‘The Tudors’: a 2000’s drama series about Henry VIII and his six wives. Very inaccurate. Very raunchy. It can be fun for those who know, or don’t know, much about the Tudor era (I like laughing at some of the outfits; Jane Seymour’s hot pink dress with a yellow collar, the beach waves of the late 2000’s/early 2010s, and the one, awful, Katheryn Howard dress I have major beef with. It makes her look like a peacock in the worst way possible, so much so that I refuse to attach a photo).

There are some great elements of the show, though. Natalie Dormer as Anne Boleyn, for a lot of people, is one of the fan favourite representations of Anne on-screen. Some of the scenes were done beautifully. Others were not. But alas, that’s Hollywood, and this isn’t a documentary, I suppose.

One of the things I do not appreciate to come out of this TV show is how many people think this is a documentary; a word by word reenactment of the Tudor era. Obviously, people from all over the world from different cultures do not know the ins and outs of Henry VIII and his six wives, that’s understandable and silly to expect. I, however, have had the rhyme knocked into me since the beginning of my life, I think. British culture.

I believe the issue is not that of being uneducated on something in particular, it’s the lack of curiosity with the desire to know everything. We are very surface level these days; no one wants to dig. Therefore, one may watch ‘The Tudors’ and think they know everything about Anne Boleyn or Katheryn Howard. They will argue, vehemently, on Tik Tok, that they are right and you are wrong. They’ve done their research. They’ve seen it on TV.

If you are at all within the historical sphere on social media, you may have seen some of the interesting content surrounding the representations of each historical figure within the show, and how people genuinely have this venomous hate for a woman who died five-hundred years ago, just because of a scene in The Tudors, which, their favourite historical figure has a petty cat fight with another, something which didn’t actually happen in real life to this degree (the response to the Katheryn Howard and Princess Mary fight in The Tudors gives me a headache). If you haven’t, you’re one of the lucky ones.

Now, one of my main issues with the TV show is Katheryn Howard. That’s weird to say as someone who loves Katheryn Howard.

A lot of women are sexualised in this show, but one thing I want to point out is that the age, explicitly stated many times, that Katheryn is in this show is seventeen years old. Seventeen.

We don’t actually know how old Katheryn was, however she may have been born in 1522/23, making her around nineteen/twenty years old when she was executed in 1542, so her age is fairly accurate.

In spite of this, Katheryn’s character in this series probably spends the most time naked on-screen. One moment she’s on a swing, fully nude, her supposedly (I say this because Jonathan Rhys Meyers does not look like he’s aged a day in the entire series) fifty-something year old husband watching her; the next she’s practicing placing her head on the executioners block, fully nude…?

There were so many times during the show I thought "was that really necessary?” This poor girl is practicing for her own execution, and you’ve made the executive decision to make her naked? Are we sure?

It frustrates me, in many ways. A young woman who has been criticised ruthlessly; some even saying she deserved her death because of the actions she supposedly took and the fact that she was an ‘air headed wanton’, and a ‘natural tart’, kindly written by popular historians. But yet, here we are, to feast on her nakedness for the pleasure of the audience, and in the same breath we call her a whore. We can sexualise her, but she herself cannot be a part of the sexual act. That’s when it’s wrong. That’s when she’s a whore.

Katheryn was with two other men before she was married to Henry VIII; Henry Manox and Francis Dereham. She was executed for the intent (not the act) of adultery with Thomas Culpeper and for concealing her past marital affairs before she married the king, which, may I add, was not a law during the entirety of Katheryn’s marriage to Henry VIII. This law was only passed a week before the date of her execution.

We seem to think that, because of Katheryn’s perceived promiscuity (which it isn’t even, in my opinion) she is allowed to be fully bare in front of an audience. She’s done it to herself, they’ll comment. Because she was not a virgin when she was with Henry, it’s like it’s automatic unwarranted permission to unclothe her anyway. A teenager.

It’s like the victim blaming discourse within rape culture, and the whole ‘what were you wearing’ debacle. Just because you have a perceived sense of promiscuity about someone else, their actions, or their clothing, does not mean you, yourself, can automatically unclothe them, feast on them. It just does not give you permission.

If people really had an issue with Katheryn being this promiscuous ‘good time girl’, as described by historian David Starkey, then why do we take steps to sexualise her further; why exaggerate it? If she has done wrong and society hates it, why do we make it worse? She was not traipsing around the palaces naked. She did not have such a childish and immature disposition coupled with this nymphomaniac disposition. What an odd thing to do when we perceive her actions as ‘wrong’.

I have read a lot of books about Katheryn, and it seems to me that we have purposefully made her promiscuous. Understanding the actual circumstances surrounding her death, and her actual behaviour and personality, gives us an image of a young woman who is completely different to that of many interpretations of her in the media. That is why I find it frustrating. People criticise her, saying she deserved death, because they see these representations and think they are of an accurate nature. However we have made her what she is. We’ve over-exaggerated it.

It’s easy to just stereotype Katheryn rather than learn the complex ins and outs of her life, and the complex human being she was, as are we all.

