(© Unknown Artist – The National Portrait Gallery)
From the moment she was born, Elizabeth and Thomas Boleyn would never have anticipated that their younger daughter would one day be queen. Even after her birth, her maternal family remained in an extent of their disgrace following their previous support of Richard III - it was not until 1514 that her maternal family were bestowed with the dukedom of Norfolk. The birth of a future queen was traditionally met with intricate documentation of their birth, but as a mere – as well as second-born daughter of an obscure wealthy noble, Anne’s birth would have been met with an air of insignificance. Taking into account a later comment made by Thomas Boleyn, however, Elizabeth Boleyn was reputed to have produced a child annually: producing a second daughter would not have come as a significant disappointment.
Contrary to what is commonly suggested, Thomas Boleyn and his family had already acquired extensive wealth before Anne’s rise to queenship. Rather, the Boleyn name rose to prominence in the 1450’s, when her great-grandfather, Geoffrey Boleyn, became Mayor of London. By the time of his death in 1471, Geoffrey had accumulated enough wealth to one thousand pounds to London charities. Geoffrey had also set the foundations for his sons success. His son, William Boleyn and later Thomas’ father, married Lady Margaret Butler, a co-heir to the Earldom of Ormond. An ancient and prestigious earldom, Ormond was often situated in England as a peer. Thomas, who was esteemed a favourite of his grandfather-in-law, was placed at the very epicentre of privilege and prestige. This well-defined distinction across multiple generations allowed the Boleyn’s to make increasingly advantageous marriages for themselves, leading to Thomas’ marriage to Elizabeth Howard. The determination for power, evidenced by the Boleyns, was not only concerning matrimony. Even before her departure from home in 1513, the Boleyn name already had an extent of fame attributed to it. Though much of Anne Boleyn’s rise is due to her own merit, it was not entirely a ‘bottom-up’ scenario.
Upon his marriage to Elizabeth Howard, likely in 1498, Thomas Boleyn further situated himself within the ranks of wealth and prestige, this time within the earldom of Surrey and later the dukedom of Norfolk. Not only did these titles further propel the Boleyn family into a wider sphere of connections, they also provided a direct descent to royal lineage, including Edward I. Even before Anne’s marriage, the Duchy of Norfolk had already experienced a tenure with royalty through the marriage of the third Duke and Princess Anne of York. As a result of the very little information surrounding the figure of Elizabeth Howard, only a minimal picture of her life can be depicted. Nonetheless many have speculated that her advantageous familial position allowed her to serve within the early household of Katherine of Aragon. Heralded as one of the beauties of Henry VIII’s court, one story recalls that the young king was rather smitten by the older Elizabeth. Going so far as to suggest that Henry and Elizabeth’s relationship extended beyond the platonic, Thomas Boleyn supposedly counteracted the paternity of Anne, who later ‘learned from his wife that it was the king who had tempted her to sin’, and Anne was ‘the daughter of no other than Henry VIII.’
However, these tales originated from the works of Nicholas Sander, a renowned Catholic whose works sought to extensively slander Anne and her Boleyn relatives, so their authenticity must be pointedly disputed. Even if the young Henry VIII had indeed harboured a fondness for Elizabeth, any concerns for Anne’s paternity fail to align with the distinct opportunities Thomas provided to her.
This perhaps explains the obscurity surrounding Anne’s date of birth. Two dates have been proposed by historians, 1501 and 1507. Depending on which birthdate one takes, the place of her birth likely changes: for 1501, it is increasingly likely that she was born at Blickling Hall, Norfolk, where Elizabeth and Thomas resided until early 1506. Rather, the 1507 date which would place her birthplace at Hever Castle. Amy License, a supporter of 1501, points to Norwich-born Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury who described Anne as his fellow countrywoman, pointing to a birth before their move to Hever.
