anne and the conservatives at court were trying to depose her anyway. Bernard’s point that Henry was no pushover and was not the man to be manipulated also holds water. I cannot attempt to do justice to all the prevailing theories here but would refer anyone interested in delving more deeply into the entire mystery to the literature cited. Since this book seeks to reassess the life and role of Jane Rochford, what is really important is not so much why Anne fell but whether Jane was involved and, if so, in what ways.

  The intriguing document listing grants to the Boleyns is calendared in LP, X, no. 409, in which form it is sadly incomplete. An examination of the handwritten original, NA, SP 1/102, fols. 155–56 (stamped fols. 139–40), opens the possibility that the arrest of Thomas, and also the fall of the Boleyns as a family, might have been considered earlier than is currently thought. Since the document is undated and ends with the final grants of March 1536, it could have formed part of the check into George’s property, so that its significance must remain speculative. For the news of the arrests, see LP, X, nos. 782, 785, 798, 838. For the 1351 statute, see Baker (2003, p. 588). Cromwell names those he interviewed in LP, X, no. 873. Anne’s babblings in the Tower are from LP, X, nos. 793, 797. Husee’s denunciation in a letter to Lady Lisle of the Countess of Worcester as the informant against Anne is from LP, X, no. 953. Anne’s letter to Lady Wingfield is from BL, Cotton MS, Vespasian, F.XIII, fol. 198 (formerly fol. 109), and LP, V, no. 12. Bridget Wingfield’s date of death is confirmed by NA, C 1/1003/10–12. Anne’s uncharacteristic obsequiousness suggests that Wingfield knew something to her detriment, and could be a threat to her, making clear that there were many possible informants. George is alleged to have protested that he was condemned “on the evidence of one woman only” but nowhere states that it was his own wife. In reality, Lady Worcester and Lady Wingfield are both far more likely contenders. Both are denounced in the sources as informants, Worcester by Husee (see above), and Wingfield by Judge Spelman in his notebook: Spelman (1976–77, I, p. 71); see also chap. 22 of this volume. George’s purported protest, which comes from a French poem by Lancelot de Carles, chronicling the main events of Anne’s fall, is discussed by Ives (2004, p. 331). Ives assumes that the informant is Jane but goes on to prove with spectacular success that the major source given by de Carles for betraying Anne’s alleged behavior is probably Lady Worcester (p. 333). The foreign visitor mentioned (p. 331), who talks of an envious and jealous person divulging Anne’s lasciviousness, could be entirely mistaken, or since no name is included, the visitor could be making allegations against anyone at all, either male or female. It sounds suspiciously like an example of the many fanciful and exaggerated rumors prevalent at the time.

  Henry’s reaction to Anne’s arrest is from LP, X, no. 908. Kingston’s report of Jane’s message to George and his response is from BL, Cotton MS, Otho, C.X, fol. 225 (formerly fol. 222), and LP, X, no. 798. I take this at face value, as there seems little point in taunting George with a fictional missive, but see Ives (2004, p. 332), for a different interpretation.