Anne Boleyn is also sexualised within the show, but in my opinion, there is still a contrast between innocence and guilt.

(Before I continue, please bear in mind that I love Anne Boleyn, and this is a general observation on her portrayal in the show. Sexualisation of her character is, obviously, wrong to do; I am simply observing and sharing what I believe to be a stark contrast between the portrayals of Anne and Katheryn).

Anne is famously known for being innocent of the charges of adultery and incest that were put against her in May 1536. Within the show, she is seen engaging in no such acts. However, Anne is still sexualised; almost like we are watching her through Henry’s eyes. She isn’t naked all the time. She’s sexualised in a different way, if that’s even possible. However, it feels as though Anne has a distinct power and allure in this series which is why she has become a fan favourite.

On the other hand, Katheryn is known for her ‘guilt’ (I disagree with this aspect, but unfortunately she is known as the one who was guilty - I shan’t explain it here, but if you’re interested, I have written about her execution and the circumstances here), so therefore this means that there is already a difference in how Anne’s sexuality is perceived over Katheryn’s.

Anne had allure, there was passion, there was lust. She is intelligent, smart. Her sexuality, though unnecessarily portrayed, is not misused. It’s almost powerful. Katheryn is ditsy, an airhead. She bites her lip; she raises her dress almost too high during her first meeting with the king. She plays in mud in her undergarments as queen with her ladies. Her sexuality is ‘misused’. She’s with other men. She’s immature.

‘The Tudors’, whether purposefully or not, through the sexualisation of these two women; cousins, have presented the contrast of innocence and guilt. One is almost sexualised with dignity (if this is even possible? Maybe not dignity, necessarily, but somewhat of a higher sense of respect then that of her cousin), the other, there is a carelessness, a humiliation.

Anne prepares for her death in prayer, it shows her getting dressed, preparing herself before her final journey. With Katheryn, the horrific detail that she practiced her execution many times the night before with the block is marred by the fact we get a shot of her breasts before she does so, completely distracting us from the horrific circumstances the young woman is going through. It does always feel to me that Katheryn was a character made to be humiliated, even in death.

Obviously, the sexualisation of women in media is wrong, no doubt about that. With Katheryn Howard, it gets to a point where there’s sexualisation and just blatant humiliation. Why criticise a woman for her sexuality, her supposed wrongdoing, and then make the thing she’s criticised for even worse in media.

I know it’s not real; it’s all for entertainment purposes, but being executed at around nineteen/twenty years old on an act of attainder created literally a week before your execution; having constant streams of criticism in life and death for your supposed actions and being called a whore, to then have representations of yourself fully naked on-screen; does that not seem like some type of humiliation and unnecessary gross exaggeration? “We are allowed to use you thus as you did this to yourself!”

It is a shame her depiction was written in a way in which her sexuality was the core of her character. This is not what she was, despite what many want to believe.

Subscribe now

The unknown woman’s face has been significantly altered, so now that even this portrait of her does not reflect her true appearance.

She is not displayed to the public; tucked away quietly within the storage of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, unknowing of the modern woman from across the sea who wishes to lay her eyes on her distorted appearance.

I wonder if the portrait of her was hung up on the wall of a great house with pride. I wonder what her life was like, what she was like.

Such a small fragment in time captured with a painter’s stroke of a brush. The only thing that separates her from me is time. Five hundred years. But yet it feels so close. I feel like I could break this barrier and ask her questions, know her true identity.

However even she, herself, has been lost. Would she even know herself if she spoke suddenly? Would she recognise her distorted appearance in the portrait?

Sometimes I think I could find the answers if I thought hard enough, and break that barrier of time.

The MET Portrait

‘Portrait of a Young Woman’ (ca.1540-45) by Hans Holbein the Younger (or a workshop of) resides within the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

She is another example of ‘an Unknown Woman’, but yet her case is even more extraordinary. The woman’s face displayed on their website, with her pouty lips and wide eyes, does not actually exist.

The intricate gold lettering ‘ANNO ETATIS·SVÆ XVII’ either side of this elusive figure tells us her age, at least. She is seventeen. She wears a French Hood adorned with decorative billaments, which is secured to her head with a ribbon fastened under her neck. It’s farther back on her head, revealing more hair (which was a stark contrast to the early English Gable hood) and thus indicative that it was sometime in the 1540s this portrait was executed. French Hoods had become more popular in England during the 1530s, and as they developed they sat farther back on the head revealing more of the lady’s hair. A study on the wood the portrait was painted on dates the panel to 1522, however it is clear the portrait was done later due to the sitter’s costume. Her sleeves are slashed and puffed, which was a very popular fashion style during the 1540s. Her hands are clasped with one plain ring on her pointer finger. A brooch with two figures in a fleur-de-lis frame adorns her bodice, as well as decorative pearls and gold ouches. She wears a necklace with pearls and jewels. Her hair is auburn; and a detail I love about this portrait is that you can ever so slightly see, under the veil of her hood, her hair in her coif.

