18 May 1536 – Postponement, Preparation and Prayer

Posted By on May 18, 2014

Anne Boleyn On the night of 17th May 1536, while the carpenters built her scaffold within the grounds of the Tower of London, Anne Boleyn prepared herself for her execution, which had been scheduled for 9am on the 18th. At 2am, her almoner John Skip (some say her confessor Father Thirwell) arrived to pray with her. She was still in prayer when Archbishop Cranmer arrived just after dawn to hear her final confession and to celebrate the Mass.

Anne Boleyn asked Sir William Kingston, the Constable of the Tower, to be present while she took the sacrament. She swore on it twice, before and after receiving it, that she had not been unfaithful to the King, acts which Kingston reported back to the King. By swearing on the sacrament, Anne was putting her soul into mortal peril if she was actually lying. Anne then made arrangements for the customary distribution of alms using the £20 given to her by the King for this purpose, and then she waited for 9am, the moment she thought she would take her final walk. She went back to her prayers.

When nothing happened at 9am, Anne sent for Kingston. She had heard that her execution had been postponed until noon. This was correct. Kingston had received orders to clear the Tower of foreigners that day in preparation for the execution the next day. He kept Anne in suspense a bit longer, but tried to comfort her by explaining that her execution would not be painful and that the blow was “so subtle”. To this, Anne replied with characteristic black humour, “I heard say the executioner was very good, and I have a little neck”, after which she put her hands around her throat and laughed heartily. She also joked with her ladies that the people would be able to give her the nickname “la Royne Anne Sans Tete” or Queen Anne Lackhead. Kingston was impressed with Anne Boleyn’s composure in those dark hours of waiting, commenting to Cromwell that “thys lady hasse mech joy and plesure in dethe”. Her faith must have sustained her.

Anne was finally put out of her misery when noon passed and Kingston informed her that her execution had been postponed until the next day, the 19th. Anne was obviously distressed but all she could do was return to prayer and seek spiritual comfort.

Notes and Sources

  • LP x. 908
  • Ibid., 910
  • Sergeant, Philip W. (1934) Anne Boleyn: A Study, p269

45 thoughts on “18 May 1536 – Postponement, Preparation and Prayer”

  1. Globerose says:

    Given Anne’s affirmation, in the holiest of ways she knew how, any delay in her execution might make her think her sentence would be commuted (yet again!). Today I read an article (2009) which described her trial as a “show trial”. This is her answer to that, isn’t it? But is the delay purely an administrative blip or Cromwell’s cruel trump? What do you think?

  2. JudithRex says:

    Kingston didn’t even have a coffin ready for her.
    We’ll never know unless something comes out of storage,
    but perhaps people didn’t quite know what to do
    as Anne was an anointed Queen and there was
    no precedent to executing her. Kingston needed to
    make sure he had it all in writing as well as clean up 5 bodies
    and build a new scaffold. Might just have been chaos.

    On the other hand, maybe after the suffering of more and fisher in
    the tower, some felt Anne deserved some discomfort
    and played a trick on her.

    No matter the reason, if deliberate, it shows the
    doer to be as nasty as Anne was always reputed to
    be. She was going to die, no harm in being Christian
    to her. She handled it with such admirable strength and
    courage. 35 years old. Sad.

    1. BanditQueen says:

      It was not Kingston’s job to have a coffin ready for her. Henry took a great deal of care to provide all the other smallest details of the execution, the order for the Sword of Calais, the money set aside to pay him, the money for the scaffold and so on, that it amazes me as to why he did not make sure that a coffin was provided. All we know is that no real coffin was provided but that a box normally used for arrows was found after she was executed and that she was taken to the burial place inside the church of Saint Peter at the Tower and laid at the side of her brother. It is not even clear who dug the grave or removed the paving stones inside the church so as a body could be put there. I assume that was done the night before; Anne was wrapped in a covering and her ladies placed her in the prepared space, some prayers may have been said, and then she was covered over with the paving stones again.

