6 myths about the wives of Henry VIII

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!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/anne-boleyn/" rel="category tag">Anne Boleyn</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/anne-of-cleves/" rel="category tag">Anne of Cleves</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/catherine-howard/" rel="category tag">Catherine Howard</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-viii/" rel="category tag">Henry VIII</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/jane-seymour/" rel="category tag">Jane Seymour</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/katherine-of-aragon/" rel="category tag">Katherine of Aragon</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/katherine-parr/" rel="category tag">Katherine Parr</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/tudor/" rel="category tag">Tudor</a> 2 Comments

A short story about Lady Margaret Beaufort and Henry VI

Roses, thorns and friendships

1452
I knew I had to stop.  Those tingling sensations of vanity were not becoming of a Christian girl.  But by Saint George, they felt good. 

I looked down again at my flowing scarlet gown.  With my open sleeves and gold trimmings I felt as radiant as the sun.  I had always known I was from a very great dynasty.  For the first time, I felt as majestic as the mythical Yale in our family crest.

“Stop it!” I told myself quietly.  Like Our Lady, good little girls were to be pious and penitent.  But I didn’t want to “stop it”, whatever I told myself.  Pride might be a sin, but it was better than that other feeling.  That dark, creeping feeling which I couldn’t put into words. It had grown like a weed since we first stepped foot in Westminster, causing lumps to form in my throat and a knot to twist in my belly. If vanity were the only anecdote to that feeling, perhaps the Virgin might understand.

“Now remember Margaret,” mother said, “I will not be with you when you meet the King.”  As she spoke she gently lifted my hair, and sprinkled it neatly around my shoulders.  Mother revelled in setting my hair.  She could never display her own.  Wearing your hair loose is the preserve of Queens and virgins.

“Your uncle Somerset will present you.  When he does, you will sink into a deep curtsey.  The king will come before you and lift you up.  Stand there as he talks to you and answer all his questions with the utmost reverence.”

For a minute, mother looked concerned.

“Actually Margaret, there’s a chance the king won’t lift you out of your curtsey.  If he doesn’t, just stay there for as long as you can and then gently fall to your knees.  In this dress, no one will notice.”

I looked up at mother.  No doubt this gentle woman could see the nerves etched on my face.

“Look, you don’t need to worry.  The customs at court are not that different to what we do at home when we have important visitors.  I like to think you are a well brought up little girl.”  She held my face in her hands and gave me a warm, loving smile.  “I am confident you will do us proud.”

I trusted mother with my life.  And she was right; though I was not quite 10 years old, the customs of court were within my grasp.  I was good with grownups and I had already met dukes, bishops, mayors and all kinds of important men.   That wasn’t what I was worried about.  I wasn’t worried at all.

I was petrified.

No one knew for sure why the King wanted to see me.  I was pledged in marriage to his half-brother, Edmund Tudor, a man I had never met.  For mother, this was explanation enough.  “He’s just curious to set eyes on his new sister-in-law” she had said, almost a little too cheerily.  But I knew otherwise.

The King was angry with me.

Before my betrothal to Edmund, I was troth-plight to a boy named John de La Pole.  We had met only once but I was under the power of his father, the Duke of Suffolk, who had been my guardian since I was a baby.  Father had died when I was an infant and the King, his cousin, had entrusted my welfare to Suffolk.  But the Duke was an evil man.

According to Parliament, Suffolk had done something terrible.  Criminal!  Evil!   Mother had no idea that I knew.  She probably thought I didn’t even know what ‘Parliament’ was but I’d heard the servants talking.  Their words had lingered in my memory ever since.

“Take this linen up to Lady Margaret’s chamber.”

I knew I wasn’t allowed in the laundry room.  Or the kitchens.  Or the cellar.  But I loved seeing how the servants worked, hearing their earthy language and I was small enough to hide in every nook and cranny of our home, Bletsoe Castle.  Mother had always said my destiny was be a great lady, running my own house one day.  Surely I needed to see how one actually worked?

“Don’t you mean, Queen Margaret,” said the maid who was now in possession of my linen sheets.  She fell into a mock curtsey with a girly sneer.  Katherine, the older woman who had instructed her, scowled.

“Don’t look at me like that,” the maid defended.  “I’m only saying what they’re saying in Parliament.  That Duke of Suffolk was going to kill the king and say Lady Margaret was the next in line.  She would be Queen.  And his son, the King.”

Blessed saints!  The Queen.  What did she mean, I was next in line?  Why would my guardian want to kill the king?

“Now you listen to me,” Katherine was quiet, but her tone as fierce as a beast.  “For as long as you want to work in this castle, you mind your tongue.  If I catch you talking about anyone in the family like that again, I’ll have a good mind to cut it off for safe keeping.”

The maid blustered a bit.  She looked on the verge of mounting a defence.

“I’m serious!”  The older lady continued.  “You want the Lady Margaret arrested?  Beheaded for treason?  You go around repeating stories and the next thing we know, people will think they started at this castle and they’ll see truth where there’s none.  Is that what you want?  Our precious little girl on the receiving end of the King’s anger.  The little Lady Somerset dead?  And it all on your conscience!”

The younger maid was sobbing.  But emotion would grant her no reprieve.

“Linen!  Chamber!  Now!”

I scurried away as soon as the coast was clear and told no one what I’d heard.  But when mother told me that the King had summoned us to court, I knew what it meant.  It was time for me to get my comeuppance.

