i don’t know if i would call the male heir story fabricated, but i will say that Queen Elizabeth 1 was a very strong queen and served her country well. the catholics and protestants were equally guilty of cruelty towards one another.I did not say you were a Henry apologist. Sorry if it was taken that way. I said there are a lot of them. He had seven wives. Most of them met unpleasant ends. He had many other women as well, but Ann Bolyn would not have sex with him unless he married her. She wanted to be queen. She knew keeping Henry at bay was her ticket to the throne. The male heir story was fabricated. He also tried to destroy Catherine’s reputation in other ways. He made himself the head of the church in England and his illegitimate daughter Elizabeth followed eventually. She also had an unpleasant, but natural death. She refused to be assisted by the Anglican hierarchy, calling them a bunch of hedge priests. She refused to stay in her bed and sat on the floor crying. Lord Nelson tried to comfort her and get her back into bed, but she said he would not tell her to go there if he knew what was waiting for her there. How many Catholic priests did she have drawn and quartered?
To add to the list, Loades/ELIZABETH I. As I have reported previously.I may be able to find the book in my library. I’ll look tonight. Memory is getting foggy, but substantially my recollection is close to what I read years ago. Will look tonight.
What was the cause of Henry’s death?
If you (or anyone) did so call it, you would be incorrect.i don’t know if i would call the male heir story fabricated, but i will say that Queen Elizabeth 1 was a very strong queen and served her country well. the catholics and protestants were equally guilty of cruelty towards one another.
another poster said the heir story was false and i did not believe it had been fabricated because in those days it was important for a king to have a male heir as it was for prince charles.If you (or anyone) did so call it, you would be incorrect.
GKC
Correct, yes, but misleading. The actual statement St. Ignatius of Antioch made was “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church.” (See, for example, ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm )Where the pope is, there is the Church is correct …
The Pope must be exhausted!there has also been much dialogue between the anglicans and the Pope.
You are correct.another poster said the heir story was false and i did not believe it had been fabricated because in those days it was important for a king to have a male heir as it was for prince charles.
It was vitally important for a male heir. At the time, most subscribed to a belief known as “the Great Chain of Being” In this system a wife was always to be deferential to her husband. The problem cam that without a male heir, the Queen would have to marry someone of equal station, putting her, and therefore England, under the control of a foreign prince. On the other hand, she could marry a lesser noble, then putting her under somone of lower station. Either way it threw their nice ordered idea of civilization out of whack. The ideal solution was to have two surviving sons. Too many heirs and you have the War of the Roses all over again, too few and you have disruption of their ideas of society.another poster said the heir story was false and i did not believe it had been fabricated because in those days it was important for a king to have a male heir as it was for prince charles.
Just so. The only serious experience that Britain had with a female claimant, the affair of Maud and Stephen, had not worked out well. An heir and a spare was the best bet. And Hank had started worrying about it long before La Bolyen had made an appearance.It was vitally important for a male heir. At the time, most subscribed to a belief known as “the Great Chain of Being” In this system a wife was always to be deferential to her husband. The problem cam that without a male heir, the Queen would have to marry someone of equal station, putting her, and therefore England, under the control of a foreign prince. On the other hand, she could marry a lesser noble, then putting her under somone of lower station. Either way it threw their nice ordered idea of civilization out of whack. The ideal solution was to have two surviving sons. Too many heirs and you have the War of the Roses all over again, too few and you have disruption of their ideas of society.
Just truing to remember what I learned in my Tudor-Stuart classJust so. The only serious experience that Britain had with a female claimant, the affair of Maud and Stephen, had not worked out well. An heir and a spare was the best bet. And Hank had started worrying about it long before La Bolyen had made an appearance.
And, yes, all the Red and White Roses scattered around on the ground, back a generation before, was a cautionary tale about succession. Henry himself was not well seated on the throne, as only the 2nd Tudor. Unwise to try dynastic experiments in such a case.
GKC
Sounds like you got it.Just truing to remember what I learned in my Tudor-Stuart class
Another reply.I may be able to find the book in my library. I’ll look tonight. Memory is getting foggy, but substantially my recollection is close to what I read years ago. Will look tonight.
