The Spanish Princess - General Discussion

[Haleth]

The first epi is awful but it gets really good after that. 

[Scarlett45]

We will be getting new episodes this fall. 
 

 

[Roseanna]

On 3/9/2019 at 7:38 PM, blackwing said:

is there historical basis for Margaret Pole being called "Maggie"?

That's not a big issue, unlike many other things in Gregory's novels. When there is many persons who have the same first name (Margaret Beaufort My Lady the King's Mother, Margaret Pole the Countess of Salisbury, Princess Margaret who became Queen of Scots), one has to differ them somehow from another to the readers and the audience. Using nicknames also show who are so close relatives and near in age that they don't have to be formal in speaking of and to each other.

[Roseanna]

On 5/7/2019 at 12:18 AM, Scarlett45 said:

She’s “of age” in her culture, which she would need to be to be a Lady in Waiting to the Infanta, and make a match in England, so I’m guessing at least 15-17, maybe older. 

She is too young (and unmaried) to be Lady in Waiting, she is only a Maid of Honor.

Irl a princess would never have sent to marry only with girls of same age as companions, but there would always be grown-up persons who would watch over her (and report to her parents). The real Catherine had a dueña, Lady Elvira, and a priest as her confessor.  

As for marrrying, the "age of consenting" was the Catholic Church demanded was 12 for girls, 14 for boys. However, women needed a dowry to marry well.  

[Roseanna]

On 5/6/2019 at 2:01 AM, Scarlett45 said:

It was absolutely gorgeous. I know they’ve aged up Harry for dramatic purposes (he was 11 I think when Katherine married Arthur, several years younger than he’s being portrayed), because Katherine cannot make sex eyes at a child. That said I like the characterization of a Teenaged Harry as a pompous prick. 

 

On 5/6/2019 at 11:39 PM, legxleg said:

I enjoyed this! I think that the whole letter-writing mix-up was a good choice - it makes for personal dramatic stakes, and sets the stage for a sort of contentious romance. She and Henry already have chemistry IMO 

Not making him a child when she met first him destroyed the dynamic of Catherine and Henry's relationship in the first years of their marriage. Because he was an unexperienced youth, sheltered by his father, probably even a virgin, Catherine had an upper hand over him. Therefore she was able to make him believe that she was a virgin and also make him follow her father's advice in foreign policy which benefitted Spain. 

On 5/7/2019 at 7:16 AM, RedheadZombie said:

I know Gregory makes up details but I don’t believe Catherine knew English, which was incredibly stupid when she’d been betrothed since the age of three.  

Even ambassadors who lived in England for years, like Eustace Chapys, never bothered to learn English because it wasn't "lingua franca" back then as it now. French was a much more popular language (as it was among aristocracy for centuries - Tolstoy's novels are full of French phrases). 

Catherine spoke Latin. 

On 5/7/2019 at 1:45 PM, andromeda331 said:

I'm not sure what to think yet. I liked that Catherine for once didn't have black hair. 

Yes, the royal house Castile (where her mother was the Queen) was internatuinal. Also Catherine was John of Gaunt's descendant, and not from out-of-wedlock line later legitimized like Margaret Beaufort and her son Henry.  

On 5/18/2019 at 1:12 AM, nodorothyparker said:

I do get what I think the show is going for in showing the reality that there was little that was very romantic out of the gate about royal arranged marriages as presented between Arthur-Catherine and poor Margaret with the unseen Scottish king.  But these girls grew up knowing it was expected of them and considered the sum of their entire worth.  While they may have had some personal feelings about that, it still feels fairly anachronistic that Margaret would truly think anyone cared what those feelings were enough to consider breaking off important alliances as a result. 

I think Margaret was lucky in the circumstances. James was only thirty, a charming and cultured man who was sensible and empathic enough not to get his young bride pregnant straightaway.

And of course from the Scottish side it was the English who continually ravished their country. 

[Roseanna]

On 5/6/2019 at 11:39 PM, legxleg said:

although I was a little curious about why he was taking her shoes off before she walked down the aisle. Was that a standard tradition at the time? 

It may be the same reason why the Queen came to her coronation barefeeted - it symbolized her humility.

Women's hair was generally hidden under the headpiece. Only a bride on her wedding day ewar her hair loose down symbolizing her virginity just as the Queen in her coronation symbolizng her chastity.   

On 5/7/2019 at 5:56 PM, RedheadZombie said:

I didn't care for Lizzie's constant hovering, hand wringing, sighing and moaning.  England will fall if not for the Spanish angel - she's come to save us from all the evils.  I actually didn't finish watching it because I was starting to dislike Catherine, and I needed a break.  I can't watch it if I can't buy into the heroine.  I guess I'm just over Gregory's ridiculous writing, and then they threw in that outrageous scene flash-back where Lizzie murders her own brother (which isn't even in the book).

How our spirited Lizzie turned into this anxious woman I don't know, but I'm sure it's from living with that whining drama king all of those years.  

Inside "Gregory universe" it's understandable that Lizzie would be afraid that the spell of her mother (if somebody murders her sons, would lose a son and grandson) would become true. But it would have been dramatically better if she had kept her fear hidden and said it aloud only after Arthur's death.

On 5/7/2019 at 2:57 AM, UNOSEZ said:

I guess I need to look back at the other series to understand why Margaret and Elizabeth aren't on great terms??…  

Maggie's brother the Earl of Warwick who (the son of Edward IV's brother Duke of Clarence) was executed because Isabella and Ferdinand demanded it as a condition to Catherine and Arthur's marriage that there was a pretender alive who could challenge Henry VII whose claim to the throne was legally weak (that of his wife was better as Elizabeth was Edward IV's eldest daughter). 

But it's psychologocially wrong that someone would have dared to show their anger or discontent tothe king. On the contrary, if they were called jury to condemn their relative like Anne Boleyn's uncle Duke of Norfolk they voted for condemnation. In the same way, those who were to executed never said that they were unjustly condemned but admitted that they were sinners and therefore willingly submitted to death. In that way they also secured that their family didn't lose all.

[andromeda331]

10 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

It may be the same reason why the Queen came to her coronation barefeeted - it symbolized her humility.

Women's hair was generally hidden under the headpiece. Only a bride on her wedding day ewar her hair loose down symbolizing her virginity just as the Queen in her coronation symbolizng her chastity.   

I remember hearing about that from one of the documentaries either about Elizabeth I or Anne Boleyn about Anne Boleyn's Coronation and how shocking it was she wore her hair down because she was pregnant. It went on about how hair up and down meant different things. In Anne's case she clearly hadn't been a virgin bride nor was she chase. While her daughter doing the same at her at her own Coronation had meant both.  I had no idea wearing hair up or down meant anything. 

