The Arrest of Anne Askew

On this day in Tudor history 1546, Mistress Anne Askew was arrested for heresy. Anne was married at fifteen to William Kyme but refused to adopt his last name as her own. William and Anne had at least one child. She developed her skills as a poet and used her talent with words to begin preaching strong Protestant beliefs. She went to London and gave speeches that taught against the doctrine of transubstantiation. Subsequently, William kicked her out of their home.  Anne returned to London almost immediately to apply for a divorce. She said her husband was not a true believer and therefore her divorce was legitimate under scripture, particularly 1 Corinthians 7:15. Her request for divorce was denied but Anne remained in London giving sermons and distributing banned books to people across the city. The first action taken against her was to order her to return to her husband in Lincolnshire.  She returned under duress but soon escaped and was back in London preaching what she viewed as religious truth.

In 1545 Anne askew was arrested and accused as a heretic. She was examined by English clerics about her religious leanings and they found her to disagree with their transubstantiation doctrines. Anne was brought before Bishop Bonner, a religious traditionalist gaining power at Henry VIII’s court. He questioned her but was unable to discover anything incriminating. He then taunted her, saying she lived an unclean, dishonest life. His techniques did not work; Anne remained steadfast in her beliefs.

The Lord Chancellor of England, Thomas Wriothesley took over the prosecution of Anne following the failures of church officials. Anne was subjected to long interrogations, recorded as lasting up to five hours. He asked her opinion of the bread and the Eucharist. She replied; "I believe that as oft as I, in Christian congregation, receive the bread in remembrance of Christ's death, and with thanksgiving, according to His holy institution, I receive therewith the fruits also of His most glorious passion." She was then asked; "How can you avoid the very words of Christ, 'Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you?'" She replied, "Christ's meaning in this passage ... is similar to the meaning of those other places of Scripture, 'I am the door', 'I am the vine', 'Behold the Lamb of God', 'That rock was Christ', and other such references to Himself. You are not in these texts to take Christ for the material thing which He is signified by, for then you will make Him a very door, a vine, a lamb, a stone, quite contrary to the Holy Ghost's meaning. All these indeed do signify Christ, even as the bread signifies His body in that place. Anne again escaped this interrogation relatively unscathed.

On June 18, 1546 Anne wasn’t so lucky; she was arrested by Martin Bowes who ordered Anthony Kingston, the Tower Constable, to torture Anne in order to force her to name other Protestants. The intent of her torturers was likely to implicate the Queen, Kateryn Parr, and several of her ladies in waiting who were thought to be of a like mind as Anne.

In her own account written from prison, Askew claimed she fainted from the pain of torture, thus she was lowered from her ropes and revived. This wracking was completed twice. Repulsed by her obviously pain, Kingston refused to be party to further torture of the woman. He left the tower and sought a meeting with the King at his earliest convenience to explain his position and also to seek his pardon, which the king willingly granted. With the less enthusiastic Kingston out of the way, Wriothesley and Rich set to work themselves. They wracked her so hard that Anne’s body was drawn apart; her shoulders and hips were pulled from their sockets, her elbows and knees dislocated. Askew's tortured screams could be heard in the garden next to the White Tower where the Lieutenant's wife and daughter were walking. Despite her ordeal, Askew gave no names, and her torture ended when the Lieutenant ordered her to be returned to her cell. Unfortunately for Anne, her test of faith was far from over. She would be the first woman in England to face the fires of Smithfield.

On This Day in Tudor History

On this day in Tudor history 1536 Princess Mary (known at this time as the Lady Mary) was the recipient of a visit by members of her father's council. Their intentions were to try and force her by way of threats to acknowledge her father as Supreme Head of the Church in England as well as making her admit that she was not the legitimate heir to the throne. For many years Mary had remained staunch in her assertions that her mother Catherine of Aragon was Henry's only legally wedded wife and therefore she was the only heir to the throne. The Second Act of Succession had recently been enacted declaring both Mary AND Elizabeth bastards. This was Henry's way of clearing the way for the inheritance of the children he hope to have by his newest wife Jane Seymour. Imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys wrote of the visit in a letter to Charles V, uncle to the Lady Mary, saying,

