Hmm, not too sure about Joe Kennedy.

[Jackeens]

To recap - from (sorry) Wikipedia:

Kennedy married Sheila Brewster Rauch (born 22 March 1949) on February 3, 1979 in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania. The couple had twin sons, Matthew Rauch Kennedy and Joseph Patrick Kennedy III. Kennedy and Rauch divorced in 1991. Two years later, Kennedy asked the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston for an annulment of the marriage on the grounds of "lack of due discretion of judgment", meaning that he was mentally incapable of entering into marriage at the time of his wedding. An annulment would give the marriage the status of never having existed, and allow Kennedy to marry his former staff member Anne Elizabeth Kelly in a Catholic ceremony, as well as allow him to participate in other sacraments of the church such as Holy Communion not available to a divorced person who remarries. Rauch refused to agree to the annulment, and Kennedy married Kelly in a civil ceremony on October 23, 1993.

The Boston Archdiocese did grant Kennedy the annulment, a fact discovered by Rauch in 1996. Rauch, who is not Catholic (she is Episcopalian), wrote a book titled Shattered Faith: A Woman's Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage explaining that she was opposed to the concept of annulment, because it meant in Roman Catholic theology that the marriage had never actually existed, and claiming that the Kennedy family influence made it possible to unilaterally "cancel" a 12-year marriage. She appealed to the Vatican to overturn the annulment.

The annulment was overturned by the Vatican in 2005. On 19 June 2007, Time magazine reported that the Roman Rota reversed the declaration of annulment made by the tribunal of the Boston Archdiocese. As the Rota was sitting for that case as a second-instance appellate court, Kennedy could appeal the decision to another Rotal panel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Patrick_Kennedy_II

Another article here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/13/EDG9CB8VOF1.DTL


One of my relations went through pretty much the same as Joe Kennedy's first wife, ie her husband was moneyed and well connected enough to get an annulment from the Catholic Church when there were absolutely NO grounds for it - he simply met someone else and wanted to be able to marry her in a church. If he wasn't moneyed or well connected the Catholic Church (the local bishop in this case) wouldn't even have taken his call. My relation had no say in the matter, it was extraordinary stuff. They had two kids, but the annulment kind of overlooked that fact. In the eyes of the Catholic Church those kids are now, effectively, 'illegitimate'.

I know, I know, his private life is none of our business and what happened doesn't mean he couldn't become a great Senator and/or legislator - and maybe that matters a whole lot more in the long run. And, true, Ted made big mistakes in his lifetime but, in the end, did so much good.

I don't know, I just think the annulment business and the treatment of his first wife and kids was grim - it made Mark Sanford look like a loving husband.

Is it stupid to hold that against him and not want him to succeed Ted because of it?

PS The other thing that is so hideous about these types of annulment is how they so often disregard the views of the woman in the marriage - but, yes, it is the Catholic church we're talking about. There are obvious exceptions to that rule - eg Princess Caroline of Monaco (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n24_v29/ai_13685886/), another moneyed and well connected Catholic - but generally, it seems, the woman isn't even asked for her opinion.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Ted Kennedy's annulment after 20+ years and three kids was kind of weird. nt

[quiller4]

3. When you can document addiction of one or both spouses,

most diocesan tribunals will grant an annulment. In Ten and Joan Kennedy's case, both petitioned for their annulment.

[Jackeens]

5. I had completely forgotten that. Oh Jesus!

[Captain Hilts]

7. It's just kinda weird for the kids, being declared illegitimate...

I know someone that had a marriage annulled after one kid.

[Jackeens]

11. Exactly, if there were no kids in the marriage then annul away!

[Captain Hilts]

20. If there are no kids I don't get worried about divorces either. nt

[tabasco]

71. You think people who hate each other should stay together if they have kids?

That's bright.

[JeanGrey]

76. Well according to the latest research, divorce is harder

on kids than staying.

[dflprincess]

13. The children are not declared illegitmate even by the Church

and the marriage is not treated as if it didn't exist, it is said to have not been "sacramental" because one or both parties did not keep or intend to keep their vows. All an annulment does is free the couple to marry others in the Catholic Church (assuming the next time they will understand and keep their vows) and to receive the sacraments if they do remarry.

