King Henry VIII and Wives (1491-1547)

[iowabelle]

I get the impression that Henry VIII was rather neglectful parent, except for when it came to Edward. Poor Mary was more or less banished, until the Jane Seymour years. I don't think her domestic life was great from Jane's death to Katherine Parr's arrival... and the same for Elizabeth. I'm betting Katherine Parr was the one most responsible for Elizabeth's education. (wikipedia says it was Kat Ashley who made the arrangements for her early education, but would she have had the authority or knowledge to do so on her own?)

I was trying to figure out where Edward grew up before he became king... not at court usually and apparently not usually with Elizabeth either... but I don't know for sure.

[Grace Angel]

Edward was quite well educated too- that seemed to have been his fathers idea. Of course, kings were always well educated ( at least during the Renaissance), as was Henry himself. I think Henry did want his daughters well educated although he left Mary's education to her mother, and as for Elizabeth, seems to have approved of her being well educated, I'm sure, but may not have had much of a direct hand in it. I know that tutor of Elizabeth's - his first name was William, and I can't remember the 2nd name, was a big influence on her education. Katharine Parr was too.

[iowabelle]

William Ascham, maybe?

I think Catherine of Aragon did a good job with her daughter's education, involving Erasmus and Juan Luis Vives. Unfortunately, what Mary needed was the ability to be adaptable, and that she didn't get from her mother.

[Menarue]

It seems that Elizabeth shared her brother´s tutor and that she was considered brilliant when only 6 years old. When Katherine Parr came into her life she was already 10 years old and although Katherine would have had influence on the way she was educated it started long before that. They both, brother and sister, lived and were taught at Hatfield.

[iowabelle]

I knew that Elizabeth was associated with Hatfield but hadn't heard that about Edward (maybe it's because he's sort of eclipsed by his sisters?).

[Grace Angel]

All three of the Tudor children were intelligent and well educated, but Edward and Elizabeth more so than Mary, whose educational was more traditional, but who was also somewhat less intellectual than either Edward or Elizabeth. Certainly, the fact that all three of Henry's children were well educated and intelligent, particularly the two youngest is interesting. The intelligence must have come from Henry, since both Edward and Elizabeth, as well as Mary, had different mothers, and Henry was a notably well educated and intelligent man. Does anyone know the intelligence or education of Henry Fitzroy, at all?

[Russophile]

Mary was educated, she just let, imo, the religion get in her way.

[Grace Angel]

But the way she was educated was very religious based, since Catharine of Aragon was a pious woman, and certainly followed the Catholic church. Elizabeth and Edward's education was more Protestant but also perhaps more secular. Mary though also had a personality that used religion the wrong way, while Elizabeth used it the right way. Edward was also quite rigid about religion, from what we know of him ( since he died young), but about a different religion, Protestantism.

[Menarue]

From what I have read Elizabeth could read, write and speak Latin and French from a very early age. She was was able to write essays and converse with adults in these languages with great facility. I am sure that she had lessons about religion but her education was not focused on religion. Her brother was being educated to be a King not a priest and she was lucky enough to live with him and to be able to share his lessons and as she was so extremely intelligent she was very interested and learned the lessons of Kingship well.

[Warren]

Getting back to Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, this is what Starkey has to say (p198-200):

"It therefore came as a brutal shock to Catherine when, in the summer of 1525, she heard that Henry's young bastard, Henry Fitzroy, was to be recognised as the King's son and showered with titles and honours. The boy was installed as a Knight of the Garter, created Earl of Nottingham and Duke of Richmond and Somerset (all of them royal titles) and appointed Lord Admiral and Warden-General of the Marches against Scotland. At the same time, his education was put on a formal footing; he was given a great Household, with head officers and a Council, and sent off to Yorkshire to be nominal head of a regional government for the north. Such a concentration of peerages and great offices had never before been held by a subject, let alone a six-year-old. It could mean one thing only: Henry VIII had decided that gender was more important than legitimacy. Catherine feared that he would recognise Richmond as his heir, and would exclude Mary from her rightful inheritance.

