Katherine’s passage through history cannot in all honesty be described as acclaimed, a sad statement for a woman whose very existence affected the face of fifteenth-century politics. Her legacy as the ancestress of kings has, in part, survived, as her name does occur with regularity in the historical texts produced in the six centuries since her death. But, far too often, it is only her name that is found. Her place would seem to be in relation to others: she is linked inevitably to Gaunt and the Beauforts, and is cited as the mother of, or lover of, other notables. Little can be found that describes her character or her actions, or that acknowledges that she had a personality.
Unfortunately, when texts are found that say more about Katherine than a mere assignment of her as mother of the Beauforts or as the lover of Gaunt, the tendency is to portray her in stereotypical terms. She appears in two contrasting forms, either as the evil temptress who diverted her lover from his political duties, or, in dichotomy, as a highly romantic character, the woman who stole the heart of a brave knight. There are reasons for this. Contemporary evidence that directly informs us about Katherine’s life and character is scarce, and therefore research is problematic. Furthermore, the individual writers who espouse their views of Katherine are affected by their own moral viewpoints and political agendas; there is obvious variation in both these areas over the centuries, and, in consequence, interest in Katherine and the depictions of her are not constant through time. She was, however, an important woman and deserves a place in historical texts.
In the century after her death little was said about Katherine in the chronicles. The author of An English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI describes the reaction to the wedding of Gaunt and Katherine:
And anon aftur, the duke partyd fro the kyng, and rode to Lyncolle, wher Kateryne Swynfordes abydyng was as at that tyme. And aftur the utas of xij day, the duke wedded the seyde Kateryne; the wheche wedding caused mony a monnus wonderyng, for, as hit was seyde, he haad holde heere longe before.1
There is no content here that relates directly to the character of Katherine. The text declares that the wedding caused gossip – ‘the wheche wedding caused mony a monnus wonderyng’ – but with no suggestion of malice, or even a sense of disapproval. Instead it indicates that the gossip arose merely from the unprecedented step of a duke marrying a woman when it was well known that she had been his mistress for many years: ‘as hit was seyde, he haad holde heere longe before’. The tone is one of surprise that Gaunt had felt it necessary to do the decent thing. The English Chronicle quoted above is a version of the Brut, of which there are over 120 extant versions in English, plus several more in French. This multitude of available manuscripts suggests that the Brut was widely read at the time of its writing – surely these 120 extant manuscripts are only a small selection of those available at the time. They can be viewed, therefore, as offering a snapshot of public opinion at the time of the wedding. There may be little said of Katherine’s character in the Brut, but this in itself is highly revealing. For example, the same cannot be said of Alice Perrers, the other famous royal mistress of the fourteenth century.2 The Brut is much more garrulous about Alice, describing in detail the ‘grete wronges and evel goveraunce that was done by her and by her counceyl in the reame’.3 In contrast, the author of this particular Brut manuscript confuses Katherine with another royal female:
Than kyng Herry sent to Dame Kateryn Swynfor, Countesse of Herforde, whiche was tho a wel-gouerned woman, and kept the most worshipful housolde, and the best rewlyd that was within the londe; and to her he sent for men that were of good disposicyoun; and she sent him xij Ientylmen of sad gouernaunce and so this gracious kyng forsoke al wyldnes, and toke hym to good gouernaunce, and kept streytly his lawys with ryghtwisnes and lustise.4
This is a most flattering portrayal of Katherine. However, it must be acknowledged that a mistake has been made on the part of the author. Katherine had been dead for a decade when this noble lady advised Henry V. The author has confused Katherine for Joan de Bohun, Henry’s maternal grandmother. The fact that the deeds of Alice Perrers were well known, and her character displayed in the negative, while Katherine appears to be somewhat of a mystery to the Brut chroniclers, surely suggests that the lover of Gaunt was highly discreet, not involving herself at all in her suitor’s political matters, or doing so in such a way that little was thought of it.
Other chronicles that are contemporary to the Brut strengthen this. Many do not mention Katherine or her relationship with Gaunt. A Short English Chronicle from the fifteenth century discusses Gaunt’s politically important marriages to Blanche of Lancaster and Constance of Castile, but not his attachment to Katherine.5 A similar lack of information is found in The Chronicle of John Hardyng. Hardyng was born in 1378 in the north of England. His initial career was as a soldier in the retinue of Sir Henry Percy (Hotspur), eldest son of the Earl of Northumberland. After the death of Hotspur, Hardyng joined the household of Sir Robert Umfraville and was constable first of Warkworth Castle and then of Kyme. He died here in 1465. Hardyng had another branch to his military career: he was a spy for Henry V, his mission being to uncover evidence that the English had the right of overlord of the Scots.
He started to write his chronicles in 1440 and presented them to Henry VI in 1457. He subsequently presented copies to Edward IV and Richard III but with revisions. His ‘Yorkist’ versions were missing a eulogy to Henry V. Instead, lines were inserted impugning Henry IV’s right to the throne. The Yorkist chronicle also included hostility to John of Gaunt. Hardyng stated that Gaunt had forged a chronicle alleging that Henry III’s second son, Edmund, was really his eldest child but was passed off as the second because he was a hunchback. If Edmund was the eldest, then the throne would have been Henry IV’s by right through his mother, Blanche of Lancaster. Despite this hostility to Gaunt, Hardyng makes no reference to Katherine nor to her role in Gaunt’s life. This is more remarkable when seen against the backdrop of Hardyng’s political affiliations as a member of the Percy household. This family lost their lives in rebellion against the Lancastrian dynasty.6 It would surely have been in Hardyng’s interest to defame Gaunt’s character through mention of his mistress if there had been any opportunity for scandalmongering on this subject. Equally, the Oxford academic Thomas Gascoigne did not hesitate in his criticisms of Gaunt, including one story alleging that Gaunt was ravaged by mortal disease as a direct result of his promiscuity! But there is no direct reference to Katherine, a remarkable omission.7 Surely being able to name and shame the women with whom Gaunt had behaved so immorally would have added further spice to Gascoigne’s text. Why did he not mention Katherine? Was he unaware of her presence?
The only hint of negativity towards Katherine’s character in the fifteenth-century chronicles can be found in Capgrave. He writes that Gaunt married Katherine ‘ageyn the opinion of many men’. John Capgrave, prior of the Augustrian friary at Lynn, wrote two major works. The first was The Book of Illustrious Henries written for Henry VI in 1446–7 and containing eulogies on any Henry who had a distinguished background. The second was The Chronicle of England dedicated to Edward IV. The two works had very different political outlooks. The first was pro-Lancastrian containing a eulogy on Henry IV. The second was pro-Yorkist, with Henry IV dismissed as a usurper. Capgrave appeared to have no strong political affiliation to either Lancastrians or Yorkists but wrote to please whoever was on the throne. His comment on Gaunt and Katherine’s marriage suggests that it was inappropriate and therefore infers that Katherine’s character and bearing were not suitable for the first lady of England, as she became on her marriage. At the very least, it suggests that the marriage caused a ripple in society. This demonstrates Capgrave’s familiarity with the work of Froissart and his acceptance of the Hainauter’s view of the court reaction to the wedding.8 Froissart states that the Duchess of Gloucester, the Countesses of Derby and Arundel, and other great ladies descended from royal blood marvelled at how Gaunt had disgraced himself through this marriage. Capgrave himself, however, does not seem overly certain of the details of Gaunt and Katherine’s relationship, as he states: ‘of this woman cam many childrin, whech were aftir legittimat – so semeth it that thei were borne befor this marriage.’9 This passage indicates that Capgrave knew only that the Beauforts were illegitimate because they underwent the legitimation ceremony. Was this just discretion on the part of the author? Katherine was not just connected to the Lancastrians through Gaunt; Edward IV was her greatgrandson!
