Families saw their daughters as goods for sale, so marrying them to the king would've been like winning the lottery for them. All about wealth and status.
I agree with you Clare. Henry was the spider in the court web. Over time I have begun despise him as he deliberately disposed of his wives and courtiers and all those Plantagenets. However, that doesn’t stop my endless curiosity about anything Tudor. I love your hair.
🇭🇲🦘 Thank you for this comprehensive view on the families of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. So very interesting to have 'those Tudor times' explained, so very well. I tend to agree with all that you said. I have NO doubt that the Boleyns and Howards mourned the deaths of their daughters (and other family members) greatly. However, they could not show their grief (as they would have liked) otherwise anger King Henry VIII. Already an angry and dangerous Man, King and Master. How very sad (and frightened) they all must have been. Terrible! They lived a true horror story. Thank you for two videos today Claire. Very different, but both of great interest. 👑👍🌐👋
I agree with that in the case of Anne Boleyn, because the evidence against her was so flimsy. However, in Catherine Howard's case, it was proven that she committed adultery. Now, I don't blame the girl since Henry was a fat, diseased 50 year old guy by this point, but a Queen could not sleep around.
@@rhaenyralikesyoutube6289 It didn't matter that the evidence was flimsy. No one was going to stick up for Anne. She had a lot of enemies. Anne was an unpopular queen so if Henry had just divorced her then people would have said 'I told you so' which would've enraged Henry as he hated to be proved wrong. There is also debate by some historians as to whether Catherine actually had an affair with Culpeper. It depends on how you interpret her letters.
He could have but the law back then stated that if you cheated on the king you were changed with treason and for treason once proven guilty you were sentenced to death. Being a woman didn't make a difference. So sending them to a nunnery was not possible with out the king breaking the laws to due so. Even the king was not allowed to break the laws and though it would have been a better option to show mercy it would have caused a civil war if he had broke the law to save his wives from death after a guilty verdict for treason
Another thoughtful video, Claire: Thank you! Re: responsibility -- I believe that one must seek the source of Power in these relationships, and ultimate power in Tudor England was always vested in the monarch. I hold Henry VIII responsible for the carnage which took place during his reign. He pursued a reluctant Anne Boleyn much like a stalker, and scooped up Catherine Howard at the first opportunity. Parents & families were mere collateral damage.
I would say King Henry especially hearing of the accidents that may have changed his personality. Or, his disposition and place of power in general. Families might have taken advantage when they saw Anne and Katheryn getting the King's attention but I'd lay the blame with him.
I have always been fascinated with Anne Boleyn since I was young. I always felt all the accusations about her were untrue and Henry VIII was a mean tyrant. I love watching your videos.
From what I have read I am unsure that Thomas Boleyn used Anne as a pawn, but I would guarantee he didn't say no when Anne came to the attention of Henry VIII. He most likely fostered that relationship and he wouldn't be any different to a lot of men of that time. Thomas would know that it would do his family good to be on the right side of Henry. I often wonder what Anne's mother truly thought. As a mother did she worry about Anne? The Howard family used Katherine Howard in my opinion. She was young and naive and easily led it seems and I doubt they cared about her at all.
Reading your comment makes me think that you didn't really listen to Claire who is a bonafide Tudor/Tudor period expert! Her talk here is specifically meant to dispel unfounded claims such as the exact ones that you made in your comment! 🤦♀️🤷♀️
Chapuys suggests that Thomas Boleyn did say no, in as far as he didn't support the idea, and there's nothing to suggest that the Howard family used Catherine. What makes you say that?
Thank you for your amazing videos Claire! I'm really interested in Tudors and especially Anne Boleyn. And it's so hard to learn about her since truth is very much mixed with fiction. If i want to know something about her or tudors (especially henry viii) i first check if you have a video or essay on that subject and you usually do. Thanks for your hard work 🤗
The Howards and Boleyns must have been elated when Anne caught the king's attention, devastated when he turned on her and George, and terrified yet hopeful when he became smitten with Kathryn. Who could have imagined that she would have fallen into the same trap as her cousin had? If it's as t all a reflection on those families, let the records show that the Howard girls were beautiful and classy and knew how to please the king, at least initially. That he turned on them later was his choice as much as his choosing to court and wed his wives' ladies.
Could you imagine not one of your relatives but two were put to death!! I can't help ,but to somewhat pity the Howards. If they were my cousins/nieces I'd be really devastated.
Queen Catherine Howard. Was my 13 Great great aunt ( her sister Margaret Howard [ lady arundell] was my 13th Great great grandmother So Anne Boleyn was my 13th great great cousin
I think these first cousins must have been very alike in some sense of sexual allurement in that they were the two wives who seem to have incited the most passion and desire in the King. Physical traits, captivating personalities...something definitely made them his type. He falls hard for them and just as quickly punishes and discards them in the most cruel way possible when they don't match his ideal. Indeed, Henry carries the most blame, to a huge degree. But I do suspect some machinations or counseling from Thomas Boleyn as Anne rose. After all, Thomas brought Anne home from France and was ready to more or less exile her into some Irish marriage to settle family affairs in his favor, even after Anne fell in love elsewhere (prior Henry). But I suspect that Anne saw all of his plans coming from a mile away and remained her own best counselor and negotiator -- or worst. But I do suspect that Thomas whispered in her ear. // Poor Catherine - what is there to say? I don't think anyone would have wanted to associate too closely with her. She seems like an unguided missile.
As for Katherine I see her as a victim a young very nieve lady at the end of the day Henry is to blame his ego and cold blooded decisions cost these ladies there lives and you can't help to feel sorry for the families of these ladies.
I would not put one of my lovely daughters though where Henry could see them. It may have been a privilege to serve him but to what cost? Admittedly the Protestant reformation hadn’t really struck England when Anne went to court and Henry hadn’t had his serious fall from his horse, so his brutality had not emerged. But the poor Howard girl, who was there to protect her? He was a dangerous man now by this time. She walked straight into his den and the family allowed it to happen. Poor little thing. Thank you for making us see different angles and ideas. Made me think
Claire, You have explained in previous VID's. The power of the aristocratic families went too the male heir in these families everyone else especially our gender were a way to get land, power, et. al. I admire Eliz I even more understanding the times they lived in. Thankful for those women that changed our culture. Is it perfect no but much better than during their lifetime. Women couldn't even be actors in Shakespeare plays.