Henry, characteristically, never went quite so far."

For Henry's ambivalence, Starkey suggests that although England had no formal exclusion of female succession, no woman had actually sat on the English throne. Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I, had tried, but her attempts to enforce her rights had led to civil war. "And civil war was a sensitive topic for Henry VIII...If Matilda, married to the Emperor Henry V, had failed to make her claim good, why should Mary be any different - especially when the Emperor Charles V had just rejected her as his bride?

"But the succession of a bastard, like Richmond, was at least as problematical as the succession of a woman, like Mary. Moreover, Henry was just as proud of his daughter as was Catherine, and he was almost as demonstrative. He was not going to disinherit his child lightly."

Catherine's response: "Instead of confronting Henry, which was rarely successful, she reverted to her usual methods and set herself to persuade him. It seems to have worked. The result was an explicit recognition of Mary's status as heiress to the throne."
.

[Grace Angel]

Does Starkey's book mention anywhere the idea of marrying Henry Fitzroy to Mary? I know it's mentioned somewhere in a book about Henry VIII and wives, and I don't have a copy of Starkey's book.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Grace Angel

Does Starkey's book mention anywhere the idea of marrying Henry Fitzroy to Mary?

No, there is no suggestion of any such union by Starkey.

[iowabelle]

When I said neglectful, I meant in the period when Henry decided to put Catherine of A. aside (and try to sire another child), so Mary would have been 11 or so... and then after Henry got rid of Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth was an inconvenient reminder.

I'm sure that once Edward was born, the king put his energies into the education of his son, the future king... and whatever the girls got was intended to make them decent marital prospects for whomever the king selected.

I think that Henry was quite doting with his daughters when their mothers were alive and in favor... but once the pendulum turned, watch out! (In my state today they would have court-ordered Henry to attend a class called "Children in the Middle"!)

[Grace Angel]

Thanks, Warren. That must be in Fraser or Weir's book then. I think Henry had his own version of " Children in the Middle". Certainly, Henry's main concern was always his son and heir, and Edward was additionally lucky in that his mother, Jane Seymour, never fell out of favor. Elizabeth was only briefly in favor, since Anne Boleyn died when Elizabeth was young, and Anne's whole disgrace happened when Elizabeth was young. Henry was a good father to Mary for many years, but he did mistreat her very badly after she sided with her mother during his attempts to get his marriage to Catharine of Aragon ended.

So in the end Mary perhaps had more bad memories of her father than good, yet Henry was quite loving to Mary after she eventually realized that she had to seem to go along with her father's plans as regards his marriage to her mother, and disinheiriting herself. Elizabeth had more distant memories of her father, yet certainly she liked being called his daughter in her own reign, she seems to have proud of it. She although never really in favor with Henry was never not really in favor either, so she didn't have the bad memories of Henry that Mary had. She was only two or so when the stuff with Anne happened.

[Lady Laura]

I read in Alison Wier that it was Cromwell who mentioned the marriage between Mary and Fitzroy, but the idea was never taken seriuosly, it may have been to annoy the spanish ambassador Chapuys who was trying to protect Mary's marriage rights.
Also, I find it difficult to believe Henry Carey was the son of Henry viii. Henryviii never gave him the time of day, and Henry was a doting father (when the mood struck him)to all his children, illigetimate or not, but he was frantically protective of sons, despite wanting Anne, I doubt he would have ignored a natural son when he was so desperate for male children.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Lady Laura

Also, I find it difficult to believe Henry Carey was the son of Henry viii. Henryviii never gave him the time of day, and Henry was a doting father (when the mood struck him)to all his children, illigetimate or not, but he was frantically protective of sons, despite wanting Anne, I doubt he would have ignored a natural son when he was so desperate for male children.

Henry VIII was desperate for Legitimate Sons. There is a difference, and there especially was to him and to the Tudor Dynasty. It would not have mattered if he had 10 illegitimate sons. If he had no lawful son to inherit the throne after him, he would have found it very difficult indeed to try to place an illegitimate one there instead.

