King Henry VIII - why no surviving male heirs?

[Duer 157099]

I've just done a marathon Tudors watching fest, including both Elizabeth movies, and having never studied the subject before, I'm wondering if anyone knows what the speculation is about why Henry could not seemingly produce a male heir? I know he had some survive birth, but not for long. Even Henry Fitzroy, his "bastard" by Elizabeth Blount, died while still a young child. I've read speculation that he did indeed produce a male by Mary Boleyn, but there's no strong documentation to support it, and the fact that he survived sort of might argue against it.

I suppose Henry had a defective Y chromosome (although he survived so it couldn't be *that* bad).

Anyone know anything about this?

No doubt this thread will fall like a Tudor male.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I believe he had syphilis..

And that was a contributing factor.

Otherwise, I'm not sure.

:shrug:

[Jack Rabbit]

18. He did, but did he have it while married to Jane Seymour?

She was the mother of Edward VI, the male heir who succeeded Henry to the throne.

He was a sickly boy and died at the age of 16.

Queen Jane died from giving birth to the boy.

[Duer 157099]

22. Yes - but a sickly boy.

I contend he had a defective Y chromosome.

Or something.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

25. I believe he did have it then.

If I recall correctly, he'd gotten it as a young man, and it affected him throughout his life.

[SheilaT]

46. To be nit-picky,

she died from "childbirth fever", rampant infection caused by less than sanitary birthing situations, ten days after Edward's birth. One story is that after prolonged labor, the doctors were so eager to get the baby out, they more or less reached in and dragged the baby out. Naturally, hand-washing was not a consideration.

[realisticphish]

2. meh

50/50 chance every time. Bad luck, I suppose. Or GOOD luck, seeing as how he produced Elizabeth I

[EFerrari]

4. Elizabeth's reign is arguably the most prosperous and relatively peaceful

that England had ever had.

[imdjh]

28. The single most important woman in history, IMO , and damned smart n/t

[treestar]

99. Ironic, since Henry could never have believed that

He was an old fashioned male chauvinist. And his elder daughter ended up on the throne anyway, for all his efforts, he could have stayed married to Catherine of Aragon, and been survived on the throne by Mary; if Mary too had not reproduced, the throne would have gone the way it did anyway, to the Stewarts (Henry's sister Margaret's descendants).

[Lyric]

101. Ewwww, no.

They called her Bloody Mary for a reason. She was a vicious, stupid, selfish, fanatically-religious woman who executed her perceived enemies by the truckloads and damned near handed England to Spain.

No, letting Mary inherit earlier than she did would have been an utter nightmare. I still find it miraculous that Elizabeth managed to survive her short reign; Mary hated her sister in the worst way, and saw enemies in every corner.

[imdjh]

113. That might be why things turned out the way they did

I can't second guess history, so much could change with one change. If Elizabeth hadn't come to life and power the way she did, she might not have been who she was. Had she not been who she was, the USA probably wouldn't be as we know it. It might be Mexico, and Europe might be the Holy Roman Empire under German rule.

[treestar]

158. Interesting. I don't know much about Elizabeth's effect on the US

but she was behind some of the colonization, wasn't she? But then James of Scotland or Mary Queen of Scots (who might have ended up on the throne with no Elizabeth) may have done similar things - it was the economic interests behind it all that might have been much the same. Interesting to speculate.

[Duer 157099]

5. But he did have sons born, they just did not survive

I'm strongly inclined to think he had a defective chromosome.

But yes, the incredible irony that Elizabeth would be born of the scheming Anne Boleyn, and that Bloody Mary would be born of the very (seemingly) virtuous Catherine.

Odd how that works out, lol.

[EFerrari]

9. Edward lived to reign himself. He died when he was 15, after 5 years on the throne.

[Duer 157099]

12. Ah yes, I recall reading that. The Showtime series shows him dying younger

I remember wondering about that - the show had him dying of something like "the sweating disease" when he was around 5. Wonder why they would indulge in such blatent misinformation?

Even so, what was the cause of death of Edward at 15?

Mary died of cancer.

Seems Elizabeth was the only Tudor with healthy genes, and she didn't even try to produce an heir! LOL, sort of.

edit: oops! No, that was Henry Fitzroy they showed dying at that young age. Edward never came into the picture.

[enlightenment]

30. Please don't get your history from a TV drama . . .

pretty please?

I makes so much more work for we who teach. Great fun, those programs - but they have little to nothing to do with the actual history.

Edward died, probably, from smallpox - possibly from consumption (tuberculosis). Evidence shows that he was treated in a room sealed with heavy red curtains; a common belief was that blocking the light with red curtains would reduce the scarring caused by smallpox.
(if you've ever seen 'the fair' attached to someone's name - or read of a woman who was described as 'fair' it didn't mean they were blond-haired or light skinned. It meant that they didn't have scars from smallpox).

Personally, I suspect Edward was consumptive - it was very common - and that weakened him to the point that he was likely to be carried off by another illness. Consumption could kill quickly or cause a victim to suffer for years.

Either one of those could be described as a 'sweating disease' . . .

[Duer 157099]

33. I use this is a springboard - I will now read bona fide history books

now that my curiousity is piqued. TV dramas have their place, lol. And it's fun to wonder why the writers include or omit certain historical facts.

So far, I think it's fairly accurate - not completely, but very much.

[enlightenment]

55. As long as you recognise that dramatic license means

that a lot more than just the major details get changed/deleted. It also means that a lot of little things - things that aren't discussed but register on your brain are not very accurate at all: how the table was set; what they eat; what they wear and how they wear it; how they speak, gesture, and touch; the colours of their garments; the general level of cleanliness (and much more, besides).

Those things are usually very inaccurate because the writers find the reality stultifying and want something more 'modern' - an example is the large expanses of female flesh on display in the Tudors; titillating but inaccurate. The costumes are very pretty, but inaccurate. Hell, they've made Henry dark haired and rather short (the actor is barely 5'10) - Henry looked NOTHING like the actor, and his look AND size were part and parcel of the presence that he commanded as the king (he was at least 6' tall and a superb athlete - Rhys Meyers would be squashed by the weight of the real Henry's armor). So even HE is inaccurate.

Does it matter, in the long-run? Of course not. It's just a TV show. But it does leave a lot of people with misconceptions that they may not even be aware they've collected, because the inaccuracies are little - but cumulative.

All of it makes great theatre, but crap history . . . bravo to you for using it as a springboard for learning more.

[Golden Raisin]

60. Long before Hollywood and TV

there were the Donizetti operas (also not fonts of historical accuracy): Anna Bolena, Maria Stuarda and Roberto Devereux. From everything I've read, the actor in the TV 'Tudors' looked nothing like the historical Henry, in fact quite the opposite (except for being good-looking, but in an entirely different way from Henry). Putting aside Laughton's scenery-chewing, I suspect Robert Shaw in the Scofield version of 'A Man For All Seasons' came closest to the young Henry: tall, built, red-headed, ample testosterone, outsized personality.

[JoDog]

86. And don't forget

Henry's age by this point.

[Fire1]

169. enlightenment, you should see his armor! Huge and

embellished in 'certain' areas as I'm sure you can imagine due to his personality and reputation.

[Fire1]

170. I retract embellished. Exaggerated is more accurate.

[enlightenment]

174. Wouldn't be surprised if it was both!

That was the high point for the codpiece, after all!

[enlightenment]

173. I'm looking forward to seeing it this June -

this is the 500th anniversary of Henry's accession and they just opened a special exhibit of his armour at the Tower of London. It'll run until January 2010, if you get a chance to go!

[Alcibiades]

79. I've enjoyed the Tudors as well

But there has been a lot on that show that is just plain wrong. I do like it, though, because most folks know the original story, so the deviations are interesting.

Still there should be some sort of disclaimer.

[Solomon]

142. Go to the website. It tells you that the story is fiction and a

composite. Turned me off to finish watching it. I was going on in the first season when things didn't fit, I went to the website and there it was. The drama contains composite characters which means it's fiction. I like my history more or less accurate, so even though I bought season two, I have yet to watch it for that reason.

[K Gardner]

148. "The Autobiography of Henry VIII", by Margaret George is one of the best books

I've read on the Tudors simply due to the fact that it isn't dry reading. She did massive research and then wrote it in "Henry's voice". Fascinating.

[Duer 157099]

152. Thanks for that rec. They have the audiobook at Audible

I think I will get it. 41 hours - nice!

[SheilaT]

181. That's actually a fairly good

novel of the era. Allowing for the fact that we can't ever know what really went on in Henry's mind, it shows how he changed over the years. And it's his changing that is the most important thing about him, in my humble opinion.

[Duer 157099]

190. Thank you again for this - I got it and have listened to several hours already

It's really quite engaging, at least as an audiobook. I'm just to the point where his father died and he's both terrified and thrilled at the prospect of reigning.

Loving this book! :thumbsup:

[wisteria]

131. Thanks for the history lesson. n/t

[Terran]

145. I second that.

I've watched "The Tudors" as well and while it's a well-done series, there is *much* in it that is ahistorical (polite word for made-up). What really gets me is that the guy who plays Henry still looks about 22 when he marries E. Bolyn, when in fact Henmry was, what, about 40 at that time?

