The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (93 page)
79
To avoid her husband knowing:
LP,
xiii (I).450.
80
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, p. 452.
81
LP,
x.873; xi.29. By 9 May the story had already reached the French court that Anne had been found
in flagrante
with Smeton:
Cal.
S. P.
Span., 1534-36,
p. 571.
82
De Carles in Ascoli,
L’Opinion,
lines 349-50.
83
Pocock,
Records,
ii.574-5.
84
De Carles, in Ascoli,
L‘Opinion,
lines 409-96. Alexander Ales was also aware of this version for he too reports an investigation over some days: ‘Letter’, pp. 526-7.
85
Carles, in Ascoli,
L’Opinion,
lines 437-4.
87
De Carles, in Ascoli,
L‘Opinion,
lines 349-84.
88
See the letters cited at 415 n. 28.
89
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, p. 451.
91
Where possible, Singer supplies the lacunae from Strype.
92
Antony says 5 May, no time stated: p. 418 n. 68.
93
Antony says Friday 5 May [see p. 345] but Constantine, who spoke to Brereton before his arrest, says Thursday before 2.00 p.m. [
Archaeologia,
23, 65].
94
Wolsey,
e.d. Singer, p. 455.
95
Wyatt,
Poems
, CXLIX, lines 49-56.
96
If, as Lowinsky suggested, Smeton was preparing Royal College of Music MS 1070 for Anne, he may well have found the idea of such a gift from a person of his status greeted with scorn: see p. 258.
97
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, pp. 456-7. When Anne entered the Tower she knew only of the arrests of Norris and Smeton and assumed Norris had accused her. This supports the conjecture that the first intention was a rapid trial accusing Smeton as principal and Norris as accessory [see p. 326]. Her concern for the whereabouts of both the king and her brother suggests that she was looking for allies, but alternatively might indicate that she suspected that George was in danger as an accessory: ibid., pp. 451-2. She seems never to have been questioned about Weston and Brereton.
98
‘I have much marvel that the king’s council comes not to me’: ibid., p. 454, dated Tuesday-Thursday, 9-11 May.
99
‘[Rochford] desired me [Kingston] to know at what time he should come afore the king’s council, for I think I shall not come forth till I come to my judgement’: ibid., p. 454.
Chapter 23 Judgement
1
For the following see Wriothesley,
Chronicle
, i.189-226 and the letters listed p. 415 n. 28; RO, C193/3 f. 80.
3
De Carles was much impressed by this feature of English criminal procedure: in Ascoli,
L’Opinion,
lines 717-32, 774-6.
4
For the jury see
House of Commons,
i.307-8, 342-3; ii.52-3, 60-1, 409-10, 646-8; iii.54-6, 430-1, 597-9; LP, iv.1136(16); 1939(8), 5623(10), 6187 (12); G. E. C.,
Peerage
, vi.624-7; Brereton,
Letters and Accounts,
p. 105: John Stow.
Survey of London
, ed. C. L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1908), i.133.
5
Wriothesley,
Chronicle,
i.37; Antony Antony in Bodl.Fol.∆ 624, facing p. 385;
Cal. S. P. Span.
,
1536
-
38,
p. 125 [LP, x.908]; E. O. Benger,
Memoirs of the Life of Anne Boleyn
(1827), p. 404. Antony refers to the making of ‘a halfe pace [sic] and scaffold’ for the people to stand upon. ‘Halfpace’ is a confusing term and possibly means a raised platform for Anne to sit on: Thurley,
Palaces,
p. ix. The stands reported by Benger cannot have been genuine if‘the king’s hall’ was the hall in the royal apartments, since this was demolished in the 17th century: Colvin,
King’s Works
, iii (1).266. Alternatively, did the trial take place in the hall in the White Tower?
6
Given the small number of available peers, the Crown was in no position to attempt much ‘packing’. It had to rely on the peculiar loyalty peers were expected to give the king - or on their personal respect and fear of him. For the trial of Anne and Rochford see Wriothesley,
Chronicle,
i.37- 9; de Carles, in Ascoli,
L‘Opinion,
lines 821-1046; Friedmann,
Anne Boleyn,
ii.238;
Cal. S. P. Span
.,
1536
-
38,
pp. 125-7 [
LP,
x.908]; Ales, ‘Letter’; Antony Antony in Herbert,
Henry VIII
(1679), facing p. 385 [see above, p. 418 n. 68]; Spelman,
Reports
, i.59, 70-1.
7
Ales goes too far in presenting Anne as a silent martyr. He does, however, suggest that Richard Pollard [‘Master Polwarck‘] led for the Crown, not Christopher Hales. A. G. Pollard was later in the forefront of government prosecution of rebels after the Pilgrimage of Grace.
8
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, pp. 451, 457.
9
Wriothesley,
Chronicle
, i.37-8.
12
De Carles has Anne presenting a mixture of defence, rebuttal of judgement and defiance, plus a plea for those condemned with her. This last, and a request for time to prepare her soul, is found in Chapuys:
Cal. S. P. Span
.,
1536
-
38,
p. 127 [
LP,
x.908].
13
De Carles, in Ascoli,
L’Opinion,
lines 1002-12.
14
Accounts of the executions of May 1536 can be identified as follows: (1a) An Italian account by ‘P. A.’, possibly a Venetian diplomat in England, dated 1 June 1536: in Hamy,
Entrevue,
pp. ccccxxxiccccxxxvi, also printed version (Bologna, 1536); (1b) A Portuguese translation of (1a), dated 1 June, in Bentley,
Excerpta Historica,
pp. 261-5. (2a) An imperial account, printed in Thomas,
The Pilgrim,
pp. 116-17; (2b) A Spanish version of (2a) at Vienna:
LP
, x.911(1). (3) A French account, printed partially in Ascoli,
L‘Opinion
, p. 273, and partially in Hamy,
Entrevue,
pp. ccccxxxvii-ccccxxxviii, possibly derived from (2a). (4) de Carles [see pp. 60-1]. (5)
Les regretz de Millort de Rocheffort,
printed in Ascoli,
L’Opinion,
pp. 274-8. (6) Constantine, in
Archaeologia,
23, 64-6. (7) Wriothesley,
Chronicle,
i.39-40, (8)
Chronicle of Calais,
pp. 46-7.
15
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, p. 460.
16
Constantine, in
Archaeologia,
23, 64. The badly mutilated conclusion to one letter [
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, p. 455] may suggest that Norris confessed the facts of his conversation with Anne but denied the alleged implication. It can be reconstructed as ‘[whoever tries to take advantage of] anything of my confession, he is worthy to have [my place here; and if he stand to] it, I defy him.’
17
Constantine, in
Archaeologia,
23, 65; Ives, in
Trans. Hist
.
Soc. Lancs. & Ches.,
123, 31-2. We may note Chapuys’ opinion: ‘condemned on presumption and circumstances, not by proof or valid confession’ [
‘ont este condampnez par presumption et aucuns indices
,
sans preuve ne confession valid’
]
.
He did, however, have civil law procedure in mind, which required eyewitnesses or the confessions of the accused:
Cal. S. P. Span., 1536-38
, p. 125 [
LP,
x.908].
18
Cf. the opinion of John Hussey:
Lisle Letters,
iii.698 [
LP,
x.919]. The suggestion [Warnicke,
Rise and Fall,
pp. 214-22] that ‘the men identified as Anne’s lovers were known for their licentious behaviour and that some of them were also suspected of having violated the Buggery Statute’ is wholly meretricious. For a detailed rebuttal of the supposed ‘evidence’ for this, see Ives, in
Hist
.
Journ.,
34, 198-9. In particular, their scaffold statements do not bear the interpretation claimed.
19
Two grand juries of sixteen, a petty jury of twelve, a jury of twenty-six peers for Anne and twenty-five for Rochford.
20
The ‘divers other days and places’ always applies at the location alleged in the main charge, e.g. Norris accused of intercourse at Westminster on specific days is accused also of ‘divers ... at Westminster’, never elsewhere in Middlesex. Brereton is the exception, with the original offence at Hampton Court and ‘divers ... at Westminster’.
21
The indictment referred to Anne’s adultery as treasonous but the fact that the Treasons Act of 1352 did not cover adultery by a queen is indicated by inclusion of the offence in subsequent legislation: 33 Henry VIII, c.21.
22
The suggestion [
LP
, x.908 at pp. 377-8] that the poisoning charge was supported by Anne’s gift to Norris of certain
médailles
is based on wrong punctuation and conflates two separate items [
Cal. S
.
P. Span., 1536
-
38,
p. 126; Friedmann,
Anne Boleyn,
ii.277 n.1].
23
Spelman [
Reports
, i.71] reported a charge of slandering the royal issue ‘which is made treason by the statute of the twenty-sixth year of the present king’. There is some doubt about what statute was intended. The suggestion adopted above is that he conflated two separate charges: imagining the king’s death (restated as treason by 26 Henry VIII, c.13, Dec. 1534) and slandering the royal issue (treason by 25 Henry VIII, c.22, Mar. 1534).
24
Lisle Letters,
iv.845a [
LP
, x.866].
25
The condemnation of Norris etc. also meant that Anne could not cite their denial of misconduct as corroboration. By contrast, the accessories to Katherine Howard were indicted only after the queen had confessed and Culpeper and Dereham been condemned.
27
For Brereton, see Brereton,
Letters and Accounts,
and Ives, in
Trans. Hist. Soc
.
Lancs. & Ches.,
123, 1-38. For a dismissive verdict on Brereton see Thornton,
Cheshire,
pp. 195-213.
28
Ives, in
Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. & Ches.,
123, 28-30.
29
Cavendish,
Metrical Visions,
pp. 33- 5; the first and penultimate stanzas are omitted here.
30
The force of this was recognized by George Wyatt, in
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, pp. 445-6.
31
For the following see Ales, ‘Letter’, pp. 528-9.
32
This charge was specifically mentioned in the indictment.
33
Cal. S. P
.
Span., 1536-38,
pp. 126, 127-8; [
LP
, x.908].
34
Wolsey,
ed. Singer, p. 454.
36
Walker, in
Hist
.
Journ.,
45, 26.
38
Reginae Utopiae falso adulterii crimine damnatae, et capite mulctatae Epitaphium
: Etienne Dolet,
Epigram
(Lyons, 1538), Book iii, p. 162.
‘Utopiae’
plays on the ambiguity of
ou-topos
(no place) and
eu-topos
(happy place).