DuchessofBrittany said:

We know a lot about Anne's arrest, imprisonment, trial, and execution, but I was wondering about the men arrested with her.

Is there any information about where the men were held in the Tower?

Why were Wyatt and Page arrested and never tried?

I would love to know more about this period in George Boleyn's life and the other arrested with him, and people's opinions on the event of May 1536. Those are just two questions off the top of my head. 

When I visited London in 2009, I took a tour of the Houses of Parliament, which included Westminster Hall. The tour guide informed the group that in the Hall Brereton, Norris, and Weston were tried here? True? Was Mark Smeaton also tried here, or did he not have a trial? I cannot remember.

Thanks!

Duchess, here's what I know about the facts you questioned. It is true that Norris, Brereton and Weston were tried at Westminster Hall, as was Smeaton, all were tried under Oyer and Terminer, which meant that, under 16th century procedure, they were not given full details of the allegations against them and were thus unable to prepare their defence. This coupled with the fact that the jury was hand picked with persons who held personal grudges against all of the accused meant that only one verdict was possible – guilty.

Wyatt was released due to lack of evidence (didn't seem to matter in other cases!), but I have no knowledge of where they were held in the Tower. All in all a shameful exercise in jury rigging, trumped up charges and a means to an end for both Cromwell and Henry at the expense of innocent men and of course Anne, a sad day for justice and England. 

I've heard it speculated that they deliberately set some men free to make the convictions of the others more believable. (“See? We're not rail-roading these people! We even let two of them go, so the evidence must have been convincing for the ones condemned, or we would have released them, too.”) It would also serve as a warning to not cross Henry and Cromwell.

In the Martin Tower, the name “Boullen” is carved in stone beneath a rose and the letter “H”.  Now this information comes from Alison Weir who believes George may have carved this. 

Impish_Impulse said:

I don't remember what she wrote about this, Sharon. Did she explain why she thinks George would have carved an “H”? “A” for Anne, even “R” for Rochford, I could see. I can't think what it could stand for other than Henry, and I can't see him memorializing the man responsible for his upcoming death. Or is “Boullen” all she thinks George carved, and the rose and “H” were by someone else?

George always spelt his name the French way i.e. 'Boleyn', remember, 'Thys boke ys myn, George Boleyn'. He obviously never thought of himself as 'Boullen', so I can't see him suddenly switching to a different spelling.

I've seen in other accounts that George was held in Martins Tower but I've never found any contemporaneous evidence to support that.

DuchessofBrittany said:

Why were Wyatt and Page arrested and never tried?

---

Wyatt complained that his imprisonment was due to the duke of Suffolk (‘…I never imputed to the King’s Highness my imprisonment: and hereof can Mr Lieutenant here present testify, to whom I did ever impute it. Yea, and further, my Lord of Suffolk himself can tell, that I imputed it to him…’). In fact he appears to have blamed Suffolk even upon his arrest; ‘the very night before my apprehension now last’. Suffolk’s alleged antics were hardly the sole reason why he was arrested. Whatever the nature of his relationship with Anne Boleyn, that there was some link between them can be acknowledged – possibly Wyatt was an early admirer, innocent behaviour at the time, but something used against him when Cromwell and co were attempting to search for potential ‘lovers’ to condemn alongside Anne. He may have been identified as a Boleyn ally and thus the target of resentment from the family’s enemies which, by his time, included the duke of Suffolk. Additionally, Wyatt was also a controversial figure. In 1534 he was briefly imprisoned for his involvement in an affray (didn’t stop his knighthood the following year but nonetheless was not an acceptable event), and his marriage had broken down and much bitterness ensued (eventually the King was dragged in to sort it out). Was he perhaps seen as an easy target? A man capable of acting in a wicked fashion? After all 1536 was not the only time Wyatt ended up in trouble and nearly had his head chopped off.

The reason for his subsequent release appears to be due to his father’s efforts. We know that Sir Henry Wyatt petitioned Cromwell for his son’s release, urging him to be a second father to Thomas. Compare this to Francis Weston who had the French ambassador plead on his behalf but did not have that direct link to Cromwell.

Richard Page is a more interesting case owing to his association with Cromwell. The Oxford DNB entry for Page merely states that his friendship with Cromwell probably saved him. Was it his complex relationship with certain individuals traditionally identified as the Boleyn’s enemies that resulted in his arrest? There may have been some bad feelings between Page and Sir Nicholas Carew and Sir John Russell, both of whom celebrated Anne Boleyn’s death. Did an enemy of the Boleyns, and also an enemy of Page, accuse him of some improper behaviour which Cromwell and co naturally had to examine? Page did start his court life serving Wolsey and probably came to know Cromwell through the cardinal’s household. This may explain the pair’s connection, if not the origins of their alleged ‘friendship’. There are some signs of their association thereafter; though Page led a more retired existence, he was on the trial that condemned Carew, whose downfall has often been ascribed to Cromwell. He also supported the King during the Pilgrimage of Grace which had, as one of its aims, the removal of Cromwell from office.

All four men, Smeton, Brereton, Norris and Weston were tried together at Westminster Hall on May 12th 1536.  Smeton confessed to adultery but pleaded not guilty to the rest of the charge. (treason)  Weston, Norris and Brereton, plead not guilty to all charges.

Impish_Impulse said:

I don't remember what she wrote about this, Sharon. Did she explain why she thinks George would have carved an “H”? “A” for Anne, even “R” for Rochford, I could see. I can't think what it could stand for other than Henry, and I can't see him memorializing the man responsible for his upcoming death. Or is “Boullen” all she thinks George carved, and the rose and “H” were by someone else?

---

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you Carolyn.  I was away and when I returned I couldn't find this posting.

Weir, in The Lady in the Tower states, “The name “Boullen” was roughly carved into the stonework of the thirteenth-century Martin Tower beneath a rose-such as appeared on Anne's falcon badge-and the letter H; this was possibly the work of George Boleyn, “who according to tradition, was imprisoned here.” This tradition may be based on fact, as noble prisoners were sometimes allocated a whole tower in order to house their servants, and Martin Tower is known to have been used as a prison in Tudor times.”

She does not give any reference page to her quote.  Just saying.

The rose and the H look artistically done.  There is a leaf on the right side of the H and a cross on the left.  It's actually pretty. The “Boullen” is not. It's a small B and there is a fork like a tree branch at the top of the b and the l's.  To me it looks like two different carvers.