#thomas howard 3rd duke of norfolk

[historicconfessions]

[richmond-rex]

Hi, I was trying to read up on Anne of York, Elizabeth's sister, but I couldn't really find anything beyond the basics (on wikipedia rip) so I thought I'd ask. From what I understand, she seemed to have delicate health and thus couldn't visit her sister at court very often, although Elizabeth repeatedly paid for gifts and other expenses, so I'm sure they cared about each other very much. It also say that attitude towards her changed at court following Elizabeth's death, and she didn't attend the funeral as a mourners but as a mere spectator, and I wondered if any of that was explicitly true?

I also wondered about her marriage to Thomas Howard. From what I understand, it was arranged by Henry and Elizabeth, Anne mostly stayed on her husband's estates, and he wished to be buried beside her. She also, from what I read, received annual payments from the crown, with her interests to be taken into account on an equal basis with her husband after the death of the Earl of surrey. However, Thomas Howard seems to have been deeply abusive to his second wife, Elizabeth Stafford, physically harming her, imprisoning her, and flaunting his affair with Bess Holland, and so I couldn't help but wonder if anything more was known about his marriage to Anne of York? All four of their children predeceased them, he remarried just 1-2 years after her death, and from what I've seen, barely anything has survived about her after Elizabeth's death, so I wondered if you've read anything more about her. Thank you :)

Hi, anon! I'm sorry I took so long to reply. I had not read some of the information you relayed here anywhere else before, so I went to wikipedia and found out their source is a biographical work from the 1850s called the Lives of the Princesses of England by Mary Anne Everett Green. I took a look at that work and it's a reasonably well-annotated book, with relevant sources given. Still, considering it's a Victorian work, I would be a bit cautious when accepting Green's conclusions in regard to the evidence that she provides. There was quite a bit of romanticising/sentimentalism informing the historiography of that period, as the work of Agnes Strickland on the queens of England and Scotland also shows.

For example, whilst it's true that Anne of York mostly didn't stay in attendance to her sister the queen at court, we can't exactly say it was because she was frequently ill or because she liked to live in the countryside more than at court, to give an alternative reason. Green doesn't claim Anne's treatment at court changed after Elizabeth of York's death (though whoever wrote her wikipedia article did). A fall from favour would not make much sense, considering she was married to the heir of a man highly respected and trusted by Henry VII by the time of Elizabeth's death; mere months later Surrey would be appointed by the king to represent him in Scotland at the wedding of his daughter Margaret.

What we can say for sure, though, is that the queen's household was dissolved after her death, and also because of Elizabeth's death, Henry VII's court became almost exclusively masculine, with the exception of the times when Princess Mary or Catherine of Aragon (the Princess of Wales) visited the king. We don't have a record of Anne's attendance at court after Elizabeth's death, but if she rarely frequented court, it might as well have been because there was no place for her there. Without a queen, it was unseemingly for a king to be in the company of women, and she was not part of Princess Mary's household as she probably had her own to look after.

The details of Anne's marriage to Thomas Howard (later 3rd Duke of Howard) are more well-known. It was a union first suggested by Richard III as a way of rewarding the loyalty of John Howard (1st duke of Norfolk, and the boy's grandfather) and a way of binding his family closer to the crown. Later, thanks to Henry VII's negotiations, Anne might have married one of James III's sons, but at the Scottish king's death the negotiations for the match were ended. Years later Anne ended up marrying the match first proposed by Richard III, perhaps also as a way of rewarding the Howards for their loyalty. Elizabeth of York really did provide a jointure and an annuity for Anne's diet, clothes, horses, etc on the occasion of her marriage, as Anne's husband held yet no lands in his condition as heir. Years earlier, Edward IV's negotiations for her marriage to Philip the Fair Duke of Burgundy were also very interesting but outside the scope of this ask.

As to the more private aspects of Anne's marriage, I'm afraid there's not much evidence for us to speculate. Contrary to Green (and whoever wrote that wikipedia article), I doubt Anne knew her husband from childhood as I doubt young Thomas Howard would have been much at court as a boy, if at all. I want to believe he was less abusive towards Anne of York because she was the queen's sister and had more avenues for help than Elizabeth Stafford, but that's by no means something we can know. A pedigree in the possession of the Howard family claims Anne had four children with Thomas before her death in 1511, and certainly, one thing we know for sure is the date of the death of one of her children, a boy named Thomas, on 4 August 1508. Because this boy has a tomb with a brass plate saying his name, Green speculates he was the only child of Anne that lived long enough to be baptised.

I'm afraid I don't have anything more on her. Thomas Howard remarrying a bit more than a year after her death was by no means scandalous or unseemingly at that time, considering the usual period of mourning lasted six months, and at 40 he still had no heir to succeed him in his titles. Anne’s wikipedia article says Thomas Howard began a relationship with Bess Holland whilst still married to her, but I'm almost sure that's incorrect and simply a mixup of his marriage with Elizabeth Stafford.

[nerdqueenmari]

I can't help just writing "Oh, this asshole" in the margin whenever a book mentions Thomas Howard 3rd Duke of Norfolk for the first time

[snapheart1536]

btw Why are you so interested in my project?

Have you ever been in that situation where you liked or disliked a character for no reason, not because you had any concrete evidence either way, just on instinct?

Or when the picture presented by everyone demanded the exact opposite reaction, but nevertheless you went on feeling this taboo like / dislike anyway?

I've got that strange leaning towards the 3rd Duke and I have no idea why.

Every book I have depicts him in a poor light, but somehow the idea I 'must' hate him, on moral grounds, has never sunk in, and I still felt positive towards him in a quiet, low-key sense.

I originally put it down to some blanket approval of Anne's relatives, but then, outside of her core family, I don't care about or even really like the paternal side, such as the Sheltons or Sackvilles.

A voice always said to me:

There must be more to it than this.

Perhaps it's merely a knack of mine where I just 'know' when an attitude or argument presented is 'off' in some way, even if I have no reason to disbelieve it and can't say at this very moment why I distrust it, but regardless I sense a lack of sincerity.

As an example, the first Tudor book I ever read as a child was Alison Weir's Six Wives, after which my favourites were Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth I and Katherine Howard.

Looking back, it baffles me how I made that decision, when she hardly says a pleasant word about any of them.

Somehow, every time I found a nasty remark, or supposed crime of theirs, though this was the first and only source of information I had, I thought:

Nah, that doesn't sound right to me.

So I ignored it, and later on found my instinct was correct, and if I have a similar attitude to the 3rd Duke, there must be something missing from the popular view.

A lot of the things he's known for don't make sense.

• Threatening to smash Princess Mary's head against the wall, yet she released him from prison and trusted him to face down Wyatt, even when it's a rebellion in favour of his great niece.

• The implication from that of being violent to his own daughters, yet Mary Howard took his side during the breakdown of his marriage, and he left her money even after she testified against him, so he accepted she had no choice.

• Thinking well of him means doubting the word of his wife, and I don't want to, but much of what Elizabeth Stafford says sounds like lashing out from deep-rooted heartbreak over him taking a mistress.

You don't hear of any trouble between them until that point, and her refusing a divorce, as in not wanting to be free of a violent husband, is what I can't understand.

If, as I say, it all does originate in jealousy of Bess Holland, he had to be better than his reputation implies to inspire that feeling in her, particularly considering the age gap and when she was so set on marrying Ralph.

• This idea he and Anne became enemies, but he cried when sentencing her to death.

Another confession reminded me of how his animosity towards Cromwell only becomes visible then, once she's gone.

The sentiment in me thinks the crowing the Howards did about bringing him down has to be more personal than just anger over the monasteries, even if they were affected by it, particularly when coupled with the hatred between them and the Seymours.

• Him being famed as THE Catholic peer of the age, yet he ended up with 'heretic' children, so any 'wrath' he had was plainly ignored by them.

Although he had to be quite the force if he managed to undo all Mary Howard's work and turn the 4th Duke and his sister back to Catholicism, which did 'em no good at all!

Then the mysteries and emotions:

• He's always shown as permanently old, a bit doddery even, but like his father, having to wage war when he should be putting his feet up, and STILL coming out in one piece!

How did he do that?

• He had an entire other family before Elizabeth came along, but every one of them died and is never mentioned, so he just got up and started all over again.

What was that like? How did he feel when they were all gone?

And the worst part is to think, had they lived, Henry VIII would wipe them out as Yorkists.

• Very early on in my Tudor obsession, I found a quote, I can't recall where, which said the 2nd Duke was a cold, distant presence to his son, so when Surrey was born the 3rd Duke worshipped him.

It's difficult not to conclude that, when both were in the Tower, Thomas had to wish he'd died first and Henry had been spared by the King's death, as living without him was worse.

The Howards and all the various offshoots are my main interest. Too many of them meet violent deaths and it gives them a gothic, quite romantic appeal. Each time I find the name, I know I'm dealing with an interesting character.

And they all look so alike! The dark eyes, red hair, long face and nose, high cheekbones. You can tell one right away!

If my central interest is the Boleyn end, about the Earl, the Countess, Anne, George and Mary, my second would be the Duke, the Duchess, Henry, Mary and Thomas.

So much about them fascinates me:

• Why did Henry throw his life away? How could he ever have believed he'd get away with it?

• Mary came to court as Anne Boleyn's lady and served all her successors EXCEPT Jane Seymour, and wouldn't marry her brother.

Some versions I've read doubt the closeness between Anne and Mary, but I wonder if her reaction to Anne's death was similar to Surrey to FitzRoy's.

How much resentment did she, did all of them, hold towards the Seymours, and how influential was Anne on Mary and Henry's religious beliefs?

• Had FitzRoy lived, would Henry VIII have tried to legitimize him, set he and Mary up as 'Plan B', or at least make him regent?

Just imagine the A.U.: Edward leaves the throne to him, so instead of everyone flocking to Mary I, it's the choice between an unmarried woman and a grown man with a family.

And Mary Howard's queen!

