Path to St. Peter ad Vincula Part VII – D

Posted on January 19, 2015 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula Part VII – D

Obviously, Anne had her distracters. As discussed in the blog, Path to St. Peter ad Vincula -Part I, Nicholas Sander’s De Origine Ac Progressu Schismatis Anglicani was re-published in France. This led to renewed defense of Anne. Bishop Gilbert Burnet, wrote The History of the Reformation, and George Wyatt, Life of the Virtuous Christian and Renowned Queen Anne Boleigne. Referring to Sander as “the Romish fable-framer” Wyatt, grandson of the famous Tudor poet, Sir Thomas Wyatt, tried to debunk all the claims made against Anne by Sander (Cavendish 190).

It is well known that Anne accepted admiration and would have responded to the chivalric attentions of courtiers. One example would be Thomas Wyatt. Upon first meeting, the similarities of the two personalities would have cemented an enjoyment for each other’s company. Both were “nearly of the same age, they had both the same love for polite accomplishments, and were both fond of poetry and music: both excelled in wit and conversation; and both probably had contracted a predilection for the ease and elegance of foreign manners” (Nott 20). It is not the purpose of this blog entry to discuss the poems and ballads that were written by Wyatt with her as the possible subject.

Thomas Wyatt

This public relationship did lead to the detainment of Wyatt in the Tower in May of 1536 as many contemporaries felt that if Anne had committed adultery, Wyatt would be a prime candidate. Wyatt was not indicted or brought to trial for infidelity with the Queen. He was eventually allowed to return to his estates and gain general favor again (it is assumed his release was due to the personal relationship he held with Thomas Cromwell). While in the Tower, he would have been aware of Anne’s execution due to the role his sister Margaret played in the events.

Lady Margaret Lee by Hans Holbein

Lady Margaret Lee, had been appointed as an attendant to Anne in the late 1520s. She was a known favorite of the Queen’s and accompanied her to the Tower. Tradition has it that the Wyatt family treated with “veneration as a precious relic, a little manuscript prayer-book set in gold enamelled black” which Anne gave to Margaret “as the last parting pledge of her affection” (Nott 25). The book was “preserved by them [the Wyatt family] through several generations” (Cavendish 206).

Anne's book of hours
The Wyatt Prayer Book. There is still controversy as to which book, if indeed there was one, was given to Margaret Lee.

Although there still is scholarly debate over which of the three surviving prayer books attributed to Anne’s ownership is the precise one she had with her at the time of her death, most scholars settle on one now displayed at Hever Castle. Within the text, on a page opposite the depiction of the crowning of the Virgin, is an inscription which could be deemed as a farewell, “Remember me when you doth pray, that hope doth lead from day to day” (Weir 336). Obviously, not knowing when this passage was written, it could have been done at a previous time, as some people speculate, as reference to Anne’s wish to be Queen. This blogger has surmised that the inscription is more fitting as a goodbye. Alas, we will never know with certainty.

“Anne Boleyn’s Book of Hours.” Anne Boleyn’s Book of Hours. Hever Castle Web. 28 Mar. 2014.

The loyalty of the Wyatt family to the memory of Anne Boleyn was cemented by the preservation of the book and by George’s biography. Of course, Wyatt was biased in his own way just as Sander; yet, he specifically clarified Anne’s religious role. In an age of religious persecution, Wyatt insisted that, in “her time (that is during the three years that she was queen) it is found by good observation, that no one suffered for religion, which is the more worthy to be noted for that it could not be said of any time of the queens after married to the king” (Cavendish 438).

Remembering Wyatt’s bias, this blogger will not address the issue of whether Thomas More and John Fisher were executed for religious reasons: officially, they were executed for not upholding the Acts of Succession and Supremacy, which was treason. It has been viewed that “under the protection of Cromwell, Cranmer, and Anne Boleyn, Protestantism soon came out of the closet and into the pulpit” (Haigh 187).

Sir Thomas More John Fisher

The clerics that Anne promoted and championed did uphold Protestant doctrines much to the mortification of the conservatives. Alas, it was not only the adherents to the old faith that were upset with Anne. According to Alesius, the reason so many of the councilors in the reign of Henry VIII hated Anne, was that she threatened to inform the King that they were using the “guise of the Gospel and religion” to advance “their own interests, that they had put everything up for sale and had received bribes to confer ecclesiastical benefices upon unworthy persons” (Stevenson 1303-11). Foxe alluded to a conspiracy claiming “some great mystery, which here I will not stand to discuss, but only that it may be suspected some secret practising of the papists here not to be lacking, considering what a mighty stop she was to their purposes and proceedings, and on the contrary side, what a strong bulwark she was for the maintenance of Christ’s gospel, and sincere religion, which they then in no case could abide” (Foxe). Anne’s intervention did “protect vulnerable preachers” and saved “Protestants from Henry’s intermittent wrath” (Haigh 187).

Henry was becoming less popular with his contrary policies. It is not the purpose of this blog to expand further on Henry’s political and religious maneuverings. It was at the time of Anne’s death where many questioned the future course of England. With the more conservative Seymour clan in power, evangelical factions feared a constriction of the measures taken and the Catholics worried policies would not return. A rector from county Kent described the king as “a tyrant more cruel than Nero, for Nero destroyed but a part of Rome, but this tyrant destroyeth his whole realm” (Gairdner XII 980). By 1536, this sentiment could have reflected either faction’s opinion; yet, in a footnote (further cited by George Cavendish), G. F. Nott questioned how the “bonds of charity be ever brought to unite the members of the Roman Catholic communion with those of the reformed church, so long as their youth shall be thus early taught to consider our Reformation as the portentous offspring of whatever was most odious in human profligacy, and most fearful in blasphemy and irreligion?” (Nott 85). Once again, the discord throughout England was blamed on Anne Boleyn.

For References, please refer to the blog entry, Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part I

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula Part VII -A

Posted on November 9, 2014 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula Part VII – A

May 6, 1536, Queen Anne Boleyn addressed a letter to her husband, Henry VIII, while languishing in the Tower of London awaiting trial. In this letter, Anne upbraided Henry for “cruel usage” while she assured him of her devotion. Queen Anne suggested to Henry that he not “ever imagine that your poor wife will ever be brought to acknowledge a fault where not so much as a thought thereof preceded. And, to speak a truth, never prince had wife more loyal in all duty, and in all true affection, than you have ever found in Anne Boleyn” (“Condemnation of Anne Boleyn” 289). Here was a woman who privately and publically maintained her plea of innocence. “This tenderness of conscience seemed to give much credit to the continual protestations of her innocence, which she made to the last” (Burnet 112-113).

Letter Anne Boleyn wrote to Henry VIII while she was in the Tower May 6, 1536.

Sir William Kingston, Anne’s custodian in the Tower, reported to Secretary Thomas Cromwell that on the morning of her execution, Anne “had made great protestations of it (her innocence) when she had received the Sacrament” (Burnet 114). Twenty-first century sensibilities may not understand the importance of this act but to those living in the Tudor era this would have been very powerful. First, knowing she was going to die soon, Anne would not have risked lying; and, secondly, swearing against the truth while taking Holy Communion would have been unthinkable. In fact when told that Mark Smeaton, the only man accused who confessed to adulterous behavior, had not retracted his statement when on the scaffold, Anne said, “Did he not exonerate me before he died, of the public infamy he laid on me? Alas! I fear his soul will suffer for it” (Gairdner X 1036).

Anne strengthened her plea of innocence by stating that when she shortly faced the seat of God’s judgment she did “doubt not (whatsoever the world may think of me) mine innocence shall be openly known and sufficiently cleared” (“Condemnation of Anne Boleyn” 289). Shortly before her death, Anne declared, “that she did not consider that she was condemned by Divine judgment”(Gairdner X 1070). She “prayed the Judge of all the world to have compassion on those who had condemned her” (Gairdner X 1036).

Lancelot de Carles, an attaché to the French Ambassador wrote on 2 June 1536, “no one to look at her would have thought her guilty” as she “protested she had never misconducted herself towards the King” (Gairdner X 1036). “The queen exhibited such constancy, patience, and faith towards God that all the spectators, even her enemies, and those persons who previously had rejoiced at her misfortune …testified and proclaimed her innocence and chastity” (Stevenson 1303).

Anne Boleyn

It was for naught. Anne was executed and her good name and reputation along with her body. Henry was determined to blacken her character and ensure there would be no lasting loyalty towards her. He certainly succeeded—for centuries. Even during the reign of his and Anne’s daughter, Elizabeth I Regina, there was hesitancy to honor Anne too blatantly. Elizabeth herself seemed reluctant to associate too closely with her mother (Although, the ring, now known as the Chequers Ring, she wore most certainly had the portrait of her mother encased in it—see the blog entry https://elizregina.com/2014/01/, “Her Mother’s Memory.”), yet, as Queen she did much to promote her cousins and those who were part of her mother’s circle, such as Matthew Parker whom she appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. But in the immediate aftermath of Anne’s execution, Henry was in charge and he was going to forge the reputation of his previous Queen regardless of what she had previously meant to him. Anne herself had tried to mitigate Henry’s attitude. In her communication to Henry in May 1536, Anne implored him to “let not any light fancy, or bad counsel of mine enemies, withdraw your princely favour from me: neither let that stain, that unworthy stain, of a disloyal heart towards your good grace, ever cast so foul a blot on your most dutiful wife” (“Condemnation of Anne Boleyn” 289).

“The strongest proof, or show of proof, against her, lies in the bitter hatred which Henry evidently bore to her, personal in its nature, and insatiate by her death, until he had destroyed her memory also” (Herbert, Henry 218-219). To marry Jane Seymour, Henry could have divorced or executed Anne. Did he have to do both and destroy her reputation? “If the charages were merely invented to ruin the Queen, one culprit besides herself would have been enough. To assume that Henry sent four needless victims to the block is to accuse him of a lust for superfluous butchery, of which even he, in his most bloodthirsty moments, was not capable” (Pollard 346). Henry was seen as a victim and viewed with compassion. After her death a few of her adherents were prosecuted for “maintaining that Henry had put her to death unjustly” (Friedmann 300). Yet, if Anne Boelyn was truly innocent, “Never since the world began was a dastardly assassination …rewarded with so universal a solicitation for the friendship of the assassin” (Froude 441). Once Henry turned his attention to Jane Seymour, the unfortunate Anne Boleyn, “his innocent and unsuspecting Queen” was “scarified; for she stood in the way of his gratification. She was therefore accused of infidelity to the royal bed, and many a disgraceful story was circulated to calumniate the devoted victim” (Nott 18).

Henry VIII

Anne had not endeared herself to the vast majority of English commoners nor to the nobles, which “could not have made Henry’s difficulties less” (Froude 286). Her “conduct during the last two years had not recommended her either to the country or perhaps to her husband” (Froude 385). Anne had been disliked for her haughtiness and arrogance. Had she been more gracious and less brass, she may have managed to overcome the English peoples’ prejudice against her. She had taken on such a political role that multiple enemies emerged. Henry was easily convinced that “he had fallen in love with an unworthy woman, as men will do, … and even before his marriage, had been heard to say that, if it was to be done again, he would not have committed himself so far” (Froude 386). So why did he marry Anne and break from the Catholic Church? Was he bewitched as Lord and Lady Exeter famously told Ambassador Chapuys that he, Henry himself, believed? Was he caught in the web of religious and political events? Was it his pride? Was he truly attached to Anne? Was he so sure she would give him a son? Was it a bit of all of these suggestions and more? Regardless, marry her he did and destroy her he did.

With Katherine of Aragon dead, avenues of disentanglement from Anne opened up. Henry was freer without the pressure of taking back Katherine if he disposed of Anne and he had certainly reached the point where he was questioning his second marriage. The King was convinced that “the marriage was never good nor consonant to the laws” (Froude 431). Inflaming the situation were the many rumors that resurfaced and the many more rumors that were started.

For References, please refer to the blog entry, Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part I

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-G

Posted on October 19, 2014 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-G

George Constantyne was a member of the entourage of Sir Henry Norris. As an eyewitness to Anne’s execution, he “was unfavourable to her innocence.” The opinion was not grounded in any information he received from Norris “nor upon any personal observations which he had enjoyed the opportunity of making while holding the situation [in Norris’ household].” His opinion had been “derived merely from the information or belief of those persons with whom he had conversed at the time of the execution” (“Transcript of an Original Manuscript” 54). Yet, it would have been difficult for anyone not to believe the heinousness of the accusations as it was “published in parliament that it might from thence spread abroad over all” (Cavendish II 209).

