Princesses of the Later Middle Ages – Page 7 – History… the interesting bits!

The Battle of the Standard

22/08/202422/08/2025Sharon Bennett Connolly4 Comments

History ... the Interesting Bits — *King Stephen*

22 August is a famous date in history. The Battle of Bosworth, on 22 August 1485 is often seen as the end of one era and the beginning of another: the end of the medieval age and the beginning of the early modern. It was the end of the royal line of the Plantagenets, begun under Henry II in 1154 and ended with the death of Richard III on that fateful August day. It was the advent of, arguably, the most famous royal house in history: the house of Tudor, which ruled England from 1485 to 1603.

But Bosworth was not the only battle fought on English soil on 22 August. 347 years before, during the period known to history as the Anarchy, when King Stephen stole the English throne from his cousin Empress Matilda. At Northallerton in North Yorkshire, an English army faced a Scots army in what would come to be known as the Battle of the Standard; between the forces of King Stephen and those of his wife’s uncle – and also the uncle of Empress Matilda – David I, King of Scots.

On his marriage to Matilda de Senlis, arranged by his brother-in-law King Henry, David acquired lands in Northampton, Bedford, Cambridge and Huntingdon, as well as lands stretching from South Yorkshire to Middlesbrough, which would become known as the ‘honour of Huntingdon’. By the first Treaty of Durham, agreed in February 1136, at which David had refused to do homage to Stephen but allowed his son to do so, young Henry was given Doncaster and the lordship of Carlisle. He also received his mother’s inheritance, the honour and earldom of Huntingdon, paying homage for these lands to King Stephen at York. At Stephen’s Easter court that same year, Henry sat at the king’s right hand, his royal birth giving him precedence ahead of the English earls. This infuriated Earl Ranulf of Chester, who had wanted Carlisle for himself, and Simon (II) de Senlis, Henry’s older half-brother, who maintained a rival claim to the Huntingdon lands.

The two barons withdrew from the court in disgust. As the grandson of Earl Waltheof, Henry also demanded the earldom of Northumberland. When Stephen refused to relinquish it, Scottish raids into Northumberland were renewed. David was ostensibly arguing that he was supporting his niece, Empress Matilda, in her struggle with Stephen over the English crown, though his actual motives were far from selfless. The Gesta Stephani was generous in assessing the Scots king’s dilemma:

In Scotland, which borders on England, with a river fixing the boundary between the two kingdoms, there was a king of a gentle heart, born of religious parents and equal to them in his just way of living. Since he had in the presence of King Henry, together with the other magnates of the kingdom, or rather first of all of them, bound himself with an oath that on King Henry’s death he would recognise no-one as his successor except his daughter or her heir, he was greatly vexed that Stephen had come to take the tiller of the kingdom of the English. But because it had been planned and carried out by the barons themselves without consulting him he wisely pondered the ultimate result and waited quietly for some time to see what end the enterprise would come.¹

In the early months of 1138, David had exploited Stephen’s preoccupation with the siege of Bedford Castle to lead a foray into Northumberland. The Scots king was apparently spurred on by a letter from Empress Matilda ‘stating that she had been disinherited and deprived of the kingdom promised to her on oath, that the laws had been made of no account, justice trampled under foot, the fealty of the barons of England and the compact to which they had sworn broken and utterly disregarded, and therefore she humbly and mournfully besought him to aid her as a relation, since she was abandoned, and assist her as one bound to her by oath, since she was in distress’.²

Whether acting in response to his niece’s pleas or to pursue his own interests, David had moved south in January 1138. He had besieged Wark Castle and led a chevauchée further south. However, he had retreated into the Scottish borders when Stephen brought a substantial force against him. From Roxburgh, David awaited the departure of the English army before renewing his campaign. The Scots ventured across the border, once again, on 8 April, this time targeting the coastal regions of Northumberland and County Durham in a campaign of plunder and waste. Stephen was now tied up in the south in campaigns against various rebel barons, including William Fitz Alan, who was married to a niece of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and Arnulf of Hesdin, who held Shrewsbury Castle against the king.

