Did Catherine Howard Really Commit Adultery?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 лис 2024
- Was Henry VIII’s young queen really guilty of adultery, or was her fate sealed by mere suspicions and intent?
Catherine Howard’s tragic story is often overshadowed by tales of infidelity and scandal, but the truth may be far more complex.
In this video, we’ll dive into the evidence surrounding her alleged affair with Thomas Culpeper, explore her meetings with him, and examine what the act of attainder actually claimed.
Join the discussion to share your thoughts on this infamous Tudor mystery!
#TudorHistory #CatherineHoward #HenryVIII #TreasonOrTruth #HistoricalMysteries #JaneBoleyn
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @anneboleynfiles
Subscribe to my channel at / @anneboleynfiles so you don't miss my latest videos!
Visit linktr.ee/claireridgway to find resources, events, social media links and more.
You can find my books on Amazon at viewauthor.at/c...
Catherine Howard was very young about nineteen years old and as I remember she had met Culpepper before she was married to Henry. I think they fell for each other and like any young couple looked forward to spending time together. Maybe they did just chat and hold hands. But being young I believe they thought they were invincible and that nothing bad could happen to them. Very sad ending for Catherine.
You are thinking of Dereham she knew in the countess house hold
Yes, I think they felt they were invincible too.
@RhosynGwyn, no, Catherine and Culpeper had been involved when she first came to court and then Culpeper had broken it off.
Sorry, but unless she was slow, I find this difficult to believe. You are thinking with a 21st century mindset.
One Historical fiction I read had it they were betrothed but when Henry decided he wanted her the betrothal was broken. True, possibly, but more than likely good fiction. A similar story was said about Catherine Parr and Thomas Seymour. The story went Henry decided he wanted her and sent Thomas Seymour away from court.
Her guardian wasn’t taking good care of her when she was a child either.
I remember reading once that, as you note, we will never know if Kathryn and Culpepper committed adultery, but in any case everyone involved, including Lady Rochester acted like complete idiots. Having secret meetings with no real chaperone. Heck, after the warning of Anne Boleyn's fate even contemplating expressing affection for another man were practically tempting fate. I don't blame Kathryn, she was young and married to an old man that she probably would never have picked and Culpepper was hot and available. It was a real tragedy that Henry fell for such a young girl, one who didn't know how to navigate the real dangers of being married to Henry, a man who killed those who disappointed him.
Culpepper had been a royal servant for years, so he should have known about not touching The Queen.
Yes, they were all incredibly foolish.
i love all your videos :) i'm always so happy when you upload. thank you for the fresh perspective on history!!!
Kinda weird that he probably could've had any single woman in court but chose Catherine.
Temptation of forbidden fruit 🍎
Yes, he was obviously very attracted to her.
If Henry wanted to get a woman into bed, he didn't even need to marry her. But if he wanted someone that he could execute without getting any real kickback, that narrows his choice.
The foreign ambassadors admired her greatly, so he was not alone in finding her attractive. One said that she was graceful rather than beautiful, but her vivacity and energy were unmatched by the other court ladies. She was young, so I'm sure Henry thought her fertile, and of good family. He was intoxicated by her. It recalled the early days of his infatuation with Anne Boleyn; some thought he was more infatuated with Catherine than he had been with Anne. (As with Anne, because he was enchanted with Catherine, he just assumed she would become pregnant.)
She must have been incredibly stupid if she did, because she knew what happened to her cousin Anne a few years earlier, but love often makes us do very foolish things, especially when we are young, and maybe Katherine thought that it was a risk worth taking? As for Culpeper, he was a favourite of Henry, to the extent that he raped a poor peasant Woman and murdered her husband and Henry basically let him get away with it. Perhaps Culpeper thought that Henry's devotion to him would extend to allowing him to have sex with his young Queen? As for Lady Rochford, what on earth was she thinking? She had already seen her husband and sister-in-law beheaded (George and Anne Boleyn) for similar accusations. Why on earth would she risk Henry's legendary wrath by conspiring with Katherine and Culpeper in this way? Frankly, everyone involved in this tragedy seem to have taken leave of their senses.......almost like a collective form of madness.