The first reference of Anne’s birth comes in works of Elizabethan Antiquarian William Camden’s Annales rerum Anglicarum et Hibernicarum Ellizabetha, who documents her date of birth as 1507. Camden poses as a relatively valuable source of information, having close access to the records of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, whose behest Camden was writing at, was born as a contemporary to Anne’s tenure as queen in 1520, but also extremely unlikely to harbour inaccurate information about the monarch’s mother. Camden did not publish his works until seventeen years after he began writing in 1615, rendering his works reliable but nonetheless partial. Camden may also have misinterpreted Cecil’s handwriting, mistaking a one for a seven: as he was not working under Cecil’s strict guidance, therefore in the appropriate environment to make mistakes.
Despite the majority leaning towards the former date, some convincing arguments have been proposed for the latter. In a 1514 letter to Margaret of Austria, who oversaw much of Anne’s early education, Thomas Boleyn refers to his daughter as ‘la petite Boulaine.’ Retha Warnicke argues that a thirteen year-old Anne would not have been referred to in this manner. On the contrary, this could have been used by Thomas to refer to his younger daughter. Margaret of Austria additionally referred to Anne’s advanced nature ‘at her young age’ possibly indicating a younger age, but have also been referencing an intellectual superiority than her fellow ladies, such as Eleanor of Castile, born in 1498. It is unlikely that Margaret would have made such a comment on a seven year-olds capabilities.
Retha Warnicke additionally suggests that if had Anne had been indeed born in 1501, later historians would have referenced its significance to her downfall. If she was born in 1501, that would have made her thirty-two by Elizabeth’s birth and thirty-five by her execution. At an age that would have been considered rather old by the Tudor societal standards, it is perplexing as to why it was never stressed by historians in the following century. When her age was referenced in the following century, there was a general consensus that she was born in 1507. John Wever’s Ancient Funeral Momunemnts, published sixteen years after Camden in 1631, documents that Henry VIII, then thirty-eight had fallen in love with twenty-two year old Anne. If this was in 1529, Anne was therefore born in 1507. Challenging this, in his article The Age of Anne Boleyn, Gareth Russell points out that if Anne was twenty-eight rather than thirty-five, she still would have been seen to be in the prime of her childbearing age, so to condemn her for her inability to produce a son numerous years before she would have been considered infertile, seems void and unpersuasive.
The vast majority of evidence left behind points towards a birthdate of 1501. One of Anne’s surviving letters written to her father, dating back to La Veure in 1513 which is written in French, displays an extent of intellect that would have been completely incapable for a six year-old. In this letter, Anne conveyed an essence of her later determined nature, in this sense relating to her learning of French, to which she hoped to ‘work at it’ as best as she could.
Thomas Boleyn’s letters also concur with a birthdate of 1501. Writing to Thomas Cromwell in July 1536, Thomas made reference to the financial difficulties he experienced during his early years of marriage, before he inherited the wealth of his father, William, in 1505. The annual allowance designated to Thomas and Elizabeth, of fifty pounds, was significantly tested because Elizabeth brought Thomas ‘every year a child.’ If we are to conclude Anne was born in 1501, this would comfortably align with his statement, placing their five children in annual order: Mary (1499/1500), Anne (1501), George (c. 1504), Thomas and Henry, who both died in infancy. If Anne was however born in 1507, the Boleyn’s would have already inherited Hever Castle, rendering his statement misleading.
Why Anne was selected to attend the court of Margaret of Austria rather than her older sister, Mary, cannot be said for certain. A place at one of the most glamourous courts in Europe provided a perfect opportunity for a young lady to make a name for herself and forge her own connections. What can be said for certain, however, is that the young Anne must have made a clear impression on her father, displaying potential that allowed her to bypass her sister. Rather, Amy License suggests that Thomas Boleyn’s priorities for his eldest daughter lay in her marriage prospects. Mary, who would have at this point been considered a woman by Tudor standards, was increasingly eligible for a an advantageous and agreeable match. A few weeks before Anne’s departure, Thomas had been gifted by the King the wardship of John Hastings, heir to the wealthy Hastings baronage. Born in 1498, therefore merely a year older in Mary, John was certainly a likeminded match for Mary. It would not be a stretch to suggest this was indeed Thomas’ intention, though this prospect would be short lived after John’s premature death in 1514. This may explain why, instead, Mary was later sent into the service of Mary Tudor.
