"I shall have justice," she declared.

"Have no doubt therein," Kingston a.s.sured her.

"If any man accuse me, I can say but nay, and they can bring no witness," she replied.

Anne then "talked with the gentlewomen." It was in this conversation that she revealed she had known, that first evening in the Tower, of the imprisonment of Smeaton and Norris. She wished she could have made some statement of her innocence: "If it had been laid [before the Council] she had won." She then added, "I would to G.o.d I had my bishops"-the ten prelates who owed their sees to her patronage-"for they would all go to the King for me." In fact, their silence had been deafening.

Anne went on, somewhat extravagantly, "I think the most part of England prays for me, and if I die you shall see the greatest punishment for me within this seven years that ever came to England. And then shall I be in Heaven, for I have done many good deeds in my days." This reveals that Anne was, at heart, true to the faith of her childhood, for had she been secretly of the Lutheran persuasion, she would have hoped to attain Heaven through faith alone rather than good works.

She harked back once more to the subject of her attendants: "I think [it] much unkindness in the King to put such about me as I never loved." Kingston reminded her "that the King took them to be honest and good women," a judgment with which he himself agreed.

"But I would have had of mine own privy chamber, which I favor most," Anne said plaintively, but in vain. Kingston remained impervious to her complaints.16 News of the arrests took several days to reach the outlying shires of the realm. That Sunday, May 7, Rowland Lee, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and his a.s.sociates in the Council of the Marches on the Welsh border, acknowledged receipt of letters from the Privy Council and expressed their shock: "As the news in this letter is very doleful to this council and all the liege people of the realm, G.o.d forbid it should be true."17 That same day, the aging Sir Henry Wyatt, who had clearly not yet learned of his son Thomas"s arrest, wrote him a letter from Allington Castle. He considered himself "most unfortunate that he could neither go nor ride without danger to his life, or do his duty to the King in this dangerous time that His Grace has suffered by false traitors" and "desired his son to give the King due attendance night and day," adding: "I trust that ye have so declared yourself that ye are found true to His Grace. His Highness is most bounden to G.o.d that He hath given him such grace that this false treason is brought so wisely out. I pray to G.o.d give him grace long enough to be with him, and about him that hath found out this matter, which hath been given him of G.o.d, and the false traitors to be punished according to justice, to the example of others."18 The unwitting Sir Henry"s acceptance of the guilt of the as yet untried prisoners reflects the view expressed-and probably held-by the majority of people at that time. The unwitting Sir Henry"s acceptance of the guilt of the as yet untried prisoners reflects the view expressed-and probably held-by the majority of people at that time.

It was a view shared by the highest in the land, and there is evidence that, already, the outcome of the affair was expected to be a foregone conclusion. On May 7, orders were sent in the King"s name to the sheriffs of every county, informing them that "since the dissolution of the late Parliament, matters of high importance have chanced, which render it necessary to discuss the establishment of the succession in a Parliament a.s.sembled for that purpose." The King desired each sheriff to "declare to the people that the calling of a Parliament is so necessary, both for the treating of matters so necessary for their weal and the surety of our person, that they will have cause to think their charge and time, which will be very little and short, well spent."19 Given that the annulment of the Queen"s marriage had already been discussed, and that Parliament had been summoned on April 27, before Anne"s arrest, what else could this presage but her certain removal by the due processes of Church and state? Given that the annulment of the Queen"s marriage had already been discussed, and that Parliament had been summoned on April 27, before Anne"s arrest, what else could this presage but her certain removal by the due processes of Church and state?

On May 8 one of the Queen"s chaplains, William Latymer, returning from Flanders, where he had been about her business, was informed, upon landing in Sandwich, Kent, that "the Queen and other prisoners were in the Tower," and was then searched, in case he had any incriminating evidence on him. Having shown the mayor and local justices "the contents of his budget and purse" and the books he had with him, he was allowed to proceed on his way.20 This incident would indicate that every member of the Queen"s household had been subject to questioning. This incident would indicate that every member of the Queen"s household had been subject to questioning.

In Calais, on May 8, the King"s cousin and deputy, Arthur Plantagenet, Lord Lisle, learned of the arrests of the Queen and her alleged lovers, and, not doubting that all would be condemned-if they had not already been-and that their offices, lands, and goods would be confiscated along with their lives, which was the fate of convicted traitors, hastened to join the fray of court vultures hoping for rich pickings; as early as May 2, the day of Norris"s arrest, Richard Staverton of Warfield, Berkshire, a landowner and lawyer of Lincoln"s Inn (whose wife was Margaret Weston, who was probably related to Francis Weston), had written to Cromwell saying he "shall be glad to have" Norris"s rooms and properties near Windsor, "as I have fourteen children."21 On May 3 an official inventory of Norris"s wardrobe stuff had been drawn up, and two days after that, John Longland, Bishop of Lincoln, wrote to Cromwell offering, "If it is true that Norris has not used himself according to his duty to his sovereign lord," to transfer Norris"s stewardship of the University of Oxford to Master Secretary for a small fee. On May 3 an official inventory of Norris"s wardrobe stuff had been drawn up, and two days after that, John Longland, Bishop of Lincoln, wrote to Cromwell offering, "If it is true that Norris has not used himself according to his duty to his sovereign lord," to transfer Norris"s stewardship of the University of Oxford to Master Secretary for a small fee.22 Too late, the Duke of Richmond himself was to write to the Bishop on May 8, referring to "the trouble and business that Mr. Norris is now in, the which I think is not to you unknown," and asking, as "it is presupposed with many men that there is no way but one with him," if he could have Norris"s stewardship of Banbury for his servant, Giles Forster; Longland, however, had already promised it to Cromwell. Too late, the Duke of Richmond himself was to write to the Bishop on May 8, referring to "the trouble and business that Mr. Norris is now in, the which I think is not to you unknown," and asking, as "it is presupposed with many men that there is no way but one with him," if he could have Norris"s stewardship of Banbury for his servant, Giles Forster; Longland, however, had already promised it to Cromwell.23 Not wishing to lose out, Lord Lisle now wrote to Master Secretary: Right honourable Sir,After my hearty commendations, forasmuch as always my full trust and confidence hath been in you, I thought it most requisite to open my mind to you ... And seeing there are many things now in [the King"s] gracious disposition and hands, by reason of the most mischievous, heinous, and most abominable treasons against his most gracious and royal crown and person committed, I wholly trust that his Grace, being good lord unto me, will vouchsafe to employ some part of those same upon me; which I do well know may so much the rather be obtained by your good mediation and furtherance.24 In order to expedite the matter, Lord Lisle immediately dispatched to London his attorney, John Husee. Husee carried with him Lisle"s letter to Cromwell and also one for the King. Four days later he was able to tell Lisle that he had given his letter to Cromwell, "who hath promised to be your very friend" and commanded Husee to deliver the King"s letter. But Husee was "in no wise" permitted to deliver it in person or speak with Henry, and was obliged to entrust Sir John Russell with the task of handing it over. Russell promised to consult with Cromwell, "and between them both, if they keep promise, I trust something will rise on your lordship"s behalf. But there is no time to make hot suit till time the matters which are now in hand be overblown."25 Lisle would just have to be patient. Lisle would just have to be patient.