“Your grace,” my uncle said with a bow after I entered the King’s chamber.  Mother was outside. Apart from my uncle and two ushers, I was alone with the king.  I had imagined the king’s court to be swarming like a beehive.  There were countless guards on the outside of the chamber.  I have a wild imagination, Mother often upbraids me for it, but I couldn’t let go of the ridiculous notion that the King was like a prisoner.

“May I present my niece, Lady Margaret of Somerset.”

I moved as mother had instructed.  I took a few steps so I was lined up to the King’s throne and dropped into a deep curtsey.

For a minute or two nothing happened.  With my small legs, I couldn’t hold my curtsey much longer.  As mother suggested, I fell to a kneel.  My poor, rich garment was unblemished no more.

I looked up.  Was I meant to look up?  I had to see what was going on.  Now that I was closer I could see the king clearer.  He looked dazed, in some kind of stupor.  I had imagined he would wear a crown but on his head was a velvet cap.

“My Lady Margaret of Somerset,” my uncle repeated.  He raised his voice and lurched slightly in the king’s direction.

The king looked up slowly.  He glanced my way, thought for a minute and smiled.  There was a gentleness to his face and kindness in his eyes.  Steadily he lifted himself from the throne.  He came softly toward me as if he were floating.  And then –

Blessed mother!  He kneeled.  The king kneeled and was crouched down just in front of me.  His eyes were wide like a puppy.  Now that they were closer, I could see the features on his long oval face.  I knew he was a full-grown man, but his face was like a little boy’s.

“Lady Somerset,” he said as he took my hand.  His eyes were calm and his touch was gentle.  I was used to men like my uncle pulling me and pushing me but the king made me feel like he had all the time in the world.

“We are to be friends.  You do want to be my friend don’t you?”

“Oh yes.  Yes my lord.  Very much.”  I panicked.  Should I have called him ‘your grace’?  Why was he asking this?  Were my fears confirmed?  Was I here to prove my loyalty and answer for my inadvertent betrayal?

“Oh good,” said the king as he sighed with relief.  “I need friends my lady.”  He looked sad.  For a few moments he said nothing.

“You are my friend so you will marry my brother… I love my brother… then we can all be friends together.  We can protect each other and…“ He stopped suddenly.  He turned over my hand in his as if to inspect my palm.  He reached for my other hand and did the same.

“Lady Somerset, you have brought me no parchment.”

Fear stuck me like a lightning bolt.  Here I was, kneeling before the King of England and I had come unprepared.  Parchment?  I had never thought to bring parchment.  Why would I need it?  But then what did I know of the court?  How could mother have sent me in like this?  Why was I not fully prepared?

“I’m sorry y-y-your grace,” I quivered.  If he had shouted at me I could have born it.  I am used to loud, shouty brothers but gentle disappointment was different.  If I had failed him, my heart would break.  I was using all my strength to fight back tears.  Within seconds, I lost the battle.

“No, no, no my lady,” the king said gently.  He lifted a finger to my cheeks and wiped away my tears.  Then he cupped my hands in his,  “I do not want the parchment but people usually bring it to me.  They say if I sign it, it will make them happy.  I want to make people happy.”

He paused again.  This time for a minute or two.

“However, when I do, my friends get cross with me.  William was my friend.  He used to get angry with me for signing all the parchment.  He said that when I signed it, people would be able to take my money and my land.  That they would get jobs which were other people’s jobs.  When he was with me, people wouldn’t bring me the parchment.  Except sometimes…sometimes William brought me parchment too.

“William said that my real friends wouldn’t bring me parchment.”  He grasped my cupped hands tightly, but not roughly.   “You must be my real friend.”

I felt relief flood through my body.  It was like someone had lit a candle in my chest.  For the first time in days, the knot in my belly started to loosen.  The king wasn’t trying to punish me.  He wanted to be my friend.

“William was my friend for a long time,” the king continued.  Tears started to well in his kind eyes.  “He used to look after me.  But then he had to go away and someone killed him.  I did forgive him – the man that killed him.  It was very hard but I prayed and the virgin helped me forgive him.”

My heart was breaking as I saw the sadness in this gentle man’s eyes.  William must be Suffolk, my old father-in-law.  Could he have been so wicked to betray a man that loved him thus?

“Now Edmund is my friend…Edmund is your uncle.  He looks after me now….and the Queen.  The Queen is my wife.  She is beautiful and she helps me.

“And you will be my friend too.  I can call you Margaret.  Will you call me Henry?”

“Oh yes your gra – Henry.” I was almost laughing with joy.  The King was not a strict, brutal ruler.  He was a kind, pious, gentle man.  And he wanted to be my friend.

“Those of us who are friends have to stick together.  Edmund says some people don’t want to be my friend.  The Queen says Edmund is right.”

I knew my uncle would be right, he always was.  But what a strange notion.  The king was clearly a kind man.  Why wouldn’t anyone want to be his friend?   

“I have a cousin called Richard,” he lowered his voice slightly.  “He is the Duke of York.  I like him but Edmund says he doesn’t like me.”  He cupped his hand over her ear and whispered.  “He wants me to die.  He wants to be king.”

I let out an audible gasp.  I felt the heat of anger like I’d never felt it before.  How could anyone try and kill the King?  He was God’s own anointed ruler!  A lovely, kind man.

“Edmund says we must work together.  He says you will help.  He says that you and my brother – he’s called Edmund too – will go and live in Wales and help keep it safe for me.  Will you Margaret?  Will you be my friend and help me?”

I had never felt more sure of anything.

“Oh yes Henry,” I said at once.  “I will always be your friend.  I will always help you.”  I meant every word.  This Duke of York must be a brutal man.  A villain.  A beast.  And if I had anything to do with it, he would never prosper.