• Also, that Mary is technically the 'sister' of Mary and Elizabeth, but this isn't brought up at all.

• Bindon was there all along but is completely forgotten, yet in my head he had to met Princess Elizabeth along the way for her to give him a title, but when, why and how?

Totally ignored, yet he lived the longest.

• What about Katherine and Muriel? The 3rd Duke's Wikipædia entry won't admit they existed.

I'd buy books about them, but I've got no money.

I remember you followed me after I wrote a post on the 3rd Duke, so I associate him with you, and no one else here ever has a good word to say about him, if he is mentioned.

It'd make a change to see a positive post, and find out if that inexplicable feeling I had was leading me in the right direction all along.

[natequarter]

tudor gothic:

the lord chancellor is called thomas. he runs the country. he wants no part in where england goes from now. the lord chancellor is being arrested for treason. the lord chancellor was executed. the lord chancellor was never arrested. there is no lord chancellor.

the crown is dissolving monasteries. this is standard practice. all the monasteries are shutting down. this is thomas's fault. you have no idea which thomas. the crown wants the monasteries back. the monasteries are never coming back. you visited an intact monastery just yesterday. when you blinked, the ruins gave alms to the poor.

the wars of the roses have just ended decisively. the wars of the roses have been over for decades. the legacy of civil war haunts england. you've watched shakespeare's wars of the roses plays. the wars of the roses must have been over when the throne passed peacefully to henry viii. when you close your eyes, you can somehow hear reginald pole laughing at you.

the duke of somerset was beheaded for treason. so was the duke of buckingham. so was the duke of northumberland. so was the duke of norfolk. so was the duke of suffolk. the duke of suffolk never lost the king's affection. all the dukes are vying for power. but then you remember: there are no dukes. perhaps there never were.

the howards are not to be trusted. thomas howard was thrown in the tower. thomas howard was executed for treason. thomas howard lived out his life peacefully. thomas howard only narrowly escaped henry viii's reign with his life. you are drowning in thomases. they never end. one thing you are certain of, though: thomas howard is long dead. thomas howard will outlive us all.

you know the names of every courtier in the kingdom, and yet more go missing with every passing day. you try to note down the name of thomas wryth, but you cannot put quill to parchment. how is it spelt? wriothesley? you have always known that. you know it deep in your bones. and yet, when you try to say it out loud, words fail you. words fail everyone, where the earl of southampton is concerned. somewhere dark and terrible, an ancient beast awakens from its slumber. like everything else, it is also called thomas.

you turn to noting down the name of the queen. kateryn parr. this is a simple task. your subconscious whispers catalina to you in a distinctly spanish accent. your hand shakes. you try to write down catherine, but it morphs into a k against your will. you drop your quill, hand trembling. nonetheless, there is a name before you. whose name it is is anyone's guess.

mary is queen. which mary? which queen? suddenly, you are not so sure.

the bible is written in latin. the bible has always been written in latin. you flick through the pages of your bible, and greek letters swim before your eyes. you check the book again, and find you are holding a book of hours. all the words are in english. you cannot read any of them.

the king of england has ruled for many years. he is nine years old. the king of england is a foreign power. elizabeth was king; now james is queen. long live queen james!

[duchess-of-tales]

Anne Boleyn & Elizabeth I by Tracy Borman

So far the book reminded me to these insane things:

1 Stephen Gardiner forged a fake warrant to kill Elizabeth. And all he got for it was a slap on his wrist.

2 Anne tried to name her daughter Mary... These are my daughters Mary and Mary.

3 Thomas Howard and Anne Boleyn visited baby Elizabeth, and Norfolk slipped away to say hi to Mary.

4 The father of Jane Boleyn was some kind of scholar.

Bonus: Not from the book but recently hit me that John Foxe was in the Howard household (hired by Mary Howard) until Norfolk came out of the Tower. And one of his first things was to kick him out. Which is understandable.

[idreamofdraco]

The second fest fic has been revealed!

CLICK HERE to read THE KING'S MISTRESS by Anonymous (for now)!

Chapters: 10/10 Fandom: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling Rating: Mature Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: Draco Malfoy/Ginny Weasley, Luna Lovegood/Ron Weasley Characters: Draco Malfoy, Ginny Weasley, Luna Lovegood, Ron Weasley, Voldemort, Anne Boleyn Queen of England, Henry VIII of England, Jane Parker Boleyn Lady Rochford, George Boleyn Viscount Rochford, Thomas Howard 3rd Duke of Norfolk Additional Tags: Alternate History, Tudor Era, Alternate Universe - Royalty, Mystery, Slow Burn Summary: Ginny left Draco because they stood on opposite sides of a war. But then Voldemort ensnares them both in the darkest of forbidden magic, and they find that their fates are entwined with the long-ago events of a bygone age, and with two star-crossed lovers at the Tudor court.

[snapheart1536]

Elizabeth Stafford claimed he married her for love in one letter.

There's a seven-year gap between the birth of their last known child and Bess Holland's arrival, so there appears to have been other problems leading up to this point.

[In] 1527 Norfolk took a mistress. Elizabeth Holland, known as Bess, was the daughter of his household treasurer and chief steward John Holland. Holland came from gentry stock loosely related to John, Lord Hussey, a Lincolnshire courtier and diplomat who would be executed for his part in the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1537. Significantly, Bess became Norfolk’s mistress only after Elizabeth had given Norfolk an ‘heir and spare’ – their two sons, Henry and Thomas, were born c. 1517 and c. 1520. This cements the impression that Norfolk had made this marriage purely in the interests of procreation.

Dynastic Politics: Five Women of the Howard Family During the Reign of Henry VIII, 1509-1547, Nicola Clark

[thedudleywomen]

ON THIS DAY - 24 October 1537

On This Day (24 Oct) in 1537, Jane Seymour died at Hampton Court Palace, 12 days after giving birth to her only child, Prince Edward (later Edward VI).

Jane had retreated to Hampton Court from London in mid-September 1537 for her 'lying-in', having escaped from the plague spreading throughout London at that time. Despite no reports of a complicated pregnancy, difficulties began once Jane went into labour on 09 Oct. Her labour was prolonged, lasting approx 30 hours; a solemn procession and prayers were said for her on 11 Oct due to concerns regarding the wellbeing of herself and the child. However, at 2 in the morning, on 12 Oct, Jane delivered a highly-anticipated baby boy, named Edward. Her husband, Henry VIII had been with his own household at nearby Esher Palace, Surrey, and on the news of the birth of his son, rode the 4 miles north directly to Hampton Court.

Edward was christened on 15 Oct in a midnight ceremony at the Chapel Royal at Hampton Court Palace. Due to the risks of plague, attendance at the ceremony was 'limited' to 400 attendees; these included the young prince's godparents Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and the Lady Mary; courtier John Dudley (and likely his wife Jane Guildford), and the prince's uncle Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp, who was known to have carried the young Lady Elizabeth into the chapel. As was tradition, the parents did not attend the ceremony, but rather greeted the guests in the Queen's apartments prior to the procession to the chapel, and then following the completion of the ceremony. Jane participated as expected, with no signs that she was to become so unwell so soon after.

Jane started to become unwell the following afternoon on 16 Oct. She initially suffered from diarrhoea, although stated that she felt better later on. However, during the night her condition worsened, and it became clear that she was suffering from puerperal fever; Alison Weir speculates that it was likely as a consequence of a tear in her perineum during delivery. However, at the time, there were accusations that she had been 'over-indulged' by her attendants, as the understanding of childbirth and hygiene was misunderstood at the time.

Jane's condition worsened so rapidly that she was given last rites by her confessor the Bishop of Carlisle on 17 Oct; however, she appeared to improve, and so celebrations regarding Edward's birth continued. Tragically, Jane quickly became unwell again, entering into a state of delirium, before further deteriorating. On 22 Oct, Thomas Cromwell, Henry's chief minister was informed that she was dying.

At 8pm on 23 Oct, Henry was called to Jane's bedside, and remained with her throughout the night. Last rites were again delivered to her by the Bishop of Carlisle, and she passed away in the early hours of 24 Oct.

Following Jane's death, Henry 'fled' to Windsor Castle, entering into seclusion due to his grief. Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, was placed in charge of Jane's funeral and burial arrangements. Her body was embalmed on 25 Oct, with her entrails being removed and buried in the Chapel Royal at Hampton Court Palace. Her body was dressed in golden robes, wearing jewels and a crown, and lay in state in the presence chamber at Hampton Court, before being moved to Windsor in Nov, which was to be her final resting place.

Jane's ladies-in-waiting at this time included Mary Brandon, Lady Monteagle (Charles Brandon's daughter from his first marriage, and elder half-sister to Frances Brandon), Anne Parr, Countess of Pembroke (younger sister of Katherine Parr), and Jane Parker, Viscountess Rochford (widow of the ill-fated George Boleyn, who had been executed in May 1536 on charges of high treason), Whilst it is not known if Jane Guilford, Lady Dudley was one of her attendants, Jane is likely to have had a place in the new queen's court, as her husband's status rose. What is known is that she one of the women who accompanied Jane's coffin from Hampton Court to Windsor.

[scotianostra]

On August 2nd 1511 Scottish sailor Andrew Barton died.

Sir Andrew Barton as he is so often called, although there is no record of his ever being knighted, was among the most famous and daring sea-captains of his time.

Barton flourished during the reign of James IV, and belonged to a family which for two generations had produced able and successful seamen, Sir Andrew, as he is known although there are no records of him ever being Knighted and his brother Robert are widely recognised as the real founders of the Scotch navy. Andrew became notorious in England and Portugal as a ‘pirate’, though as a seaman who operated under the aegis of a letter of marque on behalf of the Scottish crown, he may be described as a privateer. The letter of marque against Portuguese shipping was originally granted to his father John Barton by James III of Scotland before 1485. John’s ships had been attacked by Portuguese vessels when he was trading at Sluis in Flanders.

