Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
7:31 pm
July 9, 2009
Offline
Hi guys! I like to pop into this forum every now and then when something about Anne strikes me, and here I am. 
I was thinking about the Countess of Worcester, Elizabeth Browne, who was apparently the main accuser of Anne, and whose words led to Anne’s downfall. She was pregnant at the time of Anne’s fall, and is identified as the pregnant woman in Lancelot de Carle’s poem about the fall of Anne, in which the countess confesses to her brother that her own behavior has nothing on the queen’s. I think most of us here take the poem with a grain of salt, but it does seem to show Ms. Browne sort of “accidentally” confessing Anne’s adultery, or perhaps even lying to throw the scent off of herself (though the countess did end up with some of Anne’s stuff after her death so it is possible greed was a motivating factor). I was just wondering what Anne’s relationship with the countess would have been like. During her imprisonment, Anne is recorded to have worried aloud about the countess, wondering if her pregnancy was being affected by the stress of Anne’s fall. She seemed to have no inclination that Ms. Browne had actually given the damning testimony against her. If you’ve read Hilary Mantel’s Bring Up the Bodies, Thomas Cromwell’s character notes this as ironic.
BUT, we also have George Boleyn’s words that he was condemned “on the testimony of one woman,” who many assume(d) to be his wife, Jane Parker, but, as Julia Fox notes in her biography of Jane, makes no sense because there is no evidence of Jane testifying against the Boleyns, so he must have been talking about the Countess of Worcester. My question, therefore, is Did George know that Elizabeth Browne testifies against them while Anne did not? Or Did Anne know something we don’t? Did she know that Elizabeth had condemned her but somehow knew it wasn’t her fault? How would George have information that Anne didn’t? Or was he actually in fact talking about his wife after all?
Anyway, just something I was wondering about.
Ainsi sera, groigne qui groigne.
8:43 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
It was the Lady Wingfield who was, according to one of the judges, the person whose comments led to the investigation. However, she was conveniently dead at the time of the trials and no one knows exactly what she said because there’s no record of it.
As for the Countess of Worcester, she is only referred to by de Carles. She was supposed to have said, when challenged about her own behaviour, that the queen was just as bad and that she had offended with Mark Smeaton and her own brother. But very little seems to have been made of her evidence by any other witness. If she was actually giving evidence of incest it would surely have caused a storm. Yet Chapuys said very clearly that George was convicted, not on the evidence, but merely on a presumption. Therefore, whatever Lady Worcester may have said it obviously didn’t amount to very much.
Neither Anne nor George would have been aware of the evidence which was being brought against them until they were actually in court. They probably didn’t know the exact nature of the indictment either. They would have been faced with the evidence for the first time in court. I still think it’s amazing how well they both defended themselves against such impossible odds.
As for George’s comment, I think the one women has to be Lady Worcester, because she is the only person referred to in connection with the incest charge. If George’s own wive was accusing him of incest then imagine how much the prosecution would have made of it. Yet Jane’s name isn’t mentioned at all.
11:51 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Good one Louise. I had a read up on Lady Worcester last night, and it seems as if Anne gave Lady Worcester something on the Scaffold in rememberence and payment for Lady Worcester’s care when Anne was in the tower. (could it be the famous B necklace?) I’m sure if Cromwell had got wind of the statement alledgely made by Lady Worcester he would have twisted it and used it somehow.
Just out of interest why is it generally believed (loosely worded) that Jane B was the instigator behind the whole incest accusation? Surely if there was any truth in it whatsoever Jane B would be banished from court and certainly wouldn’t serve under 3 more Queens?
Again I agree I think the incest charge was thrown in to play the sympathy card for Henry. The main charges as far as I can tell were that Henry had claimed that his marriage with Anne wasn’t legal because (A) she wasn’t a virgin when they married. (Technically this is true because she was pregnant) and (B) because of his relationship with Mary, Anne’s sister. Henry needed something more than just Deja Vu so Cromwell had to come up with it.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
12:11 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Jane Rochford did give evidence in a sense. She told the prosecution of Anne’s indescretion when speaking about Henry’s sexual prowess, or lack thereof. I sometimes wonder whether she was known to have given evidence and that perhaps the exact nature of that evidence became distorted over time like Chinese whispers.