And I don't think there's any indication that a sister of Henry's (he actually had 2) killed the king of Portugal. :wtf:

[sarge43]

188. Huh?

His sister Mary married Louis XII of France. The French put it about that she mmmmm 'exhausted' him. Could be; he was some 30 years her senior and didn't survive a year of marital bliss. She went on to marry Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk and become the grandmother of poor Jane Grey.

Other sister, Margaret, married (1) James IV of Scotland, (2) Archibald Douglas, earl of Angus and finally Henry Stewart, L. Methven. Through James and Archibald she was the grandmother of both Mary, QoS and hubby Henry, L. Darnley.

There was some court gossip that the Henrys (father and son) considered offing their Iberian royal cousins because their claims to the English throne through their Plantagenet ancestors. However, no substance to that rumor.

Henry was 42 when he married Boleyn.

(typo)

[Terran]

189. LOL, I know, right?

In "The Tudors", Henry has one sister, I think designated Margaret. And he marries her off to the very aged king of Portugal. The night of their wedding, she smothers him in his own bed because she finds him so repulsive, but the court believes he died from 'bliss', as it were.

Like I said, a lot of ahistorical stuff, for pure entertainment value.

[sarge43]

194. I haven't seen the series. If and when it comes out on DVD, I may check it out.

But from what I've read, I probably won't get through the first disk. I don't mind a few ahistoricals (good neologism), but the writers of this one seem to have gone out of their way to pile them up and for no good reason. The stone facts about the Tudors are as much drama as a writer would need.

Like the above, if the writers wanted to show the Tudor women were as ruthless as the men, then Mary's story works. Gossip goes she dug in her heels about marrying the old man. Bro made her a deal. "Marry him, use him up and if he doesn't knock you up and he probably won't, come home and you'll have your pick of any aristo stud in the stable." Grain of truth to that one because that's how hard nose they could be.

[Terran]

199. 1st and 2nd seasons are on DVD

fyi. I believe the series will be focused only on Henry, not on Mary or Liz I.

[sarge43]

200. Thanks for the heads up, Terran. n/t

[VenusRising]

39. They show Henry Fitzroy dying younger than he did.

Edward has yet to be born on the series.

[Hello_Kitty]

56. It's speculated that Elizabeth I had no vaginal opening.

It's the same thing they thought about the Black Dahlia murder victim.

[EFerrari]

58. It was also speculated that Boleyn was a witch and Elizabeth was the devil's spawn

but there is not an iota of credible evidence. More likely Elizabeth was smart enough not to subordinate herself to any husband and simply enjoyed Leicester and Essex and perhaps others discretely and without consequence.

[Hello_Kitty]

59. I hope so

Although the Earl of Leicester (Robert Dudley) was an asshole who abandoned his cancer-stricken wife to court the Queen.

[hedgehog]

120. It might have been nicer if he'd merely abandoned her.

There is strong speculation that he arranged for her to be shoved down a flight of stairs, or at least to be found dead at the foot of a staircase.

[Hello_Kitty]

121. I thought she did it to herself, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did it to her. eom

[EFerrari]

132. He did. But remember, at the time, romantic love had just barely

made it into marriage.

[BobTheSubgenius]

172. Related to Newt, perchance?

Maybe just a role model.

"...that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

[dflprincess]

177. Except for Newt becoming a Catholic

Dudley would not have dared do that if he was courting Elizabeth. :evilgrin:

[Dorian Gray]

95. That was mostly

negative propaganda by those who didn't like Anne and Elizabeth.

[shimmergal]

144. There's some evidence that

Elizabeth subconsciously associated marriage for a woman with death--not surprising considering her mother's death, and the frequency of death in childbirth in this era.

In any case, she probably decided she could be a more effective queen by "marrying herself to England," which worked out well for the realm.

[EFerrari]

149. It worked out well for her, too, to have a nation as a surrogate family

to support her when she had none of her own that weren't trying to kill her. :)

[TankLV]

165. gotta love Bette Davis!!!

[marshall]

114. I read an article from a medical journal that suggested she had androgen insensitivity syndrome

I do think she knew for sure she could not have a child. It made some sense to play suitors against one another and dangle the possibility of a union with a foreign power. But eventually she should have tried to produce an heir to solidify her power. Of course she did wonders with what she had, but I think she made the best of a bad situation.

[SheilaT]

182. I honestly think she tried to get pregnant

and never did. There's the famous scene of when she was told that Mary Stuart (Mary, Queen of Scots, beheaded 1587) had given birth. It was in a very public setting, and supposedly Elizabeth sank to her knees and cried out, "Today the Queen of Scotland has given birth to a son, and I am of barren stock!" To me those words are the grief of a woman who knows she can't have children, knows because she's tried and failed to conceive. I suspect had she become pregnant she either would have quickly married an appropriate father, or would have somehow pulled off giving birth in private (in as much private as would have been possible for the Queen) and simply adopted the baby as her heir. Had that happened, had the baby been a boy, it could have worked. But she never got pregnant. Never married, either. I understand that in her lifetime the appellation "Virgin Queen" was said with a certain amount of irony.

[WolverineDG]

85. And Henry Fitzroy lived to be 18

He was married, but died before he had any children.

dg

[Dorian Gray]

93. That show

The Tudors, was rampant with misinformation. It's extraordinarily fictionalized. Beautiful to look at, but I wouldn't use that as an historical reference.

[JerseygirlCT]

163. Yes, I was going to say that, too. nt

[pansypoo53219]

41. another fun fact i learned while reading my 1903 encyclopedia britannica,

her parents were ferdinand and isabella. they were brother and sister. read about his teenage son, sounds like henry's male heirs had targets on their backs. just read elizabeth too, but in my 1891 EB. they are quite good reads without science and shit.

[EFerrari]

44. Ferdinand and Isabella were not brother and sister. n/t

[SheilaT]

49. Ferdinand and Isabella

were not brother and sister. Can't imagine why the Britannica would have said that.

[tammywammy]

51. They weren't brother and sister. n/t

[TankLV]

166. OK - I'm confused - were they Brother and Sister or not?!!!

and who was the brother and who was the sister...?

[sarge43]

74. Ferd and Is only shared a great-grandfather and mother.

John I of Castile and Eleanor of Aragon -- remarkably unrelated for the time and place.

[Dorian Gray]

96. Ferdinand and Isabella

were Catherine's parents, and they weren't brother and sister.

[hedgehog]

119. Elizabeth has benefited from a centuries long propaganda

machine. Take a good look at what she did to the Irish.

[EFerrari]

137. Yes, the Irish and she also loosed Raleigh, Drake and others

to troll the ocean. But, under her reign England itself enjoyed prosperity. She survived all the guys that tried to kill her, staved off a civil war over religion, repelled two invasions and was a very good governor. She was interested in new tech, a patron of education and the arts, and adept at maintaining useful relations with other nations. She was also opportunistic, ruthless and avaricious. Her government spied on the people, had a torture program and censored everything that was published and under her administration, the theater venues in the London area went from 125 to three that were strictly regulated.

[sarge43]

141. A long, vicious, dishonorable history which Elizabeth was part of.

However, she was one of many.

[liberalpragmatist]

160. Keep in mind that the histories could be biased, too

Catherine has always been portrayed as a saint and Anne Boleyn as a scheming witch, esp. by Victorian historians, but many argue that the reality was probably much more nuanced.

[Quantess]

3. Not sure, but he may have had a X-linked genetic syndrome

(XX for females XY for males)

Maybe he was a carrier of hemophelia.
Hemophelia is more common in males, and was rampant in the royal family of England.

[Duer 157099]

6. Wouldn't that be a Y-linked syndrome?

If he contributed an X, he'd produce a female, who seemed to be ok (Mary and Elizabeth).

It seems when he contributed his Y chromosome that things went awry.

[Quantess]

14. X-linked genetic syndromes are well documented.

The simplified reason is that when there are double X chromosomes (female), a bad gene on one X gets cancelled out by the healthy gene on the other X. When there is one X with a bad gene, and a Y chromosome (male), the bad gene is on its own, next to the Y. Women are carriers of most X-linked syndromes, and it can be fatal in males. Color blindness is a non-fatal X-linked genetic phenotype.

In some congenital conditions, though, there can be multiple bad genes on an X chromosome that can add up to a fatal condition if both parents pass it along, and males are more susceptible.

[Duer 157099]

17. Ah, right, now I remember that

But still, this wasn't only with one wife, it was with several (wives and mistresses) - so the liklihood of it being x-linked, imho, would be relatively smaller than if it were something else directly related to his genes.

[Quantess]

19. Did they have hot tubs back then?

Was he wearing tightly fitted chain-mail?

[Crunchy Frog]

21. A father can not pass on an X chromosome to a son.

Only daughters inherit X chromosomes from their fathers, so it would be immaterial as far as Henry's sons go.

