Be afraid ..................

Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.

If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.

Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.

--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.
>
> If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.
>

Oh dear. Joan Bulmer, from a thirty-something mother executed in 1537, has become a live teenage friend of Katherine Howard in 1540. Lord Lisle, far from dying of shock at his acquittal, is executed.

--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.
> >
> > If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.
> >
>

There certainly was a Joan Bulmer associated with Katherine Howard. She was her "bedfellow" in the Duchess of Norfolk's household, later pressured Katherine into giving her a place at court, and was among those called upon to give evidence when Katherine's premarital liaisons were investigated. She was convicted of misprision of treason. From the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII:

Attainder of Katharine Howard and others.. . . And where Agnes duchess of Norfolk, widow, and Katharine countess of Bridgewater, wife of Henry earl of Bridgewater, are indicted of misprision of treason for concealing the first treasons, and lord William Howard, lady Margaret Howard his wife, Edw. Walgrave, Kath. Tylney, Alice Restwold, Joan Bulmer, Anne Howard, Robt. Damporte, Malyn Tylney, Marg. Bennet, and Wm. Assheby have been convicted of the said misprision . . .

Do a search for "Joan Bulmer" or "Bulmer" in the online Letters and Papers from 1540 to 1541 and you'll come up with many hits.

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Oh dear. Joan Bulmer, from a thirty-something mother executed in 1537, has become a live teenage friend of Katherine Howard in 1540. Lord Lisle, far from dying of shock at his acquittal, is executed.
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.
> >
> > --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.
> > >
> > > If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.
> > >
> >
>

I have just checked - my subject was Margaret (Stafford) and their four children didn't include a Joan but her youngest child died as late as 1608. Margaret was born in about 1511 and her parents-in-law were Sir William Bulmer and Margery Conyers. Joan could have been a sister-in-law or niece.

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: Be afraid ..................



There certainly was a Joan Bulmer associated with Katherine Howard. She was her "bedfellow" in the Duchess of Norfolk's household, later pressured Katherine into giving her a place at court, and was among those called upon to give evidence when Katherine's premarital liaisons were investigated. She was convicted of misprision of treason. From the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII:

Attainder of Katharine Howard and others.. . . And where Agnes duchess of Norfolk, widow, and Katharine countess of Bridgewater, wife of Henry earl of Bridgewater, are indicted of misprision of treason for concealing the first treasons, and lord William Howard, lady Margaret Howard his wife, Edw. Walgrave, Kath. Tylney, Alice Restwold, Joan Bulmer, Anne Howard, Robt. Damporte, Malyn Tylney, Marg. Bennet, and Wm. Assheby have been convicted of the said misprision . . .

Do a search for "Joan Bulmer" or "Bulmer" in the online Letters and Papers from 1540 to 1541 and you'll come up with many hits.

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Oh dear. Joan Bulmer, from a thirty-something mother executed in 1537, has become a live teenage friend of Katherine Howard in 1540. Lord Lisle, far from dying of shock at his acquittal, is executed.
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.
> >
> > --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.
> > >
> > > If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.
> > >
> >
>

Dear Henry, not an ounce over weight, riding to hounds as in his youth, when he could hardly walk by this time. Katherine welcoming him to bed when by all accounts she had to keep her eyes tight shut!
Such tosh! Danger is, a lot of those watching will quote it in their exams!
Paul


On 23 Jan 2011, at 21:44, stephenmlark wrote:

> Oh dear. Joan Bulmer, from a thirty-something mother executed in 1537, has become a live teenage friend of Katherine Howard in 1540. Lord Lisle, far from dying of shock at his acquittal, is executed.
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>> Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.
>>
>> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.
>>>
>>> If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

In real life, it was more like Fatty Arbuckle and Virginia Rappe - which also proved fatal.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



Dear Henry, not an ounce over weight, riding to hounds as in his youth, when he could hardly walk by this time. Katherine welcoming him to bed when by all accounts she had to keep her eyes tight shut!
Such tosh! Danger is, a lot of those watching will quote it in their exams!
Paul

On 23 Jan 2011, at 21:44, stephenmlark wrote:

> Oh dear. Joan Bulmer, from a thirty-something mother executed in 1537, has become a live teenage friend of Katherine Howard in 1540. Lord Lisle, far from dying of shock at his acquittal, is executed.
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>> Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.
>>
>> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.
>>>
>>> If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

interestingly enough, i'm currently reading two ebooks. 1. henry vii by bacon and 2. francis lancelott's queens of england. lancelott's queens is definitely the more "juicey" read.
he does not cite sources, and he's not a supporter of richard. however, the colour offered of state events is well worth the read. i started with woodville, and then her daughter, and just couldn't resist moving on to katherine of aragon.
 
h8 was quite the hedonist, as portrayed by the celebrations recorded by lancelott in his life of katherine of aragon.
http://www.medievalist.globalfolio.net/eng/l/lanselot-queens-of-england/index0360.php
 
lancelott does not make comment that h7 was not made the prince of wales until at least 6 months after his brother arthur died. (this delay was to ensure katherine was not pregnant with arthur's heir.) nor is there comment that arthur is supposed to have stated that he crossed into spain three times on his wedding night. personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.
 
katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries
 
basically, lancelott paints a very vivid picture of renaissance royal england with his descriptions of the wildly extravagant and implied hedonistic pagents. it caused me to wonder if e4 gave such revelries. h7 certainly spared no expense with regard to katherine and arthur's wedding, and h8 gave incredibly wild parties that would have done the borgia pope proud.
 
bacon's h7 is a dry read in comparison. i'd love to see the original proclamation perkin warbeck made when he invaded england from scotland. bacon's version implies that warbeck said his uncle richard was "unnatural". if we are to believe bacon verbatim with this bit of his "record of events"..then essentially, perkin is supporting the tudor myth that r3 ordered the killing of the princes in the tower. the cottonian library is supposed to hold an original copy of the warbeck proclamation.
 
see: google books
Bacon's History of the reign of King Henry VII  By Francis Bacon, Joseph Rawson Lumby
roslyn

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Received: Monday, January 24, 2011, 6:13 AM


 



Dear Henry, not an ounce over weight, riding to hounds as in his youth, when he could hardly walk by this time. Katherine welcoming him to bed when by all accounts she had to keep her eyes tight shut!
Such tosh! Danger is, a lot of those watching will quote it in their exams!
Paul

On 23 Jan 2011, at 21:44, stephenmlark wrote:

> Oh dear. Joan Bulmer, from a thirty-something mother executed in 1537, has become a live teenage friend of Katherine Howard in 1540. Lord Lisle, far from dying of shock at his acquittal, is executed.
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>> Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.
>>
>> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.
>>>
>>> If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

According to Castelli, Margaret had neither daughter, step-daughter, sister-in-law or niece named Joan Bulmer. However, it seems that Joan Acland (1519-90) married an Anthony Acland. Again, Margaret had neither son nor stepson by this name, and her brothers in-law were Ralph and William. Either they are just a coincidence, more distantly related or Castelli is not as comprehensive as I would expect.

Interestingly, Sir John Bulmer's mother Margery Conyers was a sister of Anne Conyers, who married Richard Lord Lumley.

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: Be afraid ..................



There certainly was a Joan Bulmer associated with Katherine Howard. She was her "bedfellow" in the Duchess of Norfolk's household, later pressured Katherine into giving her a place at court, and was among those called upon to give evidence when Katherine's premarital liaisons were investigated. She was convicted of misprision of treason. From the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII:

Attainder of Katharine Howard and others.. . . And where Agnes duchess of Norfolk, widow, and Katharine countess of Bridgewater, wife of Henry earl of Bridgewater, are indicted of misprision of treason for concealing the first treasons, and lord William Howard, lady Margaret Howard his wife, Edw. Walgrave, Kath. Tylney, Alice Restwold, Joan Bulmer, Anne Howard, Robt. Damporte, Malyn Tylney, Marg. Bennet, and Wm. Assheby have been convicted of the said misprision . . .

Do a search for "Joan Bulmer" or "Bulmer" in the online Letters and Papers from 1540 to 1541 and you'll come up with many hits.

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Oh dear. Joan Bulmer, from a thirty-something mother executed in 1537, has become a live teenage friend of Katherine Howard in 1540. Lord Lisle, far from dying of shock at his acquittal, is executed.
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.
> >
> > --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.
> > >
> > > If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.
> > >
> >
>

Ah - Margaret had a stepson named WILLIAM (b.1512) who married Joan but was soon separated from her.

