Tudor House, Southampton

It's been a couple of years since I was last at Tudor House. Last time I was there the place was a building site, part way through a restoration programme. I was an archaeologist then, and I was working with a team of diggers in the gardens. We were basically there to shovel dirt out of the way of the builders. Yet we still found some pretty awesome bits of archaeology including some nice bits of pottery, and one of my colleagues found a rather beautiful stylus. One of my fondest memories is of trying to demolish a little stone wall with a mattock, in the rain. The mattock wasn't working and every time I hit the wall sparks would fly. In the end I had to use a sledgehammer. It was tough work. But damn it felt good when that wall came down!

Today, I decided it was high time I went back. Mainly because I've had nearly three weeks off work due to illness, but also because it's right on my doorstep. So this afternoon I took myself down there. I stood outside for a moment, in the little square facing this absolutely stunning building and I took it all in. The outside hasn't changed a bit since I was last there but it never fails to take my breath away. And then, I took myself inside, paid my entry fee and entered the banqueting hall.

The first thing we were treated to was an audio visual tour giving a brief history of Tudor House as well as a short introduction of how Tudor House became a museum. It was held in a very darkened banqueting hall, with a light show in which it seemed as though the candles were flickering, and noises came from the door behind me. I closed my eyes and I have to say, as the audio of creaking footsteps and barking dogs was being played it was somewhat freaky. It was a brilliant introduction to the history of the house, which I shall go into briefly below before I bombard you with all the photographs that I took.

The house itself dates from the fourteenth century, when in around 1348 a man named John Whytegod owned the land. The lane that runs alongside Tudor House, now known as Blue Anchor Lane, was originally known as Whytegod's lane (I wonder why). Whytegod also owned part of the property nearby known as King John's Palace, part of which can be seen as you wander around Tudor House. In the fifteenth century, Tudor House passed to Walter and Jane William. Walter William inherited the building from his father, and he was a trader who dealt in the shipment of wool and cloth. William was also involved a plot against King Richard III when, in 1483 he was made Mayor of Southampton. Due to his part in the plot, he was branded a traitor and fled to Beaulieu Abbey where he sought sanctuary and died not long afterwards. When Henry VII became king in 1485 after the Battle of Bosworth, he pardoned Williams fellow traitors and his wife became the wealthy owner of Tudor House. She later married Sir John Dawtrey. Following the wedding, the house came into the hands of the Dawtrey family. Sir John, already overseer of the Port of Southampton also owned many property in St Michael's Square near Tudor House, and he decided that a man of his status needed a house to befit him. So he commenced work and joined his houses into a bigger house which became very much like the building today. After Sir John died in 1518, the house passed into the hands of Lady Isobel Lyster (Sir John's widow, who he had married after Jane had died). Lord and Lady Lyster were exceptionally wealthy and conducted huge entertainments at Tudor House. After Isobel's death, Lord Lyster married again and retired permanently to Southampton in 1528. He was the owner of Tudor House until his own death 1554, and there is a monument to him in the church opposite the House. In the 1600's the house belonged to wealthy ship owners (evidence of which can be seen in the graffiti dotting the walls of the house), yet in the Georgian era began to decline, when it was made into a series of dwellings and the nearby area was one of the poorest areas of the city. Not long after, in the early 1800's, the house was made into a museum, yet many changes were made. Doors were added where there had been no doors, a minstrels gallery was added where there was none previously and wood panelling was added to many of the walls in a romanticised version of Tudor building work. However, it is thanks to this work that we still have Tudor House today, and thanks to the work of local historians and archaeologist we now have a history of this fantastic building.

I have to say, even though I spent less than an hour wandering around this beautiful building, I certainly saw more of it than I ever did while I was working here. When I was working in the gardens there was little time to explore the building - even though I did get to see the cellars on my first day. It was an absolute pleasure to wander around and have a look at the displays, and to see the graffiti scrawled on the walls from the 1600's and beyond. And despite the changes made to the place in the Georgian period, you really can get a sense of what it was like there. Plus, it was really very quiet and exceptionally peaceful, which always helps.

Below are some photographs that I took while I was wandering around.

The door on the left originally lead to the Tudor pantry and buttery. The gallery above was added in the Georgian era, as were the oak beams you can see in the wall on the left.

This is apparently a model of Elizabeth I

The beautiful gardens

This corner in the gardens is where I spent most of my time digging. To get rid of spoil we had to hoist buckets over the wall.

Tudor kitchen...apparently

Tudor pottery - we found many examples of this whilst digging

The engraving above could be a "witch mark" - used in medieval and Tudor times to protect against witchcraft (although these are normally two intersecting letter V's), or an insignia or a merchant who lived here at the time.

Beautiful painted beam

Not a very clear picture, but this wall has graffiti on it dating from the 1600's

Poor little stuffed spaniel puppy :(

Greek Amphorae

YAY ARCHAEOLOGY

YAY MORE ARCHAEOLOGY

Ship marks. If you look closely you can see what looks like a boat, and to the right of it and inscription of SCH

And last but not least, the staircase heading towards the exit, decorated with portraits of the family who once lived in Tudor House.

All in all, a fantastic afternoon and well worth the money. If any of you are in Southampton, I urge you all to visit this fantastic little place.

Review: The Crown by Nancy Bilyeau

I was kindly sent a copy of this book by the author Nancy Bilyeau and her publishers after winning a giveaway on English Historical Fiction Authors. It arrived on Thursday, and by Friday evening I had finished it - and now I'm not normally one to coin this phrase but I just couldn't put it down. Now you guys know me, I'm not normally one to break into historical fiction if I can help it as more often than not it disappoints me - the only exceptions recently have been Hilary Mantel's "Wolf Hall" and Ken Follet's "Pillars of the Earth" and normally I steer very very clear of Tudor fiction (please see Tired Of The Tudors, and you'll understand why). "The Crown" is Bilyeau's debut novel, and I have to say, she has done a very good job. Whilst the book isn't perfect, with some inaccuracies, the fast paced storyline and exceptionally well developed characters kept me hooked from the first page right until the last. And I have to say it was a much needed break from my heavier non fiction that I've been reading lately.

First of all, the story is set within Dartford priory in Kent, which was the only house of Dominican Nuns in England., and the main character is Sister Joanna, or Joanna Stafford. Joanna is part of a much bigger family unit, related to the executed Duke of Buckingham and family ties to the Duke of Norfolk...and thus also a family connection to Henry VIII! But why do we encounter Stafford in a priory as a Novice? Quite simply, she had agreed to the dying Queen/Dowager Princess of Wales Katherine of Aragon, that she would take vows due to a huge sense of kinship, and her own huge religious faith. I found Stafford a hugely interesting character from the get go, she came across as hugely intelligent and incredibly loyal to her friends. The story is set amongst the dissolution of the monasteries in 1537, an exceptionally turbulent time for England, and after being arrested at the public burning of her cousin, Joanna finds herself embroiled in a quest for a lost Anglo-Saxon artifact. And at the same time, as the story unfolds, we get a sense of how the dissolution affected not only those who were losing their homes but normal people too - there was one part of the book where Joanna was making her way out of the priory (and I'll try not to give away any spoilers) only to be greeted with hostile looks and words. It was incredibly evocative, and I found myself feeling deeply for the characters.

