GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2005-04 > 1112368906


From: "Dave Mayall" <>
Subject: Re: OT but currently pertinent
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:21:46 +0100
References: <68.528511b7.2f7c89a1@aol.com> <24d22f544d%Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> <d2gra0$krb$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <g9R+5VB+6HTCFwd+@varneys.demon.co.uk> <1a24cf.814d06@fmlynet.org> <d2jfah$cs1$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b514kF6fp398U1@individual.net> <d2jo6b$fjd$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>


"Robert Burns" <> wrote in message
news:d2jo6b$fjd$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> And the difference is what exactly. In modern terms to have a marriage
> annulled one must not have consummated it. Henry VIII had consummated the
> marriage by having Elizabeth I. He was divorced after breaking from the
> church.

Oh dear, where do we begin on this one;

1) Having a marriage annulled is not the same as a divorce. Having a
marriage annulled takes the parties back as if the marriage had never taken
place.
2) Lack of consumation is not the only cause for which a marriage can be
anulled. For example, if the wife is (unknown to the husband) pregnant with
another man's child at the time of the marriage, or if either part is
suffering from a Venereal Disease that they have not disclosed to the other.
3) Catherine of Arragon was not Elizabeth's mother.

Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine was, in fact, void ab-initio, and
required no formal anullment to bring it to an end. Henry and Catherine were
within the prohibited degrees of affinity because Catherine had been
previously married to Henry's brother. Such a marriage was not permitted
until early in the 20th century.



This thread: