Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:39:57.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Katherine of Aragon and the Veil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2015

J. F. HADWIN
J. F. HADWIN*
Affiliation:
Guildford E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to several distinguished historians Katherine of Aragon could have averted the Henrician reformation by accepting Cardinal Campeggio's suggestion that she take vows of religion and enter a nunnery, thus facilitating her husband's remarriage. Here it is argued that, even if Katherine had agreed, the fulfilment of such a project would pose serious problems. Once he recognised the enormity of what the legate intended, Henry rapidly lost interest: his craving for an undisputed succession could hardly have been satisfied by adding a second potentially contentious papal bull to that which had allowed his first marriage.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 509 - 523
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Murphy, Virginia, ‘The literature and propaganda of Henry viii's first divorce’, in MacCulloch, Diarmaid (ed.), The reign of Henry VIII: politics, policy and piety, Basingstoke 1995, 141, 158Google Scholar; cf. Bernard, G. W., The King's reformation: Henry VIII and the remaking of the English Church, New Haven–London 2005, 26–7Google Scholar.

2 Acton, Lord, ‘Wolsey and the divorce of Henry viii’, Quarterly Review cxliii (1877)Google Scholar, repr. in Figgis, J. N. and Laurence, E. V. (eds), Historical essays and studies, London 1907, 46–7Google Scholar; Froude, J. A., The divorce of Henry VIII, New York 1891, 77Google Scholar; Mattingly, G., Catherine of Aragon, London 1942, 196–9Google Scholar; Loades, D., The six wives of Henry VIII, Amberley 2009Google Scholar, 52, and Henry VIII, Amberley 2011, 199Google Scholar.

3 Romische Dokumente, no. 31 (LP iv/2, no. 4858). Early printed versions of Campeggio's October dispatches, on which Brewer relied, confused sections of the text, thus LP iv/2, nos 4857–8, 4875 and 4880–1 need checking against Romische Dokumente, nos 29–32.

4 Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon, 198.

5 Mantel, Hilary, Bring up the bodies, London 2012, 89Google Scholar.

6 Pollard, A. F., Henry VIII, rev. edn, London 1905, 218Google Scholar; Rex, Richard, The theology of John Fisher, Cambridge 1991, 170Google Scholar. J. J. Scarisbrick outlines the canonical position but strangely ignores the Corpus and does not pursue the implications: Henry VIII, New Haven–London 1997, 213–15Google Scholar.

7 The most thorough modern studies of these events are de C. Parmiter, G., The king's great matter, London 1967Google Scholar; Kelly, H. A., The matrimonial trials of Henry VIII, Stanford 1975Google Scholar, repr. with new foreword 2005; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII; and G. W. Bernard, The king's reformation. Tremlett, G.'s Catherine of Aragon: Henry's Spanish queen, London 2010Google Scholar, is a sensitive biography.

8 Surtz and Murphy have demonstrated that this issue of principle was raised from the start: The divorce tracts of Henry VIII, ed. Surtz, E. and Murphy, V., Angers 1988, pp. xvii–xviiiGoogle Scholar; Murphy, ‘Literature and propaganda’, 141, 158; cf. CSPS iii/2, nos 69, 113, 152.

9 LP iv/2, no. 4721.

10 Romische Dokumente, no. 31 and p. 56n (LP iv/2, no. 4858). Louis xii alleged coercion and inability to consummate as his grounds for the annulment. In 1502 Jeanne founded the Order of the Annunciation, which she later joined.

11 The Italian text is ‘ancora vive con honore et reputatione grandissima’.

12 As reported by Mendoza: CSPS iii/2, no. 586.

13 Loades, The six wives of Henry VIII, 52.

14 Personal correspondence, June 2010.

15 CSPS iv/2, no. 994; cf. CSPS iv/2, no. 664 and LP vii, no. 232.

16 Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon, 198.

17 Loades, The six wives of Henry VIII, 52.

18 Cf. Warnicke, R., The rise and fall of Anne Boleyn, Cambridge 1989, 83–4Google Scholar.

19 Romische Dokumente, no. 31 (LP iv/2, no. 4875).

20 Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon, 196.

21 Romische Dokumente, no. 31 (LP iv/2, no. 4858). The November dispatch of the imperial ambassador, Mendoza, indicates that Campeggio had implied the same to him; he also reports Katherine having told him that the proposal had been ‘made in the name of his Holiness’, but this was the impression that Campeggio had given her: CSPS iii/2, no. 586.

22 Romische Dokumente, no. 33 (LP iv/2, no. 4898).

23 LP iv/2, no. 5072.

24 For example LP iv/2, nos 4120, 4167.

25 Loades, Henry VIII, 199; cf. CJC ii. X, iii.32.2, and Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 214 n.1.

26 CJC ii. X, iii.32 passim, especially cap. 5. General canonical principles and procedures are helpfully summarised in Brundage, James A., Medieval canon law, London 1995Google Scholar.

27 Matthew xix.6; cf. Mark x.9–12; Luke xvi.18. The western Church interpreted the apparent exception for adultery in Matt. v.32 and xix.9 as allowing only separation. On Compiègne see Kamas, J., The separation of the spouses with the bond remaining, Rome 1997, 77Google Scholar.

28 The former were regarded by many theologians as now only ‘human’ (positive) law, and thus definitely dispensable; the dispensability of the latter was much more doubtful. Dr Pedro Ortiz, later Katherine's proctor in Rome, took this line: CSPS iv/2, nos 626, 659, 702, 812.

29 Kelly, Matrimonial trials, 232.

30 Gairdner, J., ‘New lights on the divorce of Henry viii’, EHR xii (1897), 252Google Scholar; Hughes, P., The English reformation, i, London 1951, 179–81Google Scholar; Parmiter, The king's great matter, 69. These authors attribute proposals for a ‘Compiègne divorce’ only to English initiatives.

31 Gairdner, ‘New lights’, 16, cites Wolsey's request to the pope but not Campeggio's which is printed next: LP iv/2, nos 4897, 4898.

32 Helmholz, R. H., The Oxford history of the laws of England: I: The canon law, Oxford 2004, 161Google Scholar.

33 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 214 and n. 1.

34 Julius ii's bull is printed in Burnet's, BishopHistory of the reformation: a collection of documents, ed. Pocock, N., Oxford 1865Google Scholar, ii, no. i. Canon law followed the commands of Leviticus xviii. 16; xx. 21. The only clear concession, declared by Innocent iii in 1201, was for certain Livonian neophytes who, before their conversion, had already married under the provisions of Deuteronomy xxv.5–6: CJC ii. X, iv.19.9. This issue is among those explored further in this author's forthcoming paper, ‘Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Henry viii’.

35 LP iv/2, no. 4942. Some others clearly shared this view (cf. LP v. 468) but Bishop Fisher would not have gone so far: Rex, Theology of John Fisher,106–7, 190; nor does Fisher seem to have followed up his initial interest in Campeggio's scheme: Romische Dokumente, no. 31 (LP iv/2, no. 4875).

36 LP iv/2, no. 5072. As with bigamy, there were unsubstantiated tales of previous dispensations to allow such unions, one of which seems even to have misled Bishop Fisher: Rex, Theology of John Fisher, 168.

37 LP iv/3, nos 6627 (TNA, SP 1/58, fo. 61; stamp 48: the stamped foliations are used by State Papers Online), 6705 (BL, ms Add. 25114, fo. 36) and appendix 261 (Latin text in Pocock, Nicholas, Records of the reformation, Oxford 1870Google Scholar, ii, no. ccvii). Bigamy (in the usual sense of marrying a second spouse while still properly married to another who is still alive) is implicitly forbidden by St Paul (1 Corinthians vii. 2) and explicitly by the canons (CJC ii. X, iv.4 passim); nevertheless, exceptional circumstances might justify the maintenance of a bigamous union after the death of the first spouse: CJC ii. X, iv.7.1, 7.

