Hi everyone and welcome or welcome back to History Calling, where I bring you new
videos every Friday, delving into the events of the past. Today’s offering works both as a
stand-alone video and as a sequel to the previous two, in which I looked at the beheading of Henry
VIII’s second wife, Anne Boleyn, in 1536 and the double execution in 1542 of her sister-in-law,
Jane Boleyn and cousin Katherine Howard, (who was also Henry’s fifth wife).
Those videos are linked in the description box if you’d like to see the entire trilogy I’ve
rather inadvertently ended up creating. I promise I’ll give you something more upbeat next week,
I just got sucked into the execution topic. All three women number among the many burials in
the Chapel of St. Peter Ad Vincula within the Tower of London and today we’re going
to learn what happened when the Victorians realised they would have to start digging up
Anne Boleyn and those buried near her, because the building was in serious need of restoration work.
Using a published account written by one of the excavators, I’m going to reveal the condition
Anne’s bones were in when they were recovered, what this can tell us about her appearance
and even a physical trait she shared with her daughter, Elizabeth I.
I’ll also be discussing what was left of some of the other prominent Tudor figures buried in this
chapel, including Katherine and Jane. We’ll consider the evidence that there was at least
one other disinterment of these bones before the Victorians got there and discuss how likely or
unlikely it is that any further examination of these people’s remains will ever occur.
If you’re new here, please consider giving this video a thumbs up and subscribing to
the channel with notifications switched on. You can also find me over on Instagram under
the username History Calling, for which I’ll leave a link in the description box.
The current Chapel of St Peter Ad Vincula dates largely from the reign of Henry VIII,
after it was heavily damaged by fire in 1512 and had to be refurbished. By the 1860s, it was,
unsurprisingly, in need of some tender loving care and in 1876 Queen Victoria approved restoration
work being carried out on the building. One of the men involved in this work was the Secretary
to Victoria’s privy purse, named Doyne Courtney Bell. It’s his account of what was done upon which
this video is based. His book, entitled Notices of the Historic Persons Buried in the Chapel of
St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower of London, is freely available online and linked below.
Bell writes that upon examining the Chapel, it quickly became obvious to all involved that the
first thing which would need to be done, was to level off and stabilise the floor, under which
many people, some famous some not, had been buried over the centuries. This constant digging and
redigging had resulted in visible sinking in some areas and there were also sanitary considerations,
presumably a reference to the fact that most of the burials were in very shallow graves.
At first, the restoration team had no intention of disturbing the remains of Anne, her brother George
(executed two days before her), his wife Jane and Queen Katherine, or any of the others who were
interred near the altar at the head of the church. Instead they hoped simply to place new paving
stones over the old. However, Bell writes that as it turned out ‘this was practically impossible,
as in two places the pavement had sunk, and showed signs of considerable hollowness beneath it.
It was therefore decided that the pavement must be removed in order that this sinking might be
rectified, but that as little disturbance of the ground as possible should take place.’
With this decision made, on 9 November 1876, work got underway in the spot where some of the
Chapel’s most famous remains lay, starting with the spot where Anne Boleyn was believed to be.
The excavation work ran smoothly and quickly. Using a map constructed from historic sources,
the paving stones over the spot where Anne was supposedly buried were lifted,
the ground beneath removed and sure enough, around 2 feet down, they discovered human bones.
Unexpectedly however, they weren’t buried in their original order. Instead, says Bell,
they had ‘for some reason or other been heaped together into a smaller space’. Clearly Anne’s
remains, which were initially buried in a wooden arrow chest, had been dug up before.
Bell and his companions felt that the earth had not been disturbed for at least a century,
noting that they reached this conclusion because, after another two feet of earth had been removed,
they discovered the 1750 burial of a woman named Hannah Beresford. Bell believed and I agree,
that this seems the likeliest explanation available to us as to when and why Anne’s
bones were previously disturbed. Most excitingly of all for all of you Anne fans out there,
he included a description of the physical features of the skeleton believed to be that of the Queen.
One of the other men present was the local government inspector, Dr Frederic Mourat,
and it’s his examination of the remains which Bell reiterates in his book.
Mourat declared the skeleton to belong to a woman between the ages of 25 and 30.
This is a little on the young side for Anne, who was approximately 35,
but I think we need to make allowances for the fact that this was a guess made in the
1870s and based on a visual inspection, without the benefit of modern technology.
Of course, if you’ve seen my video on when Anne Boleyn was born, you’ll know that there is some
controversy on this point, with some arguing for a 1501 birth year and others for 1507.
While I come down on the side of 1501 myself,
I admit that the 1507 date does fit better with Mourat’s assessment of the skeleton.
The deceased was ‘of a delicate frame of body’ and she ‘had been of slender and perfect proportions;
the forehead and lower jaw were small and especially well formed. The vertebræ were
particularly small, especially one joint (the atlas), which was that next to the skull’. This,
writes Bell ‘bore witness to the Queen's “lyttel neck”, a reference to a comment Anne made shortly
before her death about how easy it would be for the executioner to take her head off. Elsewhere
in the book, Bell reiterates some of these details and gives additional information, saying:
The bones of the head indicate a well-formed round skull, with an intellectual forehead,
straight orbital ridge, large eyes, oval face, and rather square full chin. The remains of
the vertebræ, and the bones of the lower limbs, indicate a well-formed woman of middle height,
with a short and slender neck . The ribs show depth and roundness of chest. The hand and feet
bones indicate delicate and well-shaped hands and feet, with tapering fingers and a narrow foot.
