The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 04-25-2009, 12:41 AM
Grace Angel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa, United States
Posts: 462
I do think Henry was very shocked with Catharine Howard. He never thought any wife of his would cheat on him and cross his royal authority.The sexual double standard was very alive and well then. Men both ordinary ones and Kings, cheated on their wives if they desired and that was okay, but their wives weren't supposed to cheat on them. Not that Henry ever cheated on Catharine Howard, but he did with other wives. He subscribed to the mores of his age, which is totally understandable, and of course as the king, cheating on him was even worse than cheating on an ordinary man, according to the mores of the age. Catharine Howard was naive and I doubt genuinely knew the meaning of love.. then again, maybe Henry didn't know the true meaning of love either.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 04-26-2009, 12:14 AM
Capt. Snowbear's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Urbandale, United States
Posts: 46
Does the fact that the Holy Roman Emperor is a nephew of Catherine of Aragon mean that this is the sieve which created the ascendancy from Charlemagne, to today, as Prince Charles of Wales is a descendant of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 04-26-2009, 09:56 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Snowbear View Post
Does the fact that the Holy Roman Emperor is a nephew of Catherine of Aragon mean that this is the sieve which created the ascendancy from Charlemagne, to today, as Prince Charles of Wales is a descendant of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne?

If you look at the British royal family´s family tree you will see that they are descended many times from Charlemagne, one direct line was through King James I (VI of Scotland) but as royals married royals (or used to) there are many direct links to Charlemagne.
If you would like to see for yourself a good site is www.geneAll.net
you can trace back any family to their origins by looking for the different coloured spots next to their names. Red for William the Conqueror, yellow for Hughes Capet etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 04-26-2009, 11:46 PM
Capt. Snowbear's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Urbandale, United States
Posts: 46
Charlemagne

That is...I had first thought that maybe there was a more direct line - I have yet to look at the genealogy site...although I had read earlier about the ascendant proclivities of royals, I have yet to actually 'get around' to study the families' trees. It is as if you need a genealogical scholar to decipher some of the ones that I found on 'Charlemagne'. It is important to me, that some of the aristocracy, perhaps most, have ascendancy from Charlemagne...this is because of the Holy Roman Emperor's outstanding lineage as far as the dynasty is concerned. Charlemagne was a hero of mine in studying History in an American university. The short amount that we read about him inspired some research, and after finding that he is a 'Great', one on par with many of the earlier rulers, including Constantine and Julian and others that are considered to have lived in an 'exciting' era (whereas Julian lived in the time of Christ's divination), Charlemagne lived in a war-torn era to the tune (Roland) of conquering the northern areas of what is today Northern France and Southern Germany. His following ascendants were much involved in the race for escape from the dark ages...leading to the conquering of many areas of Northern Africa, including 'Crusades' to spread Christianity. The more that I endeavor to find, the more enchanting the figure of Charlemagne. His remarkable importance, provisioned and exculpated by his coronation, leaves many to astonishment - even adoration because of his legacy. The Matthias Becher biography shows us one of the instigate 'impressions' on his cover of the book, with a golden 'tribute' to the enigmatic figure on which appears clasped doves to the tunic of the upper torso of the statue...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 04-27-2009, 03:56 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
If you would like to see for yourself a good site is www.geneAll.net
you can trace back any family to their origins by looking for the different coloured spots next to their names. Red for William the Conqueror, yellow for Hughes Capet etc.
Oooh!! *Russo rubs her hands together gleefully*
That is a WAAAAY COOL site Menarue! Thanks!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 04-29-2009, 11:55 PM
Capt. Snowbear's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Urbandale, United States
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle View Post
I don't see what's so exciting about this discovery. H8 was "Defender of the Faith" after all. And it wasn't so much that H8 was against the Church of Rome as that he was for H8.

And I think it's a bit much to expect a teenaged prince to have fully developed religious views.
I personally think that you owe the Protestant church an apology. If H8 was a defender of the faith, he was obviously defending from his own perspective, and not because Protestants are in any way 'not devout'.

This is a huge discovery, if true, because of the impact and the differences between the two secular religions...not only do the Catholics believe in the eucharist, but are even more devout in their beliefs...Protestants do not 'protest'...and not that I could infer this about your understanding but religion takes discipline, as does the study of history. There were not as many subjects in scholastic education back then, or academia in general, but religion would be taught from the early years after infancy and onward...there is a possibility that his understanding was a degree higher than what many might understand today.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 04-30-2009, 02:48 PM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
[quote=Capt. Snowbear;928096]I personally think that you owe the Protestant church an apology. If H8 was a defender of the faith, he was obviously defending from his own perspective, and not because Protestants are in any way 'not devout'.


I don't understand why you think she owes anyone or any faith an apology. She has stated the same words as you in the quote from your post and they are not rude in any way so why should she say sorry for an opinion? Also maybe I am Protestant(or maybe not) and I am more devout in my beliefs then some Catholics! How do you know that one person's beliefs are more then another based on a whole religion? I agree with you that it takes discipline to be devout in any religion, but it is not something you learn in a book it is something within a person. Just because HenryVIII may have had an understanting of something and may have been schooled on it (and it was recorded that he was very smart) does not mean he was devoted to it. As Kings he was devoted to himself first .. IMO sorry for going of topic MODS...
__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 04-30-2009, 05:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Snowbear View Post
This is a huge discovery, if true, because of the impact and the differences between the two secular religions....

What is a 'secular' religion?

Secular, according to every dictionary I have consulted means being separate from religion.

I therefore don't understand your post.

Could you please clear up what you are saying so that I can understand your point and then maybe I can reply to the content.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 04-30-2009, 05:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Snowbear View Post
Does the fact that the Holy Roman Emperor is a nephew of Catherine of Aragon mean that this is the sieve which created the ascendancy from Charlemagne, to today, as Prince Charles of Wales is a descendant of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne?
As Charles isn't a descendent of Catherine of Aragon the simple answer to your question is NO.

Catherine of Aragon had only one descendent who reached adulthood - Mary I who died with no issue so she now has no descendents.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 04-30-2009, 06:07 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Snowbear View Post
I personally think that you owe the Protestant church an apology. If H8 was a defender of the faith, he was obviously defending from his own perspective, and not because Protestants are in any way 'not devout'.

This is a huge discovery, if true, because of the impact and the differences between the two secular religions...not only do the Catholics believe in the eucharist, but are even more devout in their beliefs...Protestants do not 'protest'...and not that I could infer this about your understanding but religion takes discipline, as does the study of history. There were not as many subjects in scholastic education back then, or academia in general, but religion would be taught from the early years after infancy and onward...there is a possibility that his understanding was a degree higher than what many might understand today.
I don't understand your comments as to why you think I owe Protestants an apology. Did I say anything negative about Protestants? If I said anything negative, it was about the king himself. And I don't know how you can quantify that Catholics are more devout than Protestants. Additionally, I never said anything about either group not believing in the Eucharist.

Henry never considered himself a Protestant. In fact he persecuted Protestants. But you have to admit whatever faith he defended was not the same faith that the Popes envisioned.

I take a rather more pragmatic approach toward Henry than you might: I think his perspective was that the Pope was far away, and Henry had a kingdom to rule and protect. The thing that Henry had to do was provide a son for the succession, he had to get rid of a barren, ageing wife, and he had to get married to a woman capable of providing that. And if the Pope wouldn't cooperate with his plans, so be it.

As for my criticism of the youthful prince's religious studies... I think youthful people lack the maturity that comes with life experience. You might be able to read the words but lack understanding. For example, I read The Grapes of Wrath again, and it's a totally different book than I remember reading in high school...

I would welcome debate on this issue if it is less personal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 05-01-2009, 03:25 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
King Henry VIII was given the title of Defender of the Faith by Pope Leo X as a recognition of his pamphlet "Sacramentorum Adversus Martinum Lutherum" which is "Declaration of the Seven Sacraments against Martin Luther" which of course meant it was meant as a defence of the Catholic religion, Pope Paul III deprived him of this title, which is only natural, when he defied the Church and divorced Catherine of Aragon.
He restored this title for himself and his posterity in 1544, of course the Faith defended was no longer the Roman Catholic Church.
The Anglican Church is still a Catholic church, catholic meaning universal, it is just not
Roman Catholic.
I believe that Henry at the time had purely selfish reasons (as Iowabelle said so well)
and these selfish reasons were the basis for the break with Rome and the Pope´authority, but not a break with the religion he was brought up in
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 05-01-2009, 04:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
King Henry VIII was given the title of Defender of the Faith by Pope Leo X as a recognition of his pamphlet "Sacramentorum Adversus Martinum Lutherum" which is "Declaration of the Seven Sacraments against Martin Luther" which of course meant it was meant as a defence of the Catholic religion, Pope Paul III deprived him of this title, which is only natural, when he defied the Church and divorced Catherine of Aragon.
He restored this title for himself and his posterity in 1544, of course the Faith defended was no longer the Roman Catholic Church.
The Anglican Church is still a Catholic church, catholic meaning universal, it is just not
Roman Catholic.
I believe that Henry at the time had purely selfish reasons (as Iowabelle said so well)
and these selfish reasons were the basis for the break with Rome and the Pope´authority, but not a break with the religion he was brought up in

I don't regard concern for the future of one's kingdom as selfish.

Remember that Henry didn't have the example we have of successful Queens Regnant that we do and so was concerned that he didn't have a son to inherit the throne. He feared a return to civil war if he couldn't leave a secure heir and a male would be that security. The only previous attempt at a Queen Regnant was Maud/Matilda that led to the Anarchy under Steven. There was also very strong Church teachings about the role and place of woman (that even caused a lot of problems for Elizabeth with, throughout her reign, some preachers arguing against her as Queen simply because she was a woman).

If he had a son I doubt if he would have considered divorcing Katherine. I believe he loved her and would have remained with her if they had had a son.

He feared the destruction that a lack of an heir would bring and so put aside a beloved wife, and a Church he also believed in, for a country he held dear - hardly a selfish act really.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 05-01-2009, 05:01 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
His obsession for Anne Boleyn wasn´t selfish? He wanted Anne and so he said that Catherine couldn´t have a son (actually she did but her children never servived long or she suffered miscarriages) a newer model with the possibility of an heir appeared in the form of the very beguiling Anne, but if you think he made a sacrifice for his country by lusting after Anne I think you are making a mistake, but that is my opinion. With Anne, when she aborted a son, he is supposed to have said "you will have no more sons by me" but she could have had many more but once again Henry made the "sacrifice" of having her beheaded on a trumped up accusation and married Jane, who was said to be already pregnant.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 05-01-2009, 09:07 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
His obsession for Anne Boleyn wasn´t selfish? He wanted Anne and so he said that Catherine couldn´t have a son (actually she did but her children never servived long or she suffered miscarriages) a newer model with the possibility of an heir appeared in the form of the very beguiling Anne, but if you think he made a sacrifice for his country by lusting after Anne I think you are making a mistake, but that is my opinion. With Anne, when she aborted a son, he is supposed to have said "you will have no more sons by me" but she could have had many more but once again Henry made the "sacrifice" of having her beheaded on a trumped up accusation and married Jane, who was said to be already pregnant.
From all accounts that I have read he was in love with Katherine and gave no indication of wanting to give her up until it was clear that she could no longer have any chance of a son.

Once that happened he was able to look at a mistress as a potential wife.

However, don't ignore his own religious beliefs in all this as well. He did see his failure to father a legitimate son as God's judgement on his marriage.

He was also manipulated by his councillors. He wasn't the autocrat that many people see him as but he did trust his councillors and many of them were anti-the Boleyn faction and were able to poison his mind against Anne. Sure he was taken with Jane but again he trying hard to get a son and Anne's failure was also a sign to him that she wasn't right in God's eyes.

This determination to see Henry as some evil monster always annoys me as I have read copious material on him and his daughter from the time and find it more one of a man, who was a product of his time and the demands of his kingdom with strong religious and political considerations and manipulations going on around him. He needed a son and, to him, his first priority - for the good of his kingdom, was to secure the throne and that could only be done with a son so if a few women had to be sacrificed that was a small price to pay for the security of the succession. Just as Elizabeth refused to name a successor, for her own and that successor's safety, Henry insisted on having a son to ensure a secure succession.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 05-01-2009, 09:52 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
I would never brand him as uncaring for his people and kingdom. He was hailed as the perfect prince in looks and deeds when he first came to the throne and I have no doubt that he was in love with Catherine, in fact they say he envied his older brother when she married him and when he was asked to marry her he was more than willing. She was older than he was and I think that took a toll as well, as she started to look more and more matronly and he was still a young man.
Anne Boleyn attracted him so he joined the necessity for an heir to the desire for a younger woman.
Don´t forget he took one look at Anne of Cleves and decided he wasn´t going to have her whether she could potentially give him another heir or not, and it was an insurance for the succession to have another son, obviously the kingdom was important to him but he wanted someone more attractive to make him that patriotic.
I believe that Henry started off as good King and as far as England was concerned he was, and when he died he left a very prosperous country to his successors, but as a man he was selfish and self-righteous but no more than any other king at that time. He gained a bad reputation because of his treatment of his wives, particularly Catherine and then Anne Boleyn. Catherine was very badly treated and if he loved her or even remembered how he loved her he should never have treated her the way he did, especially the way he separated her from her daughter, mainly because of the influence of Anne, who no one could say was a likeable person, which doesn´t mean she deserved the trumped up trial and execution.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 05-01-2009, 10:15 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,370
Well...this is going to sound mean...but sometimes you get what you sow.

Yes, it does appear (at least to me) that Anne was executed unfairly and without cause. But she was guilty of something!

I say you get what you sow because it does appear that she wanted nothing less than the destruction of Catherine and her daughter. How heartless of both of them to deprieve Mary and Catherine of each other's company? To let Catherine, who was guilty of nothing other than loving her husband and believing in the legitimacy of her marriage, not to mention the daughter of a true King and Queen to live and die in squalor conditions?!

She might have been innocent of adultery but she was certainly guilty of something.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 05-01-2009, 10:37 AM
Australian's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,152
Just a random question.......When Anne of Cleves and Henry were divorced, what was Anne's title? I know the King bestowed upon her the title of 'Kings Sister' (i may be mistaken)....but was she given a Duchy or anything?

Or perhaps escaping the chopping block was reward/ compensation enough!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 05-01-2009, 10:56 AM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
this is the information supplied by Wiki, I hope it answers your question:
The former queen received a generous settlement, including Richmond Palace, and Hever Castle, home of Henry's former in-laws, the Boleyns. Anne of Cleves House, in Lewes, Sussex, is just one of many properties she owned; she never lived there. Henry and Anne became good friends - she was an honourary member of the King's family[7] and was referred to as "the King's Beloved Sister".
__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 05-01-2009, 01:39 PM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
I think we can all say "Lucky Anne of Cleves" and from what I have read she knew it and was very happy to be his "sister".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 05-01-2009, 05:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
I would never brand him as uncaring for his people and kingdom. He was hailed as the perfect prince in looks and deeds when he first came to the throne and I have no doubt that he was in love with Catherine, in fact they say he envied his older brother when she married him and when he was asked to marry her he was more than willing. She was older than he was and I think that took a toll as well, as she started to look more and more matronly and he was still a young man.
Anne Boleyn attracted him so he joined the necessity for an heir to the desire for a younger woman.
Don´t forget he took one look at Anne of Cleves and decided he wasn´t going to have her whether she could potentially give him another heir or not, and it was an insurance for the succession to have another son, obviously the kingdom was important to him but he wanted someone more attractive to make him that patriotic.
I believe that Henry started off as good King and as far as England was concerned he was, and when he died he left a very prosperous country to his successors, but as a man he was selfish and self-righteous but no more than any other king at that time. He gained a bad reputation because of his treatment of his wives, particularly Catherine and then Anne Boleyn. Catherine was very badly treated and if he loved her or even remembered how he loved her he should never have treated her the way he did, especially the way he separated her from her daughter, mainly because of the influence of Anne, who no one could say was a likeable person, which doesn´t mean she deserved the trumped up trial and execution.
So are you saying that if he had had a son or two with Katherine of Aragon he would have still divorced her to get Anne Boleyn?

I would argue that the answer is absolutely not.

He would not have divorced Katherine if he already had a son to inherit the throne - regardless of how beautiful, sensual etc she was or how lustful he was.

He had had mistresses already and at least one illegitimate son but he needed a legitimate one. He didn't marry that idea to getting Anne - it was the abiding need of his life - to secure the throne and dynasty. To do anything less would be completely to abandon England to an uncertain future and civil war on his death.

No king, who cares about his people and kingdom, would ever plan to leave civil war as their legacy. Henry was such a man. Unfortunately his methods are seen as selfish rather than as a political necessity for the good of the realm.

After Jane died, sure he married Anne of Cleves. However, if, as reported, he wasn't attracted to her then the chances of mating and therefore having a second son is markedly reduced. So again his desire to secure the succession saw him divorce a second wife and marry another young girl - with the aim to have that second son. Her total stupidity cost her the chance to be the mother of a future king - a sensible Catherine Howard would have held off until the son was safely delivered, knowing that Henry would almost forgive her anything with a second son. A cheating Queen is untenable - afterall the succession has to be a pure bloodline and so a King (and a Prince of Wales for that matter) has to be sure that the child being carried is his for the sake of the bloodline hence her stupidity cost her her life. After that he just wanted some companionship and a wife can give that.

Henry was a great king whose desire was a great England secure under Tudor kings and a country in which the English king was in charge rather have an outsider interfere. He achieved most of that, or laid the groundwork for it in the reign of his daughter. The fact that he didn't have any legitimate grandchildren did lead to the succession question raising its head again during Elizabeth's reign (and it was a concern for much of the reign).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
anne boleyn, anne of cleves, biography, british history, catherine howard, catherine of aragon, catherine parr, catholicism, church of england, elizabeth i, henry viii, jane seymour, pope, queen consort, syphilis, tudor


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Potential Wife for Prince Harry Zonk Prince Harry and Prince William 1868 12-19-2014 09:58 AM
Who is your favourite of Henry VIII's wives? lexi4 British Royal History 288 10-10-2014 01:55 PM
Illegitimate Offspring of King Henry I (1068-1135) CarolinaLandgrave British Royal History 23 07-18-2014 05:01 PM
Arthur, Prince of Wales, brother of Henry VIII (1486-1502) iowabelle British Royal History 23 11-24-2011 09:02 PM
"Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII" by David Starkey (2003) ysbel Royal Library 12 11-19-2011 03:44 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:57 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]