@@GradKat it wasn't just that. An unfaithful queen could be dangerous as DNA tests didn't exist back then. Adultery could put another mans child on the throne causing civil wars and drive country into absolute Chaos that's why the punishments for disloyal queens were so harsh
Execution was the mandatory sentence for what was considered treason. Now it's life in prison. I bet Elizabeth II could have had Philip beheaded a few times before the sentence was changed.
Part of it. He has sores over his body, and stank. He had a leg wound that would not heal and he couldn’t manage it anymore, probably due to being obese and diabetic.
Where was her father? Henry Manox deserved punishment for abusing a minor girl. As for Henry Viii, he should have married some mature woman his age. Marrying a child and then beheading her for acting irresponsibly as a queen of a nation is horrific.
Her father was most likely abroad and she was the responsibility of women and not her father. I’m pretty sure by the time she was in danger with Henry her father was dead.
@@GradKat She did not commit any adultery or treason for she was a young girl groomed and manipulated by much older men. Those men excused their pedophilic behaviour, because she wasn't sheltered by a proper guardian. She was like 16 when she got married. She didn't know what she was doing nor she had many options to do something else. She did what normal teenagers do except that they don't get beheaded for it.
@@cindchan there are several sources on her words. She chose to include the one that was the most unreliable as it got almost ALL the details wrong. The Spanish Chronicle s content should be taken with a large shaker of salt. I suggest you check out the channel Reading The Past s video about Katherine, it deals with unreliable sources in a much coherent way.
You think? She was promoted to Henry by her Uncle the Duke of Norfolk. He was a catholic and they were out of favour with Henry. That poor child was a pawn in the game. Psychos, all of them!
The portrait depicting Katherine in the high collared dress is actually Elizabeth Cromwell, nee Seymour. Sister of Jane Seymour. And she is wearing widow's dress as she is in mourning for her first husband; she went on to marry Gregory Cromwell, the son of Thomas Cromwell, Henry Viii's chief minister. This portrait was misidentified a long time ago but more recently most historians have correctly identified it as Elizabeth.
That one picture of her she reminds me so much if scarlet Johansson. That’s why she’s great in Boleyn girl and girl with pearl earring.she has that look of royalty in the Tudor era. Imo
Let's get real. Henry was an unprincipled psycho, who had no right to even be king. His father usurped the throne with the help of his own stepfather, whose retainers surrounded King Richard on the battlefield and murdered him.
@@jamesmilton8765 there is no evidence Henry VII had mistresses unlike his son. They were very different people. Henry was spoilt rotten by his mother as he was meant to go to the church being the second son. There is also the whole head injury that may have had an impact on Henry. None of it excuses his behaviour. He tested his wife’s like shit.
What is difficult to understand, this is the second event of infidelity by a queen. After Anne's fall and execution, history repeats itself, and Katherine commits the same fatal errors. It was one thing for a naive Katherine, but Culpepper had already lived through the catastrophe of Anne's death, and had full knowledge of the fate of the accused men in the affair. More than this, it makes no sense whatsoever, that Culpepper would risk losing his life over desiring and physically taking Henry's queen and wife. That would be tantamount to insanely pursuing a suicidal death for yourself and your lover, Katherine. There are key components to this story that are still missing. After Anne, why was Katherine not watched like a hawk by all of her ladies in waiting, and fearful for the smallest of infractions to be also blamed upon them? Entire families could have been decimated for lack of diligence on their part to protect Henry's dignity. Why drag this out into the court of public opinion? Why not dispose of the main guilty actors by "coincidental" accident and disease? No need for a trial or embarrassment a second time. Why would Henry allow himself to be portrayed as the impotent and cuckold husband subjected to ridicule once again? There are more agendas and agents below the surface of this narrative than we have yet to know.
Yes, indeed. Those surrounding the King had planted the 'spoiled goods' on him, in order to be able to pull strings later. Wicked, cynical men were playing them both.
