Henry VIII's doubts

[TachieBillano]

What convoluted and dangerous ideas, excuses, machinations and blame games a man will come up with, in order to justify his wants, over the happiness and peace of other people. What terrible consequences come to life, to trouble his children and innocent generations to come, long after that man is dead.

[ladycontrary725]

What a waste. Both Katherine and Anne were such driven and intelligent women. If they were born men, I don't doubt that Katherine would have been a Monarch of Spain and Anne a brilliant politician and courtier along the lines of a Thomas Cromwell.

Yet as far as Henry was concerned, the only one of their talents that mattered was the abilty to breed. What a waste.

[BillysBelle]

I have been reading alot of the posts about Henry not letting his daughters rule because of the "time" it was. And some seem to agree with it... BUT something even Henry must have forgot, back in the beginning of England (which was actually called Englaland) there was Queen Matilda she was also Empress of Rome and Queen of Germany all at the same time! More than he ever got.

[lovedandlucy]

@BillysBelle Actually, Henry referenced Matilda several times as a reason why women COULDN'T rule, at least not in England. Though Matilda kept her titles in other countries, she was forced to flee from England because the people wouldn't accept her.

[diane947]

type in "mind of a tyrant" on youtube to see the whole documentary.

Just thought I'd share this info.

[avastacia]

catherine's nephew was betrothed to her daughter?! that's disgusting!!!

[neekorocks]

@avastacia It happened a lot in those days.

[happybkwrm]

@avastacia Such things were common. The Spanish Royal family (Hapsburg) would actually breed themselves out of existence by intermarriage and inbreeding.

"Scientists have examined the family tree of the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, King Charles II, who died in 1700 at the age of 39, and discovered that, as a result of repeated marriages between close relatives, he was almost as inbred as the offspring of an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister or father and daughter."

[avastacia]

@happybkwrm well, i suppose i can't think badly of them, because back then they didn't really know better; they didn't understand genetics and that inbreeding is actually a BAD thing. but the thing is, royals still do it today, and they DO know better, so what's their excuse?

[meatloaf3737]

Religion is stupid and so are all of you

[ligreekguy]

@meatloaf3737

What a generalized and stupid statement to make about religion. It is like condemning all black people for what OJ did. Nice to see how wonderfully tolerant you liberal atheists are. What a bunch of hypocritical fools.

[zaphodtrillian]

Feeble infants? ...so much for womans reproductive health rights let alone their dignity...not only are revisionist protestants scum but they still conspire to blame Catholics for the mindless psychopathy of this syphylitic pus bag. why not call Katherine of Aragon a wog while your at it and put the boot right in.

[NicolaWriter]

I am convinced that there was some RH incompability going on with both Anne and Katherine. Each of them suffered multiple miscarriages and only had one child survive. Either Henry was RH- and Anne and Catherine were RH+ or the other way round.

[ligreekguy]

Catherine was never in the best of health, and interestingly, she, her mother (Isabella) and daughter (Mary) all died of cancer (Catherine of the heart, and Isabella and Mary presumably of the ovaries). However, Isabella was quite fertile, and Joanna (her sister) produced at least one son. As for Anne, her mother was obviously lucky in producing surviving children, as was her sister Mary Boleyn. Anne was fairly healthy, however, so it could have been an RH factor with Henry.

[Meriale46]

Anne miscarriage's were more than likely due to poisoning.

[TudorRose85]

Meriale46 I can't believe you believe that shit. In all the books about the Tudors I have read I never heard such a peace of crap.

[ligreekguy]

Really? Why do you say that? By whom?

[happybkwrm]

@NicolaWriter The RH factor would probably only apply to Anne; her FIRST child was the only one to be born healthy - which could be a result of the RH incompatability. Catherine had several children before Mary, they were either stillborn or died a few weeks after birth.

[NicolaWriter]

@happybkwrm

I didn't know that. I guess that the appalling hygiene and total lack of prenatal care did King Henry and Queen Katherine's children in.

