Friday, 26 March 2010

The First Queen of Ireland


“The Queen is graceful, and of cheerful countenance, and is praised for her virtue.”
- Eustace Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador to England (1543)

Katherine Parr has several claims to fame. The first is that she was the last of Henry VIII’s half-dozen wives; the second, that she herself was the most-married queen in British history (she was widowed twice before marrying Henry VIII and married again after his death). Thirdly, she was the first truly Protestant member of the British royal families and finally she was also the first woman ever to be styled “Queen of Ireland."

Ireland had, of course, been a feudal fiefdom of England since the reign of King Henry II (1154 – 1189), when the King had conquered it, (allegedly) with the Pope’s blessing and the assistance of a Gaelic princeling, Dermot MacMurrough. In terms of medieval warfare and political practise, the English conquest of Ireland had been nothing unusual or even spectacular and following medieval feudal etiquette, the triumphant King of England thus acquired the subsidiary title of Lord of Ireland, a title which he eventually bestowed on his younger son, John. For the rest of the Middle Ages, from the time of King John until the time of Henry VIII, every King of England thus had as a secondary title Lord of Ireland. However, this all changed in 1542 with the ever-expanding Henry VIII. Just as the title Lord of Ireland had been born out of the political conventions of the Middle Ages, so was the new title of King of Ireland born out of the new political realities of the Renaissance and Reformation.

The English monarchy was becoming an imperial one, or at least it was attempting to, and it was determined to match its dignities with the power of the Hapsburg emperors on the Continent. Henry had already assumed a semi-imperial identity in making himself Supreme Head of the Church of England and to push forward with the monarchy’s new identity, it was decided to elevate the title of Lord of Ireland to that of King of Ireland and this is what finally happened in Dublin in 1542. The Irish Parliament was asked to ratify the Crown of Ireland Act and this they did with apparent enthusiasm (although it understandably took the Vatican another thirteen years to accept the move as legitimate.)

The Irish Parliament’s support for the new title was understandable, since many members of the Irish aristocracy were pleased to see their country honoured with a royal, rather than a feudal, title. It elevated the status of the Irish nobility in relation to their English equivalent, a point which the Ascendancy was to cling to with tenacious enthusiasm in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, the concerns of the Irish people – be they earls or commoners – had little to do with the actual decision to turn Henry from a lord into a king. The timing of the move was motivated by Henry VIII’s massive but fragile ego and his famously dangerous temper. 

For the best part of a year, the King had been like an angry, self-pitying bear, licking his wounds and lashing out at those around him after his fifth wife, Queen Catherine Howard, had been executed for her adulterous affair with Sir Thomas Culpepper. Compounding the public humiliation of the Queen’s adultery, the King was also facing economic recession, rising sectarian tensions in London, increasing unpopularity in the north and a vicious, expensive and disastrous war with Scotland. The decision to focus attention of the imperial magnificence of the English (and now the Irish) monarchy was designed to not only impress the splendour of the government upon the people, but it was also a tactic employed by nervous courtiers to distract their master with a new bauble. If all went according to plan, the new title might help lift the King from his dangerous mood of truculent self-pity, when he was traditionally at his most vicious - as many courtiers had learned through bitter experience.

Initially, there was no queen to go alongside Henry, the newly-created King of Ireland. When the Act was passed, it was one of the few times in his life when Henry Tudor was not married. (Apart from the two years it had taken to arrange his fourth marriage with a foreign princess, the only time Henry had been unmarried since the age of seventeen were eleven days in the summer of 1536.) But the sting of Catherine Howard’s infidelity had wounded the King, in a way in which nothing else in his life ever really did. Anne Boleyn might have been accused of adultery, but Catherine Howard had actually done it and the King’s utter devastation in 1542 when compared to his sickening glee in 1536 blows out of the water any recent attempts by historians to suggest that he was tricked into believing Anne had been unfaithful to him. Henry knew in 1536 that Anne was innocent and condemned her to death anyway and, with equal certainty, he knew in 1542 that beautiful, teenage Catherine had indeed cuckolded him by running into the arms of the most handsome man in London. Worse, Henry now had to face the cynical amusement of the international community. The King of France in particular could hardly contain his mirth at the Queen of England’s “most wondrous naughty” behaviour – after all, Henry had married a girl one third his age and one third his width, what had he expected to happen? To describe the situation as "humiliating" seems like an understatement.

But after a year of the Queen’s Apartments standing empty, Henry began to get lonely. Perhaps it was the new Hibernian title which had helped rejuvenate the King's spirits, or maybe it was the defeat of the Scottish armies at the Battle of Solway Moss. Either way, the King had recaptured some of his zest for life and that, as always, meant a new first lady was required.

The problem was that, this time around, nobody wanted to oblige him. Two divorces, two beheadings and a death in childbed didn’t exactly scream “marriage potential” to the young women of the upper-classes. Worse, there was now a law that made it a capital crime to marry the King of England if you lied about your virginity beforehand. With his usual cattiness, the Spanish Ambassador acidly remarked that this meant the number of prospective brides in England had been scythed in half, but what the law really meant was that any amount of gossip - true, untrue or a mixture of both - could torpedo not just the reputation, but also the life, of even the most morally-upstanding woman.

Henry’s attention eventually settled on an unlikely candidate who had nothing to fear from the new law, because she was a widow, the only type of woman who was permitted not to be a virgin on her wedding night. Katherine Parr was 30 years-old and her second husband, Lord Latimer, had recently passed away; she had long ginger hair, a pixie nose and, crucially for 16th century standards of beauty, almost translucently-pale skin. She was gracious, intelligent, dignified, impeccably dressed and very charming – in short, she was a lady. She lacked everything that had been “wrong” with Henry’s previous wives (and in his mind, the failure of five consecutive marriages and been their fault, not his) – she had none of Katherine of Aragon’s great pride, none of Anne Boleyn’s dangerous glamour, she could certainly carry a conversation (unlike Jane Seymour), she had none of Anne of Cleves’s unfortunate hygiene issues and absolutely none of Catherine Howard’s reckless, hedonistic frivolity. She also had none of their ambition and Katherine Parr was the only one of Henry VIII’s six wives who truly did not want to marry him. For weeks she wept and prayed, desperately trying to wriggle out of the proposal without offending a King who did not take hearing the word "No" too well. In the end, of course, she had little – in fact, no – choice in the matter and on 12th July 1543 at Hampton Court Palace, Katherine Parr stood next to her enormous, terrifying bride-groom. With her usual common sense, she was now determined to make the best of a bad situation as the Bishop of Winchester pronounced that she had now become Her Majesty the Queen of England and, in a royal first, Her Majesty the Queen of Ireland.

11 comments:

  1. I agree, Elena Maria. She seems to have been a lady in the truest sense of the word. I'm looking forward to reading Linda Porter's new biography of her, which has just been released here in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post on Katherine Parr, my favourite Queen after Katherine of Aragon - whom, unfortunatly, seem to be rather forgtton. Which is a great shame, as they both did truly amazing and influential things for England and Europe. I too am looking forward to readin Linda Porter's bio. of her, as her one on Mary I as superb, and I can't wait until it comes out in the UK!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you very much for posting this beautifully written piece on Katerine Parr. I certainly learned a few new things about her today. Very good reading!

    ReplyDelete
  4. How I wish the British hadn't invaded Ireland destroying our beautiful culture, language and way of life forever.

    Our island is carved up today thanks to these power-hungry monsters of yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, carving up the island really had nothing to do with the demographics of the 1920s... And, let's not sentimentalise the Middle Ages. Irish life in the 12th century was unrelentingly grim - cold, harsh, cruel, misogynist and savage. Pretty much like life everywhere else in Europe in the medieval period. Bad times, all round, frankly. And if Ireland's golden age lies in the 12th and 11th centuries, then we really have problems. The English invaded at the behest of a local Irish king and with the (alleged) sanction of the Lateran. That's how power worked in the medieval period and trying to pretend like it was good vs evil is absolute nonsense. The English are only judged 'wrong' because they won; the Irish kings and princes had been busy butchering each other and waging wars of attrition for centuries. The sentimentalisation of the Middle Ages rears its head anytime anyone is discussing Ireland, William Wallace or the Cathars. By all means, be an Irish nationalist, but don't do it by distorting history or claiming that an idyll existed in the years before the 1100s! It's like unionists who claim William of Orange came to save the Protestant religion from bad King James. No, he didn't. He was a tiny, unlikeable Dutch midget who came to grab the throne for himself by stealing it from his father-in-law.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What became of her? After Henry's death and the accession of Mary the Catholic, the well being of a protestant queen must have been tenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Popsiq, hi. Katherine's position would certainly have been uncomfortable when Mary became queen in 1553, since her sense of Protestantism was much more fervent than Anne of Cleves', who did embrace Catholicism when her ex-stepdaughter became monarch. However, Katherine unfortunately died long before Mary ever took the throne. She married again shortly after Henry VIII's death to Lord Thomas Seymour, Lord High Admiral, but died eighteen months into the marriage when her first pregnancy ended with her death in childbirth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Again with the dying in childbirth; it was days after that she died like Jane Seymour. Also, Katherine Parr had a lot of glamor. I'm not sure where you are getting that she didn't have the glamor of Anne Boleyn. She was extremely flashy and loved clothes and shoes. She ordered hundreds of pairs. Everything she had was gilded in gold as well, including her privy chamber.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And again, the causes of that death were caused by the act of childbirth. Historians regularly refer to 'in childbirth' to denote any death that was the direct result of the experience of giving birth. Which in both Katherine and Jane's case, was so.

    Glamour and pomp are not the same thing. All queens and princesses in the 16th century had beautiful clothes and shoes, and they lived in great style. The current Queen does, too. Glamour here was used to denote a quality of personality, not the style of her possession. And Anne had the quality of glamour, which can often repel as many people as it attracts. Katherine, who was much more universally liked, may have been dignified, well-dressed and charming, but that isn't necessarily glamorous. Of course, if you disagree with the definition of glamour, then, of course, Katherine Parr may fit the bill.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails