Henry the 'orrible and his beheaded wives

I was wondering - would Henry have had the power, once the death sentence was imposed
on Anne and Catherine, would he have been able to have the sentence changed to, say,
imprisonment instead. When you think he had, possibly, loved them at one time, how cold
blooded that he did not. Was it taken out of his hands because for a queen to commit
adultery was treason and thus no reprieves allowed?
Anne was supposed to have been set up - could this have been done without his knowledge?

Lastly, was Catherine a young woman capable of great passion or merely as daft as a cart
load of monkeys.
best wishes Eileen

henry had the divine right of kings to do what he would..BUT, he also had to have the majority of the lords temporal and spiritual behind any decision he made.

both anne and catherine had been "betrothed" before their marriages to h8. i think he would have been beyond *outraged* to learn of these secret betrothals.

in all the articles and books i've read, i've never once seen that these betrothals must have seemed a deja vu moment for henry.

titulus regis dethroned e5 and bastardised his mother. for these women to have concealed prior precontracts to marriage would not only jeopardise the marriage but any children born thereafter.

the adultry after the marriage was small potatoes. he could over look that, but the not the engagements. moreover, it would have been difficult to bring the precontract info to public light without dredging up memories of titulus and the era surrounding that document.

it is my opinion that this is why the adultry charges against anne were likely manufactured.

catherine was simply a hormonely overcharged teen married to a sickly middle aged man. (who his second wife had said he suffered from erectile dysfunction)

catherine's biggest folly was a sincere lack of discretion. she was a pampered teen-idiot who believed the king could and would forgive her anything. but he couldn't forgive her for her precontracted marriage to francis dereham. that was out and out treason she put the future of the crown in jeopardy.

roslyn


eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
I was wondering - would Henry have had the power, once the death sentence was imposed
on Anne and Catherine, would he have been able to have the sentence changed to, say,
imprisonment instead. When you think he had, possibly, loved them at one time, how cold
blooded that he did not. Was it taken out of his hands because for a queen to commit
adultery was treason and thus no reprieves allowed?
Anne was supposed to have been set up - could this have been done without his knowledge?

Lastly, was Catherine a young woman capable of great passion or merely as daft as a cart
load of monkeys.
best wishes Eileen

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> I was wondering - would Henry have had the power, once the death
sentence was imposed
> on Anne and Catherine, would he have been able to have the sentence
changed to, say,
> imprisonment instead. When you think he had, possibly, loved them
at one time, how cold
> blooded that he did not. Was it taken out of his hands because
for a queen to commit
> adultery was treason and thus no reprieves allowed?
> Anne was supposed to have been set up - could this have been done
without his knowledge?
>
> Lastly, was Catherine a young woman capable of great passion or
merely as daft as a cart
> load of monkeys.
> best wishes Eileen

I think that Henry had power to do what he wanted. EG Anne was
sentenced to be burned or beheaded at the King's pleasure. He
decided on beheading and also arranged for the French executioner.
If he wished, he could have had her imprisoned for life. However, he
had had the problem previously of two living "wives" at the same
time, and by executing her, he prevented that problem from happening
again.

Also, we must remember that his marriage to Anne was annulled before
her execution. This means they were never married (officially) so
therefore, even if the charges had been correct, she had not
committed treason as she was not the King's lawful wife. Phillippa
Gregory's novels nothwithstanding (The Other Boleyn Girl etc) Anne
was set up and there is no convincing evidence that she committed
adultery. She was simply unable to produce a son.

