Could Catherine of Aragon have lied?

Ditto Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

I think this was because they physically couldn't - Louis had phimosis.

Hello Everybody,

Here's something else to consider:
It seems to me that several years ago I read that when a man and a woman were "put to bed" after their wedding then they were considered legally married.
I read that Prince Richard of York (one of the 'Princes in the Tower') was married to Lady Anne Mowbray and as was the custom, put to bed even though they were 5 and 4 years old respectively.  They were considered married.

So, even if Arthur and Catherine didn't do anything, they were still considered married.

Has anybody else heard of this practice?

Larry

I think I know what you mean. However, I think that in most cases (except in those involving very young couples) the reason 'bedding' was supposed to seal the deal was because it was assumed that bedding would be followed pretty soon by consummation.

I don't know, but he was 15 when he died - surely he'd have to have been a really late bloomer to have not reached puberty.

I don't know about that.  I know plenty of late bloomers (including my own son, who at 15 has just entered puberty this year).  Boys mature at different rates (just like girls), and I think that in the 16th century it may have been later on average than now, just as it was for girls.

That's what I thought. I was under the impression that anthropologists have a hard time determining the sexes of bones that have not enteredthe state of puberty yet. So if the remains of Arthur were dug up, and it could not be concluded whether the bones are that of a male or female, this may lend great weight to one side of the argument and visa versa if sex can be determined.

Not as conclusive as the DNA in the Anna Anderson case, mind you. Erections can occur even if the male has not entered puberty. (I heard they even happen inside the womb!) But, it's much harder for it to occur "on cue" so to speak.....

Louis XVI had a phimosis. Francis II was a weak and undergrown child from birth and suffered from chronic respiratory and middle ear infections. No where to my knowlege is there any source that states that Arthur Tudor was a weakling. He was born a month or so prematurely but it doesn't appear to have had a lasting effect on him or caused him any problems.

Isn't it odd that both Arthur Tudor and Edward VI are always thought of, as Kim puts it, as 'weaklings'.  Plenty of very strong children died youn then too - just like Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales.

Catherine did have motives to lie; but sometimes people have motives to lie and they don't. She might not have, just as it is possible that she might have if saw it as the only thing that would save her daughter, if not her marriage. She always wanted the best for her daughter, who was perhaps to her proof of the legitimacy of her marriage with Henry. I don't think she was in denial as much as shock- here she was, the king's wife for many years, who tried to give him a male heir, despite all the children that had died, and divorce was rather rare among royalty at that time. She may not have understood why Henry wanted another woman( for reasons beside a male heir), and she had connections ( her nephew) that made her aware that the pope might not grant Henry his divorce. But after all of this, we will never know- some evidence points to consummation of her first marriage and some not.

I'm back again... Sorry for all these time I've been away...

Well, Liam, don't worry, I'm back again to support Catherine!


I do think that the lady we are discussing did not lie. Education for a Catholic princess in Spain was really very much oriented to create some kind of manipulated character. A Spanish Infanta was bound to obey and serve her father, her husband and her son, in that order, through their whole lives. A big sense of culpability was impressed in their minds so that there could not be even a small doubt about their righteousness and chastity. Catherine was fanatically devout during her whole life and she gave many proofs of it. She did disobey her husband but that was just because she thought that, doubting about her virginity and intentions when marrying Henry, people were not only insulting her and her beloved daughter, but also her beloved parents and acestors memory...

And yes, what could have stopped Catherine and Arthur to consummate their marriage. She certainly was a robust girl and Arthur could have been so... (about all those people saying how well made and strong he was could just be a means of flattery, couldn't it?). Then, why do I think they didn't do it? Well, in first place I don't think Arthur was a strong child (I think it was the Spanish ambassador who said he looked a bit like Catherine's brother prince Juan; like if he was constantly ill...). And then many people don't succeed on their first relationship to consummate anything properly. A clear example: the future King Fernando VII of Spain couldn't consummate his first marriage with Maria Antonia of the Two Sicilies until the first year had passed. And he was certainly a robust young man of 18 who would prove very satisfied with what he had just discovered after managing to loose his virginity. What had happened during that long year?? He had wasted his time touching his wife's breasts... It could be very possible that Catherine and Arthur experienced something similar... Why not??

About Catherine and the Spanish kings ambitions towards the English friendship. It's true, it could all have been a strategy to mantain the alliance. But then, why was Elvira de Toledo so sure about Catherine's virginity in the first days after her marriage?? Why didn't Catherine, once recovered from her illness, wait a couple of weeks to see if she had been left pregnant? Her own sister-in-law archduchess Margaret had gone through the same situation (a short lived marriage with a sickly - here I'm again assuming that Arthur was weak - but spirited husband) and had been left a pregnant widow. Instead of that, from the first moment both Catherine and her duenna insisted that Arthur had left her ''as pure as she had been born''.


