DA
333
CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
L
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT
FUND GIVEN IN 189I BY
HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE
The date shows when this volume was taken.
JUL
HOME USE RULES
HM-.
books subject to recall
All borrowers must regis-
ter in the library to borrow
books for home use.
jooks must be re-
turned a^%n4^of college
year for inspection and
repair^.
Limited books must be
:urned within the four
week limit and not renewed.
Students must return alL^
books before leaving town.
Officers should arrange for
the return" of books wanted
during their absence from
town.
( Volumes of periodicals
and of pamphlets are held
in the library as miach as
possible. For special pur-
poses they are given out for
•orrowers should not use
iheir library privileges for
lenefit of other persons.
Books of special value
and gift books, when the
giver wishes it, are not
allowed to circulate.
Readers are asked to re-
port all cases of books
marked or mutilated,
Do not deface books by marks and writing.
Cornell University Library
DA 333.B69R85
Cornell University
Library
The original of tliis bool< is in
tlie Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924027960594
THE
Earl^ Xife of Hnne JSoIe^n:
A CRITICAL ESSAY.
BY
J. H. ROUND, M.A.
LONDON :
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, Paternoster Row.
1886, .
THE
learl? %ife of Hnne Bole^n:
A CRITICAL ESSAY
BY
J. H. ROUND, M.A.
LONDON :
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, Paternoster Row.
1886.
preface.
THE appearance, within so short a time of one another, of two
works of such marked importance as Mr. Brewer's Reign
of Henry VIII., and Mr. Friedmann's Anne Boleyn — both
of them the fruit of long study and of the most elaborate original
research — has invested with a new and striking interest the
story of one whose sad career has always possessed a romantic
charm, and whose rise and fall, as we are now learning, was
closely connected with great events at a crisis of our national
history. Mr. Gairdner, who, since the appearance of the above
works, has briefly written her life for the Dictionary of National
Biography, reminds us that " some points in her early history
are still beset with controversies." On these I shall here
■endeavour tj) throw some fresh light. I have been led more
especially to select this subject, because it will be found, I think,
to suggest to those of us engaged in the study of history a use-
ful and needed lesson. We shall, on the one hand, be forced to
confess that, boast as we may of the achievements of our new
scientific school, we are still, as I have urged, behind the
■Germans, so far, at least, as accuracy is concerned. We shall
£nd further that, strange as it may sound to those who are not
IV Preface.
behind the scenes, the higher criticism of modern scholars has not
only failed, in some instances, to extend our previous knowledge,
hut has even, while professing to correct error, given us error
in the place of truth. So, to take an apt illustration, has
NaviUe's discovery of Pithom and identification of Succoth
disposed of the modern (Brugsch's) theory that the Exodus was
by the northern road, and restored the pre-scientific, or at least
the older, view that it was by way of the Wady Tumulat.^
But if it is somewhat disheartening to learn that the new
lamps of historical research are at times inferior to the old, it
is, 'pe.T contra, no small encouragement to find that even in those
fields where the grain has been carefully gathered by the most
diligent and skilful of reapers, the humblest gleaner may stiU
work and obtain no small profit. It may perhaps be urged that
I should not have ventured to write on a period that I have not
studied, or on subjects certainly distinct from those with which
I am familiar. To this I reply that the facts must decide, and
that if I have succeeded in throwing light on some, at least, of
the points in controversy, I shall claim to have proved that none
need despair of adding somewhat to the results obtained even,
by the ablest writers who adorn our English school.
J. H. BOUND.
1 The Store-dty of Pithom and ike Route of the Exodus.
Si5nop0i6»
Sir Thomas Boleyn, Anne's father — His grandfather, not his father,
founder of the family — Has been wrongly termed a younger son
— Was son and heir of his father, and succeeded him at Blick-
ling — Origin of the error — His brilliant prospects overlooked —
His marriage as fortunate as his father's — Errors as to his
relatives in Mr. Brewer's Calendar — Their moral . . 7 — 12
Birth of Anne — 1507 the accepted date— Mr. Friedmann adopts an
earlier one— Question admittedly turns on the further one,
whether Anne or Mary was the elder sister — This, again,
dependent on whether it was Anne or Mary who went to
France in 1514 — Mr. Brewer, accepting the 1507 date, rejects
received view that it was Anne, and therefore pronounces her
the younger sister — Clinches his argument by the evidence of
Lord Hunsdon's letter — Mr. Friedmann, rejecting the 1507 date,
produces fresh evidence that it was indeed Anne, and therefore
pronounces her the elder sister — Mr. Gairdner, in reply, clings
to the 1507 date, and falls back on Lord Hunsdon's letter — Mr.
Friedmann's criticism of its evidence examined — It fails — The
letter, however, untrustworthy — Internal evidence to that effect
overlooked — Further proof to that effect — Independent evidence
of Anne's seniority — 1507 date, therefore, erroneous — 1501 sug-
gested ........ 12—23
The Ormond negotiations — Facts of the case — Compromise with the
Butlers— Suggested by Surrey, not by Henry— Ormond's son
vi Synopsis.
PAGE
to marry Sir Thomas Boleyn's daughter— Who was Ormond's
son 1— Not Sir Piers (who was Ormond himself), but his son,
Sir James— Was Sir Piers himself, according to Messrs. Brewer
and Gairdner — Origin of their error, their misapprehension of
the character, date, and bearing of a record — Its true cha-
racter, etc., explained — Mr. Friedmann's error as to Sir Piers —
Who was Sir Thomas Boleyn's daughter "! — Was supposed to be
Mary — This corrected by Lingard, and finally by Mr. Brewer-
Turns on date of Marj^s marriage — Daughter proved to be
Anne — Course of the negotiations — Mr. Gairdner and Mr.
Friedmann in error— Policy of Sir Thomas — Surrey pleads tha,t
Ormond's son may be allowed to join his father — Wolsey
reluctant — Anne returns to England' .... 23 — 37
Mary Boleyn— Her liaison with the King — Its probable date . 37 — 39
The Percy episode— Doubt as to its date— Mr. Brewer's criticisms of
Cavendish — Mr. Friedmann defends Cavendish — But mis-
understands him — The flirtation assigned to 1522 by Mr.
Brewer — His argument examined— It breaks down — 1523 sug-
gested—Cavendish mistaken as to the "person " — Eeasons sug-
gested for believing it to refer to Ormond's son — Despair of the
Butlers— Commencement of Henry's passion for Anne . 39—45
Settlement with the Butlers — Triumph of Sir Thomas— Conclu-
sion ........ 46—47
IN PREPARATION, AND SHORTLY WILL BE PUBLISHED.
By the Same Author.
Historical and Antiquarian
Essays. a,
at
"The really important paper is 'The Domesday of Colchester,' by '"
Mr. J. H. Round. It would not be easy to exaggerate the merits of this Ijt
most painstaking addition to our knowledge of that important survey
which is well worthy of careful study. We hope Mr. Round will reprint
these papers in a volume." — Academy.
" Mr. Round's interesting and conclusive paper." —AihencBuni.
"Mr. Round's ability as a herald, and his capacity for close reasoning,
are thoroughly shown in this admirable contribution to the history of the
peerage." — Antiqtcary.
" Mr. Round's exceedingly learned paper on *The Leicester Inquests of
1253.' " — Academy. 6-
" It is much to be hoped that Mr. Round's list will serve as a model for '^^
other workers," — Athen^um. *
"Mr- J. H. Round gives us a valuable treatise on an interesting period D>
of mediaeval history, Jn a paper which he has quaintly headed ' That
Detestable Battle of Lewes.' " — Academy,
"The next article is by Mr. Horace Round and is a valuable con-
tribution to the settlement of a vexed question." — AtJietuBum. -jn
" By far the most important contribution, however, is Mr, J. H. Round's
paper, entitled 'The Tower Guards.' It is no exaggeration to say that he ^j
has added a new chapter to the history not only of London, but of the Great 2(1
Rebellion also," — Academy.
ies.
'7
te
le
2y
3h
througn the Butler heiress. ■ ,v.-.«.i».
^ "Pedigrees and Pedigree-makers " {Gont. Rev., June, 1817)-
* Vide infra. Compare Letters and Papers, iy., No. 3937.
Zbc jEarl^ %ifc of Hnne Bolei^n.
SIE THOMAS BOLEYN, Anne's father, was the grandson,
as is well known, of Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, Lord Mayor of
London in 1457, who purchased extensive estates in Kent
and Norfolk, with Hever and Blickling for their respective
capita. A list of these estates is given in his Inq. post tnortem
(3 Ed. IV., No. 1), and will be found in the printed Calendar.*
Mr. Friedmann, however, states that they were bought, not by
him, but by his son and successor,^ an error which I here note
only as suggesting, at the outset, the need for caution.
Now, firstly, as to Sir Thomas himself. It is stated even in the
Extinct Peerage of the much-abused patron of " Pedigree-
Makers " ' that he was the " son and heir " of his father. So,
indeed, it has been always believed, and the fact that, as such,
he was " one of the Earl [of OrmondJ's heirs-general" as Percy
(teste Cavendish) reminded Wolsey, is the very pivot on which
turns the whole series of the Ormond negotiations.* He is
styled for instance in the Carew Papers (vi. 446), edited by
Messrs. Brewer and BuUen, " Thomas Lord Eochford, son and
^ Vol. iv., p. 321 (Record Commission).
- " William, his eldest son . . . retired from business, bought large
estates in Norfolk, Essex [«»c], and Kent," etc., etc. The Essex estates,
it may be added (viz. Kochford, etc.), were inherited subsequently,
through the Butler heiress.
3 " Pedigrees and Pedigree-makers " {Gont. Rev., June, 1877).
* Vide infra. Compare Letters and Papers, iv., No. 3937.
8 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
heir to Dame Margaret BuUeyne." Now Mr. Brewer himself,
on this point, writes merely as follows :
" He was the \_sic\ son of Sir William Boleyn of Blickling, Norfolk,
and of Margaret daughter and co-heir of Thomas Butler, Earl of
Ormond. . . . The estate at Blickling descended to Sir James, who died
without male \si6\ issue. ^ As he was still living in 1534, Anne Boleyn
could never have resided on the estate at Blickling." — Eeign, ii. 164-5 ;
Letters and Papers, iv., ccxxv.
The writer, it will be seen, does not commit himself as to
who " Sir James " was, or why he, and not Sir Thomas, suc-
ceeded to Blickling. Mr. Friedmann, we find, goes further :
" James Boleyn, the eldest son, was to inherit the bulk of the family
property. . . . Thomas Boleyn, the second son of Sir William, inherited
some of his grandfather's ability, and went to court to make his fortune
in the royal service."
Mr. Gairdner's testimony is to the same effect, asserting, as
he does, that :
" Sir Thomas . . . had an elder brother Sir James, to whom the Nor-
folk estate first descended." — Dictionary of National Biography, i.
425.
Strange as the statement may doubtless appear, the old
belief is entirely correct, and these three eminent authorities
are all equally mistaken. We need not appeal to the Ormond
evidence, to which I have already alluded. We have only to
turn to Blomefield's Norfolk (1807) to learn that Sir Thomas was
the " eldest son and heir " of his father, in succession to whom
" He held this manor [Blickling] of the Bishop of Norwich, and paid
3s. 6d. every 30 weeks for castle guard." ^
That Blomefield, though his account is not wholly accurate,^ is
' He died without any issue, and was succeeded by the heirs, not of a
daughter, but of a sister.
' History of Norfolk, vi. 388.
