Royal Marriage Secrets

by John Ashdown-Hill

  Another part of Henry VIII’s reputation is his supposed attractive physique. It is curious, therefore, that actually none of his surviving portraits shows any sign of this. The excuse has sometimes been offered that portraits of the king mostly depict him later in life, and even a recent television documentary which explored the causes of Henry VIII’s later obesity continued to affirm that when he was young Henry was very attractive.11 Nevertheless, the fact is that we do possess portraits of the young Henry, and the youth depicted is not strikingly handsome or prepossessing in facial terms. One theory which has been voiced is that what was chiefly admired by contemporaries was actually not the king’s facial features but his shapely legs!

  One portrait of Henry as a beardless youth seems to show quite a strong resemblance between the king and his great uncle, Richard III. Henry is depicted as a rather lanky youth with brown hair, and a thin and slightly anxious-looking face. Another portrait shows a rather fat and unhealthy-looking, but still beardless, young Henry who would hardly stand out in a crowd. This particular painting casts some doubt on the young king’s reputation for exercise and sport! Depictions of the king in 1520, at the ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold’, show a short-haired, bearded Henry VIII, with an already extensive waistline. This is the Henry familiar to us from paintings by or after Holbein. Thus it is clear that by the time he became involved with Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII looked pretty much as we are accustomed to imagining him. Possibly there was some sexual attraction there, which Holbein and his school somehow failed to capture or convey to us, but the Henry who became involved with Anne Boleyn could hardly be described as classically handsome.

  So were the contemporary written reports of Henry’s charming physical appearance perhaps just another product of the royal propaganda machine? Indeed, would anyone actually have dared to write that the king was physically unattractive? Of course, when Thomas More and other courtiers penned such descriptions they could be fairly confident that the majority of their readers, whether they lived in the English countryside, or abroad – or were as yet unborn – would have very little opportunity to check up on this matter. Many of the readers would never actually have set eyes on the king. Nevertheless, it is a fact that foreign diplomats – who might have risked being unflattering without too much fear of the consequences – do seem to have admired the appearance of the youthful Henry.

  In the final analysis it is difficult to reach an objective conclusion on this point. We may simply note that, while previous writers have tended to accept at face value the contemporary written descriptions which describe the young Henry VIII as a handsome man, actually the surviving pictorial evidence does not seem to back up this view. This is yet another respect in which Henry VIII appears to resemble his maternal grandfather, Edward IV. For Edward, too, was generally described as a handsome young man. But in Edward’s case also, the king seems to have put on a great deal of weight later in his life. Moreover the surviving portraits of Edward IV also fail to show to us the handsome young king we have been asked to believe in. Only some miniatures in contemporary illuminated books seem to depict the tall, good-looking Edward IV that has been described to us. Interestingly, another point which Edward IV and Henry VIII seem to have had in common is brown hair. The once popular myth that Edward IV had fair hair has been exploded.12 All his portraits show brown hair, and surviving locks of his hair confirm this. Likewise, despite frequent stories about the red hair of the Tudor dynasty, Henry VIII seems usually to be depicted in his portraits with hair which is basically brown – with perhaps just a hint of auburn.13

  Since we are concerned with secret and bigamous royal marriages, it is only Henry’s contract with Anne Boleyn, and the preceding one with Catherine of Aragon, which we shall explore in detail here. It is true that the question of bigamy was later raised also in the case of Catherine Howard. Indeed the latter might perhaps have saved her life if she had been willing to declare that her marriage to the king was invalid because of a previous marriage contract with Francis Dereham.14 Nevertheless, Catherine Howard firmly denied that she had been married to any man before the king, and in consequence of this she went to the block. Of course, even if Henry’s marriage to Catherine Howard had been bigamous, the bigamy would have been hers, not his, so that royal bigamy would not really have been involved.

