Izabel de Melo

[izabelferreiramelo]

Reconstruction of Catherine Howard as the Queen of Sheba from the window of the King’s College Chapel, Cambridge, based on three images: The stained glass itself, Katherine Howard's portrait (unknown woman) by Holbein and a Sketch by Holbein.

by: @iz2bel

[threesonsofyorks]

LILIT LESSER as Lady Mary Tudor (Mary I) Wolf Hall: The Mirror and The Light | Episode five

[isadomna]

Were María Pita and Gráinne O'Malley women who challenged Elizabeth I of England?

Yes, both María Pita and Gráinne O'Malley challenged the power and policies of Elizabeth I, though in very different ways.

María Pita became famous during the English attack on A Coruña in 1589, part of the conflict between Spain and England after the defeat of the Spanish Armada. According to Spanish tradition, she rallied the city's defenders and helped repel the English forces sent under Francis Drake. In this sense, she resisted an expedition launched under Elizabeth I's authority.

Gráinne O'Malley (Grace O'Malley) was an Irish noblewoman and maritime leader who often opposed English expansion in Ireland during Elizabeth's reign. She fought English officials, defended her family's interests, and became one of the most notable Irish figures resisting Tudor control. However, in 1593 she famously met Elizabeth I in person, and the two women negotiated directly. Their relationship was therefore more complex than simple opposition.

So, while neither woman sought to overthrow Elizabeth I herself, both became symbols of resistance to English power during her reign—María Pita as a defender against an English military expedition, and Gráinne O'Malley as a leader who challenged English authority in Ireland.

[izabelferreiramelo]

Same hands, btw...

[themonsterousregimentofwomens]

I find it odd how many people act like Henry’s violence against Anne came out of nowhere. Henry spent a decade belittling, embarrassing, and gaslighting Catherine of Aragon. The only thing he couldn’t do was kill her because of her background, but Henry’s violence against his wife and child were not new in 1536. He had been tormenting Catherine and Mary for years. Anne’s case wasn’t special, she was part of a pattern.

[nothing-new-under-the-sun124]

In 1555 an abortive attempt to muscle in on the slave trade took place with the merchant John Lok bringing five black slaves back to England. Under pressure from the Spanish that year Mary banned further English involvement in the Guinean or West African trade

Mary And Philip: The marriage of Tudor England and Hapsburg Spain. Page 142

[marytudorqueenofengland]

[themonsterousregimentofwomens]

Jane Seymour, Queen of England by and after Hans Holbein the Younger pt. 1

[themonsterousregimentofwomens]

Portrait of Queen Mary I at Ripon Cathedral

[themonsterousregimentofwomens]

Anne of Cleves by and after Hans Holbein the Younger

[gifshistorical]

Elena Valentine as Katheryn Howard · Henry VIII and His Six Wives (2016)

[toujours-la-meme]

Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I brought back to life thanks to AI! I found this on YouTube and just had to share it on here, to see the two actually move and blink, check out the video: https://youtu.be/9nnlunhBTU0

[lizzieforbes]

[queenmarytudor]

TUDOR ERA FALSE PREGNANCIES

“While Mary’s phantom pregnancies are the most well known, there were other women of Tudor England who also suffered with this, and there was enough concern about it that books on women’s health in the early modern period discussed the issue thoroughly: how difficult it was to be able to tell if it were a true pregnancy or a phantom one.”

CATHERINE OF ARAGON - 1510

Catherine of Aragon’s first pregnancy ended in the miscarriage of a daughter in January 1510, however her physician reassured her that she remained pregnant with its twin. Her miscarriage was kept secret from court, and Catherine’s confessor Diego Fernandez wrote later that “Her Highness believed herself to be with child, although she had some doubts.” 

In May the Spanish ambassador Luis Carroz visited Catherine, reporting that: 

“When I saw the bringing forth delayed I felt sure of that which I had suspected [the pregnancy not being real], and your Lordship may judge for yourself how excusable the error was to affirm and to make her withdraw publicly for her delivery.”

Catherine left her confinement shortly after, with the bedchamber women blamed for making the queen “understand that she was pregnant whilst she was not.” Within weeks she would become successfully pregnant with Henry, Duke of Cornwall, the New Years Prince who lived for 52 days. Five years later she gave birth to the future Mary I.

