Which two? Do you mean the Elector Palatine as one of them (by dint of the fact that he's a Wittelsbach?), cause then the Bavarians are barking up the wrong tree. The two branches - in Bavaria and the Palatinate - hated each other. Most likely, the Elector Palatine votes against his cousin out of spite.
Not Palatinate but Bohemia-Sigismund I of Poland during election represented his nephew Louis, who as Czech king was one of electors. ITTL as part of the deal with Maximilian he married William's sister and promised to support him.
 
To admit that the dispensation - as back and forth as the original was (it covered the consummation/nonconsummation issue with a 'perhaps') - means that this one was designed to cover everything; that's pretty close to infallible in this instance. It was requested and delivered to cover the entire issue of Henry wedding Arthur's widow. What Henry now wants is an admission from the Holy Office that they were wrong. That's what he's asking. So, in this case, it's not wrong. The Leviticus issue was covered under the dispensation issued. Henry had no position in this fight once he wed Katherine.
This is just wrong. There is actual Catholic doctrine about what is infallible and what isn't. Dispensations aren't.
 
Top