#flodden

Queen Katherine of Aragon’s letter to Henry VIII, written from Woburn on 16 September 1513, following the decisive English victory over the Scots at Flodden Field (9 September 1513).

Sir,

My Lord Howard hath sent me a letter open to your Grace, within one of mine, by the which you shall see at length the great Victory that our Lord hath sent your subjects in your absence; and for this cause there is no need herein to trouble your Grace with long writing, but, to my thinking, this battle hath been to your Grace and all your realm the greatest honor that could be, and more than you should win all the crown of France; thanked be God of it, and I am sure your Grace forgetteth not to do this, which shall be cause to send you many more such great victories, as I trust he shall do. My husband, for hastiness, with Rougecross I could not send your Grace the piece of the King of Scots coat which John Glynn now brings. In this your Grace shall see how I keep my promise, sending you for your banners a king’s coat. I thought to send himself unto you, but our Englishmens’ hearts would not suffer it. It should have been better for him to have been in peace than have this reward. All that God sends is for the best.

My Lord of Surrey, my Henry, would fain know your pleasure in the burying of the King of Scots’ body, for he has written to me so. With the next messenger your Grace’s pleasure may be herein known. And with this I make an end, praying God to send you home shortly, for without this no joy here can be accomplished; and for the same I pray, and now go to Our Lady of Walsingham that I promised so long ago to see. At Woburn the 16th of September.

I send your Grace herein a bill found in a Scotsman’s purse of such things as the French King sent to the said King of Scots to make war against you, beseeching you to send Mathew hither as soon as this messenger comes to bring me tidings from your Grace.

Your humble wife and true servant,

Katharine.

The story of Katherine of Aragon wanting to send King James IV's head to Henry VIII is a modern invention without basis in historical fact. It reflects the tendency of later generations to embellish historical events for dramatic effect, rather than an accurate representation of Katherine's actions or intentions. The word “head” does not appear in her letter. She was speaking of the king’s person (body), not a decapitated trophy.

"I thought to send himself unto you"

That phrase could suggest a living captive. In 16th-century warfare, the capture of a king was one of the most valuable prizes imaginable. Politically, because you could use him to force treaties or ransoms. Symbolically, because it displayed total mastery over your foe. But some historians read this phrase literally as intending to send James’s corpse to Henry.

The Scotish king died excommunicate for breaking the Truce of Perpetual Peace and invading England. Canon law barred the burial of an excommunicate in consecrated ground unless absolution was granted posthumously. Katherine really did arrange for James’s corpse to be embalmed and sent to London, and she really was stuck with the dilemma of what to do with the corpse of a king who could not receive a Christian burial. Henry never seems to have given clear instructions. The corpse was eventually brought to Sheen Priory, where it reportedly lay unburied for decades.

If Henry had received James’s corpse in France, he could not have staged a royal burial without first obtaining papal absolution. The remains would have served as a propaganda trophy: tangible proof that England had annihilated the king of Scotland. Henry might have exhibited the corpse before foreign ambassadors, or even in occupied French territory, as a warning to France’s allies. Yet diplomatically, the leverage would have been limited: unlike a living captive, a dead monarch could not be ransomed or bartered.

"but our Englishmens’ hearts would not suffer it."

Katherine’s statement conveys a blend of revenge, anger, and patriotic zeal. For the English soldiers—still mourning fallen comrades and suddenly facing a foreign king at the head of their enemies—the immediate impulse to kill may have outweighed the prospect of ransom. Capturing a monarch could bring immense reward, but it also entailed grave risk, as subduing a defiant king in the midst of battle might easily cost a soldier his life. Katherine likely hoped that James would be taken alive and delivered to France as a potent political trophy; yet in the heat and chaos of combat, he was slain instead. No surviving record explicitly instructs the English to spare and capture the Scottish king, but the absence of such evidence cannot be taken to mean that such orders were never given.

The letter not only celebrates triumph but also betrays a subtle awareness of what had been lost in victory. A living king would have represented the ultimate prize, offering England a powerful bargaining chip in future negotiations, and Katherine was fully aware of the immense political and financial value of royal captives. In line with this, Henry sent her the Duke of Longueville as a captive to England.

"In this your Grace shall see how I keep my promise, sending you for your banners a king’s coat."

In the 15th–16th centuries, the armor, surcoat, or standard of a defeated noble or king could be sent to a patron, ruler, or consort. It was both a military trophy and a symbolic relic — proof of victory that could be displayed at court or in a chapel. In 1513, Edward Howard, Admiral of England, was killed in a naval clash with the French. His armor was sent as a trophy to Queen Anne of Brittany, wife of Louis XII. This gesture had the same meaning: it linked the queen consort with the battlefield victory, letting her embody and publicize the triumph at court.

In the letter to Henry VIII after the Battle of Flodden, Katherine is using a rhetorical flourish—a blend of irony, piety, and triumph—that was absolutely standard for royal correspondence in her time. Katherine's intention can be interpreted as:

Your Grace, here’s proof I can honor my commitment to you: I’m sending a king’s coat (the spoils of victory) as a symbol of our triumph. I had hoped to send you the king himself alive, but our soldiers, in their excitement and fury, killed him instead.

Katherine of Aragon’s political and personal circumstances make it improbable that she deliberately sought to humiliate James IV of Scotland. As the husband of her sister-in-law Margaret Tudor, James was bound to her by dynastic ties — bonds that Katherine, as a Spanish princess conscious of her royal lineage, took seriously. Her decision to send Henry James’s bloodstained surcoat should be read within the traditions of medieval and early modern martial honor. Far from an act of cruelty toward a fallen king, it functioned as a symbolic affirmation of victory and an assertion of England’s triumph on the battlefield.

It seems his body was treated with uncertainty and some neglect, mainly because he had been excommunicated. This complicated burial rites, but that was an ecclesiastical matter, not necessarily a personal decision of Katherine or Henry. Sending James’s coffin to France for display would have been a political insult not just to the Scots, but also to Margaret Tudor and, indirectly, to Katherine’s own reputation as a queen consort upholding dynastic honor. It’s unlikely she would advocate such a move.

MARGARET TUDOR: The Queen Who Thrust Herself into the Political Chessboard

The Spanish Princess is showing Margaret in a broader light than other historical dramas where she is distorted and merged with her younger sister, shown for a brief period of time or is practically non-existent. Margaret’s life was a never ending roller coaster. Unlike what was shown in the first episodes of part 2 of TSP, the real Margaret never broke decorum. She certainly would have never disrespected her husband in front of his lords. However, she did have a strong will and was determined (at all costs) to protect her young.In hindsight, she could have chosen for a better husband – or a better route – to keep her regency or, share power with her surviving son’s distant Stewart cousin.

Her marital problems aside, including her son’s mandate to remain married to her third husband (in spite of his betrayal), the last four years of her life, were spent in safe retreat. She wasn’t actively involved in government, since her son was now of age. But she was nevertheless happy to be there by her son’s side, should he need her advice.

Although Margaret’s death is a stark contrast to the two most controversial of Henry VIII’s queens, his first two wives, Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn; her end by no means was her beginning. Today, mourners can visit the tomb of Katherine of Aragon. Though not a saint, she has become a cult figure. The same goes for Anne Boleyn, who’s treated as the equivalent of the Virgin Mary for bearing the golden savior of England, Queen Elizabeth I. Every year, hundreds of visitors pay their respects to these women’s tombs. One of the most popular tourists spots for Tudor history buffs is Hever Castle, St. Peterborough Cathedral, and Hampton Court Palace. The first is the Boleyn homestead, where Anne, her sister Mary and brother George grew up. The second is the place where Katherine is buried. And the last is Henry VIII’s majestic palace.

Although at the time of their deaths, it was almost taboo to say a good word about Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn – not to mention that since their marriages had been annulled before their deaths, they didn’t receive burials befitting their stations. Yet, as time went on, their popularity grew. This reverence didn’t reach Margaret Tudor. Death for her was truly the end of her journey. Margaret deserves equal admiration as all of Henry VIII’s wives and her younger sister. She was a woman with a will of iron who lived through many tragedies and survived many intrigues – including those of her own doing when these didn’t go as planned. Her last demands indicate that she wished that the last of the bad blood that existed between the King and her second husband, the Earl of Angus would be over. She also asked that her possessions be handed over to her daughter, Lady Margaret Douglas. She never got an answer. She died at Methven Castle on the 18th of October 1541. She was buried at the Carthusian Charterhouse in Perth in Central Scotland. Ironically, despite having enjoyed a good relationship with her son James V and his second wife, Mary of Guise; her son didn’t fulfill her wishes. He chose instead to appropriate himself of all his belongings.

As the religious wars continued to divide Western Europe, Calvinists in Scotland decided to give the biggest middle finger to the Catholic faction by desecrating the tombs of past kings and queens, and saints. Just like their predecessors, over a thousand years before when they burned pagan sites, or their Catholic enemies who burned Maya and other precious historical jewels in the “New World”, in 1559 Calvinists, professing the true faith, opened Margaret’s tomb, destroyed her burial site and burned her body until there was nothing left.

Was it fair? 

No. 

It’s history. It can’t be rewritten or undone. Only reflected upon.  Margaret’s descendants still sit on the English throne. The first Stuart King to sit on the English throne descended from both her children, James V and Lady Margaret Douglas. James VI of Scotland became the I of England and Ireland in March 1603 after Queen Elizabeth I died and her privy councilors chose him as their next ruler. This was in direct violation to her brother, Henry VIII’s instructions which stated that if neither of his offspring, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I had any legal issue of their own then the next in line would be the heirs of Mary Tudor, Queen Dowager of France and Duchess of Suffolk (Margaret’s younger sister) and Charles Brandon. But at this time, Elizabeth had long shown that she did not care for wills and naming heirs, so it was up to the politicians to name who’d suit them best. While Margaret is a rising star in historical fiction and romance novels, she still remains obscure. She’s largely seen as a side-character or an auxiliary figure when her actions show that she was much more than that. Prior to Flodden, Margaret tried to convince her husband not to ride to Flodden based on a dream where she saw he was murdered. After his death, Katherine of Aragon, feeling genuine sympathy for her sister-in-law, sought to reestablish a peace between their adoptive countries. Margaret was not just a widow but Scotland’s Regent. Ruling in their son and husband’s names respectively, Margaret and Katherine started to work together to seek a resolution. Unfortunately, Henry VIII had other plans. It’s not known how Margaret felt about Katherine following the death of her first husband, or when she and Angus sought asylum in England after their failed coup against John Stewart, the Duke of Albany (who’d been chosen to replace her as her son’s regent). There are no letters that express any ill will between the two women. Yet, her actions speak of a possible resentment. In Alison Weir’s biography of her daughter, Lady Margaret Douglas, The Lost Tudor Princess, she points out that while her youngest sister remained a fervent supporter of Katherine until her death, Margaret chose to side with Anne Boleyn. Margaret’s daughter was in England under her uncle’s care. Though a good friend of Princess Mary, her livelihood was in her uncle’s hands. Margaret probably thought that if she sided with Katherine, Henry VIII would take it out on his niece. Or it could be a case, where with her daughter’s welfare and future in mind, Margaret still felt a little resentment over what happened at Flodden. Either way, Margaret worked endlessly to be the mediator she could not be during the events leading up to Flodden. Like her mother, she possessed a silent strength that is often ignored when studying women of these period. The modern proverb of “silent women don’t make history” isn’t only wrong, it’s a narrow view of history. All kinds of women make history. Sometimes actions speak louder than words. Margaret Tudor’s life is a clear example of that.

Sources:

Fatal Rivalry: Flodden, 1513: Henry VIII and James IV and the Decisive Battle for Renaissance Britain

Tudors vs Stewarts: The Fatal Inheritance of Mary, Queen of Scots by Linda Porter

Tudor. Passion. Murder. Manipulation: The Story of England’s Most Notorious Royal Family by Leanda de Lisle

The Lost Tudor Princess: The Life of Lady Margaret Douglas by Alison Weir

Game of Queens by Sarah Gristwood

“Scotland Reformed, 1488-1587″, by Jane E.A. Dawson

On September 9th 1513 James IV and the flower of Scotland's nobility were killed in battle at Flodden Field.

The Battle of Flodden was essentially a retaliation for King Henry VIII‘s invasion of France in May 1513. The invasion provoked the French King Louis XII to invoke the terms of the Auld Alliance, a defensive alliance between France and Scotland to deter England from invading either country, with a treaty that stipulated that if either country was invaded by England the other country would invade England in retaliation.

The battle took place in Northumberland, just outside the village of Branxton hence the alternative name for the battle, the Battle of Branxton. Prior to the battle, the Scots were based at Flodden Edge, which is how the battle became known as the Battle of Flodden.

The French King sent arms, experienced captains and money to help with the counter attack of England. In August 1513, after King Henry VIII rejected King James IV of Scotland’s ultimatum to either withdraw from France or Scotland would invade England, an estimated 60,000 Scottish troops crossed the River Tweed into England.

Henry VIII had anticipated the French using the Auld Alliance to encourage the Scottish to invade England and therefore had only drawn troops from the south of England and the Midlands to invade France. This left Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey to command the English against the invasion from north of the border. The Earl of Surrey was a veteran of Barnet and Bosworth. His experience became invaluable as this 70 year-old man began to head north assimilating large contingents from the Northern Counties as he headed to Alnwick. By the time he reached Alnwick on the 4th September 1513 he had assembled around 26,000 men.

The outcome of The Battle of Flodden was mainly due to the choice of weapons used. The Scots had advanced in the continental style of the time. This meant a series of massed pike formations. The Scottish armies’ great advantage of using high ground became its downfall as the hilly terrain and ground became slippery underfoot, slowing down the advances and attacks. Unfortunately, the pike is most effective in battles of movement which The Battle of Flodden was not.

Surreys style of using the medieval favourites of the bill and bow against the more Renaissance style of the Scottish with their French pikes proved superior and Flodden became known as the victory of bill over pike!

The English Army led by the Earl of Surrey lost around 1,500 men at the Battle of Flodden but had no real lasting effect on English history, But he repercussions of the Battle of Flodden were much greater for the Scots. Most of the accounts on how many Scottish lives were lost at Flodden conflict, but it is thought to be between 10,000 to 17,000 men. This included a large proportion of the nobility and more tragically our King, below is a list of the most notable men who fell on that day at Branxton.

James IV, King of Scots.

Clergy

Alexander Stewart, Archbishop of St. Andrews and Lord Chancellor of Scotland, natural son of James IV

George Hepburn, Bishop of the Isles and commendator of Arbroath and Iona

William Bunche, Abbot of Kilwinning

Laurence Oliphant, Abbot of Inchaffray

Sir William Knollys, Lord St. John, Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, prior of Torphichen Preceptory.

Earls

Archibald Campbell, 2nd Earl of Argyll

Adam Hepburn, 2nd Earl of Bothwell Lord High Admiral of Scotland

David Kennedy, 1st Earl of Cassilis

William Sinclair, 2nd Earl of Caithness

John Lindsay, 6th Earl of Crawford

William Hay, 4th Earl of Erroll, Lord High Constable of Scotland

Matthew Stewart, 2nd Earl of Lennox

John Douglas, 2nd Earl of Morton, grandson of James I of Scotland

William Graham, 1st Earl of Montrose

William Leslie, 3rd Earl of Rothes

Lords of Parliament

Andrew Stewart, 1st Lord Avondale

William Borthwick, 3rd Lord Borthwick

Alexander Elphinstone, 1st Lord Elphinstone.

Thomas Stewart, 2nd Lord Innermeath

John Maxwell, 4th Lord Maxwell

John Ross, 2nd Lord Ross

George Seton, 5th Lord Seton

John Sempill, 1st Lord Sempill

Robert Erskine, 4th Lord Erskine

Other chieftains, nobles and knights

Robert Arnot of Woodmill. Comptroller of Scotland

Sir Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy

Sir Iain (John) MacFarlane 11th Baron of Arrochar, 8th Chief of Clan MacFarlane

Sir William Cockburn of Langton and his eldest son and heir Alexander

Sir Robert Crawford of Kilbirnie

William Cunningham, 1st Laird of Craigends

George Douglas, Master of Angus

Sir William Douglas of Drumlanrig

Sir William Douglas of Glenbervie

Archibald Graham, 3rd of Garvock – King James' cousin

George Graham, 1st of Calendar

James Henderson of Fordell, Fife; Lord Justice Clerk

Adam Hepburn of Craggis

Sir Alexander Lauder of Blyth, Provost of Edinburgh

Lachlan MacLean, 10th Chief of Clan Maclean

Colin Oliphant, Master of Oliphant

Sir Alexander Ramsay of Dalhousie

Sir John Ramsay of Trarinzeane

Sir William Seton, grandson of James I of Scotland

Sir John Somerville of Cambusnethan

John Hunter 14th Laird of Hunterston

William Hoppringill 1st laird of Torwoodlee

William Wallace 11th of Craigie, 16th of Riccarton

Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum, Laird Guthrie of Guthrie

David Guthrie of Kincaldrum, son of Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum

David, William, and George Lyon. All three brother-in-laws of Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum

Thomas Maule of Panmure, nephew of Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum, son of Alexander's sister: Elizabeth Guthrie and her husband, Alexander Maule.

Robert Elliot, 13th Chief of Clan Elliot

John Muirhead, Laird of Muirhead