Could Catherine of Aragon have lied?

Imperial Angel wrote;
"there are different degrees of virginity"
I beg to differ,medically, you are either a virgin or not a virgin, in that you have either had full intercourse or not. A bit of "fooling around" doesnot make you a semi- virgin (sorry, I am trying to be as delicate as possible)

Yseult wrote;

"Arthur was never a robust child, and he became an unhealthy young man."
Where are your sources for this. I find this very interesting. just because he was prematurely born does not make him a weakling. There is persistant eye-witness testimony  to the contrary. At the time of his marriage to Catherine,he was "of good and sanguine complexion".......fit and healthy.

"The Six Wives" David Starkey, p. 26-27:

"...Arthur had been born...



 

Well, what I meant was that there are different degrees if virginity in people's minds. Not that there is any other sense. I think Catherine believed what she said, whether we, as modern people, would see that to be true or not. Sure she had much to lose, if she admitted she wasn't a virgin at the time of her marriage to Henry. Most people at the time seemed to think she was, but we will never know. It is an interesting theory that she might have lied, and yes, she was human.

Yseult wrote;

"Arthur was never a robust child, and he became an unhealthy young man."
Where are your sources for this. I find this very interesting. just because he was prematurely born does not make him a weakling. There is persistant eye-witness testimony  to the contrary. At the time of his marriage to Catherine,he was "of good and sanguine complexion".......fit and healthy.

Well, Kimberly...all the books that I´ve read offered the image of a not healthy boy, from "Henry VIII and his six wives" of Francis Hackett to "The six wives of Henry VIII" of Antonia Fraser.

I'm not a "Starkey groupie" but Helen A 's post (see above) is very interesting on the subject of Arthur's health

It could be, Kimberly, but I´m not very convinced by a report of spanish ambassadors. I would appreciate to know what the embassadors told to both king Ferdinand and queen Isabella when they returned to Spain

Hi,

I remember reading, many years ago, that Prince Arthur on the morning after 'the wedding night' bragged to his gentlemen, "Last night I was in Spain!'......
Was this just bravado or a true statement of accomplishment?

It seems to me also, that I remember that Arthur was healthy at marriage but Catherine and he were sent to the Welsh Marshes to govern and then later Arthur became sick from the damp.  They were married for 6 months, so something must have gone on!!  Two horney teenagers in a damp and cold castle - - it's under the covers and whoopsey daisy!!

My verdict - Catherine lied to protect herself and Mary and their rights.
Also, catherine was a popular Queen, and a sort of "People's Princess" of the day and she may have been relying on public pressure to keep her position.
Was Henry one to countenance public opinion??  Remember the Tudors were only 30 years on the throne by then;  even firmly planted thrones have been shaken by the people.....

Just my farthings worth...

Larry

i believe it was in antonia frasier's book that i read that on the wedding night arthur seemed lusty and that he said that he couldn't wait to consumate his marriage. the author of the book i believe concluded that it was bravado on his side and that nothing happened.

but i do remember reading in many books that just like his nephew, edward, later, arthur was a very healthy boy up until the time he died. in both cases the image of an unhealthy person is supported by the fact that they died young.

Vecchiolarry wrote;
Two horney teenagers in a damp and cold castle - - it's under the covers and whoopsey daisy!!

Love it.

What an interesting topic!!!

Personally, I do think Catherine probably lied about her situation.  Whether right or wrong, I think most people would have done so if placed in her situation.  Her daughter Mary had been long presumed to be Henry's (rightful) heir.  Catherine probably knew she was past bearing a healthy son, and Henry's course of action to divorce her and marry Anne could easily produce a son to replace Mary as heir.  I'm sure the thought that her daughter, the granddaughter of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic, might be replaced in the succession by a child of Nan Bullen chilled Catherine to the core and propelled her to do anything necessary to protect Mary's rights.

even if you get past logic and you think of the fact that catherine honestly loved henry (and i do believe she did - didn't she send him a letter reminding him of the good old times?) that is a good enough reason to lie about something ilke that. i think she loved him and she believed he loved her back and i think that's why she did everything she did when henry tried to get rid of her.

Oh lordy, that letter. Written to Henry as she was dying, it is absolutely heartbreaking. It gives me goosepimples just thinking about it. "Lastly, mine eyes desire youabove all things" or something (quoting from memory here)

Then your memory's very good Kim! I believe those were her words. It's a sad letter indeed. In Margaret George's novel 'the Autobiography of Henry VIII', she has his fool Will Somers call Catherine 'the only one of your wives who ever loved you'.

About Arthur's words after the wedding night - were they noted by a contemporary at the time, or just repeated by one of Henry's cronies years later at the Blackfriars trial?

Sir Antony Willoughby was a body servant of Arthur's. The morning after the wedding,he claimed that Arthur had said;
"Willoughby, bring me a cup of ale, for I have been this night in the midst of Spain". There were (according to Willoughby) several witnesses to this remark. Arthur is quoted as saying also;
"Masters, it is a good pastime to have a wife".
So, was Arthur a boastful boy or were the witnesses lying?

Personally, I do not think she lied about it. But even if she did - which we will never know - I think it's not actually relevant.

Contrary to what some of you have written above - and what Starkey has apparently claimed - I haven't read his book yet - Mary would not have been a bastard if Katherine had consummated her marraige with Arthur because from what I've read the dispensation given by the pope to Katherine and Henry was one to cover against all possible eventualities, that is, also against the possibility that Katherine had indeed consummated her first marriage. Henry VIII of course denied the pope's right to grant such a dispensation in the first place - the central issue of the whole affair and not so much the queen's virginity - but from the Catholic point of view,  with the pope's dispensation Katherine's offspring was legitimate whether she had been a virgin or not.