Katherine Howard: A New History (6 page)

Contemporaries generally adhered to the prevailing view that ‘the queen’s lying-in is the foundation of everything’.
⁴⁹
Yet it is likely that it was the king, rather than his queens, who was responsible for the lack of a son to succeed him to the throne.
⁵⁰
Although this seems plausible, and will be discussed in greater detail during the reign of Anne’s cousin Katherine, it can hardly be doubted that the queen’s failure to bear a son compounded her personal difficulties, for she was never a popular queen consort in the same way in which her predecessor, Queen Katherine, had been. The Abbot of Whitby likely voiced the opinion of many when he declared that ‘the king’s grace was ruled by one common stewed whore, Anne Bullan, who made all the spirituality to be beggared and the temporalty also’.
⁵¹
Her association with Thomas Cromwell and reformist bishops, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer, meant that Anne was viewed with even greater hostility amongst traditional Catholics within England who resented the break from Rome and the rapid rate of religious changes occurring during Henry’s reign. The Succession Act, directed by Cromwell and which required every person in the country to swear an oath to support Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne, fuelled discontent with the king’s new marriage. George Cavendish, who resented the queen and directly blamed her for Cardinal Wolsey’s downfall, created an arrogant and vindictive Anne in his
Verses
written during the reign of Mary I, who was to blame for the unpopular changes: ‘I was the author why laws were made for speaking against me [...] it was my full intent lineally to succeed in this Imperial crown.’
⁵²
Cavendish’s discontent seems to have been shared by many, for ‘the people, horrified to see such unprecedented and brutal atrocities, muttered in whispers about these events and often blamed Queen Anne’.
⁵³

Because, as has been noted, aristocratic women directly contributed to and affected the successes and failures of their families as daughters, wives, and widows, the Duke of Norfolk and his kin could only have been relieved to discover that the queen was once more pregnant in the spring of 1534, particularly against a backdrop of mounting discontent in England and the troubled state of international politics from an English perspective.
⁵⁴
The king personally informed Chapuys, the Spanish ambassador, in February 1534 that he would soon become a father again, while at court the queen’s ‘goodly’ belly was remarked upon by those present.
⁵⁵
It is likely that both the ambassador and his master Charles V feared the news of Anne’s pregnancy, for were she to bear a son to the king, this would conclusively mean that Princess Mary, daughter of Katherine, could never succeed to the English throne. This was not to be, however; for some months later, on 23 September, Chapuys reported that the king believed that his wife was not truly pregnant, signalling an end to the couple’s hopes.
⁵⁶
The failed pregnancy was shrouded in mystery, meaning that historians have not been successful in discovering what the outcome of Anne’s second pregnancy was, but the likelihood was that she had suffered a miscarriage in the late summer of 1534, probably weeks before her due date.
⁵⁷

The state of the English succession was placed in further difficulties resulting from European politics, which was characterised mainly by a continuing refusal to accept Henry’s second marriage as valid in view of the fact that not only was his first marriage lawful but his second wife had failed to provide her husband with the desired male heir. Both Henry and Anne were eager to maintain their friendship with the French, inviting French envoys resident in England during the spring of 1534 to convey their support of the marriage through meeting the new princess. Chapuys reported the meeting: Elizabeth ‘was brought out to them splendidly accoutred and dressed, and in princely state, with all the ceremonial her governess could think of, after which they saw her quite undressed’.
⁵⁸
At the same time, Lord Rochford, younger brother of the queen, journeyed to France to discuss plans with the French king for a marriage alliance between Elizabeth and Charles, Duke of Angoulême. Following the queen’s miscarriage that summer, however, relations between England and France deteriorated. Chapuys informed the emperor in January 1535 that, following a banquet at which the sieur de Brion attended, Anne had burst out laughing, explaining that: ‘I could not help laughing at the King’s proposition of introducing your secretary to me, for whilst he was looking out for him he happened to meet a lady, who was the cause of his forgetting everything’.
⁵⁹
Palamedes Gontier, treasurer of Brittany, who met the queen that same month, was informed personally by her that: ‘the Admiral must think of applying some remedy, and act towards the King so that she may not be ruined and lost, for she sees herself very near that, and in more grief and trouble than before her marriage. She charged him to beg the Admiral to consider her affairs, of which she could not speak as fully as she wished, on account of her fears, and the eyes which were looking at her, her husband’s and the lords’ present. She said she could not write, nor see him again, nor stay longer.’
⁶⁰

