Anne Boleyn

[GKC]

I’ve spent too many years as a computer programmer, which means I tend to want things in a yes/no on/off switch type of construct (not that I get that very often ), but if some Anglicans are, in their view, Catholic, why are they still going to an Anglican service instead of a Catholic Mass?

I go to an Anglican Mass. The 10:30 one, specifically.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Interesting because I, too, am fascinated by the Tudors.

My understanding is that Cromwell was behind Henry’s reformation because for all his abilities, Henry was a lazy man who might not have followed through without the pressure of Cromwell. Who knows – other sources put Henry at the helm forcing Cromwell to persecute the Church, but that comes later.

I also understand that Henry never entirely rejected core Catholic teachings. He believed that as King of England he should be head of the Church there - when, of course, the Pope would not give him the annullment. The only solution he saw was declare himself head of the Church in England. He rejected Luther and wrote his own defense of the sacraments. He rejected Papal authority … at first.

And there were abuses by the Catholic Church in England, Luther’s reformation came at a most opportune time, in time for when Henry wanted to dissolve his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

I doubt that they thought Henry’s desire for a heir would result in a break with Rome – or few (though I can’t be certain) had other agendas such as a Protestant reformation. But, I really don’t think the original intention was to create a Church of England. The original intention was to dissolve a Catholic marriage, to marry legitimately (in the Church) and produce a male heir.

Since the Archbishop, who did Henry’s bidding anyway, at first granted the annullment, most thought (or led Henry to believe) it would be a inevitable for the Papacy to agree. That set events in motion that I think were unforeseen. Afterall, having a male heir was most important and on everyone’s mind – not breaking with the Church – until they found that dissolving the marriage was going to be an impossibility.

Anne Bolelyn never became Lutheran, but she was a Catholic reformist. Anne was a pawn. I’m not sure that she was not pressured herself if she pressured Henry. There were many manipulators behind the throne. The Protestant reformation just happened at close enough to a time when other matters were of Henry’s concern – producing a male heir. When he ultimately could not manipulate the Papacy, he created his own reformation – and Anne happened to be in the right place at the time.

Cromwell was behind the dissolution of the monasteries, not Henry’s search for a decree of nullity. That was Hank’s own idea; Wolsey was his gunman. Anne was not a Catholic reformer, she was reformed (but not Lutheran, as you say). It was she who brought him Tyndale’s OBEDIENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN MAN, which was the source of his conviction that the King was to be the head of the realm, including the Church in his realm, leading to the Act of Supremacy. And yes, she was more in it for what she could get out of it than any other reason, which meant the Throne, which meant a valid marriage, which, for dynastic reasons, Henry needed as well, hence teh quest for the decree. Possibly Anne was surprised at what she got.

Not sure what you mean in saying Henry rejected Papal authority, at first. He rejected it from 1534 on.

If you are interested in Henry and his time, J. J. Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII, is outstanding.

GKC

 

[Leegal]

I’m also fascinated by the “untold” story of the Tudors. Everybody knows about Henry VIII–at least most people know the overall history.

What is usually missing is the history before Henry VIII became king.

His father, Henry VII only became king by deposing then-king Richard III. Henry VII, in other words, “stole the throne.” He had no legitimate claim to be king (at least as far as anyone can ever legitimately claim to be a king over anyone). Therefore it was very important for him to legitimize his own reign and very important for him (and his son the 8th) to have a clear and undisputed heir.

Henry 8 had a older brother Arthur who was “supposed” to become the next king, but died early. There were no other brothers. That means that Henry 8 was very aware the potential for confusion, turmoil, and even more war if there was no clear heir; and Henry 8 was very concerned that he have a son who would clearly succeed him as king.

The earlier history goes a long way in explaining his obsession–unfortunately, it’s rarely discussed.

Despite whether or not Henry VII had legitimacy (the legitimacy was eventually obtained by the marriage of Catherine of Aragon to his son, Arthur), a woman could inherit the throne (both Elizabeths) only in the absence of a male heir. England, until just recently, practiced primogeniture which meant that even if there were an female heir who was first in line of succession, a living younger male replaced her in the succession automatically.

