Henry Carey, Mary's first child

I was inspired to write this article after reading another chapter of new book by David Loades, ‘The Boleyns’. In chapter entitled  ‘Mary & the King’s Fancy – in and out of Favour’ professor Loades states that ;

”Mistress Carey’s charms may have faded, or been replaced by those of her sister, but the indications are that Mary was handed over to her husband at some point in the summer of 1525. Her son, Henry Carey, was born on 4 March 1526, and that suggests that she began to sleep with William at some time in June or July of 1525.” / p. 52 /

”From 1526 onwards Mary is overshadowed by her sister Anne, and glimpses of her in the records become few. She must have spent quite a lot of her time on pregnancy leave, because a few months after Henry’s birth, she had conceived again, and bore William’s second child, a daughter Catherine, at some time in 1527.’‘ / p. 53/

I have to say that I always thought that Catherine Carey was born c. 1524 and thus was Mary Carey’s first child. In her book ‘Mary Boleyn : The True Story of Henry VIII’s Favourite Mistress’ Josephine Wilkinson states that ;

”Mary in fact, was pregnant twice during the time she was Henry’s mistress. The eldest child, Katherine, was born in 1524. The year of her birth is easy to establish from a portrait of her which was painted in 1562. This notes that the sitter was thirty-eight years of age at the time, giving her a birth date of 1524”. / p. 79/

In her new book about Mary Boleyn, Alison Weir also states that Catherine Carey was born c. 1524.

As usually when I have doubts, I reached profesor Eric Ives’ book ‘The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn’ . Profesor Ives states that ;

”Once Mary had begun to cohabit with William Carey, her two children came in quick succession.” /p. 17/

In the notes for this chapter, profesor Ives explains that Henry Carey was Mary’s first child and he was born in March 1526. This makes Catherine Carey the second child.

For centuries historians tried to guess wheather Mary’s children were also Henry VIII’s children. We don’t actually know when Mary’s relationship with the king started and when exactly it ended. We can only guess the time of their romance. David Loades states that in the summer of 1525 Mary was reunited with her husband and she conceived children by him. But another historian, Josephine Wilkinson, claims otherwise :

”However a child born in March would have been conceived in June of the previous year when Henry had not yet discarded Mary.” /p. 80 /

The important question is – did Henry VIII father Mary Carey’s children? We should first take a look on Henry VIII’s children : during his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Henry fathered at least six children, but only one of them – princess Mary – survived infancy. At some point  Henry VIII knew that his wife will not be able to provide him more children, and he took a mistress – young lady-in-waiting, Elizabeth ‘Bessie’ Blount. Bessie gave birth to a healthy baby boy in June 1519, and the king acknowledged baby as his son. The boy received a name Henry – after his royal father, and a surname ‘Fitzroy’ that meant ‘son of the King’. He was the first son of 28-year-old Henry VIII and the king soon bestowed a title of Duke of Richmond on him.

Henry VIII never aknowledged Mary’s children as his own. They received Mary’s husband’s surname, Carey, and perhaps this is an indication that they were indeed William Carey’s children.

Other possible explanation of why Henry VIII never acknowledged Mary’s children as his own is the fact that he developed his interest in Mary’s younger sister, Anne Boleyn. At the Shrovetide in 1526 the king appeared at joust displaying a motto ‘Declare I dare not’  which was a clear indication towards Anne Boleyn and Henry’s respect for Anne’s decision of preserving her virginity.

How could Henry VIII acknowledge Mary’s children ash his own, when he was pursuing her sister? That would have caused a scandal, considering the fact that king wanted to marry Anne Boleyn and his previous affair with Mary caused some problems – Henry must have appealed to Rome for a dispence.

Catherine Carey

The other possible explanation is the fact, that Henry VIII knew that he must have a legitimate son. He believed that a woman can never wear a crown and thus was eager to provide a male heir. But Catherine of Aragon was already barren, with no chance of conceiving another child. That is why Henry turned his back on her, and took mistresses. But even if Henry recognized Bessie Blount’s son as his own, Henry Fitzroy was only an illegitimate son, who would probably never inherit the throne. Henry knew that so he didn’t need more illegitimate children.

