autrenecherche:

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:

“The fact that 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, Henry did 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″.