Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / HeirClubForMen

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* The king in ''{{Fantaghiro}}'' really insists on having a male heir, as (paraphrased) when his third child was born:
-->'''King:''' ''(as servant brings the baby)'' I have no doubt it's a prince this time! You will bow to him, daughters, for he is SUPERIOR!
-->''(unwraps the baby on-screen, vagina ensues)''
-->'''King:''' A GIRL? What SORCERY is this? That white which must have CURSED me!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Connie also mentioned to Ethan (after they had sex at Galasso's command) that she was "on the pill", indicating that she may be a bit more assertive than she lets on.

to:

** Connie also mentioned to Ethan (after they had sex at Galasso's command) that she was "on the pill", indicating that she may be a bit more assertive than she lets on. She eventually gets sick of this and starts her own business, which appears to be more successful than Galasso's own.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Actually, it is still the case for English nobility (well, the hereditary peers), not all of whom are related to the house of Windsor. Scots nobility follow pretty much the same rule, although those with titles predating the 1707 Union of the Parliaments follow a matrilineal version of semi-Salic Law: the title is passed down via the female line as a matter of preference, but is normally held by the eldest male.

to:

*** Actually, it is still the case for English nobility (well, the hereditary peers), not all of whom are related to the house of Windsor. Scots nobility follow pretty much the same rule, although those with as do Irish titles predating that still exist, and titles created in the 1707 Union peerage of the Parliaments follow a matrilineal version of semi-Salic Law: United Kingdom or Great Britain (yes they're all different...). It depends on how the title is passed down via was created - in some cases it descends to male descendants of the original title holder. In others it descends to male descendants, and then to female line as a matter of preference, but is normally held by the eldest male.ones if they have no surviving brothers.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

**** Not you'll find that sort of implication in any of [[DisContinuity Frank Herbert's Dune books]].

Added: 233

Changed: 147

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In CSLewis' ''[[{{Narnia}} Prince Caspian]]'', it is when the usurping EvilUncle finally gets a male heir that jump-starts the plot and gets Prince Caspian moving. Fast.

to:

* In CSLewis' ''[[{{Narnia}} Prince Caspian]]'', ''PrinceCaspian'', it is when the usurping EvilUncle finally gets a male heir that jump-starts the plot and gets Prince Caspian moving. Fast.



** Emperor Gregor has no clear cut heir. Aral's mother was a princess, meaning that the Vorkosigans are closest to the throne in terms of strict biology, but Barrayaran law states that women cannot inherit, nor can they pass down inheritance rights to their sons. Should Gregor die, civil war would erupt over whether or not to honor the old laws of inheritance. So basically ''everyone'' in the empire is holding their breath, waiting for Gregor to make some legitimate imperial babies and side step the issue of inheritance entirely.

to:

** Emperor Gregor has no clear cut heir. Aral's mother was a princess, meaning that the Vorkosigans are closest to the throne in terms of strict biology, but Barrayaran law states that women cannot inherit, nor can they pass down inheritance rights to their sons. Should Gregor die, civil war would erupt over whether or not to honor the old laws of inheritance. So basically ''everyone'' in the empire is holding their breath, waiting for Gregor to make some legitimate imperial babies and side step the issue of inheritance entirely. (Achieved by ''Cryoburn''. Where Miles comments that his wife is useful for more things that producing their brood of children.)


Added DiffLines:

* In RobertEHoward's stories of ConanTheBarbarian after he became king, several times it is a plot point that Conan's death creates a problem, as he has no son. Oddly enough, we never see any pressure on him to marry and have one.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


And, in the event they do get such an heir, this only secures one generation. As soon as the child is grown, they turn to [[IWantGrandkids pressuring the heir to have an heir of his own]].

to:

And, in the event they do get such an heir, this only secures one generation. As soon as the child is grown, they turn to [[IWantGrandkids pressuring the heir to have an heir of his own]].
own]]. And one child is dangerous; surely you need [[SpareToTheThrone a spare]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* The Netherlands subvert this BIG-time. When Prince Willem gains the throne, he will be the first male monarch on the Dutch throne in over ''120 years''.


Added DiffLines:

* Dom Pedro II of Brazil reacted differently to the fact that neither of his sons survived: He thought that was a sign that the monarchy was doomed. This was one reason he showed no resistance to being overthrown. Sadly, Brazil pretty much went to hell after his overthrow.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** In the supplemental material (Unfinished Tales), Tolkien wavers on whether the succession law is agnatic or just male-preferred (like the British Royal Family; females inherit in the absence of surviving brothers). He eventually reached a middle road, [[UnfortunateImplications where daughters with surviving younger brothers turned down the throne]].


Added DiffLines:

*** It's also implied that Paul more or less forced himself to be born male, and that Jessica's concern for Leto's wishes is a rationalization.


Added DiffLines:

*** It's mentioned outright in the original novel, and that it was a deal between Shaddam IV and the Bene Gesserit in exchange for their support.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* An inverted non-royal example in AnneRice's ''QueenOfTheDamned''. Maharet, one of the first [[OurVampiresAreDifferent vampires]], had a daughter before being turned. Since then, she has tracked all of her matrilineal descendants without regard for any descendants of males. While this made more sense in ancient times without reliable (or any kind) paternity testing (although she did assume that all women cheat), this is more of a tradition than anything in modern times.

Added: 223

Changed: 4

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The fact that only males can inherit the throne in ''Stardust'' means that Princess Una isn't a target of her other brothers. It helps they have no idea where she is.

to:

* The fact that only males can inherit the throne in ''Stardust'' ''{{Stardust}}'' means that Princess Una isn't a target of her other brothers. It helps they have no idea where she is.is.
** Not only that, but their law also demands that there be no other contenders, which means that any other male heir has to be dead.
** Of course, it is [[spoiler:Una's son who inherits the throne after all his uncles die]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The adoption process also worked really well for them at other times. The second century was dominated by the "Five Good Emperors", one after another, all selected by adopting promising young men as heirs. The string ended when Marcus Aurelius allowed his biological son Commodus to inherit the Empire, which he proceeded to utterly screw up.
*** This story, badly mangled, was the core of ''{{Film/Gladiator}}''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* In ''Series/RobinHood'', Guy of Gisborne makes it very clear on a couple of occasions that he expects Marian to provide him with an heir as soon as possible. He even uses it as a ''pick up line'' after the death of her father.
--> ''What better way to grieve than to create new life?''

Changed: 23

Removed: 87

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The king in Disney's ''Cinderella'' wants his son to marry so that he (the king) may have grandchildren. Subverted in that the king is more interested in "the pitter patter of little feet" rather than having an heir to the throne.

to:

* The king in Disney's ''Cinderella'' wants his son to marry so that he (the king) may have grandchildren. Subverted in that the king [[IWantGrandkids is more interested in "the pitter patter of little feet" feet"]] rather than having an heir to the throne.






----
<<|DoubleStandard|>>
<<|JustForPun|>>
<<|RoyaltyAndNobilityTropes|>>
<<|LaconicWiki|>>

to:

\n\n\n----\n<<|DoubleStandard|>>\n<<|JustForPun|>>\n<<|RoyaltyAndNobilityTropes|>>\n<<|LaconicWiki|>>----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** In light of this, and other, gender tropes, some of these monarchies (UK, Netherlands, Denmark) may give the title of queen to the wife of a ruling male, but give a title like prince consort to the husband of a ruling woman: 'King' could be seen as higher than 'queen', and the government wants to be clear on who's the real ruler.

to:

** In light of this, and other, gender tropes, some of these monarchies (UK, Netherlands, Denmark) may give the title of queen to the wife of a ruling male, male heir, but give a title like prince consort to the husband of a ruling woman: 'King' could be seen as higher than 'queen', and female heir: If they named the government wants to be clear on who's husband King, people might get the real ruler. impression that he's the head of state.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In light of this, and other, gender tropes, some of these monarchies (UK, Netherlands, Denmark) may give the title of queen to the wife of a ruling male, but give a title like prince consort to the husband of a ruling woman: 'King' could be seen as higher than 'queen', and the government wants to be clear on who's the real ruler.

to:

* ** In light of this, and other, gender tropes, some of these monarchies (UK, Netherlands, Denmark) may give the title of queen to the wife of a ruling male, but give a title like prince consort to the husband of a ruling woman: 'King' could be seen as higher than 'queen', and the government wants to be clear on who's the real ruler.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* In light of this, and other, gender tropes, some of these monarchies (UK, Netherlands, Denmark) may give the title of queen to the wife of a ruling male, but give a title like prince consort to the husband of a ruling woman: 'King' could be seen as higher than 'queen', and the government wants to be clear on who's the real ruler.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Needing a male heir, in particular a biological one, is the source of much of the trouble related to adopted child Amon (Adrian in the English dub) in ''{{Yu-Gi-Oh GX}}''.
** And before him, Odion (Rishid in the original Japanese) in the original ''{{Yu-Gi-Oh}}'' was adopted by the Ishtars to provide a male heir. Then Ishizu and Marik were born in turn...

to:

* Needing a male heir, in particular a biological one, is the source of much of the trouble related to adopted child Amon (Adrian in the English dub) in ''{{Yu-Gi-Oh GX}}''.
** And before him, Odion (Rishid in the original Japanese) Rishid in the original ''{{Yu-Gi-Oh}}'' was adopted by the Ishtars to provide a male heir. Then Ishizu and Marik were born in turn...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


And, in the event they do get such a heir, this only secures one generation. As soon as the child is grown, they turn to [[IWantGrandkids pressuring the heir to have an heir of his own]].

to:

And, in the event they do get such a an heir, this only secures one generation. As soon as the child is grown, they turn to [[IWantGrandkids pressuring the heir to have an heir of his own]].



* The episode "Heart of Gold" of {{Firefly}} has Burgess, a man who accidentally knocked up a whore and wants the child, as it is male, for a heir.

to:

* The episode "Heart of Gold" of {{Firefly}} has Burgess, a man who accidentally knocked up a whore and wants the child, as it is male, for a an heir.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
spelling


** Added to by the fact that the Bene Gesserit's {{Xanatos Roulette}} was [[spoiler:aiming for a daughter so that they could produce a male heir with a Harkonen]]. Making the Bene Gesserit a Heir Club for Witches?

to:

** Added to by the fact that the Bene Gesserit's {{Xanatos Roulette}} was [[spoiler:aiming for a daughter so that they could produce a male heir with a Harkonen]].Harkonnen]]. Making the Bene Gesserit a Heir Club for Witches?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
grammar


Although 99% of the time this trope is about [[LineageComesFromTheFather the desire for a male heir]], it also includes instances where a female (for matriarchies) is desired, any other gender would be an InadequateInheritor. Or any other special trait--just as long as ''only'' people with that trait can bear the hereditary name or title. When there is no male [[RoyalBlood heir]], a SuccessionCrisis results, which is reason enough for kings to go to great lengths to get a suitable heir.

to:

Although 99% of the time this trope is about [[LineageComesFromTheFather the desire for a male heir]], it also includes instances where a female (for matriarchies) is desired, desired and any other gender would be an InadequateInheritor. Or any other special trait--just as long as ''only'' people with that trait can bear the hereditary name or title. When there is no male [[RoyalBlood heir]], a SuccessionCrisis results, which is reason enough for kings to go to great lengths to get a suitable heir.

Changed: 209

Removed: 10118

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added to discussion page. Henry is already mentioned in the Real Life section, and a less polemic version of the section is in the The House Of Tudor page.


