Given that there were probably fewer than a hundred women among the court"s population of between eight and fifteen hundred persons (depending on the season), it is hardly surprising that a hothouse atmosphere prevailed when it came to interaction between the s.e.xes. George Wyatt refers to "those that pleased the King in recounting the adventures of love happening in court." The gentlemen of the King"s Privy Chamber would flock to the Queen"s apartments knowing that she appreciated witty, stimulating conversation, and that there would be opportunities aplenty for flirting with her ladies. Nor was Anne above joining in the repartee, as her own accounts of her banter and familiarity with the gentlemen of the King"s Privy Chamber vividly show.60 Thanks to her upbringing at the French court, she was familiar and free-and-easy in her manner and her social relationships. Thanks to her upbringing at the French court, she was familiar and free-and-easy in her manner and her social relationships.
Her flirtations were probably innocent; they were an accepted aspect of the game of courtly love that had been a tradition in European courts since the twelfth century. A knight might pay his ardent addresses with all seemliness to a mistress who was above him in rank and might even be married; he could wear her colors at a tournament, write songs and poems for her, sigh and languish for one sign of favor, or even pursue her with greater intent. The theory was that she was unattainable, and that this behavior was acceptable so long as it did not go beyond the bounds of propriety and lead to seduction or the breaking of marriage vows.
Of course, such courtly relationships were were often an excuse for s.e.xual dalliance or adultery, and there is much evidence to show that this was commonplace at Henry VIII"s court. But Caesar"s wife had to be above reproach, and by indulging in the flirtatious games and lighthearted innuendo of courtly love, the Queen of England ran the risk that her behavior might be misconstrued-as may have been the case with Lady Worcester and other people who testified against her-while actual adultery was another matter entirely, for any gentleman who thus ventured to compromise her honor would have been guilty of high treason. The Statute of Treasons of 1351 provided for the prosecution of any man who "violated the king"s companion"-the word "violated" being used in its widest sense-and the punishment was hanging, drawing, and quartering. For it was not honor alone that was compromised, but the succession itself: as William Thomas, Henry"s apologist, was to point out in 1546, "adultery in a king"s wife weigheth no less than the wrong reign of a b.a.s.t.a.r.d prince." often an excuse for s.e.xual dalliance or adultery, and there is much evidence to show that this was commonplace at Henry VIII"s court. But Caesar"s wife had to be above reproach, and by indulging in the flirtatious games and lighthearted innuendo of courtly love, the Queen of England ran the risk that her behavior might be misconstrued-as may have been the case with Lady Worcester and other people who testified against her-while actual adultery was another matter entirely, for any gentleman who thus ventured to compromise her honor would have been guilty of high treason. The Statute of Treasons of 1351 provided for the prosecution of any man who "violated the king"s companion"-the word "violated" being used in its widest sense-and the punishment was hanging, drawing, and quartering. For it was not honor alone that was compromised, but the succession itself: as William Thomas, Henry"s apologist, was to point out in 1546, "adultery in a king"s wife weigheth no less than the wrong reign of a b.a.s.t.a.r.d prince."61 The Statute of Treasons, however, did not provide for a queen to be accused of high treason for adultery, only the man who had violated her. It was not until 1542, in the wake of the fall of Katherine Howard, Henry VIII"s fifth wife, that the definition of treason was extended specifically to embrace adultery on the part of a queen.62 But in 1534, Parliament, seeking to protect Queen Anne from her enemies, had pa.s.sed an act widening the definition of treason to all who "do maliciously wish, will or desire, by words or writing, or by craft imagine" the King"s death or harm, and to anyone who impugned the King"s marriage to Anne or his issue. But in 1534, Parliament, seeking to protect Queen Anne from her enemies, had pa.s.sed an act widening the definition of treason to all who "do maliciously wish, will or desire, by words or writing, or by craft imagine" the King"s death or harm, and to anyone who impugned the King"s marriage to Anne or his issue.63 Perversely, this same statute was to prove Anne"s downfall, for committing adulterous acts was construed as treason on the count of impugning the King"s issue, and thus justified a capital charge. But an even worse accusation was to be leveled against her, of a crime that was treason by any legal definition. According to Cromwell, who had mentioned those reports from abroad, "there brake out a certain conspiracy of the King"s death," and that, he said, left him and his colleagues quaking in their shoes. Perversely, this same statute was to prove Anne"s downfall, for committing adulterous acts was construed as treason on the count of impugning the King"s issue, and thus justified a capital charge. But an even worse accusation was to be leveled against her, of a crime that was treason by any legal definition. According to Cromwell, who had mentioned those reports from abroad, "there brake out a certain conspiracy of the King"s death," and that, he said, left him and his colleagues quaking in their shoes.64 Cromwell stayed away from court, perfecting his case against the Queen, until April 23. By then his plans were well advanced; various councillors had been taken into his confidence, and the support of Chapuys, the Seymours, Bryan, Carew, Exeter, and other partisans of Lady Mary enlisted. This may have been put in place before Cromwell even left court to feign sickness.
This unlikely-and, indeed, temporary-alliance between the conservatives at court and the reforming Cromwell would previously have been unthinkable, but both sides now shared a common aim in working for elimination of the Queen and her faction, while Cromwell-despite his ongoing support of Lord Lisle in a property dispute with Sir Edward Seymour65-had realized that supporting Jane Seymour, and exploiting the Imperialist network of support that had formed around her, offered him his best chance of political survival.
Hitherto, the Imperialists had naively envisaged that an annulment of the King"s marriage to Anne would be sufficient to get rid of her. Cromwell had disabused them of that idea-had the King not just insisted upon Chapuys and Charles V acknowledging her as Queen?-and rapidly secured their backing for his more radical solution.66 It was Chapuys who obtained Lady Mary"s qualified approval of the plot to remove Anne. It was Chapuys who obtained Lady Mary"s qualified approval of the plot to remove Anne.67 He was happy to work with anyone who "could help in its execution," believing they did "a meritorious work, since it would prove a remedy for the heretical doctrines and practices of the Concubine, the princ.i.p.al cause of the spread of Lutheranism in this country." He was happy to work with anyone who "could help in its execution," believing they did "a meritorious work, since it would prove a remedy for the heretical doctrines and practices of the Concubine, the princ.i.p.al cause of the spread of Lutheranism in this country."68 Of course, what the court conservatives did not know was that there was no intention for the removal of Anne to lead to reconciliation with Rome and the reinstatement of the Lady Mary,69 which they fondly expected would happen. But Cromwell, who would immediately distance himself from them once his goal was achieved, was not about to disillusion them. Not yet. which they fondly expected would happen. But Cromwell, who would immediately distance himself from them once his goal was achieved, was not about to disillusion them. Not yet.