@@elizabethmcleod246 We will never know..I think the written history steers toward the possibility that King Henry was either impotent or infertile..which would have been quite a thorn in his subconscious, even if he didn't admit it consciously..its not surprising he was so brutal at any time he felt he may have been exposed..but all through history men have used the naivety of young ladies to convince them that sex is love and care..so there may have been a case of adultery without malicious intent..we won't ever know..but even if she did, I wouldn't blame her..her husband was a brute..
@@MickeyGee73 I suspect that Henry was perhaps more than a brute, and perhaps the evidence does support he actually had brain damage from his earlier injury. The mood swings, anger and also the too and fro changes of religious direction. It does seem strange such a powerful person - literally with the power of life or death over everyone, with no limit - was easily swayed by the courtiers he trusted. I think we forget that the families also had considerable power. The Howards and the Boleyns managed to keep afloat and in reasonable favour. The thing that returns again and again in Tudor England was religion. We had a largely uneducated populace - few could read and write, yet religion was in Latin only and controlled. Then out went the Pope, in came the Church of England, with Henry as it's absolute head - God's right hand man. The Pope was the elected individual, but Henry as King just took the control. For a while we had the direction where the content of the bible in English, was not for female consumption, then it swung back again. The people of the day were told what they could believe. Nowadays, we object to any state 'direction', back then, doing it wrong could get you labelled as a heretic and burned alive. This is why we cannot apply modern opinions to how it was back then. The threat of death from religion was an everyday concern. The more you read about Tudor history, the more fascinating it gets.
While I a well aware that these events happened during very different times, I can never understand how anyone can hate someone to the extent that they plan and facilitate their death. Catherine's uncle is too powerful, better exploit infidelity rumours so that she is disgraced and murdered by the heartless monster....Anne Boleyne: likewise.... I've disliked co- workers in my lifetime...I have never even tried to get them fired !! Can anyone say that they really wish that someone they know was DEAD ?! Yikes!!
A victim of noble greed and power, she was promoted to Henry by Norfolk, just as Lady Jane Grey was used by Northumberland after Henry and Edward VI were passed on.
It always makes me wonder why Henry would openly just keep getting rid of wives, I have always felt that Henry wasn’t making these decisions, he relied heavily on advisors so in a way, they had more power, Henry was the head, but they were the neck and they turn the head anyway they want! Just like the pope is the “Head” of the church but the Vatican is the neck! If the pope or Henry were truly the “Head” why weren’t they advising everyone else around them? Instead of vise versa 🤷🏼♀️
Can anyone else see the similarities between Henry VIII, Edward and Elizabeth in paintings? I wonder if they were very alike in real life or if the paintings were done by the same person and it’s just the way they painted eyes and lips?? 🤷🏼♀️
She did have a sexual relationship with Thomas Culpepper. She and he were caught by one of Henry's aides, it was also reported that his cousin (Jane Parker Boleyn, Former Lady Rochester) was her lookout while she engaged in a physical relationship with her lover. This is she too was executed at the Tower of London. It's said that Henry confronted her about how eager she was to testify to Anne's indiscretions but aided his new Queen in her infidelity. That was the first time Henry doubted Anne's guilt and showed regret for her demise. George Boleyn was seeking a divorce from his wife and when she was being questioned about her own sexual encounters she claimed Anne was also doing it and yet no one ever questioned her. It's no big secret that Jane was jealous of Anne and George's close relationship as brother and sister and that George was protective of his sister. So she too died for her role in Katherine's adultery. It is a shame that Katherine Howard met her end at such a young age. Though I think she enjoyed all the attention and presents Henry bestowed on her I think she felt obligated to marry him in spite of the fact that she didn't love him.
I always wondered why lady Rockford would encourage Katherine to be unfaithful after all she had seen at court that went horribly wrong? WTH did she get out of it ? The Tudors made it seem like she was just a bored voyeur ?
