OUR DESCENT FROM KING HENRY VIII

APPENDIX NINE

My Granny Was A Whore …,

or,

A Love Story…,

or,

Our Descent From Henry VIII?

By

Henry A. Fitzhugh

D

ear Reader, before you cringe in horror at such family disloyalty, let me hastily explain that the Lady in question is my great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great-great-grandmother, Mary Boleyn Carey. Time is the universal healer, and when you read this brief summary of the evidence, you will see why I am forgiving, amused, and perhaps just a little bit proud to claim a probable descent from King Henry VIII.

Everyone has heard of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII, for whom he threw over Queen Catherine of Aragon and whom he later beheaded in the Tower of London, for adultery, witchcraft, sorcery, incest, and offending his Dignity. But few know of her sister Mary Boleyn. Both sisters were brought up in the Court of the French King Francis I[1] as part of their improvement, which was undoubtedly aimed at raising their value on the marriage market, in order to serve the vaulting social and political ambitions of the Boleyns. Mary certainly took full advantage of the opportunities available and the lax moral tone[2] of the French Court, for King Francis said he had “ridden her” as “my hackney”[3], and twenty years later, when all the tumult of Anne’s execution had passed, he referred to Mary as “a great whore, the most infamous of all”[4]. Francis I was arguably the most powerful King in Europe, so he should know. Slightly more tactfully: “Warm hearted and ductile, Mary made the mistake of scattering her favours too widely and making her affairs too public. It was one thing to be the King’s Mistress; quite another to be known to be at everyone’s disposal. Even at the lascivious French Court there was a code of discretion; Mary had offended it. She was either sent or withdrawn hastily to England.”[5]

References to Mary Boleyn having an affair with Henry VIII abound in the footnotes of all references to the Tudor period, but my attention was caught when a historical novel, The Other Boleyn Girl, by Philippa Gregory, was published in 2001.[6] The main story line in the novel is that King Henry was attracted to Mary Boleyn just after her marriage to William Carey, and that Henry soon displaced William and took over Mary for an affair of some six years or so, giving her two children into the bargain, namely Catherine Carey and Henry Carey. The point is strongly made that the King would never share the favours of a mistress; he had his Royal pride, and he would have to be sure that any child was his, for illegitimate claims abounded in those days.[7] All of this began before but overlapped with the King’s growing attachment to Anne Boleyn, who was less beautiful but had more magnetism and cunning than her sister.[8]

The novel covers the rise and fall of the Boleyn family to the day of execution of Queen Anne Boleyn, but from the standpoint of our own family history the central question is this: was Catherine Carey the natural daughter of William Carey or of King Henry? We have a line of descent from Catherine (see family tree following), so we could be illegitimately descended from Henry VIII. The rest of this note weighs up the available evidence.

All of the references following agree that Henry and Mary had an affair, and this is never doubted anywhere. Those that mention dates place it between 1519 and approximately 1525.[9] There is a hint, no more, in some of the references that Mary’s marriage to William Carey, who was then one of the King’s Gentlemen, was in fact a marriage of convenience for Henry. In other words, the marriage was a useful way to keep Mary accessible, without the risk that he would have to acknowledge her or any children in the way he did for the unmarried Elizabeth Blount and their son Henry FitzRoy.[10] That son had been born in 1519, the same year that Henry started the relationship with Mary. Henry later admitted the affair in 1528, by asking the Pope for a Dispensation to marry Anne Boleyn; he needed this because of his “affinity” and “consanguinity” with Mary.[11] Canon Law made no distinction between a licit and an illicit sexual connection, so Henry’s affair with Mary Boleyn made Anne Boleyn his sister-in-law.[12] It is worth noting that in a contested divorce suit, consanguinity could only have been conclusively proven if there was a child to show for it. In other words, Henry could have denied that impediment to his marriage if there had been no child.

