Ch. 1. Favor in the Headsman’s Shadow: The Boleyn Faction at the Court of Henry VIII

Chapter One: Factionalism and the Court of Henry VIII. The Example of the Boleyns

Court Politics Under Henry VIII

In the Tudor era all political advancement came by way of the court. This emphasized the importance of the monarch, as it was he who dispensed favors. This was true of Henry VIII, who was a dominant force in the history of his time; he was an almighty ruler, under the thumb of no party or man, and never ignorant of the events surrounding him.[1] His position as a personal monarch was a significant element in the rise of court factions. The Tudors were concerned with the weakening of feudal ties and they worked to garner all allegiance for themselves. England under the Tudors was undergoing a transformation away from feudalism toward clientage. Other circumstances also tended to concentrate attention on the court; the North, which had been virtually autonomous until this point, was losing its independence, and the church was beginning to lose its power for patronage. Henry VIII brought the church under royal control with the Act of Supremacy. Increasingly, favors were distributed from the center.[2]

At court the road to advancement was paved with the smiles of the King. The courtier who succeeded in pleasing Henry had a good chance for profit. First in influence with the King were those courtiers who were close to him, frequently referred to as the “minions.” Their number fluctuated slightly but always remained close to ten; Francis Bryan, Henry Norris, William Fitzwilliam, John Russell, as well as the Boleyns exercised influence in this capacity during the period of the Boleyn sway, 1520-1536. These men formed a second group within the Privy Chamber. While the first group was composed of those who were expected to render service to the King (his ministers were included in this group), the minions were required to provide companionship.[3]

Henry VIII was a volatile personality, prone to copious displays of emotion and successful courtiers were adept at the exploitation of his emotions in order to gain their own ends. One of the best at this maneuver was Stephen Gardiner. According to the Imperial Ambassador Eustace Chapuys, Gardiner was able to make Henry adopt the policies of others while thinking that they were his own. However, the courtier who attempted such a course had to be exceeding careful; it was dangerous, even fatal, to be caught attempting to influence Henry (as Gardiner found out in the waning years of the reign).[4]



Henry VIII c. 1520. Image used with permission of the National Portrait Gallery, London. NPG 4690

The political battle at the court of Henry VIII was concerned with gaining the ear of the King; there was little outward wrangling over policies. Blatant espousal of a course of action was looked upon with suspicion.[5] This necessitated some degree of dishonesty and backroom plotting on the part of the ministers and courtiers, thus this was not an atmosphere in which the business of government was easily conducted. As L.B. Smith succinctly put the matter, “Ministers may indeed have enveloped their motives in a heavy fog of deception, and the inertia and privilege which permeated the household may have clogged the machinery of royalty with the grit of human guile.”[6] Yet lives were literally staked on the belief that it was possible to influence the decisions of Henry VIII. To some extent court functionaries were protected by the mutual dependence between the monarch and his courtiers. For the functionaries, the King was the means for preferment, while they fulfilled the ceremonial roles that were important to the business of royalty in that age.[7] Those men who occupied the minor offices at court served a function that combined the decorative with the practical, with an emphasis on the decorative.[8]

One of the most important areas of court life where the decorative was combined with the practical was the Privy Chamber. The Privy Chamber became a distinct department under Henry VIII. Quite likely it was modeled on the French example.[9] Structurally, the gentlemen of the Privy Chamber were divided into two groups.[10] As a result of an order issued in 1533, one group was headed by Henry Courtenay, the Marquis of Exeter, and Henry Norris and consisted of Nicholas Carew, Anthony Browne, Thomas Cheyne, Richard Page, and Francis Weston. George Boleyn and Thomas Henneage were the senior attendants with authority over the second group, which consisted of Thomas Neville, Francis Bryan, John Russell, Master Welliborne, and Henry Knevett. Each group was in attendance for six weeks. During the period in which they were in service to the King, the gentlemen were require to remain at court; however, the senior attendants were somewhat more free in their comings and goings.[11] An additional position of importance within the Chamber was that of the Groom of the Stool (Stole), who had charge of the King’s personal coffers.[12] Henry Norris held this position from 1529 until his execution in 1536.