Speculation at court was rampant; no one knew quite what was going on, and so far there had been no official announcement. At length, on Tuesday, May 9, the King summoned twenty-two n.o.blemen, and twenty-seven gentlemen of his Privy Chamber, to a meeting at Hampton Court to treat "of such great and weighty matters as whereupon doth consist the surety of our person, the preservation of our honor, and the tranquillity and quietness of you and all other our loving and faithful subjects."26 Among those summoned were men who had long conspired Anne"s downfall, notably Exeter and Montagu, as well as Sir William Kingston, William Coffin (whose wife was in attendance on the Queen in the Tower), and Sir William Brereton, who was a relative of one of the accused. Among those summoned were men who had long conspired Anne"s downfall, notably Exeter and Montagu, as well as Sir William Kingston, William Coffin (whose wife was in attendance on the Queen in the Tower), and Sir William Brereton, who was a relative of one of the accused.27 There can be little doubt that the findings of the commissioners were already known to the King and Cromwell (who was after all a member of both grand juries), and that the lords and gentlemen had been summoned for the purpose of discussing them, and-in the case of the lords-to try the Queen and Lord Rochford, who had the right to be tried by their peers. The official summons to the peers for this purpose would not be issued until May 13, and to twenty-seven lords, five more than the King summoned on May 9; but the fact that Lord Latimer wrote to Cromwell on May 12, asking to be excused, proves that they were actually called earlier. Since Latimer was at that time staying in his house at Wyke in Worcestershire, he must have been summoned on May 9 at the latest, and cannot have been expected to attend the meeting at Hampton Court on that date. There can be little doubt that the findings of the commissioners were already known to the King and Cromwell (who was after all a member of both grand juries), and that the lords and gentlemen had been summoned for the purpose of discussing them, and-in the case of the lords-to try the Queen and Lord Rochford, who had the right to be tried by their peers. The official summons to the peers for this purpose would not be issued until May 13, and to twenty-seven lords, five more than the King summoned on May 9; but the fact that Lord Latimer wrote to Cromwell on May 12, asking to be excused, proves that they were actually called earlier. Since Latimer was at that time staying in his house at Wyke in Worcestershire, he must have been summoned on May 9 at the latest, and cannot have been expected to attend the meeting at Hampton Court on that date.

That day, May 9, the justices of the King"s Bench, sitting at Westminster, sent their precept for the sheriffs of London to arrange for the return of the grand juries the following day.28 Legal proceedings against the Queen formally began on Wednesday, May 10, when the grand jury of Middles.e.x a.s.sembled in Westminster Hall before John Baldwin, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and six other judges. There, its foreman, Sir Thomas More"s son-in-law, Giles Heron, announced that the commissioners had found a true bill against the accused on all the charges, that being the written decision of the jury that it had heard sufficient evidence that an accused person was probably guilty of a crime and should be indicted. Legal proceedings against the Queen formally began on Wednesday, May 10, when the grand jury of Middles.e.x a.s.sembled in Westminster Hall before John Baldwin, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and six other judges. There, its foreman, Sir Thomas More"s son-in-law, Giles Heron, announced that the commissioners had found a true bill against the accused on all the charges, that being the written decision of the jury that it had heard sufficient evidence that an accused person was probably guilty of a crime and should be indicted.

The decision to proceed to trial by jury, rather than following the summary and incontestable procedure of the pa.s.sing of an Act of Attainder against the accused by Parliament, strongly suggests that the Crown was confident it had a sufficiently strong case to secure Anne"s condemnation. Of course, this confidence may have stemmed from the knowledge that the King"s will in the matter was known, or had been communicated, to those who would be sitting in judgment; and in most cases, the King"s will prevailed. But clearly Cromwell felt that his case was sound. Had he not, he would surely have opted for attainder, which allowed no possibility of escape for the accused. The decision to go to trial in open court suggests also that the King cared what his subjects thought of this extraordinary process, and that he was aware that, in proceeding against no less a personage than the Queen herself-a move that would undoubtedly cause a sensation-the Crown"s case must publicly be seen as una.s.sailable.

Nevertheless, a guilty verdict, although likely, was not always a foregone conclusion. Only two years earlier, in 1534, Lord Dacre had famously been acquitted of treason, much to the King"s disgust, yet although Henry"s disapproval was made clear to them, no vengeance was visited upon those lords who found Dacre innocent.29 For all that, when the Crown was a party, the chances of a trial being fair by modern standards were remote, and it is true that of the hundreds of people accused of treason in Tudor times, very few had the bravado to enter a plea of not guilty. When Sir Nicholas Throckmorton was acquitted of treason in Mary I"s reign, this was thought to be extraordinary. For all that, when the Crown was a party, the chances of a trial being fair by modern standards were remote, and it is true that of the hundreds of people accused of treason in Tudor times, very few had the bravado to enter a plea of not guilty. When Sir Nicholas Throckmorton was acquitted of treason in Mary I"s reign, this was thought to be extraordinary.

Yet the possibility remained that the lords might be reluctant to condemn the Queen of England, for such a conviction was unprecedented. Earlier English queens had been unfaithful, notably Isabella of Angouleme, whose husband King John had ordered her lovers to be strung up and hanged above her bed, and Isabella of France, who unquestionably committed adultery with Roger Mortimer while she was married to the h.o.m.os.e.xual Edward II; neither of these ladies had met with anything worse than infamy. More seriously, in the twelfth century, Eleanor of Aquitaine had abetted her sons in a treasonous rebellion against Henry II that nearly cost him his throne, and led to her being held under house arrest for sixteen years. And Matilda of Flanders, the wife of William the Conqueror, had also supported a renegade son against her husband, earning little more than a ticking-off. As we have seen, Joan of Navarre, the widow of Henry IV, had been accused (falsely, as it turned out) of witchcraft, for which she was imprisoned for just three years; in 1441, Eleanor Cobham, d.u.c.h.ess of Gloucester, had schemed to predict the death of her nephew Henry VI by witchcraft, but escaped execution; instead she was condemned to perpetual imprisonment. No English royal lady, therefore, had ever been sentenced to death for the kind of crimes of which Anne Boleyn was accused.

