Prince Henry's Wedding
- Thread starter UncleRogi
- Start date
Spain had Don Carlos, and he wasn't of good mental health. His parents hat a very close family relationship.
Frail and mentally impaired people in monarchies had a tendency for suffering most unfortunate accidents...
Actually, Edward ultimately didn't. He made Lady Jane Grey his successor, in order to keep England Protestant. He knew that Mary would promptly undo all the reforms made by his father and himself, and was adamant that his successor should not be Catholic.I knew most of that, but I'm filled with envy because my interest doesn't go that far as to weed through all that...
in the often muddled historical records (negative and positive) that incorporate those times...
Thanks!
EDIT: Now Edward, apathetic but dying, restored Mary to inheritance, who was Catholic, while Elizabeth was
Mary's stated heir. Though 'Protestant'. Lady Jane Grey and her Clan...
The War of the Roses revisited...
The problem was that there were no males of the proper lineage and religion to be his heir, so he decided to make Jane Grey's "heirs, male" his successors. But the problem with that was that while she had been rushed into marriage (to Guildford Dudley), Edward was extremely sick, he knew he was dying, and there just wasn't time for Jane or her sisters to produce legitimate sons. So he amended the succession to read "Jane Grey and her heirs, male" - which meant that he intended his cousin Jane Grey to be Queen after his death, with the hopes that she would have at least one son to succeed her (Edward really wasn't in favor of England being ruled by a woman but he'd take his Protestant cousin over his Catholic sister).
Jane herself wasn't in favor of this; she considered Mary to be the rightful heir. But her parents and in-laws bullied her into it, and she was Queen for 9 days until Mary gathered her troops, rode to London, and was hailed as Queen. Jane and her husband were imprisoned and, after refusing to convert to Catholicism, they were executed (an additional issue was that if Jane were allowed to live, she would be a focal point for the Protestants in the kingdom to rally around - so Mary's reign would be more secure if Jane were dead).
There are some really excellent documentaries on the Tudors on YouTube.
Well, the nice thing about watching this at home is that I can wear my pajamas, munch on potato chips, drink root beer, and not wear a funny hat. The only person who will know I'm doing all that is the cat, who doesn't care what I wear or eat, as long as she gets a snack as well (cat milk, in her case).
In RL I don't enjoy weddings, either. The last one I went to was almost 30 years ago, when my cousin got married.
True, or if Henry's older brother, Arthur (Catherine of Aragon's first husband) had survived. If that had been the case, Henry would have gone into the Church and ended up in a monastery, as second sons were expected to do.
There are multiple turning points in the Tudor period where history could have been radically altered, depending on whether one person lived or died, or whether a specific child was born or not. I've sometimes wondered how history would have turned out if Edward had survived, instead of dying in his teens.
Now wasn't that James VI of Scotland, James I of Great Britain, who commissioned what is known as
the King James Bible?
And wasn't it the case that Arthur was only 'Handfast' (betrothed) to Catharine? The account I read was that,
with great ceremony, Arthur put one leg under the covers of a bed holding Catharine, thus betrothed?
The in and outs of British Heredity are fascinating...
Yes, you're right. James V was Mary Stuart's father, if I'm not mistaken. And James V was also unhappy about the birth of a 'lass' he had with Marie de Guise.
And wasn't it the case that Arthur was only 'Handfast' (betrothed) to Catharine? The account I read was that,
with great ceremony, Arthur put one leg under the covers of a bed holding Catharine, thus betrothed?
The in and outs of British Heredity are fascinating...
It was much discussed if the wedding of Catherine of Aragon and Athur was consummated. Obviously not. So Cathrine could marry Henry after Athur's death. With dispensation.
That was Henry's opinion. IIRC, the Church held with Arthur...Henry tried to argue just
that before Arthurs death...But she was an Iberian (Spanish) Princess, and her
father was beholden to the Pope...
And I'm from CALIFORNIA...