Robert of Gloucester, Empress Matilda’s illegitimate half-brother, had finally made a move in favour of his sister, issuing Stephen with a diffidatio, a chivalric device which was a formal statement of renunciation of allegiance and homage. According to William of Malmesbury, Robert ‘sent representatives and abandoned friendship and faith with the king in the traditional way, also renouncing homage, giving as the reason that his action was just, because the king had both unlawfully claimed the throne and disregarded, not to say betrayed, all the faith he had sworn to him’.³

David took advantage of these distractions and again crossed the River Tees with a Scottish army in July. He sent two Scottish barons to lay siege to Wark Castle while he headed further south. Eustace fitz John, deprived of Bamburgh Castle by King Stephen but still in control of Alnwick, chose to add his own forces to those of King David. The army marched past Bamburgh until the garrison, believing themselves impregnable, taunted the Scots from the safety of the castle’s formidable walls. The Scots promptly attacked, breaking down the barricades and killing everyone in the castle. Bernard de Baliol was then sent north by King Stephen and he and Robert de Bruce were tasked with discussing terms with the Scots. The proposal was that if the Scots went home, Prince Henry would be given the earldom of Northumberland. David rejected the offer.

Stephen, it seems, was beset on all sides, with invaders on his northern borders, rebellion within his kingdom and trouble across the Channel in Normandy. He employed all his senior commanders in putting out the fires – including his wife, Queen Matilda. In the late summer of 1138, following the capitulation of Shrewsbury, Stephen had hanged that town’s entire garrison, learning from his leniency at Exeter. He then ‘besieged Dover with a strong force on the landward side, and sent word to [Queen Matilda’s] friends and kinsmen and dependents in Boulogne to blockade the force by sea. The people of Boulogne proved obedient, gladly carried out their lady’s commands and, with a great fleet of ships, closed the narrow strait to prevent the garrison receiving any supplies.’⁴ This military pressure, combined with the persuasive power of Robert de Ferrers, father-in-law of the rebel garrison’s commander, Walchelin Maminot, caused Walchelin to surrender to the queen, in late August or early September. The retribution meted out to the Shrewsbury garrison was probably another persuasive argument to the recalcitrant defenders.

David had overplayed his hand by allowing his troops from Galloway to plunder the countryside, thus uniting the northern barons in their determination to put an end to these all-too-frequent Scottish forays into England. With Stephen, his loyal generals and his wife occupied with rebels in the south of England, the defence of the north fell to Thurstan, Archbishop of York since 1115 and nearing his seventieth year. Placing the archbishop in command was a move which would prevent baronial squabbling over seniority. Thurstan called for a crusade against the Scots and mustered his army at York. The Scots refused all offers of negotiations, so the archbishop marched his force to Northallerton in Yorkshire, just 30 miles north-west of York. Calling upon holy favour, the army was preceded by the banners of St Peter, St John of Beverly and St Wilfrid of Ripon, flying on a mast which itself was mounted on a carriage.

On 22 August 1138, with the carriage supporting the standards placed on the summit of the southernmost of two hillocks next to the Darlington road, the troops were arrayed to the front of their standards. Above the emblems of the saints a banner read, ‘Body of the Lord, to be their standard-bearer and the leader of their battle.’⁵ It is from this pious display that the ensuing clash, the Battle of the Standard, would get its name. The English forces were formed in three groups, with dismounted men-at-arms in the front rank, a body of knights around the standards and the shire levies deployed at the rear and on both flanks. The Scots were drawn up on the northern hillock, with men-at-arms and archers in the front and the poorly equipped men from Galloway and the Highlanders in the rear. The unarmoured men from Galloway complained bitterly about being placed in the rear and demanded the rightful place of honour in the front of the battleline, to the extent that King David, against his better judgement, granted them their wish to spearhead the attack. Prince Henry took command of the right flank, comprising the troops from Strathclyde and the eastern Lowlands and a body of mounted knights. The left was formed of men from the western Highlands. The king led the small reserve, made up of the men from Moray and the eastern Highlands.

The presence of the apostle and two Yorkshire saints in their force, arrayed against a foe containing a contingent of Picts, led to a sense among the English that they were on a noble crusade. According to Henry of Huntingdon, the Bishop of Durham then gave a stirring speech before the bishops and priests retreated from the field:

… Rouse yourselves, then, gallant soldiers, and bear down on an accursed enemy with the courage of your race and in the presence of God. Let not their impetuosity shake you, since the many tokens of our valour do not deter them. They do not cover themselves with armour in war; you are in the constant practice of arms in time of peace, that you may be at no loss in the chances at the day of battle. Your head is covered with the helmet, your breast with a coat of mail, your legs with greaves and your whole body with shield. Where can the enemy strike you when he finds you sheathed in steel … It is not so much the multitude of a host, as the valour of a few which is decisive. Numbers, without discipline, are a hindrance to success in the attack and to retreat in defeat. Your ancestors were often victorious when they were but a few against many…⁶

As the English soldiers shouted out ‘Amen! Amen!’ in response to the bishop’s speech, the Scottish army advanced with their own battle cry of ‘Alban! Alban!’ on their lips. The men of Galloway launched the initial attack and ‘bore down on the English mailed knights with a cloud of darts and their long spears’.⁷The unclothed Galwegians had no protection against the hail of arrows and English swords, though their sheer ferocity saw them temporarily breach the English front rank. Even so, they could get no further: ‘The whole army of English and Normans stood fast around the Standard in one solid body.’⁸ It was a stalemate that Prince Henry attempted to break by leading a mounted charge against the English forces. Although he sustained heavy losses, the prince broke through the English ranks and continued towards the enemy’s rear, reaching the horse lines. The English closed ranks before the Scots foot soldiers could take advantage of the gap created by the prince’s charge.

Henry of Huntingdon reserves praise for the prince: ‘[David’s] brave son, heedless of what his countrymen were doing, and inspired only by his ardour for the fight and for glory, made a fierce attack, with the remnant of the fugitives on the enemy’s ranks … But this body of cavalry could by no means make any impression against men sheathed in armour, and fighting on foot in a close column; so that they were compelled to retire with wounded horses and shattered lances, after a brilliant but unsuccessful attack.’⁹ Finding himself marooned behind enemy lines, the prince ordered his men to discard any identifying badges and mingle with the English forces until they could escape. The ruse worked and the prince was able to make his way back to Carlisle.

According to Huntingdon, the men of Galloway were put to flight when their chief fell, pierced by an arrow. Fighting along the line, and having seen what befell the Galwegians, the remainder of the Scots army began to falter. Seeing that the battle was lost, men began to flee. It began as a trickle, but soon the greater part of the army was in retreat. King David had chosen the greatest of the Scottish knights as his personal guard, and they remained steadfast almost to the last. Once they saw the battle was lost, they persuaded the king to call for his horse and retreat rather than risk death or capture. Henry of Huntingdon reports 11,000 Scottish dead against few English casualties, with Gilbert de Lacy’s brother the only English knight to fall on the field of battle.

The English, however, failed to pursue the fleeing Scots. David was therefore able to march his surviving army north to join the forces that had been besieging Wark Castle since June. Satisfied that they had seen off the Scottish threat, the English had withdrawn, leaving only a small contingent in the field to reduce Eustace fitz John’s castle at Malton. Negotiations for peace could then begin:

After the war between the two kings had lasted for a long time, created terrible disorder, and brought widespread calamity, a peace mission was sent out by God’s will; travelling to and fro between the two kings, who were exhausted by the slaughter, destruction, ceaseless anxieties, and hardships, the envoys succeeded in restoring harmony between them.¹⁰

A truce was arranged at Carlisle at the end of September 1138 and negotiations for a lasting peace began in earnest. On 9 April 1139, the Treaty of Durham was concluded between King Stephen and David of Scotland. As part of the treaty, Henry of Scotland would marry Ada de Warenne, daughter of William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Warenne and Surrey. Not that peace would prevent King David from continuing to aid his niece, Empress Matilda, in her struggles against King Stephen, but that is another story.

Notes:

1. K. R. Potter (trans.), Gesta Stephani; 2. ibid; 3. William of Malmesbury quoted in Matthew Lewis, Stephen and Matilda’s Civil War: Cousins of Anarchy; 4. John of Worcester quoted in Patricia A. Dark, The Career of Matilda of Boulogne as Countess and Queen in England, 1135-1152; 5. Matthew Lewis, Stephen and Matilda’s Civil War; 6. Thomas Forester (trans. and ed.), The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon. Comprising the history of England, from the invasion of Julius Caesar to the accession of Henry II. Also,the Acts of Stephen, King of England and Duke of Normandy; 7. ibid; 8. ibid; 9. ibid; 10. Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 1075-1143, book XIII.

