Katherine Howard: A New History

by Conor Byrne

In this new full-length biography of Katherine Howard, Henry VIII's fifth wife, Conor Byrne reconsiders Katherine’s brief reign and the circumstances of her life, striping away the complex layers of myths and misconceptions to reveal a credible portrait of this tragic queen.

By reinterpreting her life in the context of cultural customs and expectations surrounding sexuality, fertility and family honour, Byrne exposes the limitations of conceptualising Katherine as either ‘whore’ or ‘victim’. His more rounded view of the circumstances in which she found herself and the expectations of her society allows the historical Katherine to emerge.

Katherine has long been condemned by historians for being a promiscuous and frivolous consort who partied away her days and revelled in male attention, but Byrne's reassessment conveys the mature and thoughtful ways in which Katherine approached her queenship. It was a tragedy that her life was controlled by predators seeking to advance themselves at her expense, whatever the cost.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Tudor Period, Biography, Royalty, British Literature, Historical

266 pages, Paperback

First published August 13, 2014

Reviews

[Iset · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conor Byrne’s new history of Katherine Howard, fifth queen of Henry VIII, is certainly an interesting read, with many spark points for debate within, but is something of a mixed bag for me. More positives than negatives, to be sure, but I had a few niggles with it.

The first was with the introduction. It’s perfectly conventional, following to the letter the academic practice of laying out previous works on the subject, before going on to propose what the author intends to do in his or her examination of the topic and the approach he or she intends to take that makes the work new or different and thus a recognised contribution to the field. This may be hypocritical of me, as a historian myself, but I had a difference of opinion with the writing style, shall we say. Byrne’s style in this work feels like it adheres impeccably to conventional, established models of academic publications, perhaps in an effort to ensure the work is taken seriously by its peers. Or in other words - I'd prefer it was more plain-spoken. I realise I'm probably in the minority amongst my colleagues in the field on this one.

Byrne argues that past examinations of Katherine’s life have fundamentally misunderstood it by neglecting to take into account contemporary negative attitudes about women and instead taking at face value the accusations against Katherine. Instead, Byrne proposes that the accusations against Katherine in fact prove nothing, or are unreliable because they were extracted under torture, and it is perfectly possible that Katherine was entirely innocent of the charges against her. Byrne also tackles other contentious points such as Katherine’s date of birth, possible surviving portraits, and the nature of her early relationships.

I thought that in each case Byrne argued his interpretation well, although sometimes I didn’t entirely buy into it. For example, Byrne concludes that a particular portrait is of Katherine, whilst two others that have previously been proposed to be of her are in his consideration not. Whilst I found his arguments reasonable, the key thing was that it relied on the fact that Katherine was seventeen years old when it was painted during her tenure as queen. This in turn relies on Byrne’s previous argument that Katherine was born in 1524, not 1521 as is commonly accepted. The crux of Byrne’s argument there is that Katherine was never placed as a maid of honour in her cousin’s household when Anne Boleyn was queen 1533 – 1536, something which her Howard relatives surely would have taken advantage of if she had been old enough. I feel this is quite a reasonable and likely conclusion, and I tend to agree with Byrne that Katherine was likely born in 1524. However, without any definitive proof, it makes me feel uneasy to extrapolate further about the portraits when that itself relies on the hypothesis about the birth year.

Throughout the book, I got a sense of déjà vu that I just couldn’t shake. I believe that’s because I read Joanna Denny’s biography of Katherine years ago. Whilst Denny has been frequently criticised for the errors in her work and her obvious biases, she did make some interesting points about Katherine; specifically, making the case that Katherine was born in the later date of 1524 and describing her early encounters with Henry Manox and Francis Dereham as quite possibly abusive. Byrne’s work, though well-argued, therefore didn’t exactly feel like “a new history” to me. But Byrne is correct in his indictment of many established historians of the period who seem, strangely, to have wholesale accepted the premise of Katherine as a vain, silly girl, without considering the very obviously questionable nature of the supposed evidence brought against her.

The piece is a little on the short side, and I agree with other reviewers that there is a small degree of redundant repetition, but on the other hand it is as immaculately referenced and presented as one would expect from a credible academic publication. It just feels a little staid and unremarkable by adhering to that model so very closely, and truthfully doesn’t add too much new to the field, even though it reminds the reader of some excellent and important points to consider when approaching Katherine’s life and is genuinely cogently put together and argued.