ANNE BOLEYN - 1534

Anne Boleyn gave birth to the future Elizabeth I in September 1533, and shortly after was suspected to be pregnant again. On the 28th January Spanish ambassador Eustace Chapuys recorded “Anne de Boulans is now in the family way again” and by April she was described by courtiers as having a “goodly belly.”

Five months later, nine months after the first public mention of her pregnancy, Chapuys wrote on the 27th September that:

“Ever since the King began to entertain doubts as to his mistress’ reported pregnancy, he has renewed and increased the love which he formerly bore to another very handsome young lady of this court.”

There is no record of a miscarriage or stillbirth. Anne would go on to have a miscarriage on the 29th January 1536, four months before being beheaded.

HONOR LISLE - 1537

Honor Lisle had given birth to eight children in her first marriage to John Bassett before she married Henry VIII’s great uncle Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle in 1528. In the winter of 1536 she believed herself to be with child again, and in December was being congratulated by courtiers that “it hath pleased God to visit her with a child”, with John Wallop writing that her pregnancy gave hope to him and his own wife. Despite going into confinement in 1537 no child was ever born, and Honor’s doctor later explained the error had occurred due to the ‘cold’ humours in her body, stating:

“It fortuneth some time that they fall and gather in the mother (womb) where if they fortune to stick fast and congeal together, there […] is retained a swelling like as the woman had conceived, and it doth move himself neither more nor less than if the child were conformed, which deceiveth and abuseth many folks.  Madame, I esteem that your disease is likened to this last, as the tokens do show us manifestly.”  

MARGUERITE OF NAVARRE - 1543

The sister of King Francis I of France first became a mother in 1528. At the age of 50, Marguerite believed she was pregnant again, writing to her brother in early 1543 that 

“as for my belly, it is still growing, and I cannot hide from you that I often feel something moving that is alive. I felt it with my hand one morning […] the illness and fevers I have had every month render it so weak that sometimes I go eight days without feeling it and then fear I am not pregnant.” 

In March, believing she was at the end of her sixth month, Marguerite assured Francis that “although I am very pregnant, I am not overly hindered with it.” Shortly after she would discover the pregnancy was false, and wrote to her brother claiming “All the signs that a pregnant woman can have made me hold fast to the belief that I was with child.”

ELIZABETH DUDLEY - 1555

Elizabeth Dudley was the daughter of Henry VIII’s mistress Elizabeth Blount, to her husband Gilbert Tailboys. Her first marriage produced no children, and she married her second husband, Ambrose, son of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland in 1553. In 1555 believed herself to be with child, like her queen. Unfortunately the pregnancy was not real, with rumours of it being some sort of mole 

 “which was about this time found to be the case of the lord Ambrose Dudley’s wife, who had fancied herself with child” 

MARY I - 1555 & 1558

Mary I was the only child of Catherine of Aragon’s to reach adulthood. She became queen in 1553 and married her cousin Philip of Spain in July 1554. Within months of the marriage there was speculation she was pregnant, and at Christmas she wrote to the Holy Roman Emperor declaring “that which I carry in my belly, I declare it to be alive.” 

She withdrew for a month’s confinement in mid April, and by June the Portuguese noble Ruy Gómez de Silva was reporting the delayed delivery “makes me doubt whether she is with child at all.”

At the beginning of August, after months of rumours and speculation, Mary finally left her confinement and resumed her public duties with no further mention of the pregnancy. Venetian ambassador Giovanni Michiel wrote 

“Their Majesties’ intimates, who told me several days ago on high authority, perceiving not only that her Majesty’s belly did not increase, but rather diminished, have come to the conclusion, although they have hitherto dissembled it, that the pregnancy will end in wind rather than anything else.”

In early 1558 Mary became convinced she was pregnant again, and on the 10th January sent James Bassett, son of Honor Lisle, to tell her husband of her pregnancy which she had “chosen to keep secret until now, a period of seven months, in order to be quite sure of the fact lest the like should happen as last time.” 