Building on these summaries, we then get the best description
of exactly which bones survived at that point. It reads:
Frontal bone: tolerably complete, showing a forehead moderate in height, and of fair breadth;
orbits large; superciliary ridge straight. A large portion of the occipital bone;
in excellent preservation. Two portions of both upper maxillary bones.
Several portions of the parietal bones; in good condition.
Fragments of both temporal bones; much eroded in external plate.
Small portions of the ethnoid and sphenoid bones. Lower jaw: two thirds perfect; the other third,
on the left side, was broken off and not found: eight teeth remaining in jaw;
four more teeth found loose (they had just fallen out), all in excellent preservation;
one molar tooth of left side was slightly decayed. The form of the head appears to have been round,
and the face of an oval shape; the forehead straight and ample,
and denoting considerable intelligence. The lower part of the face, judging
from the form of the jaw, must have been moderately full, with a somewhat square chin.
Vertebrae — the atlas; very small, much eroded. Three dorsal vertebræ; probably the
first and third. Three lumbar vertebræ, very perfect; the other vertebræ are much eroded.
Judging from these vertebræ, her height might have been about 5 feet, or 5 feet 3 inches, not more.
Four ribs, tolerably perfect; the rest fragmentary, in fifty- two pieces.
Collar-bone and clavicle; the left side perfect;
a small portion of the right clavicle only remaining.
Two fragments of the head of the scapula left side.
Judging from the curvature of the ribs, she must have had a deep and well-formed chest.
Eight fragments of the pelvis, very much eroded, and the characters almost obliterated.
Portions of both legs: the left thigh bone, in tolerably good preservation,
though broken off above, is singularly delicate and well formed; several
portions of the tibiæ and fibulæ of both legs. Patella (knee-cap) of left leg very perfect.
Her limbs evidently bore a due proportion to the rest of her body.
Portions of the humerus, and radius of the right side; the radius remarkably slender.
Scaphoid bone of the right foot, and eleven bones of feet; all tarsal and metatarsal bones.
Eleven finger bones; phalanges. The middle metacarpal bone of the right hand,
and last bone of the little finger of left hand
very perfect. These bones showed a slender and delicate formation of the hands.
Fifty-two other fragments, very much eroded, and not susceptible of exact identification.
There are a few points I’d like to make about these descriptions.
First, the use of the phrase ‘an intellectual forehead’ and the later comment that her
forehead denoted ‘considerable intelligence’ are meaningless. This was part of the pseudo-science
of phrenology which was popular in the 19th century when this book was written.
It was the theory that you could make judgements about an individual’s intelligence and/or
personality based on the shape of their skull, but it’s total rubbish and has been long debunked.
Second, I think it’s remarkable how well these observations match up with those made by Anne’s
contemporaries when describing how she looked in life and this only helps to confirm for me
that these really are her bones. Based on her skull, she had large eyes and those who saw her
in the 1520s and 1530s remarked on how beautiful they were, even calling them her best feature.
The oval face and square chin correspond with the only contemporary image we have of her,
which is a portrait medal, dating to 1534, while the queen was described as being of
middling height for the Tudor era, tallying nicely with the estimated height given here of between
5 feet and 5 feet 3 inches. You’ll also note that there’s no mention of a sixth finger,
though admittedly only 11 finger phalanges were found and there should have been 28.
Speaking of her hands, the comments about the tapering and delicate fingers are interesting, as
Elizabeth I was noted as having long fingers too, a trait she apparently shared with her mother.
I do wonder where the rest of Anne’s lower jaw and teeth had gone as teeth are generally very
hardy and slow to break down, but it’s possible that she lost some in life,
(although I do think it would have been commented on had she been missing this many),
or that whoever disinterred her prior to 1876 took some as gruesome souvenirs.
Dr Mourat believed the bones had been in the ground for north of 300 years which would fit
with the time of Anne’s death, however unless they were buried with artefacts such as coins,
or a burial plate, I’m not sure that you can tell this without modern carbon-dating equipment.
If there are any archaeologists or forensic anthropologists listening who can shed some
additional light on the question of dating burials, I’d love it if you would share your
expertise with us in the comments section below, as this isn’t my particular field.
Dr Mourat also felt that the remains all belonged to one person,
which I would think can be believed, as in most cases, I would imagine that things
like leg bones and arm bones will be the same size if they come from the same individual
and Bell’s book specifically says that these bones were ‘all perfectly consolidated and symmetrical’.
Crucially, the team found no other female bones in this area and so, as well as their physical
parameters matching what would be expected of Anne and the bones being found in the expected spot,
there was no other contender to be her in the immediate area. In fact, the person nearest her
was a large male of around 50 years of age, believed to be Edward VI’s disgraced uncle,
Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, who was executed in 1552 in his early 50s.
