George Boleyn: Tudor Poet, Courtier & Diplomat

by Ridgway, Claire

  It was this enthusiasm, devotion, competence and, above all, loyalty which continued to endear him to the King. Yet almost exactly one year after this letter was written, George was supposed to have had sex for the first time with his sister. And at the same time as the above letter was written, George was supposed to have not only known of Anne's alleged affairs with the other four accused men, but to have actively encouraged them. Therefore, Henry's "most humble and obedient subject and servant" was, according to his later prosecution, already committing treason at this point.

  Unknown to Henry, one of the purposes of the Admiral's visit was to enforce the marriage, which had been arranged in 1518, between Henry's eldest daughter Mary and the Dauphin. The desire by the French to enforce the match was on the understanding that Mary remained legitimate, which would mean the undoing of the Acts of Succession and Supremacy. This came as an unpleasant surprise to Henry and as utter horror to the Boleyns. During his conference with the Admiral of France, Henry would not agree to the marriage between Mary and the Dauphin, but instead made a counter-proposal of a marriage between Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Angoulême, the French king's third son. The counter-proposal was rejected. The desire by the French to enforce the marriage of Mary to the Dauphin was an indication that they were putting Mary's claim to the throne above Elizabeth's. The French stance shocked both Anne and her brother, who had previously thought that any support they may have received from abroad would be from France.

  Unfortunately for them, the French embassy had come one month after the "affair of the placards", which had completely turned Francis I against the evangelical movement.9 Not even his evangelical sister Marguerite could thereafter dissuade him from actively persecuting those who favoured the new religious ideals. Francis was well aware of the Boleyns' evangelical faith, particularly from his close association with George Boleyn over the years. From being tolerant of Reform, and a potential ally of the Boleyns, Francis had come to distrust the very ideals that they embodied. Francis knew that any child of Anne's would promote Reform, but that Mary would return England to Catholicism. The Boleyns had lost a possible ally, and no longer would George Boleyn be able to rely on a good relationship with the French king. Having left Francis on excellent terms in July 1534, George never met the French king again.

  It is ominous that a month after the French debacle, during December 1534 an incident occurred that provided the first indication that George Boleyn might be out of favour with Henry VIII. According to Chapuys, that month George had a heated discussion with his cousin, Francis Bryan, who had previously been a staunch ally of the Boleyns.10 Bryan was a notorious character, christened "the Vicar of Hell" by Cromwell. He was questioned in May 1536 as a possible victim of the plot against the Boleyns, but managed to escape without being arrested and charged. At some time in his life he lost an eye, the circumstances of which are contradictory. Like George, Bryan was a gifted poet and diplomat who was sent on numerous missions abroad by Henry. His reputation as a hell raiser made him popular with the King, with whom he was on intimate terms throughout his life. It was Francis Bryan, together with Henry Norris and George Boleyn himself, who were considered to be the three courtiers most influential with the King during the early to mid-1530s. On 13 August 1535, John Worth wrote to Lady Lisle requesting that she write to "Master Norris or to Francis Bryan, or to my Lord Rochford, in desiring them to get me a bill assigned of the king for the check of my wages for a three years."11 It was clearly recognised by everyone that if a particular favour was required of the King, then these three men were the people to mediate.

  In a dispatch from Chapuys dated 19 December, he wrote gleefully that "It is true that Rochefort's wife was sent from Court for the reason that I have heretofore written, and the said king recently showed disfavour to the said Rochefort in some question he had with master Bryan."12 As with most of Chapuys' reports, there is no other corroborative evidence, and therefore the circumstances cannot be verified. Chapuys gives no indication of what the quarrel was about, probably because he was ignorant of the details. Whatever the substance of the quarrel, it was serious enough for the King not only to have intervened, but also to have sided with Bryan against his brother-in-law. Chapuys clearly ties the King's siding with Bryan to the banishment of George's wife, as if Chapuys is suggesting the King's disfavour at her bad behaviour was being taken out on her husband.

