The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown

by Ridgway, Claire

  The Break-up of Anne's Household

  Anne Boleyn's household was broken up on 13th May, before her trial. Why break up her household if she could still be found innocent?

  The Speed of Events

  Less than a month after the commissions of oyer and terminer were set up the Queen was dead. The King had a new wife just 11 days after Anne's death. Could thorough investigations really be carried out in such a short time? The Catherine Howard affair blew up in November 1541, yet Catherine was not executed until 13th February 1542. So how and why did events move so fast in Anne's case?

  Even though Anne Boleyn was tried in front of a jury of her peers, she did not receive justice in any true sense of the word. While she was in court fighting for her life, the Sword of Calais was on his way to do his job and execute her, and Archbishop Cranmer was organising the annulment of her marriage to the King. Anne Boleyn's guilt and her death were foregone conclusions as far as Cromwell, the King and the jury were concerned.

  Who was Responsible for the Fall of Anne Boleyn?

  I have been researching Anne Boleyn full-time for over three years now and this is still a question that gnaws at me, that keeps me awake at night and that quite literally drives me to distraction.

  Through researching the primary sources I am confident that Anne Boleyn was innocent of the charges laid against her and that she died the victim of an awful miscarriage of justice, a victim of a brutal conspiracy. But who's to blame? Henry VIII? Thomas Cromwell? Jane Seymour? The Catholic conservatives? It just is not clear from the primary sources, and historians still argue over it today, all backing up their theories with solid evidence. It is frustrating and I don't believe it is something that we will ever have a definite answer to. All we can do is look at the primary sources, consider the arguments of the various Tudor experts and then come to our own conclusions.

  On one side of the fence, we have historians such as Eric Ives and Alison Weir arguing that Thomas Cromwell was the instigator of the plot against Anne Boleyn and that he manipulated Henry VIII into believing that Anne was guilty. When I questioned, or rather grilled, Eric Ives on this subject last year, he commented that dominant men like Henry are often very malleable. So perhaps Cromwell simply preyed on the King's already paranoid and suspicious nature to make him believe that it was possible that Anne had betrayed him in some way. When Smeaton confessed, it appeared that Henry VIII's suspicions had been proved true. Once the legal wheels were in motion, it would have been very difficult for Henry to have stopped it without looking foolish. Everything happened so quickly. In her book "The Lady in the Tower", Alison Weir goes as far as to paint Henry VIII as a victim of the coup, alongside Anne, the men and the little Elizabeth.1

  On the other side of the fence, we have historians like Derek Wilson and John Schofield who see Henry VIII as the prime mover in the events of 1536. Wilson writes of the illegal and "extremely cumbersome" means used in Anne's fall, which included extending the treason law in a rather "unwarranted" manner.2 Wilson concludes that Cromwell would only have gone ahead with such a complicated plot because it was the King's will. Schofield agrees, painting Cromwell as Henry's loyal servant who had a duty to obey his King and to do his wishes.

  I respect all of the historians concerned, and Ives, Wilson and Schofield are incredibly good at backing up their arguments with primary sources. When I read Ives, it seems natural to believe that it was all down to Cromwell, and then Schofield has me thinking that it was all down to Henry! The problem is that sources can be interpreted in different ways and even the people there at the time didn't seem to have known who was responsible, so how can we today? It's a conundrum and I don't believe that we can say anyone is right or wrong in their views.

  Suspect 1 – Thomas Cromwell

  Those who believe that Thomas Cromwell was the one ultimately responsible for Anne Boleyn's fall cite the following reasons:

  Cromwell and Anne Disagreeing over the Dissolution of the Monasteries

  In his book "The Religious Orders in England: Volume 3", David Knowles writes that Cromwell had decided how to act against the monasteries because he had been advised that "This good law duly put in execution would bring back to the Crown lands worth 40,000l. a year."3 This law, which Knowles explains was nothing new, was "not comprehensive enough" for Cromwell, His remembrances of February 1536 record "The abomination of religious persons throughout this realm, and a reformation to [be] devised therein".4 He then went on to draft a bill which was presented before the Commons for debate on 11th March. He also released the Compendium Compertorum (Comperta), the reports of his commissioners, who had visited monasteries throughout the land in 1535 and early 1536 and found corruption, superstition and immorality. He hoped that these reports would enable him to get backing for his proposed reforms. Eric Ives5 quotes Hugh Latimer's recollection of the response to the commissioners' report, from a sermon preached before King Edward VI in 1549. Latimer said that "when their enormities were first read in the Parliament-house, they were so great and abominable, that there was nothing but "down with them"."6

