Talk:Arthur, Prince of Wales

Brother's Widow

In the Christian Bible it states that it is unclean for a man to take his brother's wife, and if a man did so, the union would be childless. Where does this idea come from? Leviticus commands a man to take his brother's widow if no children were produced, and I can't think of anything in the New Testament that supplanted that. Leviticus does forbid a man to take his brother's wife while he is still alive. Is that where the idea that a widow was also forbidden came from? Nik42 05:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write this article, but that's exactly what happened to Katherine of Aragon and was why Henry VIII sought a divorce.

I thought that it was Deuteronomy that instructed a man to marry his brother's widow if he died childless, to raise children in his brother's name or something along those lines. There must have been some rule against a man marrying his brother's widow; why else would a dispensation have been needed in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.15.86 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Primary problem is a common one. People want God to say what they want him to say, and not what He is actually saying. There really wasn't any confusion, as the article insinuates. Rather, the desire to create the semblance of confusion or inconsistancy to achieve one's ends is what was at the heart of things. Jhaerlyn (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, the unnamed contributor has a point, if there weren't anything in the bible saying something against marrying your brother's widow, they wouldn't have needed a papal dispensation, therefore, there must be something concerning that -- and most likely, a few different things that doesn't match the previous words -- to begin with. But what really shocked me was the partial tone of the author, taking for granted that Katherine wouldn't have lied about it (I do find more likely that Arthur would have said he had her even if he didn't, it would be better for his male ego, but I can hardly believe a couple of 15-year-old would lie together and not have sex for longer than one night, specially if they were legally married)Diana Prallon (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Talmud maintains the commandment of Deuteronomy 25:5+ is a specific exception to the general prohibition of Leviticus 20:21. Too bad for Katherine that her family viewed the Talmud as kindling rather than useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirubin (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I repeat there is nothing against marrying your Brother's widow in the Bible. And there are, as Dirubin mentioned, actual reference to the responsibility one had to the family, that was over and above your own. If you follow church history any, by this time the Catholic church has a strong doctrine of the Bible PLUS their own teachings and wisdom from the church "fathers" ... I wish I hadn't been so busy with other things or I would have responded much earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhaerlyn (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC) But I like the way it was reworded, much better than my wordiness :) Jhaerlyn (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

TO: Jhaerlyn and Nik42 with all due respect, Leviticus 20:21 clearly says, "'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless." Cldhome (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for source - hantavirus theory

I recall seeing a 1997 Public Broadcasting Service "New Explorers" video documentary on hantavirus called "On the Trail of a Killer Virus" (ID AV# 81516) which briefly discussed the theory about a hantavirus being involved in Arthur’s death. I don’t recall them citing a historian or microbiology publication. The video the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta investigating the Sin Nombre virus ( Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome ) spread by infected deer mice. Web shows this was on A&E in 2000. Someone have access to this documentary? Is a source provided in the credits? 65.54.154.25 (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the Wikipedia article on sweating sickness - there are 4 sources listed there regarding hantavirus. History Lunatic (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Histor Lunatic

Non-consummation of the Marriage of Arthur and Catherine

At least one writer, Garrett Mattingly (Catherine of Aragon) relates the hearing of the King's Great Matter. In that hearing, Catherine defended the validity of her marriage to Henry, saying that her marriage with Arthur had not been consummated. She even alludes to Henry's knowledge of her virginity. Catherine made a statement that at the time of her marriage to Henry, she was as virgin as she was when her mother bore her. Henry kept quiet and when it was his time to speak, said nothing in refutation of Catherine's statement. Who would know Catherine's virginity at the time of their first night together? Henry probably would have known it. That he did not deny Catherine's statement is probably an admission of its truthfulness. Rrcs law (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)rrcs lawRrcs law (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Many authors defend Catherine's virginity, usually citing her intense piety in her later life - hindsight. There are some contemporary factors that would indicate otherwise. Besides the testimony of Arthur's next-day boasting, no one at the time indicated any concern that the marriage had not been consummated - in medieval times if a marriage was not consummated it might not be considered valid and Catherine could have been denied her settlement, which included 1/3 of Arthur's lands in Wales. If there were even rumor that there was no consummation, ambassadors would have sent messages to Isabella and Ferdinand. By the same token her parents would not have been responsible for paying the other half of her dowry which was still owed to Henry VII - for several years after Arthur's death Ferdinand and Henry played "Where's the Dowry?" but never once was the argument of non-consummation used by Ferdinand to deny payment of the dowry.

