On Monday 15th May 1536 at nine o’clock in the morning, Queen Anne Boleyn was bought into the King’s Hall at the Tower of London to be tried.
Anne had feasted in this hall three years ago on the eve of her coronation. Now judges sat grim-faced where the musicians had played.
There were no sparkling tapestries or silver gilt gleaming on the trestles. Instead, wooden stands had been erected for the 2,000 spectators who had crammed in to watch one of the most infamous moments in British history, the trial of an English queen.
As the proceedings got underway, Anne raised her right hand and pleaded not guilty to the charges laid against her: adultery with four men, Sir Henry Norris, Francis Weston, William Brereton, and Mark Smeton; incest with her own brother, George, Lord Rochford; imagining the King’s death and ‘diabolical sorcery’. Nearly 500 years on, people are still asking: was Anne guilty?
I believe Anne was most certainly innocent of the charges laid against her. The Crown’s case was full of inaccuracies. It defied logic and the outcome was a foregone conclusion. When Anne stood trial on 15th May, four of the five men had already been condemned to death. Anne didn’t stand a chance, her trial no more than a formality. Two days earlier, her household was broken up, and the French swordsman who was to behead her had been sent for.
Today, we know that eleven of the twenty offences of adultery listed on the indictment against Anne did not marry up with where she was at the time. However, the Crown’s careful wording of the indictment, ‘and on divers other days and places’ and ‘on several days before and after’ meant that the indictment was still valid even if the accused challenged the dates.
The two indictments drawn up against Anne portray her as a she devil. Stating she was ‘seduced by evil’, ‘had malice in her heart,’ and ‘despising the commands of God, and all other human laws incited her own brother to violate her’. Yet, prior to Anne and George’s arrests, no shred of evidence has been found to suggest they had an unnatural relationship.
Anne and the five accused men are described as traitors throughout the indictment, even though they had not yet been tried or found guilty. The indictment states that Anne and the five men jointly imagined the King’s death, and that Anne had frequently promised to marry one of them once Henry was dead.
‘…the said Queen and these other traitors, 31 Oct. 27 Hen. VIII., at Westminster, conspired the death and destruction of the King, the Queen often saying she would marry one of them as soon as the King died, and affirming that she would never love the King in her heart.’
In her shock whilst imprisoned, Anne remembered aloud a conversation she had had with Sir Henry Norris on 30th April, when she had asked him why he didn’t get on with marrying her cousin. Norris had replied he was happy to wait, to which Anne is alleged to have said: ‘You look for dead men’s shoes? For if aught but good came to the King, you would look to have me.’
Much has been made of this conversation over the centuries, but it took place in full view of Anne’s court. The evidence that an argument then ensued between Anne and Norris comes from Edward Bayton, a supporter of Katherine of Aragon. Bayton recalls this argument after Anne’s arrest. Yet, there was no sign of a rift between Queen Anne and Sir Henry Norris at the May Day joust the following day.
Edward Bayton also wrote to William Fitzwilliam, one of the men who arrested Anne, complaining about the problem of the lack of evidence against the Queen. ‘No man will confess any thing against her, but only Mark of any actual thing’. He also mentions his great friendship with Anne’s lady-in-waiting, Margery Horsman. Margery would have known if Anne had committed adultery, yet she was not arrested. In fact, not a single witness was called for the Crown.
Anne was crowned Queen of England in June 1533 and gave birth to Princess Elizabeth on 8th September, yet the indictment lists her as having affairs as early as October 1533 and throughout her marriage, painting her as a sexual deviant who could not control herself. But, how likely would it be for a woman to embark on an affair just a few weeks after giving birth? And then, whilst conceiving and miscarrying two more children over the next three years, start four more affairs? Or for the new queen to risk her position and her life given the seven years she had waited to become Henry’s wife?
Given that none of Anne’s testimony exists today, and only the documents of the Crown have survived, it is impossible to conclusively prove her innocence. However, it is my belief that if the case went to court today, it would be thrown out on the grounds of lack of evidence.