CHAPTER 6.

Turning Trust to Treason.

On Sunday, April 30, Henry VIII was still urging his envoys abroad to press the Emperor to agree to an alliance without unpalatable conditions attached; even with the investigations into Anne"s conduct going on, he was determined that Charles should acknowledge the validity of his second marriage. He also signed a demand for Francis I to abandon his alliance with the Pope unless the latter agreed to revoke all actions against England, actions aimed against the divorce and the Boleyn marriage.1 He was bent on forcing the European powers and the Roman Church to admit that he had been right to put away his first wife and take a second. That Anne was under a cloud of suspicion was beside the point. He was bent on forcing the European powers and the Roman Church to admit that he had been right to put away his first wife and take a second. That Anne was under a cloud of suspicion was beside the point.

Alexander Aless, who was "at this time in attendance upon Cromwell in the court, soliciting the payment of a stipend awarded to me," says it was "not long after" the investigation began that "the persons returned who had been charged with the investigation of the rumors which had been circulated," and indicates that it was on that same day, April 30, that Cromwell and his colleagues, "with everything having been arranged to their entire satisfaction," laid before the King further evidence of the Queen"s immorality, alleging that she had seduced several members of the Privy Chamber, including her own brother and Mark Smeaton.2 Aless gives details not mentioned elsewhere, which he can only have gleaned from Cromwell-whom he was visiting at that time-or Cranmer, with whom he "was on intimate terms." He says the investigators "a.s.sured the King that the affair was beyond doubt; that they had seen the Queen dancing with the gentlemen of the King"s Chamber, that they could produce witnesses who would vouch to the Queen having kissed her own brother, and that they had in their possession letters in which she informed him that she was pregnant." Aless gives details not mentioned elsewhere, which he can only have gleaned from Cromwell-whom he was visiting at that time-or Cranmer, with whom he "was on intimate terms." He says the investigators "a.s.sured the King that the affair was beyond doubt; that they had seen the Queen dancing with the gentlemen of the King"s Chamber, that they could produce witnesses who would vouch to the Queen having kissed her own brother, and that they had in their possession letters in which she informed him that she was pregnant."

All this appears to have been entirely innocent. Dancing was not evidence of adultery, nor was it a criminal act to kiss one"s brother or inform him of a pregnancy, unless of course the implication was that he was the father, which it obviously was in this case. Aless"s account certainly does not reflect the full force of the evidence laid before Henry VIII, which was sufficient to convince him that Anne had a case to answer. He does not mention the most serious accusation: that Anne was said to have plotted regicide, the ultimate crime, with the intention of marrying one of her lovers and ruling as regent for Elizabeth.

This was all more than enough to arouse fury in any husband, let alone an egotistical monarch who was also Supreme Head of the Church of England, and Henry"s reaction was that of a man who believed what he was hearing, which convinced him that he had nourished a viper in his bosom, that Anne had betrayed and humiliated him, both as a husband and a king, and that, by her misconduct, she had put the royal succession in jeopardy. Worse still, it seemed she had wanted him dead. As Cavendish put it, Anne "turned trust to treason" and "changed [Henry"s] l.u.s.t to hatred."3 In the coming weeks his behavior would be that of a betrayed husband who was genuinely convinced of his wife"s guilt, and struggling to come to terms with it and save face. And indeed he had good reason to take at face value the evidence Cromwell laid before him. After all, Anne had deceived him about saving her virtue for marriage, and he must have been aware of her provocative banter and flirtations with admiring male courtiers. How could he have forgotten the effect she"d had on In the coming weeks his behavior would be that of a betrayed husband who was genuinely convinced of his wife"s guilt, and struggling to come to terms with it and save face. And indeed he had good reason to take at face value the evidence Cromwell laid before him. After all, Anne had deceived him about saving her virtue for marriage, and he must have been aware of her provocative banter and flirtations with admiring male courtiers. How could he have forgotten the effect she"d had on him him during the protracted torture of their long courtship? during the protracted torture of their long courtship?

Aless makes it clear that it was at, or just after, the meeting on April 30 that "it was decided and concluded that the Queen was an adulteress and deserved to be burnt alive." That same day, an angry and outraged Henry sanctioned the arrest of Mark Smeaton and summoned the council4 urgently to debate the evidence against the Queen and her other alleged accomplices. After this, Anne"s accusers moved against her with such speed and ruthlessness as to suggest that they were unsure of their case, fearful of her influence over the King and the possibility of another reconciliation, and above all determined to bring her down. urgently to debate the evidence against the Queen and her other alleged accomplices. After this, Anne"s accusers moved against her with such speed and ruthlessness as to suggest that they were unsure of their case, fearful of her influence over the King and the possibility of another reconciliation, and above all determined to bring her down.

As a simmering Henry was closeted with Cromwell at Greenwich, "the Queen, meanwhile, took her pleasure unconscious of the discovery, watching dogs and animals that day fight in [Greenwich] Park,"5 probably as Cromwell was laying before the council his evidence against Anne and her supposed lovers. According to the "Spanish Chronicle," he had received a letter from Sir Thomas Percy, brother to the Earl of Northumberland. Percy, whom it would appear was watching Mark Smeaton with suspicion, had been involved in a violent altercation with him, and complained to someone in authority about his conduct. Queen Anne, hearing of this, sent for Percy and ordered him to make his peace with Smeaton. Begrudgingly he did so, but at the same time he wrote to Cromwell, telling him what had happened and confiding his misgivings. He wrote: probably as Cromwell was laying before the council his evidence against Anne and her supposed lovers. According to the "Spanish Chronicle," he had received a letter from Sir Thomas Percy, brother to the Earl of Northumberland. Percy, whom it would appear was watching Mark Smeaton with suspicion, had been involved in a violent altercation with him, and complained to someone in authority about his conduct. Queen Anne, hearing of this, sent for Percy and ordered him to make his peace with Smeaton. Begrudgingly he did so, but at the same time he wrote to Cromwell, telling him what had happened and confiding his misgivings. He wrote: It is hardly three months since Mark [Smeaton] came to court, and though he has only an hundred pounds [34,900] a year from the King, and has received no more than a third, he has just bought three horses that have cost him five hundred ducats, as well as very rich arms and fine liveries for his servants for the May Day ridings, such as no gentleman at court has been able to buy, and many are wondering where he gets the money.

The implication was that he had been given it by Anne in return for s.e.xual services.

According to the author of the "Spanish Chronicle," Anne was guilty of adultery with all her supposed "minions," having "ostentatiously tried to attract the best-looking men and the best dancers to be found;" above all, she was pa.s.sionately in love with Smeaton, having fallen for him after hearing him play and finding him to be a good dancing partner. That is all at variance with her own testimony.

