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
Katherine of Aragon- Something I was thinking about.
October 25, 2013
6:46 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I read somewhere( I can’t remember where…if I find it I will cite) that the Puritans believed that the female org*sm was essential to conception and that a man had to satisify his wife properly.

How much of that is true and whether the Tudor ear held the same beliefs I do not know.

TMI alert..

There was a BBc series many years ago in shich intercourse was filmed in the v*gina and on org*sm you could see the cervix dip down into the pool of semen in a regular occelation. SO org*sm/conception myth is true to an extent.

It's always bunnies.

October 25, 2013
7:06 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I suppose it beats standing on your head for an hour afterwards.LOL.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 28, 2013
10:57 pm
Avatar
MrsFiennes
USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 34
Member Since:
October 28, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think it’s possible it could have been planned but I think also that she was quite religious and seemed to take religion very seriously so it just seems unlikely to me she would lie.

October 29, 2013
9:04 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think they had the same beliefs in the Tudor era Anyanka, I remember reading about it and also that a woman needed to have regular intercourse to keep her humours balanced, or something along those lines.

Katherine would not have gone through her entire life without lying. She lied to her father about her first pregnancy in a letter from what I recall. Lying under oath is obviously different but I find the saint-like image of her difficult to swallow. She was also a product of her times and I think she was a good woman. But she didn’t think it unchristian to want to humiliate her brother-in-law’s corpse after Flodden.

October 29, 2013
6:43 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

As we have seen with Henry, there are no misgivings from these people about killing their enemies. They are kings and queens and they are second only to God. Killing an enemy was not considered a sin to them. Kings and queens had an absolute right to vanquish an enemy and then to say that God had been on their side. They would not have even thought of it as a sin. Even popes led armies into battle. She wouldn’t have considered it unchristian at all. It would have been seen as being her duty to destroy the enemy before he destroyed her.

I admit, to us her desire to send part of James or all of him to Henry seems a bit on the bloodthirsty side, but Katherine was brought up on the field of battle at her mother’s knee. She was no different than her mom when it came to defeating an enemy. Maybe this was done in Spain? I don’t know, but she thought little of it. She was proud of her accomplishment. She probably thought the English were a bit prudish when they wouldn’t let her send James’ body to her husband.

The fact that James was her brother in law didn’t seem to enter the equation at all. Then again, did James give it a second thought that he was invading with the thought of conquering his brother in laws lands? He was thinking England was unguarded and vulnerable to attack. He thought he could take England while Henry was gone. Katherine proved him wrong. If it went the other way, James would have celebrated his sister and brother in laws defeat without a qualm.

Why do you think Henry never refuted Katherine’s testimony that he knew she was a virgin when she came to his bed. Cuz more than Katherine’s religious beliefs, which I still think are viable, the fact that he never ever refuted that statement is a big reason why I doubt him about this and not her. (and of course all the many other reasons he tried to use against her and failed.)

October 29, 2013
7:26 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

According to Dr Dave, K.O.A confessor said that her marriage to Arthur had been consummated, whilst her duenna vehememently denied that it had. 2 very different views. K.O.A’s confessor if memory serves was sent packing back to Spain not long after Arthur’s death, the explaination I believe was that he had been caught having a nibble of something he shouldn’t have had.
Maybe by saying she had had sexual relations with Arthur was a way of covering his own tracks, and certainly it must have been believed that something went on, as H7 did wait a month or 2 before arranging her marriage with Henry. Dr Dave also states there were 2 dispensations issued too. basically one for the fact that Arthur and K.O.A had had sex and it was ok, for her to marry Henry anyway, and the other to say as K.O.A was still a virgin it was ok for her to marry Henry.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 29, 2013
10:03 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There was a copy of the second dispensation in Spain apparently Bo, it’s been a while since I’ve read about it but I remember (vaguely) that Henry was trying to get his hands on it, I can’t for the life of me remember if Katherine produced it. I have read a couple of different historians this year who have mentioned Wolsey was trying to get the marriage annulled because they didn’t have a dispensation for “public honesty”, which meant if Katherine had been married to Arthur and hadn’t consummated the marriage then they needed this separate public honesty dispensation. So technically the marriage was invalid. Which is all a load of hogwash if you ask me, because I find medieval canon law is ridiculously difficult to understand. If we went by all of their laws and clauses no-one would have been technically married. There seems to always be something they can dig up for annulment.