Bell also points out that as Anne and her brother George were ‘the first burials in the chancel,
the graves were in all probability dug to the right or dexter side of the altar, the so-called
‘place of honour.’ This seems like an accurate assessment to me. If you recall when the bones
of Richard III were found under a carpark back in 2012, they were in a spot which had once
been home to Greyfriars Church and Richard had similarly been placed in a position of honour,
in that case beneath the Church’s choir. George Boleyn’s bones were not found, however Bell felt
that they may have been just outside the area which the restoration team were working on.
Once Anne’s remains had been recovered, they were placed in a box and left with Colonel Millman,
who was then the resident governor of the Tower until the time to reinter them came.
Two days later, the team began to work on another portion of the floor near the altar,
this time expecting to find the remains of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (who was Lady Jane
Grey’s father-in-law), Katherine Howard, Jane Boleyn and Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury.
Once again, two feet down, a skeleton was found, this time a male around 6 feet fall, with a large
skull and about 50 years of age. There was little doubt that this was the Duke of Northumberland,
beheaded in 1553 in his late 40s. Nearby the remains of two women were found close to one
another, but in separate piles and with many bones missing, having evidently been moved to the
right of their original position at some point to accommodate the burial of two unknown individuals
buried near the step of the chancel. One was a lady between 30 and 40 years of age, supposed to
be Jane Boleyn and whose bones indicated someone ‘of rather delicate proportions’. Another was
a tall lady, much older, supposed to be the Countess of Salisbury, executed in 1541, aged
67. No bones thought to belong to Queen Katherine Howard were found which Bell explained by saying:
The bones at the age at which she was executed are softer in texture, and a great portion of them are
more cartilaginous than when growth is completed, and the framework of the body consolidated;
so that they would disintegrate and disappear much more rapidly than had she been fully formed,
and the whole process of ossification been completed.
The large admixture of lime with earth which was found in the grave would accelerate this process;
there is nothing therefore inconsistent with the fact of her having been buried there,
in the absence of any portion of her remains after a lapse of more than three centuries.'
This seems reasonable enough to me as an explanation, particularly as there
were very few of Lady Salisbury’s remains left and Bell noted that some of what was there had
been ‘eroded by lime.’ That said, I’m not a medical doctor and so if there’s anyone
listening who is a medical professional and can offer some additional information on the
age at which bones solidify and how quickly they might break down in an earth burial,
please let me know below (and just for the information of anyone who might be
commenting on this point, Katherine was between 17 and 24 years old at the time of her death).
Bell rules out the possibility that the bones assigned to Jane Boleyn were in fact Katherine,
not just on the basis of age, but because Katherine was supposedly petite and the bones
found seemed too large for her. I think this is a bit of a stretch as we don’t actually know the
heights of Jane Boleyn and Katherine, however the age and location of the bones is enough
for me to be as confident as possible, without the advantage of DNA testing, that this woman
was Jane Boleyn. Speaking more generally, I’m also pretty comfortable with the idea that Bell
and his team correctly identified the rest of the bones they recovered in this area of the church.
Apart from Katherine Howard and George Boleyn, all the bones expected to be found were located
and in the places where it was anticipated they were buried
and they all matched the physical parameters of those people to whom they were supposed to belong.
On 13 April 1877, with the restoration work complete,
the remains which had been disinterred were brought back to the Chapel. Bell records that:
These remains had been soldered up in thick leaden coffers, and then fastened down with
copper screws in boxes made of oak plank, one inch in thickness. Each box bore a leaden escutcheon,
on which was engraved the name of the person whose supposed remains were thus enclosed,
together with the dates of death, and of the year (1877) of the reinterment. The cases were
then placed in the respective positions in the chancel in which the remains had been found,
and the ground having been opened, they were all buried about four inches below the surface,
the earth was then filled in, and concrete immediately spread over them.
So could Anne, Jane and the others be disinterred again? Well, theoretically,
yes, though now that they’re buried under concrete it would harder to get at them.
However it’s a moot point really, as the current monarch would have to give permission for this to
be done and this is very unlikely to happen, the modern royal family not wanting to set
the precedent of allowing royals to be dug up and studied in case it happens to them.
This is endlessly frustrating to those people who would like to see Anne and the others have
a more formal burial, or who would love to have a facial reconstruction of Henry’s second wife done.
Indeed a reconstruction would seem to be possible if the skull remains in
the condition it was in in 1877, but it may well have significantly degraded since then.
Let’s finish up then on a bit of a controversial question,
which I’m sure will produce some interesting discussion in the comments. Do you think the
remains of Anne and the other victims of execution buried in the Chapel should be disinterred again,
potentially examined and reburied, or that they should be left where they are and undisturbed?
I look forward to reading your thoughts. If you’d like some more Tudor history right away,
why not check out my Tudor monarchs and Six Wives of Henry VIII playlists, or for something
different, might I suggest my video on the bizarre disappearance of Benjamin Bathurst.
Whatever you select, please enjoy and until next time, keep learning.