Finding Anne

Three years ago I had an emotional encounter with a Tudor object. On a visit to Compton Verney in Warwickshire, I saw an exhibition of some of the treasures – paintings and artefacts – that are usually hidden away at Chequers, the country house of the Prime Minister.

In one of the exhibition’s rooms stood a glass case, and inside it lay a ring. A ring I had thought never to see, other than in photographs, in my life.

This ring once graced the finger of Elizabeth I, and was sufficiently dear to her that it was the item taken from her body and carried to James VI of Scotland as proof of her death – clearly, she would never have considered giving it away as a gift.

Miniature enamel portraits of Elizabeth I and Anne Boleyn

On the ring’s top an ‘E’ is picked out in diamonds, but the most precious items are hidden beneath: like a locket, it opens to display two portraits in minutely sculpted and enamelled relief – one of Elizabeth herself and the other of her mother, Anne Boleyn. (You can read more about the ring in Natalie’s article about it here).

Anne was, of course, the mother Elizabeth had hardly known (Anne was executed when Elizabeth was just two and a half). Elizabeth never spoke of Anne publicly, and did not have her body moved to a grander tomb (as James VI and I did for his executed mother, Mary Queen of Scots). This ring is one of the few indications – and certainly the most personal, intimate one – that Anne mattered to Elizabeth. And for me, the most heart-wrenching detail about it is something that is hard to see from photographs but is very clear in real life:

Anne is smiling.

Something that no one did in Tudor portraits. But something that her daughter would want to picture her doing – perhaps even (a long shot, but just maybe) could remember her doing. I find this almost unbearably moving.

No wonder then that, at Compton Verney that day, I bent over the ring for ages, trying (and probably failing) not to annoy other visitors who wanted a look. It was all I could do to stop myself trying to climb into the display case: the magnifying glass provided just did not get me close enough!

What lay behind my enthusiasm? My life-long obsession with Tudor history, yes – but something more specific, too. You see, Anne Boleyn was at the heart of what was then propelling me – urgently, obsessively – to write VIII, my new YA novel about Henry VIII.

The urgency and the obsession came from the fact that I was – I am – convinced that I had something new to say about Henry. Which might sound extraordinary. He is, after all, one of the most familiar figures in British history. But for me, there has always been a gaping hole in his story. Despite all I have read about him, despite all the films and documentaries I have seen, I feel that no one has ever given me a satisfactory explanation of why he did what he did. Yes, he needed a son, yes he was tired of his wife… but other kings of the time found themselves in that position and didn’t react so devastatingly.

Most puzzlingly of all: why did he pursue Anne so passionately for seven years, only to have her executed just three short years later? Even the weeks leading up to her death seem filled with confusing behaviour on his part. Explanations have been offered, of course, but none of them ring entirely true for me; none of them make me identify with Henry. I wanted to put myself right inside his mind, and see those events from his point of view.

So I set out to write VIII, which tells Henry’s story in the first person, following his psychological journey from idealistic, loving, insecure boy to paranoid tyrant – and joining up dots that I haven’t seen joined up before. Henry’s mother, for example, was the sister of the Princes in the Tower – how did that traumatic past affect her relationship with her son? Henry’s father had spent years on the run before he became king – what kind of father did that make him?

I spent many months researching, and many hours talking with psychoanalysts about Henry’s psychological journey – and what an intense, exhilarating and terrifying journey it was! But when at last I felt that I had cracked the conundrum – when I felt I knew how and why Henry acted as he did towards Anne – that was the most exciting eureka moment of my writing career so far. It remains one of the elements of VIII of which I am most proud.

Meanwhile the locket ring is, I assume, back at Chequers (does David Cameron appreciate it sufficiently? Hm? Hm? I think we should be told!). My memories of that day at Compton Verney, however, have certainly not left me. I am currently writing a novel that is, in many ways, the sequel to VIII: it is about the sister-relationship between Henry VIII’s daughters, Mary I and Elizabeth. I know that memories of (and ideas about) Anne Boleyn will loom large for both my protagonists. And as I write, Elizabeth’s locket ring lingers in my mind, as a talisman. I hope that one day I will see it again.

VIII is published in the UK on October 1^st by Templar Publishing and in Australia later this autumn by Penguin.

You can see a trailer for VIII and an interview with H.M. Castor about the book here: www.hmcastor.com

Twitter: @HMCastor

VIII by H M Castor

With so much Tudor fiction written for adults, I don’t often read novels aimed at young adults but when I read about H.M Castor’s debut novel for teens, VIII, I was immediately intrigued.

Why not Henry VIII? Why just VIII? The title caught my attention but the opening line captured my imagination – I was hooked after 11 words.

The name Henry VIII immediately conjures up images of an overweight, beady- eyed tyrant who had two of his six wives executed but the Hal we meet in the opening pages of VIII is a child born into the turbulent and uncertain early years of the Tudor dynasty.

An extraordinary child, Hal is intelligent, remarkably talented and a born warrior, all that a father could hope for in an heir – but Henry is not the heir – he is only the spare and so his mere existence poses a threat to his older brother and incites the displeasure of his father.

Normally accustomed to seeing Henry through the eyes of his wives or courtiers, it was incredibly refreshing to be living events through him.

At several points during the novel I felt the need to stop and tell someone that Castor had done it – she had managed to climb into Henry’s head, into his psyche and offer an explanation for why he did the things he did.

There were even moments when I empathised with Henry, something I have never done before.

VIII is an enthralling, psychological thriller, a Tudor roller coaster ride with some laugh out loud moments and others truly terrifying; scenes that continue to haunt me even now.

The language is modern and accessible yet Castor manages to bring the Tudor court authentically to life. We travel with Hal from childhood to deathbed, experiencing the highs and lows of his life and battling his demons by his side.

Impeccably researched, lyrical and descriptive VIII is sure to engage even the most reluctant teen readers and spark a new wave of interest in this fascinating period of history.

And, I don’t want to giveaway too much away but what an ending! The perfect conclusion to a truly gripping tale.

Highly recommended!

I hope that you will join me in thanking him for taking the time to write in such detail about each of the fascinating locations he visited and I would appreciate it very much if you left a comment of thanks if you too have enjoyed his posts as much as I have.

If you would like to join me on a Tudor progress with a difference next year, please click here.

Without further ado…

Tower of London, St. Dunstan’s, St. John’s, St. Bartholomew’s

Day 6: The Finale!

By Mike Glaeser

Tower of London

Nothing fires the imagination more than a visit to the infamous Tower of London. Since I first saw it in 2006, it has always been one of my favorites. In fact, I used the Tower as the subject for my final art history paper at university. It offers a piece of history for everyone and is not just focused on dungeons and executions as much as public advertising would like you to think. Besides a prison, it was a medieval palace, zoo, mint, armory and a space observatory. The current exhibition is on the royal menagerie. The story of all the beasts at the Tower is half the excitement. They opened up two further towers to view, which were not usually open to the public. These are the Brick and Bowyer towers. In the latter, a famous prisoner was executed by being drowned in a barrel of malmsey wine. But we’re not concerned about medieval drama…no, we are looking for the last vestiges tied to the Tudors. Thankfully, there’s plenty to see…

Continue reading here.

Henry VIII and his Queens

Dr Catrina Whitley has just announced that her new website is up and running. Although minimal at the moment you will still find mini bio’s on the authors, contact information and importantly, a link to the full article, ‘A New Explanation for the Reproductive Woes and Midlife Decline of Henry VIII’.

As discussed in previous posts, the authors propose that Henry VIII was positive for the Kell blood group and suffered from McLeod Syndrome.

Read the full article for yourself, assess the evidence and let me know what your thoughts are.

Go to ‘The Blood of Henry VIII‘ and read the full article.

King Henry VIII

The article immediately caught my attention because the new theory proposes that Henry VIII was positive for the Kell blood group and also suffered from McLeod syndrome. Where as many people throughout history have ‘blamed’ the women for the silence in the royal nursery, Whitley and Kramer believe the problem lay in Henry VIII.

After reading the article, I found myself wondering about a few aspects of the theory and so have interviewed the authors to help clarify some issues.

I feel that I have to mention that Catrina Whitley specialises in bioarchaeology (the scientific study of human skeletal remains from archaeological sites), archaeology, and paleopathology (the study of ancient disease) and has advised me that if given the opportunity, she could prove her theory!

How you ask? By exhuming Henry VIII!

Yes, you heard correctly. The authors believe that if they were given permission to examine the remains of Henry VIII they could perform DNA tests to check for Mcleod and, potentially, Kell (Catrina is currently investigating this area to ensure that this could be done genetically on human remains or hair), they could ascertain whether Henry’s leg ulcers were caused by osteomyelitis (as this leaves distinct changes on the bone), check for gout, document any injuries from jousting or other sporting accidents, check his dental health and confirm/deny a number of other health issues that Henry is often associated with.

It sounds unbelievable but the authors are very eager and currently working on finding the correct channels with which to proceed with their request.

They realise that because it is Henry VIII permission may not be granted and so they have also advised me that if a single strand of Henry’s hair was accessible (ie. survived somewhere…) then they could use this to check his DNA.

If this is still denied, then the authors also propose making a case to test a near relative of Henry’s for Kell positive blood but have confirmed that they need Henry to check for McLeods.

In addition, if Henry’s skull was in good condition then forensic scientists could also reconstruct Henry’s appearance.

Catrina also believes that Henry VIII deserves ‘a better burial location and marker than a crypt that is shared with several other individuals under the floor.’

Although I see Catrina’s point considering Henry’s reign and position, my initial feeling is why should Henry ‘deserve’ a better burial when the hundreds, possibly thousands of people he sent to their deaths (many of whom we know where innocent of their charges) are buried which much less dignity.

A lot to think about isn’t it! Well, here is a little more. My interview with Catrina Whitley, with contributions from Kyra Kramer.

Q & A with Catrina Whitley

In your article you propose that Henry VIII was positive for the Kell blood group and also suffered from McLeod syndrome. How did this theory come about?

