Four Times a European Queen Married Two Different Kings

Historically kings have been the formal heads of state in Europe, with their queens losing their position on death as a new king was installed. However, queens did not always stop being queens. Here, Samantha Arrowsmith tells us about four times that European queens married a king for a second time – specifically, their first husband’s successor.

Anne of Brittany, Queen of France, receiving a manuscript praising famous women from from Antoine Dufour.

Introduction

Royal women were raised to be matrimonial ambassadors representing their family’s interests at a foreign court. Their power lay through the men that they knew as a daughter, wife and mother and, excluded from the explicit power that a king could wield, an ambitious woman’s opportunity lay in the intimate power she had with her husband.

But what happened when that marriage ended through the death of their husband?

Second marriages were not always guaranteed and royal woman were just as likely to be sent to a nunnery, as they were to be of use to their family for a second time. For some, however, not only did they remarry, but they married their husband’s successor, often at the ostracization of their sons, the derision of their subjects and the condemnation of historians to come.

Here we will look at four women in particular.

Judith of Flanders, Queen of Wessex (c. 844-c870) was the daughter of Charles the Bald and married Æthelwulf in 856 followed by his son Æthelbald in 858. Carolingian princesses were raised with a close affinity to a life in the church and very few of them ever married a foreign king[i].

Emma of Normandy, Queen of England (c. 984-1052) was the sister of Richard II of Normandy and came to England in 1002 as the second wife of Æthelred II. On his death in 1016 she married his successor, the Viking invader Cnut. She was a powerful and influential queen, commissioning a biography (The Encomium Emmae Reginae) and appearing in contemporary portraits. She was the mother of two kings.

Anne of Brittany, Queen of France (1477-1514) was the Duchess of Brittany in her own right, having inherited the strategically vital duchy from her father in 1488. It instantly made her one of the most coveted heiresses in Europe, and after having her marriage to Maximillian I of Austria annulled, she married Charles VIII of France in 1491. On his death in 1499, she married his cousin and successor, Louis XII, with whom she had two daughters.

Catherine of Aragon, Princess of Wales (1485-1536) was the daughter of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon. She was married to Arthur, Prince of Wales in 1501 at the age of fifteen and was widowed less than five months later. His successor as both the Welsh prince and English heir was his younger brother, Prince Henry, the future Henry VIII, who she eventually married in 1509. She had one living child, a daughter, Mary I of England.

So why did these women marry the man who succeeded their husbands?

Did they really have a choice?

The first question often asked when considering the fortunes of royal women is whether they really had any choices. The natural assumption is to see them as powerless and tools of the men around them.

Royal women of any era suffered from a lack of free-will, particularly when it came to marriage. Even after having performed their duty for their first marriage, very few had the freedom to choose for themselves when it came to their second husband. However, that is not the same as saying that they were all completely powerless.

Of our royal women, two, Catherine of Aragon and Emma of Normandy, were possibly prisoners between the death of their husbands and their second marriages. Catherine almost certainly was, remaining trapped in England whilst her father refused to pay the second half of the dowry she had brought with her on her marriage to Arthur. It was a sum he became increasingly unable to afford, especially after the death of her mother, Isabella, in 1504 when he lost access to the rich lands of Castile, now inherited by his eldest daughter, Joanna. However, as we will discuss further, Catherine was not altogether reluctant to stay, and she avoided several opportunities to return home.

Emma was probably in London at the time of her husband’s death (although the Encomium Emmae Reginae claims that she was in Normandy[ii]), unable or unwilling to leave. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle certainly seems to show that she was brought to Cnut on his instruction:

‘And then, before the Kalends of August, the king commanded the relict of king Æthelred, Richard's daughter, to be fetched for his wife; that was Ælfgive in English, Emma in French.’[iii]

However, the Encomium showed Emma as having a more inclusive role in the decision, being an equal part of the protracted discussions between the two, which decided her future[iv]. Historians have also cast doubt on the theory that she was trapped, instead theorizing that it was her choice to stay in England whilst her sons fled[v].

For Anne of Brittany the decision was even more clear cut; her marriage contract with her first husband Charles VIII of France had specifically stipulated that should he die before her without a male heir she was to marry his successor. The clause ensured that France would retain control of her duchy, intending that it would eventually be annexed permanently once a male French heir was born.

Of the four of them only Judith of Flanders seems to have had a modicum of choice. Both of her Wessex husbands predeceased her, and on the death of her second husband, Æthelbald, Judith quickly sold her English lands and returned to Flanders. The fact that she chose, and was able, to do this suggests that it may have been possible for her to have done the same on Æthelwulf’s death two years earlier. Staying in Wessex to marry his son may have been a conscious choice rather than something forced upon her.

To avoid a life in religious obsoletion 

Finding themselves retired to a religious house was a fate that awaited many royal women and for some it was a preferable option to what might otherwise await, including death. Choosing to bow out gracefully could help ensure that they had some input into where and how they went, especially as retiring to a nunnery didn’t necessarily mean taking the veil and leaving behind a life of luxury. Yet for others the idea of being pensioned off at a young age was something they were determined to resist.

For Judith, returning home to Flanders after Æthelwulf’s death would have almost certainly guaranteed her a life in a religious house, even though she was only fourteen years old. Her job of binding Wessex and Flanders together in a peace treaty against the Vikings was over and her father, Charles the Bald, was inclined to return to the country’s tradition of associating its royal woman with religious foundations. Æthelbald would have been keen to see the alliance continue, plus marrying an anointed queen would have bolstered his claim to the throne. Both would get something from the marriage, but if marrying her stepson was her way to avoid such a fate it certainly proved scandalous, even to some of her contemporaries who were used to marriages between widows and successors. The chronicler Asser reported:

‘Once King Æthelwulf was dead, Æthelbald, his son, against God's prohibition and Christian dignity, and also contrary to the practice of all pagans, took over his father's marriage-bed and married Judith, daughter of Charles, king of the Franks, incurring great disgrace from all who heard of it.’[vi]

She had been right, however, about her fate: when Æthelbald died and she went home, her father housed her in the monastery at Senlis under episcopal guardianship; she only escaped when she eloped with her third husband.

Catherine of Aragon’s chances of being sent to a nunnery were equally assured after the death of her first husband, Arthur, Prince of Wales in 1502. Although often portrayed as a pious and religious queen, Catherine would spend the next seven years fighting to secure a marriage that would keep her in England and out of a nunnery. Initially, she was offered the chance to wed the present king, Henry VII, her father-in-law, but she fiercely opposed the suggestion, persuading her mother, the formidable Isabella of Castile, to her cause:

‘[his proposal] would be an evil thing, the mere mention of which offends the ears, and we would not for anything in the world that it should take place.’[vii]

They both knew that, with Henry not having long to live, any marriage between the two would quickly see Catherine a widow again, only now with no hope of another marriage. Instead, she pinned her future on her ten-year-old brother-in-law, telling her father that she would rather die in England than return to Spain rejected[viii]. By 1503 her fortunes seemed to have rallied when a new marriage treaty was arranged and she was betrothed to the new Prince of Wales, but the date for the wedding came and went and as the years passed her value to her family began to diminish.  Her father still refused to pay the dowry and her mother’s death a year later saw his power shrink on the international stage, destroying her worth as a bride. Henry VII began to look towards more important European houses for a bride for his son and Prince Henry was forced to repudiate his previous betrothal vows. Catherine’s chances seemed over and a return to Aragon was suggested right up until 1509, but she resisted at least until March that year; as the Dowager Princess of Wales with an impoverished father with domestic issues, even she had accepted that going home to a religious life was the best she had to look forward to. It was only Henry VII’s death a few months later and the chivalric determination of Henry VIII to marry her that saved her from such a fate. 

Protecting the life of her sons

Marriage was the measure of a royal woman’s purpose and the birth of a son the pinnacle of her achievements, yet of our four queens only Emma had sons, both with her first husband Æthelred II (Edward and Alfred) and her second, his successor, Cnut (Harthacnut).

Emma’s motives for marrying Cnut are complex, and historians have sought to condemn and excuse her actions in equal measure. The portrayal of her actions in a positive light is evidenced by the explanation that her marriage protected her sons from certain death. Undoubtedly Cnut would have been threatened by Edward and Alfred, especially as they had taken refuge at the court of their uncle in Normandy. Sons of a previous king were dangerous if left unchecked and though both boys had an elder brother by their father’s first wife, the rule of primogeniture had still not fully developed at this time, leaving the throne open to whoever proved the strongest.

By marrying Cnut, Emma hoped to give him assurances that she would not support their claim and deter her brother from acting on behalf of his nephews, thus negating Cnut’s need to be rid of them. Yet Emma’s own record of her marriage to Cnut in the Encomium seems to show that her thoughts on marrying him were not for Alfred or Edward, but rather for the sons they might have together:

‘But she refused ever to become the bride of Knutr, unless he would affirm to her by oath, that he would never set up the son of any wife other than herself to rule after him, if it happened that God should give her a son by him.’[ix]

Similarly, if she had married him only to protect the claims of her and Æthelred’s sons, she had certainly had a change of heart by the time Cnut died in 1035. Emma chose to support the claim of his child, Harthacnut, over that of her last surviving son with Æthelred, Edward, retaining much of the power she had had as Queen Consort. Edward did not forget it. Even more shocking is the possibility that she was responsible for encouraging her boys to leave the comparable safety of Normandy in 1036, resulting in Alfred’s horrific blinding and death; the fact that the Encomium works hard to clear her name shows how seriously the idea was taken at the time.

