History is
events or people that other people have written about. Whenever something is
written it has to come from somewhere, but is that somewhere reliable? The exact truth behind the story cannot be
truly known. One can put together pieces of the puzzle, but will never truly
know what happened. Hayden White presents this idea as well, “Events happen or
occur; facts are constituted by the subsumption of events under a description,
which is to say, by acts of prediction.”[1]
This is exceptionally true in the 16th century. What historians have
to base their work off of are official political documents, diaries, letters, and
other similar items. The story of Catherine Howard is one that is not told
often, not nearly as often as the one of her infamous cousin, Anne Boleyn. The
purpose of the essay is to critically assess, by means of
comparison, how different texts have treated Catherine Howard throughout
history.
The
material that covers the story of Catherine and her life is extremely minimal.
She was not as influential or as important as some of Henry VIII’s wives, but
the lack of books and articles on her was stunning. With the hype of the
Tudor’s stories, one would think there would be a lot written about every
aspect of their lives. Catherine Howard changed the thinking and attitude of
the king during their marriage, even if it was for a brief time, and brought
youthfulness back into his court. Henry was really excited about his marriage.[2]
During their marriage, Henry became more healthy and cheerful, rose before six,
and put in more hours at business than ever before.[3]
Even so, her story is hardly known. Within the Showtime film series, The Tudors, Catherine Howard’s was
featured in 5 episodes. But was her story justly told? The same question is
asked of Diane Haegar’s book The Queen’s
Mistake: Life in the Court of Henry VIII. Each of these mediums tell
Catherine’s story in a novelistic and entertaining way. The question that I
seek out in this essay is whether or not either of these mediums portrays
Catherine justly. Do they accurately show her intelligence, her personality and
her struggles? First I will explain film as a medium for history, and then I
will discuss Catherine’s overall portrayal within the two mediums. Secondly, I
will investigate specific aspects of her life shown in the mediums: Her
intelligence, her kindness and her wants and desires. Finally, I will explain
as to whether or not the mediums did indeed show Catherine fairly and why they
did or did not.
Film
as a medium for history has been very controversial. In Hayden White’s article,
he presents the question that many historians, including Robert Rosenstone,
have asked “is it possible to ‘translate’ a given written account of history
into a visual-auditory equivalent without significant loss of content?” He also
explains Rosenstone’s second question, “Can historyphoty, the representation of
history and our thought about it in visual images and film discourse, adequately
convey with complex, qualified and critical dimensions of historical thinking
about events?[4] I
believe the same is true for historical novels. Historical novels and film are
both a representation of history and can provide a good understanding of the
history. The controversy that I have come across is that they are inaccurate,
and do not represent the history in complex, qualified and critical ways. This
essay will show that they really can provide an accurate reading of the
history.
In
the film series The Tudors, Catherine
Howard is introduced in season four, episodes one through five. The outline of
the episodes is thus:
1.
Henry is
proud of Catherine, his beautiful, vivacious 17-year-old wife, who buys silence
from an old friend by making her a member of the court.
2.
Joan Bulmer
discloses the queen's sexual history to Lady Rochford, who tells it to Culpepper
and arranges for him to have a liaison with Catherine.
3.
While Henry
prepares for a politically important trip to meet the defeated Northern rebels,
Queen Catherine carries on her affair with Culpepper.
4.
Queen
Catherine is being blackmailed. Henry receives an anonymous letter accusing his
wife of a sexual relationship, and he orders an investigation.
5.
The
investigation into Queen Catherine's past moves quickly. When told of the
discoveries, Henry's response is unsentimental and swift.[5]
In the film,
Catherine is portrayed as a complete idiot of a girl. She is shown to have no
code of conduct, to do as she pleases, and to cry and run around like a child.
Parading herself around court, she catches the eye of the King. She is shown to
shove herself at him. She is showered with gifts and takes them without question.
Catherine expects everything and then some. The Catherine Howard in the film is
very much unlikeable, although she is beautiful and innocent looking. The
actress that plays Catherine suits the descriptions of Catherine in the books
with her hazel eyes and auburn hair.[6]
The girl in the film squeals with delight yet pouts like a baby. The actress
certainly provides the audience with a view of Catherine’s personality as
rather overbearing. [7]
In the book,
The Queen’s Mistake, Catherine is
shown in a different light. Haegar has a great talent for making you feel like
you're amongst the court of Henry VIII. Her descriptions of the surroundings,
clothing, food, etc. are very vivid. Catherine was so young and naive and never
had the opportunity to reach her potential and come into her own. Catherine did
what was expected of her and tried to make the marriage work. She stayed
faithful to Henry and also suffered a couple of miscarriages. Then when she tried
to save an old woman in the tower and argued with Henry about this he had the
woman put to death anyway. This showed her what kind of a man Henry really was.[8]
It makes you feel very sorry for Catherine and you can see how Henry saw her as
a “Rose without a Thorn”.
We can only
assume Catherine’s intelligence from what historians have said about her.
Williamson accounts for her intelligence from a portrait that was painted of
her. “It was of a beautiful woman carrying gentleness and intelligence in her face.
From it few would suspect her true history”.[9]
Although, inferring someone’s intelligence through a portrait is far from an accountable
conclusion. Another historian, Neville Williams explains how Catherine had
treated Princess Mary when she was reluctant to pay homage to her father’s new
wife. He explains that Catherine deprived her of two of her maids as a
punishment for not paying her as much respect as she had for Henry’s previous
wives.[10]
Whether or not this was just childish play, or if it was Catherine using her
wits to get back at Princess Mary is debatable. The moment is, however,
executed within the film and book. In the film, Catherine is astonished that
Princess Mary will not respect her, even though Mary is a few years her elder.
Catherine takes personal offence and strips Mary of her maids in an ‘I’ll show
you!’ type manner. But in the book, the way Catherine approaches the problem is
rather different. She is puzzled as to why Mary will not be kind to her, and
she searches to find an answer to the problem. The end result is taking her
maids. Catherine Howard is not remembered for her wits though.
Another
author shines light on Catherine’s intellect. As a young girl at the Duchess of
Norfolk’s house, her and Francis Dereham had relations and he had asked her
multiple times to marry him. Dereham eventually had to realize that a Howard
girl did not have a choice in who she would wed.[11]
When it came down to her trial, she was too naive to realize that by admitting
to a pre-contract she could have saved her life. If she had never been the
king's legal wife, she could not be accused of adultery. That (adultery) was
what the council was trying to prove, which she quickly realized.[12]
She could have, potentially, saved her head and lived in the country somewhere
if she would have admitted to the pre-contract. In both the film and the book,
Catherine does not realize this, and irrationally denies any charges against
her.
An
additional situation in which the intelligence, or lack thereof, of Catherine
is displayed is when her former confidants turned up at court. Mary Lassels
could have been jealous because the others from their childhood home had been
granted places at court while she had been neglected.[13]
Mary had knowledge of Catherine’s youthful activities in the Duchess of
Norfolk’s estate.[14]
Catherine could have been keeping Mary, Francis Dereham at a distance, for her
own safety. When the old friends turn up in the film series, Catherine is not
pleased. She sees Dereham and the horror is evident on her face, leading the
audience to believe her guilt. Within the book she is sincerely terrified of
both Mary and Dereham turning up. Mary Lassels is known to have blackmailed the
young queen to get herself a place at court,[15]
but the intensity of the blackmail varies per the story. Both the film and book
represent Catherine as utterly terrified and unsure of how to deal with the
situation. Given the circumstances, it may have been wiser to banish them from
court or create a situation that would discredit anything they had to say. But
Catherine takes to their blackmail, and tries to live normally. Then they start
whispering.
