Loading summary
Transcript55 lines
- [00:01]
A
Want to walk the halls of Anne Boleyn's childhood home or explore the castles that made up Henry VIII's English stronghold? With a subscription to History Hit, you can dive into our Tudor past alongside the world's leading historians and archaeologists. You'll also unlock hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a brand new release every single week covering everything from the ancient world to to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com subscribe. Hello, I'm Professor Susannah Lipscomb and welcome to Not Just the Tudors from History Hit, the podcast in which we explore everything from Anne Boleyn to the Aztecs, from Holbein to the Huguenots, from Shakespeare to samurais, relieved by regular doses of murder, espionage and witchcraft. Not, in other words, just the Tudors, but most definitely also the Tudors. A crowd freed from their daily work by the New Year holy day had gathered at the ringside of the grassy courtyard of the old Rochester Priory in Kent. They were there to see the sport. A large, powerful white ball, chained by one of his legs to a wooden stake stuck in the ground at the center of the wing, was being baited. The pepper put into his nose had roused him to a fury and he lunged ferociously at four great English mastiffs who charged forward again and again to snatch at him with their teeth. From a first floor window a woman listened and watched. Perhaps, like the crowd, she was thrilled by the horror and drama of the spectacle. Perhaps the rude rabble and their incomprehensible speech fascinated her. Though boar baiting was common enough in England, Italy, France and Spain, it was unknown in her homeland. Perhaps there was even a hint of abhorrence in her gaze as she stood staring at the scene below. The door to her chamber flung open in burst six loud and burly men. They were dressed in identical multi coloured gowns, obviously a troop of jesters. One of them thrust a gift towards her. Mustering all her dignity, she thanked him and then turned back to the window to indicate her dismissal. But the lead man, a heavy, jowly, bearded fellow, did not depart. Rather he advanced and then suddenly grabbed her roughly by the arms and even more astonishingly, pressed his mean little mouth against hers. She recoiled. Was it the fug of his foul breath, or simply shock at the assault? By comparison with the modesty and politeness of her own court, this must nevertheless have seemed rough and distasteful behavior. She did not know quite how to respond, and refocused her attention on the torments of the animal below, but not before the man had seen. What was it? Disgust flicker across her eyes. She did not know it, but in that moment, Henry VIII's next queen had flunked her audition. The rest of her life would be determined by what had passed in that instant between her and her husband. To be Henry viii. For he it was swept out of the room to return in a coat of purple velvet, something only royals were permitted to wear. And only now, as all the company bowed low before their sovereign, did Anne realize her mistake. She could not have known what it would cost her. Before six months had passed, their marriage had been dissolved. This is all we tend to know about Anne of Cleves. Forename Anna von de Marc, Duchess of Julius Cleeveburg, Henry VIII's fourth wife. Queen for only six months. We might assume that there's little source material about her reign and we wouldn't be far wrong. But there is one forgotten and little use source that today's guest has thoroughly mined. This is Anne's account book for which we have a fascinating the Pivotal year. More than 200 pages that show every pound, shilling and pence that was spent from the summer of 1539 through to July 1540. And through her spending, it is possible to see how Anne inhabited the and embodied her role as queen. My guest today is Dr. James Taft, a Tudor historian whose research focuses on royal servants and the Tudor court. His most recent work is Accounting for Anne, the Tudor Queen who Could have Been. And I'm delighted to welcome him back to the podcast. I'm Professor Suzanne Lipscomb and you're listening to Not Just the Tudors from history hit. Dr. Taft. James, welcome back.
- [04:33]
B
Thank you very much. Really, it's my pleasure.
- [04:35]
A
Thank you. I'm struck by your subtitle the Tudor Queen who Could have Been. It suggests that you think that Henry missed a trick here, missed an opportunity to have a queen of some substance in place. Is that what you mean by is?
- [04:50]
B
Actually one of the things which, when I was working on this project which really struck me was how often we see Anne as a wife or as a discarded bride. I don't feel like she's very often described as a queen and because in the accounts, to me she comes across so much like a queen. I knew from the beginning I wanted queen in the title, but at the same time it didn't seem very fitting to have queen in the title because she was only queen for six months. And that's when it sort of occurred to me that the right subtitle would be the Tudor Queen who Could have Been. And I Do feel the six months where she had a chance to show what kind of a queen she would have been like made a lasting impression on her subjects and on commentators at the time.
- [05:36]
A
That's so interesting because it suggests that her accounts offer a version of Anne that we haven't seen before. And let's come back to that when we've talked through all the evidence. Now, the account books, interestingly, start before Anne's arrival in England, with payments made to the remnant of Jane Seymour's household. And presumably some of these were being retained in the expectation that Henry would marry again. What can we learn about those who were retained and then those who were appointed in England when it was known that Anne was coming to be Queen?
