Punishments fitting the crime?

Everyone knows about the punishments meted out to lawbreakers in Tudor times. So much so, that the general impression is that all felons were hanged, even if they stole a loaf of bread. It isn’t that simple, though. There were statutes which covered the whole of England, but punishment varied throughout the kingdom. Whereas some Justices would indeed hang a man for stealing a loaf or rabbit to feed his family, others would not.

It is also a myth that many people were racked. There was only one rack in the whole of England and that was in the Tower of London and saved for traitors and heretics. Capital crimes attracted the most horrific punishments, although England never descended to the horrors of the inquisition. Torture was technically illegal unless sanctioned by the monarch. Poisoners were subject to being boiled alive, a law that Henry VIII rescinded. High-born traitors were beheaded. Others were either hanged or hanged, drawn and quartered.

In the reign of Edward I (1272-1307), Richard Puddlicott robbed the royal treasury. He begged Edward to show clemancy and not hang, draw and quarter him. Edward, not known for his mercy, agreed. Puddlicott was hanged until he was dead. Then Edward had him skinned and his hide nailed to the door of Westminster Abbey to warn any others who might try to rob him.

Minor crimes were punished with less ferocity and sometimes with a fitting ‘punishment fits the crime’ sentence. For example a fishmonger who sold tainted fish would be put in the pillory and rotten fish hung round his neck. The Justices might sentence him to stay there from an hour to 24 hours, regardless of the weather. Drunkenness was also punished by a stay in the pillories or stocks, usually situated in the market place. 

Whilst so imprisoned, the malefactors were the constant target of abuse, both verbal and physical. Not just rotten food was aimed at them, but horse dung, bloody animal entrails from the fleshers stalls, anything that could be thrown. It was not unknown for the prisoners to be doused immediately before being released - and not with water. Imagine a drunken roisterer on a frosty February morning, now sober, having endured hours of such abuse, extremely cold and then released but only after being soaked by freezing horse urine. I wonder if that would make our present-day rampagers think twice before re-offending?

The ducking stool was used for alleged witches or nagging wives. If a suspected witch sank, she was innocent, so whatever happened, she was doomed. Any woman found guilty of malicious gossip or false accusation was liable to be punished by the brank or gossip’s bridle. The offender's head was imprisoned in an iron cage with a tongue lever covered in spikes. It was excruciatingly painful, especially as the populace were permitted to beat the woman whilst she wore it. Often, sufferers died. Some media bosses and editors might find that interesting.

Branding was common. The Earl of Somerset in the first days of Edward VI’s reign passed a law that any man out of work for three days was to be branded with a V for Vagrant and sold into slavery for two years. Most Justices thought this too severe and it was not enforced by all courts. Obviously, Somerset would have fallen down in shock at the theory of state benefits. Other brands included a T for thieves, who could also have their ears clipped or a hand amputated, a visible symbol of their crime. Not all murderers were executed. An M brand denoted a murderer – perhaps it depended on the intent of the criminal for there was a crime of ‘Man’s Slaughter’ for unintentional killings.

Those women who committed adultery as well as prostitutes were liable to have their heads shaved and be paraded around the town in a cart. Beatings were common and most towns had a ‘whipping post’, but that was better than being hanged! Beggars were beaten as far as the parish boundaries and cast out.

Clerics were very much involved in the formation of some laws. So much so that self-interest led to the ‘benefit of clergy’ plea, whereby anyone who could recite the first lines of Psalm 150 was given a much lesser punishment, usually a fine. It is interesting to muse on current clerical scandals and think that nothing has changed.

Anne Boleyn - Henry VIII's one true love?

The more I learn about the Tudor period, the more I realise how little I really know. I am happy to report that “A Dangerous Destiny” is progressing satisfactorily. However, as a prequel to the other two Luke Ballard books, I must now go back to the year 1546 and do the requisite research. I am so pleased I chose librarianship as a profession. My training has enabled me to find so much information about the Tudor period in which the books are set. My only regret is that I didn’t think to find a job researching Tudor history when I was working.

I’ve made two interesting discoveries today about Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. The first is that when Henry’s inventory was finally done six months after his death in January 1547, there were eleven items, including large tapestries, that had belonged to Anne Boleyn – ‘The Late Quene’. Some people have wondered whether Henry simply forgot he had them or kept them for a reason. He had given instructions that Anne’s name was never to be mentioned. Many have thought that this is because he believed he was cuckolded and bewitched by her and there is plenty of evidence to back up that theory.

However, I wonder if, after Anne’s death, he might possibly have missed her vivid personality. Jane Seymour was everything that Anne was not. Pale, obedient, never arguing with her royal husband and, dare I say it, boring. It is tempting to speculate on how long she would have lasted had she not died in giving Henry his longed-for son.

Henry was a clever man with a hot temper who was quick to perceive slights where none were intended. Until a few weeks before Anne’s execution, the royal couple were described as being ‘merry together’. When Henry calmed down after the ‘investigation’ into Anne’s behaviour, did he perhaps conclude that Thomas Cromwell had sacrificed the Queen to save his own skin, because there was, in truth, nothing to find?

Being a pragmatic man, Henry might well have decided that there was no point in killing Cromwell, who was an extremely able administrator. So much so, that after Cromwell’s execution in 1540, Henry wished he had him back again. Besides, Henry needed a male child and it was clear to him that Anne was a failure in this field. Jane might – and did – do better. As we know, Anne’s only full-term child was Elizabeth and I like Alison Weir’s theory that Anne’s subsequent pregnancies might have been cut short because of Henry and Anne having blood antigen incompatibility.

The second discovery was that Henry and Anne used honeysuckles and acorns as their private motif. As with most things in the Tudor era, everything had significance. Honeysuckles have long been a symbol of love and devotion and acorns denote fertility, luck and prosperity. It is clear that for a very long time, Henry and Anne were happy together.

My personal opinion is that items such as tapestries are so large there is no way Henry could have ‘forgotten’ about them. I like to think that he kept Anne’s things to remind him of happier times before he became the much-married blood-soaked tyrant that history remembers.