The history of marriage (from a comment on another blog)

[fpb]

The drift away from normative lifelong monogamous marriage seems to be as old as the human race. That seems to me to be what Our Lord meant when He said: "Moses told you so [allowing divorce] because of the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so." Jesus had asked "What did Moses teach you [about marriage]?" And he had been

Comments

[ravenclaw_eric]

I'd have to take exception to your characterization of Anne Boleyn. I understand perfectly well why you don't like her, but someone who sleeps (as far as is known for sure) with one man in her life cannot be called a slut. (Or does the word mean something different in Britain? I'm far more familiar with contemporary British idioms than many Americans, but have been known to trip sometimes.) As for "homewrecker"---what was she to do when the King kept coming after her? In her boots, I'd have likely wanted to split---but I don't think Henry would have let her go, and neither would that ambitious family of hers. I'd say she held out for marriage because she didn't want to end up like her sister, who'd been Henry's mistress. And, like it or not, the dynastic situation was such that Henry was going to be looking for a new wife; the Tudor dynasty was new, not all that royal compared with a lot of their subjects, and there weren't very many Tudors around to take the throne if Henry died--which would likely lead straight back to civil war with who-knows-what consequences.

I am also no fan of Henry VIII, but I will give him some credit for not just making sure that Catherine of Aragon had a regrettable---oh, how regrettable!---accident when it became clear she wouldn't ever be bearing him the son he needed. Quite a few kings, including English ones, might have made sure that the next time she went out riding, she got handed an uncontrollable horse...or fell down the castle stairs and broke her neck.

[fpb]

Well, you neglect the small matter of Catherine of Aragon being the aunt of a bloke called Charles of Habsburg, who was not only Holy Roman Emperor, king of Aragon, Castile, the Two Sicilies, Bohemia and Hungary, lord of Mexico and Peru, archduke of Austria and duke of Burgundy, but who as Duke of Burgundy held most of present-day Belgium and the Netherlands and had enough ships and soldiers to turn England over like an old glove if he saw need. I will not even mention the enormous debt that the monster owed this accomplished and devoted woman - to quote Wikipedia, "For six months, she served as regent of England while Henry VIII was in France. During that time the English won the Battle of Flodden, an event in which Catherine played an important part." - since we know from the lives of Cardinal Wolsey, St,Thomas More, and even of the odious Thomas Cromwell, that the greater the debt of gratitude owed by Henry to any man, the more certain that he would ruin and if possible murder them; and besides, it is quite possible, given the man's psychology, that he might at some level realize that Catherine's part in the one English triumph of his reign, a triumph gained while he was wasting men and treasure in his ridiculous attempt upon France, showed him up as a second-rate chancer and a lousy politician. But what I am certain of is that the only reason the unfortunate Catherine did not meet a knife in the dark was that her husband was certain that if she had, he would shortly later have met with Burgundian steel, either in the form of a sword on a battlefield, or of an axe over a block. And frankly, one can think of few men who'd have deserved it more.

As for Anne Boleyn, she was probably worse than a slut. Her demand to be married, in a world where divorce was still unknown, entailed the uncrowning of the Queen of England, at the very least, and probably her murder; and why Henry did not murder her as he was later to murder Anne herself and Catherine Howard, I have already said. (For the same reason, he let Anne of Cleves, whom he hated from the start, go.) and as for the report that she and Henry had wept at the news of Catherine's death, I don't believe it for a second. It would actually be less incredible if she had been said to have wept alone, but HENRY? Weeping over one of his victims? That would have been the day. The reports on who it was who wore bright yellow on that day of mourning are unclear, but they suggest to me that they both did.

[ravenclaw_eric]

All right. You tell me what she was supposed to do with the King of England setting his cap for her? Particularly since Henry VIII was quite a bit more of an absolute monarch than the Yorkists or other prior dynasties had ever been?

Leave England? How is she to do this, and where is she to go, and how is she to live? Particularly since her family would almost certainly not have been supportive.

Marry someone else? Look up what happened to people who made marriages that Elizabeth I didn't approve of...even if it could have been said to be none of the Queen's rightful business. And Elizabeth was a lot easier to deal with than Henry VIII.

Kill herself? That's a mortal sin.

Ann was caught in a cleft stick, but good. And while I pity Catherine of Aragon deeply, a sonless queen was always in danger of being replaced. Look at what happened to Eleanor of Aquitaine, even though losing her dropped her ex into an entire whirlpool of trouble and lost him control of much of his kingdom. Charles II had to put up with a lot of suggestions about getting rid of Catherine of Braganza, and, all honor to him, he squashed them very firmly, even though he really needed a son to succeed him.

As for making something happen to Catherine, there were all sorts of ways that wouldn't scream "Murder!" A dose of acqua tofania would have done the trick with room to spare. Sudden mortal illness was not at all unknown in those days, and did not spare royalty---Edward IV died very suddenly and much younger than people had expected.