Notorious: Anne Boleyn and the Great Tudor Hoax

by Hayley Nolan

How did a young housemaid manage to catapult herself into the centre of Henry VIII's divorce, going head-to-head with Anne Boleyn? And why was the sordid truth behind her story erased? Historian Hayley Nolan uncovers the secrets of the most astounding tale in Tudor history.

She destroyed Anne Boleyn,
conned Henry VIII,
and changed the course of history forever.

Meet the fearless young woman who is the missing piece in one of history's most infamous tales.

Elizabeth Barton's remarkable rise from poverty to celebrity stunned the Tudor court. As the most notorious influencer of her day, she was adored by the public and had the most formidable Tudor power players under her spell - until she was silenced.

But was the girl a deluded fantasist, a cold-hearted con artist, or was she the victim of her corrupt celebrity managers?

Anne Boleyn certainly thought so, which is why she tried to save the girl who had set out to ruin her.

Hayley Nolan breathes life into a story that has been relegated to the footnotes of the dramatic rise and fall of Elizabeth Barton. Her thrilling story is one of prophecy, fame, manipulation and deceit – and shows what's at stake when everything comes crashing down within the confines of the ruthless court of Henry VIII.

Genres: Nonfiction, History

Kindle Edition

Expected publication August 27, 2026

Reviews

[Susannah · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wish that I could start this review by listing the positives of this book before the negatives, however I can’t because there aren’t any. I had many issues with Nolan’s first book so my expectations were not high, but this book is even worse which I did not think possible. There are so many issues here, which I have listed below (this is the short version as my original response to this was over 3,000 words) and I think these are mainly caused by trying to learn how to write history from the top down, therefore lacking breadth and depth of knowledge of the period and how to interrogate sources and reach balanced conclusions and a basic lack of respect for the people Nolan is writing about. This will come across as harsh, however I feel strongly about this and think it is important otherwise people might read this and think it is an accurate representation of the past and that this is the way history should be written.

Main Issues

Use of Sources - the primary sources used are all ones that wanted to discredit Barton, it is not possible to read the original books written by her supporters as Nolan claims to have done in the introduction as these were destroyed. The closest we can get is ‘quotes’ in a sermon preached against her, the Act of Attainder and a ‘perambulation’ or history of Kent written in 1570 by William Lambarde (not Edward Thwaites as is incorrectly stated in this book) which appears to have used a copy of an early pamphlet about Barton that Lambarde claims was written by Edward Thwaites. Even L. E. Whatmore who transcribed the sermon in 1943 pointed to the ‘invective, threats, half-truth, calumny and vulgarity’ to highlight that these sources should not be trusted, they are propaganda to justify execution for treason without trial. Nolan does not tell the reader this and these sources are not properly investigated, just taken at face value. The fact that they are ‘official’ does not make them true, also Cranmer writing something in a letter does not make it true. So many excellent secondary sources on Barton were not used (Diane Watt, Naomi Baker, Nancy Bradley Warren) so there is no discussion of historiography and the various debates surrounding Barton (of which the question of if she was a fraud is the least interesting) such as how influential she was, why was she considered such a threat, her similarity to other ‘holy maids’. It would even have been more interesting to compare the downfall of Barton and Boleyn as they were both engineered by Cromwell and used very similar tactics. Instead we get a salacious story about Barton, nothing about this is ‘accurate, balanced and fair’, it is the opposite. It does not make sense to point out how Boleyn was the victim of a smear campaign, but to take the smear campaign against Barton at face value, these are two sides of the same coin.