Whether or
not Catherine was entirely kind, is also up for debate. It is not unknown that
her husband was rather spiteful. Henry had never spared a man in his anger nor
a woman in his lust.[16]
Some of the queen’s actions were done with kindness, while others were
malicious. We can refer back to the passage where I spoke about her and the
Princess Mary. Taking two of her maids because she avoided her does not seem
entirely nice. The way the film made it seem, it was a cruel thing to do, but
the book did not make it look as bad. Another example of the young queen’s
kindness can be seen when a low born boy at court did not bow properly to her
in the hall. She immediately called him back and made him kneel before her a
hundred times. He was a poor boy from the country and thought “such was her nobleness
to me that, to show me the better how to bow, she lifted up all her garments to
the calf of her leg that I might observe the grace of drawing the back of the
foot and bowing of the knee.”[17]
Although it would be seen as improper for the queen to lift her skirts to show
a proper bow, she did it for this young boy. This action is not seen in the
film nor in the book, but is taken from an account of a young boy, John Smyth.
I don’t think it was wanted to be in the records of her life for her to be
known as kind.
Did
Catherine Howard really want to become Queen of England and Henry VIII’s fifth
wife? What girl wouldn’t want to be queen? But what seventeen year old, high
spirited girl would want to be tied to a bloated and repellent husband?[18]
The politics and gifts of her marriage were extraordinary. She was dangled
before the eyes of the frustrated and disappointed monarch by her scheming
uncle, the Duke of Norfolk .[19]
Catherine was a pawn to elevate the Howard family after their disgrace with
Anne Boleyn. Catherine’s choices and wishes were not of importance to her
uncle. In the book this is clearly identified during meetings she had with her
family. The film does not clearly show how the Duke of Norfolk essentially
forced Catherine upon the King, it just shows Catherine as greedy, taking
anything she can get, and more.
The King was
“besotted with Catherine’s youthful gaiety. He lavished jewels and clothes upon
her and his extravagance extended to the whole court.” [20]
Every girl would adore this attention. But in Catherine basically exemplifies
the phrase “Money cannot buy love”. She wanted something more. But being the
wife of the King of England did not come with the perk of being allowed a ‘male
mistress’. The film and the book both show Catherine as always longing to be
with Thomas Culpepper, a handsome young man of the Kings Privy Chamber Council.[21]
Catherine shows her naivety and youth in her night time actions. During the
day, she seemingly loves the king and says all the proper words to please him,
but at night, she is sneaky and her harlot ways shone through. The book shows
her as sad, and longing for more to please her.
Did
Catherine Howard really love Thomas Culpepper or was she just being lustful?
From the ways the book and film show her and Culpepper’s relationship, you
gather that she really does love the man. Both sources show her as completely
smitten with Culpepper, and not just in the bedroom. Dereham was displeased to
know that Culpepper had “succeeded him in the Queen’s affections”[22]
While Culpepper boasted if the king were to die, he would surely marry
Catherine.[23] Catherine
had been known to call him her ‘sweet little fool’ and give him small presents.
Culpepper’s affections and actions towards the queen were just as forward. He
would write her letters and sign ‘yours as long as life endures’.[24]
Williams also claims that Catherine was sickened by an aged husband for whom
she had no love and tried desperately to find consolation in a lover.[25]
Williams is also so bold as to say that Catherine may have even hoped that
Culpepper would father a child for her to play off as a baby prince. [26]
Though there is not much to back up that statement with.
Once again,
both of the mediums reveal the love affair justly. Catherine and Culpepper were
indeed infatuated with each other in both the book and film. The film showed
them more physically involved than the book cared to mention. The book
represented Catherine as missing Culpepper when they were apart and longing for
him to be around again. I don’t think there can be much argument as to whether
or not Catherine actually loved Culpepper. Her final words on the scaffold were
"I die a queen, but I would rather die the wife of Culpepper."
Admitting this was treason, and the axe fell.[27]
Whether or not Catherine Howard was fairly shown in The Queens Mistake or The Tudors is difficult to say. The
history that is recorded of her is very obscure. The 1950s and 1960s provided
many texts on The Tudors, but not Catherine specifically. While there are many
books on the Tudors, there are hardly many mentions to Catherine Howard. Most
books only mention her in a single sentence, if at all.