Sharon I didn’t mention her killing James or defending her country as regent, merely the treatment of his corpse as a trophy, and she probably did find the Englishmen a bit prudish. After all they were always happy to stick people’s heads on pikes for display, something I am not fond of either. My point is that Katherine is often looked at as very gentle and unambitious and that is not the case (and another of the six wives stereotypes). She was a strong woman and she came from a family of strong women. Her mother and her daughter thought burning people at the stake was part of their religious duty, which we find horrifying.

I think it is difficult to place people in the context of their times which is probably why we spend 500 years arguing about them. Saying she was too religious to lie is too simple an argument for me personally. I think the issue is far more complex. I don’t think it is “unchristian” to defend your daughter against an enemy either, which is what Henry became. If she did lie to defend her daughter’s honour and try to stop her from being bastardized then I wouldn’t blame her one bit. I’ve never been able to decide one way or another but I have always been a bit doubtful they went on for six months living on their own and never having consummated it.

Also I always make sure to doubt Henry. It’s my hobby Wink

October 29, 2013
10:36 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

There was a copy of the second dispensation in Spain apparently Bo, it’s been a while since I’ve read about it but I remember (vaguely) that Henry was trying to get his hands on it, I can’t for the life of me remember if Katherine produced it. I have read a couple of different historians this year who have mentioned Wolsey was trying to get the marriage annulled because they didn’t have a dispensation for “public honesty”, which meant if Katherine had been married to Arthur and hadn’t consummated the marriage then they needed this separate public honesty dispensation. So technically the marriage was invalid. Which is all a load of hogwash if you ask me, because I find medieval canon law is ridiculously difficult to understand. If we went by all of their laws and clauses no-one would have been technically married. There seems to always be something they can dig up for annulment.

Sharon I didn’t mention her killing James or defending her country as regent, merely the treatment of his corpse as a trophy, and she probably did find the Englishmen a bit prudish. After all they were always happy to stick people’s heads on pikes for display, something I am not fond of either. My point is that Katherine is often looked at as very gentle and unambitious and that is not the case (and another of the six wives stereotypes). She was a strong woman and she came from a family of strong women. Her mother and her daughter thought burning people at the stake was part of their religious duty, which we find horrifying.

I think it is difficult to place people in the context of their times which is probably why we spend 500 years arguing about them. Saying she was too religious to lie is too simple an argument for me personally. I think the issue is far more complex. I don’t think it is “unchristian” to defend your daughter against an enemy either, which is what Henry became. If she did lie to defend her daughter’s honour and try to stop her from being bastardized then I wouldn’t blame her one bit. I’ve never been able to decide one way or another but I have always been a bit doubtful they went on for six months living on their own and never having consummated it.

Also I always make sure to doubt Henry. It’s my hobby Wink

I think K.O.A was going to send for it, but it either went missing or K.O.A changed her mind about sending for it, knowing that if Henry got his grubby little mitts on it, it would suddenly disappear quite convientely. I’m not sure but I think this dispensation was the only thing that helped prove her case to the Pope for him to finally declare her marriage was legal, something to do with the time it was issued I think. In short the dispensation Henry had was dated say for the sake of arguement 1st of January 2013, and the one that K.O.A was given was 2nd January 2013, Kathy’s one therefore rendered Henry’s one invalid. Henry’s one was the one that said Arthur and Kathy had sex blah blah, and Kathy’s said they didn’t blah blah. The one that Kathy had I believe was found in the belongings of Chapuys or his predessor long after they were all dead, what happened to it then is anyone’s guess.
I should imagine if Kathy’s copy does still exist it will be hidden somewhere within the Vatican archives, along with Anne’s letters to Henry. I wonder if anyone has thought to ask about having these letters returned? I can understand the dispensation, but a copy of that could easily be made, but Anne’s letters mean nothing to the Pope etc, but they do mean everything to us Tudorians, and I would love to see Anne’s replies to Henry’s flowery sickly sweet love letters.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 29, 2013
10:41 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

Olga said

There was a copy of the second dispensation in Spain apparently Bo, it’s been a while since I’ve read about it but I remember (vaguely) that Henry was trying to get his hands on it, I can’t for the life of me remember if Katherine produced it. I have read a couple of different historians this year who have mentioned Wolsey was trying to get the marriage annulled because they didn’t have a dispensation for “public honesty”, which meant if Katherine had been married to Arthur and hadn’t consummated the marriage then they needed this separate public honesty dispensation. So technically the marriage was invalid. Which is all a load of hogwash if you ask me, because I find medieval canon law is ridiculously difficult to understand. If we went by all of their laws and clauses no-one would have been technically married. There seems to always be something they can dig up for annulment.