To protect her own inheritance

Though Anne had no children at the time of the death of her first husband, Charles VIII, her marriage to his successor, Louis XII, did, in many ways, aim to protect the rights of any future children she might have.

The year after her marriage to Charles VIII in 1491, Anne was described by the Venetian ambassador as a highly determined woman:

‘Her wit is remarkable for her age and once she has set her mind on doing something, she makes sure she succeeds, by all means necessary and at any price.’[x]

As duchess in her own right, she was fiercely protective of Brittany’s independence from France and although Charles VIII contracted her to marry the next king (despite him already having a wife, her sister-in-law, Joan of France), she was shrewd enough to protect her own interests in the process. Alongside the ruling that she must marry Louis, was also the caveat that should she outlive Charles then she would retain her possession of Brittany as its Duchess. Accordingly, she often toured her homeland as its ruler and protector and arranged that the heir to the duchy would be her daughter Claude, rather than it passing with the French crown to the next male heir (her husband’s cousin, Francis I)[xi].

Retaining power

The power that came with queenship varied from woman to woman, location to location and century to century. What one woman could obtain in ninth-century Wessex was not the same as another in fifteenth-century France. Yet, having known power and influence with one husband may well have driven a widow of any era to seek the same with their next, and who better than the successor to that power.

This was, of course, very much dependent on the nature of the women and the time that they were given to find their place. As Princess of Wales, fifteen-year-old Catherine never had the opportunity to do much and, equally, although the two years of Judith’s marriage to the elderly Æthelwulf saw the teenage queen holding a special status when he ‘conferred on her the title of queen: something not customary before then to him or his people'[xii], she had little other power. Yet both saw what they could have and chose to stay in England and Wessex respectively, in order to achieve it.

For Anne, also only around twelve at the time of her marriage to Charles VIII, the power that she sought to protect was not that which she had found in France, but rather the power she already exercised in her own homeland. She had already annulled one marriage in order to claim the security of a connection with France and marrying Louis allowed her to retain and enjoy her freedoms as duchess for the rest of her life.

Of our four women, it was Emma who wielded the most power as a queen consort, though it may be premature to say that she married Cnut in order to keep what she had had with Æthelred. He had accorded her some influence, as her witnessing of royal charters shows, and yet she did not have the influence needed to ensure the succession of her son. For any queen, being the mother of the next king was what safeguarded her control, and when England fell into war between Æthelred’s, eldest son, Edmund, and the Viking invaders, neither of Emma’s sons were in a position to challenge him. Cnut’s victory gave her an alternative.

Having considered the positive interpretation of Emma’s actions (that of securing her sons’ safety), we should now consider the possible negative motive. Did she cut her losses with her children and accept marriage to the new king in order to protect her own position? Edward certainly never had a close bond with her, and their relationship remained strained after he became king in 1042, with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle suggesting that:

‘she had formerly been very hard to the king, her son, in that she did less for him than he wished both before he became king and afterwards as well.'[xiii]

Whatever her reason, it certainly proved a prudent and clever move and she developed her role with Cnut beyond what she had had with Æthelred, She become Queen of Denmark and Norway when Cnut inherited the thrones from his elder brother and was probably made regent during his subsequent absences from England. She was a formidable patron of the church and sources describe her almost as Cnut’s partner, appearing alongside him on the frontispiece of the New Minster Liber Vitae. On his death she was powerful enough to take hold of the royal treasury at Winchester, and for a time she was the richest woman in England.

Conclusion

Once a woman was sent to her new husband her work as an intercessor between him and her family had only just begun. They were the link that bound two nations to peace, trade and prosperity and whose offspring would continue that connection for centuries to come. But when death intervened and that role was no longer possible it was not always the case that her family would need or want her back.

It is easy to judge royal women as either pawns in men’s games or as scheming mercenaries ready to forget their husbands almost as soon as they were dead. Neither is wholly accurate. Power was a complex and dangerous thing for women and they were forced to make difficult choices in order to retain their freedom, dignity and status. Marriage was a political game and women proved that they could play it just as well as a man when fate allowed. Marrying their husband’s successor was neither a betrayal or callous. It was a way to survive a difficult and political world.

What do you think about these four queens?

Now, read Samantha’s article of James VI/James I, the king whose lovers were men – here.

