From: wthyde1953@gmail.com   
      
   Paul S Person wrote:   
   > On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 17:30:36 -0400, William Hyde    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> The Horny Goat wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 17:32:34 -0400, William Hyde    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> In 1522, when Henry was still married to Catherine, Luther published a   
   >>>> response to Henry (and Wolsey')s defense of Catholicism called "Against   
   >>>> Henry, King of the English".  In this he called Henry a "Wretched   
   >>>> scribbler", and "Pig, dolt and liar", which pretty much burned that   
   >>>> bridge.  Whatever he said about the marriages wouldn't change much.   
   >>>   
   >>> Didn't Luther say something to the effect that for Kings at least   
   >>> polygamy was better than divorce?   
   >>   
   >> I at first thought this could not possibly be true, but you are correct.   
   >>   
   >> Apparently Luther granted permission for a German prince to make a   
   >> polygamous marriage.  He believed that given the polygamous marriages in   
   >> the old testament, such could not be utterly forbidden.   
   >   
   > That wouldn't have been the Prince-Elector in whose principality he   
   > lived, would it?   
      
   This required a little research.   
      
   It was the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, a long time protestant supporter   
   and, according to Luther, a serial adulterer.  Luther lived at the time   
   in Saxony-Anhalt.  Given the complexity of the German world at that time   
   I cannot rule out that Philip also ruled part of Saxony-Anhalt, but I've   
   seen no evidence of this.  But Luther had lived in Philip's territory   
   some years earlier.   
      
   Luther's reluctant acceptance of polygamy in rare circumstances (when   
   the first wife was incurably ill or infertile, for example) dated from   
   much earlier:   
      
   “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it   
   does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than   
   one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience   
   that he may do so in accordance with the Word of God. In such a case the   
   civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”   
      
   (Letter to Chancellor Gregory Bruck, January 13, 1524)   
      
      
   Philip consulted Melanchthon and Bucer, as well.  All felt that a   
   polygamous marriage was the lesser evil.   
      
   Melanchthon also suggested this for the case of Henry VIII, but I don't   
   think it would have flown in England, nor would Henry have liked it.   
   When he was done with someone, even if  they lived, he was done.  He   
   never saw Catherine again after the divorce, though she lived in   
   England, not that far away.   
      
      
   >> As to divorce, I get the impression that he was even more reluctant to   
   >> allow it  than the Catholic Church.   
   >   
   > If we are still talking Henry VIII, I believe Henry was citing a   
   > statement in the Bible and Luther felt he was doing so incorrectly.   
      
   Henry's marriage to Catherine required a papal dispensation because of   
   her marriage to his late older brother.  Such dispensations were quite   
   common as even the slightest degree of relationship required one. To   
   complicate the matter, these came in a variety of forms, each   
   appropriate to a specific degree of  relationship or consanguinity.   
      
   This provided a mechanism for annulment or divorce - one had to convince   
   the authorities in Rome that the dispensation was insufficient or   
   improperly done.  Luther felt that this process was abused, as indeed it   
   was.  Princes got divorces for purely political reasons.   
      
   Which is why Henry left the Church, and also perhaps why he took so long   
   to do so (alas for Anne), as he felt the Church would come to its senses.   
      
   Henry and Wolsey recognized two serious arguments for annulment, one   
   from Deuteronomy and one from Leviticus.  Both concerned the marriage   
   with a late brother's wife, IIRC.   
      
   The problem of  which argument to use boiled down to whether Arthur had   
   had sex with Catherine.  One might normally expect that, but Arthur was   
   never very well.   He claimed to have had relations with his wife, but   
   after his death she claimed he had not.   
      
   If Arthur was right, one chapter would be used as the basis for an   
   annulment or divorce.  If Catherine, the other.  Wolsey was for one,   
   Henry for the other.   
      
   There was another case that could be made, based on Henry and   
   Catherine's remote family relationship.  This might well have been  the   
   most solid of the three.   
      
   But it didn't matter. Charles V was against it and the Pope would agree   
   to no divorce or annulment, however solid the grounds.   
      
   While Charles talked about the insult to his aunt, in reality he was   
   already thinking about putting a Spanish prince on the English throne,   
   by marriage with Henry's only surviving legitimate child, Mary.  A   
   design only frustrated, ironically, by Mary's infertility, which Henry   
   had predicted (she too was often ill).   
      
   Mary did in fact turn down possible marriages with several protestant   
   princes (Henry was surprisingly indulgent in this), at an age when she   
   was young enough that she might possibly have had a child despite her   
   illness.  Fodder for alt.hist.   
      
   William Hyde   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)