Of all the aspects of Anne Boleyn’s life – her role in the Reformation, her legacy as Elizabeth I’s mother, and her status as England’s first executed anointed queen – it may seem almost trivial to debate the year of her birth. Does it truly matter whether Anne was born in 1501, 1507, or another year entirely, given that her historical significance would remain unchanged? The answer, however, is yes. Determining Anne’s birth year not only enriches our understanding of her life but also sheds light on critical events surrounding her downfall. Anne has been vilified and misrepresented throughout history; thus, it is essential to clarify even the smallest details in her story.

The question of Anne’s age at the time of her execution also intersects with broader debates about why Henry VIII ordered her death. It is often suggested that, like Katherine of Aragon before her, Anne’s inability to produce a male heir sealed her fate. This perception was reinforced by, or perhaps formulated in response to, her miscarriage in January 1536, just four months before her execution. If Anne was born in 1501, this narrative seems plausible, as she would have been 35 in 1536 – near the end of her childbearing years by sixteenth century standards. However, if she was born in 1507, the implications of her death are far more unsettling.

Gareth Russell articulates this argument:

“If she was 28, as one of her stepdaughter’s ladies-in-waiting claimed, then the reasons behind her execution become infinitely more sinister – at 28, Anne Boleyn was still undeniably in her childbearing years. Yes, she would have been at the tail-end of them by Tudor standards, but she would have had at least four or five more years before she was considered infertile, and so the idea that it was just her “failure” to produce a son which led to her death in 1536 suddenly becomes a good deal less convincing and the idea that it was her husband who orchestrated her monstrously unfair death becomes infinitely more likely. However, if she was 35, then she was already practically middle-aged by Tudor standards and it becomes far more likely that the entire reason for her destruction was politics pure and simple, with Anne – and to some extent, perhaps, maybe even her husband – being victims of a savagely brilliant process of character assassination, lies, manufactured hysteria and a ruthless palace coup organised by the King’s chief adviser, Thomas Cromwell.”¹

While Gareth Russell’s argument about Anne’s birth year is compelling, I must partly disagree with his tentative characterisation of Henry VIII as a “victim” of Thomas Cromwell. Ultimately, it was Henry who held the power and authority to fabricate Anne’s crimes and order her execution. Cromwell may have been a significant influence, but as King of England – a monarch who defied the Pope and established his own church to exert his will – Henry was unlikely to be coerced into a decision as consequential as the execution of his wife. Nonetheless, Russell’s points regarding Anne’s birth year, particularly the possibility of 1507, merit closer examination.

In his article, Russell highlights the limitations of the evidence supporting 1501 as Anne’s birth year. He notes that “there are only two sources from Anne’s lifetime (or thereabouts) which specifically mention her age, and neither of them support such confidence in 1501 being the date of Anne’s birth.”² One such source is Jane Dormer, who claimed that Anne was “not yet twenty-nine years of age” at the time of her execution.³ Another is William Camden, who wrote that Anne, the mother of Queen Elizabeth I, was born in 1507.⁴ Russell highlights the reliability of Camden’s work, noting that Camden had access to an extensive range of sources, including records likely documenting Anne’s birth that might be lost to us now. As Camden began writing four years after Elizabeth’s death, it is plausible that his information about Elizabeth’s mother was derived from credible and relatively contemporary records.

The argument for Anne Boleyn’s birth being in 1507 becomes increasingly persuasive upon closer consideration. Adam Pennington observes that “Anne Boleyn had many enemies. There were plenty of people who wanted her to fall, people who did not want her to be queen, and yet, Anne’s age is never mentioned as a barrier in her marriage to King Henry VIII, even by her detractors.”⁵ This is a particularly interesting observation, one that I had not fully considered until encountering his analysis.

If Anne had been born in 1501, making her 32 at the time of her marriage to Henry, it is reasonable to expect that questions about her ability to bear healthy children would have surfaced, especially given the Tudor emphasis on fertility and succession. Comparatively, she would have been over a decade older than her cousin Katheryn Howard, who was possibly as young as 17 when she married Henry, and five years older than her successor, Jane Seymour. Would Henry – a monarch deeply invested in securing a male heir – have realistically considered marrying a woman of such an advanced age by Tudor standards?

One crucial consideration is that Henry VIII did not simply decide to marry Anne Boleyn in 1533; their courtship spanned seven years. If we accept the assumption that Anne was born in 1501, she would have been 25 at the beginning of their courtship – two years younger than Jane Seymour at the time of her marriage to Henry and only a year older than Henry’s fourth wife, Anna of Cleves. It is important to remember that Henry could not have predicted the annulment process with Katherine of Aragon would extend over such an extraordinary length of time.

By the time the annulment was finalised, and Henry had declared himself Supreme Head of the Church of England, seven years had passed. However, abandoning Anne for a younger woman at that stage would have risked significant reputational damage, particularly given his repeated public affirmations of love and commitment to her. It seems plausible that Henry’s affection, coupled with his determination to fulfil his promise of marriage, outweighed any potential concerns about her age. Moreover, as a powerful monarch, Henry could have easily suppressed any critical remarks regarding Anne’s suitability, including speculation about her age. An example of this would be the creation of both The Act of Supremacy and The Act of Succession, legal documents intended to enforce Anne’s legitimacy as queen despite the criticism from his people. This context might explain the lack of contemporary accounts focusing on her age, as noted by Pennington. Perhaps Henry was not worried about marrying a 32-year-old woman, but more focused on fulfilling his commitment to the 25-year-old girl he had fallen in love with years earlier.

Of course, much of this is conjecture, and even seemingly factual evidence can be subject to interpretation. One relevant artefact is a letter written in French by a young Anne Boleyn to her father while she was at the court of Margaret of Austria.