[i] MacLean, S. Queenship, Nunneries and Royal Widowhood in Carolingian Europe, p11-12; Stafford, Pauline. Queens, Concubines and Dowagers: the King’s Wife in the Early Middle Ages, p47.

[ii] The Encomium Emmae Reginae, Book 2:16. Simon Keynes believes that this ‘add[s] to the evidence that [the Encomium] …took considerable liberties with the truth’. Keynes, Simon Emma [Ælfgifu].

[iii] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A1017, trans J A Giles, p107.

[iv] The Encomium Emmae Reginae, Book 2:17.

[v] Keynes, Emma [Ælfgifu]

[vi] From Asser’s Life of Alfred, Chapter 17, quoted in Nelson, Janet. Æthelwulf

[vii] Isabella, Queen of Castile, quoted in Williams, Neville. The Life and Times of Henry VII, p194.

[viii]  Scarisbrick, JJ. Henry VIII, p11.

[ix] The Encomium Emmae Reginae, Book 2:16.

[x] Ambassador Zaccaria Contarini, 1492 quoted in Representations of Anne of Brittany

[xi] Nevertheless, Claude was married to Francis (against Anne’s wishes) binding the duchy to France.

[xii] Annals of St Bertin, s.a. 856 quoted in Nelson, Æthelwulf

[xiii] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle A 1043, p115

Bibliography

Davis, CSL and Edwards, John. Katherine [Catalina, Catherine, Katherine of Aragon] in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2011

Firth, Matt. Queenship and Power: the political life of Emma of Normandy

Keynes, Simon Emma [Ælfgifu] in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004

MacLean, S. Queenship, Nunneries and Royal Widowhood in Carolingian Europe. Past & Present, (178), 3-38, 2003

Nelson, Janet. Æthelwulf in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004

Parsons, John Carmi. ‘Mothers, Daughters, Marriage, Power: some Plantagenet evidence, 1150-1500’ in Medieval Queenship ed John Carmi Parsons, Sutton, 1993

Scarisbrick, JJ. Henry VIII, Methuen, London, 1983

Stafford, Pauline. Queens, Concubines and Dowagers: the King’s Wife in the Early Middle Ages. Leicester University Press,1998

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle trans, J A Giles, London, 1914

The Encomium Emmae Reginae trans, Alistair Campbell (1949), published at Internet Medieval Source Book, Fordham University, 2019

Williams, Neville. The Life and Times of Henry VII, Book Club Associates, London, 1983

Henry VIII's Divorce of Catherine of Aragon – Who had the Better Case in the Great Divorce? Part 3: Catherine’s Case for the Marriage

King Henry VIII of England’s divorce, or annulment, of Catherine of Aragon in 1533 is one of the most infamous separations in history. And while we nearly all know the end result of the divorce proceedings, in hindsight who had the stronger case?  In part 3 of the series, Victor Gamma considers Catherine’s arguments - and how Henry’s arguments related to consummation and the Bible were not terribly strong.

You can read part 1 on the background to the great divorce here and part 2 on how Henry’s efforts to overturn the marriage in the courts failed here.

An 18th century painting of Catherine of Aragon.

Catherine's Case

From the start Catherine of Aragon refused to entertain the slightest notion that her marriage to the king was anything but holy and entirely acceptable.  Moreover, she indicated that she would not accept any decision not coming from the Roman Curia or the Pope himself. Nonetheless, she appeared at the Blackfriars tribunal. On June 18, when both king and queen were present at Blackfriars, Catherine presented her case publically. When the clerk called out "Catherine. Queen of England, come into the court," she did not answer. Instead she went to the King directly, kneeling before him. In an unforgettable scene, Catherine pled her case before the king and the assembled court officials and nobles gathered that day. She knew that everything depended on her words and actions. She may never again have another chance to sway the mind of her husband and sovereign, King Henry VIII. In a "posture of absolute submission" Catherine ignored court protocol and knelt before Henry;

"Sir, I beseech you for all the love that hath been between us, and for the love of God, let me have justice. Take of some pity and compassion, for I am a poor woman, and a stranger born out of your dominion. I have here no assured friends, and much less impartial counsel."

Then in a brief but eloquent speech, she laid out her case. It included four main points. First, she reminded him and all those present that she had been a dutiful, good wife and had given no cause for offense. Second, lack of a male heir was not her fault. Third, she had been a virgin when she had married Henry and finally, she indicated that the court was biased against her and that she needed counsel.

