Mr. Harpsfield's "Opening Arguments" for the Prosecution: Pretended Divorce of Catherine of Aragon

Harpsfield, Nicholas. The Pretended Divorce of Catherine of Aragon. No location: Hardpress Publishing, 2013.

The Pretended Divorce is available at:http://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Pretended-Divorce-Between-Catharine/dp/131452285X/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374952856&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=nicholas+harpsfield+the+pretended+divorce+of+catherine+of+aragon

It is also available online at: http://books.google.com/books?id=z_gIAAAAIAAJ&dq=nicholas+harpsfield+the+pretended+divorce+of+catherine+of+aragon&source=gbs_book_similarbooks

There is an Epistle and three "Bokes." We're very sympathetic to Mr. Harpsfield's chastisement of Henry's matrimonial "violence and abuse" of Catherine (cf. Mal. 2.10-17 wherein divorce is likened to violence). But, this is a separate issue from the Reformation itself. While we're sympathetic to his cause, we hope he can successfully prosecute his case on exegetical grounds rather than canon law and Papal authority. Harpsfield was a cleric-canonist, not a theologian. By the way, he also prosecuted 100s of cases against the "Protestants and Evangelical Anglicans" during Mary's rule...with alleged cruelty.

As Mr. (Dr. Prof.) MacCulloch reminds us, the terms "Protestant and Evangelical" were the terms of art and derision by the Papal Roman Anglicans for the "Protestant and Evangelical" Anglicans.

The opening arguments for the prosecution of the case for the pretended divorce of Catherine are found in the "Epistle to the Reader."

Epistle to the Reader, 12-24
Boke 1, 25-120
Boke 2, 121-221
Boke 3, 222-302

We bring some select comments from this Oxford-cleric-really-a-canonist-lawyer-at-the-Court-of-Arches who tried 100s of Protestants during Mary’s times and who was imprisoned in Elizabeth’s times. Mr. John Foxe will say he [Harpsfield] was cruel and pitiless.

• “Truth…so much darkened, suppressed and trodden down"

• "Arians, Eutychians, Iconoclasts and other heretics" [= an allusion to the Protestants]

• A “number of bishops under the colour of truth” (= the Protestants and Mr. Harpsfield uses that "term" for the Edwardian and Elizabethan Anglicans)

• Truth has been “injured, defaced, and abolished." As for the divorce, we--at this point--are strongly inclined to Mr. Harpfield's narrow point.

• Mary had “twenty years most lovingly continued in marriage” and the Protestants had “wrongfully declared” that Mary “was unlawfully born and illegitimate...”  We are inclined to say with Mr. Harpsfield, "Why, of course."

• “Dame Untruth hath hither made a [glorious] glittering pretence...”

• The Protestants have gone “far from the truth and directly against the Catholic faith…”  But, here, we must distinguish between the pretended divorce and other substantive matters of the English Reformation.  Hence, we affirm in the narrow part, but deny in large part.

• The King should have heeded the “godly counsel of Sir Thomas More and the good learned bishop of Rochester…” (Fisher). We would add that the Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Bromiley said Mr. Fisher was not an outstanding or brilliant scholar. Yet, Mr. Cranmer offers cheers from the sidelines for Mr. Fisher’s rhetoric against Luther. We’ll leave the issue of Fisher’s scholarship or brilliance to the side.

• David repented at Nathan’s rebuke and so did Theodosius at Ambrose’s rebuke. Ergo, so should Henry have done so.

• Harpsfield will offer three books. Boke 1—reasons for the validity of Henry’s marriage to Catherine. Boke 2—answers to the English “adversaries,” including references to letters by the King and Wolsey to English agents in Rome. Boke 3—objections to Acts of Parliaments, the divorce, and the King’s marriages to Ann Boleyn and Lady Anne of Cleve. This dates the book “after,” at a minimum the Cleve’s marriage.

• “...sheweth withal the manifold plagues that fell as well upon the king’s marriages after this divorce as upon himself and chief procurers and promoters of the said divorce and upon the whole realm…” Manifold plagues did, in fact, result.

We will see how Mr. Harpsfield later supports his "opening arguments" for the prosecution of the thesis:  the "Pretended Divorce."

Mr. (Rev. Canon) Mason: Henry VIII's Lapdog, Mr. Cranmer

Mason, Arthur James. Thomas Cranmer. London: Methuen & Co., 1898.

It is available at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-ebook/dp/B00538MELC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376431920&sr=8-1&keywords=mason+thomas+cranmer

It is available online at: http://books.google.com/books?id=s1ELAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=arthur+mason+thomas+cranmer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qa8KUomVDJP54APGy4GoBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=arthur%20mason%20thomas%20cranmer&f=false

Also, available online at: http://archive.org/details/thomascranmer00masouoft

Chapter 1: “Cranmer’s Life Until the Divorce”

Right off, the title is misnamed. It should be retitled: “Cranmer’s Life Through Multiple Intrigues, Six Wives, Divorces, Axes and All”

Or, "Cranmer, Emcee of Henry's Circus"

Or, "Cranmer, Henry's Canterburian Lapdog"

There is much good historical material here, but there are some odd points by Mr. (Rev. Canon) Arthur James Mason.  On the whole, it is good, but it has some dubious points.

Mr. Mason rightly observes that there has been “more indiscriminate praise” and “more indiscriminate censure” for Mr. Cranmer than all English ecclesiastics, with perhaps Becket and Laud excepted. Mr. Mason summarizes his view: Cranmer “steered the Church of England so well through the first perils of the Reformation” (1).

The usual bio-details are cited.

• Born in Aslockton on July 2, 1489, the sixth of seven children and the sixth in the birth order. He had two brothers and four sisters. Standard report.

• Cranmer’s father dies in 1501, is buried in Whatton Church, and whose tomb is covered with an “uncommon-looking stone” which has “an incised image of his effigy, in the costume of a gentleman of Henry VII’s reign” (4). Standard report.

• Goes to Jesus College in 1503 and graduates 1511, age 22.

• He begins the study of theology. The controversies of religion “are not only trifles but concern the chiefest articles of our salvation” (4). He “could not judge indifferently in so weighty matters without the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures” (4). Yet, Mr. Mason does a fly-over, Mach 2, and never mentions one theological locus or loci.

• Diligent and industrious note-taker.  Every one cites this point.

• Doctorate of Divinity at age 34. Yet, we would add a conflict exists with other biographers, to wit, age 37 and 1526 for the receipt of the Doctorate.  So which is it?

• According to Mr. Mason’s assertion, “There can be no doubt that the young Cranmer was personally influenced by the teaching of Erasmus” (5). This needs to be edited. It “may have been” influenced Mr. Cranmer rather than an undocumented and somewhat triumphalist “there can be no doubt.” We would add that Mr. Erasmus began his teaching in 1511, but he complained that few students attended and even fewer paid their fees. Another writer suggests that Cranmer was Erasmus’ disciple, but we await documentary evidence. Mr. Mason offers none.