Indeed, it can be said that the general decline in the quality and quantity of chronicles in the fifteenth century was due to the political situation. The changes in political climate led to a greater awareness of the need to tone down criticisms or animadversions against people in powerful positions.10 This is one possible reason why information from this period on Katherine – with her unique position as both Lancastrian and Yorkist – is limited. Indeed, the only significant reference to Katherine made at this time was a statement made by one in a position of political power. Richard III discredited Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne by issuing the following proclamation in 1485: ‘for he [Henry] is descended of bastard blood both of the father’s side and of the mother’s side. For the said Owen the grandfather was bastard born, and his mother was daughter to John, Duke of Somerset, son of John, Earl of Somerset, son to Dame Katherine Swynford, and born of her in double adultery.’11 This was obviously intended as a political slur against Henry Tudor, denying him royal blood. But it suggests that Richard believed people would not have been familiar with the background of the claimant to the throne. The lineage that Richard presents for Henry is correct. However, Richard is clearly trading off the assumption that the population at large would not recognise that he too shared this lineage. Richard was the son of Richard, third Duke of York, and Cecily Neville. Through his father he could trace a royal claim back to Edward III’s third son, Lionel. But Cecily Neville was the daughter of Joan Beaufort, and therefore Richard shared this stain of bastardy with Henry Tudor. Richard also embellished the relationship of Katherine and Gaunt through the claim that both of them were married to other parties while bearing the child from which Henry was descended. However, the statement of ‘double adultery’ could be an error of translation. In the original fifteenth-century script the phrase is ‘indouble avoutry’, which could equally well be translated as indubitable, or undoubted, adultery.12
With the coming of the Tudors, Katherine’s image, perhaps unsurprisingly, underwent a revival. Henry VII was anxious to promote his Lancastrian descendancy, as this formed the basis to his royal claim. This is evident through the development of the red rose as Lancastrian insignia. Before 1485 and the accession of Henry the red rose was the symbol of the Tudor family. However, after the rise of this family to the royal throne, its image was intensified to encapsulate Lancastrian loyalty.13 And the chroniclers followed suit, emphasising the new king’s Lancastrian descendancy. Francis Bacon, when enumerating the several claims of Henry, considered his right to the title of Lancaster as the most important.14 Henry himself can clearly be seen to believe that the Crown was his birthright. The short Bill of Parliament passing Henry’s claim declared:
to the pleasure of Almighty God, the wealth, prosperity and surety of the realm, to the comfort of all the king’s subjects and the avoidance of all ambiguities, be it ordained established and enacted by authority of the present parliament, that the inheritance of the crowns of the realms of England, France . . . be, rest, and remain and abide in the most royal person of our new Sovereign Lord king Henry the VIIth and in the heirs of his body lawfully comen perpetually . . .15
Indeed, the emphasis placed by Henry upon his Lancastrian heritage is most clearly demonstrated in the new epitaph that adorned John of Gaunt’s tomb in St Paul’s Cathedral during the first Tudor king’s reign. The epitaph glorifies Gaunt, as one would expect, declaring proudly his many titles and riches, but it is the portrayal of Katherine that is most remarkable. She is described as:
Tertiam vero uxorem duxit Catharinam, ex equestri familia, et eximia pulchretudine feminam; Ex qua numerosam suscepit prolem, uncle genus ex matre duxit Henricus Septimus Rex Anglie prudentissimus.16
His third wife was Katherine, of a knightly family, and an exceptionally beautiful woman; they had numerous offspring, and from these came the maternal family of King Henry VII.
Katherine is here portrayed as an exceptional beauty, her lineage that of a knightly family. There is no indication that the Beauforts were born before the couple married nor while Gaunt was still married to Constance. Furthermore, the descendancy of Henry is proudly proclaimed, not just from Gaunt but explicitly linked to Katherine. The epitaph states that it was from her children that the maternal family of Henry VII was propagated.17 From this publicly displayed arena Henry appears to have held no qualms about declaring his genesis from Katherine. Griffiths and Thomas have even suggested that Henry’s daughter Katherine was named for her ancestress.18 However, Henry may have believed that his royalty came from descent, but, despite this public declaration on Gaunt’s tomb, Katherine is absent from the majority of the history from the Tudor period.