On top of that, Fox writes how Jane is often viewed backwards following her involvement in the Catherine Howard affair. Following her disgrace it became easier to believe that she had more involvement in the Boleyn affair than she actually had.
Then, in Elizabeth’s time, apologists for Henry wanted a scapregoat, so her involvement was exaggerated even more. It became a vicious circle, with innuendo and gossip taking on more and more credence over time, and ever time the poor woman was referred to she became a greater and greater villan.
But there really is no extant evidence to link her to the incest charge. The only name is lady Worcester. So George was convicted on a vague comment from a woman who gave no formal evidence. Chapuys says that George was found guilty on presumption because on one occasion he had spent a long time alone with Anne. Perhaps that is all lady Worcester’s evidence really amounted to. If so then I can image George’s comment that he was being conviction on one woman’s evidence was said with a great deal of bitter incredulity and contempt for the prosecutions case.
8:22 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Thank you Louise. it was really a case with Jane that where the mud was thrown it stuck. Which is why I believe the business with K.H and Culpepper was poignant. They were desperate to save their lives so it was a case of “Let’s blame Jane”.
What she may have said to Cromwell or was perhaps overheard by one of his lackey’s at Anne’s downfall, became even more terrible when K.H’s wanton and naughty behaviour became known. I dare say at the time it was a case of old wounds be opened which poor Jane had tried so hard to heal. Small wonder that she lost her wits really.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
2:41 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Boleyn said
Again I agree I think the incest charge was thrown in to play the sympathy card for Henry. The main charges as far as I can tell were that Henry had claimed that his marriage with Anne wasn’t legal because (A) she wasn’t a virgin when they married. (Technically this is true because she was pregnant) and (B) because of his relationship with Mary, Anne’s sister. Henry needed something more than just Deja Vu so Cromwell had to come up with it.
IIRC, they tried to play the Pre-Contract card but realised that one was scuppered since Henry Percy had been forced to renounce any pre-contract with Anne when his wife Mary Talbot tried to have thier marriage annuled.
It's always bunnies.
4:44 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Anyanka said
Boleyn said
Again I agree I think the incest charge was thrown in to play the sympathy card for Henry. The main charges as far as I can tell were that Henry had claimed that his marriage with Anne wasn’t legal because (A) she wasn’t a virgin when they married. (Technically this is true because she was pregnant) and (B) because of his relationship with Mary, Anne’s sister. Henry needed something more than just Deja Vu so Cromwell had to come up with it.
IIRC, they tried to play the Pre-Contract card but realised that one was scuppered since Henry Percy had been forced to renounce any pre-contract with Anne when his wife Mary Talbot tried to have thier marriage annuled.
True Anyanka. That get out of marriage card was certainly not possible to play. Henry would have looked a bigger plank than he already was by trying to use the old pre contract chestnut, although if he had of used it and been successful eyebrows would have been raised, in the sence of why was it vetoed when Mary Talbot tried to annul her marriage on the very same grounds? It does beg the question though well it’s more of a what if question really. If Mary Talbot had just excepted her marriage and Henry had used the pre contact as an excuse to rid himself of Anne. 1 What would have happened to Mary Talbot if the pre contract had been valid? 2. Would Anne have been murdered?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
4:30 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
IMHO..had the pre-contract card been used by Henry to rid himself on his marriage, then Mary Talbot could have used it also to have her marriage annuled..whether the church or the court would be as ameanable for a noble-woman as for a king,,,who knows?? Personally I doubt it. I think she’d have been told to mind her knitting and get on with her marriage.
But sadly…I think Henry had told Cromwell he wanted rid of Anne permanently and in as few peices as possible.I don’t think Henry wanted Anne in either England or on the conintent. She had to be removed and silenced, for Henry’s comfort.
It's always bunnies.