      I think that if someone wanted a proper burial they had to petition for the body and provide the burial materials and arrangements themselves. Bodies were normally buried in the churchyard but those who were high ranking were placed in the church as with Anne, her brother George, later Katherine Howard and Lady Jane Grey and Lady Jane Rochford. In the 19th century after they were examined they were reburied and plaques now mark the places as do flowers and roses. But in a few cases; like that of Sir Philip Howard who died in the Tower in the reign of Elizabeth and made a saint for his faith; he was moved to his current burial place in Arundle Cathedral in the 19th century. In the case of the Earl of Surrey executed by Henry VIII in January 1547 he was buried in the family tomb in Norfolk. Anne did not have anyone come forward and ask to move her body, but an interesting tale says that later the night of the execution she was removed from the Tower and her body spirited away to the church in Salle in which she was then buried. It is only a story, but some people think it is true.

      I do not believe it was intended that no shroud or coffin was provided for Anne, it was merely an oversight. However, I do not agree with your assertion that she deserved some trick played on her by fate because of the deaths of More and Fisher; nor that her death was Karma. Anne was an innocent woman, guilty of no crime other than making enemies because she rose to replace a Queen that they had served for over 25 years; that did not make her guilty or either adultery which was not even a crime, but a sin, not punishable by death; or treason, which was totally invented. Anne was careless and made enemies; but they had nothing to do with the arrangements of her burial. The details were all taken into consideration by the King and he may simply have over-looked the need for a coffin.

      1. JudithRex says:

        Kingston was in charge of the whole thing. But thank you
        For the compliment of reading my post.

  3. Alicia Ann Allan says:

    The only comfort I ever take every year at this time, is that Cromwell got his just deserves..He threw Anne to the wolves and regretted it each day after. She was his Champion of the Reformation. He was a foolish man.

    1. joanne1012 says:

      yes you are so right at least Cromwell suffered the same fate I would call this Karma and what goes around comes around.

  4. JudithRex says:

    Why would Cromwell regret Anne? She has nothing to do with his rise to power.
    He did that of his own brilliance. If anything, he was no doubt looking for better
    Prospects for the safety of the realm through an Adult heir like Mary if a son
    Did not come of the next marriage.

    Anne self- destructed by not having a son and by having an indiscreet tongue, neither
    Of which can be blamed on Cromwell.

    1. margaret says:

      well said and very true.

      1. May I respectfully ask how it is Anne’s fault she did not give birth to a son? Isn’t the male the deciding factor? I understand they did not know that at the time, but why in this day in age is she still the blame for that?

        Now I will not deny what I have heard about her indiscreet tongue.

        1. JudithRex says:

          She self destructed by not delivering on her promises. Nothing to do with
          biology. Again, the issue I was addressing was the blaming of Cromwell,
          Which seems to be a common theme in the facile Anne good, Thomas bad
          magazine version of history.

      2. JudithRex says:

        It was the constant attempt to blacken Cromwell
        That brought me to reading and researching more
        In depth about the whole Tudor family reign. I find
        That in order to promote easy history that appeals to
        The masses, so many promote the Thomas black anne white
        Version that actually disrespects Anne as a player and
        Ignores the good that Cromwell was trying to do
        For the poor and needy.

        History is so much more interesting and challenging
        In this time period!

        1. Claire says:

          I think Cromwell was a brilliant man. I love the John Schofield biography. In 1536, I think he was simply doing his master’s bidding and that if it was up to him that he case against Anne would have made sense and been watertight.

  5. Doc Clark says:

    I must respectfully disagree that Cromwell was a foolish man. He clearly knew where his paycheck was coming from and trimmed his politics and actions accordingly, despite the support of the Boleyns in his earlier political career. Like many who rise to power, for Cromwell practicality trumped gratitude. Also, given that Anne had not delivered the required male heir, she no longer had the power to twist Henry’s actions along paths that catered to her desires. She no longer had the ability to bring down a member of the privy council, especially one who could achieve Wolsey-like results.

