A Brief History
In 1529, an ecclesiastical, legatine court, presided over by a representative of the Pope, had been created to try the validity of the marriage between Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. The trial was held at Blackfriars Priory in London, and on June 18, both Henry and Catherine were summoned to appear before the court.
Digging Deeper
By this point in time, Henry and Catherine, his brother’s widow, had been married for 20 years. Though they had been happy for the majority of their marriage, Catherine had been unable to provide a son who lived past infancy. She did give birth to a daughter, however, the future Queen Mary, also known as Bloody Mary. The lack of a male heir weighed heavily on Henry, as his own father, Henry VII, had gained the throne through conquest and many considered his family an upstart one and his claim without legitimacy. With memories of the Wars of the Roses still so vivid, and despite the fact that most of the male contenders for the throne had already been executed, Henry was uncertain that a female monarch would be able to maintain the dynasty that he and his father had established.
Three factors were to come into play that greatly influenced Henry VIII’s decision to divorce himself from his wife: 1) One of his mistresses, Bessie Blount, had given birth to a son, which proved that he could sire boys; 2) He had read a passage in Leviticus (Chapter 20, Verse 16) – “If a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an impurity; he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.” Though Henry and Catherine did have a daughter, in Henry’s eyes and in the opinion of most of his contemporaries, girls did not count; and lastly 3) He had met Anne Boleyn, a refreshing, vivacious and charismatic contrast to his aging, dull and pious wife, and who teased him and refused to go to bed with him unless he married her, inflaming his passions even more.
And so, after trying to convince Catherine to go into a nunnery on her own, which she refused, Henry’s henchman Cardinal Wolsey managed to get Pope Clement VII to send a legate, Cardinal Campeggio, to try the marriage for possible annulment, so that Henry might remarry. The basis of the trial was to prove that Catherine was not, as she had protested, a virgin at the time of her marriage to Henry VIII and that her marriage to his brother Arthur had indeed been consummated.
Catherine’s appearance in court on the 21st of June, in which she gave impassioned plea on her knees in front of her husband, asking him to vouch for her integrity and virginity, has been portrayed in almost all movies on this topic, notwithstanding Showtime’s popular series The Tudors. Her leaving the court and ignoring summons to return, as she did not believe the court had the authority to try her marriage, was also just as dramatic.
Catherine is generally assumed to have been a religious, devout and pious woman. For most of her supporters and even adversaries for that matter, it would have been unimaginable that she would lie before God, but WHAT IF SHE HAD LIED? What would have been her reasons? And how would she have been able to justify them to herself? There is also much good evidence that Catherine told the truth, and the author could continue in her defense, but the remainder of this article will take a unique approach to the topic.
Prior to Catherine of Aragon’s arrival in England in 1501, England had been racked by the Wars of the Roses from about 1455 to 1485. This was basically a cousins’ war with two branches of the family – the white-rose Yorkists and the red-rose Lancastrians duking it out for control of the throne which would pass back and forth between the two sides. The wars finally came to an end when the last senior Lancastrian claimant, Henry Tudor, defeated the Yorkist king, Richard III, at the Battle of Bosworth. As Henry was descended from a lesser, illegitimate family line, many considered him a usurper instead of a conqueror. After his own marriage to a senior Yorkist princess, Henry VII set about to find a suitable wife for his eldest son to establish and give international validity to his newly formed Tudor Dynasty. He found her in two of the oldest royal kingdoms in Europe – Aragon and Castile, for Catherine was the youngest daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, two monarchs in their own right and whose marriage had united Spain. An alliance between the three kingdoms was forged, and Catherine was prepared from about the age of 3 onwards to be able fulfill her destiny as Queen of England.
One can only then imagine Catherine’s distress when her first husband died just five months after the wedding – her entire raison d’être (reason for being) was put at stake! Talks soon began to betroth her to her husband’s younger brother, and she must have known that her market value would be much higher if she was still a virgin. This was compounded by the fact that after her mother’s death, the larger of the Iberian kingdoms, Castile, fell away from the alliance, and Henry VII considered sending her home to her father. This would have meant utter failure and shame for Catherine.
