The Crown's case was poorly prepared because it knew it would not have to prove guilt beyond doubt, and although the prosecution may have intimated that George was the father, it made little attempt to actually prove it. There has also grown a fiction that George and the other men who died as Anne's alleged lovers were charged with sodomy as well as the allegations of treason. None of the men were charged with sodomy, and at the time of their deaths there were no rumours of homosexual activity by any of them. This myth only dates back to the 1980s and the work of historian Retha Warnicke, who saw the men who surrounded Anne as "libertines [who] were expected to move in a progression from adultery and fornication to buggery and bestiality".13 Likewise, there was no allegation of witchcraft ever levelled against Anne. The charges contained in the Baga de Secretis contain no indictment for witchcraft. This is a fiction that has grown over the intervening years and which stems from Catholic propaganda and novels. Similarly, neither Anne nor George faced charges of poisoning Catherine of Aragon or intending to poison Mary. This was not included in the original indictment, and was again a story which evolved later, as was the rumour that Anne and George murdered Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond by administering to him a slow-acting poison which took his life two months after theirs.
Anne was tried first, because whereas she was already pre-judged due to the guilty verdicts of the four commoners, her brother was not. The evidence against her was little short of pathetic. One piece of supposed evidence was an alleged deathbed revelation from Lady Bridget Wingfield. Lady Wingfield was the daughter of Sir John Wiltshire of Stone Castle in Kent. She had been one of Catherine of Aragon's ladies-in-waiting, but she was also an old friend of Anne Boleyn. A note written by John Spelman, one of the judges reads, "Note that this matter was disclosed by a woman called the Lady Wingfield who was a servant of the said queen and shared the same tendencies. And suddenly the said Wingfield became ill and a little time before her death she showed the matter to one of her etc."14 It is not known exactly when Lady Wingfield died, or precisely what she is supposed to have revealed on her deathbed. Whatever was or was not said, any revelation she may have made was not deemed necessary to bring to anyone's attention until Cromwell started asking questions immediately prior to the Boleyns' trial. Of course, at the time of the trial Lady Wingfield was conveniently dead; any evidence deriving from her could not be confirmed, and likewise could not be challenged by the defendants.
Although three other court ladies were supposed to have provided information, they did not give formal evidence, and certainly did not attend court. It is far more likely that these women were mentioned as providing information purely to lend credence to the prosecution's case, and to further blacken the defendants' names without foundation. There is no official record of the names of these women who supposedly provided Cromwell with what at best could only have been court gossip. It is probable that one of them was the Countess of Worcester, who was the sister of Sir Anthony Browne of the Privy Chamber. Her identification is via the poetry of Lancelot de Carles, secretary to the French ambassador, who described her as the sister of one of the King's councillors, and letters written by John Husee, Lord Lisle's servant in London where "the lady Worserter" is named as "the fyrst accuser".15 16
It is not known precisely what Lady Worcester did or did not say, but it probably was not a great deal because Spelman makes no mention of her. De Carles says of her involvement that when her brother reprimanded her for loose behaviour, the Countess responded by saying she was "no worse than the Queen who had offended with Mark Smeaton and her own brother."17 Eric Ives suggests that this was exaggeration, and that she probably meant she was no more of a flirt than the Queen.18 If Lady Worcester had actually said these words, and meant them as they were being interpreted, then why was she not called to court to give her supposedly damning evidence verbally? Probably because she was not giving any such evidence. Her words had either been manufactured by the Crown or taken completely out of context, and there was no chance the prosecution would have risked her being called to give evidence, firstly because she may well have admitted the truth and secondly because in cross examination George would have destroyed her supposed evidence. Whatever the nature of the so-called evidence, Spelman's assessment was that "all the evidence was of bawdry and lechery, so there was no such whore in the realm".19 In other words it was gross exaggeration based solely on supposition and gossip. No formal transcript of the hearings exists, and whatever "evidence" was relied upon has long since been destroyed, presumably because it did not amount to evidence of guilt at all.
Cromwell's official version of events presents evidence that never actually existed. He told England's diplomats abroad that the evidence was so abominable that much of it had not been given in evidence at court. On 14 May he wrote to Gardiner and Wallop, the ambassadors at the French court, saying, "I write no particularities; the things be so abominable that I think the like was never heard." According to Cromwell, because "the Queen's abomination, both in incontinent living and other offences towards the King's Highness, was so rank and common", her ladies talked of it so much that it came to the attention of some of the Council.20 When Gardiner asked for more information, in particular asking who had accused the Queen, Cromwell wrote back to him on 5 July, saying, "As to his great desire for news, had written as fully as he could, unless he could have sent the very confessions 'which were so abominable that a great part of them were never given in evidence, but clearly kept secret.'"21 The tone of Cromwell's letter is clearly highly defensive, which speaks volumes as to the truth of the matter. To suggest evidence was kept back, particularly bearing in mind the public's scepticism of the charges, is totally ridiculous. If there had been any hard evidence, it would have been shouted out loudly in triumph. The reality was that there was no evidence of guilt arising out of anything Anne's ladies may or may not have said. There were also no confessions, save that of Mark Smeaton. Any information Cromwell and his cronies had attempted to extract had failed, and Cromwell's aggressive defensiveness was an obvious bluff to cover up the inadequacy of the case.
Anne is said by the chronicler, Charles Wriothesley, to have "made so wise and discreet answers to all things laid against her, excusing herself with her words so clearly, as though she had never been faulty of the same."22 Irrespective of her performance in court, she was found guilty by all 26 peers, including her former love Henry Percy, now the Earl of Northumberland. Upon her condemnation, her uncle gave sentence that she be either burned or beheaded according to the King's pleasure.23 Cromwell had cleverly orchestrated the order in which the trials took place in advance. Anne's condemnation was a forgone conclusion, as her trial followed that of the four men found guilty of adultery with her. The same could not be said of her brother, who was not necessarily prejudiced by the other men's earlier convictions. He was, however, hopelessly prejudiced by his sister's conviction, as he could hardly be innocent of incest when his sister had already been found guilty. He would have been aware upon entering the court that his trial was a mere formality.
Upon Anne's removal from the court, her brother was brought to the bar. The brother and sister did not see one another, and were not allowed the consolation of a final farewell. Ironically, during life it was Anne who was the more tempestuous and reckless of the two siblings, yet she faced her accusers with the quiet and restrained dignity of a true queen. It was her brother who approached the trial with all guns blazing. As anticipated, George put up an impressive, spirited, yet inevitably futile, defence. His performance in court was not to save his life, which he must have known was inevitably forfeit, but to retain some semblance of his shattered reputation and honour. According to Charles Wriothesley, "he made answers so prudently and wisely to all articles laid against him, that marvel it was to hear, and never would confess anything, but made himself as clear as though he had never offended." Lancelot de Carles speaks of his calm behaviour and good defence and suggests that Thomas More himself did not reply better.2
4 Even Eustace Chapuys confirmed this opinion, saying, "To all he replied so well that several of those present wagered 10 to 1 that he would be acquitted, especially as no witnesses were produced against either him or her, as is usual to do, particularly when the accused denies the charge."25 The odds being laid during the trial against George's condemnation were a clear indication that the vast number of those present believed him to be innocent. This must have caused great concern to the prosecutors. This was a public trial, and they must have deeply regretted not holding it in private. All members of the jury knew their duty was to find him guilty; he was going to die. The problem was, the vast majority of the crowd of spectators were on the side of the accused. He was answering too well. The crowd would know there was insufficient evidence to convict, which in turn would mean they would know the trial was rigged. Cromwell must have been sweating at the bad publicity this very public trial would cause.
Despite Chapuys' assessment, George was well aware that he would be found guilty. There had been a damning piece of evidence used against him. His wife Jane did not attend court, but she did provide evidence that Anne had confided in her that the King was experiencing erectile problems and that she had then spoken to George about it.26 Whether Anne actually made such a sensitive comment to her sister-in-law will never be known, but if she did then she could only have been referring to occasional sexual dysfunction; clearly Henry was not impotent. If he had been, the prosecution would have had very little trouble providing evidence of adultery, bearing in mind Anne's last pregnancy. The allegation that Anne made this comment to her sister-in-law cannot have been used as a charge against George unless either he was being accused of spreading the rumour, or it was being used to suggest a motive for Anne taking lovers in the first place. If George was being accused of spreading the rumour, then it was treason, since this kind of talk impugned the King's issue. If on the other hand it was being suggested as a reason for Anne's behaviour, then it provided a motive for the incest. Either way, George was damned. According to Chapuys, this allegation was written on a piece of paper and handed to George Boleyn:
I must not omit that among other things charged against him as a crime was, that his sister had told his wife that the King was impotent. This he was not openly charged with, but it was shown him in writing, with a warning not to repeat it. But he immediately declared the matter, in great contempt of Cromwell and some others, saying he would not in this point arouse any suspicion which might prejudice the Kings issue.27
It has been suggested that by reading out what should have been kept secret George sealed his fate. This is unlikely as a guilty verdict was expected of the jury in any event, whatever the viewing public may have thought. Irrespective of this, Cromwell must have been mortified by George's reckless disregard of his instructions not to read the allegation out loud. Not only had George been allowed to make a fool out of the King, Cromwell had given him the ammunition to do so. But George's recklessness was not mere arrogance, as is so often suggested. It actually exemplified his intelligence and linguistic skills. Chapuys says that George was referring to any future issue the King may have produced from any subsequent marriage, thereby effectively bringing out into the open the likelihood of the King's imminent remarriage, and the real reason for the trial. But George may also have spoken out in an attempt to protect his niece, the future Queen Elizabeth, from any subsequent rumours relating to her paternity. The fact that the issue was raised at all shows that gossip regarding the King's virility was circulating. Although George read the allegation out loud, he did not admit it was true.
With regard to evidence relating to the incest charge, Chapuys reported that "no proof of [George's] guilt was produced except that of his having once passed many hours in her company, and other little follies."28 This was the only evidence of incest used against George, meaning that if Chapuys is correct, he was convicted on the sole basis that on one occasion he had been alone with his sister for a long time. It was a very weak case.
A number of minor allegations were raised at George's trial that do not appear to have featured at his sister's. These consisted of evidence of "pastimes in the queen's chamber" and were raised with the specific purpose of making a case against him. These were perhaps thrown in by the prosecution as a last-ditch attempt to blacken George's name due to how well he had answered the incest allegation. Knowing how intelligent he was, and knowing that the only evidence brought against him was that he had once spent a long time alone with Anne, we can almost hear George's scathing derision of the Crown's case.
The prosecutors put to him that he and Anne had poked fun at the King's poetry and fashion sense, and George was accused of leading Anne in the dance and thereby handing her on to other men. Anne had written to George telling him she was pregnant, which was now interpreted as being highly suspicious. The fact that George greeted his sister with a kiss was now alleged to be "French kissing". Although Anne and George had always been affectionate to one another in public, including in front of the King, this was now objected to, despite the fact that their behaviour had never previously been cause for comment. It was also suggested that George had questioned Elizabeth's paternity. To this allegation, according to Chapuys, George made no reply.29 Whether he answered the charge or not, it was never explained why George would question the legitimacy of his own niece, thereby insinuating his beloved sister was a whore. On the contrary, as suggested above, he had gone out of his way at the trial to defend Elizabeth against such a claim. He probably merely told his accusers contemptuously that such a question was not worthy of answering, which was interpreted by Chapuys as failing to answer.
The evidence was mere hearsay. There were no witnesses called to confirm that George had questioned Elizabeth's paternity, or to confirm that rumours regarding the King's sexual problems had been spread by George, rather than through natural court gossip. Likewise, no one had confirmed that they had witnessed George and Anne acting inappropriately towards one another. The reason for this was simple: nobody had. Likewise, no witnesses were called to confirm that Anne and her brother had laughed at the King behind his back about his clothes and his poetry. They were both highly intelligent people. Even if they had laughed at the King together, it is unlikely that they would have done this in the open and in front of their enemies. Any such laughter would surely have been good-natured, affectionate jesting that was deliberately taken completely out of context. The whole case was a substitution of accusations and allegations for evidence. Were these specific allegations raised simply to infuriate Henry to the extent that he was happy to sacrifice his impudent brother-in-law, irrespective of the eventual incest charge? Or were they suggested by a king who wanted revenge on the Boleyns for the humiliation he felt that their empty promises had brought him? It is impossible to be certain.
In reality, due to the calibre of George Boleyn's performance in court, the incest charge actually damaged the plausibility of the prosecution case rather than enhancing it. The general impression left on the public was that the trials were rigged and that they were a mockery of justice. When the charges first became public knowledge, it was believed that there must be some evidence to prove what was being alleged, but by having the trials played out in public, it became common knowledge that this was not actually the case. For the first time in her life, Anne began to win public sympathy.
A unanimous verdict of George's guilt was delivered by all 25 peers who sat on the jury. They must have known they were condemning an innocent man to a traitor's death. The Earl of Northumberland was not present at George's trial, having been taken ill immediately after Anne's trial. He died only a few months later. George was sentenced by his uncle: "That he should go again to prison in the Tower from whence he came, and to be drawn from the said Tower of London through the City of London to the place of execution called Tyburne, and there to be hanged, being alive cut down, and then his members cut off and his bowels taken out of his body and brent [burned] before him, and then his head cut
off and his body to be divided into 4 pieces, and his head and body to be set at such places as the King should assign."30
The proceedings were a sham, and Eric Ives puts it best when he states, "A case sufficient to quiet the general public and satisfy pliant consciences had been manufactured by innuendo and implication, but those in the know were aware how flimsy it was."31 The trials were one of the worst travesties of justice ever to disgrace an English court. Defamation of character was the objective, not proof of guilt, and this was just as true for George as it was for Anne.
Following the brutal sentence handed down to him, George Boleyn, as with his sister before him, did not fall apart. He acknowledged his condemnation and sentence with calm stoicism. Following the conventions of the age, he accepted death, saying that, as sinners, did not all men deserve death every day? Although continuing to deny his guilt, he stated that he submitted to the law that had found him guilty and as such he would no longer maintain his innocence. His main concern was for those to whom he owed money. According to Chapuys, "He only begged the King that his debts, which he recounted, might be paid out of his goods."32 Lancelot de Carles confirms that he "asked the judges that they would ask the king to pay his debts."
George Wyatt said a few years later, "The young nobleman the Lord Rochford, by the common opinion of men of best understanding in those days, was counted and then openly spoken, condemned only upon some point of a statute of words then in force."33 Even Chapuys, an archenemy of the Boleyns, had no doubt of their innocence, as indeed did the majority of the spectators.
After the trial, Chapuys stated that the King carried a book of poems around with him, to which he would regularly refer. Chapuys believed these were possibly those that Anne and George had allegedly laughed at, and which had been "put to them and objected to as a great crime". The sarcasm behind this comment marks the depth of Chapuys' scepticism as to the guilt of the defendants, and the acknowledgement of the harshness of the sentences.34
George Boleyn: Tudor Poet, Courtier & Diplomat Page 22
