Jane Boleyn, nee Parker
A sketch of ‘The Lady Parker’; possibly a likeness of Jane before her marriage, or perhaps her sister in law, Grace Newport
Every member of Anne Boleyn’s immediate family has been maligned, both by fiction and history. Mark Twain once said “The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice” and we all know that history is written by the victors, and the Boleyns were the losers. Thankfully, things are changing and most people now believe that Anne Boleyn was innocent of the charges brought against her in May 1536. Professor Eric Ives’s work on her life and death has successfully rehabilitated her, some believe. The same cannot be said for members of her family and these include George Boleyn’s wife, Jane Parker.
Recently, it was the anniversary of the executions of Catherine Howard and Jane Boleyn, and it was shocking how many commented on social media and blogs on the “karma” for Jane, that she deserved that brutal death because of her betrayal of the Boleyns and the way she had encouraged the relationship between Catherine Howard and Thomas Culpeper. There was an outpouring of sympathy for Catherine Howard and yet the woman who followed her to the block on that day in February 1542 is hated and name-called.
It is thought that Jane was born around 1505. Her father was Henry Parker, Lord Morley, a man who had been brought to the household of Lady Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII’s mother. Jane’s mother was Alice St John, daughter of Sir John St John, a prosperous and respected landowner. We know that Jane was present at the Field of Cloth of Gold in 1520, we know that she played Constancy in the 1522 Chateau Vert masquerade and we know that a jointure was signed on the 4th October 1524, so it is thought that she married George Boleyn in late 1524 or early 1525. By this time, George Boleyn was a “flourishing, prosperous courtier” (Fox, 2008) and Jane was an important woman. Although it was unlikely that it was a love match, there is no reason to think that the marriage was unhappy or that George did not want to marry her. Contrary to popular opinion, young men and women were not forced into marriage. A couple was only became betrothed, and then married, if they liked each other and this ‘like’ was expected to turn to love as the couple got to know each other better. There is no evidence whatsoever that George and Jane’s marriage was unhappy, or that George mistreated her in any way.
Jane attended Anne Boleyn at her coronation in 1533 and she was close to Anne. Anne turned to her for help in 1534 when she wanted to be rid of a rival who had caught Henry’s eye. This resulted in Jane's exile from court for a time when the plan was discovered, but there is no evidence that this caused any trouble in the women’s relationship. Anne felt close enough to Jane to confide in her about Henry’s erratic sexual prowess, something that Jane then told George about. Anne must have trusted Jane. The evidence, therefore, points to Jane being close to both Anne and George, rather than her being an outsider and feeling jealous of the siblings’ close relationship.
When George Boleyn was arrested in May 1536, far from abandoning her husband to his fate Jane sent a message to Sir William Kingston, Constable of the Tower of London. Although this message was damaged in the Ashburnam House fire of 1731, which affected the Cottonian Library, we know that she sent it to Kingston for George, asking after George and promising him that she would “humbly [make] suit unto the king’s highness for him.” We also know that George was grateful and that he replied saying that he wanted to “give her thanks”.
Although some writers and historians portray Jane as being the star witness for the Crown in 1536, the evidence does not support this theory. Eustace Chapuys clearly states that there were no witnesses at the trials of George and Anne, and, as Julia Fox points out, “He had no reason to lie, every reason to gloat, if Anne’s own sister-in-law had actually spoken out against her.”(Fox, 2011)
George Boleyn is recorded as saying “On the evidence of only one woman you are willing to believe this great evil of me, and on the basis of her allegations you are deciding my judgement” but on realizing it was the Countess of Worcester’s conversation with her brother, regarding the Queen’s inappropriate relationship with George, as the Crown’s main piece of evidence, then surely he was referring to her. He could also have been referring to the letters of the late Lady Wingfield. If he had been referring to Jane then wouldn’t he have said “my wife”? Jane’s name is also not mentioned by Thomas Cromwell, in his reports on the case against Anne and the men, or by the Portuguese account that some historians use as evidence against Jane, it only mentions “that person”. As for Jane allegedly confessing to betraying the Boleyns in her execution speech, historian John Guy explains that the account was a forgery and the work of Gregorio Leti, a man known for making up stories and inventing sources. Otwell Johnson, a merchant who was present at Jane’s execution, mentioned no such confession in his account. It appears that all Jane was guilty of in 1536 was talking to George about Henry’s sexual problems and telling the truth when she was interrogated.
Jane Boleyn faces her doom in the Showtime series ‘The Tudors’
Jane survived the falls of her husband and sister-in-law, but life was not easy for her and she ended up having to beg Cromwell for help. It was he who intervened to get her jointure money paid by Thomas Boleyn. Jane went on to serve three more queens: Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard, and it was, of course, her service to Catherine Howard that led to Jane being executed in February 1542. It appears that Jane foolishly helped Catherine Howard have secret assignations with Thomas Culpeper, a gentleman of Henry VIII’s privy chamber. In “The Tudors” series, Jane seems to get some kind of sexual kick out of helping the couple to meet and then spying on their love-making, and even historians write of her as “a procuress who achieves a vicarious pleasure from arranging assignations.” (Baldwin-Smith, 2010) However, we have no way of knowing the full story of Jane’s involvement in Catherine’s relationship with Culpeper. It could be that she was simply carrying out the Queen’s orders or that she was being manipulated by Thomas Culpeper.
The author discussed the matter with Julia Fox, Fox believes that Jane was persuaded to help the couple once and then was on a slippery slope because she had already committed misprision of treason. She had already incriminated herself so it got harder and harder to back out, and instead, she just carried on and ended up digging her own grave. Jane was on her own, she had no-one to turn to for help and advice – no husband and no Thomas Cromwell to act as a go-between with her and the King. What she did was reckless and foolish, but her actions do not prove her “a pathological meddler” or “procuress”.
There must be questions and a willingness to challenge the accepted depictions of Jane Boleyn, just as researchers have done with Anne Boleyn. We will never know the full truth about her, but there is no need to twist the evidence or fill in the blanks by making Jane out to be a monster. If Catherine Howard’s story provokes sympathy then surely her lady deserves some as well?
Trivia: Jane was a patron of the scholar William Foster. She helped pay for his education at King’s College, Cambridge.
No comments:
Post a Comment