Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
8:11 pm
April 20, 2010
Offline
I've read a few books on this matter….I'm surprised I haven't found anyone wondering this same thing.
What I mean is, after Anne got pregnant with Elizabeth, all of a sudden, they get married…..huh? Why couldn't they have gotten married 1 day BEFORE she announced her pregnancy? It seems to me that they got married, and THEN the divorce from Katherine was issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury(Cranmer), right?
Also, since they were married in the Catholic church, shouldn't it be in the back of people who hold true to their Catholic beliefs minds, that Katherine was Henry's wife until the day she died since no Catholic entity issued an annulment or divorce? I know this is why people called Anne a wh*re, but I've never heard it said that Elizabeth I was a bastard for REAL….I mean, no one buys that she was a bastard..that was just a title given to her by Anne's enemies, right? Maybe Henry Fitzroy was the next in line after Princess Anne afterall….?
1:02 am
August 12, 2009
Offline
I thought the Catholic church issued annulments all the time. And an annulment meant the marriage had never truly existed whether either partner realized it or not, so Henry had been unmarried all the years he'd spent with Katharine. And if that was true, it didn't matter when Henry married Anne, as he had been single the whole time.
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
6:35 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Yes, he was a bigamist for a while in that he married Anne Boleyn secretly in January 1533 but his marriage to Catherine was not annulled until Easter 1533 so you could say that he was a temporary bigamist until the marriage was then declared null and void and never to have happened, complicated!!
I guess you could say that Henry didn't have six wives at all if you consider his annulments and the marriages that somehow never took place – no Catherine of A, no Anne B, no Anne of C, no Catherine Howard! So, he only had two wives – Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr. Weird!!
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
7:10 am
April 20, 2010
Offline
As Claire says, you could decreet that Henry only had two wives if you really want to be accurate… But the fact is nobody takes Elizabeth for a bastard (well I guess the Vatican still does and other Catholics) because all of his six marriages are taken in consideration. Otherwise Catholics would deny some, Anglicans some others. Those annulments are a kind of vast joke, depending on a game of powers. The Catholic Church didn't mind granting Henry his first marriage in the first place, despite the bride was his late brother's wife, but then by fear of Charles V they didn't give him his divorce… And when it was the good pleasure of the King, he decided that he never had been truly wedded to Anne Boleyn or Katherine Howard. But History takes it he did.
1:51 pm
April 20, 2010
Offline
Anyelka said:
As Claire says, you could decreet that Henry only had two wives if you really want to be accurate… But the fact is nobody takes Elizabeth for a bastard (well I guess the Vatican still does and other Catholics) because all of his six marriages are taken in consideration. Otherwise Catholics would deny some, Anglicans some others. Those annulments are a kind of vast joke, depending on a game of powers. The Catholic Church didn't mind granting Henry his first marriage in the first place, despite the bride was his late brother's wife, but then by fear of Charles V they didn't give him his divorce… And when it was the good pleasure of the King, he decided that he never had been truly wedded to Anne Boleyn or Katherine Howard. But History takes it he did.
Thank you! I thought my line of thinking was weird since no one'd brought it up before….Seems like everything was a matter of politics…..Clement wouldn't grant the divorce because he was under the protection(or kidnapped) by the Spanish emperor who was nephew to Katherine….but I think in his heart, he knew the divorce was wrong, but he strung Henry along because of politics….