Anne"s every move was probably being observed by Cromwell"s spies and informants. Speed was of the essence: the King-who had fallen out with Anne many times, yet remained in thrall to her-must not be allowed time for skepticism, sentimental feeling, or the residue of pa.s.sion to overtake the shock of hearing that his wife had not only been unfaithful with several men, but had planned to kill him. That would surely be sufficient to alienate the insecure and suspicious Henry, and preclude another reconciliation.
The ruthlessness with which the Queen was brought down was indicative of the extent to which Cromwell and others feared her.70 What they were afraid of was not so much her ability to command support from an affinity of adherents-which was unlikely, as she was so unpopular-as the power she undoubtedly wielded over the King, which had just been demonstrated so alarmingly. What they were afraid of was not so much her ability to command support from an affinity of adherents-which was unlikely, as she was so unpopular-as the power she undoubtedly wielded over the King, which had just been demonstrated so alarmingly.
Events now moved forward swiftly. We have Cromwell"s own account of what happened next, in his letter of May 14. He saw Henry VIII on his return to court on April 23, and although there is no record of what pa.s.sed on that occasion, it was probably then that he and other privy councillors-"with great fear, as the case enforced, declared what they had heard" of the Queen"s conduct-told the King that "we that had the examination of it quaked at the danger His Grace was in" and realized that, "with their duty to His Majesty, they could not conceal it from him." On their knees, they "gave [G.o.d] laud and praise that He had preserved him so long from it."71 Alexander Aless makes it clear in his account of the period leading up to Anne"s arrest that Henry VIII was made aware of the suspicions of Cromwell and others before ordering further investigations, and only after these had been carried out did they report back to him (probably on April 30). Thus it is likely that Cromwell approached the King as soon as he returned to court. Many historians have remarked upon the speed with which the investigation progressed, but it would only have needed a few days to arrange and conduct the interrogation of members of the Queen"s household.
Lancelot de Carles states that, prior to this audience, the privy councillor-almost certainly FitzWilliam-to whom the Countess of Worcester had confided her suspicions of the Queen, "did not know what to do, and took counsel with two friends of the King, with whom he went to the King himself, and one reported it in the name of all three. The King was astonished, and his color changed at the revelation, but he thanked the gentlemen."
Although, according to Carles, this evidence was supposed to have been revealed to the King at the end of April, on the same day the decision was made to proceed against the Queen, the Lisle letters make it clear that the first evidence had been laid by Lady Worcester, probably sometime before April 18, so it almost certainly formed the basis of the councillors" revelations to Henry, which internal evidence suggests were disclosed to him before April 24. It is obvious that very few people were aware of what was really going on behind the scenes, and that Carles was relying on gossip and hearsay. Yet some of it perhaps was based on fact, and his poem may reflect what actually happened when Henry VIII was first informed of his councillors" suspicions, with FitzWilliam consulting with Sir Anthony Browne, his kinsman, and Cromwell, and acting as spokesman for them all,72 bearing in mind that Cromwell was still, to all intents and purposes, out of favor. bearing in mind that Cromwell was still, to all intents and purposes, out of favor.
Aless, who was in a position to be a reliable source, says that Thomas Wriothesley went with Cromwell to confront the King, so maybe he, rather than Anthony Browne, was the other "friend of the King" to whom Lancelot de Carles refers. Aless adds that the King "was furious" when informed of the Queen"s misconduct, but quickly "dissembled his wrath" and ordered Cromwell and the other privy councillors to make further enquiries, "trusting them with the investigation of the whole business." It would appear from this that Henry"s displeasure with Cromwell had rapidly dissipated in the face of this far more serious crisis, as Cromwell had no doubt hoped it would.73 Did Henry think to question the evidence? Contemporary sources suggest that, until recently, the King had been toying purely with the idea of an annulment. It has been a.s.serted that Henry"s "egotism and credulity" brought about Anne"s fall;74 egotism almost certainly played a part, but the King was an intelligent man and well able to exercise his own judgment. The evidence laid before him must have looked d.a.m.ning on the face of it, and had serious implications for the succession. Yet he did not immediately swallow it whole, nor act impulsively, gleeful that someone had provided him with a pretext for ridding himself of his unsatisfactory queen. Having recently been trounced by Anne for infidelity-and not for the first time-he could have used these accusations of immorality against her to regain the high moral ground and salvage his pride. But at this stage he did not. egotism almost certainly played a part, but the King was an intelligent man and well able to exercise his own judgment. The evidence laid before him must have looked d.a.m.ning on the face of it, and had serious implications for the succession. Yet he did not immediately swallow it whole, nor act impulsively, gleeful that someone had provided him with a pretext for ridding himself of his unsatisfactory queen. Having recently been trounced by Anne for infidelity-and not for the first time-he could have used these accusations of immorality against her to regain the high moral ground and salvage his pride. But at this stage he did not.
Instead, he prudently resolved to wait and see what further investigation would uncover. We might today look askance at Cromwell"s extravagant claim (made to Chapuys in 1533) that Henry was "an honorable, virtuous and wise prince, incapable of doing anything that was not founded on justice and reason," yet there is no evidence that the King "personally exerted himself to pervert the course of justice," as the chronicler Charles Wriothesley"s Victorian editor put it, while charging Anne with infidelity was almost certainly not his idea. He was an egotistic male who was perhaps touchy about his virility. "Am I not a man like other men? Am I not? Am I not?" he had angrily rounded on Chapuys in 1533, when Chapuys dared to suggest that he could not be sure of having any more children. "I need not give proofs to the contrary; you do not know all my secrets," Henry had snapped.
Is it then likely that the King would have suggested, or approved in advance, charges that would see him publicly branded a cuckold, with hints about him being impotent to boot? Even though, four years and two wives later, he was loudly to proclaim himself impotent with Anne of Cleves in the hope of freeing himself from their marriage, he would instruct his doctors to make sure it was publicly known that, although incapable with her, he was able to perform the s.e.x act with any other woman.
