As I understand it, Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife because she didn’t give him a son, the Pope said no, and as a result the Church of England was then formed. It’s hard to imagine that it’s that simple, or that some kind of accommodation couldn’t be made to avoid the schism. A few questions:
Why was the RCC so adamant about not allowing Henry to divorce? I realize that divorce wasn’t allowed in the Church at the time, but I’m sure rules were bent on occasion. Why didn’t the Pope allow the rules to be bent in this case?
By the 20th century annulments were commonly used by the RCC to get around this issue. Were annulments not available in the 16th century?
The RCC lost a lot of wealth in terms of property and treasure when England left. Couldn’t they give special dispensation to Henry in exchange for some of his treasure, or would that have been unacceptable to both parties?
Were they both such hard heads that neither could find some kind of middle ground? Did the Pope make an exception for any other rulers at the time?
One key reason was Emperor Charles V, who happened to be the nephew of Catherine of Aragon (Henry’s wife) had laid siege to Rome and thus had the Pope (Clement VII) by the short hairs.
While doing a web search to confirm my memory on this point, I stumbled upon this bit of hilariously ambiguous phrasing:
You said it in your OP: there are no divorces in RCC, it’s not possible. It’s like asking to have two wives, there is no accomodation possible.
An annulment could’ve been possible, but there were no good causes for it. He’d asked for special dispensation to marry her and then wanted to have the dispensation declared null.
Henry wanted to divorce his wife because he had married his brother’s widow, Katherine, with a special dispensation from the church. His attack of conscience came as she passed out of childbearing age without giving him a surviving son; Henry attributed this to divine punishment for his sin. Henry argued the previous Pope had erred by issuing the dispensation, which would render his marriage null and void.
Meanwhile Katherine was a princess of Spanish blood and her powerful family were equally keen that the Pope NOT overturn the dispensation. It would have made her daughter, Mary, illegitimate and unable to inherit, not to mention that poor pious Katherine would be considered to have been shacked up with a man she wasn’t legally married to for all those years.
Also, the dispensation was issued because Katherine testified that she was a virgin when she was widowed, having never consummated her marriage with Arthur. Henry’s attempt to have the marriage annulled was based on the premise that Katherine had lied.
Henry had an acknowledged illegitimate son named Henry Fitzroy. It is possible that he might have inherited if he’d outlived his father. I don’t know why Henry didn’t just make him the heir but I wonder if it is because Spain may have intervened on Mary’s behalf if she, as the King’s only legitimate child, was overlooked for a bastard son. If Rome granted Henry’s petition to annul his first marriage, Princess Mary would be illegitimate too.
Another factor is that Henry fell for Anne Boleyn and she wouldn’t do the deed until they were (very nearly) married.
Henry was only allowed to marry his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, due to a special dispensation from Pope Julius II. (Catherine was Henry’s brother’s widow, and at the time, marrying one’s dead brother’s wife was considered sinful.)
When Henry decided he needed a new wife, he asked Julius’ successor, Clement VII, to annul the marriage on the grounds that it should never been allowed in the first place. Clement refused because a) Catholic law didn’t allow one Pope to undo another’s dispensations and b) Catherine’s nephew happened to be head of the Holy Roman Empire and had an already-tense relationship with the Vatican.
I’ll skip over most of what happens next, but the short answer is, the Pope had to choose between making the King of England angry and making the Holy Roman Emperor angry. Since Clement was already occupied with disputes between the Bourbons, Hapsburgs, various unhappy German princes, and continuing conflict with the Ottoman Empire, Clement felt it necessary to turn his back on Henry.
Add to all of the above the fact that Henry 8 was only the second Tudor monarch. His father had done a lot to stabilize England after the Wars of the Roses, but a bastard heir was just asking for trouble. The country would be torn apart as factions backed the bastard vs Mary.
Clement VII was in a right pickle.
It was the start of the Reformation.
Queen Katherine was the aunt of Charles V, the most powerful non Ottoman man in the world.
Henry was the King of a large and important country.
Anyway he ruled, he was properly fucked. His solution was to delay as long as possible, hoping that one or the other party would drop dead. His prayers were not answered.
