DID CATHERINE OF ARAGON SLEEP WITH PRINCE ARTHUR OR WAS HENRY VIII A BIGAMIST? Six wives documentary
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ธ.ค. 2020
- Did CATHERINE OF ARAGON SLEEP WITH PRINCE ARTHUR TUDOR or was Henry VIII a BIGAMIST for marrying Anne Boleyn while Catherine still lived? Many have wondered, was Catherine of Aragon a virgin when she married Henry VIII or did he annul their marriage and cause a Tudor scandal due to her age, lack of a male heir and because he’d fallen in love with someone else. Did he truly think Catherine and Arthur had slept together and did it really matter either way? In this Tudors documentary we’ll look at the evidence to learn about Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon's marriage, Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon’s marriage, their annulment (or the King's Great Matter as it was known at the time), the love affair between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon’s death and burial as Princess dowager of Wales. If you've ever wondered 'who was the Spanish Princess', this video will give you a great insight into the complex character that was Henry VIII's first wife.
This video from History Calling is the first in my six wives documentary series. Links to the other videos are below. Remember to SUBSCRIBE with notifications switched on so you never miss new videos, every Friday.
Patreon: / historycalling
Instagram: / historycalling
BUY OR RENT
The Tudors, season 1 amzn.to/3rFmveg (UK link) OR amzn.to/2VCwQ0j (US link)
The Tudors, season 2 amzn.to/3m64HIn (UK link) OR amzn.to/2VMPnHw (US link)
The Tudors, season 3 amzn.to/3wiwPwi (UK link) OR amzn.to/3BijsPB (US link)
The Tudors, season 4 amzn.to/3rNeggF (UK link) OR amzn.to/3z16S58 (US link)
Wolf Hall (2015) amzn.to/2UJ9Mwz (UK link) OR amzn.to/3B70Qlp (US link)
Six Wives with Lucy Worsley (2016 docu-drama) amzn.to/3hd93vd (UK link) OR amzn.to/3wH2mr2 (US link)
Henry VIII and his Six Wives (2016 docu-drama) amzn.to/3jiCkag
DVDS
The Tudors complete collection: amzn.to/3gWs4Ty (UK link) OR amzn.to/3z3Ef7n (US link)
Wolf Hall (2015) amzn.to/3rZKxkU (UK link)
Henry VIII (2003) amzn.to/2ZrjK4U (UK link) OR amzn.to/3z73ndj (US link)
Henry VIII and his Six Wives (2016 docu-drama): amzn.to/3gXU4GH
Six Wives with Lucy Worsley (2016 docu-drama): amzn.to/3h7Qh8z (UK link) OR amzn.to/3xKuBGA (US link)
READ
Antonia Fraser, The Six Wives Of Henry VIII (2nd edn, Phoenix, 2009) amzn.to/3atiEfi (UK link) OR amzn.to/36IqD5r (US link)
David Starkey, Six Wives: the Queens of Henry VIII (Vintage, 2004) amzn.to/3k9uD4Z (UK link) OR amzn.to/3wImKIh (US link)
Alison Weir, The Six Wives of Henry VIII (Vintage, 2007) amzn.to/2NzLem2 (UK link) OR amzn.to/3hOcutX (US link)
Hilary Mantel, Wolf Hall (Fourth Estate, 2010) amzn.to/3AbIr6D (UK link) OR amzn.to/2UQmA48 (US link)
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
THE BIRTH OF ANNE BOLEYN
• WHEN WAS ANNE BOLEYN B...
Did Jane Seymour STEAL HENRY VIII from Anne Boleyn?
• DID QUEEN JANE SEYMOUR...
Was Anne of Cleves Henry VIII’s LUCKIEST WIFE?
• WAS ANNE OF CLEVES HEN...
WHAT DID KATHERINE HOWARD LOOK LIKE?
• WHAT DID KATHERINE HOW...
Catherine Parr: The Queen who SURVIVED HENRY VIII and the SCANDAL of Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour
• CATHERINE PARR: The Qu...
All links clicked at a user's own risk.
For Creative Commons licenses used see creativecommons.org/licenses/
NB: Links above may be affiliate links. This means that if you choose to make a purchase through one of these links, I earn a small commission. It does not affect the price you pay.
What do you think? Did Catherine and Arthur sleep together and do you consider Henry VIII a bigamist? Let me know below and check out my PATREON site for extra perks at www.patreon.com/historycalling
I'm doing some research into Henry VIII at the moment to help create some videos on my TH-cam channel. I reckon she did sleep with Arthur, however after learning more about Catherine of Aragon, she doesn't seem the kind of person to lie
@@bodyofalegend I know, it's a really tough one to call isn't it? I went back and forth myself while I was making the video. She was so insistent that they hadn't, yet it seems so unlikely at the same time, especially given Arthur's comments after the wedding day. Whatever the truth, I'm still none too impressed with Henry's treatment of Catherine in later years.
@@HistoryCalling 👍
Henry is the ultimate frat dude bro, I swear.
@@j.a.c3350 🤣
Henry interpreted the Bible as it best served him. Henry VIII was an opportunist in the very least.
Yes, he did always find a remarkably convenient way of reading it that happened to suit his own ends at the time, didn't he?!
Onan was killed by god because he did not get his brothers widow pregnant so what to believe?
Henry's scriptural reasoning was scorned by Martin Luther, and I think other reformers, several of whose followers perished under Henry before and after his break with Rome. If the Pope had somehow permitted the annulment, they would have had another basis to attack the Pope.
Agreed. As Rabbi's see it, Henry did his duty as the younger brother, because his oldest brother Arthur died before producing heirs. It wouldn't matter if Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage. Now, if Henry wed Katherine if Arthur was still alive, then that passage in Leviticus would apply, and yes, he would have room to talk.
@@rhaenyralikesyoutube6289 I think that Henry may have used the Leverite marriage argument to marry Catherine, quoting the passage from Deuteronomy or Numbers about needing to marry her because his brother had no issue. As I said, Henry Tudor's picture should show under the definition of opportunist.
All this is crazy. In my opinion, whether the first marriage was consummated or not, Henry had no grounds for the annulment. How can you be married for 20 years to a person and then say it never happened. That’s just cruel . He wanted it, so he made it happened?That poor woman and poor Mary.
I didnt watch the full video yet, but historically speaking, as far as i know, he didnt say it didnt happen between him and Catherine, but he claimed it happened between Catherine and Arthur too. Its ridiculous to "discover" after 20 years that "she wasnt a maid", its clear play. Me, personally, i dont agree with the prohibition of divorce, since the emotional intimacy between the two is over ANYWAY, but... the rules were what they were. (Thats how he discovered he could use "adultery" as a motive for beheading his women when he knew he would face trouble with getting a divorce). I can understand that he wasnt feeling Catherine as a wife anymore, but i will never understand his cruelty on his own daughters (Mary AND Elizabeth - whose mother was beheaded due to his personal frustrations, the beginning of a practice that he will see as absolutely normal after Anne's tragedy).
This is the same man who executed two wives for adultery while having multiple affairs during all of his marriages
Honestly, it was cruel of both of the parents of Henry and Catherine to force their children into basically pedophilic relationships. That is seriously warped. Catherine should have had the freedom to marry a man of her own choosing and her own age, rather than be forced to become a cougar. She paid the price for those actions. Henry was wrong for divorcing, however, as well.
@@EmilyGloeggler7984 it simply was not paedophilic by the standards of the time. Trying to paint those times with the same moral brush as today just doesn’t work
@@EmilyGloeggler7984 how is marrying a man six years younger than her 'becoming a cougar'? It's a completely normal age gap even today. Besides people were considered adults much earlier those days. Henry's grandmother Margaret Beaufort had her only son (Henry VII) at 13. Yes I think that's way too early but back then no one would bat an eye
It is mind-boggling that it was illegal to marry a former in law, but marrying your cousin was just fine.
Especially when the Bible clearly has a section stating that if your brother dies and his wife is childless you should marry her and any heirs produced will be considered as the brother's children. Pretty clear directive there!
Regarding the question of how much Katherine would have remembered her first time, that’s not something you ever forget. After 45 years, I can still remember it.
I thought the same thing
@@christyleduc6132 I would think (if it did happen) she did not forget but knew the smartest move for a woman at that time was marriage, and decided to act like it did not to secure herself a place in the world. Verses being forced into a nunnery
Yes I agree and she was with one, at most two men. She wouldn’t forget her first time.
