Was Anne Boleyn Innocent?
Posted By Claire on March 25, 2009
If you read last week’s blog, you will know that I am convinced that Anne Boleyn was completely innocent of all charges and should not have been found guilty or executed.
War Veteran Fights for Justice
I haven’t gone as far to prove her innocence as Battle of Britain veteran, Wing Commander George Melville Jackson, did in 2005, but I fully support his actions.
Wing Commander Melville-Jackson called on the Home Secretary of the time, Charles Clarke, to pardon Anne Boleyn because he felt that she was “obviously innocent” of treason, adultery and incest, the crimes that led to her being beheaded in 1536.
Mr Melville- Jackson was also asking for Anne’s remains to be moved so that she could be laid to rest alonside her famous daughter, Queen Elizabeth I of England.
Mr Melville-Jackson said of his request:-
“Ideally, I would like her to be posthumously declared not guilty of the crimes she was convicted of because a pardon only means that you are being excused the crimes you have committed…But I got a barrister’s opinion and it seems that we would not be able to go to court to get a judicial review because, after nearly 500 years, there was not much of a chance of being able to come up with new evidence. So a pardon is the next best thing.”
Mr Melville-Jackson wrote to the Queen, the Home Secretary and historian Simon Schama, who has stated that he believes that Anne Boleyn was tried by a kangaroo court, but his efforts were in vain. It seems that we are just too late to prove her innocence. Although there is no way on earth that Anne Boleyn would be found guilty in today’s courts, there just isn’t enough evidence remaining to prove her innocence.
My Thoughts
As I have said before, Anne Boleyn being accused of treason, adultery and incest (even witchcraft) just does not sit comfortably with the evidence that points at Anne being a highly religious woman, a Reformist and an intelligent woman who knew her husband well. Anne had high morals and was not stupid, there is no way that she would risk committing such crimes.
I cringe at the bit in “The Other Boleyn Girl” where Anne begs her brother George to sleep with her so that she can give Henry VIII an heir to the throne. Yes, I can see that Anne would be getting desperate after two miscarriages, but incest would be against all of her fundemental religious beliefs.
Other reasons why I think Anne Boleyn was innocent:-
- She had alibis – As I said last week, Eric Ives, a biographer of Anne Boleyn, points out that there is evidence in at least 12 cases, that Anne could not have been with the men that she is accused of committing adultery with.
- Mark Smeaton was tortured – The only real evidence against Anne was that Smeaton confessed to sleeping with her. However, most historians agree that he was racked and had a knotted rope put round his head, which was gradually tightened (you probably saw that in “The Tudors”), and a confession produced by torture cannot be really trusted.
- The men pled “Not guilty” – All the men, except Smeaton, pled “not guilty”, and seemed shocked by the allegations.
- Jane Boleyn’s confession – Before her execution in 1542, Jane Boleyn (Lady Rochford), George Boleyn’s wife, confessed to lying when she falsely accused George and Anne of incest.
- Cromwell had an axe to grind – Eric Ives, and other historians, believe that Cromwell had to bring down Anne and her family in order to survive. She was a threat to him and to England’s foreign policy.
- There was no marriage – Henry actually managed to get his marriage to Anne Boleyn annulled before her execution, on the grounds that her sister Mary Boleyn had been his mistress. How could Anne have committed adultery if she was not even married?
Those are just my own personal thoughts combined with historical evidence and the opinions of historians. Please add your own comment on whether or not you believe Anne Boleyn was innocent and why.
I think that everyone knows she was innocent. The evidence is irrefutable. The evidence that she was guilty was ridiculous. So she dropped something, and Henry Norris picked it up to give it to her. Those whores! And her told her brother that she was pregnant, so she MUST have had an affair with him! Give me a break.
[Reply]
Hi DanielIe,
I know! She was so framed! And how cruel to make her former sweetheart, Henry Percy, cast judgement on her. It is said that he was physically sick after she was found guilty.
[Reply]
While Anne may have been innocent and the trial unfair, it was decided before it even began, you need to realise that in tudor england (by the way, do you think you could put some background information on here. People cannot be expected to get a clear idea, if there is no background.) people were a lot more suspicious (and while henry really should have noticed another finger and a mole on her neck) if the word witch was muttered than it was instant death to the one accused. You may also note that she was also accused of heresy, at the time she may had been of the right faith, but past beliefs were enough to condemn a person, while the country was roman catholic, she wasn’t following that religion, she was reading forbidden books, and forming heretic opinions.
[Reply]
You are focusing on the adultery charges, there were other charges against her!