The earliest known provenance of the portrait was Prince Joseph Poniatowski. Eventually, the portrait belonged to Count Karol Lanckoroński, a Polish art collector with an extensive art collection. There are photos of the portrait displayed within Palais Lanckoroński, and you can see the original state of the portrait in the background.

In fact, in my personal collection, I have a postcard of the painting which was sold at the palace itself, in all its former glory.

The portrait was still intact come early 1927. So, how did we lose the face of this young woman?

Here enters a man who also had a distinct interest in this “Vienna Crystal”.

Joseph Duveen

When you walk through the galleries of London and look upon their walls and ceilings, you may see the name ‘Sir Joseph Duveen’ or ‘1st Baron Duveen’ decorated in some of the rooms. This is Jospeh Duveen, a prolific art dealer of the 19^th and early 20^th century. *

*Amber’s note: I have personal beef with this man.

Duveen was responsible for a lot of treasures in the art world, but also several issues… and fakes. He was known for having a team of ‘restorers’ who were instructed to alter and ‘beautify’ paintings and was controversial for over-cleaning and damaging old masters (some die-hard art lovers may know him from the Parthenon marbles scouring scandal). Some of the works he sold were fakes - though albeit he himself may not have known. Redd from Animal Crossing anyone?

Unfortunately, ‘Portrait of a Young Woman’ or this “Vienna Crystal” was a victim of this ‘beautification’.

Her face is no longer hers, with Duveen’s “restorers” painting over her lips and eyes to reconstruct the pouty, bright eyed seventeen year old we see today. She has also been damaged as a result of over-cleaning, and the background has been painted over from the vibrant blue typically used by Holbein in his portraiture, to a darker blue/green.

An excerpt from the MET website states:

Duveen’s restoration of the portrait happened sometime in 1927 after he had acquired it. There was evidence to suggest that, once it had been received, his “Vienna Crystal”, as he codenamed it, was still intact in all its former glory.

However, by July 1927 he wrote:

The portrait may have ended up being sent back to another restorer after Duveen was unhappy with the result, and thus we now have the pretty, pouty young woman whose face was lost behind the paint of Duveen’s intense desire for profit. The devil will find work for idle hands to do, after all.

Knowing America was booming economically, what better timing to wave in their faces the work of a European old master, especially of a pretty woman who managed to fit the beauty standards of early 20th century America. Thus, it was sold to Jules Bache for $200,000, an American art collector.

A Face that is Not Her Own

Establishing that this face does not exist, research undertaken on the identity of the woman in this portrait usually divides people. Imagine your identity being lost to time, only to have the only remaining part of your existence painted over to make you more “beautiful”.

To understand the proposed theories, it is important to understand that all judgments are to be based off of the original state of the portrait, which is what a lot of people fail to do upon assessment, before her face was altered to fit a beauty standard of a time she didn’t even set foot in.

The fact that the sitter has had a portrait executed at such a young age by the most prestigious and highly sought-after “King’s Painter”, Hans Holbein the Younger, while wearing lavish dress during the 1540s is quite uncommon, and doesn’t leave many candidates during this era. Holbein painted all sorts of people, but for a seventeen year old to be dressed in such a way, commission a portrait by Holbein, and be at the court of Henry VIII is quite an interesting subject.

Katheryn Howard

The reason why I said this portrait usually divides people is that the current state of the portrait bears very little resemblance to any Howard relative that lived or breathed during the Tudor era. However, taking the original portrait in all its pure form, it bears a striking resemblance to Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey. Henry Howard was cousin to Queen Anne Boleyn, Queen Katheryn Howard, and the brother of Mary Howard, Duchess of Richmond. He was also the son of the highly disliked 3rd Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Howard. *

* Amber’s note: There’s a lot of Howards about to be discussed… sorry. You may need an extra shot of coffee to get through this one.

To begin with, the most prolific identity the sitter has gained is that of Queen Katheryn Howard, Henry VIII’s fifth wife. Due to the sitter’s lavish dress, auburn hair, age, and the portrait being dated to about 1540-1545, there is a chance that we could be looking at the lost face of Katheryn Howard. And unfortunately, if this is true, it seems she has lost her face more than once.

No known portrait of Katheryn survives. Despite one being requested (multiple times may I add), there is no account of it having been executed and sent to the recipient.

This portrait, though, has piqued the interest of historians, history lovers, and myself.

Katheryn’s date of birth is estimated to have been in 1522-23 with 1524 being the latest. If this portrait was executed in 1540, for example, it would mean the sitter would have been born sometime in 1523, thus fitting with an accurate date for Katheryn’s arrival in the world. However, we aren’t 100% sure when Katheryn was born, and while 1522/23 is most likely, we cannot say for certain.

Taking the portrait in all its former glory, it has a distinct comparison and likeness to Katheryn’s cousin, Henry Howard. The full lips, the nose… to me this just screams ‘I’m a Howard!’

