New research reveals the true age of Catherine Howard, says Gareth Russell

Posted on March 31, 2021March 31, 2021 By Gareth - Editor

In recent years, historians have feared that Catherine Howard was just 15 years old when she married the aged Henry VIII. But according to the Tudor Queen’s most recent biographer, robust evidence places her year of birth earlier than has recently been assumed.

In 1527, Isabel Worsley left a modest bequest of 20 shillings to her young granddaughter, Catherine Howard. She could never have fathomed that this little gift would form the basis of an academic debate 500 years’ later.

Like all of Henry VIII’s English wives, the year of Catherine Howard’s birth is shrouded in mystery.

Baptismal records were not systematically kept. Though Catherine was born into a great family, she was firmly on its fringes. Few could have predicted that her date of birth would ever be a source of interest to future generations.

Mercifully, a handful of clues survive. In the will of John Leigh, Catherine’s step-grandfather, the future Queen is not mentioned. Scholars have traditionally dated this document to 1524. Yet, just three years later, Isabel’s will gave due mention to both Catherine and a little sister.

Many have assumed that Catherine must have made her debut between the drafting of these two documents. Given that she had to arrive with time to spare for a baby sister, 1525 leaps out as the most logical choice.

This conclusion matters. It makes Catherine just 15 when she married the 49-year-old Henry and became Queen of England. Phrases like “child bride” or “abusive marriage” may be anachronistic. But they would not be entirely inaccurate.

It’s a horrifying conclusion. But is it the right one?

According to historian Gareth Russell, Catherine’s most recent biographer, there is more to this debate than meets the eye.

“The idea that Catherine was born in 1525 is based on a misreading of her grandparents’ wills,” Gareth explains. “It’s an understandable mistake. But it is unambiguously a mistake.”

The ambassador’s reception

“The most compelling evidence for Catherine’s year of birth comes from Charles de Marillac, French ambassador to Henry VIII’s court. He knew Catherine well. They went on long hunting trips in the summers of 1540 and 1541. And he was paid to make these kinds of things his business.

“de Marillac reported that Catherine was 18 when she debuted at court at the tail end of 1539. While he may have been basing this on her appearance, four years is too big a mistake to make.

“Some argue that de Marillac had poor form when it came to age guessing. They point out that he estimated 24-year-old Anne of Cleves’s age at 30. But this is a misunderstanding. He doesn’t get Anne’s age wrong. He says that if you saw her, you would guess her age at 30, meaning that she looked older than she was. He’s making an unchivalrous comment, not – at least from a biographical point of view – an inaccurate one.

“There’s also a widely-held view that 14 was deemed an acceptable age to marry in Tudor England. But it’s a bit more nuanced than that. Many believed that a 14-year-old would struggle to bring a child to term. Given the primary role of a Queen was to bear heirs, if Henry had taken a wife as young as that, it would have been more widely remarked upon.

“Given this evidence, a birthdate of circa 1521/22 emerges as the most likely.”

A will-full misreading?

On the face of it, the case seems closed. But what about Catherine’s absence from John Leigh’s will of 1524? True, he was her step-grandfather rather than a blood relative. Yet, all Catherine’s Howard brothers prove worthy of a mention.

“When researching my biography of Catherine, I spent more time with these wills than an executor,” Gareth continues. “While John Leigh did add to his will in 1524, it was actually written a year earlier. “Girls were not excluded from Leigh’s will in general. But, if we accept a birthdate of 1521/22, Catherine would have been incredibly young. This probably explains her absence.”

In good company

Gareth’s research also revealed that, if Catherine had been born either significantly before, or significantly after 1522, that would put her at odds with the ages of the other young women who joined Anne of Cleves’s household in 1539.

“In as much as we can date the births of Catherine’s contemporaries when she debuted at court, they were all born in the early-to-mid 1520s. Some argue that Catherine was born before 1520, but this research rules that out. Similarly, a birthdate of 1525 seems a little too late.”