[Roseanna]

18 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I had no idea wearing hair up or down meant anything. 

In ancient peasant weddings f.ex. Norway and Finland the bride's hair was collected up and covered under the wife's weil after the wedding night. 

[Roseanna]

On 5/27/2019 at 6:13 PM, Darlin said:

Maggie Pole-- try as I might to like her and root for her, she should have just told Lady Mother of the King that she believed Catherine consummated her marriage to Arthur. It's obvious she didn't

Irl Dona Elvira was the only one who after Arthur's death claimed that Catherine and Arthur's marriage wasn't consummated, but David Starkey says that she had her own motives: if Catherine was a virgin, she was under the tutelage of Dona Elvira.

The consummation was no barrier to Catherine's marriage to Henry as the Pope could give a dispensation also to it. And he actually did give two dispensations from the request of Catherine's parents.

 

[andromeda331]

16 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Irl Dona Elvira was the only one who after Arthur's death claimed that Catherine and Arthur's marriage wasn't consummated, but David Starkey says that she had her own motives: if Catherine was a virgin, she was under the tutelage of Dona Elvira.

The consummation was no barrier to Catherine's marriage to Henry as the Pope could give a dispensation also to it. And he actually did give two dispensations from the request of Catherine's parents.

 

It really wasn't.  They got the dispensation. It was all fixed. Catherine's husband denying and marrying his brother was pretty common too especially in the royal circles. No need to lose out on a treaty or whatever because one died. Marry him or off to the next sibling. There's also the passage in the Bible that tells you that you should marry your brother's widow. Not that the Pope really cared. I mean Hapsburgs were marrying their nieces. That you think should have been a big no-no. Not to mention Henry didn't seem to mind when he married Anne after having her sister as his mistress. And probably fathered at least one of her kids.

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Not to mention Henry didn't seem to mind when he married Anne after having her sister as his mistress.

Henry asked the Pope dispensation also for that.

No royal or a few aristocrats could marry without the dispensation because cousins in many generations were forbidden to marry. 

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

There's also the passage in the Bible that tells you that you should marry your brother's widow. 

Yes, and many men had either no children or lost their all children without thinking that God punished them for some sin. But Henry's consciemce told him always  what he desired.

Also king of France, Lous XII whom Henry's sister Mary married had no son but (besides trying once again with a young bride) he married his daughter off to the heir presumptive.

However, Louis had formerly get his first marriage annulled by the Pope with very weak grounds. Henry would probably also succeeded if Catherine hadn't been the aunt of the Emperor.

On the other hand, William Tyndale was against Henry's annulment even if it had benefitted him by getting his Bible translation legal in England.

 There was no reason to declare Mary (and later Elizabeth) a bastard. According to canon law, children begot "in good faith" (when parents sincerely believed to be married to each other) were regarded to be born in wedlock even if their parents marriage was later annulled. 

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

Yes, and many men had either no children or lost their all children without thinking that God punished them for some sin. But Henry's consciemce told him always  what he desired.

Also king of France, Lous XII whom Henry's sister Mary married had no son but (besides trying once again with a young bride) he married his daughter off to the heir presumptive.

However, Louis had formerly get his first marriage annulled by the Pope with very weak grounds. Henry would probably also succeeded if Catherine hadn't been the aunt of the Emperor.

On the other hand, William Tyndale was against Henry's annulment even if it had benefitted him by getting his Bible translation legal in England.

 There was no reason to declare Mary (and later Elizabeth) a bastard. According to canon law, children begot "in good faith" (when parents sincerely believed to be married to each other) were regarded to be born in wedlock even if their parents marriage was later annulled. 

Yeah, it really wasn't that hard for Kings to get divorces. I remember being surprised when I got into reading medieval royal how easy it was given all the drama surrounding Henry's divorce from Catherine. Most of the time there was barely any grounds but it went through. The Pope really didn't care. It was just at the time Henry asked for one that Charles V Catherine's nephew had sacked Rome and the Pope couldn't risk angering him by agreeing to the divorce. 

Declaring Mary and Elizabeth bastards was stupid. They both were born to during a legal marriage approved by the church. Sure Elizabeth's was a wee bit different but still counted. Henry also still expected to have male heirs so it was also pointless. They would still be in the succession but behind his sons. So why bother? And if he had only one like ended up being the case he just created a big problem for the country. I do think he only restored them because he had only one son and no other choice. But he also could have tried to marry Mary off and she could have potentially had sons that could have secured the throne. She was thirty-seven when Edward died and thirty-one when Henry died. She could have a few or several children by that point including sons. 

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Declaring Mary and Elizabeth bastards was stupid. They both were born to during a legal marriage approved by the church. Sure Elizabeth's was a wee bit different but still counted. Henry also still expected to have male heirs so it was also pointless. They would still be in the succession but behind his sons. So why bother? 

I think it was a revenge on their mothers, Catherine for refusing to accept an annulment and making Mary do the same, Anne for "betraying" him, but actually for to wanting to remember that he had been so in love with her that it was regarded as "unmanly".

It could also be that Anne didn't accept that Catherine's daugher was before her daughter. If Henry had died earlier, a grown-up woman would be better on the throne than a baby girl, but that would have been a disaster to the Boleyns, maybe even losing their lives (and vice versa to Mary).

Of course there was also Henry's bastard son by his mistress, Henry Fitroy, but he died in July 1533.

So over a year, until Jane Seymour had a son in October 1537, Henry had no legitimate heir.

 

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I think it was a revenge on their mothers, Catherine for refusing to accept an annulment and making Mary do the same, Anne for "betraying" him, but actually for to wanting to remember that he had been so in love with her that it was regarded as "unmanly".

That's probably it. There was really no point for it except Henry wanted it. So revenge makes sense. In his mind they both "betrayed" him. 
 

Quote

 

It could also be that Anne didn't accept that Catherine's daugher was before her daughter. If Henry had died earlier, a grown-up woman would be better on the throne than a baby girl, but that would have been a disaster to the Boleyns, maybe even losing their lives (and vice versa to Mary).

 

Anne certainly would want it to happen and encourage it for that reason. As long as Mary was alive and Anne was unable to produce a male heir. Mary would still be ahead of her own daughter and pretty much everyone hated Anne. For her actions in getting to be Queen, her treatment of others and everything that happened from the Catholic church being ripped out and replaced and those put to death. She tried everything she could to put her daughter first Henry of course had no problem. But if he died before she gave birth to a son no amount of claiming Mary a bastard was going to matter. Mary would be Queen and Anne would be in serious trouble for her and her supporters. And she knew it. Also worried about what would happen to her daughter. 

