The British Monarchy and the Future.

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Charles Prince of Wales, Elizabeth II, England, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Scotland, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales, United Kingdom of Great Britain

There were two blog posts on Royal Central that I read recently. One remarked about when Charles becomes king his coronation service will be more ecumenical and will not be a service just for those of The Church of England. Another article was about the Scottish referendum for independence that will be voted on next year. Both of these articles demonstrate that, as with all of life, things will not remain the same and things will change. The British monarchy, and all extant monarchies, have survived because of thei ability to change and adapt to the times. Today I will examine the two issues brough up by the articles on the Royal Central website.

The Coronation of King Charles III

I do think that changing the coronation service to allow the participation of others faiths is a good idea. Charles has gone on record saying that he hopes to be the Defender of Faiths (plural) and not just the defender of the Church of England. I think this is forward thinking. It represents the changing demographics in British society. Although a large percentage of people in the United Kingdom do label themselves as Christian (71.6%) that leaves 28. 4% of the population that identify themselves as Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, no-specific faith or any number of other religious beliefs. In a constitutional monarchy the monarch needs to be a representative of all faiths and all people. I for one do someday see the need for the Monarchy and the Church of England to part ways, but that may not happen for a long long while. The new Succession laws have made a large step in removing anti-Catholic bias from the monarchy, it just didn’t go far enough in this writers opinion. As of the writing the heir to the monarch still has to be in communion with the Church of England.

Devolution of the United Kingdom

In the fall of 2014 Scotland will vote on whether or not to remain a member of the United Kingdom or to become a separate sovereign state once again. Years ago if you had asked me I would have been against such an action. However, as I have learned more about Scottish history and the strong sense of identity and national spirit that the Scots have it saddens me to see they have lost some of that identity in the shadow of England. I guess that is one of the reasons I am bothered that people still call Elizabeth II “Queen of England.” It is not just the fact that it is not her proper title, it is the fact that it ignores Scotland completely.

Another reason I have changed my mind about Scottish independence is that I have learned that if independence is achieved Scotland would retain Elizabeth II as Head of State and become a member of the Commonwealth. To me this is acceptable compromise. I have said this before, but it bears repeating. I do miss the days when the monarch was simply the King or Queen of England. I also miss the traditions and the days when the monarch was called the King or Queen of Scots.  If Scotland does become independent and Elizabeth II (or simply Queen Elizabeth in Scotland) is retained as the Head of State, I do hope we see the return of those classic titles. This will place things as they were prior to 1707 with England and Scotland sharing a joint monarch.

Now, I have to ask the question, is it possible that Scotland could return to how things were prior to 1603 when James VI, King of Scots succeeded to the English throne? Could we see Scotland having its own monarch once again and not sharing one with England? Personally, I would love to see it. My dream scenario would be that the Earl of Wessex become Edward IV, King of Scots* and his son would be the future James VIII**. I know this will not happen but that doesn’t stop me from dreaming! I don’t know how much the Scots are monarchists and would want their own monarch.

It is interesting to watch the future and to see the changes.

* Many consider Edward Balliol as the rightful King of Scots between 1332-1336. King Edward VII would be considered Edward II, King of Scots, while his grandson, Edward VIII, would be considered Edward III.

** If James Francis Edward Stuart, Princes of Wales (1688-1766), son of James II-VII of England and Scotland, who’s pretence to the Scottish throne was from 1701 to 1766, is counted as James VIII (as most Jacobites do) then a future James of Scotland could be called James IX, King of Scots.

Advertisements

Legal Succession: The House of Stuart, Part II

Tags

Anglican, Catherine of Braganza, Exclusion Bill, General Monck, James Scott, Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, The 1st Duke of Monmouth, Titus Oates

The Commonweath period ended after the death of Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector in 1658 and the brief stint of his son, Richard Cromwell, in the same position which lasted until May 12, 1659. There followed a period of virtual anrachy as the great ship of state was left without a captain. In steps George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle, General of the Army in Scotland. Fearing the country would fall further into disarray he marched his army south into London and forced the Rump Parliament to reinstate the Long Parliament which had the monarchist members ejected during Pride’s Purge toward the end of the Civil War. This new pro-Monarchist Parliament restored Charles II to his throne in May of 1660.

Charles II was now the rightful King of England and Scotland having been legally called to the throne by Parliamanet. At the time of his restoration Charles was 30 years old, unmarried and his brothers, Prince James, Duke of York and Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester were the male hiers to the throne. Prince Henry did not live long with his brother as king, he died, unmarried, from smallpox in September of 1660 at the age of 20. This left his bother, the Duke of York, as hier to the throne. One of the responsibilities of kingship is to provide for the succession. Although Charles had a string of mistresses and many natural children he needed to find a wife. His choice of bride was the Catholic Princess, Catherine of Braganza, the daughter of King João IV of Portugal and Luisa de Guzmán. The queen was not popular in England due to her belonging to the Catholic faith. It is difficult to say whether this was a love match or not. Chalres always dealt with his wife with kindness and consideration but it did not stop him from bringing a consistent flow of mistresses to his bed.

One of the sad aspects of the marriage between Charles and Catherine is that the union did not produce any legitimate hiers. Catherine became pregnant and miscarried three times during the course of her marriage. By the late 1670s many people began to fear that the Duke of York would succeed his brother. The problem with this is that at this time James, Duke of York had openly converted to Catholicism and as a Protestant Nation there were many that did not want another Catholic King sitting on the throne. One of the positive apsect of the possible accession of James as King of England and the Scots was the fact that he had two Protestant duaghters who could succeed him, Princesses Mary and Anne. In 1677 Princess Mary of York married the Protestant Prince Willem III of Orange who was also her first cousin, being the son of Princess Mary, The Princess Royal, sister to both Charles II and the Duke of York. At the time of their marriage Willem was fourth in line to the English and Scottish thrones.

There was such anti-Catholic feeling in the air at this time when a rumor was started by a defrocked Anglican clergyman, Titus Oates, that a “Popish Plot” to assassinate Charles II and to put the Duke of York on the throne, it eventually lead to a bill being propposed in Parilament to exclude the Duke of York from the Succession. There were some members of Parliament that wanted to replace the Duke of York with James Scott, The 1st Duke of Monmouth and eldest illigitimate son of Charles II and his mistress Lucy Walter. In 1679, with the Exclusion Bill one the verge of passing into law, Charles had Parliament dissolved four times that year. During the 1680s the popularity of the Exclusion Bill fadded and when Charles II died he was legally and lawfully succeeded by his brother who became James II-VII, King of England and King of Scots.

There was a brief attempt to usurp the the throne from James when his nephew, James Scott, The 1st Duke of Monmouth tried to depose his uncle. Feeling that his Protestantism would outweigh his illegitimacy the Mounmouth Rebellion tried to depose King James II-VII. The rebellion failed and despite please for mercy from the Duke of Monmouth to his uncle, the Duke was executed July 1685, on Tower Hill. Reports range from anywhere from 5-8 blows to sever his head.

The Common Touch

Tags

14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, East Anglia, Essex, Heptarchy, Kent, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, Mercia, Norman Conquest of England, Northumbria, Prince Charles, Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark, Sussex, Wessex

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is a very popular member of the British Royal Family. She is young and beautiful with a friendly and warm personality and married to a dashing handsome prince who is destined one day to be king. These are what make up fairy tales and Hollywood movies. Another aspect of this fairy tale is that she does not come from either royalty or the titled nobility herself. Long gone are the days when royals married royals. This has not done any damage as some have feared. I have met some individuals who have supported the class system to the point where they thought that when a royal married a commoner that it lessened their royal status and that of their children. I do not agree with this view at all.

Through the centuries it has been ironic that commoners and every ordinary person has had the freedom to select the mate of their choice. Royalty, on the other hand, has not always had that luxury. Marrying into your station in life is still practiced throughout the world. There are always whispers and gossip if someone is seen to be marrying someone who is not part of their social group and status. This human proclivity is readily apparent in royal circles and has been for ages. Even in the days of the Heptarchy, members of the royal families of  Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Wessex married into one another’s houses. Even after the Norman Conquest of England this trend continued.

Looking at a genealogy chart of the royal family through history it mirrors much of the political climate at the time. From the Norman Conquest until the reign of Edward III (1327-1377) we can see many French princesses and those of the French nobility marry into the English royal family. This mirrors the many conflicts between England and France that royal alliances were hoped to resolve. From the reign of Edward III to the times of the Tudors we see a lot of marriages of the royal family into the English nobility. The Tudor dynasty was a hodgepodge of marriages with foreign countries and the English nobility..and even with commoners. The Stuarts married into Danish, French, Dutch and Portuguese royal houses.