As a lapsed Catholic, I'm always surprised that anyone even bothers with getting an annulment I can't quite imagine still being that tied to the church. And I really don't understand why an Episcopalian (or any non-Catholic) would much care about games Catholics play. A Catholic annulment has no legal standing and does not affect any inheritance rights the children have or property rights of the former spouse.

http://www.stdanielclarkston.org/annulmnt.htm

QUESTION: Will my children be illegitimate if my marriage is annulled?

Answer: NO! This is a grave misconception. The marital status of the parents does not affect the status of the children. All children are created in God's image and have equal status in the church. Neither civil law nor church law considers the children of an annulled marriage illegitimate. Nor does the annulment imply that the children were not the fruit of a genuine human love. Annulment is simply a decision on the circumstances surrounding a marriage that could prevent that marriage from being a sacramental marriage.

[Captain Hilts]

18. When did they change that??

[pnwmom]

24. They didn't change that. It's always been the case. An annulment means

that an impediment existed prior to the marriage that should have prevented the parties from entering into the marriage. It doesn't bastardize any children they did have.

[BlueMTexpat]

43. An annulment, if not exactly bastardizing the child, would have taken

away the child's rights of succession, at least in the days of Henry VIII, who was the most spectacularly unsuccessful petitioner for one in history.
That was one reason why Catherine of Aragon fought so hard against an annulment; she saw her daughter Mary as the true heir to Henry's throne.
In that case, Catherine was the well-connected Catholic and so Henry didn't get his annulment. Annulments were being granted all the time for lesser reasons. Henry's infatuation with Anne Boleyn made him tire of playing the Catholic games and we all know what happened after that. It was one of the most stunningly bad calculations of the Catholic Church in history, although the Church probably had no choice and really thought that it was siding with the winners since nearly all of Continental Europe opposed Henry's actions. Besides, the Tudor hold on the throne of England was still precarious at the time, especially since Henry had no male heir from Catherine.
No one ever could have imagined Elizabeth I and her era, where England actually became a major world player, surpassing Spain, Portugal and France in her colonial empire.

[CitizenLeft]

52. English history nut here...

Loved your explanation! I don't think I could've summarized such a complex situation as Henry's "Great Matter" as short and sweetly as you did! :hi:

[BlueMTexpat]

58. I've always found that era fascinating generally.

And not only insofar as English history is concerned, but especially in the intermeshing of English, French and Spanish history at the time! :hi:
They were literally all in bed with each other.
If I was able to capture any of the matter with brevity, full credit is due to the BBC series "The Tudors" (not always historically accurate but quite entertaining) and also to Antonia Fraser's "The Six Wives of Henry VIII."

[CitizenLeft]

81. I haven't seen the BBC "Tudors" series - I'll put that on my...

Netflix list!

Antonia Fraser's good - have you read Alison Weir's books on Henry and Elizabeth? She's awesome. My favorite of hers, though, is her "Princes in the Tower" about Richard III and the little princes. Can't put her books down!

[pnwmom]

27. I think Joe's wife was bitter, pure and simple. It was a way of taking revenge.

She didn't need an annulment in her Church to remarry, but he did in his. So she stopped him from getting one.

[Jackeens]

29. I'd be bitter too! For my kids especially.

[Jackeens]

28. That is just a classic from the Catholic church

They grant annulments when it is ruled that a true marriage was never formed...yet having deemed the marriage never to have been 'true' they maintain that the children it 'produced' are legitimate....despite their stance that children born outside 'true' marriages are 'illegitimate' (even if they've backed off using that term).

Is it any wonder us Catholics are confused? :shrug:

[pnwmom]

23. It isn't weird for a kid who understands what it means. I wish my parents HAD

gotten an annulment. It would have been better for my mother. But my father -- who was happily living with his male partner -- would never have cooperated.

An annulment doesn't make the children bastards. It just says that there was an impediment existing on one side or the other before the marriage, that should have kept that marriage from going forward.

[Jackeens]

31. But pnwmom, is there not a bizarre contradiction in the Catholic Church's position on these kids?

Yes, the Catholic Church can declare that these children are not 'illegitimate' (granted, a term not widely used any more) - which they kind of have to do, otherwise their annulment rules would be even more of a laughing stock than they already are.

But how do kids of marriages declared not to be 'true' feel, especially if they have a strong Catholic faith? It's just the Catholic Church trying to have it every way - basically, it's divorce for rich Catholics, and 'damn the kids'. That's kind of how my relative's children feel about it any way.

