Jane Boleyn – History’s Scapegoat
Posted By Claire on February 13, 2012
Today Tudor history lovers everywhere will be remembering the tragic end of Queen Catherine Howard, the fifth wife of Henry VIII who was executed on this day in 1542. Many will not remember that Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, was also executed and some will agree with the sentiments of one tumblr “confession” which said “Jane Parker deserved her execution more than any woman Henry VIII put to the block”. She got what was coming to her, karma is a beautiful thing, she deserved it, she betrayed Anne Boleyn, she was a liar…blah, blah blah…
But I, for one, am giving Jane Boleyn the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion, Jane the monster, the liar, the voyeur, the jealous and spiteful cow, belongs to the realm of fiction and should stay there. The real Jane Boleyn is a bit of a mystery but deserves more than to be slandered by people who know nothing about her. Don’t you think?
The Jane Boleyn of History Books
But it’s not just the likes of Philippa Gregory (à la The Other Boleyn Girl and The Boleyn Inheritance) and Michael Hirst (The Tudors) who depict Jane as a “horror” – Philippa Gregory’s words, not mine – historians do too.
In “The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn”, Alison Weir writes of how “most sources agree that the only evidence for incest would rest upon the testimony of Jane Parker, Lady Rochford” and that Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, the 17th century biographer, described Jane “as the ‘particular instrument’ in the ruin of her husband and his sister “, basing his account on contemporary evidence: Anthony Anthony’s lost journal. Eustace Chapuys, the imperial ambassador; an anonymous Portuguese account; the writings of Lancelot de Carles, secretary to the French ambassador, and Jane’s execution confession all, according to Weir, back up the fact that Jane was the woman who gave evidence against the Boleyn siblings.
Weir goes on to write of Jane’s jealousy of the close relationship between George and Anne, the unhappiness of her marriage to George, the possibility that George had “subjected Jane to sexual practices that outraged her” and her resentfulness towards Anne over her banishment from court after she plotted with Anne to remove a lady from court, a lady who had caught the King’s eye. These reasons, along with her father’s sympathy with the Lady Mary, could, Weir theorises, have led to Jane’s betrayal of the Boleyns.
Lacey Baldwin Smith, Catherine Howard’s biographer, says of Jane: “the lady was a pathological meddler, with most of the instincts of a procuress who achieves a vicarious pleasure from arranging assignations” and C.Coote said “the infamous lady Rochford… justly deserved her fate for the concern which she had in bringing Anne Boleyn, as well as her own husband, to the block.”
So, people can be forgiven for judging Jane harshly, I suppose, when historians do too.
In Defence of Jane Boleyn
Jane Boleyn is judged harshly because many people believe that she betrayed her husband, George, and her mistress Queen Anne Boleyn by providing Thomas Cromwell with ‘evidence’ of incest. But did Jane betray Anne and George Boleyn?
No, I don’t believe so and I’m not the only one. Historian Julia Fox argues against this fallacy in her book on Jane, calling Jane “a scapegoat”, and her husband, historian John Guy, in a review of Alison Weir’s “The Lady in the Tower”, points out the following:-
- That Chapuys never named Jane Boleyn as the witness against George and Anne
- That the Portuguese source also did not name Jane, writing of only “that person”
- That Lord Herbert of Cherbury was not quoting from Anthony Anthony’s lost chronicle but from his own book
- That Jane’s execution confession was a forgery and the work of Gregorio Leti, a man know for making up stories and inventing sources.
- That Lancelot de Carles was talking about Lady Worcester, not Jane Boleyn
But what about George Boleyn’s own words at his trial? I hear you ask. Yes, at his trial, George, according to Lancelot de Carles, said:-
“On the evidence of only one woman you are willing to believe this great evil of me, and on the basis of her allegations you are deciding my judgement.”
But he doesn’t say “On the evidence of my own wife you are willing…”, does he? He says “one woman” and seeing as it was the Countess of Worcester’s conversation with her brother, regarding the Queen’s inappropriate relationship with her brother, that was the Crown’s main piece of evidence, then surely he was referring to her. When Jane wrote words of comfort to George in the Tower, he didn’t throw a hissy fit and write back telling her to go to hell, he sent his thanks. OK, he wouldn’t have known at that time that she had given evidence against him, but would she have dared to write to him if she had? Hmmm…
We have no concrete evidence that Jane did betray George and Anne or that she was the sort of woman who spied through keyholes and lied, and I don’t feel that we can question depictions of George and Anne without questioning those of Jane. She deserves to be defended too, I feel.