Something in there water or wine 🍷 🤔
@@lisalking2476I wonder if Lady Rochford was taking revenge for the death of Anne Boleyn and her husband by helping Catherine Howard cheat on Henry VIII? I know she wasn’t supposed to have liked either her husband or Anne but their deaths destroyed her life? She became the widow of a traitor who was sad to have committed incest and she testified against her husband.
In case anyone is wondering the US Constitution forbids Bills of Attainder. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 reads "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Amen. Thank our Founding Fathers for thier foresight and for all the other legal protections in theConstituion. 🇺🇸
That was a good call. Although I have a very negative opinion of the "founding fathers" of the US, I think they were conmen and traitors to their lawful King, that was a good call.
They were coming out of all this bloodshed over nothing.
@@prarieborn6458 We're going to need to memorize those rights.
I was wondering about that. Thank you for the info on the US Constitution.
I very much enjoy this education about the Tudors. My ancestry line (as many of ours do) leads straight through the Boleyns. It's intriguing to recognize the names in the circles that surround the court as those in my lineage. It increases connectedness and empathy for these women. There were dynamics at play that would be unheard of now and yet then directed favor, life, and death.
I feel sorry for Catherine. What she did before marriage was not against the King. Norfolk pushed this marriage, Catherine didn't have a choice. The poor men died for nothing. I feel this was contrived against her.
I doubt Katherine's uncle pushed for this marriage. The Howard family, who knew of Catherine's affairs of the heart before her marriage, would not have endangered themselves by doing so. I think Henry had become infatuated with Catherine before her family knew what was happening. They must have been on tenterhooks, waiting for the other shoe to drop, and hoping that it wouldn't.
The Duke of Norfolk didn't push Catherine towards the king. He just brought her to court with a whole bunch of other Howard-connected girls to be maids of honor for the new Queen Anna of Cleves, who they all expected to last a good deal longer than she did. King Henry spotted Catherine and began paying her court, turning his back on his new wife. Once he did this, Norfolk was happy to let Catherine improve his influence with the king, but if the Howards were going to promote a girl as queen, it wouldn't have been Catherine. As for Dereham and Culpepper, they both strike me as pushy creeps. Dereham especially should have had the good sense to stay far away from Queen Catherine like Henry Mannox did, but no, he had to try and get a place in her household and then he ran his mouth in front of other gentlemen ushers. Culpepper had to know that he was playing with fire.
I don't believe that Thomas Howard pushed for this marriage at all. I think it was a huge risk for the Howards.
Norfolk never pushed for the marriage. He also never pushed Anne to become Henry's mistress. He was already incredibly powerful before either of them married Henry and was against his relationship with Anne initially
@@lepakshijaideep222 Right. Anne Boleyn might have been his sister's daughter, but the Boleyn family with their "New Learning" was a rival faction at court. The Duke was a 3rd generation duke, not an upstart viscount or a newly crated earl. Catherine may have been his younger brother's daughter, but the Duke had daughters and granddaughters of his own to promote. He thought that both girls had benefitted from their connection to him. He never felt that either of his nieces showed him the gratitude, respect or deference to which he felt he was entitled. He was willing to accept the advantages of their rise, but he was more than happy to step out of the way and let them fall.
Being charged was all it took, Henry VIII never really cared about true guilt or innocence.
Culpepper admitted that they talked about committing treason, which was in itself treason. They were guilty. Even today, if you're caught plotting treason, your goose is cooked. It doesn't matter whether you actually do anything.
My favorite game of "what if" concerning Catherine Howard was what if she had told the King earlier on that she was not pure as she was being made out to be by the men who would have benefitted from her marrying Henry. He would have been furious and kicked her to the curb, but it could have saved her life.