• Later, however, we do learn that Cranmer did know Erasmus.   But, this is 1533 and our earlier question applies to the question of 1511-1529 in terms of his relationship to Erasmus. Mr. (Canterbury) Warham died and Cranmer becomes Canterbury. Erasmus writes, “…inasmuch as the deceased archbishop’s place and dignity has been taken by Thomas Cranmer, a professed theologian, and a most upright man of spotless life, who, without my asking him, has promised that he will not be behind his predecessor in his care and kindness toward me; and what he freely promised, he has also freely begun to perform, so that I may feel that Warham has not been taken away from me, but is born again in Cranmer” (Erasmus, Epistolae, mcclxi.). A few things are inserted here by us. First, Mr. Cranmer had digested Mr. Fisher’s diatribe against Luther in Assertionis Lutheranae Disputatio; Cranmer fumes at Mr. Luther. But this is the 1520s. Second, during the same period, Mr. Cranmer has digested Erasmus’ De Libero Arbitrio and Mr. Luther’s Bondage of the Will. Mr. Cranmer is confused about Luther and the topic. Third, when Warham died in 1532, much more water had passed under the bridge: Cranmer’s famed meeting at Waltham in 1529, a trip to Rome for several months in 1530 and a trip to Germany in 1532 for several months. So, by the time of Warham’s death, Mr. Cranmer knows much about Mr. Erasmus.

• According to Mr. Mason, Cranmer was made a Fellow of Jesus in 1510-1511. He needs more documentation here. The Fellowship is vacated after Cranmer gets married. He’s readmitted after her death within the year. Standard storyline narrative.

• Many opposed Henry’s marriage to Catherine, including Mr. (Canterbury) Warham. Mr. Mason says, “Papal dispensations had already accustomed men’s minds to seeing the laws of marriage tampered with” (10).   We have also heard about Cardinal Wolsey's "non-canonical," er, his wife and two children.  Also, of Clement VII's two wives.

• But, Mr. Mason points out other marital incongruities that may have given Mr. Tudor good hopes for a resolution. (1) In 1418, Martin VI allowed (= dispensation against canon law) John, Count of Foix, to marry the sister of his deceased wife. (2) Another dispensation was granted by the infamous Mr. (Pope) Alexander VI to Emmanuel, King of Portugal, so as to marry the sister of his first wife. (3) Ferdinand II, King of Italy, was permitted to marry his own aunt (10).

• But, oddly and helpfully, Mr. Mason claims that Misters (Popes) Alexander VI and Pius III “disallowed” Henry’s marriage to Catherine. It is odd, because few treat the involvement of these two Popes. Arthur died in 1502 unexpectedly. But, Alexander VI died in 1503 long before Henry’s marriage issue was firmed up. Pius III took office in 1503 but he died the same year as Alexander VI. Julius II (1503-1513) granted the dispensation after international negotiations between Spain, England and Rome. However, Julius II admitted “there was some doubt” as to whether he had the power to “dispense” with the clear canonical prohibition; nonetheless, he granted the dispensation. The marriage went forward. Julius II died 1513. Clement VII held the Papacy from 1523 to 1534, the period covering Henry’s great problem.

• Mr. Mason laments the lack of firm principle in the Pope. “It was Julius who lost the English Church to Rome” (11). There are times when one wonders if Mr. Mason is quasi-Tractarian, but we digress. What principle? Canon law? Biblical governance? And, this is quite the over-simplification; we expect more from the "Canon of Canterbury" and graduate of Jesus College, Cambridge.

• Mr. Mason claims “He [Henry] tired of her [Catherine].” “As early as 1524, he had ceased to treat her as a wife” (11). There are no footnotes for the claims.

• “It was too late [for Rome] to retrieve the mistake of Julius” (12).

• “But the poor bastard [Mr. Mason’s lovely and probably accurate term for the illegitimately born Pope Clement VII] who held the see of Rome was incapable of taking a firm attitude of principle” (12). Quite a term for Mr. Clement VII, the “poor bastard.” Very Victorian of him! As an old crusty Marine, we rather like it. We think we'll adopt it.  Charles V's view of Clement was none too high either, but he was willing to "wheel and deal" with the poor bastard.

• Mr. Mason gives the standard vacillations of Clement VII. Other biographers note the disordered and collusive vacillations of the “poor bastard.” First, the “poor bastard” Pope colluded with Mr. Wolsey in Henry’s favor. Second, “at another moment he promised to give Henry a dispensation” (12). Third, “at length,” a commission “was issued to Wolsey and Campeggio” for a favorable ruling for Henry. Third, but there were “months of obstruction.” Fourth, by July 1529, the commission “was revoked.” As an aside, we’ve commented elsewhere on the “double-crossing” deal reached between Emperor Charles V and the poor bastard Pope that voided anything that might turn to Henry’s favor. Henry tried; the Pope let him down; Henry re-arranged matters to his suiting.

• August 1529, the infamous meeting at Waltham between Cranmer, Edward Foxe the Provost of King’s and Stephen Gardiner the Master of Trinity. Henry will “conscript” (our word) Mr. Cranmer to his service. Standard narrative; the contrast of the quiet academic life at Cambridge (1503-1529) to the tumults of service to three royals, Henry, Edward and Mary (1529-1556).

• Old Harry directs Cranmer: “Therefore, Mr. Doctor, I pray you, and nevertheless because you are a subject, I charge and command you (all your other business and affairs set apart) to take some pains to see this cause furthered according to your device, as much as it may lie in you, so that I may shortly understand whereunto I have my trust” (15).

• Cranmer prepares “the form of a treatise” (15-16), it circulates at Cambridge, is discussed and several come over to Cranmer’s support for Henry. Both Cambridge and Oxford will debate and adjudge the issue in Henry's favor.

• Cranmer is sent off to Rome at the “end of 1529” (16). Other biographers, e.g. Pollard, put the date at the end of January 1530. The Earl of Wiltshire (father of Anne Boleyn), Mr. Stokesley (bp.-elect of London), Cranmer and a fourth man are off. Mr. Mason doesn’t mention a fourth man, but other biographers do. They arrive in Bologna. Mr. Mason asserts that they arrived in time to see the poor bastard, Clement VII, confer the “long-deferred coronation” of Emperor Charles V “at Clément’s hands.” Other biographers doubt that the English embassy arrived in time. We will leave that hanging for now.

• More duplicity in Bologna from the poor bastard. When “the Emperor’s back was turned Clement more than three times told the Bishop of Tarbes in secret he would be glad if the marriage between Henry and Anne were already made” (17). He doesn’t want the liability with Charles V. Standard narrative with this important detail about the back-channel chatter between the poor bastard and Tarbes' bishop.

