Fortunino Matania 'The Execution of Anne Boleyn' ink on paper

Fortunino Matania 'The Execution of Anne Boleyn' ink on paper

the queen that used promiscuousness, adultery and secret disloyalty as its basis – news that was guaranteed to arouse the worst elements of Henry’s characteristics of pride, anger and suspicion. And whatever Cromwell did, he made sure he had the king’s authority to proceed towards ending Anne’s status. No action that touched the king’s dignity so closely could be orchestrated without his agreement.

Cromwell used all his experience of the twists of Tudor power politics to target the informal and playful aspects of Anne’s court. He monitored and interrogated those who were on the periphery of Anne’s circle, such as the musician Mark Smeaton, or others, like Henry Norris, who were familiar with Anne but who moved in and out of high favour.

A case of adultery and incest was assembled. Her brother George Boleyn, and men of the king’s chamber – Francis Weston, William Brereton, Norris, and Smeaton – became her accomplices and, swiftly, co-conspirators against Henry. Naming them as servants of the king’s Privy Chamber, rather than of the queen’s household, only emphasised their personal proximity to Henry in the course of their daily duties – further circumstantial evidence of the danger they presented at the heart of royal private life.

Cromwell hid his machinations from Henry until 1 May 1536. Knowing very well that accusations of the queen’s sexual relations with others at court would trigger his deep worries about the legitimacy of children and his longing for a male heir, it was a short step to turn flirtatious familiarity into a sinister plot to end Henry VIII’s life.

The case was revealed to Henry at the May Day jousts at Greenwich. This very public celebration was quickly halted and the court prepared for a feverish period while the full picture of truth and reality was worked out under Cromwell’s guiding hand.

Once she was tried and convicted, the political turmoil surrounding the queen’s position dominated the royal court. Other officials, however, had to take steps to carry out the sentence. Anne was found guilty of treason rather than adultery, although undermining the king’s dignity was part of the convincing accusation that Anne had turned against her husband.

In 1536, adultery, even by the queen of England, was an offence for the church courts. The law was not changed until after Queen Katherine Howard’s execution, six years later. The 1351 Treason Act required that a woman compassing or imagining the death of the king should be drawn on a hurdle to the appointed place of execution and there burned alive.

Despite the horror of that spectacle, it was nevertheless considered indecent to subject a woman to exactly the same punishment as a traitorous man – drawing, hanging, disembowelment and quartering. Only the king’s intervention could commute this sentence, and while Henry’s will was awaited, preparations had to be made.

Many questions arose about the detailed procedures of the day of execution, as well as management of the public reaction. Evidence of the comprehensive exchange of orders comes from the record books of the clerks who drew up the writs that carried the instructions which made the wheels of government turn. They also suggest the existence of other contracts, indentures and payments that have not yet been located.

All What's You Should Know— where you'll discover the most interesting things that you Should know