by David Loades
In May 1521 Sir Thomas served on the juries for London and Kent which had indicted the Duke of Buckingham of high treason, which was not any particular indication of favour, but simply that he was regarded as a safe pair of hands. In September he returned to his favourite occupation when he was sent on mission to the Emperor in preparation for Wolsey’s trip to Bruges, and stayed to take part in those discussions, which is how he came to know about the intention to make war before the King of France was aware of it. However, the preparations for war hung fire. Henry was short of money, and Scotland was again causing concern, so apart from a plundering expedition by the Earl of Surrey against Brittany, nothing was done.[72] In May the Emperor came on a visit, ostensibly one of goodwill, but in fact to assess the situation in England and the reasons for the delay. Sir Thomas was among those who welcomed him at Canterbury, and was a signatory of the agreement eventually concluded on 20 June, whereby Charles acknowledged that there would be no English campaign in 1522, and Henry renewed his commitment to hostilities in 1523. At the end of August Sir Thomas followed the Emperor back to the continent, where he had the unenviable task of trying to keep Charles in a good mood while Henry struggled with his financial problems.[73] In that he was no doubt aided by the breakdown in relations between Francis I and one of his chief vassals, the Duke of Bourbon, which resulted in the Duke putting out feelers to the Anglo-Imperial alliance. Unfortunately, his chief need was for money, and that neither Henry nor Charles was in a position to supply. In March 1523 Sir Thomas and Richard Samson, his colleague in the mission, followed Charles to Spain, but on 6 May the former was recalled, an event which attracted a letter of commendation from the Emperor to Cardinal Wolsey.[74] At least by the time of his return Bourbon’s pretensions had become sufficiently convincing to persuade Henry that he must make a supreme effort to return to the continent in military guise before the year was out. Meanwhile, he may have been raised to the peerage. A letter from Richard Hales to Lord Darcy, dated 28 April 1523 states unequivocally that in the parliament then sitting Sir Arthur Plantagenet had been created Viscount Lisle, and Boleyn, with several others had been made barons.[75] Unfortunately, there is no confirmatory evidence for that, and he continued to be referred to as Sir Thomas, even in official documents until 1525.
Following up Boleyn’s efforts, at the end of June the ambassador in the Low Countries was instructed to contact Bourbon and to offer him an English subsidy in return for a joint campaign. This was just what Charles had been pressing for, and at the end of August the Duke of Suffolk led an army of some 10,000 men out from the Calais Pale as England’s contribution to the united effort. Henry Jerningham, Sir Thomas’s replacement in Spain, did not arrive until late July, and in reporting this to the King, Wolsey observed that the Emperor was planning an expedition against Langedoc in support of Bourbon, which was not at all the kind of collaboration that Henry had in mind.[76] Whether Jerningham was right or not, the Imperial thrust from the east towards Paris, which Suffolk was expecting, never materialised, and Bourbon, of whom great things were expected, similarly failed to show up. This left the Anglo-Burgundian army in the north to its own devices, and faced with heavy French mobilisation north of Paris, they decided to retreat. By the time that they reached this decision, they had crossed the Seine and encountered only sporadic resistance, but it was already October and in view of the lateness of the season, it was the only rational decision to make. Even so, they got caught in a ferocious cold snap during November, which must have been one of the worst freezes of the century. Men and horses died of the cold, and others lost fingers and toes to frostbite – not at all the kind of conditions one expects in northern France before the turn of the year.[77] The Burgundians simply went home, and discipline collapsed. Having led out a well equipped fighting force, the Duke of Suffolk returned at the head of a demoralised rabble, which shipped itself back to England in dribs and drabs as shipping became available. Henry was both distressed and annoyed by this debacle, which had cost him money which he could not afford, but he did not blame the Duke. The Emperor was responsible and relations between the allies became frosty. However, his mood fluctuated, and by Christmas he was upbeat again, talking of a new campaign by Bourbon, and of leading an army to France in person. He was, reported the Spanish ambassador, confident that he could conquer the northern provinces of France – even as far as Paris – irrespective of what the Emperor might do.[78] However, as 1524 wore on, nothing happened, and unofficial peace feelers from France were even entertained. The problem, as Wolsey knew full well, was money. He had attempted to get a double subsidy out of the 1523 parliament, but had been forced to settle for a single one, and that spread out over two years. Even the subsidy to that most useless of allies the Duke of Bourbon, had had to be borrowed on the Antwerp market. Henry was in no position to lead an army royal to France, no matter how belligerent he might be feeling.