And what about the rumours that young Henry Carey looked like king Henry VIII? Did he really bear resemblance to the king? John Hale, Vicar of Isleworth wrote to the Council in 1535 that :

“Moreover, Mr. Skydmore dyd show to me yongge Master Care, saying that he was our suffren Lord the Kynge’s son by our suffren Lady the Qwyen’s syster, whom the Qwyen’s grace myght not suffer to be yn the Cowrte.” / LP, VIII. 567/

Profesor Eric Ives pointed out that such rumours were spread by Catherine of Aragon’s supporters.

And what about the fact, that Anne Boleyn became Henry Carey’s ward after William Carey’s death? It could have been an act of mercy since Anne was Mary’s sister, and Mary found herself in a difficult financial position after her husband’s death. But it could have been also a sign that Henry VIII wished to take care of his illegtimate son.

Whatever the case is, I think that today it is really hard to say if Henry and Catherine Carey were Henry VIII’s children. Perhaps they were, perhaps not – but certainly they both played a political role during Elizabeth I’s reign. Elizabeth was very fond of her Boleyn relatives but it doesn’t meant that it was because they were Henry VIII’s children. I think that for Elizabeth they were mostly the Boleyns, family of her mother. Henry Carey knew Anne Boleyn when he was a boy, and he certainly had a lot to tell Elizabeth about her mother.

Bibliography :

Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn

David Loades, ”The Boleyns’

Alison Weir, ”Mary Boleyn : The Great and Infamous Whore”

Josephine Wilkinson, ”Mary Boleyn : The True Story of Henry VIII’s Favourite Mistress”

LP, VIII. 567

Copy of 'Mary Boleyn' portrait c. 1630-1670

You probably remember my article about portrait allegedly depicting Mary Boleyn. Historian and author Alison Weir claims that there are 6 versions of this portrait and that it probably depicts a royal sitter because of the ermine fur;

“The fact that there are at least six versions of the ‘Mary’ portrait indicates that there was demand for a portrait of the sitter, and she is wearing ermine, a fur restricted to the upper nobility and royalty.”[1]

I did a research about this and in this article I am going to write more about this portrait. I was looking for information about provenance of the portrait of ‘Mary Boleyn’ and confirmation of Alison Weir’s claim that there were ‘at least 6 versions of this portrait’.

I contacted Anna L. Splender who is a Deputy Head Steward at the Hever Castle. She kindly replied that;

“I am afraid that I am unfamiliar with the claim that there are 6 versions of Mary Boleyn’s portrait.  We only have one portrait at Hever Castle – Warwick Castle is its provenance (purchased by William Waldorf Astor in the early twentieth century).”

As for now, I did not find any information that would confirm Alison Weir’s claim that there are indeed 6 versions of ‘Mary Boleyn’ portrait. I came across a copy of this portrait dated c. 1630-1670, but it is later copy and it was a common practice to copy already existing paintings.

And what about ermine fur?  I contacted Paul Cox, who is Assistant Curator in National Portrait Gallery and he kindly told me that;

“Maria Hayward, in her 2007 Dress at the Court of King Henry VIII cites a document in the College of Arms (‘Memorandum that all manner of Estates shall ware there Apparell Powdred as ys Abouesaide’ – MS 16 bis. Ff. 14r-15r).  This describes the varying use of ermine on the robes appropriate to different classes of peers, so the furs use was not restricted to the royal family.”

According to those two pieces of information, the sitter from ‘Mary Boleyn’ portrait may not be royal at all.

After few informations that I collect, I think it will be wise enough to say that the sitter from ‘Mary Boleyn’ portrait could be any woman who came from upper class. She could be royal, but considering her costume and appearance – who might it be?

