(Cover image – © Pinterest)
It is of common conception in popular culture that Thomas Boleyn used his own daughter's sexuality in order to further his own fortunes and career. He is judged by many to have pushed his daughters, Mary and then Anne, into the bed of the King of England, Henry VIII, and when one daughter’s influence to further the family agenda faltered, he used the other - the other infamously more successful. This narrative has cast a shadow over Thomas Boleyn’s character, memory and portrayal in literature and television in the 21st century. However, more recent historiography has challenged this narrative, delving further into the man himself, the means of his achievements before his daughters were even in the picture, and challenged popular conceptions by demonstrating Thomas Boleyn was rather against his daughters’ involvement with the King.
Today, Thomas Boleyn will be re-introduced to you. We will meet the man himself and explore who he was without the shadow of his daughters’ liaisons. Then, we will address some popular myths that cling to his name still. Finally, we will recognize that the representations of his person in historical fiction perpetuate a figure in legend that doesn’t match the figure in reality.
The Man
In the words of JRM, “to get the heart of a story, you have to go back to the beginning.” In the spirit of this, we won’t meet Thomas first, but his ancestors from the 14th and 15th centuries. It is down to their successes that Thomas and his children were able to flourish in the 16th century. Now, the Boleyn’s were a whole linage of courtiers who understood the court system, made advantageous marriages, and played the game to succeed. Slowly but surely, they rose to the top, if only for a brief while- and here’s how.
First is Geoffrey Boleyn Senior, who was born in Salle, Norfolk in the mid to late 13th century. He was a humble tenant farmer there. Interestingly, he was not a man of high standing in England or within his own community, and the records show he was in-fact someone “on the fringes of the law”, often recorded around the happenings of petty crimes [1]. It seems though, these were not violent or cruel crimes, but were crimes that helped him get by and make ends meet, such as illegally storing timbers for the local Salle Church repairs or extending the boards of his lands by slightly over plowing them. What is poignant about Geoffrey Senior, is his son, also named Geoffrey – the most integral of the Boleyn line, save maybe Anne.
Second, born in 1405, is Geoffrey the younger, who made his family name one of prominence with his work in London. Being admitted into the freedom of the city in the Art of Hatter in 1428, and then admitted as mercer in 1435, Geoffrey the younger made the most of of his opportunities. In 1446 he was given further decoration when he was appointed as a sheriff for London and Middlesex, and then in 1449, he was made an alderman for Castle Baynard in London. By 1457, Geoffrey Boleyn was knighted, and named Lord Mayor of London. These successes made him amass wealth not seen by the Boleyn family before, so much so that in 1452 he was able to start the process of purchasing Blickling Manor in Norfolk, which would become the seat of the Boleyn family moving forward. In fact, his property portfolio grew rather extensively in the latter 15th century, and by 1460, Geoffrey was the owner of several Norfolk manor houses, another two in Kent, both Kemsing and Sele, and by 1462, Geoffrey acquired the manor of Hever, the backdrop to the infamous courtship of Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII later on in the 16th century [1].
Not only did he make a name for himself in the city, but he also made a rather advantageous marriage in that of Anne Hoo - the Boleyn’s it seems would become skilled in making advantageous marriages over the course of the next few centuries. Geoffrey’s success in both the city and the marriage market would pave the way for his own heir, William Boleyn. (This list of successes is just a handful of examples of Geoffrey’s accomplishments. To list them all would require a piece dedicated to him entirely to properly give credit to the “pivotal Boleyn” [1].)
Next, William Boleyn, who was born in 1448, was one of five children. He too made an advantageous marriage, marrying Lady Margret Butler who was the co-heiress of the 7th Earl of Ormond of Kilkenny Castle in Ireland (it is through this marital connection that later, Sir Thomas Boleyn claimed to have rights to the Earldom of Ormond). William followed the career path of his father in London at the English court and was made a knight himself in 1483 during the reign of Richard III. He went onto more success under the reign of Henry VII, serving as commissioner of peace in “Kent, Norfolk, Westminster, Cambridge, East Dereham and Huntingdon.” [1]. In 1492, he accompanied the King to the siege at Boulonge, and through his efforts and loyal service “was even more important and wealthy” than his father or grandfather had ever been. Yet, it was William’s eldest son, Thomas, who was to be memorialized in history.