    I opine that by April of 1536, Anne was no longer Cromwell’s ally in reformation and reform of the Church. The battle ground between them was both obvious and quite public after the John Skip homily on Esther and Haman on 2 April 1536. Anne wanted the proceeds from the sale of monastic properties earmarked for charitable purposes whilst Cromwell was funneling those money into the royal coffers instead. Added to the problem that the King wanted a change of wife, regardless of how it might eventually be achieved, Cromwell was no longer seeing Anne as someone to support and no longer someone who backed his own agenda for the Church of England. It is often overlooked but still worth remembering when considering religious stands of the various actors in the establishment of the Church of England that George and Anne Boleyn were more reformist and evangelical compared to Cromwell who appeared to be more Lutheran in his sympathies, given his leanings toward the German Lutheran princes and his support and friendship with Robert Barnes.

    1. JudithRex says:

      And in my opine, she never really was cromwell’s ally; he didn’t need her.

      1. Doc Clark says:

        I think we could spend many happy hours splitting hairs over the word “need.” 😉 One can make a good case that early on in her rise they were friendly, shared similar religious views – and books – and she did help advance his career and standing with the King. A view that she was his patron for a time has certainly been advanced by the professional historian types. Did he really need her to advance his career? That he pulled himself up from the common muck by his hard work and his brilliance is also a supportable statement. Like Wolsey before him, Cromwell was an amazing man in that respect. But it is beyond argument that Anne Boleyn did help him in his rise to power before she became Queen. Did she help him? Yes. Did he need her? Who knows? Did they have allied interests at one time? I believe so. Were they true allies? I think there’s room to make a case either way. As the saying goes, your own mileage may vary! 🙂

        1. JudithRex says:

          Very true, Doc. Although historical accuracy and
          Splitting hairs go hand in hand in my book- perhaps we
          Mean different things by the word “ally”. An ally to me is more
          Than similar interests. But to your point, I think way too
          Much is made over Anne and Cromwell as working
          Together. He was a Wolsey man and then had the
          Audacity to be kind to Katherine and Mary. Hardly
          Anne’s type of friend. ;-).

  6. Mickey Kolody says:

    I don’t think Kingston was deliberate in his actions towards Anne when the delay happened. In many ways Tudor England under Henry VIII it was a dog eat dog world. Kingston would know that anything he did or did not do to Anne would end up being reported to the powers that be. So Kingston would have to walk the tightrope of respect to a noble woman and dealing with a prisoner. He had a job of great magnitude given to him – the execution of five men and a queen!

  7. Miladyblue says:

    I think we’re all missing the person here who REALLY needs to have some rotten tomatoes thrown their way:

    Henry

    The lines from the old song say it best:

    “For Anne Boleyn was once King Henry’s wife,
    Until he had his headsman bob her hair.
    Ah, yes, he did her wrong long years ago,
    And back she comes each night to tell him so.
    With ‘er ‘ead tucked underneath ‘er arm…”

    And so on and so forth.

    HENRY wanted to be rid of Anne, and HENRY ordered Cromwell to do it, which means that Cromwell would have Anne’s blood on his hands, instead of staining Henry’s, in case someone protested.

    “Oh, no, it wasn’t sweet, innocent, royal ME, it was CROMWELL’S fault!”

    I still wonder what, if anything, King Francis of France had to say about Anne’s predicament, especially since she had done a lot of good for France in Henry’s court.

    1. Claire says:

      I do agree with you about Henry. I was once convinced that a paranoid Henry VIII had been manipulated by Cromwell, but I changed my mind and am now convinced that Cromwell was simply doing the King’s bidding. The case against Anne was incredibly complex and could have been a lot simpler and neater. Cromwell. as a lawyer, would surely have wanted a simpler and more watertight case against her. As Derek Wilson points out, the case included extending the treason law in a rather “unwarranted” manner by asserting that adultery with the Queen constituted high treason, which it didn’t. Wilson concludes that “The only reason Cromwell would devise an unnecessarily complex scheme was that it was what Henry wanted. John Schofield, Thomas Cromwell’s biographer agrees, believing that Henry’s involvement is proven by the lack of logic in Anne being condemned for adultery even though Henry’s marriage to Anne was annulled. In my opinion, the blackening of Anne’s name, with the incest charge, and the complexity of the plot bear the stamp of a husband who wanted his wife dead. The plot was down to emotions such as jealousy, fear, resentment and hatred, not Cromwell’s rational and legal brain.

      1. JudithRex says:

        I love your post, Claire. Everything you write can be used
        To support the position that Cromwell did not have to
        Make things up; once Anne’s “friends” started the whole mess
        By accusing her of bad behavior, the dirt came flying
        From a lot of directions. Had he made it all up it would have been cleaner.

        But against this position is the fact that Anne was heard to have made shocking comments more than once, they were all pretty recent, and Cromwell had nothing to
        Do with making anything up. It was not a mess, it was clear cut and easy for the
        Courts to find her guilty .

        Henry was probably shocked, hurt, betrayed and enraged… Or just pragmatic enough
        To know she had proven so wrong for the role it was just more evidence he was right
        To have wanted to divorce her. But she was worse than he thought; not only sonless
        But destroying his reputation and image as a virile, powerful king. Which I believe
        Was her intent as she was as angry at him as he became with her.

        1. Claire says:

          But interestingly Cromwell did not rely on Anne’s words. As I said in another comment, Anne’s words regarding “dead men’s shoes” and her argument with Norris were not used against her and the date of that argument did not appear in the indictments. Cromwell made up plenty of things – three quarters of the dates of the alleged offences listed in the indictments are impossible. The dirt did not come “flying from a lot of directions” and as Chapuys commented, Norris, Weston and Brereton “were condemned upon presumption and certain indications, without valid proof or confession”.
          It was a complete mess. Those present at Anne’s trial were impressed with her defence and Chapuys wrote of George’s trial “To all he replied so well that several of those present wagered 10 to 1 that he would be acquitted, especially as no witnesses were produced against either him or her, as is usual to do, particularly when the accused denies the charge.” They were only found guilty because the jury knew what was expected of them.

          How did Anne destroy Henry VIII’s reputation and images? She did not speak out against him and she went to her death praising him. It was the crown who brought up Henry’s sexual problems, not Anne or George, and Anne had spoken about them in private to her sister-in-law not announced it to the court.

          I think Chapuys reaction of shock, and clear scepticism, at the goings-on of May 1536, even though he favoured the Catholic conservatives, gives us some idea of the court’s reaction.

      2. Miladyblue says:

        Exactly – Thomas Cromwell was trained as a lawyer, and though some things have changed throughout the centuries, lawyers remain methodical and logical when building a case, whether defensive or prosecutorial. The case against Anne and her “lovers” was anything BUT. “Sloppy” might be damning the whole mess with faint praise.

        A part of me wonders if someone else could have had more of a hand in gathering the evidence against Anne and “her lovers”, perhaps one of her enemies. Cromwell had to be doing a face palm regarding the weak, poorly developed case against Anne and her co-defendants. Maybe a little something to make it seem like Cromwell himself were an incompetent lawyer, which might be useful against him in a future plot.

        Anne wasn’t the only one with powerful enemies at court.

        It would be interesting, I think, if someone were to re-try the case, using Tudor era law and interpretations of law, to see what the outcome would be if this case had been handled in a reasonably competent fashion.

        It would be funny to imagine an exonerated, and VERY irate Anne taking HENRY to court, and suing him for false imprisonment, slander, divorce, sole custody of Elizabeth, and alimony and child support. At the very least, the “emotional anguish” which is probably more of a modern notion, would have bankrupted Henry.

