Jane Boleyn: The Infamous Lady Rochford [Paperback]

Although there is much argument about the motivations of many of the main players in Tudor politics, the motives of Jane Parker, Lady Rochford, are some of the most difficult to fathom. Accused by many historians of playing a deliberate role in the downfall of Anne Boleyn and her brother George (her own husband) for reasons which can only be guessed at and also having played an undeniable role in the fall of Catherine Howard, which also resulted in her own destruction, Lady Rochford is a chief figure in some major court dramas and yet we know almost nothing about her. Julia Fox attempts to redress the balance and to provide a more positive depiction of Lady Rochford in the process, but with limited success.

The main problem is the lack of material directly relating to Lady Rochford that Fox has to work with. Hardly any of her own letters survive and she is not often mentioned by contemporary eyewitnesses. As such, Fox is forced to tell her story using the more voluminous amount of information relating to the Boleyn family and by supposition using contemporary ideas of family, dress, behaviour, etc. This does little to create a more defined image of Lady Rochford as a character in her own right - instead, it is chiefly a retelling of the story of the Boleyn family with Jane slotted in (she was "probably" at an event that they were at, she "probably" thought along the lines that they did, etc) and all Fox's ideas of her own thoughts and often movements have no firm foundation. Fox claims that, contrary to popular opinion, the Rochford's marriage was largely a happy union, and yet offers no clear evidence to support this. Also, despite Fox's best efforts to debunk the idea put forward by many historians that Lady Rochford's motivation was vindictive and possibly even a result of mental instability, her attempt to exonerate Lady Rochford from having deliberately assisted in Anne Boleyn's downfall is unconvincing: we are told that she and Anne had been close at one time at least and that Lady Rochford's future was tied to that of the Boleyns, and yet Fox is always hedging her bets for Lady Rochford to have opinions in direct conflict with Boleyn ambitions (she "probably" sympathised with the treatment of Princess Mary, who Fox improbably claims may have had a long-standing friendship with Lady Rochford) - not only is there no evidence given to refute her role in the fall of the Boleyns, Fox's own argument is inconsistent in supporting this line. Fox also makes little of the fact that Lady Rochford was well rewarded financially by Thomas Cromwell after the coup, which would suggest that she had less to lose materially in turning against them than Fox would have us believe; incredibly, Fox also claims that Rochford's relations with her Boleyn in-laws remained cordial after the fall, and yet can only support this using evidence that Thomas Boleyn increased her jointure after 1536, which even she admits was done "grudgingly" and was most likely as a result of pressure from Cromwell which Boleyn, as a result of the fall of his family, could be in no position to resist.

There is less historical ambiguity about Lady Rochford's role in the fall of Catherine Howard and yet Fox's argument here is also largely unconvincing. There may be some truth in Fox's claim that she stayed at court when she easily have gone into comfortable retirement because of the draw of the glamour and excitement of serving at court; however, her assertion that Lady Rochford only became so embroiled in Catherine's illicit affairs for fear of losing her place at court as a senior confidante to the Queen does not make sense. It is not conceivable that a woman with so much experience of court life and having been witness or participant in the presumed adultery and destruction of one queen would simply go along with such dangerous behaviour; if she was a reluctant participant, she could hardly have done more to assist Catherine's meetings with Thomas Culpepper, and the sheer level of her involvement would be much more likely to imply that her role was willing rather than the converse. What her reasons were are still not clear by the end of this book, but to me it seems extremely unlikely that Fox's interpretation is the correct one.

However, one minor success of this book is to put forward a fairly interesting perspective on court life, particularly around Anne Boleyn - it does provide a reminder that she also spent significant time with her ladies, whereas many accounts of Anne's life concentrate on her role in the male-dominated world of politics, and this is worth bearing in mind as it does to some extent enrich the sense of Anne as a person by giving more of an idea of what her life was like.

Many books that put forward a revisionist argument go too far in trying to prove their point - this might be more forgivable if the alternative conclusion reached had sufficient evidence to at least be plausible. However, whilst Julia Fox's book may raise the question of whether we should automatically condemn Lady Rochford as a "bawd", it does not have the evidence to support its assertions and as such, by the end of the book, any reader with a reasonable knowledge of this period will have learned almost nothing new about Lady Rochford than they knew already.

I have to say that I really enjoyed this book. It was refreshing to read about an oft mentioned, much vilified but still relatively obscure female member of the Tudor court and I found the entire book, overall, fascinating and really interesting to read as it did have a lot of period detail about the behind the scenes workings of Henry VIII's court.

However, and there is always a however, I was disappointed by the lack of emotional insight into Jane's life and especially her marriage to George Boleyn. I would have liked to have read more about their relationship and how well they got on and whether the author believed there was any truth in the rumours about George's promiscuity or homosexuality and how this may have impacted on his marriage. I never really got a feel for how they interacted as a couple or for the dynamics of their ill fated marriage. Were they unhappy or not? Was Jane really bitterly jealous of his closeness to his sister, Anne? Some discussion of this would have been welcome.

Also, I was surprised to find that there was no mention of the possibility that George and Jane may have had a son. This is not documented fact but I would have expected at least a brief discussion of this in the notes, if only to say that the future Dean of Lichfield was in all probability the son of an obscure Boleyn cousin and not George and Jane themselves. It felt like quite a glaring omission though.

The other problem was the constant repetition. Enough about Jane's masque stockings already! I appreciate that there was not much information to be going on with here but the continual 'Jane *may* have been here' and 'as daughter/wife/sister in law/aunt to XXX, Jane had every right to be there' really started to grate after a bit. I know that this wasn't the author's fault as she was just trying to wring as much drama out of the scant evidence on offer but it often came across as a bit grasping at straws and wishy washy.

I have to reiterate though that I *did* enjoy this book and I would definitely recommend it to anyone with an interest in Tudor history. It was engagingly written, interesting and dramatic which slightly makes up for the lack of actual information about Jane herself rather than just the world she lived in.

I was intrigued to find this book, about the shadowy Jane Boleyn. As the blurb said, the author - who is married to the excellent historian John Guy - had an opportunity to explore the conflicts this woman faced. Did she testify against her husband, George, and his sister Anne Boleyn, because she was threatened with death herself as an accessory? What did she say? Why, four years later, did she help Queen Katherine Howard to meet her lover, Thomas Culpeper, knowing this was certain death? Was she mentally ill?

What a shame that the author gives us little or no answer, not even gossip and speculation. I get no sense of Jane Boleyn as a personality, merely a kind of innocent nothing, watching events unfold.

How can Julia Fox believe that Jane was innocent of making a deal with Cromwell, to bring the Boleyns down, when afterwards, Cromwell looked after Jane's finances so carefully and the King even signed a private Act of Parliament to secure a property deal for Jane? It stinks...whether or not Jane had much choice in the matter, I'd like to know. But I'm none the wiser here.

Then there's Jane's husband George Boleyn...or was he gay or bisexual? Instead, she pads the book by re-telling the Boleyn story and justifies it by saying words to the effect of 'Jane would have been there when...'. This is ok, competent and readable, but many books tell this story.

I cannot stand history books which don't give you basic names, and facts like who the person is married to. Julia Fox makes occasional irritating omissions - Henry the Eighth's sister is Mary and to call her merely 'The French Queen' when she was at the time in question, widowed and married to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, is not giving us enough information. Julia Fox has been a history teacher. I'd say, Must Try Harder next time.