The woman in the ring

Posted on March 15, 2021March 15, 2021 By Gareth - Editor

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.

Katherine Parr became Elizabeth’s stepmother when the girl was 9 years old

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.

Anne Boleyn - Wikipedia — This iconic portrait of Anne dates from around the same time as the ring

“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!

6 myths about the wives of Henry VIII

Posted on February 19, 2021February 19, 2021 By Gareth - Editor

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!

Virgin Queens? Did any of Henry’s wives come to his marital bed ‘untouched by man’

Posted on July 31, 2020August 23, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

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!

Did Henry VIII suffer from impotency?

Posted on June 27, 2020June 27, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

“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 experienced a number of health problems in later life

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

Henry was unable to consummate his fourth marriage but blamed the appearance of Anne of Cleves

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?

Henry had no issue with his sixth and final wife, Katherine Parr

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!

What was the social standing of each of Henry’s brides?

Posted on May 28, 2020May 28, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

As a groom, Henry’s personal desirability decline dramatically during his life.

Katherine of Aragon happily married the most handsome prince in Europe. Katherine Parr reluctantly shared the bed of a morbidly obese tyrant.

But in truth, that hardly mattered. Throughout his reign, Henry’s principal offer to a bride never wavered. Marriage to him meant maximum promotion. The Queen was the first lady of the land. In Henrican England, a woman could rise no higher.

After marriage, each of Henry’s wives enjoyed the same exalted status. But their starting points differed wildly.

Henry’s wives different wildly in pedigree

How prestigious was the background of each of the six Tudor Queens? How would their status have been regarded by contemporaries? What would each of their marriage prospects have been had Henry failed to show an interest?

It’s a fascinating question. So, like all supercool people, I’ve conducted a little analysis. Here’s my stab at a pecking order.

1. Katherine of Aragon

Few could doubt that Henry’s first Queen should top the list. The daughter of the ‘Spanish Kings’ had a thoroughly royal pedigree and was related to many of Europe’s crowned heads. Through her great-grandmother, Catherine of Lancaster, she was even descended from England’s very own Edward III.

Katherine was always destined for a crown. Her parents successfully married off their many daughters to secure foreign alliances. In hindsight, it’s almost a tragedy that she didn’t end up elsewhere. She was certainly unlucky with both her English husbands.

2. Anne of Cleves

The heritage of Anne (or Anna) of Cleves is one I’d always failed to appreciate. I had casually dismissed her as the daughter of a minor German state. It wasn’t until I read the great biography by Elizabeth Norton that I realised how wrong I was. Anna’s genealogy included kings of France. She had connections to Burgundy. She was a descendent of Edward I of England.

Had Anne not come to England she would most likely have married within the Holy Roman Empire. A life as a German duchess could well have been on the cards. Through a union with Henry however, she achieved a crown. Even if only for a very brief period.

Anna of Cleves could claim descent from French and English Kings

3. Anne Boleyn

It is often said that the Boleyn’s had ‘come up’ only recently by the time Anne was one the scene. That’s partly true. But Anne was granddaughter of the duke of Norfolk. She also claimed noble heritage through her father’s side.

Three out of Anne’s four grandparents could claim to be from the nobility. Or at least, the very upper reaches of the gentry. Like all Henry’s wives, she could claim descent from Edward I.

Long before Henry ever seemed like a possibility, Anne looked set to make a great match. Her attempts to wed Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland were rebuffed. This, though, was not due to her heritage. The powerful Cardinal Wolsey intended her to marry her kinsman the Earl of Ormond to satisfy competing claims to the title. Percy certainly robustly protested that Anne was of good enough pedigree to become countess of Northumberland. It’s likely that, left to her own devises, she would have made a similar match.

Some speculate that Anne’s father, Thomas Boleyn was only raised to the peerage as Viscount Rochford and later Earl of Wiltshire because of his daughters’ ‘involvement’ with the king. In reality, his promotion to Viscount Rochford was almost certainly due to his heritage. The fact that Mary Boleyn may or may not have been the king’s mistress at this point is likely to be a coincidence.

Thomas might well have achieved an earldom even if Anne hadn’t caught the king’s eye. He did, to be frank, deserve compensation. Despite being (probably) the best candidate, he missed out on the earldom of Ormond.

4. Katheryn Howard

This list contains two controversial calls. The first is my decision to place Anne Boleyn ahead of her first-cousin Katheryn Howard.

