Anne Boleyn
Gareth Russell is emerging as one of the strongest narrative historians of a generation. He has penned books on Catherine Howard, the history of English Kings and the sinking of the Titanic.
In this interview, Royal History Geeks asked Gareth about his research on Catherine Howard, his thoughts on the Crown season four and his obsession with Anne Boleyn. Buy Gareth’s excellent books at Amazon
Subscribe to our newsletter!
Royal History Geeks caught up with Hever historian, Dr Owen Emmerson, for his analysis on the identity of the mysterious sitter in Elizabeth I’s “Chequer’s ring” portrait
Elizabeth I famously declared that she had no desire to create windows into men’s souls. So perhaps it’s only fair that those of us so fascinated by the iconic ruler, rarely catch a glimpse into hers.
Despite the amount of ink spilt on the legendary Tudor Queen, her inner thoughts remain clouded in mystery. And it’s unlikely that we’ll ever know more than we do now.
But there’s one fragment of evidence that may give us a rare insight into the Queen’s affections. After her death, a ring was prised from her finger. Usually referred to as the “Chequer’s ring” in reference to where it would later be displayed, the artefact contains two portraits. One is Elizabeth herself. The identity of the other remains an issue of debate.
Royal History Geeks caught up with Dr Owen Emmerson, historian and castle supervisor at Hever Castle, family home of Elizabeth’s mother, Anne Boleyn.
Disputed identity
“There’s usually three theories given as to who the French-hooded figure in the portrait could be,” Dr Emmerson begins.
“To be honest, I don’t think the first two carry much weight. We’re fairly confident that the ring was gifted to Elizabeth in the mid-1570s. So the real question is, whose memory was it that Elizabeth wanted to keep close at this stage in her life, as she entered her forties?”
A portrait of Parr?
“The first theory is Katherine Parr,” Owen explains. Given the marital history of her father, Henry VIII, Elizabeth enjoyed or endured a parade of stepmothers. But Parr, the King’s final wife, was a maternal figure in Elizabeth’s life from the age of 9 until Katherine’s death when Elizabeth was 15.
But for Dr Emmerson, the evidence simply isn’t there.
“We just don’t see Elizabeth involving herself with Katherine’s memory in any meaningful way at this stage of her life. In an age when art and portraiture were flourishing, Elizabeth had every opportunity to celebrate the memory of her stepmother. But she never took it.”
A younger Elizabeth
“The other suggestion is that it’s a portrait of a youthful Elizabeth”, Owen continues. “But I find that equally problematic.
“Elizabeth closely guarded her image. She eradicated several earlier portraits of herself. I don’t think she would have appreciated being reminded of her old age. Particularly at a time when the question of the succession was so acutely unresolved.”
A mother’s love
“In this instance, the most obvious explanation is probably the right one. It was her mother, Anne Boleyn, that Elizabeth wanted to keep close.
“As I said earlier, we know that the ring was created for and gifted to Elizabeth around the mid-1570s. The famous portrait of Anne Boleyn, which is today housed at the National Portrait Gallery was created at about the same time. I defy anyone to examine both portraits and fail to spot a similarity.
“One of the most cited arguments against it being Anne is the hair colour. The sitter seems to have a golden colouring. The best evidence we have suggests Anne was brunette.
“But the gold colour really comes from the material the image itself is made of. If you inspect it closely there are remnants of darker enamel. This enamel probably once covered this area of the portrait.
“Contrary to popular belief, Elizabeth often evoked the memory of her mother during her reign. She adopted Anne’s iconography and her courtiers filled their Long Galleries with posthumously created portraits of Anne. She wanted to emphasise and rehabilitate her legitimacy. Elizabeth even had an effigy of Anne at her coronation. This duel portrait very much sits within this pattern of acknowledgement. Subtle and inherently personal.”
Check out the programme of activities at Hever Castle as it prepares to reopen once social distancing regulations ease.
Also, check out “Inside Hever Castle” – a new online subscription that will let you explore this historic property from the comfort of home.
Subscribe to our newsletter!
It’s been almost 500 years, and we’re still fascinated by Henry VIII and his six wives. It’s no great surprise. The tales of the women who enjoyed or endured marriage to the legendary Tudor King are saturated in romance, politics and drama. You couldn’t make up more compelling stories. Though many have tried.
