I love how much care you have for your audience's well-being. History RUclipsrs don't often have warnings about the more upsetting subject matters that often come up.
Dr Kat is truly a respectful, accurate, kind and sensitive historian. She even tells you if she likes someone or studies their writings to keep perspective and integrity. I am glad she is in England.
I was coming just to say this after watching on my TV. She is so kind and empathetic. You can tell she also thinks of her historical subjects as people rather than topics and engages with them and her audience accordingly.
Excellent video, as always. I've often wondered what Henry would have done if he had known that HE, and not his wives, was responsible for the child's gender....
It is not true, in its entirety, that the man is responsible for the child’s sex. While his sperm determine the sex of the child it is known that the vaginal environment and other factors influence which sperm survive. The Y carrying sperm are smaller and capable of swimming faster. In an unfriendly vaginal environment, such as pH, these sperm are more likely to die. The process changes the pH and the slower swimming sperm, the larger X carrying sperm, have a greater chance of survival. Some women are therefore more likely to produce children of one sex. Husbands who for years suspected their wives were responsible for having all girls were, in fact, correct to a degree.
@@deborahmerkerson1145 I've also wondered if some males produce sperm of one sex more often then the other. Or if men who have sex frequently father more daughters (as male sperm does not survive long if a man frequently ejaculated, maybe the body doesnt recreate as much Male sperm if there is frequent ejaculation). Though ive no clue haha
As someone who has suffered infant loss, I can’t thank you enough for your thoughtful consideration in issuing any warning at all, let alone one so gentle. Thank you.
What really matters is that Henry is the epitome of “have your cake and eat it too”, and was more than willing to cast aside his personal values in order to get what he wanted.
My personal favorite is having his marriage to Anne annulled and then executing her for adultery and treason of which the annulment would mean she legally could not commit.
@@williethomas5116 Like I said, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Look up “support group for tragic queens”. How Anne could have legally committed adultery if her marriage to Henry was null and void is mentioned.
Can someone maybe explain the phrase have your cake and eat it too? If I get cake why wont I eat it? Ive been wondering about that for a long time. But I understand the meaning that’s supposed to be conveyed by it and I agree!
A lot of hard work, painstaking research and Dr. Kat"s own judgement has gone into the making of this superb video, as all her videos are. She places the facts chronologically in a well conceived , easily understandable way and leaves ample scope for the viewes r to draw their own conclusions. In DR. Kat's next video may we get something on King Henry's impotency as alleged once by his fifth wife , Catherine Howard ? I suppose she was probably repulsed by his smelly body and often by his inability to perform in the royal bed . Let's see what Dr. Kat has to say about it . Thanks .
I think his impotency was alleged by Anne Boleyn, not Katherine Howard, but it was only hearsay brought up at the trial of George Boleyn. Anne was alleged to have confided in George's wife Jane that Henry couldn't get it up.
He was very clever. You must understand how powerfull Catherine and Mary were. They could conspire, maybe even rise an army with help of their family - Roman emperor. Henry was precausious.
Dr. Kat, thank you for being so kind and mindful toward your listeners who have suffered infant loss. I haven’t suffered such a loss, but I can imagine it must be terrible.
If Charles didn't have the Pope in hand I believe that the chances are REALLY high that the Annulment would have been issued before Catherine knew what was happening, or not had any time to prepare and rally support. And boy would have that changed history a bit...
I find it “interesting” that Henry and his trusted courtiers used the excuse of “having issue with a man marrying his brothers widow”… but no issue with a man marrying the sister of his former mistress!
My love, condolences, and prayers are with anyone who has ever lost a child or has had a miscarriage. I’ve actually suffered both and they’re both excruciatingly painful as a mother. I think of my lost babies very often; and very much about my only son I lost at his young age of 22. I thank God that they were at least a part of my life; albeit a short time, no doubt. God has been my strength throughout it all and I fear to think where I would be without my Lord and Savior carrying me through when I could not bear the weight of life in my very own footsteps myself. Love and blessings to all- especially to the mothers of angels! 😘💖🙏✝️👼
I spent the first 21 years of my life without a maternal instinct (unless it was one of my pets). If a child wasn't old enough to tell me the issue, then I wouldn't want to be in the same room as them. Basically, from day one, God and I knew kids weren't for me and I never hid that from anybody. That is, until I became pregnant. I had sort of a 6th sense type feeling that I might be pregnant. On my way to Walgreens to get a test, I began to imagine being a Mom and picture who he might become or would look like (I imagined a boy, since most "girl stuff" is kind of bonkers). I wasn't fearful or stressed, if anything I felt like i was floating. On my way home, I had a miscarriage. The pain caused me to nearly crash my car. He's the baby I want and ache for. In my prayers, I thank God for never holding my pain and anger against me. I thank God for holding me tighter and tighter each time I scream and cry and say horrific things to Him. I thank God for understanding that hurt people, hurt people. I thank God for being a tube of superglue and always putting me back together each time the memory pops into my brain. I thank God for reminding me of the animals I love and work with.
@@Karen-pk3uv My deepest condolences for the loss of your baby. My prayers will be with you until my last day upon earth. You’re doing the right thing trusting in God. I know that it’s terribly difficult not to become angry after suffering such a loss, but God had his reasons for allowing it to happen. In the words of Jesus in John 13:7, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” That verse has been absolutely pivotal for me being able to make it through a day, especially after losing my son. The loss of a child you’ve raised makes one feel so lost and helpless as a mother, because you’ve been the one to fix just about any little problem they’ve had their entire life; but death you cannot fix in this realm of life anyhow. I’ve never been angry with God for taking my son and my other unborn babies, I have to fully trust Him and am absolutely grateful for my two daughters and granddaughter that are still with me. Karen, I wish you love, joy, peace, happiness, and healing in your heart. You will finally meet your precious baby when you’re reunited with him in the sight of our Lord and Savior. Love and blessings to you! ✝️🙏💖
Crystal Long. I am so sorry about your loss. I suffered a miscarriage 42 years ago but I have been told by 2 psychic (independently of each other), that she is still with me. I did have 2 children later but sometimes I would set the table for 5 people instead of4. My parents lost their first born at the age of 3. I never knew her but I often felt that my parents carried something with them. Perhaps their backs were perhaps a little more bent than they should have been. I only knew later how they must have suffered. Your 2 lovely children are still with you and look over you. Love from 🇬🇧
@@elss8717 Thank you for your kind words and condolences. I’m so sorry for the loss of your precious baby girl and also for the loss of your older sister. It is truly difficult to endure such tragedies. It is nice to know that our loved ones are still with us even though they’re not seen with our eyes. My girls keep me grounded and give my husband and I so much joy. Our little granddaughter who will be 3 this summer sometimes tells me about a boy she sees in our house and I wonder if it’s my son’s spirit. She always sees the boy in or near the kitchen, which is on par for my precious boy. May God bless and keep you and your’s. Love, prayers, and blessings to you from Texas! 😘🙏💖✝️
@@crystallong9625 TY. Your little granddaughter telling about the little boy brought tears to my eyes. We also have a granddaughter, 5 next week. I wish you and your family every happiness and more. ❤️
It is always fascinating to me how the desires of one man to have his way, changed the religious landscape of an entire country. Wonderful presentation!
I think it’s more complicated than that to ensure that he would be head of The church of England Henry appointed men of protestant leanings I think there was an undercurrent Of Protestantism that Henry could use to get his way or else mary’s attempt to return church to Catholicism would not have failed
Thank you for another insightful & informed video, Dr. Kat. I have always thought it richly ironic that the greatest monarch of the Tudor House was the *daughter,* Elizabeth I, not the (short-lived) son, Edward VI.
I think Henry ruined/destroyed the lives of so many. Especially, those of his poor wives. Kathrine was, by all accounts, a loving and devoted wife. Their marriage seemed to be a happy one, though marred by loss. What he did to her is beyond words. I can't imagine how heartbroken she must've been. She literally begged on her knees for him to not set her aside. The pride she must have swallowed astounds me but she truly loved him. Ann Boleyn should've took a clue. However, in those times women were mostly pawns used for their male relations/guardians to improve their stations in life. A 14 or 15 year old girl would be married off to a 60 year old man without the bat of an eye as long as he was wealthy and titled. Ann may have had little choice in much of the "Great Matter". Even if she did can you imagine saying NO to any king, let alone Henry. All of these women except for maybe Catherine Parr were just pieces in the dangerous game of Henry's life. Catherine Howard was but just a child. She was at most 19 when she died but could have been as young as 15. We complain about the pay gap, and gender equality now but just think of what these women had to put up with, live, and die for. I certainly hope it was a brain injury to blame for Henry's actions, but sadly, I tend to doubt it.
I mostly agree but if I'm not mistaken, instead of just a no, didn't Anne push him towards it or at least refused to sleep with him "unless" he cast Catherine aside and married her? So it's at least "possible" Anne had some hand in manipulating the situation.
I am always amazed at Henry's narrow acceptance on one verse while blythfully ignoring all the others. But then what king hasn't done something similar to gain his advantage.
@@kathyjohnson2043 exactly, like many people since he looked in the bible with his mind made up and only looked to verses that supported his beliefs. Ironically, it was his daughters who stabilized the country after his disastrous rule.
I thought the bible verses were to protect. Though in Katherine's case she had family (her blood not marriage) to return to after Arthur died. It would be her family's duty to care for her, only Henry VII & son VIII did not want to give her dowry back, even after having given birth to Mary . The being able to marry your brother's widow was if she had neither family including her birthed children.
@@iriswaterford8881 but the same problem exist after Henry and Mary were given their dispensation. He could not claim god was against the marriage because they had a child. Plus they received s dispensation meaning the above violation was placed aside by the authority of the church. Had she consummated that marriage all that can be offered is a better dispensation.
