Free Essay

Do You Agree with the View That the Main Reasons for Henry's Failure to Obtain the Annulment of His Marriage in the Years 1525-29 Was the Determined Opposition of Katherine of Aragon?

In: Historical Events

Submitted By lilyenglish66666
Words 1030
Pages 5
Do you agree with the view that the main reasons for Henry's failure to obtain the annulment of his marriage in the years 1525-29 was the determined opposition of Katherine of Aragon?

Within the years of 1525-29 Henry failed to obtain an annulment of his marriage, it was suggested that the main reason for this failure was because of the determined opposition of Katherine of Aragon however it is also argued that other factors such as the pope keeping peace between England and Spain as well as the overall weakness of the kings case and his reliance’s on biblical reasons as well as Katherine’s of Aragon’s opposition all these factors also contributed to the failure to obtain the annulment.

The view that the main reasons on why Henry didn’t receive his annulment was because of the determined opposition of Katherine of Aragon, within source 4 its suggested that Katherine was trying to uphold her dignity as Henry persisted for the annulment. Henry's reasoning for the annulment left Katherine feeling red-faced as well as full of anguish Henry was trying to declare (by the end of the marriage) his 23 years of marriage to Katherine of Aragon was a deception which supplied Katherine with the determined opposition to annul Henry their marriage which conducted to the failure to obtain the annulment.

Another supportive evidence found in source 4 that encourages the view that the main reasons on why Henry didn’t receive his annulment was because of the determined opposition of Katherine of Aragon in the years 1525-29 was that Katherine was suggest to enter a convent for an honourable retirement. Katherine was up supportive of this idea and refused the offer. The relentlessness from Henry trying to perused Katherine to agree to the annulment gave Katherine the advantage as it is seen as Henry was trying to bully Katherine in agreeing which only just thickened her dismissal to agree to the annulment, which strengthens the view that her determined opposition was a main reason for Henry's failure to secure an annulment.

It’s seen that Katherine didn’t have an option on getting annulled from Henry. As source 6, a letter sent from Wolsey to Henry in 1517, suggest ‘the queen rejects my authority’ Wolsey was trying to present optimism to Henry if Katherine rejects the annulment which presents Katherine not having a option to whether Henry and herself get annulled from one another. The reliability of the source will be low as the source was written at the time of the process of Henry's annulment and was also written by Wolsey who’s job was to obtain the annulment and so as he failed to achieve the letter will be produced to keep Henry happy and optimistic of the annulment being obtained. So the suggestion that Katherine’s didn’t have any power over staying married to Henry and being queen, the decision was made for her, which contributed to her determined opposition to the annulment of her marriage to Henry in 1515-19.

Not only was it Katherine of Aragon determined opposition that contributed to Henry's failure to obtain an annulment there were also other contributing factors that have a huge impacting on Henry trying to secure the annulment.

Henry trying to receive consent from the pope is a factor to both the view that Katherine was the main reason for Henry's failure to obtain an annulment as well as other factors being the main reasons to obtain, as Katherine of Aragon used her own strengths as an advantage to dismiss Henry's plea to obtain the annulment, Katherine strengths were greatly used as the doubled as one of greatest weaknesses. Source 5 suggests that Katherine being aunt to king of Spain gave a massive gain for the opposition as Henry as England and Spain were broken allies which effected Henry being able to receive the pops consent as her was controlled by Charles the king of Spain. The unavailability of the consent by pope provided supportive evidence to both views on the matter as it supports Katherine being the causation to the failure as well as other factors contributing toward the failure of the annulment.

Henry had a huge reliance on his biblical argument to achieve the annulment from his marriage from Katherine of Aragon. Source 4 suggests that Henry's religious argument was that his marriage to Katherine wasn’t lawful as Katherine was Henry's brother’s wife previously. Religious texts that Henry used to support his argument were Leviticus 18:16 “thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife, it is thy brothers nakedness” and Leviticus “if a man shall take his brothers wife, it is an unclean thing… they shall be childless”. Henry supportive evidence was weak and didn’t hold any strength when appealing for an annulment, which gives supportive evidence that suggests it, is other reason why Henry couldn’t obtain the annulment from Katherine of Aragon.