@@sarahvanorden670 Yes, and she had known since she was three that it was her destiny to marry the Prince of England and to become Queen one day. She believed that God looked favorably on her and her family. She would not have wanted to jeopardize that even a little bit. She was ardent in her belief that she would be Queen of England one day, and knew that if she did not tell them want they wanted to hear, she would be sent to a Spanish nunnery, stripped of her titles and wealth, and disappoint her family and England greatly.
@@JessieCochran37 Exactly!
He humiliated her repeatedly. Absolutely shameful of him to do this to his wife of 20 years. He discarded her and their daughter. He separated Mary and Katherine which was a complete act of evil. Even on her deathbed, he refused to let her see her daughter.
Yes, surely would not have threatened him at all, yet make so much difference to them. An awful decision
We’re talking about a man who essentially murdered 2 of his other wives. He became a cruel tyrant capable of anything in his late 30’s. Katherine was lucky he didn’t have her executed. There were several times she thought he would do so, and kill the Princess Mary as well. I think he would’ve if he wasn’t able to split with Rome.
@@StLProgressiveThere was a reason why he didn’t dare to think about killing his 1st or 4th wife. It is because since they were born as foreign princesses, beheading them in such a manner is just begging for war with their home country.
@@KL-ki8db my thought exactly that why he made Anne of Cleve his “sister” and she live a long life it too much of a risk on his part
Which must have affected Mary’s character too and at least played a part in turning her into the monster she became.
Arthur was 15. What 15 year old boy would come out of his wedding chamber and say "I couldn't do it?"
True. I don't think he would have admitted to it if he hadn't consummated the marriage as he would have lost face.
And the Tudors had to be all about face
Does anyone actually believe that Arthur was a virgin at 15 years old and went to the marriage bed ignorant? The courts were filled with willing female participates to assist in extracting his virginity and hormonal rage.
It's not just about the wedding night per se but whether we are to believe that a 15yr old had it on tap for months and didn't take a sip!!!
Louis the XVI spent years without doing it with his wife Marie-Antoniette. They were teenagers too
The one theory I don't buy is that Catherine *forgot* whether her marriage was consummated. I really don't think that's something you forget, even after 25 years.
I agree 100%
@@NeverEnding_Designs Me too!
I remember mine 40 years ago like it was yesterday
Only just discovered this channel yesterday, but came here to say exactly this. 👍🏼 You don’t forget and even if she didn’t understand fully what that meant at the time she would’ve understood later on.
Exactly! As a female, unless you are drugged or black-out drunk (which obviously doesn't apply here), you WILL remember when you lost your virginity. You could forget a name or date but NOT that moment, no matter what - traumatic, beautiful, disappointing, surprising - there will not be another moment like it.
She may have been recognized as a princess at her death but she was ALWAYS a Queen.
Agreed.
Absolutely true
I think of Catherine of Aragon as the true queen.
And she always said iI am Queen of England
I think that her consummation or not of her first marriage is irrelevant: she had a papal dispensation, had been married for almost 20 years to her 2nd husband and the bible allowed it. Therefore, Henry practiced bigamy when he married Anne.
Some scholars affirm that Henry was truly a pious man and he really believed that his marriage with Catherine was invalid. Although not a scholar myself, I don't think that's true. The timing was too perfect for his "doubts" and he only accepted one version of the scriptures: his own.
I think he certainly talked himself into believing it was invalid when it no longer suited him. He doesn't seem to have thought so for many years when it appeared Catherine would give him a son. I agree the timing was just too good for him.
I honestly think all those accounts of Henry’s piety as propaganda. If you really look into the records there’s account of all the straw man’s he used to justify himself. One thing that should be highly noted is that before the “trial” over their marriage Henry had scholars in the powerful university/college (forgot the name sorry) look over the Bible and state their interpretation. At the time one could obviously argue against this since not all the scholars were a part of the clergy, nor were they the pope, they were just philosophers.
But the most damning part is that Henry heavily paid all the scholars who agreed with him and ignored the ones who didn’t. These dubious incentives were 1. Obviously unethical and unfair and 2. Encouraged others to simply pretend to agree in order to get money 3. The ones who disagreed were ballsy and I applaud them because while it wasn’t outright illegal/treasonous to yet disagree with Henry and Anne’s marriage those with a good head on their shoulders could obviously tell that was where the winds were blowing.
@@queencatherineofaragon938 i'll say is that he did bigamy and is a narrsicist he only cares about what whats round big and bushy down hill, he's a fragile masculity ego man cause of his image and so catherine aka my ancestor desrves better period.
Well said
@@alyssamcgee9013 Oh, another ancestor of a royal! How lovely, was it difficult to trace Your lineage so far back??
I think it's a bit of both Arthur showing off, and Henry lying to get rid of katherine to marry Anne.
Hi Sarah, I think that's the most likely combination too.
Arthur was a teenage boy after all. It’s heavily possible he was too drunk or nervous to *ahem* perform his duties with this strange girl and chose to peacock to defend his masculinity in front of his adult peers
@@emilybarclay8831 Except they lived together for over 4 months. So even if nothing happened on the first night, he had many nights after that to do the deed.
@@brontewcat it’s not unlikely that they had sex after the wedding night, but what Arthur said on the day after the wedding just sounded like juvenile gloating to me
@@emilybarclay8831 It may well have been juvenile boasting, but I understand they shared a bed or bedroom at Ludlow. So one would have expected the marriage to be consummated. After all everyone knew Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI had not consummated their marriage. It is really hard to know.
I absolutely believe that Arthur and Catherine consummated their marriage. These people were royal and they both knew what their duty was. They were not put to bed to sleep, they were put to bed to do their jobs.
Even though Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette knew what the job was, Louis refused to deal with the physical problem preventing consummation for some years, until Antoinette's brother gave him a good talking to. Mary Queen of Scots and Francis II probably never consummated their marriage as he was emotionally and physically immature. There are probably other examples. They knew what the job was, but they were human beings, so naturally this did not always happen.
@@edithengel2284Good answer. I totally agree.
I agree. It's probably unlikely that they didn't. Possible but unlikely.
King Louis XVI had a diagnosed health issue that made it painful to get an erection. Once he received the surgery, he was able to perform, and did. She became pregnant soon after.
There's no limit to Henry's cruelty, even to his own wives (no matter how infatuated he was, originally) or daughters. He only loved himself and his sons, which I think he saw as an extension of himself.
Edward VI definitely was an extension of his father, right down to how he sat for his portraits. From the moment he could walk he was raised to emulate and even exceed his father's accomplishments. Indeed, had he grown to manhood he would have become a tyrant like his father, and much more of a cold fish than Henry. Henry, though a tyrant, seemed to have a charisma, a soft side, and even a charm as well.
He had obvious traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and diabetes in his later years. Based on his weight he may have had a thyroid issue because it's almost impossible to get to that size without one no matter *how much* you eat, which can affect your logic and mood. Being part of the European aristocracy, he had porphyria and mood disorders in his background. His whole line also shows the physical features associated with ehlers-danlos. He also likely had PTSD from his experience as a child with the war of the roses, which had a quite profound effect on him.
He was obviously an entitled shxt, and especially by the end, a man of dubious character. However with all of that going on with him, it's unlikely he actually ever had a chance of being a rational person and psychologically stable. Who knows what would've happened if *any* of that was just a little less severe. Nature and nurture were both against him.
@@Shade_Dragon 1. Henry was one of the few who had unlimited access to sugar at the time. Excess sugar causes insulin resistance, weight gain in some individuals, and Type II Diabetes, but it has no effect on brain function. Other than the sugar, eating "too much" has nothing to do with it. Most fat people are constantly starving themselves on endless diets--and the diets themselves cause eating disorders. The gluttony accusation is just an excuse to blame the victim. 2. The Wars of the Roses were over before Henry VIII was born. 3. Henry was NOT inbred. He was descended largely from individuals who were NOT inbred Hapsburgs, including the Woodvilles and a Welsh gentleman called Owen Tudor.
@@robinlillian9471 1) I never said he ate too much. Please go back and read it again. Quite the opposite actually. 2) I had to go back and check- you are correct, he wasn't born yet when it was officially over, but it still made his childhood an uncomfortable and threatening experience. It doesn't help that his mother and father killed most of each other's families (who were related) and the court still was bloodthirsty and itching to continue the uprising. 3) sorry to pop your bubble here, but the Hapsburgs were not the only inbred family. Truthfully the *entirety of European nobility* had been ridiculously inbred for centuries before that. They were all related. Not an exaggeration.
