The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (91 page)
Read The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn Online
Authors: Eric Ives
26
RO 6/1 8v.
RO 6/1 8v.
27
LP, x.445;
Tudor Constitutional Documents,
ed. J. R. Tanner (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 61-3.
LP, x.445;
Tudor Constitutional Documents,
ed. J. R. Tanner (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 61-3.
28
Hoyle,
Pilgrimage,
pp. 79-80.
Hoyle,
Pilgrimage,
pp. 79-80.
29
Cal. S. P. For.,
1558-59, 1303. Dated 1 Sept. 1559 but relying on observations before he left England in 1539, Alexander Ales wrote that ‘Cromwell, Wriothesley and certain others ... hated the queen because she had sharply rebuked them ... that under the guise of religion they were advancing their own interests [and] that they had put everything up for sale.’
Cal. S. P. For.,
1558-59, 1303. Dated 1 Sept. 1559 but relying on observations before he left England in 1539, Alexander Ales wrote that ‘Cromwell, Wriothesley and certain others ... hated the queen because she had sharply rebuked them ... that under the guise of religion they were advancing their own interests [and] that they had put everything up for sale.’
30
For Singleton see Brigden,
London and the Reformation,
pp. 259, 349-52.
For Singleton see Brigden,
London and the Reformation,
pp. 259, 349-52.
31
Latymer ‘Treatyse’, ff. 28v, 29 [Dowling, ‘Cronickille’, p. 57].
Latymer ‘Treatyse’, ff. 28v, 29 [Dowling, ‘Cronickille’, p. 57].
32
Ibid., ff. 28v, 29.
Ibid., ff. 28v, 29.
33
LP,
x.705; MacCulloch,
Cranmer,
pp. 151-2, 155-6.
LP,
x.705; MacCulloch,
Cranmer,
pp. 151-2, 155-6.
34
Ibid., p. 155 [
LP,
x. 705].
Ibid., p. 155 [
LP,
x. 705].
35
Latymer, ‘Treatyse’, ff. 29-30 [Dowling, ‘Cronickille’, pp. 57-9].
Latymer, ‘Treatyse’, ff. 29-30 [Dowling, ‘Cronickille’, pp. 57-9].
36
This could be queried as a possible Elizabethan gloss, but see p. 264.
This could be queried as a possible Elizabethan gloss, but see p. 264.
37
‘Lewdness’ does not carry a primarily sexual implication.
‘Lewdness’ does not carry a primarily sexual implication.
38
From first reading to royal assent was a matter of only six weeks.
From first reading to royal assent was a matter of only six weeks.
39
The redirection of assets was an even greater threat than granting exemptions alone because it blocked subsequent dissolution.
The redirection of assets was an even greater threat than granting exemptions alone because it blocked subsequent dissolution.
40
Cal. S. P. Span.,
1536-38, pp. 83-4 [
LP,
x.601 ]. Hoyle,
Pilgrimage,
p. 80 suggests that the preaching campaign could have had some effect and that the need to regularize disposal of land explains the April writs for a new parliament.
Cal. S. P. Span.,
1536-38, pp. 83-4 [
LP,
x.601 ]. Hoyle,
Pilgrimage,
p. 80 suggests that the preaching campaign could have had some effect and that the need to regularize disposal of land explains the April writs for a new parliament.
41
Or future protection for those who escaped in 1536.
Or future protection for those who escaped in 1536.
42
LP,
xii(i).786.
LP,
xii(i).786.
43
Jane Seymour is more likely but the undated letter of the prioress referring to the offer having already been made by the queen [
LP
, x.383], mentions a report which is either that dated 12 May [ibid., x.858] or else earlier, and Jane only married on 30 May and was openly shown as queen on 2 June, ibid., x.1047; see also ibid., x.916, 1166; dissolution began at Catesby on 27 June; ibid., x. 1215.
Jane Seymour is more likely but the undated letter of the prioress referring to the offer having already been made by the queen [
LP
, x.383], mentions a report which is either that dated 12 May [ibid., x.858] or else earlier, and Jane only married on 30 May and was openly shown as queen on 2 June, ibid., x.1047; see also ibid., x.916, 1166; dissolution began at Catesby on 27 June; ibid., x. 1215.
44
LP,
xi.860; cf. ibid., 1250.
LP,
xi.860; cf. ibid., 1250.
45
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536-38,
p. 75 [
LP,
x.575]. ].