The Nidd Hall Portrait depicting a more careworn Queen Anne Bolyen.

Surprisingly, one person who leaned toward believing in Anne’s innocence was none other than her greatest adversary, Spanish envoy, Eustace Chapuys. The diplomat, while not revealing his source, claimed a lady from Court “sent to tell me in great secrecy that the Concubine, before and after receiving the sacrament, affirmed to her, on the damnation of her soul, that she had never been unfaithful to the King” (Gairdner X 908). Taking an oath on the sacrament was a very powerful ‘truth serum’ in the Tudor time-period. Recall that the Earl of Northumberland swore in the same manner that there was never a pre-contract between Anne and him. All contemporary chronicles believed his oath as they could not fathom that he could have lied on the sacrament in front of two bishops. Regardless of her innocence or guilt, Anne was scheduled for execution on May 18, 1536, but a delay in the travel of the expert executioner from France moved her death to the following day. Constable Kingston, always faithful in his reports to Master Secretary Cromwell, let him know that John Skip Anne’s “Almoner is continewaly with hyr, and has bene syns ii of the clock after midnight” (Gairdner X 910). Anne was preparing for death in the only way she knew.
Anne would have stayed at the Queen’s Lodgings (g) before her execution.

Events happened so quickly from the time of Anne’s arrest to her final hours it is difficult to imagine her true mindset. How could she have absorbed all the implications and possible repercussions? Was she simply tired of the fight? For many years she had had to watch for enemies, furrow out sycophants, and expend energy maintaining control. Sir William Kingston, Constable of the Tower, expressed confusion by her approach to death. He reported in a letter to Secretary Cromwell that Anne requested his presence to hear her speak of her innocence and told him of her disappointment in the delay in her death. “Mr. Kyngston, I hear say I shall not dy affore none, and I am very sory therfore, for I thowth to be dede by this time, and past my payne. I told hyr it shuld be no payne, it was so sottell” (Gairdner X 910). And then Anne “said, ‘I heard say the executioner was very good, and I have a little neck,’ and she put her hands about it, laughing heartily. I have seen many men and also women executed, and that they have been in great sorrow, and to my knowledge this lady has much joy and pleasure in death” (Wroithesley 42). Kingston, being a practical, military man, perceived Anne’s pain as physical, whereas she perhaps was referring to emotional pain.

The burial marker for Queen Anne Boleyn in St. Peter ad Vincula.

It would not be surprising if Anne would welcome release from the terror and sorrow she had experienced over her final few weeks. She had witnessed her brother’s death; she lived with the knowledge that innocent men had died on her behalf (from frivolous behavior that had been construed to condemn them all); she had lost the affection and protection of her husband through divorce; she had relinquished the status and role of Queen; she had been abandoned by many from her entourage –including her father; and, she feared for the safety of her daughter.

Anne’s Arrival at Tower Green
A Portuguese gentleman (who had gone into the Tower and stayed with English friends to circumnavigate the ban on foreigners) wrote to a friend in Lisbon “On the next Friday, which was the 19^th of the same month, the Queen was beheaded according to the manner and custom of Paris, that is to say, with a sword, which thing had not been seen in this land of England” (Bell 105). The King had sent to “St. Omer for a headsman who could cut off the head with a sword instead of an axe, and nine days after they sent he arrived” (Hume, Martin “How Anne Was Beheaded” 70).

A modern marker at the execution site–although this is most likely not the exact site of Anne Boleyn’s execution. Note the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the background.

The day before “the Lieutenant of the Tower writ to the Lord Cromwell, that it was not fit to publish the time of her execution” (Smeeton 46). In order to preserve the solemnity of the occasion this was granted. It was also reported that Anne requested “that she might be executed within the Tower, and that no foreigner should see her (Hume, Martin “How Anne Was Beheaded” 70). Consequently, a scaffold “having four or five steps, was then and there set up” (Bell 105). Anne was escorted from her lodgings by Kingston, she reportedly “looked frequently behind her, and when she got upon the scaffold was very much exhausted and amazed” (Gairdner X 911). Was she looking literally for an expected last minute reprieve? Did she think her merciful king would pardon her and allow her to retire to a convent? Despite her physical manifestation of these possibilities, she stated when pressed to confess, “I know I shall have no pardon, but they shall know no more from me” (Hume, Martin “How Anne Was Beheaded” 70). Anne was prepared for death. “When she arrived at the scaffold she was dressed in a night-robe of damask, with a red damask skirt, and a netted coif over her hair” (Hume, Martin “How Anne Was Beheaded” 70). The Queen, “assisted by the Captain of the Tower, came forth, together with the four ladies who accompanied her…” (Bell 105). Within the Tower Green “were present several of the Nobility, the Lord Mayor of London, some of the Aldermen, and several others, rather as witnesses, than spectators of her fatal end” (Smeeton 46). Those ‘several others’ mentioned were identified as men representing “certayne of the best craftes of London” (Wriothesley 41).

The grave markers as placed under the altar in the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula.

Among the gentlemen on the scaffold was “the headsman, who was dressed like the rest, and not as executioner; and she looked around her on all sides to see the great number of people present, for although she was executed inside, there was a great crowd” (Hume, Martin “How Anne Was Beheaded” 70). Then Anne “besought the Captain of the Tower that he would in no wise hasten the minute of her death, until she should have spoken that which she had in mind to say; which he consented to” (Urban 56).

Anne’s Speech on the Scaffold
This blogger must ask for the indulgence of the reader at this juncture. Because Anne’s speech on the scaffold is her last, formal one, it is obviously important. Several variations exist from contemporaries and from later translations—many have been reproduced below. The consistency is surprising with differences mostly in the interpretations based on the perspective of the recorder (such as the Catholic Imperial view). The implications of the intent of her speech will be explored further although there will be no comment on the records as interpretation will be left to the reader.

Our Portuguese source recorded her words as: “Good friends, I am not come here to excuse or to justify myself, forasmuch as I know full well that aught that I could say in my defence doth not appertain unto you, and that I could draw no hope of life from the same. But I come here only to die, and thus to yield myself humbly to the will of the King my Lord. And if in my life I did ever offend the King’s grace, surely with my death, I do now atone” (Bell 105).

Her words arrived at the Imperial Court as: “And as the lady looked all round, she began to say these words, ‘Do not think, good people, that I am sorry to die, or that I have done anything to deserve this death. My fault has been my great pride, and the great crime I committed in getting the king to leave my mistress Queen Katherine for my sake, and I pray God to pardon me for it. I say to you all that everything they have accused me of is false, and the principal reason I am to die is Jane Seymour, as I was the cause of the ill that befell my mistress.’ The gentlemen would not let her say any more” (Hume, Martin “How Anne Was Beheaded” 71).

Lancelot de Carles, the French envoy conveyed the image of an unrepentant Anne unwilling to go into details of why she was facing death yet eager to promote the reputation of Henry as she “recommended your good king in whom I have seen such great humanity and the acme of all goodness; fear of God, love of his subjects” (Bernard).

The account offered later by George Constantyne was similar to de Carles. Anne declared “I do not intende to reason my cause, but I committe me to Christ wholly, in whome ys my whole trust, desirynge you all to praye for the Kynges maiestie that he maye longe regne over you, for he ys a veraye noble prince and full gently hath handled me” (Mackintosh 385).

The English Courier, Charles Wriothesley showed Anne as pliant, “Maissters, I here humbley submit me to the lawe as the lawe hath judged me, and as for myne offences, I here accuse no man, God knoweth them; I remit them to God, beseeching him to have mercye on my sowle, and I beseech Jesu save my soverienge and maister the Kinge, the moste godlye, noble, and gentle Prince that is, and longe to reigne over yow” (Wroithesley 41-42).

The chronicler Edward Hall presented Anne as coming to die, “for aecqrdyng to the lawe and by the lawe I am judged to dye, and therefore I wyll speake nothyng against it.” She would “accuse no man, nor to speake any thyng of that, wherof I am accused and condemned to dye” she would pray that God would save the king and “send him long to reygne over you, for a gentler nor a more mercyfull prince was there never: and to me he was ever a good, a gentle, & soveraygne lorde. And yf anye persone wyll medle of my cause, I require them to judge the best.” Anne ended by saying “And thus I take my leve of the worlde and of you all, and I heartely desyre you all to praye for me. O Lorde have mercy, on me, to God I comende my soule” (Hall 268).

Sources quoted later by Burnet and Wyatt claimed her words were as follows: “My honourable Lords, and the rest here assembled, I beseech you all, to hear witness with me, that I humbly submit myself to undergo the penalty to which the law hath sentenced me: as touching my offences, I am sparing to speak, they are best known to God: and I neither blame nor accuse any man, but leave them wholly to him: beseeching God who knows the secrets of all hearts, to have mercy on my soul. Now, I bessech the Lord Jesus to bless and save my Sovereign master the King, the noblest and mercifulest Prince that lives: whom I wish long to reign over you. He made me Marchioness of Pembroke, vouchsafed to lodge me in his own bosom, higher on earth he could not raise me, and hath done well to lift me up those blessed innocents above” (Smeeton 46).

Anne’s Execution
With her address spoken to the crowd, which Antony Pykeryng reported to Lady Lisle in Calais was “a thousand people”, Anne readied herself for execution (Gairdner X 918). Although there are several different descriptions of her clothing, all accounts agree that Anne removed her mantle (or cape) of ermine and her English style hood. She was given a small linen, white cap to cover her hair and after kneeling “fastened her clothes about her feet, and one of the said ladies bandaged her eyes” (Gairdner X 911). Perhaps she and her ladies practiced these acts because tucking her skirts around her feet must have been done to ensure her modesty if she fell awkwardly—something they discovered during rehearsals? This blogger would like to remind readers that during execution with a sword there is no use of a block. Therefore, when chroniclers mention that Anne knelt, she was kneeling as if in prayer; she would not be resting her neck on a block. Granted execution by a sword was traditionally deemed as more merciful than the axe but the strength to remain kneeling upright awaiting the strike of the sword would require a tremendous amount of courage and self-control.

The Execution of Anne Boleyn

So Anne knelt “but the poor lady only kept looking about her. The headsman, being still in front of her, said in French, ‘Madam, do not fear, I will wait till you tell me.’ The sword was hidden under a heap of straw” (Hume, Martin “How Anne Was Beheaded” 71). Most sources agree on what happened. While kneeling Anne “said: ‘To Christ I commende my soule, Jesu receive my soule’ divers tymes” (Hall 268-269). While she prayed, the executioner called out for the sword to be brought to him and when Anne turned her blindfolded face in the direction of the steps, thinking the assistant would carry the sword up, he came up behind her. And “suddenlye the hangman smote off her heade at a stroke with a sworde” (Wroithesley 41-42). She died as she lived, boldly.

Anne’s Final Path to St. Peter ad Vincula
With foreigners banned from the execution and Eustace Chapuys, the ready source of information, absent from the thick of things due to illness, his reports were not as reliable as typical. He reported that Anne’s “head will be put upon the bridge, at least for some time” (Gairdner X 908). This was not the case. Immediately after her execution, the ladies attending Anne “fearing to let their mistress be touched by unworthy hands, forced themselves to do so” (Gardiner X 1036). They quickly wrapped her body in a white cloth and placed it along with her severed head “into a common chest of elm tree, that was made to put arrows in” (Bell 107). The usually efficient Kingston had not provided a coffin for the body and the case was the only option on hand. After Anne’s body was placed in the make-shift casket “the body was taken by the ladies, and the whole carried” (Gairdner X 911) the short distance to the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula, “the church within the Tower and buried” (Hume, Martin “How Anne Was Beheaded” 71).

Exterior of the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula.

For References, please refer to Path to St. Peter ad Vincular Part I

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-E

Posted on August 30, 2014 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-E

The Verdict, Please
Not surprisingly judgment was given against both Queen Anne and Lord Rochford. “After thei had communed together…” the first Lord was called to give the verdict. He “sayde guiltie, and so everie lorde and earle after their degrees sayde guiltie to the last and so condemned her” (Wriothesley 38). Anne’s sentence contained that she should be “brent here within the Tower of London, on the Greene, else to have thy head smitten off as the Kinge’s pleasure shal be further knowen of the same” (Bell 102). Burning was “the death which the law appoints for a woman attainted of treason, yet, since she had been queen of England, they left it to the king to determine, whether she should die so infamous a death, or be beheaded” (Burnet 264).

