What do you think happened to Catherine Parr’s daughter? Let me know below and remember to check out: BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/ Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/
On this note, I've been watching (and really appreciating) your videos for a bit, now -- I was wondering, would you ever cover the life of Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales? I think you'd do a wonderful job of detailing her life, her times, her loves, and her tragic fate -- wish I could say I could imagine with any certainty what a reign of hers might've looked like; we'll never know. :-( You're a remarkable historian.
It's kind of sickening that all of the little girls' rich relatives either stole her inheritance or refused to care for her and saw her as a liability. Kudos to Catherine Brandon for stepping in. I'm happy that at least that lovely little poem was written about her, showing that there were people who cared for her.
Sadly, that's how it was in the old days. Women and girls just aren't seen as valuable. Still, Catherine Brandon is a very kind woman for caring for Mary during her short life. ❤
@ellerose9164 I agree it's sad. However, who are we to judge another's era?....things were done differently then, but we evolve. I'm sure generations to come will look back at this point in time, and judge us very harshly for the liberal, wokeist ideology that has bought all countries to their knees to pander to a small minority. I'm proud of my nations great past history from being the first to abolish slavery, standing up to Hitler alongside our allies to the bad of the current decisions being made on our behalf, corruption, greed, elitist entitlement, bullying of people who don't agree with others world view. Live and let live I say, as long as people don't push their views on me.
I think it is appalling that none of the Seymour's took in this child. Sounds like nobody wanted a child without funds to keep it. It's a very sad story but it didn't have to be. CP would be so sad at how little her own little girl was valued after her passing.
Yes, unfortunately in those days, Mary was seen as a financial burden. The situation might have been different had Mary been left with a large inheritance. Given that she was penniless and it was expected (pretty much mandated) that she be raised in a lavish lifestyle befitting her social rank, it's unsurprising that no one wanted to take on that level of financial responsibility, be she relative or not. I'm certain that the biggest fear each of them had was that taking in the child would ultimately bankrupt them.
So these lavish lifestyle requirements ironically made her unattractive. I totally understand how families did not want to go to the poorhouse because they couldn't raise the child in its "expected" way. How ridiculous a situation.
I think it's because that her father Thomas Seymour had disgraced the family by his lustful behaviour towards the Princess Elizabeth & refused to take her in due to the shame.
@@labelledamedumanor4876 that makes as much sense to me as anything. plus it occurs to me that in the palace and political intrigue of the day, taking her in could have been seen to be a liability in ways that are hard for us to conceive of now.
I agree with you that the little girl very likely died quite young and that few people found it tragic or unusual enough to make note of it, so we have no surviving record of her passing. While Edward’s court might not have had any interest in bringing such a tiny child into their sphere, I feel sure that Mary and Elizabeth would have done so, had she lived. It seems to me that she would have had every reason to be staunchly loyal to a Tudor queen who was willing to see to her welfare and recognize her status. I feel sure we’d have heard of her if she’d lived even a few years beyond infancy.
Yes, I definitely think she would have been viewed as quite important had she lived longer and I like to think that Elizabeth would have taken an interest in her for the sake of her (Mary's) mother and in spite of her father.
I agree. Given that Catherine made a real effort to be a mother figure to all of Henry's children, it seems that either Mary or Elizabeth (particularly Elizabeth) would have welcomed a half-sister as a protegé.
@@sweptashore Step-sister (if that .. more like the daughter of my father's last wife) there was no genetic connection. However, Elizabeth may have been concerned about Catherine's welfare and that of her child at some point. Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley's attempted seduction of Elizabeth may have put her off from Catherine and Catherine's child's welfare
I know that our sensibilities are different than they were nearly 500 years ago, but it still makes me so sad to think that the little, orphaned daughter of a dowager queen and a duke (albeit a disgraced and executed one) wasn’t considered important enough by the people who were entrusted to care for her to mark her passing.
They might have marked it in some way at the time (I'm sure she had a funeral service of some sort for instance), but it's interesting that there's no other surviving mention of it. She doesn't come up in her cousin Edward's journal for instance. Her father was a baron by the by (her uncle was the Duke) but I'm sure Thomas Seymour would have angled for a Dukedom if he'd lived. Had he managed to pull off his plan to marry Elizabeth he might have tried for one then.
I hope her maids and wet nurses showered her with love ❤️ the annoying thing is these people would have been clamouring to keep if her she came with the wealth and estates that were taken from her. The poor babe 😢
I don’t understand how her father’s brother got all of his and Catherine’s wealth…. I hope maybe she lived and there was no record of her death for that reason.
500 years ago, a death of a young girl, was not considered important enough to earn marking in anywhere, unless she was a Princess, or a big heiress. Anything lower than that meant not worth of mentioning. And in this case her mother was dead, her father was excecuted, even more reason not to mention a death of a little girl. Sad but, that is how it was then.
Strickland’s account of Mary’s life seemed to consist of a lot of wishful thinking. It’s shocking how many women died in childbirth and how many children died in infancy during the 16th century and before and after that as well. It’s dangerous bringing a life into the world. Great video as always. ❤✌️
Yes, Strickland was great in some ways as she got the ball rolling on women's history in a way that it hadn't been before, but she also fell into the trap of historical fiction sometimes (though she wasn't the worst).
@@AshleyMartin-f3x Sometimes, though obviously that wasn't Kate's problem. Those infections you can get, especially in the days when a midwife maybe hadn't washed her hands this week, were a big problem too.
Had Mary survived into adulthood, she would definitely have had a prominent position in Elizabeth's court and the two of them would almost certainly have been close. It's so incredibly sad that this young girl's potential was cut short so early in life. She didn't deserve to be treated the way she was, and by her own family too.
It's a pity Elizabeth wasn't a bit older as she might have been able to take the girl in herself and be a kind of stepmother to her. After all, both of them had very little in the way of close family.
@@user-el8nz4yu4t Not trying to start anything here, but like who? Who was she so kind to? Other than Dudley I don't know of anyone..I'm of the opinion that nearly none of these people were anywhere near kind or good people. This case shows that, nobody , although they were all filthy rich, would take in this child many of whom were related to her by blood. The only one who did only did so because she had to. There was nothing in it for them and that's all they cared about, themselves. I doubt Elizabeth would have been any different.
Poor little girl. I imagine she was much wanted by her mother and would have had much better care, and perhaps a life, had Catherine Parr lived. Hearing the demands from all involved in her care, for payment, it makes you wonder about the quality of her care.
Yes, looking at how good a stepmother Catherine was (up until the point she overlooked her husband's very unhealthy interest in Elizabeth), I think she would have been an excellent mother too.
Poor Beautiful Little Girl. I reckon evil relations murdered the Child for inheritance . May God please Bless her with Everlasting life. If only I could time travel and take little Mary into my love and care as a Daughter. God Bless her forever Amen.
I've always wondered about Catherine Parr's life and death. I think this is a fascinating theory and it makes sense that little Mary's death would go without comment at the time. Tudor era babies were lucky if they survived infancy, and even after their fifth birthdays were still in acute danger from illnesses like Measles, and other common infections that children today usually survive easily. Thanks for a marvellous comment on this poor little child's life and passing. Great effort.
Hi there..I am related to Catherine Parr. Her father's (mother) was ELIZABETH FITZHUGH..ELIZABETH was also my great grandmother. I wrote a huge response to this video, on September 9th, 2024, if you would like to know a bit more about Catherine, you can read it. I put my personal email, as well, in case you have any questions. I love this stuff. Nothing like watching THE TUDORS, WHITE QUEEN, and WHITE LRINCESS, and ,earning a lot about you ancestors, right? I know a lot of the stuff is not true, but, a lot is true. Judy
Poor kid! You fight to get born and this happens. Talk about being unlucky, this definitely takes the biscuit. Both parents dead inside months and stripped of all inheritance, followed by years of being the most unwanted child ever. This really is a terrible injustice. I feel so sorry for her. I agree that she probably died very young, with no-one to mourn her, or even ensure a marked grave somewhere. Pretty depressing considering her 2 step sisters could have had an interest in her. Thanks for the research HC. 😥
I had a quick giggle when you said that people often comment that they are descended from Anne Boleyn. Because when I married my husband I was told that they were descended from Anne Boleyn, I laughed and said this was impossible, the subject was quickly dropped. Years later one of my husband's Aunts did some family tree research and found out one of their descendants jumped ship (in Australia) and changed his name to Percy Joseph Austin Boleyn, and said he was descended from Anne Boleyn. So just so you understand why some people say that.
Friends of mine had an Aunt who got into genealogy in a big way and found out a collateral twig on the family tree was one of Brigham Young's wives. The funny part was there had been a previous self-published genealogy that left out the naughty and disgraceful ones.
I received a private showing of Ann Boleyn's tomb. I had a partially collapsed lung, horrible bruises at the time, it was the month after Queen Elizabeth II passed. I was in horrible pain, but they were so kind to me, I needed to both walk, do breathing exercises and sleep. I refused to visit the tower. Never made it to Queen Catherine Parr's tomb, it was hours away, my distant relatives were 4 hours away. I hope to visit them next time.
@kitefan1 Anne Boleyn could certainly be in someone's family tree, she had a sister, aunts, uncles, a brother (if I recall correctly), many of whom had children. She may not be a direct ancestors, but certainly a person could have her in their family tree.
@@roacnailclippingsyup that is so true! I thought about this too. Anne also had a brother but I don’t believe he had any children, but the fact that her husband’s relatives were insistent that they were direct relatives is very funny 😆
@@roacnailclippings Her sister Mary had two children. People descended from them could legitimately describe themselves only as collateral descendants of Anne.
I definitely agree with your theory that Catherine Parr’s daughter died young. Poor girl… Such a shame she couldn’t have been raised by a family that actually wanted to care for her, nobility or not. If I may kindly point something out to you, however: When people say they’re “descendants of Anne Boleyn,” they usually don’t mean a direct lineage from Anne. Many of Mary Boleyn’s descendants, and descendants from the Howard family, are still alive today, making Anne a *distant* relative of theirs. She’d still be an ancestor, just not a *direct* ancestor. I wouldn’t consider it *lying*, more like… an extreme oversimplification.
Yes, I take your point and I think sometimes that is what they mean, but in others they really do seem to want me to believe she's their actual ancestor. I had someone tell me once they were descended from George and Jane Boleyn, even though that couple was childless. People are just wild sometimes :-)
@@HistoryCalling Descendants of Jane and George? Now THAT sounds ridiculous. I’d be rightfully skeptical of someone who claimed they were a direct descendant of them, or of Anne, but a descendant of Mary Boleyn? I might be more inclined to believe them. I think part of this might be the fault of sites like Ancestry, because they look for ancestors through documentation, but not necessarily *direct* ancestors. People take what they can find, and back then, the documentation process left a lot to be desired. My own family tree swore for years we had heritage from Ireland, but one DNA test from my mother later, and we found we had no Irish heritage whatsoever! All of our so-called Irish heritage was actually Scottish. Really shows just how much misinformation gets passed down even from family members.