- [06:14]
B
Well, as you know yourself, so often, the problem with the Tudor period is just because you have the name doesn't mean you know very much about the person. And it can be quite difficult to find background information, but even to identify them in the first place. And that is one of the wonderful things about the accounts, is that there are hundreds of names to start with. They don't really help you figure out who they are, but it's a great starting point. And when you go further and try and research a bit of the background of some of these, for the most part, they are servants who once served in the late Queen Jane's household. And as you say, they were retained, some of them, I believe, because the expectation was that Henry would remarry. But for the most part, the household was discharged and the few that were selected to sort of maintain this almost shadowy existence at court, it does raise the question, why them? What kind of privilege did they have? Because, of course, everyone wanted to be at court. There were advantages to being near to the sovereign. And once I started looking into it, there were some, you could say generally that for the most part, they were favored by the King for one reason or another, it was the king who had effectively chosen them to stay. And I think the. The reason, for the more sort of personal reasons and the more discrete sort of individual case studies that I choose a few to focus on in the book really brings to life that these servants were not just nameless bodies. They had their own lives and their own preoccupations, their own interests, and trying to balance those with their court careers, that's what's really striking about that early period in the accounts, before Rans even arrived. And I mean, often I. I look at those that period and I think it almost feels like Anne or any of the queens really were inconsequential because the court and the Queen's household is running, whether or not she's there. And it makes you wonder, well, how important is it for the Queen to be there and what kind of impact would she have on her own household? But in that period, it is a very noticeable sort of. Not darkness, but it's like a shadowy existence that these. That the Queen's household maintains. I find it fascinating.
- [08:17]
A
Do the accounts lend us information about the household roles, who's doing what around the Queen?
- [08:25]
B
In this respect, I would say they're quite tantalizing. There are definitely hints. Say you might find a gentleman usher is being rewarded for preparing the lodgings at a royal palace before Anne is due to arrive there. And that is one of the chief duties of a gentleman usher, to ensure that lodgings were prepared. But for the most part, the accounts will indicate that a servant had a particular office, but give no indication of what the role is. And fortunately, we do have other sources, such as household ordinances, that provide a bit more of a hint. And sometimes the accounts too can help that way. There is an entry for the groom porter, I think is William Oxenbridge for Anne of Cleves, and he is being rewarded for bringing all manner of different things, or necessaries, as they're called in the accounts. But that was his job. That's what the groom porter did.
- [09:11]
A
So.
- [09:11]
B
So there are elements where the household is visible in action. You actually see the bodies moving and doing the job. But quite often the accounts are tantalizing in that. In that way.
- [09:23]
A
One thing they definitely do, though, is indicate who is receiving what in terms of money. Are there any surprises in terms of salaries? I mean, can you sort of. Can we strictly relate status and salary?
- [09:36]
B
Well, the most surprising thing for sure, when it comes to who was paid, what was that? I felt like only half of the servants were being paid. I wasn't getting the full story from Anne's accounts very early on in my doctoral research. This was one of the things which I really wanted to figure out, because I hadn't seen it properly explained anywhere else and had hoped to, because I wanted some help to figure it out myself. But one of the conclusions I came to was that I would say approximately half of Anne's servants were actually being paid by the King, so their names are actually missing in the wage lists on Anne's accounts. And the significance of that to me is perhaps more so than one might expect, because there is something about the wage and the retainer in the Tudor period which was incredibly significant for Loyalty. And for. It's almost like a contractual obligation between a master and a servant that because you're being paid, you are obliged to them. I mean, it raises the question, or the problem of why would half of Anne's servants be technically contracted to the King? Now, Anne and Henry are one and the same in most respects, and they share a court and they are both the crown. But in more conflicting circumstances, in more personal circumstances, you can see that might be an issue. And that was the most surprising thing to me. I couldn't quite figure out, where are all the servants? Particularly, where are all the men, the gentlemen, ushers, the yeomen? They're all missing from the wage list. They're present in the account, but they're missing from the lists. And when I figured out that actually it was the King who was responsible for paying them, it raised so many more issues in terms of loyalty and obligation that, as you can imagine, particularly when Henry's interests were no longer aligned with Anne's, who then were the servants loyal to? That is a saying, a lot just coming from even just a payment. And to go back to what you said about status and whether it aligns with the salary, that's another one of the more confusing things is that certain roles were actually unpaid. Ladies of the Privy Chamber, for instance, did not receive a salary, whereas gentlewomen of the Privy Chamber did. And so one might assume usually that the salary is graded according to the higher the rank, the more they were paid. And I would say generally that's true, but there are then some exceptions who aren't paid at all. And then, of course, you realize that they are paid in kind. Their entitlement to be at court and to live at court and to be near to the sovereign is their payment.
