Do you view the Boleyn marriage as valid and why?

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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).

@tasanijanus7092

Жыл бұрын

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.

@tasanijanus7092

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@kimberli8225

Жыл бұрын

He was a bigamist. At the time of his marriage t o Katherine

@kimberli8225

Жыл бұрын

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

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

I've always really liked that too :-)

@JamieZimm

Жыл бұрын

Yes!!! It’s perfect.

@charlottepeukert9095

Жыл бұрын

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.

@catherineroper5087

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@charlottepeukert9095

Жыл бұрын

@@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!

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

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

@annmoore6678

Жыл бұрын

I agree that power resides where men and women accept that it resides.

@timefoolery

Жыл бұрын

Indeed, this is ultimately the truth of it. Whatever Henry wanted, Henry got.

@morriganwitch

Жыл бұрын

@@annmoore6678 never a truer word was said xxx

@juliancain3872

3 ай бұрын

​​@@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.

"He'd made his bed, and for the next 3 years, Anne would lie in it." Brilliant!

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Thank you :-)

Welcome to Marriage in the Old Days: the show where the rules are all made up and the points don't matter!

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Yup, that about sums it up :-(

@desubysnusnu

4 ай бұрын

Marriage as a whole are all made up

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

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

@egyptianmystery

Жыл бұрын

I agree.

@anitat9727

Жыл бұрын

Ironically Catherine died early 1536 before Henry married Jane. So only Anne was a mistress

@Zadir09

Жыл бұрын

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.

@elizabethwoolnough4358

2 ай бұрын

​@@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 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.

@jehannedarc1429

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

You’re killing me with the portrait animations. They’re just too creepy and disturbing.

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

@elizabethwoolnough4358

2 ай бұрын

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 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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it certainly was a scandal. I don't know if we have anything today we could quite compare it to.

@cherylk.2474

11 ай бұрын

@@HistoryCalling It's possible someone is trying,,,,

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

@edithengel2284

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@suellensheppard9734

3 ай бұрын

She didn’t want to be beheaded😢

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.

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 😂

@he1626

Жыл бұрын

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

@gracetailor8811

2 ай бұрын

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.

@elizabethwoolnough4358

2 ай бұрын

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.

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

@maryloumawson6006

Жыл бұрын

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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 :-)

@VeneficusPlantaGenista

Жыл бұрын

@@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 🙂

@princessoffire1107

Жыл бұрын

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.

@he1626

Жыл бұрын

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)

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!

@cassia-andor6445

Жыл бұрын

What was the decision in the mock court you watched?

@gospelaccordingtojohn8959

Жыл бұрын

@@cassia-andor6445, they determined that Richard was innocent, because there wasn’t enough hard evidence.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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).

@spookycat8556

Жыл бұрын

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.

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

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

@elizabethwoolnough4358

2 ай бұрын

​@@HistoryCallingwho do you think was the worst English or British monarch in our history? My money is on Henry VI.

@edithengel2284

Ай бұрын

@@elizabethwoolnough4358 King John

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.

@tracyhodgkins7516

Жыл бұрын

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.

@jonniemckaig883

Жыл бұрын

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...

@he1626

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@alicehammond7622

9 ай бұрын

I imagine he would’ve had Catherine executed too if he could’ve, but her family was too powerful for him to do that

Thank you so much for all your great videos! I would have loved you as my history teacher!

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

AND THANK YOU SO MUCH for such a generous donation to the channel. I'm glad you're enjoying the content :-)

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

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

As ever, a well researched video with well argued conclusions. Splendid!

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much :-)

Great history video I enjoyed it can't wait to see more soon. Your videos are always enjoyable and relaxing have a great day see you next video greetings from Canada 😀

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much :-)

I love this channel so much!! 🥰🥰👏🏽👏🏽

Still loving the connect with History Hits!

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Thank you :-)

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 don’t believe Edward thought Elizabeth shouldn’t be queen, but just that there was no simple way to skip Mary

@carinafourie9119

Жыл бұрын

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.

@edithengel2284

Жыл бұрын

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.

Thannk you.

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. 🙂

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

Good evening to history calling

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Hi Bea :-)

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.

Thanks!

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

THANK YOU SHAWN for so kindly supporting the channel. I hope you liked hearing about whether Henry and Anne were really married or not.

Amazing vid .

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it :-)

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

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like a fair deal to me :-)

@heatherordonez1490

Жыл бұрын

That's awesome 🙂

@savagedarksider5934

Жыл бұрын

@@heatherordonez1490 Yup. He loves his cousins but Elizabeth of York is his favorite one; he will bite anyone who tries to mess with her.

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

Very interesting discussion… I thought they were “married” but now reconsidering that it isn’t quite as easy as Henry wanted people to think

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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).

History ❤❤

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Laurie :-) I certainly hope he regretted it too.

@catherineball5071

Жыл бұрын

I think you're being far too kind to Henry. He was a total narcissist and incapable of feeling remorse for anything he did.

@lauriealexander5857

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

@elizabethwoolnough4358

2 ай бұрын

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.

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

@jldisme

Жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling I appreciate all the work that you've done looking into the sound issue.

@elizabethwoolnough4358

Ай бұрын

@@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!"

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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).

@edithengel2284

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Don't worry. It's mind boggling to a lot of people and virtually impossible to really unpick.

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

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Jill. I wouldn't have wanted to be royalty then either (and maybe not ever!)

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

@lavendersunsets7066

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

@MazMedazzaland

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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?

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

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

@ruthbeamish8849

Жыл бұрын

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)

@rhythmandblues_alibi

Жыл бұрын

I would also love a video on this!

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!

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

Tudor history is so fascinating.

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Cate7451

Жыл бұрын

Anne was crowned Queen

It's so necessary to remember the importance of the context of the times one is looking at. Reading some of the comments on docs like this, here's what I find "bonkers": people who apply modern society's mores to history.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

I understand what you mean, but I also understand that it's very difficult for people to completely switch off the modern standards which are so ingrained in all of our brains.

Very intriguing. The tutors were a complicated family. Having Henry take a fancy to u was never a good idea.

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Amy. I don't know if anyone won, unless you want to argue that their daughter Elizabeth did, but that was decades later.

@deborahbranham-taylor6682

Жыл бұрын

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.

@amymahers2957

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

Has Anne ever been posthumously cleared or pardoned for the alleged adultery?

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

No, not that I know of. Elizabeth would have been the person to do it but I don't think she did.

@markdoyle4935

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

Anne Boleyn SHOULD be granted a posthumous LEGAL trial to consider her innocence, as there is compelling evidence for it.

i consider it valid however i’m sure at the time most people didn’t believe in that view as we know. excellent work🙌🏻

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Thank you :-)

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.

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

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👸🤴👑👰🤵🏰💒🎩💍

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

You're most welcome. Thank you for watching and commenting :-)

@namaschu2126

Жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling You teach us all a lot in a nice and interesting way - l look forward to your Video every week

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.

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.

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.

Great content. In royal's history has there been a story such as Harry and Megan today? After the Oprah interview.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson probably come the closest I think.

@woodenbeast9337

Жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling thanks

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.

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.

Legitimate or not she is still to this day one of the best most capable monarchs England has ever had. She was a bloody rockstar

@jehannedarc1429

Жыл бұрын

So well said!!!

"messy ways...." Lol

Henry's acknowledgement of Henry Fitzroy indicates to me that Elizabeth's legitimacy wasn't a major barrier in the succession, particularly given that she was third in line

To answer your question-Yes. I view Boleyn's marriage valid. I got A question for you did you know: There were plans to marry John, prince of asturias and girona with princess Catherine of york ?

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

I didn't, no, though to be fair, I don't know who John of Asturias was :-)

@savagedarksider5934

Жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling He is the only legitimate brother of Catherine of Aragon.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Ah, of course. When I think of her siblings I usually get distracted by Joanna the Mad :-)

@savagedarksider5934

Жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling Sweet Joanna wasn't mad.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

I agree actually, that she may not have been. It's just a name that has stuck to her.

