Katherine Carey: A Case for Royal Paternity

Catherine Knollys (nee Carey)
By Steven Van Der Meulen

For many years rumors have abounded in the historical community regarding Catherine Carey's, Mary Boleyn's daughter, paternity. In fact, there are questions about whether or not William Carey, husband to Mary at the time of the births, sired either one of her children. This doubt is rooted in the fact that during the time of Katherine's conception Mary was involved in an affair with King Henry VIII of England. In this article I will discuss what I feel is strong evidence proving that Henry VIII was indeed Katherine's father.

Mary Boleyn returned from France probably in 1519 after spending much time at the court of Francois I. She came, presumably, to let gossip regarding her flirtations and possible affair with the King die down as well as to finally marry. Her father had been working diligently to betroth her to William Carey, a rising star at the court of Henry VIII and a member of privy chamber. It is not known exactly when Mary caught Henry's eye but some small pieces of evidence would point to 1522. There was a series of royal grants made to William Carey in February 1522, suggesting that the King was rewarding him for his buxom bride,  additionally there were assertions by Cardinal Reginald Pole that the king "violated" Mary Boleyn in 1522. While we cannot be sure that Pole spoke truthfully or out of malice, but we do know that an affair took place. In 1528, while being questioned by Parliament a member accused Henry of sleeping with Anne's mother and sister. Undoubtedly flustered, the king replied: "Never with her mother." In 1527, Henry was planning to marry Anne Boleyn. He sought and received a papal dispensation to marry the sister of a woman with whom he had engaged in illicit/unlawful intercourse. Anne had only one sister - Mary.

Now that we have established the affair took place with its probable start in 1522, we shall discuss the child born of the relationship. Because there is no contemporary proof of Katherine's paternity we must investigate circumstantial evidence. Many have decried the theory of Catherine being Henry's daughter because he never recognized her in the same fashion he did Henry FitzRoy, his illegitimate son with Mistress Elizabeth Blount. First of all we must consider historical social context. When Henry FitzRoy was born in June of 1519 it was likely that the King had all but given up on the prospect of a legitimate heir by his wife Catherine of Aragon. She had only given him a daughter, Princess Mary born in 1516 and it was probably known that Queen Catherine was no longer able to become pregnant. In the absence of a legitimate male heir, it makes sense that Henry would not only acknowledge his bastard son, but also ennoble him, paving the way for him to possibly be acknowledged as the next king. Mary Boleyn's daughter, on the other hand, would have served no dynastic purpose; not only was she illegitimate, she was a female barring her from direct inheritance. Not only would Henry's acknowledgement of Katherine have served him no purpose, it would have also destroyed Mary's already tenuous reputation and publicly labeled her husband a cuckold. Had Henry chose to acknowledge Katherine as his own daughter following the 1527 fall out of his marriage, it would have seriously jeopardized his ability to marry Anne Boleyn; essentially creating the same familial bond between himself and Anne that he believed existed between he and Catherine of Aragon because of her previous sexual relationship with his brother. When I put forward this theory, a fellow Anne enthusiast asked then why Henry would not have acknowledged Katherine following Anne's death. There are several reasons, namely that Henry wanted to distance himself from Anne and her kin, but also that after proclaiming himself head of The Church in England it would have been morally questionable to have bastard children.

Because Katherine's birth is recorded as early Spring (March/April 1524) we can assume that the child was conceived in the summer of 1523 when the King and Mary were seeing each other. In order to dodge questions of her child's paternity, Mary chose to name the child Katherine, in honor of the reigning queen. It is very safe to assume that Mary's pregnancy was an accident and that it resulted in the distancing of the couple as sex during pregnancy was considered dangerous and sinful in the Tudor era. The King would have found someone else to keep him company during Mary's pregnancy. Following her first pregnancy, the King's grants to William Carey lessened though he retained his position as a member of the King's household and Mary's time as a favorite was over.

Following the death of William Carey of the sweat in 1528 his lands and wealth transferred to his sole heir Henry Carey. Mary would have had use of these funds and lands until wardship of young Henry was transferred to Anne in December of 1528. When Anne assumed wardship of the child, his monies and properties were all taken into her keeping as well, leaving Mary quite destitute. Swiftly, the King had a pension transferred to Mary of about 100 pounds per year. This is the equivalent of 32,000 GBP or $49,187.00 USD by today's standards. This was not a typical action as widows normally became the responsibility of their families until another marriage could be arranged for them. This again suggests that Henry had a vested interest in ensuring that Katherine was provided for. Additionally, he intervened with Thomas Boleyn, urging him to take Mary and Katherine into his home and provide care for them, something he had originally denied them, possibly due to his disapproval of her compromising her reputation so many times.

In addition to the timing of Katherine's conception being suspect there is also the evidence in the similar facial features of the Tudor dynasty and Katherine Carey. Anyone who examines the above portrait can see definite Tudor features. The red hair, prominent chin and heavy lids are all distinct and noticeable in portraits of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I as well as Elizabeth of York, suggesting they are the genetic manifestations of Plantagenet blood.

Without a genetic test we could never be sure that Katherine was indeed the King's illegitimate daughter, but I feel there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that she was. Whoever was her father, Katherine Carey was a rising star at court who made a fantastic marriage and had eleven children. She remained close with Elizabeth I for the remainder of her life and when she died she was buried in a sumptuous funeral, her sarcophagus is one of the richest and most beautiful in Westminster Abbey both paid for by the notoriously penny pinching Elizabeth. Her legacy as a powerful woman at Elizabeth's court lives on through her famous descendants descendants including Winston Churchill, Charles Darwin and Camilla Parker Bowles.

Sources:  Weir, Alison; Ives, Eric; Warnicke, Retha; Jones, Phillipa.

Read of the Week

Though it has taken me a while, I finally finished another book. Over the past few weeks I have been enjoying Mary Boleyn: The Mistress of Kings by Alison Weir. The book is a much needed exploration of Mary's life, despite a lot of guesswork and conjecture on the part of the author. Mary's life is much like a blank slate, with little details available to fill in the gaps. This book discusses her affairs with both Francois and Henry as well as her marriages, children and reputation. I really enjoyed reading it, despite the fact that I felt it lacked a certain support system of primary source evidence. Weir, a clear Anne enthusiast also spends quite a lot of time focusing on Anne in relationship to Mary. So much in fact, that sometimes I would forget I was reading about Mary and not Anne. Weir obviously does the best with what evidence is surviving and available to her and she dug deep into not only historical documents but also social customs and context to paint the most clear portrait of of Mary that I have ever read. It is interesting to explore the "other" Boleyn girl in a historical, rather than Hollywood created, setting. I would recommend it to Weir's fans and those interested in learning more about general Boleyn family history.

Reader Questions

Like much of my research work lately, answering reader questions has fallen by the way-side. Please forgive the delay and I will try to be more diligent about addressing your questions!

Q: What happened the Henry FitzRoy?

A: Historically, he is recorded as having died of consumption, which most historians believe is Tuberculosis. However, he could have died of another pulmonary infection such as cancer, pneumonia or influenza. Without access to modern medical technology and autopsy practices we cannot be completely certain.


Q: Were Mary Carey's (nee Boleyn) children the illegitimate offspring of Henry VIII?

A: We can't be 100% sure, but I plan to address the question in a blog post this week. Stay tuned.


Q: Did Reginald Pole have a strong claim to the English throne? If not why was Henry VIII intimidated by him?

A: This is an excellent question and to fully explain I need to give a short genealogy lesson. Reginald Pole was the son of Margaret Pole, countess of Salisbury. Margaret's father was George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence and brother to both Kings Edward IV and Richard III who ruled as part of the York dynasty. George was executed for high treason by his elder brother Edward. Upon the death of Edward, his heir should have been crowned Edward V but he was declared illegitimate along with his younger brother, clearing the way for Richard to seize power. Richard was killed during the Battle of Bosworth Field while fighting Henry Tudor, who would become Henry VII, father to the infamous Henry VIII. Richard died without a successor. Now, to evaluate the claim that Reginald would have had a strong claim to the throne; Henry Tudor had a legitimate, if weak claim to the English throne. His father was half brother to the deposed former Lacastrian king Henry VI and his mother was second cousin to Henry VI meaning his claim through the Lancastrian line was quite stable. Margaret was the sole remaining heir of George but as women could not inherit her eldest son would have been the York heir to the claim. That son was Reginald Pole. I believe that while Reginald could stake a claim, that claim would have been based on the crown being taken from the Lancastrian line by the Yorks as well as the fact that any inheritances George would have left to his children were seized following his death. It was only the kindness of Edward that restored George's family to some semblance of nobility. Also, in an attempt to unite the warring country Henry VII married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV. Because her brothers were presumed dead by this point that made her the heir to her father. Therefore, by the time Henry VIII ascended the throne he had a strong claim to the throne because of his Lancastrian AND York heritage. I find that Henry's dislike of Pole came more from his very public opposition to Henry's divorce and remarriage to Anne Boleyn as well as his refusal to join the Church of England, Pole remained staunchly Catholic for the remainder of his life.

Thank you for your questions! Continue submitting via the contact form and I will answer them in a timely fashion.

Cheers,

Tanya

Author Hilary Mantel on Anne Boleyn

In honor of me re-reading Bring Up the Bodies and hoping to like it more the second time around, I am sharing this video of the book's author Hilary Mantel and her thoughts on Anne, her novels and how to open up history to a wider audience than strictly professional historians. I hope you enjoy it!

On This Day in Tudor History

On this day in Tudor history Richard Rouse, official cook for Bishop John Fisher was boiled to death. Rouse, a commoner, admitted to poisoning porridge that was subsequently served to Fisher and several guests visiting him. Because Fisher was virulently against Henry VIII divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his desire to marry Anne Boleyn, many were quick to blame her for the poisoning which resulted in several deaths. The poisoning has been portrayed in Hollywood versions of Anne's story including The Tudors which implied that Thomas Boleyn provided Rouse with the poison. Fortunately, there is no evidence to support this claim and Henry VIII did not belief gossip at the time.

Primary source evidence references the event in several locations, this excerpt is from the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII:

"On the Eighteenth day of February, 1531, one Richard Roose, of Rochester, Cook, also called Richard Cooke, did cast poison into a vessel of yeast to baum, standing in the kitchen of the Bishop of Rochester's Palace, at Lambeth March, by means of which two persons who happened to eat of the pottage made with such yeast died".