Episode 189 is all about Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, sister in law to Anne Boleyn, husband of George. History hasn’t been kind to her, but recent historians are doing a lot to try to reexamine her, and point out the fact that humans are messy.
Books to read:
The Raven’s Widow by Adrienne Dillard
Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford by Julia Fox
Ladies-in-Waiting: Women Who Served Anne Boleyn by Sylvia Barbara Soberton
Rough Transcript of Episode 189: Jane Boleyn
Hello and welcome to the Renaissance English History Podcast, a part of the Agora Podcast Network. I’m your host, Heather Teysko, and I’m a storyteller who makes history accessible because I believe it’s a pathway to understanding who we are, our place in the universe, and being more deeply in touch with our own humanity. This episode is all about Jane Boleyn, and the rethinking of her legacy.
Before we get started, though, your reminder about Tudorcon! It’s about five months away – time to start planning your trip to Lancaster PA to meet with your other Tudor lovers for three days of learning, and feasting, and new friendships. I’m updating the website with all of the speaker topics this week, so if you were waiting to decide to come based on the topics being discussed, this would be your opportunity to figure that out! Englandcast.com/Tudorcon for all the details.
So now, let’s talk about Jane Boleyn, the way she had been seen, and the way we are starting to view her now.
Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford, wife of George Boleyn and sister-in-law to the ill-fated Anne Boleyn, has long been maligned by history. Often portrayed as a cold, calculating figure who played a role in the demise of her husband and sister-in-law, her reputation has been marred by sensationalized accounts and inaccurate portrayals. However, recent research by historian Julia Fox, and historical fiction by Tudorcon speaker Adrienne Dillard has challenged the traditional narrative surrounding Jane Boleyn, providing a more nuanced understanding of her life and actions. This episode will explore the rethinking of Jane Boleyn’s reputation and her involvement in the events leading to the fall of the Boleyns.
For centuries, Jane Boleyn’s name has been synonymous with betrayal and treachery. Her reputation largely stems from her alleged involvement in the downfalls of her husband, George Boleyn, and sister-in-law, Anne Boleyn. The most persistent accusation is that Jane provided damning evidence against her husband and Anne, leading to their executions on charges of adultery, incest, and treason. This portrayal of Jane Boleyn as a conniving, vindictive woman has persisted in both popular culture and historical accounts.
In recent years, historians have begun to challenge the traditional narrative surrounding Jane Boleyn. Julia Fox, in her biography “Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford” argued that much of the traditional narrative has been constructed on hearsay and conjecture. Fox scrutinizes the primary sources and reevaluates Jane’s role in the events leading to the Boleyns’ downfall. She posits that Jane was not the architect of their doom, but rather a woman caught up in the dangerous politics of the Tudor court.
Similarly, Adrienne Dillard’s work, “The Raven’s Widow: A Novel of Jane Boleyn”, offers a fictionalized account of Jane’s life that, while not strictly historical, is grounded in rigorous research. Dillard aims to provide a more sympathetic portrayal of Jane Boleyn, allowing readers to gain a deeper understanding of her motivations and the complex world in which she lived.
One aspect of Jane Boleyn’s story that both Fox and Dillard focus on is her marriage to George Boleyn. While traditionally portrayed as a loveless and bitter union, both historians argue that there is insufficient evidence to support such claims. Instead, they present the possibility that the couple’s relationship was more complex and nuanced than previously believed, with political and personal factors influencing their actions.
Another area of recent rethinking is Jane’s involvement in the accusations against Anne and George Boleyn. Fox and Dillard both question the extent to which Jane was responsible for their downfall, pointing out the lack of concrete evidence supporting the claims that she provided incriminating information. They argue that Jane may have been coerced or manipulated by powerful figures at court, such as Thomas Cromwell, into providing testimony that suited their purposes.
The recent rethinking of Jane Boleyn’s reputation, spearheaded by historians Julia Fox and Adrienne Dillard, offers a more balanced and nuanced perspective on her life and actions. By revisiting primary sources and questioning long-held assumptions, these historians have begun to dismantle the traditional narrative that casts Jane Boleyn as a treacherous figure responsible for the downfall of her husband and sister-in-law.
Jane Boleyn’s Relationship with Anne Boleyn
In popular culture, Tudor noblewoman Jane Boleyn has often been depicted as a spiteful, envious conspirator, instrumental in the demise of Anne Boleyn. Historians and fiction writers alike have claimed that Jane, also known as Viscountess or Lady Rochford, provided incriminating evidence that led to the execution of her husband, George, and his sister Anne on charges of adultery and incest in May 1536.