I think Anne and her family proceeded with caution. Rather than Anne playing hard to get to entice Henry, I think she and her family were very cautious. I will probably never understand the mess with Katherine Howard. I cannot think of her without thinking, "How could she be so stupid?" As far as her family, it seems she did not have a strong, guiding family. According to one book I own--my dog got mad at me and ate it so I don't remember the title or author--Katherine as a young girl was punished for what men did with her. Following, "How could she be so stupid," I think, didn't she learn anything from the demise of her cousin? On the other hand, adultery in and of itself wasn't necessarily a capital offense. If Katherine did not know or expect her dalliances to be fatal, if there was no clear law,* how could she simply be condemned by attainder? Why did not Henry allow her to escape due to pre-contract? If she was a silly girl, her intent surely was not treasonous, so again, why kill her? Lots I do not understand. As for Mary, I think the king having mistresses was acceptable. It was not as established as it was in the French court but sexual beliefs of the time, as I understand them, would have allowed a man to have a mistress. I am referring to the belief that men had to relieve their carnal needs so bad humours would not build up inside and cause ill health. Since the Bible is against a man 'spilling his seed upon the ground', a mistress might well have been an accepted, even respectable, alternative, especially for a king. *Concerning law, wasn't a law made in Henry's reign, after Katherine's execution, that any woman marrying the king, or future king, had to be a virgin? Obviously Katherine Parr was not but she was twice a widow. Forward about 440 years, it was reported that before Lady Diana Spencer was fully engaged to Prince Charles, she had to have a medical examination...which she passed. As I recall, this was from a mainstream source and I deeply apologize if this is a scurrilous story from the tabloid press. If this was true, was it because of a law passed in Henry VIII's reign?
In Catherine's defence she was raised by her step grandmother, who was also in charge of caring for several other girls but she didn't have much interest in their upbringing. They would often let other men into their chambers at night and may have encouraged her to do the same. You can imagine the impact that would have on a young and impressionable teenager.
@@isobelduncan All true and extremely sad. It is reported that when her grandmother learned of some of her interactions with men that Katherine was slapped and punished. I have seen this in recent times, young girls punished for being molested. On the other hand, her cousin Anne Boleyn's demise should have made an impression on an older Katherine. I don't think Katherine was having 'carnal knowledge' with men whom she was meeting. I think there was something else happening but of course there was no defense once found out.
Claire, do you think Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII mother) conspired to have the 2 little princes murdered in tower to make a way for her son before or during or after he won the Battle of Bosworth field against King Richard?
Ever see the movie Sweet Smell of Success? Everyone close to Henry the VIII reminds me of the Tony Curtis character. A vague reference but I will avoid the direction that this video deems appropriate.
I totally agree with you it must have been one of those situations were you just couldn't see what was coming. Must also of been truely frightening not knowing what the King would do.
100% agree- 100% Henry's fault, & it makes me SO angry when people blame others! It's funny- people can accept that a woman had to obey the king if he wanted to marry/sleep with her, but not that their families had to obey him too. Before I saw Claire's excellent videos, & read Gareth Russell's bio of Katherine Howard, I thought she was more or less a pawn, but now that seems wrong, for so many reasons. I think a lot of these ideas are well-intentioned attempts at rehabilitating their reputations, but they're based on modern ideas of "how things were back then"- they recognise that women had less power, but sadly go a bit too far & take away all their agency, when they DID make many decisions themselves. (Same as with Queen Jane Grey.) I think the idea of Katherine Howard having been sexually abused comes from the same place- not necessarily consciously, but to redeem her previous reputation as a "tart", rather than questioning whether sleeping with one guy before she got married, then cheating with one more guy while married (whether or not they actually slept together), makes her a "tart". Or, even better, whether we need to criticise people for sleeping with "too many" people. But it's an argument you can't counter, cos it's based on age, & defines all sex as abuse if someone over 18 sleeps with someone under 18, even if the younger person consents, cos their age makes them incapable of giving consent. And without definite ages for Katherine & her boyfriends, people can talk about a guy in his 30s molesting a 12-yr-old girl.
Henry was the man with the power I agree with the comments he needn't have had them executed.There were lots of other options open to him. Your channel is so interesting and educational I really enjoy it.I am reading the book you mention at the moment really good. ☘
What a great video! As member of several Tudor interest groups on social media, it is so discouraging to see how depictions in movies, etc are taken for historical evidence. More than discouraging. Fiction truly is so powerful. Thank you for your great work and for being such a clear and reliable teacher!
Great video! I'd love to see a video in which you expand on one point that has always bugged me: we too often see/read Anne given the motive from Day One of seeking to be Henry's wife/queen. But why would she? What precedents existed in the late 1520s for such a thing? Yes, sometimes--but rarely--kings put aside their wives (Henry's brother-in-law Louis XII had done so with Jean of Valois to marry Anne of Brittany) and even more rarely reigning kings married commoners (Henry's grandparents Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydvil come to mind). But it wasn't exactly common for kings to do so and I can't think of a previous example of a king putting aside a wife of royal blood to marry one of his own subjects. So why in the world do we so frequently see Anne portrayed as having ambitions to rise to such impossible heights from the very beginning? Why is "Your wife I cannot be; your mistress I will not be" translated as "My price for my favors is that you make me your wife and queen"? Why does this make a better novel than a young noblewoman holding her honor dear because she knew the king would never marry her--*could* never marry her...until he determined to do so? After all, isn't that one reason their story is so fascinating? That they did the impossible?
