Katharine of Aragon was incredibly sharp and intelligent. Many contemporaries often remark how she was the smartest person in the room at any occasion. She was given a very unconventional education for a daughter, being tutored in law, languages, philosophy and strategy from a young age, her father Ferdinand of Aragon even made her the Aragon/Castilian ambassador in the English Court after the death of her first husband Arthur, Prince of Wales, making her the first female ambassador in European history. The most incredible thing is that Katharine won her trial, both in London and in Rome, leaving Henry with the only option of moving the goalposts and breaking away from the Catholic Church if he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn. Katharine probably didn't believe Henry would be stupid enough to do such a thing for the sake of a male heir. As far as she was concerned, Mary should have been raised as the heir to England in the absence of a son. Mary's mother, Isabel of Castile, was a monarch in her own right after all. Castilian succession law was never big on male primogeniture, Katharine probably expected Henry to adopt this custom. The irony is of course that Katharine of Aragon is remembered as probably the greatest Queen England has ever seen while her husband is remembered as a selfish tyrant. Even now people leave flowers on her grave and her epitaph still reads 'Katharine, Queen of England'.
I agree with all of this, excepting the part on Castilian succession law not being big on male primogeniture. Besides Berengaria, who reigned for less than a month before she abdicated for her son, Isabella the Catholic was Castile's first female monarch, after she succeeded her brother Henry IV the Impotent. Juana la Loca, Isabella's eldest daughter, became heir after her only brother predeceased her mother, and became Castile's second and last female monarch. This isn't so different to England. Berengaria lived in the century later than Empress Matilda, who was almost crowned Queen of England, and later abdicated in favour of her son (but ruled much of England for substantially longer). Henry VIII, would himself be succeeded by Mary I and Elizabeth I, who contested the English throne with Jane Grey and Mary Stewart, (additionally Mary I's preferred successor was a women called Margaret Douglas, and Elizabeth I contemplated naming a women called Arbella Stuart her successor). As in Castile, having four women contest the English throne had nothing to do with not being big on male primogeniture, and everything to do with a lack of male heirs. Later, when Charles II of Castile died, the new Bourbon monarchs of Castile and the other Spanish crowns implemented Salic law, thus barring women from the throne for good.
@@alexander9703 Isabella of Castile was not the first woman to rule in the Iberian kingdoms beside Berengaria. There were also Urraca and Petronilla. Female succession had relatively good chances in those lands by the time Isabella was born. Not nearly equal chances as men, but somewhat better than in most European kingdoms. For example, during Isabella's childhood, her elder brother Henry IV made the Castilians swear to his only child (of questionable parentage), Joanna "la Beltraneja", as his heir, while male relatives of his, including his legitimate brother Alfonso, was still alive. Making a king's daughter the heir while the king has a male legitimate sibling would have been unheard of in other places. Let's look at England at this time. By the time Edward IV's two sons died, their sister Elizabeth of York should have been considered the heir. She never was. The English sooner accepted Edward's brother Richard III, and then Henry Tudor (with hardly any legitimate claim) as their ruler than even considering Elizabeth of York as a possible queen regnant. Very different attitude towards female succession than in Castile. England got to the point of prefering a king's female child to his male sibling about 200 years later. Also, Joanna I was not the last female monarch there. The Bourbon succession did not prevent female succession for good. Isabella II of Spain was their last female monarch (so far).
@@Lily1127channel Yes and nope, Urraca and Petronilla ruled but not "openly", they were "regents" in the name of their too young heirs; women could pass their royal status to their sons (instead of losing their royal status to another family branch or another royal house with a male heir) but they could not comply with what noblemen in the medieval ages, specially in Spain, had to do: medieval lords were expected to fight, and in the case of the kings only them could summon and lead the armies of their kingdoms, so women were out of the picture. Isabella is a case apart because several reasons, from her nature (she was an extraordinary leader), not having a male competitor for the title, and Ferdinand being a "foreign" king in Castile, but she still needed a "king" to lead her armies.
@@Lily1127channelThat's not really true about Elizabeth of York. While her brothers were still alive (Edward V and prince Richard, sons of Edward IV) their uncle Richard declared them illegitimate, this included declaring their parents marriage illegal and their father a bastard. Parliament accepted this (although it is likely they were coerced). Richard was declared King and the boys were never seen again. When Henry VII defeated Richard III he reversed the ruling and made her family legitimate again before marrying her. She would have been the first female successor since Matilda but it was never an option for her to be queen in her own right, her brothers were alive at first and she didn't have an army capable of defeating Richard. She needed somebody like Henry to bring an army of supporters and assert her rights to the throne, which is why they were engaged and why so many Yorkists were among his supporters. Henry demanded he receive the throne through right of conquest. In part so he didn't have to depend on her claim. This was because her supporters and family were a risk to him (his family were in large part killed by hers). After years of civil war the English were desperate for peace . Henry's terms were accepted although it was still known that his claim to the throne was weak and hers the greater. The couple were married after a few months they very popular, especially Elizabeth.
@@hellsjamfleas Yes, and that is basically what my point also included. She was never really seen as someone who could rule, effectively, as queen regnant, only as someone who could bring yorkist support and bloodline. Never in her life was it really considered, by Parliament or by anyone, that she could rule as queen regnant, or at least a co-ruler with equal rights to her husband. While Isabella became a natural claimant to the throne after her younger brother's death, she was even a focal point of opposition and rebels against her elder brother, and she eventually became queen regnant after her older brother's death, Elizabeth was not seen like that after the disappearance of her own brothers. She was not a focal point of opposition, she was not someone Richard's oppoisition or anyone else wanted to put on the throne, she was never seen as an heir and potential queen regnant. Only as someone to bring bloodline and legitimacy to Henry's dynasty, but even on Henry's side she never had any more rights than any other queen consort of England, despite the fact that she was daughter of a king of England.
Henry certainly didn't forget this detail, telling his council: "The Lady Katherine is a proud, stubborn woman of very high courage. If she took it into her head to take her daughter's part, she could quite easily take the field, muster a great array, and wage against me a war as fierce as any her mother Isabella ever waged in Spain"
Even to her dying day, Katherine fought for the legitimacy of her marriage and Mary’s birth to be recognised. In her last letter to Henry, she signed it as ‘Katherine the Queene.’
The costumes in this series were very very accurate historically, I'm not sure I've ever seen such an accurate series or movie in this respect. Most of the costumes were designed according to paintings and portraits.
Also can we appreciate the best Anne Boleyn portrayal in these series ... like this is exactly how I imagine her to be and looks fairly similar to the famous portrait of her :)
Catherine of Aragon has a very impressive background. She is a daughter of King and a reigning Queen. She is also a descendant of an English royal. And at that time, her parents are the most powerful monarchs of Europe.