  CHAPTER 22

  Kingston’s letters to Cromwell detailing his conversations with Anne, her ramblings, and his dealings with the other prisoners are calendared in LP, X, nos. 793, 797, 798, 890, 902, 910, and also printed in Ellis (1824–46, 1st series, II, pp. 52–56, 56–59, 59–60, 62–63, 64–66) and Cavendish (1825, II, pp. 217, 220–23, 223–25, 227–28, 228–29). Unfortunately there are often words or even whole passages missing as, with two exceptions, they were part of BL, Cotton MS, Otho C.X, which fell victim to a disastrous fire at Ashburnham House in 1731. I also used Strype (1721, I, pp. 279–84), and quoted from p. 280, as he saw the letters before the fire. Hall’s trusting comment on the nature of kingship is from Hall (1904, II, p. 197). Cranmer’s letter to Henry is from LP, X, no. 792. Wyatt’s poem is from Wyatt (1969, p. 187). The records for the trials of Norris, Brereton, Weston, and Smeaton are filed in the so-called Bag of Secrets: NA, KB 8/8. See also LP, X, nos. 848, 876, for relevant information. I used the KB records for the Middlesex and Kent juries of presentment. For the trial jury, I followed Ives’s (2004, p. 339) masterly analysis. However, where Ives implies that the foreman, Edward Willoughby, was biased because he owed Brereton money, I suggest that such a debt makes no difference. The debt would not die with Brereton, since all debts owed to convicted traitors were still payable in full to the king by way of forfeiture (see chap. 23 of this volume). For the correct identification of Edmund Page, see Bindoff (1982, III, pp. 40–41). He is sometimes wrongly transcribed as Edward. Of the several examples of the indecent scramble for the offices of those arrested, I have used LP, X, nos. 791, 842. The records of the trials of Anne and George are also in the Bag of Secrets: NA, KB 8/9; see also LP, X, no. 876. These are relatively uninformative as to what evidence was given on the day, as (like all such official documents) they concentrate on the charges, verdict, and procedural matters. The fullest account of what really happened is from Chapuys: CSPSp, V.ii, nos. 54, 55. Some further details are taken from Thomas Turner’s (or Tourneur’s) handwritten notes on the (now lost) “Chronicle” by Anthony Anthony, an “eye-and ear-witness” to the trial, bound into Turner’s copy of Herbert of Cherbury’s Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth, now Bodleian Folio Delta 624 [sic], pp. 381–85 (pages out of sequence; new numbering beginning af
ter p. 404). Anthony Anthony’s will is from NA, PROB 11/46. St. Botolph’s is described by Atkinson (1896, pp. 522–27). Spelman’s exposure in his notebook of Lady Wingfield as the informant against Anne is from Spelman (1976–77, I, p. 71). Husee’s comment on Anne is from LP, X, no. 866. Northumberland’s oath is from LP, X, no. 864. Anne’s affirmation of her innocence is from LP, X, no. 908. For the executions, see LP, X, no. 911; CSPSp, V.ii, no. 55; and Wriothesley (1875–77, I, p. 38). There are many versions of the final speeches of both Anne and her brother, most with slight variations. I have taken George’s speech from The Calais Chronicle (1846, p. 46); Anne’s speech is extracted from the journal of Anthony Anthony as transcribed by Turner: Bodleian Folio Delta 624 [sic], pp. 384–85.

  CHAPTER 23

  Jane’s possessions are listed in LP, X, no. 1011, but I obtained the full details from the manuscript: NA, SP 1/104, fol. 82. The details on George’s possessions, offices, and debts are from LP, X, nos. 870, 878, 880, 890, 902, 1015 (16), 1256 (2 and 31); LP, XI, no. 1277; LP, XIII.ii, no. 1192; LP, XIV.i, no. 1006; and LP XVII, no. 460(9). Henry’s help to Elizabeth Savage is from LP, X, no. 1256(52), and her letter to Cromwell is LP, XI, no. 1024. Uriah Brereton’s grants are mentioned in LP, X, no. 1256(29) and LP, XI, no. 1217(7). Information on the eccentric George Boleyn, dean of Litchfield, comes from The Complete Peerage (1987, IV, p. 142) and his will: NA, PROB 11/101. Details of Ormond’s ancestral horn are from his will: NA, PROB 11/18. The will also gives information on his two daughters, Margaret Boleyn and Anne St. Leger. His lordship of Aylesbury is referred to in NA, SP 46/183, fol. 140. The chancery enrollment of Thomas Boleyn’s indenture with his mother, which gave him control of most of her property, is from NA, C 54/379. Examples to illustrate the limitations facing Jane if she relied on one hundred marks per annum are taken from LP, V, pp. 755, 758; LP VI, no. 1515 and Madden (1831, p. 223). Henry’s relative generosity to the Brereton family is from LP, X, no. 1256(29, 52), and LP, XI, nos. 1024, 1217(7). Details on Jane’s jointure are pieced together from her letter, BL, Cotton MS, Vespasian, F.XIII, fol. 199 (formerly fol. 109f.v.), which is printed in LP, X, no. 1010, and Ellis (1824–46, 1st series, II, pp. 67–68); Thomas Boleyn’s letter in LP, XI, no. 17, and Ellis (1824–46, 3rd series, III, pp. 21–23). However, these references must now be reconsidered in the light of the newly discovered information about Jane’s jointure and marriage settlement from WRO, microfilm 705:349/12946/498729 and HLRO, MS PO/1/1539 (Original Acts, 31 Henry VIII, c.20). For Angel Day’s template on writing a letter of supplication in circumstances not dissimilar to Jane’s, see Day (1586, pp. 169–82) and STC, no. 6401.