If that's true about Cranmer, having vengeful motives, well, he certainly got it, but things do have a way of coming back around! Ask Thomas Cromwell or the other Cromwell! History is a very great teacher, in spite of being oft repeated!
Poor used and abused girls and women. Even if some of them were at least narcissistic it was because of their upbringing, or in the blood. Raised to be used and abused. We are so fortunate today.
It is difficult to accept only some current standards are applied in the narration, yet others dismissed. There seems little dispute with the fact that she had a strange upbringing for someone of her status, considering England then was extremely class organised. She was promoted to be Queen by the Howard family desiring a return to Rome. We might find this distasteful now, but the Royal Houses have used marriage throughout history to change the route Royalty were taking. This video does not touch on the fact that for somebody to become Queen it is impossible they were unaware of the Kings previous marriages, and their outcomes. She took a risk - even if steered by Lady Rochford on the Howards behalf - but Lady Rochford herself was a member of the Boleyn line - so the risks Catherine was taking should have been obvious to all. The evidence supporting her as a victim seems very thin. Sexual abuse in the contemporary sense simply did not exist in Tudor England. Their morals and ethics were totally different. We view them as unacceptable, but in Tudor England, things were very different, and it is wrong to come to conclusions about character and intentions by using today's standards. Justice was undeveloped back then, and though the law was practiced and lawyers existed, anyone acused of a criminal offence had no right for a lawyer to act as defence council. You could have a lawyer for a civil offence, but if you were accused of murder, the jury listened to what was stated in court and made their decisions. The video has a good explanation of facts but the conclusion drifted into area that simply did not apply in the 1500's.
Errrm ... sexual abuse doesn't change based on semantics or "time". Those men knew what they were doing was wrong. That's just basic at any point in history. They also wanted virgin wives but set about sullying anything in a skirt they came into contact with. If it was acceptable, they'd not have done it in secret. Yes, she'd have been "aware" of some of what she was getting herself into, however, the damage to her psyche after continual grooming, as shown by psychology today, would have had an impact on her self-control, boundaries, and, even her ability to be fully aware of the danger she was in because her survival instinct will have been dampened and her maturity level affected. In addition - it is clear the young lady narrating was having a "fresh" look. This does not undo the fact that those men knew exactly what they were doing. The fact you're sticking up for them ... yeah ... the only word I can find is ... "eww". Nice of you to assume she's stupid and mansplain the 1500s to her though.
@@bunnymad5049 totally agree by today’s morals and standards but four hundred years ago it was totally different. They burned people alive, minor crimes with severe justice. It was a very different age and modern principals do not apply. None of us think like they did!
@@pauljohnson4590 I can assure you it is irrelevant how it was perceived, it still damaged the girls exactly the same amount as itdoes in 2021. You can argue sexual abuse was perceived very differently as obviously it was. What you can't claim is it didn't traumatize Howard to be abused by Maddox. If you look at her own words she was heavily affected by being molested as a preteen by her teacher. To say it didn't exist is like saying the misery felt by slaves didn't exist because slavery was the cultural norm.
@@kelseyj.c7828 That isn't what I said - but it seems popular to change the context of history to suit modern sensibilities. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm certainly not saying it was acceptable - but that is how it was in the 1500's. Their punishments of the day were pretty barbaric for trivial things - that's a fact, but Howard was used as a tool by her own family - she was intended to be a means to an end. We need to report historic events without changing the context they are seen in. It could perhaps be argued that she was in a very privileged position in society, and her level of suffering was drastically lower than the 'ordinary' people. I find it odd that in a time when the plague still wiped out whole families, and conditions for most people were truly dire that we feel sorry for her. She was married to a King with a pretty public record for dealing with his wives. Treason is a crime few ordinary people were accused of, so even though she was young, surely she should have been more careful?
@@pauljohnson4590 I didn't say I disputed that, i was responding to you saying sexual abuse didn't exist because of cultural norms, that makes no sense.
