This is t he story of Jane Boleyn, the wife of George Boleyn, Anne Boleyn's brother. Jane managed to survive the scandal that brought down Anne Boleyn (and Jane's husband), but she was not so lucky the second time around when she was caught enabling the infidelities of Henry VIII's fifth wife, Catherine Howard. A truly fascinating story of someone who was intimately connected to the royal family by ties of service and marriage, this was a well researched and well written book. Recommended. ( )

Jane Bolyen was the much maligned sister-in-law of Anne Boleyn. History has not been kind in describing her betrayal of Anne and George Boleyn (Jane's husband and Anne's brother.) Fox tried to write what at first appeared to be a well-researched document, yet in many ways it had a novel-like quality about it.

The portrayal of Jane was sensitive and kinder than other accounts. The descriptions of court politics and the reality of a back-stabbing vipers nest attest to the fact that Jane was indeed a victim of Henry VIII's need to rid himself of Anne.

Years later as political intrigue again surfaced when foolish Catherine Howard betrayed Henry, Jane's testimony was a factor in sending pretty Catherine's head to the chopping block. Alas, this time, Jane's testimony led to her own demise and she paid the price with death.

I can recommend this book to those who are, like me, obsessed with the Tudors. But, I only give the book three stars, primarily because much of Fox's writing is speculation and thus I found it very frustrating when repeatedly the sentences started with..."We don't actually know if Jane"...."We can only surmise that Jane"......."Perhaps Jane"...."Most likely Jane"..."We believe that Jane".............

You've heard of Anne Boleyn, you've heard of Mary Boleyn The Other Boleyn Girl, but have you heard of Jane Boleyn? (Maybe--if you're a fan of 'The Tudors.') Jane Parker was the wife and widow of George Boleyn, who was beheaded for treason, accused of having slept with his sister Anne. Part of her "infamy" is that she gave evidence that helped to convict her husband and four other men, saying that he had told her that the king was unable to perform sexually. But the greater part comes later. With Cromwell's help, Jane was able to spring back from financial ruin and public shame. She retained a portion of her jointure lands and remained a member of the ladies-in-waiting for the next three queens (Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, and Katherine Howard). But as lady of the bedchamber to Katherine, she obviously knew of the young queen's adultery and was even perhaps an accomplice. Like her husband, the "infamous Lady Rocheford" ended up with her head on the block.

This biography is relatively sympathetic to Jane, who seems to have been caught in a double bind in the case of Katherine Howard. She could say nothing or deny everything, but if she confessed what she knew, she would be guilty of not revealing the information sooner. While not the exciting read that it promised to be (or maybe I've just read too much about the Tudors), Fox does create a sense of what the court must have been like for noblewomen trying to please fathers, uncles, husbands, counselors, kings, and queens. I have to agree, however, with other LT readers who complain about Fox's admittedly unfounded speculations and that much of the filler is rehashed material. ( )

I thought this was a very interesting addition to writings about Henry VIII's reign. It probably wouldn't interest too many other people, but I recommend it to students of the Tudor era.

The great thing about biographies of minor characters with little documentation is that it often allows the author to talk more about the era and the typical life of a person of that station. It can make a wonderful supplement to the more focussed biographies of major actors. I learned more about the extended Boleyn family, and of course, Jane's birth family, the Parkers, than I have from any biography about Anne Boleyn.

Fox seems to have done a lot of research, and has extensive notes, but the lack of information available about Jane necessarily results in a lot of speculation. One may feel that it was unnecessary to speculate on whether or not Jane sympathized with Margaret More Roper's grief at her father's death, but I think this is largely a matter of taste. It seems to me that Fox has made it fairly clear when she is speculating.

Fox argues in her epilog that Jane was innocent of plotting against her husband and sister-in-law, George and Anne Boleyn, but guilty in the follies of Catherine Howard. She argues in the latter case that Jane may have gotten caught up - first carrying out fairly innocuous tasks for Catherine which escalated. She may have felt that it was too risky to either defy Catherine or accuse her to her doting husband. Further, she was a professional courtier and unwilling to give up her place.

In the case of Anne and George, there are several threads that get confused. Fox argues that there is no evidence, prior to the fall of the Boleyns, that Jane was on bad terms with her husband or her in-laws. Financially, she was better off as a wife and sister-in-law of the Queen than a widow. These cases are fairly well made, although I'm open to arguments to the contrary. Fox argues that her involvement in their downfall was exaggerated to shift some of the blame from Henry VIII. One can see why blaming Henry for his wife's death was a delicate subject, especially in the reign of Elizabeth I, but I'm not convinced that anyone really saw Jane as Iago to Henry's Othello, even in earlier centuries. Jane's testimony would not have been relevant in the deaths of the other four men who were executed.

Further, in the text, but not so much in the epilog, Fox seems to be suggesting that under questioning, Jane would have said anything she could to help build the case against Anne and George. She was only concerned with her own survival. Fox seems to be assuming that what Jane said, or was alleged to have said, was the truth, a somewhat dubious assumption given that some of the other testimony was definitely false. That is certainly not a vile as plotting to destroy them, but not precisely admirable either. Of course it also leaves the possibility, which Fox does not address, that the reason that few witnesses were asked to testify is because either the prosecution was afraid that they would be unable to lie when face to face with Anne and George, or that they did not actually say the things that they were alleged to have said.

So I have some cavils, but a very interesting addition to literature about this period and these people. ( )

Tons of research went into this work--full of footnotes. Believes Jane was not a leading cause in the execution of her brother George and sister-in-law Anne, 2nd wife of Henry VIII. No evidence in the trial. Jane loved the court life and survived the horror of Anne's death and kept her place in court. Jane did help Catherine in her infidelities but Fox tries to show she was a "servant" and had to do what she was told to keep her place. And the vilification of Jane comes after the Catherine episode, not before. Does show how whole families schemed for places in court and how the women were used as pawns for the men to have power and riches. ( )