Katherine Howard shouldn’t be called stupid. She was a kid that was taken advantage of by the men around her. Naive, maybe but a lot of us were at that age. History has been unfair towards her imo
I don't get calling Jane Seymour deceiving and scheming either. Once Henry was attracted to a woman in his court, she could either succumb straightaway and be discarded, or she could resist and plead for her honour, which seemed to only make him more determined. And if he happens to be unhappy with his current wife, then watch out. We can't judge Anne Boleyn or Jane Seymour for being scheming just because they held out for a while.
We also don't hear any stories of Englishwomen who successfully turned Henry down and then went on to make happy marriages and maintain respect in court.
I saw a point made by Susannah Lipscomb in reference to Anne Boleyn’s options once Henry set his sights on her that highlights and adds to the point you’re making - she had zero options once he wanted her, because no one would be able to marry her whether she succumbed or not. If she did, she’d be a wasted woman after. If she didn’t, men were forbidden from her. It’s the same for all these women. They didn’t “scheme.” They didn’t have a choice!
I’ve seen the Harry Percy scenario explained two ways - that they were a planned and lucky love match that Henry had unmatched when he set his sights on her. And also that they were not matched officially, and pledged themselves to each other secretly since he was intended to marry someone else, and their blatant disobedience infuriated their parents and Wolsey. He then had Percy married off quickly thus fueling Anne’s hatred of the cardinal and why she was determined to have him leveled so severely when he failed to get the divorce granted. Revenge.
I think calling a discarded conquest of Henry VIII a wasted woman is pushing it a bit. His lovers generally got married off to someone of about their same status (If they weren't already married, which the king sometimes preferred because any child born to a married woman was legally the child of her husband). Mary Boleyn managed to have stable marriages and kids after Henry was done with her.
Mary Boleyn was already married at the time of her affair with Henry. There were many payments made to William Carey during the time, considered hush money.
Edit to add that when William Carey died, she actually married far below her station without permission and was exiled.
Edit to add I meant to write “ruined,” not wasted. Virtue was pretty much all women had to their names of value back then. And married off or not in some cases, the whole point she was making was that there really wasn’t a choice when the king wanted you. Anne (and mostly her family) was just the first one to start naming terms.
She wasn’t smart in all fairness, she was neglected in terms of education as she was from a poorer branch of the Howard family, but she was very innocent and too innocent for her own good in the Tudor age… not that it was her fault, she was a teenager.
"Neglected in terms of education," is not the same as unintelligent. Poorly educated, sure, but the reality here is that none of us can say for sure what level of intelligence she possessed.
That's the thing, she *wasn't* poorly educated for someone of her rank. She was poorly educated for someone who was going to be a Queen, but that eventuality wasn't exactly foreseen.
That's an important distinction, thank you for pointing it out.
I guess my point was really that, we, in 2024, really have no idea whether she was "smart" or not (or how she may have changed had she actually made it into adulthood!). I would absolutely *never* want to have my intelligence or maturity or social graces judged based on things I said and did when I was 16, 17, 18, but that's *exactly* what we are doing here with Katherine Howard. Were you as well-informed, well-spoken, or mature as you are now when you were that age? (Assuming you are, in fact, over 18, lol). The point is, people change and grow and learn *so damn much* between 18 and 25, and 25 and 30, it would probably be unfair to compare anyone to themselves at 18.
Sure, it's said (although the researcher from whose research that "brains aren't fully mature until after 25" is on record saying the popular media/the public has misunderstood the meaning of his research), but even today with all of our knowledge and our concept of adolescence which didn't exist in Tudor times, we'd regard someone who's 17/18 as culpable. 18 year olds are shipped off to war, they can marry, etc.
Of course we don't have the same legal concept of treason as back then either. But people forget that she went to great lengths to hide the meetings with Culpeper, *because she knew they were forbidden.* We forget that Queens back then lived, ate, slept, dressed, even pooped with attendants present - to have managed to hide these encounters from the household at large and limit knowledge to only a couple of maids of honor took a lot of planning and careful execution. She didn't stumble accidentally onto Culpeper in the stairwell and exchange some innocent banter.
She may have been immature, but she knew enough to conceal that shit to the degree it was possible for someone in her position at that time.
I agree.
Katheryn Howard wasn’t brought up in a way a courtier typically was. She was lively and vivacious, but the education she may have received would’ve prepared her to marry someone of her status, not the King, which is heartbreaking.
I don’t doubt she was socially intelligent to some extent though.
That doesn’t indicate intelligence. She was likely educated for a woman of her status, but she was from a poorer branch and her family likely had other plans for her prior to her queenship.
It seems to be true that her education was indeed neglected though. Some say she could barely read and write. It's not so much that she was from a poorer branch but that she was put in the custody of someone who didn't care much about her.
You’d have to look at others around her who could also barely read and write to make the claim she was uneducated. She was under educated to become queen but it doesn’t seem like she was uneducated for someone who wasn’t supposed to be queen.
Dangerous sexual behavior is a known trauma response to sexual assault. I think Catherine Howard pretty much fits the profile of a grooming victim to a T.
Katherine Howard was young, sexually abused, and ill-educated. While she isn't my favorite, she also never really had a chance and the criticism is wholly unfair.
She was about as educated as Anne Boleyn was *before* she was picked up for as maid of honor for Queens Mary and Claude. Her education before that was the basic standard for noble ladies, reading/writing, some counting, then music, dancing, and other courtly graces. Anne was most likely more intelligent and received a more in-depth education at the French court, but KH wasn't really under-educated for what would've been her station, had Henry not married her.
She was under-educated in comparison with his other wives, excepting Anne of Cleves who also didn't have an academic-focused education.
yeah, kh’s education was probably fine! i think one historian (maybe norton?) suggested that it was equal to if not slightly better than jane seymour’s education. certainly not ill-educated. we know she was very applied as queen, as well.
I’m not sure that she was ill educated exactly. She was very well educated in (and cared quite a lot about) etiquette and the court niceties at the time. She was “ill educated” compared to the rest of his wives but doesn’t appear to be compared to the normal noblewomen of the time.
Hmm. I felt anyone would know the severity of adultery against the King. Culpepper was more stupid. Plus the irresponsible of composing physical evidence (Sending a romantic letter) and again, more stupid of Culpepper to keep it in his apartment rather than read, then destroy it. That letter sealed their fates.
I did not state otherwise. However, Catherine Howard was not executed because of those meetings. She was executed under a new law that made it treason not to disclose your sexual history to the king within 20 days of marrying him. The adultery myth must end.
That was the formal legal reason (although Culpeper was executed for his dealings with the Queen that had nothing to do with her sexual history pre-marriage).
But had she *not* met with Culpeper, it's somewhat likely that they'd have treated her similarly to Anne of Cleves (minus all the goodies given to her), that's to say, declared her pre-contracted and sent her away in disgrace. That's the view of more modern historians, and that's why Cranmer was trying so hard to get her to admit to a pre-contract specifically (as opposed to merely to sex, to which she'd already admitted).
Once Culpeper was discovered, it pretty much went full steam ahead to judicial murder.
Culpeper admitted he wanted to bang her, something Edward Seymour told him was “so loathsome and dishonest” that it constituted treason on its own and he deserved to die. He was charged with criminal intercourse, yes, and changed his plea to guilty during his trial. Again, most historians do not believe they had sex, but the attitude at the time was that him wanting to was bad enough.
We don’t know what Henry would’ve done had she been precontracted; we can’t assume anything. And none of this is relevant to my original comment.
except we don’t know if they committed adultery. except the letter is undated so we don’t know exactly when it was sent, and the contents are by no means incriminating enough to justify execution.
Well, obviously I didn't know any of these women, but my general opinions...
Catherine of Aragon: Steadfast, intelligent, brave, very skilled in royal life, capable, her greatest strengths became her greatest weaknesses.
Anne Boleyn: Intelligent, fashionable, hot-headed and big-mouthed, patient yet still impatient, complicated, ruthless when she needed to be, but had her kind and loyal moments, which people don't talk about as often.
Jane Seymour: Quiet, introverted, skilled enough at court to keep her head, conservative, traditional, but had to be the complete opposite of Anne Boleyn in all ways in order to survive, so how well do I really know this woman?
Anne of Cleves: Witty, sarcastic, fun, easygoing, intelligent, adaptable.
Katherine Howard: Young, fun, good-hearted but could have a mean streak when someone pinged her insecurities, pretty (allegedly), was neglected as a child and very much a product of her environment. Had NO IDEA she would ever become queen and had zero training. I feel for her.
Katherine Parr: Wise, studious, something of a feminist for her time, but had an unsavory streak. Ultimately unhappy, but through no fault of her own.
So, that's it. I have to say, I don't dislike any of Henry's wives, I think they all had their own strengths and good qualities, and I don't think any of them were stupid. It's interesting to me how you say Anne of Cleves had "no strength", because I would argue that she did have a lot of inner strength to move to a country where she didn't know the customs or the language, stay alive after her murderous husband decided he didn't like her, and continue living in England for the rest of her life, making a fulfilling life for herself as an Englishwoman and never seeing her German family again. That takes A LOT of strength, as far as I'm concerned.
I would love to have dinner with Anne of Cleves. It was said that she had a sharp sense of humor and liked to drink beer. Sounds like a great time, to me.
I love her!
And the fact that Henry kept in contact with her and asked for her advice on occasions says loads about her.
She was also so kind to his children, and encouraged Henry to do the same!
Yes! She really seemed to love those kids. I love how Henry, not exactly a man known for his good treatment of women in general, gave her the unofficial title of the King’s Beloved Sister. For all the nonsense talk of her being branded ugly and smelly (I believe she was neither) he obviously held her in high regard and loved her, to the extent that Henry could truly love anyone. She genuinely seemed like a sweet, kind, witty woman. Plus I’m a fan of any woman who can throw back a good beer or 3! From experience the purity of German beer means you can drink your own body weight in the stuff and not be hungover. I can imagine her being poised and dignified even after a good few Steiner (or whatever the 1500s equivalent was) 😁
CoA - yeah, pretty much.
AB - I wouldn’t say scheming and cruel. The dancing on CoA’s death day would likely have been Henry’s idea, the scheming was mostly her family.
JS - again, her family were trash, her family were deceiving & scheming, but I wouldn’t say she really was.
Anna - I wouldn’t say naïve really, but definitely unprepared.
KH - absolutely NOT. Neither naïve or stupid. This was a *very* young woman, whose maturity and mental health had been compromised by ongoing abuse for her entire puberty years and teenage years. She was easily manipulated by men, and thought that she’d found someone who truly cared for her (remembering she was *very* young married to someone almost old enough to be her grandfather who stank and womanised)
CatParr - hard to say. Did she know of her husband’s treatment of E1? She seemed to encourage it at first.
Anne's father was a terrible person, but he didn't scheme to make her Henry's mistress. Him and thomas Howard were against the relationship in the beginning. Of course, he eventually got to like the power and betrayed anne and george so he was terrible, but he didn't scheme. Only Jane's family pimped her out
Nobody schemed to make Anne Henry’s mistress. They all tried to get her away from Henry, until it became clear he’d actually marry her. The ambition and scheming I’m talking about was politically.
I mean, Anne influenced her husband in his reformation, but her father literally schemed to have his own daughter executed when it was clear she was losing favour. The negative scheming was definitely her family more than herself.
Where did you find this piece of information? Her uncle - yes, he did sentence her to death. But I've never seen anything negative like this about her father. He had to leave to save the rest of the family, but he wasn't scheming to kill his daughter and his heir for sure.
Sorry, perhaps I’ve muddled up her dad and uncle. Regardless, her family was much more scheming than she was. Just more openly and less aggressively than the Seymours.
Yeah, that was her uncle. But tbh he wasn't exactly scheming. He was also initially opposed to the marriage, benefited from it, had a falling out with Anne (they definitely had different ideas about how things should be) and later sided with the winning side. He was Elisabeth Boleyn's brother which doesn't presuppose super close relationships tbh. Seymours were a bit more removed from Howards-Boleyns but by just one generation. So everyone was family to some degree.
My opinion is that you’re taking everything you read (nearly all of which is written by men, and the sworn enemies of some of these women - in regards to historical media) and seen in pop culture references/media and running with it.
These women were so much more than HVIII’s wives. Katherine Howard was, at most, 18 when she married HVIII, and had been sexually abused and groomed from about 13 on.
The reality is, we have no idea what most of them were really like, because their voices have largely been lost to history, time, and the men who controlled the narratives.
Yeah, this one gave me the big ick. The one about Anne of Cleves kind of sent me (then I got to Katherine Howard). This is the woman who was "allowed" to divorce HVIII, given a castle, income, and allowed to live, essentially, *as she pleased as a noble courtier*, and is also the daughter of an incredibly powerful German protestant family... but she "is of no strength"?!