- [11:57]
A
One of the things that is said about Anne, both before she arrives at the English court and afterwards, is that her clothing is not very beautiful. I mean, certainly it seems that German styles of dress were not thought by the English or the French to be particularly becoming to the female form. I wondered if the accounts can give us an insight into Anne's adoption of English dress and who there was to help her navigate her way through that.
- [12:29]
B
I would say the accounts provide unprecedented insight into the wardrobe of Queen's consort in this period. There are very few documents that can really give such a visual, striking impression of what queens wore. The reason the accounts, in particular, in terms of Anne's life and Anne's experience, are quite significant, is, as you say, because she adopted the English dress. We often hear and they're reiterated constantly, the King's distasteful remarks about Anne and his. His reaction to her. But Anne could do very little to frame or to make herself more pleasing to the King, other than to maybe affect what she wore. And the accounts suggest that Anne herself was quite proactive about this. Within days of arriving in England, it seems like her wardrobe department, which would include her silkwomen, her tailors, any of the merchants who are responsible for providing these materials. There are many, many entries. It's clear that they were very hard at work. And then it paid off because there were reports from ambassadors and chroniclers after the fact who remark on the fact that Anne had essentially transformed in about two weeks. That is just one of many indications, not just in the accounts, but in all of the sources for Anne's life, which remind us that she was trying to be a good queen, even if she had early. I wouldn't say missteps, because there were very many things with Anne where she didn't really have much choice or much control over it, but early sort of misfortune, I would say she did her best to correct it and she was trying to be a good queen.
- [13:59]
A
Yes. And it's striking, isn't it, that her tailor, John Scutt, had been tailor for the previous three wives, so he knew exactly what was the height of fashion in England, what to put her in. And these are the sort of people that she's drawing on.
- [14:12]
B
Absolutely. I love John Scott. Whenever I see his name come up in the surviving source material, I'm very charmed by him. His character really comes through in the Lyell letters in particular. But just this idea that he was the Queen's tailor all through Henry's reign, it's a great reminder that there were these careers which ran on consistently, regardless of who was Queen at the time. And it's one of those big questions that I'm always coming back to, is how those careers were impacted by the change of a wife and the change of a queen. And, uh. But for John Scott, it was just another woman and he just needed her measurements and her preferences. And he did actually make the effort, I imagine, to sit down with her and establish that. But, yes, I. I love John Scott. He's one of my, particularly one of my favourite case studies to look at.
- [14:59]
A
Can you give me some sense also of the richness of her material environment? Because the accounts don't just tell us about clothes, they tell us about stuff, don't they?
- [15:09]
B
They do. And I have to say I rely heavily on the scholarship of other historians, particularly Maria Hayward, in this way, because there are all manner of materials that I've never even heard of, and when I'm reading them in, particularly in Old English handwriting, I'm not even sure what I'm reading a lot of the time, but thankfully, there's some wonderful work that I can rely on in that respect. But, yes, very rich materials, only the best for Anne. There was a lot of payments to merchants for cloth of gold in particular. Cloth of gold is very recurrent in Anne's accounts, but just all different kinds of silks and taffeta and rich materials which wouldn't necessarily have been readily available for anybody else. Anne's wardrobe and sort of the contacts that they had were prepared to ensure that she had a wardrobe befitting her new rank and status. So, in a sense, this department, as soon as Anne came in, they responded in turn.
- [16:05]
A
How about the decoration of her rooms? Do we have a sense of the sort of materials, the stuff that she had in there?
- [16:11]
B
We do. Maybe not too much specific to Anne because of the brief time that she was queen. There aren't any specific records even in the accounts. There is this distinction in household departments between the wardrobe of the robes and the wardrobe of the beds. So the wardrobe was essentially divided into two, the sub departments. And the wardrobe of the beds was really more responsible for furniture and furnishings and cloth that would have been used to drape and decorate rooms. And those records are not quite as complete, or rather they may be complete, but they're not quite as generous to us compared to the wardrobe of the robes. Edward Lloyd or Edward Floyd, it's sometimes referred to, was her Yeoman of. Yeoman of the Beds, I believe, is his official title, and he served, had served in that position since, I believe, Anne Boleyn. And so combining other sources, in particular for the inventories that he had to take in certain royal palaces and his involvement, say, at the fall of Cromwell, when he went to scope out certain furnishings that Anne was going to have in her new apartments, there are little hints here and there as to what Anne's world looked like, but for the most part, the accounts, the descriptions, are so rich that it's extraordinary what the accounts actually hold. But to recreate this visual impression, I think the reader would get that just from reading some of these entries.
