Author Topic: Katherine Parr?  (Read 50784 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2006, 07:00:50 AM »
Kate Parr was well educated and very much a religious radical, along with Catherine Willoughby, Anne Askew, Anne Boleyn and Jane Grey (according to Paul Zahle).
David Starkey states that there are no sources to support the claim that Katherine Parr acted as Henry's nurse......"The notion would have been absurd and even indecent".

we've discussed this before. i can see the term 'nurse' in more than a physical way. i don't think she changed his bedpan or gave him medicines. but i can see her staying at his side when he was ill, reading him, talking to him... that's as nursing as the physical sense of the word. and it's in no way indecent, i think it was even considered a wifely duty.

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2006, 07:19:43 AM »
That was a quote from Starkey ;)
According to Strickland; "she would remain for hours on her knees beside him, applying fomentations and other palliatives to his ulcerated leg". It is this statement that has no source to support it.
Member of the Richard III Society

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2006, 08:47:19 AM »
i don't think anyone expected her to phisically take care of him. and i don't think she did it. however i do think she was more of a comfort to an old man rather than an actual wife. i don't think there was any passion on any side - rather that henry wanted a sensible woman to be a good wife and reailzed catherine fitted the picture.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2006, 11:33:16 AM »
No, Katherine Parr was never his nurse in a physical sense. That would indeed have been a surprising notion... ;) But in a non physical sense, I can see her being his nurse. That's true. I don't think that their marriage was a passionate match, but at the same time, Henry would never have married a woman simply as a companion even after Catherine Howard, and even with the coming of his old age. As for the Strickland quote, it seems dubious. It's a rather Victorian notion that she would have been his nurse in a literal sense, and if not sourced, is most likely inaccurate.

Paul

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2006, 02:01:08 PM »
Well, if he knew she was thinking of remarrying, I can see him sending Katherine Parr the way of certain other of his wives. Fidelity to him ( if you were his wife) was an all important virtue, and that's the reason Catherine Howard breathed her last. Katherine Parr would not have had to be physically unfaithful to him then to warrant a bad reaction, just knowing she intended to remarry might well have been enough. But he didn't know that, and had no proof. He would not have exceuted her for being a bit if an argument or annoyance when it came to talking religion.

Agreed. He wouldn't have executed her for engaging in scholarly debate. He even seems to have accepted her reasons for arguing: for his entertainment.
Had Henry really intended to arrest her, he probably would've done so. He more than proved that he could striike down anyone who vexed him without warning. I wonder if, in addition to scaring her, he was trying to flush out the pro-Roman sympathisers at court by making his Protestant wife appear to be falling out of favour?.

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2006, 03:16:09 PM »
Him, or his catholic councillors ;)
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2006, 04:21:53 PM »
Indeed, had he wished he could have executed her, and come up with sound reasons for doing so, or at least reasons that seemed sound. ;) Anyone could be at his mercy, he did not have to scare people or play games. He was the King of England, and he had sent many people to the axe before. If he had been serious, he would have had Katherine sent to the tower, and he would have come up with some trumped up charges against her. I think he did intend to scare her though.

Offline historylover

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 170
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Writer and Editor
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2006, 01:17:59 AM »
He was apparently pretty sick of her spouting religion at him all the time and lost his temper.  He wanted her to know who was King!
Regards,
Lisa

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2006, 12:45:57 PM »
Yes, it seems that was the case. Henry would not have executed her for this, he just got sick and tired of it, and gave her a friendly reminder or warning, whichever you look at it. ;) I think Katherine got the message.

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2006, 12:54:37 PM »
I don't know... I think that if Henry was less ill and more inclined to marry someone else, he would have been more inclined to execute her to make way for a new wife... Don't forget, there were some strong Catholic political powers working against Katherine at the time, trying to get rid of this very protestant queen and set up a new catholic one. They would have arranged her execution if they could, be sure of it. She came very very close, IMO, and if Henry didn't die when he did, they would have succeeded eventually. In fact, if Katherine didn't find out about the signed order in advance and devised a plan, I have a feeling she would have been executed that time.... 

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2006, 01:01:52 PM »
I don't know, I guess I can never believe that. I think that Henry and Katherine had a fairly satisfactory marriage for him, and that they were fairly happy. He didn't need heirs, and Katherine wasn't flighty, the type who would carry on affairs and intrigues behind his back. She was the type who would be stable and there, although I am sure she watched her back granted who she was married to. She was an intelligent woman though, and there was no one obviously in the cards for Henry to marry if he rid himself of her. Usually, he didn't get rid of one wife, until he had another lined up, and Katherine really was a good wife for his old age.

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #41 on: November 06, 2006, 01:11:21 PM »
I don't know, I guess I can never believe that. I think that Henry and Katherine had a fairly satisfactory marriage for him, and that they were fairly happy. He didn't need heirs, and Katherine wasn't flighty, the type who would carry on affairs and intrigues behind his back. She was the type who would be stable and there, although I am sure she watched her back granted who she was married to. She was an intelligent woman though, and there was no one obviously in the cards for Henry to marry if he rid himself of her. Usually, he didn't get rid of one wife, until he had another lined up, and Katherine really was a good wife for his old age.

There was a lot more to a king's marriage than that. There was POLITICS! This was very important, especially in King Henry VIII's marriages...


Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #42 on: November 06, 2006, 01:14:53 PM »
Yes, I know. But it wasn't only politics that did in Catherine Howard or Anne of Cleves. In the 16th century, and certainly in Henry VIII'S England, the desires of the king, personal desires of his, were often the politics. It wasn't like today when politics are more removed from rulers, in monarchy at least. Then, it was often the personal whims of the ruler that made the politics, etc. Politics is a great way to understand things, but isn't everything...

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2006, 01:17:42 PM »
Right, they couldn't "get" Katherine with a charge of sexual misconduct because she behaved irreproachably and had impeccable morals. BUT the Catholic faction headed by Gardiner were desperate to entrap her. Here was a Queen with a privy chamber full of, not only heretics but intelligent FEMALE heretics with strong evangelical opinions. Katherine was definately in terrible danger, and she knew it.- she ordered secure coffers with new locks to prevent unauthorized prying, she hid some of her more controversial religious books in her garderobe (toilet) and others she had smuggled out of the palace, to her uncle's house. I think she escaped the axe by the skin of her teeth.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 01:25:16 PM by Kimberly »
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Katherine Parr?
« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2006, 01:21:40 PM »
It is ALL about politics. You have a Catholic consort, the Protestants would try to oust her and set up a Protestant queen. You have a Protestant queen as consort, the Catholics would want her dethroned and "one of their own" put in her place.
Not being flippant here but I think Katherine thanked God for Henry's piles, constipation and painful leg ulcers. I agree with Helen, if Hal had been well, she would have been dead.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 01:23:47 PM by Kimberly »
Member of the Richard III Society