Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford (57 page)

Catherine’s childhood is discussed by Smith (1961, pp. 42–43, 47–49, 194–96) and Starkey (2004, pp. 645–46). Marillac’s report on the outbreak of the scandal is from
LP,
XVI, no. 1332. As to the affair and events leading to the fall of Catherine, the calendared abstracts from
LP,
XVI, nos. 1317, 1320–21, 1325, 1337–39, 1348, 1385, 1400, 1407, 1409, 1415–16, 1423–24, 1442, 1461, 1469, are useful but no more than as a starting point: they are heavily abridged and sexual innuendo is censored to match the editor’s opinion of what might properly appear in print in 1898. The letters from and between members of the council are fully transcribed and printed in
State Papers
(1830–52, I, pp. 691–728). Catherine Howard’s examinations by Cranmer are from Longleat, Portland Papers, PO/1, fols. 51–53f.v., fully printed in HMC Bath (1907, II, pp. 8–10); Burnet (1820, III.ii, pp. 226–29, no. 71). Cranmer’s letter to Henry VIII describing Catherine and her state of mind is from NA, SP 1/167, fols. 139–40 (stamped fols. 121–22), and
State Papers
(1830–52, I, pp. 689–91). Further reports of her mental state are from Paget’s letter to Henry printed in
State Papers
(1830–52, VIII, p. 636). This leaves the most important evidence: the interrogatories and signed (and sworn) depositions, difficult to read and therefore still almost untouched in the National Archives. The first to decipher some of them was Starkey (2004, pp. 667–81). My account is substantially based on these handwritten depositions, which are as follows: Mary Hall’s (born Lascelles) deposition from SP 1/167, fols. 128–31 (stamped fols. 110–13); Henry Manox’s depositions from SP 1/167, fols. 135–38f.v. (stamped fols. 117–20f.v.), 161 (stamped fol. 144); Margaret (also known as Mary) Morton’s depositions from SP 1/167, fols. 153–54 (stamped fols. 133–34), 162 (stamped fol. 146); Katherine Tylney’s depositions from SP 1/167, fols. 149 (stamped fol. 131), 157 (stamped fol. 140); Alice Wilkes’s deposition from SP 1/167, fols. 155, 157 (stamped fols. 136, 140); Margaret, Lady Howard’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 155 (stamped fol. 136); Anne Howard’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 155 (stamped fol. 136); Margaret Benet’s deposition from SP 1/167, fols. 155–56 (stamped fols. 136–38); Malyn Tylney’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 156 (stamped fol. 138); Edward Waldegrave’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 156 (stamped fol. 138); Francis Dereham’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 157 (stamped fol. 140); Thomas Culpepper’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 157–59 (stamped fols. 140–42); Jane Rochford’s deposition from SP 1/167, fols. 159–60 (stamped fols. 142–43); John Lascelles’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 162 (stamped fol. 146); Joan Bulmer’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 162 (stamped fol. 146); Robert Davenport’s deposition from SP 1/167, fol. 161 (stamped fol. 144); the council’s list of examinates from SP 1/167, fol. 151 (stamped fol. 132). Further background on Henry Manox is from NA, DL25/1031; DL25/1032/(1); NA, C 1/1076/4–7; C 1/1304/19–26; C 1/1308/6–8; C 1/1313/23–26. Although Manox is listed in the index to
LP,
XVI, p. 889, as executed in December 1541, a view apparently endorsed by Smith (1961), there are no trial or execution records for him. In fact, he escaped scot-free, living at Streatham, before moving to Hemingford in Huntingdonshire, where he died in his bed in 1564: NA, PROB 11/47 (his will). Further background on Robert Davenport and Francis Dereham is from
State Papers
(1830–52, I, p. 698). A succinct analysis of the incident involving Mr. Johns is provided by Starkey (2004, pp. 661–62). The reference to Culpepper’s involvement in a rape and murder, for which he received a royal pardon, is from
LP,
XVII, appendix, no. 10, although his brother, another Thomas, might possibly have committed these offenses. Catherine’s letter to Culpepper is fully printed in
LP,
XVI, no. 1134. Her gifts to him are from NA, SP 1/167, fol. 157 (stamped fol. 140). Her comments to Jane about him are taken from Jane’s confession (see above). Andrew Maunsay’s statement is from
LP,
XVI, no. 1348. Jane Bulmer’s letter is from
LP,
XV, no. 875. Catherine’s warning to Dereham is from NA, SP 1/167, fol. 157 (stamped fol. 140). The Duchess of Norfolk’s remark that neither Catherine nor Dereham would die for actions committed before Catherine’s marriage is from
LP,
XVI, no. 1400. The enrollment of Lord Morley’s purchase of Markhall from Thomas Shaa is from NA, C 54/420.