The men who were privileged to serve in the Privy Chamber had close and direct access to the King. They were thus able to keep his ministers at a disadvantage. The frequent movements of the court increased the influence of the courtiers above that of the ministers; the attendants traveled with the King while the ministers were required to remain in London thus making it necessary for the ministers to cultivate friendships among the gentlemen of the Chamber.[13] The gentlemen were made more important by the requirement that the King sign a parchment confirming grants, without the signature, the grant was void. The chamber attendants were vital in influencing Henry at this stage.[14] The secret to success in Tudor politics involved close attendance on the monarch and the ability to attract suitors with the accompanying fame and wealth that the suitors brought. A courtier had to be willing to compete and ruthless in his dealings with others. The most important foundation for advancement was the appearance of total subservience to the royal will.



The Factional System

An important facet of the court-based system was the faction. In the England of the Tudors, a faction was a group of people who worked together to achieve fundamentally personal goals. These goals could be either positive (material gain) or negative (the denial of such gain to rivals) in nature. Factions were formed in order to gain power and the attendant rewards. Success in achieving power determined how long a faction would survive. Most often, factions were temporary, lasting only as long as they had to in order to work for their members’ personal interest.[15] The term “faction” can refer either to the activities of such a group, or, in a larger context, to a system in which events are affected by groups which operate in a factional manner. Factions were not always entirely personally motivated; they could and did espouse ideological positions. Personal appointments may thus have been seen as furthering this position. Religious beliefs most often formed the ideological base of factions; the emphasis, however, did remain on the advancement of ideologies though the advancement of people.[16] Membership in factions could be based on a number of factors including family, locality, calculation of possible profit, and natural bonds of friendship. Competition for position; and thus, for membership in effective factions increased in the sixteenth century. This was due in part to a rise in the importance of the landed gentry; a gentleman with wealth as well as land could reasonable expect to gain entree into the ranks of the nobility.[17] This situation was to cause further factionalization as the old nobility banded together against the nouveau riches.

Henry’s matrimonial exploits were the center of factional activity from 1527 until the end of the reign. B.W. Beckingsale, the biographer of Thomas Cromwell, described the factional politics under Henry VIII as follows: “The motives behind faction strife were expressed within the framework of matrimonial politics which was imposed by the King. Since royal favor could best be won by support for his dynastic aims, the making of queens became a focus of politics and the queens became the figure-heads of faction.”[18]No other group engaged in the business of queen-making held power for the length of time that it was held by the Boleyns. In this way, the delay in the procurement of the divorce worked to the advantage of the group. Their candidate for the position of Henry’s consort was able to hold the King’s attention for longer than any other who followed her. No other wife was long-lived enough to enable her party to become as firmly entrenched as were the Boleyns. The exception to this might be said to be the Seymours, but because of that lady’s untimely death, only her family managed to retain influence; there was no party dedicated to the furtherance of the Seymours.

Faction was tied to patronage and the patronage system yielded the simplest form of faction in Henry’s court. Such a faction consisted of the patron and his clients in a relationship of mutual dependency. Patronage under Henry VIII was not strictly hierarchical. One did not have to be a great man in order to be of assistance to one’s friends, lesser men were able to do quite well on their own. Often a courtier, whatever his standing, had connections both in the country and at court.[19] These connections increased his efficacy as a patron.

The membership of factions was apparently quite fluid as it was a relationship of convenience primarily based on the profit-motive.[20] Courtiers moved between groups with apparent ease. This was an important factor in the operations of the faction under consideration in this study. There was a core of relatively loyal members, but others came and went quite readily.

It was against the background of court politics and its inherent component, faction, that the Boleyns rose to power. They began their journey to influence in earnest during the third decade of the sixteenth century. Before that they had been peripheral figures in the events of the day. They quickly became the major personages at the Tudor court.



The Boleyn Faction: The Members

The Boleyn faction could claim the membership of many of the most exceptional people at the Tudor court; this is certainly true among the younger personnel of the court. While the older generation, such as Thomas Howard, the third Duke of Norfolk, and Thomas Boleyn, the Earl of Wiltshire, provided the effective leadership – at least in the early days – it was the younger members who contributed much of the vitality. Persons such as Anne Boleyn, her brother George, Sir Francis Bryan, and Henry Norris were forceful personalities in their own right and increasingly took control of their own activities. To a person, the members enjoyed an unusual closeness to the King that increased as they became more influential. Through this relationship they were able to place their own people into positions of power. The major members of the faction were all dominant figures at court who were adept at using their influence with the King to the advantage of those whom they favored. This central group consisted of the Boleyn family; Anne, Thomas, and George, as well as the Duke of Norfolk. The courtiers Francis Bryan, Henry Norris, and William Fitzwilliam were also important members. The figures who left the most lasting impression on history were Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer.