It is clear that the queen found herself in a troubling predicament by 1535, for not only had she failed to provide Henry VIII with a male heir, which she had promised to do through her marriage to him, but her daughter’s legitimacy was placed in considerable doubt through the collapse of the promises of the French that Elizabeth should marry their prince, Angoulême. Hostile observers further recorded that Anne had suffered a breakdown in her relationship with the Duke of Norfolk, who complained that he had not received sufficient rewards from her who he had so vigorously supported.
⁶¹
Other evidence intriguingly indicates that other Howard relatives, aside from the duke, experienced mounting discontent with their kinswoman and the policies they associated with her and Master Secretary Cromwell. During the royal couple’s progress in the summer and autumn of 1535, Lady Rochford, sister-in-law to the queen, and Lady William Howard, the step-aunt of Anne, were likely among a number of wives of London citizens and some of the queen’s ladies who demonstrated at Greenwich Palace in support of the Lady Mary. Chapuys later reported that ‘the marchioness of Exeter sent to say that four or five days ago the king talking about the princess, said that he should provide that soon she would not want any company, and that she would be an example to show that no one ought to disobey the laws and he meant to fulfil what had been foretold of him [...] he would be gentle as a lamb and at the end worse than a lion’.
⁶²
Chapuys’ report is telling in relation to who was the real author of Mary’s ill-treatment. In keeping with contemporary mores, however, like other male chroniclers the Spanish ambassador castigated Queen Anne for her alleged cruelty and spite towards the rightful princess, failing to recognise that it was actually her husband who treated his daughter thus out of outrage at her, in his eyes, disobedience and stubborn behaviour.

The death of Katherine of Aragon in January 1536 and the revelation of Queen Anne’s third pregnancy around the same time enacted the beginning of a new phase in the fortunes of the Howard family, which was to have long-term consequences. As has been recognised, the death of the old queen should have ensured that Anne was in a stronger position than ever before, for this event encouraged the European powers of France and particularly the Holy Roman Empire to view Henry VIII’s second marriage as lawful in view of his first wife’s death. Henry VIII’s joy at Katherine’s passing was clearly visible: ‘the king was clad all over in yellow, from top to toe, except the white feather he had in his bonnet, and the Little Bastard [Elizabeth] was conducted to mass with trumpets and other great triumphs. After dinner the king entered the room in which the ladies danced, and there did several things like one transported with joy. At last he sent for his Little Bastard, and carrying her in his arms he showed her to one and then another.’
⁶³
Despite Katherine’s death, and her third pregnancy, the queen was aware that her enemies were keen to utilise fertility politics to their advantage, for in the eyes of Imperialist sympathisers the king was now a widower and could be encouraged to marry again and, perhaps, return to the Roman Church and resolve the English schism.

The queen’s tragic miscarriage of a male foetus that month was directly ascribed to her, for sixteenth-century observers believed that women were to blame for failures within fertility and pregnancy. Women’s bodies were blamed for causing notorious vices, with women interpreted as ‘at the mercy of their wombs which could wander dangerously through the body causing hysteria and other maladies’.
⁶⁴
The Spanish ambassador, writing less than two weeks after the queen’s miscarriage on 29 January, recorded that: ‘on the day of the internment [Katherine’s funeral], the Concubine [Anne] had an abortion which seemed to be a male child which she had not borne 3½ months, at which the King has shown great distress. The said concubine wished to lay the blame on the duke of Norfolk, whom she hates, saying he frightened her by bringing the news of the fall the King had six days before.’
⁶⁵
According to Chapuys, Anne’s personal relationship with her uncle the duke had deteriorated so rapidly that she personally held him to account for her miscarriage, indicating that relations between the two had been hostile for some time, probably since at least the preceding year. The chronicler Edward Hall also noted the miscarriage, commenting that ‘and in February folowyng was quene Anne brought a bedde of a childe before her tyme, whiche was born dead’.
⁶⁶
Wriothesley agreed, noting that ‘Queene Anne was brought a bedd and delivered of a man chield, as it was said, afore her tyme, for she said that she had reckoned herself at that tyme but fiftene weekes gonne with chield.’
⁶⁷
Lancelot de Carles, who was controversially to set out the queen’s downfall in his verse, agreed with Chapuys in opining that the king’s jousting accident caused his wife to miscarry ‘un beau filz’.
⁶⁸

