The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown (7 page)

On the 18th March 1536, Chapuys reported:

"The new amours of this King with the young lady of whom I have before written still go on, to the intense rage of the concubine; and the King 15 days ago put into his chamber the young lady's brother."

Jane Seymour, and her brother Edward Seymour, who had been appointed to the privy chamber, were obviously rising in favour, and Anne Boleyn didn't like it one bit. Henry would have expected Anne to ignore his flirtation, as Catherine had done before her, but it would have been natural for Anne to have been jealous and to feel vulnerable. After all, her marriage depended on her keeping the King's love. Anne had set a dangerous precedent in rising from lady-in-waiting to Queen.

1st April 1536 - Chapuys, Cromwell, Jane Seymour and the Conservatives

On the 1st April 1536, Chapuys reported a meeting between himself, "the young marquis[Exeter], the widowed countess of Kildare, lord Montagu, and other gentlemen" where he was informed that Anne Boleyn and Cromwell were "on bad terms" and that there was talk of the King marrying another, "the daughter of France".
¹
In the same report, Chapuys wrote of his concern for Cromwell regarding what Cromwell had told him of Anne's threat, namely "that she (Anne Boleyn) would like to see his head off his shoulders." Chapuys noted that his advice to Cromwell was that "He ought to take care not to offend or over-irritate her, or else he must renounce all hope of that perfect reconciliation we both were trying to bring about. I therefore begged and entreated him, in such an event, to guard against her attacks more effectually than the cardinal (Wolsey) had done, which I hoped his dexterity and prudence would be able to accomplish". Chapuys added that he hoped that Cromwell would soon have another royal mistress.

Later in the letter to Charles V, Chapuys described how he heard that the King had sent Jane Seymour a letter and "a purse full of sovereigns". According to Chapuys, Jane kissed the letter and begged the messenger to tell the King "that she was a gentlewoman of good and honorable parents, without reproach, and that she had no greater riches in the world than her honor, which she would not injure for a thousand deaths, and that if he wished to make her some present in money she begged it might be when God enabled her to make some honorable match." She had been coached well and there were definite echoes of Anne Boleyn in her reaction to the King. Of course, it could be that she was sincere in her words, wanting to protect her virtue, her reputation and honour.

Chapuys went on to write more of Jane Seymour and the King:

"The said Marchioness has sent to me to say that by this the King's love and desire towards the said lady was wonderfully increased, and that he had said she had behaved most virtuously, and to show her that he only loved her honorably, he did not intend henceforth to speak with her except in presence of some of her kin; for which reason the King has caused Cromwell to remove from a chamber to which the King can go by certain galleries without being perceived, and has lodged there the eldest brother of the said lady with his wife, in order to bring thither the same young lady, who has been well taught for the most part by those intimate with the King, who hate the concubine, that she must by no means comply with the King's wishes except by way of marriage; in which she is quite firm. She is also advised to tell the King boldly how his marriage is detested by the people, and none consider it lawful; and on the occasion when she shall bring forward the subject, there ought to be present none but titled persons, who will say the same if the King put them upon their oath of fealty."

Chapuys was of the opinion that Jane was being coached to appeal to the King and to make him think that his people hated Anne and did not accept his marriage to her. This party of plotters – the Seymours and conservatives like the Exeters – then approached Chapuys for his assistance and that of the Emperor, explaining that their plan would help the Princess Mary, stop heresy in England and save the King from his "abominable and incestuous marriage". Chapuys passed all this information on to the Emperor, saying that he would "consult" with the plotters. Chapuys seemed convinced that Anne was out and Jane was in.

Jane and Anne

Thomas Fuller, the 17th century historian, gave an account of an altercation between Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour when Jane first arrived at court:

"It is currently traditioned, that at her first coming to court, queen Anne Boleyn, espying a jewel pendant about her neck, snatched thereat (desirous to see, the other unwilling to show it,) and casually hurt her hand with her own violence; but it grieved her heart more, when she perceived it the king's picture by himself bestowed upon her, who from this day forward dated her own declining, and the other's ascending, in her husband's affection."
²

Fuller does not give a source for this story so it is impossible to know whether it really did happen; even he refers to it as a 'tradition'. Another legend, possibly based on the same source, is a story told in a book about Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria and lady-in-waiting to Mary I. Henry Clifford, who transcribed an ancient manuscript on the life of Jane Dormer, reported "scratching and bye blows between the queen and her maid"
³
when Sir Francis Bryan took Jane to court and placed her with Anne Boleyn. However, Jane Dormer was not born until two years after Anne Boleyn's death, so could hardly have witnessed the event. Even if it was a family story passed down from Jane's grandmother, Jane Newdigate, it has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Chapuys never heard this story; he would have definitely reported it to the Emperor if he had.

2nd April 1536 – A Controversial Passion Sunday Sermon

On the 2nd April 1536, Anne Boleyn's almoner, John Skip, preached an incredibly controversial sermon on the Old Testament story of Queen Esther. This sermon did not help her already troubled relationship with Cromwell.

As well as serving as a clarification of Anne Boleyn's reformist religious stance, the sermon acted as "Anne's call to courtiers and counsellors alike to change the advice they were giving the king and to reject the lure of personal gain."
¹
In this sermon, as Eric Ives
²
points out, Henry VIII was characterized as King Ahasuerus. The latter was deceived by his adviser, Haman (Cromwell) into ordering the killing of the Jews (the English clergy in this case). The Jews were saved when the King's mind was changed by his wife, the good Queen Esther (Anne Boleyn).