CHAPTER
31

Just as there is debate about Jane’s part in the Culpepper episode, so there is about whether or not it really was a fully blown affair or nothing more than talk. Inevitably, we can but speculate. Starkey believes Culpepper’s story rings true: Starkey (2004, p. 675). Lacey Baldwin Smith also tends to exonerate Catherine. I remain skeptical that a woman as sexually experienced as Catherine could spend so long, and at such risk, with an equally experienced young man just talking. She could have talked, although admittedly not for such long periods, within the normal confines of the court if that was all she wanted. Since marriages in Tudor times were primarily business contracts, it was not unknown for a woman to take a lover, although the practice was certainly not condoned. It was Catherine’s tragedy that marrying the king made this not only socially and morally unacceptable but fatal. Warnicke (
ODNB,
under the heading “Howard, Catherine”) believes that far from Catherine wanting to sleep with Culpepper, she was in fact trying to buy his silence on the Dereham episode. She sees Catherine’s romantic letter to Culpepper as innocent, merely indicating her need to see him as “a misguided attempt at appeasement.” If so, it took the queen rather a lot of attempts. And Culpepper’s confession does not even mention Dereham. I remain unconvinced by this theory, interesting as it is.

My sources for this chapter are those also used for chap. 30, in particular the signed (and sworn) depositions of Culpepper, Jane Rochford, Margaret Morton, and Katherine Tylney (for full references, see notes above). Marillac’s accusation of Dereham as Culpepper’s betrayer is from
LP,
XVI, no. 1366. Henry’s determination to discover everything is taken from
State Papers
(1830–52, I., p. 703). The list of what Catherine was to be allowed at Syon, and who was to accompany her, is from
State Papers
(1830–52, I., pp. 691–92, 695) and
LP,
XVI, no. 1331. Catherine’s attempt to shift all the blame onto Jane, insisting it was she who had pushed her into encouraging Culpepper, is from her so-called confession to Cranmer, dated November 12, 1541: Longleat, Portland Papers, PO/1, fols. 51–53f.v., fully printed in HMC Bath (1907, II, pp. 8–10). The seizure of Culpepper’s possessions on November 14 is from
LP,
XVI, no. 1343. The Knyvett affair is from
LP,
XVI, no. 760, and Wriothesley (1875–77, I, p. 125). Henry’s reaction to Catherine’s betrayal is from
LP,
XVI, no. 1426. The trial and executions of Dereham and Culpepper and subsequent parliamentary attainders are from NA, KB 8/13/1;
LP
XVI, nos. 1395, 1426, 1430, 1432, 1434;
LP,
XVII, no. 28, p. 13, no. 63; Statutes (1542) [
Anno tricesimo tertio Henrici Octavi
], sigs.f.ii–fv (
STC,
no. 9405. 5); and
State Papers
(1830–52, I, pp. 701, 704, 707). Mary Lascelles’s narrow escape is from
State Papers
(1830–52, I, pp. 704–05) and
LP,
XVI, no. 1433. The Duchess of Norfolk’s opening of the coffers is from
LP,
XVI, nos. 1409, 1416, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1467, 1469, 1470, and
State Papers
(1830–52, I, pp. 696–702). Dereham’s visit to Ireland is from
LP,
XVI, nos. 1409 and 1416. Walsingham’s problem concerning the secure custody of his many prisoners is from
LP,
XVI, nos. 1433, 1437, 1489, pp. 706, 708. The prisoners’ repentance is from
LP,
XVI, no. 1471;
State Papers
(1830–52, I, p. 726). Norfolk’s letter to Henry is from
State Papers
(1830–52, I, p. 721) and
LP,
XVI, no. 1454. Marillac’s reference to Catherine’s brothers riding through the streets is from
LP,
XVI, no. 1426. The Morley land transaction is from
LP,
XVII, no. 54. James Boleyn’s securing of Jane Rochford’s “stuff” is from
LP,
XVII, no. 119. Gage’s breaking up of Catherine’s household at Syon is from
LP,
XVII, no. 92. Her behavior at Syon is from
CSPSp,
VI.i, no. 228. Her journey to the Tower and her request to practice with the block are from
CSPSp,
VI.i, no. 232, and
LP,
XVII, no. 124. Jane’s removal from the Tower to regain her sanity in the more congenial surroundings of Russell House is from
LP,
XVI, no. 1401. This interpretation is further documented by Wriothesley, who mentions Jane being taken to the Tower on two separate occasions: Wriothesley (1875–77, I, pp. 131, 133). Since Henry wanted justice to be visible, it makes perfect sense that he would ensure that Jane was fit enough to acquiesce rather than collapse completely on the scaffold or, worse, to die from fright inside the Tower (this had also been his policy prior to the execution of Bishop John Fisher, to whom Henry sent his finest doctor and paid the bills).