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



According to Castelli, Margaret had neither daughter, step-daughter, sister-in-law or niece named Joan Bulmer. However, it seems that Joan Acland (1519-90) married an Anthony Acland. Again, Margaret had neither son nor stepson by this name, and her brothers in-law were Ralph and William. Either they are just a coincidence, more distantly related or Castelli is not as comprehensive as I would expect.

Interestingly, Sir John Bulmer's mother Margery Conyers was a sister of Anne Conyers, who married Richard Lord Lumley.

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: Be afraid ..................

There certainly was a Joan Bulmer associated with Katherine Howard. She was her "bedfellow" in the Duchess of Norfolk's household, later pressured Katherine into giving her a place at court, and was among those called upon to give evidence when Katherine's premarital liaisons were investigated. She was convicted of misprision of treason. From the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII:

Attainder of Katharine Howard and others.. . . And where Agnes duchess of Norfolk, widow, and Katharine countess of Bridgewater, wife of Henry earl of Bridgewater, are indicted of misprision of treason for concealing the first treasons, and lord William Howard, lady Margaret Howard his wife, Edw. Walgrave, Kath. Tylney, Alice Restwold, Joan Bulmer, Anne Howard, Robt. Damporte, Malyn Tylney, Marg. Bennet, and Wm. Assheby have been convicted of the said misprision . . .

Do a search for "Joan Bulmer" or "Bulmer" in the online Letters and Papers from 1540 to 1541 and you'll come up with many hits.

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Oh dear. Joan Bulmer, from a thirty-something mother executed in 1537, has become a live teenage friend of Katherine Howard in 1540. Lord Lisle, far from dying of shock at his acquittal, is executed.
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.
> >
> > --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.
> > >
> > > If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.
> > >
> >
>

Thanks for the interesting post and references: I'll be looking at Lancelott ASAP.

I have a little more trouble than you in believing that Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage not only because I believe that Katherine, like her mother, took religion very, very seriously, but also because during her testimony at Black Friars she basically threw the challenge in Henry's face, and in public, that he knew the condition in which she came to his bed. Not there and not after did he say she was lying, or wrong, or that he was a sweet innocent virgin himself at the time and shouldn't be accountable to know or not know. He left the statement alone, and that indicates, to me, something in Katherine's favor.

As far as her relationship with Anne Boleyn, Katherine had two contemporary models to follow as far as mistresses were concerned. One was her sister Juana, married to Philip the Handsome, and so outspoken, physical and singular in her jealousy that she and Philip were causing a gossip-fest in Europe. The other was mama Isabel, who, faced with a promiscuous husband, would, indeed, often be kind and forgiving to the mistress while, in the process, arranging a transfer and/or a marriage to put said mistress out of the reach of Fernando, thereby saving energy, dignity, and ego for Fernando. Isabel's favorite motto was "con blandura": "with tact"; and I believe this was the general model that Katherine chose to follow. Isabel was a queen regnant and had more power to dispose of mistresses than queen consort Katherine had; but she probably thought that, the less fuss made over Anne B., the less of an attraction and bone of contention would be created, and that the affair would eventually burn out. She was right about other mistresses, wrong about Anne Boleyn.

Maria
elena@...


-----Original Message-----
From: fayre rose
Sent: Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

... personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.

katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries

  I'm with Maria on this one.  I think Arthur, with the best will in the world, might already have really been too ill to consummate the marriage.  And I think, too, that Henry knew very well his wife was a virgin when she came to him.  He seems to have belonged to the school that believes if something is said long enough, loud enough, it's taken as fact.

  Lastly, given the quantity of babies that were at least begun during Katherine and Henry's relationship, it seems to me that there ought to have been issue if she and Arthur were genuinely having relations.

Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:

From: Maria <ejbronte@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To: ,
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 12:13 PM







 









Thanks for the interesting post and references: I'll be looking at Lancelott ASAP.



I have a little more trouble than you in believing that Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage not only because I believe that Katherine, like her mother, took religion very, very seriously, but also because during her testimony at Black Friars she basically threw the challenge in Henry's face, and in public, that he knew the condition in which she came to his bed. Not there and not after did he say she was lying, or wrong, or that he was a sweet innocent virgin himself at the time and shouldn't be accountable to know or not know. He left the statement alone, and that indicates, to me, something in Katherine's favor.



As far as her relationship with Anne Boleyn, Katherine had two contemporary models to follow as far as mistresses were concerned. One was her sister Juana, married to Philip the Handsome, and so outspoken, physical and singular in her jealousy that she and Philip were causing a gossip-fest in Europe. The other was mama Isabel, who, faced with a promiscuous husband, would, indeed, often be kind and forgiving to the mistress while, in the process, arranging a transfer and/or a marriage to put said mistress out of the reach of Fernando, thereby saving energy, dignity, and ego for Fernando. Isabel's favorite motto was "con blandura": "with tact"; and I believe this was the general model that Katherine chose to follow. Isabel was a queen regnant and had more power to dispose of mistresses than queen consort Katherine had; but she probably thought that, the less fuss made over Anne B., the less of an attraction and bone of contention would be created, and
that the affair would eventually burn out. She was right about other mistresses, wrong about Anne Boleyn.



Maria

elena@...



-----Original Message-----

From: fayre rose

Sent: Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



... personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.



katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries

oops..h7 should be h8 in the following sentence.
lancelott does not make comment that h7 was not made the prince of wales until at least 6 months after his brother arthur died

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:


From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Received: Monday, January 24, 2011, 11:54 AM


 



interestingly enough, i'm currently reading two ebooks. 1. henry vii by bacon and 2. francis lancelott's queens of england. lancelott's queens is definitely the more "juicey" read.
he does not cite sources, and he's not a supporter of richard. however, the colour offered of state events is well worth the read. i started with woodville, and then her daughter, and just couldn't resist moving on to katherine of aragon.
 
h8 was quite the hedonist, as portrayed by the celebrations recorded by lancelott in his life of katherine of aragon.
http://www.medievalist.globalfolio.net/eng/l/lanselot-queens-of-england/index0360.php
 
lancelott does not make comment that h7 was not made the prince of wales until at least 6 months after his brother arthur died. (this delay was to ensure katherine was not pregnant with arthur's heir.) nor is there comment that arthur is supposed to have stated that he crossed into spain three times on his wedding night. personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.
 
katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries
 
basically, lancelott paints a very vivid picture of renaissance royal england with his descriptions of the wildly extravagant and implied hedonistic pagents. it caused me to wonder if e4 gave such revelries. h7 certainly spared no expense with regard to katherine and arthur's wedding, and h8 gave incredibly wild parties that would have done the borgia pope proud.
 
bacon's h7 is a dry read in comparison. i'd love to see the original proclamation perkin warbeck made when he invaded england from scotland. bacon's version implies that warbeck said his uncle richard was "unnatural". if we are to believe bacon verbatim with this bit of his "record of events"..then essentially, perkin is supporting the tudor myth that r3 ordered the killing of the princes in the tower. the cottonian library is supposed to hold an original copy of the warbeck proclamation.
 
see: google books
Bacon's History of the reign of King Henry VII  By Francis Bacon, Joseph Rawson Lumby
roslyn

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Received: Monday, January 24, 2011, 6:13 AM

 

Dear Henry, not an ounce over weight, riding to hounds as in his youth, when he could hardly walk by this time. Katherine welcoming him to bed when by all accounts she had to keep her eyes tight shut!
Such tosh! Danger is, a lot of those watching will quote it in their exams!
Paul

On 23 Jan 2011, at 21:44, stephenmlark wrote:

> Oh dear. Joan Bulmer, from a thirty-something mother executed in 1537, has become a live teenage friend of Katherine Howard in 1540. Lord Lisle, far from dying of shock at his acquittal, is executed.
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>
>> Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.
>>
>> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.
>>>
>>> If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

  We knew you meant H8. :)
Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 12:38 PM







 









oops..h7 should be h8 in the following sentence.

lancelott does not make comment that h7 was not made the prince of wales until at least 6 months after his brother arthur died



--- On Mon, 1/24/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:



From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To:

Received: Monday, January 24, 2011, 11:54 AM



 



interestingly enough, i'm currently reading two ebooks. 1. henry vii by bacon and 2. francis lancelott's queens of england. lancelott's queens is definitely the more "juicey" read.

he does not cite sources, and he's not a supporter of richard. however, the colour offered of state events is well worth the read. i started with woodville, and then her daughter, and just couldn't resist moving on to katherine of aragon.