Katheryn was a male-line descendent of the Duke of Norfolk. Her ancestry was impeccably noble and gentry on both sides. Anne was contaminated by a line which had so recently emerged from the merchant class. Katheryn was not. Through her mother’s line she could claim descent from some highly respectable baronial names. Clifford, Ferres and Beauchamp each get a name check on her family tree.

But how one’s social standing was perceived in Tudor England is difficult to judge. Particularly from this distance. As such, I’ve placed a great deal of emphasis on how likely each Queen would have been to ‘marry well’ before Henry was in the picture.

Anne was almost certainly destined for a coronet. Katheryn seemed more likely to make a modest match. Blood was important in the sixteenth century. But even then, blood wasn’t everything. Connections were powerful. The right people pushing you could make a difference.

A big part of Anne’s desirability might have been the money that Thomas Boleyn could offer as a dowry. Katheryn was from a mighty family. But her lowly position within it meant that she had little cash to bring to the table.

5. Katherine Parr

Henry’s last wife was of solidly knightly class. Her father was a significant landowner. She could claim descent from the mighty Nevilles – the family that had dominated the north in the 1400s. A descendant of Edward III through the Beaufort line, Katherine had a heritage to be proud of.

Henry VIII was Katherine’s third husband. She had already proven her worth on the marriage market. Her first marriage had been respectable. Her second, spectacular.

Katherine Parr was from a family on the fringes of the baronage

6. Jane Seymour

Jane may have been the Queen that lingered in Henry’s heart. But she was probably the humblest. I mentioned that this list contains two controversies. My decision to place Jane below Katherine Parr is the second. You could argue that there’s barely a sheet of tissue paper between them. Through her mother’s Wentworth line, Jane, like Katherine, could claim descent from Edward III.

Maybe it’s a tie. But to my eye the Parr family tree seems to more obviously resemble a family on the fringes of the baronage. As I said earlier, I’ve placed a lot of weight on the ‘pre-Henry’ marriage prospects of the ladies. Katherine was snapped up young and made two decent marriages. At 28, Jane was somewhat on the shelf. She seemed to be struggling to make a decent match.

Over to you geeks. What do you think? Have I been a bit harsh on Jane or Katheryn Howard? Are there important branches to the family tree I’m missing? I want to know what YOU think.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Lockdown must-reads #5: Six Wives, by David Starkey

Posted on May 4, 2020May 4, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

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.

“Divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced, beheaded, survived.”

That’s about the sum of Tudor history I picked up at school. Against the backdrop of a blackboard, a cold classroom and an uninspired teacher, the history of England seemed about as exciting as a wet weekend in Brighton.

But years later I would learn the truth. That I was lucky enough to inhabit an island brimming with a history of drama that even fiction writers would be unable to fabricate. A big part of that realisation begun when, before a long train journey, I purchased a copy of the intrepid ‘Six Wives’ by David Starkey.

Starkey – as many will know – has an academic background. The book is dense with research. But there is not a dry paragraph in this 795-page epic. I have read three collective biographies of the six Tudor Queens. Starkey’s is the most readable. Combining wit and a touch of sass with well-formed sentences and colourful language, the book is as gripping as a thriller.

The early pages follow Katherine of Aragon as she sets sail for a new life in England and marriage to Arthur, Prince of Wales. It takes us through her destitute widowhood and her ultimate triumph upon marriage to the 18-year-old Henry VIII. We explores her active role in government and regency of England before her marriage is doomed by a failure to produce a son, a prickling of the King’s conscience and the rise of Anne Boleyn.

The King’s ‘great matter’ (the divorce of Katherine and marriage to Anne) dominates the next section of the book. Henry’s second Queen emerges as a wily and aggressive manipulator. But Starkey is not without sympathy. He is clear that she is not guilty of the crimes she loses her head for. And, unlike some historians, he is not prepared to let Henry off the hook.

Jane Seymour emerges. Jane Seymour gives birth. Jane Seymour dies. Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard both give the reader an interesting interlude. The book concludes with Katherine Parr, the canny reformer who published books, kept her head and briefly ruled England.

Starkey has shown great wisdom in the tome’s structure. Implicitly he accepts that each Queen is not equal in significance. Jane Seymour’s legacy is essentially confined to one act of childbirth. Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard are marginal in their impact. The intellectual Starkey holds a torch for blue stocking Katherine Parr. But it is Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn who shaped the character of Henry, his actions as king and the fate of the nation. Together they claim 73% of the book’s content.

