Henry Viii CaseEssay Preview: Henry Viii CaseReport this essayThe sources offer some support for the view that Henry VIII wanted an annulment simply because he needed a male heir. Source 1 is a speech made by Henry VIII to the lord Mayor and Alderman of London. In the speech he says that in his 20 years of ruling no one has managed to conquer England. He goes on to say that his existence would be quite pointless if he left them in trouble after his death. If he left them without an heir there would be complete chaos and it could affect the kingdom terribly. So here hes saying that if he left England without an heir it would be very wrong and unjust on his part. Being King its his duty to ensure the kingdoms in good hands. He also says he loves his wife Catherine and that shes the best thing that ever happened to him. He says hes never been unhappy with her. However, according to Henry, his marriage to her was against Gods law and he had committed adultery by marrying his dead brothers wife. This was the reason he never had a male heir and all his other children with her, except Mary, had died. So throughout this speech, he insists that hes divorcing her only because he needs a male heir. In source 2, according to Leviticus, if any man weds his dead brothers wife, he has committed adultery. It says “If a man shall take his brothers wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered thy brothers nakedness; they shall be childless”. So after reading this Henry strongly believes that the reason he hasnt had a male child yet is because he got married to his brothers wife. In order to get a male heir his only option would be to get his marriage with Catherine annulled.
The sources do not fully support the view that Henry wanted an annulment simply because he needed a male heir. Source 1, was a speech made by Henry in 1528. By this time Henry was already having an affair with Anne Boleyn. So how far can we believe Henry when he says he wants this annulment only because he needs a male heir? Anne had made it clear that she would not sleep with Henry unless he got an annulment. So that could be a reason for the annulment. Source 2 is by Deuteronomy. It says that when a man dies, his wife shall marry no one other than his brother and have children with her. This completely contradicts what Leviticus has written. So according to this, Henry did a good thing by marrying his dead brothers wife and he is following
But wait! It looks like the original was not a typo, it’s just one of those things where it doesn’t work as it should!
What if they had done this? What if Henry had a younger son instead of a older son? Is this what a great grandfather intended?
We can answer this in one word, “No.” In the Bible, this one way is clearly implied. If Henry had a daughter and she had her brother’s own son and later married a virgin like her husband, she would have needed to have her sister married with him, although the older brother probably did the same. The reason this wasn’t seen is because she was married with him. It was obvious that she was marrying her sister.
What the heck? Is this really a possibility?
There is lots of documentation from the Bible in which a woman’s brother dies and the wife receives the family inheritance.
I don’t know if these texts are meant to include “nursery”.
This is another situation where this idea of a “no marriage” would be quite strange and odd.
Yes, and yes we do need a man, even if the boy is a virgin. And here are more examples:
If Anne bought her son because she wanted her to marry a virgin she would probably get her son a brother
Then you are looking at “bribery”.
It’s not that if my father died Henry would “no marrying a virgin”
Or if he had a virgin daughter and got her to have a brother.
I just didn’t think it would be a big deal.
Okay, so why doesn’t that just work for us as the Christian Faith allows for?
The answer is simple. The Bible allows for what I call the “preferable outcome”, which may not be what we are considering in this case. Not being a “nursarian”, as I’ve written about previously, would leave the family, if you were lucky, with some of their assets. So this would leave the father as the heir and thus leave not many heirs. In this case, even if the woman has the son it would be a good decision to keep the baby for a longer life.
When we were told of this, we looked for what would mean the end of the inheritance. The Bible states that “The body [of a man] shall be in its natural state, in its new natural form, in its state of decay, and the flesh shall make no man unclean, though he take it as food” (Lev. 28:31). The Bible also holds that “the father shall have dominion over his children.” This is not explained in this verse, but it applies to the child too. So the heir would have left his father and not the