Sparse descriptions of Katheryn noted that she was slender and petite in figure and was moderately beautiful. After seeing Katheryn, the French ambassador, Charles de Marillac, described her as ‘a young lady of moderate beauty, but very graceful’. Her bearing was described as ‘modest’ and her face ‘sweet and delibéré’; thoughtful and reflective. Historian Gareth Russell, the writer of Young & Damned & Fair, states:

Within King's College Chapel, Cambridge, there is a stained glass window that may be a depiction of Katheryn as The Queen of Sheba. Her likeness may have been used for the figure below. She has a few similarities with that of the MET portrait; with her straight nose and full lips. However, it’s hard to gage a picture from a stylised, side-profile of a stained glass window.

This portrait may have been executed at a time where Katheryn was a rising figure in the Tudor court. Maybe she was not queen yet, but maybe her family commissioned the portrait to show their links to royalty and to show the young woman who was to increase their family fortune. Maybe it was commissioned by Henry VIII to illustrate his new, young, to-be-bride.

There may have even been a motive here, if this was the case. Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne of Cleves had failed (through no fault of Anne’s by the way). Henry may have been eager to show off his young new love after his apparent repulsion of Anne of Cleves. Or maybe this was a way for the Howard’s to really emphasise the failed marriage to Cleves, and the new flourishing “romance”.

Unfortunately, there is not much to connect Katheryn to this portrait aside from circumstantial evidence or assumption. There is no distinct piece of jewellery which matches a description within the inventory taken during her downfall, though, she did own a cameo pendant which were quite a rarity in England at this time.

Maybe this portrait was commissioned while Katheryn was not queen. Maybe it was done when she on the rise and these items were not recorded in her inventory due to all the new caprice she received during her queenship. She would need clothes to reflect her new status, after all.

A lady of great standing being so young during the 1540s to have her portrait painted by Holbein leaves Katheryn as a strong candidate. But there are others.

Enter the second Howard.

Mary Howard

Mary Howard, Duchess of Richmond, is another historical figure whom I dote on (I have a thing for the Howard family okay!). She was the sister to Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey, and therefore is another candidate for this elusive portrait.

Similarly to her brother, the duchess does already have a portrait by Holbein; she was sketched in a front facing position and albeit slightly faded, we still have her likeness.

She bears a decent resemblance to the portrait in question, and could very well be the sitter. In Holbein’s sketch, he has sketched the beginnings of her auburn hair. She has the straight, short Howard nose, and lidded eyes similar to those of her father. Her lips look less full compared to the MET portrait, but it must be noted that the sketch of her has faded. There is no known painting that survives from this sketch, unfortunately, and no other known portraits of the duchess.

Her likeness to the portrait and her standing as the king’s daughter-in-law leaves her as a very distinctive candidate for this portrait. However, there is one major issue. Her age.

Taking this portrait to be painted at the earliest 1539 due to the sitter’s dress, we would have to rule out Mary as a potential candidate. While we don’t know Mary’s exact birth date, her birth year is usually cited to be 1519. She married Henry VIII’s illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy* in 1533, with the latter dying in 1536 at the age of 17.

*Amber’s note: I also apologise for all the Henrys, too. Another coffee?

If Mary was born in 1519, she would have had to have been 17 in 1536, which is 3-4 years out of our proposed date of the earliest execution of the portrait. Even if she was born sometime in 1520 or 1521, she would still not be 17 at the time the portrait was painted, which sort of leaves her out of the running, unfortunately. Sorry Mary.

Mary would be a fantastic candidate for this portrait, and I’d like to think she still is. We still have nothing definitive.

But let’s connect this back to the Howards nonetheless.

The Brooch

Adorning the bodice is a brooch in a gold frame with fleur-de-lis. There are two figures within the portrait; one side profile and the other facing three quarters.

Who are these mysterious figures? Are they biblical? Are they part of mythology? Are they portraits of real people? We’ve entered a kind of unknown portrait paradox.

Kevin Lester in his paper titled The Holbein portrait with the movie star pout - Queen Katherine Howard? makes the interesting proposal that the brooch is in fact a depiction of the Dauphin François and his brother Henri, Duc d’Orléans, the sons of François I. Both François and Henri were particularly close with Henry Howard and Henry Fitzroy, and the gift may have been presented to Henry VIII in 1526. If this is the case, it links the brooch to the Howard family, whether that is Mary, Henry, or even Katheryn.

If Henry VIII had this in this possession, he may have gifted it to his illegitimate son where it may have subsequently fallen into the hands of Mary Howard after his death, or may have been a gift from Henry Fitzroy to someone close to him. Henry VIII may have even gifted it to his rising teenage to-be-bride to show the links to royalty her family has after acquiring the brooch after his illegitimate son’s passing.

While Katheryn did own a cameo brooch of some sort, and many brooches which depicted mythological and biblical scenes, there’s still no description of this brooch which specifically links this to her. The same goes for Mary, too.

If Kevin Lester is right in his proposed theory, it does leave a good link to the Howard family.

Romulus and Remus and Castor and Pollux have also been suggested as some of the identities for these figures. However, this does get us any closer to find the identity of the young woman herself. So these figures too, will remain elusive.

I don’t think we came any closer to finding out this young woman’s lost identity. I mentioned the Howards a lot, however there are other candidates for her, some of which can absolutely be ruled out. But for the others, we don’t know enough about them to truly say “that’s not her” or “that’s her!”.