One of the most influential factors to why Henry couldn’t receive an annulment was Charles V power over the pope. Source 5 implies that Henry had a dependency to his religious argument on why he should get divorced which needed the popes consent. However the king of Spain had a massive influence of the popes decisions as in 1527 Rome had been sacked from the imperial army so under control by Charles, the pope could risk offending Charles by humiliating his aunt Katherine so overall Henry lost the support from the pope because of the influence Charles had which lead to support the fact that other factors affected Henry being able to achieve an annulment from Katherine.

To conclude the evidence suggests that other factors had a huge influence of the failure for Henry to achieve an annulment and Charles being the most influential. However Katherine had a huge amount of influence to do with the reasons why the other factors effected the annulment however Katherine’s determined opposition had greatest impact to the failure of the annulment. So overall the evidence presents the view that the main reason for Henry's failure to obtain the annulment of her marriage in the years 1525-29 was the determined opposition of Katherine of Aragon…...

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Do You Agree with the View That the Main Reason for Henry’s Failure to Obtain the Annulemnt of His Marriage in the Years 1525-29 Was the Deremined Opposition of Katherine of Aragon?

...to the failed annulments plans, some were as result of Henry, such as the contrasting bible quotes presented and the diplomatic revolution caused by Henry’s thirst for European influence, other factors could be ofcourse contributed to the opposition of Catherine of Aragon who was continually persistent that her marriage to Henry was valid and the other main argument against the annulment was from the Catholic church. These combined factors essentially caused the break with Rome however one was predominantly more significant than the others. Source 4 makes reference to one of the reasons Henry’s claims were so flawed, “Wolsey worried about Henrys' reliance on biblical arguments.” This shows that Henry clearly had little other evidence to support his reasons for an annulment due to his “reliance” which rightly worried Wolsey as they were constantly being questioned by the Catholic Church. In 1527 Henry presented the case that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was void due to the fact she had previously been married to his brother who had died. Leviticus claims that “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife.” Henry claimed that the dispensation that he had fought for was infact invalid afterall as it went against divine law. A dispensation that had gone against clerical teachings yet granted none the less by the pope, supporting the claims in Source 5 that the “pope would have been happy to please someone as important as Henry.” However it was not the......

Words: 904 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Do You Agree with the View That in the Years 1515-1525 Henry Viii Wholly Surrendered Power in Government to Cardinal Wolsey?

...Do you agree with the view that in the years 1515-1525 Henry VIII wholly surrendered power in government to Cardinal Wolsey? To a certain extent within 
Source 4 (by J.J. Scarisbrick 1968) supports the idea that possibly Henry VIII actually did surrender power over to Wolsey. The evidence within the source that suggests this possibly for being the truth is ‘a self-indulgent King had wholly surrendered the cares of the state into the Cardinals hands’. To further support this case, it is clear that Wolsey was extremely powerful, he had vast amounts of bishoprics (Archbishop of Canterbury, Tournai, Durham just to name a few) and was the head of things such as the Star Chamber where Wolsey got himself heavily involved with. This is shown when you compared the number of cases Wolsey took on (120) compared to that of Henry VII who dealt with only 12. Also Wolsey had control of all of the state finances and could make large changes to things such as the taxation system he was able to introduce a new form of tax known as the ‘Subsidy’ which was more popular since it meant the poor payed far less tax than previously than with the old 15’s and 10’s taxation method. This new taxation method allowed Wolsey to pay for king’s foreign affairs. As well as this ‘subsidy’, since Wolsey had such significant power he was able to also raise considerable amounts of capital through other means, such as through ‘benevolences’ and enforced loans from the nobility, which raised £200,000 in 1522.......

Words: 902 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Do You Agree with the View That Henry Viiis Foreign Policy in the Years 1514-25 Failed Because He Lacked the Resources to Fulfil His Aims?

