Katherine of Aragon

plantagenetrose · May 31, 2009

I totally agree that Katherine should have stepped aside. She always claimed to have Englands best interest at heart, but she should have known that without a Male Heir, that the country would be torn by whom Mary I chose to marry? But perhaps that was her idea? That Mary would lead England to the Papacy and to Rome through her family connections and her choice of husband.

In terms of the legitimising a bastard male heir question, I feel that this would potentially have made as many problems as there were anyway. Many people supported Mary as heir, then there was Henry Fitzroy, who has the support of alot of courtiers, who knew he was henry's unquestionable son, but then you have the Howards and Boleyn's who probably would (knowing their ruthlessness) have tried to champion Mary Boleyns possible bastard son by the king, Henry Carey. And with the experience of the problems between Mary and one boleyn (namely princess Elizabeth), I doubt any other potential heir would have done any better.

Actually, I think history worked out for the best, and anyway, Katehrine of Aragon didn't really need to step down, because Henry was a formidable enemy, who eventually took matters into his own hands. And behind every great man is a great woman - and Anne and Henry eventually got rid of Catherine anyway, but unfortunately, that court case took so long, and because Anne was potentially 31-32 years old by the time that she and Henry married in 1533 (we are not entirely sure of her birth date but it seems like it was either 1501 or 1502), so it probably destroyed her chance of having a son.

But to those who say that they don't like Katherine, please read about her as a young woman! I used to dislike her, because modern literature and films are all too happy to paint her as the dowdy old queen who is too bitter to let go, vs the young sexy anne boleyn, but Katherine in her day was a fine Queen, she was regent of the country for a period, and her mother was a true warrior queen. I feel that Katherine is underrated as a figure from history, but she should have stepped aside in the best interest of England

Melisende · Jun 1, 2009

Katherine is very underrated for a number of reasons. Katherine was "middle-aged" when "young" Anne fluttered into Henry's line of vision. Henry was willing to risk all for Anne.

However, Henry, one tends to forget, was quite willing to risk all for Katherine - she was his brother's widow, and considered "off limits" marriage-wise (eg: she was his sister in the eyes of the Church). Henry was keen to marry Katherine, with whom he fell in love against his father's wishes. So the marriage was initially a love-match.

Katherine was a strong woman - she had enough front to challenge Henry for she believed - and many other believed - to be right. She was Henry's lawful wife and Queen. She took an incredible risk taking on the wrath of Henry VIII - many men would not have been so brave.

And let's face it, no woman is willingly going to step down from a throne to let her rival take her place - women aren't that accommodating!

We cannot judge Katherine's actions by the outcomes we know today - many thought Henry would eventually tire of Anne, regain his senses and return to both Katherine and the Church. And no matter how popular Anne is today, she was extremely unpopular with the people of England who saw her as nothing but a strumpet - Henry's bit on the side - despite her family's "history". Katherine was popular - despite her "failings" in the heir department.

However, with hindsight, we know Anne fared no better than Katherine herself - in fact Anne fared much worse - she was executed.

Tudor chick · Jun 1, 2009

Catherine should not have just moved aside for Anne. I too used to think other wise until I read more about Catherine. I feel sorry for Anne as she was manipulated by her family, but that is another story.
Catherine was Princess of Wales since she was three and was raised to be Queen of England. First with Arthur who had of lived would have stayed married to and most likely had heirs.
Mel is right; Henry did want to marry Catherine. It is a pity that Catherine is remember as being over weight and middle aged, ( a bit like me now) however she was very pretty when she first came to England. She did nothing wrong and was a loyal trust worthy wife, who Henry left “in charge” of England when he travelled to France once. She was a very strong and loyal wife who was beloved by the people and who deserved to be treated better than she was.
It is debatable if Henry Carey was really Henry’s son. If he was, Henry would have claimed him and given him titles, but alas this did not happen. He was not really recognized in court until his cousin Elizabeth came to the throne. So Henry did get his heir. But alas, again Elizabeth had no direct heir. So should have she married at a young age to produce a child if she loved England as much as she claimed. Or did she not want to loose her status and right as Queen, just as the same Catherine didn’t?

Tudor chick · Jun 1, 2009

Melisende said:
Katherine is very underrated for a number of reasons. Katherine was "middle-aged" when "young" Anne fluttered into Henry's line of vision. Henry was willing to risk all for Anne.

However, Henry, one tends to forget, was quite willing to risk all for Katherine - she was his brother's widow, and considered "off limits" marriage-wise (eg: she was his sister in the eyes of the Church). Henry was keen to marry Katherine, with whom he fell in love against his father's wishes. So the marriage was initially a love-match.

Katherine was a strong woman - she had enough front to challenge Henry for she believed - and many other believed - to be right. She was Henry's lawful wife and Queen. She took an incredible risk taking on the wrath of Henry VIII - many men would not have been so brave.

And let's face it, no woman is willingly going to step down from a throne to let her rival take her place - women aren't that accommodating!

We cannot judge Katherine's actions by the outcomes we know today - many thought Henry would eventually tire of Anne, regain his senses and return to both Katherine and the Church. And no matter how popular Anne is today, she was extremely unpopular with the people of England who saw her as nothing but a strumpet - Henry's bit on the side - despite her family's "history". Katherine was popular - despite her "failings" in the heir department.

However, with hindsight, we know Anne fared no better than Katherine herself - in fact Anne fared much worse - she was executed.

I agree. Good to see you back Mel

plantagenetrose · Jun 3, 2009

And have we all noticed, that since Katherine is classically portrayed as fat, middle ageing, and stubborn, that everyone says "oh she should have stepped aside for Anne Boleyn, especially since she couldn't have children", yet nobody ever says "Oh Anne Boleyn should have just stepped aside for Jane Seymour", because Anne is so popular a character for people to study, even though with hindsight we all know that Jane gave Henry his son!

The way that History portrays people is somtimes shocking. Like the 5 centuries of slander against Robert Dudley's name (thank you for resurrecting the "real Dudley", Derek Wilson), but that is a whole other story that I could go on about for pages and pages!

bodmin · Jun 3, 2009

It does seem a strange argument to suggest that Katherine of Aragon should of stepped aside to avoid the states split with the Catholic Church. .Maybe Henry should have backed down, but then we would not have had the fabulous Elizabeth I

plantagenetrose · Jun 3, 2009

bodmin said:
It does seem a strange argument to suggest that Katherine of Aragon should of stepped aside to avoid the states split with the Catholic Church. .Maybe Henry should have backed down, but then we would not have had the fabulous Elizabeth I

If Henry had backed down... well he wouldn't really have been Henry would he! Actually I often find that fate usually works for a reason. I mean, perhaps if Katherine had of backed down immediately, because Anne was so much younger, perhaps she would have had a son, and then yes, you are quite right, we would not have had the fabulous Elizabeth, and the whole country may be quite different.

I think Henry would have been most proud of Elizabeth anyway - she did as well as he could ever have expected from any son.

Medievalist · Jun 3, 2009

Ankrom said:
Yet, with the Pope unwilling to give Henry a divorce, a papal dispensation considering consanguinity would have been impossible.

not as impossible as you might think. The House of Hapsburg eventually collapsed because of these papal dispensations allowing a number of uncle-niece marriages **vomit**

GENERAL: I don't get this "Katherine should have moved outta the way" arguement. Why should she have moved? In her eyes and in the eyes of everyone else except Henry she's been the Queen of England, the wife of Henry and the mother to the Princess of Wales (yes Mary was made Princess of Wales when she was betrothed to her cousin Charles V).

I'm also baffled by how people can see Anne Boleyn in a positive light. I don't like this woman at all. She was conniving, manipulative, seductress and I'd probably get banned for the other words I wanna use. Same goes for Elizabeth I. Imo the real heroines and women of nobility were Katherine and her daughter Mary. Yeh we were fed with the old "Bloody" Mary story at school and the wonderful Elizbethan golden age blah blah blah. But in actual fact - I believe Katherine and Mary both lived lives with principle and faith (and no Im not a Catholic) and courage. Anne and Elizabeth on the other hand were complete opposite - unprincipled and immoral.

bodmin · Jun 3, 2009

Why do you feel Mary had greater principles than Elizabeth?

Tudor chick · Jun 3, 2009

bodmin said:
Why do you feel Mary had greater principles than Elizabeth?

Yes I would like to know too.

plantagenetrose · Jun 4, 2009

Medievalist said:
I'm also baffled by how people can see Anne Boleyn in a positive light. I don't like this woman at all. She was conniving, manipulative, seductress and I'd probably get banned for the other words I wanna use. Same goes for Elizabeth I. Imo the real heroines and women of nobility were Katherine and her daughter Mary. Yeh we were fed with the old "Bloody" Mary story at school and the wonderful Elizbethan golden age blah blah blah. But in actual fact - I believe Katherine and Mary both lived lives with principle and faith (and no Im not a Catholic) and courage. Anne and Elizabeth on the other hand were complete opposite - unprincipled and immoral.

