Author Topic: Lady Rochford.  (Read 22423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lorelei_Lee

  • Guest
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2006, 04:58:43 PM »
She does seem to have been a nasty piece of work ... but I'm wondering whether she might also have been a victim of circumstance to some extent ... perhaps even to a large extent.  I see her involvement with the Boleyns' downfall as being a case of the rat deserting the sinking ship.  Not admirable, perhaps, but certainly more forgivable than Thomas Boleyn's desertion of his offspring.  If she and George Boleyn were unhappily married, and if she had a son to think of ... I can understand why she would have chosen to give false evidence against her husband and sister in law.   Heck, Cromwell was a pretty ruthless guy, and he may not have given her a lot of choice except to support his case against the Boleyns.  

Her questioning of Anne of Cleves might also have been motivated by a desire to curry favor with the forces who were pushing for an end to the Cleves marriage.  She may have been afraid that her previous association with Cromwell would result in her going down with him.  

I don't know what would have possessed her to act as Katherine Howard's go between--again, I wonder if she was pressured into it by Katherine herself.  Katherine certainly had the king's favor and it wouldn't have been too hard for her to get Jane dismissed from court or perhaps even sent to the Tower if Jane didn't agree to carry letters for her and so forth.   Just an idea ....

I also wonder whether Jane really went mad at the end of her life, or whether it was put about that she had gone mad so no one would believe her confession that she had given false evidence against the Boleyns.  I suppose it's a point in her favor that she suffered pangs of conscience at the end ....

I can't resist speculating about these things!

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2006, 05:04:32 PM »
Welcome to the forum Lorelei Lee.  :D I agree that Thomas Boleyn's actions are more deplorable, but I'm sorry, I just can't like Jane.  ;D
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Lorelei_Lee

  • Guest
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2006, 06:35:49 PM »
Thank you for the welcome!

I quite agree:  one can't like Jane.  I suppose that was why she had to become an informer--it seems she couldn't rely on her personal charm to keep her out of trouble  ;D

The scenario I envision goes something like this:  Cromwell goes to Jane and says:  "Testify that your husband committed incest with the Queen, or we'll find someone else to testify that the incest happened and YOU abetted it."  He may even have told her that another of the Queen's ladies had already given testimony to that effect, and that she, Jane, would be charged as a co-conspirator unless she agreed to provide corroborating testimony against Anne and George.  I can imagine Cromwell putting similar pressure on all three of the ladies who gave evidence against Anne.  Since Queens had no privacy at the time, in order for the charges to be true one or more of Anne's ladies would have had to be in on the "affairs".  Yet none of Anne's ladies were charged.  I suspect they all cut a deal of some sort, in the mistaken belief that there was evidence incriminating them.  

(One of these days I swear I'll write a novel.)  

But anyway, yeah, Thomas Boleyn was definitely the worst of the lot and I'm not fond of the Duke of Norfolk either.  


Janet_W.

  • Guest
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2006, 08:56:29 PM »
That was no Lady, that was Jane Rochford!  ;)

What a nasty person on all accounts. If someone can come up with information about her early life and what influenced her to become the seeming wretch portrayed in books and film, let me know. But when I was reminded while reading this thread that she had not only sealed the fate of her husband and sister-in-law, but that she also had been particularly unkind to the hapless Anne of Cleves . . . well, that's it, brudder!

(Enjoying your time in H E double-toothpicks, Lady R?)

Offline Eddie_uk

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2925
    • View Profile
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2006, 04:57:34 PM »
Quote

I don't know what would have possessed her to act as Katherine Howard's go between--again, I wonder if she was pressured into it by Katherine herself.  Katherine certainly had the king's favor and it wouldn't have been too hard for her to get Jane dismissed from court or perhaps even sent to the Tower if Jane didn't agree to carry letters for her and so forth.   Just an idea ....



Hi Lorelei, some interesting ideas:)

But I just can't imagine Jane Rochford being pressured into anything she didn't want to do!!.... ;D
Grief is the price we pay for love.

FREE PALESTINE.

Lorelei_Lee

  • Guest
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2006, 07:59:10 PM »
Hi Eddie!  I agree, it's a stretch.  I can imagine her being pressured by someone like Cromwell for sure, but Katherine Howard was only a young girl.  It's hard to imagine that she would have been forceful enough to exert that sort of pressure on Jane.  

Of course, you also have to wonder what was going through Katherine's head, picking Jane out of all her ladies to act as go between!  Maybe she foolishly thought Jane was her ally because of the role Jane played in ending the marriage to Anne of Cleves.  