My co-author, Kyra, and I have been enamored with Tudor history since our youth.  My research focuses on and my Ph.D. is in bioarchaeology (the scientific study of human skeletal remains from archaeological sites), archaeology, and paleopathology (the study of ancient disease). Kyra, as an M.A. medical anthropologist, studies reproductive problems from a cultural focus, in particular the negative outcomes caused by male influence.  For almost a year before formulating the theory, Kyra and I enjoyed regular discussions about disease, sickness, reproductive troubles, and genetics.  We also, as huge Tudor fans, enjoyed the series The Tudors, and had frequent discussions about the series.  After the second to last episode of the second season, Kyra asked me “Why do they always blame the women for the loss of the pregnancies?  I think it’s clear that Henry was the source of the problems.”  That semester, I had been teaching a course on Human Evolution and spent an entire six weeks on genetics with the Rhesus blood group being used as an excellent example of selection and pregnancy loss. This background started me thinking about how Henry’s genetics could have been the cause of a lack of children.   Within 24 hours of Kyra and I discussing why the failed pregnancies occurred I had a theory; the Kell Blood Group and that Henry was most probably Kell (KEL1) positive. Kyra immediately agreed with me, and told me she was thrilled that I had deducted such a plausible explanation. Then Kyra stated, not expecting an answer, “Now, tell me this what could have driven him crazy”, to which I replied that he might have had McLeod syndrome. We both realized this theory would have serious historical implications, so after a year of research and writing, we submitted our article for publication.

When did your interest in the Tudors begin?

My interest in the Tudors began as a young child.  History was always my favorite subject, but I was first introduced to Henry VIII at a renaissance faire.  My uncle was a court musician so we attended many times the first year it opened.  After attending, I began asking questions about Henry and life in the Tudor period and became fascinated.  This interest was heightened as a college student when I took a course on The History of Women in Early Modern Europe.  It made me think about the plight of the wives of Henry VIII and the general hardship women endured during the Tudor period.   It was at this point I almost pursued a Ph.D. in History, but my keen interest in researching skeletal remains and ancient disease pulled me away.  I was always curious why Henry and his wives lost so many children and this research gave me the opportunity to delve into and combine two of my favorite subjects, paleopathology and the Tudors. My colleague, Kyra, became interested in the Tudors after reading the Jean Plaidy series in high school.

What is your opinion of Anne Boleyn? Who is your favourite of Henry’s queens?

Anne Boleyn has always been my favorite of Henry’s queens.  I think she was chased by Henry incessantly and saw no other choice but to marry the king.  She was an extremely smart, bold woman who could also see the potential in becoming queen and using her role to benefit that in which she steadfastly believed.  I think she is also a tragic figure and was rather shocked by Henry’s change in attitude, being the first major victim of his diseased state of mind.  I also admire her because she produced one of the greatest rulers in British history and find it sad Henry was not able to recognize the brilliance and astute ruler in his daughter or that a daughter could competently and successfully rule. Although Kyra is also a fan of Anne Boleyn, and is vehement that Anne was maligned, her favorite Queen is actually Anna of Cleves. It was the fact that Anna survived and thrived that makes her so appealing; she is a bright spot in the whole tragic history of Henry’s marriages.

The fact that Henry VIII was unable to produce viable multiple offspring with Catherine and Anne is in keeping with your proposed theory. Although Anne Boleyn was only married to the king for three years and had a healthy girl from only 2 or 3 pregnancies (depending on what historian you agree with) so is it not possible that if she’d had more time she might have had more healthy children? Or could not the immense stress and pressure that she was under to produce a male heir have negatively affected her pregnancies?

Had Henry given her the opportunity, I think she could have produced a healthy male heir as well as many other healthy children.  It is obvious, by observing the health of Elizabeth, their genetic combination could result in a very robust, healthy, and long-lived child.  However, it is impossible to know how many more miscarriages and stillbirths they would have had to endured waiting for the next healthy child.  Each time she became pregnant, it was a 50/50 chance the child would be Kell positive, and thus die. She could have had one, two, three, or more healthy children, or none, depending upon their Kell blood type.

It is possible that stress and pressure could have negatively affected her pregnancies, but the link between maternal anxiety and pre-term birth is controversial (Adler et al, 2007). A healthy fetus is remarkably hearty. I think it is more probable that a negative outcome for the pregnancies would have been related to Kell alloimmunization.  Stress, obviously, did not affect her ability to become pregnant, and, given ample time, I believe she could have provided him the son he desired.  Katherina, too, was under immense stress to provide a male heir and was able to produce Mary as a healthy fifth pregnancy.  I believe Katherina, given more opportunity even considering her advancing age, could have also provided his desired male heir.  It simply depends upon the roll of the dice – 50/50 Kell negative, 50/50 male – what do they get this pregnancy and how many times they try (or can mentally continue to try after suffering so many losses)?

Alder, J, Fink N, Bitzer J, Hosli I , and Holzgreve W

2007 Depression and Anxiety During Pregnancy: A Risk Factor for Obstetric, Fetal and Neonatal Outcome? A Critical Review of the Literature. Journal of Maternal Fetal Neonatal Medicine, 20(3):189-209.

Catherine of Aragon’s new biographer, Giles Tremlett, believes that Catherine of Aragon may have suffered from an eating disorder. Is it not possible then that this could have negatively impacted on Catherine’s pregnancies?