[Reply]
Hi Bassania,
I have mentioned the other charges and, in my eyes, the adultery charges are what it all boiled down to. Anne was accused of soliciting and having intercourse with the four men and committing incest with her brother. It was alleged that she had corrupted the men with gifts, conspired to procure the King’s death (by promising to marry her lovers when the King was dead), holding the King up to ridicule and treason against any issue or heirs from the marriage (“slander, danger, detriment and derogation of the heirs”).
Other allegations also came out at court but were not actual charges – poisoning Queen Katherine, plotting to poison Mary etc. They were used to muddy the waters and hint at Anne’s dangerous character. Eric Ives in his biography points out that Anne and the men were arrested first and then allegations made up later from Anne’s ramblings and worrying in the tower. Jokes that she had made about Henry Norris being attracted to her and her comment “You look for dead men’s shoes”, and the flirtations of “courtly love” were all used as evidence against Anne and the men.
I know that there were other charges against Anne, Bassania, but you have to admit that everything really rested on the adultery.
As far as the Tudor England background was concerned, yes, people were more suspicious in those days. I am constantly adding to this blog and will be giving more information on Tudor times. Regarding heresy, Henry was also reading these books and actually used arguments from these books to break with Rome.
Thanks for your comment. I love to hear other people’s opinions and ideas on what you’d like to see on the site.
Claire
[Reply]
Anne was guilty of not producing the male heir.
She was guilty of being highly spirited and cowed to no one, not even Henry. The genes that produced one of England’s greatest soverigns were not Henry’s alone.
That’s probably all she was guilty of. Perhaps if she had been meeker, Hernry would have just found a way to divorce her.
Execution of Anne and her brother (and the other poor saps) was really a travesty.
Anne probably will never be pardoned by the Royals of today. They live in a fragile world themselves and if they started turning over bones and reconstructing history, they could resconstruct themselves right out of the role they currently hang on to. For similar reasons, don’t expect them to step up for DNA tests. No telling what surprises might be revealed.
So things will have to remain as they are. I personally would carefully locate Anne’s remains in the Tower Chapel and move them to a special place of reverance near those of Elizabeth in Westminster Abbey. But it won’t happen.
Ha, even the burly Beefeaters at the Tower glance away when asked about Anne’s guilt. They are much quicker to pounce upon Catherine Howard.
[Reply]
Anne definitely deserves a pardon. We know from historical evidence and sources that the evidence used at the trial was fabricated – a confession taken under torture, dates that just don’t add up, a witness statement retracted later (Jane Parker) etc. I don’t think it will ever happen but we can carry on with what we’re doing, educating people about the truth about Anne Boleyn.
I think I would actually leave Anne’s body alone. I think she is at rest at the Chapel and her soul is not there anyway. Let her resting place stand as a testimony to her story.
Thanks for the comment, Paul.
[Reply]
Re moving her body ………..if this had been her or Elizabeth’s desire then it would have been effected during Elizabeth’s Reign let her rest in peace whatever her story ……it is interesting of all the executions at the time many of which would have been through falsehood and chance through people’s desire to progress at all costs, that Anne has captured the imagination so perhaps because she was one of the first when Henry’s England stepped away from the more usual course of courtly love
[Reply]
Hi Kate,
I agree that Anne should just be left at rest. I think it’s the fact that Anne was Queen that has made her stand out. It must have shocked the whole of Europe when Henry executed one Queen and quickly married another!
I’d never thought about England stepping away from courtly love but you’re right, Anne’s death which was due to courtly love being “twisted” would have affected this old English tradition. Interesting!
[Reply]
First, Anne Boleyn was a queen who God loves. I, too, think she is innocent – of all charges. I guess it was really her time to die. If she didn’t then she wouldn’t be as famous as she is now. And we would not see her as a great queen who is strong, decisive and indisputable. It is of no doubt we all look up to her. The strength of her soul did not die with her beheaded body. She got her head chopped off but at least it was ordered by the Henry right? A man so powerful who was probably intimidated by such a strong woman.
[Reply]
anne should be pardoned. the only crime she committed ( if you can call it such ) is that she did not have a son.
[Reply]
Hey,
you raise some really good points about Anne Boleyns innocence.
I was wondering what book the Eric Ives thing was from…about 12 claims of alibies?
Also, do you know of any historians who agree with the murder of anne boleyn and that she was guilty and why?
Thank xx
[Reply]
The Eric Ives book is “The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn”, which is an excellent biography of Anne and is very fair and balanced. Most historians now believe that she was innocent and was framed by Cromwell but G W Bernard has a book coming out in April I think (Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions) and he does feel that Anne may have been guilty of something, it will be an interesting read.
Thanks for the comment, Lucy!
[Reply]
Yes. I completely and 100%ly agree with you. Anne Boleyn was an innocent woman.