Equally unsurprisingly, given the nature of human imagination, many myths about these royal matriarchs have entered the public consciousness. Some are plain wrong. Others are oversimplifications and half-truths.
Let’s take a look at just six of them.
1.When Prince Arthur died, Katherine of Aragon swore the marriage was unconsummated to avoid being sent back to Spain.
The myth
Katherine of Aragon committed to one clear destiny. To become Queen of England. Upon the death of Prince Arthur she feared this dream was about to shatter. To avoid being sent back to Spain, she swore that the marriage was unconsummated. It was only on this basis that the likes of Henry VII agreed to betroth her to Prince Henry, the future Henry VIII.
In reality…
There is no record of Katherine declaring that her first marriage was unconsummated until 1529. She stated it publicly during Henry VIII’s attempts to divorce her and it threw a curveball into proceedings.
She might have mentioned it privately beforehand. But during negotiations for a marriage between her and Prince Henry, it was assumed that the marriage had been consummated and papal dispensation was granted accordingly. It could be that no one asked her. Maybe she didn’t fully understand herself. After she eventually experienced the full consummation of a marriage in 1509, the truth may have dawned on her.
None of this means that Katherine was lying. If anything, her declaration in 1529 makes it more likely that she was telling the truth. Under a strict interpretation of church law, her admission could have gone against her. The dispensation assumed that consummation had taken place. Had it not, she really needed a different kind of dispensation, which covered the “public honesty” of her betrothal to Henry VIII’s brother. So, she risked invalidating the marriage on a technicality.
2. Anne Boleyn lured Henry VIII away from his marriage to Katherine and convinced him of the need to divorce
The myth
Anne Boleyn, perhaps with the help of her ambitious family, set out to capture the King’s heart. By holding out from becoming his mistress, she convinced the King to put Katherine aside and seek a divorce so that she, Anne, could be enthroned as Queen of England.
In reality…
We don’t know. It’s hard to date the beginnings of Henry’s interest in Anne, let alone be clear on the details. The courtship was partly conducted in writing but Anne’s letters don’t survive.
Anne did refuse to become his mistress. Ultimately, Henry overcame this barrier by asking Anne to be his wife. But there’s no evidence that this was part of a Boleyn master plan.
The great historian Eric Ives believes Henry had already decided to divorce Katherine ahead of falling for Anne. He was just expecting to put his first wife aside in favour of another foreign princess.
3.Jane Seymour’s family planted her in Henry’s path to bring about Anne Boleyn’s downfall
The myth
Learning lessons from Anne’s “capture of the King” the Seymour family groomed Jane to seduce him. She presented herself as the opposite of Anne in every way to mastermind the Queen’s downfall. The Seymours did this out of ambition and to further the cause of their family.
In reality…
Henry may have been easily led. But he wasn’t a puppet. Once his interest in Jane was clear, the conservative faction at court, led by the powerful Marquess and Marchioness of Exeter started to hatch a plan that would lead to Anne’s divorce and banishment in Jane’s favour.
Yes, her family saw the advantages and supported it. But they were not ideological soul mates with the conspirators. Jane’s brother Edward would become a champion of religious reform. Quite the opposite agenda to that being persuaded by the Exeters.
4.It was really Anne of Cleves that rejected Henry and she was only too happy to be free from him
The myth
Anne of Cleves was a young woman who was clearly horrified when she came face to face with the old, obese and increasingly decrepit Henry VIII. Her repulsion to him was so obvious, it prevented the marriage from being consummated. To save face, Henry vocalised his dislike of Anne and arranged for an annulment. Anne then lived out the rest of her days as a wealthy, independent woman. She revelled in her freedom.
In reality…
Anne probably wasn’t enamoured with the prospect of sleeping with Henry. And he was slighted by her initial, negative reaction to him when he came to her disguised as a servant. But Anne’s feelings toward Henry were not the determining factor.
Anne had been sent to England to marry its King and advocate for the cause of Cleves. Following Henry’s public rejection of her, she would have felt like a failure.
When Henry eventually married his final wife Katherine Parr, Anne felt slighted, declaring that she was much prettier than the King’s new bride. She always seemed hopeful that he would take her back.