Quote

 

Of course there was also Henry's bastard son by his mistress, Henry Fitroy, but he died in July 1533.

So over a year, until Jane Seymour had a son in October 1537, Henry had no legitimate heir.

 

Yeah, Henry had thought from time to time about making Fitzroy his heir. Even though he was clearly illegitimate. Although there are some who think that would never happen. But the Act that disinherited Elizabeth allowed Henry to pick his own heir. By that point he had already raised him to a Duke and married him off. But then he died so it really didn't matter. 

But it shows again the stupidity of it. For over a year he had no "legitimate" heir rather then leave his two daughters as heirs. That way if something did happen at least the kingdom still had two heirs. He was purposely leaving England without an heir and a mess because he wanted revenge against their mothers. And by that point Mary was old enough to be married off and try to produce heirs. Sure he finally got his male heir. But just one and anything could happen. Which he knew all too well. He could have tried to add more through Mary.  But nope. Edward dies and Mary ended up being too old to produce any children. For all his efforts and everything he did for a male heir he ends up insuring that his line comes to an end.  

[Scarlett45]

@andromeda331 I found some pretty well written alternate history stories on alternatehistory.com where by Katherine of Aragon died in 1518 with her last pregnancy and what occurs from there. Henry was SO SHORT SIGHTED to force Mary to remain unwed for so many years. Had her married her off to one of her York cousins (Margaret Pole’s son that didn’t join the church) that could’ve been another blending of the red and white rose to strengthen the Tudor reign. 
 

I do really think that Henry suffered a TBI after his jousting accident and that sent him over the edge. I wonder if the next season of The Spanish Princess will cover the rest of Catherine’s life or just until her banishment?

[andromeda331]

13 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

@andromeda331 I found some pretty well written alternate history stories on alternatehistory.com where by Katherine of Aragon died in 1518 with her last pregnancy and what occurs from there. Henry was SO SHORT SIGHTED to force Mary to remain unwed for so many years. Had her married her off to one of her York cousins (Margaret Pole’s son that didn’t join the church) that could’ve been another blending of the red and white rose to strengthen the Tudor reign. 

He really was.  Mary was thirty-one when he died. She easily could have been married for fifteen years and who knows how many children born during that amount of time. Marrying her to a York cousin would have worked and he would have been adding heirs to his line. Not even when it became clear that Henry would never had another son he still refused to try to insure his line continued by marrying off Mary just in case. Sure he adds his two daughters towards the end but only because he had no other choice after Edward but he did. He chose not too. Thanks to his stupidity the only one of his children who tried to marry and produce heirs it was too late. Henry I's of England at least tried. When his heir died he remarried and when it was clear no children would come from it he married off his daughter. 

Quote

I do really think that Henry suffered a TBI after his jousting accident and that sent him over the edge. 

That's a real interesting question. Henry had already been descending toward tyrant with his having those opposed to his new church and want he wanted beheaded. After the jousting accident he really turned even faster. Would he have gotten there without the accident? Did it speed it up? Would he have come to his senses if it not happened? Or not as gotten as bad? 

Quote

I wonder if the next season of The Spanish Princess will cover the rest of Catherine’s life or just until her banishment?

I think their just going to speed up to Anne and the divorce. Its too bad. They did have a good marriage for the longest time. And she awesomely handled the invasion from Scotland (and Princess Margaret's husband!) while Henry was away in France which resulted in James IV's death. Plus I do hope we'll get to hear Henry lecturing Margaret for leaving husband number 2 for number 3 considering he'll end up doing the same thing down the road.  

[Scarlett45]

4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

That's a real interesting question. Henry had already been descending toward tyrant with his having those opposed to his new church and want he wanted beheaded. After the jousting accident he really turned even faster. Would he have gotten there without the accident? Did it speed it up? Would he have come to his senses if it not happened? Or not as gotten as bad? 

The brain is so complicated, but I do think the accident had something to do with it. Destroyed his impulse control, and since he was KING there was no one else (or a social expectation) to check it. 

[doodlebug]

On 6/2/2020 at 4:54 AM, andromeda331 said:

He really was.  Mary was thirty-one when he died. She easily could have been married for fifteen years and who knows how many children born during that amount of time. Marrying her to a York cousin would have worked and he would have been adding heirs to his line. Not even when it became clear that Henry would never had another son he still refused to try to insure his line continued by marrying off Mary just in case. Sure he adds his two daughters towards the end but only because he had no other choice after Edward but he did. He chose not too. Thanks to his stupidity the only one of his children who tried to marry and produce heirs it was too late. Henry I's of England at least tried. When his heir died he remarried and when it was clear no children would come from it he married off his daughter. 

 

Mary was 31 when she died; but 31, in that era, was old maid territory.  Henry's relationship with Anne Boleyn started when Mary was just about 12 years old.  Mary had been betrothed a couple times as a young child, but, due to the disruption of various alliances and such, those didn't last.  During Mary's prime marrying years, her father was distracted by his 'great matter' and trying to get a divorce from Catherine to marry Elizabeth.  He was also fighting with the Catholic hierarchy over it and Mary was raised staunchly Catholic.

In the early years of their relationship, Anne had a lot of influence over Henry and she undoubtedly didn't want Mary to be married off and potentially produce an heir before Anne could have a son.  She also was concerned about Catherine's potential to influence her daughter and, that if Mary made a good match; Catherine could work through them to undermine her.  It seems likely that, in addition  to wanting Mary declared a bastard so her own children would be at the front of the line; Anne probably also tried to prevent Mary from getting married.  There was also the problem that Henry eventually parted ways with the Catholic Church while Mary remained devout.  Henry, had he tried to make a match for her, would've wanted a strong Protestant suitor and Mary would not have gone quietly into that marriage.  Also, by that time, it was pretty clear than Henry was very fickle and could change his mind on a dime.  That made potential suitors less than excited about a marriage to Mary, who could easily be in or out of favor with the king on any given day.  

Mary was also fairly sickly.  She had chronic headaches and menstrual issues and a lot of suitors might've felt she wasn't good breeding stock.  As a young girl, age 12, there was some interest from the French in her marriageability, but the French ambassador sent to meet her said that she was much shorter and smaller than other girls her age and recommended waiting at least 3 years before contracting for her hand even though 12 was the usual age these things were done in royal circles.  By the time 3 years passed, Henry was fully involved with Anne, Catherine was refusing the annulment and Mary had no options for marriage.  And, yes, refusing to arrange a proper betrothal for her daughter was just one more insult to Catherine.

