“You smelt of jasmine that morning. I thought: maybe she’s ugly under her mask? Or disfigured. But it didn’t matter. You wouldn’t let me kiss you. I thought: she’s even lonelier than me. She loves as though she is seeking revenge.”
there are like 5-10 g*t/asoi*f quotes that i have memorized (even tho i didn’t really care to, despite that i don’t watch/read that) because they’re like the ONLY ones used on edits on this website….and they’re overused to the point where it’s like. i know these are supposed to be these profound~ quotes but each time i see one (again) it has the emotional impact of lint??
there are like 5-10 g*t/asoi*f quotes that i have memorized (even tho i didn’t really care to, despite that i don’t watch/read that) because they’re like the ONLY ones used on edits on this website….and they’re overused to the point where it’s like. i know these are supposed to be these profound~ quotes but each time i see one (again) it has the emotional impact of lint??
“AND THEN THERE COMES ANOTHER–”
me: yeah…it be like that sometimes.
there are like 5-10 g*t/asoi*f quotes that i have memorized (even tho i didn’t really care to, despite that i don’t watch/read that) because they’re like the ONLY ones used on edits on this website….and they’re overused to the point where it’s like. i know these are supposed to be these profound~ quotes but each time i see one (again) it has the emotional impact of lint??
So, this passage is from a biography I’m reading right now, and I’m going to challenge it. The author is certainly not the first to state something similar to this take; in fact this is a common narrative that I’ve come across a lot.
My belief is that this narrative is due (at least in part) to something I’ve privately (well, up till now), referred to as the Anne of the Thousand Days effect:
That line, along with this one:
Yes, I’ve
been told it’s not safe for any of us to say no to our king. That put on, kindly, hail-fellow-well-met of yours. My father’s house will be pulled
down, and Northumberland’s too, they tell me. Well, pull them
down, Your Majesty, you are
what I said.
…are what have endured.
They have, in fact, endured so steadfastly that I’ve never read anyone challenge them; nor have I ever read an examination of evidence pertaining to the subject (Henry VIII, his mistresses, and treatment of them when they were, and no longer were), and whether or not it fits this narrative or contradicts it.
I have never been able to find a single shred of evidence that suggests Henry pursued any woman, and then, once she rejected him, set out to “ruin her family”. Certainly he had the power to do so, being king, if he so wished, but having the power does not necessitate that he ever abused the power. Moreover, once this is considered, the argument that Anne only entertained his affections out of fear of the ruin of her family weakens; unless there was proof that her father pushed Mary into being Henry’s mistress out of this fear – or ambition– himself.
Beyond the realm of The Tudors and The Other Boleyn Girl; there is no such evidence. In fact, it would be fair to say there might be evidence to suggest the contrary (that Thomas Boleyn did not approve of the former affair– which could’ve taken place during Mary’s marriage to Carey, or before it). Even the work making the claim that Henry offered ‘no direct financial support’ contradicts itself with its own evidence–
“Thomas Boleyn obviously little did little to assist Mary, since Henry VIII later granted Anne the wardship of Mary’s son Henry [after Mary’s husband had died; this leaving Mary in financial straits].”
Henry granted Anne the wardship. Surely this was at Anne’s behest; but it suggests a collaborative effort– after all, it is not as if he refused to grant the wardship to Anne, and the pension to Mary.
Beyond that they had sex at least once, we know nothing for certain about the nature of the relationship between Henry and Mary Boleyn. Due to what we don’t know, it does make it a bit difficult to examine the claim that Henry offered her nothing because she was no longer his mistress, or that he “discarded” her, which is another narrative I’ve often read (again, this assumes a lot– for all we know, they could have had a mutual parting of ways, a one-night-stand, a few-week ‘fling’, a month-long affair, etc.). That he “refused to accept parental responsibility” assumes that he had paternity of Mary Boleyn’s children…this is, again, something we do not know. As we cannot date when the affair was (not even, as I said, if it was during her marriage to Carey or before it) beyond that it occurred before he asked for a dispensation pertaining to ‘a degree of affinity through…illicit intercourse’ to marry Anne; it is impossible to determine if it was even possible that Catherine and Henry Carey were Henry’s illegitimate children, born 1524 and 1526 (approximately), much less probable.