A Tower of London precinct area. Photo from this blogger’s visit in 2003.

How Anne conducted herself after she was condemned must be interpreted from the accounts left. Chapuys claimed “she preserved her composure, saying that she held herself pour toute saluee de la mort,[always ready to greet death] and that what she regretted most was that the above persons, who were innocent and loyal to the King, were to die for her” (Gairdner x 908). “When the sentence of death was pronounced, the queen raised her eyes to heaven, nor did she condescend to look at her judges” and left the chamber (Stevenson 1303). Compared to these rather stoic reactions, we have a more romantic recollection. “When this dreadful sentence was pronounced she was not terrified, but lifting up her hands to heaven said, ‘O Father! O Creator! Thou who art the way, the truth, and the life, thou knowest that I have not deserved this fate.’ And then turning to the judges, made the most pathetic declarations of her innocence” (Hume 328).

Jacob van Meteren, a Dutch historian, claimed to have transcribed the verses from a gentleman, Crispin, Lord of Milherve, who was present at the trial. Agnes Strickland recreated Milherve’s account of what Anne said after her trial: “My lords, I will not say your sentence is unjust, nor presume that my reasons can prevail against your convictions. I am willing to believe that you have sufficient reasons for what you have done, but then they must be other than those which have been produced in court, for I am clear of all the offences which you then laid to my charge. I have ever been a faithful wife to the king, though I do not say I have always shown him that humility which his goodness to me and the honour to which he raised me merited. I confess I have had jealous fancies and suspicions of him which I had not discretion and wisdom enough to conceal at all times. But God knows, and is my witness, that I never sinned against him in any other way” (Strickland 260). No other sources claim such a speech and the legitimacy of it is in doubt. Although substantiated somewhat by Lancelot de Carles in his poem, this collaboration historians doubt as they suspect that de Carles and Milherve are one in the same.

Copy of Lancelot de Carles’ poem.

After the trial the Queen was taken “back to warde agayne and two ladies wayted on her, which came in with her at the first, and wayted still on her, whose names were the Ladie Kingstone and the Ladie Boleyn, her aunte” (Bell 103).

The King’s Pleasure
Meanwhile, Henry “showed his delight at the coming fate of Anne. Never had the court been so gay as now” (Gairdner X 1069). Henry “accustomed to dissemble, could not hide his joy that means had been found to rid him of Anne and to enable him to take a new wife” (Friedmann II 266). Ambassador Chapuys claimed to Cardinal Granville that Cromwell confessed “that these were artifices of princes; and he dared to add (at which I was astonished, especially as the case only applied to the King his master) that princes often do things so extravagant and dishonest that he would rather lose one of his arms than think of acting so” (Gairdner X 1069). Pretty rich coming from the man who orchestrated the fall of the Queen.

Spanish Ambassador, Eustace Chapuys.

Between the King and Secretary Cromwell, Anne’s fate was sealed. While “everybody rejoiced at the execution of the putain, there are some who murmur at the mode of procedure against her and the others, and people speak variously of the King” (Gairdner X 908). The Spanish Ambassador told his king that “already it sounds ill in the ears of the people” that the King had been “going about banqueting with ladies sometimes remaining after midnight, and returning by the river” (Gairdner X 908). Henry had musicians and singers accompany him on his journey to where Jane Seymour was staying—actions which many people interpreted as showing his delight in getting rid of his unwanted queen. Some people believed the King did not feel any qualms about his involvement with Jane Seymour because while he had been “oppressed with the heavy cares of state, she [Anne] had been enjoying herself with others, so he, when the Queen was being beheaded, was enjoying himself with another woman” (Stevenson 1303). Furthermore, the King said “he believed that upwards of 100 gentlemen have had criminal connexion” with Anne. And the Spanish Ambassador exclaimed “You never saw a prince or husband show or wear his horns more patiently and lightly than this one does. I leave you to guess the cause of it” (Gairdner X 54). Chapuys also informed Cardinal Granville “every evening his State barge, gaily illuminated, and with bands of musicians and a throng of gorgeously attired lords and ladies on board, floated up or down the Thames, conveying his Majesty and his Court” (Davey 24). It had been said that the “King had already fixed on a wife, to wit Jane Semel” (Gairdner X 1069). Chapuys heard that “even before the arrest of the Concubine, the King, was speaking with Mistress Jane Semel of their future marriage” (Gairdner X 908).

Jane Seymour

Chapuys proclaimed that, although Henry publicly stated that he had “no desire in the world to get married again unless he was constrained by his subjects to do so”, he said so only to “cover the affection he had for the said Semel” (Gairdner X 908). “Everybody begins already to murmur by suspicion, and several affirm that long before the death of the other there was some arrangement” between Jane and the King (Gairdner X 926). Perhaps Henry felt that his dissembling would pacify the people who would be questioning his commitment to the sacrament of marriage or maybe he was succumbing to the romance of secretly wooing Lady Jane. Regardless of the reason, Henry did not keep his plans quiet for long. On May 20, 1536, the day after the execution of Anne Boleyn, “Mrs. Semel came secretly by river this morning to the King’s lodging, and that the promise and betrothal (desponsacion) was made at 9 o’clock” (Gairdner X 926).

For References, please refer to Path to St. Peter ad Vincular Part I

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-D

Posted on August 13, 2014 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-D

It is not the intent here to explain the entire proceedings of the trials of the men in question. It shall suffice to say that the evidence was flimsy at best and non-existent in most cases. Even Ambassador Chapuys, an outspoken opponent of Anne, recognized that with only one of the men confessing to the alleged crimes, the “others were condemned upon presumption and certain indications, without valid proof or confession” (Gairdner X 908).

Indicted in the counties of Kent and Middlesex, as the locations of the alleged treason, Court records show that Anne and the accused were not even in the same surroundings at the same time. Regardless, on May 12^th the four commoners, Norris, Weston, Brereton and Smeaton, were tried in Westminster Hall by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer and found guilty in Westminster Hall by the “lords of the Kinges Counsell” (Wriothesley 36). Judgment was given, that they should be drawn to the place of execution, and some of them to be hanged, others to be beheaded, and all to be quartered, as guilty of high treason” (Burnet 263). All “the gentlemen were beheaded on the Skaffolde at the Tower hyll” (Hall 268).

A trial for high treason in Westminster Hall during the Tudor period, albeit a 17th century drawing.

Anne’s Letter to King Henry VIII
Henry VIII was the targeted recipient of a letter from Anne while she was in the Tower. Is it a forgery? This blogger will not take a position on that issue. Granted there are unusual circumstances surrounding its discovery. Found with Sir William Kingston’s letters among Cromwell’s papers, scholars have agreed that stylistically it is from the Tudor Era. Also agreed, the document is not in Anne’s handwriting. This is not actually a deal breaker since it can easily be explained as being a copy. At the top of the sheet the letter is “endorsed, ‘To the King from the Ladye in the Tower’ in Cromwell’s handwriting” (Bell 99). It does not make sense why Cromwell would refer to Anne as ‘The Ladye in the Tower’ unless he did not want to call attention to the missive but wanted to preserve it. Because of the location amongst Cromwell’s papers many historians find it plausible to be authored by Anne.

The “pathetical letter” has been described as “farther proof of the innocence” of Anne (Smeeton 48). She “pleaded her innocence, in a strain of so much wit and moving passionate eloquence, as perhaps can scarce be paralleled: certainly her spirit is were much exalted when she wrote it, for it is a pitch above her ordinary style” (Burnet 319). The “letter contains so much nature, and even elegance, as to deserve to be transmitted to posterity…” (Hume, David 458). Regardless of her expressiveness, the plea never reached Henry’s hands—maybe she knew that would happen which is why she gave way to her frustration over Jane Seymour and did indulge in some scolding. Worthy of reading it is reproduced in its entirety below.

“Sir, your grace’s displeasure and my imprisonment are things so strange unto me, as what to write or what to excuse I am altogether ignorant. Whereas you send unto me (willing me to confess a truth, and so obtain your favour) by such an one whom you know to be mine ancient professed enemy, I no sooner received this message by him than I rightly conceived your meaning; and if as you say, confessing a truth indeed may procure my safety, I shall with all willingness and duty perform your command.

‘But let not your grace ever imagine that your poor wife will ever be brought to acknowledge a fault where not so much as a thought thereof preceded. And, to speak a truth, never prince had a wife more loyal in all duty, and in all true affection, than you have ever found in Anne Boleyn: with which name and place I could willingly have contented myself, if God and your grace’s pleasure had been so pleased. Neither did I at any time so far forget myself in my exaltation or received queenship, but that I always looked for such an alteration as I now find; for the ground of my preferment being on no surer foundation than your grace’s fancy the least alteration I know was fit and suffient to draw that fancy to some other object. You have chosen me from a low estate to be your queen and companion, far beyond my desert or desire. If then you found me worthy of such honour, good your grace let not any light fancy, or bad counsel of mine enemies, withdraw your princely favour from me: neither let that stain, that unworthy stain, of a disloyal heart towards your good grace, ever cast so foul a blot on your most dutiful wife and the infant princess your daughter. Try me, good king, but let me have a lawful trial, and let not my sworn enemies sit as my accusers and judges; yea let me receive an open trial, for my truth shall fear no open shame; then shall you see either mine innocence cleared, your suspicion and conscience satisfied, the ignominy and slander of the world stopped, or my guilt openly declared. So that whatsoever God or you may determine of me, your grace may be freed from an open censure; and mine offence being so lawfully proved, your grace is at liberty both before God and man not only to execute worthy punishment on me as an unlawful wife, but to follow your affection already settled on that party for whose sake I am now as I am, whose name I could some good while since have pointed unto, your grace not being ignorant of my suspicion therein.

‘But if you have already determined of me, and that not only my death, but an infamous slander, must bring you the enjoying of your desired happiness, then I desire of God that he will pardon your great sin therein, and likewise mine enemies, the instruments thereof, and that he will not call you to a strict account of your unprincely and cruel useage of me, at his general judgment seat, where both you and myself must shortly appear, and in whose judgment I doubt not (whatsoever the world may think of me) mine innocence shall be openly known and sufficiently cleared.

‘My last and only request shall be, that myself may only bear the burden of your grace’s displeaure, and that it may not touch the innocent souls of those poor gentlemen who (as I understand) are likewise in strait imprisonment for my sake. If ever I have found favour in your sight, if ever the name of Anne Boleyn hath been pleasing in your ears, then let me obtain this request, and I will so leave to trouble your grace any farther, with mine earnest prayer to the Trinity to have your grace his good keeping, and to direct you in all our actions. From my doleful prison in the Tower, this sixth of May; Your most loyal and ever faithful wife, –Anne Boleyn” (“Condemnation of Anne Boleyn” 289).

Anne Boleyn, Hever Portrait

Trials and Tribulations:
Beyond the accusations of adultery and incest–this charge was brought against her brother “because he had been once found a long time with her” (Gairdner X 908), Anne was “accused of having conspired with these five men to bring about the death of the king, and of having said that she did not love him, and that after his death she would marry one of her lovers” (Friedmann II 262-263). The indictment claimed that “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” (Gairdner X 876). Whether these were truths, “or the effects of imagination and vapours, cannot be certainly determined at this distance. It is probable there had been some levities in her carriage that were not becoming” (Burnet 111).

‘Levities in her carriage’—the Council’s reaction to indiscretions seems rather severe to modern eyes. This is why it is difficult for present day students to grasp the magnitude of Henry’s personality, the strength of his sycophantic Court and the effects of the social, political and religious institutions of the Tudor Era. Could Anne have been divorced and set aside as her successor Anne of Cleves would be? Most likely not. Anne of Cleves had powerful international connections which made her survival more important; she did not have any children who needed to be clearly shown as illegitimate; and she followed Anne Boleyn—circumstances were altered because of what happened in 1536. Henry, and more importantly Cromwell, saw the need to eliminate Anne Boleyn, destroy her reputation, weaken the powerful factions at Court and send a message to the world—Henry VIII was in control in England (Okay, based on the charges against Anne, he could not control his wife, but assuredly no one was going to make that connection to him).

