Catherine of Aragon - treason? | The Six Wives | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_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 RSS sp_TopicIcon
Catherine of Aragon - treason?
March 2, 2014
8:16 am
Avatar
SSM0624
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
March 2, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don’t know the technicalities for what qualifies as treason, but a thought occurred to me — why wasn’t Catherine of Aragon ever accused of treason? If she was fighting against the King in the matter of the divorce, I’m surprised he didn’t finagle a way to make that considered getting in the way of the King’s will, etc. Plus it would have made things easier for Henry with regard to getting rid of her one way or another.

Also, I’m watching The Tudors (where I get most of my knowledge of the matter from), and though much of it is not based in fact, I wonder why Catherine being in communication with Wolsey about the divorce (season 1, ep 10) wasn’t in itself used against her and considered high treason, as it was for Wolsey? Again, because this was taken directly from the show, I don’t know if it even happened in history, but I still wonder.

Thanks for any replies!

March 2, 2014
11:46 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Interesting topic.
Treason. basically is this the crime of betraying one’s country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

Katherine was not betraying her country, in fact if anything she was trying to keep it together.
No way would she try and kill old farty breeches.(I’d love to tie him to a balista and fire him into a wall) The Spanish Ambassador wanted K.O.A to take up arms against Henry, but she refused knowing that if she did a lot of people would die because of her. She was a popular Queen but if she had gone to war with Henry and won (Which could be highly possible as the people did love her) it would avail her nothing. The whole point was that Henry wanted rid of her, he needed a son and it was clear that he wasn’t going to get one from C.O.A. I believe her last child a girl was stillborn in 1519/20, I’ve also heard it was deformed. Properganda no doubt to jusify farty bum’s divorce case and very likely started by Farty bum. Playing the old sad sack poor bleeding Martyr act to the max.

So if K.O.A had won against him where was the son that England so needed? Answer no where there wasn’t one. Granted Mary would have been married off to a member of Spanish Nobility and could have possibly produced a couple of boys to rule, but that would be for a long time, and upon K.O.A’s death Mary and her Spanish consort would have ruled, so that would mean in affect that England would be ruled by forgieners. Which means that it’s very likely that Civil war would have erupted. Whatever Farty drawers (Henry) was or wasn’t he was English and the English people were and still are fiercely English, and would never tolerate being ruled by a forgieners, which it would be if K.O.A took the field against Henry. You only have to look at how Mary’s reign panned out to see how forgieners were treated by the English, everything was hunky dory with her she was popular up until the point she decided to marry Philip of Spain that’s when the rot set in.

Plus I also feel that England would never stomach being ruled/governed by a woman, no matter how popular she was. Mary and Elizabeth were only accepted as ruling Queens, as that was really all that were available, Henry had chopped up most of the male heirs to the throne.

K.O.A certainly wasn’t wanting to overturn the government, she just wanted justice. Her appeal to Rome was perfectly justified England was still under papal juristriction, until Farty bum, stuck 2 fingers up at the Pope and told him to go do one. I don’t think she hated Wolsey but then I don’t think she was that fond of him either, She tolerated him, but that is far as it went with her.
Wolsey was accused of treason well primejery (Spelling isn’t good today) but basically I think it’s something along the lines of using or allowing forgein powers to influence judgement. Rubbish he wasn’t he was doing exactly what Farty pants had asked him to do.. Farty Pants had said/ordered Wolsey to ask the Pope for an annulment of his marriage. Wolsey had done that, he had made him papal legate in England, and to make sure that that justice was fair the Pope had sent Cardinal Campagio to England as his representitive, to make sure that K.O.A had a fair trial If that’s makes sence.. It wouldn’t be all one sided as it would have been if the whole trial would have been if Wolsey had been allowed sole Papal authority. If he had been in sole charge I think on the very first day the divorce would have been granted.
I think Wolsey was a little put out when he realised that Farty bum wanted to marry Anne, as I believe he was negotigating for a French Match with Princess Renee. Wolsey didn’t realise just how serious he was about Anne until that point. I think he had as did a lot of others at that time, taken for granted that Farty drawers and Anne were in fact lovers, and that once Farty pants was married to Princess Renee, Anne would disappear from history so to speak.

