The Marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn: The Controversy and Conception

Hello All,
I recently had a discussion with a fellow history enthusiast who was under the impression that Anne and Henry only married after she became pregnant and that the marriage was solely to deter any questions of legitimacy regarding Anne's future children. This has been a long debated question in Tudor history; when is the actual wedding date of Henry and Anne? Some historians believe it to be November 1532 while other argue it is January 1533. So when were the King and his lady-love married and why is this such a pressing question?

First of all, we must dispell the rumor that Henry only married Anne because she was pregnant. He had applied for a Papal dispensation in order to marry a woman whom he had had sexual relations with her close affinity. Of Henry's known mistresses, this dispensation could only apply to Anne, because Henry had a relationship with her sister Mary. This dispensation was filed for well before Anne's pregnancy. Secondly, during a planned trip to France Henry presented Anne as his betrothed. This was also before her pregnancy.

So then, let us discuss the two proposed marriage dates for Henry and Anne. Did the nuptials take place when the couple landed in Kent in November after visiting France or back in London in January? Historian Alison Weir writes that the couple was married on the 25th of January in the King's private chapel at Whitehall Palace and that this ceremony was their first and only marriage. Eric Ives, widely lauded as the Anne Boleyn expert of our times, however disagrees. He believes that the King and Anne were married in November and had already consummated their union. He bases his claim on the notations of the Tudor chronicler Edward Hall who wrote that the King and Anne were actually married on November 14, 1532 St. Erkenwald's Day in Kent and celebrated a sort of "vow renewal" in January.

So why the two wedding saga? We may never know for sure, but my theory is this; the couple was legally married in Kent in November. I base my assertion on the fact that Anne has maintained her virginity for so many years that she would not likely have given up her maidenhead when a wedding was so close. This first wedding was to assure Anne that her position as intended Queen was secure, hence she got what she wanted and Henry got what he had been waiting nearly seven years for. The second wedding had to take place in order to assure Henry's subjects that he was indeed married since the first ceremony had been very secretive. The second wedding would also have coincided with the discovery that Anne was pregnant with the couple's first child. Rumors of when the couple married became rampant during Elizabeth's reign, with people saying that they had never been legally married which would put Elizabeth's right to rule in question.

On This Day in Tudor History

On January 24, 1536 Henry VIII took a serious fall from his horse during a jousting accident. The horse, a heavy breed designed for war, fell on top of him leaving him unconscious for an extended period of time. Imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys who witnessed the fall reported to his master saying, "...the King being mounted on a great horse, to run at the lists, both fell so heavily that everyone thought it a miracle he were not killed..."  It was this accident, and the subsequent internal injuries that I believe led to Henry's mental and physical decline in the coming years. It was also a force in the decline of Henry and Anne's relationship. Upon hearing of the King's fall and subsequent inability to wake or speak Anne Boleyn went into pre-term labor delivering a male fetus of about four months gestation. Unsubstantiated claims have said the Queen cried and screamed saying "I miscarried of my savior.." Jousting, though dangerous, was considered a chivalrous sport, where noble men rode not only for honor but also the favor of high-born women and rich prizes.

Read of the Week

This week I gladly dove into Blood and Roses by Helen Castor, the second of her books I have loved. First of all let me say that Helen Castor truly is a master historian, bringing facts and people of the time to the forefront and presenting their stories in an incredible way. In her writing the most ordinary of days in Pre-Tudor England seem fascinating. Blood and Roses presents the life of the Paston family who lived during the tenuous, often violent period of the War of Roses. The time was highlighted by the largest mass slaughter of English nobility in history. This killing was at the hands of brothers, cousins and often former friends as the country divided over the question of who had a legitimate claim to the throne of England. Unlike many authors specializing in this time period, Castor focuses on the contributions of women. She follow Margaret Pastor as she outfits her family's tenants with armor and weaponry and oversees their brief training before marching out to take on a rival landowner who plans to lay siege to Margaret's family home at Gresham in the absence of her father-in law, husband and brothers. Outside of the every day lives of women during this time, Castor pays homage to the men who died defending the York or Lancaster claimants citing one battle where the snow was dyed red from the blood of thousands of dead on both sides. The author uses more primary source material than the reader can comprehend, relying on first-hand accounts of battles, property records, letters and other material to build a foundation for a not only incredibly well-written book, but one that is the pinnacle of historical integrity. This book is one I would happily recommend to you all.

Anne's Royal Rooms at the Tower

The following video shows the "royal apartments" where Anne would have stayed prior to her coronation and explores the quarters where she probably stayed in the days before her execution. Enjoy!

Reader Questions

"Though God cannot alter the past, Historians can"  -Samuel Butler

First of all I want to thank you all for the incredible questions I received from you this week via our new Contact Form. After reading your questions I was reminded of the Samuel Butler quote above. Most of the questions sent were about confusion and mistruths regarding the historical period, I hope I can answer them all sufficiently here:

Q: I [the sender] read that Jane Seymour was called the Protestant Queen, why? I was under the impression she was Catholic.

A: During the Edwardian period Jane Seymour was called the Protestant Queen because she was the mother of the King, who was pushing reform, and much movement towards Evangelism was made during the time she was Queen Consort. However, to assume that she herself was Protestant is wrong. She often met with the imperial ambassador and pushed Henry to renew his friendship with the Emperor. She also tried dutifully to preserve many of the religious houses that were being suppressed. There were also rumors abroad that she "favoured the old faith" We may never know the exact details of Jane's religious life but it is safe to say that she leaned towards traditional Catholicism.

Q: What happened to Mary Seymour, daughter of Queen Catherine Parr and Thomas Seymour?

A: Sadly, we do not know. Following the deaths of Kateryn and Thomas, she was left in the safe keeping of Katherine, duchess of Suffolk who found the monetary burden of caring for her an inconvenience. We know that she lived as of January 21, 1550 when Parliament removed that act of attainder from her name allowing her to inherit any surviving wealth of her parents but after that there is no record of the child. It is commonly believed that she died of some unknown childhood disease, although that lack of notation regarding the death of the "Queen's daughter" is interesting as noble, and most certainly quasi-royal, deaths were always recorded.

Q: Did the Pope really try to have Anne Boleyn murdered?

A: Interesting question, as far as we know, no. That does not mean there might not have been a secret plot though as the Papacy wielded great power and influence during this period. I believe what you are referencing are the scenes in The Tudors where William Brereton is commissioned directly by the Holy Father to assassinate Anne, this is a creative liberty taken by the screenwriters. William Brereton was never part of the clergy, in fact he was accused and convicted of having a sexual relationship with Anne and was beheaded with the other men (For more information see my post on Anne's Lovers here)