Robin Hood and Maid Marian – Anne’s ancestors, Fulk FitzWarin and Maud le Vavasour, are thought to have partly inspired the legend.

Thank you so much to Beth Tashery Shannon for writing this article for The Anne Boleyn Files. I started corresponding with Beth when I was researching Anne Boleyn’s family tree and the roots of the Boleyns, and she was so helpful. Beth’s article follows on from my articles Anne Boleyn’s Family Tree and Boleyn Myth 1 – Anne Boleyn’s Arms are Evidence that Anne was Ashamed of Her Boleyn Roots

Some writers make much of the contrast between Anne Boleyn’s ‘noble’ maternal pedigree and her ‘mercantile’ paternal ancestors. Others try to push her entirely into one of these categories or the other. The reality is far more interesting. This brief description is just intended to provide a glimpse of the richly textured background of the Boleyn family and the larger kinship group within which they moved.

Academically-minded readers may feel this post should have citations, but early genealogy generates reams of discussion at every point, and I have cribbed no one researcher’s particular discovery. Those curious about the kinds of questions and documentation involved will find in the links below a good sampling. Meanwhile, here is a general picture of the female ancestry of Thomas Boleyn, and why, though it includes grounds for pride, Anne’s foregrounding of her Howard heritage made sense.

Anne Boleyn’s most prestigious ancestry certainly came thought her mother. Elizabeth Howard belonged to the ducal house of Norfolk, which enjoyed that honor by direct heir-to-heir descent from Thomas of Brotherton, a son of Edward I and his second queen, Marguerite le Hardi (Capet) of France. But Thomas Boleyn’s marriage with Elizabeth Howard was no mésalliance. They were distant cousins, sharing some illustrious ancestors. It was the most successful of a series of Boleyn ‘marryings up’ typical of the aspirations of a large, upwardly mobile sector of Tudor society. It was a patriarchal society and emphasized paternal lines (or, in the absence of sons, heiresses), yet by Anne’s generation the upstart element in the Boleyn pedigree was thin and her paternal cousins were an influential network holding substantial property and power in south-eastern England and along the Welsh borderlands.

Anne’s great-grandfather, Geoffrey Boleyn (d. 1463), merchant and Lord Mayor of London, married the first Boleyn wife of whom we know much. She was Anne, daughter of Thomas, Baron Hoo, who fought with Henry V at Agincourt. This Anne Hoo should not be confused with her half-sister Jane (a.k.a. Anne), and was the step-daughter, not daughter, of the royally descended Eleanor Welles. Her mother’s exact identity is debated (Elizabeth Wynchingham of Norfolk? Elizabeth Echingham of Sussex?), but the Hoo family had cousins among the gentry and nobility of the south-eastern counties and beyond: old land owning families of the social status to which the Boleyns were gaining entry. The Hoos were also descendants, and cousins, to the influential FitzWarins of Shropshire, one of the warrior families that had long guarded English interests on the Welsh border. Through Anne Hoo, Anne Boleyn’s ancestors include Fulk FitzWarin and Maud le Vavasour, contemporaries of King John who are thought to have partly inspired the legend of Robin Hood and Maid Marian.

The surviving son and heir of Geoffrey Boleyn and Anne Hoo was Sir William Boleyn of Blicking, Norfolk (d. 1505). He was created Knight of the Bath by Richard III and under Henry VII was High Sheriff of Kent (1489) and of Norfolk and Suffolk (1500). His wife, Anne Boleyn’s paternal grandmother, was Margaret, daughter of Thomas Butler 7th Earl of Ormond (d. 1515) and Anne Hankford. Thomas Boleyn’s mother was hardly the salty old farm woman depicted in some recent fiction. Ormond was an Irish earldom, but the Butlers were of the English ruling class, holding extensive property in England and intermarrying with the English nobility as well as the Norman-Irish.