Queen Katherine Howard. Was my 13th great great aunt. My 13th great great grandmother was her sister Margaret Howard (Lady Arundell). Anne Boleyn was my 13 th. Great great cousin
No, the families are not to blame other than the Dowager Duchess could have pointed out the ramifications of her choices to the very youthful Catherine Howard although the Duchess' major protection once all was revealed was to state her ignorance of the extent of things. I feel Gareth Russell's amazing book has given Catherine back to herself. I was shocked (in view of the narratives that have flown about for some years) to find out how young Manox was and although Dereham was older than Catherine he was still a very young man. As regards Anne Boleyn, she was confined by her family's expectations, they had originally intended her to marry the heir of the Ormond family to settle an inheritance dispute so she would not as such have expected her own choice. Once the King so openly wanted her, I think it would have been hard for her to seek a marriage elsewhere. I do not see the hard nosed manipulation here that some dramas and novels have suggested although it makes good copy. And you are correct that Anne's father was already a successful servant to the crown.
Claire, I agree completely that these families did not manipulate their daughters, but Im wondering how you feel about the Seymours? Do you think the Seymour brothers pushed Jane forward? My suspicion is that they did, and were just lucky that her baby was a boy. Both brothers demonstrated their ambitions later towards the regency of young Edward VI. I often wonder about Jane's fate if she had lived and her son had not, and I see Jane as far more of a pawn than either Anne or Catherine.
I've noticed a lot of times people would rather blame the sane people around an evil person for not managing him correctly, rather than the evil person himself. As Eddie Izzard once said, it's like when we reach a certain level of evil we can't deal, and start treating Evil Person as if they were a force of nature with no moral agency, and can only be managed, not held accountable. Mind you, if Henry really had a neurodegenerative condition like McLeod syndrome or post-concussion syndrome, you can postulate that maybe he wasn't fully accountable for his actions, either. It's hard to say.
YES to the first point! The amount of victim-blaming people do is astonishing & depressing. And to make Henry truly not responsible for his actions, any medical or psychological condition would have to be so severe that he couldn't tell reality apart from his delusions, couldn't control his actions, &/or couldn't understand the consequences of his actions. Claire's done a vid about his jousting accident & it seems it wasn't serious at all & didn't involve any head injury.
Henry VIII was indeed to blame. He was selfish and what he wanted he got, but I do think Norfolk, once he saw the way the King took a liking to Katherine, may have encouraged the situation. Knowing Henry did not want Anne of Cleves, it was easy to manipulate the king into the arms of Katherine who was easily led.
If Anne had given Henry a son, there wouldn't have been six wives. Henry was with Katherine of Aragon for over 20 years until she could no longer bare children. It was all about an heir.
In Catherine's defence she wasn't taught to know any better. She grew up in a boarding house with several other girls who invited men into their chambers at night. Her step grandmother didn't have much input in their upbringing. You can imagine the impact that'd have on an impressionable 19 year old.
I bought the book Young Damned and Fair by Gareth Russel but have yet to read it. Surprised Claire didn't believe the Howards and the Boleyns used Catherine and Anne as pawns. I always considered them self servers greedy for status and wealth
With Anne Boleyn, I think most people were caught of guard. No one could have guessed that Henry would go the lengths he did. With Catherine Howard, I think the duke of Norfolk did see an opportunity and he took it. Really, Henry gets a lot of well deserved criticism, but Norfolk really has no redeeming features in my opinion.
Great video. But when the Imperial ambassador Eustance Chapuys reported back to the Emperor it was in his interest to downplay Anne Boleyns familys support for Henry courting and marrying her it may have affected his Views about what her relatives told him. The duke of Norfolk certainly knew he was speaking to an Imperial ambassador and may have wanted to play down his and his brother in-laws support of Annes marriage to the king.
Henry was a spoiled child. He was never Intended to be king. He became king because his brother died. And Henry the Vll. Had only a small clam to the throne on his mother's side. So Henry was like a kid with a new toy. I fell he was chasing the ladies of the court to be a kings, and he was not Catherine for her failure to have a son, well now we know that the Male determines the sex. The bottom line is Henry the Vlll was a murderer. Bottom line.
Firstly, You are amazing and I so appreciate all that you do in providing all of us with this treasure trove of information. Secondly, I believe that Henry VIII’s need to have what he wanted at all costs is responsible for the hemorrhaging of tragedy for these women and their families. I guess when a human is made to feel that they have no limits or boundaries then the idea of how another person feels is completely remote or nonexistent. Power can corrupt but it doesn’t have to.
What I still don't understand is why Henry didn't just divorce her when he wanted to be rid of her. After turning all of Christendom upside-down to marry Anne, it makes no sense that he would participate in ridiculous, trumped-up charges that no one with any common sense would have believed, only to have an excuse to murder her. Obviously, he knew divorce was an option. He did it with his first wife, and again with his fourth.
Katherine Howard was a damaged girl! Even though time were different, being uneducated and kind of raised in an atmosphere of behaviour that was nothing but sexual abuse in a girl, not valued much and left to her devices, she destroyed herself. Because she knew no better. I always felt bad for this abandoned girl who was.failed by those who should have cared.for her.
It is so easy ( for me at least) to get caught- up in the narratives of the series and pick those I admired or despised. Its good to have Claire to shed some real history into the story. I had really disliked Ann' s father and uncle and simply believed they were the greedy, power mongering fiends as portrayed. I always saw Ann as a victim of circumstance and never considered that she was guilty as charged. I also saw Katherine Howard as a victim but she was portrayed as quite the strumpet I had mixed feelings about her. Now I know that the story line presenting Katherine' s involvement with Culpepper was really not quite so. Is there saving grace for Culpepper? Was the scene where him and his randy mates raped that poor country woman and killed her husband true? Is there any saving grace for Edward Seymor because I despised him as portrayed. Hope to come across Claire' s input on those things.
