Was Jane Seymour Henry\'s True Love? | Page 9 | 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

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Was Jane Seymour Henry's True Love?
December 10, 2014
6:57 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
161sp_Permalink sp_Print

Supposedly Henry had doubs about the validity of his marriage with K.O.A in 1512, but choose to either ignore them or got talked out of taking any in poking around any further, about it.
His love for Jane was not the deep love that he and Anne had, He loved Jane, but he wasn’t “IN” love with Jane, he loved her because she gave him the son he craved. He would have pretty much felt the same way about his last 3 wives, if either of them had given him a spare heir or 2 as well.
I agree his true love was Anne B. He turned the world upside down for her, and then turned it inside out to get rid of her. However there was one person in his life that was everything to him, and as much as he loved Anne, he really couldn’t afford to give her all his love, otherewise he had nothing left to give to his true love.. Himself.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

December 16, 2014
4:30 am
Avatar
Aud
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 67
Member Since:
August 21, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

HollyDolly said

If Jane Seymour was Henry’s true love it was because she gave himm the son that Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn couldn’t.
However to me Anne Boleyn really was Henry’s true love since he denified the Catholic Church and even his own people to marry her which he never did for the others.

The others? Why would Henry need to break with Rome with the others? You do realize that the reason why he went to such an extent was because the Pope refused to grant him an annulment? And what was the basis for his desire of an annulment? A male heir. Sorry, but I don’t see Henry breaking with Rome as some sort of sacrifice for Anne Boleyn, he would have done the same thing if it had been another woman, for KOA still wouldn’t have given in and the Pope more than likely would have still refused to grant him an annulment.

And wasn’t Henry already talking about leaving Anne without returning to KOA in 1534?

December 16, 2014
6:15 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
163sp_Permalink sp_Print

I am not sure if Henry was talking of leaving Anne in ’34. There was talk of him being unhappy/angry with Anne, but as Chapuys says, they would quarrel and then make up, these were lover’s quarrels. They fought over mistresses. The imperial ambassador at Rome reported that Henry had had enough of Anne. Chapuys apparently led him to believe this when he reported that the king had renewed his love that he had held previously for another woman. This may be when Henry chose a mistress, and Anne tried to get rid of her. Later, Henry took Madge Shelton as a mistress.
Aud, could you give a little more info on that? There certainly were the hopes of Anne’s enemies that the king was tiring of her only to discover that they were wrong, as usual.

December 16, 2014
7:02 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
164sp_Permalink sp_Print

I must confess I hadn’t heard, any rumour of Lard Arse ditching Anne and returning to K.O.A, it’s an interesting thought though.
Although Lard Arse didn’t seem to be unduly upset that Anne had given him yet another daughter, I do feel that deep down he was upset, especially since she had promised to give him the son and heir he so wanted. That promise was perhaps Anne’s mistake, because he took it as sacrosanct, and because she gave him a daughter, instead, she had lied to him etc. I hope that makes sence.
I can’t see him ever returning to K.O.A. in anyway or form. If K.O.A had still been alive at the time of Anne’s murder (Her execution in my opinion was murder) he would have perhaps tried to come to peace with her, but as soon as he convinced himself she was not his wife etc, nothing on earth would make him change his mind, about her. She was the ex-wife and the ex-Queen and that was the end of the matter. If he had taken her back, it would mean that he was admitting he was wrong, and Lard arse didn’t like to be wrong. Whatever he said or did was right because he saw himself as a Golden Sod, I mean God. and God didn’t make mistakes.
I do think hat Lard arse had perhaps tired of the rows he and Anne had had, over the years. That sort of behaviour was exceptable in a mistress perhaps, but not in a wife or a Queen. She was expected to do as K.O.A had done, “shut her eyes to such things as others had done before her.”
Anne however was not that sort of person, and to be honest I don’t blame her kicking off about his whoring with other woman. For 7 years, he had remained faithful to her, once they were married however he decided to sow his oats where ever he wanted. I think I would be more than little peeved about it. Wouldn’t you?
Did he and Madge actually sleep together or was it just a sexual relationship based on words only? What was Anne’s reaction to the situation between them? Did she tear lumps out of Madge just as she did Lard Arse, about it? I don’t blame for that 1 bit if she did. After all Madge was her cousin.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

December 17, 2014
4:54 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
165sp_Permalink sp_Print

