Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Did Arthur and Katherine of Aragon have sex?

A place to debate issues or to rant about what's on your mind. In addition to discussions about historical fiction, books, the publishing industry, and history, discussions about current political, social, and religious issues and other topics are allowed, so those who are easily offended by certain topics may want to avoid such threads. Members are expected to keep the discussions friendly and polite and to avoid personal attacks on other members. The moderators reserve the right to shut down a thread without warning if they believe it necessary.

Did Arthur and Katherine have sex during marriage?

The marriage was not consummated
18
78%
The marriage was consummated
5
22%
 
Total votes: 23

User avatar
MLE (Emily Cotton)
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3562
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: started in childhood with the classics, which, IMHO are HF even if they were contemporary when written.
Favourite HF book: Prince of Foxes, by Samuel Shellabarger
Preferred HF: Currently prefer 1600 and earlier, but I'll read anything that keeps me turning the page.
Location: California Bay Area

Post by MLE (Emily Cotton) » Thu May 5th, 2011, 1:46 pm

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
Reader
Posts: 90
Joined: December 2010
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Post by Greg » Thu May 5th, 2011, 2:27 pm

[quote=""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.[/quote]

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

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 9581
Joined: August 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Misfit » Thu May 5th, 2011, 2:47 pm

[quote=""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.[/quote]

Lol. Read the book, I dare ya ;)
At home with a good book and the cat...
...is the only place I want to be

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4435
Joined: August 2008
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Post by Divia » Thu May 5th, 2011, 2:59 pm

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.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
MLE (Emily Cotton)
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3562
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: started in childhood with the classics, which, IMHO are HF even if they were contemporary when written.
Favourite HF book: Prince of Foxes, by Samuel Shellabarger
Preferred HF: Currently prefer 1600 and earlier, but I'll read anything that keeps me turning the page.
Location: California Bay Area

Post by MLE (Emily Cotton) » Thu May 5th, 2011, 4:57 pm

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.

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4435
Joined: August 2008
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Post by Divia » Thu May 5th, 2011, 5:11 pm

[quote=""MLE""]Well, actually she acted in the interest of her child, and Henry's soul as she saw it.

[/quote]

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.
Last edited by Divia on Thu May 5th, 2011, 5:17 pm, edited 5 times in total.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
SonjaMarie
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 5688
Joined: August 2008
Location: Vashon, WA
Contact:

Post by SonjaMarie » Thu May 5th, 2011, 5:15 pm

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
The Lady Jane Grey Internet Museum
My Booksfree Queue

Original Join Date: Mar 2006
Previous Amount of Posts: 2,517
Books Read In 2014: 109 - June: 17 (May: 17)
Full List Here: http://www.historicalfictiononline.com/ ... p?p=114965

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4435
Joined: August 2008
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Post by Divia » Thu May 5th, 2011, 5:19 pm

[quote=""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[/quote]

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.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
MLE (Emily Cotton)
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3562
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: started in childhood with the classics, which, IMHO are HF even if they were contemporary when written.
Favourite HF book: Prince of Foxes, by Samuel Shellabarger
Preferred HF: Currently prefer 1600 and earlier, but I'll read anything that keeps me turning the page.
Location: California Bay Area

Post by MLE (Emily Cotton) » Thu May 5th, 2011, 5:50 pm

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.

User avatar
LoveHistory
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3751
Joined: September 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by LoveHistory » Thu May 5th, 2011, 6:25 pm

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.

Post Reply

Return to “Debate/Rant Forum”