Were the Parkers part of the Catholic faction at court along with the Howards?  I've read (can't remember now if it was in Ives or Warnicke) that the Parkers were supporters of Princess Mary during Anne Boleyn's reign, and that this may have been one of the reasons why Jane fell out with her husband and Anne.   (I don't suppose George Boleyn's womanizing helped matters!)   That would help explain her part in getting rid of Anne of Cleves also.  In each case she was part of a scheme to replace a Protestant(ish, in the case of Anne) with a Catholic(ish) one.   Still doesn't explain why she got involved in Katherine Howard's affair with Culpeper, though!  

Offline Eddie_uk

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2925
    • View Profile
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2006, 12:57:48 PM »
Great points Lorelei  :) I don't know much about
Katherine but i think she was very foolish...

Would love an indepth book on Lady Rochford.  :)
Grief is the price we pay for love.

FREE PALESTINE.

Lorelei_Lee

  • Guest
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #37 on: January 21, 2006, 05:40:41 PM »
So would I!  She deserves it; after all, she was instrumental in the downfall of three of Henry's queens (though really I think she did Anne of Cleves a favor!)

nelly

  • Guest
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2006, 10:25:34 PM »
Lady Rochford and that pig, Cromwell, go together as far as I am concerned.  She was a convient tool for him and made herself available to be so used.  Once he was gone, she free-lanced and came to the same end as he did.  Good ridance!!! >:( >:( >:(

umigon

  • Guest
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2006, 04:16:36 AM »
We always put the blame on characters like Lady Rochford, Cromwell, Cardinal Wolsey or the Duke of Norfolk, often forgetting that it was Henry who always had the last word and who commanded the others!


About that George Boleyn, supposed son of the Viscount Rochford and Jane Parker, I would say that he was an illegitimate child rather than a legitimate child... If not, as his father's only child, he would have probably been favoured by Elizabeth, and he seems to be very unknown. It doesn't seem also that Jane had any children, so I'm inclined to believe he was a bastard of George, Anne's brother.

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2006, 05:40:07 AM »
Quote
We always put the blame on characters like Lady Rochford, Cromwell, Cardinal Wolsey or the Duke of Norfolk, often forgetting that it was Henry who always had the last word and who commanded the others!


About that George Boleyn, supposed son of the Viscount Rochford and Jane Parker, I would say that he was an illegitimate child rather than a legitimate child... If not, as his father's only child, he would have probably been favoured by Elizabeth, and he seems to be very unknown. It doesn't seem also that Jane had any children, so I'm inclined to believe he was a bastard of George, Anne's brother.


that's a good theory Umigon!

Lorelei_Lee

  • Guest
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2006, 04:26:25 PM »
A little more on Lady Rochford:

She seems to have made her debut at court at approximately the same time as the Boleyn sisters.  There was a masque in which Henry VIII's sister Mary Rose, the Duchess of Suffolk, had the leading role of Beauty, with Mary Boleyn as Kindness (!), Anne as Perseverance (!) and Jane as Constancy (?).  Like the Boleyn sisters she was an attendant of Queen Catherine.  Her father Lord Morley, as well as being quite a distinguished scholar (he translated Petrarch) seems to have been a partisan of Catherine's, but Jane herself seems to have been in the Boleyn camp until about 1535.  She got herself in trouble when she conspired with Anne to get Henry's current love interest dismissed from court; their scheme backfired and it was Jane who ended up getting sent away.  It was after that that she seems to have had her change of heart and become a partisan of Princess Mary's.  She and a few other wellborn ladies, including one of the Howards, participated in a demonstration in Mary's favor that led to a short stay in the Tower for Jane.  

After the Boleyns' downfall she left court briefly but by the end of 1536 was back at court as a lady in waiting to Queen Jane.  She stayed on through the brief reign of Anne of Cleves and then became one of Katherine Howard's attendants.  Katherine favored her quite a bit, which made some of her other ladies resentful and could partly explain their eagerness to rat on Jane.  They also probably just plain didn't like her!  


ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #42 on: January 25, 2006, 04:01:02 PM »
i wonder why... poor jane...  ::)

Offline lady

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #43 on: January 29, 2006, 04:52:38 PM »
Lady Rochford was born Jane Parker and she was daughter of Henry Parker Lord Morley.
Jane married George Boleyn in 1524 and as wedding present, the King granted George the manor of Grimston in Norfolk.

Offline lady

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: Lady Rochford.
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2006, 04:52:55 AM »
Her father, Henry Parker, was a translator of Petrarch who frequented Catherine of Aragon intellectual circle. Also was a Gentleman Usher of the Privy Chamber and lived at Hallingbury Place in Essex but could not afford the £300 dowry Thomas Boleyn requested for his son, that is the reason the King granted George the manor. Henry Parker in his youth served in the house of Margaret Beaufort and was the guardian of Buckingham during his minority.
Her mother was Alice St John of Bledsoe.
Her sister was Margaret Parker. She married Sir John Shelton the younger, a brother of Madge Shelton, who later become Henry VIII mistress!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by lady »