@@williethomas5116 I understand. What to me is so sad is the greed of Henry VIII & his father who only kept Katherine in England for her dowry. Yes the product of Henry VIII & Katherine's marriage was Mary. It was wrong from the beginning. She should have been allowed to go back to Spain with her dowry after Arthur died.
This was fascinating as always Dr Kat. I appreciate very much the amount of hard work you put into each and every episode and enjoy your wonderfully concise, witty and enthusiastic delivery. Thankyou ❤. I hope that all is well with yourself, Jaime and the gorgeous Gabriel ❤😘.
I am always stunned by your erudition! I know all this history and yet sat rapt for the entire time! I have strong feelings about darling Henry…most of them bad. He treated Katherine, Mary, Anne, Elizabeth, Wolsey, More - anyone named Thomas it appears - and so many others (notably Jane, Anna, Katherine and Katherine) abominably, but was ultimately trumped, wasn’t he, by Elizabeth‘s success as Queen…far more successful than his paltry little dreams for himself. All that waste, death and destruction, with fallout echoing to this day. Great Harry? I don’t think so.
Very well and concisely explained. I sometimes wonder what would have happened had Anne died of the sweating sickness, but I still think Henry would have gone for his annulment from Katherine. He was too committed to having a male heir to not go forward with it, but maybe he would have married a French princess as Wolsey had initially envisioned. The history of England would certainly have been very different to say the least.
I think it's really kind that you put a disclaimer at the very beginning of this video regarding infant loss. We lost our baby December 2022, although I do not get triggered on the matter, I know some that do and it's incredibly kind that you're so mindful ❤
Thank you for another great video. I often wonder if Catherine of Aragon had known that her decision would ultimately lead to the end of Catholicism as the state religion in England, would she have changed her mind about her choice to fight Henry on the annulment?
Poor Catherine... Such a remarkable woman with such a bad luck ☹ It is interesting to analyze the whole process of Henry VIII ' s reform, and I think Dr. Kat explained it really well! 😍 (as she does in every video ❤)
It is a Great Matter that you have taken a moment in history that we all thought we knew so well and somehow made it fresh and almost pristine in our minds. Many, many thanks!!
So sweet of you to give a warning in the beginning of your video, I had 3 miscarriages so I know there is pain with that loss. Anything Henry the VIII will get me every time. Very much enjoyed this and many of your other videos. Thank you for all you do.
Dr Kat, I first studied English Reformation History over 30 years ago and this is easily the best, clearest account of the Great Matter that I've ever seen. Thank you!
Great video, Dr. Kat. Thank you! In the end, the thing Henry tried so hard to prevent, is exactly what happened...his daughters on the throne. All that pain and suffering for naught. The first daughter on the throne was so traumatized, she became known as Bloody Mary for her horrendous efforts to avenge her mother; the legitimate wife and only true Queen of Henry VIII. The second one, Elizabeth, assended to the throne without having her birth legitimized as Henry had her bastardized when he murdered her mother. However, Elizabeth I reigned well and long. I think it is very fitting that none of Henry's children felt compelled to build him a proper royal tomb like most great monarchs. Instead his bones lie in a regular coffin under thr floor of St. George's Chapel in a co-op with the beheaded King Charles I; forgotten for 300 years when his coffin was found accidentally. Dr. Kat...have you covered Elizabeth I's Checquer's ring before? Would love to know you thoughts about it. Thanks again!!
What I wonder is at precisely which moment Henry and his advisers saw that, quite beyond H’s obsession with putting Catherine aside, the Crown stood to reap an immense financial windfall by confiscating and re-allotting church property.
Would you produce a video on The Sweating Sickness? This seems to be a virus that was deadly but the faded and has not been around since Tudor times unless it became known by another name. Thank you.
Beyond your vast knowledge and your ability to make the topic so immediate and engaging I am so impressed by your appreciation of your viewers and your care and compassion. You are remarkable! God bless you and your sweet family.
I was just talking with a friend yesterday speculating about what alternate history may have arisen had Katherine simply stepped aside (no judgment implied on her reasons for not doing so, I hasten to add). I postulated that history would have been less bloody because the Reformation would have changed entirely without the weight of the English crown driving things or the subsequent fights within England over the church. My counterpart in the discussion disagreed, saying Henry would have separated from the church eventually because he was a tyrant and no tyrant wants their will challenged. I disagree - I think at the time "the great matter" was occurring that he held some genuine belief that he was being punished by god (though how like, well, HIM to ascribe blame to the innocent lady and not his own inappropriate behavior) but really - how much was self-justification and how much was genuine confusion of belief? But perhaps if his will hadn't been so thwarted he would have been less insistent on taking full control? I don't know. I just know I feel for Katherine and especially for poor Mary. Anne continues to fascinate me.
Yes!! I wonder the same things. It seems like had she taken the veil a lot less people would have died. It's not her fault clearly.. I just wonder what would have happened had Henry not have had to fight so long.
@@pamelaoliver8442 Or, there would have been a set-up for a new round of civil wars, since there is also Mary to consider, and even if Catherine might have been resigned to calling her daughter illegitimate, I wonder if Mary would have been of the same frame of mind -- or anyone who would have wanted to use her as a force against Henry's, or any children Anne might have had otherwise.
If you read about cognitive dissonance, it pretty much entirely explains why Henry did a lot of things. He was convincing himself that he had done the correct things. And the more bad things he did justifying it, the more he had to justify.
@@leonieromanes7265 No, I agree and no judgement on her for what she did. She stood firm for what she believed to be right. Perhaps if Anne weren't clearly waiting in the wings, perhaps if Henry had agreed to give preference to Mary until a male heir, perhaps perhaps perhaps. The speculation we were discussing was something akin to Eleanor of Aquitaine's split from Louis - the kids aren't bastardized but she steps aside. Mostly I thought it might have made Mary's life more happy, because she was so very unhappy through so little of her own fault and that's tragic.
Thank you for this video, I'm studying Tudor and Stuart History at Uni right now and we are currently covering Henry VIII, this was helpful in understanding the timelines we've been going over and painted a more clear picture of the history than just reading it in a book.
I've only recently begun to think that Henry did really believe his marriage was cursed and not right in God's eyes - also the instinct to shore up his position to avoid being overthrown must have been intense considering the hoo-ha of the War of the Roses which he would have grown up hearing stories about. So, I have a little bit more sympathy for the big idiot. However, I throw in a massive amount of confirmation bias on Henry's part in looking into that belief, and Henry being a fellow who also believed he was God's representative on earth and all that. So he wasn't too far at anytime in his life from thinking he could do as he pleased and bugger anyone else. So, basically, I think he was an unmitigated ass, and went about ruining people's lives all over the place - and I'm firmly on the ladies' sides. And while I don't think Mary coming in and executing protestants is a good thing - I still think it's a joke of cosmic proportions that the fathead's heir ended up eventually being a teeny tiny little woman - Elizabeth - who we as a society remember as being a much greater success and power of her world than Henry ever was.
I always thought that, ironically, Katherine contributed to the downfall of Catholicism in England. I think Henry would have been very generous if she had agreed to end the marriage, as he was with Anne of Cleves. He wouldn’t have had to break from Rome in this case to get Anne Boleyn. Katherine could have obtained a good settlement for herself and their daughter Mary, allowing Mary to keep her royal status as the marriage was made in good faith.
The difference in those two cases is that Catherine's daughter Princess Mary would have have, in any settlement, been declared 'illegitimate' or a 'bastard' out of necessity. That status would have ruined her suitability for marriage, her potential for position in European society, removed her father's protection from her and in addition declared her mother the Queen, a woman of ill repute. Note how despite all the titles heaped upon Henry Fitzroy, he never came close to the throne of England and is still remembered as the illegitimate son of Henry VIII. After decades of marriage to Henry and a string of pregnancies and lost babies, Katherine was unlikely to do anything other than cling to her faith and trust in the Pope's ability to rescue her. All of that heartbreak and scandal in order to enter into an illegitimate liaison with Anne Boleyn that resulted in her own beheading a few years later!
I wonder what would have happened if the solution Henry proposed wasn’t declaring the marriage invalid. Not sure exactly how this worked legally, but if she was given the option of declaring her wish to enter the religious life I don’t think anyone would been terribly surprised (she was known to be very pious) and IIRC it would have been accommodated without making Mary illegitimate
The OP is correct. Royal annulments were fairly common; consanguinity was the usual reason trotted up to end an inconvenient marriage, even though a papal dispensation had usually been gotten. Any children often (can't confirm usually) remained legitimate--like, for example, the daughters of Eleanor of Aquitaine with King Louis.
@@YT4Me57 Not necessarily. Children from annuled marriages can be declared as legitimate especially by the king. Just like Henry was able to reinstate Mary in the succession to the throne behind Edward despite not revoking the annulment. So I think he probably would have declared Marry legitimate and let her keep all her titles and rights if Catherine had agreed to the annulment especially if that was part of Catherine's request for an annulment.
It's amazing to me how kings, queens, and leaders of all kinds have twisted the Word of God for their own selfish ends thereby defiling it. Henry VIII used it to get his way. He stated that he was the head of the church of England thereby usurping and taking the place of Jesus - King of Kings, Lord of Lords, son of the Living God and THE ONLY head of the HIS church on earth. What gall! It's perhaps the real reason Henry's line died out. As always, your videos are so well researched and very entertaining. I always watch them when you release them. Thank you for all that you do. Blessings from Pennsylvania.
Succinct yet comprehensive and incisive analysis of the issues and events that rolled out over a course of many years that had such repercussions, short and long term for Catholicism, protestantism, and England. Really well done with tidbits illuminating people, places, and events.
From what I can tell, he married Catherine because he wanted to and ignored the voices that shouted out at the time he shouldn't marry his brother's widow. Perhaps he couldn't hear them.
That was an interesting video. Henry making sure he gets his own way as usual I like the way he manipulates the situations as they orcur. Well done Dr Kat !
That was so thoughtful that you would let your viewers know that you would be discussing enfant loss in your video, just on the chance that someone like I who, enjoys your channel may have experienced first hand that tragic event in their life. While I myself have never been married nor have any children, your sensitivity towards that matter is very respectful 🙏🏿. As usual another great video, enjoying it here on a freezing night in Chicago.
I love your channel. You are so knowledgeable, and charming and witty. I also really appreciate your thoughtfulness towards your viewers. Absolutely one of my favourite youtubers. ❤️❤️❤️
I have endometriosis and had 10 pregnancies and 4 births. I've always related to Queen Katherine. I recently found documents that show she's a very distant ancestor.
Katherine of Aragon had siblings who had descendants. But, she herself isn’t the direct ancestor of anyone, as her only surviving child was Queen Mary I of England who had no issue.
Everyone should have been afraid of Henry and his matter. Something was definitely the matter with Henry. It really is quite terrifying to look back on things and see the beginnings of things. We are screaming "NO! Don't open that door! Run! RUN!!" And everyone around Henry keeps acting like they're dealing with the boy next door, Henry from down the street. Even when he does some truly awful things, people just treat him like they never heard nor saw. It's a good thing the Pope was not living in England, he might have been beheaded.
I hate seeing the verse from Leviticus pulled out of context. It means to defile your brother’s wife through adultery. A Jew is permitted to marry his brother’s widow, however to raise up children in his brother’s name and takes responsibility to care for the widow.
I think there's an important piece of context that often gets omitted in discussions of the annulment of Henry VIII and Katherine: annulments for lack of a male heir were not unprecedented. Henry II's queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine had her marriage to the King of France annul for exactly that reason before marrying Henry II. So Henry VIII had no reason to believe that an annulment wouldn't be granted by the pope. I truly believe that if King Philip of Spain hadn't tried to manipulate the pope to prevent the divorce, the pope might not have refused Henry's request for an annulment, and the Reformation might never have happened. Henry only fell back on embracing Reformist ideas when he realized how they might be used to obtain an annulment.
In anticipation of the new video you are doing on Elizabeth I, I want to see this one first ( comments seem to have ended about nine months ago but it’s new to me so here is what is most likely going to be a lengthy observation.). The rearing to become a monarch and the teaching for a life devoted to an eclectic religious role are the premier example of ‘contradictory of terms.‘ A Sovereign’s, by definition of the word, purpose is to exercise power without limitation , with autonomy and beyond the law. A Religious leader’s purpose is to provide spiritual guidance, give comfort to people in times of hardship and serve as pious role model. Two brothers who from the first day of their entry into the world were on a leadership collision course with destiny. One to be King, the other to become the Archbishop of Canterbury. What an unimaginable burden to put on a child the knowledge that in order to rule your progenitor must first die. In Henry’s case, first a brother, with no education or training to fill his or his father’s shoes. Combining the two leadership roles with no road map must have been like having a split personality vining for controls within your brain 24/7. Having Ecclesiastical Bible laws that tell you it is both a sin and a right to marry your brother’s wife is the foundation for an ‘I will do as I damnable well please’ outcome. I once a had a teacher of history explain it in terms of our American laws contradictory both passed by the same congress. “One sees the feather of an endangered bird laying on the ground. To pick it up is a violation of the “American Endangered Species act and most recover by the proper agency. However, to leave it on the ground is contributing to littering severely fined under the American Beautification Laws. Ironically no one holds the bird accountable for loosing it or not carrying it back to its nest. The same application of who lost the right to be called Queen begins with who claimed the right to be called Queen. Under the presumptive that Henry’s And Catherine had consummated there relationship prior to their vows is as irrelevant as to whether she said she and Arthur had not consummated their marriage. Arthur said they had and as the Heir apparent it is strictly became a he said/ she said point of contention. The fact that a religion dispensation was sought by Henry indicates he believed Arthur and Anne had a legitimate marriage, legal and religiously. To continue to live in England and style herself as Henry VII’s daughter-in-law after Arthur’s death speaks volume to the how Henry, upon becoming King, must have interpreted her and his Father’s assessment of the marriage being true as one does not question the King as such or as your father as King The King’s (Henry VII) sovereign interpretation of what your King believes was the status of Arthur’s marriage and he labeled it a marriage not an arrangement. Arthur died with her being labeled his wife not his contractual companion. Henry VIII called Catherine of Aragon his wife - until he didn’t. For him and his future wives they were neither his legal or his religious wife(s) but his wife(s) by sovereign right which was his and his alone to dictate the meaning of the term as it applied to him by him. In retrospect to Christianity, no one knows for sure if Jesus, had a wife, a concubine, or children. All that can really be said I’d that he did not preach chastity; that was a Pope’s ruling nearly 1000 years later. Did Henry VIII lead by example or follow example? How does one go from pious and principled to unscrupulous snd vindictiveness without encouragement? His reign is recognized as the evilness of a man in his beliefs and not as the evilness of men of greed who surrounded him as trusted councilors to him. Sound biblically familiar? It does from this chair.
Excellent narrative of the facts, which you do so well. As an American it is sometimes hard to follow along with all of the events that led up to this massive split from Rome (and Katherine). The lives that were lost and the terrible tumult is still felt today. I don't know how common folks were able to bear it all. But the way that you lay out the facts and timeline are so helpful. Much more so than other channels have managed to do. You explain these events so systematically and allow a person's brain to catch up with the facts. I think it was a terrible time for England and the fact that he continued to plow through women five more times (including the shameful disposal of Anne Boleyn) proves that he was a very disordered person.
I always look forward to one of your videos popping up. I learn something new every time. You have a great presentation style and the content is always fascinating.
I appreciate your sensitivity warnings to the audience. It breaks my heart what women were subjected to. Even woman with power frequently were powerless in their own futures, the futures of their children. I don't recall one government, one religion offering former apologies to woman for what was done to them in the name of males being named heir apparent. It shocked me that it took EII so long to remove the male is the heir.
You are the woman I wanted to become…. I could listen to you all day. The way you present information, and how you reach out to us your audience. You are amazing. Love from Cornwall
I think the longevity of the Tudor dynasty (via male heirs) was the ultimate goal for Henry and he may have believed that the end justified the means - although the end was pure tragedy for so many. Thank you for the well explained, concise timeline of “Henry’s VIII’s Great Matter”.
This video was so enlightening. Even when you talk about Anne Boleyn and how she wanted to be sure that Henry was serious about marriage with her. Also, we need to be reminded about the superstitious at the time about pregnancy and how or why a woman couldn't produce a male when needed. I think that Henry was still married to Catherine. If he waited a few more years, he would have been widower.
I always have wondered at Elizabeth’s decision to not marry and attempt to produce an heir, even if it were a princess. Surely she was programmed by her Henry’s years long attempt to produce a legitimate heir. She was assuredly in a hard position: to marry meant giving up her position as supreme ruler to her husband. To not marry meant not producing a Tudor heir and having a Stuart succeed her. As much moxie as Elizabeth had, and being Henry’s daughter, I am surprised that she did not challenge the law of a queen’s husband becoming King. After all, Henry challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and created a new religion to open the way to void his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and other wives. It seemed Henry proved anything is possible with strength. And Elizabeth was strong.
Dear Dr.Kat, I truly enjoy how you bring these long past persons to life. Are there any repercussions felt today of Henry's and his crony's behavior? Certainly, there are. It led to the shattering of the Roman Catholic Church and her faithful throughout England. Many died for their faith. Yes, I do know that many Protestants were killed too. It is difficult for me to understand how this man who had been named "Defender of the Catholic Faith" one year, the next would become heretical and destroy the church in his quest for a son. I guess if one has always gotten what they wanted why would destroying the church be an impediment to the next thing that they wanted? Now we have so many splintered Christian groups. If one person doesn't like what is being taught, they divide off and make their own versions of Christianity. This is Henry's legacy. Protestants today, especially here in America, have no idea that their great grandparents 500 years ago were probably Catholic. The heresy lives on. Although, I read about 9 years ago, that a section of the Anglican church requested to come back under the umbrella of Rome. I hope that their request was granted. I do hope you continue your channel. You do a fabulous job!
Thank you Dr. Kat for another fascinating video. It was really eye opening about the traumas this woman endured, and the cruel irony of at one time being the most powerful woman in England, while at the same time being nothing more than an heir-making machine, over and over again. The closest visual depiction I’ve seen on film that captures that paradoxical state and its attendant horrors is Queen Anne in the favorite.
Wouldn't Catherine of Aragon's maids and any number of international spies around her be able to confirm whether or not her marriage to Arthur had been consummated? It seems odd that there would be any speculation about something so politically important.
There is plenty of reason to believe it was and only her assertion it was not. Arthur certainly implied it was ("This night I have been in Spain") but there were no direct witnesses and Katherine maintained her entire life that it was never consummated. No one was able to prove it either way definitively.
Catherine was indisputably a devout Catholic, so I have never been able to believe that she lied when she asserted her virginity as it would have been to her a dreadful sin. Arthur was a young man who, perhaps, needed to boast after his wedding night. We shall never know. But this also explains why she refused to accept an annulment (which, if she had, would have made the rest of her life much easier) because she truly believed in her lawful marriage.
Actually, according to Giles Tremlett, there was a companion hearing to the Great Matter held in Zaragoza at the same time. It focused on interviewing all the maids and servants who had been in England with her at the time of her marriage to Arthur: I have seen virtually nothing else about this other than this mention in his book. I would love Dr. Kat to look into this. I suspect that the findings did not support Catherine’s claim of non consummation. Otherwise I think Charles would have been providing documents stating we have x number of witnesses proving Aunt Catherine’s claim. Now would Henry have listened or believed? Extremely doubtful. Also agree with the request for a Eustace Chapuy video. I also don’t think he would have believed anything contrary to Catherine’s testimony no matter who provided it. So I wonder if the Zaragoza findings just never were given to him to avoid “conflict of interest” so to speak.
Very interesting and sad, queen Katherine cast aside like an old cape, princess Mary never seeing her mother again when Mary was a teenager, I was that age when I lost my mother, you never get over that. And I suppose being well brought up royal ladies none of them could beat their breasts and have public displays of grief. Well done doctor Kat.
Both Catherine and Anne survived the sweating sickness - what if that virus had a long term effect on pregnancies...we are seeing stranger things these days :-)
Always a riveting time watching your videos Dr. Kat. As far as Henry's Great Matter, at the moment I am thinking of it in simple terms. He was only a man. A King of course, but still just a human being. Not only a mere human being, but also a King who had been ingrained from a young age that his whims were to be met at all times. When it became clear that his whim of replacing his wife with a newer version would be thwarted, I'm sure it was more than frustrating for him. I feel that the Great Matter could include another simple observation. He fell in love with another woman. People are not supposed to give their love and affection to someone else when they have a spouse. Unfortunately, it happens with frightening regularity. By all accounts, we can presume Henry was in love with Anne. In addition there was the pressure of producing a male heir. He apparently regarded this with utmost priority, as was expected at the time. I will add one more thought from a generalized, simplistic point of view. Henry was selfish to the point of vicious brutality to get his own way. No one was safe from his wrath. The frustration, selfishness, love, even the brutality are traits of being a human being. The fact he was also a King who could command everyone around him to do his bidding and sentence them to death if they did not, well that was not a good combination for him. Or at least, not for anyone around him.
I love your videos!!!! Please can you discuss the KIT KAT CLUB? I was able to visit London and came across this curious collection of paintings at the National Portrait Gallery and want to know more about who these men were!
I find it so difficult to take Henry seriously. He seems to have come down to us as a spoiled, massively autocratic, cruel, self-centred man baby. Was he really? Did he really care about the religious aspect of things? I have to acknowledge that it is possible but it just seems unlikely to me. Thank you, as always for your thorough and interesting discussion of this situation.
Imo, the ruthless tyrant Henry significantly overshadows his younger years where he wasn’t nearly as bad (still ruthless at times, but that was the norm for a lot of kings). In his younger years, he was actually quite well loved by the people in his for being very handsome, athletic, pious, and appreciative of music, art and culture. I know I’ve seen several videos that discussed this topic, but I can’t remember their names. Although, if I remember correctly, Suzannah Lipscomb has spoken on it many times.
As for his religious beliefs, I think he truly believed he wasn’t having sons due to being married to his brother’s wife. However, I’m not so sure about the creation of the Church of England. I have a feeling it was a mixture of things. I’m sure a lot of his motivation was selfish, but I don’t know if it was conscious or subconscious. Kings had it drilled into them that they were closest to God and their authority was God-given. Protestant beliefs had already been brewing among certain people, Anne Boleyn being one, and some of them (again, including Anne Boleyn) were in Henry’s ear reminding him that he is closest to God and that a Pope was unnecessary and even unbiblical. Disclaimer: I am not a historian, so I could be completely wrong about all of this. Lol
I don’t think Henry, from what I’ve studied about him did all he did for religious reasons. I think maybe he believed in god and believed he was chosen by god but most things he did; he used religion as an excuse, it seems, in order to do what he wanted to do.
That makes me wonder: Would there even have been a "Great Matter" if Henry VIII could have simply installed his illegitimate son as heir? What would have happened, if that son became king after Henry VIII died instead of Mary and then Elizabeth?
I think part of the reason he didn’t, beyond his feelings for Anne, was because a bastard might not have as sturdy on the throne as a legitimate child. Allegations of bastardy were what brought down The Princes in the Tower, as you know.
As Eva said, Henry Fitzroy died before Henry8. However, I believe H8 was so desperate to place a male heir on the throne, he actually considered the unthinkable...having Fitzroy marry his half-sister Mary. Their union would have strengthened their right to the throne...or, so Henry thought. But, I think like his half brother, Edward, Fitzroy was a sickly child. H8 was so cruel, he made Fitzroy witness the execution of Anne Bolyne. The poor boy died a few weeks later from consumption. Everything about H8 just screams evil.
Today is my first day!! How wonderful!! I have one question for you. Where would I begin to learn about royal history? Should I begin with English History? I’m an avid reader so if there’s a book I may begin my journey,please let me know. I’ll buy it!! Meanwhile I’m going to start back with your website and move forward. I’m truly excited!! Thank you for this blog. Hello from Texas USA. ✌🏻🤠
Considering that I have had a few difficult pregnancies and complications, I would assume, based on my own experiences, that Catherine of Aragon may have been a negative blood type and Henry VIII being a negative blood type too. Two negatives will most likely create positive blood type babies which the body would reject instantly or overtime miscarry easily. I have yet to hear Historians use this Blood Type theory. They always assume Syphilis, which is fair enough. They did have diseases that caused miscarriages and pregnancy complications. However, we can't rule out so easily that women who are negative blood types who have babies with negative blood type men do get miscarriages and pregnancy complications over producing only positive blood type babies. Again, even in todays' day and age with modern Science and medicine we still have women, regardless of youth and strength have great difficulties carrying pregnancies full term and having miscarriages at final stages of full term pregnancies. Just a theory is all.
I have also wondered if Catherine was Rh(-). But, the problem comes when women who are negative get pregnant by an Rh(+) man. Since Rh(-) is recessive, to be negative you have to be (-)(-), but to be positive you can be either (+)(+) or (+)(-). If a negative woman gets pregnant with a (+)(+) man, all of their babies will be positive and it will cause problems without medical intervention. But, if the man is (+)(-), only half will be positive. That’s just in average of course, so it may not come out exactly half and half. However, I recently read a theory that maybe Henry had been positive for the Kell blood group and also had McLeod syndrome which I believe being Kell positive makes you more at risk for. Although I’ve never heard of Kell blood group, after reading about this theory, imo it matches better than the differences in Rh blood type theory. Plus, the McLeod syndrome could potentially explain Henry’s changes in behavior. Here’s an article that explains it: onthetudortrail.com/Blog/2011/01/14/a-new-explanation-for-the-reproductive-woes-and-midlife-decline-of-henry-viii/
It seems Deuteronomy is referring to marrying your brothers widow and Leviticus referring to taking your brothers wife whilst he's still alive. They seem very different, not contradictory.
21:51 Question: why would the queen be sewing the king's l shirts? I assumed that this job would have been done by a paid seamstress and would have been seen as a "waste of time" for someone as important as the queen of England. My assumption is obviously incorrect and I'm curious as to why she would be sewing Henry's shirts at all?
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
Eustace Chapuys, a man mentioned in almost every Tudor video. And yet, he doesn't have his own video. We need a Chapuys video.
That would be one fascinating video full of spicy gossip-filled journals & lots of bickering with Thomas Cromwell haha
I agree, a Chapuys video would be awesome. A lot of what we know about this period is due to him.
I would love that!
Yeah, that would be interesting.
Completely agree!
"an heir..... sorry, a male heir 🙄" that had me laughing, I absolutely love that you include these little reminders here and there!
Also, “a natural, that is, illegitimate,” child of the king
I love how much care you have for your audience's well-being. History RUclipsrs don't often have warnings about the more upsetting subject matters that often come up.
Dr Kat is truly a respectful, accurate, kind and sensitive historian. She even tells you if she likes someone or studies their writings to keep perspective and integrity. I am glad she is in England.
I agree. Pregnancy loss is a deep emotional wound. Love you Dr. Kat for thinking of those who have experienced this.
Agreed. Came to comments to say that.
I was coming just to say this after watching on my TV. She is so kind and empathetic. You can tell she also thinks of her historical subjects as people rather than topics and engages with them and her audience accordingly.
Trying to avoid hearing about sad events doesn't stop them from happening. It's better to face your fears and anxieties than to let them fester.
The Great Matter is that Dr. Kat has posted a new video I must watch.
Excellent video, as always. I've often wondered what Henry would have done if he had known that HE, and not his wives, was responsible for the child's gender....
It is not true, in its entirety, that the man is responsible for the child’s sex. While his sperm determine the sex of the child it is known that the vaginal environment and other factors influence which sperm survive. The Y carrying sperm are smaller and capable of swimming faster. In an unfriendly vaginal environment, such as pH, these sperm are more likely to die. The process changes the pH and the slower swimming sperm, the larger X carrying sperm, have a greater chance of survival. Some women are therefore more likely to produce children of one sex. Husbands who for years suspected their wives were responsible for having all girls were, in fact, correct to a degree.
@@deborahmerkerson1145 I've also wondered if some males produce sperm of one sex more often then the other. Or if men who have sex frequently father more daughters (as male sperm does not survive long if a man frequently ejaculated, maybe the body doesnt recreate as much Male sperm if there is frequent ejaculation). Though ive no clue haha
As someone who has suffered infant loss, I can’t thank you enough for your thoughtful consideration in issuing any warning at all, let alone one so gentle. Thank you.
What really matters is that Henry is the epitome of “have your cake and eat it too”, and was more than willing to cast aside his personal values in order to get what he wanted.
My personal favorite is having his marriage to Anne annulled and then executing her for adultery and treason of which the annulment would mean she legally could not commit.
@@williethomas5116 Like I said, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Look up “support group for tragic queens”. How Anne could have legally committed adultery if her marriage to Henry was null and void is mentioned.
@@midnight_rose2337 yep, you are exactly right.
Can someone maybe explain the phrase have your cake and eat it too? If I get cake why wont I eat it? Ive been wondering about that for a long time. But I understand the meaning that’s supposed to be conveyed by it and I agree!
@@Larissa111 Once you eat your cake, you don't have it any more. You can't keep having it after you eat it.
A lot of hard work, painstaking research and Dr. Kat"s own judgement has gone into the making of this superb video, as all her videos are. She places the facts chronologically in a well conceived , easily understandable way and leaves ample scope for the viewes r to draw their own conclusions. In DR. Kat's next video may we get something on King Henry's impotency as alleged once by his fifth wife , Catherine Howard ? I suppose she was probably repulsed by his smelly body and often by his inability to perform in the royal bed . Let's see what Dr. Kat has to say about it . Thanks .
I think his impotency was alleged by Anne Boleyn, not Katherine Howard, but it was only hearsay brought up at the trial of George Boleyn. Anne was alleged to have confided in George's wife Jane that Henry couldn't get it up.
Henry forbidding his own daughter to see her mother is just messed up! Proves what a narcissistic jack a** he was! 💯
Totally agree! He didn't even let them write to one another.
He was very clever. You must understand how powerfull Catherine and Mary were. They could conspire, maybe even rise an army with help of their family - Roman emperor. Henry was precausious.
Dr. Kat, thank you for being so kind and mindful toward your listeners who have suffered infant loss. I haven’t suffered such a loss, but I can imagine it must be terrible.
If Charles didn't have the Pope in hand I believe that the chances are REALLY high that the Annulment would have been issued before Catherine knew what was happening, or not had any time to prepare and rally support. And boy would have that changed history a bit...
Hi Rebecca
You got a cute name. Lol
The case wasn’t very strong
I find it “interesting” that Henry and his trusted courtiers used the excuse of “having issue with a man marrying his brothers widow”… but no issue with a man marrying the sister of his former mistress!
Hi Tanya
You got a cute name. Lol
Wouldn’t suit them as much to be against that as it would’ve been with him having been against being with Catherine of Aragon.
My love, condolences, and prayers are with anyone who has ever lost a child or has had a miscarriage. I’ve actually suffered both and they’re both excruciatingly painful as a mother. I think of my lost babies very often; and very much about my only son I lost at his young age of 22. I thank God that they were at least a part of my life; albeit a short time, no doubt. God has been my strength throughout it all and I fear to think where I would be without my Lord and Savior carrying me through when I could not bear the weight of life in my very own footsteps myself. Love and blessings to all- especially to the mothers of angels! 😘💖🙏✝️👼
I spent the first 21 years of my life without a maternal instinct (unless it was one of my pets). If a child wasn't old enough to tell me the issue, then I wouldn't want to be in the same room as them. Basically, from day one, God and I knew kids weren't for me and I never hid that from anybody.
That is, until I became pregnant. I had sort of a 6th sense type feeling that I might be pregnant. On my way to Walgreens to get a test, I began to imagine being a Mom and picture who he might become or would look like (I imagined a boy, since most "girl stuff" is kind of bonkers). I wasn't fearful or stressed, if anything I felt like i was floating.
On my way home, I had a miscarriage. The pain caused me to nearly crash my car. He's the baby I want and ache for. In my prayers, I thank God for never holding my pain and anger against me. I thank God for holding me tighter and tighter each time I scream and cry and say horrific things to Him. I thank God for understanding that hurt people, hurt people. I thank God for being a tube of superglue and always putting me back together each time the memory pops into my brain. I thank God for reminding me of the animals I love and work with.
@@Karen-pk3uv My deepest condolences for the loss of your baby. My prayers will be with you until my last day upon earth. You’re doing the right thing trusting in God. I know that it’s terribly difficult not to become angry after suffering such a loss, but God had his reasons for allowing it to happen. In the words of Jesus in John 13:7, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” That verse has been absolutely pivotal for me being able to make it through a day, especially after losing my son. The loss of a child you’ve raised makes one feel so lost and helpless as a mother, because you’ve been the one to fix just about any little problem they’ve had their entire life; but death you cannot fix in this realm of life anyhow. I’ve never been angry with God for taking my son and my other unborn babies, I have to fully trust Him and am absolutely grateful for my two daughters and granddaughter that are still with me. Karen, I wish you love, joy, peace, happiness, and healing in your heart. You will finally meet your precious baby when you’re reunited with him in the sight of our Lord and Savior. Love and blessings to you! ✝️🙏💖
Crystal Long. I am so sorry about your loss. I suffered a miscarriage 42 years ago but I have been told by 2 psychic (independently of each other), that she is still with me. I did have 2 children later but sometimes I would set the table for 5 people instead of4.
My parents lost their first born at the age of 3. I never knew her but I often felt that my parents carried something with them. Perhaps their backs were perhaps a little more bent than they should have been. I only knew later how they must have suffered. Your 2 lovely children are still with you and look over you. Love from 🇬🇧
@@elss8717 Thank you for your kind words and condolences. I’m so sorry for the loss of your precious baby girl and also for the loss of your older sister. It is truly difficult to endure such tragedies. It is nice to know that our loved ones are still with us even though they’re not seen with our eyes. My girls keep me grounded and give my husband and I so much joy. Our little granddaughter who will be 3 this summer sometimes tells me about a boy she sees in our house and I wonder if it’s my son’s spirit. She always sees the boy in or near the kitchen, which is on par for my precious boy. May God bless and keep you and your’s. Love, prayers, and blessings to you from Texas! 😘🙏💖✝️
@@crystallong9625 TY. Your little granddaughter telling about the little boy brought tears to my eyes. We also have a granddaughter, 5 next week. I wish you and your family every happiness and more. ❤️
It is always fascinating to me how the desires of one man to have his way, changed the religious landscape of an entire country. Wonderful presentation!
I think it’s more complicated than that to ensure that he would be head of The church of England Henry appointed men of protestant leanings I think there was an undercurrent Of Protestantism that Henry could use to get his way or else mary’s attempt to return
church to Catholicism would not have failed
Thank you for another insightful & informed video, Dr. Kat. I have always thought it richly ironic that the greatest monarch of the Tudor House was the *daughter,* Elizabeth I, not the (short-lived) son, Edward VI.
Hi cathryn
You got a cute name. Lol
I think Henry ruined/destroyed the lives of so many. Especially, those of his poor wives. Kathrine was, by all accounts, a loving and devoted wife. Their marriage seemed to be a happy one, though marred by loss. What he did to her is beyond words. I can't imagine how heartbroken she must've been. She literally begged on her knees for him to not set her aside. The pride she must have swallowed astounds me but she truly loved him. Ann Boleyn should've took a clue. However, in those times women were mostly pawns used for their male relations/guardians to improve their stations in life. A 14 or 15 year old girl would be married off to a 60 year old man without the bat of an eye as long as he was wealthy and titled. Ann may have had little choice in much of the "Great Matter". Even if she did can you imagine saying NO to any king, let alone Henry. All of these women except for maybe Catherine Parr were just pieces in the dangerous game of Henry's life. Catherine Howard was but just a child. She was at most 19 when she died but could have been as young as 15. We complain about the pay gap, and gender equality now but just think of what these women had to put up with, live, and die for. I certainly hope it was a brain injury to blame for Henry's actions, but sadly, I tend to doubt it.
Hi Jaime
You got a cute name. Lol
@@robertmichael3860 matches my personality lol
Sure 😊
I mostly agree but if I'm not mistaken, instead of just a no, didn't Anne push him towards it or at least refused to sleep with him "unless" he cast Catherine aside and married her? So it's at least "possible" Anne had some hand in manipulating the situation.
I am always amazed at Henry's narrow acceptance on one verse while blythfully ignoring all the others. But then what king hasn't done something similar to gain his advantage.
It was not an acceptance, it was i believe, at first a search for a reason why he didn't have a son and then it became an excuse to do what he wished.
@@kathyjohnson2043 exactly, like many people since he looked in the bible with his mind made up and only looked to verses that supported his beliefs.
Ironically, it was his daughters who stabilized the country after his disastrous rule.
I thought the bible verses were to protect. Though in Katherine's case she had family (her blood not marriage) to return to after Arthur died. It would be her family's duty to care for her, only Henry VII & son VIII did not want to give her dowry back, even after having given birth to Mary . The being able to marry your brother's widow was if she had neither family including her birthed children.
@@iriswaterford8881 but the same problem exist after Henry and Mary were given their dispensation. He could not claim god was against the marriage because they had a child. Plus they received s dispensation meaning the above violation was placed aside by the authority of the church. Had she consummated that marriage all that can be offered is a better dispensation.
@@williethomas5116 I understand. What to me is so sad is the greed of Henry VIII & his father who only kept Katherine in England for her dowry. Yes the product of Henry VIII & Katherine's marriage was Mary. It was wrong from the beginning. She should have been allowed to go back to Spain with her dowry after Arthur died.
This was fascinating as always Dr Kat.
I appreciate very much the amount of hard work you put into each and every episode and enjoy your wonderfully concise, witty and enthusiastic delivery.
Thankyou ❤.
I hope that all is well with yourself, Jaime and the gorgeous Gabriel ❤😘.
I am always stunned by your erudition! I know all this history and yet sat rapt for the entire time! I have strong feelings about darling Henry…most of them bad. He treated Katherine, Mary, Anne, Elizabeth, Wolsey, More - anyone named Thomas it appears - and so many others (notably Jane, Anna, Katherine and Katherine) abominably, but was ultimately trumped, wasn’t he, by Elizabeth‘s success as Queen…far more successful than his paltry little dreams for himself. All that waste, death and destruction, with fallout echoing to this day. Great Harry? I don’t think so.
Henry VIII was a very successful king until his jousting accident and obsession with having a son.
Absolutely agree, she is so engaging!
Very well and concisely explained. I sometimes wonder what would have happened had Anne died of the sweating sickness, but I still think Henry would have gone for his annulment from Katherine. He was too committed to having a male heir to not go forward with it, but maybe he would have married a French princess as Wolsey had initially envisioned. The history of England would certainly have been very different to say the least.
Hi Jeannette
You got a cute name. Lol
I think it's really kind that you put a disclaimer at the very beginning of this video regarding infant loss.
We lost our baby December 2022, although I do not get triggered on the matter, I know some that do and it's incredibly kind that you're so mindful ❤
Thank you for another great video. I often wonder if Catherine of Aragon had known that her decision would ultimately lead to the end of Catholicism as the state religion in England, would she have changed her mind about her choice to fight Henry on the annulment?
she had no decision, she was forced to act as she did
She could only go by her conscience If others went into schism , that was their sin
Poor Catherine... Such a remarkable woman with such a bad luck ☹
It is interesting to analyze the whole process of Henry VIII ' s reform, and I think Dr. Kat explained it really well! 😍 (as she does in every video ❤)
Hi Maria
You got a cute name. Lol
It is a Great Matter that you have taken a moment in history that we all thought we knew so well and somehow made it fresh and almost pristine in our minds. Many, many thanks!!
Hi Michele
You got a cute name. Lol
So sweet of you to give a warning in the beginning of your video, I had 3 miscarriages so I know there is pain with that loss. Anything Henry the VIII will get me every time. Very much enjoyed this and many of your other videos. Thank you for all you do.
Dr Kat, I first studied English Reformation History over 30 years ago and this is easily the best, clearest account of the Great Matter that I've ever seen. Thank you!
Great video, Dr. Kat. Thank you! In the end, the thing Henry tried so hard to prevent, is exactly what happened...his daughters on the throne. All that pain and suffering for naught. The first daughter on the throne was so traumatized, she became known as Bloody Mary for her horrendous efforts to avenge her mother; the legitimate wife and only true Queen of Henry VIII. The second one, Elizabeth, assended to the throne without having her birth legitimized as Henry had her bastardized when he murdered her mother. However, Elizabeth I reigned well and long. I think it is very fitting that none of Henry's children felt compelled to build him a proper royal tomb like most great monarchs. Instead his bones lie in a regular coffin under thr floor of St. George's Chapel in a co-op with the beheaded King Charles I; forgotten for 300 years when his coffin was found accidentally. Dr. Kat...have you covered Elizabeth I's Checquer's ring before? Would love to know you thoughts about it. Thanks again!!
Hello Mattie
Hi Mattie
You got a cute name. Lol
What I wonder is at precisely which moment Henry and his advisers saw that, quite beyond H’s obsession with putting Catherine aside, the Crown stood to reap an immense financial windfall by confiscating and re-allotting church property.
Would you produce a video on The Sweating Sickness? This seems to be a virus that was deadly but the faded and has not been around since Tudor times unless it became known by another name. Thank you.
Impeccably presented, informative and interesting- Thank you! 😊
Hi beautiful
How are you doing?
Beyond your vast knowledge and your ability to make the topic so immediate and engaging I am so impressed by your appreciation of your viewers and your care and compassion. You are remarkable! God bless you and your sweet family.
I was just talking with a friend yesterday speculating about what alternate history may have arisen had Katherine simply stepped aside (no judgment implied on her reasons for not doing so, I hasten to add). I postulated that history would have been less bloody because the Reformation would have changed entirely without the weight of the English crown driving things or the subsequent fights within England over the church. My counterpart in the discussion disagreed, saying Henry would have separated from the church eventually because he was a tyrant and no tyrant wants their will challenged. I disagree - I think at the time "the great matter" was occurring that he held some genuine belief that he was being punished by god (though how like, well, HIM to ascribe blame to the innocent lady and not his own inappropriate behavior) but really - how much was self-justification and how much was genuine confusion of belief? But perhaps if his will hadn't been so thwarted he would have been less insistent on taking full control? I don't know. I just know I feel for Katherine and especially for poor Mary. Anne continues to fascinate me.
Yes!! I wonder the same things. It seems like had she taken the veil a lot less people would have died. It's not her fault clearly.. I just wonder what would have happened had Henry not have had to fight so long.
@@pamelaoliver8442 Or, there would have been a set-up for a new round of civil wars, since there is also Mary to consider, and even if Catherine might have been resigned to calling her daughter illegitimate, I wonder if Mary would have been of the same frame of mind -- or anyone who would have wanted to use her as a force against Henry's, or any children Anne might have had otherwise.
It's an interesting question, but I doubt Catherine would of considered it. Because it would of robbed her only surviving child of her birthright.
If you read about cognitive dissonance, it pretty much entirely explains why Henry did a lot of things. He was convincing himself that he had done the correct things. And the more bad things he did justifying it, the more he had to justify.
@@leonieromanes7265 No, I agree and no judgement on her for what she did. She stood firm for what she believed to be right. Perhaps if Anne weren't clearly waiting in the wings, perhaps if Henry had agreed to give preference to Mary until a male heir, perhaps perhaps perhaps. The speculation we were discussing was something akin to Eleanor of Aquitaine's split from Louis - the kids aren't bastardized but she steps aside. Mostly I thought it might have made Mary's life more happy, because she was so very unhappy through so little of her own fault and that's tragic.
Thank you for this video, I'm studying Tudor and Stuart History at Uni right now and we are currently covering Henry VIII, this was helpful in understanding the timelines we've been going over and painted a more clear picture of the history than just reading it in a book.
Hi Tracey
You got a cute name. Lol
I've only recently begun to think that Henry did really believe his marriage was cursed and not right in God's eyes - also the instinct to shore up his position to avoid being overthrown must have been intense considering the hoo-ha of the War of the Roses which he would have grown up hearing stories about. So, I have a little bit more sympathy for the big idiot. However, I throw in a massive amount of confirmation bias on Henry's part in looking into that belief, and Henry being a fellow who also believed he was God's representative on earth and all that. So he wasn't too far at anytime in his life from thinking he could do as he pleased and bugger anyone else. So, basically, I think he was an unmitigated ass, and went about ruining people's lives all over the place - and I'm firmly on the ladies' sides. And while I don't think Mary coming in and executing protestants is a good thing - I still think it's a joke of cosmic proportions that the fathead's heir ended up eventually being a teeny tiny little woman - Elizabeth - who we as a society remember as being a much greater success and power of her world than Henry ever was.
I always thought that, ironically, Katherine contributed to the downfall of Catholicism in England. I think Henry would have been very generous if she had agreed to end the marriage, as he was with Anne of Cleves. He wouldn’t have had to break from Rome in this case to get Anne Boleyn. Katherine could have obtained a good settlement for herself and their daughter Mary, allowing Mary to keep her royal status as the marriage was made in good faith.
The difference in those two cases is that Catherine's daughter Princess Mary would have have, in any settlement, been declared 'illegitimate' or a 'bastard' out of necessity. That status would have ruined her suitability for marriage, her potential for position in European society, removed her father's protection from her and in addition declared her mother the Queen, a woman of ill repute. Note how despite all the titles heaped upon Henry Fitzroy, he never came close to the throne of England and is still remembered as the illegitimate son of Henry VIII. After decades of marriage to Henry and a string of pregnancies and lost babies, Katherine was unlikely to do anything other than cling to her faith and trust in the Pope's ability to rescue her. All of that heartbreak and scandal in order to enter into an illegitimate liaison with Anne Boleyn that resulted in her own beheading a few years later!
I wonder what would have happened if the solution Henry proposed wasn’t declaring the marriage invalid. Not sure exactly how this worked legally, but if she was given the option of declaring her wish to enter the religious life I don’t think anyone would been terribly surprised (she was known to be very pious) and IIRC it would have been accommodated without making Mary illegitimate
The OP is correct. Royal annulments were fairly common; consanguinity was the usual reason trotted up to end an inconvenient marriage, even though a papal dispensation had usually been gotten. Any children often (can't confirm usually) remained legitimate--like, for example, the daughters of Eleanor of Aquitaine with King Louis.
@@YT4Me57 Mary would not have been illegitimate under the Good Faith clause.
@@YT4Me57 Not necessarily. Children from annuled marriages can be declared as legitimate especially by the king. Just like Henry was able to reinstate Mary in the succession to the throne behind Edward despite not revoking the annulment. So I think he probably would have declared Marry legitimate and let her keep all her titles and rights if Catherine had agreed to the annulment especially if that was part of Catherine's request for an annulment.
It's amazing to me how kings, queens, and leaders of all kinds have twisted the Word of God for their own selfish ends thereby defiling it. Henry VIII used it to get his way. He stated that he was the head of the church of England thereby usurping and taking the place of Jesus - King of Kings, Lord of Lords, son of the Living God and THE ONLY head of the HIS church on earth. What gall! It's perhaps the real reason Henry's line died out.
As always, your videos are so well researched and very entertaining. I always watch them when you release them. Thank you for all that you do.
Blessings from Pennsylvania.
Succinct yet comprehensive and incisive analysis of the issues and events that rolled out over a course of many years that had such repercussions, short and long term for Catholicism, protestantism, and England. Really well done with tidbits illuminating people, places, and events.
From what I can tell, he married Catherine because he wanted to and ignored the voices that shouted out at the time he shouldn't marry his brother's widow. Perhaps he couldn't hear them.
Thank you Dr. Kat for the insights on how everything came about. It humanizes the "great matter".
Hi Patricia
You got a cute name. Lol
That was an interesting video. Henry making sure he gets his own way as usual I like the way he manipulates the situations as they orcur. Well done Dr Kat !
i've been checking your channel since i woke up this morning! 😂
Thanks for uploading, what a pleasant surprise to watch your video after a long and tough day at work x
I love these videos!!! I was THRILLED there was a new upload today!!! As always, dear Dr.Kat thank you for the brilliant and fascinating videos.