What was the cause of Henry’s death?
The heir story was not false. It was an excuse for getting rid of a legitimate wife for whom he lost interest. The man was debauched, a lecher. It seems to go with power and wealth. Many men in history who have wealth and/or power also have a problem with sexual excess. Henry was one of them.another poster said the heir story was false and i did not believe it had been fabricated because in those days it was important for a king to have a male heir as it was for prince charles.
The statement is of later date, and quite common. I don’t know the original source.Correct, yes, but misleading. The actual statement St. Ignatius of Antioch made was “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church.” (See, for example, ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm )
I thought it might have been Belloc, but just looked and it is not. He touches on her death, but barely. I will look a bit more.To
I will learn of your source with interest. My CAMPION is likely packed, with Waugh’s HELENA, apart from all my other Waugh titles, which are still on the shelf.
GKC
Added:
HA!. Just found Waugh’s HELENA, on the shelf, next to Walsh’s OUR LADY OF FATIMA. No CAMPION.
Henry was a teenager at the time of the death of Queen Isabel. Catherine of Aragon, his first wife was her daughter. The precedent fo a female ruler could not have been stronger. In fact he ended up with a female successor.Just so. The only serious experience that Britain had with a female claimant, the affair of Maud and Stephen, had not worked out well. An heir and a spare was the best bet. And Hank had started worrying about it long before La Bolyen had made an appearance.
And, yes, all the Red and White Roses scattered around on the ground, back a generation before, was a cautionary tale about succession. Henry himself was not well seated on the throne, as only the 2nd Tudor. Unwise to try dynastic experiments in such a case.
GKC
GKC says the heir story was not false. refer to his earlier post.The heir story was not false. It was an excuse for getting rid of a legitimate wife for whom he lost interest. The man was debauched, a lecher. It seems to go with power and wealth. Many men in history who have wealth and/or power also have a problem with sexual excess. Henry was one of them.
one poster still disagrees with us.You are correct.
GKC
Queen Matilda reigned in England in the 12th century.Henry was a teenager at the time of the death of Queen Isabel. Catherine of Aragon, his first wife was her daughter. The precedent fo a female ruler could not have been stronger. In fact he ended up with a female successor.
I said the story was not false. Henry had been pursuing Anne sexually. She would not have him unless he married her. He became obsessed with her and sent two emissaries to Rome, Wolsley, being one, to get an annulment. I just read some of this again in Warren Carrol’s book, Cleaving of Christendom. It is well referenced. Belloc also writes about Anne. The story is pretty amazing. Henry wrote to Anne and called her his mistress, but she was not. He introduced her in public, while he was married to Catherine. He did have concerns about a male heir. They were overshadowed by his lust for Anne. She was about 23 and he about 34 at the time of the romance. He had already had an illegitimate son with Elizabeth Blount. If he really wanted a woman to give him a son, he already had both. Henry also had Anne’s younger sister Mary as a mistress and left her. Anne was engaged to a wealthy man named Percy. She saw a fatter catch in Henry when Henry became interested in her after dumping her sister… Henry ordered the engagement broken, while he was married. She became pregnant and Cranmer made a statement that she was Henry’s legitimate wife. She bore daughter Mary. He grew tired of her and then grew to hate her. A second pregnancy ended with miscarriage which she attributed to his brutality to her. Henry began to loathe her and was convinced she bewitched him and became determined to be rid of her his second wife. He accused her of several adulteries, including one with her brother. Henry already had his next babe in his sites, Jane Seymor. Henry, Cromwell and Cranmer conspired to do her in and had her beheaded. None of this, not a shred of it had a thing to do with her inability to have a son, if that was his supposed interest. If this were not bad enough he was only getting started. This is the man who began the Anglican Church, its first head, a madman. Yet when we hear his apologists tell the story, of which the above is a fraction, it was all about wanting a male heir and the pope should have gone along with him.GKC says the heir story was not false. refer to his earlier post.