With the arrival of the German House of Hanover onto the British throne in 1714 we begin to see the tradition of marrying into other German royal and noble families. This tradition lasted up until World War I (1914-1918) when the German and Russian royal houses were swept off their thrones. It was at that time when George V permitted his children to marry members of the British aristocracy. We all know the trouble Edward VIII had in selecting a wife that was not from either royal or noble stock, he gave up the throne for his marriage to Wallis Simpson. His sister Mary, The Princess Royal, married the future Earl of Harewood. George VI, married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the daughter of Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. Prince Henry, The Duke of Gloucester, married Lady Alice  Montagu Douglas Scott, the daughter of John Montagu Douglas Scott, 7th Duke of Buccleuch. The youngest surviving son, Prince George, Duke of Kent, married into royalty. In 1934 the Duke of Kent married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark.

Princess Marina’s cousin, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark married the future Queen Elizabeth II in 1947. In recent years we have seen members of the royal family marrying people from untitled families. The Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret, married Antony Armstrong-Jones, whom Her Majesty ennobled granting him the title 1st Earl of Snowdon. Of the queen’s children only the first marriage of the Prince of Wales, to Lady Diana Spencer, was a marriage to a member of the nobility. All the other children of the queen married untitled commoners.  In the future it may still be possible for a member of the British royal family to marry another royal or even a member of the nobility and if this happens it will happen just like anyone else meets their spouse, through friends or activities. I am all in favor of royals marrying the person they love and the person of their choice. The only drawback for me personally is I enjoy reading old genealogy charts and seeing how many ways the royals are connected. In the future these royal and noble families will be less connected by marriage.

With such hard-working and warm friendly people such as The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duchess of Cornwall and the Countess of Wessex as members of the royal family they demonstrate that being royal is not about birth, it is about conduct and service and being an honourable representative of your country. Being married into the royal family is not just a part-time job, it is a full-time lifestyle. These ladies have demonstrated that dignity and class are attributes that we can all emulate and one does not have to be high-born to display those qualities. In the future as Prince Harry and other members of the royal family select the spouse of their choice, let’s hope that they all demonstrate that common touch.

Moritz, Landgrave of Hesse Has died.

Tags

Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, House of Brabant, Landgrave of Hesse, Moritz of Hesse, Princess Tatjana of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg

Moritz, Prince and Landgrave of Hesse was has died at the age of 86. Born 6 August 1926 he was the son of Prince Philip, Landgrave of Hesse and the head of the House of Brabant and the German House of Hesse He was heir to both the Hesse-Cassel lines and the Hesse-Darmstadt line. He was a collector of fine arts. He married  Princess Tatjana of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg in 1964 and they divorced in 1974. They had four children.

• H.H. Princess Mafalda Margarethe of Hesse (born 6 July 1965). Married 1st, Enrico dei Conti Marone Cinzano (born 5 April 1963 Turin) on 8 July 1989 (div. 1990), no issue. Married 2nd, Carlo Galdo (born 26 March 1954, Naples) on 19 December 1991 (div. 1999) and had two daughters, Tatiana Marie Galdo (born 20 January 1992) and Polissena Galdo (born 30 September 1993). Married 3rd Ferdinando dei Conti Brachetti-Peretti (born 13 January 1960, Rome) on 14 July 2000 in Rome, and had two sons, Cosmo Maria Tebaldo Maurizio Enrico Brachetti-Peretti (born 11 January 2000) and Briano Maria Tebaldo Brachetti-Peretti (born 16 April 2002).
• H.R.H. Hereditary Prince Heinrich Donatus Philipp Umberto of Hesse (born 17 October 1966). Married Countess Floria of Faber-Castell (born 14 October 1974, Düsseldorf, Germany) in 2003 and has a daughter and two sons, Princess Paulina and Prince Moritz (twins, born 26 March 2007, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) and Prince August (born 24 August 2012).
• H.H. Princess Elena Elisabeth Madeleine of Hesse (born 8 November 1967). She has an illegitimate daughter with Massimo Caiazzo (born 1976), Madeleine Immacolata Tatiana Theresa Caiazzo (born 29 November 1999).
• H.H. Prince Philip Robin of Hesse (born 17 September 1970). Married Laetitia Bechtolf (born 5 May 1978, Wedel, Pinneberg, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany) on 5 May 2006 (civil wedding) and 10 June 2006 (religious wedding), and has a daughter, Princess Elena Margherita Lotti Christiane Elisabeth (born 5 December 2006), and a son, Prince Tito (born 24 August 2008).

His son, H.R.H. Hereditary Prince Heinrich Donatus, succeeds to the claims of the Landgrave of Hesse title and head of the House of Hesse.

Henry VIII: What did he really know and believe. Conclusion.

Tags

Anne Boleyn, Arthur Prince of Wales, Catherine of Aragon, hantavirus, King Henry VIII of England, Pope Julius II

I think my background in psychology is helping me understand Henry VIII during this crucial time in history. I will not bore you with the psychoanalysis but I will mention some of what I think is at play for Henry. Henry VIII certainly was a man for his times. A stated in my initial post on this subject, the way women were seen and treated played a large role in the circumstances. What really surprised me about the role in which women played not only at court but in all society at the time, which was a rigid social hierarchy, was that they too bought into the belief system that they were the inferior sex and that their place in life was divinely ordained. The truth is all saw that their station in life was divinely ordained. So if you were a man or a woman, a Pauper or a Prince, you were obligated to function in that role as a means of carrying out God’s ideal of an ordered and civilized society.

I think this did shape and form much of Henry VIII’s worldview and thinking. In the hierarchy of civil society the King was there on his throne by the Will of God. That is why, centuries later, the killing of King Charles I was such a cultural shock and a demonstration that people’s thinking was changing. With Henry at the top of the proverbial food chain he was not answerable to his subjects but to God only. It does seem that Henry did have strong religious convictions. He also saw his role as being King be the Grace of God and ultimately he was only answerable to him. This is what placed the king in a quandary.

The politics of early to mid 16th century England was that of a country still reeling from the results of the Wars of the Roses, a civil war for the throne of England. Although he had a daughter, the future Queen Mary I, he was still convinced that a woman was not strong enough to rule England. He needed sons to secure the succession and to stabilize the Tudor family on the English throne fearing that without a son the country would quickly relapse into a civil war. Henry also had quite the eye. Breaking his marriage vows and having a mistress was easily justified. Justification and denial are classic defense mechanisms which Henry employed. With women viewed as property they were there just for Henry to use as he pleased. After all, he was the King.

Although I do not blame Anne Boleyn for her execution, she certainly does seem like a victim of Henry’s authority, I do place some responsibility on her for the divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Anne was not content, like her sister, Mary Boleyn, to be Henry’s mistress. Anne did have higher ambitions. However, that does bring me to one of those unanswerable questions of history. Would Henry have divorced Catherine had Anne agreed to be his mistress? In many ways this question is unanswerable, however, my opinion is that the divorce would have happened anyway because the ultimate goal for Henry was to beget sons. Anne just provided the motivation to pursue the divorces

In the end Henry saw that his kingly duty to God and his country was to provide for a stable throne and to secure a peaceful transition of government upon his death. He was a man of his times and acted in accordance to those beliefs that many in society held at the time. This divorce can also been seen as the first step in the downward spiral of Henry VIII. Prior to that he was the embodiment of an early Renascence King. However, as he grew in power that power corrupted him to be come the bloody tyrant known to history.

Legal Succession: The House of Stuart, Part I

Tags

Anne of Denmark, Charles II, English Civil War, English Commonwealth, Henrietta Maria de Bourbon of France, King Frederik II of Denmark and Norway, King Henri IV of France and Navarre, King James II-VII, Marie de' Medici, Oliver Cromwell, Prince Henry Frederick, Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow

We have reached an interesting point in this series. Although, as we shall see, the House of Stuart will have its difficult times on and off the thrones of England and Scotland, we have reached a period of relative stability as far as legal successions are concerned. There will be a few more crises for the throne but we will not see civil wars and usurpations like we have had in the past. In the next section of this topic we will see the rise of Parliament and the battle with the Crown over the power within the government. I will examine how this conflict actually helped stabilize the Crown and the succession to the throne.

James I-VI, King of England and King of Scots (when still only King of Scots) married Princess Anne of Denmark in 1589, the daughter of King Frederik II of Denmark and Norway and his wife, Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow. They would have seven children, three sons and four daughters, and only three of them surviving childhood. The eldest son, Prince Henry Frederick, was created The Duke of Rothesay as heir to the Scottish throne in 1594. Upon his father’s accession of the English throne in 1603 Henry Frederick automatically became Duke of Cornwall. In 1610 his father created him The Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. Although young, Henry Frederick displayed great promise in leadership and his sudden death from Typhoid at the age of 18 dashed the hopes of many.