  8. JudithRex says:

    He had little time to get all the dates straight considering
    The timeline. But to call it a mess while the whole jury
    Including her former lover and her uncle voted her guilty seems
    A stretch.

    1. Claire says:

      And the whole jury were handpicked from Boleyn enemies and people who owed the King or Cromwell a favour. The jury knew what was required of them and there were cases in the Tudor era of juries being threatened. For example, in the case of Nicholas Throckmorton, the jury acquitted him and were then threatened with fines. Eight jurors were then imprisoned.

  9. JudithRex says:

    By saying Henry was not virile ppl would take that as
    His fault there were no sons. Really, that is very clear.

    1. Claire says:

      But she did not say it in public, she confided it privately to her sister-in-law and we don’t know exactly what she said.

  10. JudithRex says:

    You do not know her comments were private to jane alone. She admits to public speaking
    Of questionable content.

    As for the jury, Cromwell did not make those men peers of England,
    Nor did Anne have friends enough to counter the negative
    Feeling forward her felt by most people. She was a
    Failure and of poor morals. I think the whole fixed jury thing
    Is tough to prove in light of her general lack of popularity.

    1. Sandy says:

      Seriously? I can’t believe the jury was anything but fixed, and the whole “trial” was a sham. I agree with Claire in her opinions, though she didn’t use these words, that Henry was so narcissistic that he wanted a wife that would blindly worship him and be completely dominated. He misjudged Anne’s strength of character. She was not that “accommodating” wife he expected and the miscarriage of their son was tragic timing, and the final straw in Henry’s eyes, that sealed her fate. As for her having no friends, in that climate, who would have dared stand up for her? No one who wanted to keep their head and stay out of the Tower that’s for sure.

    2. Claire says:

      According to Chapuys, the note that George read out in court said that Anne had confided in Jane, George’s wife. If she had spread it as gossip then she would have been accused of it in court because it would have been impugning the succession.

    3. BanditQueen says:

      Considering you once claimed in a post to have read all of the books: you show very little knowledge about Anne or the actual situation around her trial and execution. Anne was a failure and had poor morals! Anne was not to blame for the fact that biology did not give her time to have a healthy son and she was married to a man who lost patience with her. Anne was actually a success in that she won the throne and gave birth to Elizabeth; she may have failed to produce a living son, but who knows given a few more times she may have had a son! Edward II was the eleventh child of Edward I! So what was the rush; they have been married less than 3 years when she has a stillbirth of a son in January 1536. Yes, Katherine had many years and did not have a living son and Herny began to see the pattern being repeated, but I think he could have given Anne a bit more time. In any event the reason she was executed was not her failue to have a son; that made her more vulnerable as Henry announced he was not going to have any more sons by her; or that he could see God would give him no more sons while he was married to Anne. He did not do anything however for another three-four months; so the loss in January was not why she was executed.

      Lo morals? Excuse me on what basis? There is no evidence that Anne had lo morals before her marriage to Henry. There is no evidence that she had wild sexual affairs in France or anywhere; there was no sexual relationship with Percy and the accusation that Thomas Wyatt was her lover was based on rumours and attempts to get the king to dump her. She may have loved or been the lover of Thomas Wyatt but that was over when Henry wanted to marry her as far as can be judged. Anne may merely have been flattered by him and given him tokens; we have no real evidence for anything else. Suffolks accusation was based on rumour and nothing more. She did not have affairs while she was married and was known for her virtue and promotion of moral standards. I think you need to read some more books.