I would take the Tudors with a dose of salt, it was a very good series, but there were a lot of inaccuricies in it. Some of which made me want to jump through the screen and crack a few skulls. But I did enjoy the series and still watch it (DVD job) Wolsey by the way did not die by cutting his throat, it’s highly possible he may of killed himself, but he would have know that suicide was a big no no, and to kill himself in such a manner would have meant he wouldn’t have been buried in consecrated ground, people were fearful of hell and the Devil etc back then it was real place to them. I believe Wolsey poisoned himself, and because of the position he found himself in. I.e on his way to the Tower, it was easier for him to die honourably (if he did indeed die by his on hand by poisoning) then to be damned, shamed and die as a traitor. I believe it was put out that Wolsey had died of a broken heart.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 2, 2014
6:40 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

She was a popular Queen but if she had gone to war with Henry and won (Which could be highly possible as the people did love her) it would avail her nothing. The whole point was that Henry wanted rid of her, he needed a son and it was clear that he wasn’t going to get one from C.O.A. I believe her last child a girl was stillborn in 1519/20, I’ve also heard it was deformed.

Chapyus tried in vain to persade KoA to raise an English army or to allow Emperor Carlos to provide soldiers to fight her cause and she refused since she understood just how much it would damage England. Had that happened then a 3 way civil war could have broken out with the Spanish, English and French/Scots having thier own contender for the throne.

I have never heard of Katherine’s last child being deformed unless being female was enough..

So if K.O.A had won against him where was the son that England so needed? Answer no where there wasn’t one. Granted Mary would have been married off to a member of Spanish Nobility and could have possibly produced a couple of boys to rule, but that would be for a long time, and upon K.O.A’s death Mary and her Spanish consort would have ruled, so that would mean in affect that England would be ruled by forgieners.

Exactly, Chapyus wanted Mary to rule with a Spanish husband and be absorbed into the larger Spanish/Hapsburg Empire.

It's always bunnies.

March 2, 2014
9:13 pm
Avatar
SSM0624
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
March 2, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Wow, thanks for all the input! I never realized all the options that Catherine had at her disposal and that instead she chose to keep the peace. Very wise and mature decision-making on her part.

March 2, 2014
11:33 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

She didn’t exactly keep the peace as such, because of her stubborn pride and determination, to keep her title as Queen, and die as Farty bum’s true and lawful wife, she actually divided the country.
But I feel if push came to shove and say for the sake of arguement the English people were given a vote on who they wanted as monarch I.e Katherine? or Henry?
The people would choose Henry over her.
They may have have hated what Henry was actually doing, but the thought of being ruled by forgieners would have outweighed the love they would have had for Katherine.
The division of the country was really only sorted out when Lizzy 1st came to the throne in 1558, but then it was turned upside down again when Jimbo 6th of Scotland became King, which again wasn’t really sorted out until I would say George 1st came to the throne, but even then there was still a little bit of problems being that the rulers were of German decent and that was only sorted out to what we have now on 17 July 1917, when George 5th changed the name of the royal house from Saxe Coburg Gotha to Windsor. Thereby casting off their German Heritage and embracing everything England believes.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 3, 2014
9:53 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Boleyn said

She was a popular Queen but if she had gone to war with Henry and won (Which could be highly possible as the people did love her) it would avail her nothing. The whole point was that Henry wanted rid of her, he needed a son and it was clear that he wasn’t going to get one from C.O.A. I believe her last child a girl was stillborn in 1519/20, I’ve also heard it was deformed.

My bad, Anyanka. I remembered where the deformed last baby bit came from in the night. I had read it some years ago, possibly either in and Alison Weir book, or an Antonia Frazer book. Either way I find it as difficult to believe as you do. It’s possible, but I do feel that something like that if it was true Lard Arse would have exploited that fact to further justify his claim about his marriage to K.O.A being invalid blah blah.
As far as I can tell Lard Arse based his whole annulment/divorce case around Leviticus. It may well have worked if 1 C.O.A was’t so powerfully connected with the Catholic monarchs in Europe, and 2 if he had brought this case when he first had doubts about the validity of his marriage back in 1512/13, in which case he would have also been able to state that his own father had expressed his doubts about his decision to allow the betrothal of C.O.A to Lard Arse in the first place.

