Talk:Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford

Untitled
It seems that this article does not cite sources...? (I'm new here, and a bit lost)

Wikiwikiwakoo 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Wikiwikiwakoo
 * Yes, doesn't specify which mistress Anne and Jane plotted to banish. in 1535, it would have been Margaret Sheltonjeanne (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Alison Weir states in her book that the Dean of Lichfield was the son of George and Jane Boleynjeanne (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne, do you have a reference for Weir, please add it. For the moment, I've removed it. I cannot see why the Boleyn estates would have gone to Mary and her children if there was a direct male heir and Fox is the main authority on Jane. However, there is always the possibility and I'd be very interested to know what Weir says.

Regarding the 'unnamed mistress' mentioned in the article, she is referred to as such because we don't know her name, Chapuys referred to her as 'the very handsome young lady'. This was in 1534, and so I've amended the year. If it had been 1535, it would probably have been Margaret/Mary Shelton. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found and added the Weir reference. It's mentioned in passing that he was her son, although neither George Boleyn nor Jane Boleyn were major parts of this work, and so I'm inclined to dismiss it as both seventeen years old (and so lacking the information from later research) and an area Weir won't have looked extensively into. However, as it's a matter of ebate, I've tried to reflect that in how I've wrtten the sentence. Please change it if you think it isn't made clear. Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed the phrase "sleeping together " to sexual intercourse as sleeping together is a late twentieth-century euphemism for sex which does not belong in an encyclopedia article.06:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Boleyn Inheritance.jpg
The image Image:The Boleyn Inheritance.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible portrait of Lady Jane Parker by Hans Holbein
Wondering why this "possible" portrait remains linked to Jane Parker Boleyn when in its own description it states that art historian K T Parker ruled out the possibility that this was Jane Parker Boleyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.34.160 (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Jane was never known as "Lady Parker." That title would have been given to her brother's wife, Grace. If this portrait had been Jane it would say "Viscountess Rochford" or "Lady Boleyn." This is generally accepted as Sir Henry Parker's wife, Grace Newport. - Lady Meg (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Death
On page 227 of her book "Mary Boleyn 'The Great and Infamous Whore'", Alison Weir states that Jane Parker "...went to the block on 13 May 1542." Is there any new evidence for this that means the date should be changed here? I always thought that Katherine Howard and Jane Parker were executed together. --109.215.187.113 (Talk)11:43 6 September 2011 (UTC).
 * According to Amazon, this book has publication date of 6 Oct 2011.  How do you know what it says on page 227?  Are you the author or the publisher?--Toddy1 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing "Why?"
The article rightly discusses why she might have testified against her husband. But there is no explanation or discussion of why she might have risked her neck to facilitate Catherine Howard's (actual or alleged) adultery. As a result, that part of the article reads a bit like a Stalinist account of a Stalinist show trial, in which the reader is expected not to question not-particularly believable accounts of why the State executed somebody. The evidence against her is reported as her name being mentioned in a love letter, but such letters are presumably easily forged by the powers that be when it suits them, so it's not particularly convincing given that her alleged behaviour seems crazy, unless perhaps motivated by something like an arguably rational desire to avenge herself on Henry for what he may have forced her to do to her husband, sister-in-law, and others. Are there any reliable sources that deal with any of these issues? And if not, shouldn't the article somehow mention that this is the case? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Another generation of Jane's ancestry
Margaret Beauchamp of Bletso (mother of Margaret Beaufort) married Oliver St John. They had a son, John (1426 - 1488), who married Alice Bradshaigh (b. 1426) in 1447. The couple, John and Alice, had a son, John St John (b. either 1450 or 1465). He, in turn, married Sybil Verch Morgan (b. 1462) in 1483. This couple had Alice St John (b. 1484 - d. December 1552), who married Baron Morley and is Jane's mother. I have edited this on the page, but can you please add it into her ancestry tree!

You see why Alice Bradshaigh cannot be Jane's grandmother - she'd be fifty eight (1484 - 1426 = 58) at the time of her daughter's (Alice!) birth. Thus, there's a generation the page has missed out and Alice St John, Baroness Morley, has to be the great-granddaughter of Alice Bradshaigh and her husband, John St John. 109.155.61.158 (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Role in husband's execution
This section is not correct. There is no evidence that Jane Boleyn gave evidence at either her husband's or her sister-in-law's trials; she is not mentioned in any of the court documents as appearing before the court, nor is she mentioned as doing so in contemporary reports. Her biographer, Julia Fox, states that she was questioned prior to the trials, and that evidence attributed to her was most likely obtained during that process.

kdoyle2602:306:3633:E5D0:518F:2817:73D1:DE7B (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you Julia Fox by chance? TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not "sister-in-law"
The King's wife's brother's wife is not the King's sister-in-law.

A person's sister-in-law is either their sibling's wife, or their wife's sibling.

That doesn't include their wife's sibling's wife. Lathamibird (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)