autrenecherche:

Last we left off, I’d examined the treatment of Mary Boleyn and William Carey under Henry VIII. For the second part, I’m delving farther back in the timeline, to the treatment of Blount when she was no longer Henry’s mistress and married to Gilbert Tailboys, 1st Baron Tailboys of Kyme and a Member of Parliament. 

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:

“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.”

…based on the deduction that Henry’s relationship with Blount ended, at the latest, by 1522 (the year of her marriage).

In The Tudors; 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 only Gilbert and Bessie’s issue that 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. 

George Tailboys, the eldest son by Blount’s marriage, was given a seat in Parliament when he was thirteen years old. And “in February 1537 when George was about fourteen, he and his mother received a joint grant of the office of bailiff of the manor of Tattershall Castle, near South Kyme. They were also appointed as keepers of the great park and chaser there and other areas within the manorial estate.” 

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. 

However, this sum may also “have been for loyalty to Elizabeth of York, might have been for tutoring the Tudor children in French and it might have been for other things”. Henry was known to be especially generous to those that had connections with, and were loyal to/had served, his family in the past [sources here, and here]. Henry often gifted large sums to courtiers such as Francis Bryan and George Boleyn…yet I’ve never read anyone suggest he was having an affair with either of them. 

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. 

My ko-fi

☕

: here