Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
6:35 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
As to the 6 months of marriage…they were married on November 14th. That night they had their big night. There seems to be a controversy as to whether or not the two of them were together again during the month before they left for Ludlow which was a few days before Christmas. Mattingly says they were not, Tremlett says they probably were. (If I could remember what Fox said in Blood Sisters I’d tell you) It took them I think, two weeks to arrive at Ludlow. So it is January. Arthur and Katherine got sick in late March, and Arthur died April 2nd. If I am counting correctly, they were married not quite 5 months…..November 14th to Dec. 14th, one month…..Dec. 14th to Jan.14th, 2 months…..Jan. to Feb., 3 months….Feb. 14th to March 14th, 4 months…..March 14th to April 2nd, 4 months 19 days. Jus’ sayin’.
Katherine did say they were together in bed only 7 times during this time. Which doesn’t mean much really, it only takes one time.
Many of Henry’s subjects lied to save their lives. When Katherine was told she had to sign that oath, she would not succumb to Henry’s demand. For her that would have been against what she believed to be true. She must have known it would not sit well with him. He had already killed More and Fisher because they would not sign.
There are records of the Spanish doctor saying that Arthur was sickly at Ludlow. The day after the wedding night, the woman who dressed her said nothing happened between Katherine and Arthur. Sheets were not displayed and one of the authors (now I forget which one. I looked at Tremlett, Mattingly and Fox) said that if there had been blood on the sheets, Dona Elvira would have been out there displaying them. It is said that the people in the room with Katherine the morning after the wedding night were quiet and somber as if something was not right. That is the Spanish side of things. The English say differently, of course.
All of this, tends to lead me to believe her. I don’t mean to imply that others can’t have an opposite opinion. I just think there is evidence that can lead one to believe she was telling the truth. If I’m going to have sympathy for Katherine, I may as well believe her.
7:07 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
I know Aud. I never added up the length of time they were married until I was looking up dates. I always assumed it was 6 months because that is what everyone claimed. Not quite.
5:12 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Nunnery or no, Henry would have declared Mary illegitimate. No matter what Katherine had chosen, Henry was the final decider of his children’s legitimacy. A trip to a nunnery by Katherine would not have saved Mary. Whether Katherine was at a nunnery or a remote castle, Henry was determined to make Anne’s child his heir. The first Act of Succession (1533) bastardized Mary. She was dropped from the succession by Parliament. There was no chance for her. He could do what he wanted with his children. Neither Katherine’s choices, nor Anne’s for that matter, made much difference in the end.
2:54 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Hannele said
Sharon said
Nunnery or no, Henry would have declared Mary illegitimate. No matter what Katherine had chosen, Henry was the final decider of his children’s legitimacy. A trip to a nunnery by Katherine would not have saved Mary. Whether Katherine was at a nunnery or a remote castle, Henry was determined to make Anne’s child his heir. The first Act of Succession (1533) bastardized Mary. She was dropped from the succession by Parliament. There was no chance for her. He could do what he wanted with his children. Neither Katherine’s choices, nor Anne’s for that matter, made much difference in the end.
You miss the point.
If Katherine had gone to the nunnery, all would have been OK for both the Pope: as Henry and Katherine’s marriage would have been legal until then, there would have no doubt of Mary’s legitimacy.
In the same time, all would have been OK for Henry: his marriage with Anne would have been legitimate and thus also their children. Thus, there would have been no need for Henry to break away from Rome.
Because England would still have been a part of the Catholic Church, Henry would have had no power to make Mary a bastard. Nor would he have any need do so. Any son(s) by Anne (or any later wives) would automatically have been before Mary in succession, any daughter(s) after her.
There would have been no need to the Oath.
ITA.
Under 16th Canon law, the issue of a marriage made in good faith by both parties could never be made illegimate even if the marriage was found to be unlawful afterwards. Had Katherine retired, all of Mary’s legal rights could not have been stripped from her. Indeed Henry would not hae needed to at that time
However KoA held that thier marriage was lawful since the Pope had issued 2 Papal Bulls allowing for both the consumation and non-consumation of the Arthur marriage. So she had no reason to retire regardless of how much easier that could have made hers and Mary’s lives.
Henry would have had no reason to batter at Katherine and Mary in the way he did had Katherine Took the veil as either a nun or a member of the lay-sisters. Kathrine must have been tempted by the idea of a religous life, given her piety life as nun may have held some temptations. As a noble woman, she could have lived a life of ease with all the extra comforts of her rank while still being a concescrated nun.
It's always bunnies.
4:19 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Yes, I misunderstood. I get what if scenarios confused with the truth. You are both correct. It would have worked out for all concerned if Katherine had given up her 20+ years of married life, as if they never happened, and had taken the veil.