7 out of 10

[Carolina Casas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Katherine wasn't the giddy teenager of popular dramas and countless historical fiction. She was an articulated, albeit not as educated as her two predecessors Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn were, young woman who on her first meeting with Archbishop Thomas Cranmer told him that he should be at ease because she was not his rival, and tried to appease the reformist faction so her own position, and that of her family would be safe. In her younger years she suffered abuse (rape) at the hands of two men who took advantage of the Howard's precarious position shortly after Anne Boleyn's execution and that (possibly) left her unable to have children. This is a sympathetic and factual account of a girl who suffered so much and when she was brought to the pinnacle of power, she did her best to remain there by fulfilling all her queenly duties. While other authors point out a dry account using bias sources, Conor Byrne dissects those sources and the 'evidence' at her trial which was circumstancial at best, and wouldn't hold today in a modern court; to point out her innocence and also that due to her previous experiences, Katherine avoided a sexual relationship to Culpepper, probably to the point that she was averse of scared of sex. This makes perfect sense. Victims of sexual abuse often show an aversion of sex or fear of intimacy and that seemed to be the case of with Katherine Howard who always insisted on having Jane, lady Rochford as her chaperone when Thomas Culpepper insisted on visiting her. I have often read many comments and educated opinions that condemn Katherine while exculpating Anne, but in doing so they are perpetuating the same misogyny. A lot of what is 'known' about Katherine, is taken from the indictments of her trial (which as pointed out, would not hold out in a modern law court) and hostile commentators who had an agenda of their own to blacken the Howard name. Katherine was neither the foolish, lusty girl that 'had it coming to her' as so many love to say, nor was she cruel to her stepdaughter Mary and her friends. She was in fact a proud and well aware of her lineage and tried to bring Henry's family together and after her famous falling out with Mary, both women worked things out and started anew. Mary gave her stepmother expensive gifts and showed herself very affable to her after the new year, just as Katherine Howard who showed her equal favor. Yet, it was her past and the horde of enemies that the Howards had that proved to be her downfall.
Using contemporary sources and exposing the period's complex politics, the author brings to life the real Katherine Howard, a woman who shouldn't be condemn but instead should be given sympathy and seen in a new light. It is a brilliantly done biography and I hope that this will make people rethink their notions about this maligned queen. However, there are a few complaints and these are the way the Seymours are portrayed and name Jane Seymour who is insipid and the king loved Anne so much that even after she lost their son, he could not let her go but was forced to do so because he had to secure his throne and the Seymours conspired against her, and Jane is described as being foolish and a puppet for being less educated than her predecessors and staying in the background, doing so little (when in fact she did a lot, like Katherine Howard she performed all of her court functions with dignity and grace and these were positively commented upon), and Spanish sources should be disregarded unless they prove the author's thesis statement.
While I agree that many of these sources are bias, others can be bias as well and the Howards as much as any family were just as conniving but this doesn't mean that they were less caring, they as the rest were trying to survive in an environment that the author points out, had no mercy and to their misfortune, Katherine found out that too soon.
I don't know how many people have read this biography but I hope that if they have, they recommend this biography to their friends and that this changes people's minds about Katherine.

[Laura · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars.

This was an interesting book, but I had a lot of problems with it.
1) It definitely read like a book written by a university student (which it is). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think it contributed to the bigger issues I had with the book.
2) The book was clearly written by a male writing from a feminist perspective. Also, a lot of the "feminist readings" didn't make a ton of sense from a feminist point of view. (For example, I'm not sure how "Culpeper totally manipulated Katherine into doing things" is a feminist reading, since it gives 100% of the power and intelligence to the man. Treating Katherine as a defenseless victim isn't the best example of feminism.)
3) Going along with point 2, I felt like Byrne took all of Katherine's agency away from her. His opinions on her life essentially consisted of being used and manipulated by all of the men in her life. Maybe that is what happened, but I don't feel that there is enough evidence to prove it either way, so this bothered me. It also made it seem like he only found her to be a sympathetic figure if she didn't cheat on Henry or didn't want to cheat on Henry, but I think it's quite easy to empathize with her if you think she was a teenager who had to marry a sickly, no longer attractive, much older man and who didn't repress her own romantic desires just because she was married to this man she didn't love/probably wasn't attracted to. Treating her as though she is only sympathetic if she was a "victim" is a bit demeaning.
4) The author presented a lot of opinions and conjecture as fact. Nobody really knows what Katherine was like or what her life was like. It's fine to make assumptions, since that's the only way to write a full book about her, but I think it's important to present them clearly as assumptions, rather than presenting them as fact.