Now; you didn't read my comment well. You didn't add context to it. And you're spouting off inaccurate information. It doesn't seem like you're gravely offended by my portrayal of historical figures, as you don't actually seem to be particularly well versed in European history. You didn't object to my comment seriously, when, as previously stated, you didn't read all of it, so you don't actually know what I said, so you'd be hard pressed to be offended by it. And you don't know me personally. It seems like the only way you could feel good about yourself is by bullying people on the internet. That marks you as more fragile and less mature than most prepubescent children I've met. So, I may offer a suggestion. Go find something else to do.
Go read a book. Ride a bicycle. Eat a pizza. Play a game. Talk to your friends. Go to therapy. But what you shouldn't be doing is assuming that every stranger on the internet, and I'd assume your real life, is just going roll over and let you pick on them with some made up line of crap. You are not going to come away from every exchange of that nature feeling good about yourself, particularly this one, because you have made yourself look like an emotionally fragile, immature, impatient, borderline illiterate edgelord who has no problem with opening their mouth even if they have nothing of truth or consequence to say.
Have a nice day, dear. Drink water and take your psych meds.
Harry didn't worry too much about the matter until Anne crossed his path.
Exactly!
What a royal rascal 😂💞
Deborah 😆😆👍👍
@@MissHeird he wasn't a quick thinker, it seems 🤓🤓🤓🤓
He wanted a younger woman to give him a son. It happened to be Anne. Had it not been Anne, it would have been someone else. The fact that he detroyed Anne to marry Jane Seymour proves that he didnt care about the vessel, only the cargo.
I remember reading the book "the constant princess" by Phillipa Gregory and thought it was super sweet that Arthur cared so much for Catherine that he begged her to lie about the consummation on his death bed out of fear of what would become of her if she didn't. I doubt that's how it all really played out but part of me has always wondered.
Phillipa Gregory is a historical fiction writer. I take nothing she writes as pure truth. I do not think Arthur was ever healthy enough for intercourse and so believe Catherine was a virgin when she wed Henry.
Sweet to think but Philipa Gregory is a horrible historical narrator 😂 she makes up so much stuff that could never have happened lol
I just want to put this out there. You can lose your virginity and not bleed. Depending on the size of the man, the hymen may not be broken despite sex. This could explain why she didn't bleed with Arthur but did with Henry. I'm not saying this is what happened, but it's absolutely possible.
Many women also have their hymen break before having sex. Intense physical activity, horse riding, and a number of other things can cause your hymen to break.
I still believe that Henry was obsessed with her just by the fact that his brother could have her or was very smitten with her and back then could care less if she was or not a virgin as long she was not pregnant.
This whole situation can be summed up by a simple quote from the wonderful Alice of Sherwood: “Henry’s gonna Henry”
Catherine had always asserted that she was a virgin at the time she married Henry. In fact, her duenna,, Elvura Manuel examined her after Arthur had died and wrote that Catherine was virgo intacta. Later, Catherine herself spoke before the ecclesiastical tribunal and dared Henry to say otherwise. She said that Henry knew that when they came together and he probably saw the result, perhaps a bleeding. When thus confronted, Henry was stupefied and said nothing. A statement like that which Henry did not contradict can be concluded as true - by his silence, he implicitly admitted it as true. Catherine was by reputation a truthful and sincere woman. Henry had moral issues of his own by the time the "King's Great Matter" had exploded. Leave aside Catherine's religiousness and there you have the evidentiary basis tor a conclusion that Arthur's marriage to Catherine was never consummated.
Yes, exactly. I agree with everything you said. I was going to reply as well but you said everything I wanted to say.
I will also say I disagree with her assertion that Catherine potentially lied under oath and then confessed later. This is not done in the Catholic Church. You can’t just (not supposed to) intentionally sin with the thought you’ll be forgiven in confession later. Someone as devout as Catherine would not have done this certainly. She was under oath to God to tell the truth in court to Gods representative. You don’t just lie under oath to a Cardinal, a papal legate at that. I’m certainly not devout. I haven’t set foot in a church in years and I couldn’t do it. There’s few today who are as devout as people were back then, so someone known for their piety would have sooner died than do that.
I would believe Catherine over Henry any day. She had a more honorable character.🙂
Although I agree with you that Catherine was probably speaking truthfully and was indeed a virgin when she married Henry, it could never have been proven as virginity is not visible. An examination cannot show the examiner whether a woman is a virgin. The hymen looks different in every woman and does not always "break".
King Henry the 8th wanted a son and nothing was going to stop him from getting his son. It mattered not about Catheron's claim being a virgin that was not the point the point was that he wanted a son. In the end it was his two daughters who reigned. Queen Mary the first reigned from 1553 to 1558 and Queen Elizabeth the first rain from 1558 to 1603. So all this noise made about having to have a son all was for naught. Him making such a fuss anauling his marriage to Catherine making her and their daughter Mary suffer, cutting off the head of Anne Bolyn resulting in Queen Elizabeth the first having no mother. Oh he had his son King Edward the VI but he died at a very young age. All to do about nothing. God does play in mysterious ways
Well, you cannot determine if someone is a virgin by examining them. So thats bs in any case. However, I do still believe her marriage to Arthur was not consumated. Henry just made up "facts" that best suited him, so he could marry an.
Thank you for understanding and explaining the difference between divorce and annulment. Just about everybody gets it wrong when speaking of Henry VIII.
So true! Henry was never actually divorced as we would understand it today.
So Henry v111 had 6 wife's and didn't divorce 1 of them?
But did he marry Cathrine of Aragon?
Everybody remembers their first time, barring dementia or traumatic brain injury and if she didn’t know the particulars of what all consummation consisted of at the time of her widowhood, she certainly knew after 24 years being married to Henry!
I believe she didn't. Her faith was so strong that for her to lie and place her immortal soul in jeopardy (to her way of thinking), would be unthinkable.
I think had Henry and Catherine's first son had lived there wouldn't have ever been a whisper of illegality. Henry interpreted the Bible to suit himself and convinced himself of the lie over the course of the 7 years of the Great Matter. He wouldn't even give Catherine the lie to her face, which speaks volumes.
He knew and she knew that she was his true wife, it was just incredibly inconvenient for him at a time when he was in love with Anne.
They also had a Papal dispensation, which took care of both eventualities anyway at the time she married Henry.
Finally, Catherine had a slow and lingering death. She knew death was near and had time to confess her sins. She didnt see fit to confess anything about her and Arthur's marriage, which considering she had literally nothing left to lose (and neither did her daughter, Mary, who had already been disinherited), I believe with her soul in peril, she would have confessed if it had happened.
Henry just wasn't used to being told 'no'.
I’ve gone back in forth, but I honestly don’t think Katharine consummated her marriage with Arthur. He was described as being sickly even around the time of their wedding. I think it’s much more probable that Arthur was a braggadocios teenager than Katharine was a lifelong liar. She was extremely pious & swore to God until her dying day that she was a virgin when she married Henry. Also, Henry’s dumbass bragged that he *knew* Katharine was a maid on their wedding night (not that he really could’ve known, but he thought he was such a ladies man that he could discern whether or not they’d been virgins when he slept with them).
I agree. I've had my moments of doubt too, but if I had to bet money on it, I'd side with Catherine here.
That's a misconception. Arthur was not a sickly child. It was theorized he had the sweating sickness. That's like covid 19 on steroids.
I can see her lying to try to ensure her daughter’s position…a mother’s protective instinct is stronger than most other things
Arthur was also only 15. 15yr-olds may have raging hormones, but also, plenty of early sexual encounters may not go as planned, due to inexperience. Being royals, the pressure is especially high to perform and conceive (as all of Henry's wives would painfully know). I wouldn't be surprised if, even though Arthur and Catharine had 4-5 months time to consummate before his illness, things were still warming up in the bedroom department & he was just bragging save face and appease the nobles impatiently waiting for pregnancy news on an heir.
Even in his late 40's, Henry famously couldn't get himself to go thru with consummating his marriage to Anne of Cleves due to his bruised ego over the courtship fiasco. It happens.
Either way, the sad irony that both then and now, we are obsessed with the private sexual lives of famous women like it's life or death is just
😓
Louise XVI and Marie Antoinette’s marriage remained unconsummated for years so...I feel like Catherine was such a devote Catholic, this would have been a pretty big lie for her to have on her immortal soul.