Uncle Somerset walked toward us and placed his hand on the king’s shoulder.  They must be great friends to enjoy such intimacy.

“Alas my liege, it is time for Margaret to return to her mother.  The Duchess awaits her.”

The king looked dazed again.  For a moment he looked up at my Uncle before turning his gaze back to me.

“Margaret, before you go, I need to tell you a secret.”

“Of course Henry.”  I was a good secret keeper.

“I am scared.  When I die, I might go to hell.”

This couldn’t be true.  Henry was the most pious man I had ever met, much more than my brothers or my uncle.  But fear flowed from his eyes, so I listened with fervour.

“I think God wanted me to be a monk.  But I am a king instead.  He might be angry with me.  I try to be pious. – to hear mass as often as I can.  I try and help the church, and in truth,” he again cupped my ear and whispered to me, “I still live like a monk.”

I didn’t know why the last part was a secret.  Or what it meant.  How could he live like a monk?  Monks spent all day in prayer or in study.  Henry had to rule.  Never the less, my heart went out to him.  I had so recently feared punishment for something I had no control over.  This great and kind man was tormented by the same fear.

“I will pray for you every day,” I said with fervour.  “I believe you to be a good and holy man.  You will be upright in God’s eyes.”

The King paused for a moment.  He seemed to be pondering something.

“Margaret most of my friends are older than me.  When I die, you might be the only one left.”

I didn’t understand.

“I need you to pray for me then.  Hold masses.  Make sure my soul is protected.  Will you do that for me Margaret?  You might be the only one.”

“Oh yes Henry.  I will pray for your soul with all the devotion of my own.  I will lead a blameless life so that God, the virgin and all the saints will hear my prayers.  Me and my husband will say mass and pay for more to be held.  We will do everything for you.  I promise Henry.  I promise.”

Within seconds my uncle was leading me out.  I had not even been in the king’s presence for half an hour, yet my life had changed forever.  My world and my heart had doubled in size.

Only minutes before I was a little girl.  My concerns had been for a simple gown and my fears, just of earthly punishment.   Now I was a woman with a cause.  I was a friend of the King.  I must protect him from his enemies and when he finally departed the mortal coil, I would do everything in my power for his soul.  This kind, gentle man was a saint, a hero, a champion, and the world needed to know it.

On that day, I found my purpose.  I was prepared to devote my life to it.

© Gareth Streeter, 2020

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/beaufort/" rel="category tag">Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-vi/" rel="category tag">Henry VI</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/margaret-beaufort/" rel="category tag">Margaret Beaufort</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/wars-of-the-roses/" rel="category tag">Wars of the Roses</a> 1 Comment

Four problems with the Crown, season four

I’m not gonna lie.  The Crown is one of the best things to hit screens in a generation.

I was hooked within minutes of it “dropping” in 2016.  Season one was almost flawless.  Its successor gave a Royal history geek almost everything they could wish for.  And, following a shaky third series, season four saw the show rebound with a right-royal gusto.

But there are big problems.

With historical fiction, the clue is in the name.  It does not need to follow all the facts.  Those that know a great deal about the period must turn a blind eye to poetic license and dramatic liberties. 

But there must be some boundaries.   When scriptwriters entirely distort the character or reputation of a real human being, they have gone beyond what is acceptable.  This applies to dramatizations of the medieval era.  But it has a special importance when the people in question are still alive.

Here are just four of the occasions where the Crown season four crossed the line.

Did the Royals really subject visitors to the ‘Balmoral tests’?
  1. The Balmoral tests

In the second episode, the newly elected Margaret Thatcher and her husband Dennis travel to Balmoral to spend time as the guests of the Queen.  Here they are subjected to the “Balmoral tests”.  This series of secret challenges allows the Royal family to judge whether a newcomer fits in with their way of life.

In the episode, the Thatchers fail spectacularly.  Being from more humble stock, Margaret is ignorant of upper-class country life.   She turns up in the wrong kit, over-dresses for pre-dinner drinks and is unfamiliar with the parlour games the Royals revel in.  Rather than help Margaret address her “shortcomings” the Royal family delight at her ignorance.  The deer hunt, it would seem, is not the only blood sport they excel at.

What rot.

There’s no doubt that the two women were from radically different backgrounds.  The show’s creators had every right to draw attention to that.  And that’s hard to do visually.  Both spoke with a posh voice and wore expensive clothes.  Stressing the difference in custom and etiquette was, in some ways, a clever device for emphasising the difference in upbringing.  

But it was exaggerated almost to the point of caricature.  Thatcher did not just step out of her father’s humble shop in Grantham and walk into Downing Street.  She had studied at Oxford, sat as an MP for twenty years and served as a cabinet minister.  She was not totally ignorant of the upper classes.

Yes, Thatcher probably didn’t look forward to her trips to Balmoral.  Her authorised biographer, Charles Moore, wrote that she ‘endured’ rather than ‘enjoyed’ the visits.  And she may, on one occasion, have brought the wrong shoes.  But to suggest that her entire first trip was an act of sabotage by the Royal family flies in the face of the widespread testimony that they go to some length to ensure people are comfortable in their presence. 

After leaving office, Margaret Thatcher spoke lavishly about the Queen’s humanity.  And what, specifically, did the former Prime Minister praise in interview after interview?  The Queen’s ability to “put people at their ease.”

Why is the Queen Mother portrayed as cold and callous?

2. The callous Queen Mother and her hidden nieces

I haven’t enjoyed the portrayal of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother in any of the Crown’s four seasons.  The former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is well attested to have been warm, bubbly and fun loving.  That’s yet to come across.

