Was Anne Boleyn a MISTRESS OR A WIFE? Controversial royal marriage | Six wives documentary | Tudors
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Get 50% off your first 3 months with History Hit by clicking the link below, selecting the MONTHLY subscription option and using the code HISTORYCALLING at checkout: access.history...
#ad
WAS ELIZABETH I ILLEGITIMATE? The answer to that depends on whether Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII were really married in 1532/3 and if Elizabeth’s mother was a mistress or a wife. In this six wives documentary from History Calling we’ll look at this controversial royal marriage from its beginning to its end (and beyond) to ascertain if Anne Boleyn was ever really the Queen of England and if her daughter was legally a Tudor, or an illegitimate Boleyn.
Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth I both suffered irreparable damage at the hands of Henry VIII, but were they ever really his wife and legitimate heiress to begin with? In the course of this video we’ll look at stories of a precontract between Anne Boleyn and Henry Percy; the complications caused by Henry’s first marriage to Catherine of Aragon (widow of his brother Prince Arthur Tudor) and whether it was really annulled; the ramifications of Henry VIII’s affair with Mary Boleyn, sister of Anne; the questions of when Henry married Anne and when was Elizabeth I conceived (was it before or after her parents wed?) and how Anne’s fall affected her status as Queen and her daughter’s as Princess of England. Having cast his second wife aside and voided their marriage, Henry declared his 2 year old daughter illegitimate, but was he right to do so and what should we make of his decision, seven years later to place her back in the line of succession to the English throne without reversing that illegitimacy? Finally, we’ll think about how his sole surviving son, Edward VI, along with his big sisters, Mary and Elizabeth Tudor treated the Aragon and Boleyn marriages during their reigns and whether they undertook any actions which retroactively affected Anne and Elizabeth’s legal positions. We’ll also look at stories that Elizabeth wasn’t even a Tudor by blood, for even during her lifetime some wondered, who was Elizabeth I’s father? The story of Elizabeth I and her remarkable life and reign began in a Tudor scandal of epic proportions and it is one we’re still trying to unpack today.
The History Hit documentary I discussed today was ‘Becoming Anne Boleyn’, hosted by Professor Suzannah Lipscomb.
Instagram: / historycalling
Patreon: / historycalling
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE:
THE BIRTH OF ANNE BOLEYN • WHEN WAS ANNE BOLEYN B...
THE LIFE OF HENRY VIII, PART 2 | THE STORY OF ANNE BOLEYN • THE LIFE OF HENRY VIII...
DID CATHERINE OF ARAGON SLEEP WITH PRINCE ARTHUR TUDOR • DID CATHERINE OF ARAGO...
ANNE BOLEYN’S B NECKLACE • ANNE BOLEYN’S B NECKLA...
DID ANNE BOLEYN HAVE A PSEUDO PREGNANCY IN 1534? • Did ANNE BOLEYN have a...
TUDOR ROYAL FERTILITY PROBLEMS • TUDOR ROYAL FERTILITY ...
ANNE BOLEYN’S LAST LETTER • ANNE BOLEYN’S LAST LET...
ANNE BOLEYN’S EXECUTION: HOLLYWOOD VS HISTORY • ANNE BOLEYN’S EXECUTIO...
ANNE BOLEYN’S EXECUTION OUTFIT • ANNE BOLEYN’S EXECUTIO...
WAS ANNE BOLEYN EXECUTED WHILST PREGNANT? • Was ANNE BOLEYN EXECUT...
LIFE OF MARY I • THE LIFE OF QUEEN MARY...
LAST WILL AND TESTMENT OF MARY I • ANNE BOLEYN’S EXECUTIO...
GEAR USED
Apple MacBook Pro Laptop (for video editing): amzn.to/3S6IoRK
DJI Drone: amzn.to/38h1vXr (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/39hROZm (US LINK)
Go-Pro Hero 10 camera: amzn.to/3EPIK9U (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3rTWScL (US LINK)
GoPro 3-Way 2.0 (Tripod/Grip/Arm): amzn.to/37CdC1r (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3vaVxjU (US LINK)
Memory Card: amzn.to/36QvcOQ (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3KeLZZs (US LINK)
Microphone: amzn.to/3MFtoaK (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3rYtjH8 (US LINK)
BUY OR RENT
The Tudors, season 1 amzn.to/2VCwQ0j
The Tudors, season 2 amzn.to/2VMPnHw
The Tudors, season 3 amzn.to/3BijsPB
The Tudors, season 4 amzn.to/3z16S58 Wolf Hall (2015) amzn.to/3B70Qlp
READ:
Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005) amzn.to/3xLivgr
Sarah Morris and Natalie Grueninger, In the Footsteps of Anne Boleyn (2013) amzn.to/2W9oJct
Antonia Fraser, The Six Wives Of Henry VIII (2nd edn, Phoenix, 2009) amzn.to/36IqD5r
David Starkey, Six Wives: the Queens of Henry VIII (Vintage, 2004) amzn.to/3wImKIh
NB: Links above may be affiliate links. This means if you make a purchase through one of these links, I earn a small commission. It in no way affects the price you pay.
THUMBNAIL: photo by History Calling. All rights reserved.
Creative Commons licenses used see creativecommon...
Do you view the Boleyn marriage as valid and why?
I guess it was hard to say no to the King (though Catherine Parr certainly wanted to and Anne of Cleves really had no choice in the matter).
I think that the marriage between King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn was valid in accordance with the law of the land. However to the Catholic Church and therefore to the vast majority of Christendom it was bigamous. I also think that to the people involved Henry and Anne it was a true marriage.
@@HistoryCalling I definitely think that Anne Boleyn exercised as much power in withholding her consent as was possible. She said yes but only under circumstances that seemed improbable.
He was a bigamist. At the time of his marriage t o Katherine
Henry was a bigamist. He was married to Katherine when married Ann. He he wanted to make his marriage to Ann illegitimate they should have remarried on Katherine's death. There by making Elizabeth legitimate. It says in the Bible. " Sleep with your brother's wife an unclean thing ". It does not say your brother's widow. In fact it does say to marry your brother's widow!!!!!!!!!!
I love that Henry is primarily remembered not for the glories of his reign, but for the women in his life. He would be so angry to know that and I love it
I've always really liked that too :-)
Yes!!! It’s perfect.
The glories of his reign?
He was the tyrant of the Tudors, achieved nothing, killed thousands of his people, lost his battels, bankrupted the country and spend his entire personal fourtune (which he had inherited from his father, Henry, the 7th).He broke away from Rome and made himself head of the church of England without being a member of the cleargy.He was a failure.
@@charlottepeukert9095 that's not quite true
Amongst many military achievements he also founded the English Navy. He would absolutely expect to have been remembered for these accomplishments and not for his wives. As I said, I love that he won't be.
@@catherineroper5087 He bankrupted bis country, forced people to change their faith against their will, executed those who didn't, caused chaos and desaster in his own family, was a spendthrift of the highest order and executed each and everyone who didn't agree with his policy.He ruined his health, killed his wives and wanted to be remembered for his good nature and the foundation of the navy?!? What a delusional narcissist!
For four months, Henry was a bigamist, even by the terms of his own Anglican Church. He secretly married Anne on January 25, 1533, but his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was not annulled until May 23. (Of course, the Catholics never recognized it).
Yes, I think that's why they kept the marriage so secret. They needed to get all their ducks in a row before they announced it.
A great examination of the many facets of British law vs. Catholic, HC. As a lapsed Catholic, most of the Church's edicts ring hollow with me; Henry is of course more easily criticized for his arbitrary choices regarding "legitimacy". It's interesting to speculate what Elizabeth's thoughts were on this issue but she ruled with such strength that I doubt it weighed on her mind. Be well, HC. See ya next week!
Yes, I'd love to know what Elizabeth made of the whole thing too. For political reasons she had to present herself as legitimate, but in her heart of hearts, I wonder if she had doubts.
This is a tricky one I think it'd whatever the King's fancy, he couldn't kill kathrine unlike Anne is because she was Auntie of charlie of Spain he would invaded England. Anne was the mistress who became the wife who made vacancie position for a new mistress.