* As in stating (p. 389) that " George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford, was
summoned to Parliament hy that title," and that Alice Boleyn, wife of Sir
John Clere, was " at length co-heir to Sir Thomas and Sir James." Both
these statements are, in strictness, erroneous. The error as to George
Boleyn is a common one. Burnet, for instance (History of the Reforma-
tion [1829], i. 406), states that he " was a peer, having been created a
viscount when his father was created Earl of Wiltshire."
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 9
on this point absolutely correct, is clear from such documents of
those calendared by Mr. Brewer himself, as the pardon and
release to Sir Thomas as " of London, alias of Hever, of Bliklyng
Norff." (6 March, 1518),i or the grant to him of a fair " at the
town of Blyklyng, Norf" (15 June, 1533).^ Lastly, here is the
conclusive evidence afforded by his father's will, evidence which
has been in print for the last sixty years :
" I will that my son Thomas Boleyn, according to the will of Geoffrey
Boleyn my father, have the manors of Blickling, Cal thorp, Wykmore,and
Mikelbarton, to him and his heirs male, he paying to Dame Margaret
my wife cc marks yearly." '
It is clear then that Thomas Boleyn succeeded his father, as
son and heir, at Blickling on his death (1505).
The mistake seems to have arisen thus. " After the death
of Anne Boleyn's father," as Miss Strickland observes, " Blick-
ling fell into the possession of the infamous Lady Eochford, on
whom it had possibly been settled as dower." * She in her turn
fell a victim to Henry at the close of 1541, and on the 22nd
February, 1541-2, we read that —
" The King's hignes had appoynted to Sir Jamys BouUoyne Knight
syche stuff as remayned in the hows of Blikhng lately appertayning to
the Lady off Eochef ort," ^ etc., etc.
" Sir Jamys," thus succeeding to Blickling, not in 1505, but
in 1542, died, seized of it, in 1561, and was buried there."
Having disposed of the birth of Sir Thomas Boleyn, let us
now turn to his marriage. On this Mr. Brewer writes :
" What was the connection of his family with the Howards, or what
could induce the premier and proudest duke of England to match his
daughter with a commoner of no distinction and of little wealth, ijaust
be left to conjecture. It is not easier to discover by what influence Sir
^ Letters and Papers, i., 503. Such descriptions were common {ad
major em cautelam) with the Tudor Lawyers.
" Ibid., 1533, p. 331.
3 Nicolas's Testamenta Yetusta (1826), p. 465.
* Queens of England (1842), iv. 161.
^ Nicolas's Proceedings of Privy Council,vu. 310.
" Blomefield's Norfolk, vi. 388-9.
lo The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
Thomas was brought forward into public life, or to whom he owed his
advancement." ^
Mr. Gairdner, editing the above, in The Reign of Henry
VIII., rightly adds the explanatory note :
"The Duke of Norfolk whose daughter Sir Thomas Boleyn married.
He was only Earl of Surrey, however, at the time."
It may be added that not only was the dukedom under attain-
der at the time of the match in question, but that, even if it had .
been in existence, it would not have been the " premier " one,
the dukedom of Buckingham then, and till 1521, enjoying pre-
cedence above all but those held by the blood royal, under
patent of 22nd May, .1447.^
By Mr. Friedmann we are similarly reminded that —
" This marriage, at the time it was concluded, was not so brilliant for
Thomas Boleyn as it might now appear."— ii., 39.
Still, though he shows that the fortunes of the Howards were not,
at the time, at a high ebb, he can only attribute to Sir Thomas,
" being a young man of good address," the fact that he succeeded
in obtaining even a fair match.
But Sir Thomas possessed attractions more solid than a " good
address." Not only, as I have shown, was he himself the heir
to his father's broad estates, but also, through his mother, to at
least the half of the vast possessions, both in England and Ire-
land, of his grandfather^ the Earl of Ormond. I say "to at
least the half," for we learn from the Earl's Will, quoted in
Carte's work, that he gave Sir Thomas Boleyn, though the son
of his younger daughter, the preference over the elder and her
issue, as his heir.' The Earl, who resided in England, and sat
' Letters and Papers, iv., ccxxv-vi.
^ Rot. Pat., 25 Hen. VI., n. 31.
' See Will (dated 31st July, proved 31st August, 1515), in Introduction
to Carte's Life of James Duhe of Ormond, with its remarkable bequest
" to Sir Thomas BuUen and his issue male, whom failing, to Sir George
St. Leger and his issue male," of " a white horn of ivory," which "my
Lord and Father commanded me upon his blessing that I should do my
devoir to cause it to continue still in my blode, as far furth as might be
in me to be done to the honor of the same blode."
The Early Life of Anne Boleyti. 1 1
as an English peer, was "one of the richest subjects in the
King's dominions,"! having inherited £40,000, " besides plate,"
from his predecessor. His real estate was so extensive that in
England alone his daughters succeeded to seventy-two manors.^
We have surely in this strangely neglected fact a suggestive
reply to Mr. Brewer's fruitless inquiry " by what influence Sir
Thomas was brought forward into public life, or to whom he
owed his advancement."
It is a singular coincidence that both father and son should
have enjoyed the same matrimonial luck. Just as the father-
in-law of Sir Thomas arose from an attainted man to be a powerful
Duke of Norfolk, so the father-in-law of Sir William Boleyn,
his father; had been not only an attainted man, but a younger son,
" Thomas Ormond." Indeed, the wealthy Earl, whose treasures
were to enrich the Boleyns, had proved, till he succeeded to the
title, so needy a father-in-law that both Sir William Boleyn and
his mother had continually to lend him money.^ Neither
father nor son could have dreamed, when they married, how
brilliant their matches would eventually prove.
Before leaving Sir Thomas we may fairly ask why a letter to
him from his mother should be calendared as " [Mary {sic)
Boleyn] to Sir Thomas Boleyn ;" * when his mother's name was,
notoriously, not Mary, but Margaret (as even these calendars
bear witness) ; and why it should be placed, as of " uncertain
date," in a calendar of 1509-14,^ though avowedly written on
receipt of the news of the Earl's death," which death took place,
as is well known, in August, ISIS.'^ Why, again, should Mr.
' Carte, p. xliv.
2 Ibid.
' See his bonds to them (1472-85) in Harleian Charters, 54 D.
52-57. I have never seen any mention made of this curious fact.
* Letters and Papers, i., p. 976, No. 5784.
' Ibid.
" " I understand to my great heaviness that my Lord, my father, is
departed this world."
' "1515" is the date given in the ordinary Peerages. Mr. Brewer
himself rightly lays stress on " the accuracy of that chronological
arrangement of documents which is of paramount importance to
students of history." — Vol. iii., p. ccccxxxiv.
12 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
Brewer state that " Margaret's sister Anne, from whom Anne
Boleyn received' her name, was married to Sir George [sic]
St. Leger;"! and actually give as the authority for that state-
ment a document in his own calendar which speaks, we find, of
"James \_sic\ Seynt Leger and Ambrose Griseacre, husbands
of the said Anne,"—" Sir George," her alleged husband, being no
other than her son ! ^ It is in no spirit of carping criticism that
these questions are asked. My object is to point an old moral :
" If they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done
in the dry ?" If an expert, endowed with such transcendent
ability as, in Mr. Gairdner's judgment, was Mr. Brewer, "a
man," in Mr. Brewer's own words, " who has by the nature of
his work been compelled to study the original documents with
impartiality and extreme minuteness," ^ and dealing with his own
special subject, treating of the period he had made his own, and
writing, above all, with the original documents before him, could
make, here and elsewhere (as we shall find), mistakes on the
simplest matters of fact, what can we expect of the general
historian, who has not the expert's advantages ? How, to take
the very instance above, can we wonder that Mr. Froude should
confuse Sir George St. Leger with the famous Sir Anthony, and
argue from the fact that the latter was (consequently) " the
Queen's cousin," when the same Sir George, even by Mr.
Brewer, is confused with his own father ?
Let us now pass to the birth of Anne Boleyn herself This is
one of the most important points that I propose to discuss in
this essay. The accepted date for this event, on the authority
of a marginal note in Camden, is, as is well known, 1507.
Against this date there is a presumption at the outset. For if
Anne was indeed born in 1507, she was only six or seven when
^ Reign, ii. 164.
^ Mr. Brewer's reference runs thus (ii. 164, note) : " See her license
to found a chantry 'called Hangfordis Chapell' ... for herself, the St.
Legers, and this Margaret Boleyn, her sister, then a widow. . . . Mar-
garet Boleyn was alive in 1520." Alive in 1520 1 She was certainly
living at least as late as 1536 (28 Hen. VIII., cap. 3).
' Letters and Papers, iii., p. ccccxxxiv.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 13
she went, as a maid of honour, to France ; only twelve or thirteen
when she was proposed, in 1520, as a bride ; and only fourteen
or fifteen when wooed and won by Percy .^ The date in question
was, however, accepted by every writer, as Mr. Friedmann says,
with one exception that he has overlooked. That exception is
Miss Strickland. It is highly to the credit of that ]9,dy that,
writing as she did so far back as 1842, she gave her reasons for
rejecting that date, and for holding that Anne " must have been
born about 1501." ^ This, as will be seen, though on sounder
grounds, is the conclusion to which I myself incline, and it
obviously affects in a marked degree our views on the whole of
her early life.
Mr. Friedmann writes thus :
" It has been generally held that Anne Boleyn was born in 1507, the
authority for this date being a passage and a marginal note in Camden's
JSistory of Elizaheih. Dr. Lingard, Mr. Froude, and Dr. Brewer accept
the statement of Camden as good evidence ; but in this opinion I am
unable to agree with them. Camden wrote more than fifty years after
Anne's death, and in many instances his account of her early life can be
proved to be quite incorrect. In this case also he is, I think, mistaken.
Happily, some evidence has been preserved as to Anne's age. At Basel
there is a picture of her, painted by Holbein, which bears the inscrip-
tion : ' HR. 1530 — CBtatis 27.' It tears also the words (added later) :
' Anna Regina.' From this portrait, the authenticity of which is above
suspicion, it would appear that in 1530 Anne Boleyn was in her twenty-
seventh year, which would place her birth in 1503 or 1504. She may
have been rather older, for women so vain as Anne generally give them-
selves out for somewhat younger than they are." '
We may observe that if Anne was in 1530 twenty-seven
years of age, she must have been born in 1502 or 1503, as
correctly stated by Mr. Friedmann in the body of his work,*
and not "in 1503 or 1504," the date, as above, in his appendix,
being the one that Mr. Gairdner quotes.'
^ In 1522 exhypotkesi Messrs. Brewer and Gairdner.
2 Vol. iv., pp. 159, 172, 297.
^ Anne Boleyn, ii. 315.
* Vol. i., pp. xxxvii., 39.
^ Dictionary of National Biography, i. 429.
14 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
On Mr. rriedmann's argument Mr. Gairdner observes :
" Some points in her early history are still beset with controversies on
which I cannot, for my part, think Mr. Friedmann a very safe guide.
The date of her birth- which Camden says was 1507-he puts back to
1503 or 1504. . . . But Camden is a high authority," etc., etc.^
The question of the date of Anne's birth will be found to hinge
on that of her seniority or juniority to her sister. For as we
have a iixed point in the date of her sister's marriage (4th Feb-
ruary, 1520),^ it is obvious that if Anne were the elder of the
two, she must have been more than twelve or thirteen when her
younger sister was married. We should therefore have to
dismiss at once Camden's date of 1507. This is virtually
admitted by Mr; Brewer when he urges that the acceptance of
the 1507 date is only compatible with the view that' Anne was
the younger sister.' We have then to ask the question:
Which was the elder sister ? But this question, again, turns on
the answer we may give to a further one, viz. : Which of the
two daughters was it who went to France, in Mary's train, in
October, 1514 ? Mr. Brewer urges that the " Miss Boleyn " who
so went to France must have been the elder sister,* and Mr.
