Following his condemnation, George was taken back to his rooms in the Martin Tower of the Tower of London to await death. The condemned were allowed to write farewell letters to their families, but unfortunately none have survived save for Francis Weston's poignant letter to his parents and wife:
Father and mother and wife, I shall humbly desire you for the salvation of my soul to discharge me of this bill [a schedule of his debts is included in the letter], and for to forgive me of all my offences that I have done to you, and in especial my wife, which I desire for the love of God to forgive me and to pray for me, for I believe prayer will do me good. God's blessing have my children and mine. By me a great offender of God.35
As can be seen from the contents of the letter, all of the men were concerned that their debts be paid. George continued to be troubled that his death could cause financial ruin to those whom he owed money. In a letter to Cromwell dated 16 May, the day after George's trial, William Kingston wrote, "Sir, the said Lord [Rochford] much desires to speak with you, which touches his conscience much as he says, wherein I pray you I may know your pleasure, for by cause of my promise made unto my said Lord to do the same."36 It is not known whether Cromwell ever did attend in person to speak with George, but it would seem unlikely, particularly as Kingston continued to be used as an intermediary.
There is a second letter written by Kingston to Cromwell regarding George's debts. In Letters and Papers it is dated 18 May, but must have been written before this, since George died on 17 May. George had acted as a go-between to assist in the appointment of a monk, and had charged a fee of £200. He had received £100, but a further £100 was to follow. As the abbey into which the monk had been appointed had been, as George puts it, "suppressed", George was begging the King through Cromwell not to pursue the further £100 against a man who would have no way of paying it. Kingston writes:
I have been with my Lord of Rochford, and showed him the clause of your letter. He answered that he had sent to you word by Dr Alryge [the priest]. Notwithstanding, he says that he made suit to you for promotion of White Monk, of the Tower Hill, and with your help he was promoted to the Abbey of Vale Sante Crewsys, in Cheshire, and he had for the promotion £100, and at Whitsuntide next should receive £100 more, but for this the king has the obligations. He supposes the said abbey is suppressed and the abbot undone, and his sureties also.37
Kingston then goes on to discuss the arrangements for the executions, but also begs Cromwell to help George's conscience:
For the gentlemen, the sheriffs of London must make provision. As yet I hear of no writ, but they are all ready, and, I trust clean to God. They shall have warning in the morning, and I shall send at once to Master Eretage for carpenters to make a scaffold of such height that all present may see it... You must help my Lord of Rochford's conscience for the Monk, if need be; and also he spake to me for the bishop of Develyn [Dublin], for he must have of the said bishop £250.
At the most terrifying moment of his life, when he had just been sentenced to a brutal traitor's death, the most pressing concern on George Boleyn's mind was not his imminent grisly execution. His main concern was only for those to whom he owed money, and for those who owed him money, and who would suffer if forced to repay the debt to the King. Kingston was a hardened jailer, but he had just witnessed George's performance in court. Although by then everybody had turned their backs on the Boleyns, at least George's jailer was prepared to show him a modicum of compassion by pleading with Cromwell to help his charge's conscience.
Whether George's debts were paid prior to confiscation of his assets is not recorded. Bearing in mind Henry VIII's mercenary nature it would seem unlikely that he was prepared to show compassion. However, by reading out his list of creditors in court, George Boleyn had brought to everybody's attention precisely to whom he owed money. If those debts were not paid, it would be very apparent. Failure to repay them would be a breach of the King's honour, and George was well aware of that. In the letter to Cromwell dated 16 May, Kingston informed him that he had been with the King that morning to present the petitions of Lord Rochford, and that he had been answered. Kingston then went on to say that George wished to speak to Cromwell regarding his outstanding debts. You can deduce from this that the petitions Kingston referred to were a request to the King that the debts be paid. The fact that upon hearing Henry's answer, George immediately requested an audience with Cromwell, suggests that his petitions had been met with a negative response.