I do not believe the marriage of Henry and Anne was legitimate because Henry WAS still married with a living wife of 20 years. The idea that a marriage of so long duration can be dissolved after so much time, for so insignificant a reason as a technicality, which had already been nullified, truly stretches credulity. Henry's break with the church in retaliation to the ruling merely confirms his tyrannical nature, and consummate ego. Indeed, why would any woman anywhere in England at the time think herself safely within a marriage if such things could be set aside so easily by powerful men? This view is reinforced by the fact that Henry tried for so long to persuade the Pope to side with him. The immunity of the Church is what gives the monarch his power to rule, and is guaranteed in the Magna Carta and the King's own Coronation oath. Since the recognition of Rome is what gave Henry his power to rule in the first place, he did NOT have the power to overrule it, no matter what he intimidated his parliament to sign. I have always wondered why Henry didn't find a husband for Mary and get a grandson as soon as possible. Within his own realm, he could have recognized his grandson as heir, and made Mary regent and even kept the Tudor name if he wanted.
I think Queen Mary I would have really liked you (and I also think you're correct about Henry having misgivings about what he was doing and thus his need to try to get Rome on his side and that women weren't always very safe in their marriages) :-) As for why he didn't get a husband for Mary, their relationship was in such dire straits by the early 1530s that I don't think he would have wanted her out of the kingdom and possibly stirring up ferment abroad and making England a satellite nation, nor do I think he could risk having her marry an Englishman and creating an alternative court party at home. He was looking at getting her a strong husband when she was a child, but that plan fell by the wayside when Anne Boleyn came along.
So it seems there are two sides of argumentation:
1. Under the laws of the realm after Henry’s break with Rome the marriage was valid and Anne his legitimate wife and queen
2. He can’t just change a church and he was married under catholic law so his first marriage was legitimate and divorce is out of the question.
So even if one believes that the Catholic Church is the one true church and the law states you can’t divorce, here are a few arguments against the religious argumentation and which might make Henry’s actions more understandable.
How often has the Catholic Church bend it’s rules? As far as I know marrying in a certain degree was forbidden, however the Habsburgs married nieces and uncles, cousins etc. Illegitimate children born out of wedlock were legitimised (the beauforts) and the pope himself once suggested bigamy in the case of Henry, Katherine and Anne, even if only for a short period. Furthermore there has been a case in the past were a marriage was annulled ( Eleanor of Aquitaine and the French king).
So although I don’t like Henry VIII, If he for one Moment also thought about how often the Catholic Church bent its morals when it suited them I can understand his frustration. That being said I believe that the pope would have granted the annulment if he hadn’t been under pressure by the emperor and I think we can safely assume that Henry felt the same way, so he did what he did.
People have been arguing about the legality of this for centuries but ultimately, she’s considered to have been a wife and her daughter was considered a legal monarch, so it doesn’t matter. History doesn’t remember legality it remembers legitimacy. They aren’t the same: legitimacy comes from public opinion. Power resides where men believe it resides, after all
I agree that whether you're the legitimate monarch can be argued to come from public opinion on occasion (and Elizabeth was certainly legitimate in that sense), but legitimacy of birth is different and in Elizabeth's case much more complex thanks to her father's constantly changing mind.
I agree that power resides where men and women accept that it resides.
Indeed, this is ultimately the truth of it. Whatever Henry wanted, Henry got.
@@annmoore6678 never a truer word was said xxx
@@morriganwitch I would argue that "Bump off anyone with so much as a rabbit's foot of a claim to the throne if it threatens yours." Is a true Tudor motto.
I feel that, as the marriage was legal at the time of Elizabeth's birth and she was deemed to be legitimate at that point, then it should have stood. This means that I also believe that should have been the case for Mary too. The fickleness of their father should not have been able to change that! Everything I know about history I have learnt from this channel so there may be many more things that came into play here of which I am yet unaware so this is just my uneducated (but getting better!😁)feelings about their legitimacy.
Yes, I think declaring Mary illegitmate was ridiculous and as another commenter pointed it, ultimately pointless (in Elizabeth's case too). They both ended up on the throne anyway.
I think there was a strong case for declaring both Mary and Elizabeth legitimate on the grounds that both marriages were made in good faith, since at least one party firmly believed the marriage was valid. Katherine believed she was lawfully married to Henry, although in my view she was wrong. And I believe both Henry and Anne believed they were lawfully married. I think Henry was brilliant at believing in whatever suited him at the time. I think it's a pity that Katherine didn't take a more pragmatic view and go into a nunnery, as that would have avoided all the ensuing troubles.
I definitely think Elizabeth was both legal and legitimate. The English church was by then no longer Roman Catholic and not answerable to any pope. Also, I am not at all sure Anne Boleyn would ever have committed adultery. It was a death sentence looking for a justification story. And conveniently for Henry and his ministers, it provided for legally seeking a male heir with the help of a new wife. But Elizabeth was not illegitimate so in 1558 became the queen (sorry to disagree with you H C).
Welcome to Marriage in the Old Days: the show where the rules are all made up and the points don't matter!
Yup, that about sums it up :-(
Marriage as a whole are all made up
"He'd made his bed, and for the next 3 years, Anne would lie in it." Brilliant!
Thank you :-)
Great video! I side with you; the marriage and Elizabeth’s legitimacy were valid until they weren’t. Even if the “eyes of God” or legalities are ignored, marriage can be viewed as a type of contract. Anne believed that her contract was legitimate while Henry wanted to uphold said contract until he didn’t. I know it’s rather simplistic, but as far as Henry is concerned, this view makes the most sense to me.
Thanks Jessica. Yes, it's tricky when a person can make and break the rules as they see fit. I think seeing it as a contract in this instance is a helpful way to look at it as there's a difference between what was legally valid and what was morally/religiously valid.
I think it was valid enough for the rest of Europe to be actively scandalised about it. I think the Spanish ended up giving it more weight by actively denying that it existed, for example. Ultimately, like you said, it was valid until it wasn't. Henry was actively proclaiming Anne as the queen, she got the official consort's jewels, was lodged in the Queen's apartments, her children were designated the heirs, and she was addressed and served as a queen...until Henry had enough of her that is.
Yes, it certainly was a scandal. I don't know if we have anything today we could quite compare it to.
@@HistoryCalling It's possible someone is trying,,,,
I think Edward was looking for an excuse to skip Mary. The only one he found unfortunately also made him skip Elizabeth. Making Elizabeth an unintended casualty of his war against Mary.
Agreed.
Yes. I have read in a biography that one of the reasons the Seymours, Guilfords and the Dudlies wanted to skip Mary because she was a Catholic, which meant skipping Elizabeth is well. And Jane was a ways and means of exercising power (of course) as well.
What a mess Henry made of his life! I think it does not matter whether Elizabeth was illegitimate or not, since, according to the will of her father, she had a right for the throne.
As others have said, I'm of the opinion that she *was* legitimate. Legitimacy refers to if a child was born while their parents were married or not, and Elizabeth - as much as Henry attempted to backtrack on his own decisions - was born while he was married to Anne. I think Elizabeth was smart not to outwardly comment on her thoughts on this though and likely learned a lot from observing how messy the topic of legitimacy and succession were for the family members that came before her.
as a Catholic, Henry knew the 'divorce' was not allowed and that he was still married, so all the others were mistresses and not a marriage, that's why he declared himself Head of his own church that conveniently, allowed divorce
Yes, I think that's it in a nutshell. It was certainly handy for him to be in a position to be able to make and break the rules as he saw fit.
I agree.
Ironically Catherine died early 1536 before Henry married Jane. So only Anne was a mistress
And in the Anglican Church, Divorce is not allowed. So to make it even worse, Henry thought only HE should be allowed to divorce not anyone else as he saw it as sinful.
@@Zadir09Henry never divorced. His marriages were annulled as having been void from the outset. His marriage to Katherine of Aragon was unlawful in English law and in fact in the Catholic church, which was why he needed a dispensation from the Pope to marry her in the first place. I think what it boiled down to was this: could the Pope overrule English common law? And was it right for the Pope to grant such dispensations for political reasons or for a fee? Had Katherine not had a powerful nephew who threatened the Pope, Henry would have been granted his annulment as easily as he was granted the dispensation to marry Katherine in the first place.
