Could Catherine of Aragon have lied?

Yes but he married 3 of those ladies on the list

Yes, but he also killed two.

 
This is true. He sure did. I don't think ol' Henry was all that inexperienced when he bedded Catherine.

But the two that he had killed came after his marriage to Catherine and her death.

I wouldn't exactly call him a man-whore prior to his first marriage, but I do believe there was a degree of experience there. Even if he had had no experience until his wedding night, how forgetful would he have been to not recall later on if there had been blood on the sheets? If, during the trial, when Catherine implored him to say that she had been a virgin, he could have said that he figured out later that she wasn't a virgin. Of course that would imply that he wasn't perfect and all knowing, so the chances of that were pretty much nil.

Basically, Henry was going to whatever he could to ensure the succession -and that included getting rid of a good wife and mother. Though he wasn't around at the time, surely he was aware of the Wars of the Roses. Had he died during this time, leaving only a daughter, a similar situation could have occurred.

But the two that he had killed came after his marriage to Catherine and her death.

I wouldn't exactly call him a man-whore prior to his first marriage, but I do believe there was a degree of experience there. Even if he had had no experience until his wedding night, how forgetful would he have been to not recall later on if there had been blood on the sheets? If, during the trial, when Catherine implored him to say that she had been a virgin, he could have said that he figured out later that she wasn't a virgin. Of course that would imply that he wasn't perfect and all knowing, so the chances of that were pretty much nil.

Basically, Henry was going to whatever he could to ensure the succession -and that included getting rid of a good wife and mother. Though he wasn't around at the time, surely he was aware of the Wars of the Roses. Had he died during this time, leaving only a daughter, a similar situation could have occurred.

Blood on the sheets is not a reliable method of detecting virginity. Not all women bleed.
You are right about one thing, Henry would do whatever he needed to do to have sons. Whether or not Catherine lied, we will never know. But people do lie, it happens every day.

But the two that he had killed came after his marriage to Catherine and her death.

I wouldn't exactly call him a man-whore prior to his first marriage, but I do believe there was a degree of experience there. Even if he had had no experience until his wedding night, how forgetful would he have been to not recall later on if there had been blood on the sheets? If, during the trial, when Catherine implored him to say that she had been a virgin, he could have said that he figured out later that she wasn't a virgin. Of course that would imply that he wasn't perfect and all knowing, so the chances of that were pretty much nil.

Basically, Henry was going to whatever he could to ensure the succession -and that included getting rid of a good wife and mother. Though he wasn't around at the time, surely he was aware of the Wars of the Roses. Had he died during this time, leaving only a daughter, a similar situation could have occurred.

Blood on the sheets is not a reliable method of detecting virginity. Not all women bleed.
You are right about one thing, Henry would do whatever he needed to do to have sons. Whether or not Catherine lied, we will never know. But people do lie, it happens every day.

Well Catherine said that Henry more assuredly knew for sure. If not blood on the sheets, then obvious pain and/or lack of experience on Catherine's part as the act was taking place. But somehow, some way, Catherine was positive that Henry knew she was a virgin. And certainly, at that point of their marriage, after Henry had taken a few mistresses, he probably knew the difference between virgins and non-virgins.

But the two that he had killed came after his marriage to Catherine and her death.

I wouldn't exactly call him a man-whore prior to his first marriage, but I do believe there was a degree of experience there. Even if he had had no experience until his wedding night, how forgetful would he have been to not recall later on if there had been blood on the sheets? If, during the trial, when Catherine implored him to say that she had been a virgin, he could have said that he figured out later that she wasn't a virgin. Of course that would imply that he wasn't perfect and all knowing, so the chances of that were pretty much nil.

Basically, Henry was going to whatever he could to ensure the succession -and that included getting rid of a good wife and mother. Though he wasn't around at the time, surely he was aware of the Wars of the Roses. Had he died during this time, leaving only a daughter, a similar situation could have occurred.

Blood on the sheets is not a reliable method of detecting virginity. Not all women bleed.
You are right about one thing, Henry would do whatever he needed to do to have sons. Whether or not Catherine lied, we will never know. But people do lie, it happens every day.

Well Catherine said that Henry more assuredly knew for sure. If not blood on the sheets, then obvious pain and/or lack of experience on Catherine's part as the act was taking place. But somehow, some way, Catherine was positive that Henry knew she was a virgin. And certainly, at that point of their marriage, after Henry had taken a few mistresses, he probably knew the difference between virgins and non-virgins.

