Afterward, it pleased God to put in the King’s mind to release the [hate?] that barred her Majestie {Queen Eliz} of her right which he did by his last will. This to nearly touched the [papists?] that as it should seem they have abolished it, thereby endeavouring to take away all monuments and records whereby her right might be proved.
The interpretation of this page of writing constitutes a study unto itself.
Certainly, there are clear religious overtones: Kennett was a learned man, a member of the clergy of the Church of England; he quotes a Latin inscription from Philipp Melanchthon, who was a renowned theologian and close friend of Martin Luther. It’s apparent that Melanchthon and the German theological scholar Joachim Camerarius planned to travel to England in June 1536 but abandoned their trip after the death of Anne and the marriage of the king to Jane Seymour, whose family represented allegiance to the Catholic Church of Rome. Kennett then chose to refer to writings from Sir Francis Hastings, who was a Puritan, and whose specified passage rails against the plotting and devising of treason.
Kennett next copies a passage from a work written by André Thévet.
Thévet is an intriguing and somewhat enigmatic figure in history. He was born in approximately 1516 in Angoulême, France. He became a Franciscan monk at a relatively young age and, although he never cut ties with the Franciscan order, he commenced an unusual life of worldwide travel and writing. He was prodigious at both, eventually traveling to Asia as well as South America and possibly into North America. Ultimately, he was appointed chaplain for Catherine de Medici. His writings cover the spectrum from botany and biology to theology and cosmology. One of his major works was Cosmographie Universelle, published in 1575.36 In this volume, Thévet includes a significant paragraph that describes information he received about Henry’s deathbed grief over Anne and Elizabeth. It is particularly astonishing because, as Kennett states, Thévet would have been a writer “in no way partial” to predetermined views about Anne’s culpability.
Figure 10 - Lansdowne Document Front
© 01/09/2015 The British Library Board, Lansdowne 979 f122r
Figure 11 - Lansdowne Document Back
© 01/09/2015 The British Library Board, Lansdowne 979 f122v
One must wonder how a man like Thévet would have come to be told such a thing by “several English gentlemen”. In piecing together facts about his life and travels, it is probable that Thévet visited, and likely lived for periods of time, with the Greenwich Franciscan Friars, whose friary was located in a building adjoining the royal Palace of Placentia at Greenwich. This friary figured so significantly in the lives of the English royal family and the nobility that Henry VII and his wife Elizabeth of York provided the friars a large grant, which not only established the convent on the grounds of the palace, but funded its adornment with a major stained glass window. The king left them money in his will for the upkeep of the property and food for the monks. Their second-born son, Henry VIII, was probably christened in the church within the friary proper, and it is very likely that Katharine of Aragon and Henry were married in that same church. It was there, also, that Princess Mary and Princess Elizabeth were christened. Members of the Henrician Court regularly depended upon the friars for spiritual guidance, consultation and confession. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine that Brother André Thévet, who was thirty-one years of age when Henry VIII died, was well-known to gentlemen of the Court, and perhaps to Henry himself.37
The divisive conflicts that arose as a result of the king’s desire to divorce Katharine affected the relationship between the Franciscan community and Henry and his advocates. The official position of the Franciscan monks was in distinct opposition to the proposed divorce. There was vocal discord between the king, his allies and the friars. Henry was not happy about the rift, but maintained a sense of restraint, at least for some time. The association between the king and the religious community remained erratic over the years that followed, never being restored to the original closeness that Henry’s mother and father had nurtured.
Considering the Franciscans were not proponents of Queen Anne Boleyn or her reformist influence, it is even more significant that Thévet would record for posterity that which must have been mentioned only covertly, and to very few individuals at the time – Henry’s suffering the great grief of remorse as his death approached, specifically over injuries he had caused Anne. Most extraordinary, the confession does not broadly encompass others who were put to death at Henry’s command. According to Thévet’s assertion, Henry acknowledged Anne’s innocence, regretted the punishment he had invoked, and knew that she had died in good standing with her God.
Henry prepared to meet his creator and hoped, as Anne had declared, that he would be pardoned for his ‘great Sin’.
As perhaps an act of repentance, he did restore their daughter Elizabeth to the line of succession.
Did Brother André Thévet, and then Bishop White Kennett, record the truth so history would regard Henry’s last hours with a sense of compassion, and to confirm that Anne’s innocence will forever be known and remembered?
That, gentle reader, is for you to decide.
Figure 12 - Etching of André Thevet, from book 1 of
Les vrais pourtraits et vies des hommes illustres grecz,
latins et payens, 1584
Figure 13 - Franciscan Friary Greenwich adjoining Placentia
34 MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Thomas Cranmer, Yale University Press, 1996, p 360.
35 Hastings, Sir Francis, A Watchword to All Religious and True-Hearted English men, printed by Felix Kingston for Ralph Iackson, London, 1598, folio 58. Quotation referred to is as follows: “to draw chri∣stians from Gods truth, to his false religion; and to withdraw subiects from obedience to their lawful S∣ueraigne; a worke well beseeming Antichrist, and all his adherents. Against whom the heathen shall rise in iudgement, and shall con∣demne them; who thought it vn∣honest, and vnhonorable, not one∣ly to plot, and deuise treasons, but euen so much as to hearken to any treason offered them, though ne∣uer so much for their benefit.”
36 Thévet, André, La Cosmographie Universelle, Guillaume Chaudiere, Paris, 1575, p 657.
37 British History Online, “Friaries: The observant friars of Greenwich”, in A History of the County of Kent: Volume 2,
ed. William Page (London, 1926), pp. 194-198.
AFTERWORD
Anne’s letter: the legacy
What has been the heritage of this wonderful letter since it became the property of Sir Robert Cotton?
As mentioned, his entire collection was left to Cotton’s son, then his grandson, for safekeeping and preservation. In its early years as a noted collection of national importance, it was stored in Cotton House. As years wore on, it became obvious that the private home was not a suitable place for such an amassed treasure (the library contained Cotton’s pride and joy, the fifth-century Greek Genesis – Otho B. VI – one of the earliest illustrated Christian manuscripts in existence; it included the original, single medieval manuscript of Beowulf – nearly 1,000 years old; two of the four surviving letters patent of King John recording the grant of Magna Carta – Cotton Charter XIII. 31a – and the only one that had the Great Seal still attached; the bull confirming the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ on Henry VIII – now Vitellius B. IV ; as well as the letters from Kingston and Anne Boleyn, in addition to many other priceless artefacts). The architect Sir Christopher Wren surveyed the structure and pronounced it subject to almost complete demolishing and rebuilding. He proposed that the library be moved to a space in the House of Lords. However, some questionable financial manoeuvrings by those involved in the decision-making led to sinking over £4,500, a massive sum at the time, into renovations at Cotton House. Nonetheless, the space was still unsuitable, being located close to the river that pervaded the rooms with a dampness that was rapidly causing the books’ and papers’ destruction. It was necessary to keep fires burning at all times to ward off the damp, even though it was recogn
ised this also caused a hazard.
Finally, in 1729, a possibility arose to move the collection to a mansion called Ashburnam House in Westminster. The location was an interesting choice, since the building was originally a part of a medieval monastery, one that had been closed in the Dissolution of Monasteries, and it was a building well-known to Robert Cotton because it was adjacent to Westminster School, where he had studied antiquary science under the tutelage of William Camden. The entire library was thereby moved and situated in its new home in Westminster.