At any rate, despite what Catherine later protested, no one believed her a virgin anymore at the time. After her first wedding night with her first husband, he boasted to his friends that that night he had been in Spain. And when negotiations were underway to marry her to his brother, a papal dispensation was sought. A papal dispensation would only have been necessary if Catherine had no longer been a virgin, as the Catholic Church did not recognize marriage that had not been consummated.
Whatever was going on in Catherine’s head and with all the confusion around her, she probably thought it best to claim to be virgo intacta, especially since the only person who could truly debate this was dead. If she was or not, she definitely was not anymore after her eventual marriage to Henry VIII, and she left it up to him at Blackfriars to deny that she had been a virgin on their wedding night. He, on the other, probably would not have in a position to determine that, as he himself, as protected by his father as he had been, was a virgin at the time, and she was the more experienced of the two and older by almost 6 years. In other words, she put him on the spot in front of the court, and he was made uncomfortable by it.
As devout as Catherine was, her refusal to go into a nunnery, shows her greater attachment to her position as Queen than to a religious life. In addition it is quite curious why Catherine prayed for hours, practiced penance and wore a hair shirt as a form of self-punishment. Was this because she was lying?
If at first, she may have lied to ensure that she fulfill her destiny and become Queen of England, she may later have lied to protect her daughter’s claim to the English throne and prevent her from being declared a bastard. Whereas Henry VIII had no faith in women rulers, Catherine, on the other hand, as daughter of the Warrior Queen, Isabella of Castile, had much more confidence in the future and abilities of her own daughter. In addition, Catherine, herself, had been quite capable a ruler, and it was under her regency while Henry was away fighting in France, that the English army defeated the Scots at the Battle of Flodden and killed their King James IV in 1513.
Whatever she had hoped to ultimately achieve, Henry did eventually divorce her, even though he had to break away from the Church in Rome to do so. Her daughter did in fact become queen, but her efforts to bring England back to Catholicism left her hated. It would be Elizabeth I, or Gloriana, the daughter of Catherine’s rival, Anne Boleyn, who brought about England’s Golden Age.
Whether she had lied or not, the sad fact of the matter is that had just one of her sons survived, Henry would never have divorced her, for he, himself, had often said, she had been the perfect wife and queen and that he would choose her above all others. It was her destiny, and she played it well, but it was her biology that brought her down. And that faulty biology may in part have been due to her religious devotion, but that is another article…
For part 2 of this series, please read the History and Headlines article: What if Anne Boleyn Had Slept with Henry VIII?
Question for students (and subscribers): Should Henry have maintained his marriage to Catherine? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please see…
Tremlett, Giles. Catherine of Aragon: The Spanish Queen of Henry VIII. Walker Books, 2010.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="2611 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=2611">86 Comments
The tudors was actually on Showtime..great article though.
Dear Chykim, Thank you for that correction. I have amended the article! I was living in Europe when the show aired, so I watched it online. And also thank you for your compliment 🙂
Even if anyone thinks she had to have been lying, given the damage she had to finally realize she was doing, she would definitely not have continued to lie if, as was obvious, she could stop Henry from totally breaking with Rome if she then gave up said lie.
Der Cpt, Your point is valid. You are saying that since Catherine was extremely religious, that had she been lying she might have recanted and confessed the truth (consummation of her first marriage) if it meant that England would remain with the Church of Rome. However, as I said in my article, there are just as many good reasons why Catherine did in fact tell the truth (non-consummation). I just wanted to present a different possibility. And besides even if she hadn’t told the truth, she still had received the papal dispensation to marry Henry. In her eyes, this permission probably trumped anything Henry could come up with.
Really well-written & interesting! Thanks for sharing it & please write some more!
Dear Skye, Thank you so much for the compliment 🙂 Please become a subscriber to our site, if you haven’t already done so. We also have a page on FB. Please like it. If you want to follow my articles in particular, just type my name and the word freelancer into FB. I list all of them there.
Lovely article!!!! extremely interesting and well written
Thank you for your enthusiastic reception of my article. Comments like yours inspire me to keep writing 🙂
An interesting article! Who Knew?! This actually surprised me!
Of course, unless contemporary documentation is ever found (highly unlikely), we’ll never know what really happened, but the possibility that she lied exists. Personally, I do not think she did, but she may have twisted the truth somewhat.