I'm not necessarily disappointed that I spent time reading this because it was a quick read and I enjoy reading about Tudor England. I just had a lot of problems with it, and wouldn't necessarily recommend it to people that aren't a) fast readers and b) Tudor history buffs.

[Caroline · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kids these days. An undergraduate interested enough in a fairly specialized topic to go re-evaluate the primary sources? Pretty cool. I think he has an interesting thesis, plausible, and a reasonable proposal based on the logic he puts forward.

Having said that - I wish he'd had outlines, and an editor. He wandered a little, repeated himself a little, made some assertions without backing them up sufficiently, and sometimes seemed to forget where he was going in the middle of a sentence and thus becoming ungrammatical. Also, superfluously unnecessary adverbs... Common failings for inexperienced writers.

I'd like to see him get a little more rigorous in his writing, because as his blog shows he's got wide-ranging interests and a sharp intellect. And I'd like to see someone more senior in the field tackle his premise with an eye to confirming or refuting it from the primary sources - Alison Weir, or someone like her.

I got to read this because I have a month of Kindle Unlimited to play with. Looking forward to more unplanned fun over the next 4 weeks or so.

[Kara · Rating 1 out of 5]

Byrne seems to be trying to look at Katherine Howard’s life both through the lens of the 16th century and the 21st century, with the result being unfocused and unclear.

What is he trying to say here, exactly? He jumps around in theme, subject and timeline, repeats himself, bashes other historians with far too much abandon for someone so untried in the field, makes guesses and then restates them as facts, and overall left me itching to take a red pen to the entire book and start marking everything that desperately needed work.

Byrne’s biggest problem is he’s over thinking it. He’s trying to dig deep for hidden meanings when sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Ingrid Malik-Connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did she or didn't she

The author offered well considered arguments about Katherine's innocence of guilt. He also offered the consideration that Katherine was more victim that perpetrator. Good read

[Kumari de Silva · Rating 1 out of 5]

I didn't dislike this book for the premise, i.e. "let's prove Katherine Howard is someone different that previously supposed." I disliked this book because the author failed to make good on his stated goal.

Regarding "proof" as early as the bottom of page 18 I found an awkward paragraph. Sentence one describes the accepted contemporary customs of the age. From the bottom of the page I quote "The values Katherine could expect to learn and emulate, designed specifically for young females were set out in "How the Good Wife Taught Her Daughter: '(quote from that source....') " no evidence noted that this book is catalogued in the Howard library. No notation regarding a personal copy owned by Katherine. No foot note sourcing the dowager duchess read this to her charges. I'm left with truth-by-declaration from our author when he ends the paragraph by saying someone else's description of Katherine's childhood is "demonstrably incorrect."

okay... I thought, it's only page 18. Maybe he plans on demonstrating later on? Well the problem with most of his proof is that he is mostly attempting to disprove stuff I never believed in the first place. For example, by page 134 he's complaining about the Showtime depiction of Katherine in "The Tudors." Really? Did anyone ever think Showtime entertainment was historically accurate? ouch! I suppose if that's where you get your education then yes (!) This book will be full of surprises and wildly unexpected information about Katherine Howard. But as far as being "New History" for the history buff a disappointing lack of hard evidence.

The book does quote primary sources on occasion however on the whole the book reads as if the author did most of his research by reading other historians. This is lazy research. For myself I prefer to read a primary source in whole for analysis. I find his analysis of the Tudor's actions somewhat anachronistic. It's not reasonable to interpret her actions by our modern beliefs, history exists within a context.

In the chapter regarding the likeness of Katherine Howard Bryne takes on historian David Starkey. Personally I was buying Starkey's evidence for the miniature up until Bryne mentioned the lady in the painting has a strong resemblance to Mary, Lady Monteagle. When I looked on the internet myself I had to concur. This is true. Given this book is so slender, I would that our author had included photos of the alternate suspects rather than include the likenesses of Jane Seymour and Anne Boleyn.


*******SPOILER********




In sum, my opinion of Katherine Howard didn't change a wit because I never bought into the author's assertions. Many other historians have described her as the innocent rather good hearted girl he describes and few (none that I know of - but then I never watched "The Tudors") imagine her to be wily or manipulative. Regarding "new" not much new here beyond the interesting discussion regarding portraiture.

[Jodi · Rating 3 out of 5]

As an educator I support the concept of this interesting title by Conor Byrne, an undergraduate student. Unfortunately, the author appears to have made many leaps in the historical record to reach assumptions that, although thought-provoking on one level--are too provoking on another level. All historical figures deserve to have their histories revisited as new information comes to light, but historians do need to keep away from placing any present-day mores and ethics onto the era under question. To suggest that Katherine Howard’s life involved blackmail, sexual abuse and Machiavellian political manipulation is not necessarily out of the realm of possibilities, but more proof needs to be given to give merit to what is otherwise assumptions.

An interesting premise was the reasoning behind the disputed portraits of Katherine and the author’s projection that the one in possession by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, is indeed one of her. Portraiture is so hard to verify and any theories should be considered.

Perhaps this title would have been better served as an article as the writing became very repetitive (an example is the exact same quote on facing pages) and took on the flavor of a piece needing to reach a certain page limit. Also, the author needed to keep consistent and persistent when discussing the various Earls, Dukes, Thomases, etc. He needed to pick a title and/or name and stick to it especially in paragraphs discussing multiple titled people.

As an aside, almost at the same time that I had finished this book, on November 28, 2015 The Daily Mail published an article with such tantalizing phrases as ‘secret love nest,’ ‘hidden staircase,’ and ‘trysts.’ All to the fact that there is an apartment for sale on the estate, Preston Hall, where some of Katherine Howard’s secret meetings with Thomas Culpeper allegedly took place. While the synchronicity was appreciated, it proved to this blogger how cemented titillating nuggets from history become and the upward battle revisionist historians do have---for that Byrne deserves credit.

[Elena · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was intrigued by the premise of Katherine Howard: A New History, and I'm happy to say it was a really good read.

I liked how it challenged the popular view of Katherine as a giddy, promiscuous and foolish girl, pointing out how there actually isn't much proof of that. I found very convincing his argument that she has been slandered and maligned, and that accusations against her were mostly motivated by contemporary negative attitudes about women. Anne Boleyn is commonly accepted as being innocent of the charges laid against her, but the evidence against Katherine is just as flimsy, even if she is still considered guilty by most people.

What I found less convincing were Byrne's allegations that Katherine's first two relationships were abusive. His thesis is intriguing, and also quite likely, but at the same time there is just not sufficient evidence of this. Similarly, from Katherine's letter to Culpepper Byrne deduces that he was trying to manipulate her and that she was afraid of him. Again, it might be so, but from just one letter it is difficult to accept it for sure. Personally, I think Katherine and Culpepper had romantic feelings for each other, but their relationship remained platonic; but it is true we can't know for sure.

All in all, Katherine Howard: A New History is well worth a read, and I am curious to see more of Byrne's work.

[Lauralee · Rating 2 out of 5]

Katherine Howard was Henry VIII’s teenage bride. Everyone knows that while she was married to Henry VIII, she had an affair with the young, handsome, and attractive Thomas Culpepper. When the truth of the liaison was discovered, the court knew of Catherine’s previous relationships with Henry Mannox and Francis Dereham before she married the king. However, in this biography of Katherine Howard, Connor Byrne states that Katherine was not the promiscuous and frivolous woman that history has portrayed. Instead, he argues that Katherine was sexually abused in the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk’s household.

Mr. Byrne makes many absurd conjectures about Katherine Howard’s life. He claims that Katherine was raped by both Henry Mannox and Francis Dereham. Katherine being raped by both men during her adolescence really suspends belief. While Mr. Byrne tries to make Katherine out to be innocent, I don’t think Katherine was that weak and naive to let her attractive male servants rape her. It is more convincing that it was consensual. The basis of Mr. Byrne’s claim is due to Katherine’s false confession. However, Mr. Russell already explained that Katherine’s confession should not be taken as fact because she was trying to save her life.

Another absurd speculation that Mr. Byrne makes is that the reason why Katherine was sent to the scaffold was because she did not produce an heir. While this makes sense in Anne Boleyn’s case, it does not in Katherine Howard’s case. Henry VIII was very pleased with Katherine. He called her “A Rose Without a Thorn.” He was very heart-broken when he learned of Katherine’s dalliance with Thomas Culpepper and wished that it wasn’t true. Therefore, the fact that Katherine went to the executioner’s block was not because she did not produce an heir, but that she had committed adultery with Thomas Culpepper and for her previous relationships.

The author also states that Thomas Culpepper and Katherine Howard did not have an affair. He argues that Katherine was repulsed with the sexual relationships that she had in her adolescence. Again, this goes with his theory that Katherine was raped in her childhood. He tries to excuse Katherine’s actions by making her innocent. While Mr. Byrne claims that there is no clear evidence of Katherine’s relationship with Thomas Culpepper, it is clear through eyewitness’ testimonies that their relationship was not platonic.

Overall, Katherine Howard: A New History is a very unreliable and inaccurate biography of Henry VIII’s fifth wife. The author tries to excuse all of Katherine’s actions. It seems that this book is more based on the author’s imagination rather than real history. Most of the biography’s claims are conjectures that are backed up with no evidence. This book does not even deserve the term “biography” because it is not historically researched and is full of the author’s misguided assumptions. While I do find Katherine to be a very sympathetic figure, I do not believe that she was entirely innocent of her actions. Therefore, I have to admit that this “biography” is very misleading. There are better and more accurate biographies of Katherine Howard out there. I would not recommend this book to anyone, not even to the most ardent Tudor fan. However, if you are still interested in reading this book anyway, I suggest that you read other biographies of Katherine Howard such as those written by Gareth Russell, Josephine Wilkinson, and Joanna Denny first. Katherine Howard: A New History is a book that should not be read for factual information, but solely for entertainment.

[Sinuhe · Rating 5 out of 5]

An unexpected gem!

I often have need of referencing biographies of elite and royal women from the early modern period, and I usually do so with a hefty sigh. Most of them rely heavily on primary sources, and I get frustrated at the tendency of the authors to simply take them at face value; they also usually focus on dates and "facts", and only differ from common interpretations if the writer has found a new primary source to incorporate.

Katherine Howard: A New History, on the contrary, refreshingly rests on appropriate secondary sources and contextualizes historical events with scholarship. I did not expect to find this kind of academic approach in a biography of Katherine Howard, particularly one from this kind of small press, but here we are! (And then I found out that the author is still a student?! Incredible.)

For instance, Katherine's relationships to Henry Manox and Francis Dereham. Traditionally, writers put a heavy emphasis on the known facts, mainly that a number of people testified to appearances of active love on Katherine's part for both men. Byrne, on the other hand, points out that those who testified against her had every reason to lie (citing historian Lacey Baldwin Smith to show that it is not unreasonable to be doubtful) and discusses "sixteenth-century beliefs about female sexuality, honour codes, and the nature of the institution of marriage" through, again, the research of other historians. I found this interpretation compelling and well-argued in the manner of a professional historian.

I particularly appreciated Byrne's analysis of Katherine's apparent maturity in fulfilling the role of queen. Queenship studies is a new subfield of history, but is so important to take this scholarship on board when evaluating the life of a queen. The popular conception of the queen consort's role is that it consisted of bearing children and being obedient, but there was a great deal more diplomatic, ceremonial, and administrative work to be done - which you will not pick up from analyzing the primary sources about one specific person. Doing this work requires resting on the shoulders of scholars like Elena Woodacre and Theresa Earenfight, who have laid the groundwork. Again, I want to stress that this is a fabulous good point of the book, not "lazy research".