[Anyacat3]

No female rulers? There was Boadicea who took on the Romans. Henry VIII transformed England into a world power by seizing economic and political power from the Catholic Church. He is one of the founders of the Royal Navy. And, of course, he created the Church of England. Not exactly the the poor king some seem to think him to have been.

Edward VI became king at age 9 and died, probably of tuberculosis, at age 16.

[blackmumba111]

@Anyacat3

boudicca wasn't a ruler. Her husband was, but when he died he made her regent for his children. However, the Romans took the power and lands from her. She gathered tribes of warriors. At best, she was a warlord.

[Anyacat3]

Bouidicca as queen of the Brittonic Iceni tribe (now East Anglia) led an uprising of the tribes against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire. Yes husband Prasutagus, who had ruled as a nominally independent ally of Rome, left his kingdom jointly to his daughters and the Roman Emperor. But when Rome ignored the will, Boudicca took action. If that is not the definition of a ruler, what is?

[gpvgpvgpv]

YOU GO CARTHRINE!!. i totaly admire her. she didn't take that jerks b.s. liying down. she was a proud woman who faught for her right.

[Violinstef]

She was, after all, a princess thrice over.

[gpvgpvgpv]

what do ya mean?

[Violinstef]

She was born a princess/Infanta of Spain, then married Arthur and became a princess of England, then married Henry and became a princess of England again.

[AmazingAesa]

Thats incorrect.

She married Henry and they were both crowned king and queen :|

[moviestheaters]

amazing

[haroof]

I know the mortality rate for newborns was like 50% but there was something definitely wrong with Katherine that she lost EVERY single child save for Mary.

[AustinWorthington]

There could have been something wrong with Henry, too, though. He lost seven out of eight children with Katherine, and two out of three with Anne.

[Tekirai]

actually there was though it wont say but when henry was a young man at court he messed around with many of the court ladies so its possible that after the rompings he had messed him up....down there causng all those miscarriages.

[MrsNorris55]

I don't have much sympathy for Henry, although the mindset of the times was indeed that women were incapable of ruling a country -- it's not surprising that Henry had the same mindset. But give Edward a bit of leeway -- he didn't live long enough for us to see what kind of king he would have been. I'm not sure he had even reached the age of majority when he died -- and he'd been manipulated and maneuvered by many adults (primarily for their own gain) most of his short life.

[aleluzmi]

you are right , edward was aprox 15 when he died

[ConstanceWest]

Henry was a pig! Both Catherine and Anne were such amazing women and he did wrong by both of them just because he was obesses with haviing a son. He humiliate Catherine and killed Anne all so that he could have a male heir. I'm glad that in the end it was a WOMAN who brough honor to his name. Edward sucked ass as king, Elizabeth was the best thing to have ever happed to Henry, she was the only thing he did right. And she was brought to this world by non other the Anne Boleny. The wife he killed.

[gpvgpvgpv]

well you can't blame him for killing anne bolyne BEACAUSE she was the one to influence him to change the english religion, causing that BIG revolt of 50000 pesants against the king. She also was the one responsible for the horrible end of catherine of aragon. but i do agree that henry was wrong to acusse Anne of adultery (therefore humiliating her) and executing her.

[ErykahBadu1]

@ConstanceWest lol its Anne Boleyn....and what about mary she murdered jane grey.doesnt that have importance?

[BillysBelle]

@ConstanceWest I agree with you and just to let you know a little more history... Mary re-instated her mother postumously as HER ROYAL HIGHNESS, once she became Queen. Elizabeth, postumously pardoned her mother and tried to find her body and have it buried at the abby or in a sanctified church. It is not CONCLUSIVELY know where Anne is buried.

Karenjade... In those days a Monarch could sleep with whomever. But if the Consort did it was HIGH TREASON.

[kendahke]

@ConstanceWest Henry believed, as did most people-men and women-- in those days, that women marry and bear the offspring of their husbands. For a queen to rule, given the limited thinking of men in those days, she would have to marry either outside the realm or find someone with sufficient rank within the realm to marry. If she married French, then Spain would be on her shores for war. Had she married Spanish, the French, aided by the Scots, would invade the realm.