12:01 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
I agree Anyanka. In Henry’s tiny mind it was a case of “Well if I can’t have her no-one else will either”
If she had have gone abroad as was ssuggested I doubt she would have lived long enough to get a suntan. Henry would have given the nod to have her and Elizabeth murdered and of course he could then put out that they had died due to some tersian fever, no body would have thought any different. Anne was not stupid she knew that which was why she told Henry to go spin. In doing so she knew that her life was at an end, but Henry couldn’t kill Elizabeth or find another way of getting rid of her without raising major suspition. In short Anne sacrificed her own life to save Elizabeth.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:26 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
The precontract card was tried first by Mary Talbot in June of ’32. Can you imagine Henry’s reaction when he learned that she wanted an anullment from Percy because of a precontract he had with Anne? Henry supposedly questioned Percy himself. Of course Percy was going to say he was never precontrated to Anne. Percy was already precontracted to Mary when he fell for Anne. Which precontract takes precedence? I assume Mary’s does. That would mean even if he said he was precontracted to Anne, it would come to nothing? Oh the tangled web….
I’m not sure Henry wanted a legal way out. If he did he could have used the bit about sleeping with Anne’s sister that he wanted to get dispensation for before marrying Anne. He used that at the very end to anull the marriage and to bastardize Elizabeth. I agree, he didn’t want Anne left alive. I’m sure in the back of his mind he was thinking of all the years Katherine had been around when she wasn’t wanted. He didn’t want wife number 2 to meddle in his life with wife number 3.
4:52 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
ITA, Henry certainly wouldn’t have wanted a woman whose love of public drama being around to remind every-one about her. There was no way Anne would have exited quietly stage left as KoA did. It was not in her nature to play such a character.
It's always bunnies.
12:36 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Anyanka said
ITA, Henry certainly wouldn’t have wanted a woman whose love of public drama being around to remind every-one about her. There was no way Anne would have exited quietly stage left as KoA did. It was not in her nature to play such a character.
But KOA did put up one hell of fight before Henry finally got rid of her though and right up till the end she maintained that Henry was her true husband. The “Love Letter” she sent him when she knew she was dying perhaps didn’t help Henry’s already unstable mind.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
5:31 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
I think Katherine was a thorn in Henry’s side the whole time he was with Anne. Katherine may not have been around for part of those 10 years, but Henry’s court was divided into factions over her. She was there, in the background, always, and she had many sympathizers who did try to influence Henry. Eventually they succeeded. (ie Jane and co) I can’t see him putting up with that again. IMO that’s part of the reason why the whole Boleyn faction was destroyed. There were to be no reminders of Anne and no division in his court. A divorce would leave Anne alive and talking. Accuse her of crimes against the crown, and make them heinous enough, he would head off any future problems. And BTW, while he’s at it, get rid of everyone who loves and sympathizes with her. Problem solved.
12:56 pm
July 9, 2009
Offline
Louise said
It was the Lady Wingfield who was, according to one of the judges, the person whose comments led to the investigation. However, she was conveniently dead at the time of the trials and no one knows exactly what she said because there’s no record of it.
I thought the Bridget Wingfield stuff only came to light after the wheels of Anne’s fall had been set into motion? I forget where I heard that. In any case, her relationship with Anne and the terrible secret she allegedly knew about her are one of those historical secrets I’d reeeeeeally like to know.
Ainsi sera, groigne qui groigne.
4:40 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Melissa said
Louise said
It was the Lady Wingfield who was, according to one of the judges, the person whose comments led to the investigation. However, she was conveniently dead at the time of the trials and no one knows exactly what she said because there’s no record of it.
I thought the Bridget Wingfield stuff only came to light after the wheels of Anne’s fall had been set into motion? I forget where I heard that. In any case, her relationship with Anne and the terrible secret she allegedly knew about her are one of those historical secrets I’d reeeeeeally like to know.
Hi Melissa.
Although Spelman said Wingfield had started the whole thing by bringing it to light, I think you’re right. I think her comments, whatever they were, didn’t instigate the whole thing but actually ‘came to light’ after Cromwell started sniffing around for ‘evidence’. They certainly weren’t thought important enough at the time they were allegedly said to be brought to anyone’s attention. I think it’s a case of smoke and mirrors.
