Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford (52 page)

NOTE ON DATES

In giving dates, the Old Style has been retained, but the year is assumed to have begun on January 1, and not on Lady Day, the feast of the Annunciation (i.e., March 25), which was by custom the first day of the calendar year in France, Spain, and Italy until 1582; in Scotland until 1600; and in England, Wales, and Ireland until 1752.

NOTE ON TRANSCRIPTION

The spelling and orthography of primary sources in quotations are always given in modernized form. Modern punctuation and capitalization are provided where there is none in the original manuscript.

NOTES

PROLOGUE

The printed sources from
LP,
I.i, nos. 670, 671, 678, 707, give details on the young prince and his funeral. NA, LC 2/1, fols. 159–74fv. is the fullest original document providing significant information omitted by the printed abstracts. Hall (1904, I, pp. 2–27) gives a vivid account of the young prince’s life and death. For royal funeral protocol, Royal Book (1790) is an excellent starting point. Starkey (2004, pp. 120–23) provides the political background. For the life of Robert Fayrfax, see
ODNB.
For what Westminster Abbey was like in 1511, Perkins (1938–40) is invaluable. Annenberg School (1972) provides a useful context.
Monumenta Westmonasteriensia
(1683) is crucial to an understanding of the Abbey’s historical topography, describing where the tombs are located, including Prince Henry’s.

CHAPTER
1

In the absence of church records, I have based my suggestion for Jane’s date of birth as c.1505 on the fact it is likely she was about sixteen or seventeen years old when she took part in a court pageant in 1522. This would also fit with Bell (1877, p. 27), which suggests that she was around age forty when executed, an estimate based on an examination of the bones discovered in the chancel and believed to be hers when the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula was repaired in 1876–77. I have also sited her at Great Hallingbury, the principal Morley residence, especially as Sir Edward Howard’s will says that Alice Lovel used Morley Hall in Norfolk. The precise date of construction for Morley’s new mansion at Great Hallingbury is unknown; although it is more likely that she spent some time in the new building, Jane could have been brought up in the much smaller house or even on a building site. Since Jane’s early life is undocumented, the details of her education are, inevitably, generic. Harris (2002, chap. 2, especially pp. 32–42) is invaluable. The details on the baptism come from Cressy (1997, pp. 100, 125, 135, 139, 141), from
The Sarum Missal
(1913, I, p. 13), and from the
Manuale
(1875, p. 11). Cavendish (1825, II, p. 71), asserts in
Metrical Visions
that Jane went to court early and, since he knew her and was concerned with her as a penitent, there is no reason to disbelieve what is, for him, a circumstantial detail. For Lord Morley’s life, see
ODNB;
Axton and Carley (2000, pp. 1–27), where Starkey shrewdly writes of him as an “attendant lord” see also Wright (1943, pp. ix–xlvii). Further family details come from the wills of Alice Lovel, Sir John St. John, and Sir Edward Howard: NA, PROB 11/17, PROB 11/19, PROB 11/21. The Morley mansion at Great Hallingbury is described by Cocks (1997, pp. 5–8, 14–15, 28) and Cocks and Hardie (1994, pp. 1, 7–10). The possible furnishings come from Alice Lovel’s will.

CHAPTER
2

Until now, no one has identified Jane as the Mistress Parker mentioned in
The Chronicle of Calais
(1846, p. 25) and the Rutland Papers (1842, p. 38) but I believe that it was indeed her. There has been confusion with Margery Parker, one of Katherine of Aragon’s women and later rocker to Princess Mary, a fairly menial position. However, in both
The Chronicle
and the Rutland Papers, Mistress Parker’s name is juxtaposed with those who, like Mistress Carey, are not servants: Mistress Parker is the name under which Jane is listed at the 1522 pageant, and her fellow performers on that occasion, such as Mistress Dannet, are also listed with her at the Field of Cloth of Gold. If Cavendish is to be believed when he states that Jane spent her early years at court, she would have accompanied her parents to the great spectacle at Calais and Guisnes—everyone who was anyone was dredged up. Hall (1904, I, pp. 188–218) contains a very full account;
LP,
III.i, nos. 632, 704, 826, 852, 870, provide less emotive documentation; Anglo (1969, pp. 139–58) gives the best, fullest, and most meticulous account.
The Musical Times
(June 1, 1920, pp. 410–11) has details on the music played. Campbell (2007, chap. 8) identifies the King David hanging as one of Henry’s tapestries lining the walls of his palace at Guisnes. Food and victualling are taken from
LP,
IV.i, no. 2159. References to Wolsey are from Cavendish (1825, I, pp. 18–20, 43, 44, 50, 131). Henry’s description is from Hall (1904, I, p. 5) and
LP,
III.i, no. 402; his musical abilities are discussed by Starkey (1991a, p. 104). Francis is described by Knecht (1994, pp. 105–7, 170–75). Starkey (2004, pp. 160–63) gives an excellent account of Katherine’s deteriorating physique. Ives (2004, p. 31) suggests that George was likely to have accompanied his father and he also (p. 32) makes the persuasive suggestion that Anne Boleyn was probably present in Queen Claude’s suite.
ODNB
entries for Katherine of Aragon, Elizabeth Blount, Henry Norris, and Cardinal Wolsey give good basic background.