The most important of the Tudor chroniclers was Polydore Vergil. Born in Urbino, he came to England in 1502 with his patron Adriano de Castello of Corneto, who had been preferred to the see of Hereford. Castello became cardinal in 1503. Vergil enjoyed a favourable position – through Castello he obtained various preferments within the Church. He also acted as an ecclesiastical diplomat for the English court, but was out of favour in 1514 because of the ambitions of Wolsey. Vergil was imprisoned in the tower as a means of putting pressure on his friends in Rome. He was released when Wolsey became cardinal. After his release, Vergil lived quietly in England until his return to Urbino in 1553. He died in 1555.
It was as a result of a commission from Henry VII that Vergil wrote his history of England. He stated in his book that there was no adequate history of England; the medieval monastic chronicles were ‘bald, uncouth, chaotic and deceitful’. Vergil stated his view of history and its recording as ‘the only unique, certain and faithful witness of times and things, redounding as much to the glory of the author as to the useful of posterity’. But his purpose was to put a favourable interpretation on the rise of the Tudors and therefore, despite his anxiety to partake only of the truth, discretion was on occasion required. As he had already discovered at the hands of Wolsey, the political power of the Tudors demanded a circumspect approach to the history that he wrote. As a result, Vergil, in his descriptions of Henry Beaufort, states that he was son to Gaunt by his third wife, with no indication of Beaufort’s illegitimacy or of Katherine and Gaunt’s illicit affair.19
Instead, the myth was perpetuated that Henry was a gift from God to secure peace in England. This is the theme that the chroniclers adopted, and Katherine was not mentioned in any royal context. The Crowland Chronicler declared that ‘Henry was praised by all as an angel sent from heaven, through whom God deigned to visit his people and free them from the evils which had so afflicted them’.20 John Rous repeated this line that Henry came from God and proclaimed that, in accordance with an ancient prophecy, Henry would therefore be remembered with honour by future generations. This conflicts sharply with Rous’s descriptions of Richard III, whom he portrays as a tyrant incited by the Anti-Christ.21 Vergil elaborates upon the prophecy that Rous refers to. He states that Cadwallader, the last British king, proclaimed: ‘Thie contrie shall fall into the hands of thine enemies, which thie progenie longe hereafter shall recover.’22 But the Tudor kings Henry VII and Henry VIII commissioned Vergil’s work. Therefore, to state that the Lancastrian line and the Tudor dynasty were of true royal value, not just from the Plantagenets but from ancient British kings, would certainly be the most pleasing line for this chronicler’s patrons to read.
Robert Fabyan is the exception among the Tudor chroniclers. He too reflects the official line that Henry was the legitimate heir, blessed by God and the bringer of peace to England.23 But his work also contains information on Katherine and her relationship with Gaunt. He notes how the Beauforts were base-born, and legitimised after their parents’ wedding. Fabyan also displays his familiarity with the Brut as he, incorrectly, states that Katherine was made Countess of Hereford. This familiarity is perhaps to be expected. The Brut is connected closely to the London chronicles and Fabyan was a London man, an alderman, a member of the drapers’ company and, in 1493, a Sheriff of London.24 Uniquely, he also declares that the S in Gaunt’s famous collar of esses stood for Swynford.25 This is an extremely interesting assertion, as badges and insignia such as the collar were seen as intrinsic elements of identity and personality. However, it seems highly unlikely that Gaunt would have wished to celebrate the married name of his lover and equally unlikely that Katherine would have agreed to the step; her personal efforts were focused on producing an identity for herself that was firmly removed from her Swynford connections. Nevertheless, Fabyan’s ponderings on this matter show that at least one chronicler was interested in the characters that surrounded the lineage of his king; he was known to be an ardent supporter of Henry VII. Moreover, given that he obviously obtained some of his information from the Brut, it can be safely asserted that he would have been familiar with other chronicles contemporary to Katherine’s life and, therefore, aware of how she had been portrayed by others.26 But he too continued the familiar Tudor line, describing Henry as a magnificent and excellent prince, and upholding the righteousness of the Tudor claim.