8:28 am
September 22, 2010
Offline
Aside from religion,he might have been a bigamist in the eyes of the law.The annulment was a tricky business and one which in my opinion would have worked better with the Pope's consent.A divorce would have been a wiser decision for it would stop all agreements whether Anne or Katherine was his lawful wife and which daughter was the legitimate one(that way both were).But alas,all three of them(Henry,Anne,Katherine)wanted all or nothing.Apart from that,it is the perceptive you had.The catholics considered Anne's marriage as null while others considered Catherine's previous marriage to Arthur cancelling the one with Henry.It was a tricky matter,that was unfortunately focused solely on whether Catherine's first marriage was consumated or not.I,for one believe that Henry shouldn't have married Catherine because she was by law his marital sister,whether Arhur lived or not and this matter would come up sooner or later(I believe that in Christianism also sexual relationship between siblings in law are also immoral).And when he did marry her,he shouldn't remember the predicament in which they were in after 20 years,because it would have been easier for both of them.Also,it was unjust to Anne because he made it seem that he remember Catherine's matter now that he wanted Anne,as if it was her influence that did that.He should have solved all matters with Catherine thoughtfully and not sloppy before he went on to marry Anne.All in all,I consider Henry a bigamist at least for the first year of his marriage to Anne,because he married Anne before everything with Catherine was settled by simply sending her away.Later,he managed to have his annulment and was married only to Anne(although many thought that he should have repeated a ceremony with her,to establish her status as his only lawful wife)but still,he had created tricky suspisions(and unsolved questions 'till now) whether he was a bigamist,married only twice,never married to Anne or Katherine etc
12:31 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Anne and Henry married Jan. 1533. Cranmer announced Katherine's marriage to Henry null and void in May 1533. A few days later, June 1533, he declared Henry and Anne's marriage valid. Yes, Henry was a bigamist according to the Catholic Church; but according to Cramner, the wedding to Anne in January was legal and binding. So he wasn't a bigamist according to the new Church of England. Therefore, no need for another wedding ceremony. 
5:26 pm
June 19, 2009
Offline
This time was an intense time for Henry and he was answerable to God alone as head of the church of England. Henry might not have always right, but he was always the King.
If it was not this, then it would be something else?
12:44 am
March 9, 2011
Offline
Anyelka said:
As Claire says, you could decreet that Henry only had two wives if you really want to be accurate… But the fact is nobody takes Elizabeth for a bastard (well I guess the Vatican still does and other Catholics) because all of his six marriages are taken in consideration. Otherwise Catholics would deny some, Anglicans some others. Those annulments are a kind of vast joke, depending on a game of powers. The Catholic Church didn't mind granting Henry his first marriage in the first place, despite the bride was his late brother's wife, but then by fear of Charles V they didn't give him his divorce… And when it was the good pleasure of the King, he decided that he never had been truly wedded to Anne Boleyn or Katherine Howard. But History takes it he did.
Sorry, I've always considered Elizabeth illegitimate. He was still legally married to his first wife and indulging in illicit relations with Anne when Elizabeth was conceived. His wheeling and dealing to marry Anne wasn't taken seriously by anyone outside of England.
No matter how you look at it, Anne's marriage was a joke.
4:55 am
August 12, 2009
Offline
La Belle Creole said:
Sorry, I've always considered Elizabeth illegitimate. He was still legally married to his first wife and indulging in illicit relations with Anne when Elizabeth was conceived. His wheeling and dealing to marry Anne wasn't taken seriously by anyone outside of England.
No matter how you look at it, Anne's marriage was a joke.
That's rather harsh, IMO. The whole point of Henry's seeking an annulment was that he WASN'T legally married to Katharine. I'll concede that Catholic powers at the time dismissed his wish to marry Anne, but that's hardly 'anyone outside of England'. I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you or your religious beliefs, however, so I'll simply say I disagree that the issue could only be seen in one way or that I must view Anne's marriage as a 'joke'. I don't.
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
2:51 pm
March 9, 2011
Offline
Impish_Impulse said:
La Belle Creole said:
Sorry, I've always considered Elizabeth illegitimate. He was still legally married to his first wife and indulging in illicit relations with Anne when Elizabeth was conceived. His wheeling and dealing to marry Anne wasn't taken seriously by anyone outside of England.
No matter how you look at it, Anne's marriage was a joke.