Nor had this happened in France, where, in 1314, three French princesses, among them the wife of the heir to the throne, were found guilty of committing adultery; but while their lovers were savagely butchered on the scaffold, they themselves were condemned only to divorce and imprisonment. Given the precedents, Anne could reasonably have expected that to be her fate. Yet it is clear from her recorded utterances in the Tower that she already believed herself to be doomed.

In the indictment drawn up by the grand jury of Middles.e.x for use at the coming trials, the charges against the Queen and her alleged accomplices-already branded as "traitors"-were enumerated in shocking detail. The original doc.u.ments survive in the records of the King"s Bench in the famous Baga de Secretis Baga de Secretis in the National Archives, along with other records relating to Anne"s fall. The two indictments-those of Middles.e.x and Kent-in which were listed twenty-one specific offenses, are likely to have been largely the work of Thomas Cromwell, who sat on both grand juries, and they reflect the scale of his investigations-and perhaps his powers of invention. They const.i.tuted a formidable case against the accused. in the National Archives, along with other records relating to Anne"s fall. The two indictments-those of Middles.e.x and Kent-in which were listed twenty-one specific offenses, are likely to have been largely the work of Thomas Cromwell, who sat on both grand juries, and they reflect the scale of his investigations-and perhaps his powers of invention. They const.i.tuted a formidable case against the accused.

The Middles.e.x indictment read as follows: Record of the Indictment found at Westminster on Wednesday next after three weeks of Easter: that whereas Queen Anne has been the wife of Henry VIII for three years and more, she, despising the solemn, not to mention most excellent and n.o.ble marriage between our lord the King and the same lady the Queen, but even at the same time having in her heart malice against our lord the King, seduced by evil and not having G.o.d before her eyes, and following daily her frail and carnal appet.i.tes, did falsely and traitorously procure by base conversations and kisses, touchings, gifts, and other infamous incitations, divers of the King"s daily and familiar servants to be her adulterers and concubines, so that several of the King"s servants yielded to her vile provocations; viz, on Oct. 6th, 25 Henry VIII [1533] at Westminster [York Place, Westminster], and divers days before and after, she procured, by sweet words, kisses, touches, and otherwise, Hen. Norris, of Westminster, gentleman of the Privy Chamber, to violate her, by reason whereof he did so at Westminster on the 12th Oct. 25 Hen. VIII [1533], and they had illicit intercourse, both before and after, sometimes by his procurement and sometimes by that of the Queen.Also the Queen, 3 Dec., 25 Hen. VIII [1533], and divers days before and after, procured William Brereton, Esquire, late of Westminster, one of the gentlemen of the King"s Privy Chamber, to have illicit intercourse with her, whereby he did so on 8 Dec., 25 Hen. VIII [1533] at Hampton Court, in the parish of Little Hampton, and on several days before and after, sometimes by his own procurement and sometimes by the Queen"s.Also the Queen, 8 May, 26 Hen. VIII [1534], and at other times before and since, procured Sir Fras. Weston, of Westminster, one of the gentlemen of the King"s Privy Chamber, to have illicit intercourse with her, and that the act was committed at Westminster 20 May, 26 Hen. VIII [1534].Also the Queen, 12 April, 26 Hen. VIII [1534], and divers days before and since, at Westminster, also incited/procured Mark Smeaton, a performer on musical instruments, a person specified as of low degree, promoted for his skill to be a groom of the Privy Chamber, to violate her, whereby he did so at Westminster, 26 April, 27 Hen. VIII [1535].Also that the Queen, 2 Nov., 27 Hen. VIII [1535] and several times before and after, by the means therein stated, procured and incited her own natural brother, George Boleyn, knight, Lord Rochford, to violate her, alluring him with her tongue in the said George"s mouth, and the said George"s tongue in hers, and also with kisses, presents, and jewels, against the commands of Almighty G.o.d, and all laws human and divine, whereby he, despising the commands of G.o.d, and all other human laws, 5 Nov, 27 Henry VIII [1535], violated and carnally knew the said Queen, his own sister, at Westminster, which he also did on divers days before and after, sometimes by his own procurement and sometimes by the Queen"s.Furthermore, they being thus inflamed by carnal love of the Queen, and having become very jealous of each other, did, in order to secure her affections, satisfy her inordinate desires; and that the Queen was equally jealous of the Lord Rochford, and other the before-mentioned traitors that she would not allow them to hold any familiarity with any other woman without exhibiting her exceeding displeasure and indignation. Moreover, the said Lord Rochford, Norris, Brereton, Weston, and Smeaton, being thus inflamed with carnal love of the Queen, and having become very jealous of each other, gave her secret gifts and pledges while carrying on this illicit intercourse; and the Queen, on her part, would not allow them to show familiarity with any other women without her exceeding displeasure and indignation; and that on 27 Nov., 27 Hen. VIII [1535] and other days before and after, at Westminster, she gave them great gifts to inveigle them to her will. Furthermore that the Queen and other of the said traitors, jointly and severally, 31 Oct., 27 Henry VIII [1535], at Westminster, and at various times before and after, compa.s.sed and imagined the King"s death; and that the Queen had frequently promised to marry some one of the traitors whenever the King should depart this life, affirming she would never love the King in her heart. Furthermore, that the King having come within a short time before a short time before [author"s italics] to the knowledge of, and meditating upon, the false and detestable crimes, vices, and treasons committed against himself within a short time now pa.s.sed, took such inward displeasure and heaviness, especially for his said Queen"s malice and adultery, that certain harms and perils have befallen his royal body, to the scandal, danger, detriment, and derogation of the issue and heirs of the said King and Queen. [author"s italics] to the knowledge of, and meditating upon, the false and detestable crimes, vices, and treasons committed against himself within a short time now pa.s.sed, took such inward displeasure and heaviness, especially for his said Queen"s malice and adultery, that certain harms and perils have befallen his royal body, to the scandal, danger, detriment, and derogation of the issue and heirs of the said King and Queen.30 On May 11 Chief Justice Baldwin and his colleagues traveled to Deptford, where the grand jury of Kent also found a true bill that was similar in character to the Middles.e.x indictment, and covered the crimes that had allegedly taken place at "East Greenwich," that is, Greenwich Palace. However, the original dates cited related to the adultery at Westminster and had to be altered, which may also indicate that some of the charges were fabricated.

The indictment returned by the grand jury of Kent was couched in similar terms but related to offenses that had allegedly been committed in that county. According to this, Anne was said to have solicited Brereton at Greenwich on November 16, 1533, and to have committed adultery with him there on November 27; she was also charged with soliciting Smeaton at Greenwich on May 12, 1534, and committing adultery with him on May 19; soon afterward, on June 6, she allegedly solicited Weston at Greenwich, having s.e.x with him on June 20; then, on December 22, 1535, at Eltham Palace in Kent, she solicited her brother George, and they committed incest on December 29. Finally, on January 8, 1536, at Greenwich, Anne, Rochford, Norris, Weston, and Brereton compa.s.sed the King"s death. In every case, the offenses were said to have been committed both before and after the dates specified.31 The twenty-one specified offenses, taken chronologically, can be summed up as follows: October 6 and 12, 1533, with Norris, at WestminsterNovember 16 and 27, 1533, with Brereton, at GreenwichDecember 3 and 8, 1533, with Brereton, at Westminster and Hampton CourtApril 12, 1534, soliciting Smeaton, at WestminsterMay 8 and 20, 1534, with Weston, at WestminsterMay 13 and 19, 1534, with Smeaton, at GreenwichJune 6 and 20, 1534, with Weston, at GreenwichApril 26, 1535, with Smeaton, at WestminsterOctober 31, 1535, compa.s.sing the King"s death, at WestminsterNovember 2 and 5, 1535, with Rochford, at WestminsterNovember 27, 1535, inveigling the men to treason, at WestminsterDecember 22 and 29, 1535, with Rochford, at ElthamJanuary 8, 1536, compa.s.sing the King"s death, at Greenwich It seems barely credible that with all these intrigues going on over a period of nearly three years, evidence of them had only just come to light. As Ives says, "quadruple adultery plus incest invites disbelief,"32 while not even the ever watchful Chapuys, Anne"s enemy, who would have relished any opportunity to discredit her, ever hinted at any infidelities on her part, although he gleefully reported gossip that the King was unfaithful to her. while not even the ever watchful Chapuys, Anne"s enemy, who would have relished any opportunity to discredit her, ever hinted at any infidelities on her part, although he gleefully reported gossip that the King was unfaithful to her.33 If the charges relating to adultery were based on fact, then for the greater part of her marriage Anne had not scrupled to hop from bed to bed, slaking her l.u.s.t with five men, one her own brother. If the charges relating to adultery were based on fact, then for the greater part of her marriage Anne had not scrupled to hop from bed to bed, slaking her l.u.s.t with five men, one her own brother.

It has been said that the word "violate," as used in the indictments, could not have applied to Anne, because she was the seductress, and that since only the rape of the Queen was treason under the 1351 statute, none of the men should have been indicted for treason on this count.34 Yet in the sixteenth century the word "violation" had a broader meaning (as it does now), and did not just mean rape, but dishonor, transgression, desecration, irreverence, or infraction. It is clear that the word is used in these senses in the indictment, while adultery with the King"s consort was treason under the 1534 Act of Succession because it impugned his issue; the very words of the act were used in the indictments to allege the "slander, danger, detriment, and derogation" of Henry"s heirs, and the royal justices ruled that the Queen"s offenses were treason under that act. Yet in the sixteenth century the word "violation" had a broader meaning (as it does now), and did not just mean rape, but dishonor, transgression, desecration, irreverence, or infraction. It is clear that the word is used in these senses in the indictment, while adultery with the King"s consort was treason under the 1534 Act of Succession because it impugned his issue; the very words of the act were used in the indictments to allege the "slander, danger, detriment, and derogation" of Henry"s heirs, and the royal justices ruled that the Queen"s offenses were treason under that act.35 Anne"s conduct was made out to be all the more disgraceful, given that she had been pregnant four times during this period and presumably hopeful of presenting Henry VIII with a living son. The accusation of adultery with Norris in October 1533 might well have been leveled to imply that Norris was responsible for Anne"s second pregnancy, which became evident in December that year, and that the guilty pair had compromised the succession; it even prompted some people to wonder if Norris was in fact Elizabeth"s father, even though there is no suggestion of this in the indictments.

Similarly, charging Rochford with committing incest with Anne in November 1535 may have been intended to suggest that he fathered the son of which she miscarried. Warnicke believes that were the fetus normal, there would have been no cause to go to such lengths to show that the King could not have been its father, and that the salacious details of Anne inciting her brother and the other men were intended to prove that she was a witch. Yet there is no mention of witchcraft in the indictment, nor of a deformed fetus. These shocking and d.a.m.ning factors would surely have been exploited by Anne"s accusers, rather than kept secret, and made the case against her more convincing to contemporary eyes.

The final charge-of conspiring the death of the King-was the most heinous, for it was high treason of the first order. There could be no doubt that if guilty, this woman deserved to die.

Certainly the charges were shocking-Strickland was horrified by their "extravagant and unverified coa.r.s.eness, which cannot be permitted to sully the pages of any work intended for family reading"-but it would be wrong to take them at face value, especially that of plotting regicide. Such folly would have been barely understandable were it driven by a grand pa.s.sion, but Anne could not even have been motivated by love, given that she was allegedly bent on marrying any one of her supposed lovers and sleeping with them all at different times.

Jane Dormer later opined that Anne, "much wanting to have a man-child to succeed, and finding the King not to content her," resorted to taking four lovers, and finally her brother, to achieve her desire. Yet it is highly unlikely that she was motivated in this way, because if Henry were indeed impotent, which is again unlikely, he would surely have known that any child she conceived was not his. No, it would appear that these charges were drawn up with the specific purposes of character a.s.sa.s.sination and providing a foolproof means for getting rid of her. Describing Smeaton as "a person of low degree" emphasized how far the Queen had stooped to gratify her desires, and the charge of treasonable incest-graphically enlarged upon in the indictment-was clearly meant to arouse outrage and revulsion.