@@paytonriley6981 Read the comments under any video on the Boleyn family and you'll find people claiming to be descendants of Mary. Okay, it is actually possible to descend from Mary (unlike Anne or George) but I'm sceptical that all of them are telling the truth.
@@kate_cooper Considering that for every generation we go back the number of our direct ancestors doubles we swiftly reach numbers much larger than the population of the time, there is a strong chance that everyone with English ancestry has royal or at least noble ancestors
You're right, HC. It's a tragic tale. Still, this video demonstrates your devotion to research and solid facts. It's a public service to fact-check Wikipedia. Strive on! 👏👏👏
@@HistoryCallingikr! the only reason I sometimes use wikipedia is because it has sources for the images there shown (though it’s not very reliable and I do go and check it)
He did his best and sent the baby to his brother and wife to be cared for, when Thomas Seymour was charged with treason and sentenced to death, his brother wanting to distance himself, appointed the Duchess of Suffolk ( Katherine's close friend) as her guardian.
He wasn’t predatory this is very common in 500 years ago.bc ppl died young and they needed an heir it became very important for them to marry very young.but your right about his daughter he wasn’t concerned with
Interesting video. Often wondered if this poor child had met with foul play. She had relatives that viewed her as a financial burden, had no potential to bring them financial gain or access to important connections. The problem could be dealt with via extreme neglect or even other more decisive means. Certainly hope that wasn't the case and I do wish that she had lived to have a long, happy life but believe it is unlikely. Thank you for the well-researched video. King Regards, Cherie Foley
Oh I really hope that's not what happened. She'd already had such a rough life, poor thing. Not that the alternative of dying of plague, or smallpox, or measles etc is so much better. :-(
@@HistoryCalling This reminds me of the Frances Hodgson Burnett story "A Little Princess" where the rich young girl was treated like a princess until the money ran out and was then treated like a scullery maid
@@Diamondmine212 As the video stated, that money was gone and she was destitute by the time she was 6 months old. Her mother's prior position didn't give the child an entry into the elite and powerful. The only money would be from making a claim against her father's holdings which never happened on her behalf.
I concur (as usual😊) with your impeccably researched and well thought out conclusion. I hadn't known of the touching poem you read. I agree that it indicates her early death. I believe that this little girl died young and, sadly, was soon forgotten. As L.P. Hartley said, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there..."
@@HistoryCalling I wish people today would accept Hartley's wise words as honest truth. Presentism has become a huge problem in historical assessments.
That was brilliant!! Thank you for you work. It can’t be stated enough that we of today shouldn’t be putting our values and morals into the lives of those who lived before us, be it 5000yrs or 50yrs ago. It twists and turns our history into knots :(
I always felt bad that no one wanted Lady Mary and always hoped Katherine Brandon just gave her to someone and she grew up and had a decent life .But I think she died young was quietly buried and Katherine just moved on ..Thank you for all the work you put into your research I Love your channel and look forward to a new video every week 😊
She could have died very young.But we don't know where Mary Seymour is buried.If she did survive maybe the Duchess of Suffolk gave her to some relatives to get rid of the financial burden.Or maybe someone in the landed gentry was given Mary Seymour to raise.
@hildahilpert5018 I thought the same thing before Lady Mary came with a household and that's a lot of money. But I think if lady Mary was giving to a unknown family people in power would have found her some way for something crazy
Her story just breaks my heart, my daughter is a toddler and Mary's story hits close to home for me. This poor baby was such a burden because of her servants? Yes they were expensive but would it have been possible to dismiss them?
I was also wondering this! Perhaps servants could not be dismissed without their due wages or it would have meant she would have looked bad. Then again at least the nurse would have had to stay because they did not have formula and without a pregnancy of her own the Aunt couldn't feed the baby.
I suppose some servants to care for the baby were necessary. A wet nurse to feed her for instance (no formula yet in those days) and someone to dress her, watch her and just care for her basically. As time went on, tutors would have been needed as well. The duchess herself wouldn't have done any of these things, not even for her own children. The main issue though seems to have just been appearances. She was the daughter of a Queen and so raising her like a pauper just looked bad.
@@majenhardenWomen of that class would have servants who did the lion's share of raising the kids. It didn't change for centuries. Possibly, for duchesses, princesses, and queens, it has not changed yet.
In today's world, the Lawsons would've shown up at an "Antiques Roadshow" location with their relics and family legend. And been given a polite history lesson on why it was, simply, a legend. Sadly, I'd say Lady Mary suffered the same fate as so many other young children of her era.
Thank you! It's the most in depth research I've seen on this baby girl, and it's one of those gaps in history that begs for an answer. Because of the last record on little Mary involving the search for money to sustain her, I've always assumed she died when you believe she did. But I never knew about the rest of the evidence, particularly the poem. I feel it's official now!
What a sad story. A child no one really wanted and who most likely represented noting but money to those charged with her care., which was not forthcoming, my heart tells me she passed very young and slipped into history as little more than a footnote. It makes my heart hurt. Perhaps Strickland misunderstood 13 months as 13 years. Another very interesting video - thank you!!
Her guardian, the Duchess of Suffolk, might have been extremely irritable at having to deal with Somerset about Mary's maintenance, but she was a close friend of Katherine Parr's, so I don't suppose the child meant nothing to her.
Oooh I’ve always found this idea fascinating! Maybe if she’d been born a boy there would be more written about her, since she would have been heir to something or other, but alas. I’ve always assumed she died as a small child so I’m intrigued by the theory that she grew up and married!
@@aftersexhighfives if she had been a boy she would have had absolutely zero claim to the throne in any way. Neither of her parents had a drop of royal blood. Even if she had been a boy she would have been in a position to potentially inherit some of her father’s land possibly, but likely not because of how he was executed
Thanks for a wonderful video. I always wondered why no one seemed to want Lady Mary, if for no other reason, had she lived, she would have been a sought after bride.
Not as the impoverished daughter of traitor, even if she was the king's cousin--she had no influence with him. Edward was notoriously insensitive to the fates of his relatives.
Once again, thank for the brilliant work and for exploring many different topics.. I get a rush of dopamine whenever I see a notification from your channel.. wishing you the best of luck.
Haha, thank you. I get a mild rush of panic on a Friday night at 7 if I haven't finished dinner yet and I know a video is about to go out and I need to get to the computer. :-)
Thank you so much. I try to find different ways to look at well-worn topics (like the Tudors). It's not always possible, but I think people prefer it to just hearing yet another bio that has nothing new to say. Also I think the algorithm rewards originality.
Thank you so much. I've often wondered about this child. Other history channels lean heavily into rumors. You acknowledge the most well-known ones, but you view it logically (with the society, persons, and time period in mind). I appreciate this very much.
This is just a very sad case. Poor baby Mary. I feel that someone close has taken advantage of her for monetary reasons, but when it's a loss, did away with the "problem." It's a shame she lost her parents. 😔 Interesting story. 👑
I have a second cousin who loves to mention that she is descended from Anne Boleyn. When I told her that was impossible, she showed me her family tree back to Lady Anne Shelton, so yes, the much less well known paternal aunt of THE Anne Boleyn. She doesn't understand that being technically correct without further explanation makes her look ignorant or gullible. As always, wonderful video. You channel is my favorite Friday after work reward and I thank you. :)
@Hawkwoman_1 I think what csc7225 means is that the second cousin who claims descent from Anne Boleyn is claiming descent from Lady Anne Shelton whose maiden name was Boleyn. In other words she's saying she's descended from another Anne Boleyn, which is indeed correct (assuming she has the paper work to back it up) but not Queen Anne Boleyn. It is admittedly confusing when you get so many relations with the same name. It's like the way there are two Mary Tudors - Henry's VIII's sister and his daughter and they were both Queens. Edit - and thank you for taking that other commenter to task for calling me snarky :-)
@@user-el8nz4yu4t If you would reread my post, my cousin is claiming descent through Lady Anne Shelton, nee Boleyn as AB's paternal aunt, and not Anne Boleyn the Queen. Unfortunately, she does herself no favors because she's grasping to be related to royalty by stating a technical truth yet masking it behind an untruth. It would be like an American claiming they were descended from the George Washington (who had no descendants) when their 8x gr grandfather happened to be named George Washington. Very misleading.
This was incredibly common. Even today there are countries with a 20% death rate for children under the age of 5. Childbed fever was often the result of lack of hygiene during birth with midwives introducing any and all bacteria into the birth canal. I imagine that there was word of it to the court, and prayers may have been said, but so many babies died that it wouldn't have been written down. A prayer for her little soul and then back to sheer survival.
Yes, it was heartbreakingly common and you're right that it's still as bad in some parts of the world today and we're so lucky we don't live there. A lot of my girlfriends have actually had serious complications in pregnancy and childbirth and I was just saying to one of them recently that it's terrifying when I think how many of them would have died if they'd lived even a century ago.
@@HistoryCalling My sister, my cousin, and I all had babies within 1.5 years of each other (my daughter, the youngest, is now 7 months old). All 3 of us and our babies would have died in childbirth without modern medicine. A whole generation of women in my family, wiped out in less than 2 years. Thankfully we don't live in those times and all 3 of us are happy mothers to the next generation of beautiful women in our family.
Thank you HC as always, sadly I think she died very young, Tudor mysteries of which their are many and we will never know the answers sadly, another mystery is the death of Amy Robsart, which I have been interested in iv read all I can find on Amy's death, suicide, accident, or murder,
Sadly, Mary Seymour died early in her infancy. This was the first time I heard this poem. It was so sad. Great job on fact-checking Wikipedia. You actually have people claiming they’re descendants of Anne Boleyn? There are too many people claiming they’re descendants of Henry and the six wives on social media. I take them with grain of salt. As for me, I’m just a Mexican American woman. I’m going this Saturday to see Six. I’m so excited. I do appreciate your work so thank you. You have a great weekend.
I think this is because of the woolly misuse of the words ancestor and descendant that has become prevalent in recent years. People seem to use these words indiscriminately to refer to any familial predecessor when they would be better off saying "I am related to" which is much more likely.
Yes, I think some of them are just misusing the language but honest to goodness, some of them actually claim to be direct descendants of childless people. Someone once insisted to me that they are descended from George and Jane Boleyn. Absolutely bonkers!
Yes, I'd never come across that poem either but I liked it and thought it was worth including the whole thing. Yeah, Wikipedia's a hoot sometimes (to put it mildly). I've seen other pseudo-historians here on YT just copying it as scripts for their videos and without even acknowledging that that's what they're doing and I always just think 'plonkers', along with some other descriptions that I can't write here as they're a bit sweary :-)
@@HistoryCalling There’s a man who claims Anne Boleyn had a son before she was beheaded. I heard it on the Anne Boleyn’s files. Claire Ridgeway didn’t want to use his name because it was poppycock. She had to address it because she has been receiving many questions about his claim. Crazy
What's sad is a child, with those parents in particular, you'd think she would at least have a marker somewhere. As you said, they did things very different back then. A very interesting video. Thank you.