The portrait has not been on display since 1943. A lady who may have once been riding high within the world of 16th century England sits in storage in New York, her identity and face completely lost to time.

Looking at portraits from an era that only really exists to us on a page within a history book is so sobering. These were real people. A moment in time captured within a portrait. She went through many trials and tribulations, so many emotions and experiences during her life. Just like me. And how weird now, that she is nothing. Even her portrait has been altered in her afterlife.

I hope her face can be returned to her, and a name can give her life once again.

For years I have been desperate to look like someone else. Like other women. I always feel like there is something wrong with me, but what it is, I’m not sure.

I changed my routine recently, so I have been waking up for the gym at 5am, Monday to Friday, for the past two months. I rise at the sounds of my alarm, put on my clothes, traipse down the stairs still somewhat half asleep, and make my way to the gym.

I leave the gym hungry.

I have the physical sensation for hunger before getting ready for work; subsequently only starting to eat my breakfast at around 10:30am-11:00am. I am too scared to eat. Too scared to “ruin” that look before food enters my stomach. Therefore, I also have a hunger to be an ideal version of myself I have created in my head. I have a hunger to be those women I have saved on my Pinterest board. I have a hunger to be someone else.

My hunger grows more, both physically and in a desperation. But they clash against each other, while making each other greater. My physical hunger grows from the desire to not eat so much so I can look like those women (well, that’s what I perceive the strategy is - but please note it usually is not the case!). Therefore, my hunger for this desire grows from my attempts, though I have never actually achieved it.

When I was about fifteen, I started doing those home work outs that claim to slim your thighs down in a week. The video in question is someone with my dream body doing uncontrolled and random movements which, to my fifteen year old self, was enough hope to attempt them. I would wake up on the seventh day and observe myself.

They didn’t work.

This hunger for the “ideal” body would grow everyday. It became more vocal. And rather than starving this voice of its pervasive thoughts, I starved myself. I was trapped in a glass box where the only person who was jeering at me like a circus animal was myself. I was the puppeteer and the puppet. I was the hunter and the prey. I was utterly at war with myself.

I hadn’t even achieved what I wanted to achieve. I didn’t have my dream body or appearance. In fact, what I had been nursing since I was a child had grown into some other being that weighed more on my bones than my skin, fat, and muscle ever could. It consumed me. It had more of a body than I. More thoughts than I. It was more vocal than I.

I was too exhausted to kill it.

It took more than a push and a shove by very concerned parents, but the being once nursed was eventually starved itself; the glass box broken. However, fragments of the glass made its way into my blood stream, and I have this shiny, quiet, but yet very loud, voice that mutters things in my ear, making me unsure of my decision to attempt take my life back.

I still get anxious and overwhelmed. Overwhelmed by the amount of “advice” there is on what to eat, what not to eat; explanations on why you are so bloated. Then it’s when to eat, what to drink, this is what’s messing up your hormones!

I get anxious by my food intake. Am I eating too much? Am I consuming too much sugar? Too many carbs? Will this make me bloated? Why am I so bloated? Is there something wrong with me?

I get frustrated. I observe myself in my mirror. I feel the prickling of the glass in my tears. There is nothing I can do, and there is no current resolution to the glass in my tears, or the quieter voice that clings to me, hoping to once again be fed with my own skin and soul. Despite the quiet jeering, my skin and my soul are mine, now. I have reclaimed them.

I think, to shrink yourself in such a way for acceptance and love comes from a place of misunderstanding. To be present with yourself and loved by others comes from a place of wholeness, not emptiness. You do not need to be incomplete to be whole. You do not need someone to solve you. Or save you.

My eating disorder seemed to come from multiple different factors. Perfectionism, social media, school, comparison, lack of romantic love, grief… it was a snowball effect, or more so an avalanche. It was control when life was uncontrollable. It was a punishment disguised as a reward. I was putting in “work” I felt had a purpose when, all I was doing, was shrinking my life.

Despite almost crying in the shower this morning and placing my arm over my stomach because I felt I looked bloated, I laughed. A lot. I didn’t almost pass out while walking up the stairs. I appreciated the sun. I didn’t hate everyone and everything around me. I sang in my car. I looked for the moon and the stars. I said “see you tomorrow!”

I know there will be a tomorrow; and rather than letting the glass in my tears choke me into submission, I let them trickle down my cheeks and soak into the floor.

I will never let myself be empty again.

** A note from me:

These are just personal thoughts and expressions from my own experiences. Everyone’s experiences are different. If you, in any way, feel you struggle with your body, eating, and are consumed by thoughts which you feel are not your own, please seek someone to talk to. Shrinking your life is not worth it.

UK Beat Eating Disorders: 0808 801 0677

Text SHOUT to 85258

May you live your life beaming from ear to ear, with enough energy to dance to your favourite songs and use your lung capacity to belt your favourite songs. May you see life as an experience rather than a gap to fit into. May we all be whole again without needing to be empty first. **

Subscribe now

I was slightly apprehensive about this Valentine’s Day. I don’t have anyone. Well, I do, but not romantically. Therefore, the prospect of me waking up to a fresh bouquet of flowers and messages of love and devotion on the morning of the fourteenth were very much zero.

