(Cover image – © Pinterest)
‘I choose what I believe and say nothing. For I am not as simple as I may seem.’
- Catherine of Aragon
Judging a book by its cover has always been a popular statement, you cannot judge something by its appearance, you must look within to find out the truth about it. And the same thing goes with people and this quote from the legendary Queen Catherine of Aragon is perfect when describing the mistresses that her husband took during their marriage (and her second marriage / his first marriage).
You cannot always believe what history says about these women—remember that history is written by men and men did not respect mistresses, not even those of the King. In their minds, they were promiscuous women who did not deserve the respect offered to noblewomen who were chaste and ideal, if you could even call the treatment they received as ‘respect’.
More like domination, if you ask me.
Because of the men who wrote history’s lack of respect towards these women, there are so many unrealistic myths and silly lies that have been circulated about the King’s mistresses that people nowadays cannot tell what the truth is and what is false information, but that’s what this post is dedicated to!
Telling you what is vicious lies and what the truth was (or is, whichever way you want to look at it).
So, let us take a look at the myths and theories created about some the mistresses Henry ‘took’ during his first marriage.
. . .
Anne Stafford – Myth; she was much younger than the King
You will already know from our blog post ‘Anne Stafford; Henry’s first mistress?’ that Anne was actually older than the King, the reason behind why there is a misconception about whether she was older or younger than the King is simple: Henry VIII is known for taking mistresses or wives that were much younger than him throughout his entire reign. But this does not mean that every single one of them was younger.
As mentioned in the listed blog, it is believed that, in the early years of his reign, the King preferred much older and experienced women for his lovers before his type changed to inexperienced virgins and therefore it seems odd that there would be a myth about Anne being younger than the King in existence.
Personally, the myth seems to be a way of further causing scandal upon Anne Stafford and to her family, one of the most influential families in England during the time of which the affair supposedly took place. What better way to shame a young woman such as her than trying to make it seem like she was corrupted by the King at such a delicate age.
Rather odd myth but it could be worse.
Anne Stafford – Theory; did Anne become the King’s mistress for her families’ sake?
Kings take mistresses from noble families and members of their wives’ household all the time, this is not new. But the reasons why mistresses consent to the affair is numerous; some do it because of the benefits it can offer their families, some do it because it might attract a potential husband (if they are being seen as attractive by the King, perhaps another member of the court might want to court her) or simply because they want to be the King’s mistress (maybe they might love him or what to know what the King is like in bed, who knows?).
What we do not know is the reason for why Anne became the King’s mistress. It is not as if Anne had to worry about finding a potential husband as she was already married—only recently in fact—by the time the affair was said to have begun and the couple were believed to have been very happy, perhaps even in love (I mean, they did have eight children together)? So, did Anne love the King?
Possibly—but if she truly loved her husband, would she have fallen for the King?
Is it truly possible to love two people at once?
I highly doubt it.
My theory is that perhaps, considering how Anne Stafford’s father had been executed during the year of her birth (and her mother was the sister of the King’s grandmother) and how this had impacted the state of the family, Anne had decided to consent to the King’s pursuit of her in order to benefit her family. Perhaps she thought that, if the affair remained a secret as to prevent the inevitable scandal that followed, her male relations might benefit from her straying from the marital bed—perhaps she thought that her brother might rise in power or that the family’s wealth might increase?
Kings were known to be gracious and generous with the mistresses that ‘tickled their fancy’ the most, crude as it might sound.
Might this have been the motive behind why Anne became the scandal of the court when her affair with the King was revealed?
It is quite possible. Although, it is still very much possible that Anne might have simply fell victim to the King’s charms, as many women had before her.
. . .
Étiennette de la Baume – Theory; Étiennette wanted to cause scandal within the English court with her letter
The whole reason behind how historians can firmly say that Étiennette was one of the King’s mistresses was because of a letter that she sent to him upon his return to England following the war. We can say this because historians still possess fragments of this letter (as seen below), and it strongly hints towards a sexual relationship between the Flemish maid-of-honour and the Tudor King.
‘When Madame [Margaret of Austria] went to see the Emperor, her father and you at Lille, you named me your page"et n'avoie autrement nom de par et dautre chouses" and when we parted at Tournai you told me, when I married, to let you know and it should be worth to me 10,000 crowns or rather angels. As it has now pleased my father 'me marrier'. I send bearer, an old servant of my grandfather to remind you... la plus que your very humble servant. E. la Baume.’ {1}
But the motive behind Étiennette writing and sending the King of England this letter might not be as simple as it may first appear to you, and this is why.
Clearly, the purpose of Étiennette’s letter to the King is to remind him of the promise he made to her to pay her (essentially—she has almost made herself sound like a harlot rather than a respectable lady) for the services she offered him. That is most certainly a reasonable reason to write to a King; they are supposed to be the most dignified and honourable men in the entire world and are expected to hold up any promises made to others, or they will be seen as dishonourable and unable to be trusted to keep their word. And it makes sense that Étiennette would want compensation for the services he received, costly as it might have been to her reputation.
However, what irks me more than anything about this letter is whether Étiennette might have had a secondary motive behind sending this letter other than to receive the compensation she was owed.
Is it possible that Étiennette, knowing that her royal lover would never return to her and had gone to the loving and pregnant Queen back in England, wanted to hurt Queen Catherine by revealing her affair in such a public manner?