Gairdner's conclusion is equally definite :
" AU that we can say is that it was the elder sister who went to France
in 1514." »
Who then was this " Miss Boleyn " ? Mary or Anne ? All
historians, down to Mr. Brewer, have taken it, without excep-
^ Academy, Nov. 1st, 1884, p. 282.
2 It will be shown below that the particulars of this marriage have
never been correctly given, Messrs. Brewer and Gairdner being (appar-
ently) right in the date, but wrong in the husband's name, while all other,
historians have been right in his name, but wrong in the date, with the
■exception of Mr. Froude, who is wrong in both.
=* "As her sister Mary was already married before her in 1520 to Sir
\sic\ William Carey, we must infer that Mary was the elder sister." —
Letters and Papers, iv. ccxxvL ; Reign, ii. 165.
* Letters and Papers, iii., p. ccccxxx., woie.
" Academy, Nov. 1st, 1884, p. 282.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 15
tion, to refer to Anne herself. Mr. Brewer, however, writes
thus :
" I take this opportunity of correcting a common error. It was not
Anne, but Mary Boleyn, her elder sister, who attended the Princess into
France ; and no doubt it is Mary, and not Anne Boleyn, who Mfasjille
d'honneur to Margaret of Savoy, and the subject of that lady's letter to
Sir Thomas Boleyn, cited by M. le Glay in his able edition of the
Lett, de Mar., etc., ii., p. 461. This letter has never attracted the atten-
tion of English historians, strangely enough. See especially the letters
of Worcester, Oct. 3rd."i
In his third volume he recurs to this subject, and vigorously
denounces " the popular statement " that Anne Boleyn went to
France in 1514, as a " perversion of the earlier facts of her life." ^
Lastly, in his fourth volume, he thus dismisses it for good :
" The supposition, founded on the list of Queen Mary's attendants, that
she, and not her sister Mary, is the person alluded to as ' M. Boleyn,'
is worthy of no credit, long as it has maintained its place in popular
histories. The mistake has arisen from the habit of confounding one
sister with the other ; a blunder from which even the late editors of the
State Papers of Henry VIII. have not entirely escaped." '
ITothing, we see, could be more positive.
It is therefore, at first, somewhat surprising to find Mr. Fried-
mann boldly asserting that " the popular statement " was right, >
and Mr. Brewer entirely mistaken :
" Most historians have been of opinion that Anne Boleyn was sent to
Prance with Mary Tudor, when Mary went to marry King Louis XII. Mr.
Brewer strongly opposes this view. . . . But the charge which Mr.
Brewer brings against his opponents that they have followed ' with little
examination and some additions ' the account which Cavendish gives in
his Life of Wolsey is not justified. Cavendish's book does not contain,
as Mr. Brewer pretends, ' the earhest notices of her career.' " * — Anne
Boleyn, ii. 315.
1 Letters and Papers, i. Ixv., note ; Reign, i. 39, note.
2 Ibid., iii. ccocxxx., note.
' Ibid., iv. ccxxxiii. ; Reign, ii. 107. So also Mr. Gairdner {Bict. of
Nat. Biography, i. 425) : " She had ... an elder sister Mary, some
parts of whose personal history have been confused with her own. It
was Mary Boleyn, not Anne, who went over to Prance in the suite of
Henry VIII. 's sister Mary," etc., etc.
* Letters and Papers, iii. ccccxxx.
1 6 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
The writer might have added that even if it were so, Camden^
to whose authority Messrs. Brewer and Gairdner trust so
implicitly for the date of birth, wrote much later than even
Cavendish. He contents himself, however, with a brilliant
array of virtually contemporary evidence, all pointing emphati-
cally to the fact that it was indeed Anne who went to France in
1514. This, it may be observed, entirely confirms Herbert's
statement in his Henry VIII., that it "is proved by divers
principal authors, both English and French, besides the manu-
scripts I have seen," that " Anne Boleyn went to France with
Mary the French Queen in 1514." ^ Mr. Friedmann's wide and
profound knowledge of the period upon which he has written is
nowhere more evident than in this array, at the close of which
he justly observes :
"If all this evidence had been known to Mr. Brewer, he would have
admitted that it was Anne who went to France in 1514. Had he done
so, he would have found it difficult to maintain that Anne Boleyn was
the younger and Mary Boleyn the elder sister. For, on his own showing,
the younger sister remained at home and would not have been called
Miss Boleyn." — Anne Boleyn, ii. 318.
In this Mr. Friedmann is perfectly right. If it was indeed
Anne who went to France in 1514, then, by Mr. Brewer's own
admission, Anne must have been the elder sister; and if the
elder, must (also, by his admission) have been born some years
before 1507. Moreover, if Anne went to France in 1514, that
fact is direct, as well as indirect, evidence as to her age. For,
as Mr. Brewer himself reminds us :
" No one wiU suppose that a child of seven years old would be taken
from the nursery, and her name be inserted in an official list of gentle-
women appointed to attend on the Princess of England at her approach-
ing marriage with Louis XI., ' to do service to the Queen.' " ^
The writer forgot that this reasoning would cut both ways,
and that it now enables us, on his own authority, to reject his
date of birth (1507) as too late.
' Ed. 1672, p. 287. 2 Seign, ii. 107.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 17
Mr. Gairdner, however, has valiantly striven to uphold Mr. .
Brewer's assumptions. This, he writes, is a
" question in which I must further express my dissent from Mr; Fried-
mann's view. Anne Boleyn, he maintained, was older than her sister
Mary ; and he recurs to the old view discredited by Mr. Brewer, that it
was Anne, and not Mary, who went to France in the train of Henry
VIII.'s sister Mary when she was married to Louis XII. in 1514. Cer-
tainly, if Anne was the elder sister, it was she who went to France on
that occasion ; and Mr. Friedmann brings some early testimony to support
this view with which Mr. Brewer was unacquainted. But it must be
observed that if both sisters went to France, though in different years
(and this is Mr. Brewer's hypothesis), it was the most natural thing in
the world for a foreign writer, just after Anne's death, to confound the
two."^
But, it must be remembered, " Mr. Brewer's hypothesis," or,
as he himself terms it, his " opinion," 2 that Anne Boleyn went
to France in 1519, five years after her sister, is absolutely with-
out a scrap of evidence to support it, and is merely a device for
reconciling the fact of Anne's undoubted stay in France with
his own rejection of " the popular statement " that she was the
"Miss Boleyn " who went there in 1514 It is, indeed, accepted
by Mr. Gairdner, in his biography of Anne Boleyn,^ but
it cannot form the groundwork of an argument, or afford any
answer to Mr. Friedmann's direct evidence.
There remains, therefore, but one rock as an obstacle in Mr.
Friedmann's path. He has shown that Anne went to France in
1514, and that consequently, by the admission of his opponents,
she must have been the elder sister. "What then becomes of
Lord Hunsdon's letter, in which she is represented as the
younger ? On the point of her seniority Mr. Brewer writes :
" Any doubt on that head is entirely dispelled by the petition presented
to Lord Burgbley in 1597, by Mary's grandson, the second Lord Hunsdon,
claiming the Earldom of Ormond in virtue of Mary's right as the elder
daughter. It is inconceivable that Lord Hunsdon could have been mis-
taken in so familiar a fact ; still more that he should have ventured to
^ Academy {ut supra).
2 Letters and Papers, iii. ccccxxx.
' Dictionary of National Biography, i. 425.
i8 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
prefer a petition to the Queen in wHch her mother -bws described as the
younger sister, if she had in truth been the elder." ^
Mr. Priedmann replies :
" It is true that Mr. Brewer adduces what he considers good direct
evidence for the opinion that Mary was the elder sister. ... I do not
know whether Mr. Brewer had ever read the letter of iLord Hunsdon to
which he refers. It certainly cannot have been present to his mind when
he wrote this passage." ^
At this point I break off, to quote, transcribed from the
original, the passages material to the issue. Mr. Friedmann, I
may observe, is in strictness justified in objecting to Mr.
Bi-ewer's reference to this document (wi sw^ra) as " a petition
to the Queen."
LoED Hunsdon's Letteb.
[6th Oct., 1597.]
" My late Lo : Father as resolued by the opinion of Heralds and
Lawyers euer assured me that a right & title was to descende on me to the
Erledome of Ormonde, which if he had liued to this Parlament he meant
to haue chalendged, if her Matie had not cast some greater honor uppon
him, the breife of whose title was I well remember In that S'' Thomas
EuUen was created Vicount Eocheforde and Erie of Ormonde to him and
his heires generall, Erie of Wiltshire to him and his heires male, by whose
death w^^out issue male the Erldome of Wilshire was extinguished, but
the Erldome of Ormonde he suruiuinge his other children before that
time attainted, he in right lefte to his eldest daughter Marye, who had
issue Henrye, and Henrye my self e. . . . Her Ma^e is A Coheire wtii me
to the said Erledome viz : daughter and heire of Anne yongest daughter
of the saide S'^ Thomas BuUen late Erie of Ormonde. . . . The saide
dignitie of the Erledome of Ormonde togeather with his Lands Mannors
and Tenements descended to my grandmother his eldest daughter and
sole heire and accordinglie she sued her liuerie as by the recorde «f the
same doth and male appeare. But admytt now an equallitie of desent
then is it to be considered whether my Grandmother beinge the eldest
daughter ought not to haue the whole dignitie as in the Erldome
. of Chester," etc'
It will be seen at once that Mary's seniority is an essential
' Reign, ii. 165.
^ Anne Boleyn, ii. 319.
' State Papers (Domestic), Elizabeth, vol. cclxiv. fo. 283.
The Early Life 0/ Anne Boleyn. 19
point in Lord Hunsdon's argument. Mr. Friedmann, however
continues thus :
"From the fact that Mary Boleyn inherited her' father's estates Lord
Hunsdon seems to have inferred that she was the eldest daughter ; but
she was her father's ' sole heir,' not as his eldest daughter, but as his
only surviving descendant ; Elizabeth being at that time considered a
bastard and legally non-existent. The argument based on Lord Huns-
don's letter therefore falls to the ground." '
On this Mr. Gairdner's comment is that —
" Mr. Friedmann certainly has not greatly weakened the evidence of
Mary Boleyn's seniority contained in Lord Hunsdon's letter." °
But he might have spoken more confidently than this, and have
shown that it is not Mr. Brewer's argument; but Mr. Friedmann's
criticism, which " falls to the ground."
Let me explain how this is so. In the first place, Lord
Hunsdon himself tells us why Mary was the " sole heir,"
namely from her father " suruiuinge his other children before
that time attainted " ; and in the second, he not only knew the
right explanation, but also cannot possibly have inferred (as Mr.
Friedmann suggests) the wrong one. For, even had he been
ignorant, which he was not, of the attainders and their conse-
quences, he could not have "inferred" from Mary's heirship
" that she was the eldest daughter," for that (in England) would
only have made her a co-heir, not a sole heir, a fact, perhaps
unknown to Mr. Friedmann. I repeat, then, that his criticism
" falls to the ground."
