When Henry VIII decided to abandon Anne Boleyn in favor of another woman, due in part to the lack of Anne Boleyn providing a male heir, he had her investigated for treason, adultery, and incest, and had her condemned, marriage annulled, and executed.
My question is simply, was there a political or legal benefit to Henry VIII in going through the charade of a trial and execution, instead of merely poisoning her such that she'd "fall ill" and die of "natural causes" in the eyes of the public?
Five months earlier, Henry VIII's first wife died, and had a blackened heart during embalming, leading to rumours of her being poisoned by Anne Boleyn. Perhaps the existing rumours of poisoning would make it suspicious of Anne Boleyn died of poisoning merely five months later? But then, why not use the existing public suspicions of poisoning of the first wife, and the public's dislike of Anne Boleyn, to instead put her on trial for poisoning the first wife, rather than the rather unbelievable crime of treason?
I just personally find the supposed excuses of her execution rather unbelievable, and thus poorly chosen, but perhaps they were believable enough to the public at the time?
All the claims in my post are from Wikipedia - I've added no interpretation or claims beyond the Wikipedia article of Anne Boleyn. My question has to do with possible political benefits of having a trial and execution for adultery and plots against the king's life vs other possible routes of disposing of his wife]