 |
Reply
| |
At Catherine of Aragon's divorce trial in the legatine court at Blackfriars, there was evidence given regarding the morning after her wedding to Henry VIII's brother, Arthur. It was stated that upon arising, Arthur called for a drink, commenting that marriage was thirsty work and he had "been in Spain last night"; this was used to undermine Catherine's claim that she had come to her marriage bed with Henry "a true maid" and imply that she and Arthur had consummated their marriage. I find it difficult to believe that a couple of teenagers sanctioned by marriage managed to refrain from sexual contact for the entire five months they were together. What does everyone think? |
|
 First
Previous
2-16 of 16
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
I don't think they "did" anything. First, because of Catherine's comments (which were made directly to Henry VIII at the trial) when she said, she had come to him as a "true maid". She would not have done that if it had not been so. Second, Arthur had been "ill" before the marriage, I do not think he was capable of consumating the marriage. The comment sited and alluding to the deed being done on the following morning (if it was even actually made) was to "save face" for the inability of Arthur. Third, I think they were "shipped off" to Wales right away by Henry VII with the rationale and hope that two young people, alone, and left to their own devises, so to speak, would "get on with it"...nature would take it's course. I do not think Henry VII wanted to admit (even to himself) just how sick Arthur was. |
|
Reply
| |
I agree with Stonehenge. Of course, we have no proof as to whether Prince Arthur and his young Spanish bride consummated their marriage. However, unless and until historians turn up evidence, I cannot imagine Arthur's boast about having "been in Spain" on the wedding night being more than a sad attempt to convince his father and his courtiers that he was a strong and lusty man. Further, Catherine of Aragon was a deeply religious, loyal, and courageous woman. Whatever her faults, lying was definitely against her character and her beliefs. |
|
Reply
| |
But Catherine seemed to have an ability to present the truth as she saw it, whether or not it was strictly accurate. For example, when they were first married she manipulated Henry brilliantly in order to further her father's power plays on the continent, and even had official credentials as Ferdinand's ambassador to England for many years! In an age when women did not receive much of an education, the majority of the Tudor women, including Catherine, were quite learned; Catherine's tutors had expressed the opinion that it was a pity she had been born a woman with her intelligence. She was far from a stupid woman and she had to know exactly what her father was doing, yet she coerced Henry into following the policies of Spain convinced that it was the right thing to do. Even though she had a reputation for piety and honesty, she was not above a little prevarication when it suited her agenda, and what more important agenda did she have at Blackfriars than to insure the legitimacy and status of her only surviving child? |
|
Reply
| |
Intelligent or not, her dogged refusal to go along with what Henry wanted, was niether common good sense nor intelligent. Don't forget, in the beggining Henry offered to have her "retire" to a nunnery. This would have kept Mary legitimate and only reduced her title to Dowanger Queen. She would still wield power (to a certain extent) and Henry probably would have treated her very well (much like he did Anne of Cleves for "going along" with his wishes). Catherine was, at this point, past childbearing and lets face it, as the main function of a Queen was/is that of a (please excuse the expression) broodmare, she could no longer do her Queenly duty nor had she already produced a prefered son. This "retiring", under such circumstances, was not something new. It had been done in France, most successfully and all parties were "winners". Catherine's excessive religiousness would have made the whole thing quite pleasant for her. Mary would have still had her place at court and been able to have BOTH her parents in her life. But intelligence out the window, Catherine would have none of it! |
|
Reply
| |
Catherine was initially asked to "choose a house and retire" in the spring of 1527 while the King's Great Matter was decided, & she declined to do so. Later on Campeggio, the papal legate, advised her to retire gracefully to a nunnery. The problem was that at this stage of the proceedings, what Henry was seeking from the papacy was not technically a divorce on the grounds that his wife was unable to provide him with issue, but an ANNULMENT on the grounds that she had previously been his brother's wife & that the papal dispensation which had allowed the marriage was invalid. Divorce would have kept Mary perfectly legitimate & still Henry's heir presumptive. An annulment, on the other hand, meant that the marriage had never existed in canon law, which meant that Catherine had cohabitated with a man not her husband & borne his bastards. Mary could easily have been legitimized BUT, like James Stewart, Earl of Arran, the older brother of Mary, Queen of Scots, would have been barred from inheriting the throne despite that because she had not been conceived & born in wedlock. Mary had already been invested as Princess of Wales & recognized as the heir to the throne, & an annulment would have taken that away from her. |
|
Reply
| |
Actually, there is no such thing in the Catholic Church as "divorce". The only two ways out of a Catholic marriage is annulment or death. However, there is some sort of provision for any "issue" , of the marriage being annuled, that will not make them illigitimate. I'm sorry, I don't remember exactly how it works...mabey someone else does. |
|
Reply
| |
Whoops! I am confusing my Scots! Mary Queen of's brother, James Stewart, was the Earl of MORAY, not ARRAN. Arran was the nutcase who lept plotting to abduct Mary & marry her.....sorry!  |
|
Reply
| |
lady of the glade is somewhat right about divorce. as a catholic, we regard divorce as a perfectly legitimate civil thing. one can be divorced and still be catholic. they can even be remarried in the sight of god. however, to have the church recognize a marriage, you must be annulled from your previous marriage. many believe that catholics do not divorce or that its an unnacceptable thing, however it is not so according to our teachings. of course, its not a wonderful thing! something that is unpleasant to have to do but sometimes necessary. |
|
Reply
| |
You bet I agree. I dont think Cahterine and Arthur refrained as you put it. I do think she lied when she was questioned about her virginity after his death because she wanted to say what her parents wanted to hear. I also think she confessed this lie to Fra Digo her confessor and he gave her absolution for it - which means her conscience was clear from then on , and it meant she did not ever need to confess it again and that lie perhaps, explained the strange hold that priest had on her for so long. |
|
Reply
| | | From: judymar | Sent: 12/17/2003 10:27 AM |
I think she lied as well, but I think it was a lie that she started to believe. After the confession of the lie, it would have been forgiven, and who knows what the priest told her, he could even have convinced her she was a virgin again. She was so religious, and people of history just seemed to have a way of making religion work for them. Henry had to know whether or not she was a virgin and it never bothered him till she couldn't give him a son. He still comes out on the bad side no matter how you look at it, whether she lied or not!! |
|
Reply
| |
Unless Henry himself was a virgin as well and didnt know the difference either. Therefore bringing out his inexperience at the Blackfriars Court would have been too humilitaing for him.... |
|
Reply
| |
Interesting!!! Henry VII DID kinda keep him under lock & key with Grandma Beaufort as his chaperone LOL......hmmmmm! Never thunk of it that way before with all the emphasis on Catherine's maiden state. |
|
Reply
| |
i doubt henry was a virgin although it is certainly possible. but some women, nowdays at least, do not retain the hymen despite not having had sex. this is for many reasons, one of which being the natural erosion of that membrane. could this have been so back then? i am no expert but its an interesting thought. back in that day, men judged virginity mostly on the sexual responses of their new wives on their wedding night. in fact, we know that it was highly likely that katherine howard was not a virgin on her wedding night and yet the king did not discover or suspect she had slept with derham some time before. autumn |
|
Reply
| |
It was easy to fake virginity especially if the husband was drunk, inexperienced or the candles were out. Prick the heel of the foot with a needle and bleed all over the sheets etc....... |
|
|
First
Previous
2-16 of 16
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Mysteries