VERSUS HISTORY
  • Versus History
  • About Us
  • Podcasts
  • Versus History Blog
  • Submissions
  • Versus History Publications

DID YOU KNOW…

6/2/2019

1 Comment

 

…THAT KING HENRY VIII DID NOT HAVE SIX WIVES.

Picture

Ok, hopefully that got your attention.

It is mostly the case that the study of History requires a degree of contextual empathy that is often lacking in the manner by which the subject is taught - particularly when that subject is a supposedly ‘well known’ one. As in the case of King Henry VIII. Too often we are guilty of examining the subject from our ‘future’ vantage point and looking backwards in time, examining it, if you will, at a ‘contextual distance’ and
not from the contingent perspective of the time occupied by the subject. It is often easier to merely repeat the basic historical tropes - Henry VIII had six wives - than it is to evaluate their authenticity. Putting it in a simpler form, if you were king Henry VIII, in the 16th Century, how would you have replied to the following question, presuming that it had been put to you at the end of your reign: “How many wives did you have, sire?”. The authentic reply would most likely have been, “I have had three wives”.
​

Without exploring the semantics embedded within the language of marriage too deeply, the key difference (as I see it) between the History we can often be taught in school versus the contemporary experiences as they were lived at the time, is distilled perfectly, microcosmically-speaking, in the difference between two words: annulment and divorce. Only one of these are we routinely taught when exploring Henry and his ‘wives’: divorce.

A divorce is the legal dissolution of a valid marriage - an acknowledgement that there used to be a marriage, and always will have been one in the eyes of the law and therefore of history; an annulment, is a legal recognition that a marriage was never valid in the first place and thus never actually existed - both legally and historically. Of course, the language of annulment is very clearly designed to create a legal and historical ‘resetting of the clock back to zero’, so that whatever follows, maritally-speaking, will always take precedence over what has gone before. Which, technically, is nothing.
​
Picture
Picture
Cardinal Wolsey laboured unsuccessfully to get Henry an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Thomas Cromwell was able to get the annulment, but ultimately fell foul of Henry's executioner.

Both Thomas Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell expended great energies navigating the legal language of their king’s ‘marriages’. And with particular reason. The semantic and legal tenor of the word '
annulment' was incredibly helpful for King Henry because he needed to void any claim of Mary (the child he shared with Catherine of Aragon) and Elizabeth (the child he shared with Anne Boleyn) to the Tudor throne. He needed a male heir - which was provided to him by Jane Seymour the moment she gave birth to Edward.

And so, if Henry had been asked in the year of his death how many wives he had had, he almost certainly would have replied (particularly having irreparably altered the legal and religious landscape of England by his marital maneuverings) that his first wife was Jane Seymour, his second was Catherine Howard, and the third and final was Catherine Parr. He would, no doubt, claim that he had never actually been married to either Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn or Anne of Cleves. Legally, and thus historically, speaking, he never was.
​

By saying that Henry had six wives instead of three, while simultaneously using the historically redundant noun ‘divorce’ in our teaching of the subject, we may be guilty of historical laziness at best, or historical disingenuity at worst.

Dr. Elliott L. Watson
@thelibrarian6

1 Comment
Deena & Lilo
9/2/2019 08:28:43

Interesting perspective...
But wouldn't that be like us believing a typical "person in power" shrugging responsibility and molding facts to suit his needs ? it is acknowledged that the monarch "changed the landscape of England" to self-serve...
and indeed , Mary I and Elisabeth I were in his children , so the mothers were his "partners " , whatever the technicalities
(...and we're on the heels of International women's Day 😊😊).

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Versus history

    News from Patrick (@historychappy), Elliott (@thelibrarian6) & Conal (@prohistoricman)

    Categories

    All
    African History
    American History
    Announcements
    Asian History
    Australian History
    British History
    Canadian History
    Disciplinary
    European History
    German History
    Guest Blog
    Roman History
    World History

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    February 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    April 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Versus History
  • About Us
  • Podcasts
  • Versus History Blog
  • Submissions
  • Versus History Publications