On May 15, 1536, the Queen was brought into the King’s Hall of the Tower of London “where was made a chaire for her to sitt downe in, and then her indictment was redd” (Bell 102). Anne was arraigned “for treason againste the Kinges owne person” (Wriothesley 37). The crimes charged on her were that “she had procured, her brother and the other four to lie with her, which they had done often; that she had said to every one of them by themselves, that she loved them better than any person whatsoever: which was to slander the issue that was begotten between the king and her and this was treason, according to the statute made in the twenty sixth year of this reign…. It was also added in the indictment, that she and her accomplices had conspired the king’s death” (Burnet 263-264). Ales claimed the Queen had been “accused of having danced in the bedroom with the gentlemen of the King’s chamber and of having kissed her brother” (Stevenson 1303). Chapuys reported that “there was a promise between her and Norris to marry after the King’s death,” she had “laughed at the King and his dress,” and “certain ballads that the King composed” were snickered at by Anne and her brother “as foolish things, which was objected to as a great crime” (Gairdner X 908).

Court proceedings were not conducted in secret for there were more than 2,000 persons present and documents exist in the Public Records Office which show the trial was conducted “with a scrupulousness without a parallel in the criminal records of the time” (Bell 103). Twenty-six peers tried Anne and George Boleyn with the Duke of Norfolk acting as Lord High Steward accompanied by “the duke of Suffolk, the marquis of Exeter, the earls of Arundel, Oxford, Northumberland, Westmoreland, Derby, Worcester, Rutland, Sussex, and Huntington; and the Lords Audley, Delaware, Montague, Morley, Dacres, Cobham, Maltravers, Powis, Mounteagle, Clinton, Sands, Windsor, Wentworth, Burgh, and Mordaunt” (Burnet 263-264). For details of the trial see materials by Bell, Burnet, Cavendish, Friedmann and Howell to name a few. This blog entry will direct comments to specific areas of interest.

Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, Anne’s uncle and judge

Obviously the verdict was a foregone conclusion. Though unassisted by counsel, Anne “made so wise and discreete aunsweres to all thinges layde against her, excusinge herselfe with her wordes so clearlie, as thoughe she had never bene faultie to the same” (Wriothesley 37-38). She defended herself so well “the spectators could not forbear pronouncing her entirley innocent” (Hume 328). Alas, it was for naught. Not only was it Henry’s will that Anne be found guilty but logically with her trial coming after four men had been found culpable of adultery with her, the chances of her being reprieved were non-existent no matter what the evidence or lack thereof.

An engraving of Anne Boleyn’s trial by Kearney from a painting by Smirk

The Commission could not bring Smeaton, the only person who confessed to a crime, forward to confront the Queen because he had been convicted three days earlier and could not be used as a witness. Therefore, the evidence brought in was hearsay and unsubstantiated. Many historians have discussed the role of Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford (Anne’s jealous sister-in-law); Lady Bridget Wingfield (a lady of the bedchamber who had died in 1534–the evidence used was a letter written by Bridget to someone else about Anne); and, Elizabeth Browne, Countess of Worcester (Anne’s lady-in-waiting who initiated infidelity rumors in early 1536). “From such arguments as those which were advanced against the Queen … no probable suspicion of adultery could be collected” (Stevenson 1303).

“Rochford was said to have been arrested for having connived at his sister’s evil deeds” (Friedmann II 256) and for “having spread reports which called in question whether his sister’s daughter was the King’s child” (Gairdner X 908). This last accusation is preposterous! Why would a man whose very livelihood depended on his royal connections infer his niece was not of royal blood? Interestingly, Chapuys, no friend to the Boleyns, claimed that Rochford defended himself against the charges so well “several of those present wagered 10 to 1 that he would be acquitted, especially as no witnesses were produced” (Gairdner X 908). Acquittal was not in the plans. The Bishop of Carlisle told Chapuys that the “King had said to him, among other things, that he had long expected the issue of these affairs” (Gairdner X 908).

Signature of George Boleyn, Lord Rochford

For References, please refer to Path to St. Peter ad Vincular Part I

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-B

Posted on July 9, 2014 by jodmcp

Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part VI-B

Arrests, Interrogations and Confessions

“On May Day, suddenly “the kyng departed having not above vi. persons with him, and came in the evening from Grenewyche to his place at Westminster” (Hall 268). Anne was confined to her chamber. “Of this sodayn departynge many men mused, but moste chiefely the queen” (Hall 268). The “seconde daie of Maie, Mr. Norris and my Lorde of Rochforde were brought to the Towre of London as prisoners; and the same daie, about five of the clocke at night, the Queene Anne Bolleine was brought to the Towre of London” (Wriothesley 36). To clarify the prisoners and their Court positions–Henry Norris, Groom of the Stole; Sir Francis Weston, Privy Chamber member; William Brereton (also known as Bryerton), Privy Chamber member; and Mark Smeton (sometimes spelled Smeaton), a musician.

Portrait believed to be Sir Francis Weston

The indictments were made for five men. It is contended that Norris, Weston and Bryerton could not escape punishment as Henry had “no intention, after the death of Anne, to effect a reconciliation with Rome, the three last named might have been allowed to escape; but if he wished to keep a middle course it was his interest to eliminate form the party of the reformation as many as possible of those who might drive it to extremes, and thereby force the government to lean to the other side” (Friedmann II 261-262). On a more personal level, the men may also try to avenge the wrongs against them and the Queen. It was better that they die.

“Besides the persons who were actually sent to prison, a good many others were bound under heavy fines to present themselves before Cromwell and the royal council. They were thus kept in suspense and fear, and could not exert themselves in favour of the accused” (Friedman II 261). Anne’s enemies “searched eagerly for evidence against her, and examined every one who seemed likely to know anything to her disadvantage. Sir William Fitzwilliam and Sir William Paulet, aided by Sir Edward Baynton, seemed to have distinguished themselves in this way at Greenwich, where Anne’s personal servants had remained” (Friedmann II 259). Thomas Wyatt probably was arrested to provide evidence, not to be condemned. When Cromwell discovered that he had not been in close communication with Anne for years, he wrote Sir Henry Wyatt “that the young man would be spared. It was decided, too, that Sir Richard Page, who was connected with the Fitzwilliams and the Russels should be allowed to escape” (Friedmann II 262).
Sir Henry Norris had been “in the King’s favour, and an offer was made him of his life, if he would confess his guilt, and accuse the Queen. But he generously rejected that unhandsome proposition, and said that in his conscience he thought her innocent of these things laid to her charge but whether she was or not, he would not accuse her of any thing, and he would die a thousand times rather than ruin an innocent person” (Ellis 65-66).

Mark Smeaton was the only man who was arrested who “confessed to inappropriate behavior toward the Queen” (Burnet 110-111). His confession was the only solid evidence that Cromwell had. It has been suggested that Smeaton was promised a pardon if he pled guilty and implicated Anne. There is speculation that he confessed under torture, an interrogation technique that would have been readily used against the commoner. Because he did not recant at the scaffold, there is a theory that, in the exchanges he had with Anne (which she talks about while in the Tower), he responded familiarly and his haughtiness earned him a rebuke. Perhaps realizing he was not going to be pardoned, Smeaton decided to gain revenge on Anne by confessing to adultery (Davies). If revenge was his motive, he was successful.

While at Greenwich Anne learned that Norris and Smeaton had been arrested. “Combining these facts with Henry’s growing coldness to herself, and his increasing affection for Jane Seymour, Anne began to fear that she would have to take the same way. She was absolutely without means of defence” (Friedmann II 252). Anne herself would try to put a positive spin on her situation and claim that “the most par of Yngland prays for me, and yf I dy you shall se the grettest punishment for me withyn thys vij yere that ever cam to Yngland,’ & then she syad I shall b ein heaven, for’ I have done mony gud dedys in my days…” (Cavendish 223-225). This was not the case. With Henry away at Westminster, she could not use her influence on him. Coupled with his physical distance, most courtiers went with him including not only her enemies but also her allies. Friedman implies that Anne’s brother, Lord Rochford, would use his talents to defend his sister in any way he could which explains his arrest. Her father “had always disapproved of his daughter’s bold and violent courses. There was, therefore, no reason to fear that he would try to defend her” (Friedmann II 254).

Greenwich Palace

Anne could not flee from her confinement at Greenwich as this would have proven unsafe to do if not impossible without resources and it would have been an admission of guilt (for whatever was her crime). The Queen was not left in the dark for long. On May 2, 1536, she was summoned before the council. Anne would later claim that she “was creuely handeled …. at Greweche with the kyngs counsel” (Cavendish 223-225). The Queen was interrogated and charged with treason and adultery. Protestations of innocence had no effect and she was arrested and told she would be taken to the Tower. “At two o’clock her barge was in readiness, and in broad daylight, exposed to the gaze of the populace who had assembled on the banks or in boats and barges, she was carried along the river to traitors’ gate” (Friedmann II 253).

Spanish Ambassador, Eustace Chapuys, was giddy when he wrote his official report on the day of Anne’s arrest that it was “still more wonderful to think of the sudden change from yesterday to today, and the manner of the departure from Greenwich” (Gairdner X 782). His exuberance was not masked when he said things had “come to pass much better than anybody could have believed, to the great disgrace [of the Concubine], who by the judgment of God has been brought in full daylight from Greenwich to the Tower of London, conducted by the duke of Norfolk, the two Chamberlains, of the realm and of the chamber, and only four women have been left to her. The report is that it is for adultery” (Gairdner X 782).

Conveyance to and Time in the Tower

Upon arriving at the Tower Anne exclaimed loudly, “I entered with more ceremony the last time I came” (Hume 64). She maintained her composure up to the time the gates were closed when she asked the Constable of the Tower, William Kingston, if he “was leading her to a dungeon” (Friedmann II 255). When he assured her he was taking her to the rooms she occupied before her coronation, “this somewhat relieved her distress. ‘It is too good for me,’ she exclaimed.” Then her nerve did falter when she came to the “court gate, entering in, she fell downe on her knees before the said lords, beseeching God to helpe her as she was not giltie of her accusement, and also desired the said lords to beseech the Kinges grace to be good unto her, and so they left her their prisoner” (Wriothesley 36).

Byward Tower–the most likely entrance of Anne Boleyn into the Tower of London

Once in her apartments she made inquiries about her brother, she asked for the eucharist to be brought in to a room nearby so that she could pray, and she “began to assert her innocence of the crimes with which she was charged” (Freidmann II 256).

According to an anonymous Spanish report, when examined she professed her innocence and asserted that she knew what was the cause of her arrest. “I have never wronged the King, but I know well that he is tired of me, as he was before of the good lady Katharine.” She exclaimed that “the King has fallen in love, as I know, with Jane Seymour, and does not know how to get rid of me. Well, let him do as he likes, he will get nothing more out of me” (Hume 65). William Lancelot expressed Anne’s anguish in his poem. With no further hope, she would confess to nothing. “Riens ne confesse, et ne resiste fort Comme voulant presque estre délivre De vivre icy, pour aulz cieulz aller vivre; Et l’espoir tant en icelle surmonte, Que de la mort ne tient plus aucun compte” (Gairdner X 1036)

“Anne herself was not examined any further. At first orders had been issued that, except in the presence of Lady Kingston, she was to hold no communication with the four women deputed to serve her; but it was soon decided that this would neither be practicable nor expedient. So her attendants were allowed to talk with her, on condition that everything of any importance which she might say to them should be reported to the constable. In a state of hysterical excitement Anne was unable to weigh her words and to control her tongue” (Friedmann II 259). Sometimes “she laughed, and at other times she wept excessively; she was also devout and light by turns; and sometimes she stood upon her vindication, and at other times she confessed some indiscretions, which she afterwards denied” (Burnet 110).

“On the morning after her arrest she spoke of Noreys, and told Mrs. Cosyns, one of her attendants, of the conversation she had had with him. She then talked of Weston, whose indiscretion she seemed greatly to fear” (Friedmann II 259). This whole conversation (and those that ensued) was immediately reported to Kingston, who in his turn sent an account to Cromwell—several are reproduced below.