Images:

Sources:

Potter, K. R. (trans.), Gesta Stephani; Matthew Lewis, Stephen and Matilda’s Civil War: Cousins of Anarchy; Patricia A. Dark, The Career of Matilda of Boulogne as Countess and Queen in England, 1135-1152; Thomas Forester (trans. and ed.), The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon. Comprising the history of England, from the invasion of Julius Caesar to the accession of Henry II. Also, the Acts of Stephen, King of England and Duke of Normandy; David Smurthwaite, The Complete Guide to the Battlefields of Britain; David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen; Keith Stringer, ‘Henry, Earl of Northumberland (c. 1115-1152)’, Oxforddnb.com; G.W.S. Barrow, ‘David I (c. 1185-1153)’, Oxforddnb.com; Keith Stringer, ‘Ada [née Ada de Warenne], countess of Northumberland (c. 1123-1178)’, Oxforddnb.com; Victoria Chandler, ‘Ada de Warenne, Queen Mother of Scotland (c. 1123-1178)’, The Scottish Historical Review, Vol. 60, no. 170; Farrer, W. and C. T. Clay (eds), Early Yorkshire Charters, Volume 8: The Honour of Warenne; Henry of Huntingdon, The History of the English People 1000–1154; Catherine Hanley, Matilda: Empress, Queen, Warrior; Marjorie Chibnall, The Empress Matilda: Queen Consort, Queen Mother and Lady of the English; Edmund King, King Stephen.

My Books

Signed, dedicated copies of all my books are available through my online store.

Out now: Scotland’s Medieval Queens

Scotland’s history is dramatic, violent and bloody. Being England’s northern neighbour has never been easy. Scotland’s queens have had to deal with war, murder, imprisonment, political rivalries and open betrayal. They have loved and lost, raised kings and queens, ruled and died for Scotland. From St Margaret, who became one of the patron saints of Scotland, to Elizabeth de Burgh and the dramatic story of the Scottish Wars of Independence, to the love story and tragedy of Joan Beaufort, to Margaret of Denmark and the dawn of the Renaissance, Scotland’s Medieval Queens have seen it all. This is the story of Scotland through their eyes.

‘Scotland’s Medieval Queens gives a thorough grounding in the history of the women who ruled Scotland at the side of its kings, often in the shadows, but just as interesting in their lives beyond the spotlight. It’s not a subject that has been widely covered, and Sharon is a pioneer in bringing that information into accessible history.’ Elizabeth Chadwick (New York Times bestselling author)

Available now from Amazon and Pen and Sword Books

Also by Sharon Bennett Connolly:

Heroines of the Tudor World tells the stories of the most remarkable women from European history in the time of the Tudor dynasty, 1485-1603. These are the women who ruled, the women who founded dynasties, the women who fought for religious freedom, their families and love. Heroines of the Tudor World is now available from Amberley Publishing and Amazon UK. Women of the Anarchy demonstrates how Empress Matilda and Matilda of Boulogne, unable to wield a sword themselves, were prime movers in this time of conflict and lawlessness. It shows how their strengths, weaknesses, and personal ambitions swung the fortunes of war one way – and then the other. Available from Bookshop.org, Amberley Publishing and Amazon UK. King John’s Right-Hand Lady: The Story of Nicholaa de la Haye is the story of a truly remarkable lady, the hereditary constable of Lincoln Castle and the first woman in England to be appointed sheriff in her own right. Available from all good bookshops Pen & Sword Books, bookshop.org and Amazon.

Defenders of the Norman Crown: The Rise and Fall of the Warenne Earls of Surrey tells the fascinating story of the Warenne dynasty, from its origins in Normandy, through the Conquest, Magna Carta, the wars and marriages that led to its ultimate demise in the reign of Edward III. Available from Pen & Sword Books, Amazon in the UK and US, and Bookshop.org. Ladies of Magna Carta: Women of Influence in Thirteenth Century England looks into the relationships of the various noble families of the 13th century, and how they were affected by the Barons’ Wars, Magna Carta and its aftermath; the bonds that were formed and those that were broken. It is now available in paperback and hardback from Pen & Sword, Amazon, and Bookshop.org. Heroines of the Medieval World tells the stories of some of the most remarkable women from Medieval history, from Eleanor of Aquitaine to Julian of Norwich. Available now from Amberley Publishing and Amazon, and Bookshop.org. Silk and the Sword: The Women of the Norman Conquest traces the fortunes of the women who had a significant role to play in the momentous events of 1066. Available now from Amazon, Amberley Publishing, and Bookshop.org.