Cromwell would surely never have dared, acting on his own initiative, to instigate an inquiry into the Queen"s conduct without first ensuring that he could marshal credible and convincing evidence against her. He would have been aware that such accusations would proclaim his formidable master a cuckold, and irrevocably insult the Queen of England-for there was always the risk that Henry would take Anne"s part. Cromwell knew he had to make the most convincing case against Anne and present it to Henry as a fait accompli-the King, it has been said, was "bounced" into a decision75-but he would have known also that, in doing so, he was risking all. This was one of the rare occasions on which Cromwell, backed by the conservatives, forced Henry"s hand.76 Certainly Henry could not have ignored the things that people were alleging against Anne without compromising his own honor, and he could never have risked ignoring a plot to a.s.sa.s.sinate him. Certainly Henry could not have ignored the things that people were alleging against Anne without compromising his own honor, and he could never have risked ignoring a plot to a.s.sa.s.sinate him.77 Henry"s suspicious nature probably led him to jump to conclusions about his wife,78 but the things he had been told may retrospectively have struck a chord. He would have been aware of the shifting factions within his court, and that Cromwell had good reason to fear Anne. But he also knew he had married a woman who many believed had a sullied reputation; he himself evidently became disillusioned about her for various reasons; and her last miscarriage had been a warning that G.o.d did not smile on their union. Now he was being confronted by evidence from members of his wife"s household that she had played him false. It is hardly surprising that he wanted this investigated further. but the things he had been told may retrospectively have struck a chord. He would have been aware of the shifting factions within his court, and that Cromwell had good reason to fear Anne. But he also knew he had married a woman who many believed had a sullied reputation; he himself evidently became disillusioned about her for various reasons; and her last miscarriage had been a warning that G.o.d did not smile on their union. Now he was being confronted by evidence from members of his wife"s household that she had played him false. It is hardly surprising that he wanted this investigated further.
We will never know Henry"s true role in Anne"s fall.79 Traditionally, it has often been a.s.sumed that, enamored of Jane Seymour, he was desperate to get rid of Anne and seized the opportunity of doing so. This is the facile explanation that has been accepted by so many over the years, and the answer may be as simple as that. The a.s.sertion that the King, shocked at the birth of a malformed fetus and unable to accept that it could be his, "had his Master Secretary search for men, especially those with lecherous reputations, who could be charged with having committed s.e.xual crimes with his consort," Traditionally, it has often been a.s.sumed that, enamored of Jane Seymour, he was desperate to get rid of Anne and seized the opportunity of doing so. This is the facile explanation that has been accepted by so many over the years, and the answer may be as simple as that. The a.s.sertion that the King, shocked at the birth of a malformed fetus and unable to accept that it could be his, "had his Master Secretary search for men, especially those with lecherous reputations, who could be charged with having committed s.e.xual crimes with his consort,"80 falls on the simple fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the child Anne miscarried was deformed, and can therefore be dismissed. falls on the simple fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the child Anne miscarried was deformed, and can therefore be dismissed.
There is, of course, the possibility, which cannot lightly be dismissed,81 that Anne was guilty as charged, and that Cromwell had no trouble in finding evidence against her, and had indeed acted on genuine information laid before him. Had she been driven by her desperation for a son, and her fear that Henry would abandon her, to seek solace and the quickening of her womb in the arms of other men? How foolhardy that would have been, for there was every chance that either Henry, who was inordinately suspicious by nature, or one of her enemies, might have guessed what was going on. And logistically it would have been difficult for Anne to have illicit affairs. A queen was rarely alone and enjoyed little privacy. Had she indulged in a succession of amorous intrigues, there would surely have been witnesses. The lives of royalty were played out in public; kings and queens nearly always had attendants about them, even when they were in bed or on the closestool; their doors were guarded, and servants slept on pallets inside and outside their bedchambers. The only time they were alone was when they were making love, and even conjugal visits were conducted with due ceremony, with the King going in a torchlit procession to his wife"s bedchamber, the getting of royal heirs being a matter of state business. So it is hard to see how the Queen of England could have managed to keep any extramarital affairs a secret. that Anne was guilty as charged, and that Cromwell had no trouble in finding evidence against her, and had indeed acted on genuine information laid before him. Had she been driven by her desperation for a son, and her fear that Henry would abandon her, to seek solace and the quickening of her womb in the arms of other men? How foolhardy that would have been, for there was every chance that either Henry, who was inordinately suspicious by nature, or one of her enemies, might have guessed what was going on. And logistically it would have been difficult for Anne to have illicit affairs. A queen was rarely alone and enjoyed little privacy. Had she indulged in a succession of amorous intrigues, there would surely have been witnesses. The lives of royalty were played out in public; kings and queens nearly always had attendants about them, even when they were in bed or on the closestool; their doors were guarded, and servants slept on pallets inside and outside their bedchambers. The only time they were alone was when they were making love, and even conjugal visits were conducted with due ceremony, with the King going in a torchlit procession to his wife"s bedchamber, the getting of royal heirs being a matter of state business. So it is hard to see how the Queen of England could have managed to keep any extramarital affairs a secret.
It is also barely credible that Anne would have taken such risks. She was keenly aware that she was being watched-in February 1535, at a court banquet, looking strained and nervous, she had begged a French envoy to persuade the reluctant French King to consent to the marriage of his son to her daughter Elizabeth, "so that she may not be ruined and lost, for she sees herself very near to that, and in more grief and trouble than before her marriage." Looking anxiously at the King, she whispered that "she could not speak so amply to me as she would, for fear of where she was and of the eyes that were watching her countenance, not only of her husband, but of the lords with him. She told me she did not dare express her fears in writing, that she could not see me, and could no longer talk with me. I a.s.sure you that the lady is not at her ease." This was made manifest when she abruptly ceased speaking and walked away.82 Furthermore, Anne knew she was unpopular and that all that stood between her and her enemies was the powerful presence of the King. It is hard to believe that she would have undermined her own security by cuckolding Henry, or risked her crown and even her life for the sake of casual s.e.x with a string of lovers. One false step and she would be ruined. Furthermore, Anne knew she was unpopular and that all that stood between her and her enemies was the powerful presence of the King. It is hard to believe that she would have undermined her own security by cuckolding Henry, or risked her crown and even her life for the sake of casual s.e.x with a string of lovers. One false step and she would be ruined.
But desperate people do desperate things. The charges against Anne were so grossly overstated and in parts so manifestly invented, as to suggest that she was framed, but who is to say that they were not based on a modic.u.m of truth? Or that Henry VIII, an intelligent and shrewd man, was not duped by the lies of Cromwell and others into abandoning and destroying his wife, but was devastated by what appeared to be highly compelling evidence against her?