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536-38,
p. 75 [
LP,
x.575]. ].
46
LP,
x.670 at p. 269.
LP,
x.670 at p. 269.
47
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536-38,
pp. 54, 89, 91, 93, 98 [
LP,
x.351, 699].
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536-38,
pp. 54, 89, 91, 93, 98 [
LP,
x.351, 699].
48
Ibid., pp. 91-8 [
LP,
x.699].
Ibid., pp. 91-8 [
LP,
x.699].
49
Ibid., p. 98 [
LP,
x.699].
Ibid., p. 98 [
LP,
x.699].
50
Ibid.
Ibid.
51
Ibid., pp. 53, 99 [
LP,
x.351, 699],
LP,
x.308.
Ibid., pp. 53, 99 [
LP,
x.351, 699],
LP,
x.308.
52
Ibid., x.308;
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536- 38,
p. 80 [
LP,
x.601 ].
Ibid., x.308;
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536- 38,
p. 80 [
LP,
x.601 ].
53
LP,
x.720.
LP,
x.720.
54
LP,
x.54, 410, 688.
LP,
x.54, 410, 688.
55
LP,
x.887.
LP,
x.887.
56
LP,
x.688, 752;
Lisle Letters,
iii.686 [
LP
, x.748];
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536-38,
pp. 99-102, 105 [
LP,
x.699, 752].
LP,
x.688, 752;
Lisle Letters,
iii.686 [
LP
, x.748];
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536-38,
pp. 99-102, 105 [
LP,
x.699, 752].
57
LP,
x.760.
LP,
x.760.
58
LP,
x.700.
LP,
x.700.
59
Cal. S. P. Span., 1534-35,
p. 484 [
LP,
viii.826] and ibid, 1536-38, p. 81 [
LP,
x.601.
Cal. S. P. Span., 1534-35,
p. 484 [
LP,
viii.826] and ibid, 1536-38, p. 81 [
LP,
x.601.
60
Ibid., p. 130 [
LP,
x.908].
Ibid., p. 130 [
LP,
x.908].
61
M. St Clare Byrne [
Lisle Letters,
i.161; ii.170-1, 333-43] and David Starkey [thesis, pp. 321-3] have argued that Cromwell set out to cut down ‘the effective interference’ of the privy chamber circle, and that he asserted full control over the signature of bills by the king. A close reading of the fifty and more Lisle letters between Oct. 1533 and Apr. 1536 which are concerned with patronage, suggests a different conclusion. Cromwell was important as the administrator whose workload might impose delay on the processing of grants, or who might (as duty bound) raise queries about the king’s interests. In his initial months as secretary he used such possibilities to establish his claim to a share of the gratuities paid by applicants:
Lisle Letters,
ii.148, 151-2, 159-60, 168, 171, 183-5, 191 [
LP,
vii.350, 385, 386, 461, 474, 502, 522, 614, 620, 627, 652]. He also responded to the competitive pressure of factions at court: ibid., ii.259, 260a, 264 [
LP,
vii.1165, 1182, 1224]. His delay in paying out monies in his charge on the king’s verbal orders via Norris may have been similarly motivated: ibid., ii.202, 202a [
LP,
vii.734, 844] and pp. 164-71. The privy chamber, and especially Norris in his capacity as groom of the stool, continued throughout this period to exercise an independent role; court experts thought Sir Henry still the man to go to, and he did continue to promote bills for the king to sign [e.g. the affair of Leonard Mell: ibid., ii.379, 412, 415, 451, 463, 467, 473, 496; iv.836 [
LP,
viii.663, 1002, 1027, 1028; ix.642, 682, 767, 905]]. For the influence of Rochford, see ibid., i.104, 104b; ii.155a, 182, 207, 283, 411; iii.556, 677 [LP, vi.1515; vii.436, 613, 795, 1273, 1396; viii.977; ix.87; x.675 ].