...Do you agree with the view that Henry VIIIs foreign policy in the years 1514-25 failed because he lacked the resources to fulfill his aims? The failure of foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 can be attributed to many factors. Undoubtedly, the lack of resources was one of the main factors that contributed to the failure of Henry's foreign policy. However there are other factors that contributed to Henry being unable to fulfil his aims. Sources 4 and 6, both support the fact that the foreign policy did fail because of the lack of resources to fulfill the King’s aims. However all sources also suggest other possibilities to Henry's failed foreign policy. As soon as Henry took the throne in 1509, it was obvious that he was a king that wanted to fight a war, perhaps to show off his power. However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country. Henry's father, Henry VII, left the country in quite a stable state economically, but Henry devoted most of England's money into his campaigns to take over France. To some extent source 4 supports the idea that the foreign policy did fail due to the lack of resources, because it states that “the young warrior family accepted the fact that royal finances could not support a repetition of the campaign of 1513”. This quote implies that lack of resources seems to be the dominant reason for stopping Henry from invading France and therefore source 4 supports the statement to some extent. In the years 1514-25, it's clear that Henry...

Words: 1883 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Do You Agree with the View That Henry Viii Foreign Policy Should Be Seen as a Costly Failure?

...Do you agree with the view that Henry VIII foreign policy should be seen as a costly failure? It can be agreed that Henry VIII and Wolsey’s foreign policy was an expensive failure to a large extent, but there is some evidence from the sources showing otherwise and demonstrating some success. Sources 1, 2 and 3 all support the source to a certain extent, some more than others, however Sources 1 and 3 also disagree with the question and show some successes to Henry and Wolsey’s policy. Despite this, the idea of their policy being expensive is consistent throughout the sources for costing over a years income for Henry. Henry VIII and Wolsey’s foreign policy can be seen as an expensive failure as shown in all three of the sources. Sources 1, 2 and 3 all refer to the king’s expenses in one way and having not gained much from it. In source 2, it refers to the King as receiving ‘no more land in France’ on top of what his father had already gained, whilst costing the King an ‘infinite sum of money’ demonstrating that Henry had not had much success in his reign but had still spending extreme figures. Using this source, along with our own knowledge we know that Henry failed in securing the French crown for himself as well as the partition of France to himself, Charles and Bourbon, after the Battle of Pavia in 1525. Alongside this, the failures of Henry’s campaign during the war with France including the evaporation of Wolsey and Henry’s passing enthusiasm for another......

Words: 495 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Do You Agree with the View That, in the Years 1511-27, English Successes in Foreign Policy Outweighed the Failures?

...Do you agree with the view that, in the years 1511-27, English successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures? I agree with the view that English successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures in the years 1511-27 to a certain extent. England managed to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21 and wolsey was flexible in his diplomacy. However, it could also be argued that Henry’s chief aim, the invasion of France, was unpopular with people at the time and that Henry’s foreign policy was too costly given how little of long term value it brought to England. His allies also often let him down and put their own aims before those of England. In this essay I will be looking at three sources and weighing up the two sides of the argument. A point in support of this view is that that England managed to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21. This is shown in source 4, where MD Palmer tells us that Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514 and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518. He also planned the Field of the Cloth of Gold of 1520 and negotiated peace between the Empire and France at Calais in 1521. Wolsey’s peaceful approach also benefitted England in that it reduced costs at a time when the country could not afford another war, and successfully made England a major ‘player’ in Europe, which was a desire of Henry’s. Another point in support of the view that...

Words: 710 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

How Far Do You Agree That the Brutality of the Bolsheviks Was the Main Reason Why They Remained in Power in the Years 1917-24?

...believe that the brutality of the Bolsheviks was the main reason why they remained in power. However on the other hand it could be due to other factors such as the Sovnarkom and the weakness of the White’s. Firstly another reason why the Bolsheviks remained in power was because of their brutality using the CHEKA. This was established by Lenin on the 20th of December 1917. It was used as a secret police force to deal with opposition. The CHEKA used many methods all of which were brutal and included arrests, kidnapping, torture, sending of to labour camps and murder. This meant hat through the CHEKA Lenin could deal with any opposition that could affect his remaining in power. Secondly, One reason why the Bolsheviks remained in power was because of their brutality was due to Trotsky and the red army. For example Trotsky introduced the death penalty for any conscripts who deserted the army. He blackmailed them into doing this by holding their families hostage. This meant that not only did the army hold together but was also being trained by the best people there were around. Meaning this would enable them to have a much better chance of lacking opposition e.g. the white’s. This is a brutal and forceful tactic for the Bolsheviks and it worked. Not only did this lead them to win the civil war but in turn by doing that, the Bolsheviks remained in power. Lastly, another reason why the Bolsheviks remained in power because of their brutality was due to the murder of the royal......