Foreign visitor Pedro de Ocaña met Mary in February and observed “she was with child, and living in retirement, as is the custom of the country. They say it is quite certain that she is pregnant, although she tries to keep it a secret.” 

Philip’s friend Count Feria was sent to her in March, nine months after Philip left her in July 1557, and believed Mary was “making herself believe that she is with child, although she does not own up to it.” Though she rewrote her will in anticipation of the birth on an heir, she never went into another formal confinement and all mention of a pregnancy ends after this report. Mary would die a mere eight months after, possibly from ovarian cancer. 

“And yet, though your ladyship should chance to miss of your purpose [of giving birth], you should not be the first noble woman that hath been so by God’s work visited. For if it be his pleasure he spareth neither Empress, Queen, Princess ne Duchess.” - John Hussee to Lady Lisle, 1537

[realcatalina]

I disagree with Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn.

Fallowing Catherine’s 1st stillbirth, yes her belly was raised high for weeks, if not months. However she was young, freshly married, and only lost one child prior.

Phantom pregnancy usually occurs in those desperate for child. She wasn’t yet desperate.

I know some documentary said it was phantom pregnancy, but I think infection is more likely. Huge infection, which lasted at least several weeks, possibly 3 months.

That infection might be why the pregnancies that fallowed mostly ended badly. Maybe it caused scarring of uterus, and unsufficient cervix. 

Anne Boleyn’s pregnancies are often misrepresented and often people don’t point out she had just 3 in total. That one letter was misdated, creating fictional 4th pregnancy and appearance that she lost many children in miscarriage.

And tbh, Chapuyee hated Anne, and often what he wrote about is highly unlikely to have happened how he said it did. Coincidetal timeliness whcih always are somehow involving Catherine, as if by divine intervention etc.

Frankly, he is not credible source of anything. He is beyond biased and tbh, I am fan of Catherine and I don’t trust him. Anything he says-because he thought lying was ok to do and was of opinion that he can read minds!

We don’t know if Henry VIII had any such doubts Chapuye is talking about, or if Henry was simply avoiding Anne fallowing loosing their child(which wasn’t made public). But we know Chapuyee wasn’t able to read minds.

The most likely explanation is that Anne either lost child, Henry avoided her a bit and Chapueyee made rest up. Or misdiagnosed pregnancy. Which is very likely to have happened, because at those times until child kicked, you weren’t truly sure. Period can be very light or not appear due to stress etc and woman can wrongly assume she is with child, due to this. Number of things can cause nausea, weight gains, moods, etc. 

But once she gets to point belly doesn’t grow, woman usually realises she is not with child. But I agree that there would be way more pressure on Anne to deliver a child than upon Catherine, hence phantom pregnancy in her case cannot be rule out completely in her case. But you should always present also other possible  explanations.

[realcatalina]

Tudor maternity clothes

There are  very few surviving examples of Tudor maternity wear being depicted. Some of them hide in plain sight on pretty famous work of art. Others hide in churches around England.

Just little note before I show you: The Tudor tomb brasses are usually impossible to date correctly. Sometimes they were done years prior to person dying, sometimes years after(if family was for example low on money before, and then later on they might have added it later on). 

But most people don’t know about it and think the text which says that person died for example in 1507, that brass depicting the person is also from 1507.

Yet you can see that dress is fashion of Elizabeth Woodville(1470s/maybe 1480s). It can be way off. 20+ years is not an exception.

Sadly, in my opinion the only reason why women would be depicted on their tomb brasses in maternity wear is that they died during or after childbirth(from complications related to childbirth) or that they died pregnant(and the death might have not been childbirth related, accidents do happen, deadly diseases etc).

Here are some pre-1520s maternity clothes from pinterest and later on some c. 1527 maternity clothes:

Labelled as Isabella Giffard 1523(but the fashion of hood and dress with W suggests prior to 1505, it’s early Tudor outfit):

We can establish some basic rules upon it.

1)Tudor women wore their regular clothes as their maternity clothes.

2)Tudor dresses in general were usually front-laced(and cut was going very low for long time, if it wasnt complitely split at front) during Henry VII and Henry VIII’s reign.