Sharon I didn’t mention her killing James or defending her country as regent, merely the treatment of his corpse as a trophy, and she probably did find the Englishmen a bit prudish. After all they were always happy to stick people’s heads on pikes for display, something I am not fond of either. My point is that Katherine is often looked at as very gentle and unambitious and that is not the case (and another of the six wives stereotypes). She was a strong woman and she came from a family of strong women. Her mother and her daughter thought burning people at the stake was part of their religious duty, which we find horrifying.

I think it is difficult to place people in the context of their times which is probably why we spend 500 years arguing about them. Saying she was too religious to lie is too simple an argument for me personally. I think the issue is far more complex. I don’t think it is “unchristian” to defend your daughter against an enemy either, which is what Henry became. If she did lie to defend her daughter’s honour and try to stop her from being bastardized then I wouldn’t blame her one bit. I’ve never been able to decide one way or another but I have always been a bit doubtful they went on for six months living on their own and never having consummated it.

Also I always make sure to doubt Henry. It’s my hobby Wink

I think K.O.A was going to send for it, but it either went missing or K.O.A changed her mind about sending for it, knowing that if Henry got his grubby little mitts on it, it would suddenly disappear quite convientely. I’m not sure but I think this dispensation was the only thing that helped prove her case to the Pope for him to finally declare her marriage was legal, something to do with the time it was issued I think. In short the dispensation Henry had was dated say for the sake of arguement 1st of January 2013, and the one that K.O.A was given was 2nd January 2013, Kathy’s one therefore rendered Henry’s one invalid. Henry’s one was the one that said Arthur and Kathy had sex blah blah, and Kathy’s said they didn’t blah blah. The one that Kathy had I believe was found in the belongings of Chapuys or his predessor long after they were all dead, what happened to it then is anyone’s guess. I think a copy of Kathy’s dispensation was sent as prove but Henry wanted the original, that way when it went walkies, no matter how many time Kathy and the Pope said Look Henry old boy you know damn well that you had that dispensation so where is it? Henry would play the outraged martyr unjustly accused etc. and no one or nothing anyone said animal, vegatable or mineral could prove that Kathy’s copy ever existed.

I should imagine if Kathy’s copy does still exist it will be hidden somewhere within the Vatican archives, along with Anne’s letters to Henry. I wonder if anyone has thought to ask about having these letters returned? I can understand the dispensation, but a copy of that could easily be made, but Anne’s letters mean nothing to the Pope etc, but they do mean everything to us Tudorians, and I would love to see Anne’s replies to Henry’s flowery sickly sweet love letters.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 30, 2013
1:32 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2333
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

IIRC, KoA sent Dr Abell or Bell to the Spanish court to get the copy of the Papal Bull but he had verbal orders to request that Charles didn’t release the orginal but instead copy it for the Legitine Court.

Im not sure what happened after that though I think Henry rejected a copy as being a forgery.

It's always bunnies.

October 30, 2013
4:44 am
Avatar
MrsFiennes
USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 34
Member Since:
October 28, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

Saying she was too religious to lie is too simple an argument for me personally. I think the issue is far more complex. I don’t think it is “unchristian” to defend your daughter against an enemy either, which is what Henry became. If she did lie to defend her daughter’s honour and try to stop her from being bastardized then I wouldn’t blame her one bit. I’ve never been able to decide one way or another but I have always been a bit doubtful they went on for six months living on their own and never having consummated it.
Wink

I never was implying that it was simple only that for KOA it seems out of character.I’m not in any way saying she was a saint either.But that’s what confessional was for if she did do things that were considered unchristian.I had also read that she had broken seals on confessions to prove she was not lying about certain issues.Which issues they were broken on I am unsure. If she did lie then she probably justified it to herself by saying I’m just trying to protect my daughter or I will go to confession or whatever.Maybe that’s what all praying was about in the first place?LaughAlso I believe there is a strong case for the marriage not being consummated because during the 6 months they were married Arthur is reported to have had at best the sweating sickness at the worst testicular cancer.For a time they also couldn’t communicate well as they had learned different forms of latin.I’m sure these things could have complicated the matter or prevented all it together.