It was my understanding that Anne placed Madge in the king’s path. So, no tearing hair out of Madge’s head. Sounds weird that Anne would do that, but at least she knew Madge wouldn’t be whispering in his ear to take Katherine back as the unknown, mystery mistress was doing.
Chapuys later corrected himself and said he was wrong about Henry tiring of Anne. (1534)

Why would Henry be forced to take Katherine back if he got rid of Anne? People always say this, but I don’t see how it would happen. It certainly can’t be for religious reasons, that would only happen if Henry took back the Catholic faith, right? I can’t see that happening. Nor could it be because Katherine’s marriage wasn’t anulled, it was, by Cramner under the new faith. Was it based on the hope that Henry would have seen the light and gone back to Catholicism and Katherine? I totally disagree with this idea of Henry being forced to take Katherine back, or that he would willingly do so. He was done with that marriage. What am I missing here?

December 18, 2014
4:43 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
166sp_Permalink sp_Print

Sharon said

It was my understanding that Anne placed Madge in the king’s path. So, no tearing hair out of Madge’s head. Sounds weird that Anne would do that, but at least she knew Madge wouldn’t be whispering in his ear to take Katherine back as the unknown, mystery mistress was doing.

Madge(o r possiby Mary) was Anne’s cousin, her mother was Thomas’s sister. That meant that Madge may have toed the party line and allowed her-self to be Henry’s mistress in return for pilow-talk to remind Henry of all Anne’s god points..

Why would Henry be forced to take Katherine back if he got rid of Anne? People always say this, but I don’t see how it would happen. It certainly can’t be for religious reasons, that would only happen if Henry took back the Catholic faith, right? I can’t see that happening. Nor could it be because Katherine’s marriage wasn’t anulled, it was, by Cramner under the new faith. Was it based on the hope that Henry would have seen the light and gone back to Catholicism and Katherine? I totally disagree with this idea of Henry being forced to take Katherine back, or that he would willingly do so. He was done with that marriage. What am I missing here?

I think part of this is due to KoA’s earlier speech about “if Henry was with her for a week, he would remember his lve for her and renounce his actions and that is why they are kept apart” or words to that effect.

I really can not see Henry returning to Katherine after 1530/31…Henry had invested to much of his tme, effort, influence , money , pride and honour not to mention his soul in order to free himself..

However..he remained a Catholic and his Church was still Catholic since his dispute was over Papal authority rather than the later doctrinal isues which have now seperated the RC interpretations from the Anglican doctrine espoused by Cramner and others during the reign of Edward VI.

It's always bunnies.

December 18, 2014
4:30 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
167sp_Permalink sp_Print

So, wishful thinking on Katherine’s part and the rest of the Catholics? Henry didn’t believe he made a mistake. Nothing Katherine could have said to him, given a week, or a year, would have changed his mind. You are right Anyanka, Henry had invested everything in order to free himself of Katherine. He believed, or he said he believed, that their marriage was sinful. He would not have reversed himself on that. Then there is the fact that he needed a male heir. He certainly couldn’t get one from Katheine. That would have been the end of debate.

December 18, 2014
6:01 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
168sp_Permalink sp_Print

Lard arse had told the Pope to get stuffed and ignored the Pope’s direct order to put aside Anne and take back his wife, even before Lard Arse and Anne were married, so I think it’s highly unlikely, that he would have put Anne aside and returned to K.O.A in 1534. To do so would admit that he was wrong in putting aside K.O.A in the first place.
I do wonder though whether K.O.A could have talked Lard Arse into submission, if she had been given the chance? I think it was wishful thinking on her part, because once he had made his mind up that was the end. I’m not to sure, but I believe she tried to talk him out of executing Buckingham. If she did try, the fact that Lard Arse so resolutely stuck to his guns, about Buckingham, having a date with the Axeman, should have told her, she would get more sence out of a can of Spam, then she would Lard Arse.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

December 20, 2014
10:53 pm
Avatar
Aud
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 67
Member Since:
August 21, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
169sp_Permalink sp_Print

Sharon said

I am not sure if Henry was talking of leaving Anne in ’34. There was talk of him being unhappy/angry with Anne, but as Chapuys says, they would quarrel and then make up, these were lover’s quarrels. They fought over mistresses. The imperial ambassador at Rome reported that Henry had had enough of Anne. Chapuys apparently led him to believe this when he reported that the king had renewed his love that he had held previously for another woman. This may be when Henry chose a mistress, and Anne tried to get rid of her. Later, Henry took Madge Shelton as a mistress.
Aud, could you give a little more info on that? There certainly were the hopes of Anne’s enemies that the king was tiring of her only to discover that they were wrong, as usual.

