The determined opposition of Katherine was no doubt a factor in delaying the process of annulment, but there were other factors that were even more crucial. Katherine’s role must be seen as central as if she had agreed to ‘go quietly’ then there would surely have been little controversy. However once the process had started there were other individuals, notably Wolsey, Charles, Clement and Henry himself who perhaps played a greater role in delaying the annulment. Overall I believe that the greatest role in the delay, and indeed the factor that had caused complete stagnation in the case, which had been recalled to Rome in the summer of 1529, was that Charles, the dominant force in Europe at the time, had used his leverage over Clement to make progress impossible.

In source 4 Scarrisbrick highlights the role played by Katherine. She was offered a ‘way out’ by Campeggio, who tried to persuade her to “enter a convent.” Wolsey, in source 6, was able to foresee Katherine’s potential opposition, even at the very start of the process: “In case the Queen rejects my authority.” Scarrisbrick argues that it was her refusal to go to the convent which started the process which was in turn made worse by the actions of others, notably Henry. Indeed we know that when such an offer was made she replied that she would, but only when Henry entered a monastery. This does seem to back up the idea that she opposed in a determined fashion. She had good reason to do so. Declaring that her marriage was annulled, would, in effect, be a declaration that the previous twenty years had been an aberration and that her beloved daughter Mary was illegitimate with no right to claim the throne in future. It is hardly surprising that she opposed, thus contributing to the failure to gain an annulment.

Scarrisbrick goes on to argue that her opposition led others, notably Charles, her nephew, to take up her case: “Spanish links…enabled her to resist.” (source 6) Indeed she did not oppose passively. She wrote a series of letters to both Charles and Clement asking for their support on the matter. She remained dignified throughout the process, going on bended knee to Henry at the divorce hearing in 1529 and asked for just treatment in the affair. Such determined dignity can only have served to create sympathy for her cause, and thus have delayed the annulment. However Scarrisbrick argues whilst her opposition was effective, that Charles played at least as great a role in the process as Katherine. “In this case there was one snag…the Pope was under the control of Charles V.” We have no reason to doubt the validity of Scarrisbrick’s work. He was writing centuries after the event and was detached emotionally from the protagonists. This impartiality is further demonstrated by the lack of intemperate language within the source.

Scarrisbrick explains Charles’ motivation only briefly, simply mentioning “Spanish links.” This would seem to suggest that Charles was motivated to delay the process by the fact that his aunt was being humiliated. This point is also addressed in source 6 when Wolsey tells Henry that the matter could be resolved “if the Pope were free.” Rome had been sacked in 1527 after Imperial troops had rampaged after their victory over the French at Pavia in 1525 and Charles had held Clement prisoner ever since. It has long been argued that Charles interfered in the process, putting Clement in an impossible situation where he dared not offend the Spanish by helping Henry, Defender of the Faith and long time ally of the papacy. However Scarrisbrick’s explanation will not suffice. Charles had ignored similar treatment of another aunt by the king of Denmark and had usurped his own mother to take her throne. He was clearly not bound by family ties.

The difference is that the king of Denmark was no threat to Charles. Henry, Charles and Francis of France had spent much of the previous decade embroiled in a rivalry to see who would emerge as the foremost young ruler in Europe. The relationship between Charles and Henry had deteriorated since Henry’s failure to raise an army and join in on the Spanish side after Pavia. The Imperial Alliance had collapsed and Charles had rejected the proposed marriage to Henry’s daughter Mary.Charles might have been willing to allow the annulment despite this friction, but then Henry took steps to achieve the annulment which can only have increased Charles’ determination to oppose. This therefore suggests that the role of Henry was crucial in the failure to gain the annulment. Henry was described as “bullying” in source 4. This agrees with Lockyer who points out that it was the way in which Henry was trying to “humiliate” Katherine that really annoyed Charles. Indeed as soon as Katherine made it clear that she would not see her marriage annulled, Henry made life as hard for her as possible. In 1528 he gathered his court together at Bridewell and made a public announcement that he would happily marry Katherine again if only it was not illegal. He followed this up by recruiting a team of intellectuals to publish works backing up that the marriage was illegal using the biblical argument. The problem of this “bullying” was that even more academics published works arguing the opposite, Bishop Fisher alone writing seven books of criticism. This served only to bring the matter out into the public eye. Now Charles could not afford to let the matter proceed. This was not about Henry splitting from his aunt, it was about humiliating Charles’ aunt in public. This was not a matter of family principle, but of family pride.

Wolsey makes it clear in source 6 that the matter could be resolved if the “Pope were free.” It has always been argued that Clement was in an impossible position because he was prisoner. However this must also be questioned. A strong Pope with a determination to act as he wanted might not have been so easily cowed. After all what punishment could Charles have given Clement? However Clement was not a strong pope. We know from examination of letters between Wolsey, Henry and Clement that Clement was an extremely ill man during this process. In addition Clement had no wish to take decisions that might lead to problems between the European leaders, nor did he wish to challenge the infallibility of his predecessor. Rather he sought to delay the process in the hope that by accident of death of one of the major players- not unlikely at that time- that the matter would simply ‘go away’. We know this to be true as he sent Campeggio to England on the strict instruction that the matter should not be resolved. Therefore we can see that the character of Clement himself was crucial in the failure to gain the annulment.

Wolsey may have had reason to be so quick to argue that the situation was impossible (source 6) as he may have understood how difficult the matter would be. If he had claimed that it would be simple then he would have been the one to be blamed when the annulment was not achieved. He blames Katherine and the diplomatic situation in an attempt to shield himself. It may have been the case that in reality he did not try too hard to gain the annulment. He was no friend of the Boleyns, who saw him as the embodiment of a corrupt church. He may have feared for his position if Anne and her faction came to prominence. His position had already been weakened after the failure of the Amicable Grant. Indeed we know that he tried several different ways of resolving the issue. At one point he argued that the matter was Henry’s to resolve, at another, highlighted in source 6, he said “I consider that the Pope’s consent must be gained.” Such indecision may have been the result of his not being fully convinced about the legitimacy of the theological argument, but could also have been a deliberate attempt on his behalf to delay the process. However we do have evidence of a series of letters written by Wolsey to the Pope on the matter in which he seemed to be trying to resolve the matter in Henry’s favour. Although he feared the Boleyns, he feared the wrath of Henry even more- rightly so as Henry dismissed him in 1529. The truth is that Wolsey may have exaggerated the difficulty of the situation in source 6 as he might not have been totally convinced that annulment was best for him, but even so it is doubtful that Wolsey had enough influence over European affairs to be the major reason for the failure to obtain the annulment.

There is no doubt that Katherine did play a significant role in delaying the annulment, but her role was mostly in the initial stages. Had Henry dealt more tactfully with the situation then Charles may not have felt compelled to defend his family, as he had never felt the need before. Even then Clement could still have allowed the annulment, despite being Charles’ prisoner, but was prevented from doing so by a combination of ill health, a weak character and the concept of papal infallibility. Wolsey, so keen to blame others in source 6, may also have been responsible, and certainly was in the eyes of Henry, but we have evidence, in the shape of his letters, that he did what he could after initial uncertainty. Katherine’s role was significant, but she was not the main factor. The major factor in the delay was the international rivalry between Henry and Charles that became relevant to this situation due to Henry’s “bullying” and a weak and vacillating pope. This is backed by the fact that the case was recalled to Rome just days after Charles’ decisive victory over the French at Landriano. It was clear that he was the dominant force in Europe, and if he didn’t want the annulment, whatever the reason, then no progress could be made.