Starkey is surely right to devote the bulk of the book to the first two Queen’s. But as a result, the rest of the reigns feel a little like a flash in the pan. But then, this is probably how they felt to contemporaries.

Because of the strong narrative, colourful language and modern colloquialisms, Starkey’s work has attracted criticism from other academics. No doubt some of it is valid – though we must be mindful of the presence of the green-eyed monster. But it is through writing in this accessible and compelling manner that Starkey and others have rescued the stories of Henry’s wives from the doldrums of the classroom. They have inspired documentaries, historical fiction and other popular biographies.

These women played their part in shaping our history. Thanks to books like ‘Six Wives’, a popular appreciation of their significance continues to grow.

Six Wives, the Queens of Henry VIII, 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!

Which of his wives, was Henry VIII actually in love with?

Posted on November 21, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

This week we’re going to have a post about the Henry VIII era every day. If I haven’t said it before, let me say it again – we are super cool people!

Want to kick it off with some #QuickFireThoughts on which of his wives Henry VIII was actually in love with. It’s one of those fairly meaningless questions which can’t be proved wrong or right either way – but hopefully you’re getting the gist of this blog by now.

Of course, ‘love’ is a subjective term at the best of times. It’s not 100% clear what it means to us today, let alone how we decipher it against the backdrop of the Tudor marriage market and different expectations about fidelity on the part of the husband. But ultimately love is timeless. What we’re looking for in this post, are indications of Henry’s passion and commitment to his respective spouse; feelings driven more from the heart than a logical pragmatism and a passion that was deeper than physical.

Let’s go.

Katherine of Aragon – He was certainly enthusiastic about marrying her and treated her (in public) fairly well to start with. But there were probably other motives. He was keen for the alliance with Spain (of which her father was effectively King) and wanted to appear like a man rather than a boy. A prestigious wife helped with that. Alison Weir argues that Henry’s ‘love’ for Catherine was never really passion. I think she is probably right. As I’ve argued in another post, Henry was probably unfaithful to Katherine within a year of their marriage.
Anne Boleyn – Surely this is a no-brainer? I guess you could argue it was infatuation rather than love but I think that’s splitting hairs. I also don’t think the violent reversal in his feeling suggests it was never love to start with and that, in part, may have been fuelled by feelings of betrayal. Yep, with Anne it was love; heart and soul. Until it became hate.
Jane Seymour – Hmm…tricky one. She was in the right place at the right time and being the polar opposite of Anne certainly helped. And who knows what would have happened had she lived. But we have to go on what we have – and remember that no love is without questionable motives. She was the Queen that he always mourned and remembered. As Roxette might say, “it must have been love.”
Anne of Cleaves – Actually I have an unusual but credible theory on this. There is newly discovered evidence that – ah sorry, can’t keep this up! No. Just, no!
Catherine Howard – Perhaps the trickiest one of all. But I’m going for no. I think it was lust. He was hurt by her betrayal but I’m not sure the feelings ran deep. But I am prepared to be out-argued on this one…
Katherine Parr – He admired her. Respected her. Cared for her. But it’s difficult to see that a flame was burning. During her time, he still lauded the memory of Jane – but then she had given Henry his only son. It’s a toss up, but I’m going to land on ‘no.’

And now…over to you geeks. Have I underestimated his feelings for Catherine Howard? Were his feelings for his first wife genuine love that faded with time? Were his lasting affections for Jane entirely rooted to the fact that she had delivered a son? I want to know what you think!

Who would win ‘Tudor Big Brother?’

Posted on August 28, 2016August 22, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

As I was watching the Celebrity Big Brother Final on Friday, a strange thought occurred to me. In a house full of contestants from the Tudor era who would emerge victorious? Would Thomas Cromwell calculate a winning game plan? Would Anne Boleyn see off Katherine of Aragon? Who would Catherine Howard hook up with, and how many minutes would it take her to do so? In other words ‘who would win Tudor Big Brother’?

For a #BitofFun I decided to bash out a blog post with #NoHistoricalValue to explore this very question. Here we go…

WEEK ONE
Up for eviction: Catherine Howard, Henry VII, Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleaves
Evicted: Anne Boleyn

It is perhaps no great surprise that the Lady Anne becomes the first housemate to leave the Tudor Big Brother House. Having made no secret of her brazen game plan to win at any cost, she quickly earnt the disdain of her female housemates, every one of whom nominated her for eviction. While she held a ‘fascination’ for some male members of the house, her brittle manner clearly grated with the English public who have sent her to the block at their first opportunity. For many, the final straw was her guns-a-blazing row with fellow housemate Jane Seymour, which earned her a reprimand from Big Brother for ripping a locket off the ‘little wench’s’ neck.

“No one minds a girl on the make,” comments TV Vicar Rev.Thomas Cramner, “but it’s the 16th century people – we expect some subtlety!”

WEEK TWO
Up for eviction: Catherine Howard, Henry VII, Mary Tudor (The French Queen), Thomas Wolsey
Evicted: Henry VII

After two weeks and two evictions in the Tudor Big Brother House, there have still been no surprises. Despite Catherine of Aragon’s spectacular fall out with Thomas Wolsey (which saw the former punished by Big Brother for orchestrating a nominations campaign against the latter) there was never any real doubt that it was Henry VII that would incur the wrath of housemates and the public alike. While a few boundaries here and there might be helpful, the contestant’s obsessive need to impose fines on fellow housemates for the slightest misdemeanour was never likely to ingratiate him with others and once you’ve charged Charles Brandon £100 for not doing the dishes seven times, it quickly ceases to be gripping viewing.

“He spent his early years in France,” his mother, Margaret Beaufort told sister show ‘Big Brother’s Wench on the Side’, “and it’s possible he picked up one or two bad autocratic habits over there. But at the end of the day I just wish everyone saw him like I do – after all, he is my dear King and all my worldly joy!”

WEEK THREE

**DOUBLE ELIMINATION**

Nominated for eviction: Charles Brandon, Henry VIII, Catherine Howard, Thomas Wolsey
Evicted: Charles Brandon, Catherine Howard

It had all started so well for the dashing Brandon. Charming to the ladies, eloquent in the diary room and part of a bromance with fellow housemate Henry VIII which captured the imagination of the public. But then he broke the brother code. What seemed like a harmless flirtation with Mary Tudor stepped up a notch this week, earning him the jealous disinterest of female housemates and the rage of his new flame’s brother. The arguments that followed were too much for the Tudor Big Brother House and from the pile of nominations Brandon received, it’s clear the housemates sided with Henry. Tonight’s eviction shows that no traitor can ever keep the affections of the English people, however much he might be able to steal the heart of their Princess.

Catherine Howard on the other hand, has done well to survive as long as she has, having faced the public vote every week of the contest. Her girlish antics including hours at the make-up station and constantly trying to start pillow fights may have amused her male housemates, but quickly earned her the chagrin of their female counterparts.

“It’s pretty obvious why she survived the first two weeks though,” says celebrity commentator Thomas Culpepper. “She’s petite, plump and pretty – every bloke in the country’s been voting for her! With tonight’s eviction the eye-candy quota is seriously on the slide.”

WEEK FOUR

**SHOCK TWIST – Public vote to evict two contestants WITHOUT nominations from the house**

Evicted: Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Wosley

Has Big Brother ever seen a bigger pair of game players? By deploying every tactic under the sun and cosying up to whoever holds the balance of power in the house, as well as keeping everyone on side by taking most of the boring chores off their hands, these two strategists had largely avoided nomination. However the public had seen what housemates had not. The secret strategy sessions, the willingness to throw others (including each other) under the bus and the sinister comments in the diary room. This week, voters finally got chance to cast their own judgement and it was ‘off with their head’ for both of them.

WEEK FIVE

**DOUBLE ELIMINATION**

Nominated for eviction: Henry VIII, Mary Tudor, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleaves
Evicted: Henry VIII, Mary Tudor

Just weeks ago, the stunning, learned and cultivated Henry VIII had been the bookies favourite to win but as the days went by his star slowly diminished as he faced problem after problem. First of course, was the slight irritation of other housemates when he kept stringing along Katherine of Aragon. Then there was the bust up with Brandon, but the moment the public really began to lose sympathy with the auburn haired Tudor, was his decision last week to nominate Anne of Cleaves, purely on the basis that she ‘looked like a horse.’ It wasn’t that he was saying anything that people weren’t thinking – but this is England, and there are some things you don’t say,

“The public have no idea how hard it is to keep a trim waistline inside that house,” says Edward III, winner of ‘Plantagenet Big Brother’, “but the way Henry piled on the pounds in there was something else altogether. At the end of the day, this is the Tudor era and image is everything.”