I think the lack of claim on her father's estate is the clearest indication the child didn't survive. One can't wonder if the child was neglected, given how unwanted she seems during her short life. As a side note, it's an important note how sloppy record-keeping was of this era for things like births, deaths, and so forth (which often gives rise to conspiracy theories like, "Shakespeare couldn't written his plays because there's so little evidence of his existence).
What a fascinating (and sad) subject. Having never thought to question that the few sentences we usually get about this forlorn child were near the limit of our knowledge, I thought you were up against a stiff opponent this week, but the answers are, as always, a revelation. As to old family stories, members of my family are dedicated to genealogy and are diligent researchers, (and we're supposed to be related to the Boleyns, of course!) and yet at least once I've taken two minutes on the 'net to debunk the key part of a firm family myth from only a hundred years ago, via a contemporary news account. What your grandmother told you is very nice and should be passed along, but don't try to cash it at the bank. Or Wikipedia.
I've had the same sorts of issues - family stories from the quite recent past which were just plain wrong and which I rapidly debunked with some solid research. I think tales often get embellished or misremembered over the years.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DONATING TO THE CHANNEL KASIE. Yes, most of them would survive today which is indeed heartbreaking. 16th century England was a bit like a modern third world country in terms of infant mortality :-(
Right now I'm reading a historical fiction called The Stolen One by Suzanne Crowley. About what if one of Baby Mary's nursemaids Stole her away and raised her as her own. A lot of these names show up in the book.
I personally don't like historical novels in which somebody messes with real people's ancestors. At least one woman has been messing around with someone on my family tree named, Margaret Neville who married into the Huddleston family. She was a real person, the Natural daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. Her father acknowledged her as his daughter and had been supporting her. She married a knighted Huddleston and had children. It strikes me as a form of dishonesty, cheating and robbing real people of their true lives.
@@lornahuddleston1453 You think that's bad? An inn my ancestors owned & lived in is now a history museum, which I love EXCEPT last time I went they'd made up some bs about my ancestor's ghost haunting one room, & left a book for tourists to write their "ghostly experiences & speculations" in. The owners are her descendants too, but I found it ghoulish to use her as a spooky tourist attraction in that way, & sickening to read strangers claiming they'd seen her, using the life of a real person to spin fantasies & make themselves sound "special" & "spiritual" cos they'd "picked up on her presence". Funny how nobody "picked up on her presence" until 150+ years after she died, then suddenly people are seeing her every day- I certainly never heard any ghost stories in the 30+ years I'd been visiting before the book appeared. Everything else about the place is great though; it remembers the history of the family & the community etc accurately. That's a very interesting ancestor to have! And as usual, the real story is so cool & interesting you don't even NEED to change it- an illegitimate daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker?! How is that NOT a fascinating story?
Hmm, now this is such an interesting conversation. I completely understand what Lorna means about messing with real people's lives and I don't like it when real people are misrepresented and then those misrepresentations become accepted 'fact'. For instance Thomas Boleyn is often presented as someone who p*mped out his daughters to Henry VIII and was a bad father and it's just not true. However I was also just saying to another commenter that sometimes it's nice to see people get the happy ending they deserved, but never had in real life. The example I gave was Sharon Tate in the movie Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. However, I only feel that way if it is done with kindness and respectfulness and doesn't obscure people's understanding of the real historical events. Everyone is entitled to their different opinions on the matter of course. That's just my two cents.
Just finished it last night. From the author's notes, she acknowledges that it is a what-if story. She hopes that it may interest people in history. And doing their own research. This is how I got involved in history reading books with historical and fictional characters in them when I was young. It got me to go and find out more about the real-life people. It gave me the jump-off point to find out about historical people I might not have heard of without the story making it more fun than boring textbooks. You just have to go in knowing that some of it is fictional. @@HistoryCalling
realistically I do think the little girl passed away. Considering a simple cold could kill you back then or at least the treatments more than likely would have this makes the most sense as to why little Mary was never mentioned after the last written account. While we wont know for sure this is what I believe to be true. Honestly I'd love to hear more stories like this even if it's just some content filler, shining light on forgotten people can be more interesting than those who are well known and documented
Yes, I like looking at lesser known people too, but unless they have a connection to someone well known to act as a hook for the audience, I find it's hard to get people interested. I thought Empress Matilda would be more popular as a video topic for instance, but I was a bit underwhelmed by how that video did.
@@HistoryCalling That's understandable my friend. As a content creator you have a audience you cater for and while some videos might not get the attention you thought they would their will always be someone who appreciates your effort. While I love learning about the lesser known I know people will cover them even if harder to find. Looking forward to your future videos as always HC
It is truly sad that this poor motherless child found no love in her family and very reluctant advocacy from the relative into whose care she was assigned.
I suppose we should say in the Duchess of Suffolk's defence that she wasn't actually a relative, just a family friend and I can understand why she resented having to take in a child who had Dukes, Duchesses, a Marquis and a King in her immediate family. At least she did take her in though, which is more than can be said for the rest.
To be honest, I feel very little sympathy for Catherine Willoughby, Anne and William Parr crying poverty. They were Dukes/Duchesses with massive tracts of land they were drawing incomes from plus William had a court position with a salary too. To me it just seems like they had no interest in this child, their orphaned niece, and were trying to get rid of her by saying they couldn't afford to keep her. This poor child had no one in the world and the relatives she did had were all trying to get rid of her.
@@HistoryCalling To me it just comes across as immensely callous of them. Even if she was an infant that wasn't expected to survive, she was still their niece! Catherine Parr would probably be rolling in her grave if she knew how poorly her only child was being treated by her siblings.
It goes to show how vital it was for an infant or small child to have a living mother or father with means to protect them. Had Catherine Parr lived, Mary probably would have lived as well. All of the child's belongings would have been hers. Instead, baby Mary had no true advocate and protector, and as such, her wealth, belongings and claims were easy prey for the greedy folks who knew they would get away with nicking them.
Also, even the last document traced to her, marks her blood as that of a traitor. At that time, even family turned their backs on those associated with treachery guilty or not. P. Elizabeth, would have even avoided assisting her to distance herself from the rumors of her and Seymour. She was in a perilous situation herself. This child was born into compounded situations of excuses for neglect. I wonder if an "accident" just didn't happen. As she said in the end, we live in a different world now. So sad.
As an inquisitive genealogist I can't help but turn to my brick wall research patterns. If her death was suspicious it could have been completely swept under a carpet ... just in case. If there was even one person who actually cared about her and not her lost wealth they could have absconded with her in secret not knowing who to trust, easily done. Happens a lot. I assume no artefacts from an inventory etc that may have belonged to or promised to her or even her mother has been tracked down through the ages? Like art provenance? Might be worth a search for a Mary with her approx birthday showing up under another name that too happens all the time. Sure there would be a lot of Mays born at that time... but again that happens a lot in genealogy research. Just another angle on the 'positive she lives' timeline to ponder. Thanks for going back into this story. Look what we are finding out about the players in Elizabeth's court and the true meaning behind Shakespeare;s work. I count nothing out.
Adoptions were not recorded, she could have been taken in by childless couple or one of the servants but most likely she died and buried in an unmarked grave or given to an orphanage as she didn't seem loved
I would love for that to be the case, but as the King's cousin and later both Queens' step-sister, I don't think that could have been done quietly, especially as there were so few people who were of sufficient rank to take her. I think that's how Katherine Willoughby got 'lumbered' with the job. I definitely don't think an orphanage was an option. In fact I don't even think orphanages were a thing yet at that point in English history. They were definitely around in the 18th century, but I can't think of any 16th century examples.
Damn, that baby's tomb at 22:00 is gutwrenching. I have to agree that Mary Seymour most likely died as a child. I find it hard to believe that a daughter of two very prominent people, with royal connections, could have completely escaped any attention if she had made it to adulthood. Probably some unknown illness claimed her, poor girl.
It's in this really beautiful old monastery in the north of England near Hadrian's Wall which I just stumbled across during the summer (as I was driving to find Hadrian's Wall). It says it all though that I saw that child's tomb and thought 'I could definitely use footage of that in TH-cam videos because I have to talk about dead children so often'. :-(
Thomas Seymour was an outright cad. Catherine Parr is one of the many women I admire in history, and it saddens to me that she was finally able to marry the man she loved-only for him to sexually harass if not assault her beloved stepdaughter. I cannot evem imagine the betrayal. I worry little Mary fell victim to high child mortality rates, but it is nice to think she instead grew up to live a happy, uneventful life during her stepsister's long rule.
Yes, I wonder how Catherine didn't see him for what he really was before they wed. Maybe he was just very good at hiding it, or she had a penchant for the bad boys. Yes, I think Mary Seymour died very young too, poor thing.
@@HistoryCalling From what I've read of Thomas Seymour, he strikes me as an underhanded individual who took advantage of Catherine being distracted by a highly stressful pregnancy and was descreetly sneaking when he was harrassing Elizabeth (who was probably afraid of being Victim blamed for the harrassment like Katherine Howard was).
For the question, I suppose this chymes nicely with last week’s one: What is your favourite and least favourite period of History to study and learn more about? (pre-History and post WWII History do not count ;) For me, the favourite has to be -surprise surprise- Early Middle Ages (ca. 600-1066), while the least favourite is likely Ancient Rome.
My official area of expertise is actually the 18th century British Isles (not that you'd ever guess it from my channel) so that's my favourite. Least favourite is hard to pick if I can't say modern Northern Irish history (I've never enjoyed learning about the Troubles). There's nothing I really hate.
@@HistoryCalling oh yea, you said so in your 100k q&a video, weirdly enough you have only 2 videos on the matter (and one is a stretch, as it is that George I’s marriage scandals video). True, the Troubles are rather uninteresting (in this myne hvmbl opynionn)
The first three marriages of Catherine's were with my relatives! Her first marriage was with a great Uncle, second with a Great Ganfather Neville and then Henry 8, a first cousin x10 times removed.
The Parkhurst poem certainly seems to be a concealed reference to Mary Seymour. Catherine Parr was a known Catholic-turned-Protestant Reformist. Given the scary religious politics of that time, I am not surprised nobody wanted to get involved with supporting a child so closely related to all the monarchs of that period. Her early death is the likely reason she disappeared from history, and Parkhurst's poem may be a simple "in memoriam" for those who cared for her.
I often wondered if the poor little girl was mistreated by the Duchess of Suffolk. In her letters to Cecil she sounded as though she hated Mary. Could she have died from neglect? Certainly it was a welcome burden lifted when she was gone. It is odd how she was simply forced to become her ward though and someone who was not a blood relative.