Bilyeau does a fantastic job with her writing too, considering the massive cast of characters in the book and you find herself creating ties to each character for different reasons, even if they are only briefly mentioned. For instance, I found myself particularly to like John the Stable Boy - he was just awesome (and again I won't go into too much detail of why because spoilers) and even with the characters who were the bad guys as it were, I found myself finding parts of them that I liked. The characters were not inherently good or evil, they were just human. And I liked that characterisation. It helped that the narrative was detailed, conveying a believable view of Tudor England, and hugely evocative visions of the frightening Tower of London; yet not too detailed to spend pages and pages talking about what someones shoe looked like (trust me, I've read books like this - and you get bored very quickly!). The story was fast paced and exciting, and it was that as well as the well rounded characters that meant I just could not put it down. Which has to be a good thing right?

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and cannot thank the author and her publishers enough for sending me a copy. I will certainly be keeping an eye out for further work by this promising author. For anyone who likes Tudor fiction then I definitely recommend picking up this book, particularly if you like historical mysteries, and as I described it to my partner last night "It was like a historical Da Vinci Code only written a lot better, much more exciting, and with better characters...and without anything to do with Da Vinci!". Sums it up nicely I think.

Review: A Visitor's Companion to Tudor England by Suzannah Lipscomb

Did you know...Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester entertained Elizabeth I at Kenilworth Castle for 19 long days in 1575, in one last attempt to win her hand in marriage? In Oxford you can still see the charred door of Balliol College that was licked  by the immense fire that Mary I had built to burn three famous martyrs who refused to renounce their protestant faith. Mary Queen of Scots was imprisoned many times in cold and dank Tutbury castle, before plotting to assassinate Elizabeth I by smuggling messages out in beer barrels. But she was led into a trap, which cost her her head. Henry VIII was twice betrayed at Pontefract Castle. It was overrun during a rebellion in 1536, and Katherine Howard entertained her lover, Thomas Culpeper, there is 1541.

I know I said not long back that I was tired of the Tudors, and I still am. Or rather tired of that TV show, and people thinking that whatever was shown on it is fact. But anyway, it makes a change to read a book about the Tudor dynasty that really can refresh you, and reawaken an interest. I have previously read Suzannah Lipscomb's "1536" which was absolutely brilliant, and this book is just as brilliant. But what I liked most about this book is that it doesn't bog the reader down with complicated analysis - this book is aimed at everyone, not just those who want to read academic history. It can be used as a guide as you explore the buildings of Tudor England, explaining the main stories that happened there during the Tudor era; or it can be a starting point if you want to read a little introduction in the way of the houses, castles and buildings of Tudor England. And Lipscomb does this in a clear, concise and interesting way that makes the book a wonderful page turner.

Lipscomb splits the book up into geographical areas - London and Greater London, South East, South West etc which means that the pages flow nicely. It also helps if you're going to be visiting a particular area and fancy picking a few Tudor sites to see while you're there! What I also liked was that for each building, Lipscomb was very to the point and gave the reader only what is needed - the main reason why said building is an interesting place for Tudor history as well as a few other little bits of Tudor-esque stuff to see there. This meant that each building had just a matter of pages to explain its importance, and it does just enough to whet your appetite.

What surprised me was just how many Tudor buildings there actually are in the country. I knew about the main ones such as the Tower, Hampton Court etc but it seems there are a lot more Tudor treasures kicking about the country than one first thinks, For example, I went to University in Winchester and knew that the Cathedral was where Mary I and Phillip of Spain were married but I had no idea that nestled in the local neighbourhood was The Vyne, a once massive mansion (almost the size of Hampton Court in its hey day!) owned by William, Lord Sandys. The fact that it is so close to where I live even now has got my feet itching for a sojourn up there! In fact it seems wherever you are in the country, there is a Tudor treasure just around the corner. Next time I'm visiting my family up in the West Midlands I'll be making a point of re-visiting Kenilworth Castle and Shakespeare's birthplace after reading about them in this book, and reading the short chapters on these two fantastic places brought back some really rather good memories. But always among the places I knew, were little gems that I had no idea about. For instance - I had no idea that the doors of Balliol College in Oxford show scorch marks from the flames that burnt three famous protestant martyrs, Ketts Oak and the many mansions/palaces that still stand today. The stories that go with each of these places are enough to make your mind race.

As I found with "1536", Lipscomb's writing style is very easy to read, and it flows nicely. There is something about the structure of her work that makes the words seem to dance off the page. And I have to say, as I read this at the same time as a rather large tome on Charles II which is full of politics (and thus can get rather dry), it was a nice change to be able to escape into something light and that wasn't bogged down with huge lists of academic references. Now don't get me wrong, I am a big, BIG fan of references and in academic books they are an absolute god send. In my Charles book, they are proving to be very helpful (and it does irritate me no end when an academic book isn't referenced properly) HOWEVER Lipscomb's book is not meant to be a full blown academic book. She says both in her introduction and in the acknowledgements section that the book isn't meant to be just for academics, but for everyone and thus, a fully referenced "visitors guide" just wouldn't have cut it. This, for me, was a very brave thing for Lipscomb to do and in my opinion she managed to pull it off exceptionally well.

This book will certainly help out hugely when looking for my next trip out to a sixteenth century house/palace/cathedral and I intend on going back to it. As I mentioned above, it is a great starting point and stepping stone into the history of these wonderful places - and if you want to learn any more information then you can (especially as Lipscomb provides a rather excellent further reading list at the end of the book also). I honestly recommend this book to anyone interested in Tudor history, and to anyone interested in visiting some of the wonderful Tudor sites dotted around the English countryside.

Tired of The Tudors

Picture by me

The Tudors have been a huge interest of mine since I was at least 8 years old, when we did a big project at primary school about Henry VIII's six wives. We had to paint a particular wife, and I chose to do Anne Boleyn. My picture ended up looking like a big mess, but I ended up falling head over heels in love with them. I thought Henry VIII was proper cool, and two of his wives ended up being my utter favourites: Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard. And that love stuck with me for many years. But when I was at University I discovered the joys of the Stuart Dynasty, Charles I and the English Civil War and of course Charles II and the Restoration. From there I was hooked, more so than I ever had been with the Tudor dynasty. It was kind of like the Stuart's spoke to me in some kind of odd way. Don't get me wrong, I still loved the Tudors, I still read about them, still devoured everything I could get my hands on about them.

But then I discovered the online world of history blogging, and the Showtime show The Tudors.

I'm sure you're all aware that I have posted on The Tudors on this here blog, that I still have a huge fascination with Katherine Howard and get rubbed up the wrong way when someone turns around and says that Anne Boleyn was a witch who had six fingers. But saying that, the Tudors are just everywhere. I can't even turn a corner without hearing something about Henry VIII, there are so many books coming out about Henry and his wives, and there is nothing NEW. A few months back I ventured into reading about Mary Boleyn and was shocked at how bad the book was, so full of maybes and "Mary Boleyn was thinking this at this exact moment". It's great that authors are trying something new, writing about individuals within Tudor history who little is known about but when the history books start speculating, it makes me want to tear my hair out. 

In a way I blame Showtime's "The Tudors" for making so many people start loving the dynasty and it is great that people are now getting an interest. But when people start believing that everything in the show is fact? Cue more hair tearing out. The show was a great bit of entertainment don't get me wrong, but it was so full of inaccuracies it was unreal. The horse and carts? They didn't come into play until much later. Anne Stanhope and her affairs with Thomas Seymour and Francis Bryan? NO. Edward Seymour's first wife Catherine Filliol was the unfaithful one. And don't even get me started on the fact that the show had Henry VIII having just the one sister...I love the show, I honestly do. As I said it was a great bit of entertainment but since seeing it, I have seen so many people believing everything that happened in it as fact. 

I have so many Tudor-esque books on my shelf to read and right now I am loathe to even pick them up. So much so I've resorted to the world of historical fiction for a bit (1066 and the Bayeaux tapestry anyone?), and part of me doesn't want to pick a Tudor book up for a very long time. But me being me, I will because I like to learn. A lot of it will be stuff I already know but there are two books which I am intrigued about - one on Henry Fitzroy, the other on Thomas More. These should be interesting, and part of me hopes the authors don't resort to speculation but if I'm honest I'm not holding out much hope. 

Not only that but there are so many out there who think they are the reincarnation of various Tudor people. I've come across at least 20 people claiming they are a reincarnation of Anne Boleyn, all of which claim to have "memories" of her. But do you want to know what the funny thing is? All of these memories either come directly from "The Tudors" or Phillipa Gregory's "The Other Boleyn Girl". And when I see stuff like this I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I apologise to any Tudor fans who aren't the type to base their stuff on TV shows and rubbish historical fiction, I have seen some amazing Tudor blogs who base their stuff on solid research and sources but I still can't help but think that the Tudors are everywhere right now and there's nothing new coming to light. I will certainly slog through the rest of the Tudor books I have to read but I can't promise I'll enjoy them as much as I once did. For now I think it's time for me to start reading around other areas of history that interest me - the English Civil War, Charles I, the Restoration, Renaissance Italy, The Crusades. Anything but the Tudors right now thank you very much.

Review [In Brief]: Tudor Survivor by Margaret Scard

A few months back I was wandering around the bookshop in town and saw a little sign. It read "Margaret Scard Book Signing - This Saturday" and had a picture of the front cover of her book on it. The title interested me greatly, "Tudor Survivor: The Life & Times of William Paulet" - I had heard of this man and had an inkling that he had been pretty important; so off I toddled downstairs and picked myself up a copy. The sales assistant reminded me that the author was doing the signing on Saturday and I told myself I would pop in on the way home from work. And pop in I did.

Margaret Scard was an absolutely lovely lady and we had a really nice conversation about Edward Seymour and Edward VI and she told me that Paulet had been around during that time period. She then signed my book and said she hoped I enjoyed it. I can't remember how long I was in the shop talking to her, but it must have been a while because I was much later home from work than I intended to be!

Now then, it has taken me a while but I have finally gotten around to reading this little gem. And from the moment I picked it up I was blown away. This is the story of William Paulet, Marquis of Winchester and a man who lived until at least his 80's (if not longer, which was super, super old for those days!) - he served five monarchs and I include Lady Jane Grey in this because he did serve her, and he survived in a world where many of his colleagues fell victim to the axe. And when he was asked how he had survived it, he answered "by being a willow, not an oak" - I guess in a way this was true because he did bend and sway with the different monarchs, changing as they changed. But at the same time he really could have been like the Oak, standing steadfast through the changes, and sticking to his guns. As I read about his life, I was just blown away by everything he saw, everything he took part in. The man rose through court mostly on his own merits and he survived into old age; Elizabeth I even said if he were younger she would marry him!

I honestly don't want to go into too much detail because I'm afraid I won't do this wonderful book justice. But if I'm honest I would recommend this to anyone interested in the Tudor reign, as it is full of interesting information on the different reigns, how royal visits were arranged and even got right down to the nitty gritty of how Paulet ran the King's household. It is honestly astounding, and you can tell that a heck of a lot of research went into this book.

This book will certainly be one of the ones that I will come back to again and again. Plus, it really didn't read like a history text at all, particularly with how Scard mixed it up with passages that were written as if they were fiction, but well written fiction. You could tell these bits as they were separated from the rest and written in Italic, but honestly it was just so well done. A highly enjoyable and well researched book which I shall certainly be going back to!

On This Day In History: 13th February 1542

Picture source http://tudorhistory.org/howard/gallery.html

I have written extensively on Katherine Howard in my "Inspirations from History" series, so please do feel free to check that out.

On this day in history, 13th February 1542, the young Katherine Howard and Lady Jane Rochford were beheaded upon Tower Green where 6 years earlier Katherine's Cousin and Jane's sister in law had lost her head. But why were these two executed, the young Katherine who was once Henry VIII's "Rose Without A Thorn" and a woman who had been part of the Boleyn circle?

We all know the story of course, young Katherine Howard and her affair with Thomas Culpeper; with their rendezvous being helped along by the apparently scheming Lady Rochford - and an incriminating letter from Thomas Cranmer being found by Henry VIII in his chapel pew. Because of this letter Katherine's pre-marital activities came to light resulting in the arrest of Dereham and Mannox and of course Thomas Culpeper. All three were executed for their part in the affair and it is said that on her way to the Tower she passed beneath the heads of these men which were on display on Tower Bridge. Did she see them? Was it like in Showtime's The Tudors when Katherine saw the severed head of Culpeper and broke down? Probably not.

The night before her execution, Katherine asked that the block be brought to her prison room in the Tower so she could practice how to place herself properly. It seemed she wanted to make sure that in her last moments, she knew exactly what to do and act composed.

The next morning, on Monday 13th February 1542 Katherine made her last walk to the scaffold where she made her final speech. Folklore states that she spoke the following "I die a Queen, but I would rather die the wife of Culpeper". This is completely apocryphal and was not spoken at all. Execution speeches had to follow a set script as it were, and this sort of thing would not have been done. Following her speech, she laid her head on the block and it was removed in one swift stroke. She was followed out by Lady Rochford, the woman who had helped her in her trysts with Culpeper. She had gone mad whilst imprisoned and Henry had to pass a special law allowing the insane to be executed for treason. Yet as she faced the crowd, the axe and the remains of the former Queen being wrapped ready for burial she seemed composed and was able to give a final speech before she too, lost her head.

Both women were buried in the nearby Chapel of St Peter Ad Vicula, where today their resting places are marked with simple tiles. Previously those buried there lay forgotten, including Katherine's cousin Anne Boleyn, until Mary I had Katherine's act of attainder reversed as it never bore the signature of the King. Now visitors can see the final resting place of the young Queen. When I visited last year I found the little chapel to be very moving, knowing especially that this young woman was buried there, this woman who was vilified for so long as a whore, an adulteress. Personally I see her as a naive girl, pushed into marriage with an aging obese king, and I think she did what she did because she needed to feel loved. You can of course read more on this in my previous post on Katherine which goes into much more detail (and is much much longer!)

On This Day In History: 12th February 1554

On this day in history, Lady Jane Grey was executed on Tower Green following the execution of her husband Guildford Dudley.

Lady Jane Grey, who personally I believe should be known as Queen Jane I, is famously known as the Nine Days Queen however Eric Ives in his wonderful book "Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery" states that the correct figure for her reign is more like 13 days (Ives 2009, 2). Jane's story is one of the saddest in Tudor history, she was written into the succession by Edward VI in his "advice for the succession" and came to the throne upon his death, something which she did not want. The story goes that when she was told she was now Queen of England, she collapsed in tears, and that she refused to wear the crown. Shortly after she and her council received news that Mary had been proclaimed Queen in Norfolk and was on her way to London to take her throne. And it didn't take long for her council to desert her completely and go over to Mary. Support for Mary was widespread, and Jane found herself imprisoned in the Tower along with her husband Guildford.

After being proclaimed Queen, Mary deliberated over having her young Cousin executed but found herself increasingly under pressure. But it was Wyatt's rebellion in 1554 that sealed Jane's fate, when her father took part in the attempt to remove Mary from the throne. Following the rebellion, Mary had the death warrants of Lady Jane and Guildford signed, realising that she could not risk any more threats to her throne, and people rallying to Jane's course especially since her father had been involved in the failed rebellion.

And so, on 12th February 1554, Lady Jane Grey walked to the scaffold on Tower Green. There she gave her prayer book to the Lieutenant of the Tower, having written a note inside it for him:

Forasmuch as you have desired so simple a woman to write in so worthy a book, good Master Lieutenant, therefore I shall as a friend desire you, and as a Christian require you, to call upon God to incline your heart to his laws, to quicken you in his way, and not to take the word of truth utterly out of your mouth. Live still to die, that by death you may purchase eternal life, and remember how the end of Methuselah, who, as we read in the scriptures, was the longest liver that was of a man died at the last: for as the Preacher says, there is a time to be born and a time to die; and the day of death is better than the day of our birth. Yours, as the Lord knows, as a friend, Jane Dudley (Ives 2009, 275-276)

According to Ives, Jane was highly composed as she gave her final speech to the crowd whereas her ladies were weeping. Her nerves began to show as she turned to the executioner and asked, "Will you take it off before I lay me down?" and the executioner answered simply, "No Madam". Then as she knelt, blindfolded she reached out panic stricken and unable to find the block and cried out "What shall I do? Where is it?". A bystander lead her gently to the block and it was over. Lady Jane Grey, Queen Jane I, was no more and England was ruled by Mary. Hours later, Jane's headless body still lay on the scaffold, and according to Ives the Tower was "drained...of all resolution". She was eventually buried in the Chapel of St Peter Ad Vicula, where today her grave can be seen marked by the altar.

Jane Grey is one of my favourite Tudor women, and I see her as a pawn in a bigger political game. To me, and to many others I am sure, she was an innocent and her death was a terrible tragedy, she was a victim. There are certainly others who see her as more of a warrior, a woman who called an army to her to try and stop the onslaught of Mary, that Jane had a hand in everything that happened - for example De Lisle notes that when she noticed her councillors becoming discontent she continued sending out letters to Sheriff's and Justices Of The Peace demanding their allegiance, as well as ordering further guards around the Tower and the gate keys be brought to her at 7pm each evening (De Lisle 2008, 120-122). But whatever your view of the young Queen, her end was certainly a tragedy, and this poor girl deserves to be remembered not only for her short reign and terrible end, but for her brilliant mind. I will be working on a post about her life at some point, as part of my "Inspiration" series so please do keep an eye out for that. Until then I really recommend checking out Eric Ives "Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery" as it is an absolutely fantastic book and meticulously researched. Another good one, although written with a much more different viewpoint is "The Sisters Who Would Be Queen" by Leanda De Lisle, whilst I did not enjoy this one quite so much it is still a pretty good read if you are looking for an overview of Jane's life as well as that of her sisters.

Sources:

Ives, E, 2009, Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery, Wiley-Blackwell, Sussex

The Anne Boleyn Files, http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/8409/lady-jane-greys-execution/ accessed 12th February 2012

De Lisle, L, 2008, The Sisters Who Would Be Queen: The Tragedy of Mary, Katherine & Lady Jane Grey, Harper Press, Oxfordshire.

Photo credit: The Execution of Lady Jane Grey by Paul Delaroche from http://www.kingsacademy.com/mhodges/11_Western-Art/20_Early-19th-Century-Romanticism/Delaroche/Delaroche.htm, accessed 12th February 2012.

Review: Ordeal By Ambition by William Seymour

I wrote this review about a year ago, and was reminded about it after a conversation I had on twitter last night and picking up the book to try and answer a question on the author. This book is written by a direct descendant of Edward Seymour, and an absolutely fantastic read! I definitely recommend it to any one interested in the Seymour family

When I first picked this book up, I almost put it down again in sheer frustration. The first chapter, or the Prologue, describes how the Seymour's came to power through Anne Boleyn's fall. However, William Seymour made so many mistakes in describing Anne Boleyn's fall that it was unreal, and I almost gave up. I will say only this, Seymour mentions that when Anne Boleyn was arrested and taken to the Tower of London she was taken through Traitor's Gate. She was not. But I can forgive that, as for the longest time that was believed to be what actually happened and since this book was written we know a lot more now than we did back then.

Anyway, moving on. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It read very easily and there were times where I forgot that I was reading a history text. The stories of the three Seymour children were told wonderfully and colourfully and I now have a more profound respect for all three of them, even Jane Seymour who has never been my favourite Tudor Queen. However, over the past few months this family has become of great interest to me and reading their stories in greater depth has proven incredibly enlightening.

The main reason I read this book was to gain a greater understanding of Edward Seymour and his wife, Anne Stanhope. Yet again though, there is very little mention of Anne but what I did read made me hop around with excitement. She is often talked about as a haughty woman and a woman who had little love for her husband. However, how can a woman who went to the Tower with her husband be one who did not love him? Not only that she bore him 9 children. They really seem to have been a force to be reckoned with, after all, Anne was the one who refused to give Katherine Parr her rightful jewels back. What a woman. Yet, the stories are abounded in sadness. Both brothers ended their careers thanks to the axeman's block, and it seems through Seymour's writings that these careers were ended through very little evidence. Edward in particular lost his life through a charge of treason and felony and all on trumped up charges and lies brought against him. Thomas however, went down in history as a notorious womaniser who tried to bring about his brothers downfall.

The chapters on Jane Seymour took up only a very small proportion of the book whereas the huge careers of both Thomas and Edward took up a huge majority. After all, Jane's career as Queen was very short lived whereas her brothers lived through two Tudor reigns. I found the stories evocative and thrilling and found out facts I never knew before. I read stories of the brothers participation in various wars (The Battle of Pinkie being one I had never known of before) and how through sheer hard work both climbed their way from humble beginnings at court to the heights they finally reached. For instance, Edward Seymour started out humbly as Master of the Horse to Henry VIII's bastard son Henry Fitzroy before being employed as an Esquire of the Body in Henry VIII's Privy Chamber and working his way up from there. Now that's working your way up the ladder!!

There is a line at the end of the book where Seymour describes how his ancestor was buried in the chapel of St Peter Ad Vicula next to Anne Boleyn, and how this woman with her wonderful sense of humour would not have lost the irony of the situation. There, one of the main players in her downfall, lost his life the same way she did. He met the same fate as her, and like her, on trumped up charges. Towards the end, I was almost in tears reading the account of Edwards execution.

William Seymour shows his ancestors as loved by the people, who only fell because of the work of factions in court. Edward Seymour was known as the Good Duke, and a man beloved by his people. He even had to calm the people down who were there to watch his execution. In the end, this man only wanted to run the country to the best of his ability and hand over a peaceful country when his nephew came of age. But unfortunately this was never destined to come through.

I found I could not put this book down, it read so easily and was written very, very well. This book will forever stay on my shelf as my bible of the Seymour family. And despite the lack of Anne Stanhope mentions, there is enough in there to keep me going and will help hugely in the years to come

A Witch With Six Fingers? Errr, no

"Anne Boleyn was the evil one wasn't she? The witch with 6 fingers?"

This very question was asked to me today during a conversation at work. I was horrified, and I ended up facepalming very much in the same style of Rodrigo Borgia

Cue a long and lengthy history lesson from me. No, Anne was not a witch. No she did not have six fingers (because let's use some logic here, would Henry VIII really have married her if she had such a deformity?), no she was not involved in an incestuous relationship with her brother and no she most definitely was (at least in my humble opinion, and I'm sure the opinion of many others) NOT GUILTY. The amount of times I heard, "well she must have been guilty because she was found guilty at her trial" no, no, no and no!

It amazes me every time I read something online that says about how Anne Boleyn was guilty of incest and gave birth to a deformed foetus, that she was a witch with six fingers. And it amazes me even more when I hear someone talking about it. Especially in this day and age where there is such a wealth of knowledge out there and Anne's story has been told over and over by historians through the ages. All these people have to do is pick up a history book. But of course, so many would rather believe tripe like The Other Boleyn Girl and not give real history a chance, or indeed even well written historical fiction (Wolf Hall for example is particularly excellent).

Inspirations from History: Edward Seymour

Edward Seymour Earl of Hertford and Duke of Somerset is a man who has interested me now for a very long time, especially the events leading up to his fall from grace and execution. Of course you all know of my love for his wife Anne Stanhope, Duchess of Somerset and I just have a huge fascination not only with her but of Edward's reign as Protector, and how he fell from Grace. I'm not going to lie, the Showtime TV series The Tudors inspired me to start reading more on Edward Seymour despite the fact I knew quite a lot about him anyway. It helped that I adored the on screen relationship (or lack thereof!) between Edward Seymour and his wife.

So who was Edward Seymour?

• He was born in around 1506 to Sir John Seymour and Margery Wentworth
• In around 1527 he had his first marriage to Catherine Filliol annulled on the grounds of adultery.
• He married Anne Stanhope before March 1534
• 5th June 1536, he was made Viscount Beauchamp
• 15th October 1537 he was made Earl of Hertford.
• Edward became Lord Protector upon the death of Henry VIII and the ascension of the boy king Edward VI. Henry's will did not include provision for a Protector, rather for the government to be looked after by a Regency Council however a few days after Henry's death the council decided to give Seymour almost regal power and 13 of the 16 council members agreed for him to take the post of Protector.
• Edward's brother Thomas wanted a share of the power, and Edward tried buying him off but Thomas was hell bent on getting power, he began smuggling pocket money to the King. In 1549 after Thomas kept vying for power, and scheming to marry the Princess Elizabeth, the council had Thomas arrested. He was condemned by act of attainder due there being a lack of evidence for treason, and he was beheaded on 20th arch 1549.
• Edward Seymour was an exceptionally skilled soldier, with a special interest in the war with Scotland. Due to his skill the English won a decisive victory at the Battle of Pinkie in 1547.
• After April 1549 England was subject to social unrest, the best known of which being Kett's rebellion, caused by encroachment of landlords on common grazing lands. Government placed the blame at Seymour's door and was the start of Seymour's downfall.
• By 1st October 1549, Seymour knew he was in danger and withdrew to Windsor with the young King. On 11th October the Council had him arrested due to his failures in war, his vanity, his refusal to listen to any one other than his own mind and doing things his own way. By Feb 1550, John Dudley Earl of Warwick emerged as the next Protector.
• Somerset had previously been released from the Tower but by 1551/2 he was back there, and executed for felony in January 1552, for conspiring to overthrow Warwick's regime.
• He is buried in the Chapel of St Peter Ad Vicula at the Tower of London.

Despite his downfall, Seymour was known as The Good Duke and in all the books I have read about him seems to have been very popular with the people. In my opinion he wasn't vain or power hungry at all, he was trying to keep England running well until Edward VI came of age. However as often happened at the court, factions struggled for power and often overthrew each other, as is what happened here in quite possibly one of the most famous coup d'etat's of the late Tudor period.

If anyone is interested in reading more about Edward Seymour I recommend the following books:

Ordeal By Ambition: An English Family In The Shadow Of The Tudors - William Seymour (here at Amazon)

Edward VI The Young King: The Protectorship of the Duke of Somerset - W.K. Jordan (here at Amazon, but beware of prices as this is a pretty rare book nowadays, but very very good!)

Inspirations from History: Katherine Howard

For my second post on people from history who inspire me, I wanted to do a piece on Katherine Howard, Henry VIII's fifth wife. I remember as I stood in front of the altar in the chapel of St Peter at the Tower of London, it struck me that Katherine was buried there, that young, naive girl who I believe had only did what she did to forget that she was married to an ageing, obese tyrant. These days Katherine is still vilified as an adulteress, but to me she always seems like a fun loving young woman who was pushed into marrying a man so many years older than her. Below is my "brief" overview of her life (when I say brief I mean almost 6000 words long)

Throughout history, Katherine Howard has been vilified as the young bimbo wife of Henry VIII, the wife who cuckolded him by sleeping with his groom Thomas Culpeper. But was Katherine really the bimbo she is so often made out to be, or was she simply a pawn in some higher game of politics and power and a young woman who was foolish and naïve enough to think she could get away with having relationships with other men?

Katherine Howard was the younger daughter of Edmund Howard and Jocasta Culpeper, although her date of birth is completely unknown. There are at least three contemporary resources suggesting that Katherine was unusually young at the time she became Queen in July 1540. Katherine could not have been born after 1527, since her maternal grandmother Dame Isabel Leigh mentioned her in her will dated that year and four years previously Dame Isabel’s husband failed to mention the Howard girls; rather mentioning the brothers instead. This may be pointing to the masculine standards of the day, however, rather than the fact that Katherine had not been born. However, the earlier limit is harder to determine as the marriage of her parents is far from certain itself. If Edmund and Jocasta were married between 1514-15 and her brothers were older than her, then it suggests she could not have been born before 1517-18. There is also evidence stating that she was born between 1518-24, as the French ambassador stated she was 18 when sharing a bed with Dereham, and Dereham’s own confession states that this was between the years of 1538-39. However the ambassador then discredits himself by saying that Dereham was corrupting Katherine from the age of 13! If we accept Katherine as being 18 in 1539, then she must have been born around 1521. Our final clue comes from her marriage portrait, although there is some uncertainty here too. It was painted in 1540-41 and gives her age as being 21, establishing that she she would have been born between 1519-20 (Baldwin Smith 1961, 193). Baldwin Smith (1961, 193) suggests that this is as good a year as any to suggest as we know Mannox was first smitten with Katherine in 1536, when she would have been aged between 13 and 14. This again fits in with the contemporary report of the French ambassador who states she was 18 in 1539, and the suggestion that she was very young to have been made a queen.