[Duer 157099]

26. Not so. If the mother passes on a defective X to a son

and there's no corresponding healthy gene from the father, then it can be fatal (lethal recessive, I believe - or something like that)

This could be the case if the mother has a defective X chromosome that must be compensated for with a healthy X from the father - who, when producing a son, does not, obviously, contribute an X)

[Quantess]

42. I was thinking that Henry VIII had the bad luck of picking wives who were X-linked carriers.

But, it could also be the case if all his wives had bad genes on the upper part of the X chromosome, which is the same for males and females... Combined with the same bad genes on the upper part of his Y chromosome?

[TankLV]

167. I think Henry's WIVES had the "bad luck" of HENRY KILLING THEM ALL!!!

at least most of them...!!!

what a way to found a religion on...

[sarge43]

187. Actually, a third of them.

Catherine of Aragon: Natural death (probably cancer)

Anne Boleyn: Executed

Jane Seymore: Natural death (postpartum infection)

Anne of Cleves: Natural death long after her divorce. Following the divorce Henry treated Anne quite well. She was given her own home with a substantial income and the same legal/court status as Henry's sister.

Catherine Howard: Executed

Catherine Parr: Outlived him.

It can be argued that the only judicial murder was Boleyn's. By the law of the time adultery by a queen consort was high treason. When Howard did the wild thing with Thomas Culpeper, she condemned herself. Boleyn was set up. There's no acceptable evidence that she ever jumped the fence. Unlike her cousin Howard, she was no stupid girl.

[Quantess]

61. Yes, but there is recombinant DNA in the process.

No daughter ever inherits an exact replica X chromosome from her father or her mother.
No son ever inherits an exact Y chromosome from his father.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Hemophilia showed up much later...

I believe it was Queen Victoria who brought that into the family.

IIRC, anyhow.

[TankLV]

168. No - I think Victoria brought the "prince albert" into the family...

it has a nice "ring" to it, doesn't it!

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. But not until much later

Hemophilia most likely entered the Royal Family by way of Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, mother of Queen Victoria. It is known that Queen Victoria carried the genetic mutation, as several of her children and grandchildren had hemophilia. There is no record of it being part of the Royal Family before then. The current family is descended from King Edward VII, who did not have it, and therefore it is no longer part of the heritage of the English royal bloodline.

[SheilaT]

37. Hemophilia in the British royal family

only dates from Queen Victoria. It was NOT, I repeat not around in the 16th century royal family.

[WolverineDG]

87. Actually, that came from Victoria, several centuries later nt

[Medusa]

90. But hemophelia didn't enter the British Royal Family's bloodline

until the Queen Victoria reign--and b/c her daughters and granddaughters married into the royal houses all across Europe (and beyond), they introduced it into their bloodlines as well.

[Mass]

92. Except that X chromosomes are not transmitted from a father to his son.

[SheilaT]

183. Men aren't carriers of hemophilia

unless they already have it.

[hlthe2b]

7. My recall is that he produced 10 viable pregnancies....

The problem was poor infant survival, which, I imagine, reflects the very high risks to infants of the period (infecious disease, especially those that are now vaccine-preventable, typhoid, you name it)...

[Duer 157099]

10. At least according to the current Showtime series...

Anne miscarried a male who apparently had some sort of deformity.

What's amazing is how major (major!) historical events are directly related to his quest for a male heir!

The Protestant Reformation in Europe could arguably be attributed to this! That's pretty amazing.

[lolly]

127. Catherine of Aragon had several children by him

Besides Mary (later Bloody Mary) she had 8 or 9 who died almost immediately after birth. Presumably, they were about 50/50 boys to girls.

She probably was Rh negative; that would explain why her first survived, but all the rest died within days or hours of birth.

I have heard the syphilis theory as well--certainly not impossible.

[sarge43]

151. According to Weir's Genealogy, Henry and Catherine's score

card:

Stillborn daughter (1510); Son (1511); Miscarriage (1511); Son (1513); Son (1514); Mary I (1516); Miscarriage (1517); Daughter (1518). So Rh negative isn't a factor. With the exception of Mary none of their children lived at best for more than a few weeks.

[aikoaiko]

11. You can flip a fair coin ten times and get tails ten times in row. ...

... as a random result.

[scarletwoman]

15. Because God was mad at him?

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :hide:

[Duer 157099]

20. LOL, well of course, that's what he thought

and of course, that's what led to the rise of Protestantism in England. God sure does have a sense of humor. I wonder if the Pope thinks so too, lol.

[rebecca_herman]

16. Maybe, maybe not

There were several miscarriages, stillbirths, and infant deaths - hard to say with the information we had know if they were caused by a genetic defect or simply because of poor medical care and infant mortality rates at the time. I'd say it's certainly possible though.

[Quantess]

52. Maybe there was someone suffocating the heirs to the throne.

And blamed it on sudden infant death.

[JackRiddler]

23. Edward has yet to be born (hell, Henry is not even fat yet)...

The series is taking it real slow, which is good. I bet Henry will start getting fat at the end of the current season and die in the fourth, assuming there is one. Edward reigned as a child for five years. Mary followed for six or seven with a Catholic restoration and lots of executions, hence "Bloody Mary." This can be wrapped up by the end of a fifth season that sees Elizabeth finally take the throne. If they go all the way, at this rate it will be the sixth or seventh season before we get to Shakespeare and the Spanish Armada, and the end of the Tudor line.

[Duer 157099]

29. Yeah, I sort of just realized that - I only watched the first episode of S3

I will go watch the second episode in a few minutes.

I watched the first Cate Blanchett Elizabeth movie yesterday, so saw a bit of the horrific Bloody Mary (what the hell happened to her??? She seemed like such a nice kid)

Speaking of the Elizabeth movies, I really think she should have married that Austrian prince (king?) - I think they would have made a great pair, and would have had a good time!

[SheilaT]

106. Mary Tudor, Elizabeth and Edward's older sister,

was born in 1516 February something, can't remember the exact date. She was the only one of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon's children to survive infancy.

Edward became King when Henry died on January 28, 1547. An interesting point of history is that Henry's father, Henry VII was born on January 28, 1457. The father was born and the son died exactly ninety years apart. Anyway, Edward never ruled in his own right, but had a Protector, first his uncle Edward Seymour, and then when Edward was ousted in what was essentially a palace coup, by John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. Dudley was enormously ambitious, and married his youngest son Guilford to Lady Jane Grey, a great granddaughter of Henry VII, great niece of Henry VIII. When Edward died on July 6, 1553, Dudley saw to it that the news of the death was withheld from the public for several days so that he could place Jane on the throne. Jane was exactly the now dead Edward's age, in in childhood the possibility of the two marrying was considered. However, the average English person truly hated Dudley, knew perfectly well that Mary belonged on the throne, rose up, overthrew Dudley and his minions. Dudley was executed on August 22, 1553, Jane the following February.

In the beginning Mary was extremely popular, permitted religious tolerance, and even though she reinstated Catholicism as the official religion, most people were quite happy with her. Unfortunately, she fell in love with and married her Spanish cousin Phillip II of Spain. Phillip was the one who encouraged her to enforce Catholicism in England and pretty much bring the Spanish Inquisition to the country. Twice Mary was convinced she was pregnant, but she never was. Both times were what can be called "hysterical pregnancies", and by the second one had probably gone through menopause. Mary died on November 17, 1558. I understand that for a hundred years that date was a national holiday.

An excellent source is the Carrolly Erickson book Bloody Mary.

[sarge43]

108. It was likely she died from ovarian or uterine cancer.

The reported symptoms point in that direction, such as the false pregnancies, no periods, swelling, etc.

[lolly]

129. Mary I

1553-58; 300 executions

[1]

24. "including both Elizabeth movies"??? dude, there have been like 10,000 elizabeth movies...

plus the fact that i am pretty sure "I" am a direct decedent of King Henry VIII.


i had this dream once... me and me mum, anne... i was a baby... and then and then and then and then x 1000


and now! here i am.

ha! fuck you! elizabeth! wrong. fail.

i am the king of england...

[Duer 157099]

31. LOL, then I have catching up to do! I meant the "Cate Blanchett" Elizabeth movies

Any others you'd recommend? The only other Tudor thing I remember seeing was bits and pieces of a Masterpiece Theater production of Henry VIII but the guy was HUGE so I cannot imagine at what point in his life that was.

[aquart]

34. They were atrocious history.

It's like costuming was as far as they could be bothered for accuracy.

[JackRiddler]

40. Totally, plus: skewed.

But I love that woman. Very inspiring in her armor watching the Armada sink, even if there's no chance in hell that happened.

I'm not such a scholar on the period (never mind the avatar) but the Helen Mirren miniseries on HBO felt about right. And "The Tudors" is totally over-the-top melodrama (quite fun, no?) but also feels well researched, anyway. (For example, who will ever know if Wolsey hanged himself or not?)

The horrible movie, however, was "The Other Boleyn Girl." An embarrassment. As a movie, anwyway.

[tammywammy]

47. I'll admit "The Other Boleyn Girl" was a fun read

But it's historical FICTION and unfortunately people take it as true (even though they picked it up in the fiction aisle in the bookstore).

I didn't see the movie, I only read the book. A friend recommended it to me, well before the movie came out, as a fun distracting read.

[Duer 157099]

65. Wolsey slit his own throat in The Tudors

Have no idea what the truth is, though.