Further, a betrothal in the Catholic Church was a binding contract at the time. In the case of Catherine and Arthur, they married by proxy in 1499, and later formally married in
1501, but Arthur dies barely 6 months later. This marriage of Arthur to Catherine of Aragon also legitimized the Tudors who were not seen as legitimate rulers by other European countries, so the marriage was important to Henry VII. And so was her dowry.

Catherine claimed the marriage was not consummated and she languished in England, living as a virtual prisoner for 8 years with complaints coming from her to her parents and her parents pressuring Henry VII to return the dowry and Catherine. Henry VII’s dilemma was that he would have to return the dowry, so he held on to Catherine until Henry was of age to marry.

At the time, the Church prohibitied marrying your brother’s widow. Henry had to obtain a Papal dispensation to marry Catherine of Aragon, which Catherine testified that there was no consummation of her marriage to Arthur (though Arthur’s letters indicate they were very happy – whatever that means).

When Henry attempted to nullify the marriage, he fell back on the Church’s prohibition against marrying a brother’s widow.

 

[Leegal]

Cromwell was behind the dissolution of the monasteries, not Henry’s search for a decree of nullity. That was Hank’s own idea; Wolsey was his gunman. Anne was not a Catholic reformer, she was reformed (but not Lutheran, as you say). It was she who brought him Tyndale’s OBEDIENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN MAN, which was the source of his conviction that the King was to be the head of the realm, including the Church in his realm, leading to the Act of Supremacy. And yes, she was more in it for what she could get out of it than any other reason, which meant the Throne, which meant a valid marriage, which, for dynastic reasons, Henry needed as well, hence teh quest for the decree. Possibly Anne was surprised at what she got.

Not sure what you mean in saying Henry rejected Papal authority, at first. He rejected it from 1534 on.

If you are interested in Henry and his time, J. J. Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII, is outstanding.

GKC

What I mean was that when Henry could not get Rome to agree to the nullification of his marriage, he was going to place himself at the head of the Church IN England – not originally to create a new Church OF England. I don’t think or understand that his intention was to begin a new church.

I believe he believed he was Catholic, but by not getting what he wanted (and being King of England) he felt entitled to declare himself Head of the Church IN England. Of course, there were abuses in the Catholic Church which had gone unaddressed as long as the Church did his bidding – and Henry was always in need of money.

So, his reformation of the Catholic Church in England grew out of his inability to obtain a Papal nullification of his marriage – and later it becomes the Church Of England when, now ready to address the abuses going on in the monasteries, et al., and in need of money, he went on to persecute the Catholic Church. What I meant was that he begins with declaring himself head of the Church before moving on to establishing a Church of England.

 

[GKC]

Despite whether or not Henry VII had legitimacy (the legitimacy was eventually obtained by the marriage of Catherine of Aragon to his son, Arthur), a woman could inherit the throne (both Elizabeths) only in the absence of a male heir. England, until just recently, practiced primogeniture which meant that even if there were an female heir who was first in line of succession, a living younger male replaced her in the succession automatically.

Further, a betrothal in the Catholic Church was a binding contract at the time. In the case of Catherine and Arthur, they married by proxy in 1499, and later formally married in
1501, but Arthur dies barely 6 months later. This marriage of Arthur to Catherine of Aragon also legitimized the Tudors who were not seen as legitimate rulers by other European countries, so the marriage was important to Henry VII. And so was her dowry.

Catherine claimed the marriage was not consummated and she languished in England, living as a virtual prisoner for 8 years with complaints coming from her to her parents and her parents pressuring Henry VII to return the dowry and Catherine. Henry VII’s dilemma was that he would have to return the dowry, so he held on to Catherine until Henry was of age to marry.

At the time, the Church prohibitied marrying your brother’s widow. Henry had to obtain a Papal dispensation to marry Catherine of Aragon, which Catherine testified that there was no consummation of her marriage to Arthur (though Arthur’s letters indicate they were very happy – whatever that means).

When Henry attempted to nullify the marriage, he fell back on the Church’s prohibition against marrying a brother’s widow.

It was possible, certainly (theoretically) for a female to take the Throne, then; the problem was that sort of thing opened the doors to a repetition of the Wars of the Roses, or to the civil war between Maud and Stephen, 400 years before, with male claimants asserting that boys were better. Henry laid out the succession after him as Edward, Mary, Elizabeth, in his will, in that order, if each had no legitimate heirs, and so it was. I wonder what Henry would have said to see that his, and the times, conventional wisdom was no longer a certainty. Times were changing, in many ways.Being a Queen seemed to work.

Henry’s causa was based, as you say, on the Levitical prohibition, and turned on whether that was of divine, or of Church law. If divine, it was ultra vires, beyond the power of even a Pope to dispense. There are impediments like that, a direct impediment of consanguinity, in the first degree, is not dispensable, for example. But what the case was with respect to the Levitical prohibition had been changing over the last centuries, in Henry’s day, and his case was not strong, on that account. But it was as strong was was customary in such dynastic cases, and likely was even stronger than he had claimed. Without going into technical details, Wolsey had suggested that an undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty lurked in Pope Julius’ dispensation for Henry to marry Catherine. Henry ignored him; his *causa *was as good as was ordinarily found at his level of society and he fully expected to get his decree. But an Emperor trumps a King.

And my, yes, Henry VII (the Tight-fisted) did like him that dowry, dallying with the idea of taking Catherine himself, after Arthur died. Though I don’t know why you think the Tudors were not recognized as legit, in the better courts of Europe. It was just because they were that Ferdinand and Isabella sent their last daughter, to make the dynastic marriage, England thus forming another link in the Spanish net around France. Who didn’t accept the Tudors?

GKC

 

[GKC]

What I mean was that when Henry could not get Rome to agree to the nullification of his marriage, he was going to place himself at the head of the Church IN England – not originally to create a new Church OF England. I don’t think or understand that his intention was to begin a new church.

I believe he believed he was Catholic, but by not getting what he wanted (and being King of England) he felt entitled to declare himself Head of the Church IN England. Of course, there were abuses in the Catholic Church which had gone unaddressed as long as the Church did his bidding – and Henry was always in need of money.

So, his reformation of the Catholic Church in England grew out of his inability to obtain a Papal nullification of his marriage – and later it becomes the Church Of England when, now ready to address the abuses going on in the monasteries, et al., and in need of money, he went on to persecute the Catholic Church. What I meant was that he begins with declaring himself head of the Church before moving on to establishing a Church of England.

RE: first paragraph, absolutely, totally agree.

RE: second paragraph, again, agree. But one also must take notice of the 300 years or so of struggles between the Crown and Rome, with respect to political control of the Church in England, Running back at least to the first Statute of Westminster, and culminating with the Henrician Acts in 1534, these Parliamentary Acts and Royal decrees marked an on-going and growing determination on the part of the Crown that control over the Church in England must increasingly be vested in England itself, and not in some outside power (Rome). Henry, his personality, his dynastic issues, and the general political and religious climate of the times all made for a perfect storm, resulting, when Hank couldn’t get his decree, in Henry (as I sometimes say) taking the Church in England private, so to speak. But Henry saw himself as a Catholic, until his death (though he dallied with Lutherans , for political reason, in old age, And his last wife, Katherine Parr, who had some influence on him, was certainly of a reformed mind.

RE: third paragraph, agree, generally.

GKC

 

[andrewstx]

I definitely need an Anglican explanation on this one…

I thought it was “founded” by Elizabeth I in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. The Settlement being a way to settle once and for all the flip-flopping England had done between Catholicism, Church of England and back to Catholicism which began when Henry VIII decided in 1534 that he was taking his ball and going home because Pope Clement VII refused to let him change the rules of the game. So in my mind, Henry VIII was the original founder. As to whether Elizabeth would have created the Church of England on her own if Henry had behaved like a proper Christian husband in the first place, the answer is “no” because Elizabeth never would have been born! So no matter who officially “founded” the Church of England as separate from Rome, the act seems to be the product of infidelity, pride and disobedience.

“…but in general when I’ve discussed this with many Anglicans they would view Christ as founding their Church.”