Finally, we get to Thomas himself, who was born in 1477 at Blickling Manor. Thomas too made an advantageous marriage to Elizabeth Howard, who was a member of another remarkable family in the English court. Thomas was not so fortunate at first to have masses of wealth. It is reported in his own words to have been a time of hardship for him and Elizabeth when in the early years of their marriage, she gave him “every year a child” [1]. The financial burden took its toll, and it wasn’t until the death of his father, William, in 1505 that Thomas’s circumstances changed. He inherited the homes of Blickling, Calthorpe, Wikmere, Mekylberton, Fylby, West Lexham, Possewick, Stiffkey and Hever Castle. Thomas used Hever as his base thanks to its locality to the countryside and close proximity to London, where he was flying as a courtier [1].
Though, it wasn’t always at Hever that Thomas did business. Earlier on, Thomas and his father received the King at Blickling Manor. It was an honour to the family name that signified their long service to the Tudor crown. Thomas received Katherine of Aragon upon her arrival in England in 1501, and later accompanied Princess Margaret Tudor to Scotland in 1503 where she was to marry King James IV. Upon the Kings death in 1509, Thomas is mentioned in the records as esquire to the body, and continued in service for the new King Henry VIII in 1509 that saw the coronation of the new King and Queen. Following his own forefathers' footsteps, he was created a knight at the coronation ceremonies, Knight of the Bath. In the same year, he was made keeper of the Foreign Exchange in England, and also keeper of the Exchange in Calais. Additionally in 1509, Thomas also served as sheriff for both Norfolk and Suffolk.
In addition to this extensive list of accomplishments as a courtier, it was also clear he was a charming man that managed to acquire the new king as a ‘friend’ - as much as one could befriend Henry VIII… He was among the circles of men who accompanied Henry in masquerade to surprise the Queen and her ladies often. Further, he was a keen jouster, joining in the revelments that thrilled the young king. He was so much so a part of this inner circle, he was appointed a chief mourner for the King and Queen’s first-born son, who died after mere weeks of life [1].
Thomas Boleyn was a product of generations of ‘Boleyn’ accomplishments. The first Boleyn notably humbler, the second more pivotal in the emergence of family wealth, the third an important cog in acquisitions of marital fortune, and fourth the man himself, who was clearly a prominent and successful courtier in his own right. Though we mustn’t overlook the women of the family who brought with them substantial wealth that propped up the Boleyn fortune with magnanimous dowries over those generations (sadly, they often are overlooked).
By tracing the generations accomplishments, or just a handful, what is clear to see is that one must look back to see the entirety of Thomas Boleyn. In doing so, we can bring him out of the shadows of his daughter’ relationships, and show the man he was, the men he was looking up to, and the man he was more than capable of becoming without his daughters’ relationships with the Kings.
Figure 1, 2, 3 (top to bottom) [1].
The Myth
The myths that surround Thomas Boleyn paint him out to be a cold-hearted pimp, if intelligent one, who threw every child he had at the mercy of the crown in order to further his own agendas and wealth. Contributing to this picture are a number of myths; one example being that he was a man of no importance until his daughters' liaisons. Another, that Thomas threw one daughter into the bed of King Henry VIII, and then another. By these accounts, he was a merciless and cruel misogynist. But, they are simply untrue.
On the count of the first, that he was a man of no importance until his daughters’ liaisons with the King of England, well, the above reintroduction to Thomas and his forefathers dispels that quite finally.
On the count of the second, that Thomas threw his daughters into the bed of Henry VIII one after the other, is all too unlikely. (Although, it is important to say there is no way of knowing exactly how Thomas felt about these circumstances for his daughters.) Although the position of a royal mistress, or maîtresse-en-titre, was not one to turn your nose up at, it was after all one in close proximity to the crown with potential influence and benefits. Yet, as has been demonstrated, Thomas didn’t need the help of his daughters for elevation in his career as a courtier. He already had significant prominence in court, with which he was able to supply his daughter Anne with the best education money could buy. Anne was educated in the courts of Europe, first at the Palace of Mechelen in the court of Margaret of Austria. Margaret’s court was considered the finishing school of Europe among elite circles, and she was regent of the Low Countries for her father Maximilian I, the Holy Roman Emperor. Not a bad connection of Thomas’s at all. Then, Anne was sent in the wedding train of Princess Mary to King Louis XII of France in 1514. Both his French and English connections secured his daughter this position. When Queen Mary of France was widowed, Anne stayed behind as a lady to the new queen, Queen Claude, most probably too secured by her father’s alliances at the French court [2].