Well, it’s possible that she had an eating disorder and eating disorders can effect fertility. However, since she is criticized, frequently, by historians for having “lost her figure” with weight gain, anorexia seems unlikely. An eating disorder that can cause weight gain, like compulsive overeating, can effect fertility, but it is more likely to interfere with conception (possibly due to association with polycystic ovary syndrome) than to cause a miscarriage. Katherina conceived with reasonable frequency, until she hit early menopause and/or Henry stopped consummating their relationship. Additionally, other women frequently fasted for religious reasons, yet had normal fertility. One thing is certain though, Katherina’s fasting would not have effected Anne Boleyn’s fertility … the only thing the two women had in common was the father of their babies. Part of the reason people continually try to figure out what Katherina (and Anne) did to have such a poor reproductive history is that few people realize a man’s genetics and health can influence the outcome of a pregnancy beyond conception. The whole of reproduction is socio-culturally located in the female, which is at odds with biological reality.

It has been speculated that Henry VIII had Type II diabetes that affected his health and personality. Could this not be responsible for some of the king’s reproductive ‘woes’ and personality changes in the latter part of his reign?

There is always the potential for co-morbidity of conditions and he could have developed Type II diabetes, particularly at his weight.  Yet, diabetes would not explain any personality changes since it only results in excessive thirst, low sperm count, erectile dysfunction, fatigue, blurred vision, itching, and tingling in the extremities.  In reference to reproductive problems, diabetes is connected to low sperm count and erectile dysfunction.  This would result in an inability to get a woman pregnant rather than causing late-term miscarriages and stillbirths.  Katherina and Anne had numerous pregnancies and they were each easily impregnated by the king.  This is not consistent with problems associated with Type II diabetes.  If Henry did develop Type II diabetes, it could explain the complete lack of pregnancies in his fourth (if it was consummated), fifth and sixth wives, since none have any recorded pregnancies while being married to the King.  Yet, it does not preclude him from also suffering from McLeod syndrome since both are responsible for different conditions suffered by the king.

Some academics argue that Anne Boleyn was RH negative. What is your opinion on this theory?

If Anne was the only wife of Henry to have experienced a series of late-term miscarriages, then it could be plausible.  However, since both Katherina and Anne experienced multiple late-term miscarriages and stillbirths, it is more plausible that one cause is responsible for both of the patterns of child loss.  Kell alloimmunization is second only to Rh alloimmunization to cause fetal loss.  This indicates that if Rh alloimmunization is not causing the multiple mid to late term loss of pregnancies then Kell alloimmunization is the next probable culprit.  In Rh alloimmunization, the Rh negative blood type in the female is the less common Rh blood type since only approximately 15% of Caucasians are Rh negative.  The probability both Katherina and Anne were Rh negative is slim. Alternately, even though only 9% of the Caucasian population is Kell (KEL1) positive, it is the less common male Kell (KEL1) positive blood type that causes the alloimmunization of the Kell negative female.  Since both Katherina and Anne experienced similar obstetric histories, and the father of their children was the same man,  it becomes more plausible that Henry’s blood type is responsible for the difficulties.

In your article you state that, “If a Kell negative mother mates with a Kell positive father, each pregnancy has a 50/50 chance of being Kell positive. The first pregnancy, providing that nothing goes awry from other causes, typically carries to term and produces a healthy infant, even if the infant is Kell positive and the mother is Kell negative.”  Could you clarify for us what you think happened in the case of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon’s first pregnancy that resulted in a premature stillborn baby.

There are numerous mishaps that could have resulted in this loss and the loss could have been the result of some random unknown cause.  Kyra and I do, however, envision two other plausible reasons for her loss.  One, Katherina was known to have irregular periods and, since most pregnancies are lost before the first 13 weeks, she may never have even known she was pregnant and quickly conceived and subsequently lost an infant. If her period was simply two weeks late, this could have been a miscarriage and just recorded as “irregular” menstruation.  In the United States 15-20% of known pregnancies end in early term miscarriage (i.e. before 13 weeks), yet, with new techniques for testing hormonal levels that indicate pregnancy, estimates increase up to 60-70% loss of all pregnancies before 13 weeks.  Additionally 80% of all miscarriages occur in the first trimester, making the loss of the first child, just like Katherina first recorded pregnancy,  in the second or third trimester an unusual event.  There is the potential that this child was also Kell positive and an unknown previous pregnancy resulted in alloimmunization, HDN, and death of the fetus.  There are several historians, however, that argue there was no time for a pregnancy prior to their first recorded pregnancy.  Even so, there is the potential this child was lost due to Kell alloimmunization due to trauma during pregnancy that resulted in fetomaternal transfusion (the exchange of fetal and maternal blood).  If the fetus was Kell positive, this blood exchange would have resulted in alloimmunization.  Yet, when could she have suffered trauma during pregnancy?  Katherina became pregnant while on the summer progress.  They were on their summer progress from July to October that year, which means she would have been riding horses or riding in an extremely bumpy cart every few days for almost four months.  Without knowing she was pregnant, Katherina would not have known to “take it easy” while riding, and the rough riding, including jarring and hard bumping while hunting, jumping, and riding cross country over rough terrain could have resulted in minor trauma and fetomaternal transfusion.  Katherina, as cited by Starkey in Six Wives, was known to hunt and was good at riding horses. Numerous hunting excursions were also an important part of the summer progress.

If Henry was Kell positive and Catherine negative, how then did their fifth pregnancy produce a healthy baby?