  It is often suggested that Bryan deliberately faked the quarrel with George in order to steer clear of trouble at the time of Anne's downfall. Although this is a possibility, it seems unlikely bearing in mind the date of the altercation. Bryan was certainly a survivor, but in December 1534, despite the loss of their second child and the King's wandering eye, there was no realistic suggestion that Henry's marriage to Anne was in serious difficulties. Yet whatever the nature of the quarrel, it may well have been from this moment on that Bryan's allegiance to the Boleyns altered. Certainly by May 1536, he was securely on the winning side, making the timing of his argument with George highly fortuitous.

  If Chapuys was correct, and George was out of favour with the King, the disfavour was clearly temporary because the following year he chose George to renegotiate the marriage of Elizabeth in place of Cromwell who was ill. At the time of the quarrel, though, George would have been embarrassed and humiliated. He may well have seen any altercation with his cousin as a private family matter. To have an argument aired in public, and to have the King side against him, would have been mortifying, particularly as this would have been the first time the King had ever shown displeasure towards him personally. It has also been suggested that the King and Bryan deliberately engineered the quarrel to enable the King to side against George, thereby showing his general displeasure with Anne, while using George as a scapegoat. This seems unlikely, but if true, it was a dreadful portent of things to come.

  The last six months of 1534 were particularly difficult for the Boleyns. Anne had miscarried, her sister and sister-in-law had been banished from court, Henry had begun to pay attention to other women, an alliance with France could no longer be relied upon, and even George was temporarily out of favour. The following year would prove no better.

  1535 was a particularly brutal and savage year, and the Boleyns come out of it with little credit. In February 1535, the Act of Supremacy, which had been enacted the previous November, came into force and steps were immediately taken to enforce compliance. This was the start of four of the most brutal and barbaric years in English history, as those who opposed this act and the Act of Succession were tried and executed as traitors. Many people were martyred in the name of religious reform, which to a large extent had been instigated by the Boleyn siblings and their supporters. There is no proof that either of the siblings actively supported these deaths, which were ordered by Henry and Henry alone, but just as the court later turned a blind eye to the deaths of the Boleyn siblings, so Anne and George appeared indifferent to the sufferings their commitment to Reform was causing. George Boleyn passionately believed that religious reform was fundamentally right, yet by achieving it, honourable men were being murdered. He must have prayed that the legislation would pave the way for Reform as he had envisioned it, rather than becoming merely a means of granting absolute power to an already egotistical monarch.

  On 4 May 1535, George was present, along with his father, uncle (Norfolk), Henry Norris and other courtiers, including Henry's illegitimate son, at the executions of three prominent Carthusian monks. The Carthusians are a Roman Catholic order of monks and nuns, and like Thomas More and John Fisher, they refused to swear an oath to the Acts of Succession and Supremacy. Three priors were put to death - John Houghton, Robert Lawrence and Augustine Webster, respectively priors of the London Charterhouse, Beauvale and Axholme – and a Bridgettine monk, Richard Reynolds of Syon Abbey. They were hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn. Between 1535 and 1536, 18 Carthusian monks were executed for defying the new legislation.

  In 1532, Thomas More had resigned hi
s post of Chancellor. His Catholic faith meant he felt unable to embrace the belief that the Pope was only the Bishop of Rome, and that he had no authority over the Christian church as a whole. Likewise, the English Catholic Bishop John Fisher was unable to recognise Henry as head of the Church of England. Fisher had initially been arrested in March 1533 for supposedly alleging that when George Boleyn travelled to France he had taken with him large sums of money to be used as bribes.13 Fisher was later set at liberty, but the following year he was again arrested, this time for refusing to sign the oath of succession acknowledging Anne's children as legitimate heirs. He was also unable to accept that Henry could be the law of God on Earth. Fisher was sent to the Tower on 26 April 1534, shortly after the Act of Succession came into force. He stood trial on 17 June and was beheaded five days later. The death of Fisher resulted in the Pope activating Henry's excommunication, which had been threatened three years previously.

