tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7033960139420817450.post1553695216604722518..comments2024-03-26T23:52:29.231-07:00Comments on his story, her story: Henry VIII: the Celibate Years ?Amy Licencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16872294626668954201noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7033960139420817450.post-70609990770309646802012-12-23T09:12:58.592-08:002012-12-23T09:12:58.592-08:00Dear Anonymous, I'm very sorry that your first...Dear Anonymous, I'm very sorry that your first post was inadvertently removed- please do restate your points if you wish.<br /><br />Thank you for your interest in my work. To answer some of the issues from that post, the incident with the huntsman was taken from the State Letters and Papers from the reign of Henry VIII, September 1537, after a complaint was made by a William Webbe. As it was his word against Henry's, his statements are difficult to "prove" but it is interesting that his contemporaries believed that this was possible and is indicative of some beliefs in the King's character. <br />Many of the other issues you raise- Henry's nature, his rumoured affairs, his marriage with Anne of Cleves (in fact all his marriages) and the beliefs surrounding sex and pregnancy are addressed at length in my book "In Bed with the Tudors." In it I argue that Henry's character was a mix of modern and medieval sensibilities- I certainly agree with you that his approach to sexuality was complex and romantic. It was important for him to uphold his ideal of the chivalric hero although I don't think sex was seen in quite the same way then as it is now- each era evolves its own cultural codes and Henry's prudery and secrecy, as well as his very complex psychology were not necessarily incompatible with him having casual physical liaisons. From my research- using primary sources- I have found many sixteenth century Assize court records present "illicit" sex in a quite public, matter-of-fact way, as almost a biological function, something that is done to someone else, or how a woman is "used" by a man or as essential to good health. Thus, in the sixteenth century there was "sex" and there was "sex" - differentiated by partner and purpose. <br />The rumours of Henry's affairs begin early, with his first supposed mistress being Anne Hastings, during Catherine of Aragon's first pregnancy of 1510. Given the danger that sex was considered to pose to the unborn foetus, Henry could justify his liaison as protecting his wife, while medical advice stated that abstinence could lead to all sorts of illnesses and problems- further explored in my book. The affair is suggested by the reports of his contemporaries, who recorded Catherine's unhappiness at the discovery, Anne's brother's intervention, Anne's banishment from court, Henry and Catherine's quarrel and subsequent payments made to Anne. As with all history, the jigsaw of evidence helps establish a balance of probabilities as to whether Henry did or did not sleep with Anne. Catherine certainly thought he had. After all, though, no one else was in the bedroom with them. To explore the possibilities and deduce, is the historian's job. This, and his other relations with women and their social implications are explored in greater length in my book- this post was taken from the context of wider exploration, as indicated at the bottom of the first paragraph. Of course there is much more to say on the topic, beyond the scope of a blog, hence the book.<br /><br />Re Henry's adultery- those of his contemporaries who might have "called him on it" (I wonder how you imagine this happening) might reasonably be considered to be his courtiers/friends and clergy- yet if they themselves were also part of this culture of casual, functional sex- as we know for example William Compton and Cardinal Wolsey were- then they may not see anything to actually "call him" on.<br /><br />Thank you again for your response. I welcome debate. I wonder if you think that Henry, as a man in his 30s, keen to father a son, did refrain from sexual activity for 7 years between 1525 and 1532?Amy Licencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872294626668954201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7033960139420817450.post-88545100302846862642012-12-22T19:57:25.099-08:002012-12-22T19:57:25.099-08:00Oh, and another thing... where did you get the ide...Oh, and another thing... where did you get the idea men in the 16th century didn't promise to be faithful? One can Google "medieval or renaissance wedding vows" and ALL of them clearly state that both parties, bride and groom, vow to "forsake all others" - which means "I won't sleep with anyone else." Adultery was adultery, even for kings; they just weren't accustomed to anyone having the backbone to call them on it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7033960139420817450.post-38447852521164675372012-12-22T19:45:43.342-08:002012-12-22T19:45:43.342-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7033960139420817450.post-18376919022080351122012-10-03T05:36:58.439-07:002012-10-03T05:36:58.439-07:00I completely agree Amy. I have never really agreed...I completely agree Amy. I have never really agreed with the notion that Anne 'held off' Henry for 6 years. Maybe she did, but other women were certainly not holding him off in this time period! As you say, Anne probably did not know, otherwise she may have given in earlier.<br />Great article. Debbie.Thetudorkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02996095509481178263noreply@blogger.com