Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log Insp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed Topic RSSsp_TopicIcon
William Stafford
August 1, 2012
5:50 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga,
No, I don’t think you are wrong. As far as I know anyway, Catherine is Mary’s eldest.
As I understand it, the annuity of 100 pounds was given to Mary by Henry shortly after Anne’s request of December 10th, 1528. I expect Henry acted on the request sooner than 1531. That date seems way wrong. Henry made Thomas take some responsibility as a father…”that he must needs take her, his natural daughter, now in her extreme necessity.” (letter to Anne from Henry, June 15th 1528). It seems as if everything took place rather quickly except for the guardianship which took place in 1529. Henry, whether he was trying to appease a dismissed mistress, or whether he was trying to please Anne, acted with a lot more sympathy than Thomas Boleyn did. Thomas waited until he was ordered to help Mary before offering any type of aid.

Henry gave Anne guardianship of Henry Carey. Anne didn’t take it with a nefarious purpose in mind. She did it to help her sister. I would think that would take a load off Mary’s shoulders even if she was getting an annuity. Henry Carey would have been shipped out to a noble house eventually. Why shouldn’t it be Mary’s sister who takes him? Who better? Henry felt that Anne was better able, and she was certainly in a better position to give Henry Carey an excellent education. It wasn’t as though Mary would never see Henry. In fact, by Anne having guardianship, Mary would see him often.

It depends on who you are reading as to whether they think giving over guardianship of Henry to Anne brought strife between the sisters. I see the guardianship as being a great relief to Mary. I think Mary and Anne got along pretty well at this point. Their only falling out seems to have happened later when Mary was banished from court in 1534. It was because of Anne that Mary received any help at all after Carey died. Anne is the one who wrote to Henry requesting help for her sister.

August 1, 2012
6:12 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well said, Sharon, although I’m not sure whether Henry was any more sympathetic than Thomas Boleyn. I suspect it was more to appease Anne than anything else, particularly as he had initially tried as hard as he could to put the onus squarely on Thomas. Or perhaps I’m just biased against Henry!Wink

August 1, 2012
7:25 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louise,
What was I thinking? You are so right. If it wasn’t for Anne begging for help for Mary, these two would have done nothing to help her.

August 2, 2012
12:41 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sorry guys I took those dates directly from the book by Loades. So if he has the dates wrong then it makes more sense. If Anne had firstly secured an income for Mary and then took over Henry’s estate then it clears my head on the matter.
Again I will say I don’t think Anne would try to hurt her sister.
I’m getting kind of annoyed with this book actually, I thought Loades was supposed to be a good historian.

August 2, 2012
7:52 am
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga, Loades is a good historian but I get the impression with this book that it was rushed out. He admits there is no original material in it and I think his publishers demanded a quick publication date to take advantage of the current interest in the Tudors and particularly the Boleyn family. I think the book suffers as a result.
His chapter on George was particularly disappointing. He could have gone into far more detail but instead seemed to skim over him saying there was little information about him. I know from experience that is not the case and I was disappointed that he didn’t go to a bit more effort.
His insistance that George and his father had differing views on religion was particularly strange. There is plenty of evidence that Thomas shared George’s views. In fact I suspect George got his initial introduction to reform from Thomas. I just couldn’t understand where Loades was coming from. He made his theory without providing any reason or evidence to support it.

August 2, 2012
9:16 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

We’re just going to have to wait very impatiently for a book on George Louise Laugh Craig actually found me another one of Loades’ books at a book sale which I read a chapter of and thought it was really good. I was very excited to see this one for sale, but I did find out about ‘Uncle” James Boleyn so that’s a bonus for me.
Amberley published this one, and they’re churning out a load of Tudor history books at the moment. I’m going to email them and complain, there’s supposed to be a reason editors make such a high salary Yell

August 3, 2012
2:57 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

-In 1543 after Mary’s death the wardship of Henry and Catherine Carey reverted to the crown

Catherine would have already been at court at this point, and Henry Carey was sent to court. Catherine would have been receiving a wage, and I think this is where Henry VIII would have been pitching in for Henry’s education. That’s probably what i read in the Julia Fox the other day and couldn’t find it again.