We have brought Anna von Kleve to life. In a 3D film and as an animated augmented reality model.ua-cam.com/video/ZmCxOIgMqnw/v-deo.html . We could do the same for Catherine Howard
Her current lover and one of her previous lovers were also executed. It was not sexism. She committed adultery-- she was married to the King of England!
Applying current morality and standards to the past are wrong. The age of consent was 12, and children - especially of there aristocracy - were often married off very early. Catherine WAS having an affair - she could not have been that naive after being at court for some years - Henry was a dangerous enemy. Silly girl, but no less worthy of sympathy.
Exactly. She was extremely silly but in fairness to her she had not been taught properly. She was so low down in her own family that attracting the attention of a king was far off. Living as a man and wife for her and Francis was common back then, especially for non royalty. However, yes, putting modern morality etc on things doesn’t work sadly although it is clear she as groomed. She was also groomed without any guidance which may have helped her when she became Henry’s wife.
I'm sorry but didn't her husband. Know she wasn't a virgin?? He had much experience with women. And did have 6 wives. If done right, there would be blood. And the same with his first wife. If she was a virgin or not.
Not all women will bleed the first time they have sex and I know this because I didn't while I had friends who did. Physical activities such as horseback riding has been explained that it can break a girl's hymen. As for his first wife, I've read various theories that Henry at that time was still inexperienced with women and since Katherine was religious he took her word that she never consumated her marriage with his brother prior to his death. In regards to Catherine Howard I can very easily see sheer fear and having no kind of physical attraction to Henry making a very unpleasant wedding night if he was capable at that point. Regardless these poor women had some disgusting choices made for them and while I can sympathize to an extent with the others Catherine Howard was fully aware of what Henry would be willing to do to his wives if they made a mockery of him. IE: having an affair that was false (Anne) or intending to follow through (Catherine).
How shallow of you. And how unaware that paintings and styles of paintings don't always give full details. In addition, all through history, ideas of what is and is not beautiful change. Aside from that - the poor girl was sexually abused from a young age by several males, married off to a tyrant a good 3 times her age and lost her head because: misogyny - and all you can say is that you don't think she was pretty?
Poor girl. She was used by just about every person in her short life.
Her step grandmother killed her by not protecting her!
her dad killed her by not protecting her and sending her off to live with her Step Grandmother. It is not even her blood relation.
Henry could, and should, have banished her to someplace. Executing her was a cowardly deed.
Henry was a coward.
He was the king and she humiliated him by her behaviour. By the standards of the day, he did what was expected of him.
@@GradKat “These hoes ain’t loyal.”- King Henry VIII.
@@GradKat it wasn't just that. An unfaithful queen could be dangerous as DNA tests didn't exist back then. Adultery could put another mans child on the throne causing civil wars and drive country into absolute Chaos that's why the punishments for disloyal queens were so harsh
Execution was the mandatory sentence for what was considered treason. Now it's life in prison. I bet Elizabeth II could have had Philip beheaded a few times before the sentence was changed.
This is so heartbreaking. Poor Catherine. You told her story with great eloquence and compassion.
Henry was jealous and couldn’t stand the idea that she wanted a man closer to her own age in her bed.
Part of it. He has sores over his body, and stank. He had a leg wound that would not heal and he couldn’t manage it anymore, probably due to being obese and diabetic.
I don’t blame her
@@cjpowers9330 and his brain was swiss cheese from syphilis
You read some very dubious history books. She hardly kept her behaviour a secret - five hundred years later we are still talking about it!
He was her husband; is it wrong for a husband to expect his wife to be faithful?
Where was her father? Henry Manox deserved punishment for abusing a minor girl. As for Henry Viii, he should have married some mature woman his age. Marrying a child and then beheading her for acting irresponsibly as a queen of a nation is horrific.
Her father was most likely abroad and she was the responsibility of women and not her father.
