lol @ Isabella of Castille going into battle... *Spoilers*
Too much.
shareIndeed.
shareIt never ceases to amaze me that in the name of feminism and woman power, they have to always try to diminish Ferdinand to try to push Isabella as this great military leader. She never fought in battle in her life. She was a great organizer and ruler, but she didn't plan or execute the successful military campaigns, Ferdinand did and he was actually a Warrior King who fought his whole life in battles and was nearly killed several times in several different wars, from Catalonia to Granada.
Granted, that is one of the least of the problems with the accuracy in these series.
The one thing I do like is that it showed that Catherine consummated her marriage to Arthur and lied about it. Which is almost certainly the case. Despite the tradition of showing otherwise, she never claimed the marriage wasn't consummated until Henry tried to get an annulment.
I don't know much about Isabella and Ferdinand (although I know a fair amount about Catherine), so it's good to know ahead of time this part was fiction, and what the reality was.
What network is this on? I wouldn't have known anything about it if you and others hadn't posted.
Personally I don't think Catherine lied about not consummating her marriage with the sickly Arthur. She was extremely devout and even with her daughter's legitimacy on the line, I still don't think she'd have lied about it. Henry would have known for certain anyway. Why would Catherine have had any reason to claim this prior to Henry seeking an annulment?
It was on Starz.
The tradition that Arthur Tudor was so sickly is like the tradition that Edward Tudor was sickly. It's just not true. The sweating sickness is a sudden and very fatal disease of the time. Just as Edward Tudor wasn't sickly until the last months of his life.
Don't you think she might have told them after Arthur died and the the years of waiting for Henry that that marriage wasn't consummated to make it easier to get a dispensation? She didn't. Unlike in the series, she doesn't insult Arthur by pretending he was incapable or something.
Modern TV usually shows them together for like one night or something. They were married and slept together for several months.
As I said, Catherine did not claim the marriage was not consummated until Henry tried to get the marriage annulled. It appears neither he nor his father cared and it was only when he needed an excuse to get rid of her that he made the consummation as issue, but having read a lot of stuff on the era myself, I would lean towards her lying to stop the annulment. It doesn't make sense that she never claimed it wasn't consummated until then.
I'll look into that about Arthur. Yes, I know about sweating sickness, but is that what he died from?
While it might have been a slight advantage to her after Arthur died to make it easier to get the dispensation, as you pointed out, it would make Arthur look bad. I don't think she'd have done that, I think she'd have remained silent about it either way. Until her daughter's legitimacy was at stake.
Henry VII, as you no doubt know, was against the marriage anyway and they only married after his death. Henry knew, and he didn't deny it when she put it to him in court.
Oh she definitely wanted to stop the annulment. No doubt about that. But she didn't claim either way before this and I don't see any compelling reason for her to have brought up such a delicate subject until the stakes were too high for her to not.
As I said, it would have made marriage to her more desirable is she was a virgin after Arthur died, it doesn't make sense if it was not consummated for her to never have revealed this.
Arthur had told people they consummated the marriage. It's possible she kept quiet about it out of respect for him, but they weren't together for long. This loyalty remained so strong until decades later when suddenly she says he was impotent or incapable to save her position? No. I just don't see it. It would have much to her benefit to have told the truth at the time if it wasn't consummated.
Yes, Henry should have known for sure on their wedding night, but he's the one who insisted adamantly that her marriage to Arthur was consummated. He did it much later for selfish reasons, but he's the one who bedded her and said she wasn't a virgin when they married. It just didn't matter to him until she didn't give him a son.
Well this is interesting. I've now done some refreshing of my mind with some research (I do love a mystery! especially one related to history) and found out a few things I didn't know.
Catherine did indeed testify in 1502 for the papal dispensation that her marriage to Arthur was not consummated, so she was consistent. Her duenna also testified for it, swearing to the same. Additionally, Henry bragged in his youth about her having been a virgin.
When you think about the times, and about men's attitudes about the importance of virginity, taken together with what we know about the kind of person Henry was, it makes sense that she really was a virgin.
I couldn't find anywhere that Henry insisted her marriage was consummated. The reverse, really, since when Catherine swore in front of the Pope's representative Campeggio, all the court at Blackfriar's, and to Henry that she was a virgin. She put to Henry directly, "When ye had me at first, I take God to my judge, I was a true maid, without touch of man. And whether it be true or no, I put it to your conscience. If there be any just cause by the law that ye can allege against me either of dishonesty or any other impediment to banish and put me from you, I am well content to depart to my great shame and dishonour." His response was silence.
If it wasn't true, why wouldn't he have simply said "Madam, I know this to NOT be true"?
That would have been funny, but it's the whole implication.
No, of course, the King didn't actually say out in public that he knows she wasn't a virgin on their wedding night, but that's the whole implication throughout the entire annulment process. That he took his brother's wife and that she wasn't a virgin, which he would know, not anyone else.
Where did you see that she "testified" in 1502 that her marriage wasn't consummated? My understanding is that the papal dispensation allowed them to marry and it didn't matter if her and Arthur's marriage was consummated and there's no allusion to it. It wasn't the first time a brother married his brother's widow with a dispensation. Unlike what they show in the series, the consummation issue didn't matter. But it would have made Catherine much more desirable.
It's impossible to say for certain of course, because Henry had selfish reasons for the annulment and did not seem to care if her marriage to Arthur was consummated until not until then. But she also had selfish reasons for saying it wasn't both for herself and her daughter.
Why wouldn't he deny it when she'd given him the golden opportunity to, if it was the truth? He knew the truth and so did she. They knew each other knew the truth.
It's very difficult for our modern minds to grasp just how big a deal it would have been to lie in a papal court, to the representative of the Pope. The Pope was considered as second only to God, so it would have been as great a sin as lying to God. Henry and Catherine were Catholic (as was everyone else). Catherine was more deeply religious, but Henry was quite religious too. Lying under these circumstances would have been endangering their immortal souls. That's how they viewed it. That, IMO, is why Henry couldn't bring himself to do it, despite wanting out of the marriage and into a marriage with Anne, and of course getting an all-important male heir.
Don't know the exact site I found that on now, but a quick Googling found it on Wikipedia: "Catherine testified that her marriage to Arthur was never consummated as, also according to canon law, a marriage was not valid until consummated."
Right, the dispensation said something like the marriage was "perhaps" not consummated, so according to it, the point was moot.
Something else I discovered that you might find interesting is 2 years after Blackfriars there was an equivalent tribunal held in Spain on the same subject. Testimony was given by various people, same as in Blackfriars. I didn't bother to quote them because those who gave testimony in it could be just as biased as those who gave it against Catherine in England.
So personally I have to throw them both out, unless there's some kind of more objective evidence to back up their testimonies.
In 1503 Ferdinand said “It is well known in England that the princess is still a virgin.” Interesting but not conclusive, because he of course wanted her marriage to Henry, and he wasn't testifying in a papal court when he said it.