Words: 817 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Do You Agree That the Main Reason for Henry’s Failure to Obtain the Annulment of His Marriage in the Years 1525-29 Was the Determined Opposition of Katherine of Aragon?

...The determined opposition of Katherine was no doubt a factor in delaying the process of annulment, but there were other factors that were even more crucial. Katherine’s role must be seen as central as if she had agreed to ‘go quietly’ then there would surely have been little controversy. However once the process had started there were other individuals, notably Wolsey, Charles, Clement and Henry himself who perhaps played a greater role in delaying the annulment. Overall I believe that the greatest role in the delay, and indeed the factor that had caused complete stagnation in the case, which had been recalled to Rome in the summer of 1529, was that Charles, the dominant force in Europe at the time, had used his leverage over Clement to make progress impossible. In source 4 Scarrisbrick highlights the role played by Katherine. She was offered a ‘way out’ by Campeggio, who tried to persuade her to “enter a convent.” Wolsey, in source 6, was able to foresee Katherine’s potential opposition, even at the very start of the process: “In case the Queen rejects my authority.” Scarrisbrick argues that it was her refusal to go to the convent which started the process which was in turn made worse by the actions of others, notably Henry. Indeed we know that when such an offer was made she replied that she would, but only when Henry entered a monastery. This does seem to back up the idea that she opposed in a determined fashion. She had good reason to do so. Declaring that her marriage......

Words: 1689 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

How Far Do You Agree the Impact of the Second World War Was the Main Reason Why the Position of African Americans Improved in the Years to 1945-55?

...How far do you agree the impact of the Second World War was the main reason why the position of African Americans improved in the years to 1945-55? I agree thoroughly that the impact of the Second World War was the main reason behind the improvement in the loves of African Americans. There are two other factors which help elevate the position of African Americans after the war these were the Federal Government and the NAACP. The Federal Government can be split into two parts the President and the Supreme Court. Before the Second World War most of the African Americans were working in the south of the country in agriculture. For many they had been born into that life and their parents and grandparents had been slaves. World War two had large impact on the lives of African Americans because it gave a chance for people to start anew. Many people had become tiered of doing hard manual labour every day in the farms. The 1920 and 30s had already seen an increase in the number of black people coming down from the south to the northern and western areas. These areas were considered to be industrial areas. After the war started new jobs were created this meant the demand for workers increased. More black people stated to migrate to the north and west for a job. For many of the black people this could have been a raise in there level of confidence. A crucial part of the employment was in the army, many men had signed up to protect their county. Figures show the migration of black......

Words: 1328 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

Do You Agree with the View That Weak Leadership Was the Main Reason Why the Chartists Failed to Achieve the Six Points of the People’s Charter in the Years 1838-48?

...This view states that weak leadership is the one main reason why Chartism failed during years 1838-48, however I will prove it was not only down to one thing reason of why O’Connor, Lovett and Attwood, the Chartists did not succeed in bringing all of the six points to the people – such as economic and political reasons. Source 4 is a letter written by William Lovett so therefore will be biased towards his own views against Feargus O’Connor and the fact he undermines his college though argument just shows the lack of respect they had for each other, proving there was weak leadership. “His constant appeals to the selfishness and vanity of man […] a spirit of hate, intolerance and brute feeling” It agrees with the view that the failure was down to weak leadership as it proposes the idea that not all leaders were united and therefore was the failure, I know from my own knowledge that Lovett himself resigned due to outrage from O’Connor’s behaviour. Source 5 also says that “the vast number of arrests, prosecutions and imprisonments” this suggests that the leadership was again weak due to division of views, physical force and moral force – if people were getting arrested etc. then the leaders must not have been good ones in the first place. Source 6 says “failure can be explained by the divergence of these attitudes once the Chartist message had proved ineffective and untrue” which again like the other two sources shows the division of views from each leader which meant they...