After watching this and thinking it over, I can't say Ann was a pawn for anybody. She knew what being in a royal court was about She grew up in the French court and was very well educated before thae
I can imagine the pain Thomas and Elizabeth suffered after poor anne n George and poor Catherine used as a pawn by her family she fell in love twice i believe Thomas was her true love i think Henry was the way he was because he had a serious head injury which changed him all innocent victims especially anne
I agree that Anne Boleyn's downfall was squarely on Henry VIII and his psychological issues. But in the end, Katherine Howard, should have known better. The amount of time she would have spent in church she knew she was unfit to be queen. It's not like she was child labor working the fields. She was raised in a proper house and educated according.
Actually Katherine's upbringing was far from proper. Her father the 2nd Duke of Norfolk was property stricken and she was sent to live with her step grandmother the Dowager Duchess, who had several other ladies in her care and had very little involvement in their upbringing. The Duchess hardly disciplined them and the older girls would often invite men into their chambers at night. You can imagine the negative influence this would've had on an impressionable teenaged girl. She wasn't as well educated as most of Henry's other wives either.
She knew she wasn't a virgin. Even in the current Prince Charles day and age it was the reason he couldn't marry Camilla years ago. I don't agree with this ideology, but it seems to be an issue with English monarchy. Katherine Howard should have admitted before marriage.
I referred people to your videos regarding the belief that Anne's family used her as a pawn. It is infuriating that it is believed that her family would do this. Especially, since they didn't need too. Why would Anne want to a mistress to be assuredly discard at some point.
Question: what would Thomas Boleyn have lost if he had denounced the king and the show trial condemning two of his children to death? Was his position as Earl of Wiltshire really that important to him? His other daughter, Mary, was married to a man of limited means. It would have made poor leverage to threaten her. If granddaughter Elizabeth had been put under threat, it would mean that Henry considered her truly illegitimate. Of course he didn't, and it would be unreasonable to expect that he would injure his own daughter to get at his father-in-law. I don't look kindly on Thomas Boleyn. In "Bring Up the Bodies," author Hilary Mantel has Lady Shelton say to Anne within the confines of the Tower, "Thomas Boleyn looks after himself first and last. I know, he is my brother."
Denouncing a king just wasn't done and speaking ill of the king could lead to charges of treason and execution. That wouldn't have even crossed a Tudor person's mind. You'd just do what noble families had done before, accept the situation and move on, sadly.
@@beth7935 Well, yes. And??? Let's see, he can let two of his children die based on ridiculous lies or he could denounce the proceedings and call the executors of the king's will (or the king himself) liars. I would rather die than see my children come to the sad end of Anne and George Boleyn. I would rather die than see them threatened like Anne and George Boleyn. Consequences be damned. Thomas à Beckett, Henry of Bolingbroke, Richard Plantagenet (Duke of York), John Pym and others defied a king. "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." He wouldn't have saved them by an act of bravado. He might have saved their dignity.
@@renshiwu305 I just meant he had a lot more to lose than some titles. Whether he did the right thing or not is another question, but not one I'm trying to answer. I can't help judging people sometimes, but I try not to- that's not what I want to do when I learn about history.
Is there any evidence to support the idea behind Howard Brenton's play "Anne Boleyn" commissioned & put on by Shakespeare's Globe back in 2011 to celebrate 400 yrs since the original King James version of the Bible? Brenton shows Anne as actively furthering the Protestant cause & a great admirer of Martin Luther. I have however heard he did it as he thought writing a play about how the James VI version was cobbled together would end up a bit boring. David Edgar however did a brilliant job with "Written on the Heart" but that is another matter.
I completely agree with you Claire. Henry VIII was indeed ultimately responsible for the fate of those unfortunate ladies.
Given Henry's marital history I wouldn't have wanted my daughter going anywhere near him, rather than pimping her out to him!
Pimping without marriage was a lot safer for them, sorry to say🤔.
Probably because you're a good parent and see your daughter as an important person, not a marriage commodity.
@@TheTam0613 things were different then
@@noway325 I'm aware of that, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. At any time.
Families saw their daughters as goods for sale, so marrying them to the king would've been like winning the lottery for them. All about wealth and status.
Everybody close to Henry died because of Henry. If it quacks like a duck must be a duck.
Or, it could be a hunter enticing a duck within range of his gun.
@@playme129 very good. Lol
So his mother died because of him?
@@playme129 or a lyrebird
I agree with you Clare. Henry was the spider in the court web. Over time I have begun despise him as he deliberately disposed of his wives and courtiers and all those Plantagenets. However, that doesn’t stop my endless curiosity about anything Tudor. I love your hair.
I love, "spider in the court web." How true!
I couldn't agree more!
@@annalisette5897 If Henry was a spider, he was a big, fat, hairy tarantula!!
It is pretty clear who held all the cards. Thanks for that excellent analysis of the reality of the times.
🇭🇲🦘 Thank you for this comprehensive view on the families of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. So very interesting to have 'those Tudor times' explained, so very well.
I tend to agree with all that you said. I have NO doubt that the Boleyns and Howards mourned the deaths of their daughters (and other family members) greatly. However, they could not show their grief (as they would have liked) otherwise anger King Henry VIII. Already an angry and dangerous Man, King and Master. How very sad (and frightened) they all must have been. Terrible! They lived a true horror story.
Thank you for two videos today Claire. Very different, but both of great interest. 👑👍🌐👋
Henry is at fault-he didn't have to kill them, he could've sent them to a nunnery. He could've banished them from court. He chose death.
I agree with that in the case of Anne Boleyn, because the evidence against her was so flimsy. However, in Catherine Howard's case, it was proven that she committed adultery. Now, I don't blame the girl since Henry was a fat, diseased 50 year old guy by this point, but a Queen could not sleep around.
He felt the need to kill Anne to make a clean break. Also he didn't want people to say I told you so if he had just divorced Anne
@@rhaenyralikesyoutube6289 It didn't matter that the evidence was flimsy. No one was going to stick up for Anne. She had a lot of enemies. Anne was an unpopular queen so if Henry had just divorced her then people would have said 'I told you so' which would've enraged Henry as he hated to be proved wrong. There is also debate by some historians as to whether Catherine actually had an affair with Culpeper. It depends on how you interpret her letters.