I like how she actually sounds spanish, what I hated from the Catalina from the Tudors is that she sounded like an english person that was still trying to learn how to speak spanish, i was not believeable that she was spanish at all
I hated that they didn't accurately present how much she was disagreeing with French alliance in real. In Tudors scene she merely privately informs her husband that she is not happy with his beard, and what it means. In real, she made huge scene and nagged her husband over and over again, until he actuall yshaved his beard off! French side was so insulted! ...And they didn't show that she and her husband lost 6-8 babies. They brushed over death of one son, but not at all about others...And only two of her children got to be the infants-Mary and prince Hal. Losing those children, in my opinion, killed something deep inside Henry VIII.
Qué tonto y vicioso fué Enrique VIII. Entre millones de mujeres no hay una mejor que Catarina de Aragón. Y el pobre desorientado por andar caliente con la Bolena, perdió lo mejor de su vida.
She was very brave and intelligent but is very alone woman at the same time. Seems she was right about her relation with Henry but we must accept that she has worked for Spain sometimes.
I think it only means that she had the strongest political background, the beheaded ones were only English subjects of Henry, not a foreign, royal-blooded princess. She couldn't have been beheaded. Daughter of the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, aunt to the current Emperor and King of Spain, it was a big thing even that a divorce from her cost Henry so little. And in Catherine's case, I think she was so flawless that even Henry couldn't find/create sins for her which could have justified an execution. And she was so beloved by the English that would have made it even more difficult to execute her for anything.
He did love her, but more than the love, he respected her and regarded her in very high esteem. He was "bewitched" by the beautiful and fierce Anne Boleyn, but Catherine of Aragon, the Spanish royal, remained dignified till the end. That is why in some aspects, Respect is more powerful than Love.
Nuria Geijsel apparently the Spanish themselves play into the stereotype of how Catherine has been portrayed physically. She was fair skin and apparently had fair hair too.
@@minorka2 An in this Spanish series, she has pale skin, blue eyes and fair hair. Look at a scene where she doesn't wear hood and her hair is actually visible.
I wonder if Katherine ever put to her concience her strict fasting in regards to death of her children. And what might have happened to her daughter and to England, if Henry VIII did as she wished. Another War of Roses, I imagine...
?? This woman has fair hair, not dark. You can't even see her hair in this scene because the hood covers it. Look at the other clips where you can actually see her hair. The actress playing Catherine of Aragon is fair-haired.
I love that not only henry but Anne's blood didn't passed down...she will.always be a homewrecker in my eyes...may be thats why still history remember her as a prostitute of king...
Henry was going to remarry anyway. It was a crisis for him and at that time there had never been female succession in England. Things would have happened differently without his infatuation with Anne but Catherine becoming too old and the intransigence of Catholic Europe were what provoked Henry. He continued his mistreatment of Mary and animosity towards the church long after Anne's death. He wasn't a good man or even King , but concerns about the succession were justified and ending the marriage was certainly his will.
Stood on front of armies that killed James of Scotland?!?! What a bunch of crap! That is clear lie! She never led army in her life. Earl of Surrey, Thomas Howard did! He won the battle of Flodden. And she wasn't even the one who commanded him to do so! Henry appointed him to defend the Kingdom before he left for France...and for that feat he restore Dukedom of Norfolk to him. Thomas Howard became 2nd Duke of Norfolk...and guess what? He was Anne Boleyn's grandfather! It always makes me so mad when she is portrait as warrior that defeated the Scots during her brief regency...while she actually did nothing! Thomas Howard had lived in North of England for 10 years prior, he was among nobles that fought Scottish in 1496-leading english army. He fought during war of roses too! He was experienced commander, who knew the terrain, knew the enemy and nobody nowadays gives him any credit for that! He and two of his sons risked their lives fighting the actual battle!!! Though I have to admit scene is actually acurate...Katherine did present herself as the person who defeated Scottish King and grossly overexarate her involment, taking credit for somebody's else actions ...it was all part of her propaganda. But not shred of truth...(and Wolsey would have known that...) How is that for humble obedient true christian? ...it's basically lying! I am not happy with what happened to her...but she was no saint. And no she didn't go rally troops either. That is a lie that is somehow spread on internet, but no historical evidence of it. Besides she was pregnant at the time...sure...go North closer to enemy...makes no sense. Historical evidence only mention her creating standards and flags...so basically she was sewing.
Finally somebody who read up on battle of Flodden. I've been telling that about Earl of Surrey for so long, he was really great military commander. I agree with you about Katherine not being good woman at all. So hypocritical! But one tiny detail. Actually she rallied the troops, but wrong troops. She rallied troops in Middlands, while Surrey raised army in the North. She gave very inspirational speech to them few days prior to the battle of Flodden. But if you look at the map and date of her speech, and date of battle of Flodden happening, you'll realise the army that she was giving speech to wasn't able to get to Flodden on time. No way! Not even cavalry. And frankly, I don't see why the army wasn't send to the North immediately after levies were raised. Why did they wait for Katherine? Did she wanted to show off?...(Because why else take most of the courtiers with her?...Makes zero sense!) And why if she wanted to give them motivation speech, she didn't wait at gathering place from beginning?...
You are taking the translation too literally, in Spanish what she says doesn't necessarily mean command the armies on the field, something she did not: "estar al frente" here basically means "i was the boss". She is just remarking she was in charge as the regent of England: logistics, funds, support from nobility, etc.
@@alfgui3295 She was, but she still managed to not handle it properly. Surrey was supposed to get reinforcements from South of England. He never got them because she didn't order levy to be raised until after enemy cross the border...she totally underestimated the situation. Or had no idea how much time army needs to travel. If Surrey didn't save the day, we'd be looking on her Regency with very different view(as major failure). And if any other commander stood against Scots on 9th of September 1513, I reckon English would lost. Scots had so much better position, bigger army, more and newer weapons...English were 12 thousand men short!...Because of her... No other reason. English lords couldn't raise levies and march them to North of England without royal summons. And summons came horribly late. So she was in charge, she was boss. But I am not surprised Henry VIII had Surrey be regent next time he went abroad and rather took Katherine with him to Field of Gold, despite knowing how much she was against French alliance. And support from nobles? That wasn't really that hard to get in England when enemy army was about to cross border. Irish support would be hard to get, not English(especially from Middlands), not Welsh. So she failed in logistics, she needed to work hard for support and royal treasury at the time wasn't yet empty either. Honestly, Henry VIII did more and better logistics from continent and send cannons from there that got to actual battle(and another commander to support Surrey), while everything she was preparing(or supposed to try to get) never got there. I know it is hard for hers fan to admit it, but she failed her Regency.