That, George Wyatt observed, was "the most odious" of the accusations. "Partly it is incredible, partly by the circ.u.mstances impossible. Incredible, that she had it as her word, the spirit of her mind, that she was Caesar"s all, not to be touched of others"-Wyatt is here echoing his grandfather"s famous poem, "Noli me tangere" "Noli me tangere"-and yet had been "held with the foul desire of her brother. Impossible, for the necessary and no small attendance of ladies ever about her, by office appointed to wait upon her continually, would have been witnesses to her doings." Moreover, Anne was aware of the danger in which she stood, and could not have been "more wary and wakeful, if for none other cause [but] to take away all color from her enemies, whose eyes were everywhere upon her, and their malicious hearts bent to make some where they found none; as plainly enough as was to be seen when they were driven to those straits to take occasion at her brother"s being more private with her." They feared that "his conference with her might be for the breaking off [of] the King"s new love."36 Close scrutiny of the facts suggests that thirteen out of the twenty-one charges were impossible, and that if, four and a half centuries later it can be established that only eight were even plausible-which in itself suggests that even these were not genuine offenses-then the case against Anne is shaky indeed.37 Furthermore, allegations that a number of unspecified offenses had been committed "on diverse days before and after" the stated dates on which the crimes had purportedly been committed would be difficult to disprove, and Cromwell was doubtless aware of this; it was a "catchall guarantee." Furthermore, allegations that a number of unspecified offenses had been committed "on diverse days before and after" the stated dates on which the crimes had purportedly been committed would be difficult to disprove, and Cromwell was doubtless aware of this; it was a "catchall guarantee."38 It is also evident that Cromwell was not as thorough as he should have been. In no fewer than twelve instances, either Anne or her alleged accomplice can be shown not to have been in the specified location. For example, she was accused of committing adultery with Brereton on December 8, 1533, at Hampton Court, but the court was at Greenwich on that date. It is also evident that Cromwell was not as thorough as he should have been. In no fewer than twelve instances, either Anne or her alleged accomplice can be shown not to have been in the specified location. For example, she was accused of committing adultery with Brereton on December 8, 1533, at Hampton Court, but the court was at Greenwich on that date.39 And because it can be shown that quite a few of the dated offenses could not have been committed in the places specified, then the rest of the charges are also undermined. And because it can be shown that quite a few of the dated offenses could not have been committed in the places specified, then the rest of the charges are also undermined.40 It has been argued, however, that while the substance of the charges was sound, the details were subject to clerical error or faulty memories, given the lapse in time since the offenses were committed, the confusing amount of detail in the indictments41 and the speed with which they were drawn up. If Cromwell manufactured these charges, he surely would have taken care to ensure that the details were correct; and the speed with which they were drawn up. If Cromwell manufactured these charges, he surely would have taken care to ensure that the details were correct;42 his political survival, indeed, his very life, would have depended on him concocting a watertight and credible case against the Queen. So these discrepancies in location cannot be taken as conclusive proof that the charges were fabricated. Yet there are other disturbing aspects to consider. his political survival, indeed, his very life, would have depended on him concocting a watertight and credible case against the Queen. So these discrepancies in location cannot be taken as conclusive proof that the charges were fabricated. Yet there are other disturbing aspects to consider.

On all but one of the dates cited, Anne was pregnant. Indulging in s.e.x during pregnancy was scandalous in itself, because intercourse was forbidden until forty days after delivery. For centuries the Church had enforced the teaching that s.e.x was only for procreation, and that taboo still persisted. But aside from that, in so indulging, Anne had-in sixteenth-century eyes-irresponsibly put her unborn children at risk and compromised her chances of bearing an heir.

On the other occasion cited, she was lying in after a confinement. She was alleged to have incited Norris to commit adultery on-and even before-October 6, 1533, one month after she had given birth to Princess Elizabeth. Is it likely that a woman who recently emerged from her lying-in, and was in all probability still bleeding, would have felt like embarking on an adulterous affair, which was allegedly consummated just six days later, and at Westminster, when the court had not left Greenwich?

Furthermore, Anne had not yet been churched following her confinement; this was a public ceremony of blessing and thanksgiving for a woman"s recovery from the perils of childbirth, dating from biblical times, when, following the Levitical law, women were deemed to be unclean after bearing a child and required to go to the Temple for a ceremony of purification, a ritual observed by the Virgin Mary after the birth of Jesus. In England, mothers were traditionally churched on the fortieth day after delivery, in accordance with the biblical date of the presentation of Mary and Jesus at the temple; prior to the Reformation, there remained a strong element of purification, with the woman presenting herself veiled at the church door and sprinkled with holy water before entering the church itself. Churching signaled a woman"s resumption of s.e.xual relations with her husband after a period of ritual seclusion and avoidance. There was a strong social taboo against couples having s.e.x before the wife was churched, and in accusing Anne of committing adultery at this time, Cromwell, who is hardly likely to have been unaware of the date of Elizabeth"s birth, was no doubt determined to make her crime appear even more heinous. Yet as far as Anne was concerned, again, it is improbable that she would have been eager or even able to embark upon an adulterous affair at this time, when she was still in seclusion with her women.

At the beginning of December 1533, Anne"s family knew she was pregnant again; she was suffering from the tiredness and exhaustion common at that early stage of pregnancy, and from disturbed sleep,43 yet she was charged with seducing William Brereton during November and December. yet she was charged with seducing William Brereton during November and December.

In the spring of 1534, when she was supposedly trying to seduce Weston and Smeaton, Anne"s pregnancy was advancing visibly,44 and she was deeply preoccupied with the defiance of Katherine and Mary; the refusal of Sir Thomas More, Bishop Fisher, and others to take the oath to the Act of Succession, which recognized Elizabeth as Henry"s heir; the treasonable utterances of Elizabeth Barton, the Nun of Kent, against herself; and the Pope"s p.r.o.nouncement that the King"s marriage to Katherine was good and valid. In April and May, the alleged dates of her crimes, she was six to seven months gone with child. It is barely credible that she could have indulged in perilous extramarital affairs at this time-perilous not only because s.e.x was then regarded as a risk to the unborn child, but also because of the danger of being caught. And even if she had indulged, it should be noted that when she was supposed to be cavorting with Smeaton at Greenwich on May 19 and Weston at Westminster on May 20, she was in fact at Richmond with the King, having gone there on May 17 to keep Whitsuntide. The court remained there until at least May 26, and then stayed at Hampton Court from June 3 to 26, so Anne could not have slept again with Weston on June 20 at Greenwich, as was alleged. and she was deeply preoccupied with the defiance of Katherine and Mary; the refusal of Sir Thomas More, Bishop Fisher, and others to take the oath to the Act of Succession, which recognized Elizabeth as Henry"s heir; the treasonable utterances of Elizabeth Barton, the Nun of Kent, against herself; and the Pope"s p.r.o.nouncement that the King"s marriage to Katherine was good and valid. In April and May, the alleged dates of her crimes, she was six to seven months gone with child. It is barely credible that she could have indulged in perilous extramarital affairs at this time-perilous not only because s.e.x was then regarded as a risk to the unborn child, but also because of the danger of being caught. And even if she had indulged, it should be noted that when she was supposed to be cavorting with Smeaton at Greenwich on May 19 and Weston at Westminster on May 20, she was in fact at Richmond with the King, having gone there on May 17 to keep Whitsuntide. The court remained there until at least May 26, and then stayed at Hampton Court from June 3 to 26, so Anne could not have slept again with Weston on June 20 at Greenwich, as was alleged.45 The indictment made it clear that Anne was invariably the instigator of adultery. This does not sound like the woman who had held Henry VIII at bay for over six years,46 but this argument does not take into account the fact that a woman"s desire can intensify after the establishment of a s.e.xual relationship, or because of hormonal changes. It is not very likely, though, that Anne was desperate to seduce anyone when she was recovering from her confinement. but this argument does not take into account the fact that a woman"s desire can intensify after the establishment of a s.e.xual relationship, or because of hormonal changes. It is not very likely, though, that Anne was desperate to seduce anyone when she was recovering from her confinement.

