One influential member of her circle who did feel some sympathy for Anne Boleyn, and shock at her fall, was Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury since 1533, when he had controversially declared Queen Katherine"s marriage null and void, and Anne"s valid. A former chaplain to the Boleyns, and a closet Protestant, he had done much to promote reform within the Church of England, a cause very dear to Anne"s heart and his own.
On the day of the Queen"s arrest, Cromwell sent a letter to Cranmer, who was then at his palace at Knole in Kent, informing him that his former patroness was in the Tower and that the King wished him to go to Lambeth Palace, the London residence of the archbishops of Canterbury, there to await his pleasure. Henry intended for Cranmer to find grounds for the annulment of his marriage to Anne. It was unthinkable that he could have lawfully been married to such a woman, and unthinkable too that the office of Queen of England should be brought into such disrepute, but on a more practical level, Anne"s daughter Elizabeth, whose right to succeed to the throne was enshrined in the Act of Succession of 1534, could not be allowed to stand in the way of any heirs Jane might bear Henry. Thus Henry had asked Archbishop Cranmer to find a pretext for dissolving this marriage that he had found to be good and valid just three years earlier, and for declaring Elizabeth-like her half-sister Mary before her-a b.a.s.t.a.r.d.
No one thought-or dared-to point out (as Bishop Burnet did 150 years later) that the two concurrent lines of proceedings against the Queen-the one to prove marriage unlawful and invalid, the other to prove her adultery-were incompatible.1 It would have made little difference to the outcome, however, for there remained that charge of plotting the King"s death, which was high treason by anyone"s reckoning. It would have made little difference to the outcome, however, for there remained that charge of plotting the King"s death, which was high treason by anyone"s reckoning.
Cranmer was shocked to hear the news of Anne"s arrest. He returned to Lambeth at once, as he had been instructed, but he knew-because Cromwell had told him so-that it was pointless trying to obtain an audience with the King. So he did the next best thing. On May 3, in evident distress-not only on Anne"s account but also, probably, because he feared that, with her influence removed, Henry might proceed no further in the cause of religious reform, or even abandon it-he wrote cautiously to the King to express his astonishment at the Queen"s crimes, his forlorn hope that she would be proved innocent, and his loyalty to his master-and to soothe Henry"s wounded ego. His opening words-the first of which strangely presage the eloquent liturgy in his future Book of Common Prayer Book of Common Prayer-suggest he was aware that his master was distressed by the recent revelations regarding the Queen, which is perhaps further evidence that Henry had taken them seriously: I dare not presume to come to your presence, in accordance with the Secretary"s letters, but of my bounden duty I beg you somewhat to suppress the deep sorrows of Your Grace"s heart and take adversity patiently. I cannot deny that you have great causes of heaviness, and that your honor is highly touched. G.o.d never sent you a like trial.
Cranmer did not attempt to dispute the charges, although clearly he found them hard to believe, having served as household chaplain to the Boleyns, and having known Anne very well since 1529.2 Nevertheless, he wrote on the premise that they were justified: Nevertheless, he wrote on the premise that they were justified: If what has been reported openly of the Queen be true, it is only to her dishonor, not yours. My mind is clean amazed, for I never had better opinion of woman, but I think Your Highness would not have gone so far if she had not been culpable. Next unto Your Grace, I was most bound unto her of all creatures living, which her kindness bindeth me unto, and therefore beg that I may with Your Grace"s favor wish and pray for her, that she may declare herself inculpable and innocent. Yet if she be found guilty, I repute him not a faithful subject who would not wish her punished without mercy. And as I loved her not a little for the love which I judged her to bear toward G.o.d and the Gospel, so if she be proved culpable, considering Your Grace"s goodness toward her, and from what condition Your Grace of your only mere goodness took her and set the crown upon her head, and as I loved her not a little, there is not one that loveth G.o.d and His Gospel that ever will favor her, but must hate her above all other; and the more they favor the Gospel, the more they will hate her, for there was never creature in our time that so much slandered the Gospel; and G.o.d hath sent her this punishment, for that she feignedly hath professed His Gospel in her mouth, and not in heart and deed. And though she have offended so, that she hath deserved never to be reconciled unto Your Grace"s favor, forasmuch as Your Grace"s favor to the Gospel was not led by affection unto her, but by zeal unto the truth.
Cranmer had all but finished this letter when he was summoned to the Star Chamber, a tribunal distinct from the King"s Council, being comprised of privy councillors and judges, their functions being to hear pet.i.tions, try offenses against the Crown, and ensure that justice was fairly enforced against the highborn and the powerful. This court took its name from the ceiling decoration of the chamber in the Palace, of Westminster where it sat. Cranmer met there with Audley, Sandys, Oxford, and Suss.e.x. Their purpose was to show the archbishop the evidence that had been laid against the Queen and preempt him from speaking out on her behalf. It seems they managed to convince him of her guilt, for on his return to Lambeth he added a postscript to his letter to the King:3 I am exceedingly sorry that such faults can be proved by the Queen, as I heard of their relation, but I am, and ever shall be, your faithful subject.4 He was to prove that in the dark days to come, in which it would become clear that his affection and admiration for Anne counted for little against his desire to please the King, his sense of self-preservation, and his zeal for reform. But Cranmer was in a difficult position. He must have been well-aware that the Queen"s fall might impact on him, the man who had facilitated her marriage to the King, and that the cause of reform that he and she had espoused so dearly might well suffer if he chose to champion her cause, which might prove fatal for him as well as for her. With Jane Seymour being courted by the Imperialists, Cranmer needed to survive to fight for the cause another day. Anne would have to be abandoned. He had no choice.
Chapuys also wrote a letter of condolence to Henry VIII at this time. He enclosed a copy of it with his dispatch of June 6 and forwarded it to the Emperor, explaining that he had sent it to the King "a little after the arrest of the Lady," having beforehand shown it to Cromwell, who altered nothing. The King, he declared, was pleased with it.5 Kingston had received specific orders from Cromwell, who had "commanded me to charge the gentlewomen that gives their attendance upon the Queen, they should have no communication with her unless my wife were present." However, it became clear on Anne"s first night there that it would be impossible to enforce this rule, as he reported to Master Secretary the next morning: "And so I did it, notwithstanding it cannot be so, for my Lady Boleyn and Mistress Coffin lie on the Queen"s pallet and I and my wife at the door without [presumably also on pallet beds], so that they must needs talk that be within; but I have everything told me by Mistress Coffin that she thinks meet for you to know, and together two gentlewomen lies without me, and as I may know the King"s pleasure in the premises, I shall follow."6 Kingston"s words about Mrs. Coffin undermine the theory that "Cromwell had not expected to get anything incriminating out of the Queen after her arrest."7 Mrs. Coffin had clearly been well-briefed, her sinister purpose being to extract whatever she could from Anne, who, in her agitated state, was inclined to be garrulous and indiscreet. Mrs. Coffin had been instructed to question her about the conversation she"d had with Sir Henry Norris the previous Sunday, April 30, and on the morning of May 3, "as minding to inquire of her concerning the occasion of her present trouble," she asked Anne how it had come to pa.s.s that Sir Henry Norris "did say unto the Queen"s almoner that he would swear for the Queen that she was a good woman. Madam, why should there be any such matters spoken of?" Mrs. Coffin had clearly been well-briefed, her sinister purpose being to extract whatever she could from Anne, who, in her agitated state, was inclined to be garrulous and indiscreet. Mrs. Coffin had been instructed to question her about the conversation she"d had with Sir Henry Norris the previous Sunday, April 30, and on the morning of May 3, "as minding to inquire of her concerning the occasion of her present trouble," she asked Anne how it had come to pa.s.s that Sir Henry Norris "did say unto the Queen"s almoner that he would swear for the Queen that she was a good woman. Madam, why should there be any such matters spoken of?"
