Was Katherine of Aragon a virgin? | Page 4 | 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
Was Katherine of Aragon a virgin?
July 17, 2011
11:26 am
Avatar
E
Member
Banned
Forum Posts: 257
Member Since:
May 19, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hhmm… I am inclined to believe she was not a virgin when she went to Henry- but why would he never talk about it?

Katherine proved to be quite decietul at times- she lied to her father regarding a miscarriage- or was it that she thought she was pregnant but wasn't? Anyway, she neglected for about 3months after the event to tell her father she was not with child..

Her nature was quite nasty when the King of Scots was killed- she wanted to send Henry the kings head and then feigned concern for the widow- not the most honest…

At the time it was not so much in her best interests to proclaim her virginity. Maybe Don Elvira was a bit of a psychic or something- her name is certainly suitable! Do you think Katherine regretted insisting upon her 'virginity' in the later years of her marriage to Henry?..

"A fresh young damsel, who could trip and go"

July 17, 2011
11:49 am
Avatar
Catalina
Scotland
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
July 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

E said:

Hhmm… I am inclined to believe she was not a virgin when she went to Henry- but why would he never talk about it?

Katherine proved to be quite decietul at times- she lied to her father regarding a miscarriage- or was it that she thought she was pregnant but wasn't? Anyway, she neglected for about 3months after the event to tell her father she was not with child..

Her nature was quite nasty when the King of Scots was killed- she wanted to send Henry the kings head and then feigned concern for the widow- not the most honest…

At the time it was not so much in her best interests to proclaim her virginity. Maybe Don Elvira was a bit of a psychic or something- her name is certainly suitable! Do you think Katherine regretted insisting upon her 'virginity' in the later years of her marriage to Henry?..


I don't think Katherine ever regretted marriage to Henry, not for a second. I believe she truly loved him, truly believed that she was his true wife and completely and utterly believed in the sanctity of marriage.  Which leads me to the question re her virginity.  Given her character, I do not believe she would have lied about her virginity. 

As has been previously stated, I think the remark Arthur made about 'being in the midst of Spain' seems too much like the bragging of a teenager trying to cover up his inexperience. Seems like such a contrived remark.

'If honour were profitable, everybody would be honourable'  Thomas More

July 17, 2011
12:50 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

E said:

Hhmm… I am inclined to believe she was not a virgin when she went to Henry- but why would he never talk about it?

Katherine proved to be quite decietul at times- she lied to her father regarding a miscarriage- or was it that she thought she was pregnant but wasn't? Anyway, she neglected for about 3months after the event to tell her father she was not with child..


Indeed, she told Ferdinand several months after her first m/c implying that it had happened recently.

It's always bunnies.

July 17, 2011
1:08 pm
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 612
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Catalina said:

I don't think Katherine ever regretted marriage to Henry, not for a second. I believe she truly loved him, truly believed that she was his true wife and completely and utterly believed in the sanctity of marriage.  Which leads me to the question re her virginity.  Given her character, I do not believe she would have lied about her virginity. 
As has been previously stated, I think the remark Arthur made about 'being in the midst of Spain' seems too much like the bragging of a teenager trying to cover up his inexperience. Seems like such a contrived remark.


Hello Catalina and welcome to the site.

I love and respect Anne Boleyn but I also respect Catherine of Aragon. I think she was an extraordinary woman. I too have difficulty in accepting she would jeopardize her immortal sole by lying.

August 15, 2011
8:50 pm
Avatar
Kelly
Holland
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 28
Member Since:
January 10, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Oke. I am sorry people, i am reading this for the first time. And yes here i go again!

 

And again i am going to bore you with the education of Katherina of Aragon at the court of Castile, her mother and father (although her father had many affairs and bastard children, who Isabella raised at court), the education Isabella gave to her daughters did not include education in sex, Isabella, her daughters and the ladies in waiting were sleeping all together in the same space, no men were allowed. If there had to come a man in the chamber (for example a doctor when someone was sick), all the woman needed to be dressed to the fullest. Isabella was very prudent, there was no talk in the difference between genitals between man and woman, so you can bet that the talk about sex itself was out of the question. Also Isabella was shocked when Columbus presented her with slaves from the qonqeust he made to be bare naked.

