Tudors Dynasty Podcast: Katherine of Aragon - Did They or Didn't They?

[@melenatorr]

To be technical, Arthur's boasts are not contemporary recordings; they are from the time of The Great Matter, and so should be considered by us as hearsay and possibly coerced by Henry. In addition, Catherine announced at the Legatine Court, before Wolsey and Papal representative, that she was intact when she married Henry, and left it to him to deny it if he could. Which he did not.

[@8698gil]

I always found it strange that even though Katherine was betrothed in marriage to Arthur from the time she was a small child, she never learned English. Even though her parents knew she would be spending her life in an English speaking country, they never hired tutors to teach her English. She was taught several other languages, but not English, the one language she would need the most.

[@carolinesalv]

He should NOT marry his brother's wife while his brother is still ALIVE! That is what is meant. So yes Henry did interpret it to suit himself.

[@hayley8715]

Most things in the bible are open to interpretation to suit ones own situation. It is a guide, but mankind as it often is, will subjectively pick & choose when they wish to take literal teachings from it. The Bible today is much altered because of powers bestowed upon men considered better than other men, who used it as a method of control.

[@tiffanysamuels279]

I'm team it doesn't matter because he had sex with this women for almost 20 years. If he truly believed this than he wouldn't even thought about marrying her. His religious beliefs didn't matter when he loved her and needed the Spanish aid but when Anne came along it's a problem? Even if it did happened it doesn't matter because that one encounter doesn't outweigh 20 years worth of sex.

[@hayley8715]

It seems that for Henry VIII (& probably the same for Kings & Queens b4 & after) what is 'right' is what suits best in any given moment!! This is similar to religion....people find something that suits want they want as often opposing 'teachings' are in religious texts or people translate things to suit themselves! Also re Catholic Priests having to keep confessions confidential....well there are many other things they are supposed "to do" or "not do" but they break some of these!?

[@kathycortez232]

Right

[@badmanshakif6216]

@JC Baldivino 2018?

[@badmanshakif6216]

@JC Baldivino It's ok and on another note there's still a chance they still could have had sex it's probably just that catherine was getting older at the time and wasn't able to give birth to any children anymore

[@beth7935]

@@badmanshakif6216 Yeah, I'm not aware of any evidence that they'd "separated" by 1518 & didn't have sex any more, but I could be wrong. The OP's point still stands tho- 20 years of marriage & at least 10 years of sex, with 6 pregnancies; & no religious concern or "guilt" on Henry's part til Catherine was past menopause & he fell for Anne. Not buying it!

[@christinedarrock8486]

I don't think that Katherine and Arthur's marriage was consummated. Henry did not argue with her when she confronted him, challenging him to say that she was not a virgin on their wedding night. I would love to be able to look into a crystal ball to see what would have happened if one of Katherine and Henry's sons had survived. I don't think they ever would have divorced, for they were fond of each other.

[@NCKrypotonite33]

I agree. Had she not been a virgin , he would have definitely used that in the divorce proceedings. Especially as desperate as he was to divorce her for Ann.

[@reneenayfabnaynay5679]

Christine Darrock, I'm certain if Katherine would've had a son that lived, divorce would've never even entered Henrys mind. Just as I'm certain if Anne hadn't have miscarried, and given birth to a son that lived, she'd have never been beheaded. There would've only been two wives. Unless Anne died young naturally. Like in child birth or something. Then, there may have been more than two, but I doubt six! Same with Jane. Lol! If she hadn't have died after Edwards birth, Henry would've never divorced her. Hindsight is always 20/20. Lol.

[@2Amethyst2]

I believe her completely. They didn't. They most definitely didn't consummate their marriage. Henry knew it too. He just needed an excuse because she couldn't have any more sons. If he truly believed it, he would have brought it up before. He was well aware of that phrase in the leviticus, and he even said that he'd been aware it before. And yet when he was in love with Catherine, he ignored that phrase, but when she reached the age where he was sure she couldn't have any more sons, he conveniently brought it up. Just like how he conveniently brought up the supposed pre-contract with Henry Percy and his affair with Mary Boleyn when he was done with anne and wanted to get rid of her. He was well aware of those things before, yet he only brought them up when he was done with her

[@shayfay00]

There is no contradiction with the scripture a married woman and a widow are biblically two different things. Its not a sin for a widow to marry someone else.

[@NecaBear]

Pobrecita la princessa Catalina. She went through so much crap to fulfill her "destiny" just to be disgraced by her husband, her daughter taken away from her, her title taken away. So much crap just to live out a life in a convent or something. She doesn't get enough credit.

[@susanmorgan8833]

Am I the only one who wonders why Henry couldn't tell the difference after they were married? He certainly did not make a point of stating one way or the other, but it's understandable that it could have been rather embarrassing for him to admit he could not tell the difference. Katherine left the question 'to his conscience', and he remained silent. As to whether Katherine would have lied, she did know her duty to God, but she also knew what was expected of her as a daughter of Spain. So would she have lied? I think there's a chance she would have.

[@TudorsDynasty]

We found out in a much later episode with Heather R Darsie on KoA that before she married Henry there was a papal dispensation given, meaning that her slate was essentially wiped clean of anything happened with Arthur - she could confidently say that it was not consummated because the dispensation erased the actual event. I think that interesting theory definitely supports my argument that they did. 🤗

[@samanthafordyce5795]

I've not read the text of the dispensation for Katherine to marry Henry, but I have read about it. Apparently, the dispensation said they could marry EVEN IF the marriage to Arthur had been consummated. I don't have the citation on the top of my head, but I do recall reading that in more than one source.

[@TudorsDynasty]

Indeed! In a later episode on KoA with Heather Darsie she makes mention of this. Thank you so much for leaving your comment here!

[@51Saffron]

I think they did, teenagers, hormones, regardless of what century it happens. She believed in her position as Queen and it was her destiny. Being a Catholic there is no problem lying, she had lied before, and all she had to do was ask for forgiveness. She was vulnerable, and the property of her husband, she would of done anything, and she tried to, to hold on to her position. She was often praying for something or the other. I can't imagine how frightened she must of been and the feeling of betrayal. I don't hold that she was a saintly woman who had no human faults, but was a the best Queen she could be.

[@mellotronage7073]

I became so entranced with Katherine's young face during your reading, I was actually waiting for her to look up & smile. That was different....🤔

[@bazinga9473]

I know I'm a nerd for this, but I have that portrait on a keychain attached to my keys. So many people have asked if it is a picture of me - we do favor each other - but no, I just love Katherine!

[@beth7935]

@@bazinga9473 Best keychain ever! And huzzah for history nerds! ;)

[@bazinga9473]

@@beth7935 📜🤓👍

[@Spewgo]

named my cat after catherine of aragon

[@beth7935]

In a way, it's immaterial: Catherine & Henry VIII got a dispensation from the Pope to marry despite being in-laws. End of. But not "end of", of course! I'm 100% stuck: Catherine's genuine piety vs. the importance of consummation, especially of a royal marriage. For some young couples it was put off, but they weren't kept apart; they went to Ludlow together. And I'd say Henry VII was as keen to secure his dynasty as his son later was, hence marrying Arthur off so young- & Catherine was going to come to England even earlier than she did, so I can't imagine Henry wanting them to waste any more time! But that only meant Catherine & Arthur spent time in bed together & were MEANT to consummate their marriage; it doesn't mean they did. I don't put any weight on Arthur being "sickly" tho- AFAIK there's no evidence for that, so I think it's cos he died young from illness, & people have back-edited his life to "He was always sickly", just like with Edward VI. In the end tho, if forced to guess, Catherine's genuine piety & honesty vs. Henry's lack thereof tips the balance, especially as Henry didn't contradict her when she challenged him in court. That speech...!

[@lisastone8695]

She should not have felt guilty.

[@stevemcgill2278]

I believe they did have sex, maybe not regular, but Arthur despite his illness understood “duty” as did Katherine . Katherine was capable of lying to protect her interests, example, constant prayer for forgiveness, forgiveness for lying to Henry?. Having deep piety doesn’t make you perfect, and Katherine after Arthur’s death would have been left in deep limbo, and when Henry came along she grabbed the chance to marry him, deny sex with Arthur, pay for it in penance after, the alternative would be spinsterhood. One more thing, Arthur couldn’t of been that ill on his wedding day, would it not of been postponed? Especially all that knew what was expected of him.

[@Toltecgrl]

Thank you! This is well done. I feel like I am there and can visualize everything.

[@virginiamitchell42]

People need to understand three things in order to fully understand this situation... First, regardless of if the marriage of Katherine and Arthur was or was not consummated, Katherine was Henry's true wife for a time. Deut. says a man has a responsibility to marry his brother's WIDOW. It was undeniable that Arthur was dead, therefore, Katherine was Arthur's widow and Henry had a responsibility to marry her. Leviticus says that a man should not lay with his brother's WIFE, meaning if his brother was still ALIVE. Arthur was obviously NOT alive, so this passage is not valid in the situation. Now, IF the marriage of Arthur and Katherine was never consummated, then they were not married in the eyes of GOD, and Katherine was free to marry whoever it was deemed for her to marry, including Henry. Secondly, the Bible also says that a marriage between a man and his wife could be dissolved under several conditions, one of which is adultery. Once Henry had taken his first mistress after the marriage, his marriage to Katherine was void in the eyes of God. If God was the only important factor here, then Katherine was no longer Henry's wife after he committed adultery. Third, according to the Bible, unless Henry and Katherine never remarried each other, then they weren't married at the time of his marriage to Anne Boleyn, however, under English law, Katherine's rights as Queen of England could not be undermined by Henry as she was anointed by Cardinal Wolsey, who was supposed to be God's representative on the Pope's authority. Under the laws of God and the Bible at the time, only death or the Pope could remove the rights of an anointed Queen, which is something that several Kings overlooked.

[@lisastone8695]

I love the Tudors. Everything

[@andystaxes9811]

Whether they did or didn't doesn't matter. Henry, although concerned about having a male heir, was not so distraught about all the unfortunate miscarriages until Anne Boleyn came along. And he simply wasn't able to outsmart the Pope as the Church had already addressed his lame claims of concerns about an alleged 'incestuous' marriage.

[@bazinga9473]

Yessssss. Couldn't agree more. He couldn't care less until he needed a reason to get out of his marriage. And the pope had already granted the dispensation.

[@samanthafordyce5795]

Henry's view was that the issue was so fundamental to God's law that there was no way the pope could dispense him, despite the pope's having done so. Henry refused to accept the pope's ruling on that, and that's why he declared himself head of the church in England. There was apparently some validity to this approach, as medieval kings in other countries as well had always exerted some degree of influence over the church in their territory. The king of France had veto power over cardinals (I don't know about bishops), and you can bet that Ferdinand and Isabella had great influence over the church in Spain. Likewise, the princes and princelings in the various Italian territories had some degree of say-so in their areas. The kicker for Henry was that he wanted say-so over everything. Henry also had the bad luck to be married to the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor. The HRE held a great deal of sway over the pope and he (Charles V) was having none of Henry's'great matter.'

[@bazinga9473]

Thanks for the video. One comment: I doubt the Papal dispensation had anything to do with whether or not the marriage was consummated. The dispensation would have been required regardless because she was Arthur's widow.

[@bazinga9473]

@AB. B. Actually, it is true.

[@bazinga9473]

@AB. B. No, I'm not mixing up the papal dispensation from prior to his marriage vs. the one requested - and not granted - at the end of his marriage. My comment is referring to when it is suggested the papal dispensation (prior to the marriage) may or may not have been requested NOT just because Katherine was Author's widow, but also because they consummated the marriage. Around 5:30-6:00. My point is that I think they would have needed the papal dispensation anyways because she was Arthur's widow and that breached canon law.