 ‘Mary Boleyn’ bears no resemblance to Henry VIII’s daughter Lady Mary Tudor (who in 1530’s was rather out of royal favor due to her obstinacy), king’s niece Margaret Douglas (who was high in king’s favor until 1535 when she fell in love and secretly engaged Lord Thomas Howard, son of 2d Duke of Norfolk), or king’s sister Mary Tudor-Brandon (who died of consumption in 1533).  What about Henry VIII’s wives?

We can definitely exclude Henry’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon who died in 1536 and spent her final years at banishment. We may think about Anne Boleyn – the sitter’s skin is not typically pale, her eyes are big and dark, and she has an oval face. The only thing that is not similar to Anne – a rather plump face and light eyebrows. It is definitely not Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves nor Catherine Howard.

This lady, in my opinion, could be any lady from upper class. Perhaps it was Frances Brandon, as suggested by Alison Weir. It could be as well Mary Howard, daughter of 3^rd Duke of Norfolk and wife of Henry Fitzroy, Henry’s illegitimate son (they married in 1534, Mary was 15 at that time).

Mary Howard

I still agree with Alison Weir that the sitter is not Mary Boleyn. I gave few reasons in my previous article but I will repeat them here;

- In her book ‘Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII’s Favourite Mistress’ Josephine Wilkinson points out that between 1528-1532 Mary was an ‘an unwanted and unloved daughter, the discarded mistress’ (p. 123) . Also Professor Eric Ives writes that; ‘Mary should have been under no illusions. As early as November 1530 the king had given Anne £20 to redeem a jewel Mary possessed, presumably one he had given her. Anne, the wife, wanted no one to remember Mary, the mistress.’ It seems highly unlikely, considering the circumstances, that Mary would be honoured by having such a portrait in 1530s.

- She was banished from court in 1534, after she disgraced her family by marrying a man beneath her station.

Certainly no one wanted to celebrate king’s former mistress, because it would draw attention to the question of validity of Henry VIII’s and Anne Boleyn’s marriage (Mary was Anne sister and king’s mistress, so it was similar affinity like in case of Henry VIII & Catherine of Aragon).

For now the identity of this lady remains a mystery. Until some new evidence will come to light we can only speculate about her. And what do you think about this matter?

Mary Boleyn...?

In her latest book ‘Mary Boleyn: The Great and Infamous Whore’ Alison Weir points out that the famous portrait of Mary Boleyn may actually be a portrait of Frances Brandon, mother of Jane Grey. On her website, Alison Weir gives an explanation of this theory :

‘I’ve written a whole appendix on the subject of portraits of Mary Boleyn and William Carey. The fact that there are at least six versions of the ‘Mary’ portrait indicates that there was demand for a portrait of the sitter, and she is wearing ermine, a fur restricted to the upper nobility and royalty. So I suspect, given the proliferation of the image, that the sitter was royal. Anyway, the costume is that of the mid-1530s. There would not have been any demand for Mary at that time, given that she was little known and in disgrace (and probably living abroad) from 1534. The sitter bears no resemblance to portraits of Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour or Margaret Douglas. She is too young to be Mary Tudor, who died in 1533. Could this be Frances Brandon? A wedding portrait from 1533? There is a resemblance in the nose to Charles Brandon in his ‘marriage’ portrait (yes, I think it is him, having done some digging last night, although I think it’s later than 1515/16.) Even so, that doesn’t quite explain the demand for pictures of Frances – she wasn’t that well known either! It would help if we could identify any clue or reference in the pendant or brooch, or the flowers, but they are too indistinct.‘[1]

For a very long I’ve been thinking about Mary Boleyn portrait, and something was not right. I agree with Alison Weir in few points :

-          the sitter must be royal because she is wearing an ermine fur ;

-          sitter’s costume indicates that the portrait was painted in 1530′s 

-          it’s not Mary Boleyn

 Why this cannot be Mary Boleyn? There are few reasons ;

 -          Mary Boleyn was Henry’s former mistress and Queen’s sister, but she was not entitled to wear ermine ;

-          In her book ‘Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII’s Favourite Mistress’ Josephine Wilkinson points out that between 1528-1532 Mary was an ‘an unwanted and unloved daughter, the discarded mistress’ (p. 123) . Also prof. Eric Ives writes that ; ‘Mary should have been under no illusions. As early as November 1530 the king had given Anne £20 to redeem a jewel Mary possessed, presumably one he had given her. Anne, the wife, wanted no one to remember Mary, the mistress.’[2] It seems highly unlikely, considering the circumstances, that Mary would be honoured by having such a portrait.