In every pregnancy, there is a 50/50 chance the child will be Kell negative.  Mary happened to be the lucky winner of that negative blood type.  Unlike a Kell positive child, Katherina’s antibodies would not have seen Mary’s blood as a foreign entity that needed to be attacked.  This is because her Kell negative blood would not have Kell antigens and produce the immune  response.  Therefore, the pregnancy would have progressed as a normal pregnancy resulting in a full term, healthy child.

In your article you also state that, “Our theory is further supported by the fact that the reproductive history of several of Henry’s male maternal relatives follows the Kell positive reproductive pattern. We have traced the possible transmission of the Kell positive gene from Jacquetta of Luxembourg, the king’s maternal great-grandmother. The pattern of reproductive failure among Jacquetta’s male descendants, while the females were generally reproductively successful, suggests the genetic presence of the Kell phenotype within the family.”

Could you clarify whom the male descendants are as this is an interesting point for future research?

Consistent with Kell alloimmunization causing difficulties in male offspring being  able to produce heirs, all of Jacquetta of Luxembourg’s sons, except one who had one daughter from two marriages, had no offspring.  Granted, one became a bishop (though we know this would not have necessarily precluded him from having illegitimate children as so often was the case) and two did not live to adulthood.  Of the remaining four, they lived to adulthood, some married more than once, and had no surviving offspring.  There is the potential that not all of their male children were Kell positive, but the almost complete lack of grandchildren from their sons is highly consistent with Kell alloimmunization reproductive complications. The pattern of Kell alloimmunization reproductive complications also emerges in several of her daughters lines, but to show the pattern would take quite a lot of space.  Most specifically, the pattern clearly appears in Elizabeth, Katherine, and Anne’s genetic descendants.  Kyra and I plan to publish our genealogical research in the near future.  It must be reiterated that not all of Jacquetta and Richard Woodville’s children would have been Kell positive.  Some would have been Kell negative and others Kell positive.  This is the reason the pattern is not present in all of their children that were able to reproduce.

In your article you state that ‘most women carried their pregnancies to term’. Could you share with us the source of this interesting information?

Although the majority of pregnancies end very early (as stated earlier, 60-70%  of all pregnancies are lost before 13 weeks) most women in this era were not even aware they had miscarried at that point, since they did not really know they were pregnant until they felt the baby quicken, at around 20 weeks. Before that time, pregnancy was confirmed by hope, swelling and guesswork. After 20 weeks it is much less common to lose a pregnancy. So by the time women were reporting a pregnancy, they had a “goodly belly”, and they were far enough along to have good odds of bringing a fetus to term. While the first two years of infancy were the most lethal, only about 6% died at birth, making death as a neonate infrequent (Fleming, 2006:39),  Horrifically, in the Middle Ages, about 27% of all children died within the first year and another 12.4% died between one and four (Orme, 2001:113). . The losses suffered by Henry’s first two Queens did not conform to the expected pattern of child mortality.

Fleming, Robin

2006            Bones for Historians: Putting the body Back in Biography, In Writing Medieval Biography: Essays in Honor of Frank Barlow, ed. D. Bates, J. Crick, and S. Hamilton, pgs. 29-48. The Boydell Press, Woodbrige, UK.

Do sufferers of McLeod Syndrome undergo both physical and psychological changes or can one exist without the other?

Not all McLeod sufferers, just like any other disease, exhibit all of the symptoms.  Most McLeod sufferers will exhibit psychological symptoms and researchers even suggest that the psychological symptoms are the clinical manifestation of the disease.  Cardiac problems do affect most McLeod patients and is considered one of the leading causes of death in individuals affected by McLeod due to the disease causing an enlarged heart or congestive heart failure.  The symptom of chorea, which is uncontrollable movements and ticks, manifests in varying degrees and some individuals only exhibit slight movement simply resulting in the individual shifting their posture.  If Henry exhibited this slight movement, given his size and leg ulcers, I do not think any of his court would have contributed his uneasiness and shifting to anything other than discomfort from his size or wounds and would have missed a McLeod symptom.

Do you think it’s possible that Henry VIII did not undergo any great personality change in his later years and that instead it was the chronic pain that he suffered that caused him to be increasingly irritable and ill tempered?

I do not think this is likely.  His significant shift in personality is also noted by many excellent historians that focus on Henry’s life, including Starkey (Henry: Virtuous Prince) and Lipscomb (1536: The Year that Changed Henry VIII). It is not that Henry simply became irritable and short-tempered.  Henry became paranoid and irrational.  His paranoid behavior is manifested in his increasing execution of those close to him. He turned forty in 1531, and shortly thereafter he became cruel to Katherina, when he had previously been as kind as possible during the Great Matter. Additionally, before 1531, those who disagreed with him about the Great Matter were, at worst, exiled. By 1535 he had started executing those who disagreed, most famously John Fisher and Thomas More. In 1536 he seems to have slipped over the edge into deep paranoia, because he could easily become convinced that almost anyone was plotting against him. One of the men executed for “adultery” with (the clearly innocent) Anne Boleyn was Henry Norris, and he had been one of Henry’s closest friends for almost three decades. Then there was his slaughter of his maternal kin, including a cousin that had grown up with him in the royal household and shared his room when they were boys … it was the equivalent to killing a brother. Also, his precipitate beheading of Cromwell was atypical of his behavior before forty, and his sudden revulsion toward Anne of Cleves was irrational in the extreme. During the final five years of his life, he constantly set traps for his courtiers and ministers to fall into, including a famous incident with Kateryn Parr. He was once hailed as a “lover of justice and goodness”, but by his death he was an erratic tyrant.

