The (non)validity of Henry VIII's marriages

[gnoitall]

@bob_2

It’s all about power and money. Unless the succession was in no doubt, it could be manipulated by the people with the real power - in those days, (and roughly speaking) the Barons and the church. Can you imagine all the clandestine meetings and undocumented deals that were going on?

Today we have politicians who make grand speeches and promise stuff to get elected. The people who hold the power are those who finance them, and they support the candidate that offers the best deal for them.

BTW MD200 - you consummate a marriage not consume it.

In fact, marriage CONSUMES YOU. And not just in Soviet Russia.

[md2000]

@bob_2

…
BTW MD200 - you consummate a marriage not consume it.

@gnoitall

In fact, marriage CONSUMES YOU. And not just in Soviet Russia.

Doh! Up too late brain fart, I knew the word did not look right but I was too tired.

Yes, a lot of the succession(s) was a tug of war multiple ways between multiple factions. Henry VII and Henry VIII spent a lot of time ensuring that any holdover claimants to the throne from War of the Roses were neutralized. A claimant is not just a threat themselves, but more typically when they become a figurehead for some other faction to promote in order to become the power behind the throne. (Which, IIRC, was the case with Lady Jane Grey).

[watchwolf49]

@Little_Nemo

This was why Henry wanted a male heir. Under the sexist assumptions of the time, it was felt that only a male monarch would be strong enough to rule in his own right. A female monarch would just be a figurehead for her husband’s family or the foreign nation her husband came from.

My understanding is that it was heresy back then for a man to take orders from a woman. Antonia Fraser made a point of mentioning this in her biography of Mary Stewart that Mary held the throne in Scotland, Elizabeth Tutor held the throne of England and the regent of France was the King’s mother (forgot her name offhand) … something of a strange situation …

[Miss_Mapp]

@watchwolf49

and the regent of France was the King’s mother (forgot her name offhand) …

Catherine de Medicis.

[MLS]

@watchwolf49

My understanding is that it was heresy back then for a man to take orders from a woman. Antonia Fraser made a point of mentioning this in her biography of Mary Stewart that Mary held the throne in Scotland, Elizabeth Tutor held the throne of England and the regent of France was the King’s mother (forgot her name offhand) … something of a strange situation …

<nitpick> It’s Tudor. </nitpick>

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@watchwolf49

My understanding is that it was heresy back then for a man to take orders from a woman. Antonia Fraser made a point of mentioning this in her biography of Mary Stewart that Mary held the throne in Scotland, Elizabeth Tutor held the throne of England and the regent of France was the King’s mother (forgot her name offhand) … something of a strange situation …

I don’t know if it was heresy but John Knox wrote a pamphlet on the issue, basically saying that it was evil or unnatural for men to be ruled by women. Knox was a hardline Presbyterian in the Scottish Church. Mary Stewart had far more to fear from Knox’s anti-female attitude than Elizabeth I did. In fact I think Knox may have tried to mend fences with Elizabeth soon after she came to the throne.

[Leo_Bloom]

Well, then, if you insist, it’s de Medici.

[alphaboi867]

@Grotonian

…The pope’s beef with Henry was over money, not marriage.

Also the Pope was a “guest” of Catherine’s nephew, the Holy Roman Emperor.

@md2000

…Apparently, of all the failures, this was the most civil.

Anne of Cleves was smart enough to not resist the annulment and cooperate fully with Henry’s cronies. For get trouble got to leave out her days as a Princess of England, and in a style befitting the King’s Beloved Sister.

[Jim_s_Son]

Keep in mind some 400 years earlier, Henry I died without any legitimate male heirs (a whole lot of illegitimate ones though) and one intelligent if arrogant daughter (not that the males of the family were modest) Matilda. He tried to leave the kingdom to her but after his death his nephew Stephen seized power. A 19 year civil war ensued known as The Anarchy,
Was Henry and society sexist? Yes, although Henry to prefer intelligent women. Did he have ulterior motives too? Yes. But the relatively recent War of the Roses made him feel desperate to have a legitimate male heir…and a spare one just in case.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@Jim_s_Son

Keep in mind some 400 years earlier, Henry I died without any legitimate male heirs (a whole lot of illegitimate ones though) and one intelligent if arrogant daughter (not that the males of the family were modest) Matilda. He tried to leave the kingdom to her but after his death his nephew Stephen seized power. A 19 year civil war ensued known as The Anarchy,
Was Henry and society sexist? Yes, although Henry to prefer intelligent women. Did he have ulterior motives too? Yes. But the relatively recent War of the Roses made him feel desperate to have a legitimate male heir…and a spare one just in case.

Probably less sexist than most in his day. Henry did afterall keep both his female children in the line of succession, and did ensure both girls had the very best education. Not that this means he always treated women well. As with so many characters in history his attitude to a whole variety of issues was “complicated”

[Isilder]

@Nava

And, as they’d specifically received a dispensation for that marriage, getting it annulled on the same grounds for which the dispensation was granted is… iffy at best. The second request would have been tossed by pretty much any court in which the judge was neither a party nor a subject of the requestor.

Worse, it was politics…

The request for marriage to Catherine of SPAIN was all done to form bonds with Spain. … Spain at the time had the time was fighting off Papal authority ( Too…)!. The pope would agree, as it would bind the more anti-papal Spain with the papal England…
The pope was also offended because it would be better if Henry VIII (when he was a young King ) married the daughter of the (Holy Roman) Emperor ,who was also linked to Spain.

The pope was worried about Spain and the HRE… he liked these binds between countries and authorities. He didnt want to be setting an example “break the marriages when ever you feel like !”, and also he didnt want to appear to FORCED to do so … that he was doing a deal with the devil …

So when Henry VIII wants to divorce, the Pope is thinking, no… just no, for all time… No … Do they think I am the pope, or the pimp at the brothel ?

[Isilder]

@Arkcon

Or did the Church in Rome still have a legitimate complaint with the events so far, and events (marriages) later?

They weren’t speaking as they had excommunicated Henry VIII.
But to me divorce and marraige has to be in someones jurisdiction, so its back to England. So then the question is who has the power ? The trouble with the King is that there’s so many laws from so many sources, which has priority ?

I guess one trouble is what meaning of marriage you are talking about…
The standard to make the wife Queen and therefore to make heirs was apparently that the Pope had to agree … and condoning is taken as agreement. But excommunication obviously ruled that out.