Also, didn’t she claim her marriage to Arthur was unconsummated pretty much right after he died? Because that was the only way her marriage to Henry could move forward. So saying she might not remember when asked about it 20 years later is kind of a moot point. She had been making that same claim for 20 years. It wasn’t some new piece of information.
All very true. I think the possibility that she lied about what had happened with Arthur right after her widowhood would have to be founded on the idea that she did so at that point in order to protect her increasingly shaky position in England during the early 1500s. If you were arguing this, you could then maybe say that she'd been telling the same story for so long that she'd talked herself into believing it. To be clear though, while I presented the argument about her possible memory issues for the sake of thoroughness, I doubt it happened. I think she knew what happened. I'm just not 100% sure that she told the whole truth about it afterwards (though on balance, I think she most likely did for the religious reasons you've noted).
@@HistoryCalling Oh, I definitely think she made the claim about her virginity after Arthur died due to her being afraid of what would happen to her, and her ardent belief that she was destined to be queen of England, and she knew that her being a virgin was the only way for that to possibly happen for her. I just doubt she actually "forgot" what had happened between her and Arthur by the time she was defending herself again when Henry wanted to put her aside. Whether or not it's true, or maybe she had talked herself into believing it was true, or even if she still knew in her heart that she had always lied about it, she had talked herself into a corner, and there was no way she was going to change her story. There was too much riding on it at that point, her pride, her queenship, her reputation, her daughter's position at court, etc. If I were her, I wouldn't have cared much about Henry's soul by that point, after the way she was treated, but it's possible she did actually care about that too. Of course, we'll never truly know, but it makes for great historical fiction books and tv!
It does indeed :-)
Although the reason for that was that Louis had a foreskin issue that made erection quite painful. He finally submitted to the necessary surgery, having been warned that he needed to continue the Bourbon dynasty. Ironically, that was all for naught!
@@newenglandlibraryassociati3446 I agree completely! Katherine had known since she was three-years-old that it was her destiny to marry the heir of England and to become Queen one day. She believed that God looked favorably on her and her family. She would not have wanted to jeopardize that even a little bit. She was ardent in her belief that she would be Queen of England one day, and knew that if she did not tell them want they wanted to hear, she would be sent to a Spanish nunnery, stripped of her titles and wealth, and disappoint her family, Spain, and England greatly. Later on, as a mother who fiercely loved her daughter and wanted to see her have a good life and be happy, she wouldn't have jeopardized that by telling the truth and seeing Mary illegitimized and disinherited.
The important thing is how Catherine of Aragon forged the England we live or know today. Because without her calling to English armies to defeat the Scottish invaders in the Battle of Flodden, today England would be by the hands of Scottland; and probably English language wouldn't exist. You know. Catherine of Aragon was a badass queen who protected her husband's interests pretty well... A daughter of Trastámara Catholic Kings of Spain, she was taught to be a leader. Even she being a consort queen, Henry VIII trusted so many responsabilities and decisions about England on her. This is why she's known The Queen of Hearts.
here's my take on this: perhaps the answer to whether Catherine and Arthur slept together or not is somewhere in the middle? Maybe, they 'tried' to consummate, but couldn't? Again depends on what exactly they defined as 'consummate'?
Definitely a possibility and could explain their differing accounts afterwards.
@@HistoryCalling Arthur’s young death may be an indication that he , quite possibly, could’ve been impotent . Perhaps Arthur has underlying health problems .
@@annfeeney1662 Actually Arthur was healthy until he fell ill. You forget it is not like today when we can take antibiotics. It ws common for people to fall ill and die young who had previously been healthy.
@@melvawages7143IIRC there were concerns about sending Catherine to Ludlow with Arthur and he was seen as being too young, if not too sickly, to safely consummate the marriage.
Maybe he wasn't sickly but just physically immature?
In any case, he and Catherine could easily have taken the warnings to heart and refrained from consummation.
History Calling-- I was an early teen when this article appeared in one of my mother's medical magazines. There was a doctor who wrote an article in the mid 1960s or so about a couple who could not conceive. An examination of the wife, however, proved her intact. When the couple was questioned, neither of them had a clue about marital intercourse or genital knowledge. The result was that the husband had been attempting or minimally penetrating her urethra--explaining the real pain of the wedding night assay into marital bliss. The doctor was outraged at their lack of anatomy knowledge, gave them a quick course in how-to, and a pregnancy soon followed. I often wondered if a teen Arthur and a staunch Catholic Catherine, watched closely by a duenna, didn't have the same problem. Wedding night sheets were carefully examined after the couple coupled, and evidence of blood and semen were provided as proof of deflowering. This would have proven consummation, even while leaving Catherine intact.
I don't know. It's fairly certain Marie Antoinette and Louis were not together in that certain way for several years, so if Arthur was frail or sickly or even just really shy, maybe he and Cathering didn't?
The question is moot. Catherine's virginity was irrelevant to Henry both at their wedding and at their divorce. Henry wanted a legitimate son. He had no grounds to execute Catherine so divorce was the next best option. I think if Catherine had produced a son that Henry would never have sought to be rid of her.
He didn't really have "grounds" to execute Anne either. The only thing that woman was guilty of was not giving Henry a son and heir, and Henry knew it.
But that was with all of his wives. If Jane wouldn't have died, the three women after her wouldn't ever happened, as Henry had finally the son he wanted. Ironically he was never really important, died very young, but his sister became one of the greatest rulers of England. I think Henry was just a bit too obsessed with the continuation of the line as his family was fairly new on the throne and that was the only thing that mattered and became a sort of maniac vision where nothing else mattered any more. It must have been frightful living under Henry VIII as the rules changed ever so often that something could be your duty today and treason tomorrow.
@@katalinelo8011 personally I think the only reason Henry "loved" Jane was because she was the one who finally gave him a son. He "loved" Catherine for over 20 years. He "loved" Anne so much he broke with Catholic church to marry her. Jane just didn't live long enough for Henry to stop loving her.
@@glow4200 Possible. Of course having be able to bore a son made it sure Jane stood high in Henry's books. Maybe it was even the sole reason for it. We'll never know. Not even sure he knew at the time if he really loved or at least desired any of these women or just wanted to possess them. I guess the 3 after Jane he just took because he could. Nobody dared to say no to him. Probably the luckiest of all was Anne of Cleves, she got out of it the easiest.
@@katalinelo8011 taking people's heads off was his go to 🙄 he seriously sucked. And it exactly was like you said. Your duty one day, treason the next. If you pissed him off, he figured out a way to kill you. Thomas More, Bishop Fisher, Anne Boleyn, Thomas Cromwell, the list goes on. If Thomas Wolsey had survived the journey to London I have zero doubts Henry would have beheaded him too. The only reason he didn't kill Catherine is because she was a daughter of Spain. That's why he was able to kill Anne. Her family was of English nobility, minor ones at that until Mary and Anne got Henry's attentions. I think that played a part with Anne of Cleves too. She was a foreign daughter of Cleves and he didn't want to risk international war more than he already had with his treatment of Catherine. After Anne, he only married English women. He could kill them. 🤷 I honestly dk if that played a part in his later marriages or not, but someone as psychotic as Henry I could well imagine it.
If Catherine and Arthur's marriage wasn't consummated, then it wasn't fully valid according to Rome and her father could have demanded her return to Spain when Arthur died so another marriage contract could be negotiated. That, more than anything, indicates that the marriage was consummated.
He certainly could have and I think at points over the next few years, Catherine would have liked to return home, but plans were made to marry her to Henry pretty quickly, so that necessitated her staying in England. Her parents were told that the marriage hadn't been consummated though.
King Ferdinand refused to pay her dowry because he said the marriage wasn´t valid. But Henry viii didn´t allowed her to go back because he wanted the money, thinking to marry Katherine himself if necessary. Then, Queen Isabel died and the throne of Castilla fell in the hands of Phillip, and King Ferdinand had other problems in mind over the fate of her daughter (Like remarrying and having a son)
Why would they demand her back? It’s not like she’d been wronged or slighted, her husband had just died.
They wanted her to marry the future king of England, they didn’t care who it was. There was, politically speaking, absolutely no difference between her marrying Arthur and her marrying Henry as when Arthur died Henry became heir. Why would they suddenly destroy their rather important alliance with England because a boy died when he had a perfectly suitable, single and willing brother?
