During the victorian era, the remains of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were discovered during renovations to the chapel. According to Antonia Fraser, their bones were discovered under the paved area in the chapel chancel and were then reburied in proper coffins within the crypt which you can visit today. Dr. Mouat who handled the remains described the body of Anne as follows:
The bones found in the place where Queen Anne is said to have been buried are certainly those of a female in the prime of life, all perfectly consolidated and symmetrical and belong to the same person. 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 vertebra and the bones of the lower limbs indicate a well-formed woman of middle height with a short and slender neck. The ribs shew [sic] 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. (Source: Notices of the Historic Burials in the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower of London With an Account of the Discovery of the Supposed Remains of Queen Anne Boleyn by John Murray)
The body is also said to have been a woman aged between twenty-five and thirty. This is too young to be Anne who was most likely born in 1501 and executed in 1536, while Jane was born no later than 1512 which means the body would be within the age range of Jane's years.
We may never know the truth of who lies beneath Anne Boleyn's grave marker, yet I tend to agree with Weir's argument regarding the location of Anne's bones. I base my assertions on several pieces of evidence. First is the description of Anne's body by Dr. Mouat, Anne was often described as having (and can be seen in the known portraits of her) to have a small pointed chin, not a full square one. She also is reported by many at court, in surviving documents, to have a long, slender neck not a short one, while surviving portraits of Jane Boleyn show her with a full, square chin and short neck. Secondly is the recorded statement by John Stowe, Tudor court chronicler, which states " There lieth before the high altar in St. Peter's church, two dukes between two queens" The bones buried her were identified as a small woman between the ages of nineteen and twenty-three (obviously belonging to Catherine Howard) and a larger framed woman somewhere between thirty and forty (probably Anne Boleyn)This statement and the forensic evidence would support the theory that Anne was buried next to her brother under the marker of Lady Rochford while Jane Boleyn occupies the space beneath Anne's memorial.
Anne's grave marker


Who was the other duke besides George Boleyn?
ReplyDeleteSarah,
DeleteThe other duke was Edward Seymour, the first Duke of Somerset who was executed in 1552 after usurping too much power while serving as the regent for his nephew Edward VI (son of Jane Seymour). However, you are slightly mistaken in the belief that the first duke was George Boleyn. His title was Viscount Rochford. The other duke mentioned would have been the Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley. Thanks for the question!
Hi, i rеad youг blog from time to time and i own a similar
ReplyDeleteone and i ωas just cuгious іf you get a lot of ѕpam feeԁback?
If so how do you stoρ it, any plugin or anything you can recοmmend?
I get so much lately it's driving me mad so any help is very much appreciated.
Also visit my homepage ... eric edgemont friends into lovers pdf
Hi there, if you use BlogSpot you can turn on a Spam comment blocker is your settings.
DeleteOk if we don't know what she looked like, why not find her skull and do a facial reconstruction?
ReplyDeleteWell there are many reasons, but the most prominent being the Queen will not allow another excavation of the burial site. She has cited many reasons including damage to the beautiful chancel floor, cost and religion. Unfortunately for those of us who are curious, a facial reconstruction from Anne's skull is unlikely.
DeleteWho said we do not know what Anne looked like? Also, who would pay for all of it, and is it respectful or necessary? I would think no.
DeleteI think some TV shows have caused people to think this sort of thing is just done at a whim, but it really is more rare.
Anne has been described so many times, do you doubt all of them? (Also a facial reconstruction only provides a few clues, but not things that make our human faces unique :) Like eyebrow shape and smiles. Even actual eyes.
I didn't know until recently that Anne, Catherine Howard AND poor Jane Grey were all just sort of tossed into a communal grave initially. I shouldn't be surprised though, since they were killed because of "treason". I often wonder why Elizabeth didn't do something better for her Mother's earthly remains... just a mystery I suppose :(
Judging from the book 'Notices of the Historic persons buried in The Chapel of St. Peter Ad. Vincular... (1877) there is still other conflicting evidence supporting the remains are those of Anne Boleyn that Dr. Mouat noted when examining the remains they believed to be her. Firstly, the bones found were in a place which ancient Tower records indictated where Anne Boleyn should be. Among the remains he concluded that she had 'long, tapering fingers' and a small atlas, the vertibrae which connected the head and neck. He concluded this corresponded with Anne's own words that she had a 'little neck'. Elizabeth I's fingers were elegantly long, backed up by her portraits and reputation that she liked to show them off. Also gloves said to be Elizabeth's suggest this also. Henry VIII probably did not have long fingers. Again his portraits, a probable surviving hawking glove and his armours appear to back this theory up. The skull of the remains was in several bits with a large central part (possibly the nasal cavity) missing. This damage was due to disturbance to make way for another coffin in about 1750. A fascinating blog and I will admit I'm yet to read Alison Weir's (whose works I thoroughly enjoy) theory, but having read this reliable source (with Victorian science being much inferior than todays, in mind) I believe the remains are Anne Boleyn and they simply may be off when it comes to age. But with no proven birthdate it will always be open to debate.
