Category: Boleyn Family

Anne Boleyn Returns to England

17/1/2019

It was in January of 1522 that Anne Boleyn left the French court of Claude Queen of France and returned to England on the order of her father Thomas Boleyn. She sailed from Calais and took up her place in the court of Henry VIII as lady in waiting to Catherine of Aragon. She had followed her sister Mary who had returned to England three years earlier to take up her post as maid-of-honour to Henry's queen.

Initially, Thomas Boleyn had planned to marry Anne to her cousin, James Butler, but this did not come to fruition.

On her arrival in court Anne soon discovered that Mary had become Henry VIII's mistress, however, she soon realised how easily Henry disregarded his mistresses, this would stand her in good stead when Henry began to pay attention to her.
There is a difference of opinion on the subject of the early relationship between Anne and Henry some historians claim that Anne was a schemer who set her heart on being queen, others that they were genuinely in love. Whatever the reason, what I fail to understand is if he loved her so much, how could he believe the vile rumours that were going about in court and then literally leave her to her fate.

Unfortunately, the true story has been lost to myth and to romantic legend but the real truth about this episode in history is that the people if England were subjected to a reign of terror for centuries.

You can purchase the above print of Anne at my Etsy shop at

www.etsy.com/uk/listing/614496839/anne-boleyn-illustrated-print-without?ref=shop_home_active_9

0 Comments

Execution of Richard Roose

4/4/2017

3 Comments

5th April 1531

In 1531, Richard Roose was a cook in the home of John Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester, who in way of a prank, (he claimed) served his employer and other guests porridge which he had laced with a laxative. After the meal all of those who ate Roose's offerings became ill and two died leading to his conviction of poisoning with murderous intent.

It has been suggested, although there was no proof to back up the claim, that Roose had been paid by someone in the Boleyn family to poison Fisher, an opponent of Henry VIII’s church reforms and his plan to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.

Roose was arrested and was denied the chance to plead his case. Henry VIII's Act of Poisoning was quickly passed making murder by poisoning high treason that was punishable by boiling. Was this dreadful punishment specifically created because Roose was a cook?

Death by hanging was the most commonly used form of capital punishment for those convicted of murder and those convicted of high treason, as was Roose, were punished by hanging, drawing and quartering, so why did Richard Roose not receive either one of those punishments? I am having trouble seeing poisoning as any more abominable than any other act of murder that the perpetrator needs to be executed in such a specifically horrible way, the suggestion was that poisoning was a particularly wicked and despicable crime and that Henry's act would deter other would be poisoners - why suddenly apply the eye for an eye theory, why not just hang the man and be done with it? It seems a bit strange to me?

Richard Roose met his horrific death, boiled in front of a large crowd at Smithfield in London on this day in 1531, his case was mentioned in the chronicle of the Grey Friars of London

"This yere was a coke boylyd in a cauderne in Smythfeld for he wolde a powsyned the bishop of Rochester Fycher
with dyvers of hys servanttes, and he was lockyd in a chayne and pullyd up and downe with a gybbyt at dyvers tymes
tyll he was dede.

John Fisher would survive his murderous cook by just four years, he, just as Roose, was one of many who got in the way of Henry's grand plans. He was executed for treason for refusing to take the Oath of Succession and accept the king as the Supreme Head of the Church of England.

3 Comments

Death of Thomas Boleyn

12/3/2017

0 Comments

What was Thomas Boleyn thinking when he was asked to inquire into allegations of sexual misconduct and witchcraft of his daughter or when his son was arrested and charged with incest? What was going through his mind in the May of 1536 as he listened when Anne was charged with "entertaining malice against the King" and having sexual relations with five men of the king's court. Did Thomas feel a sense of guilt as he sat in judgement on Anne and as he watched as her uncle, Thomas Howard, declared her guilty?

These questions cannot be answered of course, we can only wonder what was going through his mind in the days before Anne's trial. He may have wondered what would have happened if his great grandfather, Geoffrey Boleyn, the yeoman farmer from Norfolk, had discouraged his son William's move to London or talked to him about city life and how ambition could lead to greed and tragedy. History doesn't tell us Thomas Boleyn's thoughts, but it does tell us what he knew, and that was that he owed his royal favour to the fascination Henry VIII had for both is his daughters. Historians sees George, Anne and Mary Boleyn two ways, either victim or villain, but most don't write kindly of Thomas Boleyn.

Who was to blame for the way things turned out for the Boleyn family? Was Thomas Boleyn a willing participant or was he just a pawn in a greater game? Was banishment punishment enough when both his children lost their lives?

Thomas Boleyn stood to one side and let the axe come down on the necks of his two children, he had made a calculated decision, he didn't have the wool pulled over his eyes by his brother in law as is often argued. What I will say though, like many, he was blinded by the glittering golden world of the Tudor court and the charismatic bully at it head.

After the executions of Anne and George Boleyn, Boleyn lost the office of lord privy seal to Thomas Cromwell, and over the next couple of years he lost all his titles apart from his earldom, which he had no heir to inherit - justice some might say.

There are so many questions left unanswered running up to the death of Thomas Boleyn. But did he die a broken man as you might expect is one that can be answered - no he didn't, his life was not in ruins, for he was not long out of favour. He was back in the royal court by the 15th October 1537 and is recorded as carrying bowls of silver and gilt at the christening of the future Edward V, the son of the woman who replaced his daughter. However, he only survived another year, his death is recorded as the 12th/13th March 1539. He is buried in the family church on the Hever estate.

0 Comments

The Indictment of Queen Anne Boleyn

12/5/2016

2 Comments

Anne Boleyn was accused of adultery with five men, including her brother George whose wife, Lady Rochford, testified that her husband had been 'intimate' with Anne. On the 10th May 1536 a jury decided that Anne and George Boleyn along with Sir Henry Norris, Sir William Brereton, Mark Smeaton and Sir Francis Weston should be indicted and stand trial.

George's marriage had been a arranged, and was thought not to be a happy one. Jane is said to have hated both her husband and her sister in law and her words although untruths, carried a lot of weight.

Extract from the indictment listing the charges against Anne Boleyn (catalogue reference: KB 8/9, f. 9v)

Detail of alleged incest between Anne and George Boleyn (catalogue reference: KB 8/9, f. 10r)

It has never been proved it was Jane who set the wheels in motion regarding Anne's downfall, but someone did. However, Jane didn't learn anything from the whole affair, and went on to encourage the liaison between Catherine Howard and Thomas Culpepper. Jane must have known what would happen if Henry found out that she was involved but it didn't stop her meddling.

The Indictment

Indictment found at Westminster on Wednesday next after three weeks of Easter, 28 Hen. VIII. before Sir John Baldwin, &c., by the oaths of Giles Heron, Roger More, Ric. Awnsham, Thos. Byllyngton, Gregory Lovell, Jo. Worsop, Will. Goddard, Will. Blakwall, Jo. Wylford, Will. Berd, Hen. Hubbylthorn, Will. Hunyng, Rob. Walys, John England, Hen. Lodysman, and John Averey; who present that whereas queen Anne has been the wife of Henry VIII. for three years and more, she, despising her marriage, and entertaining malice against the King, and following daily her frail and carnal lust, 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 6th Oct. 25 Hen. VIII., at Westminster, and divers days before and after, she procured, by sweet words, kisses, touches, and otherwise, Hen. Noreys, of Westminster, gentle man of the privy chamber, to violate her, by reason whereof he did so at Westminster on the 12th Oct. 25 Hen. VIII.; and they had illicit intercourse at various other times, both before and after, sometimes by his procurement, and sometimes by that of the Queen. Also the Queen, 2 Nov. 27 Hen. VIII. and several times before and after, at Westminster, procured and incited her own natural brother, George Boleyn lord Rocheford, gentleman of the privy chamber, 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; whereby he, despising the commands of God, and all human laws, 5 Nov. 27 Hen. VIII., violated and carnally knew the said Queen, his own sister, at Westminster; which he also did on divers other days before and after at the same place, sometimes by his own procurement and sometimes by the Queen's. Also the Queen, 3 Dec. 25 Hen. VIII., and divers days before and after, at Westminster, procured one Will. Bryerton, late of Westminster, gentleman of the privy chamber, to violate her, whereby he did so on 8 Dec. 25 Hen. VIII., at Hampton Court, in the parish of Lytel Hampton, and on several other days before and after, sometimes by his own procurement and sometimes by the Queen's. Also the Queen, 8 May 26 Hen. VIII., and at other times before and since, procured Sir Fras. Weston, of Westminster, gentleman of the privy chamber, &c., whereby he did so on the 20 May, &c. Also the Queen, 12 April 26 Hen. VIII., and divers days before and since, at Westminster, procured Mark Smeton, groom of the privy chamber, to violate her, whereby he did so at Westminster, 26 April 27 Hen. VIII.

You can read more on on The National Archives website here
blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/six-wives-archives-trial-anne-boleyn/

2 Comments

Death of Catherine Howard and Jane Boleyn.

15/2/2016

0 Comments

On the 13th February in 1542 the execution of Catherine Howard and Jane Boleyn.

Many people believe that it was Jane Parker, the wife of George Boleyn, who was to blame for initiating the downfall of her sister in law Anne in 1536, but there were other women in the court, Elizabeth Browne for instance, whose actions history might like to take a look at. However, it was the events of 1542 that were Jane's downfall.

In 1541, Catherine Howard, Henry VIII fifth wife, had begun a physical relationship with one of his favourite courtier, Thomas Culpepper, and Jane Boleyn went out of her way to encourage this relationship.

