Yet despite his persistence, Francis was not prepared to invoke anti-papal legislation in France. The envoys were only successful in obtaining Francis's agreement to a further meeting with Henry. On 24 April, four days after entering into discussions with the English diplomats, the French king prepared a memorandum setting out the various demands of Henry's diplomats and his answers to them: regarding abandoning his alliance with the Pope, he had no such alliance and so could not break it; this was not an appropriate time to invade Milan, but if he should ever do so he would not put himself under obligation to the Pope for the sake of subsidies; although willing to do so in principle, he saw no reason why he should follow a similar course to the anti-papal legislation that had been passed in England and cause trouble in his kingdom, although he did not blame Henry for doing so; he had no objection to the proposed meeting with his "good brother"; and he was happy to refuse the hand of his daughter to King James V of Scotland.6
Francis was understandably concerned that by following Henry's example, he too might receive a sentence of excommunication and that it could result in war on France's borders. In those circumstances, he asked what Henry would do for him. George and Fitzwilliam returned to England two days after receiving Francis's response, firstly to advise Henry of the outcome of the negotiations, and secondly so that arrangements could be put in place for the royal meeting.
As promised in their joint letter of 16 April, George and Fitzwilliam visited Lord Lisle and his wife on their way back to London. Lady Lisle presented him with "dotterals" (plovers) as a gift to his sister. We know of the gift due to a letter written by John Atkinson to Lady Lisle on 5 May saying:
And the Queen did appoint six of your dotterals for her supper, six for Monday dinner, and six for supper. My Lord of Rochford presented them his self, and showed her how they were killed new at 12 of the clock in Dover, of the which she was glad, and spake many good words toward your ladyship's good report, as I was informed by them that stood by.7
It was a mark of the siblings' closeness that gifts for Anne were often initially presented to her brother in the knowledge that they would reach the Queen safely. The letter also raises the spectre of the lack of privacy within the court. As with every aspect of a sixteenth century queen, the gift was presented by George to his sister in the public arena. Their conversation was overheard by a number of people standing by and was reported on. This was a minor example of the smothering suffocation of court life for Anne. How could a woman under such close scrutiny possibly have acted in the manner of which she was later accused? This close scrutiny also makes an even greater mockery of the theory regarding George Boleyn's sexuality. Rumours of his womanising abounded, but there were no contemporaneous rumours of homosexuality, which there surely would have been if he had acted in a way considered inappropriate for the brother-in-law of the King. George remained a trusted diplomat and confidante of the King right up until his arrest.
When George and Fitzwilliam returned to court, Henry chose to view their mission as a success. Although the French king would not invoke anti-papal legislation, the fact that he indicated a willingness to follow "his good brother" with similar measures to those declared in England, and that he confirmed his agreement to a further meeting with Henry, meant that his response was generally interpreted favourably in England.
Shortly after George's return from France, Henry gave a grand dinner in honour of him and Fitzwilliam, and in front of the entire court proclaimed that "he was bound to give thanks to God for having so entirely conciliated to him such a good brother and friend as the King of France, who was always ready to share his fortune and conform his will, which the said Rochford and Fitzwilliam confirmed."8 Of course, this was not correct. The English representatives and Henry himself were being fobbed off by the French king, but Henry was determined not to see it that way, and that same month he wrote to his ambassador in France, John Wallop:
We greet you well, signifying unto you that, perceiving by the respect of our right trusty and right wellbeloved counsellors the Lord Rochford and Sir William Fitzwilliam knight, Treasurer of our Household, the hearty zeal, propence good mind and will of our good brother the French king towards us and our realm ministered and showed in such brotherlike and friendly sort as nothing unto us can be more joyous or acceptable, you shall on our behalf give our said good brother our most entire and hearty thanks for the same. And touching his gentle, loving, most prudent and amiable answers in all things by us incommended and given in charge to our said counsellors, as well concerning our meeting as otherwise, you shall declare to our said good brother that the same are unto us so great, thankful and so heartily desired on our part that nothing can be to our greater joy, comfort and contentment.9
The reality was that whatever Francis had told Henry's envoys, he had no intention of invoking anti-papal measures. Later, Francis's continuing refusal to go down the English route of royal supremacy confirmed Henry's suspicion that he could not fully trust him. But upon George Boleyn's return to England in May 1534, Henry showed no outward sign of discontent. On the contrary, he had proclaimed to the court his contentment with the results of George's fourth embassy, and had rewarded George with the offices of Constable of Dover Castle and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports.10
Despite failing to persuade Francis to invoke anti-papal legislation, it was again George Boleyn who Henry chose as ambassador to travel to France in July.11 His instructions were issued on 7 July 1534 and he left England three days later.12 George was instructed to have an initial meeting with the Queen of Navarre to elicit her help in encouraging her brother to support Henry, and to postpone the royal meeting which had been scheduled to take place the following month until the following spring. He was to say that, although Anne was anxious to meet the Queen of Navarre, she wished the meeting to be deferred due to being far gone with child. On 10 July, Sir Edward Ryngeley wrote to Lord Lisle confirming that although the King had been due in Calais at the end of August, this was now somewhat in doubt and that the King was waiting "till the return of my lord of Rochford out of France."13
As in March 1533, when he had imparted to Francis the news of his sister's marriage, Anne's brother George was obviously the most suitable person to undertake the task of advising Francis of her second pregnancy. But in addition to this, he had already established a good relationship with the Queen of Navarre on previous embassies, due mainly to their joint commitment to Reform, and it was no doubt felt that George was the most likely person to encourage her into persuading her brother to provide support for Henry's cause.
There was an element of subterfuge in the instructions that made the meetings George was to have with Francis and Marguerite less than straightforward. The instructions from Henry state that George was to tell the Queen of Navarre that Anne wished to defer the meeting, but that Henry was so anxious to see the French king that he would not put the meeting off on Anne's account. George was to say that Anne wanted Henry by her side due to her advanced pregnancy, and he was instructed to "press this matter very earnestly", and say that Anne, "with much suit", had obtained leave for George to go to France instead of the King, "Rochford being her brother, and one whom her grace knoweth well will, to the utmost of his power, without offence to the king's highness, endeavour himself to her graces satisfaction in this behalf."14 The instructions then go on to say that Anne hoped she might be able to go to Calais the following April. All this meant that George was to make clear to Marguerite that although his sister was desirous of meeting her, it was Anne alone who wished to postpone the meeting due to her pregnancy, and that it was nothing to do with Henry. The instructions clearly confirm that Anne's brother was astute enough to promote his sister's best interests without compromising Henry to any degree.
After seeing Marguerite, George was then to proceed to the French court for a meeting with Francis. His instructions included a number of matters, but he was again to request, on Anne's behalf, the postponement of the meeting, "using such ways a
nd means as the queen of Navarre approves", and adding, "as of himself', that he thinks it would be advisable to agree to it, "as the time [Anne's impending confinement] shall shortly be here". Again, he was to ensure that Francis was aware that the request to postpone the meeting was coming solely from Anne, "the said Lord Rochford even so tempering his communications with the French king in this matter as he smell[?] not the king's highness to be overmuch desirous of it, but all in the queen's name."15
The instructions also state that George was to have further communication with the French king on issues that are not contained in the written instructions, but which have been discussed directly between the King, George and Anne: "He hath received more ample and full instructions... by mouth..." This shows a depth of trust in his brother-in-law that the King confirms in the body of the instructions themselves. These instructions also show the respect and affection in which the King held him, containing the following paragraph:
First the Kings Majesty, knowing the approved wisdom fidelity and diligence, which is and ever hath been in the said Lord Rochford, with the propence good will mind and heart to serve his Highness in all things that may tend to his Graces contentment and pleasure, hath now appointed the said Lord Rochford, as one whom his grace specially loveth and trustith."
George arrived back in England on the 27 July bringing with him confirmation that Francis had agreed to postpone the meeting until the following year. As an example of how hopelessly wrong Chapuys could be with the information contained in his dispatches, he wrote to the Emperor on the day of George's arrival saying, "The King has not been glad of the appointment of the said Landgrave, nor of the news reported from France by Rochford, among which is the delay of the interview till April."16 The reality was that George's instructions had actually been to get the meeting postponed to the following April, which does exemplify how dangerous it is to rely too heavily on the information contained in Chapuys' dispatches.
In the end, the proposed meeting between the two kings and queens never did take place. The meeting was rescheduled on a number of occasions, but was eventually scheduled to take place in May 1536. For obvious reasons this was cancelled. Less than two years after George's return from France, Henry happily sacrificed the brother-in-law he "specially loveth and trustith", in order to get rid of the wife of whom he had tired. Like a child with a favourite toy, when Henry no longer cared for Anne, both she and her brother were thrown away. George Boleyn's years of loyalty and devoted service were entirely forgotten in the King's haste to remarry.
17 - Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports
During 1534 and 1535, and into 1536, the Boleyns maintained their strong position at court, and George Boleyn continued to be shown high royal favour. At the start of 1534, the Captain of Guisnes Castle, Lord Sandys, was taken grievously ill. Guisnes was the stronghold that guarded the last outpost of England on the continent - the city of Calais. Although Sandys eventually recovered, for a time it was believed he would die. On 4 April 1534, John Husee wrote to Lord Lisle, "And since my last letter I have perfect knowledge that if he had deceased my Lord of Rochford had been Captain of Guisnes."1 The position was a highly prestigious and lucrative one. The salary was 2 shillings a day, and a 40 mark reward, with allowances, making a total of over £1000 a year. Lisle himself sought to exchange his deputyship of Calais for the captaincy of Guisnes, but Henry had already earmarked the position for his brother-in-law. This was later reaffirmed in a further letter of Husee's to Lord Lisle dated 11 April, when he states that Cromwell himself confirmed "that my Lord of Rochford hath grant of the same long agone."2
Due to Lord Sandys's recovery, the captaincy remained with him, but instead George was made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and then Constable of Dover Castle on 16 June 1534, positions he retained until his death.3 The official grant was made on 23 June, but the appointment must have been known well before this because on 11 June Sir Edward Ryngeley wrote to Lord Lisle, "We have a new Lord Warden of the Ports, which is my Lord of Rochford."4 Again, this position was highly sought after, but George Boleyn was in the right place at the right time to be granted it. The date of the grant suggests that it was a reward for George's efforts in France on his fourth diplomatic mission that April, which Henry chose to perceive as successful. This coincided neatly with the death of Edward Guildford, the resident incumbent, on 4 June.
The Cinque Ports is a group of port towns on the southeast coast of England. The original five were Sandwich, Dover, Hythe, New Romney and Hastings, but Winchelsea and Rye were also added. The port towns were of strategic importance for the defence of the country from potential foreign invasion. As such, they were responsible for the fitting-out and manning of ships for the transport of the King's army, and defence of the coast. In return, they received extensive immunities and liberties, which they guarded jealously. Every ambitious man in England wanted the distinction of being granted the position of Lord Warden, so much so that the post was held by princes of the realm such as Edward I, the Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III) and Henry VIII himself prior to becoming King. Ominously, the Duke of Buckingham had held the post prior to his execution in 1521 on trumped up charges of treason.
The post of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports dates from at least the twelfth century and is now a ceremonial office. In the sixteenth century, it was the most powerful appointment of the realm. The Lord Warden had "lieutenant's powers of muster" and admiralty jurisdiction along the coast, and served as the Crown's agent in the ports. His responsibilities included collecting taxes, arresting criminals and returning writs. He held court in St James' Church, near Dover Castle, and the jurisdiction was similar to that of Chancery. The merging of the Constableship of Dover Castle with the office of Lord Warden meant that the Lord Warden also had a garrison at his disposal. Even today, the position of Lord Warden and Admiral of the Cinque Ports is the most ancient military honour available in England. More recent holders include William Pitt, the Duke of Wellington and Winston Churchill. Queen Elizabeth II currently holds the position.5 Following George Boleyn's death, the post was handed to Thomas Cheyney, who was actually earmarked for the post on 8 May 1536, seven days before George even stood trial.
