Category: February - Meandering Through Time

Execution of Catherine Howard and Jane Boleyn.

8/2/2022

On the 13th February in 1542 the execution of Catherine Howard and Jane Boleyn.

Many people believe that it was Jane Parker, the wife of George Boleyn, who was to blame for initiating the downfall of her sister in law Anne in 1536, but there were other women in the court, Elizabeth Browne for instance, whose actions history might like to take a look at. However, it was the events of 1542 that were Jane's downfall.

In 1541, Catherine Howard, Henry VIII fifth wife, had begun a physical relationship (at least Jane thought she did) with one of his favourite courtiers, Thomas Culpepper, and Jane Boleyn went out of her way to encourage this relationship.

Catherine wrote to Culpepper in a letter that was to be all their undoing:

“praying you that you will come when my Lady Rochford is here”

If Jane had anything to do with Anne’s downfall she must have realised that she was lucky to escape in 1536, and if she didn’t, then she doesn't seem to have learned anything from the whole affair. Jane must have known what would happen if Henry found out that she was involved with Catherine and Culpepper and when the affair was out in the open each woman blamed the other. Jane Boleyn walked right into the Culpepper affair with her eyes open.

Following their arrest, Jane was imprisoned in the Tower of London and Catherine Howard at Syon Abbey. The night before her execution, Catherine is said to have spent it practicing laying her head upon the block, and Jane was in the throes of a nervous breakdown.

Both women were beheaded with one blow of the executioner's axe and their bodies buried in the chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula.

I often asked myself the question, were Catherine, Jane and Anne's 'crimes' so appalling that they warranted a death sentence? That, I think made little difference, once they stood before the justices their fates were sealed, and state trials weren't fair trials. Schauer and Schauer in their article Law as an Engine of State wrote " Laws, like armies, were an engine of state, not a mechanism for justice!" and in that lies the answer.

The Murder of King James I of Scotland

20/2/2019

It was late in the evening of the 20th February in 1437 that James I of Scotland met his death at Blackfriar's Church in Perth, Scotland.

The bolt on the inside of the king's bedchamber door had been purposely removed leaving it easy for the assassins to force their way in. On hearing a noise outside, James was quick to realise that his life was in danger, he hoped to make his way to safety through a small tunnel that led to the cellar. While James was making his escape it is said that Catherine Douglas, lady in waiting to Jame's queen Joan Beaufort, rushed to the bedchamber door and placed her arm across the door to prevent the murderers making their entrance. However, the door was easily forced and this broke Catherine's arm.

The king crawled along the tunnel but his exit was blocked. Unable to escape he waited in silence until he thought the danger was over and then called out, but the men were still in the room, two of his assassins crawled in and attacked him with knives, the third coming in later finish him off.

James died from sixteen stab wounds, his hands torn to ribbons defending himself from his enemies blades.

James's killers, Walter and Thomas Stewart where related to the king through Robert II of Scotland, and Robert and Thomas Graham were wealth landowners. They all managed to escape, but were soon found and all died horribly gruesome deaths in ways that don't bear thinking about.

Walter Stewart and Robert Graham had problems with James's rule that were numerous and complicated. They did conspire and act against the king in what appears to be a frenzied attack. However, I do realise these were hard and different times, but the way these men were dealt with was simply barbaric.

Mary's Last Letter

8/2/2019

Below is the first page of the last letter Mary Queen of Scots wrote before her execution at Fotheringhay Castle. It was to Henry III of France the younger brother of her first husband Frances II.

It was dated 2am in the morning of the 8th February 1587 on the first page Mary writes:

" Royal brother, having by God's will, for my sins I think, thrown myself into the power of the Queen my cousin, at whose hands I have suffered much for almost twenty years, I have finally been condemned to death by her and her Estates. I have asked for my papers, which they have taken away, in order that I might make my will, but I have been unable to recover anything of use to me, or even get leave either to make my will freely or to have my body conveyed after my death, as I would wish, to your kingdom where I had the honour to be queen, your sister and old ally.

