The plea that Henry must have a male heir is so absolutely conclusive in
the judgment of Henry's great apologist that he feels it necessary to offer
excuses for the womanly weakness which blinded Katharine to her obvious
duty. It may also have appealed with considerable force to a statesman who
regarded all pledges and bonds as being in the last resort dissoluble on
grounds of national expediency. England had suffered enough from disputed
successions; and while it is not probable that a title so incontrovertible
as Mary's would have been directly challenged, it is evident that
disastrous complications might have been involved by her union with any
possible husband, or by her death. It may have been that it was Henry's own
wish to act directly on this view, and to declare his marriage null,
arbitrarily, on the ground of public expediency. But whatever were Wolsey's
views on expediency, and on the desirability of nullifying the marriage,
such a course would have been too flagrant a violation of the universally
accepted belief in the sanctity of the marriage tie to meet with his
support. Moreover the offspring of a new marriage contracted under such
conditions could hardly escape having his legitimacy challenged when
opportunity offered. The security of the succession could not therefore be
obtained by this method. Yet the burden of discovering some way to enable
Henry to marry again was laid upon the Cardinal's shoulders.

[Sidenote: The plea of invalidity]

A pretext was forthcoming, whether devised by the Cardinal or another. The
marriage with Katharine might be held invalid on the ground that the
dispensation under which it was contracted was invalid, as being _ultra
vires_. [Footnote: _Cf._ however Wolsey's letter, Brewer, ii., 180.
Katharine argued that since she had remained a maiden, no actual affinity
had been contracted, therefore the re-marriage was not contrary to God's