That’s not quite fair. Henry had no trouble producing healthy male offspring outside of wedlock, witness Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond.
At one point, Henry VIII was seriously considering marrying Mary to her half-brother Henry Fitzroy to solve the succession problem. So long as a dispensation for this was granted by the Pope, this would have, at most, only raised an eyebrow or two; incest was viewed as a religious issue, not a social one. This plan was dropped when he became interested in Anne Boleyn. It could have led to some interesting history…
Might have known? She was married to Prince Arthur, Henry’s brother. I don’t see how he couldn’t have known. Arthur died just months after their marriage , and Catherine later asserted it was never consummated. Thus, she was allowed to marry Henry with a papal dispensation. Just in case, a dispensation was sought (and, iirc, issued?) that allowed for their marriage even if Catherine and Arthur had done the deed.
Regarding whether Henry loved Catherine, they were betrothed during Henry’s father’s lifetime but Henry was made to renounce the betrothal when Catherine became a less desirable match in the changing face of world politics. Nevertheless, when his father died Henry quickly went to Catherine and married her. In the early days of their marriage, they were considered a love match.
Later, after their repeated failures to keep a male heir alive and with Catherine’s childbearing years at an end, Henry developed an attack of conscience and asserted that the Pope had been wrong to issue the dispensation. He saw the lack of living male heirs as proof that his marriage offended God. When he was unable to get the current Pope to agree that his predecessor had erred, that’s when he broke away from Rome.
Henry’s belated conscience was all very convenient, allowing him to set aside the wife who couldn’t give him any more children and try again with someone new, but it’s as complex as any human story and impossible to know how much was sincerity, how much was calculation. If Henry was truly convinced that he had offended God with his first marriage, he must have felt sick when Bolyn presented him with a daughter, and again when she miscarried his son.
Yes, I know (see my post just above yours), but I said heir, not sons.
And so you did. Apologies for missing that.
Eh, no worries. 
And Henry’s “divorce” (technically an annulment) would’ve been a fairly routine matter for royalty and easy to obtain if not for the fact that the Pope was a [del]guest[/del] hostage of Catherine’s nephew who was also the Holy Roman Emperor. Catherine would’ve led a very comfortable life if she relented and went along with ending the marriage (witness Anne of Cleves), but she refused because she was devoutly religious and belived that God had called her to matrimony, and also to protect her daughter’s legitmacy and claim to the throne.
When we went to Windsor to see the burial site of Henry and Jane, my mom asked,
Why didn’t Henry just marry many wives? (at once?) Break off from the Catholic Church and turn it upside down.
NonJudeoChristian monarchies never had probs of producing male heirs because of polygamy. Teehee.
Yeah, they just had 20 sons viciously fighting over the succession–a much better arrangement. 
He did what he thought he could get away with; he wasn’t suicidal.
One point that’s been missed was that the king was supposed to physically lead the troops in battle (Henry VIII was the last English king to do so, but he had no way of knowing that). He feared that the army would not follow a woman, even if she were a reigning queen. It wasn’t necessarily Henry’s sexism, but the sexism of the soldiers at large.
Even Elizabeth I did not think of herself as a woman when it came to battle – her attitude was that she was, in effect, an honorary male when it came to ruling (and she did not lead the troops).
Theologically Henry VIII was a devout Catholic; his only major disagreement with the RCC was how much authority the Pope had over him.
Let me just note that this duck-winged “fact” is an irritant to most Anglicans which is based on observing history from a Catholic perspective. It’s about as accurate as saying that Thomas Jefferson founded America. The Church of England, under the local administration of the Archbishop of Canterbury, had been in existence for just about a thousand years when Henry succeeded his father, as an integral national unit within the multinational Catholic Church. Similar statements might be made of the Church of Sweden, the Church of the Netherlands, etc. What Henry did, for weal or woe, was to declare the existing national church independent of the overseas prelate to whom it had owed allegiance – much as Thomas Jefferson was principal author of the Declaration that established the independence of the 13 small states along the Atlantic seaboard of America which had heretofore been colonies of Britain, from their allegiance to the British Empire. Henry did not found a new church; he asserted the independence of an existing ecclesiastical establishment from the Pope.
To add, the example of Mary and Elizabeth both in their own ways demonstrate why producing a male heir was genuinely important. The problems with Mary’s marriage to Philip and the potential problems issues around the succession of any child of theirs have been mentioned upthread but Elizabeth taking the throne could have been another disaster.