M. St Clare Byrne [
Lisle Letters,
i.161; ii.170-1, 333-43] and David Starkey [thesis, pp. 321-3] have argued that Cromwell set out to cut down ‘the effective interference’ of the privy chamber circle, and that he asserted full control over the signature of bills by the king. A close reading of the fifty and more Lisle letters between Oct. 1533 and Apr. 1536 which are concerned with patronage, suggests a different conclusion. Cromwell was important as the administrator whose workload might impose delay on the processing of grants, or who might (as duty bound) raise queries about the king’s interests. In his initial months as secretary he used such possibilities to establish his claim to a share of the gratuities paid by applicants:
Lisle Letters,
ii.148, 151-2, 159-60, 168, 171, 183-5, 191 [
LP,
vii.350, 385, 386, 461, 474, 502, 522, 614, 620, 627, 652]. He also responded to the competitive pressure of factions at court: ibid., ii.259, 260a, 264 [
LP,
vii.1165, 1182, 1224]. His delay in paying out monies in his charge on the king’s verbal orders via Norris may have been similarly motivated: ibid., ii.202, 202a [
LP,
vii.734, 844] and pp. 164-71. The privy chamber, and especially Norris in his capacity as groom of the stool, continued throughout this period to exercise an independent role; court experts thought Sir Henry still the man to go to, and he did continue to promote bills for the king to sign [e.g. the affair of Leonard Mell: ibid., ii.379, 412, 415, 451, 463, 467, 473, 496; iv.836 [
LP,
viii.663, 1002, 1027, 1028; ix.642, 682, 767, 905]]. For the influence of Rochford, see ibid., i.104, 104b; ii.155a, 182, 207, 283, 411; iii.556, 677 [LP, vi.1515; vii.436, 613, 795, 1273, 1396; viii.977; ix.87; x.675 ].
62
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536-38,
p. 137 [
LP,
x.1069].
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536-38,
p. 137 [
LP,
x.1069].
63
Ibid., pp. 16, 35, 60, 70 [LP, x.141, 351,429,494].
Ibid., pp. 16, 35, 60, 70 [LP, x.141, 351,429,494].
64
Ibid., pp. 85-6, 107 [
LP,
x.601, 699, 782 ].
Ibid., pp. 85-6, 107 [
LP,
x.601, 699, 782 ].
65
Ibid., p. 108 [LP, x.782].
Ibid., p. 108 [LP, x.782].
66
Ibid., p. 106 [LP, x.752].
Ibid., p. 106 [LP, x.752].
67
Ibid., p. 108 [LP, x.782].
Ibid., p. 108 [LP, x.782].
68
‘à fantasier et conspirer le dict affaire’:
ibid., p. 137 [
LP,
x.1069].
‘à fantasier et conspirer le dict affaire’:
ibid., p. 137 [
LP,
x.1069].
1
Wyatt,
Poems,
CXLIII: ‘Who list his wealth and ease retain’.
Wyatt,
Poems,
CXLIII: ‘Who list his wealth and ease retain’.
2
Wriothesley,
Chronicle,
i.189-91.
Wriothesley,
Chronicle,
i.189-91.
3
Lehmberg,
Later Parliaments of
Henry VIII, pp. 15-16.
Lehmberg,
Later Parliaments of
Henry VIII, pp. 15-16.
4
De Carles, in Ascoli,
L’Opinion,
lines 495-508.
De Carles, in Ascoli,
L’Opinion,
lines 495-508.
5
Constantine, in
Archaeologia,
23, 64.
Constantine, in
Archaeologia,
23, 64.
6
Oxford, Bodl. Ashmole MS 861, f. 332.
Oxford, Bodl. Ashmole MS 861, f. 332.
7
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, pp. 451, 456.
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, pp. 451, 456.
8
Hall,
Chronicle,
p. 819.
Hall,
Chronicle,
p. 819.
9
The tide at London Bridge on 1 May 1536 was high at 10.15 a.m., low at 4.19 p.m. and high at 10.39 p.m. I owe this information to Proudman’s Oceanic Laboratory.
The tide at London Bridge on 1 May 1536 was high at 10.15 a.m., low at 4.19 p.m. and high at 10.39 p.m. I owe this information to Proudman’s Oceanic Laboratory.
10
Cal. S. P. Span., 1530-38,
p. 108 [
LP,
x.782 ]; see p. 166.
Cal. S. P. Span., 1530-38,
p. 108 [
LP,
x.782 ]; see p. 166.
11
LP,
x.753. On the first of Chapuys’ four days, the council sat from morning to 9 or 10 p.m. and there were apparently other important meetings that week: ibid,
1536-38,
p. 105 [
LP,
x.752]. Other matters to discuss with Sampson were his move to Chichester and the expected receipt of Pole’s attack on his
Regii sacelli decani oratio: LP,
x.7, 420, 619, 753, 818, 1146-7.