Are we then compelled to agree with Mr. Gairdner that
" It is simply inconceivable that the grandson of Mary Boleyn should
have consulted Cecil on the expediency of claiming a title from the
Crown on the plea that Mary was the elder sister of the reigning Queen's
mother, if the fact had been the reverse." ^
Let us see. It is passing strange that no one should have
observed the astounding error of Lord Hunsdon when he states
that his ancestor. Sir Thomas Boleyn
■" was created Vicount Kocheforde and Erie of Ormonde to him and his
Anne Boleyn, ii. 319. ^ Academy (tct supra).
' Academy {ut supra.)
2—2
20 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
heires general!, Erie of, WiltsHre to Mm and his heires male, by whose
death wti^out male issue the Erldome of Wilshire was extinguished."
For in 1525 Sir Thomas was created Viscount Eochford to him
and his heirs-maZe, and in 1529 (when he received the earldom
of Wiltshire) Earl of Ormond to him and his heirs-g^ewerai.
It is, no doubt, "simply inconceivable" that Lord Hunsdon
should have been so mistaken as this on a simple and funda-
mental question of fact, which has always been matter of
common knowledge. And yet, as a fact, he was.
Yet even his critic has so completely failed to detect this
startling error, that he not only accepts the statement as true,
but actually bases an argument upon it. For Mr. Friedmann
writes as follows :
" The fact that he was not recognised as Viscount Ko'chford and Earl
of Ormond, but that his son \fic\^ after the death of Elizabeth, was created
Viscount Eochford, goes some way to prove that Anne was older than
Mary."*
Had the writer been aware that the Vis'countcy of Eochford
was granted to Sir Thomas and his heirs-ma?e, he would neither
have accepted the statement, nor made it the base of an argument.
Nor is even this all. In the course of his letter he specially
refers to an Act of the Irish Parliament, the chief obstacle to his
own claims, as it still is to that of his heirs. He actually urged
that there was no such Act, and that no trace of it was any-
where to be found. And yet this Act is well known, and was
duly produced in our own days, in support of the claim to the
Earldom of Ormond, which dignity is still held under its
provisions.
I think then I may fairly claim to have done what Mr. Fried-
mann endeavoured, but failed to do, namely to discredit Lord
Hunsdon's evidence. But if there are any who would still
maintain that on Mary's seniority he cannot have been mistaken,
1 Here Mr. Friedmann is further mistaken. It was not his son, but
his nephew, who was so created, a difference of essential importance, for
his claim as the heir of the Boleyns passed to his daughter, and not to
his nephew, so that the latter could not in any case have claimed the
Viscountcy as his right.
2 Anm Boleyn, ii. 320.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 21
I refer them to testimony which they will not question, and
which would seem to have been hitherto overlooked. This is
the monument to Lady Berkeley, Lord Hunsdon's daughter and
sole heiress. As her father's claim to the Earldom of Ormond
descended in full to her and her heirs, her descent from Sir
Thomas Boleyn is set forth with special care.
" Here lieth the body of the most vertuous and prudent Lady, Elizabeth
Lady Berkeley, widow, daughter and sole heir of George Carey, Lord
Hunsdon, son and heir of Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon, son and heir of
William Carey, and the Lady Mary his wife, second daughter and co-
heir of Thomas BuUen, Earl of Ormond and Wiltshire, father also of
Queen Ann BuUen, wife to King Henry VIIL, mother of Queen
EHzabeth, late Queen of England." '
The evidence of such inscriptions is rightly questioned where
they are designed, as usual, to favour the claim of a family ; but
where, as might be said, they go out of their way ultroneously
to reject such claim, their evidence is the strongest of all.
There was nothing to be gained by so pointedly describing
Lady Berkeley's ancestress as the " second " daughter, and thus
directly traversing the allegation in her father's letter.
Here then v/e learn the useful lesson that no assumption,
however probable, can dispense with the need for patient
research, that we cannot sift too carefully even the most
plausible evidence, and that facts which appear " simply
inconceivable " may, none the less, prove to be true.
I obtained my conclusion by careful investigation, and a
further inquiry has but confirmed it, for, although the fact
has not been noticed, Ealph Brooke, in his Catalogue of the
liability, published shortly after Camden's Annals (1619),
styles " Anne the eldest " and " Mary the second daughter." As
this statement was not challenged even by the Argus-eyed
Vincent in his Biscoverie of Brooke's Errors, and as both
writers were men " who belonged to the College of Heralds," ^
their evidence is a strong confirmation of the conclusion I have
given above. Further research among MS. pedigrees has pro-
^ CoUins's Peerage, vol. iii., p. 616.
^ Academy (ut supra), where Mr. Gairdner lays stress upon this quali-
fication in the case of Camden.
2 2 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
duced little more, save that in one of the pedigrees of Bullen,
apparently of the time of Charles I., we read, " Mary Bullen
second dau : wife of WiUiam Gary Esq. of the body to K. Henry
YIII." 1 In short, all the evidence points the same way. But
as stress has been laid on the knowledge possessed by the
Members of the College of Arms, it is most satisfactory that
among its archives there is preserved a formally attested
pedigree (1679) in which we read: — " 1. Anne BoUin March, of
Pembroke eldest dau'," and "Mary BoUin dau' and heire."
This pedigree is duly recorded to be "Proved out of certain
Eegisters and Memorialls remaining in ye College of Arms." ^
Thus by converging paths I arrive at Mr. Priedmann's con-
clusion. It was shown by him that Anne went to Prance in
1514, and that she was, therefore, the elder sister. It has been
shown by me that she was the elder sister, and that it was,
therefore, she who went abroad in 1514. Thus the view we
support is proved twice over, while that of Messrs. Brewer and
Gairdner is shown to be devoid of foundation.
We are therefore in a position absolutely to reject so late a
date as 1507 as that of Aime's birth.
But what shall we put in its place ? Lord Herbert's calcula-
tion that she returned to England " about the twentieth year
of her age "is found to rest on Camden's work, and therefore
affords us no test. If we fall back on the Basel portrait, to
which Mr. Priedmann refers us, its evidence points to Anne
Boleyn having been only about eleven when she went to
France as a maid of honour. But then, as he himself shrewdly
observes, " she may have been rather older " than she admitted
in 1530. Sanders, indeed, as Mr. Brewer reminds us, " assigns
Anne's first visit to France to her fifteenth year." ^ But in cases
1 Harl. MSS., 1233, fo. 81.
^ I gladly take this opportunity of mentioning that I owe my know-
ledge of this pedigree to the kindness of my friends Sir Albert Woods,
Garter Principal King of Arms, and G. E. Cokayne, Esq., Norroy King
of Arms.
' Reign,'-a..\ll. His words are: "Cum quindecim esset annorum
.... in Gallias mittitur"^(Z)e origine ac progressu Schismatis Anglicani
[1585] p. 16).
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 23
where they can be tested, his statements are grossly in-
accurate. Perhaps, as a conjecture, we may split the difference
and assign her birth to about 1501.^ This would make her
thirteen at the time of her departure for France. She is
scarcely likely to have been sent there younger. We have, it
may be added, one calculation which would place her birth
earlier than the year 1500. This we obtain by combining
Cavendish's statement'that her brother was twenty-seven when
he was appointed of the King's privy chamber in 1527,^ with
Mr. Friedmann^s assertion that he was younger than Anne.*
But for this assertion, I regret to say, no evidence is given.
So also we have Mr. Brewer's statement that her sister Mary
married again " at the ripe age of thirty " (1534).* This would
place Mary's birth in 1503-4, and she, we know, was the
younger sister ; but here again Mr. Brewer's authority, though
probably sound, is not given, and the date implies that Mary
was so young as fifteen or sixteen when she married her first
husband.
If, however, we place her birth as, in any case, not later
than 1501, it follows that when she returned to England in
1521-2, she was not (as by Mr. Brewer's calculation) a girl of
fourteen or fifteen, but a young woman of twenty-one. This
discovery obviously affects all our views on her early life, of
which not the popular, but Mr. Brewer^s, account must conse-
quently be, in his own words, a " perversion of the facts."
We now come to an important episode in the early life of
Anne Boleyn, an episode on which I shall have much to say, for
^ Could 1507 have arisen from a misreading of this date %
^ " My soverayn lord in his chamber did me assay
Ofyeres thryes nine my life had past away ;
A rare thing suer seldom or never herd
So yong a man so highly to be preferred."
" Metrical Visions," Singer's Cavendish, vol. ii.
" " She [Anne] had a good many brothers and sisters, but most of them
died young. The only survivors were her brother George and her sister
Mary, both of them younger than Anne." — Anne Boleyn, i. 39.
* Letters and Papers, vol. iv., pp. ccxxvi. ccxxix.
24 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
it has proved the source, to all who have touched it, of a con-
fusion, the history of which is not a little curious and instruc-
tive. I allude to the Ormond negotiations.
Mr. Friedmann writes :
" That she [Anne] returned to England in 1522, about the new year, is
proved by the papers cited by Mr. Brewer. These papers also settle the
date of the negotiations for her marriage with one of her Irish cousins."
—(Vol. ii., p. 321.)
But this is not so. These negotiations date themselves, and
their date can in no way be settled from that of Anne's return.
The main facts of the case were these. On the death of the
Earl of Ormond (Anne's great grandfather) in 1515, his English
possessions passed to the St. Legers and the Boleyns as his
co-heirs ; but the Earldom of Ormond, with the Irish estates,
were claimed by his kinsman and heir-iuaZe, Sir Piers Butler,
" the Ked." It has, indeed, been pretended that the latter was
in the right, and Mr. Gilbert asserts that the earldom " was
entailed upon male heirs." ^ But the earldom, as a matter of
fact, was " limited " to heirs-general (hceredibus), and the Irish
chieftain trusted to his power and to the sympathy of bis fellow-
countrymen, rather than to any legal right. The State Papers
bear witness that his claim was opposed from the very first
by the English heirs-general, especially by Sir Thomas Boleyn.
The factors in the problem stood thus : The Irish chieftain
trusted to his might to secure both the title and the estates ;
Sir Thomas claimed as his right a moiety of these same estates,
and hoped to secure with them the Ormond title for himself;
the King, while favouring his courtier. Sir Thomas, was loth
to offend the House of Butler, who, as Mr. Brewer truly
observes, " had been loyal and important allies of the English
sovereign in their unhappy disputes with their Irish sub-
jects." ^ He also, I suspect, was quite alive to the advantage, as
1 " Viceroys of Ireland" (by J. T. Gilbert, Secretary P.E.O. of
Ireland), p. 443. I have seen a letter from the Butlers strongly urging
this ; but such an assertion is unworthy of credit, until the evidence is
produced.
" Letters and Papers, iii. ccxxxviii. ; Reign, ii. 173.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 25
a piece of statecraft, of leaving the question undecided, and so
keeping the heiresses' claim as a lever with which to work upon
the Butlers in case of their wavering in their allegiance.
