Kings & queens

Well, Britain’s just hogging all the news this week; latest is the announcement that Prince William, second in line to the throne, has got engaged to longtime girlfriend Kate Middleton. The ceremony will take place in an as yet unidentified London location (what besides Westminster Abbey or St. Paul’s would hold even the bridal party?), sometime next spring. Or maybe summer.

A couple of thoughts on this:

Let the souvenir selling begin—a royal wedding might just haul the UK’s butt out of recession faster than anything the Tory-Lib-Dem coalition could come up with by way of benefits-cutting or tax-raising.

Whatever nom-de-rule Wills chooses (they haven’t had much luck with a King William since the Conqueror, & he was a Frog), she will be the first Queen consort named Catherine since Henry VIII. Which may also not bode well.

Three of his wives were Catherine (or Katherine); two did not enjoy what you would call happy marriages. Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon because over the course of nearly 25 years she bore him no viable sons. This resulted in England irrevocably leaving the Roman Catholic fold, the establishment of the Church of England, the destruction of Church assets, the enrichment of the Tudors & five centuries of Anglican theology trying to straddle the fence between high & low church.

Most recently we saw the defection of five CoE bishops to the Roman Church over their discomfort with modernizing trends, including the ordination of women priests & consecration of female bishops. Which I don’t get because if they’re jake with the Queen being the Supreme Head of the Church, what’s the beef with women clergy?

Catherine spent her final few years after the divorce (granted not by the Pope, but by Henry himself—after he declared himself head of the church) in spitefully penurious retirement (King Hal didn’t like reminders of failures), & she wasn’t allowed to see her daughter, who eventually ascended the throne as Mary I. Upon receiving word of her death, Henry is reported to have celebrated.

The second of Henry’s Kates was Catherine Howard. About 30 years his junior, she was unprepared for the reality of an aging, obese sexual partner with a permanent festering ulcer on his leg. This not only impeded his dynastic designs, when she sought an extra-marital affair it made her vulnerable to blackmail from courtiers. Within two years of the wedding she was beheaded on charges of adultery. Girls just wanna have fun; but even in the days before TMZ & Twitter these things have a way of becoming known, & the Tudors were never known for their sense of humor.

Henry’s final Catherine, Parr, managed to outlive him; but as he was her third husband, she’d probably acquired enough negotiating skills to be able to manage him for their four years of marriage. This doesn’t mean it was necessarily a happy union for her: she’d actually been in love with Sir Thomas Seymour (brother to Henry’s third wife, Jane Seymour), but the King’s proposal trumped the baronet’s.

Following Henry’s death in 1547, Catherine was able to marry Seymour, but he was deeply involved in schemes to seize power, which included making a play for Princess Elizabeth, third in line to the throne, who was under Catherine’s care.

Nothing was simple with the Tudors.

Catherine died shortly after giving birth to her first child, at age 35. Her widower was beheaded for treason a year later.

Now, of course, historical dynastic marriages aren’t predictive; they’re not even indicative. But it’s interesting to speculate about a 21st Century Queen Catherine.

Don't get me started on the Williams, though.