Portrait of Katherine Howard, from the miniature by Hans Holbein the Younger

Whilst Katherine’s date of birth is speculation, the home where she spent her childhood is unknown and except for the more lurid details of her childhood preserved in connection with her downfall, we know almost nothing of her early life (Baldwin Smith 1961, 35). Some sources indicate she grew up in London whilst others say she spent her early life at the Howard residence of Lambeth or Oxenheath in Kent, the home of her uncle William Cotton. What is very certain, and authenticated, is that Katherine spent the majority of her childhood with her step-grandmother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, Agnes Howard neé Tilney in Sussex and Lambeth (Baldwin Smith 1961, 41).

Alison Weir states that these early years spent with the duchess were spent in “impoverished gentility” and the young Katherine was oftentimes neglected by the dowager duchess, and forced to spend her time seeking the companionship of servants and people of lower rank (Weir 2007, 434). When Katherine joined the household of the Dowager Duchess, she was placed in the Maiden’s Chamber, a large dormitory whose inmates largely slept two to a bed. Here Katherine found herself surrounded by other young women of gentle birth, unlike the “people of lower rank” suggested by Weir, all of whom were connected to the Howard family by birth or by marriage. These girls, like Katherine, were there to complete their education and to wait on the duchess. Music masters were employed, clerks to teach the girls how to read and write and of course, plenty of young men were around to teach the girls other things too (Starkey 2004, 646). Here, I think Katherine would have been in her element. She was a young, spritely and a quick learner and would have been able to shine among these other young women. Not only was she a quick developer mentally, but physically also, and it seems it was this that set her on the path to her own destruction.

The first gentleman to catch Katherine’s eye was Henry Mannox, employed by the Duchess in around 1536 to teach the girls how to play the virginals. According to Mannox’s own confession during Katherine’s fall he quickly “fell in love with her” and she with him but Katherine kept the relationship in bounds out of a sense of fierce Howard pride. She told him, “I will never be naught with you…and able to marry me ye be not”. However she did allow him other favours which were often interrupted by the Duchess (Starkey 2004, 646). Katherine herself mentions these in her own confession prior to her execution:

“At the flattering and fair persuasions of Mannox, being but a young girl I suffered him at sundry times to handle and touch the secret parts of my body which neither became me with honesty to permit nor him to require” (Fraser 1993, 391-392).

The second romance for Katherine was with Francis Dereham, a gentleman pensioner in the Duchesses Lambeth household. Unlike her previous tryst with Mannox, this relationship was much more serious and more likely that it was fully consummated. Considering that two of them called each other husband and wife it can be suggested that they were pre-contracted to each other and had reinforced these vows by sleeping with each other (Fraser 1993, 392). Dereham himself was a Howard cousin and thus able to provide Katherine with trinkets and gifts that reflected his social standing, and Katherine thus permitted him access and attentions previously denied the music master, including access to the maiden’s chamber. This room was out of bounds to all men and each night the Duchess would have the keys taken to her room, but Katherine found a way around it using cunning and secrecy that would only become clearer during her later affair with Culpeper. She had the Duchesses maid, Mary Lascelles, “steal the key and bring it to her” (Starkey 2004, 647). This of course, meant admission for Dereham and other young men.

In his book “Six Wives” Starkey states that, driven by jealously Mannox wrote an anonymous letter to the duchess informing her of what was happening:

“Your Grace
It shall be meet you take heed to your gentlewomen for it shall like you half an hour after you shall be a bed to rise suddenly and visit their chamber you shall see that which shall displease you. But if you make anybody of counsel you shall be deceived. Make then fewer your secretary”

The Duchess, having found the letter in her pew at chapel, stormed to the chamber and “declared how she was advertised…of their misrule” (Starkey 2004, 647). According to Fraser, after the Duchess discovered Katherine and Dereham embracing she was “much offended”, hitting out literally at all of those present. However this does not amount to more than Katherine’s own later confession that there was a relationship in which Dereham “used her as a man doth his wife”. It seems that Katherine thought herself betrothed to Dereham and her submission to his sexual advances had nothing terrible about it at the time (Fraser 1993, 393).
Later on when the more intimate details of Katherine and Dereham’s relationship came to light, one witness confirmed that they were “so much in love that they kissed after a wonderful manner, for they would kiss and hang by their bellies like two sparrows” (Baldwin Smith 1961, 55). Dereham became such a frequent visitor to the chamber despite even the Duchess previously finding them. That was until their relationship eventually cooled when Dereham was away in Ireland and Katherine sent away to her uncle’s house. It was here that Katherine first met Thomas Culpeper, a groom of the King’s Privy Chamber. Fraser here states “that her early feelings for Culpeper can only be gauged to her later behaviour towards him, but from her welcoming attitude to him then, one suspects that she was genuinely in love with him in the autumn of 1539” (Fraser 1993, 394). This is a bit of a broad statement to make with no other argument being presented than her suspicions and whilst the two of them met long before the affair actually took place, making the statement of love so early may be going a bit too far.

It was during the time with her uncle, that Katherine caught the eye of another man, and a man who would ultimately prove to be her undoing. King Henry VIII.

From the moment Katherine caught Henry’s eye, her uncle began to plot, to use her as a way of getting the Howard family more power. He hoped to make her the King’s mistress at the very least, or better yet his queen. As Hutchinson (2009, 136) states, Katherine was for all intents and purposes, being pimped out for the king. Henry himself first met Katherine at Stephen Gardiner’s palace in Southwark during the spring of 1540 where she was dancing with other young women. From that moment the king was frequently invited to banquets and entertainments at Lambeth by the Dowager Duchess, and Henry cast a fancy at the young, fashionable, giggling Katherine. Did Katherine understand that she was just a pawn in the political games of her uncle? We cannot truly know the answer to this but we do know that Katherine accepted Henry’s attentions and his expensive gifts of jewellery and land. It seemed the King had fallen head over heels in love with another one of Norfolk’s nieces who would ultimately walk to the same fate that Anne Boleyn had gone to four years previously (Hutchinson 2009, 136-137).

At this moment it is important to put Katherine Howard into context a little by looking briefly at what was happening in court, and how she ended up coming into power as Queen. By this point, Henry was more than unhappy with his fourth wife Anne of Cleves and he was desperately searching for a way to be rid of her. The story is well known; Henry was unable to do his marital duties with Anne having informed Cromwell after the wedding night that he judged her to be “no maid” and thus the marriage was never consummated. He clearly did not like the way she looked, nor her “unpleasant airs” and claimed it was this that stopped him sleeping with her. But of course, as is typical of Henry, he cannot have been the problem and he claimed that he had “duas pollutions nocturnas in somno” (ejaculations or wet dreams) and would be able to perform with others, just not Anne (Hutchinson 2006, 28-29). Henry had been urging Cromwell to find him a way out of the marriage since he first laid eyes on Anne but time had run out. Cromwell was arrested at a Privy Council meeting on 10th June 1540 and Anne was sent away on 24th June for her health. The marriage was annulled on the grounds of non-consummation and Cromwell provided one last service to the king, writing a testimony confirming that the king’s case was true. Thomas Cromwell was condemned by act of attainder on 29th June and the marriage formally ended on 9th July. Just 19 days after the annulment of his marriage to Anne of Cleves, Henry married Katherine Howard at Oatlands Palace on 19th July. Ironically, this was the same day that Cromwell lost his head on Tower Green by a clumsy and unskilled axe man (Hutchinson 2006, 34-37).