  As for Henry’s weddings, as we have seen, only one of the six was secret. This was his putative marriage to Anne Boleyn, which took place at an unknown date towards the end of January 1533. At that time Henry was still officially married to Catherine of Aragon, so the contract with Anne was arguably not only secret but also bigamous. Even if Henry’s earlier marriage to Catherine had indeed been invalid, as the king himself argued, it is by no means certain whether this would have made the marriage to Anne legal. At the time of his wedding with Anne, Henry VIII was still a Catholic, and England as a whole remained in full communion with Rome. It is within this context, therefore, that the wedding with Anne Boleyn must be judged, and modern Catholic canon law states very clearly that when ‘in doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven’. Moreover, ‘even though the previous marriage is invalid … it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty’.15

  Let us first examine the marital history of Catherine of Aragon, since this has an inevitable bearing on what followed, up to and including Henry’s subsequent contract with Anne Boleyn. An Infanta of Spain, descended on both her father’s and her mother’s side from the ancient royal house of Trastámara, Catalina de Castilia y Aragón was born on 16 December 1485. She was the youngest daughter of Isabel the Catholic, Queen of Castile, and her husband and cousin, King Ferdinand V of Aragon. The royal couple were known to their contemporaries, and are remembered in history, as ‘the Catholic Monarchs’.16

  Negotiations for an English royal marriage with a Trastámara infanta had briefly been explored by Richard III (following the death in 1485 of his wife, Anne of Warwick), but in the event, lack of time and the course of events put an end to such a scheme. However, the new king Henry VII embraced the idea with enthusiasm, on behalf of his progeny. It has been argued that he did so because of the antiquity of the Trastámara dynasty, and the prestige which such a marriage might lend to his own much newer and more dubious royalty.17 These may have been considerations, but so too may have been the fact that the Trastámara family had a Lancastrian claim to the English throne which was far superior to that of Henry VII himself.18 The Infanta Catalina was a direct and legitimate descendant of Edward III’s son, John of Gaunt.

  The marriage negotiations between the English and Spanish courts were long and not always amicable. Although a successful conclusion was reached by March 1501, Catherine (as she is known in England) was apparently not expected when she landed at Plymouth on Saturday 2 October 1501, and no preparations had been made to receive her. According to local tradition (unsupported, however, by any documentary evidence) she and her attendants were accommodated for one night at the Abbot of Forde’s guesthouse at Charmouth in Dorset,19 while Henry VII made rapid preparations for Catherine’s formal reception at Exeter. From Exeter the princess then began a formal and ceremonious journey to London. On Monday 4 October the king and Prince Arthur met her at Dogmersfield, Bishop Stillington’s former manor house in Hampshire. Catherine reached London on Friday 12 November and was received there with pageants laid on by the civic authorities in her honour.

  The young princess was considered attractive; ‘she was very short, and had fair skin, which may have come from her English heritage. She had long auburn hair, and she often wore it loose. She was slightly plump, which was considered both attractive and a sign of fertility’.20 Her marriage to Henry VII’s eldest son, Arthur, Prince of Wales, was celebrated at St Paul’s Cathedral on Sunday 14 November 1501 (being the feast of St Erkenwald). The marriage ceremony was followed by a week of celebrations, including
banqueting and jousting.

  Following their marriage, King Henry VII dispatched the young couple to Ludlow Castle, where they cohabited for a few months. According to the testimony of Catherine herself, however, the marriage with Prince Arthur was never consummated.21 Many years later, when her second marriage was in dispute, Catherine made a formal statement to the effect that she and Arthur had shared a bed for a total of no more than seven nights, and that when Arthur died she had still been virgo intacta. Significantly, her statement, which was made solemnly under the seal of the confessional, had actually been backed up by Henry VIII himself, many years earlier. For after his own subsequent marriage to Catherine in 1509, Henry had declared openly at his court that his bride had been a virgin on their wedding night.22

  Catherine’s first marriage was short-lived. In the spring of 1502 Prince Arthur fell ill, and he died on 2 April.23 This raised the question of what should be done with his young widow. At an early stage the possibility was mooted of marrying Catherine to the new heir to the English throne, Arthur’s younger brother, Henry (then Duke of York). Both Ferdinand and Isabel in Spain, and Henry VII in England, appeared to favour this proposal. There was much renewed negotiation. By September 1502, however, a draft agreement had been reached, and this was made into a formal treaty in June 1503.