Anne Boleyn was the woman whose charms made the success of the Boleyn faction possible. Through her refusal to become anything less than Queen, Anne assured that Henry would not tire of her quickly and thus placed her party in a favorable position. Though she may have been intended to serve only as a figurehead to the faction, she soon began to exercise a very real influence. It was her inability to produce a male heir as well as her somewhat viperish personality, which left her vulnerable to attack by rivals. She died when she was prevented from countering her enemies’ influence with the King.

The Duke of Norfolk, as the head of the powerful Howard family, exercised the practical leadership of the faction. His sister was married to Thomas Boleyn; thus there existed a strong family tie between the Howards and the Boleyns. Norfolk and his father had recouped the family’s losses incurred from fighting on the wrong side in the final stages of the Wars of the Roses. They were able to prove their loyalty to the Tudor regime, and their titles and lands were soon returned to them. Such was the favor in which they were held that the third Duke, while still Earl of Surrey, was permitted to marry Edward IV’s daughter, Princess Anne, a marriage which made Surrey the brother-in-law to Henry VII. Norfolk was a companion to Henry VIII from the outset of the reign and he was the highest-ranking nobleman in the realm. His abilities as a courtier are attested to by his surviving the entire reign despite being the uncle and chief supporter of the two of Henry’s wives who were executed.[21]

Thomas Boleyn, the father of Anne, began his rise early in the reign of Henry VIII. By 1520, he had accumulated the offices of keeper of the exchange at Calais and of the foreign exchange in England, joint-constable of Norwich Castle, and Sheriff of Kent. He had also been on embassy to the Low Countries and to France. From 1520 to 1536, his fortunes were tied to his daughters’ skirts; as Mary and Anne Boleyn captivated their monarch, their father reaped the rewards. He was made Treasurer of the Household and Lord Privy Seal. In 1525, he was created Viscount Rochford and in 1529 he was awarded the Earldom of Wiltshire and Ormond. He was not as skillful as his brother-in-law the Duke of Norfolk at weathering the storms of the court. He lost all influence as a result of Anne’s fall and died soon after, on March 12, 1538.[22]



George Boleyn also owed his position at court to the favor of his sisters, especially Anne. His own personality does appear to have been suited to his position as a companion to the King and he soon became a favorite in his own right. George did not accumulate the large number of offices that had been awarded to his father, most likely a testament to his relative youth, but he was sent on several embassies and was knighted and made Viscount in 1530.[23] He remained unswervingly loyal to his sister and was to die for his constancy.

Sir Francis Bryan, “the vicar of hell,” was famous for his dissolute life-style. He was a court by 1513, where he soon caught the attention of Henry. He was made captain of a warship in that year and was knighted for service in the field in 1522. He was quite successful in his many diplomatic missions, which primarily took him to France. Bryan did a great deal of work to further the cause of the divorce. In his years of service he acquired a great many offices and lands. Through his well-timed defection to the Seymours, he was able to continue his career in high favor until his death. Bryan was a courtier, soldier, diplomat, scholar, and poet.[24]

Thomas Cranmer owed his position as Archbishop of Canterbury to his connections with the Boleyns, his reforming theology complemented both their beliefs and their needs. He regularized Henry’s divorce from Katherine of Aragon and the marriage to Anne and he also pronounced Anne’s marriage null when the time came. He remained loyal to Anne through her reign, though at the fall he was willing to distance himself from her to ensure the continuance of the Reformation.

Thomas Cromwell rose from the ashes of the ruin of his former master, Cardinal Wolsey, to exercise more power than Wolsey ever dreamed of. He became the most powerful, and one of the most capable, figures of his day. Much of Cromwell’s early advancement came from his relationship with the Boleyns. Together they brought about the Henrician Reformation. He soon outgrew his former patrons and turned against them, bringing about their fall in 1536.



Image used with permission of the National Portrait Gallery, London. NPG 1727

Henry Norris was a gentleman of the Privy Chamber and Keeper of the privy purse. He had come to court as a very young man and was a early and loyal partisan of Anne’s, largely because of his antipathy to Wolsey. He was betrothed to Anne’s cousin, Margaret Shelton, at the time of his death. Norris accumulated a great many offices as other means toward personal wealth through his closeness to the King and Anne. He was caught in Cromwell’s net and died on the scaffold in 1536.[25]

