Maryann Philip

We see the roots of future English violence over religion in the "Faith" episode of Spanish Princess, an odd choice of emphasis. It is mystifying that a series so centered on sex does not mention Henry's affair with Mary Boleyn, sister of Anne Boleyn. That affair was well-known by the time Edward Stafford, Third Duke of Buckingham, was tried for treason in 1520. (Starz also ignored Henry's early affair with Buckingham's sister, the only affair Katherine ever made a public fuss about. If you want to read about that or about Tudor Christmas customs, my latest "real history mystery" covers both—and also explains why Katherine lost all those babies. Find CANNON CONSPIRACY and other blogs about Spanish Princess at maryannphilip.com, or at https://www.amazon.com/Maryann-Philip/e/B009WCCZ6O?

ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&qid=1606153787&sr=8-2  

Is this episode historically accurate?  Only in the broadest sense. Biggest falsehoods: I am aware of no evidence that Queen Margaret somehow managed to raid the English treasury, though she did scandalize Henry and Katherine by seeking (and ultimately obtaining!) a divorce from her adulterous husband. Nor did Queen Katherine ever miscarry in a hallway, much less attended only by Buckingham.  Her last known pregnancy, a stillborn daughter, occurred two years before Buckingham's trial.

As for that trial: Starz got the essential accusation and end result right (treason, beheading) but most else wrong.

Here is background you need to understand the real history: Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, was the richest man in England—perhaps even richer than Henry—and a potential rival for Henry's throne, because he was a direct male descendant of the youngest son of King Edward III. In fact, if you look at lineage (which CANNON CONSPIRACY lays out for you) the Tudor claim to the throne was very weak—something Buckingham pointed out, a bit too loudly, when Henry VIII ascended to the throne. So there were murmurings about his treasonous leanings from the beginning. By 1520, he had linked himself with all the other powerful families of England through adroit marriages, which made him even more of a threat.

While he was one of Henry's tennis partners and a member of his Council, Buckingham often skipped those meetings. When he showed up, he clashed with Wolsey, whom he loudly despised as lowborn. In fact, he once dumped water on Wolsey. Big mistake.

Historical documents show that Henry himself instigated the close watch on Buckingham that provided the (weak) evidence for treason at his ultimate trial. Buckingham was more threatening to Henry by then, simply because Katherine had not produced a male heir and looked unlikely to do so. And Henry likely had covetous designs on Buckingham's wealth.

The essence of the treason claim: Buckingham had paid too much attention to the predictions of a monk who said Henry would die without male issue and Buckingham would ascend the throne. There were no insinuations that Buckingham was seen in Katherine's rooms. In fact, Katherine's attitude towards his trial is unknown, according to the three biographies I have consulted.  "She kept her own counsel," says Julia Fox, who wrote Sister Queens (about Katherine and Juana).  Little wonder: Buckingham was a threat to her daughter Mary. However she felt about him personally, his death indirectly benefitted her and her child.

I think I have figured out where Starz' information on her attitude comes from, however: Shakespeare. He co-wrote a play on Henry VIII, little known and seldom performed, that has Katherine defending Buckingham. Shakespeare's history is shakey (pun!) but always entertaining. 

There is only one Spanish Princess episode left, and so much to cover! Queen Margaret's future history alone is worth a miniseries. She was scandalously entertaining and ultimately successful: her grandson finally united the thrones of England and Scotland.  We're also starting to see the real Thomas More, dedicated scholar and persecutor of Protestants –thank goodness Margaret Pole does as well. Again, his history could be a miniseries of its own. So could Margaret Pole's.

I wonder what Starz will do next?

Primary source for this blog:  Young Henry: The Rise of Henry VIII by Robert Hutchinson (St. Martin's Press, 2012 Ed.)  

Katherine of Aragon was reigning queen of England for twenty-two eventful years, which Starz is packing into eight episodes. Viewers who complained that the first episode was rushed were right: it roared by some scandalous and fascinating events detailed in my latest real history mystery, Cannon Conspiracy. For example, Episode 1 did not mention Henry VIII's affair with the Duke of Buckingham's sister during Katherine's first pregnancy, which ended in stillbirth (a daughter) and a rip-roaring royal fight when Queen Katherine found out about Anne Stafford. Go to link below if you want that missing story.

To be fair, Starz got what historians would regard as the important historical details right. King Ferdinand of Spain did double-cross Henry, which left English soldiers stranded and starving while Ferdinand conquered Navarre, using Henry's army as a distraction. And wily old Ferdinand wrote letters bragging about how he had outfoxed his young, naïve son-in-law. The diplomatic history behind those events involved Pope Julius II's campaign against France and was much more complicated than portrayed. But the essence was right.

However, while Starz portrays Ferdinand and most other central characters well, it changed some human details to make the story more dramatic. As an amateur historian that saddens me, because the real history is dramatic already:  

Baby Henry only lived 53 days, and did not die lying on a cold floor next to Katherine while she was praying. Cannon Conspiracy gives a (minority view) reason for his death.  It was definitely natural causes, but Henry—not Katherine—may be accountable. Cannon Conspiracy is only $2.99 and the first chapter addresses this question. Go to https://www.amazon.com/Maryann-Philip/e/B009WCCZ6O?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1601576474&sr=8-1  or follow the link on this site.

King Ferdinand never visited his daughter Katherine in England, much less dragging his "heir, Charles V" with him. Charles—his grandson, oldest son of Juana "La Loca"—was eleven years old and known as "Charles of Burgundy" when this scene occurs. He didn't become Charles V for another 7 or 8 years, lived in the Netherlands (then called "the Low Countries") with his paternal family, and was not yet Ferdinand's heir. (Ferdinand remarried after Queen Isabella died, and still hoped for a son. He and Isabella had five children but only one boy, who died in adulthood.) Princess Mary was, at the time of this scene, betrothed to Charles of Burgundy—Starz got that much right. But she was only 14 or 15 herself, if we fix the date for the scene to 1511. (Baby Henry was born January 1, 1511 and Henry held an enormous celebratory joust shortly afterwards, as shown by Starz. King Ferdinand's double-cross that stranded the English army occurred in 1512.) So both Princess Mary and Charles of Burgundy were portrayed as being much older than they actually were. They never met, at least in youth.           

Their betrothal was broken off for diplomatic reasons, shortly after the events in Episode 1, and Princess Mary ended up marrying….but no, Starz will surely cover that. And you will find yourself saying, "Poor Princess Mary" because Henry forced her to marry someone repulsive.
 

To my knowledge, Katherine never gave a speech like the one at the end of Episode 1, though she was certainly capable of it. The English loved her throughout her reign and beyond, and her loyalty to Henry (as opposed to her father) was not questioned.

I will continue to blog about the real history behind the events as portrayed by Starz as new episodes play. (Some of you saw Episode 1 early. How did you do that?)  You will be able to find those blogs at https://maryannphilip.com  or through my Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/nicolamachiavellimysteries/  

Meanwhile, enjoy this great new series!