The marriage contact simply transferred to Henry and saved both sides time as well as saving Katherine a dangerous boat journey after she’d recently recovered from a life threatening illness
@@emilybarclay8831 because an Infanta of Castilla is property of Castilla unless she is a Queen Mother. Katherine's sisters, when became widows, went back to Spain to get married again for political reasons. It happened too with other female royals after became widows without children: Mary Queen of Scots had to left France, and the sister of Henry viii left Portugal
@@vilwarin5635 the only one of Catherine’s sisters to return to Spain after being widowed was Isabella. She was sent back because she was refusing to remarry and actively suicidal. Her journey back to Spain was more of an intervention than anything else. It was only after years of pressure that she agreed to remarry, and her sister who later married Isabella’s husband after she died stayed in Lisbon and died there. Mary of Scots returned to Scotland because there was no available younger French Prince for her at the time and she was also queen of Scotland and there was simply more power in Scotland for her. Henry’s sister similarly left France in her widowhood (I assume you meant France not Portugal, referring to Mary Tudor) because she refused to marry the new French king and was arranging to marry an English duke so staying in France made no sense.
Once a princess was married she became a lot less valuable on the marriage market unless she was an heiress, which Catherine was not. She was sent to England to solidify an alliance, and that alliance didn’t end just because Arthur died. A widow returning to her home was usually a sign that the marriage alliance between her country and her marital country was over or at least on the rocks as she functioned as her husband’s property and for her to be called back meant her parents/relatives were essentially repossessing her. It makes no sense to make the dangerous journey home if you intend to remarry in that land
Usually princesses and dowager queens only returned to their homeland when fleeing persecution, when they had no heirs or marriage prospects in their husband’s family, when their husbands died and their children were adult and not in need of a regent, or due to scandal
I tend to believe that Arthur did try to perform his husbandly duties to Catherine. A young man in his teens would have hormones all over him. Catherine, a well-educated woman who knew something of civil law, and who was aware that as future queen, she must bear heirs, would have fully cooperated. Perhaps something prevented Arthur from consummating the marriage: impotence, lack of stamina and bad health, perhaps a lack of interest in women. Perhaps they did try several times but this could have weakened Arthur further. It is possible that because it would be humiliating for a prince and future King of England to admit his weakness and so, covered it up with half-true bragging ("six miles deep into Spain"). Of course, Catherine would not say a word. If these are the circumstances, Catherine could correcrly clakm that the marriage was not consummated.
Not every teenage boy is full of raging hormones. Some are incredibly shy and/or nervous around women. Sure, *most* teenage boys think mostly about sex. But who is to say that Arthur, who was sickly most of his life, is one of those?
yes she was known to say he couldnt because he was always so ill i think he just couldnt get it up
Kno b bx h coco hopho
He was also with a strange girl who barely spoke his language, her reportedly beautiful appearance might also have made him nervou
@@Skye_Writer but as two people who have been trained in their duties for their whole lives, wouldn’t they think it was their God given duty to consummate the marriage and try to make heirs? We’re not talking about regular teens. Of course if Arthur was at a healthy state, I believe Arthur would have consummated the marriage out of duty and responsibility alone despite any of his personal feelings and Catherine would have cooperated
I don't believe her marriage with Arthur was consummated. The blood stain sheets were never produced had she not been a virgin, Henry would have definitely used that against her in court. Especially considering how desperate he was to divorced and marry Anne.
@Gary Allen That is true. But by the standards of those times, it's possible that they didn't sleep together. He may have been nervous or....well afraid. That's not to say that they didn't perhaps " try" and nothing came out of it. I guess that's a mystery we'll never solve.
@Gary Allen I certainly think many eyebrows would have been raised if the royal couple had requested chicken blood, any blood, from the kitchen. 😆😆😆😆
@@MissHeird Why would the couple need to ask for chicken blood? Catherine could have cut her foot or had animal blood provided by her Spanish household. The virgin blood thing is largely a myth. Many women are born with either minimal or nonexistent hymens. If women's vaginas were really closed that tightly, menstrual blood would have nowhere to go.
I'm a 35 year old woman. There's no way, ZERO way Katherine just didn't remember her marriage to Arthur was consummated. I'm surprised Starkey could believe such tosh. That's just silly. Regardless of whether or not it was consummated, she would have remembered. Maybe she lied, maybe she didn't, but she would have remembered.
Arthur and Catherine snogging like teenagers is one thing but I doubt they ever fully consummated their marriage.
Looked for a Tudor video to put this under as that is how I first discovered you. Thanks for the beautifully delivered and meticulously researched history vids over the months. Keep learning and teaching :)
THANK YOU SO MUCH JENNY for your very generous donation to the channel and kind words. I'm glad you're enjoying the content and speaking of the Tudors - more to come this Friday! :-)
I admire Catherine's steadfast attitude through her ordeal with Henry. Because she was unshakeable in her view that her marriage to Arthur was never consummated, even enduring horrible treatment from Henry, it shows she must have been telling the truth.
Vinnie, I agree with you
Catherine was a fool. She could have lived out her life in comfort if she gave in
@@annacostello5181 while on one hand I absolutely agree with you (think Anne of Clever. She gave Henry what he wanted, and survived for decades), on the other you have to think of it like this. Royalty, especially in those days, had GOD GIVEN power. They sat on thrones because God wanted them there. That complex actually lost Richard II his throne and kick started the wars of the roses. He was anointed by God, and thought he could do no wrong, etc. So in Catherine's mind, she, and only she, could have been Queen of England. It was her destiny, if you will. As a very very devout and pious Catholic, it's really not surprising she fought so hard.
I respect Catherine, but don't buy for a minute that she and Arthur didn't consummate their marriage. As far as I'm concerned, Catherine *had* to steadfastly maintain her assertion that the marriage was never consummated. Had she told the truth on that point, it would have destroyed her reputation and destroyed any chance of her daughter one day ruling.
@@annacostello5181 But Catherine had more than herself to think about. I believe she maintained her story in order to uphold the status and legitimacy of her daughter Mary. Had she crumbled in the consummation with Arthur, it would have kneecapped Mary's future.
Judging by the painting of Arthur, he hardly looked like a lusty youth, paintings of royalty were meant to flatter the sitter.
The Levirate Marriage principle would apply, thereby making it a moot point, even if they had consummated the marriage. It was Christian doctrine, not only Catholic. So even when Henry broke with Rome, and ignored the Pope and his dispensation, the Bible was still clear that he could legally marry Catherine because Arthur was dead and that they had no children. Henry had slept with Mary Boleyn, making his subsequent marriage to Anne Boleyn, by his own logic and legal argument, also invalid. Had Henry perhaps sought to marry a foreign Princess with Hapsburg ties, and agreed to retain Mary’s status as Princess and legitimate, I think Catherine may have been more agreeable to retire to a nunnery and allow Henry to remarry.
You brought up a very good point about Henry’s relationship with Mary Boleyn .
That's why Henry obtained a dispensation regarding the Boleyn sisters since they were first degree relations, as this was a problem.
I have read that Catherine refused to go to a nunnery, but I do not have substantiation.
I have watched several Jewish movies that are about a situation where a wife is widowed without children. There were ceremonies performed for either the brother to accept his biblical responsibility or reject it. Since I saw this in several different movies with the ceremony being consistent, I think this is an older Jewish tradition, I find it odd that this did not carry into the Catholic Church.
I think that if Catherine and Arthur had consummated their marriage, then Catherine would have become pregnant, given the speed with which she became pregnant with Henry. It may have been, on the other hand, that Catherine's periods hadn't started at that point and that she couldn't get pregnant...but I don't think that she would have stood-up and lied at the court.
I don't think they'd have sent her to be married and live in England if her periods hadn't started yet.
Another interesting thing to note- a gender swapped scenario of this had taken place in her own family. Her older siser, Isabel had been married to Manuel of Portugal, and after she died he remarried their other sister Maria. Isabel had even produced a son guaranteeing the marriage had been consumated.
I think its one of the most famous questions in history.
Thanks for another great video.
My pleasure!
Katherine was very stubborn, she could have negociated with Henry for a better outcome. The pope could have retracted the original dispensation, and her daughter still considered legitimate, there was precedent for that the children to remain legitimate even if the marriage was annulled. So she must have thought she was in the right or very in love with Henry, or wanted to keep her position as Queen, probably all 3. She probably never imagined that Henry would break with Rome. In the end it was Mary her daughter who had a very unhappy life, being declared illegitimate.
Thanks for discussing the Deuteronomy passage , too. It gets overlooked (e.g. in The Tudors).