I theorize the reason she is so historically
obscure is because she is a stain on Henry VIII’s marriage record. Her marriage,
reign, and life was so short, I feel as though England wanted to forget her. The
historian Tosh claims that “Some history amounted to little more than cynical
improvisation on the part of writers seeking political patronage.” [28]
If this is indeed true, it would give us a good explanation as to why there is so
little written about Catherine. The king didn’t want his ‘rose without a thorn’
to be written about. She was an embarrassment. To find a sturdy historical book
on Catherine Howard, as a text book and not a historical novel is extremely
difficult, and almost non-existent.
Although some things are
interpreted because certain facts were not important to have written down at
the time, the film and book both do provide rather accurate readings into the
life of Catherine Howard. Each of the authors of the book and film had to use
what actions that were recorded and interpret from them how their Catherine
would act, speak and act. History through film and novels is a tricky subject
but I feel as though both The Queen’s
Mistake and The Tudors gives a
good perspective of Catherine Howard’s life and personality.
[1] White, Hayden. Historiography and Historophoty. (Abingdon, Routledge, 2009) pp.
56.
[2] Guy, John. The Tudors: A Very Short Introduction. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1984) pp. 35.
[3] Williamson, James A. The Tudor Age. (London: Longmans Green and Co Ltd: 1953) pp. 168.
[4] White, Hayden. Historiography and Historophoty. (Abingdon, Routledge, 2009) pp.
53.
[5] Hirst, Michael. "The Tudors."
Reveille Eire Oct 05 2007. DVD.
[6] Neville Williams. A Tudor Tragedy: Thomas Howard Fourth Duke of Norfolk. (Guernsey:
The Guernsey Press, 1964) pp. 5
[7] Hirst, Michael. "The Tudors."
Reveille Eire Oct 05 2007. DVD.
[8] Haegar, Diane. The Queen’s Mistake: Life in the Court of Henry VII.(New York: New
American Library, 2009)
[9] Williamson, James A. The Tudor Age. (London: Longmans Green and Co Ltd: 1953) pp. 170.
[10] Williams, Neville. Henry VIII and His Court. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson Ltd,
1971) pp. 205.
[11] Wilson, Derek. A Tudor Tapestry: Men, Women & Society in Reformation England.
(London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1972) pp. 133.
[12]Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII, (New York: Grove Press, 1991) pp. 452.
[13] Williams, Neville. Henry VIII and His Court. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson Ltd,
1971) pp. 208.
[14] Williams, Neville. Henry VIII and His Court. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson Ltd,
1971) pp. 208.
[15]Williams, Neville. Henry VIII and His Court. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson Ltd,
1971) pp. 208.
[16] Morris, Christopher. The Tudors. (London: B. T. Batsford Ltd: 1955) pp. 99.
[17] Smith, Lacey Baldwin. Treason in Tudor England: Politics and Paranoia. (London: Jonathan
Cape Ltd, 1986) pp. 78.
[18] Grant, Neil. Kings and Queens. (London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996) pp. 170.
[19] Wilson, Derek. A Tudor Tapestry: Men, Women & Society in Reformation England.
(London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1972) pp. 120.
[20] Wilson, Derek. A Tudor Tapestry: Men, Women & Society in Reformation England.
(London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1972) pp. 123.
[21]Wilson, Derek. A Tudor Tapestry: Men, Women & Society in Reformation England.
(London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1972) pp. 136.
[22] Williams, Neville. Henry VIII and His Court. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson Ltd,
1971) pp. 208.
[23] Williams, Neville. Henry VIII and His Court. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson Ltd,
1971) pp. 208.
[24] Williams, Neville. Henry VIII and His Court. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson Ltd,
1971) pp. 209.
[25] Williams, Neville. Henry VIII and His Court. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson Ltd,
1971) pp. 209.
[26] Williams, Neville. Henry VIII and His Court. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson Ltd,
1971) pp. 209.
[27] Strempel, Eileen. Try Me, Good King: Last
Words of the Wives of Henry VIII. (Academic OneFile- Document, October 2007)
pp. 7.
[28] Tosh, John. Historians on History. (Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd, 2000) pp. 6.