• Mr. Cranmer’s response to a fellow-agent on the mission gives insight on the failure of the English mission in Henry’s behalf:

"As for our successes here, they be very little; nor dare we attempt to know any man’s mind, because of the Pope; nor is he content with what you have done; and he says, no friars shall discuss his power. And as for any favour in this Court, I look for none, but to have the Pope with all his cardinals against us. As concerning the brief, the Pope never granted us none after our device whatsoever Sir Gregory (Cassalis) hath written. Mary, this he did—he willed us to devise a brief; and if it liked him, he would ensign it. But, when it was devised, faults were found in it, and it was given to the Cardinal Sanctorum Quattor to amend; but he amended it after such fashion that is was clean marred for our purpose. Since that time we have had so many new devised and changed again; yah, and moreover, when the Pope hath granted some of our devise, the Emperor’s oratory hath much such exclamations against the Pope that all hath been changed. I never knew such inconstancy in my life. And to shew you plainly my thought, I suppose we shall never have none according to our mind, so long as the Cardinal Sanctorum Quattor, our utter adversary, beareth this authority. Notwithstanding, the Pope is contented, and I trust we shall have shortly one brief metely good after mine opinion, but not with such terms as we would have it” [emphasis add, 17-18].

• Cranmer is back in England by September 1530 “but things were past the diplomatic stage” (18).  He had been out of England for near-wise eight months or so.

• By December 1530, the King and Cromwell “laid the entire clergy under Praemunine. The “Church should be forced to acknowledge explicitly subjection to the Crown” (19). Or, the “King was substituted for the Pope as the Supreme Head of the Church of England” (20). We need to further check Mr. Mason’s dates.

• By 1532, “the Supreme Head is beginning to interfere with the liberties of the English Church in a new way” (21) when the “King forced upon Convocation the memorable Submission of the Clergy” (21). In this year, Mr. Cranmer is sent to Germany to interface with German princes and divines on the “Great Matter.”

• The Convocation of both provinces forward to Parliament their concurrence with the “Abolition of Annates,” that is, the sending of monies or “first fruits” to Rome. The Church of England supports this anti-Papal enactment. No more cash for the poor bastard Pope.

• Mr. Mason notes that Mr. Cranmer was not involved in these actions. They had happened under Mr. (Canterbury) Warham. Under Warham, “separation from Rome” was warranted if Rome “protested the Annates” prohibition (23).

• On August 23, 1532, Mr. (Canterbury) William Warham died. Henry picks Mr. Cranmer. We would add “Why?” There were other contenders who were as experienced and as supportive of Henry’s reforms. One could cite Tunstall, Stokesley, Bonner or even Gardiner? Or Lee of York? Was it a perceived pliability? A lapdog?  It has been said that old Harry was a shrewd judge of character.  Or, the reports of Mr. Cranmer’s performance while in Rome for several months or Germany for several months? It has been asserted that Mr. Cranmer got good performance reviews of his diplomatic involvements. We must leave these questions open for now.

• Mr. Mason puts forward other theories. While on the mission, Mr. Cranmer was the “most surprised” and the “least pleased” in his appointment to Canterbury. He was “probably anxious to finish his diplomacy and return to Cambridge” (24). All theory with no documentation. Mr. Cranmer had married during this German mission.

• Mr. Mason falls off the cliff with one claim in defense of Cranmer, to wit, that he never “took any vow of celibacy” (25). Ah, er, he was ordained. What world was Mr. Mason living in when he penned that? Weak. What is more likely is that Mr. Cranmer had changed his views on ministerial marriage, as had Luther. That is, he returned to the Biblical model of ministerial marriages and the practice of the early church. But, if this was in view in 1532, what else had Mr. Cranmer changed? Again, our persistent question: what did Mr. Cranmer believe, affirm or deny and when? Mr. Mason offers nothing here. In fact, at this point, Mr. offers little theological sense or reviews of Mr. Cranmer's theological posture.

• As for Mr. Cranmer’s reluctance to be seated in Canterbury, he points to the Oxford trials before his burning. Mr. Cranmer reported:

“There was never man came more unwillingly to a bishopric than I did to that. Insomuch that when King Henry did send for me in post that I should come over, I prolonged my journey by seven weeks at the least, thinking that he should be forgetful of me in the meantime” (25).

But, must one believe Mr. Cranmer here? It was known that ambassadorial service on the Continent was the ticket to bishoprics. It, inferably, was known to Mr. Cranmer that he [Cranmer] was or could have been headed to an episcopal see?  Perhaps not Canterbury, but one of the dioceses?  Was he this naïve, unassuming and disinterested in his career?  Did he not foresee or anticipate this? Are we to "airbrush possible motivations" out of the picture to defend Mr. Cranmer?   Is this not a willy-nilly assumption? And Mr. Mason is a Canon of Canterbury? Mr. Mason appears to be just a little too quick in his defense of Mr. Cranmer. What else could have Mr. Cranmer pled at his trial? “Oh, yeah, I was desiring the Bishop’s crozier! I foresaw it and desired it!” May it be remembered how Cranmer congratulated himself as well as Henry's wisdom in choosing him--a learned man--when an ignorant wag chided Cranmer, but we digress.  Mr. Cranmer chided the man, but he did offer self-congratulatory comments about his own ability. The counterclaim at Mr. Cranmer’s trial was that Henry chose him because he was pliable; we believe that has merit for what it's worth.

• Mr. Cranmer was installed as Mr. Canterbury on March 30, 1533 in St. Stephen’s Chapel at Westminster. Co-consecrators: Mr. Longland of Lincoln, Mr, Veysey of Exeter, and Mr. Standish of Asaph. By the way, a raft of bishops were supportive of Henry’s matrimonial designs—Gardiner, Stokesley, Longland, Standish and Vesey. Others, like Fisher, did not support the plan; Mr. Fisher will lose his head for that in 1535. Mr. Mason alleges that the episcopal bench was split.

• Mr. Mason makes a very powerful and potent point: in 1533, the Cranmer of 1533 “was not the Cranmer of the middle of Edward VI’s reign” (26). He was “still less was the Protestant he is often made out to be” (27). Yes? No? In between? That/this warrants continued investigation.

• Cranmer was “on the side of practical reform (like Erasmus)” and against the “Papal usurpations and practical consequences” (28), e.g. annates, investitures, etc. But, was there more? Mr. Mason does not address this and we are not confident in some of his assertions.

• Also, another good point by Mr. Mason. “No one, of course, in these days was expected to believe the Pope to be infallible” (29). Think of the Borgias, Roveres, Medicis—no one thought the “Roman Curia was always right” (29). The Concilarism of Pisa, Constance and Basel is offered, including the deposition of popes. But, this needs to be weighed too.

• Mr. Cranmer was convinced of “pernicious usurpations in government” yet Mr. Cranmer, according to Mr. Mason, still believed the “English Church had a duty towards Rome” (29). This begs for analysis, but we get none.

• Within 11 days of the consecration, Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer writes Henry to give “leave to give a final sentence” for the predetermined and foregone conclusion. Mr. Cranmer writes this:

"And forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, and your Grace, of your abundant goodness to me showed, to call me, albeit a poor wretch and much unworthy, unto this high and chargeable office of Primate and Archbishop in your Grace’s realm, wherein I beseech Almighty God to great me His grace so to use and demean myself, as may be standing with His pleasure and the discharge of my conscience, and the weal of this your Grace’s realm: and considering also the obloquy and buit, which daily doth spring and increase of the clergy of this realm, and specially the heads and presidents of the same, because they in this behalf do not foresee and provide such convenient remedies as might expel and put out of doubt all such inconveniences, perils and dangers, as the said rude and ignorant people do speak and talk to be imminent: I, your most humble orator and beadman, am, in consideration of the premises, urgently constrained at the present time most humbly to beseech your most noble Grace, that where the office and duty of the Archbishop of Canterbury, by your and your progenitors’ sufferance and grants, is to direct, order, judge and determine causes spiritual in this your Grace’s realm; and because I would be loth, and also it shall not become me, forasmuch as your Grace is my Prince and Sovereign, to enterprise any part of my office in the said weighty cause touching your Highness, without your Grace’s favour and license obtained in that behalf: it may please, therefore, your excellent Majesty (considerations had to the premises, and to my most bounden duty towards your Highness, your realm, succession, and posterity, and for the exoneration of my conscience towards Almighty God) to license me, according to my office and duty, to proceed to the examination, final determination, and judgment in the said great cause touching your Highness” [emphasis added] (32).  In other words, nullity of the marriage and Mary is a bastard.

• Secrecy and haste characterized the hearing. Cranmer feared the public reaction which favored the Queen. Mr. Cranmer was called to rule “on the unlawful decision of Pope Julius II” who should have denied the dispensation in the first place and the marriage in the second place. According to Mr. Mason, Mr. Cranmer was “pronouncing judgment upon and innocent and defenseless woman” yet Mr. Cranmer was “perfectly upright upright and conscientious in delivering such a sentence” (34). Put that in the pipe and smoke it. Mr. Mason periodically makes these rather—um, well—stupid statements. This doesn't pass Logic 101.

• Mr. Mason then opines with merit: Mary was the “victim of the political schemes of Julius, Ferdinand, and Henry VII, to afterwards be flung away by the so-called husband to whom they had married her” (36). Yet, Mr. Mason, you just opined that Mr. Cranmer was just in his proceedings. How will you have it, my good man?

• Mr. Mason proceeds to—um, er—indict Mr. Cranmer in some further matrimonial nastinesses. But, for the present, Cranmer “crowned” Ann as the Queen, a rehearsal and, really, an unreformed rehash of the old Roman practice of Popes conferring sovereignty on the Secular Princes. He probably witnessed the poor bastard (Mr. Mason's term for Clement VII) doing the same to Charles V in Bologna.

• Yet, in three years, Mr. Cranmer would be “called to Lambeth from the country” (39). Ann Boleyn will face trial for “atrocious charges” for which she was put “in the Tower” (39). We insert here that Drs. Sanders and Harpsfield, two Papal Roman Anglicans (1.0 and 4.0 Anglicans), ardent anti-Reformed and anti-Evangelical operatives in the Elizabethan period, will allege that Ann was born of an illegitimate and adulterous union between Henry and Lady Elizabeth Boleyn, married to Sir Boleyn, one of Henry’s ambassadors; this story will have a long life amongst English recusants but also on the Continent; in fact, Bishop Burnet in the next century will refute the continuing allegation that old Harry unwittingly married his own daughter, Ann Boleyn.  But Mr. Mason doesn’t touch that point; he does tell us that Mr. Cranmer was “told not to approach the King in person” (39).   Just odd. Not enough information.

• On May 3, 1536, Mr. Cranmer writes old Harry:

“I am in such perplexity that my mind is clean amazed, for I never had better opinion in woman than I had in her; which maketh me think that she should not be culpable. And again I think that your Highness would not have gone so far, except she had been surely culpable. Now I think that your Grace best knoweth, that next unto your Grace, I was most bound unto her of all creatures living. Wherefore I most humbly beseech your Grace to suffer me in that which both God’s law, nature and also her kindness, bindeth me unto; that is, that I may with our Grace’s favour wish and pray for her that she may declare herself inculpable and innocent” [emphasis added] (39-40).

• Cranmer was summoned to the Star Chamber and “informed of such things” as “Henry’s pleasure was they should make him privy to” (40).

• On May 15, 1536, Ann was found guilty “by her peers.” She was condemned to be “burned or beheaded” (40). Of note, there were laws on the books forbidding Royal adultery for fears of dynastic corruption. Never mind that old Harry had a few bastards born from other illicit unions.

• On Mary 16, 1536, Cranmer visited Ms. Anne Boleyn in the Tower.  Allegedly, to hear her last confession.

• On May 17, 1536, Henry and Anne were “cited to appear before him [Cranmer] at Lambeth to answer for certain inquiries for their souls’ health.” The court sat for two hours.

• The court, including Mr. Cranmer, claimed that Ms. Boleyn had made “most damaging admissions” yet those admissions “remained undivulged” (41). This is essentially what Lord Herbert and other biographers have noted. No one really knows what the "grounds" actually were. Cranmer would later be very enigmatic and cryptic.  So would Parliament. There were unidentified and undivulged "impediments," whatever that meant.

• Old Thomas Cranmer claimed: “…the marriage between the King and Ann had never been valid” and that “Elizabeth was illegitimate” [emphasis added] (41). What a circus! Further, other biographers note that Mr. Cranmer was found weeping uncontrollably in his gardens following the beheading. More likely, Cranmer believed her innocent, but suffered from hyper-cowardice (our view).

• She lost her head on May 19, 1536.

• Mr. Mason impales Mr. Cranmer further. “Nor was this the last occasion on which Cranmer was required to take part in the miserable business of his master’s wives.”

• In April 1540, Cranmer “set his seal to a document which pronounced yet another of the marriages invalid” (41). This would be Anne of Cleves. The grounds were twofold: (1) Harry “never inwardly consented” and (2) Ann had pre-contracted with a prince from the House of Lorraine. This doesn’t pass the most elementary smell-test. Cranmer was “owned” and “used.” A coward. He was Henry's lapdog.

• Mr. Mason cites the infamous Bishop Burnet, to wit, “Archbishop Cranmer had now not courage enough to swim against the stream” (42).

• Old Harry will marry Catherine Howard. 1.5 years later, old Cranmer will get the ugly duty of informing Harry that he [Cranmer] “had received intelligence of the gravest kind regarding the Queen’s immoral conduct before her marriage” (42). This fifth wife’s head will fall at Tower Hill like the second wife's head.  We may suppose the heads rolled literally. 

Our scorecard:

1. Lengthy 6-year process in ditching Catherine of Aragon, the Non-Breeding Mare in Henry’s stable, at least 1527 until 1533. Mary 1 was the issue, declared a bastard, then regularized later and put into dynastic succession.