5.Katheryn Howard was a child bride
The myth
Katheryn Howard was a girl of 15 when she married the King. She had no real choice in the matter and was used as a pawn by her powerful uncle, the Duke of Norfolk.
In reality…
Not really. In some accounts of the era, Katheryn’s age at marriage is confidently given as 15. This is based on her absence from her step-grandfather’s will which was written in 1522, suggesting she had not yet been born.
But most recent biographers of Katheryn think it more likely that she was 18/19 when she became Queen. This is based on comments by the French ambassador who knew her. By Tudor standards this was not young. Marriage, including quite possibly to a much older man, would have been expected of her. There is also no good evidence that Norfolk had anything to do with initiating the King’s interest in his niece.
6.Katherine Parr was more of a nursemaid than a wife to Henry VIII
The myth
Following the disaster of his marriage to the young Katheryn Howard, Henry sought out a woman to be more of a companion than a wife. Katherine Parr, as Lady Latimer, had experience of nursing her husband through his old age. She was the perfect choice to hold the King’s hand and mop his brow as life eeked out of him.
In reality…
This charming, but patronising image of Katherine emerged in the Victorian era. But it’s stuck. It’s certainly what I was taught at school in the 1990s.
Katherine took an interest in the health of her ailing husband. But as a woman of rank she would have been quite far from the nitty-gritty of nursing. Instead, she spent her time championing religious reform. She even ruled England while Henry was waging war was against France in 1544.
*
These are just six of the myths that circulate about Henry VIII and his infamous six wives. What other inaccuracies can you think of which have gained common currency?
Subscribe to our newsletter!
In 1509, England was on the verge of a golden era. A beautiful, pious and learned 17-year-old prince had just ascended the throne. It was going to be an age of unparalleled splendour.
Or so they thought.
By the time he went to meet his maker 38 years later, this prince of promise had beheaded two wives, executed the remnants of Plantagenet blood and torn apart the religious foundations of a nation.
What could possibly have gone so wrong?
According to countless mainstream media articles, the answer is simple. Henry VIII sustained a traumatic brain injury following a fall from his horse in 1536. Following that, his personality changed forever. He became an erratic and paranoid tyrant. The likes of Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell paid the price.
But there’s a number of problems with this theory. Here is just four of them.
It’s often quoted as a fact that Henry was out cold for two hours following the fall from his horse. But this information comes from a man not living in England. Dr Ortiz, the source who claimed that Henry was without speech for two hours, resided in Rome and seems to have picked up the gossip third hand from a French ambassador. As Alison Weir points out, continental gossip would later get the facts of Anne Boleyn’s arrest spectacularly wrong.
A source based in England, however, records the event very differently. Chapuy, the Imperial ambassador, based in Henry VIII’s court, writes that:
“On the eve of the Conversion of St. Paul, the King being mounted on a great horse to run at the lists, both fell so heavily that everyone thought it a miracle he was not killed, but he sustained no injury.”
The thrust of Chapuy’s account is confirmed by the English chronicler, Charles Wriothesley. In these versions it appears as if both Henry and the horse took a dramatic tumble. Despite the force with which they fell however, the King emerged unscathed. He might not even have hit his head.
The matter gets complicated further. On 29th January – five days after Henry’s fall – Anne Boleyn miscarried a child. In her distress, she blamed her uncle the duke of Norfolk. The Duke, Anne claimed, alarmed and distressed her when he reported the news of Henry’s accident. But Chapuy reacted to this with disbelief. The Duke of Norfolk had told her calmly. And besides, there had been nothing to worry about.
Could Anne’s tragic miscarriage really have had anything to do with the incident? Sadly, she had miscarried before. By this stage, Anne knew how much she needed a son. It is understandable that in her grief and fear, she cast the net around for someone else to blame.
By the time this story, accompanied by the news of Anne’s miscarriage, had weaved its way to the continent, Chinese Whispers had played their part. The story had morphed into the dramatic version that is so often quoted on social media.
The historian must give credibility to Chapuy’s account. He would have spoken directly to eyewitnesses. Had Henry been out cold for two hours, or been incapable of speech, it beggars belief that the Imperial ambassador would not have reported such a dramatic occasion accurately back to his masters. Had Henry’s life hung in the balance, the Imperial authorities would have wanted every detail. His death in 1536 would almost certainly have triggered a war of succession between the supporters of his two daughters, the Lady Mary and Princess Elizabeth. Given that Mary was the emperor’s first cousin, Charles V would have had a vested interest in the outcome of that skirmish. He may well have chosen to intervene.
