MovieChat Forums > The Tudors (2007) Discussion > Do we believe CofA was a virgin?

Do we believe CofA was a virgin?


That is the grand question. Was her marriage to Arthur consummated? Let's face it, teens are sexual whether we like it or not. The old days were no different. How likely is it that she lied about her virginity to secure a marriage to Arthur's brother?

reply

Not really a history buff here, but I just had a thought about this...

If her first husband were sickly and possibly at risk to die, then she may have had some interest in NOT having his heir, and in waiting for a marriage to Henry, because if Arthur were to die, and his heir were in the whom or very young, then it would be expected that Catherine and the Heir would be in a very risky position.

For example, in the series, I seem to recall Edward, Duke of Buckingham being an early potential threat to the line coming from Henry VII.

Anyway, just an odd, somewhat conspiratorial thought...


--- Reading a bit further, something really stinks here. If Wikipedia is to be believed, the only "bedding" of a royal couple in the 16th century was this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur,_Prince_of_Wales

Why would the documented history specifically imply that the consummation of the marriage was such a sure thing, especially when later on it would be claimed that there was never a consummation. One reason to do this that I can think of would be in the case that Arthur was physically unable to do the act, for whatever reason, but that the family at the time very much didn't want anybody else to know that.


From wikipedia:

'What followed was a ceremony laid down by Arthur's grandmother Lady Margaret Beaufort: the bed was sprinkled with holy water, after which Catherine was led away from the wedding feast by her ladies-in-waiting. She was undressed, veiled and "reverently" laid in bed, while Arthur, "in his shirt, with a gown cast about him", was escorted by his gentlemen into the bedchamber, while viols and tabors played. The Bishop of London blessed the bed and prayed for the marriage to be fruitful, after which the couple were left alone. This is the only public bedding of a royal couple recorded in Britain in the 16th century.[41]'

reply


If her first husband were sickly and possibly at risk to die, then she may have had some interest in NOT having his heir, and in waiting for a marriage to Henry, because if Arthur were to die, and his heir were in the whom or very young, then it would be expected that Catherine and the Heir would be in a very risky position.


This would not have been factored into it at all. Back then, a woman's duty was to obey her husband in all things. Unfortunately, women did not have rights. A queen especially would have been expected to make every effort to produce an heir for her king, no matter her reservations. Even if the union produced a sickly child, it would have been the queen's fault and certainly not the king's, God forbid.

reply

when the couple who married were very young, consumation was often delayed, because people were aware of the risks of a woman bearing a child too young. So it is quite possible that katherine was still a virgin when Arthur died.

reply

waiting for a marriage to Henry


This was NOT a given - in fact, as Henry contended later, it was against [God's] law . This would definitely not have been a reason for her to remain a virgin. She would have had a better shot at power as the Queen Mother and regent of Arthur's son.

reply

[deleted]

I'd like to think she was. For her to compromise her immortal soul by telling such a huge lie when marrying Henry, to risk her titles, her daughter's legitimacy, her marriage, EVERYTHING she had...then insisting upon it for TEN YEARS (seven while the divorce proceedings were "not proceeding", and three more after that) under a huge amount of pressure, that's an awfully big thing to hide if it wasn't true.

However, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Ludlow Castle in the middle of winter (which is where Catherine and Arthur went right after they wed) is not the most happening or exciting place. Ludlow is a small town, even today, and in 1501, it would have been pretty isolated from any of the "goings on" that the two of them would have been used to at Henry VII's court. So, if the two of them felt they were in the middle of nowhere in the dead of winter with nothing to do (not that I think there's nothing to do in Ludlow, but the two of them might have)....that kinda begs the question of what, exactly, the two of them WERE doing if they weren't getting it on with each other. And Catherine's life, during the time when she was Arthur's widow, totally sucked. She had no money, no real status that got her anywhere, and no one really cared about her -- not Henry VII, not her father, no one. It's entirely possible that Catherine simply lied about what happened just to get out of her sucky life at the time....and once she started, she just had to maintain it.

BUT, I would like to think she was honest, and that there was no consummation between her and Arthur.

reply