Heirs, spares, and suspicion – echoes of Tudor sibling enmity in the House of Windsor

Heirs, spares, and suspicion – echoes of Tudor sibling enmity in the House of Windsor

The publication of Spare this week and the typical PR-planned pre-leaks may appear an unprecedented and undignified episode in Royal history – but no.  For centuries heirs, spares and their biased advisors have played out the sad psychology of their birth order.

Royalty is not only about family, it is about the preservation of the family bloodline and its name.  The game is won through an heir who will ascend the throne and, because life is precarious, a spare who will take that place under the shadow of tragedy.  As a consequence, their destiny will always be an older child who is treated as the future monarch and the following children seen as safe options should the worst happen.   As you go back through time, it is easy to see how extreme differences in their treatment caused intense resentment. Today, it seems that King Charles and Diana, the parents of William and Harry, showed equal love and affection to both their ‘darling boys’. But no amount of love can change the base fact that William would, one day, be king. And it is this consequence of birth which seems to be the very basis of the resentment, indignation, victim-hood and possibly skewed perspective which flows off the pages of Spare.

As a writer in the Tudor Era and a psychologist by profession, I am struck by the echoes of the rivalry between Mary Tudor and her half-sister, Elizabeth which is the backdrop to The Conjuror’s Apprentice. Just like William and Harry, they started as close siblings but grew into adults who regarded each other with a mix of despair, suspicion and resentment. 

So what was the genesis of their mistrust? Probably the arrival of Elizabeth’s mother, Ann Boleyn, in Court.  Elegant, witty, striking if not beautiful, she eclipsed Mary’s mother, the aging Katherine of Aragon, who could no longer produce the desperately needed male heir.  So began an obsession in King Henry’s mind which would lead to Mary Tudor witnessing her mothers humiliation as she was publicly put in the shadow of Ann, sent from Court, her titles removed, divorced and banished to a life of resentful misery.  Young Mary was declared illegitimate and removed from the line of accession. When little Elizabeth was born Mary was subjugated to a baby. As a result, Mary never trusted her father and spent most of her years believing she was in danger of her life or her position. A strong echo here of the confusion and pain little Harry would have felt as his parents went through a very public parting with Diana portrayed as the rejected victim and Camilla Parker-Bowles unfairly positioned as a modern-day Ann Boleyn. Is there an echo as Harry imagines a lack of love from his father? Does his insistence on ignoring the terrible pain he must be bringing upon King Charles replicate the belief held by Mary that King Henry was her enemy? Also, Harry’s perception that William was the favoured child? Is there an echo of a child being expected to hold another in higher regard – as Mary had to do with baby Elizabeth even though she was 14 years younger – creating a life-long resentment which, given encouragement, will spill out into public condemnation as Mary did with Elizabeth?

The big difference is that Mary, by order of birth became the heir, when King Edward V, who as a male had taken precedence over both Mary and Elizabeth, died aged fourteen.  When crowned she continued the Tudor dynasty and Elizabeth, being the only other child of their father’s six marriages became ‘the spare’. Immediately the years of resentment and being treated differently rose to the surface and so began an enmity which was never healed.

The Mary-Elizabeth situation was more complex than the William-Harry relationship. At different times both sisters had been heir, spare and neither but their view of each other were shaped by their position in royal politics. So, what behaviours in the Mary-Elizabeth saga do we see playing out today in the House of Windsor?

Distrust.  Mary was in constant anxiety that her younger sister wanted her throne.  She saw shadows in every corner and would jump on any hint that Elizabeth was scheming.  Such was her paranoia that Elizabeth was interred in the Tower for suspected knowledge of Wyatt’s rebellion and was thereafter kept away from Court and under watch in either Woodstock or Hatfield House. No amount of Elizabeth’s claiming innocence or begging for an audience would move Mary from her suspicions. Likewise, Elizabeth lived those years in regular fear of being accused of wrong-doing. Mary became both her sister and her nemesis – just as Harry has described William as, ‘my brother and my nemesis.’

Psychological politics.  Mary always maintained a position of righteousness – insisting she was always doing the best of her people, her country and the future of the Catholic faith. In doing this she cast a shadow of suspicion on her younger sister and conjured a perception that Elizabeth was trouble, devious, and playing games. Elizabeth for her part played various hands – disappointment, feigned deference, deception and, when required, dramatic desperation. See the Tide letter as a perfect example of using emotion to cast a different light on a situation – though there is no doubt of the fear behind the words. Today we see the same, with the Royal family retaining a sensible position of righteousness while Harry insists he has been briefed against and deliberately undermined such as by being advised to wear a Nazi uniform to a party. Is the book Spare and the associated interviews not a download of disappointment, false deference, and dramatic desperation? Some would also add the accusation of deception – whether that is the self-deception of a deeply unhappy man or intentional twisting of reality assisted by a dollar-hungry editorial and PR team we may never know.

Public display of ‘all is well’.  There were occasions when Mary and Elizabeth would meet, such as the ‘reconciliation’ contrived by Mary’s husband, Philip II of Spain.  In the public glare of Court the sisters were congenial and Elizabeth curtseyed low. Gifts were exchanged and sweet words spoken. But underneath was a bitterness which could not be quelled and Elizabeth was soon requesting to return to her quiet life away from the icy atmosphere of Court. Did we see a similar public display when William, Harry and their wives made a show of a united front, walking out together to meet the people of Windsor before the funeral of Elizabeth II? After the funeral, Harry and Meghan made a rapid return to their life in California.

Deep resentment.  As a teenager Mary was deeply resentful of Elizabeth being above her, though she was always kind in the early years. Elizabeth, when she became ‘the spare’, was deeply resentful of Mary’s refusal to recognise her position. This was exacerbated by Mary’s decision to change the laws of 1533 making the marriage of Henry to Katherine of Aragon the only legitimate marriage and in one sweep of the pen, herself the only legitimate child of the Tudor line.  In doing that, she relegated her sister and her recently deceased brother, Edward, to the shame of illegitimacy.  It would be a social smear which would cause Elizabeth much pain and fear of being pushed out of the line of accession to the throne she certainly aspired to sit upon. 

The surrounding speakers.  Mary used her Spanish based advisors and ambassadors to promote her view of the world and Elizabeth certainly sought the counsel of her teachers and other men who would speak well of her while she maintained a public display of silence. And what do we see today? Oprah Winfrey running an ‘interview’ which, through complete absence of challenge, became a PR showcase for the coming Netflix and Spare campaign of the Sussex faction. This weekend, we have ‘friends’ of Prince William reporting his ‘inner boiling’ while he keeps a dignified silence. 

There are other peculiar echoes – such as Elizabeth seeking the advice of John Dee to see the future through horoscopes just as Harry has sought the advice of a medium; William having a single marriage to an astute political player in Katherine while Harry has a history of relationships with women of whom the public do not approve just as Elizabeth became scandalously close to Seymour, Dudley, and others; a Royal system which controls the Royals more than they will ever control it.  If Harry and his wife think their ‘expose’ will reform a system which has a code and culture centuries in the making, they are tragically deluded.

So, what are the differences today? Well we have a media which shines a bright light on the dark shadows of Court, while in the days of Mary and Elizabeth much was hidden by fear of speaking; we have social media to fuel the flames when in Mary’s court, the only twitter was the gossip and politics of the men of court and the ambassadors; we have a social culture which leads us to believe we have the right to know the sad dynamics of a fractured family when Mary would have the power to supress her critics as she infamously did; and Mary had the ultimate threat – The Tower – and all its implications. She had the power of terror and death.

But there are more towers than those built of stone. Maybe Prince Harry has created his own psychological Tower complete with his very own torture chamber of public disdain.

As for the likely outcome – who knows. For Mary and Elizabeth the psychologies of heir, spare and suspicion were never healed. Mary left life hating her sister. May we pray it is different this time.