WI Arthur Tudor lived a few more years

Well, I was thinking something more like this: either Henry doesn't marry Catherine (she obviously being his brother's validly married widow) or he still does with a papal dispensation. Assuming Henry is still who he is, he'll want an annulment after a while. These things were also expected, though a little less frequent than marriages between relatives. If Catherine had clearly had a valid marriage with Arthur, she would have significantly less ground to stand on. Her nephew probably wouldn't have fought so hard against the annulment Henry was asking for. The pope would probably grant it, eliminating the need for Henry to break with Rome. Thus, no Anglicanism, and probably a nominally Catholic England today. I wonder what the implications of this would be for republicanism, both English and Irish. I'm sure both still develop, but I wonder about how they are different from OTL.
 
Well, I was thinking something more like this: either Henry doesn't marry Catherine (she obviously being his brother's validly married widow) or he still does with a papal dispensation. Assuming Henry is still who he is, he'll want an annulment after a while. These things were also expected, though a little less frequent than marriages between relatives. If Catherine had clearly had a valid marriage with Arthur, she would have significantly less ground to stand on. Her nephew probably wouldn't have fought so hard against the annulment Henry was asking for. The pope would probably grant it, eliminating the need for Henry to break with Rome. Thus, no Anglicanism, and probably a nominally Catholic England today. I wonder what the implications of this would be for republicanism, both English and Irish. I'm sure both still develop, but I wonder about how they are different from OTL.

I don't know - I think that there would still be drivers towards a more separate state church in England, albeit less strong; and if that didn't come, then internal religious strife as numbers of Protestants grow.

I mean divorce aside, the prospect of having
1 - Greater control over Church appointments to reward followers
2 - the ability to raise taxes on the Church, or seize Church assets
3 - Control over Church preaching
and probably some other things that don't currently occur to me, is quite a big deal for an English monarch, be that Henry or one of his successors.
 
Well, I was thinking something more like this: either Henry doesn't marry Catherine (she obviously being his brother's validly married widow) or he still does with a papal dispensation. Assuming Henry is still who he is, he'll want an annulment after a while. These things were also expected, though a little less frequent than marriages between relatives. If Catherine had clearly had a valid marriage with Arthur, she would have significantly less ground to stand on. Her nephew probably wouldn't have fought so hard against the annulment Henry was asking for. The pope would probably grant it, eliminating the need for Henry to break with Rome. Thus, no Anglicanism, and probably a nominally Catholic England today. I wonder what the implications of this would be for republicanism, both English and Irish. I'm sure both still develop, but I wonder about how they are different from OTL.

If Catherine had clearly had a valid marriage to Arthur and Henry still married her then his case, not Catherine's would be undermined.

Henry's actual position in the late 1520s was that Catherine had decieved him, her parents and the Pope about her viriginity and that he had believed her because her marriage had been so brief. He would have been less able to argue that Catherine had decieved him had she been married for a longer period of time to his brother.

There is a lot of academic research about the Reformation and most seem to conclude that England would have gradually moved towards Protestantism with or without the divorce of Catherine and Henry.
 
There is a lot of academic research about the Reformation and most seem to conclude that England would have gradually moved towards Protestantism with or without the divorce of Catherine and Henry.

I hear this claim a lot about England going Protestant with or without King Henry VIII's breaking with the Papacy -can you list some examples of this academic research that you are referring to? I would like to read into it myself.
 
The point of those examples (as I see it) is that unless someone does lean on the Pope, he won't do it.

Is that hard? No. But it does require actual interest in doing so, it's not a mere formality of sending the Pope a letter and saying "Can u grant a dispensation? K thx.".

I believe this was a problem for Warwick's idea of marrying one of his daughters off, but I'd have to check.

Why is Henry (VII or VIII) going to lean on the pope to grant one to marry her? I mean, does it really strengthen the ties to Spain to marry her to one of his sons (for VII) again?
 
Last edited:
The point of those examples (as I see it) is that unless someone does lean on the Pope, he won't do it.

Is that hard? No. But it does require actual interest in doing so, it's not a mere formality of sending the Pope a letter and saying "Can u grant a dispensation? K thx.".

I believe this was a problem for Warwick's idea of marrying one of his daughters off, but I'd have to check.