@@HistoryCallingSo very true. Unless a child has a protector, even today, they become easy pickings and are easy targets of all manner of dastardly plots. Human nature is sadly very static.
I know. Catherine's family will have reaped all the rewards of being the Queen's siblings, but then couldn't even take in her only child. Shameful behaviour.
I am related to Anne Herbert parr. Which would have been Catherine parrs cousin I believe.( it gets confusing because I believe Catherine had a sister anne as well as a cousin. We have been working our geology in our family for several hundred years. ( Taylor’s, Douglas, spencer, de la pole, ancestry and DAR. Mayflower And daughters of civil war . I love this, I think 1550 is likely a date of death as well. There ought to have been many records, even if documents were destroyed of any kind of child betrothal. Infant mortality was so Terri it common. I very much enjoyed your video. What struck me in looking through the family tree, is how once you are related to Neville’s or Seymour’s, Douglas, Armstrong, woodville, you can keep tracing back, as it seemed very few Plantagenets, Tudor’s, etc, married outside family. When I think of the palace intrigues navigating religious conversions arranged marriages, as well, as infant death and disease) I’m astonished I am here at all.
Even little more than a hundred years ago it was common for several children children in any family to not survive infancy. (My Great Grandmother had eight, with three dying before the age of two and a half). And in the centuries before that that was even more true. And that was before you take into account the various epidemics that regularly swept across areas, sometimes wiping out almost all of the children in a family. And who knows, this was the first baby born to a woman of 36 - which is medically considered mature for a first child even today. Perhaps the birth was a difficult one for the baby as well as her mother and led to weakness that may have left her especially vulnerable to illnesses.
I have to agree that the child died young and not long after parliament settled the question of her inheritance. Given the historical period and how females of any age we essentially owned by either parent, guardian or spouse once she had come into any inheritance she would have become a pawn over which several argued simply for access to that inheritance. Had she lived to marriagable age we would certainly see some record sonewhere of her holdings moved from her guardian to spouse, or a bit of an arguement of how they were divided between guardian and her dowry. This would have occurred after Elizabeth took the throne, and given Elizabeth's penchant to control the marriage of any noble woman, and this child had the bloodlines Elizabeth would have worried about, we would have some record of how Elizabeth dealt with or approved her marriage and her dowry. Had the child lived long enough to even have received anything under the decree by parliament, since some of it included part of property and money currently in her uncle's hands we would have nice record of arguments between whoever had custody of the physical child and who currently held the property. Either her guardian would have demanded payment from her uncle for the property he held or else her uncle would have been more willing to have her reside with him so he maintained control. This might actually have been something brought to Mary's attention but probably only if the child had been raised Catholic. My assumption would be that if she had not died about the time parliament made its ruling, not knowing she was recently deceased, having been raised a protestant she was smuggled out of the country to live in Europe some where. It would have been difficult enough for any of noble birth to flee England when Mary took the throne, a child like this, of Royal lineage would have had to be very carefully smuggled out, possibly disguised as a common subject or servant's child and was married off before it was really safe for her to return to England, and probably as a commoner have dropped any royal association to protect her. If this was the case any history about her would not continue. If she did die its interesting that their is nothing in any written records pointing to a grace or vault where she was interred.
I understand that child mortality rates were painfully high in Tudor Times, but this is such a pitiable story all around. That poor little girl was unfortunate enough to be born a Seymour, a girl who’s father was a repugnant creep, who’s mother died and who was seemingly a burden to everyone in the social circle of her family. So sad…
Amazing video, as always, HC! I love how you call out bullshit like it's going out of fashion! I noticed it in the Princesses of Wales who became Queens video too, about Queen Camilla. On the subject of this video, what happened to that little girl is very sad To just...be passed from household to household and then just...fade away. It's sad to think about it
Thank you. Yes, even stating outright that disliking Camilla doesn't change her titles and that complaining at me (just the messenger) doesn't change them either, I still got the predictable number of comments stating that she wasn't Princess and isn't Queen. Some people just aren't interested in living in reality with the rest of us. I'll get people under this one telling me they're Anne Boleyn's direct descendant because of some secret baby she or Elizabeth had. Anyways, moving on - yes, Mary's fate was very sad. It's rare to see someone lose so much so fast.
I enjoyed this video. I had often thought about this poor orphan. I find it sad that although none of the child's aunts or uncles cared for the child that Mary 1 did not take her in. She was an adult by this date. I understand why Elizabeth or Edward did not as they were still too young and under control of others.
I know. I suppose Mary wouldn't have been allowed to take her as she'd have raised her a Catholic but it's shocking that Catherine's siblings (who will have gained so much from being the Queen's brother and sister) wouldn't care for her child.
@@heatherpedersen6627It was the religious issue that would have nixxed Catherine of Aragon from taking a very Protestant child. Catherine Parr was a devout Protestant and would have heartily objected to turning over her daughter to be raised Catholic. It would also have sealed Mary's fate and left her headless in due time. Had Mary Seymour lived and been raised by a staunch Catholic, she could have been in a very dangerous position, not unlike Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots.
I read the excellent book A Crown for Elizabeth written back in 1968. The author mentioned the child however when Katherine Parr died the child was placed in the care of a relative. Then no one knew what became of Mary. Sad.
Very interesting video! I do think it's a mistake to say that she was born into a wonderful family situation, since her father was making advances on a teenager under his care in the same household as her mother.
Hi, awesome live history video. I enjoyed it. I wonder, whatever did happen to Mary Seymour in history? It's like she disappeared. How are you doing? I'm doing well, just enjoying the autumn 🍂 weather. Have a great day. See you next video. Your history videos are always enjoyable 😊
Hi Michelle. My personal opinion is that she died young. Yes, the autumn leaves are always lovely, as long as they're not wet and mushy. See you next time.
Yes, it wasn't a great time to be a woman, but I will say that even men weren't always well documented. We don't know when George Boleyn was born for example.
I have no idea if you have researched this, but I came across it some time back on a genealogical site. I’m afraid I can’t find the reference beyond SEYMOUR: Tudor Place in my notes. Lady Mary Seymour, the daughter of Catherine Parr, was raised in a convent in Lincolnshire after her father's execution. Her governess was Elizabeth Aglionby, who was previously a lady-in-waiting to Catherine Parr. Mary's guardians included Catherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk, who provided her with two maids and other servants. However, the Duchess was unable to provide enough money for Mary's care. Mary was restored in blood in 1550, but she disappears from records after that. Historian John Strype concluded that Mary died as a child, and later writers, including Edmund Lodge, also believed she died at the age of 13.
What do you think happened to Catherine Parr’s daughter? Let me know below and remember to check out:
BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG
Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/
Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling
Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling
Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/
She passed away a year after her Mother.
I believe she died very young and there are no records of her death, or if there were records they are lost.
She died as a wee babe
On this note, I've been watching (and really appreciating) your videos for a bit, now -- I was wondering, would you ever cover the life of Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales? I think you'd do a wonderful job of detailing her life, her times, her loves, and her tragic fate -- wish I could say I could imagine with any certainty what a reign of hers might've looked like; we'll never know. :-( You're a remarkable historian.
@@blofeld39 I can’t agree more! X
It's kind of sickening that all of the little girls' rich relatives either stole her inheritance or refused to care for her and saw her as a liability. Kudos to Catherine Brandon for stepping in.
I'm happy that at least that lovely little poem was written about her, showing that there were people who cared for her.
So sad she most probably died in infancy
Sadly, that's how it was in the old days. Women and girls just aren't seen as valuable. Still, Catherine Brandon is a very kind woman for caring for Mary during her short life. ❤
@ellerose9164
I agree it's sad. However, who are we to judge another's era?....things were done differently then, but we evolve.
I'm sure generations to come will look back at this point in time, and judge us very harshly for the liberal, wokeist ideology that has bought all countries to their knees to pander to a small minority.
I'm proud of my nations great past history from being the first to abolish slavery, standing up to Hitler alongside our allies to the bad of the current decisions being made on our behalf, corruption, greed, elitist entitlement, bullying of people who don't agree with others world view.
Live and let live I say, as long as people don't push their views on me.
I think it is appalling that none of the Seymour's took in this child. Sounds like nobody wanted a child without funds to keep it. It's a very sad story but it didn't have to be. CP would be so sad at how little her own little girl was valued after her passing.
Yes, I'm glad Catherine didn't see how little wanted her daughter was. I'm sure it would have broken her heart.
Yes, unfortunately in those days, Mary was seen as a financial burden. The situation might have been different had Mary been left with a large inheritance. Given that she was penniless and it was expected (pretty much mandated) that she be raised in a lavish lifestyle befitting her social rank, it's unsurprising that no one wanted to take on that level of financial responsibility, be she relative or not. I'm certain that the biggest fear each of them had was that taking in the child would ultimately bankrupt them.
So these lavish lifestyle requirements ironically made her unattractive. I totally understand how families did not want to go to the poorhouse because they couldn't raise the child in its "expected" way. How ridiculous a situation.
I think it's because that her father Thomas Seymour had disgraced the family by his lustful behaviour towards the Princess Elizabeth & refused to take her in due to the shame.
@@labelledamedumanor4876 that makes as much sense to me as anything. plus it occurs to me that in the palace and political intrigue of the day, taking her in could have been seen to be a liability in ways that are hard for us to conceive of now.
I agree with you that the little girl very likely died quite young and that few people found it tragic or unusual enough to make note of it, so we have no surviving record of her passing. While Edward’s court might not have had any interest in bringing such a tiny child into their sphere, I feel sure that Mary and Elizabeth would have done so, had she lived. It seems to me that she would have had every reason to be staunchly loyal to a Tudor queen who was willing to see to her welfare and recognize her status. I feel sure we’d have heard of her if she’d lived even a few years beyond infancy.
Yes, I definitely think she would have been viewed as quite important had she lived longer and I like to think that Elizabeth would have taken an interest in her for the sake of her (Mary's) mother and in spite of her father.
I agree. Given that Catherine made a real effort to be a mother figure to all of Henry's children, it seems that either Mary or Elizabeth (particularly Elizabeth) would have welcomed a half-sister as a protegé.
@@sweptashore
Step-sister (if that .. more like the daughter
of my father's last wife) there was no genetic
connection. However, Elizabeth may have
been concerned about Catherine's welfare
and that of her child at some point.
Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of
Sudeley's attempted seduction of Elizabeth
may have put her off from Catherine and
Catherine's child's welfare
She wasn't a half sister. She was related in no way to Elizabeth and her ACTUAL half sister Mary (Queen Mary I).@@sweptashore
Yes, step-sister. Typo on my part.
I know that our sensibilities are different than they were nearly 500 years ago, but it still makes me so sad to think that the little, orphaned daughter of a dowager queen and a duke (albeit a disgraced and executed one) wasn’t considered important enough by the people who were entrusted to care for her to mark her passing.
They might have marked it in some way at the time (I'm sure she had a funeral service of some sort for instance), but it's interesting that there's no other surviving mention of it. She doesn't come up in her cousin Edward's journal for instance. Her father was a baron by the by (her uncle was the Duke) but I'm sure Thomas Seymour would have angled for a Dukedom if he'd lived. Had he managed to pull off his plan to marry Elizabeth he might have tried for one then.
Well done. Sad tale
I hope her maids and wet nurses showered her with love ❤️ the annoying thing is these people would have been clamouring to keep if her she came with the wealth and estates that were taken from her. The poor babe 😢
I don’t understand how her father’s brother got all of his and Catherine’s wealth…. I hope maybe she lived and there was no record of her death for that reason.
500 years ago, a death of a young girl, was not considered important enough to earn marking in anywhere, unless she was a Princess, or a big heiress. Anything lower than that meant not worth of mentioning. And in this case her mother was dead, her father was excecuted, even more reason not to mention a death of a little girl. Sad but, that is how it was then.
Strickland’s account of Mary’s life seemed to consist of a lot of wishful thinking. It’s shocking how many women died in childbirth and how many children died in infancy during the 16th century and before and after that as well. It’s dangerous bringing a life into the world. Great video as always. ❤✌️
Yes, Strickland was great in some ways as she got the ball rolling on women's history in a way that it hadn't been before, but she also fell into the trap of historical fiction sometimes (though she wasn't the worst).
I read once that 50% of children died of diseases, before they were 2 years old.
Sad, but i believe it, for city dwellers.
I think dying in childbirth was because they were too young
@@HistoryCallingJo no 7:47
@@AshleyMartin-f3x Sometimes, though obviously that wasn't Kate's problem. Those infections you can get, especially in the days when a midwife maybe hadn't washed her hands this week, were a big problem too.
Had Mary survived into adulthood, she would definitely have had a prominent position in Elizabeth's court and the two of them would almost certainly have been close. It's so incredibly sad that this young girl's potential was cut short so early in life. She didn't deserve to be treated the way she was, and by her own family too.
It's a pity Elizabeth wasn't a bit older as she might have been able to take the girl in herself and be a kind of stepmother to her. After all, both of them had very little in the way of close family.
Oh yeah, because Elizabeth had a heart of gold. You may be right but I doubt she would have done a thing for the girl.
If she had been anything like her mother, she would also have been academically brilliant.
@@user-el8nz4yu4t Not trying to start anything here, but like who? Who was she so kind to? Other than Dudley I don't know of anyone..I'm of the opinion that nearly none of these people were anywhere near kind or good people. This case shows that, nobody , although they were all filthy rich, would take in this child many of whom were related to her by blood. The only one who did only did so because she had to. There was nothing in it for them and that's all they cared about, themselves. I doubt Elizabeth would have been any different.
As Queen, Elizabeth would have arranged an advantageous match for her.
Poor little girl. I imagine she was much wanted by her mother and would have had much better care, and perhaps a life, had Catherine Parr lived. Hearing the demands from all involved in her care, for payment, it makes you wonder about the quality of her care.
Yes, looking at how good a stepmother Catherine was (up until the point she overlooked her husband's very unhealthy interest in Elizabeth), I think she would have been an excellent mother too.
Poor Beautiful Little Girl. I reckon evil relations murdered the Child for inheritance . May God please Bless her with Everlasting life. If only I could time travel and take little Mary into my love and care as a Daughter. God Bless her forever Amen.
I've always wondered about Catherine Parr's life and death. I think this is a fascinating theory and it makes sense that little Mary's death would go without comment at the time. Tudor era babies were lucky if they survived infancy, and even after their fifth birthdays were still in acute danger from illnesses like Measles, and other common infections that children today usually survive easily. Thanks for a marvellous comment on this poor little child's life and passing. Great effort.
Hi there..I am related to Catherine Parr. Her father's (mother) was ELIZABETH FITZHUGH..ELIZABETH was also my great grandmother. I wrote a huge response to this video, on September 9th, 2024, if you would like to know a bit more about Catherine, you can read it. I put my personal email, as well, in case you have any questions. I love this stuff. Nothing like watching THE TUDORS, WHITE QUEEN, and WHITE LRINCESS, and ,earning a lot about you ancestors, right? I know a lot of the stuff is not true, but, a lot is true. Judy
Poor kid! You fight to get born and this happens. Talk about being unlucky, this definitely takes the biscuit. Both parents dead inside months and stripped of all inheritance, followed by years of being the most unwanted child ever. This really is a terrible injustice. I feel so sorry for her. I agree that she probably died very young, with no-one to mourn her, or even ensure a marked grave somewhere. Pretty depressing considering her 2 step sisters could have had an interest in her. Thanks for the research HC. 😥
Yes, it is one of the sadder Tudor children stories. I wish Catherine had had the chance to raise her. I think she'd have been a devoted mother.
I had a quick giggle when you said that people often comment that they are descended from Anne Boleyn. Because when I married my husband I was told that they were descended from Anne Boleyn, I laughed and said this was impossible, the subject was quickly dropped.
Years later one of my husband's Aunts did some family tree research and found out one of their descendants jumped ship (in Australia) and changed his name to Percy Joseph Austin Boleyn, and said he was descended from Anne Boleyn. So just so you understand why some people say that.
Friends of mine had an Aunt who got into genealogy in a big way and found out a collateral twig on the family tree was one of Brigham Young's wives. The funny part was there had been a previous self-published genealogy that left out the naughty and disgraceful ones.
I received a private showing of Ann Boleyn's tomb. I had a partially collapsed lung, horrible bruises at the time, it was the month after Queen Elizabeth II passed. I was in horrible pain, but they were so kind to me, I needed to both walk, do breathing exercises and sleep. I refused to visit the tower. Never made it to Queen Catherine Parr's tomb, it was hours away, my distant relatives were 4 hours away. I hope to visit them next time.
@kitefan1 Anne Boleyn could certainly be in someone's family tree, she had a sister, aunts, uncles, a brother (if I recall correctly), many of whom had children. She may not be a direct ancestors, but certainly a person could have her in their family tree.
@@roacnailclippingsyup that is so true! I thought about this too. Anne also had a brother but I don’t believe he had any children, but the fact that her husband’s relatives were insistent that they were direct relatives is very funny 😆
@@roacnailclippings Her sister Mary had two children. People descended from them could legitimately describe themselves only as collateral descendants of Anne.
I definitely agree with your theory that Catherine Parr’s daughter died young. Poor girl… Such a shame she couldn’t have been raised by a family that actually wanted to care for her, nobility or not.
If I may kindly point something out to you, however: When people say they’re “descendants of Anne Boleyn,” they usually don’t mean a direct lineage from Anne. Many of Mary Boleyn’s descendants, and descendants from the Howard family, are still alive today, making Anne a *distant* relative of theirs. She’d still be an ancestor, just not a *direct* ancestor.
I wouldn’t consider it *lying*, more like… an extreme oversimplification.
Yes, I take your point and I think sometimes that is what they mean, but in others they really do seem to want me to believe she's their actual ancestor. I had someone tell me once they were descended from George and Jane Boleyn, even though that couple was childless. People are just wild sometimes :-)
@@HistoryCalling Descendants of Jane and George? Now THAT sounds ridiculous. I’d be rightfully skeptical of someone who claimed they were a direct descendant of them, or of Anne, but a descendant of Mary Boleyn? I might be more inclined to believe them.
I think part of this might be the fault of sites like Ancestry, because they look for ancestors through documentation, but not necessarily *direct* ancestors. People take what they can find, and back then, the documentation process left a lot to be desired.
My own family tree swore for years we had heritage from Ireland, but one DNA test from my mother later, and we found we had no Irish heritage whatsoever! All of our so-called Irish heritage was actually Scottish. Really shows just how much misinformation gets passed down even from family members.
@@paytonriley6981 Read the comments under any video on the Boleyn family and you'll find people claiming to be descendants of Mary. Okay, it is actually possible to descend from Mary (unlike Anne or George) but I'm sceptical that all of them are telling the truth.
@@kate_cooper Considering that for every generation we go back the number of our direct ancestors doubles we swiftly reach numbers much larger than the population of the time, there is a strong chance that everyone with English ancestry has royal or at least noble ancestors
@@ludovica8221 Yes, there is. But how many people know for a fact who they’re descended from? Far easier to lie about it than do a ton of research.
Thank you so much for this video! I have often wondered what happened to the little girl, and have been frustrated by the lack of information.
Hi Nichole, you're welcome. I only wish the story had a happier ending.
You're right, HC. It's a tragic tale. Still, this video demonstrates your devotion to research and solid facts. It's a public service to fact-check Wikipedia. Strive on! 👏👏👏
Haha, thank you. Yes, Wikipedia is dire sometimes, though at others it can direct one to decent enough sources. It's just pot luck.
@@HistoryCallingikr! the only reason I sometimes use wikipedia is because it has sources for the images there shown (though it’s not very reliable and I do go and check it)
Too many fingers in Wikipedia,so as a source it’s a bust.
As I work on genealogy, I find vague family stories have at least a grain of truth. I hope the Lawson's work harder to prove or disprove their story.
Thomas Seymour sounds disgusting. He used kathrine parr. He wasn’t concerned at all about his daughter Mary. He was predatory towards Elizabeth.
He did his best and sent the baby to his brother and wife to be cared for, when Thomas Seymour was charged with treason and sentenced to death, his brother wanting to distance himself, appointed the Duchess of Suffolk ( Katherine's close friend) as her guardian.
He wasn’t predatory this is very common in 500 years ago.bc ppl died young and they needed an heir it became very important for them to marry very young.but your right about his daughter he wasn’t concerned with
@@Chosenleaf11 His behavior to Princess Elizabeth could certainly be described as predatory.
@@edithengel2284 stop being an idiot
Interesting video. Often wondered if this poor child had met with foul play. She had relatives that viewed her as a financial burden, had no potential to bring them financial gain or access to important connections. The problem could be dealt with via extreme neglect or even other more decisive means. Certainly hope that wasn't the case and I do wish that she had lived to have a long, happy life but believe it is unlikely. Thank you for the well-researched video. King Regards, Cherie Foley
Oh I really hope that's not what happened. She'd already had such a rough life, poor thing. Not that the alternative of dying of plague, or smallpox, or measles etc is so much better. :-(
@@HistoryCalling This reminds me of the Frances Hodgson Burnett story "A Little Princess" where the rich young girl was treated like a princess until the money ran out and was then treated like a scullery maid
I think that's a possibility. Clearly, no one wanted her. Very Sad!
The little girl would have inherited her mothers money( she had been the widow of a King) and her father's too , but its very likely she died young.
@@Diamondmine212 As the video stated, that money was gone and she was destitute by the time she was 6 months old. Her mother's prior position didn't give the child an entry into the elite and powerful. The only money would be from making a claim against her father's holdings which never happened on her behalf.