"Marry," said Anne, "I bade him do so." She then recounted her conversation with Norris, patently anxious to set the record straight and clear herself of any suspicion of treasonable intentions. Kingston"s report is damaged, and this section ends with just fragmentary details of something that Anne "said on Whitsun Tuesday," April 25, "... that Norris came more ... -age and further."8 Maybe she had more than one encounter with Norris that could possibly be held against her. Maybe she had more than one encounter with Norris that could possibly be held against her.
Mrs. Coffin now disclosed-as she had doubtless been told to do-that Sir Francis Weston was being questioned by the Privy Council about his relations with the Queen. Anne "said she more feared Weston," for Weston knew about Norris"s feelings for her-of which, patently, she herself and others in her circle had also been aware. She recounted to Mrs. Coffin a conversation she"d had with Weston on Whit Monday, April 24,9 when she had occasion to reprove him for flirting with Madge Shelton, Norris"s betrothed, and wondered aloud to him why Norris had not yet married her. Weston confided to Anne that Norris "came more to her chamber for her than for Madge." when she had occasion to reprove him for flirting with Madge Shelton, Norris"s betrothed, and wondered aloud to him why Norris had not yet married her. Weston confided to Anne that Norris "came more to her chamber for her than for Madge."10 Anne need not have worried that Weston would testify against her, for he protested to the council that day that he was innocent of any criminal congress with the Queen. It would not save him from arrest, though.
Later that day-Kingston reported it in a postscript to his first letter to Cromwell, written "from the Tower this morning" on May 3-Anne told Mrs. Coffin that she had teased Weston "because he did love her kinswoman Mrs. [Madge] Shelton, and that she said he loved not his wife," to which Weston had daringly "made answer that he loved one in her house better than them both."
"Who is that?" Anne had asked.
"It is yourself," Weston replied, whereupon Anne "defied him," as she told Kingston.11 Such exchanges were typical courtly repartee, and probably meant very little, but these conversations "were now twisted to their worst meaning."12 Taken literally, as Cromwell and others would choose to interpret them, these and Anne"s other flirtatious remarks made to Norris were to prove highly damaging to her, for they enabled Master Secretary to construct a stronger case against her. Taken literally, as Cromwell and others would choose to interpret them, these and Anne"s other flirtatious remarks made to Norris were to prove highly damaging to her, for they enabled Master Secretary to construct a stronger case against her.
The atmosphere at court was understandably tense as people wondered what might happen next. Anne"s receiver-general, George Taylor, and her sewer, Harry Webb, were in fear for their lives, lest they should be accused next; and when all was over, Taylor was visibly relieved.13 Even Bryan, once the Queen"s supporter, apparently came under suspicion. He had left court in April, but now received a "marvelous peremptory commandment" to return "on his allegiance," and was questioned by Cromwell. Satisfied as to his disaffection from Anne, Master Secretary wrote to Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, informing him that the "Vicar of h.e.l.l" had abandoned her. Even Bryan, once the Queen"s supporter, apparently came under suspicion. He had left court in April, but now received a "marvelous peremptory commandment" to return "on his allegiance," and was questioned by Cromwell. Satisfied as to his disaffection from Anne, Master Secretary wrote to Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, informing him that the "Vicar of h.e.l.l" had abandoned her.14 After that Bryan was one of the few privileged persons who were allowed to see the King. After that Bryan was one of the few privileged persons who were allowed to see the King.
Cromwell had a substantial number of persons bound over under the threat of heavy fines to present themselves before him or the Privy Council should they be so required, thus adding to the climate of fear and suspicion that now pervaded the court. It may be the councillors did suspect that others were implicated in the Queen"s treasonable activities, and that they were spreading their net of investigation wider. Some of their targets may have been people whom Cromwell believed could be prevailed upon to furnish evidence against Anne; or perhaps he meant to intimidate those who might have spoken up for her into fearing that they too would be arrested, and thus to ensure their silence and that of anyone else thinking of protesting at the treatment being meted out to her.15 Further evidence of Sir William FitzWilliam"s involvement in the investigations against Anne appears in a mutilated (and therefore incomplete) letter sent to him on May 3 by Anne"s chamberlain, Sir Edward Baynton, obviously in response to one that FitzWilliam had sent him. Baynton was in charge of the Queen"s Privy Chamber, her personal household, and all those who served in it, and after he had gone to FitzWilliam and Cromwell with his suspicions about Anne"s conversation with Norris on April 30, he was evidently enlisted to gather evidence against his mistress, and was clearly eager to distance himself from her by a.s.sisting zealously in the investigation against her. His letter reveals that he had in fact discovered nothing further: Mr. Treasurer,This shall be to advertise you that here is much communication that no man will confess anything against her, but alonely Mark of any actual thing. Wherefore (in my foolish conceit) it should much touch the King"s honour if it should no further appear. And I cannot believe but that the other two be as fully culpable as ever was he. And I think a.s.suredly the one keepeth the other"s counsel. As many conjectures in my mind causeth me to think specially of the communication that was last between the Queen and Master Norris. Mr. Almoner [John Skip, the Queen"s confessor] told me as I would I might speak with Master Secretary and you together [to] more plainly express my opinion ... if case be that they have confessed like wret[ches?]... all things as they should do than my n ... at a point. I have mused much at the conduct of Mistress Margery which hath used herself strangely toward me of late, being her friend as I have been. But no doubt it cannot be but that she must be of counsel therewith, there hath been great friendship between the Queen and her of late. I hear further that the Queen standeth stiffly in her opinion that she would not be convicted, which I think is in the trust that she hath in the other two [Norris and Rochford]. But if your business be such ... not come, I would gladly come and wait... ke it request.From Greenwich ... morning.16 Baynton"s observation that it would greatly touch the King"s honor if only Smeaton confessed to adultery with Anne has incorrectly been interpreted as meaning it was the adultery that impugned the King"s honor17 rather than the failure of the inquiries into the conduct of the Queen to unearth any better evidence than this. a.s.serting that Baynton"s remarks only make sense if they are taken to refer to the deformed fetus that Warnicke supposes Anne to have delivered three months earlier is stretching credibility too far. rather than the failure of the inquiries into the conduct of the Queen to unearth any better evidence than this. a.s.serting that Baynton"s remarks only make sense if they are taken to refer to the deformed fetus that Warnicke supposes Anne to have delivered three months earlier is stretching credibility too far.18 What survives of Baynton"s letter suggests that "Mistress Margery" was a lady who had lately grown very close to the Queen, and that she was advised or warned to be wary of Sir Edward"s investigations; it is likely that this was Margery Horsman. Court gossip about that lady might have given rise to the tale of the "Margaret" referred to in the "Spanish Chronicle," who had brought Mark Smeaton to the Queen"s bed.