By February 1535, as we have seen, Anne knew that she was being kept under constant surveillance. Yet two months later, the indictment would have us believe, she persuaded Smeaton, whom she had seduced a year before, to have s.e.x with her again, and this at a time when, once again, she was in the early stages of pregnancy.

In October that year, when she is said to have been plotting the King"s death-which was absurd in itself, since Katherine of Aragon was still alive then, and Henry"s demise would certainly have prompted a rising in favor of Lady Mary"s right to succeed, or even full-scale civil war and the possible intervention of the Emperor-Anne discovered that she was once more with child, but at this time, the indictment claims, she seduced her brother Rochford, a crime guaranteed to inspire the deepest public revulsion. The implication was, of course-as with the offenses in 1533-that the baby was not the King"s.47 And then, despite her new hope of bearing the son who would ensure her future as queen, she gave gifts to the men who were planning to kill the King on her behalf, one of whom she was allegedly planning to marry. What would it have profited her to ally herself in marriage with any of these men? Not one of them could have satisfied her ambition in the ways the King had. Moreover, when she was supposed to be conspiring against Henry on November 27, 1535, at Westminster, she was at Windsor; again, she was at Eltham on January 8, 1536, when she was supposed to be plotting the King"s death at Greenwich. The date of this latter charge may be significant, because it was the day after Katherine of Aragon died; but even with Katherine dead, if Anne had attempted to a.s.sa.s.sinate Henry in order to rule in Elizabeth"s name, she would still have had to contend with Lady Mary and her powerful supporters, not the least of whom was the Emperor. The illogicality in the charges strongly suggests that they were cobbled together in a hurry, without being carefully scrutinized. And then, despite her new hope of bearing the son who would ensure her future as queen, she gave gifts to the men who were planning to kill the King on her behalf, one of whom she was allegedly planning to marry. What would it have profited her to ally herself in marriage with any of these men? Not one of them could have satisfied her ambition in the ways the King had. Moreover, when she was supposed to be conspiring against Henry on November 27, 1535, at Westminster, she was at Windsor; again, she was at Eltham on January 8, 1536, when she was supposed to be plotting the King"s death at Greenwich. The date of this latter charge may be significant, because it was the day after Katherine of Aragon died; but even with Katherine dead, if Anne had attempted to a.s.sa.s.sinate Henry in order to rule in Elizabeth"s name, she would still have had to contend with Lady Mary and her powerful supporters, not the least of whom was the Emperor. The illogicality in the charges strongly suggests that they were cobbled together in a hurry, without being carefully scrutinized.

As for the "harms and perils" that befell the King"s body as a result of the stress engendered by discovering his wife"s crimes, it is unlikely that this had anything to do with the effects of Henry"s jousting accident becoming manifest at this time, as has been suggested, for it was not until the following year, 1537, that he confided to Norfolk"s heir, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, that "to be frank with you, which we desire you in any wise to keep to yourself, an humor [has] fallen into our legs;" if he"d had this problem since the time of Anne"s fall, there would have been no way of keeping it quiet, and no need for secrecy.

Possibly the "harms and perils" referred to the fear and paranoia resulting from his lucky escape from his murderous wife, but in mentioning the danger to the King"s heirs, it would appear the indictment was implying that he was suffering from s.e.xual impotence, although the latter is unlikely to be true, as will become clear in due course. On the other hand, this might just have been a ploy to win him his subjects" sympathy. Certainly there would be little evidence of Henry suffering any harms and perils in the weeks to come, when he was "l.u.s.tily and publicly pursuing Jane Seymour."48 Close a.n.a.lysis of the charges in the indictment against Anne Boleyn suggests that they are intrinsically flawed, although perhaps not as flawed as. .h.i.therto thought. Many have concluded that they were trumped up. If the Queen was truly guilty, and this was discovered in the manner that Cromwell described, there should have been sufficient credible evidence against her to support such charges, and no need to manufacture what seems to be a travesty of a case, although we do not have all the doc.u.mentary evidence. It does seem that a degree of manipulation was at play, in order to ensure a conviction, but that is not necessarily to say that Anne was innocent. Nor should we conclude that justice was maliciously subverted or that her prosecutors knew that the charges were contrived: given the nature of the evidence, the Crown"s case was weak in the detail, even though it might have believed its substance to have been sound. In a word, Anne was probably framed. That has been my position in two earlier books, and to claim, as one author recently did,49 that I accepted the official charges without question, is absurd. that I accepted the official charges without question, is absurd.

It would be left to later generations to expose the flaws in the indictment. "Her very accusations speak and plead for her," opined Wyatt, "all of them carrying in themselves open proof to all men"s consciences of mere matter of quarrel, and indeed of a very preparation to some hoped alteration." It would have been difficult for Anne to conceal one illicit ongoing love affair, but concealing five would have been an impossibility.50 Already people expected the prisoners to be convicted. On May 11, before any trial had taken place, the Abbot of Cirencester wrote informing Cromwell that he had already promised Sir Henry Norris"s stewardship of his abbey to Sir William Kingston, "when it is void;" it is clear that the matter had been the subject of an earlier communication.51 Urgent arrangements were already in hand for the accused to be put on trial. On May 10, even before the second true bill had been found, the justices sent a precept to the Constable of the Tower, commanding him to "bring up the bodies of Sir Francis Weston, knt, Henry Norris Esq., William Brereton Esq., and Mark Smeaton, gent.," all committed to the Tower for high treason by the King"s Council, at Westminster for trial "on Friday next," two days hence. And at the foot of each indictment, in the margin, were afterward added the words Billa vera Billa vera (True bill), with a memorandum that the doc.u.ments had been sent to the Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal and High Steward of England, "to do all matters concerning the Queen and Lord Rochford" on Monday, 15 May, at the Tower. (True bill), with a memorandum that the doc.u.ments had been sent to the Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal and High Steward of England, "to do all matters concerning the Queen and Lord Rochford" on Monday, 15 May, at the Tower.52 The outcome of it all, according to a letter sent on May 10 by Sir John Dudley (who had been among those at the meeting at Hampton Court the previous day) to Lady Lisle, was not in doubt: "As touching the news that are here, I am sure it needeth not to write to you, for all the world knoweth them by this time. This day was indicted Mr. Norris, Mr. Weston, William Brereton, Markes [sic.] [sic.], and my lord of Rochford. And upon Friday next they shall be arraigned at Westminster. And the Queen herself shall be condemned by Parliament."53 ...