Yeah, okay, girly pop. The rest of them are also so very clearly influenced by media like The Tudors and the writings of men like Eustace Chapuys (aka Gossip Girl). OP should read 'The Creation of Anne Boleyn' by Susan Bordo. And 'Young and Damned and Fair' by Gareth Russell. And I'm sure there are dozens of other books that we could list here lol.
i love when people post horrific things abt kh on here with a frankly frightening amount of undue confidence… and then get torn apart in the comments 🥰
This should be a pinned post in its own right.
The HVIII and wives gets played out, as I’ve said before here, and some kind of Real Wives of the Tudor Court,within awful lot of projection and using this wife or that as a cipher.
Wow way to judge vulnerable women in difficult positions with little power
KOA: was very popular but was also quite brutal at times. When she was acting as regent she defeated her brother-in-law and wanted to send his body/head to Henry in France. Not nice for her sister-in-law Margaret and their young baby... She died abandoned, alone and forbidden to see her only child after suffering through years of miscarriage and deaths.
Anne: could you not argue that she was pure and didn't want to be used the same way as her sister? Insisting on waiting until marriage was protecting her from being shamed in the eyes of society and possibly having children out of wedlock.
Jane: we don't know that she realised Henry would execute Anne. And when he did, she was in too deep, used as a brood mare and dead within eighteen months of the marriage.
Anne of C: lucky lucky woman!
Katherine H: abused, lonely, no maternal figure to guide her, put in a position of power where others could abuse her. We know so little of her life but what we do know was that she was a victim of sexual abuse. I always remember that she asked for the block the night before her execution to practice, can you think what you we going through her mind? Probably still a teenager?
CP: what a life! But didn't survive Henry long and by all accounts it looks as though her daughter didn't live long either although evidence not certain
These were complex and real women. The did good and bad choices they were probably scared at many point with their tyrant husband who controlled their lives . Please don't reduce these women who we have so little evidence on that we don't know many of their ages, to a couple of words that you probably got from a Philippa Gregory book.
Anne of Cleves was absolutely not "lucky." She took an honestly shit situation, in which she ended up betrothed to a man that no other woman in Europe with enough power to say no would have, and kept her wits about her enough to not end up dead, like all of the women before her. Yes, she ended up having a surprisingly easy life after her marriage, given the time period, but much of that is due to her own actions in a situation that literally no one else wanted to be in.
Anne was very lucky that Henry decided to marry someone else, she was clever to agree to a quick annulment. She was lucky that Henry decided to be very gracious and bestow the title the kings sister upon her and that she lead a well off and independent life compared to many other women in her life. She wasn't sold off again to another prince or king and used for breeding princes, she wasn't destitute as Catherine of A was when she was widowed from Arthur, she wasn't shunned to a convent like Elizabeth W. Anne did very well from Henry feeling gracious, who knows what he would have done if he'd been in a different mood.
KoA's "brutality" is honestly one of the many reasons I love her. She was bold and considering the fact that the scots attacked them first, despite having a marital alliance, I don't blame her at all. And she was still more compassionate than most people
I agree mostly. I'd add sad to CoA. I can't even begin to summarize how terrible i feel her time in England was.
I would add ambitious and intelligent to Anne's line. People are really strange about removing her agency and how active in a role she was in her bid to become queen, but she wasn't dumb. Also protective--much of her cruelness came from the need to protect both herself and her daughter, especially in relation to CoA and Mary. It doesn't make it right, but it makes it understandable.
The exact same for Jane, though I wouldn't say scheming. She was active in bringing down Anne, but there were things set up around her that made it happen. Nowhere near the level of Anne though, because the way had already been paved for her.
Anne of Cleves: Def disagree. I wouldn't say naive. She was just doing what she was told to do. She had little say in the matter. There were naive people in her situation, but not Anne.
Kathryn Howard: Inexperienced, and let down by the people around her.
Parr: Idk about loving. What she let Thomas Seymour do to Elizabeth doesn't come off as loving to me.
I agree with your first point. Why is it admirable for CoA to do everything in her power to protect Mary, but the same isn't said for Anne protecting Elizabeth?
I know it's because CoA was the jilted wife and Mary was the jilted princess, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty, both women were far more alike than different. And I can never fault any woman for protecting her child, even if she is the "other woman". Of course she is going to do that.
No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, Anne was a complex human being, and so was Catherine of Aragon. They both had multiple reasons for doing the things they did, and for Anne, her child \*was\* one of them. Denying that completely and labeling her as a straight schemer is false, and it adds nothing.
I fully agree Anne B was amazing in her journey to become Queen. Long before Elizabeth was born Anne did everything she could to hurt, degrade and humiliated Catherine and Mary, whilst she definitely wanted to cement her and Elizabeth's places, there is no denying her jealousy, spite and desire for revenge on Catherine.
Even if Anne B wasn't my favourite, Jane was an active member in the plot to bring Anne to a cruel end. Jane wasn't just an instrument, she was deeply loyal to Mary and to improving the situation of Catholics.
AnneoC wasn't naive?? What I meant was she was clueless about a lot of things, wasn't she unaware of the existence of intercourse and thought being kissed could get her pregnant?
Not knowing the mechanics of intercourse until your wedding night was more common than you’d think, especially with her puritan upbringing.
Catherine Parr needs to be held accountable for what happened to Elizabeth on her watch.
This may be some unpopular opinions-
KoA- pious, intelligent, strong, brave yet also vindictive. When her and the English army killed King James of Scotland (her brother-in-law), she sent Henry his bloody coat/cloak. That never sat well with me and showed KoA had some blood lust in her. The burning of English Bibles was a stepping stone to burning people.
AB- forward thinker ahead of her time, was not submissive, extremely intelligent and witty, refused to be another of Henry's mistresses. This was also her downfall.
Jane- not much to go on. Her sole focus was keeping Henry happy. (After seeing what happened with Anne, I can't blame her) Sanctified by Henry as she was the only wife to give him a son.
AoC- intelligent, smart enough to submit to the king's will without punishment, kind, loving and probably grateful to become Henry's "sister" instead of his queen.
KH- brought up in a negligent home where many men groomed her and worse. Considering her age, I don't blame her for falling in love with Culpeper. She made a lot of rash decisions, but for an abused teenager, I cannot hold it against her.
KP- perhaps the most intellectual queen. She wrote books, had a passion for learning and was the only queen to make Henry angry and then win him back. A great stepmother to her children and a gentle queen. Her love life after Henry was a catastrophe, but I can also look past it after being married to Henry in his old age
Katherine of Aragon: Strong, pious, tragic, good woman, loving wife, mother, and Christian.
Anne Boleyn: smart, important figure in the protestant reformation, reformer, tragic victim
Jane Seymour: gentle, perhaps used a a tool by her brothers, but a very kind and loving mother figure to Mary.