I don't know if the timeline pans out but I always thought Katherine taking Francis into her household as queen was the beginning of the end. He apparently liked to brag about being with her and then when he was tortured he admitted everything they wanted to hear and then he likely threw the scent on Thomas to stop the torture. Maybe Thomas and Katherine admitted to wanting to be intimate but not following through to lessen their sentences (burning to beheading and hang, drawn, and quartered to beheading)? Since Francis HAD a relationship with Katherine before it would make sense to me that him seeking employment from his former lover would either indicate him wanting to continue the relationship OR him wanting to blackmail Katherine with it.
i have often wondered if they were trying to give an impotent man a child, it would have made her unshakably secure if it was a boy, but i have no idea what culpepper looked like and it is fanciful thinking.
Surely they might as well have said that she did commit adultery, and come up with random places and dates, same as they did for Anne Boleyn several years earlier?
It would seem that Lady Rochford's testimony, and that of others, was readily available and more than sufficient for the purpose. Catherine had the problem that she actually had committed adultery or had put herself in circumstances which gave that impression. This was unlike Anne's case, where the evidence of adultery had to be manufactured. So they didn't have to bother to concoct a list of dates and places.
They could have done that, but they didn't need to bother when they had these confessions and could find her guilty by an act of attainder?
I have another theory on why Katherine might have committed adultery with Culpepper. She'd seen what happens to queens who do not bear Henry a child (re: son) and thus may have been in fear for her life. It's not certain that Henry was impotent at this time, but it seems like there was trouble in the bedchamber. I think if she did commit adultery, she may have been desperate to conceive, to ensure she would survive her marriage. If the young suitor was easy to talk with, and she thought she could trust him, so much the better. And perhaps whatever she and Henry did in the bedroom, she may have been able to pass a pregnancy off as his doing.
Perhaps so, although I'm inclined to think that Henry was having serious problems by the time she got involved with Culpeper, so it wouldn't have helped.
@@anneboleynfilesHis vascular insufficiency must have made certain activities very difficult, if not impossible. I cringe when I think of what the women had to get past to be intimate with him, i.e. infected venous stasis ulcers that could be smelled down the hall. There was a lot to overcome.
No matter how they addressed the charges, Katherine died because Henry got his feelings hurt and was embarrassed.
Yes, she broke his heart and humiliated him.
@@anneboleynfilesWhat heart?
@@anneboleynfiles Did he have a heart to break?
@elzbieta_k hmmm... That's debatable.
It goes way beyond Henry's personal humiliation. The one thing that drove Henry through his entire life was the fear of civil war. His own father obtained the throne through civil war. Henry knew that he could lose the throne in the same way, and now he had son to succeed him, who would also be in danger. For thexqueen to commit treason, even to talk about committing treason, would be used by the King's enemies. Look at what happened in the decades following Edward's death. The revolt that involved Lady Jane Grey. Queen Mary locking up her sister Elizabeth in case people should plot to put Elizabeth on the throne. Elizabeth locking up Mary Stewart and eventually beheading her for plots against the Queen. Civil War wasn't baseless paranoia, but a very real possibility.
I’d Been under the assumption that she actually had committed adultery. Listening to you I think maybe she thought she would and wanted to, but maybe she didn’t . This shed new light on the matter and it shows how much of a factor intention was in the Tudor court.
Yes, we'll never know for sure. It may be that she thought they would be properly together soon so it was worth the wait.
From other items I have read or viewed I have generally thought Catherine did have sexual relations before her marriage. She never knew then she would later marry the king.
Whether or not Catherine committed adultery while Catherine was queen seems to have attracted contrasting viewpoints. The one thing I can say is that if she did she made a monumental mistake. I also think her family should not have let her make any sex-related errors like these. Especially any after her marriage. They can't have cared much about her. Just used this misguided young woman as a pawn.
Thank you for a most interesting 🤔 video. Wish I knew for sure what is true or not 💚✔️
While I think you are right that there was no one in Catherine's family who really cared about her, I don't think they used her as a pawn. Those of her family who knew of her life before her marriage were probably very anxious when they found that the king had become infatuated with her, and they did indeed suffer for it when the king discovered her history.
Yes, I wish we knew!
@edithengel2284, yes, I don't believe she was used as a pawn by them, and I can imagine them being quite panicked at the news that she was marrying the king. Many of them spent time in the Tower and had their possessions taken.
In light of her cousin being executed for (trumped up) charges of adultery and treason, it does seem reckless to afford any whiff of a pretext. Her letter to Culpepper suggests she didn’t think it all too risky. Not smart.
No, it was reckless and foolish.
Isn't that amazing that the parliament was omnipotent knowing the thoughts and future intentions of people 😮
We no longer call what Catherine possibly planned to do a crime, but intent to do certain harms is still a crime.
It still is. The British Parliament can still pass acts of attainder, which is insane to me. They can still decide someone is a traitor with 0 trial and 0 evidence, if they feel like it. But to be fair, it was obvious in Catherine's case she would have done it based on the evidence. I don't think she did, but she would have given enough time. You don't meet a guy in secret at night in a toilet, like she did, without intending to do stuff. Again, I don't think she did, but it was clearly just a matter of time.
@octavianpopescu4776 I didn't hear where the meeting took place. Was it in a toilet?? Oh wow, Catherine. I'm trying to imagine this. Can you direct me to valid info about this meeting? Claire (I love your name by the way), do you have a video about the location?
@@octavianpopescu4776 It wasn't in a toilet. It was in the king's Privy Chamber, which is not a toilet, but the king's private suite. Privy just means private, as in Privy Council.
@@ERRNCAM1 The 2 books I read about Catherine Howard are: "Young and Damned and Fair" by Gareth Russell and "Katherine Howard: Henry VIII's Slandered Queen" by Conor Byrne.
So... you really gave me some homework here 😀 But I found the quote. It took me a while. It's in Gareth Russell's book, "Young and Damned and Fair", page 268 (I have a Kindle edition, that's the page it's telling me it is, it's in chapter 16) and it says this: "Apparently very pleased with himself, Culpepper had picked the lock and slipped through the door. Catherine was frightened by the near-miss and Culpepper had to be his most charming self to calm her down. The three of them relocated to the queen's lavatory, a large room with enough space for Lady Rochford to doze in the corner while the two she had brought together had fond communication." The near-miss was a guard almost discovering Culpepper sneaking around.
This seems to have been one of their encounters, taking place on the Northern progress in Lincoln, on the 9 August 1541. After a ceremony at Lincoln Cathedral during the day, they stayed for the evening at "Bishop Longland's palace"... wherever that was. That's where it happened according to the book.
While I know this isn't exactly within the letter of the law, Catherine and Culpeper's seeming intention to commit adultery could have been viewed as treasonous, in the same way that talking of the King's death was treason (as Anne Boleyn was said to have done with her comments to Henry Norris). It was surely an act against the King whether or not it was physically carried out? I can't believe how incredibly stupid they were, Lady Rochford included...I'd love to know what her thoughts were, she had seen her husband and sister in law and others executed over trumped-up charges, so how she thought this could end other than badly, I have no idea!
I don't believe Katherine Howard committed adultery. I always felt sorry for her, she's always dismissed by many as an unintelligent little whore who deserved her fate. In fact she had been neglected and used by every person in her life before she became queen. When she married Henry VIII she did her very best to take on the duties as a queen, despite her youth. She was well aware of the fatecof her cousin Anne Boleyn, so I believe in no way would she have taken the risk in being caught out committing adultery. Cranmer came to hear of her past and used his findings as an excuse to bring her and her Catholic Howard family down, he being the ultimate staunch Protestant. That's my take on it anyway. I believe she died for what occured before her marriage. Poor girl.