Catherine’s supporters

But Catherine was not alone. Numerous supporters had come to her aid. Their arguments will be considered hers. Bishop Fisher, on behalf of the queen declared "this marriage of the king and queen can be dissolved by no power, human or divine." During the Blackfriars tribunal, the effort to build Catherine’s defense began in earnest. One argument was simply the insincerity of the king; “the idea of separation originated entirely in his own iniquity and malice” averred the Spanish ambassador, Eustace Chapuys. Furthermore he asserted that “The King’s passion for the Lady, (Anne Boleyn) combined with his obstinacy were such that there was no chance of recalling him by mildness or fair words to a sense of his duty.” Chapuys here referred to the fact that at this time King Henry was deeply involved with another woman, Anne Boleyn.

As to the character of Catherine, since no direct evidence existed, the character of the witnesses counted for much. Those who knew her were universal in their high opinion of her. Eustace Chapuys noted of Catherine that she was ‘so virtuous, devout and holy, so truthful and God-fearing’ that it was unthinkable for a lie to proceed from her pious lips.’ 

Consummation claim

The critical point of debate was over whether Arthur and Catherine's brief (four months) marriage had been consummated. In the words of the catechism, “the marriage bond has been established by God Himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved.” In Medieval thinking, an impediment of affinity only existed if the marriage had been consummated.  If the marriage had never been consummated then it could be considered not legally binding, thus for Henry to marry his brother’s widow would upset no precepts of Biblical or Canon law. Henry strove mightily, then to prove the marriage had been consummated. He could then more easily make the case that he and Catherine had been living in sin. The queen insisted that she was a virgin when she married Henry. Catherine had begun asserting this as early as 1502, within months of Arthur's death, and stood firm on this point to the end of her days. There is no record of Arthur's opinion on the subject. Catherine, known for her extreme piety, had sworn on the sacrament that her four-month marriage to Arthur had never been consummated. Rather than believe his saintly wife, Henry insisted otherwise. Despite this, Henry VIII himself had stated that he had found her a 'maid' on their wedding night and he never publicly called Catherine a liar, indeed he even publicly admitted she was right.

In October 1529, when his wife once again publicly proclaimed her maiden status, Henry shouted “I am content, but you are not my wife for all that.” Furthermore, the 'bedding' of Catherine and Arthur was a ceremonial part of a royal marriage process and did not require consummation. In marriages of state, the wedding and the consummation did not necessarily go hand in hand. Additionally, the health of the bridegroom was taken seriously. Arthur was frail and physically immature. Soon after the wedding ceremony to Arthur it was arranged that Catherine stay in London under the tutelage of her mother and grandmother-in-law while Arthur did some more growing up without the distraction of a wife. As to witnesses; after his wedding night, Arthur is reported to have asked for ale to quench his thirst "for I have been in the midst of Spain last night." These words indicating consummation repeated seventeen years later are doubtful. In each case they were most likely the self-serving claims of courtiers who wished to win their sovereign’s favor or the nervous, youthful boasting of the Prince who wished to hide his failure to consummate his marriage.  

Biblical claim

Now for the biblical grounds. Here Catherine’s cause was helped by several facts. First, whether the marriage of Arthur and Catherine was consummated or not does not bear on the scriptures of Leviticus that relate to the issue. The verses in Leviticus do not mention anything about the status of the relationship at the point it was violated. 

Another weakness with Henry's argument was that the verse states the offending couple shall remain childless. It said nothing about sons. Since Henry and Catherine had a daughter, he thus could not make a valid argument that God was punishing him. Henry argued that the Greek had been improperly translated into Latin. "Liberis" - "children," should have been rendered "filiis" - sons. However, in Leviticus 20:20, the verse before the one Henry used, a curse is placed on a couple if a man had relations with his uncle's wife. The same Hebrew term "childless" is used in verse 20. It is highly unlikely that a translator would use a different term just one verse later. 

Even more damaging to his case was Deuteronomy 25:5 that specifically stated a man's obligation to his brother's widow, namely, that he must marry her and raise up children so that his dead brother’s name would continue. The brother is not simply encouraged but commanded to fulfill this obligation. To marry Catherine King Henry had brushed aside this seeming contradiction to his interpretation of the Leviticus verses as an example of Jewish custom rather than Divine Law. But, as was pointed out, one cannot simply decide which verse is Jewish custom and which is Divine Law arbitrarily. Leviticus or Deuteronomy are silent as to any such distinction. Sound Biblical exegesis demands the two verses be harmonized. Bishop Fisher argued that a brother is never to marry his sister-in-law with one exception: that in Deuteronomy of the brother dying without children. The light shed by comparing scripture with scripture further withered Henry’s argument. The Old Testament contains multiple occasions in which someone is enjoined to fulfill this very duty. In Genesis 38:8 Judah twice orders his sons to perform this obligation with his daughter-in-law Tamar. In fact, when Judah’s son Onan refused to comply, he was struck dead by God! Here and in many other places it is clear that this was a well-established custom of the Jews, codified in the Law. In the New Testament, John the Baptist’s condemnation of Herod for marrying his brother’s wife was due to the fact that his brother was still alive. This clearly demonstrates the common Jewish understanding that the prohibition applied only in that case of a dead brother dying without offspring. If that weren’t enough, all the great Catholic theologians including St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, Thomas Aquinus, and others had analyzed the apparent contradiction between Leviticus and Deuteronomy and stood squarely opposed to the King.