The last of the major members of the Boleyn faction was William Fitzwilliam. He was an influential favorite of Henry’s, having been an intimate friend since childhood. Because of this favor, as well as his ability, he was granted several major offices such as Comptroller of the Royal Household and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. His allegiance to the Boleyns was often tenuous. Fitzwilliam was a powerful ally when he was so inclined; however, he worked closely with Cromwell to bring about the fall of the Boleyns in 1536.[26]

Among the lesser members of the faction were Francis Weston and William Brereton, both of whom died as a result of their allegiance. Weston was a fixture at the court from a very early age, eventually becoming a gentleman of the Privy Chamber. He was known for his athletic ability and he was frequently a sporting companion to the King. His family was not favorably inclined toward the Boleyns and made great efforts to save him in 1536.[27] William Brereton grew up at court holding positions within the Privy Chamber. In the court hierarchy he was not considered the equal of Weston, though he had links to the Duke of Norfolk through the Duke’s son-in-law (and the King’s bastard), the Duke of Richmond. Within the faction, his closest ties were to George Boleyn. Until just before the fall in 1536, it seemed that Brereton was on very good terms with Cromwell.[28]

Many of the minor members of the faction had worked for Wolsey and, like Cromwell, transferred their allegiance to the new rising stars when the Cardinal fell from the firmament. Thomas Henneage joined the faction when Wolsey was disgraced and he was soon in great favor with Anne and through her agency he secured a position in the Privy Chamber.[29] Thomas Audley was another refugee from the Wolsey debacle. He and Cromwell were good friends and assisted one another into power. Audley was made Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Speaker of the Commons in 1529. In 1532, he was made Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. From that time Audley’s entire career is that of an efficient tool used by Henry and Cromwell. It was through his relationship with Cromwell that Audley became involved with the Boleyns, and subsequently he was heavily involved in their fall.[30] Others who were connected with the faction in a minor way included the poet Thomas Wyatt, Thomas Cheyne, Henry Parker (George Boleyn’s father-in-law), John Barlow, the Boleyn chaplain, and Stephen Gardiner, who owed much of his early advancement to the favor of Anne but was later to abandon his support of her.

The Boleyn Faction: Nature of Membership

The faction was held together mostly through personal interest. The members were spectacularly successful in achieving advancement both for themselves and their adherents. The group was interested in more than worldly success; however, there was an ideological component to their ambition. They became the champions of religious reform; the most prominent anti-clericals in England were members of the faction.[31] Many of these anti-clericals were interested in stripping away much of the wealth of the church and the clergy.[32] It was while England was under the influence of the Boleyns that the break from the Papacy at Rome and the birth of the Church of England occurred.

Because of the dual components of the motivation of the faction, personal advancement and reformist ideology, and also to the very nature of factionalism, the membership in the group was unstable. Members uncomfortable with either aspect of the faction commonly joined other groups more suited to their opinions. This occurred frequently during the years of the Boleyn ascendancy. Just before the fall in 1536, some who were astute enough to see the signs changed allegiance in a concern for personal survival. Sir William Fitzwilliam was one of the early deserters. As early as 1533, he is listed in Princess Mary’s accounts as a visitor and in 1536; he had clearly thrown in his lot with the Marians.[33] This change in allegiance was to prove costly for the Boleyns; as a favorite of Henry’s he had great influence and he worked against the faction, ultimately aiding in their fall.

Anne’s relationships with her father Thomas, and her Uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, were quite unsettled.[34] The Catholic apologist, Nicholas Sander tells a story that while Thomas Boleyn was on embassy in France, he heard of Henry’s plan to marry Anne, and he hurried back to England to try to stop the marriage.[35] This story is extremely suspect because Sander uses it to support his contention that Anne was the daughter of Henry. There is some corroboration to the assertion that Thomas opposed the marriage in a report in 1533 from Eustace Chapuys, the Imperial ambassador, in which the ambassador reported that Norfolk had told him that he (the Duke) and Thomas Boleyn had prevented the marriage from taking place in secret long before it was actually accomplished.[36] Norfolk supported the divorce in the interests of the King and his own family, but his true sympathy appears to have been with Katherine. He informed Chapuys that he was not in favor of the second marriage.[37] This attitude on the part of Norfolk was the cause of many heated clashes between him and Anne. Anne was not the only one with whom Norfolk quarreled. In 1530, Chapuys reported to the Emperor that Norfolk was claiming that Thomas Boleyn had botched his ambassadorial mission to the Empire.[38] As the fortunes of the Boleyns improved during 1532-1533, their dependence on the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk lessened and the influence of Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer was felt more strongly.[39] This state of affairs did little to increase Norfolk’s amiability.