[kendahke]

@ConstanceWest and the only way Elizabeth kept England out of war with France or Spain or civil war within her realm was to stay unmarried. Had she married Dudley, the court would have divided in two and so would the country. Henry was right to fear female regiment if he based it on his expectations of women in those days. He never though a woman would not want to marry, but live single and free her whole life, as his daughter did. We all saw what happened when Mary married.

[guevashin]

galveston :

actually- in the bible, many men would marry their brother's WIDOWS. It was done frequently in genesis. Look up the odd story of Judah and Tamar

[soccergirl97979]

does any1 know where i might see all of this show??

[Karenjade]

What did it matter if Catherine had sex with her first husband before his death or not?. The bible also says "Thou shall not commit adultery" and Henry obviously didn't care about *that*.

[galveston]

It doesn't matter, Karenjade; it was a biblical verse Henry used as an excuse. The court waited several weeks after Arthur's death to declare Henry heir in case Catherine was pregnant. Catherine *did* sleep with Arthur; she'd have protested the wait if she knew she couldn't have been pregnant--that's why the pope gave 2 dispensations (one if they'd had sex, one if they hadn't). Only later did she claim she didn't, to protect Mary's birthright. A completely understandable lie IMO

[galveston]

Think about it some more--what if Catherine had asserted she was a virgin after Arthur's death (as a way to assure a second marriage) and then found out she was pregnant by Arthur? They'd have questioned her fidelity. She didn't assert her virginity (her confessor also did not, worthy of note) because there was a chance she was pregnant. It all makes sense. Henry didn't care one bit until she couldn't give him a son.

[LNor19]

KoA was a virgin, her duenna contended to it. Ferdinand asked as to is daughter's state, it would be his advantage if she was not, but her duenna wrote "She is as she was when she left Spain."

Also, KoA swore on her deathbed that the marraige was not consummated, had she lied...she would have confessed. Arthur's grandmother was very adamant about KoA and Arthur waiting b/c of their young age. Arthur and KoA had been sick for a month, there was no way she could've been pregnant during the sweat.

[galveston]

But would she have confessed (not that I think she did anything wrong)? You're forgetting about Mary. Katherine would *never* have admitted Mary was a "bastard" conceieved out of holy wedlock. For her child, yes Katherine would have lied. When you look at the entire sequence of events--it makes more sense that she lied. It's absurd, of course, because she did nothing wrong by sleeping with Arthur. It was all an excuse used by Henry.

[LNor19]

In that time, you confessed your sins aloud on your deathbed. If Katherine had lied before God about her and Arthur's relations than she would've confessed on her deathbed about it. Instead, Katherine continued to swear that her marriage to Arthur was not consummated. It makes sense that she did NOT lie. Her strong catholic beliefs would forbid her to lie and she had stated before that 'Not even for my daughter would I leave my husbands side'.

[DivineGurl342]

she would have never had lied especially on her death bed because she was a strict catholic. but i agree on the excuse used by henry, he was an ass

[gpvgpvgpv]

I agree only because she didn't give birth to arther's son

[DivineGurl342]

you dont know for sure if they had sex, and she could have waited to figure out what she was gonna do with her life since her husband just died

[katharinethequene]

I know! I agree. It also commands in Deutoronomy9not sure if its the correct spelling) that a man MUST marry his brothers widow

[laurenlfc48]

Not just Henry many kings had misstresses.

[Jelperman]

@Karenjade

The Bible allowed kings to have mistresses (concubines). The quote from Leviticus was Henry's excuse to get rid of Catherine (he couldn't just kill her because of her family). Deuteronomy (the law of the Levirate) wouldn't wash either, because when a man married his brother's widow the offspring were considered his brother's -not his. See the story of Onan.

[kendahke]

@Karenjade in those days, virginity was the prize and reason for the choice in a wife. If a single woman was not a virgin, it meant that her "bride-price" was false--that she was used goods and a shame to her family. She lost what credibility she had once she let a man other than her husband have sex with her. Only widows were given a pass at having previously had sex, which is why Henry had no problem marrying Katharine Parr.