On the one hand, I am inclined to agree with you. And then on the other, I am inclined to disagree.
I am in total agreement with you regarding Katherine and Mary. Katherine was a brilliant queen, and was even acting regent and in command of the troops during the Flodden campaign (which the English won!). She was a brilliant queen - always considering the people and standing up for them to Henry, and she put up with 24 years of Henry's affairs, his temper, and his lifestyle which was so different to her own. She loved him, was faithful to him, and was a great mother to Mary. Mary also was a brilliant queen, and if you closely study her life, you will find that many of the disasterous things that happened during her reign all stem from her husband Phillip. She was actually a loving queen, who to all intents and purposes fought her way to her rightful throne.
I also agree with you that Anne and Eilzabeth were for Tudor standards considered immoral and perhaps "loose" women. But in Anne's case, she wanted to make a good marriage, and tried to, with Henry Percy, which was thwarted by her family. She was told that she could expect no more than to marry someone of her status, and as a knights daughter, she would probably have been looking at a knight. When her sister Mary was having an affair with Henry, Anne was promised a good marriage, and lands and titles, but none were forthcoming, no marriage arranged. She was growing older, and as Henry lost interest in Mary, Anne really had two choices, to use her gifts, her talents and intellect, to snare Henry for herself and keep his mind primarily on her, but also on her family, or to allow him to fleet off with the Seymours. Anne had waited for a marriage that never came, and seen the family really achieve less than they had expected from Mary's dalliances with him, so she used her initiative. Many women say that they hate Anne, as you say "manipulative, cunniving, seductress", but Anne was doing what her sister could not. She had seen Mary give herself to Henry, and seen him lose interest in her, and the family benefit little. Anne was intelligent, well educated, and a brilliant debater, she would not fail where her sister did, so she used her "skills" to hold Henry, and to have him. I feel that she was far better than his other mistresses, because she did not sleep with him until she was certain that she would be queen, and she did not allow herself to be used. She was intelligent, and she got what she wanted. Those who do not like her are welcome to comment that she paid the price, but to her, it was probably worth it.
In terms of Elizabeth, many say that she was immoral, and I agree with that, but I am not sure what I feel would have been the better path for her. She loved Dudley for the whole of her life, but her councillors (and perhaps deep down herself) would not allow her to marry him. The main choices of marriage matches were foreign princes that would have either led her back to the Catholic Faith or cause war with Spain, and she had already seen the effect of a foreign prince with Mary. As Elizabeth said, there were two sides to her - Elizabeth the Queen and Elizabeth the woman. Perhaps the woman could be seen as no better than her mother, but really that never got in the way of Elizabeth the Queen ruling over the Golden Years of England.

Well thats just my opinion anyway, and I would love to hear what everyone else thinks

Tudor chick · Jun 4, 2009

Very well put. I agree with some of what you said but not all. I agree what you have said about Catherine. I put almost the same yesterday, but my computer was not working correctly and would not let me post. Anyway I am on another one today. I dont agree with you about Mary. I think her strict faith lead her to do things that a wiser ruler would not have done. eg the burings of so many people. She did not get her name for nothing.
Elizabeth was much more accepting of peoples views. While their where burnings in her regin it is not the same numbers as Mary.
Why was Elizabeth immoral. It is not a proven fact that she had slept with Dudley or anyone else for that matter. Why was she called the Virgin Queen? I dont see how you could say she was no better than her mother? What exactly do you mean by this and what proof do you have to back this up?

princessX · Jun 4, 2009

Tudor chick said:
Why was she called the Virgin Queen? I dont see how you could say she was no better than her mother?

Just out of interest, when did Elizabeth first become known as the "Virgin Queen"? Does it date from her reign or was it applied to her after?

plantagenetrose · Jun 5, 2009

Tudor chick said:
Why was Elizabeth immoral. It is not a proven fact that she had slept with Dudley or anyone else for that matter. Why was she called the Virgin Queen? I dont see how you could say she was no better than her mother? What exactly do you mean by this and what proof do you have to back this up?

Well, when I say immoral, I don't mean by today's standards, I mean immoral by the standards of the time. People of the time thought that it was immoral for a queen to rule alone and have dalliances with a man of her court, sexual or not. I mean personally, I have no problem with what Elizabeth did or the way she led her life, I am just saying that this is what the Catholics said - that Elizabeth was immoral, and was truely the daughter of a ...... By today's modern standards, this viewpoint has no standing, Henry and Anne and Elizabeth and Dudley are my favourite Tudor characters, I just feel that at the time, her behaviour often left a divide within which others (such as the Catholics, and Spanish) could comment that she was often sexually immoral, and for the time I feel inclined to agree - perhaps she would have been better off keeping her relationship with Dudley more "behind closed doors", even if she never slept with him.
But I believe that there is some theories that say that her choice to be known as the Virgin Queen has nothing to do with her statement of sexuality, but rather that she was trying to reinvent herself as a Virgin Mary style character, who could command men's hearts with her virtue and did not need the help of a man, nor need to be ruled by one. I will try to find out who supports these theories for you.

