Henry VIII (1491-1547) and Wives

[Artemisia]

Mary had a number of potential suitors. As the eldest daughter of Henry VIII, she was always a very desirable bride, even after Edward was born.

When Mary was only two, she was indeed (informally) betrothed the the French Dauphin (the future Francis III, Duke of Brittany). The marriage contract was annulled after three years. At the age of six, she was betrothed to marry her cousin, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (she would later marry his son, Philip II of Spain), but nothing came of that either: this time, the contract was broken by Charles with Henry's permission. The possibility of a French alliance then resurfaced, only this time Mary's "groom" was the father of her former one - Francis I. Another candidate was Francis I's second surviving son, Henry, Duke of Orleans (future Henry II of France), but again, the plans never materialised. Among other possible candidates for marriage were the Duke of Bavaria and the Duke of Cleves (the latter, was for political reasons but instead of marrying of Mary to the Duke, Henry married the Duke's sister, Anne of Cleves).

At one time, Reginald Pole's name was mentioned; Pole was the son of the Countess of Salisbury (Mary's confidant later beheaded by Henry VIII). He had more than a drop of royal blood in his veins as well: his maternal grandfather was George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence - brother to Edward IV and Richard III, while his maternal grandmother was the daughter of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (who, incidentally, had exactly the same claims to the Throne as Henry VIII's father, Henry VII: Warwick was a great-grandson of John of Gaunt (third surviving son of Edward III) though the illegitimate Beaufort line.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

What male relative could have inherited through a female line? Henry's sisters? His aunts?
Also I don't believe Henry wasn't to fond of his sisters descendants in Scotland.

 

[Ish]

The children of Henry's sisters wouldn't have actually qualified as being heirs due to the fact that they were all either female (and without living sons) or didn't out live Henry himself.

However, Henry's nephew, James V of Scotland, did have a number of illegitimate sons who outlived Henry. As Henry's claim itself descends through an illegitimate line (Henry's great-great grandfather, John Beaufort, was an illegitimately born son of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford) and a female line (his grandmother, Margaret Beaufort, was the granddaughter of the already mentioned John Beaufort), it stands to reason that Henry's heir could have been an illegitimately born son through a female line.

Through this, Henry's heir could have been Adam Stewart (died 1575), James Stewart (c. 1529-57), Robert Stewart (1533-1593), John Stewart (c. 1531-1563), or James Stewart (c. 1531-1570). All of these Stewarts were acknowledged children, and their claim to inherit the throne is only enhanced by the fact that Henry had considered making his illegitimate son, Henry FitzRoy, his heir prior to FitzRoy's death. Alternatively, one of the Stewarts could have married either Mary or Elizabeth, thus ensuring that the Tudor line still continue, if under a different name.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Which it does through Henry's sister and her line on the throne of Scotland and then Hannover.

 

[Ish]

Which it does through Henry's sister and her line on the throne of Scotland and then Hannover.

Oh, totally. My response there was not to say that the line today isn't descended from Henry VII through a female line, it was more trying to provide potential alternative male heirs that would have been contemporary to Henry VIII (fitting with the then existing idea that women could not inherit, so who would have been the best heir had Edward not existed). The answer is that Edward was the only legitimately born, surviving male heir to the Tudor claim through any of Henry VII's children, but James V of Scotland had a number of bastards who could have been put forth as possible heirs had Mary and Elizabeth been deemed uncapable of ruling due to their gender.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Mary had a number of potential suitors. As the eldest daughter of Henry VIII, she was always a very desirable bride, even after Edward was born.

When Mary was only two, she was indeed (informally) bethroed the the French Dauphin (the future Francis II, first husband of Mary, Queen of Scots).

Francis II wasn't born until 1544 so it wasn't him.It was the Dauphin Francis,Duke of Brittany,the eldest son of Francis I and Queen Claude.

Francis III, Duke of Brittany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Artemisia]

Francis II wasn't born until 1544 so it wasn't him.It was the Dauphin Francis,Duke of Brittany,the eldest son of Francis I and Queen Claude.

Francis III, Duke of Brittany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are absolutely right; my apologies for the mistake. I momentarily confused the eldest sons of Francis I and Henry II.