October 30, 2013
9:37 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

IIRC, KoA sent Dr Abell or Bell to the Spanish court to get the copy of the Papal Bull but he had verbal orders to request that Charles didn’t release the orginal but instead copy it for the Legitine Court.

Im not sure what happened after that though I think Henry rejected a copy as being a forgery.

Henry did reject it, and was furious that Charles or whoever had,had the cheek to send this forged document in it’s place.
As I said I think the orginal or maybe yet another copy of Kathy’s bit, was found amongst the belongings of the Spanish ambassador after he died.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 30, 2013
11:22 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’m not the best person to talk to about Katherine MrsFiennes, because I can never make up my mind. I’m afraid I am fairly useless about deciding whether or not she and Arthur consummated the marriage, once I decide on one thing I begin to argue with myself Laugh

October 30, 2013
3:20 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

I’m not the best person to talk to about Katherine MrsFiennes, because I can never make up my mind. I’m afraid I am fairly useless about deciding whether or not she and Arthur consummated the marriage, once I decide on one thing I begin to argue with myself Laugh

It is a difficult one to even hazzard a guess at Olga.
In trying to weigh up the arguements for whether Arthur and Kathy, did have a dabble or not, we have to look at Kathy herself.
Did she lie about still being a Virgin when she married Henry?
If yes she did and her relationship with Arthur was consummated, it proves that her confessor spoke the truth, and we have to look at her motives for why she lied. I’m not too sure but I think her confessor was defrocked or whatever it’s called as it was discovered that far from being a god fearing celebate preist, he rogered or try to roger everything that had a pair of boobs.
If no her relationship with Arthur wasn’t consummated then what Donna Elvira was speaking the truth, and again why was it so important to Kathy to stay in England? There is also the question of why her father held out for her betrothal to Henry? When King Henry had made an offer to marry her himself. To me at least that suggestion seems perfectly logical, She would a Queen and have produced a couple of spares to make sure the Tudor line continued. When old King Henry kicked the bucket she would have been a rich widow too. Her life especially after Henry kicked her out of the palace would have been a lot more comfortable and she certainly wouldn’t have died more or less alone and forgotten espeically by a fat rotting stinking mysogyistic arsehole, that H8 was.

Olga we all have doubts about this whole question, it’s one of those unsolvable questions I’m afraid. We each of us have our own opinions to what went on between Arthur and Kathy, for myself I think that they did try to have intercourse but nerves and perhaps Kathy’s developing Virginimus just got the better of them. But I also believe that it was possible that Arthur did possible break her hymen without her actually realising it, she would have known from her sister that sex for the first time hurts, but if she had virginimus she would have been most uncomfortable and in pain anyway.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

October 30, 2013
5:25 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

Sharon I didn’t mention her killing James or defending her country as regent, merely the treatment of his corpse as a trophy, and she probably did find the Englishmen a bit prudish. After all they were always happy to stick people’s heads on pikes for display, something I am not fond of either. My point is that Katherine is often looked at as very gentle and unambitious and that is not the case (and another of the six wives stereotypes). She was a strong woman and she came from a family of strong women. Her mother and her daughter thought burning people at the stake was part of their religious duty, which we find horrifying.
Also I always make sure to doubt Henry. It’s my hobby Wink

I got carried away. Don’t know what gets into me. My point was to add to yours that Katherine was more than one dimensional. I never thought Katherine was gentle. She was strong and ambitious. And I always give the benefit of the doubt to Henry’s victims.

October 30, 2013
6:45 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Here is what I could find out about the letter sent by Katherine’s confessor and the Papal Brief.
1503- The pope sent a papal bull to Henry stating that “perhaps” Katherine and Arthur had consummated their marriage. It gave permission for the marriage of Henry and Katherine.
1504-When Isabella was dying, she was worried about this and the pope sent to her a Papal Brief, which is different than a bull, but is just as binding, saying that Katherine was in fact a virgin, and all was well and Katherine was free to marry Henry. When Charles was looking into this, De Puebla’s son released his father’s papers to Charles. The brief was amongst them. Katherine wanted it, but Charles would not send the original. He sent a copy. This caused quite a stir when Henry found out, because this would be a binding document and he would lose. He claimed it to be a forgery. And that was that.