Tudor chick · Jun 5, 2009

nellrowlands said:
Well, when I say immoral, I don't mean by today's standards, I mean immoral by the standards of the time. People of the time thought that it was immoral for a queen to rule alone and have dalliances with a man of her court, sexual or not. I mean personally, I have no problem with what Elizabeth did or the way she led her life, I am just saying that this is what the Catholics said - that Elizabeth was immoral, and was truely the daughter of a ...... By today's modern standards, this viewpoint has no standing, Henry and Anne and Elizabeth and Dudley are my favourite Tudor characters, I just feel that at the time, her behaviour often left a divide within which others (such as the Catholics, and Spanish) could comment that she was often sexually immoral, and for the time I feel inclined to agree - perhaps she would have been better off keeping her relationship with Dudley more "behind closed doors", even if she never slept with him.
But I believe that there is some theories that say that her choice to be known as the Virgin Queen has nothing to do with her statement of sexuality, but rather that she was trying to reinvent herself as a Virgin Mary style character, who could command men's hearts with her virtue and did not need the help of a man, nor need to be ruled by one. I will try to find out who supports these theories for you.[/quote

I understand your points better now and agree with what you said

plantagenetrose · Jun 6, 2009

Cool! Glad to have decent discussions about the Tudors!

So, how do people feel about the Anne Boleyn adultery charges? Especially considering the charge of incest? I think that it was proven at court that there was only a few opportunities that Anne would have had to cheat with the men from court which totalled over a year period no more than 4 hours! (please correct me if I am wrong). But the jury is still out I believe with the incest charge - what do you think?

bodmin · Jun 6, 2009

I think she was too clever to do such a stupid thing, but I guess the heart moves in mysterious ways.

Cant help but feel there was a bit of the Othello about Henry VIII.

historian · Jun 6, 2009

Catherine was married (or not?) to Prince Arthur on November 14th 1501 and they lived together for a little over four months (and nothing happened?) until Arthur died, April 2nd 1502. She was then contracted to Henry who was 12 years old. When Henry reached 15 he did publically protest about the marriage, some say at Henry VII instigation so as to have reason to annul the marriage should it prove politic. Henry VII on his death bed enjoined his son not to “complete” a union liable to so many objections (Henry VII had the dowry by then).

So the legitimacy of the marriage was not merely an invention of Henry’s when he wanted Ann Boleyn. It should also be remembered that Henry VIII wanted his daughter Mary to marry the Emperor Charles but Castile objected because of her supposed illegitimacy. Strange as she eventually married his son

bodmin · Jun 6, 2009

Arthur was a very small and week individual, and there is some doubt as to weather he had reached puberty at the time he was married, it is also argued that parents also contrived to delay consummation to protect the health of both bride and groom.

Henry himself had boasted that he had found Catherine a virgin.

There was Questions about Mary's legitimacy (just the same as there was with Elizabeth), however Henry only seriously acted on this when it suited him.

historian · Jun 6, 2009

Weak as Arthur was supposed to be, remembering we are listening to his brother’s version, I cannot see a Tudor, especially under the eyes of a King and father bent on building a dynasty allowing Arthur to get away with doing nothing in the dynasty building department.

I can actually find no evidence of Arthur's "weakness" in fact just the opposite. Francis Bacon describes him as, "Born in the eighth month, as the physicians do prejudge, strong and able".

It should be remembered that the custom then was after the wedding ceremony the whole court would have escorted the couple to the bed chamber and ensured they were together. A 15 year old man and a reportedly handsome woman, and nothing happened?

The illness that killed Arthur also affected Catherine, he died she survived, luck of the draw rather than a chronic weakness it would seem.

As for Henry VIII boast about her virginity, his ego would not have allow him to be the second regardless of the consequences.

Problems with the legitimacy in both Mary’s and Elizabeth’s case are well documented, not the least because Henry VIII disavowed them both.

Elizabeth was regarded by the Catholics as illegitimate because they believed her mothers marriage to Henry was not legitimate, which by their rules was fair.

Mary’s illegitimacy came about because of the marriage of Henry to his brother’s wife, also fair under the same rules, the Popes dispensation went against scriptures and scriptures were to a Protestant the word of God.

However as Henry VIII will actually legitimised them both and set the succession (which was obeyed), it really mattered not.

The fact that Henry VII on his death bed advised his son not to complete the union shows the plan was to dump Catherine. Henry VII should have known that his son seldom took advice and never took responsibility.

Search

Search

Katherine of Aragon

plantagenetrose

Melisende

Tudor chick

Tudor chick

plantagenetrose

bodmin

plantagenetrose

Medievalist

bodmin

Tudor chick

plantagenetrose

Tudor chick

princessX

plantagenetrose

Tudor chick

plantagenetrose

bodmin

historian

bodmin

historian

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions