Did Arthur and Katherine of Aragon have sex?

[Misfit]

I swore I'd never read PG's The Constant Princess, but it's up for a group read at Goodreads and I said I'd give it a go. I think I'm having some issues with PG's version of things (SPOILER highlight to revealArthur asks her on her deathbed to swear they'd never had sex and instructed her to marry Henry so she could be Queen in the end)

PG's theory not withstanding, I think the idea of whether or not the two *did it* and whether or not Katherine would lie and put her faith on the line for that lie an interesting one. What say the rest of you?

[MLE]

I vote no. Whatever PG says, Catherine's convictions and character were on display for 30-plus years. And we know the moral situation in which she was raised. I always look at the long view, when I have to decide how trustworthy a person is or isn't.

[Misfit]

I've always felt that way as well, and why I always refused to read the book. I'm not buying into PG's version that much, but we got to talking over at Goodreads it is interesting to consider that she might be a princess first and do what she's got to do and make another dynastic marriage.

[boswellbaxter]

I voted no also. I think she would have been unlikely to make her famous statement, "I was a true maid without touch of man," in front of a spellbound audience if she believed that Henry could have contradicted her--which he personally never did under oath.

[SonjaMarie]

Eck! I voted wrong :( I meant to vote "no".

SM

[LoveHistory]

I say no.

I don't think the witnesses in the trial were lying about what Arthur said though. What young man is going to emerge from the bridal chamber after the wedding night and admit that nothing happened? Of course he said they did. Doesn't mean it happened.

[LoveHistory]

Eck! I voted wrong :( I meant to vote "no".

SM

That's ok, Sonja. We all know you. We won't put you in the tower for it. :D

[SonjaMarie]

That's ok, Sonja. We all know you. We won't put you in the tower for it. :D

Awww thanks! I figured out how to change the totals but it still has me shown as voting for "yes".

SM

[Misfit]

That's ok, Sonja. We all know you. We won't put you in the tower for it. :D

Off with her head :D

Thanks everyone for voting, it's looking pretty unanimous at the moment.

[princess garnet]

Hmmm, looks like a familiar question from PG's forums. :D

I don't think they did either.

[Divia]

People lie so why couldn't she?

If she wasn't queen of England then what was she going to do with her life? Go back to her country without a marriage? I would think that would be a blow to her holier than thou ego.

There are tons of girls who are ahem "virgins" but were not. Men believe what they want to. And lets face it if she had sex with her husband once or twice then she wouldn't be a lose whore.

[Misfit]

Hmmm, looks like a familiar question from PG's forums. :D

I don't think they did either.

Not having spent much time over there I didn't realize I was copy catting ;)

Besides, I doubt we'd ever see Ken there :D

[Greg]

Okay every one this is the perfect place for me to put my oar in, self proclaimed Tudor expert and all :rolleyes:. I believe the marriage was consumated, and while I haven't read Philipa Gregory's novel on the matter I've gone throught the precis of the story and plot. I see a few key points in this; one was Katherine's attitude to her place in the English establishment. She liked being first the future queen and had no intention of being returned as used goods to Spain. Any given oath or act at the time could be absolved for the right offering, this as we know was a fact of life in late Medieval/Early Modern period. Is there perhaps evidence that her extreme piety wasn't acts of penance and contrition for 'misleading statements'? Lying to save face, reputation or postion is not just a not modern action of those in power. If Arthur was maybe sterile then of course there would be no evidence of consumation- ie pregenacy. We have no evidence that Arthur was a religious ascetic who would abstain as a form of devotion. Positive evidence is Henry VII's need for the legitmacy of issue, a problem that went on to plague his second son. The pressure to consumate would have been extreme and its proof had to be certifiable to rivals and equals overseas.
Anyway just a few of my thoughts on this and why I voted consumated.

Regards Greg
http://rednedtudormysteries.blogspot.com...

To those who may be interested my Liberties of London has passed just passed the first stage of Smashwords publication check here.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/search?query=Liberties+of+London

[Divia]

Greg, I think you and I are the only two who think they consummated the marriage. ;)

Oh, adn you aren't missing much by not reading Gregory's book.