 

[Artemisia]

What male relative could have inherited through a female line? Henry's sisters? His aunts?
Also I don't believe Henry wasn't to fond of his sisters descendants in Scotland.

England never had Salic laws, meaning females could ascend to the Throne, including Henry's sisters and their descendants. His aunts couldn't though because Henry VII had no sisters and the siblings of his mother, Elizabeth of York were not included in the line of succession (even though they were the Yorkist heirs and had much more solid rights to the Throne than the Tudor line).
Henry VIII was quite fond of Margaret Tudor. He specifically barred the Stuart line from ascending to the Throne (the Third Succession Act) not because he didn't like them, but because they belonged to a royal family of a foreign country, and he wasn't keen for a foreign royal house to reign in England.

The Line of Succession established by the Third Succession Act (established by Henry and reinforced by an Act of Parliament) had the following form:
- Prince Edward (future Edward VI) and his descendants in order of primogeniture.
- The Lady Mary (future Mary I) and her descendants in order of primogeniture.
- The Lady Elizabeth (future Elizabeth I) and her descendants in order of primogeniture.
- Frances Grey (elder daughter of Mary Tudor, Queen of France - Henry VIII's younger sister) and her descendants in order of primogeniture.
- Eleanor Clifford (younger daughter of Mary Tudor, Queen of France - Henry VIII's younger sister) and her descendants in order of primogeniture.

By the time of Elizabeth I's death, the rightful heiress to the Throne as per the Third Succession Act was Lady Anne Stanley - a descendant of Eleanor Clifford. However, she was bypassed in favour of James VI of Scotland who, according to the same Act, technically had no rights to the Throne at all. Nevertheless, he was the closest male relative of Elizabeth I and named as a successor by the Queen, so no one seriously contested that succession, and certainly not Lady Anne.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Seriously people we don't need the entire Tudor history. My question can not include Edward or Elizabeth. If Anne Boleyn never happened and Henry stayed with KoA with only the one daughter; what male relative could succeed him AND could do it w/o a fight?

 

[Ish]

Seriously people we don't need the entire Tudor history. My question can not include Edward or Elizabeth. If Anne Boleyn never happened and Henry stayed with KoA with only the one daughter; what male relative could succeed him AND could do it w/o a fight?

There are two lines - no without a fight here. One is that Henry's illegitimate son, Henry FitzRoy, could have been named heir (this was actually considered). The other is that Henry's nephew through his sister Margaret, James V of Scotland, could have been named heir (ultimately, it was through this line that Elizabeth's heir came).

Unfortunately, neither FitzRoy nor James survived Henry. The only male heir left would have been one of James' illegitimate sons. At Henry's death, Edward was the only surviving male descendant of Henry VII.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Yeah my first thought was Henry Fitzroy as well, I assume we should t throw in any "what if he doesn't die" scenarios because how could Henry not going for a divorce prevent Henry from dying. So either was if Henry VIII does not pursue a divorce the England is screwed.

 

[Ish]

Not necessarily. If Henry had acknowledged James V as his heir then a huge war could have probably been adverted.

The problem with Matilda was that she was the acknowledged heir in a time when women weren't considered to be able to rule. Mary could have faced this as well, especially if she'd been young when she inherited (she would have been 20 in 1536). James was older, male, undeniably legitimate, and of the Tudor line.

Actually, if FitzRoy had been named heir over Mary and Henry had died while FitzRoy and James were both still alive there might have still been a war - it all depends on how ambitious James was. Mary of Scots' claim to the English throne was based on the idea that Elizabeth was illegitimate - James could have claimed that all the Tudor children (we're there no Edward) were illegitimate and thus his claim was the stronger one.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Off the current topic:

Can someone help me understand Anne Boleyn's hatred for Wolsey? It seems to stem from his breakup of her and Percy but that seems like quite a trivial thing to destroy someone's life over. Or did the Percy thing just make her distrustful of him and as the divorce went on that distrust grew into her becoming his enemy?

 

[Pranter]

IIRC Woolsey was very much against her relationship with the king, he wanted him to marry a French princess IIRC. He never intended for her to marry Henry.