Words: 990 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

History

...e 4 makes reference to one of the reasons Henry’s claims were so flawed, “Wolsey worried about Henrys' reliance on biblical arguments.” This shows that Henry clearly had little other evidence to support his reasons for an annulment due to his “reliance” which rightly worried Wolsey as they were constantly being questioned by the Catholic Church. In 1527 Henry presented the case that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was void due to the fact she had previously been married to his brother who had died. Leviticus claims that “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife.” Henry claimed that the dispensation that he had fought for was infact invalid afterall as it went against divine law. A dispensation that had gone against clerical teachings yet granted none the less by the pope, supporting the claims in Source 5 that the “pope would have been happy to please someone as important as Henry.” However it was not the dispensation that caused concern, it was a text from Deuteronomy that claimed Henry was infact right in marrying Catherine as Deuteronomy claimed that if a mans brother dies and he and his wife are without child, then it is the brother’s role to raise his widow. This essentially proved Henry’s claim wrong, weakening his case. However, despite the opposition based on biblical teachings, this was not a large concern as Source 2 and 3 highlight, Wolsey... View Full Essay Join Now Please login to view the full essay... Essay's......

Words: 820 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Do You Agree with the View That the Main Reason for Wolsey’s Fall from Power Was His Failure to Secure the Annulment of the King’s Marriage to Catherine?

...Do you agree with the view that the main reason for Wolsey’s fall from power was his failure to secure the annulment of the king’s marriage to Catherine? 1)Failed to secure annulment 2)Factions against him-Aristocrats and anne boleyn out to get him 3)Combination of factors Thomas Wolsey’s rapid rise to power following the first French war is often overshadowed by his even faster downfall by 1529. The third source heavily implies that Wolsey’s downfall was due to factions in particular the Boleyn faction, but it also subtly suggests Wolsey’s previous failures i.e. the amicable grant “fiasco” made him much more susceptible to criticism and helped sow doubt into Henrys mind. Source 4 supports the third source and also brings to attention the role played by another group of people- the aristocrats- who despised Wolsey and as Loades claims Wolsey was a “victim of factional intrigues organised by leading aristocrats”. However the final source totally disagrees with the theory that it was purely factions that resulted in Wolsey’s downfall and instead supports the statement given to an extent, but believes it was a combination of factors that resulted in his downfall, something which the evidence tends to support. There is no doubt that Wolsey’s inability to secure an annulment of Henrys marriage to Catherine infuriated Henry and Wolsey’s sacking was a direct response to this failure. By 1529 the pope was under the control of Charles V after the latter’s victory at the......

Words: 1266 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Do You Agree with the View That Thomas Cromwell Was the Driving Force in the Break with Rome in the Years to 1534?

...Do you agree with the view that Thomas Cromwell was the driving force in the break with Rome in the years to 1534?! Plan: ! Para 1:Source 7 and 8 tell us that Cromwell was the driving force in the break! Para 2:Source 9 and 7 also tell us it was driven by henry wanting a divorce ! Conclusion: I believe that the break was not driven by cromwell but a variety of other reasons (quote source 7 and 8 ‘succession problem) Thomas Cromwell was an adviser to Henry VIII, responsible for drafting the documents that formalised England's religious and political break with Rome during the 1530’s. It can be argued that he was the driving force behind the break from Rome. However it could be other reasons such as Henrys desire for a divorce or for his desire for a male heir.! Source 7 and 8 both support the theory that Cromwell was the driving force in the break with Rome. Source 7 says that Cromwell’s importance lay “in his personal influence on the king”, this shows that Cromwell would have worked through the king giving him enough power to drive the break from Rome. Also Source 7 says, “although Cromwell may not have originated the ideas behind Henry’s policy, he took the ideas and made them practicable”, therefore it can be inferred from this source that he was the driving force as it was Cromwell who made the ideas happen. Source 8 also agrees with the statement, it tells us that the “major attack on the Commons on the Church” was “well organised by Cromwell, which Henry......

