George Boleyn: Tudor Poet, Courtier & Diplomat

by Ridgway, Claire

  On receipt of Jane's letter, George appeared comforted and told Kingston that he wanted to "give her thanks", but after asking Kingston what time he was due to come before the council, he began weeping, commenting, "for I think I shall not come forth till I come to my judgement." George knew that any pleas for mercy before his trial would go unheard. It seems that George never did go before the council, and unsurprisingly was never made aware of the evidence the Crown intended to rely upon until he actually faced the court at his hearing. Cromwell was fully aware of George Boleyn's wit and intelligence, and would not have wanted to provide any prior knowledge that could have assisted him in his defence.

  Despite the shock and distress of their arrests, neither George Boleyn nor Henry Norris would make any admission of wrongdoing. In a letter to Cromwell, Edward Baynton wrote:

  This shall be to advertise you that here is much communication that no man will confess anything against her, but only Mark of any actual thing. Wherefore (in my foolish conceit) it should much touch the king's honour if it should no farther appear. And I cannot believe but that the other two [Norris and Rochford] be as fully culpable as ever was he. And I think assuredly the one keepeth the other's counsel… I hear further that the queen standeth stiffly in her opinion… which I think is in the trust that she hath of the other two.9

  Baynton was suggesting that if a conviction could only be obtained against Mark then this would humiliate the King. If his wife preferred the company of a lowly musician to that of the King of England, this would, "touch the king's honour". However, if it could be shown that she had committed adultery with a variety of different men, including her own natural brother, then she could be shown to be an evil, wanton woman. Therefore, once it was found that no confession could be obtained from Norris or George, a general trawl brought the further arrests of Francis Weston, William Brereton, Thomas Wyatt and Richard Page. Wyatt and Page were lucky to escape with their lives, but both Weston and Brereton went to the scaffold. They died simply to ensure that the King's "honour" was not impugned.

  Even before the trials of the prisoners, inventories of their estates and belongings were being prepared. The inventory of George's lands and offices, and the account of their yearly value, show that the only lands held by him at the date of his death were Grimston Manor, worth £10 a year, and the honour and lordship of the manor of Rayleigh, in which George had sold his interest to his father. However, his offices were numerous, and included the stewardship of Beaulieu, the keepership of "Our Lady of Bethlem", the parks of Rayleigh and Thundersley, the manor and park of Penshurst, and the bailiwick of Rochford. His list of offices and the monies deriving from them is lengthy, but his total yearly income, exclusive of his salary as a courtier, diplomat and Warden of the Cinque Ports, amounted to £441 10s 9d, including the pensions granted to him by Wolsey (which made up 75% of this figure). Although this was a substantial amount, it was significantly smaller than the income which Henry Norris derived from his lands and offices, which came to a total of £1327 15s 7d, or William Brereton's yearly income of £1236 12s, 6 ½ d. Indeed, had it not been for Wolsey, George's income from lands and offices would have been tiny for a man of his status.10

  The Queen's household was broken up and her servants discharged on 13 May, before she was even tried and condemned, so certain was the King that the jury would do its duty. There was also an undignified scrummage for the lands and offices of Norris, Rochford and Brereton upon their respective arrests. Lord Lisle wrote a begging letter on 8 May, four days before the trials of the four commoners, irrespective of the fact that Norris had been his personal friend. Lisle got nothing from the spoils, despite Cromwell's promise that he "shall have something", because others beat him to it.11 The men's estates began to be distributed before they had even faced a judge and jury, and many of those who received a share were to sit on the juries that condemned them. The Earl of Sussex received the Chief Stewardship of Beaulieu, and two days before George's trial Sir Thomas Cheyney was formally named Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports in his place - although for decency's sake the official grant was not made until the day of George's execution.12