Henry was quite sincere in his religious misgivings: he was a vile man, but he came to believe the dispensation invalid, and him and Catherine living in sin, and Mary their daughter no lawful successor ( although legitimate, since born in wedlock. One cannot be retrospectively bastardized even if a fatal defect is found in one’s parents’ marriage. )
— although, judging by his will and testament, leaving the Crown to all in turn ( one or more were bound to be bastards by his varying beliefs ) and leaving out his sister’s line, lawful succession meant little to the heir of the Yorkists who had gone through the fires of hell to restore that principle. —
Bastards do not inherit, mostly because anyone born outside wedlock couldn’t prove their assumed descent.
Clement was an extraordinary little weasel, who thought little of breaking any promise, except when the consequence could be a repetition of Bourbon’s Sacking of Rome a few years before ( which was the Emperor’s responsibility — however catholics were at that time more scornful of the Vatican and papal pretensions than protestants ) or his dismissal should Charles call an Ecumenical Council to depose Clement.
The Pope was only too willing to accommodate Henry, and made little of any religious theories — the Church has done a lot more for a lot less many a time — even promising a new dispensation essentially allowing Henry to do as he will. Clement wanted Catherine to retire to a nunnery ( certainly not uncommon for Queens in England, Saxon England, France and Western Europe ) and shut up. He and Wolsey also wanted England and France, our main enemy, to join together against the Reich, and he was desperate to please Henry by forwarding the Divorce. However, he was a prisoner at Orvieto under Imperial guard, and he wanted to squeak out of his papal finding for Henry’s Annulment by suggesting the English courts were the first recourse for breaking a marriage.
But he did agree to send Cardinal Campeggio as second Legate to try the case in England along with Henry’s minister, Cardinal Wolsey, and both reach the religious decision he urged on them, to ditch Catherine; with a commission decretal declaring the marriage null.
To avoid standing by his beliefs he secretly ordered them to burn the decretal.
At the same time he wrote to Henry a brief admitting the justice of Henry’s cause.
This is not a man whose word is gold.
Most amusing of all, in a stellar cast that included such awful scoundrels as Henry, Clement, Chapuys, Francis I of France, Norfolk, Suffolk, Wolsey, Mai and Sir Francis Bryan, ‘The Vicar of Hell’, to name but a few, the most revolting suggestion came from the Vatican, but not with Clement’s voice one faintly hopes, that Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, should marry Harry Richmond, son of Henry VIII and Bessie Blount.
Around this time England started losing all respect for the Church.
Apparently, annulments as a way around the divorce ban were pretty normal, especially when “heir to the title” issues were involved. This is one reason why Henry was so insulted when it was denied. The usual reason was that the pope was a “guest” of the Spanish at the time and… it’s well explained above.
Once the divorce/annulment was denied - well, there are some things more important than money, and heir to the throne is one. Having set out on his course of action, Henry wasn’t about to back down. The Vatican couldn’t very well trade their power for a fraction of what they already owned… if they were willing to horse trade, he would have had his annulment.
Henry was VERY concerned about leaving a good heir in charge. As others mentioned, his dad was fresh off sorting out the War of the ROses and 30 yeas of strife because there was not a valid heir. A bastard had limited claim - and the risk is that something like the Lady Jane fiasco, where she claimed the throne (or her backers did) due to confusion over all the divorces and confounded claims. In the end, Henry decided not to mess with the standard heiritage, and left all his children legitimate. An illegitimate child would not have the same rights and would be subject to challenges, thus possibly creating more chaos. (Similarly, despite the politics, Elizabeth chose to let Mary QoScots child inherit rather than game the system)
Henry basically gave much of the riches of the church, too, to his nobles as a bribe to ensure their loyalty and backing - it also ensured they would resist any effort to revert to the Vatican (and have to give back all those lands).
Royal marriages were basically business contracts. Love seldom entered into it, although I believe Henry loved Katherine of Aragon when he married her (his father didn’t want them married because of some changes in the Spanish royal family made her market value fall. H8 married her once the old man was gone). But part of the
arranged marriage rules was the children of that marriage were the heir (s).
As far as a bastard inheriting, several things stood against it. In those days it took several months for people to know a woman was pregnant. People still argue if Jane Boleyn’s children were Henry’s (he never recognized them as such as he did with Bessie Blount’s son). Or consider Perkin Warbeck, who in Henry VII’s reign claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury, son of Edward IV and thus the legitimate king instead of H7 who was about 30th in line of succession. Some people, such as Margaret of York (aunt) agreed. But was he really Richard (Margaret had political reasons to lie), one of Edward IV’s bastards or the son of John Osbeck, comptroller of city of Tournai. In those days
of no DNA testing, you needed proof positive of legitimacy, and royal births had plenty of spectators.
In 1120 when Henry I was 52, his only legitimate son William Adelin drowned (let’s get roaring drunk and try to overtake Dad sailing across the English Channel in the dark. It’s not like anything could happen to the “White Ship” like hitting a submerged rock. And if it did, Willy could get in a boat and not try to rescue his half-sister). Anyways, Henry I didn’t name any of his bastards to succeed him (he had about 9 sons and 15 daughters). He got married again hoping to produce an heir (didn’t) and named his widowed legitimate daughter Matilda his heir, and married her off (she produced three sons). Henry I got his nobles to swear allegiance to Matilda but when he died in 1135, his nephew Stephen took over getting the nobles support. Matilda fought back, aided by one of her half-brothers Robert of Gloucester, but neither side could win and a 19 year war known as the Anarchy happened. Ultimately an agreement was reached where Stephen was king and Matilda’s son Henry was heir. The Anarchy was studied by Henry VIII’s court, who also had plenty of people leftover from the War of the Roses
Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon’s daughter Mary (“Bloody Mary”) might have been a decent ruler if there was no religious split. She was well educated (Henry liked educated women) and showed skill in taking power when the whole death-of-Edward VI/Lady-Jane-Grey thing went down. Whether she would have been able to bear children if she was married young (she suffered painful menstruations which was looked as an indicator of non-fertility, although it was a very stressful time for her). But centuries of male chauvinism in most cultures lead Henry VIII to want a legitimate son (keep in mind that a king was expected to lead his troops in battle).
One minor point. Henry VIII got annulments from the wives that fell out of favor, not divorces.
It’s also interesting that his sister Margaret tried to divorce her second husband Henry Stewart, claiming her first husband wasn’t killed at the Battle of Flodden (where Katherine of Aragon commanded the English forces, although Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, did the military leading), Henry VIII opposed her. Partly political considerations but also partly conservative temperament.
Henry rationalized his were different (incest and later adultery by Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard).
Henry VII must have done a lot of "why me? wailing" comparing his lack of sons as opposed to Dad or grandpa Edward IV.
I have a book, collected letters of Lord Lisle (abridged - they collected a library full). He was a Plantagenet, and Henry kept serious tabs on possible rival claimants, even harmless ones, since (as happened with Lady Jane Grey) they could be used as fronts. His letters were collected in contemplation of treason charges - but they decided not to, an when they came to let him out of the Tower, he had a heart attack.
Even the king could not simply change the inheritance by fiat. It was dangerous, as it allowed dissidents to advance rival claimants. The rules were pretty much established, and transition was a dangerous time. Henry variously disinherited Mary then Elizabeth. Mary was advised to disinherit Elizabeth (protestant) and in the end chose not to for stability reasons.
England did have a precedent of a female heir to the throne. Henry I tried to leave the throne to his daughter Matilda. It didn’t go well. Henry VIII presumably knew about that, and didn’t want to have something like that happen again. He and his father had tried to get rid of any potential rival claimants to the throne, but they didn’t get them all.
The threats of rival claimants weren’t just domestic, either. The Hundred Years War came about because Edward III of England had a claim to the throne of France. The French monarchs had tried to change the inheritance laws to get around this, but of course the English weren’t required to accept this. James V of Scotland had a claim to the English throne, through being the son of Henry VIII’s sister, and Henry VIII of course knew this. The Scots were allied with the French, who might have been interested in helping him press that claim.
