Location: Queen Katherine of Aragon

Discussion: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?Reported This is a featured thread

Showing 41 - 55 of 55  |  Show  posts at a time
Previous | 1 2 3
angelosdaughter
angelosdaughter
40. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
May 26 2008, 6:57 PM EDT | Post edited: May 26 2008, 6:57 PM EDT
"angelosdaughter, spot on. There wasn't such a thing as a "battered woman" 500 years ago. Husbands could and did hit and beat their wives and children. Husbands/fathers could do anything they darn well wanted to do. Women became "liberated" in the 1970s. Elizabeth Tudor grew up to be one of the greatest leaders of all time and she was considered unfeminine and unnatural. She seemed to fear marriage and who could blame her? She knew what happened to her mother as well as well as to all of her father's wives. She would have no one as her master. She also had the example of her sister, Mary, who married Philip of Spain and lost the respect of her realm because she allowed him (or had no choice) to bring the Inquisition to England. Elizabeth would not marry a foreign prince who would try to rule her as well as England, AND lose the love of her people. Women were chattels and used. Period. There were rare men, like Thomas More, who might have truly loved their wives and accorded them respect.. It was most uncommon. You wouldn't have wanted to live then; don't romanticize it or judge people according to 21st century values. If this world survives, we'll look pretty darn primitive in 500 years, too."
You've hit the nail right on the head again wexcat!
The world was a dangerous place for women and we still have a way to go. Some of the younger women don't have any idea how bad it could be before feminism took off in the '70s. Eventually men and women will hopefully come to a place where they respect each other regardless of gender because in the end we are all human beings.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
lettice
lettice
41. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
May 27 2008, 9:06 AM EDT | Post edited: May 27 2008, 9:06 AM EDT
I agree with both of you, angelosdaughter and wexcat.
That's why I admire Elizabeth I. The lady was centuries ahead of her time.
We are still looking for true equality, but have to accept the good and (some bad) of it.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

malianash
42. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Oct 22 2008, 3:31 PM EDT | Post edited: Oct 22 2008, 3:31 PM EDT
Those who doubt a couple can sleep in the same bed and not consumate the marriage needs to read Marie Antoinette. It is well known that her marriage to Louis was not consumated until 7 YEARS after her marriage and she was "officially" handed over at the same age of 15, making her a virgin until she was 22! 2  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    

offwithherhead
43. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Oct 22 2008, 5:14 PM EDT | Post edited: Oct 22 2008, 5:14 PM EDT
"Those who doubt a couple can sleep in the same bed and not consumate the marriage needs to read Marie Antoinette. It is well known that her marriage to Louis was not consumated until 7 YEARS after her marriage and she was "officially" handed over at the same age of 15, making her a virgin until she was 22! "
Very good point malianash!!
1  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
catherineofaragon
catherineofaragon
44. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Feb 21 2009, 9:18 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 21 2009, 9:18 AM EST
i think that she was a virgin when she came to henry's bed.she was untill she was 22 when she married henry and on there honeymoon or after the wedding that is when she lost her virginty to someone 6 yrs younger then her.which i think is a little strange.....no afence......catherineofaragon 0  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
angelosdaughter
angelosdaughter
45. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Feb 21 2009, 7:27 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 21 2009, 7:27 PM EST
"i think that she was a virgin when she came to henry's bed.she was untill she was 22 when she married henry and on there honeymoon or after the wedding that is when she lost her virginty to someone 6 yrs younger then her.which i think is a little strange.....no afence......catherineofaragon"
...It's not that strange; age difference was not really a consideration when making an advantageous match, and Henry's and Katharine's age difference was not that great.
Eleanor of Aquitaine was 11 years older than Henry II. Usually, though, it was the man who was way older. Henry VIII was 30 years older than Katherine Howard. Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, was 35 years older than his 14-year-old ward, Catherine Willoughby when he married her. Now for me being that young and losing one's virginity to a man that much older is truly strange.
Do you find this valuable?    

malianash
46. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Feb 22 2009, 8:59 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 22 2009, 8:59 AM EST
Angelosdaughter...you bring up an even more valid reason to believe that Katherine of Aragon was a virgin at Henry's bed. In those times, age was never a factor, power was. Like Eleanor of Aquintaine, richest heiress in her time, a daughter of the most powerful nation Spain could be older than her husband. The spouse's first "duty" would be to cement a dynasty on his/her powerful spouse; and IF Arthur had not been ill I would have seriously doubted her virginity. But we know he was extremely ill, with not just a healthy father and a healthy brother able to continue on that he couldn't do it. 0  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
thekombatbarbie
thekombatbarbie
47. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Feb 22 2009, 11:55 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 22 2009, 11:55 AM EST
Whether she was a virgin or not , I am sure there was one memory burning in her mind as she stood on trial. She had spent 9 long years begging for alms from her father in law and being treated so horribly for so long. In her mind she was DETERMINED to refuse that life again. Also, she was in no way going to let her daughter live the same fate. Not if she had any control! 0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
hohumpigsbum
hohumpigsbum
48. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Feb 23 2009, 8:11 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2009, 8:11 AM EST
"It's impossible to tell.

On one hand, it seems very strange that the marriage wouldn't be consummated, since it could be annulled if it wasn't - surely both sets of parents would want the deal sealed. Arthur's words after the wedding night would indicate that it was consummated. Katherine never mentioned anything about it not being consummated at the time. There is no record of any of the witnesses saying that it wasn't consummated. After Arthur's death, Katherine was watched for signs of pregnancy. On the other hand, would Katherine be prepared to lie?