Jane Boleyn and Catherine Howard
But what about Catherine Howard? What on earth was Jane doing becoming involved in Catherine Howard’s adulterous liaisons with Thomas Culpeper? How can we defend her actions in 1541?
Well, I had a discussion with Julia Fox about Jane’s involvement in Catherine’s affair with Culpeper and Julia said that she had considered various theories but had ruled all of them out bar one. Jane didn’t need any money, she had been left well provided for by Thomas Boleyn, so she didn’t need any monetary persuasion to help the couple. There is no evidence that she was mad prior to her imprisonment in the Tower so it was not madness which drove her to recklessly help the couple betray the King. Julia Fox believes, therefore, that she was persuaded to help Catherine once and that she was then on a slippery slope heading in one direction. She’d done it once, so could not refuse again. We also have to take into account that Thomas Cromwell, the man who had helped her in the past, was dead and gone so she had nobody to turn to, nobody to confide in and to act as a go-between between her and the King. Jane was on her own with a dreadful secret which could cost her her head and she didn’t know what else to do apart from carry on helping Catherine and Culpeper. She had already incriminated herself so it got harder and harder to back out, so, instead, she just carried on and ended up digging her own grave.
Jane may have been guilty of stupidity, in not learning from what happened to Anne Boleyn and the five men in 1536, she may have been guilty of giving Cromwell evidence that Anne had spoken to her of the King’s impotence, but she was simply being honest. Anne confiding in Jane, and Jane passing the information on to her husband, speaks clearly of a close relationship between the three of them, not distance and jealousy.
We quite rightly defend Anne Boleyn and George Boleyn against those who have maligned them but isn’t it time we defended Jane too?
What do you think? Please comment and let me know.
You can read more about Jane Boleyn in Julia Fox’s article “Jane Boleyn: The Infamous Lady Rochford”.
Notes and Sources
- The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn, Alison Weir
- Catherine Howard:The Queen Whose Adulteries Made a Fool of Henry VIII, Lacey Baldwin Smith
- The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn by Alison Weir – a Sunday Times Review by John Guy
- Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford by Julia Fox
- The Other Boleyn Girl, Philippa Gregory
- The Boleyn Inheritance, Philippa Gregory
- The Tudors, Showtime, written by Michael Hirst
After reading your evidence, I am inclined to believe that Jane’s involvement in the fall of the Boleyns has been grossly exaggerated. It does seem that the Lady Worcester played a more influential part in their demise as opposed to Jane, and Claire, you’re right – people are very much influenced by what is written in popular fiction. Besides, Gregory has come up with numerous scandalous ideas in her novels, so surely this portrayal of Jane shouldn’t come as a surprise!
However, I don’t really feel one can disagree with Denny’s description of Jane as ‘strange’. I think it’s extremely difficult to uncover what really occurred in the Katherine Howard episode, whether it was the Queen forcing Jane to act as a go-between, or, Jane was persuading Katherine to see Culpepper. Personally, I believe Lady Rochford influenced the young Queen to see Culpepper; of course, it is possible that Katherine desired to see him herself, and from her letter she undoubtedly did; yet, to me it is surely worth noting that Jane Boleyn was very much aware, much more so than any of the Queen’s other ladies, of the dangers a queen invoked by being too close to male company, and therefore I believe she must have encouraged, or at the very least condoned, Katherine’s adultery.
Although I also feel irritation towards Gregory numerous times, I can’t help but agree with her theory that Jane encouraged Katherine’s adultery, ‘fully understanding the danger to the young queen’. Katherine comes across as naive, reckless and at times downright stupid, whereas Jane was worldly and wise in terms of the court and its instability.
So.. in a sense, I believe she was probably innocent in terms of her supposed involvement in the fall of the Boleyns, but in the affair of 1541-2, I don’t feel there is any overriding evidence to suggest she was guiltless; in fact, it all convincingly suggests she was guilty of misprision of treason.
[Reply]
Claire Reply:
February 13th, 2012 at 2:29 am
Yes, Jane was definitely guilty of misprision of treason, and I’m not defending that, I’m defending her against those who say that she got her come-uppance in 1542 for betraying the Boleyns, which is a widely held belief online.