Both the group that supported Anne and that which opposed her were temporary alliances. Henry Norris and William Brereton were part of a clique that existed within the Privy Chamber; they were essentially the King’s servants and their ties to the Boleyns were those of convenience. Thomas Wyatt was friends with Norris, Bryan, and Norfolk’s son, the Earl of Surrey. There are centuries of old rumors alleging that he was Anne’s lover prior to her relationship with the King; of course, the truth of those allegations will never be certainly known. However, it is clear that he was very close to her. Wyatt was not friendly with Brereton and there are indications that he was also hostile toward George Boleyn. There is evidence of at least occasional unfriendliness between George and Bryan as well. Bryan’s own allegiance to the faction was complicated by his familial relationships; his brother-in-law was Nicholas Carewe, an avowed enemy of the Boleyns, while his father had served as vice-chamberlain to Katherine of Aragon.[40]



Image of Thomas Wyatt used with permission of the National Portrait Gallery, London. NPG D24335

Factors Contributing to the Rise of the Boleyns

From 1520 to 1536, the history of the Boleyns is one of nearly continuous advancement. The reasons for this are manifold. Family connections provided an initial entree for Thomas Boleyn as he had made a fortuitous marriage to the sister of the Duke of Norfolk; as that peer’s prospects improved, so did those of his obscure brother-in-law. This association with the old noble families did not stop with the Howards. The Boleyns had ties to the St. Legers as well as others of the more established peerage.[41] Thomas’ aunt, a daughter of the Earl of Ormond, was a St. Leger by marriage. Sir Thomas was also blessed in that Henry VIII seemed to have a weakness for Boleyn daughters. The eldest, Mary, was Henry’s mistress from the period of her marriage in 1520 until the King lost interest sometime around 1525.[42] Anne most likely replaced her sister in the King’s affections at some point during that year. The rise of the family’s fortunes was in no small way due to Henry’s desire to kiss the “pretty duckys” of the Boleyn sisters.[43] Related to the ability of the Boleyns to monopolize the King’s affections is the fact that his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, had failed to provide a male heir and was well past child-bearing age. With the discord of the Wars of the Roses only in the very recent past and the more ancient example of Queen Matilda in his mind, Henry was desperate for a legitimate son. His obsession with Anne convinced him that she was the answer to more than just his physical needs; she was to be the mother of his son.

Katherine was strongly Catholic, so opposition to her gave an opportunity for those of Protestant leanings to gain the ear of the King. England had a history of anti-clericalism and the Boleyns benefitted from both circumstances. Their anti-clericalism helped to propel them into positions of importance in the government.[44] This was to be one of the most important of the faction’s characteristics.

During the decade of the 1530s, the Boleyns advanced quite rapidly, far outstripping their rivals in the procurement of grants and offices. At the time of their fall, the members of the faction were firmly entrenched in the Privy Chamber.[45] This alone would have made them a powerful force. The members fully realized the power to be gained from an ascendant position at court. In those surroundings, they were able to exploit their natural tendencies to good avail. There were few people who were more gifted courtiers and this talent provided the base for their spectacular rise to power.



[1] G.R. Elton, “King or Minister? The Man Behind the Henrician Reformation,” History 39 (October 1954): 218.

[2] Eric W. Ives, Faction in Tudor England (London: Historical Association, 1979), 5; Robert Shephard, “Royal Favorites in the Political Discourse of Tudor and Stuart England” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1985), 22, 26.

[3] Muriel St. Clare Byrne, ed., The Lisle Letters (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 1:52. Henceforth cited as LL. David Loades, The Tudor Court (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1987), 41.

[4] Lacey Baldwin Smith, Henry VIII: the Mask of Royalty (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), 79-80, 98.

[5] Ives, Faction, 6.

[6] Smith, Henry VIII, 1.

[7] Helen Miller, Henry VIII and the English Nobility (London: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 80.

[8] Lewis Einstein, Tudor Ideals (London: G. Bell, 1921), 39.

[9] Loades, The Tudor Court, 47-48.

[10] Miller, Henry VIII, 85.

[11] G.R. Elton, The Tudor Revolution in Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 379.

[12] Ives, Faction, 9.

[13] Ives, Faction, 9.

[14] Eric Ives, ed., Letters and Accounts of William Brereton (London: Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1976), 24.

[15] Ives, Faction, 1-2; J.R. Lander, Conflict and Stability in Fifteenth Century England, 3rd ed. (London: Hutchinson, 1969), 183; Shephard, “Royal Favorites,” 74, 107.