[1]

70. pretty much, "the tudors" folks have said that they are a tv drama and not a documentary...

henry is going to remain hot, skinny and "six-packed" through out the series.

and what is wrong with that? there are numerous details they would undoubtedly get wrong in any retelling of henry's life. who is to know over time and history what was said or what was done... exactly?


so if you are going to get this or that wrong? what harm is there in getting corpulent henry wrong for hot henry?

i have to watch some henry on screen in either case. why not a hot henry?

why not indeed!


i do so approve of this approach to history...

[TechBear_Seattle]

107. Hot Henry isn't too far off the mark

Historical accounts tell that when he was a young man, Henry was tall, lean, athletic and quite handsome. His bright red hair (inherited by his daughter Elizabeth) was not too unusual, but it definitely made him stand out. It was not until he lost his third wife and the mother of his only son, Jane Seymour that accounts appear of his increasing weight and progressive health problems such as gout.

[SheilaT]

184. He died

while or shortly after being brought to somewhere (London, I think) to stand trial, essentially for standing in the way of Henry and Anne's marriage. It was November, 1530, and he had failed to bring about Henry's desperately desired divorce from Catherine and was now in disgrace. By then he was, for the time, and old man, age 60. Portraits of him seem to show an overweight, possibly obese man, so among other things he may well have had untreated diabetes, along with who knows what else, coupled of course, with the notoriously bad sanitation of that era.

[aquart]

73. Love her, too. What a tightrope she walked!

[Withywindle]

176. I found both the Blanchett movies entertaining but...

...the second one, 'The Golden Age' was so unintentionally hilarious it was MST3K-worthy.

Which scene did you find the funniest? (Insert your own favorite if I didn't list it.)

1) Liz standing around naked in a room full of candles for no reason.

2) Walsingham breaking up a full-on hair-pulling cat fight between Liz and Bess Throckmorton.

3) Liz and Bess getting high on the "tobacco" Raleigh brought 'em from the New World.

4) Liz asking John Dee if it's in the stars that she might get laid any time soon.

5) All the Spanish characters frothing and foaming like bad Opus Dei extras from 'The Da Vinci Code'

6) Liz wandering around in her nightgown watching the Spanish ships burn--apparently not very far away.

7) Raleigh swashbuckling away on a ship with an extremely phallic figurehead (obviously an attempt to cash in on the post-'Pirates of the Caribbean' softcore market).

[1]

53. sorry, bud... i watch tcm and fmc and they show movies from the begining of time...

henry viii is probably the biggest movie star of all time. even greater than hitter.

those two dudes have cornered the market.

i'm just saying.

and i <3 tudors!!!

[Terran]

146. I highly recommend

the British miniseries called "Elizabeth" starring Dame Helen Mirren. It's not overly long, can be rented, and is a faithful depiction, so far as is known, of events surrounding her life from coronation on. It's really an excellent production; a lot of emphasis on her possible love-life and some the disastrous results.

Mirren also played Liz 2 in "The Queen", which is also excellent.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Short answer: rampant disease

The Tudor monarchy lived at a time when the population of England (and much of Europe) was on the down slide of a crest. About 150 years earlier, the Black Death had wiped out almost half of England's population. The population was finally starting to return to pre-plague levels, but far more people were living in crowded, unsanitary conditions in cities than ever before. Changes in technology and customs led to greater pollution; for example, lead- and mercury-based cosmetics were greatly in vogue, which resulted in heavy metal poisoning being common. Also, the world climate was in flux, with the Little Ice Age causing several periods of cold, wet summers during the late 1400s through the 1500s leading to widespread famine. All of these factors -- crowding, unsanitary conditions, common environmental toxins and lack of a reliable source of quality food -- also meant that the 15th and 16th centuries were times of frequent plagues. The Black Death did not completely die out in England until the late 17th century and recurred every few years; in addition, there were occasional outbreaks of smallpox, cholera and other diseases. It is estimated that every year, nearly 10% of England's population died directly as a result of one plague or another, with some outbreaks leading to the death of upwards of 25% of a community.

This is why, when you look at the annals of English history, you see that everyone was having problems having children and raising them to adulthood. Conception was common enough, but miscarriages were common and women frequently died in childbirth. Infants and young children often did not get enough to stay healthy, making them even more suceptible than usual to the frequent plagues.

If you are interested in the Tudor monarchy, I highly recommend Alison Weir's excellent biographies about the family, particularly The Six Wives of Henry VIII, The Children of Henry VIII (which details the monarchies of Edward VI, Mary I and Jane Gray), Elizabeth, The Queen and Henry VIII: The King and His Court.

[Duer 157099]

32. Thank you , I will certainly check out those books n/t

[aquart]

38. Include Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time.

Gives you a good way to look at history, besides its brilliant analysis of the bloody Tudor dynasty beginnings.

[Gemini Cat]

178. I read that book a few years ago. Good book.

Tey's book got me interested to start my own research on Richard the Third and as a result, I eventually changed my negative opinion.

[EFerrari]

50. I think they're out of print right now but The Elizabethan Chronicles

are a great series that take day to day Elizabeth England in chronicle form. Very well referenced and a fun way to get a feel for the flow of events.

[Quantess]

57. Streptococcus bacteria killed so many women after childbirth.

The main reason for spreading strep bacteria was that doctors/midwives didn't wash hands or sterilize equipment.

[sarge43]

80. What TechBear said.

There was a general falling off of health and reproductive vigor among European royals in the 16th century. The Tudor's contemporaries, the Valois of France and the Spanish Hapsburgs, were also losing sons at an early age, flat failing to have any or in the case of Valois, none starters at reproduction.

This points to wide spread environmental factors rather than genetic problems particular to a few individuals. Further, until the 17th century, European royals weren't that interbred, no more so than the population in general. Males, from conception to old age, overall tend to be less healthy than females. Pile on a bad health environment and the House name will change.

Second the recommendation of Weir's books. I especially like her insight that Anne Boleyn may have been Rh negative -- first child healthy, then a series of miscarriages -- a real stuff happens tragedy.

[TechBear_Seattle]

102. It was pretty much universal, not just restricted to royalty or the aristocracy

It only seems that way. The general population was not literate, and those who kept journals or wrote letters tended to be far more concerned about the royal succession and who would inherit noble titles than they were about whether the local yeomenry would have any sons to whom they could pass the family farm.

[sarge43]

105. Of course. Who ruled was literally life and death.

Until well into the 19th century, the general population was mute. We can only infer what was on their minds.

[lolly]

130. Anne only married to him for a couple years

The proverbial "Anne of a 1000 days." She had Elizabeth, then a stillborn son (not at all uncommon)

It was Catherine of Aragon, his first wife, who was married to him for several years and had numerous pregnancies (9 or 10 total, with only the 1st, Mary, surviving).

[Duer 157099]

35. Not related to this topic, but about watching The Tudors

(and other historical dramas)

I'm finding as I'm watching this, that I'm wondering how history would be different if those events were happening today -- for example, in a scene with the King and one of his counselors, having an important conversation, and there are always servants just standing around against a wall or something, and I keep envisioning them (the servents) with an iPhone in their hand, sending a Twitter or email or something, posting on DU about what the King just said, or who the Queen just slept with, etc.

Yes, things sure are different now! LOL

[sarge43]

103. They did run their mouths.

For example, foreign spies routinely checked with the washer women as to the frequency of Elizabeth's menstrual periods, ie could she have children. And yes, she did have periods, but not regularly during her teens and twenties.

If we got in the wayback machine, we'd be shocked at the utter lack of privacy in society, especially among the royals. Everything and I mean everything was public.

One that made my hair stand up was the habit with the Spanish royals to have a priest present during the consummation of a marriage. The priest would place his hand between the couple to verify entry and report back to the mob just outside the chamber.

We know more about Elizabeth's private life than we know about today's leaders'.

[cherish44]

36. Henry VIII had a few illegitamate sons I think

Just never managed to get one on the right side of the bed

[EFerrari]

48. Right side of the blanket. Were that true, Henry would likely have moved

heaven and earth to get them recognized. It's doubtful.

[TechBear_Seattle]

104. You are very likely right

Keep in mind that both Mary and Elizabeth had been formally declared bastards by Parliament at the demand of Henry himself, and that Elizabeth's mother, Anne Boleyn, was executed on charges of treason (her alleged sexual affairs, leading to Elizabeth's conception, endangered the succession and therefore the whole nation.) Any male child, legitimate or not, would have been brought forth and the mother (or her family at least, if she had died in childbirth) would have been given high and prominent position.

[EFerrari]

118. I see people posting about Cary. Henry was not a shy man.

Were Cary his, we would not need to speculate, imho. :)

[liberalpragmatist]

161. Well, he had one recognized one

Henry Fitzroy - and he likely *would* have moved to put him in the succession had he lived past his 18th birthday. (He predeceased Henry VIII and left no children.)

[SheilaT]

43. Henry probably did not have syphilis.

That's one of those lies started many, many years later -- I think in the 19th century and I forget by whom.

Anne Boleyn's older sister Mary did have a son named Henry who most probably was the son of Henry Tudor.

