Boleyn said:

Whose actual idea was it that she went to her grandmother's house to be educated? Rumour has it that the Duchess ws visiting the household Edmund Howard (Katherine's father) and was dismayed to see what a shambles it was in, and decided to take one of the younger children home with her, but then it begs the question why just Katherine?Why didn't the Duchess take any of others? They were all in a sorry state, and needing help?, but then by only taking Katherine she did Katherine's brother's and sister's a favour, as they too may have felt the axe blade in 1542, purely because that they too were in the Duchess's household when Derham disgraced Katherine.

It was custom to send children to houses such as the Duchess’ for training and discipline.  I know the discipline part is hard to accept in Katherine’s case, but there it is.  Edmund Howard, Katherine’s father, didn’t send only Katherine, to the Duchess to be educated.  He sent his other children there also.  Many of the Howard relatives were sent there.  They were expected to learn proper deportment, the social graces, how to be good wives, etc.  Katherine was not treated any different than her siblings.  Katherine was there to learn obedience and how to run a household.  In other words she was being taught what most girls back then were taught, how to be a good wife.

Either way whose ever idea it was was a bad one because the Duchess failed miserably to fulfil the expectations of the families who had also asked the Duchess to educate their girls too. Although from books the Duchess did provide tutors for the girls in her care when Anne was Queen and Katherine herself was meant to have met Anne in 1533 when she was visiting the Duchess, at Lambeth. If we take Katherine's date of birth as 1520, that would have made Katherine's 12/13, and therefore of a marrigeble age, which Anne as Queen might have had a say in, but I personally think Katherine was born in 1525, making her about 7 or 8, but of course with Anne's death the Howard family fortunes were thrown into disarray and getting out of the whole sorry situation with their heads and their fortunes intact was the main priority, but even so the Duchess would have still had some money coming in from her dower lands and from the families of the girls to continue to provide for their education etc, So where did it go? Did the Duchess use it to bribe Henry to make sure she kept her head?, her money and her wards? After having wards was quite a lucuritive money earner.Although I believe that some of the families that had placed their children in the Duchess's household when Anne was Queen quickly got their children reurned to them along with their money at Anne's downfall and death. However despite Anne's death, and a possible loss of some of fortune, she the Duchess, must have had money enough to pay for a Music teacher and Music teacher's weren't cheap good ones that is, and Mannox must have been a good teacher, to be asked to teach the children in the Duchess's household in the first place. The fact that the Duchess made a recommendation to her neighbour about his apparent skill as a teacher to get him a job there after his behaviour towards Katherine was discovered,  he was good.

Wherever Katherine was, home or at the Duchess’ house, she was trouble waiting to happen.  One author called her a juvenile delinquint.  I tend to agree.  A rebel without a cause.

I do not think the Duchess was affected in anyway by Anne’s demise.  Norfolk was ever the one to prove his loyalty to Henry alone.  He is the one who prosecuted Anne.  His family made it safely through that scandal.

The Dowager Duchess was considered to be one of the richest widows in the realm.  She hoarded her money. She paid for the lessons for the children. Were they considered wards?  I don’t know if they were or not. From what I have read the Duchess provided what was needed. I’ve not heard the children having been called wards.  Certainly Edmund could never have afforded to pay the Duchess ward money for his children. 

Her houses were quite large and she had over 100 people in her employ at her houses.  The dormitory style in which Katherine lived was no different from other such houses. I was never under the impression that the children went hungry.  The place wasn’t run like the orphanage of little orphan Annie.  They seemed to have all they needed to learn and grow into decent Tudor adults.

Having said that, I must say the Duchess was slack in her discipline of Katherine and the other girls.  She did know about Dereham and what went on in the dorm at night.  In fact she told someone who was looking for Dereham that he could be found in Katherine’s bed.  I can’t explain it. 

I put forward a theory, a few days ago that I thought that Katherine was placed with the Duchess, by the Duke (her Uncle) to be groomed for want of a better word for a mistress for Henry whilst Anne was busy with Pregnancies. When that idea all collaped and went down the pan Katherine became of no further use to either the Duke or the Duchess, as it was clear at that moment anyway that Jane would be around for some time yet, and that the Seymours, were all powerful because of it. So there was no point in the Duke putting Katherine in at the deep end  and hoping that Henry would cast his eye over her whenthe Duke was in it himself, and barely able to keep his head above water. If Jane had lived maybe the Duke in time would have drowned, but due to the Pilgramage of Grace he was able to wade out and redeem himself in Henry's eyes for putting down the rebellion. When Jane died, did the Duke kind of think that his plan to make Katherine's the King's mistress might have a chance after all? Seriously I don't think marriage with the King was on the Agenda where the Duke was concerned, Katherine was meant to be a distraction and play thing for Henry to be used and cast and married off to whoever when the time came.

With Cromwell schemes of Grandeur when the Cleves Marriage was proposed (I thinkCromwell was offered the Duchy of one of the German Princes that he hoped to retire too)

The Duke got rather too careless, perhaps even bitter and thought, why should this jumped up puffed out little pipsqueak Cromwell have something that I should have, I've given Loyal service to the crown and my blood line is a Royal one. And decided well in for a penny in for a pound and put forward to the Duchess that Katherine could be Queen instead of a mistress, Katherine was young enough and likely to produce children so why not. If we take her D.O.B as 1525 she was just 15, with many years ahead of her for childbearing and to produce a brood of Howard Boys, to rule England, so once again the Howards would fly high Royally perhaps even now, if the Duke's scheme had worked.

Or perhaps Henry was so bedazzled by Katherine when she was placed as maid in waiting to Anne of Cleves, and was so different in looks than his flanders mare (although evidence suggests he never actually called Anne of Cleves this.), Henry simply lost his head and his reason and wanted to marry her anyway? or perhaps he was suffering middle age madness or in Henry's case Middle age Dread? Surely Henry must have noticed that she was a bit thick or did he not care? and was letting his hormones rule his head?

I love your theory because Norfolk is not a man I admire.  However, it wasn’t his idea to put Katherine in the Duchess’ household, nor was she being groomed to attract a king.  A husband yes, but not Henry. As he had put the rest of his brood there, Edmund did the same with this daughter. I think when AOC became queen, Katherine was the right age to become a lady in waiting.  I do think when Henry saw Katherine at court, he decided once again he was in love.

By the way is there any record of Mary Lasselle's testimony about Katherine Howard? I know her brother was burnt at the stake only a few years after Katherine's death for being a heretic. Cold Comfort..or should that be Hot Comfort LOL

Mary Lasselle gave her confession in the form of a deposition to the Earl of Southampton. LP XVI no. 1320

Jane Bulmer and the others who were with her now and in the Duchess's household were only too happy to be away from the humdrum life they would have had with their husbands, so maybe might have kept their mouths shut. The Howard name after all carried a lot of prestige, and any man or woman employed in a Howard household would consider themselves privilaged, but even then her maids must have known that if Katherine had escaped with her life they wouldn't have been allowed to have served anyway? Jane Bulmer I believe was one of the main parties to tesify against Katherine anyway, although it could be argued that she was as possibly as guilty as Lady Rochford was. I'm not entirely sure what became of Jane Bulmer after Katherine's death, but I think she went back to her husband and became the mistress of one of her Husband's freinds with his blessing, and married her lover after her husband died. Don't quote me on this.. Jane Bulmer was perhaps lucky to have escaped Henry's wrath or just extremely clever.

Jane Bulmer, Kathryn Tilney, Margaret Morton, Mary Tilney, and Dorothy Dauby (?) and many more all testified against Katherine.  I’m not sure they did this with relish.  They had no choice.  I have no idea what happened to Bulmer once she was released.  I know I tried looking her up at one point and got absolutely no where. 

I wonder though would Katherine been allowed to actually marry Culpepper if they had actually met(which they did when she was in service to Anne of Cleves) before Henry decided to marry her himself?