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting read. Katherine Howard is a figure who I feel has been grossly misrepresented by historians over the centuries, and I really appreciated that this book attempts to change the narrative about her. I found that Byrne brought up a lot of interesting points about Katherine that I found myself agreeing with, especially the idea that she was a victim of sexual assault. I also really enjoyed the fact that Byrne placed Katherine in historical context and wrote about her circumstances in relation to how women and female sexuality were viewed during the sixteenth century.

My only issues with this book were more technical. I found that Byrne would repeat some of the same points over and over again, which became a bit grating. There were also a few instanced where I felt like he needed to expand a bit more on some of the theories he was putting out there. Like he could have explained why he felt a certain way a bit better.

Overall though, I found that thus was a really interesting study of Katherine Howard. I really appreciated the fact the one of Byrne's purposes for writing this book is to rehabilitate Katherine's image, which is something that I think is long over due. I really enjoyed Conor Byrne's voice, and I'm looking forward to his future works.

[Caroline Smith]

Byrne puts forth a deeply compelling argument in this book. We know so little about Katherine Howard. Historians have so few resources available where they can figure out what really, actually happened. But what we can definitely surmise is that misogyny, religious oppression, and what we now call rape culture were all certainly alive and thriving 500 years ago. No question on that one.

I find myself nodding along with a lot of Byrne’s reasoning, and he does an excellent job of explaining the cultural context and social mores of Tudor England and Europe during the Renaissance. This is something I find that most historians leave out: the culture of the times, what social practices were expected and considered normal, How sexuality and marriage and the household were approached, etc.

Any Tudor history enthusiast has to read this and mull this book over. It’s /especially/ relevant within the context of the #MeToo movement we’re having now, in the 21st century. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Lia · Rating 2 out of 5]

I appreciate that the author tried to tell Katherine's tale in a more sympathetic way and consider how contemporary views of women and her end influenced her image. But sadly, I found this book very annoying to read.
I get that there's not much information about her life, but the author constantly repeated themself, often only a few paragraphs apart. Severel times I had to check that I didn't accidentally repeat a page because information was repeated. And it was meaningless stuff too (why do I need to be reminded after only 2 pages that one of the gifts that Katherine gave Princess Mary was a "pomander of gold with rubies and pearls"?? I didn't forget it that fast nor is the exact content of the gift relevant).
At some places the grammar seemed a little bad. All in all, this book feels like a first draft or an essay a university student might write.
There's better books on Katherine Howard.

[Lia · Rating 2 out of 5]

I appreciate that the author tried to tell Katherine's tale in a more sympathetic way and consider how contemporary views of women and her end influenced her image. But sadly, I found this book very annoying to read.
I get that there's not much information about her life, but the author constantly repeated themself, often only a few paragraphs apart. Severel times I had to check that I didn't accidentally repeat a page because information was repeated. And it was meaningless stuff too (why do I need to be reminded after only 2 pages that one of the gifts that Katherine gave Princess Mary was a "pomander of gold with rubies and pearls"?? I didn't forget it that fast nor is the exact content of the gift relevant).
At some places the grammar seemed a little bad. All in all, this book feels like a first draft or an essay a university student might write.
There's better books on Katherine Howard.

[Nat · Rating 3 out of 5]

Full of interesting and plausible ideas but these ideas and phrases are repeated far too much and for a book about Katherine Howard it spends far too much time on Henry 8ths other queens.

[Zoe Raye · Rating 5 out of 5]

Katherine Howard is completely misinterpreted by many historians today, but I think this one was perfect! She’s my favorite wife of Henry’s six wives.

[Reader]

Very good book

[Jennifer · Rating 2 out of 5]

While I admire the author's attempt to change public perception of Katherine Howard, I take exception to most of the assumptions he has made. And he has made a LOT of assumptions.

First, he makes the assertion that Katherine was sexually abused by not one, but two men while in her grandmother's care. Historical evidence simply does not support this claim. Historical evidence supports that Katherine was an active and willing participant in her relationships with both Henry Maddox and Francis Dereham. The author also claims that it is unlikely that Katherine had even reached puberty at the time of her relationships with both men, as Tudor women did not reach puberty until 13-17. Historians disagree as to Katherine's age, and the author has not convincingly proven that his claim that Katherine was 12 at the time of these relationships is true. And let's not forget Katherine's husband, Henry VIII, whose grandmother Margaret gave birth to her only son at the tender age of 13. She was married against her will, bore a child at 13 and no one has claimed that she was the victim of sexual abuse. These were different times and therefore cannot be judged by our modern standards.

