12 June 1530 – Catherine of Aragon reprimands Henry VIII

Posted By on June 12, 2015

Catherine of Aragon

Catherine of Aragon

According to Eustace Chapuys, the imperial ambassador, on Sunday 12th June 1530 Catherine of Aragon had words with her husband Henry VIII, “exhorting him to be again to her a good prince and husband, and to quit the evil life he was leading and the bad example he was setting.”1

Catherine went on to tell him that even if he did not respect her, “his true and lawful wife”, that “he should at least respect God and his conscience”, and that he should not ignore the brief issued by the Pope. Catherine had applied to the Pope for this brief “for to the effect that nobody shall, under pain of excommunication, judge, allege, counsel, procure, solicit, or otherwise speak “á complacentia o gratia,” of this matter of the dissolution of matrimony between the King and Queen, unless it be as God and his conscience may dictate.”2

Unfortunately, her words fell on deaf ears and Henry simply argued that the Pope’s brief, which was urging restraint on the King, “was of very little consequence” and that there were plenty of people who were on his side. Henry then “left the room abruptly without saying another word.”

Catherine had berated her husband because although he was continuing to treat her with respect, by appearing in public with her as king and queen, Anne Boleyn was rising in prominence. Six months earlier, Chapuys had described
“a grand fête in this city, to which several ladies of the Court were invited” and how Anne Boleyn took precedence over all the other ladies, who included “queen Blanche and the two duchesses of Norfolk, the dowager and the young one)”, and that she sat by the King “occupying the very place allotted to a crowned queen”. Chapuys went on to report:

“After dinner there was dancing and carousing, so that it seemed as if nothing were wanting but the priest to give away the nuptial ring and pronounce the blessing. All the time, and whilst the carousal was going on, poor queen Katharine was seven miles away from this place holding her own fête of sorrow and weeping.”3

It must have been a horrible and heartbreaking situation for Catherine of Aragon.

Also on this day in history, 12th June 1540, the newly imprisoned Thomas Cromwell wrote to King Henry VIII from the Tower of London, asking for mercy and pleading his innocence – click here to read more.

Notes and Sources

  1. Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 4 Part 1, Henry VIII, 1529-1530, 354.
  2. Ibid., 318.
  3. Ibid., 232.

71 thoughts on “12 June 1530 – Catherine of Aragon reprimands Henry VIII”

  1. Christine says:

    Do feel really sorry for Catherine she had been a good wife and Queen Consort but Henry was in the throes of passion and he couldn’t act on her advice, physcologists have likened being in love to mental illness as it takes away the ability to act and think rationally, all you know and see and think about is the person who is the object of your affection, all you know is you want to be with them all the time and a discarded ex just becomes an irritant, the situation was very difficult for both women as you could say there were two Queens at court, it must have been like if your husband brings home another woman to live in the same house as you, Anne was still in attendance on Catherine and the atmosphere must have been awful.

    1. Hannele says:

      Royal marriages cannot compared with those with “ordinary people”. King and Queen lived in separate apartments.

      Henry and Katherine had not lain together for years and were together only when it was demanded in public. Otherwise Henry lived openly with Anne.

      In short, Katherine and Henry’s marriage was only a facade.

    2. Melissa titor says:

      I say she is gracius for those years. It made her strongger to come back in force and take back what is hers hihihi she is in truth some one you wouldnt even think of . Long live. La cat !!!

  2. Globerose says:

    Oh Christine, how perceptive. Surely if any other man did this, people would say he was mad! It is 1530 and presumably Henry is at the height of his passion. But this is unacceptable behaviour, towards Catherine, towards the women of the court, towards his aristocrats, everybody. And all because, in his mind, Catherine lied and as a result, he isn’t married. I think, personally, this decision creates Anne’s reputation as a whore. And how confused would Princess Mary have been? Do you agree, Christine?

    1. Christine says:

      Poor Princess Mary must have felt very in the middle but regarding Henrys behaviour as not being acceptable, in France the King had a bevy of mistresses and openly lived with them but then he wasnt trying to divorce his wife, I don’t agree that his behaviour was responsible for Anne having a bad reputation as he intended to marry her anyway, Anne was disliked because Henry intended to replace Catherine with her, so it wasn’t like he was flaunting dozens of women in front of Catherine, they had both pledged themselves to each other, it was rotten for Catherine of course she must have thought she would be with Henry forever, just go’s to show how uncertain life is.