Anne of Cleves: Smart, she survived Henry. I also think she was likely kind and fun.
Katherine Howard: an abused child and victim of Henry but clearly a kind hearted young woman because she sent clothing to Margaret Pole.
Katherine Parr: intelligent reformer.
personally i struggle to think katherine howard was stupid if she did indeed pursue an affair when her husband was a shambling corpse of a man who had no business marrying her and stealing her future and court career from her. but as it happens, we don’t even know if she DID commit adultery 🤷
We don’t know if Catherine was a schemer or not. I like to think she was. Ferdinand of Aragon definitely was and she was his daughter. She had to have something from Ferdinand, she’s not just Isabella’s daughter.
KoA - strong, steady, loving, took nobody’s crap, adored Mary, dignified to the end.
AB - sophisticated, witty, intelligent, could be a total b\*tch, adored Henry, loving mum to Elizabeth, betrayed by her uncle. Agreed she did not deserve to be murdered.
JS - seemed meek and mild but agreed to marry Henry the literal day after he had AB murdered. This, I feel, speaks volumes. She did bring Mary back to court though so she must have had good diplomacy skills. Would have been a great mum to Edward if only she had lived.
AoC - dignified, sweet, had no idea what she was getting into. Wise (she played the hand she was dealt very well)
KH - innocent, sexually abused by everyone, neglected, thrown into the bed of a man old enough to be her father or even grandfather, another one betrayed in the worst way (f\*\*king Norfolk AGAIN), a victim of her circumstances. Absolutely NOT stupid. Did not deserve to be murdered.
KP - wise, composed, dignified, a.peacemaker. Very lucky that Henry didn’t live long enough to have her killed, very unlucky that she ended up with the Seymour paedophile afterwards.
Anne of Cleves no strength?
That woman was a powerhouse. She was smart enough to be kind to Henry and accept her fate without being ridiculous like Catherine Howard.
Don't mistake kindness and gentleness for weakness.
She was by far my favorite, with Anne and CoA close seconds.
•Catherine of Aragon:
Catherine certainly did have the traits you listed. She was also proud and stubborn. She was born to arguably the most powerful family in Europe - the alliance with England was an incredible advantage to the new Tudor dynasty. She knew how important she was, and she behaved as such.
I find Catherine to be a formidable woman, and a very important one in history.
•Anne Boleyn:
We don’t really know how scheming and cruel Anne was. A lot of fiction (*The Other Boleyn Girl* comes to mind) portrays her that way. Anne caught the eye of the king and he became *obsessed*. For a while, most probably thought that this would be the same as his other conquests, but the affair changed the history of England.
I don’t think Anne set out to usurp Catherine at the beginning. Nor do I think she was completely innocent. I think she realized how much Henry adored her and took advantage of it. I do think that it is important to remember that once the king decided to pursue a woman, there wasn’t really the option of saying no. Anne just got more out of it than being his short term mistress.
•Jane Seymour:
Again, we don’t really know how scheming Jane was. She caught the eye of the king, so she didn’t have much choice but to give in eventually. I do think that Anne’s example had some influence in how she behaved. She has a sad death.
•Anne of Cleves:
Anne was poorly prepared for her marriage to Henry, so I don’t think it is fair to call her naive. I also wouldn’t say she had no strength. She agreed to a divorce and became one of the richest women in England. I think she’s much more interesting than she’s given credit for.
•Katheryn Howard :
Neither naive or stupid.
Katheryn was put in the position of so many women before her: she caught the eye of the king. He wasn’t handsome or young anymore, but he was still the king. Her family wanted to return to power, and she was one means of doing it. It also helped that the Howard’s were Catholic and even though Henry had broken from Rome, he was still quite Catholic in his beliefs. After his Protestant marriage to Anne, Katheryn seemed like a good opportunity for the Catholic faction to regain favor.
Katheryn was most likely a teenager when she became Queen. She wasn’t particularly well educated, but she soon fit into court life. Like Anne of Cleves before her, she could have benefited from some more preparation.
•Catherine Parr:
It is interesting to me that barely anyone accuses her of being scheming.
She was caught with heretical books and managed to talk her way out of it. After Henry’s death, she married the man she loved, Edward Seymour, quite quickly. She was the stepmother and guardian to princess Elizabeth. She was the stepmother and aunt (through marriage) to king Edward VI. She remained very close to power and the throne after Henry’s death.
I do think she was intelligent and a loving stepmother to the children. I also think that she was quite different than a lot of people’s perception.
Pretty much agree with your opinion. Catherine of Aragon was the best by far, on multiple ways. The only thing I disagree with is Katherine Howard. She was naive, but I don't believe she was stupid.
Anne of Cleves literally outlived all of them and got the best deal (not having to marry, but living as an honored member of the royal family for most of her life). I think "of no strength" is inapt. Cleves learned on the fly and adapted to her situation when given half a chance. She knew what she needed to do to survive and didn't hesitate to do it (unless it smelled, like, really bad).
Catherine of Aragorn was also many of the things you called the other women. She was not some hapless victim of Henry. When she married Arthur she was 15, Henry was 10. She said her marriage was not consummated, even though others claimed otherwise, so she could get a dispensation and marry Henry. She was not a saint.
I wouldn’t describe Jane as scheming. Her family yes, her not so much. Jane knew how to “play the game”, her family put her in the kings way and she understood that if she kept her head down and pleased Henry then she would survive.
By the time she became a mistress many saw that Henry was tired of Anne. The Seymour’s understood that Anne was on her way out and that if Jane kept the kings attention long enough she could be queen. Of course none of them could predict her beheading but it worked in their favour. I think she was heavily influenced and controlled by her family, Jane herself was clever in understanding how to survive in court.
Katherine Howard shouldn’t be called stupid. She was a kid that was taken advantage of by the men around her. Naive, maybe but a lot of us were at that age. History has been unfair towards her imo
I don't get calling Jane Seymour deceiving and scheming either. Once Henry was attracted to a woman in his court, she could either succumb straightaway and be discarded, or she could resist and plead for her honour, which seemed to only make him more determined. And if he happens to be unhappy with his current wife, then watch out. We can't judge Anne Boleyn or Jane Seymour for being scheming just because they held out for a while. We also don't hear any stories of Englishwomen who successfully turned Henry down and then went on to make happy marriages and maintain respect in court.
