I never believed Arthur. It was so typical, a teenage boy bragging about a woman he (might have) had. In addition, your information about Arthur’s precarious health and Catherine telling her lady that he didn’t consummate the marriage, and that she was worried he wouldn’t be able to in the future, kind of convinced me. You are also right; Catherine never struck me as a liar.
Did she not say in her speech to Henry in front of the hearing about the annulment that whether or not it was true, she left to his conscience? That, to me, says he knew she wasn't lying.
I agree. I support Katherine’s honesty. This source is definitely very important to mention about the situation between Katherine and Arthur. Henry VIII just used her as an excuse to get divorce proceedings as quickly as possible. What an ass he was!
I don't think it matters, because as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), the Papal dispensation covered both cases. They were unsure at the time as well, so the Pope just said: let's not investigate the matter, just issue the dispensation to cover both possibilities and be done with it. Not sure why, but I think they were in a hurry. Virgin or not, it shouldn't have had any bearing on the validity of her marriage with Henry.
Yes, exactly. But according to Jewish law, (and I asked a Rabbi about this) Arthur widowed Catherine and it was Henry’s responsibility as the surviving brother to marry her. Whether Arthur consummated the marriage or not would be immaterial.
This was the argument used against the divorce. The church oked it even if it did happen, so it doesnt matter anyways. But the fact was it didnt matter if she did or not. Henry was done, wanted a new wife, one that could produce sons. If she had been anyone else, the Pope wouldve granted him a divorce to keep faith between the two, but since she was Catherine of Aragon, daughter of Isabelle and Ferdinand, aunt to the Holy Roman Emperor, there was no way he was siding with little old England. People forget England didnt have that much power and influence at that time.
I totally support Katherine’s honesty and piety. She would have feared eternal damnation had she lied. When is the manuscript dated and who wrote it? Very interesting ❤
I cannot imagine that Catherine would have lied about her virginity, no matter how pressured she felt to say so in order to marry Henry. She was such a fervent Catholic that I cannot believe she would have lied about such a thing. And, let us not go into how convenient it was for Henry to ignore the issue when he wanted to marry Catherine. Typical male take on the situation when he decided that their marriage had not been proper.
I think she was still a virgin. I think she didn't want it open during the marriage because she didn't want to embarass him, and they were both still young. But the way she threw it back at Henry and his conscience makes me pretty sure she was telling the truth. And of the two of them, I believe her.
I absolutely believe Catherine of Aragon. Henry VIII was looking for any reason to put her aside. Catherine was very popular, throughout their marriage & even after. Her piety and devotion to her religion, she would not have lied.
Welll i dunno about so honest, she lied to her father about her first pregnancy and i think she would do anything to protect her daughter's rights. That is interesting evidence about Catherine's Spanish ladies, but the.medical stuff is not really corroborated by the facts, Arthur was riding all around the marches on horseback for those twenty weeks not the actions of an invalid, both he and Katherine got suddenly ill which suggests contact.. Katherine recovered he didn't - it sounds a lot like the sweat. That said those witnesses who said he said "I've been in Spain" were dug up by Henry they could've been bribed. Teenage boys are incredibly randy they'd bang a hole in the ground given half a chance. We shall never really know. But you present a compelling case.
I don’t think she was lying about not consummating the marriage with Arthur. Catherine was a devout Catholic. She would have taken the truth very seriously
This is very well researched. I personally completely believe she was a virgin when she married Henry. And even if she wasn't, it doesn't matter, because they had a papal dispensation to wed.
We do have one source though that proves that she lied to her father about her first pregnancy, so it’s not like she wasn’t above lying when it suited her. I’m not saying that proves anything regarding her virginity at the time of her second marriage, but we can’t take Katherine at her word, 100%, because she has been duplicitous on at least one occasion. That being said, it would make sense for a youn teen to brag about having sex when he was possibly embarrassed that he wasn’t able to, or didn’t want to, and obviously Henry was biased in his ‘great matter’ and lied many, many times over. I’d say it’s a good 85% that Katherine was telling the truth, but really, it’s all immaterial anyway, because the Bible has contradicting passages about this very situation and Henry was legally able to annul the marriage, even if it wasn’t sanctioned by the Pope. Of course I feel bad for her, but she must have known at a certain point that Henry would never give up and her firmness on insisting their marriage was valid only ended up making things worse for her and for Mary.