Henry was understandably infatuated with his new bride and had, it seemed, found a new wife who embodied all of the qualities that he admired in women – beauty, charm, pleasant disposition, obedience and virtue. But was Katherine as elated with her new husband as he was with her? Indeed Katherine was young and Henry was much older with an ever increasing girth and a wound on his leg that refused to heal. But for all outward appearances she displayed a loving manner towards her husband. On 8th August Katherine appeared for the first time as Queen at Hampton Court, dining publically under a cloth of estate (Weir 2007, 431-433).
Henry doted on his new wife and provided for her everything that she wanted. Every day she wore new gowns ad new jewellery, Henry had never been so extravagant with any of his previous wives and this earned the disapproval of many older people at court. This included the Lady Mary who never treated Katherine with the same respect as she had done to Jane Seymour or Anne of Cleves. After all Mary was at least 9 years older than Katherine and there may have been an element of jealousy in Mary’s treatment of Katherine; Mary was after all unmarried at the age of 24! Of course having all of the riches at her disposal and all of the servants at her beck and call would have gone to Katherine’s head. She had never known such a lifestyle growing up with the Duchess and her innocence would leave her open to the compromising situations that would eventually prove to be her downfall (Weir 2007, 433-434).

Despite the gifts of gowns, jewels and land, Katherine was expected to receive petitions, listen to requests to influence her husband, administer her household and behave like a good wife should. But Katherine did not do this (I can always imagine her wrinkling her nose when someone suggested she had to go and listen to petitions!) and spent the majority of her time dancing (Baldwin Smith 1961 136-137). It cannot have been easy for the young Katherine to live up to the Kings ideals although she may have tried. Her own motto “no other will but his” must have seemed natural to Henry with his new, perfect wife ready to do his will.

However despite Henry’s renewed vigour, his moods and health soon waned. He had already given up jousting but ignored his physicians when it came to hunting and his moods could change hourly. In March 1541 the ulcer on his leg closed and the court thought he would die. But he recovered his moods soured and nothing could please him, not even his wife (Baldwin Smith 1961, 139). Just before the summer progress of 1541 that would prove her downfall, Katherine herself was in a sulk quite unlike her normal, cheerful self. She believed that she was pregnant but sadly it came to nothing. Katherine may have been mistaken or may have suffered from an early miscarriage but whatever the case; it cast the king once more into a black mood (Weir 2007, 140). It was after this that Katherine found her own spirits low, having heard that because of her failure to become pregnant that he was looking for another wife. When Henry asked her what was wrong she said that she had heard rumours that he would take Anne of Cleves back. After Henry assured her of his undying love she was back to her normal self. That was until she noticed the ladies of the court paying more respect to the lady Mary and in a fit of pure spite; Katherine had two of Mary’s ladies removed from service (Baldwin Smith 1961, 140). Katherine’s own changing moods just go to show how young she really was and how inexperienced in worldly matters, and that she would stoop to fits of spiteful vengeance just to get her own back on her step daughter.

On 28th May 1541 one of the greatest atrocities of Henry VIII’s reign happened. A member of the Plantagenet house by the name of Sir John Neville began a rebellion to restore the old Catholic religion. Margaret Pole, a member of that ancient house and with a valid claim to the throne, was at that time imprisoned in the Tower. Facing rebellion, the King believed that Pole was a threat to security and ordered her death despite Katherine’s pleas for mercy. Pole was aged 68, and on the morning of 28th May was lead out to Tower Green having only had a few hours to prepare herself for death. There, she was butchered to death by a young, inexperienced executioner (Weir 2007, 440-441). It left the realm secure however, and on 30th July 1541 the King and Queen left on a progress to the north with the intent of formally pardoning those who had taken part in the Pilgrimage of Grace. The progress made its way north into Yorkshire and as far as Newcastle. Whilst on the journey news reached Henry that Spain and France were on the brink of war but it did little to dampen his spirits. Indeed little could dampen Katherine’s high spirits either, at least until whilst staying at Pontefract, someone from her past showed up (Weir 2007, 442). Previously, Katherine had filled her household with Howard girls and relations. For instance Joan Bulmer, a girl from the days at Lambeth was found a place within the Queen’s household. And it was at Pontefract in August 1541 that Francis Dereham showed up bearing a letter of recommendation from the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk. Here Katherine made a huge mistake, and fearing that if she did not take him in to her household he would tell everyone of their former love, she made him her private secretary (Baldwin Smith 1961, 142-143). Dereham came to Katherine obviously with information that could severely harm her reputation. Was this why she took him in to service, rather than because the Duchess asked her to? In any case Dereham proved unsuitable, he was rude with a violent temper and often clashed with members of the Queen’s household.

The progress returned to London on 26th October 1491 where bad news awaited Henry in droves. His sister Margaret had died and his son, the four year old Prince Edward was severely unwell with a fever. But after his son began to recover and Henry planned a service of thanksgiving, there came a piece of news that would shatter Henry’s marriage and prove disastrous for Katherine (Weir 2007, 443-444).

The crisis came in a tale told to Thomas Cranmer by John Lascelles, a man whose sister Mary had once served the Dowager Duchess at Lambeth. The tale confirmed to Cranmer that Katherine may have been pre-contracted to Francis Dereham which made her marriage to the King invalid. And the news had to be broken to the King. On 2nd November at Hampton Court, a letter was given to the King telling all. At first Henry did not believe what he was reading but this was just the calm before the storm and at this moment, all the evidence pointed to Katherine’s behaviour before her marriage to the King. But of course, witnesses to what Katherine had been up to during the progress soon came out of the woodwork. To start with Dereham was taken to the tower and there he made sure that Culpeper’s name was dropped into his confession, that he heard a rumour that Thomas Culpeper had “overtaken him in the Queen’s affections”. He said as much, hoping to save himself and Culpeper was soon arrested (Fraser 1993, 422-423). The truth was indeed now out, Katherine was not as innocent as she had made out and like the King had believed. Henry flipped, he blamed his council for suggesting that he marry her before breaking down in tears, calling for a sword so he could kill her himself. In a way the King felt he had been tricked into believing she was a virgin, that he had been cuckolded and everyone knew it.