Thus matters dragged on for nearly five years. To the
advent of Surrey as Lord Deputy, May, 1520, is to be
traced the attempted compromise by which it was hoped to
settle the 'dispute. Surrey, on the one hand, was brother-in-
law to Sir Thomas; on the other, his frank and chivalrous
nature was warmly attracted by Sir Piers Butler. He wrote
with enthusiasm to England :
" He shewith hym self ever, with his good advyse and strength, to
bring the Kinges entended purpose to good effect. Undoubtidly he is
not only a wyseman, and hath a true English hert, but also he is the
man of moost experience of the feautes of warre of this cuntrey of whome
I have, at all tymes, the best counsail of any of this land." '
He accordingly felt that the loyal chieftain had not met with
his deserts, and that the time had come when he ought to
be recognised as possessor of the title and estates. It further
occurred to him that Sir Thomas Boleyn might be induced to
surrender his claim if it were arranged that his daughter should
marry the Butlers' heir. Such an arrangement is often to be met
with throughout our early history, as when the cunning Count of
Meulan promised Ivo de Grentmesnil that his niece should marry
Ivo's heir, and bring with her Ivo's lands,^ or when the ousted
Berkeley strove to end the long struggle for his ancestral estates
by marrying the daughter of his arch- opponent Margaret,
Countess of Shrewsbury. Lingard and Miss Strickland, rightly,
assign this suggestion to Surrey. Mr. Brewer assigns it to the
King. In this, as we shall find, he is mistaken. Mr. Brewer
writes thus :
" Henry thought the' dispute might easily be adjusted by marrying
Anne to Sir Piers Butler. Accordingly he wrote to Surrey, her uncle,
afterwards Duke of Norfolk, to iuquire whether the Earl of Ormond,
the father of Sir Piers, would consent. In October the Earl, in a letter
to Wolsey, gave a favourable reply to the overture." '
^ Surrey to Wolsey, 3rd Nov., 1520. ^ Ordericus Vitalis.
' Letters and Papers, iii. ccccxxxii., iv. ccxxzviii. ; Reign, ii. 173.
26 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
Here Mr. Brewer has confused the letters, "which he had him-
self calendared, and has misunderstood their evidence. What
really took place was this. Surrey in the first place wrote to
Henry, for though this letter is not preserved, its existence is
proved by Henry's reply> That reply ran thus :
" And like as ye desire us to indevour our self, that a mariage may he
had and made betwixt thErle of Ormondes sonne, and the daughter of
Sir Thomas Bolain, Knight, CountroUer of our Householde ; so we woll
ye bee meane to the said Erie for his agreable consent and mynde
therunto, and advertise Us, by your next letters, of what towardnesse ye
shall fynde the Erie in that behalf. Signifying unto you, that in the
meane tyme We shall advaunce the said matier with our Comptroller,
and certifie you how We shall finde hym inclined thereunto accourd-
ingly." ^
The next letter, so far from being a " reply " to the above, was
probably, from a comparison of the dates, written before its
receipt, and was, in any case, a fresh appeal for the match,
addressed this time to Wolsey, and proceeding both from Surrey
and his Council. I would call attention to the reference they
' make to their personal interview with Wolsey on some former
occasion, and to their statement that, on that occasion, they
had pressed this scheme upon his notice.
" And where at o^ beeing with yc grace diners of us moeved you
to cause a maryage to bee solempnysed betwene Therll of Ormonds son
beeing with yor grace and S^^ Thomas Boleyns daughter. We thynk yf
yo grace caused that to bee doon And also a fynall ende to be made
betwene theyme for the tytle of lands depending in varyauuce it shuld
cause the said Erll to bee the better wylled to see this land brought to
good order. Notwithstanding undoubtedly we see not but he is as wel
mynded thereunto and as redy to geve his good advyse and Counsaill in
all causes for the furtherance of the same as we can wyssh hym to
bee." '
^ Unless the reply possibly refers to the personal solicitation alluded to
in the next. In any case the proposal was made to, and not by, Henry.
- Henry to Surrey {State Papers, Domestic). Letter assigned to
" September, 1520." This letter acknowledges Surrey's letters of " the
23, 24, and 25 dales of September," and can scarcely therefore have been
itself written before the beginning of October. Surrey's " desire " may
have been contained in his letters of the 23rd and 24th, neither of which,
it appears from the Calendar, is now preserved.
^ Surrey and Council to Wolsey, 6th Oct., 1520.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 27
Two questions arise from the letters I have quoted above.
Pirst, who was " Therll of Ormonds son " ? Second, who was
" S'' Thomas Boleyns daughter " ?
Let us then first ask the question, "Who was 'Therll of
Ormond's son '? " It is Lingard who gives the right answer :
" the son of Sir Piers Eutler." Mr. Brewer, according to Mr.
Friedmann, is here again in error :
" Mr. Brewer at first thought that the negotiations referred to Mary
Boleyn, but this error he corrected. He continued, however, to be
mistaken about the person whom Anne was to marry. The husband
proposed for her was not, as Mr. Brewer thought, Sir Piers Butler,^ but
the son of Sir Piers, Sir James."— (Vol. ii., p. 321.)
But here Mr. Friedmann, I think, is somewhat too hard on
Mr. Brewer. He had only to glance at the opposite page to
that which contains Mr. Brewer's correction of his " error " in
the name of the " daughter," and there he would have seen " Sir
Piers Butler, then Earl of Ormond," correctly distinguished
from " his son." ^
It is true that Mr. Brewer, in a later calendar, transforms
" Sir Piers Butler " ^ into his own son, and that this passage
alone is to be found in the two volumes of the Beign (ii. 173),
which work (see p. iii) professedly contains the prefaces to all
four calendars. But the latter circumstance, which greatly
puzzled me, is explained, as I at length discovered, by the fact
that the Editor (Mr. J. Gairdner) has suppressed certain pages
(vol. iii., pp. ccccxxix-ccccxxxv) in which the earlier passage
occurs, so that in the Beign they are not to be found. For this
he had, doubtless, excellent reasons ; but it is somewhat to be
regretted that we are left to discover the fact for ourselves, and
certainly unfortunate that Mr. Brewer's reputation should
have suffered by the suppression of his right, and the retention
of his wrong, explanation, which latter, we may note, is also
that adopted by Mr. Gairdner himself.*
1 Letters and Papers, vol. iv., p. ccxxxviii.
2 Letters and Papers, vol. iii., p. ccccxxxii.
3 Letters and Papers, vol. iv., p. ccxxxviii.
* " The intended match was with Sir Piers Butler, son of the Earl of
Ormond." — Dictionary of National Biography, i. 425.
28 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
Messrs. Brewer and Gairdner, in their novel error, comuiifc, in
short, the extraordinary mistake of making the son identical
with the father. We have seen that, in the case of the St.
Legers, Mr. Brewer made a similar slip. But here it is more
than a slip ; it is a serious and deliberate error. " Sir Piers
Butler, pretending himself to be Erll of Ormonde," ^ was one
of the best known characters of a period, of which, as Mr.
Gairdner aptly reminds us, Mr. Brewer's knowledge was
" unsurpassed." ^
So also was his son, Sir James, the destined husband of Ann
Boleyn. It is then, at first sight, hard to understand how it
was possible to confuse them. I shall, however, in due course,
trace this confusion to its source. - For the present we
may note that, from 1515 to 1528, " Sir Piers Butler," and the
" Earl of Ormond " were one and the same person. When, there-
fore, Mr. Gairdner speaks of "Sir Piers Butler, son of the
Earl of Ormond," in 1520 (or 1521), the strange mistake is self-
evident, even if we did not know that his narrative refers to Sir
James. We have a case exactly parallel in that principle adopted
by the Long Parliament, with which every historian should be,
surely, familiar, in accordance with which (after a certain
date) "Lord Goring" and "the Earl of Norwich" were one
and the same person. When Mr. Bell, therefore, the Editor of
The Fairfax Correspondence, gravely describes a simultaneous
stand bj^ " Goring at Bow and the Earl of Norwich at Chelms-
ford," we are curioush' reminded of Sir Boyle Roche. But if Mr.
Bell thus transforms one Goring into two, Mr. Freeman has,
at least, made amends by rolling two Gorings into one. With
him it is the father and the son that are one and the same
person.^
It was, I suspect, Mr. Brewer's identification of Sir Piers
Butler with " Therll of Ormonds son " which led him to write of
1 Henry to Surrey, State Papers, Oct., 1521.
" Preface to Reign, p. iii.
' " Taunton in the West was as eager to keep Goring outside its walls,
as Colchester in the East was eager to get rid of him when he had got
inside." — English Towns and Districts, p. 117.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 29
Anne's affair with the latter as " her pre-contract with Ossory," ^
a title which was, indeed, in later days conferred on Sir Piers
Butler, but by which his " son " was never known. Here again,
my point is the same. How can we wonder, when experts are
liable to be thus misled, that Mr. Froude, for instance, should
speak of "the Earls of Ormonde and Ossory" 2 in 1515 before
any title of Ossory was in existence, and should afterwards
speak always of " the Earl of Ormond " ^ at a time when that
chieftain was Earl of Ossory, and not Earl of Ormond at all.
And now for the source of the confusion. Mr. Friedmann is
wrong in saying that Mr. Brewer ■' continued to be mistaken "
about Sir Piers Butler. Mr. Brewer, as I have shown, had been
right at first, and it was a document which he came to later in
his work that led him so curiously astray.
This document I have held more than once in my hands. I
can therefore say with absolute certainty that Mr. Brewer,
if this calendar be really by him, has misunderstood its
character, has assigned it to a wrong date, and has drawn from
an expression it contains an entirely wrong conclusion.'*
It is thus entered in Mr. Brewer's calendar, at the close of
the documents relating to 1521 :
" 1521. SiE Pierce Butler
Petition for a repeal of the Act of the Parliament holden at
Drogheda . . . The petitioner urges his faithful service to the
King."
1 Reign, ii. 238. ^ History of England (Ed. 1856), ii. 249.
' Ibid., ii. 284, 288, etc.
* We have, however, it is right to state, the testimony of his learned
editor (Mr. Gairdner) that Mr. Brewer's strength specially lay in his
treatment of such records. "In matters such as these," we read, "Mr.
Brewer was more expert than those with whom it might be supposed to
be a business. He . . . ascertained their dates, their authorship and
their significance by the light of internal evidence ; perused and
reperused, and compared with others, hosts of difiScult and obscure
documents, until they had yielded up their secrets ; and finally gathered
up the results of his researches in clear, systematic order, illuminating
the whole subject for the general reader as well as for the student by the
clearest and most lucid exposition." — Introduction to Eeign of
Henry VIII.
5 Vol. iii., part 2, p. 825 (No. 1926).
30 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
We have, however, but to glance at its contents to see that
it is not a petition at all, but that its form is that of an Act of
Parliament :
"At the supplicacon of Sir Piers Butler . . . that whereas in a
p'lemente holden at Drogheda, etc., etc. . . . 6e it enacted, ordeyned.
and estnhlishedby the Auctorilie of the present Parliament," etc., etc.
It is in fact a document of no ordinary interest, being nothing
else, as I shall prove, than the original draft Act sent over by
Surrey from Ireland, in accordance with the provisions of
Poynings' Act, to be approved of by the King and then returned,
to be submitted to the Irish Parliament. Surrey thus refers to
it in that important letter to Wolsey which was wrongly
assigned, in the earlier calendars, to 3rd October, 1520, but
which is now rightly dated 3rd October, 1521 :
" I humbly beseche yo^ grace that the acteof parliment which I sent to
yo' grace long sethens councernyng the said Erll [i.e. Sir Piers Butler]
may be sent herther with all deligence soo as it might passe at this next
Sytting of the parliment which shall begynne the xviUth day of
October." i
Nor need we even remain in doubt as to the date he refers to
as " long sethens." He wrote thus on the 3rd October, 1521,
and it was on the 17th December, 1520, that he had written to
Wolsey to tell him that he was sending him Patrick Pynglas
"with certain articles devised by me, and the Kinges Counsayll here,
to passe in the next Parliament to bee holdyn in this land." ^
Thus the date of this document is fixed beyond question.