Many thanks Claire for this interesting episode. As with so many of your broadcasts, I usually end up pondering the question for days afterwards. There are parallels with, 'Was Catherine of Aragon's marriage to Arthur ever consummated?'. Although we may never know, it is fascinating to speculate. That being said, it would be interesting if we held more information regarding Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's style of questioning. Not only regarding Catherine Howard, but also Anne Boleyn. Could it be that Catherine (who believed Henry held the same power as God) was influenced by Cranmer to confess?
I think they did, but we'll never know.
Impuned the succession besides the heart ache of betrayal sealed her fate 💔
Could anyone recommend a good book on Queen Elizabeth 1st life please? I have looked to see if Claire has written a book on this Royal but cannot find one. Thank you love the videos they are so fascinating.
What was she thinking . Jane should her to get rid of old acquaintances.
Culpepper was a known rake, but I think he was smart enough not to go all the way.
He would have been to Catherine Howard what Thomas Seymour was to Kathryn Parr had Henry died
I think that Kathryn Parr learned from Catherine Howard. (And so did Henry VIII)
Anne of Cleves didn't know how.
Catherine Howard complained that the King no longer could.
What about Catherine Paar?
Smart enough to keep her own counsel on the matter. What happened, or didn't happen, in the bed chamber stayed in the bed chamber.
@@percysowner Paar took an awful risk considering Henry's history with fathering daughters. So even if Paar was willing and Henry able, she stood a 50-50 chance of losing her head.
@@purrdiggle1470he had a son at that point, so a male child was less of a life or death issue. There's some indication that he may have known he was past fathering heirs, and married her because she was good at soothing his ulcerated leg. She had already been married, and was still childless, so not a good risk for him to choose for additional heirs.
@@purrdiggle1470 I think Henry by that point had given up on trying to have boys. He must have been aware that his medical situation made it highly unlikely for him to have any more boys. I think he picked Katherine Parr more out of admiration for her personality, mind and character than for her... reproductive prowess. After 2 marriages she had 1 step-daughter (Margaret Neville, daughter of Lord Latimer, who died in 1546 at the age of... something like 19, while Katherine was Queen), so he knew not to expect much on this front. It's interesting that she did get pregnant eventually and that's what killed her at the age of 36, dying of childbed fever.
Catherine Howard didn't actually complain, but, yes, he was probably having major problems during their marriage.
I feel sorry for Catherine Parr. She wanted to marry Thomas Seymour, but those plans were put on hold for five years.
Well true, not true or partially true, facts were not something to stand between Henry VIII and someone’s execution.
You got that right
The mention of shriving apparently means confession to a priest who would report to Henry who was head of the church. I realize Henry's Church of England was very similar to the Catholic Church, minus the pope, but I thought all reformed or Protestant churches avoided direct confession and absolution from a priest or minister...?
In 1541/2, the church was very much the Catholic Church with just Henry as its head.
I don't think Catherine committed adultery. I get that the evidence against her makes her look really bad, that meeting Culpepper in secret in a toilet at night isn't exactly screaming innocence, BUT the detail I find most compelling is that in her last confession it seems she denied soiling the royal bed... I think those were the exact words. These were people who believed in God. Lying to God to His face and He knows you're lying to Him, 10 minutes before actually seeing Him to answer for your life, that would have been massively insane. If anything, looking at scaffold speeches, everyone said they deserved to die and even confessed everything, even things they didn't really do or jaywalking when they were 4 years old to make sure they confessed everything before their death, so that it would all be forgiven. That's the key detail that makes me think that no, she didn't cross that line.
I'm inclined to think that Catherine was holding out as she thought they'd be together soon.