However, one thing I have learnt after my twenty-two years, and counting, of being on this earth, is that the only constant thing in your life is yourself.

So, I took myself to London.

People seem to wince whenever I say I am going anywhere, especially London, by myself. In fact, I’m met with “why would you do that to yourself?” Maybe it’s the daunting idea of being something so small amongst something so vast, and completely alone. Maybe you’ll come out lonelier than you entered.

For me, though, this is the ultimate act of peace and solitude, the ultimate act of love that I could feel on Valentine’s day without various love-heart ephemera gifted to me by someone else. There is something about being alone in a large, busy city, surrounded by people whom I do not know and do not know me, that gives me an intense sense of tranquility. I don’t have to be anyone. What a privilege it is to be an insignificance!

I hopped off the tube and found myself in front of the great, slightly intimidating, Tower of London. The one-thousand year old fortress has seen a lot. A lot of love, a lot of death, a lot of passion and loneliness, triumphs and strife. What a place to be to hear the walls talk.

I laid flowers on a memorial for a woman who died 484 years ago to the executioner’s axe. I wonder if she was shocked to see that people visit her and leave her flowers around her execution anniversary. This is love, I thought. I sat there, in the sun, watching the families crowd around the squirrels and pigeons who were snacking on the crumbs of my Valentine’s Day cookie I had accidentally dropped. This is love, I thought. I watched people sip on their warm beverages due to the chilly air, including myself, demonstrated by the lipstick stain on the lid of my cup. This is love, I thought.

I got to a point in my life where I was tired of waiting for someone. Someone to share little piece of my soul with, or take them to where pieces of my soul reside. I still have my moments, of course; I would like to have someone, but until that day I do, I am happy for me to wander aimlessly in my own company. In fact, I think my soul needs it, with or without someone.

I departed the Tower with the sun still beaming, and made my way to a new gallery I had not yet explored. I sauntered from room to room in the Courtauld Gallery, taking time to ponder every paint stroke the artist’s hand performed during this one moment captured in time.

Even though I was utterly alone while couples stood around me, arm-in-arm, hand-in-hand; I felt so loved standing in front of a self-portrait of Van Gogh and his bandaged ear. I knew what I needed on this day; where to go, what to look at, what to drink, what to eat. I appreciated my being. My solitude. The love I held and felt, even when there may be a perceived absence.

I am forever excited to meet a kindred soul to wander the earth with. To let them know me like I know myself. But,

I will forever be my own greatest lover.

‘Her execution was expected this week, for last night she was brought from the Syon to the Tower, but as she weeps, cries, and torments herself miserably, without ceasing, it is deferred for three or four days, to give her leisure to recover, and “penser au faict de sa conscience.”’

-Charles de Marillac

It was February 13th 1542, and Katheryn Howard had been held within the Tower walls for just short of 3 full days. She had been imprisoned within Syon Abbey beforehand, since the 11th November 1541.

Katheryn is a figure whom, whenever her execution date is mentioned, is treated somewhat like a criminal compared to those like Anne Boleyn and Lady Jane Grey. Due to the complicated circumstances of Katheryn’s downfall, historians through the ages have simplified it for the masses. She was guilty of adultery. She deserved to die.

To simplify her case in this way is an injustice to the 19 year old who climbed the scaffold to her death and addressed a crowd of people who were there to feast on yet another display of Henry VIII’s ever increasing intensity of violence and cruelty.

In fact, contrary to popular belief, Katheryn was not executed for adultery.

She was convicted for concealing her past marital affairs before her marriage to the king (which, for context, was not even a law nor punishable when she married him. It only became a law one week before her execution date. That’s right, they had only just enacted this law so there was sufficient grounds to actually execute her).

But what about Culpeper?

Thomas Culpeper was executed in December 1541, and was the gentleman whom was accused of having an affair with the Queen. If they had not committed adultery, how was he executed?

During the investigation, Culpeper was interrogated.

He had confessed he 'intended and meant to do ill with the Queen and that likewise the Queen was so minded with him'. However, both he and Katheryn, ‘til their final breaths, were adamant that no adultery took place. The only physical contact between them was a kiss on the hand.

Even if there was not enough evidence to constitute treason for adultery, Culpeper’s admission that ‘he intended to do ill with the Queen’ was enough to constitute treason. Thinking, (or even perceived thinking in Katheryn’s case, as she never admitted any intent herself) was enough to get you killed in Henry VIII’s reign.

Historian Gareth Russell states:

‘…there’s this false assumption that what she did was treason. One of the most fascinating things I found out during research was the House of Lords and Parliament tried to stop the case against her because they were convinced that what she had done was not sufficient to constitute treason. […] That’s another thing I try to stress in the book, at every turn it’s his [Henry’s] hand pushing this case on, he wants revenge for her ‘humiliating’ him. It’s a wretched thing.’