  As historian R W Hoyle points out, the suppression statute which resulted from the debates in Parliament "touched the smaller monasteries only", portraying them as houses that were ill-managed and full of immorality.7 These houses were to be dissolved, their members transferred to larger monasteries and their lands given to the King. Were the smaller monasteries the only ones that were corrupt? Of course not, so the Act of Suppression may have been more about funds than reform.

  Anne Boleyn's almoner, John Skip, preached a sermon on Passion Sunday, 2nd April 1536, in which he claimed that "men" were rebuking the clergy "because they would have from the clergy their possessions." This was surely a reference to the reforms which Cromwell was pushing through Parliament. Skip went on to refer to the story of Esther, wife of King Ahasuerus. The King was deceived into ordering a massacre of his Jewish subjects by his adviser, Haman. Hower, "a good woman" whom the King loved and trusted, i.e. Esther, gave him different advice, stopped the massacre, and saved the Jews. Haman was hanged as a result. This sermon, which must have had Anne Boleyn's approval, was an attack on Cromwell and the advice he was giving the King. Anne was all for reforming the monasteries but only where needed. Moreover, she believed that the money should be used for educational and charitable causes. Skip referred to this, talking about "the great decay of the universities in this realm and how necessary the maintenance of them is for the continuance of Christ's faith and his religion."8

  But Anne and Skip were not the only ones to disagree with Cromwell's plans for the monasteries. Reformers and humanists Robert Barnes and Thomas Starkey also wanted the money put to better use, yet Cromwell did not bring them down. John Skip also survived Anne's fall. Schofield9 also points out that Cromwell was also working on a new act for poor relief, so he too was concerned with charity. It can also be said that Skip's attack may have been aimed at the King's council, not just Cromwell. When Skip was interrogated about his sermon the Esther-Haman reference was not mentioned.10

  Anne Boleyn Had Threatened Cromwell

  Eustace Chapuys, the imperial ambassador, recorded on the 5th June 1535 something Cromwell told him, "the Lady [Anne] telling him, among other things, that she would like to see his head off his shoulders."11 Cromwell had seen Cardinal Wolsey fall, partly as a result of Anne Boleyn's influence over the King, so some historians argue that Cromwell needed to get rid of Anne before she could bring him down.

  However, historians such as John Schofield, point out that Anne's threat was made back in 1535 and that Cromwell had shrugged it off, saying " I trust so much on my master, that I fancy she cannot do me any harm".12 Chapuys was also sceptical, wondering if the threat was actually " an invention of Cromwell". We also know that Anne lashed out at people and said things in anger. For example, she said that she would "bring down the pride of this unbridled Spanish blood",13 in reference to Mary, and that "she wished all the Spaniards in the world were in the
sea".14 These were empty threats borne out of frustration. Furthermore, Cromwell had no need to bring Anne down when he could just wait for the Conservatives and Henry VIII to do it for him. By spring 1536, Anne was losing her influence over the King anyway and wasn't so much of a threat as she had been in Wolsey's time.

  Cromwell Took Responsibility for Anne's Fall

  Cromwell boasted that he was responsible for the coup against the Boleyns. In a letter to the Emperor dated 6th June 1536, Chapuys related a conversation he had had with Cromwell in which Cromwell had said that "it was he who, in consequence of the disappointment and anger he had felt on hearing the King's answer to me on the third day of Easter, had planned and brought about the whole affair."15 Chapuys credited Cromwell's claim about being responsible for the plot; he was an experienced ambassador who had had many dealings with Cromwell. He did not doubt that Cromwell was to blame.