We really cant take her word based on her being pious and devout. That really means nothing in reality considering the most pious, devout men were even known to lie from time to time to save their own skins, or their loved ones. Its ridiculous to assume because someone is pious and devout means they are above sin no matter what. She had a reason to lie, and many could argue a dang good one considering she was a princess stuck in another country in a world controlled by men. Its like when examining the virgin Mary story. Sure, she was devout. But for real? Anyone who thinks she was a virgin is just guillable as heck, and i mean that with no offense. For real though, she had the biggest reason to lie, as she couldve been stoned to death. Its kind of the same for Catherine. She was stuck, with no real future set, and everyone playing games with it. Even the most pious will get fed up and do what they can to secure their future.
We will never know. But I think Catherine definitely may have lied. She was a very proud woman, and although she was also very pious, she could have used this perception to strengthen her case and arouse sympathy. I also think that 20 weeks is a long time to be married without having intercourse, unless Arthur was already on his death bed. I think he’d have to have been extremely sick not to give it another go in all that time- even if they only had seven nights together.
Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI didn’t consummate for 7 years. And there are other cases out there that either they didn’t know how, didn’t like one another, had physical issues or were simply too young. So 20 days is nothing.
@@deliasl402120 weeks, not 20 days. More like 5 months. Also, unlike your first example, they had written each other a lot, being able to get to know one another. For two, he wasnt actually sickly. He was a typical 15 yr old boy who behaved as one, and wasnt deathly ill till that 5 month point, which both of them got sick, and even Catherine was close to death. We also know it wasnt a case of they simply didnt like each other. In fact, we know the opposite to be true, which again, makes it unlikely they didnt. And...obviously not too young, at that was the typical age for marriage for royalty, and consummation, which in many parts required an audience for authentification. There were couples that took a while, but...they were typically whay you described, not so much for Arthur and Catherine.
Differing opinion BUT...why wouldn't Katherine lie? Her future and Mary's future were at stake. I think she could have convinced herself she could be absolved. She was a pious woman, sure, but she was also nobody's fool.
Even if she lied, it wouldn't affect the validity of her marriage. She was Henry's legitimate wife and queen because they had a papal dispensation to wed even if she had slept with Arthur
I am 80%/20% in favor of having them consummated their marriege. 1. Why shouldn't they? Why not? Was there any reason for that? For not doing this for 20 weaks? I am not buying the story of a "sickly boy" His premature death might have laid the ground for such thinking, but he didn't die of his infirmity. He died of a plague they both had contracted. She survived, he didn't. If he was sickly, if his fragality was so obvious, his parents wouldn't have prepared him to be a future king. 2. Not having consummated their marrieage for 20 weeks would be a scandal. There was no way of keeping it secret at the Tudor court, where there was no privacy as we know it now. And for the next seven years, when Catherine's position in England was so precarious! No way she would have kept her princess dowager status if she and Arthut hadn't been really mariied and a number of people would know it. 3. Any evidence provided to support Catherine's claim, including her own testimony, is tainted by the fact that it was in her (and Henry's) best interest to claim so, as they couldn't get the Pope's dispensation otherwise. And 24 years later there was no other option for her, either, than to maintein what she had once sworn to be true 4. The only reason for any doubt in that matter might be the fact that she didn't get pregnant by Arthur. But her first pregnancy by her second husband came half a year after their marriage, so this agrument is by no means decisive.
I think this was the ultimate screw up on Henry's part. Why was attacking Catherine's honor his main plan? Hadn't his ancestors had marriages annulled for not having sons together? That seems like precident to me. It discredits THIS pope rather than challenging the whole Catholic institution. 😅 Seems safer but maybe I'm just a wimp.
No, the only case of such a reason for a marriage annulment in English Royal history at that point was Eleanor of Aquitaine's in the 1100s. However, it was her first marriage to King Louis VII of France, and she soon married the future King Henry II. King John annulled his marriage to Isabella of Gloucester, but she was never crowned Queen of England, and papal permission for the marriage had never been given in the first place.
Catherine believed that it was her destiny to be Queen of England. I think that she would have lied in order to make that happen. She lingered in England for years after Arthur's death. She could have gone back to Spain.
Catherine begged Ferdinand to let her return to Spain multiple times but he refused. He finally agreed to let her come back, only for Henry vii to die before the preparations for her return were finished
I believe Catharine Of Aragon was a virgin # 1 Arthur was getting ill from the sweat and didn’t consummate marriage - He brag to his boy friends he did it was a pride manly moment- I don’t believe she would lie about it in Damination of her mortal soul she was really deeply religious
I never believed Arthur. It was so typical, a teenage boy bragging about a woman he (might have) had. In addition, your information about Arthur’s precarious health and Catherine telling her lady that he didn’t consummate the marriage, and that she was worried he wouldn’t be able to in the future, kind of convinced me. You are also right; Catherine never struck me as a liar.