If there was a pre-contact between her and Derham, that would mean a lot retraction and a possible pay off for Derham to put his hands up and say ok, I don't want to marry you. But given that Culpepper and Katherine were actually cousins on her mother's side, surely the King would not agree for them to be married on the grounds of consanguity, and bear in mind that although the King was seen as head of the Church in England Henry, still considered that he and his people were Catholic and still observed and followed some of the Catholic obeyances, so therefore it would stand to reason that although permission was sought and possibly given to marry by the King, the final ruling and dispensation, that there would have to be for cousins to marry would have to come from Rome?

I don’t have a clue how this would work.  If Henry didn’t want Katherine, and if he favored the marriage between her and Culpepper, I’m sure he would have had his Archbishop of Canterbury find a loophole.  He wouldn’t look to Rome.  Catherine and Culpepper’s marriage would have been sanctioned by the Church of England.  Rome was not a factor with Henry anymore.

The Howards were after all Catholic, although they did go along with Henry's scheme of things. Although the Thomas Howard was inprisoned after Katherine Howard's downfall he was released shortly after Edward's death by Mary Tudor and given back his land and his titles, and treated with all due respect in her reign. Mary's reign was a real muddle of religions, nobody actually knew what to do for the best, even if they said they were good Catholics and acted accordinly, they only had to breathe in when they should have breathed out, and they were in the Tower,with the next stop being Smithfield and the Stake..Thank what ever lucky stars there were for Elizabeth..

 Unforturately it certainly seems that Poor Katherine's itelligence didn't match what she was so desperate to do, Save her life.

I don't mind at all if you break my ramblings down into something a little more managable. One often gets carried away with theological discussion. Dinosaur says that I could at times give David Starkey a good run for his money.

Dinosaur could have something there!

Sorry one more quick answer to one of your inquiries.  The Duchess did not send Dereham to Ireland.  When Katherine left for court, he requested that the Duchess release him from his duties.  (Just what were his duties anyway?)  She would not, and he took off and went to Ireland. 

Impish_Impulse said:

Boleyn said:

Although Thomas Howard was imprisoned after Katherine Howard's downfall, he was released shortly after Edward's death by Mary Tudor and given back his land and his titles, and treated with all due respect in her reign. 

A minor quibble – Thomas Howard’s downfall had nothing to do with Kathryn, his arrest coming nearly 5 years after her death (she died in Feb. 1542 and he was arrested in Dec. of 1546). He was caught up in that whole mess about his son, Surrey, displaying the royal arms and insignia in his own heraldry. Surrey was executed, but Norfolk lucked out when the King died the day before his planned execution and the Council decided not to carry it out (so as to not begin Edward’s reign with bloodshed?).

Yeah true, but Katherine's disgrace didn't really help Thomas much, as I think Henry had banished him from court anyway.. He was extrememly lucky to have actually lived anyway.  Although he had distanced himself from his niece Anne, Thomas and his sister Elizabeth, at the rate of warp speed 10, when Anne started fall. Henry was out to make sure that if Anne fell the whole Boleyn/Howard clan fell too. I think that some notable members of the Boleyn/Howard clan were actually inprisoned in the Tower for a short while. Thomas as I have already said redeemed himself in Henry's eyes again due to the Pilgramage of Grace protests.If these Protests hadn't have happened I think this whole thing with Surrey and Thomas may have even kicked off before it did. 

But I don't think Henry really fully trusted him again.

 When Anne started to fall he must have seen it comming which probably accounts for the fact that he did a Star Trek, but with Katherine it just seemed to happen all at once and even he couldn't have seen it comming and it was a case of doing the best he could to save his neck, and stupid as it may sound as Thomas was the main judge at Katherine's Trial as he was Anne's. In Henry's mind perhaps Thomas had ordered the death of his Rose without a Thorn, not himself, therefore Thomas had murdered Katherine.