    2. Selina says:

      Anne’s “reputation” as a whore stems from the fact that to this day people make men out to be helpless against being seduced by “the other woman”. They love to forget that it takes two people making a concious decision.

      His behavior was hardly unusual or unacceptable. Just look at Henry II of France and Diane de Poitiers or Edward IV and Jane Shore. The only thing that was unusual was him trying to make Anne his queen.

      1. Christine says:

        Yes the woman is always blamed, another exception was John of Gaunt who had a long term mistress in Katherine Swynford and he did later marry her and had their children legitimised, but he was free to marry her what made Henry so unusual was that he was so obsessed with Anne that he wanted to marry her and to hell with the consequences, no wonder in later years he said he had been bewitched, it was tragic that there was another person in this, Katherine who was the third party in this unhappy triangle, and Princess Mary who suffered physcological damage as a result from which she never recovered.

        1. Hannele says:

          If Henry had had a son and heir by Katherine, he would not have wanted to marry Anne, how much he was in love with her. In the beginning of the process Henry could have no idea of the consequences as it was usual for a king to get the annulment in like case.

          Henry was unusual only that the wanted to marry Anne for love instead of marrying f.ex. a French princess which would have cemented an alliance against Spain, and that once he had made his decision he never changed his mind although the obstacles seemed impossible and consequences divided England.

          Of course if Anne had had a son, most people had admitted that Henry had been right to do everything he did.

  3. carrie king says:

    I remember being amused because Henrly left the room and went to Anne and told her what had happened. Instead of the sympathy he thought he would get she continued the berating Catherine had started. “Didn’t I tell you not to argue with Catherine? She will always be able to get the best of you with words.” I can picture Henry’s face, and things haven’t changed for cheating men today. You go Catherine!

  4. Globerose says:

    Ever had that Stephen Hawking feeling, “I might not be right about this.”? This morning, early, I took my doubts on a walk through the Stour Valley Local Nature Reserve here in Dorset, with Golden Retriever Prudence, this breezy humid morning. The so very English Rambling Rose is out in pretty pinky/yellow bloom; swans in pairs overhead fly in low to the river near the fishing Heron, as back and white cows trundled by, tails swishing, with the distant barking of excited dogs enjoying a morning splash in the clear flowing waters.

    My thoughts are back with Katherine in 1529 and I realise (again) , as I stride along besides a weary Prudence in her golden double coat, I am being too partisan. Undoubtedly Henry had made his mind and intentions clear officially and the Queen fundamentally disagreed. What was Henry to do? I know I need to ask another question but I can’t frame it yet. Just wanted to say how much I am enjoying the ABFs and her many contributors. It is so challenging – no sloppy, no hasty thinking goes unchallenged. And I love it!

  5. Selina says:

    “Henry was unusual only that the wanted to marry Anne for love instead of marrying f.ex. a French princess which would have cemented an alliance against Spain, and that once he had made his decision he never changed his mind although the obstacles seemed impossible and consequences divided England.”

    Well, yes. Politically, a marriage to a princess would have been a better decision, but the pope wouldn’t have given him a dispensation regardless, and I doubt that any Catholic king would have given him his sister or daughter freely.
    And even if that somehow happened, the English people would not have condoned the annulment of his marriage to Catherine, no matter who his new wife would be.

    1. Hannele says:

      What the English people thought, did not matter a bit – at least so long Henry was alive. People was fickle and, what is more important, had no means to influence on the matters.

      Katherine’s popularity did not help her when Henry ordered her to leave the court. Anne was unpopular but she was crowned with great pomp because Henry ordered so.

      If Anne had delivered of a son, nobody would have cared for Mary. It was only because Elizabeth was a girl, that there could have been a war of succession in case Henry had died f.ex in 1536 because Mary as a grown-up woman was a better choice for a ruler than a baby girl.

      In the end, both Mary and Elizabeth were accepted as Queens because Henry had ordered so.