CHAPTER
32

The only genuine eyewitness account of the executions is from Ottwell Johnson:
LP,
XVII, no. 106, fully transcribed and printed by Ellis (1824–46, 1st series, II, pp. 128–29). Marillac’s account is from
LP,
XVII, no. 100. That of Chapuys is from
LP,
XVII, no. 124, and
CSPSp,
VI.i, no. 232. The Privy Council meeting attended by both Norfolk and Suffolk is from
LP,
XVII, no. 103. Henry’s reaction is from
LP,
XVII, nos. 124, 178, and
LP,
XVII, appendix B, no. 13. I am indebted to James Simpson for considering
De claris mulieribus
in relation to Jane’s death. His superb analysis is from his essay in Axton and Carley (2000, pp. 153–69). His interpretation of Polyxena’s death forms the basis of my ideas on Morley’s reaction to Jane’s execution, although I tend to go slightly further in seeing Morley’s translation as a veiled obituary for his daughter. I am deeply indebted to Jessica Sharkey of Clare College, Cambridge, for her incisive comparison of Boccaccio’s original text with Morley’s translation of the Polyxena passage. She has pointed out that Morley turned
throat
into
neck,
a far more significant word in the context of decapitation. The Latin version may conveniently be compared with Morley’s English translation: Wright (1943, pp. 105–6). Lady Morley’s contribution to the bells at St. Giles is from ERO, MS DP/27/5/1, fol. 31. This is the only known reference to either of the Morleys contributing to the village church before Jane’s death, although the bells were often in need of repair or replacement. For reference to the bell today, see Cocks and Hardie (1994, p. 14). My account of the geography of the Tower is from Keay (2001, pp. 25–49). Cf. Ives (2004, p. 357).

EPILOGUE

The first references to the eighteenth-century works are from Stone (1766, p. 247), Carte (1752, III, p. 163), Granville (undated, I, p. 104), Coote (1791, V, p. 79), and Birch (1747, p. 26). It is true that Marillac wrote to Francis that “all her life” Jane “had the name to esteem her honor little,” but it is quite improbable that Henry would have allowed such a woman unrestricted access into his wives’ privy chambers had Marillac been correct. Since Marillac also said in this dispatch that Jane was now “in her old age,” whereas she was actually less than forty, his information is suspect:
LP,
XVI, no. 1366. My investigation of John Foxe’s
Actes and Monuments
involved examining the following editions: Foxe (1563) (
STC,
no. 11222), Foxe (1576) (
STC,
no. 11224, II, p. 1181), and Foxe (1583) (
STC,
no. 11225, II, p. 1210). The account by Chapuys of the trials is from
CSPSp,
V.ii, no. 55. Spelman’s reference in his notebook to Lady Wingfield is from Spelman (1976–77, I, p. 71). The references to Cromwell and Husee are from
LP,
X, nos. 873, 953; see also the notes to chap. 21 in this volume. Discussion of Wyatt’s
Memoir of Anne Boleyn
is from the text printed as an appendix to Cavendish (1825, II, pp. 182, 207, 212). Constantine’s “Memorial” is from Amyot (1831, pp. 50–78). The crucial reference to a letter is on p. 66. For details on John Payne Collier, see
ODNB.
Ales’s letter to Elizabeth is from NA, SP 1/70, fols. 1–10 (stamped fols. 3–13), and
CSPF, Elizabeth,
I, 1558–1559, no. 1303. John Day’s career and links to Cecil are from Evenden (2004a), Evenden (2004b, pp. 383–94), and Evenden and Freeman (2004, pp. 1288–1307). Day as Cecil’s “tame printer” is from Guy (2004, pp. 467–68). Lord Herbert of Cherbury’s denunciation of Jane is from p. 36 of the 1649 edition (Wing H-1504), and from p. 583 of the 1672 edition (Wing H-1701). For Heylin’s references to Jane, see Heylin (1660, pp. 91, 93). Burnet’s opinions are from Burnet (1820, I.i, pp. 306, 484–85). His later comment stating that all that could be brought against Anne was Smeaton’s confession is from Burnet (1820, III.i, p. 174). Stow lists his sources in Stow (1592), table of authors after “Preface to the Reader”
STC,
no. 23334. His accounts of the deaths of Anne and of Catherine appear on pp. 966–67, 982–83. Neither accuses Jane of being the key informant who brought down the Boleyns. Camden’s account of Anne’s fall, which again makes no mention of Jane, is from Camden (1635, introduction, sigs.d2v.–d3v.;
STC,
no. 4501). To eliminate Anthony Anthony as a source of Jane’s traducement, it is essential to consult Turner’s notes on Anthony’s lost “Chronicle,” bound into his mispaginated copy of the 1649 edition of Herbert’s
Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth:
Bodleian Folio Delta 624 [
sic
], pp. 381–85 (pages out of sequence; new numbering beginning after p. 404), and (on Catherine Howard and Culpepper), pp. 473–74. For Turner’s unique system of annotation, see especially the interpolations facing pp. 384, 385, 392, 394, 462, 473–74, 565. Ives (2004, p. 331) cites Anthony’s lost journal as referring to Jane, stating that the words he used probably included the “particular instrument” phrase. In fact, as I have shown, this is Turner, not Anthony at all, and Turner’s reference to “
postea
474” is to the printed text of Herbert. Quotations deploring the alleged “iniquities” of Jane in the eighteenth century are from Smollett (1759, VI, p. 35),
The Book of Martyrs
(1765, p. 117), Cavendish (1825, II, p. 74), Helme (1798, I, p. 63), and Hume (1796, III, p. 64).