John Fisher described the myth that Henry was a gift from God in its fullest form in his tale of St Nicholas visiting Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry Tudor and great-granddaughter of Katherine, with marital advice. Fisher does not refer directly to Katherine, but in his chapters on the many nobilities of Margaret he declares that the first came from the noble blood from which she was descended. He confirms that this noble blood was of Edward III, but also of John, Duke of Somerset, who was the grandson to Katherine.27 However, Margaret was his patron, so a eulogy on her ancestors was perhaps to be expected. As the sixteenth century progressed, Katherine began to be included in the chronicles, but still no explicit connection to Henry VII was made. Edward Hall describes the lineage of ‘the noble and haute’ Henry from Gaunt in some detail, but without referral to Katherine or her character. She is mentioned only in 1403: ‘In this year also died Lady Katherine Swinsford the third wife of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster’.28 But, Hall does declare that Henry Beaufort was son to Gaunt by his third wife, so a Beaufort connection to Katherine is made in part.28
John Hayward includes similar detail in his chronicle. He writes that Henry VII is descended from Gaunt through the Earl and Duke of Somerset, but Katherine is again mentioned only as third wife of Gaunt when Hayward records her death.30 However, what is noticeable in the texts of the sixteenth century is the favour granted to Gaunt. Hayward’s portrayal of the Duke has Gaunt ‘trying to act dutifully and honourably in difficult circumstances’.31 Similarly, Shakespeare in Richard II makes Gaunt the play’s voice of reason: ‘one reason why Shakespeare apotheosised Gaunt in this way may have been his awareness (and that of his audience) that Gaunt was the progenitor of the Queen’s paternal family, whereas she had no descent from the controversially rebellious Bolingbroke.’32 The clear implication here is that it was well known that Gaunt’s children had different mothers. However, direct mention of illegitimacy was obviously a delicate matter to be avoided at all costs. Thus it would seem that in the sixteenth century Katherine was just another wife or mother. No scandal was associated with her, but neither was she accredited with any character or worth. She was merely Duchess of Lancaster, wife of Gaunt, and it was up to the reader to connect her with the royal line.
The historians of the seventeenth century showed equal care in declaring Katherine as the wife of Gaunt, not his mistress, but were happier to link her directly to the royal line. The Stuart kings also owed their descendancy to Katherine. Joan, the daughter of John Beaufort and granddaughter of Katherine, married James I of Scotland, a match that was negotiated by Joan’s uncle Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester. The marriage, however, would seem to have been a love match. James wrote Joan a poem in which he declared she was ‘the fairest of the freshest budding flower that ever I saw’.33 Perhaps, therefore, it is not surprising that John Weever, writing when Charles Stuart was on the throne, wrote of Katherine and her marriage to Gaunt in glowing terms. Weever describes how Katherine was daughter of Sir Paon Roet, king of arms for Guyenne, and continues:
The abouefaid Katherine, eldeft daughter of this king of arms, was first married to Sir Otes Swynford knight, and after to John of Gaunt the great Duke of Lancaster; of whose issue by her is obserued to be descended a most royal and illustrious offspring; videlicet, eight Kings, foure Queenes, and fiue Princes of England; Sixe Kings, and three Queenes of Scotland; two Cardinals, aboue twenty Dukes, and almoot as many Dutches of the kingdome of England; diuers Dukes of Scotland, and most of all the now ancient Nobilitie of both those kingdoms, besides many other potent Princes, and eminent nobility of forraigne parts.34
Here Katherine is accredited with a royalty and respectability far beyond any previously granted her.
