Henry was getting desperate to have a son to succeed.
Fair enough but, previously, other candidates had been bypassed because they were illegitimate (the Beauforts, Ed 4th's sons... and I'm sure many more)
Well technically so were Mary and Elizabeth, he'd had them declared illegitimate before he then put them back into the succession. It's a bit of a moot point since the lad died, but parliament would probably have accepted Fitzroy being added in because they were so desperate to have a smooth succession to a male heir.
Well, IMO, he was a tyrant - and perhaps more by today's standards - totally off his chump.
All medieval Kings were tyrants, it was a major perk of being a medieval King:). Actually if you look at most major medieval figures they are nut jobs by today's standards. The medieval mind set is pretty weird. We have far more in common with the ancient Romans in terms of how we view the world than we do with people from the Medieval period.
Fair enough but, previously, other candidates had been bypassed because they were illegitimate (the Beauforts, Ed 4th's sons... and I'm sure many more)
Oh I know it wasn't ideal but given the attitudes at the time there was a good chance that people would go for that rather than having a shock horror woman on the throne. Or shock shock horror a Scots king. There would have been some jiggerry pokery that would have legitimised him.
Henry would have taken a divorce and gladly but the Pope wouldn't give him one as he was a captive of K's nephew. His preference was for annulment but a divorce would have basically solved his immediate problem.
Well yes and no a divorce would have let him marry AB but
it would still have left Mary as legitimate, and although he believed it would not have mattered too much as he was still hoping for a legit son it would have caused other problems.
The people (and even without modern communications they would have heard about it) would not have stomached their monarch divorcing a loyal wife just because he had found a younger woman, and Henry did care what the populace thought. However a marriage that went against the rules of God and the Church, well thats different, who would deny their King the means and opportunity have the marriage annulled and please God.
Henry gave a masterful speech to the country’s nobles at Bridewell, London, in November 1528, explaining that Catherine was noble and virtuous and that in other circumstances he would marry her again. But because of what had happened he lived in “detestable and abominable adultery”. It was clear to see that it was annulment he was after and not just a divorce
Had Henry just had a divorce then he wouldn't be able to proclaim Mary as illegitimate, and that's what Katherine was fighting him about, she swore that she was a true maid when she married Henry and that her marriage to Frances was never consummated, therefore she had never been Frances true wife.
Katherine's previous marriage was to Prince Arthur.
I wish there was ... I know a lot about history but this is boring beyond belief ... soz if this offends anyone x
Your opinion an' all that. I don't agree though. I thing the question OP posed is very interesting as so many people think they know the answer and think it is simple. Also the Tudor period is the one I know most about.
Or did you mean that this General Discussion section is boring as opposed to this thread?
Excluding some other chaps missus's, how many legal wives was Harry married to. We know he had two whittled down but he annulled them first, he then had 'Anne of Cleves' annulled but she was allowed to live as the Kings sister. So we are down 3.
Annullment is apparently defined a complete cancellation,
QI argues 2 legal wives.
Then there is the RC/Henry perspective.
So how many?
He married six times therefore he had six wives imo. You could argue for only five wives as he annulled his marriage to Anne of Cleves before it was consummated (if I remember rightly) but he did go through a legal marriage service with them all.
It seems pretty clear his ill health in his latter years changed his personality. Being in constant pain and unable to lead an active life had an effect.
He was a very complex character. Anne of Cleaves actually did very well out of her marriage.
People have mentioned Mary and Elizabeth, but Jane was after Edward. Her status is unsure and the Royals have avoided the name for a royal princess.
I have numerous (non fiction) books on Henry and his "wives" and I don't get from any of them that Jane Seymour was particularly special apart from giving him his heir
He was besotted with AB and KH in the beginning and probably loved KoA in the beginning.
He was a bit of an old romantic as well as monster and probably had a lovely dovey stage with all of them, bar AoC.
Well yes and no a divorce would have let him marry AB but
it would still have left Mary as legitimate, and although he believed it would not have mattered too much as he was still hoping for a legit son it would have caused other problems.
The people (and even without modern communications they would have heard about it) would not have stomached their monarch divorcing a loyal wife just because he had found a younger woman, and Henry did care what the populace thought. However a marriage that went against the rules of God and the Church, well thats different, who would deny their King the means and opportunity have the marriage annulled and please God.
Henry gave a masterful speech to the country’s nobles at Bridewell, London, in November 1528, explaining that Catherine was noble and virtuous and that in other circumstances he would marry her again. But because of what had happened he lived in “detestable and abominable adultery”. It was clear to see that it was annulment he was after and not just a divorce
I think it was more than public opinion. I think Henry really needed to convince himself that he was acting properly. He had a rather complex psyche IMO. His actions were self-serving, but he couldn't accept such an image of himself.