 2. Ann Boleyn, loses head in 1536. Elizabeth 1 was the issue, declared a bastard, then regularized later and put into dynastic succession.

 3. Jane Seymour, 1536-1537. Died. Gave birth to Edward VI.
4. Ann of Cleves. Put out to pasture.

 5. Catherine Howard. Loses head like Ann at Tower Hill, 1542.

 6. Catherine Parr. Outlives old Harry and widowed in 1547.

We end where started.

Chapter 1: “Cranmer’s Life Until the Divorce”

Right off, the title is misnamed. It should be retitled: “Cranmer’s Life Through Multiple Intrigues, Six Wives, Divorces, Axes and All”

Or, "Cranmer, Emcee of Henry's Circus"

Or, "Cranmer, Henry's Canterburian Lapdog"

Anglican Schism: 1527, Impediments & Mr. (Cardinal) Thomas Wolsey

Sanders, Nicholas. The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism. Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 1988. http://www.amazon.com/Growth-Anglican-Schism-Sander-Nicholas/dp/1313512990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375824956&sr=8-1&keywords=nicholas+sanders+rise+and+growth+of+the+anglican+schism

(1) Cranmer's busy digesting Fisher's volume on Luther in the 1520s. (2) Cranmer has a minor diplomatic trip to Spain in summary 1527, as Charles V is bottling up the Pope in his Castle in Rome. Upon Cranmer's return, he may have met Henry in London briefly, but the Cambridge don returns home. (3) Meanwhile, the "great divorce" question roils. (4) Below, we get new vistas of another "player," that old Cardinal of York, Thomas Wolsey. Old Wolsey will fall on Henry's sword later. (5) We're still reviewing the 160-page intro by Mr. Lewis (1877) to Mr. (Rev.) Sander's 350-pages (1585). The volume at hand is over 500 pages. So, what follows is the intro to Sander's Papal Roman (version 1.0) Anglican attack on the "Anglican Schism." Here we go again...with notes and musings.

On Mr. Lewis' strong insinuation, a “secret impediment” was allegedly learned by Sir Thomas More, to wit, that Henry VIII had "relations" with Lady Elizabeth Boleyn and her eldest daughter, Mary Boleyn. As a result of the illicit affair with the mother, a daughter was born:  Anne Boleyn.  Ergo, Ms. Ann Boleyn is Henry’s “secret love child” by Lady Elizabeth Boleyn. If all this is true, Mr. Tudor has cuckholded his chief diplomat off on a French mission, Sir Boleyn, by having his wife and his eldest daughter.  And then, old Harry commits incest with his [Henry's] daughter, the offspring of his liaison with Lady Elizabeth. This is Mr. Lewis' take, big-time "Sex in the City" of London.

By 1533, Mr. Cranmer is styling himself “Legate of the Apostolic See.”

Mr. Cranmer “pronounced the marriage of Henry and Catherine a nullity” and “five days later, pronounced the marriage of Henry and Anne Boleyn, contracted before the divorce, to be lawful and good” (xxxvii). It's hard to infer otherwise than that Mr. Canterbury is in Henry's bag, "owned and kept." A lackey and time-server.

By 1536, Cranmer is “in the palace of Lambeth, May 17” and decrees/says that Henry’s and Ms. Boleyn’s marriage “was and always had been a nullity” (xxxviii).  

Mr. Cranmer cryptically, enigmatically, and darkly [our terms] claims this [the newly discovered nullity] was due to “true, just, and lawful reasons lately brought to his knowledge” (xxxviii). What the heck does that mean? "...lately brought to his knowledge?" Tell us, Mr. Canterbury. What does that mean? Mr. Lewis's argument is incest.

Even Lord Herbert, another weighty and scholarly voice in the larger discussion, says:

"The causes [of the dissolution of Anne’s marriage] being not yet set down otherwise than they were declared, just, true and lawful impediments of marriage: I know not how to satisfy the reader therein." 

He's confused. So are we. Mr. Lewis is not.

Cranner had seen Ms. Boleyn in the Tower on May 16, 1536. He issued his claim at Lambeth on May 17, 1536, allegedly without any trial.

Parliament, the Lord and Commons, "broke the silence" along with the king in statute 28 Henry VIII c.7, but no further details emerged other than to rearrange projections for any future dynastic issue [issue = "offspring;" ergo, Mary and  Elizabeth are now bastards and not in dynastic succession]. 

Here's the Parliament's equally obscure comment on the newly found impediment for old Harry's marriage to Anne:

"Albeit, most dread sovereign lord [sic], that the said acts were then made, as it was then thought by your majesty’s nobles and commons, upon a pure, perfect, and clean foundation, thinking the said marriage then had between your highness and the said lady Anne in their consciences to have been pure, sincere, perfect, and good and so was reputed, accepted, and taken in the realm till now of late that God of His infinite goodness, from whom no secret things can be hid, hath cause to be of certain, just, true, and lawful impediments, unknown at the making of the said acts, and sithen that time confessed by the said lady Anne before the most reverend father in God, Thomas archbishop of Canterbury, metropolitan and primate of all England, sitting judicially for the same, by the which plainly appeareth that the said marriage between your grace and the said lady Anne was never good nor consonant to the laws, but utterly void and of none effect” (emphasis added, xli).

There there. That’s that. Bye, bye Anne. But, what was that--what Parliament or Cranmer said--all about?

Mr. Lewis, in this prologue to Mr. Sanders, tells us that “everyone,” including Henry’s ministers, “kept silent” about this alleged impediment.

A new angle, at least for us, is developed.

That is, Cardinal Wolsey’s end-game for—essentially—the Papacy. If not in Europe more widely, then at least in England. From Mr. Lewis' angle, we get a picture of a scheming Prelate. Hear! Hear, Sir Machiavelli! (One needs to constantly update the "scorecard" in these games.)

“The divorce of Henry VIII has always been regarded as the work of Cardinal Wolsey” (xlvii). The King’s Confessor, Mr. (bp.) Longland, may have--early on--broached the subject of the nullity of Henry’s relationship to Catherine. Shakespeare knew of this report. Shakespeare wrote of it in his Henry VIII. Aside from Mr. (bp.) Longland's name, Mr. Lewis throws additional names into the line-up backing the report that it was Wolsey’s gig and game: William Tyndale, William Roye (early Protestant), the Queen herself, and Emperor Charles V all pinned the issue on Wolsey, the ambitious Cardinal of York.

We interrupt again. It is interesting to see two early Protestants brought into the discussion:  Tyndale and Roye. Also, that the Queen herself sees Wolsey's fingerprints all over this.  But where is Mr. (Canterbury) Warham? In these early years, especially 1527, what does Mr. Cranmer know about the "King's great matter?" Of course, by 1529, the game changes for Mr. Cranmer.

In the 1520s, we hear much about Wolsey, but little of Canterbury. We insert this. Where was Mr. (Canterbury) Warham? A story needing exposition, we would add, but we return to Wolsey’s alleged shenanigans as reported by Mr. Lewis.