Despite the fact that Smeaton had been at court since 1529, and not for just three months, the salary quoted sounds realistic, as a page of the Privy Chamber could be paid 100 "during pleasure." It was substantial remuneration: mere musicians got about 6 (2,100) a year; Lucas h.o.r.en-bout, the King"s painter, received 33 (11,550) a year, while his successor, the great Hans Holbein, earned less. But even earning that kind of money, having received a third of his salary, and allowing for the fact that a gold ducat was then worth about 9s.4d (150), Smeaton could hardly have afforded the 70 (24,450) that those horses would have cost, or the rich liveries.

Cromwell had responded by asking Percy secretly to keep an eye on Smeaton, which he did; and on April 29 he reported that, that very morning, he"d seen Smeaton emerging from the Queen"s apartment.6 Whether this evidence was genuine or not, the Crown probably acted on information that apparently corroborated the testimony of Lady Worcester and others, and Smeaton was arrested on Sunday, April 30, and taken to Cromwell"s house in Stepney for questioning. Since Cromwell is known to have gone there too on that day, perhaps with Smeaton in his custody, it is likely that he himself conducted the interrogation.7 "In the evening, there was a ball" at court, at which "the King treated [Anne] as normal."8 However, she was probably preoccupied with her concerns about a conversation she"d had sometime that Sunday with Sir Henry Norris. However, she was probably preoccupied with her concerns about a conversation she"d had sometime that Sunday with Sir Henry Norris.

As she was to reveal only three days later to one of Cromwell"s spies, she asked Norris "why he went not through with his marriage, and he made answer he would tarry a time." It may be that Norris was employing delaying tactics because he was worried about allying himself with the Boleyn faction,9 but Anne interpreted his words to mean he was reluctant to marry Madge Shelton because he had feelings for her, the Queen-and possibly Norris had given her cause in the past to think this. but Anne interpreted his words to mean he was reluctant to marry Madge Shelton because he had feelings for her, the Queen-and possibly Norris had given her cause in the past to think this.

"You look for dead men"s shoes," she told him provocatively, "for if aught should come to the King but good, you would look to have me." Norris was probably shocked, because the conventions of permissible courtly dalliance dictated that the lover importune the mistress, not the other way about, and he denied it, protesting that "if he should have any such thought, he would his head were off." He was aware that this was a dangerous conversation-for to refer to the King"s demise, even in jest, was no light matter, since the Statute of Treasons of 1351 covered imagining and compa.s.sing the death of the sovereign, while it had more recently been enacted that even to talk of such a thing could also be treasonable-and his words must have brought home to both of them the serious implications of what they were discussing, for Anne pointedly told Norris that "she could undo him if she would, and therewith they fell out."

At some point they both realized that their remarks had been overheard and might be misconstrued-which was what in fact happened. The Queen of England had to be above suspicion in every respect, but on this occasion Anne"s rash words were open to a more serious and dangerous interpretation: people might (and indeed would) think that she had flirted outrageously, gone way beyond the accepted rules of courtly banter, been overfamiliar with Norris, at the very least, and was even actively plotting the King"s a.s.sa.s.sination. Indeed, her remarks gave rise to the worst possible scenario, for they would be used against her as d.a.m.ning evidence of treason-and actually appear to have been among the Crown"s most compelling pieces of evidence; moreover, they showed that she was ready to initiate a dangerous flirtation. It followed that, in her indictment, her accusers were able convincingly to portray her as a female seductress who at every opportunity incited her lovers to criminal acts. Anne, unwittingly, had given Cromwell evidence he needed to bring her down. Her exchange with Norris could not have been more timely.

Anne was sufficiently concerned about what she and Norris had been heard to say that she bade him go to her almoner, John Skip, and "swear for the Queen that she was a good woman." That would prove to be a fatal mistake, for Skip"s suspicions were immediately aroused, and he confided the matter to Anne"s chamberlain, Sir Edward Baynton, who also took a dim view of the exchange, possibly because this was not the first time Anne had said compromising things to Norris-she herself would shortly reveal that there had been another conversation between them on April 25, the details of which are not clear.10 The almoner and the chamberlain discussed the matter, and Skip urged Baynton to go to Cromwell and Sir William FitzWilliam, who would become heavily involved in the investigation against Anne, to "plainly express" his opinion, which he did. The almoner and the chamberlain discussed the matter, and Skip urged Baynton to go to Cromwell and Sir William FitzWilliam, who would become heavily involved in the investigation against Anne, to "plainly express" his opinion, which he did.11 Given the suspicions to which the conversation between Anne and Norris gave rise, even in John Skip, who hitherto had been a supporter of the Queen, we might conjecture whether Anne, fearing the consequences (for she was a prisoner in the Tower at the time), reported it in its entirety, and that what Norris said to Skip was more compromising. This is not to suggest that it was necessarily evidence of criminal intercourse, or even a serious flirtation, but that there was perhaps more s.e.xual innuendo than Anne could bring herself to admit to, or, more likely, that the exchange about Norris looking for dead men"s shoes was more explicit and open to an even worse interpretation.

The strange thing is that Anne was never charged with offenses involving Norris at this time, only with inveigling the men to treason in November 1535, and compa.s.sing the King"s death on January 8, 1536, and on various dates thereafter and on various dates thereafter [author"s italics]. It is evident that her accusers were intent on alleging that this was a long-established-and therefore more dangerous-conspiracy, and that she was so wicked that she had not scrupled to plot regicide when she was carrying the King"s child. There is no record of the conversation with Norris being mentioned at Anne"s trial, or in the written testimony of witnesses (none of which survive), but the records and eyewitness accounts are incomplete. Nevertheless, it clearly was regarded as crucial evidence, and seems to have been the basis for some of the Crown"s allegations. [author"s italics]. It is evident that her accusers were intent on alleging that this was a long-established-and therefore more dangerous-conspiracy, and that she was so wicked that she had not scrupled to plot regicide when she was carrying the King"s child. There is no record of the conversation with Norris being mentioned at Anne"s trial, or in the written testimony of witnesses (none of which survive), but the records and eyewitness accounts are incomplete. Nevertheless, it clearly was regarded as crucial evidence, and seems to have been the basis for some of the Crown"s allegations.

Sometime that day, or the next morning, Aless witnessed the King and Queen arguing. He wrote an account of what he had seen in 1559 in a letter to Elizabeth I: Never shall I forget the sorrow I felt when I saw the most serene Queen, your most religious mother, carrying you, still a little baby, in her arms, and entreating the most serene King your father in Greenwich Palace, from the open window of which he was looking into the courtyard when she brought you to him. I did not perfectly understand what had been going on, but the faces and gestures of the speakers plainly showed the King was angry, although he could conceal his anger wonderfully well.

