Religious History Question

[Terry in Crapchester]

This one has bugged me for quite some time, and maybe somebody in here knows the answer.

IIRC, Henry VIII had the Church of England break away from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century because he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn, but the Catholic Church forbade it. However, in the 20th century, Edward VIII abdicated the British throne (and position as titular head of the Church of England) to marry Wallis Warfield Simpson. IIRC, he was not permitted to marry her and remain king because she was a divorcee.

Anyone know the reason for the apparent inconsistency here? Or did the Church of England get much tougher on divorce between the 16th century and the 20th?

[Mikey]

The fact that she was American and was having a pretty much open affair with the King, while still married to her second husband may have had something to do with it.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Monarchy.



Yet, you Americans eat up that trash and secretly long for your own dynastic ruling class.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Monarchy.



Yet, you Americans eat up that trash and secretly long for your own dynastic ruling class.

Don't you Canucks still have Lizzy on YOUR money and call her Queen?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Monarchy.



Yet, you Americans eat up that trash and secretly long for your own dynastic ruling class.

Don't you Canucks still have Lizzy on YOUR money and call her Queen?

We're working on it.

I'd rather haver Margo Kidder on my bucks than that inbred German queen.

[Terry in Crapchester]

It isn't an inconsistency. The permission to remarry after divorce is discretionary and Simpson was widely regarded as a trashy whore who was totally unfit to be the bride of the King.

I question how much discretion the Church of England officials really had in evaluating Henry VIII's request, particularly in light of the fate that befell John Fisher and Thomas More earlier, prior to the split with the Catholic Church. Of course, by the time Edward VIII came along, the British monarch had substantially lesser power than in Henry VIII's time. So maybe I just answered my own question.

The fact that she was American and was having a pretty much open affair with the King, while still married to her second husband may have had something to do with it.

Henry VIII was pretty much having an open affair with Anne Boleyn while still married to Catherine of Aragon (Anne Boleyn was pregnant at the time they married). But like I said above, Church officials likely deferred to Henry VIII in a manner in which they would not defer to Edward VIII.

[Diogenes]

It had nothing to do with Church officials, it was the political leadership that decided Edward would be ineligible for the throne if he married Simpson. And Henry was seeking an annulment, not a divorce.

[Terry in Crapchester]

It had nothing to do with Church officials, it was the political leadership that decided Edward would be ineligible for the throne if he married Simpson.

After having done a little more research on the subject, I think you might be onto something here.

In addition to Edward VIII, Simpson was also allegedly carrying on with the German ambassador to Britain. And it was suspected that her political views were sympathetic to Hitler. OTOH, her first marriage was to a physically abusive alcoholic whom she did not divorce until after he failed the opportunity she gave him to change his ways. Viewed within the prism of her first divorce, Simpson would appear to be a sympathetic figure to most reasonable people.

It looks to me like the divorce angle may have been a ruse, designed to keep too much information from seeping into the public sphere. So maybe the church officials were actually protecting Edward rather than standing up to him.

And Henry was seeking an annulment, not a divorce.

This says he was seeking a divorce.

[Diogenes]

He was seeking an annulment on the grounds that his marriage was incestuous (Catherine hd been engaged to his brother Arthur before his death). The fact that annulment was refered to as divorce at that time is realy irrelvant, he wished the Pope to declare the marriage null and void.




Fucking Lawyers.

[Terry in Crapchester]

He was seeking an annulment on the grounds that his marriage was incestuous (Catherine hd been engaged to his brother Arthur before his death). The fact that annulment was refered to as divorce at that time is realy irrelvant, he wished the Pope to declare the marriage null and void.

I realize that European politics of the time had something to do with the Church's decision. That being said, however, it seems that imho, Henry was on shaky theological grounds in asking for an annulment on that basis. Catherine of Aragon wasn't a biological relative of his, nor had she even married his brother.

For that matter, while I could be wrong about this, I don't think that the Catholic Church considers a marriage to one's former brother/sister-in-law to be incestuous, although it would probably make for some rather strange family gatherings.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

For that matter, while I could be wrong about this, I don't think that the Catholic Church considers a marriage to one's former brother/sister-in-law to be incestuous, although it would probably make for some rather strange family gatherings.

It was considered incestuous at the time, and Henry needed a papal dispensation (arranged/paid for by his pop) to marry her. Some have argued -pretty convincingly, IMO, that Henry never bought into the legitimacy of his arranged marriage with Catherine and honestly believed that the failed attempts to produce an heir were divine punishment for their sinful marriage. Henry was pretty devout and knowledgable in theology, earning the title "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope prior to the whole brouhaha leading up to the split from Rome.

When I was RC, the nuns taught us that Henry was just using his royal prerogative to get laid (yeah, expecting nuns to give an objective account of that scene was maybe asking too much...). It wasn't until I read a biography of Thomas Cranmer (naturally titled, "Cranmer") several years back that I had gotten a different perspective.

I have no doubts that eventually Henry went nuts with power and/or disease and that contributed to the "serial divorce" thang.

[Terry in Crapchester]

For that matter, while I could be wrong about this, I don't think that the Catholic Church considers a marriage to one's former brother/sister-in-law to be incestuous, although it would probably make for some rather strange family gatherings.

It was considered incestuous at the time, and Henry needed a papal dispensation (arranged/paid for by his pop) to marry her. Some have argued -pretty convincingly, IMO, that Henry never bought into the legitimacy of his arranged marriage with Catherine and honestly believed that the failed attempts to produce an heir were divine punishment for their sinful marriage. Henry was pretty devout and knowledgable in theology, earning the title "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope prior to the whole brouhaha leading up to the split from Rome.