And we return to the image of a 19 year old in front of a crowd, confessing ‘in few words that she had merited a hundred deaths for so offending the King who had so graciously treated her.’

I Die a Queen:

Along with the many inaccurate narratives around Katheryn’s execution, Katheryn proclaiming that she ‘dies a queen, but would rather die the wife of Culpeper’ is probably the most popular, and absurdly incorrect.

Due to Katheryn making no admission of any adultery taking place between herself and Culpeper, why would she make this proclamation in front of a crowd of people? And why is our only source for this nonsense written many years after her death?

If this was said, it would have been reported by ambassadors all over Europe. How scandalous that Queen Katheryn could make the king a cuckold in life and death!

But it was not. Charles de Marillac, French diplomat and ambassador, reported this of Katheryn’s death:

‘After writing the above, was informed that to-day, Monday, 13th inst., the condemned ladies should be executed; and, indeed, about nine o'clock in the morning, this Queen first, and afterwards the lady of Rochefort, within the Tower, had their heads cut off with an axe, after the manner of the country. The Queen was so weak that she could hardly speak, but confessed in few words that she had merited a hundred deaths for so offending the King who had so graciously treated her. The lady of Rochefort said as much in a long discourse of several faults which she had committed in her life.’

And Ottwell Johnson, a London-based merchant who actually witnessed the executions wrote:

‘I saw the Queen and the Lady Rochford suffer within the Tower, the day following, whose souls (I doubt not) be with God, for they made the most godly and Christians’ ends, that ever was heard of (I think) since the world’s creation; uttering their lively faith in the blood of Christ only, and with goodly words and steadfast countenances.’

There is no protestation of love mentioned. No mention of Culpeper. No mention of adultery. Just a young woman protesting she deserved death for offending the king, because let’s be honest, all she actually did was offend him and his ego.

After her speech, she gave the executioner his fee and alms for the poor. Katheryn’s hood was removed and her hair was tied up under a white linen coif, leaving her neck bare. Katheryn took her last look upon the world, and was then blindfolded.

By Way of Experiment:

The night before, knowing she was to die the next morning, she had made the request to ‘practice’ with the block she would lay her head upon, ‘by way of experiment’. She did this over and over again.

Katheryn was incredibly well versed in the rigorous etiquette of the Tudor era. She was somewhat of a perfectionist, and was always commended for her politeness and her perfect behaviour in public. Some of this practice may have also been influenced by the botched executions of both Thomas Cromwell (which actually occurred on her wedding day in July 1540) and Lady Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury.

For Katheryn, this was an opportunity to ‘perfect’ the act of placing her head on the block to reduce the the event of a botched execution. Katheryn aimed to gain control in a situation that had no control; and just like the rest of her reign, to make no mistake in public.

Just as she had practiced, she knelt and placed her head on the block. Her last few moments spent with bated, shallow breath, waiting for the moment the axe would fall.

With one rise and fall, one stroke, the life of Katheryn Howard ceased. She left with dignity and control in a situation where control was out of her grasp.

Her body was momentarily moved to the side while one of her ladies, Jane Rochford, was to suffer the same fate. She too was executed with one stroke of the axe.

They were both buried in the nearby chapel, the chapel of St-Peter-Ad-Vincula within the Tower walls, and the canons fired out of London. The final performance was over.

Today, there is a memorial plaque for Katheryn and her rough burial placement within the chapel. Her legacy is one usually dis-regarded, of little importance. Her person mutilated by inaccuracies and cruel assessments, even regarded as a prostitute by one popular historian, and an ‘airheaded wanton’ by another.

But to me, what a wonderful woman she was.

“I think Katheryn, the woman, is snuffed out, I think by sympathisers and by detractors. And to try to create an impression of a fully rounded human who was existing and trying, I think, trying her best in a lethal situation. It was a glittering but horrible environment.” - Gareth Russell

I find it interesting the way people approach Katheryn and her story. I think we find ourselves caught up in stereotypes and pre-written narratives too easily. This is an understandable thing to do; it’s easy. It’s easy to understand stereotypes, it’s easy to like stereotypes, it’s easy to hate stereotypes. However, what this has done has put Katheryn Howard into a very limited, one-dimensional box.

Stereotypes are not just omitted from one side of the love and hate spectrum. Yes, the biggest stereotype for Katheryn is that she’s an air-headed wanton; reckless and stupid, which is an incredibly cruel and inaccurate assessment of her. This is not the only stereotype, however. This other one comes from a place which aims to be more of a positive reassessment of Katheryn’s life, and while I think the reassessment is important, it has ended up in a place which has also become one-dimensional.

It has given Katheryn a victim status, which isn’t necessarily the issue because, let’s be honest, a large majority of women in history are victims; this is not all they are, though, and the same applies to Katheryn. However, for some reason, she seems to be left behind when discussing the person she is outside of what happened to her.

I think there has been a huge miss in terms of Katheryn’s reassessment because even through looking at her circumstances and character in a more positive way, we are still stuck in looking at her in relation to men. There’s no well-rounded conclusion or consideration of the type of person she may have been or was, it’s always in relation to her male counterparts.