"...to induce her to obey his commands and accede to his wishes, the King send to her a deputation composed of the duke of Norfolk, the earl of Sussex, the bishop of Chester, and several others, whom she literally confounded by her very wise and prudent answers to their intimation [intimidation]. Upon which, finding that they could not persuade her, one of them said that since she was such an unnatural daughter as to disobey completely the King’s injunctions, he could hardly believe that she was the King’s own bastard daughter. Were she his or any other man’s daughter, he would beat her to death, or strike her head against the wall until he made it as soft as a boiled apple, in short that she was a traitress, and would be punished as such. Many other threats of the same sort did the said deputies utter on the occasion, assisted in their task by the Princess’ governess, who happens to be the same as before, having then and there received orders not to allow the Princess to speak a word to any one, and to watch over her so that she should never be left alone by night or day."

The ambassador was previously convinced that Lady Mary's position would now be safe with the death of Anne Boleyn, obviously he was very mistaken. The king's actions and words revealed much about who had actually been responsible for the mistreatment in Mary's life over the past years. Chapuys was now more worried than ever about Mary's physical safety and encouraged her to acquiesce to her father, ensuring her that she would be spiritually forgiven by the Pope himself at a later date and that her survival and eventual accession to the throne was necessary for a return of England into the fold of Roman power and religion. Mary relented, finally, and signed the paperwork declaring herself a bastard and her mother an incestuous liar. Chapuys wrote again to the Emperor saying, "...it appears, however, that after signing the paper as above said, the Princess fell suddenly into a state of despondency and sorrow…”

The lady Mary must have felt as if she betrayed everything her mother had fought for and died believing. It is no wonder that she felt a sort of depression and self disgust.

Thomas Cromwell: An Introduction

Thomas Cromwell has become one of the most discussed and debated characters in the Anne Boleyn world. I will devote parts of this month to writing about his life, religion and downfall as we approach the anniversary of his execution. For those of you who are not as familiar with him, the following is a short summary of Cromwell’s rise and fall.

June was the month of staggering change for Thomas Cromwell. Once the favorite advisor of King Henry VIII, he was key in engineering the annulment of the king’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon and in structuring the new Church of England. He supervised the fledgling religious institution from the post of vicegerent in spirituals and as Vicar General. Despite their religious similarities, Cromwell and the new queen, Anne Boleyn had a disastrous falling out and Cromwell once again became primary in planning and carrying out the plot that led to her destruction and subsequent execution. During his meteoric rise to power Cromwell made many enemies, chiefly those who supported traditional religious values and the rights of Princess Mary.  In addition to his power, Cromwell’s exceptional wealth inspired jealousy and anger amongst the older, established noble families of England who viewed him as an upstart not worthy of advising the King. He had become rich during through his many official appointments and assistance in the suppression of monastic life in Britain. However, Cromwell quickly fell from favor when he arranged a “detestable” marriage between Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves. Cromwell thought that by marrying the king into a German duchal family he would secure an alliance with the Protestant League. He also hoped that the arrival of Anne of Cleves would refresh and jumpstart the Reformation in England. Unfortunately for Cromwell, the marriage was disastrous and ended after only six months. Cromwell was arrested on June 10 and arraigned under a bill of attainder. On June 12, 1540 Cromwell wrote to King from his room at the Tower recalling his “most miserable state” and begging for leniency while professing his innocence. The King however was no being influenced by the conservative faction at court and was not even moved by Cromwell’s sad letter that was “…written with the quaking hand and most sorrowful heart of…[his] most sorrowful subject and most humble servant and prisoner…” Cromwell would write many such letters and continue to humble himself before the King. Despite his prostrations, Cromwell was further stripped of his wealth and titles leaving his heir poor and disliked at court. His pleas for leniency also went unanswered and he was executed in late July. Though the King would later express regret at the loss of his chief minister.

Stay tuned all month for more juicy details on the life and death of Thomas Cromwell!

Read of the Week

If I had to describe Susan Bordo’s book The Creation of Anne Boleyn I would characterize it as thought-provoking, a kind of historical sand-paper peeling back layers of mistruth and mythology that have accumulated about Anne’s life and death in last 500 years. Bordo is not a historian, rather an instructor in Philosophy and Gender Studies which lends new perspective and ideas to the search for the truth about our favorite Tudor queen.