Also writing in the 1630s, Giovanni Francesco Biondi, gentleman of the privy chamber of Charles I, spoke of Katherine in unequivocally radiant terms. Biondi acknowledges that she had been Gaunt’s concubine and that their children were illegitimate, but that Gaunt was wise to marry her, as she, although not nobly born, was of good condition. He continues that this marriage was fortuitous for England, enabling Henry VII to be king and, as a consequence, peace to reign in England. Biondi extends his praise to John Beaufort, whom he describes as a good scholar and ‘perfectly wise’.35 Later in the same century Thomas Speght connects Katherine with the wife of Geoffrey Chaucer, stating that she was sister to the ‘gentle-woman’ who became Chaucer’s spouse.36
Katherine’s familial links were again mentioned towards the end of the century by Richard Baker, who emphasised the royal descendancy from Katherine:
Henry Earl of Richmond, born in Pembroke Castle, Son to Edmund Earl of Richmond, by his Wife Margaret, sole daughter of John Duke of Somerset, which John was son of John Earl of Somerset, son of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, by his third wife Katherine Swynford; and by this descent heir to the House of Lancaster.37
Thus the seventeenth century can be seen to have looked favourably upon Katherine. Writers of this period proclaimed her royalty; her position as mistress was either not mentioned at all or discussed as just a prelude to the fortuitous event of her marriage to Gaunt. Her character is displayed as one that was suitable, even desirable, for the medieval royal family to include within its ranks, and her descendants enabled peaceful times to be experienced in England.
But only a few decades later Katherine’s reputation is portrayed in less glowing terms. M. Rapin de Thoyras declares that Katherine was Gaunt’s mistress, and that her children were bastards. Thus Henry’s claim to the throne was Lancastrian, ‘but by a spurious branch’, and, indeed, question arose over whether Richard II’s legitimation of the Beauforts gave to Henry, ‘derived from a bastard born in adultery, the right of succeeding to the crown’.38 De Thoyras was obviously no supporter of Gaunt, declaring that ‘the duke of lancafter was not beloved; he was charged with having abufed his power towards the latter end of the laft reign [Edward III’s], and of having treated the fubjects with too great haughtinefs’. De Thoyras also asserts that even the Black Prince suspected that Gaunt had designs on the throne.39
A century later and this negative view of Katherine was gaining strength. Samuel Bentley deduced Gaunt’s reasoning on marrying Katherine: ‘As Lady Swynford was then upwards of forty, and had been the Duke’s mistress above 20 years, it may be inferred, that gratitude and conscientious motives were his only inducements for making her his wife.’40 A duke of the realm marrying his ageing concubine who was no doubt somewhat past her best was patently a dreadful business when measured against the conventions of nineteenth-century society. J.H. Wylie continues in the same vein as Bentley. He discusses Katherine in some biographical detail but asserts that it is only the success of the Beauforts that has allowed history to gloss over ‘her deep dishonour’.41 For Bentley it is the actions of Gaunt, and for Wylie the actions of Katherine’s male children, that have ‘saved’ her reputation. No concession is made that perhaps she had a personal strength of character with the ability to control her own reputation; she was, after all, a mere woman, and, moreover, of somewhat ‘loose’ morals.
There was, however, some acknowledgement in these nineteenth-century texts that Katherine had a remarkable personality. Godwin, writing at the beginning of the century, declares that she must have been highly accomplished and that she was ‘foremost in the possession of the confidence of the duchess [Blanche of Lancaster]’. But, despite these concessions, Godwin’s view was that of the later authors. He includes this in his description of Katherine and Gaunt’s marriage: ‘John of Gaunt, whose mind was instinct with the domestic and social affections, had nothing now more nearly at heart, than the desire of making a respectable establishment, and providing in the most effectual manner, for this doubtful branch of his personal relations.’ Godwin continues that, through the marriage to Katherine, Gaunt had ‘thus paid homage he thought due to the woman to whom he had been so long attached’.42
These passages were of course written against a backdrop of the period, and, therefore, the style and tone of the texts are affected by the social conventions of the time of writing. However, it is astonishing to discover that these, somewhat quaint, views are also discernible throughout most of the following century. Radford, writing in the 1900s and therefore perhaps more of a nineteenth-century man than a twentieth-century one, continues the argument that it was as a reward for Katherine’s faithfulness during their illicit connection that Gaunt married her and states that it was probably for the children ‘that John braved the criticism and the resentment of the ladies at court’.43