The cause of the quarrel is not known, because Aless could not hear the words that pa.s.sed between the royal couple. It is possible Anne was fearful that Henry would get to hear of her conversation with Norris, and sought to preempt his anger by trying to explain herself, taking Elizabeth with her for maximum emotional appeal;12 or that Henry had already heard about it, and that she was trying to defuse his wrath. It has recently been suggested that Anne was pleading with him for mercy, or that Henry had already heard about it, and that she was trying to defuse his wrath. It has recently been suggested that Anne was pleading with him for mercy,13 which is very likely, but it begs the question of what she had heard exactly. Was it divorce she feared? Or did her fears go deeper? Certainly they had been mounting over the past weeks. Whatever it was, we can a.s.sume that Henry refused to divulge what was going on-he was a man who preferred to keep his secrets to himself, and once said that if his cap knew what he was thinking he would throw it in the fire which is very likely, but it begs the question of what she had heard exactly. Was it divorce she feared? Or did her fears go deeper? Certainly they had been mounting over the past weeks. Whatever it was, we can a.s.sume that Henry refused to divulge what was going on-he was a man who preferred to keep his secrets to himself, and once said that if his cap knew what he was thinking he would throw it in the fire14-and that Anne"s appeal, for enlightenment or understanding, failed.

The council sat until eleven o"clock that night. By then, conjecture had spread about the nature of the urgent business being debated, and a throng of people, Alexander Aless among them, had gathered at Greenwich to speculate as to what was going on. "From the protracted conference of the council (for whom the crowd was waiting until it was quite dark, expecting that they would return to London), it was most obvious to everyone that some deep and difficult question was being discussed. Nor was this opinion incorrect."15 When the meeting broke up, an announcement was made that the planned trip to Calais would be postponed for a week. When the meeting broke up, an announcement was made that the planned trip to Calais would be postponed for a week.16 No reason for the sudden change of plan was given. "The King"s journey is prolonged," Lord Lisle was informed by John Granfield, his man in London. "My brother Diggory will bring you the certainty of the King"s coming." No reason for the sudden change of plan was given. "The King"s journey is prolonged," Lord Lisle was informed by John Granfield, his man in London. "My brother Diggory will bring you the certainty of the King"s coming."17 This sudden decision to cancel the Calais trip in itself strongly suggests that the evidence against the Queen had only been recently laid, and that the outcome of the investigations had thrown everything into disarray. Contrary to what has recently been claimed,18 it cannot in any way be seen as proof that Henry had known all along of Cromwell"s plot to destroy Anne. it cannot in any way be seen as proof that Henry had known all along of Cromwell"s plot to destroy Anne.

The "Spanish Chronicle" a.s.serts that, when Smeaton arrived at Cromwell"s house, "two stout young fellows were called, and the secretary asked for a rope and a cudgel. The rope, which was filled with knots, was put around Mark"s head, and twisted with the cudgel until he cried, "Sir Secretary, no more! I will tell the truth. The Queen gave me the money.""

He then, according to this chronicle, made a confession, saying that after he had entered the Queen"s service (which is incorrect, because he was in the King"s service), she had singled him out for special notice, asking her ladies, "Does not the lad play well?" Then one morning she had sent for him as she lay abed, and he was ordered to play so that her ladies might dance. Watching him, she resolved to seduce him and began scheming to get him discreetly into her bed, no easy thing with all her ladies about, and with Smeaton too lowly to be expected to make the first move. So she took into her confidence an old waiting woman called Margaret, who slept every night in the antechamber of the Queen"s bedroom, the other ladies sleeping beyond, in the gallery.

In the antechamber there was a cupboard in which were stored sweetmeats, candied fruits, and conserves. One night, when all was quiet, Margaret, acting on Anne"s instructions, hid a very nervous Mark behind the royal bed curtains; then, when her mistress called out from her bed, "Bring me a little marmalade!" Margaret took him by the hand and pulled him into view, saying-for the benefit of anyone who might be within earshot, "Here is the marmalade, my lady."

"Go along, go to bed," Anne is said to have replied, and after Margaret had gone, she "went to the back of the bed and grasped the youth"s arm, who was all trembling, and made him get into bed. He soon lost his bashfulness, and remained that night and many others." In reward for his services, Anne gave him money, which enabled him to become "smart and lavish in his clothes." He was aware, though, that both Sir Henry Norris and William Brereton were rivals for her favors.19 This account is probably largely apocryphal, the invention of a hostile Spaniard, and is probably based on the rumors circulating in the City of London at this time. The chronicle further a.s.serts that Margaret was arrested and put on the rack, where she incriminated Norris and Brereton, but swore that Sir Thomas Wyatt-who was not yet in Cromwell"s sights, so far as we know-was innocent; then she is said to have been burned at the stake under cover of darkness within the Tower. There is no evidence to support these statements. The account is littered with errors, with Rochford being referred to as a duke and Weston"s name being omitted entirely, while "Margaret" cannot be identified, although it is possible that the writer confused her with either Lady Wingfield or Margery Horsman.