Edited June 8, 2020 by doodlebug

[Roseanna]

On 6/8/2020 at 8:25 PM, doodlebug said:

Mary was 31 when she died; but 31, in that era, was old maid territory.  Henry's relationship with Anne Boleyn started when Mary was just about 12 years old.  Mary had been betrothed a couple times as a young child, but, due to the disruption of various alliances and such, those didn't last.  During Mary's prime marrying years, her father was distracted by his 'great matter' and trying to get a divorce from Catherine to marry Elizabeth.  He was also fighting with the Catholic hierarchy over it and Mary was raised staunchly Catholic.

In the early years of their relationship, Anne had a lot of influence over Henry and she undoubtedly didn't want Mary to be married off and potentially produce an heir before Anne could have a son.  She also was concerned about Catherine's potential to influence her daughter and, that if Mary made a good match; Catherine could work through them to undermine her.  It seems likely that, in addition  to wanting Mary declared a bastard so her own children would be at the front of the line; Anne probably also tried to prevent Mary from getting married.  There was also the problem that Henry eventually parted ways with the Catholic Church while Mary remained devout.  Henry, had he tried to make a match for her, would've wanted a strong Protestant suitor and Mary would not have gone quietly into that marriage.  Also, by that time, it was pretty clear than Henry was very fickle and could change his mind on a dime.  That made potential suitors less than excited about a marriage to Mary, who could easily be in or out of favor with the king on any given day.  

Mary was also fairly sickly.  She had chronic headaches and menstrual issues and a lot of suitors might've felt she wasn't good breeding stock.  As a young girl, age 12, there was some interest from the French in her marriageability, but the French ambassador sent to meet her said that she was much shorter and smaller than other girls her age and recommended waiting at least 3 years before contracting for her hand even though 12 was the usual age these things were done in royal circles.  By the time 3 years passed, Henry was fully involved with Anne, Catherine was refusing the annulment and Mary had no options for marriage.  And, yes, refusing to arrange a proper betrothal for her daughter was just one more insult to Catherine.

It may be that Anne influenced on Henry, especially before the marriage, but on the hand he was the king and even if he let himself persuaded, he was ultimately responsible. But was he? It was easy from those who sided with Catherine and Mary to blame "the other woman" because to blame the king for anything was mortally dangerous - it was treason. The most important reason to believe that Mary's treatment was indeed Henry's own policy is that he didn't change after Anne's fall: he still demanded Mary's total submission (to admit that her parents' marriage was invalid and that the king was the head of the English church). Mary's life was really in danger for the fates of Wolsey, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Cromwell and Catherine Howard showed that Henry's nature was such that he could turn from love to hate, from trust to distrust.

But one can't blame Henry alone. A fair share of blame must be put on Catherine's door.  Although she can be sympathized, and even admired, for deciding to fight for her marriage, she thus put her own principles, and probably also pride, before the best interests of her daughter. She could have made a deal where Mary, as a child begotten in "good faith", kept her status as Princess after any sons Anne or later wives bore. Then Mary's relationship with her father would have remained good. Instead, Catherine encouraged Mary not to yield but rather die "as a martyr".

[doodlebug]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It may be that Anne influenced on Henry, especially before the marriage, but on the hand he was the king and even if he let himself persuaded, he was ultimately responsible. But was he? It was easy from those who sided with Catherine and Mary to blame "the other woman" because to blame the king for anything was mortally dangerous - it was treason. The most important reason to believe that Mary's treatment was indeed Henry's own policy is that he didn't change after Anne's fall: he still demanded Mary's total submission (to admit that her parents' marriage was invalid and that the king was the head of the English church). Mary's life was really in danger for the fates of Wolsey, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Cromwell and Catherine Howard showed that Henry's nature was such that he could turn from love to hate, from trust to distrust.

But one can't blame Henry alone. A fair share of blame must be put on Catherine's door.  Although she can be sympathized, and even admired, for deciding to fight for her marriage, she thus put her own principles, and probably also pride, before the best interests of her daughter. She could have made a deal where Mary, as a child begotten in "good faith", kept her status as Princess after any sons Anne or later wives bore. Then Mary's relationship with her father would have remained good. Instead, Catherine encouraged Mary not to yield but rather die "as a martyr".

Oh, absolutely.  Catherine, had she not been so steadfast, could've opted to go to a convent and let the marriage be annulled.  But, she was raised to be Queen of England and had no interest in stepping aside for Anne or anyone else.  Instead, she very publicly appealed to the Pope to validate the marriage and, since her nephew was Holy Roman Emperor and had a lot of power; the Pope did so.  She could've worked it out with Henry to still see Mary from time to time and she could've encouraged Mary to sign the loyalty oath and let Catherine bear the burden of defying the king.  Thomas More encouraged his wife and children to sign the oath and save themselves and they did.  I am sure Catherine loved Mary, but she put her title and the crown above her.

I think once the annulment didn't happed and Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, he was forced to keep Mary outside the circle until she signed a loyalty oath.  He knew there were plenty of people opposed to his establishment of himself as head of the church in England, and, had Mary remained a Roman Catholic without pledging loyalty to him; he would've faced multiple attempts to depose him and put Mary in his place.  Though, as you said, he was fickle and people constantly went in and out of favor with him, especially after Anne.

 

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, doodlebug said:

I think once the annulment didn't happed and Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, he was forced to keep Mary outside the circle until she signed a loyalty oath.  He knew there were plenty of people opposed to his establishment of himself as head of the church in England, and, had Mary remained a Roman Catholic without pledging loyalty to him; he would've faced multiple attempts to depose him and put Mary in his place.  

Yes, Mary was a threat and Chapuys even encouraged her to leave the country to the Emperor.

[Roseanna]

Having now seen 6 episodes (of 8 all), it seems that the show has in many points abandoned Gregory's novel and invented a plot its own and I find that to be a loss. 

In Gregory's novel not only Catherine's marriage with Arthur was consummated, but she was in love with him and they planned together to create "a golden age" for England once he became the king. Before he died, he made her promise that she would marry his brother, in order to  fulfill their common plans by helping Henry who Arhur knows has many defects for a king. Thus, Catherine's lie about being still a virgin would be for "a greater good".

In the show, Catherine is in love with Harry and lies about her virginity because she wants to marry him (and to become a Queen) and she is completely blind to his defects which Maggie warns her about. Although her lie is understandable for a woman in love who desperately wants to be with her lover. 

In both cases, Henry has right to angry towards her about her lie, but her selfish motive and that she betrays her loved ones is more deprecated.  

