Henry VIII, a man renowned for his tyrannical
ways, has been accused of murder on more than one occasion.
His dismantling of the Pilgrimage of Grace, along with
his slaying of so-called innocents, still resonates to this day.
But could the same accusation be laid
at his feet on the death of his queen Anne Boleyn?
The answer is no,
he would always manage to make an exception to the law, and as it stood
back in the day, Anne Boleyn's execution was well within the remit.
Over the years, much has been speculated about Henry,
all without a shred of clarity that what he did was correct.
He's been described as a grotesque failure, a wife murderer, and more.
But his crowning moment of absurdity came when he decided to remove his queen,
the one woman he had stalked for six years, telling her of his undying love,
and yet what seems to be a case of idle
gossip soon proved to be a pivotal point in his reign.
Anne Boleyn was said to have been killed simply because the king hated her.
It's quite an unbelievable statement and often oversimplified.
In this story, we're going to explore
the reasons, the predators and the supporters who possibly
feared a similar outcome and so held their silence.
According to the law, as previously stated, Henry, Thomas Cromwell, and other
hierarchy members either contrived or conspired to murder this lady.
It's seen as no more than a gang of men taking this woman
to her grave in ways in which
it is difficult to comprehend.
At her trial, the whole of the privy council, two grand juries and 26
peers sat in judgement, adding to this the judges, parliament and the king.
It's a terrifying case of mob rule.
The public was also invited to watch the sham unravel.
Luckily for historians today, records were kept, and we can
now take a closer look at the revealing accusations
and accountability these men had in coming to their decision.
Depositions are missing from the records,
and as we all know, there has to be two sides to every story.
But the Tudors were famed for their fake news and rewrote
much of history in a way that suits rather than a way that gives actual evidence.
They would have looked upon such destructive material as dangerous
to the monarchy if it got in the hands of the wrong people.
So issues covered were written in a way as to spread the blame
and take no accountability for their actions.
Cromwell stated that some of the accusations were so "abominable"
that they did not bear to be brought up in court.
Again, the wording is interesting, as it would not have laid
any blame on the king, but this is another telling comment, yet
one that we cannot consider as no reports exist.
It certainly doesn't help when trying to piece together Anne's final days.
The ferocity and speed from arrest to condemnation
lacks the consistency required to understand the whole story fully.
Also No evidence exists as to Henry VIII believing his wife.
It has been thought that maybe Henry deceived himself into taking action,
a deluded man who believed everything was against him, whether true or not.
The events of 1536 are, without doubt, a pivotal year for the king.
He was undoubtedly culpable and amoral
and now described as a puppet with no strings to pull.
Although there are people
who insist the name-calling and conspiracy to murder claims are far from the truth.
Henry was
always a man who took comments at face value.
Yet on this occasion, so upset was he by the news coming from within,
he ordered a full inquiry into the events—telling his councillors
that such unscrupulous details had
and must be investigated before further word can transpire.
This brings us an interesting question: Why did Anne displease Henry so much
he would have her executed, and why did he not place
the same treatment on his previous wife, Catherine of Aragon?
His life would have been so much easier without Catherine around, yet Catherine
had strong allies abroad, and perhaps Henry thought twice about such actions.
War was not a credible reason to risk all.
Life may well have been less complicated, but the power of numbers
was against him, whereas Anne had only herself to protect.
You could say she was an easy target.
Catherine could well have been brought forward for treasonable actions,
even though she stated insistently
that the king was her husband and sovereign lord.
So we now see a different viewpoint in which possibly Henry
understood the precarious position
he now had with Anne and made every effort to glean convincing evidence.
Thomas Cromwell is another man who fought tooth and nail
to climb the ladder; he was certainly a yes man.
Still, one who has been described as hideously corrupt, Cromwell
saw his duty in this case, never at one with the queen.
It was his opportunity in his eyes to remove a malignant growth from society.
Today many still do not believe that Anne had charges lawfully put against her.
We can assume that many believe she is innocent and even beyond reproach.
Yet, it was a completely different concensus of opinion at the time.
One in which all who were told the story believed without any doubts.
Had Elizabeth, Anne's daughter, never become the monarch, it may well
have been left to modern-day historians to attempt to piece together
the scripts used in a way of helping rehabilitate Anne's reputation.
