View previous topic | View next topic

I'm generally ignorant ...

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

suze
63780.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:41 am Reply with quote

Oh dear, this new forum was clearly sorely needed ...

OK, so I get the notion that Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone, all he did was patent a refinement of someone else's idea.

And I remember all the Cruithne stuff from the show, much as I don't really buy it. (To me, an essential feature of a "moon" is that it goes round the Earth, and Cruithne and the others don't.)

But if you did wives of Henry VIII on the show, I missed that one. Six, I tell you, there were six. Please someone enlighten me as to why 'tis not so ...

 
eggshaped
63782.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:44 am Reply with quote

This piece of ignorance stems from the fact that an annulment means that technically the marriage was unlawful and could not have taken place. Henry´s marriage to Anne of Cleves was certainly annulled rather than ending in divorce, which would take the number down from 6 to 5. According to this site, 4 of Henry VIII's marriages ended in annullment:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Wives_of_Henry_VIII

Quote:
A mnemonic for the fates of Henry's wives is "divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived." An alternate version is "King Henry the Eighth, to six wives he was wedded: One died, one survived, two divorced, two beheaded."

Some may dub these as misleading doggerel, and that Henry was never technically divorced from any of his wives, rather that his marriages to them were annulled. Likewise four marriages—not two—"ended" in annulments, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, one could argue according to the technicalities of annulment, were never his wives at all.

 
Gray
63789.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:04 am Reply with quote

Quote:
To me, an essential feature of a "moon" is that it goes round the Earth
Are you by any chance affiliated with the geocentric Pre-Renaissance Catholic Church? ;-)

Mercury and Venus are strange in that they have no moons at all. Ganymede - one of Jupiter's moons - is bigger than Mercury or Pluto!

 
swot
63806.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:54 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Henry had many other short-term mistresses, most of whom are unknown. He kept many of them in his private mansion called Jordan House and when his male courtiers said, "The King has gone to the Jordan," it meant that he was discreetly visiting one of his mistresses.


I always wondered why Ms Price chose that name. I love this thread.

 
suze
63808.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:00 am Reply with quote

eggshaped wrote:
This piece of ignorance stems from the fact that an annulment means that technically the marriage was unlawful and could not have taken place. Henry´s marriage to Anne of Cleves was certainly annulled rather than ending in divorce, which would take the number down from 6 to 5.

(Webquote edited)

Some may dub these as misleading doggerel, and that Henry was never technically divorced from any of his wives, rather that his marriages to them were annulled.


Hmm. Having looked a few things up, there are arguments for "one" as the correct answer.

First, Catherine of Aragon. This marriage was annulled on the grounds that it was invalid because Catherine had previously been married to Henry's dead brother. The marriage had been permitted in the first place because Catherine alleged that the first marriage was never consummated, but this seems not to have been true. Therefore - under Henry's theology whereby any wife must be a virgin - no marriage.

The marriage to Anne Boleyn was bigamous - it took place before Cranmer annulled the first marriage. So no marriage, and anyway she certainly wasn't a virgin, so again - under Henry's theology - no marriage.

The marriage to Jane Seymour was probably legitimate. Whether they slept together before marrying who can say, but there is no evidence that they did.

The marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled on the grounds of non consummation. This seems to actually be true, although it's likely that this was more her choice than this, rather than the other way round as the history books tell you. Even the Pope would probably have granted annulment here had he been asked, so no marriage.

Catherine Howard is trickier; most of the books tell you that this one was annulled on the grounds of her adultery. This just can't be so; that may be grounds for divorce but cannot possibly be grounds for annulment (if they were never married, then she may have been fornicating but couldn't possibly have been adulting). In fact, most of the books aren't quite right - the official reason for annulment was that she wasn't a virgin on marriage. So no marriage there.

Catherine Parr had been married twice before, so we must assume she wasn't a virgin when she married Henry. No marriage.


But now the problem. As the product of a bigamous marriage, Elizabeth I was illegitimate and thus not eligible to be Queen. Therefore, on the death of Henry's legitimate heir Edward VI, the throne should have passed to James V of Scotland (as the son of Henry's sister Margaret, who was married to James IV). On his death it passed to his daughter Mary Queen of Scots, and so to James I/VI.

Who of course ultimately became King anyway, but if we annul Elizabeth I's period as Queen it means we annul every decision she took or that Parliament took while summoned by a person who wasn't in fact the Queen. Which means that everything since is irregular too.

How do the Constitutional Law types get out of that one?

 
tetsabb
63814.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:23 am Reply with quote

I think it would mean football being legal, as it was under QE1 that the law was passed forbidding it, as young men were ignoring their archery practice.

<< Awaits klaxons

 
iluphade
63821.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:42 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:

How do the Constitutional Law types get out of that one?


I'll look into that, allthough I'm not really familiar with english constitutional law. Thank god for gigantic law libraries.
(I'm not sure this subject has been thoroughly studied though.)


EDIT: I only use "god" in a linguistic context.


Last edited by iluphade on Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:49 am; edited 1 time in total

 
suze
63824.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:49 am Reply with quote

I thought that was an earlier monarch, but that in any case Charles II repealed the law. I could be wrong though.

But it does mean that make-up and wigs are legal for women. Elizabeth I banned them because she reckoned that only witches would wear them. So girls, next time a friendly PC informs you that your lippie is a crime, tell him that Elizabeth I was a bastard, and so it's OK.

 
suze
63825.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:50 am Reply with quote

tetsabb wrote:
I think it would mean football being legal, as it was under QE1 that the law was passed forbidding it, as young men were ignoring their archery practice.