LP,
x.753. On the first of Chapuys’ four days, the council sat from morning to 9 or 10 p.m. and there were apparently other important meetings that week: ibid,
1536-38,
p. 105 [
LP,
x.752]. Other matters to discuss with Sampson were his move to Chichester and the expected receipt of Pole’s attack on his
Regii sacelli decani oratio: LP,
x.7, 420, 619, 753, 818, 1146-7.
12
St. Pap.,
vii.683-8;
LP,
x.726, 725. While agreeing with David Starkey that the words quoted do not imply that Anne was already pregnant [plus the fact that Henry would then not have rejected her], I do not accept his dismissing them as a mere summary of a statement by Chapuys: Starkey,
Six Wives,
pp. 561-2.
St. Pap.,
vii.683-8;
LP,
x.726, 725. While agreeing with David Starkey that the words quoted do not imply that Anne was already pregnant [plus the fact that Henry would then not have rejected her], I do not accept his dismissing them as a mere summary of a statement by Chapuys: Starkey,
Six Wives,
pp. 561-2.
13
LP,
x.760 (2).
LP,
x.760 (2).
14
If Henry had been hiding moves against Anne behind a front of normality, these documents could easily have been delayed. See n. 17 below.
If Henry had been hiding moves against Anne behind a front of normality, these documents could easily have been delayed. See n. 17 below.
15
George Bernard has pointed out that indications of royal authentication are not usually recorded on patents. Silence is, therefore, no evidence of royal non-involvement, as argued in Ives,
Anne Boleyn
(1986), pp. 361-2. I also accept that the king must have known of the prosecution at some stage: Ives, in
EHR,
107, 669-71. But the absence of authentication in the
Baga de Secretis
calendar is equally congruent with ex officio initiation by the chancellor and since an oyer establishes a court of trial, not enquiry, I conclude as above.
George Bernard has pointed out that indications of royal authentication are not usually recorded on patents. Silence is, therefore, no evidence of royal non-involvement, as argued in Ives,
Anne Boleyn
(1986), pp. 361-2. I also accept that the king must have known of the prosecution at some stage: Ives, in
EHR,
107, 669-71. But the absence of authentication in the
Baga de Secretis
calendar is equally congruent with ex officio initiation by the chancellor and since an oyer establishes a court of trial, not enquiry, I conclude as above.
16
DKR,
iii (ii). 226-68. The
Baga
for Henry VIII consisted of 12 pouches containing 19 bundles, each referring to a single defendant or group of defendants. Two are not treason cases: the trials of Lord Dacre of the South and of the accessories to Katherine Howard’s offences.
DKR,
iii (ii). 226-68. The
Baga
for Henry VIII consisted of 12 pouches containing 19 bundles, each referring to a single defendant or group of defendants. Two are not treason cases: the trials of Lord Dacre of the South and of the accessories to Katherine Howard’s offences.
17
De Carles, in Ascoli,
L‘Opinion,
lines 481-4, 495-6.
De Carles, in Ascoli,
L‘Opinion,
lines 481-4, 495-6.
18
For the following see
DKR,
iii (ii), 230-4,240-1,267-8.
For the following see
DKR,
iii (ii), 230-4,240-1,267-8.
19
The Boleyn case was the only instance where peers were proceeded against by oyer and terminer. The earlier trials of Buckingham and Lord Dacre of the North were triggered by indictment. In and after 1537 the process with accused peers was by a commission to receive indictments, a grand jury hearing and finally a commission to the high steward. To 1537, sensitive treason prosecutions of commoners were begun by a commission of over and terminer followed by a grand jury indictment (except in the case of the Abbot of Barling in 1537 where indictment came first and perhaps, in 1509, in the case of Edmund Dudley, who was tried by the London authorities). After 1537 procedure was the same as for peers.
The Boleyn case was the only instance where peers were proceeded against by oyer and terminer. The earlier trials of Buckingham and Lord Dacre of the North were triggered by indictment. In and after 1537 the process with accused peers was by a commission to receive indictments, a grand jury hearing and finally a commission to the high steward. To 1537, sensitive treason prosecutions of commoners were begun by a commission of over and terminer followed by a grand jury indictment (except in the case of the Abbot of Barling in 1537 where indictment came first and perhaps, in 1509, in the case of Edmund Dudley, who was tried by the London authorities). After 1537 procedure was the same as for peers.
