Do you really wonder about it? Again, of course we can’t read his mind but it seems to me it’s not so big a puzzle. We have other evidence that he was ruthless and manipulative. Why even give him a hypothetical benefit of the doubt on this question?
I don’t really see how Catherine of Aragon was the most wronged. She got to die of natural causes, and didn’t see her brother and a handful of close friends get the chop as well.
Yeah, but she was forbidden to see or correspond with her daughter, lived in near poverty, and forced to surrender her jewels and everything else of value, and when he found out she sold some gold plate that she’d brought from Spain to pay her ladies and buy food he took that out of her already meager allowance (his argument being that by rights that plate belonged to his brother Arthur as part of her dowry and that he was Arthur’s heir). Plus she was the perfect wife in all but giving him a live son (which we know of course wasn’t at all her fault) and by all accounts a warm and wonderful and devoted person- her last letter to him even said “Mine eyes desire thou above all things”.
Anne otoh was a selfish bitch. I have sympathy for the innocents who were killed, but she should have known what she was getting into bed with. Plus her suffering was over after a few months of disfavor; Katherine’s humiliations and petty torments and separation from her daughter lasted for years.
Trivia: while the Pope would not annul the marriage (in addition to his problems with the Emperor it would have meant stating under holy oath that a previous pope had been wrong in granting dispensation in the first place) he was willing to legitimize Henry Fitzroy (who unlike the kid in THE TUDORS lived to his mid-late teens) or even legitimize another male bastard Henry might have (it had been done before- especially for various Iberian peninsula monarchs, several of whom were born on the wrong side of the bedsheets). This was not acceptable to Henry.
Trivia 2 (which I recently mentioned in the Trivia Dominoes thread): When Katharine of Aragon died Henry, Anne, and the [then] Princess Elizabeth appeared at court decked in bright yellow clothing. This was one of the few times he ever made any kind of fuss over Elizabeth at court, but on that day he carried her around and was the doting father.
This is a historical mystery. OT1H, yellow was a festive and merry color in England, one that nobles wore to parties, which would imply it was deliberate disrespect to Katharine. OTOH, yellow was the traditional color of mourning in Katharine’s native Spain (per tradition it has to do with the sourness of the lemon). So three options:
1- Was Henry deliberately making light of Katharine’s death by wearing party colors?
2- Was he expressing mourning by wearing the mourning clothing of her native land?
3- (my personal pic) Was he deliberatey being vague so that at a later date he could claim either 1 or 2 if convenient?
In either case, he is known to have wept for her, as did Anne Boleyn (though in her case I doubt it was less sorrow she was dead than “now he can remarry without anybody questioning whether he’s free to do so”).
Some people are disappointing to read about and find they weren’t quite the heroes they’re portrayed as in fiction or legend: Columbus for example, or the Emperor Claudius I (who was pretty far from the morally centered republican of Graves’ novels). Sir/St. Thomas More is one, and that’s one thing THE TUDORS did show- he had used the stake to burn Protestants before he had his own downfall. Some slack is cut that this was the law at the time and he was if nothing else a strict advocate of the clerical law, and he did commute the sentence from torture and burning to just burning- but still true that he sentenced people to die a worse death than he did. (Speaking of morally ambiguous men who are heroes, one of More’s descendants was Robert E. Lee.)
Speaking of Man For All Seasons, recent historians and novelists have had generally kinder portrayals of Thomas Cromwell and even THE TUDORS portrays him as being devout in his desire to reform the church. Richard Rich seems to remain a weaselly character, but any familiarity with the time period makes you say “no duh!” To paraphrase a line from THE LION IN WINTER, “there was no other way to be powerful, middle aged, and alive all at the same time”.
Huh. Did those work? I mean, did they actually relieve pain? (Short of ending all pain permanently, I mean.)
This is opinion territory of course, but I don’t see how any of this is worse than being decapitated. Catherine was subject to a series of insults, but as for her “poverty,” well, everything’s relative, right? Ultimately, she suffered to the extent that she chose to suffer.
Really? She should have known that she was going to be framed for adultery, treason, and incest? Remember, Henry hadn’t yet had a wife framed and then killed. What do we objectively know about her that would lead us to conclude that she deserved her fate? For stealing the attentions of a married man? That’s something that millions of people do every day. I can’t say that I believe that that kind of a “crime” deserves capital punishment.