Tonight, after dinner, I have been advised of my sentence: I am to be executed like a criminal at eight in the morning. I have not had time to give you a full account of everything that has happened, but if you will listen to my doctor and my other unfortunate servants, you will learn the truth, and how, thanks be to God, I scorn death and vow... "

Simeon and the Cradle Rocking Ceremony

3/2/2019

On the nearest Sunday to Candlemas (2nd February) there is held in the Nottinghamshire village of Blidworth a Cradle Rocking Ceremony. This tradition has taken place in Blidworth since the 13th century and continues to this day - however it was banned during the Reformation but revived in 1923.

Before the ceremony begins an old wooden cradle, that has been decorated with ribbons and flowers is placed in front of the altar awaiting the arrival of the parishes most recently baptised baby boy.

The baby is placed within the cradle and all through the service, he is rocked gently by the vicar. At the end ceremony the baby is returned to its parents and the congregation sing 'Nunc Dimittis'

The story of this tradition has its roots in the Gospel of Luke - an event in the life of Simeon. Nunc Dimittis is a hymn that is also known as The Song of Simeon.

Simeon is said to have been a devout man unto who an angel appeared promising him that he would not die until he had seen the new Messiah. Sometime later, Mary and Joseph arrived at the Temple in Jerusalem bringing with them their baby for the ceremony of consecration of the firstborn son, which you will know is Candlemas. It was into Simeons arms the baby Jesus was placed.

The time frame in which these events occurred is not specified and therefore I don't know how old Simeon was when the Holy Spirit arrived, or how long after holding the baby Jesus Simeon died.

However, as previously stated this story appears in the Gospel according to Luke, and Simeon is stated to be one of the translators of the of the Greek Old Testament (c 2nd/3rd century BC) if this is the case it would mean that Simeon would have been over two hundred years old at the time of the meeting the Messiah.

Henry the Young King

25/2/2018

Henry II's reign would see the end of the Anarchy and claims by others to the crown of England and therefore it would be vitally important that Henry have an heir whose right to the throne was not questioned. Henry's new wife Eleanor was said to have been vocal and argumentative and their relationship somewhat ‘fiery’ but despite this Eleanor did manage to give Henry eight children, four of which were sons.

We can only wonder if, in the first months of their marriage, Eleanor was at all worried about her inability to produce male heirs. She must have had some concerns that she did not conceive a child straight away, did she think that the spectre of her marriage to Louis VII of France had come back to haunt her, after all, in all of those fifteen years she never gave the French king a son. However, Eleanor need not of worried, she would be pregnant by the Christmas of 1152 and her first child, a son would be born the following August. Eleanor must have sighed with relief, she knew that her position as wife to the future king of England was secured.

No doubt Eleanor was all the more thrilled when she gave birth to Henry's second son on the 28th February in 1155, this new child would be named Henry after his father. Tragedy struck in the April of 1156 when William, their firstborn died aged just three of a seizure leaving his fourteen-month-old brother Henry as heir to the throne.

History would refer to Henry as the 'Young King.'

Henry would grow, according to one source, into a "lovable, eloquent, handsome and gallant" young man, however, others saw him differently, there would be those who would call a "feckless and fatuous" youth. A written description of Henry tells us that he was "tall but well proportioned, broad-shouldered with a long and elegant neck, pale and freckled skin, bright and wide blue eyes, and a thick mop of the reddish-gold hair." a description that also has been applied to his younger brother Richard, later Richard I.

Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine's family are a prime example of a dysfunctional one and this lead to problems on many different levels, especially in regard to their children. Henry would join with his younger brothers Richard and Geoffrey in rebellion against their father. All the son of Henry and Eleanor have distinctive and forceful personalities, and Henry was no different he was seen as having charm and popularity but he was also seen as irresponsible.

At the age of just fifteen, and while his father still reigned, Henry was crowned king and two years following his coronation Henry married Margaret, the daughter of his mother's first husband the above named Louis VII of France and his second wife Constance of Castile. A birth of a son to the couple would secure Henry II's new Angevin dynasty, but it was not to be, Henry the Young King's son died at just three days old in 1177. Henry himself would die just six years later at the age of twenty-eight while on campaign in Limousin in France, probably of dysentery, estranged from his father. After his death, Henry II is said to have stated
"He cost me much, but I wish he had lived to cost me more"

Henry's death left his brother Richard as heir to his fathers throne.

