Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford

by Julia Fox

  CHAPTER 28

  Marillac’s report on Henry’s demeanor is taken from LP, XIV.i, no. 1092. Charles’s comment on his leave-taking from Francis is CSPSp, V.ii, no. 102. For information on George Rochford’s involvement with the Schmalkaldic League, see McEntegart (2002, pp. 27–29). Of the many references to the so-called Exeter or Pole conspiracy, I have chosen to use LP, XIII.ii, nos. 695, 702, 765, 955, 979, 986. The appearance and personal qualities of Anne of Cleves are from LP, XIV.i, no. 552; LP, XIV.ii, no. 719. I have also relied on Starkey (2004, pp. 618–22) and Warnicke (2000, pp. 77, 88–93). The references to Anne’s ladies are from LP, XIV.ii, nos. 572, 719; LP, XV, nos. 21, 776. The extracts from Cromwell’s “Remembrances” are from LP, XIV.ii, no. 573. A succinct, but highly readable, account of Henry’s first meeting with Anne is given by Starkey (2004, pp. 627–29). A similar account, but one that also analyzes the protocol required for the meeting of a foreign bride, is found in Warnicke (2000, pp. 130–37). Another version can be found in Wriothesley (1875–77, I, pp. 109–10). The procession after the marriage is from Wriothesley I, p. 111, the voyage from Greenwich to Westminster is from I, p. 112, the May Day jousts are from Wriothesley I, pp. 117–18. The most usual interpretation of Cromwell’s fall bases it on factional struggles. This is very clearly described in ODNB, under the heading “Cromwell, Thomas.” Alternative explanations are from Warnicke (2000, pp. 187–228) and Bernard (2005, pp. 556–79). The extracts from Cranmer’s letters, including those from his letter to Henry VIII, are from Cox (1846, pp. 399–401). Cromwell’s plea for mercy is from LP, XV, no. 776. Of the plethora of references to Henry’s distaste for Anne and its consequences, including the divorce proceedings and Anne’s response, I have relied on LP, XV, nos. 776, 822, 823, 845, 850, 861, 872, 899, 925. Covos’s comment on the divorce is from CSPSp, VI.i, no. 115. However, I also relied heavily on the analysis in Starkey (2004, pp. 632–35) for details on the lack of consummation, the ladies’ evidence, and pp. 639–43 for the divorce proceedings. See also Warnicke (2000, pp. 162–65, 204–05) for opinion concerning nonconsummation and further discussion of Henry’s impotence. Warnicke distrusts the evidence of Jane and the other ladies because of Anne’s language difficulties (pp. 233–35). It is indeed true that the councilors specifically mention taking an interpreter with them when visiting Anne (LP, XV, no. 845) but that may have been for the avoidance of error in the future. This was, after all, a highly complex legal matter with potentially massive international implications. There are no objections to the usual interpretation raised by Starkey (2004, pp. 633–35) or Bernard (2005, p. 549), a rare point of agreement between these historians. Indeed, Bernard points out that if Henry wanted to suggest that Anne was no virgin before she came to England, the ladies’ testimony points to the opposite, so there would be no reason for the government to fabricate it, although the women do, of course, confirm Henry’s statement that he did not have sexual relations with Anne himself. In the absence of further evidence, it is impossible to be certain about how much knowledge of English Anne had picked up in the six months or so since her arrival, but since the predominant language spoken around her would have been English, she must have absorbed at least the rudiments. Anne still had a handful of German attendants, including the influential Mrs. Loew, so it is possible that there could have been some simultaneous translation going on as well. Whatever the truth of the episode, Jane Rochford’s testimony places her very much on the side of the king, the very place where she has to be if she is to remain at court and that is what is crucial to her story.

  CHAPTER 29

  A basic biography of Catherine Howard can be found in ODNB. For a fuller picture, which also sets her within the context of her world, see Smith (1961). The most recent assessment is Starkey (2004, pp. 644–84). An excellent account of Cromwell’s final speech and his unpleasant death is found in Hall (1904, II, pp. 306–7). The council’s request to Henry to marry Catherine, with his comment on her as a “jewel for womanhood,” is from LP, XVI, no. 1334. Dorothy Josselyn’s opinion of Catherine is from LP, Addenda I.ii, no. 1513. Mary’s disagreement with her is from Chapuys in LP, XVI, no. 314. He also reports Mary’s present to Catherine and the visit of Anne of Cleves: LP, XVI, no. 436. Catherine’s agreement to Mary’s residence at court is from LP, XVI, no. 835. Marillac’s account of Henry’s devotion to Catherine is from LP, XVI, no. 12, which is also the source for the reintroduction of French fashions. Information on some of Henry’s gifts to Catherine is from LP, XVI, no. 1389. Marillac’s report of rumors concerning her pregnancy and possible coronation is from LP, XVI, no. 712. The abstracts of Jane’s possessions from LP, XVI, no. 1340, and LP, XVII, no. 267, p. 147, are too brief. I have used the fuller, handwritten lists from NA, SP 1/167, fols. 163–64 (begins at stamped fol. 147) and E 315/160, fols. 104f.r.–v., 106. Opinions of Henry’s health are from LP, XIII.i, no. 995; LP, XVI, no. 589. The new building at Chenies was discovered by excavations at the site in 2004. The fact that Henry was accommodated in a “lower chamber” together with the state bed specially prepared for him, which would have had to be constructed within the room as it was far too big, heavy, and cumbersome to be moved, is from Sir John Russell’s will: NA, PROB 11/69. Henry’s method of hunting is from LP, XVI, no. 1089. For my account of Henry’s size and ailments, I relied on Starkey (1991b, pp. 125, 144–45). See also Chamberlin (1932, pp. 278–82). The river pageant is from CSPSp, VI.i, no. 155, and LP, XVI, no. 650. Information on the progress is from LP, XVI, nos. 1011, 1088, 1089. Chapuys is the main source for Catherine’s fears of a possible reconciliation with Anne of Cleves and rumored divorce plans: CSPSp, VI.i, no. 163, and LP, XVI, no. 1328. Henry’s joy at his marriage is from LP, XVI, no. 1334, and my account of his early reactions to news of Catherine’s betrayal is taken from LP, XVI, nos. 1328, 1332, 1334.

  CHAPTER 30

  Why Jane decided to support Catherine in her doomed affair with Culpepper is crucial to her story and to an understanding of her life. I cannot agree with Warnicke’s suggestion (ODNB, under the heading “Howard, Catherine”) that Jane did so because she was “financially straitened.” Since she had just obtained her jointure settlement and was richer than ever before in her own right, Jane did not need to endanger her life for money. In any case, although Henry was generous to his young wife, it is hard to believe that constant payments to Jane would have gone unnoticed for long. Starkey interprets Jane as comparable to Juliet’s Nurse, indulging and pandering to her charge: Starkey (2004, pp. 673–74). While Jane and Catherine do appear to have rubbed along happily together, as the queen’s reliance on her proves, Jane’s earlier experiences with Anne’s fall would surely have deterred altruism that came accompanied by such a degree of risk. I think Jane had come through too hard a school to deliberately jeopardize her own position even if she did feel some sympathy for the young queen. Lacey Baldwin Smith suggests that since Jane “went mad under the strain of disclosure and ceaseless interrogation,” it might be “charitable to believe that she was insane from the start”: Smith (1961, p. 156). Apart from the obvious nonsequitur, this does not fit with the considerable acumen Jane had displayed in obtaining her jointure settlement. There is no hint in the sources of any unbalanced behavior until she was sent to the Tower. The Culpepper affair lasted from April 1541 until the exposure of Catherine’s early conduct in November 1541. If Jane was “insane” for six months, it seems odd that there is no mention of it. Her confession (see notes to chap. 31 in this volume) is completely lucid. I think the most plausible explanation for Jane’s foolish behavior is simply that she became involved because Catherine gave her a direct order. She was the queen’s pawn, rather than the other way around. Then, once embroiled, and with no male protector in whom she could confide and on whom she could rely, her dangerous situation spiraled out of control.