Thank you so much for your time Catrina!

It is amazing that after almost five centuries there is still so much about the Tudors that can be debated and discussed- truly wonderful!

I thought that before another round of festivities kicks in, I should update you on some wonderful Tudor books that I found waiting for me under the Christmas tree this year – thank you Santa!

Sacred Treason by James Forrester

The first is an historical thriller called ‘Sacred Treason’ written by historian Ian Mortimer under the pen name James Forrester. The blurb reads:

1563- England is a troubled nation. Catholic plots against the young Queen Elizabeth have left the country in a state of fear and suspicion.

Late one night, respected herald William Harley, known to all as Clarenceux King of Arms, received an unexpected visitor – fellow Catholic, Henry Machyn. His friend is desperate to hide a manuscript chronicle containing a secret so dangerous he fears for his life. But soon, the State –  in the form of Francis Walsingham and his ruthless enforcers – are destroying Clarenceux’s peaceful home in search of Machyn’s chronicle.

On the run, and with the aid of Machyn’s wife Rebecca, Clarenceux must solve the clues in the manuscript to save their lives. Yet the more light they shed on the mystery, the more terror overtakes their world. Beaten, tortured, and hunted-down, they realise that what they have discovered could tear their country apart.

The book has received some excellent reviews with Robert Goddard calling it,

“A clever and enthralling historical thriller that not only brings the sixteenth century vividly to life but manages to be historically accurate in the process.”

And this quote by the Sunday Times has intrigued me ,

“An Elizabethan romp featuring a conspiracy, a secret manuscript and whispers about Anne Boleyn.”

Whispers about Anne Boleyn? I need to know now! I am really looking forward to reading this one and from what I have heard if you like CJ Sansom, and I definitely do, then you will love this novel!

Henry: Virtuous Prince by David Starkey

The second book is David Starkey’s ‘Henry: Virtuous Prince’. The Amazon blurb reads:

The first instalment of the highly anticipated biography of Henry VIII, written by one of the UK’s most popular, established and exciting historians. Published to coincide with the 500th anniversary of Henry’s accession to the throne, ‘Henry: Virtuous Prince’ is a radical re-evaluation of the monarchy’s most enduring icon. Henry VIII was Britain’s most powerful monarch, yet he was not born to rule. Thrust into the limelight after the sudden death of his elder brother, Prince Arthur, Henry ascended the throne in 1509, marking the beginning of a reign that altered the course of English history. In his youth Henry was highly intelligent, athletic and musically talented. He excelled in Latin and Mathematics and was an accomplished musician. On his accession to the throne, aged just seventeen, after the tumultuous rule of his father, he provided England with hope of a new beginning. Nobody could have foreseen how radical Henry’s rule would prove to be. Often overshadowed by the bloody saga of his six marriages, his reign has left a lasting legacy. An absolute monarch, Henry’s quest for fame was as obsessive as any modern celebrity.His fierce battles against Papal authority mark one of the most dramatic and defining moments in the history of Britain. Yet his early life was insecure. The Tudor regime was viewed by many as rule by usurpers and the dark shadows of the Wars of the Roses often threatened to tear England apart once more. The culmination of a lifetime’s research, David Starkey gives a radical and unforgettable portrait of the man behind the icon; the Renaissance prince turned tyrant, who continues to tower over history.

I am also looking forward to reading this book as I have read a lot about Henry VIII and his wives but little about Henry’s childhood and what he was like before becoming the large, violent old man. Read Hilary Mantel’s review in the Guardian here.

Tudor Houses by Trevor Yorke

The third book is one called ‘Tudor Houses Explained’ by Trevor Yorke. Amazon’s product description reads:

The commanding bulk of King Henry VIII in his full regalia, and Queen Elizabeth I with her fiery red hair, are mighty royal figures who still hold our fascination over four hundred years on. The Tudor period they dominated is still personified by the houses that remain standing in England’s towns and villages. Black and white timber framed buildings ‘jettying’ out between more recent bland structures, and rambling rows of quaint cottages around a green; these are as much the iconic image of England as that of the monarchs themselves. This book sets out to explain the rich range of houses built during the Tudor period. It is divided into five sections, looking firstly at the general changes in society and how they affected the housing of the period. The second section explains the structure of the houses and the different materials used. There is a chapter on the styles of timber frame, brick, and stone houses, together with dating details. There is a section on interiors, with information about original features, and finally some details about the gardens and landscapes that surrounded the larger Tudor homes. There is also a Glossary, and a Quick Reference Guide that helps to identify the use of Tudor styles in houses of the Victorian and more modern eras.

I’m hoping to use this book to write an article about Tudor houses as readers have written in suggesting this as an interesting topic.

And the last book is ‘Life in Tudor England’ by Penry Williams, part of the English Life Series. In the preface the author states that the book has been “designed to show how the England of the Yorkists was transformed into the England of Elizabeth.” Williams focusses his attention on the years between 1520 and 1570 as he sees these as the most crucial in understanding the change that occurred.

