Carnal Knowledge of a family member?

[AdriannaJean]

Hey Everyone,

I was watching the Tudors (don’t judge me!) and the King had one of his marriages annulled on the basis of him having carnal knowledge (aka, had slept with) his wife’s sister before they got married. Does this still render a marriage null and void?

Secondly, if it does nullify the marriage, is a married couple that finds out that this nullifies their marriage obligated to seek a decree of annulment or can they be allowed to remain married?

Thirdly, if a couple is planning on getting married and finds out that this would nullify their marriage, are they obligated not to get married?

 

[1ke]

Hey Everyone,

I was watching the Tudors (don’t judge me!) and the King had one of his marriages annulled on the basis of him having carnal knowledge (aka, had slept with) his wife’s sister before they got married. Does this still render a marriage null and void?

This is an impediment of affinity or public propriety. It used to be called just affinity, but now there is a distinction between affinity (relation by marriage) and public propriety (a non-marital, carnal relationship)

The impediment can be dispensed.

Henry’s marriage Catherine of Aragon (who was his brother Arthur’s wife, although never consummated) had an impediment of affinity-- the Pope gave a dispensation prior to his marriage to Catherine of Aragon (which is why his petition for nullity on the grounds of affinity was rejected).

Ironically, he applied for this same dispensation to marry Ann during the proceedings to have his marriage to Catherine declared null because of his relationship with Mary Boleyn (with whom he had an illegitimate son). He actually received that dispensation, although it was predicated on his marriage being found null-- which of course it wasn’t.

Secondly, if it does nullify the marriage, is a married couple that finds out that this nullifies their marriage obligated to seek a decree of annulment or can they be allowed to remain married?

A married couple would know they have such a relationship prior to marriage, and could seek to have it dispensed. If they somehow married without a dispensation, then they can still get one at the time the affinity/public propriety impediment becomes known.

Thirdly, if a couple is planning on getting married and finds out that this would nullify their marriage, are they obligated not to get married?

They can petition for a dispensation from the Bishop.

Here’s an article on Affinity, although from the 1917 code of canon law (so it’s slightly different now with regard to degrees):

httpyavww.knight.org/cathen/01178a.htm

current code Canon Law:

Can. 1091 §1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.

§2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.

§3. The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied.

§4. A marriage is never permitted if doubt exists whether the partners are related by consanguinity in any degree of the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.

Can. 1092 Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage.

Can. 1093 The impediment of public propriety arises from an invalid marriage after the establishment of common life or from notorious or public concubinage. It nullifies marriage in the first degree of the direct line between the man and the blood relatives of the woman, and vice versa.

Can. 1094 Those who are related in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line by a legal relationship arising from adoption cannot contract marriage together validly.

 

[1ke]

I was watching the Tudors (don’t judge me!) and the King had one of his marriages annulled on the basis of him having carnal knowledge (aka, had slept with) his wife’s sister before they got married.

Oh, and either you misunderstood or the TV show botched it.

Henry applied for a decree of nullity for his marriage to Catherine of Aragon based on affinity. Catherine was married to Henry’s brother Arthur. However, they were children at the time, and Arthur died before they consummated their marriage. Henry VII, unwilling to return the princess to Spain (and her big pile of money she brought with her as a dowry) then affianced his son Henry to Catherine. Because of the impediment of affinity, they had to apply for a dispensation from the Pope-- which they received. Henry VIII then married Catherine.

Later, when Henry decided he had to have Ann Boleyn, she refused to be his mistress (seeing what happened to mistresses… her sister Mary had been his mistress and bore him a son… she got married off to a minor nobleman). She wanted to be queen.

Henry tried to obtain a decree of nullity for his marriage to Catherine, on grounds of affinity.

At the same time he was already making plans to marry Ann (he presumed his request for nullity would be granted). He sent a request for a dispensation from affinity to marry Ann, which he neede because he’d had relations with her sister Mary. This dispensation was actually granted but it was contingent upon his receipt of an affirmative decree regarding his marriage to Catherine.

However, the Pope did not rule in his favor and upheld his marriage to Catherine as valid.

Henry split with the Church, declared himself head of the Church, elevated a new Archbishop of Canterbury (Cranmer) who would do his bidding, had his marriage to Catherine declared null, and married Ann.

Catherine died in 1536, and soon after Ann Boleyn met her fate after failing to produce a son.

He did not get a decree of nullity for his marriage to Ann based on affinity. He had her executed on charges of treason, adultery, and incest-- all false and trumped up charges. Henry had already taken Jane Seymour as his paramour, and married her after he executed Ann.

 

[AdriannaJean]

I was just referring to the point in the show where Anne was told that the King had declared their marriage invalid because he had carnal knowledge of her sister. This was before they had her arrested.

Thank you very much for clearing up my confusion.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Slight drift: It is interesting that Henry went through all his machinations to secure a male heir. Note that England had just come out of the War of the Roses and Henry’s father’s [Henry VII’s] claim to the throne was rather weak. He feared that without a male heir the country would again be plunged into civil war. [Note the plea to Rome recently released by the Vatican.]

However, his male heir died without issue. His two daughters succeeded to the throne without much fuss. Finally, the throne passed peacefully to the Stuarts. God really doesn’t need our help in such matters. Man proposes; God disposes.

 

[LilyM]

I was just referring to the point in the show where Anne was told that the King had declared their marriage invalid because he had carnal knowledge of her sister. This was before they had her arrested.

Thank you very much for clearing up my confusion.

You’re almost right though - Henry had the marriage to Anne declared invalid prior to her execution (not her arrest). It was so that he could declare their daughter Elizabeth to be illegitimate. See, Anne was accused of adultery - so Henry wouldn’t want Elizabeth, who might possibly (so he thought) have not been his child, to be heir to the throne.

 

[Miserissima]

1ke is dead-on. however…

I was just referring to the point in the show where Anne was told that the King had declared their marriage invalid because he had carnal knowledge of her sister. This was before they had her arrested.

Thank you very much for clearing up my confusion.

I love The Tudors as mind-candy. There should be a disclaimer before every episode: “Although based on actual events, the story you are about to see represents no actual pesons living or dead.” Hee!

Now, I am not bashing the poetic license of the show. In fact, it spurred me on to learn more about the truth. One interesting place I found a great discussion about this show was the forums at TwoP.