As a result of this extensive research, Gareth argues that 1521/22 is the most likely year of birth for Henry VIII’s fifth wife. This would make her about 18 when she debuted at court, 19 when she became Queen and 21 when she died.

“Ultimately, this is still very young,” Gareth concludes. “While it avoids the horror of the child bride scenario, it still left Catherine suspectable to make the sorts of mistakes we all make at 20 and 21. Mistakes which, even by the standards of the day, should not have warranted death.”

WATCH: the full Royal History Geeks interview with Gareth Russell

BUY: Gareth’s excellent biography of Catherine Howard, “Young, damned and fair”.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

RHG speaks to fan-favourite, Gareth Russell

Posted on March 22, 2021March 22, 2021 By Gareth - Editor

Gareth Russell is emerging as one of the strongest narrative historians of a generation. He has penned books on Catherine Howard, the history of English Kings and the sinking of the Titanic.

In this interview, Royal History Geeks asked Gareth about his research on Catherine Howard, his thoughts on the Crown season four and his obsession with Anne Boleyn. Buy Gareth’s excellent books at Amazon

Subscribe to our newsletter!

6 myths about the wives of Henry VIII

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

It’s been almost 500 years, and we’re still fascinated by Henry VIII and his six wives. It’s no great surprise. The tales of the women who enjoyed or endured marriage to the legendary Tudor King are saturated in romance, politics and drama. You couldn’t make up more compelling stories. Though many have tried.

Equally unsurprisingly, given the nature of human imagination, many myths about these royal matriarchs have entered the public consciousness. Some are plain wrong. Others are oversimplifications and half-truths.

Let’s take a look at just six of them.

1.When Prince Arthur died, Katherine of Aragon swore the marriage was unconsummated to avoid being sent back to Spain.

The myth

Katherine of Aragon committed to one clear destiny. To become Queen of England. Upon the death of Prince Arthur she feared this dream was about to shatter. To avoid being sent back to Spain, she swore that the marriage was unconsummated. It was only on this basis that the likes of Henry VII agreed to betroth her to Prince Henry, the future Henry VIII.

In reality…

There is no record of Katherine declaring that her first marriage was unconsummated until 1529. She stated it publicly during Henry VIII’s attempts to divorce her and it threw a curveball into proceedings.

She might have mentioned it privately beforehand. But during negotiations for a marriage between her and Prince Henry, it was assumed that the marriage had been consummated and papal dispensation was granted accordingly. It could be that no one asked her. Maybe she didn’t fully understand herself. After she eventually experienced the full consummation of a marriage in 1509, the truth may have dawned on her.

None of this means that Katherine was lying. If anything, her declaration in 1529 makes it more likely that she was telling the truth. Under a strict interpretation of church law, her admission could have gone against her. The dispensation assumed that consummation had taken place. Had it not, she really needed a different kind of dispensation, which covered the “public honesty” of her betrothal to Henry VIII’s brother. So, she risked invalidating the marriage on a technicality.

2. Anne Boleyn lured Henry VIII away from his marriage to Katherine and convinced him of the need to divorce

The myth

Anne Boleyn, perhaps with the help of her ambitious family, set out to capture the King’s heart. By holding out from becoming his mistress, she convinced the King to put Katherine aside and seek a divorce so that she, Anne, could be enthroned as Queen of England.

In reality…

We don’t know. It’s hard to date the beginnings of Henry’s interest in Anne, let alone be clear on the details. The courtship was partly conducted in writing but Anne’s letters don’t survive.

Anne did refuse to become his mistress. Ultimately, Henry overcame this barrier by asking Anne to be his wife. But there’s no evidence that this was part of a Boleyn master plan.

The great historian Eric Ives believes Henry had already decided to divorce Katherine ahead of falling for Anne. He was just expecting to put his first wife aside in favour of another foreign princess.

3.Jane Seymour’s family planted her in Henry’s path to bring about Anne Boleyn’s downfall

The myth

Learning lessons from Anne’s “capture of the King” the Seymour family groomed Jane to seduce him. She presented herself as the opposite of Anne in every way to mastermind the Queen’s downfall. The Seymours did this out of ambition and to further the cause of their family.