Why is Henry (VII or VIII) going to lean on the pope to grant one to marry her?



Um have you actually read the thread?
No one is saying the Popes were psychic. If someone doesn’t ask for a Papal dispensation you don’t get one but that is stating the obvious. The simple fact is that Just about every royal marriage in the 16th century required some form of papal dispensation.
Henry VII obtained one to marry Elizabeth of York
Henry VII obtained one to marry his son Arthur to Catherine of Aragon
Henry VII obtained one to marry his daughter Margaret to the King of Scotland.
We are talking about royal marriages between members of Europe’s royal houses not Jane and John deciding one day to get married. Royal marriages of the period were the subject of intense and long drawn out negotiations.
Had Henry VII not been bothered to obtain one for Catherine, he would have likely had to obtain one to enable his son to marry someone else from amongst Europe’s royal houses.
The motivation in applying for a papal dispensation is simple, it enables two people to marry and for it to be legal in the eyes of the Church, which is all important in this time period. The reason why ruling families bother to get one in 16th century Europe is that it is nearly impossible to marry legally without one for most members of Europe’s royal houses because they are all so closely inter related and therefore most of them are automatically in contravention of the Church’s laws on consanguinity.
For Henry VII obtaining papal dispensations were just a fact of life.
Why did he go to the hassle of doing it?
Well it’s really quite simple, Henry himself wanted to marry Elizabeth to be the seal on the union of the House of Lancaster and York. Henry VII wanted to marry his eldest son to the daughter of the Catholic Kings and so went to the effort of applying for a Papal Dispensation in 1498 so that they could marry. Similarly he wanted to see his daughter as Queen of Scotland and so it was a hoop worth jumping through.
I presume by Warwick you are referring to the Earl of Warwick? It goes without saying but you really should not compare the nobility of a country to the way Sovereign ruling families operate and are treated by the Vatican, entirely different considerations are at play.
Why would he have gone to the effort of getting one to enable Catherine to marry Henry after she had been married for a longer period to Arthur? One of the things in Catherine’s favour and something which was certainly in Henry VIII’s mind when he decided to go ahead and marry Catherine in 1509 was the knowledge that there were very few unmarried Catholic princesses in Europe available who were the right age i.e. able to marry and start bearing heirs straight away. The daughters of the French king were not yet teenagers in 1509, Catherine’s eldest Hapsburg niece was just 11, and her Portuguese nieces were even younger.
Had Henry VIII married one of these young women, he would have probably had to delay marriage until 1511 at the earliest, Eleanor of Austria and Claude of France would have been 13/12 at that point, still extremely young by the standards of the day to marry and they would have probably been forced to delay child bearing for at least another 3 to 4 years.
Henry VIII was the last male suriving Tudor, he was under some pressure to produce an heir straight away.
 
Um have you actually read the thread?
No one is saying the Popes were psychic. If someone doesn’t ask for a Papal dispensation you don’t get one but that is stating the obvious. The simple fact is that Just about every royal marriage in the 16th century required some form of papal dispensation.

Let's see a list. Seriously. Yes, I have read the thread, I just happen to disagree with you that papal dispensations were handed out all the time as something where you just sent the pope a letter and you got a dispensation in the mail in response.

Henry's OTL marriages do not bear out that "just about every" royal marriage required a royal dispensation. Who did he need one for besides Katherine of Aragon, again?


Henry VII obtained one to marry Elizabeth of York
Henry VII obtained one to marry his son Arthur to Catherine of Aragon
Henry VII obtained one to marry his daughter Margaret to the King of Scotland.
We are talking about royal marriages between members of Europe’s royal houses not Jane and John deciding one day to get married. Royal marriages of the period were the subject of intense and long drawn out negotiations.
Had Henry VII not been bothered to obtain one for Catherine, he would have likely had to obtain one to enable his son to marry someone else from amongst Europe’s royal houses.


The problem is, the Tudors aren't related to most of those. Also, why the font change?

]
The motivation in applying for a papal dispensation is simple, it enables two people to marry and for it to be legal in the eyes of the Church, which is all important in this time period. The reason why ruling families bother to get one in 16th century Europe is that it is nearly impossible to marry legally without one for most members of Europe’s royal houses because they are all so closely inter related and therefore most of them are automatically in contravention of the Church’s laws on consanguinity.