What she did in 1541 was stupid and reckless, but we can never know the ins-and-outs of what happened. In my opinion, Catherine was influenced by Culpeper, an older man who was guilty of rape and murder, not Jane. Catherine had fallen for Culpeper’s charms when she met him at court while serving Anne of Cleves, so their affair was a continuation of that flirtation. Jane was her confidante rather than the instigator of the affair, I feel, and I can see how something that started off innocently, like Jane carrying a note from the Queen to Culpeper, could have snowballed. Perhaps Jane did try and get out of being involved once she realised what was going on and perhaps Catherine and Culpeper pointed out that she had already carried notes for them and was already involved, that there was no turning back. We cannot know. Jane would have been aware of the dangers, as would Catherine, and she may well have warned the queen. We don’t know and therefore we cannot heap the blame on her shoulders. Just my opinion!
[Reply]
I agree that Jane has been villified hugely by time, history and of course pants historical fiction. If I’m honest, I’m not entirely sure what to think of her.
However, I wouldn’t trust Fox’s book on Jane as far as I could throw it :/ Far too many maybe’s and “Jane would have thought this and done this because she felt like this” – I just thought it was a poor attempt at creating a biography on a woman there is just not enough evidence about. Who knows, maybe one day some more evidence will come to light which will mean a brilliant and well thought out biography can be written about her but not with Fox, in my humble opinion of course
[Reply]
I don’t think it would be fair to blame Jane for the downfall of Anne and George Boleyn because Henry just clearly wanted rid of Anne, and would have found some other reason to have her executed if adultery wasn’t panning out. I don’t believe for a moment that Henry actually thought Anne had slept with her own brother, although in some film, they showed her almost do exactly that in her desperation to conceive a son..a fictional film, but I suppose they guessed she might have tried just about anything.
It does raise an interesting point, though..Would Anne have slept with someone else if only to conceive a son? It seems..interesting to think, but..we’ll never know.
The charges against her were insane, and they did not even attempt to make them sound credible anyway, so it probably doesn’t matter. Witchcraft, incest, adultery..sounds oddly like what was said about Marie Antoinette. When they wanted someone’s head..they got it, and that was all.
As for Jane helping Catherine Howard..well, did she really, or was she just the closest maid and friend to her and therefore a good scapegoat? She *had* seen what being charged with treason meant firsthand, so it’s hard to believe she would willingly do anything to risk it herself. If she’d been smarter, maybe she should have gone to Henry and told him of what she’d seen or heard, thus removing herself from blame and letting Catherine and Culpeper be the bad guys, or would that have opened her up to counter-accusations from them? SO hard to say!
I could see where she may have felt forced to help Catherine, or even where she may have felt friendly toward her..even feeling sorry that she was married to the then-old/bloated Henry while she was so young and vital still. It’s just hard to think she’d willingly put herself in danger just to let Catherine have an affair. How do we know Catherine didn’t somehow blackmail her into it? Afterall, she was his ‘rose without a thorn’ so had she threatened to say anything bad about Jane to Henry..that would have been a pretty frightening threat. What if Jane had something to do with George’s sentence and confided as much in Catherine? She may have known some of her secrets.
This is all so fascinating precisely because we will never actually know.
And it is easy to sit here in our century and say what someone should have done, isn’t it.
[Reply]
Some things, I think, get ignored about Jane and the Boleyns. One is that George probably would know that Jane was under a great deal of pressure, and how well she could handle it. Another is that the evidence giving rise to the initial suspicion/investigation doesn’t have to be the same as what Cromwell used at the trial. For example, the Countess of Worcester’s conversation may have given the idea of asking Jane certain questions, such as whether George and Anne spent any time alone together, and once Jane answered “yes”, Cromwell used Jane’s statement at trial — something coming from George’s wife might seem more convincing than something coming from the now-dead initial accuser.
[Reply]
I will admit to having a bias against Jane Parker in the past but after reading your article, I’m rethinking my opinion about her. I agree that I think her role in Anne and George’s fall has been exaggerated and that the hatred towards her is undeserved. Unfortunately, there’s really no way to know exactly what her role was in their downfall and it’s certainly no stretch to imagine Cromwell twisting her statement to fit his own agenda. As for the Katherine Howard situation, I never thought that her motives were malicious. Rather, I always thought that she felt sorry for Katherine and acted out of sympathy. I think she might have felt somewhat safe since the king was older, less mobile and so “in love” with Katherine that she and Katherine could get away with what they were doing. Of course, it was foolish to ever feel safe with Henry VIII and they both learned that lesson the hard way. Another great article Claire!!