But in episode seven, her portrayal goes from cold to outright cruel.  Princess Margaret discovers that her maternal cousins, long thought dead, were secretly living in a mental institution.  Margaret later confronts her mother.   Under duress, the dowager Queen reveals that her nieces were hidden from view upon George VI and Elizabeth ascending the throne.  It could never be known that there was mental instability within her family.   Such knowledge would have threatened the security of the monarchy.

Seriously?

Fortunately, historian Gareth Russell has stepped up to the plate.  In a compelling facebook post he points out that the dates simply don’t add up.  The Queen Mother became Queen in 1936.  Her nieces were not placed into an institution until 1941. 

Russell also points out that Elizabeth was from a large family.  Her brother was much older.  She probably believed that her nieces had died and had no idea they were still alive until she was in her 80s.  Once it was brought to her attention, she sent money to the home where they lived.

Changing facts can be acceptable in fiction.  Sometimes it’s necessary to make the narrative flow.  But maligning a real person in the process can never be acceptable.        

3. Thatcher asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament in 1990

Before the season aired, I was worried about the portrayal of Thatcher’s relationship with the Queen.  But, barring the Balmoral tests, it was much better presented than I expected. 

The two women were the same age, but from different walks of life.  They didn’t particularly understand one another.  But there was mutual respect.

But I was taken aback when, during her conflict with her own MPs, Margaret Thatcher asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament.  In the UK, dissolving Parliament (which prior to 2010 was something that happened under the Royal prerogative but at the request of the Prime Minister) means calling a general election.   In a general election, all MPs, and therefore the Prime Minister, is up for re-election. 

However, I think the series writers were confusing this with “proroguing Parliament.”  This is when Parliament ceases to sit until the beginning of its new session but the government remains in place.  It is implied in the series, that without trouble from her pesky MPs, Thatcher could survive.

It is not credible that Thatcher would try and drag the Queen into an internal party dispute.  Besides, Thatcher was facing an election for leadership of the Conservative Party.  Getting rid of Parliament would have been no help to her.  It was not a Parliamentary process.

In the context of fiction this is probably acceptable.  It shouldn’t really be on my list.  But it irked me. So it’s staying put.

The series failed to show balance in the “wars of the Waleses”

4. The relationship between Charles and Diana

As someone that grew up in the 80s and 90s, I have heard every rumour about the relationship of the Prince and Princess of Wales that there is to tell.  In reality, only a handful of people ever knew the truth of it.

The Crown made the creative decision to base the series on the often-rumoured premise that Charles never really ended his relationship with Camilla.  This may be true.  Or it might be, as others have claimed, that he did not reignite the affair until Diana had already started committing adultery.  We just don’t know.

Fiction does not have footnotes.  I understand that they had to go one way or another.  And some of the portrayal is clearly based on the legendary tapes that Diana indirectly supplied to Andrew Morton.

But at the very least, it’s still only one side of the story.  Much more effort should have been made to show balance.  Diana’s own family have been uneasy with the portrayal of her in the series.

Throughout season four Charles comes across as petulant and unlikeable.  Yet, no one is a two-dimensional character.  The writers of the Crown cannot know the truth.  Greater care, balance and generosity should have been shown.

*

“Oh come on,” I hear you cry.  “The Crown is fiction.  It’s not their fault if people believe it.”

Yes.  And no.  The Crown includes encyclopaedic-style facts at the end of episodes.  This suggests it is grounded in fact.  They refuse to include a disclaimer (which, by the way, are common when shows depict the lives of real people).

And regardless of whether people should believe it, it is clear that people do believe it.  Many (including those who are well educated) simply believe that “if it wasn’t true, they wouldn’t be allowed to put it on TV”).  Producers know this.  The fact it’s “based on truth” is something that adds to the appeal and bolsters viewing figures.

The Crown is brilliant TV.  The attention to detail is outstanding.  It deserves every award it receives and more besides.  But adding a tiny disclaimer would do nothing to diminish its success.  And it might do everything to protect real people from a distorted reputation.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/uncategorized/" rel="category tag">Uncategorized</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/windsor/" rel="category tag">Windsor</a> 6 Comments

5 (of the) ways the ‘Spanish Princess’ distorted Margaret Beaufort

No one expects historical fiction to be completely accurate.  Or at least, they shouldn’t.

But the ‘Spanish Princess’, now in its second season, has crossed a line. 

Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII and grandmother of Henry VIII, is one of England’s most fascinating figures.  In her own time she was revered and respected.  Those that have really studied her are fascinated by her courage, conviction and compassion.  But historical fiction continues to muddy her name.

In both ‘the White Queen’ and the ‘White Princess’ – the predecessors to the ‘Spanish Princess’ – she is presented unfavourably.  I don’t agree with either presentation.  But I recognise that script writers must be allowed to make creative choices.

But in the ‘Spanish Princess’ it has reached new levels.  Margaret is depicted as the pantomime baddie, the orchestrator of every horrible event.  This is not just a case of rearranging events to fit the narrative.  They have placed her at the heart of crimes that we can prove she had nothing to do with.

Here are just five of the most noteworthy distortions.

  1. Margaret served as regent while Henry VII was in mourning

In the series, Henry falls into a deep mourning when his wife Elizabeth of York unexpectedly dies after childbirth.  This is true enough.  But in the series, Margaret assumes the role of regent and takes control of the government.

