Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log Insp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed Topic RSSsp_TopicIcon
Question about Anne and Henry's annulment
January 20, 2013
1:16 am
Avatar
KellyMarie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 93
Member Since:
January 18, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi you’ll have to excuse me if I sound a bit thick but I was wondering if someone could clear up a little question for me. I know that Henry got his marriage to Anne annulled by using his relationship with Mary Boleyn as a get out clause but my question is, how did he get around the issue in the first place to marry her?

Woohoo I'm normal...gotta go tell the cat!

January 20, 2013
12:45 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well before Henry told the Pope to go to hell he still believed that the Pope would grant him an annulment from Catherine. He actually sent a Dr. something or other to Rome to ask for the appropiate dispensation to cover that. Once Henry made himself head of the church Cramner basically covered that situation and they were married.
As for his divorce from Anne on the same grounds, as COA. he couldn’t make it stick and that’s where Cromwell came in, with his joke of evidence of adultery etc against Anne. (Leveston would have a field day of the evidence Cromwell invented)
If you think about it Henry was really pushing his luck when it came to using the same excuse to divorce Anne as he did with COA.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

January 20, 2013
12:55 pm
Avatar
KellyMarie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 93
Member Since:
January 18, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I still can’t get over him using hte same excuse twice! The excuse was rocky to begin with, nevermind using it again! So did they just ignore the fact that Crammar had solved the issue already and hope the question wouldn’t be raised since it would get lost amongst all the accusations?

Woohoo I'm normal...gotta go tell the cat!

January 20, 2013
3:43 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think is more of a case of when Henry wanted rid of Anne, Cromwell told him “Can’t use the incest excuse again old boy we need something more permenant” I.e Anne had to die.
Henry actually made himself look a bloody idiot at the blackfrairs trial if you think about it, raking up and using evidence that was nearly 30 years old. Plus even after the great divorce COA continued to be a thorn in his side. He didn’t want the same hassles with Anne, so again she had to die.
If he had perhaps claimed either or both Mary B’s kids as his own then maybe he would have a point, but he didn’t.
Once Henry had made up his mind to get rid of Anne her fate was sealed and all Cromwell had to do was invent the evidence.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

January 20, 2013
7:18 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This is very confusing, and I’m not sure why Henry bothered. Anne was already condemned to die when she agreed to the anullment. It seems to me, the consanguinuity clause was used only to bastardize Elizabeth. I may be wrong, but I see no reason for an anullment if Anne was going to die. The marriage would end with her death.
Kelly, the laws of the Church were used for and against people all the time. There were many marriages that had to have the consanguinuity dispensation. It seems like everyone was related in one way or another. Since having sex with a family member meant Henry was related in some way to Anne, he wanted dispensation to marry her. Cover all his bases. If one wanted to get out of a marriage, all they would have to do is send some money, or make promises to the pope and use the dispensation they received to marry the person against them. The problem with KOA’s case was that the pope was being held captive by her nephew and refused to give the anullment the okay. In other words at the time the pope gave his allegiance to Spain. With Anne, Cranmer said all was good. The marriage was legal. When Henry wanted the anullment, he used that clause against Anne.

January 20, 2013
8:50 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think Henry wanted all his bases covered this time. He wanted no impediment to his marriage to Jane*. All i’s dotted and all t’s crossed. He wanted to start this marriage as legally free and a bachelor…a first time groom.

* well, until he tired of her or some-one better came along…then I’m sure some-one would have found a reason why that marriage wasn’t fully legal.

It's always bunnies.

January 22, 2013
11:41 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Henry made a right Dog’s breakfast of matrimony didn’t he? Actually I’ll re-phrase that, he was ok with the I do and I declare them bit from the man in a dress waving his hands about, it was just the domestic life of marriage he couldn’t hack.
Henry reminds me in some ways of a kid who wants something (a good hiding) he can’t have and throws a hissy fit till he gets it and when he’s got it doesn’t know why he wanted or what to do with it.
The consanguinity clause has always bothered me. It doesn’t seem to make sence. Henry used the clause to get out of his marriage with COA. However COA had 2 sisters who married Manual of Portugal Isabella and Maria and yet they were considered to be perfectly ok marriages.
In fact all through history there are littered, what could be called incestious marriages. If these marriages were deemed abborant to the laws of God and Man then the bible is a mixed bag of issues where that is concerned too Levicticus states that “a man must not marry his brother’s wife for he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness and they will be childless” and yet it also says somewhere else “That it is the duty of a brother to marry his brother’s widow etc”
Although the Pope issued dispensations for these type of marriages, how could he could then turn around and give the green light to give the boot the old ball and chain out once she had outlived her usefulness, using the consanguinity clause to annul the marriage?
The consanguinity card to my eyes anyway seems quite contradictary.
I actually wonder what would have happened to Jane if she had failed to produce a Son? Would he have used the Consanguinity card there as well?
Henry was by way of related to all his wives.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

January 22, 2013
3:05 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jane Seymour, Kathryn Howard, Anne and Mary Boleyn shared a great grandmother in Elizabeth Cheney, making them second cousins.