We have here, I think, a most interesting illustration of the
actual -practice under Poynings' Act. Mr. H. 0. Hamilton, who
had approached more nearly than Mr. Brewer to a right perception
■of this document, goes into precisely the opposite extreme, and
1 The former editors of the State Papers, having dated this letter
wrongly, imagined that this Parliament was to meet on the 18th Oct.,
1520 (instead of 1521), and pointed out, in a note, that "The Irish
Statute Book does not notice any Parliament between 7 Henry VIII.
and the 4th June, 13 Henry VIII.," i.e., 1522.
2 Letters and Papers, iii. 1099 (p. 403). This special use of the term
" articles " should be compared with the Scottish " Lords of Articles."
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 31
enters it thus in his calendar, at the close of the documents
relating to 1521 :
" Act of Parliament declaring Sir Piers Butler the true and lawful
heir,'' etc., etc.
" [It is probable that this Act was passed in 1521 in pursuance of the
Earl of Surrey's request of Oct. 3rd, 1520.]" ^
It was, however, as I have said, not an Act, but the draft of
one, and, as a matter of fact, was not "passed in 1521." Its
object, I may explain (without going into details), was to free
Sir Piers from the fear of a rival claimant to the chieftainship.
Surrey's eloquent appeal was in vain, and the jealous policy
of the English Court refused to abandon the advantage it
derived from the existence of such claim. It was not till
some sixteen years later, when the services of Piers made it
impossible to refuse him, that this Act was at length passed.^
The fact that the draft was never returned in 1521 is the
explanation of its remaining among our public records, where,
as I have shown, it is still preserved.
Now in this draft Sir Piers is styled (with the technical pre-
cision of a Tudor lawyer), "Sir Piers Butler, Knyght, son and
heir unto James Fitz Edmond Eitz Eichard Butler, otherwise
called Erie of Ormonde."
Here then we trace to its source Messrs. Gairdner and Brewer's
error. James Butler, the father of Sir Piers, had died as far back
as 1486. Owing to the absence from Ireland of his kinsmen
the Earls of Ormond, they were in the habit of appointing a
deputy in their place. This post James Butler had held from
12th October, 1477, and it was while (and in virtue of) holding
such post that he was " otherwise called Erie of Ormonde."
Thus we see that in assuming " Therll of Ormonds son,'^ in
1520, to have been Sir Piers Butler, these writers (misled by
the above alias) must have been thinking of his father. Sir
James, as being then "Therll" himself, though he had died
some thirty-five years before, and had never held the Earldom.
' Calendar of Irish State Papers, i. 4. " The Earl of Surrey's request,"
of course, is here antedated by a year. — Vide supra.
- 28 Henry VIII. cap. 3.
32 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
And yet, that it was not Sir Piers who was meant, but his son Sir
James, was a fact which any " Peerage " would have rendered
clear at a glance.
But when Mr. Friedmann corrects Mr. Brewer by pointing
out that such was the case, his own fate is a useful warning
that
" Dextrum Scylla latus, Isevum implacata Charybdis
Obsidet."
For he actually speaks of
"the conflicting claims of the late earl's English descendants and of his
illegitimate son Sir Piers."— Vol. i., p. 42.
By so doing he bastardizes at a stroke every Earl of Ormond
from that day to this ; though here again, even a glance at a
" Peerage " would have shown that Sir Piers was the Earl's
kimsTnan and legitimate heir-male.
We now come to the second question suggested by the letters
of 1520, viz. Who was " S"" Thomas Boleyn's daughter " ?
It is thus answered by the Editors of 1834 :
" Sir Thomas Boleyn had two daughters, Mary and Anne. The former
must be the one alluded to in the text ; for though historians differ as to
the time at which Anne Boleyn (who certainly went over to France in
1514, with the Princess Mary, when she became Queen of Louis XII.,
and after that Queen's departure from France, remained in the service
of Claude the Queen of Francis I.) left the French Court, and returned to
England ; they all agree that she continued in Queen Claude's house-
hold in the year 1521, and that she was then only fourteen years of age.
Wolse/s endeavour to bring about a marriage between Mary Boleyn
(who was the elder sister) and Lord Ormond's son appears to have been
ineffectual ; for she married Sir William Carey, and by him became the
mother of Sir Henry Carey, who was created Lord Hunsdon by Queen
Elizabeth, his first cousin." ^
This note, however, is appended not to the letters of 1520,
but to that of ISTovember, 1521, from Wolsey to the King. It
is important that this should be borne in mind.
^ State Papers, published under the authority of Her Majesty's
Commission (1834), i. 92, note. (See also Table of Contents [vol. ii.],
where she is accordingly twice spoken of as "Mary Boleyn.")
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 33
Mr. H. C. Hamilton, in his Calendar of Irish State Papers,
published in much later days (1860) not only follows these,
earlier editors in their erroneous dating of the letter of 3rd
October, 1521 (by which the letter from Wolsey to the King is
deprived of its right explanation), but actually calendars the
letter of 6th October, 1520, as a " Proposal of marriage between
Lord Butler and Mary {sic) Boleyn " (vol. i., p. 4), though
Mary's name is not to be found in it, and though his predeces-
sors' conjecture that Mary was meant has not secured credit.
Truly, we may exclaim, with Thucydides himself —
Ourw; araXa;Vwoo5 ro/J ToXTto/J 7] t^'/irtiai; rijg aXriSsiag, xal Jt/' roc
At least so far back as 1837 Lingard had written thus :
" The editors of the State Papers suppose that the daughter in ques-
tion was Mary Boleyn, because Anne was in France at the time
of Wolsey's letter, November, 1521. But they were not aware that
Mary was married nine months before, and that of course the proposal
could apply to no one but Anne." °
This is perfectly true so far as concerns 1521, but it should
be- observed that both the note and the criticism upon it refer
merely to that year. Mr. Priedmann, we shall find, is similarly
concerned too exclusively with that year, and thus overlooks the
negotiations of 1520. He writes, as we have seen :
" Mr. Brewer at first thought that the negotiations referred to Mary
Boleyn, but this error he corrected."— Vol. ii., p. 321.
This correction will be sought for in vain in the Reign of
Henry VIII., but will be found in the suppressed pages of the
Calendar.^ Mr. Brewer there hastens to correct his " error,"
which consisted after all in nothing worse than the insertion in
the Index of Mary's name as the subject of the Ormorid nego-
tiations. It leads him, however, to denounce " the habit of con-
founding one sister with the other," as a " blunder " on the part
' Bellum Pelryp., i. 20.
^ Ed. 1837, vol. vi., p. 112, note.
^ III., p. ccccxxxiii : " I take this opportunity to correct the error."
3
34 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
of those predecessors by whom he had been misled.^ But now
comes the curious question : Js it a " blunder " or even an
"error" to hold that, in 1520, Mary was indeed the daughter
referred to ? Mr. Brewer deemed it so because he held that
Mary had been already married in February of that year. " The
date [of her marriage] is of importance," as Lingard truly
observes.^ It is given by him as " 31st January, 1520-21 " ^ (ie.,
1521), and this date is also given by Miss Strickland and Mr.
Froude. Mr. Brewer, however, assigned the event to February,
" 1520." For this he is taken to task by Mr. Friedmann, who tells
us that Mary Boleyne was married " in February, 1521 (not, as Mr.
Brewer says, in 1520)."* But what Mr. Friedmann failed to see
was that in thus correcting Mr. Brewer he has deprived him of
the very argument by which he convicted himself of error. For
if Mary was not married till February, 1521, it follows, in de-
spite of Messrs. Lingard, Brewer, Friedmann, etc., that her mar-
riage obviously affords no evidence whatever against her being
indeed the " daughter " referred to in the summer and autumn of
1520 ; it being perfectly legitimate to contend that when the nego-
tiations again appear, in November, 1521, Anne had been substi-
tuted for her sister. But I hasten to add that Mr. Brewer's
date is based on apparently unimpeachable evidence, viz.,
"The King's Book of Payments" for the eleventh year of
Henry VIIL, in which the marriage of " Mr. Care and Mary
Bullayn " figures on the 4th February (ipso teste)? So one
would be glad to know on what ground Mr. Friedmann so confi-
dently corrects him. From the evidence before us we are bound
to accepb Mr. Brewer's date for Mary's marriage, and con-
sequently the correction of his previous slip, which correction
is based on that date.
' " A blunder from which even the late Editors of the State Papers of
Henry VIIL have not entirely escaped." — Reign, ii. 107. -
= History of England (1837), vi. 110.
3 On the authority of Sir F. Madden's Privy Purse Expenses of Queen
Mary, App. 282.
* Anne Boleyn, ii. 324.
^ Letters and Papers, vol. iii. (2), p. 1539.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 35
Having now disposed of our two questions, let us trace the
negotiations in their course and fate.
Mr. Gairdner writes : " The intended match ... is frequently
mentioned in the State Papers of 1520 and 1521."^ It is, how-
ever, only twice mentioned in those of 1520 (September, October),
and only once in those of 1521 (November).
Mr. Friedmann's version is as follows :
" Cardinal Wolsey was favourable to the plan, and Sir Thomas
Boleyn and his Enghsh relations were ready to accept the compromise ;
but the pretensions of the Irish chieftain were exorbitant. A year
passed, during which Surrey and he haggled about the terms, and at the
end of 1522 the matter was given up." — Vol. i., p. 42.
So striking is the research displayed in Mr. Friedmann's brilliant
monograph, that one knows not what to say to such precise state-
ments as these. For by his naention of " Cardinal Wolsey " and
"the end of 1522," the writer shows that his "year" of negotia-
tion dates from November, 1521, and that he has altogether
overlooked the letters of 1520. Nor have I succeeded in finding
one jot or tittle of evidence that Sir Thomas approved of the
project, that his relations " were ready to accept " it^ that Sir
Piers Butler's pretensions were "exorbitant," or that "Surrey
and he haggled " over it at all, still less during a year when
Surrey was not in Ireland at all.^
The fact is that Wolsey, at first, does not appear upon the
scene. We do not know of any reply to the appeal made to
him in the letter of 6th October, 1520. As to the English co-
heirs, the St. Legers would naturally object to a scheme which
entirely ignored their own claims; and Sir Thomas Boleyn,
whose selfish avarice is matter of common knowledge,' was
scarcely likely to favour a scheme entirely destructive of his
own claims and hopes of personal advantage. He held out, in
my opinion, resolved to play for the whole stake, and he was
^ Dictionary of National Biography, i. 425.
" He returned to England at the close of 1521, being succeeded, as
Deputy, by Sir Piers himself.
'^ " In one thing aU accounts of him agree. His besetting vice was
avarice : he could not resist the temptation of money."— Reign of
Henry VIIL, ii. 168.
3—2
36 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
justified, if so, in his decision, for in due time he won it. I
think we have here the true reason why tlie negotiations came
to naught.
It was in the autumn of 1521 that Surrey, who, as I have
shown, had been twice foiled in his efforts on behalf of Sir
Piers Butler, made an earnest appeal as to a third grievance
affecting the loyal chieftain. His letter deserves quoting. Sir
Piers, he writes :
" showeth hym self toward to doo the Kings grace service suche as no
man in this Land doeth and to me right great ayde assistence. In con-
sideracion whereof "
he asks that the Act in his favour may be allowed to pass ■}
and then adds that as their good ally " is soo sore vexed and
greved with the gowte in his fote that he may not Eyde ne
travail!," he begs that his son, then in England, may be
allowed to return to Ireland, and urges the King
" tenderly to consider the great [ay]de and loving assistance I haue of
the said Erll both in the felde and in his discrete counsaill with Hs
famylier counversacion which is to me great eas and comfort."^
It would seem that when Surrey wrote to Wolsey, Sir
Piers himself wrote to Henry. This request was, in due
course, sent on by Henry to Wolsey, then in France, for his
opinion. Compliance with the request- was distasteful to
Wolsey. That the heir of the Butlers should remain in
England, as a virtual hostage for his father, was so good a card
to hold in his hand that he was naturally loth to part with it.