CHAPTER
3

Detail on Tudor costume is from Norris (1997, pp. 199–200, 203, 208, 220–22). For documents concerning the execution of the Duke of Buckingham, see
LP,
III.i, nos. 1, 1284;
LP,
IV.i, no. 2159.
CSPSp Supp,
preface, pp. xii, xiii, xvii, provides information on the imperial ambassadors. My account of the Shrove Tuesday pageant relies on the information from
LP,
III.ii, no. 1522; Hall (1904, I, pp. 238–40); Ives (2004, pp. 36–39, 70); Anglo (1969, pp. 120–21). The most authoritative and comprehensive account of the way tapestries were used for court festivals and as decorative objects is by Campbell (2007, chaps. 6, 9). For the five players in the masque who had been part of Katherine’s entourage at the Field of Cloth of Gold, see Rutland Papers (1842, p. 38) and
The Chronicle of Calais
(1846, p. 25).

CHAPTER
4

Details on Buckingham’s income and lands are taken from
LP,
III.i, nos. 1286, 1287. The sale of Newhall to Henry VIII is
LP,
II.ii, p. 1470, while the references to the grants to the Boleyns are in
LP,
III.ii, no. 2214(29), and
LP
IV.i, no. 5469(2). There are many references to the Ormond lands: for example, NA, SP 46/183, fol. 124; SP 46/183, fol. 140, for references to Aylesbury; SP 46/183, fol. 164, and SP 46/183, fol. 189, for Rochford; and SP 46/183, fol. 186, and SP 46/183, fol. 194, for Newhall. For Morley’s diplomatic mission and ensuing letters, see
LP,
III.ii, nos. 3373, 3390, 3391, 3546, 3619.
ODNB
references to Sir Thomas Boleyn and George Boleyn are useful, as is
The Complete Peerage
(1987, especially IV, p. 138) for details on George. His part in the Christmas revels is from
LP,
II.ii, p. 1501. The wills of Sir Geoffrey Boleyn and the Earl of Ormond are from NA, PROB 11/5, PROB 11/18. General background material on Lord Morley comes from Starkey’s “Introduction” to Axton and Carley (2000). See also Carley’s
ODNB
entry on Morley. The respective dates and order of birth of the Boleyn children have exercised historians for over a hundred years as the evidence conflicts or is inconclusive. J. H. Round debated the subject in Round (1886), and Gairdner (1893) is an excellent critique and summary. See also Friedmann (1884, II, appendix note A, pp. 315–22). A birth date of 1507 for Anne was given by Camden. However, contradictory evidence comes from the family of Mary Boleyn: her son, Lord Hunsdon, said that his mother was the elder sister, while the funeral monument to Lady Berkely, Hunsdon’s daughter, gives Mary as the second daughter. To further muddy the waters, Weever (1630, p. 799) has a reference to William Boleyn in which he states that Anne was sixteen years younger than Henry VIII, which supports a later birth date of about 1507; on the other hand, Brooke(1619) names Anne as the second daughter on one page and the eldest on another (p. 250). Ives follows in the footsteps of Paget (1981, pp. 162–70). He suggests about 1499 for Mary, 1500–1 for Anne, and 1504 for George: Ives (2004, p. 17). Starkey (2004, p. 258) supports this order, although he places the dates a year or so later. Warnicke disagrees, arguing that Anne was the elder daughter, born in 1507: Warnicke (1985a, pp. 939–52). Fortunately, there seems to be unanimity in accepting George as the youngest Boleyn sibling. References to the king’s contribution to Jane’s jointure are from
LP,
X, no. 1010, and Ellis (1824–46, 1st series, II, p. 67). The fullest details, however, including newly discovered evidence not in the printed sources can be found in WRO, microfilm 705:349/12946/498729; this should be read in conjunction with HLRO, MS PO/1/1539 (Original Acts, 31 Henry VIII, c.20). Lord Morley’s payment to Thomas Boleyn is from
LP,
IV, appendix 99, p. 3116. Elizabeth Edgecombe’s jointure is taken from CRO, MS ME/824. Boleyn’s indenture with his mother, Margaret, is enrolled on NA, C 54/379. Mary Tudor’s bargain with Henry VIII is taken from
LP,
II.ii, no. 227. An excellent starting point for anyone wanting to understand the jointure system can be found in Harris (2002, pp. 44–50).