      1. Selina says:

        “What the English people thought, did not matter a bit.” That’s simply not true. Obviously a king could still do what he wanted, as Henry did, but it’s not the smart thing to do. Elizabeth, in contrast to her predecessors, knew this very well.

        1. Hannele says:

          With English people I meant the ordinary men. Their opinion did not count.

          That little group of men who had power was different matter. Yet Cromwell could get the Parliament to vote whatever laws he wanted.

  6. Hannele says:

    The matter whether the Church had anything to do in the weddings and whether it could decide whether the marriage was valid, was contested many centuries.

    In the 11th century the French kIng Philippe I married Bertha but abandoned her 20 years later and married Berthada. The bishops wed the couple even if also Bertha was already married. Only the churchmen who were for the reform were angered. Philippe was banned. He wowed to abandon Berthada and was forgiven. However, Berthada did not leave. Both the Church nor the king did not give up as it was a question of authority. In the end the church shut their eyes and let the things be as they were.

    Time changed and Philippe’s grandson Philippe August was forced to take again a wife he had abandoned and live with her.

    1. Selina says:

      Well, Henry obviously thought so, or he would not have asked for a dispensation to begin with. And apparently royals from other countries agreed that his marriage with Catherine was valid and so no royal who was right in the head would have agreed to marry Henry, who still had a legitimate wife in the eyes of God, unless Catherine died or the pope changed his mind. I doubt other Catholic kings would have wanted to risk excommunication.

      1. Hannele says:

        Well, there were Protestant monarchs too.

        Katherine evidently believed that the Pope knew the will of God and therefore could decide about the validity of her marriage. Was she so naive that she did not admit to herself that it was not God whose will the Pope followed but that of her nephew?

        in the end, the crux of the matter was not Henry’s annulment but the supremacy.

  7. Hannele says:

    Yesterday the Swedish prince Carl Philip married Sofia Hellqvist. I must say that I like the weddings of the Scandinavian royals best because there is so little stiff formality and the bride and groom show openly their feelings.

    After the king, the father of the bride and the groom himself had spoken, Sofia made a surprise: she had written to her new husband lyrics to a song.

    It began: “I have never dared to dream about love like this one. Somebody who loves me as I am.”

    Henry’s problem as a man was that he fell in love and fell out of love but he never loved any of his wives as they were.

    The refrain of Sofia’s song was: “All I am, all I have to my last breath, shall love you to with all my beats of heart.”

  8. Jane says:

    Oh dear…there is no wonder she was aggrieved but I do sometimes wonder if K of A was truly the blameless victim that she made herself out to be? One interpretation that I have read, it may be Alison Weir but I am not sure, points out that if you look at her correspondence, from the very first the plan was to manipulate King Henry to be a puppet of Spain, and that being so young at the time of marriage and accession he knew no better. Indeed it caused widespread disquiet that whenever his ministers gave him a state document he would say “The Queen must see this”. Maybe as Henry grew older he grew more resentful, as well he might. I have seen the argument put before that if any of Henry’s wives could be accused of having committed either high or petty treason, it was K of A. Unfortunately for Henry she had powerful relatives.

    I also wonder if she was really telling the truth about her virginity? We cannot be sure.
    Of course two wrongs will never make a right, but I do think there is more to this than a tale of love gone wrong and the ” other woman” syndrome.

  9. Anna says:

    I don’t think she was lying.KOA was quite a religious person,there is an article in ABFs if I’m not misstaken about how her habbit of fasting might have been one of the reasons of her loosing childern,so I dont think she would risk her soul by lying about something like this even if she would loose her title as a Queen,I think she was telling the trut she was virgin when she married Henry.And one more thing it really didn’t matter for Henry if she was lying or not he wanted her out and it was a good reason to get a divorce. In henry’s mind KOA was lying.

  10. Jane says:

    That doesn’t alter the fact that Henry could well have come to resent her controlling influence and the fact that her first loyalty wasn’t to him. She was going behind his back and tattling to Spain, bidding to make England a Spanish satellite, before ever he resolved to get rid of her.