Someone else thought that Smeaton was perhaps tortured, although not in the manner that the "Spanish Chronicle" describes. One of the best contemporary sources for this period is George Constantine, William Brereton"s former school fellow and long-standing friend, who was now Sir Henry Norris"s body servant and later became registrar of the bishopric of St. David"s. Constantine had long been a zealous Protestant and trafficker in forbidden books, and in 1531 narrowly escaped burning at the hands of the former Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, having saved himself only by betraying his a.s.sociates and fleeing abroad. Thanks to the reforming influence of Anne Boleyn, he was able to return to London under the protection of Norris, bringing with him, for Anne, a copy of Miles Coverdale"s translation of the Bible into English. Given his sympathies, Constantine at first "could not believe" that the Queen was guilty.20 Constantine was to attend his master during the latter"s imprisonment in the Tower of London, and three years later wrote a memorial of these events for Cromwell.21 According to this, "the saying was that [Smeaton] confessed, but he was first grievously racked, which I could never know of a truth." According to this, "the saying was that [Smeaton] confessed, but he was first grievously racked, which I could never know of a truth."22 It is easy to see that Constantine imagined that torture was routine in such interrogations, for, according to his own explanation of why he had betrayed his friends five years earlier, he himself had been subjected to the most dreadful torture. It is easy to see that Constantine imagined that torture was routine in such interrogations, for, according to his own explanation of why he had betrayed his friends five years earlier, he himself had been subjected to the most dreadful torture.23 It is hardly conceivable that there was a rack at Cromwell"s house, but there was certainly one at the Tower, even though torture was officially illegal in England. Although all the sources imply that the hapless musician"s confession was obtained at Stepney, it is of course possible that he was racked soon after his arrival at the Tower on May 2; but if he was tortured thus, he must have given in before too much unbearable pressure was brought to bear, for there is no evidence that his bones were dislocated, and he was able, only days later, to stand trial and walk to his execution without anyone commenting on him being in evident pain or in any way disabled, while no observer mentions any visible injuries consistent with the rope torture, which is almost certainly a lurid fabrication. In 1546, when the heretic Anne Askew was racked, with the then Lord Chancellor, Thomas Wriothesley, himself turning the wheel, people knew about it, not least because she was carried in a chair to the stake. It is hardly conceivable that there was a rack at Cromwell"s house, but there was certainly one at the Tower, even though torture was officially illegal in England. Although all the sources imply that the hapless musician"s confession was obtained at Stepney, it is of course possible that he was racked soon after his arrival at the Tower on May 2; but if he was tortured thus, he must have given in before too much unbearable pressure was brought to bear, for there is no evidence that his bones were dislocated, and he was able, only days later, to stand trial and walk to his execution without anyone commenting on him being in evident pain or in any way disabled, while no observer mentions any visible injuries consistent with the rope torture, which is almost certainly a lurid fabrication. In 1546, when the heretic Anne Askew was racked, with the then Lord Chancellor, Thomas Wriothesley, himself turning the wheel, people knew about it, not least because she was carried in a chair to the stake.24 Moreover, Lancelot de Carles states that, although "Mark was forced to answer the accusation against him, without being tortured, he deliberately said that the Queen had three times yielded to his pa.s.sion." So probably the tales of Smeaton being tortured were based on unfounded rumors and a.s.sumptions. The fact that he was not "well-lodged" in the Tower until ten o"clock at night on May 2 Moreover, Lancelot de Carles states that, although "Mark was forced to answer the accusation against him, without being tortured, he deliberately said that the Queen had three times yielded to his pa.s.sion." So probably the tales of Smeaton being tortured were based on unfounded rumors and a.s.sumptions. The fact that he was not "well-lodged" in the Tower until ten o"clock at night on May 225 suggests that he was again interrogated, probably for several hours, but he certainly did not suffer "twenty-four hours of fierce torture," as one historian has recently claimed. suggests that he was again interrogated, probably for several hours, but he certainly did not suffer "twenty-four hours of fierce torture," as one historian has recently claimed.26 The fact that he was initially questioned for at least twenty-four hours suggests that Smeaton did not willingly divulge any information. Yet in the end, racked or not, he finally admitted "that he had been three times with the Concubine"27 in the spring of 1535-a confession that (as will be seen) was at variance with Anne"s own independent recollections of her dealings with him, in which she stated she had only spoken to him twice, and then only briefly. in the spring of 1535-a confession that (as will be seen) was at variance with Anne"s own independent recollections of her dealings with him, in which she stated she had only spoken to him twice, and then only briefly.28 Having confessed to the adultery, Smeaton threw himself on the King"s mercy,29 but he was adamant that he was not guilty of abetting the Queen in compa.s.sing the King"s death, and desired to be tried by a jury on that charge. This reinforces the view that he was not tortured, otherwise he surely would have capitulated on all counts, the penalty being the same for violating the Queen as for plotting regicide: a traitor"s death. It does, however, raise the question of why he admitted to adultery. Did he mistakenly think it was a lesser charge? Or was he-and by implication, Anne-in fact guilty? Or was "psychological pressure" but he was adamant that he was not guilty of abetting the Queen in compa.s.sing the King"s death, and desired to be tried by a jury on that charge. This reinforces the view that he was not tortured, otherwise he surely would have capitulated on all counts, the penalty being the same for violating the Queen as for plotting regicide: a traitor"s death. It does, however, raise the question of why he admitted to adultery. Did he mistakenly think it was a lesser charge? Or was he-and by implication, Anne-in fact guilty? Or was "psychological pressure"30 brought to bear on him? He was perhaps told, as Norris would be, that he could save his life by confessing; or he could have been informed that, since it was known that he had committed treason and must suffer the penalty anyway, he might be rewarded with a quicker death than usually meted out to traitors in return for his cooperation, a choice that would be offered to Anne herself; this would explain why Smeaton was allowed to die like a gentleman. brought to bear on him? He was perhaps told, as Norris would be, that he could save his life by confessing; or he could have been informed that, since it was known that he had committed treason and must suffer the penalty anyway, he might be rewarded with a quicker death than usually meted out to traitors in return for his cooperation, a choice that would be offered to Anne herself; this would explain why Smeaton was allowed to die like a gentleman.

Cavendish states that "by his confession, he did them all accuse."31 The well-informed contemporary printer and annalist, Richard Grafton, in his extension of Edward Hall"s The well-informed contemporary printer and annalist, Richard Grafton, in his extension of Edward Hall"s Chronicle Chronicle, says that Smeaton was "provoked" to incriminate himself, the Queen, and others "by the [future] Lord Admiral [Sir William FitzWilliam, the King"s treasurer], that was later Earl of Southampton, who said unto him, "Subscribe, Mark, and see what will come of it."" It sounds as if names were put to him, and that pressure was exerted to make him incriminate them.

Lancelot de Carles a.s.serts that Sir Anthony Browne-acting perhaps on information gleaned from his sister, Lady Worcester-also cited Norris, and laid evidence that Norris had promised to marry Anne after the King"s death. It may therefore have been Browne who overheard the conversation between Anne and Norris. But Browne was the half brother of Sir William FitzWilliam, who was to play an important role in Anne Boleyn"s downfall, and to whom Sir Edward Baynton had confided his suspicions about Norris, so it is also possible that Carles confused Browne with FitzWilliam.

FitzWilliam was a loyal and dependable King"s man. He had grown up with Henry from the age of ten and was consequently one of those closest to him; he also had a long and distinguished record of service in warfare, diplomacy, and the royal household. He was a solid individual who trimmed his sails to the prevailing wind and for the most part kept aloof from the factional politics that divided the court. As will be seen, he was plainly willing to do his very best to secure the conviction of the Queen and her alleged lovers, and would become so deeply involved in building a case against them that he would later confess to having neglected all his correspondence "since these matters begun."32 Smeaton had not only confirmed the allegations of Lady Worcester, Lady Rochford, and others, but told "much more," as Lady Worcester had said he would. Cromwell now had the information he needed to proceed against the Queen, and he hastened to lay it before the King.

At the May Day tournament at Greenwich, Anne was disconcerted when Henry got up and left without a word to her, yet she can have had no idea that she would never see him again.