As with Queen Katherine some years earlier, Anne was directly blamed for failing to bear a son. Rumours circulated at court that she was physically unable to bear sons, while claiming that both Elizabeth and her miscarried son were ‘suppositious’.
⁶⁹
Significantly, similar allegations of barrenness were to arise during Katherine Howard’s downfall just five years later in 1541. Anne’s position as queen and her closeness to the Howard family were brought into doubt through her second miscarriage, particularly with the king’s developing affection for Jane Seymour, a lady-in-waiting to the queen who was aged around seven years younger than her royal mistress. Yet, somewhat unusually, despite her estrangement from the king and her mounting difficulties with her Howard relatives, the queen’s situation was not as bleak as it might have initially appeared, for Emperor Charles had promised Cromwell, who supported the queen, that while: ‘The Princess Mary might be declared legitimate [...] He promised to use his good offices with the Pope, that, at the impending council, his good brother’s present marriage should be declared valid, and the succession arranged as he desired.’
⁷⁰
Paradoxically, despite her second miscarriage, Anne’s position as queen during the early spring of 1536 was not eroded substantially through the increasing influence of the Seymours through the king’s flirtation with Jane, for Katherine’s death and the changed international situation had offered the chance of a reconciliation between England and the Holy Roman Empire through an acceptance of the Boleyn marriage.

Although the king had not yet decided to end his marriage to Anne during the spring of 1536, it has been surmised that the Duke of Norfolk’s hostility towards the queen led him to participate eagerly in the events leading to her downfall, largely because Anne had failed to bring sufficient rewards and prestige to the Howards and, more importantly, to Norfolk himself.
⁷¹
It is difficult to place the Duke of Norfolk acting with Jane Seymour, her family and so-called imperialists in a ‘faction’ that aimed at the downfall of Queen Anne and her Boleyn relatives, for the evidence pointing to such acts is scarce. It is unlikely that, following his niece’s miscarriage, Norfolk conspired with the Seymours to effect Anne’s disgrace, confident that the king would accept their evidence and rid himself of his second wife, for the king, contrary to popular opinion, continued to support his consort, entreating the Spanish ambassador to publicly honour her on 18 April and writing abroad of ‘the likelihood and appearance that God will send us heirs male by our most dear and most entirely beloved wife, the queen’.
⁷²
However, although Norfolk probably continued to outwardly support his niece by virtue of their kinship ties, his probable belief that she had indeed committed adultery and, perhaps, treasonous acts evidences how powerful women were believed capable of the most evil of crimes.

Although both Anne’s personal relationship with the king and her friendship with Lord Secretary Cromwell had fallen into considerable difficulties by virtue of her inability to bear a son and her conflicting policies, respectively, Henry VIII’s affection for Jane did not personally threaten Anne to a significant extent during the early months of 1536 as many scholars believe that it did. As has already been noted, the international situation was actually more favourable to the queen than it had ever been hitherto. Although her estrangement from Norfolk and the growing fear among the Howards that the success they had gained through Anne’s spectacular rise might be merely momentary, Anne’s favour with her husband surely prevented Norfolk from colluding a great deal with the Seymours and other enemies of his niece as early as spring 1536 to achieve her disgrace, for the subsequent rise of the Seymours and their associates could not bode well for his family’s fortunes. However, in late April, a series of events worked together in effecting the downfall of Queen Anne. Cromwell reported in mid-May ‘that the ladies of the queen’s Privy Chamber had informed certain councillors of certain matters and there had followed interrogations of some of the Privy Chamber and a number of the queen’s staff’ pertaining to allegations of Anne’s adultery committed with five members at court, one her younger brother George.
⁷³
The queen’s own indiscreet conversations with Henry Norris, a favoured courtier, her brother George, and the lowly musician Mark Smeaton meant that, as Starkey wryly notes, ‘she [Anne] delivered herself’.
⁷⁴