I believe it was Henry VIII, not Arthur, who claimed to have been in Spain that night. And please proof-read the first sentence of your sixth paragraph.
Thank you for pointing out that a verb was missing. I have corrected the oversight. In regard to that statement, however, it was Arthur who uttered it. Another version of it goes: “for I have been in the midst of Spain last night.” Here is an excerpt from the Tudorswiki:
“The Morning after: There had been hot competition to be part of Arthur’s wedding-night party. One of those who struck lucky was Sir
Anthony Willoughby, a body servant of Arthur’s. He was sneaked in by his father, Lord Broke, the Lord Steward of the Household and Catherine’s escort on her journey from the west country. The morning after, Willoughby claimed, Arthur had boasted of his exploits. ‘Willoughby’, he had ordered, ‘bring me a cup of ale
for I have been this night in the midst of Spain’.There were, Willoughby asserted, several witnesses to the remark. Later, the Prince had said openly, ‘Masters, it is good pastime to have a wife’. The words stuck in men’s memories, as well they might, and at least one otherwitness confirmed the story.”
Could have sworn it was Henry but do confess I harp from memory too often. Apologies, Beth, I haven’t looked it up. Credit due for tackling difficult but interesting subject matter, and for your charitable response to a cad. I enjoyed your article.
How interesting that she could have lied! I don’t think she did though because she was so religious, it would have just brought more problems for herself.
I don’t think that Catherine lied about being a virgin. I think she really was religious and devoted her soul towards honoring God. I think this article is just trying to stir something up as if she wasn’t a virgin.
Just one suggested correction. I think Catherine and Henry would still have needed a Papal dispensation to marry as she still was the great-great Granddaughter of John of Gaunt, son of King Edward III of England. Dynastic marriages such as this generally were between cousins and no one would jeopardize the perceived legitimacy of one’s children by marrying a cousin without one.
I thought this was very interesting. I never have thought of Catherine of Aragon and if she lied. I know that is completely and she should have been queen. She had the ability who cares about the biology of it.
In terms of her lying, I’m unsure what her reasons would be for it. And she clearly wasn’t as religious as she claims due to the fact that she refused to go into a nunnery.
I like the article a lot very educational and entertaining. I think she did lie because if she was married for 5 months before, I would almost bet the marriage was consumated.
You know Henry Fitzroy (Henry’s VIII’s son) and his wife Mary Howard? They were both married to one another and didn’t consummate it despite being married for almost three years. Fitzroy died when he was seventeen by the way. KOA was only married to Arthur for 4 months and 19 days. There is another case with another couple around KOA’s and Arthur’s age. It is not as strange as you think it is.
I actually had seen Tudors on showtime before this article. But it’s still a good read, keep it up
Interesting, but if she did lie it would not have mattered, the damage was done already.
I think that given the circumstances it is extremely likely that Catherine was lying, but for good cause. Having a male child was very important to royal families, and it made the difference in a lot of historical instances. raising a girl child was a worthless as having a fish when it came to royalty, and since Catherine was not able to raise a male child, she was forced to lie and with no witnesses to disprove her claims, it makes perfect sense.
I don’t think that she would have lied due to her religion, or maybe she did lie to make her seem like a better person. It’s interesting to look at both sides.
Henry VIII always fascinates me. It’s amazing how far a man will go to have a legitimate heir. It’s sad that he went to such extremes and that so many women suffered because of him. Royals in history would make a great soap opera.
I don’t agree with the wording “It was her destiny, and she played it
well, but it was her biology that
brought her down. And that faulty biology may in part have been due to
her religious devotion, but that is another article…” I don’t understand
what her biology had to do with it? It was Henry’s “fault” they didn’t
have sons as its males who determine the sex of the child.