He was no more mad than anyone else of his time. His daughter Mary, unable to produce an heir went looney over it.
It was his 'job' - determined by god and his country to reign and to produce an heir, a male heir. Loveless marriage was nothing like unusual in the day and in higher ranks it was often a political motive (hence his first marriage). The lack of knowledge of the time and the expectations caused him to go through several wives and fight the Catholic Church in his attempts to secure the throne for his descendants.
It is possible that Fitzroy could have been named heir, he owned the child and gave him a title. The child was very much a son of Henry's. More so than his daughters, who he did disown in the political muddle over sovereignty and the succession of the crown.
Comments
Fair enough but, previously, other candidates had been bypassed because they were illegitimate (the Beauforts, Ed 4th's sons... and I'm sure many more)
Well technically so were Mary and Elizabeth, he'd had them declared illegitimate before he then put them back into the succession. It's a bit of a moot point since the lad died, but parliament would probably have accepted Fitzroy being added in because they were so desperate to have a smooth succession to a male heir.
All medieval Kings were tyrants, it was a major perk of being a medieval King:). Actually if you look at most major medieval figures they are nut jobs by today's standards. The medieval mind set is pretty weird. We have far more in common with the ancient Romans in terms of how we view the world than we do with people from the Medieval period.
Oh I know it wasn't ideal but given the attitudes at the time there was a good chance that people would go for that rather than having a shock horror woman on the throne. Or shock shock horror a Scots king. There would have been some jiggerry pokery that would have legitimised him.
Well yes and no a divorce would have let him marry AB but
it would still have left Mary as legitimate, and although he believed it would not have mattered too much as he was still hoping for a legit son it would have caused other problems.
The people (and even without modern communications they would have heard about it) would not have stomached their monarch divorcing a loyal wife just because he had found a younger woman, and Henry did care what the populace thought. However a marriage that went against the rules of God and the Church, well thats different, who would deny their King the means and opportunity have the marriage annulled and please God.
Henry gave a masterful speech to the country’s nobles at Bridewell, London, in November 1528, explaining that Catherine was noble and virtuous and that in other circumstances he would marry her again. But because of what had happened he lived in “detestable and abominable adultery”. It was clear to see that it was annulment he was after and not just a divorce
Katherine's previous marriage was to Prince Arthur.
He was a vile bastard to them and created the monster that Bloody Mary became. She might have been an ok monarch otherwise.
Us history nerds were huddling together in The White Queen thread in the TV section a few weeks ago.
Yes sorry but the rest is correct
I wish there was ... I know a lot about history but this is boring beyond belief ... soz if this offends anyone x
This thread?
Your opinion an' all that. I don't agree though. I thing the question OP posed is very interesting as so many people think they know the answer and think it is simple. Also the Tudor period is the one I know most about.
Or did you mean that this General Discussion section is boring as opposed to this thread?
hmmmm
But he was also obsessed with having a son a heir &spare
He married six times therefore he had six wives imo. You could argue for only five wives as he annulled his marriage to Anne of Cleves before it was consummated (if I remember rightly) but he did go through a legal marriage service with them all.
He was a very complex character. Anne of Cleaves actually did very well out of her marriage.
People have mentioned Mary and Elizabeth, but Jane was after Edward. Her status is unsure and the Royals have avoided the name for a royal princess.
He was besotted with AB and KH in the beginning and probably loved KoA in the beginning.
He was a bit of an old romantic as well as monster and probably had a lovely dovey stage with all of them, bar AoC.
I think it was more than public opinion. I think Henry really needed to convince himself that he was acting properly. He had a rather complex psyche IMO. His actions were self-serving, but he couldn't accept such an image of himself.
I think she's just remembered as that because the poor woman died before he went off her.
If only the option existed not to read a thread you found boring....
They went down to England and "went native". And anyway from 1714 on it was the Germans
It was his 'job' - determined by god and his country to reign and to produce an heir, a male heir. Loveless marriage was nothing like unusual in the day and in higher ranks it was often a political motive (hence his first marriage). The lack of knowledge of the time and the expectations caused him to go through several wives and fight the Catholic Church in his attempts to secure the throne for his descendants.
It is possible that Fitzroy could have been named heir, he owned the child and gave him a title. The child was very much a son of Henry's. More so than his daughters, who he did disown in the political muddle over sovereignty and the succession of the crown.