Royal Gossip
May 24, 2017, 03:11:36 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Henry VIII & Wives  (Read 63740 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Lauracrazygirl
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 370


« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2011, 03:13:11 pm »

I think at the time, many properly thought (although would never say out loud) that it was Henry would had the health problems that prevented his wives from having children or at least giving him lots of children. After all he had 8 wives and out of that 8, he only got 3 children. There must have been something wrong with him.
Logged
Earth Angel
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561


Can you imagine a time when the truth ran free ...


« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2011, 04:32:58 pm »

I'd like to know if all the royal blood diseases have similar origins in genetics. Variations of anemia, hemophilia, etc. ... The British royals have alot of latent genetic flaws lurking in their DNA!
Logged

"The searching-out and thorough investigation of truth ought to be the primary study of man." ~ Cicero
"The way to gain a good reputation, is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear" ~ Socrates
"During times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act". ~ George Orwell
"On the road from the City of Skepticism, I had to pass through the Valley of Ambiguity". ~ Adam Smith

*All posts are my opinion, based on what I know to be true at the time of the post, unless otherwise specified. All intents and purposes are free; no ill will or maliciousness involved*
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35274


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2011, 07:15:36 pm »

I think at the time, many properly thought (although would never say out loud) that it was Henry would had the health problems that prevented his wives from having children or at least giving him lots of children.  There must have been something wrong with him.

To be frank, the Tudors were not a healthy people. Henry VII only had three children that survived their teen years and Henry VIII I think made the mistake of marrying Katherine of Aragon, who actually did so much praying and fasting that she ended up getting a letter from the Pope himself to stop doing so many fasts and meditations, lest it harm her ability to have children. Then "Bloody" Mary Tudor was raised in a ridiculously austre diet and constantly pressured to fast all the time and pray, so she had severely stunted growth which impeded her ability to be fertile. Add in the stress of Mary's life and the psychosomatic illnesses and that was a recipe for disaster.

Quote
After all he had 8 wives and out of that 8, he only got 3 children.

He had six wives actually. The other problem was diet and exercise, the wives didn't each hearty, healthy foods and didn't exercise all that much beyond riding. But Henry VIII had poor genetics and they were an unhealthy breed of people.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13832



« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2011, 07:58:28 pm »

Revealed, Henry VIII's lost pleasure palace: Amazing scale model recreates Nonsuch Palace more than 300 years after it was destroyed

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050919/Scale-model-recreates-Nonsuch-Palace-300-years-destroyed.html#ixzz1bFui8mks
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Grey Mare
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585



« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2011, 04:27:24 pm »

Was Henry VIII to blame for his wives’ miscarriages? Monarch had rare blood disease that also sent him mad
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1363108/Researchers-suggest-rare-blood-disorder-responsible-Henry-VIIIs-rapid-decline-failure-father-children.html#ixzz1FizxCqVq

changed title

The article does not really take into account illegitimate children.  Just because he only acknowledge one does not necessarily mean he did not father the other possible ones who were in fact healthy.
Logged
Lieblich
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2011, 05:28:50 pm »

There's a lot of speculation.  It could just be the short end of the stick.  Catherine of Aragon had around eight-nine pregnancies, with only three children surviving birth (one of them being Mary).  There's been speculation that she was anorexic, which would have affected her pregnancies.  She was also under enormous stress as it was her divine prerogative to produce heirs.  Catherine also had some type of infection during one pregnancy which kept her belly swollen and led doctors to believe that she miscarried one child but must still be pregnant with a twin.  This infection probably affected her ability to carry a pregnancy to term.

Anne Boleyn had three pregnancies, the first being the healthy child, Elizabeth. She was under enormous stress for the other two for, like Catherine, her place as queen depended on her ability to have a male child.  We don't know Anne's date of birth for certain, but much evidence places her birth in 1501 - making her about 32 when she gave birth to Elizabeth.  30 was about the limit for a Tudor woman's childbearing years.  Catherine of Aragon was 31 when she gave birth to Mary, and had only one more pregnancy after that.

Jane had one child and died, so it is unknown if she could have had more with Henry.  It is worth noting that Jane was about 28/29 when she gave birth to Edward--again, right at that age limit.

Henry didn't consummate his marriage to Anne of Cleves, and it's unlikely he consummated his marriage with Catherine Parr.