Wolsey, on Mr. Lewis’ view, was/did:

• The “tempter” to Henry.

• “…advised the King to put away his lawful wife…”

• Convened ex officio proceedings in May 1527, in his own house, to annul Henry’s marriage due to the “impediment.”

• (In the meanwhile, Charles V sacks Rome and Clement VII is bottled up in his Castile d’ San Angelo, about a 1000 yards east of St. Peter’s…a “cry of indignation” goes up about a “Catholic Emperor” over “the shepherd who was struck.”)

• On July 1527: “It is reported that the Cardinal of York has arrived at Calais, and was the meet the most Christian king at Amiens. The imperial councilors of Valladolid say in secret that the Cardinal intends to separate the Church of England and of France from that of Rome, making himself the head of it, saying that as the Pope is not at liberty, he is not to be obeyed in any way; and that even were the emperor to release him, he could not be considered free, unless all his fortresses and the whole of his territory, now in the emperor’s hands, were restored to him. I cannot affirm whether this is true or is reported with a view to alienate the Pope from the two kings” (Andrea Navagero, Venetian Ambassador in Spain. Brown, Rawdon. Venetian Calendar of State Papers, iv., 142). We insert here that Concilarism, Gallican independency, and the Papal split in Avignon Papacy were never afar off. Disrespect to Popes was not new. Even Charles V said that the Pope was experiencing the "just judgment of God" and that "lands and fiefdoms" were the source of Papal woes. Old Wolsey was eyeing, perhaps, bigger prizes of land, wealth and power. It is suggested by other biographers that Henry VIII tired of Wolsey's lust for power, but remained attached to the far-less scheming Cranmer.

• On July 3, 1527, Wolsey is at Calais signing three treaties with the French king (hold your sides on this one, this power-grab by old Wolsey).  Here's the upshot:

“…no Bull or Brief of the Pope should be received in France and England during the Captivity of the Pope. That during said Captivity of the Pope, whatsoever by the Cardinal of York [Wolsey] assisted by the prelates of England assembled and called together by the authority of the said king, should be determined concerning the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, in the said kingdom of England and other countries, being in the dominion of the said Henry, should—the consent of the said king being first had—be decreed and observed” (liii).

• A letter on July 29, 1527 from Wolsey to Henry, to wit, that he [Wolsey] has “daily and hourly musings on the great and secret affair…that it may come to good effect and the desired end.” Just on this letter alone, Henry had "predetermined" or pre-decided things before 1527. Old Cranmer will get called into service in 1529 and will issue Canterbury's decree of nullity in 1533. Ergo, this issue is at least in the cooker for 7 years.

• Francis 1 of France followed Cardinal Wolsey in the matter, that is, no bull or Brief will have force in France while the Pope is in Captivity.  There there, Mr. Pope.

• Wolsey asked/wrote the Pope asking if he [Wolsey] could be appointed the Vicar-General “so long as the Captivity lasted…”

• Mr. Lewis calls it “…an attempted usurpation of the Papal jurisdiction.”

• “Here certainly began the taste of our king took of governing in chief the clergy…first arguments and impressions were derived from the Cardinal” (liii).

• 4 other Cardinals join Wolsey in the plot according to a letter by Wolsey and the 4 Cardinals to the Pope. Date: September 16, 1527. Mr. Lewis summarizes it: “…the whole authority [of the Pope] was put into the keeping of him [Cardinal Wolsey]. Omnem potestatis et ordinarriae et extraordinariae plenitudinem. This is a bald and raw power-grab.

• The above letter also required that the Pope could “never undo any acts of the Cardinal as long as” he was a prisoner.

• According to Mr. Lewis, Wolsey had “contempt of justice,” “deep-rooted immorality,” “want of reverence for holy things,” and a “meanness of mind” (liv).

• Wolsey kept Henry in the loop that he was “deterring any appeal to Rome for his [Wolsey’s anticipated] sentence.”  Henry had good reasons for success.

• Wolsey was “insolent to the Pope” and “contemptuous of the Cardinals, his brethren.”

Time for a shower.

9 Aug 1529: Hosing Over Henry VIII? Cranmer's Gets a New Job

Let's hose over the Tudor despot, Henry VIII, shall we?  Let's double-cross him. 

That is exactly what Pope Clement VII did to Henry VIII. That is a story with extra chapters. A ballgame with extra innings. England's history will change forever, religiously.  So will Western civilization...in time.

That will draw the unsuspecting Cranmer right into the thickening plot. As indicated earlier, our sympathies are with Catherine and Mary in terms of Biblical family law.  Henry was lawfully married to Catherine of Aragon, end of story.  Ah, but not so fast.

We return to the wonderful volume by Mr. Pollard.  It's recommended.

Pollard, Albert Frederick. Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906.

We pick up where we left off.   You may want to play Beethoven's "Funeral Dirge" as you read this.  Henry is not going to be amused by the Papal intrigues and double-dealing.  In the future, heads will roll.  If inclined, here's Beethoven. 




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmm2k4fRUO4

There was a sense of “injustice to Catherine” that Henry’s actions were “flagrant and unredeemed.”

Henry’s marriage to Catherine: June 11, 1509. It lasted until May 23, 1533. 23 years, 11 months, 19 days. Annulled?

We call it the “divorce that never was.”   So does the Elizabethan Romanist writer, Nicholas Harpsfield.  On his view (and our's) Ann Boleyn and the others were adulteresses and Henry a serial adulterer with a hardened heart.

That makes Elizabeth a “bastard” out and out in the legal sense of it: English common law. North Carolina still calls them "bastardy hearings" for paternity suits.

A “bastard” ruled England from 1559-1603. And out of this mess came a Reformation?  What are we to make of Mr. Cranmer in all of this?  That decision is pending.

Henry had good reason for hopes in his direction. But, watch how he gets "hosed over."  Here we go.

"Dispensations" had been given in other circumstances; it had been given in the first place; technically and assuming canonical authority, Harry should never have been married in 1509, but a “dispensation” had been granted. On the basis of canon law, he was not allowed to marry.   But oh, that was "disposed of" by a "dispensation."

24 years after the first dispensation and if Clement granted the “denial” of the “original” Papal dispensation from canon law, or a revocation of the first one, then the marriage would have been “null and void” from the beginning.  Presto, fixed.

Never mind the 24 years of marriage to Mary and their 5 stillborn infants with 1 survivor, Mary…all these were immaculately conceived of course.

But, willy nilly, Henry had reason for hope. Watch the Papal tap dances to other tunes in other keys at other times.

His younger sister, Mary Tudor, was twice married to two chaps: Louis XII of France and the Duke of Suffolk.

Drink this in slowly: both of Henry's brothers-in-law got convenient “divorces” from their earlier wives so they could, by turns, marry Mary Tudor.

This is better than the HBO show: “Sex in the City.” Or, "Housewives of Orange County."   No wonder Shakespeare wrote Henry VIII.  Ya' need a scorecard though.

