Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford (53 page)

CHAPTER
8

Henry’s letters to Anne are taken from Halliwell (1848, I, p. 311) (
LP,
IV.ii, no. 4537) and Halliwell (1848, I, p. 317) (
LP,
IV.ii, no. 3990). The entertainment for the French ambassadors is from Hall (1904, II, pp. 84–88); Anglo (1969, pp. 212–24);
CSPVenice,
IV, no. 105; and Starkey (2004, pp. 284–85). The significance of the David tapestries is discussed by MacCulloch (1995, p. 180), Herman (1994, pp. 193–218); Campbell (2007, chap. 10). Campbell explains that Henry ordered a new set of David tapestries at the heart of the divorce controversy, but they did not arrive in England until 1528. Henry’s comments on his relationship with Katherine are taken from Hall (1904, II, p. 146). Wolsey’s early involvement is from Cavendish (1825, p. 139). Katherine’s intention to remain Henry’s wife is from
LP,
IV.ii, no. 4875; Charles V’s support is mentioned in
LP,
IV.ii, no. 3312. The sack of Rome is from
LP,
IV.ii, nos. 3114, 3200. Information on James Boleyn’s interest in religion is mentioned in Susan Wabuda’s entry on Nicholas Shaxton in
ODNB.
Robert Wakefield is described by Lloyd Jones (1989, p. 1860) and
ODNB.
His lecture and writings are from Wakefield (1528); Wakefield (n.d.); and
STC,
nos. 24943, 24944. See also Lloyd Jones (1989, p. 64) and
LP,
IV.ii, nos. 3233, 3224. For Fisher’s views, see
LP,
IV.ii, nos. 3148 and 3232 for his comments on Henry’s right to consult the pope. More’s recollections of his meeting with Henry at Hampton Court are taken from Rogers (1961, pp. 206–8) and
LP,
VII, no. 289.

CHAPTER
9

A comprehensive and fascinating account of the sweat is by Caius (1552), himself a doctor:
STC,
no. 4343. For modern analysis, see Flood (2003); Thwaites, Taviner, and Gant (1997, 1998); Dyer (1997). My description of the disease’s symptoms is from Caius (1552, pp. 12–13) and
CSPVenice,
II, no. 945. The general fear it engendered is from
LP,
IV.ii, nos. 4332, 4510, 4542; the remedies are from Caius (1552, pp. 32, 35);
LP,
IV.ii, no. 4409;
CSPVenice,
II, no. 945; and Wood (1846, II, p. 29). For Henry’s reaction, see
LP,
IV.ii, nos. 4383, 4391, 4403, 4409, 4422, 4440, 4542. His rather cheeky building works at Tittenhanger are mentioned in
LP,
IV.ii, no. 4438. The news of Carey’s death is from
LP,
IV.ii, no. 4408 and the effect on the Boleyn family from
LP,
IV.ii, no. 4410 and
LP
V, no. 11. Carey’s offices appear in
LP,
IV.ii, no. 4413; Russell’s wardship requests are from
LP,
IV.ii, nos. 4436 and 4437. The Wilton Abbey case is explained by Knowles (1959, p. 161), Ives (2004, p. 102), and Starkey (2004, pp. 333–36). Relevant documents include
LP,
IV.ii, nos. 4477, 4507, 4509. Anne’s letter to Wolsey is
LP,
IV.ii, no. 4480 and the joint letter from Anne and Henry is
LP,
IV.ii, no. 4360. References to the divorce are from
LP,
IV.ii, nos. 3686, 4742. Mention of Anne’s emerald ring can be found in
LP,
V, no. 276, and Ives (2004, p. 91).