[@JenniferA.Minnear-Salaza-jb4qf]

@AB. B. , the Pope was under siege, those years, by her relative. If it had been another couple, that request might have been granted (for divorce, or not. If they lived apart, and he went on, to Father again, those 'children' could have also been made like legitimate, by Pope, which I read was offered. ).

[@densum8184]

In those times swearing on ones soul was a serious thing as if they were lying their soul was condemned to hell is what they believed. Would Catherine lie probably partly that she remain queen but more so for her daughter as she knew what Mary's life would be like, sadly she could not protect Mary for traumatic years Mary endured by her father. It should be noted that Henry somewhat feared her, Catherine was well loved by the people and Catherine was positioned many times to seek help from her nephew the king of Spain. Catherine never did with most today believing she loved the English people to much to start a war that England would lose and make her daughter a puppet of Spain which Catherine knew.

[@TudorsDynasty]

Densum 81 I’m not sure she swore it on her soul. I stand behind my statement of confession. You have a right to believe what you like.

[@elenthora442]

@@TudorsDynasty In confession, you are swearing on your soul.

[@MsMilagrita]

She would very easily be secretly pardoned by the pope. For the sake of "saving the king and the nation from falling to the sin of heresy". I akways laugh when people hold this argument of her faith, as if no religious person has ever done wrong in this world :)

[@susannahdyro9518]

I love you're podcasts

[@lindseyalicandro9223]

Please don't say that The Bible contradicts itself. It's the Inspired Word of the Almighty God. In the Book of Leviticus it does say that. Not to take your brothers wife. It means take FROM the brother meaning if Henry TOOK Katherine while Arthur was alive. This is then made CLEAR in the Book of Deuteronomy, as it states if the brother is DEAD it's ok. Just wanted to clarify. God Bless!! Great channel btw I love history!!

[@queenboudicca31]

The Bible has many contradictory passages - inspired or no. Humans make mistakes, even in transcribing and translating the divinely inspired word of god.

[@theoriginaltoba]

@@queenboudicca31that doesn’t apply to the Bible. It’s literally inspired by God. It has no mistakes, so it’s just very rude and inconsiderate to say something so insulting.

[@makeupboss9812]

This was interesting, I love learning about these beautiful and powerful women.

[@catherinedobbins3630]

Queen Catherine Beautiful strong she speaks her mind she's Pius she's Fair the people loved her she was a great queen and a great woman Henry knew that but he just had to have Anne Boleyn Catherine love Henry the 8th to the day she died she was his lawful wife

[@mzjamm2]

I know of course someone knew. I should probably try to research my inquiry of early 16th wedding practices. Yes, we know what Arthur had said, some say it was boasting. I know that every virgin doesn't bleed, but there is never a comment. If she didn't it would have looked sketchy. Arthur's grandmother definitely knew something, one imagined. Maybetheir age was a factor in actually a knowing how the wedding night went.

[@Brocanteblanc]

I would love to hear your thoughts without the music in the background.

[@kreyzaulqinaku3753]

She was beautiful...

[@bridgetcooper6331]

I doubt she was told anything about Warbick during negotiations of her marriage. She may have learned later and probably was told he was a pretender. Don’t think she lost any sleep over their deaths. Catholic disposition were necessary to marry his brothers widow and when cousins might be too close in blood. It was the law.

[@queenkatherineofaragon2418]

Henry made up a narrative that suited him the best just to be with that woman named Anne Boleyn. I was able to have children.

[@Mrs_Valentine_Is_Cooking_Pasta]

Lol Arthur being sickly for many years?,there are no reports of Arthur being ill during his lifetime!!!🙂

[@beth7935]

YES!! I was about to comment this! It's the same with Edward VI- if someone dies young of an illness, their life gets back-edited to be, "He was always a sickly boy." And in Arthur's case, it's used as a serious argument in this debate, & given the same weight as factors that are backed by a lot of evidence. It's becoming yet another historical pet peeve! :D

[@MsMilagrita]

You beat me to this :) i just posted a comment wondering about that.