 

h8 was quite the hedonist, as portrayed by the celebrations recorded by lancelott in his life of katherine of aragon.

http://www.medievalist.globalfolio.net/eng/l/lanselot-queens-of-england/index0360.php

 

lancelott does not make comment that h7 was not made the prince of wales until at least 6 months after his brother arthur died. (this delay was to ensure katherine was not pregnant with arthur's heir.) nor is there comment that arthur is supposed to have stated that he crossed into spain three times on his wedding night. personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.

 

katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries

 

basically, lancelott paints a very vivid picture of renaissance royal england with his descriptions of the wildly extravagant and implied hedonistic pagents. it caused me to wonder if e4 gave such revelries. h7 certainly spared no expense with regard to katherine and arthur's wedding, and h8 gave incredibly wild parties that would have done the borgia pope proud.

 

bacon's h7 is a dry read in comparison. i'd love to see the original proclamation perkin warbeck made when he invaded england from scotland. bacon's version implies that warbeck said his uncle richard was "unnatural". if we are to believe bacon verbatim with this bit of his "record of events"..then essentially, perkin is supporting the tudor myth that r3 ordered the killing of the princes in the tower. the cottonian library is supposed to hold an original copy of the warbeck proclamation.

 

see: google books

Bacon's History of the reign of King Henry VII  By Francis Bacon, Joseph Rawson Lumby

roslyn



--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:



From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To:

Received: Monday, January 24, 2011, 6:13 AM



 



Dear Henry, not an ounce over weight, riding to hounds as in his youth, when he could hardly walk by this time. Katherine welcoming him to bed when by all accounts she had to keep her eyes tight shut!

Such tosh! Danger is, a lot of those watching will quote it in their exams!

Paul



On 23 Jan 2011, at 21:44, stephenmlark wrote:



> Oh dear. Joan Bulmer, from a thirty-something mother executed in 1537, has become a live teenage friend of Katherine Howard in 1540. Lord Lisle, far from dying of shock at his acquittal, is executed.

>

> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

>>

>> Starting on Saturday 22 January on BBC2 at 21:45.

>>

>> --- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:

>>>

>>> Series Four of "The Tydders" must be due on the BBC soon - Wikipedia tells me it was shown in Canada during April and May. The most intriguing aspect will be the portrayal of Joan Bulmer, daughter of Edward of Buckingham. She and her husband John are both executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace and historians are in two minds as to whether she is beheaded or burned. At least that question has been almost solved recently for her nephew, Thomas.

>>>

>>> If you know the broadcast dates, please post them.

>>>

>>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

I think we tend to view Arthur, as we do Edward VI and other relatives, through hindsight - we know they died as teenagers and think of them as permanently ill and feeble. Arthur expected to be King and ancestor of more kings, whilst Henry was destined for the church - thus Warwick, "Warbeck" and possibly Gloucester were cleared out to make Arthur's position unassailable, particularly in Spanish eyes.
Similarly, the Tydders routinely used parts of the Tower as a prison so many people view Edward IV's sons as prisoners when they were guests.

----- Original Message -----
From: Sheffe
To:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



I'm with Maria on this one. I think Arthur, with the best will in the world, might already have really been too ill to consummate the marriage. And I think, too, that Henry knew very well his wife was a virgin when she came to him. He seems to have belonged to the school that believes if something is said long enough, loud enough, it's taken as fact.

Lastly, given the quantity of babies that were at least begun during Katherine and Henry's relationship, it seems to me that there ought to have been issue if she and Arthur were genuinely having relations.

Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:

From: Maria <ejbronte@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To: ,
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 12:13 PM



Thanks for the interesting post and references: I'll be looking at Lancelott ASAP.

I have a little more trouble than you in believing that Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage not only because I believe that Katherine, like her mother, took religion very, very seriously, but also because during her testimony at Black Friars she basically threw the challenge in Henry's face, and in public, that he knew the condition in which she came to his bed. Not there and not after did he say she was lying, or wrong, or that he was a sweet innocent virgin himself at the time and shouldn't be accountable to know or not know. He left the statement alone, and that indicates, to me, something in Katherine's favor.

As far as her relationship with Anne Boleyn, Katherine had two contemporary models to follow as far as mistresses were concerned. One was her sister Juana, married to Philip the Handsome, and so outspoken, physical and singular in her jealousy that she and Philip were causing a gossip-fest in Europe. The other was mama Isabel, who, faced with a promiscuous husband, would, indeed, often be kind and forgiving to the mistress while, in the process, arranging a transfer and/or a marriage to put said mistress out of the reach of Fernando, thereby saving energy, dignity, and ego for Fernando. Isabel's favorite motto was "con blandura": "with tact"; and I believe this was the general model that Katherine chose to follow. Isabel was a queen regnant and had more power to dispose of mistresses than queen consort Katherine had; but she probably thought that, the less fuss made over Anne B., the less of an attraction and bone of contention would be created, and
that the affair would eventually burn out. She was right about other mistresses, wrong about Anne Boleyn.

Maria

elena@...

-----Original Message-----

From: fayre rose

Sent: Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

... personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.

katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries

I never thought of Arthur as ill or feeble throughout his life.  He was married to Katherine for only about four months.  Still, it could have been something more sudden than consumption that took him--some of what I read says his wife was sick at the time as well, but that she recovered. 
Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 4:50 PM







 









I think we tend to view Arthur, as we do Edward VI and other relatives, through hindsight - we know they died as teenagers and think of them as permanently ill and feeble. Arthur expected to be King and ancestor of more kings, whilst Henry was destined for the church - thus Warwick, "Warbeck" and possibly Gloucester were cleared out to make Arthur's position unassailable, particularly in Spanish eyes.

Similarly, the Tydders routinely used parts of the Tower as a prison so many people view Edward IV's sons as prisoners when they were guests.



----- Original Message -----

From: Sheffe

To:

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:36 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



I'm with Maria on this one. I think Arthur, with the best will in the world, might already have really been too ill to consummate the marriage. And I think, too, that Henry knew very well his wife was a virgin when she came to him. He seems to have belonged to the school that believes if something is said long enough, loud enough, it's taken as fact.



Lastly, given the quantity of babies that were at least begun during Katherine and Henry's relationship, it seems to me that there ought to have been issue if she and Arthur were genuinely having relations.



Sheffe



--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:



From: Maria <ejbronte@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To: ,

Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 12:13 PM



Thanks for the interesting post and references: I'll be looking at Lancelott ASAP.



I have a little more trouble than you in believing that Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage not only because I believe that Katherine, like her mother, took religion very, very seriously, but also because during her testimony at Black Friars she basically threw the challenge in Henry's face, and in public, that he knew the condition in which she came to his bed. Not there and not after did he say she was lying, or wrong, or that he was a sweet innocent virgin himself at the time and shouldn't be accountable to know or not know. He left the statement alone, and that indicates, to me, something in Katherine's favor.



As far as her relationship with Anne Boleyn, Katherine had two contemporary models to follow as far as mistresses were concerned. One was her sister Juana, married to Philip the Handsome, and so outspoken, physical and singular in her jealousy that she and Philip were causing a gossip-fest in Europe. The other was mama Isabel, who, faced with a promiscuous husband, would, indeed, often be kind and forgiving to the mistress while, in the process, arranging a transfer and/or a marriage to put said mistress out of the reach of Fernando, thereby saving energy, dignity, and ego for Fernando. Isabel's favorite motto was "con blandura": "with tact"; and I believe this was the general model that Katherine chose to follow. Isabel was a queen regnant and had more power to dispose of mistresses than queen consort Katherine had; but she probably thought that, the less fuss made over Anne B., the less of an attraction and bone of contention would be created, and

that the affair would eventually burn out. She was right about other mistresses, wrong about Anne Boleyn.



Maria



elena@...



-----Original Message-----



From: fayre rose



Sent: Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM



To:



Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



... personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.



katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries

Here's a picture of Arthur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur2.png

I thought it odd that he does not hold the red and white rose.  He has a white nigella flower in his hand.
Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 4:50 PM







 









I think we tend to view Arthur, as we do Edward VI and other relatives, through hindsight - we know they died as teenagers and think of them as permanently ill and feeble. Arthur expected to be King and ancestor of more kings, whilst Henry was destined for the church - thus Warwick, "Warbeck" and possibly Gloucester were cleared out to make Arthur's position unassailable, particularly in Spanish eyes.