Of course, all of that is nothing else than my own personal opinion --- and my support to Liam, of course!

Those are all very true reasons, and thanks for stating them! I tend to agree that she most likely didn't lie; although there was motive to, and it's an interesting question to consider. Much evidence points to Catherine as being a truthful person, who woudn't  lie on purpose, even if she had cause to.

Isn't it odd that both Arthur Tudor and Edward VI are always thought of, as Kim puts it, as 'weaklings'.  Plenty of very strong children died youn then too - just like Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales.

I think that Edward VI's tragedy was that he was a sickly child from birth but that is another topic I think.

Welcome back Umigon! 

Your knowledge of the intimate aspects of royal history has been much missed!

I'm back again... Sorry for all these time I've been away...

Well, Liam, don't worry, I'm back again to support Catherine!


I do think that the lady we are discussing did not lie. Education for a Catholic princess in Spain was really very much oriented to create some kind of manipulated character. A Spanish Infanta was bound to obey and serve her father, her husband and her son, in that order, through their whole lives. A big sense of culpability was impressed in their minds so that there could not be even a small doubt about their righteousness and chastity. Catherine was fanatically devout during her whole life and she gave many proofs of it. She did disobey her husband but that was just because she thought that, doubting about her virginity and intentions when marrying Henry, people were not only insulting her and her beloved daughter, but also her beloved parents and acestors memory...

And yes, what could have stopped Catherine and Arthur to consummate their marriage. She certainly was a robust girl and Arthur could have been so... (about all those people saying how well made and strong he was could just be a means of flattery, couldn't it?). Then, why do I think they didn't do it? Well, in first place I don't think Arthur was a strong child (I think it was the Spanish ambassador who said he looked a bit like Catherine's brother prince Juan; like if he was constantly ill...). And then many people don't succeed on their first relationship to consummate anything properly. A clear example: the future King Fernando VII of Spain couldn't consummate his first marriage with Maria Antonia of the Two Sicilies until the first year had passed. And he was certainly a robust young man of 18 who would prove very satisfied with what he had just discovered after managing to loose his virginity. What had happened during that long year?? He had wasted his time touching his wife's breasts... It could be very possible that Catherine and Arthur experienced something similar... Why not??

About Catherine and the Spanish kings ambitions towards the English friendship. It's true, it could all have been a strategy to mantain the alliance. But then, why was Elvira de Toledo so sure about Catherine's virginity in the first days after her marriage?? Why didn't Catherine, once recovered from her illness, wait a couple of weeks to see if she had been left pregnant? Her own sister-in-law archduchess Margaret had gone through the same situation (a short lived marriage with a sickly - here I'm again assuming that Arthur was weak - but spirited husband) and had been left a pregnant widow. Instead of that, from the first moment both Catherine and her duenna insisted that Arthur had left her ''as pure as she had been born''.


Of course, all of that is nothing else than my own personal opinion --- and my support to Liam, of course!

Whew, thank God he's back! 

A very concise and well reasoned post, way better than anything I churned out!

But they spent the best part of 6 months together as man and wife didn't they.
And with regard to Juan, couldn't the similarity have been looks, stature, colouring etc.

They surely spent those six months as man and wife,and so did Fernando VII and his first wife for a whole year, and the same did Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette for several years before their marriage was a proper one...


I guess you can have a point about similarity in looks and all that, Kim, but then again, don Juan was always seen as a sick young man. He was said to be blond, blue-eyed and very pleasant, but at the same time childish AND pale and weak...

By the way, I nearly forget, sorry... Thanks to everyone for this re-welcome!


Good night (here in Spain, anyway...)

Just a point about Marie Antoinette here!

Antonia Fraser doesn't think Louis had Phimosis - or at least it wasn't serious enough for an operation. Louis didn't interrupt his hunting schedule for a single day during the time he was supposed to have had an operation (at the time of Joseph II's visit). Fraser (rightly, in my view!) thinks this rules out a circumcision. She thinks that the seven year delay in starting sexual relations was due to ignorance and embarrassment on both sides.

So back to Catherine and Arthur.

I think that embarassment and ignorance could also point to Catherine and Arthur's failure to consummate their marriage. Catherine was beyond sheltered and who knows what, if anything, Henry VII or Elizabeth told Arthur? Basically, they were 15/16 year old kids with no prior sexual experience who probably didn't know much of anything about sex. Plus they barely knew each other. I wouldn't know what to do either.

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but didn't someone used to check the sheets of royal couples after their wedding night to check for blood and other bodily fluids to prove if the marriage was consummated? Was this done for Catherine and Arthur?