Interestingly, although Wyatt and Page had been in the Tower for five days, they were not mentioned in the indictments. In fact, Cromwell had already written to Wyatt"s father to rea.s.sure him that his son would not be harmed, which is in itself suspicious, given that none of the accused had yet been tried and that the outcome of their trials was as yet unknown. Overflowing with grat.i.tude, the aging Sir Henry Wyatt sent him a reply on May 11, stating that neither he nor his son would ever forget Master Secretary"s kindness. Not that Wyatt deserved it, his father thought: in two letters to Cromwell written at this time, he referred despairingly to his son"s s.e.xual adventures, and to "the displeasure he hath done to G.o.d."54 Page was also to escape trial. The influence of FitzWilliam, to whom he was related, might have been a factor,55 but Page and Wyatt were Cromwell"s men, indeed his friends, and their incarceration in the Tower may have been intended to show that the investigations into the Queen"s misconduct were entirely impartial. but Page and Wyatt were Cromwell"s men, indeed his friends, and their incarceration in the Tower may have been intended to show that the investigations into the Queen"s misconduct were entirely impartial.

On May 11, Cromwell visited the King at Hampton Court, where he discussed with him and finalized the arrangements for the coming trials before returning to York Place late in the day.56 Norfolk, who was to preside over the hearings, was as yet unaware that his fellow commissioners had found a true bill against the Queen, and on the evening of May 11, Sir William Paulet sent a messenger after Cromwell to let him know that: Norfolk, who was to preside over the hearings, was as yet unaware that his fellow commissioners had found a true bill against the Queen, and on the evening of May 11, Sir William Paulet sent a messenger after Cromwell to let him know that: ... my lord of Norfolk showed me that he had no knowledge that the indictment was found, and asked me whether the parties should proceed to their trial or not. I told him I knew not. As to commissioners, he said he knew not how many were required, nor whether they ought to be barons or not. Therefore he could not tell whom to name; and if he knew, he would name no one till he learned of the King"s pleasure. So he willed me to advertise you.57 This letter does not suggest that Henry interfered a great deal in the proceedings against the Queen.58 What it does reveal is that Norfolk had been left in the dark as to what was going on and was wary of taking any action without the King"s approval. The duke was not to be kept in ignorance for long, for he would soon receive the doc.u.ments prepared on behalf of the Crown, and with the two indictments drawn up, the case against the Queen and her alleged lovers could now proceed to trial. What it does reveal is that Norfolk had been left in the dark as to what was going on and was wary of taking any action without the King"s approval. The duke was not to be kept in ignorance for long, for he would soon receive the doc.u.ments prepared on behalf of the Crown, and with the two indictments drawn up, the case against the Queen and her alleged lovers could now proceed to trial.

Lancelot de Carles a.s.serts that before the King gave orders for the trials of the Queen and her alleged lovers to proceed, some lords of the council visited her in the Tower in the hope of extracting a confession. But "the Queen, having no further hope in this world, would confess nothing. She does not confess anything, and does not resist strongly, almost wanting to be delivered from living here, to go and live and Heaven, and hope [of that] is surmounting so much in her that she no longer cares about dying." For all this, "she did not give up her greatness, but spoke to the lords as a mistress. Those who came to interrogate were astonished."

The "Spanish Chronicle" also a.s.serts that the King sent his councillors-naming Cromwell, Cranmer, Norfolk, and Audley-to examine the Queen, with express orders "to treat her with no respect or consideration." Cranmer is said to have been appointed spokesman, and to have told her: "Madam, there is no one in the realm, after my lord the King, who is so distressed at your bad conduct as I am, for all these gentlemen well know I owe my dignity to your goodwill." This echoes the sentiments expressed in Cranmer"s letter to the King. But Anne interrupted him.

"My lord Bishop, I know what is your errand!" she said. "Waste no more time. I have never wronged the King, but I know well that he is tired of me, as he was before of the good Lady Katherine." This smacks of Spanish bias on the part of the chronicler, although it is possible that Anne, in her present plight, now felt some sympathy for Katherine. The use of the t.i.tle "Lady" rings true.

Cranmer told her that her "evil courses" had been "clearly seen," and if she desired to read Smeaton"s confession, it would be shown to her. Anne flew into "a great rage," and cried, "Go to! It has all been done as I say, because the King has fallen in love, as I know, with Jane Seymour, and does not know how to get rid of me. Well, let him do as he likes, he will get nothing more out of me, and any confession that has been made is false."

With that, just as Carles said, the lords "saw they should extract nothing from her" and determined to leave, but Norfolk had one parting shot. "Madam," he said, "if it be true that your brother has shared your guilt, a great punishment indeed should be yours, and his as well." Anne told him he should say no such thing. "My brother is blameless, and if he has been in my chamber to speak with me, surely he might do so without suspicion, being my brother, and they cannot accuse him for that. I know that the King has had him arrested so that there should be none left to take my part. You need not trouble to stop talking with me, for you will find out no more." The lords left her, and when they reported her words to the King, he said, "She has a stout heart, but she shall pay for it."

There is no other evidence for this interrogation, although that is not to say it did not take place. The author of the "Spanish Chronicle" may have embellished his dialogue, but the substance of his account is entirely authentic, and chimes with all the other evidence. No reports from Sir William Kingston survive from this time-there is a gap between his letters of May 7 and 16. So it is quite possible that, with the indictments drawn up, the councillors had hoped to spare the King the publicity that an open trial would generate by forcing the Queen to admit her guilt. But realizing that Henry was determined on proceeding against her-Chapuys told the Emperor he now meant "to get rid of" her, regardless of whether her guilt was proved59-she knew she had nothing to lose by refusing to confess.