I concur (as usual😊) with your impeccably researched and well thought out conclusion. I hadn't known of the touching poem you read. I agree that it indicates her early death. I believe that this little girl died young and, sadly, was soon forgotten. As L.P. Hartley said, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there..."
I LOVE that quote. One of my tutors said it when I was an undergrad and it always stuck with me.
@@HistoryCalling
I wish people today would accept Hartley's wise words as honest truth. Presentism has become a huge problem in historical assessments.
That was brilliant!! Thank you for you work. It can’t be stated enough that we of today shouldn’t be putting our values and morals into the lives of those who lived before us, be it 5000yrs or 50yrs ago. It twists and turns our history into knots :(
I look forward to your videos each week, they're always so well researched and informative 😊
THANK YOU SO MUCH CLAIRE for your very kind donation and words. I hope you continue to enjoy them. :-)
I love these videos too!!
@@HistoryCallingI'm sure I will 😁
I too believe she died quite young. Elizabeth acted on behalf of most of her relatives, and little Mary was no threat to the succession.
I always felt bad that no one wanted Lady Mary and always hoped Katherine Brandon just gave her to someone and she grew up and had a decent life .But I think she died young was quietly buried and Katherine just moved on ..Thank you for all the work you put into your research I Love your channel and look forward to a new video every week 😊
Thank you so much. Yes, unfortunately I don't think Mary made her 2nd birthday, poor thing.
I think you're correct but wish your other version was what happened.
She could have died very young.But we don't know where Mary Seymour is buried.If she did survive maybe the Duchess of Suffolk gave her to some relatives to get rid of the financial burden.Or maybe someone in the landed gentry was given Mary Seymour to raise.
@hildahilpert5018 I thought the same thing before Lady Mary came with a household and that's a lot of money. But I think if lady Mary was giving to a unknown family people in power would have found her some way for something crazy
Her story just breaks my heart, my daughter is a toddler and Mary's story hits close to home for me. This poor baby was such a burden because of her servants? Yes they were expensive but would it have been possible to dismiss them?
I was also wondering this! Perhaps servants could not be dismissed without their due wages or it would have meant she would have looked bad. Then again at least the nurse would have had to stay because they did not have formula and without a pregnancy of her own the Aunt couldn't feed the baby.
@@WolfieDawn having the nurse stay makes sense. I guess we don’t know the circumstance but it really sounds like she wasn’t wanted.
I suppose some servants to care for the baby were necessary. A wet nurse to feed her for instance (no formula yet in those days) and someone to dress her, watch her and just care for her basically. As time went on, tutors would have been needed as well. The duchess herself wouldn't have done any of these things, not even for her own children. The main issue though seems to have just been appearances. She was the daughter of a Queen and so raising her like a pauper just looked bad.
@@HistoryCalling how sad she wouldn’t even do that for her own children. 😔
@@majenhardenWomen of that class would have servants who did the lion's share of raising the kids. It didn't change for centuries. Possibly, for duchesses, princesses, and queens, it has not changed yet.
In today's world, the Lawsons would've shown up at an "Antiques Roadshow" location with their relics and family legend. And been given a polite history lesson on why it was, simply, a legend.
Sadly, I'd say Lady Mary suffered the same fate as so many other young children of her era.
Haha, that's so true! I wish I'd thought of that little comparison for the video :-)
absolutely excellent and fascinating tale of this forgotten child. We give them back some life just by speaking their names
We do indeed. She's still better remembered than most infant deaths in history I suppose.
Thank you! It's the most in depth research I've seen on this baby girl, and it's one of those gaps in history that begs for an answer. Because of the last record on little Mary involving the search for money to sustain her, I've always assumed she died when you believe she did. But I never knew about the rest of the evidence, particularly the poem. I feel it's official now!
Great video as always! I hope some more evidence of Mary Seymour's life turns up eventually.
It would be nice to know what happened, but I think we're unlikely to get more info. now unfortunately :-(
What a sad story. A child no one really wanted and who most likely represented noting but money to those charged with her care., which was not forthcoming, my heart tells me she passed very young and slipped into history as little more than a footnote. It makes my heart hurt. Perhaps Strickland misunderstood 13 months as 13 years. Another very interesting video - thank you!!
Her guardian, the Duchess of Suffolk, might have been extremely irritable at having to deal with Somerset about Mary's maintenance, but she was a close friend of Katherine Parr's, so I don't suppose the child meant nothing to her.
I imagine that the people claiming Anne Boleyn ancestry will have descendants claiming Kardashian ancestry. 😂
Very true! :-)
Oooh I’ve always found this idea fascinating! Maybe if she’d been born a boy there would be more written about her, since she would have been heir to something or other, but alas. I’ve always assumed she died as a small child so I’m intrigued by the theory that she grew up and married!
Yes, she might have been deemed a bit more important in that case.
I agree
As a boy, he would have been a threat to the throne and even more of a reason to make him go the way of the two boys in the tower.
@@aftersexhighfives if she had been a boy she would have had absolutely zero claim to the throne in any way. Neither of her parents had a drop of royal blood. Even if she had been a boy she would have been in a position to potentially inherit some of her father’s land possibly, but likely not because of how he was executed
@@aftersexhighfives
Why would he be a threat to the throne?
That poem is absolutely referring to baby Mary. Good find!!!
Well researched. Thank you so much for your detailed efforts to help us to understand history.
Thank you. My pleasure :-)
Thanks for a wonderful video. I always wondered why no one seemed to want Lady Mary, if for no other reason, had she lived, she would have been a sought after bride.
Not as the impoverished daughter of traitor, even if she was the king's cousin--she had no influence with him. Edward was notoriously insensitive to the fates of his relatives.
Once again, thank for the brilliant work and for exploring many different topics.. I get a rush of dopamine whenever I see a notification from your channel..
wishing you the best of luck.
Haha, thank you. I get a mild rush of panic on a Friday night at 7 if I haven't finished dinner yet and I know a video is about to go out and I need to get to the computer. :-)
@@HistoryCalling You’re doing absolutely great. Enjoy every meal on Friday and know that your efforts are appreciated a lot by all of us!!
You come up with the most interesting topics & research & present them so well. Thank you.
Thank you so much. I try to find different ways to look at well-worn topics (like the Tudors). It's not always possible, but I think people prefer it to just hearing yet another bio that has nothing new to say. Also I think the algorithm rewards originality.
Thank you so much. I've often wondered about this child. Other history channels lean heavily into rumors. You acknowledge the most well-known ones, but you view it logically (with the society, persons, and time period in mind). I appreciate this very much.
This is just a very sad case. Poor baby Mary. I feel that someone close has taken advantage of her for monetary reasons, but when it's a loss, did away with the "problem." It's a shame she lost her parents. 😔 Interesting story. 👑
I have a second cousin who loves to mention that she is descended from Anne Boleyn. When I told her that was impossible, she showed me her family tree back to Lady Anne Shelton, so yes, the much less well known paternal aunt of THE Anne Boleyn. She doesn't understand that being technically correct without further explanation makes her look ignorant or gullible.
As always, wonderful video. You channel is my favorite Friday after work reward and I thank you. :)
@Hawkwoman_1 I think what csc7225 means is that the second cousin who claims descent from Anne Boleyn is claiming descent from Lady Anne Shelton whose maiden name was Boleyn. In other words she's saying she's descended from another Anne Boleyn, which is indeed correct (assuming she has the paper work to back it up) but not Queen Anne Boleyn. It is admittedly confusing when you get so many relations with the same name. It's like the way there are two Mary Tudors - Henry's VIII's sister and his daughter and they were both Queens.
Edit - and thank you for taking that other commenter to task for calling me snarky :-)
@@user-el8nz4yu4t If you would reread my post, my cousin is claiming descent through Lady Anne Shelton, nee Boleyn as AB's paternal aunt, and not Anne Boleyn the Queen. Unfortunately, she does herself no favors because she's grasping to be related to royalty by stating a technical truth yet masking it behind an untruth. It would be like an American claiming they were descended from the George Washington (who had no descendants) when their 8x gr grandfather happened to be named George Washington. Very misleading.
I think the word for that is "collateral" descendant, as opposed to direct descendant.
Another fantastic video! Your work makes Fridays sparkle.
Aww, thank you. :-)
This was a very nice choice of subject; thank you for taking it up and handling so judiciously.
Thanks Edith. Glad you enjoyed it :-)
This was incredibly common. Even today there are countries with a 20% death rate for children under the age of 5. Childbed fever was often the result of lack of hygiene during birth with midwives introducing any and all bacteria into the birth canal. I imagine that there was word of it to the court, and prayers may have been said, but so many babies died that it wouldn't have been written down. A prayer for her little soul and then back to sheer survival.
Yes, it was heartbreakingly common and you're right that it's still as bad in some parts of the world today and we're so lucky we don't live there. A lot of my girlfriends have actually had serious complications in pregnancy and childbirth and I was just saying to one of them recently that it's terrifying when I think how many of them would have died if they'd lived even a century ago.
@@HistoryCalling My sister, my cousin, and I all had babies within 1.5 years of each other (my daughter, the youngest, is now 7 months old). All 3 of us and our babies would have died in childbirth without modern medicine. A whole generation of women in my family, wiped out in less than 2 years.
Thankfully we don't live in those times and all 3 of us are happy mothers to the next generation of beautiful women in our family.
I wonder what would have happened to catherine and her daughter if she didn't die from childbirth.
Mortality is even higher in countries where child marriage is practiced.
Love your channel!!
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SUCH A GENEROUS DONATION ELVERTAW and such a nice comment too. I'm glad you find the videos interesting and entertaining.
@@HistoryCalling 🥰
❤❤Thank you so very much for this episode!!! I've ALWAYS wondered about what happened to Catherine Parr's child. ....Your channel is AMAZING!!❤😊❤
You are so welcome :-)
Mary seymours is such a sad story. I hope she lived a long happy life
Yes, it's a tragic tale. Born with it all, only to have lost it all well before her first birthday. :-(
Thank you HC as always, sadly I think she died very young, Tudor mysteries of which their are many and we will never know the answers sadly, another mystery is the death of Amy Robsart, which I have been interested in iv read all I can find on Amy's death, suicide, accident, or murder,
Yes, Amy's death is very interesting, especially after the coroner's report into it showed up a few years ago and seemed to suggest foul play.
I’ve always wondered, but thank you for your exhaustive research. At any rate, it is terribly sad.
Yes, not a story with a happy ending for anyone. Mother, father and daughter all dead within about a year and a half.
Sadly, Mary Seymour died early in her infancy. This was the first time I heard this poem. It was so sad. Great job on fact-checking Wikipedia. You actually have people claiming they’re descendants of Anne Boleyn? There are too many people claiming they’re descendants of Henry and the six wives on social media. I take them with grain of salt. As for me, I’m just a Mexican American woman.