Had there been the possibility of Henry’s death, Chapuy would have been all over it like a rash. He was not one to tone down sensational details.
2. There was no sudden change in Henry’s behaviour
After Henry’s fall, he certainly perpetrated some great travesties. Anne Boleyn was executed. Thomas Cromwell would follow a similar fate. Even Henry’s aged-cousin, Margaret Pole would meet her end at the scaffold.
But are these tragedies so different to the ones that occurred prior to the supposed ‘brain injury’? Elizabeth Barton, the Nun of Kent was executed in 1534. Henry’s one-time friend Thomas More met his end in 1535 as did Bishop Fisher, the holy man who had been a friend and confidant to Henry’s grandmother, Margaret Beaufort. Was his treatment of Cromwell so different to that of the other minister he had been so reliant on, Cardinal Wolsey?
Throughout the 1520s, we see a gradual progression in Henry’s behaviour. The renaissance prince of earlier years had certainly gone by 1536. But he had been fading away for years. Henry’s transition to ‘tyrant’ is better understood by the frustration he felt at being denied what he really wanted – the woman he loved and the son he believed she could give him.
It is also possible to detect the roots of a tyrannical personality in the very early years of Henry’s reign. Let’s not forget the fate of his father’s advisors, Empson and Dudley, who were destined for death the moment Henry ascended.
3. The theory makes Henry an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ style monarch
Tudor monarchs were immensely powerful. But they couldn’t just shout ‘off with her head’ and expect the axe to fall straight away.
Someone didn’t lose their life because an erratic and brain-damaged Henry exploded with rage at them. For ‘justice’ to be delivered, due legal processes had to be followed.
As the trial of Anne Boleyn demonstrated, proceedings could be heavily rigged. Torture may have been used to extract Smeaton’s confession and much of the evidence against her was clearly engineered. There can be no pretence that the justice system was an independent, democratic institution. But processes were in place and even the king had to follow them. History had shown just how dangerous it could be for a King that chose to act outside the parameters of the body politic of the day. Richard II and Edward II had lost their crowns by doing so.
When we link the tragedies of Henry’s reign to his personality alone, we risk misunderstanding the limits and parameters of Tudor kingship.
4. The argument risks ignoring the politics of Henry’s court
When we blame brutal executions on a brain injury, we fail to appreciate the power dynamics of Henry’s court.
Those that perished during or after 1536 did not die just because they lost Henry’s favour. They died because they had enemies.
Henry’s court was factional. Major power brokers on both sides, blessed with wits, influence and resources, were occasionally able to outmanoeuvre their enemies. Anne’s miscarriages and behaviour made her vulnerable. But it was Cromwell that went for her. Cromwell, in turn, miscalculated with the Cleves marriage. But it was the conservative faction that outmanoeuvred him. When Katheryn Howard showed a lapse in judgement, it was the reformists that ensured the evidence was mounted.
That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a big deal if you lost Henry’ favour and protection. People who rode high in his esteem were untouchable. But falling from his favour did not instantly put your life in jeopardy. Let’s not forget how worried Henry was that he might not be able to escape the Cleves marriage. He was so grateful to Anna for cooperating. He couldn’t have just chopped her head off. International politics aside, what did he possibly have on her?
The politics of Henry’s reign is rich. It’s an intellectual joy to try and unpick and understand it. But when we attribute the drama of his later years to an erratic, brain-damaged personality, we risk missing the substantial political issues that lurked beneath the surface.
*
None of this means that Henry’s personality didn’t change as he got older. It would be strange if it didn’t. And of course, declining health undoubtedly played a part. The wounds on his leg caused him great pain and he may have suffered from high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes.
But we must move away from this notion that he changed drastically in 1536. We have to stop looking for a brain injury that resulted from a blow to the head that might not even have happened. Such a view does not stand up to scrutiny. But more importantly than that, it diminishes our understanding of the true development of Henry’s character. It distracts us from appreciating the politics of the Henrican court. It might give us an easy and sensational answer; but it deprives us of the real adventure that delving into the politics of Henry’s reign can take us on.
