#it could be de facto legitimate because their marriage had taken place two years prior while her mother was
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Note
You mentioned that Mary, during her reign, did not consider her father's later marriages valid. Could it be because they were not under the Catholic faith? At least that's what I understood, correct me if I'm wrong
More specifically, none of these marriages (save his to Anne Boleyn's, ironically enough...although that was a conditional papal dispensation to be used in the specific circumstances of either the annulment of his first marriage granted by the papacy, or, by implication, the death of Catherine of Aragon) had the required papal dispensations (HVIII was related in some degree to all of them, specifically through Edward I at the least). HVIII and COA had the papal dispensation that was upheld explicitly by a later Pope and implicitly by the rest, Mary I and Philip II had the needed papal dispensation to wed.
#elizabeth argued she was in good faith as it went with the anglican church but part of her argument -- and this is more assumption#or reading between the lines ; is that with some smudging elizabeth could *actually be considered in good faith by the papacy as well#insofar as cranmer was granted the archbishphoric by the pope and used that authority to annull the first marriage and vindicate the second#of course he also annulled the second. so. it's problematic . but...#anon#1536 counterfactuals are interesting bcus it does seem with anne it was ... personal . she might've known the emperor's negotiations were#that he'd recognise anne as queen in exchange for mary being recognised as heir. or it might've been#more a matter of her not recognising the marriage insofar as she didn't believe#it could be de facto legitimate because their marriage had taken place two years prior while her mother was#definitely very much alive....#*also at least one papal agent in 1533 said the 'good faith' of the mother was sufficient#altho he claimed that only in the case of a son (lol?) would that be sufficient to make the child bona fides BUT he did believe AB#had this which is...interesting#mind you im not saying elizabeth knew this just that. yeah you can argue that it was 'convenient' for her to believe and espouse that#but just that it's not even exactly like her saying that was without precedent
5 notes
·
View notes