Sharon said:

La Belle Creole said:

---

Impish Impulse, I'm uninterested in debating whether or not Henry VIII happened to be a bigamist.  We don't need to debate the issue because he quite obviously was a bigamist. 

Per Merriam-Webster, bigamy is “the act of entering into a marriage with one person while one is still legally married to another.”  Henry VIII did exactly that.  If that isn't what he did, please correct my mistaken assumption. Perhaps you're aware of some historical tidbits I'm not.

We can point out various details such as “Henry did not consider himself legally married to Katherine when he married Anne” or “Henry changed the law to legalize his marriage to Anne” or “Katherine of Aragon wouldn't graciously retire.”  (May I ask what woman WOULD “graciously retire” and deprive her only child of her rightful position and inheritance in favor of a much lower woman's illegitimate child?  I certainly wouldn't.)  These details are interesting, but none of them alter Henry's bigamous behavior.  

Cutting to the chase, debating “Is Henry VIII a bigamist?” is not unlike debating “Is water liquid?”  If a person knows what bigamy is and is aware of Henry VIII's actions, I'm uncertain how one could rationalize he was NOT a bigamist unless one accepts Henry's viewpoint that Henry had absolute authority to determine his marital status whenever he felt like it.

I won't argue with you or anyone else water isn't liquid. 

 

   

---

Okay, you believe Henry committed bigamy.  Got it.
We all have our opinions, and we all give voice to them on this forum.  And we debate everything.  What we try not to do is dismiss a member's opinion if we do not happen to share it. We do not insult each other's intelligence. I don't believe any of us needed a dictionary description of the word bigamy.
Can you answer the question Anyanka asked you at least two or three times?  Where did you read your historical tidbit that Elizabeth demanded  her parent's marriage be recognised through legislation?  It is a fair question.  I can't find that in my books either.  Elizabeth privately looked into the matter; and from what I have found, she demanded no such legislation.  If you have a source that we have not read yet, will you please let us know where to find it?

Hi there.
1)  It isn't about what I believe.  It isn't about my opinion.  It's about facts, specifically the following:

1. Henry VIII married Katherine of Aragon. They lived and reigned together as a married, royal couple.
2. Henry experienced his “crisis of conscience,” fell for Anne B., and separated from his wife.  He appealed through various venues to support his allegations his first marriage was invalid. 
3. As this appeals process continued (UNDECIDED) Henry elected to marry Anne B.
4. Henry was married to two women at the same time (the definition of bigamy.)

These are facts.  This isn't what I think, or what I believe.  These are known, documented facts.  If I'm mistaken about the facts, please correct me.  If I'm not mistaken, please cease claiming I am offering an opinion or stating specific beliefs. 

2)  “And we debate everything.”  I don't want to debate everything.  Certainly there are many tremendous topics open for debate concerning Anne B. and her life and times.  Hal's bigamy ain't one of 'em. Nor is Elizabeth I's illegitimacy.  Facts speak for themselves. 

I can't help feeling some irrational bias is swaying this discussion, as though my willingness to “look the Devil in the eye” and call the circumstances what they are is somehow “disloyal” or “harmful” to A.B. and/or Elizabeth I.  While I admire both of these intriguing historical figures, neither's story is injured or “lessened” in any way by acknowledging facts.  If anything, it makes things more interesting IMHO. 

In any event, bias or no bias, Henry was still a bigamist and Elizabeth was still illegitimate.  If people “don't feel this is the case” or “don't believe this is true,” fine.  I'm not going to debate that viewpoint.  If people subscribe to Henry VIII's kangaroo court wheeling and dealing to nullify his first marriage and legitimize his second, that's fine, too.  I don't have a problem with that.  However, anyone subscribing to Henry's wheeling and dealing as “good law” has to keep in mind he invalidated his marriage to Anne as well.  Was his law “good” when he married her but “no good” when he annulled her?  If so, why?  What facts (not people's feelings) support that claim?   

3)   I'm sorry you consider the definition of “bigamy” insulting to posters' intelligence and unneccesary to the discussion.  I personally disagree.  The topic is “Was Henry a bigamist?”  When considering this question and formulating an answer, knowledge of what a bigamist is helpful and relevant, albeit elementary.  If we are aware of what a “bigamist” is and we are aware of Henry's behaviors, we are better able to answer the question rationally.   I had no disrespectful intention in providing the definition, I cited it to support my answer to the question. 

4)   I have refrained from addressing Anyanka's posts and her repeated demands for a citation because they are a transparent ploy to drag the discussion off topic.  Anyanka agreed with the substance of my post concerning Elizabeth's bid to have her parents' marriage validated and her own illegitimacy “repaired.”  She just attacked my choice of words.  I stated I would not quibble over a word choice, nor would I expect people interested in discussing the meat and substance of this topic to do so. 

However, since you persist in quibbling over my word usage, here is an entry from thesaurus.com regarding the term “demand:”

I trust we are all clear now and that there is no further need to attack one poster's word use and further derail the topic.   Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this post.  I appreciate your time. : )

Claire said:

Hi Everyone,

I'm going to step in here as this thread has been reported to me. What I love about running The Anne Boleyn Files is that we are a friendly community who can enjoy debating questions in a grown-up and friendly manner, but from reading your posts on this thread, La Belle Creole, you are coming across as rather unfriendly, divisive and quite rude at times. To post dictionary and thesaurus explanations is insulting everybody's intelligence and I do feel that although you are putting forward facts as you see them, these facts are coloured by your perception of them.

Henry VIII was a bigamist in the way we see it today but not in his eyes. I am of the opinion that he truly believed that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was contrary to Biblical law and so should never have been allowed. In his eyes it was therefore null and void. His marriage to Anne Boleyn was therefore valid no matter when it took place. Henry felt that the Pope should never have granted the dispensation and that God was showing him, by not blessing him with a male heir, that the marriage was wrong. Those are the facts as Henry saw them.

Anyway, please can we go back to discussing things in a friendly manner and answering other people's questions politely. I do not want anyone being put off from posting on here because they feel that they are being bullied or that their opinions are not being taken seriously. We are all entitled to our opinions and we are all entitled to air them, all I ask is that we think of other people's feelings when we write posts.

Per Claire's April 20,2010 post :  “Yes, (Henry) was a bigamist …”

Per Anyelka's April 20, 2010 post:  “(Henry's) annulments are a kind of vast joke, depending on a game of powers.”

I emphatically agree with these individuals.