Much of why Anne was admitted into the Hapsburg Court came down to her father’s ambition and diplomatic skill. Not only harbouring ambition for himself at the Tudor court and the wider European stage, his skills sought to promote that of family. From records of his 1512 visit to Margaret’s court, a positive impression upon the regent is revealed. Together, the two playfully placed bets on how long their negotiations would take. Thomas’ diplomatic skills allowed him to forge the positive environment that would secure his daughter’s place at the Hapsburg court.
Whether she was born in 1501 or 1507, she would have understood the same society and its standards. Anne Boleyn had been born into a world that was completely parallel to the one she would oversee as Queen. The Renaissance was flourishing across Europe, encouraging new doctrines of philosophy, forms of artwork and revolutionary fashion styles. More importantly, the entrenched institution of the Catholic Church retained its dominance over every aspect of the social strata. Before her departure from England, it is likely that Anne had already grasped intellectual basics: reading, writing as well as beginnings of French and Latin. It cannot be specifically dated when Anne began to harbour ideas catered towards radical reform, but it is likely that these came as a result of her vibrant overseas education. Margaret, who constantly wore black after her brief marriage to a brother of Katherine of Aragon, embodied great significance in Europe as the first female Governor of the Low Countries as well as establishing great commercial ties with England. Margaret’s court often hosted notable Humanist thinkers, such as Erasmus, but her extensive library also included the works of Christine de Pizan, an early challenger of misogyny.
Likely at the age of twelve, Anne Boleyn, escorted by Claude Bouton, made her way to the Hapsburg court of Margaret of Austria, situated at Mechelen, eighteen miles to the south of Brussels. Here, Anne would participate in a hub of princely splendour around the young Charles V. Whether Anne and the young Archduke interacted during her tenure in Mechelen remains a mystery, but is likely that among the gaggle of other impressionable ladies, they never did. Upon entering the court – which must have felt like a million miles way to the rolling Kentish hills that she had grown accustomed to. The title of ‘filles d’honneur’ was bestowed upon her; this role did not necessarily entail any duties, but a constant display of politeness and modesty was expected at all times. Her demeanour was never to be dull for a single moment - with so many diplomats constantly travelling in and out of court, a civil and discreet conversation was necessary. This allowed Anne the opportunity to improve her French skills under a tutor. Anne already had a grasping of the French language, as evidenced by her letter to her Father, but it was under the tutoring of Symonnet that her French became fluent. It was also here, at a hub of the Renaissance, that Anne would have acquired a taste of courtly fashion that she applied to her tenure as Queen. It cannot be said what Margaret would have made of Anne as Queen, dying in 1530, but their clear similarities in their love of learning, arts and patronage of fashion would suggest, perhaps, an essence of approval.
It was also here that Anne may have experienced her first encounter with her future husband, Henry VIII, who was currently on the continent after the pursuit of an Anglo-Imperial attack against their joint enemy, France, which accumulated into the Battle of the Spurs on the 23rd August. Alongside her father, Maximillian I, Henry met with Margaret at the town of Lille. They reunited an additional month later, after his successful attack against Tournai. Margaret would have had a number of ladies in attendance on her during this visit and Anne seemed to be a fitting choice: not only could she showcase her now well-versed French and communicate polite conversation, but it provided the opportunity for Anne to reunite with her father, who was serving in the English army.