The King "dissembled his wrath," wrote Aless, but there were warning signs. On April 23, the day of Cromwell"s return to court and his interview with Henry, there took place at Greenwich the annual chapter meeting of the Order of the Garter, which was attended by the King and many lords, including the Duke of Norfolk; the Earl of Wiltshire, Anne"s father; Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, whom she had once hoped to marry; and Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond, Henry VIII"s b.a.s.t.a.r.d son. A vacancy had arisen for a new Garter knight, and Anne had asked that her brother Rochford be preferred, but to the latter"s "great disappointment," Henry chose instead Sir Nicholas Carew, Anne"s known enemy and the man who had been mentoring Jane Seymour. According to Chapuys, "the Concubine has not had sufficient influence to get it for her brother." The amba.s.sador interpreted this as a sign that the Boleyns were falling from favor, even though the King"s b.a.s.t.a.r.d son, the Duke of Richmond, had voted for Rochford,83 and it was only five days later that Henry, Lord Stafford, was thanking the Earl of Westmorland "for furthering my suit with the Queen," and it was only five days later that Henry, Lord Stafford, was thanking the Earl of Westmorland "for furthering my suit with the Queen,"84 which suggests that Anne"s influence was still perceived to be considerable. Furthermore, Henry had earlier promised Francis I that he would "remember" Carew when a Garter vacancy arose, so he perhaps felt bound to honor that. which suggests that Anne"s influence was still perceived to be considerable. Furthermore, Henry had earlier promised Francis I that he would "remember" Carew when a Garter vacancy arose, so he perhaps felt bound to honor that.85 Nevertheless, Carew"s appointment amounted to-and was seen as-a public snub to Anne. Nevertheless, Carew"s appointment amounted to-and was seen as-a public snub to Anne.
The very next day, April 24, at Westminster, the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas Audley, a man who was very much under the influence of Cromwell,86 appointed two special commissions of oyer and terminer, a legal procedure for hearing and judging pleas of the Crown, in use since the thirteenth century. Each set of commissioners and jurors const.i.tuted a grand jury, and in this case were required to set up courts to make diligent inquiry into all "betrayals, concealment of betrayals, rebellions, felonies, murders, homicides, riots, unlawful a.s.semblies, insurrections, extortions, oppressions, offenses, misprisions (of treason), falsehoods, deceptions, confederacies, conspiracies, and misdemeanors" committed in the counties of Middles.e.x and Kent, and to hear and determine the same according to law. appointed two special commissions of oyer and terminer, a legal procedure for hearing and judging pleas of the Crown, in use since the thirteenth century. Each set of commissioners and jurors const.i.tuted a grand jury, and in this case were required to set up courts to make diligent inquiry into all "betrayals, concealment of betrayals, rebellions, felonies, murders, homicides, riots, unlawful a.s.semblies, insurrections, extortions, oppressions, offenses, misprisions (of treason), falsehoods, deceptions, confederacies, conspiracies, and misdemeanors" committed in the counties of Middles.e.x and Kent, and to hear and determine the same according to law.87 In other words, their function was to determine if there was a case and whether it should proceed. Such commissions were rare and only inst.i.tuted in serious cases, of which there were only seventeen in Henry VIII"s reign. In other words, their function was to determine if there was a case and whether it should proceed. Such commissions were rare and only inst.i.tuted in serious cases, of which there were only seventeen in Henry VIII"s reign.88 That in itself, together with the specifying of the counties in which the Queen"s alleged offenses were said to have been committed, shows that this commission was specifically appointed to examine the evidence against her. That in itself, together with the specifying of the counties in which the Queen"s alleged offenses were said to have been committed, shows that this commission was specifically appointed to examine the evidence against her.
In most cases of oyer and terminer, a commission was only issued after the accused had been arrested. In this case, however, it was issued beforehand, probably to avoid the usual delay of about eleven days, which suggests that Cromwell, fearing (with good reason, given Henry and Anne"s past history) that the King might succ.u.mb again to his "great folly" over Anne and dispute the evidence, was aware of the need to secure a speedy conviction.89 It was the duty of the sheriff of the county to select the jurors, but the list of those chosen on this occasion suggests that Cromwell had brought some pressure to bear on officialdom.90 These commissions were "virtually a death warrant for Anne." These commissions were "virtually a death warrant for Anne."91 The names of the worthies who served on these grand juries are preserved in the National Archives in the Baga de Secretis Baga de Secretis (Bag of Secrets, the collection of records of the King"s Bench and of state trial). These jurors were men of standing, sworn to uphold justice, who were no doubt resolved to do what was expected of them. To avoid bias, instructions were issued that no juror should be related to the defendants. (Bag of Secrets, the collection of records of the King"s Bench and of state trial). These jurors were men of standing, sworn to uphold justice, who were no doubt resolved to do what was expected of them. To avoid bias, instructions were issued that no juror should be related to the defendants.92 The inquiry was not made public, nor were the persons most nearly concerned-the suspected traitors-made aware of it. All was to be kept secret until sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution had been gathered. The inquiry was not made public, nor were the persons most nearly concerned-the suspected traitors-made aware of it. All was to be kept secret until sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution had been gathered.93 The Middles.e.x commission was addressed to Lord Chancellor Audley and others, the Kent one to the Duke of Norfolk and others. Audley"s name appears only on the former, but both commissions consisted of Cromwell himself; Anne"s uncle, the Duke of Norfolk; the Duke of Suffolk; Anne"s own father, Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire; John de Vere, Earl of Oxford; Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland; Robert Radcliffe, Earl of Suss.e.x; William, Lord Sandys; Sir William FitzWilliam; Sir William Paulet; Sir John FitzJames; Sir John Baldwin; Sir Richard Lister; Sir John Port; Sir John Spelman; Sir Walter Luke; Sir Anthony FitzHerbert; Sir Thomas Englefield; and Sir William Sh.e.l.ley, who may have been a.s.sociated with Nan Cobham. The jurors of Middles.e.x comprised eight esquires ent.i.tled to bear arms, and forty gentlemen, while those of Kent were three soldiers, six esquires, and sixteen gentlemen. All were described as "discreet and sufficient persons."94 Several had been with the King at the Garter chapter the previous day. Several had been with the King at the Garter chapter the previous day.95 Given the choice of jurors, how likely was it that this investigation would be impartial? The Lord Chancellor was a staunch King"s man from first to last. Anne had long since alienated Norfolk by her arrogance, and Norfolk may have had ambitions of his own; his daughter, Mary Howard, was married to the King"s b.a.s.t.a.r.d son, the Duke of Richmond, and there had been serious moves in the past to have Richmond legitimated and declared Henry"s heir. If Anne were to be put away and Elizabeth b.a.s.t.a.r.dized, then Norfolk"s daughter might yet be made a queen.96 Suffolk was the King"s brother-in-law and close friend, and Anne"s enemy. Oxford was also a friend of the King, as was FitzWilliam, who was much of an age with Henry, had been brought up with him, and had served him faithfully ever since; as we have seen, FitzWilliam would be instrumental in orchestrating Anne"s fall, and was related to several people who were most nearly concerned. In 1537 he would be created Earl of Southampton and made Lord High Admiral in recognition of his services to the King.
Wiltshire, Anne"s father, is not known to have attempted to defend either of his children, and was probably living in fear for his own neck at this time. Westmorland, a privy councillor who attended to matters of law, had a long record of loyal service to Henry VIII, as did Suss.e.x, who had received his earldom for supporting the King in the divorce, and long enjoyed his master"s confidence. Lord Sandys was a great favorite of Henry. Paulet, a man much trusted by the King, was to serve the Crown faithfully through four reigns.
