Shadow of Persephone

by G Lawrence

  I am older now, but still I feel the child inside, afraid, fearful, growing empty as what was hers was stripped from her by the hands of men who hunted her, prey in the dim light of dawn. I was never a fighter, never a queen as my cousin was. Never in control, never aware. Heedless and reckless did I live my life, never planning, merely shifting from one state of chaos to another.

  That was the dance, the music my feet moved to, this reckless, lost humming of the world that took me and spun me, throwing me upon a wheel and off again. Nothing is permanent. All is change. All is chaos, and those who say otherwise fool themselves, hiding under a blanket of soft dreams and hopes, hiding from fear.

  About the block, I clasp hands. It will hold me steady, this last, fell instrument of fate. It is all I have left to cling to; death. And to death I offer myself, a sacrifice. From me will come change, a spring for England, as the King takes another woman to wife. It was so when he wed me, a spring born from a winter of confusion and treason. It will be so at the close of my life. That way, some good will I have done.

  Shadows stretch, tumbling over me, taking me as their own, as I always was.

  I am shadow. I am shade. An insubstantial soul floating upon the world. It was not the shadow of my past following me, but that of my future. And I, too blind to see it, thought to outrun it in dancing, in marrying, in loving. But I could not.

  It is here and it is me.

  The shadow reaches out. I welcome it. I fear not its darkness now, for that is where I belong. Like calls to like.

  It opens its mouth, and I am swallowed.

  Here ends Shadow of Persephone,

  Book One of the Story of Catherine Howard.

  In Book Two, No More Time to Dance, Catherine becomes Queen of England, beloved of the King, yet is unable to escape the shadow of her past, or the feelings of her heart.

  Author’s Notes

  I would like to say here, at the start of my notes, that some of what follows involves events that are to occur in the second, and last, book of this series. If you do not know about the life of Catherine Howard, and do not want the second book’s events given away, don’t read on (spoiler alert, as some say). I will replicate these notes at the end of the second book so you will not miss anything if you wish to read my thoughts on Catherine Howard later, but it is hard to discuss events in Catherine’s early life without using some of what happened in her later life.

  I would also like to say this book is historical fiction. I try to stick to known events, and include exact quotes from historical records where possible, but interpretations of events, of Catherine’s character and on the much debated events of her early life, are mine.

  Catherine Howard’s birth date is recorded nowhere and possible dates range from 1518 to 1527. This means at the time of her death she was anywhere from fifteen to twenty-four years old. This may seem strange, but even with some of the most famous of historical figures, such as Anne Boleyn, we are left without a record of the year and date of their birth. Birthdays were not considered markedly important in the Tudor age. There do tend to be more records present for boys, especially if they were the heirs of the house, but girls were considered of lesser importance, even in noble households, and their births often sped by with small note.

  I chose a date in between, and one that makes sense to me, as Catherine was described as “a very young girl” when she came to court. She could not have been younger than thirteen when she became a maid of honour (thirteen being the youngest age a maid of honour could be), and although opinions differ amongst historians, 1523-4 seems the most likely period to place her birth. I also have Catherine appearing younger than she is. I thought if Catherine looked younger than she was, this might explain why people described her as “very young”. The other possibility is that she really was very young, thirteen when she came to court, fourteen when the King married her.

  The idea she looked young is my invention. There are no authenticated portraits of Catherine. We have a few that may be her, but the only contemporary identification of her likeness is a stained glass window, and obviously there she is not portrayed with the realism a genius such as Holbein might have produced. It is possible portraits of her were destroyed after her death, in the same way Anne Boleyn’s were, by Henry. We are left with one miniature of a woman by Holbein, and another portrait of a seventeen year old courtier who may be Catherine. One of the portraits long thought to be Catherine, of a woman in black, is now thought to be Elizabeth Seymour or Frances Brandon. There is certainly no reason for Catherine to have been dressed in mourning, as this woman is, during the time of her marriage.

  Catherine Howard remains an enigma, and not just in looks. Her story has been taken up in TV shows and films, and she is often depicted as a wild woman. Some, feeling kinder, see her as a victim of abuse, later sold into marriage by her family as they followed a well-worn path of ambition they had used before with her cousin Anne Boleyn. But the general, and I believe erroneous, view is to see her as the Tudor ‘good-time’ girl; a foolish, reckless hedonist who took a score of lovers before she married Henry. I see her in a different light. And I see a rather different girl.

  Catherine is supposed to have been stupid, vapid, and flighty. I think Catherine was actually more intelligent than many suppose. When married to Henry, she portrayed herself as a mixture of Anne Boleyn on the outside, Jane Seymour in character and Katherine of Aragon in public. This means she was not unaware of the perils of her position. Some historians claim she had no idea of the danger of her position as Henry’s wife, something I think ridiculous given that she was wife number five and his reputation in England and Europe was infamous. She also put all her energy into pleasing the King, suggesting she was well aware of what she had to do to survive. This suggests someone of intelligence, who knew how to play a part. People suppose Catherine to be stupid because she was not bookish, like Anne Boleyn, but there are many forms of intelligence. Just because someone is not well educated does not mean they are stupid. Catherine was actually better educated than many of her peers, and could read and write, unlike Jane Seymour and Anne Basset, who may only have known how to read. Just as we know little about the character of Jane Seymour, but many people now believe she was more intelligent than she let on, so I think we judge Catherine Howard on the manner of her death and the discovery of her ‘crimes’ rather than on her career as Queen and before.