[gpvgpvgpv]

@Karenjade adultury is only is you are married. a marrage in considered broken in the churches eyes when one of the partners die hence : "till death do you part"

[assyrianbanana]

this vid is quite good and extremely intresting i dont belivev that catherine had sex with her 1st husband.

[iamsmoochums]

If you look a bit later in leviticus, it says that a man MUST marry his brother's widow if they are childless (Which C and A were)

[littlemisssunnydale]

It states that in Deuteronomy which Henry rejected by arguing that Deuteronomy applies to ceremonial law and was not compulsory for Christians unlike the laws of Leviticus. This was the central argument of his case (and oddly not one that he entirely invented as criticism regarding adherence to the laws of Deuteronomy predates Henrys quest for a divorce).

[Concetta20]

That wasn't a God ordained law, that was a solely human custom to make sure that the widow was provided for.

[SuperstarLamb]

where is this taken from? its awesome

[LadyPerseverance]

Regardless of my views on Henry's validitation of seeking an anullment;this does not mean that I lack much sorrow for Catherine's situation. It is terribly sad that she had so much trouble with pregnancy & Henry would later break her heart due to forces she could not control. It seems she had very bad luck after coming to England, except for having a child she loved so dearly. My heart goes out to Catherine, though I will never believe Anne was at fault for what Henry would ultimately later do.

[LadyPerseverance]

Please dont take offense,but imo there is nothing wrong with Henry seeking a means to have male issue.Many blame Anne for Henry's treatment of CofA & Mary,but as Littlemissunnydale stated,had CofA retired to a nunnery Mary would be deemed legitimite.Also please remember Henry was highly influenced by religion so I can see how he could view his marriage invalid due to her consumation w/Arthur.Perhaps Henry wouldnt have been cruel had CofA been more understanding of Henry's dillema & need of heir.

[galveston]

No, Catherine retiring to a nunnery and allowing Henry to annul the marriage would have been admitting that Mary was illegitimate. She couldn't do that. Catherine was fighting for her child's birthright. To be declared illegitimate was a humiliation.

[LadyPerseverance]

You're right!Its a catch 22,even if she tried to make things easy and go quietly -she would have been making things even worse for her daughter.I had not thought of it that way.thanks for making that clear.That at least helps me understand more why she refused to leave a man that did not want to be with her(as I always thought that made CofA look pathetic which is something she certainly was not).Seems as if CofA & Anne B. are alike more than obvious-both putting their children's validity 1st.

[galveston]

Catherine's motivation was Mary. If she'd had no children, she may well have capitulated. It's a shame she didn't conceive with Arthur before his death. Henry would have sought a divorce anyway, Anne or no Anne. The irony is that Catherine lied and Anne didn't--not that I blame Catherine; she just slept with her husband. She didn't do anything wrong. Henry's father wanted her dowry too much to give a damn if she'd done the deed with Arthur. There were two dispensations. That proves it.

[YeOldeTune]

I don't believe that Catherine had sex with her 1st husband. I believe her in that point.

[riuenton]

that's possible.but isn't all royal bloods are like relatives?

[galveston]

Not all, but there were a lot of shared bloodlines between England and France because Catherine of Valois came from France to marry Henry V and had a child by him. Then she secretly married a commoner after she was widowed--an ancestor of the Tudors. Constance of Castile's daughter married back into a Spanish house. There may have been a recessive gene there that made it back into England when K of A came back to marry into the Tudor house. Henry possibly carried it, so there you go.

[galveston]

I have to wonder, since Henry and Katherine were cousins, whether they both carried a recessive gene that caused such problems with her conceiving healthy children. They were both descended from John of Gaunt, Edward IV's third son--Katherine through John's second wife, Constance of Castile, and Henry through his mistress Kathryn Swynford.

[AndromedaMariaCarmen]

can you post all of the Six Wives of Henry VIII series?

[Kitty273]

I adore Queen Katherine. She withstood epic humiliation and King Henry's flaunting of Anne Boleyn in her face. Then to have her chastity questioned! I couldn't have stood it,murder would've been on my mind!

Still,in a way,I can understand King Henry's desire for a male heir.A girl didn't hold much value during those times.