I wonder if this whole thing with where Thomas and his Son ended up in the Tower was all a case our sour and very bitter grapes, Thomas could no longer Lord it over everyone in the court (except of course Henry), and his Son coudn't Lord it over everyone in Court (except of course Henry and Thomas), although I believe Surrey was in around the court after Katherine's execution, but he couldn't brag or bluster about being the cousin to the Queen, and got a bit resentful, when other members of the court told him to shut up, instead of being able to tell them to shut up instead..

Thomas too must have felt resentful towards his whole situation, as he had hoped to rule England through a child of either the Boleyn or Howard family, and because of what happened with both Anne and Katherine. Although he may have had some kind of influence (if you can call it that where Elizabeth was concerned) that wouldn't happen, and basically threw a hissy fit and got careless with what he was saying, and Surrey, decided to rub his Royal titles in Henry's face, in short stick 2 fingers up at Henry and say I'm better than you.

As it goes the Howard clan actually were, as the Tudors were only the ruling monarchs, because of Henry's father who as we know defeated Richard 3rd at Bosworth. Henry's ancentry, could really only be legitimatley traced back to Henry 6th, and even then it was only because 1. Henry's great grandmother was Queen of England (Catherine of France) for about 18 or 24 months. 2 His Grandfather (Edmund Tudor) was the Half brother of Henry 6th.

Yeah Margaret Beaufort (his Grandmother) did have some Royal blood, but I think her father(Duke of Somerset) was disgraced because  his actions in France, I think he sacked one of the towns that belonged to one of our allies the Duke of Brittainey? and killed every everyone and everything, and burned the place to the ground. I believe he commited suicide rather than face trail for treason and the axe. Maybe his actions managed to in some way preserve the Beaufort family fortunes, as Margaret certainly seemed to do well for herself, and her 3 marriages, although it could be argued she was married 4 times as she was betrothed at the age of 7? to the Duke of Suffolk's son, and this was retracted when she was about 9 or 10, when her father died.

.Betrothal was seen as good as a marriage, but as it hadn't been consumated, it could be argued that it was no marriage.. Yeah I can see you all scratching your heads and thinking 9 and consumating a marriage Bah she's off her head.. But Richard 2nd's second wife was only 9 too she (Isabella) was know as the little Queen, and Richard shared her bed on occations, so I guess we can persume, that Richard did consumate the marriage.

 By the was The little Queen was an older sister of Catherine of France Henry 5th Queen.. and just for the record  Isabella married again, but died either in childbirth or shortly after at the age of 19…

Another interesting fact to note about Margaret, is that she actually nearly died giving birth to Henry and there was talk of cutting her open to get the baby (Henry) out..

 Her mother is allegedely supposed to have said the baby must live, if she dies it will be a sad loss but the baby is the important one here and everything must be done to bring it out alive.. I find this a little difficult to believe, as Henry was allegedely supposed to have said the same thing when Jane was giving birth.. Rumour has it there by the way that in the end the Doctor's gave her a ceaserian? I think it's more likely to have been and episotomy, as I believe Edward was perhaps a little stuck, and needed a bit of extra help. This I think is more plausible given that Jane developed septisemia..They weren't exactly hygiene consious in those days..

Elizabeth Woodville who was Henry's Grandmother on his mother's side was a commoner, although her father had married Jacquetta of Luxemburg, and she herself was decended from the Count of Brienne.

Richard Woodville was created Baron Rivers by Henry 6th in 1448, but was created Earl Rivers untill 1466, by Edward 4th.

Shame he didn't live long enough to enjoy having the title as he was executed after the battle at Kenilworth, by Henry 6th victorious triumph in 1469. So there was no drop of royal blood other than her mother's in this line.. Even the Name Rivers was not a royal title, it came from Elizabeth's Mother who was believed to be deccended from a Water Goddess.