Anne Hankford, for instance, was the daughter of Richard Hankford of Devon and Buckinghamshire (and a widower of a FitzWarin of the above-mentioned family). Anne Hankford’s mother was his second wife, Anne, daughter of John Montague 3rd Earl of Salisbury (d. 1400). This Anne’s mother (is it any wonder why Thomas Boleyn gave a daughter the name Anne?) was Margaret Monthermer. Of this ancestor the Boleyns were surely aware, since Margaret Monthermer was a granddaughter of Princess Joan of Acre, and she a daughter of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile. So that through Anne Hankford the Boleyns had a line of descent from the same king as did the Howards; in fact Princess Joan was senior to her half-brother Thomas of Brotherton. But through maternal, non-heiress, descent from Joan of Acre (so called because she was born in Acre, Palestine while her parents were on crusade) came no dukedom. Therefore, the Boleyns’ royal descent through Joan conferred less prestige than the Howards’. As a note of interest, Joan’s marriage with Ralph Monthermer was a love match. Before the death of her first husband, Gilbert de Clare, Ralph was a squire of their household. Plantagenet royal ladies got away with marrying for love more often than most people now realize: Joan of Kent, Elizabeth daughter of John of Gaunt… Mary Tudor’s marriage to Charles Brandon was not so untraditional, and neither was Henry’s anger, followed by acceptance.

The Butlers of Ormond had held power in Ireland since Theobald ‘le Botiller’, Lord of Preson, Lancashire, was created Chief Butler of Ireland by Henry II. That king planted a new nobility, loyal to him, in Ireland as an attempt to control it. Theobald’s wife was the same Maud le Vavasour (of Maid Marion fame) who later married Fulk FitzWarin. So, ‘Marion’ was multiply Anne Boleyn’s ancestor with each of her husbands (hmm… Anne was supposedly pretty good with a bow and arrow…). Butler ancestors more recent to Anne include more of those hardy Welsh border warriors: Beauchamp of Abergavenny, Roger Mortimer of March, who with his lover Queen Isabella had Edward II murdered and briefly ruled England in all but name, and through Mortimer and his wife Joan de Geneville the French crusader de Lusignans and Jean de Brienne, King of Jerusalem with his first wife Berenguela, Infanta of Castile. Speaking of crusaders, Anne’s paternal grandmother, Margaret Butler, just possibly also descended from Balian of Ibelin (but as often, fiction has slighted the women; the real Balian’s wife and mother of his children wasn’t Sibylla but another ex-queen of Jerusalem, the Byzantine princess Maria Comnena).

Finally, and not least, Anne’s Butler ancestors included the FitzAlan earls of Arundel. The Arundels (as this family was often styled), even more than the Howards, provided the glue of kinship that joined the infrastructure of what we usually call the Norfolk affinity. Arundel Castle is in Sussex, but the FitzAlans originally came from Oswestry, Shropshire. In origin they were more of those keepers of the Welsh border, whose tentacles had spread to other parts of England but whose Shropshire mining wealth still had importance. Ties between the Norfolk, Kent and Sussex end of this kin and those still living along the Welsh border were kept strong by continual intermarriage. William Brereton, for instance, belonged to Anne Boleyn’s extended circle of kin along the Welsh border – an affiliation that combined fatally with Brereton’s conflicts of interest with Thomas Cromwell when Cromwell considered who it was in his best interest to get rid of along with Anne.

Through the FitzAlans of Arundel, Anne’s paternal ancestry included another line from Edward I and Eleanor of Castile, Princess Isabel who married Humphrey de Bohun 4th Earl of Essex. Also through the FitzAlans, Anne descended from Eleanor, daughter of Henry Monmouth, Duke of Lancaster. Eleanor’s great-grandparents were King Henry III and Eleanor of Provence (the parents of Edward I). Again, in strictly genetic terms, Anne’s father’s royal ancestry might be considered equal to her mother’s. But it was not reinforced by the status of titles the lion’s share of property holdings as was the Norfolk line. Those who criticized Anne’s Pembroke arms for blazoning female, non-heiress descent (Elizabeth Howard was not the Howard heir, Thomas Duke of Norfolk was) would have had even more bones to pick had she foregrounded her direct, but non-heir, Boleyn royal descent. Yet, in that era when the gentry and aspiring gentry carefully compiled their pedigrees and jealously guarded against bounders, Anne would have been fully aware of her Boleyn royal ancestry. She would have taken pride in it.

The jealousy with which the gentry guarded their rights to their arms suggest the drive behind some of the criticism of Anne’s coat arms, I think. It was sour grapes. Anne’s strains of royal descent through the Boleyn wives did not set her apart. When the Boleyn men married ‘up’, they achieved what most men in that society aspired to. So did many other successful merchants and lawyers throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It was a common means of upward mobility in that era. Had Anne bragged about her father’s remote, maternal, royal and ducal ancestry, many at court might have retorted, “Me too, so what?” But they didn’t get to use the Plantagenet arms.

