For Henry and Katherine's intimate details to be trotted out for all to hear, Henry (and for that matter Katherine) must have been desperate for any straw to hang on to. For Katherine, it would have meant end of game, maybe Henry was putting his wager on Katherine giving in to his demands for Divorce? If so, she called his bluff! She was well able to handle herself as she proved, running Henry's kingdom for him while he was away playing war games, even putting down insurrections. A very capable girl indeed.

It was in Katherine’s interests, after Arthur’s death, to say she was a virgin.  It increased her chances in the marriage stakes – either Henry or another Prince somewhere else.

Yes, Katherine was a devout Catholic, but she was also a Spanish Princess with dynastic ambitions.  Both her parents were highly political operators and it would be unreasonable to assume that Katherine had not absorbed some of this during her childhood.

Still,I don’t think that she was a woman to embrace a sinful living.Obviously,it was Henry’s(VII) and Ferdinand’s fault to allow such a doubtfull marriage but I see Katherine not as someone whose ambition didn’t stop at anything.Many things where out of her grasp but Katherine always seemmed to me as a woman who feared religion,opposing to the Pope etc.I doubt this overly religious woman would lie and endager her immortal soul(back then an oath was not a game and 16th c. is one of the darkest periods of Christianity) unless she kept up a big facade all her life.Although,I think Henry’s fight didn’t concentrate on her virginity.His claim was that the first ceremony annuled the second(the passage he used didn’t say anything about consumation)and even through she was a widow,legally she was still his sister(in law).But the whole trial concentrated on the fact whether she was a virgin at her 2nd marriage,something that Henry didn’t actually  express directly.Had he been right,then she wouldn’t have fought him back the way she did.Only the two of them could tell their intimate moments

(Just a question:Why Henry couldn’t say if his wifes were virgins?KoA was the first one,so perhaps he didn’t know.Anne?He doubted her too,although the first years of their marriage nothing marred her reputation.K.Howard?How awfull was that?He realised that his wife was experienced after they told him she was?After four marriages and a bunch of mistresses?And Anne of Cleves was not a virgin because of her breasts?I guess Chapuys was right,when he discussed Jane’s reputation,that it is up to Henry whether she is a virgin or not)

I came to my own conclusion about this a few weeks ago.

I think she was a virgin when she married Henry, purely because I don't think she'd lie before God. I just can't imagine her lying about something so important that so much depended on. I think she'd be honest about it.

Also PG writes of how she thinks the marriage was comsumated and she's wrong on most points… I've come to the conclusion that if PG decides on one side of a debate then you'll generally be right if you go with the other.

I really don't know cos Katherine was so devout to her faith but then half of me thinks not because unlike today her knowledge of sex would have been nil. I'm sure her mother would have told her what to expect in the marriage bed but I think she wouldn't have really understood what that entails so could she be sure she was a virgin?

An interesting question for discussion:

Can anyone specify documentation demonstrating Katherine of Aragon's honesty or dishonesty?

I believe everyone is capable of lying, and everyone does, at times, lie (although these are normally “white lies” or “polite lies” as opposed to perjuring oneself under oath.)

Was Katherine of Aragon prone to telling lies and/or other deceitful behavior?  Are there other instances and/or frequent instances where Katherine of Aragon lied?  Or other dishonest behavior, such as cheating at games, feigning illnesses, spying or actively working against Henry or England's best interests?

Was the behavior, if it occured, frequent or habitual? 

Proof that Katherine told a lie once in a while isn't confirmation she lied about her first marriage's non-consummation.  However, if Katherine was known to habitually lie or intentionally deceive others, this might lend credence to  Henry's case that Katherine lied.

I'm unaware of Katherine being known for lying or other dishonesty.

I understand the viewpoint many posters have concerning why Katherine might have lied in order to benefit herself and Spain, but I think it's important to remember the significance of religion in Katherine's life, as well as the emphasis upon a person's reputation. 

Does it occur to anyone that Katherine stuck to her guns because she was telling the truth?  That she believed telling the truth was the right thing to do and telling the truth would protect her? 

If Katherine was telling the truth, why for the love of heaven should she have offered Henry an anullment based on a false admission (LIE) that Katherine had lied FOR OVER TWO DECADES concerning her first marriage, committing mortal sin and breaking the law?  Henry basically required Katherine not only to lie, but to dishonor herself (her reputation, her good name, her word) and degrade her children (Mary as well as her deceased children.) 

It just seems to me that if Katherine had lied in the beginning, it might have been a RELIEF to her to confess and seek absolution with Henry's goodwill. 

Henry, on the other hand, DOES have a track record for repeated lying and deceitful behavior.

It's impossible to discover convincing evidence supporting either position, but I have to say, based upon the reputations and known attitudes and behaviors of Katherine of Aragon and Henry VIII, I would be more likely to believe Katherine of Aragon's word over Henry VIII's.

People argue Katherine of Aragon had “too much to lose not to lie.”  What did Henry stand to gain by lying?  Is it more “in character” for Katherine of Aragon to exploit situations and relationships to achieve particular goals or is that behavior more characteristic of Henry VIII?