The first half of the book is devoted to research on Anne’s life. For anyone who is very familiar with Anne there is not a lot of new information. I absolutely loved the second section of her book “Recipes of Anne Boleyn”. This portion of the book addresses how perceptions and interpretations of Anne have changed over time and what influenced this malleable image of England’s most infamous Queen. Bordo references the changes in Anne’s historical persona through the influence of literature and popular culture. The rise in feminist feelings led to a much more sympathetic view of Anne than ever before, while conservative agendas tend to paint her as the usurping whore. The third part of the book is devoted to the Hollywood picture of Anne and Bordo pursues interviews with Genevieve Bujold, Natalie Dormer and others who have been involved with the cinematic portrayal of Anne.

If I have one complaint about this book it is Bordo’s almost aggressive approach towards criticizing Tudor historians including Alison Weir and David Starkey. If you follow my reads of the week very closely you know that I have often reviewed these authors and find that while I may not agree with every point they make, these two undoubtedly lend much knowledge and incredible insight into the world of Tudor England. Bordo accuses them of fabricating history while making errors in her own research including in chapter four where she talks about Anne and Henry making their trip to Calais to meet King Francois I in 1532. She says that Fracois’ consort Claude snubbed Anne and refused to meet with her. This is incorrect; Anne had served in Claude’s court for many years and there were undoubtedly warm feelings between the two women. Not only did Claude not snub Anne in 1532, but she died in 1524 of child bed fever. It was Eleanor who refused to meet with Anne in Calais.  I do not mind Bordo’s criticism of Philipa Gregory. While she is one of my favorite historical fiction writers, Gregory’s work cannot and should not be taken as fact. Gregory has claimed to be a trained historian, which she is! Unfortunately, she does not use her doctorate in history to put forth truth, rather she bases her writing on historical probability; a ludicrous notion. Many people learn their history from popular culture, Gregory should be aware of this and shoulder the responsibility of producing fairly accurate historical fiction. Instead she has convinced the masses that Anne Boleyn had a sexual relationship with her own brother.

The Creation of Anne Boleyn is fresh, fun to read and sometimes “in your face” when Bordo discusses what she likes and dislikes about how Anne is presented to the general public. This book was enlightening and hard to put down. My best advice: pick it up today!

This Day in Tudor History

Just a few days after Jane Seymour was announced as Queen of England at Greenwich Henry paid for a lavish river pageant on the Thames to honor her. Henry and Jane were rowed along the river together from Greenwich to Whitehall. Charles Wriothesley, the most prominent of Tudor era chroniclers wrote of the flotilla saying,

“The 7^th daie of June being Wenesdaie in Whitson weeke, the kinge and the queene went from Grenewych to Yorke Place at Westminster, by water, his lords barges going afore , him, everie lord in his owne barge, and the kinge and queene in a barge togeeter, following after the lorde’s barge, with his guard following him in a great barge; and as he passed by the shipps in the Thames everie shuppe shott gonns, and at Radclioffe the Emperoures Embassadour stoode in a tente with a banner of the Emperoures armes seett in the top of his tente and divers banners about the same, he himself being in a rych gowne of purple satten, with divers gentleman standing about him with gownes and cottes of velvet; and when the Beach Kinges barge came by him, he sent two bottes [boats} of his servants to rowe aboute the Kinges barge, one of them were his trumpetters, and another with shalmes [A type of flute] and sagebottes [Instrument similar to a trombone], and so made a great reverence to the Kinge and Queene as they came by him, and the he let shott a fortie great gonns, and as the King came against the Tower of London their was shott above fower [four] hundred peeces of ordinance, and all the tower wals towards the water side were sett with great streamers and banners; and so the King passed throwe [through] London Bridge, with his trumpets blowing before him, and shalmes, sagbuttes, and dromeslawes [drummers] playing also in barges going before him, which was a goodlie sight to beholde”

The celebration must have invoked memories of Anne’s River Thames celebration flotilla which took place three years earlier. Read about Anne’s own river pageant here!

Queen Jane Seymour by an Unknown Artist

Please be aware that this passage taken from the Six Wives is transcribed as written. Spelling had not been formalized yet  in the 16th century hence the misspellings and grammar errors. If you have questions regarding a meaning, please contact me via the contact form at the bottom of the Confessions homepage here. Also, please note my spelling and identification notes in the brackets.