That letter…
There are so many stories about this. Mattingly says, DePuebla wanted a sweeping dispensation. He went to Allassandro Geraldini who was Katherine’s confessor. He was thrilled to be asked his opinion, and assured DePuebla that the marriage was consummated and that there would more than likely be a child from that consummation. He does not say Geraldini learned this in confession. DePuebla sent a warning note to Spain and dropped a few hints to the English council. Elvira had a fit and swore Katherine was a virgin and if they sent a doctor it would be proved. If she was lying she would have lost all. Spain believed her. I wish they had had a doctor verify one way or the other, but apparently they did not feel it necessary. (btw Elvira and DePuebla, and Geraldini were all in competition as to who would run Katherine’s household) Whatever Geraldini had said, Katherine never forgave him. Fifteen years later the pope asked her to receive him when he visited England as a bishop and she flatly refused to do so.

Tremlett and Starkey don’t really expound on the story. They say a letter from Geraldini was intercepted and he was recalled to Spain immediately. Neither one of them claim to know what the letter said. They speculate that perhaps it was a confession from Katherine saying she wasn’t a virgin. That’s all it seems to be…speculation.( Starkey states his opinion outright, of course. He always does. It is his belief that Katherine was not a virgin when she went to Henry’s bed) But perhaps it was just Geraldini trying to please DePuebla and giving his opinion, and not telling tales from the confessional.

Katherine did give Compaggio permission to tell the pope what she said in a confession to him. He did that. In this confession she vehemently denied having consummated the marriage with Arthur. In this confessional is when Compeggio said she should become a nun and Katherine got angry and told him she would always remain Henry’s wife. That was her calling and she was sticking to it. She would never change.

One more tidbit…When Katherine wrote to the pope, she said she would accept Henry’s word on the subject of her virginity if Henry was ready to swear under oath that she was not virgin when they were first married. She was calling his bluff, well aware that he would not swear to that under oath.
His side argued that Henry was too young to have known whether Katherine was a virgin or not. Story of his life! He seems to always have had trouble knowing a virgin when he had one.

PS The confessor who was sent home on charges of fornication was Fray Diego Fernandez. He was a favorite of Katherine’s. Elvira didn’t like him.

October 31, 2013
4:08 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Nothing’s got into you Sharon, most of us get carried away when we talk about Henry’s Queens. I’ve always felt Katherine was a more difficult subject to discuss than his other wives. I don’t think I’ll ever get close to understanding her. I understand her actions in some parts but my modern eyes will never understand how she could still love Henry after what he had done to her.

Sharon said
One more tidbit…When Katherine wrote to the pope, she said she would accept Henry’s word on the subject of her virginity if Henry was ready to swear under oath that she was not virgin when they were first married. She was calling his bluff, well aware that he would not swear to that under oath.
His side argued that Henry was too young to have known whether Katherine was a virgin or not. Story of his life! He seems to always have had trouble knowing a virgin when he had one.

I’d forgotten that. My first instincts are usually to believe her, then I get doubtful again. Most of the evidence points to her telling the truth.

Bo if she did lie it was to protect her daughter as well as her own position. The Catholics never recognised Mary as illegitimate but henry and Edward did their best trying to bastardise both her and Elizabeth. I think we can get a small comfort that Edward and Henry’s subjects ignored their wishes in that respect.

October 31, 2013
6:37 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2114
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It is amazing to me that Katherine loved Henry right up until the end. Especially after his treatment of her and her daughter. What I find so fascinating about her is that her will power was astounding. I think I would have cracked under the pressure put on her by Henry. The letter that she supposedly wrote to Henry at the end of her life, is so poignant.
Believe it or not, my first instinct was to not believe her. I can be a cynic…honest, I can be. It wasn’t only because of her religious beliefs that changed my mind. It was a total of everything I read about her. And when I think of Henry and his methods, she wins, hands down! Laugh
Olga, you so right. If she was lying about this, it was to protect her daughter. She didn’t succeed. We have the wonderful power of hindsight, and it is easy for us to say, wow you did and said some really dumb things, Katherine, but she was trying to save her daughter and her marriage. Everything she did, she did for Mary and Henry. I’ll never know why she wanted to save Henry, but she did. Cry
If it is the case, and she did lie, it wouldn’t diminish her in my eyes one little bit.