I suspect that the main reason why so few upper class and royal children survived past infancy in those days is because royal mothers generally did not nurse their own babies. They were handed over to wet nurses, who had themselves given birth some time earlier and so could nurse another baby. But, and this is what's important, the wet nurse was no longer producing colostrum, the first milk that a woman produces immediately after childbirth. The colostrum is especially rich in immunity-producing proteins and would be essential to resisting disease, especially in the early weeks, months, and years of life. The lack of immunity from not ingesting colostrum would have been a crucial lack in the less sanitary, more disease-ridden conditions of that time.

Today if an infant in the first world doesn't get that colostrum it's no where near as crucial. Given modern sanitation and disease suppression the vast majority of infants will still live to grow up and be healthy.

Interestingly enough, Anne Boleyn apparently insisted on nursing Elizabeth in the early weeks, which helps account for why Elizabeth thrived and lived to grow up. She was certainly healthier all her life than either her older sister or younger brother, both of whom would have been handed off to wet nurses immediately.

Also keep in mind that there was absolutely nothing to alleviate suffering or mitigate any disease organisms. Not even simple aspirin. No pain relievers that were really effective. No anti-bacterials to clean wounds. No anti-biotics to speed recovery from infections.

Henry himself had some kind of ulcer on his leg for the last twenty years or more of his life. It is probable, given his obesity, that he suffered from type II diabetes, and so wouldn't heal from anything very readily. I've never read a good explanation of what that ulcer was, or what caused it, but by the end of his life he was virtually immobile, couldn't really walk and was pretty much carried everywhere.

[EFerrari]

45. There is no reliable evidence that Henry had syphillis, that's true.

[Duer 157099]

62. The leg ulcer has already appeared in the Sho series

I wasn't sure where it came from, but a few episodes back, he had a very bad fall while jousting and I gathered they meant to imply that that's when it happened.

[sarge43]

150. In middle age Elizabeth also suffered with a leg ulcer.

A genetic problem?

[zazen]

63. Catherine Carey was her first, right? Henry Carey born long after their affair ended

Not known whether the daughter was Henry's bastard. Taking this from history books--

[Duer 157099]

66. From what I've read, both Catherine and Henry Carey are speculated to be Henry's

That's what got me thinking along this line. First, if Henry Carey had been his, I would think he would have done more to promote him (although at the time, he had Edward by Lady Jane, so maybe he figured all was well in the heir department). But secondly, it seems that Henry Carey lived to adulthood, which is why I would suspect he was indeed not an heir of Henry - but of course that's circular reasoning based on my premise that he had a defective Y chromosome...

History in the future is going to be so much easier, with blogs and emails and all the copious documentation we have these days

[zazen]

68. had Henry been his, Henry VIII would have no doubt recognized him

He was so desperate for sons and understood, as a second son himself, that one was not enough. Had he thought of Henry Carey as a threat to Edward, he would have taken steps to hurt/discredit the family, which he didn't, and he wasn't the type to be indifferent. I think he would have made young Henry another Duke of Richmond and put him in the line of succession had Henry VIII really believed him to be his bastard. Both Mary and Elizabeth were legal bastards when they were in the succession, so that wasn't an impediment.

From another eccentric history lover writing about Tudor England at 4:54 EST . . . :-)

[WolverineDG]

91. He couldn't recognize Henry Carey even if he wanted to

the whole crux of his argument for a divorce from Catherine of Aragon was that she had been married to his brother. The same proscription against marrying your brother's widow also extended to marrying (or enjoying the favors of) your current wife's sister (and/or mother as some rumors would have us believe). Yeah, I don't get it either, but those were the rules back then.

dg

[EFerrari]

97. What rules. Henry went from being Defender of the Faith

to head of the Church of England to get Anne's child legitimated. You think he couldn't have found a way if he wanted to?

[WolverineDG]

123. And Anne was not accepted as Queen while Katherine lived

The people hated Anne. Katherine remained very popular with the people, even after death, which is why England accepted her daughter as Queen (until she started the Inquisition, but that's another matter). With all of Henry's yapping for a "legitimate heir," the people would have revolted if he had the same problem with Anne as he did with Katherine. (this is assuming that Henry Carey was his son.)

Besides which, the English Church was simply the RCC warmed over, at least at the beginning.

dg

[EFerrari]

124. I think people were bonded to Catherine (all those years)

in a way they never really were to her successors. Anne was very unpopular in the London area especially but her marriage to Henry flowed some power to relatives among the northern nobles so they did defend her as best as they could.

It was a very fine thing for the CoE that Elizabeth's reign was so long because it gave the church a chance to get firmly established. And Elizabeth herself was such a shrewd person that she didn't allow the churchmen to get very out of hand with prescriptions.

[sarge43]

186. Catherine represented the Old Religion that for all its problems

was a comfort and support for the bottom feeders. Boleyn represented in their minds the whirlwind bearing down on them. In fact she did lean toward the New.

Elizabeth, "I will open no windows into men's consciences." More than shrewd, wise.

[yellerpup]

140. To clean wounds they used garlic.

And for festering infections (especially battlefield wounds), maggots were applied to keep the dead and rotting flesh trimmed. True, nothing as effective as antibiotics was available but if you were far enough out into the country to be away from the church's eyes, traditional healing (herbs) methods were used. Also, royal children were often fostered out which made their lives much more precarious due to political intrigue as well as health and sanitation issues.

[MADem]

54. He had a wee bastid whilst still married to Catherine of Aragon

His name was Henry Fitzroy, and the King had him with a woman named Elizabeth Blount. He was named Duke of Richmond.

He died as in his late teens, not a young boy--- he was married, no issue. Poisoned, some say. He might have been named "The Man" had he lived....

HENRY FITZROY, DUKE OF RICHMOND, was the son of Henry VIII and Elizabeth Blount, a lady in waiting on Queen Catherine of Arragon, daughter of John Blount, esq., who, according to Wood, came from Knevet in Shropshire, perhaps Kinglet, an old seat of the Blount family. His mother afterwards married Gilbert, son of Sir George Talboys of Goltho, Lincolnshire, and certain manors in that county and Yorkshire were assigned to her for life by act of parliament.

At the age of six, on 7 June 1525, he was made knight of the Garter, in which order he was subsequently promoted to the lieutenancy (17 May 1533). A few days after his installation he was created Earl of Nottingham and Duke of Richmond and Somerset, with precedence over all dukes except the king's lawful issue. The ceremony, which took place at Bridewell on 18 June 1525, is minutely described in an heraldic manuscript quoted in the 'Calendar of State Papers of Henry VIII.' On the same day he was appointed the king's lieutenant-general north of Trent, and keeper of the city and castle of Carlisle.

The following month (16 July) he received a patent as lord high admiral of England, Wales, Ireland, Normandy, Gascony, and Aquitaine, and on the 22nd a further commission as warden-general of the marches of Scotland. He was also received of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, Yorkshire. Lands and income were at the same time granted to him amounting to over 4,000l. in yearly value. Other offices bestowed on him were the lord-lieutenantship of Ireland in June 1529, and the constableship of Dover Castle, with the wardenry of the Cinque ports, about two months before his death. It was commonly reported that the king intended to make him king of Ireland, and perhaps his successor, for which these high offices were meant to be a preparation.

Shortly after his creation he travelled north, and resided for some time at Sheriff Hutton and Pontrefact, where his council transacted all the business of the borders. His education was entrusted to Richard Croke, one of the most famous of the pioneers of Greek scholarship in England, and to John Palsgrave, author of 'lesclarcissement de la langue Francoyse,' the earliest English grammar of the French language. Both his tutors took great pains with his education, in spite of the hindrance of those of his household who preferred to see him more proficient in horsemanship and hunting than in literature. When ten years old he had already read some Caesar, Virgil, and Terence, and knew a little Greek. Croke appears to have been much attached to him, and when in Italy, after leaving his service, writes offering to send him models of a Roman military bridge and of a galley. Singing and playing on the virginals were included in his education.

Various matrimonial alliances were proposed for him, some perhaps merely as a move in the game of politics. Within the short space of a year there was some talk of his marrying a niece of Pope Clement VII, a Danish princess, a French princess, and a daughter of Eleanor, queen dowager of Portugal, sister of Charles V, who afterwards became queen of France; but he eventually married (25 Nov. 1533) Mary, daughter of Thomas Howard, third Duke of Norfolk, by his second wife, and sister of his friend Henry, Earl of Surrey, who commemorated their friendship in his poems.

In the spring of 1532 he came south, residing for a time at Hatfield, and in the autumn accompanied his father to Calais, to be present at his interview with Francis I. Thence he went on to Paris with his friend the Earl of Surrey, and remained there till September 1533. On his return he was married, and it was intended he should go to Ireland shortly after; but this intention was not carried out, perhaps owing to the state of his health, and he remained with the court. He is mentioned as being present at the execution of the Carthusians in May 1535, and at that of Anne Boleyn in May 1536. On 22 July the same year he died 'in the kinges place in St. James,' not without suspicion of being poisoned by the late queen and her brother, Lord Rochford.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/fitzroy.htm

[Duer 157099]

64. The Sho series had Fitzroy dying around 1532 or so I think n/t

[zazen]

67. BEST & MOST ACCURATE: early 1970s Masterpiece Theatre Six Wives of Henry VIII

And the six-part Elizabeth I. I own both series and have watched them multiple times. Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth comes a lot closer to capturing her than anyone else, though Helen Mirren did a pretty good job with the HBO two-part movie.

Sorry--but I can't watch the Showtime thing either. Maybe I could if I didn't know the period so well, but it's so seriously inaccurate. Keith Michell in the Six Wives of Henry VIII (just rent it) actually was the most similar to the young Henry (and old, once they made him up that way.) It's incredible how they got the characters in this one to look so much like their portraits.

I own around 40-50 books on Tudor England and have been obsessed with it since I was 10. I don't mind the necessary tradeoffs in accuracy film/theatre must make, but that's different from stupid anachronism. When you have a huge budget, there's just no excuse for not even attempting to understand their culture enough to have actors behave in ways that would have been consistent with their mores and psychological structure. The anachronisms reflect our culture's overall arrogance and historical illiteracy--it seems that actually researching the way others lived (like they did with HBO's Rome, a rare exception) and assuming some historical awareness on the part of the audience are beyond these producers, who seem to want automatic credit for even dealing with an historic topic. It reminds me of actors who don't even bother to learn a real southern accent but draw down multimillion salaries for just using whatever amalgamated stereotype they've picked up during their life. Or Kevin Costner with his odious accent in Robin Hood in the early 90s, in a film in which the producers were so idiotic they actually had Nottingham's lines include "at 10:30, 10:45 . . . "--as if medieval English lived life according to industrial age time.

I walked out of the first Elizabeth I with Cate Blanchett. The whole feel was Italian Renassiance--how could their researchers be so damned lazy? The "young Elizabeth" was not a frenetic, overtly anxious, giggly girl. That is to misread the entire basis of her lifelong character. She was high strung, but she was already cautious, a genius, and politically astute beyond her years by the time Mary came to the throne. Walsingham was no charmer but an obsessive Puritan with IBS.

[Berry Cool]

77. I'm with you. Keith Michell will always be MY Henry VIII.

He was amazing. "The Six Wives" also got me intrigued with the Tudor period. To me, the historical reality is way more interesting than the modern "interpretations" in which they ramp up the sex for ratings appeal and don't give a damn about facts. (And when I say "ramp up the sex," I don't mean just showing the actual sexual intrigues that took place--of which of course there were many--I mean the behaviors and attitudes toward them get modernized in a way unfaithful to the period, so it feels more like you're watching Sex and the City in corsets and codpieces than actual Tudor England. The heaving-bosom, bodice-ripping version of history, if you will.)

[zazen]

116. I first saw it when I was 4, and have been obsessed with the Tudors ever since

Guess I'm not alone, given the response to this thread!

I've long felt that the Anne Boleyn/Elizabeth situation in particular resonates with the intergenerational issues between mothers and daughters in the context of the modern feminist movement. The final scene in Anne of the Thousand Days, of the three-year-old redheaded girl walking the long pathway back up to the castle, completely alone, as she hears but doesn't comprehend the cannonfire announcing the execution in the distance, always makes me tear up. It's really heartbreaking when you add Elizabeth's psychological terror at executing Mary Queen of Scots, rendering her somehow her own mother's executioner in her own mind--or at least, that's how one of the theories goes. See the 1970 Mary, Queen of Scots, with Vanessa Redgrave, for this interpretation--more sad now when you think that her little daughter Natasha must have been prancing around the set. A fine film, also with Glenda Jackson.

I know that I attribute more maternal involvement to Anne than was probably accurate given the historical period, as does that play/movie, but the idea of a mother sacrificing her freedom and life for the hope of and belief in her daughter's true capacities appeals to me personally as someone whose mother gave up a lot in the belief that her daughters could escape male dominance through "education" and therefore, independence. I think this is probably true of a lot of women born in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

But I'm projecting. Anne's only on record as asking Matthew Parker to take care of her daughter. They just weren't as emotionally attached to children, as children, as we are today.

"Sex and the City in corsets and codpieces"--that's wonderful!

[EFerrari]

125. That was a great series that took time to show the power struggles

between churches and state and foreign states. And Michell was a wonderful Henry. :)

[sarge43]

100. I walked out on Blanchett's Elizabeth, too. What a mess.

Especially casting Richard Attenborough as Cecil - :wtf:. The man was in his late thirties when Elizabeth came to the throne. Hardly young by the standards of the time, certainly not doddering.

Frenetic, giggly Tudor ladies didn't survive for long. Ask Elizabeth's step mom, Kate Howard, about that.

[MADem]

139. I have to agree with your review all around.

I was much older than you when the TV production of SIX WIVES came out, but I, too, enjoyed it immensely. It was "the event of the season" for a good subset of the population, as I remember.

The SHOWTIME thing is for the young kids, who like "attitude" more than accuracy. I got the first season from the library to suss out the hullabaloo--it is what it is, a steamy, sexy soap opera loosely based on history, set in a distant time.

[Duer 157099]

154. What?!? You mean they didn't really use the phrase...

"she's a fucking bitch"??? Really, when I heard that I shook my head and wondered why they had to do that.

Although to be honest, I don't really know if that phrase was used during the 1500s.

I had the same issue with the language in Deadwood.

On one hand, it amuses me when they do it, and on the other, it really bothers me.

I'll have to round up the Masterpiece Theater production - I caught bits of it when it first aired way back then, but not enough (plus I wasn't really as interested then as I am now)

[JerseygirlCT]

164. Were those the ones that ran on PBS?

I remember crying because I wasn't allowed to stay up late enough to watch a few of them.

As a small child, my mother tried to move me to "real books" and attempted Nancy Drew - which I hated immediately, and still do. Instead, I got hooked on English history books - both fiction and non-fiction. The series that ran on PBS was something I eagerly looked forward to!

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. The whole family tended to die young - average age at death: 21

I posted this a couple of months ago - the whole family descended from Henry VII, the father of H.VIII, was pretty short-lived:

Average age at death of 3 generations of Henry VII's descendants: 21

I was looking at a bit of history, and noticed they all seemed to die off like flies. Being slightly obsessive, I compiled the ages at which Henry VII (of England)'s children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren died (that's people like Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots):

Henry VII: died age 55
His wife, Elizabeth of York: died in childbirth age 37
7 children, average age 23
12 grandchildren, average age 22
10 great grandchildren, average age 18

Of those, only 2 (both great grandchildren) died violent deaths - both executed. If they'd lived full lives, it'd bring that generation up to 23 or so. Everyone else was from 'natural causes'.

[zazen]

71. it would be interesting to see what the modal average would be too

It would probably cluster around 0-11 months, teenage years, and 40s-50s, with Elizabeth I possibly living the longest to 70, I think (don't know about Darnley's mother, for example. She might have lived longer.

Good to see someone else as obsessive about this period as I am. I've always felt so eccentric.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Without looking it all up again ...

(it took a bit of time, following up all the minor branches I hadn't head of before), I think there were quite a few dying up to the age of 4 or so; a fairly steady, slightly lower, rate of dying after that, with an increased likelihood of death in child birth for the women in their 20s or 30s. Yes, I think Elizabeth was the only one to make it to 70 (of the well-known ones, anyway - there may have been one or two 'Earl or Countess of X'-types that made it over 60). I only looked at direct descendants of Henry VII, rather than expand it into the families they married into.

[sarge43]

81. Darnley's mother, Margaret Douglas, 1516-1578.

She outlived both her sons. The Scots royals/aristos males tended to be killed in battle or assassinated rather than die of health problems.

No, you certainly aren't the only obsessive one at the table.

[zazen]

117. wow--we clearly need a special interest Tudor DU group!

Do you think the OP had any idea they'd be starting a thread with over 100 posts in 24 hours?

[sarge43]

122. Well, the Tudors are a fascinating gang living in seminal time. n/t

[EFerrari]

126. Elizabeth and her gang of pirates are America's great grandparents

in a way, for better or for worse.

[zazen]

134. living here in Raleigh, I couldn't agree more :-) n/t

[EFerrari]

138. And every bay along the north coast here claims that "Drake slept here!"

lol

:)

[rebecca_herman]

153. I know, right?

I love that time period so this thread has been a great read. :)

[Duer 157099]

155. No, I thought there would be zero replies, lol

I'm finding it absolutely fascinating reading. Lot's of informed posters.

Also, lots of contradictory statements regarding dates etc. I would think that certain facts (dates of birth/death) would be indisputable.

[zazen]

135. Just reread Margaret George's bio on Mary of Scots: Darnley was like George W!

at least W as a young man. A petulant, entitled sot who slept around a lot and demanded everyone worship him. . . sound familiar?

Imagine--if Darnley had survived into his 50s, he still couldn't have wrought as much destruction on humanity as Bush.

[Duer 157099]

157. You've reminded me of a certain scene

cannot recall which episode, but it was fairly early on, when Henry was deliberating whether to war with France. After a brief meeting, he decides to go to war. And then, pleased with his decision, says "Now I can go play" and he went off to play racquetball (or whatever the equivalent was).