We all know that both Elizabeth and her Mother were suspected of Witchcraft and in fact Jacquetta was actually arrested and charged with witchcraft by the Earl of Warwick shortly after the execution of Earl Rivers in 1469. Although these charges were subsequently dropped in 1470.. But there were still those who believed that Elizabeth and her mother were witches.. Henry 4th second Queen Joan of Navarre was actually found guilty of practising Witchcraft and causing the death of Henry 4th, but was cleared of all carges when Henry 5th came to throne..

Edward 4th Henry's Grandfather, (Henry himself was allegely supposed to resemble him in height and build)

Hmm this a tough one, we know that he was decended from the Duke's of York, but there were a number of rumours which were circulating as to his parentage. Yes his mother was Cecily, but his father was not as some sources state Richard Plantangant, some say he was the child of a stable hand, who met with an accident out riding one day when it had been found out that he's been playing with fire, others have actually said that he was the son of Jasper Tudor, but I think we can discount Jasper as he was also alleged to have been Margaret of Anjou's lover and to also be the father of Prince Edward, who died at Tewkesbury. Either way Cecily pregnancy was said to be 11 months long, which I believe is documented.

Anyhow whatever the mystery is surrounding Edward's parentage Richard excepted him and the rest as they say is history..A point of fact if any of these rumours were true it wouldn't be the first time a bastard had sat on the throne, as William the Conqueror was a bastard..

Anyway I digress, the point is that Henry 8th Royal blood line was extremely diluted as was his father's before him and to be totally honest it was only because of the fact of Henry 8th Mother that we can really except the Tudor line anyway. As Elizabeth of York was a Royal Princess.

Another point about Elizabeth of York it was rumoured that Richard 3rd wanted to marry her after the death of his wife. Maybe if Richard had won Bosworth instead of Henry he might of done.. There would be no reason to why he couldn't as he'd declared her and her siblings bastards to take the throne in 1483, so the rule of consangunity wouldn't have applied.. Now that would have been something that would stir up the hornets nest, or should that be the boar's nest LOL…

Back (finally) to the Howards, It's a wild and wacky thought here (but then I am a bit of the latch sometimes) Maybe Surrey was going to try and make a play for the throne itself? (if he was it was a damn fool thing to do) Henry by this time was a sick old man, and there were many young up and comming men in and around the court at this time basically waiting around waiting for the King to die so that they could curry favour with the Young Boy King (Edward) and those around him when the time came. Surrey thought, a boy on the throne? we don't need that and 2 girl's who are of no use whatsoever except perhaps to validate my claim, we need a man one who knows how to rule a country etc, so by desplaying his Royal titles emblems and Badges around he was testing the waters to see if anyone would back him, against Henry. After all Buckingham tried it early in Henry's reign and lost his head for it, but Henry was young and strong and had every hope of producing a brood of Boys. Now Henry was old and sick and not likely to put up much of fight, he of course underestimated Henry and all those who served him and as a result met with the Headmen instead..

 Maybe Thomas knew of this plan and though ok so my Son can rule England and I can rule through him instead, he's got to marry either Mary or Elizabeth though or his claim to the throne could be argued by others. This of course is purely hypothetical, but who knows it could have been exactly what was running through the heads of both of them. Either way they made a pig's ear of what ever they had planned to do and Thomas was extremely lucky to survived, if Henry had lived maybe another hour or 2 Thomas too would have found himself shorter by a head..

Quick note.. Henry 8th died on the exact date that is father Henry 7th had been born on.. 28th January..

I meant to say that Katherine Howard wasn't learned like her predessors. Damn rubber fingers

Boleyn said:

What was it that Katherine did, that attracted Henry to her? She was learned like Katherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn, neither was she mild and quiet like Jane Seymour, but she was different to Anne of Cleves, so perhaps that's all it took. Did perhaps Culpepper point him out to the King and say that she was pretty etc. and earmark her for himself, not realising at the time that Henry had put Katherine in his to do list..