CHAPTER
10

For a comprehensive account of the divorce, see Scarisbrick (1968) or Starkey (2004). I have concentrated only on those events that particularly touched Jane as a member of the Boleyn family. My account of the distrust of Wolsey is taken from
LP,
IV.iii, nos. 5255, 5635, 5803;
CSPVenice,
IV, no. 461. Cromwell’s sudden prominence is evident in, for example,
LP,
IV.iii, nos. 5437, 5446, 5457, 5459, 5460. Clement VII’s desire to please Henry is from
LP,
IV.iii, no. 5516. The Duchess of Suffolk’s hostility to Anne is from
CSPVenice,
IV, no. 761. Campeggio complains of the weather in
LP,
IV.iii, no. 5636. Henry’s return to London is from
LP,
IV.iii, no. 5016, and Anne’s farm is mentioned in the Privy Purse Expenses,
LP,
V, p. 753. The trial is from
CSPVenice,
IV, no. 482;
LP,
IV.iii, no. 5702; Hall (1904, II, pp. 150–52); and Cavendish (1825, I, pp. 147–58). The testimony relating to Arthur is from
LP
IV.iii, nos. 5774, 5778. Clement VII’s letter to Wolsey is from
LP,
IV.iii, no. 5759. Starkey (2004, pp. 237–40) gives a very full description of the Parliament Chamber at Blackfriars. Wolsey’s fall is described by Cavendish (1825, I, pp. 166–70, 181–82);
LP,
IV.iii, nos. 6017, 6019, 6025, 6026, 6075. His loss of property is from
LP,
IV.iii, nos. 6026, 6184, 6186. His reliance on Cromwell can be seen in
LP,
IV.iii, no. 6076. The rewards and house for Jane and George are taken from
LP,
IV.ii, nos. 4779, 4993(15);
LP,
IV.iii, no. 6115;
LP,
V, no. 686, p. 314, and pp. 306, 312, 754. New Year’s gifts are from
LP,
IV.ii, no. 3748;
LP,
V, pp. 307, 317. A grant to William Boleyn is from
LP,
IV.iii, no. 5815. The wardship awarded to Edward Boleyn is mentioned in
LP,
V, no. 80(29). For the gift of Durham House, see Starkey (2004, pp. 356–58), and Colvin (1982, p. 76). Thomas’s investiture comes from
LP
IV.iii, nos. 6083, 6085, and
LP,
V, p. 316. George’s gambling is from the Privy Purse Expenses,
LP,
V, pp. 755, 757, 758, 760. Gifts to Anne are taken from
LP,
IV.iii, appendix 256 and
LP,
V, no. 276. The redemption of Mary Boleyn’s jewel and details on the satin are mentioned in
LP,
V, p. 752.

CHAPTER
11

The New Year’s gift list is printed in
LP,
V, no. 686, p. 327. There are extensive accounts of York Place and the building works there in Thurley (1993, pp. 50–55, 137); Thurley (1999, pp. 37–64); and Colvin (1982, pp. 300–15). Additional information is from
CSPSp,
IV.ii, no. 720;
LP
V, no. 952. Anne’s handwritten letter to Lady Wingfield is from BL, Cotton MS, Vespasian F. XIII, fol. 198 (formerly fol. 109); printed by Wood (1846, II, pp. 74–75). For its significance, see chap. 21. My quotations describing Wolsey’s death are from Cavendish (1825, I, pp. 310, 320). Cavendish reports Wolsey’s advice to Kingston on p. 321. The loss of Katherine’s jewels is from
CSPSp,
II, no. 1003, pp. 524–25). Henry’s infatuation for Anne is from
CSPSp,
II, no. 995, p. 512. Katherine’s letter to Charles V is from
LP,
V, no. 513. An account of Anne’s investiture as marquess of Pembroke is printed in
LP,
V, no. 1274; the significance of Anne’s sons’ ability to inherit even if illegitimate is explored by Friedmann (1884, I, pp. 162–63). Rumors that Katherine was to be confined in the Tower are from
CSPSp,
II, no. 993, p. 509. The tantalizing snippet of Henry’s habit of beginning sentences with
well
is mentioned in
Lisle Letters
(1981, III, p. 412). For a very readable analysis of Henry’s belief that the pope had no authority in the matter of the divorce and for his claim for supremacy in the church, see Ives (2004, pp. 129–39). George’s presentation to Convocation is from NA, SP6/2, fols. 81–83 (formerly pp. 187–92), discussed by Lehmberg (1970, p. 114). There is a brief account of the Calais visit in Anglo (1969, pp. 245–46). Hall (1904, II, pp. 218–21) gives a fuller account. Both should be read in conjunction with
CSPVenice,
IV, no. 824;
LP,
V, nos. 1484, 1485, 1492; Anon. (1532a, 1532b);
STC,
nos. 4350, 4351. Ives (2004, p. 159) confirms that Henry lodged at the Exchequer and has a very full description of the building and its gardens on p. 161. Anne’s loss at cards is from
The Calais Chronicle
(1846, p. 121). Suffolk’s opposition to the Boleyn marriage is described by Ives (2004, p. 164). The rumor that Anne and Henry intended to marry in Calais is from
CSPSp,
IV.ii, no. 1003, p. 527. The date, place, and the officials involved in the secret marriage of Henry and Anne have been much debated: Friedmann (1884, I, pp. 182–84) and Ives (2004, p. 161) should be read in conjunction with Starkey (2004, pp. 461, 463, 474–77) and MacCulloch’s appendix in
Thomas Cranmer
(1996, pp. 637–38). Starkey and MacCulloch’s argument that there were in fact two ceremonies is compelling. Chapuys’ comment about witnesses is from
LP,
VI, no. 180. Henry’s remark to the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk is from
CSPSp,
IV.ii, no. 1055. Anne’s ceremonial entry to mass at Easter 1533 is from
LP,
V, no. 351; Friedmann (1884, I, p. 200) refers to public opposition. The letter concerning the Dunstable judgment is from
LP,
VI, no. 528. For a discussion of the proceedings at Dunstable, see MacCulloch (1996, pp. 92–94).