His family is said to have taken part in a personal war with the Portuguese but it is by no means only them that the Bartons fought with on the North Sea, i found this excerpt about the run ins with the Dutch, or as they are called in the story, “The Hollanders”

In the summer of 1506, James IV appointed Admiral Sir Andrew to the command of a large, costly, and newly-built ship, and ordered him to avenge a flagrant act of injustice and cruelty committed by the people of Holland. The Hollanders had seized some Scottish ships and thrown the merchants and mariners into the sea. Sir Andrew retaliated by taking several of the Hollanders’ ships, sent to Scotland several barrels filled with the heads of the offenders, and returned himself with much booty and renown. (The writer of the Barton-Stedman Memoir excuses this bloody and barbarous act of Sir Andrew as being not unusual for that rough and turbulent time.)

In 1508, he was detained by Dutch authorities at Veere. James IV had to write to Maximilian, the Holy Roman Emperor, and others to get him released in 1509. In 1511, Andrew Barton was cruising the English coast looking for Portuguese prizes when he and his ships the Lion and Jenny Pirwyn were captured after a fierce battle with Sir Edward Howard and his brother Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, off Kent at the Downs. According to the story told in ballads, Andrew was subsequently beheaded. If true, such action would perhaps have been illegal because Barton possessed a letter of marque. Contemporary English and Scottish chronicle accounts agree that Andrew died of wounds received in the fight.

I refer back to a previous posts, where James IV declared war on England, and mentioned part of the reason being the English seized two ships, this no doubt was one of them. George Buchanan, the historian and tutor of King James IV wrote that Barton continued fighting after his leg was broken by a gunshot, and encouraged his sailors by beating a drum before he died from his wounds. Buchanan emphasises that the Howards sailed on the instruction of Henry VIII following a representation by a Portuguese ambassador.

Andrew Barton appears in tow of the Child Ballads, one was originally 82 verses long, but don’t worry I’ll only subject you to a wee bit of Ballad 167, where "Sir Barton" says:

"I am hurt, but I am not slaine;

I'le lay mee downe and bleed a-while,

And then I'le rise and fight againe."

[historicconfessions]

[terribletudorsandvilevictorians]

Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, was a courtier and a Tudor survivor, and I think he worked behind the scenes much more than he gets credit for. For instance, I believe that he used Jane Rochford to facilitate Cat Howard's affair with Thomas Culpeper. It's one of the rare times when I actually partly agree with one of Philippa Gregory's historical opinions, although I think that Jane also wanted to help the sixth queen avoid Anne Boleyn's fate, which Gregory certainly doesn't. I also think it's at least possible that he turned on his niece Anne Boleyn in early April 1536, doing nothing to stop the king from executing her even though he knew that Henry was starting to make that decision.

But the topper to Norfolk's life had to be the way it ended. At the end of January, he languished in the Tower, knowing that he was slated for execution. His son had already gone under the axe, so he knew there would be no mercy. And then, like a miracle, the king breathed his last. Norfolk survived and was released, pardoned, and restored to the dukedom in 1553. He even went back to the Privy Council and his military offices. Unlike so many of his relatives and friends, he died peacefully at home on August 15, 1554, and was succeeded by his grandson.

[bforbetterthanyou]

Hi. Sorry if this question was answered before, I'm new to the whole Tudors era thing. Elizabeth was a red head, right? From most I could Google and the portrayals I see of her, she's a full ginger, like Henry.

But most portrayals of Anne are with black, dark hair. If she did have a more light color hair is there a reason why she is always portrayed with black hair? And if she did have dark hair (and Elizabeth was a genetic lottery) is because of her father's side, right? Since Katheryne Howard had blonde/ginger hair?

Hello! So there are no contemporary descriptions of her hair color; the closest we get is Thomas Wyatt describing her as ‘brunet’ in a poem. I think the idea of her having black hair comes from Nicholas Sander who, in 1585, described her as ‘Anne Boleyn was rather tall of stature, with black hair, and an oval face of a sallow complexion’, however, this was written in the 1580s and, not only did Sander never actually meet Anne, he was a Catholic who despised Elizabeth I and also Anne by extension. It’s Sander who also claimed she had a sixth finger and a goiter and all that. Also, he says that she was tall but every other report says Anne was of ‘middling [average]’ height and the skeleton, believed to be Anne, discovered in the 19th century was about 5’3.

We also can’t really believe her portraits because none of the famous ones are contemporary and the few images that are contemporary (like The Most Happi medal) you can’t see her hair at all.

I think it’s most likely her hair was auburn or, possibly, reddish-brow

It’s interesting that you mention that, if she had dark hair it would’ve come from her father’s side—this is something I often see with Anne and Mary Boleyn that Anne had ‘the Boleyn looks’ and Mary had ‘the Howard looks’ (and this is often said by people who think Mary had blonde hair and blue eyes). We don’t know what ‘the Boleyn looks’ are and we also don’t know what ‘the Howard looks’ are. There are no confirmed portraits of any other member of the Boleyn family except that portrait of Mary (and you can’t see her hair color) and there are very few confirmed portraits of any member of the Howard family (from this time).

In the 3rd Duke of Norfolk’s portrait it looks like he had auburn hair. Katheryn Howard also, most likely, had auburn hair.

Auburn actually seems to be an extremely common hair color during the 16th century and quite a few members of the Tudor nobility had this hair color so I don’t see why both the Boleyns and the Howards wouldn’t have shared this trait.

[snapheart1536]

Part Three

We are getting there!

Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

I. Norfolk and Anne

Over the centuries both Anne and Norfolk were similarly dæmonised as ruthless, self-centred lowlifes simmering with an explosive, violent savagery they never cared to conceal.

Naturally then, their relationship is always described as terrible; essentially two scumbags giving each other what for, and thoroughly deserving what they get.

Much is made of Anne's 'arrogance' for example, where she inflicted 'shameful words' upon her uncle, 'as one would not address to a dog', to which he, in retaliation, denounced her as a 'grande putain', i.e. great whore.

In Young and Damned and Fair, Gareth Russell puts it thus:

'Norfolk, whose ability to play the victim was matched by a determination never to play the role quietly, had once complained that Queen Anne Boleyn drove him from her presence with words that one would not use to a dog, which if nothing else was inaccurate on the basis that she liked her dogs far more than she did her uncle.'

Norfolk said no such thing, as if you scroll to the next screenshot, you'll see it was in fact Henry Percy, Chapuys, and various employees gossiping about them.

That qualified historians actively choose to misinterpret sources to abide by 'traditional' readings is quite alarming.

The above is however unusual in that it takes Anne's side in the 'feud', which isn't often the case.

One of them has to be the real villain for this scene to be of any use; and since Anne had a greater impact upon history, of course it has to be her.

This leads to the smug 'She Wasn't THAT Clever' routine, where many pop. historians push the malicious narrative that Anne brought it on herself: that her aggressive, needlessly rude big-bully attitude alienated just about everyone who could've shielded her from Henry's wrath, and so it's her own fault he cut off her head.

Yeah. Apparently there were hundreds of these all-powerful iron titans knocking about who definitely could've stopped the King of England in his tracks and shooed him away, but they instead left a young woman to endure a lonely, frightening death just because she hadn't given in to every one of their constant demands for money and advancement and been a bit bitchy about it to boot.

And that's the True Integrity, doncha know.

From this we're supposed to understand that Norfolk, although he might not have actively conspired against her, was nevertheless all for it, and no doubt spat on her grave, which is supposed to reflect badly on the pair of them, somehow.

As in, he was so evil he delighted in the deaths of his sister's children, and she was so evil even her own family were cheering on the executioner.

Except...

I can't count how many things are wrong with the original quote.

But I'll give it a go:

First, it's from Chapuys, which near enough guarantees it's a lie, or gross exaggeration at best.

At best.

Anne and Norfolk could've had a mild dispute over the merits of salad cream and he'd spin it as some W.W.F. death match.

The usual rule of evidence is that a person bears witness and swears to it later:

Event ➡️ Observer.

Chapuys however was a prissy old woman who refused to even meet Anne, so relied upon paid spies to spill the beans.

Plus his lack of English somewhat limited the pool when picking a tattle-tale.

Event ➡️ Observer ➡️ Chapuys.

Already we're at second-hand testimony, yet that's never prevented the self-righteous end of the fandom from treating his frequent knicker-twisting emotional breakdowns as sacred texts too pure to lead us wrong.

Anyone willing to betray Anne most likely hated her and wouldn't pass on the positives, although he'd ignore it if they did.

Supposed Event ➡️ Paid Informer ➡️ Enemy Agent.

As Anne's 'arrogance and malice' is deplored, how convenient that the upset is her own fault, Dear Uncle Tom a blameless bystander caught up in the chaos.

This bit (from the ever-reliable Alison Weir), where Euse relates Norfolk's 'worry' about the Mean Things she said to that shy, trembling wallflower Henry (because HE CARES SO MUCH) gave me a good laugh.

Her and her 'words of authority', man! They're a danger to society!

Oh! When will her wickedness cease!

Katherine never even once raised her soft, angelic voice to him, at any point, which PROVES she's the Real Queen and the True Wife and how lost Henry is without her.

At some point Chapuys got the idea he could lure Thomas to the dark side, and so is always at pains to stress how put-upon and abused he is by an ungrateful harpie primed to claw his eyes out.

Early 1535, this is, and Norfolk's had it for years, poor sod.

Any minute now he's gonna finally (FINALLY!) break away and devote himself to glorious godly atonement; striving to restore Saint Katherine to her rightful holy realm beside Our Majestic Lord And Master, and certainly won't think about pushing Mary and FitzRoy instead.

Oh no. That would be silly.

He's got to, else Anne will banish him to Siberia and immediately start working her wicked witchy ways over gentle giant Henry, who'll just have to start killing again.

It's coming, man! You'll see!

But no.

Norfolk never switches sides, doesn't form his own Third Option party, or even throw his lot in with the upcoming Seymours.

And why bother?

Even if we supposed there's no natural love between them, and this fragile alliance held simply as a matter of business and mutually beneficial self-advancement, he's not going to be more powerful with someone else's niece on the throne, is he?

Getting all the juicy details from Henry Percy is intended to lend this story a sense of credibility, in that he's both a high-born peer of the realm and Anne's former betrothed who loved her obsessively.

'The Earl then began to enlarge on the arrogance and malice of the King's lady, saying that lately she had spoken such shameful words to the Duke of Norfolk as one would not address to a dog, so that he was compelled to quit the chamber.'

Well if even HE's turned against her, she must be a wrong 'un.

This gives you the idea Anne and Norfolk were good enough to settle things like men right in front him, or that an earl was creeping about peering through the keyholes.

Anne and Norfolk ➡️ Percy ➡️ Chapuys.

Yet just a month later Percy is telling Cromwell he's been terribly ill for an entire year and hardly left his rooms, hence his need for a physician, meaning he can't have seen it either.

You've thus got to assume yet another link in the chain:

Anne and Norfolk ➡️ Spy ➡️ Percy ➡️ Chapuys.

Not only that, but Chapuys hasn't even spoken to Percy; instead it's from his doctor of all people.

Anne and Norfolk ➡️ Spy ➡️ Percy ➡️ Physician ➡️ Chapuys.

This is the most direct path I can make, without considering any unknown participants between the first spy and Percy.

The 'incident' went through at least four people before it got to us, each of whom opposed Anne and no doubt embellished the info before passing it on (which we all do, even innocently) and it's STILL not particularly impressive.

No weapons, no wounds, no life-long injuries leaving limbs maimed and bedraggled, which is curious considering the narrative always witters on about how belligerent both were.

Only a bit of back-and-forth bad-mouthing and general opprobrium like a couple of internet dweebs.

Speaking of which, we have all these 'witnesses' and no doubt 'good authorities', and we still don't know what they actually said!

Apparently we're to be satisfied with the knowledge they were very 'shameful words', and simply too abominable for decent people to write down.

It implies Anne was effin' and jeffin' like a back-street fishwife rolling in the gutter pissed and brawling with the neighbours.

See? She's filth. Common as muck.

Hardly an aristocrat even, as no well-born young lady would know such revolting terms.

SCUM!!!

Heh. Can you believe this ill-bred tart's got the nerve to set herself up as Queen of England? It's laughable.

Katherine wouldn't have said that.

Exactly. And that just shows.

As for Norfolk's language, well he was provoked, and broke down as any nobleman would when confronted with such vulgarity, so cut him some slack.

And whilst he also Said Things, they were merely the wise, avuncular 'reproaches' she both deserved and ought to take on board, like a serene village elder correcting ruffian whelps for their own good.

In no way were they 'shameful', although we can't mention them for some reason.

But lo, True Breeding showed at the last, and Norfolk employed a printable term by calling Anne a big old whore, which she was.

Every other utterance was worse than that, which makes me wonder what it could be, but Chapuys was generous enough to allow us that titbit.

I repeat, Chapuys made sure Anne being denounced a whore was preserved for posterity.

During this period Euse had a manic fixation with egging on Charles V to firebomb England, stressing how MARY WILL DIE yesterday if he doesn't deliver total war in the next five minutes.

Since that failed to occur, the Emperor didn't take it too seriously, which I daresay caused a severe amount of vexation.

'I doubt not he will be very glad to hear that the Earl of Northumberland is not too well pleased either with the King or with his ministers, as the said Earl's physician informed me two days ago, declaring that his master had said the whole realm was so indignant at the oppressions and enormities now practised, that if the Emperor would make the smallest effort, the King would be ruined.'

Go on, Charles, just a little full-scale campaign!

It'll be no bother!

Is it not somewhat suspicious that Percy just so happens to agree whole-heartedly with the scheme, and what's more, is happy to send his employees to blab treason to foreign representatives?

However much one might oppose the break from Rome, the idea the average Englishman would exchange that for ending up a subservient vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire is something of a leap.

But Chapuys would have you think they're on their hands and knees, pleading for the sweet release of invasion and the resulting mass death as some sort of cleansing ritual.

'The King's only hope was in the Turk, of whose strength those here shamefully boast.'

Well, except for this time where they've all suddenly turned Muslim 'cause Henry will really really really tag-team with the Turks and start a caliphate if you don't hurry up, Charles.

I'm envisioning the original Spy scuttling off to give the goss to Percy, who's lying on his deathbed and no doubt sweating, taking spoonfuls of horrible medicine and pulling faces between ooh-ing and ah-ing at such tantalising details, before packing Doctor Shipman off for an exclusive tell-all to Chapuys, with particular instructions that he must, must, must, confess how keen Percy is on seeing Henry beaten, usurped and killed.

Not only that, but the Earl's encouragement of regicide is the main topic, with Anne and her uncle bunged in as an afterthought.

Does this not seem somewhat unlikely?

Was Henry Percy so unhinged he risked his own execution simply to spread rumours about his former fiancée?

And how do we know he even sent the physician at all, or if he too was betrayed by eavesdropping servants?

Some loyalty that is: become a creature of Chapuys and he'll expose you as a traitor.

'In his indignation he declared himself to one to whom he did not generally show good-will, and uttered reproaches against the said Lady, of which the least was to call her "grande putain."'

Is this from the same conversation, as how would the Earl's side hear what Norfolk said in private?

If so, it throws my theorized chain of communication up in the air.

I can't tell if, once Percy heard the news, he raced out the door and nosed about for a follow-up:

Anne and Norfolk ➡️ Spy ➡️ Percy ➡️ The Ill-Willed One ➡️ Percy ➡️ Physician ➡️ Chapuys.

Although given his health, it's more likely he dispatched Doctor Crippen to dig up the dirt:

Anne and Norfolk ➡️ Spy ➡️ Percy ➡️ Physician ➡️ The Ill-Willed One ➡️ Physician ➡️ Percy ➡️ Physician ➡️ Chapuys.

Or another attendant got involved:

Anne and Norfolk ➡️ Spy ➡️ Percy ➡️ Attendant ➡️ The Ill-Willed One ➡️ Attendant ➡️ Percy ➡️ Physician ➡️ Chapuys.

The problem with either of these routes is they depend upon the Physician or Attendant having the knowledge of Norfolk's misused associates and then being able to walk up to them and ask for more, which would only be feasible if the Ill-Willed One was of a similar rank.

Then again, this might be two separate sources Chapuys blended together:

Anne and Norfolk ➡️ Spy ➡️ Percy ➡️ Physician ➡️ Chapuys ➕ Anne and Norfolk ➡️ Norfolk ➡️ The Ill-Willed One ➡️ Chapuys.

As in, the Ill-Willed One jumped at the opportunity to do Norfolk a bad turn, which would rather explain why the latter dislikes them.

OR Euse got the first message and sniffed out the rest himself:

Anne and Norfolk ➡️ Spy ➡️ Percy ➡️ Physician ➡️ Chapuys ➡️ The Ill-Willed One ➡️ Chapuys.

Which ever way you go, where else would hearsay this tenuous be taken as undeniable fact?

'The Ill-Willed One' is often assumed to be Elizabeth Stafford, which would fit the description; indeed I've known this section paraphrased as her telling Chapuys that Norfolk called Anne a whore.

What a mimsy, feeble-fannied way of going about it, though: that oh, Norfolk said MUCH WORSE than that, but it just doesn't bear repeating.

Yet compared to identifying the Earl, Chapuys comes over all modest and suspiciously vague about this source, and I can't think why since the Duchess was a known ally, and would be more likely to have insider information.

If his status renders him an honest witness, then wouldn't hers do the same?

The only explanation is that he named Percy to add veracity to the story, but omitted this one's identity as it would take it away, and thus it wasn't Elizabeth.

And even IF this was word-for-word true, isn't it still a bit much to judge their entire association, from Anne's childhood to her death, on one single snippet of an argument?

Is fighting with family really so unusual it deserves to be classed as the summation of their relationship?

Why is a piece of many-handed gossip, regurgitated by the most hostile antagonist around, taken as Gospel truth, and yet the report of Norfolk crying as he sentenced her to death brushed aside as meaningless?

No, you don't understand!

'After this the Duke went on to say that the King, his master, had taken in very good part the advice I had given to Cremuel [Cromwell], to avoid all occasions of offence against Your Majesty.'

Look at Chap preening himself on the thought of Henry following orders.

'He had been grieved to hear that the Queen's arms had been removed from her barge, and rather ignominiously torn off and cut to pieces.'

Henry was never married to Katherine and she was never Queen.

But he wept buckets at the idea she wouldn't be acknowledged as Queen with her symbols all over the place.

'He had severely reprimanded that Lady's chamberlain, not only for having caused the said arms to be removed, but for having appropriated the said barge, lately belonging to the Queen, when there were in the river many others equally fit for the Lady's service.' 

Hey, man! Henry didn't want this!

How was he to know ending a millennia of Roman Catholicism would lead to REAL serious stuff like using a boat?

And why on earth would That Bitch Anne want the designated queeny boat for her coronation?

Why couldn't she be happy with one of the un-queenly vessels for when she was crowned Queen of England instead of getting ideas above her station?

It's just eeevul, man.

I know. Katherine was counting on going jet-skiing in that.

'I failed not to praise the King's behaviour in this particular instance, saying to the Duke that there was no need of an excuse, for what belonged to the Queen was by right the King's own.'

When Anne wants a boat, it's SICK and VILE and WRONG.

See? She deserved it.

When Henry takes the boat, well... it's his anyway.

When Henry takes the boat and gives it to Anne, it's...

'Hearing which, the Duke praised the Queen and the Princess, extolling their virtues and good qualities, so much so that it would have been impossible for me to speak of them in higher terms, adding that he was sure Your Majesty loved already the Princess, without having seen her, and would in future love her still more.

Among other virtues of the Queen, the Duke pointed out to me as a most prominent one her great modesty, prudence, and forbearance, not only during these last disagreeable differences, but likewise on former occasions, the King having been at all times very much given to amorous intrigues.'