He could have but the law back then stated that if you cheated on the king you were changed with treason and for treason once proven guilty you were sentenced to death. Being a woman didn't make a difference. So sending them to a nunnery was not possible with out the king breaking the laws to due so. Even the king was not allowed to break the laws and though it would have been a better option to show mercy it would have caused a civil war if he had broke the law to save his wives from death after a guilty verdict for treason
@@jadedqueen2717 Henry also didn't want to be told: I told you so! He would never admit he was wrong to divorce Catherine of Aragon.
Another thoughtful video, Claire: Thank you! Re: responsibility -- I believe that one must seek the source of Power in these relationships, and ultimate power in Tudor England was always vested in the monarch. I hold Henry VIII responsible for the carnage which took place during his reign. He pursued a reluctant Anne Boleyn much like a stalker, and scooped up Catherine Howard at the first opportunity. Parents & families were mere collateral damage.
True, IMO.
Very well said! Great comment!
I would say King Henry especially hearing of the accidents that may have changed his personality. Or, his disposition and place of power in general. Families might have taken advantage when they saw Anne and Katheryn getting the King's attention but I'd lay the blame with him.
You are such a great resource for Tudor knowledge in all the untruths and fiction out there
Love the new shade of hair on you, looks classy ✨
like Katherine of Aragon
I think that Catherine Howard was a pawn. I don't think that Anne Boylen's family ever foresaw Henry VIII's divorce.
Bull Anne's family saw the whole thing only thinking of their own advancement.
I have always been fascinated with Anne Boleyn since I was young. I always felt all the accusations about her were untrue and Henry VIII was a mean tyrant. I love watching your videos.
This is all Henry’s fault.
From what I have read I am unsure that Thomas Boleyn used Anne as a pawn, but I would guarantee he didn't say no when Anne came to the attention of Henry VIII. He most likely fostered that relationship and he wouldn't be any different to a lot of men of that time. Thomas would know that it would do his family good to be on the right side of Henry. I often wonder what Anne's mother truly thought. As a mother did she worry about Anne? The Howard family used Katherine Howard in my opinion. She was young and naive and easily led it seems and I doubt they cared about her at all.
Thank you.
Reading your comment makes me think that you didn't really listen to Claire who is a bonafide Tudor/Tudor period expert! Her talk here is specifically meant to dispel unfounded claims such as the exact ones that you made in your comment! 🤦♀️🤷♀️
Chapuys suggests that Thomas Boleyn did say no, in as far as he didn't support the idea, and there's nothing to suggest that the Howard family used Catherine. What makes you say that?
Thank you for your amazing videos Claire! I'm really interested in Tudors and especially Anne Boleyn. And it's so hard to learn about her since truth is very much mixed with fiction. If i want to know something about her or tudors (especially henry viii) i first check if you have a video or essay on that subject and you usually do. Thanks for your hard work 🤗
The Howards and Boleyns must have been elated when Anne caught the king's attention, devastated when he turned on her and George, and terrified yet hopeful when he became smitten with Kathryn. Who could have imagined that she would have fallen into the same trap as her cousin had? If it's as t all a reflection on those families, let the records show that the Howard girls were beautiful and classy and knew how to please the king, at least initially. That he turned on them later was his choice as much as his choosing to court and wed his wives' ladies.
Can I just say, I absolutely LOVE this Questions series!
Two videos in one day!!🎉🎉🎉
I love your hair Claire!!
Henry VIII did what he wanted no matter who was in his way!
First of all i loved your new hair
Thanks for setting it straight. Much appreciated.
Could you imagine not one of your relatives but two were put to death!! I can't help ,but to somewhat pity the Howards. If they were my cousins/nieces I'd be really devastated.
Queen Catherine Howard. Was my 13 Great great aunt ( her sister Margaret Howard [ lady arundell] was my 13th Great great grandmother So Anne Boleyn was my 13th great great cousin
Finally a longer video with claire!! ❤️
Really enjoyed this talk of Ann and Catherine, thank you.
I think these first cousins must have been very alike in some sense of sexual allurement in that they were the two wives who seem to have incited the most passion and desire in the King. Physical traits, captivating personalities...something definitely made them his type. He falls hard for them and just as quickly punishes and discards them in the most cruel way possible when they don't match his ideal. Indeed, Henry carries the most blame, to a huge degree. But I do suspect some machinations or counseling from Thomas Boleyn as Anne rose. After all, Thomas brought Anne home from France and was ready to more or less exile her into some Irish marriage to settle family affairs in his favor, even after Anne fell in love elsewhere (prior Henry). But I suspect that Anne saw all of his plans coming from a mile away and remained her own best counselor and negotiator -- or worst. But I do suspect that Thomas whispered in her ear. // Poor Catherine - what is there to say? I don't think anyone would have wanted to associate too closely with her. She seems like an unguided missile.
As for Katherine I see her as a victim a young very nieve lady at the end of the day Henry is to blame his ego and cold blooded decisions cost these ladies there lives and you can't help to feel sorry for the families of these ladies.
I would not put one of my lovely daughters though where Henry could see them. It may have been a privilege to serve him but to what cost?
Admittedly the Protestant reformation hadn’t really struck England when Anne went to court and Henry hadn’t had his serious fall from his horse, so his brutality had not emerged. But the poor Howard girl, who was there to protect her? He was a dangerous man now by this time. She walked straight into his den and the family allowed it to happen.
Poor little thing. Thank you for making us see different angles and ideas. Made me think
Always a like for a beloved author. From across the pond a hello.
Claire, You have explained in previous VID's. The power of the aristocratic families went too the male heir in these families everyone else especially our gender were a way to get land, power, et. al. I admire Eliz I even more understanding the times they lived in. Thankful for those women that changed our culture. Is it perfect no but much better than during their lifetime. Women couldn't even be actors in Shakespeare plays.
You always make me feel we could be good friends. Love your hair, your home, family (Teasel too) and home I learn so much from you!
I am loving your new hair color. Unrelated. I look forward to these videos everyday!
Thank you . I enjoy your History telling very much.
