“My lord Bishop, I know what is your errand!” she said. “Waste no more time. I have never wronged the King, but I know well that he is tired of me, as he was before of the good Lady Katherine.” This smacks of Spanish bias on the part of the chronicler, although it is possible that Anne, in her present plight, now felt some sympathy for Katherine. The use of the title “Lady” rings true.
Cranmer told her that her “evil courses” had been “clearly seen,” and if she desired to read Smeaton’s confession, it would be shown to her. Anne flew into “a great rage,” and cried, “Go to! It has all been done as I say, because the King has fallen in love, as I know, with Jane Seymour, and does not know how to get rid of me. Well, let him do as he likes, he will get nothing more out of me, and any confession that has been made is false.”
With that, just as Carles said, the lords “saw they should extract nothing from her” and determined to leave, but Norfolk had one parting shot. “Madam,” he said, “if it be true that your brother has shared your guilt, a great punishment indeed should be yours, and his as well.” Anne told him he should say no such thing. “My brother is blameless, and if he has been in my chamber to speak with me, surely he might do so without suspicion, being my brother, and they cannot accuse him for that. I know that the King has had him arrested so that there should be none left to take my part. You need not trouble to stop talking with me, for you will find out no more.” The lords left her, and when they reported her words to the King, he said, “She has a stout heart, but she shall pay for it.”
There is no other evidence for this interrogation, although that is not to say it did not take place. The author of the “Spanish Chronicle” may have embellished his dialogue, but the substance of his account is entirely authentic, and chimes with all the other evidence. No reports from Sir William Kingston survive from this time—there is a gap between his letters of May 7 and 16. So it is quite possible that, with the indictments drawn up, the councillors had hoped to spare the King the publicity that an open trial would generate by forcing the Queen to admit her guilt. But realizing that Henry was determined on proceeding against her—Chapuys told the Emperor he now meant “to get rid of” her, regardless of whether her guilt was proved59—she knew she had nothing to lose by refusing to confess.
The lords “afterward went to Rochford, who said he knew that death awaited him, and would say the truth, but, raising his eyes to Heaven, denied the accusations against him. They next went to Norris, Weston, and Brereton, who all likewise refused to confess, except Mark, who had done so already.” After this, “the King ordered the trial at Westminster.”60
ANNE BOLEYN, AS SHE PROBABLY LOOKED AT THE TIME OF HER FALL
“There is no one who dares contradict her, not even the King himself.”
HENRY VIII
His “blind and wretched passion” for
Anne had long since abated.
JANE SEYMOUR
“The new amours of the King
go on, to the intense rage of the
Concubine.”
SIR NICHOLAS CAREW
“It will not be the fault of this
Master of the Horse if the
Concubine be not dismounted.”
THE LADY MARY
“When I have a
son,” Anne Boleyn
wrote, “I know
what then will
come to her.”
HENRY FITZROY, DUKE OF RICHMOND
His father the King told him he was
lucky to have “escaped the hands of
that accursed whore.”
THOMAS HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK
He referred to Anne, his niece, as
“the great whore.”
THOMAS BOLEYN,
EARL OF WILTSHIRE
He connived at his children’s
fate, and even sat in judgment
on them.
SIGNATURE OF GEORGE BOLEYN,
LORD ROCHFORD
SIGNATURE OF MARK SMEATON
HENRY PARKER, LORD MORLEY
He had instilled in his daughter
Jane, Lady Rochford, such
loyalty to the Lady Mary as
would prove fatal to the
Boleyns.
THOMAS CROMWELL,
“MASTER SECRETARY”
“He thought up and plotted
the affair of the Concubine.”
SIR WILLIAM FITZWILLIAM
“A good servant” of the King,
he was instrumental in
bringing Anne to ruin.
ELIZABETH BROWNE,
COUNTESS OF WORCESTER
She was “the first accuser”
of the Queen.
THE INDICTMENT AGAINST
ANNE BOLEYN AND LORD ROCHFORD
“She incited her own natural brother
to violate her.”