Norfolk RESPECTS Katherine!

That's where the beating heart of a REAL man lies!

'Shortly after the Duke began to excuse himself and say that he had not been either the originator or promoter of this second marriage, but, on the contrary, had always been opposed to it, and tried to dissuade the King therefrom.'

He never wanted Henry to marry Anne AT ALL!

He told him not to, man!

Hey. Come on. Norfolk ain't interested in power. You know that.

He just wanted a quiet life with his feet up, and none of these here shenanigans.

But Chapuys can't always keep control of his own begrudging rhetoric, and so refers to 'this second marriage', as in a lawful union.

'Had it not been for him and for the father of the Lady, who feigned to be attacked by frenzy to have the better means of opposing it, the marriage would have been secretly contracted a year ago; and for this opposition (the Duke observed) the Lady had been exceedingly indignant with the one and the other.'

Anne Boleyn: "Hey, Dad! I'm getting married!"

Thomas Boleyn: "WOOOOOO! I'M MAD, ME!"

Even her old man developed temporary insanity to postpone that horrid union, so of course she's gunning for 'em.

I like how that's never explained, and we're just left to envision Thomas rolling on the floor and frothing at the gob, and what's more, that he was acting it out, which constitutes doing it before a full audience.

And I wonder who this 'very good source' Chapuys brags was at the wedding, and thus Anne's trusted friend, is meant to be?

Oh he's keen enough to land Percy in peril, but gets so coy about it otherwise, eh?

'This morning the Lady came from Greenwich to the Tower of London accompanied by several prelates and lords, and innumerable other people, as is customary with the queens of this country, and it must be observed that whatever sorrow and annoyance the King may have experienced, as the Duke of Norfolk gave me to understand, at the seizure of the Queen's own barge, the Lady has unscrupulously made use of it at this coronation of hers, and appropriated it for her own use.'

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOT THE BOAT! ANYTHING BUT THAT!

Steady now. Don't blame Norfolk and Henry for any of this.

Why I'll have you know they shudder at the EEEEEEEEVUL unleashed.

Again, describing Anne's journey as 'customary with the queens of this country' sounds like another slip where he inadvertently acknowledges her title.

'May God permit that she may henceforwards be contented with possessing the barge, the jewels, and the husband of the Queen [BITCH], without attempting also, as I have remarked in my preceding despatches, the life of the Queen and Princess!'

Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is serious, lads.

Sitting on a boat? Next stop: murder.

Slippery slope.

'The coronation pageant was all that could be desired, and went off very well, as to the number of the spectators, which was very considerable, but all looked so sad and dismal that the ceremony seemed to be a funeral rather than a pageant [triumphe] for I am told that the indignation of the English against their king is daily increasing, as well as the hope that Your Majesty will one of these days apply a remedy to this state of things.'

And no one liked that smelly old coronation I tells ya, and don't let them massive crowds tell you otherwise.

Obviously they attended as a trick, so the joke's on Anne. Yes!

Thousands turned up, but turned up to cry.

For a cloak of sorrow engulfed the nation as they wrung their hands at the injustice of it all and OH WHY CAN'T SOMEONE INVADE?!

'One thing, he added, was to be considered that whoever assailed England must have wings or else come by sea; even if a landing were effected the English would not be easily conquered.

As to try and do them harm or make war by sea that was more difficult than people imagined; and he did not hesitate to say that sure as they were of the alliance of France the English were not afraid of any other power.

The better to prove his assertion the Duke went on to say that should Your Majesty under take to make war upon England you had better look to the defence of your own dominions from his [the King's] friends and allies who, he remarked, were neither few nor insignificant, since besides the most Christian King of France, who was the constant friend [invariablemant] of England, and as faithful an ally as could possibly be wished for, the King had also at his pleasure and command the King of Scotland [James], who after the one year's truce concluded between the two countries desired nothing short of a durable peace and alliance.

The Duke added that he had no hesitation to say and affirm that before ten months were over the said King of Scotland would personally come here [to London] when a marriage between him and a daughter of King Francis would be effected.

Besides these, the Duke went on to say, we count upon the friendship and co-operation of several German princes; and "as to Italy," he said, your master, the Emperor, must not rely too much on it, for the affairs in that country are not so comfortable as he might desire.'

But you better watch yourself, Chuck. Cause we'll get the French, Scots, Germans, Italians and Spanish to get yer if you do.

Remember, Norfolk is secretly on their side, and abhorred the very concept of Anne becoming queen all along.

And yet he threatened to nuke the Holy Roman Emperor from orbit if he endangered her.

This report (and the slight variation) veers here and there pulling all the threads together.

I looked up the references The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn offered as proof of the growing animosity between uncle and niece, and every single one came from Chapuys!

Yeah. This rift got so bloody enormous no one else even noticed it, but old Euse possessed such a keen pair of wizard eyes he knew The Twoof without actually being there.

See Anne totally wants to persecute and kill Cromwell for daring to befriend the Ambassador, but of course that's merely concealing The Real Story, where they're in cahoots to destroy Norfolk, because Crom just hates them fancy fellas with their airs and graces.

Which, if this convenient 'good authority' is to be believed, entirely justifies Norfolk moving against him later.

At this point I started considering the popular narrative around Thomas Howard and how bizarre it is when put together.

Here's a power-hungry flat-out psychopath who tortured and half-beat his wife to death, who threatened to eat Wolsey and smash Mary's head open, and yet was also a sycophantic snivilling coward who abandoned his innocent nieces to die rather than risk his own neck, but also Anne is So Mean to him and he really doesn't like it when she Says Mean Things to Katherine and Mary because he's actually a very sensitive soul with honourable feelings and Deep Down he knows that's the True Queen and True Princess championing the True Faith BUT ANNE IS SO MEAN!!!

And you should credit Chapuys when he's telling you How Mean she really is to the poor, long-suffering pensioner, but not when he says Cromwell wants to 'lower the great ones' in the same letter, because that would vindicate Norfolk and Surrey's 'snobbery' towards him.

And we can't have that, 'cause they're the villains in that one.

I really liked this book when it came out but it's disappointing how often Ives takes Chapuys's word for it on Norfolk's estrangement from Anne, when its clearly another attack on her by proxy.

He's desperate to convince Charles she's losing her strongest supporter, vulnerable and alone, so now's the perfect opportunity to storm the white cliffs of Dover, as if victory hinges upon Norfolk drifting away like an omen of doom.

But as I said, nothing comes of this.

Anne and Norfolk are on the verge of killing one another going by these hysterical retellings, and yet never split up, or show any sign of resentment before anyone else.

Nah. They save up all that boiling anger and release it once a week in a primetime M.M.A. showdown before a select audience of Chap's web of espionage instead, Gawd bless 'em.

I can only conclude that Chapuys is dabbling in witchcraft with his 'magical thinking', as in trying to shape the universe to his liking, where if he states a lie is true over and over again, it suddenly will be thanks to his epic reality-bending powers.

Duck Off Richmond.

The type who spout the same old cliché of Anne and Norfolk and their relentlessly poisonous feelings for one another are also the bunch insisting she arranged for FitzRoy to marry Mary Howard to 'neutralise' the threat he posed to her and Elizabeth.

Yet these two stances are inherently contradictory.

If marriage to Mary rendered FitzRoy 'safe', then by definition, the company he went into had to also be 'safe', as in influencing his opinions into supporting Anne.

Therefore, since he came under Norfolk's control at the fall of Wolsey, this grand plan of Anne's necessitates that she trusted her uncle with her life, in that she handed him an alternative path to power that would involve her removal, and yet knew nothing would come of it if she did.

It can't just be that they were at each other's throats day and night, but nevertheless she hedged her bets 50/50 and risked that he'd 'see sense' about what he'd get in return and go along with the plot regardless.

There are only two options:

1. Anne connived this master scheme to nobble FitzRoy once and for all, but with Norfolk and Mary scheming right beside her, cackling in evil fashion together as they laid out their blueprint for world domination.

2. Anne loved her family and took it as her duty to provide the best for them, including the greatest matches available, with the added bonus of removing a possible rival.

But neither points to bad blood between them.

Incidentally, if Fitz was such a danger to Anne, he would've been to Jane too, especially during the long wait for pregnancy, so I wonder what the Seymours would try to do with him.

If they'd attempted to persuade Henry to annul the marriage with Mary, maybe Norfolk really would have championed them as heirs to the throne this time.

It's interesting that Anne's reputation has always been bad, and yet so has her uncle's, for all that he 'opposed' her, as we're told.

Perhaps it's more that he is judged to be thoroughly selfish and cold, but it's a human type of corruption we see so often.

She however, was practically dæmonic, a veritable monster defying the natural laws of God.

(Well when you look at all those extra body parts she had there's clearly something unearthly about her, eh?)

Same with Henry. He's also long been considered a tyrant and his disgusting behaviour reviled.

Except when married to Anne, as suddenly he's a delicate little rosebud terrorized into murder and then crying himself to sleep each night.

In fact it was close contact with her sulfuric self that not only forced his hand (ON PAIN OF DEATH!) but poisoned his mind forever.

Yeah. He was fine before that.

Once you have a little dig into the archives it's appalling to find that literally every 'outrage' Anne committed, which a fan is pressured to acknowledge and relentlessly apologise for, comes from bloody Chapuys.

Everything, from how she's gonna stiff Mary next Tuesday to wishing Spain was under the sea, is from his deranged, hateful pinbrain, and we're STILL supposed to take it seriously!

To this day I reflexively read his use of 'Queen' and 'Princess' as indicating Anne and Elizabeth, as that's what all the surrounding correspondence means by it, and so I regularly have to remind myself he's just a pedantic conehead.

And SUCH a misery guts!

Any ceremony honouring Anne and NO ONE liked it, NO ONE enjoyed themselves, instead they all queued up outside to jump off a bridge.

When else would you ever be expected to trust a man wishing constant death and misfortune on a woman as a reliable judge of her character?