What is interesting, is that the little evidence we do have of Thomas’s feeling towards his daughters’ liaisons work to dispel the myth that he orchestrated them. In a letter in 1533 from Eustace Chapuys, Thomas is recorded as trying “to dissuade the King rather than otherwise from the marriage” to Anne [3]. As to that of the earlier relationship between King Henry VIII and Mary, Thomas’s older daughter, it could be argued Thomas was estranged from her because of it. When her first husband died in 1528 of the sweating sickness, the King himself had to step in and ask Thomas to provide for her [4]. Although, it is important to note this could be a sign of his indignation of her failings to keep the King’s bed. The truth is, with the records we have, we cannot say for certain.
In short, the myths that haunt Thomas Boleyn’s name can be dismissed quite quickly. He was a prominent courtier who had influence and connections enough to provide his daughters with education and positions in the courts of Europe. He had offices and numerous homes, increasing wealth and honour as a courtier … why would he need to use his daughters this way?
The Legend
In the 21st century, popular culture has memorialized Thomas Boleyn through historical fiction, according to these myths. There are two notable examples of this. In The Tudors TV series, Henry VIII’s reign from the the early 1520’s until his death in 1547 is dramatized into four seasons. Within the first two seasons of the show, Thomas Boleyn was central to the plot as it’s focus was dominated on Henry VIII’s great matter to divorce from his first wife Catherine of Aragon, freeing him to marry Thomas’s daughter, Anne Boleyn [5]. The second example, The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory, follows the story of Mary rather than Anne. Gregory takes us through those events of the early 16th century that led to the Boleyn demise, but through the eyes of Mary [6]. Thomas here too plays a role according to the myths of popular culture, further perpetrating that false representation.
(© Pinterest)
The Tudors’s representation of Thomas can be seen according to these myths in two poignant examples. In series 1, episode 2, we are introduced to Thomas’s daughter, Anne, as she is recalled from France to the English court. Here, her father meets her with an instruction to tempt the King into her bed, and importantly, to keep him there. If she can, their family prospects will improve, and their influence and power at court will rise. In the dialogue between them, Thomas’s other daughter, Mary, who has attempted the same task, is referred to as “poor Mary” by Anne, after Anne learns of her disappearance from the King’s affections [7]. Although, she does question her father by asking, “even if he were to have me, who’s to say he would keep me?” [7]. In retort, Thomas encourages her to use the skills she learned at the French court to keep his affections, referencing sexual favors. To the audience, it very much feels as if Thomas has lost with one hand, and is playing his hand, in order to further his career. His daughters feel like tools as opposed to young women. It is an all too uncomfortable scene to witness between a father and daughter.
In a second example, season 1 episode 7, the sweating sickness has swept England. When Thomas takes Anne away from the city and the court to retreat at Hever Castle for safety, they both fall ill, Anne rather more so than Thomas, and it is proposed she may never recover. While we see Thomas bereft at the thought of loosing his daughter, when she wakes, Thomas’s first words to her are, “You know what you’ve done child? You’ve risen from the dead. Now you can see the King again. It’ll be just as before.” [8]. What this representation of Thomas does is again show this man to be a self serving, unconcerned father at the side of his daughter's death bed. Rather than being thankful for her life, he is thankful for the maintenance of her ability to serve the family interest in her relationship with the King [8].
We may ask ourselves, to what end do TV dramas represent historical figures like this? The answer is of course unsatisfying. The shows creator has pointed out that “Showtime [the show’s broadcaster] commissioned me to write an entertainment, a soap opera, and not history… We wanted people to watch it.” [9]. Simply, according to Showtime, the history itself wasn’t interesting enough. And so, the tired narrative of the demonization of Thomas Boleyn, was just one element through which Showtime could achieve wide and continued viewership.