If I recall correctly, Anne did have some involvement in the religious wars, but I can’t say that I know for a fact that Catherine of Aragon didn’t also have her own role to play in that.
Summing up, it sounds like the kind of “torment” that a lot of people have to tolerate.
Of all of Henry’s known faults, this is perhaps one thing I can’t blame him for. Why should he have to some dude ruling on his personal life? Henry’s insistence on the right to divorce can in some ways be seen as an early step towards a kind of personal freedom that we all enjoy today.
If you haven’t already, I recommend reading Alison Weir’s recent book The Lady In the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn. She concludes that while Henry was obviously unhappy with Anne, there isn’t much evidence that he directed or participated in the conspiracy to bring her down. The plot was hatched by Cromwell and Chapuys, who had their own political and religious grudges against Anne. They knew that charging her with infidelity would be the best way to really piss off the King. The fact that she had several miscarriages made it much easier for the King to believe she could have committed incest with her brother, since it was widely believed that miscarriages and stillbirths were evidence of a woman’s sinfulness.
It’s really a fascinating account of Anne’s final weeks, and it gave me a whole new perspective on her. She was a much more complex figure than people believe.
One of my favorite scenes from The Six Wives of Henry VIII, and brilliantly acted, is Henry’s apologies to Catherine Howard (Angela Pleasance) and reassurances to him after he failed to rally England on their wedding night. Be sure to keep watching after Henry leaves.
Begins at 7:00 here and concludes in this. The lady attending Catherine is Lady Rochford, George Boleyn’s widow (who as in The Tudors evidently despised him; he may indeed have been homosexual but there is no reliable evidence for it, just centuries of speculation).
Because he was the Pope. He was the head of the Church. God gave him the power to make moral decisions. And, Henry never insisted on the right to divorce, and never got divorced. He got several of his marriages annulled, but never divorced…
Franz is indeed the current heir to the House of Stuart, thanks to his great-grandmother Maria Theresa of Austria-Este. So according to Jacobites he is the rightful King of England and Scotland, and would be the King of Ireland too if not for Irish independence. He’s also heir to the House of Wittelsbach and would be King of Bavaria (thanks to his great-grandfather Ludwig III of Bavaria) if they still had kings there.
For the past three generations the Wittelsbach heir has also been the Stuart heir, but this won’t be the case for much longer. As Franz has no children then when he dies his younger brother Max will inherit his position. Since Max has no sons and the Bavarian royal family is strict about primogeniture, the next Wittelsbach heir will be the nearest male cousin. However, since the House of Stuart allows women to inherit their next heir will be Max’s oldest daughter Sophie.
Plus Henry had vigorously defended the Pope’s true place as head of the church in earlier years when it was convenient. While it’s a matter of debate as to whether Henry or Thomas More wrote more of Henry’s defenses, either way he took credit and received the Defender of the Faith title.
One of the best episodes of The Tudors is when Henry is in seclusion with his fool, Will Sommers (a real person) after the death of Jane Seymour. From what I’ve read Sommers really was that blunt with Henry and yet managed to stay in his employ for many years and in fact survived him and inherited a healthy pension in his will. He later served Edward and Mary as well.
She did know who she was getting into bed with (or at least thought she did.). That’s why she insisted on marriage. She couldn’t very well refuse the king, but being a former mistress wasn’t exactly a pleasant future either. It’s possible she thought things would go one of two ways.
I’m not sure she could have seen what happened coming, because it’s the focus of Henry’s life for a reason. It was so bizarre. The whole thing was a ridiculous farce.
Surely, Anne wasn’t a saint, but I do think she’s overly vilified. I don’t envy the incredibly difficult position she was put in, stuck between family and a possibly dangerous relationship.
I think Anne’s father was the greatest villain of the piece. I don’t think he would have minded Anne dying in childbirth in the least so long as it was in giving him a grandson he could use for leverage.
Yup. And the Duke Of Norfolk, who sacrificed two nieces to Henry. That was a particularly cold man.
As I was speaking from my perspective, this really doesn’t affect my view. Regardless of whether Henry was being hypocritical in defying the pope, I’m saying that in some sense, we all benefit in some small way from the fact that he did.
The distinction is really only important to a Catholic. It doesn’t change my perspective on the situation at all. The comment by Sampiro I was responding to was about judging Henry from our modern point of view. I fault him for murder and cruelty and many other things, but it doesn’t bother me that in his dealings with the Catholic church he talked out of both sides of his mouth.
More than any of Henry’s other wives, she put herself in the position she was in. She could have become Henry’s mistress rather than insisting on becoming his wife - that wasn’t just her father and uncles, since it took years and at anytime she could have simply said “his Majesty overcame me.” She wanted the crown. And she wanted to humiliate Catherine.
Her fall was set up - and set up in a way that I don’t think she could have prevented her own death. By the time she was aware she was being set up, it was too late. But she doesn’t seem to have felt at all guilty in her part in the execution of Thomas More…or taking down Wolsey.
The one I always feel sorriest for is poor stupid Catherine Howard - who was the Tudor equivalent of a good time party girl and who WAS manipulated by her family into her position, despite the fact that her family probably suspected she wasn’t even a virgin when she got married. Henry’s other wives where all pretty intelligent - at least smart enough to play the game. Catherine wasn’t. She was also the guiltiest - she certainly did sleep around on Henry.
A lot of people in human history have been guilty of wanting the crown. It seems to me that scheming to persuade a king to dump his wife and marry you before you’ll let him shtup you is among the least objectionable tactics used by human beings in order to gain power. Nobody had to die in order for Anne Boleyn to become queen, not even her rival Catherine of Aragon. She got to live out her life as a woman dumped by her husband and forced to live a slightly less luxurious life. This is hardly what I’d call a tragic fate, considering how many millions people are required to suffer the same over the course of human history. Marrying someone carries with it the inherent, even mundane, risk that you’ll eventually get dumped. It’s not in the same league as getting your head chopped off.
As for Wolsey, are you suggesting that Boleyn had him killed? So far as I know, it isn’t believed that he was murdered. In any case, by that point, could Wolsey’s death be blamed on Anne? If all she did was scheme to get him out of office, again, isn’t that one of the inherent risks of holding power, that someone will try to oust you?
Now, burning people for heresy, yeah, that’s pretty objectionable. But it has little to do with how she became queen and why she was executed. I don’t know for sure what were Catherine of Aragon’s views on how heretics should be dealt with, either.
In my view, Catherine’s life story may be sad or pitiable, but in a very run-of-the-mill way. People get dumped, they move on, they live their lives. Anne Boleyn’s life story was truly tragic – maneuver your way into a position of power and then get framed for a crime you didn’t commit and suffer capital punishment. Anne’s punishment was way out of proportion to her crime. (Okay, there’s still the burning heretics part, but Anne can’t have been ultimately responsible for that. There were kings and lords and all kinds of other things involved in that.)
Wolsey died of natural causes, but before he did so, he was stripped of his titles and land. And had he not died, would have likely been executed for treason. Anne likely had a hand in his disgrace, as he did not move quickly on getting Henry his divorce. Of course, it could have all been Henry, but at that time she had him tied pretty tight around her finger - if she’d asked for clemency, she’d have likely gotten it.
More wasn’t so lucky, and in my opinion, the evidence points to Anne have lobbied for his execution. Again, Anne had Henry tied pretty tight at that point in time.
It’s true that she lived as well as or better than most peasants, but it was a much greater step that “slightly less luxurious”. He put her in a run down castle and gave her so little money she had to sell her possessions and later rely on donations from the locals just to buy food. This almost certainly did not bother her as much as the cruelest blow, however, which was being forbidden to see her daughter, which in addition to the usual love between mother and child add that Mary was the only one of her 7 children who had survived the cradle, she was extremely precious to her.
The claim that some of Mary Boleyn’s children had been fathered by Henry VIII is much, much older than that.
But Henry Carey was rumoured to be the king’s son. In 1535, under interrogation, the vicar of Isleworth, John Hales, claimed that he had been told that Carey was ‘our suffren Lord the Kynge’s son by our suffren Lady the Qwyen’s syster’. Not, of course, in any way convincing as evidence of Carey’s actual paternity. But excellent evidence that it had been the subject of contemporary speculation.
Depends. Sally Varlow’s 2007 article in Historical Research has argued that Katherine Carey was older than had been thought and that she was born before her brother. Not that a case resting ultimately on a age inscription on a portrait can be considered decisive. But this does mean that it is not at all obvious that ‘most historians’ now reject the idea.
APB, thanks for that last link, I only just skimmed though a little bit, but its fascinating.