38 Though Charles had no intention of seeking a military solution to the issue he did clearly regard Katherine's case as an important matter of honour, repeatedly encouraging her and asking Mendoza to tell her that ‘we consider her cause our own’: CSPS iii/2, nos 131, 483, 537, 602; Henry's later assuring the emperor that he would become ‘his slave’ if he supported his case failed to impress: CSPS iv/1, nos 241, 252. Campeggio had hoped that Charles would support his scheme: he was to be disappointed: Romische Dokumente, no. 31 (LP iv/2, no. 4875); CSPS iii/2, no. 626.

39 LP iv/2, no. 4942. These ‘ill grounds’ are considered in detail by Parmiter, The king's great matter, ch. v, and Kelly, Matrimonial trials, chs iv–vi. They are succinctly summarised by Gwyn, Peter: The King's cardinal: the rise and fall of Thomas Wolsey, London 1990, 521–4Google Scholar.

40 Kelly reconstructs the contents of this commission, which Campeggio destroyed: Matrimonial trials, 57–9.

41 LP iv/3, no. 6103; CSPS iv/1, nos 428, 446, 567; CSPS iv/2, nos 588, 601, 789, 818.

42 G. W. Bernard argues that that this was a matter of tactics, not principle: The king's reformation, 28; cf Gwyn, The king's cardinal, 521–2.

43 Bernard, The king's reformation, 24; Kelly, Matrimonial trials, 140; Romische Documente, no. 71.

44 LP iv/3, no. 5344 (SP 1/51, fos 79–82; stamp 68–71).

45 Elton, G. R., England under the Tudors, London 1955Google Scholar, 101; cf. his Reform and Reformation, London 1972Google Scholar, 104; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 154.

46 LP ii/2, nos 4468, 4568; iii/1, nos 1150, 1162; iv/2, no. 2726.

47 Hopper, W., The law of illegitimacy, London 1911Google Scholar, 49ff. Only in the twentieth century did England fall into line on these matters: Bromley, P. M., Family law, London 1966, 298–300Google Scholar. Mendoza's successor, Chapuys, raised the issue in 1533–4 but was clumsily answered: CSPS iv/2, no. 1171; v/1, no. 19. The canons recognised that matters of inheritance fell within the secular sphere: CJC ii. X, 17.7, 13.

48 Baker, Sir John: The Oxford history of the laws of England, VI: 1485–1558, Oxford 2003, 57Google Scholar.

49 There was a general principle that annulment cases on voidable marriages should be completed during the couple's lives, but post-mortem annulments, though unusual, were not unknown: Helmholz, R. H., Canon law and the law of England, London 1997, 199Google Scholar.

50 In January 1531 Chapuys reminded Norfolk of a comment that he had earlier made that Henry viii's ‘lawful title … proceeded from a woman, namely his mother’; he also noted nearly three years later that English dissidents were making the same claim, though adding that she had been bastardised: CSPS iv/2, nos 598, 1161.

51 Davies, C. S. L., ‘Tudor: what's in a name?’, History xcvii/325 (2012), 26Google Scholar.

52 Chrimes, S. B. and Brown, A. L., Select documents of English constitutional history, 1307–1485, London 1961, 166–7Google Scholar.

53 LP iv/2, nos 3802, 5038, 5072; iv/3, no. 6290.

54 LP iv/ 2, no. 3901 (BL, ms Cotton Vitellius B, x. fo. 74); Romische Dokumente, nos 12 and 24 echo the language used in suing for these bulls; 25 Henry VIII, c. 22: The statutes of the realm, iii, London 1817, 471–2.

55 Tyndale, William, The practyse of prelates (Marburg 1530), ed. Walter, H. (Parker Society, 1849), 333–4Google Scholar.

56 Confusion has arisen (then and now) between actual Levitical prohibitions and the rationalised interpretations of divine intentions by canonists: e.g. Parmiter, The king's great matter, 4, 21 n. 2.

57 Romische Dokumente, no. 24.

58 Posssible grounds for the annulment of Anne's marriage in 1536 are discussed by Ives, E. W.: The life and death of Anne Boleyn, Oxford 2004Google Scholar, ch. xxii, and Kelly, Matrimonial trials, ch. xiv.