The Treaties of Berwick

25/2/2018

The town of Berwick stands on the banks of the River Tweed in Northumberland. Historically, its position proved useful as it is situated on the border between England and Scotland, and because of this it has seen its share of both war and peace. Because of its situation, its governance has been the responsibility of both countries on numerous occasions.

In 1357 a treaty was signed here, the first of five Treaties of Berwick, this particular treaty, between King Edward III of England and David II of Scotland, brought to an end Scotland's second attempt at independence.

In 1461 during the Wars of the Roses, when Henry VI's wife Margaret of Anjou had fled to Scotland she negotiated a deal with the recently widowed Mary of Guelders over the town in return for help with her Lancastrian cause. When all the papers are signed Berwick upon Tweed became part of Scotland, and it was not until the August of 1482 that Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later King Richard III retook the town and returned it to England.

A second treaty, signed in 1526, was issued in order to keep the peace between warring factions on the English/Scottish border.

A third, signed on this day in 1560 saw the completion of yet another Treaty of Berwick. This treaty was Elizabeth I's efforts to give some protection to those who practiced Protestantism in Scotland. The document was signed for and on behalf of the queen by Thomas Howard the Duke of Norfolk. The agreement was in respect of an alliance with Scottish nobles who were opposed to the regency of Mary of Guise, the widow of James V of Scotland, who had retained a French army for her protection. The treaty allowed English forces to enter Scotland and expel these French troops and it would be the first time in history that the English and Scottish fought together against a common foe rather than against each another.

There would be two more signing of treaties at Berwick, one in 1586 following an agreement between Elizabeth I and Mary of Guise's grandson King James VI and another in 1639 that ended the First Bishops War.

Death of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester

22/2/2018

On the 23rd of February in 1447 the death from a stroke, although there were suggestions that he was poisoned, of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, the youngest son of Henry IV.

Although I am confident in writing about most events that cover the Wars of the Roses, there are still a few that I'm unsure of, namely the infighting between Beaufort family members ie Cardinal Henry Beaufort, Henry V's uncle and the illegitimate son of John of Gaunt and Henry's brothers Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. I understand the cost of this to the country but its the 'ins and outs' that I don't fully understand - yet.

Going some way, in part, to helping me with this was the 2016 BBC's production of The Hollow Crown: Henry VI Part One, in which Humphrey Duke of Gloucester was sympathetically played by Hugh Bonneville, a very good choice I think, his portrayal gives us a glimpse of the real man.

With what I mentioned in my second paragraph in mind I leave an assessment of Humphrey's life to author Matthew Lewis who writes in his blog -

"Humphrey was a well-liked figure who was popular with the common man and retained sympathy for the House of Lancaster as the government of his nephew became increasingly unpopular and out of touch with the country. The policy of eliminating those closest to the throne thrust Richard, Duke of York to prominence as Humphrey’s natural successor, caused those who had looked to Humphrey for a lead to turn their focus from the House of Lancaster and made York, not unreasonably, frightened of meeting the same fate simply by reason of his position. Perhaps paranoia was a part of the makeup of Henry VI’s mental issues even at this early stage, perhaps the Beauforts were manipulating him to improve their own prospects or perhaps it was a little of both. Whatever the reason, it backfired on Henry and the Beauforts, dragging England into a bitter and prolonged civil war."

You can read more about the Duke of Gloucester in Matthew's blog here

mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-fall-of-humphrey-duke-of-gloucester/

Valentines Day

12/2/2018

In 1797, a book was published titled The Young Man's Valentine Writer, it contained suggested sentimental verses for a lover who was unable to write his own, the forerunner of our mass-produced cards with pre-written verses that we give to the one we love on this day

The origins of Valentines day is rather obscure, but it generally thought to be Roman. Known as the festival of Lupercalia, it was a day set aside to secure fertility and keep out evil which was celebrated on February 15. In 496, considering it a pagan festival Pope Gelauius claimed it as a Christian feast day and set it to the 14th, the day we still use. There are three saints with the name Valentines that were all martyred on the 14th of February but no one quite knows which one of them is the 'real' St Valentine but historians are suggesting that the St Valentine whose day we celebrate was a priest who got himself into trouble with the second emperor Claudius in 270

