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)

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)

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.

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)

"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)