People have very different definitions for committing adultery, or even what sex is. A sex ed course was given to a class of high schoolers who were shocked to learn that certain activities were indeed considered sex and could pass STIs. Maybe Catherine and Cullpepper messed around a bit out of passion and in her mind, she hadn't done the deed that soiled the marriage bed. Even if they hadn't had any physical contact though, meeting secretly behind your husband's back is messed up. It doesn't condone murdering the person for it, of course, but Henry was betrayed. That is painful.
When did English law recognize a right to legal counsel and a jury trial?
The last use of attainder was in 1798 against Lord Edward Fitzgerald. The House of Lords attempted to attaint Queen Caroline in 1820, but the Commons never considered the bill. No bill of this kind has passed since then.
The development of a right to counsel and jury trial begins as least as far back as the 12th century, and the development of those rights as we now understand them was the work of many centuries. At least in the US, not all crimes or issues are tried before juries; some are tried before judges alone. It may be the same in Britain.
Technically, that was the Magna Carta in 1215 which established trial by a jury of one's peers. Lawyers existed since always, even ancient Rome had them. But you see? Funny things about bills of attainder and treason. Bills of attainder were the exception. The British Parliament can still pass those today and simply skip a trial and declare someone guilty. That's why in the US, their Constitution explicitly bans those, because they're insane. Then regarding treason, where there was a trial, the fun part is: you didn't have the right to any legal counsel. You had to represent yourself. Treason was the exception. You had a lawyer for anything, EXCEPT for treason.
Jane Grey and Anne Boleyn? They were on their own faced with a panel of judges that were already biased (they were the monarch's people) and stacked against them. No lawyer. Imagine this: 16 year old girl vs judges with a direct interest to convict her, directly involved in the events... because that's a fair trial. And the Duke of Norfolk was involved in all cases. Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard and Jane Grey. All those people accused of treason during the Tudor period? I would be surprised if half of them were actually guilty. I think St. Peter Ad Vincula is basically a mass grave of innocents murdered and disposed of, not for what they did, but killed for political reasons. Judicial murder... murder pretending to be justice.
I'm not a legal historian, so I'm not sure when trials as we know them today started.
Her fate is very tragic but she should have realised that what could have been tolerated in a minor courtier was never going to be tolerated in the queen of England.Especially not after Anne Boleyn. She was quilty according to the law of the time. But she had not have to die. That was the kings doing
I find that interesting. what you said that they may have hoped to marry once he was dead. That makes sense as he only lived only another 5 years after they were executed. it makes me sad. Poor kid. Culpepper was older though and he should have had more sense. as far as the other 2 who it is believed blackmailed her into giving them employment, if Catherine Howard had told Henry he would have taken care of that. He was besotted with her. Culpepper was the real issue there. the others were only used to show her history. Today we would call that statutory rape. Jane Boleyn should have known better too; she was no kid. Catherine Parr was much more discreet and kept her feelings for Thomas Seymour under control. Her enemies who hated her religious beliefs would have used that against her if they had known.
I don't think they did the deed. I think Rochester was a fool. I wonder if she felt like she didn't have a choice to go with Catherine? I agree with an earlier quote, being young they had no idea what they were setting themselves up for.
I find Culpeper's pursuit of Catherine very unexpected. He was a seasoned courtier, and a close friend of the king's. How could he possibly have thought this affair would end other than it did? If he thought they could marry after the king's death, the two of them were not nearly circumspect enough to achieve this. He must have seen what Henry was capable of--he was attached to the court by 1536 when Queen Anne fell. It's a puzzle.
Oddly enough, I believe that the false nature of Anne's fall may have been why they were so careless. It defies logic, but perhaps they didn't take it seriously because they all knew Anne wasn't really "guilty" of what she was executed for.
I don't think it was that unexpected, considering before Henry took an interest in Catherine, Culpepper had courted her. So, none of his interest was new and he was interested in her even before Henry showed up.
Henry VIII had nearly died very recently so I think that Culpeper thought they wouldn't have to hide their relationship for very long and so there wasn't much of a risk. He was very wrong!