Of the judges on the commission, FitzJames, a former Attorney General, had been Chief Justice of the King"s Bench and Chief Baron of the Exchequer, offices now held by his fellow commissioner, Sir Richard Lister. FitzJames had conducted the prosecution of the Duke of Buckingham in 1521, and was one of the judges who condemned More and Fisher in 1535, as had Baldwin, who was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and enjoyed a similarly distinguished legal career. Port was a justice of the King"s Bench, who had served on the commission of oyer and terminer that brought More and Fisher to trial. Sir John Spelman, whose Commonplace Book offers unique insights into the legal process against Anne Boleyn, was another judge of the King"s Bench, and had also been one of the commissioners who tried More and Fisher. A discreet courtier, he was held in esteem by Cromwell, and in April 1537, in return for his service on the grand juries, he was granted the manor of Gracys in Norfolk.97 Sir Walter Luke was also a justice of the King"s Bench. FitzHerbert, Englefield, and Sh.e.l.ley were justices of the Court of Common Pleas, and the former had also been a member of the tribunal that condemned More. Sh.e.l.ley, no reformist, was not one of Cromwell"s favorites, but nevertheless took part, on the Crown"s behalf, in all the important state trials of the period. Sir Walter Luke was also a justice of the King"s Bench. FitzHerbert, Englefield, and Sh.e.l.ley were justices of the Court of Common Pleas, and the former had also been a member of the tribunal that condemned More. Sh.e.l.ley, no reformist, was not one of Cromwell"s favorites, but nevertheless took part, on the Crown"s behalf, in all the important state trials of the period.
Of the Kent jurors, Edmund Page, the MP for Rochester, had opposed the Act of Restraint of Appeals, one of the crucial landmarks of Reformation legislation, which had been aimed at preventing Katherine of Aragon from appealing her case to Rome, so he was not likely to be sympathetic to Anne Boleyn. Nor, surely, were two Middles.e.x jurors, Giles Heron, Sir Thomas More"s son-in-law, and Sir Giles Alington, who had married More"s stepdaughter.98 Alington was under government suspicion because of his link to More, and his presence on the grand jury suggests that his loyalty was being tested. Alington was under government suspicion because of his link to More, and his presence on the grand jury suggests that his loyalty was being tested.
No one could say that these men were not competent to examine the evidence against the Queen, for they included among their number the premier lords and chief judges of the land. Yet all had prospered under Henry VIII and enjoyed his favor, or needed to prove their loyalty, and therefore not one was likely to risk his prosperity and status by incurring his displeasure. Moreover, the jurors were no doubt in some awe of the n.o.bles and law lords on the commission, and anxious to take their cue from them. Nearly every petty juror was a servant of the Crown, a creature of Cromwell, and no friend to Anne.99 Yet for all that, the outcome of the inquiry was by no means a foregone conclusion; had it been, and were there any truly d.a.m.ning evidence at this stage, it is highly unlikely that the King would have appeared in public with Anne at the Greenwich jousts on May 1. And there is no evidence that the jurors had any knowledge of the King"s will in this matter, or that they were suborned into submission. Yet for all that, the outcome of the inquiry was by no means a foregone conclusion; had it been, and were there any truly d.a.m.ning evidence at this stage, it is highly unlikely that the King would have appeared in public with Anne at the Greenwich jousts on May 1. And there is no evidence that the jurors had any knowledge of the King"s will in this matter, or that they were suborned into submission.
The appointing of such commissions was routine, and although the opening words announced that "our lord the King has entrusted this case" to his "most esteemed and faithful" lords and "relatives" named in these doc.u.ments, it has been suggested that Henry VIII may not have been privy to what was afoot.100 He was not at Westminster on the day the commission was appointed, but at Greenwich. He was not at Westminster on the day the commission was appointed, but at Greenwich.101 His signature was not needed and the necessary doc.u.ments could be issued by the Chancery in his name on the instructions of the Lord Chancellor. Yet Henry His signature was not needed and the necessary doc.u.ments could be issued by the Chancery in his name on the instructions of the Lord Chancellor. Yet Henry had had authorized Cromwell to investigate further, and several of the highest-ranking n.o.bles in the land were appointed to the grand juries. The inst.i.tution of such a commission was a significant event. authorized Cromwell to investigate further, and several of the highest-ranking n.o.bles in the land were appointed to the grand juries. The inst.i.tution of such a commission was a significant event.102 With a compelling vested interest in the outcome, it is highly unlikely that Henry VIII would not have been aware of what was going on. With a compelling vested interest in the outcome, it is highly unlikely that Henry VIII would not have been aware of what was going on.
Outwardly, though, Henry-a notoriously great dissembler-was still giving every impression that he intended to continue in his marriage. He was planning to take Anne with him to Dover and Calais (then an English possession) at the end of the month, the trip having been arranged some weeks earlier, with a view to the King inspecting the new harbor and fortifications at Dover.103 At this time, he was preoccupied with making a decision as to whether to ally himself with Charles V or Francis I, and on April 25, in a letter sent to Richard Pate, to his amba.s.sador in Rome, and to Gardiner and Wallop, his envoys in France, he instructed them to oppose the demands of the Emperor because of "the likelihood and appearance that G.o.d will send us heirs male [by] our most dear and most entirely beloved wife, the Queen." At this time, he was preoccupied with making a decision as to whether to ally himself with Charles V or Francis I, and on April 25, in a letter sent to Richard Pate, to his amba.s.sador in Rome, and to Gardiner and Wallop, his envoys in France, he instructed them to oppose the demands of the Emperor because of "the likelihood and appearance that G.o.d will send us heirs male [by] our most dear and most entirely beloved wife, the Queen."104 Taken at face value, this suggests that Henry was still sleeping with Anne, and it could even imply that she was pregnant again, which is highly unlikely. Taken at face value, this suggests that Henry was still sleeping with Anne, and it could even imply that she was pregnant again, which is highly unlikely.105 We should not read too much into him publicly referring to her in such affectionate terms, because he was merely using the conventional style employed by royalty when writing of their spouses. We should not read too much into him publicly referring to her in such affectionate terms, because he was merely using the conventional style employed by royalty when writing of their spouses.