I repeat my earlier question. I'm sure the same can be seen for

For Henry VII obtaining papal dispensations were just a fact of life.
Why did he go to the hassle of doing it?
Well it’s really quite simple, Henry himself wanted to marry Elizabeth to be the seal on the union of the House of Lancaster and York. Henry VII wanted to marry his eldest son to the daughter of the Catholic Kings and so went to the effort of applying for a Papal Dispensation in 1498 so that they could marry. Similarly he wanted to see his daughter as Queen of Scotland and so it was a hoop worth jumping through.


Which doesn't explain why he'd do so for Henry after the marriage between Katherine and Arthur if that marriage had issue.

I presume by Warwick you are referring to the Earl of Warwick? It goes without saying but you really should not compare the nobility of a country to the way Sovereign ruling families operate and are treated by the Vatican, entirely different considerations are at play.


It goes without saying that you are just trying to ignore it as an example of it being a problem. Warwick was trying to marry his daughter off to Henry VI's son. So royal families are involved, as well.

Why would he have gone to the effort of getting one to enable Catherine to marry Henry after she had been married for a longer period to Arthur? One of the things in Catherine’s favour and something which was certainly in Henry VIII’s mind when he decided to go ahead and marry Catherine in 1509 was the knowledge that there were very few unmarried Catholic princesses in Europe available who were the right age i.e. able to marry and start bearing heirs straight away. The daughters of the French king were not yet teenagers in 1509, Catherine’s eldest Hapsburg niece was just 11, and her Portuguese nieces were even younger.
And assuming a Tudor third generation (as in grandkids of Henry VII), why does he need to?

Had Henry VIII married one of these young women, he would have probably had to delay marriage until 1511 at the earliest, Eleanor of Austria and Claude of France would have been 13/12 at that point, still extremely young by the standards of the day to marry and they would have probably been forced to delay child bearing for at least another 3 to 4 years.
Henry VIII was the last male suriving Tudor, he was under some pressure to produce an heir straight away.
Which does not necessarily apply here, which is why I'm asking.
 
A question from my end: Would Henry have respected the line of succession if his brother died and left an infant king, or would he have tried to seize the throne anyway?

If he didn't, could he have become regent for the young king?
 
I don't really see why people are so eager to consider the question wether or not Henry (OTL VIII) would marry Catherine of Aragon if she already had children with Arthur... 1) Henry was destined for a career in the Church originally and 2) it seems to me that Princesses who had given birth to surviving children rarely remarried.

Henry (OTL VIII) could still not become a clergyman in that scenario but that will depend on how many kids Arthur leaves behind and on how Henry VII sees the necessity of his second son securing the Tudor bloodline. But even if Henry VII does recall Henry (OTL VIII) from his theological studies, I'm not sure Catherine would be the first bride he'd see fit for Henry.

twovultures said:
A question from my end: Would Henry have respected the line of succession if his brother died and left an infant king, or would he have tried to seize the throne anyway?

If he didn't, could he have become regent for the young king?
I don't see Henry (OTL VIII) turning into a Shakespearian Richard III. As a matter of fact, I think the example of Richard III itself could appear to Henry (OTL VIII) as a reason why he shouldn't get rid of his nephew. The suspicions that Richard had murdered the Princes of the Tower were already here when Henry became King OTL because his father (Henry VII) encouraged anti-Richard historiography (to secure his position). If Henry (OTL VIII) was to get rid of his nephew, he could be see as a second Richard III and that wouldn't do him any good. So, Henry would likely be forced to content himself with a Regency: but that doesn't mean he couldn't assume full power as Regent.

A question that comes to my mind is: if instead of a young son, Arthur leaves a young daughter, what are the chances of Henry VII and/or the nobility favoring the Duke of York over the daughter of the Prince of Wales? There were still prejudices and fear against the ability of women to rule in those times...
 
Let's see a list. Seriously. Yes, I have read the thread, I just happen to disagree with you that papal dispensations were handed out all the time as something where you just sent the pope a letter and you got a dispensation in the mail in response.

Henry's OTL marriages do not bear out that "just about every" royal marriage required a royal dispensation. Who did he need one for besides Katherine of Aragon, again?

Never mind. This is getting silly. Trying to have discussions about the complexities associated with European royalty with someone who doesn't understand the basics was never going to work.