November 1, 2013
2:38 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sharon said

It is amazing to me that Katherine loved Henry right up until the end. Especially after his treatment of her and her daughter. What I find so fascinating about her is that her will power was astounding. I think I would have cracked under the pressure put on her by Henry. The letter that she supposedly wrote to Henry at the end of her life, is so poignant.
Believe it or not, my first instinct was to not believe her. I can be a cynic…honest, I can be. It wasn’t only because of her religious beliefs that changed my mind. It was a total of everything I read about her. And when I think of Henry and his methods, she wins, hands down! Laugh
Olga, you so right. If she was lying about this, it was to protect her daughter. She didn’t succeed. We have the wonderful power of hindsight, and it is easy for us to say, wow you did and said some really dumb things, Katherine, but she was trying to save her daughter and her marriage. Everything she did, she did for Mary and Henry. I’ll never know why she wanted to save Henry, but she did. Cry
If it is the case, and she did lie, it wouldn’t diminish her in my eyes one little bit.

I’m inclined to think that Kathy convinced herself he still loved her. She simply wouldn’t or couldn’t see any different. She thought Anne would be like all the other mistresses he had, had, flavour of the month and then cast off, and conviently married off or paid off.
In some ways her obsession (loosely worded) with her love for Henry was a little like Juana’s love for her husband. When Kathy realised that Anne was different to all the other mistresses Henry had, had her stubborn pride took over and in a way it was a kind of “Well if I can’t have him you won’t either.” She believed very firmly believed that if she stubbornly held out he would think that his pursuit of Anne just wasn’t worth the hassle or that Anne would give up and say “This relationship is a joke, I’m off Fat Boy.” pack her bags and leave court for good.
I think towards the end she realised that Henry didn’t love her, but that didn’t make any difference to her love for him. The last line says it all really
” Lastly, I make this vow, that mine eyes desire you above all things.” stubborn to the last, but faithful and true to the love she still had for Lard arse. People assume that him and Anne dressing in Bright yellow was him celebrating the fact she had died. Actually yellow was the colour of mourning in Spain, so he was actually showing her the respect she deserved. I also feel that with her death Lard arse realised just how much Kathy did love him and I also feel that he realised too that he did still love her after all.
After her death Lard Arse looked for someone to take the blame for the guilt he was feeling about Kathy and Lard arse’s victim was Anne. In his mind Anne had stolen him away from Kathy, Anne was determined to replace Kathy. Anne ripped apart the Church, Anne killed Wolsey, Thomas More and John Fisher. Anne made the people hate him. Anne as far as he was concerned was to blame for everything he did. Anne’s only hope was a son, we all know that, so the stress she must have been under must have been tremendous, coupled with the fact that Henry’s eye had caught Jane Seymour, she found herself in the very same position that Kathy once was. Lard arse’s accident was simmply too much for her to bear so it’s hardly surprizing that she miscarried. In the film Anne of a thousand days The duke of Norfolk sums up Anne’s downfall. “She has miscarried of her saviour”

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

November 3, 2013
3:46 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
100sp_Permalink sp_Print

If Katherine had lied it wouldn’t diminish Katherine in my eyes either Sharon. She knew the outcome and how it would affect Mary. I don’t know why she still loved the varlet. It baffles me. I understand she really did think Anne was the problem and she severely underestimated Henry, but then who of his victims had not underestimated him?

Bo I don’t think Henry felt at all guilty about Katherine. He accused Anne of trying to harm his children but I don’t think he would have wanted to acknowledge anything about his first marriage, he was quite firmly convinced that both his marriages had been invalid. Jane had the advantage of no living wives around so no-one could contest the validity or Edward’s legitimacy. If Henry tried to accuse Anne of breaking up his first marriage he would have had to admit he thought it valid.

Forum Timezone: Europe/London
Most Users Ever Online: 214
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 1
Top Posters:
Anyanka: 2333
Boleyn: 2285
Sharon: 2114
Bella44: 933
DuchessofBrittany: 846
Mya Elise: 781
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1
Members: 425960
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 13
Topics: 1679
Posts: 22775
Newest Members:
RobertRam, FredTip, judithqp18, Brandontouts, richardvy4, frankiegu11
Administrators: Claire: 958