- [17:31]
A
Would it be possible to have a flavour of one of those, James?
- [17:35]
B
Well, one of the more compelling descriptions that we have that has survived is from the inventory of baynard's castle from 1535. Which, of course, predates Anne's arrival by about five years. But we understand that this inventory was inherited by queens. So while this source may be specific to Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn in that period, we understand that Anne had much of the same furnishings. In terms of the descriptions, I think, again, I come back to the word gold. It's often gold tissue or fringed with silk and gold. And this richness that comes through in my mind is very much associated with the kinds of materials which were reserved for royalty, essentially. Not just royalty, but nobility too, but certainly not readily available and not cheap. But, yes, in terms of descriptions, I think Anne. Specific descriptions are quite difficult to come by, but there's no end to. I think. I think it's William Locke, who is the merchant or the mercer, who is particularly associated with the Queen's household in this period. And those entries, I would struggle to recall them off the top of my head, but it really. It's. I think I used the word sartorial splendor. It's just the splendor of it. It really comes through in the accounts. But, yes, I am struggling to come up with one specific example off the top of my head.
- [18:45]
A
Much of that stuff, of course, would have been moved around from place to place, because although Anne was queen for only six months, her accounts show us how peripatetic the English court was. We know from them that she moved from Hampton Court to Westminster, to Greenwich to Westminster, onto Richmond. What do we know about the logistics of her travel?
- [19:06]
B
I think where the accounts. The accounts sort of make the entire process look quite effortless. We only see the rewards that are being paid to the servants after the fact that they don't fully describe how difficult it was to actually move carts and coffers around and to pack up entire households. I mean, this was not just Anne being transported from palace to palace. Her household had to go with her a train of nearly 100 people, probably at a time. And so, logistically, I imagine it was quite. It was a nightmare. I can't even begin to imagine how the stress that they must have felt, the gentlemen ushers in particular, who were essentially in charge of ordering all of the lodgings being prepared in advance of Anne's arrival. But my impression from the sources is that logistically, I don't envy them, if not a responsibility that I would have personally liked to have been responsible for.
- [19:56]
A
Let's think a bit about finances, because on becoming Queen, Anne became an English landowner. What was the value of her estates? And do you think this gave her financial independence.
- [20:08]
B
I think to an extent, it did give her financial independence. Anne technically had the status of fem sol, meaning that she, although she was married to the King, she did have the independence to transact her own economic affairs, but that was just in theory. And yes, she was the wealthiest female landowner, I would say, in England as queen, an amazing array of properties and the estate that she inherited as part of the dower. But how far Anne realizes that or how far she felt that has always been a question of wonder. Do you know, it's a list of all different properties, but how much enjoyment does she get out of that? And how much advantage does she get out of it? But one thing which is undeniable is that those properties and her counsel in administering them is what essentially paid for everything that Anne needed day to day. I think there is actually an old Parliamentary act which specifically says that queens were to use the money drawn from her lands to sustain all of the costs of her chamber. And her chamber being specifically the household above stairs at court, all of the ladies and gentlemen, all of the men who were surrounding her and just the day to day running of her court. Yes, I mean, she may have been the wealthiest landowner, but she had many, many expenses, too many salaries to.
- [21:46]
A
And I wonder, did a queen need cash on a daily basis? Was she carrying money around with her? You know, famously, Elizabeth II never did. What about Anne of Cleves?
- [21:56]
B
I think yes, but she would probably never have it on her own person. It's. I think the accounts suggest more than anything that it's being carried by a gentlewoman of the privy chamber. They seem to. There is an actual purse, I believe. I mean, we often refer to the accounts of the Tudors as their privy purse, but it's not really a very helpful term because it doesn't explain how money works in this period or how specifically, as you say, how is Anne actually handling the money herself? Does she have it on her person? I believe she could have, but more often than not, the entry suggests that those who are with her, say her vice chamberlain or one of her ladies in waiting, have to cover the expense for her if she wanted to make a spontaneous reward or a gift. These were actually covered by those who were nearby. And then, as Anne's accounts make clear, they are later reimbursed and Anne is actually paying for that gift or that reward. But that's the more. The most interesting thing is there must be actual money being held by someone, but you don't imagine it's actually on Anne's person and herself as carrying it. That's not to say, though, that she isn't actively involved in how money and how her money is being spent. The money may actually be physically held by her servants, but the accounts make it very clear that she is in charge and she is actively involved in deciding how the money is spent.
- [23:14]
A
And are there kind of expected occasions of largesse where those sort of rewards and gifts are basically required?