I’m going this Saturday to see Six. I’m so excited. I do appreciate your work so thank you. You have a great weekend.
I think this is because of the woolly misuse of the words ancestor and descendant that has become prevalent in recent years. People seem to use these words indiscriminately to refer to any familial predecessor when they would be better off saying "I am related to" which is much more likely.
Yes, I think some of them are just misusing the language but honest to goodness, some of them actually claim to be direct descendants of childless people. Someone once insisted to me that they are descended from George and Jane Boleyn. Absolutely bonkers!
Yes, I'd never come across that poem either but I liked it and thought it was worth including the whole thing.
Yeah, Wikipedia's a hoot sometimes (to put it mildly). I've seen other pseudo-historians here on YT just copying it as scripts for their videos and without even acknowledging that that's what they're doing and I always just think 'plonkers', along with some other descriptions that I can't write here as they're a bit sweary :-)
@@HistoryCalling
There’s a man who claims Anne Boleyn had a son before she was beheaded. I heard it on the Anne Boleyn’s files. Claire Ridgeway didn’t want to use his name because it was poppycock. She had to address it because she has been receiving many questions about his claim. Crazy
You teach me new information every time you post. Many thanks. Keep up the good work and keep these docus coming.
Thanks Mark, will do! :-)
You do such a good job with your research. I thoroughly enjoy your channel.
What's sad is a child, with those parents in particular, you'd think she would at least have a marker somewhere. As you said, they did things very different back then. A very interesting video. Thank you.
I think the lack of claim on her father's estate is the clearest indication the child didn't survive. One can't wonder if the child was neglected, given how unwanted she seems during her short life.
As a side note, it's an important note how sloppy record-keeping was of this era for things like births, deaths, and so forth (which often gives rise to conspiracy theories like, "Shakespeare couldn't written his plays because there's so little evidence of his existence).
Thanks!
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DONATING TO THE CHANNEL ZACK. Hope you enjoyed my take on this little Tudor mystery :-)
Great research.
Thank you.😊
Ooh that was a hard workout. Feel amazing now. Thank you so much😊
What a fascinating (and sad) subject. Having never thought to question that the few sentences we usually get about this forlorn child were near the limit of our knowledge, I thought you were up against a stiff opponent this week, but the answers are, as always, a revelation. As to old family stories, members of my family are dedicated to genealogy and are diligent researchers, (and we're supposed to be related to the Boleyns, of course!) and yet at least once I've taken two minutes on the 'net to debunk the key part of a firm family myth from only a hundred years ago, via a contemporary news account. What your grandmother told you is very nice and should be passed along, but don't try to cash it at the bank. Or Wikipedia.
I've had the same sorts of issues - family stories from the quite recent past which were just plain wrong and which I rapidly debunked with some solid research. I think tales often get embellished or misremembered over the years.
Poor bub! But there were millions of poor bubs, it’s just so sad that 90% of the poor little things would be saved nowadays 😢
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DONATING TO THE CHANNEL KASIE. Yes, most of them would survive today which is indeed heartbreaking. 16th century England was a bit like a modern third world country in terms of infant mortality :-(
Excellent presentation. Thank you for your work!
Thank you kindly! :-)
Yet another fantastical HC video! Thank-you.
Thank you very much. Glad you liked it :-)
Right now I'm reading a historical fiction called The Stolen One by Suzanne Crowley. About what if one of Baby Mary's nursemaids Stole her away and raised her as her own. A lot of these names show up in the book.
I personally don't like historical novels in which somebody messes with real people's ancestors. At least one woman has been messing around with someone on my family tree named, Margaret Neville who married into the Huddleston family. She was a real person, the Natural daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. Her father acknowledged her as his daughter and had been supporting her. She married a knighted Huddleston and had children. It strikes me as a form of dishonesty, cheating and robbing real people of their true lives.
@@lornahuddleston1453 You think that's bad? An inn my ancestors owned & lived in is now a history museum, which I love EXCEPT last time I went they'd made up some bs about my ancestor's ghost haunting one room, & left a book for tourists to write their "ghostly experiences & speculations" in. The owners are her descendants too, but I found it ghoulish to use her as a spooky tourist attraction in that way, & sickening to read strangers claiming they'd seen her, using the life of a real person to spin fantasies & make themselves sound "special" & "spiritual" cos they'd "picked up on her presence". Funny how nobody "picked up on her presence" until 150+ years after she died, then suddenly people are seeing her every day- I certainly never heard any ghost stories in the 30+ years I'd been visiting before the book appeared. Everything else about the place is great though; it remembers the history of the family & the community etc accurately.
That's a very interesting ancestor to have! And as usual, the real story is so cool & interesting you don't even NEED to change it- an illegitimate daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker?! How is that NOT a fascinating story?
Hmm, now this is such an interesting conversation. I completely understand what Lorna means about messing with real people's lives and I don't like it when real people are misrepresented and then those misrepresentations become accepted 'fact'. For instance Thomas Boleyn is often presented as someone who p*mped out his daughters to Henry VIII and was a bad father and it's just not true. However I was also just saying to another commenter that sometimes it's nice to see people get the happy ending they deserved, but never had in real life. The example I gave was Sharon Tate in the movie Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. However, I only feel that way if it is done with kindness and respectfulness and doesn't obscure people's understanding of the real historical events. Everyone is entitled to their different opinions on the matter of course. That's just my two cents.
Just finished it last night. From the author's notes, she acknowledges that it is a what-if story. She hopes that it may interest people in history. And doing their own research. This is how I got involved in history reading books with historical and fictional characters in them when I was young. It got me to go and find out more about the real-life people. It gave me the jump-off point to find out about historical people I might not have heard of without the story making it more fun than boring textbooks. You just have to go in knowing that some of it is fictional. @@HistoryCalling
realistically I do think the little girl passed away. Considering a simple cold could kill you back then or at least the treatments more than likely would have this makes the most sense as to why little Mary was never mentioned after the last written account. While we wont know for sure this is what I believe to be true. Honestly I'd love to hear more stories like this even if it's just some content filler, shining light on forgotten people can be more interesting than those who are well known and documented
Yes, I like looking at lesser known people too, but unless they have a connection to someone well known to act as a hook for the audience, I find it's hard to get people interested. I thought Empress Matilda would be more popular as a video topic for instance, but I was a bit underwhelmed by how that video did.
@@HistoryCalling That's understandable my friend. As a content creator you have a audience you cater for and while some videos might not get the attention you thought they would their will always be someone who appreciates your effort. While I love learning about the lesser known I know people will cover them even if harder to find. Looking forward to your future videos as always HC
History calling it is cold and raining here in Newcastle. I love your videos they are so good .
Yeah, I think it's much the same all over the UK tonight (I assume you mean Newcastle in England, as opposed to Newcastle in Northern Ireland).
@@HistoryCalling Newcastle in England
It is truly sad that this poor motherless child found no love in her family and very reluctant advocacy from the relative into whose care she was assigned.
I suppose we should say in the Duchess of Suffolk's defence that she wasn't actually a relative, just a family friend and I can understand why she resented having to take in a child who had Dukes, Duchesses, a Marquis and a King in her immediate family. At least she did take her in though, which is more than can be said for the rest.
I'm very impressed with your research and presentation!
Thank you very much. The research does take some time of course, but I always think it's worth it.
I enjoy your videos and your voice is quite nice. Appreciate the research you do and thank you for sharing
To be honest, I feel very little sympathy for Catherine Willoughby, Anne and William Parr crying poverty. They were Dukes/Duchesses with massive tracts of land they were drawing incomes from plus William had a court position with a salary too. To me it just seems like they had no interest in this child, their orphaned niece, and were trying to get rid of her by saying they couldn't afford to keep her. This poor child had no one in the world and the relatives she did had were all trying to get rid of her.
Yes, I find it hard to believe they couldn't care for a baby as well. 'Poor' is certainly a relative term. None of them ever knew true poverty.
@@HistoryCalling To me it just comes across as immensely callous of them. Even if she was an infant that wasn't expected to survive, she was still their niece! Catherine Parr would probably be rolling in her grave if she knew how poorly her only child was being treated by her siblings.
It goes to show how vital it was for an infant or small child to have a living mother or father with means to protect them. Had Catherine Parr lived, Mary probably would have lived as well. All of the child's belongings would have been hers. Instead, baby Mary had no true advocate and protector, and as such, her wealth, belongings and claims were easy prey for the greedy folks who knew they would get away with nicking them.
Yes, it was a very rough time to be an orphan, even if you were part of the extended royal family.
Also, even the last document traced to her, marks her blood as that of a traitor. At that time, even family turned their backs on those associated with treachery guilty or not. P. Elizabeth, would have even avoided assisting her to distance herself from the rumors of her and Seymour. She was in a perilous situation herself. This child was born into compounded situations of excuses for neglect. I wonder if an "accident" just didn't happen. As she said in the end, we live in a different world now. So sad.
As an inquisitive genealogist I can't help but turn to my brick wall research patterns. If her death was suspicious it could have been completely swept under a carpet ... just in case. If there was even one person who actually cared about her and not her lost wealth they could have absconded with her in secret not knowing who to trust, easily done. Happens a lot. I assume no artefacts from an inventory etc that may have belonged to or promised to her or even her mother has been tracked down through the ages? Like art provenance? Might be worth a search for a Mary with her approx birthday showing up under another name that too happens all the time. Sure there would be a lot of Mays born at that time... but again that happens a lot in genealogy research. Just another angle on the 'positive she lives' timeline to ponder. Thanks for going back into this story. Look what we are finding out about the players in Elizabeth's court and the true meaning behind Shakespeare;s work. I count nothing out.
I love genealogy too. It's always like a treasure hunt. No, I'm afraid I haven't heard of any of the nursery items showing up in later years.
Adoptions were not recorded, she could have been taken in by childless couple or one of the servants but most likely she died and buried in an unmarked grave or given to an orphanage as she didn't seem loved
I would love for that to be the case, but as the King's cousin and later both Queens' step-sister, I don't think that could have been done quietly, especially as there were so few people who were of sufficient rank to take her. I think that's how Katherine Willoughby got 'lumbered' with the job. I definitely don't think an orphanage was an option. In fact I don't even think orphanages were a thing yet at that point in English history. They were definitely around in the 18th century, but I can't think of any 16th century examples.
Damn, that baby's tomb at 22:00 is gutwrenching.
I have to agree that Mary Seymour most likely died as a child. I find it hard to believe that a daughter of two very prominent people, with royal connections, could have completely escaped any attention if she had made it to adulthood. Probably some unknown illness claimed her, poor girl.
It's in this really beautiful old monastery in the north of England near Hadrian's Wall which I just stumbled across during the summer (as I was driving to find Hadrian's Wall). It says it all though that I saw that child's tomb and thought 'I could definitely use footage of that in TH-cam videos because I have to talk about dead children so often'. :-(
Thomas Seymour was an outright cad. Catherine Parr is one of the many women I admire in history, and it saddens to me that she was finally able to marry the man she loved-only for him to sexually harass if not assault her beloved stepdaughter. I cannot evem imagine the betrayal.
