Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Did Queen Elizabeth I become pregnant at age 14?

Thomas Seymour, 1508-1549
Princess Elizabeth aged about 13,
attributed to William Scrots
     Thomas Seymour, Lord High Admiral of England, was the younger brother of the Protector Edward Seymour to King Edward Tudor, the late King Henry VIII's heir.  Thomas Seymour's sister was King Henry VIII's third wife, which would make Thomas Seymour the uncle to the young King Edward. 
     Thomas Seymour was jealous of his older brother's position as Protector and highly ambitious. After King Henry VIII's death, he began to solicit the marriage of Princess Elizabeth. He was twenty-five years her senior. When that didn't work out, he married the late king's widow, Catherine Parr, who was well taken care of in the king's will. 
King Henry VIII also provided well for both his daughters in his will with a dowry of £10,000 on their marriage and £3,000 a year before their marriage. If either of them were to marry without the consent of the council, they would not only lose their place in the succession but also get a reduced financial provision.
     After Thomas Seymour married Catherine Parr, the young Elizabeth went to live with the newlywed couple at Chelsea. Seymour was a dashing and handsome man who Elizabeth fell for. Undeniably, it must have been an awkward "family" situation: Elizabeth, who was previously on the negotiation table to be Seymour's wife, ended up being his stepdaughter. According to David Starkey in his book, Elizabeth, Seymour "abused his trust; he may even have sexually abused her" [Elizabeth].
     About the time that Catherine became pregnant, things started to become serious between Seymour and Elizabeth. According to Jane Dunn in her book, Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens, "Seymour would appear in Elizabeth's bedchamber, before she was up and dressed, and tickle her in bed, sometimes slapping her 'upon the Back or on the Buttocks familiarly.' Other times he would open the curtains of her bed and wish her good morning, 'and make as though he would come at her.' " On a separate occasion he appeared "in his Night-Gown, bare-legged in his Slippers." "The modern equivalent of 'bare-legged' is 'without trousers' and the innuendo is the same." (Starkey, Elizabeth, p69).
     "There was an episode in the garden at Hanworth when Seymour remonstrated with Elizabeth over something and then cut to ribbons the black gown she was wearing, revealing her undergarments. Elizabeth explained to her horrified governess, Kat Ashley, that she could do nothing to protect herself because the Queen had been holding her down during the whole process." (Dunn, Elizabeth and Mary, p76).
     Authors Henry Clifford and Edgar Edmund Estcourt wrote an interesting paragraph in their book, The Life of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria, p86. Jane Dormer was an English lady who married a Spanish minister. She was one of Queen Mary's household and later resided in Spain after Elizabeth's accession to the throne. "A great lady, who knew her very well, being a girl of twelve or thirteen, told me that she was proud and disdainful, and related to me some particulars of her scornful behaviour, which much blemished the handsomeness and beauty of her person. In King Edward's time, what passed between the Lord Admiral, Sir Thomas Seymour, and her, Dr. Latimer preached in a sermon, and was a chief cause that the Parliament condemned the Admiral. There was a bruit of a child born and miserably destroyed, but could not be discovered whose it was; only the report of the midwife, who was brought from her house blindfold thither, and so returned, saw nothing in the house while she was there, but candle light; only she said, it was the child of a very fair young lady. There was a muttering of the Admiral and this lady, who was then between fifteen and sixteen years of age."
     Shortly before Catherine Parr gave birth to a daughter, she had come upon her husband and Elizabeth in an embrace. According to Burghley State Papers, p.96,  the treasurer Thomas Parry said, "I do remember also, [Mrs. Ashley] told me, that the Admiral loved [Elizabeth] but too well, and had so done a good while; and that the Queen was jealous of her and him, in so much that, one Time the Queen, suspecting the often Access of the Admiral to the Lady Elizabeth's Grace, came suddenly upon them, where they were all alone, (he having her in his Arms:) wherefore the Queen fell out, both with the Lord Admiral, and with her Grace also." Not long after Elizabeth was sent away to live, Catherine Parr died in childbirth. At this point Seymour ambitiously renewed his interest in a marriage proposal to Elizabeth. "It was reported, not only that she was pregnant, which she declared to be "a shameful schandler," (Stat. of Realm, iv. 90) "but also that she bore him a child." (The History of England, John Lingard, Vol. V, p.273, 1883.) 
     "Her governess was bribed; her own affections were won; but a clandestine marriage would, by the will of her father, have annulled her right to the succession; and means were devised to extort what otherwise would not be granted, the consent of the council. For this purpose the admiral sought the friendship of the discontented among the nobility.  . . . his nephew was taught to look with a jealous eye on the ambition of the protector." (Ibid. p.274). 
     Thomas Seymour was found guilty of thirty-three charges of treason and beheaded at the Tower on 20 March 1549.

1 comment:

  1. Nice blog. We at humanities.lit.authors.
    shakespeare have been quarreling over
    the question of whether Elizabeth was
    impregnated by the Lord High Admiral.

    The answer should be obvious but there's
    the question of what Elizabeth (or Burghley) did with her resulting infant.

    And, that she had born an infant is certain since a high judicial tribunal was called upon to rule one way or another.

    The original rulings were online when I first got online, and I've just recently found two references to these high judicial rulings which bear the testimony
    of the midwife and the midwife's
    assistant.

    Certain 16th c. deeds can be traced back to Hedingham Castle and John De Vere
    who was not, under any circumstances,
    the biological parent of Oxford. The
    Oxfordians won't listen to any reasonable
    argument which demonstrates that "Oxford" was nevere a Devere. They're
    all like Burghley, they just want the high
    title.

    ReplyDelete