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.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

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).

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.)

History calling I think I did ask about you making a Disney Princess video but I think you said no and I think I asked you on your favourite Disney Princess films which I think were Frozen The Little Mermaid and Sleeping Beauty I also think I spoke to you about making a video on Pocahontas but you said unfortunately you didn’t have enough information or know much about her I was going to ask would you ever make a Disney Princess video on their dresses and saying how historically accurate are their dress in their film era and if all 14 Disney Princesses are wearing accurate dresses that would be an interesting one but I understand if you say no I don’t know if Disney would like that lol but loved this video I knew you from the start of your channel I think from the Romanov video 😂

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Dress history isn't my forte, but I'll certainly think about it :-)

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.

@he1626

Жыл бұрын

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).

@pendragonsxskywalkers9518

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@he1626

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@pendragonsxskywalkers9518

Жыл бұрын

@@he1626 That's very ambages logic, but seems perefctly fit with Henry! 😅😅 I think I understand now more 😉😉

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 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?

@jehannedarc1429

Жыл бұрын

Very well said!

Since it’s getting close to Halloween/ Samhain are there any interesting or “spooky”/macabre snippets or tales from history that you could share with us?

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.

Personaly I agree with you HC, but as you say it's been debated over many centuries, many people will have their own views if the marriage was legal or not, all that said Ann was one of my favourite queen's along with Queen bess,

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it's one of those issues that will never be settled, but that's ok. It's makes for a great discussion :-)

@simon112

Жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling agreed HC, it's what makes History a great subject, Thank you as always have a great week oh keep learning HC. 😊😊

Excellent video as always. I don't consider any marriage Henry VIII made as the so-called Head of The Church of England (or In England as he originally claimed) to be valid, and therefore I don't consider any of his children other than Mary to be legitimate, but Elizabeth I turned out to be one of the greatest monarchs that England ever had, so the whole issue of legitimacy becomes moot.

I do, 7 years of hard work and turning the world upside down, but equally I understand all those who don't. Guess the Jury's out, still.

What we think or don't think, believe or don't believe about this matter is irrelevant at this stage. Further discussion usually just reveals those who feel their 'side' was cheated in some way.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

It is irrelevant in many ways, but the debate is fun :-)

It's like the Treaty of Utrecht and figuring out who should be the king of France

I love reading/watching everything about the train wreck that was Henry VIII. He was such a vile person but fascinating lol

We don´t know who Lambert Simnel really was, he could be a Monarch after the Dublin coronation.

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.

@edithengel2284

Ай бұрын

Wouldn't Lord Darnley be an exception?

♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️

Thank you for another excellent and objective presentation. I think you and I have discussed this issue before, but I cannot be 100% certain. Firstly; from a religious point of view (I intend to be objective on this subject) and let us not forget that Henry (Bampot) VIII was a Roman Catholic, he cannot use the old chestnut that he could not marry his brother's widow. Deuteronomy states that he could not marry his brother's wife and that is quite explicit. Henry was well versed in religious studies and should have known he could not marry his brother's wife IF HIS BROTHER WERE STILL ALIVE! I say this is because though a catholic myself; I studied at an Orthodox Hebrew Yeshiva for four years; I speak and read Hebrew fluently, and also learned the Psalms in Aramaic; the language the Psalms were written in. Onan (Hebrew: אוֹנָן‎, Modern: ʾŌnan, Tiberian: ʾŌnān "Mourner"; Greek: Αὐνάν Aunan) found in the Book of Genesis chapter 38, was the second son of Judah and Shua. He was the younger brother of Er and the older brother of Shelah. Like his older brother Er. Onan was slain by Yahweh. Onan's death was retribution for being evil in the sight of God. If you read the story of Onan in Genesis, you will see that Er; the eldest son of Judah; son of Jacob. Judah had three sons; whose names were Er, Onan and Selah. Er was married to a lady named TAMAR. Tamar (Hebrew: תָּמָר) is a female name of Hebrew origin, meaning "date" (the fruit), "date palm" or just "palm tree". Because of Er's unwillingness to have children, and practised Contraception (Coitus Interuptus) God slew Er. This meant that Judah gave TAMAR in marriage to his second son Onan that he bear a son for his deceased brother Er. This was a religious practice amongst the Hebrews. Onan also was reluctant to allow Tamar to become pregnant and spilled his seed upon the earth; hence Yahweh was displeased with Onan and slew him also (Gen 38:10). Following the death of Onan Judah gave his younger son Selah in marriage to TAMAR, so that Selah would honour his brothers and produce a son. Selah went the same way as Onan and Er. Now that he had no more sons to marry off to Tamar, he was in a bit of a quandry. Tamar on the other hand was a very religious and virtuous woman. She came to realise the only way to fulfil her obligation to produce a son for the family was to disguise herself as a prostitute and wait for her Father-In-Law at the market gate. Judah slept with Tamar and from that union came a son. That son was the forbearer of King David, and you know whom King David was the forbearer of don't you. So for Henry Bampot (VIII)to say it was sinful to lay with his brother's widow regardless of whether she had sexual relations with that brother was a cop out. From the point of view of whether or not Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn was valid or not; according to the Law Civil and Church of England Law, (considering that Henry was now the Head of the Church of England) that marriage was VALID. Where Henry slipped up was that the Law of the Church of England also prohibited divorce, and according to that law; Henry was "STATUTE BARRED" from divorcing Anne, and if he did divorce her; he could not remarry in the Church of England. In other words; he shot himself in both feet. The only way he could get rid of Anne was to have her executed on thatTRUMPED UP charge of Incest and Adultery. As much as I dislike Anne, I do not believe she had committed Incest with her brother. This was Henry's "GET OUT OF DODGE" card. I felt very sorry for Jane Seymour. She was a goodly lady who did her best to reconcile Princess Mary Princess Elizabeth and their father and from what I have read; she impressed on Henry to treat those two girls properly. I also felt dreadfully for Catherine Howard. Henry could these days be guilty of PAEDOPHILIA. Catherine Howard was around 15 years of age when Henry clapped eyes on her and married her when she was around 19 years of age; the old Paedophile was 49 years old; some 30 years older than Catherine. Sorry about the length of the "General Anaesthetic" Keep up the excellent work.

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for such an interesting comment Angus. I'm sure Henry knew the Biblical stories too. He just opted to ignore anything that didn't suit him and I certainly agree he wanted Anne dead to make sure that he really was free, in every sense (legal & religious) to remarry. I have great pity for Katherine Howard too. What a miserable and short life :-(

@WhoDaresWins-B20

Жыл бұрын

@@HistoryCalling Thank you for your comment and as always; an EXCELLENT presentation. I totally concur with you. Henry wanted his way and nothing was going to stop him, and in this regard; I feel sorry for Anne Boleyn as well, even though I disagreed with her involvement with the Bampot; there was NO WAY known she would have committed Adultery or Incest. She was just another victim of this licentious cretin. Then again; one only need to look at the licentious behaviour of his grandfather Edward IV, but that is another story. Thanks again. I love your channel.

Every time I see a picture of Mary I laugh she is the Image of the actor who died this year Dennis Waterman

Henry was still married to Katherine when he married Ann so how can that be legal?

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

He claimed that he'd never been truly married to Catherine of Aragon at all, but that point is heavily disputed and depending on your viewpoint you can certainly argue that the marriage to Anne wasn't legal.

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.

She may have started out illegitimate but she became legitimate thru her reign, surpassing all other Tudors and being the best out of all of them

@jehannedarc1429

Жыл бұрын

Very true!!!

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

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

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.

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)?

@HistoryCalling

Жыл бұрын

That boy would have been King and the whole discussion would be moot :-)

_"The King can do no wrong"_ Old English Legal principle.