In the show Catherine rejects Henry VII's proposal because she loves Harry. In the novel she does so because she understands that her children by Henry VII would be second after Harry whereas her son by him would become the king.

We know that Catherine loved Henry irl, but she only began to love him only after they married.  Not only because it was hardly in her nature to fall recklessly in love like Henry did many times, but because they had no chance to court, not to speak of court alone. 

One more thing: Elizabeth of York and her mother, Queen Elizabeth Woodville, put a course on the murderer of Edward V and Richard the duke of York. According to Gregory and the previous shows, Margaret Beaufort ordered Edward V's murder but his younger brother was saved. The pretender Perkin Warbeck was the duke of York, and he was put to death by  Henry VII (in the show also by his Queen Elizabeth of York).  Now, Arhur's death was the punishment of the murder of Edward V.  But why is Catherine suspected by Margaret Beaufort to become a cause that Harry would get no son, and not the murder of Perkin Warbeck ordered by his parents?

[nodorothyparker]

Such as it is.

[Roseanna]

On 6/8/2020 at 8:25 PM, doodlebug said:

Mary was 31 when she died; but 31, in that era, was old maid territory. 

Yes, but she had still better chances to become pregnant than after her brother Edward died and she became the Queen.  Anne Boleyn was over 30 when she married Henry, and she became pregnant at least three times and gave birth to one living child.

But after Henry's death Mary needed the permission of the Council to marry, and it was dominated by the Protestants. 

[Roseanna]

On 6/1/2020 at 9:57 PM, Scarlett45 said:

Had her married her off to one of her York cousins (Margaret Pole’s son that didn’t join the church) that could’ve been another blending of the red and white rose to strengthen the Tudor reign. 

I believe to Henry the York cousins were off limits because it would made Henry VII's victory over Richard III null and void: Mary wouldn't rule but her husband. 

Henry's younger sister Mary had a son by Charles Brandon the duke of Suffolk, but unfortunately he died young. 

Maybe Henry just believed that God would give him a son who would succeed him, no matter what. After all, his grandmother Margaret Beaufort gave birth to one son who became the King against all probality whereas Henry IV had had many sons, but only Henry V had one son, Henry VI, who had only one son and he died in battle. 

Let's remember that Elizabeth I refused even to name an heir.   

[Haleth]

I'm currently reading The Mirror and the Light and the question "what about Mary?" is a main theme.  Before Edward was born they discuss marrying her off to one of the Pole boys but Henry was afraid of giving another family that much power and influence.  At this time Mary was still a bastard and Henry Fitzroy was still alive, so if Henry had to consider an heir that was a bastard, why not the boy?

Is that a new Catherine in the promo?  That doesn't look like Charlotte Hope.

[Roseanna]

Both Gregory and the historian David Starkey believe that people have too easily believed that "a good woman" like Catherine of Aragon just couldn't lie and therefore she vowed in Blackbriars trial that she was "a true maid when you (Henry) first had me". 

I think Starkey's arguments are better: Catherine herself believed what she said because her knowledge about the matter was so inadequate and she felt guilty abut Arthur's death which was thought to be caused by too much effort on bed in such a young age, so she suppressed the matter from her conscious. 

I think the second premise is better. People weren't coy Victorians in the 16th century. Catherine must have taught that without consummation her marriage wasn't legal and if she needed advice to make her husband do his duty, she could have asked help from her duenna (unfortunately, Dona Elvira had her own motives to insist that Catherine was a virgin for then she wouldn't be considered an adult). 

Instead, Gregory thinks that Catherine lied consciously and from the beginning. But the perjury would have meant that she would have condemned herself to the hell - unless she would have confessed before her death.

Also, Henry could have said in the trial that Catherine lied but didn't. I don't think that the cause was what Gregory presents (Henry was in awe of Catherine and didn't dare to challenge her), but that he either didn't doubt Catherine's word or wasn't sure about the truth. After all, Henry's knowledge about women was inadequate even after he was over 40: he believed that Anne of Cleves wasn't a virgin but that Catherine Howard was (of course, virginity could easily be simulated, nobody could prove the origin of blood on the sheets).   

[Scarlett45]

@Roseanna I think it’s likely the marriage was consummated for the reasons Starkley and other historians have presented. The purpose of the marriage is to produce heirs and WHY would it not be consummated for 6months? There’s no legitimate reason. 
 

I think Catherine stood by what she said because they did have a dispensation, so practically she was Henry’s wife and she was not going to let him say she had been his mistress for 20yrs because he wanted to marry someone new. She was the Queen of England his dick wasn’t going to change that.  And she was protecting Mary’s inheritance- she was fine with female rulers, her Mom being who she was. 
 

Henry never challenged her because he knew he was being an asshole and an awful husband. He respected Catherine in a way I don’t think he ever respected any of his other wives (I due think he suffered a TBI from his jousting accident and it sent him off the deep end). He knew Catherine had been a dutiful wife and this divorce wasn’t about the validity of the marriage but his desire for a son, and again, knowing who Catherine’s mother was a female ruler was perfectly adequate in her mind. 
 

I think Henry knew plenty about women- but he was thinking with his penis, and had delusions of grandeur that he was still young, hot and virile-

this man was never a fertile man, as much sex as he was having with access to any woman he wanted and we have only 5, maybe 6 live births over 30years???- Catherine (2, the boy who died in infancy and Mary), Bessie Blount (1), Anne Boleyn (1), Jane Seymour (1), and possibly Mary Boleyn’s first child (1)  

 

Because he was the king no one could snap him back to reality. He knew Anne of Cleves was a Virgin but he didn’t want to be married to her so he bashed her reputation. He wanted to believe Katherine Howard was a sweet young girl so in love with him because it stroked his ego- that’s the only reason. 
 

I think people are still fascinated with his life because it’s a prime example of how absolute power corrupts absolutely and the changes to English society during his reign. 

[Roseanna]

3 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I think Catherine stood by what she said because they did have a dispensation

But Catherine's virginity had legally no meaning because parents had got two dispensations: one according to which Catherine and Arhur's marriage was consummated and second according to which it wasn't. 

Also, Catherine's elder sister Isabella had got a dispensation to marry her late husband's uncle. Manuel. After Isabella died, Manuel married her younger sister Maria.

[Scarlett45]

1 minute ago, Roseanna said:

But Catherine's virginity had legally no meaning because parents had got two dispensations: one according to which Catherine and Arhur's marriage was consummated and second according to which it wasn't. 

Also, Catherine's elder sister Isabella had got a dispensation to marry her late husband's uncle. Manuel. After Isabella died, Manuel married her younger sister Maria.