[[folder:Separate Henry VIII thing]]
TruthInTelevision: The best known example of this trope through a historical RetCon is Henry VIII of England, who was king of England from 1509 to 1547. Henry had six wives:
* Catherine of Aragon, whom he repudiated because she had stopped menstruating and only one out of the six children she had bore him lived, and that was a girl. Henry, logically enough, took this as evidence his marriage was hateful in the eyes of God and applied for an annulment. The Pope did not agree and Henry only got his annulment after [[ScrewTheRulesIMakeThem pulling England out of the Roman Catholic Church]]. Many historians believe that the English Reformation was due mainly to Catherine's stubborn (and immensely stupid for all involved, but especially for her) refusal to back away gracefully - had she done so, there would have been no need for Henry to break with Rome.
** In Catherine's defense, Catholics do not believe that divorce is a spiritual reality, and believe that it is ''impossible'' to dissolve a marriage; an annulment is not a divorce but a declaration--based on evidence and investigation--that the marriage was never valid to begin with, meaning that Catherine, assuming she really believed in Catholicism, ''couldn't'' simply back down and pretend the marriage wasn't valid if she had every reason to believe that it ''was''. More importantly, the same is true for the Pope, who couldn't grant an annulment with any degree of integrity unless he was truly convinced that the marriage had been invalid from the beginning. In short, Katherine knew very well that agreeing would make herself a whore and her daughter a bastard, and wasn't having any of it.
*** Catherine was also offered the chance to enter a convent, which was a fairly common practice for aged women, especially those of royal or noble birth, and would have had the desired outcome for all involved -- Mary stays legitimate, Catherine stays respectable, Henry can marry someone else. Thus, we're back to stubborn and stupid.
*** No, we're back to 20th century mindset being applied to a 16th century court. Bastardry implied a huge loss of rights for a child. Henry could NOT marry another woman while Katherine was still alive, so the "to a nunnery" way out was NOT an option. Divorce does NOT exist in Catholicism. It doesn't exist nowadays, much less back then. Annulment does exist, but it does NOT mean the marriage is over, it means the marriage ''never even existed in the first place''. And a woman who had sex, not to mention children out of wedlock was a whore, pure and simple, and her children bastards. Katherine would have been legally a whore, a loose woman, and her only child a bastard, had she admitted to break up the marriage. And for a woman who had six dead children among miscarriages and infant deaths, it makes tremendous sense to consider the status of her only child as a priority. Stubborn for sure. Stupid? No way.
*** Oh sure, blame her. Blame the woman. Don't blame the husband who should have honored his marriage. Don't blame the man who forced her into prison and refused her allowance to see her daughter. Don't blame the man who repudiated her as "that Spanish whore". It's all her fault for being stubborn and stupid and not letting Henry have his way (with other women).
*** Catholic doctrine states that only death can dissolve a legitimate, consummated marriage. Even if she went to a convent, an annulment or divorce would still be required for Henry to marry another woman. Thus, in her mind, she'd still be made a whore, and her daughter, a bastard. What he was offering was a way to slightly lessen the stigmatisation by showing that she was still godly and the knowledge that, bastard or not, Mary could still remain in the succession. Personally, this troper, though sympathising with all of his wives, wonders why he didn't back off when he realised that Catalina wasn't going to give in, wait a while for everyone to more-or-less forget, and then, discreetly find a way to kill her that made it look like an accident/natural causes. He mourns for the appropriate amount of time, and then, he takes another wife with no complications, Mary still considered his legitimate daughter and still in the succession after any legitimate half-brothers. I'm glad he didn't, but he was an intelligent man and had no problem publicly killing two wives, so, I don't see why he didn't privately do that to her.
**** Because her nephew was one of the most powerful men of the time. Said nephew sacked Rome (and it was one of the most brutal sackings of the time) just to make sure the Pope didn't annul Henry and Katherine's marriage. Had Henry killed Katherine, it would have meant war. It was more logical for Henry to think that, given enough time, it would be easier to break up Katherine into submission than face the Emperor's troops. Katherine proved that wrong, but Henry's reasoning wasn't flawed. Boleyn and Howard's fates would have been different had they had relatives with thousands of troops.
*** There were several royal precedents that had less justification than Henry's case against Katherine -- notably Eleanor of Aquitaine's first marriage to the King of France which resulted in two daughters and an annulment because they were second cousins -- allowing Eleanor to turn around and marry another second cousin who later became Henry II of England.
*** The only reason the Pope didn't grant the annulment was because he was a prisoner of the Holy Roman Emperor of the time, who happened to be Catherine's nephew. On the other hand, the reason several earlier annulments were granted was because the Pope was a "guest" of the ruler in question.
*** Also, the marriage itself had been made possible by a Papal dispensation in the first place--Catherine had been married to Henry's brother Arthur, and Leviticus prohibited marrying your brother's wife (although in the event of said brother never siring a male heir, Deuteronomy practically required it).
* Anne Boleyn, who was executed for adultery after she gave birth to a daughter then later miscarried a son. However several of Anne’s supporters clam that the charges were false and invented by Thomas Cormwall who she was in a power struggle with. One of the men she supposedly sleeped with was according to her sister-in-law Jane Boleyn was her own brother George. .Anne's daughter turned out to be the last and greatest of the Tudor monarchs, Elizabeth I.
* Jane Seymour, who died of puerperal fever only a few weeks after giving birth to Henry's only legitimate male heir, the future Edward VI. Common wisdom has it that "she had the good fortune to bear a male heir, and the good sense to die almost immediately afterward, before the King could tire of her."
* Anne of Cleves, whom Henry first saw in a painting. Artists tended to gloss over small pox scars--so, upon seeing her in real life, he found her very ugly. The marriage was arranged by Thomas Cromwell as part of a diplomatic agreement which soon became unnecessary - and so did Cromwell. Henry held no grudge against Anne though. She was smart enough to agree to a divorce and Henry, in gratitude, gave her a large income, two huge manors to live in and the rank and precedence of his 'sister'. One might say they lived happily ever after.
* Catherine Howard, Anne Boleyn's cousin. A sly little minx with an eye for the main chance she was delighted to catch Henry but not smart enough to keep her legs crossed. She was executed for treason and adultery with a young courtier, and unlike her cousin was as guilty as sin.
** Not necessarily - it's definitely true that she wasn't a virgin before her marriage, but at least one historian thinks she might not have actually slept with Culpepper (the aforementioned young courtier). Technically, it's not treason until you actually have sex. That never stopped Henry, though.
* Katherine Parr, a widow who survived Henry only to die a year later in childbirth after having her heart broken by the first husband she'd ever loved.
** Also of note: Henry was going to have her killed too (the charge was heresy this time, not adultery) but she found out ahead of time, and actually ''convinced him not to''. She was the only Queen who managed that.
** For the fun of making everyone's head spin, said fourth husband (she'd married two other old men before getting stuck with Henry) was Thomas Seymour - the brother of #3, Jane.
** Isn't adultery grounds for divorce in the Catholic church? I don't think he would have been smart to use that accusation against Catalina (and even using the fact he was an adulterer probably wouldn't have worked if she still refused to consent), but several people have said that a legitimate, consummated marriage can only be dissolved by death. That's not what I understand, but then, I'm not Catholic.