[@sarahjuarez1433]

Arthur was a premature birth though. And premature babies back than. had a very slim chance of surviving, even into adulthood. And most royal families and nobels, kept that and any disabilities. That the child may have a secret from the world. Of fear that they're, viewed as weak and have poor genes. And what other royal families want that in their bloodlines?? None!

[@beth7935]

@@sarahjuarez1433 If it was kept secret from the world, how do you know?

[@stephanieribar5724]

Til death do us part. Arthur was dead so according to the Bible Henry should marry her. If they had relations while Arthur was alive it'd be wrong.

[@reythejediladyviajakku6078]

I don’t think they did. Catherine didn’t seem to be known for saying things just to satisfy someone. If she said they didn’t, then I believe her

[@queenboudicca31]

There was no need for Katharine to lie. The dispensation was issued allowing the marriage even if perhaps the first marriage was consummated. Henry's claim was that the Pope had no such authority to issue such permission based on Leviticus.

[@robincoffman6723]

It wouldnt matter either way, the special disposition would cover that IF Katherine and her first husband had had sex . Being Catholic I know that much

[@elenthora442]

@Ber P. NO, a dispensation clears that problem away, along with the incest question.

[@elenthora442]

@Ber P. you don't want to be incorrect, but you are and you can check up on me and Robin on Catholic.com. ps, are you Catholic and if so, do you suppose you could use a refresher course or two?

[@elenthora442]

@Ber P. I see the problem, you are an atheist. There really is nothing more to discuss.

[@cathrynward4617]

@@elenthora442 Hi Elanthora, I think you mispelled the word atheist in regards to Ber P. Perhaps "ignoramus" might be it.

[@elenthora442]

@@cathrynward4617 Sistah! I believe you have nailed it!

[@crazygarnett]

Love your work. Very interesting topics.

[@TudorsDynasty]

Lisl G McCredy Thank you so much for saying so!

[@shelbylynn293]

In Leviticus it says a man's wife. In Deuteronomy it specifically says widow. Not sure if that makes a difference..

[@elenthora442]

@Ber P. Not for Henry, he was after a son and poor Katherine could not produce a living one.

[@fatnsassy99]

@AB. B. King Henry was going to the pope for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine. It doesn't matter what his excuse, but going to the pope, well you better have a good enough reason to ask for an annulment. Not like he could go to court, oh wait, the church was court 🙃

[@fatnsassy99]

@AB. B. damn, you act like this is your channel. I've got a right to say whatever I want to. If you have a problem with it, seek help. OR start your own channel!! Either way, quit being a little bitch!

[@bazinga9473]

@@fatnsassy99 hahaha yes. They replied to one of my comments too. I've noticed this person just argues, but doesn't actually provide any facts/information... that often means that what they know about the subject is VERY surface level, so they fear writing more than 4 words b/c someone WILL contradict them :D

[@elisabetta611]

I believe Arthur may have TRIED to do it but was either impotent or there was some er....dry action....and no more than that. Similar to Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI until Louis got a stern talking to from her brother as well as a medical procedure to....assist. But in the end it doesn't matter. I mean Henry considered annulling the marriage all the way back to 1514 and Mary's birth in 1516 rekindled the hope. But Anne Boleyn or no, this marriage was broken beyond repair. That said while I understand the political necessity and the horror of civil war, my sympathy is with poor Katharine. She didn't do anything wrong and Henry VIII was a monster who deserved none of his wives.

[@patriciaoconnor402]

You may have been raised Catholic, but I can tell you as a devout and practicing Catholic for almost 60 years, Katherine would not endanger her own immortal soul for the sake of Princess Mary's right to her place on the throne.

[@graphiquejack]

Patricia OConnor there is evidence that pretty much proves she lied that has been found by David Starkey in the Spanish archives. She could have felt that God would forgive her for the lie... 20 Hail Marys and you’re absolved, right? I fully understand why she did it, and once she repeated the lie how she she ever go back on that, but it’s too bad she did because Henry was never going to give up trying to annul the marriage whether Anne Boleyn was in the picture or not, and everyone suffered far more as a result.