After Arthur's death Catherine was secluded for 40 days to secure paternity of any child she might be carrying; no one, not Catherine and not her duenna, pointed out that she could not be pregnant because she was still a virgin. Duenna Dona Elvira later testified that the marriage was not consummated and Catherine was a virgin, but this was only after it was proven Catherine was not pregnant and the possibility of a marriage to the new heir was raised. Dona Elvira's later political intrigue did not enhance her reputation for honesty.

When applying to the Pope for dispensation for the potential marriage of Catherine and Prince Henry, de Puebla at first specified that Catherine was the widow of young Henry's brother Arthur and that the marriage had been consummated. The dispensation itself read that the marriage "had perhaps been consummated," but permission for the marriage of Henry and Catherine was given. In other words, the Pope hedged his bets. This is much discussed in "The History of the Reformation of the Church of England" by Gilbert Burnet among other places.

As far as Henry knowing that Catherine was a virgin on their wedding night, virginity has been faked before, especially when being a queen is at stake - and 20 years later when your pious reputation and your daughter's legitimacy is at stake. Despite Henry's later reputation as a womanizer, his childhood was rather secluded and as the only surviving son he was closely guarded after Arthur died. There is no evidence that he had any sexual experience when he married Catherine and may not have had any idea how to judge the virginity of his bride. One theory for why Henry did not reply to the question of her virginity on his own wedding night with Catherine was that he did not want to publicize the fact that he simply didn't know.

In the end, the only people who ever really knew the truth were Arthur and Catherine. History Lunatic (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

"Special Bond"?

Though educated (and, formerly, working) as an historian, Tudor history was never my specialty, and I lack the time to complete the necessary research to be certain: but, on the face of it, this unreferenced and orphaned sentence,

"Some historians maintain that Arthur had a bond with Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, who defended the northern border of England against the Scots",

appears to be blatant puffery written in an attempt to further an avid descendant's claims. I suggest that it be removed if no one substantiates the assertion within, say, a month or two. Firstorm (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When was Arthur created a Knight of the Bath?

This article states that Arthur was created a Knight of the Bath at his christening, then states it happened again when he was invested as Prince of Wales when he was three years old. Can anyone clear this up? History Lunatic (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

I've added links to the primary source on the baptism and his creation as Prince of Wales. It seems he was made Garter knight during the creation, so I have made the article read so. (The source is a Cotton library manuscript, the ending is different in the two publications linked.) And, it is most unlikely that Vernon could take the heir of England to his private home, so I have modified that reference.Unoquha (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Explain the misunderstanding

"The popular belief that Arthur was sickly during his lifetime stems from a Victorian misunderstanding of a letter from 1502;" Okay, can someone explain the misunderstanding, please? What was actually written? What did it mean? What was it mistakenly thought to mean? --Khajidha (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Issues with the Legacy section

I disagree with most of the "Legacy" section. Prince Arthur's legacy ended with his death. At most a brief discussion of Catherine's situation (possible marriage to Henry VII, then married to Prince Henry) is okay. After that, the whole discussion about Henry VIII and his marriages belongs solely in Henry VIII's legacy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg va (talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

portrait

Since we have credible sources the current portrait is the only one, it would be inappropriate to show the other one: File:Arthur_Prince_of_Wales_c_1500.jpg.

Also see [1]. CapnZapp (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)