Thank you to Lissa Chapman, author of the new book Anne Boleyn in London, for sharing this guest article with us today. You can also read Lissa’s other article “Anne Boleyn: The news on the street”.

Anne Boleyn began to be a non-person around a fortnight before she died. Her household was disbanded before her trial. And in the days between her condemnation and her execution, her husband was partying on the Thames with his wife’s friends, carrying in his pocket and showing to anyone who would read it the manuscript of a play giving his version of her behaviour towards him. Contrary to an assortment of myths, once the guns of the Tower of London announced the death of one queen, Henry VIII had himself rowed to Chelsea to visit the next candidate for what appeared increasingly to be a less than secure position. Already the masons were at work removing the HA initials from public places and replacing them with HJs. And it was an easy matter to alter Anne’s white falcon badge so it would pass for Jane Seymour’s phoenix.

For the next two decades the name of Anne Boleyn was not one to mention in public. It was not until, against huge odds, her daughter Elizabeth survived to become Queen of England in her own right, that Anne’s image was seen again. When the new monarch rode through the streets of her capital city, one of the set pieces of theatre and decoration in her honour featured the life-size figures of both her parents, together for the first time since the one ordered the killing of the other. It is impossible to know exactly what Elizabeth Tudor thought and felt about all this – there is no record of her ever mentioning her mother. But she kept by her a jewelled ring containing her own and Anne’s portrait. And she always favoured her Boleyn relatives.

If Anne’s daughter kept her peace about her mother’s story, others did not. During Elizabeth’s lifetime, there was a deep divide between (Protestant) sympathisers and (Catholic) detractors. The first group, initially including people such as Alexander Aless who remembered Anne Boleyn, wrote of a “most religious” Royal role model. Careful circumlocutions and strategic silences were needed to avoid explicitly blaming the husband of the “most serene Queen” for any part in her fall and death. The second group, including, most famously, Nicholas Sander, competed to outdo each other as to the grotesqueness of the accusations they could make against the mother of the woman whom the Pope had now formally excommunicated and for whose murder any good Catholic would meet with nothing but praise from Rome. For Sander, Anne had been not only a sexually rapacious would-be poisoner but physically deformed into the bargain.

It was not until Dr Gilbert Burnet’s work on the history of the Reformation was published in the 1680s that the first attempt was made to look dispassionately at the story of Anne Boleyn. Burnet concluded that Anne was disposed of for a complicated raft of reasons, and that she was not guilty of any of the charges against her; however, her “very cheerful temper” was considered to have led her beyond the “bounds of exact decency and discretion”, thus making her vulnerable to accusation.

Burnet’s view of the matter was to make generations of constitutional historians highly uncomfortable, as they needed to think that the massed ranks of the House of Lords would not, could not, have condemned an anointed Queen without persuasive evidence. It therefore became accepted that there “must” have been witness statements against Anne that had vanished or been destroyed, and that she therefore was probably guilty, at least of adultery. Writing in 1884, Paul Friedmann, although admitting that there was nothing in the record that proved her guilty of anything, stated that he was “by no means convinced” of her innocence. And Friedmann also went on record as believing that Anne Boleyn was responsible for exacerbating, if not causing, most of the less pleasant aspects of Henry VIII’s character. This was, however, far from being the accepted interpretation at this time. In the early decades of the nineteenth century, Agnes Strickland was researching and writing her “History of the Queens of England”, which interprets Anne’s character very differently. Significantly, Strickland regards Anne Boleyn as a political player in her own right, ruled by ambition and not romantic love. Some male writers of the time found the idea of a woman having agency an impossible one, and responded to these suggestions with derision.

Meanwhile, outside the covers of academic publications, Anne was appearing on stage as a wronged and tragic operatic heroine in Donizetti’s “Anne Bolena” and in at least two successful productions in the London theatre. And she shared with the equally ill-fated Lady Jane Grey the distinction of being what must have been the favourite subject for any artist looking for a historical, but non-military, theme. The Annes of these creations are invariably pretty, usually delicate-looking, evidently passive, riven by conscience, and suspiciously nineteenth-century looking about the hair and corsetry. With the invention of cinema it was not to be long before the first film featuring Anne Boleyn as a character was made, and since its release in 1922 hardly a year has gone by without an addition to the genre, whether she is the protagonist as in “Anne of A Thousand Days” or a secondary character as in “A Man for All Seasons”. Anne is invariably portrayed by an actress of great beauty.

Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula
The increased profile of Tudor history in general, and that of Anne Boleyn in particular, was taking off at the time of the start of the rise of the heritage industry. The young Queen Victoria insisted, in the face of some opposition, on opening up Hampton Court to visitors without charge; Windsor Castle was already a visitor attraction. The Tower of London had been a tourist destination for centuries, and interest in its Tudor history increased when the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula was restored in the 1870s and Anne’s burial place, and her bones, discovered. It was then, for the first time, that her grave was marked, with a simple tile. And round about that time another layer of myth was added – a London solicitor, acting for an anonymous client, began to send a bouquet of roses in Anne Boleyn’s memory each year on the anniversary of her execution, 19th May. No one will admit to knowing on whose behalf they are sent.

In the early years of the twenty-first century, it is rare for a day to pass without someone in the long lines of tourists waiting to go into the Tower of London being heard singing a line or two of the music hall song “With Her Head Tucked Underneath Her Arm…..” There are Anne Boleyn conferences, walks, dvds, innumerable novels, plays and TV documentaries. At the last count there were over 80 Twitter accounts bearing some variation of her name. Historians re-evaluate, and frequently squabble over, the evidence about her, yet again. But, as with the Victorian corsetry, we are constantly remaking her character to suit our own time and taste. Short of a shock discovery of letters in an archive or attic we are unlikely to be able to come to any firmer conclusions about the woman whose bones rest in the Tower and whose living face we think we would recognise.

Lissa Chapman is a theatre director, writer and historian. She is joint founder, with Jay Venn, and artistic director of Clio’s Company, which specialises in researching, writing and staging site-specific theatre, particularly in the London area, and has worked in a wide variety of contexts, from the Tower of London and a variety of cathedrals, stately homes and cathedrals to Kew Gardens and an historic tidal mill, by way of a stretch of canal towpath and the odd damp field. Two productions have been set in the London of Anne Boleyn’s day, and in 2013 the company were chosen to take part in the Lord Mayor’s Show, for which they researched and recreated part of Anne Boleyn’s coronation procession. After walking through London in the pouring rain in the company of eighty nine-year-olds, singing one of the coronation songs for what was probably its first performance since 1533, it was probably inevitable that the research became a book.

Lissa’s book, Anne Boleyn in London

Romantic victim? Ruthless other woman? Innocent pawn? Religious reformer? Fool, flirt and adulteress? Politician? Witch? During her life, Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII’s ill-fated second queen, was internationally famous – or notorious; today, she still attracts passionate adherents and furious detractors.

It was in London that most of the drama of Anne Boleyn’s life and death was played out – most famously, in the Tower of London, the scene of her coronation celebrations, of her trial and execution, and where her body lies buried. Londoners, like everyone else, clearly had strong feelings about her, and in her few years as a public figure Anne Boleyn was influential as a patron of the arts and of French taste, as the centre of a religious and intellectual circle, and for her purchasing power, both directly and as a leader of fashion. It was primarily to London, beyond the immediate circle of the court, that her carefully ‘spun’ image as queen was directed during the public celebrations surrounding her coronation.

In the centuries since Anne Boleyn’s death, her reputation has expanded to give her an almost mythical status in London, inspiring everything from pub names to music hall songs, and novels to merchandise including pin cushions with removable heads. And now there is a thriving online community surrounding her – there are over fifty Twitter accounts using some version of her name. This book looks at the evidence both for the effect London and its people had on the course of Anne Boleyn’s life and death, and the effects she had, and continues to have, on them.

Hardcover: 248 pages
Publisher: Pen & Sword Books Ltd
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1473843618
ISBN-13: 978-1473843615
Available from Pen & Sword Books, and Amazon UK.

Images: Photo of 30 St Mary Axe, known as “The Gherkin”, with Anne Boleyn’s falcon badge by Lissa Chapman; Photo of the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula, at the Tower of London, by Tim Ridgway.

Related Post

12 thoughts on “Anne Boleyn: Ever After”
  1. There was a chilling callousness in the way the executioner was sent for before she was tried and condemned, and the way her household was disbanded so quickly, she was languishing in the tower when Henry was dining out and about and entertaining Jane Seymour, for three years she had dazzled the court then it was as if she never existed, her portraits were taken down and destroyed and Henry was never heard to utter her name again, when Elizabeth grew older she would have been curious about her mother and she was surrounded by Annes relatives, her old nurse Blanche Parry who stayed in her service till her death and Katherine Ashley a distant relative who was devoted to her young charge would have told Elizabeth positive things about her, how elegantly she dressed and how beautifully she sang and danced, how did they impart the awful news of Annes death to her without criticising the King her father? Maybe they told her she was the victim of malicious slander and Henry was as much a victim of that and had no choice but to condemn her, it is highly unlikely that any blame would have been pointed at him as that could be taken as treason, his judgement must not be called into question, year later Elizabeth wrote of the inward eye of suspicion, a reference to her mother maybe, she was its true never spoke her name in public but she must have discussed her from time to time with her ladies in private and she was very close to Mary Boleyns children, for Elizabeth to know her mother had died at the hands of her father must have made a certain impact on her and as we all know, she never married, did Elizabeth feel she was to blame for her mothers death for not being born a boy? Of course she was not responsible for that but everyone knew sons were crucial to the dynasty and her brother Edward was the long awaited heir where she and her elder sister Mary were not as important, it was an age where the Monarchs power was absolute and she had such a precarious journey to the throne herself that maybe after having reached it, she was determined bnever to marry and relinquish half of that power to anyone else, throughout her reign that were the Catholics who painted an odious picture of her as a heretic and a whore who had deposed the true queen and took her place, Elizabeth was branded the bastard and no true queen of England, they all said Mary of Scots was the true queen and on the other hand there were the Protestants like Knox who revered her for shaking England free from the idolatry of Rome, her enemies like Sander who never met her after all but was responsible for making her appear like the hook nosed witch of legend even made a reference to her last son born dead where he said she was delivered of a shapeless mass of flesh, thus upholding the belief that she was guilty of witchcraft and sexually immoral as such women are said to give birth to monsters, it’s ridiculous when you consider the silly tales that go around like the one about Richard 111 being a hunchback, yes he had a spinal condition with one shoulder slightly raised yet he wasn’t a hunchback, no one who ever knew Anne disparaged her appearance apart from the London crowds who referred to her as a goggle eyed whore, (she was known for having huge eyes) yet those who knew her personally and did not like her never made comments on a big mole she was said to have had on her neck and her extra finger was only a little nail next to her other one, the tales woven about her have all been embroidered over the years and the beefeaters in the Tower are partly responsible as its adds a more colourful twist to their story when they address the waiting crowds.

    1. I certainly believe that Anne Boleyn’s fall was a planned and put-up job – there is enough evidence, for example, the issuing of the patent of oyer and terminer on 24 April, and the recall of parliament, to be pretty sure. The remaining major question is the division of responsibility between the King and Cromwell, and that, barring a miraculous discovery, we shall never really know. And, yes, most of the more grotesque elements of the anit-Anne myths were invented, some by Sander. Others, too, appear to have been put about by the circle of Thomas More about his death. Some of the Yeoman Warders at the Tower are wonderful storytellers, aren’t they!

      1. The last days of Anne Boleyn aired a few years ago was wonderful Lissa, I don’t know if you ever saw it but they interviewed several historians including the novelist Phillipa Gregory who said she could well have slept with her brother to get a child as she was very ruthless and another G. Bernard who believes she could have slept with both Norris and Smeaton as the latter did confess, but I think that’s unfair to Anne who in her lifetime suffered the most dreadful slanders imaginable and to be honest, to even consider sleeping with your own brother just to get pregnant is plain sick and you have to be perverted to actually do the deed, I don’t believe that for a minute, Ms Gregory puts that in her novel and I must admit it makes for a good story but that’s all it is and whilst we know Anne was fearful and her sole position rested on whether she gave the King a son she was not that desperate, and besides what of George, do folk actually think he would go along with it? Bernard says that after hearing rumours Cromwell was obliged to interrogate Smeaton which is true, and after he confessed he had to follow it up, but he misses the point that why did Henrys chief minister feel he had to take this gossip at face value which after all was just a game of courtly love? And whilst Anne’s dead men’s shoes remark to Norris can be taken as treason it does not mean she was intending to marry him if anything happened to Henry, it does not mean that she was plotting the Kings death as has been inferred, it was a really foolish remark to make but that was Anne being her usual reckless self, And why should she want her husband dead he was her protector, without him she would be thrown to the wolves, it was Henry who kept her safe. Cromwell knew this as did the court but unknowingly she had given him the ammunition he wanted, we will never know if Henry told Cromwell to get rid of his second wife or if Cromwell was acting in his own interests but Cromwell had to be absolutely sure that he had enough evidence to put before the King as he was treading on very shaky ground, I think Henry was behind it, Cromwell would not have dared to move against the queen otherwise, they both had their own reasons for getting rid of her, so these two cold hearted men had innocent blood shed and five men were the scapegoats needed to bring her down, really Henry was no different from his predecessors in that any threat to their throne was brutally disposed of, and Anne had become a very real threat, she now stood between Henry having any sons he could sire with Jane Seymour so of course she had to go and divorce wasn’t an option, she had to die alive there would be more wrangling and Henry was an impatient man, he wanted to be a June bridegroom with any luck that bought him.

        1. Yes, do remember this. It’s clear that Anne and George’s closeness caused comment and made both the King and George’s wife Jane feel jealous and excluded – but the incest charge seems to me to have been born of the desire to make accusations so shocking that everyone would stop thinking rationally about whether or not they might be true. There may have been rumours about Smeaton – or he may have been arrested as a result of what the Countess of Worcester said when questioned. Anne’s conversation with Norris can be read so many different ways – my own opinion is that it was an act of folly on Anne’s part at a moment when she already knew she was under threat, and so lost her judgement, both about that and about making Norris go to her chaplain and swear she was a good woman. And, again my own opinion – I think the King had initially been planning to have the marriage annulled, and had not made up his mind whether to go further when Cromwell took the risk of moving decisively, and was duly rewarded with Smeaton’s confession, with the Norris conversation providing the icing on the cake.

  2. Anne Boleyn was a woman who was comfortable with her own agency and that threatened a lot of men in several past centuries. Henry was willing to have a fiesty mistress, especially one who was his intellectual equal, but he wanted an obedient wife. He did value intelligence, he did even value opinion, but in some areas he was in control and that was where Anne overstepped the mark. She was unable to accept that once married, she was no longer Henry’s equal and that her role as Queen mirrored his, but did not give her some of the powers that she hoped….being able to independently brief ambassadors before Henry sent them abroad for example. Anne also had a tough time accepting Henry still had stop gap mistresses when she was pregnant. Anne continued to insist on her political role and voiced these to the extent that they caused arguments. In 1534, possibly following a miscarriage or even two, (the evidence differs) Anne suffered a period of paranoid stress and clinical depression. I know she was clinically depressed as I recognise the symptoms from my own years of depression. She became very fearful and suspicious, obsessed with Katherine and Mary, was heard to make threats against them, was obsessed about her station and security, took less care of herself, found herself fearing she could not conceive while Mary and Katherine lived, thought Henry had all but given up on her, her behaviour and even public demeanour was noted as being erratic and strange and her father and brother had tried to calm her fears and silly, dangerous talk. Anne is under tremendous strain and it showed. Anne regained her confidence in the Summer of 1535, shared a triumphant progress with Henry, helping him to inspect the monasteries, redesigned Whitehall and see people they knew supported their reformation. Anne had a role by appointing several bishops and reformation ideas, but she went too far with her influence in foreign policy. I think that after the tragedy of the loss of her baby boy, Anne became vulnerable to those who had been against her rise. Anne had rubbed certain members of the traditional old families, friends and supporters of Katherine and even old friends of the King, up the wrong way. While they had chosen self preservation and accepted her as Queen, now they saw an opportunity to look for a chance to bring her down. I also think that her quarrels with Cromwell made him more open to a desire by Henry to get rid of her in April 1536. I think that he was promoting a new trade agreement with the Empire and alliance and Anne stood in his way. He didn’t calculate with Henry shouting at him over it. When rumours leaked out about Anne’s own over playful behaviour with Henry Norris and their fatal exchange, Cromwell went to the King who authorised or ordered an investigation. When Cromwell hit the most vulnerable member of her household, her musician, I doubt he really thought he would set in motion the events of the next 19 days, the fall and execution of Anne and five men, but having gotten Smeaton to speak, he had to find out the truth. Cromwell, even if he was part of a conspiracy to bring down Anne could not authorise anything without his masters say so. Henry had to give the order to arrest Norris, Bretherton, Weston and the others. Seven men were arrested, other than Smeaton, Wyatt, Bryan and Page, cleared. Was their arrest a mere rouse or did Cromwell not care who he arrested as long as he could make his case? I don’t believe we can really answer this as much has been lost and is unclear. Cromwell has been accused of cooking the whole thing up, but Henry cannot be absolved from blame. Within days he was faced with a list of charges, places, dates and names…the evidence appeared to convince him and Anne really didn’t stand a chance. The two grand juries were loaded with people related to or depending on the patronage of her judges and all of her judges were connected by marriage, patronage, employment or relationship. Most were her enemies. It doesn’t matter that we know she was innocent, they didn’t care and had been convinced of her guilt, even revelling in it. Henry had a new interest in Jane Seymour, wanted Anne gone, turning his back on her mercilessly and the whole thing was rushed through. Henry had been told that she intended to kill him and his children. He was also told that she had slept with over 100 men. His own behaviour became strange, from weeping to acting as if Anne didn’t exist. He morbidly took pains over the arrangements for her death, although he somehow forgot to provide a coffin, but somehow moved away from this as if it wasn’t real. He prepares for his wedding with Jane Seymour instead.