Right. So why would she go back on what she said at the time. In her head it didn’t matter- she was his wife and Queen, regardless, so she wasn’t going to give him the answer he wanted to have a “legitimate” reason for divorce. 

[Roseanna]

15 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Right. So why would she go back on what she said at the time. In her head it didn’t matter- she was his wife and Queen, regardless, so she wasn’t going to give him the answer he wanted to have a “legitimate” reason for divorce. 

Irl Catherine didn't claim she was a virgin after Arthur died. It was  Dona Elvira who said so. (Starkey writes that Catherine's confessor *could* have said otherwise.) Catherine said it the first time in public in Blackfriars trial. Perhaps it was to contradict witnesses who told about Arthur's boasting "last I was in the middle of Spain"? (Like Ralph Sadler says in Mantel's trilogy, if a boy had failed, he would never have admitted it.)

In the end, it wasn't a legal matter, or religious matter, but a matter of power politics. If Catherine hadn't have his nephew to pressure the Pope, her marriage would have ended. 

Catherine had lived years with Henry, but she failed to understand his obstinacy: how far he would go to reach his goal and how great risks he would dare to take (to severe the ties with the Pope, jeopardize excommunication and landing). 

And of course also Henry failed to understand that Catherine would never yield. Fortunately, she was never willing to do Henry the greatest harm by agreeing to invasion. But she did indirectly cause the greatest harm to the Catholic Church in England which shows that she lacked flexibility that is necessary to success and which Elizabeth had during Mary's reign.

Catherine only wanted to be Henry's wife again and she trusted that because he had had mistresses before, he would eventually abandon also Anne Boleyn. When he finally did so, Catherine was already dead, but had she been alive, her hope would have been vain, as it's shown by Henry's demanded that Mary had to admit that her parents' marriage was illegal. Henry refused to be admit that he had never been wrong. 

[Roseanna]

19 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

He knew Anne of Cleves was a Virgin but he didn’t want to be married to her so he bashed her reputation.

Henry didn't say it in public, he only said it to Cromwell - probably because he tried to have sex but failed.  

In public, Anne's reputation wasn't damaged but it was said that the marriage wasn't consummated because Henry had doubts about its legality because Anne's former precontract.  

[Roseanna]

19 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

this man was never a fertile man, as much sex as he was having with access to any woman he wanted and we have only 5, maybe 6 live births over 30years???- Catherine (2, the boy who died in infancy and Mary), Bessie Blount (1), Anne Boleyn (1), Jane Seymour (1), and possibly Mary Boleyn’s first child (1)  

Although Henry could have any women he wanted, there is no surety that he wanted to have them. On the contrary he only had few mistresses and mostly when his wives were pregnant and couldn't lay with him. If he really was chaste for years when he waited for Anne Boleyn, sex wasn't important to him. 

Before all, Henry's job was only get his wives pregnant and his record is quite normal:  in 1509-1518 Catherine of Aragon became pregnant at least six times and in 1532-1536 Anne Boleyn at least three times.  And Jane Seymour had one child during a marriage that lasted not even one and half year.

It's of course possible that Henry had some sickness for which Catherine and Anne Boleyn had so many miscarriages and still births, but it's also more likely that it was simply due to the practices of childbirth that weren't healthy from today's perspective. In addition, Anne was already over 30 when she at last married Henry. 

However, after 1540 when he was 49 years, Henry did no more get his three later wives pregnant. He didn't lay with Anne of Cleaves, but with Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr he was probably too fat and sick (his leg wound). Catherine Parr had had no children with her two previous husbands who were older than her but she became pregnant soon after she married Thomas Seymour. 

It's likely that Henry was impotent during his marriage with Anne of Cleves. And George Boleyn during his trial read aloud the line he was claimed to have said which meat that that Henry had either been temporarily impotent with his sister or that he couldn't satisfy her as it was supposed that a woman must enjoy to become pregnant.  

[doodlebug]

On 6/17/2020 at 5:08 AM, Roseanna said:

 

One more thing: Elizabeth of York and her mother, Queen Elizabeth Woodville, put a course on the murderer of Edward V and Richard the duke of York. According to Gregory and the previous shows, Margaret Beaufort ordered Edward V's murder but his younger brother was saved. The pretender Perkin Warbeck was the duke of York, and he was put to death by  Henry VII (in the show also by his Queen Elizabeth of York).  Now, Arhur's death was the punishment of the murder of Edward V.  But why is Catherine suspected by Margaret Beaufort to become a cause that Harry would get no son, and not the murder of Perkin Warbeck ordered by his parents?

The reason that Margaret hated Catherine of Aragon is because the death of her brother was supposedly part of the agreement with Ferdinand and Isabella to give Catherine to Arthur in marriage.

As you probably know, Margaret and her brother, as the children of the late Duke of Clarence; were more closely related to the royal line that Henry Tudor was.  One of the reasons Henry married Elizabeth of York was to help cement his claim to the throne via her Plantagenet heritage as Edward IV's daughter.  Ferdinand and Isabella were concerned that, with Henry Tudor not having as strong a claim on the throne himself, could be defeated by supporters of the York/Plantagenet line, of which Edward, Earl of Warwick, Margaret's brother was the most likely representative since Elizabeth had no living brothers.  Edward and Margaret were, of course, Elizabeth's first cousins as their fathers were brothers.

Anyway, Margaret's brother Edward was known to have had serious intellectual issues and would've been a puppet for anyone who managed to defeat Henry and attempt to restore the Plantagenets; so there were those who sought to place him on the throne and rule in his place. Therefore, the Spanish king and queen made it clear that he had to go before they would send their daughter to marry Arthur. Edward had been imprisoned in the Tower of London with Perkin Warbeck and they were essentially 'permitted' to escape so they could be captured and killed.  Hence, Margaret blamed Catherine for her brother's death.

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, doodlebug said:

The reason that Margaret hated Catherine of Aragon is because the death of her brother was supposedly part of the agreement with Ferdinand and Isabella to give Catherine to Arthur in marriage.

As you probably know, Margaret and her brother, as the children of the late Duke of Clarence; were more closely related to the royal line that Henry Tudor was.  One of the reasons Henry married Elizabeth of York was to help cement his claim to the throne via her Plantagenet heritage as Edward IV's daughter.  Ferdinand and Isabella were concerned that, with Henry Tudor not having as strong a claim on the throne himself, could be defeated by supporters of the York/Plantagenet line, of which Edward, Earl of Warwick, Margaret's brother was the most likely representative since Elizabeth had no living brothers.  Edward and Margaret were, of course, Elizabeth's first cousins as their fathers were brothers.