Dear Marie-Chantal, Thank you for taking the time to read the article and to leave a comment. I am currently writing a series on the Wives of Henry VIII. My take on Anne of Cleves is scheduled for publication tomorrow. Once I am written at least one article for each wife, I will go back to explore some of them individually again – Catherine of Aragon being the first since I had promised to return to the issue of her childbearing capabilities. I understand that the male is responsible for determining the sex of a child, however, Catherine did give birth to at least 3 sons, at least one of whom survived the birth. And Catherine’s last recorded pregnancy was in 1518 when she was only 33. Perhaps her body was already worn out at that point or maybe an exposure to an STD had rendered her infertile. The answer will most likely never be known. I do have some other related theories, though, which I will elaborate on in my next article devoted to her. I hope you stick around for it 🙂
Dear Marie-Chantal, Thank you for taking the time to read the article and to leave a comment. I am currently writing a series on the Wives of Henry VIII. My take on Anne of Cleves is scheduled for publication tomorrow. Once I am written at least one article for each wife, I will go back to explore some of them individually again – Catherine of Aragon being the first since I had promised to return to the issue of her childbearing capabilities. I understand that the male is responsible for determining the sex of a child, however, Catherine did give birth to at least 3 sons, at least one of whom survived the birth. And Catherine’s last recorded pregnancy was in 1518 when she was only 33. Perhaps her body was already worn out at that point or maybe an exposure to an STD had rendered her infertile. The answer will most likely never be known. I do have some other related theories, though, which I will elaborate on in my next article devoted to her. I hope you stick around for it 🙂
Ah ok well that makes it slightly clearer, thanks. I did like your theory about her piety though, very interesting…
Actually when she was widowed, it would have been to her credit had she NOT been a virgin. She would have had dower rights and gotten a pension from Arthur’s estate. She renounced those rights and stated that the marriage had not been consummated. The pope could have made a dispensation that allowed Henry to marry his dead brother’s widow (there were 2 dispensations actually, one leaving the question of Katherine’s consummation open, the other implying it had been), it would not have been an issue. Also, in those times, lying was a MUCH bigger deal than it is today and Katherine was a very pious woman (along with most people in those times).
Personally, I think Katherine was telling the truth and that her marriage with Arthur had not been consummated. But even if it were, it wasn’t a proper reason for Henry to have their marriage dissolved.
I like your blog, I really enjoy thinking about things like this. I love Tudor history.
Henry having all of the wives is the part that amazes me. 6 wives that is insane.
It is interesting to me how divorce is the easy way out for most people… especially religious people… how ridiculous! — DAVID WARDLE
It would be strange for a religious woman not to consummate on her wedding night, much less after 5 months had passed, but I think we have to take her word
It’s wild to think that not having a male heir could tear apart a nation! Great article, very well-written!
I think its crazy how much influence a woman can have on even a KING when it comes to marriage and divorce. But then again, King Henry was not very hard to influence in this area.
She may have lied about being a virgin but I think the real reason she was divorced was because her and Henry were unable to have a male son together
I think that both Henry and Catherine had motivation to lie, and it would be basically impossible to prove if either one of them was or was not. Henry could be lying to get out of his marriage and Catherine lying to stay in the royal family. I think that Catherine could definitely be lying, because it seems a little mischievous to marry two brothers who happen to be royalty.
interesting article! very well-written!
I’ll never be able to get that Henry song out of my head now. It’s so long and repetitive.
-JH!
Divorce seemed to be the easy way out. Interesting artcile though
Great article really interesting. This might be one of he best articles that you have wrote. Thanks for the information.
If she did lie i don’t think it would have mattered in the end honestly.
Catherine certainly had motivation to lie just to remain royalty, but at that point, it does not even seem to matter what she said. From Henry’s standpoint, she was probably not going to remain his wife anyways.
Thought it was a great article! Too bad Henry already broke away from the Catholic Church.
very interesting to read
Interesting that Catherine might make up a story in order to remain powerful- obviously love for Henry was not her only reason to live.
While I personally doubt Catherine lied about her virginity, the idea that she may have lied is an interesting one to discuss. There does seem to be quite a few good reasons why she may have lied about it, though none of that mattered in the end as all Henry wanted was a son and she couldn’t give that to him.
Whether she lied or not, they still were divorced. I think she was lying though. She claimed to be religious, devout, and pious, but that all could have been a lie as well.
Very interesting article! Even if she did lie I don’t think it would have mattered anyway
It is interesting that although it is still important to have children today, it was very important to have at least one male child in the 1500s.