Lack of knowledge and understanding - little understanding of religion and society of the time is shown or what people’s lives were like beyond reductive statements about disease and hunger etc. Some thoughts are put in people’s heads, but these are bizarre things about being envious (this is why Barton had it in for Boleyn, apparently) and wanting to be famous and many things are invented to justify the events made up by Cromwell e.g. Barton’s ‘relationship’ with Bocking (Whatmore states that despite searching, there is no evidence of Barton’s sexual impropriety). Religious terms are not used correctly, distinctions are made between Protestants and Catholics which is impossible at this time, with the Catholic Church being called ‘puritanical’ at one point which is all kinds of wrong. The result of this is showing disrespect for the subjects of this book, just passing on dubious information. Historians should show basic respect for their subjects, even if you don’t agree with the things they did or believed. Barton and her supporters were prepared to die not to get famous, but because they had strong beliefs, values and convictions. Also, we don’t know the timeline of many of Barton’s prophecies, which Nolan knows because she buried this information in a footnote, but this does not prevent her from making up a timeline to ‘prove’ her theories. Many things are presented as fact which are debated e.g. how much influence Barton had, Nolan claims even the Pope and Papal Legate were influenced, but this is contradicted by other evidence given to Cromwell. The attainder and sermon need to present her as dangerous because they are going to execute her and need reasons for this, again, this does not make it true.

Outlandish Theories - this book is full of unsubstantiated theories which have come from either twisting evidence, leaving out important parts or context of sources, cherry picking quotes from sources, failures of logic and reasoning or over analysing. I will mention three here. This is not an issue of difference of opinions, all historians have to formulate opinions and I don’t always agree (even with Eric Ives), but it has to be a sound argument, based on real, reliable evidence that has been properly evaluated, this does not happen here. I think these theories are presented as a desperate attempt to say something different for the sake of it because this topic has been done to death, there is nothing original to say.

Cromwell plotted Boleyn’s downfall due to the poor law and Boleyn trying set up a rival council to the Privy Council - nothing could rival the Privy Council and it was the king’s council not Cromwell’s and if she were trying to do this it would have been treason anyway so this shows flawed reasoning as well as lack of evidence and Cromwell almost certainly drafted or commissioned the drafting of the poor law. There is a whole section of the book stating that if the poor law council was successful at administering the Poor Law they would take on more tasks and merge with the Privy Council with no citations - where is the evidence or precedent? Cromwell was not scared of council reform having instigated most of it himself.

The Defence of Peace, published in English in 1535 was a threat to Cromwell - in fact this was helpful to Cromwell because it was anti-clerical and supported the Supremacy Act that he had drafted and passed in 1534 which is why he paid for it to be translated and published. Nolan claims the book would ‘expose his corrupt dealings’ - dissolving monasteries to use the money (something he fell out with Boleyn over), but in fact the book supports this, saying that church land belongs to the secular ruler, the book argues against simony (selling church offices), which Cromwell was not doing - how could a book which was written in 1324 expose anything about Cromwell personally? Even the letter from Chapuys which mentions this book and Boleyn also mentioned the King’s Council which includes Cromwell and says that Cromwell was showing books to the ‘Scotch ambassador’. Also, it is worth pointing out that it is not the books which Chapuys says will be ‘urged on’ by ‘the Lady and his Council’ it is the ‘administration of their [the church’s] temporal goods’ which Chapuys says will be done ‘as well on account of his [Henry VIII] hatred for churchmen as from covetousness’. Nolan also misrepresents a letter from Jasper Fyloll to Cromwell where he mentions four ‘foreign printed books’ containing errors which the monks at the Charterhouse have which Cromwell then orders to be removed, Nolan suggests that he is secretly happy that the monks rejected The Defence of Peace and does not mention it by name in his subsequent orders so that he could pretend he is not talking about this book. The mental gymnastics needed to come to this ludicrous ‘conclusion’ is staggering. It also involves leaving out parts of the source which clearly describe The Defence of Peace as an English book and the parts where the focus is clearly on reforming the monks and making them accept Henry VIII as head of the church, this is evidence of Cromwell using Defence of the Peace to further the aims of the Supremacy Act, but the source is twisted beyond recognition, the letter does not show any ‘outrage’ that The Defence of Peace was accepted willingly, in fact the issue is that the monks returned the books (which is why Fyloll suggests to Cromwell that this ‘is good matter to lay to them at the time when your pleasure shall be to visit them’.) Even if Nolan’s claims were true they would be illogical since Cromwell has been told that the monks have returned The Defence of Peace so would not have them to take away. It is also nonsense to suggest Cromwell wanted to suppress this book when he put so much effort into getting every man in England to swear the oath of succession, confirming Henry VIII as head of the English church and rejecting papal authority (this is all over the Letters and Papers for 1535 with bishops writing to Cromwell personally to update him on what they are doing to execute the commands of the act - this is all available online), refusal to swear was treason leading to the executions of More and Fisher.