Henry VIII’s solution

Ultimately, King Henry VIII solved his problem not with canonical or Biblical argumentation but a unilateral solution in which England would act independently of Roman law. As for Clement VII, he finally got around to ruling against Henry in 1533. He then went further and ordered him to take Catherine back and, finally, excommunicated him for not doing so. But at that point, the English no longer recognized his authority anyway.

Having reviewed the opposing sides, who do you think had the better case? Let us know below.

Henry VIII's Divorce of Catherine of Aragon – Who had the Better Case in the Great Divorce? Part 2: How Henry’s Efforts to Overturn the Marriage in the Courts Failed

King Henry VIII of England’s divorce, or annulment, of Catherine of Aragon in 1533 is one of the most infamous separations in history. And while we nearly all know the end result of the divorce proceedings, in hindsight who had the stronger case?  In part 2 of the series, Victor Gamma considers how Henry tried to overturn the marriage through the English courts and then via the support of universities across Europe.

You can read part 1 on the background to the great divorce here.

King Henry VIII of England. Portrait by Hans Holbein.

Back to Henry VIII’s arguments for the divorce…

Henry’s second argument related to the dispensation granted by Pope Julius II. A dispensation is an exemption from the usual rules. The King argued that the dispensation for the marriage was null because no pope could not set aside the law of God as found in Leviticus. According to canon law, closely related couples were forbidden to marry. In other words the degree of affinity, or kinship, would present an impediment to the marriage. In Henry’s situation, he and Catherine were technically related since Catherine had been married to his brother. Also, Henry argued that the pope’s dispensation was invalid because it was based on the belief (which Henry repudiated) that Catherine’s marriage to Arthur had never been consummated. In Medieval thinking, it wasn’t a real marriage if it had never been consummated. 

Henry Goes to Court

So how did Henry VIII’s case hold up? In 1527, the King was summoned to Cardinal Wolsey's palace in Westminster. The issue of Henry's relations with his brother's widow was to be the subject of an official pronouncement. Several experts in canon law were consulted. Much to the king’s chagrin, they overwhelmingly held that Henry’s marriage to his brother’s widow did not violate God’s law and therefore, Pope Julius' dispensation had been valid as well. After a thorough study of both scripture and the Church Fathers, ecclesiastical leaders such as Bishop John Fisher declared that no prohibition against such a marriage existed. Henry’s attempts to get Pope Julius’ original dispensation for his marriage to Catherine declared invalid did not fare any better. The current pope, Clement VII, would not agree to this. First, to declare an earlier pope’s dispensation mistaken would undermine respect for the office of the papacy. Moreover, he was at the time threatened by Emperor Charles V, Catherine’s uncle. Not wishing to offend Charles, Clement could do no more than grant Henry’s wish for a commission to investigate the case. Wolsey made one last effort to argue that Julius II’s dispensation contained technical defects. This, too, failed.  

In the spring of 1529 at a Legatine court at Blackfriars, London, the public inquiry into the validity of the marriage took place. It was to be an inquisitorial procedure, attempting to discover the truth of the matter through questioning and investigation. The purpose of the court was to determine whether the marriage of Henry VIII to Catherine was valid according to Divine Law. Cardinal Campeggio, the pope’s legate, and Cardinal Wolsey, heard the case. It did not go well for Henry. Early in the proceedings he asserted that all the bishops shared his doubts about the marriage and had signed a petition to investigate the matter. At this point the indomitable Bishop John Fisher violently protested that he had not signed any such petition and that his name had been forged.  As to Fisher’s credibility, one contemporary wrote of him: "He was in holiness, learning and diligence in his cure (care of souls) and in fulfilling his office of bishop such that of many hundred years England had not any bishop worthy to be compared with him.” The bishop himself commented on the effort he put into the divorce issue: "The matter was so serious both on account of the importance of the persons it concerned, and the express command of the king, that I gave more labour and diligence to seeking out the truth lest I should fail him and others, than I ever gave to any other matter."

