Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Hapsburg Valois rivalry and Henry VIII's role

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Hapsburg Valois rivalry and Henry VIII's role
    Posted: 01-Dec-2007 at 17:18
Could somebody on this forum please provide me with the dates and a short, sussinct explanation of what happened on those dates concerning Henry VIII's intervention in the Hapsburg-Valois rivalry? I'm aware of his intervention only from a Hapsburger persepective, and not from the English persepective, and I can't find any work that deals with this directly. I've tried Lotherington, Randall, Rex, Bindoff, but alas nothing. A list of the dates of key events in his intervention would be most helpful.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Dec-2007 at 22:05

Aster, you do not have to look to the Habsburgs to understand the attitude of Henry VIII toward the French monarchy. Recall the lilies on the royal English escutcheon and quote your Shakespeare, for the roots are in The Hundred Years War. Further, look into the Lancastrian inheritance and understand the dream of restoring the glory of the Platagenets by the descendants of Edward III. In terms of the immediate, Henry VIII was the son of Henry VII and the tenuous position of the new Tudor dynasty sought its legitimacy in history. Let us not forget the shadowy roots of the Tudors and the dowager Queen Catherine of Valois. Try this little site as a jumping point to further reading with regard to an English perspective:

 
Nor should the old links forged by the English with the Burgundiand and the Castillians in 14th century be ignored.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Dec-2007 at 22:23
One thing that I was thinking recently (By the way, I'm an early modern history beginner, and I've taken a course at high-school to try and rectify this misfortune, so please excuse it if it's wrong), did the Pope stop Henry VIII from divorcing Catherine of Aragon because the marraige between Henry and Catherine would have meant that the HRE would have had another dynastic claimant to the throne (Henry VII or VIII tried to get elected in the imperial elections in which Charles V was elected). Because the popes of this era were so frightened of increasing Hapsburger imperialism throughout the Italian peninsula, they wanted to try and dismantle Charles V's inheritance, and having Catherine married to an English monarch would have helped this- is that a good perspective or not?
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2007 at 04:53
In writing history there is an unnerving tendency to argue the past in terms of later history rather than the setting in which the events transpired. Add a few centuries of further tinkering and events are completely extricated from the actual exigencies of that past. No matter how hard one may try to glorify the son of Henry VII and Catherine of York, Henry, Duke of York and later king, was a rather unsavory type with a markedly paranoid personality and an ego in serious need of discipline. In fact in the England of 1527, Queen Catherine was far more popular than her husband, who already had a reputation for blood and impulse in the elimination of any Englishman with Royal Blood. On the other hand, Charles V was far more sanguine when it came to the politics of the early XVIth century and understood the role of England in containing the real rival to his authority and partrimony in Italy and the Netherlands. The nption that Henry VIII was an imperial rival to the Habsburg inheritance is sheer fancy. The pope had little say in the evolution of the divorce question between the years 1526-1530 other than to adopt procrastination, and if we are to discuss the issue from a purely English stance, far more serious was the standard English recognition of the "Appeal to Rome" that had perenially arisen in Law since the time of the Anglo-Saxon kings. The War of the Roses was not that far removed from either English or Tudor memory in the 1520s and dynastic succession remained a bugbear...after all even the notion of the break with Rome as an act of the Reformation is more than dubious.


Edited by drgonzaga - 02-Dec-2007 at 04:54
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2007 at 05:28
Yes, but why did the Pope refuse to allow the divorce in the first place?
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2007 at 14:43
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

Yes, but why did the Pope refuse to allow the divorce in the first place?
 
For the simple fact that as king, Henry was seeking to put aside a marriage for which he had earlier sought papal sanction! Recall, Catherine of Aragon was betrothed to Arthur, Prince of Wales, in 1489 and a marriage ceremony was actually undertaken in November 1501. Arthur was not the halest of youth and he died in April 1502, but Henry VII was not about to lose the dowry from this marriage (which by the way also included those pearls you see dangling from Anne Boleyn's neck in her portrait) nor the anti-French alliance secured by the marriage. From 1502 until Henry VII's death in 1509 a new marriage with Henry, Duke of York, was incessantly negotiated and these negotiations included a papal dispensation for the marriage, which was granted in 1503! In effect, the Tudors were going to the papal well once too often. Henry raised the language of impediment in seeking an annulment of his marriage to Catherine, whereas before the earlier dispensation succinctly stated no impediments existed for the marriage. In terms of Canon Law, Henry did not have a gout ridden foot to stand on!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 15:22
My understanding was that this rivalry was a cornerstone of  forign policy at the time as the rivalry between the two, in a similar nature to that between France and Spain gave England more diplomatic power than it should have had considering its strength similar to a small party in a coalition government, at the time as both factions in the two rivalries I have mentioned sought English help, therefore carefully managed i.e. later in Henry VIII reign, it provided safety and protection from which ever power it was allied to at the time (except during the Cleves marriage) and i am assuming it had other gains as each side tried to 'woo' the English to there side.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.