Anyway, Margaret's brother Edward was known to have had serious intellectual issues and would've been a puppet for anyone who managed to defeat Henry and attempt to restore the Plantagenets; so there were those who sought to place him on the throne and rule in his place. Therefore, the Spanish king and queen made it clear that he had to go before they would send their daughter to marry Arthur. Edward had been imprisoned in the Tower of London with Perkin Warbeck and they were essentially 'permitted' to escape so they could be captured and killed.  Hence, Margaret blamed Catherine for her brother's death.

Margaret Pole didn't hate Catherine of Aragon, not in Gregory's novel, not in this show and, before all, not in history. No doubt Margaret was intelligent enough to understand that Catherine was innocent and her brother's death was caused by Catherine's parents and Henry VII. Later, Margaret became the governess of Princess Mary. 

I wrote about Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII's mother who in this show tries to prevent Catherine to marry Harry, because she believes that they would get no son, although according "the curse" of Elizabeth of York and her mother Queen Elizabeth Woodville did  in Gregory's novels and the previous shows was directed on the murderer of Edward V and his younger brother Richard duke of York, who according to Gregory were Margaret Beaufort herself and (if the pretender Perkin Warbeck was Richard) Henry VII. 

Come to think about, maybe Margaret Beaufort hates Catherine because she tries to conceal from herself that she has destroyed her son's dynasty. 

[Roseanna]

Even if "a king could have any woman he wanted", kings were different because men were and are different. Edward IV married for love Elizabeth Woodville, a widow and a mother of two sons who refused to bed him without marriage, but continued to have many affairs also with married women of London merchants. Henry VII married Elizabeth of York to unite royal fractions but there is no information about his affairs.

Henry seems to be like his maternal grandfather Edward IV in it that he wanted to marry for love which was uncommon among royals who usually married other royals for heirs and alliances and then had mistresses for love and/or sex.  But Edward IV had many children by Elizabeth Woodville, among them a heir and a spare.  And even if he hadn't, he had brothers and they had sons. Henry desperately longer for a son, but he was also unusual in that when he wanted to end his marriage, he had already chosen his next wife among the Queen's ladies-of-waiting (Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Catherine Howard). At least with Anne and Jane, it began as "court love" and his interest became serious after their refusal to bed him. When Henry did make a dynastic marriage with Anne of Cleves, it failed. The marriage with Catherine of Aragon was of course also dynastic, but Henry did know her beforehand.

When a king married a woman without a royal status, that always created envy and discord, also because her relatives were elevated. The marriage of Elizabeth Woodville first alienated Edward IV's cousin, the famous Kingmaker, earl of Warwick and for a time the king had to flee from the country. After Edward IV's death a fateful conflict arose between the Queen (whose brother had raised the heir) and Edward's brother Richard. Also Henry VIII elevated the relatives of Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr, but Anne's fall meant also the fall of his brother. As the uncles of Edward VI, Edward and Thomas Seymour seemed at first fare well, but both were executed.

On the other hand, a foreign Queen can also bring problems, if she too obviously favors her former country's interests or some faction in England, especially if her husband is so weak that she must act for him which was considered improper for a woman (Henry VI's Queen Margaret of Anjou). Although Catherine of Aragon in the beginning of her marriage got Henry to follow his father's advice against England's interests, she was all the time well loved by the English people.

We can't of course know what kind of lover Henry was, but an educated guess is that if a man can easily have women, he don't have a motivation to learn to make love, and of course even women who had known better lovers couldn't be honest about a king's performance. And before all, the Church had strict orders about intercourse: how and when to do it. 

[Haleth]

It makes one wonder why any family would have agreed to marry their daughter to Henry after Jane.  It seemed obvious that he was not going to father any more children and any hope of a miracle was going to end badly.  Yes, for a time the family would be elevated, but given the history of their predecessors they had to know it was dangerous for any of her male relatives.

The other thing that I've been thinking about is how common it was for member of the nobility to rack up three or four marriages in a lifetime.  No sooner was one spouse in the ground than another was queued up.  Of course these were business transactions unless you were king.

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

It makes one wonder why any family would have agreed to marry their daughter to Henry after Jane.  It seemed obvious that he was not going to father any more children and any hope of a miracle was going to end badly.  Yes, for a time the family would be elevated, but given the history of their predecessors they had to know it was dangerous for any of her male relatives.

It didn't happen badly to Jane Seymours's brother until Henry had died and then it was due their own behavior.

Also, Catherine Parr was deeply religious and evidently in love with Thomas Seymour. But when the King proposed to her, it would be dangerous to refuse - and she began to believe that it was God's will to accept.

When people were ambitious enough, they were willing to take the risks. Or they wanted to promote their cause like Cranmer. 

Also, no doubt people were also then afraid of death but before the execution they could  confess their sins which guaranteed that they would go to Heaven.      

  

[Roseanna]

Eric Ives writes in a biography of Anne Boleyn:

Quote

At his trial in May 1536 George Boleyn whether Anne had told his wife that the king was incapable of sexual intercourse, implying that he was unable to attain or sustain an erection ("le Roy n'estoit habile en cas de soy copuler avec e et qu'il n'avoit ne vertu puissance") . Such a delicate handed to Rochford in writing, and the story was that it was reading the allegation that sealed his fate. That is improbable, by asking of such an amazing question is proof enough that doubts about the king's vigor did circulate.

However:

Quote

No hint of impotence had prevented Anne rapidly becoming pregnant in December 1532, and she was pregnant again just over a year later, three or four months after the birth of Elizabeth. But we have a most revealing insight into the way Henry's mind worked in an interview with Chapuys in April 1933. When the ambassador pointed that a new wife to replace Katherine by no means guaranteed children, Henry asked excitedly, 'Am I not a man like other man? Am I not? Am I not?' The ambassador had, he declared, no reason to deny this - he was not privy to all the royal secrets (that is, that Anne was then four months pregnant). Quite obviously, Henry associated virility and sexual potency with children.

 

[Scarlett45]

On 6/26/2020 at 6:51 AM, Haleth said:

It makes one wonder why any family would have agreed to marry their daughter to Henry after Jane.  It seemed obvious that he was not going to father any more children and any hope of a miracle was going to end badly.  Yes, for a time the family would be elevated, but given the history of their predecessors they had to know it was dangerous for any of her male relatives.

The other thing that I've been thinking about is how common it was for member of the nobility to rack up three or four marriages in a lifetime.  No sooner was one spouse in the ground than another was queued up.  Of course these were business transactions unless you were king.