And if Sir Piers was about to be entrusted with the actual
government of Ireland, it would be wise, he urged, to retain
his son at least till his conduct in that important post had
earned the King's approval. It occurred, therefore, to his subtle
mind that the Boleyn match might be dexterously revived as a
^ See above.
^ Surrey to Wolsey, 3rd October, 1521. This is the letter that in the
earlier calendars was wrongly assigned to 3rd October, 1520. As the
Clonmel letter of 6th October, 1520, states that the senders had been
there since the 2nd October, it is obvious that they could not have been
at Dublin on the 3rd.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 37
" cause " for postponing the heir's departure. The letter deserves
careful study, and reads, I think, as if Wolsey, rather than
Henry himself, was responsible for the grudging treatment
which the Butlers had received :
" Finally Sir I have considred the request and desire made unto Your
Grace by Sir Piers Butler conteigned in his letters, which I think veray
reasonable ; and surely, Sir, the towardnes of his sonne considred, who
is right active, discrete and wise, I suppose he, being with his fader in
that lande, shulde do unto your Grace right acceptable service. Howe be
it. Sir, goode shah it be to prove how the said Sir Piers Butler shall
acquite hym self in thauctoritie by your Grace lately to hym committed,
not doubting but his said sonfae being within your reame, he woU doe
ferre the better ; trusting therby the rather to gett hym home. And I
shall, at my retourne to your presence, divise with your Grace, how the
mariage betwixt hym and Sir Thomas Bolain is daughter may be
brought to passe, whiche shalbe a reasonable cause to tracte the tyme for
sending his said sonne over unto hym ; for the perfecting of which
mariage 1 shall indevour my selff, at my said retourne, with all
effecte."^
Anne Boleyn returned to England about the close of the
year, whether because, as Mr. Friedmann holds (i. 4), "the
political aspect became rather threatening," or more probably,
as Mr. Brewer suggests, in connection with the proposed
match.^ In any case, as Mr. Brewer rightly observes, there is
"no mention" of this match again, after the above letter, a
fact which should be compared with Mr. Friedmann's state-
ments/ and which has, obviously, an important bearing on the
coming Percy episode.
Another questionbearing on that episode is that of the relations
between the King and Anne's sister, Mary. Lingard's powerful
and striking arguments in support of his thesis that she was
Henry's mistress, were assailed, as we know, by Mr. Froude.
^ Calendared as from Wolsey to Henry, " November," \h%\.— Letters
and Papers, vol. iii., part 2., p. '744, No. 1762.
= "At the end of the year Anne had left France, and returned to
England ; partly, no doubt, in consequence of this project, of which no
mention occurs again." — lieign, ii. 174.
' See above.
3S The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
But Mr. Friedmann, in an able note, has disposed of Mr.
Froude's objections, and, as he says :
" The question whether Mary Boleyn was the mistress of Henry VIII.
is now generally answered in the aflS.rmative." — Vol. ii., p. 123.
But the date of this intrigue, on which much depends, would
appear to be still a matter of doubt. Lingard places it before
her marriage (assigned by him to January, 1521), and asserts
that Henry " provided a husband for " her in " William Carey
of the privy chamber." ^ Mr. Froude argues that
" the liaison, if real, must have taken place previous to 1521. In the
January {sic) of that year Mary Boleyn married Sir Henry {sic) Carey,
and no one pretends that it occurred after she became Carey's wife." ^
But Mr. Friedmann retorts by adducing a confession, of which
he observes :
" Not only, then, was it said that Anne's sister was Henry's mistress
after her marriage, but it was stated that Henry Carey was the King's
son. I hasten to say that I know of no other evidence in support of the
latter assertion." — Vol. ii., p. 324.
He himself places the incident " soon " after her marriage ;
" As she resided constantly at Court, and seems to have been rather
handsome, she attracted the attention of the King, and soon became his
mistress." — ^Vol. i., p. 43.
But here a point has been overlooked, and a factor in the
problem omitted. According to an inquisition taken at Mary's
death (19th July, 1543), Henry Carey, her son and heir, must
have been born on or about 1st April, 1526 — a date which his
epitaph roughly confirms. Mr. Friedmann's " confession," if it
1 Ed. 1837, vi. 110. Such also would seem to be the view of Mr.
Gairdner, for he writes, that Henry "dishonoured Anne's sister Mary,
whom he married to Sir William Carey."
- History of England, vol. ii., App., p. 653. She was married in
February, 1520, not in January, 1521 ; and her husband was not " Sir
Henry" Carey [her son], but plain "William Carey, Esquire," as we
saw in the epitaph and Harleian pedigree, quoted by me above, and as
is rightly given by Dugdale, Burke, Lingard, Miss Strickland, Mr.
Friedmann, etc., etc. Messrs. Brewer and Gairdner wrongly term him
"Sir William Carey," confusing him with that, a different, individual.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 39
proves anything, proves that the connection was assigned by
the Court to a date which this birth enables us to conjecture.
Now if we combine this with the significant facts of Sir Thomas
Boleyn being raised to the Peerage (with special distinction)
18th June, 1525, of 1525 being the year that marks a change ia
Henry for the worse.^ and of the King's admission^ as to his
relations with his wife, to which I need not more particularly
allude, it will, I think, be admitted that the incident in question
may not improbably be placed as late as 1525. At least,
I would urge, there is nothing to prove that it belongs to
an earlier, or to any, date. This point obviously affects not
merely the Percy episode, but the whole question of the origin
and rise of Henry's passion for Anne, and, by consequence, of
the divorce itself.
This brings us to Percy and his suit. Here it is necessary to
observe at the outset that while Lingard, followed by Miss
Strickland, assigns this incident on the authority of Herbert^ to
1523, and Mr. Brewer "to the year 1522, shortly after her
arrival in England,"* Mr. Friedmann, on the contrary, places it
" about the beginning of 1527 or about the end of 1526." ^ Lastly
Mr. Gairdner, presumably on the same grounds as Mr. Brewer,
pronounces that " the occurrence can be proved by the most
conclusive evidence to have taken place as early as 1522."*
Now if Wolsey's veto on the match with Percy were really due,
as Cavendish implies,'' to the fact that " the King was in love
with Anne," an hypothesis which Mr. Priedmann (i. 44) is
inclined to accept, it is obvious that this date is of vital import-
ance.
Mr. Priedmann's wide divergence on this point from the
' Reign, ii. 158-9. - To Symon Grynseus.
' But vide infra. * Reign, ii. 177.
^ Vol. ii., p. 322. So at least I understand this passage when taken in
conjunction with i. 44-5. Mr. Friedmann must have overlooked what
Miss Benger acutely notes {Memoirs of Anne Boleyn, 1821, i. 224), viz.,
that Percy's reference to Anne's father as "a simple knight," places the
incident before his elevation to the Peerage in June, 1525.
* Di(d.ionary of National Biography, i. 425.
' " The King began to kindle the brand of amours," etc., etc.
40 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
other writers I have named arises, I gather, from his having
misunderstood, or at least understood differently, the passage in
Cavendish's Life of Wolsey. He writes (vol. ii., p. 322) :
" Cavendish's account of the flirtation between Anne Boleyn and Sir
Henry Percy is rejected by Mr. Brewer, because in his opinion it cannot
have taken place after Sir Henry was betrothed to Lady Mary
Talbot {Letters and Papers, vol. iv., p. cQ,x]x<r, foot-note)."
But here, as elsewhere, it is impossible to follow Mr. Fried-
mann's criticisms of Mr. Brewer's arguments, unless we bear in
mind that they are largely directed to those in the suppressed
pages of the introduction to the third volume, which Mr.
Brewer modified more or less in his subsequent introduction to
the fourth. Thus in this matter of the Percy story, Mr. Brewer
did indeed, in the earlier volume, reject it, on the ground that
there is no date to which it can possibly be assigned, urging
rightly {'pace Mr. Friedmann) that we cannot place it after
Percy's engagement to the Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter, and
wrongly (as I shall myself show) that we cannot place it before}
But in the introduction to the next (the fourth) volume, Mr.
Brewer, we ghould notice, modifies this view, and, though
questioning " some of the details," no longer rejects the story
in toto, and indeed assigns it an actual date — 1522. His
criticism of the story told by Cavendish no longer rests on
a question of date, but is based on its alleged " pre-contract " :
" Some of the details may be confused and inaccurate, e.specially where
Cavendish relates that a pre-contract had passed between Anne and her
suitor ; for this was denied by Percy on his oath. . . . But the fact of a
denial so formally made is a proof that some intimacy must once have
existed between them to require so formal a denial." '^
1 Letters and Papers, iii., p. ccccxxxiii. Though here Mr. Brewer goes
rather too far, his scathing criticism of Cavendish is of importance as
effectually discrediting the accuracy of his details.
2 Ibid., iv., p. ccxliii. It may be observed, however, that, under the
circumstances, Percy's denial, solemn though it was {see his letter
[13th May, 1536] in Appendices to Singer's Cavendish and Burnet's
Reformation), must be taken e^^m grano, and that Anne, with equal
formality, admitted the pre-contract. Cavendish is, at any rate, positive
as to the fact.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 41
It is not as a test of the truth of the story, but solely as a clue to-
wards fixing its date, that Mr. Brewer, in this his later argument,
refers to Percy's engagement to the daughter of the Earl of
Shrewsbury.^ Mr. Friedmann, however, continues thus, re-
plying, we must remember, to Mr. Brewer's earlier, and ignoring
his later argument :
" I cannot understand the argument, for Cavendish distinctly tells us
that it did take place after the betrothal, and that Sir Henry asked
Cardinal Wolsey to have the betrothal annulled. There is nothing im-
possible or very improbable in this account;andas Cavendish was certainly
with Wolsey at the time, I see no reason to disbelieve his statement. It
is confirmed by the fact that, Chapuis and other contemporary writers
repeatedly assert or imply that Anne was on very intimate terms with
young Percy about the beginning of 1527, or about the end of 1526." —
Vol. ii., p. 322.
It is clear from this that Mr. Friedmann has mistaken not only
Mr. Brewer's ultimate argument, but also Cavendish's own
statement. For here is the passage quoted by Mr. Brewer,
which, although at first sight a little ambiguous, can only be
capable of one interpretation :
"There grew such a secret love between them [Percy and Anne
Boleyn] that at length they were insured together, intending to marry.
The whole thing came to the King's knowledge, who was then much
offended. Wherefore, he .could hide no longer his secret affection, hut
revealed his secret intendment unto my Lord Cardinal in that behalf
and. consulted with him to infringe the pre-contract between them."
Mr. Friedmann has taken "he could hide," etc., to refer
to Percy, and "pre-contract betweem them" to mean between
Percy and Mary Talbot. But neither grammar nor sense will
admit of this rendering. " Them," grammatically, can only refer
to Percy and Anne Boleyn, and " he," consequently, to the
King.^ Percy, as is well known, was soundly rated, according
^ "It is probably still earlier, for Percy was already engaged to Lady
Mary in September, 1523 (iii., pp. 1383, 1512), and the marriage was
arranged to take place immediately." — Reign, ii. 177.