Similarly, the Tydders routinely used parts of the Tower as a prison so many people view Edward IV's sons as prisoners when they were guests.



----- Original Message -----

From: Sheffe

To:

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:36 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



I'm with Maria on this one. I think Arthur, with the best will in the world, might already have really been too ill to consummate the marriage. And I think, too, that Henry knew very well his wife was a virgin when she came to him. He seems to have belonged to the school that believes if something is said long enough, loud enough, it's taken as fact.



Lastly, given the quantity of babies that were at least begun during Katherine and Henry's relationship, it seems to me that there ought to have been issue if she and Arthur were genuinely having relations.



Sheffe



--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:



From: Maria <ejbronte@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To: ,

Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 12:13 PM



Thanks for the interesting post and references: I'll be looking at Lancelott ASAP.



I have a little more trouble than you in believing that Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage not only because I believe that Katherine, like her mother, took religion very, very seriously, but also because during her testimony at Black Friars she basically threw the challenge in Henry's face, and in public, that he knew the condition in which she came to his bed. Not there and not after did he say she was lying, or wrong, or that he was a sweet innocent virgin himself at the time and shouldn't be accountable to know or not know. He left the statement alone, and that indicates, to me, something in Katherine's favor.



As far as her relationship with Anne Boleyn, Katherine had two contemporary models to follow as far as mistresses were concerned. One was her sister Juana, married to Philip the Handsome, and so outspoken, physical and singular in her jealousy that she and Philip were causing a gossip-fest in Europe. The other was mama Isabel, who, faced with a promiscuous husband, would, indeed, often be kind and forgiving to the mistress while, in the process, arranging a transfer and/or a marriage to put said mistress out of the reach of Fernando, thereby saving energy, dignity, and ego for Fernando. Isabel's favorite motto was "con blandura": "with tact"; and I believe this was the general model that Katherine chose to follow. Isabel was a queen regnant and had more power to dispose of mistresses than queen consort Katherine had; but she probably thought that, the less fuss made over Anne B., the less of an attraction and bone of contention would be created, and

that the affair would eventually burn out. She was right about other mistresses, wrong about Anne Boleyn.



Maria



elena@...



-----Original Message-----



From: fayre rose



Sent: Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM



To:



Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



... personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.



katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries

Edward VI was certainly not feeble and permanently ill. In fact he was not ill until his last few months. Before then he was turning into his father, all the worse aspects of dada at that!
Death may have saved the land from many terrors, in spite of bringing it Mary in his place!
Paul


On 24 Jan 2011, at 21:50, Stephen Lark wrote:

> I think we tend to view Arthur, as we do Edward VI and other relatives, through hindsight - we know they died as teenagers and think of them as permanently ill and feeble. Arthur expected to be King and ancestor of more kings, whilst Henry was destined for the church - thus Warwick, "Warbeck" and possibly Gloucester were cleared out to make Arthur's position unassailable, particularly in Spanish eyes.
> Similarly, the Tydders routinely used parts of the Tower as a prison so many people view Edward IV's sons as prisoners when they were guests.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sheffe
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
>
>
>
> I'm with Maria on this one. I think Arthur, with the best will in the world, might already have really been too ill to consummate the marriage. And I think, too, that Henry knew very well his wife was a virgin when she came to him. He seems to have belonged to the school that believes if something is said long enough, loud enough, it's taken as fact.
>
> Lastly, given the quantity of babies that were at least begun during Katherine and Henry's relationship, it seems to me that there ought to have been issue if she and Arthur were genuinely having relations.
>
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Mon, 1/24/11, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> From: Maria <ejbronte@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
> To: ,
> Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 12:13 PM
>
>
>
> Thanks for the interesting post and references: I'll be looking at Lancelott ASAP.
>
> I have a little more trouble than you in believing that Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage not only because I believe that Katherine, like her mother, took religion very, very seriously, but also because during her testimony at Black Friars she basically threw the challenge in Henry's face, and in public, that he knew the condition in which she came to his bed. Not there and not after did he say she was lying, or wrong, or that he was a sweet innocent virgin himself at the time and shouldn't be accountable to know or not know. He left the statement alone, and that indicates, to me, something in Katherine's favor.
>
> As far as her relationship with Anne Boleyn, Katherine had two contemporary models to follow as far as mistresses were concerned. One was her sister Juana, married to Philip the Handsome, and so outspoken, physical and singular in her jealousy that she and Philip were causing a gossip-fest in Europe. The other was mama Isabel, who, faced with a promiscuous husband, would, indeed, often be kind and forgiving to the mistress while, in the process, arranging a transfer and/or a marriage to put said mistress out of the reach of Fernando, thereby saving energy, dignity, and ego for Fernando. Isabel's favorite motto was "con blandura": "with tact"; and I believe this was the general model that Katherine chose to follow. Isabel was a queen regnant and had more power to dispose of mistresses than queen consort Katherine had; but she probably thought that, the less fuss made over Anne B., the less of an attraction and bone of contention would be created, and
> that the affair would eventually burn out. She was right about other mistresses, wrong about Anne Boleyn.
>
> Maria
>
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: fayre rose
>
> Sent: Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM
>
> To:
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
>
> ... personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.
>
> katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

if you visit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Tudor
 
and scroll down the page, you will find a portrait of arthur near the age of his marriage. to me, he appears very healthy and robust. katherine however looks like a very young girl or an unhealthy young woman. in fact arthur, looks significantly more verile than henry does at age 18.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
 
through the ages, flowers carry "meanings". arthur and katherine were betrothed when arthur was age two. the nigella's meaning is that love is binding and enduring whether or not the relationship is happy or not.
 
the question of whether or not arthur and katherine consumated their marriage is also discussed further down the wiki page.
 
also, if you read lancelott's version of katherine's speech to h8 during the divorice proceedings...and the pages following..you will see that henry does rebutt katherine. it is not straight out discourse, but henry does continue his stand that his marriage to katherine was incestuous.
 
i think it is also important to note that katherine's nephew held the pope hostage/prisoner during the time of the contenuous issue of henry divoricing katherine.

 
henry's english court granted him a divorice. delegates went to speak to katherine. they started speaking in latin. she (a poor foreigner) told them to speak in english. they then went into her chamber and spoke privately. the cardinals then supported katherine. i think a hostage pope "could" have played a very significate role in the reversal of the cardinals' position.
 
in my mind katherine was a clever manipulator. in her well recorded and often repeated plea to henry she claimed she was nothing but a poor foreigner...katherine had been in england for close to 30 years at the time. she had been in charge of the scottish invasion while henry was at war in france. the poor weak foreigner approach would only work on the most ill informed. this woman was an English Queen, not a visiting foreign merchant or status-less immigrant.
 
katherine also felt she did not have trustworthy council with regards to her position and was awaiting legal/canonical advice from spain. this to me says she did not trust the english clergy..hmm, could it be that the clergy could lie? if the ordained clergy could be less than honest, then why is it believed that katherine was entirely truthful? i think this ploy was insulting to the cardinals. the bottom line is the spanish canonical lawyers would work harder for katherine to hold on to the english crown. they were working to protect her daughter, mary's inheritance, as well as katherine's status. this was political manipulation and katherine was biding her time waiting for a "rescue".
 
katherine put forth a great theatrical performance to evoke an emotional response from the cardinals present. she walked "pitifully" out of the court portraying a "broken woman" who had to be supported by her man servant. katherine was told to return to the court. she refused to return then and subsequent courts. in fact, according to lancelott, katherine said she would ask for her husband's forgiveness later.
 
when you consider all the masques and fettes that required play acting during her and henry's era, she would have been well practiced to feign trauma and/or emotion. i.e the robin hood invasion held many years prior to this escapade.
 
how many times in our modern era have we witnessed public officals make statements to play on our emotions, only to learn later that the statement was based on a lie. they were "working" the court of public opinion. katherine was working the court of the church.
 
while katherine was married to arthur it is believed she did not become pregnant in the marriage.
 