Margaret never served as regent during her son’s reign.  While the King was struck by grief, the reaction of this already-secretive man was to draw further into himself.  He took an even more obsessive grip on government.  To let anyone else, including his mother, rule for him, would have been anathema to his style of kingship.

When her son died, Margaret did serve as an unofficial regent for her grandson, Henry VIII.  But this really was just a bit of ‘transitional support’.  He was, after all, only a few weeks shy of his 18th birthday.  

Margaret’s son Henry had a famously private style of Kingship

2. Margaret ruled England through her son

Even when not acting as regent in the Spanish Princess, Margaret always seems to take charge.  She is constantly at court, issuing orders and inflicting trials and tribulations on the Kingdom. 

How odd.

As I’ve hinted above, Henry VII had a famously controlling style of Kingship.  He did not surrender power to others.  While Margaret was at court a great deal in the early days of the reign, as her son and daughter-in-law became more established, she spent far less time in their presence.  She established a great house in Collyweston, in Northamptonshire, where she resided over a great household with splendour.  The King did trust Margaret, and she was given special authority to administer justice in the north. 

But she was not constantly at his side.  She did not rule England through him.

3. She had some kind of feud with Margaret Pole

We know little of the relationship between the two Margarets.  In the very early days of Tudor reign, Margaret Beaufort had some responsibility for Edward, Earl of Warwick, brother of Margaret of Clarence. 

At this stage, the boy represented a potential threat to Henry’s throne and it was important to keep a close eye on him.  Having literally just set foot on English soil for the first time in 12 years, Henry had few people he could trust.  He naturally turned to his mother.  Soon after, new arrangements were found for the young Earl.

It is likely that Margaret Beaufort played a role in coordinating the marriage of the younger Margaret.  Richard Pole was Margaret Beaufort’s nephew.  Given the importance of Margaret of Clarence’s Plantagenet blood, Henry VII would have wanted her married to a man she could trust.

In the TV series, Margaret Pole is depicted as falling into penury because of taxes inflicted by the King’s mother.  Pole did experience financial hardship after her husband’s death as her resources were limited.  But she did not suffer the level of poverty depicted in the show.  Nor was it anything to do with Margaret Beaufort.

Margaret helped her young grandson, Henry VIII, establish himself on the throne

4. Margaret was a champion of Empson and Dudley and a savage financial regime

In the series, Margaret (during her fictitious period as ‘regent’) brings a man into the council and introduces him as Edmund Dudley.  She describes how he is going to help them fill the coffers.  Together, they proceed to unleash a savage tax regime on the poor people of England.

It is true that Henry VII became very strict with fines and financial penalties in the last years of his reign (though these were effectively taxes on the super-rich so let’s not let our sympathies get too carried away).  It is also true that Edmund Dudley, along with another advisor called Richard Empson, were widely blamed for the initiatives.  But there’s no reason to link Margaret Beaufort to these reforms.  And there’s every reason not to. 

Like many of the wealthy, she found herself on the receiving end of Dudley’s judgements.  And, it was when she did actually have some unofficial oversight of the government, in the very early weeks of her grandson’s reign, that the decision to punish these two men (who were soon executed) was taken.

5. Margaret casually dispatched her granddaughters into child marriages

This one really stung. 

In one episode, Margaret speaks with her granddaughter, Princess Mary who has been pledged in marriage to Charles V, Katherine of Aragon’s nephew.  In the scene, Mary is clearly a little girl.  Margaret informs her that she was about the same age when she first married.   There was, she says sinisterly, ‘nothing to fear.’ 

This is the exact opposite of what happened in real life.  When her elder granddaughter, Princess Margaret, had been pledged to marry the King of Scots at just nine years of age, the original plan had been to send her north of the border straight away.  But Margaret, no doubt drawing on her own experiences as a child bride, intervened.  Along with her daughter-in-law, Elizabeth of York, she persuaded Henry VII that Margaret was too young to live as a wife.  Her husband, Margaret warned, would not wait.  He would consummate the marriage straight away.  The young princess would be hurt.

This shows Margaret as a caring grandmother.  It also casts light on her reflections of her own brutal child marriage.  Yet, for reasons of their own, the writers of the ‘Spanish Princess’ decided to turn this story on its head.  They present Margaret as a woman who raised her granddaughters like lambs for the slaughter.  I’m not sure I can ever forgive that.

*

I don’t mean to spoil anyone’s fun.  There are probably some brilliant parts of the Spanish Princess that I’m too annoyed to see.  But this continual character assassination of Margaret Beaufort cannot continue to go unchallenged.

I’m not asking you not to watch it.  I’m actually going to do my level best to finish the series.  But I would ask that you don’t base your opinion of Margaret on it.  Or any fictional portrayal.

There are some really good factual accounts of Margaret’s life.  Two in particular are both informative and accessible:

Uncrowned Queen’ – the most recent biography of Margaret Beaufort, by Nicola Tallis.

Margaret Beaufort: mother of the Tudor dynasty’, by Elizabeth Norton.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/margaret-beaufort/" rel="category tag">Margaret Beaufort</a> 13 Comments

WATCH: Dr Owen Emmerson on the history of Hever Castle

Royal History Geeks caught up with Dr Owen Emmerson, residents historian and castle supervisor at Hever Castle.

The magnificent Hever Castle was the home of Anne Boleyn.  We spoke to Owen about the huge role it has played in history and its importance in the lives of legendary figures.

We also talked about Hever’s vast collection of portraiture and explored the elusive question of what Anne Boleyn may have actually looked like.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/uncategorized/" rel="category tag">Uncategorized</a> Leave a comment

WATCH: The real Margaret Beaufort with Nicola Tallis and Nathen Amin

Lady Margaret Beaufort was the mother of Henry VII.  She played a vital role in establishing the Tudor dynasty on the throne of England.  In recent years, she has been much maligned in popular fiction.