Did she not say in her speech to Henry in front of the hearing about the annulment that whether or not it was true, she left to his conscience? That, to me, says he knew she wasn't lying.
I agree. I support Katherine’s honesty. This source is definitely very important to mention about the situation between Katherine and Arthur. Henry VIII just used her as an excuse to get divorce proceedings as quickly as possible. What an ass he was!
I don't think it matters, because as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), the Papal dispensation covered both cases. They were unsure at the time as well, so the Pope just said: let's not investigate the matter, just issue the dispensation to cover both possibilities and be done with it. Not sure why, but I think they were in a hurry. Virgin or not, it shouldn't have had any bearing on the validity of her marriage with Henry.
Yes
Very true
Yes, exactly. But according to Jewish law, (and I asked a Rabbi about this) Arthur widowed Catherine and it was Henry’s responsibility as the surviving brother to marry her. Whether Arthur consummated the marriage or not would be immaterial.
This was the argument used against the divorce. The church oked it even if it did happen, so it doesnt matter anyways.
But the fact was it didnt matter if she did or not. Henry was done, wanted a new wife, one that could produce sons. If she had been anyone else, the Pope wouldve granted him a divorce to keep faith between the two, but since she was Catherine of Aragon, daughter of Isabelle and Ferdinand, aunt to the Holy Roman Emperor, there was no way he was siding with little old England. People forget England didnt have that much power and influence at that time.
I totally support Katherine’s honesty and piety. She would have feared eternal damnation had she lied. When is the manuscript dated and who wrote it? Very interesting ❤
I really enjoy your commentary filled with facts and laughter!
Thank you for being here ☺️🙏🏻
I cannot imagine that Catherine would have lied about her virginity, no matter how pressured she felt to say so in order to marry Henry. She was such a fervent Catholic that I cannot believe she would have lied about such a thing. And, let us not go into how convenient it was for Henry to ignore the issue when he wanted to marry Catherine. Typical male take on the situation when he decided that their marriage had not been proper.
Wholeheartedly agree. Tremlett's book was fantastic.
I think she was still a virgin. I think she didn't want it open during the marriage because she didn't want to embarass him, and they were both still young. But the way she threw it back at Henry and his conscience makes me pretty sure she was telling the truth. And of the two of them, I believe her.
There would have been a court audience around the marriage bed to witness the consumation of the marriage no? That's what I thought anyway.
They did not do one which was a big misyake. Even though that is super digrating for both parties it really to avoid stuff like this.
I absolutely believe Catherine of Aragon. Henry VIII was looking for any reason to put her aside. Catherine was very popular, throughout their marriage & even after. Her piety and devotion to her religion, she would not have lied.
Welll i dunno about so honest, she lied to her father about her first pregnancy and i think she would do anything to protect her daughter's rights. That is interesting evidence about Catherine's Spanish ladies, but the.medical stuff is not really corroborated by the facts, Arthur was riding all around the marches on horseback for those twenty weeks not the actions of an invalid, both he and Katherine got suddenly ill which suggests contact.. Katherine recovered he didn't - it sounds a lot like the sweat. That said those witnesses who said he said "I've been in Spain" were dug up by Henry they could've been bribed. Teenage boys are incredibly randy they'd bang a hole in the ground given half a chance. We shall never really know. But you present a compelling case.
I've also read from other places the sickly boy isn't a thing
I don’t think she was lying about not consummating the marriage with Arthur. Catherine was a devout Catholic. She would have taken the truth very seriously
This is very well researched. I personally completely believe she was a virgin when she married Henry.
And even if she wasn't, it doesn't matter, because they had a papal dispensation to wed.
We do have one source though that proves that she lied to her father about her first pregnancy, so it’s not like she wasn’t above lying when it suited her. I’m not saying that proves anything regarding her virginity at the time of her second marriage, but we can’t take Katherine at her word, 100%, because she has been duplicitous on at least one occasion. That being said, it would make sense for a youn teen to brag about having sex when he was possibly embarrassed that he wasn’t able to, or didn’t want to, and obviously Henry was biased in his ‘great matter’ and lied many, many times over. I’d say it’s a good 85% that Katherine was telling the truth, but really, it’s all immaterial anyway, because the Bible has contradicting passages about this very situation and Henry was legally able to annul the marriage, even if it wasn’t sanctioned by the Pope. Of course I feel bad for her, but she must have known at a certain point that Henry would never give up and her firmness on insisting their marriage was valid only ended up making things worse for her and for Mary.
We really cant take her word based on her being pious and devout. That really means nothing in reality considering the most pious, devout men were even known to lie from time to time to save their own skins, or their loved ones. Its ridiculous to assume because someone is pious and devout means they are above sin no matter what. She had a reason to lie, and many could argue a dang good one considering she was a princess stuck in another country in a world controlled by men.