Another piece of proof was her last confession. Since she was so religious, why would she lie to a priest? As is today, anything you confess can not be used against you. She would’ve confessed the truth. She was innocent of all charges. The only treason she commited was not producing what the King wanted.
[Reply]
Carole, you have a valid point, but allow me to play devil’s advocate. You say that “as is today, anything you confess can not be used against you, at least not in a court of law… so why lie to a priest?” Well, since her last confession would never and should never be known for obvious reasons, how can one say whether this is proof to her guilt or innocence?
I bring up another point that I have read. Henry trusted his advisers and his advisers would have done everything in their power not to disappoint the King on pain of execution. The fact is that whether Henry knew that Smeaton for example had been tortured or not, the confession came from Smeaton’s lips. I quite agree that this would not stand up in a modern court of law, but the laws of Henrician England were quite different and the general opinion of the time was that the devil himself kept Smeaton quiet for so long and that only physical pain would bring out the truth. Therefore confession under duress was not only acceptable but necessary in a superstitious world like that of Henrician England just as it would have been during the Spanish Inquisition.
As for the accusation of incest. It is true that Anne and her brother were close. But perhaps so close that it could be misconsrued as incest, even if there was no intercourse. Their public displays of affection would have been proof enough if indeed my last statement is true. But I guess the only one’s who really knew the truth were Anne and her brother and they will or have answered for that already – I mean at the pearly gates.
It might be a good idea that others who wish to comment further on this subject should first consider the social dynamics of the time. I of course refer to the charge of treason. It is unlikey that Anne acted solo; she would have been following orders from her father, uncle and even her brother as was befitting of a girl or woman of the time. Girls from a young age were taught that they were inferior to men and so odedience to men would come as second nature once the girl had hit adulthood. This I believe is enough to prove her not guilty of treason because the intention of committing such a crime would have come straight from whoever Anne acted under. Both her uncle and father had reason to proceed in this way. Cardinal Wolsey and his allegience to France, which was rumoured to be above that of England and the lack of progress of the Reformation. A man listens to his lover, so placing her in his bed, so to speak would seem the obvious choice after all, they had already tried with Mary, Anne’s sister and failed because she was meek unlike Anne who clearly had strong and convincing arguements.
I have read a fair amount on this subject and based on the evidence I have seen and theories I have supposed, I can say with all confidence that Anne was not guilty of the charges against her because the evidence is not beyond all reasonable doubt as a modern court of law would ask it to be. The very fact that everyone on this website has comments on the subject would appear to prove that there is doubt regarding the evidence put forward at her trial.
I personally do not think it a good idea to exhume her remains as to do so would not only be disrespectful but also the equivalent of removing the Statue of Liberty or Nelsons Column. Perhaps it would be better if a monument were errected instead celebrating the juxtaposition that is the search for justice.
[Reply]
I am neither an historian, nor an authority on the Tudors, which may be the reason why I am so puzzled by the whole affair. Firstly, did Henry really believe Anne to be guilty? Although his actions have been described as monstrous, I find it hard to accept that he condoned the framing, in order to be free to marry Jane Seymour. He did, after all. rid himself of Anne of Cleeves without resorting to such drastic measures.
Equally puzzling is the number of treasonable acts with which Anne was charged. If Henry simply wanted rid of her, a single act of adultery would have sufficed. There were clearly other forces at work, and other people who wanted, for whatever reason, to blacken her name so badly that incest was included. Perhaps the conspirator’s hatred of the Seymour family was an influence.
Finally, Anne was executed by the sword, because the king felt that the common axe should not be used to execute a queen. Would he have accorded her that honour, if he believed her guilty of all the crimes with which she was charged?
After much reading, my own conclusion is that Henry really did believe her guilty of adultery, but not on the scale alleged.
Henry has been described as an, intelligent and powerful monarch. Could it be that he was easier to manipulate than is generally supposed? Certain factions wanted rid of Anne, Henry’s infatuation with Jane Seymour gave them their chance. and Henry was weak (yes weak) enough to let them have their way.
By the way, the waters have been muddied, don’t you think, by all the films and TV series?
.
[Reply]
There is no doubt that she was innocent! The worst of it as I can see it that her remains still lay almost unmarked in a grave within the tower walls. The only crime she was really guilty of was not prodcing a male heir. Had Henry Viii had a crystal ball he would have seen that although Elizabeth was a girl she was a far stronger monach and left the country at the time in a most prosperous state!
[Reply]
She is Innocent!!!
[Reply]
My sister in law is distantly related to the son of Mary Boleyn and I can say Ann was 100 percent innocent in all charges against her. I believe she was set up by certain members of the kings chambers. !!!!!!
[Reply]