A summary of the arguments for 1507
A portrait of Anne Boleyn by Wenzel Hollar (1607-1677)
The date of Anne Boleyn’s birth and the relative ages of her brother and sister have caused much debate over the years. There are two prominent schools of thought when it comes down to Anne’s DOB, circa 1501 and the other circa 1507.
Last week I looked at the arguments for 1501 and now I would like to summarise the arguments for 1507. I would like to say a big thank you to Gareth Russell from Confessions of a Ci-Devant for his excellent article entitled ‘The Age of Anne Boleyn’ which has been of great help to me.
I would also like to point out that for now I only hope to collect the arguments so that we can examine them more closely. In my next post in the series I will put forward my opinions.
1.
William Camden in ‘Annales rerum Anglicarum et Hibernicarum regnante Elizabetha’ (1615) claims that Anne Boleyn did reside in Margaret’s household and also revealed (in a margin note) that Anne was born in 1507, “Anne Bolena nata M.D. VII.” Gareth Russell in his article ‘The Age of Anne Boleyn’ states that ‘Camden began to write a life of Anne’s daughter, Queen Elizabeth, at the end of the 16th century, with the backing of the English government.’ He goes on to say that Camden was granted access to Burghley’s personal papers and state archives. Camden though did not start writing until 1607 and the ‘first instalment’ of his work was not published in England until the second half of the 17th century.
2.
In a letter confirming the arrival of Anne Boleyn to the Netherlands, the regent refers to Anne as ‘la petite Boulain’ (Warnicke, Pg. 12) and comments on how pleasant and well spoken she is for her young age. Warnicke also states that ‘other contemporary or near contemporary reports about her sojourn on the continent also referred to her tender years’ (pg. 12). Some people believe that had she been 12 at the time and old enough to be a maid of honour, these reporters would have not found her age as noteworthy. Warnicke also states that ‘canon law had long held that girls of twelve were legally capable of consummating a marriage’ (Pg. 12).
3.
One of the arguments used to discredit the 1507 birth date is the fact that Anne Boleyn would have only been 6-7 years old when joining the household of Margaret of Austria and clearly young to serve as a maid of honour. Yet Warnicke believes that ‘Anne actually lived in the schoolroom of the Habsburg children instead of at their aunt’s court’ (Pg. 9). She goes on to say that ‘monarchs and rulers customarily permitted young people of gentle birth to live with their children and to share in their schoolroom lessons’ (Pg. 13).
4.
Charles Brandon’s daughter Anne arrived at the regent’s court around the same time that Anne Boleyn did. The significance of this being that Anne Brandon had been born in 1506, just one year before the birthdate reported for Anne Boleyn by William Camden.
5.
Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria, dictated her memoirs to her English secretary shortly before her death in 1612 and stated that when Anne Boleyn had been executed on May 19th 1536 she was ‘not yet twenty-nine years of age.’
6.
In a letter to Thomas Boleyn, the archduchess informs Thomas that Claude Bouton, Captain of the Guard to the prince of Castile, had escorted Anne to the Hapsburg Court (Pg. 11). Gareth Russell notes that no reference is made of a female chaperone and this would have ‘almost certainly have been required if Anne had been anywhere near the age of twelve.’
7.
The fact that Anne remained unmarried until 1526 when Henry VIII proposed to her is also used as an argument to support a later birthdate of 1507. Had Anne been born in 1501 then she would have been around 25-26 years old when the King proposed to her and we know that both Mary and George Boleyn were married at around 19 or 20. If Anne were born in 1507 then she would only have been 19 years old when the King fell for her. Warnicke states that the ‘average marriage of sixteenth-century ladies was about twenty’ (Pg. 35).
8.
Gareth Russell in his article states
‘In the half-decade-long battle with Rome between Henry’s proposal to Anne and their actual marriage, every conceivable objection was thrown up at Anne Boleyn by those who did not wish to see her become queen. Her ancestry was queried as being insufficiently grand (although that argument was rather hampered by having to go back to one of her great-grandparents before you could find one who wasn’t an aristocrat); her religion, her friends, her foreign sympathies, her sister’s private life – they were all cited loudly and frequently as being reasons why Anne could not become the next Queen of England. When something new could not be found, it was simply made up – usually by the Duke of Suffolk or the Spanish Ambassador. And yet, Anne and Henry did not go through a marriage service until November 1532 and she did not give birth to their first child until September 1533. If she had been born in 1501, she would have been 32 years old at the time she gave birth to Elizabeth – over-the-hill, by Tudor standards. Why did no-one highlight the fact that she was simply too old to be the mother of the next Heir to the Throne?’
9.
Retha Warnicke believes that had Anne given birth to Elizabeth when she was 32, old by Tudor standards, then this would have been commented on by 17th century historians.
10.
In Claire Ridgway’s article she states that John Weever in his ‘Ancient funerall monuments’ published in 1631 recorded that ‘Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII had fallen in love when she was 22 and he was 38. Henry VIII was 38 in 1529 so if Anne was 22 in 1529 then she must have been born in 1507.’
Your thoughts and comments are very welcome.
References
Ridgway, C. The Early Life of Anne Boleyn- Part One.
Russell, G. The Age of Anne Boleyn.
Warnicke, R. The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn, 1989.
Hi,
The whole 1501/1507 birthdate issue is a great subject for debate but can I just point out that although I quoted John Weever in my own article on the arguments re Anne Boleyn’s date of birth, I do not personally believe in the 1507 birthdate.
The main reason that I do not believe the 1507 date is not to do with Anne being too young when she went to the court of Margaret of Austria, it is because I cannot see a 7 year old being chosen to serve Mary Tudor in France and being one of the ladies allowed to stay with Mary after she became Queen of France. This makes no sense to me.
Hello Claire, thank you for clarifying. I have to agree with you and say that I find the circa 1501 date much more plausible. To me it makes more sense when we look at Anne’s life as a whole. I wanted first to have a summary of the arguments for both dates for readers to refer to, simply to assist with discussion but I do plan to write my personal opinion on the matter very soon. I wanted to really take the time to reflect on all the arguments before writing. Thanks for dropping by!
Hi Natalie,
Yes, it’s a complete minefield and Gareth and I have had fun debating the point before. The great thing with issues like this is that everyone can find quotes and sources to back up their point of view!
I just wanted to clarify my own point of view as I was concerned that it sounded like I’m pro 1507 whereas I’m actually pro 1501. 🙂
You are so right Claire, we had a great discussion recently on FB about this exact topic and people were very prepared when it came to justifying their opinions. Gareth’s article was very well written and researched and I have to admit, inspired me to do some serious thinking on the matter but like you, I am team 1501 all the way!! 🙂
I have to go with the 1501 for the same reasoning as Claire. To send such a young child far from home seems unlikely. Also, one of the reasons Henry rid himself of her was her age, according to comments by Chapuys and the French ambassador. She didn’t have that many years of fertility at 36. If she had been only 29, I think Henry might have given her a little more time. I guess we’ll never know for sure….
Thanks for referencing my article, Natalie. This is a great summary of the 1507 arguments which, obviously, I believe in and congratulations on your terrific site!
Thank you for your kind words Gareth! Come back and visit us anytime 🙂
I know that to us today it would be unconceivable to send a young child away from home. BUT on the other hand many of the upper wage people do send their children to boarding school at age 6.
Another thought is that even if Anne had been young of age to serve Mary Tudor, with her time and education at the hands of the Duchess Anne would have known how to act and what to do. After all that is one of the things she was there to learn.