  What of the four commoners implicated in the tragedy? Henry Norris was born in the 1490s, making him a similar age to the King, and at the time of his arrest was Groom of the Stool and Keeper of the Privy Purse. He was the closest to a personal friend that Henry VIII had; he had accompanied the royal party on their visit to Calais in 1532, and was most probably a witness at Henry's wedding to Anne in 1533. He was held in great esteem, and as we have seen, was one of the most influential members of the Privy Chamber. He was also a key member of the Boleyn allies at court, and Anne had arranged to have his son educated with her ward and nephew, Henry Carey, under the tutelage of the Reformer Nicholas Bourbon. Francis Weston was the only son of Sir Richard Weston, who along with Sir William Kingston was one of only four knights put into the Privy Chamber to counterbalance the King's younger favourites. Francis was Henry's favourite page and was described as being "daintily nourished under the King's wing".13 Weston was also a Boleyn devotee, though without the weight and influence of either Norris or Rochford, and he was made a Knight of the Bath at Anne's coronation. He was only about 25 when he was arrested; his family, including his wife, made strenuous attempts to save the young man's life following his condemnation, as did the French ambassadors, Antoine de Castelnau (Bishop of Tarbes) and Jean, Sieur de Dinteville - but to no avail.14 Despite his son's death, Richard Weston continued in the King's service as a trusted servant, only retiring in 1542 due to age and infirmity.

  Quite why William Brereton was involved in the tragedy is more difficult to establish. Thomas Wyatt describes him as "the one who I least knew". He was certainly a royal favourite, accompanying the King and Queen on a number of hunting expeditions and enjoying a host of royal grants and offices, but he was clearly not as important as Norris or Rochford. Brereton was "the dominant royal servant in Cheshire and north Wales," and it appears that his arrest and subsequent execution had more to do with his opposition to Cromwell's reforms there.15

  The last of the four victims was Mark Smeaton, a young musician in his early twenties. The court's leading lights in fashion, poetry and culture had looked with favour on the young man due to his talent. He was said to be Henry's favourite musician, and he revelled in the attention he received from his betters. Thomas Wyatt describes him as "a rotten twig upon too high a tree"; although Smeaton was accepted for his talent, the likes of Wyatt, Rochford and the Queen would never have accepted him as an equal, and probably saw him more as a source of entertainment. It was a distinction the young man appeared unable to grasp. His lowly position meant that the proud Anne Boleyn would never have contemplated him as a lover, even if she had been inclined to do so (and had seen an opportunity to take a lover in the first place). His arrest, along with that of Brereton, may simply have been a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  21 - Trial

  There has been much debate over the last 470 years as to whether Anne and George Boleyn were guilty of any of the charges laid against them. The overwhelming weight of academic opinion is in favour of them being innocent on all counts and being framed for the crimes. George Wyatt, the grandson of Thomas Wyatt and Anne's first biographer, recognised that due to the constant attention under which the Queen was always kept, it would have been impossible for her to have acted in the way alleged.1 For her to have committed the offences she was charged with, her ladies-in-waiting would have had to have been aware, and would either have had to assist in the deceit, or else to have chosen to overlook it. To do so would have been treason in itself, as Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, found to her cost less than six years later.

  Yet none of Anne's ladies were arrested and no charges of aiding and abetting the Queen were ever brought. None of Anne's ladies provided direct evidence of wrongdoing, despite the Crown's claims to the contrary. Compare this with the wealth of evidence given in the case of Catherine
Howard, in a desperate bid for self-preservation.

  The Baga de Secretis contains the charges brought against Anne and George Boleyn, and the other four men implicated in the plot.2 These papers were thought to have been destroyed, but were discovered in the late nineteenth century. The indictments include a schedule of alleged offences with specific dates and places. Many of these can be ruled out as it can be proved that Anne could not have been in the places alleged on the given dates. On other occasions, it can be proved that she was with the King. In 12 cases, either Anne was elsewhere or the man was. She was accused of having sexual relations with her brother on 2 and 5 November 1535 at Westminster, and again on 22 and 29 December at Eltham Palace. In November 1535, it can be proved that Anne was in fact with Henry at Windsor. Two other alleged offences with Henry Norris were impossible because Anne was recovering from childbirth and had not been churched (formally blessed after her recovery from childbirth). The only two cases where there is no alibi are November 1533 with Brereton, and December 1535 with her brother, for obviously George would have been with her and the court over the Christmas period. The catchall was the Crown's insertion of the words, "and on divers other days and places, before and after".3 In other words, even if a specific date could be challenged, this would not be enough to prove innocence.