The letter reads:

“Sir, – I understand by your letter that you desire that I shall be a worthy woman when I come to the Court and you inform me that the Queen will take the trouble to converse with me, which rejoices me much to think of talking with a person so wise and worthy. This will make me have greater desire to continue to speak French well and also spell, especially because you have so enjoined it on me, and with my own hand I inform you that I will observe it the best I can. Sir, I beg you to excuse me if my letter is badly written, for I assure you that the orthography is from my own understanding alone, while the others were only written by my hand, and Semmonet tells me the letter but waits so that I may do so myself, for fear that it shall not be known unless I acquaint you, and I pray you that the light of [?] may not be allowed to drive away the will which you say you have to help me, for it seems to me that you are sure [??] you can, if you please, make me a declaration of your word, and concerning me be certain that there shall be neither [??] nor ingratitude which might check or efface my affection, which is determined to [?] as much unless it shall please you to order me, and I promise you that my love is based on such great strength that it will never grow less, and I will make an end to my [?] after having commended myself right humbly to your good grace. Written at [? Veure] by Your very humble and very obedient daughter, Anna de Boullan.”⁶

The letter raises an important question: could a six-year-old Anne, imagining she was born in 1507, have written with such vocabulary and structure? Critics argue this is unlikely, suggesting it points to an older Anne and therefore a 1501 birth date. However, such arguments risk applying modern assumptions to historical contexts.

It is well-documented that Elizabeth I, Anne’s daughter, displayed exceptional intelligence from an early age, perhaps reflecting inherited traits. While Elizabeth benefited from a royal education while her mother was alive, it is entirely possible that Anne’s intellectual capabilities were similarly advanced for her time. The letter’s numerous mistakes and somewhat clumsy writing leave room for the possibility that it was indeed written by a young child. In the sixteenth century, children were educated differently and held to different standards than today. Judging Anne’s abilities against contemporary benchmarks may underestimate what a precocious six-year-old of her era could achieve.

Writing this has almost convinced me that Anne was born in 1507 – there is significant evidence to support such a conclusion. However, I must admit that 1501 still feels right. While this is admittedly a subjective view, there is also compelling evidence pointing towards 1501 as the more plausible birth year.

One of the strongest arguments for 1501 being Anne’s birth year is her service overseas. In 1513, she was sent to the court of Margaret of Austria to serve as a lady-in-waiting. If Anne were born in 1507, she would have been only six years old – a remarkably young age to travel abroad alone, especially for such a prestigious position. By contrast, if Anne were born in 1501, she would have been twelve, a far more reasonable age for a young girl to begin such a journey.

Additionally, in 1514, Anne moved from the Netherlands to France to serve Mary Tudor, Henry VIII’s sister. It seems implausible that a seven-year-old would have been selected for this role, as it would have required a high degree of maturity and sophistication. Claire Ridgway echoes this sentiment, arguing that she does “not believe that a girl of 6/7 would have been chosen to serve these important women,” referring to Mary Tudor and Queen Claude of France.⁷

Further support for the 1501 date comes from a letter Thomas Boleyn, Anne’s father, wrote to Thomas Cromwell in 1536, in which he stated that his wife, Elizabeth, had given him a child every year. If Thomas and Elizabeth married around 1498 – as suggested by Elizabeth’s jointure being settled in 1501 – then it is reasonable to assume all five of the Boleyn children were born before 1505. This timeline effectively eliminates the possibility of a 1507 birth year for Anne.

Moreover, historical records suggest that the appropriate age for a demoiselle d’honneur at Margaret of Austria’s court was approximately thirteen or fourteen. If Anne was born in 1501, she would have been just shy of this age, making her appointment plausible.⁸ By contrast, a seven-year-old would have been far too young for such a role, further solidifying the likelihood of a 1501 birth date. This would mean that the letter pictured above was indeed written by a twelve-year-old Anne.

In conclusion, I can appreciate the reasoning and evidence supporting both proposed birth years for Anne Boleyn. Each argument presents compelling insights, and it is fascinating how even this seemingly small detail can spark such rich debate. However, I remain firmly convinced that Anne was born in 1501. This conclusion aligns most convincingly with the available evidence and the broader context of her early life and appointments.

That said, I eagerly await the day when new evidence might emerge and finally settle the question. One might wonder, however, would such a resolution take away the intellectual intrigue and enjoyment of debating this historical mystery?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on Anne’s birth year in the comments. Which side of the debate do you find most compelling?

1. Russell, Gareth. “The Age of Anne Boleyn.” Confessions of a Ci-Devant, April 6, 2010. https://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/2010/04/age-of-anne-boleyn.html
   ↩︎
2. IBID ↩︎
3. Clifford, Henry. The Life of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria (Transcribed by Canon E.E. Estcourt and edited by Rev. Joseph Stevenson). London: Burns and Oates Limited, 1887, p. 80 ↩︎
4. Camden, William. Annales Rerum Anglicarum et Hibernicarum regnante Elizabetha ad annum salutis M.D.L XXXIX, 1615, p. 2 ↩︎
5. Pennington, Adam. “Why 1507 is More Logical.” Instagram, December 1, 2024. https://www.instagram.com/p/DDDpbv4I4wY/?igsh=MXBvNTM2NnN2M2tvMg== ↩︎
6. Sergeant, Philip W. The Life of Anne Boleyn, 1923, pp. 17-18
   ↩︎
7. Ridgway, Claire. “Anne Boleyn’s Background and Birth.” The Anne Boleyn Files, July 15, 2014. https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/anne-boleyns-birth/.
   ↩︎
8. Paget, Hugh. The Youth of Anne Boleyn, 1981, Historical Research, 54: p. 166 ↩︎