CHAPTER
12

For my account of the river pageant, I used
LP,
VI, nos. 556, 562, 563, 584, 585, and 601 in conjunction with Wriothesley (1875–77, I, p. 18) and Hall (1904, II, pp. 229–31). Very readable descriptions of the event are by Ives (2004, pp. 172–74) and Starkey (2004, pp. 493–94). Jane’s letter to George is referred to in Baynton’s letter: NA, SP 1/76, fol. 195 (stamped fol. 168);
LP,
VI, no. 613. Katherine’s defiant gesture is from
CSPVenice,
IV.ii, no. 923. The ceremonies associated with the investiture of Knights of the Bath is sketched out by Bayne (1910), but I relied on the fuller and more contemporary information from BL, Additional MS 38174, and HEH, MS HM 41955, fos. 129f.v.–33. My focus was on Henry Parker, but Ives (2004, pp. 175–76) discusses the Boleyn links of others chosen for knighthood on that occasion. Anne’s procession from the Tower to Westminster is taken from
LP,
VI, nos. 561, 563, 564, 583, 584, 585, 601, and 602, although 585 is from a manuscript described as “unfavourable to Anne.” The fact that she had a female fool is from
LP,
X, no. 913, in which the queen pays for a gown and a cap for her. See also Royal Book (1790, p. 123) for traditional regulations for the coronation of a queen. Anne’s appearance was not a result of a whim or personal choice; every last detail conforms to the protocol prescribed. For a description of the various pageants performed for Anne, see Hall (1904, II, pp. 232–36), and for an analysis, see Ives (2004, pp. 219–30) and Starkey (2004, pp. 496–99). BL, Additional MS 71009, fols. 57f.v.–60 (formerly fols. 48f.v.–59) provides the exciting new information I have included on the order of the procession and Jane’s place in it. Courtenay’s pleading letter to Cromwell is from
LP,
VI, no. 521. Ives (2004, p. 221) discusses Anne’s adoption of the falcon badge.

CHAPTER
13

All the standard accounts of Anne’s coronation derive from Anon. (1533);
STC,
no. 656; Hall (1904, II, pp. 237–39); Wriothesley (1875–77, I, pp. 19–20);
LP,
VI, nos. 584, 601, 661. In addition, I have used BL, Additional MS 71009, fols. 57f.v.–60, for vivid details that are not in any of the above abstracts or references. For the traditional protocol, I followed Royal Book (1790, pp. 123–24), Bayne (1907, pp. 650–73), and Loach (1994). Modern descriptions covering the event but lacking the benefit of the information in the BL Additional MS are by Ives (2004, pp. 178–79) and Starkey (2004, pp. 500–1). What is particularly intriguing is that Anne appears to have used St. Edward’s Chair as well as St. Edward’s Crown. Katherine, her predecessor, had been crowned only with Queen Edith’s Crown as the major diadem was, naturally, reserved for Henry. Both Ives and Starkey point out the significant use of the crown, and Ives agrees that Anne also used the chair. If she was given the king’s crown, rather than that of the consort, it is only one step further to allow it to be conveyed on the correct chair. BL, Additional MS 71009, describes how the chair was decorated and places it on the platform. It is this document that also describes the chair that I think she used as a throne. It was customary for more than one chair to be used by the monarch at coronations and it seems likely to place that upon a platform also. For comparison with the placing of the chair for Elizabeth I’s coronation, see Knighton and Mortimer (2003, p. 124). For Henry’s personal revision of the coronation oath, see Ellis (1824–46, 2nd series, I, p. 176). The coronation banquet is meticulously described by Hall (1904, II, pp. 239–42); Wriothesley (1875–77, I, pp. 21–22); and
LP,
VI, nos. 561, 562, 584, 601, 661. Baynton’s reference to the Duke of Suffolk is from NA, SP 1/76, fol. 195 (stamped fol. 168);
LP,
VI, no. 613. For Suffolk’s rivalry with Norfolk, see Gunn (1988, pp. 121–27).