Many Anglicans see thier church as going way back to the pre-Roman Celtic church that was united to Rome at the Norman Invasion. way before the Reformation.

They see themselves as a conttinuation of that pre Roman church, Catholic but not Roman Catholic.

So does every Protestant denomination. So do the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses. Christ apparently had a major bout of indecision between 1517 and…well now I guess, since there are still Protestant (as well as some quasi-but-not-really Christian) churches being founded every day. Who’s correct? All of them? Christ must not want us to understand much then…

“Some Anglicans would also point out they are still by their view Catholic.”

It takes agreement from both sides to truly be in a relationship. I might wake up tomorrow and decide that I’m married to that beautiful rich lady (fictional) down the road…but she would probably disagree.

 

[Leegal]

Though I don’t know why you think the Tudors were not recognized as legit, in the better courts of Europe. It was just because they were that Ferdinand and Isabella sent their last daughter, to make the dynastic marriage, England thus forming another link in the Spanish net around France. Who didn’t accept the Tudors?

GKC

As FrDavid said earlier in the thread, Henry VII “stole the throne.” Whatever the term, after his ascession, there were still those who doubted his claim to be King.

On his mother’s side, he (they) were barred from inheriting the throne because his mother’s direct ancestors were born before marriage, and though legitimized they could not take the throne (though they were direct descendents of Edward III). His mother was descended from one of those offspring born out of marriage. It was a somewhat convoluted blood claim on his mother’s side – a third son and a third wife and their offspring and so on.

No claim on his father’s to the English crown.

And though he married into the York family, he did not rely on that as a claim to the throne.

His claim to the throne was “right of conquest.” If he had a descendent claim, he was far down the line and was prevented from inheriting the crown by the fact that those ancestors had earlier been declared ineligible, though legitmate. And there were other claimants to the throne, some who had a better claim to the throne.

The country was decimated by the war. Faith in the monarchy had to be restored, as did the treasuries. He had to solidify his power.

Likely, there were others in Europe who might have thought the same about Henry VII’s ascession to the throne. He needed to establish relations with those other countries, and establish himself as the rightful King.

That Spain may not have doubted him as King, and was willing to betroth Catherine of Aragon to Arthur, was one step in the process of assuring his legitimate claim to the throne – at home and abroad. If Spain would marry their daughter to the heir to the English crown, then that removed doubt as to whether Henry VII was the rightful King if Spain recognized him as such. It was one step in the process of restoring faith in the monarchy at home, and establishing relations abroad.

 

[Leegal]

Henry’s causa was based, as you say, on the Levitical prohibition, and turned on whether that was of divine, or of Church law. If divine, it was ultra vires, beyond the power of even a Pope to dispense. There are impediments like that, a direct impediment of consanguinity, in the first degree, is not dispensable, for example. But what the case was with respect to the Levitical prohibition had been changing over the last centuries, in Henry’s day, and his case was not strong, on that account. But it was as strong was was customary in such dynastic cases, and likely was even stronger than he had claimed. Without going into technical details, Wolsey had suggested that an undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty lurked in Pope Julius’ dispensation for Henry to marry Catherine. Henry ignored him; his *causa *was as good as was ordinarily found at his level of society and he fully expected to get his decree. But an Emperor trumps a King.

GKC

No doubt. Who knows what pressures were brought to bear upon Julius to issue the dispensation allowing Catherine to marry Henry?

On the other hand Deuteronomy 25:5 contradicts Leviticus.

By the time Henry asks for his annullment based upon consanguinity, Julius is dead. Clement was not of a mind to contradict a deceased predecessor.

And Catherine was Charles V’s aunt. Even Henry saw that the Pope would not likely grant him an annullment from Charles V’s aunt.

Henry could not win because there were too many temporal forces at work.

 

[GKC]

No doubt. Who knows what pressures were brought to bear upon Julius to issue the dispensation allowing Catherine to marry Henry?

On the other hand Deuteronomy 25:5 contradicts Leviticus.

By the time Henry asks for his annullment based upon consanguinity, Julius is dead. Clement was not of a mind to contradict a deceased predecessor.

