Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
4:54 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
It was my understanding that Anne placed Madge in the king’s path. So, no tearing hair out of Madge’s head. Sounds weird that Anne would do that, but at least she knew Madge wouldn’t be whispering in his ear to take Katherine back as the unknown, mystery mistress was doing.
Chapuys later corrected himself and said he was wrong about Henry tiring of Anne. (1534)
Why would Henry be forced to take Katherine back if he got rid of Anne? People always say this, but I don’t see how it would happen. It certainly can’t be for religious reasons, that would only happen if Henry took back the Catholic faith, right? I can’t see that happening. Nor could it be because Katherine’s marriage wasn’t anulled, it was, by Cramner under the new faith. Was it based on the hope that Henry would have seen the light and gone back to Catholicism and Katherine? I totally disagree with this idea of Henry being forced to take Katherine back, or that he would willingly do so. He was done with that marriage. What am I missing here?
4:43 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Sharon said
It was my understanding that Anne placed Madge in the king’s path. So, no tearing hair out of Madge’s head. Sounds weird that Anne would do that, but at least she knew Madge wouldn’t be whispering in his ear to take Katherine back as the unknown, mystery mistress was doing.
Madge(o r possiby Mary) was Anne’s cousin, her mother was Thomas’s sister. That meant that Madge may have toed the party line and allowed her-self to be Henry’s mistress in return for pilow-talk to remind Henry of all Anne’s god points..
Why would Henry be forced to take Katherine back if he got rid of Anne? People always say this, but I don’t see how it would happen. It certainly can’t be for religious reasons, that would only happen if Henry took back the Catholic faith, right? I can’t see that happening. Nor could it be because Katherine’s marriage wasn’t anulled, it was, by Cramner under the new faith. Was it based on the hope that Henry would have seen the light and gone back to Catholicism and Katherine? I totally disagree with this idea of Henry being forced to take Katherine back, or that he would willingly do so. He was done with that marriage. What am I missing here?
I think part of this is due to KoA’s earlier speech about “if Henry was with her for a week, he would remember his lve for her and renounce his actions and that is why they are kept apart” or words to that effect.
I really can not see Henry returning to Katherine after 1530/31…Henry had invested to much of his tme, effort, influence , money , pride and honour not to mention his soul in order to free himself..
However..he remained a Catholic and his Church was still Catholic since his dispute was over Papal authority rather than the later doctrinal isues which have now seperated the RC interpretations from the Anglican doctrine espoused by Cramner and others during the reign of Edward VI.
It's always bunnies.
4:30 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
So, wishful thinking on Katherine’s part and the rest of the Catholics? Henry didn’t believe he made a mistake. Nothing Katherine could have said to him, given a week, or a year, would have changed his mind. You are right Anyanka, Henry had invested everything in order to free himself of Katherine. He believed, or he said he believed, that their marriage was sinful. He would not have reversed himself on that. Then there is the fact that he needed a male heir. He certainly couldn’t get one from Katheine. That would have been the end of debate.
6:01 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Lard arse had told the Pope to get stuffed and ignored the Pope’s direct order to put aside Anne and take back his wife, even before Lard Arse and Anne were married, so I think it’s highly unlikely, that he would have put Anne aside and returned to K.O.A in 1534. To do so would admit that he was wrong in putting aside K.O.A in the first place.
I do wonder though whether K.O.A could have talked Lard Arse into submission, if she had been given the chance? I think it was wishful thinking on her part, because once he had made his mind up that was the end. I’m not to sure, but I believe she tried to talk him out of executing Buckingham. If she did try, the fact that Lard Arse so resolutely stuck to his guns, about Buckingham, having a date with the Axeman, should have told her, she would get more sence out of a can of Spam, then she would Lard Arse.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
5:40 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Hannele said
I think the real problem was not a canon law as such (as interpreted in England by Cranmer) but how the matter was seen by the Emperor and the Pope. The crux of the matter was not the return of Katherine but how any new marriage would have seen by them when Katherine lived.
To be honest..I can’t see that either the Emperor or Pope would favour another marriage while KoA ws still alive..not to Anne nor to another woman regardless of whom she was related to..
If Henry had divorced Anne (or annulled his marriage with her) and remarried with someone else when Katherine lived, this new marriage and the children born of it would be more legitimate than Elizabeth in the eyes of the Emperor and the Pope. The dangers of excommunication and invasion would have have been the same. So why bother? But once Katherine was dead, Henry had a chance to have an heir in a new marriage that were legitimate without dispute.
Had a third mariage been conducted during KoA’s lifetime, I cannot see that Charles would have been more accepting of the legitimacy of the off-spring than he was of Elizabeth. Henry’s rejection of Katherine was to Charles, IMHO, a slight at the Habsburgh alliance dominating Europe rather than the wish of a man who wants a legitimate male child. The fact that Kaherine was Charles’s aunt on his mother’s side made most of his protestations more of a politial statement rather than a familiar statement. Charles supported Katherine and Mary in part due to thier dynastic significance and in part to c*ck a snook at Henry’s ambitions..
Once Katherine was dead.well the whole game changed..Henry was in most eyes a widower..able to remarry and have more childen whose legitimacy would not be challenged by any spiritual or secular power.
On the other hand, once Katherine was dead, the Emperor was ready to accept Henry’s marriage with Anne, and even the status of Mary was not such a barrier to him as to Chapuys. And considering that the bastards of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swynford were legitimated when they married, Henry could have Elizabeth legitimated by the Pope, if he had wanted to return to Rome.
Hmm.. I’m not too sure that Charles would have accepted Anne as Henry’s wife once Katherine was dead..I think he would have waited until thier child was born before commiting himself to the validity of Henry’s union with Anne. Of course..Henry’s fall and Anne’s miscarriage put paid to that.
As for the Beauforts..they were legitimised by both the then pope and by the English parliment but were not granted the right to inherit the throne as the other descendants of John of Gaunt. Which is how KoA had a better claim to the English throne than Henry Vii…
It's always bunnies.