It should be interjected here that there are some positives to be found in these declarations of Gaunt’s honourable actions. The acknowledgement is made that Katherine’s children, despite illegitimacy, are successful. And Katherine’s ‘faithfulness’ was a remarkable feature of her character. Throughout her affair with Gaunt, despite not having the legal and religious blessing to wear the title, she can be credited with playing the role of the virtuous – and virtual – wife. Moreover, one scholar from this period of writing was a supporter of Katherine. Armitage-Smith, in his extensive biography of Gaunt, argues that ‘the best answer to detractors who . . . attempted to class Katherine with adventuresses like Alice Perrers, is furnished by the new duchess of Lancaster herself’.44 Furthermore, James Ramsay concurs that ‘Katherine Swynford, no doubt, was a woman of superior manners and attainments, and capable of filling a good position in society’.45 Unfortunately, this is tucked away in a footnote; the text itself criticises Gaunt for neglecting his wives in favour of Katherine.46 Yet again, it would appear that the morals of a Victorian age filter through in the writings of the first part of the twentieth century. These are best summed up in the account of Philip Lindsay: ‘When one considers the usual treatment of mistresses in those days Gaunt’s act was a very noble one, and it brought much ridicule upon him. But he married for the children’s sake.’47
Twentieth-century scholarship focused solely on Katherine rather than on her connections to Gaunt or the English court. R.E.G. Cole, whose ‘Manor and Rectory of Kettlethorpe’ was published in 1911, is a source of much useful information, especially in relation to the lives of the Swynfords and their landholdings in Lincolnshire.48 An American scholar, Albert Stanburrough Cook, was also studying Katherine at this time. Cook’s primary interest was the life of Geoffrey Chaucer, but, as with many Chaucerians since, his work expanded to include Katherine. His studies include much biographical detail of the lives of the Beauforts, discussing in detail the birth dates of these children of Gaunt and Katherine. Cook is the only academic to argue that the birth dates of the Beauforts must be considerably earlier than otherwise acknowledged. It is from his work that much is known about the background of Katherine’s paternal Roet family.
Interest in Katherine continued into the 1920s, with correspondents in the Times Literary Supplement discussing her life, again in the context of her familial connections to Chaucer. It is the middle of the century, however, before the discourse on Katherine is again extensive. And it is from this period of time that there is a distinct downturn in the portrayals of her character. Works from previous centuries can be judged against their social and political background, and works of the early twentieth century show significant attempts at serious scholarship. But the 1950s witnessed the stereotyping of Katherine to an extreme. This is most evident in Anya Seton’s novel about Katherine, first published in that decade. Seton states in her preface that she was anxious to ground her novel in historical fact, and indeed evidence of historical research is present. In many parts of her book there is some deal of accuracy in her portrayals of the past. However, the purpose of Seton’s book was entertainment. It was intended to be a historical romance. And romance is certainly what occurs in the story. Katherine is beautiful, meek, virtuous, loyal and extremely religious. Gaunt is masterful, brave and proud, yet sensitive and loving. They both play their parts as romantic heroes extremely well.
But this romantic view of Katherine distorts the truth as much as any animadversions against her. It would be hard for any real person to be the perfect heroine that Seton illustrates through her tale. The book is intended as entertainment, and as such it is well written and enjoyable, and has certainly attracted much support. It has introduced Katherine as a strong and positive character to many people who would otherwise not have been aware of her existence. But there is much fiction present, and this, astonishingly, has appeared as history in other quarters. For example, Alison Weir describes Katherine and her life directly from the novel, including information that I have found only in Seton’s fictional embellishments: ‘Priests delivered sermons on her vices and the common people spat at her when she appeared in public.’49