 

Isabella and Juana were shocked when Juana arrived in Flanders and see so much loose behavior and so much openess. Juana herself held no contact but the ambasadors who reported to Isabel did not know how to tell the Queen about the loose and obscene behaviour Juana was living in.

 

The woman were raised to bear children, but not how to make children (long live the bio i have read!). To me it makes sense that Arthur was lying, i myself have a son and a brother and nephews and i know how man/ young boys love to bribe about their encounters with woman. Also in the bio on Isabel i have read, there is no talk of sheets that were sent to spain. I believe she was a virgin, as educated as she was in all worldly things the girl had no clue what to do and i think the boy did not eather, but hey he could not say that he did not complete the deed. boys will be boys and if boys are proud on one thing, and especially on that age it is about their “crown jewels” and if that fails, its a problem for a boy,  so for Arthur to confess that he could not perform the deed (maybe because of ignorence or nervousity of just because the boy was not a healthy boy) should be a shame for him. It would make him the laughing stock, i have read that when Katherina told her ladies what did happen the ladies in waiting could not stop laughing about the boy, I mean come on ladies, we all know men and we know what sex means for them.

 

But again i want to make the point that in the education Katherine recieved from her mother, there certainly was no education on genitals on men or woman. Isabel was much to prudent for that sort of things. She was to chaste and was embarresed if anyone in her court behaved sensualy, that is why she was not that fond of Phillips the handsome when she met with him and his loose behavior, also she was shocked when she heard about her son's Juan obsession with sex with his newly wedded wife, she believed it was to much sex that killed Juan. She closed her eyes for the behaviour of Ferdinand but did he did it in great secresy (hope to spell that one right) and not in openess. So Catherina was in my eyes a virgin. No doubt about that.

August 16, 2011
3:04 pm
Avatar
Mya Elise
Ohio,US
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 782
Member Since:
May 16, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You know how you tell a little lie and then later it becomes a huge deal? That's what i think happend.

Maybe Catherine thought that she'd do better in the world or make another good marriage if people thought she was a virgin, since it was of much value back then. And there would be no person to tell other wise because the only other person who would know would be Arthur and he died.

I think Catherine told the lie then when the questioning came around again, more seriously this time, she obviously thought that if she said it was consummated and that she had been lieing then Henry would surely have every right to divorce her and it would be pointless to fight against it. And it'd probably be worse for the Princess Mary. So therefore there was no way out, once the lie was told..there was no going back on it.

And i don't think Catherine a bad person to do this because God knows how many times i've done it.Wink I also think of this as merely a theory then an actual belief.

• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.

August 17, 2011
1:06 am
Avatar
Elliemarianna
Corsham, Wiltshire
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 316
Member Since:
June 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don't think she was a virgin. She and Arthur were both young, and healthy(ish) at the time? I'm sure Arthur knew what to do, people always manage it somehow… sex is still instinctual… otherwise our species would not be here! She lied to her parents, about a pregnancy – so perhaps she wouldn't have trouble lying about something else? For the better of her country – in her eyes? She constantly punished herself for God, maybe that's why? She was making up for it?

I'm sure cavemen didn't need to draw sex education diagrams on cave walls for their 'coming of age' children…

"It is however but Justice, & my Duty to declre that this amiable Woman was entirely innocent of the Crimes with which she was accused, of which her Beauty, her Elegance, & her Sprightliness were sufficient proofs..." Jane Austen.

August 26, 2011
1:45 pm
Avatar
WilesWales
Winter Haven, Florida
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
August 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I have to agree with Kellly. This is the most accurate and concise way of making a long article in a scholarly journal into a posting I think I've seen yet. Thank you!