[pnwmom]

34. The annulment doesn't say the children are illegitimate.

Illegitimacy is a CIVIL concept. The annulment says there was an impediment to the marriage that should have prevented it from occurring in the first place -- for example, my father's homosexuality. The fact that he and my mother had several kids didn't make any of us illegitimate and it also didn't make him straight. My mother should have been able to get an annulment but my father couldn't be bothered.

[Honeycombe8]

62. I remembered that when I saw him speak at Ted's funeral. I'd have a problem voting for him.

But I'm in TX, so that doesn't matter.

Sure, it's a personal matter. But as a divorced woman, I could identify. And to me it goes to character. The type of person he is. Why would he care so much about the Catholic sacrament, if he's not willing to honor the sacrament of his marriage? He had no problem using influence to rid himself of a bothersome person, and even his children, so he could move forward with a NEW Catholic family.

If I had a choice, I wouldn't vote for him. But if he were the Dem on the ticket, I might have to hold my nose and vote for him if a health care bill vote might be coming up, because that is so important.

[a la izquierda]

17. 3 kids and 10 years for my folks...

so, my sisters and I are bastards in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
I don't get it.

[pnwmom]

25. No, you aren't. And neither are my 3 siblings and I. A Catholic Annulment has nothing

to do with making bastards of the children.

[Peregrine Took]

2. I think Bobby, jr. is a more likely candidate. He is in the public eye and has

passionate views on the political scenario and is very pro environment.

[Captain Hilts]

9. He's in NY, and backed out of taking Hillary's place. I don't know why. nt

[MiniMe]

49. I think he had a drug problem in his past

He kicked it, but you know it would come up. For some reason I'm thinking heroin, but I'm not sure about that. You know he would have been dragged through the mud.

[democrat2thecore]

74. You are right. Felony drug conviction does not a senator make -nt

[Jennicut]

4. I have no idea...we don't do that in the Lutheran church...we just get divorced and life goes on.

The question should be why are divorced people treated so badly by the Catholic Church? Its a dumb rule.

[undeterred]

6. Its the Church policy thats weird, not the people.

Why should anyone be cut off from Church sacraments for the rest of their life because of a divorce? Why should anyone have to declare that their first marriage was made in bad faith and their children are bastards?

[Jackeens]

10. Absolutely, the policy is grotesque, but when there are kids I just wish annulments weren't sought.

[pnwmom]

26. All you have to do is explain to the kids that an annulment has NOTHING to do with them

anymore than a civil divorce does. And that is absolutely true, in the case of a Catholic annulment. It doesn't bastardize the children, it has nothing to do with the children.

[Jackeens]

32. You're absolutely right, but children of annulled marriages might find it all hard to take.

My niece and nephew do.

[pnwmom]

35. I think the separation and divorce is what hurts them -- the annulment shouldn't

bother them UNLESS a parent conveys the message that it should. This would fall into the general category of "parental alienation" in my opinion.

[Skittles]

12. why does anyone put up with religious bullshit?

that is the real question

[Lex]

54. yes

that is the real question -- a bunch of made-up baloney that people twist themselves up about

[Captain Hilts]

15. Yes. Very true. nt

[jwirr]

33. I think we are forgetting one factor here. Unlike us Lutherans, the Catholic

Church treats marriage as a sacrament thus it is placed in a very high status and is handled so carefully. Edward Kennedy was as we saw in his life and his funeral a firm believer in the Catholic Church. To him it mattered if he was right with the church and could marry Vicki in the church. I also think that Joan was a very bitter woman. At the beginning of the funeral service the priest did recognize her as the mother of the children.

[undeterred]

41. If the Catholic Church saw marriage as a sacrament

they wouldn't put people in the ridiculous position of having to declare that their first marriage was made in bad faith and children are illegitimate. If God forgives mistakes then the Church shouldn't use this life to keep on punishing. The Catholic Church and Ted Kennedy also believe in redemption.

[jwirr]

57. Wasn't defending them - I'm Lutheran - Just saying.

[pnwmom]

64. By Canon law, children of annulled marriages are legitimate.

You're misstating the Church's position.

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-annulment.html

"Does annulment make our
children illegitimate?"

No — children of a marriage that's determined to be invalid by a Catholic annulment, are still legitimate. (Code of Canon Law, canon 1137)

When a couple marries, they assume the marriage is valid and was entered into in good faith. Children conceived under this assumption of a valid marriage, are considered to be legitimate.

