On this day in 1533, Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn married in a secret ceremony at Whitehall Palace.
At the time, Henry had not yet legally separated from his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, nor had he received permission from the Pope to marry Anne. As a result, the wedding had to remain hidden from public knowledge. Only a chaplain, two members of Henry’s privy chamber, and one of Anne’s attendants are said to have been present.
The story goes that the officiant asked Henry if he had a licence from the Pope to marry Anne, to which Henry replied that he did – conveniently kept in a secret, safe location. The two exchanged vows in the highest chamber of Whitehall Palace, within the now-demolished Holbein Gate. Imagine standing in that very room today…
The ceremony took place before sunrise, and was such a secret that even Archbishop Cranmer was not informed until at least two weeks later. Writing about it afterwards, he said:
“She was married much about St Paul’s Day last, as the condition thereof doth well appear, by reason she is now somewhat big with child. Notwithstanding it hath been reported throughout a great part of the realm that I married her; which was plainly false, for I myself knew not thereof a fortnight after it was done.”1
The secrecy extended far beyond Cranmer. Even as late as March, Eustace Chapuys, the Imperial ambassador, wrote about rumours of a wedding planned for Easter. Clearly, Henry and Anne’s secret was well-kept.
Was it Bigamy?
As I mentioned earlier, the secrecy of this marriage stemmed from Henry still being legally married to Katherine. But does that mean he committed bigamy? The answer is complicated.
We all know the famous rhyme: Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived. But technically, it is not entirely accurate. It should really be: Annulled, Beheaded, Died, Annulled, Beheaded, Survived. Understanding the difference between a divorce and an annulment is key here.
On the 23rd of May 1533 – four months after the clandestine wedding – Archbishop Cranmer announced the annulment of Henry and Katherine’s marriage. This retroactively nullified their union, meaning that, in Henry’s view, his marriage to Katherine had never existed in the first place. By this logic, he considered himself a single man when he married Anne in January.
So, was it truly bigamy? From a legal standpoint, it depends on whether you accept Henry’s argument. From a moral perspective, it is an entirely different debate.
Henry and Anne’s secret wedding may not have had the grandeur of a royal celebration, but it marked the start of one of history’s most dramatic and tumultuous marriages. Anne’s coronation in June was a lavish display, making up for the understated wedding and cementing the union in the public eye despite the controversies surrounding it.
What do you think – was Henry’s reasoning about his annulment justified, or was this simply clever legal manoeuvring to ensure he got his own way?
- Miscellaneous Writing and Letters of Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury Martyr, p. 246 ↩︎
