[British Library Add. MS 22587, f. 22r-22v.]
On the 1st May 1536, Henry VIII attended a May Day joust with his queen. In the middle of festivities, he abruptly got up and left with a small retinue of men heading for Westminster. He would never lay eyes on Anne again.
On the 2nd of May at around 5pm, Anne Boleyn was arrested for treason. In broad day light, she was conducted to the Tower of London by members of the King’s privy council: Thomas Audley the Lord Chancellor, Thomas Howard the Duke of Norfolk (Annes Uncle), William Kingston the constable of the Tower, and Thomas Cromwell. She was the last to arrive at the tower as her supposed co conspirers, including her brother George, had been taken there during the previous days. After falling to her knees on the steps of the tower gate, she pleaded her innocence (not for the last time). Then, she was taken to the queen's chambers that were in fact the same rooms in which she stayed the evening before her coronation. Oh, how the circumstances had changed…
She was allowed four ladies to wait on her, none of whom she would usually employ in her household, isolating her from her friends and trusted companions. These women were Mary Skope, wife of Kingston, Margaret Dymoke the wife of Anne’s master of the horse, Elizabeth Boleyn, her paternal aunt in matrimony, and Mistress Stoner, wife of Sir Walter Stoner. There are also records of two other women whose identities are unknown, but one of which was suggested to be her niece, Catherine Carey. Kingston was under strict instructions to report all the Queen did and said back to Cromwell, and his accounts are our best sources today of the events that transpired after Annes arrest within the walls of the tower.
Yet, on the 6th of May, Anne supposedly constructed a final letter to her husband. Her famous (authentic or not) letter from the tower stands as one of the most poignant and eloquent documents in British Royal history. Book ending her life in the most tragic way, Anne penned the letter that was both a plea of innocence, and a powerful assertion of her character. It gives us a rare and deeply personal insight into her state of mind at this turbulent and tragic time.
In the letter, Anne addresses Henry with a tone that she is famed for, one riled with temper, yet graceful and articulate, brimming with confrontation, yet with an elegant and tragic submission to the crown - it’s fascinating! She articulates her feelings of betrayal, outrightly shaming the King for flitting his ‘fancy’ to another woman (Jane Seymour), jotting their own marriage and her elevation from the same ‘fancy’, all the while maintaining her own innocence against the chargers of adultery, incest and high treason. Masterfully crafted, the letter showcases Anne’s intelligence, as well as her acute awareness of the political machinations that led to her downfall. I would argue the letter reclaims her some of the agency in the narrative of her own story, which had been marred by scandal and intrigue. Think on those things as you read her final words and final blows to her husband, and consider them a heartrending glimpse into her final days and final thoughts inside the Tower of London…
Sir, Your Grace’s Displeasure and my Imprisonment are Things so strange unto me, as what to Write, or what to Excuse, I am altogether ignorant. Whereas you send unto me (willing me to confess a Truth, and to obtain your Favour) by such an one whom you know to be my ancient professed Enemy; I no sooner received this Message by him, than I rightly conceived your Meaning; and if, as you say, confessing a Truth indeed may procure my safety, I shall with all Willingness and Duty perform your Command.
But let not your Grace ever imagine that your poor Wife will ever be brought to acknowledge a Fault, where not so much as a Thought thereof proceeded. And to speak a truth, never Prince had Wife more Loyal in all Duty, and in all true Affection, than you have ever found in Anne Boleyn, with which Name and Place I could willingly have contented my self, if God, and your Grace’s Pleasure had been so pleased. Neither did I at any time so far forget my self in my Exaltation, or received Queenship, but that I always looked for such an Alteration as now I find; for the ground of my Preferment being on no surer Foundation than your Grace’s Fancy, the least Alteration, I knew, was fit and sufficient to draw that Fancy to some other Subject. You have chosen me, from a low Estate, to be your Queen and Companion, far beyond my Desert or Desire. If then you found me worthy of such Honour, Good your Grace let not any light Fancy, or bad Councel of mine Enemies, withdraw your Princely Favour from me; neither let that Stain, that unworthy Stain of a Disloyal Heart towards your good Grace, ever cast so foul a Blot on your most Dutiful Wife, and the Infant Princess your Daughter:
Try me good King, but let me have a Lawful Trial, and let not my sworn Enemies sit as my Accusers and Judges; yea, let me receive an open Trial, for my Truth shall fear no open shame; then shall you see, either mine Innocency cleared, your Suspicion and Conscience
satisfied, the Ignominy and Slander of the World stopped, or my Guilt openly declared. So that whatsoever God or you may determine of me, your Grace may be freed from an open Censure; and mine Offence being so lawfully proved, your Grace is at liberty, both before God and Man, not only to execute worthy Punishment on me as an unlawful Wife, but to follow your Affection already settled on that Party, for whose sake I am now as I am, whose Name I could some good while since have pointed unto: Your Grace being not ignorant of my Suspicion therein.
But if you have already determined of me, and that not only my Death, but an Infamous Slander must bring you the enjoying of your desired Happiness; then I desire of God, that he will pardon your great Sin therein, and likewise mine Enemies, the Instruments thereof; and that he will not call you to a strict Account for your unprincely and cruel usage of me, at his General Judgment-Seat, where both you and my self must shortly appear, and in whose Judgment, I doubt not, (whatsover the World may think of me) mine Innocence shall be openly known, and sufficiently cleared.
My last and only Request shall be, That my self may only bear the Burthen of your Grace’s Displeasure, and that it may not touch the Innocent Souls of those poor Gentlemen, who (as I understand) are likewise in strait Imprisonment for my sake. If ever I have found favour in your Sight; if ever the Name of Anne Boleyn hath been pleasing in your Ears, then let me obtain this Request; and I will so leave to trouble your Grace any further, with mine earnest Prayers to the Trinity to have your Grace in his good keeping, and to direct you in all your Actions. From my doleful Prison the Tower, this 6th of May.
Your most Loyal and ever Faithful Wife,
Anne Boleyn [1].
Anne’s final letter also serves as a critical artefact that has had historians dumbstruck for centuries. The question of forgery is one that haunts the historian and appears as a displeasing revelation at many a turn in one's research. As a result, documents such as these sometimes leave us with more questions than we first asked. Anne’s letter from the tower is no exemption, and many believe to be a fake. How it was sent, or by whom it was carried, OR by whom it was scribed, we don’t know. But what we do know is that it wasn’t penned by Anne, and supposedly was never seen by Henry himself. It was found (supposedly) among the possessions of Thomas Cromwell after his own demise in July 1540, and it is thought the letter was passed through many a custodian until it was placed in the Cotton collection in the British Library in the eighteenth century. Since, it has been the topic of hot debate.
So why is it suggested that the letter is a forgery?
Some of the leading theories suggest that the handwriting in the letter isn’t Anne’s. Others say the prose doesn’t match the other examples of Anne’s writing. Further, it is known she requested to write directly to Thomas Cromwell and was denied. If she wast allowed to even write to Cromwell, how would a letter to the King exist? Importantly, the letter just appears in early chronicles, one of the earliest is a chronicle by Lord Herbert of Cherbury, The Life and Reign of King Henry VIII published in 1649. There is no record of its discovery in particular, just references to it in early chronicles such as these.
British Library
Scholars in favour of the document’s authenticity repute that well of course the handwriting isn’t Anne’s.
If as the forgery debate suggests, she wasn’t allowed to write a letter, the next best thing would’ve been to dictate the letter aloud. (If argument refers to the Stowe manuscript in the hand of the feathery scribe, this is considered a copy made perhaps by Cotton pre 1628.) Further, in response to the prose, the prose has been altered in reconstruction, and therefore this argument would need to expressly refer to the letter (that is incredibly damaged) that is thought to be the ‘original’. It is important to note too that this change in prose could also be down to the scribe who has been dictated to. Perhaps it was not penned word for word, maybe from memory. The only repute that exists to her being denied writing any letters, is quite finally that this one exists. Lastly, it is true that the provenance of the letter is sketchy and its appearance in early chronicles is sudden. But theories exist as to how the letter was discovered, queue Sandra Vasoli…
Vasoli proposes this fourteen-step history of how the letter came to be in the British library collection, tracing it all the way back to Anne in the tower.
1. 6th May, 1536, Anne writes letter.
2. Ralph Sadler (also the proposed scribe) takes this to his master Cromwell.
3. Cromwell holds this letter between 1536-1540.
4. 1540, Cromwell dies.
This is where it gets interesting…
5. Ralph Sadler retrieves letter from Cromwell’s papers with the letters by Kingston from the tower reports of Anne.
6. William Cecil, who runs in the same circles as Sadler, is given the letter by Sadler. Cecil is also known as Lord Burghley, who you may know as the chief advisor to Elizabeth I, Anne's daughter.
7. Through Lord Burghley, Elizabeth is now in possession of her mother's final letter.
8. William Camden, antiquarian, inherits letter from Lord Burghley c. 1540-1550.
9. Sir Robert Bruce Cotton inherits letter from Camden in 1623, HERE the proposed Feathery Scribe makes a copy prior to 1628. Cotton is a collector of manuscripts and fellow antiquarian, so he inherits from his friend William Camden.
10. Cotton’s collection of manuscripts is inherited by his son Thomas, and then his son John in 1631 and 1700 respectively.
11. Cotton the grandson then maintains this library and collection until the 1731 fire at Ashburnam house.
12. The British Museum and library are given possession of the collection for preservation and restoration purposes AFTER the Ashburnam fire.
What is the most important step in this provenance though is Vasoli’s suggestion of Sadlers involvement in the letter's history, proposing he is the one who is the courier of the letter from Anne to Cromwell, and as the one who retrieves it from Cromwell’s papers after his demise. Vasoli’s suggestion of provenance makes clear there is no big discovery of the letter, Sadler knew it was there, he merely acts as a custodian of the document, before releasing it into Lord Burghley’s possession for Elizabeth.
Quite predictably, some historians disagree. While Vasoli has made it her leading work, and Weir proposes arguments for and against the forgery equally, and Bordo compares the elegant prose to that of Anne’s final speech on the scaffold, the dominant feeling is that the letter is a fake. Jasper Ridley for example says, “the letter which she is supposed to have written to Henry is a forgery, written in the reign of her daughter, Elizabeth.” Eric Ives, a leading respected historian of Boleyn argues, “it would appear to be wholly improbable for Anne to write that her marriage was built on nothing but the kings fancy … equally it would have been totally counterproductive for a Tudor prisoner in the tower to warn the King that he is in imminent danger of the judgement of god!” Other leading historians such as Starkey, Lipscombe, Loads, Fraser and Warnicke ignore the letter altogether and omit mention of it. This defiant refusal to acknowledge it strongly suggests they deny its plausibility at all.
As I said earlier, the study of forgeries can leave us with more questions than we started with, AND THIS IS A GOOD THING! But we must consider the letter in the minds of many stands as a poignant testament to Anne’s eloquence and unwavering spirit in the face of death and betrayal, and in the minds of others, its authenticity remains unclear or denied altogether. Whether penned by her own hand, or that of a scribe, or crafted as a piece of Tudor propaganda later on, the letter encapsulates the dignity and steadfast resolve of a queen facing grace injustice by a man who moved heaven and earth to have her.
Regardless of its origins, this letter transcends its time, offering a profound reflection of the human condition when confronted with wrongful accusations. It is those sentiments that ensure Anne Boleyn’s voice, authentic or constructed, continues to resonate through the ages. But whether or not this letter is authentic is not something I will pass outright judgement on today. Rather, I invite you to consider the suggested provenance of the letter, and maybe make the call for yourself…
References:
British Library, Cotton Otho C X fol. 232 r.
Gruninger Natalie. The Final Year of Anne Boleyn (USA: Penn and Sword History, 2023).
Stowe, MS 151, The British Library Board.
Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII Volume 10, 1887 (https://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol10/pp329-349#anchorn14)
Bordo Susan. The Creation of Anne Boleyn; A New Look at England’s Most Notorious Queen (Boston: Harper Collins, 1997).
Ives Eric. The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (USA: Wiley Blackwell, 2005).
Ridley Jasper. Henry VIII; The Politics of Tyranny (London: From Intl Publishing, 1986).
Ridley Jasper, ed., The Love Letters of Henry VIII (London: Orion Publishing, 1989).
Weir Alison. The Lady in the Tower (New York: Random House, 2010).
Comments