[MLE]

Katherine had a will of iron. She gave up seeing her only child up until her dying day because she would not forswear her conscience. And Henry never would swear in public that she was not a virgin. There is such a thing as a hymen, folks, and in Katherine's day and at her rank that membrane was carefully guarded--even accidental puncture or tearing was to be dreaded.

Arthur was never the healthiest boy. It is possible that he was already suffering from tuberculosis, which was rampant back then-- the biography of Catherine de Medici we just read for the February BOM said that all of her sons showed symptoms of that disease. Which doesn't make for great fertility, especially not in the teen years. As to the final proof of his ill-health, Arthur died from whatever disease hit them, while Katherine didn't.

Also, look at the track record in Katherine's family: Every one of the four sisters was raised to be God-fearing to the extreme and dutiful to their husbands. To understand Katherine's values, you have to understand late fifteenth-century Castile, not Tudor England. I'll go with the preponderance of the historical evidence on character, and leave the half-baked speculations to novelists who need to invent something to sell their books.

[EC2]

I'll go with the preponderance of the historical evidence on character, and leave the half-baked speculations to novelists who need to invent something to sell their books.

Well said MLE. I've come across a lot of half-baked in researching my own period - sometimes from historians, never mind the novelists! Your argument has the ring of truth. I've gone with the no's.

[Misfit]

Greg, I think you and I are the only two who think they consummated the marriage. ;)

Oh, adn you aren't missing much by not reading Gregory's book.

I haven't voted yet ;)

My biggest problem here isn't just that Arthur and Katherine may have done it, but with PG's version of the whole thing. SPOILER (sort of)

They loved each other and met nightly (he had a super secret way to get to the bedchamber unnoticed by anyone (not sure why the maids couldn't tell the difference between a bed slept in and one that had been used for mad passionate sex). On his deathbed he made her swear that she would marry Henry and continue her grant destiny as queen,

"England needs a great queen," he said. "Especially with him. He's not fit to rule. You must teach him. Build my forts. Build my navy. Defend against the Scots. Have my daughter Mary. Have my son arthur. Let me live through you."

Everyone seems to *know* the wedding was consummated, but since it isn't convenient to acknowledge it there's plenty of winking and nudging and ignoring it. During the wedding night, after she swears she's virgin Henry *knows* she's faking it, but puts it out of his mind.

"Deep down, he knew that she was no virgin. He did not know much, this overportected boy, but he knew this. Somewhere in his mind, he knew that she was lying."

[Greg]

to Misfit that snippet didn't spoil the novel for me, I'd looked at the Wiki precis and instantly lost interest then. To the rest of the discussion one has to remember what kind of driver pride can be, in this case Katherine as a Castilian was steeped in both family and embedded cultural pride. May I point out that the Castilians and Spanish never let religion get in the way of their own pride and standing we have an awfull lot of contemp accounts of that. Now if she lied to retain the chance of a throne would that be so unexceptional in the period?
For fiction there are different requirements. While trying to stay close to my research on the Henry Katherine annulment issue my main character Ned Bedwell has his own opinion on the matter due to his political and factional affliations. However he makes no bones about where he stands and why he's there.
To my friends at Historical Fiction just a quick note to let you know I’ve put an article up on my blog with a light hearted discussion on the fiction subsets in the Tudor history genre –fact or fiction oh yes and vampires

Regards Greg
http://rednedtudormysteries.blogspot.com/2011/05/tudor-fiction-or-tudor-fact.html

[Misfit]

I just sneaked a peak at the author's notes and thought I'd share this.

"That is was a lie is, I think, the most likely explanation. I believe that her marriage to Arthur was consummated; certainly, everyone thought so at the time. It was only Dona Elivira's insistence after Katherine had been widowed, and Katherine's own insistence at the time of her separation from Henry, that put the consummation into doubt. Later historians, admiring Katherine and accepting her word against Henry's, put the lie into the historical record where it stays today."