But as Marquis of Pembroke, Anne was considering the claim on the throne of any son she might have. So, no doubt, was Henry VIII, who as Claire notes, permitted Anne’s display of these arms. The emphasis on her Norfolk and Rochford heritage proclaimed the background best calculated by the reckoning of her age – and probably by ours, still – to bolster her children’s claim to nobility and royalty through her as well as through the king. Had Anne and Henry never achieved marriage, it still would have proclaimed nobler blood for any son of theirs than could be claimed for Henry Fitzroy.

Further Reading

Related Post

62 thoughts on “Anne Boleyn’s Paternal Ancestry: The Wives of the Boleyns by Beth Tashery Shannon”
    1. black mamba,Very interesting good job ladies and I for one donot think that Anne was jusr a commenor, that she did in fact have, along line of Nobles in her fmaily tree,so myth no, truth yes ,yes, yes!!Claire do we ,or can you get more info on her French roots??? KindRegards Ladies Baroness

  1. I am the 12th great granddaughter of Mary Boelyn through her daughter Catherine Carey.Catherine Carey married Frances Knollys in 1539 and had a daughter named Anne who married Thomas West on 19 Nov 1571. Anne and Thomas West a son Capt.John West who was the Governor of Virginia. John West married Lady Anne Claiborne in 1625. John and Anne had a son Colonel John West Jr.. He married Unity Crowshall. John and Unity had a daughter Anne who married Henry Fox about 1673. Henry and Anne had a daughter Deborah Barbara Fox. Beborah married David Edward Collinsworth in 1759. Thus is the lineage of Mary and Anne to the Collinsworth family.

    1. Wow I bet that exciting to know but is there any evidence that Mary’s children could have been fathered by Henry VIII? I’ve always been intrigued with that

      1. Maritza,I truely think that Henry Caret was th Kings child as Elizabeth did make him heir to her throne.Just what I think. Regards Baroness

        1. I wonder if you’re thinking of Robert Dudley. When she was ill with smallpox Elizabeth wanted Dudley made Lord Protector of the Realm.

        1. Thank you claire can you email me the adress so I can save it and I can further investigate it if that were somehow proved that would the biggest find in History again thx claire

        2. Claire,Ithought Elizabeth ousted Dudley when she found out he was married,wasthis the Lord Robert Dudley she was is love with???

        3. He was out of favour for a while after he married Lettice Knollys but Elizabeth had smallpox in 1562 and Dudley didn’t marry Lettice until 1578. Yes, it was the Dudley that Elizabeth loved.

    2. I have read many articles about this exact question. There no records that shows that they are just circumstancal evidence at best.

        1. Do you think there’s anything left for them if they had to be tested of Henrys body? If so do they think it could be tested if they had the proper things to do such such a test

        2. Hi maritza,
          There maybe be a good chance that there would be something left to test,They have managed to identify Richard III remains that was found late last year, and his are over 100years older than Henry’s. Can’t see this happening though…

        3. Claire, Henry Carey is buried at Westminster Abbey, as is his sister. The Abbey is known as a ‘royal peculiar’ and is answerable only to the Queen, as opposed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. As I understand it, The Queen will not allow DNA testing of anybody buried in the christian faith which is why no such testing has been carried out. The bones supposedly belonging to the ‘Princes in the Tower’ are also there, in a casket opposite the tomb of Queen Elizabeth I. I agree that they should be left alone, but no doubt some time in the future these tests will be carried out for historical research, especially after the recent amazing discovery of Richard III.
          I for one am in no doubt that he is NOT the son of Henry VIII.

        4. Claire,Was’ent Robert Dudlly’s father beheaded as a tratior???Can you tell us why??? THX Baroness x

        5. Robert Dudley’s father was John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, and he supported Lady Jane Grey’s claim to the throne. He was the key figure in putting her on the throne and so was executed by Mary I for treason.

    3. Mary,We also have another AB Friend who is 13th GG to Mary Boelyn lady109 went back to family tree so I think you and her might be related??

      1. You continually fail to grasp the concept of Maths and biology. There are literally countless numbers of descendants of these people. If you go back just a few hundred years almost everyone is somewhat related. Go back over 1000 and literally everyone is, in the same racial group that is. For instance, pretty much every European/Caucasian can be traced back to Charlemagne. That doesn’t make us all special or mean we should all go around calling ourselves Charlemagne’s heirs on blog sites for instance. In any case, it is actually meaningless and doesn’t confer superiority despite what you clearly and obviously believe about yourself. To use the moniker ‘Princess Sarah’ on here for instance would be ludicrous since we all can claim equal prince/princesshood.