That's rather harsh, IMO. The whole point of Henry's seeking an annulment was that he WASN'T legally married to Katharine. I'll concede that Catholic powers at the time dismissed his wish to marry Anne, but that's hardly 'anyone outside of England'. I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you or your religious beliefs, however, so I'll simply say I disagree that the issue could only be seen in one way or that I must view Anne's marriage as a 'joke'. I don't.
Hi, Impish Impulse!
My opinion isn't based upon my religious faith but upon my knowledge of the facts. It isn't a question of being “harsh” to Anne Boleyn or to Elizabeth Tudor. The fact is Anne willingly participated in an illicit affair with a married man for YEARS. It's beside the point that the relationship wasn't fully consummated until close to their “marriage.” It says something about Anne's morality and her ethics that she would do this. It doesn't make her “evil,” nor does it mean she got what she deserved from her “partner in crime.”
Anne Boleyn is a fascinating, seductive figure, but being fascinating and seductive does not excuse a person for making poor moral choices and unethical decisions.
Henry's case for an anullment was weak, weak to the point the ONLY way he could win the case was to change his country's religion, appoint a chief clergyman to invalidate his first marriage, and force his subjects under pain of death to swear their support of the invalidation.
I believe most civilized people would agree these methods represent a severe ethical compromise even when looked at from a pro-Henry/Anne standpoint.
Later Elizabeth demanded her parents' marriage be declared legal, but is this declaration really worth the paper it's written on? Henry and Anne conceived Elizabeth during an adulterous affair, covered up by a hasty, secret “marriage” while Henry was still legally married to Katherine of Aragon.
I really admire Anne, but I “admire her with my eyes open.” What she did took nerve and style, but her marriage was a joke and the proof of that is in how easily Henry himself disregarded it via the same clergy who pronounced it “good” in the first place.
8:02 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
La Belle Creole said:
Later Elizabeth demanded her parents' marriage be declared legal, but is this declaration really worth the paper it's written on?
Do you have a cite for that? Because my books say that she looked into having the marriage declared legal a la Queen Mary but decided to leave it. The was no case of “demanding”.
It's always bunnies.
8:16 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
La Belle Creole said:
The fact is Anne willingly participated in an illicit affair with a married man for YEARS. It's beside the point that the relationship wasn't fully consummated until close to their “marriage.” It says something about Anne's morality and her ethics that she would do this. It doesn't make her “evil,” nor does it mean she got what she deserved from her “partner in crime.”
The fact that Henry was a “married man” escapes a lot of people too. It certainly escaped Henry…..that said there were rumours that he was looking for a way out of his marriage as early as 1517. (I need to check this as it's late here and I want to go to bed soon.)
HE was the one with the power, not Anne and not Katherine. Both of them suffered because of Henry as did a lot of innocent and not-so-innocent bystanders.
Anne was, IMNSHO, lead by the typical promises of a married man who wants his cake and eat it.And it was only later she realised how serious he was and how far H8 was prepared to go in order to win her.
It's always bunnies.
9:52 pm
March 9, 2011
Offline
Anyanka said:
La Belle Creole said:
Later Elizabeth demanded her parents' marriage be declared legal, but is this declaration really worth the paper it's written on?
Do you have a cite for that? Because my books say that she looked into having the marriage declared legal a la Queen Mary but decided to leave it. The was no case of “demanding”.
I'm uninterested in quibbling over word choices. I believe any reasonable, impartial person considering all the known facts understand why Mary Tudor's order that her parents' marriage (both parties consented to the union permitted by the church's dispensation, a union lasting two decades which produced 8 children) be recognized as legitimate and honest made sense, while Elizabeth's (married man secretly marrying his pregnant mistress to legitimize an expected son/heir) did not.
Once again, I'm not casting slurs on Anne Boleyn, I'm just saying it's impossible, even by the most open-minded standards imaginable, to regard the marriage as honest and legitimate when one considers the facts.
10:11 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
La Belle Creole said:
Anyanka said:
La Belle Creole said:
Later Elizabeth demanded her parents' marriage be declared legal, but is this declaration really worth the paper it's written on?
Do you have a cite for that? Because my books say that she looked into having the marriage declared legal a la Queen Mary but decided to leave it. The was no case of “demanding”.
I'm uninterested in quibbling over word choices. I believe any reasonable, impartial person considering all the known facts understand why Mary Tudor's order that her parents' marriage (both parties consented to the union permitted by the church's dispensation, a union lasting two decades which produced 8 children) be recognized as legitimate and honest made sense, while Elizabeth's (married man secretly marrying his pregnant mistress to legitimize an expected son/heir) did not.
Once again, I'm not casting slurs on Anne Boleyn, I'm just saying it's impossible, even by the most open-minded standards imaginable, to regard the marriage as honest and legitimate when one considers the facts.
You chose the word “DEMAND” …
It's always bunnies.
10:15 pm
March 9, 2011
Offline
Anyanka said:
La Belle Creole said:
The fact is Anne willingly participated in an illicit affair with a married man for YEARS. It's beside the point that the relationship wasn't fully consummated until close to their “marriage.” It says something about Anne's morality and her ethics that she would do this. It doesn't make her “evil,” nor does it mean she got what she deserved from her “partner in crime.”
The fact that Henry was a “married man” escapes a lot of people too. It certainly escaped Henry…..that said there were rumours that he was looking for a way out of his marriage as early as 1517. (I need to check this as it's late here and I want to go to bed soon.)
HE was the one with the power, not Anne and not Katherine. Both of them suffered because of Henry as did a lot of innocent and not-so-innocent bystanders.
Anne was, IMNSHO, lead by the typical promises of a married man who wants his cake and eat it.And it was only later she realised how serious he was and how far H8 was prepared to go in order to win her.
I agree Henry VIII is also at fault and lacking in moral character. Anne was not his first infidelity. He had illicit affairs with other women, including Bess Blount and Mary Boleyn. Anne's position wasn't an easy one, and her relationship with Henry was not an equal partnership.
However, Anne was an intelligent, shrewd woman. I believe she knew in her heart her conduct wasn't proper, no matter what Henry claimed to the contrary. While it would not have been easy or pleasant to refuse the king's suit, it would not have been impossible. The consequences could hardly have been more unpleasant than what she ultimately suffered.
I've often wondered if things would have different for Henry and Anne if Anne had managed to hold him at arm's length until 1536. After Catherine of Aragon passed away, Henry would have been a respectable widower and eligible for marriage. However the public regarded Anne, there would have been no question of her marriage's legality and her child/ren's legitimacy. Mary would have remained Princess of Wales until or unless Anne birthed a son. This would have reduced much of the “domestic friction” in the royal couple's life.
The illicit nature of their relationship and the sham marriage were huge “stress triggers” to Henry and Anne. I have no doubt this impacted their relationship and contributed to Anne's downfall.
10:46 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
La Belle Creole said:
I agree Henry VIII is also at fault and lacking in moral character. Anne was not his first infidelity. He had illicit affairs with other women, including Bess Blount and Mary Boleyn. Anne's position wasn't an easy one, and her relationship with Henry was not an equal partnership.
However, Anne was an intelligent, shrewd woman. I believe she knew in her heart her conduct wasn't proper, no matter what Henry claimed to the contrary. While it would not have been easy or pleasant to refuse the king's suit, it would not have been impossible. The consequences could hardly have been more unpleasant than what she ultimately suffered.
I snipped the quote tree..
Presently we have no way of knowing how Anne felt. At best we are going through second and third hand information.
I agree that she was not prepared to be H8's mistress or even his Maîtresse-en-titre at that time.Like all noble-women she knew her value on the marriage market and after her sister's conduct she would be cast into the same realm as a discarded mistress even though her sister married a minor member of Henry's family*.
In 1536 after the death of KoA, there would have been many royal and semi-royal brides offered to H8 IF he had not annulled his marriage nor executed Anne.
*William Carey who married Mary Boleyn was a cousin of H8. And not the obscure nobleman of legend.