The lords "afterward went to Rochford, who said he knew that death awaited him, and would say the truth, but, raising his eyes to Heaven, denied the accusations against him. They next went to Norris, Weston, and Brereton, who all likewise refused to confess, except Mark, who had done so already." After this, "the King ordered the trial at Westminster."60ANNE BOLEYN, AS SHE PROBABLY LOOKED AT THE TIME OF HER FALL.

"There is no one who dares contradict her, not even the King himself."HENRY VIII.

His "blind and wretched pa.s.sion" for Anne had long since abated.JANE SEYMOUR.

"The new amours of the King go on, to the intense rage of the Concubine."SIR NICHOLAS CAREW.

"It will not be the fault of this Master of the Horse if the Concubine be not dismounted."THE LADY MARY.

"When I have a son," Anne Boleyn wrote, "I know what then will come to her."HENRY FITZROY, DUKE OF RICHMOND.

His father the King told him he was lucky to have "escaped the hands of that accursed wh.o.r.e."THOMAS HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK.

He referred to Anne, his niece, as "the great wh.o.r.e."THOMAS BOLEYN,.

EARL OF WILTSHIRE.

He connived at his children"s fate, and even sat in judgment on them.SIGNATURE OF GEORGE BOLEYN,.

LORD ROCHFORD.SIGNATURE OF MARK SMEATON.HENRY PARKER, LORD MORLEY.

He had instilled in his daughter Jane, Lady Rochford, such loyalty to the Lady Mary as would prove fatal to the Boleyns.THOMAS CROMWELL,.

"MASTER SECRETARY"

"He thought up and plotted the affair of the Concubine."SIR WILLIAM FITZWILLIAM.

"A good servant" of the King, he was instrumental in bringing Anne to ruin.ELIZABETH BROWNE,.

COUNTESS OF WORCESTER.

She was "the first accuser"

of the Queen.THE INDICTMENT AGAINST.

ANNE BOLEYN AND LORD ROCHFORD.

"She incited her own natural brother to violate her."ANNE BOLEYN.

She had clearly overstepped the conventional bounds of courtly banter between queen and servant, man and woman.GREENWICH PALACE,.

WHERE ANNE BOLEYN WAS ARRESTED.

"I was cruelly handled at Greenwich with the King"s Council."THIS FANCIFUL, ROMANTIC PAINTING SHOWS ANNE BOLEYN SAYING.

A FINAL FAREWELL TO HER DAUGHTER, THE PRINCESS ELIZABETH.

"Never shall I forget the sorrow I felt when I saw the most serene Queen, your mother, carrying you, still a baby, in her arms."THE TOWER OF LONDON.

The King"s Hall, where Anne Boleyn was tried, can be seen behind the wall fronting the river; the Queen"s Lodgings, where she was held, can just be seen to the far right, stretching between the wall and the White Tower. The scaffold on Tower Hill, and the guns on the Tower wharf, are also visible.A ROMANTIC VIEW: ANNE BOLEYN AT THE QUEEN"S STAIRS "Mr. Kingston, do I go to a dungeon?"ANNE BOLEYN IN THE TOWER.

"One hour she is determined to die, and the next much contrary to that."ANNE BOLEYN, LADY SHELTON.

The Queen thought it "much unkindness in the King to put about me such as I never loved."SIR THOMAS WYATT.

"These b.l.o.o.d.y days have broken my heart," he mourned."TO THE KING FROM THE LADY IN THE TOWER"

For centuries, controversy has raged over the authenticity of this letter.WESTMINSTER HALL, WHERE FOUR OF ANNE BOLEYN"S CO-ACCUSED WERE TRIED ON MAY 12, 1536.

"Suddenly the axe was turned towards them."HENRY PERCY,.

EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND.

"May it be to my d.a.m.nation if ever there were any contract or promise or marriage between her and me."THOMAS CRANMER,.

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

"I think your Highness would not have gone so far if she had not been culpable."SIR FRANCIS WESTON AND HIS WIFE, ANNE PICKERING.

Weston referred to himself as "a great offender to G.o.d.""WESTON ESQ. OF SUTTON SURREY."

This is almost certainly a portrait of Sir Francis Weston.ANNE BOLEYN DRIVEN MAD:.

A LATER, MELODRAMATIC IMAGE.

"This lady has much joy and pleasure in death."

CARVINGS IN THE TOWER OF LONDON,.

PROBABLY DONE BY ANNE BOLEYN"S ALLEGED LOVERSCarving from the Martin TowerAnne Boleyn"s falcon badge, without its crown and scepter, in the Beauchamp TowerTHE SITE OF THE QUEEN"S LODGINGS IN THE TOWER OF LONDON, WHERE ANNE BOLEYN WAS HELD PRISONER IN SOME SPLENDOR.GOLD AND ENAMEL PENDANT, MADE.

C. 1520, AND SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY.

ANNE BOLEYN TO CAPTAIN GWYN ON.

THE DAY OF HER EXECUTION.THE SITE OF THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH ANNE BOLEYN WAS EXECUTED.

It was built on the tournament ground before the old House of Ordinance, and faced the White Tower; it probably stood near the present doorway to the Waterloo Barracks.THE EXECUTION OF ANNE BOLEYN.

"The Queen suffered with sword this day, and died boldly." This seventeenth-century woodcut incorrectly shows the headsman wielding an axe.THE ROYAL CHAPEL OF ST. PETER AD VINCULA,.

SHOWING THE SO-CALLED SCAFFOLD SITE.

"The Queen"s head and body were taken to a church in the Tower."INSIDE ST. PETER AD VINCULA: ANNE BOLEYN IS.

BURIED BENEATH THE ALTAR PAVEMENT.

"G.o.d provided for her corpse sacred burial, even in a place as it were consecrate to innocence."MEMORIAL PLAQUE SAID TO MARK THE LAST RESTING PLACE OF ANNE BOLEYN.

It is more likely, however, that her body lies beneath the slab commemorating Lady Rochford.CARVED INITIALS OF HENRY VIII AND.

ANNE BOLEYN IN THE VAULTING ABOVE.

ANNE BOLEYN"S GATEWAY, HAMPTON COURT PALACE.

This carving was overlooked in the rush to replace Anne"s initials with Jane Seymour"s.QUEEN ELIZABETH I"s RING OF c. 1575, WITH ITS PORTRAIT OF ANNE BOLEYN.

It is possible that Elizabeth secretly commissioned a written defense of her mother.