Louis XII sent his first wife to a nunnery because he wanted to marry the Duchess of Brittany. That was before upping the ante and marrying Mary Tudor...and needing a dispensation for that.  So, with all this Papal ease of dispensing “this and that,” what’s the big deal? A little give-and-take here from the Pope. Henry was hopeful.

Mary Tudor's second husband, the Duke of Suffolk, was similarly successful on the precisely the same ground as Henry was claiming. He obtained a “retraction” of a “previous dispensation” making his old marriage “null” so he could marry Mary Tudor. Hah!?! What’s to worry about old Catherine of Aragon (Pollard, 35)?

Old Henry thought putting the Non-breeding Mare in the stable would be easy.

Even this...Pope Clement thought Henry’s request was “reasonable.” He--Clement VII-even put his willingness “in writing”—that is, to "retract" the "initial dispensation."

Henry is aware of Clement's favorable disposition towards him.

 All looked pretty good for Mr. Henry VIII.  "What's to worry, old boy?"

Now, the plot thickens. Watch the timeline.

Pope Clement VII

Pollard puts it this way. The Pope was in the “grip of the Imperialists who had pillaged his capital and kept him in ignominious confinement in the caste of S. Angelo” (Pollard, 36). We put some photos at the bottom (I've had the chance to visit here several times, but never took photos).

That old Spanish Emperor, Charles V, had no compunction about “shutting” him in either.  Charles said that this was "God's judgment" on Clement. Charles told Clement VII that this was the “just judgment of God” and that he “should forfeit his fiefs as the root of all evil” (Pollard, 28). He invaded Italy and the Pope was bottled up and shut in at the Castle of S. Angelo. (Tour guides quickly show one his quarters.) Clement hoped for French deliverance. Ultimately, the French marched on Naples and defeated and boxed the Spanish in the south.

In the meanwhile, Clement VII had authorized Cardinals Wolsey and Campeggio to travel to England and “try the case.” Their decision, on his word of promise, would be final. There would be no appeal. In essence, this was tantamount to a favorable verdict for Henry. Clement was also hoping Henry VIII would reinforce French efforts at restraining the Spanish aggression.

But and this is a big “BUT.” But, the war changed everything. The French pulled out. Henry wasn't going to get involved. Charles V regained his pre-dominance and pre-eminence. Clement feared a repeat of his earlier situation. Clement was set to write the instructions “granting Henry’s divorce” but his closest advisors said “this would mean the utter ruin of the Church as it is entirely within the power of the Emperor’s servants.” Crossing Charles V and the Romano-Germanic Imperialists could have other ugly consequences.

Clement awaited the outcome of the Spanish-French conflict in the Italian theatre of operations. A decisive battle for Charles V came about on 21 June 1529. That spelled doom for old Henry, but what did he know?

Clement “got religion.” He stated that he would become “an Imperialist” and “would live and die as such” (Pollard, 37).

Clement VII reversed himself. A quid pro quo was available. A deal was at hand. Can anyone spell Machiavelli?

Clement VII gave assurances to Charles V regarding his aunt, Catherine of Aragon.

Watch the timeline.

21 Jun 1529 above.

By early July 1529, a concordat was drawn up between Clement VII and Charles V and ratified. Henry who? Forget him.

Here was the quid pro quo: Clement VII’s nephew and the bastard daughter of Charles V would marry, assume residency and command in Florence, and “all towns wrested from the Papal estates were to be restored” to Clement VII” (Pollard, 38).

It was a land grab, taxes, and more. Again, Machiavelli would approve.

But, Charles V required that Clement VII “quash the proceedings against Catherine of Aragon.” Hahaha!

Old Henry was thrown under the bus by the Spanish Emperor and the Pope. But, he was none the wiser and was "entirely unaware" of the backroom deal.

Again, watch the timeline.

By 23 July 1529, the Cardinals—Wolsey and Campeggio—arrive in England. Henry is expecting a favorable verdict. But, the Cardinals had the backstory. The courtly crowd showed up for the hearings that were allegedly predetermined in Henry’s favor. All were expectant.

Instead of the hearings and proceedings, Cardinal Campeggio curtly declared a "dismissal" to everyone’s surprise. That's that.

Old Harry held his temper. However, Suffolk pounded the table with his fist and shouted, “By the Mass, now I see that the old saw is true, that there never was a legate or cardinal that did good in England.”

Fury and furor became thematic for Henry’s supporters.

By the way, old Cranmer was not an insider to all this...insofar as we can see.  That is, he was not a bishop, archbishop or courtier.  He was a Cambridge don.

However, he’ll get recruited in a "happenstance meal" at Waltham on 9 Aug 1529—“it just sorta” happened, but we are getting ahead of ourselves. (Waltham is about 15 miles NNE of London, a day's ride by horse.)

Old Henry heads off for his “progress,” or, “tour.” He spends time in and around Waltham Abbey and city. He knows he's been double-crossed.  We may infer that Mr. Harry was not pleased. 

Henry’s fellow-travellers, Dr. Edward Fox and Stephen Gardiner, are in Waltham with him and the entourage.

These two are Cambridge men.  They know Cranmer. They all go back to Cambridge days. Fox was from King’s College and Gardiner was the Master of Trinity Hall. They were old friends with Mr. Cranmer. They had dinner together in Waltham.

Henry’s situation was discussed at the “fateful meeting.” Chance or fate?  God or chance?  We are Calvinists. God was in the middle of the chaos, disorder, wickedness, sin, consultations, deliberations and more.  But, we do marvel that "some good" would ultimately comes from the national meltdown.

What did Cranmer know? He was just attempting to stay away from congested areas, e.g. London, where an illness had taken ground.

The upshot of Cranmer’s input. “Look, I’m not a canon lawyer.” As a graduate of Jesus College, Cambridge, only theology was allowed as a subject for study and canon law was forbidden—Jesus College, for some reason, was prejudiced against canon law; these prohibitions were written into the statutes at the founding of Jesus College in 1497ish. No canon law, just theological studies.

Cranmer had been at Jesus College since 1503. This was 1529.   He had been a student, Cambridge don, Doctor of Divinity and Fellow for near-wise 26 years.  He was an academic...a studious one.  Cranmer was 40 years old at this point.

Cranmer had “little patience with the law’s delays” (Pollard, 40). He recommended that the issue be remanded to the theologians on the Continent and taken entirely out of the hands of the ecclesiastical canon lawyers. Also, notably, this was a “back-handed whack” from Cranmer and by Cranmer to, at and upon the Cardinals' and the Pope's heads.  Whatever Mr. Cranmer's tone, voice and approach, it was an "upside-the-head-whack!"

Whether Cranmer intended that "upside-the-head" whack is not known. Whether intended or not, that was the effect. Clement and the Cardinals? In essence, "Too bad, let the theologians decide it, not them. What authority do they have in the matter?"

We know that Cranmer had been privately praying for the cessation of Papal regnancy over England since 1525, but, at this point, we are not sure if that is theologically based. The jury is out.