        1. Truth Teller,I am well aware that we are all descendants ,that do indeed go back thousand’s of years,but it is just a reply to another AB Rriend ,not a math class,but thank you for pointing that out to us. Kind Regards Baroness

        2. I find genealogy fascinating. However I think that business about pretty much every european can be traced back to Charlemagne is more likely a fallacy.
          Certainly my ancestors in Germany and Hungary were around a lot longer before Charlemagne.And since the romans were busy running around half the world there might be some ancient roman floating in our dna some where in the family possibly on both sides.I find it more interesting that there are some places in mainly Bavaria that carry my late father’s last name;one example being Hilpertsweiler .
          What the exact connection to the family there might be i haven’t discovered yet;
          if any.But if there is it makes me want to learn what they did and why the family may have been important.
          However I do see your point.
          And I do hope some day they do conduct tests at least in regards to the little princes of the tower who rest in Westminister Abbey.In light of them finding Richard the Third;because if I was queen I would do it to prove one way or the other that Richard was guilty or not and maybe end the mystery.

    4. wow!!!! That is so exciting to read that you are related to Mary Boelyn, Mary Collinsworth Preston. It makes me speechless. I Think that is wonderful that you know so much about your background.

      1. Mina,I have to agree with Claire,we should not dig up anymore of these Royal’s just let them rest in peace.Just my thouhts on the matter and I also think they aor much to old and in bad condition. Kind Regards Baroness X

  2. I read the article wow she was already royal in her own right but ambition was her downfall its sad that all they thought about was about how much power they could get even Henry VIII didn’t think twice about any of he’s wives if he wanted to get rid of you he would but its so exciting to me that I’m still very interested in the Tudor history Elizabeth as well its so interesting that we still read and wanto to know about them after at least 600 + years wow!

      1. Thank you. I’m sorry for publishing my address but I do hope one day you can send me a book thru mail thus it is hard for me to get anny book thru internet I guess is something that I’ve always wanted to read and dig further into that family thus I admire them. For there ambition and dedication thus it cost them dearly still they will forever be remembered as the Tudors and Boleyns and again thank you Maritza

    1. Hello again maritza,First wanted to say what alovely name you have!!if you go up on the site were, Claire has the site you can also get that site right there just trying to help. Kind Regards Baroness X

  3. Hello Baroness I know but I wonder if we will ever find out for sure but since its been so long ago hmmmmmmM I wonder I guess the only ones that know is Henry and Mary and even Anne herself but who knows knows reagards Maritza thx for replying Baroness

    1. maritza,It is really easy to get books on what Claire has out just go to Amazon you can buy them used or new I like the new myself,but thats just me. THX Baroness x

    2. maritza,You can always to go on line to the English archives or Vennia archives which have alot of very good info to read and it’s free. Regards Baroness X

    1. linda biggs,If something you have been reading on Henry and Anne,or for that matter anyone else,Claire will let you if it Factual and aswell as Fictional.Claire does her exstream research,so she will indeed let one know if your not sure ,or if it is indeed false,she has tought me much ,weather right or wrong as there are so many sites that don’t do there research as Claire does. Kind Regards Baroness X

  4. Wow!! well done Beth, it must have taken you so long to untangle that web of names…it was very interesting reading how far and wide Anne’s relatives spread.
    One name that stood out to me was Berenguela, and I automatically thought ‘wife of Richard I’ for a split second, but she had a different spelling of her name, Berengaria and she came from Nevarre..
    Is the Berenguela of Castile you mention also know as Berenguela of Leon?

    1. There is a Berengaria De Brienne born 1811 in Leon Spain. She married Jean De Brienne King of Jerusalem. He was born in 1611. There was also a Berengaria De Castile who was the Queen of Castile. She was married to Alfonso IX King of Leon. Are these the right ones.

