Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not necessarily - Henry was able to father boys (Catherine had a few boys who did not live long, then there was Henry Fitzroy who was illegitimate, and of course Edward VI), part of the problem was also miscarriages and infant deaths. With Catherine fasting so much for religious reasons, it's hardly surprising she didn't produce any surviving children apart from Mary, regardless of their gender. It's been suggested Anne had a medical condition that would cause miscarriages after her first pregnancy - but frankly, there's no explanation needed. Miscarriages, stillbirths, infant deaths, and birthing deaths of the mother were common place in that time period. It was just a string of bad luck, and there's no way to know whether he would have had better luck with another woman or not.
You have misperceived my intent. I was correcting what I perceived as the suggestion that females determine a child's gender. Everything else you say is of course in the historical record.
You have misperceived my intent. I was correcting what I perceived as the suggestion that females determine a child's gender. Everything else you say is of course in the historical record.
I didn't misunderstand anything - you said choice of wife was irrelevant because it's the male sperm that determines gender, so I was pointing out that it wasn't an issue with sperm and gender (because Henry DID father boys), there were other influences. You can try to spin it whatever way you want to make yourself look less wrong, but the fact is, there were other factors at play, and claiming that his choice of wife was irrelevant is not something we can know for sure.
Being granted a annulment from Catherine by the Pope wouldn't have changed Henry and Anne's ability (or lack thereof) to have a son/more children, unless you're arguing that a swift annulment instead of the lengthy break from the Church would have made Henry and Anne younger and more likely to have a healthy son. But that is still doubtful, if you ask me, since the period between when Henry first asked the Pop for an annulment and when Anne first became pregnant was only 5 years. Anne was disposed of because Henry was impatient for a son and she failed to give him one. In my opinion, that would not have been any different if the Pope had granted the annulment from Catherine.
There are lots of interesting possibilities.
Having been granted an annulment to Catherine (in this hypothetical alternative history), Henry might well have been granted an annulment to Anne--on some other justification. If the Pope had been amenable to one sketchy annulment, why not two?
The timing also was a factor... Anne was around 30, and possibly as old as 35/6 when she was executed. After Elizabeth was born, Henry was still voicing some hope that a son would follow.... But then Anne had 3 miscarriages after Elizabeth's birth. Several miscarriages plus advancing age made a live born son less of a possibility with each passing year. Even the Tudors would've been aware of those odds. Had they married five years earlier, well... Anne might've evaded that sword blade, IMO.
If Henry's marriage to Catherine was annulled due to affinity (cosanguity), as he petitioned, he could have asked for annulment from Anne for the same reason. Her sister was a known mistress and possibly mother to one if not two of his illegitimate children. A papal bull allowing Henry's marriage to Catherine waived the affinity issue as Catherine was Arthur's widow. As other Papal dispensations did for many European royals and noblesbwho were interrelated/intermarried. Looking at you Hapsburgs.
Henry used Anne's pre contract to Percy as his grounds to declare that marriage invalid, making Elizabeth illegitimate.
If Henry's marriage to Catherine was annulled due to affinity (cosanguity), as he petitioned, he could have asked for annulment from Anne for the same reason. Her sister was a known mistress and possibly mother to one if not two of his illegitimate children. A papal bull allowing Henry's marriage to Catherine waived the affinity issue as Catherine was Arthur's widow. As other Papal dispensations did for many European royals and noblesbwho were interrelated/intermarried. Looking at you Hapsburgs.
Henry used Anne's pre contract to Percy as his grounds to declare that marriage invalid, making Elizabeth illegitimate.
Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, swore up and down until the day of his death that no such pre-contract existed. He wrote a letter to Thomas Cromwell (Henry's instrument in this matter) which read in part:
"I perceive by Raynold Carnaby that there is supposed a pre-contract between the Queen and me; whereupon I was not only heretofore examined upon my oath before the archbishops of Canterbury and York, but also received the blessed sacrament upon the same before the duke of Norfolk and other the King’s highness’ council learned in the spiritual law, assuring you, Mr. Secretary, by the said oath and blessed body, which afore I received and hereafter intend to receive, that the same may be to my damnation if ever there were any contract or promise of marriage between her and me.”
In fact the Countess of Northumberland had sued for divorce previously on the grounds of the alleged pre-contract between her husband and AB; she lost. There was not then nor now a shred of evidence that legally proved any such agreement existed.
Because Henry married AB under English law (as opposed to international treaties as with Catherine of Aragon), the king needed to abide by his own country's laws (and that of his new church) to not only end his marriage to AB but erase (annul) it as well. That was the only way to make Elizabeth a bastard and remover her from the succession.
Cromwell turned to Thomas Crammer, Archbishop of Canterbury for another way out of the king's problems. It was Crammer who came up with the bright idea of using Henry's previous relationship with AB's sister, Mary as grounds for consanguinity declaring as had been with Catherine of Aragon that the marriage was incestuous because the king had slept with his consort's sibling.
