Could Catherine of Aragon have lied?

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, he was kind of trapped into marrying Anne Bolyen even if that may not have been what he wanted to do if he had more of a free choice, which he didn't have. I think he was still pretty infatuated with Anne at the time of their marriage though, even if later ( especially when the desired male heir wasn't born), it waned.

[Kimberly]

Don't forget, Anne was also pregnant by the time they married

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, that was one of the reasons why he was trapped into marrying her good or bad. He also wanted his heir whom he sincerely believed was a male. He would not have given up his chance for a legitimate male heir for anything.

[Alixz]

I don't understand Zackattack either.  Prince Arthur was Catherine's husband and Henry's brother.  Everyone knew he was male.  His bones would be male, unless Zackattack is thinking that Arthur was not male and that Catherine married him thinking he was male but was really female?

Whew, I can make no sense of that one.

[Romanov_fan]

You can certainly learn stuff from forensics, but I am not sure you could prove that Prince Arthur wasn't male.  I am sure he was, without doubt.

[FaithWhiteRose]

Katherine and Arthur's marriage was consummated. I don't want to list the reasons, I mean, there are so many! But I really do think it was consummated and I don't think anyone can change my mind.

~i

[Maria_Pavlovna]

Reason why I think it was NOT consummated:

Catherine was very religious and I don’t think she’ll lie about her marriage life with her first husband.
And I don’t think Catherine would lie about it and even lying to the Pope.


Reason why I think it was Consummated:

People during that time marry as young as 13 and many of those marriages were consummated on their wedding nights.


I don’t have a lot of reasons because am new at the Tudors topics and I mostly study Russian History (forgive me ) .  I hate to lie and everyone tells me that am very bad at it too.  lol

[Yseult]

I trust in Catherine.
She was a very pious woman. She "felt" her religious faith in every inch of her skin, in her flesh and blood, in her bones. She could not die with such a lie in her concience.

[Lady Nikolaievna]

Catherine was a very religious woman and I admire her, but I think it's hard she and Arthur didn't consumate their marriage. It's the first thing a married couple do, and that time, was a matter of politics. If the marriage had been consumed, it couldn't be annulled. They would never imagine Arthur would die. They needed Spain.

[Velasco]

"Immoderate coitus" and sex at too young a age was seen as prejudicial to one's health at that time, and when Arthur died, and when the Infante Juan died (Catherine's brother) and King Louis of France (Mary Tudor's husband) and many others died it was said to be because of too much sex. At one point Henry VII advised Arthur not to cohabit with Catherine because of his health, if I recall correctly. Arthur was sick and of a weak constituition and perhaps the two were simply "put to bed" but didn't actually consummate the act, although it seems hard for me to believe they did NOTHING, ever; he was her husbadn, at very least he would have tried SOMETHING. I dunno. On the other hand I don't think Catherine would lie, her maids all backed up that she didn't have sex, plus the Papal dispensation provided for her marriage to Henry whether she consummated her union to Arthur or not.

[Kimberly]

Hi all. Just wanted to bring this new biography of Catherine of Aragon to your attention. I have just got back from the Cheltenham Literature Festival after listening to Giles Tremlett talk passionately about the lady. His book looks really good and "meaty" and is written with a Spanish "slant" ( Giles is the Madrid correspondant for the Guardian newspaper).
On the $64000 question as to wether Catherine's first marriage was consumated.......he feels that it wasn't. He has access to documents/statements written on behalf of her Spanish attendants that directly contradict those made by Arthur's English attendants ( some could say- well they would wouldn't they :-) ).
I have about 6 books to read before I can dive into this one so here's hoping some of you will get to it before I do.
Cheers.
http://www.walkerbooks.com/books/catalog.php?key=876

[Kimberly]

Another excerpt from Giles Tremlett's book. He talked quite extensively about this.....quite fascinating
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-1326591/Was-Henry-Vllls-wife-anorexic-Catherine-Aragons-secret-problem.html

Although I do take issue with "fertility problems". Catherine had no problems conceiving!

[clockworkgirl21]

I've had a good time reading through this. I'm very interested in the Tudors. Not as much as the Romanovs, but they're still very interesting.

You have to remember blood on the sheets and absence of a hymen doesn't necessarily mean anything. Some women bleed without a hymen, some don't bleed at all, some tear their hymens roughhousing as children. That's why doctors can't determine the virginity of a woman any better than he can the virginity of a man. It baffles me that it took society so long to accept this!

IMO Catherine wasn't lying. If she did, I in no way blame her, but I believe even Henry knew she wasn't lying, but decided to put her aside for Anne anyway.

[mcdnab]

A few points to add to this interesting discussion:
Firstly the question has no bearing on the legality of Catherine's second marriage.
As Starkey showed the dispensation covered all eventualities to satifsy both parties (the English were insisting the marriage had been consumated whilst the Spanish court was saying it hadn't been). Henry's main arguement was that the Pope had no right to dispense what was a biblical ban irrespective of whether Catherine and Arthur's marriage had been consummated.
Catherine was a teenage girl alone in a foreign country with arguing attendants and a dowery that was only part paid and entirely dependent on the charity of her father in law. According to her own attendants comments at the time of the dispensation it is entirely possible that she herself wasn't entirely sure what had happened but as with many people however devout and honest memories fade and change - and by the late 1520's it absolutely suited her purpose to insist on her viriginity at the time of her second marriage.
I for one find it hard to believe that two attractive teenagers thrown together with the eyes of their small court upon them and the hope of their respective families resting on them didn't do something.
As to the motivations - the french raised questions over Mary's legitimacy in the early 1520's but it is clear as Reginald Pole wrote at the time that the King's desire for Anne Boleyn was the engine behind his wish to declare his first marriage invalid which was his only route to his desire for a new wife.
I for one have no doubt that Henry hadn't tired of her by the time of their marriage and the birth of Elizabeth - though I think Anne's strong temperament and increasing stress (after failing to produce the much promised son) ultimately turned their passion sour.

[Kalafrana]

We will, of course, never know.

On the one hand Arthur was a poor specimen and died of a lingering illness only six months later. Therefore he was incapable of consummating his marriage.

On the other hand Arthur was a poor specimen and died of a lingering illness only six months later. Therefor there was every reason to consummate this marriage as soon as possible, and a fifteen-year-old boy of heterosexual interests would have to be very far gone not to be able to manage it with an attractive girl brought into his bed.

I'm inclined to think the marriage wasn't consummated, but that is opinion, no more.

Ann