La Belle Creole said:

 

Can anyone specify documentation demonstrating Katherine of Aragon's honesty or dishonesty?

(snip)

Was Katherine of Aragon prone to telling lies and/or other deceitful behavior?  Are there other instances and/or frequent instances where Katherine of Aragon lied?  Or other dishonest behavior, such as cheating at games, feigning illnesses, spying or actively working against Henry or England's best interests?

(snip)
I'm unaware of Katherine being known for lying or other dishonesty.

She was certainly capable of lying to her father about her first miscarriage. From David Starkey's Six Wives The Queens of Henry VIII

Her fathercould not of course be left entirely in the dark and on 27 May she wrote him a letter. “Some days before” she had miscarried of a daughter. ” That her child was still born is considered a misfortune  in England. Hence the delay in her letter and hence the fact that she would allow no one else to write.

 

Clearly this version of events was severly edited. Catherine post-dates her miscarriage by almost four months. And she make no mention of her subsequent false pregnancy nor of the fact she had taken to her chamber. Yet there can be no doubt that these events had happened. For, behind her back and to cover theirs, Fray Diego and Caroz sent full accounts to Spain. THeir motives were different. Fray Diego wrote to exonerate Catherine; Caroz to undermine Fray Diego. Nevertheless their accounts are mutally complementary. They are also confirmed by the English records of the preparations for Catherine's lying-in.

Pages 115-118 discribe the events. The quote is from page 119.

Jasmine said:

Of course Henry had a lot to gain by lying.  But also, so did Katherine.   Originally, it was important to maintain the Spanish alliance and by marrying Henry, that alliance was maintained.  By the time the question of divorce was raised, Katherine had a daughter's position to protect.  Katherine had seen a powerful Queen Regnant in the person of her mother, Isabella, so she would be very much interested in seeing her own daughter succeed to the Crown of England.  If she agreed to the divorce, she would, in effect, be admitting that her daughter was a bastard.

 

Presumably at the time of her proposed marriage to Henry, she would have been asked about the consumation of her marriage.  As it was in her own interests, as well as Spain's for the new marriage to go ahead, I cannot believe she would admit it, if it had been consummated.

 

Having told that lie then, Katherine could not admit the opposite later.  She would have to maintain that lie for the rest of her life.  I am not a Catholic, but presumably she had a Spanish Confessor – in that case, she could have confessed the original lie  (which was in Spain's interests)  and having been given a penance to perform, her sin in lying would have been wiped out.

OK, so let's say for the sake of discussion the young Katherine lied concerning her first marriage's consummation, confessed her fault, received absolution from her confessor, and continued about her business.  Did that pennance excuse her for repeating the same lie continuously in later years?  I don't believe the process of absolution works like that, I thnk the repentant sinner is expected to make ammends and sin no more. 

Katherine would not “admit her daughter (and her other children) were bastards” because they were not bastards.  Katherine's children were born in lawful wedlock, a marriage upheld by the church authority who originally sanctionned it.  Mary's bastardization was the direct result of Henry VIII usurping the role of Rome and positioning loyal clergy to achieve his goals.  I would not call that the work of a honest, honorable man, husband, and father, much less a king.  

When considering the known facts of this situation, my opinion rests mainly upon the insufficient evidence and the character/reputation of the individuals involved.  Henry, as plaintiff, alleged that: 1) Katherine was not a virgin when they wed, and 2) the proof of Katherine's dishonesty was the couple's childless state, and 3) Katherine was actually his sister due to her first marriage.

It is the plaintiff's duty to prove his/her case.  Proving a woman's virginity 24 years after her defloration is a bit of a challenge.  Offering hearsay, rumor, and speculation is not proof.  Unless a witness could testify to viewing Katherine and Arthur copulating, any “evidence” offered is suspect.  Katherine claimed numerous times she and Arthur did not consummate their marriage.  Could she have been lying?  Maybe, but it fell to Henry (plaintiff) to prove she lied and he could not do that.

As everyone already knows, the royal couple was not childless, and had one living child, Princess Mary, at the time Henry cited Levitcus as “evidence” of his bogus marriage.  Henry and Katherine were hardly the only married couple to experience high infant mortality or the absence of surviving male children. 

Whether or not Katherine was Henry's sister depended upon whether her first marriage was consummated (an unproved allegation.)  Even so, the Pope issued dispensation for Katherine and Henry's marriage to take place.  After lengthy consideration of the King's Great Matter, Rome upheld the original decision and retained its opinion Henry and Katherine's marriage was valid and legally binding. 

In brief, Henry could not prove his case through appropriate legal channels.  This does not prove Katherine lied or did not lie.  It means Henry could not prove the allegations against Katherine.  Since he could not prove his case, however, it must be accepted that, unless proved otherwise (unlikely at this point) Katherine's version concerning her first marriage is the truth to the best of our understanding.

As for Katherine of Aragon's “desperation to be Queen of England,” I think she might have been just as happy to go home.  Henry VII ill-treated her and forced her to live in embarassing poverty.

I don't think I've heard about bedsheets being sent to Isabella and Ferdinand…. I didn't think that was a particularly common thing that was done in England?