Sir Thomas Boleyn had contributed in a small way to this standoff between the allies, because when he returned from Spain, he had been accompanied by some kind of special envoy from Charles. This person, whose name was Bewreyn, cannot have been an official ambassador, because if he had been he would have gone straight to court, presented his credentials and been assigned accommodation. Instead he was apparently abandoned by Boleyn in London, and left to find his own lodgings. Not surprisingly, he complained, and when Jerningham wrote to the Duke of Suffolk in October, he passed on these complaints.[79] It seems that the ambassador felt bound to tell someone, but was reluctant to be thought bearing tales to Wolsey against one so high in the King’s favour. It may be that Sir Thomas felt that Bewreyn had been foisted on him, and felt no responsibility for him. The whole episode is mysterious, because Boleyn clearly lost no favour as a result. Shortly after the complaint was lodged he received £100 towards the expenses of his mission, and livery of the lands of Anne Tempest, whose wardship he had been granted. By the beginning of 1524 Sir Thomas was a very rich man. When the household was assessed for the subsidy in February, he was rated as treasurer on lands, wages and fees at £1,100.[80] This was to place him in the same league as the major nobility. By comparison, the Comptroller of the Household, Sir Henry Guildford, was assessed at £300. In December 1524 he appears for the first time on the commission of the peace for Sussex, an indication of how far his landed interests then extended.
In spite of his poverty, and of the peace negotiations which were quietly going ahead, news of the war continued to provoke moods of belligerence in Henry. In August, when the Duke of Bourbon appeared (at last) to be making some progress, he started talking again about an invasion, and of sweeping up the Rhone to link up with the Duke. It all fizzled out because Charles was not ready for any quick action, and because his own ministers were reluctant, having heard these outbursts before, but it should serve to warn us that Henry had not given up on the war, and still saw himself riding in triumph into Paris – a feat which not even Henry V had achieved.[81] Consequently when Charles won his stunning victory at Pavia in February 1525, and captured Francis in the process, his ambitions were immediately rekindled. Let the allies seize their opportunity, and partition the leaderless kingdom. Charles could take what provinces he liked, Bourbon’s patrimony could be resurrected, and Henry would take the rest, as lawful King of France. Unfortunately the Emperor was unmoved by such extravagance. He had achieved his objective and would be able to squeeze a favourable treaty out of his captive. He had no money for further campaigning, and if Henry wanted to take advantage of the situation, then by all means let him do so – on his own.[82] The King was mortified, and extremely angry, but he recognised defeat when he saw it, and Sir Thomas Boleyn was no longer in Madrid or Brussels to soften the blow. However, he did the only rational thing, and resurrected the peace process with France, finding the Queen Mother’s regency government only too willing to respond. Wolsey, and probably Boleyn, were relieved by this change of mood, because since Pavia it no longer made sense to be on the same side as so great a powe
r as the Emperor had now become. Better by far to come to terms with France, and even to help her to modify the adverse treaty which Charles was bound to extract. In August 1525 a treaty was signed to that effect at the More, Wolsey’s residence in Hertfordshire, and Sir Thomas Boleyn was one of the English signatories.[83] It was just as well that a settlement had been reached, because Henry’s finances were going from bad to worse. In March, Wolsey had tried to raise an ‘Amicable Grant’ on the basis of the subsidy assessments of 1523, the idea being to bypass the parliament which had been so obstructive in that year. Whether Sir Thomas approved of this levy or not we do not know, but as a councillor and treasurer of the Household he cannot escape a share of the responsibility. He was one of the commissioners named to collect the Grant in Kent, and one of the eighty commissioners who gathered in Canterbury on 2–3 May to report the difficulties that they were having.[84] Many of those assessed at £20 or more had come in professing their willingness to pay, or to serve the King in many other ways, but alleging that they simply did not have the money. Warham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Cobham, Sir Henry Guildford and Sir Thomas Boleyn wrote a number of letters to Wolsey, making their case. The concessions already granted to London had done nothing, they pointed out, to make the situation in Kent any easier. It grew tense as the protesters turned out in force to make their point. Lord Cobham sent one man to the Tower for his evil words, and Sir Thomas Boleyn was roughly treated by an assembly at Maidstone.[85] It was, the Duke of Norfolk reported, ‘almost a rebellion’, and in the event the King backed down, initially making concessions and finally cancelling the demand altogether. Wolsey, who had been the main manager of the business, loyally took the blame for this fiasco, but in fact it was the King who was responsible, and he learned a salutary lesson. The ‘taxpayers strike’ of 1525 demonstrated one of the limitations upon his power. It was all very well to claim that he was answerable only to God, when it came to money, the commons were in the driving seat. Forced loans were illegal, and this did not even pretend to be a loan. The Cardinal’s credit with the King was undoubtedly shaken by these events, but they seem to have done Sir Thomas no harm at all. In the midst of the crisis, in April 1525 he was appointed to yet another office of profit, this time the stewardship of the lordship of Swaffham in Norfolk, which was part of the honour of Richmond.[86] His father had been a client of the first Duke of Norfolk, and later of the Earl of Surrey who became the second Duke in 1514. However, the third Duke, who succeeded to the title in 1524, was his brother-in-law, a friend and ally rather than a master, and in terms of their estates they must have been well nigh equal.