Trying to compare the marriage of a King and a King's daughter to that of a King and a commoner is fundamentally different and if you can't see that then you had best not comment further.

You want a list of Kings who sought dispensations to marry their royal wives? These are just some examples in British history, there are others:

Edward I sought one for his daughter Elizabeth to marry her second cousin Humphrey, 8th Baron de Bohon
Edward II sought one for his daughter Joan to marry the heir Pedro of Aragon (neither of these marriages took place but the dispensations had already been obtained) and for his son John to marry Maria of Castille.
James III of Scotland obtained one.
Edward III sought one to marry his 2nd cousin Phillipa of Hainault.
Edward IV obtained one to marry his sister Margaret to the Duke of Burgundy.
Henry VII sought one to marry his cousin Elizabeth of York
Arthur Prince of Wales needed one to marry his third cousin Catherine of Aragon.
Margaret Tudor needed one to marry her cousin James of Scotland
James V needed one to marry Mary of Guise.
Mary I obtained one to marry her first cousin Philip II of Spain
Mary Stuart of Scotland obtained one to marry her first cousin Lord Darnley.

I've asked you to give me a list of marriages where papal dispensations were refused and you will not, I suspect that is because there are so few examples.

Why would any Pope refuse to grant a Papal Dispensation to Henry and Catherine of Aragon, when just a few years earlier, the Pope had given her sister Isabella permission to marry her first's husband uncle Manuel. When Isabella died, the Pope gave Manuel permission to marry Isabella's sister Maria. When Maria died, Manuel married her and Isabella's niece.

In comparison Henry and Catherine's situation was positively pedestrian.

In Europe

These are just a few more examples, you know just for emphasis.

Ferdinand and Isabella had to have a papal dispensation, at least three of their four daughters Isabella, Maria and Catherine also needed them.

Philip II of Spain married as his fourth wife Archduchess Anna of Austria, his niece. Their grandson Philip IV married as his second wife Archduchess Mariana of Austria, his niece. Archduke Ferdinand of Austria married his niece, Anne Gonzaga. Archduke Charles of Austria married his niece, Maria Anna of Bavaria. The Emperor Leopold I's first marriage was to Infanta Margarita of Spain, his niece.

In the 18th century Maria I of Portugal married her uncle Pedro III (and, just for variety, an aunt-nephew marriage followed; their son José, Prince of Beira, married his aunt, his mother's sister). Francesco IV of Modena married his niece Princess Maria Beatrice of Savoy.

Papal dispensations were requested and were granted.
 
A question from my end: Would Henry have respected the line of succession if his brother died and left an infant king, or would he have tried to seize the throne anyway?

If he didn't, could he have become regent for the young king?

Yes, Henry was no Richard III. He would have almost certainly been Regent for his nephew.
 
I don't really see why people are so eager to consider the question wether or not Henry (OTL VIII) would marry Catherine of Aragon if she already had children with Arthur... 1) Henry was destined for a career in the Church originally and 2) it seems to me that Princesses who had given birth to surviving children rarely remarried.

Henry (OTL VIII) could still not become a clergyman in that scenario but that will depend on how many kids Arthur leaves behind and on how Henry VII sees the necessity of his second son securing the Tudor bloodline. But even if Henry VII does recall Henry (OTL VIII) from his theological studies, I'm not sure Catherine would be the first bride he'd see fit for Henry.

I don't see Henry (OTL VIII) turning into a Shakespearian Richard III. As a matter of fact, I think the example of Richard III itself could appear to Henry (OTL VIII) as a reason why he shouldn't get rid of his nephew. The suspicions that Richard had murdered the Princes of the Tower were already here when Henry became King OTL because his father (Henry VII) encouraged anti-Richard historiography (to secure his position). If Henry (OTL VIII) was to get rid of his nephew, he could be see as a second Richard III and that wouldn't do him any good. So, Henry would likely be forced to content himself with a Regency: but that doesn't mean he couldn't assume full power as Regent.

A question that comes to my mind is: if instead of a young son, Arthur leaves a young daughter, what are the chances of Henry VII and/or the nobility favoring the Duke of York over the daughter of the Prince of Wales? There were still prejudices and fear against the ability of women to rule in those times...

