Thursday, December 16, 2010

On This Day in Tudor History

On December 16, 1485, Katherine of Aragon was born near Madrid, Spain.

Although I am an acknowledged fan of Katherine's nemesis, Anne Boleyn, I fondly view Katherine of Aragon as the matriarch of the Tudor Era. She certainly came to represent the first fully-educated female royal consort of the time and was, in her way, a true Renaissance woman. She would prove a ruthless regent in a time of war and, in my opinion, be Henry VIII's most formidable foe.

The youngest surviving child of King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile, Katherine was quite short in stature with long, golden, auburn hair, wide blue eyes, a round face, and a fair complexion. She was descended, on her maternal side, from the English royal houses of John of Gaunt and Edward III.

At an early age, she was considered a suitable wife for Arthur, Prince of Wales, the eldest son of Henry VII of England and heir to the throne, due to her overwhelmingly prominent English ancestry inherited from her mother Queen Isabella I of Castile.

The couple met on November 4, 1501, at Dogmersfield in Hampshire and ten days later, they were married at St. Paul's Cathedral. A few months later, they both became ill, and Arthur died on April 2, 1502. Katherine recovered to find herself a widow.

Not wanting to return her dowry to her father, it was agreed she would marry Henry VII's second son, Henry, Duke of York, who was five years younger than she was. However, the death of her mother meant that Katherine's 'value' in the marriage market decreased and Henry VII kept procrastinating. She lived as a virtual prisoner at Durham House in London.

In order to marry Henry, Duke of York, they needed a dispensation from the pope. To obtain this, Katherine testified her marriage to Arthur was never consummated. This would later become the keystone in her fight to keep Henry from divorcing her to marry Anne Boleyn.

Katherine's second wedding took place on 11 June 1509, seven years after Prince Arthur's death, at Greenwich Church. She was 23 years of age. The new Henry VIII was just days short of his 18th birthday. They would be crowned together Sunday, June 24, 1509, by the Archbishop of Canterbury at a lavish ceremony at Westminster Abbey.

Of Katherine's six pregnancies, only Mary I, would live to adulthood to rule England.

After an (approximately) seven year battle to hold on to her marriage and remain Queen of England, Henry VIII had Archbishop Cranmer declare their union null and void and his marriage to Anne Boleyn valid. Katherine's daughter Mary was declared a bastard and removed from the succession.

Katherine died at Kimbolton Castle, on January 7, 1536, estranged from her husband and daughter. According to the chronicler Edward Hall, Anne Boleyn wore yellow for the mourning, which has been interpreted in various ways; Polydore Vergil interpreted this as an insult and celebration of her death. However, Imperial Ambassador Eustace Chapuys reported that it was actually King Henry who decked himself in yellow, celebrating the news and making a great show of his and Anne's daughter, Elizabeth, to his courtiers. This was seen as distasteful and vulgar.

Rumors circulated that Katherine had been poisoned, as Anne had threatened to murder both Katherine and Mary on several occasions. The rumors were born after the discovery of a black growth on Katherine's heart during her embalming. Modern medical experts are in agreement that this was likely to have been cancer, something which was not understood at the time.

On the day of Katherine's funeral, Anne Boleyn miscarried the son that probably would have been her savior, as Henry was already courting Jane Seymour and tired of Anne.

Katherine was buried in Peterborough Cathedral with the ceremony due to a Dowager Princess of Wales, not a queen. Henry did not attend the funeral and refused to allow Mary to attend.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

The Tudor Podcast

I am thrilled to announce a new dimension to The Tudor Blog: The Tudor Podcast!

For so long now I have been looking at ways to set my blog apart from the other Tudor Blogs I so admire, like The Anne Boleyn Files. Claire does such a wonderful job on her blog and is so much more prolific than I am that I'm just trying to find a way to beef-up The Tudor Blog a bit!

There is another reason for the development of The Tudor Podcast: I am developing a podcast for my day job and this is the perfect way to research, practice, and perfect my podcasting techniques. I get to do all of this practice utilizing topics about which I am passionate and always interested.

As I am just embarking on this project, I'm not yet sure what the topic of me first podcast will be. But I will check my 16th century calendar (yes, I have one and I am developing it for this site too!) and choose a timely topic or subject.

I am VERY interested to know what you think and whether you are interested in a podcast on Tudor topics? Feel free to leave a comment and as always, thanks for visiting The Tudor Blog.

-k

Friday, December 10, 2010

On This Day in Tudor History

On December 10, 1541, Sir Thomas Culpeper and Francis Dereham were executed at Tyburn for their sexual relationships with Queen Catherine Howard.

Dereham was a courtier, who had an affair with the very young Catherine Howard until she was made lady-in-waiting to Henry's fourth wife Anne of Cleves. After Catherine's marriage to the King, Dereham was made a secretary at Hampton Court, an appointment possibly engineered to silence him about Catherine's previous indiscretions.

Culpeper was reportedly exceedingly attractive. He was described as 'a beautiful youth' and he was a great favorite of the King's, which placed him in Catherine's life after she became queen consort.

Culpeper was most likely using the affair and her feelings for him as leverage to gain power and control over the queen herself. Catherine, for her part, was deeply in love.

When her past relationship with Dereham was brought to the attention of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, he reported it to the King in a letter, provoking an investigation which resulted in the arrests of Dereham, Thomas Culpeper and Queen Catherine herself.

Under interrogation, Dereham admitted a pre-marital relationship with Catherine, but claimed that they were never intimate after Catherine's marriage to the King and that he had been supplanted in her affections by Culpeper.

Dereham was given a traitor's death of being hanged, drawn, and quartered. Culpeper's sentence was commuted to beheading.

Queen Catherine Howard and Lady Jane Rochford were both subsequently executed on February 13, 1542.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

On This Day in Tudor History

On December 8, 1542, Mary Stuart was born at Linlithgow Palace, Linlithgow, Scotland to King James V of Scotland and his French second wife, Mary of Guise.
Six days later, her father would die, leaving her to rule Scotland. Mary's rule was a tumultuous one and would pass to her son through her abdication before she was finally sentenced to death by her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Bravo to the Rarely-Staged Henry VIII

My excitement and anticipation of seeing a production of Shakespeare's Henry VIII could easily have undermined my enjoyment of the actual play. Thankfully, the cast and crew at the Folger Theatre made that an impossibility.

I went to Southeast DC an hour early to peruse the Vivat Rex! exhibit at the Folger Shakespeare Library. This, I can report, was slightly disappointing after touring London and Kent last year. There were a few interesting pieces on display, but it was very small and limited and there was nothing as wonderful as what I saw at Hever, NPG, and Hampton Court Palace.

The play itself was staged in a very small, intimate room designed to (sort of) mimic the interior of Shakespeare's Globe. What set this apart from many of the plays I've seen was the stage design. It was so simple and yet so dramatic. Multiple metal screens with cut-outs, positioned in a zig-zag pattern along the sides of the stage, acted as halls of Tudor palaces, London alleys, prayer closets, and even the wings from which Henry would be haunted by those who he killed or let die.

The hanging, round chandelier doubled as a second stage above the primary action. The actors used the entire room and would walk through the audience or were staged among us to witness (such as the scene of Katherine and Henry's divorce hearing at Blackfriars').

The actors were wonderful and brought more emotion to Shakespeare's words than any I've seen before. Anthony Cochrane as Wolsey was excellent and Ian Merrill Peakes was a charismatic and attractive Henry VIII. Naomi Jacobson's changing accent was slightly distracting in her Queen Katherine. She seemed to teeter between English and Irish in an attempt to sound Spanish.

Although she had few lines, I loved Karen Peakes (Ian's real-life wife) as Anne Boleyn. Let's face it, in my mind she had huge shoes to fill. Peakes brought the perfect look and grace to Anne. She is now firmly the second best Anne I've ever seen, after Natalie Dormer.

The actor who stole the show was Louis Butelli as Henry's fool, Will Sommers. The director, Robert Richmond, chose Sommers as the portal through which the story would be told, he portrayed multiple characters, and brought out all of the humor Shakespeare is so famous for weaving through his plays. Every time he stepped out on stage, I knew something funny and interesting was about to happen.

Finally, I wanted to give props to Donna Langham Studio on the lovely costuming and Rodney Gordon, Ltd. for the well done millinery.

Thrilled and Excited!

It figures that I would pick a time and place other than 21st century America with which to be obsessed!

For the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII taking the throne, I spent two weeks exploring London and Kent and had the time of my life!

Because it is such a major undertaking for me to really explore Tudor England by visiting the places which intrigue me most, I am THRILLED when an exhibit opens in the US that allows me to partake in my passion for all things Tudor. And that is just what has come to the Folger Shakespeare Library.

The Library has brought the exhibit Vivat Rex! to Washington, DC in celebration of the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII's accession to the throne. This is the exhibit by the Grolier Club in NYC last year. (Ok, so we're a year late - who cares!?)

In addition, the Folger is running the Shakespeare play "Henry VIII" until November 28th. I am beyond excited to have tickets to the play today!!! It has garnered excellent reviews and I expect to be awed. Although the play closes soon, the Vivat Rex! exhibition runs until December 30th.
For tickets or more information, visit the Folger website.

I will promptly review the play and exhibition when I return home!

Friday, November 26, 2010

Pick a View and Stick to it!

As any full-time or amateur historian will tell you, pinpointing the dates of events in Tudor history is a very frustrating proposition.

Besides the fact that we are missing simple information, like birth dates for many--especially women--born between 1480 and 1603, a great deal of information has been lost over the centuries to fires and other disasters. This is not even to mention the many during the reign of Elizabeth I (and later Victorians) who tried to vindicate those beloved by their sovereign or create history where they found none.

As I read Alison Weir's latest, The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn, I am frustrated by the amount of speculation required to piece together events. To a degree, I suppose that historians are happy that there are such holes in story's fabric, as new speculations sell books.

I avoided this book at first, as other reviewers pointed out what I have now read for myself: Weir's conclusion is that Anne Boleyn--while perhaps not guilty of the laundry list of offenses on which she was indicted--was guilty of something, and thus made her own bed.

What was not stated by reviewers was that a chapter or two later, Weir writes the sentence, "In a word, Anne Boleyn was framed."

This is where I begin to be angry and confused by Tudor historians. I may not agree with your theory, but I can only respect it if you choose one and stick with it!
I am not a fan of those who publicize one stance to get me to buy a book, but then hedge their bets.

I have already decided to go back and read those chapters again. Perhaps it's me and I misunderstood her meaning.

It's funny, I knew I wouldn't like this book--but was way of on the reason why.