Words: 745 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

How Far Do You Agree That the Main Reason for the Survival of Weimar Government 1919 – 1923 Was the Weakness of Its Opponents?

...How far do you agree that the main reason for the survival of Weimar government 1919 – 1923 was the weakness of its opponents? (30 Marks) The reason for the survival of the Weimar Republic can be shifted onto many factors such as the weakness of the opposition. The opposition can be said to be clearly shown through the the Munich Putsch in which there is clear evidence of movements against the government. However, this opposition never managed to over come the army and freikorps who through the Ebert-Groener pact pledged their commitment to support the Weimar Government. However, this may not be the main reason for the governments survival between 1919-1923 as other factors can be said to have influenced the survival of the government such as the accomplishments from Stresemann and Dawes who were the chancellor of Germany and the American budget director respectively. Their joint effort ensured the recovery of the German economy which was collapsing. This work can therefore be said to be a major factor for the survival of the government but to what extent it can be called the main reason must be explored. To an extent it can be argued that the main reason for the survival of the Weimar government in the year 1919-1923 was the weakness of its opponents due to the success the government had in eradicating the multiple attempts to overthrow them, that were attempted in the Munich putsch and the Kapp Putsch. Firstly, the Munich Putsch can be seen as a clear showing of the......

Words: 888 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

The Structure of the Prc Into 6 Regions Was the Main Reason Mao Was Able to Consolidate His Power over China, How Far Do You Agree?

...Mao used various tactics and strategies to be able to consolidate his power over china. He used social, admin, military and political aspects to help him in the process. I do agree that the structure of the PRC in the 6 regions played a huge role in Mao’s consolidation of power but I don’t think it was the main reason. I believe that along with it, other factors were equally as important, such as training people who weren’t members of the CCP to join the government, terror with mass killings, imposed starvation and letting the national capitalists keep their job until he needed them to, so that the system was stable enough for him to control. He also made land reforms and introduced a registration system, which also helped consolidate his power. Mao also extended his political control with the “anti-movements” and the Politburo. The Anti-Movements was a movement against waste, bribery, and inefficiency. It was used as an excuse to getting rid of anybody standing in Mao’s was of ruling. He used to get rid of the people whom he had given jobs to in the beginning, those who weren’t past of the CCP, accusing them of inefficiency. He called these people “the bureaucratic capitalist class”. The Politburo was a circle of twenty leading members of the Communist Party, and the carried the government under the authority of Mao of course. So it was the party that ruled, and not the people. This helped Mao have a better control on the decisions taken for the country and therefore......

Words: 421 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

How Far Do You Agree That the Most Important Reason for Wolsey’s Fall from Power Was His Failure to Gain a Divorce for Henry Viii?

...The most important reason for Wolsey’s fall from power was his failure to gain a divorce for Henry VIII, how far do you agree? Wolsey’s dismissal from Henry’s court came in September 1529, though Wolsey had a plethora of failures before, his fall his failure to get a divorce for Henry VIII proved to be the most significant. This is because Wolsey’s strength of position depended on whether he got Henry what he wanted and the divorce was the most obvious case of Wolsey’s failure to do so. For this reason, this essay will argue that the most important reason for the fall of Wolsey was his failure to get a divorce for Henry VIII. Some argue that Wolsey’s failure was due to his alienation of common people. In his early days, Wolsey sought to ensure that common people got justice through his establishment of the Star Chamber. However, this egalitarian attitude faded during Wolsey’s later years and Wolsey’s own corruptness meant that he fell out of favour with the public. Within the area of the Church, Wolsey was guilty of absenteeism, pluralism and nepotism – appointing his illegitimate son (Thomas Wynter) to high positions in the Church. Furthermore, though his attempt to raise money for Henry’s foreign campaigns came in the form of the Amicable Grant 1525 (a heavy tax) failed, Wolsey was not dismissed on the grounds of this. From this we can see that Wolsey’s alienation from the ‘common’ people did not cause his fall, but something else. Henry did blame the Amicable Grant......

Words: 918 - Pages: 4

Nick Castle | Scarica APK | Aidan Aidan Mattox