On April 25, when that letter was composed, the council sat all day and late into the night, almost certainly discussing the crisis over foreign alliances, and perhaps debating the fate of the Queen.106 Anne had her daughter with her at Greenwich; among the final entries in her household accounts, relating to April 28, were payments for silver and gold fringe and gold and silver b.u.t.tons for a saddle for the King, two leading reins "with great b.u.t.tons and long ta.s.sels" for Princess Elizabeth, and-the last entry of all-"a cap of taffeta with a caul of damask gold."107 But such innocent and normally enjoyable maternal pleasures were undoubtedly overshadowed by a sense of impending disaster, for the Queen, her wits sharpened by worry and fear, had already somehow sensed or learned that something sinister was afoot. With her household being closely interrogated, how could she, with her clever, sharp mind, have failed to suspect what was going on? And of course, if she were guilty, there was even more cause for apprehension. Her father, Wiltshire, had perhaps got wind of something ominous at meetings of the Privy Council, But such innocent and normally enjoyable maternal pleasures were undoubtedly overshadowed by a sense of impending disaster, for the Queen, her wits sharpened by worry and fear, had already somehow sensed or learned that something sinister was afoot. With her household being closely interrogated, how could she, with her clever, sharp mind, have failed to suspect what was going on? And of course, if she were guilty, there was even more cause for apprehension. Her father, Wiltshire, had perhaps got wind of something ominous at meetings of the Privy Council,108 or maybe, in private, the King had given her cause to be fearful, or maybe, in private, the King had given her cause to be fearful, That Anne already feared something ill might befall her, and realized that Elizabeth would be left in a very vulnerable position,109 is clear from her seeking out, on or soon after Wednesday, April 26 ("not six days before her apprehension"), her chaplain of two years, Matthew Parker. Parker was thirty-two and one of a group of Cambridge reformists that included the future martyr, Hugh Latimer. He was a moderate man, a great evangelical preacher and an independent thinker who despised religious intolerance, and those qualities had earned him the admiration of the like-minded Anne Boleyn, whose chaplain he had reluctantly become a year or so earlier. The King liked him too-in 1537 he would make Parker one of his own chaplains-which is probably why Anne felt there was some hope of Parker being able to carry out her wishes. What he stood for and believed in was what she wanted for her daughter. is clear from her seeking out, on or soon after Wednesday, April 26 ("not six days before her apprehension"), her chaplain of two years, Matthew Parker. Parker was thirty-two and one of a group of Cambridge reformists that included the future martyr, Hugh Latimer. He was a moderate man, a great evangelical preacher and an independent thinker who despised religious intolerance, and those qualities had earned him the admiration of the like-minded Anne Boleyn, whose chaplain he had reluctantly become a year or so earlier. The King liked him too-in 1537 he would make Parker one of his own chaplains-which is probably why Anne felt there was some hope of Parker being able to carry out her wishes. What he stood for and believed in was what she wanted for her daughter.
Anne charged Parker with the care of Elizabeth, should anything happen to her. She did not reveal what she feared, but it is likely to have been that, in the event of her marriage was annulled, she might be forbidden to see her child, or Elizabeth might be b.a.s.t.a.r.dized. She can have had little idea of what actually would befall her.
Her plea made a profound impression on the chaplain. Years later, when Elizabeth was queen and he had become her first Archbishop of Canterbury, he would dedicate himself to her service and tell her secretary, William Cecil, that "he would fain serve his sovereign lady in more respects than his allegiance, since he cannot forget what words Her Grace"s mother said to him not six days before her apprehension."110 Unfortunately for posterity, he did not say what those words were. Unfortunately for posterity, he did not say what those words were.
On April 27 writs summoning Parliament-and a letter commanding the Archbishop of Canterbury from his palace at Knole-were issued,111 paving the way for any legal process against the Queen to be formally endorsed. paving the way for any legal process against the Queen to be formally endorsed.112 It was reported to Lord Lisle the following day that "the council has sat every day at Greenwich," while Chapuys says that on Tuesday, April 25, the councillors "a.s.sembled in the morning till nine or ten at night;" their business was said to have been connected "upon certain letters brought by the French amba.s.sador," It was reported to Lord Lisle the following day that "the council has sat every day at Greenwich," while Chapuys says that on Tuesday, April 25, the councillors "a.s.sembled in the morning till nine or ten at night;" their business was said to have been connected "upon certain letters brought by the French amba.s.sador,"113 although again, it is more than likely that the matter of the Queen was also extensively discussed. although again, it is more than likely that the matter of the Queen was also extensively discussed.
Chapuys was to reveal, on April 29, that Dr. Richard Sampson, Dean of the Chapel Royal, "has been for the last four days continually with Cromwell. One of his servants has told me he is to be sent as amba.s.sador to the Emperor, which I do not believe, as Cromwell has said nothing about it."114 Dr. Sampson was one of the leading experts on canon law, and Cromwell may have been discussing with him possible grounds for annulling the King"s marriage to Anne Boleyn. Sampson would be appointed Bishop of Chichester in June 1536, possibly as a reward for the advice he had given Cromwell at this time, Dr. Sampson was one of the leading experts on canon law, and Cromwell may have been discussing with him possible grounds for annulling the King"s marriage to Anne Boleyn. Sampson would be appointed Bishop of Chichester in June 1536, possibly as a reward for the advice he had given Cromwell at this time,115 and for acting as the King"s proctor when the case went before Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury. and for acting as the King"s proctor when the case went before Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
On April 28, at dinner, Chapuys was told by Geoffrey Pole, the younger brother of Lord Montagu, that someone-possibly Cromwell-had asked John Stokesley, Bishop of London, "if the King could abandon the Concubine"-that is, have their marriage annulled. Stokesley was close to the King: he had long been a councillor and chaplain to Henry, had productively supported him in the annulment of his first marriage and the establishment of the royal supremacy, and had christened Princess Elizabeth in 1533. But his reply was dismissive: "He would not give any opinion to anyone but the King himself," he said, "and before doing so he would know the King"s own inclination." Chapuys thought he meant "to intimate that the King might leave the Concubine, but that, knowing his fickleness, he would not put himself in danger," presumably of public scandal and disapprobation. The amba.s.sador added that, although "the bishop was the princ.i.p.al cause and instrument of the first divorce, of which he heartily repents, he would still more gladly promote this, since the said Concubine and all her race are such abominable Lutherans." But since it was uncertain which way the wind was blowing, "the bishop would not risk the effects of the Concubine"s displeasure if there were a chance of her remaining in favor."116 Speculation about a nullity suit was rife. On May 2, Chapuys reported that the King, "as I have been for some days informed by good authority, had determined to abandon [Anne]; for there were witnesses testifying that another marriage pa.s.sed nine years before had been made and fully consummated between her and the Earl of Northumberland, and the King would have declared himself earlier, but that someone of his council gave him to understand that he could not separate himself from the Concubine without tacitly confirming not only the first marriage, but also, what he most fears, the authority of the Pope."117 Anne had had had an affair with the Earl of Northumberland-of which more later-and the possibility of a binding precontract between them was without doubt raised at this time, and was perhaps connected in some way with Bishop Stokesley being asked to comment on the King"s prospects of securing an annulment; for Chapuys would not otherwise have known of Anne"s affair with the earl, which had ended in 1523, six years before he arrived in England. But it happened thirteen years earlier, not nine, and there had been no marriage, so his source was probably not someone who was as well-informed as, say, Cromwell would have been. had an affair with the Earl of Northumberland-of which more later-and the possibility of a binding precontract between them was without doubt raised at this time, and was perhaps connected in some way with Bishop Stokesley being asked to comment on the King"s prospects of securing an annulment; for Chapuys would not otherwise have known of Anne"s affair with the earl, which had ended in 1523, six years before he arrived in England. But it happened thirteen years earlier, not nine, and there had been no marriage, so his source was probably not someone who was as well-informed as, say, Cromwell would have been.