      1. Ok, lets see if I have this right, lol, as Berengaria was a popular name in Spain it seems;
        Berengaria of Castile, was Queen Regnant of Castile 1179/80-1246 (Lady of Guadalajara), Consort of Leon, is the mother of the Berengaria you mentioned?? who pops up sometimes as Berengaria of Leon, Infanta of Castile, who married John of Brienne, which makes it confusing!! with a choice of birthdays too!! Is that right?
        The second set of Berengarias I got mixed up with is,
        Berengaria of Barcelona 1116-49, Queen CONSORT (only) of Castile, Leon and Gaica, Grandmother of Berengaria of Navarre, Richard I wife…..phew. 4 Berengarias and I’m ready for a lie down, how you coped with all those names above is amazing….well done 🙂

        Do you think the two sets of Berengarias could be related, so to add to Anne’s paternal heritage?

  5. Genealogy always proves to be fascinating, & I so very much want to trace my own. Although I hardly think their is any royal lineage anywhere. But one never knows, I suppose. Anne really does have quite a lengthy, royal, impressive line of ancestors, so therefore had not one thing to be ashamed of, on either side of her parents. And you look further forward, to who is related to her, now, & the results are still, of course, impressive and intersting.

    1. yes indee3d they are one of my relatives is lineage is from spain and the other relatives from the other side is german and mexican indian so you can see that it all got really mixed up so who knows whop we really are related to who we might be royal ourselves

  6. I find this very odd that you would take the Butler ancestry and call it the “Boleyn” ancestry. That it’s “Boleyn royal ancestry.” It’s not. It’s the “Butler” ancestry who married a Boleyn. The male “Boleyn” line had no royal ancestry. The “Butlers” did however. I see the link to Richardson is purely for the Butler line [not the Boleyn].

    The Maud le Vavasour, Baroness Butler connection — I can see the Butler connection, but how did you come to the conclusion that the Hoo’s were connected to Maud and Fulk? I don’t see a confirmation as to who the parents of Hawise FitzWarin (or FitzWarren), who married Robert Hoo, are. As for the mother of Anne Hoo, it is stated that her mother was Elizabeth Wychingham in Richardson. The wife of Humphrey de Bohun is Elizabeth, not Isabel. As for descending from Balian of Ibelin — that’s not possible; Elizabeth Woodville and Mary of Scots descend from Balian though.

    It would be nice if the writer was more specific as to where the ancestry comes from because it’s not the “Boleyn family” that brings all this to Anne. We all know that lineage ends a few generations back. It’s due to their marriages, like Starkey states, that they went “up in the world.” It is women who married a Boleyn who brought these ancestors. Anne Hoo being her great-grandmother and Margaret Butler being her grandmother. Again, with the arms — it’s just odd that Anne would go back to generations that are up to 7-10 times removed to emphasize old royal lines when courtiers at court had a closer relation to the previous or current king/queen. Her arms were a blatant attempt to “raise” her status so that she was worthy to marry a King who had disposed a royal bride. That is why people were so upset. Since Elizabeth Woodville, another commoner, they obviously had to come up with arms for the common queens and like I said — I think they wanted to emphasize the better, more royal, descent; even if it came through maternal lines. However, Woodville did include her father’s arms so why not Boleyn? Did he not have arms, I doubt that being a courtier to Henry VIII.

    As for sources — Leo Van de Pas is in connection with Richardson. The next Tim Powys-Lybbe tree has NO sources as to where the info came from. Richardson is great. As for Rootswebs — another self-published source, not done by an official genealogist. Most of that comes from anyway. And the last source, “The Tudor Place” has been discredited years ago.

    1. I’ll contact Beth to let her know about you comment so she can address your points but the sites mentioned at the bottom are not “sources”, they were sites for “Further Reading” for people interested in genealogy. Beth also mentioned that TudorPlace is not reliable.

  7. Kat is right that the linear paternal descent of Anne Boleyn has no royalty. I assume most readers noticed my post was about the maternal, not paternal, ancestry of Thomas Boleyn and his father. (After all, it would be equally incorrect to write of royal “Butler ancestry” if ancestry were only allowed to be the male paternal line.) Anne’s Pembroke arms transgressed the normal rules of heraldry, hence the criticisms by some of her contemporaries, but too many modern writers tend to confuse heraldic practice with full ancestry. My post is an attempt to restore a more balanced perception of Anne’s full ancestry. Thank you, Claire, for pointing out that, as I said at the beginning of the post, the links aren’t source citations, they’re a decent starting point for anyone interested in delving into medieval and early modern genealogy. From these databases, some more reliable than others, one can see disagreements and maybe become interested in studying particular points. Browsing the gen-medieval list is a good way to become familiar with the sorts of evidence and arguments on which these potted pedigrees are based. Unfortunately, evidence is often fragmentary, so that categorical statements about, for instance, the parentage of the particular Agnes de Grandison (we’re not even certain if there were one or two contemporary ladies with this name) who married Thomas Bardolph (the Savoie question, the Ibelin question) should be viewed with reserve, whether positive or negative. Genealogy is fraught with fascinating questions that can evoke passionately held and argued views, but the best of it is conducted with good will and courtesy. I appreciated the opportunity to blog a brief introduction to Anne Boleyn’s very interesting family background and hope my introduction sparked some curiosity for readers to explore further for themselves.