A relatively contemporary image (circa 1553) of the Tower of London

“Thy sys to advertyse you upon my Lord of Norfolk and the kyngs counsell depart[inge] from the Towre I went before the queen in to hyr lodging, & [then she] sayd unto me, M. Kyngston, shall I go in to a dungyn? Now, madam, y[ou] shall go into your logyng that you lay in at your cornonacion. It ys to gu[de] for me, she sayd, Jesu, have mercy on me; and kneled downe wepyng a [great] pace, and in the same sorow fell in to agret lawyng, and she hathe done [so] mony tymes syns. And then she desyred me to move the Kyngs hynes that she [myght] have the sacrament in the closet by hyr chambr, that she my[ght pray] for mercy, for I am as clere from the company of man, as for s[yn, sayd she as I] am clere from you, and am the kyngs trew wedded wyf; and then sh[e sayd] M. Kyngston, do you know wher I am here, and I sayd, Nay, and then [she sayd] when saw you the kyng? And I sayd, I saw hym not syns I saw [him in] the Tylte yerde, and then M. K. I pray you to tell me wher my [Lord Roch]ford ys? And I told hyr I saw hum afore dyner in the cort. O [where ys] my set brod’er? I sayd I left hym at York place, and so I dyd. I [hear say, say]d she, that I shuld be accused with iij men; and I can say [no more but] nay, withyowt I shuld open my body; and there with opynd [her gown saying, O Nor]res, hast thow accused me, thow ar in the Towre with me, & [thou and I shal]l dy to gether: and, Marke, thou art here to. O my mother, [thou wilt dy] for sorrow, and meche lamented my lady of Worcet, for by ca[urse her child] dyd not store in hyr body, and my wyf sayd what shuld [be the cawse, she] sayd for the sorrow she toke for me: and then she sayd M. K[ingston, shall I dy] with yowt just; & I sayd, the porest sugett the kung [hath had justis, and] ther with she lawed. All thys sayings was yeter ny[ght]……. & thys moryng dyd talke with mestres Cousyns [and said that Nor]res dyd say on Sunday last unto the queens amn[er, that he wold sw]ere fro the queen that she was a gud woman. [And then sayd Mrs.} Cosyn, Madam, why shuld ther be hony seche maters [spoken of? Mary,] syad she, I had hym do so, for I asked hym why he [went not through with] hys maryage? And he made ansur he would tary [a time. Then said she, you’ loke for ded mens showys; for yf owth cam[e to the king but good,] you would loke to have me; and he sayd, yf he [should have any soch though,] he wold hys hed war of; and then she sayd, [she could undo him if she wold,] and ther with thay fell yowt. Bot [she said, she more feared Weston; for] on Wysson Twysday last [Westong told he]r that Nores cam more u[nto her chawmbre for her then….

Wher I was commanded to charge the gentlewomen that y gyf thaye atende apon the queen, that ys to say, Thay shuld have now commynycaseon with hyr, in lese my wyf ware present, and so I dyd hit, notwithstaundyng it canot be; for my lady Bolen and mestrys Cosyn lyes on the queens palet, and I and my wyf at the dore with yowt, so that thay most nedes talke that be without” (Cavendish 223-225).

Anne’s natural intelligence would have sparked in her the realization that anything she said or did in confinement would most likely be reported to the authorities. Yet, she could not keep her chaotic thoughts to herself and spoke of her previous encounters with the accused men. To which Kingston would add postscripts explaining her further revelations. He informed Cromwell that “syns the making of thys letter the queen spake of Weston that she had spoke to hym by cause he dyd love hyr kynswoman Mrs. Skelton and that she sayd he loved not hys wyf; and he made anser to hyr again that he loved won in hyr howse bettr than them bother; she asked him who is that? To which he answered that it ys your self; and then she defied hym” (Cavendish II 217-220).

Mary Shelton, attributed to Hans Holbein the Younger

Days later Kingston wrote to Cromwell concerning the discussion of Jane Boleyn, and Anne’s further encounters with Mark Smeaton and Thomas Wyatt.

“Quene said unto me that same nyght that the Kyng wyst what he dyd when he put such ij. abowt hyr as my lady Boleyn and Mestres Cofyn; for thay cowd tell her now thynge of my Lord her father, nor nothynge ellys, bot she defyed them alle. But then upon this my lady Boleyn sayd to hyr, Seche desyre as you have had to such tales hase browthe you to thys, and then sayd Mrs. Stoner, Mark [Smeaton] ys the worst cherysshe of hony an in the house, for he wayres yernes. She sayd that was because he was no gentelman; bot he wase never in my chamber but at Winchester, and there] she sent for hym to play on the virginals, for there my logynge was above the King’s for I never spake with hym syns bot upon Saterday before Mayday; and then I fond hym standyng in the ronde wyndo in my chambre of presens. And I asked why he wase so sad, and he ansured and sayd it was now mater; and then she sayd, You may not loke to have me speke to you as I shuld do to a nobulle man by cause you be aninferor person. No, no, madam, a loke sufficed me, and thus fare you welle. She hathe asked my wyf whether hony body makes thayr beddes, and my wyf ansured and sayd, Nay, I warant you; then she sayd thay myght make balettes well now, bot ther ys non bot . . . . . . de that can do it. Yese, sayd my wyf, Master Wyett by . . . . . . . sayd trew. . . . . . my Lorde my broder wille dy . . . ne I am sure thys was as . . . tt downe to dener thys day. Will’m Kyngston” (Gairdner X 798).

For references, please refer to the blog entry, Path to St. Peter ad Vincula-Part I

Visiting St. Peter ad Vincula

Posted on March 8, 2014 by jodmcp

On Friday, August 22, 2003, it was arranged for this blogger to meet the PR Manager of HM Tower of London (am withholding the name due to privacy) for access to the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula from 9:00 until 9:45. My excitement grew as, at the Pass Office, the PR Manager welcomed me. While she gathered the keys to the church she explained that the restricted entry was a policy resulting in the sacredness of the site. Since my visit, the availability to view the church has increased—tourists can now enter during the final hour before closing.

Exterior of the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower of London.

Described by John Noorthouck in his book, A New History of London published in 1773, St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower “was founded by Edward III and dedicated to St. Peter in chains. This is a plain Gothic building void of all ornament: 66 feet in length, 54 in breadth, and 24 feet high from the floor to the roof. The walls, which have Gothic windows, are strengthened at the corners…. The tower is plain, and is crowned with a turret” (Noorthhouck 768). This rather clinical description did not reveal the picturesque chapel this blogger encountered.

Another view of the chapel.

As we walked through the Tower precincts, the PR Manager made clear that the Chapel is first and foremost a parish church and the residents of the Tower have used it as such for centuries. As if to underline this fact, the parson’s cat roamed around while we were there.

By the 19th century with the Tower no longer a residence of the sovereign, the chapel became “regarded too much in the light of a mere ordinary parish church” (Bell 15). The hominess of the church is evident into the 21^st century. Plain wooden pews top slab flooring. An exposed stonewall shelters the altar under which are the plaques (laid during the renovation completed in 1877) of those buried in the Chapel. Most of the bodies were placed in the crypt.

Doyne Courtenay Bell wrote, in 1877, of the Victorian Era restoration of the St. Peter ad Vincula. Bell had been granted access to the facilities and records by the Resident Governor of the Tower, Colonel Milman. Bell acknowledged that the records kept by Lord De Ros when he was Deputy Lieutenant of the Tower and his zeal in the restoration made it much easier for him (Bell) to write his book.

In 1862, entrances were altered so that the “insignificant porch on the south side, by which the building had been entered since the time of Queen Elizabeth, was removed, and the original old doorway at the west end, which had been bricked up and concealed by plaster” was reopened (Bell 10).

From this blogger’s point of view the most noteworthy alteration to the physical building was that the “lath and plaster covering was at the same time removed from the ceiling, and the old chesnut beams of Henry VIII’s roof were disclosed to view” (Bell 10). The ceiling was architecturally interesting and to know it was from the Tudor Era specifically added to its importance.

The ‘chesnut’ beams.

Bell supported the information this blogger received during the time of her 2003 visit that after the initial changes done in 1862 further restoration was needed by 1876 because the flooring had become too uneven and dangerous. In that year Constable of the Tower of London, Sir Charles Yorke, submitted a plan to have the Chapel “architecturally restored to its original condition, and also suitably arranged as a place of worship for the use of the residents and garrison of the Tower” (Bell 10).

As the restoration began, Bell reported, the “necessity for relaying the pavement, which had sunk and become uneven in many parts, became very evident; it was at once seen that nothing could be done until a level and safe foundation was prepared, upon which the new pavement could be placed…” (Bell 15). Once the paving stones had been removed it was found “that the resting places of those who had been buried within the walls of the chapel during the troublous times of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, had been repeatedly and it was feared almost universally desecrated” (Bell 15). People familiar with the history of St. Peter ad Vincula know that in “this church lie the ashes of many noble and royal personages, executed either in the Tower, or on the hill, and deposited here in obscurity” (Noorthouck 768).

A list of some prominent personages buried near the altar.

It is beyond the scope of this blog to discuss all of the notable people inscribed on their memorial tablets in the chancel. There was still questionable evidence as to who was buried in the chancel at the altar and the placement of each person. At the time of the Duke of Monmouth’s burial, in 1685, a diagram of the suggested burial places of notable persons interred was created based on information compiled from several sources.

John Stowe first reported the use of a contemporary anonymous diary that John Gough Nichols later compiled with other sources in his Chronicle. Stowe described what happened after the executions of the Duke of Northumberland and two associates, “Theyr corpes, with the hedes, wer buryed in the chapell in the Tower ; the duke at the highe alter, and the other too at the nether ende of the churche” (Nichols 24). This placement was confirmed by Baker in his work. He stated that after the execution of the Duke of Northumberland “his body with the head was buried in the Tower, by the body of Edward late Duke of Somerset, (mortal enemies while they lived, but now lying together as good friends) so as there lieth before the high Altar in St. Peters Church, two Dukes between two Queens, namely, the Duke of Somerset, and the Duke of Northumberland, between Queen Anne, and, Queen Katharine, all four beheaded” (Baker 315).

The Duke of Somerset, Edward Seymour

Queen Anne Boleyn

The Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley

Queen Katherine Howard

Restorations are recorded to have occurred between the winter of 1876 and the spring of 1877 with the renovated chapel opened for service in June of 1877. At an initial meeting held to discuss the method of refurbishment attended by many worthies of the Tower administration, including Colonel Milman, it was decided to leave the more notable interments of the two queens and three dukes undisturbed near the altar. Typical of many a remodel, the agreed upon plan could not be carried out. The flooring was too unstable and after an examination by the Surveyor of the Office of Works, it was “decided that the pavement must be removed, but that as little disturbance of the ground as possible should take place” (Bell 17).

Bell gives us a brief run-down on the changes that were made. He reports that the old plaster and whitewash were removed from the walls and columns; a “piscina and hagioscope on the east wall of the aisle were discovered.” A wooden structure “which served as a vestry, was pulled down” and a new one was built “outside the eastern end of the aisle” (Bell 17). Sadly, none of my photographs show any of these religious architectural elements.

A more encapsulating photo of the Chapel St. Peter ad Vincula.

Despite acknowledging that many of the remains had been disturbed in centuries passed, Bell firmly believed that the female bones discovered during the reconstruction of the floor were of Anne Boleyn. He wrote, “not much doubt existed in the minds of those present that these were the remains of Anne Boleyn, who is recorded to have been buried in front of the altar by the side of her brother George Rochford, and these being the first burials in the chancel, the graves were in all probability dug to the right or dexter side of the altar, the so-called place of honour” (Bell 21). A description of Anne’s removal from the site of her execution, written 2 June 1536 by a Londoner, relayed that Anne’s ladies “fearing to let their mistress be touched by unworthy hands, forced themselves to do so. Half dead themselves, they carried the body, wrapped in a white covering, to the place of burial within the Tower. Her brother was buried beside her” (Gardiner 1036).

Not the grave marker of George, Viscount of Rochford but his wife, Lady Jane, who is buried near Queen Katherine Howard.

During the restoration of the winter of 1876-1877, hundreds of bones and partial skeletons were discovered. This ‘mere ordinary parish church’ witnessed many interments be they of notable, historical figures or parishioners. During my visit the PR Manager described the church as similar to a catacomb. The side chapel, actually a crypt, held many burial sites including the tomb of Sir Thomas More. With very few written, official documents precise locations of burials is impossible. It is similar to the locations of where people were kept in the Tower. Mostly the information comes from personal letters and historians piecing together where people must have stayed based on who they talk about, what they say they saw, or if lucky their mentioning that they were in such and such a tower. There is even some dispute as to where Elizabeth was housed when a prisoner–was she in the Bell Tower or in the royal apartments.

Bell Tower, part of the Tower of London

There was no inquiry on my part if there was any evidence that Elizabeth would have visited St. Peter ad Vincula when she was held prisoner I the Tower during her half-sister Mary’s reign. This blogger has already concluded that Elizabeth was too politically savvy and perhaps too anxious not to anger or upset her sister to do such a thing. Even as Queen she would not have ventured to her mother’s gravesite. To do so would have re-circulated old scandals and upset those subjects of more conservative leanings. She spent very little time in the royal apartments in the Tower of London. Upon her entry into London after her accession in 1558, she had to take formal and symbolic possession of the Tower. She entered on 28 November and stayed at least six days. Elizabeth returned 12 January 1559 to spend two nights prior to her coronation. It appears as if having fulfilled the requisite stay in the Tower Elizabeth never felt obliged to return. She had understood the poignancy of the place when, upon her formal entry that late November day, she remarked “Some have fallen from being Princes in this land to be prisoners in this place; I am raised from being prisoner in this place to be Prince in this land” (Marshall).

