given rise to innumerable controversies among historians; the question
not being even to this hour satisfactorily decided as to whether they
were solemnized in the month of _November_, 1532, or in that of
_January_, 1533. Hall,[4] Holinshed,[5] and Grafton, whose authority
several of our more modern historians[6] have followed, place it on the
14th of November, 1532, the Feast Day of St. Erkenwald; but Stow[7]
informs us, that it was celebrated on the 25th of January 1533; and his
assertion bears considerable weight, being corroborated by a letter from
Archbishop Cranmer, dated "the xvij daye of June," 1533, from his "manor
of Croydon," to Hawkyns, the embassador at the emperor's court. In this
letter the prelate says, "she was marid muche about _St. Paules daye_
last, as the condicion thereof dothe well appere by reason she ys now
sumwhat bygg with chylde."[8] This statement, coming as it does from so
authentic a source, and coinciding with the accounts of Stow, Wyatt,[9]
and Godwin[10] may, we think, be regarded as the most correct. Her
marriage was not made known until the following Easter, when it was
publicly proclaimed, and preparations made for her coronation, which was
conducted with extraordinary magnificence in Whitsuntide. Her becoming
pregnant soon after her marriage "gave great satisfaction to the king,
and was regarded by the people as a strong proof of the queen's former
modesty and virtue."[11] This latter circumstance, however, has not met
with that consideration among historians which it appears to merit; for
we must remember that Elizabeth was born on the 7th of the following
September, an event, which would perhaps rather tend to confirm the
opinion of Hall, in contradiction to that of Stow, if, indeed, Anne had
been proof against the advances of Henry, previous to their marriage,
which some writers have doubted.

[4] Hall's "Chronicle," p. 794. edit. 1809.