[MLE]

And of course, Philippa Gregory is the last word on historical accuracy. After all, we must give her credit for having the inside scoop on Elizabeth I as a weak fool who was managed and manipulated by the men in her life, and that Anne Bolyen slept with her brother.

I stopped reading her after she made it clear that she thought Aragon (a country) was the town where Katherine was born.

[MLE]

One thing to add. Everybody keeps hitting the matter of Katherine's virginity as though that were the one thing her case rested on. It wasn't. Henry and Katherine had applied for, and received, a Papal dispensation which was unrelated to her virginity or lack of it. So if the Pope's ability to dispense with such things as consanguinuity (a very ordinary thing, in royal pairings) was not to be called into question, the only reason for her to be so insistent was that her virginity was a fact.

[Greg]

And of course, Philippa Gregory is the last word on historical accuracy. After all, we must give her credit for having the inside scoop on Elizabeth I as a weak fool who was managed and manipulated by the men in her life, and that Anne Bolyen slept with her brother.

I stopped reading her after she made it clear that she thought Aragon (a country) was the town where Katherine was born.

Oh dear she didn't did she? That's awfully careless though considering some of the suppossed hist fict i'm not overly suprised.

regards Greg

[Misfit]

And of course, Philippa Gregory is the last word on historical accuracy. After all, we must give her credit for having the inside scoop on Elizabeth I as a weak fool who was managed and manipulated by the men in her life, and that Anne Bolyen slept with her brother.

I stopped reading her after she made it clear that she thought Aragon (a country) was the town where Katherine was born.

Lol. Read the book, I dare ya ;)

[Divia]

They can have her tested to check if her hymen is there all day long, but really considering the lack of medical knowledge of the time I wouldn't say this is a 100% given.


Catherine had everything to lose if she went back to Spain. She had everything to lose if she didn't remain firm against Henry as well. She had an iron will. I can't say thats bad, but she wanted to be queen and wanted to stay queen. In order to meet her goals she would do anything.

Lets says she had sex with Arthur. So what? Does that make her any less important? Does that make her different than any other ruler then and now who lied to get what they wanted? Are people placing her up on a pedestal? Is her virginity really that important?

In the end she married Henry, whom I believed loved her at the time. She couldnt produce heir, was getting old and he moved on to something younger. She acted in the way she saw fit, hoping it would save her marriage, yet it did not.

[MLE]

Well, actually she acted in the interest of her child, and Henry's soul as she saw it.

Any time allegations are made, the first thing I look at is who had an axe to grind. Anybody writing a novel in which Katherine did consummate her first marriage will grind the axe that way.

Fortunately, we don't have to go on pure supposition. Katherine left letters, people who were around her wrote of their experiences, and she lived in the public eye for all of her life. Anyone who really wants to judge her character can simply gather up all the evidence.

I include as the greatest evidence her impact on those who knew her well. And everybody who has done the legwork and a reasonable amount of research will come away with a view of a woman whose position in heaven was much more important to her than her position on earth; whose moral compass was set in one direction and did not waver no matter the cost to herself; and who always put the welfare of others first.

[Divia]

Well, actually she acted in the interest of her child, and Henry's soul as she saw it.



Henry's soul? The same henry who booted her out of the house to stay in some drafty castle to die for some younger thing?

I don't buy the religion made her pure argument. Sorry. There are conservative preachers who hate gay people and then end up banging a teen boy in some hotel and come to find out they were gay for years, decades.

Just because you are religious doesn't mean you are free of blemish. Joan of Arc had one of the worst tempers known to man yet she is considered a saint and spoke to god through her "voices."

Those around her said she was pure? What was their bottom line? You cannot tell me that Katherine becoming queen didn't help a lot of people. of course it did.

And again I say. What difference does it matter if she wasn't a virgin? Why are we so hung up on a society about this whole virginity nonsense. My goodness you would think its the Victorian Era.

As I said previously if she had lied about it she wouldn't be the first nor the last when it came to such issues. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." So said Mr. Billy.

In the end as a woman she had a lot more to lose being seen as used goods. In fact I admire her more for lying.

Besides none of us were there so we can't comment with 100% accuracy. However, I would like the link to this discussion on the other MB Misfit. I want to see what their stance is.