- This is further proved by the sequel : " Then after long debating
and consultation upon the Lord Percy's assurance [i.e. engagement], it
42 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
to Cavendish, by Wolsey ; was forbidden to marry Anne Boleyn,
on the ground that the King
•' intended to have preferred [Anne Boleyn] unto another person, with
whom the King hath travelled already, and being almost at a point
with the same person," etc.^
and was, further, ordered to (and did) marry Mary Talbot. It
is in allusion to this that Surrey writes (12th September,
1523) :
" the mariage of my lorde Percy shal be wt. my lorde steward's doghter,
wher of I am right glade, and so, I am sure, ye be. The chefif baron is
with my lorde of Northumberland to conclude the mariage." ^
It is Stated, on the authority of Brooke and Milles, that the
marriage in question was hurried on, and took place before the
close of 1523. It is then clear that, contrary to Mr. Fried-
mann's contention, the affair between Percy and Anne Boleyn
was prior to, and the cause of, his betrothal to Mary Talbot.^
This being so, we may fix the episode with some degree of
certainty. Mr. Brewer, it is true, argues in his introduction to
the third volume (p. ccccxxxiii.) :
" If it be thought that the pre-contract to which Cavendish alludes
might have taken place in the interval between Anne Boleyn's return to
England in 1522, and Percy's engagement with the Earl's daughter ia
1523, even then Cavendish's statement is substantially incorrect. For
it must be remembered that Percy was employed in 1523 (sic) as warden
of the East and Middle Marches, and was apparently away in the
North."
For this fact, Mr. Brewer adds, " see 2536 and 2645 (apparently)."
But when we refer to these documents, we find them dated by
was devised that the same should be infringed and dissolved, and that
the Lord Percy should marry with one of the Earl of Shrewsbury's
daughters ; (as he did after) ; by means whereof the former contract was
clearly undone." — Singer's Cavendish [1827], pp. 128-9.
1 Ibid., p. 123.
2 Surrey to Dacre, 12th Sept., 1523 (Add. MSS. 24, 965, fo. 78). Of.
Surrey to [Wolsey], of same date {Letters and Papers, iii. [2], p. 1383).
3 This must of course not be confused with Percy's earlier betrothal to
Mary Talbot alluded to in a letter of 24th May, 1516 (Lodge's Ilhistra-
tions, L 20, 21), aptly quoted by Miss Strickland.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 43
Mr. Brewer himself as relating, not to 1523, but to September —
October, 1522. And even then it is but "apparently"
that they imply Percy's presence. In his later volume he
repeats his argument, but modifies, it will be seen, the date :
"as lie [Percy] was employed upon the borders in the latter end
of 1E22 and the beginning of 1523, we have no alternative left except to
date back this flirtation with Anne Boleyn to the year 1522, shortly
after her arrival in England." ^
But why does he write thus positively, without adducing any
fresh evidence, though that which he had given fails to support;
the dates in either of his statements, viz. " 1523 " or " the latter
end of 1522 and the beginning of 1523 " ? I cannot find in the
whole of this volume one single document implying the presence
of Percy upon the borders from the autumn of 1522 to the
autumn of 1523, at which latter date he was appointed
Warden.^
It will be seen then that there is nothing in the least incon-
sistent with the spring and summer of 1523 being the true date,
and to that date we may fairly adhere, until Mr. Gairdner has
produced " the most conclusive evidence " to the contrary.^
The question, therefore, that we now ask is : Was the vdo
upon the match with Percy the outcome of a passion for Anne
on the part of the King himself ? It is quite possible that the
" other " who was professedly destined for her was, as Messrs.
Brewer and Gairdner urge, Sir James Butler ; but that does
not dispose of Cavendish's statement as to the King's " secret
affection." The only way of getting over it seems to be to
assume that Cavendish was mistaken, as was not unnatural in
' Reign, ii. 177.
^Letters and Papers, iii., pp. 1076, 1120, 1383. This and the other
instances that we have come across are the more strange when we
remember that, as Mr. Gairdner truly observes, " the special value of
this [Mr. Brewer's] work " consists in its being " drawn from the latest
sources of information carefully arranged and collected by the author
himself." — Introduction to Reign of Henry VIII.
' Lord Herbert's authority has indeed been quoted in favour of this
date, but I cannot find on what ground, and his arguments seem
actually inconsistent with it.
44 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
after years, in the motive for the intervention. And this is the
explanation that Mr. Galrdner, following Mr. Brewer, adopts.^
There is a further consideration, which would seem to have
been overlooked by all who have discussed the problem. The
last, it will be remembered, that we heard of the Butler-
Boleyn marriage was in Wolsey's letter of November, 1521, in
■which it was suggested as " a reasonable cause " for the deten-
tion in England of Sir James Butler. It was not the policy of
the English Court that he should really obtain his promised
bride,- and his father and he consequently remained no nearer
than ever to the coveted prize that had so long been dangled
before their eyes. At length this tortuous course availed the
King no longer, and the patience of the Butlers was exhausted.^
" The Deputy," wrote Kildare, his great rival, " hath made
bondes with diverse of the Irishry and in especiall with
OKerroll, and such as hath hetheto moost greyed your
subgietes here, by whos assisfcence he intendith to defend his
title to 1 thErldome of Ormond be it right or wrong." '
Such was the end of all this subtle statecraft : Sir Piers was
being driven, in despair, into the arms of " the wild Irishrie."
One can imagine the dismay of Henry and Wolsey on hearing
of the Deputy's desperation. Even if they were still as loth as
ever to part with their hold upon the Butlers^ by letting the
match take place, it was essential that Anne Boleyn should still
be used as a decoy. Now it is precisely to this critical moment
1 Dictionary of National Bibgraphy, i. 425, I may add that Cavendish
is believed to have written some thirty years after the event, and that,
assuming his inference to be wrong, the conversation, as reported by him,
may itself be strictly authentic, for, indeed, its expressions are more con-
sistent 'with our hypothesis than with his.
'^ Compare Commines (lib. vi., cap. 13) : " Nourrir les partialij^a entre
les hommes, comme princes et gens de vertus et de courage, il n'est
rien plus dangereux. C'est allumer un grand feu en sa maison ; car
tantost I'un ou I'autre dira : ' Le roy est contre nous,' et puis pensera de
se fortifier, et de s'accointer de ses ennemys."
3 Kildare to Henry, 24th May, 1523. Compare his wife's letter of the
following day, urging that Sir Piers " is so cruel towards him because
Kildare refused to take part with him against the heirs of the late Earl
of Ormond, who pretend title to the Earldom."
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 45
that I have ventured to assign, as was seen above, Anno's flirta-
tion with Henry Percy. The announcement and recognition of
their betrothal would have deprived the Butlers, at a blow, of
the cherished object of their hopes, and would have driven
them into instant revolt against the Court which had so cruelly
deceived them. Surely we have here a striking solution of
Wolsey's indignant intervention, and can well believe that the
King was " much offended " at the news that this mine had been
laid beneath his very feet, and was threatening, at any moment,
to blow his schemes into the air.
If then we may dismiss the statement of Cavendish, on the
ground that Henry can have had no thought of actually marrying
Anne himself so early as the summer of 1523, we are left as
much in doubt as ever as to when the King began to press his
suit on Anne. Lingard held that it "must have begun at the
latest in the summer of 1526, probably much earlier ;" Mr.
Friedmann believes it "pretty certain that in 1526 there was
already a flirtation between him and Anne "; Mr. Gairdner, on
the contrary, boldly writes of the ofSces and favours bestowed
on her father from 1522 to 1525 :
" That tMs steady flow of honours marks the beginning of the King's
attachment to his second daughter [i.e. Anne] there can be little
doubt."'
Thus the period assigned for the beginning of this "attach-
ment " varies from the spring of 1522 to " the summer of 1526."
I have already observed that Mary Carey is an important factor
in this problem, and that there is at present nothing to disprove
the hypothesis that the King's connection with her was later
than has been hitherto supposed. If so, we may assign to her,
rather than to Anne, her father's advancement for some time.^
And is it not possible that, in his selfish greed, he may, when
his elder daughter had lost her attraction for the King, have
sought to maintain his power by the means of the charms
of the other ?
1 Dictionary of National Biography, i. 426.
2 Compare Friedmann (i. 43) : " Mary Carey did not contrive to
make her position profitable either to herself or to her husband ; it was
her father, Sir Thomas Boleyn, who reaped the golden harvest."
46 The Early Life of Anne Boleyn.
Tbere is only one more incident to which I propose to call
attention. This is that of the important agreement by which
the struggle for the Ormond estates was, after more than twelve
years, at length brought to a close. No allusion is made to this
document either by Mr. Friedman n or, so far as I know, by
anyone else who has discussed this question.
It is a striking fact that, according to Mr. Friedmann,
Wolsey, who had hitherto opposed the Boleyns, decided, in the
winter of 1527-8, to become their ally. For it exactly
harmonizes with this document, to the importance of which, I
believe, I was the first to call attention. This agreement
is preserved among the Public Records,"^ while the draft of it is
to be found at the Bodleian.^ Its date is 17th February, 1527-8,
and it is specially stated to have been the work of Wolsey. It
was arranged by it, briefly, that " Sir Pyers Butler, Kt., cosyn
and heir-mule to the said Thomas late erle of Ormond," should
renounce all claim both to the title and to the estates, and that
the latter should pass in strict coparcenery to the St. Legers and
the Boleyns. Thus Sir Thomas gained his end, as regards his
actual claims ; and in the following year, rising with his
daughter, he attained, nay passed, the goal of his ambition,
receiving not one but both the titles possessed by his maternal
ancestors. On the 8th December, 1529, he became Earl of
Wilts and of Ormond.
Here I may fitly close my notes on " the early life of Anne
Boleyn." I would hope that, on the one hand, they may
somewhat have contributed to a clearer knowledge of these
vexed points, and that, on the other, they may serve as a
useful warning to those who are inclined too implicitly to
rely on the work of specialists and of experts. I think they
may at least be profitably read by the side of Mr. Gairdner's
eloquent preface to the Reign of Henry VIII. Great as Mr.
Brewer's services may have been to the cause of historical
research, he would, I am sure, have been the first to regret that
any but the absolutely correct estimate should be formed
of his authority as a scholar, or to deny that "in all these
' See Letters and Papers, iv., 3937. ° Ashmolean MSS., 1547.
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn. 47
inquiries our one object is truth — truth to be sought after at all
hazards, at whatever sacrifice of preconceived opinions."^ In
3iiy critical study on " the Book of Howth," ^ edited by Mr.
Brewer for the Eolls Series, I proved, as may be seen, that he
was " strangely at fault " in his views on its authorship, its
origin, and its contents. In the present paper I have ventured
to touch on his labours among our national records. I sincerely
trust that, in so doing, I have not exceeded the limits of
legitimate and useful criticism. At least I can honestly say, in
Mr. Friedmann's modest words :
" My object has been to show that very little is known of the events of
those times, and that the history of Henry's first divorce, and of the rise
and fall of Anne Boleyn, has yet to be written. If I have contributed
to dispel a few errors, or have in any way helped towards the desired
end, I shall be satisfied. The task I set myself will have been ful-
filled."
^ Freeman's Historical Essays (2nd Ed.), 1st Ser., p. 38.
^ AntiqiMry, vols. vii.-Viii. (1883).
BXiot Stock, Paternoster Jlom, Zorulon.
^^V]
••"^-
< /•-> V'
Hi\^-'^
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11