That was so thoughtful that you would let your viewers know that you would be discussing enfant loss in your video, just on the chance that someone like I who, enjoys your channel may have experienced first hand that tragic event in their life. While I myself have never been married nor have any children, your sensitivity towards that matter is very respectful 🙏🏿. As usual another great video, enjoying it here on a freezing night in Chicago.
I love your channel. You are so knowledgeable, and charming and witty. I also really appreciate your thoughtfulness towards your viewers. Absolutely one of my favourite youtubers. ❤️❤️❤️
I have endometriosis and had 10 pregnancies and 4 births. I've always related to Queen Katherine. I recently found documents that show she's a very distant ancestor.
Katherine of Aragon had siblings who had descendants.
But, she herself isn’t the direct ancestor of anyone, as her only surviving child was Queen Mary I of England who had no issue.
Everyone should have been afraid of Henry and his matter. Something was definitely the matter with Henry. It really is quite terrifying to look back on things and see the beginnings of things. We are screaming "NO! Don't open that door! Run! RUN!!" And everyone around Henry keeps acting like they're dealing with the boy next door, Henry from down the street. Even when he does some truly awful things, people just treat him like they never heard nor saw. It's a good thing the Pope was not living in England, he might have been beheaded.
I love your videos so much. Thanks for all your meticulous research and excellent presentations!
I like how you care for the audience and the program
Thank you Dr. Kat, for your knowledge and wisdom about the past. ' We love you
@@markanderson0022 I am well. How are you?
I hate seeing the verse from Leviticus pulled out of context. It means to defile your brother’s wife through adultery. A Jew is permitted to marry his brother’s widow, however to raise up children in his brother’s name and takes responsibility to care for the widow.
You seem to be the very kindest, gentlest person. Fun to see one that you just put here! Thank you so much, Dr. Kat.
It is amazing to me that we know so much minutia about this stuff.
I can't help myself. Every time you say "Henry VIII" I think of the Henry VIII in Monarchs anonymous. 😂
I think there's an important piece of context that often gets omitted in discussions of the annulment of Henry VIII and Katherine: annulments for lack of a male heir were not unprecedented. Henry II's queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine had her marriage to the King of France annul for exactly that reason before marrying Henry II. So Henry VIII had no reason to believe that an annulment wouldn't be granted by the pope. I truly believe that if King Philip of Spain hadn't tried to manipulate the pope to prevent the divorce, the pope might not have refused Henry's request for an annulment, and the Reformation might never have happened. Henry only fell back on embracing Reformist ideas when he realized how they might be used to obtain an annulment.
In anticipation of the new video you are doing on Elizabeth I, I want to see this one first ( comments seem to have ended about nine months ago but it’s new to me so here is what is most likely going to be a lengthy observation.). The rearing to become a monarch and the teaching for a life devoted to an eclectic religious role are the premier example of ‘contradictory of terms.‘ A Sovereign’s, by definition of the word, purpose is to exercise power without limitation , with autonomy and beyond the law. A Religious leader’s purpose is to provide spiritual guidance, give comfort to people in times of hardship and serve as pious role model. Two brothers who from the first day of their entry into the world were on a leadership collision course with destiny. One to be King, the other to become the Archbishop of Canterbury. What an unimaginable burden to put on a child the knowledge that in order to rule your progenitor must first die. In Henry’s case, first a brother, with no education or training to fill his or his father’s shoes. Combining the two leadership roles with no road map must have been like having a split personality vining for controls within your brain 24/7. Having
Ecclesiastical Bible laws that tell you it is both a sin and a right to marry your brother’s wife is the foundation for an ‘I will do as I damnable well please’ outcome. I once a had a teacher of history explain it in terms of our American laws contradictory both passed by the same congress. “One sees the feather of an endangered bird laying on the ground. To pick it up is a violation of the “American Endangered Species act and most recover by the proper agency. However, to leave it on the ground is contributing to littering severely fined under the American Beautification Laws. Ironically no one holds the bird accountable for loosing it or not carrying it back to its nest. The same application of who lost the right to be called Queen begins with who claimed the right to be called Queen. Under the presumptive that Henry’s And Catherine had consummated there relationship prior to their vows is as irrelevant as to whether she said she and Arthur had not consummated their marriage. Arthur said they had and as the Heir apparent it is strictly became a he said/ she said point of contention. The fact that a religion dispensation was sought by Henry indicates he believed Arthur and Anne had a legitimate marriage, legal and religiously. To continue to live in England and style herself as Henry VII’s daughter-in-law after Arthur’s death speaks volume to the how Henry, upon becoming King, must have interpreted her and his Father’s assessment of the marriage being true as one does not question the King as such or as your father as King The King’s (Henry VII) sovereign interpretation of what your King believes was the status of Arthur’s marriage and he labeled it a marriage not an arrangement. Arthur died with her being labeled his wife not his contractual companion. Henry VIII called Catherine of Aragon his wife - until he didn’t. For him and his future wives they were neither his legal or his religious wife(s) but his wife(s) by sovereign right which was his and his alone to dictate the meaning of the term as it applied to him by him. In retrospect to Christianity, no one knows for sure if Jesus, had a wife, a concubine, or children. All that can really be said I’d that he did not preach chastity; that was a Pope’s ruling nearly 1000 years later. Did Henry VIII lead by example or follow example? How does one go from pious and principled to unscrupulous snd vindictiveness without encouragement? His reign is recognized as the evilness of a man in his beliefs and not as the evilness of men of greed who surrounded him as trusted councilors to him. Sound biblically familiar? It does from this chair.
Excellent narrative of the facts, which you do so well. As an American it is sometimes hard to follow along with all of the events that led up to this massive split from Rome (and Katherine). The lives that were lost and the terrible tumult is still felt today. I don't know how common folks were able to bear it all. But the way that you lay out the facts and timeline are so helpful. Much more so than other channels have managed to do. You explain these events so systematically and allow a person's brain to catch up with the facts. I think it was a terrible time for England and the fact that he continued to plow through women five more times (including the shameful disposal of Anne Boleyn) proves that he was a very disordered person.
I always look forward to one of your videos popping up. I learn something new every time. You have a great presentation style and the content is always fascinating.
Just had a little one thank you for the warning, I hope I can enjoy the information amd presentation at a later date.
I appreciate your sensitivity warnings to the audience.
It breaks my heart what women were subjected to. Even woman with power frequently were powerless in their own futures, the futures of their children.
I don't recall one government, one religion offering former apologies to woman for what was done to them in the name of males being named heir apparent. It shocked me that it took EII so long to remove the male is the heir.
You are just wonderful, that warning in the beginning of the video is so thoughtful. I love your content
You are the woman I wanted to become…. I could listen to you all day. The way you present information, and how you reach out to us your audience.
You are amazing.
Love from Cornwall
I think the longevity of the Tudor dynasty (via male heirs) was the ultimate goal for Henry and he may have believed that the end justified the means - although the end was pure tragedy for so many.
Thank you for the well explained, concise timeline of “Henry’s VIII’s Great Matter”.
This video was so enlightening. Even when you talk about Anne Boleyn and how she wanted to be sure that Henry was serious about marriage with her. Also, we need to be reminded about the superstitious at the time about pregnancy and how or why a woman couldn't produce a male when needed. I think that Henry was still married to Catherine. If he waited a few more years, he would have been widower.
I always have wondered at Elizabeth’s decision to not marry and attempt to produce an heir, even if it were a princess. Surely she was programmed by her Henry’s years long attempt to produce a legitimate heir. She was assuredly in a hard position: to marry meant giving up her position as supreme ruler to her husband. To not marry meant not producing a Tudor heir and having a Stuart succeed her. As much moxie as Elizabeth had, and being Henry’s daughter, I am surprised that she did not challenge the law of a queen’s husband becoming King. After all, Henry challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and created a new religion to open the way to void his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and other wives. It seemed Henry proved anything is possible with strength. And Elizabeth was strong.
Dear Dr.Kat, I truly enjoy how you bring these long past persons to life. Are there any repercussions felt today of Henry's and his crony's behavior? Certainly, there are. It led to the shattering of the Roman Catholic Church and her faithful throughout England. Many died for their faith. Yes, I do know that many Protestants were killed too. It is difficult for me to understand how this man who had been named "Defender of the Catholic Faith" one year, the next would become heretical and destroy the church in his quest for a son. I guess if one has always gotten what they wanted why would destroying the church be an impediment to the next thing that they wanted? Now we have so many splintered Christian groups. If one person doesn't like what is being taught, they divide off and make their own versions of Christianity. This is Henry's legacy. Protestants today, especially here in America, have no idea that their great grandparents 500 years ago were probably Catholic. The heresy lives on. Although, I read about 9 years ago, that a section of the Anglican church requested to come back under the umbrella of Rome. I hope that their request was granted. I do hope you continue your channel. You do a fabulous job!
🗣🗣 I love this channel! And I love it even more when you talk Tudor!! 🏵🥰🔥🏵 Thanks for keeping the history nerds fed Dr. Kat!
Hi Elizabeth
You got a cute name. Lol
Thank you Dr. Kat for another fascinating video. It was really eye opening about the traumas this woman endured, and the cruel irony of at one time being the most powerful woman in England, while at the same time being nothing more than an heir-making machine, over and over again. The closest visual depiction I’ve seen on film that captures that paradoxical state and its attendant horrors is Queen Anne in the favorite.
I really enjoy everything I’ve leaned from you and your stories. Thank you so much for this wonderful entertainment.
Wouldn't Catherine of Aragon's maids and any number of international spies around her be able to confirm whether or not her marriage to Arthur had been consummated? It seems odd that there would be any speculation about something so politically important.