I am joined by two authors and experts to discuss the real Margaret Beaufort.  How accurate are the depictions we see in fiction?  What were her real qualities?  What is her legacy?

Nicola Tallis is the author of ‘Uncrowned Queen’, a recent full-length biography on Margaret.  Buy Nicola’s wonderful book

Nathen Amin is the founder of the Henry Tudor Society and author of ‘The House of Beaufort.’  Check out his amazing biography of Margaret’s family.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/uncategorized/" rel="category tag">Uncategorized</a> Leave a comment

3 reasons why Anne of Cleves probably wasn’t that ugly

The portrait of Anne helped Henry make up his mind to marry her

Ever get that feeling that people are making fun of your appearance behind your back?  If so, spare a thought for poor Anne of Cleves.  She’s been trying to shake off that feeling for almost 500 years.

Anne and Henry VIII’s non-love story is well known to most Royal History Geeks.  After the death of his beloved Jane Seymour, Henry allowed his ministers to open international negotiations for a new bride.  Each minister had their own political and religious agenda.  Cromwell eventually triumphed by convincing Henry of the virtues of an alliance with the almost-protestant province of Cleves.  The beauty of its princess was a major draw.  Hans Holbein, the great artist of the Tudor court, was dispatched to Cleves to paint Anne’s portrait.  The result did not disappoint.  Henry fell instantly in love.

But his delusions were quickly shattered.

Upon meeting his new bride, Henry expressed dismay.  “I like her not,” he is supposed to have proclaimed.  While it was too late to postpone the nuptials, he quickly informed his doctor that the union remained unconsummated.  He complained that Anne had been unable to arouse him and that her body was undesirable.  Even her personal hygiene, Henry suggested, left much to be desired.  He never actually used the term ‘Flanders mare’ to describe her.   But it’s easy to see why it stuck. 

Anne’s side of the story remains a mystery.  It’s possible that she was no great beauty.  Most people aren’t.  But there are several reasons to think that she was far from ugly.  Here’s just a few of them.

  1. When Henry met her, he kissed her

Upon arriving in England, Anne believed she had several days to prepare herself for meeting the King.  But an infatuated Henry couldn’t wait.  Accompanied by five of his councillors, he went to Anne disguised as a messenger, bearing a gift from the King.

The cultivated Katherine of Aragon or the sophisticated Anne Boleyn would have recognised straight away that this was a courtly game.  The messenger was clearly her knight in disguise and her heart should recognise him at once.  Sadly, no one had prepared Anne of Cleves for the courtly culture of England.  When the ‘messenger’ grabbed and kissed her, she was reportedly ‘abashed’.  She proceeded to treat him as a servant and largely ignored him.

This is the moment it all went wrong for Henry and Anne.  She had demonstrated her cultural ignorance.  He had been publicly humiliated.  What is less often remarked upon, is Henry’s initial reaction to Anne.  He had fallen in love with her portrait and was said to be disappointed with the real thing.  Yet, his first action upon meeting her was to grab her and kiss her.  Was he just swept up in the moment?  Or, when he first set eyes on the Princess, did he conclude that she was eminently grabbable and kissable?

2. Anne seemed to think she was more attractive than Katherine Parr

While Anne was surely happy to escape certain aspects of her marriage, there are signs that she felt slighted when Henry did not take her back after the fall of Katheryn Howard.  When it was announced that the King was to marry Lady Latimer (better known to us as ‘Katherine Parr’) Anne was heard to remark that she was a good deal more attractive than the Queen to be.

Obviously, the fact Anne thought positively about her appearance doesn’t mean that others agreed.  We can all delude ourselves.  But it should be noted that the imperial ambassador Chapuys, who reported these remarks, was quite capable of adding his own opinions to his observations.  If he had felt that Anne was deluded, he might well have mentioned it.

Other depictions of Anne suggest the Holbein portrait was flattering, but not outlandishly so

3. Holbein was never punished for the portrait of Anne

As we know, Henry fell in love with a portrait.  Given his reaction to Anne once they met, it is often assumed the painting must have been deliberately distorted.   Yet, Hans Holbein, the artist behind the miniature that captivated Henry’s heart, remained in favour.  He stayed on the King’s payroll and went on to paint another portrait of Henry. 

Holbein may have embellished a little.   That was to be expected.  Alison Weir has also noted that, when compared to some of Anne’s other portraits, it’s clear that Holbein chose to paint Anne at her most flattering angle.  But there’s a difference between a flattering picture and a fake one. 

*

Ultimately Henry and Anne lacked one crucial ingredient: chemistry.  That concept which is so hard to define yet so essential for the blossoming of romance.  Though he would never have used the word, it was an important concept to the King.  He had built up such an impression of Anne in his head.  He had fallen in love with a woman that didn’t exist.  She had failed her first courtly challenge.  They were doomed from the start.

In later years, a friendship emerged.  They ate together and talked.  Henry seems to have enjoyed her company.  She may have felt the same.  Perhaps if the circumstances had been different and Henry had been allowed to fall for her freely as he had all the other loves of his life, history would have taken a different turn.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/uncategorized/" rel="category tag">Uncategorized</a> Leave a comment

5 alternative theories about the Princes in the Tower (and why they’re all wrong)

The fate of the princes in the tower remains a mystery 500 years later

Shortly after becoming King in 1483, the 12-year-old Edward V was lodged in the Tower of London to await his coronation.  His uncle and Lord Protector, the Duke of Gloucester soon arranged for the young King’s brother, Richard, Duke of York, to join them.  