I’m pretty sure by the time she was in danger with Henry her father was dead.
Reason for death ... misogyny.
No, adultery and treason.
@@GradKat She did not commit any adultery or treason for she was a young girl groomed and manipulated by much older men. Those men excused their pedophilic behaviour, because she wasn't sheltered by a proper guardian. She was like 16 when she got married. She didn't know what she was doing nor she had many options to do something else. She did what normal teenagers do except that they don't get beheaded for it.
Catherine never said that thing about being the wife of Culpepper. Check your sources.
She said it was rumored. She didn't say that's what the Queen actually said.
@@cindchan there are several sources on her words. She chose to include the one that was the most unreliable as it got almost ALL the details wrong. The Spanish Chronicle s content should be taken with a large shaker of salt. I suggest you check out the channel Reading The Past s video about Katherine, it deals with unreliable sources in a much coherent way.
Henry's advisors must have known her background. I think they used her to manipulate the king.
You think? She was promoted to Henry by her Uncle the Duke of Norfolk. He was a catholic and they were out of favour with Henry. That poor child was a pawn in the game. Psychos, all of them!
would not be surprised!
The portrait depicting Katherine in the high collared dress is actually Elizabeth Cromwell, nee Seymour. Sister of Jane Seymour. And she is wearing widow's dress as she is in mourning for her first husband; she went on to marry Gregory Cromwell, the son of Thomas Cromwell, Henry Viii's
chief minister. This portrait was misidentified a long time ago but more recently most historians have correctly identified it as Elizabeth.
I don’t know why people are still showing the portrait of Elizabeth Cromwell as belonging to Catherine Howard. The portrait is not a young girl
That one picture of her she reminds me so much if scarlet Johansson. That’s why she’s great in Boleyn girl and girl with pearl earring.she has that look of royalty in the Tudor era. Imo
Of*
Henry had no heart if he was willing to kill a teenager literally for being a normal freaking teenager 😑
Exactly. He should have just divorced her.
They didn’t have “teenagers” in the sixteenth century. You were a child or an adult.
Let's get real. Henry was an unprincipled psycho, who had no right to even be king. His father usurped the throne with the help of his own stepfather, whose retainers surrounded King Richard on the battlefield and murdered him.
She wasn't a normal teenager, She was the Queen of England who just happened to be a teenager.
@@jamesmilton8765 there is no evidence Henry VII had mistresses unlike his son.
They were very different people.
Henry was spoilt rotten by his mother as he was meant to go to the church being the second son.
There is also the whole head injury that may have had an impact on Henry.
None of it excuses his behaviour. He tested his wife’s like shit.
What is difficult to understand, this is the second event of infidelity by a queen. After Anne's fall and execution, history repeats itself, and Katherine commits the same fatal errors.
It was one thing for a naive Katherine, but Culpepper had already lived through the catastrophe of Anne's death, and had full knowledge of the fate of the accused men in the affair.
More than this, it makes no sense whatsoever, that Culpepper would risk losing his life over desiring and physically taking Henry's queen and wife.
That would be tantamount to insanely pursuing a suicidal death for yourself and your lover, Katherine.
There are key components to this story that are still missing.
After Anne, why was Katherine not watched like a hawk by all of her ladies in waiting, and fearful for the smallest of infractions to be also blamed upon them?
Entire families could have been decimated for lack of diligence on their part to protect Henry's dignity.
Why drag this out into the court of public opinion? Why not dispose of the main guilty actors by "coincidental" accident and disease? No need for a trial or embarrassment a second time.
Why would Henry allow himself to be portrayed as the impotent and cuckold husband subjected to ridicule once again?
There are more agendas and agents below the surface of this narrative than we have yet to know.
Henry's insecure pride steered him to cut off his nose to spite his face..
Yes, indeed. Those surrounding the King had planted the 'spoiled goods' on him, in order to be able to pull strings later. Wicked, cynical men were playing them both.