Wolsey’s downfall - Nolan claims to have ended this debate blaming the influence of Barton, except there is no evidence of this due to not knowing timelines (this is important here as Wolsey fell from favour in 1529 and died in 1530 and the first prophecy that Henry would die a villain’s death - which Henry ignored - was made sometime between 1528 and 1530) and other historians have access to these sources and do not consider that they answer these questions, probably for the reasons I stated above and Nolan does not properly consider other arguments e.g. foreign policy or doctrinal issues. Nolan does not even mention Barton in her last book on Anne Boleyn, this is probably because other historians mention her only briefly because in the grand scheme of things Barton’s prophecies are not that important.

Writing - the writing is really bad, there is so much repetition; the word ‘hallowed’ is used far too often and at one point ‘hallowed and holy’! I get Nolan is trying to write this like a novel/thriller/story so like ‘critical fabulation’ where you fill in the gaps in the evidence and try to imagine how someone would have thought or felt. However, to do this properly you need to make it clear to the reader what you have evidence for and what you don’t and what you have used to reconstruct people’s lives/thoughts/feelings - where has this material come from? What is it based on? This book is only based on fanciful stories told about Barton by people who wanted to kill her and the rest is just made up nonsense, it reads like bad historical fiction and I wonder how much was lifted from Nolan’s unpublished novel about Boleyn ‘A most rebellious queen’. The irony is that Nolan has accused others of just repeating lies about Boleyn and here she is doing it to Barton! This is just monologue where it should be dialogue and one person’s (often false) conclusions and does not make for a good reading experience.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I rated this 3.5 out of 5.

I forget what I was doing recently; it must have been listening to a podcast, but I remember thinking that I wish there was something written for popular audiences on Elizabeth Barton, the Maid of Kent. She kept cropping up in things that I was reading, and I wanted to learn more about her. That is when I stumbled upon Nolan's work.

Nolan clearly did a lot of work in the primary source material to extract Elizabeth Barton's story from the archives. After reading this book, I feel that I have a very good sense of who Barton was as a person and what drove her. I also found the way that Nolan framed the book as a biography of Barton intermingled with her impact on the King's Great Matter really interesting narratively speaking. And while I did enjoy Nolan's writing throughout the book, it did feel a bit like a fictional recounting rather than a historical one. For instance, Nolan's descriptions of how Barton (or even Anne Boleyn) felt due to the events that were unfolding came across as a bit of conjecture. While that is perfectly natural to do when examining figures from history, I do feel that there were some periods where objectivity was lost.

I also felt like, in an attempt to highlight Barton's power during this time, due to cultural norms in religious practice, Nolan lost some of the nuance in all of the characters at play. For example, Nolan explores the likely contact of Catherine of Aragon and Elizabeth Barton through the intermediary of the Marchioness of Exeter. To me, it felt that the prophecy that Barton had about Mary becoming Queen was a bit overplayed in describing Catherine's motives during the divorce proceedings. If I understand the time frame correctly, this information came to Catherine after she had already exhibited a strong resolve not to let the divorce move forward. While I do think that religious beliefs and Barton's appearance to be in communication with the divine may have reinforced people's actions, I do not think that they produced them.