On Friday 22 October 22 1731, the residents of Ashburnam House retired for the night. By 2 am, they were awakened by a thick haze of smoke and sent an emergency call to the fire brigade. They, and other neighbours, made heroic efforts to save as much of the library as they could, desperately throwing books of medieval illumination, early recorded bibles, codexes and letters from the windows. In the meantime, the fire company had begun to stream water on the building, which doused the surrounding books and papers lying smouldering in the street. In the aftermath of the fire the devastation was painful to observe. The house was reduced to rubble and in the courtyard were sodden lumps of precious documents, those that were merely ash lay all about like wet, grey snow. It was called the greatest disaster of bibliographic materials in England’s history.38
Once as many fragments as possible had been gathered and consolidated, the supervision of the damaged library’s disposition was handled by Speaker Arthur Onslow. Onslow was a trustee of the library and had been one of the individuals who bravely entered the burning house to save as much of the precious collection as was possible. It was Onslow who put together a group of experts, including specialists from the Chapter House at Westminster, the Tower of London, as well as the exchequer. It was their job to determine how the damaged manuscripts might be conserved. Parchments that had been soaked with water needed to be stretched and dried – some by air – others that were too wet, near a fire, under close supervision. Some volumes that were comprised of sheets of vellum had actually been fused shut. The heat of the fire caused the fat and collagen in the animal skins of the vellum to melt. When cooled, they had congealed to a solid mass. These books needed specific care to re-open and restore. It was a daunting and massive job. Using early and somewhat awkward methods, the committee of specialists and craftspeople did a remarkable job. However, many of the documents and books remain as mere fragments of what they had been and today there is an entire compendium of small shreds that remain in drawers in the British Library. Perhaps future conservators may be able to progress the salvage efforts that took place over 250 years ago.39
One of the catalogues that sustained a great deal of damage was the Otho collection. Anne’s letter, as well as those of William Kingston, were part of this grouping. It is miraculous that these letters survive. It is also fortuitous that the letters were copied prior to the fire. It’s only due to these copies that we have a full disclosure of the letters’ contents.
Most of the study and analysis of Anne’s letter has been taken from printed copies, as published by various historians and authors. It’s evident that many, if not most people who have commented on its authenticity and provenance, have not seen the original, or even an image of the original, both front and back. Those images are reproduced in this book so they can afford a close scrutiny by the reader.
Since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, who has written about this important testimony signed by Anne Boleyn?
Modern-day historians and authors refer to the authenticity of the letter with a level of controversy equivalent to their predecessors. Jasper Ridley, in his biography Henry VIII, The Politics of Tyranny, states: “The letter which she is supposed to have written to Henry is a forgery, written in the reign of her daughter, Elizabeth.”40 Subsequently, Ridley reversed his opinion, as mentioned in his book The Love Letters of Henry VIII.41
The renowned biographer of Anne Boleyn, Professor Eric Ives, deals with the letter in this way: “It would appear to be wholly improbable for Anne to write that her marriage was built on nothing but the King’s fancy and that her incarceration was the consequence of Henry’s affection for Jane. Equally it would have been totally counterproductive for a Tudor prisoner in the Tower to warn the King, as the letter does, that he is in imminent danger of the judgement of God!”42
Alison Weir’s work, The Lady In the Tower, devotes over four pages to the subject of the letter.43 In them she poses various questions about aspects of the letter and its history that have proved confusing. She offers arguments both for and against its credibility, citing observations made by historians early and modern. It seems that a particular point of dissension is the fact that Anne’s name is spelled variously from the typical “Boleyn”, and that she referred to herself using her given name rather than as queen. Another stated difference is the observation that the handwriting is evidently not Anne’s. Additionally, Weir makes mention that the historian John Strype claimed to have seen another letter written by Anne in the Tower – in which Anne responds again to the demand for a full confession. In actuality, this response is recorded on the reverse of the original document, albeit not in Anne’s personal handwriting.
Other Tudor author-historians, including David Starkey, Suzannah Lipscomb, David Loades, Antonia Fraser and Retha Warnicke, omit any discussion of the letter at all.