Subscribe to our newsletter!
In 1542, a distraught Henry VIII decided to have the head of the woman who had broken his heart.
There was just one problem. It wasn’t actually clear what crime the Queen, Katheryn Howard had committed. She had certainly been inappropriate with the young courtier, Thomas Culpeper. But it seems that there was not sufficient evidence to condemn her for adultery.
In an act of legal reimagination, it was decided that Katheryn’s misconduct before her marriage to Henry was worthy of censure. Her behaviour after her nuptials only served to illustrate that she was no longer worthy of her life.
But was she the only Queen of Henry VIII’s to be guilty of a dalliance prior to marriage? Is it possible that none of his wives came to Henry’s marital bed untouched by man?
Let’s take them one by one.
Katherine of Aragon
Did Katherine of Aragon consummate her first marriage to Henry’s brother, Arthur. The issue would sit at the heart of Henry’s attempt to divorce Katherine and be joined to Anne Boleyn.
I’ve covered this ground elsewhere, so won’t go over it again. We will never know the truth, but I’m inclined to believe Katherine. She swore an oath that she had come to Henry’s bed a maid and I don’t think she would have engendered her immortal soul by lying.
Anne Boleyn
Henry’s second wife has gone down in history as the woman who made the King wait seven years before surrendering her affections. But was Henry her first sexual experience?
After his nuptials to Anne, Henry grew rapidly disappointed. He was heard complaining that she had been ‘corrupted’ while living in the French court. It’s not clear what this meant but it he was probably suggesting that she had acquired some kind of sexual technique from the continent.
There is also the question of Henry Percy. In 1522, Anne fell in love with the future Earl of Northumberland and the couple hoped to wed. Cardinal Wolsey – who had plans to settle a family feud by marrying Anne to the Irish Earl of Ormonde – put a stop to the match. However, if the couple believed they had agreed a pre-contract , sleeping together would have been the way to ‘seal the deal.’ These two factors would make them legally married and there was, strictly speaking, nothing improper about forming a union that way. Although such a clandestine approach was not encouraged among the high nobility.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Anne would have been so carefree. She was a master of strategy and had she believed her and Percy were to spend their lives together, she would not have wanted there to be a question mark around the legitimacy of any children.
Jane Seymour
We don’t know much about Queen Jane’s character. But we do know that Henry chose her because she was the opposite of Anne. While Anne was sensual and alluring, Jane was demure and gentle.
It seems unlikely that Jane knew the touch of man before Henry came along. She certainly did not have a reputation for any kind of light behaviour. But did Henry and Jane wait until they had officially tied the knot before becoming physically intimate?
Henry and Jane married with alarming haste after Anne’s execution. This might well have been Henry’s way of showing the world he had moved on after the humiliation of being cuckolded. Or, he may simply have burned with desire for Jane.
However, it could also be that they were in such a rush because Jane was pregnant. Some think she may have miscarried one child before conceiving Edward. Could it be that another was sadly lost in the early weeks of their marriage?
Anne of Cleves
As many Royal History Geeks know, there’s a famous scene where Anne’s ladies probed the Queen on the nature of her bedroom antics. She innocently replied that the King kissed her every night and fell asleep beside her. Was that not enough, she wide-eyed wondered, to bring a child into the world?
It’s a sweet story. But I don’t buy it. Anne was 24 when she came to England. Would her mother really have sent her into the lion’s den without a word in her ear? Her parents would have known Henry was expecting sex. I cannot believe they would let her navigate this fundamental frontier entirely alone.
Was she as innocent as history remembers? Henry certainly didn’t think so. As he tried to find a way out of their marriage, he mentions multiple times that, having inspected Anne’s body, he believed her to be no maid.
Perhaps we shouldn’t take Henry too seriously. But he was experienced with women. The notion that Anne may have given birth to a son as a teenager forms the sub-plot of Alison Weir’s excellent novel on the Cleves Princess. The books is fiction and the author is clear that were she penning a factual biography, she would have to tread more carefully. But Henry’s comments are certainly intriguing.
Katheryn Howard
Let’s not tarry here for long. We know that Katheryn was not a virgin when she married the King. She seemed to know how to lie with a man without getting pregnant, which might suggest she never surrendered herself fully to Francis Dereham. But it’s more likely that they used some form of contraception.