Katherine Howard had had lovers before (and during her marriage) and not conceived with them, so any physical problems could have also been on her part.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35274


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2011, 09:11:07 am »

There was definately something in the genetics of the Tudor race and there was something 'off' about them all psychologically. Henry was chronically capricious, espcially after a near fatal accident and jousting probably ended up messing his head up, what with all the high velocity impact that he encountered. I read that one hit was about the smae as getting involved in a car accident. He himself was also under enormous stress to produce an heir and he did make the mistake of having relationships with women who werer too old (according to the times) to have numerous children. He was in a relationship with Anne for a decade or so before they finally consummated the marriage (even then before a formal ceremony) and then there was the huge strain of being married ot him. Katherine and Anne were both highly intelligent women, with high strung personalities and didn't take well to being dictated to according to the norms of their society. Both sought to be 'better' and have more power, or at least influence and Jane wasn't the type.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1684


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2011, 06:05:11 pm »

I'd like to know if all the royal blood diseases have similar origins in genetics. Variations of anemia, hemophilia, etc. ... The British royals have alot of latent genetic flaws lurking in their DNA!



  That would be the Hanoverians for the most part.
 
   The Tudor line died out.. except for some few genes passed onto James I and VI, who was great grandson to Henry VIII's sister.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 06:08:20 pm by Tatiana » Logged

Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35274


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2011, 07:49:51 am »

I would have to say that the Stuarts got the healthy Tudor in their lineage (Henry's sister Margaret) and that is how they managed to survive. Up until the Hanovers, there were few real genetic flaws and it was the Spanish Hapsburgs that inbred themselves out of existence and had prominent bodily flaws. To be perfectly frank, I think that Henry VIII was the type of monarch who went through life, never stopping to really think and make the right choices. If he hadn't married Katherine of Aragon, but had married a younger French of Spanish princess, chances are he might very well have had healthy children. He had his faults, but his first two wives were in the end extremely unhealthy physically when it came to the point where they were beginning to have children.

These days though, it's definatley the Hanoverians/Windsors that have brought in a lot of other inbred diseases.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13832



« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2011, 06:18:59 pm »

I don't know if you are saying that Catherine was an Hapsburg, but she was a Trastámara from her mother and father side. It was not until the next generation that the spanish royal family was Hapsburg.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35274


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2011, 07:25:18 pm »

Good point.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1684


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2011, 02:26:08 am »

I would have to say that the Stuarts got the healthy Tudor in their lineage (Henry's sister Margaret) and that is how they managed to survive. Up until the Hanovers, there were few real genetic flaws and it was the Spanish Hapsburgs that inbred themselves out of existence and had prominent bodily flaws. To be perfectly frank, I think that Henry VIII was the type of monarch who went through life, never stopping to really think and make the right choices. If he hadn't married Katherine of Aragon, but had married a younger French of Spanish princess, chances are he might very well have had healthy children. He had his faults, but his first two wives were in the end extremely unhealthy physically when it came to the point where they were beginning to have children.

These days though, it's definatley the Hanoverians/Windsors that have brought in a lot of other inbred diseases.

               I totally concur.
Logged

Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35274


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2011, 05:42:26 am »

All his later problems and those of his children were quite frankly his fault. If he needed a son so badly, he could have married a different Hapsburg, a princess that his father had picked out from him over Katherine of ARagon. I think more than enough misery would have been avoided and he might have ended up with a few sons and then enough heirs to prevent the wife from being divorced all for the sake of Anne Boleyn. Another issue I had with him is how he let Anne push people and Katherine around, as if she had that right, as if Katherine was such a horrible threat when all Katherine wanted was her daughter MAry and ot be allowed to see her. Not asking for much and no one was going to really destroy Anne other than herself, which is how it happens. He managed to bankrupt a full treasury and didn't bother modernizing the army or really opening up beneficial trade routes. He did nothing that really stood the test of time really. I have no idea how on earth he fell off track s often in his life. I mean, the law became his interpretation (already messed up) of what was right and what was wrong, not according to any framework.