I find it hard to believe that a marriage of 5 months was not consummated. I do believe Catherine lied.
Stranger things have happened, look at the marriage of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. And actually, the marriage between Arthur and KOA was only 4 months and some days. I think her lying poses more problems than you are considering. Especially when she could get a dispensation if she had consummated the version, indeed, it the was the English who wanted the dispensation that way, so if she was doing so to retain her place as Queen of England, why risk upsetting the English. And surely you know, if she had received a dispensation based on her being a virgin and she wasn’t, then she would not be legally married to Henry VIII and her children with him would be bastards. I find it hard to believe KOA would risk something like that, knowing how important it was for a Queen to beget legitimate heirs. Not to mention she swore under oaths and had the seal of confession broken, which was a risk to her immortal soul. Frankly? I believe her.
Dear Couture Byrd, Regarding the consummation of Arthur and Catherine’s marriage, a thought that recently crossed my mind was, “What if they had different opinions of what consummation meant?” Arthur did boast after all that he had slept with her. Without being graphic, perhaps he did “enter” her, but maybe he didn’t complete the act. They were certainly both virgins, and did not really know what they were doing, and like I mentioned in a previous comment, it is possible that Catherine convinced herself that what they did did not constitute proper sex. Of all royal marriages, had a group of clergymen, courtiers and family been there to witness that sex had indeed taken place, it definitely would have changed the course of history.
After all Henry VIII went through to divorce his first wife, it never proved to be be worth it since he went on to marry five more times.
I wonder would Henry would have thought if he had found out that the gender of the offspring relies on the man rather than the woman.
It’s interesting how much virginity was held up as a good quality even as recent (relatively speaking) as around 500 years ago. The cultural shift in terms of how we view human sexuality has been amazing if you really think about how long other types of values were desired.
Very interesting article and really well-written! I would read more like this!
I am currently reading “The Contant Princess” by Philippa Gregory. It is a great book. It is about Catherine of Aragon and the book that was mentioned above. They were great books and this was a great article. I love Tudor history!
I can’t believe Henry would divorce her after 20 years of marriage! But of course he had 6 wives, so clearly he was more interested in keeping his legacy alive.
Very interesting article, I don’t know if I could believe what she said. It just doesn’t make senses
I wonder if he would have married her in the first place knowing she would not have a son
A dispensation was required regardless of whether or not the marriage was consummated. Forsan (perhaps) was entered to satisfy both the Spanish and English parties. The Spanish wanted a dispensation based off her being a virgin, it was the English who said otherwise, and wanted to cover all bases. And did you know the original dispensation was for the fact that the marriage had been consummated, but at the last minute it was changed to include the word “perhaps”? It was done to satisfy the Spanish monarchs. KOA had studied canon law, and she had the example of her sisters to know, that proper dispensations were needed. Interestingly, though do you suggest that KOA was willing to apply for a false dispensation, and would knowingly enter a false marriage and give birth to illegitimate kids, I see no evidence to support such a notion.
Dear Couture Byrd, Thank you for your very thorough and well thought out comments to my article. In the past, I would probably have said that Catherine would never have lied before God, but the older I get, and the more I learn about human nature and desperation, I know that truths can get twisted and eventually if one says it enough to oneself, one will believe it; one creates a new reality for oneself so to say. Now, I’m not saying it’s definite that Catherine lied, but who knows what she, in her lonely and young state, was able to convince herself of.
Your welcome, I don’t mean to suggest KOA was perfect, but in my opinion on such a weighty matter, I think she was telling the truth. I for one cannot understand why she would lie when knew she could get a dispensation if she had consummated her marriage. In fact, the Catholic Monarchs got a dispensation for Maria of Aragon (KOA’s elder sister) to marry Manuel I of Portugal despite having married Isabel of Aragon (another sister of KOA) and having had a child with her. And also consider that a number of lies were being told about KOA during the great matter. But it is nice to debate history.
Dear Couture Byrd, In case you are a Tudor history lover (and I suspect you are), you may also like to read the other articles in my series on the Wives of King Henry VIII. Thus far, I have also written ones for Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves. The next wife I will shortly write about is Catherine Howard. Simply type these names into the site’s search function.
“aging, dull and pious wife”. What is wrong with being pious? Anne became increasingly pious and Evangelical herself as the years went on. Anne is always portrayed as a pop star and Katherine “is just so dull”, because of their daughters. Yes, by the time Anne came into the picture, Catherine’s physical beauty was gone, and she was old, but dull? Please. She remained brilliant, intelligent, exquisitely-educated, courageous. This was a woman who had commanded an army, donned full armor, and ridden into battle for England as Queen Regent, while heavily pregnant and a month away from giving birth. (Her.Mother’s.Daughter.) Not even Elizabeth I did that, she never took the field in armor, despite that scene in “The Golden Age”. Anne may have been a witty conversationalist, but she could’ve never done anything like that, because she just wasn’t raised to be a queen. That’s why Henry put K away, he was terrified she could raise an army and wage a terrible war against him. For all her apparent meekness, he knew her, he knew she’d gown up in a household in which doing just that was like drinking water. Catherine is long due an accurate film or series portrayal of her *entire* life.
Isabel, You are preaching to the choir. Of course there is nothing wrong with being pious and whether Catherine of Aragon was dull or not can be disputed. Besides being dull is subjective and open for interpretation. There are many contemporary sources that describe her as such. It may be that her failed pregnancies cost her her “joie de vivre.” In the end, for all her good virtues and attributes that you mentioned, it was not enough in Henry’s eyes, though he did state on at least one occasion that he would choose her about all others if circumstances had been different. In my opinion, Catherine probably would not have raised an army against Henry as she likely would not have wanted to subject the country to war. She certainly had enough supporters. Many of whom died for her. Furthermore, she always viewed herself as Henry’s loyal wife, and as such, she never would have been disobedient to him (other than rejecting the divorce and the bastardization of her child). Yes, an accurate film on Catherine’s life would be wonderful to watch, but the outcome would still be the same.
P.S. You may also enjoy reading the other articles in my series on the Six Wives of Henry VIII. I have written ones for Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves. Simply search the site for them. Catherine Howard is up next.
But KOA did have children. Apart from Mary Tudor, she got pregnant five more times and suffered several miscarriages. But one boy survived 52 days. So I wouldnt dare to say the Great Affair was du to her “faulty biology”. She got old and couldn´t have any more children, thats all.
I’ve often wondered this myself, but for a different reason…. When Katharine was in her final illness, the Imperial ambassador, Eustace Chapuys, a close friend of Katharine’s, arranged it with her that during her final communion, she would swear on the host that she had never had carnal intercourse with Prince Arthur. (Anne Boleyn used the same moment, her final communion, to swear her innocence of adultery.) But when Katharine received her last rites, she didn’t do it. Why? In the last minutes of her life, did it not seem important? Or did she not want to endanger her immortal soul by going to meet her God with a lie on her lips?
As for the hair shirt, it was something she might have done, even without having such a serious sin as lying on her soul. The point of it was “mortifying the flesh,” a medieval concept in which the soul benefited through the suffering of the body. Thomas More wore one, too. Katharine had joined a “lay order,” a religious order for those who still lived “in the world” but wanted to live a fully devoted religious life. As a queen, Katharine was expected to wear her sumptuous robes so, she wore the hair shirt beneath her velvets and silks.
In those days, even without lying, everyone was expected to behave as though they were an evil, terrible sinner. You see that in the scaffold speeches of those condemned to die. Even those who lived an exemplary life, like Thomas More, Margaret Pole, and Bishop Fisher, confessed themselves to be wretched sinners who deserved death, and the audience should take warning from what happened to them and amend sin in their own lives.
Dear Owner auf Historyandheadlines.com ,
You are using an illustration that I own the copyright of. The name of the
work involved is “Catherine of Aragon”. It appears on a site
operated by you at https://www.historyandheadlines.com/june-18-1529-catherine-aragon-lied/. I have reserved all rights to this work, which was first published here: http://kristinagehrmann.deviantart.com/art/TQ1-Catherine-of-Aragon-216383760
Your copying and or use of my illustration, which appear at the link above,
is unauthorized. You neither asked for nor received permission to use
the piece in this article. Furthermore, you have not credited me for my work and caused
confusion as to whom the original author of the work is. Therefore, I
believe you have willfully infringed my rights under 17 USC §101, et
seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $100,000.