I wondered whether the writer was trying to evoke the George W quote while on the golf course after being queried about some serious issue wrt Iraq: "...now watch this stroke" (or whatever the asshat actually said)

[Skidmore]

72. A link to a cool site....

http://www.elizabethancostume.net/

[JNelson6563]

76. There was Edward, who lived to his teens.

But mortality rates weren't too good at the time. I've always thought that if Henry had been able to bring himself to have relations with Anne of Cleves he would've fared better in the offspring department.

Julie

[sendero]

78. Karma...

... the universe didn't want his blood line extended.

[Marrah_G]

82. My boss has 6 girls, no boys.... sometimes it just happens that way.

[bikebloke]

128. I used to work with a woman.

She was the first of seven girls as her father tried for a son. After the last, her mother said enough. So then he wanted to adopt. That idea was nixed too.

[tammywammy]

136. My aunt had 5 daughters in the quest for a son n/t

[Marrah_G]

180. Oh, he wasn't trying for a son.

He had 4 girls, then many years later remarried and had 2 more.

My brother has 5 boys and 1 girl. He and his wife always wanted a big family.

[intaglio]

83. Venereal disease is not the answer nor is Fragile X syndrome

First get the timing sorted

Henry was married to Catherine of Aragon in 1509 when he was 17 and she 24. The marriage lasted for 24 years producing two male children, who died perinatally, Mary and another daughter who died within a month. Catherine died in 1536 after some time of self imposed fasting and penance. Kimboulton Castle where she died was not the healthiest of places.

Anne Boleyn (pron. Bullen) was married to Henry when she was 26-32 (there is dispute about her birthdate). She produced Elizabeth and 1 stillborn male. Probably due to (Thomas) Cromwell and because of her families plotting she was put aside and executed. The marriage lasted barely 3 years.

Jane Seymour was 28 when he married her in 1536 and produced Edward the next year her death was likely of puerperal fever.

Anne of Cleves (m.1540) may not have consumated with Henry though they may have remained friends after the divorce in the same year.

Catherine Howard may have been only 13 or at most 18 when she married a 51 year old Henry in 1540. By this time he was grossly overweight, and was suffering from the terrible ulcer in his upper leg which had begun as a jousting wound. It may well be that this marriage was not consumated. She was put aside in late 1541 and executed in 1542.

Catherin Parr was married twice before she married Henry in 1543 at 31 years old. There was no issue from these and after Henry's death in 1547 she died of puerperal fever after the birth of her only child. She was likely only ever a nurse to the King.

The "old monster" died in 1547 and all the symptoms (weight, urine problems, boils and surface ulcers) point to untreated type II diabetes. Syphilis was a well known disease at the time and no stigma was attached to it. Henry's great rival, Francis I of France, was diagnosed and treated for it.

Now look at his known children.

Begin with Henry Fitzroy who was 27 when he died in 1536, so hardly a babe, and may have had TB. His mother, Elizabeth "Bessie" Blount who produced several children who survived into adulthood with her 2 husbands. she died in 1540(?)

Mary I died of cancer at 42.

Elizabeth I died at 70 in 1603.

Edward VI died when 16, probably of TB contracted after he had survived smallpox! The legends about Edward being a sickly child seem overblown at best and may have been stimulated by Henry's morbid desire to see that his son inherited.

Catherine Carey and Henry Carey the issue of Henry with Mary Boleyn, survived well into adulthood. Catherine died then she was 48 and Henry Carey when he was 70.

Looked at in this way Henry VIII was not unsuccessful at reproducing and many of his children survived well into adulthood.

[JoDog]

84. Good books to read

Historian Allison Weir has done some wonderful, well-researched books about the Tudors you might be interested in. I recently read "The Children of Henry VIII", which covers the reigns of Edward, Lady Jane Grey and Mary I. She refutes the notion that Edward was sickly all his life and suggests that he just wasn't interested in sports, which led to that allegation. It is also alleged that he died of TB, a common disease then. Weir also has done a book on the wives of Henry VIII that was also excellent, and another on Elizabeth I, which I'm going to read soon.

Henry VIII's problem with producing a multiple male heirs may have as much to do the state of health care at the time as anything genetic. His one confirmed bastard, Henry Fitzroy, survived childhood but died of a fever in his late teens (a similar fate as that of Prince Arthur, Henry's older brother). Infant mortality was high, and claimed the life of the son Henry had with his first wife. The understanding of prenatal care was also primitive, which contributed to miscarriages among women of all social strata, including Anne Boleyn. It didn't help any that Anne had to wait until her most fertile years were over to marry Henry. He never touched Anne of Cleves, and Catherine Howard wasn't around long enough to make an honest try of it. By the time we get to Katherine Parr, it's very likely that Henry was impotent. When she remarried after his death, she did get pregnant and give birth, but she died shortly afterward.

Also, we have no honest idea of how many bastards Henry might have had. He only acknowledged one, many more might have been passed off as the children of the ladies' husbands (the Mary Boleyn Carrey scenario) or left at orphanages as unwanted.

[NorthCarolina]

88. Small Equipment n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

110. You wouldn't say that to Henry's face

unless you wanted to meet the executioner.

[Mass]

89. His son Edward became king after his death at 9 and was king for 6 years.

Given the time and the fact that most kids were dying young, I am not that sure it is that surprising. He had 2 daughters and 1 son who lived from his 6 marriages, so I am not sure this is enough to produce a statistically meaningful study.

[HooptieWagon]

94. Not an official son, but a bastard was likely.

I am a descendant of William Cary and Mary Boleyn. They married quickly and had a son while H-VIII was married to Anne. Thought is H-VIII was having an affar with Mary, when she became pregnant H-VIII ordered Cary to marry her to cover up the pregnancy. No proof of that, though - just a suspicion given the times.

edited to correct Cary's first name.

[SheilaT]

109. Accoding to Wikipedia,

William Carey and Mary Boleyn's son Henry was born in 1526. Henry Tudor and Anne Boleyn were married in 1533.

[HooptieWagon]

179. Yes you are correct on the dates

I was writing from memory, not my charts. However, H-VII was apparently pursuing Anne as early as 1525, so a pregnant Mary would have definately been in the way - which was the point I was making.

edit - grammar & sp

[SheilaT]

185. Everything I have ever reliably read about

Henry and Anne indicates he did not pursue her -- probably did not even meet her -- until 1526.

Unfortunately, the wildly popular book and movie The Other Boleyn Girl is wildly misleading. Anne and Mary were NEVER rivals for Henry. Henry and Mary were over and done with by the time Anne and Henry met. The Other Boleyn Girl was taken up by people who'd never before read anything about that era but had seen the Cate Blanchett movies, and had absolutely no true knowledge of the era or the sequence of events. Getting events out of order matters. Think what a difference it would be if a couple of hundred years from now someone makes a movie showing W invading Iraq, and the 9/11 attacks happening as a response. And don't think that won't happen eventually. And that all who see that movie come away convinced that's the correct order of events. And when shown the truth, will simply shrug their shoulders and say, Who cares? That's all ancient history anyway.

[HooptieWagon]

192. From Wiki (your source)

"In 1525, Henry VIII became enamoured of Anne and began his pursuit of her."

So, while it's speculation -which has little place in history books, but is entirely suitable for bulletin board chatter - it does seem entirely likely to me that Mary would have become an inconvienence to H-VIII as early as 1525.

[treestar]

98. He had one, to be technical

Edward survived him and reigned.

Henry had no grandchildren, though.

Edward - died young and unmarried with no legitimate heirs
Mary - tried hard but was too old when she married and never produced an heir.
Elizabeth - never married.

thus when Elizabeth died, the throne passed to Henry's sister's descendants.

[lolly]

133. Specifically

Passed to Mary Stuart's son, James I.

[DemBones DemBones]

111. If you want to see Jonathan Rhys Myers as a

petulant teenager, rent "The Governess." He was apparently born to play an over-the-top Henry VIII. Minnie Driver plays his sister's governess and Tom Wilkinson his father.

Watching "The Tudors" is bizarre. They are evidently going to let Henry look like a young stud until he dies.

[K Gardner]

147. I got hooked on the reruns and watched every single one. I'd previously done enormous amounts of

reading on the Tudors and VIII's wives, and find the series to be enjoyable soapish drama but Rhys Meyers was TRULY NOT the actor to play Henry. Not in the least believable and not well acted, I don't think. "The Other Boleyn Girl" had a good portrayal of Henry, I thought. Didn't like the actress who played Anne B, either and was a bit sorry it took Showtime so long to take her head off !

[LibertyLover]

112. Several reasons come to my mind

first - infant mortality was still pretty high and several of Henry's male children died in infancy;

second - life wasn't easy for women, even queens, in the Tudor period - they had to work hard even when pregnant, queens were expected to travel with the king on progresses even while pregnant and traveling was not like driving on the M1 motorway, so the chances of injury to the pregnant queen went up considerably, which increased the chances of the infant dying either prior to birth or shortly afterwards as well; and

third - mortality in general was high - illnesses and infections that we can now easily cure with antibiotics ravaged the population and generally killed people at an earlier age.;

Henry also had syphilis which may have impacted not just his health, but the health of his queens who were trying to give him a son. I don't know exactly when he may have contracted it, as Henry VIII's reign is not my favorite period of British history. Others can probably answer your question in more depth.

[dugaresa]

115. This is my theory

Henry married Catherine of Aragon in 1509 in a seemingly happy marriage. He was 18 and she was 24. (although he did have affairs)

He was married to her until 1533. Their marriage lasted 24 years. She was 48 at the time of the divorce and even by today's standards her fertility was normal, she had 7 pregnancies and probably due to the times the children did not survive common illnesses that today children would. People at that time were very accustomed to high infant mortality rates. They did have one daughter Mary who survived to adulthood and reigned England.

He supposedly loved her and I think that it is evidenced through the fact that her last pregnancy was in 1518 because it was almost a decade until he started to get a hankering for the male heir. The male heir was important for one reason, the Tudors did not have a strong claim to the throne on their own. Henry VII married Elizabeth (the marriage was the end of the war of the roses) and that helped his claim but there were others who had stronger blood ties to the throne and he spent a lot of time working on getting them out of the picture. Henry VIII felt the same way to a degree and perhaps as he aged it became more of an issue for him.

So when he was 42 he takes Anne Boelyn as his bride, she delivers her first child a healthy girl and then subsequently has a miscarriage and then loses her head.

I kind of view this period as his "mid-life crisis" period and he never left it until his death..

So he starts cycling through brides and he is a lot older and his health is in decline. Once a muscular and fit man, he is now suffering from a life of excess and I would think that affects his fertility as well.

Jane Seymour delivers his first male child, who lives to be 15 or 16 (he reigns as well), but dies of probably sepsis after the birth due to the medicine of the time.

That is the last of the children born..to legitimate wives

Anne of Cleves he divorces right away (can't take the head of a royal wife)

Catherine Howard was too young to marry an old geezer (which was becoming by this time)...he also had health problems. He was getting fatter and suffered from ulcerated legs.
Catherine gets her head knocked off too.

Catherine Parr comes along and she is his nursemaid and even she had to fear that he was going to chop off her head.

[Occam Bandage]

143. Bad luck. nt

[bemildred]

156. Obviously, he was unfit. nt

[liberalpragmatist]

159. So out of 4 confirmed kids that survived early childhood, 2 were male, 2 were female

Doesn't sound like there was too much weird going on. Both Henry Fitzroy and Edward VI survived into their teens.

That being said, there has been speculation that there may have been some Tudor affliction, since three Tudor males died around the same age: Edward VI, Henry Fitzroy and Arthur, Prince of Wales (Henry VIII's older brother). Still, TB and various other ailments were very common and many men died around that age, so it might just have been a coincidence.

[Luciferous]

162. Don't know

but I've also been having a Tudors marathon- I love that show!

[Mudoria]

171. My only problem with "The Tudors"

is that Richard III didn't end the line at Bosworth. :)

[enlightenment]

175. Oh, SNAP!

Perfect. My compliments!

[Duer 157099]

193. OK, I'll say it:

Huh?

:shrug:

[enlightenment]

196. Which part? The 'snap'? I may have misused that,

being mostly an ol' fuddy duddy (but I think I got it right . . .)

Or the comment about Richard III and Bosworth? If so . . .

If Richard III had won the battle at Bosworth Field (this being the 'War of the Roses' between the house of York (Richard) and the house of Lancaster (Tudors - actually Bolingbroke), then Henry and his many wives and children wouldn't have been in play at all.

Henry IV was a Bolingbroke. He established the house of Lancaster. Claimed descent from John of Gaunt (so called because he was born in Ghent, Belgium), third son of Edward III.

His son was Henry V (of Shakespeare fame). Henry V's son became Henry VI - but he was very weak,mentally unstable, and surrounded by favourites who didn't always give him the best advice as they fought with each other.

Richard, Duke of York, was descended from two of Edward III's sons.

Lionel was the second son (but died before his father). His granddaughter, Anne Mortimer, was Richard's mother.

Edmund was the fourth son. His son, Richard, Duke of Cambridge, married Anne.

Richard and Anne had four sons (and some daughters): Edward, Edmund, George, and Richard.

Fighting broke out between the two houses in 1455. Eventually, Richard, Duke of Cambridge (Richard III's dad) and Edmund (Richard's brother) are killed at the 2nd Battle of St Albans in 1460 and Henry VI was captured by York.

Richard's (the father) eldest son, Edward, was declared king and became Edward IV. So now York is holding the throne, but Edward had enemies - the main one was his primary advisor, the Earl of Warwick (who was mad at him for marrying Elizabeth Woodville, which is another story entirely!) After some back and forth squabbling, Warwick and Henry VI's son are killed in battle and Henry VI is murdered.

Edward IV is in firm control of the English crown.

Unfortunately (depending on your point of view) Edward IV dies suddenly in 1483. George, Duke of Clarence (the third son), meets a mysterious end (presumably drowned in a vat of Malmsey - what we call Port). That leaves Richard!

Richard moves in, post-haste, and consolidates his rule by taking the Regency for his oldest nephew, Edward V. Shakespeare said he murdered George, imprisoned and eventually murdered both his nephews - the 'Princes in the Tower'. Very open to debate, all of it.

The house of Lancaster uses this as an opportunity to try to reclaim the throne. Richard is not well-liked by many nobles. Unfortunately, there are no Bolingbrokes' left to fight . . . so a distant relative, Henry Tudor, takes up the Red Dragon (or Red Rose, if you prefer) of Lancaster and goes for broke.

Richard is killed on Bosworth Field in 1485 and the long civil war ends. He left no heirs - his wife and son had both died of consumption - and all the rest of the direct male heirs were gone as well. Henry Tudor rapidly consolidated his power by marrying Edward IV's daughter, Elizabeth, thus joining the house of Lancaster and the house of York and becoming Henry VII.

His second son would become Henry VIII.

Gee - I hope that's what you were asking. If not, my apologies for the long story . . .



edited to add a comma, not that it will help this sorry, convoluted post . . .

[Duer 157099]

197. Thank you - the Snap part I got, lol

I just didn't know the Richard/Bosworth story, so you've put it nicely into perspective for me.

In The Tudors, in the early episodes I recall Buckingham being so resentful because Henry wasn't really royalty and he thought the crown belonged to him. So this helps clear that up for me.

[enlightenment]

198. No surprise there!

The dukes of Buckingham shifted with whatever wind they thought would best benefit them - and always believed they had a better claim to the throne (they were so intertwined that they almost fulfilled that old saw about being their own grandpa - the first duke was, essentially, his own cousin!) But all the connections were through daughters and/or very much younger siblings . . . you and I have probably as strong a claim (I'm descended from Henry's 'Vicar of Hell' Francis Bacon . . . with that and $3 I can buy a coffee, right?)

Henry Stafford was the 1st duke, created in 1444. He supported the house of Lancaster and died in battle in 1460.

His son, Edward, should have become the 2nd duke, but who was in charge? York. So the title passed to Edward's son, another Henry. Henry the grandson had supported the house of York.

Fast forward to 1485 - Edward, the son of the 1st duke, is made the 3rd duke by Henry Tudor. All is mostly well until he came to loggerheads with Wolsey. Wolsey was low-born, not noble, and Edward was utterly convinced he had as much or better claim to the throne as Henry VIII. And he was an arse.

Holinshead claims that Wolsey put the bug in Henry's ear to go after Edward, and certainly the charges against him were largely invented - but there is no evidence that Wolsey actually used his position to get rid of Buckingham. I think (imo) that Edward simply spent too much time telling people that he was better suited to the throne. Henry wasn't going to put up with that.

Be careful with the Holinshead chronicles, by the way. Very interesting, but very, very biased!

[Mudoria]

201. Excellent synopsis of a long and complicated subject.

I've often wondered what would have become of the Plantagenet's if Edward IV had married for state instead of lust (not to foregt the disgruntled "Kingmaker" the Earl of Warwick? The lust including all the grasping Woodville relatives of course. The course of modern history may or may not have been drastically changed. Without Henry VIII the Church of England may never have been founded and the Protestant religion may have had a much tougher go of things. What ifs in history are fun :)

For anyone interested (and I was a member for a number of years)

http://www.r3.org/

You may also enjoy this Richard III (and War of the Roses novel). Pro-Richard III of course:

http://www.amazon.com/Sunne-Splendour-Novel-Richard-III/dp/031237593X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239203523&sr=1-2

[LostinVA]

191. The Duke of Richmond didn't die as a young child

I adore The "Tudors," but it plays fast and loose with facts sometimes, especially during the first season.

Edward should have survived, but was a bit of a sickly child, and one of the many fevers took him.

Possible cause? Henry was very, very hygienic for that era, and insisted on the Royal household being very clean (for then), and was very fastidious about his own hygiene.

[spiderpig]

195. Just droppin' in to say...

that as a mere amateur with a lifelong interest in the Tudors, I'm finding this discourse informative and refreshing.

I'm amazed and happy that this thread has sparked such interest!