-          She was banished from court in 1534, after she disgraced her family by marrying a man beneath her station.

Frances Brandon?

 So if it is not Mary Boleyn on this portrait, than who is it? Is it Frances Brandon, as Alison Weir suggests? It is possible, considering the resemblance between ‘Mary Boleyn’ portrait and other portrait of Frances Brandon. The eyes and face structure is similar although the lips are different – on ‘Mary Boleyn’s’ portrait they are fuller and on Frances Brandon’s portrait they are prim.

The only thing I wonder is why would there be 6 versions of this portrait? After all Frances Brandon was not that important figure on the Tudor court.

 There is one portrait sometimes inscribed as Anne Boleyn, however it is probably Anne and Mary’s mother, Elizabeth Howard Boleyn. There are certain facial similarities between this portrait and ‘Mary Boleyn”s portrait. But if it is not Mary, could it be … Anne Boleyn?

Mother and daughter?

Alison Weir states that ;

 ‘The sitter bears no resemblance to portraits of Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour or Margaret Douglas.’[3]

 I have to disagree. The sitter’s oval face, full lips, dark eyes and dark skin  indicate that this actually might be Anne Boleyn. The only thing that does not match is her hair – the colour of  eyebrows indicates that hair colour is perhaps brunette with reddish hue, or sandy/reddish blonde.

Left: Copy of Holbein's sketch of Unknown Lady inscribed as Anne Boleyn, in comparison with 'Mary Boleyn' portrait

The thing that I noticed is sitter’s jewellery. I compared her necklace/pendant  with other Tudor jewellery from portraits. This necklace/pendant looks almost the same as the one worn by Queens on few portraits :

Jane Seymour by Hans Holbein c. 1536

Catherine Parr c. 1548

Unknown Lady, probably Catherine Howard c. 1541

Mary Tudor, c. 1544

It is not entirely the same jewellery (in portraits above queens wear a double strand of pearls and stone with characteristic pendant while the sitter on ‘Mary Boleyn’ portrait has something that appear to be a neck-chain with characteristic pendant).

Details from portraits of Mary Tudor, 'Mary Boleyn', Catherine Parr and Jane Seymour.

What about the brooch and flowers? In my opinion flowers are roses and they indicate (as roses on every Tudor portrait)  ;

‘The Tudor rose was used in Elizabeth’s portraits to refer to the Tudor dynasty and the unity that it brought to the realm. The rose also had religious connotations, as the medieval symbol of the Virgin Mary, and was used to allude to the Virgin Queen as the secular successor to the Virgin Mary.’[4]

Details of roses on 'Mary Boleyn' portrait, Anne Boleyn Hever Castle Portrait and Mary Tudor's portrait

Hever Castle of Anne Boleyn also shows Anne holding a rose. Mary Tudor and Elizabeth were also portrayed holding roses.

 It is hard to say what is on the sitter’s brooch, but we can notice the peraldrop hanging from it.

 An interesting thing is why is Mary Boleyn’s name  written of one of those portraits? Alison Weir states that  it ‘has been written in a much later hand‘ and I agree with that. Who and why wrote Mary’s name there?

 Conclusion : I believe that the portrait does not depict Mary Boleyn. Perhaps it’s Anne Boleyn, but the further investigation must be done in order to identify the sitter. I am very happy that Alison Weir decided to point out that this portrait is not portrait of Mary Boleyn, it was quite obvious considering the ermine fur. I hope something more will be soon revealed about this matter.

What do you think?