I 100% agree with you. It’s the only reasoning that makes sense. However, I had no idea Henry had to get the fact he’d had sex with Anne’s sister “forgiven.” That means everyone knew. *Cringes*
Henry was just a terrible human being, and I say that for reasons beyond his marriages and how he treated his daughters.
I’ve always wondered why Elizabeth didn’t marry and have an heir to continue the Tudor line. But knowing how it came to be, I think it was best it ended with her.
Another great video! Thank you.
Thanks Anna. Elizabeth is an interesting case. According to Lord Leicester she swore from the time she was a little girl that she was never getting married and I can't help but think that it stemmed from observing how her father treated his wives. I imagine a psychologist would have a lot to unpick in her psyche.
@@HistoryCalling And she made that statement to Robert Dudley at about the time Katherine Howard was executed. (Although he did not accept her decision for a very long time!) I think you are right about the psychologist.
She didn’t want to be beheaded😢
Hello History Calling. You are gonna to laugh after hearing this; my yorkie dog had to take A bath but he didn't want to; so i had to bribe him. What I bribed him was- if he take A bath we would go look for his cousins(the princes in the tower. ) and we'll watch A history calling video.
Sounds like a fair deal to me :-)
That's awesome 🙂
@@heatherordonez1490 Yup. He loves his cousins but Elizabeth of York is his favorite one; he will bite anyone who tries to mess with her.
You’re killing me with the portrait animations. They’re just too creepy and disturbing.
By today’s legal standards there’s no way Henry and Anne’s marriage was valid, because he was still married to Catherine of Aragon when the marriage took place. I think you have to bear in mind that there were people even at the time who never accepted the marriage was valid and therefore didn’t accept Elizabeth was legitimate. I think it’s interesting that unlike Mary, Elizabeth didn’t legitimise herself when she came to the throne. I suspect she didn’t want to bring the issue up again because she believed she was legitimate. My own personal take on it is that the marriage wasn’t valid when it was done because Henry was still married to Catherine, but it was too late to go back when Catherine died, Elizabeth had been born, Henry and Anne considered themselves married, until it suited Henry to start thinking otherwise of course. I think that latter point is actually important. The whole thing comes down to what Henry thought, and Henry was one of those people who could convince himself the sky was pink with purple spots if it suited him to do so. Ultimately, Henry believed he was married to Anne, at least for a while, and in a world where what he said essentially went, who was going to argue with him? The funny thing is that he used his relationship with Mary Boleyn when he wanted to annul his marriage to Anne. How convenient for him to ‘forget’ he’d slept with her sister when he married her 😂
I think Elizabeth was canny enough to realise that raising the topic yet again, even to legitimise herself, would reawaken the debates and tensions rather than put them to bed. She had enough people machinating against her without further fuelling them or bringing up topics that people might find common ground with them on
I think UNLIKE Mary, Elizabeth knew she had a weaker claim to legitimacy. The length of time Henry and Catherine was married, Catherine being still alive when H and A married, the Catholic church NOT allowing divorce, and the wedding dates of H and A all weakened Elizabeth's claim to legitimacy.
According to English common law at the time, Henry's marriage to Katherine was invalid from the outset because it wasn't legal to marry the sibling of your deceased spouse. It remained unlawful until 1907. So the marriage to Anne was lawful and it was Mary who was illegitimate.
I’ve personally never considered Anne’s marriage “legitimate” by any reasonable standards, but ultimately Henry made it so that reason and standards were null. The force of his will and his subjects bowing to it made legitimacy and legality meaningless. Ultimately reality is what everyone at the time decided it was.
Elizabeth took the power and kept it, whether she was legitimate or not didn't seem to matter to her or her supporters. The English people and the Parliament supported her because life was more peaceful and settled under her reign...they didn't seem to care about it either. She WAS THE CHILD OF HENRY8, AND GRANDCHILD OF HENRY7, and so deserved the crown
I agree. In the end it didn't really matter and look at what a successful Queen she was. It just goes to show that birth-right doesn't automatically make one suitable for the job. William the Conqueror was definitely illegitimate for instance and it certainly didn't hold him back either, while Charles I and James II were legitimate and both lost their thrones.
@@HistoryCallingwho do you think was the worst English or British monarch in our history? My money is on Henry VI.
@@elizabethwoolnough4358 King John
I think the marriage was legitimate. No matter what nobody should be trapped in a marriage. But I am thinking with modern thoughts. HOWEVER this is Henry VIII we are talking about so that’s a whole other issue. Queen Cathrine didn’t deserve the treatment she got. Nor did Queen Anne Boleyn.
I agree, he was terrible to both women and the issue of legitimacy is really up for debate, depending on who you ask and what year you're referring to.
It has always perplexed me why after seeing to the annulment of his marriage to Anne Bolelyn Henry felt it necessary to murder her as well. And it was murder. Thank you for giving me a fresh perspective on this matter. Of course, this could have been quite different if Henry Fitzroy had lived to a ripe old age.
Annulling the marriage alone wouldn’t have been enough for Henry. He wanted Anne obliterated from his life. I firmly believe Cromwell had his own reasons for wanting Anne gone too. If Anne had been left alive she wouldn’t have gone quietly, she wasn’t the type, so there was only one way out. Anne’s death was undoubtedly judicial murder, but so were many of Henry’s executions.
The only reason he didn’t execute Catherine of Aragon is because of the powers behind her throughout Europe. He was a truly despicable person...
@@tracyhodgkins7516 Cromwell absolutely had his reasons. He and Anne had fallen out, and Anne's enemies were all (not just him) wary of her ability to bring Henry back around to her side, which she'd done plenty of times before. She was also dangerous to any future marriage they might set up for him, just by virtue of existing she would have cast doubt on its validity.
I imagine he would’ve had Catherine executed too if he could’ve, but her family was too powerful for him to do that
Years ago I watched a show that held a mock trial of Richard III. Richard was put on trial for the murder of the Princes in the Tower. I would love to see something like that with Henry. Henry VIII in family court!
What was the decision in the mock court you watched?
@@cassia-andor6445, they determined that Richard was innocent, because there wasn’t enough hard evidence.
I wish I'd seen that mock trial. I'm not surprised Richard was found innocent though. Even though I think he had his nephews killed, I admit that it's all circumstantial at this point. I'd love to see Henry on trial for the judicial murder of Anne and Katherine Howard (among others).
I have the book of that show. It’s the script word for word. It’s The Trial of Richard III by Richard Drewitt & Mark Redhead. I found it on eBay.
Thank you so much for all your great videos! I would have loved you as my history teacher!
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH for such a generous donation to the channel. I'm glad you're enjoying the content :-)
The one question I always have when this comes up is, how could Henry possibly have justified, to himself if no one else, the initial legitimacy of the second dispensation that allowed him to marry Anne despite his having slept with her sister? He would have been saying in the same breath that the initial dispensation regarding his marriage to Catherine was invalid while requesting the exact same legal instrument for his marriage to Anne. That to me is the most difficult contradiction to understand, because he would have been espousing both positions, officially and in writing, simultaneously
You make a great point. I think it comes down to Catherine's insistence that she and Arthur never consummated the marriage, because the Pope's ruling on the matter turned on this fact. Henry "believed" that she was lying, and the "proof" could be found in the fact that he had no legitimate sons. Since their was no contract with Mary Boleyn the Pope's dispensation could stand. Apparently, among the ruling families of Europe at the time, dispensations for such things were usually granted. Henry's problem was that the Pope was intimidated by Catherine's nephew, the Holy Roman Emperor.
There's a line in the Bible about not sleeping with one's sister-in-law but not (I think) anything about not marrying the sister of someone one had slept with. I think Henry's argument was that the annulment for the marriage with Catherine went beyond the Pope's power, while an annulment for having slept with Mary Boleyn did not. It was all daft anyway. The Bible also says that a man should marry his brother's widow. It's probably best not to try to find logic in the mind of Henry VIII when it came to his marital exploits :-)
@@HistoryCalling Certainly, but it at least makes a little more sense when the contradictions don't exist at the same time. I certainly don't AGREE with him, but I do UNDERSTAND his ability to hold contradictory points of view at different times, so long as his logic was internally consistent at any one given time. Your point about the Bible certainly would explain it, though. Although that then brings into further question what argument he would have used with himself when he then had his marriage to Anne annulled on the basis of his relationship with her sister, but I guess that falls into the "different views at different times" distinction 🙂
It's my opinion that's what happened and why they wouldn't give him a divorce or dispensation, because he was wanting annulled what he'd already swore was legal etc. I think that is the real reason behind his formation of the Church of England.