ReplyDeleteThank you for reading my blog! I admit that my argument has flaws; but I have also taken into account the contemporary account of John Stowe and Dr. Mouat's comment regarding the chin of the remains in question. I also base my assertions on my own research regarding the birth date of Anne. She was taken into the household of Margaret of Austria in the year 1513 and was there after referred to as a "fille d'honneur" for which the appropriate age was 12-20.If Anne was born in 1507, as some have suggested, she would not have been old enough to serve as a maid of honor. There is also the evidence of the letter she wrote to her father in 1514 which she wrote in well developed script and in French; hardly the skills of a six year old. Therefore, I believe Anne was born in 1501, making the skeleton buried under her marker to young at the time of death to belong to her. These pieces of evidence have led me to believe that Anne's remains are mismarked.
DeleteI dont believe there is any reason we should assume that the body beneath Anne's marker is not her. There is only a 5 year discrepancy between her age at time of death (about 35) and the estimate given by Dr. Mouat (20-30 years of age), since the examination was done in 1877, and not in a present day forensic lab or by a trained forensic anthropologist, there is no reason to believe Dr. Mouat could have been off by 5 years- which in my opinion is a very small deviation. The height, small vertebrae and delicate hand and feet bones also corroborate Dr. Mouat's findings, people in this time period were much smaller than we are today, a woman of about 5'3" could certainly have been considered of "middling stature" at the time. In my opinion the evidence that best indicates that it is in fact the body of Anne Boleyn under the marker is the fact that they found a body of a small, delicately formed, 20-30 year old woman, with a small neck, oval face, and large eyes WHERE they expected to find it according to records of burials in the church.
ReplyDeleteI would never presume to "assume" anything about history. I am merely saying from my own readings and research I question the assertion that she is buried under the marker. I am so glad that you have also read the research and formulated your own opinions :) Thank you for your comment and I hope to see you as a regular site contributor!
DeleteIt truly is so hard to know certain specifics about that time, and different authors present different ideas and a few facts. Sometimes a "gut instinct" is all we have - and often that goes well. But when it comes to the Tudors, I think we do know a lot about the things that mattered about that family/dynasty and the people who were close to the Kings and Queens. And it is interesting enough that so many films and books and TV shows are made about them, then labeled "historical fiction", informed by how people did speak and live in that time.
DeleteThank you for helping keep history alive, Tanya! I have been fascinated with the Tudors since I took Tudor History my 2nd year of University. The professor was one who did not "spoon feed" info to then be spat out come test time, so I remember how I *felt* about what I learned - largely that WOW am I glad we have separation of Church and State in the United States. Having a King or Queen (especially Mary. shudder!) tell me how to worship (or not to) would absolutely end with my head on a pike. :0)
I blog frequently and I genuinely thank you for your content.
ReplyDeleteYour article has really peaked my interest. I will book mark your site and keep checking for new information about once a week.
I subscribed to your Feed as well.
My web blog; Email Html Templates
It should be "piqued".
DeleteI feel this is one of the such a lot vital information for me.
ReplyDeleteAnd i am happy reading your article. But wanna statement on some basic issues,
The web site style is ideal, the articles is truly great : D.
Good process, cheers
Feel free to surf to my web site asian bridal makeup courses
She remain as mysterious in death as she ever was in life. Are there any books, websites, etc that explore more fully the profound effect her existence has had on early feminism. I truly believe that her rise to power and that of her daughter was the most profound change in english society since the romans landed. Thank you for your helpful research
ReplyDeleteRenee,
DeleteYou should definitely check out the Creation of Anne Boleyn by Susan Bordo. She explores Anne's role in influencing feminism in more modern times. Unfortunately, there isn't a historian who has made Anne role in early feminism their book topic yet but you could check out Eric Ives' biography of her. He spends some time pondering your question. I would agree that Anne Boleyn, her religious beliefs and her daughter's reign truly changed the face of England.
This is why I love Anne, Elizabeth, Katherine Parr... they were at the beginning of this HUGE change that I still feel motivated a lot of the beginnings of the United States. And I find it so interesting that Henry simply used "religion" (does he remind anyone of any current leaders? LOL) to end his 24-year very legal marriage to Catherine.... and that is The Church of England now. And that Queen Elizabeth is the head of it now. Charles will be, unless things change
DeleteI do wish I knew more about Anne, but Katherine (sorry, trying to keep all the spellings right, my daughter is "Katharine") Parr taught Elizabeth a lot, and she encouraged several women to publish writings in their name, which was so shocking then. So I really think KParr was a huge and positive influence. And YES, i agree so much with your last line. It is so important and interesting to find strong, brave, smart women when these were qualities to "keep in the closet", so to speak.
There is a book at Amazon about all six of Henry VIII's wives, the title is something about "Divorced, Beheaded, Died" and then the word feminist is included, so that would help. Esp if I could remember the name, sorry about that!!
Anne Boleyn had black hair. Was there any hair found with the skull?
ReplyDeleteKarie,
DeleteWe unfortunately cannot know; all of the skin, hair and clothing in the grave would have been rotted away due to the 300+ years between original burial and exhumation.
Hello there! I know this is kinda off topic however , I'd figured I'd ask.
ReplyDeleteWould you be interested in exchanging links or maybe guest authoring a blog article or vice-versa?
My website goes over a lot of the same topics as yours and I feel we could greatly benefit from each other.
If you might be interested feel free to send me an email.
I look forward to hearing from you! Fantastic blog by the way!|
my page :: homepage; ,
I'm curious why there is no obvious evidence of Anne's mortal wound on the skeletal remains? I'm just speculating of course, but I would think that even a "clean" beheading as Anne is believed to have been afforded would have left fairly clear forensic evidence. Just a thought. Cheers.
ReplyDelete