[Reply]
First of all let me say how much I like this blog. I think it is made up very well and your articles always include so much backgroung information and a bunch full of sources, Claire, so I used them more than once as a starting point for my own research. Also you are so often addressing subjects, which are ignored by many “Tudor Fans” and I think that’s the case with this article here, too.
So enough of the rambling. XD
I’ve been researching Jane too, mainly her involvement in Annes and Georges death. I can understand all the criticism about Julia Foxs biography of her – there are a lot of what-ifs – but in the end Fox says a lot of true things about the evidence given against Jane. I mean, we have no comtemporary, trustworthy witness for her guilt in the affair around Anne. Yes, she told Cromwell, that Anne had said, that the king was impotent. But in the end that wasn’t the reason for Annes and Georges death! And apart from that we just don’t know, what she said, so it’s just plain stupid to believe, she was the chief witness and responsible for their fall.
(Just my humble opinion, no offence meant)
Thinking of Catherine Howard, I just don’t see, why she would have gone to her and say: “Hey, wouldn’t you like to have an affair? I’d help you, you know.” and then push Catherine Howard to Culpepper. They had flirted before, Henry was a stinky, old man, and Catherine was surely experienced enough to get the idea of an affair herself. In the end, what would Jane have gained from pushing her queen into an affair? I just don’t see it and I never heard an argument, which was convincing enough to explain this.
So, I don’t doubt at all, that she acted as a go-between, but there was surely no need to convince Catherine of beginning an affair.
So yeah, I would love to receive a response. It’s lovely to be able to talk about this topic. Also I’d like to apologise for any mistakes I might have made. English isn’t my mother language, so sometimes that happens. ^^
lg
[Reply]
Tan Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 10:07 am
I’m sure I’m not the person you were hoping to get a reply from
but I just wanted to say I agree too. The only theory that makes sense is that Jane was in over her head before she knew it, either that or indeed she suffered from mental illness. I doubt that the ‘insanity’ ascribed to her after her arrest was anything akin to actual mental illness (which would have been apparent beforehand if so) but was rather an effect of the sheer terror she faced. So my theory is either an underlying mental illness (if the insanity diagnosis was correct) or poor Jane was involved too far before she realized the truth. In terms of mental illness a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder would describe her risk taking, among other possibilities. Of course; we simply cannot know as it appears everyday descriptions of behaviour was not often noted.
By the way; you’d never know English is your second language, as your command of it is superior to most English only speakers! Indeed you put me to shame; I’m afraid English was never my strong point at school
I was a science and maths sort.
[Reply]
mokka Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 11:39 am
I’m happy about every reply, (and abolut every compliment too ^^) so you’re welcome. Anyhow I never had any talent for maths or science at all (which is unfortunate, because I have to do written exams in the former for my graduation), so you’d probably put me to shame there…
Regarding Jane: I totally agree with you about her insanity. Of course she could have suffered from some mental illness. Still, even when you keep in my mind, how scarce the sources about her are, surely there would have been some sign of insanity before? I’m not a psychologist, but her behaviour seems to me as a sign of mental pressure as well, very similar to what happened with Anne, when she was imprisoned in the tower, where she began to laugh hysterically and talk far too much out of nervousness.
Maybe something like that happened to Jane too, when she was interrogated by Cromwell? Not exactly the same, but she could have been in hysterics very well. And she wouldn’t have been asked things like “Has your husband slept with his sister?”. Chapuys noted, that George was condemned on the basis of once having been in Annes chambers a long time, which he certainly was. So if I had been in Janes place I probably would have been unable to measure every question and my answers on how dangerous they are too. For Cromwell probably didn’t give her the time to think a lot.
[Reply]
It’s quite possible that Cromwell did twist Jane’s answers in to his questions in regards to Anne and her brother George and the other men.He probably also twisted the words of others questioned as well.I would assume he must have spoken to her other ladies in waiting as well . The answers maybe hidden deep in some archives in Britan somewhere.