    I think she was quite capable of deception if it suited her, and being religious doesn’t alter that fact, some of my co-religionists in the Catholic Church (many of them oddly enough related or allied to KofA) have been very religious but quite appalling in their capacity for nastiness.

    That doesn’t prove that she lied about her virginity, but I am saying that she would certainly have been capable of it if she chose. Royalty would always find some way to justify nefarious deeds – Henry certainly did!

    I just believe that the traditional picture of KofA as totally blameless needs to be revised, just as I believe that the traditional Catholic view of Anne Boleyn as a horrible strumpet should be kicked into touch. But then I am an Anne fan!

    1. Anna says:

      I agree with u on KOA not being a victim as some picture her to be. She certainly made her daughter’s life a leaving hell. It was obvious that Henry wants a son and he will get it at any price. By accepting the divorce in the first place she could have a better life and her daughter wouldn’t have to suffer that much and even Anne could have had a better life.
      But we have to consider one thing religions people were different back then,Church had the power to do anything and the believe that if u lie u will definitely go to hell was real,so taking the risk of going to hell for a crown wasn’t an option. I don’t know why but I always thought KOA was an honest woman although I’m an AB fan too!

  11. Christine says:

    In the reign of Anne’s daughter Elizabeth, King Eric of Sweden a former suitor of hers, fell in love with a nut seller called Kate and married her and she was just a commoner, it couldn’t have been easy for him either as she wasn’t from a good family had no connections, so their marriage must have caused a rift in the government as they wanted him to marry a Princess, hence the reason why he courted Elizabeth but when he saw Kate selling her nuts outside his palace he fell madly in love and had to have her, so Henry wasn’t much different really.

    1. judithRex says:

      Except Henry was already married and his reason for saying he wasn’t did not convince people.

      Henry was King of a small country perched between two superpowers whose rulers had more than 1 son while he had none, The royal and noble families around him already believed he was not worthy, and I can just imagine how his lack of a boy ate at him.

      1. Clare says:

        England (now Britain) is, for those who don’t know their Geography, an Island north of France. In the 16th Century England was a great nation to rival any other European realm. We would later rule two thirds of the planet. When the Spanish were rash enough to enter a war with England during the reign of Elizabeth I they were kicked back to Spain.
        I think history speaks for itself and needs no further explanation to those who use the Anne Boleyn File’s as merely an opportunity to decry England and the English, whether they be ‘JudithRex’ or ‘judithRex’.

        1. JudithRex says:

          England prior to Elizabeth was not a powerful country compared to France and Spain. if you don’t understand that then you don’t understand the dilemma Henry was in and can’t understand the overall reasons for every action he took.

          My people are from small countries as well and became merchants and grew powerful through this. But certainly at the time were under the domination of the more powerful Spanish empire.

          It isn’t a knock, it is just a historical fact.

      2. Claire says:

        England may have been small but it was on a par with France as a power and Henry VIII was successful at playing the French and the Empire off against each other at various times. Both France and the Empire actively sought alliances with him throughout his reign.

        1. Clare says:

          Exactly, Spain was desperate for an English alliance hence Catherine of Aragon being sent to marry Arthur, and her parents later supporting her marriage to Henry. Flies in the face of England being a ‘backwater’ country. But the ‘Rex’ will never be able so understand that. Her prejudices are stronger than logic.

        2. JudithRex says:

          Claire – last time I will write here – you made my point FOR me – he had to play them just as Elizabeth did because they were more powerful. More money, lands in the NEW WORLD that England did not have until Elizabeth could fund ships.

          For goodness sake that isn’t an insult it is FACT.

          I wish you continued success in you charity causes. I am very involved in a few international groups and whenever I see like minded people I make the mistake of thinking they are on par in intellectual debate. it is a bad assumption and I’ll not make it again. Your site is best for the bodice ripper novel approach to history, which is just fine for some, but boring to me.

        3. Claire says:

          Playing countries off against each other was what all three of them did and Maximilian (and then Charles) and Francis recognised that Henry was powerful and that they needed his support against the other. It is not a fact that England was a back water, it was as powerful as France and Spain and that’s why there were treaties and marriage alliances.

