However, the Ashley pronunciation, and therefore spelling, seems most common among people, including Elizabeth Tudor, who obviously knew Katherine and her husband well. Queen Elizabeth (and no woman was better educated in the kingdom) spelled Katherine’s married name with the
sh
rather than
st
sound. This includes a very important letter of 1549 in which the fifteen-year-old Elizabeth’s spelling of the name of her beloved friend and governess was Kateryn Ashiley—but the
sh
sound and spelling are still there. So I will let the queen decide my
sh
or
st
dilemma and use Ashley.
Besides the variant spelling of words and names, there are other major challenges in Tudor era research. One is simply that, whatever excellent sources are consulted, “facts” sometimes do not agree. If I can find three sources and two agree, I go with that. Other times, contradictions allow me to use what seems most logical. A small example: one reference claims that Queen Jane Seymour labored for three days to deliver her son, Edward; another reference states two days. As she died shortly after the birth, I chose the three days, although that may not be valid. Another example: one source claims that John Ashley studied in Padua, Italy, during Mary’s entire reign. Another says that by June 1555 Elizabeth “had the Ashleys back.” And so it goes.
As for “correct” dates, again research can be confusing. For example, their new year began on Lady Day, March 25, even though January 1 was called New Year’s Day. This can throw things off, depending on who is recording what. Once again, I used dates I found in the majority of my references.
Another problem I faced while researching Katherine Champernowne Ashley is Kat’s pedigree. In the Tudor world, where families and birth order and titles mattered a great deal, her family heritage is a contested mystery. The two main schools of thought both have drawbacks. Let me first outline these confusing, conflicting claims as simply as possible:
1. Some reputable sources claim that Katherine (or Catherine) Champernowne is the child of Sir John Champernowne of Dartington, Devon, and Margaret Courtenay. This family was, evidently, quite well-to-do. However, Sir John died in 1503 and Kat was probably born a bit later. Another reason these parents are probably not hers is that in a letter to Thomas Cromwell in 1536, asking for funds to care for Elizabeth, Kateryn Champernon states that she would ask her father for financial help except that he “has as much to do with the little living he has as any man.” [
Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII,
vol. 11, p. 253, letter of October 10, 1536.] That is, her father is not a wealthy man and has worries of his own. So Kat’s “poor” father was living in 1536, and the wealthy Sir John was not.
2. The other front-runner for her father is Sir Philip Champernowne of Modbury, Devon. Married to Katherine Carew, he died in 1545, but he was also a well-to-do man, one the Crown had relied on to provide fighting men and funds. He had several manors and was one of the most powerful men in Devon. Just a few days before Kat’s letter mentioned above, Sir Philip provided one hundred men for the king’s forces against the northern rebels. Another caveat for Sir Philip being Kat’s sire: There was another Katherine (older than Kat, later an ancestor of Sir Walter Raleigh) in that family. The same name in one brood for two children, unless the older child was deceased, was highly unlikely.
3. There is also a third candidate for her father: Sir Edmund Carew. This theory claims Champernoun is Kat’s early married name, but, again, Sir Edmund died before she wrote the Cromwell letter, and there is no proof she wed anyone but John Ashley.
So, perhaps one of the reasons Kat’s life story has not been told before is because it is hard to get a handle on her beginnings. Those in the Philip of Modbury camp and in the Sir John of Dartington camp both claim that Jane (also called Joan) Champernowne is Kat’s sister. Since Joan became Lady Denny, wed to a key court figure, Sir Anthony Denny, and a distant ancestor of Prince Charles, Diana, Princess of Wales, and Winston Churchill, it seems Joan’s pedigree would be clear. But it is not. Those who claim Joan and Kat were sisters do so through assumptions, not proof.
In my research I have not found evidence they were sisters, although they do have the same maiden name and both come from Devonshire. (Devon was then
full
of Champernownes.) It is true both women were strong, evangelical Protestants, but many of that day were. Even when Joan took over Elizabeth’s care at one point when Kat was dismissed, no one, including Elizabeth, who wrote several letters protesting Kat’s removal, mentioned that one sister was taking over for the other, when that would have been an obvious time to do so.
