Jane Seymour: saint or sinner

On this day, 472 years ago, a young woman from a family of minor nobles promised to marry the King of England.  The bride to be was around 28 years old, blonde and pale and not renowned for her beauty.  She was said by some to be meek and mild, quiet, almost timid although her lack of character was made up for by her voluble and ambitious brothers who had worked their way up to important positions at court and who were now a heartbeat away from the king's inner circle.  As soon as their sister said 'I do' to the monarch in her wedding, planned for May 30th 1536, they would be brothers in law to a king and in line for more power, more money, more influence.  The royal bridegroom was in his forties and a legend in his own lifetime.  A formidable man who had changed the world to get what he wanted already, no one picked a fight with him and no one survived his wrath.  He was Henry VIII and the bride was his third wife, Jane Seymour.  But while it is easy to see Jane as a mousy tool in mad men's power games, was she really such an innocent party to a betrothal that shocked society?

She stole a king from Anne Boleyn but was Jane Seymour really such a meek, mild innocent as some versions of history show her to be?

Because there is no doubt that becoming betrothed to a king less than twenty four hours after his second wife has been executed on his orders and on false charges is a pretty risky thing to do. Although some historians argue that the promise to marry between Henry and Jane was meant to be secret and leaked by accident, the very fact that both parties were in such a rush to cement their union leads to questions about how and when the decision to actually unite the houses of Tudor and Seymour was taken.  Anne Boleyn had been arrested less than three weeks before her successor as queen promised to marry Henry VIII.  Their relationship was obviously well established enough by the time Anne entered the Tower of London to be ready to move to engagement less than a day after the notorious second queen of Henry had died.

Jane Seymour by Hans Holbein

So while Henry may have been searching for a wife with less learning and less personality than the two women he had already married and while the Seymour brothers may have been looking for a way to further their already ostentatious ambitions, Jane must also have been much more than a pawn in the games of these power players.  The idea that she was swept along in a betrothal created by men without any input, or that she felt obliged to oblige a king at the height of his powers, doesn't really explain why a woman with no history and no reputation for ruthlessness became engaged to a man who had just had his wife beheaded.

Henry VIII promised to marry Jane Seymour just hours after the death of Anne Boleyn

The remarkable speed with which Henry swapped queens in 1536 is sometimes forgotten but on May 1st of that year his consort was Anne Boleyn and only a handful of people had any idea that her reign was about to finish.  At the end of the month, May 31st, the king had a new queen as he exchanged marriage vows with Jane Seymour on May 30th.  This swift changeover helped the king show his power - the man who had been won over by a strong willed woman had put an end to her career and replaced her and her faction at court.  But while Queen Jane asked no questions and stuck by her motto 'Bound to obey and serve', plenty of questions about her motivations have been asked since then.  Perhaps she was genuinely in love with a king with a bad reputation when it came to love, perhaps she felt she had to take a chance her family might never get again, perhaps she realised that marriage to Henry was inevitable and waiting was pointless.  Or perhaps she actively wanted the queenship that marriage brought.  Jane was noted as pious during her short reign but that can sit at odds with a woman who sat by and saw Henry's wife tried and executed on charges that were widely believed to be false.  Jane's pale face and quiet demeanour have given her a blameless reputation for some historians but does the fact she consented to a betrothal just a day after the death of Anne Boleyn make her a saint or a sinner?