My True Blood is Cymri and Eire
Last edited:
Ultimately he wanted to get rid of Catherine anyway. And Henry had misstresses. Like Charles had Camilla all the years while being married to Diana.
Timewalker will attest, I'm sure, But Catharine was put away whilst he waged his crusade against
the Church...in Wales. There are Tales....
I'm curious about which account you read. Everything I've read about their marriage is that they were really married and lived together in their own household, until Arthur became ill and died.And wasn't it the case that Arthur was only 'Handfast' (betrothed) to Catharine? The account I read was that,
with great ceremony, Arthur put one leg under the covers of a bed holding Catharine, thus betrothed?
The in and outs of British Heredity are fascinating...
It's an iffy thing as to whether or not the marriage was consummated. Arthur implied it was (bragging to his friends the next day that he'd "spent the night in Spain", or however it was phrased). Catherine, when presented with the possibility of marrying Henry instead of living a limbo-like existence of being unable to return to Spain and no longer being a wife in England, insisted that the marriage hadn't been consummated. Some sources say she told the truth, and others say she lied. Henry chose to believe she lied, when he was grasping at any pretext he could find in order to divorce her so he could marry Anne Boleyn.
Only Catherine and Arthur knew the truth, and they're both dead. It would take either a voyeuristic time traveler snooping in their bedchambers (royal married couples always had separate bedchambers and conducted their sex lives in one room or the other) to know for sure, or a time-traveling doctor to conduct a physical examination of Catherine.
In past centuries, Camilla would be Charles' maitresse en titre (officially recognized mistress) and Diana would be expected to smile and politely ignore the whole situation.
But the fact is that she wasn't faithful either, and that's where the double standards really show. Charles would get off scot-free, while Diana might be sent to a nunnery - at best.
Yet her children and grandchildren are Heirs to the Throne...
Yes, because that's how we do stuff in the 20th/21st century.
Keep in mind that Henry declared Mary a bastard after divorcing Catherine, and he declared Elizabeth a bastard after executing Anne. It wasn't until much later that he restored them to the succession.
I read a lot of historical fiction as well (particularly the novels of Philippa Gregory). However, I know that authors often play fast and loose with historical details for the sake of the story (as she did when she wrote The Other Boleyn Girl), so I supplement these novels with reference books and documentaries.I'm old and read a lot; an historical fiction perhaps? Sounds about right...
I've never read anything like you suggest.
BTW... I didn't know much about the Tudors before watching the TV series, but it makes some pretty egregious changes for the sake of the "soap/shock" elements. The series Reign is even worse, and should not be taken for any kind of factual account of the life of Mary, Queen of Scots.
as you've observed, Reign is someone wishing, How Ironic that his son actually lost history to the two 'Bastards'
One of which saved Ynys Prydein from those cursed Spaniards... with the help of a Storm.
Both Elizabeth movies featuring Cate Blanchett weren't historically accurate, too. It was Cate herself and Joseph Fiennes who made the film great. And part II was even weaker.
And I read the novels by Margaret George......
I've seen the first Elizabeth movie, but not the second (it's in my DVD collection but I just haven't gotten around to it yet). I enjoyed Joseph Fiennes in the first movie, and it's taken a bit of mental adjustment now that he's in The Handmaid's Tale, playing the Commander.
I've got the Margaret George novels, too... but again, I haven't read them yet. I'm currently working my way through the Outlander novels, but my preferred historical fiction genre is murder mysteries - particularly those of Lindsey Davis.
Outlander will be unsatisfactory for what your looking for, but good reading., Diana's novels
devolved into Harlequin romances
IMHO
Since it basically started as Doctor Who fanfic (Gabaldon became infatuated with the actor who played Jamie McCrimmon, one of the Second Doctor's companions), I already had low expectations of historical accuracy.
Another favorite historical novelist of mine is Pauline Gedge, who has written some excellent novels about ancient Egypt.