I will add that one of my professors in college is well known for his work in black history. We were talking about Jefferson and his slaves. He was outraged that Jefferson would have sex with his slaves. It wasn't the thing. etc. etc. Guess what, Jefferson was banging his slaves. He was quite disappointed in the DNA findings. He never viewed Jefferson as a saint, but he always thought that his views wouldn't allow him to do such things. People in desperate situations do a lot of things we don't think is in their character or nature.

[SonjaMarie]

Whether or not she was a virgin is beside the point, he was going to get rid of her one way or another, just like when he wanted rid of Anne, he didn't care who he hurt just as long as he got what he wanted.

SM

[Divia]

Whether or not she was a virgin is beside the point, he was going to get rid of her one way or another, just like when he wanted rid of Anne, he didn't care who he hurt just as long as he got what he wanted.

SM

When Henry wanted something he got it. And you're right come hell or high water he was gonna get what he wanted no matter what.

[MLE]

Divia, have you actually read any of her letters? there are a lot out there.

And yes, she was concerned about Henry's soul. she still loved him. Love doesn't have to be reciprocated to be real -- in fact the proof is when it isn't.

Nobody is saying her religion made her pure. Or even that it was right--in my personal opinion, most of it was wrong. I'm just saying that it was consistent. Ultimately, the proof resides in Katherine's character, and an impartial observer has to judge based on all the evidence available.

Katherine expected to be rewarded in heaven for moral behavior here on earth, so swearing before God to something she knew to be false would be in complete opposition to what she saw as her own best interests. And quite a lot of the people who stuck with Katherine did NOT get anything out of it-- it cost them dearly. So you have to agree that the woman could inspire incredible loyalty. In my experience, that doesn't happen if you are a jerk, or arrogant, and being a liar who is out for yourself is a pretty usual part of both.

[LoveHistory]

One problem with the idea that she lied to keep her position as queen: Henry all but offered her the moon to say that their marriage wasn't valid. She could have been set up in luxury and comfort for the rest of her days, seen her daughter whenever she wanted, and still she wouldn't budge. That's not the action of a person who is ok with lying. She had been Henry's wife for 20+ years. She knew he would win eventually. A practical woman would have taken the easy way out and gotten her own castle and her child back.

By the way, Divia, being very religious does not necessarily translate to having a "holier than thou ego." Katherine was known for her humility. And the reason the virginity is such an issue even today is not because current society is hung up on it, but because 16 century society was.

Comparing the truly religious to the falsely religious is not a compelling argument. The social and religious mindset then was different than it is now. Of course there were always hypocrits, but why just assume Katherine was one of them? Do we know 100% that Katherine was all she seemed? No, but the evidence suggests such. People are convicted or exonerated in the media and in modern courts on less evidence than that which supports the idea that she was a truly devout woman.

Hey, we actually have a debate going. Sweet! For a while I was afraid this was going to be an agreement-fest.

[Misfit]

Hey, we actually have a debate going. Sweet! For a while I was afraid this was going to be an agreement-fest.

This is getting good, I'm enjoying hearing everyone's opinion.

Slightly off the did they or didn't they topic, I saw MLE mentioned Katherine's great love for Henry no matter what he did and that's the impression I've always had from any books I've read. PG's finally married Katherine off to Henry and he's more on the buffoonish side, and that's most definitely how PG's Katherine seems to think of him. Her beloved Arthur is everything pure and kingly and Henry is just a macho overbearing dolt. Not much love for her husband in this book :mad:

[Divia]

No I have not read the letters but the problem with letters is that anyone can read them. And that's the point. I'm sure there are people who were reading them at that time too. That must have been in the back of her mind after Arthur died.

However, if you want to take the letters at face value then so be it.

I'm not arguing she wasnt religious or devout. But even in public the most devout can become an S&M mistress on Saturday nights behind closed doors.

Love, it just shows she was stubborn and determined to get what she wanted. The reality is that back then who knew that Henry would break from the Catholic Church the biggest "oh no you didn't!" moments in history. She was playing her hand, never in her mind, (Or in other people's minds) did they think it would be taken as far as it was. Anne would just be another mistress and they have come and gone so why not wait this one out. He would never break with the church, only in the end he did.

I think that some people are putting her up there in the canon of saints and Im not ready to get out my St. Katherine of Aragon prayer card yet.

[Divia]

I will add, that since there is not evidence 100% for either argument that there will be no clear answer. Everyone can gather bits and pieces from what they have an create an argument that they think is plausible. Ah, history. :)

[Greg]

And of course, Philippa Gregory is the last word on historical accuracy. After all, we must give her credit for having the inside scoop on Elizabeth I as a weak fool who was managed and manipulated by the men in her life, and that Anne Bolyen slept with her brother.

I stopped reading her after she made it clear that she thought Aragon (a country) was the town where Katherine was born.

Oh dear she didn't did she? That's awfully careless though considering some of the suppossed hist fict she writes i'm not overly suprised.

regards Greg

[EC2]

I think, although we will never know, we can narrow it down slightly.

Was it possible that such and such an event happened in history? - answer is frequently yes.

What is the percentage of likelihood of it happening versus percentage of not likely based on known evidence? That's a whole different ballgame. Doesn't make the dominant percentage correct, but it points up indicators.

[burlgirl]

Interesting discussion, especially since I just finished reading Catherine of Aragon: The Spanish Queen of Henry VIII by Giles Tremlett, a new biography that spends a good part of the first half on her life prior to and including Arthur. The author presents evidence from the trial (? - I'm at work so can't check the book) in Zaragoza from when Henry was seeking a divorce and appealed to the European ecclesiastical courts (my memory's fuzzy on this, would like to be able to check, but alas, the book's at home). The author, who lives in Spain, I believe, was granted access to Spanish archives which shed some light on what the Spanish people who came with Katharine and then went home, remembered of the night. The consensus was there was a lot of concern over what didn't happen - that Arthur was pretty sick and the Spanish felt quite bad for the princess.

Going into later in Katherine's life, the author points out an instance when she did lie (again, book at home and I can’t remember because I’m feeling guilty posting this at work). Personally, I think everyone lies at one point or another. Katherine was willing to die over the fact that she came to Henry as a virgin, and was willing that Mary would also die for this.

People are willing to die for many things, but not a lie. I believe the circumstantial evidence lies in favor of no consummation.

[Margaret]

What a fascinating thread! I didn't vote because I haven't read enough nonfiction about Katherine to know enough to base an opinion on. Actually, I doubt that at this remove in time we can ever really know enough to be certain whether they did or didn't. Both the pro and con arguments have some strong points to make.

Arthur and Katherine would have been under pressure to produce an heir during their marriage. That doesn't mean they did have sex, but it seems pretty likely that they must have tried.

After Arthur died, the political pressure for Henry and Katherine to marry must have been quite intense. I just don't know enough about Katherine to form an opinion of her personality, but I do think even a very devout young woman could have succumbed to the pressure to go along with the flow and say her marriage had not been consummated so the marriage with Henry could go forward. She was very young and was not in Spain at that point, but in England, surrounded by people who had worked very hard for the alliance with Spain that her marriage represented and who would have seen Arthur's death as a crushing blow which could be reversed only by finding a way for Katherine to marry Henry. England was still a Catholic country, so the people who were pressuring her were as Catholic as she was, and some of them were likely high church officials. And if once Katherine publicly went along with the pressure to say her marriage had not been consummated, it would be very, very hard for her to backtrack and then say it had been.

People are surprisingly capable of persuading themselves to believe things it is to their advantage to believe, especially when not altering their beliefs would produce the kind of powerful cognitive dissonance a pious girl like Katherine would surely have felt if her marriage had been consummated and she had lied and said it had not. Over the years, she might have altered her memories enough to actually believe her marriage had not been consummated even if it had. Seems weird, but similar things happen.

I'm playing devil's advocate by arguing for the side fewer people voted for, when in fact, I really can't make up my mind one way or another. Based on the little I do know, I think both the pro and con have strong arguments going for them.

[MLE]

Actually, Margaret, the pressure was AGAINST Henry marrying Katherine. His father was trying to marry her widowed sister Juana instead, a much richer prize. He didn't give her a household allowance, trying to literally starve her into going back to Spain.

[Divia]

Yes but her eye was always on the prize. Queen or nothing.

[MLE]

Divia, you've been reading too much PG. And you know how reliable she isn't.

The reason Katherine didn't go back (In her letters she begged to) is that Henry VII wouldn't return the dowry. A portion of the dowry was comprised of her 'plate' -- gold-plated tableware-- which she had to sell in order to feed her ladies. (Later her father-in-law would make an issue of this, charging her with irresponsibility.) Many of her Spanish household returned to Spain at their own expense-- the rest were stranded in England.

A French marriage was being arranged for Henry, then Prince of Wales. Everybody was amazed when after his father's death he married the dowager princess of Wales, whose money had already been spent and whose political connections were iffy. (Charles wasn't Holy Roman Emperor, or even King of Spain at the time; he was a nine-year old in Flanders. And it looked very likely that Ferdinand would have a son by his new queen, and Spain would break up into two kingdoms again, if not a bloody civil war.)

I would theorize that although Henry mostly loved only himself, Katherine probably got as much of his heart as he ever genuinely gave anybody.

[Divia]

Yeah, I got all my historical knowledge from PG. :rolleyes:

[SGM]

Is this really important?

I have read sources that suggest that Henry would have had a better argument with the Pope if he had acknowledged Katherine's virginity because the papal dispensation acquired before their marriage had assumed that the marriage of Katherine and Arthur had been consummated. It was also suggested that Wolsey saw that Henry's case with the pope would have been if he had argued that Katherine had been a virgin because it would have created a different impediment (that of 'public honesty') that the original dispensation had not covered.

Anyway Henry was never going to get his divorce whilst the pope was besieged in Rome by Katherine's nephew, the Emperor Charles V so I am not sure that the question of Katherine's virginity on marriage makes the slightest difference.

[LoveHistory]

At the time it seemed very important. Now? Not so much. But then I don't think anyone has claimed that it's important, just a matter of controversy even now.

[MLE]

IS THIS IMPORTANT??? It is one of the hinges on which modern history turns! If Katherine had granted Henry his divorce, England would have remained Catholic; the balance of power of Europe would have been drastically changed; the Netherlands would probably not have succeeded in breaking away from the Spanish crown, there would have been less competition in maritime development---

Yes, it's important. Everything that came before shaped the now, but some incidents more than others.

[SGM]

The point that I am making is that Henry's annulment did not rest on whether or not the marriage of Katherine and Arthur was consumated. I did not imply that Henry's split was not crucial merely that that event did not rest upon whether Katherine was a virgin at the time of her marriage to Henry. During a brief respite in Charles V's seige of Rome, the pope did appear to vere more in Henry's favour but unfortunately that respite did not last and Henry's chance of obtaining his annulment from the pope was lost for good. I am well aware of the impact of the English Reformation but I don't really consider Katherine's virginity or not was going to make a difference. The Vatican made their decisions for political reasons not for matters of fact.

[Divia]

IS THIS IMPORTANT??? It is one of the hinges on which modern history turns!


Who knew that her virginity or non virginal state had such power.

[SGM]

Who knew that her virginity or non virginal state had such power.

No the English Reformation was an important event and did change this country's internal direction and changed for centuries its relationship with the rest of Europe but it didn't rest on Katherine's 'virginal state'.

But as I pointed out Wolsey knew that Henry had made a mistake by basing is claim for annulment on the fact she came to him not as a virgin. The papal dispensation for the marriage of Henry and Katherine was granted on the assumption that her marriage to Arthur had been consummated. Henry would have had a better case if he based it on the fact that she was a virgin when he married her because that created a second impediment that had not been dealt with in the original dispensation.

Henry was not going to get his anulment whether or not Katherine was a virgin. He didn't get it for political reasons.