  CHAPTER 24

  For readers interested in the life of Jane Seymour, the best and most eminently readable account can be found in Starkey (2004, pp. 584–608). Starkey’s assessment of her character and his analysis of the ways in which Queen Jane was such a contrast to Anne is masterly. Cromwell’s comment about admiring Anne’s courage and his assertion that he brought about her fall is from CSPSp, V.ii, no. 61. Henry’s dash to Jane Seymour’s side is taken from LP, X, no. 926. Early reactions to Jane Seymour are from LP, X, no. 1047, and LP, XI, no. 29. The references to Sir John Gage are from Cromwell’s “Remembrances”: LP, X, no. 929, and LP, XI, no. 580. See also entry on Gage in ODNB. Chapuys remembers Edward Seymour as escorting him to Henry’s chamber: LP, XI, no. 479. His description of Queen Jane is taken from LP, X, no. 901, and his allusion to her as the “Pacificator” is from CSPSp, V.ii, no. 61. Mary’s hopes of immediate reconciliation with Henry are from CSPSp, V.ii, no. 70. My account of the realities of her situation is pieced together from CSPS, V.ii, nos. 70, 71, 72 and LP, X, nos. 1110, 1134, 1137, 1203. See also Starkey (2004, pp. 597–601), who provides a clear and succinct analysis of Mary’s plight and the broader question of the succession. Lord Morley’s visit to Mary is from LP, VII, 1036, which is wrongly dated; LP, XI, no. 222; and BL, Cotton MS, Otho C.X, fol. 262. For a full analysis of the burgeoning relationship between Morley and Mary, see Starkey in Axton and Carley (2000, pp. 14–17, 44). Mary’s payments or gifts to the Parkers and Sheltons are from Madden (1831, pp. 11, 42, 57) and the reference to Jane’s clock is fromp. 13. Mary’s payments to Jane are from pp. 17, 25, 51, 64, 65, 82. Information on Mary’s new household is from Loades (1989, p. 106). Morley’s gifts to Cromwell are from NA, SP 1/93, fol. 207 (stamped fol. 168); LP, VIII, no. 957; and LP, XIV.i, no. 285. Queen Jane’s effort on Mary’s behalf is from CSPSp, V.ii, no. 184. Mary’s affectionate greeting is from LP, X, no. 1204. Henry’s rebuffs to Queen Jane are from LP, XI, nos. 860, 880, 1250. Letters to Cromwell from Lady Ughtred are printed by Wood (1846, II, pp. 353–58). Honor Lisle’s attempt to buy a gown in Queen Jane’s style is from LP, X, 1193. Anne Basset’s costume problems are from Lisle Letters (1981, IV, nos. 895, 896). Richmond’s death is from Murphy (2003, pp. 164–65, 176–78). Jane’s entitlements at court as a viscountess are from HEH, HM 41955, fols. 32f.v.–33; see also BL, Additional MSS 45716A–B, 45717. The predicament of Henry Parker and Sir John St. John is taken from LP, XII.i, no. 128, and LP, XII.ii, no. 1151. As we do not know exactly when Jane returned to court, I have chosen to omit Queen Jane’s river pageant and various other court functions that occurred very early after her marriage. My account of the ride to Greenwich for Christmas is from LP, XI, no. 1358, and Wriothesley (1875–77, I, pp. 59–60).

  CHAPTER 25

  Henry’s aside to Chapuys on the two ladies he had seen is taken from LP, XI, no. 8. The ambassador’s belief that Queen Jane would not be crowned unless she became pregnant is from CSPSp, V.ii, no. 103. Mary’s letters to her father in which she expresses her prayers that he should have issue are from LP, X, nos. 1083, 1109, 1133, 1203. The Trinity Sunday Te Deum and celebrations are described by Wriothesley (1875–77, I, p. 64); the gun salute at Calais is from LP, XII.ii, no. 11). Mary’s gifts of cucumbers to the queen are listed in Madden (1831, p. 34). Henry’s comment on the obedience due to princes is from LP, XI, no. 780. The information on Hampton Court is taken from Thurley (1993, pp. 89, 131, 141) and Loach (1999, p. 4). The joy and thanksgiving with which the news of Edward’s birth was greeted is from LP, XII.ii, nos. 889, 905, 1053; Wriothesley (1875–77, I, pp. 66–67). My account of Edward’s christening relies heavily on the handwritten recollection of Robert Boys, a young man at the time who later went on to be in charge of providing provender for Elizabeth I’s horses. His version is from HEH, MS HM 41955, fols. 127–29. I also used LP, XII.ii, nos. 905, 911, 922, 923; Loach (1999, pp. 5–6); and Wriothesley (1875–77, I, pp. 66–67). Cromwell’s new posts are from LP, XI, no. 202 (3) and LP, XII.ii, no. 445.