see sittow's images of katherine as the virgin mary and as mary magdelan.
one a virgin, the other a reformed prositute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon
 
additionally, if you consider that with henry she had premature births, and that only mary survived beyond a month or two, or even a few days. it, therefore becomes possible that catherine may have been pregnant, but miscarried during the 6 month delay of bestowing the title of prince of wales on henry8. although, i do think this is doubtful, or was only known to katherine. i'm quite sure henry would have used this information in court if he had known.
 
it should also be noted that henry and katherine's daughter mary also had gynecological issues.
 
personally, i believe if you "read between the lines" at look at the physiological and political, plus religious issues regarding h8 and katherine's divorice you do begin to see..all is not as katherine would have had the people believe. there was a whole lot of manipulation going on. both henry and katherine were "taking the high road". any blatant "false move" could have lead to full scale war.
 
the prima donna behaviour of katherine in refusing, basically to besmirch herself with henry's idiocy, really does speak volumes to me. just look at our modern policians and the way they refuse to answer questions and turn their backs, walking away from the baying and curious media. the haughty arrogance angle works quite often in shutting down any further communication and/or questioning.
 
katherine and henry's divorice proceedings were simply a clash of titans. unfortunately, for katherine the proceedings occurred in england, where henry ruled supreme. katherine, her nephew charles and pope all lost big time, and the birth of a new religion occurred.
 
hollywood has missed a big opportunity in not portraying the life of one of the great renaissance actresses. katherine was "the great" wife, not a simpering victim of h8.
 
roslyn

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:


From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Received: Monday, January 24, 2011, 7:14 PM


 



Here's a picture of Arthur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur2.png

I thought it odd that he does not hold the red and white rose.  He has a white nigella flower in his hand.
Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 4:50 PM

 

I think we tend to view Arthur, as we do Edward VI and other relatives, through hindsight - we know they died as teenagers and think of them as permanently ill and feeble. Arthur expected to be King and ancestor of more kings, whilst Henry was destined for the church - thus Warwick, "Warbeck" and possibly Gloucester were cleared out to make Arthur's position unassailable, particularly in Spanish eyes.

Similarly, the Tydders routinely used parts of the Tower as a prison so many people view Edward IV's sons as prisoners when they were guests.

----- Original Message -----

From: Sheffe

To:

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:36 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

I'm with Maria on this one. I think Arthur, with the best will in the world, might already have really been too ill to consummate the marriage. And I think, too, that Henry knew very well his wife was a virgin when she came to him. He seems to have belonged to the school that believes if something is said long enough, loud enough, it's taken as fact.

Lastly, given the quantity of babies that were at least begun during Katherine and Henry's relationship, it seems to me that there ought to have been issue if she and Arthur were genuinely having relations.

Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:

From: Maria <ejbronte@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To: ,

Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 12:13 PM

Thanks for the interesting post and references: I'll be looking at Lancelott ASAP.

I have a little more trouble than you in believing that Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage not only because I believe that Katherine, like her mother, took religion very, very seriously, but also because during her testimony at Black Friars she basically threw the challenge in Henry's face, and in public, that he knew the condition in which she came to his bed. Not there and not after did he say she was lying, or wrong, or that he was a sweet innocent virgin himself at the time and shouldn't be accountable to know or not know. He left the statement alone, and that indicates, to me, something in Katherine's favor.

As far as her relationship with Anne Boleyn, Katherine had two contemporary models to follow as far as mistresses were concerned. One was her sister Juana, married to Philip the Handsome, and so outspoken, physical and singular in her jealousy that she and Philip were causing a gossip-fest in Europe. The other was mama Isabel, who, faced with a promiscuous husband, would, indeed, often be kind and forgiving to the mistress while, in the process, arranging a transfer and/or a marriage to put said mistress out of the reach of Fernando, thereby saving energy, dignity, and ego for Fernando. Isabel's favorite motto was "con blandura": "with tact"; and I believe this was the general model that Katherine chose to follow. Isabel was a queen regnant and had more power to dispose of mistresses than queen consort Katherine had; but she probably thought that, the less fuss made over Anne B., the less of an attraction and bone of contention would be created, and

that the affair would eventually burn out. She was right about other mistresses, wrong about Anne Boleyn.

Maria

elena@...

-----Original Message-----

From: fayre rose

Sent: Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

... personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.

katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries

  "Delegates went to speak to
katherine. they started speaking in latin. she (a poor foreigner) told
them to speak in english. they then went into her chamber and spoke
privately. the cardinals then supported katherine."

   Katherine had been very well educated and understood Latin.  The reason for her to ask them to speak English would have been so that she could include other listeners as witnesses.

Sheffe

--- On Tue, 1/25/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 3:15 PM







 













if you visit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Tudor

 

and scroll down the page, you will find a portrait of arthur near the age of his marriage. to me, he appears very healthy and robust. katherine however looks like a very young girl or an unhealthy young woman. in fact arthur, looks significantly more verile than henry does at age 18.

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

 

through the ages, flowers carry "meanings". arthur and katherine were betrothed when arthur was age two. the nigella's meaning is that love is binding and enduring whether or not the relationship is happy or not.

 

the question of whether or not arthur and katherine consumated their marriage is also discussed further down the wiki page.

 

also, if you read lancelott's version of katherine's speech to h8 during the divorice proceedings...and the pages following..you will see that henry does rebutt katherine. it is not straight out discourse, but henry does continue his stand that his marriage to katherine was incestuous.

 

i think it is also important to note that katherine's nephew held the pope hostage/prisoner during the time of the contenuous issue of henry divoricing katherine.



 

henry's english court granted him a divorice. delegates went to speak to katherine. they started speaking in latin. she (a poor foreigner) told them to speak in english. they then went into her chamber and spoke privately. the cardinals then supported katherine. i think a hostage pope "could" have played a very significate role in the reversal of the cardinals' position.

 

in my mind katherine was a clever manipulator. in her well recorded and often repeated plea to henry she claimed she was nothing but a poor foreigner...katherine had been in england for close to 30 years at the time. she had been in charge of the scottish invasion while henry was at war in france. the poor weak foreigner approach would only work on the most ill informed. this woman was an English Queen, not a visiting foreign merchant or status-less immigrant.

 

katherine also felt she did not have trustworthy council with regards to her position and was awaiting legal/canonical advice from spain. this to me says she did not trust the english clergy..hmm, could it be that the clergy could lie? if the ordained clergy could be less than honest, then why is it believed that katherine was entirely truthful? i think this ploy was insulting to the cardinals. the bottom line is the spanish canonical lawyers would work harder for katherine to hold on to the english crown. they were working to protect her daughter, mary's inheritance, as well as katherine's status. this was political manipulation and katherine was biding her time waiting for a "rescue".

 

katherine put forth a great theatrical performance to evoke an emotional response from the cardinals present. she walked "pitifully" out of the court portraying a "broken woman" who had to be supported by her man servant. katherine was told to return to the court. she refused to return then and subsequent courts. in fact, according to lancelott, katherine said she would ask for her husband's forgiveness later.

 

when you consider all the masques and fettes that required play acting during her and henry's era, she would have been well practiced to feign trauma and/or emotion. i.e the robin hood invasion held many years prior to this escapade.

 

how many times in our modern era have we witnessed public officals make statements to play on our emotions, only to learn later that the statement was based on a lie. they were "working" the court of public opinion. katherine was working the court of the church.

 

while katherine was married to arthur it is believed she did not become pregnant in the marriage.

 

see sittow's images of katherine as the virgin mary and as mary magdelan.

one a virgin, the other a reformed prositute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon

 

additionally, if you consider that with henry she had premature births, and that only mary survived beyond a month or two, or even a few days. it, therefore becomes possible that catherine may have been pregnant, but miscarried during the 6 month delay of bestowing the title of prince of wales on henry8. although, i do think this is doubtful, or was only known to katherine. i'm quite sure henry would have used this information in court if he had known.

 

it should also be noted that henry and katherine's daughter mary also had gynecological issues.

 

personally, i believe if you "read between the lines" at look at the physiological and political, plus religious issues regarding h8 and katherine's divorice you do begin to see..all is not as katherine would have had the people believe. there was a whole lot of manipulation going on. both henry and katherine were "taking the high road". any blatant "false move" could have lead to full scale war.

 

the prima donna behaviour of katherine in refusing, basically to besmirch herself with henry's idiocy, really does speak volumes to me. just look at our modern policians and the way they refuse to answer questions and turn their backs, walking away from the baying and curious media. the haughty arrogance angle works quite often in shutting down any further communication and/or questioning.

