#retha warnicke argues norfolk was actually deliberately feeding chapuys misinformation

[fideidefenswhore]

Some difference of opinion as regards the marriage arranged by Anne between Henry Howard and Frances de Vere as well...

If Chapuys is taken at face value, the following:

"Their relations had soured earlier in the year, when Anne accused him of dynastic ambition in seeking to marry his son and her cousin, the fifteen-year-old Henry Howard, the new Earl of Surrey, to Princess Mary. It was a potentially lethal charge, the more offensive to Norfolk since, until they quarrelled, Anne had encouraged the match. To deflect the attack, the duke quickly betrothed his son instead to Lady Frances de Vere [...]" Hunting the Falcon, John Guy & Julia Fox

Versus, taken critically, and with more detail:

Earlier, Norfolk may have been angling for his son to marry none other than the Princess Mary herself (after all, had he not married a princess, [Anne of York], once?) If so, Anne Boleyn would not tolerate this threat of Catherine of Aragon's daughter being legitimized by a marriage with the highest English genealogy-- her own blood. Even if the princess were bastardized, the children of Surrey and Mary Tudor would always threaten her children. At least this is the interpretation Chapuys offered Charles V on 16 April 1532. As Chapuys had assured the Emperor two years before, Norfolk had confirmed that he [would] marry Surrey 'in order to avoid the suspicion of the world that he would stain the Princess'. 'La dame Anne' has now compelled her uncle to do this '[...] because the match is not very good', says the ambassador. 'The young woman is neither of great wealth nor of important alliance.' Chapuys was misinformed on both counts. Of ancient Essex nobility, Oxford settle lands on Surrey that yielded a yearly rent of £300. The formal marriage then took place in the following spring, with the Earl of Oxford giving his daughter a fortune of 4000 marks [...]" Henry Howard, the Poet Earl of Surrey: A Life, William A. Sessions

Chapuys was always at pains to explain and defend himself to Charles V when something he had promised and assured him of never panned out (one example: he claimed the Earl of Rutland was going to defend Mary's rights to the throne in Parliament session, and then alleged that the Earl had visited him secretly and reneged because Thomas Boleyn had yelled at him), otherwise he would seem like a weak source of intelligence. It's very convenient that he thus blames Anne for Norfolk's alleged volte-face as it concerns his son's marriage, and the possibility should be allowed that Norfolk was all along placating and trying to get Chapuys on side to gain intelligence from him, and never had any actual intention of marrying his son to Princess Mary.

Chapuys was also remarkably inconsistent in his claims about what Anne Boleyn's intentions were with her future/present stepdaughter. At turns he claimed she wanted to weaken Mary's claim and neutralize the inherent threat of her position by marrying her to Anne's cousin, and then here he claims she has dropped out of that plan and is 'forcing' her uncle to do something else instead. He claims Anne plans to force Mary to wed a 'varlet' or low-born gentleman (which Henry Howard, when he despised the match, was, and wasn't when he was convinced and/or claiming that Anne had thwarted it) but the truth of the matter is that while Anne was queen-in-waiting and later queen, Mary wasn't married to anyone, by force or otherwise, low-born or otherwise.

What are your thoughts on Anne's relationship with her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk? Do you think the assumption that they didn't get along is true, or perhaps has been exagerated?

The Duke of Norfolk was among the first and most premiere of the nobility to try to front the queue to be granted properties from the Dissolution in 1536. If Anne and him ever argued, it was probably over that.

If you look at the circumstantial evidence as separated by Chapuys’ spin on it , it doesn’t actually seem like it , does it? His daughter becomes a Duchess due to Anne’s ‘machinations’ and is her premiere lady who carries her train. His mistress is also among Anne’s retinue of ladies.

Retha Warnicke argues against the traditional view of their relationship, in both her biography on Anne and her chapter in Writing Biography: Historians and Their Craft. Granted that’s probably to be expected since she doesn’t rate Chapuys’ as a source (and she goes more in-depth as to why here). The historian Dale Hoak does the same.

What I will say is that their relationship has probably been read backwards, from that last day upon which he’s the grand chair of the jury who condemns her. While this isn’t quite as unfair as her relationship with her father (who condemned the men accused on the other jury, apart from George since he wasn’t a commoner) being judged so; it’s perhaps a bit unfair and due reassessment.