Many Foreign families didn’t agree to marry their daughters to Henry- the only reason Anne of Cleaves family agreed was because they were a poor tiny German principality and prestige was too much to pass up. Also if any wrath was to fall it would be on Anne as her relatives were not the King’s subjects. More powerful influential families said “hell naw”. Wasn’t it Christina of Milan who said she would only marry Henry if she had two heads?

 

Catherine Parr effectively had NO CHOICE in the matter. She was his subject, and as a widow she was “independent”, she didn’t even have the cover of her father saying he had another betrothal planned for her. Henry wanted her, she had to agree. 
 

Many people married multiple times when life expectancy was lower- not just nobility. “Till Death do us part.” has a different expectation of time together when not everyone expected to live into their 80s. Of course some people did, but 2 or 3 spouses wasn’t odd even for common people, when having a spouse was an economic essential for many. 

[Roseanna]

On 6/27/2020 at 1:59 PM, Scarlett45 said:

Many Foreign families didn’t agree to marry their daughters to Henry- the only reason Anne of Cleaves family agreed was because they were a poor tiny German principality and prestige was too much to pass up. Also if any wrath was to fall it would be on Anne as her relatives were not the Kong’s subjects. More powerful influential families said “hell naw”. Wasn’t it Christina of Milan who said she would only marry Henry if she had two heads?

I don't believe that's correct. Christina made a risque joke but continued: if the Emperor didn't command her to marry Henry. In fact, Henry was offered French princesses but, vain as he was, he demanded those he regarded "better", not caring that they were already promised to other countries.  

Foreign alliances depended on the current situation of foreign policy. When Henry, urged by Cromwell, married Anne of Cleves, he did so to make an alliance with the Protestant princes in Germany because the Emperor and the French king weren't opponents for a moment. In the same way, it wasn't a question only of Cleves's prestige, but Prostestant German princes needed an ally against the Emperor. On the other hand, it was a skillful act of balance: when Henry didn't marry a Habsburg nor French princess, he didn't anger France nor respectively the Emperor. 

 

[Roseanna]

I have now seen the last episode and the plot seems even odd more than ever. 

It was reminded that Elizabeth of York said on her deathbed that if Harry married Catherine, he would get no son. Henry VII believed her wife because "Lizzie and her mother could see the future".  But in the Gregory's novel series and the show Elizabeth "knew" that her and her mother's "curse" had caused the death of her son Arthur and would eventually cause the death of Henry's son. And in the previous show, she had together her husband decided to kill Perkin Warbeck that she knew to be her younger brother Richard who had escaped from the Tower where his brother Edward V was killed on the order of Margaret Beaufort. So it was never a question "Harry would get no son by Catherine" (actually there was a son born early in the marriage but he didn't live even two months) but "whoever Harry will marry, his son will die young" - which his grandmother knew full well but evidently couldn't accept her own responsibility.

But having so far presented Catherine and Harry as a pair of true love (save that Catherine lied about being a virgin because she desperately wanted to marry him), now it was revealed by Catherine's father Ferdinand of Aragon that her married sister, Juana, had told him that she he had slept with Harry when she was in England. Harry denied it, but there was a clear hint that he lied - and that he knew that she had lied, too.  This twist was obviously made to show to Catherine "which kind of man" she was going to marry.

Irl Ferdinand of course didn't write anything of that kind to Catherine - for the simple reason that if Juana had claimed that, he wouldn't have believed her because she was mad. (Some new historians claim that she wasn't mad at all but her father only claimed it to size the Castilian crown which she had inherited from her mother Isabella and to whom Ferdinand, as the king of Aragon, had no right, but basically it didn't change the matter.) And it's well known that until he died, Henry VII kept his only surviving son and heir isolated, so Harry was believed to be a virgin when he married Catherine. 

Gregory's novel has a better plot: Catherine learns what kind of man she has married when he had his first affair when she is pregnant the first time and, according to the custom, must live in seclusion (she miscarried but was persuaded that she had carried twins of which the other lived but it was "a phantom pregnancy" like her daughter Mary later had). This married mistress pretended to be a virgin by saying that the intercourse hurt awfully and by bleeding a lot in bed and made Henry to doubt that his marriage is "cursed" because Catherine was his brother's wife - which is an easy task because Henry had doubted it already in the wedding night. (Only, why would Henry had waited years before acting if he had doubts from the beginning?)

Also Margaret Pole's plot was not only against the history but unconvincing: if she had taken part in the conspiracy to overthrow Henry VII, she had acted also against his heir, Harry, who would have been killed with his father. Only a loggerhead couldn't have understand that and Catherine wasn't that, she was Isabella's daughter.  No matter how badly Margaret Beaufort had treated Margaret Pole, her treason couldn't have been forgiven. 

Irl there wasn't even suspicion of her loyalty. After Henry and Catherine married, she was made Countess of Salisbury (the title of her brother and her mother's family, Nevilles) and given back part of his brother's lands, her eldest son was made Baron of Montagu, her younger son Reginald's studies in the university of Padua was paid by the king and she herself was made the governess of Princess Mary. Her family later fell from favor but that is another story.

 

[Scarlett45]

We have a little more than a week until part 2- is anyone rewatching Part 1 before hand? (bumping the thread up)

[libgirl2]

On 6/26/2020 at 6:51 AM, Haleth said:

It makes one wonder why any family would have agreed to marry their daughter to Henry after Jane.  It seemed obvious that he was not going to father any more children and any hope of a miracle was going to end badly.  Yes, for a time the family would be elevated, but given the history of their predecessors they had to know it was dangerous for any of her male relatives.

The other thing that I've been thinking about is how common it was for member of the nobility to rack up three or four marriages in a lifetime.  No sooner was one spouse in the ground than another was queued up.  Of course these were business transactions unless you were king.

Power, even with the risks. 

[nodorothyparker]

Oct. 11, everybody.

[LennieBriscoe]

I cannot abide the lead actress, ever since seeing her in "Endeavour." Her speaking style is beyond affected, like a poor "Rahlly, my dear, rahlly, rahlly" Katherine Hepburn.  

[Scarlett45]

I love the costume design in episode one of season 2. Those mourning clothes were so intricate, and it’s so hard to get that detail of black fabric on film. 

[Norma Desmond]

Good first episode. Poor Catherine. If she only knew what's ahead of her 😞

 

In fact, as I was watching Thomas More and Margaret Pole interact, I thought the same.

 

Oviedo is the best character. The moral compass of the show.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Norma Desmond

[Haleth]

I was so afraid  Oviedo was going to be killed in France, leaving poor pregnant Lina alone.

Poor everyone is right.

Over the hiatus I read the Wolf Hall series.  Excellent writing.  I see Thomas More in a whole different light.