 

katherine and henry's divorice proceedings were simply a clash of titans. unfortunately, for katherine the proceedings occurred in england, where henry ruled supreme. katherine, her nephew charles and pope all lost big time, and the birth of a new religion occurred.

 

hollywood has missed a big opportunity in not portraying the life of one of the great renaissance actresses. katherine was "the great" wife, not a simpering victim of h8.

 

roslyn



--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:



From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To:

Received: Monday, January 24, 2011, 7:14 PM



 



Here's a picture of Arthur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur2.png



I thought it odd that he does not hold the red and white rose.  He has a white nigella flower in his hand.

Sheffe



--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:



From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To:

Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 4:50 PM



 



I think we tend to view Arthur, as we do Edward VI and other relatives, through hindsight - we know they died as teenagers and think of them as permanently ill and feeble. Arthur expected to be King and ancestor of more kings, whilst Henry was destined for the church - thus Warwick, "Warbeck" and possibly Gloucester were cleared out to make Arthur's position unassailable, particularly in Spanish eyes.



Similarly, the Tydders routinely used parts of the Tower as a prison so many people view Edward IV's sons as prisoners when they were guests.



----- Original Message -----



From: Sheffe



To:



Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:36 PM



Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



I'm with Maria on this one. I think Arthur, with the best will in the world, might already have really been too ill to consummate the marriage. And I think, too, that Henry knew very well his wife was a virgin when she came to him. He seems to have belonged to the school that believes if something is said long enough, loud enough, it's taken as fact.



Lastly, given the quantity of babies that were at least begun during Katherine and Henry's relationship, it seems to me that there ought to have been issue if she and Arthur were genuinely having relations.



Sheffe



--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:



From: Maria <ejbronte@...>



Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



To: ,



Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 12:13 PM



Thanks for the interesting post and references: I'll be looking at Lancelott ASAP.



I have a little more trouble than you in believing that Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage not only because I believe that Katherine, like her mother, took religion very, very seriously, but also because during her testimony at Black Friars she basically threw the challenge in Henry's face, and in public, that he knew the condition in which she came to his bed. Not there and not after did he say she was lying, or wrong, or that he was a sweet innocent virgin himself at the time and shouldn't be accountable to know or not know. He left the statement alone, and that indicates, to me, something in Katherine's favor.



As far as her relationship with Anne Boleyn, Katherine had two contemporary models to follow as far as mistresses were concerned. One was her sister Juana, married to Philip the Handsome, and so outspoken, physical and singular in her jealousy that she and Philip were causing a gossip-fest in Europe. The other was mama Isabel, who, faced with a promiscuous husband, would, indeed, often be kind and forgiving to the mistress while, in the process, arranging a transfer and/or a marriage to put said mistress out of the reach of Fernando, thereby saving energy, dignity, and ego for Fernando. Isabel's favorite motto was "con blandura": "with tact"; and I believe this was the general model that Katherine chose to follow. Isabel was a queen regnant and had more power to dispose of mistresses than queen consort Katherine had; but she probably thought that, the less fuss made over Anne B., the less of an attraction and bone of contention would be created, and



that the affair would eventually burn out. She was right about other mistresses, wrong about Anne Boleyn.



Maria



elena@...



-----Original Message-----



From: fayre rose



Sent: Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM



To:



Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



... personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.



katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries

i solidly agree with you regarding the reason for katherine wanting the conversation in english. but can you tell me why, it then became necessary to move the conversation into private quarters? the delegates had originally requested private council. they then lasped into latin when refused an in camera meeting by katherine. where upon she downplayed her latin expertise, and requested that the prelates discuss the matter at hand in english.
 
the reason, i believe the meeting was concluded in private was...it is very likely katherine was beginning to hear things from these men, she did not want up for public consumption, moreover, her ladies were of the english court.
 
ladies in waiting were often used as spies aka sources of information that would be reported back to the "right person".
 
if katherine advised the cardinals of her behind the scenes "control" of pope..and if she did it under the quise of the "confessional"...what was said by her to these upper escheleon priests would remain confidential.
 
katherine played her hand very well...repeatedly. i especially love the bit how she warmly tolerates henry bringing anne along on a pilgramage after all the court hearings and cardinal visits.
 
how serenely big of her to tolerate the woman who was bringing her down. again, this was playing for the court of public opinion and to demonstrate to henry she would accept and tolerate any of his mistresses..BUT, over all she was his legal wife.
 
i think of catherine de medici and diane de poitiers. catherine was queen and diane was the beloved mistress. in the end, catherine controlled who had access to the king. this is what katherine was going for. she would politely let henry have his "toys".
 
marriages were arranged for power and prestige, not for love. katherine's charms had faded. she failed to produce a viable son. henry was desperate to have a legitimate male heir. he had even played the possibility of a polygamy card with rome and failed.
 
the flamboyant youthful anne with her "french hedonistic" court experience enchanted henry. it would appear that henry was intrigued by manipulative women, and played by males who would have control of the realm via the king's loins.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 1/25/11, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:


From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 3:34 PM


 



  "Delegates went to speak to
katherine. they started speaking in latin. she (a poor foreigner) told
them to speak in english. they then went into her chamber and spoke
privately. the cardinals then supported katherine."

   Katherine had been very well educated and understood Latin.  The reason for her to ask them to speak English would have been so that she could include other listeners as witnesses.

Sheffe

--- On Tue, 1/25/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 3:15 PM

 

if you visit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Tudor

 

and scroll down the page, you will find a portrait of arthur near the age of his marriage. to me, he appears very healthy and robust. katherine however looks like a very young girl or an unhealthy young woman. in fact arthur, looks significantly more verile than henry does at age 18.

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

 

through the ages, flowers carry "meanings". arthur and katherine were betrothed when arthur was age two. the nigella's meaning is that love is binding and enduring whether or not the relationship is happy or not.

 

the question of whether or not arthur and katherine consumated their marriage is also discussed further down the wiki page.

 

also, if you read lancelott's version of katherine's speech to h8 during the divorice proceedings...and the pages following..you will see that henry does rebutt katherine. it is not straight out discourse, but henry does continue his stand that his marriage to katherine was incestuous.

 

i think it is also important to note that katherine's nephew held the pope hostage/prisoner during the time of the contenuous issue of henry divoricing katherine.

 

henry's english court granted him a divorice. delegates went to speak to katherine. they started speaking in latin. she (a poor foreigner) told them to speak in english. they then went into her chamber and spoke privately. the cardinals then supported katherine. i think a hostage pope "could" have played a very significate role in the reversal of the cardinals' position.

 

in my mind katherine was a clever manipulator. in her well recorded and often repeated plea to henry she claimed she was nothing but a poor foreigner...katherine had been in england for close to 30 years at the time. she had been in charge of the scottish invasion while henry was at war in france. the poor weak foreigner approach would only work on the most ill informed. this woman was an English Queen, not a visiting foreign merchant or status-less immigrant.

 

katherine also felt she did not have trustworthy council with regards to her position and was awaiting legal/canonical advice from spain. this to me says she did not trust the english clergy..hmm, could it be that the clergy could lie? if the ordained clergy could be less than honest, then why is it believed that katherine was entirely truthful? i think this ploy was insulting to the cardinals. the bottom line is the spanish canonical lawyers would work harder for katherine to hold on to the english crown. they were working to protect her daughter, mary's inheritance, as well as katherine's status. this was political manipulation and katherine was biding her time waiting for a "rescue".

 

katherine put forth a great theatrical performance to evoke an emotional response from the cardinals present. she walked "pitifully" out of the court portraying a "broken woman" who had to be supported by her man servant. katherine was told to return to the court. she refused to return then and subsequent courts. in fact, according to lancelott, katherine said she would ask for her husband's forgiveness later.

 

when you consider all the masques and fettes that required play acting during her and henry's era, she would have been well practiced to feign trauma and/or emotion. i.e the robin hood invasion held many years prior to this escapade.

 

how many times in our modern era have we witnessed public officals make statements to play on our emotions, only to learn later that the statement was based on a lie. they were "working" the court of public opinion. katherine was working the court of the church.

 

while katherine was married to arthur it is believed she did not become pregnant in the marriage.