Mary was married in early 1520, on February 4. King Henry’s wedding present was 6s 8d.[13] Bruce is brusque: “It was a sorry match for a Boleyn, but Mary had spoiled her chances for a good one.”[14] Catherine Carey was born in 1524, and Henry Carey on March 4, 1526. He was said in his infancy to resemble King Henry.[15] In 1533, Henry Carey, although aged only seven, claimed he was “Our Sovereign Lord the King’s son”.[16] At this time, his aunt (and stepmother) Anne was on the throne and desperately trying to have a male child of her own, so whoever put the child up to such a statement must have been pretty confident.[17] There are also at least two direct and contemporary references that state that Henry Carey was King Henry’s child. In 1535, Sir George Throckmorton accused Henry to his face of “meddling” with Mary Boleyn and her mother. “Never with the mother”, replied Henry.[18] Cardinal Reginald Pole also said much the same in a private letter to Henry.[19] And in the same year, John Hale, Vicar of Isleworth, stated that a Monk at St Bridget’s Priory Abbey pointed out “yongge Master Care” as the King’s bastard son.[20]

Only two references doubt this story.[21] Both simply express doubt and offer no evidence at all. In fact, Fraser’s dates are probably incorrect when she says the affair was probably over before the children were born; this is flatly contradicted by Weir.[22]

The Family of Mary Boleyn

The only other point of refutation is most clearly expressed by Fraser, which is that King Henry never showed any special acknowledgement or favour to Henry Carey, although he did acknowledge Henry FitzRoy as his illegitimate child. FitzRoy was the son of Elizabeth Blount, Henry’s mistress immediately before Mary. FitzRoy was in a far more favourable position because he was, in fact, the King’s first male offspring, and Elizabeth Blount was unmarried, so Chivalry alone would have required an acknowledgement. Having a son proved Henry’s potency, a great relief for Henry and an absolute necessity for a fragile dynasty of usurpers like the Tudors, and it did at least place in storage a potential male heir who could be legitimised later if all else failed. FitzRoy was later created Duke of Richmond in 1525[23] when it seemed unlikely that Henry would get a male heir from Catherine of Aragon. The real point is, though, that King Henry did not need a second illegitimate male heir, and there was no point in acknowledging one. That would have cost the King at least another title and a grant of land and property as well, and the King was notoriously stingy with his mistresses.[24] With this in mind, by itself the offhand treatment of Henry Carey does not really tell us anything as to whether King Henry was his real father or not.

But concerning Royal grants, William Carey was granted his manors and estates in June 1524 and February 1526, dates which coincide with Catherine’s and Henry’s births.[25] A reward for being a co-operative cuckold?

In any case, for our family history we are not concerned with Henry Carey, but with his sister Catherine Carey, for it is from her that we are descended. She was two years older than her brother and she definitely was born during the time that Henry’s and Mary’s affair was still very much on. Therefore Catherine’s claim to Royal lineage seems circumstantially better than her younger brother’s. The evidence in favour of this claim is thus the total of all the evidence in favour of Henry Carey’s fathering by King Henry, but with none of the possible detractions relating to her brother Henry. In addition to all of the documentary evidence already cited, it is very clear that it was widely accepted at the time, as shown above by Sir George Throckmorton and Vicar Hale being willing to risk a charge of Treason for saying so in public.

So where does this leave us? With evidence in favour and evidence against. This is the evidence in favour:

· Two contemporary statements – Throckmorton and Hale. To this must be added Henry Carey’s assertion of his own lineage, and the confidence of whomever put the child up to saying it.

· Henry’s admitting of the affair, admitted in his request for a Papal Dispensation in 1528, and in his Divorce Petition later. He admitted “affinity” and “consanguinity” with Mary Boleyn. This could have been refuted, or might not have been necessary, if there were no child resulting.

· The evidence of dates. Catherine Carey was born well inside the period of the affair. Henry Carey was born just at the end, and it is unlikely Henry would have allowed Mary any other lovers at the same time.

· On the evidence of dates, Catherine Carey is even more likely than Henry Carey to be King Henry’s child, since she was the firstborn.