It cannot be conclusively verified what the exact impact her time in the Low Countries had on her, but Margaret’s earlier flattering words about Anne are perhaps an indicator of an amicable relationship. Despite this, her time in Mechelen lasted all but a year. Upon her Father’s demand, Anne was shipped off to attend on Princess Mary Tudor, whose marriage had been hastily switched from the Archduke Charles after a sudden ‘turn-about’ from the imperial match to the aging and heirless Louis XII of France. After Mary’s arrival, which turned to be a journey Eric Ives described as ‘appalling’, and marriage in France, the traditional expectation was that a select few ladies would remain in France with the new Queen whilst the rest returned to England. This is where some difficulties begin to accumulate in tracing Anne’s footsteps, as only one ‘Madmoyselle Boleyne’ is recorded as remaining in France after the wedding. Anne was most certainly included on the list to be sent to France, but where she went after the initial wedding is unclear. Mary Tudor’s defaming words about her ladies share an insight into which Boleyn girl was the remaining ‘Madmoyselle Boleyne,’ professing her ladies as never having ‘experience nor knowledge how to advise or give me counsel in any time of need.’ Contrary to Anne’s experience in the service of Margaret of Austria, such an utterance is unlikely to be levelled at Anne; leading one to the conclusion that this was instead intended towards the inexperienced Mary. But where does that leave Anne?
In 1536, over twenty years after Anne’s supposed departure, French Ambassador Lancelot de Carles noted that Anne had ‘first came from this country when Mary [Tudor] left to go and join the king [Louis XII].’ Quite possibly, Anne and Mary may have had their identities initially confused before some distinction was made between the fair-hared Mary and dark featured Anne. If one supports the argument that Anne was born in 1507, making here a mere seven at this stage, then she may have been considered too young to be documented, but then it does not make much sense to send a lady so young in the first place. Or alternatively, as Ives theorises, that Anne was not mentioned as she was merely an attendant for her sister, this seems unlikely in relation to Thomas’ specific instructions to bring Anne back from her service to join Mary’s. Because of these ambiguous recordings, it could be concluded that she remained in the Low Countries for an extended tenure before making her way to France. Perhaps this may have been a result of delays in communication: on the 21st August, Margaret of Austria departed from Mechelen to Zeeland, and communications from England for Anne’s discharge, which departed on August 14th may have not reached the Mechelen in time to prevent Anne’s attendance. Quite possibly, Margaret may have also delayed Anne’s departure from her service on a personal front, either for her fondness of Anne’s wit and intellect, but also for the political embarrassment on the European stage the abandoning of the Anglo-imperial marriage alliance had costed her.
Rather than being present at the marriage ceremony of Mary and her ageing husband, it is more likely that Anne was present in France for Mary’s coronation on November 5th. Despite the date of Anne’s departure across Europe to France remaining unclear, at a certain point before 1520: unlike her sister, who returned to England to join the household of Katherine of Aragon, Anne remained in France for the next seven year, where she joined the household of Queen Claude, wife of the new king, Francois I.
Taking into account her marvellous education, the makings of Anne Boleyn certainly made her fit for a future queen. Whether or not her time in the Hapsburg court had any influence on her radical ideas, the future household of Queen Anne, reputed for its pious and strict nature, can certainly have said to have been modelled from that of Margaret of Austria. Rather than the ‘unworthy consort’ Anne is often modelled to be, her prestigious upbringing displays one fit for a Queen. This environment that Anne had been exposed to from an early age allowed her to talk to her husband on both a personal and intellectual level, as two people in the zenith of the Renaissance.
In our next post, Emma will be discussing Anne’s time at the court of Queen Claude, the next pivotal stepping stone in her road to becoming Queen of England.
References:
The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn by Eric Ives
Anne Boleyn: Adultery, Heresy, Desire by Amy License
Anne Boleyn: A New Life of England’s Tragic Queen by Joanna Denny
Anne Boleyn: Henry VIII’s Obsession by Elizabeth Norton
Anne Boleyn's Education and her time at Margaret of Austria's Court - The Anne Boleyn Files
Anne Boleyn, Margaret of Austria and Queen Claude - The Anne Boleyn Files
Anne Boleyn's Family Part Two - The Howards - The Anne Boleyn Files
The Early Life of Anne Boleyn Part One - Beginnings - The Anne Boleyn Files
Comments