But, Cranmer's quiet days at Cambridge are about to end. Cranmer would soon get new responsibilities.  Poor chap.  And he could have had the "quiet" life of scholarship, reading, leisurely strolls, books, and collaboration with fellow dons.  That's over.

As an aside, notably, Conciliarism (authority of Councils) versus Papal infallibility roiled in the background; several Councils had battled the issue following the disastrous Papal split and the Avignon Papacy. But, that is another important subject for another time. Independence, if not anarchy, was in the air.

Fox and Gardiner informed Henry of the discussion. Allegedly, Henry is reported to have said of Cranmer, "He has the sow by the right ear..."  Henry ordered Cranmer to Greenwich.  We will have to defer that story to a later time.

The plot thickened. Henry was “hosed over” in a backroom deal between Clement VII and Charles V. Theology and morals to the side. This was a land deal, towns, taxes, governance, nepotism, and a wedding. A quid pro quo. 

The Pope got what he wanted. Charles V got what he wanted. Henry got nothing.  And he was sore and he was determined.

Soon enough, Henry will turn the Church of England from Papal Romanism (Anglicanism 1.0 in the 16th century) to Non-Papal Romanism (Anglicanism 2.0, orthodox Roman doctrine, but without the Pope, like Tractarians, Anglo-Catholics and some modern ACNA bishops today like Misters Iker, Ackerman and Sutton to name a few).

The Church of England will become a national, autonomous and autocephalous Church...retaining all the traditional Roman doctrines while throwing off Papal sovereignty.

Castle S. Angelo, just up the street from St. Peter's

   

Henry VIII, Shakespeare, Longland, Catherine, & Divorce

Henry VIII, c. 1520
Eleven years into the
marriage
with Catherine of Aragon

Pollard, Albert Frederick. Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906.
 

Henry’s first marriage to Catherine of Aragon was canonically forbidden, for better or worse, according to Mr. Pollard.  
 

Mr. (pope) Julius 11 was unsure in 1503 whether he could grant a dispensation.  In context, "conciliarism" versus "papal superiority to councils" was still at bar, a matter that was forever settled by Vatican 1, 1870.  But, in 1503, Mr. Julius 11 was uncertain about his own authority.

Catherine’s Confessor was reportedly removed for insinuating the impediment.[1] Mr. Pollard offers us this wonderful source. 

Cardinal Warham also shared this view of the canonical impediment.   

Mr. Pollard says “extraordinary fatalities” resulted.  Four children were still born or died shortly after birth.

The lack of heirs was bothering Henry.[2]  Henry was not immune to superstition, to wit, that perhaps God was judging him and Catherine.

Allegedly, Mr. Longland, later bishop of Lincoln, and Henry’s Confessor held that the impediment existed. 

Shakespeare puts the suggestion in Longland’s court in Henry VIII, Act 11, scene 4, to wit[3]:

KING HENRY VIII:  

My lord cardinal,
I do excuse you; yea, upon mine honour,
I free you from't. You are not to be taught
That you have many enemies, that know not
Why they are so, but, like to village-curs,
Bark when their fellows do: by some of these
The queen is put in anger. You're excused:
But will you be more justified? You ever
Have wish'd the sleeping of this business; never desired
It to be stirr'd; but oft have hinder'd, oft,
The passages made toward it: on my honour,
I speak my good lord cardinal to this point,
And thus far clear him. Now, what moved me to't,
I will be bold with time and your attention:
Then mark the inducement. Thus it came; give heed to't:
My conscience first received a tenderness,
Scruple, and prick, on certain speeches utter'd
By the Bishop of Bayonne, then French ambassador;
Who had been hither sent on the debating
A marriage 'twixt the Duke of Orleans and
Our daughter Mary: i' the progress of this business,
Ere a determinate resolution, he,
I mean the bishop, did require a respite;
Wherein he might the king his lord advertise
Whether our daughter were legitimate,
Respecting this our marriage with the dowager,
Sometimes our brother's wife. This respite shook
The bosom of my conscience, enter'd me,
Yea, with a splitting power, and made to tremble
The region of my breast; which forced such way,
That many mazed considerings did throng
And press'd in with this caution. First, methought
I stood not in the smile of heaven; who had
Commanded nature, that my lady's womb,
If it conceived a male child by me, should
Do no more offices of life to't than
The grave does to the dead; for her male issue
Or died where they were made, or shortly after
This world had air'd them: hence I took a thought,
This was a judgment on me; that my kingdom,
Well worthy the best heir o' the world, should not
Be gladded in't by me: then follows, that
I weigh'd the danger which my realms stood in
By this my issue's fail; and that gave to me
Many a groaning throe. Thus hulling in
The wild sea of my conscience, I did steer
Toward this remedy, whereupon we are
Now present here together: that's to say,
I meant to rectify my conscience,--which
I then did feel full sick, and yet not well,--
By all the reverend fathers of the land
And doctors learn'd: first I began in private
With you, my Lord of Lincoln; you remember
How under my oppression I did reek,
When I first moved you. [emphasis added]

 

However the marriage or non-marriage began, some hope revived with the successful birth of Mary in 1516.  However, it was a "male heir" that he desired. 

But, more miscarriages occurred.  We may surmise that the issue of conscience continued.

 

Another serious complication was the issue of “female” royals.  Mary Beaufort was a Lancastrian heir, but her son, Henry VII, took the throne in 1485. 

 

As an aside, it was Mary Beaufort who would found and fund the "Lady Margaret Professorship of Divinity" at Cambridge. But back on point.

 

Aside from the many miscarriages and the potential female for the throne, there were geo-political concerns.

There was the fear of absorption by way of marriage. In later history, that fear would be more fully realized when Mary would marry Philip of Spain...and the "Marian persecutions" would ensue. By way for female royals in marriage, Brittany lost its independence.  The Netherlands were tethered to Spain...and that too would have long innings for the Dutch Reformed later in the century.  Bohemia and Hungary were absorbed by Austria. Henry's councilors were aware of these issues.

 

Divorce was one solution.  Clement VII simply counseled taking a second wife.  The Pope had done that with the King of Castile—he took a second wife due to the sterility of the first wife.  Henry had precedents and hopes for an early and favorable answer from the Pope.

Henry’s marriage Catherine:  June 11, 1509 to May 23, 1533.  23 years, 11 months, 19 days.  Annulled?  We call it the “divorce that never was.”

 

The story of Cranmer will get mixed up in the mess…torn from scholarly inquiries to canonico-politico ones.

---

[1] Pollard, ibid., 29.  Contains a footnote from the Calendar, Spanish Papers, ii.8 to this effect.

[2] Pollard, ibid., 29. Cites Calendar of Venetian State Papers, 1509-1519, 479.

[3] Shakespeare, William. The History of Henry VIII. Open Source Shakespeare.  http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=henry8&Scope=entire&pleasewait=1&msg=pl accessed July 23, 2013.