The fact that an annulment was being discussed at this stage perhaps suggests that the King and his advisers were by no means certain there would be sufficient evidence to prosecute the Queen, and that some felt a divorce might be an easier means of removing her. However, it is more likely, in view of what was shortly to transpire, that Cromwell, and possibly the King himself, antic.i.p.ating that Anne would soon be a convicted traitor, were looking for means to have her marriage dissolved and her daughter disinherited.
As he was to reveal to the Emperor on May 2, Chapuys wrote to Lady Mary at this time, informing her of this momentous development and claiming that he himself had been instrumental in bringing it about, telling her that he hoped to bring the matter to a successful conclusion. He added that Elizabeth would almost certainly now be excluded from the succession, and that Mary herself might be restored, albeit after any children that Jane Seymour might bear the King. Mary wasted no sympathy on the woman who had for so long cast a malign shadow over her life, and replied to Chapuys that it was her wish that he should help, and not hinder, any divorce proceedings: he was to "promote the matter, especially for the discharge of the conscience of the King her father. She did not care a straw whether her father had lawful heirs or not, though such might take away her crown, nor for all the injuries done either to herself or the Queen her mother, which, for the honor of G.o.d, she pardoned everyone most heartily." All Mary cared about now was that Anne be gotten rid of. Guided by her, Chapuys "used several means to promote the matter, both with Cromwell and with others," with a view to securing Anne"s removal and making Jane queen.118 Sir Nicholas Carew in particular was proving indefatigable. The amba.s.sador observed, "It will not be the fault of this Master of the Horse if the Concubine, although his cousin, be not dismounted. He continually counsels Mistress Seymour and other conspirators to make an a.s.sault; and only four days ago, he and some persons of the [Privy] Chamber sent to tell the Princess [Mary] to be of good cheer, for shortly the opposite party would put water in their wine, the King being already as sick and tired of the Concubine as he could be."119 We might infer from this that Carew was aware of the formal proceedings against Anne. We might infer from this that Carew was aware of the formal proceedings against Anne.120 Sir Francis Bryan too, by his own admission in June 1536, was often involved at this time in secret discussions with Mary"s supporters in the Privy Chamber about a new marriage for his master the King; among them were Sir Anthony Browne and Sir Thomas Cheyney, both of whom were to be proactive in bringing down Anne Boleyn. Bryan also at this time visited a fellow scholar, Henry Parker, Lord Morley, the father of Lady Rochford, traveling to Morley"s house at Great Hallingbury, Ess.e.x, possibly in a bid to seek his support. Morley was on friendly terms with Cromwell, Sir Francis Bryan too, by his own admission in June 1536, was often involved at this time in secret discussions with Mary"s supporters in the Privy Chamber about a new marriage for his master the King; among them were Sir Anthony Browne and Sir Thomas Cheyney, both of whom were to be proactive in bringing down Anne Boleyn. Bryan also at this time visited a fellow scholar, Henry Parker, Lord Morley, the father of Lady Rochford, traveling to Morley"s house at Great Hallingbury, Ess.e.x, possibly in a bid to seek his support. Morley was on friendly terms with Cromwell,121 and his young kinsman, another Henry Parker, was one of Bryan"s servants. and his young kinsman, another Henry Parker, was one of Bryan"s servants.122 Outwardly, though, life was going on as normal. The King was still planning to take the Queen with him to Calais on May 4,123 departing for Dover (where Anne was expecting Lady Lisle to receive her) immediately after the jousts planned for May Day. Before boarding their ship, they were to inspect the fortifications at Dover. On their previous visit to Calais, in October 1532, three months before their marriage, Henry and Anne had just become lovers, with interconnecting bedchambers at the Exchequer Palace. Did Anne dare now hope that, on revisiting that palace, Henry"s former love for her might be rekindled? departing for Dover (where Anne was expecting Lady Lisle to receive her) immediately after the jousts planned for May Day. Before boarding their ship, they were to inspect the fortifications at Dover. On their previous visit to Calais, in October 1532, three months before their marriage, Henry and Anne had just become lovers, with interconnecting bedchambers at the Exchequer Palace. Did Anne dare now hope that, on revisiting that palace, Henry"s former love for her might be rekindled?
If so, it was a vain hope. By April 29, as preparations for the visit were going ahead, the Privy Council had formally been informed of the planned judicial proceedings against the Queen, and rumors of her imminent disgrace began circulating at court.
CHAPTER 5.
Unlawful Lechery.
Meanwhile, Cromwell and his colleagues had been carrying out their master"s orders. Spies were already at work in the Queen"s household, "watching her privy apartments night and day" and "tempting her porter and serving men with bribes; there is nothing which they do not promise the ladies of her bedchamber. They affirm that the King hates the Queen because she has not presented him with an heir to the realm, nor was there any prospect of her so doing."1 "In most secret sort, certain persons of the Privy Chamber and others of [the Queen"s] side were examined."2 The inquiries that were made in the Queen"s household must by now have alerted several of those questioned to what was going on, and it may be that some of those who served Anne had old scores to settle. The inquiries that were made in the Queen"s household must by now have alerted several of those questioned to what was going on, and it may be that some of those who served Anne had old scores to settle.
In the course of these investigations, the councillors questioned "many other witnesses,"3 including Lady Rochford, Anne"s sister-in-law; "in which examination[s]," Cromwell later wrote, "the matter appeared so evident, that besides that crime with the accidents, there broke out a certain conspiracy of the King"s death, which extended so far that all we that had the examination of it quaked at the danger His Grace was in." including Lady Rochford, Anne"s sister-in-law; "in which examination[s]," Cromwell later wrote, "the matter appeared so evident, that besides that crime with the accidents, there broke out a certain conspiracy of the King"s death, which extended so far that all we that had the examination of it quaked at the danger His Grace was in."4 Anne, it was alleged, had not only taken lovers, but conspired with them to murder Henry VIII so she could marry one of them and rule England in her infant daughter"s name. Anne, it was alleged, had not only taken lovers, but conspired with them to murder Henry VIII so she could marry one of them and rule England in her infant daughter"s name.