LaRae

 

[Alison H]

Cardinal Wolsey was supposed to be keeping an eye on Harry Percy, the heir to the Earl of Northumberland. Harry Percy and Anne became "involved" - there was later speculation that they were actually engaged, which would have invalidated her marriage to Henry VIII. The Boleyns were a long way below the Percys socially, so it would have been a brilliant match for Anne, and Wolsey intervened and (to use modern parlance!) split them up. Anne always bore a grudge against him for that. So, yes, I'd say that it was because of the Percy thing. You'd think she'd've got over that once she had a chance of becoming queen, but I suppose she was angry that Wolsey had thought she wasn't good enough to marry an earl's son and, once she had power, she wanted revenge.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Yes I know the story of the Percy event but still she seems so vindictive and over sensitive to hate Wolsey for just that. Everyone else around her had better reasons for hating him but hers seems so trivial. I've been watching a few documentaries and movies and it is always the Percy thing that spurs her onto revenge: and every time I hear about it I keep thinking to myself "get over it"!
If indeed her hatred for him had to do with him trying to separate her from Henry it would make a little more sense.

 

[Pranter]

I think she already disliked him due to Percy...but his attempt to 'remove' her from Henry really put things at a more intense level.


LaRae

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Has anyone read the Joanna Denny book on Anne Boleyn? I haven't read such a biased book since the other Boleyn girl, but unlike that one it is biased in the other direction. This woman hates Catholics and Katharine of Aragon. She obviously pits down Katharine to build up Anne.

 

[Lenora]

Fallen In Love (REVIEW): Anne Boleyn Returns To Tower of London To Answer Questions Of Incest

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

When I said the wives who weren't his subjects essentially meant those who were foreigners who had powerful friends or whose executions would have cause a bigger uproar. I guess because their families were not under Henry's thumb they could cause problems.
Also what do people think about Henry's hopes for his sixth marriage? Do you think he expected children out of it or had he given up? I have read in fiction and non fiction books that one of the reasons he turned against her was because she gave him no sons. But wouldn't Henry have assumed she was incapable?

 

[Ish]

I believe the problems that Catherine Parr ran into during her marriage were religious ones.

While England had separated from Rome in religion it was still a Catholic country under Henry - they didn't become Protestant until Edward. Catherine, however, was a Protestant and wrote in promotion of the reformation. This angered Henry's bishops who tried to turn him against her.

I doubt children came into it. She was capable o bearing children - she had a daughter through her last marriage. Henry might not have been capable of fathering more children at that point in his life, and while he may have been anxious about having an heir earlier on in his life by the time he married Catherine he had a male heir, and Edward wasn't actually sickly until near the end of his life, after his father's passing. As far as Henry knew, the succession was assured.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Has anyone read the Joanna Denny book on Anne Boleyn? I haven't read such a biased book since the other Boleyn girl, but unlike that one it is biased in the other direction. This woman hates Catholics and Katharine of Aragon. She obviously pits down Katharine to build up Anne.

I have read reviews of the Denny book, but do not plan to read the book itself for precisely that reason. I very much admire and feel sympathy for Henry's first, noblest queen Katherine of Aragon.

I've no interest in reading a hatchet job and especially not a bigoted anti-Catholic one.

 

[Lenora]

King Henry VIII was never a Protestant – Telegraph Blogs

 

[Ish]

King Henry VIII was never a Protestant – Telegraph Blogs

Thanks for the interesting article! It's true though, Henry wasn't a Protestant, he was a Catholic at heart who essentially established himself as the Pope of England. Some of his wives were followers of Protestant beliefs - the first two Catherines and Jane were Catholic, the first Anne and the third Catherine were both Anglican, and the second Anne flip-flopped in her religious beliefs. His children were all over the place too; Edward was Protestant, Mary was Catholic, and Elizabeth really bridged the gap with the development of the CoE, which is officially both reformed and catholic.

 

[Tsaritsa]

King Henry VIII was never a Protestant – Telegraph Blogs

I guess he was the original Anglo Catholic.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Catherine Parr died on this day,September 5th,1548.Her remains were buried at St. Mary's Chapel, Sudeley Castle.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

New question, having no affect on each other, which woman do you side with:
The older wife/queen who refuses to be bullied into a divorce by her husband
Or
The young "virgin" who refuses to sleep with any man before marriage.
Ignore that Anne might or might not be a virgin, pretend Anne just doesn't want to be a mistress and has no ambition to be Queen. Ignore Katharine's pride, and the whole was she or wasn't she a virgin.
If either one gives in it will be a sin.
2 women, one who refuses to give into a divorce and one who refuses to be a mistress. Whose side do you take, who do you think should take one for the team and throw in the towel?