The book is divided into eight parts and they are:

1. The Land

2. Trade, Industry and Agriculture

3. The Order of Society

4. Castles, Palaces and Houses

5. Doctors, Disease and Diet

6. School and College

7. Church and People

8. Change and Rebellion

Details about life in Tudor England truly fascinate me and so this is a welcomed addition to my Tudor library.

That’s all from me for now, I hope you have a very happy New Year and a great start to 2011!

Let me know about any Tudor Christmas presents that you received.

Portrait miniature by Hans Holbein believed to be of Catherine Howard

Today’s post is a very interesting guest article by Alisa Libby author of The King’s Rose, the story of Catherine Howard’s rise and fall told in Catherine’s own words. Read my interview with Alisa here.

I think we have all asked ourselves how Catherine Howard could have been so reckless in her dealings with other men especially when she knew of the fate of her cousin, Anne Boleyn. One would imagine that Catherine would have been extra cautious not to anger her royal husband in any way. Instead, Catherine fell in love with Thomas Culpeper and engaged in a treasonous love affair with him or did she?

In Alisa’s article she examines this very question. Was Catherine Howard guilty? What do you think?

Did she or Didn’t she? By Alisa Libby

There is a giddy, gossipy element to Catherine Howard’s story. I can imagine what her ladies whispered, clustered in the shadowed corners of the royal chamber: Was Catherine not the pure and innocent “rose without thorn” with whom King Henry had fallen in love? Had she had dalliances with men prior to their marriage? And worse—was she engaging in such indiscretions right under the king’s nose?

King Henry was notoriously particular about his brides. How did the king, nearly 50, wind up with this pretty, vivacious, and ill-prepared teenage girl as his royal consort? He had already had a colorful marital career (the first three ending in divorce, execution, and death in childbed) when he shipped in the German princess Anne of Cleves to become his fourth bride. But Henry was doomed to be disappointed in Anne—she wasn’t as pretty as her portrait, nor as young. For a powerful king trying desperately to cling to his own youth and produce another male heir for his throne, he held these traits at a premium.

So Henry’s eye strayed from his newest wife, lingering on the ladies at court arrayed before him. Who was this pretty, petite girl, twirling across the dance floor at Hampton Court? Catherine Howard was new to court, installed as a lady in waiting in the fall before the new queen’s arrival. By the following spring, the king’s displeasure for his new bride was well known, and Catherine was being showered with royal gifts. By the summer of 1540, the king had procured his divorce and married Catherine Howard.

It’s a Tudor-style Cinderella story. Once a junior lady in the queen’s household, now the royal chambers were her own. The queen’s ladies were now her ladies. Her royal husband spoiled his young bride with opulent gowns, royal jewels, and lavish banquets. Catherine reveled in the ongoing party—no doubt she would soon be crowned Queen of England. She was young, and would certainly produce an heir to the throne. Never mind that she hadn’t been at court for a full year, and likely didn’t grasp all of the political maneuverings happening beneath the surface. Never mind that she was only a teenager, who had no notion of how to handle an aging and dangerously moody king. Never mind that she may not have been a virgin on her wedding night, as King Henry had believed. Never mind that she may have been in love with someone else.

Catherine appears to have enjoyed those early months of her royal marriage, with all of the celebrations entailed. But she too learned about the king’s more mercurial nature; his ill-health, his temper, his mood swings, and the terrifying range of his power. Here was a man who could order an execution of one of his own servants, only to speak of the act with regret in later years. He could change the law to suit his own needs. Henry was treated like a god upon earth, and all were subject to his whims.

And what about Catherine? Though Henry’s renewed vigor faded after their first few months of marriage, he still appeared pleased with his young bride, confident that she would bear him children. In the fall of 1541, Henry was informed of rumors regarding the queen’s behavior prior to their marriage. Though he asked for the matter to be investigated, he did not respond with his customary paranoia. He believed that she was pure and innocent, his “rose without thorn.”

So, what wild antics was young Catherine up to in her days before entering the royal bedchamber? Well, that depends on which biographies and histories you read, but I can share my consensus: Catherine likely had a flirtation with her music tutor, Henry Manox, and later a more serious relationship with Francis Dereham. That autumn, when Queen Catherine’s innocence was in doubt, the ladies who had lived with Catherine in these earlier years at Lambeth (her step-grandmother’s residence) recalled this relationship: that she and Dereham called each other husband and wife and, so it seems, acted the part as well. It’s possible that these ladies were lying, for whatever unknown motivation. But it’s likely that there was something to the overheard “puffing and blowing” (as one of Catherine’s former bedmates reported). Catherine’s life at Lambeth was certainly lacking in education and supervision—unless you count the supervision of the other women in the bedchamber, some of whom were inviting young men to their beds, as well. While not uncommon for the time period, these were unusual circumstances for a girl who would one day be the king’s bride. In those early days at Lambeth, no one dreamed of such a turn of events; least of all, Catherine, herself.

It was during this investigation of Catherine’s pre-marital life that another young man was mentioned in connection to Catherine: Thomas Culpeper, one of the grooms of the king’s chamber. According to rumor, Catherine’s affections had shifted to Culpeper, either before or during her marriage to the king. At least one source I read maintained that it was nothing more than flirtation, but most others agree that Catherine had an affair with Thomas. It’s impossible to know what happened behind closed doors, but Catherine’s ladies certainly cast every suspicion upon her when questioned, saying that she looked upon Culpeper as if she were in love with him. Her closest servant, Joan Bulmer, said that Catherine urged her to arrange secret meetings with Thomas. Though Thomas himself did not admit to having consummated their affair, he claimed that the queen was “languishing and dying of love” for him, that she insisted on meeting with him, and that they “intended to do ill” together. This intention was enough to mean death for both of them—the thought alone was tantamount to treason.