And Catherine was Charles V’s aunt. Even Henry saw that the Pope would not likely grant him an annullment from Charles V’s aunt.

Henry could not win because there were too many temporal forces at work.

Indeed. The levirate admonition was the strongest Scriptural point against Henry’s causa. But no particular pressure was brought on Julius for the dispensation. The process was merely the system working as it was supposed to work, nothing out of the ordinary. Just as Henry expected the system to work for him, in turn, though he knew that the matter was a delicate one.

Henry’s advancing the Levitical prohibition was not a case of an impediment of consanguinity, but of affinity, first degree collateral. He and Catherine were not related in the blood line. But you are correct in that claiming a previous Pope’s actions to be ultra vires is not the most diplomatic way to proceed. Wolsey’s urging that Henry pursue the undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty was not such a poke in the Papal eye.

Your last point is the crux. In general, we are seeing this history in a similar manner.

 

[GKC]

As FrDavid said earlier in the thread, Henry VII “stole the throne.” Whatever the term, after his ascession, there were still those who doubted his claim to be King.

On his mother’s side, he (they) were barred from inheriting the throne because his mother’s direct ancestors were born before marriage, and though legitimized they could not take the throne (though they were direct descendents of Edward III). His mother was descended from one of those offspring born out of marriage. It was a somewhat convoluted blood claim on his mother’s side – a third son and a third wife and their offspring and so on.

No claim on his father’s to the English crown.

And though he married into the York family, he did not rely on that as a claim to the throne.

His claim to the throne was “right of conquest.” If he had a descendent claim, he was far down the line and was prevented from inheriting the crown by the fact that those ancestors had earlier been declared ineligible, though legitmate. And there were other claimants to the throne, some who had a better claim to the throne.

The country was decimated by the war. Faith in the monarchy had to be restored, as did the treasuries. He had to solidify his power.

Likely, there were others in Europe who might have thought the same about Henry VII’s ascession to the throne. He needed to establish relations with those other countries, and establish himself as the rightful King.

That Spain may not have doubted him as King, and was willing to betroth Catherine of Aragon to Arthur, was one step in the process of assuring his legitimate claim to the throne – at home and abroad. If Spain would marry their daughter to the heir to the English crown, then that removed doubt as to whether Henry VII was the rightful King if Spain recognized him as such. It was one step in the process of restoring faith in the monarchy at home, and establishing relations abroad.

Henry Tudor’s claim was weak, coming from the Beaufort line, through John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III, and his paramour, then wife, Katherine Swynford, Thus, through irregularity, and from the fact that he was descended in the female line (and we know what that was considered to mean), Henry Tudor was a weak claimant. But all such claims depended on the real politic of whose bum was actually able to get itself on the throne, through clash of arms, if required. In this case, Henry Tudor came out on top of the heap. When I deal with this subject, as to Henry VIII’s dynastic worries, for a healthy, legitimate, male heir, I stress that. IOW, you and I are in agreement.

But I still maintain that absent a political or dynastic axe to grind, other realms routinely recognized whoever’s bum was on the throne as legit, for practical reasons.

GKC

 

[Leegal]

Indeed. The levirate admonition was the strongest Scriptural point against Henry’s causa. But no particular pressure was brought on Julius for the dispensation. The process was merely the system working as it was supposed to work, nothing out of the ordinary. Just as Henry expected the system to work for him, in turn, though he knew that the matter was a delicate one.

Henry’s advancing the Levitical prohibition was not a case of an impediment of consanguinity, but of affinity, first degree collateral. He and Catherine were not related in the blood line. But you are correct in that claiming a previous Pope’s actions to be ultra vires is not the most diplomatic way to proceed. Wolsey’s urging that Henry pursue the undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty was not such a poke in the Papal eye.

Your last point is the crux. In general, we are seeing this history in a similar manner.

Yes, I understand. Wrong term. I know that they were not related by blood. Affinity.