References

Baker, Richard, George Sawbridge, Benjamin Tooke, Thomas Clarges, Edward Phillips, and Edward Phillips. A Chronicle of the Kings of England, from the Time of the Romans Government, Unto the Death of King James the First.: Containing All Passages of State and Church, with All Other Observations Proper for a Chronicle. Faithfully Collected out of Authors Ancient and Modern; and Digested into a Method. By Sir Richard Baker, Knight. Whereunto Is Added, the Reign of King Charles the First, and King Charles the Second. In Which Are Many Material Affairs of State, Never before Published; and Likewise the Most Remarkable Occurrences Relating to King Charles the Second’s Most Wonderful Restauration, by the Prudent Conduct of George Late Duke of Albemarle, Captain General of All His Majesties Armies. As They Were Extracted out of His Excellencies Own Papers, and the Journals and Memorials of Those Imploy’d in the Most Important and Secret Transactions of That Time. London: Printed for Ben. Tooke ; A. and J. Churchill, at the Black-Swan in Pater-Noster Row; and G. Sawbridge, at the Three Flower-de Luces in Little-Britain, 1696. Google Books. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.

Bell, Doyne Courtenay. Notices of the Historic Persons Buried in the Chapel of St. Peter Ad Vincula, in the Tower of London. With an Account of the Discovery of the Supposed Remains of Queen Anne Boleyn. London: J. Murray, 1877. Google Books. Web. 14 Sept. 2013.

Denny, Joanna. Anne Boleyn: An New Life of England’s Tragic Queen. Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press, 2006. Google Books. Web. 1 Sept. 2013

Gardiner, James (editor). “Henry VIII: June 1536, 1-5.” Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 10: January-June 1536 (1887): 424-440. British History Online. Web. 22 September 2013.

Hall, Edward, Henry Ellis, and Richard Grafton. Hall’s Chronicle; Containing the History of England, during the Reign of Henry the Fourth, and the Succeeding Monarchs, to the End of the Reign of Henry the Eighth, in Which Are Particularly Described the Manners and Customs of Those Periods. London: Printed for J. Johnson and J. Rivington; T. Payne; WIlkie and Robinson; Longman, Hurst, Rees and Orme; Cadell and Davies; and J. Mawman, 1809. Archive.org. Web. 2 Jan. 2013.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Virgin Queen: Elizabeth I, Genius of the Golden Age. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1991. Print.

Hume, Martin A. Sharp. Chronicle of King Henry the Eighth of England: Being a Contemporary Record of Some of the Principal Events of the Reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, Written in Spanish by an Unknown Hand ; Translated, with Notes and Introduction, by Martin A. Sharp Hume. London: George Belland Sons, 1889. Internet Archive. Web. 4 May 2013.

Ives, Eric. The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: The Most Happy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Print.

Marshall, Henrietta Elizabeth. “Elizabeth-How the Imprisoned Princess Became a Queen,” An Island Story: A History of England for Boys and Girls. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, Publishers, 1920. Web. 22 Sept. 2013.

Nichols, John Gough. The Chronicle of Queen Jane, Two Years of Queen Mary, and Especially of the Rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyat. London: J. B Nichols and Son, 1822. Google Books. Web. 17 June 2013.

Noorthouck, John. “Book 5, Ch. 2: The suburbs of the City.” A New History of London: Including Westminster and Southwark (1773): 747-768. British History Online. Web. 15 September 2013.

“The Queen Elizabeth Virginal.” V&A Images Collection. Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d. Web. 03 July 2013.

Ridgway, Claire. The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown. UK: MadeGlobal Publishing, 2012. Print.

Somerset, Anne. Elizabeth I. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991. Print.

Stevenson, Joseph (editor). “Elizabeth: September 1559, 1-5.” Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth, Volume 1: 1558-1559 (1863): 524-542. British History Online. Web. 01 September 2013.

Walker, Greg. “Rethinking The Fall Of Anne Boleyn.” Historical Journal 45.1 (2002): 1. MasterFILE Premier EBSCOhost. Web. 2 Sept. 2013.

Warnicke, Retha. The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print.

Weir, Alison. The Children of Henry VIII. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996. Print

Weir, Alison. Henry VIII: The King and His Court. New York: Ballatine Books, 2001. Google Books. Web. 30 June 2013.

Weir, Alison. The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn. London: Jonathan Cape, 2009. Print.

Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Part II

Posted on September 16, 2013 by jodmcp

Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Part II

To understand the relationship between Elizabeth Regina and Philip II, a study must be made of the events of their association and the outcomes. These include two attempts to place Elizabeth on the throne during Mary’s reign; the role Philip played in how Elizabeth was treated in the aftermath of each rebellion; and Mary’s view of her sister’s place in the succession.

Wyatt Rebellion, 1554
Sir Thomas Wyatt was the leader of a rebellion instigated in early 1554 by Mary’s proposed marriage to Philip of Spain. Once she became queen, Mary repealed the act which declared her parents’ marriage invalid and herself illegitimate. She was, as queen, a highly eligible match even though she was 37, certainly middle-aged in that era. She assured Charles V she would be guided by him in her selection of husband, and low and behold his son, Philip, a widower at 26, was the most eligible prince in Catholic Europe. Mary was determined to marry him.

Sir Thomas Wyatt

The Wyatt Rebellion caused her to take decisive action. She went to the Guildhall and gave a speech to the populace assuring them that she married Philip only with the consent of her councilors and that she was firstly married to her kingdom.

Wyatt did enter London; Mary sent her troops after him. She did not flee and, while she was praying for her country’s safety, Wyatt was captured. The rebel said he took action being “persuaded, that by the marriage of the Prince of Spain, the second person of this realm, and next heir to the crown, should have been in danger; and I, being a free-born man, should, with my country, have been brought into bondage and servitude of aliens and strangers” (Strype 132). Rebellion was saving England from the Catholic scourge by ‘the second person of this realm.’ Thus, Elizabeth was implicated although Wyatt never named her during his interrogations or on the scaffold. Elizabeth was sent to the Tower for two months where she was held prisoner, questioned and intimidated.

Mary I Princess Elizabeth

Simon Renard, Ambassador to Spain, wrote to his sovereign, Charles V, 22 March 1554 that there was disagreement in the Council when “it was proposed to throw the Lady Elizabeth into the Tower, the Council expressed a wish to know exactly the reason, and the upshot was that the heretics combined against the Chancellor, and stuck to it that the law of England would not allow of such a measure because there was not sufficient evidence against her, that her rank must be considered and that she might perfectly well be confined elsewhere than in the Tower.” Renard relayed that no one would “accept the responsibility of taking custody of her.” Because of the councilors shying away from taking charge of Elizabeth, they “decided to conduct her to the Tower last Saturday, by river and not through the streets; but it did not happen that day, because when the tide was rising Elizabeth prayed to be allowed to speak to the Queen, saying the order could not have been given with her knowledge, but merely proceeded from the Chancellor’s hatred of her. If she could not speak to the Queen, she begged to be allowed to write to her. This was granted, and while she was writing the tide rose so high that it was no longer possible to pass under London bridge, and they had to wait till the morrow” (Tyler XII March).

Simon Renard A Youthful Charles V

Elizabeth had achieved her purposes: she had postponed her imprisonment in the Tower and had written to her sister. This letter of March 16, 1554, one of Elizabeth’s most famous, was a marvel how she handled her sister and logically argued her innocence while writing under distressing circumstances.

Elizabeth beseeched Mary to remember her agreement to Elizabeth’s request “That I be not condemned without answer and due proof.” Elizabeth wanted her sister to know that “I am by your Council from you commanded to go unto the Tower, a place more wonted for a false traitor than a true subject.” Although she bravely declared that she will go and be proved innocent, she pledged to her sister “I protest afore God that I never practiced, counseled, nor consented to anything that might be prejudicial to your person any way or dangerous to the state by any mean.” Elizabeth appealed for an opportunity to meet with the Queen to tell her in person of her innocence and asked her sister to pardon her boldness, excusing her actions “which innocency procures me to do, together with the hope of your natural kindness.…” The evidence of a letter written by Wyatt is addressed by logically stating “he might peradventure write me a letter, but on my faith I never received any from him.” Elizabeth completed the letter by making diagonal lines across the bottom so that nothing could be inserted and signed herself “Your highness’ most faithful subject that hath been from the beginning and will be to my end, Elizabeth” (Marcus 41-42).

The letter Elizabeth wrote to Mary in March of 1554

Her collaboration in the rebellion was never proven. Renard suggests that Gardiner “held documentary evidence of her [Elizabeth’s] active interest in the plot, but that he destroyed this because it also involved young Courtenay” (Queen Elizabeth 110). Not having direct proof of her sister’s guilt, Mary was reluctant to condemn Elizabeth and so released her to house arrest. John Foxe informed “The xix daye of Maye, the Ladye Elizabeth, Sister to the Queene, was brought oute of the Tower, and committed to the kepyng of Syr Henry Benifielde… shewed himself more harde and strayte unto her, then eyther cause was geven of her parte, or reason of his owne parte.” Foxe showed the surprise not in Bedingfield’s bad treatment but in the benevolence shown by Elizabeth once she came to the throne. Praising her for not taking revenge as other monarchs “oftentimes requited lesse offences with losse of life,” Foxe explained that Elizabeth did not deprive Bedingfield of his liberty “save only that he was restrained for not comming to the court” (Foxe V 1072).

Stephen Gardiner John Foxe

When she was released from Woodstock, it was to come to Court to witness the birth of Mary’s heir. Sources differ on when Mary’s pregnancy was officially announced with some historians, such as Jasper Ridley, claiming it was in the spring of 1555 while we have an official document from January. The Doge Francesco Venier of Venice did send his Ambassador Giovanni Michiel instructions 5 January 1555 to congratulate the King and Queen on the “certainty now obtained of the Queen giving an heir to the realm” (Brown VI January 5). Further exclamations were extended for this “auspicious and desired event” concluding this was a “great gift conferred on the whole of Christendom” (Brown VI January 6).

Francesco Venier, Doge of Venice

Regardless of when it was officially announced, the impending event did affect Elizabeth. On 29 April 1555, Michiel reported to the Doge, “that day or on the morrow Elizabeth Tudor was to arrive at Hampton Court from Woodstock.” Then on the 6th of May he informed the Venetian officials that when Elizabeth “appeared she was neither met nor received by anyone, but was placed in the apartment lately inhabited by the Duke of Alva, where she lives in retirement, not having been seen by any one, save once or twice by their Majesties, by private stairs” (Brown VIPreface 16).

Elizabeth was housed with a “certain Sir Thomas Pope, a rich and grave gentleman, of good name, both for conduct and religion; the Queen having appointed him Miladi’s governor. I am told …they also assigned her a widow gentlewoman, as governess, in lieu of her own who is a prisoner, she herself likewise may be also said to be in ward and custody, though in such decorous and honourable form as becoming” (Brown VI June 514). No ifs, ands or buts about it, Elizabeth was still under house arrest. Elizabeth’s release is credited to Philip’s influence on Mary. Philip realized without an heir born of Mary, Elizabeth would be the successor. To preserve Hapsburg interests, Philip realized Elizabeth had to be married to a Catholic prince: the intended bridegroom was Emmanuel Philibert, Prince of Piedmont and titular Duke of Savoy.

Philip had plans for Elizabeth. Antoine de Noailles wrote to the Queen-Dowager of Scotland in September 1555 informing her of Elizabeth’s popularity and the fact that “his Grace, the said Lord King, has shown a friendly disposition for her, and he has written several letters to the Queen, his wife, commending the Princess to her care” (Queen Elizabeth I 200).

Dudley Conspiracy, Late 1555 -1556

Another rebellion against the reign of Queen Mary began in December 1555. In a letter to Sir William Petre, Secretary of State, dated January 21, 1556, Nicholas Wotton, Dean of Canterbury and English Ambassador to France, wrote of information he had gleaned from an informant. There was a “plot against the Queen which he said was devised by some of the best in England, and so many were agreed thereupon that it was impossible but that it must take effect; that the matter had been in hand about a year ago.” The conspirators’ intentions were not to kill her Majesty “but to deprive her of her estate…” Wotton “did not think it necessary to write thereof to her Majesty lest she might suddenly be troubled with it, and conceive some greater fear of it than were good for her to do.” Petre was to inform the Queen when “it shall not disquiet her Majesty” (Turnbull 285-286). Mary was disquieted though and fearful for her life.