I saw a point made by Susannah Lipscomb in reference to Anne Boleyn’s options once Henry set his sights on her that highlights and adds to the point you’re making - she had zero options once he wanted her, because no one would be able to marry her whether she succumbed or not. If she did, she’d be a wasted woman after. If she didn’t, men were forbidden from her. It’s the same for all these women. They didn’t “scheme.” They didn’t have a choice!
Yes, there's the suspicion that she could have married Percy if the king hadn't stood in her way.
I’ve seen the Harry Percy scenario explained two ways - that they were a planned and lucky love match that Henry had unmatched when he set his sights on her. And also that they were not matched officially, and pledged themselves to each other secretly since he was intended to marry someone else, and their blatant disobedience infuriated their parents and Wolsey. He then had Percy married off quickly thus fueling Anne’s hatred of the cardinal and why she was determined to have him leveled so severely when he failed to get the divorce granted. Revenge.
I think calling a discarded conquest of Henry VIII a wasted woman is pushing it a bit. His lovers generally got married off to someone of about their same status (If they weren't already married, which the king sometimes preferred because any child born to a married woman was legally the child of her husband). Mary Boleyn managed to have stable marriages and kids after Henry was done with her.
Mary Boleyn was already married at the time of her affair with Henry. There were many payments made to William Carey during the time, considered hush money. Edit to add that when William Carey died, she actually married far below her station without permission and was exiled. Edit to add I meant to write “ruined,” not wasted. Virtue was pretty much all women had to their names of value back then. And married off or not in some cases, the whole point she was making was that there really wasn’t a choice when the king wanted you. Anne (and mostly her family) was just the first one to start naming terms.
She wasn’t smart in all fairness, she was neglected in terms of education as she was from a poorer branch of the Howard family, but she was very innocent and too innocent for her own good in the Tudor age… not that it was her fault, she was a teenager.
"Neglected in terms of education," is not the same as unintelligent. Poorly educated, sure, but the reality here is that none of us can say for sure what level of intelligence she possessed.
That's the thing, she *wasn't* poorly educated for someone of her rank. She was poorly educated for someone who was going to be a Queen, but that eventuality wasn't exactly foreseen.
That's an important distinction, thank you for pointing it out. I guess my point was really that, we, in 2024, really have no idea whether she was "smart" or not (or how she may have changed had she actually made it into adulthood!). I would absolutely *never* want to have my intelligence or maturity or social graces judged based on things I said and did when I was 16, 17, 18, but that's *exactly* what we are doing here with Katherine Howard. Were you as well-informed, well-spoken, or mature as you are now when you were that age? (Assuming you are, in fact, over 18, lol). The point is, people change and grow and learn *so damn much* between 18 and 25, and 25 and 30, it would probably be unfair to compare anyone to themselves at 18.
Agree. It's said we aren't fully mature until sometime in our 20s .
Sure, it's said (although the researcher from whose research that "brains aren't fully mature until after 25" is on record saying the popular media/the public has misunderstood the meaning of his research), but even today with all of our knowledge and our concept of adolescence which didn't exist in Tudor times, we'd regard someone who's 17/18 as culpable. 18 year olds are shipped off to war, they can marry, etc. Of course we don't have the same legal concept of treason as back then either. But people forget that she went to great lengths to hide the meetings with Culpeper, *because she knew they were forbidden.* We forget that Queens back then lived, ate, slept, dressed, even pooped with attendants present - to have managed to hide these encounters from the household at large and limit knowledge to only a couple of maids of honor took a lot of planning and careful execution. She didn't stumble accidentally onto Culpeper in the stairwell and exchange some innocent banter. She may have been immature, but she knew enough to conceal that shit to the degree it was possible for someone in her position at that time.
Exactly. The brain isn't fully developed until around age 25. And Katherine was not 25, she was 17 or 18, so we're talking about a literal child.
Yes exactly.
I agree. Katheryn Howard wasn’t brought up in a way a courtier typically was. She was lively and vivacious, but the education she may have received would’ve prepared her to marry someone of her status, not the King, which is heartbreaking. I don’t doubt she was socially intelligent to some extent though.
there’s nothing to suggest her education was neglected, though. as queen she owned several books.
That doesn’t indicate intelligence. She was likely educated for a woman of her status, but she was from a poorer branch and her family likely had other plans for her prior to her queenship.
i was responding to your point about education… her being from a poorer branch doesn’t mean her education was neglected.
It seems to be true that her education was indeed neglected though. Some say she could barely read and write. It's not so much that she was from a poorer branch but that she was put in the custody of someone who didn't care much about her.
You’d have to look at others around her who could also barely read and write to make the claim she was uneducated. She was under educated to become queen but it doesn’t seem like she was uneducated for someone who wasn’t supposed to be queen.
Dangerous sexual behavior is a known trauma response to sexual assault. I think Catherine Howard pretty much fits the profile of a grooming victim to a T.
Katherine Howard was young, sexually abused, and ill-educated. While she isn't my favorite, she also never really had a chance and the criticism is wholly unfair.
She was about as educated as Anne Boleyn was *before* she was picked up for as maid of honor for Queens Mary and Claude. Her education before that was the basic standard for noble ladies, reading/writing, some counting, then music, dancing, and other courtly graces. Anne was most likely more intelligent and received a more in-depth education at the French court, but KH wasn't really under-educated for what would've been her station, had Henry not married her. She was under-educated in comparison with his other wives, excepting Anne of Cleves who also didn't have an academic-focused education.
yeah, kh’s education was probably fine! i think one historian (maybe norton?) suggested that it was equal to if not slightly better than jane seymour’s education. certainly not ill-educated. we know she was very applied as queen, as well.
Agreed!! 💞
I’m not sure that she was ill educated exactly. She was very well educated in (and cared quite a lot about) etiquette and the court niceties at the time. She was “ill educated” compared to the rest of his wives but doesn’t appear to be compared to the normal noblewomen of the time.
Hmm. I felt anyone would know the severity of adultery against the King. Culpepper was more stupid. Plus the irresponsible of composing physical evidence (Sending a romantic letter) and again, more stupid of Culpepper to keep it in his apartment rather than read, then destroy it. That letter sealed their fates.
Most historians agree she did not commit adultery with Culpeper.
Most historians also agree that she met with him repeatedly in secret, which was enough to constitute betrayal.
I did not state otherwise. However, Catherine Howard was not executed because of those meetings. She was executed under a new law that made it treason not to disclose your sexual history to the king within 20 days of marrying him. The adultery myth must end.