[littlemisssunnydale]

In the context of his time, Henry's desire for a male heir is very understandable. After all a male heir would rule in his own right and not have to pass over power to his spouse. With a Queen Regent there was uncertainty about how much power she should accede to her husband. On top of that there was no prior example in England of a Queen Regent (the last time the throne was left to a woman the majority of barons and the clergy supported a male candidate and civil war broke out).

[galveston]

A desire for a male heir, yes. Deliberately keeping Katherine from Mary until Katherine's death? That crosses the line into spite and cruelty. He didn't care that she (probably) slept with Arthur until she didn't give him a son. As I've said, John I of Portugal, Katherine's nephew, was living refutation of Leviticus.

[galveston]

I could never understand why Katherine's lawyers didn't simply dispute Leviticus. For criminy's sake, Katherine's nephew became king of Portugal in 1520. He was the son of Manuel I and Katherine's sister, Maria. Maria was his second wife. His first wife was Isabella, Katherine's [i]other[/i] sister who'd died in childbirth. Maria bore eight children who lived until adulthood, including John, who'd assumed the throne. Hello? Leviticus busted.

[southernsparthan]

I know your comment is like a month old, but I agree completely. And I don't mean to offend any Bible reader, but Leviticus is full of shit!

[AndromedaMariaCarmen]

I'm a bible reader and I agree. Most Christians don't abide by the rules in Leviticus- I'm wearing polyester right now!

[southernsparthan]

Polyester!! Oh, no!! The people in your village will gather rocks and will stone you to death. Run!! Get away!! LOL

[galveston]

Thank you. I'm a bible reader, and I'm not offended in the slightest, but I'm one of those crazy Unitarian Christians who avow that the bible was written by men and is therefore subject to error. Bottom line, it was only chance that the infant Henry didn't live. Katherine being Arthur's widow had nothing to do with it. Katherine would have been better off if Arthur had lived, poor woman.

[sherrilina]

The guy who played Henry in this was TERRIBLE--and for such a supposedly "historical" production, they might have chosen say, an actress that LOOKED LIKE CATHERINE! Ie RED HAIR and BLUE EYES! It's ridiculous....

[littlemisssunnydale]

Actually the guy playing Henry doesn't look that bad; the actor is young and has the right hair colour (Henry had fair hair that eventually darkened into an auburn colour). He is also not overweight and Henry was not remarked to have been out of shape by this point. The actress playing Katherine does not have reddish hair, however this production is not alone in making this mistake. Look for example at 'The Tudors' - the actress playing Katherine has extremely dark hair.

[galveston]

For criminy's sake, the Tudors shows Margaret Tudor marrying and murdering the king of Portugal, then wedding Charles Brandon, her sister Mary's husband. I wouldn't cite it as an accurate reference of anything. I wonder how Mary, Queen of Scots and James I came to exist considering the fact that their grandmother/great grandmother died childless in her thirties. I wonder how Katherine felt about Margaret marrying her sister's widower. What a joke.

[sherrilina]

I didn't say he *looked* bad, I just said he was terrible in the part--even though he never speaks he maintains this idiotic, vacant expression on his face throughout the production that gets tiresome after a while.

And I know most productions miscast Catherine, but this isn't supposed to be a movie/tv show, but an accurate historical documentary, which allegedly took great pains to make sure the women reenacting scenes looked like real period women-but not with Cath apparently! *rolleyes*

[iamsmoochums]

still a very dodgey claim, and not really correct their marriage certainly valid - it had nothing to do with Hnery'd concience he only wanted a son

[littlemisssunnydale]

In what sense 'dodgy'? Certainly it was not invented by Henry and his lawyers but was a theological argument that already existed and was picked up on. Also we cannot see positively that it was all to do with a male heir - that would imply that we have insight into Henry's conscious and that is an area which historians may speculate on but can never detail with certainty. We can say perhaps it was down to this one factor predominately, but never with absolutely certainty.