        4. Claire says:

          So now you are insulting me without any reason. My work is not a bodice ripper novel approach to history, it is well researched and well respected. I don’t think you would have visited it so often if you found it boring.
          At the end of the day, you’re the one who comes on here, posts provocative comments and attacks people, but when people rise to it or try to defend themselves you paint them as bullies. It’s passive aggression or trolling. I have done nothing to you to justify your attacks on me and your constant accusations that I remove your comments when actually you’ve forgotten where you have posted them.

      3. Claire says:

        “Except Henry was already married and his reason for saying he wasn’t did not convince people.”
        Yet it was not unsual to do what Henry did, marriages had been annulled on similar grounds before and it was only because Catherine opposed the annulment and was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor that the Pope did not grant it. Henry wasn’t doing anything weird or unusual, it was just the Pope’s situation that stopped him from granting the annulment.

  12. Christine says:

    England may only be a tiny Island but her history and sense of importance in world politics is second to none, since the early days of the Roman occupation when the Romans established London as a major port her influence in trade has grown and with it her sea faring power, we have had several wars with France, Agincourt in which the French army had more archers than the English but didn’t have their expertise, Trafalgar and Waterloo in which we defeated Napoleon, the Spanish Armada where their old fashioned bulky vessels wernt a match for our nimble little ships, I don’t understand Judith’s negative remarks about England, she’s called her a backwater before and this is just not true, in the Stone Age maybe about ten thousand years ago, and some of the greatest Kings in world history have been English, Henry 11 and Henry V, Henry V111, all these monarchs were strong rulers who France and Spain in turn both admired and feared, in medieval times France wasn’t a unified nation anyway but was made up of different provinces in which the rulers owed fealty to the King as their overlord, it was only in the 14 thc that she grew in power, just because France and Spain were bigger in size than England doesn’t mean they were bigger in importance, their rulers certainly didn’t make their mark on history, Henry V111 was the only King in history to stick two fingers up at the Pope and if England wasn’t a strong nation he couldn’t have done that, Spain didn’t dare declare war on her even though the Emperor was Katherine’s nephew, Henry set the basis for the founding of The British Empire which survived well into the 20c and was at it’s peak in the 18c, Victoria was proud to call herself Empress Of India, my father often told me of how when he was at school they had to hold a flag and march on Empire Day, the older children got the day of but the younger had to attend much to their annoyance! That was in the thirties and now there’s no Empire only the Commonwealth but the fact that even today other countries often speak of our imperial past means that it left a lasting impression all around the world, and English is still the main language, even though the Americans often miss spell it!

  13. BanditQueen says:

    Yes, good for Catherine, you tell him gal! Oh and England was not a small country politically, it was on its way to being a super power and it was greater than Spain at the start of the marriage to Catherine of Aragon. America barely existed.

  14. Christine says:

    America is just a country made up of mongrel races and she can only trace her history back three hundred years, 90% of the people are obese the other 10% are the Hollywood lot who are skeletal walking around with Botox injected faces and plastic boobs, in the 17c America was just a backwater country as the settlers had just started to colonise her and were still in the process of building proper houses and roads, however she is not referred to as such by anyone on this site, she is referred to as a young nation which she was, it is deragotory to describe any nation as a backwater country, Britain at the time of the Roman occupation was occupied by various tribes including Picts and Celts the houses they lived in were not as grand as the Roman Villas, however when the Romans came they built better building, good roads and introduced Britain to central heating, but the Romans them selves never referred to her as a backwater, she was thought to be a rather mysterious Island beyond the land of Gaul, and it was their wish to bring her under the yoke of the Roman Empire, it was an empire of which in later years Britain herself grew to admire and in fact modelled herself on, since the early days we have traded with much of Europe and trade is one of the most significant parts of an important country, in the Second World War our navy was the largest and in fact Hitler himself spoke of Britain as it’s Empire having a stabilising effect on the world, which he did not wish to destroy. Judith knows a bit about Catherine Of Aragon but she appears to be rather naive in medieval and Tudor European and English history.

    1. Claire says:

      Woah, I realise that JudithRex has offended some Brits with her comments about England but it’s not acceptable to defend Britain by attack America and Americans. Your comment here is unacceptable and extremely offensive. I appreciate your support of The Anne Boleyn Files and your regular comments, which are usually friendly and intelligent, but this one is just so offensive to Americans.