ANNE BOLEYN
She had clearly overstepped the conventional
bounds of courtly banter between
queen and servant, man and woman.
GREENWICH PALACE,
WHERE ANNE BOLEYN WAS ARRESTED
“I was cruelly handled at Greenwich
with the King’s Council.”
THIS FANCIFUL, ROMANTIC PAINTING SHOWS ANNE BOLEYN SAYING
A FINAL FAREWELL TO HER DAUGHTER, THE PRINCESS ELIZABETH
“Never shall I forget the sorrow I felt when I saw the most serene Queen,
your mother, carrying you, still a baby, in her arms.”
THE TOWER OF LONDON
The King’s Hall, where Anne Boleyn was tried, can be seen behind the wall fronting the river; the Queen’s Lodgings, where she was held, can just be seen to the far right, stretching between the wall and the White Tower. The scaffold on Tower Hill, and the guns on the Tower wharf, are also visible.
A ROMANTIC VIEW: ANNE BOLEYN AT THE QUEEN’S STAIRS
“Mr. Kingston, do I go to a dungeon?”
ANNE BOLEYN IN THE TOWER
“One hour she is determined to die, and the next much contrary to that.”
ANNE BOLEYN, LADY SHELTON
The Queen thought it “much unkindness
in the King to put about
me such as I never loved.”
SIR THOMAS WYATT
“These bloody days have broken my
heart,” he mourned.
“TO THE KING FROM THE
LADY IN THE TOWER”
For centuries, controversy has raged
over the authenticity of this letter.
WESTMINSTER HALL, WHERE FOUR OF ANNE BOLEYN’S
CO-ACCUSED WERE TRIED ON MAY 12, 1536
“Suddenly the axe was turned towards them.”
HENRY PERCY,
EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND
“May it be to my damnation if
ever there were any contract or
promise or marriage between
her and me.”
THOMAS CRANMER,
ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
“I think your Highness would not have
gone so far if she had not been culpable.”
SIR FRANCIS WESTON AND HIS WIFE, ANNE PICKERING
Weston referred to himself as “a great offender to God.”
“WESTON ESQ. OF SUTTON SURREY.”
This is almost certainly a portrait of
Sir Francis Weston.
ANNE BOLEYN DRIVEN MAD:
A LATER, MELODRAMATIC IMAGE
“This lady has much joy and
pleasure in death.”
CARVINGS IN THE TOWER OF LONDON,
PROBABLY DONE BY ANNE BOLEYN’S ALLEGED LOVERS
Carving from the Martin Tower
Anne Boleyn’s falcon badge, without its crown
and scepter, in the Beauchamp Tower
THE SITE OF THE QUEEN’S LODGINGS IN THE TOWER OF LONDON,
WHERE ANNE BOLEYN WAS HELD PRISONER IN SOME SPLENDOR
GOLD AND ENAMEL PENDANT, MADE
C. 1520, A
ND SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY
ANNE BOLEYN TO CAPTAIN GWYN ON
THE DAY OF HER EXECUTION
THE SITE OF THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH ANNE BOLEYN WAS EXECUTED
It was built on the tournament ground before the old House of Ordinance,
and faced the White Tower; it probably stood near the present doorway to the
Waterloo Barracks.
THE EXECUTION OF ANNE BOLEYN
“The Queen suffered with sword this day, and died boldly.” This seventeenth-century
woodcut incorrectly shows the headsman wielding an axe.
THE ROYAL CHAPEL OF ST. PETER AD VINCULA,
SHOWING THE SO-CALLED SCAFFOLD SITE
“The Queen’s head and body were taken to a church in the Tower.”
INSIDE ST. PETER AD VINCULA: ANNE BOLEYN IS
BURIED BENEATH THE ALTAR PAVEMENT
“God provided for her corpse sacred burial,
even in a place as it were consecrate to innocence.”
MEMORIAL PLAQUE SAID TO MARK THE LAST RESTING PLACE OF ANNE BOLEYN
It is more likely, however, that her body lies beneath the slab
commemorating Lady Rochford.
CARVED INITIALS OF HENRY VIII AND
ANNE BOLEYN IN THE VAULTING ABOVE
ANNE BOLEYN’S GATEWAY, HAMPTON
COURT PALACE
This carving was overlooked in the
rush to replace Anne’s initials with
Jane Seymour’s.
QUEEN ELIZABETH I’s RING OF c. 1575,
WITH ITS PORTRAIT OF ANNE BOLEYN
It is possible that Elizabeth secretly
commissioned a written defense of
her mother.
CHAPTER 10
More Accused than Convicted
As yet, in accordance with the normal procedure in sixteenth-century treason cases, none of the accused were given full details of what was alleged against them in the indictments that had been drawn up, nor given any notice or means to prepare a defense. The first time they would hear the formal charges and any depositions, or “interrogatories,”1 made by the witnesses was when they were brought into court, and then they would have to defend themselves as best they could, without benefit of any legal representation, which was forbidden to those charged with treason. They could not call witnesses on their own behalf—it is doubtful if many people would have dared come forward, anyway, to dispute a case brought in the name of “our sovereign lord the King”—and there was no cross-examination. All they could do was engage in altercation with their accusers. The law was heavily weighted against those suspected of treachery, and the outlook for Anne and the men accused with her was dismal. As Cardinal Wolsey once acidly observed, “If the Crown were prosecutor and asserted it, justice would be found to bring in a verdict that Abel was the murderer of Cain.”2
It was to the further disadvantage of the accused that the law provided for a two-tier system of justice. Commoners had to be tried by the commissioners of oyer and terminer who brought the case against them, yet those of royal or noble birth had to be tried in the court of the High Steward by a jury of their peers. Therefore there had to be two trials, and because of the practical difficulties involved—not least of which was the fact that the commissioners had to be present at both—they could not be held concurrently. Thus the outcome of the first trial would inevitably prejudice that of the second.3
On Friday, May 12, Anne’s uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, was appointed Lord High Steward of England, a temporary office only conferred on great lords for the purpose of organizing coronations or presiding over the trials of peers, who were customarily tried in the court of the High Steward, which he himself convened. In this capacity, Norfolk would act as Lord President at the trials of the Queen and Lord Rochford.
Norfolk was at Westminster Hall that day as one of the commissioners who assembled there at the special sessions of oyer and terminer at which Norris, Weston, Brereton, and Smeaton were to be judged. As commoners, they would be tried separately from the Queen and Lord Rochford, who, by virtue of their high rank, had the right to be tried by their peers. All but one of the judges of the King’s Bench had been summoned to court, as well as a special jury of twelve knights, and they were joined by the members of the grand juries who had been appointed on April 24. Among them were the Lord Chancellor, who was “the highest commissioner,” and several lords of the King’s Council,4 including Sir William FitzWilliam, who had been instrumental in obtaining confessions from Smeaton and Norris, and the Queen’s father, Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire.5 Chapuys heard that he was “ready to assist with the judgment,”6 probably with an eye to his political survival. It may be significant that Edward Willoughby, the foreman of the jury, was in debt to William Brereton; Brereton’s death, of course, would release him from his obligations.
Other members of the jury were unlikely to be impartial. Sir Giles Alington was another of Sir Thomas More’s sons-in-law, and therefore no friend to the Boleyns, for many held Anne responsible for Sir Thomas’s execution. William Askew was a supporter of Lady Mary; Anthony Hungerford was kin to Jane Seymour; Walter Hungerford, who would be executed for buggery and other capital crimes in 1540, might well have needed to court Cromwell’s discretion; Robert Dormer was a conservative who had opposed the break with Rome; Richard Tempest was a creature of Cromwell’s; Sir John Hampden was father-in-law to William Paulet, comptroller of the royal household; William Musgrave was one of those who had failed to secure the conviction for treason of Lord Dacre in 1534, and was therefore zealous to redeem himself; William Sidney was a friend of the hostile Duke of Suffolk; and Thomas Palmer was FitzWilliam’s client and one of the King’s gambling partners.7 Given the affiliations of these men, and the unlikelihood that any of them would risk angering the King by returning the wrong verdict, the outcome of the trial was prejudiced from the very outset.8
Legal practice apart, securing the conviction of the Queen’s alleged lovers was evidently regarded as a necessary preliminary to her own trial, while such a conviction would preclude the four men, as convicted felons, from giving evidence at any subsequent trial,9 and the Queen from protesting that she was innocent of committing any crimes with them. Above all it would go a long way toward ensuring that her condemnation was a certainty. This, more than most other factors, strongly suggests that Anne and her so-called accomplices were framed.
The four accused were conveyed by barge from the Tower to Westminster Hall, where they were brought to the bar by Sir William Kingston and arraigned for high treason.10 This vast hall had been built by William II in the eleventh century and greatly embellished by Richard II in the fourteenth. Lancelot de Carles, an eyewitness at all the trials, was at pains to describe the process of indictment, and “how the archers of the guard turn the back [of their halberds] to the prisoner in going, but after the sentence of guilty, the edge [of the axelike blade] is turned toward their faces.”
There is no surviving official record of the trials that took place on that day, only eyewitness accounts, which are frustratingly sketchy.11 The accused were charged “that they had violated and had carnal knowledge of the Queen, each by himself at separate times,”12 and that they had conspired the King’s death with her.13 This was the first time the charges had been made public, or revealed in detail to the defendants, and the effect must have been at once sensational and chilling.
When the indictments had been read, the prisoners were asked if they would plead guilty or not, but only Mark Smeaton pleaded guilty to adultery,14 confessing “that he had carnal knowledge of the Queen three times,”15 and throwing himself on the mercy of the King, while insisting he was not guilty of conspiring the death of his sovereign. In the justices’ instructions to the Sheriff of London, to bring his prisoners to trial, which were dated May 12, 1536,16 Smeaton’s name was erased, as if, having confessed, he was no longer thought worthy of examination,17 so he was probably not subjected to questioning in court. The other three men,
Norris included, pleaded not guilty,18 and the jury was sworn in.
There is no record of the witnesses who were brought into court to testify, and we have Chapuys’s statement that in the case of Brereton, no witnesses were called at all, which suggests that others were summoned to give evidence against his fellow accused. This made no difference to Brereton, for according to Chapuys, he was “condemned upon a presumption and circumstances, not by proof or valid confession, and without any witnesses.” Yet there could have been a valid presumption of culpability, for if the Queen’s household servants had known what was going on, then the privileged members of her inner circle could reasonably be expected to have been aware of it, or to suspect something, and thus to have alerted the King or his ministers. Their not having done so rendered them a party to treason. And their reported flirtatious banter with the Queen laid them open to further suspicion of complicity and culpability.19
Norris protested, “when his own confession was laid afore him, that he was deceived” into making it by FitzWilliam’s trickery, and retracted it, saying that if anyone used it to advantage, “he is worthy to have my place here; and if he stand to it, I defy him,”20 but that made no difference either. The jury unanimously pronounced all four men guilty “for using fornication with Queen Anne, and also for conspiracy of the King’s death,” whereupon Sir Christopher Hales, the Attorney General, asked for judgment to be pronounced on Smeaton according to his own confession, and on the other three in accordance with the verdict.21 Lord Chancellor Audley, being the chief commissioner present, read out the grim sentence passed on convicted traitors, that they were publicly to be “hanged, drawn, and quartered, their members [genitals] cut off and burnt before them, their heads cut off and [their bodies] quartered.”22 Norris had seen at firsthand what that dread sentence entailed when, a year earlier, alongside Rochford, he witnessed the bloody executions of the monks of the Charterhouse for refusing to acknowledge the royal supremacy. Rochford, a nobleman, might be spared that agony, but Norris and the rest, as commoners, might well be forced to suffer the full rigor of the law.
Alison Weir Page 26