@@janehaylay1152 why did I not answer you? First, you are aware that she had ENGLISH MILITARY ADVISORS? right? who were, i have no doubt, more prepared than you to address the threat and what they could do. The strategy i suppose was to fortify positions and held the Scottish army to a stalemate in the case Surrey was defeated. Also, raising an army is not an easy task, you need to recruit, you need to clothe your recruits, you need to train them, you need to arm them, you need to feed them... so you need funds, and funds were raised in part from the nobility which i suppose was already contributing with their own troops and funds to the French campaign, that was the reason the Scots attacked, so nope, it was not an easy task to force them to pay more in troops and money. Also, in order to make your argument, you are applying a modern view in national values that was not present back then, nobility in the medieval age look for themselves and kings had not absolute power. Nope, i don't know why you despise her, and i don't care, but you are the one who find hard to admit her merits because of that.
@@alfgui3295 Catherine didnt do any of the stuff you said about raising the army. The Earl of Surrey did. She ordered him to raise the army for her. Queen Regents don’t lead armies. Especially Catherine who was expected to be pregnant with a male child, couldn’t risk her being captured so she was far away from the battlefield. The translation is not metaphorical. That’s what she did. That was the responsibility of a Queen regent.
Katherine never attended battle of Flodden, nor spoke to the army that won it. Earl of Surrey won the battle, while she didn't get pass Buckingham(town). More than 250 miles South of Flodden Field. Sorry, but this is greatly inaccurate! Surrey rode North as soon James IV said he'd invade, and raised army in the North. It was expected that he would get reinforcements from Middlands. He had only 26 thousand men, while James had 40 thousand! However that those reinforcement never came! Why? Because the Queen Regent, didn't order it to be raised until 3rd of September and battle happened on 9th! No way they could travel that distance! Even if they were all travelling on horses, it is impossible! If Surrey wasn't so shrewed, English would be screwed, given all that James IV had going for him, larger army, new deadlier technology, more cannons, terrain possition... All she did was give a speech to small part of army that managed to gather after 3rd, reportedly giving speech as from mouth of Isabella...(in front of entire court), but it was wrong army and horribly late!... Her entire regency is one big example how you shouldn't act as Regent and how to not act when you get a month notice, that enemy will invade!
Anastasia Lily I was joking. But, anyway, who did he think he was to send Catherine to trial, betraying his faith, killing thousands and so on just because he couldn't get an annulment?
I don't get how so many people still belief her defence. She claimed she was virgin...but...at the time it was customary for groom's mother to check bedsheats afterwards...or have other married woman to do it. I doubt the couple would be even allowed to leave to Wales before deed was done at least once. And Arthur was completely healthy at the time(despite nowadays rumours, at they weren't too young by the period standard). Capable of consumating it. And guess whom later insisted on dispensation for CONSUMATED marriage?...Arthur's parents. Because they knew she lied! Also...Henry after his wedding night didn't present the sheets. It was not the habit to show them...but it would shut up everybody! Henry was too in love with her in beginning to realise...but later he started to doubt it...his concience cought up with him. Katherine had been pregnant so many times, and only twice child lived for more than day. Most were miscarried or stillborn. From records of the time, Katherine was fasting so strictly...even for period standards it seemed too much. She was sent letter from Pope to start eating! But do you think she listened?...no. But when Henry wanted to divorce her?...suddenly Pope was only one she could trust and rely on. God did not take her children from her. It was her actions that did it. She brought it all upon herself by killing babies in her womb by starving them. (yeah she fasted even during pregnancy, just as her eldest sister did...) She was zealous fanatic who couldn't see common sense and couldn't admit when she was wrong.
I don't think people feel for Catherine or support Catherine because they believe her. Whether she was virgin or not, who cares? The English people loved her not because she married Henry a virgin but because she was a great queen. Henry certainly didn't care about Catherine's virginity for 20 years. No one cared. If anyone knew the truth, it had to be Henry, or at least he learned it on his wedding night. Only 20 later when he had to come up with an excuse to annull the marriage did he realize that "marrying your brother's widow" can actually be an excuse.
i see why some people think that Arthur might have been sick. His father said that Arthur might not live to get married to Katherine. But if you look at context, he was in fact complaining that it took Spanish side so long for Katherine to get England...(that his son might be sixty before she gets there!), it took them over a year...so I understand why he was frustrated. But some people are crazy, they even say he had testicular cancer...I asked-where is your prove? Did you do any research on it?...and they say-I read this article online....yeah, and let me guess, it also claimed that saintly good Katherine lead English army against Scottish in battle of Flodden...So accuracy 0! She really fasted a lot. 2 days a week, plus advent fast, plus fast before easter. If my math is correct, that is 161 days out of 365. So almost half of year. It's miracle Mary lived, with such frequent fasting of her mother. I personally think she had eating disorder and used religious fasting as way to hide it(as an excuse.) But yeah, it did cause her to loose her babies.
@@vilwarin5635 Disease that scientist who exhamined his remains have disproven, when they found no evidence of it. He didn't have syfilis. Another myth...proven wrong. And yet people still believe it. From logic of it, if almost children of Katherine died because of their mother being infected by sexual disease, she and her husband would have both have to be infected already in 1509/1510. Meaning all women, reported or just rumoured to be Henry's mistresses would very likely got it also. But they didn't have trouble conceiving with later partners, nor was there any talk of them having such sort of disease...Meaning the man they slept with, didn't have it.
@@Lily1127channel A dispensation had been obtained from the previous Pope for Henry to marry his brother's widow. So it didn't matter from a Canon Law standpoint.
Spring Day Is Not Today Why would the Borgia family understand English? Or romans in gladiator? Atila? The Prince of Persia? what a stupid question. LOL
James started a war against England. Catherine had to lead the troops to the fight, since Henry was abroad, fighting in France. James was a military man who liked to join the battle personally, and he died in the battle while fighting. Catherine was not responsible, she did what she had to do as Queen and Regent of England.
@@Lily1127channel She didn't lead any troops, she was more than 250 miles South of Flodden Field, not even passed Buckingham(town!). She gave speech to small part of Southern army, that were supposed to travel to the North as reinforcement to Northern army, join them there and march to the border together. Problem was, Katherine didn't order army in Middlands to be raised until 3rd of September(AFTER James IV crossed the border). Battle happened on 9th! Even if army was gathering at Northern part of Middlands, they'd still have some 100-150 miles to travel, and you cannot manage that with an army that fast! You simply can't! Battle was won by old fox of commander Earl of Surrey. Katherine had nothing like 0% to do with it. In fact, if he didn't won that battle on his own, without help she out to send to him, we would call her Regency not succesful at all. Because North of England would be totally exposed for Scottish at that point, with nobody to stop them. She'd be greatly bashed for allowing that to happen! Surrey saved her royal behind...while she screwed up.
