by David Loades
George was modest about his linguistic accomplishments. In July 1530 he confided to William Bennet that he was reluctant to write directly to either Geronimo de’ Ghinucci or Gregory Casales because neither his Latin nor his Italian was up to it.[298] Like the rest of his family, however, he had excellent French, and that may have prompted Henry to send him on his first diplomatic mission to Francis I, almost before the honour of knighthood had settled upon him. On 18 September Du Bellay wrote to Anne de Montmorency that the Grand Esquire (George), accompanied by the Dean of the Chapel (John Stokesley) were shortly to depart, as he thought to the Emperor. He was mistaken, and on 8 October the King himself wrote to Montmorency accrediting Sir George Boleyn and Dr Stokesley to the court of France in place of Sir Francis Bryan who was recalled. They were instructed to confer about the Duke of Albany’s activities in Scotland, to which Henry took exception, and about the possibility of convening a General Council of the Church, to which the King was presumably thinking of referring his matrimonial problem.[299] The documentation of their mission is scanty, and they were back in England shortly after Christmas. Henry, however, seems to have been well pleased with the efforts of this tyro diplomat and early in 1530 despatched him again, this time to attend the meeting between the Pope and the Emperor, and to offer congratulation to the latter on his coronation. In addition he was briefed to try, once again, to secure a favourable verdict from the Pope in his Great Matter, and in this, once again, he was completely unsuccessful. It may, indeed have been an error of taste to send the brother of so interested a party as Anne Boleyn upon such a mission, but that was not made apparent. Instead the Emperor and the Pope were upon the best of terms, and regarded the English intrusion as nuisance.[300] By the end of March, George was back in England. After the creation of his father as Earl of Wiltshire in December 1529, he was styled by the honorific title of Viscount Rochford, and, like his father, benefited from the self interested generosity of Cardinal Wolsey. In the same month, while he was in France, he received an annuity of £200 out of the revenues of the bishopric of Winchester, and 200 marks (£133 6s 8d) from those of the Abbey of St Albans. Since such temporalities were, or were about to be, in the hands of the King following Wolsey’s surrender, it is uncertain how real these grants were, but the King apparently chose to honour them.[301] On 13 July 1530 he signed (as a baron) that letter from the nobility of England to Clement VII, petitioning him to find in favour of the King. The security of the English succession, they pointed out, depended upon a favourable verdict, and if it were not accorded, ‘other means’ might be found necessary. It had no effect.
Meanwhile, in 1526, he had married. His bride was the eminently suitable Jane Parker, the daughter of Henry Parker, 10th baron Mountjoy. She was about the same age as himself, and had been introduced at court at about the same time, surfacing in 1522 when she played the part of Constancy in the siege of the Chateau Verte. It was probably an arranged marriage, because the King gave them £20 a year as a marriage gift, and there are no great signs of affection between them. They had no children. Indeed George may well have taken himself to other beds, because that George Boleyn who matriculated as a sizar at Trinity Hall, Cambridge in November 1544, and was therefore born in about 1529, is supposed to have been his son.[302] The name of his mother is not known, and the speculation that it might have been Jane in a prenuptial fling is unsubstantiated and unlikely. He took a series of degrees, culminating in a D.Th. in 1576, in which year he was appointed Dean of Lichfield. The only signs that he may have been considered (in a sense) royal kindred came with his appointment to a prebend in York Minster on 29 September 1559, and to another at Canterbury in plurality in December 1566. If he was George’s bastard, he outlived his royal kinswoman, dying in London in 1609.[303] Jane was inevitably expected to attend upon the dominant Boleyn lady, who was Anne, and was in her entourage when she accompanied Henry to his rendezvous with Francis I in October 1532. She also attended her coronation on 1 June 1533, and her lying-in in September. She was probably present when Anne was created Marquis of Pembroke in September 1532, but the records are silent in that respect. However, she appears thereafter to have fallen out with her husband’s family, being banished from the court in December 1534, and spending some days in the Tower in 1535 as a result of taking part in a female demonstration against the Queen.[304] Life at Grimston must have become distinctly uncomfortable, as Jane became increasingly suspicious of George’s relations with other women, including his sister Anne. By 1536 she was far from being either loyal or supportive.
It may also have been that a part of the shadow which had fallen between them was caused by religion. There is no sign that Jane was anything other than strictly orthodox in her faith, and she had no patronage of any significance to indicate otherwise, while George was clearly in the evangelical camp.[305] John Foxe later listed Lord Rochford along with Cromwell and Anne herself as favourers of the Gospel in these years.[306] Chapuys thought him a perfect Lutheran, and disliked talking to him because of his propensity to start religious arguments. He appears to have been personally responsible for the translation into English of Le Fevre’s Epistres et Evangiles, the original edition of which had been published at Alencon in 1532, and also of L’Ecclesiaste, published in 1531. Both these manuscripts now survive in the British Library, and both are dedicated to Anne. However, they cannot have been for her exclusive use, because her French was every bit as good as his, and it is natural to suppose that they were intended as a contribution to that evangelical propaganda campaign which did not eventually come about because of the King’s hostility.[307] They probably circulated among the Queen’s ladies, and may well have been partly responsible for the hostility which Jane Rochford was showing by 1535. The translation was undertaken at Anne’s request, and the dedication indicates the degree of closeness which existed between them:
To the right honourable lady, the Lady Marquis of Pembroke, her most loving and friendly brother sends greetings.
Our friendly dealings, with so divers and sundry benefits, besides the perpetual bond of blood, have so often bound me, Madam, inwardly to love you, daily to praise you, and continually to serve you, that in every of them I must perforce become your debtor for want of power … considering that by your commandment I have adventured to do this, without the which it would not have been in me to have performed it … I shall be ready to obey, praying him on whom this book treats to grant you many good years …[308]
George was certainly one of these courtiers who was committed to the idea of printing the bible in English, and may well have been responsible for keeping Anne in touch with the French reformers through his frequent diplomatic sorties across the Channel. Ironically, the most unequivocal expression of that commitment came in the scaffold speech which he made in May 1536, when, with his life on the line, there is no reason to doubt the truth of what he said:
Truly so that the word should be among the people of the realm I took upon myself great labour to urge the king to permit the printing of the scriptures to go unimpeded among the commons of the realm in their own language …[309]
This enthusiasm helped to set him at odds with his own father, but it did not make him a Lutheran, or a heretic of any kind. He did indeed advocate an invitation to Philip Melanchthon in 1535 ‘considering the conformity of his doctrines here’, but that was in association with the Duke of Norfolk, and clearly reflects a misunderstanding of Philip’s theology.[310] As the King was well aware, Archbishop Arundel’s early fifteenth-century prohibition of translations referred only to unauthorised copy, and for that the Royal Supremacy offered the perfect answer. Let the King authorise it himself! George, like Anne, was an active evangelical, but he never transcended the boundaries which the King laid down for his subjects, and was never accused of heresy. In 1531 he was deputed to argue the King’s case in convocation, and that indicates a high degree of trust. His death, like that of his sister, was a victory for conservative forces within the court, but it was not a
victory over the King.
That Jane was to some extent involved in the charges against her husband in May 1536 seems reasonably well established. The lost journal of Anthony Anthony, which was used by Gilbert Burnet in the late seventeenth century was explicit that ‘the wife of Lord Rochford was a particular instrument in the death of Queen Anne’, apparently by carrying stories about Anne’s infidelities to the King. These stories related to her brother as well as to Mark Smeaton and others, and Burnet speculated that they may well have been provoked by jealousy of ‘a familiarity between the Queen and her brother beyond what so near a relationship would justify’.[311] These stories must relate back to 1534, because that was when Jane’s intimate association with Anne came to an end, but they could well have been remembered against him, or brought up afresh at the time of his trial. That she actually gave evidence at his trial is unlikely because the close relationship between them would have precluded that, but in a case that was largely circumstantial, such stories may well have carried considerable weight, especially if skilfully deployed, as they would have been by Cromwell. Jane in any case seems to have felt that Cromwell owed her a favour because before the month was out, she was writing to him, asking that the King should grant her the moveable property of her late husband, which was in his hands by virtue of George’s attainder. Her only income, she alleged, was an annuity of 100 marks (£66 13s 4d) which had been settled on her by the Earl of Wiltshire for the term of his life.[312] That this had not been cancelled probably indicates that she was less estranged from Thomas than she was from George, and indicates a religious element in their relationship.
Jane’s exclusion from the court seems to have been explicitly Boleyn related, because within a few weeks she was back as a Lady of the Chamber to Jane Seymour, who married Henry as his third wife on 30 May. She probably needed the income which such a post conferred. It is by no means certain where she was living when not at court, unless she was given the use of Grimston, which would have been in the hands of the King. After Jane Seymour’s death, and a period in limbo, she was appointed to a similar position in the English household of Anne of Cleves, a place which she may well have owed to Cromwell’s continuing favour. By that time the Earl of Wiltshire was dead, and her annuity presumably expired with him. It was while serving in this capacity that she uttered the famous words about ‘it being a long time before we shall see a Duke of York’ in reaction to Anne’s account of her wedding night.[313] By this time, although she did not remarry, she was thoroughly experienced in the ways of the bedchamber, and it may well have been for that reason that she was promptly transferred to the service of Henry’s fifth queen, Catherine Howard soon after they married at Oatlands on 28 July 1540. This promotion she certainly did not owe to Cromwell who had been executed on the day of the King’s marriage, but probably to the Duke of Norfolk, who was instrumental in arranging the match.[314] Aged about thirtysix, she must have seemed a motherly figure to the nineteen-yearold queen, and it may have been for that reason that Catherine chose to confide in her. How much she told her about her prenuptial adventures we do not know, but Jane can have had few illusions as to what kind of girl she was dealing with. She was thus caught in a trap partly of her own making, because she could not resign her position without explaining why, and thus betraying the confidence with which she had been entrusted. She may also have felt a good deal of affection for her wayward mistress. Whether she acted as agent provocateur (Catherine’s story) or on the Queen’s explicit instructions (her own version) she found herself in the position of pander between the Queen and two putative lovers, Francis Dereham and Thomas Culpepper.[315] These antics came to a climax during the royal progress to the north in the summer of 1541, when at each stopping place, she arranged backstairs access to Catherine’s apartments, and presumably made sure that other servants were not around. She did not actually witness any sexual activity, but later claimed (with good reason) that she believed it to have taken place. By the time that she made that statement she was trying desperately to dig herself out of the pit into which she had fallen when the story came out. However, Thomas Culpepper at his trial alleged that she had ‘provoked him much’ to intercourse with the Queen, and that was probably close to the truth.[316] Both women were thoroughly interrogated, and Catherine broke down in hysterics, but the violation of a queen was ancient treason, and both Dereham and Culpepper were tried and executed. That left the women with nowhere to go, and both were condemned by Act of Attainder in January 1542. In aiding and abetting the actual bodily harm of the King’s consort, Jane was also judged guilty of high treason, and she was executed along with Catherine on 13 February. After her death she was described as a ‘meddlesome female’ and as ‘that bawd, the lady Jane Rochford’.[317] Perhaps her own sexual frustrations lay behind her actions, and she welcomed the chance of vicarious experience. She seems to have died unlamented, because her actions had done irreparable harm to the Howard political interest, and thoroughly alienated the Duke of Norfolk to whom Catherine had originally owed her opportunity.