In a recent book written by Susan Bordo, The Creation of Anne Boleyn, the author compares the elegant style of the letter to the equally poignant speech purportedly delivered by Anne at her sentencing. Bordo makes note of the probability that the letter found in Cromwell’s papers was never delivered to the king. She recognises that the letter may be authentic, having been scribed by a hand other than Anne’s, and significantly, observes the intimacy and personal sentiment expressed in the first line of a letter composed from wife to husband. She recognises, with insight, and remarks upon the powerful single-mindedness of a woman who fully intended to express her last thoughts to a man she had loved profoundly, lived with, and for whom she had borne a child.44
As part of the enduring legend of Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII, mysteries abound. How their lives, passionately and fatefully entwined, could have disjoined so murderously is an abiding question that has, and will continue to, evoke study and reflection.
Two seemingly small details in the grand scheme of Henry and Anne’s time together: the letter “from my doleful Prison in the Tower this 6 May”, and the statement “The King acknowledges with great griefe at his death the injuries he had done to the Lady Anne Boleyn” may be far more momentous than previously known or considered.
With thoughtful scrutiny and additional research, these traces of the past may provide us with some of the answers we seek.
38 Prescott, Andrew, “Their Present Miserable State of Cremation:the Restoration of the Cotton Library”, an essay from Sir Robert Cotton as Collector: Essays on an Early Stuart Courtier and His Legacy, edited by C. J. Wright, London, British Library Publications, 1997, pp 391-454.
39 Kuhns, Matt, Cotton’s Library: The Many Perils of Preserving History, Lyon Hall Press, Ohio, 2014.
40 Ridley, Jasper, Henry VIII The Politics of Tyranny, Viking,
New York, 1985, p 269.
41 Ridley, Jasper, ed., The Love Letters of Henry VIII,
Weidenfeld Nicolson, 1989.
42 Ives, E., Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, p 58.
43 Weir, Alison, The Lady in the Tower, Random House, 2010,
pp 178-183.
44 Bordo,Susan, The Creation of Anne Boleyn, Mariner Books, 2013,
pp 109-112.
History and time line of Anne’s Tower Letter
Resources
Bordo, Susan, The Creation of Anne Boleyn, Mariner Books, 2013
British History Online, “Friaries: The observant friars of Greenwich”, in A History of the County of Kent: Volume 2, ed. William Page, London, 1926
British Library: Stowe MS 151; Cotton MS Otho CX; Lansdowne 979
&
nbsp; British Library Online, “Explore Archives and Manuscripts”, http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/primo_library/libweb
Burnet, Gilbert, Historie of the Reformation of the Church of England, Part One, London, 1679
Cabala, Sive Scrinia Sacra, Mysteries of State and Government in Letters, Temple Gate, 1663
Calendar of State Papers Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. Brewer, Gairdner, Brodie, 1862 – 1932
Camden Miscellany, Volume 39, Offices of the Royal Historical Society, London, 1990
Camden, William, Historie of the Most Renowned and Victorious Princesse Elizabeth Late Queen of England, Benjamin Fisher, London, 1630
Cassell’s Illustrated History of England Vol II, Cassell & Company Limited
Cavendish, George, The Life of Thomas Wolsey, ed. Ellis, F. S., Kelmscott Press, London, 1893
Ellis, Henry, Original Letters, Illustrative of English History, Vol II, Thomas Davison, Whitefriars, London 1815
Elton, G. R., Reform and Renewal: Thomas Cromwell and the Common Weal; University of Chicago Press Cambridge, 1974
Flannagan, Roy, “Review of In Praise of Scribes”, Early Modern Literary Studies 5.1, May 1999
Froude, James, History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth, Vol II, Scribner, New York, 1872
Hastings, Sir Francis, A Watchword to All Religious and True-Hearted English men, printed by Felix Kingston for Ralph Jackson, London, 1598
Ives, Eric, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2004
Keynes, Simon, “The Reconstruction of a Burnt Cottonian Manuscript”, British Library articles: www.bl.uk, 1996
Anne Boleyn's Letter from the Tower Page 5