In reality…

Henry may have been easily led. But he wasn’t a puppet. Once his interest in Jane was clear, the conservative faction at court, led by the powerful Marquess and Marchioness of Exeter started to hatch a plan that would lead to Anne’s divorce and banishment in Jane’s favour.

Yes, her family saw the advantages and supported it. But they were not ideological soul mates with the conspirators. Jane’s brother Edward would become a champion of religious reform. Quite the opposite agenda to that being persuaded by the Exeters.

4.It was really Anne of Cleves that rejected Henry and she was only too happy to be free from him

The myth

Anne of Cleves was a young woman who was clearly horrified when she came face to face with the old, obese and increasingly decrepit Henry VIII. Her repulsion to him was so obvious, it prevented the marriage from being consummated. To save face, Henry vocalised his dislike of Anne and arranged for an annulment. Anne then lived out the rest of her days as a wealthy, independent woman. She revelled in her freedom.

In reality…

Anne probably wasn’t enamoured with the prospect of sleeping with Henry. And he was slighted by her initial, negative reaction to him when he came to her disguised as a servant. But Anne’s feelings toward Henry were not the determining factor.

Anne had been sent to England to marry its King and advocate for the cause of Cleves. Following Henry’s public rejection of her, she would have felt like a failure.

When Henry eventually married his final wife Katherine Parr, Anne felt slighted, declaring that she was much prettier than the King’s new bride. She always seemed hopeful that he would take her back.

5.Katheryn Howard was a child bride

The myth

Katheryn Howard was a girl of 15 when she married the King. She had no real choice in the matter and was used as a pawn by her powerful uncle, the Duke of Norfolk.

In reality…

Not really. In some accounts of the era, Katheryn’s age at marriage is confidently given as 15. This is based on her absence from her step-grandfather’s will which was written in 1522, suggesting she had not yet been born.

But most recent biographers of Katheryn think it more likely that she was 18/19 when she became Queen. This is based on comments by the French ambassador who knew her. By Tudor standards this was not young. Marriage, including quite possibly to a much older man, would have been expected of her. There is also no good evidence that Norfolk had anything to do with initiating the King’s interest in his niece.

6.Katherine Parr was more of a nursemaid than a wife to Henry VIII

The myth

Following the disaster of his marriage to the young Katheryn Howard, Henry sought out a woman to be more of a companion than a wife. Katherine Parr, as Lady Latimer, had experience of nursing her husband through his old age. She was the perfect choice to hold the King’s hand and mop his brow as life eeked out of him.

In reality…

This charming, but patronising image of Katherine emerged in the Victorian era. But it’s stuck. It’s certainly what I was taught at school in the 1990s.

Katherine took an interest in the health of her ailing husband. But as a woman of rank she would have been quite far from the nitty-gritty of nursing. Instead, she spent her time championing religious reform. She even ruled England while Henry was waging war was against France in 1544.

These are just six of the myths that circulate about Henry VIII and his infamous six wives. What other inaccuracies can you think of which have gained common currency?

Subscribe to our newsletter!

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

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

In 1542, a distraught Henry VIII decided to have the head of the woman who had broken his heart.

There was just one problem. It wasn’t actually clear what crime the Queen, Katheryn Howard had committed. She had certainly been inappropriate with the young courtier, Thomas Culpeper. But it seems that there was not sufficient evidence to condemn her for adultery.

In an act of legal reimagination, it was decided that Katheryn’s misconduct before her marriage to Henry was worthy of censure. Her behaviour after her nuptials only served to illustrate that she was no longer worthy of her life.

But was she the only Queen of Henry VIII’s to be guilty of a dalliance prior to marriage? Is it possible that none of his wives came to Henry’s marital bed untouched by man?

Let’s take them one by one.

Katherine of Aragon

Did Katherine of Aragon consummate her first marriage to Henry’s brother, Arthur. The issue would sit at the heart of Henry’s attempt to divorce Katherine and be joined to Anne Boleyn.

I’ve covered this ground elsewhere, so won’t go over it again. We will never know the truth, but I’m inclined to believe Katherine. She swore an oath that she had come to Henry’s bed a maid and I don’t think she would have engendered her immortal soul by lying.

Anne Boleyn

Henry’s second wife has gone down in history as the woman who made the King wait seven years before surrendering her affections. But was Henry her first sexual experience?

After his nuptials to Anne, Henry grew rapidly disappointed. He was heard complaining that she had been ‘corrupted’ while living in the French court. It’s not clear what this meant but it he was probably suggesting that she had acquired some kind of sexual technique from the continent.

There is also the question of Henry Percy. In 1522, Anne fell in love with the future Earl of Northumberland and the couple hoped to wed. Cardinal Wolsey – who had plans to settle a family feud by marrying Anne to the Irish Earl of Ormonde – put a stop to the match. However, if the couple believed they had agreed a pre-contract , sleeping together would have been the way to ‘seal the deal.’ These two factors would make them legally married and there was, strictly speaking, nothing improper about forming a union that way. Although such a clandestine approach was not encouraged among the high nobility.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Anne would have been so carefree. She was a master of strategy and had she believed her and Percy were to spend their lives together, she would not have wanted there to be a question mark around the legitimacy of any children.

Jane Seymour

We don’t know much about Queen Jane’s character. But we do know that Henry chose her because she was the opposite of Anne. While Anne was sensual and alluring, Jane was demure and gentle.

It seems unlikely that Jane knew the touch of man before Henry came along. She certainly did not have a reputation for any kind of light behaviour. But did Henry and Jane wait until they had officially tied the knot before becoming physically intimate?

Henry and Jane married with alarming haste after Anne’s execution. This might well have been Henry’s way of showing the world he had moved on after the humiliation of being cuckolded. Or, he may simply have burned with desire for Jane.

However, it could also be that they were in such a rush because Jane was pregnant. Some think she may have miscarried one child before conceiving Edward. Could it be that another was sadly lost in the early weeks of their marriage?

Anne of Cleves

As many Royal History Geeks know, there’s a famous scene where Anne’s ladies probed the Queen on the nature of her bedroom antics. She innocently replied that the King kissed her every night and fell asleep beside her. Was that not enough, she wide-eyed wondered, to bring a child into the world?

It’s a sweet story. But I don’t buy it. Anne was 24 when she came to England. Would her mother really have sent her into the lion’s den without a word in her ear? Her parents would have known Henry was expecting sex. I cannot believe they would let her navigate this fundamental frontier entirely alone.

Was she as innocent as history remembers? Henry certainly didn’t think so. As he tried to find a way out of their marriage, he mentions multiple times that, having inspected Anne’s body, he believed her to be no maid.

Perhaps we shouldn’t take Henry too seriously. But he was experienced with women. The notion that Anne may have given birth to a son as a teenager forms the sub-plot of Alison Weir’s excellent novel on the Cleves Princess. The books is fiction and the author is clear that were she penning a factual biography, she would have to tread more carefully. But Henry’s comments are certainly intriguing.

Katheryn Howard

Let’s not tarry here for long. We know that Katheryn was not a virgin when she married the King. She seemed to know how to lie with a man without getting pregnant, which might suggest she never surrendered herself fully to Francis Dereham. But it’s more likely that they used some form of contraception.

Katherine Parr

Henry’s final wife is the only one that everyone knew was not a virgin at the time of the marriage – and quite legitimately so. She had been married twice before.

But it’s possible that she was not particularly sexually experienced. Her first husband had been young and sickly. Her second, older and often unwell. There is no record of her ever falling pregnant by either of them nor by Henry. Yet, when she married the virile Thomas Seymour, she was with child almost straight way.

Could it be that her sex life only really got going with husband number four?

Subscribe to our newsletter!

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!

Did Henry VIII suffer from impotency?

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

“Henry VIII suffered from impotency. It was s a result of obesity and other health problems in his later years.”