I think it's just what comes of being in that position - supreme privilege from birth, being treated like the then equivalent of a rock star, having that level of absolute power while believing you were personally hand picked by God. Henry had been taught to believe his will was right by virtue of being his, so logical consistency wasn't really a factor. He believed whatever it was convenient for him to believe at that moment to get what he wanted, and the justifications were worked backwards from the desired conclusion (hence why they aren't logically consistent)
Anne spends her time in Calais living like a queen in all but name. Most historians agree that at some point either on the return leg of the Calais journey or during their travels from Dover to Eltham, Anne slept with Henry. Edward Hall reports that Henry and Anne were secretly married on this day. They are thought to have done so around the end of 1532 either during or shortly after the two visited Calais. It was during this trip that all ambassadors claim that Anne was treated as a Queen consort, even wearing Katheryn's royal jewels. Henry VIII had made Anne Boleyn the Marquise of Pembroke prior to the trip in September of 1532 to increase her legitimacy as a consort, making this an appropriate title fit for a future Queen. King Francis I met Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn at Calais, since there were no suitable women at the French Court to receive her. After the visit, Henry and Anne had to remain at Calais for a few days while the weather turned, and it was around here that they probably slept together for the first time. It is speculated, that the only thing left for Anne of Boleyn after being titled the Marquise of Pembroke, which came with an inherited title for "sons" being born by her and Henry, was to wed the King. This secret wedding is believed to have taken place right after the couple stepped back onto English soil from their trip to Calais. From this point on, Anne and Henry VIII lived as man and wife publicly, and it was known by January of 1533 she was already pregnant.
If Princess Elizabeth I was born September 7th, 1533, then the consummation of her birth would of taken place in December of 1532.
I think they were as legally married as possible. Henry was expecting a boy and would have wanted to lock down that legitimacy before the birth.
In my opinion, the constant overturning and reinstating of “legitimacy” rendered it all moot. It doesn’t really carry a lot of real weight if it can be proclaimed by one and then overturned by the next. Especially considering they all wound up in the hot seat when their time came. 🙂
Yes, it is ironic that all the changes he made to his daughters' legitimacy status ultimately didn't matter in the end. He might as well not have bothered.
As ever, a well researched video with well argued conclusions. Splendid!
Thank you so much :-)
She was both. She was a mistress and then his wife. Then was murdered by her husband. Moral of the story is don’t mess with married men.
Katherine of Aragon went through menopause at a young age! My maternal grandmother had a baby at 45 (my moms youngest sibling) and my mom had me at age 48! My ex husbands paternal grandmother was pregnant at age 50 but miscarried. Im 54 and only went through menopause at age 52
Hi HC, thanks again for another amazing video and all your hard work.
I think their marriage was legitimate, Henry had moved mountains for it to take place though in the same view I wonder why the ceremony itself was in secret. If they had been blessed with a son then Anne would have been exalted as Queen.
I am also very surprised that Elizabeth did not re-legitimise herself, I did not know that.
Finally, if we think that we live in confusing times now just think of all the twists and turns then. 🤷🏼♂️
Thanks again.
Thanks James. I think the ceremony was in secret because Henry hadn't formerly annulled the marriage to Catherine yet, or officially broken with Rome.
Anne was crowned Queen
Even more interesting the old testament states a man MUST marry his brother's widow if his brother had no male heirs. So the biblical argument Henry has a very to non-existent argument.
No surprise that Henry bent rules to suit whatever the current situation and muddied things, it is really hard to say. So he was and wasn't married depending on what worked for Harry.
But I do think that Henry didn't really believe in the validity and knew it came about by his making it up as he went along. Think it is why he didn't keep finding annulment reasons and went with the beheading route.
Yes, that really was a knife in Henry's argument about marrying Catherine. I agree too that he was just making up what suited him as he went, leading to a real mess for his children and the need to 'clear the decks' as it were, by killing Anne.
But that bible verse would have had Henry father a child on Arthur's behalf in order to provide heirs for Arthur. Therefore that child, if we are still sticking with that bible verse, would have been king instead of Henry. I think we can all guess what everyone, not just Henry, would have thought of that idea.
Honestly, there really isn’t a correct answer. Whether or not you consider their marriage legitimate depends on your religious beliefs, culture, laws, etc. For simplicity’s sake though, I think your conclusion is best.
Another great video. I don't think any opinion matters. Henry did what he did. That's why it's history and we are still debating it. I do think later on Henry was regretful about what he did to Ann.
Thanks Laurie :-) I certainly hope he regretted it too.
I think you're being far too kind to Henry. He was a total narcissist and incapable of feeling remorse for anything he did.
@@catherineball5071 yes, however I think the jousting accident took a toll on his brain. Anyone that has a brain injury to that extent will never be the same.
The Boleyn marriage (or the Aragon Marriage for that matter) being valid doesn’t technically mater. In ecclesiastical law if a marriage that is eventually annulled but entered into in good faith those children aren’t illegitimate.
I don’t believe Edward thought Elizabeth shouldn’t be queen, but just that there was no simple way to skip Mary
Perhaps a way was to “marry her off” to a foreigner Duke. Once out of the country, a Coup d'état would have been a lot easier. And as history would later show, the English would not readily accept her foreign husband.
I think he thought both of his sisters were unsuitable queens: both were illegitimate, Mary was a Catholic, and Elizabeth not an extreme enough Protestant.
Anne was a wife and an instigator. Her family pushed this on her. She wasn't his mistress she stressed that and I believe it. Didn't he grant her a very high title that he never gave any of his other wives? She instigated a lot but I definitely believe she was his wife.
Yes, he made her Marchioness of Pembroke in her own right in 1532. Regarding her family pushing the marriage on her, I've never seen any primary evidence to support that theory. I know Philippa Gregory and The Tudors both presented it that way, but I think that was to give their stories a villain rather than because it has any basis in history. Anne's father from what I recall was actually pretty appalled by the whole situation at first and then just had to make his peace with it.
@@HistoryCalling I love that show but I didn't get my opinion from it. Being that fathers would use their daughters to gain status through marriage back then. That's why I feel they pushed her into the situation. Anne was engaged to another man first. But her family didn't approve of the match. So her family had a lot to do with what happened.
My husband gave me The Matrimonial Trials of Henry VIII by Henry Ansgar Kelly reprinted from The Notable Trials Library. In the introduction, Alan Dershowitz states that the rule of kings prevailed over the rule of law. After reading the legal pros and cons, I agree that their marriage fell within the gray area, not black or white.
Yes, it definitely is a grey area. You can argue its (in)validity any way you want really and have good evidence to support you.
I think it was technically legitimate in the sense that Henry said it was, and changed the law. She was also anointed. But I think if Henry hadn't thrown logic, fairness and legal precedent out of the window it would have been invalid. And I agree it was invalid after 1536 because, well, he said so. He was one of the few people who could use "because I said so" and have it be true.
Yes, I think so too even though (like you) I find it insane that any person should have that kind of power to just rewrite the rulebook.
@@HistoryCalling I think Henry was lucky he ruled just after the War of the Roses. In a more stable time I think he might have gotten the reception Richard the 2nd or John received.
I have no idea if Anne Boleyn was a wife or a mistress, but I'm sure that she truly believed that she was a wife. As for your statement about sympathy or the opposite for Henry VIII, I have to say that the only sympathy I have goes to Lady Jane Grey, who was the victim of an ambitious mother and an even more ambiitious father-in-law, who wanted to make her queen, so his own son could become king.
Oh yes, Lady Jane Grey probably deserves the most sympathy out of all the Tudors (or their extended family, as she herself wasn't actually a Tudor).