@@octavianpopescu4776 That courting Catherine before Henry was interested in her and courting her afterwards were two entirely different situations had to have been obvious to at least Culpeper. That is what seems so unexpected to me.
@@anneboleynfilesTaking into consideration Henry's assumed short-term lifespan, Culpepper may have been attempting to anchor his position to a soon to be widowed queen. Or just wild passion that overtook reason. Maybe Cullpepper had his own jealous and competitive feelings, ego that he could still have Catherine. If he truly loved her he should have protected her by abstaining from any impropriety. What do you think?
I don't believe she did it. Anne Boleyn was accused of adultery, although even her contemporaries, likely didn't believe it was true. Still, the Tudor justice sent her to the scaffold on this account. If there was the slightest chance that Catherine Howard had really comitted adultery, I don't believe it wouldn't be used against her. And yet, she wasn't accused of it.
I think poor Catherine was very nieve and craved attention which Culpepper gave her l think underneath all her flirtatious ways she was just a sweet sensitive happy go lucky girl and men took advantage of this 💔
It doesn't mention Henry Manox
I think the relationship was sexual. They were both young attractive people and she was married to an old overweight tyrant who may have indulged her with presents etc but probably wasn’t very ‘active’ by then. She had been accustomed to young lovers, flirtation and stolen kisses and the all the rest living with her step grandmother. Catherine may well have enjoyed the illicit trysts and excitement without thinking about the consequences. Culpepper was older and should have been wiser but I don’t think he’d have been risking his life for just a kiss! Another theory I’ve read is that he had found out about her past and was blackmailing her but I find that just too dark and prefer the tragic lovers version. Catherine didn’t have a great life I like to think she did find love in the end.
What was the point of executing Lady Rochford? What crime had she committed?
She had abetted the misbehavior of the queen, and in doing so had broken the law. It was not a law we would approve of, but it was the law.
She was accused of facilitating the relationship between Catherine and Culpepper. She carried letters back and forth between them and accompanied Catherine to her meetings with Culpepper. The Bill of Attainer referred to Jane Boleyn as a "bawd," or a female pimp. I feel terribly sorry for her. She was under Catherine's power and had to obey her commands. She must have seen disaster coming and have been terrified after what had happened to her husband and sister-in-law. Jane had a mental breakdown after she was arrested. Parliament had to pass a law allowing for the execution of a person who was mad just so that Jane could be executed. Out of all the people caught up in this folly, she is the one that I feel most sorry for.
She had not only hidden their treasonous activities, rather than reporting them, she had helped them, thus causing harm to the king. The 1534 treason law covered so much.
Sorry, but unless she was slow, I find this difficult to believe. You are thinking with a 21st century mindset.
I doesn't really matter if they did or not. But I bet they both went to their deaths wishing they had.
Culpepper was a bit dim
From 11:00 to 3:00 twice, I think they did 🙂
I spent many a night just talking with my future husband when we were first together, so not necessarily, but I take your point.
Parliament also made a law that made it illegal for the queen to fail to disclose to the king what her sexual history was prior to their marriage. If I remember right this law was made ex post facto so Catherine Howard was automatically guilty. I don't remember if this law specified any penalty.
The Royal Assent by Commissions Act 1541 made failing to disclose a potential queen's sexual history within 20 days of the marriage or to persuade someone to commit adultery with her acts of treason, and punishable by death. You are right; they made the law retroactive so Catherine was automatically guilty.
That would violate the non-retroactivity principle of law, although I wouldn't be surprised if they just ignored that. For anyone reading this and who isn't familiar with the concept, that's a basic legal principle that means that laws are only applicable for the future. Applying them to past cases implies people should have basically known the future and adapted their behaviour to it. Without the non-retroactivity principle you do X today and if a law is passed saying that X is illegal in 10 months, you'd be judged for it. Or who knows what laws will be passed in the future? How can it be reasonable to expect anyone to know the future? There is an exception though! In cases where the new law is more favourable. Meaning that if you did Y and were on trial for Y and suddenly the new law legalises Y, the law would be applied retroactively and you'd walk away free, even though at the time you did Y, Y was illegal.