[Elizabeth]

I have read sources that suggest that Henry would have had a better argument with the Pope if he had acknowledged Katherine's virginity because the papal dispensation acquired before their marriage had assumed that the marriage of Katherine and Arthur had been consummated.

The actual papal dispensation issued by Julius II described the marriage of Arthur and Catherine as "forsan consummatum," "perhaps consummated," although a brief of the dispensation held in Spanish files does not have the weasel word "forsan." So even at the time there appears to have been confusion.

There's a similar uncertainty as to whether or not Francois II and Mary Stuart ever consummated their marriage, although poor little Francois was considerate enough to die and leave Mary unquestionably free to marry again. For all the good it did her. (ETA: there were semi-serious negotiations for her to marry Charles IX, which could have brought up similar issues of dispensations, although Catherine de' Medici put an end to those in record time.)

I tend to think that in both cases there was probably some fumbling attempt at consummation by the young people involved, primarily because there were so many expectations weighing upon them. But my opinion, for what it's worth, is that neither couple ever achieved full, genuine consummation.

[MLE]

Everybody argues as though the marriage annulment rested solely on the pope, forgetting that he was secondary. the FIRST impediment was not the pope, but Katherine. If she had agreed, the pope's would have granted Henry's request with great relief. And Charles V would have been relieved, too. Certainly he and Henry 'made nice' before Katherine was cold in her grave.

So the English Reformation essentially came down to one woman's stubborn refusal to say she was not a virgin when she married.

Of course I don't know any more than anyone else. But let's say you had a bizarre lottery where your life depended on you guessing right, and the judge was some being who really knew the truth: which way would you guess?

Given the entire corpus of the lady's works, if I had to stake my life on it, I'd guess that Katherine was telling the truth.

[Divia]

No the English Reformation was an important event and did change this country's internal direction and changed for centuries its relationship with the rest of Europe but it didn't rest on Katherine's 'virginal state'.




I know. I was being snarky because some people are obsessed with her virginity. ;) :p

[Margaret]

Very interesting. The popes did grant dispensations based on political considerations, though they usually tried to disguise it. I'm becoming more interested in Henry's state of mind. It sounds as though, when he married Katherine, he may have needed to believe she was a virgin for reasons that were as much personal and emotional as political, and that by the time he wanted an annulment, his need to believe she had not been a virgin also had personal, emotional roots.

[Elizabeth]

Everybody argues as though the marriage annulment rested solely on the pope, forgetting that he was secondary. the FIRST impediment was not the pope, but Katherine. If she had agreed, the pope's would have granted Henry's request with great relief. And Charles V would have been relieved, too. Certainly he and Henry 'made nice' before Katherine was cold in her grave.

So the English Reformation essentially came down to one woman's stubborn refusal to say she was not a virgin when she married.

Of course I don't know any more than anyone else. But let's say you had a bizarre lottery where your life depended on you guessing right, and the judge was some being who really knew the truth: which way would you guess?

Given the entire corpus of the lady's works, if I had to stake my life on it, I'd guess that Katherine was telling the truth.

You have an excellent point. If Katherine herself had been willing to "retire to a nunnery" and take the veil, I'm sure things could even have been arranged to protect Mary's rights (which was another of the things she was concerned about). But she herself said that she was not called to be a nun, she was called to be queen. (Can't put my finger on the exact quote, but that's a paraphrase.) So it was not only her stubborn refusal to say she was not a virgin, but her stubborn refusal to give up her position in the world. A will of iron, that lady. :)

[SGM]

A will of iron, that lady. :)

Now, that I would agree with.

[rebecca]

I am not an historian but from the books I have read which portray Katherine as very devout throughout her entire life I cannot believe this devout woman would endanger her soul by maintaining a lie even on her deathbed. Hell in those times was a very real place would Katherine choose to die knowing that she had sinned with the knowledge that this sin had not been absolved(I think that's the right word?)by a Priest? This is a woman who believed everything that the Church Teaches...Would she endanger her immortal soul by dying with a lie in her heart and on her lips to the end? Somehow I dont think so.

I think that Katherine was telling the truth about Arthur and Henry knew it!

Just my opinion.

Bec:)