Catherine was a sad case. By the time she married Henry, he was old
and sick and of uncertain temper. She was young and foolish. She
had a very poor upbringing and appears to have been easily led,
particularly by men.
>

--- In , "bty443080"
<pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering - would Henry have had the power, once the death
> sentence was imposed
> > on Anne and Catherine, would he have been able to have the
sentence
> changed to, say,
> > imprisonment instead. When you think he had, possibly, loved
them
> at one time, how cold
> > blooded that he did not. Was it taken out of his hands because
> for a queen to commit
> > adultery was treason and thus no reprieves allowed?
> > Anne was supposed to have been set up - could this have been done
> without his knowledge?
> >
> > Lastly, was Catherine a young woman capable of great passion or
> merely as daft as a cart
> > load of monkeys.
> > best wishes Eileen
>
> I think that Henry had power to do what he wanted. EG Anne was
> sentenced to be burned or beheaded at the King's pleasure. He
> decided on beheading and also arranged for the French executioner.
> If he wished, he could have had her imprisoned for life. However,
he
> had had the problem previously of two living "wives" at the same
> time, and by executing her, he prevented that problem from
happening
> again.
>
> Also, we must remember that his marriage to Anne was annulled
before
> her execution. This means they were never married (officially) so
> therefore, even if the charges had been correct, she had not
> committed treason as she was not the King's lawful wife. Phillippa
> Gregory's novels nothwithstanding (The Other Boleyn Girl etc) Anne
> was set up and there is no convincing evidence that she committed
> adultery. She was simply unable to produce a son.
>
> Catherine was a sad case. By the time she married Henry, he was
old
> and sick and of uncertain temper. She was young and foolish. She
> had a very poor upbringing and appears to have been easily led,
> particularly by men.
> >
>
You are quite right that the annulment meant that Anne could not have
been guilty in the first place because she was not legally married to
Henry - this has been raised on Sceptred Isle this very month. Never
before have I noticed Edward IV's antics being connected to Henry
VIII's chopping and changing but it is another strong point.

It is doubtful whether Anne ever committed adultery - she thought of
herself as Henry's wife at the time. By 1542, it was high treason to
marry the monarch whilst no longer a virgin so Catherine was
technically guilty under the changed law. Someone - her and Anne's
uncle, the Duke of Norfolk - should have warned her.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
>
> >
>
By 1542, it was high treason to
> marry the monarch whilst no longer a virgin so Catherine was
> technically guilty under the changed law. Someone - her and Anne's
> uncle, the Duke of Norfolk - should have warned her.

And later on someone, in particular, Lady Rochford (who had a lot to lose herself i.e. her
own bonce) should have reminded her that Henry was a man who had no qualms at all
about executing wives before she aided and abetted her in her adultery. Prima facie these
two must have been the two most silliest women in the kingdom. Having said that it is
not hard to feel sympathy for them when you imagine how terror stricken they both must
have been when they were found out. However I understand that they both died bravely
unlike, surprisingly, the Countess of Salisbury, who it is said, would not lay her head on
the block, and run around the block whilst being hacked at by the axeman.

Eileen


>

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
but he couldn't forgive her for her precontracted marriage to francis dereham. that was
out and out treason she put the future of the crown in jeopardy.
>
> roslyn

That was treason yes - when Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville committed
treasonable acts (and to my mind of a far worse kind) Richard did not have them
beheaded (unfortunetly). But I suppose the difference being they did not stand trial
accused of treason (I am not too sure of my facts relating to this). However - what a
difference in attitudes (Plantagenet v Tudor) towards women that had erred.
Eileen
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> I was wondering - would Henry have had the power, once the death sentence was
imposed
> on Anne and Catherine, would he have been able to have the sentence changed to, say,
> imprisonment instead. When you think he had, possibly, loved them at one time, how
cold
> blooded that he did not. Was it taken out of his hands because for a queen to commit
> adultery was treason and thus no reprieves allowed?
> Anne was supposed to have been set up - could this have been done without his
knowledge?
>
> Lastly, was Catherine a young woman capable of great passion or merely as daft as a
cart
> load of monkeys.
> best wishes Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Viscountess Rochford (nee Jane Parker) was Catherine's cousin as well as Anne's sister-in-law; her own husband had been beheaded in 1536 for incest with Anne.

As far as I know, only seven women were ever beheaded in England - Anne in 1536, Lady Salisbury in 1541, Catherine and Lady Rochford in 1542, Lady Jane Grey in 1554, Mary Stuart in 1587 and Dame Alice Lisle in 1685/6. Lady Waristoun (c.1600) is probably unique in Scotland; having killed her husband, this counted as high treason.

----- Original Message -----
From: eileen
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Henry the 'orrible and his beheaded wives


--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
>
> >
>
By 1542, it was high treason to
> marry the monarch whilst no longer a virgin so Catherine was
> technically guilty under the changed law. Someone - her and Anne's
> uncle, the Duke of Norfolk - should have warned her.

And later on someone, in particular, Lady Rochford (who had a lot to lose herself i.e. her
own bonce) should have reminded her that Henry was a man who had no qualms at all
about executing wives before she aided and abetted her in her adultery. Prima facie these
two must have been the two most silliest women in the kingdom. Having said that it is
not hard to feel sympathy for them when you imagine how terror stricken they both must
have been when they were found out. However I understand that they both died bravely
unlike, surprisingly, the Countess of Salisbury, who it is said, would not lay her head on
the block, and run around the block whilst being hacked at by the axeman.

Eileen

>

I don't think that we can really say for certain that Margaret of
Salisbury did not die bravely. There are varying accounts of her
death ie that the executioner was young and botched it; another
version says that she refused to lay her head on the block, saying
that she was not guilty of treason. She was most certainly canonised
by the Roman Catholic Church who considered that she had died a
martyr's death - she is known as The Blessed Margaret Pole, and she
was beatified in 1886 by Pope Leo VIII.

Whatever the circumstances, both Henry VII and his hideous son did a
very thorough job in ridding the world of the Plantaganets. What a
pity Richard III didn't manage to get to Henry Tudor at the Battle of
Bosworth. So much innocent blood was spilled as a result,

Cheers,
Jay.

> And later on someone, in particular, Lady Rochford (who had a lot
to lose herself i.e. her
> own bonce) should have reminded her that Henry was a man who had no
qualms at all
> about executing wives before she aided and abetted her in her
adultery. Prima facie these
> two must have been the two most silliest women in the kingdom.
Having said that it is
> not hard to feel sympathy for them when you imagine how terror
stricken they both must
> have been when they were found out. However I understand that they
both died bravely
> unlike, surprisingly, the Countess of Salisbury, who it is said,
would not lay her head on
> the block, and run around the block whilst being hacked at by the
axeman.
>
> Eileen
>
>
> >
>

--- In , dances_with_spaniels <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> I don't think that we can really say for certain that Margaret of
> Salisbury did not die bravely. There are varying accounts of her
> death ie that the executioner was young and botched it; another
> version says that she refused to lay her head on the block, saying
> that she was not guilty of treason.

Whatever happened it does sound like she was literally butchered - another woman whose
execution Henry could possible have had stopped.
>
> Whatever the circumstances, both Henry VII and his hideous son did a
> very thorough job in ridding the world of the Plantaganets. What a
> pity Richard III didn't manage to get to Henry Tudor at the Battle of
> Bosworth. So much innocent blood was spilled as a result,
>
>
> Jay.

And also so many glorious abbeys would not now lie in ruins - even the ruins are beautiful
- just to think what we have lost. It is enough to make you weep. Oliver Cromwells men
seemed to have done a lot of damage later, you often visit a cathedral i.e. Canterbury, and
you can see damage caused, beautiful medieval statues with their faces smashed in or
completely chopped off, and nearly all the Eleanor crosses destroyed, but I dont believe it
was as bad as the damage caused in Henry's reign with whole abbeys left in ruins. Of
course the locals did not help, carting of the masonery to build their houses and cottages.
Recycling I suppose.
Eileen
>
> > And later on someone, in particular, Lady Rochford (who had a lot
> to lose herself i.e. her
> > own bonce) should have reminded her that Henry was a man who had no
> qualms at all
> > about executing wives before she aided and abetted her in her
> adultery. Prima facie these
> > two must have been the two most silliest women in the kingdom.
> Having said that it is
> > not hard to feel sympathy for them when you imagine how terror
> stricken they both must
> > have been when they were found out. However I understand that they
> both died bravely
> > unlike, surprisingly, the Countess of Salisbury, who it is said,
> would not lay her head on
> > the block, and run around the block whilst being hacked at by the
> axeman.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>