All we have are opinions and speculation. We will never know for sure. And it wouldn't make any difference anyway.

But the two that he had killed came after his marriage to Catherine and her death.

I wouldn't exactly call him a man-whore prior to his first marriage, but I do believe there was a degree of experience there. Even if he had had no experience until his wedding night, how forgetful would he have been to not recall later on if there had been blood on the sheets? If, during the trial, when Catherine implored him to say that she had been a virgin, he could have said that he figured out later that she wasn't a virgin. Of course that would imply that he wasn't perfect and all knowing, so the chances of that were pretty much nil.

Basically, Henry was going to whatever he could to ensure the succession -and that included getting rid of a good wife and mother. Though he wasn't around at the time, surely he was aware of the Wars of the Roses. Had he died during this time, leaving only a daughter, a similar situation could have occurred.

Blood on the sheets is not a reliable method of detecting virginity. Not all women bleed.
You are right about one thing, Henry would do whatever he needed to do to have sons. Whether or not Catherine lied, we will never know. But people do lie, it happens every day.

Well Catherine said that Henry more assuredly knew for sure. If not blood on the sheets, then obvious pain and/or lack of experience on Catherine's part as the act was taking place. But somehow, some way, Catherine was positive that Henry knew she was a virgin. And certainly, at that point of their marriage, after Henry had taken a few mistresses, he probably knew the difference between virgins and non-virgins.

All we have are opinions and speculation. We will never know for sure. And it wouldn't make any difference anyway.

I know. The same thing has been said several times throughout this thread. Each side has its supporters and without benefit of a time machine there's no way to know anything for sure. This whole situation reminds me of when I used to do mock trial. Each side (defense and prosecution) had a 50/50 shot at winning, based on evidence given. The winner was whomever presented the case best. I think this particular situation is 50/50 as well.

Yeah Taren, I know. But I have to admit, I do enjoy speculation. 
On this particular case, I could argue either way.

I think you could argue this either way, if you wished. I have my opinion, and it doesn't change. Perhaps Henry did have more experience at the time of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon then we give him credit for. His father was not one to push that though, as other monarchs did with their sons at that time. He may not have known whether she was a virgin or not, so we can't just say that because he said she wasn't, she was not. It's never as easy as that with Henry, who always wanted his way. 

Imperial Angel,
Quick question.
Who are the other monarchs to whom you refer?

Well, in general in Europe of that time, young princes were encouraged to get some experience in this line before being married off dynastically to produce heirs. I can't cite specific examples, so perhaps I should not have said that, but in general young princes were encouraged to go sow their wild oats, to use a phrase. Not that many of them needed encouraging, since most had the example of a father who had all too many mistresses. Henry VII was rather austere there, and so was some of the English court of the time.

Henry VII was definately austere (and a usurper to boot ) but he still managed to father a bastard.

Well, maybe he was more in that line than I gave him credit for. He looks so austere in those old portraits, then you read about how he was austere in personality, and you have this image of him. But although he was much like that, he was also human, too.

Well, maybe he was more in that line than I gave him credit for. He looks so austere in those old portraits, then you read about how he was austere in personality, and you have this image of him. But although he was much like that, he was also human, too.

Being austere has very little to do with his carnal appetite.

But the two that he had killed came after his marriage to Catherine and her death.

I wouldn't exactly call him a man-whore prior to his first marriage, but I do believe there was a degree of experience there. Even if he had had no experience until his wedding night, how forgetful would he have been to not recall later on if there had been blood on the sheets? If, during the trial, when Catherine implored him to say that she had been a virgin, he could have said that he figured out later that she wasn't a virgin. Of course that would imply that he wasn't perfect and all knowing, so the chances of that were pretty much nil.

Basically, Henry was going to whatever he could to ensure the succession -and that included getting rid of a good wife and mother. Though he wasn't around at the time, surely he was aware of the Wars of the Roses. Had he died during this time, leaving only a daughter, a similar situation could have occurred.

Blood on the sheets is not a reliable method of detecting virginity. Not all women bleed.
You are right about one thing, Henry would do whatever he needed to do to have sons. Whether or not Catherine lied, we will never know. But people do lie, it happens every day.

Any chance we can convince an anthropologist to dig up Prince Arthur  and examine the bones? If the anthropologist can't tell whether the skeleton is male or female, it would lend weight to the argument that Catherine was telling the truth.....