ALL MY TUDORS...history chat

Important Announcement

The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More

I am amazed MSN let me get that whole title into the subject line LOL

Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford is the debut biography from Julia Fox, a British professor of history who specializes in the Tudor period, & she states she researched this book for three years. The bibilography is staggering in its scope & content. Fox not only used the usual sources, but there are many out of the mainstream books & magazine articles cited, & she apparently even donned the white cotton gloves & was permitted to muck about in Tudor primary documents. Wouldn't you love to thumb through Henry VIIIs state papers?

Unfortunately, despite her relationship & proximity to two executed Queen Consorts, there's a sad dearth of information on Jane's life, especially the early bits. Fox likes a birth date of around 1505 for her, but, like the rest of the Boleyns, it's an educated guess. The marriage contract of Jane Parker & George Boleyn still exists & was signed on October 4, 1525; Fox surmises they were most likely wed somewhere in the next year, as she came across a little squib of information in Henry's household rolls regarding the provision of lodgings granted for "Mr Boleyn & his wife" the following autumn.

Because of this lack of solid info on Jane, what Fox does is basically tell the story of what was happening with Henry's queens & tries to insert Jane into it, with phrases such as "Jane may have...." or "It's possible that Jane...." etc., which was rather disappointing, but it's probably the best one can do without making stuff up, I guess. She did unearth listings of George Boleyn's grants & properties given to him by Henry, & there is still the accounting Cromwell's minions did after George's execution of tallying up every single thing he owned for purposes of Crown confiscation. For example, I never knew Henry had given George a life interest in the palace of Beaulieu, which "may have" served as the Rochfords' primary residence while not at Court (which probably wasn't often after Anne became queen).

Everything I've ever read about Jane Rochford has portrayed her in a violently negative light, but Fox's bio is definitely what one could term "revisionist history". She claims that there was no reason to think Jane & George did not have a reasonably happy marriage despite the distressing lack of heirs after about seven years of it. She states that Jane was a "close friend & confidante" of Anne's, & was even banished from Court for a time on her SILs behalf. Apparently there was an unnamed Court lady with whom Henry was dallying (the gossipy letters to Charles V of the Imperial ambassador Chapuys, who eagerly watched "the concubine's" every move in hopes that the marriage was in trouble, is the source for this). Fox suggests Anne asked Jane to provoke this lady into a public argument in the hopes that Henry would send the wench from Court for such unseemly behavior, but the plan backfired & it was Jane who was sent away for a time.

Fox also stresses that she could find NO contemporary allegations against Jane, & it was not until well after her death that the tales of her running to Henry with stories of Anne's incest with her brother began to circulate. She states that Jane would have no reason to want to be rid of George in such a manner, the main reason being the confiscation of all their wealth after his execution, leaving her in relative penury.

Fox also says that Jane was "trapped" into pandering by Catherine Howard, whom she states was quite full of herself & arrogant to those who served her, even coming off best in a tussle with Mary, who was forced by Henry to beg his wife's forgiveness for causing offense. Catherine's forceful personality & Henry's absolute besottedness with her made her a dangerous enemy, & Jane dared not naysay her in the matter of arranging secret meeting with Culpeper. Fox says that the manner in which Catherine immediately attempted to shift blame for the entire Culpeper affair onto Jane's shoulders shows that Catherine wasn't as bird-witted as she's been portrayed.

At any rate, I am sure there will be people who will disagree vehemently with this new assessment of one of the most reviled characters on the Tudor stage, but it's a fairly interesting read with a lot of obscure information gleaned from primary documents & I'd recommend it

This is my best picture of her also. Especially the scene at the masquerade dance, where she is in the hall with Cromwell telling him about George and Anne.

And then she seems almost redeemable in her scenes with Catherine Howard.

A very formidable woman, with a good heart? (As Caterine H. says)

Fox makes a reasonably good point in that she culled through privy papers & could find no record of contemporary vilification of Jane. Still, there is the letter to Cromwell begging him to make Thomas Boleyn pony up to the terms of her betrothal contract, & the allegation that Cromwell found her a place amongst JSs ladies. It tends to make me think Cromwell perhaps "owed" Jane in some way, possibly for her assistance in ridding England of Queen Anne?

Well, whaddya know....I've just discovered that the author of this book, Julia Fox, happens to also be the wife of John Guy, who wrote the biography Queen of Scots: The True Story of Mary Stuart about 5 years ago. Can you imagine this couple's dinner table conversations?

I want a nice Tudory spouse!

That sounds wonderful! What an interesting life these two must have.

I just finished the book and returned it to the library. It is well researched and documented. I enjoyed it, but yes, she will always be the Jane Boleyn of the PBS series and The Boleyn Inheritance to me. Maybe someone could channel George and ask him.