This left his rather sickly brother, Charles, Duke of Albany, as heir to his fathers kingdoms. In the due corse of time Charles became King of England and King of Scots when his father passed away on March 27, 1605. The same year of his succession King Charles married Henrietta Maria de Bourbon of France, daughter of King Henri IV of France and Navarre and his second wife, Marie de’ Medici. This marriage returned England to the problems between Protestants and Catholics.  Henrietta Maria was a Catholic and for that reason she was distrusted at court. Her Catholicism influenced both her two eldest sons, the future King Charles II and King James II-VII. These conflicts over religion would have implications on the legal succession.

Charles I had a difficult reign. He ruled for 11 years without Parliament and only reluctantly called Parliament because he needed to raise money for war. I will not focus on the English Civil Wars for that is a complex topic for another day. However, the Civil War did lead to Charles I being arrested, tried and convicted of treason and on January 30, 1649 he was beheaded and the monarchy was abolished. England was declared a Commonwealth and power was assumed by a Council of State, which included Lord Fairfax, then Lord General of the Parliamentary Army, and Oliver Cromwell.

As noted other places in when there is a war the victor gets to rewrite the laws and rules. In reality at that moment in time the throne was gone and the Commonwealth was the successor to the Kingdom of England. To his supporters Charles, Prince of Wales, was now the pretender to the extinct throne. He was a man with a high price tag on his head and spent many years on the run. He was crowned King of Scots in 1651 but with Cromwell’s army on his heels his stay in Scotland was brief. The next part will examine how Charles II became the legal King of England and King of Scots. I will also examine how his childless marriage and his brother’s Catholicism created a conflict for the throne.

Henry VIII: What did he really know & believe? Part 2

Tags

Anne Boleyn, Arthur Prince of Wales, Catherine of Aragon, hantavirus, King Henry VIII of England, Pope Julius II

Last week I examined how Henry VIII justified his divorce from Catherine of Aragon from a Scriptural point of view. One of the issues hinging on that Scriptural point of view was whether or not Catherine’s marriage to Arthur, Prince of Wales was consummated or not. For her entire life Catherine maintained that her marriage to Arthur was never consummated. I really do not doubt her much…however there are some questions I want to examine.

Arthur was 15 at the time of his marriage to Catherine in November of 1501. Catherine was one month shy of turning 16. After a 5 day wedding feast the couple were bedded together in which most of the court put the young couple to bed in an elaborate ceremony. The next morning Arthur is alleged to have said that he was “in Spain” that night suggesting that the marriage had indeed been consummated. However the marriage did not last long. Arthur died the next spring on April 2, 1502. The cause of his death is unknown but it has been theorized that he may have had consumption, diabetes, or the mysterious sweating sickness, which some modern theorists tie to a hantavirus a virus that has entirely been linked to human contact with rodent excrement.

Was Arthur too sick at the time to consummate his marriage? If not that first night than any of the nights over the next 5 months they were together? (Arthur’s illness)

Another question, and I apologize if this seems crass, wouldn’t Henry VIII himself know that his wife was a virgin when he married her? That is a difficult question to answer. Only Catherine and Henry truly knew. However, if Henry knew that his was, Catherine, was indeed a virgin, then that really paints a picture of his character. For if he knew, through personal experience, that Catherine was indeed a virgin then his lies and attempts to paint her as a liar are cruel and heartless.

Legal Succession: Elizabeth I of England & James VI of Scotland: Part 4

Tags

Commendator of Kinloss, Earl of Mar, Edward Bruce, Elizabeth I of England, James VI-I of Scotland and England, Lady Arabella Stuart, Sir Robert Cecil

We have looked at all of the people in line to the succession to the throne of England. The fact that James VI, King of Scots was eventually chosen as successor to Elizabeth I demonstrates two ideas. First and foremost is the fact that male prefered primogeniture had become the tradition if not the law by this time. The second point is that the monarch still had power to name their successor. Although by the late 1590s it had become treasonous to talk about the succession to the queen herself there were those that knew the issue had to be raised eventually.

The queen’s chief minister was Sir Robert Cecil who at one point supported the succession of Lady Arabella Stuart to the throne. He eventually shifted his alliance to the King of Scots and in 1601 began secret correspondences with James promising him the throne of England. The action toward supporting James on the English throne was not solely originating in England. James actively pursued his rights to the English throne and in February of 1601 The Earl of Mar and Edward Bruce, Commendator of Kinloss, went to London as ambassadors for the purpose of having james recognized as heir to Queen Elizabeth. Because of the possibility of treason these efforts were done in secret. The Scottish embassadors even went from town to town trying to gain support for James and his claim to the throne.

Despite the secret correspondences there is evidence that Elizabeth I did indeed expect that James would succeed her. Historians remark that her own regular correspondence with James became more friendly at this time. She also increased the irregular subsidy which Elizabeth paid to James, either in cash or jewellery was increased. In March of 1603 as the end of the life of Elizabeth was certain the subject was raised on her death-bed. Historians cannot substantiate if any of this is true. She was unable to speak but was able to gesture. A list of names was read to her containing those in line for the succession and when James VI of Scotland was mentioned she made a circular motion in the air taken to mean she agreed with that choice.

When Elizabeth died in the early morning hours of March 24, 1603 Sir Robert Cecil proclaimed James VI of Scotland as King of England. On April 5 James set forth for London promising to return to Edinburgh (he never did). He arrived in London on May 7 and was crowned at Westminster Abby on July 25. The succession from the Tudor Dynasty to the Stuart Dynasty went smoothly.

James wanted to unite the two crowns into the Kingdom of Great Britain. However there were many issues blocking this from happening. Despite, at times, calling himself the king of Great Britain, England and Scotland would remain separate countries that shared the same monarch as Head of State. It would not be until 1701 that the two crowns were truly united.

Next in this series will be the succession of Charles I.

Henry VIII: What did he really know & believe? Part 1

Tags

Anne Boleyn, Arthur Prince of Wales, Catherine of Aragon, King Henry VIII of England, Pope Julius II

I have been reading a lot about the Tudor period of English history. It is a rich mine for historians to delve into. What has been very interesting to me are the circumstances surrounding his divorce of his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. One of the major points that Henry used in justifying this divorce was that Catherine was never his legal wife because she indeed did have sexual relations with her first husband, Arthur, Prince of Wales, elder brother of Henry VIII. Even though Pope Julius II granted the couple a dispensation in December of 1503 (6 years before the actual marriage) Henry VIII stated that despite the Pope’s dispensation God was punishing him for marrying his brother’s widow, something forbidden in the Book of Leviticus. In Henry’s mind this punishment took the form of no sons resulting from the union and many miscarriages and still-births.

This justification from Henry has always raised several questions for me. Did Henry truly believe that God was punishing him, or was that just the excuse he needed to divorce his wife to marry Anne Boleyn? Catherine maintained all her life that she and Arthur never consummated their marriage. Would Henry have been able to tell if his wife was a virgin when they married? These are a couple of the questions I want to examine. Was it possible that Catherine was lying?

I will look at the first issue today: What were the religious beliefs of King Henry VIII? First of all, today we know that it is the male sperm that determines the sex of the baby. Henry blamed everyone but himself. I guess the ego of a powerful King of England would allow him to see that maybe he was part of the problem? Society was much more religious than it is today. In those days religious superstitions were more rampant as science had yet to supplant these age-old wives tails. Therefore attributing the lack of sons as evidence of divine punishment.

However devout Henry’s religious beliefs were, and I have no doubt he was a sincere Catholic, he does exhibit inconsistencies in his beliefs. Those inconsistencies are pretty easy to explain. Although devout as a Catholic and his faith in God it was easy for him to justify his affairs and his natural children because that was his right as a man and a king. Underwriting much of his beliefs were societies attitude toward woman and the need for social order. At the time Henry lived women were seen as inferior to men and their property with only the rights allowed them by men. Therefore this societal view gave Henry every right to use women for his sexual proclivities. As you go up in the hierarchy of society this behavior was not frowned upon..at least when it remained private.

Another important belief of Henry’s was the belief in social order and social structure. These beliefs also had divine origin. Henry was a supporter of the theory of the divine right of kings in that he was on the throne by the Will of God and that he was answerable only to God himself and not any man. Henry also believed that this belief lead to the stratification of society and that everyone was born to a certain station to fulfill God’s will and maintaining this social order was vitally important to the stabilization of a civil society.

Therefore in light of all of this Henry believed that it was the right of the woman to obey him in all areas including his desire to divorce. He saw his lack of thriving sons as divine punishment and he saw that it was his wife’s duty to step aside to allow him to sire healthy sons to continue the succession. For at the heart of this matter was keeping his realm stable. The Tudors had come to the throne after decades of civil war over who should possess the throne. Despite having a thriving daughter Henry feared that without a son the throne would be vulnerable for reigniting the War of the Roses.

Henry also believed in the sanctity of marriage…despite his affairs divorce was seen as a sin. Therefore he needed to find scriptural justification to divorce his wife. This justification was found in Leviticus 20:21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.” Even though Pope Julius II gave the couple a dispensation to marry, Henry firmly believe that no man could undo God’s laws.  Therefore to Henry he was never his wife’s legal husband and he was free to marry.

There was one other related issue that assured Henry that Catherine of Aragon was not his lawful wife. For in order for the Levitical injunction to apply to Catherine and himself would be the fact that Catherine indeed consummated her union with his brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales. If the union was never consummated, as Catherine claimed, than Henry and Catherine were legally wed. If the marriage had been consummated than Henry did have scriptural grounds for a divorce as he saw it.

This leads us to our next question which I will examine next week: Was the union between Catherine and Prince Arthur consummated?

European History and American Movies

Tags

Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Braveheart, Cate Blanchett, Charlemagne, Elizabeth Woodville, Emperor Franz Joseph, Helen Mirren, Holy Roman Emperor, Iron Man, James Mason, King Baldwin IV, King Edward IV, King Richard I of England, Kings and Queens of England, Queen Victoria, Ray Winstone, Robert Downey Jr, the White Queen, Young Victoria

This post will be a slight change of pace for me. This post will be directed toward my American readers but hopefully my readers from other countries will also appreciate this. Lately I have been watching movies related to the Tudor dynasty, specifically Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. I own and watched the Tudors the Showtime miniseries, the Henry VIII miniseries starring Ray Winstone, the movie Anne of the Thousand Days, and a miniseries on Elizabeth I starring Helen Mirren and the two movies about Elizabeth I starring Cate Blanchett. Also have many more royalty related movies. This did get me thinking about how popular some stories and royal figures are popular here in the US.

Movies such as Braveheart and those based on the character Robin Hood have featured royalty and have done very well. The movie Young Victoria did well here in the United States as did another movie based on Queen Victoria, Her Majesty, Mrs Brown, starring Dame Judi Dench. One of my favorite royalty based movies is Restoration starring Robert Downey Jr (Iron Man) and Sam Neill as Charles II. I recently purchased the 1982 TV movie of Ivanhoe also starring Sam Neill and James Mason and featuring Julian Glover as King Richard I of England. Ridley Scott’s movie Kingdom of Heaven is also one that I enjoy which takes place in the Holy Land during the Crusades and features King Baldwin IV of the European Kingdom of Jerusalem and his battle for the land against the famous Muslim leader, Saladin. Even King Richard I shows up at the end on his way for his historic encounter with Saladin.

I think I have established that movies about European history and European Royalty do play well here in the states. When I look through the movies I own and have seen what strikes me is that there are still many stories that I would love to see that have not been filmed yet.

Here are some of my ideas for movies i would love to see made some day:

1. The life of William the Conqueror. I could see this movie done on an epic scale of Braveheart. To keep it simple I would just focus on the conquest of England itself. But there are many themes to that story to make it interesting. The Battle of Hastings would make for an epic filled battle. Also it would be interesting to film how the Norman army mistook the celebrations during the coronation as some type of rebellion began to set fire to the town!

2. The life of Charlemagne. The King of the Franks who also became the first Holy Roman Emperor and created one of the most powerful empires in Europe. There is a goldmine of stories from his life.

3. The start of World War I. I think you could create a great drama of the tensions between all of the royal heads of states after the assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand.

4. The life of Austrian Emperor Franz-Joseph who saw his wife, son, and great-nephew (the aforementioned Archduke Franz-Ferdinand) all die in his life time amidst tragic circumstances.

5. I would like to see a sequel to Young Victoria and show the circumstances of their relationship and her reaction to the death of her husband, Prince Albert, the Prince Consort.

6. I hope someday they make one more movie with Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth I showing the end of her reign and all the drama that went with it.

Those are just some of the ideas I have floating in my head for feature films…or maybe a miniseries for topics related to royalty. I know that the BBC is producing a miniseries called the White Queen about Elizabeth Woodville the wife of King Edward IV and the tumultuous times of the Wars of the Roses. I am looking forward to seeing that!