On a different note, Loades has Henry as being born before Catherine, I thought Catherine was older? Did I get it wrong?

Wasn’t Catherine a lady in waiting or a maid of honour to AOC before transferring to KH’s household??

It's always bunnies.

August 3, 2012
4:09 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yes Anyanka I am pretty sure she was in AOC’s household, I guess she would have been 18 by then, and Henry 16 or 17 when he went to live at court.

August 3, 2012
11:18 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Catherine was also maid of honour for Elizabeth 1st as well. She married Sir Francis Knollys in 1540, and yes she was in both AOC and KH’s households I’ve not found anything about after the downfall of K.H so I guess she may have retired to the country for a while. When Mary Tudor came to the throne, both see and her Husband went abroad, and returned shortly after Mary Tudor’s death to serve in Elizabeth’s household. She was around 45 when she died….

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 3, 2012
2:01 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Loades reckons Stafford was 20 when he married Mary. That doesn’t sound right to me, I thought he was pretty much close to her own age.

August 3, 2012
3:14 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga.. Hatches, Matches and Despatches records in those time were often very spartan. The eldest child’s birth was generally recorded, especially if was a boy as they would be the heir. All Royal children of course would be registered, but for the most part it was generally said that a child was born in Winter Spring, Summer or Autumn.
So it could well be that William was 20, but like you I think he was around the same age as Mary. Until we know otherwise we can only guess.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 3, 2012
7:16 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

Loades reckons Stafford was 20 when he married Mary. That doesn’t sound right to me, I thought he was pretty much close to her own age.

Weir claims Stafford was approximately 12 years younger than Mary. (no reference)

August 3, 2012
8:06 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Olga said

Loades reckons Stafford was 20 when he married Mary. That doesn’t sound right to me, I thought he was pretty much close to her own age.

Weir claims Stafford was approximately 12 years younger than Mary. (no reference)

Sharon, please stop using the ‘W’ word. You know how it offends me.Wink

August 4, 2012
1:18 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

So there’s no birthdate for Stafford? Well maybe he was a gold-digger. If he was twelve years younger, then I think “alright Mary” She was probably still good looking. I know he outlived her long enough to get re-married.

August 4, 2012
2:10 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It could well be he was younger than Mary, but according to Wiki (Which I hasten to add is NOT a reliable source and has more holes in it then a swiss cheese at times) William was born around 1500 and died in Geneva in 1556. Like I said Wiki is very often wrong that’s why historians tend to shun and avoid it.. But if that is correct and as Wier (Clare Gnashes teeth) William was 12 years younger than Mary, it means that Mary’s date of birth would be 1488. I don’t think William was a gold digger, Mary hadn’t got anything out of her relationship with Henry, and she had little to offer anyone who took a shine to her. Marriages back then were all to do with power, position and wealth and Mary had none of those. The only reason I can see for Mary even being at court is because her sister was Queen. Yes Mary was in COA’s household, but personally I think if Anne hadn’t have taken Henry’s fancy Mary would have been long gone after her affair with the King ended. Plus you must remember that many people in court hated the Boleyn’s, I should say Anne more than any of them but because Anne was the adored wife and lover of Henry no one would dare rail against her because of what they could lose if they did, aside from their head that is. So Mary and to a certain degree George bore the brunt of that hatred. Mary must have felt terrible to be trapped in that situation.
William gave Mary the chance to be herself and not do what everyone else wanted her to do. I do think they loved one another. William was perhaps her safety blanket if that makes sence.
Poor Mary she didn’t have a much of a life did she? I can only hope that in William she found a sort of inner peace and contentment that she never had in all the years she had to endure life at court..

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 4, 2012
3:30 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think Mary had a good run in the end Bo. She escaped Henry, therefore she escaped death, she got to see her two children grow to adulthood and Catherine get a place at court, her son was being educated well, she was living comfortably and was with Stafford the rest of her life. Whatever Stafford was I think he would have kept her happy. Considering how the rest of her family fell I’d say she did alright.
I just finished another book on her (Wilkinson’s) and she made mention of how Anne wouldn’t let anyone but her sister attend her after her miscarriage (pg 159) so I imagine Anne wanted her sister there. I’ve always imagined they had a relatively normal relationship until their falling out, they were close in age and both at court for many years together, and if the above is true it shows they were close. No woman would want someone she didn’t love or trust around her after such a tragedy.
As for the falling out, I’ve been thinking about it and I’m surmising Anne may have been so angry because she was stressed. Her position with Henry was still not secure until she gave birth to a male heir, and if she perceived Mary as doing something that may anger him then it may have contributed to her anger. And to be fair relatives of Monarchs were not supposed to marry without permission, Henry didn’t let his own sister off that lightly.

August 4, 2012
4:03 pm
Avatar
Janet
ON Canada
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 153
Member Since:
February 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga, I agree that Anne was stressed (she probably was most of the time she was married to Henry), so maybe her anger with Mary was an over-reaction, but the fact remains that Mary did something she knew was against the way things should be done. From a modern standpoint, we can applaud her wish to be true to herself and what she wanted from life, but I think she probably had a pretty good idea of what Anne’s reaction would be, hence the secrecy. I wonder how long Mary and William would have kept it secret if she hadn’t become pregnant?

On tudorplace.com is just says William was born before 1512, which doesn’t narrow it down much. Laugh

August 4, 2012
5:01 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Totally agree. I do think that Mary and Anne had a typical sisterly relationship with Anne and it would be only natural for Mary to be with Anne.
I also agree that Anne must have been under a lot of stress and I wonder if this wasn’t one of the causes for her to miscarry.
Anne must have felt very disappointed in Mary marrying like she did, and again a lot of her anger towards Mary when she found out might not just have been anger about Mary’s marriage. It could also have been a frustration again Henry who didn’t seem to be interested in her now she was Queen. If only she had had a son, but would Henry have treated Anne any different if she had? I don’t think so but she certainly wouldn’t have been railroaded to the block. As has been frequently pointed out Henry enjoyed the thrill of the chase rather than the actual conquest.
How did Mary feel about Anne’s show trial and death? Was she with Anne at the end? Did they make up their quarrel?

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 4, 2012
11:35 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mary was either in the country or possibly at Calais, so she was nowhere near Anne. Anne sent her something (a gold cup and some cash I think) so yes I’d say they had mostly made up their quarrel, or at least Anne had mellowed towards her. How did she feel? I imagine she would have felt like any other sister would knowing her brother and sister were to be executed by a man she once shared her bed with.
Why a lot of historians downplay the closeness between Mary and her siblings I don’t know. At least prior to their major falling out I assume they were all as close as could be in that environment. There is just as little known about George as there is about Mary, George’s closeness with Anne is displayed by a beautiful book inscription (I think, maybe a letter, correct me if I’m wrong) Mary we can only guess, but with how long she spent attending her sister
The whole “jealous Mary” comes about from historical fiction, there is no evidence whatsoever about how she felt. We can only guess. And I’ve said it before, I never thought Mary had the ambition to be Queen.

Well Janet, sometime before 1512 solves the mystery Laugh

August 5, 2012
9:17 am
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Olga,
The dedication from George to Anne was at the front of a religious translation he did for her. I wrote about it in an article on George’s religion if you want to check it out. It’s beautiful and always makes me go all sniffy. He may have been Anne’s beloved brother, but the dedication shows his feelings towards her were reciprocated. He clearly adored her.

Forum Timezone: Europe/London
Most Users Ever Online: 214
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 1
Top Posters:
Anyanka: 2333
Boleyn: 2285
Sharon: 2114
Bella44: 933
DuchessofBrittany: 846
Mya Elise: 781
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1
Members: 425803
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 13
Topics: 1679
Posts: 22775
Newest Members:
Administrators: Claire: 958