  11. Nancy says:

    I agree that Anne may have been unpopular with those who supported Katherine and Mary, but I don’t see where she was a failure and I certainly don’t think she had poor morals. She was known for her generosity as far as charity was concerned (giving more than Katherine did), and her argument with Cromwell re the dissolution of the monasteries was that she wanted the proceeds to go to charity while Cromwell wanted them to go into the royal coffers. If the idea that Anne had poor morals comes from the fact that she was involved with Henry while he was married to Katherine (as if she had any choice once Henry decided that he wanted her), then isn’t Henry also culpable? Not to mention Jane Seymour, who nobody seems to see as a failure (probably because she gave the King his much wanted son), and who also was involved with Henry while he was married (this time to Anne). Of course, Jane probably had no more choice in the matter than Anne did once Henry decided that she’d be his third queen!

  12. JudithRex says:

    Well you just contradicted yourself; if in that climate no “friend ” would have stood up
    For her Then why would Cromwell have had to fix a jury? You can’t have it both ways.

    And Katherine and Mary had people who stood up for them and what they felt to be
    Right on pain of death. Anne had Nobody who would do that other than perhaps Norris.
    So that is extremely suspicious of either the type of spineless “friends” she had, or
    People did not think her worth risking their lives.

    1. Sandy says:

      To convince the uneducated masses and assuage Henry’s conscience, that’s why. It was propaganda. I don’t think I contradicted myself at all. Just because her friends were afraid for their own lives if they defended her in public doesn’t mean that she didn’t have any friends and everybody hated her. I don’t think it’s fair to say that because her friends and family didn’t have the courage to stand up for her against the king that she was a failure and had poor morals.

      Neither Katherine or Mary were found guilty of treason and condemned to death either.

      1. Sandy says:

        It’s okay JudithRex; we aren’t the first to disagree on this subject, and we certainly won’t be the last. 🙂

        1. JudithRex says:

          Members of her family worked to get her executed.
          Her “friends” were the ones who got her accused in
          The first place. I do not term them actual friends st all.

          So again, there was no need to fix her trial jury, according to
          You her “friends” were cowards anyway do who would have been more
          Favorable for her side? Nobody.

          Debating here is like herding cats – no line of logic; one
          Comment contradicts another. Cromwell would have cut it all
          Like a hot knife thru butter. Lol.

        2. Sandy says:

          I respectfully disagree. You were the one who said her friends were “spineless”, not me.

          LOL, we even disagree on who is being logical. 🙂

        3. BanditQueen says:

          There is no evidence of any member of Anne’s family working to get her executed! There is no evidence for her friends working to bring her down either. The statements that you have made here are not based on any facts or anything from either history or the original sources. Which members of her family worked to get her executed? Which of her intimate friends set her up? Please: I would dearly love to know your sources for these claims.

          Thank you.

  13. Globerose says:

    Hi Sandy! Lauren Mackay, ‘Inside the Tudor Court’, quotes the French Ambassador, Jean du Bellay, writing to the Admiral of France, that, “Madamoiselle de Boulen had made Henry promise not to give Wolsey a fair hearing or trial, as she thought him too dangerous.” and that this confirmed Chapuys’ view of Anne’s ruthless tactics. (pg 42). A ruthless tactician, a power player, that’s AB; Henry knew what he was getting and actually, how wonderful to have her on your team! Anne as an enemy is another matter, perhaps.

    1. Sandy says:

      Hi Globerose! Yes, I have read of similarly unflattering accounts written by ambassadors reporting to foreign courts. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted her as an enemy; the girl had smarts! I am in no way saying Anne was an innocent in all things. I agree with you that Henry probably admired her political savvy…..until it ran contrary to his or injured his gigantic ego. Katherine and Mary were more guilty of treasonable acts than she was, in my opinion; but he’d already put aside Katherine so she was no threat, nor was Mary. He could have put Anne aside as he did Katherine; he didn’t have to kill her. But that would have made him look like he was wrong in marrying her in the eyes of the people and world opinion, and he couldn’t have that, so he had to make her guilty of something bad enough to make him look justified in putting her to death. She was no saint and probably was ruthless against her enemies, but more so than Wolsey or the others? I think not. Guilty of the “treasonable” offenses she was executed for? I’m not convinced. Once the all powerful king decided she had to die, she didn’t stand a chance no matter who stood up for her.