He might have managed to convince himself that what he wanted to do was the right thing to do. People can be pretty good at that. Would you have wanted the job of trying to tell Henry VIII that what he wanted to do and had rationalized to himself was not, in fact, the best thing to do?
I didn’t think Catholic annulments led to children of the annulled marriages being declared bastards.
Of course, that happened after Henry VIII died, so he couldn’t have known from that that she might have been a good queen. Mary was also eleven years old when Henry VIII first tried to get his marriage annulled.
Rather the point may be that he had argued himself into the belief Leviticus was correct ( admittedly an extraordinary achievement: the Bible is not the best guide to anything ); at the start he definitely wanted an heir, but he had no interest in any particular woman to be the wife. And he had been planned for the Church before his brother died.
( As was Charles I, his far stronger, wiser and more fertile successor. The trouble is what ordinary people think of as strength is the big hearty blusterer who shouts a lot; and not the colder self-control which, vide Kipling treats success and failure as the same.)
And people argued with him all the time: he didn’t execute them for that. He executed people because he was a paranoid brute with good reason to mistrust them. To be fair a lot of Tudor people wanted killing.
Oddly enough, many Catholic laymen aren’t sure judging by those extraordinary catholic forums around the web. And RC apologetics sites are kinda intense, almost creepy, and think whatever the Church currently thinks is the way to God’s Heart, and eschew questioning.
The best source ever written on the Divorce ( which after all is merely a detail in British history ) is J. A. Froude’s THE DIVORCE OF CATHERINE OF ARAGON — THE STORY AS TOLD BY THE IMPERIAL AMBASSADORS RESIDENT AT THE COURT OF HENRY VIII. — IN USUM LAICORUM.
I too have my doubts about any friend of Tammy Carlyle, but he is very perceptive and subtle in this writing.
From the Introduction:
*
To Cæsar or Napoleon it matters nothing what judgment the world passes upon their conduct. It is of more importance for the ethical value of history that acts which as they are related appear wicked should be duly condemned, that acts which are represented as having advanced the welfare of mankind should be duly honoured, than that the real character of individuals should be correctly appreciated. To appreciate any single man with complete accuracy is impossible. To appreciate him even proximately is extremely difficult. Rulers of kingdoms may have public reasons for what they do, which at the time may be understood or allowed for. Times change, and new interests rise. The circumstances no longer exist which would explain their conduct. The student looks therefore for an explanation in elements which he thinks he understands—in pride, ambition, fear, avarice, jealousy, or sensuality; and, settling the question thus to his own satisfaction, resents or ridicules attempts to look for other motives. So long as his moral judgment is generally correct, he inflicts no injury, and he suffers none. Cruelty and lust are proper objects of abhorrence; he learns to detest them in studying the Tiberius of Tacitus, though the character described by the great Roman historian may have been a mere creation of the hatred of the old Roman aristocracy. The manifesto of the Prince of Orange was a libel against Philip the Second; but the Philip of Protestant tradition is an embodiment of the persecuting spirit of Catholic Europe which it would be now useless to disturb. The tendency of history is to fall into wholesome moral lines whether they be accurate or not, and to interfere with harmless illusions may cause greater errors than it aspires to cure. Crowned offenders are arraigned at the tribunal of history for the crimes which they are alleged to have committed. It may be sometimes shown that the crimes were not crimes at all, that the sufferers had deserved their fate, that the severities were useful and essential for some great and valuable purpose. But the reader sees in the apology for acts which he had regarded as tyrannical a defence of tyranny itself. Preoccupied with the received interpretation, he finds deeds excused which he had learnt to execrate; and in learning something which, even if true, is of no real moment to him, he suffers in the maiming of his perceptions of the difference between right and wrong. The whitewashing of the villains of tradition is, therefore, justly regarded as waste of labour. If successful, it is of imperfect value; if unsuccessful, it is a misuse of industry which deserves to be censured. Time is too precious to be squandered over paradoxes. The dead are gone; the censure of mankind has written their epitaphs, and so they may be left. Their true award will be decided elsewhere.*