<< Awaits klaxons


I thought that was an earlier monarch, but that in any case Charles II repealed the law. I could be wrong though.

But it does mean that make-up and wigs are legal for women (they have never been otherwise for men). Elizabeth I banned them because she reckoned that only witches would wear them. So girls, next time a friendly PC informs you that your lippie is a crime, tell him that Elizabeth I was a bastard, and so it's OK.

 
iluphade
63846.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:05 am Reply with quote

According to the "English constitutional history, from the teutonic conquest to the present time" (by Thomas Pitt Tasswell-Langmead; published in 1886 by Stevens and Haynes in London):

page 216-218:

[...] The second Succession Act had declared Mary and Elizabeth to be illegitimate. The third, upan a supposition of their illegitimacy, now postponed them even ti akk the lawfull issue female of the King: but yet, in default of lawfull issue of the King and Prince Edward, it limited the crown to the illegitimate daughters of the King and their issue in preference to all the other descendants of Henry VII. In exercise of the power given to him by these Acts of Paliament,(1) Henry VIII. devised the crown, in remainder, on failure of issue of his three children, to the heirs of the body of his younger sister, Mary, Duchess of Suffolk, thus postponing the descendants of his elde sister, Margaret, Queen of Scots.
Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, succeeded each other on the throne in strict accordance with, and by virtue of, the parliamentary entail. [... (irrelevant)]
On the first notice of Mary's death, Elizabeth was proclaimed, by order of hte House of Lords then sitting, true and lawful heir to the crown according to the act of succession of the 35th year of Henry VIII. Whatever other title the Queen might be presumed to have, her parliamentary title was clearly the one on which she relied.

[Here comes some information about the mariage of her parents, so pay attention]
Discarding the precedent set by her sister, she suffered all altercation about the marriage of her father and mother, and the subsequent divorce, to sink into oblivion. The Act passed on her accession, though vaguely asserting in general terms her descent from teh blood royal, and that she was as fully entitled as her father or brother had been (which was perfectky true, since each reigned by a good parliamentary title), declared inguarded and limited terms that she was to assert the right of Parliament to alter the succession by twice passing, in 1679 and 1680 the Bill for the exclusion of the Duke of York from the throne. At length in 1688, all doubts as to the power of Paliament to regulate the succession as it should think git, were nally set at rest by the 'glorious revolution' which overturned the Stuart dynasty, and once more set an elective king upon the throne.

(1) 'The full and immediate authority of the legislature in the matter of the succession must have been presupposed as a matter past all dispute; otherwise a delegation of that authority would have been no better than an idle, vain, and ineffectual parade, an insult upon common sense and an affront to the King himself' - Sir Michael Foster, Crown Law, 410



So there you have it. No legal problems whatsoever.

 
djgordy
63848.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:19 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:

But now the problem. As the product of a bigamous marriage, Elizabeth I was illegitimate and thus not eligible to be Queen. Therefore, on the death of Henry's legitimate heir Edward VI, the throne should have passed to James V of Scotland (as the son of Henry's sister Margaret, who was married to James IV). On his death it passed to his daughter Mary Queen of Scots, and so to James I/VI.



There is a belief in some parts that the person who ascended the throne as James VI of Scotland was not actually the son of Mary QoS. The story is that the infant James died shortly after birth and was switched with the son of a maid.

Anyway, the 1701 act of succession is now applicable and the monarch has to be a descendant of Sophie, Electress of Hanover. This law was basically enacted to keep the Stuarts out. Prior to that, essentially someone grabbed the throne and then came up with the justification.

 
suze
63850.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:32 am Reply with quote

Summarised very briefly, that legal stuff seems to mean

"Elizabeth I was the Queen because Parliament said she was".

and Sir Michael Foster appears to be saying

"It goes without question that Parliament has the right to say who is Queen".

In which case, it does legitimise her reign - which I guess is something of a relief, although since 1931 what Foster says is not strictly valid.

Since that year, any change in the rules of succession must also be passed by the parliaments of the sixteen other commonwealth realms of which HM is also the Queen.

There was a court action brought in Canada which alleged that the rules of succession violated the Canadian constitution (which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion). The decision was along the lines that this was quite possibly true, but would cause so much trouble that - in this one case - an 18th century English law would take precedence over the Canadian constitution.

As for James I/VI, well yes I've heard that suggestion before. Who knows, but fortunately the later Act of Succession clears the matter up for now. Until a future putative Catholic King or Queen takes it to the European Court ...

 
gerontius grumpus
64430.  Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:49 pm Reply with quote

If Henry VIII had six wives, does that mean Henry VI must have had eight wives?
Or if he only had five or four wives, would it have been Henry V or Henry VI who had eight wives?

 
djgordy
64432.  Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:53 pm Reply with quote

I'm Henry the eighth I am,
Henry the eighth I am, I am.
I got married to the widow next door,
She's been married seven times before,
And every one was an Henry (Henry!)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (No Sam!)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry,
Henry the eighth I am

 
Lizbet
64456.  Sat Apr 08, 2006 4:35 pm Reply with quote

Can I pose a question here?

Above there are arguements (perfectly valid and reasonable) that Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was illigal and there for not a real marriage and also that the marriage to Anne Boleyn was bigamous and therefore illegal.

My question is this; is it law that a marriage can be annuled on the grounds of an existing marriage even if that marriage was, in a sense, void?

Or does this simply apply due to the change in the law brought about by the break from Rome?

Also, Elizabeth the first rocked. Just wanted to say that...

 

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group