Henry spent a fair part of 1525 trying to get his mind straight. Rebuffed by the Emperor, he made peace with France. Rebuffed by his own subjects, he cancelled the Amicable Grant. Frustrated in his attempts to get a male heir, he convinced himself that his marriage had offended against the laws of God, and began to contemplate his options for the succession. One possibility was to legitimate the son whom Bessy Blount had borne him. Henry Fitzroy had always been acknowledged, and had been brought up in a quasiroyal establishment apart from his mother. Now the King decided to ennoble him and on 18 June in a well publicised ceremony, created him first Earl of Nottingham and then Duke of Richmond and Somerset.[87] There is no conclusive evidence that the King ever intended to include him in the succession, and it may have been that his elevation had more to do with Wolsey’s plans for governing the ‘dark corners’ of the land than with any plan of Henry’s. The child was soon despatched to the north of England with a suitable council to govern in the king’s name, but his headship was purely nominal, and the person to whom that council answered was Wolsey. At about the same time his nine-year-old sister, Mary, was sent to the Welsh Marches, similarly equipped and for the same purpose.[88] However, Richmond was a royal title and the gesture was a significant one. Other peerage creations and promotions at the same time are equally suggestive. Henry Brandon, his nephew and the son of the Duke of Suffolk, was created Earl of Lincoln, the title born by John de la Pole, Richard III’s designated heir. Henry Courtenay, his cousin, was promoted from the earldom of Devon to the marquisate of Exeter, and Thomas Boleyn was created Viscount Rochford. There is nothing in the contemporary record to suggest that Henry was doing any more than honouring his chosen favourites, but all in different ways proposed answers to the succession dilemma. It is a little early to imagine that Thomas Boleyn was being identified as the father of a potential alternative to Catherine, but the chronology of the King’s relationship with Anne is highly uncertain, and in any case he was certainly the father of Henry’s last mistress. Henry appears to have parted with Mary Boleyn on amicable terms, and that may have been in no small part due to Thomas’s calming influence. In any case Sir Thomas (or possibly Lord Boleyn) had long since earned his promotion by years of diligent and effective service. He was also one of the first peers created whose elevation owed nothing to their lineage and everything to their function at court, in diplomacy and in administration. In spite of his wife’s connections, he was a new man. A few months later Lord Rochford and Elizabeth his wife were assigned lodgings in the King’s house ‘when they repair to it’, a privilege which only those close to the King could ever hope to enjoy.[89]
3
MARY & THE KING’S FANCY – IN & OUT OF FAVOUR
Mary was the oldest of Sir Thomas’s three children, born probably in 1499. There is no concrete evidence for this, but nearly a century later in 1597 her grandson George, the second Lord Hunsdon, petitioned for the Boleyn earldom of Ormonde on the grounds that Mary was the oldest child.[90] Circumstantial but convincing evidence points to a birth date for Anne in 1501 and for George in 1504, so that indicates 1499, or possibly 1500, as the relevant date for Mary. Lord Hunsdon is unlikely to have been mistaken since the daughter of her sister Anne was none other than the Queen herself, who would have had a prior claim if Anne had been the elder. George Carey’s petition was unsuccessful, but that was for other reasons. There has been over the years a great deal of controversy about the respective ages of the Boleyn siblings. George Cavendish, for example, a near contemporary source, makes George the eldest, and he was followed recently by Philippa Gregory in her fictional reconstruction of Mary’s life, The Other Boleyn Girl. However, Eric Ives sets out the evidence for the order adopted here persuasively, and he has been followed very recently by George Bernard, so I have taken the scholarly consensus.[91]
It is not known where she was born. Tradition says Hever Castle in Kent, and that is probably right because her grandfather William was Sheriff of Norfolk in 1499, and therefore likely to have been resident at Blickling. Both Thomas and Elizabeth were much about the court over the next few years, but it is not known whether their children were with them. Nothing is known of Mary’s upbringing or education except what can be deduced from her later life. She was literate, and presumably numerate, but never followed her father’s and sister’s gift for languages. Nor did she correspond with the learned, or exchange ideas with humanist divines. Her books, if she ever had any, have been long since dispersed and were never recorded. She was not intellectually precocious, and the chances are that she was trained mainly in those domestic and courtly accomplishments which would have made her an attractive bride for some aspiring courtier. At the age of about fifteen, when her father secured for her a place among the ladies accompanying the King’s sister Mary to France, she was probably already known about the court.[92] She was pretty, and had perhaps already begun to attract attention in an undesirable way, so Sir Thomas may well have felt that a few years in the well-chaperoned entourage of the Queen of France would provide a safe environment in which she could finish growing up. If such was his thinking, he was disappointed because King Louis lasted only a matter of weeks. Moreover, immediately after his wedding he had taken the precaution of dismissing some of his wife’s more senior attendants on the ground that they were interfering in the relationship.[93] Mistress Boleyn was one of those retained
, but it is likely that her intended chaperone was not, and that left the girl rather more exposed than she should have been. Queen Mary, who at eighteen was not very much older than her namesake, was similarly exposed, and quickly found refuge in the arms of Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk, whom Henry had sent to bring her home. After 1 January 1515, Mary Boleyn may therefore have witnessed more sexual manoeuvring than was good for her. It is possible that the ex-Queen took the initiative in her relationship with Brandon, and having got him into bed, left him with no option but to marry her. It is also possible that King Francis, who was a notorious womaniser, was fishing in that same pool, and that Mary acted to forestall him. The evidence as to what happened is conflicting, because according to one story Henry had anticipated and approved some such outcome, while another version has the King seriously put out by his friend’s effrontery.[94] The truth seems to have been that Henry had extracted from Brandon a promise that he would do nothing until the couple were back on English soil, and that it was the breaking of that promise which caused his anger. King Francis, whose intentions (if they ever existed) were strictly dishonourable, seems to have approved of the match, and even to have expected it; but he was anxious to prevent Henry from deploying his sister on the international market, and that may have contributed to Henry’s annoyance.[95]
Sir Thomas, however, was not to be deterred. He had sent his daughter to France to learn some courtly polish in a reasonably safe environment, and when that household turned out to be anything but safe, he withdrew her. When the King’s sister, now the Duchess of Suffolk, returned to England in May 1515, Mary Boleyn did not accompany her. With her sister Anne, who had joined her in the Queen’s service sometime before Christmas, she was transferred to the household of the new Queen of France, Claude, who was a girl of exactly her age.[96] This argues extraordinary favour, because the competition for such places among the French nobility would have been fierce. Either Francis was impressed by Sir Thomas, who he can scarcely have met, or he was impressed by Mary, and the latter is more likely. A few years later, a Venetian envoy described Sir Thomas as ‘much hated’ at the French court because he was suspected of retailing information to the Archduchess Margaret, although there is no hint of that in Francis’s correspondence with Henry.[97] Claude’s chamber, in short, was anything but a safe place for a young girl to be. The Queen was enduring annual pregnancies and was unavailable to her husband for long periods of time. We do not know that Francis amused himself with her attendants in consequence, but it is a reasonable assumption. Anne quickly learned to fend off these unwelcome attentions, but Mary may have been less successful. Rightly or wrongly she acquired a reputation for easy virtue, ‘per una grandissima ribaldaa et infame sopre butte’, as one observer put it, and her father read the warning signs.[98] If she was to secure an acceptable marriage, either in France or in England, such reports could do her inestimable harm. So at some point, probably before his next diplomatic mission in 1519, he called her home. He seems to have acted in time, because rumours of her misdemeanours had not yet crossed the Channel, and he was able to secure a place for her in the straitlaced chamber of Queen Catherine. Catherine had been recently forced to endure her husband’s infidelity with Elizabeth Blount, and had been shamed by the birth of her son, probably in July of that year, so it is unlikely that she would have been wanting to put more temptation in his way. Perhaps he pressed her to accept Mary, or perhaps not. Probably Sir Thomas exercised his charms on the Queen, or, even more likely, his wife Elizabeth, who had been a member of that charmed circle for a number of years, persuaded Catherine to accept her daughter. By 4 February 1520 she was well enough established to be married, her groom being William Carey, an up and coming member of the King’s Privy Chamber, and the King was the principal guest at their wedding.[99]