Seton herself first discovered Katherine in the work of a Chaucerian, Marchette Chute, and it was in her study of Geoffrey Chaucer that she found the inspiration for her romantic tale.50 Chute states that Katherine was the one great love of Gaunt’s life, and that he was unfalteringly devoted to his mistress.51 In the same period, Katherine was attracting attention from more Chaucerian scholars, most notably Margaret Galway, John Manly and George Williams.52 Galway has researched Katherine’s biography as part of her extensive quest to discover more about Chaucer’s life and family. Similarly, Manly discusses Katherine where her life crosses that of the English poet. Williams, however, argues that Katherine exerted a larger influence on Chaucer than that of mere sister-inlaw, suggesting that Gaunt and Katherine were the inspiration for a number of Chaucer’s characters. He also suggests that Katherine is portrayed on the frontispiece of the Corpus Christi manuscript of Troilus and Criseyde. Williams discusses the Victorian image of Gaunt, stating that, to the Victorian mind, his affair with Katherine ‘placed Gaunt outside the pale of decency’, whereas to Chaucer and his contemporaries Gaunt would have appeared ‘no worse than others in sexual behaviour, and better than most’.53
However, not all viewed the subject in the same way as Williams. The legacy of Victorian attitudes can be witnessed in the works of the second half of the twentieth century. McFarlane condescendingly declares of Gaunt and Katherine’s liaison: ‘The family life of the house of Lancaster must have been somewhat free and easy. It is perhaps not surprising that one of Bolingbroke’s sisters, Elizabeth, went to the bad.’54 Chrimes goes even further. Gaunt found Katherine ‘in less distinguished quarters’, and to make a woman of her standing his wife was no light matter.55 Rosenthal asserts that the fact ‘that old John of Gaunt decided to marry his mistress of many years, Katherine Swynford, can perhaps be considered as the pleasant sentimentality of the elderly’.56 The morals and beliefs of these scholars pervade their viewpoint, as did the beliefs of their earlier counterparts in the first decades of the twentieth century.
The last decades of the century provide some respite from a stereotypical view. Given-Wilson and Curteis discuss Katherine in some detail, providing biographical information with some analysis, and they acknowledge that Katherine’s presence was perhaps not as scandalous as some would have us believe.57 Anthony Goodman also attempts an analysis of Katherine, and indeed is the only historian to have produced any work solely on her. Both in his discussions of Katherine in his biography on Gaunt, and in the pamphlet that focuses on Katherine alone, Goodman attempts to see beyond the negative depictions of her.58 He addresses issues of her education, her abilities and her status in society. But, despite acknowledging that Katherine’s character was probably better than that of just ducal seducer, on the whole the work is based on documentary, biographical details. Little is uncovered of her personality.
Anil de Silva-Vigier discusses the character of Katherine in her work on John of Gaunt. She describes her as ‘one of those fortunate women whose beauty was both physical and spiritual, a quality which she appears to have retained throughout her life’.59 She also attempts a critique of Thomas Walsingham’s negativity, saying of the reported public tour of 1378 described in the chronicler’s work that ‘perhaps we have here the usual exaggeration which was woven round the small incidents in his [Gaunt’s] life’.60 However, de SilvaVigier’s work is permeated with an extremely romantic view of both the couple and Katherine as an individual that leads to much of her findings having a somewhat unconvincing air. She reads the account in the Anonimalle of Katherine as ‘une deblesce et enchantresce’ as a compliment: ‘it only confirms our suspicion that she was a fascinating woman.’ The author of the Anonimalle, however, would surely have meant ‘a she-devil and enchantress’ as a derogatory term! Moreover, de Silva-Vigier reports speculative detail as fact: ‘At first Katherine had insisted on absolute discretion because she certainly would not want to humiliate her husband; after his death, not knowing how John’s marriage to Constanza would turn out, and before all her Beaufort children were born, she did not want to be openly humiliated either.’61 It is impossible to know Katherine’s personal views on the relationship and what efforts she took to conceal it.
It can be clearly seen that the historiography of Katherine Swynford is limited. Numerous references are made to her as mistress or wife of Gaunt or as mother of the Beauforts. But very little information on her character is to be found. And no scholar has discussed how Katherine was viewed by her contemporaries beyond a quotation from Froissart. Yes, the contemporary records are in themselves scarce, but information on Katherine is available, not just in these records but also in the histories of fourteenth-century court culture. It was against this background that Katherine was raised and lived as an adult; therefore a study of the lifestyles of the nobility of this time will provide information on Katherine’s lifestyle. In addition, I believe that a rereading of the fourteenth-century chronicles will reveal more of Katherine and her personality than just a negative portrayal of her as a harlot.