  Her downfall was, I believe, the recklessness of youth; meeting Culpepper when Queen. Although much of this will be dealt with in the next book, I would like to point out here that Catherine was sent to death for the idea she had intended to commit adultery. Her accusers could not find enough evidence to prove she had committed adultery. Dereham and Culpepper were also executed for intent to commit adultery. Catherine was also condemned by a law Henry VIII created after her arrest, stating it was illegal for a woman to marry the King without divulging if she had had relationships prior to marriage. This was not law when Catherine married the King. Henry VIII was known for making up laws that would allow him to execute people he wanted rid of; he did the same with Thomas Howard, Catherine’s uncle, when he dared to fall in love with Margaret Douglas, and with Jane Boleyn. Henry VIII made up a law so he could execute Jane even though she was possibly insane at the time of her execution.

  When accusations of adultery, which I believe were also false, came up against Anne Boleyn, she was accused of actual adultery. That Catherine was executed for intent shows how careful Catherine was when she secretly met Culpepper on the northern progress. This demonstrates intelligence, and full awareness of her situation.

  Catherine, in her meetings with Culpepper, insisted that a chaperone, Jane Boleyn, was always present. This demonstrates a presence of mind that many fail to note. Catherine was aware of the danger, but was mitigating it, rather a mature notion from someone supposed to be silly, reckless and foolish. Unfortunately for Catherine, innocence was not going to help her.

  I often think it odd that whil
st most people now see Anne Boleyn’s death as unjust and the accusations of treason and adultery brought against her as false, seeing her fall as a play of politics by Cromwell, we do not offer the same level of doubt to the charges against Catherine Howard. Most historical fictions about her show Catherine as indulging in adultery, when she was only accused of intent. Most historical fictions of Anne Boleyn show her as innocent when she was charged with adultery. It is interesting to note this and I think it has a great deal more to do with Catherine’s early life, and the supposition that because she had relationships, consensual or otherwise, before marriage, that she must have committed adultery. Yet her accusers at the time could find no evidence she had. It is interesting therefore that we view her in such a light. Perhaps it says more about our prejudices towards women than we think. Women who have multiple partners are still shamed for it. Men do not suffer the same censure; it is often seen as a fine thing for a man to have had a lot of partners. Personally, I don’t think anyone should be shamed for their sexual choices, as long as everything is consensual. But I think our treatment of the memory of Catherine Howard has a great deal to do with these prejudices. Catherine Howard is a woman who suffers from historical “slut-shaming”. It is about time that ended.

  And I should point out Catherine Howard had one sexual partner before marriage. One. That makes her remarkably chaste by the standards of Tudor times, and our times.

  Catherine’s fall was just as political as Anne’s. Catherine was set at the head of the conservative party, and was a banner for the old ways. Her fall was due to John Lascelles, a reformer who had every reason to seek revenge on Norfolk, using Catherine as a tool to bring the Duke down. Norfolk, naturally, escaped. Catherine was sacrificed.

  The discovery of her past was unfortunate, but not really Catherine’s fault. She and her family did all they could to mitigate the danger presented by people who knew about her past; her friends were offered places in her royal household. People say she was foolish to bring old friends and servants into her household as Queen, but actually it was a way of reducing the peril. If they were tied to her, beholden to her for position and favour, they were less likely to talk about her past. They had every reason to keep her as Queen, as the rewards would be greater. David Starkey also points out it was a tradition of the nobility to reward retainers. Catherine was in fact doing her duty to her friends.

  One person talked, and it should be noted that person was not one of the people Catherine brought to court, but one left behind, Mary Lascelles, so Catherine’s plan to keep her friends quiet was actually working. Mary talked to her brother John Lascelles, a man who wanted to bring back reform and gain revenge for the death of his master, Cromwell. In that sense, Catherine was as much a tool of politics as her cousin Anne Boleyn. Had her past not been found out, Catherine might have survived the King, and we might remember her as one of the clever ones, who played a part whilst married to Henry, outlived him and ended up a rich woman, with influence. She was young. Who knows what she might have become?

  Catherine is often presented as empty-headed, but I think this unfair. On the northern progress, to be dealt with in the next book, her public behaviour was impeccable, leading to a public ceremony of acclaim in her honour. She demonstrated she was capable of mercy by interceding for prisoners and poor people, and was a good influence on the shattered royal family once her first trials with Lady Mary passed. Catherine also presented herself as politically neutral, something people often claim demonstrates how unintelligent she was; she had no opinions. But what if this was not the act of someone who was empty-headed, but someone who was clever and pragmatic? Queens before her had dabbled in politics, supporting one side of the faith or another, one foreign country or another, and had died for that support. Henry VIII allegedly told Jane Seymour to keep herself out of politics as Anne Boleyn had meddled, and died for it. What if Catherine’s political neutrality and refusal to wade into religion was, in fact, a calculated plan? If she supported no side, she would have fewer enemies. If she did not irritate the King, she was more likely to keep her throne, and her life.