It is hard though, the only surviving contemporary evidence of Katheryn – in her own hand – is her letter to Thomas Culpeper, which is usually perceived as a love letter and is in relation to the man she is said to have had an affair with. Therefore, it is understandable that a lot of Katheryn’s identity has revolved around men as it seems to be, on the surface, all we have of her.

However, after reading extensively about Katheryn, notably Young & Damned & Fair by Gareth Russell and the books written by Conor Byrne and Josephine Wilkinson which have all undertaken substantial research on her, her circumstances, and character; I feel I have had enough information to gage at least a general idea of Katheryn’s personality and character. Where Katheryn has been overshadowed for many years and there’s already a perceived notion of her which is easy to accept, there is no desire to read more on her. Who would want to read about an insignificant figure who’s narrative has already been written and known? To gain more of an accurate image of her, I implore you to.

But even then, her activities which relate to just her are still mis-interpreted by others. Take her love of fashion and clothes for example. While Katheryn was one of Henry’s wives who had some of the most apparel and jewels, this is interpreted as frivolity and reckless spending. However, Kateryn Parr, Henry’s sixth wife, had the same, if not a greater, recorded love for fashion than Katheryn. This, however, due to the outward evidence of Parr’s intelligence and the abundance of recorded evidence for her character, is seen in a more positive way. Katheryn’s lack of recorded existence and the circumstances of her downfall in a male dominated society may taint this.

Fashion in the 16th century was important. Each of Henry’s wives used it in a different way, and even the lack of ‘fashionable’ attire – sometimes used to describe the ‘outdated’ English fashion that Katherine of Aragon used towards the end of her life (such as the gable hood) – was used for a reason. Katheryn’s fashion choices and the expenditure bequeathed to her for this purpose was to present herself physically as the ideal consort. This was also paired with her general interest and love for fashion, similar to Kateryn Parr.

I think one of the things we’ve got wrong here for Katheryn is that we’ve stereotyped it along with her relation to men. She’s now frivolous. She’s airheaded and can only focus on fashion and her appearance rather than her position as queen. But in fact, through her love for fashion, she was stepping into the role of an ideal consort. Historians and people alike have stereotyped this trait of her, again. And for what reason? Maybe it’s convenience. Maybe it’s just general assumption. Maybe we relate her to the stereotypes of a modern teenage girl, which in itself is a controversial thing to do because how are we to stereotype someone from the 16th century, in a world with completely different standards and society, to a stereotype from the modern day? And this is only one example, mind you.

I am not claiming that Katheryn was an intellect like Kateryn Parr. I am not claiming that Katheryn produced her own books, or wrote her own music, or was a genius of her time. I am simply saying that Katheryn was a human being, but is never interpreted as one. She is one or the other. She is the slaughtered lamb or the treacherous whore.

The real Katheryn had immaculate charm and etiquette, etiquette which was hard to perfect in the 16th century, and at times quite rigorous. She had natural intelligence and drive for perfection. She could have a temper, but couldn’t hold a grudge. She tried her best to step into the role of queen consort, evidenced by letters written by herself to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer which unfortunately no longer survive. She could have been a patron of Holbein’s, and she may have had a say in designing her own jewellery. She was friendly and enjoyed company, but may have had a touch of introversion. She could be rude, bossy, and commanding, but she also had great kindness, generosity, and politeness. She made mistakes, but was also point perfect in difficult situations. She was a complex human being, as are we all.

I also oftentimes wonder, is there an element of infantilisation imposed on her? Are her achievements and personality not acknowledged because of this infantilisation that creates a helpless victim, and only a victim? She’s only a passive element in a wider story when, separating her from this, is so much more.

If we take Katheryn’s birth year to be 1522/23, it places her at around 19 years old when she was executed in 1542. However, I tend to see people wanting for her to be younger. They want her to fit the mould of a young, exploited child because that’s the only way now people can feel any sense of sympathy for her. Society and historians have transitioned from the idea that she was a juvenile delinquent to now feeling sorry for her because she was an abused child, but only has she now gained sympathy because she fits this criteria.

The Victorians believed that Katheryn was older, in her 20s, when she was executed. This, paired with their ideologies, didn’t gather much sympathy for her. Now, our attitudes have shifted, and so have the beliefs on Katheryn’s age. Sympathy has come when people now believe Katheryn was 17 years old when she was executed, and 15 when she married the 50-year-old king. I don’t think the issue here is necessarily saying ‘poor child’, or ‘she was just a child’. I think it’s more: does Katheryn only gain any sense of sympathy when she fits a certain criteria, like her age? Is it only okay to feel sympathy for her because people believe she was 17 when she was executed? What if she was in her early twenties, would people still feel the same? Or would she be lumped back in with the perceptions of the Victorians?

There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground to stand on with Katheryn and who she was, it always seems to be one or the other, and at times a cautionary tale. As we have transcended into a reassessment of Katheryn’s life, I think we still need to bear in mind that, albeit with good intentions, we need to be wary as to whether we are still imposing these restrictions on her which make her into a one dimensional character. Let her be complex.