The discussion of Anne Boleyn and her family was also a bit odd at times. While I greatly appreciate that Thomas Boleyn was not portrayed as a schemer trying to get his daughters into the King's bed, there were times in the narrative where it felt like Nolan was insinuating that he was throwing a tantrum about how things were going. Obviously, no one was quite happy with the turn of events, such that Henry wanted to marry Anne. Given the evidence that she returned to Hever in the hopes his advances would pass, it's clear that Anne wasn't keen on the idea, and everyone knew the danger that they were in if it didn't work out. While I think Nolan did a good job of discussing the nuanced feelings that everyone had in this situation, there were a few times when it felt overplayed.

One area where I wish there had been more exploration was in Nolan's argument that the destruction of Elizabeth Barton helped facilitate the fall of Anne Boleyn. While I could see the dots Nolan was trying to connect, I had a hard time believing that Anne felt a sense of guilt in this situation. This goes back to the earlier idea of writing about emotions that are not entirely clear from the sources.

I have very mixed feelings about this book. While it was incredibly well researched and fabulously written, it made me feel slightly uneasy with the assertions that were being made in the text. I would, however, HIGHLY recommend this book if you are a lover of Tudor history. Although you may not agree with everything in the text, it is both a great exploration of Elizabeth Barton's life and a good exploration of Anne Boleyn's religious beliefs.

I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.

CONTENT WARNINGS
Graphic: Death, Emotional abuse, Infidelity, Misogyny, Toxic relationship, Toxic friendship
Moderate: Child death, Miscarriage, Sexual violence, Violence, Pregnancy, Pandemic/Epidemic

[Janine · Rating 5 out of 5]

This must be the year for Anne Boleyn as several fiction books have published or will be publishing this year (The Beheading Game, Henry Tudor Must Die, and The House of Boleyn - which I’ve reviewed; and then I discovered in my TBR pile, Hunting the Falcon: Henry VIII Anne Boleyn and the Marriage that Shock Europe). So when I saw this book (my thanks to NetGalley and St. Martin’s Press) I was more than intrigued as it offered new thoughts and information on this tumultuous event in world history.

I had heard about Elizabeth Barton through a recent fictional novel (The Lost Book of Elizabeth Barton) but hadn’t realized how powerful she was in her time. She was known then as The Holy Maid of Kent and then at her downfall as The Mad Maid of Kent. She was akin to a 21st C influencer during the time when Henry was looking for annulment. Her pronunciations against the marriage of Anne and Henry lay in preserving Catholicism against the new believers such as Anne that no longer held with Catholic tenets.

Nolan presents such interesting facts and information to light that I was not aware of - I’ve read a lot about this particular period in British history but I’m no historian so what I’ve learned has stayed pretty much to the basics. In bringing Barton’s predictions to light Nolan shows what the people at that time believed. They still were invested in Catherine as queen and Catholicism and adored Barton believing in her piety - there was no internet around to refute or confirm this. Anne’s image suffered greatly from Barton’s pronouncements which helped delay the marriage Nolan posits.

So who was Elizabeth Barton? A crazy fantasist, a fanatic, a con artist or a victim of celebrity managers? This is not necessarily easy to tell but one thing that comes across strongly in this book is that Henry and his minions wanted her gone. In 1533 she was arrested and under duress confessed she lied. She was hung in 1534 - though interestingly she is venerated in a few Anglican churches today. As Nolan notes Anne did not escape Barton - within two years of Barton’s death she was beheaded more because Nolan posits that Henry didn’t want to deal with another stubborn wife.

Enjoyed this book and its additional take on the Anne -Henry story.

[Jen Burrows · Rating 2 out of 5]

The central idea behind Notorious is a compelling one. History has a habit of reducing women to archetypes, and revisiting the stories of some of its most infamous female figures feels like fertile ground for a thoughtful exploration of myth, reputation and power.

Nolan's central argument that the truth is often more complicated than the stories we've inherited makes a worthwhile premise, but the book seems oddly unwilling to apply the same scepticism to its own narrative. Historical sources are frequently treated as reliable when they support the author's interpretation, while contradictory evidence is waved away. The result is a book that claims to embrace ambiguity whilst often steering the reader quite firmly towards its preferred conclusions.