 

[Ish]

I feel for both of them.

The older woman is clinging to her life. Even outside of the context of Henry VIII, historically she's likely to be financially dependant on him. Without him either she loses the ability to provide for her child(ren) or loses custody of them entirely.

The younger woman, however, is likely in love with the man and wishes to be with him, and her morality will not allow her to do so unless they are wed. As she's young she's also likely naive enough to believe that this man who is openly cheating on his wife loves her and won't one day cast her aside as well. She's standing behind her values, much like the older woman is fighting for her life.

You do have to question what kind of life it is that the older woman is fighting for - she's fighting to remain in a marriage with a man who she knows cheats on her and does not love her. You also have to question how the younger woman doesn't realize that once upon a time the wife was young and loved by her husband, and what he's done to his wife he may one day do to her.

More in the context, however, we also have to consider the case of the husband. I find that often we judge him with a modern set of values and as such consider him to be unnecessarily cruel - both towards his wives, his children, and those who opposed him - and rather sexist. It's not really fair, though, to judge him by the values of the 21st century.

Without looking at his later behaviour, the husband here is a man whose rule isn't necessarily as stable as he'd like it. In addition to the religious reformation that's sweeping Europe and causing a lot of problems for monarchs, he also has to deal with the fact that his right to rule is based on somewhat shaky ground and people who believe they have a better claim (or just don't like how he does things) have at various points in his reign tried to over throw him. His claim comes through three things - his father's descent from a much earlier king through an illegitimate and not entirely male line, his mother being the surviving heir of a previous monarch, and his father having conquered the throne. Unfortunately, people, other people who have claims that are just as good still exist and challenge him, meaning that if his successor isn't strong then that successor may end up being deposed.

Remember that this man came to the throne only a generation after the end of a very long war fighting over that very throne - one that started because there were too many different people who had claims and thought they should be on the throne. Also remember that in the history of the realm, only one woman had ever tried to claim the this throne - an act that lead to a period in history known as the Anarchy. With that in mind, the lack of a legitimate male heir clearly becomes a big deal. In trying to get out of a marriage that - in addition to being an unhappy one by that point - can no longer provide him with children, and into a marriage that has the potential to produce male children, the man can be seen as trying to not only preserve his legacy but also to ensure the future stability of his realm.

 

[sophie25]

New question, having no affect on each other, which woman do you side with:
The older wife/queen who refuses to be bullied into a divorce by her husband
Or
The young "virgin" who refuses to sleep with any man before marriage.
Ignore that Anne might or might not be a virgin, pretend Anne just doesn't want to be a mistress and has no ambition to be Queen. Ignore Katharine's pride, and the whole was she or wasn't she a virgin.
If either one gives in it will be a sin.
2 women, one who refuses to give into a divorce and one who refuses to be a mistress. Whose side do you take, who do you think should take one for the team and throw in the towel?

I don't think Anne could ever be looked on in such a simple way. She was actively working with Henry to end his marraige and encouraged him to humilliate Catherine. She was also pregnant before she married hum so she wasn't that virtuous either.

 

[sophie25]

New question, having no affect on each other, which woman do you side with:
The older wife/queen who refuses to be bullied into a divorce by her husband
Or
The young "virgin" who refuses to sleep with any man before marriage.
Ignore that Anne might or might not be a virgin, pretend Anne just doesn't want to be a mistress and has no ambition to be Queen. Ignore Katharine's pride, and the whole was she or wasn't she a virgin.
If either one gives in it will be a sin.
2 women, one who refuses to give into a divorce and one who refuses to be a mistress. Whose side do you take, who do you think should take one for the team and throw in the towel?

I don't think Anne could ever be looked on in such a simple way. She was actively working with Henry to end his marraige and encouraged him to humilliate Catherine. She was also pregnant before she married him so she wasn't sexually virtuous either when it suited her.