Catherine wrote to Culpepper in a letter that was to be all their undoing:

“praying you that you will come when my Lady Rochford is here”

If Jane had anything to do with Anne’s downfall she must have realised that she was lucky to escape in 1536, and if she didn’t, then she doesn't seem to have learnt anything from the whole affair. Jane must have known what would happen if Henry found out that she was involved with Catherine and Culpepper and when the affair was out in the open each woman blamed the other. Jane Boleyn walked right into the Culpepper affair with her eyes open.

Following their arrest, Jane was imprisoned in the Tower of London and Catherine Howard at Syon Abbey. The night before her execution, Catherine is said to have spent it practicing laying her head upon the block, and Jane was in the throes of a nervous breakdown.

Both women were beheaded with one blow of the executioners axe and their bodies buried in the chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula.

I often asked myself the question, were Catherine, Jane and Anne's 'crimes' so appalling that they warranted a death sentence? That, I think made little difference, once they stood before the justice's their fates were sealed, state trials weren't fair trials. Schauer and Schauer in their article Law as an Engine of State wrote " Laws, like armies, were an engine of state, not a mechanism for justice!" and in that lies the answer.

0 Comments

Dangerous Talk Costs Lives - The Last Days of Anne Boleyn

23/6/2015

0 Comments

Dr Suzannah Lipscomb in her blog The Last Days of Anne Boleyn states

"the story of Anne Boleyn's downfall inspires extraordinarily passionate, opinionated disagreement. There's just the right amount of evidence to keep us guessing, enough to lead to great speculation and several almost sustainable theories, but ultimately not enough to nail any one entirely."

Eventually, by sifting through all the evidence a number of theories come to the forefront, these are:

Anne was guilty.
Thomas Cromwell had it in for her.
Henry wanted to get rid of Anne.

Talk and idle gossip within the court was Anne's undoing and as Dr Lipscomb states:

"Dangerous talk cost lives and it was what Anne said – rather than what she did – that made her appear,
in Henry's eyes, guilty."

In my opinion, it was a mixture of the last two theories.

Many people believe that it was Jane Boleyn who was to blame for initiating Anne’s downfall, but it has never been proved that she set the wheels in motion regarding Anne's downfall, but Jane has been called a “pathological meddler” I'm leaning towards the fact that it was probably true, events later in Henry's reign bear witness to that.

We know that Jane encouraged the relationship between Catherine Howard and Thomas Culpepper. Catherine wrote in a letter to him “praying you that you will come when my Lady Rochford is here” If Jane had anything to do with Anne’s downfall she must have realised that she was lucky to escape in 1536, and if she didn’t then she doesn't seem to have learnt anything from the whole affair. Jane must have known what would happen if Henry found out that she was involved with Catherine and Culpepper and when the affair was out in the open each woman blamed the other. With regard to Anne, maybe Jane had it in for Anne and didn’t need much encouragement to tell tales, maybe she was just repeating gossip, or maybe she was just saving her own skin. Who knows, but she walked right into the Culpepper affair with her eyes open.

If it was not Jane Boleyn, then who was it?

Elizabeth Browne, Countess of Worcester is also considered to be a main source of gossip regarding tales of Anne's misconduct. One has Elizabeth being reprimanded by her brother for her behaviour to which she replied that she was

“no worse than the queen”

Another is along the same lines, it was Elizabeth herself who reprimanded a lady in waiting for comparing her behaviour
to that of the queen. In another, Elizabeth suggests that her brother talk of Mark Smeaton and a lady in waiting about Anne's behaviour.

In the April or May of 1536, others were saying much the same. John Hussee, agent to Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle also stated:

“as to the queen’s accusers, my lady of Worcester is said to be the principal in raising charges”

In our time G W Bernard, a Professor of Early Modern History, writes

“there is strong evidence that it was the Countess of Worcester’s revelations that sparked the arrests and trials”

We will never know who said what to whom with regard to the betrayal of Anne Boleyn, but someone did put the wheels in motion and the intimate details of what was going on and what was said in Anne's bedchamber came from someone close to Anne. Who was it then who instigated such dangerous conversations and where does Cromwell fit in?

Predominantly, I feel it was Henry who wanted to be rid of Anne, he saw to it that someone got the ball rolling and that person
used the loose talk in court about Anne's 'behaviour' against her. I suppose you could argue though that someone had originally planted the seeds of doubt in Henry's mind about Ann and then left to see what would germinate, was this Thomas Cromwell?

Was Anne Boleyn guilty of adultery? I find it hard to believe, Anne would not have put her soul in danger of eternal damnation by lying. She is said to have said

"I swear, on the damnation of my soul, that I have never been unfaithful to my lord and husband, nor ever offended with my body against him."

Dangerous talk it seems does cost lives.

Incidentally, Elizabeth Browne was the granddaughter of my 16x great grandfather.

0 Comments

Anne Boleyn Returns to England

Execution of Richard Roose

Death of Thomas Boleyn

The Indictment of Queen Anne Boleyn

Death of Catherine Howard and Jane Boleyn.

Dangerous Talk Costs Lives - The Last Days of Anne Boleyn

Archives

Categories