[16] Ives, Faction, 1-2; Shephard, “Royal Favorites,” 74.

[17] Ives, Faction, 4; Eric W. Ives, “Faction at the Court of Henry VIII: the Fall of Anne Boleyn,” History 57 (June 1972), 178-179; Lander, Conflict and Stability, 180.

[18] B.W. Beckingsale, Thomas Cromwell: Tudor Statesman (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1978), 122.

[19] Ives, Faction, 3, 7; Ives, “Faction,” 178.

[20] Ives, Faction, 19.

[21] Mandell Creighton, “Howard, Thomas II, Earl of Surrey and Third Duke of Norfolk,” DNB, 1964 ed., 10:64-67; Ann Hoffman, “Howard, Thomas,” in Lives of the Tudor Age, 1435-1603 (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1977), 261-262.

[22] James Gairdner, “Boleyn, Sir Thomas, Earl of Wiltshire,” DNB, 1664 ed., 2:783-785.

[23] James Gairdner, “Boleyn, George,” DNB, 1964 ed., 2:781-782.

[24] Sidney Lee, “Bryan, Sir Francis,” DNB, 1964 ed., 3:150-152; H. Maynard Smith, Henry VIII and the Reformation (New York: Russell and Russell, 1962), 102n; P. Thomson, Sir Thomas Wyatt and His Background (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964), 274-275; Kenneth Muir, ed., Collected Poems of Sir Thomas Wyatt (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1950), xvn.

[25] Paul Friedmann, Anne Boleyn: A Chapter of English History, 1527-1536, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1884), 2:249; William Jobson Archbold, “Norris, Henry,” DNB, 1964 ed., 14:566-567.

[26] The Dictionary of National Biography: the Concise Dictionary (London: Oxford University Press, 1953-1961), 443.

[27] Thomson, Sir Thomas Wyatt, 35; Ernest Clarke, “Weston, Sir Francis,” DNB, 1964 ed., 20:1271-1272; Friedmann, Anne Boleyn, 2:248-249.

[28] Eric W. Ives, Anne Boleyn (London: Basil Blackwood, 1986), 395; Friedmann, Anne Boleyn 2:260; Thomson, Sir Thomas Wyatt, 35.

[29] LL, 1:189, 3:367; Dictionary, 599.

[30] James Gairdner, “Audley, Thomas,” DNB, 1964 ed., 1:723-726.

[31] Geoffrey de C. Parmiter, The King’s Great Matter: A Study of Anglo-Papal Relations, 1527-1534 (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967), 114.

[32] Neville Williams, The Cardinal and the Secretary: Thomas Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975), 113.

[33] LL, 1:338-339; G.R. Elton, Reform and Reformation: England, 1509-1558 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), 254.

[34] Friedmann, Anne Boleyn, 1:157-158.

[35] Nicholas Sander, The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, David Lewis, trans. (London: Burns and Oates, 1877), 27.

[36] James Gairdner, ed. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII: Preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum, and Elsewhere in England, 21 vols. (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1862-1910; reprint ed., Vaduz: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1965), 6:556. Henceforth cited as LP.

[37] J.A. Froude, The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon: The Story as Told by the Imperial Ambassador Resident at the Court of Henry VIII (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1891), 167; LP. 6:556.

[38] Pascual de Gayangos, ed., Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers, Relating to the Negotiations Between England and Spain, Preserved in the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere: Henry VIII (London: published by the authority of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesy’s Treasury, under the direction of the Master of the Rolls, 1877; reprint ed., Vaduz: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1969), 4:1,373. Henceforth cited as SC.

[39] Loades, The Tudor Court, 154.

[40] Ives, Faction, 17; James Gairdner, “Carewe, Sir Nicholas, “ DNB, 1964 ed., 7:965.

[41] Martin A.S. Hume, The Wives of Henry VIII and the Parts They Played in History (London: Eveleigh Nash, 1905), 124.

[42] Jasper Ridley, Henry VIII (New York: Viking, 1984), 153; J.J. Bagley, Henry VIII and His Times (New York: Arco, 1963), 60. When Mary gave birth to her son in 1526, court gossip had it that the father was not her husband, William Carey, but rather the King.

[43] Hester W. Chapman, The Challenge of Anne Boleyn (New York: Coward, McCann, and Geoghegan, 1974), 67.

[44] N.S. Tjernagel, Henry VIII and the Lutherans (St. Louis: Concordia, 1965), 79.

[45] Elton, Reform and Reformation, 250.