Further, such copyright infringement is a direct violation of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act and International Copyright Law.
I demand that you immediately cease the use of the
illustration and all copies of it, that you remove any further works you may
have stolen and that you desist from this or any other infringement of
my rights in the future.
If I have not received proof of compliance from you within 72 hours, I
shall consider taking the full legal remedies available to rectify this
situation including contacting my lawyer and/or your site’s
administrators.
Sincerely,
Kristina Gehrmann
Dear Ms. Gehrmann,
As the author of this article, I am responding to you on behalf of my colleagues. I am truly sorry for any infringement of copyright. I did not have any part in the selection process of the image as this was one of my first articles for the site, and I was not responsible for procuring the image. In the meantime, it has been removed and replaced. Please accept our apologies.
On a side note, I checked out your work on the site you provided, and I am very impressed. I myself have written a series of articles on the Six Wives of Henry VIII, and you have illustrated all of them beautifully. Here is a link to my series: https://www.historyandheadlines.com/the-six-wives-of-henry-viii-a-less-than-conventional-approach/ If ever you’d consider letting us use your images in the future, of course we would credit you fully.
Best regards, Beth Michaels
A papal dispensation would only have been necessary if Catherine had no longer been a virgin…………..No, that’s incorrect – a papal dispensation would’ve been necessary, whether or not Catherine still had a hymen after Arthur’s death.
She was related to Henry within the degrees of affinity of the Roman Catholic Church. When you married a man, his brother did not become merely your brother-in-law (or brother-by-marriage as it was termed then, as marriage in the Western world could only be a religious ceremony, and law did not enter into it with procuring a marriage license as it does today) – he became your brother. It would’ve been considered incest in the eyes of the Church for Catherine and Henry to enter into a betrothal without a dispensation, even if she did have sex with Arthur.
Isabella and Ferdinand made sure they dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s with that. When ‘The King’s Great Matter’ was going on, it was discovered that they’d procured a second dispensation from Pope Julius II. That one added in that the dispensation was valid even if the marriage between Catherine and Arthur had been consummated.
Henry was furious when that was dusted off and brought to light. Charles V would not allow Wolsey or Henry to get their hands on the original dispensation and only sent a copy to England, which made Henry suspicious about the second dispensation’s existence prior to him trying to dump Catherine.
As long as you could get a papal dispensation for a marriage within the degrees of affinity – even after the fact, as happened sometimes when the parties were too impatient to wait for it – it didn’t matter how closely the parties were related (the kings of Spain later would become notorious for their uncle-niece marriages!) or if the bride was a virgin.
In this case, the dispensation was requested because Henry had become Catherine’s brother upon her marriage to Arthur, not because that marriage may or may not have been consummated. After her parents thought it over, they then requested a dispensation that said the state of Catherine’s hymen didn’t matter, as the first had omitted reference to it.
Yes, I know, I’ve been long-winded AND pedantic!
Very interesting! It is interesting to see the struggles this man went through to have a son! Also, I doubt she was a virgin!
i really wonder if he would of married her if he knew the child was only going to be a female since that would have changed history as we know it and we would of never had heard of bloody mary.
Very insightful article, and as she was human and involved deeply in the Tudors messy politics, not entirely unbelievable. Regardless though, she did still suffer much under Henry III, though he did clearly show her much more compassion than many of his other exes.
I wonder if he would have still married her if he had any clue that she would only give him a female heir. Probably not, but you never know
I feel he would not have married her if he knew he was going to have female children, most men of power want a male so they can take over their throne.
some will do anything for power
I still can’t believe that King Henry had six wives. I also can’t imagine wanting to be one of King Henry’s wives seeing the legacy of what happened to the previous wife.
Funny to think about how kings back then may have reacted when told it was their fault for not having a son since they are where the Y chromosome necessary for a male comes from.
Its crazy he had six wives, to bad it ended badly for most !
Very well written article.
Too bad about her husband dying five months after their marriage.
if she was devout and pious i don’t think she lied. but you never know!
That is a short marriage