Sir William Petre Nicholas Wotton, Dean of Canterbury

Called the Dudley Conspiracy for the main instigator, Sir Henry Dudley (a distant relative to John Dudley, the executed Duke of Northumberland and Robert Dudley, the future favorite of Elizabeth), its purpose became clearer as the investigation continued. Mary and Philip were to be deposed and replaced by Elizabeth with her consort being Edward Courtenay.

Imprisoned during the time of Henry VIII, Courtenay spent 15 years in confinement. Released upon Mary’s ascension to the throne, he was created 1^st Earl of Devon and sent on several diplomatic missions. His hopes of marriage to Mary fell flat when she espoused Philip. Courtenay then turned his attention to Elizabeth obviously seeing marriage as his way to the throne. After serving more time in the Tower for the Wyatt Rebellion, the Earl of Devon was exiled to Europe until his death in September of 1556. He found acceptance in Venice where he became the focal point for further conspiracies such as the Dudley Rebellion.

Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon

Several prominent supporters of the rebellion were Lord Thomas Howard, Sir Peter Killigrew, Henry Peckham and several members of the Throckmorton clan. One cannot underestimate the organization of Dudley and his fellow conspirators. They raised money, attempted to gain powerful allies such as the King of France and landed gentry, approached Courtenay and saturated England with anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish writings. It was subversive writings such as these that were found in the London residence of Kat Ashley, governess to Princess Elizabeth.

Giovanni Michiel, Ambassador to England for Venice kept the Doge and the Venetian Senate informed of what was occurring. Michiel reported on 2 June, “The number of persons imprisoned increases daily… Mistress [Katharine] Ashley was taken thither [to the Tower], she being the chief governess of Miladi Elizabeth, the arrest, together with that of three other domestics, having taken place in the country, 18 [Venetian] miles hence, even in the aforesaid Miladi’s own house [Hatfield], and where she at present resides, which has caused great general vexation. I am told that they have all already confessed to having known about the conspiracy; so not having revealed it, were there nothing else against them, they may probably not quit the Tower alive, this alone subjecting them to capital punishment. This governess was also found in possession of those writings and scandalous books against the religion and against the King and Queen which were scattered about some months ago, and published all over the kingdom” (Brown VIJune 505).

Kat Ashley

People close to Elizabeth knew about the plot — that has been well established. How involved was Elizabeth? The only written link between her and the rebels occurred in February 1556 when Anne, Duke de Montmorency, Constable of France wrote to the French Ambassador, Antoine de Noailles that “above all restrain Madame Elizabeth from stirring at all in the affair of which you have written to me, for that would be to ruin everything” (Queen Elizabeth I 203). Can this letter be seen as proof of Elizabeth’s willing cooperation with the Dudley plot? Although it is damaging, it is not conclusive. This could be a misinterpretation of information gathered by the Constable or wishful thinking.

Anne, Duke de Montmorency, Constable of France

Noailles and King Henri II were implicated in the Dudley plot. Because the international diplomatic scene had changed with the Vaucelles truce, Henri did not want to antagonize Charles and Philip so he “advised the conspirators to defer the execution of their plans” which they ignored (Acton 544). The success of the plot depended on too many people and too many variables (this blog will not relay the details there are many sources available including contemporary diplomatic dispatches in the Calendar of State Papers-Venice Volume VI). A conspirator, Thomas White, on staff at the Royal Exchequer was to ensure the robbery of funds to finance the conspiracy (Whitelock Mary Tudor 303). Ambassador Michiel wondered if White came forward “either from hope of reward, or to exculpate himself… revealed the plot to Cardinal Pole” (Brown VI March 5 434). White was rewarded as shown in the Originalia Roll (the fine roll sent to the Exchequer) for Mary and Philip because “of good and faithful service by our beloved servant, Thomas White, gentleman, in the late conspiracy against us, our crown and dignity attempted not long since by Henry Dudley and his accomplices” (Thoroton Society 52). A known conspirator rewarded: what of Elizabeth?

King Henri II of France

Convinced that Elizabeth was aware of the plot, Mary sent her trusted courtier, Francesco Piamontese, to Brussels to consult with Philip on how to handle the situation. Venetian Ambassador Michiel went further to explain that this issue was very sensitive because of Kat Ashley’s involvement “by reason of her grade with the “Signora,” who is held in universal esteem and consideration” (Brown VI June 505). So not only is a trusted servant of Elizabeth’s in possession of seditious materials, it appears to be universally acknowledged that Elizabeth is very popular. Would it be wise to move against her too aggressively? A tricky situation for Mary.

In June Michiel wrote to his superiors in Venice, “Finally, at the very hour when persons were departing, her chamberlain and the courier Francesco Piamontese returned” from Brussels to the Queen’s relief. “As for many months the Queen has passed from one sorrow to another” (Brown VI June 525).

So what was to become of Elizabeth? What guidance had Philip given his wife concerning the suspicions of her sister? What Mary received was pro-Hapsburgian advice. Despite Michiel’s predicitons, none of Elizabeth’s household members were executed nor was she punished. Although there was strong evidence that those around her were involved in treasonous activities (Kat Ashley being in posession of the seditious materials was enough cause for punishment beyond time in the Tower) and questions concerning what Elizabeth knew, any action against her would threaten her succession. “There is little doubt that it was the King’s influence which prevented Elizabeth herself from being again arrested on this occasion and sent to the Tower with the four other members of her household. It is difficult otherwise to account for Mary’s leniency” (Queen Elizabeth I 209).

Tower of London

Hapsburg interests demanded that Elizabeth be heir to the throne of England over Mary, Queen of Scots. Mary had the surest position of inheritance after Elizabeth and as the fiancé of the dauphin of France, could unite Scottish, French and English dominions and interests which would threaten the power of Spain. Hapsburg interests prevailed. “Piamontese returned to London with an unequivocal message from the king: no further inquiries should be made into Elizabeth’s guilt, nor any suggestion made that her servants had been implicated in the plot with her authority” (Whitlock 307). Philip was more than willing to be lenient with Elizabeth. By 1556 few people believed that Mary would produce an heir and looked toward Elizabeth to be the next queen. It probably was wise on the part of the councilors not to antagonize Elizabeth. She was considered the preferred heir, and her smooth succession could halt potential civil conflict or French interference to place Mary Stuart on the throne—both good enough reasons to leave well-enough alone.

So, astoundingly, Elizabeth remained free. Protestations of ignorance about her household’s activities were enough. Mary probably did not believe her but allowed the stories that Elizabeth’s name had been used without authority to be circulated. This blogger cannot help but feel for the position in which Mary was placed. Her motto, ‘Truth, Daughter of Time,’ seemed to be jeopardized as she did her husband’s bidding; although, with most of Mary’s submissiveness it was up to a point.

According to Michiel, in June of 1556 Mary sent two of her gentlemen, Sir Henry Hastings, and Sir H. Francis Englefield, to Elizabeth with a “message of good will…with a ring worth 400 ducats, and also to give her minute account of the cause of their arrest, to aquaint her with what they had hitherto deposed and confesssed, and to persaude her not to take amiss the removal from about her persons of similar folds, who subjected her to the danger of some evil suspicion; assuring her of the Queen’s good will and disposiiton, provided she continue to live becomingly, to Her Majesty’s liking. Using in short loving and gracious expressions, to show her that she is neither neglected nor hated, but loved and esteemed by Her Majesty. This message is considered most gracious by the whole kindom, everybody in general wishing her all ease and honour, and very greatly regretting any trouble she may incure; the proceeding having been not only necessary but profitable, to warn her of the licentious life led, especially in matters of religion, by her household” (Queen Elizabeth I 210).

Henry Hastings

Ambassador Michiel let on that Elizabeth’s household would be made up of persons the Queen believed to better serve her. It is assumed Mary thought her sister guilty and urged Elizabeth “to keep so much the more to her duty, and together with her attendants behave the more cautiously” (Queen Elizabeth I 210).

Mary feigned that she believed Elizabeth had been in danger of “being thus clandestinely exposed to the manifest risk of infamy and ruin.” So, the solution was for the Queen to remodel Elizabeth’s household “in another form, and with a different sort of persons to those now in her service, replacing them by such as are entirely dependent on her Majesty; so that as her own proceedings and those of all such persons as enter or quit her abode will be most narrowly scanned” (Brown VIJune 505).

Assigned to Elizabeth’s household was “Sir Thomas Pope, a rich and grave gentleman, of good name, both for conduct and religion; the Queen having appointed him Miladi’s governor, and she having accepted him willingly, although he himself did his utmost to decline such a charge. I am told that besides this person, they also assigned her a widow gentlewoman, as governess, in lieu of her own who is a prisoner, so that at present having none but the Queen’s dependents about her person, she herself likewise may be also said to be in ward and custody, though in such decorous and honourable form as becoming” (Brown VI June 514).

Sir Thomas Pope

Pope was commissioned by Mary’s Council in July of 1556 to keep Elizabeth informed of the activities confessed by the Dudley conspirators “how little these men stick, by falsehood, and untruth, to compass their purpose; not letting, for that intent, to abuse the name of her Grace, or any others” (Queen Elizabeth I 213).

Elizabeth did write to the Queen in careful phraseology about the information she had received from Pope. “Of this I assure your majesty, though it be my part above the rest to bewail such things though my name had not been in them, yet it vexeth me too much …as to put me in any part of his [the devil] mischievous instigations. And like as I have been your faithful subject from the beginning of your reign, so shall no wicked persons cause me to change to the end of my life. And thus I commit your majesty to God’s tuition, whom I beseech long time to preserve … from Hatfield this present Sunday, the second day of August. Your majesty’s obedient subject and humble sister, Elizabeth” (Marcus 43-44).

For references, please refer to the blog entry “Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Part I.”

His Last Letter

Posted on June 11, 2013 by jodmcp

His Last Letter

At her death in 1603, Leicester’s last letter* to Elizabeth (written six days before his death in September 1588) was found in a small casket by her bed with “His Last Letter” written in her own handwriting on it. This story has always captured my imagination as a very adoring gesture taken by this imposing historical figure.

His Last Letter. For a modern transcription see below*.

In the early summer of 2003, I came home from work to find a present waiting for me from my husband. When I opened it, imagine my surprise when I found Susan Doran’s Elizabeth: The Exhibition at the National Maritime Museum--the catalog to the Greenwich Exhibition celebrating the 400^th anniversary of the death of Queen Elizabeth I. Along with the catalog were entry tickets for August 8^th and plane and hotel reservations. I was going! The catalog was read thoroughly beforehand with meticulous notes taken on which items would be “Want to See” and “Must See”. Lot #70, Leicester’s last letter written to Elizabeth, was a “Must See” and became one of the top artifacts that I said I would die if I didn’t see. What a way to set myself up.

We arrived early at the National Maritime Museum. I was so excited. We were some of the first in the doors that morning and sat front and center to watch the introductory video narrated by Guest Curator, David Starkey then I was ready to view the artifacts.

Armed with my list of exhibits to see (see below for an abbreviated chart of artifacts), I came upon Lot #70 and the letter wasn’t there! There was #69 and #71 immediately next to it. No #70. I kept looking expecting it to miraculously materialize. Nothing. My husband looked: he called a docent over and they looked together. The young man expressed great concern and radioed his supervisor who came to spend over 15 minutes looking for it. Neither one of them could come up with a reason for its absence. Still mystified, I finished the rest of the exhibit, went back to admire some particular items, wrote my notes and had to leave despite not seeing “His Last Letter.”

Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester

The rest of my surprise trip to Great Britain was a thrill (My visit to the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower of London is for another blog entry). Upon my return home to the USA, I was determined to discover what had happened to Lot #70. Leicester’s last letter had become almost as important to me as it had to Elizabeth I. I researched as much as I could and came up empty handed until my husband and I attended Dr. David Starkey’s lecture at the Newberry Library in Chicago, IL on November 22, 2003.

While standing in line to have books autographed (I took Elizabeth: The Exhibition at the National Maritime Museum and my husband had Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII), I resolved to ask him about the letter. Dr. Starkey was wonderful to take the time to answer my questions (with a queue trailing behind me) and expressed surprise that I did not see the letter. He assured me that it should have been there.