It's always bunnies.
10:55 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
La Belle Creole said:
Anyanka said:
La Belle Creole said:
Later Elizabeth demanded her parents' marriage be declared legal, but is this declaration really worth the paper it's written on?
Do you have a cite for that? Because my books say that she looked into having the marriage declared legal a la Queen Mary but decided to leave it. The was no case of “demanding”.
I'm uninterested in quibbling over word choices. I believe any reasonable, impartial person considering all the known facts understand why Mary Tudor's order that her parents' marriage (both parties consented to the union permitted by the church's dispensation, a union lasting two decades which produced 8 children) be recognized as legitimate and honest made sense, while Elizabeth's (married man secretly marrying his pregnant mistress to legitimize an expected son/heir) did not.
Once again, I'm not casting slurs on Anne Boleyn, I'm just saying it's impossible, even by the most open-minded standards imaginable, to regard the marriage as honest and legitimate when one considers the facts.
Do you have a cite or not??
It's always bunnies.
11:31 pm
March 9, 2011
Offline
Anyanka said:
La Belle Creole said:
I agree Henry VIII is also at fault and lacking in moral character. Anne was not his first infidelity. He had illicit affairs with other women, including Bess Blount and Mary Boleyn. Anne's position wasn't an easy one, and her relationship with Henry was not an equal partnership.
However, Anne was an intelligent, shrewd woman. I believe she knew in her heart her conduct wasn't proper, no matter what Henry claimed to the contrary. While it would not have been easy or pleasant to refuse the king's suit, it would not have been impossible. The consequences could hardly have been more unpleasant than what she ultimately suffered.
I snipped the quote tree..
Presently we have no way of knowing how Anne felt. At best we are going through second and third hand information.
I agree that she was not prepared to be H8's mistress or even his Maîtresse-en-titre at that time.Like all noble-women she knew her value on the marriage market and after her sister's conduct she would be cast into the same realm as a discarded mistress even though her sister married a minor member of Henry's family*.
In 1536 after the death of KoA, there would have been many royal and semi-royal brides offered to H8 IF he had not annulled his marriage nor executed Anne.
*William Carey who married Mary Boleyn was a cousin of H8. And not the obscure nobleman of legend.
I don't claim first-hand knowledge of what Anne Boleyn felt or thought. However, I'm confident she was aware that adulterous relationships and extramarital affairs were not condoned by society or by law.
Returning to the topic, Henry's actions were indeed adulterous and bigamous. Anne chose to participate in his plans for her own reasons. That is why her marriage was a joke and why her husband had to force people at swordpoint to state her daughter was a legitimate child. The flimsy “marriage” also made it very easy for Henry to repudiate Anne (and scapegoat her) and to bastardize Elizabeth.
4:30 am
August 12, 2009
Offline
One of the things I love about these forums is the easy give and take of debating our opinions concerning anything Tudor. It's fun and interesting to bounce our ideas off one another. However…
I think my biggest problem with your argument is that it isn't an argument at all, but merely repeatedly stating your own opinions as inconvertible fact. To wit:
“No matter how you look at it”
“The fact is”
“most civilized people would agree”
“I believe any reasonable, impartial person considering all the known facts understand”
“I'm just saying it's impossible, even by the most open-minded standards imaginable, to regard the marriage as honest and legitimate when one considers the facts.”
Perhaps it's unintentional, but your word choices stifle debate when you start from the position you cannot be wrong. Further, you insult anyone who disagrees with your conclusions by implying that we are not civilized, reasonable, impartial, etc. if we disagree with you. And when Anyanka challenged your claim that Elizabeth demanded her parents' marriage be declared legal, and asked for your source, you simply blew her off with “I'm uninterested in quibbling over word choices.” I think you're uninterested in the give and take of debating our opinions or in even considering the possible merits of ours. I find that neither fun, interesting, nor thought-provoking. Carry on as you wish, but I'm out. Peace.
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