Very interesting topic. Thank you Claire.
Interesting information, thanks for your research. Really enjoy your videos.
Great presentation. Thanks for all your research. Virginia
I think Anne and her family proceeded with caution. Rather than Anne playing hard to get to entice Henry, I think she and her family were very cautious.
I will probably never understand the mess with Katherine Howard. I cannot think of her without thinking, "How could she be so stupid?" As far as her family, it seems she did not have a strong, guiding family. According to one book I own--my dog got mad at me and ate it so I don't remember the title or author--Katherine as a young girl was punished for what men did with her.
Following, "How could she be so stupid," I think, didn't she learn anything from the demise of her cousin?
On the other hand, adultery in and of itself wasn't necessarily a capital offense. If Katherine did not know or expect her dalliances to be fatal, if there was no clear law,* how could she simply be condemned by attainder? Why did not Henry allow her to escape due to pre-contract? If she was a silly girl, her intent surely was not treasonous, so again, why kill her? Lots I do not understand.
As for Mary, I think the king having mistresses was acceptable. It was not as established as it was in the French court but sexual beliefs of the time, as I understand them, would have allowed a man to have a mistress. I am referring to the belief that men had to relieve their carnal needs so bad humours would not build up inside and cause ill health. Since the Bible is against a man 'spilling his seed upon the ground', a mistress might well have been an accepted, even respectable, alternative, especially for a king.
*Concerning law, wasn't a law made in Henry's reign, after Katherine's execution, that any woman marrying the king, or future king, had to be a virgin? Obviously Katherine Parr was not but she was twice a widow. Forward about 440 years, it was reported that before Lady Diana Spencer was fully engaged to Prince Charles, she had to have a medical examination...which she passed. As I recall, this was from a mainstream source and I deeply apologize if this is a scurrilous story from the tabloid press. If this was true, was it because of a law passed in Henry VIII's reign?
In Catherine's defence she was raised by her step grandmother, who was also in charge of caring for several other girls but she didn't have much interest in their upbringing. They would often let other men into their chambers at night and may have encouraged her to do the same. You can imagine the impact that would have on a young and impressionable teenager.
@@isobelduncan All true and extremely sad. It is reported that when her grandmother learned of some of her interactions with men that Katherine was slapped and punished. I have seen this in recent times, young girls punished for being molested.
On the other hand, her cousin Anne Boleyn's demise should have made an impression on an older Katherine.
I don't think Katherine was having 'carnal knowledge' with men whom she was meeting. I think there was something else happening but of course there was no defense once found out.
Wonderful episode!
To sum up Henry he was a hypocrite. a liar. a murderer. and thief.
@Robert Dudley Great name!
@@lauradesmarais2044 thank you milady 😊👍
Claire, do you think Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII mother) conspired to have the 2 little princes murdered in tower to make a way for her son before or during or after he won the Battle of Bosworth field against King Richard?
Historians don’t find it very likely.
Very good and interesting. I agree with what you have said. Thank you.
great learning video as always. and as I was not there I can't judge.
Ever see the movie Sweet Smell of Success? Everyone close to Henry the VIII reminds me of the Tony Curtis character. A vague reference but I will avoid the direction that this video deems appropriate.
Thanks, an interesting point.
I totally agree with you it must have been one of those situations were you just couldn't see what was coming. Must also of been truely frightening not knowing what the King would do.
100% agree- 100% Henry's fault, & it makes me SO angry when people blame others! It's funny- people can accept that a woman had to obey the king if he wanted to marry/sleep with her, but not that their families had to obey him too.
Before I saw Claire's excellent videos, & read Gareth Russell's bio of Katherine Howard, I thought she was more or less a pawn, but now that seems wrong, for so many reasons. I think a lot of these ideas are well-intentioned attempts at rehabilitating their reputations, but they're based on modern ideas of "how things were back then"- they recognise that women had less power, but sadly go a bit too far & take away all their agency, when they DID make many decisions themselves. (Same as with Queen Jane Grey.)
I think the idea of Katherine Howard having been sexually abused comes from the same place- not necessarily consciously, but to redeem her previous reputation as a "tart", rather than questioning whether sleeping with one guy before she got married, then cheating with one more guy while married (whether or not they actually slept together), makes her a "tart". Or, even better, whether we need to criticise people for sleeping with "too many" people. But it's an argument you can't counter, cos it's based on age, & defines all sex as abuse if someone over 18 sleeps with someone under 18, even if the younger person consents, cos their age makes them incapable of giving consent. And without definite ages for Katherine & her boyfriends, people can talk about a guy in his 30s molesting a 12-yr-old girl.
Totally believe Henry VIII was to blame for their executions and not their families
Henry was the man with the power I agree with the comments he needn't have had them executed.There were lots of other options open to him.
Your channel is so interesting and educational I really enjoy it.I am reading the book you mention at the moment really good. ☘
What a great video! As member of several Tudor interest groups on social media, it is so discouraging to see how depictions in movies, etc are taken for historical evidence. More than discouraging. Fiction truly is so powerful. Thank you for your great work and for being such a clear and reliable teacher!
Great video! I'd love to see a video in which you expand on one point that has always bugged me: we too often see/read Anne given the motive from Day One of seeking to be Henry's wife/queen. But why would she? What precedents existed in the late 1520s for such a thing? Yes, sometimes--but rarely--kings put aside their wives (Henry's brother-in-law Louis XII had done so with Jean of Valois to marry Anne of Brittany) and even more rarely reigning kings married commoners (Henry's grandparents Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydvil come to mind). But it wasn't exactly common for kings to do so and I can't think of a previous example of a king putting aside a wife of royal blood to marry one of his own subjects.
So why in the world do we so frequently see Anne portrayed as having ambitions to rise to such impossible heights from the very beginning? Why is "Your wife I cannot be; your mistress I will not be" translated as "My price for my favors is that you make me your wife and queen"? Why does this make a better novel than a young noblewoman holding her honor dear because she knew the king would never marry her--*could* never marry her...until he determined to do so? After all, isn't that one reason their story is so fascinating? That they did the impossible?