Henry was good at making really awful laws!
@@anneboleynfiles To have made the law retroactive reminds one of Henry's father dating his reign from the day before Bosworth.
@@octavianpopescu4776That's very interesting. Thank you.
or this one
Henry VII Tudor Henry VII Tudor of England
father-in-law of 13th great-granduncle
Princess Margaret Tudor Douglas 1429-1541
Daughter of Henry VII Tudor Henry VII Tudor of England
James V King of Scots 1502-1513
Husband of Princess Margaret Tudor Douglas
Margaret Stewart ** 1502-1625
Sister of James V King of Scots
Henrye Sclater de Hartshead ** 1568-1619
Son of Margaret Stewart **
Mary Sclater ** 1590-1640
Daughter of Henrye Sclater de Hartshead **
Jane Gregson ** 1611-1671
Daughter of Mary Sclater **
Anthony Billington ** 1645-1700
Son of Jane Gregson **
Ann Silcock / Billington ** 1655-1735
Daughter of Anthony Billington **
Ellin Hall ** 1696-1757
Son of Ann Silcock / Billington **
Alice Silcock ** 1729-1752
Daughter of Ellin Hall **
Jane Blackburn ** 1752-1819
Daughter of Alice Silcock **
Jane Roginson ** 4th GGM 1771-1820
Daughter of Jane Blackburn **
Margaret Cowell ** 3rd- GGM 1800-1879
Daughter of Jane Roginson ** 4th GGM
William Sutcliffe ** 2nd- GGF 1809-1900
Son of Margaret Cowell ** 3rd- GGM
James Sutcliffe Smith ** GGF 1838-1908
Son of William Sutcliffe ** 2nd- GGF
Frank Smith ** MGF 1883-1972
Son of James Sutcliffe Smith ** GGF
Nancy Smith ** M 1923-2004
Daughter of Frank Smith ** MGF
Graham Shaw ** Living
Son of Nancy Smith ** M
Could this be a real tree
: Princess Margaret Tudor Douglas 1429-1541
wife of 13th great-granduncle
:James V King of Scots 1502-1513
Husband of Princess Margaret Tudor Douglas
: Margaret Stewart ** 1502-1625
Sister of James V King of Scots
: Henrye Sclater de Hartshead ** 1568-1619
Son of Margaret Stewart **
: Mary Sclater ** 1590-1640
Daughter of Henrye Sclater de Hartshead **
: Jane Gregson ** 1611-1671
Daughter of Mary Sclater **
: Anthony Billington ** 1645-1700
Son of Jane Gregson **
: Ann Silcock / Billington ** 1655-1735
Daughter of Anthony Billington **
: Ellin Hall ** 1696-1757
Son of Ann Silcock / Billington **
: Alice Silcock ** 1729-1752
Daughter of Ellin Hall **
: Jane Blackburn ** 1752-1819
Daughter of Alice Silcock **
: Jane Roginson ** 4th GGM 1771-1820
Daughter of Jane Blackburn **
: Margaret Cowell ** 3rd- GGM 1800-1879
Daughter of Jane Roginson ** 4th GGM
: William Sutcliffe ** 2nd- GGF 1809-1900
Son of Margaret Cowell ** 3rd- GGM
: James Sutcliffe Smith ** GGF 1838-1908
Son of William Sutcliffe ** 2nd- GGF
: Frank Smith ** MGF 1883-1972
Son of James Sutcliffe Smith ** GGF
: Nancy Smith ** M 1923-2004
Daughter of Frank Smith ** MGF
: Graham Shaw ** Living
Son of Nancy Smith ** M