If you suspect Richard murdered his nephews, then you're just too stupid to see through the Tudor propaganda machine like The Wise Ones can.

If you think Mary burning people to death is anything less than divine, clearly you're brainwashed by Elizabeth the Barren and the so-called 'Gloriana' myth, and Real Intellectuals look down on you.

But if you don't believe an overtly bitchy, vindictive character assassination that wills someone to to die, well that's your problem.

You're just one o' them delinquent Anne Stans and don't belong in civilised society.

Loooooooooool. These Anne girlies just won't accept their fave was No Saint.

In the next breath:

Uhmahgahd WHY didn't they make Katherine a saint?!

She literally never anything wrong ever.

And even when these oh-so heinous 'threats' to do away with Katherine / Mary / Norfolk / Cromwell never lead anywhere, you NEED to accept 'the truth' that Anne Said Mean Things and shame on you for defending her.

It's not just personal preference, oh no. Liking her is some great mental failing threatening the future of humanity.

You must be constantly challenged and reminded of how unacceptable your views are, by bitter, hectoring morons who swallowed Chapuys's bowl of bile in one gulp and hankered for more.

And he MUST be right because his version fits the popular narrative, which he started in the first place.

He agrees with himself!

I rarely see eye-to-eye with fellow Anne fans because I lose patience with their relentless self-abasement: constantly sorry to exist and shrivelling into a pool of goo at the slightest intimidation.

No amount of grovelling is good enough, and any concession or attempt to 'be fair' is taken as a sign of weakness and agreeing you deserve the abuse, so don't do it.

And those enforcing this straitened and oppressive atmosphere pose as the high-minded, morally righteous golden army of God, keeping pious vigil over the Earth and stamping out foul, blackest wickedness for our own good.

I'm not 'avin' it!

It just sends me in the other direction.

Hi there,

I noticed you've been following me for awhile thanks. I saw some of your posts on the Howards and noticed that you mentioned somewhere that the Duke of Norfolk might have played a part in Cromwell's downfall in 1540 in order to get revenge for Anne Boleyn's execution.

That's a very interesting theory and I like it. Is there much evidence for any affection Norfolk or the other Howards had for Anne? I've always seen Norfolk as an evil villain who treated his family badly but maybe there was more to him than that?

Hello.

Sorry it's taken such a time to respond, but as you'll see it's VERY long, so I wouldn't start reading this on the bus.

Part One

As a child I used to be very annoyed by 20th-century writers treating historical figures like ice-cold robots welded to lifeless 'logic', and incapable of doing anything rash or ridiculous.

Oh why would Richard kill the Princes when it'd make him look bad?!

See? It must've been a plot by Margaret Beaufort all along.

(I know it's improved since then, but that first impression stuck.)

Reading history, I've always assumed family members instinctively cared for one another, unless their words and actions proved otherwise, and yet the above mentality pushed the exact opposite: that it was 'irresponsible' to even suggest any sort of natural bond between relatives unless they actually wrote it down, which is an absurd standard.

To me it's as silly as saying 'we don't know' if they breathed air as no one put it in a diary.

What does it matter how long ago they lived? They're still people.

I've even seen the extremely smug attitude that caring about one's own children is entirely a 'modern' invention, and the Mediæval and Tudor age wouldn't have understood such a concept.

Wouldn't have understood love!

Since then I've been interested in emotional bonds between friends and family, given how much closer they were than now, particularly rebelling against the idea Elizabeth didn't care about Anne.

And the Boleyns / Howards are my favourites, so their clannish level of kinship fascinates me the most.

Let's go through some of them:

Catherine Howard, Countess of Bridgewater

Catherine's first husband was Rhys ap Gruffydd, heir of a powerful Welsh family.

Problem was when his grandfather died Rhys got passed over (I expect because he was seventeen) in favour of Walter Devereux (the 10th Baron Ferrers), and Rhys wasn't 'avin that.

Devereux arrested him for disturbing the peace, which sent Catherine bananas as she'd convinced herself they were all out to get her husband.

In response she stirred up the local gentry and marched on Carmarthen Castle, threatening to burn the door down and bust on in there if Rhys wasn't freed.

Well after that unease and bitter factionalism bubbled up to denonation point, with servants killed on either side and Catherine attacking and destroying Devereux's property, meaning he sent word to England descibing BOTH of them as leaders of a 'rebellion and insurrection'.

Rhys sounds like a knob to me. You could say Henry caused this mess in the first place, but Rhys ought to have known where all this was leading.

His Wiki page lays it on that he was some noble folk hero martyred to the Reformation, but adding 'FitzUrien' to his name, thereby playing on ancient Welsh myths and thus (supposedly) announcing himself as Prince of Wales, was pushing his luck to say the least.

That's a worse blunder than Henry Howard made and no one ever feels sorry for him.

I shouldn't think he had conspired with James V, but going by this quote from the chronicler Elis Gruffudd (a very interesting fella in his own right) he wasn't universally mourned:

Rhys was beheaded in 1531, but Catherine was in the soup herself after all she'd been up to assisting him.

As Gareth Russell says:

'While we may never know exactly how much his own actions brought about Rhys's death, we can be certain of the devastating effect it had on his widow. She had been intimately involved in her husband's quarrel, and so the possibility that she would be accused of complicity in his alleged treason was tangible.

Left to forge prospects for their three young children — Anne, Thomas and Gruffydd — and fearful for herself, Lady Katherine followed in the footsteps of her elder brother Edmund and flung herself on the mercy of their niece, Anne Boleyn. Once again, the family's dark-eyed golden girl did not disappoint.'

It notable how often you see Anne, and later Elizabeth, willingly pull relatives out of sticky situations, which suggests at least some previous attachment on both sides, as I shouldn't imagine either would be too happy doing it for the more hostile characters.

Compare Katherine's reliance on Anne, a half-niece, to Elizabeth Seymour writing to Cromwell for help, not Jane, her own sister.

'She may even have tried to limit the damage for her aunt and young cousins shortly before Rhys's execution.'

Which was good of Anne considering Rhys had slagged her off, with both of those links having the nerve to imply his death was somehow her doing.

Had he lived, I do wonder if his opposition, compared to Catherine, who, familiarity or not, no doubt wanted to benefit from the connection, would've provoked a certain marital discord.

'Rhys had been attainted at the time of his conviction, meaning that the Crown could seize his goods and property, but his Act of Attainder specifically and unusally made provisions for his widow, who was left with an annual income of about £196.

If Anne could not save Rhys, she worked hard to salvage his family's situation.'

Meaning she got Henry to surrender some of his ill-gotten gains solely to avoid her aunt's destitution, where plenty of other widows and orphans were left to fend for themselves.

Anne also got Catherine a new husband in old-timer Henry Daubeney, but they bloody hated each other and split up soon enough.

According to Eric Ives:

'Over the winter of 1535-6, Katherine Howard, Anne's aunt, was trying to secure a separation from her second husband, Henry, Lord Daubeney. She told Cromwell that the only assistance she was receiving was from the Queen herself, and this despite the strenuous efforts which were being made to destroy her standing with Anne.

The help may have been very practical indeed; Lord Daubeney, who was certainly pleading financial hardship at one stage, reached an amicable agreement with his wife after Anne's father had made available £400.'

Even though this post about Catherine insists neither Anne nor Norfolk gave a toss about her personal woes, from the looks a things Anne was trying to solve this problem too.

'I have none to do me help except the Queen, to whom I am much bound, and with whom much effort is made to draw her favour from me.

My lord my husband has paid well to make friends against me, but I trust that the truth of what I suffer will be known...'

One wonders how all these paid agitators ended up gathered 'round Anne, nagging or distracting her from Catherine's cause, but evidently she wasn't put off.

Plus, according to that last link, Catherine never learnt her lesson and took part in the Pilgrimage of Grace an' all, raising 3,000 men against Henry!

By the sounds of it, this isn't a sudden burst of furious piety at work, rather there's almost an absence of religion in Catherine's life.

The obvious explanation would be yet again wreaking vengeance in Rhys's memory, and that's evident given her long-standing vendetta against his disloyal servants.

But would it be too much to think she was motivated to a certain extent by the death of her niece and nephew, being 'much bound' to the former?

And as she avoided all punishment, the remaining Howards (i.e. Norfolk) had to have covered up for her.

William Howard, 1st Baron Howard of Effingham

In 1529 there was much scrapping over the wardship of the Broughton sisters.

Wolsey ended up with the younger, Katherine, but upon his fall it seems Anne got the girl transferred to the care of Agnes Tilney, who then married her to William, so Anne was responsible for his first marriage.

(Not that it prevented Katherine Broughton from acting, as Ives puts it, as 'ringleader', in a demo for Mary six years later, and getting herself locked up in the Tower as a result, but there you go.)

Given the amount of important roles he enjoyed during Anne's queenship, all whilst barely out of his teens, she must have liked him:

• 1531: Ambassador to Scotland.

• 1532: Travelled to Calais with Anne to meet Francis.

• 1533: Served as Earl Marshal during Anne's coronation, in place of Norfolk.

• 1533: Held the canopy at Elizabeth's christening.

• 1535: Visited Scotland to award the Order of the Garter to James.

• 1536: Went again to Scotland to arrange a meeting between Henry and James.

Besides, Chapuys said of him:

'People are astonished at the despatch of so stupid and indiscreet a man.'

So he had to be Anne's friend.

Once he hears of her arrest, William curses it as 'heavy news', demanding to know the truth from Cromwell and resenting all the Scottish clergy as 'capital enemies' for rejoicing in her fall.

Mainly I'm mentioning him to discuss his own character, and where his evident loyalty to other family might give us a further suggestion of his relationship to Anne, and how he kept to that sense of honour even when it led him into dangerous territory.

Consider, for example, how he named his son Charles after his brother, and called his daughter Douglas in honour Margaret Douglas, Charles's wife, thus commemorating their doomed romance.