Modern medicine has brought some irony to cases where men find another woman when their wife produces only daughters, as the chromosome that determines sex is transmitted by the male.

For even more irony, Henry VIII?s second daughter, Elizabeth I, whom he declared illegitimate after he had her mother beheaded, became Queen of England and is considered one of the greatest English monarchs. On the other hand she ''did'' effectively end the Tudor dynasty (and Henry's direct legitimate line) so it is unlikely old Henry would have taken too much comfort in that.

Henry's many marital escapades might seem misogynist or wrong to a modern onlooker, but it had been put into his head like a mantra from childhood that a king's most important job is to have an heir. His father had taken the power of England after a civil war which had left the country in really bad shape, a civil war that had been caused by the previous king dying with no heir to take over. Henry was told by his father on the latter's death bed that his number one priority as king would be to have sons, plural, to prevent another situation where an heirless king dies and England is torn apart by civil war. Does that justify beheading or divorcing wives for not bearing him sons? No, but it does paint Henry in a different light than just a male pig. As it appears he learned his lesson too - on Henry's own deathbed he told his son that a king's number one job was in fact ''not'' to produce an heir.
[[/folder]]

to:

[[folder:Separate Henry VIII thing]]
TruthInTelevision: The best known example of this trope through a historical RetCon is Henry VIII of England, who was king of England from 1509 to 1547. Henry had six wives:
* Catherine of Aragon, whom he repudiated because she had stopped menstruating and only one out of the six children she had bore him lived, and that was a girl. Henry, logically enough, took this as evidence his marriage was hateful in the eyes of God and applied for an annulment. The Pope did not agree and Henry only got his annulment after [[ScrewTheRulesIMakeThem pulling England out of the Roman Catholic Church]]. Many historians believe that the English Reformation was due mainly to Catherine's stubborn (and immensely stupid for all involved, but especially for her) refusal to back away gracefully - had she done so, there would have been no need for Henry to break with Rome.
** In Catherine's defense, Catholics do not believe that divorce is a spiritual reality, and believe that it is ''impossible'' to dissolve a marriage; an annulment is not a divorce but a declaration--based on evidence and investigation--that the marriage was never valid to begin with, meaning that Catherine, assuming she really believed in Catholicism, ''couldn't'' simply back down and pretend the marriage wasn't valid if she had every reason to believe that it ''was''. More importantly, the same is true for the Pope, who couldn't grant an annulment with any degree of integrity unless he was truly convinced that the marriage had been invalid from the beginning. In short, Katherine knew very well that agreeing would make herself a whore and her daughter a bastard, and wasn't having any of it.
*** Catherine was also offered the chance to enter a convent, which was a fairly common practice for aged women, especially those of royal or noble birth, and would have had the desired outcome for all involved -- Mary stays legitimate, Catherine stays respectable, Henry can marry someone else. Thus, we're back to stubborn and stupid.
*** No, we're back to 20th century mindset being applied to a 16th century court. Bastardry implied a huge loss of rights for a child. Henry could NOT marry another woman while Katherine was still alive, so the "to a nunnery" way out was NOT an option. Divorce does NOT exist in Catholicism. It doesn't exist nowadays, much less back then. Annulment does exist, but it does NOT mean the marriage is over, it means the marriage ''never even existed in the first place''. And a woman who had sex, not to mention children out of wedlock was a whore, pure and simple, and her children bastards. Katherine would have been legally a whore, a loose woman, and her only child a bastard, had she admitted to break up the marriage. And for a woman who had six dead children among miscarriages and infant deaths, it makes tremendous sense to consider the status of her only child as a priority. Stubborn for sure. Stupid? No way.
*** Oh sure, blame her. Blame the woman. Don't blame the husband who should have honored his marriage. Don't blame the man who forced her into prison and refused her allowance to see her daughter. Don't blame the man who repudiated her as "that Spanish whore". It's all her fault for being stubborn and stupid and not letting Henry have his way (with other women).
*** Catholic doctrine states that only death can dissolve a legitimate, consummated marriage. Even if she went to a convent, an annulment or divorce would still be required for Henry to marry another woman. Thus, in her mind, she'd still be made a whore, and her daughter, a bastard. What he was offering was a way to slightly lessen the stigmatisation by showing that she was still godly and the knowledge that, bastard or not, Mary could still remain in the succession. Personally, this troper, though sympathising with all of his wives, wonders why he didn't back off when he realised that Catalina wasn't going to give in, wait a while for everyone to more-or-less forget, and then, discreetly find a way to kill her that made it look like an accident/natural causes. He mourns for the appropriate amount of time, and then, he takes another wife with no complications, Mary still considered his legitimate daughter and still in the succession after any legitimate half-brothers. I'm glad he didn't, but he was an intelligent man and had no problem publicly killing two wives, so, I don't see why he didn't privately do that to her.
**** Because her nephew was one of the most powerful men of the time. Said nephew sacked Rome (and it was one of the most brutal sackings of the time) just to make sure the Pope didn't annul Henry and Katherine's marriage. Had Henry killed Katherine, it would have meant war. It was more logical for Henry to think that, given enough time, it would be easier to break up Katherine into submission than face the Emperor's troops. Katherine proved that wrong, but Henry's reasoning wasn't flawed. Boleyn and Howard's fates would have been different had they had relatives with thousands of troops.
*** There were several royal precedents that had less justification than Henry's case against Katherine -- notably Eleanor of Aquitaine's first marriage to the King of France which resulted in two daughters and an annulment because they were second cousins -- allowing Eleanor to turn around and marry another second cousin who later became Henry II of England.
*** The only reason the Pope didn't grant the annulment was because he was a prisoner of the Holy Roman Emperor of the time, who happened to be Catherine's nephew. On the other hand, the reason several earlier annulments were granted was because the Pope was a "guest" of the ruler in question.
*** Also, the marriage itself had been made possible by a Papal dispensation in the first place--Catherine had been married to Henry's brother Arthur, and Leviticus prohibited marrying your brother's wife (although in the event of said brother never siring a male heir, Deuteronomy practically required it).
* Anne Boleyn, who was executed for adultery after she gave birth to a daughter then later miscarried a son. However several of Anne’s supporters clam that the charges were false and invented by Thomas Cormwall who she was in a power struggle with. One of the men she supposedly sleeped with was according to her sister-in-law Jane Boleyn was her own brother George. .Anne's daughter turned out to be the last and greatest of the Tudor monarchs, Elizabeth I.
* Jane Seymour, who died of puerperal fever only a few weeks after giving birth to Henry's only legitimate male heir, the future Edward VI. Common wisdom has it that "she had the good fortune to bear a male heir, and the good sense to die almost immediately afterward, before the King could tire of her."
* Anne of Cleves, whom Henry first saw in a painting. Artists tended to gloss over small pox scars--so, upon seeing her in real life, he found her very ugly. The marriage was arranged by Thomas Cromwell as part of a diplomatic agreement which soon became unnecessary - and so did Cromwell. Henry held no grudge against Anne though. She was smart enough to agree to a divorce and Henry, in gratitude, gave her a large income, two huge manors to live in and the rank and precedence of his 'sister'. One might say they lived happily ever after.
* Catherine Howard, Anne Boleyn's cousin. A sly little minx with an eye for the main chance she was delighted to catch Henry but not smart enough to keep her legs crossed. She was executed for treason and adultery with a young courtier, and unlike her cousin was as guilty as sin.
** Not necessarily - it's definitely true that she wasn't a virgin before her marriage, but at least one historian thinks she might not have actually slept with Culpepper (the aforementioned young courtier). Technically, it's not treason until you actually have sex. That never stopped Henry, though.
* Katherine Parr, a widow who survived Henry only to die a year later in childbirth after having her heart broken by the first husband she'd ever loved.
** Also of note: Henry was going to have her killed too (the charge was heresy this time, not adultery) but she found out ahead of time, and actually ''convinced him not to''. She was the only Queen who managed that.
** For the fun of making everyone's head spin, said fourth husband (she'd married two other old men before getting stuck with Henry) was Thomas Seymour - the brother of #3, Jane.
** Isn't adultery grounds for divorce in the Catholic church? I don't think he would have been smart to use that accusation against Catalina (and even using the fact he was an adulterer probably wouldn't have worked if she still refused to consent), but several people have said that a legitimate, consummated marriage can only be dissolved by death. That's not what I understand, but then, I'm not Catholic.

Modern medicine has brought some irony to cases where men find another woman when their wife produces only daughters, as the chromosome that determines sex is transmitted by the male.

For even more irony, Henry VIII?s second daughter, Elizabeth I, whom he declared illegitimate after he had her mother beheaded, became Queen of England and is considered one of the greatest English monarchs. On the other hand she ''did'' effectively end the Tudor dynasty (and Henry's direct legitimate line) so it is unlikely old Henry would have taken too much comfort in that.

Henry's many marital escapades might seem misogynist or wrong to a modern onlooker, but it had been put into his head like a mantra from childhood that a king's most important job is to have an heir. His father had taken the power of England after a civil war which had left the country in really bad shape, a civil war that had been caused by the previous king dying with no heir to take over. Henry was told by his father on the latter's death bed that his number one priority as king would be to have sons, plural, to prevent another situation where an heirless king dies and England is torn apart by civil war. Does that justify beheading or divorcing wives for not bearing him sons? No, but it does paint Henry in a different light than just a male pig. As it appears he learned his lesson too - on Henry's own deathbed he told his son that a king's number one job was in fact ''not'' to produce an heir.
[[/folder]]

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** Isn't adultery grounds for divorce in the Catholic church? I don't think he would have been smart to use that accusation against Catalina (and even using the fact he was an adulterer probably wouldn't have worked if she still refused to consent), but several people have said that a legitimate, consummated marriage can only be dissolved by death. That's not what I understand, but then, I'm not Catholic.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* Subverted in Lynda Robinson's Lord Meren mysteries, in which Meren is perfectly happy having his ''adopted'' son Kysen as his legal heir. His relatives, on the other hand, loathe the idea of a common-born adoptee carrying on the family name, and keep badgering the widowed Meren to remarry and produce a "proper" son.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The need to produce a suitable heir to the title of [[GirlGenius Storm King]] was central to the plans of [[AncientConspiracy the Knights of Jove]] to reclaim Europa (due to the fact that the Fifty Royal Families care a great deal about succession as security to their power; the Sparks aren't really all that bothered about it). Gil guesses that it was complicated by a long line of fops, idiots, madmen, and women. Apparently, Lucrezia Mongfish solved their problem with the aid of [[SchizoTech genetic engineering]].

to:

* ''GirlGenius'': The need to produce a suitable heir to the title of [[GirlGenius Storm King]] King was central to the plans of [[AncientConspiracy the Knights of Jove]] to reclaim Europa (due to the fact that the Fifty Royal Families care a great deal about succession as security to their power; the Sparks aren't really all that bothered about it). Gil guesses that it was complicated by a long line of fops, idiots, madmen, and women. Apparently, Lucrezia Mongfish solved their problem with the aid of [[SchizoTech genetic engineering]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** No, we're back to 20th century mindset being applied to a 16th century court. Bastardry implied a huge loss of rights for a child. Henry could NOT marry another woman while Katherine was still alive, so the "to a nunnery" way out was NOT an option. Divorce does NOT exist in Catholicism. It doesn't exist nowadays, much less back then. Annulment does exist, but it does NOT mean the marriage is over, it means the marriage ''never even existed in the first place''. And a woman who had sex, not to mention children out of wedlock was a whore, pure and simple, and her children bastards. Katherine would have been legally a whore, a loose woman, and her only child a bastard, had she admitted to break up the marriage. And for a woman who had six dead children among miscarriages and infant deaths, it makes tremendous sense to consider the status of her only child as a priority. Stubborn for fure. Stupid? No way.