After her marriage to the King, the author goes on to claim that Katherine was innocent of any involvement with Thomas Culpepper. That Thomas knew of her past and was blackmailing her. There is no historical evidence to support this claim. The author goes on to claim that the affair was concocted as a way of removing her from the throne and therefore taking power away from the Norfolk family. Again, that's a long shot. While I certainly can't claim to know the the actions of people who lived 500 years ago, the historical record certainly suggests that Katherine was involved with Culpepper; a very foolish thing for any queen to do, much less the queen of a king who had already executed one wife.

My opinion is that at this point in his life, Henry was either impotent or simply unable to father more children. I believe that Katherine's uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, was desperate to hold on to power and to help Henry secure the succession with a second son. Katherine was aware that Henry would not be able to father a child, and in her eyes the only solution was to become pregnant with another mans child and passing it off as the King's child. So much the better if the father of this child was a handsome young man who she had romantic feelings for.

I found the author's style difficult to follow. He did not consistently refer to those involved by the same name, making it difficult to follow. For example, the Duke of Norfolk was referred to as the Duke of Norfolk and Thomas. Given that half the men in England were named Thomas, it made for difficult reading.

A valiant attempt to redeem the young queen, but the attempt lacks credibility and historical support.

[Etienne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting Take on Wife Number Five

As someone who has been both an Anglophile and a Tudor buff since childhood, I, as many others, have believed the "history" of Katherine Howard as presented in both historical biographies and popular fiction (from the early Seventies series The Six Wives of Henry VIII, to the more recent Showtime The Tudors). We have known her, or thought we knew her, as a disgraceful little tramp who lied her way into becoming Henry's queen, and in the end, was deserving of her fate.

This short biography proposes that we take another look at this much maligned of the six wives, and are presented with evidence that perhaps the notorious Katherine was not as we've been led to believe after nearly five hundred years. The evidence it seems has always been available, but has either been ignored or misunderstood...or in a few rare cases, understood. We are given a background in the politics of sex; the position of women in sixteenth century/Tudor society; even church and secular laws on sexual assault of children, adult women and virgins. This is crucial in better understanding the world in which Katherine was born, and why we may have misread her life. Instead of the good time party girl spending her "old man's" money, and behaving like a Tudor Kardashian, author Colin Byrne reveals instead a frightened, naive teenager who may have been sexually abused in her pre-Henry life, and who took her position as queen (as well as a representative of the powerful Howards) with great seriousness. This is not the Tamzin Merchant/Angela Pleasence/Emily Blunt deceitful empty headed s*** We may - as I did - come into this book with those images in my head. I walked away from this more thoughtful, and yes even a little sad. My biggest complaint is that Mr. Byrne tells us over and over AND OVER the same points, often in the same paragraph, the sexual mores of the time and how females were expected to behave. I don't think the readers of this study suffer that poorly from attention deficit disorder!

Despite that, I recommend this book. You may not accept EVERY detail as Mr. Byrne offers his vigorous defense of Katherine, but as with Ian Mortimer's controversial histories on Edward II, this will leave you thinking.

[Leslie · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's good to see a fresh new take on Henry VIII's much-maligned fifth wife that actually looks a little more into her background as well as her actions as queen, which show her to be more than the giddy teenager she is so often portrayed as, and also looks at her (and Henry's other wives) in the light of the "politics of fertility." It is also exceptionally readable.

However, I felt that this author went a bit too far in the other direction, in portraying her as (without a doubt) a complete innocent who was abused and manipulated by every man she was involved with. I'm not saying that Byrne's view is impossible. I just feel that he postulates something - such as the possibility Katherine was an unwilling partner in her relationship with Francis Dereham - and from then on treats it as irrefutable fact. I also found it a bit odd that a feminist interpretation would refer to Manox's (her music tutor's) relations with her, which I have a lot less trouble seeing as molestation, as "corrupting" her, which smacks a bit too much of the attitude still seen today that a victim of sexual assault is somehow tainted by it.

