Lady Rochford.

[stacey]

That's right, she apparently decided to try to humiliate poor Anne of Cleves in front of the other women. Making snide little comments and asking wide-eyed questions about--er--relations between Henry and Anne. I think the woman had a sadistic streak. Luckily Anne played dumb and that pretty much shut 'em up with the marriage-bed questions. I like Anne of Cleves a lot. Lady Rochford is a total mystery to me. The weird way she keeps weaving in and out of the picture at court, the way she betrayed her own husband (not to mention Anne Boleyn!), and then the totally inexplicable way she got involved with Katherine Howard's pathetic little affair...what on earth was the woman after?! Don't forget that Katherine Howard was Anne Boleyn's first cousin...it seems that Lady Rochford had some strange kind of obsession with the entire Howard family. Kind of a love-hate relationship, but usually the hate seems to have won!! She helped to destroy Anne and George Boleyn and she most certainly helped to destroy poor little Katherine Howard. Unfortunately for the scheming Lady Rochford, this time her plotting backfired and she got implicated herself. And we all know that while in the Tower awaiting her execution she finally totally lost it and went certifiably nuts. At that point I have to admit I almost feel sorry for her. (Not totally tho--she had a lot of blood on her hands by then!) It does make you wonder--I personally think sitting around waiting to be executed like that would be enough to drive anyone nuts (yep, including me!!)--but I do wonder if Lady Rochford hadn't spent a LONG time hovering on the cusp of insanity. And when her plotting finally got her condemned to execution, she went completely bonkers. I do wonder what made her tick. She's a very strange character. But I do agree she's interesting. And her meddling may very well have changed history.

[bell_the_cat]

It seems that George Boleyn and Jane had a son!

George junior was made Dean of Lichfield by his cousin Elizabeth. He died in 1603.

Maybe Jane was trying to protect her baby's inheritance when she testified against her husband.  :-/

[stacey]

A son!! Now that's something I did NOT know!!

Yes, if they had a son, it might explain why Jane was so ready to throw her husband to the wolves, so to speak! Mothers--even a very strange mother like her!--will go a long way to protect their children. If she believed that her husband was already fatally compromised, just by being a devoted brother to the condemned Queen Anne, she might have thought, why not implicate him further and get him out of the picture altogether, meanwhile making myself indispensable to the Court's case (in other words, doing Henry a favor of sorts). She might have felt that this would protect her--and her son--from any accusations of the Boleyn treachery, and thus protect their future status. Not to mention perhaps saving their necks!!

It still sounds a little nutty to me, this supposed plan, but it's the best explanation I've heard yet of Lady Rochford's conduct during Anne Boleyn's trial. And when we consider that Jane Rochford was probably never the most stable of individuals to begin with (and we know that she finally did have a psychotic breakdown when she herself finally landed in the Tower with Katherine Howard) you have to wonder if this didn't seem like a perfectly logical, if cold-blooded, solution to her.

This just keeps getting more intriguing!!

[Kimberly]

Hmmm yes, I have heard about this son but cannot find any genealogical sites that acknowledge this child. Is it true ,is what I think I am trying to say

[stacey]

You're right, this needs looking into!

I belong to a genealogical site which I know includes the Boleyn family--I once looked up Anne Boleyn just for fun and there was her family tree!

I'm going back to that site and look up George Boleyn AND his wife Jane. If they DID have a son--or any child for that matter--I would think he/she would show up.

Got to investigate this! The good news is, finding genealogical records of famous people, esp. those connected to royalty, is a lot easier than finding records of ancestors of us peasants!!

[bell_the_cat]

Hmmm yes, I have heard about this son but cannot find any genealogical sites that acknowledge this child. Is it true ,is what I think I am trying to say

I'm a bit dubious now....There certainly seems to have been a George Boleyn who was Dean of Lichfield, but if he was Rochford's son surely he would have inherited the Boleyn titles and property. Or were these confiscated by Henry?

We were discussing Hever the other day. Henry got it on the death of Thomas Boleyn in 1539, and gave it to Anne of Cleves the following year. Jane Rochford can't have liked that!

[Kimberly]

I have found a George Boleyn who was the son of THAT George Boleyn but I think I will take this site with a pinch of salt as they list the mother as Jane PORTER


I have also had a sneaky peak at Liam's (excellent) site and he doesn't list any offspring either  

[stacey]

I saw the same thing, Kimberly!! But that doesn't automatically mean anything. I've done a good bit of genealogy on my own family and I know that names often get butchered! For example, one of my (English ) ancestral names is "Parkhurst". However, in New England records, which are generally pretty thorough and accurate, the name isn't always spelled like that. I've seen it written as "Parkes" and "Parkis" for example--probably people writing it as it sounded to them. So I can see how people might have either misheard or misread Jane's family name and inadvertently switched it from "Parker" to "Porter".

The record I saw (I scribbled down a few notes here) show a "George Boleyn" born in 1536 in Lichfield, Staffordshire. His parents are given as George Boleyn and Jane Parker. (Some others giving basically the same info give the mother like you said as "Jane Porter"--I think it's just a mixup of 2 similar surnames). This record--and mind you I cannot vouch for its accuracy!!--goes on to say that George (Jr.) got married on 7 June 1559 to Joan van Buren (born 1565 in the Netherlands--and yes, I see the dates do not add up!! Don't know if that means we've got the wrong people or if the dates are wrong--another common problem in genealogy!) Then again, maybe Joan was a second wife?? Interestingly, one of the alleged daughters of this second George Boleyn was named--Anne!! It says that this Anne Boleyn was born in 1606 in Kenagh, Longford, Ireland.

See how confusing genealogy is!?

[stacey]

P.S. Same genealogy chart I mentioned above also states that George Boleyn Jr died in 1603. So if this Irish-born Anne Boleyn was born in 1606 she clearly cannot have been his daughter (unless her mother underwent the longest human gestation period ever recorded!!)

*sigh* Genealogy also is extremely maddening!!

[ilyala]

tell me about it. i did some genealogy research a few months ago and found so many people who married before they were born or after they died... :-/

[Prince_Lieven]

I have also had a sneaky peak at Liam's (excellent) site and he doesn't list any offspring either  

Thanks!   I had never heard this story!!   But I checked the most comprehensive geneaology (blah, can't spell) site I know and it doesn't mention any such child. This site is great and the only mistake I've known it to make is calling Eleanor Brandon a princess of England.

[Eddie_uk]

Thanks eveyone! This is all very interesting.

As soon as I read about Lady Rochord and her dealings with Anne Boleyn then Katherine Howford and then her end I thought it was a little bit of divine retribution! Although it was of course awful.

I think she was a Psycho and if i had seen her coming would have run a mile! I find women like that quite fascinating!!

[Prince_Lieven]

I think she was a Psycho

Yes, Psycho with a capital P!!!  

[bell_the_cat]

I keep thinking of Mrs Danvers in the film "Rebecca" for some reason!

[ilyala]

i think she fits the rebecca part better