- [23:22]
B
Absolutely. Queens had this expectation upon them that they were going to be generous and at any given time could be expected to very publicly demonstrate poor relief. That was a very consistent theme all through the Tudor period, that the almsgiving and her making offerings, particularly on religious days. The more striking elements of largesse and perhaps the more interesting ones are the ones where she's rewarding her own servants or her own court. I think that relationship, as I mentioned before, between a master or a mistress and their servant and the wage sort of being part of this contractual obligation, it went beyond that. The obligation that masters and mistresses had to their servants was to take care of them, to actually draw them in and to understand them on a personal level. And one of the most, like the most compelling things about the accounts is how they really show this. They allude to this social life of Anne's court, that Anne actually is invested in the personal lives of those men and women who are surrounding her. It alludes to conversations which are happening obviously not recorded and very unfortunately. But how else would Anne have known that one of her footmen needed some money towards his marriage? Or that. I think I may be using an example from Elizabeth of York here, but how else would the queen know that one of their servants house had been burned down? These conversations must have been happening. It may have been by petition more formally, but I imagine day to day at court more informally as part of a conversation. And that was just part of the politics of patronage at court. But definitely the expectation was that Anne would be generous. And my impression from the accounts is that she was no miser. She was very generous.
- [25:03]
A
Okay, so that's really interesting, because if there is an expectation that generosity is part of queenship, how then can we read generosity of character into the accounts? You know what I mean? Like what is going to be absolutely standard business as usual? And where can we see and depart from that if that's the case? You're making that she actually has an approach that's more merciful, more generous than others?
- [25:29]
B
I know exactly what you mean. And unfortunately, because Anne's accounts are the only ones, say, for instance of Henry's wives which have survived in full, we have no direct comparison. If we compare it to the year that has survived for Elizabeth of York, Elizabeth, too could be described as generous. But as you say, how do we know if we don't have a real comparable way of measuring them? How do we know if Anne was actually very generous? And the reason why I think that she was is that not just in the account, but in comments made after the fact and reports by ambassadors and chroniclers, the word used to describe her as bountiful. Specifically, she's bountiful to her servants. Again, this was expected. It wasn't necessarily something which she could get away with not giving as a certain amount to her servants. But I think the fact that people described her after the fact and specifically use that word makes me think that her. I want to say her warmth was generous and that she herself gave that impression to the people who around her. I mean, again, there are hundreds of entries for rewards to poor people especially, and poor relief and gifts and miscellaneous payments in these accounts. It's hard not to come away with the impression. But you are right, there is a drawback to the source material in that way that we don't have an immediate comparison to, say, Anne Boleyn or Jane Seymour, who from anecdotal accounts were generous too, and certainly participated in that part of queenship. Sadly, we have no real way to measure it.
- [27:00]
A
One might expect to see gifts given by Anne in the accounts, but what's fascinating is the accounts also testify to the fact that that people gave gifts to her. Can you give us a flavor of the sort of things that people were giving her?
- [27:14]
B
Oh, they were all manner of gifts, some which took me a while to decipher because I couldn't quite understand why someone was giving Anne a leak, for instance, but turned out that was traditional to St. David's I think it's St. David's Day and it was. And it was coming from a Welshman, which makes perfect sense. There are others more, more standout gifts. Usually the exotic animals are the ones that catch my eye because all I can imagine is when someone turns about court with a new greyhound or something, and I can only imagine it just feels like a burden. Unless you're particularly fond of greyhounds. I mean, where is it going to go and who's going to look after it? And I mean, those gifts always strike me in the accounts. But in terms of the kinds of gifts that were given to Anne, food as well was quite often a gift. Food from noble women especially were quite consistent in giving gifts to Wen. My favorite example probably is from Sir Richard Long, who I believe he gives her two different gifts, but one of them is definitely artichokes. And the reason that Richard Long in particular stands out to me is through Anne's accounts. There are many subjects giving gifts to Anne, like apples or chickens, like. More like sort of humbler gifts. And then there are noblewomen too, who are also giving gifts to Anne. Some of her own servants are giving gifts. Richard Long is one of the few gentlemen of the privy chamber of the King's side of the court who is interacting with Anne in this way. And I couldn't help but think that the rest, or rather the more nearer gentlemen to the King, did not see Anne as worth cultivating because they already knew of the King's distaste for Anne and therefore did not think it was worth their while, so to speak, to actually have her as a patron or to try and have her as a client. And I think that Richard Long, we could argue he either wasn't privy to the King's feelings for Anne and therefore was just doing as anyone should or would at court in courting her. But I also think it's possible that he may have taken pity on her and this may be some showing part of his character that he was the only one, as far as the accounts indicate, because, of course, not everything is going to be recorded in the accounts. The only reason we know Sir Richard Long gave Anne a gift of artichokes was because his servant had to be paid a gratuity for having done so. And if another servant sent something and that was not strictly recorded in the accounts, we don't know.
- [29:33]
A
Oh, yes, well, that's so interesting. I mean, such an interesting hypothesis. But your counterargument is also very strong because it could be, I don't know, the Duke of Norfolk, for example, didn't have to have reward to his servants because he paid them amply. I don't suppose he did, knowing his character. But interesting. Also, the choice of gifts, something like artichokes, is a little bit exotic, a little bit special.
- [29:56]
B
Right.
- [29:57]
A
Apples, not so much. But then it depends on the time of year, they're two a penny, or probably many more a penny in autumn. But if you can produce an apple in February, because you've stored them carefully and then brought them out out of season, then they're very valuable indeed, aren't they?
- [30:13]
B
Absolutely, absolutely. And the range of different gifts that show up in Anne's accounts is quite bizarre. Obviously you could summarize it as being food or sometimes plate is often gifted from. From the royals to nobility, there are sort of general standards. But the. But when I saw that a leek or chickens or as you say, apples, there's probably a better. There's more context to that. There's probably more of an explanation as to why that was the case. For instance, I think that often the king was gifted pies of a certain kind. And I just only imagine that they know or got into the habit of sending the king this particular type of pie because it was well received in the past.
- [30:50]
A
You mentioned the pets and how they could be a burden. I mean, this is unexpected information in the accounts as far as I'm concerned. And one of the things that I think you're suggesting in your book is that she seems to have actually been quite fond of these animals. How do you know that? And what pets did she have?
- [31:08]
B
I think she was quite fond of them because it would have been quite accepted for Anne to re gift these pets, as many gifts were often re gifted, sometimes hastily and sometimes almost distastefully too quickly at court. And there are accounts of that happening quite often. But in Anne's case, the accounts leave a sort of trail. The most standout example is that she had a pet parrot. This was gifted to her. I think it's by a widow. I think the account just says a widow has given her this parrot. An unnamed widow. Again, Anne doesn't necessarily have to take any notice of this parrot. Could easily have it re gifted or spend no time even just. She might have no involvement in it at all. But the accounts leave this trail that her pages are bringing it and transporting it by boat almost. Why would it need to be moved at all if it was not to be taken to Anne and from Anne, wherever it was being kept and looked after. Similarly, there's. There's entries for bird feed and things like that. So it suggests that the pet is being taken care of. And I use the word pet because I do believe she had adopted it as a pet. Whether she adopted all of the animals that she was given as gifts as pets is hard to know. I mean, she was given a monkey, I believe, by somebody else and I think greyhounds as well, was quite a consistent gift. She definitely got a greyhound from. I think it was Lady Norfolk. I'm not certain about that. But yes, in my mind, when I think of this growing, ever expanding zoo at court of all these different animals, it just sounds like it would be a mess. And yes, a Burden. But the parrot in particular recurs. So I think she was quite fond of the parrot. Again, you have to read a little bit too far into the entries to try and draw it out, but in like accounts, say it's the King's accounts or any other accounts that have survived of noblemen and women, it's not nearly as consistent as that parrot is. So I like that entry in particular.
- [33:20]
A
There are some unexpected findings, or at least unexpected to me. I didn't realize before I read your book that Anne was accompanied to England by a member of her family. Tell us.
- [33:30]
B
Oh, yes, the. The Count of Waldeck. Yes, Francis, that's. That's Anne's cousin. He actually is brought over as part of a large train of servants from Germany and the Low Countries. But he in particular stands out because, as you say, he was actually related to Anne. And I like to think that that may be a slight gesture towards providing some familial comfort to Ann in her household, because he actually serves as one of her pages, although he's quite young, I believe, because there's some reference to him attending a school in Greenwich, so he must be quite young, as pages at court were. But the more charming thing is that Anne's accounts are just full of these entries of him being decked out in the finest fashions. He's got the most fabulous bonnet, that she's gifted him, an amazing jacket and livery, which I think, yes, would be a standard for most servants in the household. But it sort of seems like there's a slight greater effort to make sure that the Count of Roldeck has more appropriate outfitting for him. But, yes, I was struck by that, too, and I wish I could find a bit more information about him. He does eventually go back to Germany, I believe, and even though he's not there when anne dies in 1557, she does remember him in her will, which suggests to me that they kept a forbid relationship.
- [34:38]
A
How interesting. And, yes, he probably was relatively young, wasn't he, if he was a page, probably 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, something like that.
- [34:45]
B
Right, Right.
- [34:46]
A
Another thing that the Counts might be able to tell us. You tell me. There's been some question about Anne's faith because her mother was a devout Catholic. Her father and brother were sort of gently reformist, humanist in outlook, and her sister Sybilla was married to an influential Protestant, a Lutheran. What do the accounts have to say about Anne's devotional practice? Does it give any insight into this question of Anne's faith?
- [35:16]
B
In a sense, they do, because they show Anne practicing what would be good queenship in this way, in terms of making religious offerings on holy days or in almsgiving. And there are some hints to her chaplains. And then the good thing, as I was saying before, about when you have a name is you can sort of try and follow that up further and try and figure out who they were or rather what their faith was. And usually, as we often say about Anne Boleyn, although that question is no more straightforward, the kinds of men and their beliefs that she had as her chaplains may reflect on her own personal beliefs. It's a tricky question when it comes to faith and how far we can read into it. But certainly advocates of religious reform in England had hoped that Henry's marriage to Anne would advance their course. And they were mistaken, I believe, because effectively, as Anne was right, her faith aligned with the sovereign. There may be with Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr some hints that they have a personal faith that isn't quite aligned with the sovereign. But ultimately, if they were wise, they knew that in public especially, they could not. And because Henry himself was essentially orthodox, I don't believe he ever really changed. I think so neither did Anne. There are some references to holy days at Easter, I believe, and offerings made for the creeping of the cross is one of my favorite references. And essentially all of these references are orthodox. There's no indication that there's more, although I have often queried in my mind there are some ordinances, household ordinances, specifically for Anne's household, not when she was Queen, but in 1551, which is later on when she's actually Lady Anne of Cleves as a noblewoman. And in that time, because it was under Edward VI and then it was more of the developing sort of reformation at that time. The reference to divine service in the household ordinances is more confusing. Is service correct? Would they have said Mass at that time? Because there was that distinction. So, yes, the source material is never straightforward. But I do believe from everything that does survive in that brief six month period that Anne was orthodox and she essentially, as many did, we don't get a full grasp on her personal faith because she is aligning herself with that of the sovereign.
- [37:31]
A
The accounts also testify to the end of her marriage. Those six months have come to an end. What do they tell us?
- [37:39]
B
There's something almost sinister in the accounts for me when I come across an entry that and is being transported by boat to Richmond, because on the face of it, it's a very innocent entry and it doesn't Say very much. But we know in hindsight, and we know with context that her being sent to Richmond was Henry essentially removing her from court, taking her out of the equation. And until he could figure out what to do about their marriage, she was being kept at Richmond. And so there are hints as to Anne's impending sort of change of circumstances in this case in the accounts. On the face of it, it's just some boatmen are being paid to transport her. But when I see Richmond, all I can think is, oh, Anne is being taken to, you know, she won't see Henry again as his wife. That's one of the things, and I guess one of the more subtle ones, is that we do see references to her mistress, Catherine, which is irresistible really, as being, of course, Catherine Howard, and that would be her maid of honor at the time, but eventually Henry's fifth wife and Queen. Again, sadly, the accounts give us no indication of Anne's relationship with Catherine at this time. We know that Catherine served her, but that's about as far as we can take it. And we know that Anne was unnerved by the presence of Catherine before she's. Before and after she's taken to Richmond. So there are hints in the accounts that things aren't going quite so well. And perhaps my favorite, although again, this is a little bit more speculative, but I do think there's. I could make a good case for it. Throughout the accounts, there are many examples of Anne's signature. And she often signs herself Anne, the Queen at the foot of the accounts, as if to sign off on the entries, because that is her way of sort of acknowledging that, yes, I approved this money. So that's one of the best pieces of evidence to show that she was actively involved in how the money was spent. But as you go through the accounts, through the later months, the queue in Queen becomes slightly more diminished. And if you compare the first signature with the last, it goes from being quite a pronounced Q, a very large capital Q, almost proudly presenting herself as Queen. And by the end, it's just barely there. It almost looks more like an A rather than a Q, and it's a very much lower case. And I sort of make the suggestion in the book that it's almost pitiful and it's almost like she didn't feel like Queen anymore because she's having to sign off, perhaps even when she was no longer Queen or knew she wouldn't be Queen anymore, because some of these entries entrance go as late as July, so she may well already have known that she wasn't going to be queen, but still needed to sign off on these accounts. We can't pinpoint exactly when she signed off on them, but this very pitiful, very sad looking cue in the signature at the end. I can't help but think she didn't feel like a queen anymore.
- [40:22]
A
The account book is starting to close. It finishes in the middle of 1540. What do we know about her post annulment household and her finances?