Its like when examining the virgin Mary story. Sure, she was devout. But for real? Anyone who thinks she was a virgin is just guillable as heck, and i mean that with no offense. For real though, she had the biggest reason to lie, as she couldve been stoned to death.
Its kind of the same for Catherine. She was stuck, with no real future set, and everyone playing games with it. Even the most pious will get fed up and do what they can to secure their future.
It is gross but consummate ceremonies stop stuff like this from happening. This is also why one should not marry their dead brother's wife.
We will never know. But I think Catherine definitely may have lied. She was a very proud woman, and although she was also very pious, she could have used this perception to strengthen her case and arouse sympathy. I also think that 20 weeks is a long time to be married without having intercourse, unless Arthur was already on his death bed. I think he’d have to have been extremely sick not to give it another go in all that time- even if they only had seven nights together.
Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI didn’t consummate for 7 years. And there are other cases out there that either they didn’t know how, didn’t like one another, had physical issues or were simply too young. So 20 days is nothing.
@@deliasl402120 weeks, not 20 days. More like 5 months. Also, unlike your first example, they had written each other a lot, being able to get to know one another. For two, he wasnt actually sickly. He was a typical 15 yr old boy who behaved as one, and wasnt deathly ill till that 5 month point, which both of them got sick, and even Catherine was close to death.
We also know it wasnt a case of they simply didnt like each other. In fact, we know the opposite to be true, which again, makes it unlikely they didnt. And...obviously not too young, at that was the typical age for marriage for royalty, and consummation, which in many parts required an audience for authentification.
There were couples that took a while, but...they were typically whay you described, not so much for Arthur and Catherine.
Especially when both are hormonal teenagers.
I believe they consummated it. He was reported to be healthy prior to the sweats. Plus, it was too important for them not to make it a real marriage.
Differing opinion BUT...why wouldn't Katherine lie? Her future and Mary's future were at stake. I think she could have convinced herself she could be absolved. She was a pious woman, sure, but she was also nobody's fool.
Even if she lied, it wouldn't affect the validity of her marriage. She was Henry's legitimate wife and queen because they had a papal dispensation to wed even if she had slept with Arthur
I am 80%/20% in favor of having them consummated their marriege.
1. Why shouldn't they? Why not? Was there any reason for that? For not doing this for 20 weaks? I am not buying the story of a "sickly boy" His premature death might have laid the ground for such thinking, but he didn't die of his infirmity. He died of a plague they both had contracted. She survived, he didn't. If he was sickly, if his fragality was so obvious, his parents wouldn't have prepared him to be a future king.
2. Not having consummated their marrieage for 20 weeks would be a scandal. There was no way of keeping it secret at the Tudor court, where there was no privacy as we know it now. And for the next seven years, when Catherine's position in England was so precarious! No way she would have kept her princess dowager status if she and Arthut hadn't been really mariied and a number of people would know it.
3. Any evidence provided to support Catherine's claim, including her own testimony, is tainted by the fact that it was in her (and Henry's) best interest to claim so, as they couldn't get the Pope's dispensation otherwise. And 24 years later there was no other option for her, either, than to maintein what she had once sworn to be true
4. The only reason for any doubt in that matter might be the fact that she didn't get pregnant by Arthur. But her first pregnancy by her second husband came half a year after their marriage, so this agrument is by no means decisive.
I think this was the ultimate screw up on Henry's part. Why was attacking Catherine's honor his main plan? Hadn't his ancestors had marriages annulled for not having sons together? That seems like precident to me. It discredits THIS pope rather than challenging the whole Catholic institution. 😅 Seems safer but maybe I'm just a wimp.
No, the only case of such a reason for a marriage annulment in English Royal history at that point was Eleanor of Aquitaine's in the 1100s. However, it was her first marriage to King Louis VII of France, and she soon married the future King Henry II.
King John annulled his marriage to Isabella of Gloucester, but she was never crowned Queen of England, and papal permission for the marriage had never been given in the first place.
Catherine believed that it was her destiny to be Queen of England. I think that she would have lied in order to make that happen. She lingered in England for years after Arthur's death. She could have gone back to Spain.
Catherine begged Ferdinand to let her return to Spain multiple times but he refused. He finally agreed to let her come back, only for Henry vii to die before the preparations for her return were finished
I believe Catharine Of Aragon was a virgin # 1 Arthur was getting ill from the sweat and didn’t consummate marriage - He brag to his boy friends he did it was a pride manly moment- I don’t believe she would lie about it in Damination of her mortal soul she was really deeply religious