I think it's commendable to make a re-evaluation of Lady Rochford, but I'm not convinced this is 'the true story of the infamous Lady Rochford'.

The way I see it, Lady Rochford was a victim and terrorised into making the accusations. That wouldn't have been too hard since had she been implicated along with her husband in a frame-up she would have been convicted of treason and very possibly burned alive (and possibly threatened with all sorts of other horrendous tortures beforehand).

Having sold her soul to the powers-that-be, there'd be every reason for them to keep their claws dug in and keep her on as an 'asset'. Lady Rochford would certainly prove useful.

IMO this offers the best explanation of how Lady Rochford would have been able to maintain a position at court. With minimal income (£50 p.a.), and a ruined name as widow of a convicted traitor, it is hard to account for how else she might have enjoyed this royal favour. I'm not at all convinced that 'sheer determination' on her part alone could have been sufficient to regain royal favour. It would take a lot to overcome the fact she'd be a severe embarrassment at court as a reminder of the incestuous cuckolding of Henry (if the accusations were to be believed). Hence Henry would have to have pretty good reason to tolerate her as a lady-in-waiting - even if he knew the accusations were fabricated.

(That in itself I think is sufficient to show that Henry knew those accusations were false - it would have been utterly repugnant to him to have despoiled the court with a reminder of such an abomination against the religious ideals he held).

Of course it would be valuable to have someone like this as a lady-in-waiting to the new queens. Someone who was completely in the power of the authorities, who would spy and report back, and would say and do pretty much anything commanded of her. She of course plays her role in attesting to the non-consummation of Henry's marriage to Anne of Cleves.

With Catherine Howard, she may well have been embroiled in a scheme to frame Catherine - and it was perhaps then convenient to terminate this asset - she knew too much and perhaps there'd be little or no mileage left in her. Caught in the web of a deceit she had helped spin, and facing an execution for treason that she had damned herself with perjuries to avoid all those years earlier, poor Lady Rochford probably did break and become insane. Having lost her senses, and given what she knew, there'd be every reason to take the extraordinary expedient of amending the law to allow for her execution and silence her for good.

Lady Rochford strikes me as a pitiful tragic weak character who was a victim, and tormented by the price she had to pay to save herself - eventually only to discover that selling her soul in the end had not saved her.

That's just one way of looking at it - but I think it shows that there may be a little more to 'the true story of Lady Rochford'.

(And incidentally, Lady Rochford role in this seems to me to be quite important in unravelling the accusations against Anne Boleyn and her brother and the machinations at work in Anne's downfall).