Anne did not commit adultery!
@@elizabethmcleod246 We will never know..I think the written history steers toward the possibility that King Henry was either impotent or infertile..which would have been quite a thorn in his subconscious, even if he didn't admit it consciously..its not surprising he was so brutal at any time he felt he may have been exposed..but all through history men have used the naivety of young ladies to convince them that sex is love and care..so there may have been a case of adultery without malicious intent..we won't ever know..but even if she did, I wouldn't blame her..her husband was a brute..
@@MickeyGee73 I suspect that Henry was perhaps more than a brute, and perhaps the evidence does support he actually had brain damage from his earlier injury. The mood swings, anger and also the too and fro changes of religious direction. It does seem strange such a powerful person - literally with the power of life or death over everyone, with no limit - was easily swayed by the courtiers he trusted. I think we forget that the families also had considerable power. The Howards and the Boleyns managed to keep afloat and in reasonable favour. The thing that returns again and again in Tudor England was religion. We had a largely uneducated populace - few could read and write, yet religion was in Latin only and controlled. Then out went the Pope, in came the Church of England, with Henry as it's absolute head - God's right hand man. The Pope was the elected individual, but Henry as King just took the control. For a while we had the direction where the content of the bible in English, was not for female consumption, then it swung back again. The people of the day were told what they could believe. Nowadays, we object to any state 'direction', back then, doing it wrong could get you labelled as a heretic and burned alive. This is why we cannot apply modern opinions to how it was back then. The threat of death from religion was an everyday concern. The more you read about Tudor history, the more fascinating it gets.
LOL under her picture it says henry was ... "ill and fat"🤪😂 idk why thats cracking me up
While I a well aware that these events happened during very different times, I can never understand how anyone can hate someone to the extent that they plan and facilitate their death. Catherine's uncle is too powerful, better exploit infidelity rumours so that she is disgraced and murdered by the heartless monster....Anne Boleyne: likewise....
I've disliked co- workers in my lifetime...I have never even tried to get them fired !! Can anyone say that they really wish that someone they know was DEAD ?! Yikes!!
Thanks!
Thank you kindly! I'm glad you are enjoying the content!
Proof that Henry was a cruel pig spoiled to the inth degree
👸Such a tragic life...
Interesting, thank you👍😉
Well, I’m saying a prayer that Queen Katherine is in Heaven.
A victim of noble greed and power, she was promoted to Henry by Norfolk, just as Lady Jane Grey was used by Northumberland after Henry and Edward VI were passed on.
It always makes me wonder why Henry would openly just keep getting rid of wives, I have always felt that Henry wasn’t making these decisions, he relied heavily on advisors so in a way, they had more power, Henry was the head, but they were the neck and they turn the head anyway they want! Just like the pope is the “Head” of the church but the Vatican is the neck! If the pope or Henry were truly the “Head” why weren’t they advising everyone else around them? Instead of vise versa 🤷🏼♀️
Can anyone else see the similarities between Henry VIII, Edward and Elizabeth in paintings? I wonder if they were very alike in real life or if the paintings were done by the same person and it’s just the way they painted eyes and lips?? 🤷🏼♀️
Why would Henry's son and daughter NOT bear some resemblance to him?
@@jamesmilton8765 yes I know that but people always wonder if painters of the past paint people in a true likeness
@@kasie680 OK. Thanks for responding.
Henry. Should have been put in jail he was a child molester. He was a old man married to a child I don’t believe he is in heaven
Poor young lady
She did have a sexual relationship with Thomas Culpepper. She and he were caught by one of Henry's aides, it was also reported that his cousin (Jane Parker Boleyn, Former Lady Rochester) was her lookout while she engaged in a physical relationship with her lover. This is she too was executed at the Tower of London. It's said that Henry confronted her about how eager she was to testify to Anne's indiscretions but aided his new Queen in her infidelity. That was the first time Henry doubted Anne's guilt and showed regret for her demise. George Boleyn was seeking a divorce from his wife and when she was being questioned about her own sexual encounters she claimed Anne was also doing it and yet no one ever questioned her. It's no big secret that Jane was jealous of Anne and George's close relationship as brother and sister and that George was protective of his sister. So she too died for her role in Katherine's adultery.
It is a shame that Katherine Howard met her end at such a young age. Though I think she enjoyed all the attention and presents Henry bestowed on her I think she felt obligated to marry him in spite of the fact that she didn't love him.
How Catherine Howard dies? Uh, separation of head from body?
I always wondered why lady Rockford would encourage Katherine to be unfaithful after all she had seen at court that went horribly wrong? WTH did she get out of it ? The Tudors made it seem like she was just a bored voyeur ?
The cause of her death was being married to that horses ass Henry VIII.
She choked on a Culpepper.
Lol 😂
If that's true about Cranmer, having vengeful motives, well, he certainly got it, but things do have a way of coming back around! Ask Thomas Cromwell or the other Cromwell! History is a very great teacher, in spite of being oft repeated!
Poor used and abused girls and women. Even if some of them were at least narcissistic it was because of their upbringing, or in the blood. Raised to be used and abused. We are so fortunate today.
Thank you.
Henry and Howard
Had a marriage that soured
Becoming queen
While still a queen
She soon found herself Culpeper powered
Yes! Thank you very much!
It is difficult to accept only some current standards are applied in the narration, yet others dismissed. There seems little dispute with the fact that she had a strange upbringing for someone of her status, considering England then was extremely class organised. She was promoted to be Queen by the Howard family desiring a return to Rome. We might find this distasteful now, but the Royal Houses have used marriage throughout history to change the route Royalty were taking. This video does not touch on the fact that for somebody to become Queen it is impossible they were unaware of the Kings previous marriages, and their outcomes. She took a risk - even if steered by Lady Rochford on the Howards behalf - but Lady Rochford herself was a member of the Boleyn line - so the risks Catherine was taking should have been obvious to all. The evidence supporting her as a victim seems very thin. Sexual abuse in the contemporary sense simply did not exist in Tudor England. Their morals and ethics were totally different. We view them as unacceptable, but in Tudor England, things were very different, and it is wrong to come to conclusions about character and intentions by using today's standards. Justice was undeveloped back then, and though the law was practiced and lawyers existed, anyone acused of a criminal offence had no right for a lawyer to act as defence council. You could have a lawyer for a civil offence, but if you were accused of murder, the jury listened to what was stated in court and made their decisions. The video has a good explanation of facts but the conclusion drifted into area that simply did not apply in the 1500's.
Errrm ... sexual abuse doesn't change based on semantics or "time". Those men knew what they were doing was wrong. That's just basic at any point in history. They also wanted virgin wives but set about sullying anything in a skirt they came into contact with. If it was acceptable, they'd not have done it in secret. Yes, she'd have been "aware" of some of what she was getting herself into, however, the damage to her psyche after continual grooming, as shown by psychology today, would have had an impact on her self-control, boundaries, and, even her ability to be fully aware of the danger she was in because her survival instinct will have been dampened and her maturity level affected. In addition - it is clear the young lady narrating was having a "fresh" look. This does not undo the fact that those men knew exactly what they were doing. The fact you're sticking up for them ... yeah ... the only word I can find is ... "eww". Nice of you to assume she's stupid and mansplain the 1500s to her though.
@@bunnymad5049 totally agree by today’s morals and standards but four hundred years ago it was totally different. They burned people alive, minor crimes with severe justice. It was a very different age and modern principals do not apply. None of us think like they did!