  However, John Schofield points out that in the part of the sentence before Cromwell said that "he had planned and brought about the whole affair, he also said that he had been "authorised and commissioned by the king to prosecute and bring to an end the mistress's trial".16 Cromwell's plotting was due to orders from Henry and not of his own volition. Greg Walker puts forward the argument that Cromwell simply investigated the allegations made against Anne, rather than being the one to initiate them.17 Cromwell reacted to events rather than causing them, but may have wished to come across as "a clever Machiavell" to Chapuys, rather than a minister who had not spotted the Queen's immoral behaviour.

  Two Birds With One Stone

  As well as Anne, who had become a thorn in his side regarding foreign policy, Cromwell wanted to remove powerful and influential men who were affecting his own standing with the King. Sir Henry Norris was one of the King's closest friends and, as Groom of the Stool, had considerable influence over the King, and Sir William Brereton was causing problems for Cromwell in Wales. Eric Ives points out that Brereton reigned supreme in North Wales and Cheshire, having "a virtual monopoly" of royal appointments made in the region, 18 and that he used his authority there to push his own agenda. Brereton had had run-ins with Bishop Rowland Lee, Cromwell's representative there, and he was obviously going to be a fly in the ointment for Cromwell's planned reforms in the Welsh borders. Brereton was also a corrupt character, having caused the hanging of John ap Griffith Eyton in 1534 after Eyton had been acquitted for causing the death of one of Brereton's retainers by the Star Chamber.

  In bringing down Anne for adultery, Cromwell could get rid of Brereton and Norris too.

  Cromwell and the Catholic Conservatives

  As Cromwell began to work with Chapuys for a reconciliation between Henry VIII and the Emperor, and the restoration of Mary, he came to some kind of agreement with the Catholic conservatives. This group consisted of the Seymours, Sir Nicholas Carew, the Marquis and Marchioness of Exeter, the Countess of Kildare and Baron Montagu. In April 1536, Chapuys19 reported that the Conservatives had heard, probably from Cromwell himself, of a breach between Anne and Cromwell. They had also heard that Cromwell had been asked by the King to give up his lodgings to Edward Seymour and his wife so that he could visit Edward's sister, Jane, without being seen. I agree with Ives20 that Chapuys probably brought Cromwell and the Conservatives together when it became apparent that they were both working towards the same purpose.

  At the end of the day, Cromwell was a pragmatist. He could see that Anne was going down and could easily take him with her if he didn't join the other side. After Anne's fall, he then worked to free himself from the conservative faction by implicating them in plots concerning Mary.

  Cromwell Gained from the Coup

  Not only did Cromwell get rid of Anne, her brother, Brereton and Norris, he also gained financially and in prestige. He succeeded to Lord Privy Seal in July 1536, after Thomas Boleyn surrendered it, gained a stewardship from the fall of George Boleyn and the abbey of Lesnes from Brereton for his servant, Ralph Sadler.

  Mark Smeaton's Arrest

  On 30th April 1536. Mark Smeaton, a court musician and a member of the Boleyn circle, was apprehended and taken to Thomas Cromwell's house in Stepney. Not to the Tower of London, but to Cromwell's own home. According to The Spanish Chronicle, which has to be taken with a large pinch of salt, Cromwell "called two stout young fellows of his, and asked for a rope and a cudgel, and ordered them to put the rope, which was full of knots, round Mark's head, and twisted it with the cudgel until Mark cried out, "Sir Secretary, no more, I will tell the truth, " and then he said, "The Queen gave me the money. " "Ah, Mark, " said Cromwell, "I know the Queen gave you a hundred nobles, but what you have bought has cost over a thousand, and that is a great gift even for a Queen to a servant of low degree such as you. If you do not tell me all the truth I swear by the life of the King I will torture you till you do." Mark replied, "Sir, I tell you truly that she gave it to me". Then Cromwell ordered him a few more twists of the cord, and poor Mark, overcome by the torment, cried out, "No more, Sir, I will tell you everything that has happened". And then he confessed all, and told everything as we have related it, and how it came to pass."21

  George Constantine, Sir Henry Norris's servant, wrote of how he'd heard that Smeaton was "grevously racked",22 although he didn't know if it was true. Whatever the truth of the matter, the fact that Smeaton was taken to Cromwell's home shows Cromwell's personal involvement in what was going on, although Greg Walker points out that Cromwell may have simply been acting on allegations made against Smeaton and Anne.