What was Catherine thinking, having an affair while she was married to such a powerful king? Henry had already executed his second wife—Anne Boleyn—on charges of adultery. Catherine should have known that any secret dalliance would have been discovered, and that the results would be dire. A love letter addressed to Thomas and signed “Kathryn” does exist; it appears that she was in love with him, though that doesn’t excuse her recklessness. Perhaps she was stupid and spoiled and selfish. Perhaps she was young and lonely and desperate to see her beloved. When she became queen, she could not stop herself from acting on her whims: the banquets and entertainments she planned are testament to her desire for pleasure. She may have received every material possession she desired, but her heart craved more. While her actions may not make her admirable, they do make her human.

Despite the king’s initial belief in Catherine’s innocence, the evidence against her was simply too damning to ignore. The king may have shown weakness in marrying Catherine, but he would not show it in condemning her. On February 13, 1542, two months after the executions of both Francis Dereham and Thomas Culpeper, Catherine met her own fate on the Tower Green. Her brief time as King Henry’s bride made very little impact on history. But the experience left its mark upon Henry: the surge of vibrant energy he had experienced upon first marrying Catherine had vanished, and would not return. The king was an old man; he could no longer deny it, even to himself.

To see Catherine’s letter to Thomas, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/museum/additional_image_types.asp?item_id=13&image_id=17&extra_image_type_id=1

To learn more about The King’s Rose, visit http://www.alisalibby.com/content.php?page=kingsrose&n=3&b=2&f=2

On my website www.alisalibby.com you can also find additional information about Catherine Howard, a list of resources, and a journal of my research trip to England to visit her old haunts (literally).

To win a copy of Alisa Libby’s book see full entry details here.

Loseley House

The direct descendants of the current owners, the More-Molyneux family, acquired the estate in the 16^th century and the current house was built in the 1560’s to replace a smaller house. Elizabeth I felt that the original house was not up to hosting a royal guest and so requested that something more adequate be built. It is said that the current house was built with stones from the ruins of Waverley Abbey.

Loseley House Anne Boleyn Portrait

Loseley’s magnificent Great Hall contains panelling from Henry VIII’s Nonsuch Palace and his banqueting tents. The Hall also houses a collection of royal portraits including an 18^th century painting of Anne Boleyn wearing a ‘black décolleté dress with pearls and a pendant with A H on it.’ The house is also home to a selection of 16^th century furniture.

The Drawing Room has a gilded ceiling decorated for James I’s visit and you can also visit the bedrooms where Elizabeth I and James I slept during their stays.

Carvings above the fireplace in the library, dated 1570, commemorate one of Elizabeth’s four visits to the house.

Loseley House also boasts an award winning rose garden, herb garden, flower garden and organic vegetable garden.

The house is opened to visitors between May and August with the gardens also opened in September.

The thought of seeing even a small part of Henry’s Nonsuch Palace, a great selection of royal portraits and 16^th century furniture is enough for me to add this home to my list of ‘must-see’ destinations.

Thank you to Alison Weir who provided the scan of the Loseley portrait of Anne Boleyn.

Click here to see a selection of photos of the interior of Loseley House.

King Henry VIII

Just a quick post today to bring to your attention a very interesting and informative article that I just read about the development of the codpiece. In the article, we learn about the introduction of the codpiece, its rise in popularity during the reign of the Yorkist kings of England, its absolute rise to fame during the reign of Henry VIII and its disappearance during Elizabeth’s reign.

What I found most interesting was the idea of the ‘exaggerated codpiece’ being used as a container for medication for the relief from the symptoms of syphillis. The author states that the codpiece, “enclosed a specialized bandage and protected outer clothing from being stained by the medicine.”

I had heard of the codpiece being used to hold one’s valuables but never as a container for medicine!

Read the full article here.

Enjoy

Never do I feel so close to them, so close to Anne, as when I am standing in a building she once stood in, laughed in, cried in. I am fascinated by the thought of looking at something that her beautiful black eyes once beheld or touching a stone that she may herself have touched.

In my everyday life, time and space separate me from them but when I am in one of their buildings, only time stands between us. This thought is a huge comfort to me and continues to motivate me to research all the places that Anne visited in her lifetime and hopefully visit them myself.

I don’t think it’s enough to simply remember Anne on the anniversary of her death. I want to celebrate her life, her achievements and learn as much as I can about the world she lived in – a world very different to our own. I think only then can we begin to understand the events that culminated on Tower Green on the 19th May 1536.

Ewelme almhouses

I am overjoyed by how On the Tudor Trail has grown and evolved into what it is today. I am humbled by all the wonderful Tudor enthusiasts that visit my site and by all the loyal readers that contribute to our discussions.

I have embarked on a life long journey of learning, questioning, discussing and reflecting and am so happy that others have chosen to join me On the Tudor Trail.

It is with great pleasure that I announce the addition of my 30th Anne Boleyn location –  Ewelme Manor. Read the full post here.