As discussed Elizabeth had a choice: English husband - faction fights and jockeying for position; foreign prince - potential dominance by her husband and entanglement in succession battles in other countries; or , what she went for, stay single and built up the mythos of the “Virgin Queen”. But this choice had its own succession problems. With no prospect of a direct male successor, for much of her reign the staunchly Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots was her nearest heir and the subject of multiple plots to replace her. Ultimately Elizabeth had Mary executed (not to argue whether this was legal/justified/expedient!) but if her son James had not been raised as a protestant this would just have moved the problem on to the next generation. As it happened having a protestant King of Scots as heir was beneficial as it united the crowns and undoubtedly strengthened England by much reducing the threat of attack by the back door but what if James had been Catholic or the closest heir had been - say - a descendant of of Henry VII through Louis XII and Mary (the one that actually went on to be the Grandmother of Lady Jane Grey?
That is inaccurate. He was one of the better educated monarchs if he enjoyed the company of vivacious and educated women and all his wives and several mistresses were this. Please don’t look at a sixteenth century monarch with 21st Century glasses and ascribe motivations to him which he did not have.
Historically, Elizabeth adopted a what to I care, I’ll be dead approach to the issue. While James VI was by strict male line promogeniture the senior heir, succession law in England, under Henry VIII’s will which was confirmed by an Act of Parliament, the heirs of Mary were placed before the heirs of Margaret (from whom Jimmy was decended). Furthermore at the time of Margaret’s wedding, the treaty had specifically excluded(as was standard) her progeny from the English throne, so James was technically ineligible.
The two other heirs were Lady Arabella Stuart and Lady Anne Stanely. Both were unmarried women in their twenties, and they had far too many disadvantages, too female, too Catholic (Stuart), too divisive (Stanely) and too unmarried and childless. James OTH was a well regarded ruler in his own right, he already had an heir and a spare, he was well regarded by the English aristocracy and his credentials as a Protestant were impeccable. He brought far too many advantages with him, a chance to end the succession issues which had plagued England for a century (quite ironic in hindsight) a Union of the Crowns with Scotland (which means no more backdoor threat in the early years if Elizabeths reign Scotland had been garrisoned by French troops).
Despite the problems I have mentioned, in reality they never considered anyone but James and for the last 10 years of Elizabeths reign, it was obvious he would succeed. They IIRC got around his technical disqualifications by reasserting Englands long standing(and dormant) claim to overlordship of Scotland.
I’ve read that Henry VIII was making a move to do just that. He acknowledged FitzRoy as his offspring (though illegitimate), and made him both an Earl and Duke.
What ended these hopes for him to succeed was his untimely death at just 17 due to tuberculosis. (His half-sibling Edward, who would later inherit the throne, was born shortly after his death, and would later die of the same malady.)
Had FitzRoy survived Edward, he would likely have ended up on the throne before any of Henry’s daughters (i.e. Mary and Elizabeth). Recall that both daughters were disinherited at one time, and were themselves declared illegitimate and ineligible to succeed to the throne.
Besides the disputed case of Maud vs Stephen several centuries earlier, had there been any female rulers anywhere in the world? I guess Hatshepsut in the 18th dynasty (c. 1500 BC) when the Middle Kingdom was at its height. Cleopatra was installed by Rome (Julius Caesar and Mark Antony). Zenobia in third century A.D. Syria. But I can’t think of any female rulers in Ancient Rome.
Let’s face it, even today there aren’t too females elected to top jobs. Or even wanted as a ceremonial monarch. I remember someone pointing out when Diana and Chuck produced two males, that the celebration was a little strange when you consider that Great Britain’s best days came when a woman said it was good to be the queen.
But as mentioned, it was one of those unforeseeable things that Elizabeth would be so good at ruling.
Did Edward have health problems during Henry’s lifetime? I think he developed tuberculosis after Henry died. I can see Henry being afraid of only having a single male heir but I’m pretty sure during his lifetime Edward was considered in good health.
I’ve read that Henry actually fathered 14 kids including his out of wedlock offspring. That’s seven sons and seven daughters. Only Mary, Elizabeth and Edward survived and none of them had kids.
Thanks for the further information on James VI claim and succession - underlines my lack of real knowledge on the period! A pragmatic solution even if not strictly in accordance with the law to deal with the real problem of a Queen Regnant on the throne.