    1. Was looking on my family tree and found a Humphrey De Bohun who married Elizabth Plantanganet who was the daughter of Edward Longshanks Plantangenat. My source citation is the website Royalist Online.

  8. I wish they would dig up the old graves from King Henry the VIII and all his wifes. We know there is bones left over from Anne Boelyn but they are mixed together with other bones now from other people. There is some hair from the Sister from King Henry the VIII in Bury st edmunds in a museum here in Bury. I know that the body from Queen Katherine of Aragon , King Henry the VIII first wife her grave is not there anymore. They dont know for sure where it is in St. Peterborough in the Cathertral. They have a reminder grave up but I was told that that is just for dispplay. In the 1700 somebody had it all destroyed so now nobody knows where the real grave is since bones of buried people also had been burned. 🙁

    1. There is also a lock of hair from Katherine Parr at Wyke Manor, Worcestershire.
      Apparently this used to be one of her houses. Babington and Sir Walter Raleigh have meant to lived there too. Take a look on the net there are photos of the hair, and the house. The house is a typically beautiful Tudor Manor House.

  9. my questions are,if anne boleyn had such noble ancestors ,ect,ect why did henry feel the need to create her marquess of pembroke ?,was this to make her seem more acceptable as future queen because there is no way that she could have been on an equal status to katherine of aragon and also to be presented to king francis .annes affair with henry percy was supposedly stopped because she was not deemed worthy of marriage into his family ,so to me it sounds as if either henry or herself “trumped”up her ancestry to make her a little less common than she was.she was not popular or accepted by the ordinary folk ever .

    1. It definitely was a move to ‘raise’ her and make her more fitting. Catherine of Aragon was a Spanish princess and that’s who Anne was competing with really. It’s not entirely true that she was unpopular. There was sympathy when she was executed and lots of murmuring about Henry’s behaviour with Jane S.

  10. yes ,well thats what vindicated anne completely ,henrys behaviour with jane and so quickly ,a bit too fast i think.

  11. Have you any evidence of a Celtic background … something prenorman, even preRoman, going back into the Bardic lines … the Tewders (Owen) were Welsh … believing as I do that Edward de Vere Elizabeth’s bastard by Thomas Seymour, I’m looking for atavistic bardic/druidic celtic roots … seeing the tudor revolution as a nationalization (by chthonic interests) of the Norman/Catholic ruling/royal class

    The ghost of Anne Boleyn, Morgan Le Faye, the Dark Lady of the Sonnets

  12. Hello, I am doing my family tree, and I have come across a possbile link to Anne Boleyn’s grandmother Margaret Butler. According to my research she had another husband, by the name of Bould or Bold, and I am supposedly descened from their daughter Elizabeth. I cannnot find any proof that Margaret Butler was married to anyone other than William Boleyn. Can you help me with this?


    Adrienne Cashdollar

    1. Hi Adrienne,
      I have found no evidence at all that Margaret Butler, mother of Thomas Boleyn and wife of William Boleyn, was married to anyone before William. The Margaret Butler who married Sir Richard Bold of Bold, Lancashire, was Margaret Butler (Boteler), daughter of Sir Thomas Boteler (1461-1522) and Margaret Delves – see under “MARGARET BUTLER or BOTELER (d.1530+)”. There are a few Margaret Butlers around in the 15th and 16th centuries.

  13. Ever since I was 11 and first learned about Anne Boleyn and her family, I have been captivated! Last year I finally watched the Tudors and fell in love with her story even more. I recently went back very far on on my dad’s paternal side and I found that I am a direct descendant of Lady Maud Le Vavasour. I decided to do an internet search on Lady Maud and I am floored that she is directly related to the Boleyns…. I guess that means I’m directly related? I’m a descendant? This is so exciting to me because I have always felt a strong connection to the Boleyns and that time period.

Leave a Reply

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