You'd also be surprised how often he turns up in Young and Damned and Fair, as he appears to have been Katherine's closest uncle, for all that she's usually connected to Norfolk.

Indeed, so deep was he in it Agnes had to be advised not to warn him off coming home, meaning he arrived from France and found himself immediately clapped in the Tower, whereupon he craftily claimed all his best plate was washed overboard so Henry couldn't get at it, which worked.

Later, his connection with Henry Howard ensured he missed out on being Admiral, and when he did get it, Mary took it off him to punish his partiality to Elizabeth.

There's a section here detailing his bond with Elizabeth, where he's credited with saving her life, if you ignore the obvious errors:

I especially like the idea everyone feared William would kidnap Philip!

However, there's a very odd paragraph in his son's Wiki page:

'In 1552, he was sent to France to become well-educated in the French language, but was soon brought back to England at the request of his father because of questionable or unexpected treatment.'

Am I mad or does this imply Charles Howard endured sexual abuse in his teens?

Were it only poor lodgings or sub-standard teaching, he could've moved elsewhere.

Were it excessive beating, you'd expect it to be made plain, not using all this cagey, obfuscating language.

But the thought did lead me to ponder their father-son bond, where Charles, whatever shame he suffered, knew he was loved enough that writing to his father would make it stop.

And William, reading it, rescued him immediately, proving the boy right.

This is a mere fancy of mine, but when it's just after Elizabeth's ordeal, whom he obviously cared so much about, and knowing she could easily have died like Katherine, which happened in part because he never stopped Dereham, one wonders if his moral failing then pushed him to protect Charles and Elizabeth later.

Thomas Howard, 1st Viscount Howard of Bindon

I'm hard-pressed to unearth much information on this lad, but everyone leaves him out so I won't.

There's gotta be some reason Elizabeth ennobled him, and so early on (in 1559) before he'd had the chance to serve her.

It can't just be she looked round the court, noticed he was the last of Norfolk's children, and awarded him for that.

I wish we knew more about Elizabeth's childhood, as in who she met and associated with at court, because you can be certain she met the Howards then.

I also want to add a little about his eldest son, the 2nd Viscount, who was...odd, to say the least:

• Being a pirate;

• Dressing as a tramp;

• Beating everyone including his wife.

This gave me the the idea that perhaps his and Norfolk's reputation had somehow been rolled up together over the centuries, where this Henry Howard, although unknown today, was probably infamous in his time, and maybe his behaviour in a sense lended credibility to the accusations of spousal abuse against Norfolk, where people felt Henry 'got it from somewhere'.

When Elizabeth learnt what he was up to, she sent Hercules Meautys (what a name) to rescue his sister, and took Frances in, with her husband dubbing her 'a filthy and porky whore', which was rich coming from him.

And his other son, the 3rd Viscount, killed his own father-in-law and had a long-running feud with Walter Raleigh.

He also spent years trying to have his brother's granddaughter Ambrosia declared a bastard to grab all her land, so Elizabeth locked him up!

Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey

Anne found Surrey a wife and took him with her to France, where he and FitzRoy remained as honoured guests until the next autumn.

He was then obliged to serve as Earl Marshal as Anne and George were sentenced to death.

Four years later, according to Gareth Russell, Surrey not only watched Cromwell's execution, but gloated about it afterwards:

'Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, stood at the forefront of the crowd and watched the scene without pity. He was missing his cousin's wedding to be here to see his family's bête noire finished off.

Later that day, he could not conceal his good mood. It felt to him like a settling of scores:

"Now is the false churl dead, so ambitious of others' blood."'

What does this mean?

Who's blood has Cromwell lusted after?

Who did he kill four years ago?

Surrey can't be referring to himself when Cromwell had actually protected him from punishment not long before, which in itself suggests a few interesting things:

• Cromwell was not yet aware of just how much the Howards despised him, as in, up til then his relationship with them was at least civil, cordial even, so the old line about Norfolk begrudging the 'new men' just because they're new men doesn't quite wash.

• This would've the perfect opportunity to bring down a mighty rival, but instead Cromwell felt bizarrely generous and intervened on Surrey's behalf, meaning he saw no harm in preserving the family, and instead thought it useful to get them on side.

• Why does he feel the need to favour the family?

Has he done something to antagonise them?

• The Howards are collectively putting on an Oscar-worthy acting routine of feigned friendliness, or at least indifference to said actions, so Cromwell, whilst he might suspect he's given slight offence, assumes it'll soon be forgotten if he pats them on the head here and there.

• Except whatever Cromwell did, saving Surrey wasn't enough to warrant forgiveness.

And let's examine this quote in detail:

Surrey is at 'the forefront' of spectators, keen to behold Cromwell dying in all its gory brutality, besides opting to watch such a horrendous deed over attending Katherine's wedding.

Instead of a happy celebration of his family's success, something he could've easily enjoyed in the knowledge of Cromwell being dealt with out of the way, he insisted on serving as a witness, as if it wouldn't be over until he'd seen it done, almost to be sure that it had.

For this would 'settle the score', shedding his blood in payback for... what exactly?

Thetford Priory?

Is that all?

Or for the blood Cromwell himself so coveted?

And even the sight of such suffering left Surrey unmoved, ridiculing the dead man not only as a 'churl', but a 'false' one.

False to whom?

'False' as in affecting loyalty to his Queen whilst working to bring her down?

Because is that extreme level of hatred really just supposed to be nothing deeper than empty class prejudice?

Usually, Cromwell's fractious history with the Howards is portrayed as Norfolk's one-man defamation campaign of all-encompassing lordly outrage verging on eye-popping insanity, except Surrey clearly loathed him too.

Perhaps from that we can conclude that Cromwell had become unpopular with the whole family, hence the 'bete noir' reference above.

When Surrey's resentment is remembered, it's conveniently boxed up and filed away as the same-old 'snobbery' of his father, which a very neat, uncomplicated excuse that prevents us looking into it properly.

I daresay Surrey was proud and class-conscious, but wouldn't everyone be like that, to a greater or lesser extent?

Why then is this 'haughtiness' only ever attributed to characters we're supposed to dislike, namely Anne, Norfolk, and occasionally George and Surrey, with the 'good' people somehow immune to such 'base' emotions?

Indeed, I'm starting to wonder how much real evidence there is for this common supposition of arrogance.

As if Surrey's known at all, it's for the manner of his death, namely he 'got himself killed' by 'stupidly' quartering the royal arms with his own, which, whilst a gross oversimplification, nevertheless defines him, where history views his character through this lens and reads his entire life backwards, as if there's no explanation for his behaviour other than he was just born to be a cocksure moron.

It plays upon modern bigotry against aristocrats, where they're all stuck-up, slow-witted inbreds fixated with the pecking order and archiac symbolism, keeping the honest worker down to prove they're better than everyone else, which is a laugh because they're all REALLY shallow, superfluous chuckleheads and deserve what they get.

Since the idea Surrey died for something so 'silly' as what badge went where slots so well into the stereotype, then it's cheapened his reputation overall.

Rather than being highly esteemed as a pioneer of English literature and the forerunner of Shakespeare, he's treated as nothing but a hot-headed toff tripped up by his own idiotic pretensions, with an end offered as a 'fitting' denouement, almost a lesson in morality; about where not 'knowing your place' or 'getting ideas above your station' leads... after vilifying Surrey and Norfolk for apparently demanding people know their place and not get ideas above their station.

Something hypocritical there.

There's also a reflexive judgementalism within this fandom and the lower end of publishing (i.e. novels and pop. history) where it's assumed if Anne or any of her family are executed, then even if they're technically innocent, they must've deserved it really, else 'the universe' wouldn't let it happen.

Therefore, known evidence is read with the most bad-faith interpretation, with any declared slip leapt upon and blown out of proportion, solely to prove their own bias correct.

You're right to think that, you are.

Hating them makes you A Good Person.

Again, this ONLY applies to Anne and her supporters, not her enemies.

No, no. They were martyrs to the Cause.

But I wouldn't say Surrey's usage of royal arms spoke to any pathological sense of superiority, certainly not to the extent it should define his memory.

Heraldry and ancestry is the lifeblood of nobility: everyone he knew fought for whatever their birth and court careers entitled them, so why shouldn't he?

Look at his sister protesting again and again and again for her rights as FitzRoy's widow: does this make her a 'snob' because she never gave up fighting?

In fact, dubbing Cromwell a 'churl' doesn't mean too much either.

The average person objects to someone because they're a thief, cheat, liar, etc. but calling them as much is a toothless insult, as they'd require a sense of honour to feel the sting.

And if they had that, they would've have committed the offence it in the first place.

So, you pick on something they probably are sensitive about, such as status or physical appearance, to get your own back.

Calling Henry VIII, for example, a fat bastard, doesn't mean you oppose him for having a weight problem, or that you dislike fat men generally.

It's that you're hitting 'below the belt' to inflict the worst punishment you can.

Oh yeah, it's petty, but the aggrieved often are.

Surrey's real crime, if we deem it one, was apparently rash language of what vengeance he'd wreak on his foes once the King was gone, meaning the Seymours.

So is it mere coincidence that the main targets of this infamous 'snobbery' are those who caused or benefited from Anne's fall?

Are we to believe his only complaint, right down to twice vetoing Mary Howard's marriage, is nothing better than looking down his nose at humble Seymour origins, for they've done nothing whatsoever to draw his ire?

For all the time I've been reading history, the way the court of 1536 splits between the Boleyns and those pushing Jane Seymour, and then, once the Boleyns are wiped out, it greatest rivalry becomes Howard versus Seymour, one lasting for the remainder of Henry's reign, has always struck me as both telling and appropriate.

The idea the Howards took over hating the Seymours because of their slain family is to me to most obvious explanation; the driving force pushing the enmity beyond a decade, and blaming it all on snooty la-di-da attitudes baffles me.

It's so pat and offhand, as if it was thrown into historical research centuries ago and never questioned, passed down to us as unassailable received wisdom, rendered true from repetition, as no one likes Surrey or Norfolk enough to bother reassessing their motivations.

