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

Posted on November 9, 2020November 12, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

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.

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!

WATCH: Dr Owen Emmerson on the history of Hever Castle

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

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!

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

Posted on September 26, 2020September 26, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

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!

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

Posted on September 22, 2020September 22, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

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.

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!

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

Posted on August 25, 2020August 25, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

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!

4 arguments that Richard III invented the pre-contract story

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

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!

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

Posted on August 17, 2020August 23, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

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.

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 29^th 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!

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!

6 arguments that Katherine and Arthur probably didn’t ‘do it’

Posted on July 22, 2020August 23, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

We Royal History Geeks are a nosy bunch, aren’t we? Normally, what happens between a couple on their wedding night stays pretty private. Even a close friend might think twice before prying into the details.

For Katherine of Aragon and Arthur, Prince of Wales, however, no such privacy can be afforded. The subject of whether their teenage marriage was consummated would emerge at the centre of King Henry VIII’s great matter – his attempt to divorce his first wife and be wed to Anne Boleyn.

Arthur was Henry’s older brother. As Arthur’s widow, Katherine was technically Henry’s sister under church law. But the Pope had dispensed with this obstacle – as Popes often did. The couple was free to marry.

But an anxious Henry later grew doubtful of the Pope’s right to wave away this important consideration. The book of Leviticus declared that if a man took his brother’s wife he would be childless. Given his lack of son, these words struck a chord with the King. What right did the church have to overturn scripture?

Katherine and her supporters argued that the Pope’s dispensation was largely unnecessary. She swore that her marriage to Henry’s brother had never been consummated. Katherine and Arthur had never truly been husband and wife. Yet Henry grew convinced that his wife had not been a maid when she came to him. Neither was prepared to back down.

We will never know the truth. Only two people know for sure what happened during that short marriage. They have both been dead for half a millennium. But if I were a betting man, my money would be on Katherine. Here’s six reasons why.

1.Katherine stood fast even as she prepared to meet her maker

Religious belief was paramount in Tudor England. That doesn’t mean we should ascribe spiritual purity to everyone indiscriminately. But Katherine was a devout woman and she swore that she and Arthur had never been truly man and wife. She maintained this stance until the end of her days – right up to the point when she was going to meet her maker. If fear of judgement did not cause her to confess, she likely had nothing to retract.

Henry VIII was initially keen to be married to his brother’s widow

2. Henry’s concerns were suspect and hypocritical

I’m one of the few who thinks some of Henry’s concerns about his marriage were genuine. He probably doubted his marriage to Katherine before Anne Boleyn came along.

Nevertheless, Henry was a hypocrite. He argued that Katherine and Arthur had become one, making Katherine his sister under canon law and their marriage incestuous. The Pope, he said, was wrong to grant dispensations in such circumstances. Yet, at the same time, Henry was applying to the Pope for dispensation to marry Anne Boleyn. She was in the same forbidden degree of affinity to him as Katherine was. Henry had slept with her sister, Mary.

There must have been limits to how far Henry’s marriage to Katherine was genuinely plaguing his conscience.

3. Katherine publicly challenged Henry to admit he knew the truth

At a trial to determine the legality of her wedding, Katherine gave the performance of a lifetime. Kneeling before Henry, she delivered an impassioned defence of their union. Included within this monologue was the following pointed phrase:

“And when ye had me at the first, I take God to be my judge, I was a true maid without touch of man; and whether it be true or no, I put it to your conscience.”

Katherine is implying that Henry knew full well that it was he, not Arthur, that took her virginity. Could there have been physical evidence of such on their wedding night? If Katherine was lying, this was a bold move.

4. Arthur was probably sickly

Arthur was probably sickly by the time of his marriage to Katherine

Some argue that Arthur – who was probably born premature – had always been a sickly lad. There is no real evidence for that.

However, according to testimony by Spanish servants, Arthur was not well at the time he and Katherine married. This could explain a lack of sexual congress. It might also explain why Katherine recovered from illness and why her fragile husband did not.

Clearly this testimony must be treated with caution. These witnesses were speaking at a trial convened in Spain and were saying things that the local authorities wanted to hear. Nevertheless, they were talking about events that took place 30 years before and their accounts fit together well. They would have had little chance to compare notes.

5. Newsflash: teenage boys lie about sex

Henry had witnesses too. Servants of Arthur reported that after his wedding night he had been heard bragging that ‘marriage was thirsty work.’ One servant, Sir Anthony Willoughby, was instructed to bring the young Prince a cup of ale for he had been ‘this night in the midst of Spain.’ The implication was clear. Arthur had sealed the deal.

As with witnesses that spoke up in Katherine’s defence, these men were not impartial. It was in their interest to say things that Henry VIII wanted to hear. But even if their testimony was honest, can we really be confident that Arthur’s youthful brags contained the truth? He would hardly be the only teenage boy in history to brag about a sexual encounter which had, strictly speaking, never happened. Were he ill – and feeling insecure – at the time, might he have felt extra pressure to overcompensate?

6. Teenage sex was not always encouraged in Tudor England

Couples married young. But did they always take things to the next level? We know that Elizabeth or York and Margaret Beaufort intervened to ensure that Arthur’s sister, Princess Margaret was not introduced to sex too earlier in the run up to her marriage to the King of Scots. There’s no suggestion that they did the same for Katherine and Arthur. But it might suggest that there was a hesitance about teenage sex, even following marriage.

Other possible examples can be found. Katherine Parr married a teenage boy when she was young. She did not fall pregnant. This could suggest that sex was delayed. Though he, like Arthur, was probably sickly.

Let me repeat: we will never know for sure. I appreciate that there are counterpoints to all these arguments. Perhaps Katherine had falsely convinced herself that nothing happened. Maybe she decided to double done and stick to her guns. The Spanish witnesses could have been lying. Arthur’s brags may have been based on the truth.

Ultimately – and at risk of oversimplification – it comes down to a simple question. Whose honesty do you trust more: Henry VIII or Katherine of Aragon? On this criterion, I am far more minded to give the benefit of the doubt to Katherine the Queen.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

WATCH: Interview with Alison Weir, Tudor history sensation

Posted on July 17, 2020August 23, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

It was an immense privilege to sit down (over zoom) with historian and novelist, Alison Weir.

Alison is responsible for some of the best researched ‘narrative history’ on the Tudor and Plantagenet periods. She has written novels as well as history books.

At the time of the interview, Alison had just released her 5th book in the ‘Six Tudor Queens’ fictional series: Katherine Howard, the Tainted Queen (Scandalous Queen in the USA).

Please visit Alison’s website and consider buying her books from a local bookstore or online. http://alisonweir.org.uk/

Subscribe to our newsletter!