One thing that unnerves me the most about him, is that when he divorced Katherine of Aragon for Anne Boleyn, it set a dangerous precedent for royal marriages. If the King fancied a woman enough, then it showed taht the King could toss aside a woman of inestimable virtue and lineage to cavort and marry his latest infatuation. He caused a huge level of grief and ended up making the position of many wives insecure; if he had stayed married to Katherine of Aragon, then married a French or other Spanish princess at the time of Katherine's death, then it would have ensured stability and a lot of benefits for England. Because of his break with Rome, it crippled the ability of a Catholic princess/noblewoman from being able to marry (I daresay) William and ensuring that the greedier families and climbers were kept in check. It also would have avoided the massive political upheaval that surrounded Tudor politics and it would have avoided all the burnings that happened in Mary's reign and the death of many good Catholics that happened in Elizabeth's time. Katherine was dying of cancer and the least he could have done was give her some happiness and dignity. The worst part about Anne is how she let her paranoia run her life and dictate how hse would tell Henry how to do things, but also that she never knew how to behave royally, like a queen was supposed to. She never managed to learn how to be in a position of authority without abusing it. And Harry let her abuse it, plus he let her isolate him from his real friends and the allies that were in fact the most dependable. I am also surprised at how he let his wives get so heavily involved in politics/diplomacy, one more aspect of Tudor life. It wasn't really until Jane Seymour that his wives were expected to stay out of politics and diplomacy.

Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
royalfanPKLS
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2011, 04:24:06 am »

Okay I've watched all the seasons of The Tudors recently and a few of the episodes in particular in the first season made me scratch my head. I know very little of the historic King Henry but I was wondering when he became king was there a particular guy ( I keep forgetting the character's name) who was trying to overthrow Henry because he thought he had more rights to the throne based on his heritage? I know even today there's virtual nobody's who argue and occasionally have 15 minutes of fame screaming that based on their geneaology they have more rights to the throne than the current monarch.
Logged

"Sometimes I think I was born backwards. You know, come out my mum the wrong way. I hear words go past me backwards. The people I should love, I *despise*. And the people I *despise*…”
Catrina
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2011, 05:05:25 am »

I haven't watched The Tudors because I love History too much. As I understand it, the series must be taken with a grain of salt the size of the Everest.

As for someone claiming rights to the throne nowadays, that'd be very interesting. I often wonder, if the house of Windsor will fall as some people on here claim, then who will rise as the next reigning family?
Logged
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1684


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2011, 09:04:37 am »


          I have seen snippets of this, but found it lacking credibility.

                   Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck are the name(s) you are thinking of perhaps

« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 09:09:17 am by Tatiana » Logged

royalfanPKLS
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2011, 05:47:14 pm »


          I have seen snippets of this, but found it lacking credibility.

                   Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck are the name(s) you are thinking of perhaps



Well yeah even on the DVDs special features the writers and producers of the show mentioned they've taken  liberties to make it more entertaining. But that's true of all "historical" dramas.  But anyway, is there anywhere in the history books that suggest that anyone during the reign of Henry VIII was trying to steal the throne from him and possibly assasinate him for it? In the show, the guy ended up getting beheaded because of it. I mean obviously if there's people today claiming they have more rights to the British throne then people must have done this throughout history.

Hell, with the little bit I know of my family history, I could probably try to argue my rights to the British throne, :easter-lol:
Logged

"Sometimes I think I was born backwards. You know, come out my mum the wrong way. I hear words go past me backwards. The people I should love, I *despise*. And the people I *despise*…”
tequiero
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


I like to move it, move it :):):)


« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2011, 08:55:30 pm »

In the show, the guy ended up getting beheaded because of it.

I think you mean Duke of Buckingham.

I've found some info on him. In the real live, he was also executed.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edwardstafford.htm
Logged

Harry-ite #6
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1684


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #38 on: December 16, 2011, 02:00:30 am »



    Not only in the history books but common knowledge to those who received excellent schooling in history.

         As for being related to the British Royal Family .. is it the German side ?  or the Stuart side ?

                                    snowman
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 02:02:12 am by Tatiana » Logged

meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2118



« Reply #39 on: December 16, 2011, 02:55:27 am »

The de la Pole family were the major claimants in Henry's reign and he did have them executed. 

Edmund de la Pole was a grandson of Richard III and had a stronger blood claim in some ways than Henry.

Henry, of course, claimed the throne through his father who claimed it through right of conquest.  Henry VII, partly to shore up his own claim married the daughter of Edward IV but she had been declared illegitimate by an Act of Parliament and so her claim had no validity.  If you accept that then the de la Pole's claim is stronger coming from Richard III, the King defeated by Henry VII.

Henry VIII needed to remove the de la Poles as a result and he executed a number of them during his reign while others left the country and died abroad.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!