"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." Psalms 118:23

August 17, 2014
6:31 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannah said

There is no  way of ever knowing the truth about this, I think we just have to mindful of the fact that Katherine could’ve lied. Most men know when a woman is a virgin, there is usually blood and discomfort when a woman’s virginity is taken. Only Henry and Katherine themselves know the details of that. Also, Arthur as far as I know, died of sweating sickness meaning that he would’ve been perfectly healthy up until the day before he died. And ofcourse, there were Arthur’s famous boasts about “being in the midst of Spain”. We just don’t know, and likely, never will. For what its worth, Henry genuinely believed she wasn’t a virgin and attributed Arthur’s death to too much sexual activity at too young a age; and barred his own illegimiate son from consummating his marraige (to Mary Howard).

How Henry would have known at the age 18 if Catherine was a virgin or not, when he didn’t realize even being 30 years older, that Catherine Howard was not?

There aren’t always visible signs. What if Katherine had f.ex. fallen from the horse?

On the other hand, a woman can make tricks, of which the most common one is to cult a little slash in some place in the body that can’t been seen.

I don’t put much faith on Arthur’s boast. As characters in Mantel’s Wolf Hall say: who teenage boy would not have admitted that if he had failed.

As for Katherine of Aragon, it was not an ordinary case of lying but by making a false vow in Blackfriars trial she would had put her soul in jeopardy.

August 19, 2014
7:04 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Antonia Fraser says that Henry said after their wedding night that Catherine had been a virgin and (which is perhaps more important) he never in his life said otherwise.

August 19, 2014
7:14 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Elliemarianna said

I don’t think she was a virgin. She and Arthur were both young, and healthy(ish) at the time? I’m sure Arthur knew what to do, people always manage it somehow… sex is still instinctual… otherwise our species would not be here!

Antonia Fraser says that Arthur was even shorter than Catherine who was very short which means that he had maybe not reached the puberty. In general, it was believed that making children too early could damage health for good. In any case, they were together in bed only a few times.

August 19, 2014
9:37 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mya Elise said

You know how you tell a little lie and then later it becomes a huge deal? That’s what i think happend.

Maybe Catherine thought that she’d do better in the world or make another good marriage if people thought she was a virgin, since it was of much value back then. And there would be no person to tell other wise because the only other person who would know would be Arthur and he died.

I think Catherine told the lie then when the questioning came around again, more seriously this time, she obviously thought that if she said it was consummated and that she had been lieing then Henry would surely have every right to divorce her and it would be pointless to fight against it. And it’d probably be worse for the Princess Mary. So therefore there was no way out, once the lie was told..there was no going back on it.

And i don’t think Catherine a bad person to do this because God knows how many times i’ve done it.Wink I also think of this as merely a theory then an actual belief.

Actually, Catherine’s virginity could have been examined by “wise women” before she married Henry, but unfortunately to her, that was not done. However, Henry believed her to be a virgin in the wedding night.

In any case, the consummation of her marriage with Arthur would have been no cause to Pope not to give the licence to marry Henry, as demonstrated the case of the sisters. So, Catherine had no cause to tell the what you call “the small lie” in the beginning.

Further, Catherine’s whole personality and values would have been different, indeed very opposite of what we know of her, if she had lied in her confession which the Cardinal sent to the Pope. By lying, she would have damned her soul which in that age was the most important matter. That she could have done only if all she said about putting God and her conscience first had also been a lie.

Of course, she also cared much for her own position and Mary’s, but was she really willing to go to the hell for securing them, or was sure that because she had been a virgin, she had right on her side?

August 21, 2014
7:46 am
Avatar
Aud
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 67
Member Since:
August 21, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

E said

Hhmm… I am inclined to believe she was not a virgin when she went to Henry- but why would he never talk about it?

Katherine proved to be quite decietul at times- she lied to her father regarding a miscarriage- or was it that she thought she was pregnant but wasn’t? Anyway, she neglected for about 3months after the event to tell her father she was not with child..