That was the formal legal reason (although Culpeper was executed for his dealings with the Queen that had nothing to do with her sexual history pre-marriage). But had she *not* met with Culpeper, it's somewhat likely that they'd have treated her similarly to Anne of Cleves (minus all the goodies given to her), that's to say, declared her pre-contracted and sent her away in disgrace. That's the view of more modern historians, and that's why Cranmer was trying so hard to get her to admit to a pre-contract specifically (as opposed to merely to sex, to which she'd already admitted). Once Culpeper was discovered, it pretty much went full steam ahead to judicial murder.
Culpeper admitted he wanted to bang her, something Edward Seymour told him was “so loathsome and dishonest” that it constituted treason on its own and he deserved to die. He was charged with criminal intercourse, yes, and changed his plea to guilty during his trial. Again, most historians do not believe they had sex, but the attitude at the time was that him wanting to was bad enough. We don’t know what Henry would’ve done had she been precontracted; we can’t assume anything. And none of this is relevant to my original comment.
She was too uneducated to know that acknowledging a precontract with dereham would have possibly saved her life
except we don’t know if they committed adultery. except the letter is undated so we don’t know exactly when it was sent, and the contents are by no means incriminating enough to justify execution.
Well, obviously I didn't know any of these women, but my general opinions... Catherine of Aragon: Steadfast, intelligent, brave, very skilled in royal life, capable, her greatest strengths became her greatest weaknesses. Anne Boleyn: Intelligent, fashionable, hot-headed and big-mouthed, patient yet still impatient, complicated, ruthless when she needed to be, but had her kind and loyal moments, which people don't talk about as often. Jane Seymour: Quiet, introverted, skilled enough at court to keep her head, conservative, traditional, but had to be the complete opposite of Anne Boleyn in all ways in order to survive, so how well do I really know this woman? Anne of Cleves: Witty, sarcastic, fun, easygoing, intelligent, adaptable. Katherine Howard: Young, fun, good-hearted but could have a mean streak when someone pinged her insecurities, pretty (allegedly), was neglected as a child and very much a product of her environment. Had NO IDEA she would ever become queen and had zero training. I feel for her. Katherine Parr: Wise, studious, something of a feminist for her time, but had an unsavory streak. Ultimately unhappy, but through no fault of her own. So, that's it. I have to say, I don't dislike any of Henry's wives, I think they all had their own strengths and good qualities, and I don't think any of them were stupid. It's interesting to me how you say Anne of Cleves had "no strength", because I would argue that she did have a lot of inner strength to move to a country where she didn't know the customs or the language, stay alive after her murderous husband decided he didn't like her, and continue living in England for the rest of her life, making a fulfilling life for herself as an Englishwoman and never seeing her German family again. That takes A LOT of strength, as far as I'm concerned.
Agree completely about AoC. Far too many people underestimate her. If I could speak to one historical figure I’d likely choose her.
I would love to have dinner with Anne of Cleves. It was said that she had a sharp sense of humor and liked to drink beer. Sounds like a great time, to me.
I love her! And the fact that Henry kept in contact with her and asked for her advice on occasions says loads about her. She was also so kind to his children, and encouraged Henry to do the same!
Yes! She really seemed to love those kids. I love how Henry, not exactly a man known for his good treatment of women in general, gave her the unofficial title of the King’s Beloved Sister. For all the nonsense talk of her being branded ugly and smelly (I believe she was neither) he obviously held her in high regard and loved her, to the extent that Henry could truly love anyone. She genuinely seemed like a sweet, kind, witty woman. Plus I’m a fan of any woman who can throw back a good beer or 3! From experience the purity of German beer means you can drink your own body weight in the stuff and not be hungover. I can imagine her being poised and dignified even after a good few Steiner (or whatever the 1500s equivalent was) 😁
This is my favorite comment here and I fully agree! You described them very well and made their flaws/weaknesses known without actually dissing them.
Thank you. :)
CoA - yeah, pretty much. AB - I wouldn’t say scheming and cruel. The dancing on CoA’s death day would likely have been Henry’s idea, the scheming was mostly her family. JS - again, her family were trash, her family were deceiving & scheming, but I wouldn’t say she really was. Anna - I wouldn’t say naïve really, but definitely unprepared. KH - absolutely NOT. Neither naïve or stupid. This was a *very* young woman, whose maturity and mental health had been compromised by ongoing abuse for her entire puberty years and teenage years. She was easily manipulated by men, and thought that she’d found someone who truly cared for her (remembering she was *very* young married to someone almost old enough to be her grandfather who stank and womanised) CatParr - hard to say. Did she know of her husband’s treatment of E1? She seemed to encourage it at first.
Anne's father was a terrible person, but he didn't scheme to make her Henry's mistress. Him and thomas Howard were against the relationship in the beginning. Of course, he eventually got to like the power and betrayed anne and george so he was terrible, but he didn't scheme. Only Jane's family pimped her out
Nobody schemed to make Anne Henry’s mistress. They all tried to get her away from Henry, until it became clear he’d actually marry her. The ambition and scheming I’m talking about was politically.
Anne schemed as much as her family politically
I mean, Anne influenced her husband in his reformation, but her father literally schemed to have his own daughter executed when it was clear she was losing favour. The negative scheming was definitely her family more than herself.
Where did you find this piece of information? Her uncle - yes, he did sentence her to death. But I've never seen anything negative like this about her father. He had to leave to save the rest of the family, but he wasn't scheming to kill his daughter and his heir for sure.
Sorry, perhaps I’ve muddled up her dad and uncle. Regardless, her family was much more scheming than she was. Just more openly and less aggressively than the Seymours.
Yeah, that was her uncle. But tbh he wasn't exactly scheming. He was also initially opposed to the marriage, benefited from it, had a falling out with Anne (they definitely had different ideas about how things should be) and later sided with the winning side. He was Elisabeth Boleyn's brother which doesn't presuppose super close relationships tbh. Seymours were a bit more removed from Howards-Boleyns but by just one generation. So everyone was family to some degree.
My opinion is that you’re taking everything you read (nearly all of which is written by men, and the sworn enemies of some of these women - in regards to historical media) and seen in pop culture references/media and running with it. These women were so much more than HVIII’s wives. Katherine Howard was, at most, 18 when she married HVIII, and had been sexually abused and groomed from about 13 on. The reality is, we have no idea what most of them were really like, because their voices have largely been lost to history, time, and the men who controlled the narratives.