      1. Christine says:

        Hi I’d just like to say I’m very very sorry for offending anyone, I was just annoyed with Judith but i certainly wasn’t bashing America or Americans, the term I used was not meant to sound offensive but I realised it wasn’t very diplomatic of me say it, I have met many American tourists and you are a very friendly lot and you are a good ally to Britain, if Melissa reads this I hope she’s generous enough to forgive this soppy Limey ! Ha ha

        1. melissa says:

          Apology accepted. Thank You

        2. Clare says:

          It’s difficult, but whether British, American or Martian, we should try not to feed to troll!!

        3. Claire says:

          Hi Christine,
          Thank you so much for your apology, I really appreciate it.
          Best Wishes,
          Claire

        4. JudithRex says:

          You didn’t offend me and I doubt you offended anyone else.

          The whole point of the Pope not giving in to Henry’s demand for a dispensation form the dispensation is that henry did not have the power that Spain had. This enraged him ad set him on the course to schism.

          I do understand most people here are British. But really, it wasn’t an attack on early 1500’s England, but a reading of the power structure of the time. Henry needed either France or Spain on his side at any one time or he was a goner. When they both turned against him Cromwell knew he needed the Netherlands etc and went to make friends there. By the time he did, Henry was back friends with one of the super powers.

  15. melissa says:

    I was looking over old posts that I had not seen yet and I was shocked and disgusted by your comment Christine. I understand that you are proud of your country. I am also proud of my country. I am an American who happens to love Tudor history. Up until now, I have really enjoyed this site. I am not obese, I don’t do botox and I don’t consider myself a mongrel. If you had an issue with a comment made by JudithRex, it is your issue. Bashing America and Americans simply because you did not like a comment is childish and ugly. Speaking of prejudice, your comment said a lot about you and your prejudices. Americans enjoy Tudor history also. I will continue to learn about it and continue to enjoy it. Only, not on this site.

    1. Claire says:

      Hi Melissa,
      I hadn’t spotted Christine’s comment until your comment came up as I’m being rather bombarded with comments at the moment due to a spike in web traffic. I have commented back to Christine as her comment is unacceptable and offensive, but please be assured that Christine does not speak for me or my site, she is a commenter like you and Judithrex and so has her own opinions. I have many American friends and have visited your beautiful country and love it and its people. Please don’t let a comment by another visitor put you off using this site.
      Best Wishes,
      Claire

    2. Clare says:

      That is the problem with the likes of JudithRex. I know a lot of lovely Americans, but anti-English comments by a disturbed, anti-social women such as JudithRex, who happens to be American, can create conflict and can result in people retaliating to her insults.
      Though I don’t condone Christine’s comments, I understand her frustration in dealing with the ultimate cause of this conflict. Christine is being blasted for anti-American comments, which she has had the grace to apologies for. Will we get an apology from the equally culpable JR? I think not.
      I despair at human nature!

      1. Christine says:

        Thank you Clare and thank you Melissa also for accepting my apology.

      2. JudithRex says:

        “The likes” of JudithRex? Clare, I saw you in a video make faces at a comment a Catholic man made about Anne Boleyn – a comment that was based in fact, You sneered at him. That is not an unbiased view of an historian and I simply could not take you seriously after that. You state unfounded opinions as fact. i do not.

        This “likes of ” this American is extremely generous and I fund may a stranger’s charity fund raising. I thought this was a board where honest discussion of history could possibly take place and not devolve into racist comments that are quickly forgiven, while the rational and intelligent assessment os well educated “mongrels” are cause for racist hysteria.

        You should be embarrassed by your continual harassment, The fact that I said I was american has made me the target of very insecure people. It is sad.

        1. Clare says:

          What on earth are you talking about? Sneering at a Catholic man? I have no idea what you are on about.

      3. JudithRex says:

        no, no apology coming from me Clare. You are a rude, narrow minded person with clear biases and now you equate nasty racism with my assessments. That is a very telling reflection on your character and it isn’t nice. But it does validate my opinion of you.

        Last time I was in London I had lunch at a place with GASP Blacks and Jews and Middle Eastern People. Just like my mongrel country. It was quite nice. I didn’t see “the likes” of racists anywhere.

    3. JudithRex says:

      Melissa – if you are still reading here, I only just saw this offensive racist and personal attack garbage today and have taken screen shots of all of it.

      I only regret I wasted my time on any other posting on this site which is clearly filled with ignorant and nasty racists. Clare’s personal attacks simply reflect an angry older woman who expects to be listened to. We all have them. But the racism is unacceptable anywhere.

      1. Clare says:

        Your comments are are totally unacceptable. Yes racism is unacceptable, so stop it and you will not keep getting criticised by me or anyone else. This is a decent site so I hope you stick to your word and go away.

        1. JudithRex says:

          CLARE YOU IDIOT I am not the RACIST you ignorant nasty twit – Christine is and ANYONE who equates calling England “small” with qouting ADOLF HITLER’s opinion of my country because we have BLACK people and JEWISH people here.

          You are an embarrassment and all the people who are going to see tihis published will see you for what you are. The defender of a woman who quoted HITLER to insult my country and says I am the racist. Nice try!

          Seriously Claire, please get my posts off this disgusting board.

  16. Christine says:

    Thank you Claire I don’t want anyone to think bad of me on this site, I am a very friendly person and don’t like to upset people at all.

    1. Claire says:

      You’re lovely, Christine, and I really appreciate your input. We all have times when things really get to us, so don’t worry!

      1. JudithRex says:

        You do know that “Mongrel races” is what Hitler termed African Americans and why he would not shake hands with Jesse Owens at the 1936 games?

        Not really something a lovely person would say. I think my crime was using the word “backwater”.

        I said ENGLAND was a backwater and meant as compared to France and Spain at the time in the later 1400’s and early 1500s. I am not the first person to say this and I certainly British authors have said the same. The fact that England LATER became a empire was based on Henry using the money he stole form the Church to build the first real navy to protect him form his more powerful neighbors.

        Nothing I have said is other than fact. I do regret using the term “backwater” as it is insensitive to England’s current economic climate.

        1. Christine says:

          Judith, the term backwater defines a slow moving river, the other definition means a country, village or town where there is little or no economic progress, you used this term to describe my country and it is this from what I took offence to, England was NOT a backwater and whilst she may not have been as powerful as France or Spain in the early 16 c she was not a backwater, Henry V11 was shrewd and amassed a lot of money which he left to his son, Henry V111 and our archers were far superior to the French even tho they still claim they beat us at Waterloo, you probably didn’t realise how derogatory you sounded but you may England sound like she was still living in wattle and daub huts and rode about on cattle.

      2. Christine says:

        Your lovely to Claire

  17. JudithRex says:

    Christine I could not care less what you think the word means. The only word I used in tis thread was “small”. I thought for all your vicious hysteria I must have used “backwater” but I did not.

    I note you did not apologize after knowing now you were quoting ADOLF HITLER and that no one here deleted that post and I was even sneered at by that ignorant women Clare that I should apologize for calling England “small”.

    1. Clare says:

      Every word that is spewed from you is to be rude or insulting to someone or something. Do what you promised and GO AWAY!

    2. Christine says:

      Judith I’m not being hysterical I merely tried to explain to you that I found your remarks about England offensive, besides I was not quoting Hitler he was an evil man I just said that he admired the English for their Empire, that’s all, I don’t know about Jesse Owens, first your saying I didn’t offend you, then your saying to Clare I was quoting Hitler to insult America which I wasn’t, and in what you were talking about in your posts, I know Englands small, she’s a tiny island but I just meant that using the word backwater isn’t very diplomatic, in the 15 c she was a commercial country and traded with a lot of countries, she was producing iron, tin and copper and wool, she was an important country in terms of trade and certainly no backwater, all this squabbling is unhealthy and this is supposed to be a nice friendly site.

      1. Claire says:

        We can get back to being friendly now as I have blocked JudithRex, enough is enough. Thanks!