Chapuys heard that George was among that select band who attended Henry’s secret wedding to Anne, and that is likely enough, although the ambassador also heard that the celebrant had been ‘the elect of Canterbury’ whereas Cranmer appear to have been in ignorance of the event until some time later.[318] Apart from that, various references to George in the records present merely a picture of a courtier and royal servant in favour. He was summoned to parliament in February 1533 as Viscount Rochford, which was an indication that he was expected to support the King in the House of Lords, since it was by no means automatic that the holder of such a title of honour would be summoned in his father’s lifetime. It was matter for the royal discretion, so it can be assumed that Henry had a good reason for wishing him to be included. The parliament sat until 7 April, and passed the Act in Restraint of Appeals, for which George dutifully voted. However, before the parliament was through, on 11 March, he was briefed to accompany the Duke of Norfolk in embassy to Henry’s ‘perpetual ally the French king’, and set off soon after for the express purpose of preventing another meeting between Francis and Clement which he knew was under consideration.[319] Disconcerted by the news of Henry’s excommunication in June, Norfolk sent his colleague back to England for instructions between 8 and 27 August, with the result that both of them were recalled, and George was paid his expenses amounting to £100. They arrived back in time to perform their allotted offices at Elizabeth’s christening on 10 September. Francis was apparently considerably put out by their withdrawal, and Henry very annoyed at failing to prevent the meeting, so the alliance was under considerable strain as 1533 came to an end.
On 15 January 1534 it was again noted that Lord Rochford had been summoned to parliament, and in this session were passed the Act in Restraint of Annates and the first Succession Act.[320] Once more the Boleyns did their duty, and on 30 March, the day the session ended, both were noted as being present in the House. No sooner was the parliament over, on 12 April, than Rochford and Sir William Fitzwilliam were briefed again for France, apparently to mend fences and carry out the more or less honorific task of conveying ‘a book’ from Henry VIII to Francis I. What this may have been is not apparent, but it was presumably a French version of the King’s case against the Pope. On 14 May, Chapuys noted their return, but made no comment upon their errand.[321] By the summer of 1534 there are some signs that George’s favour was outstripping that of his father, which may well have been due to his close relations with Anne, and the fact that her father was becoming grumpy about her evangelical agenda, of which George was fully supportive, and towards which the King was at this stage indulgent. In June the related offices of Constable of Dover Castle and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports were conferred on him.[322] This may indicate that he was transferring his main operations from Norfolk to Kent, possibly to avoid Jane who seems to have remained at Grimston. Being no longer welcome at court, she no doubt had a good deal of time on her hands. In
April 1535 he was granted the manor of Southe in Kent, which had belonged to Sir Thomas More, but it is doubtful whether he ever lived there. As Constable of Dover Castle adequate accommodation was provided, and in any case as a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber he would have been spending most of his time in London. In May of the same year he was granted to manor of Oteham, but he did not live there either.[323] He served on the Commissions of Oyer and Terminer against the Carthusian Priors in April, and against More in May. Fisher, as a bishop and a lord of the parliament, was condemned by Act of Attainder.[324] On 11 April George was reported as preparing ‘in all haste’ to return to France, but the order was apparently countermanded because on 8 May John Husee wrote to Lord Lisle, ‘My Lord of Rochford goes not’, Sir William Paulet having been appointed in his place.[325] The work of the Commissions clearly took precedence. He did, however, go to Calais at the end of May, as one of the team intended to negotiate for a marriage between Princess Elizabeth and the infant Duke of Angouleme, going in place of Thomas Cromwell, who pleaded sickness. The negotiation failed, and Rochford was later claimed to have spent eight days at Calais ‘and done nothing’.[326]