The writing style didn't help. Every chapter is packed with sensational language and a relentless stream of semi-rhetorical questions. It creates a strange tension between certainty and uncertainty that never quite resolves; you feel as if you are being nudged towards a particular viewpoint whilst being told that no one can ever really know what happened.

That's not to say Notorious is without merit. The women featured are fascinating, and there were several stories I knew little about beforehand. The book certainly succeeds in highlighting how historical reputations are constructed and manipulated over time. I just wish it had trusted the material more and relied less on dramatic flourishes and speculative leaps.

*Thank you to Netgalley for the arc in exchange for an honest review*

[Sarah Kimberley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thank you so much to Bloomsbury for kindly sending me a proof of Nolan’s latest work. A powerful piece of women’s history, working the formidable nun of Kent, Elizabeth Barton, into the already well established and equally tumultuous narrative of Anne Boleyn’s rise and fall.
In the highly charged atmosphere of Tudor England, an illiterate teenage domestic servant briefly became the most politically dangerous woman in the kingdom. Once relegated to a tragic footnote of the English Reformation, Nolan now brings her blazing into the picture. Barton was both terrifying yet pitiful. While I absolutely loved the intensity of her and her scheming, I found the speculative emotion throughout the book a little distracting. We do not know for certain how these people thought and how they felt, so the psychological conjecture crossed the line a bit for me. Also to make Elizabeth Barton a formidable "head-to-head" rival to Anne Boleyn, Nolan occasionally simplifies the incredibly complex, multi-layered politics of the Henrician court.
It really wasn’t that straight forward, but I commend Nolan for exploring this possibility.
Thank you Hayley for completely shifting the narrative scale by centering the entire book around Elizabeth. You get a deep, vivid exploration of Barton's actual life, and she is such a deeply fascinating part of the reformation. Framing Elizabeth and Anne as two distinct women caught on opposing sides of a brutal, structural game of survival was brilliant. There are a lot of strengths in this book and I was very entertained.

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Notorious: Anne Boleyn and the Great Tudor Hoax by Hayley Nolan is an entertaining non-fiction and history book that highlights a different angle on the pivotal time. Period of English history involving Anne Boleyn.

This was an entertaining read, which highlighted Elizabeth Barton, a peasant girl/nun who was a large hurdle in the long journey of King Henry VIII marrying and installing Anne as his second queen.

Ms. Nolan presents an interesting and dramatic story involving Barton and the role that she played,as well as the opposing factors played, using her as a pawn to serve their own purposes. The drama that the author brings to this convoluted and heightened series of events, makes this book a quick read.

The only caveat that I have after reading this book, is that there are a fair amount of sources that the author uses that may potentially add a bias to the story. Other than that, I enjoyed reading more on this specific aspect of English history.

3.5/5 stars

Thank you NG and St. Martin’s Press for this wonderful arc and in return I am submitting my unbiased and voluntary review and opinion.

I am posting this review to my GR and Bookbub accounts immediately and will post it to my Amazon, Instagram, and B&N accounts upon publication on 12/1/26.

[BonniePB · Rating 2 out of 5]

⭐⭐.5 - Faulty
As far as history books go, Notorious isn’t a very long read; the actual narrative is about 231 pages with 40 or so of cited sources. Despite the short length, I was not able to fully engage with Nolan’s presentation of Elizabeth Barton, whom I knew nothing about (and still don’t). The way the book is written and structured was strange. On one hand, it felt like some kind of dense fiction novel. On the other hand, I felt like I was dropped into the middle of a much longer history book without reading the entire first half.

The book also has an excessive amount of paraphrasing from its sources without much added insight. Nolan intended readers to make their own conclusions about Barton and Boleyn’s situation, but I needed more context and unbiased interpretation of the source materials to do that. Ultimately, this book didn't work at all for me.

I might still recommend it to anyone with an interest in Barton, provided you already know all about her.

Thanks to St. Martin’s Press for the eARC via NetGalley.