Baynton clearly thought that Margery Horsman had been the Queen"s confidante in the latter"s illicit affairs, but if so, she was never arrested. In fact, she would go on to serve Anne"s successor, Jane Seymour,19 so it is almost certain that Baynton was mistaken. so it is almost certain that Baynton was mistaken.
Baynton evidently believed Norris and Rochford had made a pact not to admit to anything under questioning, and had kept to it; and that Anne was protesting her innocence. He may not have known that Norris had already made a confession of sorts; his reference to there being "much communication" in the Queen"s household that Smeaton alone had confessed reflects only what people were saying, not what he knew. Clearly he himself had been questioned, and now felt it his duty to report every little bit of gossip and opinion that might prove useful.
Throughout the time Anne was in the Tower, the King did not appear in public, and saw only his closest advisers and intimates. Cranmer"s remark in his letter about not daring to come into the royal presence "in accordance with the secretary"s letters" reveals that access to Henry was being strictly controlled by Cromwell.20 Alexander Aless would recount how a servant of Cromwell later told him that the King had given orders "that none but the councillors and secretaries should be admitted" to his presence, "and that the gate of the country house in which he had secluded himself should be kept locked." Probably Henry-and certainly Cromwell-wanted to preempt those who might dare to speak up on the Queen"s behalf, Alexander Aless would recount how a servant of Cromwell later told him that the King had given orders "that none but the councillors and secretaries should be admitted" to his presence, "and that the gate of the country house in which he had secluded himself should be kept locked." Probably Henry-and certainly Cromwell-wanted to preempt those who might dare to speak up on the Queen"s behalf,21 but there were probably other reasons why the King wanted privacy at this time. but there were probably other reasons why the King wanted privacy at this time.
For fourteen days, from May 5 to May 19, "His Grace came not abroad, except it were in the garden, and in his boat at night, at which times it may become no man to prevent him."22 But that was not the whole of it: Chapuys reported on May 19 that "the King has shown himself more glad than ever since the arrest of the Concubine, for he has been going about banqueting with ladies, sometimes remaining after midnight, and returning by the river. Most part of the time he was accompanied by various musical instruments and, on the other hand, by the singers of his chamber, which many interpret as his delight at getting rid of a thin, old, and vicious hack in the hope of getting soon a fine horse to ride." The "hope of change," he added, "is a thing specially agreeable to this King." But that was not the whole of it: Chapuys reported on May 19 that "the King has shown himself more glad than ever since the arrest of the Concubine, for he has been going about banqueting with ladies, sometimes remaining after midnight, and returning by the river. Most part of the time he was accompanied by various musical instruments and, on the other hand, by the singers of his chamber, which many interpret as his delight at getting rid of a thin, old, and vicious hack in the hope of getting soon a fine horse to ride." The "hope of change," he added, "is a thing specially agreeable to this King."23 Chapuys did not believe those who informed him that the King had said publicly "that he has no desire in the world to marry again." Chapuys did not believe those who informed him that the King had said publicly "that he has no desire in the world to marry again."
The amba.s.sador also wrote that reports of these jaunts "sounded ill in the ears of the people,"24 and Henry"s behavior at this time has since earned the condemnation of historians, who deem it in bad taste, but the King may have been driven by embarra.s.sment, shame, self-deception, and self-pity, rather than by guilt or callousness. All the evidence suggests that he accepted the charges against Anne without question, but doing so meant that, for the first time in his charmed life, he would be publicly branded a cuckold. For a man of his vanity, reputation, and status, that must have been humiliating in the extreme, however pragmatically one looked at it. How could he have faced his subjects in such circ.u.mstances, especially with speculation rife about the Queen"s infidelities? It may have taken him several days to come to terms with her betrayal. In the meantime he was doing his best to bolster his pride and give the impression of rampant virility as best he knew how, in surrounding himself with a bevy of beautiful women-but only at a distance from his subjects. and Henry"s behavior at this time has since earned the condemnation of historians, who deem it in bad taste, but the King may have been driven by embarra.s.sment, shame, self-deception, and self-pity, rather than by guilt or callousness. All the evidence suggests that he accepted the charges against Anne without question, but doing so meant that, for the first time in his charmed life, he would be publicly branded a cuckold. For a man of his vanity, reputation, and status, that must have been humiliating in the extreme, however pragmatically one looked at it. How could he have faced his subjects in such circ.u.mstances, especially with speculation rife about the Queen"s infidelities? It may have taken him several days to come to terms with her betrayal. In the meantime he was doing his best to bolster his pride and give the impression of rampant virility as best he knew how, in surrounding himself with a bevy of beautiful women-but only at a distance from his subjects.
It is hardly likely that Henry"s bashfulness was informed by guilt. He was the King, he did not need to justify his actions before his people, and since Parliament had named him Supreme Head of the Church of England under Christ, he had become increasingly self-righteous and sanctimonious. The evidence suggests that the charges against Anne were laid before him unheralded, and that he believed them; and even if he had been the prime mover in the plot to bring her down, he probably felt that his actions were justified by what Cromwell had uncovered.