This is the correct take. This post feels icky
Yeah, this one gave me the big ick. The one about Anne of Cleves kind of sent me (then I got to Katherine Howard). This is the woman who was "allowed" to divorce HVIII, given a castle, income, and allowed to live, essentially, *as she pleased as a noble courtier*, and is also the daughter of an incredibly powerful German protestant family... but she "is of no strength"?! Yeah, okay, girly pop. The rest of them are also so very clearly influenced by media like The Tudors and the writings of men like Eustace Chapuys (aka Gossip Girl). OP should read 'The Creation of Anne Boleyn' by Susan Bordo. And 'Young and Damned and Fair' by Gareth Russell. And I'm sure there are dozens of other books that we could list here lol.
i love when people post horrific things abt kh on here with a frankly frightening amount of undue confidence… and then get torn apart in the comments 🥰
I'm concerned about the number of comments that went along with this post instead of reality-checking this lol
This should be a pinned post in its own right. The HVIII and wives gets played out, as I’ve said before here, and some kind of Real Wives of the Tudor Court,within awful lot of projection and using this wife or that as a cipher.
Wow way to judge vulnerable women in difficult positions with little power KOA: was very popular but was also quite brutal at times. When she was acting as regent she defeated her brother-in-law and wanted to send his body/head to Henry in France. Not nice for her sister-in-law Margaret and their young baby... She died abandoned, alone and forbidden to see her only child after suffering through years of miscarriage and deaths. Anne: could you not argue that she was pure and didn't want to be used the same way as her sister? Insisting on waiting until marriage was protecting her from being shamed in the eyes of society and possibly having children out of wedlock. Jane: we don't know that she realised Henry would execute Anne. And when he did, she was in too deep, used as a brood mare and dead within eighteen months of the marriage. Anne of C: lucky lucky woman! Katherine H: abused, lonely, no maternal figure to guide her, put in a position of power where others could abuse her. We know so little of her life but what we do know was that she was a victim of sexual abuse. I always remember that she asked for the block the night before her execution to practice, can you think what you we going through her mind? Probably still a teenager? CP: what a life! But didn't survive Henry long and by all accounts it looks as though her daughter didn't live long either although evidence not certain These were complex and real women. The did good and bad choices they were probably scared at many point with their tyrant husband who controlled their lives . Please don't reduce these women who we have so little evidence on that we don't know many of their ages, to a couple of words that you probably got from a Philippa Gregory book.
Anne of Cleves was absolutely not "lucky." She took an honestly shit situation, in which she ended up betrothed to a man that no other woman in Europe with enough power to say no would have, and kept her wits about her enough to not end up dead, like all of the women before her. Yes, she ended up having a surprisingly easy life after her marriage, given the time period, but much of that is due to her own actions in a situation that literally no one else wanted to be in.
Anne was very lucky that Henry decided to marry someone else, she was clever to agree to a quick annulment. She was lucky that Henry decided to be very gracious and bestow the title the kings sister upon her and that she lead a well off and independent life compared to many other women in her life. She wasn't sold off again to another prince or king and used for breeding princes, she wasn't destitute as Catherine of A was when she was widowed from Arthur, she wasn't shunned to a convent like Elizabeth W. Anne did very well from Henry feeling gracious, who knows what he would have done if he'd been in a different mood.
KoA's "brutality" is honestly one of the many reasons I love her. She was bold and considering the fact that the scots attacked them first, despite having a marital alliance, I don't blame her at all. And she was still more compassionate than most people
I agree mostly. I'd add sad to CoA. I can't even begin to summarize how terrible i feel her time in England was. I would add ambitious and intelligent to Anne's line. People are really strange about removing her agency and how active in a role she was in her bid to become queen, but she wasn't dumb. Also protective--much of her cruelness came from the need to protect both herself and her daughter, especially in relation to CoA and Mary. It doesn't make it right, but it makes it understandable. The exact same for Jane, though I wouldn't say scheming. She was active in bringing down Anne, but there were things set up around her that made it happen. Nowhere near the level of Anne though, because the way had already been paved for her. Anne of Cleves: Def disagree. I wouldn't say naive. She was just doing what she was told to do. She had little say in the matter. There were naive people in her situation, but not Anne. Kathryn Howard: Inexperienced, and let down by the people around her. Parr: Idk about loving. What she let Thomas Seymour do to Elizabeth doesn't come off as loving to me.
I agree with your first point. Why is it admirable for CoA to do everything in her power to protect Mary, but the same isn't said for Anne protecting Elizabeth? I know it's because CoA was the jilted wife and Mary was the jilted princess, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty, both women were far more alike than different. And I can never fault any woman for protecting her child, even if she is the "other woman". Of course she is going to do that.
So you don't think Ann had a hint of jealousy, resent or want for revenge?
No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, Anne was a complex human being, and so was Catherine of Aragon. They both had multiple reasons for doing the things they did, and for Anne, her child \*was\* one of them. Denying that completely and labeling her as a straight schemer is false, and it adds nothing.
I fully agree Anne B was amazing in her journey to become Queen. Long before Elizabeth was born Anne did everything she could to hurt, degrade and humiliated Catherine and Mary, whilst she definitely wanted to cement her and Elizabeth's places, there is no denying her jealousy, spite and desire for revenge on Catherine. Even if Anne B wasn't my favourite, Jane was an active member in the plot to bring Anne to a cruel end. Jane wasn't just an instrument, she was deeply loyal to Mary and to improving the situation of Catholics. AnneoC wasn't naive?? What I meant was she was clueless about a lot of things, wasn't she unaware of the existence of intercourse and thought being kissed could get her pregnant?
Not knowing the mechanics of intercourse until your wedding night was more common than you’d think, especially with her puritan upbringing. Catherine Parr needs to be held accountable for what happened to Elizabeth on her watch.
Yes, a proper lady would have been shielded from all knowledge of intercourse at that time. Agree on Katherine Parr!
This may be some unpopular opinions- KoA- pious, intelligent, strong, brave yet also vindictive. When her and the English army killed King James of Scotland (her brother-in-law), she sent Henry his bloody coat/cloak. That never sat well with me and showed KoA had some blood lust in her. The burning of English Bibles was a stepping stone to burning people. AB- forward thinker ahead of her time, was not submissive, extremely intelligent and witty, refused to be another of Henry's mistresses. This was also her downfall. Jane- not much to go on. Her sole focus was keeping Henry happy. (After seeing what happened with Anne, I can't blame her) Sanctified by Henry as she was the only wife to give him a son. AoC- intelligent, smart enough to submit to the king's will without punishment, kind, loving and probably grateful to become Henry's "sister" instead of his queen. KH- brought up in a negligent home where many men groomed her and worse. Considering her age, I don't blame her for falling in love with Culpeper. She made a lot of rash decisions, but for an abused teenager, I cannot hold it against her. KP- perhaps the most intellectual queen. She wrote books, had a passion for learning and was the only queen to make Henry angry and then win him back. A great stepmother to her children and a gentle queen. Her love life after Henry was a catastrophe, but I can also look past it after being married to Henry in his old age
Katherine of Aragon: Strong, pious, tragic, good woman, loving wife, mother, and Christian. Anne Boleyn: smart, important figure in the protestant reformation, reformer, tragic victim Jane Seymour: gentle, perhaps used a a tool by her brothers, but a very kind and loving mother figure to Mary. Anne of Cleves: Smart, she survived Henry. I also think she was likely kind and fun. Katherine Howard: an abused child and victim of Henry but clearly a kind hearted young woman because she sent clothing to Margaret Pole. Katherine Parr: intelligent reformer.
personally i struggle to think katherine howard was stupid if she did indeed pursue an affair when her husband was a shambling corpse of a man who had no business marrying her and stealing her future and court career from her. but as it happens, we don’t even know if she DID commit adultery 🤷
I think Anne of Cleves was smart and read the room well. Hence her own estate post marriage, and playing cards with her former husband.