Her nature was quite nasty when the King of Scots was killed- she wanted to send Henry the kings head and then feigned concern for the widow- not the most honest…

At the time it was not so much in her best interests to proclaim her virginity. Maybe Don Elvira was a bit of a psychic or something- her name is certainly suitable! Do you think Katherine regretted insisting upon her ‘virginity’ in the later years of her marriage to Henry?..

First, in general I will say that I believe KOA when she said that she was a virgin when she married Henry VIII. Remember the dispensation covered whether or not she was, so I fail to see why she would need to lie.

Secondly, let’s say she was lying, this is no small lie, this is lying by omission, then she lied repeatedly during the Great Matter, which she knew would have placed her soul in danger. She would have known that true repentance would require her to stop lying, which she didn’t, if she kept telling the same story over and over again, which is a sin. It is a sin to lie period, but this would be continual sinning on KOA’s part which I don’t think she was capable of.

Thirdly, I want to mention Flodden, firstly, there is no evidence that KOA was pretending with her sister-in-law, as you recall, she didn’t start the conflict, James IV of Scotland did by launching a cowardly attack while Henry VIII and his army were away and he paid the price for it. KOA wanted to send her husband the body of the King, so what? A King who invaded her husband’s land and tried to wage war, nasty? I don’t think so, and certainly not a woman known for dishonesty or spreading falsehoods.

August 21, 2014
7:19 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Aud said

E said

Hhmm… I am inclined to believe she was not a virgin when she went to Henry- but why would he never talk about it?

Katherine proved to be quite decietul at times- she lied to her father regarding a miscarriage- or was it that she thought she was pregnant but wasn’t? Anyway, she neglected for about 3months after the event to tell her father she was not with child..

Her nature was quite nasty when the King of Scots was killed- she wanted to send Henry the kings head and then feigned concern for the widow- not the most honest…

At the time it was not so much in her best interests to proclaim her virginity. Maybe Don Elvira was a bit of a psychic or something- her name is certainly suitable! Do you think Katherine regretted insisting upon her ‘virginity’ in the later years of her marriage to Henry?..

First, in general I will say that I believe KOA when she said that she was a virgin when she married Henry VIII. Remember the dispensation covered whether or not she was, so I fail to see why she would need to lie.

Secondly, let’s say she was lying, this is no small lie, this is lying by omission, then she lied repeatedly during the Great Matter, which she knew would have placed her soul in danger. She would have known that true repentance would require her to stop lying, which she didn’t, if she kept telling the same story over and over again, which is a sin. It is a sin to lie period, but this would be continual sinning on KOA’s part which I don’t think she was capable of.

Thirdly, I want to mention Flodden, firstly, there is no evidence that KOA was pretending with her sister-in-law, as you recall, she didn’t start the conflict, James IV of Scotland did by launching a cowardly attack while Henry VIII and his army were away and he paid the price for it. KOA wanted to send her husband the body of the King, so what? A King who invaded her husband’s land and tried to wage war, nasty? I don’t think so, and certainly not a woman known for dishonesty or spreading falsehoods.

I agree with Aud, and want to add some points.

To say that if somebody have sometimes lied (as any normal person probably has), he or she should never be trusted to tell the truth, is like saying that if a woman has lain with a man before their marriage, then she must have lain also with other men.

As for the legal matter, the question was not if KOA was a virgin or not, because the pope could make a dispensation also in the latter case (as she knew from her own family, after her sister had married her brother-in-law), and if there were was a fault in KOA and Henry’s original dispensation, the usual way was simply that the Pope gave another. So, she had no reason to stress on her virginity if it was not true.

Thinking especially about the trial in Blackfriars, when KOA went on her knees in front of Henry, why would she do that? I think she tried to appeal to his conscience after he has spoken about his sruples. In any case, she would have been foolish to do so if there would have been a chance that Henry would have said: “You are a liar! I knew you were not a virgin and I can swear it here and now!” She must have been certain that Henry could not say that. And he did not.