  The treaty specified that within two months (i.e. by August 1503) matrimonium per verba de praesenti should take place. This has sometimes been described as a betrothal, but it was in fact a marriage (matrimonium) since it was in the form of present-tense vows (‘I marry you’).24 However, in a sense the marriage would remain incomplete because it would not immediately be consummated owing to Henry’s age at the time (he was 12 years old).25 This matrimonium would be a simple and private exchange of promises. It was to be followed by a formal church wedding ceremony once a papal dispensation permitting the marriage had been issued; after the second instalment of Catherine’s dowry was paid, and after Henry reached the age of 15 (which would be on 28 June 1506). In actual fact the matrimonium per verba de praesenti took place immediately after the treaty was ratified, on Sunday 25 June 1503.

  There were, of course, some difficulties about a marriage between Catherine and Henry, given that Catherine had already been married to Henry’s brother, Arthur. Whether or not it had been consummated, Catherine’s marriage to Arthur created a brother–sister relationship between Catherine and Arthur’s younger brother, which according to the Church’s laws constituted an impediment to their marriage. However, it was an impediment which the Church laws allowed to be removed by the granting of a papal dispensation.

  Interestingly, Catherine’s parents at first assumed that their daughter’s marriage with Prince Arthur had been consummated. Indeed, they had been so advised by Puebla, their ambassador in London, who cited Catherine’s confessor, Alessandro Geraldini, on this point. However, in a letter which she sent to the Catholic Monarchs, Catherine’s duenna, Doña Elvira Manuel, strongly denied that the marriage had been consummated. Ferdinand and Isabel then sent for Geraldini so that they could discuss the matter with him face to face. Subsequently, after some reflection, the Spanish and English sovereigns agreed that the safest course would be to cover every possible eventuality.

  The granting of the papal dispensation was itself delayed, first by the death of Pope Alexander VI, on 18 August 1503, and then by the subsequent election of the very short-lived Pope Pius III (who died on 18 October of the same year). It was not until late in 1504 that a third pope, Julius II, finally got round to sending a document – in the form of a papal brief (or letter) – about Catherine’s marriage to the girl’s mother, Queen Isabel, who received it just before she died (26 November 1504).

  Curiously, Julius II’s papal brief was dated 26 December 1503, and the reasons for his delay in dispatching it are not clear. They might possibly have been connected with the fact that the new pope had initially been reported as saying that he was not sure whether he had the authority to grant a dispensation in this case. However, it is highly probable that this remark, together with the papal reluctance and delay, were all based not on genuine religious scruples but on political issues. In fact, Pope Julius wanted to use the granting of a dispensation as a lever to encourage Catherine’s father to be more accommodating in respect of Naples!

  The initial papal brief was subsequently followed by the issue of a formal papal bull, which was also dated 26 December 1503. However, a copy of the bull was not received in England until March 1505. The brief sent to Spain and the bull sent to England have different wording. The brief states baldly that Arthur had consummated his marriage with Catherine. The bull – probably reflecting the Spanish court’s later checking of this matter, and the resulting doubt about what exactly had taken place – is more vaguely worded. It gave permission for Catherine’s marriage to Henry even if (‘forsan’) her marriage to Arthur had been consummated.

  The death of Catherine’s mother, Queen Isabel, weakened Spain, which had come into existence as one single country only through the marriage of Catherine’s parents, the Queen of Castile and the King of Aragon. Queen Isabel’s heir in Castile was Catherine’s elder sister, Juana, who was married to the Habsburg Archduke Philip of Austria. From Henry VII’s point of view the widowed King Ferdinand was a less attractive ally now than previously, and on 27 June 1505, shortly before he celebrated his fourteenth birthday, Prince Henry (obviously acting on his father’s orders) rejected his marriage to Catherine on the grounds that he had not properly consented to it. However, this was not intended to be an absolute repudiation of the marriage. It was merely yet another negotiating ploy on the part of the English court.

  In 1506 the position in Spain changed again, following the death of the Archduke Philip of Austria, and the mental instability of his widow. As a result King Ferdinand’s position once again became more secure. However, Henry VII was still playing politics over the question of his son’s marriage, and in London some kind of marriage alliance with the Austrian Habsburgs was now under consideration – though various options were being talked of, one of which involved a Habsburg betrothal for Henry VII’s daughter, Mary.