She didn't kill him, she was nowhere near the battle. Earl of Surrey won the battle and she gets 100% of credit for 0% effort towards the victory. However, she asked for James IV's head, and for his body to be send to her so she could parade it through out the Kingdom and sent it to her husband. She writes in letter to Henry VIII, where she also stated that englishmen however didn't have the heart for it... Only one, who could send her James's head or his body, was very man who won the battle of Flodden Field, Earl of Surrey. Man who just showed no mercy to Scots on battlefield, killing big portion of Scottish nobility...and she calls him softy! I am not surprised he didn't do ask she asked, she didn't send him reinforcement from the South, screwed it horribly, not even ordering the army there to be raised until 3rd of September, and more so what good would it make for future relations of Scotland and England? She didn't think at all of Margaret and her child, nor her unborn child(he died as infant), what position she was in... Yes, English took James IV's body. We know that! Because Henry VIII asked for permission to have him burried despite James IV being excomunicated. But they at least didn't parade him around as trophy. If only for Margaret Tudor's sake. And it is possible that is exactly why Surrey refused to do it. Because he was the very person who took Margaret to be wed in Scotland, he knew her personally, he handed them to Scotts personally...he knew in what terrible position she was and he knew how bad things can get for people, who don't get backing of powerful people, especially for woman... This old fox managed to not only defeat James, but also look at larger perspective of things, future relationships...Katherine was so damn short-sighted it is mental!
NO,With all due respect,she lost her dignity that day! When a husband doesn't love her wife anymore,it is better to be separated.We know that from that day on,he hated her without any compassion,finally sending her away and without her daughter.She suffered more,because of her behavior!!He wanted a male heir!
True...but in this case in particular ,the young Henry fell in love with her...They were married and happy ,until she failed to give him a male heir...As she opposed him,he became more angry...besides Ann Boleyn was doing her best to look the perfect future queen!!! As we know she failed,miserably...
Yvette Irizarry she didn't "fail" him in anything. Woman should not be excepted such a thing. Katherine was much more of a queen to England than both Henry and Anne due to her bloodline. She was defending what was rightfully hers ! Case she gave in to Henry's demands Mary, the true heir of England, would still be called a bastard. She was Isabel's granddaughter for pete's sakes. She wasn't daughter of a communer.
A.T.: Of course we do know that know,about the gender,but not during that era...Whatever...The conclusion is that ,because of all that,he changed his personality and behavior,completely...He became a mad man as you know...and began an era of many mistakes during his reign...Was it all worth because her dignity was more important and the dowry?Was "Bloody Mary"s " reign the result of all that? Her misery growing up?
It could be that they were both at fault for their lack of healthy offspring. Certainly they had more than their fair share of bad luck. Henry did have sons, but they all died except for his bastard, Henry Fitzroy (who died in 1536)... so in that respect it wasn't his fault (he had at least four male children with four different women), and obviously though the wife is the carrier of the child, it's hardly likely that she did anything 'wrong' to cause her to miscarry. Maybe there was something wrong with her physically, and maybe Henry had weak sperm. He didn't have any better luck with Anne, though he didn't give her as long to try for a healthy son. Edward died at 15 and both Mary and Elizabeth were plagued with ill health, though Elizabeth lived into her 70s. At some point, the 'blame' does, in part, have to lie with him.
The divorce changed him, certainly, but he also had a near death experience during a jousting accident and only a few months later he had Anne beheaded. I think the accident damaged his brain, as he was said to have lain unconscious for over two hours. It would have also affected him deeply psychologically, as he knew if he died without a male heir, almost certainly there would be civil war. Elizabeth was only two and Anne was not a popular queen-they would have extremely vulnerable. It's likely Mary's cause would have been taken up, or possibly some distant male relative. His mania to have a son at this point must have been at its pinnacle, and then Anne miscarries a male child days later. Brutal.
i get her but in the same time i think she should have signed those divorce papers , this way she could have been allowed to see her daughter . She was NEVER going to one up the king , regardless of her status . Henry wanted a male heir and she could not provide one , she knew how important it was to him and to his government ( regardless of how we feel about it now in the 21th century) yet she persisted to stay married to him . she's proven her relentlessness to stay married to a man who didn't want her anymore more than her courage , how wise is it to challenge , especially henry 8 who challenged Rome itself , and won ? As I said, she should have signed the divorce papers and continued to have a peaceful life with her daughter or she could have gone back to Spain where she held hight titles but she had too much pride to just let go just like most nobles back then, too much pride .
Katharine of Aragon was incredibly sharp and intelligent. Many contemporaries often remark how she was the smartest person in the room at any occasion. She was given a very unconventional education for a daughter, being tutored in law, languages, philosophy and strategy from a young age, her father Ferdinand of Aragon even made her the Aragon/Castilian ambassador in the English Court after the death of her first husband Arthur, Prince of Wales, making her the first female ambassador in European history. The most incredible thing is that Katharine won her trial, both in London and in Rome, leaving Henry with the only option of moving the goalposts and breaking away from the Catholic Church if he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn. Katharine probably didn't believe Henry would be stupid enough to do such a thing for the sake of a male heir. As far as she was concerned, Mary should have been raised as the heir to England in the absence of a son. Mary's mother, Isabel of Castile, was a monarch in her own right after all. Castilian succession law was never big on male primogeniture, Katharine probably expected Henry to adopt this custom.
The irony is of course that Katharine of Aragon is remembered as probably the greatest Queen England has ever seen while her husband is remembered as a selfish tyrant. Even now people leave flowers on her grave and her epitaph still reads 'Katharine, Queen of England'.
I agree with all of this, excepting the part on Castilian succession law not being big on male primogeniture. Besides Berengaria, who reigned for less than a month before she abdicated for her son, Isabella the Catholic was Castile's first female monarch, after she succeeded her brother Henry IV the Impotent. Juana la Loca, Isabella's eldest daughter, became heir after her only brother predeceased her mother, and became Castile's second and last female monarch.
This isn't so different to England. Berengaria lived in the century later than Empress Matilda, who was almost crowned Queen of England, and later abdicated in favour of her son (but ruled much of England for substantially longer). Henry VIII, would himself be succeeded by Mary I and Elizabeth I, who contested the English throne with Jane Grey and Mary Stewart, (additionally Mary I's preferred successor was a women called Margaret Douglas, and Elizabeth I contemplated naming a women called Arbella Stuart her successor).
As in Castile, having four women contest the English throne had nothing to do with not being big on male primogeniture, and everything to do with a lack of male heirs. Later, when Charles II of Castile died, the new Bourbon monarchs of Castile and the other Spanish crowns implemented Salic law, thus barring women from the throne for good.