  Thomas More's opposition went back even further. He had refused to make a request to the Pope to annul the marriage of Henry and Catherine, and in 1533 had refused to attend Anne's coronation. On 13 April 1534, he also refused to sign his allegiance to the Act of Succession, and four days later he was arrested. More stood trial on 1 July 1535 and was beheaded on 6 July. Both Thomas and George Boleyn were present at More's trial as part of the special commission to hear the case, and witnessed his courageous and spirited defence. More died saying, "I die the king's good servant, but God's first."14 Although More died a martyr and has been canonised, while he was Chancellor he had six Lutherans burnt at the stake for heresy, a death infinitely slower and more painful than the death he suffered. His was the sanctimony of those religious zealots in any era of history who genuinely believe they can commit any atrocity provided it is in the name of God.

  Upon More's death, George had no compunction in accepting a grant of one of More's Kentish properties, Oteham Manor.15 The grant was made on 10 April, but in a letter dated 4 May and addressed to Henry Norris, Thomas, Prior of Michelham, confirmed that less than a month later George sold the property. He may well have sought to get rid of it, and its connotations, as quickly as possible. Alternatively, and more likely, he may simply have needed the money. In his letter, the Prior confirms that the yearly rent of 25 marks had been received by the Prior and his predecessors for over 200 years, including during the short period in which George Boleyn had the benefit of the property, "my Lord Warden being owner". George sold the manor to William Kenslye, and under the terms of the indenture was entitled to retain the rent for himself. The Prior was attempting to elicit Norris's help in asking George to "reform his indenture".16 Whether the usually honourable George did in fact do so is unknown. There is certainly no mention of any rent being received by him from the manor of Oteham in the schedule of his income taken at the time of his death and there is no record of George ever being sued (the Prior had been threatening possible court action), which suggests the original indenture was reinstated.

  In less than a year's time there would be a frantic rush to apply for grants of George's confiscated assets following his own execution. The sixteenth century was a brutal era of history, particularly under Henry VIII, and only the fittest survived. The mere fact that the Boleyns maintained their power base for so long leads to the inevitable conclusion that they were prepared, and perfectly able to play the system with a hard and brutal determination of their own. The deaths of the Carthusians, including More and Fisher, as with Elizabeth Barton and her associates 12 months earlier, should have acted as a forbidding warning to the nation of things to come. Their deaths were all due to their refusal to submit to the King's will, and the constant threat of Henry's increasing paranoia and egotism hung over the country.

  The brutal deaths of the Carthusians caused disgust and horror throughout the country, and the presence of the Boleyns at the executions evoked further disgust. Failure to attend, however, regardless of religious persuasion, would have amounted to a direct challenge to the authority of the King. Just as it was the duty of the jury to find the Boleyns guilty in a little over a year's time, and likewise the duty of courtiers to attend their subsequent executions, the Boleyns had no choice.

  In May 1535, following his attendance at the deaths of the Carthusians, George went on a further mission to France, intending to put pressure on Francis I to make a more public commitment to Anne's cause. He was also charged with renegotiating the match between the King of France's third son and Princess Elizabeth, which had initially been mooted the previous November to the Admiral of France. The English were also seeking an agreement that the boy should live and be educated in England prior to the marriage. Thomas Cromwell was originally intended to be the representative of the Crown, but had become ill. The responsibility therefore fell to George Boleyn, who once again attended with his uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, who was already in France. George arrived on the 20 May, a day after his uncle and two days before the arrival of Admiral Chabot, the principal French delegate.