It may be that Henry felt uncomfortable about destroying the woman whom he had once loved to distraction and who was the mother of his child, and that he was seeking refuge in pleasure jaunts in order to distract himself; or that his merrymaking with a bevy of ladies by night was intended to deflect public interest from Jane Seymour, the real object of his intentions.25 In Tudor times, most people would have agreed that a queen who had committed such crimes as were imputed to Anne Boleyn unquestioningly deserved death. But Henry clearly felt that people might be more convinced of her guilt if Jane Seymour were not in evidence. On May 4, Chapuys reported from London that the King, "to cover the affection which he has for the said [Jane] Seymour [Semel], has lodged her seven miles hence to the house of the Grand Esquire," Sir Nicholas Carew.26 This was Beddington Park in Surrey. Carew"s offer of accommodation for Jane at a discreet distance from London suggests he was maneuvering alongside Bryan, Cromwell, Chapuys, and others to make her queen. Beddington Park This was Beddington Park in Surrey. Carew"s offer of accommodation for Jane at a discreet distance from London suggests he was maneuvering alongside Bryan, Cromwell, Chapuys, and others to make her queen. Beddington Park27 was a magnificent house built around 1500 and sited in a large park. Its great hall-on which the impressive hall at Hampton Court is said to have been modeled-still survives today. The fact that it was inconveniently situated for a king who was avoiding appearing in public suggests that the decision to move Jane there was a rushed one. Beddington was some seven miles from the Thames at its nearest point in Fulham, and thus inaccessible by barge. was a magnificent house built around 1500 and sited in a large park. Its great hall-on which the impressive hall at Hampton Court is said to have been modeled-still survives today. The fact that it was inconveniently situated for a king who was avoiding appearing in public suggests that the decision to move Jane there was a rushed one. Beddington was some seven miles from the Thames at its nearest point in Fulham, and thus inaccessible by barge.
We might wonder what part Jane Seymour had played in bringing Anne down. Nothing is known of her involvement, if any, in the plot against her mistress, apart from the fact that, since late March, encouraged and endorsed by her supporters, she had been actively poisoning Henry"s mind against Anne. When Henry made it clear that he wanted to marry her, she must have known that the Queen"s removal would be necessary. Yet even when it became clear that this would be by more brutal means than the annulment of a marriage, Jane apparently did not flinch from her chosen course, nor betray any trace of guilt.
Of course, it could be argued that she would have been powerless in the face of the King"s will, but Jane was not without ambition or a streak of ruthlessness. She had embarked on her campaign to snare Henry knowing fully what she was doing, and she was clearly convinced of the rightness of it. For Anne, she seems to have had no pity whatsoever: to Jane, as to all the Imperialists, Anne had been the chief cause of the sufferings of the late Queen Katherine and of Lady Mary. Probably Jane had no difficulty in believing the charges against Anne, and regarded the proceedings as justified. Yet it must have occurred to her that the laying of such charges was all too conveniently timely.
Chapuys was apparently in touch with Jane and her friends at this time. He was certainly aware that she was antic.i.p.ating becoming Henry"s wife, for he had heard that "even before the arrest of the Concubine, the King had spoken with Mistress Seymour of their future marriage." This could have been at any time after Jane was installed in her brother"s apartment at the end of March, but-since the King would have made himself ridiculous by forcing Charles V and the Pope to recognize Anne and then abandoning her for someone else-it was likely far more recently, after Henry had seen compelling evidence of Anne"s misconduct. Resolving to marry again "on the rebound" was perhaps, for him, a way of saving face, apart from being a dynastic necessity.
Chapuys added that on this occasion Jane had bravely brought up the touchy subject of Lady Mary, and told Henry that when she was queen, she hoped to see Mary reinstated as heiress to the throne. This. .h.i.t a raw nerve and Henry became terse and imperious, telling her that she was a fool who "ought to solicit the advancement of the children they would have together, and not any others." Undeterred, Jane answered that she did think of them, but also of Henry"s peace of mind, for unless he showed justice to Mary, Englishmen would never be content.28 It sounds as if she had been groomed to speak up for Mary in this way, even though she must have shared these sentiments, while to venture what amounted to criticism of the King"s policy toward his daughter took some courage. "I will endeavor by all means to make her continue in this vein," Chapuys wrote. "I hope also to go and speak with the King within three days, and with members of the council in general. I think the Concubine"s little b.a.s.t.a.r.d Elizabeth will be excluded from the succession, and that the King will get himself requested by Parliament to marry." It sounds as if she had been groomed to speak up for Mary in this way, even though she must have shared these sentiments, while to venture what amounted to criticism of the King"s policy toward his daughter took some courage. "I will endeavor by all means to make her continue in this vein," Chapuys wrote. "I hope also to go and speak with the King within three days, and with members of the council in general. I think the Concubine"s little b.a.s.t.a.r.d Elizabeth will be excluded from the succession, and that the King will get himself requested by Parliament to marry."29 In speaking up for Mary, Jane would win through in the end, but not before Henry had exacted from his daughter a humiliating apology for her defiance. That lay weeks in the future, though, and by then Anne Boleyn would be history.
On the afternoon of May 4, the day after Jane arrived at Beddington, Sir Francis Weston was arrested, probably as a result of Anne"s indiscreet speech, along with William Brereton.30 The charges against Brereton were not made public-"What was laid against him I do not know, nor ever heard," Constantine later wrote-but he would be accused, like the rest, of having had criminal intercourse with the Queen, possibly on the evidence extracted from Smeaton; the delay in arresting him may have resulted from his being away from court. Both men had been questioned by the Privy Council, and having failed to convince the lords of their innocence, were incarcerated in the Tower before two o"clock. The charges against Brereton were not made public-"What was laid against him I do not know, nor ever heard," Constantine later wrote-but he would be accused, like the rest, of having had criminal intercourse with the Queen, possibly on the evidence extracted from Smeaton; the delay in arresting him may have resulted from his being away from court. Both men had been questioned by the Privy Council, and having failed to convince the lords of their innocence, were incarcerated in the Tower before two o"clock.31 George Constantine, Norris"s servant, was dividing his time between attending on his master in the Tower and haunting the court, no doubt hoping to pick up any helpful information or gossip. At nine o"clock that morning he had spoken to William Brereton before he was taken away, and Brereton confided to him "that there was no way but one with any matter alleged against him." Constantine took him to mean that he was innocent; he never found out what, if any, evidence was laid against him.
It seems almost certain that the men arrested on the Queen"s account were housed separately in the Tower. The name "Boullen" was roughly carved into the stonework of the thirteenth-century Martin Tower beneath a rose-such as appeared on Anne"s falcon badge-and the letter H; this was possibly the work of George Boleyn, who, according to tradition, was imprisoned here. This tradition may be based on fact, as n.o.ble prisoners were sometimes allocated a whole tower in order to house their servants, and the Martin Tower is known to have been used as a prison in Tudor times. Each of its circular floors had a large single room with window embrasures and a stone fireplace; the walls were not paneled until the seventeenth century.32 Unfortunately, the carving was damaged by fire in the nineteenth century. Unfortunately, the carving was damaged by fire in the nineteenth century.33 Anne"s falcon badge-minus its crown and scepter-is the subject of another carving in the west wall of a first-floor cell in the thirteenth-century Beauchamp Tower, Anne"s falcon badge-minus its crown and scepter-is the subject of another carving in the west wall of a first-floor cell in the thirteenth-century Beauchamp Tower,34 suggesting that another of her alleged lovers was held there. It was this carving that perhaps gave rise to the ancient tradition that Anne herself was imprisoned in the Beauchamp Tower. suggesting that another of her alleged lovers was held there. It was this carving that perhaps gave rise to the ancient tradition that Anne herself was imprisoned in the Beauchamp Tower.
The next day, Friday, May 5, saw the final arrests, those of the poet Thomas Wyatt, a privy councillor and diplomat, and Sir Richard Page.35 Page, who had been knighted in 1529, was a former secretary to Cardinal Wolsey, Page, who had been knighted in 1529, was a former secretary to Cardinal Wolsey,36 who had secured his promotion to the Privy Chamber in 1528; this had profited Wolsey little, since the opportunistic Page soon afterward transferred his loyalty to the cardinal"s enemies, the Boleyns, and later, from about 1530, to the rising star Cromwell. Having been Recorder of York from 1527 to 1533, Page was vice-chamberlain to the Duke of Richmond and clearly well thought of by the King, who had secured his promotion to the Privy Chamber in 1528; this had profited Wolsey little, since the opportunistic Page soon afterward transferred his loyalty to the cardinal"s enemies, the Boleyns, and later, from about 1530, to the rising star Cromwell. Having been Recorder of York from 1527 to 1533, Page was vice-chamberlain to the Duke of Richmond and clearly well thought of by the King,37 who appointed him captain of his own bodyguard. His wife, Elizabeth Bourchier, was a cousin to Henry VIII. who appointed him captain of his own bodyguard. His wife, Elizabeth Bourchier, was a cousin to Henry VIII.
Page had been a conspicuous friend to Anne Boleyn, gladly performing several small services for her, which-according to a list of debts owed by her in 1536-she rewarded with gifts and other marks of favor.38 Perhaps sensing danger afoot, he had left the court at the end of April for his home in Surrey; his absence probably accounts for his not being committed to the Tower at the same time as the other accused. Perhaps sensing danger afoot, he had left the court at the end of April for his home in Surrey; his absence probably accounts for his not being committed to the Tower at the same time as the other accused.
Page was of far less significance than Wyatt. Of all the men imprisoned with Anne Boleyn, Thomas Wyatt is the one for whom there is the most evidence of a romantic attachment, several years before, although it appears that his love was unrequited.39 In In Tottel"s Miscellany Tottel"s Miscellany, in which his poems were first published in 1557, much is made of the affair, probably exaggerating its importance40 and giving rise to centuries of speculation. This resulted in Catholic writers hostile to Anne making propagandist capital (much of it obscene) out of her alleged involvement with Wyatt. But what was the truth of the matter? and giving rise to centuries of speculation. This resulted in Catholic writers hostile to Anne making propagandist capital (much of it obscene) out of her alleged involvement with Wyatt. But what was the truth of the matter?
Cambridge-educated Wyatt, now about thirty-two, was an accomplished and intelligent man, a handsome dreamer who charmed women and later admitted that he had led an unchaste life.41 Anne must have known Wyatt and his family in childhood; their families lived near each other in Kent, their fathers were long-standing friends, and they would have moved in the same social circles. Anne and her brother George shared a love of poetry with Wyatt, who was to become one of England"s greatest poets. Anne must have known Wyatt and his family in childhood; their families lived near each other in Kent, their fathers were long-standing friends, and they would have moved in the same social circles. Anne and her brother George shared a love of poetry with Wyatt, who was to become one of England"s greatest poets.
References in some of Wyatt"s poems, as well as his grandson George Wyatt"s later testimony, make it clear that, captivated by Anne"s beauty and her witty and graceful speech, he fell in love-or became infatuated-with her before Henry VIII laid claim to her. This must have been around 1525-26, for Henry"s interest was rampant by Shrovetide 1526, when he appeared at a tournament wearing a magnificent suit of clothing embroidered in gold with the words Declare I dare not Declare I dare not-a courtly conceit proclaiming him the humble admirer of a lady who might disdain his advances. Wyatt was also pursuing Anne at this time, but she "rejected all his speech of love" because he was married, and had been for ten years, albeit unhappily, to a notorious adulteress, Elizabeth Brooke. All the same, she did not stoop to scorning him, and Wyatt continued to hope.42 Many decades later, George Wyatt wrote that his grandfather had expressed his feelings for Anne Boleyn in his verse, yet today we can find very few overt references to her in his surviving poems, probably because, when the King"s jealousy became manifest, the poet destroyed any that were compromising. One riddle about a disdainful mistress has the answer "Anna," but there is no proof that it refers to Anne Boleyn. Another certainly does, and was written after Henry had taken her for his chosen lady and put her beyond Wyatt"s-and anybody else"s-reach: Who list her hunt, I put him out of doubt; As well as I may spend his time in vain.
And graven with diamonds, in letters plain, There is written her fair neck round about, Noli me tangere [do not touch me], for Caesar"s I am, [do not touch me], for Caesar"s I am, And wild for to hold, though I seem tame.
Later, when Wyatt had recovered from his loss, embarked on a diplomatic career, and taken a new lover-Elizabeth Darrell, who would remain his mistress until his death in 1542-he was able to look back with equanimity on his pursuit of Anne: Then do I love again; If thou ask whom, sure since I did refrain Her, that did set our country in a roar, The unfeigned cheer of Phyllis hath the place That Brunette had.
Later still, deeming the third line of this poem too sensitive, Wyatt changed it to "Brunette, that set my wealth in such a roar." In 1532 he would look back in verse to a time when he had "fled the fire that me brent [burned], by sea, by land, by water and by wind;" he was surely thinking back to January 1527, when, seeing that Henry"s pa.s.sion for Anne grew more serious, he had begged to be allowed to join an emba.s.sy to Rome.43 Five years on, as he accompanied the King and Anne, lately become Henry"s mistress in every sense, to Calais, he could reflect with equanimity on how his desire for her was "both sprung and spent." Five years on, as he accompanied the King and Anne, lately become Henry"s mistress in every sense, to Calais, he could reflect with equanimity on how his desire for her was "both sprung and spent."
George Wyatt relates a tale of Henry VIII"s rivalry with his grandfather at the time they were both pursuing Anne. Thomas Wyatt had covertly stolen a jewel threaded on a lace from her pocket, and was cherishing it in his doublet, next to his heart. Soon afterward, aware of Henry"s interest in Anne, he was the King"s opponent at bowls; both men believed they had won, and argued the toss, but there can be little doubt that they were really fencing over Anne Boleyn, for Henry kept "a watchful eye upon the knight, noting him more to hover about the lady, and she to keep aloof from him."44 Wyatt was mortified to see the King pointing to the winning cast with a finger on which was blatantly displayed one of Anne"s rings. Wyatt was mortified to see the King pointing to the winning cast with a finger on which was blatantly displayed one of Anne"s rings.