She was framed, and Anne, who stood alone in the dock,
had no chance of persuading her peers otherwise.
Even Chapuys, the Spanish ambassador, had the same thoughts.
Anne was a victim, a political coup
that went badly wrong, yet one of ruthless inventiveness.
Henry almost admitted to Jane Seymour that his previous wife had died
for "meddling too much in state affairs."
Let's now look at what
we have, an assessment of the queen, which remembers and only pertains
to the evidential records we still have today.
Anne only had her words to describe her accounts of what happened.
The compromising conversations, the lurid behaviour
and the unwittingly generous priveledges she gave to others.
All would come back to haunt the queen.
The real power battle was not with the king
but one between Anne and Cromwell.
Chapuys would often comment on the plot to bring her down, with false accusations
and, in particular, the one charge of attempting to kill the king.
Any substantial evidence is lacking.
The court gave no reason for her said extramarital affairs
that allegedly took place over the three years of her marriage.
Nothing was given in the way of proof of any infidelity.
The absence of such statements, including many discrepancies, only fuels the interest.
Suggesting that the four men accused alongside her were convicted
and executed within a bigger picture to prove her guilt.
In contrast, in reality, this would only and should have only prejudiced her trial.
Yet these documents are also nowhere to be found, so
the assumption is all that we have.
To the very end, Anne denied all charges; some people at the time
were said to have raised suspicion on the whole event.
It didn't make any sense regardless of how some perceived her.
The real question is, why did Anne die?
What did she do so wrong that brought about her downfall?
In summary, the case against Anne for a historian
is to believe what you see and attempt a conclusion from the records.
Anne, in most eyes, was the victim of a dreadful miscarriage of justice
alongside the men who also stood trial for their numerous offences.
It would be a soul-destroying time for many involved,
including the king, who may have also felt some remorse,
but as we have said, he could only go on what he was being told.
Quite possibly, the saddest reflection of all comes from Elizabeth, who would
bear the scars of this terrible period through the rest of her life.
With no proof in existence as to what caused this trial to take place,
it must be presumed based purely on the doubtful evidence
that Anne Boleyn went to her death as an innocent woman.
Legends and myths
are renowned in history, and stories change with the sands of time.
In the case of Anne Boleyn, it was claimed her body was removed
from the Tower of London and reburied near to Blicking hall, her birthplace.
However, this was discarded when the so-called grave
was entered years later, and no remains were found.
It is just one of many myths that have appeared over the years.
Some other interesting stories also come to light, one in which Anne's
heart was stolen and placed in a church near Thetford in Norfolk.
Kept in a tin box and placed in the chancel wall
before being buried under the organ.
Although again, another unlikely yarn, as heart
burials had gone entirely out of fashion by the 14th century.
And so we venture back to the Tower of London
and the small church that resides on the property St Peter ad Vincula.
Anne, along with many others, was buried here.
Mutterings of tombs
being opened in the reign of Elizabeth also hold no reliable evidence.
The bodies that have been
found were initially buried simply under a chancel pavement.
So who can we find here?
The coffin of the duke of Northumberland rests
by the side of the duke of Somerset; both
these men are between the queens Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard.
Also discovered was the coffin of lady Jane
Grey, Thomas Seymour, lady Rochford and George Boleyn.
In 1876 queen Victoria allowed the restoration of the now
ruinous state of the royal chapel.
It was agreed, but only upon the complete reverence such a task must take
and that records must be kept to mark the identification of any remains found.
Work began in November of that year.
It was a revealing site; many of the bodies had remained
unmoved over three centuries.
At first sight, the excavation committee found it difficult to ascertain
which bones belonged to who, although they did know that
the spot they were digging was the actual place of Tudor internments.
Attempts were made to clarify the bodies.
In the case of Anne Boleyn, it's said a heap of bones
were found, carefully arranged only 2 feet below the chancel floor.
Again this is quite contentious.
In 1750 a lady by the name of Hannah Beresford was buried in the same area,
but when found, her remains were two feet lower than the resting place of Anne,
suggesting the array of bones found had been disturbed at some point.
The bones said to be of Anne were examined upon removal.
The result of the enquiry showed they were the bones
of a young girl aged between 25 to 30.
A delicate body frame of slender proportions.
With the forehead and lower jaw in remarkable condition.
Upon further analysis,
the committee concluded this must be Anne due to her tiny neck.
Further disclosure stated the skull was round, prominent forehead,
straight orbital ridge, large eyes, oval face with a full chin.
The hands and feet offer more clues, saying these were both delicate
and well-shaped.
The woman's height was adjudged to be around five feet 3 inches.
A final judication was given that all the bones belonged to the same person.
In conclusion, it was in their opinion that the remains found were consistent
with the descriptions given of Anne Boleyn and could well be the same person
painted by Holbein.
The paintings of Anne we see today are all with her portrayed with a pointed chin,
yet this evidence points to the body having a square chin,
and we know that no artwork remains of Anne painted by Holbein.
There is an 18th-century representation of a Holbein work, a sketch of a lady
who was not discovered or said to be a representation of Anne until 1649.
The height of Anne is also questionable.
Nicholas Sander wrote 50 years after her death, she was rather tall of stature,
but this sounds a little suspect as a Venetian
diplomat of the time said Anne was of middling height.
Again reports of her having a long neck were dispelled
as the one found under the chancel was short.
To add to the overall mystery, a further four other decapitated
females had been found at the chapel.
Add to the three we already mentioned, you'll also find that of Margaret
Pole, countess of Salisbury.
This begs the question of what did they actually see?
Was it Anne or quite possibly Catherine Howard?
The square
jaw described is more leaning to her based on the miniature drawing of Holbein.
Another interesting aspect of identifying the graves was that close
to the duke of Northumberland, and the place suggested Catherine Howard lay.
Her remains were not to be found, implying that the bones had dissolved
in the quicklime found within the earth over time.
The solution would undoubtedly decompose
any remains to dust over that period.
In the eighteenth century, it had been revealed two other women
had been moved into the area to make way for further burials.
One thought to be that of Margaret Pole,
who had been executed when she was 67 years old in 1541.
Based upon their detective work, the other remains probably
belonged to a woman in her 40s, one of a larger frame
than Catherine as Catherine was no more than a child at her death.
So were these the bones of Anne Boleyn?
Whose death has been established at 35?
These findings would now pose more questions.
The two dukes of Northumberland and Somerset lay between the two queens.
However, the committee thought that the position of the bodies
was opposite to what was initially thought.
In 1877
all the skeletal remains, excluding George Boleyn, Thomas Seymour and lady Jane
Grey, were laid to rest again in a leaden coffin screwed down
with copper screws and placed inside an outer coffin made of oak.
Each bore a plaque with the name and arms of the person.
All were buried
just 4 inches below the pavement; the floor was then covered in concrete
and laid with the decorative tiles you can still see to this day.
All the remains were left in the position found.
The same thing happened
with both bodies on the outer, divided by the dukes in the chancel.
The flooring within the area doesn't correspond to the memorial plates
laid, as space was left beneath where its thought Catherine Howard had been placed.
Another curious aspect of this is that some bones
had been mistakenly identified in 1876, thought to be Anne Boleyn
but now considered to be lady Rochford.
There now remains a further mystery as to whether
the body of Anne Boleyn actually lays under the slab marked Rochford.
Anne Boleyn might well have died an ignominious death.
Still, her legend lives on; her daughter would go on to become
one of the greatest monarchs England has ever seen.
A child who grew up hardly uttering her mother
in any sentence and close to following the same ordeals.
Elizabeth was imprisoned at the tower for a while,
and she stayed there prior to her coronation,
but that was the last time she visited the building.
When Elizabeth arrived at the tower in 1559, she announced to the expectant
crowds, "some have fallen
from being princes of this land to be prisoners in this place.
I am raised from being a prisoner in this place to be a prince of this
land." This was Anne Boleyns greatest legacy, a daughter
who not only went to control the country for the next 45 years
but had Anne lived, without a doubt, she would have glorified
and proclaimed her daughter's achievements for the rest of her days.
Many years ago, a girl was born so insignificant that nobody recorded
her date of birth, yet
she would become one of the most famous queens of British history.
Her experiences through life were all doomed.
She became a leading actress in this melodramatic conspiracy, a story
if told today; some would say it could only be created in fiction.
We're left with so much undiscovered it's quite probable
her story will never be fully known, but the love people still have for
this lady won't be quelled for quite some time to come.