Henry Tulip as we know had at one point ordered Lard Arse to say that he wasn’t happy about being betrothed to his dead brothers wife, as well. The other thing to this is that if it’s true Henry Tulip had said on his death bed to Lard Arse “Marry Catherine and be happy” he would have happy enough to believe that the marriage would have been legal. If Lard Arse which I feel is more likely decided that he wanted Catherine, whether she had been Arthur’s wife or not in the fullest sence of the word, he was obvisously agreeing with the fact that the marriage would have been legal.

Personally I think the whole reason to why Lard arse married Catherine was down to pure ego, and showmanship. He wanted to be seen as the Golden Sod who was rescuing the damsel in distress, and also to prove that he was a man and not the child he had been treated like since Arthur’s death. I didn’t understand at one point why at the age of 17, he would need a regency to govern for him, when Kings as young as 14 (which I believe Richard 2nd was when he took over the governance of the Kingdom, from his councillers after the Wat Tyler revolt) were considered ok to rule without a regency. So his marriage to Catherine was also to prove the doubters if he was old enough to marry he was old enough to rule as well. Actually given that he went through the wealth that Henry Tulip had accumulated in a such a short space of 2 or 3 years, I can see that Henry Tulip was perhaps right to appoint a regency council at least they would have been able to curb his spending habits for a while at least.

I’ll probably get a fair few slapped wrists, put in the stocks and the iron maiden for what I’m going to say, but you all know how my mind is. Weird with a capital WE. But in many ways I can see a lot of Caligula in Lard Arse. When Caligula came to the throne, he would spend lavishly, make sure that the people were kept entertained etc, he was Rome’s golden God, a man who was wise and just etc. But after his illness he was a very different person. He would execute people at the drop of a laurel leaf. If he saw something he liked he would take it regardless of the consequences. He was extremely paranoid and suspisious, and killed a lot of people who were once his freinds, he ripped Rome apart.
Lard arse in my eyes at least was along the same lines, he was the Golden Sod who was eager to please everyone, he was seen as the hero wh rescued the damsel in distress and was wise and just, but then he changed. Killed people who he saw as a threat, (real or imagined) and ripped England apart. It’s clear to e at least (again) that what Olga I believe said is right, Lard arse’s “Madness” was always there and would be just a matter of time before it came out. I wonder if he did inherit the “Madness” that affected his great grandfather Charles the Mad of France?

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 17, 2014
2:46 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said
Treason. basically is this the crime of betraying one’s country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

You forget that Act of Succession made treason not to accept as legal Henry’s marriage with Anne as well as their children as sole heirs, as well as not to accept Henry as Supreme Head of Church, and everyone must make an Oath. Even Mary was forced to do it in 1536.

Also, as the trial of Anne Boleyn showed, even mere words could be interpreted as treason, just as in Stalin’s Russia.

So, Katherine could have tried of treason if Henry had wanted it, but even he understood that, because of her popularity and the Emperor, it would be politically unwise to do so.

August 23, 2014
9:46 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

That was Henry’s paranoia coming out when he changed the way or form treason could be interpreted. As far as I know K.O.A offered no opinion on Henry’s rights and titles or law making abilities when to came to treason. She mearly said that she was the King’s true wife in the eyes of God and Man.

If my mind is working right this morning, when Thomas More was offered the post of Lord Chanceller, he made a sort of pact with Henry in the sence that he would take the job only on the condition, that he wasn’t pressured into giving an opinion or asking to swear the oath to do with Henry’s new titles. Henry as far as I know was happy to to do that, and for a while it worked. Even when he was arrested he offered no opinion on it. But Henry still killed him anyway, that in my opinion was just an act of petty spite on Henry’s part.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

August 23, 2014
6:51 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The Act of Succession did state that people had to take the oath or be charged with treason. I don’t know if she was ever asked to take it. Thomas More was asked and he refused. That’s why he was charged with treason. If he made that pact with Henry, he should have known better than to believe he would not be tested. If Katherine was asked and she had refused, I wonder what Henry would have done? It would not have been wise to ask her.

August 23, 2014
7:23 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Boleyn said
Treason. basically is this the crime of betraying one’s country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

You forget that Act of Succession made treason not to accept as legal Henry’s marriage with Anne as well as their children as sole heirs, as well as not to accept Henry as Supreme Head of Church, and everyone must make an Oath. Even Mary was forced to do it in 1536.

The act Mary signed was the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..ession_Act) Second Act of Succession 1536 which nvalidated both previous marriage, bastardised both of Henry’s daughters and granted the succession to the sons of Jane , followed by those of another wife/wives then Jane’s daughters and then daughters from another wife or wives.