To top off all this confusion, many of the Tudor-era Devonshire Champernownes named their children using the same names: Catherine /Katherine appears numerous times, as does Joan, Philip, etc. Because Kat comes to court as a gentlewoman and, apparently from a rather “impoverished family,” as one source puts it, I agree with Bruce Clagett, who has researched Kat’s pedigree for years (GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives online), that Kat “may have belonged to an obscure younger branch of the family.” She was well educated but not well supported, and relied on her patron Cromwell’s goodwill for years. And Cromwell was always out to serve King Henry and himself, the two most devious powers of that era.
Another note on confusing families: the Sir Philip Champernowne family of Modbury is listed in various sources as having different children.
Burke’s Landed Gentry of Great Britain
includes John, Arthur, Elizabeth, Joan, Katherine and Francis, then a second Joan (and, finally—erroneously, I believe—our Kat). However, the online source
www.fabpedigree.com
lists only Arthur, Jane (Joan) and a Katherine. Yet another source lists Catherine, John, Arthur, Joan, Elizabeth and Frances. Of course, some of this confusion can be caused by the fact that many children died early. It is, at least, established that Joan, who married Sir Anthony Denny, is from this family, whether or not Robert Gamage was her husband before she wed Sir Anthony Denny.
All this to say, the more power to this remarkable woman if she came from an obscure, impoverished family.
About the double-portrait ring that Anne Boleyn gives Kat to keep for Elizabeth: such a ring exists, although with a more mature portrait of Elizabeth. During a 2003 research trip to England, I was able to view this ring with other items of Elizabeth’s at the National Maritime Museum’s Exhibition at Greenwich honoring the queen 400 years after her death. The ring has been dated circa 1575, because of the era of Elizabeth’s portrait, but I like to think that it was entirely possible that Elizabeth had that updated to have pictures of two queens. I have read that the queen, among her many rings she changed frequently, always wore this one. (In my telling of the story, of course, the queen would have taken the ring back when Kat Ashley died.) The fact that Anne Boleyn’s face was hidden allowed her to keep it close to her without others knowing that she honored her mother as she did her father. Despite the charges against Queen Anne and her shameful death, other proofs of Elizabeth’s loyalty to the Boleyn side of her heritage abound.
It is difficult to assess the full impact Katherine Ashley had on the life of Elizabeth Tudor. The bonds of affection between them were obvious, as seen in letters Elizabeth wrote to defend both Kat and John when they were arrested in her service. Because Kat was Elizabeth’s mother figure, despite how she was fascinated by her birth mother, I like to think of Elizabeth as saying, “Anne Boleyn gave me life, but Kat Ashley gave me love.” And Elizabeth did acknowledge in a letter that “we are more bound to them that bringeth us up well than to our parents, for our parents do that which is natural to them—that is bringeth us into the world—but our bringers up are a cause to make us live well to do it.”
Anne’s poem written before her death and the records of Kat’s deposition in the Tower are factual. Also, the letters in the book and the poem to Robert Dudley are actually Elizabeth’s. She wrote numerous poems, letters, prayers and speeches, which are set forth in an excellent reference,
Elizabeth I: Collected Works,
edited by Leah S. Marcus, Janel Mueller and Mary Beth Rose (University of Chicago Press, 2000).
Other books on the queen and her family well worth reading include
Henry VIII and His Court
by Neville Williams;
The Life and Times of Elizabeth I
by Neville Williams;
The Life of Elizabeth I
by Alison Weir;
A Crown for Elizabeth
by Mary M. Luke;
Elizabeth: The Struggle for the Throne
by David Starkey; and
All the Queen’s Men
by Neville Williams. Obviously, there are numerous other biographies of key characters and other nonfiction books on Tudor England available. My bookshelves groan with them, and I delight in them.