But could such prolonged open hostility run on no greater impulse than keeping the gentry in check?

Is THAT all?

And do note how leading this narrative is, where, if we accept the Howards despised the Seymours as upstarts, then the fault for all bad blood is immediately shoved onto them and them alone, when those poor Seymour lads, rosy-cheeked and pure of heart, are just doing their best in life, working hard and loving everyone.

But oh! Those nasty Howards bullies are So Mean!

Not once is it reversed, proposing that the Seymours envied the Howards' breeding and birth, vowing to bring them down out of spite.

Instead they're absolved of all guilt in the conflict and justified in everything they do as a self-defence measure, even when they brought about Surrey's death and tried it on ten years previously.

So why on earth should he like them?

How I wish this painting still existed.

Starkey describes Henry Howard thus:

'Surrey inherited all Buckingham's grand pride in blood and aristocracy, and all his determination that noblemen should once more come into their own.

Perhaps it was from his mother's side too that he got his most dangerous trait: a rashness and a violence that bordered on madness.

Add to all this an intelligence that was both penetrating and fast and the result was one of the most remarkable men of the age.'

And yet I don't know of any aggressive outbursts prior to 1536, being then known for 'soberness and good learning'.

We tend to class poets of later eras as on the sensitive side, so far from being 'always like that', it may well be that the deaths of George, Anne, FitzRoy and putting down the Pilgrimage of Grace knocked him off the rails, a process then driven beyond all remedy by watching Katherine die and the suicidal shame he endured over his military failures.

Although I do like the sound of him as the hero of High Fantasy.

Whilst I'm here, let's look at this very awkward scenario of Surrey attending the triple Neville wedding, being the children of his mother's intended and her sister.

Considering how desperate so many are to clear Henry VIII of Anne's death, protesting how he Genuinely Believed and that makes it alright then, he's cheerful enough fannying about as a Turk less than two months later.

Finally, writing this I read several of Surrey's poems, and must include this truly endearing piece commemorating his wife's love for him:

Such a poet, and still no one credits him with any tender emotions.

Anyway, don't mind me but I've hit the picture limit.

I'm not sure when Part Two will be done, but I'll let you know, come the time.

[intriguingpeoplebyangelafloyd]

CATHERINE HOWARD

Catherine Howard was Queen of England from July 1540 until November 1541 as the fifth wife of King Henry VIII. She was the daughter of Lord Edmund Howard and Joyce Culpeper, a cousin to Anne Boleyn, and the niece of Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. Thomas Howard was a prominent politician at Henry's court.

#catherinehoward#katherinehoward

[factinhistory]

What Happened on September 9 in British History?

September 9 is a date marked by a series of significant events in British history, spanning battles, cultural milestones, and groundbreaking achievements. This day has witnessed the rise and fall of leaders, innovations in science and photography, and notable moments in literature and music.

What Happened on September 9 in British History?

Battle of Flodden (1513)

On September 9, 1513, the Battle of Flodden took place near Branxton in Northumberland. This pivotal conflict saw English forces, led by Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, defeat the Scots. The battle was one of the most decisive in British history, resulting in the death of King James IV of Scotland, who was the last monarch in Great Britain to be killed in battle.

The Battle of Flodden was a major event in the Anglo-Scottish Wars and had lasting repercussions for both nations. The death of King James IV was a significant blow to Scotland, which struggled with internal strife and political instability in the aftermath. The victory for England solidified its dominance over Scotland for years to come and marked a crucial moment in the power dynamics between the two countries.

Mary Stuart Crowned Queen of Scots (1543)

On September 9, 1543, Mary Stuart, who would later be known as Mary, Queen of Scots, was crowned queen in Stirling, Scotland. At only nine months old, her coronation was a significant event in Scottish history. The young queen’s ascension marked the beginning of a tumultuous reign that would see Scotland embroiled in political and religious conflicts.

Mary Stuart’s reign was marked by both grandeur and tragedy. As a child queen, her rule was heavily influenced by regents and advisors. Her adult years were fraught with political intrigue and conflict, leading to her eventual imprisonment and execution. Despite these challenges, her early coronation on September 9 set the stage for her significant, though troubled, role in Scottish history.

Battle at Flores Azores (1591)

On September 9, 1591, the Battle at Flores, Azores, occurred, where Spanish forces defeated the English. This naval engagement was part of the larger conflict between Spain and England, which included struggles for maritime supremacy and territorial control. The Spanish victory in this battle was significant, reflecting the ongoing rivalry and power struggle between the two maritime nations.

The defeat at Flores was a blow to English naval ambitions and highlighted the strategic importance of the Azores. The outcome influenced subsequent naval engagements and tactics, contributing to the broader context of European conflicts during the late 16th century. September 9, therefore, stands as a notable date in the history of naval warfare and Anglo-Spanish relations.

First Glass Plate Photograph (1839)

On September 9, 1839, English scientist and astronomer John Herschel took the first glass plate photograph. This innovation in photography was a significant advancement from earlier methods, utilizing glass plates coated with a light-sensitive substance to capture images. Herschel’s work was instrumental in the development of photography as a scientific and artistic medium.

Herschel’s glass plate photographs represented a leap forward in image clarity and durability. This technique laid the groundwork for future developments in photographic technology and had a profound impact on both scientific documentation and artistic expression. The use of glass plates continued to be a standard method in photography for many years, thanks to the pioneering work done on September 9, 1839.

First European Post Delivered by Air (1911)

On September 9, 1911, the first European post was delivered by air, marking a milestone in aviation and postal history. The flight, which took place from Hendon to Windsor, England, was a demonstration of the potential for aerial mail delivery. This event was a precursor to the widespread use of air mail and highlighted the growing significance of aviation in communication and logistics.

The successful delivery of post by air on September 9 showcased the feasibility of using aircraft for postal services. It represented a new chapter in the evolution of postal systems, moving beyond traditional ground and sea methods. This innovation would eventually lead to the establishment of regular air mail routes and a transformation in how mail was handled and delivered worldwide.

Creation of the Canadian Automobile Machine Gun Brigade (1914)

On September 9, 1914, during World War I, the British Army established the Canadian Automobile Machine Gun Brigade. This unit was notable for being the first fully mechanized unit in the British Army, representing a significant advancement in military technology and tactics. The brigade was equipped with automobiles and machine guns, reflecting the increasing mechanization of warfare.

The formation of the Canadian Automobile Machine Gun Brigade on September 9 highlighted the strategic shift towards mechanized warfare and the role of innovation in modern conflicts. The brigade’s establishment marked the beginning of a new era in military operations, influencing the development of future mechanized units and warfare strategies.

Gaelic League Meeting (1914)

On September 9, 1914, a crucial meeting was held at the Gaelic League headquarters in Dublin, where members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood and other extreme republicans discussed plans for an uprising against British rule. The meeting marked the initial decision to stage an insurrection while Britain was engaged in World War I, setting the stage for future revolutionary activities.

This meeting on September 9 was a turning point in Irish history, as it laid the groundwork for the 1916 Easter Rising, a key event in Ireland’s struggle for independence. The decision to launch an uprising during wartime reflected the strategic thinking of Irish republicans and their determination to seize the opportunity to challenge British rule.

Hydrofoil Sets Speed Record (1919)

On September 9, 1919, a hydrofoil designed by Alexander Graham Bell, his wife Mabel Bell, and F.W. Casey Baldwin set a new water speed record of 114 km/h on Bras d’Or Lake, Nova Scotia. This achievement was a significant milestone in the development of hydrofoil technology, showcasing the innovative engineering of the Bells and Baldwin.

The success of the hydrofoil on September 9 demonstrated the potential of this technology for increasing watercraft speeds and efficiency. The design and performance of the hydrofoil contributed to advancements in maritime engineering and inspired further research and development in hydrofoil technology.

Release of “Imagine” by John Lennon (1971)

On September 9, 1971, Apple Records released John Lennon’s second solo studio album, “Imagine,” in the United States. The album, which features the iconic title track “Imagine,” quickly became a global hit and topped the charts in several countries, including the US, UK, and Australia. Lennon’s “Imagine” is celebrated for its powerful message of peace and unity.

The release of “Imagine” on September 9 was a significant cultural event, as the album became one of the most influential and enduring works of the 20th century. Lennon’s vision of a world united in peace resonated with audiences worldwide, solidifying his place as a key figure in the cultural and political landscape of the time.

Queen Elizabeth II Becomes Longest-Reigning Monarch (2015)

On September 9, 2015, Queen Elizabeth II became Great Britain’s longest-reigning monarch, surpassing the previous record set by her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria. Elizabeth II’s reign had lasted 63 years and seven months by this date, marking a historic moment for the British monarchy.

Queen Elizabeth II’s achievement on September 9 was a testament to her enduring presence and stability in British royal history. Her reign has seen significant changes in the UK and the world, and this milestone underscored her role as a symbol of continuity and tradition. The record also highlighted the evolving nature of the British monarchy in the modern era.

John Milton’s Copy of Shakespeare’s First Folio (2019)

On September 9, 2019, it was reported that poet John Milton’s own copy of Shakespeare’s First Folio, published in 1623, had survived with his annotations. This discovery, made by scholar Jason Scott-Warren in a Philadelphia library, was heralded as one of the most important modern literary discoveries.

The survival of Milton’s annotated copy of the First Folio provides valuable insights into the intersection of two of England’s greatest literary figures. Milton’s notes on Shakespeare’s work reflect his engagement with and influence by the Bard’s writings, adding depth to the study of early modern English literature. The discovery on September 9 represents a significant contribution to the understanding of literary history and the legacy of both Milton and Shakespeare.

Conclusion

September 9 has been a significant date in British history, marked by battles, cultural milestones, and groundbreaking achievements. From military conflicts and royal ceremonies to advancements in science and literature, this date highlights the diverse and impactful events that have shaped Britain’s past and continue to influence its legacy.