Whether or not Henry intended to repay George's debts, it shows a singular cruelty not to provide consolation to a man in his final hours. George was right to be concerned about those who owed him money; Henry was quick to call in the monies owed to him. George had specifically referred to a debt owed to him of £250, and had asked that this be waived by the King. Despite George's entreaties, two years after George's execution George Brown, Archbishop of Dublin, was forced to write to Cromwell in order to obtain a release of the debt, saying"It may please your good Lordship to be further advised, that where I was indebted to the late Lord of Rochford in the sum of £400 sterling." He explained that the sum of £250 had already been repaid to George and that a further £50 was paid for the redemption of a cup of gold of the said Lord Rochford. The balance should have been paid for the residue of a house, "which the said Lord Rochford had of me, even as it was agreed between us". Archbishop Brown argued that the £100 balance should be waived because Cromwell's nephew had the benefit of the property and that he himself had never used it.38 This letter is clear evidence of the selfish greed of the King who cruelly pursued debts owed to George, despite the fact that it was the young man's dying wish for these to be remitted. It took until July 1542, over six years after George's death, for the Archbishop to be released of the debt of £250 by the King.39
When writing to Cromwell on 16 May, Kingston confirms that he has told the men, including George that they are to die the following day: "The time is short, for the King supposes the gentlemen to die tomorrow, and my Lord of Rochford with the residue of gentlemen, and as yet without confession which I look for, but I have told my Lord of Rochford that he be in readiness tomorrow to suffer execution, and so he accepts it very well, and will do his best to be ready, notwithstanding he would have reserved his rights, which has not been used in especially here."40 Although George accepted the guilty verdict found against him, his insistence on his innocence remained the same right up to his execution. George specifically requested the sacrament to swear his innocence before God prior to his death. Despite Kingston looking for a confession, this was not forthcoming from either George or Anne. Anne also swore her innocence upon the sacrament twice prior to death. There was nothing else they could possibly have said or done to make their innocence clearer.
22 - Lady Rochford and the Fall of the Boleyns
It has often been assumed that Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, was instrumental in bringing down her husband and sister-in-law. This assumption has arisen from various historical sources. Martyrologist John Foxe, in his Acts and Monuments, first published in 1563, states that "It is reported by some, that this lady Rochford forged a false letter against her husband and Queen Anne, his sister, by which they were both cast away."1 Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, in his The Life and Raigne of King Henry VIII, first published in 1649, declared that "the wife of the late Lord Rochford, was a particular instrument in the death of Queen Anne."2 On a first-edition copy of Herbert's book, which is contained in the Bodleian library in Oxford, there are notes by Thomas Tourneur who, according to one historian,3 was quoting from the lost journal of Antony Antony, a Surveyor of the Ordinance of the Tower, and Groom of the Chamber. This quote appeared to be reiterating Herbert's view, but, as John Guy points out, Turner was reading "a dozen or so works, among which were the now lost chronicle and Herbert's own book" and his notes about Jane actually came from Herbert's book; he even quotes the page number.4 5 6
According to Lancelot de Carles, George is supposed to have ex
claimed bitterly, "On the evidence of this one woman you are willing to believe this great evil of me, and on the basis of her allegations you are deciding my judgement."7 Although George may have been speaking of his wife, equally he may have been speaking of either Lady Wingfield or Lady Worcester; surely he would have said "on the evidence of my wife" if he was referring to Jane. Bishop Burnet, writing in 1679, is the only source for Jane's involvement regarding the incest allegation. He wrote that Jane "carried many stories to the King, or some about him, to persuade that there was a familiarity between the Queen and her brother, beyond what so near a relationship could justify." We do not know what he was using as a source, although he suggests that he read a contemporaneous account, "writ by one Antony Antony".8 Jane's biographer, Julia Fox, notes that in later volumes of his work, Burnet actually contradicts himself by saying that "the confession of Smeaton was all that could be brought against her [Anne]."9
A Portuguese gentleman in London at the time described the executions of George and the rest of the men, which he witnessed, in a letter to a friend. He refers to "that person, who more out of envy and jealousy than out of love towards the King, did betray this accursed secret, and together with it, the names of those who had joined in the evil doings of the unchaste Queen."10 Unfortunately he gave no indication of the identity of the person he was referring to or even their gender, so it could refer to anyone - even Mark Smeaton. Apart from Chapuys' report that Anne confided in Jane about the King's sexual problems, there is no surviving contemporaneous document that mentions Jane's involvement. The only other documents that identify the Queen's accusers are Spelman's reference to Lady Wingfield, Lancelot de Carles' vague reference to Lady Worcester, and John Husee's letter which refers to Lady Worcester, Nan Cobham and one other lady as the three ladies who accused the queen.
