Katherine Howard: A New History (21 page)

It should be considered why the king failed to discern that his wife was not a virgin at the time of his marriage to her. During this period, the modern fixation with the hymen was not necessarily relevant in determining virginity, for other attributes were believed to offer evidence of virginity. A woman’s behaviour and dress, the colour of her urine, and the direction in which her breasts point were viewed as valid indicators of virginity.
⁴⁹Jane Seymour’s downcast eyes and modest gestures, for instance, were viewed commendably by Henry because they signified that Jane was a virginal maid. From the classical period writers had debated whether or not the hymen existed at all. Socrates, writing in the second century AD, argued that it was nonexistent.

Katherine’s own panic and concern, if she had believed herself to be pregnant and was subsequently proved wrong, can only be guessed at, for the dangerous game of fertility politics that threatened the security of Henry’s queen consorts now threatened to turn against her. There is some evidence that the queen became concerned, even pensive, about her relations with her husband around this time. On 26 May, Chapuys reported that Katherine had been melancholy owing to a rumour that the king desired to annul his marriage to her and remarry Anne of Cleves.
⁵⁰Although Henry assured her that these rumours were false and that he loved her, Katherine’s position remained fragile, for ten months into her marriage she had still not managed to conceive the long desired second male heir. While she continued admirably to perform her duties as queen satisfactorily, she also faced concerns about the behaviour of Dereham, whose threatening behaviour within her household further endangered her already insecure position.

Only in context of these pressing dynastic and political concerns can Katherine’s involvement with her husband’s groom of the chamber and her relative, Thomas Culpeper, in April 1541 be satisfactorily and clearly understood. Rather than advocating the traditional view which suggests that the queen, by nature a supposedly lustful young woman, sought night-time meetings with this handsome young man in order to enjoy sexual relations, it will be suggested that, as with her encounters with Manox and Dereham, Katherine’s liaisons with Culpeper were essentially passive, responding to his demands in a misguided if genuine attempt to placate him. Her relative inexperience at court and her position as queen rendered her vulnerable to predatory behaviour from unscrupulous individuals seeking to bring down the powerful Howards through the slander of female honour and sexuality.

Figure 1 -
Engraving of Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

Figure 2 -
Engraving of Anne Boleyn

Figure 3 -
Engraving of Jane Seymour

Figure 4 -
Engraving of Anne of Cleves

Figure 5 -
The Toledo Museum of Art Portrait, Ohio.
Once thought to be Katehrine Howard, but more likely to be one of Henry VIII’s nieces: Margaret Douglas, Frances Brandon, or her sister Eleanor
© Toledo Museum of Art (Toledo, Ohio)
Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey 1926.57

Figure 6 -
Portrait of an unknown woman from the
Royal Collection at Windsor.
Possibly Katherine Howard or Margaret Douglas.

Reference RCIN 422293
Supplied by Royal Collection Trust / © HM Queen Elizabeth II 2012

Figure 7 -
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
“Portrait of a young woman”
Workshop of Hans Holbein the Younger.
Thought by the author to be an authentic portrait of Katherine Howard.