Alternate Endings: An anthology of historical fiction short stories including Long Live the King… which is my take what might have happened had King John not died in October 1216. Available in paperback and kindle from Amazon.

Podcast:

Have a listen to the A Slice of Medieval podcast, which I co-host with Historical fiction novelist Derek Birks. Derek and I welcome guests, such as Bernard Cornwell and discuss a wide range of topics in medieval history, from significant events to the personalities involved. There are now over 70 episodes to listen to!

Every episode is also now available on YouTube.

Don’t forget! Signed and dedicated copies of all my books are available through my online bookshop.

For forthcoming online and in-person talks, please check out my Events Page.

You can be the first to read new articles by clicking the ‘Follow’ button, liking our Facebook page or joining me on Twitter, Threads, LinkedIn, Bluesky and Instagram.

The Remarkable Courage of Anne Askew

17/08/202428/10/2025Sharon Bennett Connolly5 Comments

*Portrait of Henry VIII after Hans Holbein the Younger*

When Henry VIII decided to break with Rome, he was making that decision not just for himself but for his entire nation. But Henry was still a conservative Catholic and while others embraced the Reformation and the tenets of Calvinism or Lutheranism, Henry remained Catholic to his dying day, just not Roman Catholic. His break with Rome led to the Dissolution of the Monasteries, where monastic institutions and communities were broken up and sold off.

This, in turn led to the Pilgrimage of Grace, a popular revolt in Yorkshire in October 1536, led by Robert Aske, which spread to other parts of northern England. The rebellion was inspired by the failed Lincolnshire Rising, which had started on 1 October 1536 and it was said 22,000 people followed a monk and shoemaker, the vicar of Louth and Nicholas Melton (known as Captain Cobbler) to protest against the closing of the monasteries and the seizure of church land and plate. The figure was probably much smaller, perhaps some 3,000 rebels. However, by the time they marched on Lincoln and occupied Lincoln Cathedral, some 40,000 rebels were demanding the right to worship as Roman Catholics and protection for the treasures of Lincolnshire’s churches. The Rising was all but over by 4 October, when Henry sent word that the protesters should disperse or face retribution at the hands of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, who had mobilised his troops to put down the revolt.

By 14 October, most of the host had returned home. The two ringleaders were hanged at Tyburn, while other leading rebels were executed in the following days. It was against this background and the fear that the Rising must have invoked throughout Lincolnshire, that Anne Askew came to the fore. Anne Askew, also spelt Ayscough or Ainscough, was born around 1521, probably at the family home at Stallingborough, near Grimsby in Lincolnshire. She was the daughter of Sir William Askew and his first wife, Elizabeth Wrottesley.

Anne was the second oldest of five children, with an older sister Martha, a younger sister Jane, and two younger brothers, Francis and Edward. Her father, a landowner in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, was knighted in 1513. He attended the king at the Field of the Cloth of Gold in France in 1520 and in 1521 he was appointed High Sheriff of Lincolnshire. From 1529, he was a member of Parliament for Grimsby. After the death of Anne’s mother, he married twice more. He married the daughter of a Struxley or Streichley of Nottinghamshire, whose name is sadly now lost to history and married again in 1522 to Elizabeth, the daughter of John Hutton of Tudhoe, Co. Durham and the widow of Sir William Hansard of South Kelsey, Lincolnshire, with whom he had two more sons, Christopher and Thomas.

By about 1523, the family had moved to South Kelsey, just 20 miles from Lincoln. Anne was well educated, possibly by tutors, though we do not know the specifics of her education. Anne’s writings were published posthumously by reformist scholar John Bale, and it is from these that we get most of her story.

Anne’s future was decided following the tragic early death of her older sister, Martha. Sir William had arranged for Martha to marry Thomas Kyme of Friskney, the son and heir of a neighbouring landowner. Sadly, Martha died before the wedding could take place. Rather than suffer a financial loss with the failure of the arrangement, Sir William offered 15-year-old Anne as a replacement bride, ‘so that in the ende she was compelled against her will or fre consent to marrye with hym,’ and, as John Bale put it, Anne ‘demeaned her selfe lyke a Christen wife’.¹ Anne and Thomas had two children together.