CHAPTER
5

The wording and proceedings of the marriage ceremony are taken from
The Sarum Missal
(1913, II, pp. 143–61), which was the form of liturgy in use throughout southern England. General details on Tudor marriage customs can be found in Stone (1961) and Peters (2000). The most comprehensive survey is by Cressy (1997, pp. 285–375). Information on the costumes of Katherine of Aragon, Mary Tudor, and Eleanor of Austria is from Norris (1997, pp. 209, 273, 650). Wolsey’s Eltham Ordinances are from
LP,
IV.i, no. 1939(4), interpreted in the light of his crucial preparatory material in his own hand from NA, SP 1/37, fol. 102. There is no record of an application for a marriage license listed in the allegations for marriage licences issued by the vicar-general of the bishop of London.

CHAPTER
6

Good summaries of Mary Carey’s early life are by Starkey (2004, pp. 274–75) and Ives (2004, pp. 15–17). She is likely to be the “Mademoiselle Boleyn” listed among the French queen’s attendants in
LP,
I.ii, no. 3357. The reference to her morals comes from
LP,
X, no. 450. Basic details on the life of William Carey can be found in
ODNB.
His wedding to Mary is from
LP,
III.ii, p. 1539, the Eltham Ordinances are from
LP,
IV.i, no. 1939(4), and his rewards are pieced together from
LP,
III.i, no. 317;
LP,
III.ii, no. 2074(5);
LP,
III.ii, no. 2297(12), p. 973;
LP,
IV.ii, no. 2972, p. 1331. Murphy (2003, pp. 38–39) has a useful account of Richmond’s investiture. See also
LP,
IV.i, no. 1431;
CSPVenice,
III, nos. 1037, 1053. I also used
ODNB
’s overall assessment of Richmond’s life and character. Ives (2004, p. 83) discusses the rumor that Richmond would inherit the throne. The reference to Katherine’s commissioning a treatise on marriage is from
CWE,
11, p. 308. Rumors about the parentage of Henry Carey are from
LP,
VIII, no. 567. Interestingly, the precise date of his birth is contested. See Starkey (2004, p. 274); Ives (2004, p. 369), and
ODNB
entries for Mary Boleyn and Henry Carey. The inscription on Carey’s tomb, which can still be seen in Westminster Abbey, states that he was in his seventy-second year (
anno aetatis
) when he died on July 23, 1596 (
Monumenta Westmonasteriensia
[1683], p. 328), which suggests that he must have been born in 1525 as there appears to be little doubt that the month of his birth was March. George Boleyn’s post as cupbearer is from
LP,
IV.i, no. 1939, sect. 14, p. 871; his entitlement to living at court with Jane is from
LP,
IV.i, sect. 4, p. 865. The reference to the silver dishes comes from Starkey, Ward, and Hawkyard (1998, no. 1865, p. 60). George’s ownership of the satire on marriage and his gift of the manuscript to Smeaton is taken from Carley (2004, p. 133), who has also noticed that the musician was so enamored of the book that he wrote his name inside it. Carley suggests that the manuscript was a humorous wedding present, which seems very likely. Stone (1961) gives details on Tudor marital customs. Information about the duties of the keeper of royal residences is from Thurley (1993, p. 83).

CHAPTER
7

The accounts of the “still” Christmas and Shrove Tuesday joust rely on Hall (1904, II, pp. 56–57). Anne’s description is from
CSPVenice,
IV, no. 824. Interestingly, this tallies very well with the description of Anne suggested by the discovery made during repairs to St. Peter ad Vincula of what were reputed to be her bones. See Bell (1877, pp. 26–28) for a firsthand account of the nineteenth-century excavations. Cavendish’s account of the Percy affair is from Cavendish (1825, I, pp. 58, 66). For Anne’s other suitors, see Ives (2004, pp. 72–80); Starkey (2004, pp. 268–71); and
LP,
III, no. 1762. The complexities of the chronology of Henry’s relationship with Anne are tackled by Ives (2004, pp. 81–92) and Starkey (2004, pp. 271–85). By establishing the date of the Percy marriage, Starkey redates the beginning of the affair. Trying to establish the sequence of the love letters is equally problematic as they are undated and, for the earlier ones at least, contain no clue to allow us to fix even on a definite year. The order I have chosen for the six mentioned here is, therefore, speculative but does, I think, make sense of the overall chronology: Halliwell (1848, I, p. 310) (
LP,
IV.ii, no. 3220), Halliwell (1848, I, p. 302) (
LP,
IV.ii, no. 3321), Halliwell (1848, I, p. 309) (
LP,
IV.ii, no. 3219), Halliwell (1848, I, p. 303) (
LP,
IV.ii, no. 3326), Halliwell (1848, I, p. 305) (
LP,
IV.ii, no. 3218), and Halliwell (1848, I, p. 306) (
LP,
IV.ii, no. 3325). The decoding of the third letter is explained in Starkey (2004, p. 281) and an analysis of the ship image can be found in Ives (2004, pp. 86–87), Starkey (2004, pp. 282–83), and Arnold (1988, p. 76). For Thomas Boleyn’s accounts, see
LP,
IV.iii, appendix 99, p. 3116, and, for his possible involvement in the developing relationship between Henry and Anne, see Ives (2004, p. 217).