  CHAPTER 26

  Edward Seymour’s elevation to the peerage and the knighting of Thomas Seymour are taken from LP, XII.ii, no. 939. Anne Basset’s new dress is from LP, XII.ii, no. 923. For the death of Queen Jane and the various reactions to it, I have relied on LP, XII.ii, nos. 968, 970, 971, 972, 1020, 1084. Cromwell’s suggestion that the queen’s death was caused by the negligence of her ladies is from LP, XII.ii, no. 1004, but the most commonly held view is that she died from puerperal fever. However, the retention of sections of the placenta as the possible cause of death has been suggested by Loach (1999, p. 7). The reference to Queen Jane’s gift to Jane Rochford is taken from LP, XII.ii, no. 973. The preliminary enquiries made by Norfolk and Paulet into the funeral ceremonies for Elizabeth of York are from LP, XII.ii, no. 1012. A basic calendared description of Queen Jane’s funeral may be obtained from LP, XII.ii, no. 1060; see also Wriothesley (1875–77, I, pp. 71–72). I based my description on the fuller handwritten version in BL, Additional MS 71009, fols. 37–44f.v. The attempts by Norfolk and Cromwell to persuade the king to consider remarriage are from LP, XII.ii, nos. 1004, 1030.

  CHAPTER 27

  Lady Bryan’s letter to Henry is taken from LP, XIV.ii, appendix, no. 9; see also Loach (1999, pp. 8–9). Descriptions of Elizabeth Boleyn’s death and funeral are from LP, XIII.i, nos. 696, 717; Lisle Letters (1981, V, nos. 1137, 1139). Inf
ormation on Sir John Baldwin’s background relies on Bindoff (1982, I, pp. 372–73). Details relating to Thomas Boleyn’s death are from NA, C 1/1110/65–69; LP, XIV.i, no. 511; LP, XIV.ii, no. 781 (p. 309 at fol. 71). As an example of Cromwell’s willingness to help the widows and orphans of those executed, I chose LP, XIII.i, no. 1. Lord Morley’s purchase of Markhall from Thomas Shaa is from NA, C 54/420. His distraction over Lady Edgecombe’s jointure is from CRO, MS ME/829 (dated July 31, 1538). The reference to Margaret Boleyn’s precarious state of mind comes from her inquisition post mortem in Cambridgeshire: NA, E 150/87/6 (31 Henry VIII). The piecing together of the intricacies of Jane’s jointure and marriage settlement requires patience and considerable detective work as the full details, unfortunately, are not neatly contained in one document. The license to alienate Aylesbury and Bierton is from NA, C 66/680; LP, XIII.ii, no. 734(24). The information concerning the series of legal recoveries by way of conveyances for the cluster of manors in Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, and the manors of Aylesbury and Bierton in Buckinghamshire, is from NA, IND 1/17181, fols. 117–17f.v., CP 40/1099, mm. 317, 411 (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire); NA, IND 1/17218 (index to feet of fines for Buckinghamshire, Hilary term, 30 Henry VIII), CP 25/2/3/16/Henry VIII Hil [sic] (manors of Aylesbury and Bierton, document annotated “Buk” 55); WRO, microfilm 705:349/12946/498360, 705:349/12946/498361, 705:349/12946/499489, 705:349/12946/498729, 705:349/12946/499490, 705:349/12946/498711, 705:349/12946/499476, 705:349/12946/499484, 705:349/12946/498713. Other information is from Cranwell’s letter to Cromwell: LP, XIV.i, no. 854. Jane’s final jointure settlement is worked out from WRO, microfilm 705: 349/12946/498729; HLRO, MS PO/1/1539 (Original Acts, 31 Henry VIII, c.20); NA, C 65/147; LP, XIV.i, nos. 867, 1171; NA, E 315/233, fol. 338 (grant of the manors of Utlecote and Loxley); Journals of the House of Lords (1767–1846, I, p. 112). The two complementary indentures between Henry VIII, Mary Carey and her husband, William Stafford, and between Henry VIII and Sir James Boleyn are taken from C 54/418, entries numbered 14 and 18, belonging to March 22, 1539. As the result of a clerical error, entry no. 18 is misdated to the regnal year “31 Henry VIII” instead of “30 Henry VIII.” However, its position on the roll makes clear this is a slip, and the entry belongs to 30 Henry VIII.