Katherine Parr
Henry’s final wife is the only one that everyone knew was not a virgin at the time of the marriage – and quite legitimately so. She had been married twice before.
But it’s possible that she was not particularly sexually experienced. Her first husband had been young and sickly. Her second, older and often unwell. There is no record of her ever falling pregnant by either of them nor by Henry. Yet, when she married the virile Thomas Seymour, she was with child almost straight way.
Could it be that her sex life only really got going with husband number four?
Subscribe to our newsletter!
It was an immense privilege to sit down (over zoom) with historian and novelist, Alison Weir.
Alison is responsible for some of the best researched ‘narrative history’ on the Tudor and Plantagenet periods. She has written novels as well as history books.
At the time of the interview, Alison had just released her 5th book in the ‘Six Tudor Queens’ fictional series: Katherine Howard, the Tainted Queen (Scandalous Queen in the USA).
Please visit Alison’s website and consider buying her books from a local bookstore or online. http://alisonweir.org.uk/
Subscribe to our newsletter!
“Henry VIII suffered from impotency. It was s a result of obesity and other health problems in his later years.”
It’s a statement you often hear on social media. Generally it’s delivered with the confidence of a cast-iron fact.
But what evidence do we actually have to support it?
Henry’s last two wives, Kateryn Howard and Katherine Parr, almost certainly didn’t ‘enjoy’ the delights of the potent Prince that had married their namesake, Katherine of Aragon. But can we really make sweeping claims about Henry’s health without stronger source material? Many claim confidently that Henry would have suffered from type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. While both are possible, we simply can’t diagnose at a distance of 500 years.
In truth, we probably don’t have enough information judge whether Henry suffered from impotency in his later years. But there are some valid pieces of source material and circumstantial evidence that it’s worth exploring.
Anne Boleyn: cruel gossip or unsatisfied wife?
The first piece of evidence comes from 1536 and the trial of George Boleyn, brother of Henry’s ill-fated second wife. According to Chapuys, the Imperial ambassador, during the trial, George was handed a piece of paper that contained allegations against him. Despite being instructed to digest it silently, George read the charges out loud. Among them was the accusation that he and his sister, Anne, had been heard gossiping about Henry. They had, it was claimed, been laughing about the fact that the King was struggling to perform in the bedroom.
We must be careful about this evidence. To start with Chapuys was not an eyewitness to the trial. Despite the fact that he was reporting back to his master, the emperor, he had form for reporting gossip as fact. He also may have thought the Emperor would enjoy this little dig at Henry’s potency.
Nevertheless, the ambassador would have conversed with several eyewitnesses. He was quite complimentary about George Boleyn’s defence at the trial, despite regarding all Boleyns as the enemy. In this instance, Chapuy’s words are generally seen as reliable.
Of course, the fact that George and Anne were accused of such gossip does not mean they were guilty of it. Much of the evidence levied against Anne and her ‘conspirators’ was clearly falsified. Yet, while this is not exactly robust historical analysis, what we know of George and Anne’s characters gives the story a ring of authenticity.
Whatever the truth of this tale, we simply cannot conclude that Henry was impotent from 1536 onwards. He successfully impregnated Jane Seymour. While it did take Jane six months to fall pregnant with Edward VI, it is possible that she had miscarried a child previously and was even pregnant when she and Henry married. They certainly married in haste.
The Cleves catastrophe
For the next piece of evidence, we must turn the clock forward to 1540 and Henry’s disastrous marriage to Anne of Cleves. This marriage was unconsummated, and Henry confessed to his physician that he had been unable to do the deed. But he was very keen to stress that he was not in error. He had experienced two ‘nocturnal pollutions’ (i.e. wet dreams) that very night.
Here, for the first time, Henry is admitting a ‘performance’ issue. But he is also squarely making it clear that it is not his fault and that all his equipment is working as it should. Was he so alarmed by the situation he had to seek a doctor? Or was he worried word of his inadequacy would spread and sought to make a pre-emptive strike?
The Duke of York that never appeared
In Henry’s mind, the future of the Tudor dynasty hung by the fragile thread of one little boy. He was bound to want to sire sons from his final two marriages. People expected him to do so. Yet, sons did not spring from either union.