3) The  lacing was tied more losely to acomodate growing belly

4)But obviously there had to be other layer unbeaneat where lacing was let ‘loose’. 

Next example shows different lacing(not zig zag but horizontal):

Labelled on Pinterest as lady in St Peter, North Barningham, Norfolk:

(this style of hood was popular for long: between c.1505 up to mid 1510s(back veil pinned under bonnet), but shortness of frontlets means 100% 1510s)

You have to really focus upon it but she has horizontal lacing on her front(and zig zag on her cuffs), you can also see that she has chemise, then something at front and then ties over it. I think it is additional piece of fabric placed over belly for extra warmth.I coloured it so you get better idea:

Another example:

Description on pinterest says:”Anne Atte Wode / Wood , second wife of Thomas Asteley with chrysom twins, a boy and a girl “who after a hazardous birth, departed suddenly to the Lord on the day of St Agatha martyr, in the year of our most bounteous Christ 1512”

The sleeves are indeed fashion of early to mid 1510s, but it is very poorly done depiction of gable hood’s bonet)

Here part is zig zaged part isn’t, but it is possible artist forgot tha one line. I had to colour the gown’s outer edges too, because it wasn’t very obvious.

I believe it was up to personal choice, how woman had laced her dress.

Then we have c.1527 example by Hans Holbeins the Younger-portrait of Thomas More’s family. Sadly the original has been destroyed and all of the copies(paintings) based upon it have been altered. But these sketches/prints (not by Holbeins) appears to be closest to the original:

There are 3 visibly pregnant women in the sketch.

(Just little note: In 1520s not every gown was front-laced(kind of exception in Henry VIII’s reign), white band appeared either to cover-side lacing, as decorative piece or to help pin heavy sleeves in place. White band is just mid to late 1520s thing and under-partlet doesn’t need to be part of gown. It’s addon.I will just highlight them, because the are close to neckline and get in way when we count the layers of dress.)

This woman has book under her arm(that is not part of dress), she should be  Elizabeth Dauncey, née More:

There is close-up original sketch by Holbein of this woman also(labeled as lady Barkley, but those aren’t Holbein’s own labels but add ons by somebody else), in which book is missing(because for closeup they’d probably sit still for long and wouldn’t hold it entire time):

Sadly you can barely see the maternity dress in it, but knowing it is maternity dress, this closeup allows us to count the layers.

(By the way though it is barely visible behind her neck 2nd veil of gable hood is down there! Hence panic over! It is not 1540s+ hood.)

White band is white, parlet is greyish white, chemise is lilac, darker yellow is kirtle, lighter yellow is additional front piece(probably) and blue represent the lacing(they of course weren’t blue).

I am not sure what the piece between kirtle and white band was, but the way Holbein has it sketched (darker grey) it is not a kirtle, probably edge of gown which goes around shoulder.(to which then sleeves were pinned into.)

Actually  this one says rot-which means red. So most likely it is a kirtle! Because red was favoured colour for a kirtle. It is probably greyish because the pencil smeared over it. So I was wrong! 

It’d look more like this(of course with ties not in blue):

Hence either we have 2 kirtles(one of which we only see gold lining of) or red kirtle has golden lining. Either would be possible, and would probably depend on weather or personal preferences.

The reason why the chemise’s edges are not straight line is blackwork embroidery, forming tiny triangles in regular intervals.(hence it is really easy to mistaken it for the beaded necklace in this case)

Some other 1st Holbein’s stay highlighted examples of that detail:

Hence that detail is normal for that timeframe.

Other 2 women: Cecily Heron, née More(on left) and  Margaret Roper, née More(on right). Angle doesn’t reveal their pregnancy as obviously.

I could find only closeup on Cecily(and in it she isn’t holding her hands over the belly either, because once again it’d be difficult to stay in that position for long)

Cecily’s sketch reveals something interesting. She has 3 layers under her upper gown. 

A kirtle(instead of adional front piece of fabric), then white chemise(with that rough looking edge), and then what I first thought another partlet.  

But if you look closely in HD, Holbein sketched Cecily’s skintone where partlet would be. It is not a parlet. It is chain/jewelry/string(in purple) and probably 2nd chemise.