CHAPTER
14

George’s membership of Parliament is from
LP,
VI, no. 123. Chapuys lists him as being in the Privy Council in
CSPSp,
IV.ii, no. 1072.
CSPSp,
IV.ii, no. 1127, shows how his presence could be a dampener to conversation. The wardship of Edmund Sheffield is listed in the king’s grants of April 1533, taken from
LP,
VI, no. 419(8), with background information on the boy from Bindoff (1982, III, p. 305). Suffolk’s wardship of Katherine Willoughby is from
LP,
IV, no. 5336(12). George’s hawks are mentioned in
LP,
VI, no. 1515, and
LP,
VII, no. 1273. Anne’s litter is from
LP,
VI, no. 720; items from the great wardrobe are from
LP,
VI, no. 602, the royal plate is from
LP,
VI, no. 1364, and Anne’s jointure is from
LP,
VII, no. 419(25). The huge list of lands and rents originally given to Katherine, from which my highly abridged details come, is
LP,
I.i, no. 94(35). Thurley (1993, p. 36) has a tantalizing description of Baynard’s Castle. Of the many references to Katherine’s christening cloth, I have used
CSPSp,
IV.ii, no. 1107. The references to Katherine’s response to Henry’s messengers derive from
LP,
VI, no. 805. Chapuys’ antagonism to Anne comes from
CSPSp,
IV.ii, nos. 1058, 1061. His accounts of the receptions accorded to Katherine and Mary are from
CSPSp,
IV.ii, nos. 1100, 1107. Of the many references to English antagonism toward Anne, I have chosen
LP,
VI, nos. 923, 964. Chapuys’ hopeful reference to Henry’s falling in love with someone else is from
LP,
VI, no. 1054; his shrewd comment about lovers’ quarrels is from
LP,
VI, no. 1069. Henry’s choice of name for his son is from
LP,
VI, no. 1070. Sir Edward Baynton’s highly informative letter is from NA, SP 1/76, fol. 195 (stamped fol. 168), and
LP,
VI, no. 613. The Privy Purse Expenses yield further fascinating details:
LP,
V, p. 761, for instance, has Weston partnered with Anne at Pope Julius’s game. References to Jane’s possessions are from NA, SP 1/104, fol. 82 (
LP,
X, no. 1011). Henry’s desire to spare Anne worry over Clement VII’s actions is from
LP,
VI, no. 918. Clearly, a love of learning and study was inculcated in the Morleys. Books associated with the family are discussed by Axton and Carley (2000, pp. 70–72). The first reference to Jane’s scholar is from
LP,
X, no. 1251, but sight of the original letter, now NA, SP 1/104, fol. 282 (stamped fol. 253), rather than the printed abstract is illuminating, because Foster needed help at the very time the Boleyns were fighting for their lives. Fosters abounded in Aylesbury as the local records show: WRO, microfilm 705:349/12946/498724, 705:349/12946/498704, 705:349/12946/498700, 705:349/12946/498353. Members of Eton College were tracked in Sterry (1943), who confuses and conflates two different William Fosters who later overlapped at King’s College, and therefore presumably also did at Eton. The career of Jane’s William Foster at King’s College is from KCAR/4/1/6, MS vol. 14 (unfoliated; entries dated between August 1535 and October 1536), not to be confused with a Fellow of King’s by the same name who had already graduated Master of Arts and went on to be bursar. The newly discovered manuscript of Wall’s translation of the French treatise is from NA, SP 9/31/2. The underlinings and corrections may well be George’s. According to Carley (2004, p. 133), Suffolk gave George the copy text, but this was still in French. The new document shows that George took it one step further. My account of Anne’s birthing suite follows Royal Book (1790, pp. 125–26);
LP,
VI, nos. 890, 1069; and Cressy (1997, p. 21). See also Thurley (1993, pp. 140–41), for further detail on Anne’s chamber. Despite fears about the dangers of childbirth, mortality figures for mothers, as Schofield (1986) convincingly argues, were far lower than was popularly believed.