That’s an interesting question. I think though you have to remember that certainly until the late 1520s, Mary, only surviving child of Henry and Catherine was accepted as heir to the throne. She was sent to Ludlow, albeit not created Princess of Wales; she was given an education to prepare her for being Queen. Henry sought potential husbands for his daughter, worthy of her position as future Queen of England and for a period at least he was enamoured with the idea of marrying her to her first cousin Charles V and England becoming part of the Hapsburg Empire.
It was Henry’s own obsession with a male heir rather than the fear and prejudices of others.
 
Never mind. This is getting silly. Trying to have discussions about the complexities associated with European royalty with someone who doesn't understand the basics was never going to work.

:rolleyes:

Trying to have discussions with someone who thinks that they know far more than the other person and is incapable of accepting any counterargument is generally pointless, but for those reading this, I'm continuing.

Trying to compare the marriage of a King and a King's daughter to that of a King and a commoner is fundamentally different and if you can't see that then you had best not comment further.
Where did commoners enter into this?

Henry marrying the women he did is still a royal marriage, and I'm pretty sure all of his wives were of noble blood.

You want a list of Kings who sought dispensations to marry their royal wives? These are just some examples in British history, there are others:

Edward I sought one for his daughter Elizabeth to marry her second cousin Humphrey, 8th Baron de Bohon
Edward II sought one for his daughter Joan to marry the heir Pedro of Aragon (neither of these marriages took place but the dispensations had already been obtained) and for his son John to marry Maria of Castille.

James III of Scotland obtained one.
Edward III sought one to marry his 2nd cousin Phillipa of Hainault.
Edward IV obtained one to marry his sister Margaret to the Duke of Burgundy.

Henry VII sought one to marry his cousin Elizabeth of York
Arthur Prince of Wales needed one to marry his third cousin Catherine of Aragon.
Margaret Tudor needed one to marry her cousin James of Scotland

James V needed one to marry Mary of Guise.
Mary I obtained one to marry her first cousin Philip II of Spain
Mary Stuart of Scotland obtained one to marry her first cousin Lord Darnley.

Edward IV didn't need one.
Did Henry IV need one? I don't think so, could be wrong.
Did Henry V need one? Not that I'm aware of.
Did Henry VI need one? No.
Did James I, II, and IV need one? I'm not sure.

This would put "yes" at a majority but not "only isolated incidents of no" - and of course, we're just looking at Britain for convenience.

I've asked you to give me a list of marriages where papal dispensations were refused and you will not, I suspect that is because there are so few examples.
The problem isn't "the Pope refuses outright". The problem is that you have to lean on him to get him to grant one, except for the most favorable pope-king situations.

Why would any Pope refuse to grant a Papal Dispensation to Henry and Catherine of Aragon, when just a few years earlier, the Pope had given her sister Isabella permission to marry her first's husband uncle Manuel. When Isabella died, the Pope gave Manuel permission to marry Isabella's sister Maria. When Maria died, Manuel married her and Isabella's niece.

In comparison Henry and Catherine's situation was positively pedestrian.
And that doesn't mean the Pope will automatically grant one without any further adieu. I'm not saying its impossible, never have said it is impossible - just that the process is an actual process.

In Europe

These are just a few more examples, you know just for emphasis.

Ferdinand and Isabella had to have a papal dispensation, at least three of their four daughters Isabella, Maria and Catherine also needed them.

Philip II of Spain married as his fourth wife Archduchess Anna of Austria, his niece. Their grandson Philip IV married as his second wife Archduchess Mariana of Austria, his niece. Archduke Ferdinand of Austria married his niece, Anne Gonzaga. Archduke Charles of Austria married his niece, Maria Anna of Bavaria. The Emperor Leopold I's first marriage was to Infanta Margarita of Spain, his niece.

In the 18th century Maria I of Portugal married her uncle Pedro III (and, just for variety, an aunt-nephew marriage followed; their son José, Prince of Beira, married his aunt, his mother's sister). Francesco IV of Modena married his niece Princess Maria Beatrice of Savoy.

Papal dispensations were requested and were granted.[/QUOTE]

And how long did it take from request to grant? How often did the Pope just rubber stamp the request (as distinct from it being part of diplomatic haggling like the rest of the royal marriage process)?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the Pope could grant a dispensation here. What I'm not convinced of is that it would be "the Pope grants a dispensation" as easily as I type this, because there's no particular reason for him to do so.