[@elenthora442]

Patricia, I agree, much of the reason she did not accede to the divorce was her conviction to save the soul of her husband. If she were that concerned with the soul of another person, she would be doubly concerned for sake of her own.

[@elenthora442]

@Angelina Mastroianni psssst! consummated

[@sendhelp6537]

Yup...you sound just as judgemental and snotty as most "devout" Christians sounds about right.

[@elenthora442]

@@sendhelp6537 do you think you could possibly twist the meaning of her words any more? what a maroon

[@sarahjuarez1433]

You know... for her why I think she had many miscarriages and stillbirths. And premature deaths of her babies. And also other women during that time. Before and even after. Is poor diet, drinking alcohol and I'm sure of many other things. We know now, that poor diet, drinking lots of alcohol, and smoking. Can cause, premature births, and deaths, and health issues, stillbirths. And that royal union's are all related in some way. With such little variety of higher ranking Nobels. Like with princesses and princes, so im sure that didn't help either. Like look, at the hapsburgs for an example and antchite Egyptian pharaohs. They sure loved incest, for so called pure bloodlines.

[@jeanatwood1421]

I doubt that Arthur and Catherine were ever intimate. Loved the video.

[@JenniferA.Minnear-Salaza-jb4qf]

They were very young, when Princess of Wales Katherine and Prince Author were married. Other marriages, like of Marie Antoinette and even Catherine the Great of Russia, were known to have been where years delayed wedding and consummation ( for youth of groom, etc ). I think it was delayed, and the Prince had just boasted. Also; why would it come up? Wouldn't King Henry VIII have been able to tell, on his wedding night, to that 'first' marriage? I think he knew, too. I think he used the prior 'ceremony' as excuse to try to make more children, with others, later, to try to get a son, with a 'legal wife'. In a way, the Queen's refusal to 'retire', did cause problems. If she were biologically able, they should have kept trying. If not? Letting her peacefully depart, ( even not to a nunnery) like Ann of Cleves, would have been more humane, than this game, to order her not to see Princess Mary, anymore, etc. I think the King's prior sexual experience ... or experience in his marriage, could have eventually infected all his wives, with syphilis. Getting pregnant, after that has been in the body a few years, would be harder. That explains why, only relatively 'early' in marriages, did he produce healthy children at all. Even if in the first marriage Katherine had had full 'sex': I do to think that would be grounds to declare a healthy born child, Queen Mary, illegitimate, (unable to marry in treaty) , later. If one person wanted to divorce, but the other did not: if the case was that a country might not have enough children of the leader for stability: I think the religious situation should not have been a problem, for 'a' 'King'. I think Henry Fitzroy might have been (groomed to be and then become ) King, if the 3rd Queen, Jane Seymour, had not had a son. I think it is easier to have a king legitimize his possibly illegitimate sons, ( where he is raising them himself ), than to have it where he has to divorce ( officially end a marriage ) or such. But I do not live, in a hereditary dictatorship, like they did. (Thank goodness! Yes, a dictator is a more effective from of government: but at what risk? The dictator might be 'effective' for things, many do not like, and die over: like with the religious and personal issues.).

[@beth7935]

The syphilis theory has been totally debunked; there are several good vids about it. Yes, sometimes young couples wouldn't live together as man & wife til they were a bit older, but that wasn't the case for Catherine & Arthur: they were sent to Ludlow together & set up in their own household.

[@reneenayfabnaynay5679]

Even if he had made attempts to legitimize Henry Fitzroy, what use would it have been? Henry Fitzroy died before Henry VIII did. They think it was from the same thing that killed Edward VI at almost the same age. TB.

[@reneenayfabnaynay5679]

@@beth7935 yes, records of the medicines Henry was given show he didn't have syphilis because mercury was what they used to treat that. Henry has no record of being given that during his life. The french king Henry visited at the field of cloth of gold, his records show he probably did have syphilis. But, not Henry VIII.

