![]() | Arthur, Prince of Wales has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 2, 2020. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
TO: Jhaerlyn and Nik42 with all due respect, Leviticus 20:21 clearly says, "'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless." Cldhome ( talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 law Rrcs law ( talk) 08:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
This article states that Arthur was created a Knight of the Bath at his christening, then states it happened again when he was invested as Prince of Wales when he was three years old. Can anyone clear this up? History Lunatic ( talk) 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic
"The popular belief that Arthur was sickly during his lifetime stems from a Victorian misunderstanding of a letter from 1502;" Okay, can someone explain the misunderstanding, please? What was actually written? What did it mean? What was it mistakenly thought to mean? -- Khajidha ( talk) 00:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with most of the "Legacy" section. Prince Arthur's legacy ended with his death. At most a brief discussion of Catherine's situation (possible marriage to Henry VII, then married to Prince Henry) is okay. After that, the whole discussion about Henry VIII and his marriages belongs solely in Henry VIII's legacy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg va ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Since we have credible sources the current portrait is the only one, it would be inappropriate to show the other one: File:Arthur_Prince_of_Wales_c_1500.jpg.
![]() | Arthur, Prince of Wales has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 2, 2020. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
TO: Jhaerlyn and Nik42 with all due respect, Leviticus 20:21 clearly says, "'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless." Cldhome ( talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 law Rrcs law ( talk) 08:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
This article states that Arthur was created a Knight of the Bath at his christening, then states it happened again when he was invested as Prince of Wales when he was three years old. Can anyone clear this up? History Lunatic ( talk) 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic
"The popular belief that Arthur was sickly during his lifetime stems from a Victorian misunderstanding of a letter from 1502;" Okay, can someone explain the misunderstanding, please? What was actually written? What did it mean? What was it mistakenly thought to mean? -- Khajidha ( talk) 00:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with most of the "Legacy" section. Prince Arthur's legacy ended with his death. At most a brief discussion of Catherine's situation (possible marriage to Henry VII, then married to Prince Henry) is okay. After that, the whole discussion about Henry VIII and his marriages belongs solely in Henry VIII's legacy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg va ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Since we have credible sources the current portrait is the only one, it would be inappropriate to show the other one: File:Arthur_Prince_of_Wales_c_1500.jpg.