I guess in every story there has to be a villian and Lady Jane Rochford was "it". So, what I've been seeing/hearing lately is that George preferred the company of men rather than women. It infuriated Jane. Any truth to that rumor? How could anyone believe that Anne had an incentious relationship with her brother. I wish they had sent her to a nunnery instead of killing her. Can you imagine how different history would have been if she had only had a son.

The trouble was there were no nunneries to go to in 1536, or at least none that survived beyond 1539.

If she only had a son ... We're off to see the wizard. Too late for Merlin; too early for John Dee. Henry could have sent her off to a French nunnery perhaps.

I've just read this one and, I must say, it has made me re-think my opinion of Jane Rochford. I had always just accepted that she had maliciously sold George and Anne out, but apparently this ain't so. I feel sorry for her now, a probably very ordinary woman who has been villified by history.

As for her part in the Catherine Howard episode, I had thought she must have been incredibly stupid to have been involved in anything so risky. But perhaps what had started fairly innocently snowballed out of her control, and by then it was too late to back out.

This is quite a good book, although as Forever Amber says, it is full of ifs and maybes about Jane, due to a lack of definite info about her. One thing I did learn, that I thought strange, was that Thomas Boleyn attended Prince Edward's christening. I always thought that after his children's executions, he had stayed away from court and kept a low profile. I wonder how easy he found it to keep the smile fixed on his face that day.

Well, Norfolk managed to keep in Henry's good graces despite both Anne Boleyn & Catherine Howard (until he got lucky at the end, & that was Surrey's doing), & they were his nieces. Being given a role in an official Court function was supposedly a mark of royal favor, so apparently Thomas Boleyn, despite losing 2 children to Henry's pique, managed to ingratiate himself in a similar fashion. We think of it as OMG how could he even show his face round Henry after what Henry did to his kids, but in those days it was definitely not a child-centered environment as it is nowadays, especially in the upper classes. Noblewomen did not even breastfeed as that was thought to be a contraceptive, & their job was to breed more heirs posthaste, not look after the ones they already had. Henry & Catherine only "visited" Mary's household; same with Henry & Anne with Elizabeth's. Fitzroy was removed from Bessie Blount & sent to Margaret Beaufort's old haunting grounds of Colleyweston to establish his own household. Even lesser nobles often had their children fostered out to other households at an early age. Children were regarded as playing pieces & political advantages, not kids. With Mary & Anne Boleyn having spent most of their lives at various Courts, perhaps the senior Boleyns didn't have that much of a parental feelign toward them at all.

Not sure where the "George is Gay" rumors come from. Perhaps because he & Jane had no children? Poor old George....rather be gay than accused of doing my sister if I were him ROFL

Alison Weir cites George Cavendish (that outstandingly unbiased Boleyn observer) about Rochford that "he lived in 'bestial' fashion, forcing widows, deflowering virgins... [and] it has been suggested he indulged in homosexuality activity too, but there is no evidence for this, although he may well have committed buggery with female partners..."

However, Eric Ives disputes that, saying that "since the Buggery Act (outlawing sodomy) had been enacted in 1533, it is unlikely that Cromwell would not have evoked it as a cause for his arrest as he didn't balk at the incest charge."

Retha Warnicke's book is the first place that I'd ever read the theory of George's sexuality. And Philippa Gregory leaned heavily on Warnicke's writing for her fairy tale, "The Other Boleyn Girl". Which seems to be a source the TTOS as well.

Well, TTOS had Will Compton as bi, & don't ever recall seeing anything about that either. Cavendish was a Wolsey champeen so anything he says about the Boleyns one you have to take with a grain of salt. Actually that description of George sounds more like Culpeper LOL Since George was one of Henry's Privy Gentlemen, mayhap Henry decided to let any hint of homosexual activity slide so as not to taint himself with it from sleeping i nthe same room with the guy LOL

I don't know, I just keep thinking that Henry & by extension, Cromwell, were flinging all the mud they could find to rid the king of his wife & her clique. If they weren't afraid to use incest, and even that the king was in need of Viagra, I can't believe that they'd hesitate to charge George & Co. with 'buggery'. (sorry, as an American, I think that word is just funny).

Greensleeves, you are so right - it does sound like Culpepper. Jean Plaidy kinda romaticized him in her stories, I was shocked when I first read a non-fictional account of him.

Yesm there was apparently a big brouhaha where Culpeper got away with rape & murder (raping a woman & then killing her husband when he objected to it as ya would) by virtue of his status. Methinks he also tried to toss Catherine Howard to the wolves by blaming her & Jane Rochford for what ensued. I don't put much stock in romanticized versions that say poor Catherine never slept with him, considering what a known slut puppy he was & not hesitant to take what he wanted, by force if necessary. Wouldn't it be ironic if he had actually raped & intimidated Catherine?

Important Announcement The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
ALL MY TUDORS...history chat	[email protected]