Henry brushed Fisher’s protest aside only to face another unexpected resistance. His wife Catherine, upsetting the procedures of the court, knelt before the king and eloquently pleaded her case. After finishing her speech she then left the court, never to return. In her absence testimony was heard regarding the issue of whether consummation between Catherine and Arthur had taken place. Much of it was flimsy. The Earl of Shrewsbury, for example, assumed that prince Arthur had consummated his marriage because he himself had done so at the age of fifteen. Another witness based his opinion on Arthur’s “sanguine complexion” after his wedding night. Others testified of comments Arthur made which implied the couple had marital relations. One had to ask why this ‘evidence’ was not brought up during the time Pope Julius was examining the case in order to grant a dispensation. Great caution must be exercised for this ‘evidence’ which mysteriously appeared only when the King needed it. The hard fact was, whether or not the queen was a virgin when she married Henry was impossible to prove. 

The court dragged on until Cardinal Campeggio, the papal legate, adjourned the court for the summer recess in July of that year. The court never re-convened nor did it ever issue any ruling. While the court was still in session, pope Clement rejected Henry’s annulment petition.

Henry Changes Tactics

Still lacking a resolution in his favor, Henry next appealed to the Universities of Europe. Henry prided himself on his scholarly abilities and felt confident in a positive result. Did the universities’ response help prove or disprove his case? Their findings generally reflected the wishes of the rulers they served. In France, for instance, they found in favor of Henry because it served the political purposes of King Francis I. Likewise, Oxford and Cambridge lent their support to their own King Henry. Enormous sums of money were spent to bribe scholars to find in favor of divorce, making many of the verdicts questionable. The Spanish scholars weighed in against divorce and in Italy opinion was divided. In short, the stalemate continued. In the war of pamphlets that accompanied this debate, John Fisher emerged as the chief opponent of the king’s argument. He so thoroughly shredded the arguments of the king’s supporters that Henry’s followers began to focus on another line of attack on another front - the original dispensation of Julius II Ad Librum Secundum issued in 1503.

How did Henry fare on this front? First of all, pains were taken to avoid the mistake of bestowing the sacrament of marriage on a couple that had an impediment. In the late Middle Ages, such dispensations were common, particularly amongst royal families wishing to preserve the bloodline. And in such a case as Henry and Catherine the impediment of affinity was not normally held to be a violation of divine law. Moreover, the king would by implication, be condemning dozens of papal dispensations granted during the previous two centuries. Despite this, Henry argued that "The marriage [to Catharine] is against human and divine law. If the papal dispensation is put forward as an argument, it may be answered that the pope's authority does not extend to degrees prohibited by divine law.” In other words, the pope had exceeded his power. But Bishop Fisher effectively destroyed that argument in a letter to Cardinal Wolsey:

"(I) Cannot see any sound reason to show that it is prohibited by divine law for a brother to marry the wife of a brother who has died without children; and considering the fullness of authority given by our Lord to the pope, who can deny that the latter may give dispensation to that effect, for any serious cause?. . . As the pope, therefore, has more than once by his act declared that it is lawful to dispense in this case...this alone should determine the question....that the dispensation is within the pope's power."

Additionally, Fisher brought up the bull of Innocent III, Deus qui Ecclesiam, in which Innocent had allowed converted Latvians to remain in marriages with their brothers' widows, providing the brothers had died childless. That effectively buried Henry’s case against Pope Julius II’s dispensation. 

Now you can read part 3 on Catherine’a case for the divorce here.

What do you think of Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon? Let us know below. 

Sources

Campbell, Phillip.”The Canon Law of the Henry VIII Divorce Case,” Senior Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Social Studies Department of Madonna University, Livonia, MI. Presented June 14th, 200.9

Fraser, Antonia, The Wives of Henry VIII. New York:Vintage Books,1994.

Guy, John, Tudor England. Oxford University Press, 1988. 

Haig, Christopher, The English Reformation: Religion, Politics and Society Under the Tudors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993 

Lehman, H. Eugene Lives of England's Reigning and Consort Queens. 

"June 21 - Catherine of Aragon steals the show" The Anne Boleyn Files and Tudor Society, June 20, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV9DknPWlJA

McGovern, Thomas, “ Bishop John Fisher: Defender of the Faith and Pastor of Souls,” Catholic Culture.org, 1987.

Henry VIII's Divorce of Catherine of Aragon - Who had the Better Case in the Great Divorce? Part 1: Background to the Divorce

King Henry VIII of England’s divorce, or annulment, of Catherine of Aragon in 1533 is one of the most infamous separations in history. And while we nearly all know the end result of the divorce proceedings, in hindsight who had the stronger case?  Victor Gamma considers this in part 1 of the series.