It’s a statement you often hear on social media. Generally it’s delivered with the confidence of a cast-iron fact.

But what evidence do we actually have to support it?

Henry experienced a number of health problems in later life

Henry’s last two wives, Kateryn Howard and Katherine Parr, almost certainly didn’t ‘enjoy’ the delights of the potent Prince that had married their namesake, Katherine of Aragon. But can we really make sweeping claims about Henry’s health without stronger source material? Many claim confidently that Henry would have suffered from type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. While both are possible, we simply can’t diagnose at a distance of 500 years.

In truth, we probably don’t have enough information judge whether Henry suffered from impotency in his later years. But there are some valid pieces of source material and circumstantial evidence that it’s worth exploring.

Anne Boleyn: cruel gossip or unsatisfied wife?

The first piece of evidence comes from 1536 and the trial of George Boleyn, brother of Henry’s ill-fated second wife. According to Chapuys, the Imperial ambassador, during the trial, George was handed a piece of paper that contained allegations against him. Despite being instructed to digest it silently, George read the charges out loud. Among them was the accusation that he and his sister, Anne, had been heard gossiping about Henry. They had, it was claimed, been laughing about the fact that the King was struggling to perform in the bedroom.

We must be careful about this evidence. To start with Chapuys was not an eyewitness to the trial. Despite the fact that he was reporting back to his master, the emperor, he had form for reporting gossip as fact. He also may have thought the Emperor would enjoy this little dig at Henry’s potency.

Nevertheless, the ambassador would have conversed with several eyewitnesses. He was quite complimentary about George Boleyn’s defence at the trial, despite regarding all Boleyns as the enemy. In this instance, Chapuy’s words are generally seen as reliable.

Of course, the fact that George and Anne were accused of such gossip does not mean they were guilty of it. Much of the evidence levied against Anne and her ‘conspirators’ was clearly falsified. Yet, while this is not exactly robust historical analysis, what we know of George and Anne’s characters gives the story a ring of authenticity.

Whatever the truth of this tale, we simply cannot conclude that Henry was impotent from 1536 onwards. He successfully impregnated Jane Seymour. While it did take Jane six months to fall pregnant with Edward VI, it is possible that she had miscarried a child previously and was even pregnant when she and Henry married. They certainly married in haste.

The Cleves catastrophe

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

For the next piece of evidence, we must turn the clock forward to 1540 and Henry’s disastrous marriage to Anne of Cleves. This marriage was unconsummated, and Henry confessed to his physician that he had been unable to do the deed. But he was very keen to stress that he was not in error. He had experienced two ‘nocturnal pollutions’ (i.e. wet dreams) that very night.

Here, for the first time, Henry is admitting a ‘performance’ issue. But he is also squarely making it clear that it is not his fault and that all his equipment is working as it should. Was he so alarmed by the situation he had to seek a doctor? Or was he worried word of his inadequacy would spread and sought to make a pre-emptive strike?

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

The Duke of York that never appeared

In Henry’s mind, the future of the Tudor dynasty hung by the fragile thread of one little boy. He was bound to want to sire sons from his final two marriages. People expected him to do so. Yet, sons did not spring from either union.

The issue was unlikely to be with either wife. Katheryn Howard was young and healthy. Katherine Parr would conceive almost straight away once married to the virile Thomas Seymour. Something seemed to be amiss with Henry.

One explanation could be that Henry was now struggling with impotency. But it could just as easily have been declining fertility. Henry had claimed responsibility for 11 pregnancies and was almost certainly responsible for more. But even with men, fertility declines with age. His interest in Katheryn Howard suggests there was at least something sexual about their relationship.

Nevertheless, issues of sexual performance remain a possibility. And for an explanation, we might be wise to search into the soul.

Impotency can be caused by psychological as well as physiological factors. It is certainly possible to make sense of Henry’s potential problems through this lens – particularly if the problems do originate in the 1530s.

