[redgolum]

No but they needed a reason to get a new wife in order to have a heir.

One of the reason Henry VIII went off is because he tried to do what his French rival did and wasn’t allowed to. Of course Henry already HAD a child from his first wife, and Louis did not.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But childlessness has never been a reason for a finding of canonical nullity in marriage. That didn't constitute the grounds put forward by Henry VIII, either. His purported grounds were that Catherine had been his deceased brother Arthur's wife in a valid, consummated marriage. (Deuteronomy 20:21). He ignored the fact that Deuteronomy 25:5–10 requires a brother to marry his brother's widow if the brother died without issue, in a so-called levirate marriage.

In any case, Catherine said this was inapplicable because she and Arthur had never had intercourse. He was only 15 at the time of their marriage, and at a low level of health and vigor even then; he died several months later, and Catherine said they had lain together, but he had never been able to achieve intercourse.

I tend to believe Catherine, inasmuch as she was a person of well-known, very strict religious principles and would not have lied about Arthur and then committed affinity-based-incest with Henry; whereas Henry was well-known as a shameless royal horndog, and sired half a dozen children out of wedlock, including Henry Fitzroy (Richmond), to whom he gave a dukedom.