Let me see if I can try and find it Sharon, but I have often heard it mentioned. That being said, I do not hold the opinion that Henry would have went back to Katherine, and like you I question what would have made him go back to KOA if he had left Anne? Is there something about canon law about not more than one anulled marriage at the same time? On the other hand, many times in history books I have seen the phrase or something close to it that when KOA died, ironically Anne lost her protection, because Henry could now get rid of her without causing problems (I’m assuming regarding the legality of his marriage to KOA).

January 9, 2015
8:19 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
170sp_Permalink sp_Print

Aud said

Sharon said

I am not sure if Henry was talking of leaving Anne in ’34. There was talk of him being unhappy/angry with Anne, but as Chapuys says, they would quarrel and then make up, these were lover’s quarrels. They fought over mistresses. The imperial ambassador at Rome reported that Henry had had enough of Anne. Chapuys apparently led him to believe this when he reported that the king had renewed his love that he had held previously for another woman. This may be when Henry chose a mistress, and Anne tried to get rid of her. Later, Henry took Madge Shelton as a mistress.
Aud, could you give a little more info on that? There certainly were the hopes of Anne’s enemies that the king was tiring of her only to discover that they were wrong, as usual.

Let me see if I can try and find it Sharon, but I have often heard it mentioned. That being said, I do not hold the opinion that Henry would have went back to Katherine, and like you I question what would have made him go back to KOA if he had left Anne? Is there something about canon law about not more than one anulled marriage at the same time? On the other hand, many times in history books I have seen the phrase or something close to it that when KOA died, ironically Anne lost her protection, because Henry could now get rid of her without causing problems (I’m assuming regarding the legality of his marriage to KOA).

I think the real problem was not a canon law as such (as interpreted in England by Cranmer) but how the matter was seen by the Emperor and the Pope. The crux of the matter was not the return of Katherine but how any new marriage would have seen by them when Katherine lived.

If Henry had divorced Anne (or annulled his marriage with her) and remarried with someone else when Katherine lived, this new marriage and the children born of it would be more legitimate than Elizabeth in the eyes of the Emperor and the Pope. The dangers of excommunication and invasion would have have been the same. So why bother? But once Katherine was dead, Henry had a chance to have an heir in a new marriage that were legitimate without dispute.

On the other hand, once Katherine was dead, the Emperor was ready to accept Henry’s marriage with Anne, and even the status of Mary was not such a barrier to him as to Chapuys. And considering that the bastards of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swynford were legitimated when they married, Henry could have Elizabeth legitimated by the Pope, if he had wanted to return to Rome.

January 9, 2015
9:46 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
171sp_Permalink sp_Print

Aud said

HollyDolly said

If Jane Seymour was Henry’s true love it was because she gave himm the son that Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn couldn’t.
However to me Anne Boleyn really was Henry’s true love since he denified the Catholic Church and even his own people to marry her which he never did for the others.

The others? Why would Henry need to break with Rome with the others? You do realize that the reason why he went to such an extent was because the Pope refused to grant him an annulment? And what was the basis for his desire of an annulment? A male heir. Sorry, but I don’t see Henry breaking with Rome as some sort of sacrifice for Anne Boleyn, he would have done the same thing if it had been another woman, for KOA still wouldn’t have given in and the Pope more than likely would have still refused to grant him an annulment.

I think you forget some matters that are unique in the case of Anne Boleyn.

Yes, Henry wanted a male heir but he did not take the obvious and best choice of the new bride at least from the beginning: a foreign Princess. If he had, he would have had to wait for the annulment from the Pope for no king would have let her daughter or niece marry Henry without it. A Protestant Princess was no option before Anne of Cleves.

But the crux of the matter was that Henry did not just want a male heir with any woman but he fell in love with Anne Boleyn and wanted to marry her and no other. Would it really been the same with any other English woman he happened to fancy? I do not think so.

First, would any other woman initially refuse to become Henry’s mistress? Yes, Jane Seymour did, but in 1536 she had Anne’s example to follow. But would she really have been able to hold Henry’s love not for months but for years? After all, Henry said soon after marrying her that he wished that he had waited as he saw the the court was full of beauties. In any case, Henry would have interested in a woman like Jane only after tiring in Anne who initially had many other things than sexual allure to capture and keep Henry’s interest.