You're welcome :-)
I don’t think she lied, her religion meant too much to her. I also don’t think she forgot, certainly not something I could ever forget. I recently learned that she could have agreed to the annulment in the very beginning and been given land and money and a position of honor at court AND Mary could have kept her place in the line in succession. But she still refused. I think she loved Henry and I think she believed her marriage to be righteous and part of god’s plan and that’s why she fought so hard.
Yes, I agree. Henry certainly didn't deserve her love and devotion though.
If the marriage was invalid, Mary was illegitimate and could NOT keep her place in the line of succession. If Henry remarried and had a legitimate son, Mary could NOT keep her place in the line of succession. Catherine's Mother had been a ruling Queen with battlefield experience. She had different ideas on whether women should inherit a throne.
Awesome live video I enjoyed it can't wait to see more soon. Your history lessons are always enjoyable and educational. 😀
Yet another great History video. I really enjoyed this and you presented in a very clean, yet detailed way. Your channel may be my favourite on TH-cam.
Aww, thank you :-)
I sometimes wonder if, in the furore that followed Henry’s decision to rid himself of Katherine and marry Anne, he ever sat down and thought to himself “What the hell have I started?” 😱 Probably not, given that he believed he was always right.
I wonder too, but then things were probably too far gone for him to turn back without losing serious face and he really wanted that son.
I'm not sure if Henry ever regretted what he did to Catherine. I know that Anne at some point regretted displacing Catherine and Mary from their positions when her downfall with Henry occurred. What I do know about Henry is that when he was old he had reservations about what he had done by breaking with the Vatican and forming the Protestant Church of England. His son Edward was much more committed to his father's faith from listening to historians talk about it. That could have been a sign that Henry regretted what he did to Catherine, even if it was just him worrying about his immortal soul. But as I understand it is that he couldn't change course after forming a new religion in England. Jane Seymour was always his favorite wife because of course she gave him what he wanted, which was a son. She also greatly mended his relationship with his daughter Mary.
I think that even after a quarter of a century Katherine would have remembered whether or not she had slept with Arthur --- I've never yet met a woman who can't remember her "first time". LOVE YOUR VIDEOS
Henry was not concerned about committing bigamy with Catherine of Aragon. Her first husband, his brother Arthur, was dead when he married her. He was concerned about incest because she had been married to his brother. Catherine would have considered him a bigamist when he married Anne Bolyn because she didn't recognise Henry's divorce from her.
I agree. Henry never minded about the possible bigamy arising from having two living wives (and by the laws he'd made, he wasn't committing it anyway as he claimed never to have been married to Catherine). Any worries over incest with Catherine were ironic though, given that he'd had an affair with Anne's sister and would go on to marry their cousin, Katherine Howard (both incestuous by the standards of the day). I wonder sometimes if he ever noticed his own double standards! Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@HistoryCalling Henry was angry that the Protestants did not even consider it an issue that he married his former sister-in-law.
@@HistoryCalling It was just all about getting what he wanted when he wanted it. Hypocrisy and double standards wouldn't have mattered to him any more than it matters to modern narcissists, sociopaths, and political partisans. He simply would not have cared.
Her voice is so comforting. I could listen to her talk all day and night about things. Anything.
I remember my first time and it was 20 years ago. I remember every detail. I also remember the time I nearly lost my "virginity" but the guy was too nervous and could not go through with it, he was terribly embarrassed and begged me not to tell anyone. I didn't, and looking back I'm glad we at 15 we did not have sex. We were too young emotionally. I can see how embarrassed her first husband may have been if he'd not gone through with consummating his marriage. Either way, after 20 years, you're married! That was just cold hearted to do that to her
It doesn't matter whether they did or didn't. Henry had a "just in case" dispensation from the Pope and you can be sure that if Catherine had produced a male heir, Henry would have fought to the death (some else's, of course, not his) against any suggestion that the marriage was invalid. In any event, whether or not he was a bigamist. he was definitely a murderer (and I'm not just referring to the two wives he killed). He left money for 10,000 masses to be said for his soul, and he needed every one.
Honestly so glad I've found this channel. I've been binging your videos for the last couple of days and as a young girl, I always felt weirdly more connected to Anne Boleyn and as a historical figure, I would definitely say that she and Lucrezia Borgia are in my top 5's. I can say though that now that I have a full understanding of what had been done to Catherine, I do sympathize with her. She was such a strong and intelligent woman and I can only imagine the pain she felt during her husbands affair with Anne and her final years on this earth.
Hi Megan, thanks for your comment and I'm glad you're enjoying the channel.
Agreed. I have tons of sympathy for both Anne and Catherine--as well as for their daughters. Actually I feel bad for all of Henry's wives. Also his mistresses, girlfriends, parents, children....😛 He was certainly a fascinating character, and he did actually have a number of redeeming features (musician, athlete, composer, intellectual) but then there were some fairly severe character flaws too. 🤨
This is great -- no one else discusses the legal complexities of the case. I have always believed that Katherine's piety prevented her from lying about her status during her marriage to Arthur. Dr. Starkey's assertion that she was too young to remember is, frankly, claptrap (and proof of the good scholar's utter misunderstanding of women). How many women do you know who do not remember their wedding night or their "first time"? Especially since Katherine had experienced Henry's virility, she would have known precisely what had not occurred with Arthur.
FYI, Love your videos and your content. I’ve always been a fan of the Tudors (well, terribly intrigued by their history), but I find that your videos provide information that even the most ardent fan knows nothing about, quite like Tudor trivia. Thanks for your hard work and your great videos!
Thank you so much. It's tough to do videos on the Tudors without just restating everything 1000 other videos have already said, but I do my best to try to give some lesser known info. or put a different spin on things to keep it interesting, so I'm delighted to hear I've been at least somewhat successful in doing so :-)
I have always thought that Arthur and Catherine consummated their marriage. She was raised to think of herself as the Queen of England and knew what her duties in that role were. Add in "Divine right" and you can understand why she would have lied later. I doubt that she thought of it as lying, however. She believed that it was God's will that she be Queen of England. She believed that it was God's will that her daughter be Queen of England. She wasn't lying but following what she thought of as the will of God.
Henry was a bigamist the Pope did not annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. . There was a dispensation allowing Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon to marry, and Mary I was legitimate. However I am of the opinion that Elizabeth I was the bastard. He married Anne Boleyn only to find a way to get rid of her later for the same reason he needed to annul Catherine. . Anne was not able to produce his heir either. I have found that to be ironic. I agree with you on the fact he,, Henry VIII found ways to get what he wanted.
Oh he definitely did and I've always found it ironic too that the child with the weakest claim to the throne in terms of legitimacy, ended up being the most famous, long-lasting and successful Tudor monarch of the lot.
Well said, Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree.
I understand Catherine was a pious woman but let’s be honest, she had a lot to lose for herself and her daughter by admitting she consummated the marriage to Arthur.
There could be ambiguity about whether actual intercourse had taken place with Arthur. It's common for young women to be unable to have full intercourse their first time if their hymen is hard to break through. As consummation was so important at that time, I'm curious how it was actually defined. However, I don't buy that Catherine might not have remembered clearly after twenty years. Whether her marriage to Arthur was consummated was critical for her from the beginning. Even for those of us who don't have such high stakes, who doesn't remember when they lost their virginity?
Oddly enough, I can’t remember my first time. I’ve only been with my husband. We played the not quite game a lot. Lol
Yeah, that's a good point to consider, a nervous young Catherine might have had trouble relaxing enough for Arthur the first days or even weeks they tried and if course he got sick pretty soon and died.
C. W. not to mention these two were strangers. They didnt speak the langauge and can barely communicate. They were forced to marry and it is hard to derermine how two fifteen year olds would react in this situation
After multiple pregnancies, Catherine obviously would have experienced what intercourse was like, even if she didn't know at the time of her first marriage. Therefore, she would have known if he had consummated it.
Oh my god I'm binge-watching these!!! My questions are being answered or at the very least, rationalized and I'm starting to think more
I'm glad you're enjoying the videos. Thanks for watching :-)
Thanks!for the video
THANK YOU SO MUCH SANDRA for your very kind donation to the channel. I hope you found my discussion of Catherine's first marriage interesting :-)
I wonder if anyone did a DNA analysis of Arthur if they would not find him suffering of Klinefelter syndrome. One out of 500 boys suffer this syndrome and would explain a lot of this.
I have no Latin, nor do I have a copy of the Bible that Henry would have used, but, for someone who prided himself on his education I find it more than strange that he could not recognize the difference between the Latin for "wife" and "widow". But then again, even the clergy were afraid to correct his translations.