Henry VIII issued a series of grants to William Carey from February 1522 to May 1526. It has been assumed that this must have dated the duration of his affair with Mary, and that the end of the grants marked the beginning of his interest in Anne, but this is mere speculation. If we mark Henry’s interest in Anne to the Shrovetide Joust of February 1526, with his “Declare I Dare Not” motto, and the letter claiming he’s been “a whole year stricken with the dart of love" (which is dated, by several historians, to have probably been written late 1526/early 1527), it is probable that– at the very least– he continued to make grants to Carey for at least five more months after ending the affair with Mary (although this is, again, hypothetical dating).
So, let’s take a look at that claim again:
“Thefactthat Henry offered no direct financial support to his former mistress is an indication of his indifference to those who no longer contributed to his pleasure.”
A) How, exactly, does any kind financial support (even if ‘indirect’, which– hello – has a similar effect to direct financial support in the case of grants to Mary’s husband, and an identical effect with her annual pension granted in 1528, as well as the assurance that her son would be receiving a fine education by skilled tutors at the assurance of her sister) indicate indifference?
B) Given the timeline of the probable longest hypothetical for the affair, it seems like Henry did continue to offer financial support, in the form of grants to her husband, after Mary “no longer contributed to his pleasure.”
C) Moreover, why would Mary have expected a man she had slept with to offer her financial support? It was her husband that was under obligation to do so, and he was Gentleman of the Privy chamber, and Esquire of the Body to the King– the implication that they were destitute after Henry stopped issuing grants due to “his indifference”, when both positions had a salary, seems a little far-fetched. After Carey died and she lost her husband’s financial support, Henrydid give her an annual pension to support herself, as well as ensure that her son was taken care of (again, her son whose paternity was either William’s or Henry’s– and we don’t know which).
D) The assumption that he would not have helped her if he’d had no relationship with Anne at the time of Carey’s death is just that– an assumption. We don’t know if he wouldn’t have in that scenario, because that scenario didn’t occur.
E) There is no indication that he offered “no direct financial support” or assistance to his earlier mistress, Bessie Blount (even after their relationship ended) or the illegitimate child he had by her– in fact, Henry Fitzroy was titled a duke. After she had Henry’s son, a marriage was arranged to her for a baron– so the underlying assumption and drama of the speech in AOTD (that to be Henry’s mistress was, and had always been, the ruin of a woman’s life, standing, and reputation), again, falters in the face of the actual historic record (at least, as far as precedent goes– which was, before he asked Anne to be his “official mistress”, only Blount and Mary for certain).
The financial support Henry continued to offer Blount and his son by her would indicate the opposite of what this passage claims Henry’s actions indicate– again, that he was indifferent to those that “no longer contributed to his pleasure”.
But my examination of the evidence concerning Bessie Blount (and perhaps, a speculated-mistress for good measure– I’m thinking perhaps Jane Popincourt, or Anne Stafford) is something I will tackle in “part 2″.
Some claim that Henry continued the affair with Blount even after she married; but I find this highly unlikely. In a conversation on this topic with @lucreziaborgia; she made the great point that the majority of Henry’s known mistresses whose dates we can pinpoint (Blount, Sheldon, Jane Seymour, Katherine Howard, and Anne Boleyn– although the labeling of her as ‘mistress’ is perhaps not altogether fitting, given her recognition at court and by ambassadors as the king’s betrothed) were not married (or, for that matter, widowed– although that seemed less an issue in wives in the case of the wife potential of Christina of Denmark and the eventual marriage to Katherine Parr…we all know what a fuss was eventually made over KoA being his brother’s widow) during their relationships with him. The only possible exception to this is Mary Boleyn, but it may well be that her affair with Henry occurred before the Carey marriage as well; as she was in England for at least a year (and somewhere around the marriageable age of 18/19 in that year) before that marriage. The author of The Mistresses of Henry VIII, states that, in general, “when a [king’s] mistress married a courtier, it was usually a sign that the relationship was over.”
Due to this, I am examining the veracity of this claim:
“Thefactthat Henry offered no direct financial support to his former mistress is an indication of his indifference to those who no longer contributed to his pleasure.”
…based on the deduction that Henry’s relationship with Blount ended, at the latest, by 1522 (the year of her marriage).