As for aiming to send the body of the Scottish king to Henry, I do not think we, who have (probably) never experienced war, should judge feelings which war can cause, nor practices which were natural at that time, at least in Spain, even non in England where, however, was plenty other cruel practices we abhor today.

August 21, 2014
9:17 pm
Avatar
Aud
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 67
Member Since:
August 21, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Aud said

E said

Hhmm… I am inclined to believe she was not a virgin when she went to Henry- but why would he never talk about it?

Katherine proved to be quite decietul at times- she lied to her father regarding a miscarriage- or was it that she thought she was pregnant but wasn’t? Anyway, she neglected for about 3months after the event to tell her father she was not with child..

Her nature was quite nasty when the King of Scots was killed- she wanted to send Henry the kings head and then feigned concern for the widow- not the most honest…

At the time it was not so much in her best interests to proclaim her virginity. Maybe Don Elvira was a bit of a psychic or something- her name is certainly suitable! Do you think Katherine regretted insisting upon her ‘virginity’ in the later years of her marriage to Henry?..

First, in general I will say that I believe KOA when she said that she was a virgin when she married Henry VIII. Remember the dispensation covered whether or not she was, so I fail to see why she would need to lie.

Secondly, let’s say she was lying, this is no small lie, this is lying by omission, then she lied repeatedly during the Great Matter, which she knew would have placed her soul in danger. She would have known that true repentance would require her to stop lying, which she didn’t, if she kept telling the same story over and over again, which is a sin. It is a sin to lie period, but this would be continual sinning on KOA’s part which I don’t think she was capable of.

Thirdly, I want to mention Flodden, firstly, there is no evidence that KOA was pretending with her sister-in-law, as you recall, she didn’t start the conflict, James IV of Scotland did by launching a cowardly attack while Henry VIII and his army were away and he paid the price for it. KOA wanted to send her husband the body of the King, so what? A King who invaded her husband’s land and tried to wage war, nasty? I don’t think so, and certainly not a woman known for dishonesty or spreading falsehoods.

I agree with Aud, and want to add some points.

To say that if somebody have sometimes lied (as any normal person probably has), he or she should never be trusted to tell the truth, is like saying that if a woman has lain with a man before their marriage, then she must have lain also with other men.

As for the legal matter, the question was not if KOA was a virgin or not, because the pope could make a dispensation also in the latter case (as she knew from her own family, after her sister had married her brother-in-law), and if there were was a fault in KOA and Henry’s original dispensation, the usual way was simply that the Pope gave another. So, she had no reason to stress on her virginity if it was not true.

Thinking especially about the trial in Blackfriars, when KOA went on her knees in front of Henry, why would she do that? I think she tried to appeal to his conscience after he has spoken about his sruples. In any case, she would have been foolish to do so if there would have been a chance that Henry would have said: “You are a liar! I knew you were not a virgin and I can swear it here and now!” She must have been certain that Henry could not say that. And he did not.

As for aiming to send the body of the Scottish king to Henry, I do not think we, who have (probably) never experienced war, should judge feelings which war can cause, nor practices which were natural at that time, at least in Spain, even non in England where, however, was plenty other cruel practices we abhor today.

Yes, just because a person tells a lie, doesn’t automatically mean they lie in regards to other matter’s as well. This whole KOA told a lie towards her father issue, seems to be an attack against those who claim KOA is perfect, which I personally, don’t believe she was, so that she made a mistake is no shock to me. However, I fail to see why this particular incident should be used to say KOA was lying about her marriage. And if we want to examine the track record of people who tell lies, we then must look at Henry VIII.

He had Anne Boleyn killed one false charges, took the position that the Pope couldn’t issue dispensations, but had obtained one for his marriage to Anne Boleyn, and killed people for saying it was invalid, only then to turn back around and say it was invalid the whole time.

He told lies about Anne of Cleves, made claims that she wasn’t a virgin, yet he had never consummated the marriage with her, so how would he know?

Instructed people to lie to Charles V about KOA’s treatment.

