Introduction
In 1533, Henry VIII presented what he believed to be an unassailable biblical argument for annulling his marriage to Catherine of Aragon: Leviticus 20:21, which declares that a man who marries his brother’s widow “shall be childless.” The King’s theologians argued that this divine curse explained why Catherine had suffered multiple miscarriages and failed to produce a male heir. There was just one glaring problem with this reasoning: Catherine had given birth to Princess Mary in 1516, a healthy daughter who would later become Queen Mary I. The King’s own biblical justification contradicted the very existence of his living child.
This theological contradiction reveals the lengths to which Henry VIII went to justify his break with Rome and his marriage to Anne Boleyn. The annulment proceedings, as documented in the Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 6: 1533, show a monarch willing to twist scripture to suit his political and personal needs. Yet the irony of using a verse about childlessness to annul a marriage that had produced a child would haunt the Tudor dynasty for generations.
Understanding this biblical contradiction illuminates not just Henry’s desperation for a male heir, but also the complex interplay between religion, politics, and royal succession that would reshape English history. The ramifications of this flawed argument would echo through the reigns of all three of Henry’s children.
Historical Background
Catherine of Aragon had first married Henry’s older brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales, in November 1501. Arthur died just five months later, in April 1502, leaving the 16-year-old Catherine a widow in a foreign land. The question of whether Catherine and Arthur had consummated their marriage would become central to the later annulment proceedings. Catherine consistently maintained that her marriage to Arthur had never been consummated, making her technically still a virgin when she married Henry VIII in 1509.
Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine required a papal dispensation precisely because of the biblical prohibition against marrying a brother’s widow. Pope Julius II had granted this dispensation in 1503, citing Deuteronomy 25:5, which actually commands a man to marry his deceased brother’s widow to continue the family line. This created a biblical contradiction from the outset: Leviticus appeared to forbid what Deuteronomy commanded.
For nearly two decades, Henry and Catherine’s marriage appeared successful. Catherine was a popular queen, well-educated and politically astute. She had served as regent during Henry’s absence in France and had overseen the English victory at the Battle of Flodden in 1513. However, her inability to produce surviving male heirs became increasingly problematic. Of her known pregnancies, only Mary survived to adulthood, though she also gave birth to a son, Henry, Duke of Cornwall, who died after just 52 days in 1511.
By the mid-1520s, Henry had become convinced that his marriage was cursed. His theological advisors, led by Thomas Cranmer, began building a case around Leviticus 20:21. As historian J.J. Scarisbrick notes in his definitive biography, Henry genuinely believed that divine displeasure explained his lack of male heirs. However, the existence of Mary created an obvious flaw in this reasoning that Henry’s advisors struggled to address.
Significance and Impact
The biblical contradiction at the heart of Henry’s annulment case had profound implications for the English Reformation. When Pope Clement VII refused to grant the annulment, partly due to the weakness of Henry’s theological arguments, the King took the momentous step of breaking with Rome entirely. The Act of Supremacy in 1534 declared Henry the Supreme Head of the Church of England, fundamentally altering the religious landscape of the nation.
This theological inconsistency also affected the status of Princess Mary. If Henry’s marriage to Catherine was invalid, as he claimed, then Mary was technically illegitimate. The Act of Succession of 1534 formally declared her a bastard, removing her from the line of succession. Yet Mary’s very existence contradicted the biblical curse of childlessness that supposedly proved the marriage’s invalidity. This paradox created lasting tensions within the royal family.
The flawed biblical reasoning had international ramifications as well. Catherine’s nephew, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, used the weakness of Henry’s arguments to pressure the Pope against granting the annulment. The theological contradictions provided ammunition for Catholic critics of the English Reformation, who could point to Henry’s selective interpretation of scripture as evidence of his illegitimate break with Rome.
Perhaps most significantly, the contradictory nature of Henry’s biblical case established a dangerous precedent for royal interpretation of divine law. If monarchs could cherry-pick biblical passages to justify their actions whilst ignoring contradictory evidence, it opened the door for arbitrary rule justified by selective theology. This precedent would influence religious policy throughout the Tudor period and beyond.
Connections and Context
The timing of Henry’s biblical arguments coincided with the broader Protestant Reformation sweeping across Europe. Martin Luther had posted his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, challenging papal authority and advocating for scripture-based Christianity. Henry initially opposed Luther, earning the title “Defender of the Faith” from Pope Leo X in 1521. However, the King’s later embrace of biblical interpretation to justify his annulment ironically aligned him with Protestant principles, even as he maintained Catholic theology in other areas.
The contradiction also connects to the broader issue of female inheritance in Tudor England. Henry’s dismissal of Mary as insufficient to continue his dynasty reflected contemporary attitudes about female rule, yet both Mary and later Elizabeth I would prove to be formidable monarchs. The irony that Henry used Mary’s existence to contradict his own annulment argument whilst simultaneously dismissing her worth as an heir reveals the complex gender dynamics of Tudor succession.
This biblical controversy occurred against the backdrop of Henry’s passionate pursuit of Anne Boleyn, who was already pregnant when the annulment was finalised in 1533. The urgency to legitimise his relationship with Anne may explain why Henry pressed forward with weak theological arguments rather than developing more robust justifications. The speed of events suggests political expediency trumped theological consistency.
Modern Relevance and Fascinating Details
This historical contradiction continues to fascinate modern audiences because it reveals the human tendency to rationalise desired outcomes, even when evidence contradicts our arguments. Henry’s selective use of biblical passages mirrors contemporary debates about interpreting religious texts to support predetermined positions. The King’s willingness to ignore inconvenient facts whilst emphasising supportive evidence feels remarkably modern.
Did you know that Catherine of Aragon never accepted the annulment and continued to sign herself as “Catherine the Queen” until her death in 1536? She maintained that her marriage to Henry was valid in God’s eyes, directly challenging the biblical interpretation that declared it cursed. Her steadfast refusal to accept Henry’s theological arguments kept the contradiction alive throughout her remaining years.
Popular culture, from Showtime’s “The Tudors” to Hilary Mantel’s acclaimed novels, often dramatises Henry’s theological arguments without fully exploring their inherent contradictions. As a historical fiction author, I find that readers are often surprised to learn that Henry’s biblical case was so fundamentally flawed. The existence of Mary as living proof against the curse of childlessness adds dramatic irony that many adaptations fail to fully exploit.
Modern historians continue to debate whether Henry genuinely believed his biblical arguments or simply used them as convenient justification for predetermined actions. The psychological complexity of a king who could simultaneously use his daughter’s existence to contradict his own annulment case whilst declaring her illegitimate reveals the mental gymnastics required to maintain such contradictory positions.
Conclusion
Henry VIII’s use of Leviticus 20:21 to justify his annulment from Catherine of Aragon remains one of history’s most glaring examples of selective reasoning. The biblical curse of childlessness could hardly apply to a marriage that had produced Princess Mary, yet this fundamental contradiction failed to deter the King from his chosen course. The theological weakness of his position forced Henry to break with Rome entirely, reshaping English history in ways he could never have anticipated.
This historical irony reminds us that even the most powerful rulers are subject to the contradictions of their own arguments. The flawed biblical reasoning that launched the English Reformation reveals how personal desires, political necessity, and religious interpretation intersected in Tudor England. For modern readers seeking to understand the complexities of the Tudor period, this theological contradiction provides a fascinating window into the mind of England’s most notorious king and the lasting consequences of his contradictory logic.