  Catherine’s childhood is discussed by Smith (1961, pp. 42–43, 47–49, 194–96) and Starkey (2004, pp. 645–46). Marillac’s report on the outbreak of the scandal is from LP, XVI, no.
1332. As to the affair and events leading to the fall of Catherine, the calendared abstracts from LP, XVI, nos. 1317, 1320–21, 1325, 1337–39, 1348, 1385, 1400, 1407, 1409, 1415–16, 1423–24, 1442, 1461, 1469, are useful but no more than as a starting point: they are heavily abridged and sexual innuendo is censored to match the editor’s opinion of what might properly appear in print in 1898. The letters from and between members of the council are fully transcribed and printed in State Papers (1830–52, I, pp. 691–728). Catherine Howard’s examinations by Cranmer are from Longleat, Portland Papers, PO/1, fols. 51–53f.v., fully printed in HMC Bath (1907, II, pp. 8–10); Burnet (1820, III.ii, pp. 226–29, no. 71). Cranmer’s letter to Henry VIII describing Catherine and her state of mind is from NA, SP 1/167, fols. 139–40 (stamped fols. 121–22), and State Papers (1830–52, I, pp. 689–91). Further reports of her mental state are from Paget’s letter to Henry printed in State Papers (1830–52, VIII, p. 636). This leaves the most important evidence: the interrogatories and signed (and sworn) depositions, difficult to read and therefore still almost untouched in the National Archives. The first to decipher some of them was Starkey (2004, pp. 667–81). My account is substantially based on these handwritten depositions, which are as follows: Mary Hall’s (born Lascelles) deposition from SP 1/167, fols. 128–31 (stamped fols. 110–13); Henry Manox’s depositions from SP 1/167, fols. 135–38f.v. (stamped fols. 117–20f.v.), 161 (stamped fol. 144); Margaret (also known as Mary) Morton’s depositions from SP 1/167, fols. 153–54 (stamped fols. 133–34), 162 (stamped fol. 146); Katherine Tylney’s depositions from SP 1/167, fols. 149 (stamped fol. 131), 157 (stamped fol. 140); Alice Wilkes’s deposition from SP 1/167, fols. 155, 157 (stamped fols. 136, 140); Margaret, Lady Howard’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 155 (stamped fol. 136); Anne Howard’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 155 (stamped fol. 136); Margaret Benet’s deposition from SP 1/167, fols. 155–56 (stamped fols. 136–38); Malyn Tylney’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 156 (stamped fol. 138); Edward Waldegrave’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 156 (stamped fol. 138); Francis Dereham’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 157 (stamped fol. 140); Thomas Culpepper’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 157–59 (stamped fols. 140–42); Jane Rochford’s deposition from SP 1/167, fols. 159–60 (stamped fols. 142–43); John Lascelles’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 162 (stamped fol. 146); Joan Bulmer’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 162 (stamped fol. 146); Robert Davenport’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 161 (stamped fol. 144); the council’s list of examinates from SP 1/167, fol. 151 (stamped fol. 132). Further background on Henry Manox is from NA, DL25/1031; DL25/1032/(1); NA, C 1/1076/4–7; C 1/1304/19–26; C 1/1308/6–8; C 1/1313/23–26. Although Manox is listed in the index to LP, XVI, p. 889, as executed in December 1541, a view apparently endorsed by Smith (1961), there are no trial or execution records for him. In fact, he escaped scot-free, living at Streatham, before moving to Hemingford in Huntingdonshire, where he died in his bed in 1564: NA, PROB 11/47 (his will). Further background on Robert Davenport and Francis Dereham is from State Papers (1830–52, I, p. 698). A succinct analysis of the incident involving Mr. Johns is provided by Starkey (2004, pp. 661–62). The reference to Culpepper’s involvement in a rape and murder, for which he received a royal pardon, is from LP, XVII, appendix, no. 10, although his brother, another Thomas, might possibly have committed these offenses. Catherine’s letter to Culpepper is fully printed in LP, XVI, no. 1134. Her gifts to him are from NA, SP 1/167, fol. 157 (stamped fol. 140). Her comments to Jane about him are taken from Jane’s confession (see above). Andrew Maunsay’s statement is from LP, XVI, no. 1348. Jane Bulmer’s letter is from LP, XV, no. 875. Catherine’s warning to Dereham is from NA, SP 1/167, fol. 157 (stamped fol. 140). The Duchess of Norfolk’s remark that neither Catherine nor Dereham would die for actions committed before Catherine’s marriage is from LP, XVI, no. 1400. The enrollment of Lord Morley’s purchase of Markhall from Thomas Shaa is from NA, C 54/420.

  CHAPTER 31

  Just as there is debate about Jane’s part in the Culpepper episode, so there is about whether or not it really was a fully blown affair or nothing more than talk. Inevitably, we can but speculate. Starkey believes Culpepper’s story rings true: Starkey (2004, p. 675). Lacey Baldwin Smith also tends to exonerate Catherine. I remain skeptical that a woman as sexually experienced as Catherine could spend so long, and at such risk, with an equally experienced young man just talking. She could have talked, although admittedly not for such long periods, within the normal confines of the court if that was all she wanted. Since marriages in Tudor times were primarily business contracts, it was not unknown for a woman to take a lover, although the practice was certainly not condoned. It was Catherine’s tragedy that marrying the king made this not only socially and morally unacceptable but fatal. Warnicke (ODNB, under the heading “Howard, Catherine”) believes that far from Catherine wanting to sleep with Culpepper, she was in fact trying to buy his silence on the Dereham episode. She sees Catherine’s romantic letter to Culpepper as innocent, merely indicating her need to see him as “a misguided attempt at appeasement.” If so, it took the queen rather a lot of attempts. And Culpepper’s confession does not even mention Dereham. I remain unconvinced by this theory, interesting as it is.

  My sources for this chapter are those also used for chap. 30, in particular the signed (and sworn) depositions of Culpepper, Jane Rochford, Margaret Morton, and Katherine Tylney (for full references, see notes above). Marillac’s accusation of Dereham as Culpepper’s betrayer is from LP, XVI, no. 1366. Henry’s determination to discover everything is taken from State Papers (1830–52, I., p. 703). The list of what Catherine was to be allowed at Syon, and who was to accompany her, is from State Papers (1830–52, I., pp. 691–92, 695) and LP, XVI, no. 1331. Catherine’s attempt to shift all the blame onto Jane, insisting it was she who had pushed her into encouraging Culpepper, is from her so-called confession to Cranmer, dated November 12, 1541: Longleat, Portland Papers, PO/1, fols. 51–53f.v., fully printed in HMC Bath (1907, II, pp. 8–10). The seizure of Culpepper’s possessions on November 14 is from LP, XVI, no. 1343. The Knyvett affair is from LP, XVI, no. 760, and Wriothesley (1875–77, I, p. 125). Henry’s reaction to Catherine’s betrayal is from LP, XVI, no. 1426. The trial and executions of Dereham and Culpepper and subsequent parliamentary attainders are from NA, KB 8/13/1; LP XVI, nos. 1395, 1426, 1430, 1432, 1434; LP, XVII, no. 28, p. 13, no. 63; Statutes (1542) [Anno tricesimo tertio Henrici Octavi], sigs.f.ii–fv (STC, no. 9405. 5); and State Papers (1830–52, I, pp. 701, 704, 707). Mary Lascelles’s narrow escape is from State Papers (1830–52, I, pp. 704–05) and LP, XVI, no. 1433. The Duchess of Norfolk’s opening of the coffers is from LP, XVI, nos. 1409, 1416, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1467, 1469, 1470, and State Papers (1830–52, I, pp. 696–702). Dereham’s visit to Ireland is from LP, XVI, nos. 1409 and 1416. Walsingham’s problem concerning the secure custody of his many prisoners is from LP, XVI, nos. 1433, 1437, 1489, pp. 706, 708. The prisoners’ repentance is from LP, XVI, no. 1471; State Papers (1830–52, I, p. 726). Norfolk’s letter to Henry is from State Papers (1830–52, I, p. 721) and LP, XVI, no. 1454. Marillac’s reference to Catherine’s brothers riding through the streets is from LP, XVI, no. 1426. The Morley land transaction is from LP, XVII, no. 54. James Boleyn’s securing of Jane Rochford’s “stuff” is from LP, XVII, no. 119. Gage’s breaking up of Catherine’s household at Syon is from LP, XVII, no. 92. Her behavior at Syon is from CSPSp, VI.i, no. 228. Her journey to the Tower and her request to practice with the block are from CSPSp, VI.i, no. 232, and LP, XVII, no. 124. Jane’s removal from the Tower to regain her sanity in the more congenial surroundings of Russell House is from LP, XVI, no. 1401. This interpretation is further documented by Wriothesley, who mentions Jane being taken to the Tower on two separate occasions: Wriothesley (1875–77, I, pp. 131, 133). Since Henry wanted justice to be visible, it makes perfect sense that he would ensure that Jane was fit enough to acquiesce rather than collapse completely on the scaffold or, worse, to die from
fright inside the Tower (this had also been his policy prior to the execution of Bishop John Fisher, to whom Henry sent his finest doctor and paid the bills).

  CHAPTER 32

  The only genuine eyewitness account of the executions is from Ottwell Johnson: LP, XVII, no. 106, fully transcribed and printed by Ellis (1824–46, 1st series, II, pp. 128–29). Marillac’s account is from LP, XVII, no. 100. That of Chapuys is from LP, XVII, no. 124, and CSPSp, VI.i, no. 232. The Privy Council meeting attended by both Norfolk and Suffolk is from LP, XVII, no. 103. Henry’s reaction is from LP, XVII, nos. 124, 178, and LP, XVII, appendix B, no. 13. I am indebted to James Simpson for considering De claris mulieribus in relation to Jane’s death. His superb analysis is from his essay in Axton and Carley (2000, pp. 153–69). His interpretation of Polyxena’s death forms the basis of my ideas on Morley’s reaction to Jane’s execution, although I tend to go slightly further in seeing Morley’s translation as a veiled obituary for his daughter. I am deeply indebted to Jessica Sharkey of Clare College, Cambridge, for her incisive comparison of Boccaccio’s original text with Morley’s translation of the Polyxena passage. She has pointed out that Morley turned throat into neck, a far more significant word in the context of decapitation. The Latin version may conveniently be compared with Morley’s English translation: Wright (1943, pp. 105–6). Lady Morley’s contribution to the bells at St. Giles is from ERO, MS DP/27/5/1, fol. 31. This is the only known reference to either of the Morleys contributing to the village church before Jane’s death, although the bells were often in need of repair or replacement. For reference to the bell today, see Cocks and Hardie (1994, p. 14). My account of the geography of the Tower is from Keay (2001, pp. 25–49). Cf. Ives (2004, p. 357).