A story behind the aforementioned Claudius's Valentine states that he had fallen in love with the daughter of his jailer and before he was executed sent her a letter signed "from your Valentine." This may be the first link between Valentine and the emotion of love but by the fourteenth century, according to Henry Ansgar Kelly, a modern medieval historian, it was Geoffrey Chaucer who first linked St Valentine's Day with romance when he composed a poem to honor the engagement between King Richard II and Anne of Bohemia, but the earliest surviving valentine love poem, written in the fifteenth century, was by Charles, Duke of Orleans to his wife

Today, Valentines day a commercial success story where twenty-five percent of all cards sent each year are valentines.

In the image below we can see a love note found in Anne Boleyn’s Book of Hours, where the king writes “If you remember my love in your prayers as strongly as I adore you, I shall scarcely be forgotten, for I am yours. Henry Rex forever”

Death of Lady Jane Grey

11/2/2018

Lady Jane Grey's execution took place inside the Tower of London on the 12th February 1554, her place of execution was a privilege afforded only a select few, most executions took place outside on Tower Hill. In the years between 1483 and 1941 twenty-two people were executed inside the walls of the Tower of London five of them were women and three of the five were queens, Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard and Jane herself. The other two were Margaret, Countess of Salisbury and Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford.

The last day of Jane's life is shrouded in myth, a myth that has been circulating for nearly two hundred years. In 1852 English antiquarian John Gough Nichols published his version the account of Jane's death in his Chronicle of Jane Grey and Queen Mary, the chronicle itself is based on an eyewitness account by an unknown person who was inside the Tower of London at the time.

John Gough Nichols had a keen interest in rare books and had enjoyed coping from texts and epitaphs as a young boy, he also accompanied his father to Royal Society and Society of Antiquaries meetings. Obviously, words were important to him, you would think then that with such a passionate love of words and history he would know what embellishing and adding untruths to ancient text could lead to. In 1834 Nichols went to see the latest work of French artist Paul Delaroche in the National Gallery, this work went by the title The Execution of Lady Jane Grey. It was this one painting that changed history and how we understand Jane's story today. There is no doubt it's a fine painting that evokes a sense of sadness in us and it must have had the same effect on Nichols, he had fallen for an ideal. Delaroche in his story of Jane Grey's last moments uses pathos to get his idea of the suffering of the French nobility across - clever that! However, to the vast majority of the viewing public, all they saw was a romanticised view of the tragic death of a young girl.

Paul Delaroche used other English historical victims as cloaked references to the French Revolution, his victims were Charles I and Thomas Wentworth. Another example of Deloroche getting his point across is his 1831 artwork The Children of Edward, which he took inspiration from Shakespeare The Life and Death of Richard the Third, a story he knew to have some truths. With this in mind, he was able to make a comparison of the deaths of the two English princes to draw attention to the mysterious deaths of Louis XVII of France. Delaroche always denied any reference to the revolution in his works, but why would a French artist produce work based on the deaths of English victims of tyranny, if it was not to represent his own. Twenty years later, when Nichols wrote his Chronicles of Jane Grey and Queen Mary the memory of Deloroche's painting must have still been as vivid as the day he saw it, why else would he feel impelled to embellish the story and put words into the mouth the dying Jane Grey that she did not utter. In his chronicle he writes:

'First, when she mounted the scaffold, she said to the people standing thereabout " Good people, I come hither to die, and by law, I am condemned to do the same. The fact and the deed, against the queen highness, was unlawful and the consenting thereto by me, but touching the procurement and desire thereof by me or on my half, I do wash my hands thereof in innocence...Then the hangman kneels down and asked her forgiveness who she forgave most willingly. Then he willed her to stand upon the straw which doing she saw the block and said "I pray, dispatch me quickly" and kneeling down saying "will you take it off before I lay me down?" and the hangman answered "No, madam" She tied the handkerchief about her eyes and feeling for the block said "What shall I do? Where is it?" One of the standers-by guided her unto she lay her head down upon the block and stretched forth her body and said "Lord, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and so it ended.'