Would Henry got bored with Katherine and divorced her later on.. I think so.. Henry was perhaps bowled over by a simple child like ways, but soon realised perhaps that she was nothing more than a child, and not always taking into account that perhaps he wasn't always in the mood to play games. In the Winter of 1540/1541, he bolted his door against her, perhaps even then she'd started to irritate him, and he was probably irritated by himself by having not got her pregnant yet. So yes he probably was feeling a little under the weather but he could have also been sulking too. Katherine's whole role as Queen was 1 to look pretty and 2 to have children. If Henry had managed to get Katherine Pregnant he probably wouldn't have had a lot to do with her, preferring perhaps to spend his time with woman who had something between their ears, other than hot air LOL..

Katherine was described as being pretty, plump and youthful. Henry managed to sleep with her for some time, so she obviously excited him sexually. Katherine was likely a welcome distraction from the Anne of Cleves marriage. I don't think Henry would of tired of Katherine, because for him she was such a catch. She wasn't stupid, Starky says in his six wives that she knew how to play him – she dressed like Anne Boleyn (seductively) but behaved like Jane Seymour. Just because she didn't enjoy religious philosophy or politics doesn't mean she was uneducated by Tudor standards. After Anne Boleyn, I don't think Henry wanted a particularly intelligent wife anyway. Katherine Parr annoyed Henry because of her religious debating, remember… The Queen had a lot more responsibility than to look pretty and give birth… They had to be charitable, run a household effectively, and much more. There is no evidence that Henry took mistresses during his marriage to Katherine. Chapys believed Henry loved her the most out of all his previous wives as he embraced her far more than any other.

Boleyn said:

Did Katherine love Culpepper? Yes I think she did, for the first time in her life here was a man who didn't try to rip her clothes off the minute she walked in the room, I also believe that given how childish she was, the presents that Culpepper was bringing to her, from Henry when he was ill, Katherine believed or wanted to believe that they were from Culpepper,not Henry. Perhaps she had started to understand just what love was, now that she'd been a court for a little while, as the Court to Katherine must have seemed like Disneyland is to me a magical place where dreams come true.

Did Katherine tell Culpepper about her previous lovers?  Did Culpepper actually think she was a virgin when she married the King?

Culpepper knew Katherine before she came to court – he was her cousin. They stayed up at night talking alone, there's no evidence to suggest they had intercourse, so of course Katherine believed she had done nothing wrong. I'm sure Culpepper had a general idea about Katharine's past. He didn't have a particularly clean past himself – how about that poor woman he raped?

Rumour has it that Anne Boleyn was alledgely supposed to have said that Henry was useless in bed and she was never satified. (It's crap she never said it. Henry and his lackeys, more so Cromwell and his flunkeys said it to blacken Anne's name, and I suppose to justify the reason to why Henry got rid of her) Kings were seen as Gods to the populus, and they were all powerful, had no faults and only had to look at a woman and they were pregnant.

If we take what Anne is allegdely supposed to said as Sacrosanct  This is why I believe Henry had to kill her.

He simply couldn't take the risk that Katherine wouldn't repeat, what was alledely said by Anne, that would have really kicked square in the teeth and in the gentleman's department, so Katherine simply had to die..

Anne may have said something about Henry's sexual prowess – George Boleyn was handed a note during his trial asking if Anne had spoken to him about Henry's impotence – George didn't say no… Considering how long Henry took to get Jane pregnant also suggests a sexual dysfunction on Henry's part perhaps. I don't think Henry would of killed Anne for telling others about his impotence – he had managed to take mistresses during his marriage to Anne, and I'm sure he performed well for them. Most likely it was caused by the pressure of producing an heir. There were many contributing factors to the execution of Anne Boleyn – in fact two days before her trial she was Henry's “Entirely beloved wife”. Anne got pregnant 3 times in her 3 years of marriage to Henry – not bad in my opinion. There is evidence to suggest Henry enjoyed intercourse with Katherine Howard frequently, I don't think he had any problem getting aroused with her. It's well known that Katherine was very sexually attractive to men. Katherine died because A) She wasn't a virgin when she married the King, which no doubt she should have done. B) She had night time meetings with another man. She had made a fool of him, plain and simple.