Second, would any other woman have had the strength of character combined with the Evangelical beliefs that Anne had and that sustained her during years of waiting? Perhaps she even (as Eric Ives thinks) made Henry to regain his resolve it faltered? After all, the Pope offered to legitimate any children Henry had by Anne. To almost any other woman it would have been enough as the possibility of becoming Henry’s wife seemed then very unlikely.

Third, it was a huge risk to conceive an heir and marry without waiting for the Pope’s decision. Ives thinks that it was Anne who took the initiative in the fall 1932, Bernard thinks it was Henry. But would Henry have done it if he had nor waited years for Anne and instead had many mistresses during those years?

All in all, with some other woman (or women), it probably would probably would have been a quite different story.

January 10, 2015
5:40 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
172sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hannele said
I think the real problem was not a canon law as such (as interpreted in England by Cranmer) but how the matter was seen by the Emperor and the Pope. The crux of the matter was not the return of Katherine but how any new marriage would have seen by them when Katherine lived.

To be honest..I can’t see that either the Emperor or Pope would favour another marriage while KoA ws still alive..not to Anne nor to another woman regardless of whom she was related to..

If Henry had divorced Anne (or annulled his marriage with her) and remarried with someone else when Katherine lived, this new marriage and the children born of it would be more legitimate than Elizabeth in the eyes of the Emperor and the Pope. The dangers of excommunication and invasion would have have been the same. So why bother? But once Katherine was dead, Henry had a chance to have an heir in a new marriage that were legitimate without dispute.

Had a third mariage been conducted during KoA’s lifetime, I cannot see that Charles would have been more accepting of the legitimacy of the off-spring than he was of Elizabeth. Henry’s rejection of Katherine was to Charles, IMHO, a slight at the Habsburgh alliance dominating Europe rather than the wish of a man who wants a legitimate male child. The fact that Kaherine was Charles’s aunt on his mother’s side made most of his protestations more of a politial statement rather than a familiar statement. Charles supported Katherine and Mary in part due to thier dynastic significance and in part to cock a snook at Henry’s ambitions..

Once Katherine was dead.well the whole game changed..Henry was in most eyes a widower..able to remarry and have more childen whose legitimacy would not be challenged by any spiritual or secular power.

On the other hand, once Katherine was dead, the Emperor was ready to accept Henry’s marriage with Anne, and even the status of Mary was not such a barrier to him as to Chapuys. And considering that the bastards of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swynford were legitimated when they married, Henry could have Elizabeth legitimated by the Pope, if he had wanted to return to Rome.

Hmm.. I’m not too sure that Charles would have accepted Anne as Henry’s wife once Katherine was dead..I think he would have waited until thier child was born before commiting himself to the validity of Henry’s union with Anne. Of course..Henry’s fall and Anne’s miscarriage put paid to that.

As for the Beauforts..they were legitimised by both the then pope and by the English parliment but were not granted the right to inherit the throne as the other descendants of John of Gaunt. Which is how KoA had a better claim to the English throne than Henry Vii…

It's always bunnies.

January 10, 2015
8:59 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said

Hannele said
I think the real problem was not a canon law as such (as interpreted in England by Cranmer) but how the matter was seen by the Emperor and the Pope. The crux of the matter was not the return of Katherine but how any new marriage would have seen by them when Katherine lived.

To be honest..I can’t see that either the Emperor or Pope would favour another marriage while KoA ws still alive..not to Anne nor to another woman regardless of whom she was related to..

If Henry had divorced Anne (or annulled his marriage with her) and remarried with someone else when Katherine lived, this new marriage and the children born of it would be more legitimate than Elizabeth in the eyes of the Emperor and the Pope. The dangers of excommunication and invasion would have have been the same. So why bother? But once Katherine was dead, Henry had a chance to have an heir in a new marriage that were legitimate without dispute.

Had a third mariage been conducted during KoA’s lifetime, I cannot see that Charles would have been more accepting of the legitimacy of the off-spring than he was of Elizabeth. Henry’s rejection of Katherine was to Charles, IMHO, a slight at the Habsburgh alliance dominating Europe rather than the wish of a man who wants a legitimate male child. The fact that Kaherine was Charles’s aunt on his mother’s side made most of his protestations more of a politial statement rather than a familiar statement. Charles supported Katherine and Mary in part due to thier dynastic significance and in part to cock a snook at Henry’s ambitions..

Once Katherine was dead.well the whole game changed..Henry was in most eyes a widower..able to remarry and have more childen whose legitimacy would not be challenged by any spiritual or secular power.