Lancelot de Carles says that during the jousts, Henry loaned Norris his own horse, knowing "that he could not keep it long," and that he showed kindness to Norris, Weston, and Brereton, "concealing their forthcoming ruin," but it is unlikely that the King had been made aware before the tournament of the results of Smeaton"s interrogation. His abrupt departure was prompted by a message he was given, which was almost certainly to inform him that Smeaton had confessed to adultery with the Queen and incriminated Rochford, Norris, and Brereton, and perhaps Weston also, confirming what the King and his ministers already suspected about Rochford and Norris. The "Spanish Chronicle" a.s.serts that Cromwell sent his nephew Richard Williams (who adopted the surname Cromwell) to the King with Smeaton"s actual confession, as well as the forged confessions of Anne and Rochford-which is patently untrue; and that when Henry had read them all, "his meat did not at all agree with him." When learning that Smeaton had confessed to having violated Anne, he cried, enraged, "Hang him up, then! Hang him up!" The tale is probably apocryphal.

Lancelot de Carles, who may have been repeating the official line that was fed in secret to the French amba.s.sador, claims the councillors told Henry that "when you retire at night, she has her darlings already lined up. Her brother is by no means last in the queue. Norris and Mark would not deny that they have spent many nights with her without having to persuade her, for she herself urged them on, and invited them with presents and caresses." It sounds suspiciously like the wording of the indictments that would soon be drawn up against the Queen.

The historian S. T. Bindoff, writing about Anne Boleyn"s fall, a.s.serted, "Where a Borgia would have used poison, a Tudor used the law." It is worth noting that it was only after being informed of Smeaton"s confession that Henry resolved upon proceeding against Anne and her alleged lovers. He had no choice, for he could not afford to ignore such evidence. He had known for a week that there was cause for suspicion, yet did not act precipitately; instead, he waited to see if there was any further evidence to support his councillors" allegations. He was to show a similar restraint five years later when similar unsubstantiated claims were made against his fifth wife, Katherine Howard. His immediate response would be to reject them out of hand as being malicious accusations-which suggests he was by then well aware of how Anne Boleyn had been brought to grief33-and order an investigation, and it was only when incontrovertible evidence was laid before him that he ordered any arrests. On that latter occasion, he wept in council, his grief warring with a surge of anger so bitter that it had him crying out for a sword with which to slay Katherine.

Since being informed of his councillors" suspicions concerning Anne Boleyn"s conduct, his mood-on the available evidence-was angry rather than grieved, but his relations with Anne had been deteriorating for some time, whereas when Katherine Howard"s misconduct was disclosed to him, he had just publicly given thanks for the happy life he was leading with her, his "rose without a thorn." Yet there can be little doubt that some vestiges of his grand pa.s.sion for Anne remained-witness his keeping her company on St. Matthias"s Day, his insistence that Chapuys pay court to her, and his remarks about her bearing him a prince in the near future-and when he was confronted with what looked like convincing evidence of her treachery, he must have been plunged into a turmoil of emotions. It does seem that he was greatly shaken and shocked by the reports brought to him, and his sudden departure from the jousts must be viewed in this context. He may well have felt that he could not bear to set eyes on Anne again, or he might not have trusted himself to refrain from violence.

Had Henry VIII been instrumental in bringing about Anne"s ruin, he would surely not have been so obviously angry. Yet it is hard to explain why he accepted at face value evidence that many people, including even Chapuys, Anne"s enemy, were to regard as flimsy. Maybe it was all too easy to believe such things of a wife of whom he had tired, the marrying of whom, he now apparently believed, had incurred G.o.d"s displeasure. Possibly the very fact that his councillors had dared to lay such d.a.m.ning evidence against her was enough to convince him that it was all true, and, having been publicly humiliated by these sordid revelations, he was too angered and hurt by her betrayal of him, both as a man and as the King, to give her, or the men accused with her, the benefit of any doubt. Cromwell was no fool-what he had laid before his master would have to be pretty watertight, or the consequences for Master Secretary could have been horrific. It should also be remembered that Chapuys"s view of the evidence, although clearly shared by other observers, was not that professed by the majority of his contemporaries, who-until Anne"s daughter ascended the throne-behaved as if they accepted the Queen"s guilt without question.

"Immediately after the tourney," when "the jousts were over and they were disarming," "archers were ordered to arrest Norris, and were much astonished and grieved, considering his virtue and intimacy with the King, that he should have committed disloyalty."34 "The Captain of the Guard came and called Master Norris and Master Brereton, and said to them, "Sirs, the King calls you."" "The Captain of the Guard came and called Master Norris and Master Brereton, and said to them, "Sirs, the King calls you.""35 It would appear that Norris was arrested on the King"s orders, while Brereton was detained for questioning; he would not be arrested for another three days. "Before [Norris] went to prison, the King desired to speak to him."36 Constantine says that Henry "rode suddenly to Westminster, and all the way, as I heard say, had Norris in examination," accusing him of committing adultery with Anne as far back as 1533. It was almost unheard of for the King himself to question a suspected traitor; as an anointed sovereign, he would always distance himself from those accused of treason, and indeed would never have anything to do with anyone tainted even by the suspicion of it, so it is probably correct to say that Henry"s interrogation of Norris was "the action of a man taken by surprise." Constantine says that Henry "rode suddenly to Westminster, and all the way, as I heard say, had Norris in examination," accusing him of committing adultery with Anne as far back as 1533. It was almost unheard of for the King himself to question a suspected traitor; as an anointed sovereign, he would always distance himself from those accused of treason, and indeed would never have anything to do with anyone tainted even by the suspicion of it, so it is probably correct to say that Henry"s interrogation of Norris was "the action of a man taken by surprise."37 He had been very close to Norris, and was evidently outraged at what he believed was the betrayal of a friend whom he had thought utterly loyal. It is hard to believe that Henry would have been a party to sacrificing the faithful Norris, knowing him to be innocent, merely as a means of ridding himself of Anne. He had been very close to Norris, and was evidently outraged at what he believed was the betrayal of a friend whom he had thought utterly loyal. It is hard to believe that Henry would have been a party to sacrificing the faithful Norris, knowing him to be innocent, merely as a means of ridding himself of Anne.