LOL, Elliemarianna, it's so hard to keep up sometimes!

Elliemarianna:  He(Culpepper) didn't have a particularly clean past himself – how about that poor woman he raped?
 

Good one Ellie: I thought that was just put into The Tudors for entertainment value?

Guess it's one of the darker sides to Tudor history, that we know nothing about unless we go mining

However given the circumstances it's entirely possible I suppose. Derham was supposed to have remarked to Culpepper, that  he (Derham) burned for love of Katherine and that Culpepper could burn too.

Did Henry know that Culpepper has a somewhat clouded past? 

I'm 100% sure Katherine didn't enjoy having sex with Henry. He was clinically obese, had a puss leaking ulcerated leg which must of smelt disgusting and presumably rotten teeth and bad breath since he loved his sugary subtleties so much. Henry referred to Katherine as his “Jewel of womanhood” and “Rose without a thorn”. There is much confusion about Katharine's date of birth – being anywhere between from 11 to 15 when Manox had a relationship with her, and 17 to 21 when she was executed.

We all make mistakes in our teenage years – its part of growing up. Just because she loved/lusted after another doesn't mean she was stupid. Perhaps the thought of another few years lying under Henry's fat, horrible, sweaty body (as was her duty) was unbearable. Death was no doubt a much nicer option in her opinion. Indeed the midnight trysts between her and Culpepper, the handsome rascal, no doubt made her feel excited and a little rebellious, but she didn't actually have sex with him. Fundamentally – there is nothing wrong with enjoying sex, as she obviously did. Just like Anne Boleyn she knew how to use sexuality to get what she wanted, Katherine just went about it in the wrong way. We must remember that Henry's other Queens had the benefit of both age and education.

re: Culpepper and the rape. Is it definitely Howard's Culpepper that committed the crime. Didn't he have a brother also called Thomas and there is confusion over who did the rape and murder?

Katherine has definitely gone down in the history books as the dumb wife, but that's only because history has looked back on her with the benefits of hindsight. Thankfully modern scholars are now researching and presenting a different view on the 5th wife. As Ellie pointed out above, she appears to have been a very compassionate young lady. Just like Jane Parker's story is evolving into her not being pure evil, I think Katherine is slowly evolving into a more complex character.

For me, Katherine is like all those Playboy Bunnies. Sure they claim they are with Hugh Hefner but you can't tell me they aren't flirting with men more their age. So Katherine's behaviour is not stupid, its natural.

I definately don't believe Katheryn was stupid, she was just in a very dangerous situation and she was still a young woman so it was natural to make some mistakes but the thing is that in that world and in that position as Queen to that King…it was all just a horrible horrible messy situation which ended tragically. Plus she was so caught up in the new jewels and clothes and being treated so differently and nicely that maybe she thought it wasn't possible for anything bad to happen. She thought Henry cared for her so much that he'd forgive anything she did and everything would be okay and that was when she didn't use her head hence being called dumb, but I wouldn't call it being dumb i'd call it being blind sided. And I have a really bad feeling about that Culpepper, I feel as if he didn't care what happend to Katheryn as long as he was okay – people should put blame on him not all on Jane Rochford.

Culpepper and Catherine were close prior to her relationship with Henry, and there was talk that they would marry. Also, following his arrest, Culpepper admitted that he loved Catherine above all other creatures. If that were not true then he had no reason to admit to it. 

I think his motives have largely been questioned due to the supposed rape and murder. However, other than the rape and murder being referred to in one letter following the death of Culpepper, from someone who had no first hand knowledge of it, there is no other reference to it in any original document that I have been able to find. In other words there is nothing to corroborate it. Maybe he did commit those crimes, but I'm not prepared to accept it as gospel. He may very well have been a murderer and rapist, and I'm probably completely wrong. I've always been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt though, unless there is some other source to prove there was a crime committed and that he committed it (beyond a reasonable doubt of course, ha)!