In TheTudors; Henry doesn’t speak to Bessie Blount after visiting her, one last time, after the birth of Henry Fitzroy. His only interest is in their son, and their son’s welfare, rather than hers. In other words, he certainly does “discard her” (in Tudors, she’s also inaccurately already married when she gives birth to Fitzroy) as soon as he no longer wants her as mistress.
Historic record, again, does not reflect this fiction as a reality. But then, their Henry is selfish to the last, and a consummate philanderer besides– the first season focuses on the ‘lecherous’ aspect of the “blood-stained lecher” (again, another narrative that is due to the AOTD effect).
The marriage, in itself, was a sort of financial support to Henry’s former mistress, which is something missing from Tudors. As the heir to a barony, Tailboys outranked Blount.
“Tailboys was a member of Wolsey’s household and the cardinal may have had a hand in arranging the match. Henry does seem to have had a hand in it, as the marriage settlement put all income and property from Bessie to remain with her if her husband died, and then go to her heirs – it did not, as it often would, go to the Tailboys family on her death.”
Again, I say– so much for a pattern of “[offering] no direct financial support to his former mistress”; or a precedent of “indifference to those who no longer contributed to his pleasure.”
Shortly after the marriage of Tailboys and Blount, in June 1522, Henry VIII issued a grant for a manor and the town of Rokeby, Warwickshire. Significantly, the grant specified that it was onlyGilbert and Bessie’s issuethat could inherit this property first, so the argument that Henry only cared for his own issue, rather than his former mistress or any of her issue by another man, can not be made in this instance.
There is no evidence that suggests Henry was “indifferent” to Blount’s children that weren’t his, or Blount herself after his romantic relationship with her was over. Given the evidence, the claim that he only cared about her welfare because of her connection to his son/maternity of Henry Fitzroy is significantly weakened by the evidence of Henry issuing a grant to Blount a year after Fitzroy’s death.
When he was 16 “and not yet into his majority, an Act of Parliament was passed to put him in possession of his estates and enable him to settle a jointure (a provision for a wife after the death of her husband) on his wife”.
Here is the evidence regarding the daughter of Gilbert and Bessie, Elizabeth Tailboys:
“Henry VIII visited Elizabeth and her husband at Nocton on his northern progress in 1541. Elizabeth inherited the Tailboys estates after her brothers George and Robert died, and she was thus the fourth Baroness Tailboys of Kyme. Her husband, a member of the gentry, petitioned to have himself be named as Lord Tailboys; however, with a bad relationship with her husband, Elizabeth wanted the title for herself and Henry VIII ruled in favour of his former mistress’s daughter. His judges agreed that as long as the marriage was childless, Thomas could not have his wife’s titles.”
And now, for the speculated-mistress– Jane Popincourt.
Firstly, we have no definitive proof on the matter of whether Popincourt was actually ever Henry’s mistress. The evidence that tends to link the two is his parting gift of £100 to her.
But to play devil’s advocate against the quote; if Jane had been his mistress– well, a parting gift of 100 pounds in 1516 (equal to the pension given to Dr. Butts after Anne Boleyn recovered from the Sweat under his care, equal to the annual pension he gave Mary Boleyn after her husband died, and 70 pounds greater than the annual salary paid to Hans Holbein) certainly doesn’t suggest “indifference to those who no longer contributed to his pleasure”. Popincourt was leaving for France; so had there been an affair it certainly wasn’t going to be continued by telepathy!
To state that Henry’s“indifference to those who no longer contributed to his pleasure” was well-established and evident by 1528 is something that is easy to believe after consuming Tudor fiction. It’s a common narrative, and I think that’s why it’s so readily accepted and so easily believed. It confirms our preconceived notions about Henry VIII; and any opinions we may have given that we do have the benefit of hindsight. However, it is not a statement that holds up against the evidence available before 1528.
My hope is that, for anyone that might have read this series; my summation and analysis of the evidence might get people to question this narrative a little more. During my own research for this series, I certainly began to question not only the narrative itself, but why it used to be one I so readily believed.
I believe it is because Tudor fiction has a bigger impact on us than we may realize, but I’m curious to hear anyone’s thoughts on the matter– feel free to let me know in reblogs or replies.
