Henry VIII (1491-1547) and Wives

[Zonk]

While Henry was okay with making Henry FitzRoy a duke, and might have considered him to be a potential King in the making...considering the times of the day and the fact that there were questions regarding the legitimacy of the Tudor throne...to make sure everything was neat and legal....Henry would have perferred a legitimate son.

 

[Grace Angel]

Could you please provide a source for this statement? I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously considered arranging marriage between brother and sister in a 16th-century-Christian-kingdom

I think it was some contemporary of Henry VIII, maybe an ambassador who was speculating who said this. It was never seriously considered, it was just gossip back then. But it did exist as gossip/ speculation. I thought Antonia Fraser's book on Henry's wives mentions it, but I'm not certain. I've read a lot on the Tudors.

 

[Kotroman]

Henry would have perferred a legitimate son.

Nobody is disputing that. We are discussing who would've Henry VIII preffered as his heir: a legitimate daughter (Mary) or an illegitimate son (Fitzroy). It seems that all agree that Mary would be the winner.

 

[iowabelle]

I think it was some contemporary of Henry VIII, maybe an ambassador who was speculating who said this. It was never seriously considered, it was just gossip back then. But it did exist as gossip/ speculation. I thought Antonia Fraser's book on Henry's wives mentions it, but I'm not certain. I've read a lot on the Tudors.

I think I've read it, too, but I must have thought it was a mistake by the author. A pretty audacious idea (and I'm glad that never happened).

 

[Grace Angel]

I know Mary would never have accepted it. What's interesting here is that Henry was quite concerned with the legitimacy of his heirs, yet he had Mary and Elizabeth both declared bastards after his marriages to their respective mothers didn't work out. That was of course after he had his son and heir and didn't need to worry about his daughters and the sucession. Also, Catholics could never accept Elizabeth as legitimate given that they thought Henry was never properly divorced from Catharine of Aragon. I believe Edward was always regarded as legitimate by everyone though since he was born after the deaths of both of his father's previous wives.

 

[Menarue]

That was the point, Henry declared his daughters bastards when he had a son or still had hopes of having a son. Mary was made to curtsy to her sister Elizabeth when all was going well with Henry and Anne and there was still the possibility she, Anne, could be the mother of the future King of England.
Henry wanted and needed a legitimate son, I think that underneath it all he wanted to forget how the Tudor´s came to the throne, and by looking to the future and imagining a long line of legitimate sons and descendants he could do this.

 

[Grace Angel]

He also wanted an legitimate heir for England and knew that was the only way his country as well as dynasty was secure. Edward was indeed the heir, but he died young after Henry's death and England ended up being the most secure under Elizabeth, a woman and also someone who in some people's eyes was not of legitimate birth. Interesting how history turns out- the two things Henry didn't want in an heir was a female heir of doubtful legitimacy ( in some quarters), yet that
's what saved England.

 

[iowabelle]

It is rather interesting that it was Elizabeth that turned out to be the successful daughter, rather than Mary. I would think that Elizabeth would have been more traumatized by her mother's fate, and she lacked the inspiration that Mary would have had from a more glorious genealogy.

Maybe it's Elizabeth's more pragmatic attitude that made her a successful queen? I think Mary's reign was probably doomed by the Spanish marriage, and her marital choices were limited by her close ties to the Roman Church.

 

[Grace Angel]

I think it simply came down to personality, actually. Elizabeth simply had a stronger personality more suited to ruling. Edward would have made a okay king, I'm sure, but Elizabeth was defintely the most qualified to rule England of Henry's children, given her personality. Mary was simply too rigid and had been through too much in her life to make her a good ruler.

 

[iowabelle]

I think you're right about Mary, Grace Angel. Rigid and traumatized sums up Mary. Poor Edward died too young to really be sure what he could have been.

 

[Menarue]

It is rather interesting that it was Elizabeth that turned out to be the successful daughter, rather than Mary. I would think that Elizabeth would have been more traumatized by her mother's fate. Church.

Perhaps she was too young to have it affect her that way. Naturally when she was old enough to learn what had happened she realised that anyone could be accused and executed and she spent a long time in fear that that would be her fate with a spell in the Tower to make it even more real to her.
What relief she must have felt when she finally found herself Queen, and a wonderful Queen she was too.
Edward, if I remember rightly had TB, so must have spent a lot of time being unwell, I believe he was very intelligent and studious but constantly ill.
We have to remember the wonderful education that Elizabeth had which for a girl was very unusual for those times. This must have been given her by her father so perhaps he realised her potential.

 

[Grace Angel]

Learning was regarded as important for upper class women in Henry VIII's England is my impression. Katharine Parr was also an influence on Elizabeth's education- she was somewhat intellectual and interested in religious questions. Mary was educated by her mother Catharine of Aragon, who followed the ideas of Juan Louis Vives a Spanish intellectual, so Mary wasn't badly educated at all, just not educated as well as Elizabeth.

 

[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.

 

[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"!)

 

[Warren]

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.

 

[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.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

It was Mary's son Henry Carey that was rumored to be Henry VIII's son he was said to look alot like the King but the King never claimed him she also had her daughter Cathreine Carey, she only had two other children from her second marriage Anne Stafford and a son Edward he only lived to about the age of 10 years old I believe. I read somewhere there was decendents of Mary boylen. I know she had grandchildren her grandson Lord Hunsdon got or claimed the Boylen family title of (Earl of Ormonde) but that was around 1597 or so i am not sure after that. I will have to look it up.

Wow I just read that Henry Carey and his wife Ann Mogan had 12 children and his sister Catherine had 15 it seems more and more likely that Mary Bolyen would have some decendents...

As a direct descendant of Mary Boleyn, I can tell you that we definitely exist!

There has been a lot of historical speculation regarding the paternity of Mary's children, Catherine and Henry. While it is true that Henry Carey was rumored to be the son of Henry VIII, and that he bore a striking resemblance to him, the fact that Henry VIII fathered Catherine Carey now seems to be finding its basis in the historical record.

The hand-written record of births recorded in a Latin dictionary owned by Sir Francis Knollys, seems to bear out the fact that Catherine Carey, his wife, was conceived during the time of Mary Boleyn's affair with the King.

It is true, that Henry VIII acknowledged neither of these children, but it must be pointed out that if he had, it would have been a situation that may have undermined his desire to marry Anne.

Besides, he had nothing to gain politically or otherwise by claiming the Carey children.

He did have a motive for advancing Henry FitzRoy, however, which was to put pressure on Catherine of Aragon. There was nothing she held more dear than her daughter, and Henry's elevation of his illegitimate son, would have at least made her believe in the possibility that Mary could be denied her rights to the succession. Unfortunately for Henry, his ploy failed. I doubt he ever seriously considered putting his illegitimate son on the throne, because his own dynasty had suffered under the suspicion of illegitimacy from the beginning.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Could you please provide a source for this statement? I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously considered arranging marriage between brother and sister in a 16th-century-Christian-kingdom

Personally, I cannot credit any source for the possibility of a marriage between Mary Tudor and Henry FitzRoy. I doubt it was ever considered, and certainly would not have taken place if Mary had any say in the matter. As the daughter and granddaughter of three powerful monarchs, she was well aware of her high position.

But in other European realms, the issue of what today is considered incestuous marriage was quite common. Philip II of Spain (Mary's widower) married his 4th and last wife, Anne of Austria, who also happened to be his niece.

In fact, the Spanish and Portugese Royal houses were notorious for these marriages. Not brothers and sisters, mind you, but incestuous all the same.

The only notable case of a brother-sister marriage I have found so far was that of John V of Armagnac, and he lived from 1420-1473. He married his sister, Isabelle, for which he claimed to have a dispensation from Pope Callixtus III. They had at least 3 surviving children, and John's dispensation turned out to be a forgery. His children were dis-inherited and declared bastards. He died without legitimate heirs.

 

[Lady Ann]

Wow, I find this so great thank you for all your infromaiton on this topic. I look forward to hearing more.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

It's unlikely but possible he has illegitimate descendents alive today. His bastard son Henry Fitzroy died as a teenager leaving no descendents, but it has been speculated that some of Mary Boleyn's kids might have been his- she was his mistress, although she was married. Anyone know of any descendents of her children? Henry had no other rumored illegitimate children, but he did have mistresses. Obviously, he never had another illegitimate son other than Fitzroy, or he would have acknowledged the child, one thinks, unless the paternity was uncertain.

Mary Boleyn's descendants:

Catherine Carey married Sir Francis Knollys of Rotherfield Greys, son of Sir Robert Knollys of Rotherfield and Lettice Pennystone.

Their children:
Henry Knollys (1541-1583)
Married Margaret Cave and had issue.
Mary Knollys (Oct 1542-?)
Lettice Knollys (Nov 1543-25 Dec 1634)
Married Walter Devereaux, Earl of Essex with issue. They were the parents of the Countess of Devonshire, the Countess of Northumberland and the 2nd Earl of Essex. Grandparents of the 2nd Earl of Warwick, 1st Earl of Holland, 1st Earl of Newport, Countess of Leicester, 10th Earl of Northumberland and Duchess of Somerset.
Married Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester with issue, one son named Robert Dudley, Baron Denbigh, whose legitimacy is questionable.
Married Sir Christopher Blount, no issue.
William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury (1545-25 May 1632)
Married Dorothy Braye, no issue.
Married Elizabeth Howard with issue (questionable legitimacy).
Edward Knollys (1546-1580)
Maude Knollys (1548-?)
Elizabeth Knollys (1549-?)
Married Sir Thomas Leighton of Feckenham, with issue.
Robert Knollys (Nov 1550-1625)
Married Joan Heigham, with issue.
Richard Knollys (1552-21 Aug 1596)
Married Catherine Vaughn, with issue.
Sir Francis Knollys II (14 Aug 1553-1643)
Married Lettice Barrett, with issue.
Anne Knollys, Lady de la Warr (19 Jul 1555-Sep/Dec 1608)
Married Thomas West, 2nd Baron de la Warr, with issue (13 children). One of their sons was Commandant of Jamestown (1612-1617), another was Crown Governor of Virginia. Their eldest surviving son became 3rd Baron de la Warr, who was the Governor of the Virginia Company of London. The State of Delaware is named for the 3rd Baron, and he was the ancestor of the Earls de la Warr.
Sir Thomas Knollys (1558-1596)
Married Lady Odelia de Morada, daughter of the Marquess of Bergen, with issue.
Catherine Knollys (21 Oct 1559-20 Dec 1620)
Married Gerald FitzGerald, Baron Offaly, with issue (1 daughter).
Married Sir Philip Butler of Watton Woodhall, issue unknown.
Dudley Warwick Knollys (9 May 1562-1562)

Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon, married Anne Morgan, daughter of Sir Thomas Morgan of Arkston and Anne Elizabeth Whitney.

Their children:
Philadelphia Carey, Lady Scrope of Bolton (d. 3 Feb 1626)
Married Thomas Scrope, 10th Baron Scrope of Bolton, with issue. Their son, Emmanuel Scrope, became the 1st Earl of Sunderland.
Thomas Carey died as infant.
William Carey died as infant.
Thomas Carey died as infant.
George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon (1547-9 Sep 1603)
Married Elizabeth Spencer, daughter of Sir John Spencer of Althorpe and Katherine Kitson, with issue. Elizabeth's sister was Countess of Dorset. Her nephew was the 1st Baron Spencer of Wormleighton, an ancestor of the Earls of Sunderland, the 3rd Duke of Marlborough and Lady Diana Spencer.
Catherine Carey, Countess of Nottingham (1550-25 Feb 1602)
Married Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham, with issue. One daughter was Countess of Kildare and another Countess of Carrick. They were also the parents of the 2nd Earl of Nottingham and Baron Howard of Effingham. One of their granddaughters was the Countess of Peterborough, another was Countess of Tyrconnell.
Sir Edmund Carey (1558-1637)
Married Mary Crocker, no issue.
Married Judith Humphrey, with issue.
Married Elizabeth Neville, issue unknown. She was the widow of John Danvers and daughter of the 4th Baron Latimer. Her sisters were Countess of Northumberland and Countess of Exeter.
Robert Carey, 1st Earl of Monmouth (1560-21 Apr 1639)
Married Elizabeth Trevannion, with issue. Elizabeth was Robert's 1st cousin, being the daughter of Hugh Trevannion and Sybilla Morgan. Sybilla was Anne Morgan's sister. They were parents to the 2nd Earl of Monmouth and ancestors of the 1st Earl of Monmouth, 2nd Creation (who also became 3rd Earl of Peterborough), the Viscounts Mordaunt of Avalon, and the Duchess of Gordon.
John Carey, 3rd Baron Hunsdon (1563-Apr 1617)
Married Mary Hyde, with issue.
Henry Carey
Mary Margaret Carey
Married Sir Edward Hoby, issue unknown.
****
Valentine Carey (illegitimate son), became Bishop of Exeter in 1621

And these are just the grandchildren! LOL.