He has a history of lying and changing his lies to suit his needs.

August 22, 2014
4:39 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Actually, Catherine’s virginity could have been examined by “wise women” before she married Henry, but unfortunately to her, that was not done. However, Henry believed her to be a virgin in the wedding night.

true..she could have been examined any time after the death of Arthur. . At Arthur’s death, there was no-one who expected Kaherine to be a virgin, the thought was put a couple to bed and the deed will be done. for several months folowing her untimely widow-hood , there were hoes that she may yet be caring a post-houmous child.

In any case, the consummation of her marriage with Arthur would have been no cause to Pope not to give the licence to marry Henry, as demonstrated the case of the sisters. So, Catherine had no cause to tell the what you call “the small lie” in the beginning.

One of the Papal Bulls issued for the HVIII/KoA marriage mentioned that consummtion of the earlier marriage wasn’t a problem under canon law.

It's always bunnies.

August 22, 2014
7:08 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Aud said Yes, just because a person tells a lie, doesn’t automatically mean they lie in regards to other matter’s as well. This whole KOA told a lie towards her father issue, seems to be an attack against those who claim KOA is perfect, which I personally, don’t believe she was, so that she made a mistake is no shock to me. However, I fail to see why this particular incident should be used to say KOA was lying about her marriage. And if we want to examine the track record of people who tell lies, we then must look at Henry VIII.

He had Anne Boleyn killed one false charges, took the position that the Pope couldn’t issue dispensations, but had obtained one for his marriage to Anne Boleyn, and killed people for saying it was invalid, only then to turn back around and say it was invalid the whole time.

He told lies about Anne of Cleves, made claims that she wasn’t a virgin, yet he had never consummated the marriage with her, so how would he know?

Instructed people to lie to Charles V about KOA’s treatment.

He has a history of lying and changing his lies to suit his needs.

He also lied that if he could freely choose a wife, he would choose KOA – and that in the situation when he actually wanted to cast her away, and would accept no other result. But then, lying was quite OK according to Machiavelli’s Prince. Indeed, a prince would be foolish not to use all means to get his aim.

As for KOA being “perfect”, she was and she was not. On the other hand, if you admire saints, martyrs and dissidents, you admirable also KOA who followed her principles and values. On the other hand, if you find wise also think about the consequences, then you think that she lacked common sense to realize that it would have better to accept the compromise and go to the nunnery.

Of course, she fought also for her daughter’s rights, but it would have done better to accept her position as a bona fide child and therefore legitimate, even after her possible brother(s) in the succession order. She would not have become a Queen (or maybe she would have, but the earlier divorce would have made Anne younger a Queen and therefore more fertile years), but not a bastard either.

In that way, KOA would have spared the country division. And if you are in her position, it is secondary what kind of person you are in private, and the most important thing is how you influence on your country. To KOA’s credit one must say, that she never wanted any armed support.

August 22, 2014
4:46 pm
Avatar
Aud
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 67
Member Since:
August 21, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Aud said Yes, just because a person tells a lie, doesn’t automatically mean they lie in regards to other matter’s as well. This whole KOA told a lie towards her father issue, seems to be an attack against those who claim KOA is perfect, which I personally, don’t believe she was, so that she made a mistake is no shock to me. However, I fail to see why this particular incident should be used to say KOA was lying about her marriage. And if we want to examine the track record of people who tell lies, we then must look at Henry VIII.

He had Anne Boleyn killed one false charges, took the position that the Pope couldn’t issue dispensations, but had obtained one for his marriage to Anne Boleyn, and killed people for saying it was invalid, only then to turn back around and say it was invalid the whole time.

He told lies about Anne of Cleves, made claims that she wasn’t a virgin, yet he had never consummated the marriage with her, so how would he know?

Instructed people to lie to Charles V about KOA’s treatment.

He has a history of lying and changing his lies to suit his needs.