Mary had stood fast in denying her parent’s marriage was illegal and recognising the Boleyn marriage. It was only fter Anne’s execution when Henry and his council doubled the pressure on Mary to accept her status did she finaly and relucantly sign the oaths.

Also, as the trial of Anne Boleyn showed, even mere words could be interpreted as treason, just as in Stalin’s Russia.

So, Katherine could have tried of treason if Henry had wanted it, but even he understood that, because of her popularity and the Emperor, it would be politically unwise to do so.

There’s also the line of reasoning which Mary of Scotland used, she wasn’t a subject of England therefore she couldn’t be charged with treason against Elizabeth.

If Katherine wasn’t Henry’s wife, was she English or not? and could she be charged with treason?

It's always bunnies.

August 23, 2014
7:49 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Good point, Anyanka. I have no idea whether she could be charged or not. However, that excuse didn’t work for MQS.

August 23, 2014
8:53 pm
Avatar
Aud
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 67
Member Since:
August 21, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Hannele said

Boleyn said
Treason. basically is this the crime of betraying one’s country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

You forget that Act of Succession made treason not to accept as legal Henry’s marriage with Anne as well as their children as sole heirs, as well as not to accept Henry as Supreme Head of Church, and everyone must make an Oath. Even Mary was forced to do it in 1536.

The act Mary signed was the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..ession_Act) Second Act of Succession 1536 which nvalidated both previous marriage, bastardised both of Henry’s daughters and granted the succession to the sons of Jane , followed by those of another wife/wives then Jane’s daughters and then daughters from another wife or wives.

Mary had stood fast in denying her parent’s marriage was illegal and recognising the Boleyn marriage. It was only fter Anne’s execution when Henry and his council doubled the pressure on Mary to accept her status did she finaly and relucantly sign the oaths.

Also, as the trial of Anne Boleyn showed, even mere words could be interpreted as treason, just as in Stalin’s Russia.

So, Katherine could have tried of treason if Henry had wanted it, but even he understood that, because of her popularity and the Emperor, it would be politically unwise to do so.

There’s also the line of reasoning which Mary of Scotland used, she wasn’t a subject of England therefore she couldn’t be charged with treason against Elizabeth.

If Katherine wasn’t Henry’s wife, was she English or not? and could she be charged with treason?

Lol, I just did a lot of searching but according to Antonia Fraser Katherine made this argument:
“If, as they asserted, she was not the King’s wife, then she could hardly be his subject. For she had only come into the realm to be a royal wife…”
Fraser then argues that the response to this argument should have been that as Arthur’s widow, she still was bound to obey the King. What do you guys think? I am thinking Katherine made a very good point, and quite frankly Arthur is dead at this point. So I am not seeing what claims Henry has on a foreign Infanta who isn’t his wife.

August 23, 2014
11:56 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Okay I have been digging and found that Chapuys reported that when Katherine was told she had to take the oath, she loudly read out the papal sentence which was in her favor. You have to admire this woman. Henry did threaten her from 1534 right through to her death. In fact Chapuys claims that Henry was hoping when she saw what happened to Fisher and More she would be scared into taking the oath. She never did and Henry never took that final step against her.
Fraser has a point. When in Rome? I really don’t know. hmmmm…I’ll have to think about this one. Is she a subject of England? At this moment, I think so. She had lived under English rule most of her life. But Henry did have reservations about charging her for he never took that final step. Confused

August 28, 2014
4:24 pm
Avatar
LadyPrincess
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 63
Member Since:
February 22, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Aud, you bring up a good question. Katherine’s statement, though very cleverly worded on her part, seems a bit hypocritical. It seems that she wanted to be recognized as Henrys’ true wife yet at the same time not his subject. Which in turn means if she’s not his then she was Charles. She needed Charles and Spain as her supporters and realized the value in that.

I think she should have been considered a non foreigner because she acted as Regent and fought against Scotland when Henry went to France. This showed her loyalty to England. That and that she spent more time residing in England than in Spain.

“How haps it, Governor, yesterday my Lady Princess, and today but my Lady Elizabeth?"- Elizabeth I

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 426413

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1684

Posts: 23041

Newest Members:

dflbvsxtault, kblbztault, johnwick18, hebergemgem, vslot-vgammer, Seriesuzc

Administrators: Claire: 959