"Wyatt, I tell thee, it is mine!" Henry insisted, smiling triumphantly. He was not talking about the cast. Thus provoked, Wyatt rashly pulled out Anne"s jewel.
"If Your Majesty will give me leave to measure it, I hope it will be mine!" he said meaningfully, and proceeded to measure the distance between casts with the lace, telling the King there was no doubt that he, Wyatt, was the winner.
"It may be so, but then I am deceived!" Henry snapped, and broke up the game. When, soon afterward, it became clear that the King"s intentions toward Anne were serious, Wyatt accepted defeat.
In 1530, when people began noticing that the King"s brother-in-law, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, had been absent from court for "a long time," Chapuys heard "people say that he is banished for some time because he revealed to the King that the Lady had found her pleasure with a gentleman of the court who already has been formerly dismissed, and this last time people have avoided him at the instance of the said lady, who has waxed very courageous by him; but at last the King has been interceded to by her that the said gentleman return to court."
The dubious evidence of later Catholic writers has led several historians to conclude that Chapuys was referring to Thomas Wyatt, but the details in the amba.s.sador"s report are at variance with that identification. Wyatt was never dismissed from court; he had been abroad-at his request-on a prolonged emba.s.sy from 1526-27, and appointed High Marshal of Calais in 1529, a position of honor. Nor is there any evidence of Anne having an affair with any man then at court, or of a previous s.e.x scandal involving her. And although Henry, having banished the man, is supposed to have given in to her pleas for his speedy return, he was hardly likely to have done this if he believed that she had slept with this courtier; after all, for more than four years Anne had been holding Henry at arm"s length, staunchly protesting her virtue, and telling him, "Your wife I cannot be, your mistress I will not be."45 George Wyatt a.s.serted that Suffolk did bear "a perpetual grudge" against the poet, the cause of which he had never uncovered, but he thought that if Suffolk had said such a thing to the King, "he did it upon zeal that in his conceit it was true." That may be correct, for Suffolk had no love for Anne, who had been rude to him, while his wife, Mary Tudor, would have nothing to do with her; it is also likely that Henry would have reacted by banishing Suffolk had the duke alleged such a thing of Anne. However, it looks as if Chapuys, in reporting what Suffolk allegedly said, had relied on embroidered gossip.
By January 1533, when Anne married the King, Wyatt was still a member of her circle, and it was to him that she hinted, in February, in front of a crowd of courtiers, that she might be pregnant.46 It was logical, given their long-standing a.s.sociation and former romantic connection, for Cromwell to proceed now against Wyatt as one of her adulterous lovers, but Wyatt was not a prominent member of the Boleyn faction and no threat to Cromwell or the Spanish alliance. Indeed, he was on good terms with Cromwell. It is therefore possible that he was the only one of the accused arrested on the King"s initiative, Henry remembering jealously that Wyatt had pursued Anne in the past. According to the "Spanish Chronicle," he had "sent a message to Cromwell, that he should send for Master Wyatt and question him." It was logical, given their long-standing a.s.sociation and former romantic connection, for Cromwell to proceed now against Wyatt as one of her adulterous lovers, but Wyatt was not a prominent member of the Boleyn faction and no threat to Cromwell or the Spanish alliance. Indeed, he was on good terms with Cromwell. It is therefore possible that he was the only one of the accused arrested on the King"s initiative, Henry remembering jealously that Wyatt had pursued Anne in the past. According to the "Spanish Chronicle," he had "sent a message to Cromwell, that he should send for Master Wyatt and question him."
Recently, the theory has been put forward that it was Lady Wingfield"s dying revelations that led to Wyatt"s apprehension,47 because she had been at court in the early 1520s when Wyatt was pursuing Anne, and could perhaps testify to what happened between them then. (This is also the basis for the unfounded theory that Lady Wingfield was at one time blackmailing Anne.) At the time of his arrest, Wyatt himself held the Duke of Suffolk responsible for it. In 1541 he wrote, "My lord of Suffolk himself can tell that I imputed it to him, and not only at the beginning, but even the very night before my apprehension now last." It has been seen as significant that Suffolk was friends with Cromwell, and the Wingfield family were his clients; Lady Wingfield"s brother-in-law, Humphrey Wingfield, was the duke"s man of business. because she had been at court in the early 1520s when Wyatt was pursuing Anne, and could perhaps testify to what happened between them then. (This is also the basis for the unfounded theory that Lady Wingfield was at one time blackmailing Anne.) At the time of his arrest, Wyatt himself held the Duke of Suffolk responsible for it. In 1541 he wrote, "My lord of Suffolk himself can tell that I imputed it to him, and not only at the beginning, but even the very night before my apprehension now last." It has been seen as significant that Suffolk was friends with Cromwell, and the Wingfield family were his clients; Lady Wingfield"s brother-in-law, Humphrey Wingfield, was the duke"s man of business.48 It seems plausible that there could be a connection, but it is unlikely, because, according to Sir John Spelman, Lady Wingfield"s evidence was offered at the trial of the four commoners charged with adultery with the Queen, and Wyatt was not among them. Therefore it must have related to the charges against either Norris or Brereton, because the offenses said to have been committed by Weston and Smeaton allegedly took place after Lady Wingfield"s death. And we might also infer from Wyatt"s use of the past tense in 1541 that while he had at the time blamed Suffolk for his arrest, he had been mistaken, or no longer did so. It seems plausible that there could be a connection, but it is unlikely, because, according to Sir John Spelman, Lady Wingfield"s evidence was offered at the trial of the four commoners charged with adultery with the Queen, and Wyatt was not among them. Therefore it must have related to the charges against either Norris or Brereton, because the offenses said to have been committed by Weston and Smeaton allegedly took place after Lady Wingfield"s death. And we might also infer from Wyatt"s use of the past tense in 1541 that while he had at the time blamed Suffolk for his arrest, he had been mistaken, or no longer did so.
Catholic writers, writing with hindsight after Anne"s fall, made much of her supposed affair with Thomas Wyatt. The "Spanish Chronicle," Sir Thomas More"s admiring biographer, Nicholas Harpsfield, and the Jesuit, Nicholas Sander, all intent on demonizing her, a.s.sert-sometimes in salacious detail-that she and Wyatt were at one time lovers in the fullest sense.
These three sources all claim that Wyatt, not Suffolk, sought to warn the King that Anne was unchaste. The "Spanish Chronicle" states that, when he at length was moved to confess all to the King, Henry refused to believe him.
