Catharine was divorced through the instrumentality of Cranmer, but Henry did not long continue to repose confidence in his new bride. Soon after the marriage was made public, and she had been formally inaugurated as queen, she attended a tilting-match at Greenwich, accompanied by the king and a large concourse of spectators. The king observed her exchange amorous signals with one of the combatants, who was also one of her paramours. Henry had entertained suspicions of her connection with this man, and this proof, as he regarded it, of her infidelity aroused his jealousy. He left the scene on the instant and returned to Westminster, where he issued orders to have her immediately arrested. She was thrown into prison, and tried on the joint charges of adultery and incest. She was accused of having committed adultery with four separate members of the king’s household, and of having had incestuous intercourse with her own brother, Lord Rochford. She was tried, found guilty, and executed.
Whether she committed the entire criminality laid to her charge it is impossible to say, but that the incidents of the career just described were in perfect unison with the doings of Henry and his court there is no doubt. Of the influence of such examples on the morals of the people at large, there is, unfortunately, as little question. If court manners and court styles are zealously followed, the vices that spring from them are not less assiduously improved upon.
Henry’s strong sexual passions, as well as his arbitrary disposition, were bequeathed to his daughter Elizabeth. However historians may differ as to the degree of her depravity, they all agree that her right to the title of “Virgin Queen” was exceedingly ill founded. Many of her delinquencies with persons of the opposite sex were notorious, although perhaps difficult of proof. While she had not the slightest claim to beauty, she delighted in flattery, and could swallow any amount of gross and fulsome adulation. Her vanity so blinded her that she never perceived that the extravagant praises lavished on her personal attractions were merely covert satire.
It is said that Elizabeth indulged in almost indiscriminate lewdness, and that Leicester, Hatton, Essex, Mountjoy, and numerous others shared her favors. In one of the notes appended to Hume’s fourth volume, the nature of Elizabeth’s dealings with a large number of her favorites is set forth, the author of the statement being the Countess of Shrewsbury.
Mary, Queen of Scots, at a time when friendly relations existed between her and Elizabeth, wrote to the latter that the countess had reported that Elizabeth had given a promise of marriage to a certain courtier, but, finding the marriage inexpedient, had dispensed with the ceremony and admitted him to her bed. The countess also stated that she had been equally indulgent to Simier, the French agent, and that Hatton, another of her paramours, had spread many reports indicative of her extreme sexual passion.
The immediate successors of Elizabeth were of a different personal temperament, and did not abandon themselves to such scandalous excesses. James I. had no mistresses, and was not of a character to seek pleasure in extravagant licentiousness, but his court was not free from the scenes which had disgraced those of Henry and Elizabeth. James, being desirous of uniting the Earl of Essex with the Lady Frances Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk, had the young couple betrothed, although they had not attained the age of puberty. The earl was only fourteen years of age, while Lady Frances was but thirteen, and it was deemed proper for the youth to travel until both should have arrived at the maturity necessary for the consummation of the marriage relation. After four years spent on the Continent, the earl returned to England, and found his affianced bride in the full lustre of extraordinary beauty, and of the fame which great personal charms excite. He had also the mortification to find himself repulsed when he approached her as a husband, and was met by every manifestation of dislike and contempt. He complained to her parents on the subject, and they compelled her to accompany him to the country.
Although the young countess obeyed this mandate literally, the feud between her and Essex was far from terminated: she recognized him as her husband in name only, and sedulously kept herself aloof from his society, nor could any of his endeavors overcome her repugnance. The lady persisted in her obstinacy; the husband redoubled his attentions and importunities, but, finding that she was invincible, he finally abandoned the pursuit, and separated from her.
The cause of this strange conduct on the part of the countess was the passion which she entertained for a Scotch adventurer named Robert Carr, who had found a favorable reception from the king, by whom he was created Viscount Rochester. She believed that by refusing to consummate her marriage with Essex she would not be considered by the world in the light of his wife, and she hoped to procure a divorce, which would enable her to marry Rochester.[294] As their mutual attachment was ardent, and their opportunities for being together frequent, they anticipated the probability of a marriage, and indulged their passions without waiting for the ceremony. They did not find as much trouble in procuring a divorce as they had anticipated.
The king, who had a strong partiality for Rochester, favored their views, and Essex, finding that his suit was hopeless with his wife, opposed no obstacle to the nullification of his marriage. The grounds on which the countess sued out the divorce were of rather a curious character. The chief allegation against Essex was impotency. At that time a firm faith existed in the absurd notions that there were people who possessed the power of witchcraft, enabling them, among other things, to deprive a man of his virility. It was asserted and maintained that Essex had been subjected to this influence, and was therefore incompetent to occupy the position of a married man. The divorce was secured, and Rochester and the countess experienced no farther obstacle to the gratification of their desires.
Rochester had previously consulted Overbury on the difficulties of his position, and the latter strongly advised him not to marry the countess. These facts coming to the ears of Lady Frances, she induced Rochester to have Overbury poisoned. On the discovery of the murder, Rochester and his wife were brought to trial and convicted, but the mistaken clemency of the king interposed between them and the doom they so richly merited. They passed the remainder of their days in obscurity, but as bitter enemies, and although they resided in the same house for many years, no word or message was ever exchanged between them.