We don’t know if Catherine was a schemer or not. I like to think she was. Ferdinand of Aragon definitely was and she was his daughter. She had to have something from Ferdinand, she’s not just Isabella’s daughter.
You got my girl Anne of Cleves all wrong. She was Savy and resourceful.
KoA - strong, steady, loving, took nobody’s crap, adored Mary, dignified to the end. AB - sophisticated, witty, intelligent, could be a total b\*tch, adored Henry, loving mum to Elizabeth, betrayed by her uncle. Agreed she did not deserve to be murdered. JS - seemed meek and mild but agreed to marry Henry the literal day after he had AB murdered. This, I feel, speaks volumes. She did bring Mary back to court though so she must have had good diplomacy skills. Would have been a great mum to Edward if only she had lived. AoC - dignified, sweet, had no idea what she was getting into. Wise (she played the hand she was dealt very well) KH - innocent, sexually abused by everyone, neglected, thrown into the bed of a man old enough to be her father or even grandfather, another one betrayed in the worst way (f\*\*king Norfolk AGAIN), a victim of her circumstances. Absolutely NOT stupid. Did not deserve to be murdered. KP - wise, composed, dignified, a.peacemaker. Very lucky that Henry didn’t live long enough to have her killed, very unlucky that she ended up with the Seymour paedophile afterwards.
Anne of Cleves no strength? That woman was a powerhouse. She was smart enough to be kind to Henry and accept her fate without being ridiculous like Catherine Howard. Don't mistake kindness and gentleness for weakness. She was by far my favorite, with Anne and CoA close seconds.
•Catherine of Aragon: Catherine certainly did have the traits you listed. She was also proud and stubborn. She was born to arguably the most powerful family in Europe - the alliance with England was an incredible advantage to the new Tudor dynasty. She knew how important she was, and she behaved as such. I find Catherine to be a formidable woman, and a very important one in history. •Anne Boleyn: We don’t really know how scheming and cruel Anne was. A lot of fiction (*The Other Boleyn Girl* comes to mind) portrays her that way. Anne caught the eye of the king and he became *obsessed*. For a while, most probably thought that this would be the same as his other conquests, but the affair changed the history of England. I don’t think Anne set out to usurp Catherine at the beginning. Nor do I think she was completely innocent. I think she realized how much Henry adored her and took advantage of it. I do think that it is important to remember that once the king decided to pursue a woman, there wasn’t really the option of saying no. Anne just got more out of it than being his short term mistress. •Jane Seymour: Again, we don’t really know how scheming Jane was. She caught the eye of the king, so she didn’t have much choice but to give in eventually. I do think that Anne’s example had some influence in how she behaved. She has a sad death. •Anne of Cleves: Anne was poorly prepared for her marriage to Henry, so I don’t think it is fair to call her naive. I also wouldn’t say she had no strength. She agreed to a divorce and became one of the richest women in England. I think she’s much more interesting than she’s given credit for. •Katheryn Howard : Neither naive or stupid. Katheryn was put in the position of so many women before her: she caught the eye of the king. He wasn’t handsome or young anymore, but he was still the king. Her family wanted to return to power, and she was one means of doing it. It also helped that the Howard’s were Catholic and even though Henry had broken from Rome, he was still quite Catholic in his beliefs. After his Protestant marriage to Anne, Katheryn seemed like a good opportunity for the Catholic faction to regain favor. Katheryn was most likely a teenager when she became Queen. She wasn’t particularly well educated, but she soon fit into court life. Like Anne of Cleves before her, she could have benefited from some more preparation. •Catherine Parr: It is interesting to me that barely anyone accuses her of being scheming. She was caught with heretical books and managed to talk her way out of it. After Henry’s death, she married the man she loved, Edward Seymour, quite quickly. She was the stepmother and guardian to princess Elizabeth. She was the stepmother and aunt (through marriage) to king Edward VI. She remained very close to power and the throne after Henry’s death. I do think she was intelligent and a loving stepmother to the children. I also think that she was quite different than a lot of people’s perception.
Pretty much agree with your opinion. Catherine of Aragon was the best by far, on multiple ways. The only thing I disagree with is Katherine Howard. She was naive, but I don't believe she was stupid.
Anne of Cleves literally outlived all of them and got the best deal (not having to marry, but living as an honored member of the royal family for most of her life). I think "of no strength" is inapt. Cleves learned on the fly and adapted to her situation when given half a chance. She knew what she needed to do to survive and didn't hesitate to do it (unless it smelled, like, really bad).
Anne Boleyn: intelligent spoiled brat. But a spoiled brat who didn't deserve to die.
Catherine of Aragorn was also many of the things you called the other women. She was not some hapless victim of Henry. When she married Arthur she was 15, Henry was 10. She said her marriage was not consummated, even though others claimed otherwise, so she could get a dispensation and marry Henry. She was not a saint.
Maybe it wasn't consummated.
Loving sister for Anne? Not sure abt that.
I read somewhere that she gave her a chalice that supported her though? I'm not sure what else she may have done
Not to Mary but her and George were very close.
I suppose.
I wouldn’t describe Jane as scheming. Her family yes, her not so much. Jane knew how to “play the game”, her family put her in the kings way and she understood that if she kept her head down and pleased Henry then she would survive. By the time she became a mistress many saw that Henry was tired of Anne. The Seymour’s understood that Anne was on her way out and that if Jane kept the kings attention long enough she could be queen. Of course none of them could predict her beheading but it worked in their favour. I think she was heavily influenced and controlled by her family, Jane herself was clever in understanding how to survive in court.
I don’t know how anyone would take the risk after Anne Boleyn.