      Love hearing everyone’s thoughts on this. Thanks to everyone for their comments.

  14. JudithRex says:

    You have contradicted yourself there.

    If Anne did not have friends with the guts to defend her, as Katherine did,
    Why would Cromwell even have to fix the jury as there would
    Be no one willing to defend her?

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Seriously. 😉

    1. Caitie says:

      When you think about it, Cromwell (and probably Henry) were dead-set on Anne being found guilty. Even if there were, seemingly, no friends or family members who were brave enough to speak for her, why would they take a chance? “Fixing” a jury that would all declare her guilty would be more in his favor than risking any glimmer of Anne’s innocence. So, you can have it both ways… but it’s called “covering all of the bases.” 😛

    2. BanditQueen says:

      I suggest that you take a close look, Judith at the juries and who was on them. The relationships between them all and their connections to each other, are carefully set out; either by your favourite author Alison Weir in the Lady in the Tower; or by Elizabeth Wheeler in Men of Power which is about the combined lives and falls of Katherine Howard and Anne Boleyn or in the excellent book by Lauren Inside the Tudor Court: taking a close look at the events through Chapyrs. The Dukes of Suffolk and Norfolk were the two Chief Justices on the trial commissions of Queen Anne and also at the other trials; and those who are listed are connected to them. There is also a connection between many of the men on the juries through marriage or through what was called patronage: they were clients of the Duke of Suffolk or another jury member or connected to Cromwell in the same way. Even if the jury was not rigged; then these men were mostly enemies of the Queen who could be depended upon to ensure the others delivered the right verdict.

      You are entitled to believe that Cromwell did not have a reason for doing any of this, but the facts and sources simply do not support this view. As you have read all of the books, then you must also have read the sources and I can only assume that you have dismissed everything you have read and all of the sources as incorrect and decided that your own opinion is the only correct one. That is your right; but please refrain from calling people mad or anything else simply as they do not agree with you. In debates people do not always agree; you have to keep your response measured and sensible.

  15. JudithRex says:

    You have contradicted yourself there.

    If Anne did not have friends with the guts to defend her, as Katherine did,
    Why would Cromwell even have to fix the jury as there would
    Be no one willing to defend her?

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Seriously. ;-).

    But at least you aren’t mad!!!!:-)

    1. Sandy says:

      LOL, no, I’m not mad.

      Again, Katherine wasn’t accused of treason and she had been queen for more than twenty years and never rocked the boat. You would expect her to have garnered some loyalty.

      It’s quite simple really; Henry wanted a UNANIMOUS decision of guilt to give him an excuse to execute her. How better to assure his desired conclusion than to make sure that each juror found her guilty.

      That’s as clear as I make it. : )

  16. BanditQueen says:

    How terrible for Anne to have to go through all this not once but three times! Because of the delays she had been told to prepare herself to die at 8/9 on 18th and then she gets all dressed has confession and so is prepared for death. Then she is told she will not die before noon and has to wait around. Then she is given another night to wait and has to go through it all in the morning. She has to put up with banging all night as well while trying to pray or sleep. Why did they not put the scaffold up two days ago in the day time? Nothing more annoying than hammering and banging; these days it would be drilling; let alone when you need silence and solitude. At least she was not completely alone and a clergyman came to visit and pray with her as well as the women were there; even if she did not like them they cannot be totally unmoved by her plight.

    Anne’s final confession she also said that she declared that she was innocent and received her Lord in Communion. This would have been noted and shared by those present. But it was too late and alas, despite her own desperate desire for it to be so; this was not a test and sooner or later; the executioner would arrive and poor Anne would be led to her death. As a Christian woman, at least she could look forward that when it was all over, she would be taken to heaven and find the mercy and forgiveness of God, and rest in peace. Amen.

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.