        1. Banditqueen says:

          Dear Claire, I have just seen the terrible insulting remarks by JudithRex, and just wanted to show my support for your hard work and the many numerous hours you clearly and lovingly put into every article on a daily basis, let alone your sister sites, writing well researched books, raising a family, finding time to very kindly ask about Steve, and many other things. I don’t know how you get the energy to do it all, you are wonderful. JudithRex is an idiot, I hope you have not been too upset by her cruel and vindictive comments. She is small minded, I am pleased she will be banned, she was just here to cause trouble. Everyone is welcome here, yes, some debate gets heated but I think basically most of the time it is friendly and open, welcoming and interesting to see different points of view. Thank you for having this site, please don’t let people like her get you down.

        2. Claire says:

          Thank you, BQ, for your kind words and support, I really appreciate them.

  18. Christine says:

    Hi Bandit queen, yes your right about Judith I noticed on other posts she would be very argumentive and wouldn’t let anything drop, she always spoke about our country like she was sniping at it, In fact I don’t think she likes England much at all, I noticed on another post she referred to Anne Boleyn as something like a blood sucking trollop, or words to that effect, we all have our own views on historical characters, this is what makes this site interesting, after all we are here to debate and press forward our own opinions, but she annoyed me when she said in one post ‘Spain far surpassed that backwater called England’, it was the fact she said ‘that backwater’, she spoke of her in deragotory terms and I love my country, I’m very proud of what she’s achieved yet Judith couldn’t see anyone’s point of view but her own, and then she likened me to Hitler and accused me of racism and her comments were so ridiculous I think really she has anger issues, an American cousin of mine said to me England has the most interesting history, and he visited several times, incidentally I discovered our connection when I was researching my family history, imagine my surprise when I discovered that Anne Boleyn is a distant cousin, her fourth great grandma and my nineteenth great grandma were sisters, among many other historical figures, I do regret however what I said about America and so Claire if you do read this maybe you can take the post down for me, as I’m not proud of that and don’t wish to offend any other American visitor, thanks ever so.

    1. Banditqueen says:

      What an interesting link in your family tree, a link to Anne Boleyn. Please don’t worry about what JudithRex said, you apologized and we all have said silly stuff at times. Her views are nonsense, she is gone now, you have always made good comments, Christine, please don’t concern yourself about a post made in anger, we can move on now. Take care.

    2. Claire says:

      Hi Christine,
      You made a mistake and you apologised for it. JudithRex turned it into something that it was not intended to be but she’s gone now and the rest of us are grown-up enough to move on from it. Please don’t worry about it, I think any new visitors will be able to read the whole thread and understand what happened.

      1. Christine says:

        Thank you Claire.

  19. Christine says:

    Thank you and you take care to, and very best wishes to your husband.

    1. BanditQueen says:

      Thank you.

  20. Amreeta Sen says:

    Katherine was married to Henry for the longest period. He was besotted with the Spanish Princess when she arrived in England to marry his brother and decided to marry her after hus brother died though there was stiff opposition from Henry VII, his father.
    After many hurdles he did marry her. But unfortunately none of their sons lived.
    Would he have turned to Anne if a Prince had lived? Would Anne have considered Henry if he had not been King?
    Katherine and Henry had a love marriage. But many factors combined to make sure that that love did not survive.
    But…how much of it really died?

  21. Maryann Pitman says:

    Katherine played her cards as best she could, which was pretty damn well. I do not doubt her affection for Henry. She was, first and foremost, a Spanish princess. She would have given way to no other woman without the same fight. The problem I have with her decision is how shortsighted and self interested it really was. She was fighting for her place and that of her daughter without being willing to acknowledge that England was very different from Castile. There was no history of female succession in England at this time. Henry was right to be concerned. All personal issues aside, Katherine had failed in the one essential duty of a Queen Consort, she had failed to produce a son. It could have come as no surprise to her that Henry would seek an annulment and a new wife. She knew the politics and necessities of the Crown. She could have relented when Henry moved to break from Rome, but she did not. What she did, in the end, was hold up the proceedings so that England would end up with a Regency. She knew this also. She had to know that if Henry attempted to settle the succession on Mary it would cause a lot of trouble, maybe civil war.
    Denial is a powerful thing. Makes it easier to do what is best for ourselves, even at the expense of many others.

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Search