    Although Henry tried to erase Anne, he missed one crucial thing. The great archway at Hampton Court that he built for her still has her coat of arms under it and her letters are clearly visible. The Vatican somehow got hold of his love letters so we have his words to her. A letter that Anne may have written to him from the Tower survived, there is a medal with her likeness and later portraits may be based on a contemporary sketch. Her prayer book and book of hours with his and her writing in survived, gifts he gave her survived and the Victorians called her Queen when she was reburied. There are contemporary records from her coronation, plus now we have hundreds of websites and videos, fan clubs, this site, numerous places that recall her in some way and actresses who play her and tell her story. Far from being erased from history, Anne Boleyn is recalled mostly positively, although some still malign her and is a woman of fascination. There are hundreds of books about her. We even have a letter she wrote home when she was young in imperfect French. Not bad for a woman nobody was allowed to mention for decades.

    Elizabeth had a locked that her mother is believed to have given her, the portrait is believed to be her and Anne, although this was never authenticated. A letter was written to her about her mother pleading with her father days before her arrest with Elizabeth in her arms. I think Elizabeth kept her mother in her heart, but emulated her father as a strong and ruthless ruler in order to survive what was essentially a man’s world. However, there is evidence that she probably didn’t think anything about her mother’s execution for some time as she may not have been told. Nothing changed for Elizabeth for several months. Until the new legislation making her a bastard later in 1536, Elizabeth continued to eat under the canopy of state and be waited on hand and foot for at least three months. Then her household was reduced and it seems she was overlooked. Her governess wrote to Jane asking for new clothes as she was growing out of them and Henry was reluctant to take any responsibility for her. Jane gave a necklace for money for new clothes. Beyond that, however, she showed little interest in Elizabeth. Jane was more interested in helping Mary, but Mary was only let back into her father’s good graces after she submitted to his demands and signed her rights away. We don’t have any evidence of how, when or if Elizabeth was told about her mother, but she must have worked it out. We know that she was edged back into the family and did later spend more time at court. How she felt is impossible to know, but if she later had such a personal remembrance made as this locked, it can be guessed that she held her mother dearly and fondly, privately in her heart.

    1. A very interesting comment Banditqueen and I found your reference to Elizabeth’s locket very moving. We will probably never know if the image in the ring is of Anne Boleyn but I think it probably is, and I think Elizabeth did revere her mother’s memory. She was shrewd and intelligent, and could have worked out that Anne Boleyn was not guilty of the crimes attributed to her. I have just finished Gareth Russell’s powerful new biography and as he says, Anne was harried to her death in seventeen days, whereas Katherine Howard’s downfall lasted three months.

      It is incredible, really, that Elizabeth became queen; her path to the throne had been fraught with danger and in Catholic Europe, they saw Mary Stuart as the rightful queen of England. I think Elizabeth feared her Scottish cousin, but she was extremely popular in England (perhaps not so much among the English Catholics) and even today, she is seen as a great monarch, a woman who ruled capably in a masculine world. Elizabeth resembled her father most of his three children, something that Henry could never foreseen. Just imagine, if he had not ordered Anne’s execution, perhaps she would have lived to witness her daughter’s triumph and would have had an honoured place at court as the mother of the blessed Queen Elizabeth.