Norris was aghast to hear that he was accused of criminal intercourse with the Queen. But Henry "promised him his pardon [if] he would utter the truth."38 Cavendish, who believed Norris guilty, imagined him looking back with bitter regret on this interview: Cavendish, who believed Norris guilty, imagined him looking back with bitter regret on this interview: His [Henry"s] most n.o.ble heart lamented so my chance, That of his clemency he granted me my life, In case I would, without dissimulance, The truth declare of his unchaste wife, The spotted Queen, causer of all his strife; But I most obstinate, with heart as hard as stone, Denied his grace-good cause therefore to moan.39 Carles also states that the King offered "to spare [Norris"s] life and goods, although he was guilty, if he would tell him the truth." Maybe this offer was meant genuinely and Henry was indeed prepared to be lenient with Norris, although that is by no means certain. But Constantine says, "Mr. Norris would confess nothing to the King." "Being told the accusation, [he] offered to maintain the contrary with his body in any place"40-that is, submit to trial by combat. Far from being rea.s.sured by this, Henry appeared determined to believe the worst, and he "authorized and commissioned" Cromwell "to prosecute and bring to an end the Concubine"s trial," as Master Secretary was to inform Chapuys.41 Norris"s determination to maintain his innocence in the face of the King"s offer of pardon suggests either that he believed that to be an empty promise, or that he was innocent. Norris"s determination to maintain his innocence in the face of the King"s offer of pardon suggests either that he believed that to be an empty promise, or that he was innocent.

On arriving at York Place, Norris was placed in the custody of Sir William FitzWilliam,42 who was among the councillors who examined him at York Place later on May 1, at a special meeting of the Privy Council summoned by the King "to treat of matters relating to the surety of his person, his honor, and the tranquillity of the realm." who was among the councillors who examined him at York Place later on May 1, at a special meeting of the Privy Council summoned by the King "to treat of matters relating to the surety of his person, his honor, and the tranquillity of the realm."43 Norris"s chaplain told George Constantine that, during this interrogation, Norris did confess to something, although he did not say what, and Norris would later declare that he had been deceived into making his confession by FitzWilliam"s trickery. This is the second independent account of FitzWilliam coercing the Queen"s alleged lovers into making confessions. Chapuys later informed Dr. Ortiz, the Imperial amba.s.sador in Rome, that "two of the five [who would be arrested] confessed their guilt." Norris"s chaplain told George Constantine that, during this interrogation, Norris did confess to something, although he did not say what, and Norris would later declare that he had been deceived into making his confession by FitzWilliam"s trickery. This is the second independent account of FitzWilliam coercing the Queen"s alleged lovers into making confessions. Chapuys later informed Dr. Ortiz, the Imperial amba.s.sador in Rome, that "two of the five [who would be arrested] confessed their guilt."44 Contrary to what is often stated, it may not have been the case that Smeaton alone confessed. Contrary to what is often stated, it may not have been the case that Smeaton alone confessed.

Cromwell was to write to Stephen Gardiner, the King"s envoy in Rome, that the Queen"s lovers-note the plural, suggesting again that Norris also confessed-disclosed under interrogation things "so abominable that a great part of them were never given in evidence, but clearly kept secret."45 He could have been implying that they had indulged in forbidden s.e.xual practices with Anne. In an age in which even marital intercourse was not supposed to take place on holy days or during pregnancy or menstruation, and oral s.e.x and masturbation were seen as utterly sinful, to hint at such things was effectively to accuse Anne and her lovers of unbridled depravity. Yet the question remains, why were these things not made public, thus bolstering the Crown"s case? Was it to protect the King"s honor from further scandal? Or was it that these men had confessed to h.o.m.os.e.xual activity, which was punishable by death? If so, that could hardly have been alleged against them, given that they were supposed to have repeatedly committed adultery with the Queen; it would have substantially undermined the whole case. The other, more likely, possibility, of course, is that they had confessed to nothing of the kind, and Cromwell was merely bolstering his case with fabrications. He could have been implying that they had indulged in forbidden s.e.xual practices with Anne. In an age in which even marital intercourse was not supposed to take place on holy days or during pregnancy or menstruation, and oral s.e.x and masturbation were seen as utterly sinful, to hint at such things was effectively to accuse Anne and her lovers of unbridled depravity. Yet the question remains, why were these things not made public, thus bolstering the Crown"s case? Was it to protect the King"s honor from further scandal? Or was it that these men had confessed to h.o.m.os.e.xual activity, which was punishable by death? If so, that could hardly have been alleged against them, given that they were supposed to have repeatedly committed adultery with the Queen; it would have substantially undermined the whole case. The other, more likely, possibility, of course, is that they had confessed to nothing of the kind, and Cromwell was merely bolstering his case with fabrications.

At dawn the next morning, Norris was taken under guard to the Tower.46 On entering his prison, he was permitted to see his chaplain, and told him he had never betrayed the King, reiterating, "I would rather die a thousand deaths than be guilty of such a falsehood." On entering his prison, he was permitted to see his chaplain, and told him he had never betrayed the King, reiterating, "I would rather die a thousand deaths than be guilty of such a falsehood."47 Around the same time, Mark Smeaton was also committed to the Tower.48 George Constantine, Anthony Anthony, and the "Spanish Chronicle" all give the date of his arrest as May 1, Constantine saying that Mark was brought to the Tower in the morning, and Anthony claiming he was taken there at six P.M. Anthony was Surveyor of the Ordnance at the Tower, and should have been in a position to know when Smeaton arrived, but it seems he was mistaken, because Chapuys, writing on May 2, states that Smeaton had been taken to the Tower early that morning, and that Lord Rochford followed after dinner (which was served at court between ten A.M. and one P.M., depending on one"s rank and where one ate), "more than six hours after the others." This was to be corroborated by Anne herself, referring to the fact that accommodation was not found for Smeaton in the Tower until ten o"clock on the evening of May 2. George Constantine, Anthony Anthony, and the "Spanish Chronicle" all give the date of his arrest as May 1, Constantine saying that Mark was brought to the Tower in the morning, and Anthony claiming he was taken there at six P.M. Anthony was Surveyor of the Ordnance at the Tower, and should have been in a position to know when Smeaton arrived, but it seems he was mistaken, because Chapuys, writing on May 2, states that Smeaton had been taken to the Tower early that morning, and that Lord Rochford followed after dinner (which was served at court between ten A.M. and one P.M., depending on one"s rank and where one ate), "more than six hours after the others." This was to be corroborated by Anne herself, referring to the fact that accommodation was not found for Smeaton in the Tower until ten o"clock on the evening of May 2.49 Rochford, who had followed the King back to York Place,50 had been arrested and conveyed downriver to the Tower, had been arrested and conveyed downriver to the Tower,51 apparently without having been subject to any interrogation. apparently without having been subject to any interrogation.52 According to Lancelot de Carles, he was heard to remark that "he had well-merited his fate," but that information sounds suspiciously as if it was "leaked" to the French emba.s.sy by official sources. Rochford"s arrest was so discreetly accomplished that few, least of all the Queen, knew he had gone. Even Chapuys had no inkling of what was to happen next. According to Lancelot de Carles, he was heard to remark that "he had well-merited his fate," but that information sounds suspiciously as if it was "leaked" to the French emba.s.sy by official sources. Rochford"s arrest was so discreetly accomplished that few, least of all the Queen, knew he had gone. Even Chapuys had no inkling of what was to happen next.