  The situation did not change fundamentally until 21 April 1509, when King Henry VII died. It is possible that, on his deathbed, Henry VII expressed the wish that the marriage between his son and the infanta should now go ahead. Certainly Henry VIII stated this to the Spanish ambassador. However, it is equally possible that the new king was now, for the first time, free to express his own wishes in the matter, and was doing so. Catherine was familiar to him. She was a foreign princess but she now spoke good English. Henry had known her for most of his life, and for this reason she had an obvious advantage over an unknown and unseen foreign bride. As a potential marriage partner she was also readily available, reportedly attractive, and ‘fertile-looking’. On 8 May 1509 Henry VIII told the Spanish ambassador that he now wanted the marriage settled quickly and without any further difficulties.

  As for Henry VIII himself, he seems to have had a very sheltered upbringing, and it is thought unlikely that he had any opportunity for sexual experimentation prior to his father’s death. In the first five or six years of their marriage he appears to have had very great respect for Catherine, whose influence over him at this period was considerable. Henry was in every way very attentive to his new queen. As we have already seen, he himself stated to his court that when he married Catherine she was a virgin. However, the new king must have been quick to consummate his marriage and by the late summer of 1509 Catherine was already pregnant for the first time. Sadly, on 31 January 1510, she had a miscarriage. The dead baby was a girl.

  Within a few months Catherine was pregnant again, and this time she appears to have carried the baby to term. She successfully gave birth to a son on 1 January 1511. He was baptised Henry, and created Prince of Wales. Almost at once the king and queen set off for the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in Norfolk to give thanks for the birth, and it may have been on this occas
ion that the king reportedly walked barefoot for a distance of about the last two miles from the manor house at East Barsham to the shrine –– twice the distance covered barefoot by most pilgrims, who traditionally only took off their shoes at the Slipper Chapel at Houghton-in-the-Dale.26 Tragically, however, the little prince only lived about two months, dying on 22 February.

  In 1512 no pregnancies were reported, but Catherine was said to be pregnant again in 1513, reportedly giving birth to a live child soon after the battle of Flodden (September 1513). During several months prior to the birth she had been acting as regent of the kingdom while Henry VIII was in France, and she seems to have carried out the duties very conscientiously and effectively. The sex of the child she bore in 1513 is not mentioned but probably it was a girl, because had it been a son the fact would have been more likely to be recorded. In any case, the child must have died soon after its birth.

  There was another pregnancy in 1514, and this resulted in the stillborn birth of a son in either November or December of that year. In the second half of 1515, the queen was again pregnant, and this time she successfully gave birth to a live and healthy daughter (Mary) on 18 February 1516. Shortly before this, in January, Catherine’s father, King Ferdinand of Aragon, died. He was succeeded by his grandson (Catherine’s nephew), Charles – the future Emperor Charles V.27 Of course, Catherine had known her father well, and maintained close links with him. However, she did not know her nephew in the same close family way. Thus her ability to act as a diplomatic link was decreased by her father’s death.

  No pregnancy was recorded for the queen in 1517 (the year in which Elizabeth Blount became Henry VIII’s mistress), but on 9–10 November 1518 Catherine of Aragon gave birth to her last child, a stillborn daughter. Meanwhile the king’s extra-marital relationship with Elizabeth Blount was ongoing, and in 1519 Elizabeth gave birth to an illegitimate son by the king – Henry Fitzroy (later Duke of Richmond). Meanwhile, however, despite her increasing age and his own involvement with Elizabeth Blount, Henry VIII continued to sleep with his wife, at least at times. According to the king, the last sexual act between himself and Catherine took place some time in 1524. By that time Henry’s relationship with Elizabeth Blount was over,28 but it was in about 1523 that he probably found himself a new mistress in the person of his own very distant cousin, Mary Boleyn (Carey).29 Mary Boleyn is important in the story of Henry VIII’s early marital manoeuvrings, because she was Anne Boleyn’s elder sister.30 Thus her sexual relationship with the king created problems very similar to those raised by Catherine of Aragon’s marriage to Prince Arthur.