tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post5569376867347068325..comments2024-03-28T15:16:29.965-05:00Comments on Tudor Q and A: Question from Guy - Catholic opposition to Edward VI's legitimacyLarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630629272030282584noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-64553642618270609062011-04-24T18:34:09.946-05:002011-04-24T18:34:09.946-05:00Clement VII decreed Henry's excommunication in...Clement VII decreed Henry's excommunication in 1533, although he delayed pronouncing sentence for a few months. In March 1534, "Henry was declared anathema and England broke with Rome" (<i>Marguerite de Navarre, Mother of the Renaissance</i>, by Patricia and Rouben Cholakian). <br /><br />Pope Paul issued his own bull of excommunication in 1535, after he succeeded Clement, citing Henry to appear in Rome, and it was confirmed in 1538, when the full penalty - absolving Englishmen from allegiance to Henry, and calling for his deposition - was imposed.<br /><br />The papal actions of 1534 and 1535 would, I think, establish that England was schismatic and invalidate marriages performed there. This would keep Edward from being regarded as legitimate in the eyes of Catholic Europe, although I believe even the Emperor considered it a mere technicality (although his diplomats could make noise about it). I have also read that for some people Edward's claim was diminished by the fact that his mother was never crowned, unlike her predecessors (particularly in relation to Mary Tudor).Foosenoreply@blogger.com