WI: Henry VIII, instead of breaking with Rome, has Catherine of Aragon executed

[DrakeRlugia]

If Henry can force the country to accept an entirely new religion, he can have his wife executed. The big obstacle to doing so would be the prospect of becoming an international pariah rather than domestic opposition.

As mentioned above, it wasn't necessary a wholesale new religion. Yes, as you mentioned, the Henrican Church did swing between periods of reform and conservatism, but the Henrican Church didn't really make any wholesale doctrinal changes. The Articles in 1536 were semi-Lutheran, with the alteration of minor feast days into working days: mostly for economic reasons. The English Church didn't really become "Protestant" until Edward VI and Elizabeth's reigns. Henry's main attack upon the church, the dissolution of the monasteries, wasn't exactly unwelcome. There had been attacks upon the monasteries for years because of the idle lives and the supposed vice within them, and of course the secular powers (and the crown) benefitted from the dissolution. By 1538, the church began to drift back into a more conservative direction, and Henry VIII's religious views certainly weren't that radical. He remained essentially a Catholic, but with the belief that he was the head of the church.

Nothing is stopping him from executing his wife; but there will be consequences for doing so, and more consequences than he faced for executing Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, who were native Englishwomen.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

As mentioned above, it wasn't necessary a wholesale new religion. Yes, as you mentioned, the Henrican Church did swing between periods of reform and conservatism, but the Henrican Church didn't really make any wholesale doctrinal changes. The Articles in 1536 were semi-Lutheran, with the alteration of minor feast days into working days: mostly for economic reasons. The English Church didn't really become "Protestant" until Edward VI and Elizabeth's reigns. Henry's main attack upon the church, the dissolution of the monasteries, wasn't exactly unwelcome. There had been attacks upon the monasteries for years because of the idle lives and the supposed vice within them, and of course the secular powers (and the crown) benefitted from the dissolution. By 1538, the church began to drift back into a more conservative direction, and Henry VIII's religious views certainly weren't that radical. He remained essentially a Catholic, but with the belief that he was the head of the church.

The dissolution of the monasteries was a major factor behind the Pilgrimage of Grace, one of the biggest English rebellions in the whole of the 16th century. And iconoclasm, ending of pilgrimage, destruction of saints' relics, and abolition of chantries, were all major changes, and were commented upon as such by people at the time. "Catholicism without the pope" is a modern meme, and isn't supportable based on the actual evidence.

 

[Euphemios]

I had the urge to yell 'ASB!' given the sheer audacity involved in the scenario, but a king being whooping mad is not ASB.
I know not what Charles V was occupied with at the time, but Spain later launched its armada over much less. Expect severe consequences for England.

 

[jacob ningen]

The dissolution of the monasteries was a major factor behind the Pilgrimage of Grace, one of the biggest English rebellions in the whole of the 16th century. And iconoclasm, ending of pilgrimage, destruction of saints' relics, and abolition of chantries, were all major changes, and were commented upon as such by people at the time. "Catholicism without the pope" is a modern meme, and isn't supportable based on the actual evidence.

which is also why hes more likely to break with rome. Executing Catherine doesnt change that he's broke. seizing the monasteries does maybe we see an earlier version of George's bargain ie my lands for funds.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

which is also why hes more likely to break with rome. Executing Catherine doesnt change that he's broke. seizing the monasteries does maybe we see an earlier version of George's bargain ie my lands for funds.

There are other ways to get money from monastic lands, such as by following the French route of having the Church give you a "voluntary" "gift" each year. And from what I can tell, seizing monastic lands only occurred to Henry after he'd already decided to break with Rome -- he spent several years trying to get an anullment from the pope first, which suggests that this, rather than the prospect of getting rich, was the main drive behind his actions.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

The dissolution of the monasteries was a major factor behind the Pilgrimage of Grace, one of the biggest English rebellions in the whole of the 16th century. And iconoclasm, ending of pilgrimage, destruction of saints' relics, and abolition of chantries, were all major changes, and were commented upon as such by people at the time. "Catholicism without the pope" is a modern meme, and isn't supportable based on the actual evidence.

Attacks on Saints, Relics and Pilgrimages were carried out during the period of brief reform, but after 1538 the church crept back towards Catholicism. The Six Articles of 1539 superseded the previous Ten Articles of 1536, and was almost wholly Catholic—belief in transsubstantiation, clerical celibacy, confession to a priest, votive masses, and withholding wine during communion from the laity. The King’s Book in 1543 affirmed even more Catholic practices by rejecting the doctrine of justification, restoration of the seven sacraments, a reversal on images, with it being declared that the second commandment didn’t forbid images but only giving “godly honor” to them. Images of Christ and Saints were meant to kindle religious belief. The only major movement away from Catholic teaching was a denial of prayer for the dead and purgatory—mainly because of it’s connection to Papal authority. Even Henry VIII sent mixed views on this; he allowed offerings for deceased Knights of the Garter to be given to charitable works, but at the same time asked for new cathedral foundations to pray for Queen Jane’s soul.

I don’t really think it’s a “meme” when pretty much everything had been stripped back minus the break with Rome and the Monasteries. Even though the Bible was in the vernacular, it was even limited in 1544 act who could read it, limited to noblemen and noblewomen. As a whole, Henry VIII’s religious reforms were quite conservative—there were brief spurts where the reformists were in triumph, but as a whole the traditionalists and conservatives tended to dominate the religious discussions, which tended to favor royal supremacy without any extreme alterations to church doctrine.

There are other ways to get money from monastic lands, such as by following the French route of having the Church give you a "voluntary" "gift" each year. And from what I can tell, seizing monastic lands only occurred to Henry after he'd already decided to break with Rome -- he spent several years trying to get an anullment from the pope first, which suggests that this, rather than the prospect of getting rich, was the main drive behind his actions.

The problem with the French route is that requires Papal approval. The Church in France was governed through the Concordat of Bologna, which gave the more crown over revenues than the crown in England. James V went this route too, receiving permission to tax clerical revenues and the monasteries from the Pope, but Henry's poor relations will prevent that.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Attacks on Saints, Relics and Pilgrimages were carried out during the period of brief reform, but after 1538 the church crept back towards Catholicism. The Six Articles of 1539 superseded the previous Ten Articles of 1536, and was almost wholly Catholic—belief in transsubstantiation, clerical celibacy, confession to a priest, votive masses, and withholding wine during communion from the laity. The King’s Book in 1543 affirmed even more Catholic practices by rejecting the doctrine of justification, restoration of the seven sacraments, a reversal on images, with it being declared that the second commandment didn’t forbid images but only giving “godly honor” to them. Images of Christ and Saints were meant to kindle religious belief. The only major movement away from Catholic teaching was a denial of prayer for the dead and purgatory—mainly because of it’s connection to Papal authority. Even Henry VIII sent mixed views on this; he allowed offerings for deceased Knights of the Garter to be given to charitable works, but at the same time asked for new cathedral foundations to pray for Queen Jane’s soul.

But by 1547 the pendulum seemed to be swinging back in the reformist direction again, with several prominent conservatives like the Duke of Norfolk being removed from the Privy Council. Regardless, the original context of me bringing up Henry's religious reforms was as a counter-point to somebody saying "Henry would never be able to get Catherine executed, that's a step too far." The fact that many of the reforms were subsequently walked back is less important in this context than the fact that they were passed in the first place. A fortiori, if Henry could ram through major changes in English religion -- even if he later changed his mind -- he could have his wife executed, something which would affect far fewer people.

The problem with the French route is that requires Papal approval. The Church in France was governed through the Concordat of Bologna, which gave the more crown over revenues than the crown in England. James V went this route too, receiving permission to tax clerical revenues and the monasteries from the Pope, but Henry's poor relations will prevent that.

The Pope's policy during the King's Great Matter was to give Henry everything short of an anullment in order to keep him from embracing Protestantism. If letting Henry tax the Church is thought necessary to keep England Catholic, then Henry will be allowed to tax the Church.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

But by 1547 the pendulum seemed to be swinging back in the reformist direction again, with several prominent conservatives like the Duke of Norfolk being removed from the Privy Council. Regardless, the original context of me bringing up Henry's religious reforms was as a counter-point to somebody saying "Henry would never be able to get Catherine executed, that's a step too far." The fact that many of the reforms were subsequently walked back is less important in this context than the fact that they were passed in the first place. A fortiori, if Henry could ram through major changes in English religion -- even if he later changed his mind -- he could have his wife executed, something which would affect far fewer people.

Yes, just as the reformists had briefly been in ascendance in the early 1530s and 1540s. I don't think anyone has denied that Henry could execute Catherine: a mad man can do all sorts of things, just that there will be all sorts of consequences that stem from executing a foreign princess. His OTL track of shutting her away was probably the best he could do, or as I suggested further back, using the threat of a possible treason trial to force her to take the veil (with the risk, of course, that she will welcome death and become a martyr).

The Pope's policy during the King's Great Matter was to give Henry everything short of an anullment in order to keep him from embracing Protestantism. If letting Henry tax the Church is thought necessary to keep England Catholic, then Henry will be allowed to tax the Church.

What exactly did the Pope give Henry VIII? The Ecclesiastical Court was prevented from reaching any decision in England, and Clement VIII seemed to frustrate Henry VIII's desires at every step, and at the end ordered him to return to Catherine and give up Anne Boleyn on pain of excommunication. When all Henry wants is an annulment, the Pope trying to buy him off with other gifts matters very little. Offering Henry monastic / clerical revenues isn't going to make him give up Anne Boleyn, when want he's wanting is an end to his marriage because he believes it's cursed / desperately desires a male heir. Clement was so closely tied to imperial policy post-1527 that he isn't going to risk upsetting the emperor.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Yes, just as the reformists had briefly been in ascendance in the early 1530s and 1540s. I don't think anyone has denied that Henry could execute Catherine: a mad man can do all sorts of things, just that there will be all sorts of consequences that stem from executing a foreign princess. His OTL track of shutting her away was probably the best he could do, or as I suggested further back, using the threat of a possible treason trial to force her to take the veil (with the risk, of course, that she will welcome death and become a martyr).

"Henry VIII would have to go through the process of trumping up evidence against Catherine, and even then she'd be subject to a trial before a jury of peers. Henry VIII may not get the answers that he's looking for: it's worth remembering that the English Reformation gave the crown all sorts of powers that it had never held previously, and allowed Henry VIII to pass a number of laws through Parliament that made his authority greater than any other king before him" sounds to me like it's saying that Henry might not be able to execute Catherine.

What exactly did the Pope give Henry VIII?

The Pope let Henry appoint Cranmer as Achbishop of Canterbury, even though he had Lutheran sympathies and would normally have been too junior to be considered for such a post.

The Ecclesiastical Court was prevented from reaching any decision in England, and Clement VIII seemed to frustrate Henry VIII's desires at every step, and at the end ordered him to return to Catherine and give up Anne Boleyn on pain of excommunication. When all Henry wants is an annulment, the Pope trying to buy him off with other gifts matters very little. Offering Henry monastic / clerical revenues isn't going to make him give up Anne Boleyn, when want he's wanting is an end to his marriage because he believes it's cursed / desperately desires a male heir. Clement was so closely tied to imperial policy post-1527 that he isn't going to risk upsetting the emperor.

Henry's case was that his marriage was invalid because Catherine was his brother's widow, but Henry had made sure to get Papal dispensation specifically allowing him to marry his brother's widow before he actually married her. You can't annul a marriage over a specific point you got dispensed on, for what should be obvious reasons. Clement "seemed to frustrate Henry VIII's desires at every step" because Henry had chosen to base his case on a legally indefensible argument. It had nothing to do with Imperial policy.

 

[jacob ningen]

"Henry VIII would have to go through the process of trumping up evidence against Catherine, and even then she'd be subject to a trial before a jury of peers. Henry VIII may not get the answers that he's looking for: it's worth remembering that the English Reformation gave the crown all sorts of powers that it had never held previously, and allowed Henry VIII to pass a number of laws through Parliament that made his authority greater than any other king before him" sounds to me like it's saying that Henry might not be able to execute Catherine.

The Pope let Henry appoint Cranmer as Achbishop of Canterbury, even though he had Lutheran sympathies and would normally have been too junior to be considered for such a post.

Henry's case was that his marriage was invalid because Catherine was his brother's widow, but Henry had made sure to get Papal dispensation specifically allowing him to marry his brother's widow before he actually married her. You can't annul a marriage over a specific point you got dispensed on, for what should be obvious reasons. Clement "seemed to frustrate Henry VIII's desires at every step" because Henry had chosen to base his case on a legally indefensible argument. It had nothing to do with Imperial policy.

Yibbum was a thing although even Judaism had gotten rid of Yibbum by that point in time.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

"Henry VIII would have to go through the process of trumping up evidence against Catherine, and even then she'd be subject to a trial before a jury of peers. Henry VIII may not get the answers that he's looking for: it's worth remembering that the English Reformation gave the crown all sorts of powers that it had never held previously, and allowed Henry VIII to pass a number of laws through Parliament that made his authority greater than any other king before him" sounds to me like it's saying that Henry might not be able to execute Catherine.

My point was that the jury could easily choose to reject the evidence. Them choosing to indict Anne Boleyn is a wholly different situation, as she was an Englishwoman and the trial had occurred when Henry VIII's powers had reached his zenith in England. As I mentioned before, no one c. 1529 is going to believe that the queen has committed adultery. The idea of her inviting an imperial army into England is equally ridiculous, as that would not keep her marriage together either. The woman was desperate to keep her marriage intact; it'd be quite difficult to accuse her of doing deeds that would only lead to her marriage being even more sabotaged. If you want to argue semantics that's fine, but the policy of trying to cut off her head could blow up in his face just as easily as trying to divorce her.

The Pope let Henry appoint Cranmer as Achbishop of Canterbury, even though he had Lutheran sympathies and would normally have been too junior to be considered for such a post.

That's not exactly "giving Henry everything short of annulment." Although he received Papal sanction, Parliament had already passed a law that allowed for bishops to be consecrated without papal approval. Clement's choice was either approve Cranmer, or Cranmer ends up Archbishop regardless.

Henry's case was that his marriage was invalid because Catherine was his brother's widow, but Henry had made sure to get Papal dispensation specifically allowing him to marry his brother's widow before he actually married her. You can't annul a marriage over a specific point you got dispensed on, for what should be obvious reasons. Clement "seemed to frustrate Henry VIII's desires at every step" because Henry had chosen to base his case on a legally indefensible argument. It had nothing to do with Imperial policy.

Henry wasn't the one who sought out the dispensation. The dispensation was granted during Henry VII's reign. There was no impediment to Catherine and Henry VIII's marriage per canon law, as the dispensation covered those issues. Henry sought out such a flimsy argument because he had no other argument to annul the marriage. He couldn't argue consanguinity, nor impotence, nor being underage. But to be completely honest, annulments were completely at the discretion of the Pope. Louis XII received an annulment from his wife Jeanne de Valois; he argued it on equally flimsy grounds: rather than consanguinity (which was the common argument) he claimed that he was underage (he wasn't) and that the marriage wasn't consummated. Despite overwhelming evidence that Louis XII's marriage was valid according to canon law, Alexander VI still granted him the annulment because it was politically expedient, as Alexander VI had reasons to honor Louis XII's wish. Royal annulments had almost nothing to do about the actual legality of the argument and everything about the political situation. Just as Alexander VI found himself bound to grant Louis XII's annulment, Clement VII felt constrained by Charles V to deny Henry VIII his. If Pavia had turned out differently and France had continued to hold Milan and be the dominant power in Italy... I have no doubt that Henry VIII likely would've received his annulment as easily as Louis XII had received his. Henry VIII's bad luck was for him to want a divorce / annulment at the same time that his wife's nephew had come to dominate Italy.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

The idea of her inviting an imperial army into England is equally ridiculous, as that would not keep her marriage together either

how is something ridiculous if you point out that Henry was a mad man. Look at what he did when he got paranoid OTL.

And, let's not forget, Katherine is not the saintly long-suffering wife she's commonly portrayed as. She defied Henry to the bitter end, and even someone- I think it was Chapuys, could've been Campeggio- wrote that she would not accept any ajudication that went against her, even if it was delivered by an archangel from the hand of God Himself.

Let's look at how Henry used hearsay to himself of people who displeased him:
St. Thomas More was found to have been guilty of denying the Act of Supremacy thanks to a purely hypothetical argument that was posed to him.
One of Anne Boleyn's hysterical rants was taken as "proof" of her being a witch and having placed a curse on the king
Another of Anne Boleyn's remarks (the famed "you look for dead men's shoes" comment) was equally hearsay.

In all three instances, that was admissable.

An OTL comment that Katherine made- over chess or cards (versions vary) with Anne Boleyn. Where she warned the lady-in-waiting that "you may soon lose your king, Lady Anne". While it was clearly a reference to the game, if heard by the wrong person or reported "out of context" to Henry, Katherine can be accused of treason for imagining the death of the king (after all, the "dead men's shoes" was considered that at Anne's trial, even though it likely wasn't meant that way).

 

[DrakeRlugia]

how is something ridiculous if you point out that Henry was a mad man. Look at what he did when he got paranoid OTL.

And, let's not forget, Katherine is not the saintly long-suffering wife she's commonly portrayed as. She defied Henry to the bitter end, and even someone- I think it was Chapuys, could've been Campeggio- wrote that she would not accept any ajudication that went against her, even if it was delivered by an archangel from the hand of God Himself.

Let's look at how Henry used hearsay to himself of people who displeased him:
St. Thomas More was found to have been guilty of denying the Act of Supremacy thanks to a purely hypothetical argument that was posed to him.
One of Anne Boleyn's hysterical rants was taken as "proof" of her being a witch and having placed a curse on the king
Another of Anne Boleyn's remarks (the famed "you look for dead men's shoes" comment) was equally hearsay.

In all three instances, that was admissable.

An OTL comment that Katherine made- over chess or cards (versions vary) with Anne Boleyn. Where she warned the lady-in-waiting that "you may soon lose your king, Lady Anne". While it was clearly a reference to the game, if heard by the wrong person or reported "out of context" to Henry, Katherine can be accused of treason for imagining the death of the king (after all, the "dead men's shoes" was considered that at Anne's trial, even though it likely wasn't meant that way).

Kellan, you are completely missing my point.

Henry VIII can believe whatever he wants, read letters whatever way he wants. He's a narcissistic madman, and could probably take offense / find issue with Catherine writing him a letter period. I'm saying that Catherine herself asking for Charles V to invade to keep her marriage together is completely insane. In what world would that assist in keeping her marriage together? That's the joy of being human: two people can look at the same exact thing and take something completely different away from it, even if the author / writer's intention was something wholly different.

It makes zero sense. Henry VIII could spin her writings to the emperor in whatever way he pleases, and if he's in a certain state of mind, then absolutely, he may view them as treasonable and perhaps gain his own inference that Catherine has invited Charles V to invade. But I don't think Catherine would be dumb enough to do so.

I'm not defending Catherine's position at all. There are plenty of fans of her on this forum, I will not say that I am one of them. She was a woman just as flawed as her husband, and was just as delusional as he was at times. This was a woman determined to hold onto her marriage until the bitter end, thinking that Henry VIII was bewitched and constantly hoping that he might wake up and things might return to normal: even when things had moved way beyond that point and he was convinced that their marriage needed to be dissolved. They were both stubborn and pig-headed.

I am well aware of Henry VIII using hearsay to deal the fatal blow to those who opposed him. Just as he might here, but I'm saying that Catherine herself would gain nothing and lose everything by writing some direct letter to Charles V asking him to invade. More likely (as happened in Elizabethan times) Henry VIII would ask for some incriminating post-script to be added to one of her letters invoking exactly what he needs to incriminate her.

 

[Nuraghe]

My point was that the jury could easily choose to reject the evidence. Them choosing to indict Anne Boleyn is a wholly different situation, as she was an Englishwoman and the trial had occurred when Henry VIII's powers had reached his zenith in England. As I mentioned before, no one c. 1529 is going to believe that the queen has committed adultery. The idea of her inviting an imperial army into England is equally ridiculous, as that would not keep her marriage together either. The woman was desperate to keep her marriage intact; it'd be quite difficult to accuse her of doing deeds that would only lead to her marriage being even more sabotaged. If you want to argue semantics that's fine, but the policy of trying to cut off her head could blow up in his face just as easily as trying to divorce her.


That's not exactly "giving Henry everything short of annulment." Although he received Papal sanction, Parliament had already passed a law that allowed for bishops to be consecrated without papal approval. Clement's choice was either approve Cranmer, or Cranmer ends up Archbishop regardless.


Henry wasn't the one who sought out the dispensation. The dispensation was granted during Henry VII's reign. There was no impediment to Catherine and Henry VIII's marriage per canon law, as the dispensation covered those issues. Henry sought out such a flimsy argument because he had no other argument to annul the marriage. He couldn't argue consanguinity, nor impotence, nor being underage. But to be completely honest, annulments were completely at the discretion of the Pope. Louis XII received an annulment from his wife Jeanne de Valois; he argued it on equally flimsy grounds: rather than consanguinity (which was the common argument) he claimed that he was underage (he wasn't) and that the marriage wasn't consummated. Despite overwhelming evidence that Louis XII's marriage was valid according to canon law, Alexander VI still granted him the annulment because it was politically expedient, as Alexander VI had reasons to honor Louis XII's wish. Royal annulments had almost nothing to do about the actual legality of the argument and everything about the political situation. Just as Alexander VI found himself bound to grant Louis XII's annulment, Clement VII felt constrained by Charles V to deny Henry VIII his. If Pavia had turned out differently and France had continued to hold Milan and be the dominant power in Italy... I have no doubt that Henry VIII likely would've received his annulment as easily as Louis XII had received his. Henry VIII's bad luck was for him to want a divorce / annulment at the same time that his wife's nephew had come to dominate Italy.

I quite agree with you, I would just like to add two little things, the first is obviously the difference between Alexander VI and Clement VII, the first was a flexible pope and really capable of being politically elastic, as well as very sure of his papal prerogatives ( without having to fear losing his throne ) the second on the other hand was dangerously incompetent, too unsure of his position ( come on he didn't proclaimed a council because he feared that as illegitimate he could be removed by the assembly, now try to explain to me what this has to do with the ecclesiastical reforms ?, nothing ! but this explains what kind of person there was as pope ) he wanted to play the triple game without even doing the basics, furthermore he was dealing with enormous shocks to the very structure of the church ( the Reformation ) but which he never really cared, and this was fatal to him, given that he could not afford to act in open contradiction to the actions of his predecessors as many in the past had done, because it represented a dangerous weakness to show to the Protestants on the very effectiveness / existence of his office, furthermore Henry's political weight in the curia was sensationally non-existent compared to his rivals, I am sure that if an identical thing had happened with roles reversed ( therefore with Francis dominating Italy and Henry married to one of his relatives ) the scenario would have been been almost identical, because the pontiff had shot himself in the foot by continuing to plot with Francis against Charles after Pavia, he certainly could have had another possibility, that is, to recognize Mary as undoubtedly the legitimate heir to the kingdom ( something that no one in Rome never questioned, given that for them Leviticus had been respected, given that Henry HAD a son or rather a Daughter, who also bore the name of the virgin, which must have meant something ( we are still in an era of very strong religious feelings, therefore it is not strange to see that in the curia, many were convinced that God wanted this for England ) but at the same time allow Henry to separate, without compromising Charles' position at an international level, but unfortunately for them he was not the suitable pontiff for this delicate diplomatic game

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

he certainly could have had another possibility, that is, to recognize Mary as undoubtedly the legitimate heir to the kingdom

was Mary's legitimacy ever actually discussed in the brief originally taken to Rome? Because I've always got the idea that - like many divorces - it was mom vs dad and Mary was lost in the details. We know that OTL Henry bastardized her, but was that his intention from the first? Or was that as a "punishment" for her mom?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

My point was that the jury could easily choose to reject the evidence. Them choosing to indict Anne Boleyn is a wholly different situation, as she was an Englishwoman and the trial had occurred when Henry VIII's powers had reached his zenith in England. As I mentioned before, no one c. 1529 is going to believe that the queen has committed adultery. The idea of her inviting an imperial army into England is equally ridiculous, as that would not keep her marriage together either. The woman was desperate to keep her marriage intact; it'd be quite difficult to accuse her of doing deeds that would only lead to her marriage being even more sabotaged. If you want to argue semantics that's fine, but the policy of trying to cut off her head could blow up in his face just as easily as trying to divorce her.

I think you're overestimating how easy it is to reject the evidence, when said evidence is presented by a narcissistic megalomaniac who can easily have you killed. The evidence against Thomas More was widely believed to be fake, but that didn't save him from the chopping block.

Henry wasn't the one who sought out the dispensation. The dispensation was granted during Henry VII's reign. There was no impediment to Catherine and Henry VIII's marriage per canon law, as the dispensation covered those issues. Henry sought out such a flimsy argument because he had no other argument to annul the marriage. He couldn't argue consanguinity, nor impotence, nor being underage. But to be completely honest, annulments were completely at the discretion of the Pope. Louis XII received an annulment from his wife Jeanne de Valois; he argued it on equally flimsy grounds: rather than consanguinity (which was the common argument) he claimed that he was underage (he wasn't) and that the marriage wasn't consummated. Despite overwhelming evidence that Louis XII's marriage was valid according to canon law, Alexander VI still granted him the annulment because it was politically expedient, as Alexander VI had reasons to honor Louis XII's wish. Royal annulments had almost nothing to do about the actual legality of the argument and everything about the political situation. Just as Alexander VI found himself bound to grant Louis XII's annulment, Clement VII felt constrained by Charles V to deny Henry VIII his. If Pavia had turned out differently and France had continued to hold Milan and be the dominant power in Italy... I have no doubt that Henry VIII likely would've received his annulment as easily as Louis XII had received his. Henry VIII's bad luck was for him to want a divorce / annulment at the same time that his wife's nephew had come to dominate Italy.

The cases aren't analogous, though. Henry's argument -- that his marriage was invalid due to Catherine being his brother's wife, despite a dispensation being granted for precisely this matter -- if accepted, would throw into doubt the entire concept of dispensations. The Pope's ability to grant dispensations on such matters was not only an important power, it was also universally accepted in the Catholic world (including by Henry, until it became inconvenient to him), so not only would Henry's argument result in a big curtailment of papal authority, it would imply that multiple other royal marriages were invalid as well. There's no way any Pope could accept this, regardless of what the Emperor thought.

St. Thomas More was found to have been guilty of denying the Act of Supremacy thanks to a purely hypothetical argument that was posed to him.

Allegedly posed to him -- it was widely thought that Richard Rich's tesimony was perjured. Which, of course, makes it more likely that Henry could do something similar with Catherine.

It makes zero sense. Henry VIII could spin her writings to the emperor in whatever way he pleases, and if he's in a certain state of mind, then absolutely, he may view them as treasonable and perhaps gain his own inference that Catherine has invited Charles V to invade. But I don't think Catherine would be dumb enough to do so.

The whole argument for Royal Supremacy made zero sense, either theologically (what was the Church supposed to do for the first three hundred years of its history, when there were no Christian monarchs?) or historically (reading Bede makes it pretty clear that English kings had always acknowledged papal authority). But that didn't stop people going along with it, either because they saw it as an opportunity to advance Protestantism in England, or because they were too scared to oppose the King. If Henry can bully the country into accepting a new Church, he can bully twelve jurors into having his wife executed.

 

[Nuraghe]

was Mary's legitimacy ever actually discussed in the brief originally taken to Rome? Because I've always got the idea that - like many divorces - it was mom vs dad and Mary was lost in the details. We know that OTL Henry bastardized her, but was that his intention from the first? Or was that as a "punishment" for her mom?

let's say that Mary's delicate situation in Rome only emerged later, because at the beginning, from what I know, Henry still wanted to leave her as a reserve heir behind the much sought-after baby boy, but then as the trial continued and they almost became a personal spite of Henry on Catherine who then also transferred to his own daughter ( I also know that Charles, albeit reluctantly, would have accepted that Henry separated from Catherine on the condition that Mary was not bastardized for any reason, given that she was the true direct link of the emperor with London ) but then the situation became complicated with the constant Lutheran aggression against the papal office, which was increasing more and more and finally the desire not to be on the wrong side of the empire again ( because in the same period in Rome a possible conspiracy against Clement, which later failed, but still worrying for the pontiff )

 

[iddt3]

It would be ironic if Henry executes Catherine on trumped up charges, then breaks with the Church later anyway.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

I quite agree with you, I would just like to add two little things, the first is obviously the difference between Alexander VI and Clement VII, the first was a flexible pope and really capable of being politically elastic, as well as very sure of his papal prerogatives ( without having to fear losing his throne ) the second on the other hand was dangerously incompetent, too unsure of his position ( come on he didn't proclaimed a council because he feared that as illegitimate he could be removed by the assembly, now try to explain to me what this has to do with the ecclesiastical reforms ?, nothing ! but this explains what kind of person there was as pope ) he wanted to play the triple game without even doing the basics, furthermore he was dealing with enormous shocks to the very structure of the church ( the Reformation ) but which he never really cared, and this was fatal to him, given that he could not afford to act in open contradiction to the actions of his predecessors as many in the past had done, because it represented a dangerous weakness to show to the Protestants on the very effectiveness / existence of his office, furthermore Henry's political weight in the curia was sensationally non-existent compared to his rivals, I am sure that if an identical thing had happened with roles reversed ( therefore with Francis dominating Italy and Henry married to one of his relatives ) the scenario would have been been almost identical, because the pontiff had shot himself in the foot by continuing to plot with Francis against Charles after Pavia, he certainly could have had another possibility, that is, to recognize Mary as undoubtedly the legitimate heir to the kingdom ( something that no one in Rome never questioned, given that for them Leviticus had been respected, given that Henry HAD a son or rather a Daughter, who also bore the name of the virgin, which must have meant something ( we are still in an era of very strong religious feelings, therefore it is not strange to see that in the curia, many were convinced that God wanted this for England ) but at the same time allow Henry to separate, without compromising Charles' position at an international level, but unfortunately for them he was not the suitable pontiff for this delicate diplomatic game

I definitely agree that Alexander VI and Clement were definitely a situation of playing chess vs. playing checkers. I meant more in a situation where Henry VIII was married to Catherine of Aragon and it was Francis who was dominating Italy rather than the emperor, I think his troubles in receiving an annulment of his marriage likely would've been much easier. Most of Henry VIII's issues were not just his lack of influence in Rome, but the fact he was married to the aunt of the man who had come to dominate Italy post-1527. Henry VIII tried all his tacks to get an annulment and even tried to recruit the King of France to aid him in this. There were certainly some crazy ideas floated around regarding Henry VIII's delicate position; I want to believe that at one point Clement VII, seeking to protect Catherine's position as queen, even floated the suggestion that Henry VIII should marry Anne Boleyn regardless in some sort of bigamist situation: not a legalization of polygamy, but merely to protect Catherine's position. Martin Luther had broadly the same suggestion.

I'm of the mind that the annulment saga had little to do with do with legal / religious arguments put forth: it was wholly political (as it was often was in such cases of royal annulments).

The cases aren't analogous, though. Henry's argument -- that his marriage was invalid due to Catherine being his brother's wife, despite a dispensation being granted for precisely this matter -- if accepted, would throw into doubt the entire concept of dispensations. The Pope's ability to grant dispensations on such matters was not only an important power, it was also universally accepted in the Catholic world (including by Henry, until it became inconvenient to him), so not only would Henry's argument result in a big curtailment of papal authority, it would imply that multiple other royal marriages were invalid as well. There's no way any Pope could accept this, regardless of what the Emperor thought.

I'd say the cases are broadly similar. Louis XII and Jeanne received a dispensation for their consanguinity, yet the king was still able to use that as an argument to receive an annulment for his marriage because the political situation outweighed everything else. Yes, the Pope's dispensation powers were quite important, but a Pope could choose to go back on such a dispensation even if suited them, especially if it was a dispensation that had been granted by a previous Pope. The dispensation granted for Henry VIII and Catherine's marriage I want to say was granted by Julius II, so Clement VII could have easily agreed there were grounds to annul the marriage. IIRC, Wolsey's suggestion was to argue that Catherine and Arthur's marriage had been consummated and that they had received wrong kind of dispensation... though I believe the dispensation granted to them covered both grounds (the idea that the marriage was consummated, and the idea that it wasn't). So it was a rather watertight dispensation. Henry's problem was trying to argue that biblical law overrode dispensations, which meant squat in terms of curial law. But even if Henry VIII had chosen a more typical route to have his marriage dissolved, I still believe that the political issues would've prevented it.

 

[jacob ningen]

I definitely agree that Alexander VI and Clement were definitely a situation of playing chess vs. playing checkers. I meant more in a situation where Henry VIII was married to Catherine of Aragon and it was Francis who was dominating Italy rather than the emperor, I think his troubles in receiving an annulment of his marriage likely would've been much easier. Most of Henry VIII's issues were not just his lack of influence in Rome, but the fact he was married to the aunt of the man who had come to dominate Italy post-1527. Henry VIII tried all his tacks to get an annulment and even tried to recruit the King of France to aid him in this. There were certainly some crazy ideas floated around regarding Henry VIII's delicate position; I want to believe that at one point Clement VII, seeking to protect Catherine's position as queen, even floated the suggestion that Henry VIII should marry Anne Boleyn regardless in some sort of bigamist situation: not a legalization of polygamy, but merely to protect Catherine's position. Martin Luther had broadly the same suggestion.

I'm of the mind that the annulment saga had little to do with do with legal / religious arguments put forth: it was wholly political (as it was often was in such cases of royal annulments).


I'd say the cases are broadly similar. Louis XII and Jeanne received a dispensation for their consanguinity, yet the king was still able to use that as an argument to receive an annulment for his marriage because the political situation outweighed everything else. Yes, the Pope's dispensation powers were quite important, but a Pope could choose to go back on such a dispensation even if suited them, especially if it was a dispensation that had been granted by a previous Pope. The dispensation granted for Henry VIII and Catherine's marriage I want to say was granted by Julius II, so Clement VII could have easily agreed there were grounds to annul the marriage. IIRC, Wolsey's suggestion was to argue that Catherine and Arthur's marriage had been consummated and that they had received wrong kind of dispensation... though I believe the dispensation granted to them covered both grounds (the idea that the marriage was consummated, and the idea that it wasn't). So it was a rather watertight dispensation. Henry's problem was trying to argue that biblical law overrode dispensations, which meant squat in terms of curial law. But even if Henry VIII had chosen a more typical route to have his marriage dissolved, I still believe that the political issues would've prevented it.

which doesnt work since under Biblical law to perpetuate Arthurs name Henry would need to either marry Catherine and have children or remove his sandal in Chalitzah