      1. Yes indeed, Elizabeth may have been told all kinds of nonsense about Anne, but her true servants and those who knew Anne would certainly have told her the truth. Elizabeth was certainly intelligent enough not to take what negativity was told at face value and as say work out the truth. Thanks for your kind words, most appreciated. Elizabeth may never have been Queen at all had her sister and brother had children, but they didn’t and it must have seemed a miracle that she became Queen. Catholic Europe aka Spain and her Empire wrote some very anti Elizabeth things about her birth. I am quite sure Anne as Queen Mother would have been lauded and honoured. The locket is a charming item. I have one with my nan and dad in. Very precious things. Very moving. Cheers and thanks.

    2. Was very interested to read your comments. One of the problems about what was going on at Court in 1534-5 is, of course, that of truly reliable evidence. There is so much that is only reported by Chapuys, who was such a biased witness, and, although he appears to have had a good network of informers, he was usually in London and not at Court, so not an eyewitness. As to Elizabeth I personally think she grew up knowing about her mother – the story of the Chequers ring is indeed very touching, and of course her closeness to Anne’s sister Mary’s children and grandchildren is also fairly eloquent of how she may have felt.

    3. Banditqueen that is true the gateway at Hampton Court is now called Anne Boleyns Gateway, preserved for all posterity therefore Henry did not succeed in eradicating her entirely from his life as every time he and Jane Seymour walked under the gateway her initials and arms were there for all to see.

      1. Hello Christine, yes, considering that Henry and Anne planned many of the changes to Whitehall palace or York Place and probably to many of the buildings of Hampton Court together, most of which were completed, there was much more of Anne than he cared to admit. Henry made a mistake there as there was a part of Anne in the infrastructure of the palaces that he planned for her. I have read that the Great Hall, probably the greatest example of Tudor building skills created, was built for Anne Boleyn. In another article, on this website, I think Claire or her guest mentioned that Henry regretted his treatment of Anne and her death.

        The most visible reminder of Anne was Elizabeth. Anne’s eyes stared out of his daughter every time she looked at Henry. It was little wonder he was meant to be unsettled about having her around. As for blaming Henry Norris or anyone else to being her father, Henry could not escape the obvious give away, that red hair marked her out as his, a real Tudor. He couldn’t deny her for long and he did accept her more as time went on, providing for her in his will and naming her in the succession in 1544. I think he saw her mother’s intelligence and her tutors encouraged that to grow.

        1. I think Elizabeth made Henry feel guilty and yes she had her mothers dark penetrating eyes so at times he must have felt that Anne was looking at him through her daughter, I also read that he did express regret for killing his second wife, most likely on his death bed when he believed he was going to meet his maker, he had loved her so passionately and love and hate are both sides of the one coin so he must from time to time had regrets especially if we believe she was executed on trumped up charges, he had made his two year old daughter motherless and quite possibly sowed the seeds of a physcomatic trauma from which she may never have recovered, certainly all her life she excercised extreme caution and never trusted any man, Henrys execution of Anne caused shockwaves throughout Europe and his reputation did suffer because of that, the charges against her were so ridiculous that they appear as they must have done then to be fabricated and even Chapyus who loathed her thought so, because she was a flirt and loved to indulge in courtly love and had men as well as women in her little circle, it was easy to make these accusations, yet Henry himself had committed adultery with Jane Seymour as well as another unknown lady when Anne was heavily pregnant, yet he was King, that was his right! It was not acceptable for his wife however because it put the succession at risk, contraception was practised then as Catherine Howard admitted years later she used it, but it was double standards, heavens thank goodness now we women have rights, Anne was in a sense a modern woman, born ahead of her time, she was the sort to say’ what’s good for the goose…. He then had their marriage annulled because he had relations with her sister which makes the charge of adultery redundant, but he didn’t care about how stupid he looked then, he was free of her to marry again and he never knew he would walk down the aisle another three times and neither did his country.

  3. I have 3 old engravings, likely copies of the originals, by the engraver Cutty & Dobson which I cannot find references anywhere: Ann Boleyn’s Gateway, In The Cloister of the Fountain, and By The North Cloister. Any information will be appreciated.

Leave a Reply

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