  Catherine was careful about who she tried to help. Some people she did not intervene for as Queen, and others she did. I think she was aware of the dangers of interfering too much and picked her battles carefully. She had to protect herself first, but did what good she could. That, to me, is not the act of someone who is brainless, but someone only too aware of the limitations of their power, and the need to survive, but that someone is also a person with a kind heart.

  Catherine was a good Queen. She attempted to aid prisoners, a poor woman, and brought peace to the royal family. She was kind and generous to her servants. She could be proud, but perhaps that was simple insecurity, and her overbearing attitude appears to have worn off quickly, after the first few months of her marriage. She is criticised for not being as charitable as former Queens, but if she was not known for donating large sums to charity, perhaps it was because she did not get a chance. She was, after all, only Queen for eighteen months. Catherine is often criticised for the King giving her presents, which I find odd, since that was his choice, not hers, and for spending huge sums on clothing. Actually, when her accounts are compared to those of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard’s are not extravagant.

  And as for her past. Much of what I have written in this book is based on fact from the confessions in the Tower after the arrests of Manox, Dereham, Culpepper and Catherine, but the interpretation of the events is mine. People look at her behaviour with Culpepper later in life, and suppose that because she met with him in private that she must have been the instigator of her past affairs, was therefore in control of them, and this was therefore not abuse.

  This is, in my opinion, to look at Catherine’s story the wrong way around, something which is easy to do when reading history. I see the events of her youth influencing the behaviour of her adulthood. I think her character was formed, a certain recklessness in her created, by two older men preying on her as a child. I see Catherine as a victim and survivor of childhood abuse.

  Many people who have not come into direct contact with survivors of abuse suppose that childhood abuse brings about the formation of one type of character, someone who is timid, hesitant and not confident when it comes to sex. In my experience, the opposite is often just as true. Sometimes people who have been abused are bolder, more decisive, and more confident. We all find ways to protect ourselves from the sufferings of life. Some do this by coming out fighting. It is strange, because we generally accept that physical abuse can lead people to become more assertive or even aggressive, yet we have problems applying this to sexual or psychological abuse. I don’t know why. But these effects can become character traits in survivors of childhood abuse (again, not every survivor is the same). Sometimes survivors become more assertive, more determined to do things their way, and even aggressive at times, because of the way they were treated as children. They were subdued once; it will not happen again. That Catherine should have become outgoing, flirtatious and possible overtly sexual in later life should therefore not come as a surprise.

  Depending on her date of birth, Catherine might have been as young as nine or ten years old when Manox ‘seduced’ her. I put this encounter in 1536, the year so much changed for her, and in this book she is twelve when this event occurs. Some will argue that a girl could be legally married in the Tudor era at twelve, and so she was no innocent child. What an argument! We accept now that child marriage is immoral and dangerous, so why can we not look at the past and say child marriage or an affair at that age was wrong then? The body of a Tudor child was no more developed than a child of our era, and no matter what schooling they had, they were no more prepared mentally. I find it odd that we are quite capable of looking back into the past and say hanging, drawing and quartering was cruel and disgusting, but we hesitate to condemn child marriage or relationships. Perhaps it is easier to think of our ancestors being murderers or torturers than to think of them as ch
ild abusers. And just because something was or is socially acceptable does not make it right.

  And just how much choice did that young girl have when Manox decided to start touching her? Some historians say Catherine encouraged him, like a Tudor Lolita, but even if flattered by Manox’s attentions, at that age was she prepared for what happened? I doubt it. Children were children in the Tudor era just as they are now. He was twice her age, at least, so the responsibility for his actions fall on him. I personally think Catherine was groomed by an older man, and I think this had an effect on her for life. That people seek to say Catherine was the instigator of this ‘relationship’ is another example, to my mind, of our unwillingness to look at the past and recognise abuse in it.

  We know abuse happened, and we know that then, as now, women were blamed for it. Princess Elizabeth was hunted by Thomas Seymour when she was thirteen years old. Whilst Elizabeth herself was blamed for this increasingly fraught series of attacks on her at the time, now most people see it as child abuse. Elizabeth was beyond the age of consent, but now we see her as the victim rather than the instigator. I wonder why we do not extend the same system of belief to Catherine. Perhaps because Elizabeth is known to have been an intelligent woman we offer her the benefit of belief, and because Catherine is often seen as flighty, we hold her accountable. But I think we should not suppose Catherine could not be a victim of abuse simply because she was of a different character to Elizabeth. Intelligence does not make one person a victim and lack of education does not make another an instigator. Abuse happens in all walks of life, to all kinds of people.