It’s visible on our left, but on right it visible only in upper part, and in lower it is fading away. Unless you know to search for it, never would you see it.

Queen Catherine also had once worn golden chain styled in this way(and no mistaking it for parlet):

Second chemise would be why Cecily doesn’t wear aditional front-piece, she added another layer in different way. I coloured it different shade of lilac.

I had to get even better HD version to look if there was this line also on right(that is why it is sketched only).  TBH, nearly impossible to spot even though I was searching for that line. It is there, but it is almost invisible.

She also has ties horizontally placed, and additional(stronger) tie and bow both on top(bow tied in this way could mean there were two laces). 

I thought that there might have been more bows, but upon looking at it closely, I think it’s remains of Holbein’s first sketch of hands.It’s hard to spot because upon 2nd tie from up,  it looks like remains of her left hand(on our right), while in painting/print ended up her right hand(on our left). 

And on 3rd tie is also the left hand, and to confuse us further that dark smudge is intentional-it’s ring on left hand. But in final painting due to angle and her holding rosary beads, ring on left hand is not visible, while ring on right hand is visible! (In those days they wore lots of rings).

Margaret Roper née More:

The print is very good, showing many details, but sadly not all are done correctly upon Margaret.

 There is important  detail missing on Margaret’s gable hood. In mid to late 1520s, back veils of gable hood could either be both down(as previously in 1520s), or one up and one down(as in 1530s). They cannot be both up. That would be 1540s+(maybe very late 1530s). We know the painting is 1526-1527 and in some other copies 2nd veil is down there.. Hence this is a mistake, engraver forgot the line-which is why I marked red where it should be).

And also, the zig zag lacing is very roughly sketched and not even edges of her gown are properly sketched(hence there is 2 of them on right)

Layers are exactly same as in Elizabeth’s case, except she also has the decorative jewels on edge of her kirtle(dark yellow).

Margaret Clement, née Giggs(Sir Thomas More’s ward/foster daughter) was also in the painting, standing directly next to his father.

But in later paintings, somebody didn’t like that she was standing in middle of the family, and put her on side, like an outcast.

But for this change they used, actual sketch of her by Holbein in which she is also pregnant: (yes once again, mislabelled.)

The headwear and dress she is wearing are much simpler, that doesn’t mean she was necessarly of lower status and didn’t have better clothes, but perhaps that this was more homely outfit. 

She has appears to be wearing upper parlet decorated with blackwork,

it is pinned dirrectly to outer gown( hence covers the layers). Must have been partly traluscent(probably from sheer linen) because we can make two different layers beneat, sketched differently, probably kirtle and chemise(just simple, not decorated). 

Another of Holbein’s sketches also shows maternity dress, though I missed it originally: (that is why the figure’s lower half seems off, and overall posture as well)

I highlighted the ties:

I will update this further if I find any more pregnant Tudor depictions.

[thomascromwelll-deactivated2025]

📅TUDORWEEK2024 by @dailytudors Day 2: Favourite Tudor contemporary quote about or said by the Tudor family.

⋅˚₊‧ 𐙚 ‧₊˚ ⋅ "Am I not a man like others?"⋅˚₊‧ 𐙚 ‧₊˚ ⋅

"At last, wishing to turn the conversation, the King said that he wished to ensure the succession to his kingdom by having children, which he had not at present, and upon my remarking to him that he had one daughter, the most virtuous and accomplished that could be thought of, just of suitable age to be married and get children, and that it seemed as if Nature had decided that the succession to the English throne should be through the female line, as he himself had obtained it, and therefore, that he could by marrying the Princess to some one secure the succession he was so anxious for, he replied that he knew better than that; and would marry again in order to have children himself. And upon my observing to him that he could not be sure of that he asked me three times running: "Am I not a man like others?" and he afterwards added: "I need not give proofs of the contrary, or let you into my secrets," no doubt implying thereby that his beloved Lady is already in the family way."

—Eustace Chapuys to the Emperor, written on 15 April 1533 (x)

TV Show: The Tudors (2007-2010) [ season two, episode eight] Jonathan Rhys Meyers as King Henry VIII

[diioonysus]

history + women who were executed