@@HistoryCalling It would have been the house of Dudley, which seems a bit odd.
Thanks for the video it was very interesting, I have no idea if it was or wasn't. Just knowing how Henry would just make up the rules as everything went along . It is mind boggling to me. I will probably never understand why people in power act the way they do.
Don't worry. It's mind boggling to a lot of people and virtually impossible to really unpick.
Anne Boleyn SHOULD be granted a posthumous LEGAL trial to consider her innocence, as there is compelling evidence for it.
Don't forget that it wasn't just Henry's ego that wanted a boy. They weren't that many years away from the civil War of the War of the cousins. And civil wars wreck a country. Fields are ripped up and there's usually famine after a war fought on your own grounds.. Of economic instability follow. So in part, maybe, Henry was also thinking about the country in wanting a male air. And let's not forget that the majority of the country would have stood behind him on that because until Mary the first there really was not a ruling queen of England.
Has Anne ever been posthumously cleared or pardoned for the alleged adultery?
No, not that I know of. Elizabeth would have been the person to do it but I don't think she did.
@@HistoryCalling yeah thought it would be here. I think I seen an online petition a few years ago for her to be pardoned and reinterned in Elizabeth’s coffin.
Great video! I think that while marriage was indeed illegitimate under Catholic law, it was valid under Henry's law at that time. In today world also exits marriages who are acknowledged by church, but not by civil offices, and civill marriages who are valid in law, but not in religious institutions.
The similiar things happened through all history - for example Mark Antony's wasn't viewed as married to Cleopatra VII under Roman law, as she wasn't Roman and he for many years was married to Roman woman. There's also no concrete evidence of wedding ceremony in Greek style, which previous kings and queens from Cleopatra's dynasty conducted. However under Egyptian law as married was considered couple who sipmply lived together and produced children - Antony lived with Cleopatra in Egypt for years and they had 3 kids together. He also seemingly referred the Queen as his wife in letter, despite still not being divorced with his Roman wife at that time. In Romans eyes, Antony was Octavia's husband until he legally divorced her, however in Egyptian eyes he divorced her in the moment he moved to Cleopatra's palace, leaving Octavia in Europe.
However in regarding to Mary's and Elizabeth's legitimacy - I think they both could be considered as legitimate. In Catholic Church law it was said (and as far I know it is still standing) that if marriage was "made in good will", then children are legitimate, even if it was anulled. That's happened with Sibylla and Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, who were both acknowledged as rightful heirs to the throne despite their parents marriage being anulled. I don't know what is standing of English Protestand Church on that matter, but as in that time Henry made the law, if he only WANTED he could repudiated both Katherine and Anne without declaring his daughters bastards. He instead made illogical and fatuous move and decide made them illegitimate - which strained his relationship with Mary and left him with no heir except Edward.
The move to make them illegitimate ultimately became redundant in result, but it wasn't completely pointless at the time. Henry was trying to manage the order of succession and prioritise the offspring of whichever marriage he considered valid at the time, anticipating more children than he eventually wound up having. Accepting Mary as legitimate on grounds that the marriage though invalid was made in good faith would have been the more sensible ruling, but would have placed her ahead of any daughters of the Boleyn marriage in the succession. Same with Elizabeth and any daughters of the Seymour marriage (Mary already having been decreed illegitimate and at the back of the queue).
@@he1626 Yes, but why favouring younger daughters over eldest one who was already educated te be future Queen? I get that he wanted protect any son born with Anne Boleyn, so declaring Mary illegitimate would protect this osn. However, after Anne's death, all next marriages were legitimate, so son would be rightful hair. Edward was heir wheter Mary was legitiate or not. And Henry as someone who wanted left someone fit to rule, should favour educated eleder daughter than potential infant baby girl with new wife.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 Viewed through an objective and less misogynistic modern eye it's all pretty stupid, but "elder and more experienced" did not trump legitimacy and the purity of bloodlines in the thinking of the day. Particularly when it came to girls who were a last resort for the throne in the first place. It's hard to think of now when few people think the legitimacy of children matters a jot, but back then it was a crucial issue. And leaving the children of those marriages legitimate also, in a way, would have served to prop up those marriages as having been made in good faith when Henry was claiming that both women had acted in bad faith (Catherine by lying about Arthur, Anne by various nefarious arts). And if the marriages were made in good faith, then his harsh treatment of the women in question suddenly looked less warranted.
@@he1626 That's very ambages logic, but seems perefctly fit with Henry! 😅😅 I think I understand now more 😉😉
The whole thing was a quagmire of power, personalities, and egos (Henry #1) Henry (and Anne) underestimated Catherine’s fortitude. Anne overestimated her pull with Henry. Their marriage was prolly legal because Henry wanted it to be. Obviously, if you’re the king, it will eventually go your way. Did anyone win in the end? History Calling, I love the way you keep me thinking! Thank you.
Thanks Amy. I don't know if anyone won, unless you want to argue that their daughter Elizabeth did, but that was decades later.
I would say England won, for a better regent than Elizabeth for England at that time is unimaginable. The financial state of the country she inherited, and the political and religious turmoil were huge challenges. Emotional baggage that left her unmarried and childless, and without clear succession aside, She towers head and shoulders above most.
@@deborahbranham-taylor6682 Well said Deborah. She does tower above others who preceded her. Her reasons for not marrying we shall never know, but we can assume, based on family history and her suitors, she didn’t feel secure enough to trust anyone with her heart or her kingdom. She kept all those reasons in her heart.
The weird thing is he didn't need to make his daughter Mary illegitimate at all, and probably not Elizabeth either. I'm hopefully not talking out of my rear end, but I believe that even if a marriage was annulled or later declared unlawful for some reason, the children were usually overlooked or considered legitimate by the church/pope?
You're absolutely right. I was just chatting about this to another commenter. It was called being born in good faith (or words to that effect) and Mary could certainly have benefitted from it had her father not been so obstinate.
The whole question of a birth being legitimate or not strikes me as irrelevant. When I was born, my birth certificate (from Cook County, Illinois) had a line stating that the birth was legitimate. At some point later on, Cook County simply removed that line from the birth certificate form and from all official copies of birth certificates (including those previously issued with the designation on them). The issue was closed as far as that county was concerned. I believe it was Philippe Aries, in his Centuries of Childhood, who pointed out that in early medieval times the issue of "legitimate marriage" was primarily a legal matter to confirm which survivors were entitled to inherit property and/or titles. He argues that marriage wasn't recognized by Christian churches until comparatively late in the Middle Ages. For me, the important point is that the English recognized first Edward, then Mary and finally Elizabeth as Tudor heirs to the throne, and then accepted James VI of Scotland as James I of England, thus maintaining order in their land. The question of having any of Henry's marriages be considered legitimate, or not, or once again legitimate, or again not, was moot as far as it concerned the Tudors. I'm content to leave it in the past. Today, there are still lots of questions about whether marriages are legal, and about who a person's legal heirs and dependents may be, but those are questions to be resolved by contemporary legal systems and the societies they serve.
Yes, I agree that what mattered was what one of my other commenters called 'the situational reality'. Edward, Mary, Elizabeth and James were accepted as monarchs, even though there were question marks over Mary and Elizabeth's legitimacy of birth and after Elizabeth the crown was meant to go to the descendants of Mary Tudor, Queen of France, not her sister Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland, but James came and took it and no one objected.
If the marriage was declated invalid in 1536, then in Sept 1533, when Elizabeth was born, it was valid under English law at the time, and therefore Elizabeth was legitimate, no? However, this does remain a very thorny question to answer.
Still loving the connect with History Hits!
Thank you :-)
I could listen to your videos all day. I love the way you present everything. Very interesting topic this week!
Id love for you to cover even more people from this time I've learned so much about places and people I didn't even know existed.
Thank you very much :-)
Very interesting discussion… I thought they were “married” but now reconsidering that it isn’t quite as easy as Henry wanted people to think
I must say, I still think of her as his wife too, even though it is a complicated situation and history certainly recognises her as his spouse and Queen, along with the rest (even though at his death, Henry would have said he'd only been married twice, to Jane and Catherine Parr).
I love your videos! I am just fascinated by the British royal history even though I’m American.
I am wondering though do you have a video of how and when the Crown passed to the Windsors? I’m not even sure what title to look for if you’ve already done one, and if you haven’t, will you? Specifically, I am wondering what ancestors lead to Elizabeth II. I know Queen Victoria was her grandmother and I’ve watched your video on Victoria but I’m wondering who is before Victoria’s uncle and when it became part of that branch of the family’s line. I think James came after Elizabeth I but then I think he died with no heirs? So I’m not sure where the crown went from there to land in the family of Windsors
James 1 had several children and was succeeded by his son Charles who led the country into a civil war. He lost and was executed. Then came Charles 2nd, who died without a legitimate heir !!! His brother James 2nd succeeded him BUT was dethroned because he was openly Roman Catholic, Eventually the Stuart line ran out of Protestant heirs , and even though there was a perfectly respectable Prince in France ( James 2nd 's son ) there was a big fat NO. So they searched amongst Stuart forebears and found a descendant of a daughter of ( l think) Charles 1st who had been married to a minor German noble family , hey ho , we end up with the merry Hanovarians who went on for ever and were not particularly wonderful. Possibly George 3rd was the only exception. He , however, was very fecund and had many, many children. His sons were a very bad lot. !!!! Eventually Victoria was heir and she married dear Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg Gotham and took his surname, Not a good look for the Royal family in 1914 so the surname Windsor was adopted. Victoria had died in1901. And that is it in a nutshell ( more or less)
I would also love a video on this!
I love reading/watching everything about the train wreck that was Henry VIII. He was such a vile person but fascinating lol
I believe wholeheartedly that the marriage between Henry and Anne was legitimate. They spent too much time not having physical love to not be legitimate. They dotted all the I’s and crossed all the T’s. I also think Elizabeth had no reason to mention her legitimacy, because she was legitimate. Why give in to those subjects that don't matter?
Very well said!
Very interesting as all your videos are. I can’t say what I believe as it’s seems a mine field of information . Makes me sure I would not have liked to be Royalty in those days lol
Thanks Jill. I wouldn't have wanted to be royalty then either (and maybe not ever!)
i consider it valid however i’m sure at the time most people didn’t believe in that view as we know. excellent work🙌🏻
Thank you :-)
I think, that while Catherine was alive, their marriage was not valid. Once Catherine died, if Henry then 'remarried' Anne, they would have been legitimate. If he didn't, then I don't think Anne was ever legally his wife, or Queen of England.
From a purely religious and moral standpoint, I wouldn't argue that. If we're just talking about the laws of England at the time, I think that's where things get more complicated as Henry could and did have those rewritten to suit him.
As a Catholic, I think it best for myself at least to hold to the Opinion that the marriage was not legitimate. In order to do this, we must establish the legality of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon's marriage. It is true that, at least under the Church's law governing marriage at the time, there was a canonical impediment to the Marriage, however, as you have stated, Julius II lawfully dispensed with the impediment. Therefore, the Marriage was legitimate until Catherine's death in 1536, as the Church's law states that a lawful marriage is indissoluble. And so, Henry VIII's "marriage" to Anne Boleyn was thus illegitimate, invalid, bigamous, and adulterous, thus making Elizabeth herself illegitimate in regard to hereditary rules or at least the Catholic Church's laws. If we want to consider British Law at all, we can refer to the Act promulgated in the 1553 Parliament, declaring Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon completely lawful and valid. But hey that's just what I think, I love how you do videos like these because I always wonder about specific topics like the legitimacy of Elizabeth I, very awesome video!
Honestly, it's messy. I Personally Believe that Catholicism is full of unnecessary rules used for Men to control the salvation of other Men. If you're catholic and you're reading this I'm sorry but that's what I believe. I myself am a protestant independant of denomonation and as such I feel like my relationship with God is direct and one on one. That being said I also believe that Just as God Created Marriage, He also Allows for Divorce unlike most views considering Sin makes a fallen world. After all Sin is the Fault of Humanity not God. God also being a loving God, he wouldn't want 2 of his children to be locked in a relationship that was broken out of sin. That Being Said, Katherine of Aragon had every right to Leave Henry initially but not the other way around. I say this because It was Henry who broke the Marriage with Katherine by taking Mistresses to try and have a son instead of sticking to Katherine and Praying for the Child he wanted and trusting God to give him the Heir England need. Katherine Did not wish to end her marriage (Being a Staunch Catholic not withstanding) therefore Even if the Marriage was over by God's Standards Katherine preferred to forgive her husband is Adulterous ways and try to make the marriage work. Henry further broke his vows (In Sickness and in Health) when Katherine fell ill and he continued to ignore her and yet she still held true to her own vows even until death. From the moment Katherine Died Henry would have been free to marry another so I'd say Once Katherine was Dead, Anne would legally be Henry's wife. As Katherine Fulfilled her Vows until the end.
My Point is it truly has nothing to do with Man's interpretation of the Bible but rather the vows taken and the status of the marriage from God's Point of view. Katherine had every right to leave after Henry broke the marriage but because she believed she needed an intercessor to tell her she could she stayed. Not only that but She didn't want to leave Henry. I think she Genuinely loved him after all he was the man that gave her Mary and made her a mother.
Anne is also innocent before God in this I think because even though she married Henry, She did not Sleep with him until after they had their Wedding. It's hard to refuse a King, so I view this as she did so only for appearances.
Now as for her Supposed Counts of Adulteries no one knows if it's true. But suppose she did do so, then She would have broken the marriage Leaving Henry free to Leave her much in the same way Katherine could have left him previously. He takes the opportunity and does leave her.
That being said Henry is creating the rules for his new Church as he goes. I think he may have felt Guilty about the way he treated Katherine but would never admit it and may have started to realize what I am Trying to Say. Marriage and Divorce are up to God Not Man and Man's rules were not God's. Killing Anne to prove a point, that was a little over the top but for the day if the Queen Slept around it was treason and treason meant death. So He Eliminated Anne and Began Fresh with Jane.
So Jane is a complicated matter. Assuming Anne was Adulterous their marriage was broken and Henry had the right to Leave her and take a new wife. This went smoothly for the most part and Henry was blessed with his son finally as a reward if you want to look at it from a religious perspective for taking his 3rd wife properly. However, the Death of Jane from that same Religious perspective could be viewed as Henry's Punishment for his behavior with the other 2 women and his Mistresses.
That being said, I believe then that Katherine's Miscarriages and Loss of the son Henry were God telling them they weren't ready to be Parents. Mary Is the Rightful Heir as she is the only child of the First marriage to live. The Children born to Henry from the Mistresses were blessings, but because of his Unfaithfulness, God Decided to close up Katherine's Womb. God Being Merciful decided to give Henry Elizabeth as a spare since Anne Decided to play Hard to Get and wouldn't let Henry sleep with her until they were married by the Laws of the land but because they were married bigamously the punishment was God took their other children. Elizabeth would not be Legitimate in God's Eyes until Katherine of Aragon was dead. After Jane's Passing, No more Children came to Henry so that was God telling him the 3 Children he had was what he had to work with.
Mary should have come to the Throne before Edward but with the Boy being preferred Edward cut in line. Elizabeth Would have come next then Edward if it were to be right.
Oh my goodness....so much information, meaning, new information! What really confuses me is the quot from the Bible saying a man may marry his brother's widow. So, did Henry not see that part? Or did he purposely over look it? And what about the men around him who were so knowledgeable about the Bible? I personally think Henry's marriage to Anne was valid, as he arranged it to be so.
No. Under the laws of the time, but secular and canon law, Henry and Catherine had the right to marry. Henry never treated Mary as anything but his valid heiress until after Anne Boleyn was on the scene. I also take a minority opinion that it is possible Anne declined to sleep with Henry unless she was his wife because she really didn't want to and thought this would be an impossible thing to happen. I'm sure she had gotten the inside story fro her sister Mary, and might not have been interested at all She might have actually been in love with young Percy. But the King wanted to pay court to her, and what was she going to do? Play along.
Then Henry finds that verse in Leviticus, and twists it to his own purpose, because he is besotted with Anne. That is very clear, but how she actually felt about him is not as clear.
I'm not going to argue either side of the question of Thomas Cranmer having the authority to overturn the Pope when he was Archbishop of Canterbury in 1536. But he was the most senior prelate in England t the time, so his word was canon law, at least at the de facto level. Should it have been? Different conversation. But first Cranmer declares the marriage to Anne Boleyn was invalid, which makes her not Henry's wife, and not Henry's Queen, and therefore, killable. And she has to be dead before he marries Jane. Henry's next marriage had to be unquestionably valid.
So, if Catherine and Henry's marriage was valid, and since Catherine was still alive when the marriage between Henry and Anne took place, then the marriage between Henry and Anne was never valid, and Elizabeth was illegitimate. And if Henry's marriage to Catherine was not valid, it didn't matter that she was still alive at the time he married Anne, and that marriage was valid *until* Cranmer retroactively invalidated it, making the marriage altogether null and void, as well as the coronation, and once again, Elizabeth is illegitimate. I'm sure Elizabeth was as capable of doing that math as anyone. But her father had decided to put her on the throne, and Parliament had ratified the idea into law.
By not marrying and not having children, Elizabeth avoided creating another line of "Beauforts," and put the line of succession in the hands of a ruling king who had multiple English kings in his pedigree, as well as living children who would step into the line of succession after him. It was brilliant.
When you have to break with a church and create a new form of legal interpretive gymnastics to get what you want... that says it all.
I think Elizabeth I was an amazing person & Queen... but her mother's marriage was not valid. Still... she was the daughter of a King... and a good & best choice for the role.
Had Henry lived a few (or even a couple) centuries later, the whole question might not ever have come up in the first place. He might not have been so fixated on having a male heir that he'd have felt the "need" to put Catherine aside for Anne; he could have been just as contented to leave the throne to Mary as George VI was to leave it to his daughter Elizabeth II. Without the stresses and traumas caused in her youth by "the King's great matter", and possibly having the opportunity to marry much earlier in her life, Mary could have been a much different kind of queen and had a much different kind of reign. (And Anne Boleyn could have married anyone she pleased and lived out her full lifespan.)
Catherine of Aragon was alive until about 4.5 months before Anne's death. Catherine was an amazing Queen concert and Henry loved her in the beginning. She miscarried quite a few children including a few that were guaranteed to be male. No one really thinks he would have left her had she given birth to a male child who survived the one son who did survive lived only about 6 weeks. Henry was just looking for excuses because his father had told him that the dynasty was new and he really need to shore it up with guaranteed legitimate male heirs. Catherine was his legitimate wife, and she had the dispensation, and she was actually a widow when he married her. She promised and swore before God that she had not consummated the marriage with his brother. I don't know how that would have really made a big difference but they added dispensation for it anyway. But she was legally a widow at that point when she married him. It was his true wife for as long as she lived and therefore I don't see how the blind marriage could be legitimate at all under any circumstances. The only thing was that Henry made up his own rules as he went but that doesn't make it real. He wasn't an absolute monarch There are rules in England and he just tried to circumvent them.
Catherine of Aragon was the true Queen of England until her death in January of 1536. She was the only Queen and true wife of Henry during that time, so therefore I see no legitimacy in the Bolyn marriage. Said, I have no reason to believe that Elizabeth was not his daughter I think she was his true daughter, but the marriage of her parents was not valid
Despite all his shenanigans, Henry's marriage to Catherine had been valid. Therefore, he committed a bigamy and Elizabeth must be regarded as illegitimate.
This is a most interesting question. Probably at the time it was considered valid because Henry made it valid through Parlimentary act until as you say it was not. Of course the Tudors themselves were not legitimate either since that branch of their family had been forbidden from the line of succession. So Henry VII was king through conquest and that is why both Henry's always worried about other more legitimate claimants to their thrones and made sure they were eliminated. I truly enjoy your history discussions.
Invalid and Elizabeth I illegitimate. But no matter as James 1st picked up legitimate bloodline.
According to the facts/truth/God, and given that Henry was clearly not a Biblical monogamist nor was a Biblical polygamist, by that - she was illegitimate. Yet she went on to take the throne and unintentionally punish both her parents and herself for their adultery and infidelty. Anne would have been wise to never marry Henry, but she did not. Elizabeth would been wise to never get involved with a married man but she did not. Henry would have been wise to remain faithful in his marriage but he did not. Mary and Catherine of Aragon would have been wise to never marry younger guys and to leave a branch of false Christianity aka synagogue of Satan called Roman/Catholicism, but sadly they did not. They all suffered for their bad choices and for disobeying the actual Bible, and instead relying on false churches, false teachers, and false prophets. Plus Henry also interferes with Percy and Anne’s love. You also omit the Bible passages which mention that one can decide to remain single or not. You have to take the entire Bible into account, not cherry pick what serves you.
Is there any way to increase the audio level in your videos? Even at maximum volume I have trouble hearing you. Also, would it be too time-consuming to mention one of your favorite books about the subject of the video? I've read Eric Ives biography of Mary, but I wasn't aware he had written one about Anne. I'll definitely check that one out. As always, thanks for the video.
Hmm, I think you've mentioned the audio issue before but I'm always a bit stumped by it. The video was recorded on the same microphone and computer as always and the sound levels always seem fine on my end (and I've checked them on multiple devices after the videos have gone live). In addition, I use software called Audacity to record the audios and it shows the soundwaves upon recording. Again, everything looks grand on my end. The soundwaves even occasionally stray into the amber zone, meaning they're actually getting a little too loud. I'm not sure what to tell you I'm afraid. :-( Regarding the books, I can be a bit more helpful. I think the best book on Anne Boleyn is undoubtedly Eric Ives, but if you want a book on all 6 wives, I would go for either David Starkey's or Antonia Fraser's. I'm afraid I have to say that I would personally steer clear of Alison Weir as I've found so many errors in her work, but that's just my opinion.
@@HistoryCalling I appreciate all the work that you've done looking into the sound issue.
@@HistoryCalling re Alison Weir AND Antonia Fraser, when I was at university in the first year of my history degree, we were asked by our tutor who was our favourite historian. I said I didn't have a favourite but I had two least favourites: Alison Weir and Antonia Fraser. My tutor nodded and replied "I'd agree with that." I would say Alison Weir is unscholarly. By way of example, she wrote that the fact that Richard III wrote a prayer asking for forgiveness for his sins PROVED that he had murdered his nephews. As another of my tutors said "So everyone in Europe murdered the princes in the Tower!"
Great review, Ty. I'm still on the fence about Tudor legitimacy of marriage(s) and births. I believe that QEI was a legitimate sovereign, by virtue of her coronation and that HVIII's use of "judicial murder" was a terrible breach of law and morals. I appreciate you making me re-think about all this.
We don´t know who Lambert Simnel really was, he could be a Monarch after the Dublin coronation.
I would also call it an opinion when you said a coronation does not make someone a queen or king. Henry's last three wives were never even proclaimed queen. They didn't officially have the title. Just because a pretender had himself crowned doesn't take away from the significance of the ceremony.
I feel like if she was born legitimate, then she would stay legitimate. I guess a ‘grandfathered in’ clause?Modern thinking tho.
Honestly, you can absolutely argue it either way. Although I came down on the side of legitimate until 1536 and illegitimate after that, it's such a mess that you can claim legitimacy the whole way through.
All the books I"ve read about Anne and Henry indicate that Anne wouldn't "bed" Henry until she could be a legitimate wife, indicating marriage. In my mind, she was properly betrothed (and this indicated a contract for the vows that would take place at a later date) and maybe this was enough for her to become Henry's wife in the Biblical sense. I guess this is why she was "with child" when she married Henry.
What if Anne HAD give birth to the needed male heir and gave Elizabeth a baby brother, along with another girl with him (twins, in other words)?
That boy would have been King and the whole discussion would be moot :-)
If Henry and Anne’s wedding date is traditionally accepted to be 25 January, and Elizabeth 1 was born 7 Sept, then Anne would not have been 2.5 months pregnant at the wedding. The child would have been conceived around 14 December.
I believe that the marriage became legitimate on the day of Catherine of Aragon's death. Henry became a widower. But ELIZABETH was not legit, because she was born before.
It wasn't legitimate after Catherine's death if Henry and Anne didn't have another wedding ceremony.
That's the importance of being King. You get to make the rules throw them out when they no longer suit you and run to them to justify following them and breaking them.
By the standards of the day I'd have say they were not married. The problem is the concept of "divorce" did not exist. But I think it's fair to say Henry changed the standard.
But in Henry's mind they must have been married or else she could not be convicted of adultery and treason if they were not married.
The concept of divorce may or may not have existed, but none of Henry's wives was divorced. Catherine,'s Anne Boleyn's. and Anne of Cleve's marriages were all annulled, meaning they had never in fact existed (at least according to Henry). (Which makes a nonsense of Anne B's trial for adultery.) Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard's marriages ended with their deaths, and Catherine Parr's, with Henry's. Annulment existed within the Catholic Church, and was familiar in concept, thought all Henry's annulments came after the break with Rome.
All of what you said was true. But not my point. The point remains that legally, you can't commit adultery if the marriage never existed.
It's a catch 22. The fact that they convicted her of adultery means they were married and defeated the idea of an annulment.
@@williethomas5116 Logically, you are perfectly right. But at the time it didn't matter, because the status of marriage in law was what the king said it was, even if it made no sense at all.
The truth that all the legalities of a marriages of Henry VIII. If it was what Henry wanted and that was all. All the other stuff is pure dressing
I view the Boleyn marriage as invalid. One authority cannot annul a marriage that took place under a different authority, therefore Henry was still married to Catherine who was still alive when he married Anne. The Boleyn marriage was bigamous and as they never remarried after Catherine’s death, Elizabeth remained illegitimate
Ah, now that's an interesting way to look at it because I think you're correct about not being able to annul a marriage that was legal under another authority. Marriages of under 16s which took place in countries where that is legal are still (to the best of my knowledge) valid in countries like the UK where you can't marry under 16. Of course you can still argue that Henry made it legal in England to undo any marriage, no matter where/when it had occurred, but nevertheless, as I said it's an interesting perspective.
I believe that any of Henry's marriages were invalid so long as Catherine of Aragon lived. First, let me be clear that I'm Catholic and very strongly believe the Catholic Church is the one true church of God.
Henry tried to pick and choose just what he wanted. He was the king and whatever he said was the truth. Henry followed Leviticus and, despite Catherine's affirmation that she had never slept with Arthur, Henry didn't believe it because it didn't fit with what he wanted. Henry ignored Deuteronomy as if it didn't exist. Had Catherine actually consummated her marriage with Arthur, then Deuteronomy clearly states that it was Henry's responsibility and duty to marry Catherine. Part of that states that their first son would be considered the son of Arthur. Perhaps Henry did not like that proviso. The long and short of the matter is, if they were following the Bible, the marriage to Catherine was fully valid and could not be broken. This makes the marriage to Anne null and void. BTW, there is something else that never seems to be mentioned. Shouldn't Catherine have still been virgin at the time her marriage with Henry was consummated? If so, wouldn't there have been evidence on the sheets?
From a religious point of view (particularly the Catholic religion) and from my own moral standpoint, I'm with you. From a purely legal standpoint, bearing in mind that Henry could have the laws of his country rewritten to suit him, I think it's a real mess and much more complex. Regarding the bedsheets, the idea that there's always going to be evidence of a woman's virginity on the bedsheets is actually a bit of an old wives' tale as it doesn't always happen that way. That's why there's such an uproar in much of the world today against the practice of 'virginity tests' still used in some cultures, as they're completely unreliable. I think there are other videos on UA-cam by medical doctors which explain it all much better than I can.
Tudor history is so fascinating.
He acknowledged all of his children, aside from Fitzroy, and wrote the succession list to provide for who was going to rule. Going by today's standards, Elizabeth was born in wedlock, but hey, divorce no longer carries the stigma that it once did. Henry was really a spoiled brat when it came to having his own way in everything. I have to wonder how badly he'd blow his top had he known that it's the male genetic material that decides the gender of a child... I laugh thinking about what his reaction would have been. 😂😂
He acknowledged Fitzroy too. Acknowledge just means "Yup, he/she is mine, whether legitimate or not." He deemed Mary, Elizabeth, and Fitzroy bastards. Edward, was from his somewhat warped point of view, his only legitimate offspring.
Marriage was valid because Henry made the rules
Henry's wives' revenge was that after his one son that he killed for died, there were eight women heirs to the throne- not one single male.
Wouldn't Lord Darnley be an exception?
First of all: thanks again for another Anne Video. You made my day. I don't know if the marriage was valid but i really hope so👸🤴👑👰🤵🏰💒🎩💍
You're most welcome. Thank you for watching and commenting :-)
@@HistoryCalling You teach us all a lot in a nice and interesting way - l look forward to your Video every week
Very intriguing. The tutors were a complicated family. Having Henry take a fancy to u was never a good idea.
i mean, Elizabeth is as legitimate as Mary.
IMO, no his marriage to Anne wasn’t legal. Just because he gave himself the power to manipulate and change the rules doesn’t mean that it was right or ‘legal’. Horrible man.
Ah, but (just to play devil's advocate for a minute) is there not a difference between what's 'right' and what's legal? Lots of people are against the death penalty for instance, but while it's illegal in the UK, it's legal in parts of the USA, even though many people in that country would say it's not right. It can be hard sometimes to separate out the difference between these two terms, especially as people's definitions of 'right' vary from person to person. I'm totally with you though on the fact that Henry, especially in his final decade or so, was a really horrible individual.
I really enjoy the footage and photos you've taken, but the ones where the portraits move are super strange to me, as the faces aren't really 3D
I mean, it depends. By modern standards, no questions she was both a wife and a mistress at SOME point. But by historical standards, Catholic standards, she was a mistress and illegitimate UNTIL Catherine passed. Popularity with the people, both in England and over seas, seemed to change. And Henry's opinion also changed the legitimacy of the marriage. But IMO, which isn't fact, Catherine was the legitimate wife AT THE TIME until she passed. At which point, Anne was naturally the legitimate wife. Only because of the culture and the popular opinion at the time.
Yes, it's very hard to separate out our modern standards and the standards of the day, when Henry could just chop and change the law (and his wives!) when he felt like it. While I personally think that Henry ensured the Boleyn marriage was legal while it lasted, I struggle to see it as right by religious or moral standards.
@@HistoryCalling For sure! But it's interesting to note that there was never a point in their marriage when question wasn't raised. He was challenging popular culture. So by todays standard, they were immediately husband and wife. Historically, it's a bit more tricky. Henry isn't the most...consistent either. xD
NO THAT MARRIAGE WAS VALID....period. Henry was just flat out crazy!!!!
😄
I love your channel. I can't wait to see new videos and sometimes watch you for hours thanks for all your hard work and giving us such good content
Wait this is an interesting question you know how Elizabeth the 1 was illegitimate in people’s eyes because Henry the 8 first wife Cathrine of Aragon was still alive when Elizabeth the 1 was born if Henry the 8 sent Anne Boleyn away and let her live could their be people having her back and call Edward the 6 illegitimate or would Anne Boleyn be hated and since she was no were near as powerful like Cathrine of Aragon or beloved by the people would it be impossible for Anne Boleyn to fight for Elizabeth the 1 claim for example maybe asking his other future wives like Anne of cleves Cathrine Howard and Cathrine Parr maybe they might help Anne Boleyn to back Elizabeth claim or during Edwards reign is it possible that both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard could try and replace the next successor Mary the 1 with Elizabeth the 1 instead of Lady Jane Grey in your opinion thanks
Had Anne still been alive when Edward was born, I think that would have cast a pall over his legitimacy. I still don't think Anne or anyone else could have displaced Edward and/or Mary in favour of Elizabeth though given that Edward's gender was preferred and Mary's seniority was preferred.
Well, I'm Catholic so...not valid. He married under the Church's rules for life. He knew what he was doing and did so willingly.
That's a totally valid argument and I don't think he had a real reason to annul that union either. He only managed to do so (legally, though probably not religiously/morally) by basically moving the goal posts in England and altering the status quo to suit his own needs.