[@beth7935]

@@reneenayfabnaynay5679 Oooh, I didn't know Francis I probably had syphilis! But he did keep himself very busy with the ladies, MUCH more so than Henry VIII, who really doesn't deserve this playboy reputation he has- he almost certainly had more wives than mistresses. (People are forever saying various historical figures had syphilis, but you referred to contemporary records of mercury treatment, ie actual credible evidence!)

[@Corbyloc]

Thank you. The videos are enjoyable. Please omit the music; it’s horribly distracting.

[@kimberlykile2343]

The music is nice but can you slow down the speed?

[@pk6810]

I admire Katherine of Aragon, she's my 2nd favourite Tudor queen. I really don't think her and Arthur consummated their marriage, I don't believe she would lie about something so serious and look how quickly she fell pregnant when she married Henry.

[@brianrodney712]

Henry VIII himself did not consumate his marriage to Ann of Cleves simply because he did not find her sexually attractive. This same reason could have been why his brother Arthur didn't consumate his marriage to Katherine of Aragon . The other reason is that maybe he was not sexually interested in women of any sort !

[@catalinacafe5746]

A historian who wrote a book about thus matter went to Spain to where they kept old royal records and found out that she basically lied.

[@StellaChristelle]

Arthur was never sickly until he got the sweating sickness. He was just a red-blooded young man. Anyway - Of course they did- it was their duty. Plus they were teenagers!

[@MsMilagrita]

Where does the claim that Arthur was a sickly boy, oriinates? Any contemporary mentions? I haven't seen any yet, if you do, please provide. Don't you find it very strange that Ferdinsnd and Isablla should insist on eliminating Warwick and Warbeck for their daughter's safe future as queen, yet had no hesitations about the health of her future husband if he really were known as sickly? I don't say he wasn't but we need facts and the same logic should be applied as with other arguments.

[@Krampanology]

we say warrick not war wick. x

[@FRANCHISE143MUSIC]

Are u reading from a book? If so, which book?

[@TudorsDynasty]

FranSing Montaño haha. No. This was one of the first podcasts I recorded and my style at the beginning was more reading style. I’m reading my own script. I turned it into an article for my blog tudorsdynasty.com

[@waitingonhappyendinghope7528]

I cant wait until the Spanish Princess returns to STARZ!! From what I gather so far, Henry should have known there wouldn't be any male heirs because of the curse. His mother murdered King Edward's son in the tower and his wife killed her own brothers for they had a claim to the throne.

[@lagerthathorkildsdottir9074]

I hope you are aware that the series is so historically incorrect. Don’t expect to learn anything from it. It’s just pastime and blibberblabber

[@jaxwilson518]

10 min into looking for money... You know... Cause watching free videos that BBC has already researched and made and the uploading it for free to KZbin is just so expensive......

[@woah_2.074]

Anyone here have the same last name? Aragon

[@TudorsDynasty]

Aragon wasn’t Katherine’s surname, it had more to do with territory. She is from House of Trastámara.

[@timothyramsey7010]

This was a nice nice episode although both daughters became queens one was a tyrannical murderous but yes they both were queen

[@mizfrenchtwist]

I do not think the marriage between Katherine and arthur was consummated.........due to arthur's health issues and because from experience , the LOUDER a man BRAGS .....ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL CONQUESTS.....IT'S USUALLY THE OPPOSITE . besides , if she were not a virgin , would not henri had known . there must have been some evidence that she was , after spending the first night with henri ............what say you................. great podcasts.............

[@mariastaszko6322]

Arthur, not Edward.

[@hayley8715]

@@mariastaszko6322 I was wondering if I was wrong thinking Edward was not right....so thanks for confirming that his name was indeed Arthur!!

[@bonnielong5812]

Who’s Edward?!!? You mean Arthur, right? Yes, I agree it is “locker room/jock talk bravado”. Some things never change!!!

[@mizfrenchtwist]

@@mariastaszko6322..........belated thanks , for the correction DUH..........