- [40:32]
B
It's rather unfortunate that the account's cut off at this point. I think it would be so fascinating to see just how especially a more direct comparison with what the expenditure looks like between her as a queen and this period after the fact when she's essentially described as the King's sister, still a noblewoman of some status, of some significance in England, but not nearly to the same extent as a queen would have been. But unfortunately we do not have like accounts. It's funny because her receiver general, the man who was essentially responsible for Balanc the books and who was in charge of her accounts, is kept on. So he would have continued to keep these accounts just as he did for her as queen. But those accounts after the annulment of the marriage are not kept. So we don't have that kind of insight that these accounts do provide for her queenship. We do know though that she received a very generous settlement from the king, very many properties that she had as sort of, I think an acknowledgement from Henry that she, it was, it was kind of an act of diplomacy, I think that, you know, not wanting to completely ruin the alliance with Cleaves, he needed to show Anne a decent amount of respect and endow her with something that would be meaningful and yes, respectful. And so Anne does quite well out of the annulment. She lives in relative comfort for the next 17 years as an independent noblewoman. We don't get as much of the same insight, but there are inferences throughout the years, particularly from either letters to the Privy Council where Anne actually sometimes struggles with her finances, sometimes she finds herself short and she can't actually maintain the grand household that she still has, not as queen but as a noblewoman. And she has to petition for her allowance which has been granted to her from the King, but particularly when Edward or Mary later on the throne, she has troubles trying to secure the same this amount that she is absolutely entitled to. But the Privy Council are supposed to make sure that she's being paid and, and it's, it's a constant issue for her. I think there's a great quote I can't recall off the top of my head, but she says something like, everything is so costly here in a letter to her brother. I believe it is. And it's just this. It's bizarre to think of a woman who's endowed with, like, quite a few properties and has this very generous allowance, but because she's living to a certain degree and has a certain grandness to her life, still, she can just barely afford it.
- [42:58]
A
Yes, that constant problem with the lifestyle increasing as income goes up and being therefore no richer. James, let's conclude, then, by thinking about what it is that you feel that this close study of the accounts adds to our knowledge and analysis of Anne of Cleves. What new perspectives is it bringing?
- [43:19]
B
The main thing that I feel is the takeaway from these accounts and why I feel like I wanted to bring them so to the forefront and give them the attention that I feel they deserve, is that in no other source from this period do I feel is a woman so consistently and so clearly comes through as a queen, the queenship. And I really do not like the word queenship, but I find myself using it constantly because there are no. There is no better word but this. What it was like for Anne to be queen, or for any woman to be queen in this period is so clearly shown through the accounts. And once you've put them together and once you. I've sort of rearranged these entries as best I can to try and discuss and have a more sustained analysis of Anne's queenship throughout, but I don't feel as much as there are some excellent biographies out there of Anne, I don't feel like she is so often portrayed as a queen, and that is the main takeaway point from these accounts. It shows her as a queen. Sometimes you could argue that these entries are her household acting as it would for anyone. So Anne herself and her imprint on her own queenship, or how much agency to give Anne in these moments, is quite difficult to establish, but that's almost the challenge, and that's the fun of it, because her personality does come through. And the most important thing, really, is that the accounts even say it quite literally. Certain entries say that they are done at her grace's commandment, or at your grace's commandment. Even better, they're actually talking to Anne through the accounts. It's just the most wonderful thing that there is a very clear acknowledgement that Anne herself will be reading these entries and will be signing off on them, and in that sense, she approved them in the first place, and so yes, the more consistent presentation of Anne in particular, but of any woman in this period as a queen is, I think, where the true value of these accounts lies. And then I just add one little thing on the end, which is that I am personally obsessed with households and the Tudor court. And it is. I've come back to these accounts many times over just to try and understand how the household works and what the lives and careers of these servants was like. That's where I began with these accounts. That's why they were an interest of, from of mine when I was doing my doctoral research and eventually won me over and sort of came to the forefront. But in terms of I want there to be more research and more attention on the court, and this source deserved the spotlight for that because there are hundreds of names in this book of servants whose lives and careers deserve as much attention as Anne.
- [45:50]
A
Well, what a joy it must have been to think, well, Anne, read these and now I'm reading them too. Thank you for sharing your findings with us today and introducing us to how to use a particular set of sources when all else feels exhausted. But here there is new insight to be found. Dr. James Taf, your book is accounting for and thank you for coming onto the podcast.
- [46:13]
B
Thank you so much for having me. Really, it was my pleasure.
- [46:17]
A
Thank you for listening to this episode of Not Just the Tudors from History Hit. Thanks also to my researcher, Max Wintool and my producer, Rob Weinberg. We are always eager to hear from you, including receiving your brilliant ideas for subjects we can cover. So do drop us a line@notjusthetorshistoryhit.com and I look for to joining you again for another episode next time on Not Just the Tutors from History Hit.