CHAPTER 7.

To the Tower.

Anne spent part of the morning of May 2, watching a game of tennis. Her champion won, and she was regretting not having placed a bet on him1 when a gentleman messenger came and bade her, "by order of the King," present herself before the Privy Council at once. when a gentleman messenger came and bade her, "by order of the King," present herself before the Privy Council at once.2 For a queen to be thus summoned was strange and portentous indeed, and Anne must have felt deep trepidation as she entered the council chamber, especially as her most powerful protector, the King her husband, had gone to Westminster. Contrary to the traditional version of her story, which shows her as being taken completely unawares by the events of May 2, it is more than likely that she had been half expecting something like this to happen. Why else would she have entrusted Elizabeth to Matthew Parker"s care, or tackled Henry with Elizabeth in her arms? If the crowds of courtiers who had huddled in speculation at Greenwich the night before were aware that something momentous was afoot, Anne must have been too, and she surely had cause to suspect that it concerned herself. For a queen to be thus summoned was strange and portentous indeed, and Anne must have felt deep trepidation as she entered the council chamber, especially as her most powerful protector, the King her husband, had gone to Westminster. Contrary to the traditional version of her story, which shows her as being taken completely unawares by the events of May 2, it is more than likely that she had been half expecting something like this to happen. Why else would she have entrusted Elizabeth to Matthew Parker"s care, or tackled Henry with Elizabeth in her arms? If the crowds of courtiers who had huddled in speculation at Greenwich the night before were aware that something momentous was afoot, Anne must have been too, and she surely had cause to suspect that it concerned herself.

There were three grave-faced men present in that council chamber, who all respectfully rose to their feet. They were her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk; Sir William FitzWilliam, who had that morning returned to Greenwich from London, after committing Norris to the Tower; and Sir William Paulet, the King"s comptroller. Norfolk, as we have seen, had long since fallen out with Anne, and she could not expect him to be sympathetic toward her now. Even so, in the days to come the duke would betray his private distress at her plight. Nevertheless, his overriding sense of self-preservation, and his relentless ambition, were forcing him to be complicit in her destruction.

Without preamble these lords informed Anne of the powers granted to the royal commissioners, accused her of "evil behavior," formally charged her with having committed adultery with Sir Henry Norris, Mark Smeaton, and one other whom they did not name, and told her that both the named men had already admitted their guilt.3 Anne denied the charges,4 but it did her no good. Cavendish says she protested that she was the King"s true wife and that no other man had ever touched her. She would have realized that the crimes laid against her were grave, and it must have been immediately obvious that her enemies were determined to destroy her. Worst of all, she can have been in no doubt that the King her husband had ordered her arrest. but it did her no good. Cavendish says she protested that she was the King"s true wife and that no other man had ever touched her. She would have realized that the crimes laid against her were grave, and it must have been immediately obvious that her enemies were determined to destroy her. Worst of all, she can have been in no doubt that the King her husband had ordered her arrest.

The lords were very severe with her. Four days later she was to complain, "I was cruelly handled at Greenwich with the King"s Council, with my lord of Norfolk, that he said, "Tut, tut, tut." As for Master Treasurer," she went on, "he was in the forest of Windsor." Sir William Kingston, Constable of the Tower, was later to comment to Cromwell, "You know what she means by that," from which we may infer that "the forest of Windsor" was a euphemism for something else. It has erroneously been a.s.sumed that "Master Treasurer" was the Earl of Wiltshire, Anne"s father, and that he was hunting at Windsor,5 but FitzWilliam had replaced him in that office in 1525, and was clearly present at the Queen"s interrogation and arrest. Her remark may have been a reference to Sir Brastius, one of the knights in Sir Thomas Malory"s but FitzWilliam had replaced him in that office in 1525, and was clearly present at the Queen"s interrogation and arrest. Her remark may have been a reference to Sir Brastius, one of the knights in Sir Thomas Malory"s Morte d"Arthur Morte d"Arthur, a book that was very popular at this time, and well known at court. Sir Brastius became a hermit in the forest of Windsor, and because hermits lived silent, solitary lives, Anne may have been implying that FitzWilliam was uncommunicative when she was before the council. There is no evidence that she was "cruelly handled" physically by Norfolk and FitzWilliam;6 their cruelty, as she saw it, was probably verbal. She received better treatment from "Master Comptroller," Sir William Paulet, whom she called "a very gentleman." their cruelty, as she saw it, was probably verbal. She received better treatment from "Master Comptroller," Sir William Paulet, whom she called "a very gentleman."7 After charging her, the lords had her escorted back to her apartments and left her there under guard while her dinner was served. The meal was a dismal affair,8 with Anne distressed when the King"s waiter did not arrive to wish her, on her husband"s behalf, "Much good may it do you," as he customarily did. She also noticed the ominous silence of her ladies, and her servants struggling to conceal tears, which further unnerved her. The cloth had only just been removed, and she was still at table, seated under her canopy of estate, and wearing a sumptuous gown of crimson velvet and cloth of gold, when Norfolk returned at two o"clock with Cromwell; Lord Chancellor Audley; John de Vere, Earl of Oxford; William, Lord Sandys, the Lord Chamberlain; and several lords of the Council. With them, according to the "Spanish Chronicle," was the captain of the King"s guard, who had come to Greenwich "with a hundred halberdiers in the King"s great barge." The writer of this chronicle could not have been an eyewitness to many of the events he describes, and his account of Anne"s fall is often inaccurate, melodramatic, and mostly fabricated, but he lived in London and may well have seen those halberdiers going to Greenwich in that barge. He also had contacts in the Tower itself, and may have gotten some of his information from them. with Anne distressed when the King"s waiter did not arrive to wish her, on her husband"s behalf, "Much good may it do you," as he customarily did. She also noticed the ominous silence of her ladies, and her servants struggling to conceal tears, which further unnerved her. The cloth had only just been removed, and she was still at table, seated under her canopy of estate, and wearing a sumptuous gown of crimson velvet and cloth of gold, when Norfolk returned at two o"clock with Cromwell; Lord Chancellor Audley; John de Vere, Earl of Oxford; William, Lord Sandys, the Lord Chamberlain; and several lords of the Council. With them, according to the "Spanish Chronicle," was the captain of the King"s guard, who had come to Greenwich "with a hundred halberdiers in the King"s great barge." The writer of this chronicle could not have been an eyewitness to many of the events he describes, and his account of Anne"s fall is often inaccurate, melodramatic, and mostly fabricated, but he lived in London and may well have seen those halberdiers going to Greenwich in that barge. He also had contacts in the Tower itself, and may have gotten some of his information from them.