 

[Leegal]

Henry Tudor’s claim was weak, coming from the Beaufort line, through John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III, and his paramour, then wife, Katherine Swynford, Thus, through irregularity, and from the fact that he was descended in the female line (and we know what that was considered to mean), Henry Tudor was a weak claimant. But all such claims depended on the real politic of whose bum was actually able to get itself on the throne, through clash of arms, if required. In this case, Henry Tudor came out on top of the heap. When I deal with this subject, as to Henry VIII’s dynastic worries, for a healthy, legitimate, male heir, I stress that. IOW, you and I are in agreement.

But I still maintain that absent a political or dynastic axe to grind, other realms routinely recognized whoever’s bum was on the throne as legit, for practical reasons.

GKC

Understand. Yet, what better way to consolidate your position against possbile enemies but to marry into a strong Royal family – or to marry into an enemy’s royal family keeping your enemies close. Marriage was a political commodity.

And both Henry VII’s mother and he married Yorkists, and his wife’s brothers were all dead by that time so no male left in her line.

Henry’s bum may have been on the throne, but there were many other claimants. I would think he had to solidify his power as much as possible, by many means. Only one being marriage of his son with a daughter of Spain. Both as acceptance and for strength and money.

Interesting topic. I also am amazed at how similar the relationship of Henry VIII and Saint Thomas More was to the relationship between Henry II and Saint Thomas Becket, which played out so similarly, and both began with a religious issue and ended with an act of conscience and then death. It was not easy being the “friend” of a King.

 

[GKC]

Understand. Yet, what better way to consolidate your position against possbile enemies but to marry into a strong Royal family – or to marry into an enemy’s royal family keeping your enemies close. Marriage was a political commodity.

And both Henry VII’s mother and he married Yorkists, and his wife’s brothers were all dead by that time so no male left in her line.

Henry’s bum may have been on the throne, but there were many other claimants. I would think he had to solidify his power as much as possible, by many means. Only one being marriage of his son with a daughter of Spain. Both as acceptance and for strength and money.

Interesting topic. I also am amazed at how similar the relationship of Henry VIII and Saint Thomas More was to the relationship between Henry II and Saint Thomas Becket, which played out so similarly, and both began with a religious issue and ended with an act of conscience and then death. It was not easy being the “friend” of a King.

RE: Paragraph one. You and I continue to walk together. All is as you say; exclamation point after the final sentence. But it was as true for a strong claimant, as for a weak one, that alliances were forged, dynastic marriages arranged, for purposes of state. The whole, complex and evolving system of impediments/dispensation and decrees of nullity was designed to permit that to be done; the making and breaking of such marriages, as real-politic demanded, while allowing the Church to maintain the Sacrament, under its control. Eventually, Trent would start the process of reforming the system.

RE: paragraph two. No real argument. But Henry was not alone in that condition. Look back over the past 100-150 years prior as to who sat on the throne, and how succession was passed. A valid, legitimate claimant, male, and in the direct line, next generation, was an ideal. But it didn’t ensure the throne would go to such. A strong arm with a dubious/weak/claim could win the day. And often did. And solidifying power, through dynastic marriages, of state, was how the entire system was designed to work. Henry VII being no exception, nor out of the ordinary.

RE: final paragraph. Yes. I often use the Henry II/Thomas relationship, when discussing the struggle for the control of the Church and the implications that had for the sovereignty of the Throne. It predates First Westminster. Though there were earlier cases.

History is interesting.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Yes, I understand. Wrong term. I know that they were not related by blood. Affinity.

I’ve done the same sort of thing myself, from time to time.

GKC

 

[Leegal]

RE: final paragraph. Yes. I often use the Henry II/Thomas relationship, when discussing the struggle for the control of the Church and the implications that had for the sovereignty of the Throne. It predates First Westminster. Though there were earlier cases.

History is interesting.

GKC

It certainly is. I must admit, though I have studied up on Henry II and Becket and Henry VIII and More’s relationship (and the Church issues that gave rise to the break in their relations), and the similarities, I am not well versed on what comes in between. I should really learn what connects the two. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[GKC]

It certainly is. I must admit, though I have studied up on Henry II and Becket and Henry VIII and More’s relationship (and the Church issues that gave rise to the break in their relations), and the similarities, I am not well versed on what comes in between. I should really learn what connects the two. Thanks for the discussion.

And I thank you. It has been enjoyable.

GKC