Product Description

Jane Rochford was sister-in-law to Anne Boleyn and Lady of the Bedchamber to Katherine Howard, whom she followed to the scaffold in 1542. Hers is a life of extraordinary drama as a witness to, and participant in, the greatest events of Henry's reign. She arrived at court as a teenager when Katherine of Aragon was queen. Even before Henry's marriage to Anne, her own marriage to George Boleyn brought her into the closest royal circles - and there she remained through the unfolding spectacle and tragedy of Henry's succession of marriages. She survived the trauma of Anne and George's executions and despite briefly being banned from Court managed to regain her place there to attend on Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves. Her supposed part in both Anne Boleyn's and Katherine Howard's downfall has led to her being reviled through centuries. In this fascinating biography Julia Fox repudiates the idea of the infamous Lady Rochford and Jane emerges as a rather modern woman forced by brutal circumstance to fend for herself in a politically lethal world.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #31783 in Books
• Published on: 2008-03-01
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 432 pages

Daily Mail
Julia Fox has done her best to resuscitate Jane Boleyn's reputation"

Review
Julia Fox has done her best to resuscitate Jane Boleyn's reputation" (DAILY MAIL )

"Although Jane Boleyn is written with scrupulous regard for fact, it has the pace and colour of an historical novel" (SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY )

"This is a gripping book... wonderfully readable" (THE TABLET )

THE TABLET
"This is a gripping book... wonderfully readable"

Customer Reviews

Unable to support its own assertions
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.

Interesting but ultimately disappointing
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.

Mere character assassination or truth - re-assessing Jane Boleyn Lady Rochester
Anne Boleyn is the endlessly subject of biographies and movies. Her sister, Mary Boleyn, has recently gained fame through the book "The other Boleyn Sister". A book on their sister-in-law, Jane Boleyn nee Parker, was missing. This very gap has now been filled by Julia Fox and she has chosen wisely calling it "Jane Boleyn - the infamous Lady Rochester".

This is indeed her historical reputation. The Act of Attainder against Queen Catherine Howard and Lady Rochford referred to the latter as "that bawd, the Lady Jane Rocheford".The book asked the question whether that reputation is justified.

Julia Fox traces the life of Jane Parker from childhood to her end on the block. She was the daughter of Henry Parker, 10th Baron Morley and Alice St John both from old English families with Roman Catholic tendencies. She became a maid of honor to Queen Catherine of Aragon. Sometimes around 1524, her marriage was arranged to George Boleyn, later (1529) to be Viscount Rochford, the only brother of Anne Boleyn, later the second queen of Henry VIII. They had no children. When Anne became Queen Jane became one of her Ladies of the Bedchamber and seem to have been one of her confidents. In 1534 she was dismissed for a time for assisting Anne in procuring the removal from Court of the (now unknown) "young lady whom the king has been accustomed to serve" - probably a courtly flirtation. At some point in 1534-5, for reasons which are unclear, Jane turned against her sister-in-law. She went so far as to take part in a demonstration against Anne by London citizens' wives in the summer of 1535 - she, along with the wife of Lord William Howard was briefly sent to the Tower for this. Her role in the fall of Queen Anne and her husband George the "evidence" for the charges of incest with George seems to have rested on her testimony that the two were closeted together for a long time once and that she believed, on the basis of what she knew that their familiarity went beyond that of brother and sister. She also told of Anne's alleged remarks "que le Roy n'estait habile en cas de soy copuler avec femme, et qu'il n'avait ni vertu ni puissance" - that the King was incapable of making love to his wife and that he had neither skill nor virility. George Boleyn himself is supposed, according to De Carles, to have said that "On the basis of only one woman you are willing to believe this great evil of me, and on the basis of her allegations you are deciding my judgment." She survived the disgrace of the Boleyns and was rehabilitated very rapidly. Via the all powerful Thomas Cromwell, she put pressure on her father-in-law to increase her allowance; this he did, albeit grudgingly. She was a Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Jane Seymour and Queen Anne of Cleves. Lady Rochford was amongst others who testified to the non-consummation of the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves and provided for the necessary evidence for his annulment. Having retained her position of in the Queen's household she became Queen Anne Howard's chief confident and became actively involved in the Queen's illicit affairs. Jane Rochford was executed on 13 February 1542, immediately after the Queen.


Julia Fox has actually very often no prove about the involvements, whereabouts and thoughts of Jane Boleyn. She fills these gaps with describing the general scene, the events as such - often very length - and then mentioning that Jane might have been there. This is quite disappointing because it is mere guess work. Crucially missing is any analysis of her marriage to George Boleyn. Here Julia Fox contends herself with merely pointing out that this kind of marriage was expected of a daughter of a peer, that she should have been contend because George was of her ages and she did not have to marry an old man and that his rise provided for all the luxuries in life. A study would have been quite crucial and it would have provided some inside into her conduct. Was she jealous because he had many other women or was his neglected as he might have been homosexual? No word here!! Many other authors have pointed out that Jane's marriage was clearly an unhappy one, alleging incest against her husband and providing testimony which led to his execution still requires explanation. Contemporary observers opined that her decision related more to "jealousy and envy" than it did to love for the King - which certainly makes some sense given the absurdity of the charges. That her relationship with Queen Anne was changeable proved the 1535 episode and that she was inclined to intrigues the 1534 events. Her quick recovery from the disgrace of the Boleyn could be seen as well as reward for her efforts. The increase of her allowance and later dealings with her former father in law is no proof that he did not see her involved in his childrens' downfall as Cromwell helped Lady Rochford. Pressure from the all powerful minister could have led to the increase of her allowance. It is astonishing that a woman who had been a courtier for so long was foolish enough to become involved in the intrigues of 1541 which Jane probably orchestrated, encouraged or at the very least facilitated. She of all people knew the penalties for involvement in a queen's adultery. The explanation given by Julia Fox does not convince and if then Jane Boleyn must have been a very stupid woman indeed.

Understandably, most historians have been highly critical of Lady Rochford. However, to renowned author Retha Warnicke questioned in her The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. Lady Rochford's role. She does this with greater talent and arguments than Julia Fox. Julia Fox tries a little bit too much and too hard to white wash Jane Boleyn.

All in all, a book that needed to be written and was waited for by many, but it could have been better written. Yes, Julia Fox helps to think again about the historical reputation Jane Rochford has gained, but she definitely did not put it to rest. It is not a bad book, but definitely not a masterpiece.