I made a mistake and let “not” out in the sentence “this new marriage and the children born of it would not be more legitimate than Elizabeth”. So we agree in this matter.

January 16, 2015
6:29 pm
Avatar
Aud
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 67
Member Since:
August 21, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
174sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hannele said

Aud said

HollyDolly said

If Jane Seymour was Henry’s true love it was because she gave himm the son that Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn couldn’t.
However to me Anne Boleyn really was Henry’s true love since he denified the Catholic Church and even his own people to marry her which he never did for the others.

The others? Why would Henry need to break with Rome with the others? You do realize that the reason why he went to such an extent was because the Pope refused to grant him an annulment? And what was the basis for his desire of an annulment? A male heir. Sorry, but I don’t see Henry breaking with Rome as some sort of sacrifice for Anne Boleyn, he would have done the same thing if it had been another woman, for KOA still wouldn’t have given in and the Pope more than likely would have still refused to grant him an annulment.

I think you forget some matters that are unique in the case of Anne Boleyn.

Yes, Henry wanted a male heir but he did not take the obvious and best choice of the new bride at least from the beginning: a foreign Princess. If he had, he would have had to wait for the annulment from the Pope for no king would have let her daughter or niece marry Henry without it. A Protestant Princess was no option before Anne of Cleves.

But the crux of the matter was that Henry did not just want a male heir with any woman but he fell in love with Anne Boleyn and wanted to marry her and no other. Would it really been the same with any other English woman he happened to fancy? I do not think so.

First, would any other woman initially refuse to become Henry’s mistress? Yes, Jane Seymour did, but in 1536 she had Anne’s example to follow. But would she really have been able to hold Henry’s love not for months but for years? After all, Henry said soon after marrying her that he wished that he had waited as he saw the the court was full of beauties. In any case, Henry would have interested in a woman like Jane only after tiring in Anne who initially had many other things than sexual allure to capture and keep Henry’s interest.

Second, would any other woman have had the strength of character combined with the Evangelical beliefs that Anne had and that sustained her during years of waiting? Perhaps she even (as Eric Ives thinks) made Henry to regain his resolve it faltered? After all, the Pope offered to legitimate any children Henry had by Anne. To almost any other woman it would have been enough as the possibility of becoming Henry’s wife seemed then very unlikely.

Third, it was a huge risk to conceive an heir and marry without waiting for the Pope’s decision. Ives thinks that it was Anne who took the initiative in the fall 1932, Bernard thinks it was Henry. But would Henry have done it if he had nor waited years for Anne and instead had many mistresses during those years?

All in all, with some other woman (or women), it probably would probably would have been a quite different story.

A different story? Maybe other women might have given up, but the fact still remained that Henry didn’t have a son, and that was something he wanted. He was looking to annul his marriage to KOA before Anne Boleyn. Anne wasn’t the issue, KOA was, and the issue of the annulment. Even if some other woman had gave up on becoming Queen, Henry would still have to deal with the annulment of his marriage to KOA and the Pope. He did not accept a woman ruling after him, he wanted a son to follow his reign. And can you really know about other English women? Not every woman was the same person back then, there were probably other women who weren’t interested in becoming the King’s wife, they just didn’t make history. Anne Boleyn isn’t the only strong woman in the 16th century, there are plenty of other known examples. And yeah, Anne sure did have Henry’s attention during those years before their marriage, but what happened afterwards? Henry expected her to conform and be obedient and endure his affairs, and when she failed to produce a son, she was executed on false charges after barely three years of marriage. And I’m not sure that Henry not making the best choices for a bride is an argument. He married in total four other English women, when the norm was for King’s to marry princesses. So, Anne isn’t unique in that aspect. Again, I see Henry as the one being in control, he was the ultimate authority in England, and after Anne’s death, he kept himself as Supreme Head of the Church of England, so it wasn’t all Anne or due to her.

January 17, 2015
11:44 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
175sp_Permalink sp_Print

Aud said

Hannele said I think you forget some matters that are unique in the case of Anne Boleyn.

Yes, Henry wanted a male heir but he did not take the obvious and best choice of the new bride at least from the beginning: a foreign Princess. If he had, he would have had to wait for the annulment from the Pope for no king would have let her daughter or niece marry Henry without it. A Protestant Princess was no option before Anne of Cleves.

But the crux of the matter was that Henry did not just want a male heir with any woman but he fell in love with Anne Boleyn and wanted to marry her and no other. Would it really been the same with any other English woman he happened to fancy? I do not think so.