  Those charged with treason in the sixteenth century were at a huge disadvantage. They were not entitled to legal representation, and were therefore reduced to desperately trying to defend themselves against the full weight of the law. It was also not a case of "innocent until proven guilty" in those days; "the burden of proof was on the accused to prove their innocence of the charges contained in the indictment".4The defendant was often unaware of the actual evidence being adduced against him until he attended court at his trial, and therefore had no hope of rebuttal. In the case of Anne and George Boleyn, it is likely that they were not even aware of the nature of the charges against them until they came to trial, and they would certainly have been unaware of the evidence upon which the Crown intended to rely. They had no hope of defending themselves, even if the jury had not been loaded.

  The next question is whether Henry VIII actually believed they were guilty. He authorised Cromwell to investigate a selection of treasons on 24 April 1536. There is no explanation for this other than the investigation must have been with the intention of freeing him from his marriage with Anne. Shortly afterwards, Cromwell came up with the perfect plot. Did Henry conveniently forget that his own instructions had led to the conspiracy about to be unleashed on his wife and her brother? Did he delude himself that the allegations were true, irrespective of his instructions to Cromwell? All human beings are capable of self-deception and dissimulation, and Henry VIII was particularly shallow and self-absorbed. It is theoretically possible that in a matter of a few days he convinced himself of their guilt, but even for him this must be unlikely. He no doubt chose to believe their guilt to alleviate his own conscience, but in his more rational moments he must have appreciated the absurdity of the charges. Henry was many things, but he was far from stupid. Yet for us to accept he was totally blameless for the 1536 tragedy, we must also accept that Cromwell and Anne's enemies were able to completely deceive him. If Henry was as intelligent as his apologists give him credit for, then this was only because he let them.

  Historians Derek Wilson and John Schofield see Henry VIII as the prime mover in the fall of the Boleyns. Schofield believes Henry's involvement is proven by the nonsensical case that was built against Anne, pointing to the lack of logic in Anne being condemned for adultery even though Henry's marriage to her was annulled. It was far from the "watertight case" that Cromwell, as a lawyer, would have wanted. It was overly complicated, it extended the treason law in a rather "unwarranted" manner, and it bore the stamp of a man who had grown to hate his wife, and who now wanted to completely annihilate her and blacken her name.5 6 On 24 May, Cromwell admitted to Chapuys that he had set himself to arrange the plot, and that following the King's specific authority to do so he had "brought about the whole affair"7 in order to assist an alliance with Charles V. However, in a letter to ambassadors Stephen Gardiner and John Wallop in Paris, Cromwell referred to the plot being "the King's proceeding".8 The plot was ultimately down to Henry VIII; Cromwell was the King's servant who ran with the idea and put it into action.

  The trial of Smeaton, Norris, Weston and Brereton took place at Westminster Hall on Friday 12 May 1536. By trying the four men first, Anne's frantic babbling upon her arrest was used as evidence against them before she had the opportunity to challenge the interpretation of her words. The men were faced with Anne's revelations with no possibility of refuting them. Only Smeaton pleaded guilty; the others maintained their innocence right to the very end. Irrespective of their defence, the jury was specially selected and hopelessly weighted, consisting of men who owed Cromwell or the King a favour, or who would benefit from the fall of the Boleyns. There was no possibility of an acquittal. All four men were found guilty and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered.9 10 Anne and George's father, the Earl of Wiltshire, formed part of the jury and gave a guilty verdict, thereby condemning his own daughter, as it obviously takes two to commit adultery. Norris, Weston and Brereton were also prejudiced by the confession of Mark Smeaton. After all, it is easier to believe in the possibility of multiple adultery if one of the accused has confessed. It would be easy to be hard on Smeaton and call him a coward, but he was only a very young man of limited education and must have been terrified. Unlike the other prisoners, he was kept in chains during his whole incarceration in the Tower, and he had the threat of a brutal traitor's death hanging over him. He was under huge psychological, and perhaps physical, pressure, with which he was ill equipped to deal.

  Wiltshire was spared the ordeal of sitting on the trials of his children and watching them desperately try to defend themselves against impossible odds. However, had he been ordered to do so, who is to say whether he could have refused? He had already effectively condemned his daughter by giving guilty verdicts on the other four men. His behaviour is difficult for us to understand, and he has been accused of turning his back on Anne and George, but in reality there was nothing Wiltshire could have done to save his children; the die was cast and he had to consider the future.

  As peers, Anne and George were not tried with the four commoners. Their trial took place on Monday 15 May 1536 in front of a jury of 26 peers in the Great Hall of the Tower of London. Again, the majority of the jury had been pre-selected from those opposed to the Boleyns, including a cousin of Jane Seymour, and Lord Morley, George's father-in-law, who was a Catholic supporter of the Princess Mary. The jury selection ensured a hopelessly prejudicial trial. Whether they were Boleyn opponents or not, though, each jury member knew their duty was to find the defendants guilty or risk the King's wrath.

  A scaffold had been specially erected to hold the estimated 2000 spectators. The trial was a very public affair, in an attempt to show the so-called fairness of the proceedings. However, due to the magnificent performance of the two principal characters in the charade, this backfired spectacularly.

  The peers who were summoned to sit on the jury were the Duke of Suffolk, the Earls of Exeter, Arundel, Oxford, Northumberland, Westmoreland, Derby, Worcester, Rutland, Sussex and Huntingdon, and the Lords Audeley, LaWarr, Mountague, Morley, Dacres, Cobham, Maltravers, Powes, Mouneagle, Clinton, Sandys, Windsor, Wentworth, Burgh and Mordaunt.11 Anne and George's uncle, Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, represented the King as Lord High Steward, presiding over the trial. Norfolk was a hard-nosed survivor, and his relationship with Anne had never been an easy one; indeed, it had completely disintegrated in1534, with Norfolk complaining that she treated him worse than a dog. He was a man who made self-preservation into an art form, and whatever his personal feelings may have been, these did not prevent him from doing his duty to the King. Whether he found it difficult to pronounce sentences of death on his own nephew and niece cannot be known. When reading o
ut the siblings' respective sentences, tears are supposed to have poured like water down his face.12 It is possible that his tears were of relief that it was Anne and George on trial and not him. But whatever his feelings towards Anne, he was still her uncle, and likewise George was his nephew. He had been on two embassies to France with George, and had worked closely with him right up until at least July 1535. However hard and callous Norfolk was, it may be doing him a disservice to suggest that his tears were entirely fake.

  The charges for which Anne stood trial were adultery, incest, and plotting with the other accused men to murder the King. The charges her brother faced were incest, and conspiring with Anne to kill the King. There was never an allegation in court that either George or any of the accused men was Elizabeth's father. This was a slander that came later, through rumour, gossip and innuendo. According to the Crown's own case, Anne's first offence was allegedly with Norris in October 1533, and George allegedly had sex for the first time with his sister on 2 November 1535. Likewise, although George appeared to have been given responsibility for Anne's last miscarried child, the available evidence disproves this inferred allegation. The alleged offences in November have already been shown to be impossible, and the assertion that he had sexual relations with Anne during late December 1535 does not support the inference that he was the father. Anne miscarried a foetus thought to be about three and a half months in gestation on 29 January 1536, meaning it was conceived around the end of October or early November.