Yes, talk about seeing what you want to be there, rather than what actually is. There was really no Biblical support for his decision to leave Catherine. In marrying his brother's childless widow, he's actually followed Biblical teachings.
Agree
it doesn't matter if they slept together or not. She was a widow. he was a bigamist either way.
Can’t marry your in law but the Habsburgs were totally fine 🤣
Hahahaha!
1/. I love your channel, you have such a beautiful accent and your analysis is wonderful.
2/ I have read so much about the Tudors throughout the years spurred on by an early love of Margaret Irwin's novels and am besotted with Anne Boleyn brought on I think by Genevieve Bujold (Anne of the thousand days) where Irene Pappas does a spectacular court scene as Katherine.
Thank you so much for your channel 😊
Henry’s line didn’t go beyond his own children, in my opinion because of his ego. The stress on Mary likely affected her health. He probably denied her marriages in his lifetime because he feared a challenge from her supporters. By the time she married Phillip her health issues kept her from having children. Elizabeth was likely opposed to marriage after seeing what happened to her mother and cousin. Edward may have suffered health issues due to pressure of carrying on Henry’s ego and male line and possibly Henry Fitzroy as well. Now the descendants of his sisters are on the throne showing that daughters should be valued as much as sons.
Henry supported several marriage options for Mary while she was still considered legitimate. Interest in marrying her on the part of foreign princes waned when she was declared illegitimate and removed from the succession. And she probably would not have considered marrying a subject. Not that I disagree with you about the effects on her health. You may well be right about Elizabeth, but I don't think either Edward or Henry Fitzroy suffered much from Henry's ego, at least any more than any potential or actual heir to a throne; they died of common illnesses. They were the apples of his eye.
It is indeed an irony that he ended being succeeded by two women (in addition to his son) and subsequently by his sister Margaret's descendants, but the idea that women could rule as well as men was foreign to the times, Elizabeth's reign to the contrary not withstanding. We have different ideas about it today in some parts of the world, but that doesn't alter how it went in the 16th century.
I'd love to see you do one of your fantastic portrait discussions for Catherine of Aragon. It seems like the potential portraits for her all look so different from one another, I'd love to know which one is a true likeness. Thanks for another awesome video!
He became a bigamist when he married Anne Boleyn because he was still married to Katherine of Aragon.
Yes, I think most people at the time (and many today as well) would agree with you.
Hi I’m Debbie a new sub here 🤗 Great video! I love history (especially the history of England) and I’m looking forward to following your channel. Thanks for sharing. Stay safe and take care!
Hi Debbie, thank you so much for taking the time to watch and comment and for subscribing. I hope you enjoy the channel. The next video (on Anne Boleyn) will be up in a few hours. Take care too.
Welcome to the adventures of the past.
I think Arthur wasn´t able to perform. That´s why she didn´t fall pregnant. If they had consummated the marriage, she - who was really, really fertile - would have had a baby in her.
That´s what I think. As for Arthur´s comments... Sure, the heir to the throne should boast and seem like the royal line will soon be even more secure.
I think Catherine told the truth.
I think Arthur and Catherine did not condummate the marriage because at that time, the Church forbade sexual intercourse for married people at least 3 days a week as a general rule..wed, fri and either sat or sunday., the church calendar had many Saints days as well as fasting days with no sex,and the 40 day Lenten fast not just from meat, but sex. and various high holy days. no sex and proclamations of fasting for this or that cause. I have read that altogether there were only about 250 or so legal days for sex in a year. So it was difficult for couples to beget heirs in the best of circumstances without the week or 10 days a month sex was avoided for menses, or sickness.
So the newlyweds if they were pious and devout, and obeyed the church rules, only had 4 days in a week , if that many to do the deed. and it was in winter in Wales in a drafty stone castle. I have read many biographies and dont recall where I got the impression that Arthur was sickly and immature. But if he was hot blooded and ready to go, maybe Catherine was shy and hesitant, and he deferred to her feelings?? So they didnt really have all of 5 months to consummate. Another thing about the childhood conditions of Arthur and Henry is their father was miserly in the extreme. and very strict and they were only provided with bare necessities.possibly stunting their development. This info came from a massive biography of Henry VIII I read aboutv4/5 yrs ago.
The information on how sex lives were affected by the Church came from a biography of Pope Joan, the only female Pope, and a blog by a Catholic woman on living a devout family life and the discussions there about church teaching on marriage and birth control. At the time, I marveled at how our ancestors managed to find time to procreate. ( only kidding…life finds a way)
Yes, I've read about all the forbidden days too. I don't think everyone observed them all the time, (as you say, life finds a way!) but you're right that it may very well have limited the number of days a devout couple would have slept together and Catherine did say they were only ever in the same bed on 7 occasions. I wish now I'd included that detail in the video, but thank you for talking about it in the comments so that people can learn about it that way :-)
Henry VIII was a bigomist and made his own rules as he went along. He was so evil.
I have always thought that Mary I should have been buried at Peterborough Cathedral with the mother she loved so much.
I think she consummated with Arthur. Historically at that time, it was vital for marriages to be consummated, so I think Arthur's comments were correct. On Catherine's behalf, given her age and strong Catholic values, she probably didn't quite understand what had happened. However, the fact that she was married to Arthur for 4 months, I find it difficult to believe that he didn't consummate, seeking the ever-important heir. Unless he was impotent or his sexual taste was with males. No one will ever know.
I can never quite decide myself. Though I always say if I absolutely HAD to choose, I would believe Catherine, I really don't know. Like you, I find it difficult to believe they didn't do anything given the amount of time they had. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Her ladies had had no reason to lie when writing to her father, but his father did. And I highly doubt such a young man would say such crass things the night after. And they were so young and probably thought they had plenty of time to produce an Heir to the throne. Why become parents so young?
Teenage boys say crass things all the time. I doubt that has changed much.
My husband and I adore this channel. Thank You for all your hard work.
My pleasure. Thank you both for watching :-)
Very Interesting Information
I have wondered about this question. Why wouldn't Arthur have slept with her? He knew what was expected of him, but he was young and probably immature.
If it wasn't for Catherine's absolute insistence (then and later) that they hadn't slept together, I would never have questioned it either. It's a hard question to call though and while I lean towards Catherine's version of events in the end, I actually find it too difficult to definitively answer this one. Basically, they might or they might not have! :-)
Hello thank you for this video………..here’s my answer to whether Katherine and Arthur slept together will of course they did …i personally think Catherine 💕Would of lied to protect her daughters right to the throne………………Kimberley 🇬🇧
Here's something I haven't seen talked about in recent histories -- Keeping in mind Henry's literal bloodlust for an heir, Elizabeth eschewed a dynastic successor until the final hours. And then, tangentially.
I wonder if she was so disenchanted and exhausted by her situation that she decided to shoot her own shot and forget the "family" legacy.
As much as she identified with her father, she did a 180° in following his obsession.
She didn't name an heir because as soon as she did, she knew an opposition party would gather around him/her, which she wished to avoid. I don't think it was because her father's need for an heir was so obsessive, at least not directly.
@@edithengel2284 yessss, I'm aware of the "heir in the wings" problem. It doesn't answer my assertion.
I've just found your channel and I'm thrilled! I am not a Henry VIII fan, I must say. I believe Katherine.
I despite people who "cherry pick" Bible verses to back up their ill intentioned arguments.
Thank you for such a great video on this subject!
You're very welcome. I'm glad you're enjoying the channel.
Catherine was being honest. She was a daughter of the catholic King's. She would have never lied about an issue with possible dynastic implications for her current state and any future marriage she may make. She was devoutly pious and I believed would not have risked her honor, her soul and her reputation by being caught in a lie easily proven that could have far reaching implications for her future marital endeavours. Arthur was delicate, and young, and let's not forget that Henry himself for many years after his marriage was delighted with Catherine and seemed to love her very much. HE remained satisfied with her for many years until his desire for Anne Boleyn washed his care for her and her honor away. Does an almost 20 year happy marriage sound like someone who cohabitated out of lawful wedlock and told the ultimate lie? This whole question didn't seriously raise until Henry's all consuming desire for Anne Boleyn did. I believe Catherine.
I don't know that it could be easily proven one way or the other, but if I had to pick a side, like you I would go with Catherine. Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@HistoryCalling While it was common for 15 year old royals to get married, it was also common for them to not consummate their unions until they were reasonably older. I believe Catherine as well.