All of that being said, this book is a very worthwhile read and a much-needed balance to the usual tendency of authors writing about Katherine to be lazy and repeat the same old stories without looking at them critically, even while recognizing that many of them were extracted under duress and years after the events they describe.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Katherine Howard has been dismissed as an 'empty headed wanton' by one popular historian, and sadly this has all too often been the way Katherine is perceived by many historians, novelists, and pretty much any TV/film that she is portrayed in.
Conor Byrne is clearly extremely passionate about his subject, and puts forward an excellent argument in a favour, at the very least, this should make people stop and think when it comes to Katherine. For example, her swearing her innocence upon the sacrament before her death- this is often one of the reasons why Anne Boleyn is believed to have been innocent, so why not Katherine? She also was never granted a trial, a chance to put her defence forward. An act of Parliament is what sealed her fate. It is also correctly out forward, that the real concern at the time of Katherine's downfall, was her supposed pre-contract marriage before she married Henry, and her past relationships, rather then her relationship with Culpepper. At times, this book does get a little repetitive, especially when talking about females in the 16th century.

[Stacey · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this - the style of writing is engaging and builds a good argument but at times it does repeat itself and goes over points in detail that have already been well made. It is astonishing that the feminist lens has not been used more widely in order to assess the life of Katherine Howard when it has been done with Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth I. History is always written by the victors and as has been startlingly apparent with the revelation of Richard III`s skeleton, the Tudors were spin doctors that modern day party officios would be in awe of. Because of this I'm very sympathetic to the view of Katherine Howard that the book portrays. whichever view you come down on, it is undeniable that the family members that put a teenager in the position Katherine found herself in badly let her down.

[nancykeeling · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fertility politics

The author of this book suggests that Katherine Howard was possibly molested by her music instructor, Henry Manox and then later sexually abused by Francis Dereham during her years in the care of the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk. Why no one came forward who had knowledge of these incidents before she married King Henry VIII is unclear. Her sole purpose was to present the king with another son. Everything was based on her fertility or lack thereof. It would appear that a woman's womb was the star of the show and yet a mystery and a thing to be feared and something that needed to be controlled. Katherine, according to this author, was not wanton and there's no clear evidence that she was having an affair with Thomas Culpeper that finally sent her to the chopping block.

[Linda Humberstone · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting research of this Queen which portrays her in a different light to the one I was lead to believe at school and in other books. So little is known about her to make a fair conclusion or even assumption of whether she was guilty of the accusations. However, I do now think that she was the victim of men who abused her and she unfortunately, as was the lot of women of this era, paid the ultimate price. I did find the author a bit repetitive with some of his explanations but it was an interesting enough essay on a perplexing subject.

[Margaret Husbands · Rating 1 out of 5]

The other side of the coin

In the beginning of the book, the author introduces a theory that Catherine was raped by Dereham. By the end of the book he's stating it as a fact. His putting forth, as fact, that because Catherine had been raped at the age of 14, she didn't have intercourse with Culpepper because she had been turned off against sex. It appears this author had a preconceived idea of her sexual life and wrote this book accordingly. No one will ever know the truth, but the author's position in this matter seems biased and partially fabricated.

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mercifully this was short. Maybe 25% of the book is actually about Katherine Howard while the rest is a summary about Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, and Jane Seymour. I didn't learn anything new. The author suggests that Katherine was a victim of child abuse and that primary source material referencing her guilt shouldn't be trusted. Sources and quotations are repeated, sometimes as much as three times within the span of a few chapters.

[Meaghan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent study of Katherine Howard's background, life and death, with some great ideas. It's all the more impressive given that the author is an undergraduate. I find myself having to rethink everything I believed I knew about Katherine Howard. I hope other aficionados of Tudor history read this biography and think hard about Conor Byrne's conclusions.

[DrewB161 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this on its release and was intrigued and impressed with Conor Byrne's potential. Here, he systematically offers a rebuttal of the view of Katheryn as a good time girl. Instead, he argues, she was a victim of misogyny and the beliefs of the modern period.

Well argued, but I remain unconvinced with regards to several arguments. The book has since been revised and republished.

[Jenifer Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author tried too hard to make his point, often repeating the same quotes within a few paragraphs. His concept was good though, as was his writing.