[galveston]

By focusing on Leviticus, Henry could salvage his *own* conscience and had a legal technicality to get out of his marriage to Catherine. Yes, it's dodgy since other verses in the bible contradict it. I believe that Catherine had sex with Arthur. Not that I feel it was right the way Henry treated her, but there was no reason to believe she didn't sleep with Arthur. There was no reason she wouldn't have.

[galveston]

Producers always seem to cast a Latina looking actress to play the Spanish Catherine, as if everyone from Spain looks Latin when they don't. It's a matter of underestimating your audience I suppose. At least this series acknowledges that Arthur and Katherine probably did sleep together.

[sherrilina]

Yeah it's pretty annoying, though at least the BBC Keith Michell 1970 "Six Wives of Henry VIII" didn't make that mistake, but cast a red-head as Catherine-so that a historical FICTION TV MOVIE was more accurate than this historical documentary! Nice job Starkey! *eyeroll* And considering that we can never know for sure whether Catherine and Arthur slept w/ each other (Catherine II of Russia didn't consummate her marriage for YRS! And Art could have lied to save face),I wouldn't say "at least"...

[littlemisssunnydale]

With respect, the actor playing the young Henry only had a few lines so it is hard to judge his acting capability. Personally I thought he was a good Henry for what this production needed (ie. someone to pose as Henry as essentially it aimed to be a documentary with the actors in the background giving a unique feel to the piece).

......

[littlemisssunnydale]

In regards to Katherine, yes the actress playing her is too dark (although on the DVD she appears slightly fairer) however overall the piece does not consist of majority of mistakes. It makes a few but certainly it is more informative than invented.

....

[littlemisssunnydale]

As to Starkey's take on the possibility that Katherine's marriage to Arthur was consummated, I don't think he is out of bounds on this. If you notice (in another clip) he states that he believes the evidence points to the idea that it was consummated, but ultimately 'we shall never know'. So he is being entirely valid here as he is presenting his own view point but simultaneously being objective by stating that there will always be ambiguity about it.

[sherrilina]

I was just saying that I didn't think an "at least the documentary admits she probably consummated her marriage with Arthur" was necessarily appropriate given the ambiguity over it all, though he does admit this ambiguity "at least" lol....

Thanks for posting these clips btw, it's been a while since I've seen them! When I'm home with my copy that I taped when it aired I'll be sure to watch it again! :)

[iamsmoochums]

Yes, but it is still a law from God, and doesn't God say to obey Him? Anyway they had a dispensation from the Pope so it doesn't really matter.

[littlemisssunnydale]

But Henry's argument was Deuteronomy was not compulsory law for Christians (an argument which was developed by other theologians and Henry later used). By this argument Leviticus was compulsory for Christians in contrast to Deuteronomy and so, Henry argued, the papacy had no right to supersede 'God's laws' by issuing a papal dispensation. In short Henry disputed the pope's right to amend Leviticus and came to the conclusion that the pope lacked the power.

[sherrilina]

Of course--but it just irritates me that while they claim they took such great care to pick actresses that looked like the period women, but obviously did not for Catherine of Aragon (when it really wouldn't have taken much to find a red-head to play her, when she doesn't even have any lines anyway--they could have picked an American if they couldn't find a red-headed Spanish lady, and done a VO of a Spanish-accented lady for her one speech!

[sherrilina]

Well it's not his speech so much as his (IMO)vacant and idiotic expressions that annoy me, but that's my opinion I suppose--in other words, I didn't think he even posed right! ;)

Starkey is scarier though, lol, especially when he walks towards you with that intense, almost angry-appearing gaze...

[galveston]

A lot of people didn't believe a woman could rule effectively. Plus, if she married, she would have a king consort from a foreign land ruling England. That was a very unpalatable idea to many. While a Queen Consort would know her place, a king consort likely might have been a different story. Apparently there was a Queen regent Matilda a few hundred years before who'd had a disastrous short reign.

[supergirl011]

I wouldn't have a problem with a daughter succeeding me if I was a Queen.

[TonksPinkHairedGirl]

me too!! girls are just as sometimes even more strong than boys

[srlotfi]

I totally want Anne's dress, lol.

Thanks for posting...I love this documentary.