@@pauljohnson4590 I can assure you it is irrelevant how it was perceived, it still damaged the girls exactly the same amount as itdoes in 2021. You can argue sexual abuse was perceived very differently as obviously it was. What you can't claim is it didn't traumatize Howard to be abused by Maddox. If you look at her own words she was heavily affected by being molested as a preteen by her teacher. To say it didn't exist is like saying the misery felt by slaves didn't exist because slavery was the cultural norm.
@@kelseyj.c7828 That isn't what I said - but it seems popular to change the context of history to suit modern sensibilities. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm certainly not saying it was acceptable - but that is how it was in the 1500's. Their punishments of the day were pretty barbaric for trivial things - that's a fact, but Howard was used as a tool by her own family - she was intended to be a means to an end. We need to report historic events without changing the context they are seen in. It could perhaps be argued that she was in a very privileged position in society, and her level of suffering was drastically lower than the 'ordinary' people. I find it odd that in a time when the plague still wiped out whole families, and conditions for most people were truly dire that we feel sorry for her. She was married to a King with a pretty public record for dealing with his wives. Treason is a crime few ordinary people were accused of, so even though she was young, surely she should have been more careful?
@@pauljohnson4590 I didn't say I disputed that, i was responding to you saying sexual abuse didn't exist because of cultural norms, that makes no sense.
She did live such a short sad life poor girl
REALLY bad "Title" for this video. Content good, title bad.
This girl was molested by every man around her. It is sad what happened to her.
Her step grandmother did not protect her. She basically sent Catherine to her death
I wasn't aware of the lye this story is so sad.
We have brought Anna von Kleve to life. In a 3D film and as an animated augmented reality model.ua-cam.com/video/ZmCxOIgMqnw/v-deo.html . We could do the same for Catherine Howard
What do you THINK was the cause of her death?!!
so she died from sexism
💯
Her current lover and one of her previous lovers were also executed. It was not sexism. She committed adultery-- she was married to the King of England!
Applying current morality and standards to the past are wrong. The age of consent was 12, and children - especially of there aristocracy - were often married off very early. Catherine WAS having an affair - she could not have been that naive after being at court for some years - Henry was a dangerous enemy. Silly girl, but no less worthy of sympathy.
Exactly. She was extremely silly but in fairness to her she had not been taught properly. She was so low down in her own family that attracting the attention of a king was far off. Living as a man and wife for her and Francis was common back then, especially for non royalty.
However, yes, putting modern morality etc on things doesn’t work sadly although it is clear she as groomed. She was also groomed without any guidance which may have helped her when she became Henry’s wife.
I'm sorry but didn't her husband. Know she wasn't a virgin?? He had much experience with women. And did have 6 wives. If done right, there would be blood. And the same with his first wife. If she was a virgin or not.
There is some speculation that Henry was impotent at this point, due to health issues. Scholars doubt they slept together.
Not all women will bleed the first time they have sex and I know this because I didn't while I had friends who did. Physical activities such as horseback riding has been explained that it can break a girl's hymen. As for his first wife, I've read various theories that Henry at that time was still inexperienced with women and since Katherine was religious he took her word that she never consumated her marriage with his brother prior to his death. In regards to Catherine Howard I can very easily see sheer fear and having no kind of physical attraction to Henry making a very unpleasant wedding night if he was capable at that point. Regardless these poor women had some disgusting choices made for them and while I can sympathize to an extent with the others Catherine Howard was fully aware of what Henry would be willing to do to his wives if they made a mockery of him. IE: having an affair that was false (Anne) or intending to follow through (Catherine).
Sorry but I do not think she was pretty. I think that tje royals are all over rated except for Kate..she is beautiful and little Charlotte is too.
How shallow of you. And how unaware that paintings and styles of paintings don't always give full details. In addition, all through history, ideas of what is and is not beautiful change. Aside from that - the poor girl was sexually abused from a young age by several males, married off to a tyrant a good 3 times her age and lost her head because: misogyny - and all you can say is that you don't think she was pretty?
@@bunnymad5049 thank you! 👏👏
Such an incredible tragedy. 🤍