As far as Jane and Catherine,the whole thing may have started out quite innocent.Catherine may have asked her to take a note to Culpepper a few times, and Jane might not have thought much about it at the time.Then maybe she saw something going on between the two,and tried to back out,but couldn’t.Catherine could have threaten her in some way, like “I’m Queen,and you will do as I say or I’llhave your lands or money or whathave you taken away”,we just don’t know. The smart thing to do,was for Jane to go to the Duke of Norfolk,and tell him what was going,and let him try to reign Catherine in,or speak to him and others very close to the king,like the Henry’s confessor, and put her concerns out in the open.It’s possible she might have been locked in the tower for several years,,but she might not have lost her heard.
Maybe in some weird way Henry blamed her for what happend to Anne,and then with Catherine, that was the last straw,and so he had her beheaded.After all, other ladies at court surely must have suspected something was going on.Maybe Catherine tried to get one of them invovled as well,but they somehow managed to get out of it,and so she settled on Jane.If it was blackmail, then maybe Catherine brought up old suspecions about her invovlement in the fall of Anne and George.I don’t think Catherine would hesitate to throw Jane to the wolves to save her own skin, and it’s quite possible she brought this up in her trial. So unless we find new paers buried somewhere in the archives, we will never know why Jane did what she did.
[Reply]
I have to agree with Sam on this one. I think there is too much coincidence in Anne Boleyn making noises about Henry’s impotence, and most certainly with Catherine Howard. I do not believe in coincidence, and along with the explanations of her outrage at George for what he had them do in the bedroom. This is not something that would be taken lightly over 475 years later, and he also touches on the fact that I and many others readers have noted that has more to do with Tudor History than her. Just my humble opionion, once again. Thank you! WilesWales
[Reply]
Louise Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 2:03 am
Hello WilesWales,
I’m puzzled by what you mean by, ‘her outrage at George for what he had them do in the bedroom.’ The idea that George raped and mistreated Jane stems from ‘The Tudors’ and the Weir. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that theory.
[Reply]
WilesWales Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 8:29 am
Forgive me, but I read that on one of the articles leading up to reading this posting, and you have confirmed my statement on another about Weir, and her sources being questionable. I seem to remember her outrage at what George made her do in the bedroom, and that it was known about the court about it. Forgive me, if the word “rape” was inaccurate. I agree that is most probably is; however, what is published by another article on this site, I do promise to quote the source from which it became from now on. My apologies, once again. Thank you for noting this! WilesWales
[Reply]
Claire Reply:
February 14th, 2012 at 8:36 am
Louise is correct, WilesWales. Although Weir accuses George of possible committing sexual acts with Jane which she was not happy with, there is absolutely no evidence for this. We know nothing about their marriage or relationship. Weir really doesn’t like George!
I’m not sure that those investigating would have been able to get away with misrepresenting what was said in evidence. Those being interviewed would have realised that the very fact these rumours were being taken seriously coupled with the Queen and her faction’s political isolation meant that Henry was after a guility verdict. They would have wanted to distance themselves from the Boleyn faction and what better way than to help in the investigation against them ? I don’t think that it was Jane who made the allegations of incest. I think she told the only damaging (and likely true) thing she knew which was the converstaion mocking Henry’s sexual performance. (On the subject rather strange that when there were accusations of treason, incest , adultry and witchcraft being thrown about that they should have bothered with this).
[Reply]
I don’t think it was wise to speak about the Kings manhood,that would anger any man,but the King ,he was all about his manhood, bad move. Anything said about the King would surely get back to him,OUPS. Katherine Howard was just a child of all about 15 years and a foolish one at that.Cheating on the King another OUPS,bet she did’nt see that axe comming.She was still old enough to to realize, not to anger or cheat on this King, another blow to Henrys manhood.
[Reply]
For the purpose of exciting Tudor fiction, it is great to look at Jane Parker as the creature phillipa Gregory portrays her to be! However I do think that it is far fetched to assume that Jane was totally to blame for Anne and george’s deaths. Evidence was taken from all different people and twisted so many times. Cromwell obviously had his story before the evidence and twisted the evidence around the preposterous charges against Anne. HOWEVER Jane obviously played a big part in Catherines’ downfall. She knew what would happen if and when they were caught, so she should har known better. But sliding downhill can you stop yourself? To me she also seems a sad woman, who has few friends, no family and it wouldn’t take much to push get over the edge
[Reply]
Over time, through reading more informed books, and of course joining this site, my views on Jane have softened, and see her part in the fall of Anne, if any, as blown out of proportion or unintensional, but… concerning the Catherine Howard saga, I can not seem to make sense of her. She had married into one of the most prominent family of that time, seen their swift downfall and survived it.