He also lied that if he could freely choose a wife, he would choose KOA – and that in the situation when he actually wanted to cast her away, and would accept no other result. But then, lying was quite OK according to Machiavelli’s Prince. Indeed, a prince would be foolish not to use all means to get his aim.

As for KOA being “perfect”, she was and she was not. On the other hand, if you admire saints, martyrs and dissidents, you admirable also KOA who followed her principles and values. On the other hand, if you find wise also think about the consequences, then you think that she lacked common sense to realize that it would have better to accept the compromise and go to the nunnery.

Of course, she fought also for her daughter’s rights, but it would have done better to accept her position as a bona fide child and therefore legitimate, even after her possible brother(s) in the succession order. She would not have become a Queen (or maybe she would have, but the earlier divorce would have made Anne younger a Queen and therefore more fertile years), but not a bastard either.

In that way, KOA would have spared the country division. And if you are in her position, it is secondary what kind of person you are in private, and the most important thing is how you influence on your country. To KOA’s credit one must say, that she never wanted any armed support.

Yes, Henry read and seemed to admire Machiavelli, which again is another hypocrisy on his part. He let’s lies fly out of his mouth to suit his purposes, but when someone does the same, they are to be killed for it (Katherine Howard, and then he passed a law that said any woman lying about her past was a treasonable offense). A walking case for hypocrisy is Henry VIII.

If KOA had went into a nunnery, yes it would have given Anne more time, but then again I am one of the ones who leans towards Henry being the issue when it came to having children. Don’t know that it would have helped Anne in the long run. But that’s another can of worms.

And I don’t know if this is what KOA would have thought, but I see it as this: During those times, there was no divorce, there was only an annulment. KOA told the truth, and not only that, the Bible itself backs her position, then can her marriage to Henry VIII truly be annulled? She would have to agree to the annulment (which would be a lie) and if it is a lie, then how can Henry marry Anne? This is where I believe a true divorce would have been helpful during these times. Where one could say: I married this person, but because of x,y, and z, I wish to separate from him/her and end this marriage.

August 26, 2014
1:43 pm
Avatar
LadyPrincess
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 63
Member Since:
February 22, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think that KOA could not in good faith agree to a divorce with Henry. If she did then it was like admitting defeat and as the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella it just wasn’t in her nature to cower. Also it would be like she was admitting that her whole marriage and role as Queen wasn’t worth anything. I also think that she loved Henry and believed that he would take her back.

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

August 26, 2014
4:12 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It’s a difficult one to judge really whether or not K.O.A was a virgin, but I do find it strange that when H7 decided it would be better all round by and large to betroth Henry to K.O.A, that the Pope issued 2 dispensations to allow the marriage to take place.. In short they were contradictary. 1 dispensation took it for granted that Arthur’s marriage to K.O.A had been consumated whilst the other said it hadn’t.. I actually wonder if that was a tactic by H7 used as a rudimentary medievel form of a get out of marriage free card. H7 allowed the betrothal to go ahead but was all the while on the look out for a better and more profitable marriage for H Junior. If that dream became a reality for H7 he would have used the first dispenpensation to back out of the betrothal. As we know H7 did make H. Junior call into doubt his betrothal with K.O.A a few years after the betrothal, did anything come of that? and more to the point why did H7 make H Junior call it into doubt?
I actually wonder how H.Junior felt about being betrothed K.O.A. Junior wasn’t stupid even though he was only about 11 or 12 when he was told he was to marry K.O.A. Margeret Beaufort saw to it that Junior was well schooled in religious studies, it was said that he attended mass up to 7 times a day and probably in between times read the bible, so he would have been well versed about the Leviticus diatribe even then. In anycase somewhere in the bible there is another passage that says it is the duty of a man to marry his brothers wife so that the bloodline of his brother can continue, or some such fiddle faddle.
The bible anyway is very contradictary in it’s views, I’m not knocking it, for it does bring comfort to many people.
It’s just that when Junior became king in 1509 he would have been very aware of the morals and ethics of what marriage to K.O.A would have meant. If K.O.A was a virgin as she vehemently maintained during the divorce/annulment proceedings then Leviticus has apsolutely no role to play in the whole case. If she wasn’t then the passage (I forget where exactly) stating that it was expected for a man to marry his dead brothers wife also plays no part in the case because she maintained that she was virgin and therefore had done nothing wrong in the eyes of biblical law. H8 whole case as far as I can tell was solely based on the fact that he was desperate for a male child and used the bedroom gossip and snickering from over 20 years before to form the case.
As we know gossip and hearsay is inadmissible in court these days, a court case is based solely on facts and figures, things that can be proved not what is assumed (Dinosaur has a lovely saying about the word assume, “you should never assume anything because it makes an ASS out of U and ME”) and to be honest that is exactly what H8 did, he made a complete ass out of himself. Another thing that blows the “not virgin” crap out of the water with H8 is because of the length of time he was married to K.O.A. If he had brought his so called doubts about the validity of the marriage in 1512 (alledgely the first time his conscious bit his backside about the marriage) the Pope may have listened to his arguement with a little more attention, and perhaps may have agreed that the marriage was invalid and therefore agreed to annul it, but to not bring/voice these doubts until 1527 15 years after the first teeth marks in fat boy’s bum appeared is without doubt a urine take.