It's not unheard of for Princes' to not consumate their marriage when they are young. Marie Antionette and Prince Louis did not consumate their marriage for years.
The most compelling evidence to me is that, on her death bed, she stuck to her story that she had not had relations with Arthur during their brief marriage. Also that she said in the confessional that she was still a virgin when she married Henry. As you said in the video, she was very devout and lying in the confessional - during a Catholic sacrament, or sacred act - would have doomed her soul. Additionally, if she had been lying, it would have come out on her death bed as taking a lie to the grave would have also been problematic on a spiritual level. Those who think she would have lied for her own gain clearly do not understand how serious such things would have been viewed.
On the other hand, Arthur could have easily been lying as he was not talking to a priest, judge, or anyone of real consequence. That is, assuming, he even said that. As you also pointed out, the witnesses could have been lying. The trial of Thomas More clearly shows that the court of Henry VIII was not above perjury for the sake of convicting those they wanted convicted.
It was required by Arthur to consummate and for Catherine to win the virginity argument back then is impressive!! I didn’t win one against my mom
Catherine had behaved impeccably during her marriage to Henry, her only failing was not being able to produce a living, healthy, son to continue the dynasty. Henry had no grounds for an annulment - it was only by claiming that the Bible stated that they could not have children if they were married that a means to set aside Catherine was provided. It was down simply to Henry (and his advisors) dubious interpretation of the passages in the Bible that he and Catherine should never have married in the first place. I believe if Catherine had managed to provide Henry with an heir and possibly a spare he would never have looked to annul his marriage, she turned a blind eye to his many mistresses during their marriage so he had the best of all worlds apart from the lack of an heir (his daughters were never considered suitable as heirs).
I have never believed that Catherine's marriage to Prince Arthur was not consummated. Fifteen is old enough to have sex, and the pair would have been under pressure to seal the marriage. They lived together for six months. There is no reason to think that Arthur was sickly. He looked a lot like his father, who looked a bit frail but lived to be 50-something and fathered at least six children.
Yes, my logic tells me 'surely they did', but then my belief in Catherine's piety and her insistence over such a long time that it didn't happen is very persuasive too. I've never been to call this one conclusively (even though I tend towards believing Catherine). Thanks for watching and commenting.
They were very young so might not have consummated their marriage right away. Being a 15yr old male doesnt necessarily mean he was eager. He was studious amd pious and there was alot of pressure. Of course he would brag to his buddies about his new wife. Catharine was just too deeply religious to lie about something like that. Also if there were bloody sheets why weren't they saved/documented? She fasted throughput her pregnancies and would have really believed her soul would be in jeopardy. Why even insist she was innocent rather than focusing on legitimate papal approval?
He also wasn't smaller than her-as some of her servants later reported during Great Matter. Those servants undoubteldy lied at least about that!
I have always wondered if a Catherine and Author had indeed consummated their marriage.
Living together for 6 months at the age of 15... Unless there was a medical issue, they would have consummated the marriage. If they had not, it would have been a matter for discussion. They had very little privacy.
I agree they might well have slept together. I can never quite decide who I believe here. Even the Pope at the time was a bit confused when he had to send out the dispensation for the marriage to Henry.
Maybe Arthur didn't know his anatomy, but still climaxed. You should know enough that I don't have to be even more explicit. They did get a blanket to cover them.
I have a very hard time believing they didn't. I've heard that the marriage bed was checked the next morning for proof or evidence of it being consummated. But we will probably never know the truth.
Yes, I've often wondered about the marriage bed check as well. To the best of my knowledge there's no comment on it in the surviving sources however. Of course one possible explanation is that it was Catherine's time of the month and so the sheets would have been soiled no matter what, rendering any checks useless.
I have a hard time believing that it it did happen. Arthur was six months younger than Katherine and sickly into the bargain. Pious as she was, I doubt Katherine would have risked her eternal soul by perjuring herself.
@@marylouise2207 Nobody is so pious that they are going to call themselves a whore and their daughter a bastard. She would lie in her teeth then ask the Pope for absolution.
@@maggiesmith856 No, that's not how it works. You clearly have no clue about the devout Catholic mindset. She would rather be wrongfully, dubbed a whore and her daughter a bastard than risk her immortal soul. Btw: she wouldn't be dubbed a whore, just someone who, like Henry, was mislead. However, the marriage was perfectly legit.
Perhaps Arthur was not bent toward females and he married because he had to. I can't think of any other reason why a teenage boy would not have sex with his new bride. Arthur was the eldest son, he married Katherine of Aragon and he died young. That is really all we know about him. I don't really believe Katherine lied. Mostly because we know enough about her to know that she was a woman of integrity. Also, because Henry would have been aware whether her virginity existed or not on their wedding night. If she were not a virgin, surely he would have used this to get rid of her later, while claiming to have been silent to spare her reputation. However, when her husband died, her life was in flux. Henry the 7th was responsible for her and had her living in poverty. She had no help from her parents and she was simply a pawn. If she did have sex with Arthur and lied to get the pope's blessing to marry Henry, good for her. She had to secure her future and get herself out of a miserable situation. She had a choice. Either continue in a miserable existence with an unknow future OR be the queen of England. She would have been stupid not to lie. Hell, I would have lied through my teeth and asked for the Lord's forgiveness afterwards! lol
She was a mother before any thing in this world. If she confessed that she her marriage was consummated, Mary had been declared bastard in the spot and she would be Henry mistress instead of Queen of England . Could you believe that 2 teenagers, alone and far away from home, could have not been engaged in sex? And no one mentioned that Arthur had any physical or mental issue that could prevent him from having sex. And Henry was just a boy without any experience to have noticed that Catherine was not a virgin anymore. Or perhaps every one knew but kept the secret to save Catherine’s dowry. When Arthur died, the money wasn’t paid in full yet and Henry VII was a greedy man. And Henry was infatuated with Katherine. She was blond, fragile and small. But she had a very strong personality and she was determined to be an English Queen.
Catherine should've accepted to let Henry marry again with comfortable provisions for herself and a garantee that their daughter's legitimacy be enshrined to keep her in line for the throne. Win-win-win!
Henry offered to let her retire to a nunnery, but I don't think that leaving Mary as legitimate and in the line of succession was an option he gave her. The whole point of annulling his marriage to Catherine was that the marriage had been impermissible, and to leave Mary as legitimate would have muddied the the waters for subsequent heirs. He did eventually return her to the line of succession, but he never legitimated her (or Elizabeth).
I honestly think that Arthur said he was in the midst of Spain to:
1) show off the all of the men around him, and to prove he was now a man
2)I don't truly think he knew what he was saying when he made that statement.
I think he thought that laying in bed with her meant they had consumated their marriage. This was proven by another royal later as Anne of cleves thought that kissing Henry meant they had consumated their marriage. I may be that he knew what it meant to consumate a marriage I just don't believe they did.
Entirely possible. Thanks for watching and commenting :-)
The King James Version of the Bible wasn't around when Henry VIII was there. It came about in 1611.
Doesn't matter; the KJV is just a translation of original texts, although beautifully done. The passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy would have been translated from the source material.
I could listen to the TH-camrs Scottish accent for days!! such a calming voice!! ...great video BTW! I dont often hear people debate Katherines virginity!
I think the accent is Irish, not Scottish......
@@annekane7660 I realized that almost immediately after posting.. Lol.. I should know better by now!! my husband is English and Ive been living in the UK for 4 years now... total fail on my part
@@alixandradreyer9587 I love her Irish accent, too, it's lovely!
I despise C of A lol but you brought up some very good points. Never knew that dispensation was shaky!
the interesting thing about the Deuteronomy passage is that it is actually cajoling a brother to produce a son in his dead brothers name. It was supposed to make sure that your brother did not die without issue. Technically that passage also favored Henry and he could have argued that Mary should be credited as Arthur's child and that he was merely acting as a kinsman redeemer for his brother. Perhaps he neglected that aspect in case it made succession issues later on.
True. But that passage on refers to the firstborn son being credited to the brother. Mary was a girl and was not their first child. Their dead first son would technically be credited to Arthur according to that passage. But yes, if Mary was credited as Arthur's, the argument would be made that she was the rightful monarch and not Henry.
She came from true royalty.
Anne Boleyn should have taken note of how Henry treated Catherine once he was truly done with her. Perhaps it was too late by then, or perhaps Anne was thinking, that’s how he treats her, but he would never treat me that way.
Henry was a swine