(© Pinterest)
Philippa Gregory’s representation of the Boleyn’s in The Other Boleyn Girl has been widely criticized, yet it has been so successful. Though the narrative follows the journey of Thomas’s elder daughter Mary, who was the mistress to both the King of France and King of England, Henry VIII, we see insights into the character of the man that is her father. Gregory’s representation of him furthers the problematic narrative that makes Thomas Boleyn demonized in modern popular culture.
For example, in a Boleyn family meeting that is plotting their advancement, Thomas orders Mary to sleep with the King of France, in order to further the family agenda. Although the meeting is headed by Mary’s uncle, the Duke of Norfolk Thomas Howard, Thomas Boleyn as her father consents and orders Mary, “You will give yourself to Francios.” [10]. He even orders more clothes to help her with bedding the King of France. Here, Thomas is demonstrated to be using Mary as a tool with which to advance the family, much the same as he uses Anne as a tool in The Tudors [7].
In another more subtle example, in a conversation between Mary and the King regarding the King’s great matter, Mary holds her tongue while counselling the King, for the sake of not damaging her family's agenda to rise. She thinks to herself, “I was on the brink of telling him that the Queen was incapable of a lie. But I thought of us Boleyns and our ambitions, and I held my peace.” [10]. What Gregory is doing here is demonstrating how the character of Thomas has corrupted the the mind of Mary, a young and honest woman.
The Tudors in general has been heavily criticized, as has The Other Boleyn Girl, for their aggressive use of poetic license when it comes to the liberties they have taken with Tudor history. It has not gone unnoticed by the consumers, nor academics [5].
But what we must correct is the mistakes that go unnoticed, only unnoticed because the victims of those mistakes are the figures of history that are not the main characters, i.e. Thomas Boleyn. Transgressing the boundaries too far, to the fact of misrepresentation, does the historical figure an injustice, and the betrayals made against them become the memorialized legend in popular culture.
Thomas Boleyn, the man, reintroduces us to a man of Boleyn lineage, and as demonstrated, this means something. It means we can dispel the popular view that Thomas was a self-serving pimp of his own daughters, who acted for ambition and personal advancement only. By going back generations, it is clear that he was made much as his ancestors were, through hard work and intelligence, and marital allegiances. His daughters’ liaisons with the King were situations that were not orchestrated by his own ambitions, because he simply didn’t need it.
Thomas Boleyn, the myth, are examples of the ways in which the man has been remembered askew. The myth that he was a man of little consequence can be quickly counted out when we consider the history of the man himself and his achievements. The second, that he threw his daughters into the bed of the King of England, can also be discredited when we look at the letters of Eustance Chapuys that demonstrate his apparent attempted to dissuade desires for marriage. As well as this, his estrangement from his elder daughter comes to light in 1528, and it is clear to see he was reluctant to provide for her after she was made a widow. We could suppose this estrangement was down to his soured relationship with with her after she was publicly labelled as the Kings mistress.
Thomas Boleyn, the legend, is a demonstration of how historical fiction in the the 21st century has represented him in popular culture – they have represented him in accordance with the myths that drown his character. Though historical fiction such as The Tudors and The Other Boleyn Girl have been widely consumed and hugely popular, they pose the threat of convincing the consumer these figures were truly as they are represented [10]. Today, Thomas Boleyn has been reintroduced to you. Go, read, learn, get to know him. He is so much more than we think we know.
Resources:
Owen Emmerson, Claire Ridgway, The Boleyns of Hever Castle (Spain: Made Glob Publishing, 2021).
Owen Emmerson, Kate McCaffrey, Allison Palmer, Catherine and Anne; Queens, Rivals, Mothers (UK: Jigsaw Design and Publishing, 2023).
Span. Cal. iv. ii.1048.
The Tudors, Showtime, 2007-2010.
Philippa Gregory, The Other Boleyn Girl (UK: Harper Collins Publishers, 2001).
‘Simply Henry’, The Tudors, Showtime, 2007.
‘Message to the Emperor’, The Tudors, Showtime, 2007.
Jerome De Groot, Remaking History; The Past in Contemporary Historical Fictions (London: Routledge, 2016).
Philippa Gregory, The Other Boleyn Girl (UK: Harper Collins Publishers, 2001).