Plotting the death of the King was high treason, the most heinous of all crimes, for the sovereign was the Lord"s anointed, divinely appointed to rule. "Kings of England," Henry VIII once told his judges, "never had any superior but G.o.d." The royal prerogative was regarded as the will of G.o.d expressing itself through the will of the King. Thus anyone who offended against the King was punished with the greatest severity. Here was the capital charge that Cromwell needed, yet its very incongruity argues that it was merely a device for getting rid of Anne. For it is patently clear that Anne reveled in being a queen, a rank she had aspired to for many years, and it is therefore highly unlikely that she would ever have contemplated throwing away her status, her greatness, and her power, in order to marry a man who was far below her in rank and could give her nothing on a par with what the King had to bestow. Never mind the fact that the unpopular Anne was hardly likely to have intrigued to murder the King, who was her chief protector and defender-the death of Henry would have been "absolutely fatal" to her.5 Since 1536 there has always been a strong suspicion that Cromwell threw everything he could against Anne Boleyn, including the useful ploy of character a.s.sa.s.sination, in order to get rid of her. It is probably no coincidence that her alleged crimes were so heinous as to inspire universal shock and revulsion, which would preclude anyone taking up her cause. That way, the King would emerge from this the victim of a woman"s wickedness rather than a man who changed wives at a whim; and as such, he would earn the sympathy of all.
Master Secretary now constructed what was almost certainly a convincing case against the Queen, in which she was to be charged with adultery with five men-one her own brother, another a lowly musician-and conspiring regicide.
The five men who over the next few days would be arrested for committing treason with the Queen were George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford; Sir Henry Norris; Sir Francis Weston; Sir William Brereton; and Mark Smeaton.
George Boleyn was probably the youngest of the three surviving Boleyn siblings, having been no older than twenty-seven when he was preferred to the Privy Council in 1529, the year his father was created Earl of Wiltshire and he himself was given the courtesy t.i.tle Viscount Rochford.6 His sister"s connection with the King had brought him royal favor, rapid preferment, lucrative offices-including Gentleman of the Privy Chamber (1528), Constable of Dover, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and Master of the Buckhounds-and a career as a leading diplomat, as well as the palace of New Hall, which Henry VIII had renamed Beaulieu, in Ess.e.x; and he was not only one of the two n.o.blemen of the King"s Privy Chamber, but also the foremost member of Queen Anne"s court. Both before and after her marriage, she had gathered around her young people with wit, charm, and intelligence, who could be relied upon to ensure that life was never dull, and Lord Rochford was at the core of this inner circle. There was a close bond between Anne and George, who shared-among other things-a love of poetry, George having "the art in meter and verse to make pleasant ditties." His sister"s connection with the King had brought him royal favor, rapid preferment, lucrative offices-including Gentleman of the Privy Chamber (1528), Constable of Dover, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and Master of the Buckhounds-and a career as a leading diplomat, as well as the palace of New Hall, which Henry VIII had renamed Beaulieu, in Ess.e.x; and he was not only one of the two n.o.blemen of the King"s Privy Chamber, but also the foremost member of Queen Anne"s court. Both before and after her marriage, she had gathered around her young people with wit, charm, and intelligence, who could be relied upon to ensure that life was never dull, and Lord Rochford was at the core of this inner circle. There was a close bond between Anne and George, who shared-among other things-a love of poetry, George having "the art in meter and verse to make pleasant ditties."7 The poet Richard Smith wrote admiringly that "Rochford clamb the stately throne which muses hold in Helicon." The poet Richard Smith wrote admiringly that "Rochford clamb the stately throne which muses hold in Helicon."8 Brother and sister were also fervent for religious reform-George"s views, inferred from the French literature he imported, were bordering on the heretical-and both hated and despised Lady Mary. When Katherine of Aragon died, George said "it was a pity" that she "did not keep company with her mother."9 George Boleyn had been at court since his early teens, if not before. He married Jane Parker, daughter of Henry, Lord Morley, late in 1524. In looks he was an Adonis,10 in character promiscuous. George Cavendish, Wolsey"s former usher, who had no love for the Boleyn faction that brought his master to ruin, wrote candidly of Rochford"s "sensual appet.i.te": in character promiscuous. George Cavendish, Wolsey"s former usher, who had no love for the Boleyn faction that brought his master to ruin, wrote candidly of Rochford"s "sensual appet.i.te":11 My life not chaste, my living b.e.s.t.i.a.l; I forced widows, maidens I did deflower.
All was one to me, I spared none at all, My appet.i.te was all women to devour, My study was both day and hour, My unlawful lechery, how I might it fulfil, Sparing no woman to have on her my will.
This strongly implies that Rochford omitted even to stop at rape, and-there is no other interpretation that can be placed on Cavendish"s use of the word "b.e.s.t.i.a.l"-that he indulged in b.u.g.g.e.ry too.12 Cavendish also refers to Rochford being unable to resist "this unlawful deed," while: Cavendish also refers to Rochford being unable to resist "this unlawful deed," while: ... to declare my life in every effect, Shame restraineth me the plains to confess, Lest the abomination would all the world infect: It is so vile, so detestable in words to express, For which by the law condemned I am doubtless, And for my desert, justly judged to be dead.
This points at something far worse to contemporary eyes than the lechery to which Rochford, as personified in these verses, had had openly confessed, or the crime of treasonable incest for which he would publicly be condemned. It may of course refer to the "lewd adultery" that Cavendish"s Rochford asks people to take example from, yet it is also likely that Cavendish is alluding to illegal s.e.xual practices such as b.u.g.g.e.ry (with women or men) and even h.o.m.os.e.xuality, then regarded as odious sins against G.o.d, with both being capital crimes. openly confessed, or the crime of treasonable incest for which he would publicly be condemned. It may of course refer to the "lewd adultery" that Cavendish"s Rochford asks people to take example from, yet it is also likely that Cavendish is alluding to illegal s.e.xual practices such as b.u.g.g.e.ry (with women or men) and even h.o.m.os.e.xuality, then regarded as odious sins against G.o.d, with both being capital crimes.13 Rochford himself, in his dying speech, was to confess he had sinned more shamefully than could be imagined, and that he had known no man so evil. Rochford himself, in his dying speech, was to confess he had sinned more shamefully than could be imagined, and that he had known no man so evil.14 As he had stoutly denied charges of incest, it is likely that he was referring to other s.e.xual practices then regarded as perversions. As he had stoutly denied charges of incest, it is likely that he was referring to other s.e.xual practices then regarded as perversions.
Rochford"s rep