  Cromwell's absence caused some comment. On 5 May, Chapuys wrote, "Rochford, the lady's brother, will go in place of Cromwell. Many think that Cromwell excused himself of the charge in despair of the issue."17 It was being insinuated that Cromwell had feigned illness, knowing the mission would fail, which it did. On 22 May, George and Norfolk met Chabot, the Admiral of France, at Calais, and neither side was prepared to compromise. In particular, the French would not countenance Francis's third son, the Duke of Angoulême, being educated in England prior to the proposed marriage with Elizabeth. Chabot was furious at the whole idea and threatened to abandon the negotiations, so George was quickly dispatched to England for further instructions, leaving France on 24 May and arriving in London the following day.18 En route to England, George met up with William Fitzwilliam who wrote to Cromwell on 25 May informing him of his conversation with George:

  This day I met my Lord of Rochford by the way, who showed me part of his charge. And surely, Sir, I not only cannot a little marvel to hear that the Admiral arrived at Calais on Saturday [22nd May] and was ready to depart from thence again upon Monday, and that he makes so light of the matter; but also much more marvel that he should in effect answer to all the points of our charge. And we had instructions to proceed with him by degrees and to make a pause at the first, and if it were for a day or two. And when we had brought him to the point of desperation in that behalf, then he and we to devise the best remedies that we could, and thereupon declare the king's pleasure in the second degree.19

  There was clearly deep concern in the English camp as to the arrogant, unhelpful attitude of the French delegates, who were not prepared to discuss any compromise, and indeed seemed keen to depart rather than negotiate further. Bearing in mind his particular personal interest in the matter, it is not surprising that it was George who was chosen to report the matter to the King and obtain his further instructions.

  It is a sign of the closeness of brother and sister that prior to reporting to Henry, George's first thought was to see Anne to inform her of the situation.20 It is also a sign that they, as much as Henry, were behind the negotiations regarding Elizabeth's marriage. According to Chapuys, George arrived in London on 25 May, went straight to Anne, and had a long private discussion with her. Chapuys wrote, "He cannot have brought back from Calais anything agreeable to himself; for I am told by the Master of the Horse [Nicholas Carew] that, both then and several times since she has been in a bad humour, and said a thousand shameful words of the King of France, and generally the whole nation."21 The French alliance had been put to the test and it had failed miserably. England needed a foreign ally, and now the only alternative was reconciliation with Spain (to which Anne was a major obstacle). This joined with Anne's failure to produce a son, and with Henry's infatuation with Jane Seymour (which began early the following year), spelled the beginning of the end for the Boleyns.

  George was detained in England as long as possible, but was eventually sent back to France at the start of June with
instructions for him, Norfolk and their team to "firmly stand" on the previous demands but, if pressed, to consent to the Duke of Angoulême spending at least six months to a year in England before his marriage to Elizabeth. The instructions confirmed that prior to George's departure there had been a lengthy and detailed meeting of the counsel, "whereof was present the said Lord Rochford who can by mouth thoroughly instruct the said ambassadors of the same points, as the case shall require."22 Again, as with George's mission of the previous summer, detailed written instructions were unnecessary. The King had enough faith in his abilities to dispense with the requirement. The intractability of the two sides meant that the meeting in Calais broke down abruptly on 17 June following lengthy and increasingly heated debate, and George and his team departed for England on 24 June. It was an ignominious homecoming for George Boleyn, following a mission that had ended in complete failure. Tragically, this was to be his final mission abroad.

  While George was involved in the French negotiations in Calais, matters relating to the Cinque Ports obviously continued. On 28 May, the mayor of jurates at Rye wrote to Cromwell confirming that in the Lord Warden's absence abroad, his father had on his behalf opened various letters addressed to his son and had shown them to the King's attorney.23 In the early days of the King's infatuation with Anne, Thomas Boleyn was in the forefront of all matters concerning his daughter as one of Henry's leading diplomats and courtiers. Gradually, he was pushed further and further into the background as his son and daughter took hold of their own destinies. It was his son who was sent to France on five separate occasions between March 1533 and June 1535. It was his son who was appointed as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports in June 1534, one of the most prestigious appointments in the land. Thomas Boleyn was reduced to deputising for George in his son's absence, by opening letters on his behalf. Was Thomas proud of his son's achievements, or was there an element of resentment? He had been an exacting and domineering father throughout his children's formative years and into their adulthood, but by 1535, his influence over his clever children had waned. He was a proud, arrogant man, and a courtier by nature, just as his children were courtiers by nature and design. Was it pride he felt when he saw them eclipsing him, or resentment at his waning influence?