@@alexander9703 Isabella of Castile was not the first woman to rule in the Iberian kingdoms beside Berengaria. There were also Urraca and Petronilla. Female succession had relatively good chances in those lands by the time Isabella was born. Not nearly equal chances as men, but somewhat better than in most European kingdoms. For example, during Isabella's childhood, her elder brother Henry IV made the Castilians swear to his only child (of questionable parentage), Joanna "la Beltraneja", as his heir, while male relatives of his, including his legitimate brother Alfonso, was still alive. Making a king's daughter the heir while the king has a male legitimate sibling would have been unheard of in other places. Let's look at England at this time. By the time Edward IV's two sons died, their sister Elizabeth of York should have been considered the heir. She never was. The English sooner accepted Edward's brother Richard III, and then Henry Tudor (with hardly any legitimate claim) as their ruler than even considering Elizabeth of York as a possible queen regnant. Very different attitude towards female succession than in Castile. England got to the point of prefering a king's female child to his male sibling about 200 years later.
Also, Joanna I was not the last female monarch there. The Bourbon succession did not prevent female succession for good. Isabella II of Spain was their last female monarch (so far).
@@Lily1127channel Yes and nope, Urraca and Petronilla ruled but not "openly", they were "regents" in the name of their too young heirs; women could pass their royal status to their sons (instead of losing their royal status to another family branch or another royal house with a male heir) but they could not comply with what noblemen in the medieval ages, specially in Spain, had to do: medieval lords were expected to fight, and in the case of the kings only them could summon and lead the armies of their kingdoms, so women were out of the picture. Isabella is a case apart because several reasons, from her nature (she was an extraordinary leader), not having a male competitor for the title, and Ferdinand being a "foreign" king in Castile, but she still needed a "king" to lead her armies.
@@Lily1127channelThat's not really true about Elizabeth of York.
While her brothers were still alive (Edward V and prince Richard, sons of Edward IV) their uncle Richard declared them illegitimate, this included declaring their parents marriage illegal and their father a bastard. Parliament accepted this (although it is likely they were coerced). Richard was declared King and the boys were never seen again.
When Henry VII defeated Richard III he reversed the ruling and made her family legitimate again before marrying her.
She would have been the first female successor since Matilda but it was never an option for her to be queen in her own right, her brothers were alive at first and she didn't have an army capable of defeating Richard. She needed somebody like Henry to bring an army of supporters and assert her rights to the throne, which is why they were engaged and why so many Yorkists were among his supporters.
Henry demanded he receive the throne through right of conquest. In part so he didn't have to depend on her claim. This was because her supporters and family were a risk to him (his family were in large part killed by hers).
After years of civil war the English were desperate for peace . Henry's terms were accepted although it was still known that his claim to the throne was weak and hers the greater. The couple were married after a few months they very popular, especially Elizabeth.
@@hellsjamfleas Yes, and that is basically what my point also included. She was never really seen as someone who could rule, effectively, as queen regnant, only as someone who could bring yorkist support and bloodline. Never in her life was it really considered, by Parliament or by anyone, that she could rule as queen regnant, or at least a co-ruler with equal rights to her husband.
While Isabella became a natural claimant to the throne after her younger brother's death, she was even a focal point of opposition and rebels against her elder brother, and she eventually became queen regnant after her older brother's death, Elizabeth was not seen like that after the disappearance of her own brothers. She was not a focal point of opposition, she was not someone Richard's oppoisition or anyone else wanted to put on the throne, she was never seen as an heir and potential queen regnant. Only as someone to bring bloodline and legitimacy to Henry's dynasty, but even on Henry's side she never had any more rights than any other queen consort of England, despite the fact that she was daughter of a king of England.
Many people forget that Catherine was the daughter of Isabel of Spain. She wouldn’t have gone down without a fight.
Cobra Kai Studios that’s the reason her husband didn’t excute her.
@@newjerseylion4804 Henry can't and won't. Catherine is a daughter of Kings. She was born to be queen unlike the others that followed after her.
Henry certainly didn't forget this detail, telling his council:
"The Lady Katherine is a proud, stubborn woman of very high courage. If she took it into her head to take her daughter's part, she could quite easily take the field, muster a great array, and wage against me a war as fierce as any her mother Isabella ever waged in Spain"
Mucha gente.. Por que sois unos ignorantes... Así d claro...
Even to her dying day, Katherine fought for the legitimacy of her marriage and Mary’s birth to be recognised. In her last letter to Henry, she signed it as ‘Katherine the Queene.’
The Lioness of Spain ❤
Finally, a version where they have the right clothes, including the hood Katherine d'Aragon used to wear.
The costumes in this series were very very accurate historically, I'm not sure I've ever seen such an accurate series or movie in this respect. Most of the costumes were designed according to paintings and portraits.
Also can we appreciate the best Anne Boleyn portrayal in these series ... like this is exactly how I imagine her to be and looks fairly similar to the famous portrait of her :)
Haha exactly!!
What series is this? because i saw the tudors. but i Didnt know about this one
@@BabyyGirl-Tiny It's a Spanish TV series, 'Carlos, rey emperador'. It's about the life of Katherine of Aragon's nephew, Emperor Charles V.
Love this scene. Much better than how it was done on The Tudors.
barbiquearea she should've done the same character in the Tudors
Catherine of Aragon has a very impressive background. She is a daughter of King and a reigning Queen. She is also a descendant of an English royal. And at that time, her parents are the most powerful monarchs of Europe.
I like how she actually sounds spanish, what I hated from the Catalina from the Tudors is that she sounded like an english person that was still trying to learn how to speak spanish, i was not believeable that she was spanish at all
Well, it's a Spanish series so...
I hated that they didn't accurately present how much she was disagreeing with French alliance in real. In Tudors scene she merely privately informs her husband that she is not happy with his beard, and what it means.
In real, she made huge scene and nagged her husband over and over again, until he actuall yshaved his beard off! French side was so insulted!
...And they didn't show that she and her husband lost 6-8 babies. They brushed over death of one son, but not at all about others...And only two of her children got to be the infants-Mary and prince Hal. Losing those children, in my opinion, killed something deep inside Henry VIII.
Catherine from The Tudors sounds like with Latin accent. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well yeah because in the Tudors the actress who plays Catherine is Irish, so it's a bit much to expect the actress to speak in flawless Spanish lol.
I love Catherine for her bravery,intellengence,and faithfulness
ESSSO REINA!!! Now THIS is the real Catherine of Aragon!!! Esto SI que es la VERDADERA Catalina de Aragon!!!
Qué tonto y vicioso fué Enrique VIII. Entre millones de mujeres no hay una mejor que Catarina de Aragón. Y el pobre desorientado por andar caliente con la Bolena, perdió lo mejor de su vida.
this show is better than the tudors
Catherine of Aragon is awesome *flails around*
She was very brave and intelligent but is very alone woman at the same time. Seems she was right about her relation with Henry but we must accept that she has worked for Spain sometimes.
She was a Spanish princess, it's natural she'd try to work in Spain's benefit.
CATHERINE , QUEEN OF HEARTS !!
she actually won this battle with the court and henry got denied a divorce but he just split w the catholic church
Shame on you, Henry. Not worthy as KING AND HUSBAND.
It is actually notable that amongst his wives, Henry could not have her beheaded. That is one good point which means he loved her, really...
I think it only means that she had the strongest political background, the beheaded ones were only English subjects of Henry, not a foreign, royal-blooded princess. She couldn't have been beheaded. Daughter of the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, aunt to the current Emperor and King of Spain, it was a big thing even that a divorce from her cost Henry so little.
And in Catherine's case, I think she was so flawless that even Henry couldn't find/create sins for her which could have justified an execution. And she was so beloved by the English that would have made it even more difficult to execute her for anything.
Lili1127 I agree. The English people loved her to pieces.
Divorcing her nearly broke England apart, not to mention behead her. Harry the bastard certainly didn't want to go to war with Spain.
He did love her, but more than the love, he respected her and regarded her in very high esteem. He was "bewitched" by the beautiful and fierce Anne Boleyn, but Catherine of Aragon, the Spanish royal, remained dignified till the end. That is why in some aspects, Respect is more powerful than Love.
HE DID NOT LOVE HER, HE DID NOT KILL HER BECAUSE SPAIN WAS TOO POWERFUL.
1/04 How very true Magnificent Queen of England that your unjust disgrace did also come to the Cardinal
I can't stand the fact that catherine of aragon is portrayed as dark haired and dark eyed
Here she has blue eyes and fair hair.
Nuria Geijsel apparently the Spanish themselves play into the stereotype of how Catherine has been portrayed physically. She was fair skin and apparently had fair hair too.
Nuria Geijsel i totally agree!!
Catherine Arrieta-Gonzalez wasn't Isabel (the eldest) who looked more alike to her mother?
@@minorka2 An in this Spanish series, she has pale skin, blue eyes and fair hair. Look at a scene where she doesn't wear hood and her hair is actually visible.
The best moment of Queen Catherine. I prefer her to Catherine from The Tudors.
I agree, I also prefer this portrayal
@@Lily1127channelbut actress there, Maria Doyle Kennedy was also good
@@AdityaSingh-iz5zs Absolutely!
I wonder if Katherine ever put to her concience her strict fasting in regards to death of her children.
And what might have happened to her daughter and to England, if Henry VIII did as she wished. Another War of Roses, I imagine...
Well many peopkes are sayung that this show is good . Indeed it is. Bu actress in tudors was also good.
Can you add more of Catherine of aragon scenes from the series??
There are many other scenes with her that I uploaded 😊
Great Catherine! History favours her!
Amo histórias da realeza. Essa é a história que dá continuidade a Isabel de Castela?
Sim. História de Carlos V.
Did they miss the part where they kept calling her into the court?
The phoenix queen ❤
Name of the show, please?
Carlos, rey emperador
Catalina... Igual que su madre Isabel I de Castilla, la Católica
Henry was redhaired
The really queen of England
Catherine is wise and the rightful wife anne just produce a good heir for her to be recognized but the true queen is Catherine.
Catalina de Aragón, Lady Diana, ahora Kate Middleton... Las consortes británicas no son muy bien tratadas a la vez que son queridas por el pueblo.
This is so wrong. Lady Catarina has light color of hair, not dark. Like her mother Queen Isabelle.
?? This woman has fair hair, not dark.
You can't even see her hair in this scene because the hood covers it. Look at the other clips where you can actually see her hair. The actress playing Catherine of Aragon is fair-haired.
Queen Isabel of Aragon.
MM causing trouble in this life 😔
Anne is very beatiful
Poor catherine,i hate henry and anne
I love that not only henry but Anne's blood didn't passed down...she will.always be a homewrecker in my eyes...may be thats why still history remember her as a prostitute of king...
Henry was going to remarry anyway. It was a crisis for him and at that time there had never been female succession in England.
Things would have happened differently without his infatuation with Anne but Catherine becoming too old and the intransigence of Catholic Europe were what provoked Henry. He continued his mistreatment of Mary and animosity towards the church long after Anne's death.
He wasn't a good man or even King , but concerns about the succession were justified and ending the marriage was certainly his will.
캐서린의 딸 이름이 메리인건 캐서린의 조상쪽에 마리아라는 이름이 많아서일지도..
Stood on front of armies that killed James of Scotland?!?! What a bunch of crap! That is clear lie!
She never led army in her life. Earl of Surrey, Thomas Howard did! He won the battle of Flodden.
And she wasn't even the one who commanded him to do so! Henry appointed him to defend the Kingdom before he left for France...and for that feat he restore Dukedom of Norfolk to him. Thomas Howard became 2nd Duke of Norfolk...and guess what? He was Anne Boleyn's grandfather!
It always makes me so mad when she is portrait as warrior that defeated the Scots during her brief regency...while she actually did nothing!
Thomas Howard had lived in North of England for 10 years prior, he was among nobles that fought Scottish in 1496-leading english army. He fought during war of roses too! He was experienced commander, who knew the terrain, knew the enemy and nobody nowadays gives him any credit for that!
He and two of his sons risked their lives fighting the actual battle!!!
Though I have to admit scene is actually acurate...Katherine did present herself as the person who defeated Scottish King and grossly overexarate her involment, taking credit for somebody's else actions
...it was all part of her propaganda. But not shred of truth...(and Wolsey would have known that...)
How is that for humble obedient true christian? ...it's basically lying!
I am not happy with what happened to her...but she was no saint.
And no she didn't go rally troops either. That is a lie that is somehow spread on internet, but no historical evidence of it. Besides she was pregnant at the time...sure...go North closer to enemy...makes no sense.
Historical evidence only mention her creating standards and flags...so basically she was sewing.
Finally somebody who read up on battle of Flodden. I've been telling that about Earl of Surrey for so long, he was really great military commander.
I agree with you about Katherine not being good woman at all. So hypocritical!
But one tiny detail.
Actually she rallied the troops, but wrong troops. She rallied troops in Middlands, while Surrey raised army in the North. She gave very inspirational speech to them few days prior to the battle of Flodden. But if you look at the map and date of her speech, and date of battle of Flodden happening, you'll realise the army that she was giving speech to wasn't able to get to Flodden on time. No way! Not even cavalry.
And frankly, I don't see why the army wasn't send to the North immediately after levies were raised. Why did they wait for Katherine?
Did she wanted to show off?...(Because why else take most of the courtiers with her?...Makes zero sense!) And why if she wanted to give them motivation speech, she didn't wait at gathering place from beginning?...
You are taking the translation too literally, in Spanish what she says doesn't necessarily mean command the armies on the field, something she did not: "estar al frente" here basically means "i was the boss". She is just remarking she was in charge as the regent of England: logistics, funds, support from nobility, etc.
@@alfgui3295 She was, but she still managed to not handle it properly.
Surrey was supposed to get reinforcements from South of England. He never got them because she didn't order levy to be raised until after enemy cross the border...she totally underestimated the situation.
Or had no idea how much time army needs to travel.
If Surrey didn't save the day, we'd be looking on her Regency with very different view(as major failure). And if any other commander stood against Scots on 9th of September 1513, I reckon English would lost. Scots had so much better position, bigger army, more and newer weapons...English were 12 thousand men short!...Because of her...
No other reason. English lords couldn't raise levies and march them to North of England without royal summons. And summons came horribly late.
So she was in charge, she was boss. But I am not surprised Henry VIII had Surrey be regent next time he went abroad and rather took Katherine with him to Field of Gold, despite knowing how much she was against French alliance.
And support from nobles? That wasn't really that hard to get in England when enemy army was about to cross border.
Irish support would be hard to get, not English(especially from Middlands), not Welsh.
So she failed in logistics, she needed to work hard for support and royal treasury at the time wasn't yet empty either.
Honestly, Henry VIII did more and better logistics from continent and send cannons from there that got to actual battle(and another commander to support Surrey), while everything she was preparing(or supposed to try to get) never got there.
I know it is hard for hers fan to admit it, but she failed her Regency.
@@janehaylay1152 why did I not answer you? First, you are aware that she had ENGLISH MILITARY ADVISORS? right? who were, i have no doubt, more prepared than you to address the threat and what they could do. The strategy i suppose was to fortify positions and held the Scottish army to a stalemate in the case Surrey was defeated.
Also, raising an army is not an easy task, you need to recruit, you need to clothe your recruits, you need to train them, you need to arm them, you need to feed them... so you need funds, and funds were raised in part from the nobility which i suppose was already contributing with their own troops and funds to the French campaign, that was the reason the Scots attacked, so nope, it was not an easy task to force them to pay more in troops and money. Also, in order to make your argument, you are applying a modern view in national values that was not present back then, nobility in the medieval age look for themselves and kings had not absolute power.
Nope, i don't know why you despise her, and i don't care, but you are the one who find hard to admit her merits because of that.
@@alfgui3295 Catherine didnt do any of the stuff you said about raising the army. The Earl of Surrey did. She ordered him to raise the army for her. Queen Regents don’t lead armies. Especially Catherine who was expected to be pregnant with a male child, couldn’t risk her being captured so she was far away from the battlefield.
The translation is not metaphorical. That’s what she did. That was the responsibility of a Queen regent.
Katherine never attended battle of Flodden, nor spoke to the army that won it.
Earl of Surrey won the battle, while she didn't get pass Buckingham(town). More than 250 miles South of Flodden Field.
Sorry, but this is greatly inaccurate!
Surrey rode North as soon James IV said he'd invade, and raised army in the North.
It was expected that he would get reinforcements from Middlands. He had only 26 thousand men, while James had 40 thousand!
However that those reinforcement never came!
Why? Because the Queen Regent, didn't order it to be raised until 3rd of September and battle happened on 9th! No way they could travel that distance! Even if they were all travelling on horses, it is impossible!
If Surrey wasn't so shrewed, English would be screwed, given all that James IV had going for him, larger army, new deadlier technology, more cannons, terrain possition...
All she did was give a speech to small part of army that managed to gather after 3rd, reportedly giving speech as from mouth of Isabella...(in front of entire court), but it was wrong army and horribly late!...
Her entire regency is one big example how you shouldn't act as Regent and how to not act when you get a month notice, that enemy will invade!
I hate Henry VIII
Era hija de Isabel la Católica. Punto.
Maybe Catherine of Aragon could have hire a lawyer to defend her
Anastasia Lily And Henry would have beheaded him.
@@pilar2088 if he was the lawyer that Charles V had sent no Henry wouldn't have him beheaded because that would mean war
Anastasia Lily I was joking. But, anyway, who did he think he was to send Catherine to trial, betraying his faith, killing thousands and so on just because he couldn't get an annulment?
@@pilar2088 I know that you were joking
I am currently reading a book... Actually Charles V sent a lawyer to her, Eustace Chapuys.
But at the end Henry still won the cause.
I don't get how so many people still belief her defence. She claimed she was virgin...but...at the time it was customary for groom's mother to check bedsheats afterwards...or have other married woman to do it.
I doubt the couple would be even allowed to leave to Wales before deed was done at least once.
And Arthur was completely healthy at the time(despite nowadays rumours, at they weren't too young by the period standard). Capable of consumating it.
And guess whom later insisted on dispensation for CONSUMATED marriage?...Arthur's parents.
Because they knew she lied!
Also...Henry after his wedding night didn't present the sheets. It was not the habit to show them...but it would shut up everybody! Henry was too in love with her in beginning to realise...but later he started to doubt it...his concience cought up with him. Katherine had been pregnant so many times, and only twice child lived for more than day. Most were miscarried or stillborn.
From records of the time, Katherine was fasting so strictly...even for period standards it seemed too much.
She was sent letter from Pope to start eating!
But do you think she listened?...no.
But when Henry wanted to divorce her?...suddenly Pope was only one she could trust and rely on.
God did not take her children from her. It was her actions that did it.
She brought it all upon herself by killing babies in her womb by starving them.
(yeah she fasted even during pregnancy, just as her eldest sister did...)
She was zealous fanatic who couldn't see common sense and couldn't admit when she was wrong.
I don't think people feel for Catherine or support Catherine because they believe her. Whether she was virgin or not, who cares? The English people loved her not because she married Henry a virgin but because she was a great queen.
Henry certainly didn't care about Catherine's virginity for 20 years. No one cared. If anyone knew the truth, it had to be Henry, or at least he learned it on his wedding night. Only 20 later when he had to come up with an excuse to annull the marriage did he realize that "marrying your brother's widow" can actually be an excuse.
i see why some people think that Arthur might have been sick. His father said that Arthur might not live to get married to Katherine. But if you look at context, he was in fact complaining that it took Spanish side so long for Katherine to get England...(that his son might be sixty before she gets there!), it took them over a year...so I understand why he was frustrated.
But some people are crazy, they even say he had testicular cancer...I asked-where is your prove? Did you do any research on it?...and they say-I read this article online....yeah, and let me guess, it also claimed that saintly good Katherine lead English army against Scottish in battle of Flodden...So accuracy 0!
She really fasted a lot. 2 days a week, plus advent fast, plus fast before easter.
If my math is correct, that is 161 days out of 365. So almost half of year. It's miracle Mary lived, with such frequent fasting of her mother.
I personally think she had eating disorder and used religious fasting as way to hide it(as an excuse.) But yeah, it did cause her to loose her babies.
Katherine´s children were killed because of the venereal disease Henry passed to her.
@@vilwarin5635 Disease that scientist who exhamined his remains have disproven, when they found no evidence of it.
He didn't have syfilis.
Another myth...proven wrong. And yet people still believe it.
From logic of it, if almost children of Katherine died because of their mother being infected by sexual disease, she and her husband would have both have to be infected already in 1509/1510. Meaning all women, reported or just rumoured to be Henry's mistresses would very likely got it also. But they didn't have trouble conceiving with later partners, nor was there any talk of them having such sort of disease...Meaning the man they slept with, didn't have it.
@@Lily1127channel A dispensation had been obtained from the previous Pope for Henry to marry his brother's widow. So it didn't matter from a Canon Law standpoint.
Why would Anne understand Spanish 😂😂😂😂😂
Though I know this is a Spanish tv series..
Spring Day Is Not Today Why would the Borgia family understand English? Or romans in gladiator? Atila? The Prince of Persia? what a stupid question. LOL
That James of Scotsand thing, Katherine killed her sister-in-law, Margaret Tudor (Henry's sister)'s husband. What a good sister-in-law.
James started a war against England. Catherine had to lead the troops to the fight, since Henry was abroad, fighting in France. James was a military man who liked to join the battle personally, and he died in the battle while fighting. Catherine was not responsible, she did what she had to do as Queen and Regent of England.
@@Lily1127channel She didn't lead any troops, she was more than 250 miles South of Flodden Field, not even passed Buckingham(town!). She gave speech to small part of Southern army, that were supposed to travel to the North as reinforcement to Northern army, join them there and march to the border together.
Problem was, Katherine didn't order army in Middlands to be raised until 3rd of September(AFTER James IV crossed the border). Battle happened on 9th!
Even if army was gathering at Northern part of Middlands, they'd still have some 100-150 miles to travel, and you cannot manage that with an army that fast! You simply can't!
Battle was won by old fox of commander Earl of Surrey.
Katherine had nothing like 0% to do with it. In fact, if he didn't won that battle on his own, without help she out to send to him, we would call her Regency not succesful at all. Because North of England would be totally exposed for Scottish at that point, with nobody to stop them. She'd be greatly bashed for allowing that to happen!
Surrey saved her royal behind...while she screwed up.
She didn't kill him, she was nowhere near the battle. Earl of Surrey won the battle and she gets 100% of credit for 0% effort towards the victory.
However, she asked for James IV's head, and for his body to be send to her so she could parade it through out the Kingdom and sent it to her husband. She writes in letter to Henry VIII, where she also stated that englishmen however didn't have the heart for it...
Only one, who could send her James's head or his body, was very man who won the battle of Flodden Field, Earl of Surrey. Man who just showed no mercy to Scots on battlefield, killing big portion of Scottish nobility...and she calls him softy!
I am not surprised he didn't do ask she asked, she didn't send him reinforcement from the South, screwed it horribly, not even ordering the army there to be raised until 3rd of September, and more so what good would it make for future relations of Scotland and England?
She didn't think at all of Margaret and her child, nor her unborn child(he died as infant), what position she was in...
Yes, English took James IV's body. We know that! Because Henry VIII asked for permission to have him burried despite James IV being excomunicated. But they at least didn't parade him around as trophy. If only for Margaret Tudor's sake. And it is possible that is exactly why Surrey refused to do it. Because he was the very person who took Margaret to be wed in Scotland, he knew her personally, he handed them to Scotts personally...he knew in what terrible position she was and he knew how bad things can get for people, who don't get backing of powerful people, especially for woman...
This old fox managed to not only defeat James, but also look at larger perspective of things, future relationships...Katherine was so damn short-sighted it is mental!
Hola
Verónica
Hola.
Hola
NO,With all due respect,she lost her dignity that day! When a husband doesn't love her wife anymore,it is better to be separated.We know that from that day on,he hated her without any compassion,finally sending her away and without her daughter.She suffered more,because of her behavior!!He wanted a male heir!
True...but in this case in particular ,the young Henry fell in love with her...They were married and happy ,until she failed to give him a male heir...As she opposed him,he became more angry...besides Ann Boleyn was doing her best to look the perfect future queen!!! As we know she failed,miserably...
Yvette Irizarry she didn't "fail" him in anything. Woman should not be excepted such a thing. Katherine was much more of a queen to England than both Henry and Anne due to her bloodline. She was defending what was rightfully hers ! Case she gave in to Henry's demands Mary, the true heir of England, would still be called a bastard. She was Isabel's granddaughter for pete's sakes. She wasn't daughter of a communer.
A.T.: Of course we do know that know,about the gender,but not during that era...Whatever...The conclusion is that ,because of all that,he changed his personality and behavior,completely...He became a mad man as you know...and began an era of many mistakes during his reign...Was it all worth because her dignity was more important and the dowry?Was "Bloody Mary"s " reign the result of all that? Her misery growing up?
It could be that they were both at fault for their lack of healthy offspring. Certainly they had more than their fair share of bad luck. Henry did have sons, but they all died except for his bastard, Henry Fitzroy (who died in 1536)... so in that respect it wasn't his fault (he had at least four male children with four different women), and obviously though the wife is the carrier of the child, it's hardly likely that she did anything 'wrong' to cause her to miscarry. Maybe there was something wrong with her physically, and maybe Henry had weak sperm. He didn't have any better luck with Anne, though he didn't give her as long to try for a healthy son. Edward died at 15 and both Mary and Elizabeth were plagued with ill health, though Elizabeth lived into her 70s. At some point, the 'blame' does, in part, have to lie with him.
The divorce changed him, certainly, but he also had a near death experience during a jousting accident and only a few months later he had Anne beheaded. I think the accident damaged his brain, as he was said to have lain unconscious for over two hours. It would have also affected him deeply psychologically, as he knew if he died without a male heir, almost certainly there would be civil war. Elizabeth was only two and Anne was not a popular queen-they would have extremely vulnerable. It's likely Mary's cause would have been taken up, or possibly some distant male relative. His mania to have a son at this point must have been at its pinnacle, and then Anne miscarries a male child days later. Brutal.
i get her but in the same time i think she should have signed those divorce papers , this way she could have been allowed to see her daughter . She was NEVER going to one up the king , regardless of her status . Henry wanted a male heir and she could not provide one , she knew how important it was to him and to his government ( regardless of how we feel about it now in the 21th century) yet she persisted to stay married to him . she's proven her relentlessness to stay married to a man who didn't want her anymore more than her courage , how wise is it to challenge , especially henry 8 who challenged Rome itself , and won ?
As I said, she should have signed the divorce papers and continued to have a peaceful life with her daughter or she could have gone back to Spain where she held hight titles but she had too much pride to just let go just like most nobles back then, too much pride .
Hola