· In the manner of the times, one would expect a cuckolded husband to be rewarded for his co-operation with substantial property, and this indeed happened to William Carey at times exactly coinciding with the births of Catherine and Henry Carey.

This is the evidence against:

· Two authors’ doubts, but without evidence.

· King Henry’s general disregard for Henry Carey, but see the text for reasons why this would be so. In any case, this argument impinges little upon Catherine Carey.

· General lack of primary documents, or hard proof to a high legal standard.

So, then, what do we conclude? What is my own estimation that we are Royal Bastards? I would say 60-80%, but no one will ever know for sure.

Everyone knows that King Henry rarely had a happy time in any of his six marriages, but as far as Mary is concerned, a more romantic ending would be hard to find. William Carey had died suddenly of the ‘sweating sickness’ in 1528.[26] Bad as that was, there was worse. After William’s death, his “ … offices reverted ‘in the King’s gift’. The King generously distributed these sources of income and Mary, his widow, was left destitute. Despite their relationship of several years, Henry felt no lingering affection, no obligation; he scarcely even remembered Mary.”[27] Hever Castle passed to King Henry by custom of the widower inheriting his deceased wife’s estate.[28] It was later given to Anne of Cleves in 1540, as part of her divorce settlement. No one can miss the irony in all that.

But in 1534, Mary sacrificed all – the rewards, the position, the honours, the intrigues – and re-married for love. For nine more years[29] she lived happily ever after. Her letter[30] to Thomas Cromwell comes straight from her heart. Pleading, in vain as it turned out, to be allowed back into Court after marrying William Stafford without family and Court approval, she wrote:

“But one thing, good master Secretary, consider; that he [Stafford] was young, and love overcame reason. And for my part I saw so much honesty in him that I loved him as well as he did me; and was in bondage, and glad I was to be at liberty; so that for my part I saw that all the world did set so little by me, and he so much, that I thought I could take no better way but to take him and forsake all other ways, and to live a poor honest life with him; and so I do put no doubts but we should, if we might once be so happy to recover the King’s gracious favor and the Queen’s. For well I might a had a greater man of birth and a higher, but I ensure you I could never a had one that should a loved me so well nor a more honest man… But if I were at my liberty and might choose, I ensure you, master Secretary, for my little time, I have tried so much honesty to be in him, that I had rather beg my bread with him than to be the greatest Queen christened.”

That says it all.


Epilogue

Poor Mary and William must have felt like outcasts in 1534, and in 1536, her sister and brother were both beheaded. But, things improved from there on. The Boleyn family was all but wiped out, but on the death of the parents, Mary began to inherit property everywhere, and the State Papers[31] are full of grants, reversions, inheritances and other acquisitions. William Stafford actually made it back into Court circles, being one of the party of Gentlemen who received Anne of Cleves on her arrival in England.[32] One imagines he could not have missed the irony in that.

Henry Carey did extremely well for his position. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth shortly after her succession and created Baron Hunsdon shortly thereafter (January 13, 1558/9).[33] [He was, after all, the Queen’s half-brother, and this may well explain the Queen’s affection later in life.] He had a successful political and military career, if minor and unworthy of elevation, always corresponding with the Queen in affectionate terms,[34] and died on July 23, 1596, at Somerset House, the use of which the Queen had given him. She also paid the expenses of his burial in Westminster Abbey. Her Majesty visited him and laid on his deathbed the patent and robes of the Earldom of Wiltshire, last held by Mary Boleyn’s father. Her care and consideration, throughout his life, were most unusual; perhaps she knew she was addressing not her cousin but her half-brother? “Madam”, he said, “seeing you counted me not worthy of this honour whilst I was living, I count myself unworthy of it now I am dying.”[35] On Elizabeth’s death, his seventh son, Robert Carey, received the ring prised from the dead Queen’s hand and dropped from her window at Richmond Palace, and rode with it in two days to James I in Edinburgh.