This supposed act of betrayal, allegedly fueled by her dislike for George and jealousy over his close relationship with Anne, has marred Jane’s reputation for centuries. An Elizabethan writer described her as a “wicked wife, accuser of her own husband, even to the seeking of his own blood,” who acted “more to be rid of him than of true ground against him.”
However, recent scholarship, particularly a 2007 biography by historian Julia Fox, has painted a more sympathetic picture of Jane, portraying her as a scapegoat who actually enjoyed a friendly relationship with the Boleyn siblings and never accused them of any crimes. Now, a new book by historian Sylvia Barbara Soberton adds to the evidence supporting Jane, using archival records to argue that Anne and her sister-in-law were closer than previously believed.
One of the main arguments that people who support the vindictive view of Jane use is a document from October 1535, in which a French ambassador wrote about “a great troop of citizens’ wives and others, unknown to their husbands, [who] presented themselves” to Mary, Henry’s only surviving child from his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon, “weeping and crying that she was princess, notwithstanding all that had been done.” The ambassador continued, “Some of them, the chiefest, were placed in the Tower [of London], constantly persisting in their opinion.”
During this period, Henry and his daughter were embroiled in a power struggle, with Mary refusing to recognize either the annulment of her parents’ marriage or the king’s new position as head of the Church of England. A devout Catholic who disapproved of Henry’s separation from Rome—largely prompted by the pope’s refusal to grant him a divorce from Catherine—Mary found herself removed from the line of succession following the birth of Henry and Anne’s daughter, the future Elizabeth I, in 1533. Previously known as Princess Mary, she was now referred to simply as Lady Mary.
Many of the English people saw Anne as a controversial figure who usurped the rightful queen’s position. Even in 1535, over two years into Anne’s reign as queen, she remained widely disliked, primarily due to her harsh treatment of Catherine and Mary, both of whom enjoyed extensive public support.
Detractors of Jane often identify her and Katherine Broughton, wife of Anne’s half-uncle William, as members of the group imprisoned for their public demonstration in support of Mary. This claim was first made by Anne’s 19th-century biographer Paul Friedmann, based on a note in the margins of the ambassador’s account that mentions “Millor de Rochesfort et Millord de Guillaume” (French for “my Lord Rochford and my Lord William”).
Jane belonged to a Catholic family, while the Boleyns were strong advocates of religious reform. It’s possible that Jane and her relatives may have resented the religious turmoil caused by Anne’s marriage to Henry. In addition to separating from the Catholic Church, the king ordered the executions of two well-respected and well-liked courtiers—Bishop John Fisher and philosopher Thomas More—who refused to accept England’s new reality.
If you want to find a motive for Jane to give testimony against Anne and her husband, this incident would provide it, if it was true. Especially if she spent time in prison for her role in the demonstration.
However, even if Jane disapproved of the new reforms, she probably wasn’t among the women who presented themselves to Mary. As Sylvia Barbara Soberton argues in Ladies-in-Waiting, the Women who Served Anne Boleyn, the marginalia “clearly names men, not women,” possibly indicating that “George Boleyn and…William Howard were tasked to imprison the ringleaders, not that their wives took part in the demonstration.” Importantly, the historian adds that Katherine Broughton couldn’t have been present, as she died on April 23, 1535. William only remarried in June 1536, after Anne’s execution, meaning he had no wife at the time of the gathering.
Interestingly, when George was imprisoned in the Tower in May 1536, Jane was the only one to send him a comforting letter, asking “how he did” and promising to “humbly [make] suit unto the King’s highness” on his behalf. George replied that he wished to “give her thanks.”
As Fox explains in Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford, Jane “gained nothing but advantages from her marriage,” achieving status as the queen’s sister-in-law and living in “unrestrained luxury.” She had little motivation to accuse her husband of terrible crimes since it would negatively affect her own standing at court; both Fox and Soberton argue that Jane first learned about the charges against her family when George was arrested, and she herself was summoned for questioning.
The Boleyn family’s downfall was rapid and meticulously planned, with King Henry VIII’s chief advisor, Thomas Cromwell, scheming to end Henry’s second marriage and clear the path for him to marry Jane Seymour. Seymour’s demure personality was a stark contrast to Anne’s fiery temperament, and it was hoped that she could provide a male heir. Cromwell interrogated any courtiers who might have witnessed the queen’s alleged indiscretions, including her sister-in-law and other ladies-in-waiting.
George, Anne, and four other men accused with them were found guilty of adultery, and in the siblings’ cases, incest. The men were beheaded on May 17, and Anne on May 19. Today, historians generally concur that the charges against Anne and her supposed lovers were fabricated by Cromwell to ensure the king was free to marry Jane Seymour.