20
Ralph Morice, ‘Anecdotes of Archbishop Cranmer’, in
Narratives of the Reformation,
p. 255.
Ralph Morice, ‘Anecdotes of Archbishop Cranmer’, in
Narratives of the Reformation,
p. 255.
21
Ives in
Anne Boleyn
(1986), p. 362, and Bernard in EHR, 107, 670, raised the possibility of royal instructions being given by word of mouth. Recognition of the irrelevance of a premature commission now rules out that possibility.
Ives in
Anne Boleyn
(1986), p. 362, and Bernard in EHR, 107, 670, raised the possibility of royal instructions being given by word of mouth. Recognition of the irrelevance of a premature commission now rules out that possibility.
22
See p. 337.
See p. 337.
23
Kingston’s letter with Anne’s key revelations about Norris and Weston was written on the morning after her arrest: see below, n. 28.
Kingston’s letter with Anne’s key revelations about Norris and Weston was written on the morning after her arrest: see below, n. 28.
24
28 Henry VIII, c.10; Lehmberg,
Later Parliaments of Henry VIII,
pp. 25-8.
28 Henry VIII, c.10; Lehmberg,
Later Parliaments of Henry VIII,
pp. 25-8.
25
Prescott,
Mary Tudor,
pp. 82-3; Loades,
Mary Tudor,
pp. 98-103.
Prescott,
Mary Tudor,
pp. 82-3; Loades,
Mary Tudor,
pp. 98-103.
26
Lisle Letters,
iii.677, 684, 687, 689 [LP, x.675, 738, 748, 779].
Lisle Letters,
iii.677, 684, 687, 689 [LP, x.675, 738, 748, 779].
27
Ibid., iii.690 [LP, x.789].
Ibid., iii.690 [LP, x.789].
28
The most probable explanation for the postponement is that the king wished to review the behaviour of Anne’s household - cf. his own assertion of discipline in 1519. For what followed see the damaged BL MSS: Cotton Otho Cx, ff. 209v, 222, 223, 224v, 225 [
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, pp. 458-9, 453-5, 460-1, 456-7, 451-3], the undamaged Harleian MS 283, f. 134 [
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, pp. 459-60] and (also undamaged) RO, SP1/103 ff. 313-14 [
LP,
x.902]. Internal evidence suggests the following sequence: (1) Wednesday morning 3 May: Otho Cx, f. 225; (2) Thursday morning 3 May: ibid., f. 209v; (3) and (4) Tuesday 9 May to Thursday 11 May: ibid., ff. 222, 224v; (5) Tuesday morning 16 May: SP1/103 ff. 313-14; (6) later Tuesday 16 May: Harleian 283, f. 134; (7) Thursday morning 18 May: Otho Cx, f. 223. MSS are referred to subsequently by the pagination in
Wolsey,
ed. Singer.
The most probable explanation for the postponement is that the king wished to review the behaviour of Anne’s household - cf. his own assertion of discipline in 1519. For what followed see the damaged BL MSS: Cotton Otho Cx, ff. 209v, 222, 223, 224v, 225 [
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, pp. 458-9, 453-5, 460-1, 456-7, 451-3], the undamaged Harleian MS 283, f. 134 [
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, pp. 459-60] and (also undamaged) RO, SP1/103 ff. 313-14 [
LP,
x.902]. Internal evidence suggests the following sequence: (1) Wednesday morning 3 May: Otho Cx, f. 225; (2) Thursday morning 3 May: ibid., f. 209v; (3) and (4) Tuesday 9 May to Thursday 11 May: ibid., ff. 222, 224v; (5) Tuesday morning 16 May: SP1/103 ff. 313-14; (6) later Tuesday 16 May: Harleian 283, f. 134; (7) Thursday morning 18 May: Otho Cx, f. 223. MSS are referred to subsequently by the pagination in
Wolsey,
ed. Singer.
Other books
Descendant by Eva Truesdale
The Chariots of Calyx by Rosemary Rowe
The Brightest Night by Tui T. Sutherland
Engaged to Die by Carolyn Hart
Dragon Soul by Jaida Jones
Lakeside Reunion by Jordan, Lisa
Hard Day's Knight by Katie MacAlister
The Outsider (James Bishop 4) by Dean, Jason
Deep Domination (Bought by the Billionaire #2) by Lili Valente
The Changeover by Margaret Mahy