Norfolk had in his hand a scroll of parchment-the warrant for the Queen"s arrest. Anne rose to her feet and asked the lords "why they came." Norfolk replied that "they came by the King"s command to conduct her to the Tower, there to abide during His Highness"s pleasure." (This gives the lie to the "Spanish Chronicle" editor"s a.s.sertion that Anne at first believed she was being taken to York Place to see the King.) She could have been in no doubt that her situation was serious, but at that time the Tower cannot have appeared quite as menacing a place as it would later, for no royal personage had as yet been executed there.

"If it be His Majesty"s pleasure, I am ready to obey," Anne answered, calmly enough, and then, "without change of habit, or anything necessary for her removal, she committed herself to them."9 She was not given time to pack clothes or personal possessions, say good-bye to her child, or summon her women, but was informed that money would be provided for her needs while she was in the Tower; the fact that the constable would be allocated 25.4s.6d (8,800) for her food shows that she was served as befit a queen during her imprisonment. She was not given time to pack clothes or personal possessions, say good-bye to her child, or summon her women, but was informed that money would be provided for her needs while she was in the Tower; the fact that the constable would be allocated 25.4s.6d (8,800) for her food shows that she was served as befit a queen during her imprisonment.10 Her household, however, was left behind at Greenwich. Her household, however, was left behind at Greenwich.11 The councillors conducted Anne to the waiting barge.12 It was usual for state prisoners to be conveyed to the Tower under cover of darkness, but Anne Boleyn made the journey "in full daylight," It was usual for state prisoners to be conveyed to the Tower under cover of darkness, but Anne Boleyn made the journey "in full daylight,"13 under guard, accompanied by Audley, Norfolk, Cromwell, Sandys, Oxford, and Sir William Kingston, Constable of the Tower. under guard, accompanied by Audley, Norfolk, Cromwell, Sandys, Oxford, and Sir William Kingston, Constable of the Tower.14 Kingston, who was to have custody of the Queen during her imprisonment, was now, as he put it that year, "in the midst of mine age"15 (he was to die in 1540), but he had been "a very tall, strong knight" in his triumphant jousting days, when he tilted against the King. (he was to die in 1540), but he had been "a very tall, strong knight" in his triumphant jousting days, when he tilted against the King.16 He was a soldier courtier who had served as a yeoman of the chamber as far back as 1497, being promoted to gentleman usher by 1504. Since then he had enjoyed a distinguished military and diplomatic career, as well as the King"s favor over many years, and had held the office of Constable of the Tower since 1524. He was a soldier courtier who had served as a yeoman of the chamber as far back as 1497, being promoted to gentleman usher by 1504. Since then he had enjoyed a distinguished military and diplomatic career, as well as the King"s favor over many years, and had held the office of Constable of the Tower since 1524.

Described by a Venetian amba.s.sador in 1519 as a "creature" of Wolsey"s, Kingston had supported Henry VIII"s nullity suit against Katherine of Aragon and played an official role at Anne Boleyn"s coronation in 1533. Yet Chapuys thought him wholly devoted to the late Queen Katherine and her daughter, and he may indeed secretly have sympathized with them, for he once referred to Anne as being "unjustly called Queen."17 Yet whatever his private opinion, and for all his professed belief in her guilt, while she was in his charge he was to behave toward her with courtesy and humanity-as he had to Cardinal Wolsey at the time of his arrest in 1530-and would come to feel admiration for her courage. Yet whatever his private opinion, and for all his professed belief in her guilt, while she was in his charge he was to behave toward her with courtesy and humanity-as he had to Cardinal Wolsey at the time of his arrest in 1530-and would come to feel admiration for her courage.

As they sat in the barge, Norfolk repeated to Anne, with a good deal more sanctimonious tut-tutting, that "her paramours had confessed their guilt," but he got no satisfaction from it, for she disdained to reply. Strickland says she pa.s.sionately protested her innocence and begged to see the King, but Norfolk just replied, "Tut, tut." Anne thereupon declared with desperate bravado that "they could not prevent her from dying their queen," and made a gesture toward her neck. Again the tale comes from one of the later sources consulted by Strickland, and may be apocryphal. But the news of Anne"s arrest had certainly spread rapidly, and large crowds were to be seen flocking to the riverbanks to see her conveyed to prison.

"About five of the clock at night, the Queen, Anne Boleyn, was brought to the Tower of London."18 Today, it takes thirty minutes by river bus to get there from Greenwich; Anne had been arrested around two o"clock and been made to leave her lodgings immediately, Today, it takes thirty minutes by river bus to get there from Greenwich; Anne had been arrested around two o"clock and been made to leave her lodgings immediately,19 so even allowing time for walking through the palace to where the barge was waiting at the privy stairs, which were flanked by stone statues of heraldic beasts, three hours seems a long time for such a short journey. It is possible that the Queen had to be held under guard at Greenwich until the tide changed. so even allowing time for walking through the palace to where the barge was waiting at the privy stairs, which were flanked by stone statues of heraldic beasts, three hours seems a long time for such a short journey. It is possible that the Queen had to be held under guard at Greenwich until the tide changed.

The oarsmen steered the vessel toward the Byward Tower, then known as the Tower by the Gate,20 and Anne "came to the Court Gate." and Anne "came to the Court Gate."21 It is often incorrectly stated that she entered the Tower through the water gate below St. Thomas"s Tower, which later became known as Traitors" Gate, but in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries it was usual for kings and queens to use the Court Gate in the Byward Tower, the private entrance to the Tower of London from Tower Wharf, this entrance having been originally built by Edward I in the thirteenth century, although the gate through which Anne pa.s.sed (which survives today) had been constructed in the fifteenth century. The Court Gate led on to Water Lane, the thoroughfare in the Outer Ward that runs parallel with the River Thames, and it was just a short walk along there, past the rear of the Lieutenant"s House on the left, to the entrance to the palace, where the Queen was to be lodged. It is often incorrectly stated that she entered the Tower through the water gate below St. Thomas"s Tower, which later became known as Traitors" Gate, but in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries it was usual for kings and queens to use the Court Gate in the Byward Tower, the private entrance to the Tower of London from Tower Wharf, this entrance having been originally built by Edward I in the thirteenth century, although the gate through which Anne pa.s.sed (which survives today) had been constructed in the fifteenth century. The Court Gate led on to Water Lane, the thoroughfare in the Outer Ward that runs parallel with the River Thames, and it was just a short walk along there, past the rear of the Lieutenant"s House on the left, to the entrance to the palace, where the Queen was to be lodged.

Alexander Aless, returning home from Greenwich, ha