We also need to remember that children grew up must faster in Anne’s time period then they do today. After all they live expectancy was not long. It is right to think that 32 is old to be having your first child, it is thought old in today’s standards! With so many people closer to the time period stating that Anne was “not yet 29” and “Anne Bolena nata M.D. VII.” To quote a couple it seems much more reasonable to believe them than to believe the modern day thinkers who let their modern day living and thoughts come into play in their arguments. We also have to be careful WHO we believe. We all know that the Spanish Ambassadors hated Anne and would not say anything nice about in any way. Also all the Anne Boleyn haters were putting out propaganda about her during the time of Elizabeth I just in order to defame Elizabeth! On the other side we also have to question those who were pro Anne. There are two I would lean closer to believing than any and those are Camden with his writing of Elizabeth which had to be approved by the state and by Elizabeth. If he had the birth date wrong would that have not been corrected. Also why make the note in the column if he knew for sure when Anne was born before having written about her? He must have had to do some research into that. Also the Duchess of Feria was not a friend of Anne’s but of Mary I of which we all know the hatred she had for Anne which carried over to Elizabeth. With the Duchess being a “personal” friend and lady of Mary I am sure she heard many uncomplimentary things about Anne “The Great Whore”. So if Anne was older I would think that would have been a very important point to make when describing her instead of the comment of “not yet 29 years”
Last but not least when looking at when the marriage dowry was given it was customary not to pay it until there was a male child born thus confirming the linage. Why this would make a difference with the female relatives I am not sure. With the dowry not having been paid until 1501 then that would mean there was a male surviving child born in that year not a female.
I know I am not pro 1501 but I cannot say I am entirely pro 1507 either!
You make some very valid points Cindy but I still favour 1501 🙂 I love the discussion this topic inspires!
Hi! I know it’s been a really long time since this post was published, but I was just wondering if it COULD be possible that Anne was in Mary Tudor’s entourage to France because her father was present as an English diplomat and her older sister Mary was also in attendance? I was just wondering, sorry if that’s a dumb question. I can’t wait for some new clue to come to light about Anne Boleyn if any, but one of the reasons I strongly support 1507 is simply that other than speculation of Cromwell’s letter stating that Thomas B/Elizabeth H had children consecutively for each year (Mary being 1500 then, and Anne 1501), no one explicitly writes “Anne Boleyn born 1501” as we have for 1507 in Jane Dormer’s/William Camden’s records. I do see how the 1501 date is also sensible though, so, again, excited for new clues and insight on Anne and her times to come to light!
I love On the Tudor Trail and sorry for posting a comment so long after this post was written!
The fact remains that we know hardly anything about Anne when she was in the Netherlands and France and it’s probably because she was too young to hold a position other than perhaps as a decorative maid-of-honour in some special occasion. I think she was indeed probably living in a kind of royal nursery with other children and was lucky to receive a good education. That those years were formative is undeniable but anything else is pure speculation.
She doesn’t seem to have attracted much attention until she reached the English court (1522) and even then one of the first thing she did is get engaged secretly without family permission (1523) and sent away from court in disgrace. That also demonstrates a certain youthful naivety – normal in a girl of 16 less so in a wordly young woman of 22.
This to me supports the 1507 birthdate.
After having read several books about the life of Anne Boleyn, and many articles on the internet, I totally agree with the 1501 date. Anne would have been too young to be sent to the French courts where I think she lived from adolescent to young adult, I mean, from thirteen or fourteen years, until she returned to England in 1521. In 1522 she acted alongside the future Lady Rochford, who She was practically the same age as Anne, a litte bit younger, in the pageant of “The Château Vert.” Logically the most beautiful girls were chosen, but also that they had similar ages . Anne was exactly 21 when the Chateau Vert was celebrated, Jane Parker a little bit less than Anne, actually was the youngest, she was born in 1505. Mary Boleyn was 23 years old. The king’s sister, Mary Tudor , was also part of that masquerade, and Mary was already 26 years old, 26 ¡¡¡ So if Anne had been born in 1507, she would have been 14 years old, during that masquerade. too young ¡¡¡ I think it does not fit me, that Mary Boleyn and Mary Tudor were over 20, and Anne is only 14 years old. Everything points to Mary Boleyn was born in 1500 and the following year, Anne, I mean, 1501. In addition, Elizabeth and Thomas, their parents, were married in 1499, therefore, if Mary was born in 1500,logically , a few months after marriage, the logical thing is to think that Anne was born in 1501, and George, a little later. Yes, they had two offspring that died shortly after birth, but it was also between 1500 and 1504. So the 1507 date would definitely rule it out. Also, when Anne was executed the king was 45 years old, and Anne would have had 29, instead of 35, her real age. the age difference was already great, ten years, being born in 1501, it would have been even more great that difference if she had been born in 1507. too young. in my opinion. I think that she was born in 1501.