There is however, far less to say about Mary “the French Queen” Tudor’s eviction. And that’s definitely not because the author of this post has yet to read a really good biography on her and has only limited knowledge, making it difficult to think of something funny to say. Oh no. It’s not that at all.

WEEK SIX – THE FINAL

Finalists: Anne of Cleaves, Katherine of Aragon, Katherine Parr, Elizabeth of York.

It’s an all-girl final on ‘Tudor Big Brother’ – the lines are closed and the results are in.

Fourth place – Anne of Cleaves – In the first couple of weeks, no one expected the shy and reserved Lady Anna to last all the way to the final. Struggling with the language and keeping herself to herself, she wouldn’t even remove her veil for the first few days. Most worryingly, fellow housemates kept complaining about ‘offensive odours’ emanating from her direction, but suddenly things got better. Some impressive country dancing, an emerging sense of dignity and a thirst for survival managed to endear her to housemates, saving her from facing the public vote until last week. Loving nothing more than the rushing to the rescue of a wronged woman, the public chose instead to eject Henry VIII who had, quite frankly, been rather mean about poor Anna ever since week 1.

Third place – Elizabeth of York – Didn’t she do well? By instantly adopting the position of house Mum, ‘our Liz’ (as she is commonly known) was adored by the housemates who in diary room visit after diary room visit just couldn’t find a bad word to say against her. Although her constant bragging that she was ‘young enough to have more children’ started to grate with some of the other girls, her redeeming qualities saved her from being nominated even once, handing her a place in the final without even having to face the public vote.

Second place – Katherine of Aragon – At first, things didn’t look good for the house’s only Spanish contestant. Fawning over Henry VIII – who fluctuated between leading her on and callously rejecting her – and being bullied by Anne Boleyn, housemates, the public and commentators alike were wondering when this woman was going to grow a backbone and that’s exactly what she did. From her vengeful gloating at the eviction of Anne Boleyn to her fierce rowing with Wolsey, the Infanta showed us all that she was nobody’s victim and has taken the fight all the way to the final.

WINNER – Katherine Parr – Surely from now on to be known as ‘the great survivor’ this lowly knight’s daughter has delivered entertainment, enrichment and excellent game-play over an entire series. Helpful and chirpy around the house, this year’s winner was no wall flower, arguing about religion and squaring up to opponents. She knew how to survive, even when it meant backing down.

TV psychologist Katherine Willoughby says, “Any woman who can stay up most of the night reading illegal protestant books with a torch under her covers, but is also first up for morning mass the next day is going to be complex psychologically as well as pretty hard headed. I certainly wouldn’t want to take her on.”

Editor’s note: Unfortunately Jane Seymour was removed from the house in week three due to ill health.

Anyway, just some thoughts from me. But the question is geeks – who would you want to see in the Tudor Big Brother House and what do you think would happen?

Would Katherine Parr really have had pre-marital sex with Seymour?

Posted on March 21, 2016March 21, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

I do enjoy a good Philippa Gregory novel. Not only does her poetic style really bring the historical characters to life, but she clearly makes a monumental effort to research her subjects – even if her interpretation often differs from mine.

Currently I’m having a good time wading through her epic novel on Katherine Parr, sixth and final wife of Henry VIII. It’s a great read, but within the first few pages I was already growing a tad concerned about some misunderstandings that were no doubt bound to influence people’s understanding of the great Queen Consort. For, in the very earliest part of the book, she has given herself to Thomas Seymour in body as well as heart.

Fans of Katherine Parr will know that Thomas Seymour did indeed become her husband, after the ultimate demise of Henry VIII. There was also certainly some kind of mutual attraction and discussion of marriage prior to Katherine’s elevation to Queen. But for me, the suggestion that she would have been foolish enough to have slept with him in 1543 is a bridge too far.