*Henry's out every night on the town just sleepin around like WHAT THE HELL*
Love your hair! Very shiny and healthy looking!
Queen Katherine Howard. Was my 13th great great aunt. My 13th great great grandmother was her sister Margaret Howard (Lady Arundell). Anne Boleyn was my 13 th. Great great cousin
No, the families are not to blame other than the Dowager Duchess could have pointed out the ramifications of her choices to the very youthful Catherine Howard although the Duchess' major protection once all was revealed was to state her ignorance of the extent of things. I feel Gareth Russell's amazing book has given Catherine back to herself. I was shocked (in view of the narratives that have flown about for some years) to find out how young Manox was and although Dereham was older than Catherine he was still a very young man. As regards Anne Boleyn, she was confined by her family's expectations, they had originally intended her to marry the heir of the Ormond family to settle an inheritance dispute so she would not as such have expected her own choice. Once the King so openly wanted her, I think it would have been hard for her to seek a marriage elsewhere. I do not see the hard nosed manipulation here that some dramas and novels have suggested although it makes good copy. And you are correct that Anne's father was already a successful servant to the crown.
Claire, I agree completely that these families did not manipulate their daughters, but Im wondering how you feel about the Seymours? Do you think the Seymour brothers pushed Jane forward? My suspicion is that they did, and were just lucky that her baby was a boy. Both brothers demonstrated their ambitions later towards the regency of young Edward VI. I often wonder about Jane's fate if she had lived and her son had not, and I see Jane as far more of a pawn than either Anne or Catherine.
Very interesting
This was an incredible talk! What about Jane Seymour? Was her family more nefarious and manipulative of that relationship?
Possibly.
Thank you
Love your hair ❤️
I've noticed a lot of times people would rather blame the sane people around an evil person for not managing him correctly, rather than the evil person himself. As Eddie Izzard once said, it's like when we reach a certain level of evil we can't deal, and start treating Evil Person as if they were a force of nature with no moral agency, and can only be managed, not held accountable.
Mind you, if Henry really had a neurodegenerative condition like McLeod syndrome or post-concussion syndrome, you can postulate that maybe he wasn't fully accountable for his actions, either. It's hard to say.
YES to the first point! The amount of victim-blaming people do is astonishing & depressing. And to make Henry truly not responsible for his actions, any medical or psychological condition would have to be so severe that he couldn't tell reality apart from his delusions, couldn't control his actions, &/or couldn't understand the consequences of his actions. Claire's done a vid about his jousting accident & it seems it wasn't serious at all & didn't involve any head injury.
Henry VIII was indeed to blame. He was selfish and what he wanted he got, but I do think Norfolk, once he saw the way the King took a liking to Katherine, may have encouraged the situation. Knowing Henry did not want Anne of Cleves, it was easy to manipulate the king into the arms of Katherine who was easily led.
Recent research strongly suggests that the portrait you have a KH is, in fact, Anne of Cleves.
Because Henry fell for Catherine Howard fairly quickly, I wonder, if he had of been warned of her history would he have found a way around it?
I agree with you.
The person to blame for Queen Anne Boleyn's and Queen Kathryn Howard's executions is definitely King Henry VIII.
If Anne had given Henry a son, there wouldn't have been six wives. Henry was with Katherine of Aragon for over 20 years until she could no longer bare children. It was all about an heir.
He also enjoyed tomenting anne boleyn so upsetting .Henry just took what he wanted who could say no to Henry.
Love your hair really suits you.
I completely agree with you.. though I do think Catherine Howard does hold some blame.
In Catherine's defence she wasn't taught to know any better. She grew up in a boarding house with several other girls who invited men into their chambers at night. Her step grandmother didn't have much input in their upbringing. You can imagine the impact that'd have on an impressionable 19 year old.
Perhaps Thomas' opposition in the beginning of the affair is what helped him gain favor again.
I think this picture I have is fit for this channel.
Excellent analysis of the realities aristocratic families faced. I agree with your conclusions as well.
Youve Changed your Hair again. Ya Look Lovely. Thanks For Your Extra Video!!!!
I bought the book Young Damned and Fair by Gareth Russel but have yet to read it. Surprised Claire didn't believe the Howards and the Boleyns used Catherine and Anne as pawns. I always considered them self servers greedy for status and wealth
With Anne Boleyn, I think most people were caught of guard. No one could have guessed that Henry would go the lengths he did. With Catherine Howard, I think the duke of Norfolk did see an opportunity and he took it. Really, Henry gets a lot of well deserved criticism, but Norfolk really has no redeeming features in my opinion.
I'm not sure if Catherine Howard's family was even aware of her previous "marriage ".
Great video. But when the Imperial ambassador Eustance Chapuys reported back to the Emperor it was in his interest to downplay Anne Boleyns familys support for Henry courting and marrying her it may have affected his Views about what her relatives told him. The duke of Norfolk certainly knew he was speaking to an Imperial ambassador and may have wanted to play down his and his brother in-laws support of Annes marriage to the king.
Henry was a spoiled child. He was never Intended to be king. He became king because his brother died. And Henry the Vll. Had only a small clam to the throne on his mother's side. So Henry was like a kid with a new toy. I fell he was chasing the ladies of the court to be a kings, and he was not Catherine for her failure to have a son, well now we know that the Male determines the sex. The bottom line is Henry the Vlll was a murderer. Bottom line.
Absolutely!
Firstly, You are amazing and I so appreciate all that you do in providing all of us with this treasure trove of information. Secondly, I believe that Henry VIII’s need to have what he wanted at all costs is responsible for the hemorrhaging of tragedy for these women and their families. I guess when a human is made to feel that they have no limits or boundaries then the idea of how another person feels is completely remote or nonexistent. Power can corrupt but it doesn’t have to.
What I still don't understand is why Henry didn't just divorce her when he wanted to be rid of her. After turning all of Christendom upside-down to marry Anne, it makes no sense that he would participate in ridiculous, trumped-up charges that no one with any common sense would have believed, only to have an excuse to murder her. Obviously, he knew divorce was an option. He did it with his first wife, and again with his fourth.