My next step, e-mailing the National Maritime Museum, which I did on November 24, 2003, asking if the lot had been removed for some reason.

The reply I received on November 26, 2003 is as follows. [Having eliminated the name of the respondent for privacy.]

Dear Jodi,

Dudley’s last letter was on display in the exhibition but unfortunately, the
National Archives would only loan it to us for 3 months or so. By the time you
visited, it was replaced with another letter from Dudley to Elizabeth.>

An image of the letter is available to view on our website. [The link is not active
now in 2013.] http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/setTemplate:singlecontent/
contentTypeA/conWebDoc.contentld/6088/viewPage

Mystery solved. It still does not end my disappointment of not seeing the actual letter but ten years later and I am close to being over it. Happily, I have a framed poster of the fantastic Exhibition in my den as a reminder.

National Maritime Museum Exhibition on Queen Elizabeth I

Attended August 8, 2003

Lot *Must See	Subject	Form	Comments
*7	Elizabeth	Locket ring	Has picture of her mom.
*26	Elizabeth & Mary	Letter	Hard to read as faded at the top of the paper. Elizabeth wrote to Mary requesting an audience during the Wyatt Rebellion interrogation—diagonals across the bottom so no one could add anything.
*70	Elizabeth & Dudley	Letter	Was not there—his last letter to her with her writing on it identifying it as his last letter.
*192	Elizabeth	Portrait	Three Goddess.
*193	Elizabeth	Portrait	Pelican—from Walker Art Gallery.
*196	Elizabeth	Portrait	Peace
4	Anne Boleyn	Pendant	Given to her by Henry VIII.
5	Anne Boleyn	Medal	Has her motto on it.
12	Elizabeth, Katherine Parr, Henry VIII	Book	Elizabeth made for Henry of Katherine’s writings.
17	Elizabeth & Katherine Parr	Letter	Elizabeth forgot the word ‘them’ in the two letters on display. Letters she wrote to her little brother Edward were also interesting to see.
29	Elizabeth	Portrait	Coronation (Enjoyed the one of her at about age 14 also.)
69	Elizabeth & Dudley	Letter	He wrote to her as her ‘eyes’ signature was Ȱ Ȱ. (Well, close to that.)
118	Elizabeth	Inventory	Great Wardrobe inventory of 1600 with separate exhibits of a pair of gloves and even her saddle.
264/265	Elizabeth	Drawings	Funeral procession. (These drawings appear to be seen infrequently prior to this exhibit.)

Newberry Library Elizabeth I Exhibit—Attnded November 22, 2003

Subject	Comments
Quentin Massey’s “Sieve” Portrait	From 1580-83, after the one in Sienna, Italy.
Copy book by Roger Ascham (her tutor)	Book on the education of children.
Elizabeth letter to Seymour	Written February 21, 1549.
Evangelical Shepherd 1533	Gift to Anne Boleyn from Francis I with the introduction by a French poet.
Small portrait of Elizabeth	She is in black and has a watch noticeably –from 1564-1567.
Elizabeth’s letter to Catherine de Medici	The letter offers condolences over d’Alencon’s death in 1584—it was in French and in her handwriting.
Answer to the Lords Petition that she marry	It had her scribbles etc. It was delivered in 1563 to Parliament by Nicholas Bacon with her seated nearby.
Speech of 1567	Elizabeth gave the speech herself to Parliament on the topic of her marrying –calling it “lip labored orations.”
Copy of Stubbs pamphlet	It protested her marriage to d’Alencon– of which cost him his right hand.
Copy of Knox’s book, Blast on Female Rulers.	It was a colonial copy from 1766 printed in Philadelphia.
Elizabeth speech to Parliament	Topic concerned Mary, Queen of Scots on November 12, 1586.
Letter Elizabeth wrote to James	Written in January 1593 offering advice.
Letter to Elizabeth from James	The letter was written after Mary, Queen of Scots execution and dated March 1587. He protests the action but would say—gently.
Mary’s execution drawing	Similar to the one seen in Greenwich Exhibition.
Painting of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth from 1597	Had never seen this painting before although it is from the Art Institute of Chicago.
Essex letter to Elizabeth from November 1597	Essex pleading for her forgiveness in his own arrogant way.
Version of Tilbury speech August 9, 1588	Written by an eyewitness.
Scroll of funeral procession, from British Library	Forty feet long by College of Heralds. Had listed Walter Raleigh as Capitan of the Guard.
William Camden Annals of 1625	Definitive source of information on Elizabeth.

Afterward:

In October of 2012 inquires were made as how Liecester’s letter came to the ownership of the National Archives. My first e-mail was mistakenly taken as a request for a copy (for those of you who are interested, here is the web address where it can be purchased: https:www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/recordcopying/estimateoptions.aspx). A second e-mail fielded this reply:

Dear Jodi,

Thank you for your further email, and I am sorry if my colleague did not fully answer your enquiry. While it is often very difficult to check the provenance of a single document, more generally the National Archives holds the archive of the crown and central government, and as such many personal documents from the reigning monarch ended up amongst more formal state documents, known collectively as State Papers. Some have ended up elsewhere, as royal officials often treated official papers as personal property, but royal letters can be found for all the Tudor monarchs in our collections. There is some background research guidance on this in:http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/state-papers-1547-1649.htm. Elizabeth’s letter is likely to have been in custody of royal officials since her death.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. ##### ######
Medieval and Early Modern Team
Advice and Records Knowledge (ARK)
The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

It must be surmised that the letter was treated as a “State Paper” and handled as such throughout. I am just thankful that it is still in existence and the story of Elizabeth I treasuring it for the 15 years until her own death is preserved as well.

*“I most humbly beseech your Majesty to pardon your poor old servant to be thus bold in sending to know how my gracious lady doth, and what ease of her late pains she finds, being the chiefest thing in this world I do pray for, for her to have good health and long life. For my own poor case, I continue still your medicine and find that (it) amends much better than with any other thing that hath been given me. Thus hoping to find perfect cure at the bath, with the continuance of my wonted prayer for your Majesty’s most happy preservation, I humbly kiss your foot. From your old lodging at Rycote, this Thursday morning, ready to take on my Journey, by your Majesty’s most faithful and obedient servant,

R. Leicester

Even as I had writ thus much, I received Your Majesty’s token by Young Tracey.”

The First Step-Mother to Elizabeth, Jane Seymour

Posted on May 14, 2013 by jodmcp

The First Step-Mother to Elizabeth, Jane Seymour

Bound to obey and serve. That was the motto selected by Jane when she became queen. Was it true or did she know that would be what Henry VIII would want?

Jane had been a lady-in-waiting to Anne Boleyn and her persona does not come to us very clearly via contemporary sources. History has given her to be modest, virtuous, obedient, and accepting. She is seen as solid, pleasant, dignified and calm. She is most often judged neither good nor bad. Sadly, perhaps her character is viewed so positively because of the fact that she produced the longed-for heir and died before Henry became tired of her.

It is not the place here to go into details about Jane Seymour, her courtship with Henry and her death. Nor enter the debate of whether she was spotted by Henry or was selected (fascinating discussion but one not necessary to this blog entry)

Physically we have paintings by Hans Holbein, in her lifetime, and several artists’ work, posthumously, plus the verbal description by the Spanish Ambassador, Eustace Chapuys who determined that “She is of no great beauty, so fair that one would call her pale. The said Seymoure is not a woman of great wit, but she may have good understanding” (Lindsey 119). Historians have given weight to Chapuys’ account since he was not a champion of Anne Boleyn and would have welcomed her fall.

Famous Hans Holbein portrait Unknown painter

That lack of wit but understanding does lead to the supposition that Jane could figure out how to deal with Henry. But how could she not be worried about marring a man who had discarded one wife and killed another? Her understanding had to extend to realizing the possible risk she was taking.

Jane attributed to The English School

Agnes Strickland does not perpetuate the image of the meek and docile bride as “we have so little that is favorable to relate of this queen” (Strickland 408). Although Strickland will give Jane credit for being a discrete, beautiful young woman she does wonder if she was as heartless as her bridegroom. Jane had to know what was happening in the Tower of London to Anne Boleyn while she was planning her marriage to Henry. “The giddiness of youth cannot be pleaded as apology for Jane Seymour’s indecency, for she was no child when she permitted herself to be courted by the royal Bluebeard, and must have been entirely conscious of the enormity of her actions” (Strickland 403). Jane’s actions led to her engagement to Henry the day after Anne’s execution and their marriage 10 days later.

We do know that as a step-mother, Jane treated Mary well and granted her special privileges while Elizabeth “was placed out of sight” (Erickson 31). Her motivation for championing Mary could have been kindness or as some believe social snobbery.

She wanted to have someone of her status at Court. “Now that it hath pleased Your Grace to make me your wife, there are none but my inferiors to make merry withal, Your Grace excepted—unless it would please you that we might enjoy the company of the Lady Mary at court. I could make merry with her” (Lindsey 132, Hume The Wives of Henry VIII 303). Although this does not mesh with Polydore Vergil’s view that Jane was “a woman of the utmost charm both in appearance and character,” it is understood that Mary’s situation improved under Jane (Fraser 235). What of Elizabeth?

Martin Hume reported that, after Queen Jane had brought about the reconciliation between Henry and Mary, she fell to her knees and said, “Your Majesty knows how bad Queen Anne was, and it is not fit that her daughter should be Princess. So the King ordered it to be proclaimed that in future none should dare to call her Princess, but madam Elizabeth” (Hume 72 -73). This was only done after Henry implied that all the harm that had come to Mary, the humiliations and banishments had been from Anne Boleyn. “My daughter, she who did you so much harm, and prevented me from seeing you for so long, has paid the penalty” (Hume 72). Therefore, several days after the wedding, The Lord Chancellor made a speech in Parliament about extolling the King’s virtues but ended “with the information that Anne Boleyn’s daughter was not heir to the throne of England” (Strickland 407). This story appears to come from a Spanish merchant, Antonio de Guaras writing to King Philip II. Many speculate that this was just wishful thinking on the part of the loyal Spaniard.

Elizabeth was not completely banished from Court. She was brought to Court along with Mary when Henry, faced with rebellion, felt it necessary to show a united front. This public relations move was reported by Le Cardinal du Bellay Ambassador to the French Court. He observed that rather than “soften the temper of the people” the peoples’ opinions were so fixed “they think of nothing but liberty. Madam Marie is now the first after the Queen, and sits at table opposite her, a little lower down, after having first given the napkin for washing to the King and Queen. Madame Isabeau (Elizabeth) is not at that table, though the King is very affectionate to her. It is said he loves her much” (Gairdner 346).

When Elizabeth was four, Jane gave birth to Edward. At his baptism at Hampton Court, Mary was a godmother and Elizabeth held the chrisom cloth although she, in turn, was carried by Edward Seymour. As known, Jane died shortly after the birth due to puerperal fever. Mary was chief mourner at Jane’s funeral. Elizabeth did not take part but that was probably due to her age.

Posthumous rendering of Jane with Edward and Henry

References

Elton, G. R. England Under the Tudors. Third ed. London: Routledge, 1991. Print

Erickson, Carolly. The First Elizabeth. New York: Summit Books. 1983. Print.

Fraser, Antonia. The Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. Print.

Gairdner, James, ed. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII. Vol. 11. London: Longman, Green, Longman & Roberts, 1888. Google Books. Web. 4 May 2013.

Hume, Martin. The Wives of Henry the Eighth and the Parts They Played in History. New York: McClure, Phillips & Co., 1905. Google Books, n.d. Web. 06 May 2013.

Lindsey, Karen. Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-WESLEY Publishing Company, 1995. Print.

Ridley, Jasper. Elizabeth I: The Shrewdness of Virtue. New York: Fromm International Publishing Corporation, 1989. Print.

Perry, Maria. The Word of a Prince: A Life of Elizabeth from Contemporary Documents. Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 1990. Print.

Ridgeway, Claire. The Fall of Anne Boleyn. UK: MadeGlobal Publishing, 2012. Print.

Somerset, Anne. Elizabeth I. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991. Print.

Starkey, David. Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII. London: Chatto & Windus, 2003. Print.

Strickland, Agnes, Elisabeth Strickland, and Rosalie Kaufman. The Queens of England, Abridged and Adapted from Strickland’s “Queens of England” Chicago: Werner, 1895. Internet Archive. Web. 4 May 2013.

Warnicke, Retha. The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998. Print.

Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991. Print.