After her husband and sister-in-law’s executions, Jane briefly retreated from court. Struggling to survive on limited resources as the widow of a condemned traitor, she appealed to Cromwell (demonstrating the ever-changing nature of Tudor alliances) and the king, who urged Anne and George’s father, Thomas Boleyn, to provide her financial assistance. Jane returned to court and served as a lady-in-waiting to Henry’s next three queens: Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, and Katherine Howard.
Jane’s own downfall resulted from her relationship with Katherine, the king’s young, lively fifth wife. The couple married in July 1540, when Henry was 49 and Katherine was still a teenager. For reasons unknown, Jane assisted Katherine in arranging secret meetings with the handsome courtier Thomas Culpeper—an adulterous affair that would ultimately lead to the executions of all three.
Though Jane’s reputation took a hit toward the end of her life, it was only after her death that her name became synonymous with betrayal. According to Fox’s biography, a marginal note in the 1576 edition of John Foxe’s Actes and Monuments, which documents the Protestant martyrs burned at the stake during Mary I’s reign, states, “It is reported of some that this Lady Rochford forged a false letter against her husband and Queen Anne her sister, by which they were both cast away. Which if it be so, the judgment of God is here to be marked.”
Wyatt and later historians’ blaming of Jane began during the reign of Elizabeth I, Anne’s daughter. In a Q&A published on her website, Fox explains that once Elizabeth became queen, “an explanation was needed for why Henry VIII had sent Anne to her death for treason and incest.” The historian continues:
As Elizabeth’s mother, a Protestant icon by that time, must have been innocent of the charges, it was believed that the queen’s father would not have ordered Anne’s execution unless he had thought her guilty. Conveniently ignoring Henry’s passion for Jane Seymour, it was easy to suggest that the king had been told lies. And the person who had told the lies, it was alleged, was Jane.
The Impact of Fiction and Popular Culture on Jane Boleyn’s Reputation
The portrayal of Jane Boleyn in fiction and popular culture has significantly contributed to her lasting infamy. Works such as Philippa Gregory’s “The Other Boleyn Girl” and the subsequent film adaptation have perpetuated the image of Jane as a scheming, vindictive figure who is instrumental in the downfall of Anne and George Boleyn. These fictional accounts, while engaging and dramatic, can often blur the lines between fact and fiction, leading to a distorted understanding of historical figures and event.
Recent historians emphasize the importance of distinguishing between historical accounts and fictional portrayals when examining Jane Boleyn’s life and actions. By revisiting primary sources and challenging long-held assumptions, they demonstrate the dangers of relying on popular culture to shape our understanding of history. Their work serves as a reminder of the need for critical engagement with historical narratives and the value of rigorous research in uncovering a more nuanced view of the past.
Reassessing Other Historical Figures
The reevaluation of Jane Boleyn’s reputation highlights the broader importance of revisiting and reassessing the lives and actions of historical figures. As the work of these recent historians has shown, a more balanced and in-depth examination of primary sources can challenge traditional narratives and provide new insights into the complexities of the past. The process of historical reassessment not only applies to Jane Boleyn but also extends to other figures who have been similarly maligned or misunderstood.
For example, recent scholarship has challenged the portrayal of Anne Boleyn herself, offering a more balanced perspective on her life and actions. Likewise, the figure of Thomas Cromwell, often depicted as a ruthless and calculating villain, has been reevaluated by historians such as Diarmaid MacCulloch, who present a more complex and nuanced understanding of his role in the Tudor court. These examples underscore the importance of continually reexamining historical narratives to provide a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the past.
The reassessment of Jane Boleyn’s reputation, led by historians like Julia Fox and Adrienne Dillard, has demonstrated the value of reevaluating historical narratives and questioning long-held assumptions. Through rigorous research and critical engagement with primary sources, these historians have offered a more balanced and nuanced view of Jane’s life, motivations, and actions. Their work serves as a reminder of the complexities and uncertainties that define the lives of historical figures and the importance of continually revisiting and reassessing our understanding of the past. As we continue to engage with history, it is crucial to remain open to new interpretations and perspectives that challenge traditional narratives and shed new light on the lives and experiences of those who shaped the course of history.
For now, we’re going to stop it here. Hop in to the Tudor Learning Circle (TudorLearningCircle.com) to discuss this and other things Tudor. I’ll add the book – again, it’s by Dean Snow, and it’s called The Extraordinary Journey of David Ingram, to the show notes at englandcast.com/janeboleyn.
And remember to learn more about Tudorcon – where Adrienne Dillard will be one of the speakers – and reserve your spot for September 8-10, at englandcast.com/Tudorcon.