I worry little Mary fell victim to high child mortality rates, but it is nice to think she instead grew up to live a happy, uneventful life during her stepsister's long rule.
Yes, I wonder how Catherine didn't see him for what he really was before they wed. Maybe he was just very good at hiding it, or she had a penchant for the bad boys. Yes, I think Mary Seymour died very young too, poor thing.
@@HistoryCalling From what I've read of Thomas Seymour, he strikes me as an underhanded individual who took advantage of Catherine being distracted by a highly stressful pregnancy and was descreetly sneaking when he was harrassing Elizabeth (who was probably afraid of being Victim blamed for the harrassment like Katherine Howard was).
I so appreciate your unbiased view on all subjects.
Thanks Edith. I do my best :-)
For the question, I suppose this chymes nicely with last week’s one:
What is your favourite and least favourite period of History to study and learn more about? (pre-History and post WWII History do not count ;)
For me, the favourite has to be -surprise surprise- Early Middle Ages (ca. 600-1066), while the least favourite is likely Ancient Rome.
My official area of expertise is actually the 18th century British Isles (not that you'd ever guess it from my channel) so that's my favourite. Least favourite is hard to pick if I can't say modern Northern Irish history (I've never enjoyed learning about the Troubles). There's nothing I really hate.
@@HistoryCalling oh yea, you said so in your 100k q&a video, weirdly enough you have only 2 videos on the matter (and one is a stretch, as it is that George I’s marriage scandals video). True, the Troubles are rather uninteresting (in this myne hvmbl opynionn)
Thank you for this very interesting piece!
The first three marriages of Catherine's were with my relatives! Her first marriage was with a great Uncle, second with a Great Ganfather Neville and then Henry 8, a first cousin x10 times removed.
In other words, total strangers.
They had DNA analysis on those people?! Fascinating !!
that poor little girl, i was raised via kinship care and passed around quite a bit between family members as i grew up, it sucked hard.
I have often wondered about Catherine’s child. Interesting video thanks.
Thanks so much :-)
Yes, we'd like to know, also, as we are the Parr family. Thank you.
You're very welcome. I only wish I could tell you for sure what happened to her.
The Parkhurst poem certainly seems to be a concealed reference to Mary Seymour. Catherine Parr was a known Catholic-turned-Protestant Reformist. Given the scary religious politics of that time, I am not surprised nobody wanted to get involved with supporting a child so closely related to all the monarchs of that period. Her early death is the likely reason she disappeared from history, and Parkhurst's poem may be a simple "in memoriam" for those who cared for her.
Yes, I think it was just a quiet little memoriam. I suppose we have to be grateful we have even that. At least it gives us some idea of her fate.
I often wondered if the poor little girl was mistreated by the Duchess of Suffolk. In her letters to Cecil she sounded as though she hated Mary. Could she have died from neglect? Certainly it was a welcome burden lifted when she was gone. It is odd how she was simply forced to become her ward though and someone who was not a blood relative.
Inconvenient children didn't tend to live long. Of course, neither did most children.
Sadly it's still like that in some places in the world today as well :-(
@@HistoryCallingSo very true. Unless a child has a protector, even today, they become easy pickings and are easy targets of all manner of dastardly plots. Human nature is sadly very static.
This was another fascinating video. TYVM 😊
How sad that her mother's own family wanted nothing to do with her. Poor child. I can't imagine what they did to her.
I know. Catherine's family will have reaped all the rewards of being the Queen's siblings, but then couldn't even take in her only child. Shameful behaviour.
Great vidoe and informative as always thank you again❤
Thanks Wendy :-)
@@HistoryCalling 🤩
I am related to Anne Herbert parr. Which would have been Catherine parrs cousin I believe.( it gets confusing because I believe Catherine had a sister anne as well as a cousin. We have been working our geology in our family for several hundred years. ( Taylor’s, Douglas, spencer, de la pole, ancestry and DAR. Mayflower And daughters of civil war
. I love this, I think 1550 is likely a date of death as well. There ought to have been many records, even if documents were destroyed of any kind of child betrothal. Infant mortality was so Terri it common. I very much enjoyed your video. What struck me in looking through the family tree, is how once you are related to Neville’s or Seymour’s, Douglas, Armstrong, woodville, you can keep tracing back, as it seemed very few Plantagenets, Tudor’s, etc, married outside family. When I think of the palace intrigues navigating religious conversions arranged marriages, as well, as infant death and disease) I’m astonished I am here at all.
You post such interesting stories, thank you
Even little more than a hundred years ago it was common for several children children in any family to not survive infancy. (My Great Grandmother had eight, with three dying before the age of two and a half). And in the centuries before that that was even more true. And that was before you take into account the various epidemics that regularly swept across areas, sometimes wiping out almost all of the children in a family.
And who knows, this was the first baby born to a woman of 36 - which is medically considered mature for a first child even today. Perhaps the birth was a difficult one for the baby as well as her mother and led to weakness that may have left her especially vulnerable to illnesses.
Always love your videos ❤
Good evening to history calling from Bea and hope you enjoy your weekend
Thanks Bea. If it would only stop raining and let the sun come out, I'd have a better chance I think :-)
Look forward to your video next Friday from Bea 🇬🇧
Thanks Bea :-)
I have to agree that the child died young and not long after parliament settled the question of her inheritance. Given the historical period and how females of any age we essentially owned by either parent, guardian or spouse once she had come into any inheritance she would have become a pawn over which several argued simply for access to that inheritance.
Had she lived to marriagable age we would certainly see some record sonewhere of her holdings moved from her guardian to spouse, or a bit of an arguement of how they were divided between guardian and her dowry. This would have occurred after Elizabeth took the throne, and given Elizabeth's penchant to control the marriage of any noble woman, and this child had the bloodlines Elizabeth would have worried about, we would have some record of how Elizabeth dealt with or approved her marriage and her dowry.
Had the child lived long enough to even have received anything under the decree by parliament, since some of it included part of property and money currently in her uncle's hands we would have nice record of arguments between whoever had custody of the physical child and who currently held the property. Either her guardian would have demanded payment from her uncle for the property he held or else her uncle would have been more willing to have her reside with him so he maintained control. This might actually have been something brought to Mary's attention but probably only if the child had been raised Catholic.
My assumption would be that if she had not died about the time parliament made its ruling, not knowing she was recently deceased, having been raised a protestant she was smuggled out of the country to live in Europe some where. It would have been difficult enough for any of noble birth to flee England when Mary took the throne, a child like this, of Royal lineage would have had to be very carefully smuggled out, possibly disguised as a common subject or servant's child and was married off before it was really safe for her to return to England, and probably as a commoner have dropped any royal association to protect her. If this was the case any history about her would not continue.
If she did die its interesting that their is nothing in any written records pointing to a grace or vault where she was interred.
I understand that child mortality rates were painfully high in Tudor Times, but this is such a pitiable story all around. That poor little girl was unfortunate enough to be born a Seymour, a girl who’s father was a repugnant creep, who’s mother died and who was seemingly a burden to everyone in the social circle of her family. So sad…
I know. Once Catherine Parr was gone she was pretty doomed with a father like that. Seymour always thought he was a lot smarter than he actually was.
Very good! Thank you!
Thanks Nathan :-)
Amazing video, as always, HC!
I love how you call out bullshit like it's going out of fashion!
I noticed it in the Princesses of Wales who became Queens video too, about Queen Camilla.
On the subject of this video, what happened to that little girl is very sad
To just...be passed from household to household and then just...fade away. It's sad to think about it
Thank you. Yes, even stating outright that disliking Camilla doesn't change her titles and that complaining at me (just the messenger) doesn't change them either, I still got the predictable number of comments stating that she wasn't Princess and isn't Queen. Some people just aren't interested in living in reality with the rest of us. I'll get people under this one telling me they're Anne Boleyn's direct descendant because of some secret baby she or Elizabeth had.
Anyways, moving on - yes, Mary's fate was very sad. It's rare to see someone lose so much so fast.
Excellent scholarship as usual. I agree with your analysis and believe poor Mary did not survive childhood.
I enjoyed this video. I had often thought about this poor orphan. I find it sad that although none of the child's aunts or uncles cared for the child that Mary 1 did not take her in. She was an adult by this date. I understand why Elizabeth or Edward did not as they were still too young and under control of others.
I know. I suppose Mary wouldn't have been allowed to take her as she'd have raised her a Catholic but it's shocking that Catherine's siblings (who will have gained so much from being the Queen's brother and sister) wouldn't care for her child.
Yes, religion was major issue but I was thinking of interest and money since those were major concerns of others.
@@heatherpedersen6627It was the religious issue that would have nixxed Catherine of Aragon from taking a very Protestant child. Catherine Parr was a devout Protestant and would have heartily objected to turning over her daughter to be raised Catholic. It would also have sealed Mary's fate and left her headless in due time. Had Mary Seymour lived and been raised by a staunch Catholic, she could have been in a very dangerous position, not unlike Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots.
I read the excellent book A Crown for Elizabeth written back in 1968. The author mentioned the child however when Katherine Parr died the child was placed in the care of a relative. Then no one knew what became of Mary. Sad.
Very interesting video! I do think it's a mistake to say that she was born into a wonderful family situation, since her father was making advances on a teenager under his care in the same household as her mother.
Hans your smile, had been flurried my time passag
Hi, awesome live history video. I enjoyed it. I wonder, whatever did happen to Mary Seymour in history? It's like she disappeared. How are you doing? I'm doing well, just enjoying the autumn 🍂 weather. Have a great day. See you next video. Your history videos are always enjoyable 😊
Hi Michelle. My personal opinion is that she died young. Yes, the autumn leaves are always lovely, as long as they're not wet and mushy. See you next time.
Another thorough explanation! I am definitely not a descendent of Anne Boleyn, but I am likely related to Oliver Cromwell.
Hard to be a girl in those days. You never can seem to find much documentation even on some Queens even. I feel bad for the child. So innocent.
Yes, it wasn't a great time to be a woman, but I will say that even men weren't always well documented. We don't know when George Boleyn was born for example.
I have no idea if you have researched this, but I came across it some time back on a genealogical site. I’m afraid I can’t find the reference beyond SEYMOUR: Tudor Place in my notes.
Lady Mary Seymour, the daughter of Catherine Parr, was raised in a convent in Lincolnshire after her father's execution. Her governess was Elizabeth Aglionby, who was previously a lady-in-waiting to Catherine Parr. Mary's guardians included Catherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk, who provided her with two maids and other servants. However, the Duchess was unable to provide enough money for Mary's care. Mary was restored in blood in 1550, but she disappears from records after that. Historian John Strype concluded that Mary died as a child, and later writers, including Edmund Lodge, also believed she died at the age of 13.