If Henry wants one, there's always the option of money, but that just underlines the point I've been trying to make - this isn't automatic. What did (for instance) Edward (II, let's say) need to do to get his dispensation?
 
Last edited:
I hear this claim a lot about England going Protestant with or without King Henry VIII's breaking with the Papacy -can you list some examples of this academic research that you are referring to? I would like to read into it myself.

Still waiting...
 
:rolleyes:

Trying to have discussions with someone who thinks that they know far more than the other person and is incapable of accepting any counterargument is generally pointless, but for those reading this, I'm continuing.

Where did commoners enter into this?

Henry marrying the women he did is still a royal marriage, and I'm pretty sure all of his wives were of noble blood.



Edward IV didn't need one.
Did Henry IV need one? I don't think so, could be wrong.
Did Henry V need one? Not that I'm aware of.
Did Henry VI need one? No.
Did James I, II, and IV need one? I'm not sure.

This would put "yes" at a majority but not "only isolated incidents of no" - and of course, we're just looking at Britain for convenience.

The problem isn't "the Pope refuses outright". The problem is that you have to lean on him to get him to grant one, except for the most favorable pope-king situations.

And that doesn't mean the Pope will automatically grant one without any further adieu. I'm not saying its impossible, never have said it is impossible - just that the process is an actual process.

In Europe

These are just a few more examples, you know just for emphasis.

Ferdinand and Isabella had to have a papal dispensation, at least three of their four daughters Isabella, Maria and Catherine also needed them.

Philip II of Spain married as his fourth wife Archduchess Anna of Austria, his niece. Their grandson Philip IV married as his second wife Archduchess Mariana of Austria, his niece. Archduke Ferdinand of Austria married his niece, Anne Gonzaga. Archduke Charles of Austria married his niece, Maria Anna of Bavaria. The Emperor Leopold I's first marriage was to Infanta Margarita of Spain, his niece.

In the 18th century Maria I of Portugal married her uncle Pedro III (and, just for variety, an aunt-nephew marriage followed; their son José, Prince of Beira, married his aunt, his mother's sister). Francesco IV of Modena married his niece Princess Maria Beatrice of Savoy.

Papal dispensations were requested and were granted.

And how long did it take from request to grant? How often did the Pope just rubber stamp the request (as distinct from it being part of diplomatic haggling like the rest of the royal marriage process)?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the Pope could grant a dispensation here. What I'm not convinced of is that it would be "the Pope grants a dispensation" as easily as I type this, because there's no particular reason for him to do so.

If Henry wants one, there's always the option of money, but that just underlines the point I've been trying to make - this isn't automatic. What did (for instance) Edward (II, let's say) need to do to get his dispensation?[/QUOTE]

You keep falling back on this “It’s a process” argument but don’t actually qualify what you are saying about it.
Everything in life is a process, waking up, washing your face and hands and going to the toilet is a process but human beings do it because it has to be done. I say the same is true of papal dispensations to allow related royal couples to marry in the 16th century. It was an accepted standard part of the process of agreeing marital contracts.
I have asked you repeatedly to provide me with examples where the Pope has refused papal dispensations to allow closely related royal couples to marry and for whatever reason you have declined.
Until you produce evidence to the contrary of examples where a royal marriage has been stopped because the Pope would not give a Papal Dispensation, I just think we are in engaging in hypothetical debates about the hypothetical powers at the Papacy’s disposal, which bear no resemblance to the way they were actually utilised.
There is plenty of reasons for the Pope to cooperate with the requests of Kings. Let us look at the Papal Dispensation that Pope Alexander IV granted in 1498 to allow Arthur to marry Catherine even though they were too closely related in Church law and Arthur was still legally viewed as too young to marry.
Why on earth would the Pope allow such a thing?
Well the funny thing is that Arthur and Catherine are both loyal Catholics. Henry VII and Elizabeth of York are loyal Catholics, Ferdinand and Isabella are the most preeminent Catholics of their day. The union of these two young people brings together two powerful Catholic families. What motivation does the Pope have to annoy these two families by refusing permission to allow their children to marry? To use a more interesting example, let us look at the Papal Dispensation that Ferdinand and Isabella obtained for their third daughter Maria to marry her brother-in-law Manuel II of Portugal.
Why did they do it? Quite simply good relations with Portugal were fundamental to Spanish foreign policy, had the Pope refused to allow a marriage like this to take place, Manuel might have looked towards France. This would have the effect of alienating Ferdinand and Isabella from the Pope as his actions were damaging to their and Spain’s interests. You have to remember at all times that the Popes at this time Alexander IV and Julius II were known more for their political pragmatism and ambition than for being good Christians.
You also have to remember that relations with the Papacy were not one way; the Papacy required the cooperation of Kings and Princes to recognise the supremacy of the Church, to allow Church taxes to be raised in their Kingdoms. A Church has no power if it has no parishioners. The Papacy found this out when it refused to cooperate with Henry VIII in the late 1520s.
 
Still waiting...


Dude, lose the attitude, you can always do some research yourself rather than waiting for others to provide it to you on a plate, a library card is free in most countries. However I would advise you to look into Ethan Shagan’sPopular Politics and the English Reformation”. It’s an interesting re-assessment of the Reformation which tries to steer the reader away from the traditional over simplification of the Reformation – that it was all because Henry wanted to divorce Catherine.
 
:rolleyes:

Edward IV didn't need one.
Did Henry IV need one? I don't think so, could be wrong.
Did Henry V need one? Not that I'm aware of.
Did Henry VI need one? No.
Did James I, II, and IV need one? I'm not sure.

QUOTE]


I wanted to deal with this particular point because I think you have misunderstood why kings needed Papal Dispensations, it was because they were too closely related to their spouses to be able to marry without one.

If a King doesn’t seek one it doesn’t mean they weren’t important or not available to obtain, it just means they weren’t marrying someone who was not closely related to them.
James I obtained a Papal Dispensation to marry Joan Beaufort in 1439 because they were related.

James II didn’t need one to marry Mary of Guelders, he wasn’t closely related to her. Previous Stewarts had tended to marry within Scotland rather than Continental brides.

Edward IV didn't need one. He married an English commoner for love, who he was not closely related to. His brother Richard III needed one to marry Anne Neville as they were closely related.

The Lancastrian Henrys’ didn’t need them. They were not closely related to their respective brides, who were French.

I am looking at Britain because we are talking about the English monarchy. However to say it is for convenience is absurd. I have also highlighted the regularity that Papal Dispensations were required in the Spanish and Portuguese monarchies. You can identify many similar examples in the Scandinavian monarchies too as there was endless examples of inter marriage between those kingdoms.

Lets simply things shall we:

· Arthur’s parents required a Papal Dispensation to marry;
· Catherine’s parents required a Papal Dispensation to marry;
· Two of Catherine’s sisters required a Papal Dispensation to marry, (if we include Catherine, 3 of the 5 children of Ferdinand and Isabella to marry needed one);
· Arthur’s sister Margaret required a Papal Dispensation to marry her cousin James of Scotland
· Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon’s daughter Mary required a Papal Dispensation to marry her cousin Philip II of Spain.

How much more prolific can these Papal Dispensations be?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Calm down. Since you clearly are using the larger font size to "shout" please stop using it.


NOW

Dude, lose the attitude, you can always do some research yourself rather than waiting for others to provide it to you on a plate, a library card is free in most countries. However I would advise you to look into Ethan Shagan’sPopular Politics and the English Reformation”. It’s an interesting re-assessment of the Reformation which tries to steer the reader away from the traditional over simplification of the Reformation – that it was all because Henry wanted to divorce Catherine.
 
You also have to remember that relations with the Papacy were not one way; the Papacy required the cooperation of Kings and Princes to recognise the supremacy of the Church, to allow Church taxes to be raised in their Kingdoms. A Church has no power if it has no parishioners. The Papacy found this out when it refused to cooperate with Henry VIII in the late 1520s.
Sure, but that - again - is going to be a part of diplomacy and such, not "Hi I'd like a dispensation." and the Pope just granting it. If the Pope feels he can get something from this, yes. If not, it'll take longer - and why spend money easing the process if there are perfectly adequate choices elsewhere?

I'm going to cut the rest of my argument out because this is the real issue - in Henry's shoes, would he rather reinforce this, or find a second alliance?
 
Last edited:
Top