to:

*** No, we're back to 20th century mindset being applied to a 16th century court. Bastardry implied a huge loss of rights for a child. Henry could NOT marry another woman while Katherine was still alive, so the "to a nunnery" way out was NOT an option. Divorce does NOT exist in Catholicism. It doesn't exist nowadays, much less back then. Annulment does exist, but it does NOT mean the marriage is over, it means the marriage ''never even existed in the first place''. And a woman who had sex, not to mention children out of wedlock was a whore, pure and simple, and her children bastards. Katherine would have been legally a whore, a loose woman, and her only child a bastard, had she admitted to break up the marriage. And for a woman who had six dead children among miscarriages and infant deaths, it makes tremendous sense to consider the status of her only child as a priority. Stubborn for fure.sure. Stupid? No way.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** No, we're back to 20th century mindset being applied to a 16th century court. Bastardry implied a huge loss of rights for a child. Henry could NOT marry another woman while Katherine was still alive, so the "to a nunnery" way out was NOT an option. Divorce does NOT exist in Catholicism. It doesn't exist nowadays, much less back then. Annulment does exist, but it does NOT mean the marriage is over, it means the marriage ''never even existed in the first place''. And a woman who had sex, not to mention children out of wedlock was a whore, pure and simple, and her children bastards. Katherine would have been legally a whore, a loose woman, and her only child a bastard, had she admitted to break up the marriage. And for a woman who had six dead children among miscarriages and infant deaths, it makes tremendous sense to consider the status of her only child as a priority. Stubborn for fure. Stupid? No way.


Added DiffLines:

**** Because her nephew was one of the most powerful men of the time. Said nephew sacked Rome (and it was one of the most brutal sackings of the time) just to make sure the Pope didn't annul Henry and Katherine's marriage. Had Henry killed Katherine, it would have meant war. It was more logical for Henry to think that, given enough time, it would be easier to break up Katherine into submission than face the Emperor's troops. Katherine proved that wrong, but Henry's reasoning wasn't flawed. Boleyn and Howard's fates would have been different had they had relatives with thousands of troops.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* While most of the Pride in ''{{Runaways}}'' wanted children anyway, Mrs. Wilder convinced the few who didn't that if each of them had one child, then those six children could take their places in the Gibborim's paradise. As it was, there were twelve of them and only six places promised, so there were no guarantees as to which six would make it. If each of them donated a spot to their child, the legacy of each of the couples was ensured. In a subversion, the gender itself didn't really matter and most of the children were girls.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* {{Darkover}} is obsessed with this trope and wanting sons. Though the Aillard line runs to women, and Renunciates prefer to have daughters over sons.

to:

* {{Darkover}} ''{{Darkover}}'' is obsessed with this trope and wanting sons. Though the sons, though with several exceptions. The Aillard line runs to women, is matriarchal and matrilineal, and Renunciates prefer are forbidden from playing the game; they must vow to have daughters over sons.never make a traditional royal marriage or become a concubine, and "to bear children only in [their] own time and season," not for their family's ambitions. This is justified because [[PsychicPowers laran]] is determined [[SuperpowerfulGenetics genetically]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


Also: [[DontExplainTheJoke The blurb is a reference to]] [[strike:an [[MemeticMutation old meme]]. SoYeah.]] the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_Club Hair Club for Men]], a company that specializes in hair restoration and hair replacement. The blub is their actual sales pitch from their web site...with a few words changed to fit this trope.

to:

Also: [[DontExplainTheJoke The blurb is a reference to]] [[strike:an [[MemeticMutation old meme]]. SoYeah.]] the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_Club Hair Club for Men]], a company that specializes in hair restoration and hair replacement. The blub is their actual sales pitch from their web site... with a few words changed to fit this trope.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** Actually, it is still the case for English nobility (well, the hereditary peers), not all of whom are related to the house of Windsor. Scots nobility follow pretty much the same rule, although those with titles predating the 1707 Union of the Parliaments follow a matrilineal version of semi-Salic Law: the title is passed down via the female line as a matter of preference, but is normally held by the eldest male.

Top