She was married firstly to Sir Fredrick Tilney and their daughter was Elizabeth Tilney how married Thomas Howard, the second Duke of Norfolk. Thier issue included Thomas Howard, Elizabeth Howard and Edmund Howard.

Her second marriage was to Sir John Say and from that marriage daughter Anne Say went on to marry Henry wentworth and thier daughter was Margery Wentworth and she married Sir John Seymour. Another daughter married Henry Bourchier and thier daughter was Anne Bourchier who was married to William Parr, Katherine Parr’s brother.

It's always bunnies.

January 22, 2013
5:27 pm
Avatar
KellyMarie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 93
Member Since:
January 18, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Henry reminds me of a modern day hysterical woman who is determined to get married and be the centre of attention for the day and then realises “oh right yea i’ve got to get through the actual marriage part now”. It was a bit silly of Henry to get rid of Catherine on the excuse of her and Arthur’s marriage when he knew full well his situation with the Boleyn sisters. Even he he hadn’t wanted to get rid of Anne, that was always going to come back to bite him.

Woohoo I'm normal...gotta go tell the cat!

January 26, 2013
4:28 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Of course, if Anne’s marriage to Henry wasn’t legal because of his carnal relations with her sister, Mary, how could she have committed adultery?

January 26, 2013
7:17 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jasmine said

Of course, if Anne’s marriage to Henry wasn’t legal because of his carnal relations with her sister, Mary, how could she have committed adultery?

…and isn’t that the saddest part of this story. She didn’t have to die, yet Henry put her through this most embarrassing trial, then annulls the marriage, and kills her anyway.

January 26, 2013
8:39 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree Sharon. Henry had got what he wanted from the trial Anne was condemned end of story. but annuling the marriage just for the sake of it afterwards just seems to me to being a spiteful act on Henry’s part. Was the marriaged anulled after he asked Anne (Via Cromwell?) to give up her and Elizabeth’s rights to the throne and go abroad?

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

January 26, 2013
9:49 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Jasmine said

Of course, if Anne’s marriage to Henry wasn’t legal because of his carnal relations with her sister, Mary, how could she have committed adultery?

…and isn’t that the saddest part of this story. She didn’t have to die, yet Henry put her through this most embarrassing trial, then annulls the marriage, and kills her anyway.

Spite and malice

January 27, 2013
4:12 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louise said

Sharon said

Jasmine said

Of course, if Anne’s marriage to Henry wasn’t legal because of his carnal relations with her sister, Mary, how could she have committed adultery?

…and isn’t that the saddest part of this story. She didn’t have to die, yet Henry put her through this most embarrassing trial, then annulls the marriage, and kills her anyway.

Spite and malice

And the removal of a powerful anti-Cromwell faction…sez the Cromwell groupie

It's always bunnies.

January 27, 2013
8:06 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

I agree Sharon. Henry had got what he wanted from the trial Anne was condemned end of story. but annuling the marriage just for the sake of it afterwards just seems to me to being a spiteful act on Henry’s part. Was the marriaged anulled after he asked Anne (Via Cromwell?) to give up her and Elizabeth’s rights to the throne and go abroad?

It was Cranmer, not Cromwell who went to Anne supposedly on the 17th I think, to ask her for the annullment. The next day he proclaimed the marriage annulled. So they had been working on it for a while. We don’t know for sure what made Anne agree to this. Some believe that he promised her freedom. I’m not sure if Cranmer would have promised her that. He knew what her end was going to be. He may have just promised that Elizabeth would not come to any harm.

January 28, 2013
12:16 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

Boleyn said

I agree Sharon. Henry had got what he wanted from the trial Anne was condemned end of story. but annuling the marriage just for the sake of it afterwards just seems to me to being a spiteful act on Henry’s part. Was the marriaged anulled after he asked Anne (Via Cromwell?) to give up her and Elizabeth’s rights to the throne and go abroad?

It was Cranmer, not Cromwell who went to Anne supposedly on the 17th I think, to ask her for the annullment. The next day he proclaimed the marriage annulled. So they had been working on it for a while. We don’t know for sure what made Anne agree to this. Some believe that he promised her freedom. I’m not sure if Cranmer would have promised her that. He knew what her end was going to be. He may have just promised that Elizabeth would not come to any harm.

Thank you Sharon. I knew one of them had gone to Anne, but I always thought it would have been Cromwell. Did Anne agree to the annulment, well it wouldn’t have made any difference to the situation if she did, as Elizabeth had already been declared a bastard or was about to be by the time the verdict was given. If Henry hadn’t have dissolved the church in such a spectacular fashion there was perhaps a slim chance that Anne may have lived by going into a convent? I think that this ploy by Henry was a way of tying up any possible loose ends that may have been exploited at a later date, by some power hungry despots.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

Forum Timezone: Europe/London
Most Users Ever Online: 214
Currently Online:
Top Posters:
Anyanka: 2333
Boleyn: 2285
Sharon: 2114
Bella44: 933
DuchessofBrittany: 846
Mya Elise: 781
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1
Members: 425979
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 13
Topics: 1679
Posts: 22775
Newest Members:
Davidgem, estellayb3, Thomastigma, ponttspcv, KeithVen, lilliejk60
Administrators: Claire: 958