59 Romiche Dokumente, no. 29 (LP iv/2, nos 4858, 4881).

60 CSPS iii/2, no. 586.

61 LP iv/2, no. 4981; more fully (including deleted passages) in Pocock, Records of the reformation, i, no. lxxviii. (ms Cotton Vitellius B. xii, fos 64–5). Mendoza's November report shows that some of the accusations were put to the queen but there is no mention of these latter points: CSPS iii/2, no. 586.

62 LP iv/2, no. 4897.

63 Thurston, H., ‘The canon law of the divorce’, EHR xix (1904), 632–45Google Scholar; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 217.

64 LP iv/2, nos 4977 (ms Cotton Vitellius B, x, fos 146–58), 4978 (SP 1/51, fos 42–69; stamp 39–66), 4979 (SP 1/51, fos 70–1).

65 Cf. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 219–21.

66 Though there is no conclusive evidence to support them, tales of papally sanctioned bigamous marriages were not uncommon, while scholars have sometimes misunderstood the records: for example Pollard, Henry VIII, 207, where an admittedly strange annulment on grounds of nonconsummation (noted in CSPS ii, no. 379) is interpreted as ‘a licence for bigamy’. Confusion has also been caused by canonists' broad use of ‘bigamy’ to apply to any second marriage, including that of a widowed spouse. Men in minor orders, who were exempt from the celibacy rule, were nevertheless subject to restrictions on such matters, from which dispensations were sometimes given: on this matter there is a detailed account of ‘Bigamy in canon law’, in The Catholic encyclopedia, New York 1907Google Scholar; accessible online at www.newadvent.org.

67 Parmiter, The king's great matter, 40.

68 LP iv/3, nos 5179 (ms Cotton Vitellius B, xi, fos 20–8), 5156.

69 LP iv/3, no. 5344 (SP 1/51, fos 79–82; stamp 68–71).

70 Romische Dokumente, no. 47 (LP iv/2, no. 5681).

71 Fletcher, Catherine, Our man in Rome: Henry VIII and his Italian ambassador, London 2012, 113Google Scholar, citing Wall, Thomas, The voyage of Sir Nicholas Carew to the Emperor Charles V in the year 1529, ed. Knecht, R. J., Cambridge 1959, 89–92Google Scholar. The summary in LP fails to mention this suggestion: LP iv/3, no. 6069.

72 CSPS iv/1, no. 257.

73 LP iv/3, no. 6627 (SP 1/58, fo. 61; stamp 48).

74 LP iv/3, no. 6705 (ms Add. 25114, fo. 36). Like Gardiner, Benet had a double doctorate in civil and canon law, and should have understood all the implications.

75 Ibid.

76 No other established Christian had previously been given a similar papal dispensation to marry his brother's widow; no pope has ever licensed a ‘Compiègne divorce’.

77 Kelly provides a detailed reconstruction of the Blackfriars hearings: Matrimonial trials, chs iv–vi.

78 Censurae academiarum and The determinations of the universities, both superbly edited by Surtz and Murphy in Divorce tracts; A glass of the truth, repr. in Pocock, Records of the reformation, ii, doc. cccxx.

79 Preamble to the Act in Restraint of Appeals, 24 Henry VIII, c. 12: Statutes of the realm, iii. 427.

80 Most of the favourable continental university decisions are printed in Surtz and Murphy, Divorce tracts; that of Ferrara is in Pocock, Records of the reformation, i, no. cxliv. For Canterbury convocation see LP vi, nos 311, 317 (TNA, E30/1021,1023; SP 2/N, fos 155–64); for York see Wilkins, D., Conciliae Magnae Britanniae, London 1737Google Scholar, iii.785.

81 Burnet, History of the reformation: documents, ii, no. xlvii; LP vi, nos 525 (SP 1/76, fo. 98; stamp 82), 661 (ms Harleian 6148, fo. 25); LP vii, no. 362; Pocock, Records of the reformation, ii, no. cccli.

82 Froude, The divorce of Henry VIII, 78.