Henry had moved heaven and earth to make Anne Boleyn his own. He had gone through a traumatic separation with his first wife and become estranged from the daughter he had once loved so much. He had remade the religious and political makeup of his Kingdom by breaking with Rome. Yet, almost as soon as he married Anne she proved to be a disappointment. Could any issues with intimacy, sex and performance have resulted from such disappointment? If so, it might help explain why he came to believe there was something sinister about Anne. That she had once bewitched him. Throughout the twists and turns of the 1540s, it is most conceivable that such problems would have worsened.

We shall never know the truth. That Henry experienced issues with sexual performance is possible. That these may have been linked to type 2 diabetes, blood pressure and emotional issues all make sense. But we can’t diagnose at this distance. It is of course interesting to speculate. Let’s just ensure we maintain a degree of humility and caution when we do so.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry’s wives different wildly in pedigree

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

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

1. Katherine of Aragon

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

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

2. Anne of Cleves

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

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

Anna of Cleves could claim descent from French and English Kings

3. Anne Boleyn

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

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

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

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

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

4. Katheryn Howard

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

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

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

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

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

5. Katherine Parr

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

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

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

6. Jane Seymour

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

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

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

Subscribe to our newsletter!

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

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

Let’s be honest: lockdown sucks! But it does mean there’s more time for reading. Over the next couple of weeks, I will review 10 books which all Royal History Geeks should add to their reading list.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Six Wives, the Queens of Henry VIII, is available from Amazon.

However, please consider supporting your local book seller. If you are based in the UK, search for your local book seller at the Book Seller Associations website.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

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

Posted on November 21, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

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

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

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

Let’s go.

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

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

In defence of Henry VI

Posted on November 17, 2016November 17, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Image result for Henry VI

Been thinking lately about good King Henry. No not that one. Nor that one. Not even that one.

I speak not of Henry VIII, who transformed England perhaps more than any other ruler. Nor do I dwell on his father, who founded the infamous Tudor dynasty. I do not even mean the fifth Harry, who took England to its 100 year war zenith at the battle of Agincourt.

Instead, I’ve been pondering the reign of Henry VI – the man whose reign was seen as so disastrous that it led to the Wars of the Roses and ultimately, the downfall of Lancaster and the rise of York. He was weak. Easily led. He had no desire for glory in war. He lacked ruthlessness. He was far too trusting; particularly when it came to unscrupulous advisers.

All this is accurate. He had none of the qualities necessary for successful medieval Kingship.

But something bothers me about how history judges him. No sympathy has emerged and few rarely speak up for his good qualities. He was a man of genuine religious conviction. He was compassionate. He invested in education. He forgave people that wronged him. He was not promiscuous. He took care of his maternal half-brothers. He was a lover of peace.

None of this, I agree, would have endeared him to contemporaries. But shouldn’t the 21^st century observer be pouring praise on these virtues? After all, the behaviour of Catherine Howard made her a totally unsuitable Tudor Queen; but the modern reader has sympathy with her, recognising that she was essentially an abused teenage girl, forced into marriage with an obese man in his 50s. Why isn’t Henry VI given the same generosity?

It has come to my attention of late that the Wars of the Roses are still being fought – albeit by history fans on Twitter. Great! But it surprises me that so many side with Edward IV at the expense of poor Henry.

Don’t get me wrong – as I’ve said above, I understand why contemporaries would have seen Edward as the better King. But shouldn’t we judge differently? Shouldn’t we be quick to acknowledge that virtuous, faithful, peaceful Henry is a better offering than adulterous, gluttonous and war ready Edward – even if we have to sadly acknowledge that the latter probably makes you a better ruler of 15^th century England?

But we don’t. Part of me can’t shake the feeling that this has all been distorted by the fact that so many history fans have a crush on Max Irons…

Anyway, for this blogger at least, Henry VI deserves a reprieve. He may have been one of the most unsuited heads to ever wear a crown – but he’s one of the finest characters in the annals of history.

Okay Yorkists (and other geeks) – do your worst. Tell me where I’m going wrong! I want to hear what you think!