Yes
Henry VIII was solely responsible for his behavior.
Katherine Howard was a damaged girl! Even though time were different, being uneducated and kind of raised in an atmosphere of behaviour that was nothing but sexual abuse in a girl, not valued much and left to her devices, she destroyed herself. Because she knew no better. I always felt bad for this abandoned girl who was.failed by those who should have cared.for her.
To a certain extent, yes. 🤔
It is so easy ( for me at least) to get caught- up in the narratives of the series and pick those I admired or despised. Its good to have Claire to shed some real history into the story. I had really disliked Ann' s father and uncle and simply believed they were the greedy, power mongering fiends as portrayed. I always saw Ann as a victim of circumstance and never considered that she was guilty as charged. I also saw Katherine Howard as a victim but she was portrayed as quite the strumpet I had mixed feelings about her. Now I know that the story line presenting Katherine' s involvement with Culpepper was really not quite so. Is there saving grace for Culpepper? Was the scene where him and his randy mates raped that poor country woman and killed her husband true? Is there any saving grace for Edward Seymor because I despised him as portrayed. Hope to come across Claire' s input on those things.
Could Henry not "recognize" a virgin? Poor Catherine to be a victim of such a gullibility.
The King's Queen should be a partner not an adversary.
I don't think any of them were his adversaries, unless you count Catherine of Aragon for not accepting the annulment.
And a queen's king should be a partner, not an adversary. Not her judge, jury & executioner.
After watching this and thinking it over, I can't say Ann was a pawn for anybody. She knew what being in a royal court was about She grew up in the French court and was very well educated before thae
I can imagine the pain Thomas and Elizabeth suffered after poor anne n George and poor Catherine used as a pawn by her family she fell in love twice i believe Thomas was her true love i think Henry was the way he was because he had a serious head injury which changed him all innocent victims especially anne
A brilliant video Claire as always
Anne's uncle even wept as he declared her guilty.
What do you think of the Tudors ?
I agree that Anne Boleyn's downfall was squarely on Henry VIII and his psychological issues. But in the end, Katherine Howard, should have known better. The amount of time she would have spent in church she knew she was unfit to be queen. It's not like she was child labor working the fields. She was raised in a proper house and educated according.
Actually Katherine's upbringing was far from proper. Her father the 2nd Duke of Norfolk was property stricken and she was sent to live with her step grandmother the Dowager Duchess, who had several other ladies in her care and had very little involvement in their upbringing. The Duchess hardly disciplined them and the older girls would often invite men into their chambers at night. You can imagine the negative influence this would've had on an impressionable teenaged girl. She wasn't as well educated as most of Henry's other wives either.
A man executes his wife, but SHE should've known better? I diasgree with that pretty strongly.
She knew she wasn't a virgin. Even in the current Prince Charles day and age it was the reason he couldn't marry Camilla years ago. I don't agree with this ideology, but it seems to be an issue with English monarchy. Katherine Howard should have admitted before marriage.
Did Catherine in any way know of Anne as her first cousin other than her being her predecessor?
👋👍!
We brought Anna von Kleve to life as a 3D model for videos and augmented reality. @
We could do the same for the other Tudors.
Awesome new intro mates
Oh and I know ur not Australian lol
I referred people to your videos regarding the belief that Anne's family used her as a pawn. It is infuriating that it is believed that her family would do this. Especially, since they didn't need too. Why would Anne want to a mistress to be assuredly discard at some point.
I'm not sure but I think most of the women in those days were used by the men in their family, but the final word came from Henry.
Anyone find It interesting that both executed queens were related?
It was all Henry 8 fault .
Thanks for your story
Question: what would Thomas Boleyn have lost if he had denounced the king and the show trial condemning two of his children to death? Was his position as Earl of Wiltshire really that important to him? His other daughter, Mary, was married to a man of limited means. It would have made poor leverage to threaten her. If granddaughter Elizabeth had been put under threat, it would mean that Henry considered her truly illegitimate. Of course he didn't, and it would be unreasonable to expect that he would injure his own daughter to get at his father-in-law. I don't look kindly on Thomas Boleyn. In "Bring Up the Bodies," author Hilary Mantel has Lady Shelton say to Anne within the confines of the Tower, "Thomas Boleyn looks after himself first and last. I know, he is my brother."
Denouncing a king just wasn't done and speaking ill of the king could lead to charges of treason and execution. That wouldn't have even crossed a Tudor person's mind. You'd just do what noble families had done before, accept the situation and move on, sadly.
What would Thomas Boleyn have lost?! His head, quite possibly! I can't imagine any other response from Henry, tbh.
@@beth7935 Well, yes. And??? Let's see, he can let two of his children die based on ridiculous lies or he could denounce the proceedings and call the executors of the king's will (or the king himself) liars. I would rather die than see my children come to the sad end of Anne and George Boleyn. I would rather die than see them threatened like Anne and George Boleyn. Consequences be damned. Thomas à Beckett, Henry of Bolingbroke, Richard Plantagenet (Duke of York), John Pym and others defied a king. "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." He wouldn't have saved them by an act of bravado. He might have saved their dignity.
@@renshiwu305 I just meant he had a lot more to lose than some titles. Whether he did the right thing or not is another question, but not one I'm trying to answer. I can't help judging people sometimes, but I try not to- that's not what I want to do when I learn about history.
Is there any evidence to support the idea behind Howard Brenton's play "Anne Boleyn" commissioned & put on by Shakespeare's Globe back in 2011 to celebrate 400 yrs since the original King James version of the Bible? Brenton shows Anne as actively furthering the Protestant cause & a great admirer of Martin Luther. I have however heard he did it as he thought writing a play about how the James VI version was cobbled together would end up a bit boring. David Edgar however did a brilliant job with "Written on the Heart" but that is another matter.
Anne probably knew what was up but poor Kitty! Just a young,uneducated, slightly silly girl! She should have been protected a bit more closely.