The issue was unlikely to be with either wife. Katheryn Howard was young and healthy. Katherine Parr would conceive almost straight away once married to the virile Thomas Seymour. Something seemed to be amiss with Henry.
One explanation could be that Henry was now struggling with impotency. But it could just as easily have been declining fertility. Henry had claimed responsibility for 11 pregnancies and was almost certainly responsible for more. But even with men, fertility declines with age. His interest in Katheryn Howard suggests there was at least something sexual about their relationship.
Nevertheless, issues of sexual performance remain a possibility. And for an explanation, we might be wise to search into the soul.
Impotency can be caused by psychological as well as physiological factors. It is certainly possible to make sense of Henry’s potential problems through this lens – particularly if the problems do originate in the 1530s.
Henry had moved heaven and earth to make Anne Boleyn his own. He had gone through a traumatic separation with his first wife and become estranged from the daughter he had once loved so much. He had remade the religious and political makeup of his Kingdom by breaking with Rome. Yet, almost as soon as he married Anne she proved to be a disappointment. Could any issues with intimacy, sex and performance have resulted from such disappointment? If so, it might help explain why he came to believe there was something sinister about Anne. That she had once bewitched him. Throughout the twists and turns of the 1540s, it is most conceivable that such problems would have worsened.
We shall never know the truth. That Henry experienced issues with sexual performance is possible. That these may have been linked to type 2 diabetes, blood pressure and emotional issues all make sense. But we can’t diagnose at this distance. It is of course interesting to speculate. Let’s just ensure we maintain a degree of humility and caution when we do so.
Subscribe to our newsletter!
Let’s be honest: lockdown sucks! But it does mean there’s more time for reading. Over the next couple of weeks, I will review 10 books which all Royal History Geeks should add to their reading list
May. The month of Anne Boleyn. Her arrest, trial and execution happened in such swift succession that it’s possible to mark them all in a single month.
To remember Anne this May, I decided to read about her. Anne Boleyn: Henry VIII’s obsession was this year’s choice.
The book is the first of four biographies covering wives of Henry VIII. The author has stated that each was designed to be short. They provide an overview of their respective subject’s life. True to its word, the biography is easy to read and presents a clear picture of the extraordinary life of the second Henrican Queen.
Anne’s meteoric rise, turbulent reign and dramatic downfall are well known to Tudor fans. Norton’s book sets these events in the context of Anne’s early life. By exploring her upbringing and time on the continent, the reader gets a glimpse into how Anne’s early experiences shaped her character and approach. By the time she steps onto the stage of Henry’s court, she is more French than English.
Anne’s love affair with Henry has gone down in history. But it was not the only controversial match she embroiled herself in. Her attempt to wed Percy and potential love affair with Wyatt are given the attention they deserve.
The ‘King’s Great Matter’ – his attempt to divorce his first wife and be wed to Anne – is worthy of a book of its own. However, Norton successfully summarises the key events. She grants us an insight into the motivations of the central players.
Anne’s ultimately triumphs as Queen of England but her success is short-lived. Henry’s resumption of his mistresses and her failure to make the transition from mistress to submissive wife cause cracks to appear. Against this backdrop, her early failure to produce a male heir makes her vulnerable. Within three years of her marriage, Anne becomes ‘the lady in the tower.’
Historians from previous generations have treated Anne with disdain. Perhaps in reaction, the Boleyn Queen today enjoys a cult following on social media. But Norton’s book will not satisfy those with a partisan interest. She refused to paint Anne as either tragic romantic heroine or unreconstructed villain. The author is honest about Anne’s shortcomings. But she also helps us to understand where her viciousness came from.
Those new to Tudor history will find this biography an indispensable way to familiarise themselves with Anne’s story. Old-timers like me will value it as a useful refresher. It is thoroughly researched and easy to read.
Anne Boleyn was one of the most extraordinary women to walk the green and pleasant lands of England. Perhaps no write-up can truly do her justice. But in her honest, thorough and accessible work, the author has surely been faithful to Anne’s final request. Norton has meddled with Anne’s cause and she has judged the best.
Anne Boleyn: Henry VIII’s obsession by Elizabeth Norton is available from Amazon.
However, please consider supporting your local book seller. If you are based in the UK, search for your local book seller at the Book Seller Associations website.
Subscribe to our newsletter!