She had been at court for long enough to now how the polictics, and the people in it worked, and certainly knew the dangers of upsetting her King. So what was her thinking at this time? was she losing her ‘marbles’, and forgot, or ignored these dangers, and placed herself in a no win situation, or did she just get caught up in the general ‘giddiness’ that seemed to surround Catherine, and get sucked down with her. Whichever it was, she was never going to get out of it with her life, being in such close contact with the Queen it would be hard to believe, even now, that she wasn’t involved to some degree. Guilty by association, is a slim possibility, but highly unlikely.
I suppose at the end of the day, she became yet another victim of the brutality of the men and time she lived in, innocent or guilty, it didn’t seem to matter then, as long as the ‘powers that be’ were satisfied…I guess we will never know.
I have read Julia Fox’s book too, and agree that there are alot of ifs and maybes, but enjoyed reading about Jane in a more possitive light, rather than her usual malevolent portrayal.
[Reply]
I kind of wonder if Jane thought she was helping Katherine Howard if she was involved in their meetings because I believe that Henry VIII wanted a child by Katherine and she found out that he was having problems of impotence.
She was unable to get pregnant by him and thought she might be able to pass off Culpepper’s child as the King’s. I think Jane liked Catherine and thought of herself as a protector, realiizing only too late what madness this whole scenario was.
This, to me, would be the only logical explanation of why she would get involved in this situation and take leave of her senses this way, considering how she knew only too well just how ruthless Henry and his councilors could be in a situation.
If Katherine was able to get pregnant, Henry would have been convinced it was his child since he was so besotted with her and it would have strengthened Katherine’s position, probably guaranteeing her life till the death of the King a few years later.
Maybe Culpepper agreed to do it because he was infatuated with her and lusted after her thinking he might marry her after the King’s death.
The one that really bothers me is Francis Dereham and why he decided to come back to court and risk his life by basically “blackmailing” her for the position of private secretary. He had to have taken complete leave of his senses.
If he had stayed in Ireland and her crimes with Culpepper were discovered, the King probably would have been unable to find him and he would have lived.
[Reply]
I agree about her exaggerated involvement in the fall of the Boleyns, your article about it was very convincing mostly because it was analyzing the primary sources. But I can’t have pity for what she has done later. She was not a novice at the court, she should have known how risky life is there! Why didn’t she learn from the past events? She really didn’t have to pay such high price
[Reply]
Thank you, Claire, and you are correct, and right as always. I just got in the latest copy of Eric Ives’s, “The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn” beside me as my bible, too. Thank you again!!! WilesWales
[Reply]
I don’t quite know what to make of Jane. We know she at least listened to Anne when she talked about the king’s sexual lacks and I read Anne and George also made fun of the king’s dress and his music and poetry. Did I imagine that? I think I read it somewhere. So, she must have known about that, too. I expect she was terrified when she was questioned and wasn’t thinking clearly about what she said. I doubt she gave any real evidence or even hinted at incest. I think Cromwell probably took what she said and made it fit his case. However, after at was all over, she did receive land and goods after she wrote a letter to Cromwell. I can’t imagine why anyone would have agreed to that unless–perhaps it was to sooth Cromwell’s conscience for robbing her of her husband and livelihood? Or some sort of pay off for her testimony? Who knows? And why she did what she did with Culpepper and C H, I will never figure out. She remains a fascinating, unfathomable character for me. Thanks for the article.
[Reply]
I have always thought that Jane was unjustly blamed for the downfall of her husband and Queen Anne. Whatever one might think of her, one must realize that she was a product of court life. I liked Fox’s works while attending university as a girl nearly 30 years ago. He was one of the few that spoke highly of Anne Boleyn. I once argued against a history professor that his hatred of Jane was unfounded. I do think that she was shrew but had to be to survive court life. Most people havent any idea of the viper pit one had to navigate on a daily basis, not just survive but to keep your wits and retain your head. I do however, believe that in the Catherine Howard affair that Jane was culpable. I do not think that Jane did anything without carrying out its fruition in her mind. Personally, I find her life most tragic. I hardly think that she had one day of joy in her life. We have a metaphor in Oklahoma that I like to use: ( When one lays down with dogs one gets fleas.) That is how I would describe Jane and how such an experienced woman found herself without her head.
[Reply]