It’s possible that she would have felt under pressure to lie; she would have been raised to believe that it was her destiny to be Queen of England and to tie her new country to Spain. If she did, I’d sympathize with her. Once she lied, she wouldn’t be able to take it back, especially after Mary was born. If her first marriage had been consummated, then she wouldn’t have been able to admit it without disinheriting Mary and branding her a bastard, since she wouldn’t be able to argue good faith.

Would Katherine have been prepared to lie and to stick to that lie for her daughter’s sake?"
Actually both sets of parents agreeded they didnt want the marriage consumated until they were both older
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
juliana-angela
juliana-angela
49. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Feb 23 2009, 10:22 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2009, 10:22 AM EST
"...It's not that strange; age difference was not really a consideration when making an advantageous match, and Henry's and Katharine's age difference was not that great.
Eleanor of Aquitaine was 11 years older than Henry II. Usually, though, it was the man who was way older. Henry VIII was 30 years older than Katherine Howard. Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, was 35 years older than his 14-year-old ward, Catherine Willoughby when he married her. Now for me being that young and losing one's virginity to a man that much older is truly strange. "
You're right, marriages in which the woman was older than the man were far from uncommon and often produced children. Eleanor and Henry had plenty of children - possibly too many, as the sons rebelled against their father and fought amongst themselves. Katharine's own family history provides several examples. Her grandfather John was 12 years younger than his first wife and they had three children who lived to adulthood. Her great-grandather Ferdinand 1 of Aragon was married at fifteen to the twenty-one year old heiress Eleanor of Alberquerque. They had five sons and two daughters, and she outlived him by 19 years.
Do you find this valuable?    
Dagney
Dagney
50. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Feb 24 2009, 1:02 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 24 2009, 1:02 AM EST
In my opinion KOA could be a virging when she married Arthur.But from other hand - would the young boy resist the girl, which he could make love with officially?I think that virginity of KOA will be never guessed. 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
angelosdaughter
angelosdaughter
51. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Feb 24 2009, 3:19 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 24 2009, 3:19 AM EST
"In my opinion KOA could be a virging when she married Arthur.But from other hand - would the young boy resist the girl, which he could make love with officially?I think that virginity of KOA will be never guessed."
KOA was a virgin when she married Arthur. The marriage was not consummated because Arthur was young and sickly. Henry never publicly denied that Katharine was a virgin when he married her, and she maintained that she was a virgin when her father King Ferdinand would have preferred to believe that the marriage with Arthur had been consummated (so that the support of Kathareine, his widow, would be the responsibilty of her father-in-law, Henry VII), and of course later, when Henry VIII called the validity of his marriage with her into question because she was his brother's wife. Katharine maintained that she had never been his brother's wife because her marriage with Arthur was never consummated. Of course no one can ever know for sure, but since she maintained that she was a virgin after Arthur's death when it was not what her father wanted to hear, it is more probable that she did come to Henry VIII a virgin bride and had never been his brother's wife.
0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

England_Monarch
52. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Dec 6 2010, 3:01 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 8 2010, 6:55 AM EST
"Well all i can say is ANY woman that would accept the Disgrace that she did in front of her face has got to be a FOOL!The way Henry demeanored her and humiliated Kat was crazy ,he flaunted his woman in her face he even took HER CHILD away from her he tried everything he could to get rid of her so he could be with Mistress Anne even took her jewels andeventually got rid of her.She still sitting back talking about but I Love Him Now that sounds like a BATTERED BROAD to me!All i can say girls is let one of men try it and They butt will be BEHEADED and im not talking about the head on their shoulders!LOL. D ING DONG Lorraina Bobbit just stepped in LOL"


What was her point in court bringing it up in the first place?
If it was to try to stop the divorce/annulment
Suppose you want a divorce/annulment from your spouse, for whatever reason. how would you like it if your spouse claimed they were a virgin in the hope that you could not end the marriage and you could possibly be stuck in an unhappy marriage?

If the Church didn't make things (divorce) so impossibly hard, Then I believe people would suffer less.
As far as the Church goes, it seems to me they prefer cheating to divorce. It's ridiculous. I think cheating and or constantly hurting someone is the sin, not divorce.
I don't understand the concept on feeling disgraced or humiliated by a divorce. I'd feel disgraced and humiliated by my husband having affairs/cheating on me and by my accepting it. Why would anyone want that. I can't help it, I have to wonder if, as some people have said "she only cared about being Queen." But I still feel sorry for her.
1  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
juliana-angela
juliana-angela
53. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Dec 7 2010, 7:28 AM EST | Post edited: Dec 7 2010, 7:28 AM EST
Yes, it was to stop the marriage being annulled, because an annulment then meant that she had never been Henry's wife. Katherine was not prepared to accept this because, in her view, she had been Henry's loyal wife for twenty years and had borne him children, even though only one of them had survived.

As was said in previous posts on this thread, adultery wasn't seen in the same light in the sixteenth century as it is now. It was accepted that men would have mistresses, especially when their wives were pregnant, and some women were even able to take lovers discreetly after producing heirs.

It was very rare for couples to have their marriages dissolved (usually on the grounds of consanguinity or because of non-consummation). Whether the couple were happy together or not wasn't a consideration - in such situations, royal and noble couples might quietly separate, but they would stay married. Right up until the mid-nineteenth century in England, divorce required an Act of Parliament, which only the very wealthy and powerful could afford.
Do you find this valuable?    

England_Monarch
54. RE: Katherine of Aragon - was she really innocent?
Dec 8 2010, 7:00 AM EST | Post edited: Dec 8 2010, 7:00 AM EST
""That's why I admire Elizabeth I. The lady was centuries ahead of her time."
"
So was her mother Anne Boleyn.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Previous | 1 2 3