George Wyatt, grandson of poet Thomas Wyatt, states in his Life of Queen Anne Boleyn, written towards the end of the sixteenth century, "For this principal matter between the queen and her brother, there was brought forth, indeed, witness, his wicked wife accuser of her own husband, even to the seeking of his blood, which I believe is hardly to be showed of any honest woman ever done."11 Wyatt does not give a source for this claim, but his biography of Anne was based on information given to him by two women, one of whom had served Anne and knew her well, and another who was a noblewoman and contemporary of Anne's. Samuel Weller Singer, the nineteenth century editor of Wyatt's work, identified the first lady as Anne Gainsford, Lady Zouche, but she died before Wyatt was even born. It is likely, therefore, that Wyatt's biography was based on family stories and, as Julia Fox points out, these are "notoriously unreliable". Wyatt's claim regarding Jane cannot be corroborated, particularly considering that he, like Burnet, goes on to contradict himself by saying that George Boleyn was only found guilty "upon some point of a statute".12
Another accuser of Jane is Cardinal Wolsey's gentleman usher, George Cavendish. In his poetry, Metrical Visions, he refers to Jane once "bearing the name on an honest wife, / Whereas now my slander for ever shall be rife". However, he also refers to her fall (her execution for treason after assisting Catherine Howard in arranging secret assignations with Thomas Culpeper), and her receiving the "due debt" of her "unjust desires", showing that he writes with the hindsight of knowing her involvement in Catherine's tangled and shocking love life. The "slander" could easily refer to her evidence regarding Henry VIII's sexual problems in 1536.13
Whatever the evidence for her involvement, the most Jane ever said regarding the incest allegation was that the siblings spent a long time alone together on one occasion. She may also have said that Anne and George's relationship was closer than that of a usual brother-sister relationship - but being close to your sister does not make you guilty of incest. If Jane did assist a prosecution case that was clutching at straws, to what at best did her evidence amount? To any rational, unbiased judge and jury the answer is obvious: nothing. None of it was evidence of incest. George Boleyn was completely innocent, and as Chapuys said, he was found guilty merely on a presumption. Nothing his wife may or may not have said made any difference to that general perception.
Jane's reputation has been dragged through the mud over the last five centuries, and her character has progressively become blacker and blacker with every book in which she appears. Yet George was married to her for 11 years, and during that time, despite his alleged womanising, there was no scandal surrounding them, or suggestion that the marriage was a particularly unhappy one. Her reputation over the intervening years must surely be a huge exaggeration, probably begun shortly after the trials and exacerbated by her later involvement in the fall of another of Henry's wives. She was known to have provided evidence that was used against her husband, and the exact nature of that evidence was confused and exaggerated over time.
There have been many theories as to why Jane told Cromwell anything at all, as surely she would have known that her information would be used against her husband and sister-in-law. It has been suggested that she provided evidence because of her husband's reputation as a womaniser, or because of jealousy of the closeness of George to his sister. However, unless Jane was seriously unstable, it is highly unlikely she would have deliberately assisted in the total destruction of her own husband - the breadwinner - for any of these reasons. It is more likely that Jane was simply telling the truth under extreme psychological pressure during an interrogation. Following her husband's arrest, Jane may also have been in the position of either providing the Crown with a useful statement, or potentially facing charges herself as an accomplice, seeing as she too had discussed the King's problems. It may even be that she provided the statement regarding Henry's impotence without appreciating that it would be specifically used against her husband; according to Chapuys, her statement made no mention of George. This seems unlikely bearing in mind that she knew of his arrest, and must have known that her evidence was being demanded with the sole purpose of making a case against him. Whatever her understanding may have been, would any of us have the courage to act any differently when it was clear that the Boleyns had no chance?
The ridiculous notion that she believed the allegations against her husband because she was aware that he was homosexual and that he also subjected her to "sexual practices that outraged her"14 does not have a single scrap of evidence to support it. This idea relies on Cavendish's poetry, Metrical Visions, and George's own scaffold speech. Metrical Visions has George talk of his "unlawful lechery" and his "living bestial", and go on to say that "shame restrains me the plains to confess, / Least the abomination would all the world infect."15 To suggest that George is talking about homosexuality here is to take these phrases totally out of context. When the whole verse is read, Cavendish is clearly speaking of the incest charge: "For which by the law, condemned am I doubtless". Cavendish's verses on Henry VIII talk of Henry's "unlawful lechery" and his verses on Thomas Culpeper, Catherine Howard's alleged lover, have Culpeper warning his fellow courtiers of their "bestiality". It is clear that Cavendish is talking not about homosexuality but about adultery. In his scaffold speech, George refers to himself as "a wretched sinner" and "a perverse sinner", but he is simply following the usual scaffold etiquette, accepting that he is a sinner deserving of death. It was considered honourable for the convicted man to accept death as he deserved.16
The statement Jane gave to the court did not in itself condemn her husband, or the Queen. Both were already prejudged. There was never a chance that either would be spared, regardless of the evidence laid before the court - or more accurately, the lack of evidence. When George was initially arrested, it is probable that there was a vague intention of charging him as an accessory to his sister's misdemeanours, as surmised by Chapuys. Anne was certainly unaware for at least a day after her arrest that George had also been arrested; therefore, Anne was initially not questioned as to a possible charge of incest. It is more likely that the charge was later concocted after George had been arrested. George had also been charg
ed with planning with Anne to kill the King. The prosecution made no attempt to prove this at his hearing; if the incest charge had not been brought, no doubt this charge would have been pursued with vigour, irrespective of the fact Anne and George had the most to lose by Henry's death. Their power and influence came solely from the King, and both siblings would have been at great personal risk without Henry's protection. George's wife's allegation at best only amounted to a suggestion that brother and sister spent a suspiciously long time alone together. The evidence for Jane's involvement is vague and inconclusive, and she cannot be accused of betraying the siblings or of being the Crown's chief witness.
Jane was in dire straits, financially, after losing her husband and her mistress in May 1536. She was forced to write to Cromwell requesting financial support, and calling herself a, "poor desolate widow without comfort". She went on to tell Cromwell of his "gentle manner to all them that be in such lamentable case" and asked for "such power stuff and plate as my husband had, whom God pardon; that of his gracious and more liberality I may have it to help me to my power living". She then raised the issue of her dowry, to which the King contributed: "And further more, where that the King's Highness and my Lord my father paid great sum of money for my jointer to the Earl of Wiltshire to the sum of 2000 Marks, and I not assured of no more during the said Earl's natural life than 100 Marks; which is very hard for me to shift the world withal". She asked for Cromwell's specific help because there was no way that she could live on just 100 marks a year: "That you will so specially tender me in this behalf as to inform the Kings Highness of these premises, whereby I may the more tenderly be regarded of his gracious person, your word in this shall be to me a sure reward, which doth promise good to them that help power forsaken widows."17 It was a humble letter from a woman in need, and Cromwell reacted by interceding for her with the King. Henry VIII then put pressure on Jane's father-in-law, who increased her allowance to £100. Cromwell also helped Jane by giving her a position in the household of the new queen, Jane Seymour, a position which brought Jane into regular contact with Henry VIII's eldest daughter Mary, who gave Jane gifts of fabric and money for her servants.18 By the time of her own execution in February 1542, Jane, who had now served five of Henry VIII's wives, was an extremely wealthy woman. Her wealth and position, however, did not mean that she was being rewarded for her help in bringing down the Boleyns. Cromwell and the King may have felt obligated to help the widow.
George Boleyn: Tudor Poet, Courtier & Diplomat Page 23
