The Boleyn Women: The Tudor Femmes Fatales Who Changed English History (25 page)

carried many stories to the king, or some about him, to persuade, that there was a familiarity between the queen and her brother, beyond what so near a relation could justify. All that could be said for it was only this; that he was once seen leaning upon her bed, which bred great suspicion.
²⁴

While Jane was indeed involved in a love affair in the last year of her life, her role was that of a procuress rather than a lover. In spite of William Cavendish’s claim that Jane had not been a ‘chaste wife’ and that she was ‘in every matter, both early and late, called the woman of vice insatiate’ and that she had followed her ‘lust and filthy pleasure’, there is not actually any evidence that Jane ever took a lover or even contemplated remarrying. If anything, the evidence suggests that she at least outwardly remained loyal to George’s memory after his death. Cavendish, who knew her, described her as ‘a widow in black’.
²⁵
The evidence of Jane’s possessions also suggests that she habitually wore black, something which, given that her widowhood lasted for nearly six years, was far above what was required by convention. In the inventory of some of her goods prepared at the time of George’s death, the list of Jane’s clothes were colourful and rich, such as sleeves of yellow satin and of cloth of silver.
²⁶
Her clothes listed in inventories carried out at her death were entirely black, such as a kirtle of black velvet and one of black satin. She possessed a gown of black damask and one of black satin and a nightgown of black taffeta.
²⁷
Even the gift of cloth made by Princess Mary in 1537 was black satin. In public, Jane appeared as a grieving widow for the rest of her life. She also appeared publicly as a dutiful wife during George’s imprisonment, with the Lieutenant of the Tower recording that Sir Nicholas Carew and Sir Francis Bryan came with a message to George from Jane to ‘see how he did’ and also to declare that she would ‘humbly suit unto the king’s highness’ on George’s behalf.
²⁸
Unfortunately, the letter in which this message was noted was damaged in a fire and the exact nature of Jane’s petition is unclear, although it was ‘for her husband’ and such as that George ‘gave her thanks’, something which does imply that she offered to speak to the king for his release. This does not suggest hostility between husband and wife.

It is commonly suggested that George and Jane had always had an unhappy marriage. No representation survives of George but he appears to have been a handsome and accomplished man, reputed both as a patron of the religious reform and as a poet, although, unfortunately, no examples of his work survive. There is no surviving record that Jane was ever pregnant or produced any child, something that could suggest that the couple did not commonly live together as man and wife. Equally, one party to the marriage could have been infertile. A George Boleyn, Dean of Lichfield, who identified himself as a kinswoman of Anne Boleyn’s daughter, Elizabeth, was active later in the sixteenth century, suggesting that he could, perhaps, have been an illegitimate son of Lord Rochford’s. No other potential illegitimate children have been linked to George, and the Dean of Lichfield could have been a more distant relative. Infertility therefore cannot be ruled out for either party, particularly as it is clear that Jane was well aware of what relations between a husband and wife consisted of, indicating that the marriage would have been consummated. In 1540 Jane, with two other court ladies, gave evidence against the king’s fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, to show that Henry’s marriage remained unconsummated and to allow him to annul his marriage. According to the ladies, they spoke to the queen, telling her that they wished she was pregnant. A conversation ensued with the ladies declaring ‘Madam, I think your Grace is a maid still, indeed’. Anne protested, asking, ‘How can I be a maid and sleep every night with the king?’, to which Jane replied knowingly, ‘There must be more than that,’ before agreeing with her companions that if all the king did was kiss his wife goodnight it would be a long time before the queen bore a son.
²⁹

While the couple’s marriage was likely to have been consummated, this is not, in itself, an indication that it was happy. In his
Metrical Visions
, William Cavendish presented a highly unflattering picture of George, putting words into his mouth to declare that:

My life not chaste, my living bestial;
I forced widows, maidens I did deflower.
All was one to me, I spared none at all,
My appetite was all women to devour,
My study was both day and hour,
My unlawful lechery how I might it fulfil.
Sparing no woman to have on her my will.
³⁰

It was hardly unusual for an aristocratic husband to take mistresses and it was generally considered that a wife should ignore any illicit conduct on her husband’s part. However, Cavendish’s emphasis on George’s licentiousness does suggest that he may have gone further than most, something that would have embarrassed his wife, who, as the daughter of Henry VII’s first cousin, probably expected better treatment. Cavendish may, of course, have exaggerated but he does present a reasonably fair picture of Anne Boleyn’s brother, stating that George was endowed ‘with gifts of natural qualities’ among other accomplishments.