When I was RC, the nuns taught us that Henry was just using his royal prerogative to get laid (yeah, expecting nuns to give an objective account of that scene was maybe asking too much...). It wasn't until I read a biography of Thomas Cranmer (naturally titled, "Cranmer") several years back that I had gotten a different perspective.

I remember in my high school European history class, our teacher taught us that Henry pretty much seized the opportunity to get laid with Catherine of Aragon upon his brother's death. Of course, I went to a Catholic high school, so his perspective might have been affected by his employment. Perhaps even more significantly, this was the same teacher who told us that he (the teacher, that is) was a British earl, so I suspect he was probably a bullshitter of the highest order.

I have no doubts that eventually Henry went nuts with power and/or disease and that contributed to the "serial divorce" thang.

I agree. The same teacher taught us that Henry, who pretty much did everything to excess, contracted both gout and syphillis at a relatively early age, and that both remained untreated for most if not all of his life. On that point, I believe he was correct.

[Cuda]

... something about "Giving up 1st In Line to the Throne to be 2nd Mate on an American Tramp"...

[Diogenes]

For that matter, while I could be wrong about this, I don't think that the Catholic Church considers a marriage to one's former brother/sister-in-law to be incestuous, although it would probably make for some rather strange family gatherings.

It was considered incestuous at the time, and Henry needed a papal dispensation (arranged/paid for by his pop) to marry her. Some have argued -pretty convincingly, IMO, that Henry never bought into the legitimacy of his arranged marriage with Catherine and honestly believed that the failed attempts to produce an heir were divine punishment for their sinful marriage. Henry was pretty devout and knowledgable in theology, earning the title "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope prior to the whole brouhaha leading up to the split from Rome.

When I was RC, the nuns taught us that Henry was just using his royal prerogative to get laid (yeah, expecting nuns to give an objective account of that scene was maybe asking too much...). It wasn't until I read a biography of Thomas Cranmer (naturally titled, "Cranmer") several years back that I had gotten a different perspective.

I remember in my high school European history class, our teacher taught us that Henry pretty much seized the opportunity to get laid with Catherine of Aragon upon his brother's death. Of course, I went to a Catholic high school, so his perspective might have been affected by his employment. Perhaps even more significantly, this was the same teacher who told us that he (the teacher, that is) was a British earl, so I suspect he was probably a bullshitter of the highest order.

On this point he was. I doubt Prince Hal was having any trouble getting laid, and the marriage was about politics more than Catherine being irresistable. The annulment was nessecary for the same reason, lack of a heir, the validity of the marriage being totally irrelevant. For that matter, the Pope's refusal to allow the annulment had as much to do with a reluctance to offend the Spainish as with the absurdity of the 'incest in retrospect' (I can't knock her up, therefore the marriage doesn't count) theory.

[Terry in Crapchester]

It was considered incestuous at the time, and Henry needed a papal dispensation (arranged/paid for by his pop) to marry her. Some have argued -pretty convincingly, IMO, that Henry never bought into the legitimacy of his arranged marriage with Catherine and honestly believed that the failed attempts to produce an heir were divine punishment for their sinful marriage. Henry was pretty devout and knowledgable in theology, earning the title "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope prior to the whole brouhaha leading up to the split from Rome.

When I was RC, the nuns taught us that Henry was just using his royal prerogative to get laid (yeah, expecting nuns to give an objective account of that scene was maybe asking too much...). It wasn't until I read a biography of Thomas Cranmer (naturally titled, "Cranmer") several years back that I had gotten a different perspective.

I remember in my high school European history class, our teacher taught us that Henry pretty much seized the opportunity to get laid with Catherine of Aragon upon his brother's death. Of course, I went to a Catholic high school, so his perspective might have been affected by his employment. Perhaps even more significantly, this was the same teacher who told us that he (the teacher, that is) was a British earl, so I suspect he was probably a bullshitter of the highest order.

On this point he was. I doubt Prince Hal was having any trouble getting laid, and the marriage was about politics more than Catherine being irresistable. The annulment was nessecary for the same reason, lack of a heir, the validity of the marriage being totally irrelevant. For that matter, the Pope's refusal to allow the annulment had as much to do with a reluctance to offend the Spainish as with the absurdity of the 'incest in retrospect' (I can't knock her up, therefore the marriage doesn't count) theory.

Point of clarification: Henry and Catherine weren't childless. They had a daughter, who became Queen Mary. In fairness, at the time it was uncertain whether a female could inherit the throne.

Trying to sort out what I learned in high school European history, I seem to recall that Henry's wives suffered a number of miscarriages, and my teacher telling us that any male children conceived would have received syphillis from Henry (I question whether that is biologically possible, perhaps MtLR could help out). Certainly, the only son who survived, Edward VI, died very young.

[Diogenes]

Teach me to post at 2 in the AM...

Actually the 'curse' was that all of their male children died early.

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


And for the record, it was only Catherine's word that she'd never put out for Arthur-And Henry waited 18 years before trying for his annulment. After 5 of 6 infant deaths and miscarriages. The fact that he marrid five more times is less debauched than just sad.

[saxonjf]

I might add that Catherine of Aragon was a cousin of Charles, the emporer of Europe at the time. Henry's suit for annulment might have gone through, but Charles used his power to keep the Pope from allowing it at the time.

Henry, thoroughly catholic in doctrine, allowed Cranmer to break from RCC, but maintained a fair amount of the catholic doctrine. Seperation of doctrine didn't solidify until his daughter Elizabeth. Even then, the Stewarts made an attempt to reunite. The glorious revolution ended that.