The King no doubt would have kept this letter private, but the Queen would have had her eyes in everything and there is no doubt that she would have noticed if the King was suddenly writing a letter to a Flemish maid-of-honour and sending her quite a large amount of money.
This, therefore, leads me to question Étiennette’s integrity—she would have already known Henry was married so she was willingly sleeping with a married man with a pregnant wife back at home (who was more than likely praying that he not be unfaithful to her whilst away from his royal court) but she willingly, as the letter does not show any pressure on Étiennette’s side to write it, wrote a letter to the King announcing that, now that she had given her virginity to him, he owed her money as payment for engaging in the affair.
That, to me, seems downright nasty. Rub it in the Queen’s face, why don’t you, that her husband had chosen to sleep with a lady of lower standing rather than the Princess he had married and made his lawful Queen.
Rub it in, that is what I think Étiennette did. But what do you think?
Tell us in the comments below!
. . .
Bessie Blount – Theory; Bessie had another illegitimate child with the King
This mistress has a lot of information spread about her throughout the history books and no wonder! Today, she is considered one of Henry’s most famous and interesting mistresses in the eyes of historians so it should act as no surprise that there is theory about her having a second illegitimate child with the King.
Now, in her own dedicated post ‘Bessie Blount; the mistress who bore the King a son’, we already mentioned the fact that it is believed that Bessie Blount’s second child, Elizabeth, born in 1520 was the illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII. But was she actually Henry’s?
Let’s examine the ‘for’s and ‘against’s, shall we?
The for: Elizabeth was born at a time where Bessie Blount was unmarried but at a time when Henry was supposedly done with his mistress and she was not linked to any other men, which makes it believable that Henry might have had a rebound with his former mistress to see if they could have a second son who he could also recognise—you know, in case his wife could not provide him with the son that he was desperately hoping for. And finally, Bessie was very much in love with Henry so it is very doubtful that she would jeopardize her son’s position by sleeping with another man or marrying another man unless it was by the King’s order.
The against: Henry had ended it with Bessie officially by moving her away from the court as well as away from their son so if this didn’t make it obvious that he didn’t want to be near her, I don’t know what would. Just because she did not marry her first husband until 1522, Henry must have been planning this since at least 1520 when her daughter was born. Besides, Henry showed her no compassion after their son was born, hence hinting that his love for her was already gone by the point her daughter was born.
But who knows?
I believe Elizabeth might have been Henry’s illegitimate daughter whilst others might not have believed this. It’s rather hard to say…
. . .
Mistress Parker – Theory; is her identity a mystery as a result of Henry?
This theory is a little unknown to me as I briefly stumbled upon it one night and I absolutely cannot figure out whether I found it in a book or if I had read something and then thought up the theory but either way!
What if the reason we cannot conclusively identify who Mistress Parker was is because of the King?
Dun…dun…dun…
A mystery…
Anyway… in the post ‘Mistress Parker; one of Henry’s mystery lovers?’, three possible women who might have been Mistress Parker were offered to us by Kelly Hart and those three women were; ‘Arabella Parker, a merchant’s wife, or Margery Parker, a member of Princess Mary’s household. It could also refer to Jane Parker who later married George Boleyn’ {2}. Whilst all of these might be possible, there is two other things that possibly might be the reason why Mistress Parker was never identified and might not ever be identified.
The first is that Henry might have been sleeping with someone extremely close to the Queen or someone whose affair with the King might have caused a scandal in a similar way that his affair with Anne Stafford did and he wished to prevent this from happening by merely referring to her as Mistress Parker—perhaps it was Jane Parker, the future sister-in-law to the Boleyn sisters and she is referred to as Mistress Parker to prevent any future issues with his future second wife, Anne Boleyn and her family?
After all, she probably wouldn’t have wanted her sister, who had slept with her husband before her and maintained his affections for quite some time, to be near her husband so why would she want her sister-in-law to be near him if she was in fact Mistress Parker?
And the second is that perhaps Mistress Parker was a codename bestowed upon a mistress of Henry’s to protect her identity, she might not have even bore the surname of Parker but then again, as I have previously mentioned, Parker was very much a popular name within the Tudor era and therefore it would make sense for Henry to use a popular name rather than a name that could associate this secret woman with a family who might offer her some hostility if she had slept with the King or allowed herself to be linked to them.
Okay, it might seem a bit far-fetched, but you never know what was running through Henry’s head! He could have done anything, and we might never know!
That’s the sad reality—we cannot always prove everything, nor can we ever truly know the ins and outs of the Tudor court.
. . .
And that is it for this post!
Apologies if it does not seem like a particularly long blog post but I did not wish to repeat a lot of information just for the sake of doing so but I feel like some of the myths and theories discussed here were very interesting like—who would be so smart as to try and hide the identity of their mistress through using a mysterious name of Mistress Parker?
Clearly Henry was a smart cookie in his day—you know before he began chopping off his politicians’ and wives’ heads?
I really hope you enjoyed today’s post and comment down below which of these myths/theories surprised you the most and if you happen to find any of your own about any of the mistresses during Henry’s first marriage, be sure to comment about that also!
Until next time!
- Have a ‘Tudor-fic’ week!
References:
The Tudors Wiki (2020). Who were the Mistresses of King Henry VIII? The Tudors Wiki [online]. Available from: http://www.thetudorswiki.com/page/MISTRESSES_of_the_King
Rebecca Larson (2017). The Mistresses of Henry VIII. Tudors Dynasty [online]. Available from: https://tudorsdynasty.com/the-mistresses-of-henry-viii/
Comments