 

see sittow's images of katherine as the virgin mary and as mary magdelan.

one a virgin, the other a reformed prositute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon

 

additionally, if you consider that with henry she had premature births, and that only mary survived beyond a month or two, or even a few days. it, therefore becomes possible that catherine may have been pregnant, but miscarried during the 6 month delay of bestowing the title of prince of wales on henry8. although, i do think this is doubtful, or was only known to katherine. i'm quite sure henry would have used this information in court if he had known.

 

it should also be noted that henry and katherine's daughter mary also had gynecological issues.

 

personally, i believe if you "read between the lines" at look at the physiological and political, plus religious issues regarding h8 and katherine's divorice you do begin to see..all is not as katherine would have had the people believe. there was a whole lot of manipulation going on. both henry and katherine were "taking the high road". any blatant "false move" could have lead to full scale war.

 

the prima donna behaviour of katherine in refusing, basically to besmirch herself with henry's idiocy, really does speak volumes to me. just look at our modern policians and the way they refuse to answer questions and turn their backs, walking away from the baying and curious media. the haughty arrogance angle works quite often in shutting down any further communication and/or questioning.

 

katherine and henry's divorice proceedings were simply a clash of titans. unfortunately, for katherine the proceedings occurred in england, where henry ruled supreme. katherine, her nephew charles and pope all lost big time, and the birth of a new religion occurred.

 

hollywood has missed a big opportunity in not portraying the life of one of the great renaissance actresses. katherine was "the great" wife, not a simpering victim of h8.

 

roslyn

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To:

Received: Monday, January 24, 2011, 7:14 PM

 

Here's a picture of Arthur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur2.png

I thought it odd that he does not hold the red and white rose.  He has a white nigella flower in his hand.

Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To:

Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 4:50 PM

 

I think we tend to view Arthur, as we do Edward VI and other relatives, through hindsight - we know they died as teenagers and think of them as permanently ill and feeble. Arthur expected to be King and ancestor of more kings, whilst Henry was destined for the church - thus Warwick, "Warbeck" and possibly Gloucester were cleared out to make Arthur's position unassailable, particularly in Spanish eyes.

Similarly, the Tydders routinely used parts of the Tower as a prison so many people view Edward IV's sons as prisoners when they were guests.

----- Original Message -----

From: Sheffe

To:

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:36 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

I'm with Maria on this one. I think Arthur, with the best will in the world, might already have really been too ill to consummate the marriage. And I think, too, that Henry knew very well his wife was a virgin when she came to him. He seems to have belonged to the school that believes if something is said long enough, loud enough, it's taken as fact.

Lastly, given the quantity of babies that were at least begun during Katherine and Henry's relationship, it seems to me that there ought to have been issue if she and Arthur were genuinely having relations.

Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:

From: Maria <ejbronte@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To: ,

Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 12:13 PM

Thanks for the interesting post and references: I'll be looking at Lancelott ASAP.

I have a little more trouble than you in believing that Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage not only because I believe that Katherine, like her mother, took religion very, very seriously, but also because during her testimony at Black Friars she basically threw the challenge in Henry's face, and in public, that he knew the condition in which she came to his bed. Not there and not after did he say she was lying, or wrong, or that he was a sweet innocent virgin himself at the time and shouldn't be accountable to know or not know. He left the statement alone, and that indicates, to me, something in Katherine's favor.

As far as her relationship with Anne Boleyn, Katherine had two contemporary models to follow as far as mistresses were concerned. One was her sister Juana, married to Philip the Handsome, and so outspoken, physical and singular in her jealousy that she and Philip were causing a gossip-fest in Europe. The other was mama Isabel, who, faced with a promiscuous husband, would, indeed, often be kind and forgiving to the mistress while, in the process, arranging a transfer and/or a marriage to put said mistress out of the reach of Fernando, thereby saving energy, dignity, and ego for Fernando. Isabel's favorite motto was "con blandura": "with tact"; and I believe this was the general model that Katherine chose to follow. Isabel was a queen regnant and had more power to dispose of mistresses than queen consort Katherine had; but she probably thought that, the less fuss made over Anne B., the less of an attraction and bone of contention would be created, and

that the affair would eventually burn out. She was right about other mistresses, wrong about Anne Boleyn.

Maria

elena@...

-----Original Message-----

From: fayre rose

Sent: Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

... personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.

katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries

Hi Ros and all (Ros I love your email name, by the way). This is a very, very quickie note, from a very , very busy day here at work. I really want to look at Lancelotte, but won't have the time till hopefully Saturday. But I didn't want to forget to throw in a couple of cents more into this kitty:

I'm sorry you feel that way about the Catherine portrait -- I like it very much, and don't consider that she looks at all unhealthy.

The Juan de Flandes portrait of "Catherine at 11" I don't believe is of Catherine at all, but of either Juana or of the eldest sister, Isabel. Isabel jr. lived from 1470 -1498, dying in childbirth. She had already been widowed in 1491, when her husband, Prince Afonso of Portugal, was killed by a fall from his horse. Isabel jr. went into a horrible depression, begging her parents to let her joint a convent rather than get married again. In the event, she married Manuel of Portugal in 1497, and, as noted, died a year later. A few years ago, in a fit of nothing-else-to-do, I Powerpointed this portrait with other Catherine portaits as well as Juana portraits, and came to the conclusion that this Juan de Flandes painting looked more like Juana than like Catherine (for example, Catherine seems to have a little snub and curl at the tip of her nose - you can see it in the "widow" portrait, and also the Virgin and the Magdalen paintings (kind of sweet); the Juan de Flandes subject has a straighter line to her nose). Catherine also seems to have a tendency toward lowered eyelids and a demure, rather gentle downcast direction of gaze (though not in portraits of her in later life). The girl in the Juan de Flandes portrait has a very different gaze and also expression.

As far as Charles is concerned, we need to be rather careful when regarding him as an ally or a friend to anyone but himself; his conflict the with Pope had nothing to do with defending his aunt, and any good that would have come to her from that would have been incidental. In fact, if she were able to see and understand what Charles had done, and was doing, regarding his mother Juana, in order to stay in full power in Castile, and if she were able to see what he was doing to the Spanish economy in order to fund his Italian adventures, she might have thought twice or three times before relying on him for anything.

Oh, I fully agree with you about Catherine's intelligence and her manipulative ability -- I love that scene where she calmy informs those gents that she understands Latin (she and her sisters were extremely well educated before leaving Castile). Henry himself was sufficiently wary of her abilities, saying at one point that she would be as perfectly capable of raising an army as was her mother. I'll have to look at Lancelotte to see what he says Henry says after Black Friars -- at the moment I only remember him stating something to the effect that he loved the queen and that if (in his mind) the marriage weren't incestuous, he'd keep her forever or words to that effect. Bear in mind, though, that from the very moment of Arthur's death, Elvira Manuel, Catherine's duena, was clearly stating that Catherine was still a virgin, even to the point of browbeating the Spanish ambassador to England, Dr. de Puebla, who had either been about to send or had already sent word to the contrary off to Iberia. So, for me, this question, as with so many others in history, the argument as to did they or didn't they can still go either way, and I tend toward the "didn't". But I'll look at Lancelotte this weekend and take his words into account.

In a rush, and in bits and pieces -- and wishing everyone a happy Mozart's birthday tomorrow!

Maria
elena@...


-----Original Message-----
From: fayre rose
Sent: Jan 25, 2011 3:15 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................







if you visit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Tudor

and scroll down the page, you will find a portrait of arthur near the age of his marriage. to me, he appears very healthy and robust. katherine however looks like a very young girl or an unhealthy young woman. in fact arthur, looks significantly more verile than henry does at age 18.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

through the ages, flowers carry "meanings". arthur and katherine were betrothed when arthur was age two. the nigella's meaning is that love is binding and enduring whether or not the relationship is happy or not.

the question of whether or not arthur and katherine consumated their marriage is also discussed further down the wiki page.

also, if you read lancelott's version of katherine's speech to h8 during the divorice proceedings...and the pages following..you will see that henry does rebutt katherine. it is not straight out discourse, but henry does continue his stand that his marriage to katherine was incestuous.

i think it is also important to note that katherine's nephew held the pope hostage/prisoner during the time of the contenuous issue of henry divoricing katherine.


henry's english court granted him a divorice. delegates went to speak to katherine. they started speaking in latin. she (a poor foreigner) told them to speak in english. they then went into her chamber and spoke privately. the cardinals then supported katherine. i think a hostage pope "could" have played a very significate role in the reversal of the cardinals' position.