  He Kept People Away from the King

  Men like Archbishop Cranmer, who may have been able to talk the King around, were barred from seeing the King. Cranmer, who was at his country home in Kent, was called back to Lambeth but it was made plain that he should not try to see the King. Instead, he had to write to the King and try to defend Anne that way, although his letter cannot be seen as much of a defence and was tempered by an added postscript after his meeting with the Star Chamber.

  It appears that George Boleyn may have travelled from Greenwich to Whitehall in an attempt to see the King, but was arrested and thrown in the Tower instead. The same is true of Anne's friends Sir Richard Page and Sir Thomas Wyatt, men who may have spoken up for her, given the chance.

  Suspect 2 – King Henry VIII

  The next suspect is the King himself and those who believe he was ultimately responsible cite the following reasons:

  The King was the Master and Cromwell was His Servant

  Historian Robert Hutchinson23 writes that it was natural that Henry VIII would turn to his minister to remove his unwanted second wife. Cromwell would not have dared to risk his life by moving against the Queen without the King's blessing; he was simply there to do the King's bidding. In a letter to Stephen Gardiner and John Wallop in Paris, Cromwell referred to "the King's proceeding", rather than to "my plan".24

  It was Henry VIII who signed the death warrants and who stood by as his wife went to her death. Historian Derek Wilson writes of how Henry VIII behaved in his usual manner, giving orders to his ministers and then "retiring into the shadows" so that he could feign surprise when presented with the evidence against Anne.25

  The King Wanted to Take a Third Wife

  Chapuys had reported that after Anne's miscarriage in January 1536, the King had told one of his principal courtiers in secret "that he had been seduced and forced into this second marriage by means of sortileges and charms, and that, owing to that, he held it as nul. God (he said) had well shown his displeasure at it by denying him male children. He, therefore, considered that he could take a third wife, which he said he wished much to do."26 Chapuys also reported that after Catherine of Aragon's death, Anne had "cried and lamented...fearing lest she herself might be brought to the same end".27

  However, historians like Eric Ives believe that there is no evidence that Henry was looking to replace Anne. He was still referring to Anne as his "most dear and most entirely beloved wife the Queen" and writing of his hope for "he
irs male" as late as 25th April 1536.28 He was also still pushing for Anne to be recognised by Europe as his rightful wife and Queen. As we've hears, he even tricked Chapuys into recognising Anne as Queen, by bowing to her, on 18th April 1536. Why bother if he was about to replace her with Jane?

  Henry and Anne were due to leave for Rochester, en route to Calais, on 2nd May, the day after the May Day jousting, but this was not cancelled until 11pm on Sunday 30th April, after the arrest of Mark Smeaton. Surely, if Henry had ordered Anne's fall then he would not have planned this trip?

  The King's Behaviour

  Chapuys wrote 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" and that "He supped lately with several ladies in the house of the bishop of Carlisle, and showed an extravagant joy".29 Chapuys thought this behaviour was odd and was rather cynical, commenting that "You never saw prince nor man who made greater show of his [cuckold's] horns or bore them more pleasantly. I leave you to imagine the cause."30 Henry VIII was devastated in 1541 when Catherine Howard betrayed him, weeping in front of his privy council when he found out the truth about her. Chapuys commented then that "this king has wonderfully felt the case of the Queen, his wife, and that he has certainly shown greater sorrow and regret at her loss than at the faults, loss, or divorce of his preceding wives", going on to say "In fact, I should say that this king's case resembles very much that of the woman who cried more bitterly at the loss of her tenth husband than she had cried on the death of the other nine put together, though all of them had been equally worthy people and good husbands to her: the reason being that she had never buried one of them without being sure of the next, but that after the tenth husband she had no other one in view, hence her sorrow and her lamentations. Such is the case with the King, who, however, up to this day does not seem to have any plan or female friend to fall back upon."31 Henry showed no surprise, shock or upset at the investigation into Anne or at her fall.