The claim, first made by Retha Warnicke in the 1980s, that George was homosexual can probably be discounted.
³¹
Dr Warnicke based this claim largely on a surviving French manuscript, containing a satirical poem attacking the institution of marriage, which certainly belonged to George and also bears the signature of a ‘Marc S’. This Mark was identified as Mark Smeaton, with the argument being that he and George had been involved in a love affair, with Smeaton confessing to adultery with the queen because it was a less shameful death than that which would be inflicted on a homosexual in the period. The identification of ‘Marc S’ as Smeaton must be fairly contentious as it is highly unlikely that he could have afforded to purchase a work of this quality. However, he did move in the same circles as the Boleyns and so it is possible that he is indeed the Mark in question. It is quite a leap from this to assume that he and the queen’s brother were involved in a love affair however, particularly as there is no contemporary evidence to even hint at this. Cavendish also makes it clear that George’s licentiousness was directed at women, although he was apparently not particularly discerning as to his sexual partners. It is very possible that George’s adultery served to turn his wife away from him, but the evidence does not suggest any noticeable estrangement between the couple; the marriage was consummated, and Jane apparently mourned her husband and tried to intercede with the king on his behalf. None of this suggests any great passion between the couple, but it certainly does not indicate separation or hatred.

As has been pointed out, if Jane was indeed a willing government informer, she was not highly regarded by the king or his council.
³²
Following George’s conviction for treason, his property was seized, leaving Jane in considerable financial difficulty. The fact that a bed that had belonged to George was in her possession at her death suggests that she did succeed in recovering some of her late husband’s property, however the timing and the extent of this recovery is unclear; she may even have purchased the bed for sentimental reasons. Shortly after George’s death, Jane wrote to Thomas Cromwell as a ‘poor desolate widow without comfort’, soliciting his aid in relation to securing a better financial settlement from her father-in-law. Jane wrote,

Praying you, after your accustomed gentle manner to all them that be in such lamentable case as I am in, to be a mean to the king’s gracious highness for me for such poor stuff and plate as my husband had, whom God pardon; for that of his gracious and mere liberality I may have it to help me to my poor living, which to his Highness is nothing to be regarded, and to me should be a most high help and succour. And farther more, where that the king’s highness and my lord my father paid great sums of money for my jointure to the Earl of Wiltshire to the sum of two thousand marks, and I not assured of no more during the said Earl’s natural life than one hundred marks; which is very hard for me to shift the world withal. That you will specially tender me in this behalf as to inform the king’s highness of these premises; whereby I may the more tenderly be regarded of his gracious person, your word in this shall be to me a sure help: and God shall be to you therefore a sure reward, which doth promise good to them that doth help poor forsaken widows.
³³

Cromwell did indeed speak of Jane to the king, with both men writing on her behalf to Thomas Boleyn. Royal pressure persuaded Jane’s father-in-law to increase her entitlement by a further 50 marks a year, with a reiteration of the promise that she would receive a full 300 marks a year following his death.
³⁴
However, it is highly likely that Thomas’s concession was far below what she was hoping for and an indication that she enjoyed no great favour with the king. Shortly after the letter was written she took a post in the household of Queen Jane Seymour, suggesting that she may have been driven to do so due to financial necessity.