Compare this to the original written account of the aforementioned eyewitness present in the tower on the day of Jane's death.

'Jane, we are told, is nothing at all abashed neither with the fear of her own death, neither with the sight of the dead carcass of her husband. She came forth, the leftenant leading her in the same gown wherein she was araigned. Neither her eyes anything moistened with tears although the two gentlewomen, Mistress Tilney and Mistress Ellen wonderfully wept. Jane carried a book in her hand whereon she prayed all the way to the said scaffold"

Another source writes

'She conducted herself at her execution with the greatest fortitude and godliness.'

Jane was the daughter of Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk and Francis Brandon, she was also the pawn of her father in law, John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland whose actions cost her her life, and she is only really remembered in history for two things, firstly as the queen who reigned for just nine days and secondly, the aforementioned manner in which she died.

During the first few months of 1553, Edward VI under the influence of Dudley, had made an amendment to his Devise for the Succession in which he disinherited his half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth and named Jane his heir. By the May of that year and as part of his master plan Northumberland arranged the marriage of his son Guildford to Jane. Two months later, the boy king was dead and Jane was proclaimed queen and in a surprising act of defiance refused to allow Guildford to be named king, therefore scuppering Northumberland's plans to control both Jane, Guildford and England. Soon after events took a downturn with surprising speed. By July Jane was deposed, by November she had been tried and found guilty and by the beginning of February she was awaiting the day of her execution.

It would seem that the masses were not aghast by the death of this queen, for they knew little of her, the traitorous acts of Northumberland and the failed Wyatt revolt saw to it that Jane's sad tale quickly faded into obscurity.

What we should now remember about Jane is that she was an intelligent and feisty girl who left a lasting impression, notably on John Feckenham the Catholic priest Queen Mary sent to convert her and that she was one of many Tudor women whose wants and needs were overridden by the actions of the self-serving Tudor man. She was not the first to die because of the ambition of others, and she would not be the last.

An interesting side note on Jane's death is the death of Richard Morgan the judge who condemned her, he, by all accounts, died tormented by guilt two years later -

"touching the condemnation of this lady Iane, here is to be noted, that the Iudge morgan who gaue the sentence of condemnation against her, shortly after hee had condemned her, fell mad, and in hys rauing cryed out continually to haue the Lady Iane taken away from him, and so ended hys lyfe.

This account appears in John Foxes Actes and Monuments another appears in Holinshed's Chronicle. Jane's death made her a Protestant martyr, and there can be no better way to brand the Catholic religion as evil than to point out the horrible death those who do not follow the new true faith.

Jane Grey was buried along with her husband in the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula.

Their grave is not marked.

Murder of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley

10/2/2018

The illustration below was drawn in 1567 and depicts the events following an explosion in the early hours of the morning of the 10th February that year.

In the top right-hand corner, you can see the half-naked bodies of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley and his servant, there's a dagger nearby. Also depicted is the ruins of the house that Darnley is said to have stayed in that night. At the bottom, the burial of the Darnley's body can be seen taking place.

A 16th-century murder mystery it certainly is.

Lord Darnley and his servant had been found in an orchard outside a house that formed part of Collegiate Church of St Mary in the Fields or as it is commonly known Kirk o’ Field. The house as you can see was completely destroyed but Darnley's body, it was said, showed no effects of the blast.

Darnley, you will know was the second husband of Mary Queen of Scot's, he was by all accounts a disreputable young man that history describes as a heavy drinker, vain, arrogant, self-centred, egotistical and violent he was also disliked by many of his peers. Despite this Mary married him in 1565, a year later he was implicated in the murder of the queen's private secretary David Rizzio.

His involvement in the death of Rizzio is not clear and the truth about his own strange death has never discovered and still remains a mystery. However, Mary and James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell were suspected of being involved - Bothwell was tried but was cleared.

Mary and Bothwell didn't help their cause, they would marry two months later, they did not wait for the traditional period of mourning to end.

Like Mary and Bothwell, Henry Stuart did not do himself any favours, but was he guilty of all the things history tells us he was or was he a scapegoat used by those who wished to see Mary off the throne of Scotland?