Here’s why:

Discovery would have risked everything – In the Tudor court people gossiped. Would Katherine really have risked this destruction of her reputation, especially if she had already got wind of the fact that the King was after her?
She was a woman of virtue – Gregory’s Katherine is a woman who is not much-bothered by religion prior to her marriage to Henry. It’s fair to say that people used to think her devout Protestantism was something that developed later, but most historians now think that her conversion had taken place before 1543. It is unlikely that she would have so easily surrendered to a man in defiance of God’s will.
She would have been scared of pregnancy – Contraception was not exactly top-notch in Tudor times. Katherine knew that if she fell pregnant it would have been game over for her place in society.
She didn’t get pregnant – “Ah-ha”, I hear some of you say in response to my point above. “Perhaps Katherine didn’t fear pregnancy because after two childless marriages she believed she couldn’t actually get pregnant.” This is possible; some contemporaries did speculate that she was infertile so it’s not impossible that she believed that herself. But she was probably realistic enough to put that down to first being married to a sickly teenager and then to a much older man. Besides, even if she had believed this, we all know that when she did eventually marry Seymour, she conceived rather quickly. The fact that she did not fall pregnant in 1543 argues against a relationship of heated sexual congress.

All this being said, I have to recognise that when it came to Seymour, Katherine did lose her often level-headed outlook. Her passion for him was such that she married him with unseemly haste after Henry VIII’s demise, and at risk to her reputation. The circumstances though were different and Katherine knew it was her last shot at happiness and I don’t think this consideration can override those I have outlined above.

Where does this leave us? Simple: read Philippa Gregory’s ‘The Taming of the Queen’ by all means, but read some historical biographies about Katherine as well. That way you can get all the entertainment necessary to storytelling, as well as being sure that you’re across the facts.

I recommend the following:

Katherine the Queen by Linda Porter

Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII by David Starkey

The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir

Alison Weir’s new series: The six things I’m most looking forward to discovering

Posted on March 15, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Like most history enthusiasts, I do my level best to view everything I read with an objective and critical eye. When it comes to unearthing the secrets of the past, loyalty to any historian or school of thought is misplaced. The truth is all that matters.

Nonetheless, we wouldn’t be human if, when it came to authors and historians, we didn’t develop our favourites. People whose style, both of writing and research, not to mention interpretation, seems to grip us; often for the very reason that they think differently to ourselves and challenge our thinking.

As many of you know, my favourite is Alison Weir. So it was with great excitement that I discovered she had announced she was revisiting the subject of ‘the six wives of Henry VIII’ both in the form of a revision of her early 90’s work and in six new novels, one for each wife.

All new works are exciting, but there’s something extra special about the novels. As the author herself has said, the novelist has a great deal more freedom than the historian. She can use this medium to test theories and speculate in a way that wouldn’t be appropriate in a history book. However, if this speculation is rooted in well-researched fact, it still has a high degree of historical value.

The first book on Catherine of Aragon will be released later this year and so I wanted to take this chance to say which six things I am most looking forward to discovering as the series unfold.

Was Catherine of Aragon’s first marriage to Arthur, Prince of Wales consummated? It was the peg that Henry VIII later hung his divorce case on and Catherine went to her grave denying that she had known the touch of man prior to marriage number 2. Recently, based largely on Alison’s arguments in previous books, I argued that Catherine was probably telling the truth. However, Alison has been tantalising teasing that new evidence has come to light which solves the question conclusively. I will be very interesting to see what path she takes in the novel…

Had Anne Boleyn sinned against Henry in her heart? In Alison’s excellent book ‘The Lady in the Tower’ she notes that second wife Anne, swore that she had never sinned against Henry in body, potentially suggesting that she could have in some other way. I will be fascinated to see whether Mrs Weir interprets Anne as having a heart which belongs to another.

Exactly what kind of person was Jane Seymour? Jane is famous for giving Henry his longed for only (legitimate) son but I’ve always felt she died too suddenly for history to make much of a judgement on her. I can’t wait to see how Alison interprets her personality.

What did Anne of Cleves make of Henry VIII? It’s well known that Henry was not enamoured with this German Princess (“she looks like a horse”) but history is generally silent on what she thought of the obese, older man. I’m sure however, that Alison will have a view…

How old was Catherine Howard? The age of wife number 4 is disputed by about 4 years and I actually think it makes quite a big difference as to how we interpret her ‘flighty’ behaviour. It might sound geeky (and it probably is), but I’m keen to see what Alison’s current view on it is.

How close did ‘the one that survived’ come to not surviving? Henry was the King of mind games (actually, he was the King of England, but you know what I mean). I’ve never been sure how much he considered getting rid of Katherine Parr (a warrent for her arrest was prepared and discovered) or whether that was just another trick. Alison, no doubt, will be able to set me straight.

Anyway, as you would expect, I will review all the books on the site as they are published.

So geeks…over to you. Anyone else looking forward to the series? What things would you most like to learn about Henry VIII’s six wives?