There is very little evidence to indicate that Jane and George were estranged at the time of his death, aside from persistent rumours that she had provided information that was used in the case against him and Anne. It may be that the couple’s relationship was not happy, particularly if Jane had blamed her banishment from court on George’s sister and had then made a public show of support for Princess Mary. The evidence suggests that Jane may have been responsible for some of the accusations levied against Anne and George, but this does not, in itself, suggest that she was vindictive. Such information could have been obtained from the interrogation of a woman who had already spent time in the Tower and was terrified of returning there, particularly if she was already somewhat estranged from her royal sister-in-law. George did not publicly blame his wife for his predicament. Jane is the most likely source of the claims that Anne and George had laughed at the king’s clothes and discussed Anne’s concerns that he was impotent. She may also have told Cromwell that George had jokingly questioned Elizabeth’s legitimacy, something that was treason after the terms of the first Act of Succession.

Jane’s role in the fall of Anne Boleyn will always be unclear. Little evidence survives concerning the charges brought against Anne or any of the men with which she was accused. The judge, Sir John Spelman, who sat on the bench during Anne’s trial, noted that Anne had originally been accused by Lady Wingfield.
³⁵
Lady Wingfield, who was an old friend of Anne’s, had died in either 1533 or 1534, leaving a deathbed statement in which she apparently accused the queen of being morally lax. Although this statement does not survive, it may have related to a premarital affair given the subservient tone which Anne used when she wrote to Lady Wingfield before she became queen. It is not impossible that this related to Anne’s relationship with Henry Percy, as suggested by the government’s interest in him during Anne’s trial. A lack of premarital chastity was a ground for divorce, but it was not treason. Anne was instead the subject of a far more damning allegation by the Countess of Worcester.
³⁶

According to a letter written by a gentleman present at court during the events of May 1536, ‘the first accusers, the Lady Worcester, and Nan Cobham, with one maid more. But Lady Worcester was the first ground.’
³⁷
Nan Cobham has never been identified successfully, but Lady Worcester was a member of the queen’s household and noted for her loose conduct. According to a letter written by Lady Worcester to Cromwell in March 1537, Anne had lent her £100, a vast sum, and one in which the countess was ‘very loath it should come to my lord my husband’s knowledge thereof, I am in doubt how he will take it’. Lady Worcester had a lover and in early 1536, her brother, Sir Anthony Browne, berated her for her immoral conduct. In her anger, the noblewoman blurted out that she was not the worst and that her brother should look to the conduct of the queen herself. This was enough for Cromwell’s agents to begin an investigation in Anne’s household and, according to Alexander Ales, who was at court during the last weeks of Anne’s life, the minister’s agents ‘tempt her porter and serving men with bribes, there is nothing which they do not promise the ladies of her bedchamber. They affirm that the king hated the queen, because she hath not presented him with an heir to the realm, nor was there any prospect of her doing so.’
³⁸

Lady Rochford, Lady Wingfield and Lady Worcester were, in fact, not the only women to offer evidence against the queen, with Anne’s own terrified words, in which she alternated between weeping and laughing, proving explosive. On her arrival in the Tower, Anne asked Kingston why she was in the Tower and he replied that he did not know. She then asked about her brother, who she had heard had also been arrested, pleading, ‘Oh where is my sweet brother?’ She then said that she thought that she would be accused with three men, presumably referring to her brother, Norris and Smeaton, who were all prisoners in the ancient fortress. She was still the old Anne, and, while bewailing the thought that Norris and Smeaton had accused her, asked Kingston, ‘Shall I die without justice?’ When Kingston replied that ‘the poorest subject the king hath had justice’, Anne burst out laughing.

Anne had always prided herself on her intelligence and self-possession, but in her first few days at the Tower she was a piteous sight, desperately turning over any incident in her mind that could have led suspicion to fall on her. According to Kingston, soon after her arrival,

the queen spoke of Weston that she had spoken to him because he did love her kinswoman Mrs Shelton and that she said he loves not his wife and he made answer to her again that he loved one in her house better than them both; she asked him who is that? To which he answered that it is your self: and then she defied him.