Nicholas Harpsfield claimed to have gotten his story from the well-informed merchant and banker, Antonio Bonvisi, who had been a business a.s.sociate of Wolsey and a friend of Sir Thomas More, and who "heard [it] of them that were very likely to know the truth thereof." Clearly, though, the tale had gotten garbled in the telling. Harpsfield states that Wyatt dared to "utter [his] own shame" and caution Henry that Anne was "not meet to be coupled with Your Grace ... Her conversation hath been so loose and base; which thing I know not so much by hearsay as by my own experience, as one that have had my carnal pleasure with her." Henry, although "somewhat astounded," merely praised Wyatt for his honesty and charged him "to make no more words of this matter to any man living." It is barely credible that Henry VIII would have reacted so mildly to such serious allegations, especially considering that he was set upon making Anne his queen. Harpsfield"s tale, though, was written during the reign of Mary Tudor, before Anne Boleyn"s reputation had been rehabilitated, and when it was permissible, even desirable, to slander her.
Sander, of course, gave this tale great credence, and embroidered it still further with details that are nowhere else recorded, which suggests that he must have made them up. He represents Wyatt as being afraid "if the King discovered afterward how shameless Anne"s life had been" and "that his own life might be imperiled;" "grievously" troubled by his conscience, he went before the council and confessed "that he had sinned with Anne Boleyn, not imagining that the King would ever make her his wife."
Hearing that "Anne Boleyn was stained in her reputation," the councillors, concerned for their sovereign"s moral welfare and good name, repeated to the King "all that Wyatt had confessed." When Henry dismissed "these stories [as] the invention of wicked men," and declared that he "could affirm on oath that Anne was a woman of the purest life," Wyatt grew angry at not being believed, and told members of the council that "he would put it in the King"s power to see with his own eyes the truth of the story, and would bring the King where he might see him enjoy her, for Anne was pa.s.sionately in love with Wyatt;" there is, as has been shown, very little contemporary evidence for this last a.s.sertion. Suffolk was deputed to inform Henry of this preposterous proposal, and still-perhaps understandably-Henry "believed it not," and "answered that he had no wish to see anything of the kind," as Wyatt was "a bold villain, not to be trusted." Again, this is at variance with Henry"s known regard for Wyatt. Sander claimed that Henry revealed all this to Anne, "who shunned Wyatt"-which also is not borne out by the historical record.
George Wyatt dismissed Sander"s tale as "fiction;" he had learned that it was Sir Francis Bryan, not Wyatt, who confessed to enjoying one of Henry"s mistresses, and that the lady in question was not Anne Boleyn. Henry had pardoned Bryan and "gave over the lady ever after to him." George Wyatt was sure that, had Henry cause to believe that Anne had s.e.x with Wyatt, he would have "thrown her off" also. Nor is it likely that he would have allowed Wyatt to remain at court, or made him chief ewerer at her coronation in 1533, or have preferred him to the Privy Council that year. One only has to remember that, when Henry married his sixth wife, Katherine Parr, in 1543, he sent Sir Thomas Seymour, her former suitor, abroad on an extended diplomatic mission, even though he had no reason to think that Seymour had ever been Katherine"s lover.
The obvious flaws and discrepancies in these stories, and the fact that they only appear in partisan Catholic sources and are at variance with the evidence in Wyatt"s poems, render them highly suspect.
The "Spanish Chronicle" also gives a detailed account of Wyatt"s arrest. Summoned by Cromwell"s nephew, Richard (he who had changed his name from Williams to Cromwell), Wyatt rode to London, to York Place, where the secretary took him aside and said, "Master Wyatt, you will know the great love I have and always have had for you, and now I tell you it would grieve me sorely should you be guilty in the matter about which I wish to speak to you." He then proceeded to tell Wyatt about the arrests of the Queen and her alleged lovers.
Wyatt was astounded, and immediately grasped that he himself was being implicated. Spiritedly, he declared, "Master Secretary, by the loyalty I owe to G.o.d and the King my lord, I have nothing to fear because I have not erred even in my thoughts, for His Majesty the King well knows what I told him before he married." Cromwell is said to have replied, "Well, Master Wyatt, you must go to the Tower, and I promise you that I shall be your good friend." And indeed, he would prove that, which suggests that there is some truth in this account.
"I shall go readily because I am without stain, have no fear," Wyatt a.s.sured him, then allowed Richard Cromwell to escort him to the Tower, which was done so discreetly that "n.o.body suspected that he was under arrest." When they arrived, Richard said to Kingston, "Captain, Secretary Cromwell sends to beseech you to treat Master Wyatt with honor." Kingston "then put him in a chamber over the gate."
This account is compatible with the other evidence, apart from the reference to Wyatt warning the King about Anne. It is quite possible that Wyatt was imprisoned where the chronicler describes, either in one of the rooms above the Byward Tower ("Tower by the Gate") or in one of the old royal chambers above St. Thomas"s Tower, above the Watergate that later became known as Traitors" Gate. These chambers had been largely rebuilt by Henry VIII to provide accommodation for the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Lord Chamberlain when the court was in residence, which was rare, so they would have been empty. But given that Wyatt was to watch the executions on Tower Hill from a window, it is more likely that he was lodged in the Byward Tower.
According to the "Spanish Chronicle," on reaching the Tower, Wyatt wrote a letter to the King, confessing in full the details of his relations with Anne Boleyn in the years before Henry began to pay court to her. The chronicler reproduces the exact text of the letter: Your Majesty knows that before you married Queen Anne Boleyn, you said to me, "Wyatt, I wish to marry Anne Boleyn; what do you think about it?" And I told your Majesty that you should not do it, and you asked me why, and I said she was a bad woman. Your Majesty, in wrath, ordered me not to appear before you for two years. You refused to ask me my reasons, and since I could not then tell you by word of mouth, I shall do so now in writing.It happened that one day, when the Lady Anne"s father and mother were in the court eight miles from Greenwich, where, as everybody knows, they had taken up residence, that night I took horse and went there. I arrived when Anne Boleyn was in bed and went up to her chamber. When she saw me, she said, "Lord, Master Wyatt! What are you doing here at such a late hour?" I replied, "Lady, this heart of mine which is so tormented has been yours for so long that for love of you it has brought me here into your presence, thinking to receive consolation from the one who for so long has caused it such suffering." And I went up to her as she lay in bed and kissed her, and she lay still and said nothing. I touched her b.r.e.a.s.t.s, and she lay still, and even when I took liberties lower down, she likewise said nothing. I began to undress, but before I had finished I heard a great stamping above her bedchamber, and straightway the lady got up and put on a skirt [kirtle?] and climbed a staircase that was behind her bed. I waited for her more than an hour, and when she came down, she would not let me approach her ... And I tell your Majesty that within a week I had my way with her, and if your Majesty, when you banished me, had permitted me to speak, I should have told you what I now write.