Having been granted an annulment to Catherine (in this hypothetical alternative history), Henry might well have been granted an annulment to Anne--on some other justification. If the Pope had been amenable to one sketchy annulment, why not two?
But it's not like they executed her because they couldn't get an annulment from the Pope - they were already split from the church by then and Henry only needed his own government/church, which he was head of, to grant it. If Henry could have/wanted to come up with a non-lethal method of getting rid of Anne, he would have only needed to instruct his government/church to do so and it would have been done. So the fact that they couldn't come up with a non-deadly excuse for an annulment wouldn't have changed if the Pope was making the decision.
Quote:
The timing also was a factor... Anne was around 30, and possibly as old as 35/6 when she was executed. After Elizabeth was born, Henry was still voicing some hope that a son would follow.... But then Anne had 3 miscarriages after Elizabeth's birth. Several miscarriages plus advancing age made a live born son less of a possibility with each passing year. Even the Tudors would've been aware of those odds. Had they married five years earlier, well... Anne might've evaded that sword blade, IMO.
We can't know that though. Plenty of women have children well into their 30s and even 40s, while some women have difficulty getting pregnant in their 20s. Plus, we don't know when Anne was born. She actually could have been as young as 28 when she died, which would have made her very much still in her 20s when she had several miscarriages. There are many possibilities why that 5 years might not have made a difference.
But it's not like they executed her because they couldn't get an annulment from the Pope - they were already split from the church by then and Henry only needed his own government/church, which he was head of, to grant it. If Henry could have/wanted to come up with a non-lethal method of getting rid of Anne, he would have only needed to instruct his government/church to do so and it would have been done. So the fact that they couldn't come up with a non-deadly excuse for an annulment wouldn't have changed if the Pope was making the decision.
We can't know that though. Plenty of women have children well into their 30s and even 40s, while some women have difficulty getting pregnant in their 20s. Plus, we don't know when Anne was born. She actually could have been as young as 28 when she died, which would have made her very much still in her 20s when she had several miscarriages. There are many possibilities why that 5 years might not have made a difference.
If you believe the stories at one point Henry did offer to treat AB gently by allowing her to leave England and resettle somewhere in Europe (France?) and live permanently in exile taking Elizabeth. All AB had to do was agree to the annulment/divorce and naming her daughter a bastard.....
AB was having none of it and for good reasons.
First she probably no longer trusted Henry VIII far as her own life was concerned. Once abroad and out of the way all sorts of things could happen. Furthermore and most important to AB was her daughter and Elizabeth's birth rights. Like any good daughter of the nobility AB realized her life may be forfeit but the child had rights. Whatever Henry might do to AB he never would openly murder his own child.
As for older females having children during Henry VIII's time; Catherine Parr, the kings sixth and final wife gave birth at the then considered advanced age of 36. This was a shock to many including the lady herself since she had been married thrice and never conceived. Sadly it was the birth of her daughter that did Queen Catherine in as she soon succumbed to childbed fever.
Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, swore up and down until the day of his death that no such pre-contract existed. He wrote a letter to Thomas Cromwell (Henry's instrument in this matter) which read in part:
"I perceive by Raynold Carnaby that there is supposed a pre-contract between the Queen and me; whereupon I was not only heretofore examined upon my oath before the archbishops of Canterbury and York, but also received the blessed sacrament upon the same before the duke of Norfolk and other the King’s highness’ council learned in the spiritual law, assuring you, Mr. Secretary, by the said oath and blessed body, which afore I received and hereafter intend to receive, that the same may be to my damnation if ever there were any contract or promise of marriage between her and me.” whatever that means, it is said Anne confessed to it while in the Tower. To save herself, maybe?
In fact the Countess of Northumberland had sued for divorce previously on the grounds of the alleged pre-contract between her husband and AB; she lost. There was not then nor now a shred of evidence that legally proved any such agreement existed.
Because Henry married AB under English law (as opposed to international treaties as with Catherine of Aragon), the king needed to abide by his own country's laws (and that of his new church) to not only end his marriage to AB but erase (annul) it as well. That was the only way to make Elizabeth a bastard and remover her from the succession.
Cromwell turned to Thomas Crammer, Archbishop of Canterbury for another way out of the king's problems. It was Crammer who came up with the bright idea of using Henry's previous relationship with AB's sister, Mary as grounds for consanguinity declaring as had been with Catherine of Aragon that the marriage was incestuous because the king had slept with his consort's sibling.
Percy was appointed to judge Anne and George which I find really interesting. And while he swore up and down that there was no for years, in fact, including an iquiry under taken at Anne's request.
. However, Percy who was a member of Wolsey's household, was seemingly married off at the King's command to Mary Talbot when he wanted to woo Anne. It's said at that time Henry knew of the pre-contract. I think perhaps Anne and Percy were headed in that direction, if no pre-contract existed- and Henry was not going to stand for it.
The wordage in the annulment decree is a little vague- could mean Percy or maybe James Butler or something entirely different. "certain just true, and lawful impediments, unknown at the making".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please excuse any misunderstanding on my part if I missed something to that effect.