Katherine Howard: A New History (26 page)

Only when evidence had emerged that the queen had not been a virgin at the time of her marriage to Henry did her ladies voice the suspicion that she had subsequently conducted an adulterous liaison behind her husband’s back. Tellingly, no suspicion of the queen’s behaviour during the summer progress had been raised by her ladies or other officials, which cautions against accepting these interrogations at face value and indicates that these revelations only occurred when it became known that the queen had been involved in childhood sexual encounters. As with Anne Boleyn, Katherine’s ladies turned against her when faced with the prospect of the king’s wrath and possibly even punishment for what the interrogators termed misprision of treason. Consequently, her actions were interpreted and distorted in the worst possible light. As has been succinctly noted: ‘the only indiscretion proved against Catherine [
sic
] Howard was that she had, quite understandably, failed to inform her royal lover that her life before her marriage had not been as pure as might have been expected of a queen.’
²⁹
On 22 November, Katherine’s title of queen was stripped from her.

Describing his niece as a prostitute, Katherine’s uncle the Duke of Norfolk sought to placate Henry by distancing himself from his ‘abominable’ niece, ‘mine ungracious mother-in-law, mine unhappy brother [...] with my lewd sister of Bridgewater’, all of whom were accused of aiding the queen in her outrageous lifestyle. He regretted that Katherine had shown him ‘small love’.
³⁰
Although the purpose of writing such a letter was to save himself from the threatened destruction of his family, the evidence indicates that Norfolk was genuinely unaware of his niece’s sexual experiences during her childhood. His horror and disgust at the revelation that she had not been a virgin at her marriage is notable, and confirms that, had he been aware of her childhood escapades, he would never have sought a place for her at court within the household of Anne of Cleves, where female chastity and modesty was expected.

It needs to be considered why it was at this point that Mary Lascelles fatally voiced her opinion to her brother John that Katherine was light in living and conditions, provoking him to inform the archbishop about the queen’s sexual past. There is no evidence that she was personally hostile to Katherine, for she attempted to portray herself positively by confessing that she had sought to persuade Manox to desist from seducing the young Katherine. Whether or not she had, in fact, done so is unknown. On the other hand, as has been noted John was distrustful and resentful of the Howards on account of their political influence and their conservatism. Although he was to insist that he had only revealed information about the queen’s past in order to avoid a charge of misprision of treason, it is probable that he delighted in the chance to ruin the Howards.
³¹

Although Mary may not have knowingly revealed this information about Queen Katherine in a spiteful attempt to destroy her reputation, the fact that she did do so had fatal consequences for Katherine and her family. Early modern slander of highborn women often had damaging consequences, for in focusing overwhelmingly on sexual sins dishonour dismantled the trappings of these women’s rank and the credit of their marriages.
³²
Only in context of early modern beliefs about gender, sexuality and honour can John’s choice to reveal information about Katherine’s past and the negative reception it received at court be fully understood. This period witnessed a growing obsession with the dangers associated with womanhood and a visible fear of women’s intentions and behaviour, focusing on their principle vices encompassing voracious sexuality, scolding and wilful pride and vanity that endangered male livelihood.
³³
In view of this it is significant that Katherine was condemned for feigning chastity and using modest gestures to ensure that the king would ‘love her’ by behaving in a ‘pure and chaste’ manner.
³⁴
The men accused with Katherine of sexual crimes adhered to prevailing gender and cultural prejudices which fixated on the lasciviousness of women. Manox and Dereham both swore that she had consented to their advances while Culpeper blamed the queen for enticing him, through Lady Rochford, to meet with her in private because she was dying for his love.
³⁵

Other Howard relatives were subsequently interrogated and disciplined for their role in Katherine’s childhood experiences. Four Howard women including the queen’s step-grandmother Agnes, her aunts Katherine Countess of Bridgewater and Lady Margaret Howard, and her sister-in-law Anne were punished for concealing information about Katherine’s relations with Manox and Dereham.
³⁶
By 1 December the privy council had confirmed the need to interrogate Agnes Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, and arranged for Katherine’s former acquaintances Joan Bulmer and Robert Damport to be examined regarding the queen’s childhood sexual experiences.
³⁷
The dowager duchess admitted that the queen and Dereham should not die for what had passed several years before under her roof, but confirmed her sorrow for the king, who had taken the matter ‘heavily’.
³⁸
She also admitted that she had hidden £800 in her house, falling on her knees and weeping ‘most abundantly’ before her examiners.
³⁹
Lady Margaret, when interrogated, reported that she had been aware of the affair between Dereham and her niece, although the Countess of Bridgewater and Anne Howard denied knowledge of Katherine’s sexual relations with Dereham. Katherine’s uncle Lord William Howard also admitted knowing about his niece’s sexual past, although ‘he made light of it’ saying that he had admonished her and her acquaintances for being ‘mad wenches’ who ‘must thus fall out’ because they were unable to be merry.
⁴⁰
Although the evidence against the queen and her associates was not compelling, the king in his grief and dismay was certain that she had committed adultery with both Dereham and Culpeper while queen. This was despite the fact that Katherine, Dereham and Culpeper were ‘falsely accused of crimes they never committed, and condemned on the most tenuous, distorted and vicious evidence possible – testimony which today would be thrown out of court as totally false and unacceptable’.
⁴¹

The imperial ambassador Chapuys reported at this time that the king had ‘wonderfully felt the case of the Queen, his wife, and has certainly shown greater sorrow at her loss than at the faults, loss, or divorce of his proceeding wives’. Cynically, he attributed this to the fact that Henry did not yet have a new wife to replace Katherine, meaning that ‘it is like the case of the woman who cried more bitterly at the loss of her tenth husband than at the deaths of all the others together’.
⁴²
Despite his personal sorrow, Henry proceeded to exact his vengeance on both Dereham and Culpeper. Both men may have been tortured during the interrogations, particularly since the documents against them contain suggestive phrases such as ‘this much we know for the beginning’ which could support such a conclusion.
⁴³
On 1 December both men were tried for treason at the Guildhall in London. The French ambassador voiced the opinion that ‘many people thought the publication of these foul details strange, but the intention is to prevent it being said afterwards that they were unjustly condemned’.
⁴⁴
Culpeper, after initially pleading not guilty, changed his plea to guilty during the trial. Both were found guilty and were sentenced to a traitor’s death. The Duke of Norfolk, who was present at the trial, was seen to laugh loudly during the proceedings ‘as if he had cause to rejoice’.
⁴⁵

On 10 December both men were executed at Tyburn. Because of his intimacy with the king, Culpeper’s sentence was commuted to decapitation. Modern historians continue to believe that this accounts for the reason why Dereham was forced to suffer the penalty of hanging, drawing and quartering, but an alternative interpretation is possible when considering his sexual relations with Katherine. Since the queen had confirmed that Dereham had forcibly raped her, it is possible that the king ordered that Dereham should suffer a traitor’s death because rape was viewed at this time as a theft of male property. The prevailing custom in medieval England had been to execute those who raped virgins, particularly those who sexually assaulted minors.
⁴⁶
Because those who had sexually molested prepubescent girls suffered the death penalty, it is probable that this is the reason for Dereham suffering a worse death than Culpeper. He had assaulted Katherine, rather than merely enjoying sexual intercourse with her. In the absence of any other evidence to indicate why Dereham was forced to suffer a traitor’s death rather than decapitation, this suggestion is reasonable. The English merchant Richard Hilles later opined to Henry Bullinger that ‘people did not inquire much, as it is no new thing to see men hanged, quartered or beheaded for one thing or another, sometimes for trifling expressions construed as [being] against the king’.
⁴⁷

On 22 December Katherine’s relatives were tried and found guilty of misprision of treason. The indictment read as follows:

Jurors further find that the said Katherine Tylney, Alice Restwold, wife of Anthony Restwold, of the same place, Gentleman; Joan Bulmer wife of William Bulmer, of the same place; Gentleman; Anne Howard, wife of Henry Howard late of Lambeth, Esq.; Robert Damporte late of the same place, Gentleman; Malena Tylney late of the same place, widow; and Margaret Benet, wife of John Benet, late of the same place; Gentleman; knowing the wicked life of the Queen and Dereham, did conceal the same from the King and all his Councillors. And that this said Agnes, Duchess of Norfolk, with whom the Queen had been educated from her youth upward; William Howard, late of Lambeth, uncle of the Queen and one of the King’s Councillors; Margaret Howard, wife of William Howard; Katherine, Countess of Bridgewater, late of Lambeth, otherwise Katherine the wife of Henry, Earl of Bridgewater; Edward Waldegrave late of Lambeth, Gentleman; and William Asheley, late of Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, knowing that certain letters and papers had been taken from a chest and concealing the information from the King... Katherine Tylney, Alice Restwold, Joan Bulmer, Anne Howard, Malena Tylney, Margaret Benet, Margaret Howard, Edward Waldegrave, and William Asheley are brought to the Bar by the Constable of the Tower, and being severally arraigned as well upon the Surrey Indictment, as the Indictments for Kent, and Middlesex, they pleaded guilty. JUDGEMENT: they shall be severally taken back by the Constable of the Tower, and in the same Tower, or elsewhere, as the King shall direct, be kept in perpetual imprisonment and that all their goods and chattels shall be forfeited to the King, and their lands and tenements seized into the King’s hands.
⁴⁸

Perhaps surprisingly, Henry Manox was not convicted of misprision of treason or punished for his sexual relations with Katherine before she had been seduced by Dereham. He was erroneously believed to have been executed alongside Dereham and Culpeper in December 1541, but there are no trial or execution records for him. He was able to escape prosecution and eventually moved to Hemingford in Huntingdonshire, dying in 1564, thirty years after first corrupting an eventual queen of England.
⁴⁹
Katherine’s brothers also escaped punishment. Henry Howard received a gift of £10 ‘
intuitu charitatis
’ a few weeks after his sister’s death.
⁵⁰
Charles left court and journeyed to Europe. Katherine’s brothers were later seen to ride about the town in their finest attire, in order ‘to show that they did not share the crimes of their relatives’.
⁵¹
In the wake of her downfall, Katherine’s relatives were desperate to demonstrate that they had barely known her and shared none of her guilt.

Following the executions of Dereham and Culpeper, the Bill of Attainder against Katherine and Lady Rochford was introduced in Parliament in January 1542. The attainder recorded that:

Katharine Howard whom the King took to wife is proved to have been not of pure and honest living before her marriage, and the fact that she has since taken to her service one Francis Dereham, the person with whom she “used that vicious life before,” and has taken as chamberer a woman who was privy to her naughty life before, is proof of her will to return to her old abominable life. Also she has confederated with lady Jane Rocheford, widow, late wife of Sir Geo. Boleyn, late lord Rocheford, to “bring her vicious and abominable purpose to pass” with Thos. Culpeper, late one of the King’s Privy Chamber, and has met Culpeper in “a secret and vile place,” at 11 o’clock at night, and remained there with him until 3 a.m., with only “that bawd, the lady Jane Rocheford.” For these treasons, Culpeper and Dereham have been convicted and executed, and the Queen and lady Rochford stand indicted. The indictments of such as have lately suffered are hereby approved, and the said Queen and lady Rochford are, by authority of this Parliament, convicted and attainted of high treason, and shall suffer accordingly; and the said Queen, lady Rocheford, Culpeper, and Dereham shall forfeit to the Crown all possessions which they held on 25 Aug. 33 Hen. VIII. The Royal assent to this Act shall be given by commission.
⁵²