Note: Part 2 on how the method’s Henry used to overturn the divorce failed is here and part 3 on Catherine’s case is here.

Catherine of Aragon pleads her case against divorce from Henry VIII. Painting by Henry Nelson O'Neil.

“ . . . the unlawful divorce was and is the very seedwoman of all the miseries and evils, of all the heavy and hateful heresies which of late have most pitifully overwhelmed the realm. . .” These words, written from a safe distance many years after the death of King Henry VIII, reflect the furious passions aroused by the decision of the second Tudor monarch to set aside his wife and, by so doing, break with the powerful Catholic Church. By the time King Henry decided to end his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, he was a powerful monarch used to getting his own way. Men who did not dare contradict him surrounded the King. Opposing him was his wife, Queen Catherine, in her own right a woman of stoic conviction and considerable learning. The stage was set for a momentous contest between two strong-willed personalities that would determine the course of English history. Both the King and Queen made their case forcefully. Each could count a host of powerful supporters. Both were equally implacable in their convictions and both could marshal convincing arguments. Although intertwined with politics, this article examines the cases of Henry and Catherine in view of the arguments from theology and canon law of the 16th Century and attempts to avoid issues of politics and motives as much as possible. The case became incredibly convoluted as King Henry’s servants exhausted every contrivance possible to force the Pope to see things their way - but for our sakes this article will focus on the basic facts.

Henry’s challenges

The determined King would have preferred that this delicate and all-important matter go smoothly. However, the path to his goal of divorcing Catherine, remarrying and having the son he so desperately wanted was strewn with obstacles. First, since only the pope could grant an annulment, he had to somehow convince his Holiness that an annulment was necessary and proper. But the political situation in Europe constantly thwarted Henry’s plans. For this reason repeated attempts to obtain an annulment of his marriage and a dispensation to remarry failed. Additionally, Catherine would not budge from her position that she was his wife and queen in the eyes of both God and Man. Before making it a public spectacle, Henry made a final attempt to find an easy way out and ordered Catherine to go to a nunnery. It was a good political move. Catherine had very powerful relatives. She also had much support in England, where she was held in high esteem for her piety and character. If it would look like she voluntarily went to a nunnery, there would be less chance of opposition to the annulment. Henry hoped that his normally dutiful and submissive wife would comply. She did not. All this forced Henry to engage in a systematic effort to justify his actions and to articulate a defensible position. Although royal separations were by no means unknown, Henry knew he had to build a solid case to win over support for his divorce. Since Catherine would appeal any decision to invalidate the marriage to Rome, he also had to contrive a divorce that would not be overturned on appeal to the Curia.

Henry's Case

What exactly did Henry want? It must be pointed out that, although frequently discussed as a divorce, what Henry was seeking was not a divorce but an annulment. The Catholic Church absolutely forbade divorce so that wasn’t even an option. The king was careful to seek an annulment because that meant declaring that the marriage had never been valid and thus, in the eyes of the church, had never existed. Since at that time the laws governing marriage were completely under the control of the church, the divorce had to appeal to canon, or ecclesiastical, law and the Bible. This meant he was running up against the entire canonical rules of the Catholic Church regarding both the starting and ending of marriage. In Henry’s case this involved the teachings on what were termed impediments and dispensations. An impediment occurred when a couple would not be allowed to marry, for example, if they were too closely related. Also, although perhaps rare, the possibility existed wherein a couple unknowingly entered into a marriage in which an impediment existed, such as marrying a first cousin. Once the couple realized their mistake, canon law ruled that they either have the marriage annulled or have the impediment removed through a dispensation. 

So what was Henry’s case? It was two-fold: First, that an impediment had existed in his marriage to Catherine. He had married his brother Arthur’s widow and for this God had cursed him. After a decade of marriage he and Catherine had six children, only one of which, a daughter, survived. This was evidence to the King that they were being punished by God. Second, that the dispensation granted by Pope Julius II to allow Henry and Catherine to marry was wrong. 

Henry’s favorite evidence came from the Bible. The scriptures Henry used in support were Leviticus 18:16: ‘Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness’, and Leviticus 20:21: ‘And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless’. The king asserted that since Catherine had been married to Henry's brother, Arthur, his marital relations with the widow were a sin. Henry, therefore, was simply trying to right a great wrong. Also, it must be remembered that Henry's status was unique. He was an anointed king. This meant he had a special relationship with God. He truly believed that God was displeased with the marriage and that something must be done about it. The lack of a male heir proved, in his mind, that God had withheld his blessings.  

You can read part 2 on how Henry VIII tried to get the marriage overturned here.

What do you think of Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon? Let us know below.