There is plenty of reason to believe it was and only her assertion it was not. Arthur certainly implied it was ("This night I have been in Spain") but there were no direct witnesses and Katherine maintained her entire life that it was never consummated. No one was able to prove it either way definitively.
@@easjer ah, thanks for the info!
Her maids were loyal to her, they would (and did) backup her account, regardless of its truthfulness.
Catherine was indisputably a devout Catholic, so I have never been able to believe that she lied when she asserted her virginity as it would have been to her a dreadful sin. Arthur was a young man who, perhaps, needed to boast after his wedding night. We shall never know. But this also explains why she refused to accept an annulment (which, if she had, would have made the rest of her life much easier) because she truly believed in her lawful marriage.
Actually, according to Giles Tremlett, there was a companion hearing to the Great Matter held in Zaragoza at the same time. It focused on interviewing all the maids and servants who had been in England with her at the time of her marriage to Arthur: I have seen virtually nothing else about this other than this mention in his book. I would love Dr. Kat to look into this. I suspect that the findings did not support Catherine’s claim of non consummation. Otherwise I think Charles would have been providing documents stating we have x number of witnesses proving Aunt Catherine’s claim. Now would Henry have listened or believed? Extremely doubtful. Also agree with the request for a Eustace Chapuy video. I also don’t think he would have believed anything contrary to Catherine’s testimony no matter who provided it. So I wonder if the Zaragoza findings just never were given to him to avoid “conflict of interest” so to speak.
Always enjoy your videos, especially when you bring up a side of an issue I hadn't considered before. Thank you!
Very interesting and sad, queen Katherine cast aside like an old cape, princess Mary never seeing her mother again when Mary was a teenager, I was that age when I lost my mother, you never get over that. And I suppose being well brought up royal ladies none of them could beat their breasts and have public displays of grief. Well done doctor Kat.
Thank you for diligently discussing this huge topic so well. Henry VIII was certainly a man on a mission........
If you havent, would you ever look into why Henry VIII had so many miscarriages with his wives?
Absolutely brilliant - thank you = more x
Just finished watching your video about Catherine of Aragon so this is amazing! Thank you!🎉
Thoroughly enjoyed your take on this subject. I'm new to your channel but can't wait to see what else you have to offer. Thank you!
I truly enjoy yor podcast. Good information. Clear. Great presentation. Keeps my attention. Down to earth.
One of my favorite topics. I can’t wait to watch this later!
Your attempts to try and keep a straight face is precious.Don't feel bad I couldn't help but laugh with you!!
Nicely done.
Both Catherine and Anne survived the sweating sickness - what if that virus had a long term effect on pregnancies...we are seeing stranger things these days :-)
I've never thought about that before 🤔
Interesting theory.
❤️❤️❤️ thank you Dr. Kat for making these videos so interesting. Just love❣️
Oh My Goodness! Dr. Kat and Henry VIII....what could be better?
Always a riveting time watching your videos Dr. Kat. As far as Henry's Great Matter, at the moment I am thinking of it in simple terms. He was only a man. A King of course, but still just a human being. Not only a mere human being, but also a King who had been ingrained from a young age that his whims were to be met at all times. When it became clear that his whim of replacing his wife with a newer version would be thwarted, I'm sure it was more than frustrating for him. I feel that the Great Matter could include another simple observation. He fell in love with another woman. People are not supposed to give their love and affection to someone else when they have a spouse. Unfortunately, it happens with frightening regularity. By all accounts, we can presume Henry was in love with Anne. In addition there was the pressure of producing a male heir. He apparently regarded this with utmost priority, as was expected at the time. I will add one more thought from a generalized, simplistic point of view. Henry was selfish to the point of vicious brutality to get his own way. No one was safe from his wrath. The frustration, selfishness, love, even the brutality are traits of being a human being. The fact he was also a King who could command everyone around him to do his bidding and sentence them to death if they did not, well that was not a good combination for him. Or at least, not for anyone around him.
All I know is Henry 8 was something else! Wow!
@@markanderson0022 👍 great!
Gorgeous jewelry in their portraits.
I love your videos!!!! Please can you discuss the KIT KAT CLUB? I was able to visit London and came across this curious collection of paintings at the National Portrait Gallery and want to know more about who these men were!
How have I just found you???? As a history nerd and anglophile I can't believe I wasn't already subscribed!
I loved your video on marriage in the Tudor era. I would love one on divorce during this time. And perhaps before, after and current.
I find it so difficult to take Henry seriously. He seems to have come down to us as a spoiled, massively autocratic, cruel, self-centred man baby. Was he really? Did he really care about the religious aspect of things? I have to acknowledge that it is possible but it just seems unlikely to me. Thank you, as always for your thorough and interesting discussion of this situation.
Imo, the ruthless tyrant Henry significantly overshadows his younger years where he wasn’t nearly as bad (still ruthless at times, but that was the norm for a lot of kings). In his younger years, he was actually quite well loved by the people in his for being very handsome, athletic, pious, and appreciative of music, art and culture. I know I’ve seen several videos that discussed this topic, but I can’t remember their names. Although, if I remember correctly, Suzannah Lipscomb has spoken on it many times.
As for his religious beliefs, I think he truly believed he wasn’t having sons due to being married to his brother’s wife. However, I’m not so sure about the creation of the Church of England. I have a feeling it was a mixture of things. I’m sure a lot of his motivation was selfish, but I don’t know if it was conscious or subconscious. Kings had it drilled into them that they were closest to God and their authority was God-given. Protestant beliefs had already been brewing among certain people, Anne Boleyn being one, and some of them (again, including Anne Boleyn) were in Henry’s ear reminding him that he is closest to God and that a Pope was unnecessary and even unbiblical.
Disclaimer: I am not a historian, so I could be completely wrong about all of this. Lol
I don’t think Henry, from what I’ve studied about him did all he did for religious reasons. I think maybe he believed in god and believed he was chosen by god but most things he did; he used religion as an excuse, it seems, in order to do what he wanted to do.
That makes me wonder: Would there even have been a "Great Matter" if Henry VIII could have simply installed his illegitimate son as heir? What would have happened, if that son became king after Henry VIII died instead of Mary and then Elizabeth?
I think part of the reason he didn’t, beyond his feelings for Anne, was because a bastard might not have as sturdy on the throne as a legitimate child. Allegations of bastardy were what brought down The Princes in the Tower, as you know.
Henry FitzRoy died in 1536, 11 years before his father kicked the bucket.
@@Itcouldbebunnies Damn and somehow I was under the impression that this son lived a lot longer. So it wouldn't have made any difference at all.
As Eva said, Henry Fitzroy died before Henry8. However, I believe H8 was so desperate to place a male heir on the throne, he actually considered the unthinkable...having Fitzroy marry his half-sister Mary. Their union would have strengthened their right to the throne...or, so Henry thought. But, I think like his half brother, Edward, Fitzroy was a sickly child. H8 was so cruel, he made Fitzroy witness the execution of Anne Bolyne. The poor boy died a few weeks later from consumption. Everything about H8 just screams evil.
@@mattieb7348 forcing his son to watch his stepmothers execution, thats just sick.
Today is my first day!! How wonderful!! I have one question for you. Where would I begin to learn about royal history? Should I begin with English History? I’m an avid reader so if there’s a book I may begin my journey,please let me know. I’ll buy it!! Meanwhile I’m going to start back with your website and move forward. I’m truly excited!! Thank you for this blog. Hello from Texas USA. ✌🏻🤠
Thank you for your history lesson.
Considering that I have had a few difficult pregnancies and complications, I would assume, based on my own experiences, that Catherine of Aragon may have been a negative blood type and Henry VIII being a negative blood type too. Two negatives will most likely create positive blood type babies which the body would reject instantly or overtime miscarry easily. I have yet to hear Historians use this Blood Type theory. They always assume Syphilis, which is fair enough. They did have diseases that caused miscarriages and pregnancy complications. However, we can't rule out so easily that women who are negative blood types who have babies with negative blood type men do get miscarriages and pregnancy complications over producing only positive blood type babies. Again, even in todays' day and age with modern Science and medicine we still have women, regardless of youth and strength have great difficulties carrying pregnancies full term and having miscarriages at final stages of full term pregnancies. Just a theory is all.
I have also wondered if Catherine was Rh(-). But, the problem comes when women who are negative get pregnant by an Rh(+) man. Since Rh(-) is recessive, to be negative you have to be (-)(-), but to be positive you can be either (+)(+) or (+)(-). If a negative woman gets pregnant with a (+)(+) man, all of their babies will be positive and it will cause problems without medical intervention. But, if the man is (+)(-), only half will be positive. That’s just in average of course, so it may not come out exactly half and half.
However, I recently read a theory that maybe Henry had been positive for the Kell blood group and also had McLeod syndrome which I believe being Kell positive makes you more at risk for. Although I’ve never heard of Kell blood group, after reading about this theory, imo it matches better than the differences in Rh blood type theory. Plus, the McLeod syndrome could potentially explain Henry’s changes in behavior.
Here’s an article that explains it:
onthetudortrail.com/Blog/2011/01/14/a-new-explanation-for-the-reproductive-woes-and-midlife-decline-of-henry-viii/
I absolutely love your videos Dr. Kat! 😃
It seems Deuteronomy is referring to marrying your brothers widow and Leviticus referring to taking your brothers wife whilst he's still alive. They seem very different, not contradictory.
Really enjoyed this video , thank you!
Wonderful as always
21:51 Question: why would the queen be sewing the king's l shirts?
I assumed that this job would have been done by a paid seamstress and would have been seen as a "waste of time" for someone as important as the queen of England.
My assumption is obviously incorrect and I'm curious as to why she would be sewing Henry's shirts at all?