But the day of the coronation never came.  Instead, it was announced that the boys were illegitimate – the result of a bigamous marriage – and that their Uncle would reluctantly reign as Richard III.  In the weeks that followed the boys were seen playing in the grounds or looking out of windows.  But such sightings soon stopped.  By the end of the year, they were widely presumed to be dead.

To the minds of many historians, the circumstantial evidence weighs heavily toward Richard’s guilt.  He had the motive, means and opportunity.  The Princes were in his custody.  But if Richard is the most likely candidate, he is hardly the only one.  A host of others have been accused of the crime over the past five centuries.  Some who have studied the subject, don’t believe the boys died at all.  And there is no hard evidence that they did.

No one wants to believe that an uncle could order the death of his nephews.  Any alternative theories are going to be attractive.  But when we start to scrutinise those on offer, each can, sadly, be found wanting.

Let’s take a quick look at them.

Could the Princes’ mother have cut a deal with Richard III?

1. The Princes in the Tower were never killed

I would love this to be true.  Even 500 years later, the thought of what might have happened to those boys is chilling.  Could they have escaped a brutal end?  Might they have exchanged sovereignty for survival?

Sadly, I think it’s unlikely.  The theories range from Richard stashing the Princes somewhere else to a secret deal between Elizabeth Wydeville and her brother-in-law.   Secret identities and alternative careers as construction workers in Colchester are all offered as possibilities.

Others still, argue that someone sympathetic to the Princes managed to smuggle one or both from the Tower to safety.  Many would identify the imposter Perkin Warbeck as Richard, Duke of York, believing that the younger boy had somehow escaped his uncle’s custody.  Could the man sent to do the deed have taken mercy on him?

The belief that Richard had killed the Princes cost him dear.  Some could accept him as King but never tolerate child murder.  An unlikely coalition formed against him.  The remnants of Lancaster and supporters of his late brother, united against Richard’s reign.  Ultimately, they would take his life and his crown at Bosworth Field.  Had Richard been able to produce the Princes, this shaky alliance would have fractured immediately.

So why didn’t he?  That the boys were dead, and could not therefore be produced, is not the only explanation.  But it is, sadly, the most likely one.

One day, we may be allowed to DNA test the bones that were discovered in the Tower in 1674.  Should they be identified as those of the Princes, we will at least be sure that they died in the tower in the 1480s.

At the moment, we can’t draw too many conclusions from what we know of the skeletons.  But I will say this: the discovery of two skeletons, of children roughly the same age as the Princes in 1483, discovered exactly where Thomas More claimed they were buried, hardly detracts from the argument that the boys met their end that year.

2. The Duke of Buckingham did the deed to frame Richard, or to further his own claim to the throne

To my mind, this is the best alternative theory.  It’s certainly peculiar that Buckingham had been Richard’s staunchest supporter until he – somewhat suddenly – decided to spearhead a rebellion.  It may have been him that spread the rumours that the Princes were dead.  But could he have killed them? 

Some say that given his closeness to Richard, he was the only person that could have gained access.  I have some sympathy with that.  But even in this scenario, the King would have found out pretty sharpish.  Surely when he finally got his hands on the Duke, he would have publicly accused him.   It would have been the perfect solution for Richard.  His rivals would have been eliminated.  He would have been free from blame.  He would emerge as both legitimate King and grieving Uncle.

3. Seeing an opportunity for her son, Margaret Beaufort had the Princes done away with in 1483

Many on social media hold Lady Margaret Beaufort responsible for the Prince’s murder

This theory is popular on social media but not entertained by most historians.  I’ve blogged about why I think it has little weight elsewhere

Fundamentally, however much the Countess of Richmond was ambitious for her son, she wouldn’t have had access to the Princes in the Tower.  They were guarded by Richard’s men and she had nothing to bribe them with which was more attractive than the rewards offered by service to the King.

4. Henry VII, after his victory at Bosworth, had the Princes murdered

The first Tudor King has regularly been named as an alternative suspect.  But there are problems with this.  Firstly – and I refer readers to arguments earlier in the article – it relies on the Princes being alive until 1485, something which as I have demonstrated, seems unlikely. 

And what about Henry’s reaction to the pretender Perkin Warbeck?  Was he convinced that this man wasn’t truly Richard, Duke of York?  Some historians believe there was doubt in his mind.   A murderer would know the boys were dead.  Henry may not have enjoyed that confidence.

5. The boys died of natural causes

Edward V was being visited by a physician while in the Tower (before Richard removed his attendants).  Forensic investigations of the skeletons have shown some problems with the elder child’s jaw.  I’ve never known anyone die of jaw ache, although it could have been a symptom of something more serious.

But even if the elder boy had died, isn’t it a bit too convenient to think the younger had followed suit?  Had this gift been handed to Richard, surely he would have made use of it.

*

In a court of law, it would be unfair to convict someone by process of elimination.  The fact that these scenarios are unlikely to have played out, doesn’t make Richard guilty.

DNA testing of the bones may be able to confirm in the boys died in the tower.  But even that won’t tell us who killed them.  The truth is, we will never know for sure.

But as we begin to scrutinise all the alternative theories, we start to see their limits.  While recognising that we cannot be 100% certain, the finger of suspicion inevitable points again toward the man who took both Prince’s into custody, placed them in a high-security prison and, despite damaging rumours of their murder, never produced the boys to counter them. 