As Anne's almoner, John Skip must have had Anne's permission and blessing to preach this sermon, and it is likely that it was actually her idea. Anne had just quarrelled with Thomas Cromwell over the dissolution of the monasteries. It was not that she disagreed with this reform; she simply felt that the proceeds should be used on education and on charitable causes
³
rather than to make the King richer. There was no mistaking that this was a public attack on Thomas Cromwell, the King's main adviser.

John Skip did get into trouble for his words. Letters and Papers has records of his sermon and the following record:

"A paper of singular moderation and ability, entitled "Interrogatories and articles to be administered to the preacher who preached the sermon in the Court on Passion Sunday," on these words: Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? [which of you will convince me of sin?] for preaching seditious doctrines on these words, and slandering "the King's highness, his counsellors, his lords and nobles, and his whole Parliament."

Inc.: "First, whether this was his theme, Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato?

Ends: "Item, finally, be it required of the preacher to bring forth and show his sermon in writing; and if he refuse so to do, or say he hath it not in writing, then be it inquired whether he did never write it, or never showed it to any man in writing before or since it was preached."
⁴

Primary Source Reports on Skip's Sermon

"A sermon preached by Mr. Skyppe, in the King's chapel, upon Passion Sunday, in the year of Our Lord 1536, on the text Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? defending the clergy from their defamers and from the immoderate zeal of men in holding up to public reprobation the faults of any single clergyman as if it were the fault of all. He insisted upon the example of Ahasuerus, who was moved by a wicked minister to destroy the Jews. He urged that a King's councillor ought to take good heed what advice he gave in altering ancient things, and that no people wished to take away the ceremonies of the Church, such as holy water, holy bread, &c. That alterations ought not to be made except in cases of necessity. That in the present Parliament there were men of the greatest learning and ability, and perfect freedom and moderation in discussion. He described the character of the debates in Parliament, lamented the decay of the universities, and insisted on the necessity of learning."
⁵

"The preacher insisted on the strict following of God's Word:—that Christ chose ignorant followers, to teach men that nobility standeth not in worth but grace; and he cited the example of Solomon to show that he lost his true nobility towards the end of his life, by taking new wives and concubines. He insisted on the need of a King being wise in himself, and resisting evil counsellors who tempted him to ignoble actions, by the history of Rehoboam; observing that if a stranger visited this realm, and saw those who were called noble, he would conceive that all true nobility was banished from England. He warned them against rebuking the clergy, even if they were sinful, as rebukers were often rebuked, like Nebuchadnezzar, who was God's instrument to punish the Jews, "and yet was damned for his labour." Against evil councillors, who suggested alteration in established customs, he instanced the history of Haman and Ahasuerus. He then explained and defended the ancient ceremonies of the Church (as above). He concluded with a complaint on the moderation of the High Court of Parliament."
⁶

The full text of John Skip's sermon can be read in The National Archives, reference SP6/1 "Folio 8 Sermon preached by John Skip in the King's Chapel on Passion Sunday 1536", although the handwriting is rather challenging!

Hugh Latimer's Sermon

John Skip was not the only chaplain Anne called on to preach about her views on the dissolution of the monasteries. She also asked Hugh Latimer to preach in front of the King. Latimer preached on Luke 20 verses 9-16, the parable of the vineyard. Here is a modern text of that parable from the New International Bible:

"A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.

Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.' But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When the people heard this, they said, "God forbid!""

As you can see, it is a fitting text when you consider the first fruits and taxes that the monasteries had to pay. William Latymer wrote of this sermon in his "Cronickille of Anne Bulleyne". He explained that Hugh Latimer emphasised that the owner of the vineyard did not destroy the vineyard when the tenants could not pay him in fruit. Instead, he commanded it " to be fearmed and letton to others, whoo shoulde by their industroye and housebandrye amende the negligence of the other fearmers". In other words, the owner let it be used by others who would do the right thing. Latimer, and Anne through him, were saying that instead of dissolving the monasteries, the King could "converte the abbeys and prioryes to places of studye and goode letres and to the contynuall releve of the poore."
⁷
It was obviously something that Anne felt strongly about.

William Latymer also recorded that Latimer's sermon gave "the governors of the other religious houses" hope that the Queen may be able to help them if they petitioned her. They therefore sent a "brotherhood" to call on the Queen, who lectured them on their "detestable sleightes and frivelous ceremonyes" and made it plain that in her opinion the dissolution was "a deservid plague from almightie God", punishing them for their "lewdenes".
⁸
They had judged her incorrectly, she wasn't against the dissolution, she was against the Crown's plans for the monasteries' assets. That was Anne's stance: dissolution was necessary for reform but the money should go to education and to relief for the poor.

13th April – Maundy Thursday

On the 13th April 1536, Maundy Thursday, Anne Boleyn did her duty as Queen, distributing Maundy money (alms) and washing the feet of poor people.

It was traditional for the monarch and his consort to wash the feet of as many poor people as years they were old, as well as giving them purses of coins. In 1536, the court expenses show that the "costs of the Queen's maundy" were "31 l. 3s. 9 ½d."
¹
Both William Latymer and John Foxe wrote of how the amount in the royal Maundy purses distributed to the poor increased significantly when Anne Boleyn was Queen, showing her passion for relief to the poor. Latymer recorded that one Maundy Thursday, Anne, after washing and kissing the feet of poor women, "commaunded to be put previlye into every poore womans purse one george noble, the which was vis viiid [6 shillings and 8 pence], over and besides the almes that wonted to be given."
²