Of course, whether or not Henry Carey was his son remains a hot topic of debate among many historians. There are some that say he could not have been the son of Henry VIII because the King never recognized him and did not elevate him to a high position as he did with Henry FitzRoy.

On the other hand, there is some evidence to suggest that Henry Carey was his son. He himself claimed in 1533 that he was “Our Sovereign Lord the King’s son”. He became the ward of Anne Boleyn after the death of Sir William Carey in 1528, and was thereby ensured an excellent education. He apparently remained mostly at court as an adult, where he worked tirelessly for the will of his Sovereign.

Henry VIII had nothing to gain by claiming either of the Carey children. By law, they were considered to be the children of William Carey. He certainly couldn't claim them before he married Anne, which would futher complicate an already complicated situation. After her trial and execution, I'm sure everyone had had quite enough of the Boleyns, and it would have again been imprudent to acknowledge them.

In fact, leaving everyone to believe that they were the offspring of William Carey was probably a kinder fate for them both. It left them without any stain on their reputations, and allowed them to become trusted courtiers under Henry VIII's watchful eye.

William Carey was rewarded with royal grants in 1524 and 1526, which are thought to have been the birth dates of Catherine and Henry Carey. Some historians feel that the King was compensating Carey for the fact that these were not his biological children. William Carey, was also given royal grants in 1522 and 1523, which is thought to be the beginning years of his affair with Mary Boleyn.

Henry VIII admitted his affair and also admitted “affinity” and “consanguinity” with Mary Carey and it could be pointed out that his dispensation to marry Anne probably would not have been necessary if no children had resulted from the relationship.

It was Elizabeth I, however, that elevated Henry Carey to a peerage. Elizabeth also visited him on his deathbed and gave him the patent and robes of the Earldom of Wiltshire, which he refused. It is also said that when Elizabeth died, Henry Carey’s son, Robert, received the ring taken from the Queen’s hand. Catherine Carey had attended the Queen, was buried at Royal expense and given a prominent memorial on her death.

Neither of the Carey children ever suffered any misfortunes in Elizabeth's Court. They never fell from favor with her, and were members of her closest inner circle. And it must also be said that Catherine Carey's daughter, Lettice, bore a remarkable resemblance to Queen Elizabeth. Even though they were maternally related, it was the Tudor red hair that made Lettice Knollys favor the Queen so much.

Of course, it cannot be said with certainty that Henry VIII fathered Henry Carey. I hope one day we will have a definite answer to this question. It does seem very likely that he was the father of Catherine Carey, at least.

[Wisteria]

Lettice Knollys was a Carey who definitely wasn´t favoured by Queen Elizabeth II, well she wasn´t after she married in secret one of the Queen´s favourites the very handsome Walter Devereaux, the handsome Earl of Essex, who later on met a sticky end.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

Lettice Knollys was a Carey who definitely wasn´t favoured by Queen Elizabeth II, well she wasn´t after she married in secret one of the Queen´s favourites the very handsome Walter Devereaux, the handsome Earl of Essex, who later on met a sticky end.

It was her 2nd husband, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leiceter, who was the great favorite of Queen Elizabeth. Lettice's secret marriage to him in 1578 did indeed get her banished from court. And Elizabeth never forgave either of them.

By this time, of course, Catherine Carey, Lady Knollys, had been dead for several years, having died in 1569.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

Lettice Knollys was a Carey who definitely wasn´t favoured by Queen Elizabeth II, well she wasn´t after she married in secret one of the Queen´s favourites the very handsome Walter Devereaux, the handsome Earl of Essex, who later on met a sticky end.

Yes, my best friend as a child's mother was a Devereaux, who had the whole family tree memorized, basically. Definately a descendant of Lettice and Walter Devereaux

[Ella Kay]

Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine

Henry VIII had nothing to gain by claiming either of the Carey children. By law, they were considered to be the children of William Carey.

So here's an interesting question, then: was Bessie Blount married when Henry FitzRoy was born? If not, perhaps Henry was only willing to acknowledge illegitimate children when doing so would not embarrass the man who was legally known to be the father of the child -- i.e., when the mistress was not married?