in my mind katherine was a clever manipulator. in her well recorded and often repeated plea to henry she claimed she was nothing but a poor foreigner...katherine had been in england for close to 30 years at the time. she had been in charge of the scottish invasion while henry was at war in france. the poor weak foreigner approach would only work on the most ill informed. this woman was an English Queen, not a visiting foreign merchant or status-less immigrant.

katherine also felt she did not have trustworthy council with regards to her position and was awaiting legal/canonical advice from spain. this to me says she did not trust the english clergy..hmm, could it be that the clergy could lie? if the ordained clergy could be less than honest, then why is it believed that katherine was entirely truthful? i think this ploy was insulting to the cardinals. the bottom line is the spanish canonical lawyers would work harder for katherine to hold on to the english crown. they were working to protect her daughter, mary's inheritance, as well as katherine's status. this was political manipulation and katherine was biding her time waiting for a "rescue".

katherine put forth a great theatrical performance to evoke an emotional response from the cardinals present. she walked "pitifully" out of the court portraying a "broken woman" who had to be supported by her man servant. katherine was told to return to the court. she refused to return then and subsequent courts. in fact, according to lancelott, katherine said she would ask for her husband's forgiveness later.

when you consider all the masques and fettes that required play acting during her and henry's era, she would have been well practiced to feign trauma and/or emotion. i.e the robin hood invasion held many years prior to this escapade.

how many times in our modern era have we witnessed public officals make statements to play on our emotions, only to learn later that the statement was based on a lie. they were "working" the court of public opinion. katherine was working the court of the church.

while katherine was married to arthur it is believed she did not become pregnant in the marriage.

see sittow's images of katherine as the virgin mary and as mary magdelan.
one a virgin, the other a reformed prositute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon

additionally, if you consider that with henry she had premature births, and that only mary survived beyond a month or two, or even a few days. it, therefore becomes possible that catherine may have been pregnant, but miscarried during the 6 month delay of bestowing the title of prince of wales on henry8. although, i do think this is doubtful, or was only known to katherine. i'm quite sure henry would have used this information in court if he had known.

it should also be noted that henry and katherine's daughter mary also had gynecological issues.

personally, i believe if you "read between the lines" at look at the physiological and political, plus religious issues regarding h8 and katherine's divorice you do begin to see..all is not as katherine would have had the people believe. there was a whole lot of manipulation going on. both henry and katherine were "taking the high road". any blatant "false move" could have lead to full scale war.

the prima donna behaviour of katherine in refusing, basically to besmirch herself with henry's idiocy, really does speak volumes to me. just look at our modern policians and the way they refuse to answer questions and turn their backs, walking away from the baying and curious media. the haughty arrogance angle works quite often in shutting down any further communication and/or questioning.

katherine and henry's divorice proceedings were simply a clash of titans. unfortunately, for katherine the proceedings occurred in england, where henry ruled supreme. katherine, her nephew charles and pope all lost big time, and the birth of a new religion occurred.

hollywood has missed a big opportunity in not portraying the life of one of the great renaissance actresses. katherine was "the great" wife, not a simpering victim of h8.

roslyn

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Received: Monday, January 24, 2011, 7:14 PM



Here's a picture of Arthur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur2.png

I thought it odd that he does not hold the red and white rose. He has a white nigella flower in his hand.
Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................
To:
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 4:50 PM



I think we tend to view Arthur, as we do Edward VI and other relatives, through hindsight - we know they died as teenagers and think of them as permanently ill and feeble. Arthur expected to be King and ancestor of more kings, whilst Henry was destined for the church - thus Warwick, "Warbeck" and possibly Gloucester were cleared out to make Arthur's position unassailable, particularly in Spanish eyes.

Similarly, the Tydders routinely used parts of the Tower as a prison so many people view Edward IV's sons as prisoners when they were guests.

----- Original Message -----

From: Sheffe

To:

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:36 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

I'm with Maria on this one. I think Arthur, with the best will in the world, might already have really been too ill to consummate the marriage. And I think, too, that Henry knew very well his wife was a virgin when she came to him. He seems to have belonged to the school that believes if something is said long enough, loud enough, it's taken as fact.

Lastly, given the quantity of babies that were at least begun during Katherine and Henry's relationship, it seems to me that there ought to have been issue if she and Arthur were genuinely having relations.

Sheffe

--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:

From: Maria <ejbronte@...>

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

To: ,

Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 12:13 PM

Thanks for the interesting post and references: I'll be looking at Lancelott ASAP.

I have a little more trouble than you in believing that Arthur and Katherine consummated their marriage not only because I believe that Katherine, like her mother, took religion very, very seriously, but also because during her testimony at Black Friars she basically threw the challenge in Henry's face, and in public, that he knew the condition in which she came to his bed. Not there and not after did he say she was lying, or wrong, or that he was a sweet innocent virgin himself at the time and shouldn't be accountable to know or not know. He left the statement alone, and that indicates, to me, something in Katherine's favor.

As far as her relationship with Anne Boleyn, Katherine had two contemporary models to follow as far as mistresses were concerned. One was her sister Juana, married to Philip the Handsome, and so outspoken, physical and singular in her jealousy that she and Philip were causing a gossip-fest in Europe. The other was mama Isabel, who, faced with a promiscuous husband, would, indeed, often be kind and forgiving to the mistress while, in the process, arranging a transfer and/or a marriage to put said mistress out of the reach of Fernando, thereby saving energy, dignity, and ego for Fernando. Isabel's favorite motto was "con blandura": "with tact"; and I believe this was the general model that Katherine chose to follow. Isabel was a queen regnant and had more power to dispose of mistresses than queen consort Katherine had; but she probably thought that, the less fuss made over Anne B., the less of an attraction and bone of contention would be created, and

that the affair would eventually burn out. She was right about other mistresses, wrong about Anne Boleyn.

Maria

elena@...

-----Original Message-----

From: fayre rose

Sent: Jan 24, 2011 11:54 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................

... personally, i do think arthur and katherine DID consumate their marriage. they were living in an era when teenage marriages were normal. lancelott does comment that h7 forced h8 on his 14th birthday to reject his betrothal to katherine. the age was 12 for females, and age 14 for males.

katherine was a woman of her era. this meant she was able to manipulate the truth to suit her gains. she could say or do anything she liked then rush off to her confessor, do a little penance for her moral indescretions. i particularily enjoyed reading how she and anne boleyn were able to present a warm friendly face to everyone, including each other, even though anne was already henry's mistress. hypocracy reigned supreme during the 15th and 16th centuries

Sid James, of course. Ray Winstone would have been perfect in a silent version.

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Barber
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Be afraid ..................



I've gotten hold of pretty much all the cinematic portrayals of Henry
VIII, various wives, his sister Mary, etc., going back to Charles
Laughton, and I'm planning a Hankorama (Hankathon?) sometime soon. I'm
interested in the differences in cinematic portrayal of Henry and his
age over the decades. A number of years ago, I stated on another forum
that I believe a biography/history speaks more to the person producing
the biography/history, and the era in which their works are produced,
than it does to the subject of the biography/history or the era in which
the subject actually lived.

For the same reason I like to read bios and histories of a person or
event written during different eras or centuries. Here's a 'cute'
example of what I'm talking about from J.P. Kenyon's _Stuart England_
(Pelican History of England). Near the beginning of his chapter on James
I he states:

"[James's] advent was welcome. Elizabeth had long outlived men's
affection, if not their fear and respect, and after fifty years of
petticoat government (since Mary I's accession in 1553), they welcomed a
male ruler and the end of female tantrums, sulks and irrationality."

Nice one, J.P., you da man! Kenyon first published that nugget in
1978...only thirty-odd years ago. Wowzer! Is this 1970s male chauvinism
speaking, or is it actually the way Jacobeans felt about Elizabeth and
Mary? Dunno.

Sidebar: ironically, the 'female traits' attributed to Elizabeth are
more suited to James.

And then, of course, there is _The Tudors_, of which we have been
speaking. Is its voice that of the first decade of the twenty-first
century or is it the voice of the first quarter of the sixteenth
century? This question brings me to a corollary to the point I made
above. It's relatively easy to create a chronology and to articulate
logical arguments pertaining to people and events in other times, but
it's pretty much impossible to reasonably understand or to articulate
the zeitgeists of other times.

After I'm done with Hank, I have to decide who's the better
Cromwell---Richard Harris or Tim Roth? Help me out here, Paul.

And on I tread...