That man is Richard III.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/uncategorized/" rel="category tag">Uncategorized</a> 11 Comments

4 arguments that Richard III invented the pre-contract story

Did Richard believe his nephews were illegitimate?

The mystery surrounding the fate and probable murder of the Princes in the Tower has preoccupied historians for over 500 years.  Rumours that they had been put to death on the orders of their uncle, the newly anointed Richard III, destabilised his reign and ultimately contributed to his brutal end on Bosworth Field.

This is not the place to re-run those arguments.  I have blogged about them separately.

Today, we look at a different question.  When Richard allowed the boys to be declared illegitimate and took the throne for himself, was he acting out of ruthless self-interest?  Or did he have genuine grounds to believe that his nephews were not the lawfully begotten children of his brother, Edward IV? 

According to supporters of Richard III, Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York were illegitimate.  Their parents had never been lawfully married.  Before marrying their mother, Elizabeth Wydeville, Edward IV had pre-contracted himself (a kind of informal, but legally binding, marriage) to Lady Eleanor Talbot, daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury. 

This question is separate from the debate around whether Richard had his nephews put to death.  It is quite possible to believe that he seized the throne illegally, but never took it upon himself to eliminate the Princes.  Some historians, conversely, believe that he was within his rights to declare himself King, but still decided to eliminate rival blood.

Nevertheless, our understanding of this question frames the tone for the rest of the debate.  Those that view him as a reluctant King, dragged to power for the good of the nation are less likely to deem him capable of child murder.  Historians that judge he usurped the right of the nephews he should have protected, are more prepared to recognise his ruthless streak.

But this question must be looked at in isolation.  Each of the arguments should be assessed on their own merits.  Doing so, has led me to a clear conclusion: that there is every reason to believe the pre-contract story is a complete invention.  Here’s just four of them.

No one challenged Edward IV about a pre-contract at the time of his marriage

1.The convenience of the timing

The story emerged at a very convenient time.  Why had no one mentioned it in 1464 when Edward and Elizabeth married?  It is understandable that no one would have challenged Edward at the height of his power.  But at the time of his controversial marriage there were many people – who were effectively just as powerful as him – who were shocked and appalled.  They would have paid handsomely for any information to nullify the Wydeville marriage.  The fact that none came forward suggests none existed.

2. Richard and his supporters tried other ways of discrediting the Princes first

It is clear from the contemporary writings of Dominic Mancini that this was not even Richard’s plan A.  He and his supporters first put it about that Edward IV himself was illegitimate – the result of their mother’s adultery.  They also argued that Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville had been invalid because of its secretive and lustful beginnings.  It was a case of throwing around a few stories and seeing what stuck.

Third time lucky? Richard had tried two other ways of discrediting the Princes

3. If Richard had really believed it, he would have had it tried in an ecclesiastical court

Richard couldn’t have truly believed the pre-contract story.  If he had, why on earth did he not pass it on to an ecclesiastical court who would have investigated the matter? They were the only ones that had the power to do so. 

He certainly had the illegitimacy of the marriage proclaimed in Parliament; but Parliament had no jurisdiction on such matters.  Some have claimed that the universal support Richard received from the council is evidence that the tale was believed.  But, through the execution of Hastings (and later of Vaughn, Grey and Rivers) without trial, Richard had made it clear to everyone exactly what happened when people opposed him.

4. If it were true, Edward IV would obviously have known about it.  Wouldn’t he have taken greater steps to protect his heirs from those ‘in the know’?

The continental writer, Philippe de Commines, claimed that Edward IV’s pre-contract to Talbot was witnessed by Bishop Stillington.  The prelate supplied the information to Richard and had previously made it known to George, Duke of Clarence, the ill-fated brother of the two Yorkist Kings.

Supporters of this theory point to a possible association between Stillington and Clarence.  They highlight the fact that the Bishop spent a few weeks in prison around the time of Clarence’s execution.  But would the ruthless Edward IV really have killed his own brother but let Stillington, the man with the supposed knowledge to destroy his dynasty, off with a warning?  Suggestive as the string of circumstances might be, it simply doesn’t stack up.

*

Richard and his supporters believed he should be King.  Perhaps some of his reasons were noble.  In reality, I suspect it was just the best reaction they could make to the fast-moving events of 1483.  Once they had decided that Richard’s kingship was the best possible outcome, a legal pre-text had to be found.

Discrediting Edward IV’s legitimacy was tried.  Critiquing the – perfectly legal – way the Wydeville wedding took place was attempted.  But ultimately neither could be substantiated.

The pre-contract story had a hint of credibility.  Edward IV’s licentiousness was well known.  With all the parties dead, it could never be disproved.  In other words, the shoe seemed to fit.

It was a cunning and shrewd invention.  But it simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.  As the validity of the pre-contract story crumbles around us, we have no option but to conclude that Richard seized the throne illegally. 

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/princes-in-the-tower/" rel="category tag">Princes in the Tower</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/richard-iii/" rel="category tag">Richard III</a> Tagged <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/princes-in-the-tower/" rel="tag">Princes in the Tower</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/richard-iii/" rel="tag">Richard III</a> 8 Comments

4 problems with the theory that Henry VIII ‘changed forever’ following a fall from his horse

Hopes had been high for the young, learned Prince

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.

  1. Henry was probably not hurt in the fall from his horse

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.

Even the tyrannical Henry couldn’t just chop people’s heads off

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!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/anne-boleyn/" rel="category tag">Anne Boleyn</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/henry-viii/" rel="category tag">Henry VIII</a> 10 Comments