Katherine was then called to questioning, having been locked in her rooms at Hampton Court. She was confronted by Thomas Cranmer who “found her in such lamentation and heaviness” Her attendants told him of her wild moods which only his visits could calm, especially when he delivered a message of “grace and mercy” which was more than she could have expected. Cranmer himself saw the pre-contract with Dereham as heaven sent, a way he could easily get Henry out of the marriage and pronounce it as invalid. That way Katherine could be disgraced and put away. But the evidence for the pre-contract was sparse, based on a shaky betrothal and the Queen in her terror could not grasp that admitting to a pre-contract would have her life. Instead she made excuses, saying that Dereham had forced her into a sexual liaison. She certainly was not as clever as her cousin Anne Boleyn had been, nor as well educated and she had no one now left to advise her (Fraser 1993, 425). Prior to Katherine being taken to Syon the Lady Rochford, wife of executed George Boleyn and sister in law to Anne Boleyn, knew that she was in danger. She had aided and abetted Katherine’s affair with Thomas Culpeper and “was seized with a raving madness”. Katherine and Rochford were confined together and many thought that they would share the same fate. Meanwhile at Lambeth the Dowager Duchess heard reports of Katherine’s misconduct and knew it had happened under her roof. She took a more rational view of the situation, knowing that nothing could be done to Katherine for something that was done before her marriage, yet still she began searching the house for evidence knowing that if Katherine fell, all of the Howard family would fall with her (Weir 2007, 449).

Whilst still held at Hampton Court, Katherine played into Cranmer’s hands during questioning, when she mentioned Thomas Culpeper, the name of her distant cousin and the man whom had so recently been arrested. Dereham had mentioned to Cranmer a rumour that the two of them would marry, which Katherine vehemently denied “what should you trouble me thereabouts, for you know I will not have you; and if you heard such report you know more than I” (Weir 2007, 455).

On 7th November 1541, Cranmer sent Katherine’s confession to the King and Katherine received a visit from the Privy Council to help her write a plea for forgiveness. After Henry received this he felt happier, for she could not have been unfaithful and he knew at this stage that he could get away with a divorce (Weir 2007, 457-458). That was until further evidence came to light about Katherine’s affair with Thomas Culpeper and Henry had Katherine moved from Hampton Court to Syon Abbey, there to await her fate. Katherine was removed from Hampton Court on 14th November to Syon; she would never see King Henry again. He himself had left Hampton Court previously and did not return until she had been moved to Syon. At this stage her harboured a deep resentment of Dereham, the man who had, spoiled his “Rose without a thorn” and it was a greater resentment than he held even for Culpeper who was accused of the worse crime of adultery. He would invoke treason against them both, accusing them both of adultery with Katherine and all three of them would die for it (Fraser 1993, 425-426).

More evidence began coming forward as Katherine was held at Syon, tales of her trysts with Culpeper which could only be taken as adulterous. Despite the fact that Culpeper kept denying the fact he had carnal knowledge of the Queen, what else could she be doing with him in her chambers two nights running and up the backstairs in Lincoln until two in the morning? Culpeper himself admitted to night-time rendezvous in Greenwich, Lincoln, Pontefract and York. Many witnesses also mentioned Lady Rochford who attempted to show that she was little more than an innocent bystander, somehow at the other end of the room where Katherine was meeting with Culpeper and not knowing what was happening. Katherine reversed it, saying that Rochford had tempted her with the meetings and Culpeper said she provoked him into a relationship with the Queen. But whatever else, all three of them were involved and far too deeply (Fraser 1993. 427-428). Regarding Dereham, his appointment as secretary gave the Queen’s accusers what they were after. He was tortured; condemned as a traitor and on 10th December was hung, drawn and quartered at Tyburn. Culpeper died on the same day, but due to his rank and mercy from the king his sentence was changed to beheading (Fraser 1993, 428). In the same month, a number of other people were arrested for having concealed Katherine’s past, including the Dowager Duchess. Katherine’s uncle Norfolk however was spared imprisonment by distancing himself from his niece (Fraser 1993, 430).

On 24th November Katherine, who had been demoted from Queen ship two days previously was incited for having led “an abominable, base, carnal and voluptuous life…like a common harlot with divers persons…maintaining however the outward appearance of chastity and honesty”. Now it was a matter of waiting, and Katherine was seemingly ready to accept her fate. On Friday 10th February 1542 Katherine was transferred from Syon to the Tower, whereupon in a moment of blind terror she refused to go. Eventually the Council bundled her into the waiting barge, which was enclosed. This was just as well, as they sailed beneath tower bridge which held the still rotting heads of both Dereham and Culpeper. Katherine had in fact at this stage been condemned to death by an Act of Attainder, although the document was still waiting for the King’s signature. No execution could take part without him signing the form however and in the end it was signed with the Great Seal to save the King more distress. It was read in Parliament on Saturday 11th February which meant the execution could now go ahead, but not on a Sunday. Katherine gained a day’s grace, and on the Sunday she asked that the block be brought to her rooms so she could practice how to place herself, mindful of conducting herself properly in her last moments. Executions after all were important moments, and it would do well for her to know what it was she must do.

On Monday 13th February 1542 Katherine was lead out of her rooms to Tower Green where 6 years earlier her cousin had been executed. She mounted the scaffold where she prayed for her husband and admitted that she deserved punishment. Folklore states that she spoke the following, “I die a Queen, but I would rather die the wife of Culpeper”. This is apocryphal and Katherine did not say this. She then placed her head on the block as she had practiced and her head was removed in one stroke (Weir 2007, 479-481). Lady Rochford followed her out, still in a frenzy. Henry had to have a special act passed to allow the execution of the insane before he could have her removed for her part in the scandal. But, faced with the axe and with Katherine’s remains being wrapped in a blanket, she recovered her reason enough to make her last speech before she too lost her head (Weir 2007, 481-482).

Grave marker of Katherine Howard within the chapel of St Peter Ad Vicula

Katherine’s body was taken to the nearby chapel of St Peter Ad Vincula where she was laid to rest in an unmarked grave near to her cousin Anne Boleyn. And there she lay forgotten until 1553 when Queen Mary had the act of attainder reversed as it had never borne the signature of the King. There Katherine rests still, her name marked on a tile by the altar although no one knows whether Katherine herself rests beneath it. Her name is still very much vilified as Henry VIII’s ‘bimbo queen’, his adulteress, as opposed to the young naïve girl that she truly was.

Katherine Howard died young, the victim of a bitter struggle for power on the part of her uncle Norfolk and the Howard faction. She was little more than a naïve girl, desperate to be loved when she had a husband who was so much larger than she was, and so much older. I do not believe it fair to say that Katherine deserved what she got for her affair with Thomas Culpeper or indeed her pre-marital trysts with Mannox and Dereham; in fact I believe that she was naïve and a girl who had no idea of the mess that she was getting herself into. Having been a part of that huge Howard family, she would have known what had happened to her cousin Anne Boleyn all those years before, the rumours that she had affairs with other men including her own brother and would have known that Anne went to her death because of it. And yet Katherine still walked the path she did, unknowing of the mess she was getting herself into. It is unfair to label her as an adulteress and Henry’s empty headed bimbo queen for she was much more than that. She was young yes, and not so well educated but in the end I think that all Katherine Howard wanted was to be loved and in the end that proved to be her downfall.

Sources
Baldwin Smith, L, 1961, Catherine Howard, Amberley Publishing: Stroud
Fraser, A, 1993, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Vintage: London
Hutchinson, R, 2006, The Last Days of Henry VIII, Phoenix: London
Hutchinson, R, 2009, House Of Treason: The Rise & Fall Of A Tudor Dynasty, Phoenix: London
Starkey, D, 2004, Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII, Vintage: London
Weir, A, 2007, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Vintage: London.