The length of time they were married in my opinion rendered their marriage legal anyway. The whole world saw K.O.A as Henry’s wife and Queen, and then suddenly Henry was telling the world “Whoops I may a mistake here Katherine isn’t my wife she’s my whore and has been since 1509” that isn’t just insulting it’s very humiliating. Although the humiliation bit is Henry’s, he’s admitting he’s a whoremonger and a gigelo of sorts. The insult bit does fall on K.O.A as Henry had insulted her by calling her his whore. I don’t blame K.O.A in the least for digging her heels in. A strong and determined woman who wasn’t going to allow a fat bastard to push her around. Her stubborn pride about the whole divorce/annulment matter in a way was to try and protect not just her daughter’s rights etc, but also to try a protect Henry’s honour in a way, by calling K.O.A a whore he had as I said called himself a whoremonger and a gigelo. By maintaining she was his true and lawful wife and getting the Pope to enforce that view she not only saved her own reputation but his too. If Henry had backed down and given up on Anne when K.O.A died in 1536 Henry’s reputation at least would have some street cred in the marriage market of the europeon courts, even if he had married J.S, at her death there would perhaps been a bit of a wider choice of euro brides to choose from. Not knocking A.O.C because I feel that if he had given his marriage a chance with her, they may have been quite happy, and there could have been a possibly of a Duke of York and a few spares, but I do feel that Cromwell chose the her because Cleves was a little known province in Germany and perhaps knew next to nothing about the court affairs in England. Certainly we know that Anne was let’s say not exactly enammored by Henry. Basically he was a stinky fat bastard, with a dicky leg and maybe a non working dicky too.

Anyway I digress (Nothing new) I do feel that K.O.A and Arthur had some form of sexual contact with each other, whether that was an attempt at penetrive sex, that didn’t work out too well or just very heavy petting I don’t know, but I think she possibily was a virgin when she married Henry, after all he would have known if she was a virgin or not when they were put to bed on their wedding night.
There is a rumour that Arthur and Katherines bed sheets had blood on them the morning after their wedding night.
I believe she explained that away when it was brought up at the blackfriars trial that she had pricked her heel and smeared blood on the sheets to confirm that she and Arthur had consumated their union. That kind of backs up my theory about the form of sexual contact, Arthur perhaps felt a little embarrassed that he hadn’t been able to do his duty that night and she pricked her hell etc to spare the ridicule he might have got if anyone found out that he couldn’t perform.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 70

Currently Online:
17 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2345

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 934

DuchessofBrittany: 847

Mya Elise: 782

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 426038

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1679

Posts: 23600

Newest Members:

ashleyro2, franklingo18, HorinadR, estherqw4, enriquebo2, Delaquand

Administrators: Claire: 998