It was about the time that Anne was preparing for her wedding, in 1536, that the Lincolnshire Rising erupted, starting in Louth and making its way towards Lincoln. Her father Sir William was one of the commissioners for the king’s tax subsidy who were due to sit in Caistor as the rebels arrived in the town. Sir William attempted to ride for home, ahead of the rebellious host. He was soon captured, aware that his own servants who were accompanying him supported the rebels. Anne’s brothers were also arrested by the rebels and their house watched. Sir William was then forced to write to the king to inform him of what had happened, with the complaint that ‘the common voice and fame was that all jewels and goods of the churches of the country should be taken from them and brought to Your Grace’s Council, and also that your said loving and faithful subjects should be put off new enhancements and other importunate charges.’²

With the failure of the rebellion, Sir William and his sons returned home. One wonders if the treatment of her menfolk, at the hands of those who were defending Roman Catholicism, was not a factor in Anne turning to the reformed faith. However the transformation came about, and in spite of her husband’s devout Catholicism, Anne did become a committed Protestant. She acquired a copy of an English Bible and began reading aloud from it, though her husband and brother had both forbidden her to do so. Anne explained that ‘in processe of tyme by oft reading of the sacred Bible, she fell clerelye from all olde superstycyons of papystrye, to a perfyght believe in Jhesus Christ.’³

In May 1543, the Act for the Advancement of True Religion was passed, forbidding any woman below the rank of noblewoman or gentlewoman from reading the Bible; and forbidding any woman, of any rank, from reading the Bible aloud. Anne was a gentlewoman and therefore still permitted to read the Bible, but only in private. She wanted to travel to Lincoln to see the cathedral’s Bible, but Kyme forbade it. Anne had been apprised of the hostility this would engender: ‘For my fryndes told me, if I ded come to Lyncolne, the prestes wolde assault me and put me to great trouble, as thereof they had made their boast.’⁴ Anne did travel to Lincoln and stayed there for about six days, reading her Bible in the cathedral. She said that one man confronted her, but he had said so little of significance that she could not recall his words.

This incident, and the fact that Anne continued to read aloud to whoever would listen, to such an extent that the local priest complained to her husband, infuriated Thomas Kyme. Angry and embarrassed at his wife’s actions, Kyme drove her from the house, with some violence. Driven from hearth and home – and from her children, Anne resumed her maiden name and sought a divorce. In late 1544 she travelled to London, accompanied by only a maid, in order to obtain a legal separation in the court of chancery. Two of her brothers were already in London. Edward, who had previously been in the service of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, was cup-bearer to Henry VIII and her half-brother, Christopher, who died around this time, was a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber.

Her cousin, Christopher Brittayn, was a lawyer at the Temple and Anne’s sister Jane was married to George St Poll, a lawyer in the service of the duke and duchess of Suffolk. Anne lodged in a house close to the Temple, London’s legal centre, and soon met others with like-minded religious views, many with connections. Several gentlewomen gave Anne money, including the countess of Hertford and the wife of Sir Anthony Denny. They both sent messengers to Anne with money.

Anne found herself moving in exalted circles, these ladies were close friends of Henry VIII’s new queen, Kateryn Parr, though whether the queen and Anne ever met is uncertain. Anne made other connections in the city, including her religious advisor John Lascels and the chronicler Edward Hall. She was also close to the Kentish Anabaptist Joan Bocher, who would be executed in 1550.

After preaching publicly in the streets of the capital, Anne came to the attention of the authorities. According to Anne’s nephew, writing after her death, she was arrested following the interception of a letter she was trying to send, while attempting to communicate with the queen. She was detained on 10 March 1545, under the Six Articles Act, which made deviation from the official tenets of the English church a civil offence. Anne was brought before Sir Martin Bowes, Lord Mayor of London, and the bishop of London’s chancellor, and interrogated as to her beliefs. She was told that St Paul forbade women from talking of the word of God, but Anne countered that St Paul only barred women from instructing a congregation.

Still only 24 years of age, Anne was confident, fearless and bold in dealing with the great men of the city of London. Women were not meant to behave in such a way, they were supposed to be contrite and accept the superior intellect and authority of the men in charge. As a consequence, the Lord Mayor ordered her imprisonment. She spent 12 days in prison, visited daily by a priest sent by Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London. Her cousin, Brittayn, failed in his petition to have her released on bail, but succeeded in having her examined before the bishop himself, on 25 March. She was accused of subscribing to reformist beliefs concerning transubstantiation and the other sacraments and the dominion of the priesthood and asked to sign a declaration of orthodox faith.

Anne took the paper and wrote ‘I, Anne Askewe do beleve all maner thynges contayned in the faythe of the Catholyck churche.’⁵ Bishop Bonner flew into a fury, but her cousin, Brittayn, persuaded him that she acted from her ‘weak woman’s wit’ and with the added voices of her friends, Hall, Hugh Weston and Francis Spilman, Anne was returned to prison for one more night before being freed on bail the next day. Whether or not Anne abjured is open to interpretation; the authorities say she did, Anne denied it.

Once freed, Anne continued to pursue her divorce from Thomas Kyme. The Privy Council became involved and ordered both Anne and Thomas to appear before them within ten days. Anne and Kyme were brought before the Council at Greenwich and were questioned about their relationship. The questioning, under the direction of Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, turned to the matter of Anne’s views in the sacrament and after an exchange of words whereby Anne evaded Gardiner’s questions, she was again committed to prison for the night, this time to Newgate, a harrowing place. Kyme returned home. Anne was brought before the Council the next day and questioned further by Bishop Gardiner, who declared that she should be burnt.

According to Anne herself, they charged her ‘upon my obedience to show them if I knew any man or woman of my sect. Answered that I knew none. Then they asked me of my lady of Suffolk, my lady of Sussex, my lady of Hertford, my lady Denny and my lady Fitzwilliam.’⁶ These women were close associates of the queen, Kateryn Parr. The queen’s chambers were searched for heretical texts, though none were found.

On 28 June 1546, Anne Askew was arraigned for heresy at the Guildhall in London, alongside Nicholas Shaxton, former Bishop of Salisbury, and two other men. Shaxton abjured but Anne was condemned ‘without any triall of a jurie’.⁷

The next day, Anne was sent to the Tower and subjected to further questioning. It was hoped that this would force Anne to reveal her associates at court and, by extension, their husbands. When she refused to name anyone, her interrogators, Thomas Wriothesley and Richard Rich, took the exceptional step of having her undress to her shift and fastened to the rack. In Anne’s own words:

Then they put me on the rack because I confessed no ladies or gentlewomen to be of my opinion; and there they kept me a long time, and because I lay still and did not cry, my lord chancellor and Master Rich took pains to rack me with their own hands till I was nigh dead. Then the lieutenant (of the Tower) caused me to be loosed from the rack. Immediately, I swooned away, and then they recovered me again. After that I sat two long hours reasoning with my lord chancellor upon the bare floor.⁸

As a woman, gently born and already condemned, Anne should have been exempt from such treatment. Anne was so severely tortured that by the end of it her body was broken, all four limbs were dislocated and she was unable to stand. She was eventually returned to Newgate from where, on 16 July 1546, Anne was carried to the site of her execution at Smithfield, sat on a chair in a cart, every movement causing her more pain. She was tied to another chair at the stake, where she was given one more chance to recant and receive a pardon.

She refused.

She died alongside three other Protestants, John Lascels, John Hadlam, who was a tailor, and John Hemley, formerly an Observant friar.

Anne Askew holds the terrible distinction of being one of only two women to have ever been tortured in the Tower of London, the other being Margaret Cheyne, who had been involved in the Pilgrimage of Grace and was also burnt for heresy. Anne died bravely, never revealing her connections at court, thus, perhaps, saving a queen of England from the same fate. She was 25 years old.

On a national level, her death was a consequence of the growing fear that accompanied Henry’s failing health. On a personal level, although Anne’s journey to London had arisen from her marriage troubles, these troubles were always entwined within her own spiritual journey. Anne’s supreme confidence in her faith and her courage under torture deservedly earned her a place in the Protestant martyrology. Her own, first-hand account of her story was edited and published by John Bale and reprinted in John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, ensuring her legacy would pass down through the generations.