The authenticity of this letter is dubious, because if Wyatt"s revelations were true, he is unlikely to have been spared the headsman"s axe: Henry was in no mood to make nice distinctions between what had gone on before he married Anne and what had gone on after; he certainly did not where Katherine Howard was concerned. The style of the letter is suspect in itself: in writing to the King, it would have been usual to refer to his wife as "Queen Anne," not "Queen Anne Boleyn;" and it is unlikely that Wyatt would have adopted such a combative tone to the King, given his precarious situation. Also, there is no record of Henry banishing Wyatt from court for two years, as we have seen.
Then we have an odd allusion to the court being eight miles from Greenwich: York Place, then in the possession of Cardinal Wolsey, was about that distance. The Archbishop of Canterbury"s palace at Croydon and the Bishop of London"s palace at Fulham were also within the same radius, although these two episcopal residences were rarely visited by the court, so the chronicler was perhaps referring to York Place; but if so, Wyatt, if he were writing this letter, would certainly have mentioned such a great and famous palace by name, whereas a foreigner might not. And the words "as everybody knows" hardly needed to be uttered to a king who had invited Anne"s parents to take up residence at court. Thus we can safely conclude that this letter was no more than a figment of the chronicler"s fevered imagination.
Neither Page nor, strangely, Wyatt was to be formally charged with any crime; both their families pet.i.tioned successfully for their release,49 and it seems that Cromwell intended all along that they should be freed, thus emphasizing the guilt of the rest. and it seems that Cromwell intended all along that they should be freed, thus emphasizing the guilt of the rest.
There were now seven men in the Tower on Anne"s account. As if that were not bad enough, from their point of view, they were deemed to have sufficient wealth and lands to meet the charges of their imprisonment, so that the Crown need not be responsible for their maintenance while they were its guests.50
CHAPTER 9.
The Most Mischievous and Abominable Treasons.
Kingston"s letters to Cromwell are mostly undated, and it is not obvious in every case when they were written. His second and third letters, which were clearly scribed on different days, and later than May 3 (the day after Master Secretary had been among the councillors escorting the Queen to the Tower), both refer to Cromwell departing "yesterday" from the Tower. We can only infer from this that Cromwell made at least two visits to the Tower to see Kingston, ensure that his instructions were being complied with, obtain information that might help his case, and personally monitor Anne"s imprisonment. There is no evidence that he saw Anne herself. Cromwell was to remain mainly in London after May 6, the day on which the King went to Hampton Court.
Kingston"s second report was probably written on the evening of May 5, for it refers to the arrests of Wyatt and Page. He wrote to Cromwell: "After your departing yesterday [which would explain why the constable made no report on May 4], Greenway, gentleman usher, came to me and [said that] Master Carew and Master Bryan [had] commanded him in the King"s name to my Lord of Rochford from my lady his wife, and the message was now more [to] see how he did; and also she would humbly [make] suit unto the King"s Highness for her husband." There is no record of her doing so; indeed, she had already laid information against him, and was the princ.i.p.al witness in the Crown"s case.
There is something very odd about this message. The King himself-or perhaps Cromwell, in his name-had commanded Carew and Bryan to send Master Greenway to Lord Rochford on Lady Rochford"s behalf, to find out how he was, and tell him that she would plead with the King for him. Why should either Henry or Cromwell show such consideration to a prisoner in the Tower suspected of treasonable-and shocking-dealings with the Queen? Especially if, as has been claimed, Lady Rochford had not laid evidence and her message showed genuine concern,1 in which case it is unlikely she would have been allowed to send it. None of the other prisoners were accorded such consideration, and Weston"s family in particular were active on his behalf. Was Lady Rochford being treated sympathetically at court because of the invaluable a.s.sistance she had afforded the Crown, to the detriment of her marriage vows, and taken advantage of this to salve her conscience by asking to send a solicitous message to the husband she had betrayed? in which case it is unlikely she would have been allowed to send it. None of the other prisoners were accorded such consideration, and Weston"s family in particular were active on his behalf. Was Lady Rochford being treated sympathetically at court because of the invaluable a.s.sistance she had afforded the Crown, to the detriment of her marriage vows, and taken advantage of this to salve her conscience by asking to send a solicitous message to the husband she had betrayed?
His having commanded and authorized that message implies, ludicrously, that the King knew in advance that Lady Rochford was going to plead with him for her husband"s life. Unless, of course, having received royal permission to write to George, she afterward, of her own accord, asked Carew and Bryan to a.s.sure her husband she would intercede for him with the King-an empty promise at best? Surely she must have known that her words would be reported to Henry by these men, his intimates. In either case, she was lying to Rochford. But he trustingly "gave her thanks" for her message.
Visibly distressed, Rochford asked Kingston "at what time he should come afore the King"s Council," adding "for I think I shall not come forth till I come to my judgment." The prospect was too much for him, and he broke down weeping.2 There is no evidence that he ever was interrogated by the council, although he may have been visited by some of its members after the indictments had been drawn up. There is no evidence that he ever was interrogated by the council, although he may have been visited by some of its members after the indictments had been drawn up.3 Anne had now been given the dread news of Rochford"s arrest by her attendants. Immediately, she sent for Kingston.
"I hear say my lord my brother is here," she told him.
"It is truth," he confirmed. It must have been a bitter moment for her, given all that Rochford"s imprisonment implied.
"I am very glad that we both be so nigh together," was all she said.
Kingston then revealed that Weston and Brereton were in the Tower too, at which "she made very good countenance. I also said Master Page and Wyatt was more, then she said, "He hath ... won his fyst the other day and is here now but ma ... ""Here, the letter is very badly damaged, and Anne"s comments on Wyatt and Page are indecipherable. "I shall desire you to bear a letter from me to Master Secretary," she told the constable.
"Madam," he replied, "tell it me by word of mouth, and I will do it." She thanked him, saying, "I have much marvel that the King"s Council comes not to me." She clearly was wondering why she had not been subject to further examination, and like her brother, was hoping for a chance to explain everything and clear her name. Kingston apparently did not comment. When she prophesied to him that "we should have no rain till she were delivered out of the Tower," Kingston replied kindly, "I pray you it may be shortly because of the fair weather." He added to Cromwell, "You know what I mean." He is unlikely to have been referring to Anne"s release.
During the evening of May 5, Anne made plain her antipathy toward her attendants, grumbling to Kingston that "the King wist what he did when he put such two about her as my Lady Boleyn and Mistress Coffin, for they could tell her nothing of my lord her father nor nothing else, but she defied them all." Having digested the news of Rochford"s arrest, she evidently feared that her father"s would be next. "But then upon this, my Lady Boleyn said to her, "Such desire as you have had to such tales [intrigues] has brought you to this."" Evidently she knew her niece-by-marriage well.
Mrs. Stonor then spoke of Smeaton, observing, "Mark is the worst cherished of any man in the house, for he wears irons." She was referring to manacles or chains.
"That is because he is no gentleman," Anne replied. She told her avidly listening attendants that Smeaton "was never in my [privy] chamber but at Winchester," the previous a