This fact does not change even if the marriage is later found to be not valid.

In the United States, Catholic annulment does not affect any state civil laws. It is unrelated to civil concerns such as illegitimacy, child custody, alimony, visitation rights, or division of property.

[traxster]

8. A friend of mine who is Catholic had to do the same thing so she could get married by the Church

If anything, its less about him and more about the rules of the Catholic Church. I had a friend whose husband had to go through hoops to get his marriage annulled so she could get married in her church.

[housewolf]

14. i was raised in the Catholic church

and what I think is weird is that the church has such medieval views on love, sex, marriage and the nature of the human heart that they force people into going through that horrible annulmnent process when marriage partner find that their marrage today needs to be dissolved in order to continue to practice their faith.

While I'm sorry for all the parties who suffered the broken marriage and feel for the wife and childres, as I see it, it's the rules of the church that are at greater oppressor here.

[Jackeens]

16. I agree with you housewolf, but...

Whatever the rules of the Catholic Church I still can't understand why any man or woman who had children in a marriage would apply to have that marriage annulled - by doing so they are telling those children that they were the product of a marriage that was 'null and void'. And all because they want their next marriage to be in a Catholic church. It's bizarre.

[GivePeaceAchance]

19. In the end his personal life has not detracted him from being a very fine progressive and we need ..

as many as we can get. The guy's profile shows a person who has a lot of fight career wise and we sure do need that right now, especially in the Senate.

[Captain Hilts]

21. CORRECT!!

[hedgehog]

22. The Church is only judging the marriage, not the kids. I don't know about

historic attitudes, but right now the Church doesn't care if your parents were married or not. You aren't legitimate or illegitimate, you just are.

Annulments are no longer reserved for the rich. There is a sliding charge for filing a request for annulment. I suppose in theory you could pay the fee and get turned down.

The theory of annulment is like the theory of relativity. You think you understand it, but then it slips away again. Here's my understanding: A sacramental marriage is forever and can not be ended by divorce. In order for a sacramental marriage, both members must meet a series of requirements and they must state their intention to marry in front of witnesses (traditionally a priest, but nit necessarily)

Now, here's the part that is slippery. What makes the marriage sacramental is the couple loving each other as a sign of God's love. Since God's love is forever, if the marriage doesn't work, then it must not be a sacramental marriage. The annulment process generally looks for an objective reason the marriage doesn't qualify as sacramental (say the couple finds out they are second cousins) and/or a subjective reason - say the wife testifies she felt forced to go through with the wedding because of pressure from her family. therefore she was incapable of giving willing assent. In your relative's case, maybe the gist of the process was the judge looking at the husband and saying the jerk never intended to be faithful all along, so therefore no sacramental marriage.

I just learned today that there is something called Natural marriage - say a civil marriage or a marriage between a Catholic and non-Christian. Now I'm wondering whether in cases of annulment the Church considers a natural marriage but not sacramental marriage to have taken place.

The long and short of it is that it really is a screwed up system based on a saying of Jesus that IMO may have been an example of hyperbole. (After all, he also said " If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire." but you don't see a lot of self-maimed Catholics.)I'd rather see a ceremony allowing the two people to stand up in front of witnesses and say they made a mistake and the marriage is over.

[Jackeens]

30. Really interesting, thank you - but 'undeserved' annulments are still the preserve of the rich

Yes, 'genuine' annulments are available to all, but only the moneyed and well-connected Catholics - like Princess Caroline and Joe Kennedy - get them when they have a weak case, or no case at all.

[hedgehog]

40. On the other hand, how often have you seen or heard of someone who married young

and made a shambles of a marriage and succeeded the second time around. Did Joe Kennedy drift into his first marriage because it was what was expected of him? I don't know, and it's really none of my business. The Boston Churchmen did a bad thing by issuing an annulment without contacting his first wife. The Vatican did worse by stepping in to make an example of Joe Kennedy.

The breakup of a marriage is worse than a funeral because it's dreams that have died. It happens. The faster the Church wakes up and realizes its job is to guide people through this suffering instead of standing in judgment, the better.

[buzzycrumbhunger]

42. That isn't true

My dad (who actually converted to catholicism to marry my mom) managed to obtain an annulment after five kids and more than 25 years just by lying. After spending a lifetime being a top salesman, he simply found it effortless to create a believable story about how they never belonged together. Whilst this may have been true in the end because he'd become a raging alcoholic and bore no resemblance to the man she married, it was a gross abuse of their crappy system. The only way my mom found out was because my grandma was a bitch and gloated about it.

At the time he pulled this off, my dad's drinking had gotten so bad that he couldn't find/keep another sales job and was living in the shop at a catholic college where he worked as a handyman. Latched onto a cleaning woman there who drank with him and wanted a church wedding. My mom got everything of value in the divorce, so he clearly could not afford payola. It was simply a matter of who he knew and how good a liar he was.

IMHO, the fact that this church even plays this kind of game illustrates the fact that they're making up the rules to suit themselves on probably everything. I don't grok the "morality" of not even informing the other party this is being done or getting their side of the story. I suspect the secret motto in the Vatican is Misogyny R Us. ::eyes:

[pnwmom]

36. Right. Legitimacy isn't a religious concept, it's a civil concept related to civil law.

A Catholic annulment doesn't turn the children into bastards.

[shifting_sands]

37. hypocrisy

just another example of the Catholic church's hypocrisy, it happens all the time, moneyed or not. It isn't unusual in the church. The Catholic church is literally full of hypocrisy and people can buy their way in or out of anything and that's been the case for a couple of thousand of years.

[Mystayya]

38. Ted's first marriage was also annulled

Joe has helped me get through 3 winters. I won't hold it against him that his church has antiquated, archaic rules about marriage. He is not the only politician who's religious views on marriage I disagree with. I also happen to believe that Marriage can be between people of the same gender, unlike some prominent politician's views.

[saltpoint]

39. Joe would be a contender for this seat if he is interested in making

the run.

[Mass]

44. Both Kennedy and Kerry's marriages were annuled. so, while I do not like the custom.

I am not sure it would be a big factor.

[LibDemAlways]

45. Because Catholic teaching prohibits divorce, the church had to

concoct another way to free people from bad marriages. Annulment is that process. It isn't perfect, and sometimes it seems ridiculous. A non-Catholic friend of mine had been briefly married during WWII to another non-Catholic soldier just before he shipped out. They drifted apart, and divorced shortly after the war. Many years later she was surprised to receive a questionnaire in the mail concerning an annulment of that marriage. Her ex was in the process of converting to Catholicism and was engaged to a Catholic woman. The church deemed it necessary that he obtain an annulment of his marriage to her first. She thought the whole thing was silly, but she went along with it, answering a lot of embarrassing, intrusive questions.

After the annulment came through, she was informed that she was now free to marry in the church, which amused both her and her non-Catholic husband who had been married for over 30 years!

[fedupinBushcountry]

55. To remarry in the church

That is basically why they get annulments. My brother did so he could get married to his second wife in the church. The annulment is through the church eyes only as far as the state goes it is still a divorce. I think I'm right on that.

[BlueMTexpat]

73. I am a recovering Catholic ... after taking one of the religious

quizzes someone posted at DU some time back, I came out as neo-pagan, which might be an overstatement. But I refuse to let any religion where men have had control for thousands of years tie me in knots. I sincerely try to lead a good life and treat others in the way that I myself would like to be treated.
Your story reminds me of my husband's first wife's situation. As a Catholic, she was married young in a Catholic ceremony to a man who was an alcoholic and the marriage was not successful so she got a divorce. Two children were born of that marriage. She met and married her second husband (now mine of 28+ years). He was a non-Catholic; they were married in a civil ceremony and he legally adopted both children. That marriage was not successful primarily because each wanted different things out of life and they divorced fairly amicably, also after having two children together. (I didn't arrive on the scene until some years later.) She remarried another non-Catholic and, while marriage #3 was not a happy one, it lasted until his death from cancer. In the meantime, husband #1 also passed away.
I have never been clear whether or not an annulment was even required to take care of marriage #2 because it would not have been a marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church in any event. What I do know is that a couple years back, she met and married husband #4 IN a Catholic ceremony so she must somehow have been rehabilitated.
None of us gets too uptight about any of this although it was apparently quite meaningful to her. Counting my own two from my first marriage, we share six children, lovely grands, and in-laws and also celebrate family milestones together. I actually get a kick out of my husband's ex (she's a real character with a heart of gold) and he was the wedding photographer at her fourth marriage. We all love all the kids and their families, even though the youngest "kid" is now 42!
While I wish that I could have had a "happily ever after" from my first marriage, I didn't. But I do now. If the Catholic Church chooses not to bless it, I can live quite happily without that blessing.

[DevonRex]

46. Jackeens, our personal experiences always influence our opinions.

That's the way life is. You are not wrong to have the doubts you have and you are right to ask the questions. That actually means that you don't want to judge him unfairly.

This whole annulment thing says a lot more about the hypocrisy of the Catholic church than it does about the people who take advantage of it. Because people WILL take advantage of anything that's available to them, won't they? But the Church is supposed to be fair and logical about its theology and practices, and it is NOT. By not accepting divorce they are encouraging this annulment business. In essence the Church is saying that annulment is the RIGHT thing to do. And good Catholics always do the right thing. Right?

This is making me dizzy just thinking about it.

[jaysunb]

50. The problem is..

there's an awful lot of devout Catholics in Mass. .:shrug:

[Jackeens]

61. LOL, I'm dizzy too DevonRex!

The solution, of course, is for the Catholic Church to ditch the hypocrisy and accept divorce - annulment by another name, but without the absurdity!

[PassingFair]

47. Who cares?

Why should his Episcopalian wife CARE
what the Catholic church decrees?

It doesn't effect her OR her children.

LET the church pour perfume on it's
piggish divorces.

I think I'll look up the book and try
to divine where her pain comes from, though.

[TayTay]

48. None of that bitterness passed to his kids

I have met Matt and Joe (III) Kennedy on a few occasions at functions in Massachusetts and they bear no ill will toward their father or family at all. In fact, they are quite nice, albeit somewhat shy, young men who were interested in getting in public life in the Commonwealth.

You can often see a reflection of the parents in the children. If so, this animosity was not carried within that family. In that case, I am uninterested in it myself. If their own children don't care much about it, why should I? And why should this private matter have anything to do with my vote for a Democratic candidate for the US Senate?

[polichick]

51. That's the wacko Catholic church for ya - hard to believe they still have followers. nt

[Lex]

53. church doctrine is weird more so than

the people (although I do question why people would jump through these ridiculous hoops)

[JNelson6563]

56. Well, if it matters, it plays both ways.

A woman can also get an annulment I believe. And when she dies, if there's a funeral Mass there'd be no mention of that husband/marriage.

Julie

[pnwmom]

59. Sheila didn't need an annulment because she's Episcopalian. She just wanted

to stop her ex from remarrying in HIS Church.

[Jackeens]

60. Or maybe she disagreed with the Catholic Church....

....and believed her marriage, that brought her and Joe two children, was perfectly 'true'?!

And it would have been nice if they'd let her know that marriage had been annulled? Did she not deserve that much?

[pnwmom]

63. The Church considers a marriage to be sacramental only if both parties

were capable of entering a valid marriage. Without knowing the circumstances, it's entirely possible that the impediment existed on Joseph's side. Just because she was mature enough and in good enough mental health to enter marriage doesn't mean he was.

[Jackeens]

66. But the dispute, as she articulated, was that there was no "impediment".

If there was then fair enough, the church was within its rights to grant an annulment.

But she argued that, without being consulted, the marriage was annulled simply to facilitate his wish to marry his new partner in church - and that it was unlikely the Church would even have entertained his application if he wasn't a 'well-connected' Catholic.

But you're right, it's one word against another - the part of the story that, I think, is most objectionable is the fact that she only learnt about the annulment three years after it had been granted. A similar story to my relation's. That, for me, simply highlights the attitude of the Catholic Church to women. That's what probably bugs me most about all of this. Yes, they're Church rules, I just wish he hadn't played by them.

[pnwmom]

72. Yeah, I don't understand that part. My mother couldn't get an annulment

because my father wouldn't fill out the papers.

So presumably Sheila filled out some papers -- so she knew that the thing was in process. Since she was already divorced, and since she was NOT a member of the Catholic Church, maybe the Church didn't think it was necessary to notify her. She didn't need a Catholic annulment to get married in her own Church, and it had no effect on her children's legitimacy. So why should the annulment have had any impact on her? It had no civil effect, either on her or her children, and it had no theological effect on her as a non-Catholic. So what would the purpose be of notifying her -- this document that you're not bound by and doesn't affect your divorce has now been approved.

I think she was using this as an excuse to get back at her ex, and to make her children mad at him.

[dugaresa]

65. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Sheila didn't like the idea that he was getting remarried, that is my take.

Divorce sucks and the annulment is like picking at a scab. So Sheila makes a buck off of how hurt she was. I am betting the second wife wanted a church wedding and Joe wanted to make that happen.

I have a close friend whose husband tried very had to get an annulment, but his ex wife (who left him) would not help him out and made it impossible. My friend was very upset that she did not get married in the church because it meant a lot to her. She is still with that guy but it haunts her a bit because she is religious and worries about such matters.

[Jackeens]

67. Oh for fuck sake!

[saltpoint]

68. Think of Henry's many wives and the dispute with the Church over

what he wanted set against the rules. Now THERE was a dust-up.

The Kennedy annulment is small taters next to that and next to many other examples.

My interest is in keeping the seat as deep a blue as we can get. If the nominee turns out to be deep blue and very progressive Joe Kennedy, I'll send a check to support his election in January.

[dugaresa]

69. Henry's case is very complicated

1. He needed the church's permission to marry Katherine. She had been his brother's wife and she had to swear that marriage was not consumated. Church grants permission.
2. Katherine's family fortunes only get better over time and her nephew ends up to a degree having the pope's nuts in his hand.
3. Henry wants a divorce/anullment because he wants to avoid any more succession issues like those prior to his father taking the throne. He really thinks having a male heir is vital.
4. Henry can't get a divorce because the Spanish to a degree control the Pope.

To be honest, in hindsight Katherine should have made Henry vow that Mary would remain in the line of succession and secured a marriage for her daughter and then taken holy vows to clear the way for Henry to marry an approved princess thereby screwing over her rival.

[saltpoint]

70. Your descriptive assessment of that time and conflict is TERRIFIC.

Thank you!

If high school textbooks were written half as well as your account there, kids would actually LIKE History.

Bravo.

[JNelson6563]

75. The vow you suggest would never be sworn to.

I believe the last time there had been a female heir to the throne was Empress Matilda, Henry I's daughter--if I remember correctly. As you probably know that didn't go well though it ended so--but not before much chaos and bloodshed. That aside, Henry needed to lose Katherine so he could obtain male issue by Anne (who clever fought off his advances for 7 long years). It was clear Katherine was not going to do so.

I really think Henry's desire for Anne was the biggest driving force in this whole event. Though she got the short end of the stick in the end, personally, it was she who had the last laugh as it was her female issue that achieved heights that were impossible to foresee.

Pretty fascinating chapter in England's history, to be sure.

Julie

[dugaresa]

79. i realize your point regarding Matilda

however it wasn't like the men prior to Henry had been any better at avoiding chaos, it was after all the marriage of his father to Elizabeth of York that ended the War of the Roses.

I just like to think about how Katherine could have been a bit more calculating. Anne was by far the smarter one in that battle. Katherine's martyr stance got her exactly what most martyrs get, the short end of the stick. The daughter of Isabella of Spain should have played it better.

[JNelson6563]

80. Agreed!

I believe that she foolishly held out hope till the end that Henry would come to his senses and take her back. Her claim to be a friendless stranger in Henry's lands were utter nonsense but I also think she may have wanted to avoid the inevitable bloodshed that would have happened had she decided to take a stand and gather her forces. She was much loved and Anne much hated.

Julie

[JeanGrey]

77. Katherine couldn't have "made" Henry do anything.

That was the problem. Henry VIII was an idiot. What delicious revenge that the strong willed GIRL that Anne gave him would end up the greatest ruler England ever had.

[dugaresa]

78. hindsight is 20/20

Katherine was way past childbearing at the time, and 6-7 years older than Henry as I recall. He had loved her, so to some degree I think she would have had more influence early on had she just calculated how to end the marriage to her benefit. Let's be honest, she was going to lose the battle in the end and she had to have known it. She died of cancer within a year of Henry's marriage to Anne and was perhaps already ill at the time of the divorce proceedings. She could have enjoyed a quiet but luxurious retirement at some convent away from court and at least helped out her poor daughter. Mary's behavior later was greatly influenced by how her idiot father handled the situation. Mary could have secured a husband out of the deal and perhaps found some personal happiness.

Can't change history but it is interesting to speculate.