The appointment was made by the Crown, and the Lord Warden's first loyalty was to the sovereign, who was often intolerant of any rival jurisdiction. This resulted in the Lord Wardens having conflicting loyalties, because they were also bound by their oath of office to maintain and defend the ports' liberties. The ports looked to their Lord Wardens to be their protectors against external pressures, in particular those exerted by the Crown. This was not an easy balancing act for any Lord Warden, let alone one who was the King's brother-in-law.
George Boleyn's position as Lord Warden meant that when he was not abroad on embassy, much of his time would have been spent in Dover. His influence is referred to in correspondence between England and Calais. The post was not a sinecure, and he was not merely a figurehead; he took a very active role. For example, in April 1535, two men, Robert Justyce and his son James, were ordered to make certain payments together with further penalties for other misbehaviour, including a verbal refusal to make payment to the complainants as ordered. On 8 May Sir Richard Dering wrote to Lord Lisle complaining that he was being blamed by the Justyce's for the making of the order, when it was in fact "my Lord Warden's own personal act and judgement, sitting in court, and sitting with him then there present Sir William Haute and Sir Edward Ryngeley, knights and divers other gentlemen", whereby George "commanded them both to prison".6 Dering goes on to say that George:
Not only at his departing from the Castle did straitly command me, but also by his several letters in like manner did command me that they both should satisfy the said parties complainants their demands adjudged and also pay the penalties and moreover be bound with sufficient sureties for their good abearing before they should depart out of prison.
Eventually, the two men paid the sums they were ordered to pay, less sums which the com
plainants relaxed, and were thereby released by Dering, even though they had not given the sureties George had ordered. Dering also discharged them from part of the penalties they had been ordered to pay.
The fact that the complainants themselves relaxed part of the judgement suggests that the amount awarded by the young Lord Warden had been excessive. Upon hearing the judgement, Robert Justyce had exclaimed that "he would rather be cut in two with a sword than pay the demands the complainants adjudged or pay the penalties" - hence the Lord Warden's decision to command them to prison. Robert Justyce had been foolish enough to challenge the authority of George Boleyn in a court full of high-ranking officials, and such audacity could not be allowed. The fact that George sentenced both father and son to prison confirms our view of him as a young man capable of a single-minded ruthlessness, particularly when openly challenged. In this instance he went further. Not only did he verbally reiterate his orders to Dering, he also did so in several letters. This was not simply a question of making an example of the men. George was obviously furious, and he pursued the matter with a single-mindedness bordering on the vindictive. By the tone of Dering's letter, and from his actions, he clearly thought the Lord Warden had over reacted. He wrote to Lisle, "Of my own zeal, good will, and contrary to the commandment of my said Lord Warden, I have... set them both at liberty". However, he does express anxiety as to the "non-doing", of the Lord Warden's commandments.
Dering's letter raises a further issue of note. In heraldry, a cognisance was a mark worn by servants of a noble house, confirming the family by whom they were retained. George had commanded that in all towns of the ports no servant was to wear the cognisance of anyone other than the King or himself. Dering beseeches Lisle "not to take displeasure with me for doing of my said lord and master's commandment." This appears to exhibit a breathtaking arrogance on the part of George Boleyn, but the King had clearly given him direct authority to make such a commandment. Be that as it may, it is not difficult to see how the Queen's brother acquired a reputation for pride and arrogance, or how his downfall was not entirely mourned by some of his contemporaries.
George Boleyn: Tudor Poet, Courtier & Diplomat Page 16