First, would any other woman initially refuse to become Henry’s mistress? Yes, Jane Seymour did, but in 1536 she had Anne’s example to follow. But would she really have been able to hold Henry’s love not for months but for years? After all, Henry said soon after marrying her that he wished that he had waited as he saw the the court was full of beauties. In any case, Henry would have interested in a woman like Jane only after tiring in Anne who initially had many other things than sexual allure to capture and keep Henry’s interest.

Second, would any other woman have had the strength of character combined with the Evangelical beliefs that Anne had and that sustained her during years of waiting? Perhaps she even (as Eric Ives thinks) made Henry to regain his resolve it faltered? After all, the Pope offered to legitimate any children Henry had by Anne. To almost any other woman it would have been enough as the possibility of becoming Henry’s wife seemed then very unlikely.

Third, it was a huge risk to conceive an heir and marry without waiting for the Pope’s decision. Ives thinks that it was Anne who took the initiative in the fall 1932, Bernard thinks it was Henry. But would Henry have done it if he had nor waited years for Anne and instead had many mistresses during those years?

All in all, with some other woman (or women), it probably would probably would have been a quite different story.

A different story? Maybe other women might have given up, but the fact still remained that Henry didn’t have a son, and that was something he wanted. He was looking to annul his marriage to KOA before Anne Boleyn. Anne wasn’t the issue, KOA was, and the issue of the annulment. Even if some other woman had gave up on becoming Queen, Henry would still have to deal with the annulment of his marriage to KOA and the Pope. He did not accept a woman ruling after him, he wanted a son to follow his reign. And can you really know about other English women? Not every woman was the same person back then, there were probably other women who weren’t interested in becoming the King’s wife, they just didn’t make history. Anne Boleyn isn’t the only strong woman in the 16th century, there are plenty of other known examples. And yeah, Anne sure did have Henry’s attention during those years before their marriage, but what happened afterwards? Henry expected her to conform and be obedient and endure his affairs, and when she failed to produce a son, she was executed on false charges after barely three years of marriage. And I’m not sure that Henry not making the best choices for a bride is an argument. He married in total four other English women, when the norm was for King’s to marry princesses. So, Anne isn’t unique in that aspect. Again, I see Henry as the one being in control, he was the ultimate authority in England, and after Anne’s death, he kept himself as Supreme Head of the Church of England, so it wasn’t all Anne or due to her.

With the different story I mean that the happenings would have different even though the aim was the same.

It was not a question whether a woman herself was interested in becoming a King’s wife. Once the King proposed, no woman had a chance to refuse, because it had hurt her family that would therefore not allowed it and even she saw her duty to maintain her family’s interests.

We cannot of course know whether there had earlier been a woman who had refused to become a King’s mistress, though it seems unlikely. In any case, if there had been such a woman, Henry had obviously had no trouble to forget her and make an offer to another woman. After all, if one wants only have sex, one does not need a certain partner.

Therefore, it seems likely that although even without being in love with Anne, Henry preoccupied with a male heir, would have pursued the annulment – perhaps with a better chance to succeed as then his “troubled conscience would have been more plausible. Also, having made a pact with Francis to marry to a French princess would have strengthen his hand. Perhaps even Katherine would have been more willing to go the nunnery as she her pride would not have suffered by been supplanted by a commoner. Before his remarriage, Henry would have had several English women as mistresses who would have soon discarded as had earlier happened.

On the other hand, it is also possible that Henry would have in some phase had sense to accept the defeat. As he could not get the annulment from the Pope, he could not marry a Princess. Without his love with Anne, he would also have understood that marrying an English girl and breaking with Rome would divide the country between the claimants of the throne and that would have been a much more dangerous course than marrying Mary off. It would not have been necessarily Mary but her son who would have been the heir – the sole heir with sure legitimacy. Of course, one could not be sure that Mary would have born a son.

But maybe Henry was a man who, once he had got some idea in his head was deaf to reason as he thought that he was always right.

In any case, in history one cannot say that the later happenings prove that something could have happened earlier. What Henry did after Anne died, cannot prove that he would have done the same if the earlier happenings had not happened.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 70

Currently Online:
13 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2345

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 934

DuchessofBrittany: 847

Mya Elise: 782

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 426041

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1679

Posts: 23600

Newest Members:

franklingo18, HorinadR, estherqw4, enriquebo2, Delaquand, esperanzamt3

Administrators: Claire: 998