Henry VIII's doubts

Clips focusing on Henry VIII's decision to seek an annulment for his first marriage.

There is a lot of debate about Henry's true motives for an annulment. Certainly he had dynastic concerns; to be succeeded by a son meant not having to face the numerous problems that would derive from a female succession. It is important to note though that Henry did not intent to cast his daughter Mary aside; in fact there were attempts to annul his marriage to Katherine but have Mary remain legitimate. A proposal was made between Henry, Wolsey and Cardinal Campeggio, whereby they agreed that if Katherine retired to a nunnery by her own free will the marriage would be dissolved but Mary remain legitimate. However this of course did not come about due to opposition to the scheme from Katherine.

Henry's love for Anne Boleyn has often been hailed as the decisive factor behind his wish for an annulment. However Henry's doubts about the succession date prior to his infatuation with Anne and before Anne became a significant figure, questions were already being raised by others about the validity of Henry's marriage (notably from the French who questioned this in their negotiations for a French marriage for the Princess Mary in late 1526).

It is therefore likely that a combination of factors prompted Henry to seek an annulment with heavy emphasis being placed on Henry's desire for a male heir and thus a secure succession.

The biblical passage mentioned in this video is from Leviticus 20:21 --
'And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.' (King James Version)

Henry would contested the papal dispensation granted to him in order to marry Katherine, his brother's widow, and urged that the laws of Leviticus could not be overturned, even by the Pope. An opposing argument to Leviticus 20:21 can be found in Deuteronomy 25:5 -

'If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.'
(King James Version).

However Henry and his lawyers/theologians would refute this passage by basically arguing that Deuteronomy belonged to ceremonial law and this only applied to Jews and not Christians. Therefore they argued that only Jews need to conform to it and instead placed great emphasis to adhering to the laws of Leviticus.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Henry
• VIII
• annulment
• Leviticus
• 20:21
• Katherine
• of
• Aragon
• papal
• legate

[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).

[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*.

[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.

[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.

[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"

[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.

[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]

@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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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."