The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir

MayBee70

It’s a bit dry isn’t it. There are more on that page that look more interesting. I can listen to In Our Time again thankfully. I usually listen to them at night when I’m trying to get to sleep. She was quite an amazing woman and people forget that she and Henry were happily married for a long time, or that she fought battles…and won. I wonder if there’s a Rest is History about her?

Katherine never fought. Her troops were commanded by Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey later 2nd Duke of Norfolk. She, herself never went further north than Bedfordshire.

MarieElla

Although Katherine of Aragon was my favourite, I find Anne Boelyn (aka Nan Bullen, by the public ,who hated her) the most fascinating. She played the long game, manipulated Henry and was pivotal in England breaking with Rome.
She was horribly cruel to Katherine and Princess Mary (jealous and insecure because they had Royal blood, I think)
Her downfall brought lot of people a lot of joy!

A lot of people also found it suspicious about the charges. The only letter HVIII wrote to Jane told her to ignore the common folk talking about them.
Long term CoA and Mary supporter Chapuys even wrote to the Emperor that he thought some of the charges were trumped up.

Henry was even more cruel to both Catherine and Mary both before he married Anne and after he married Jane. His persecution of Mary continued until she totally capitulated about her parent's marriage.

Doodledog

Allira

But miscarriages and still births and deaths of infants and young children was very common back then. Only a minority made it to adulthood.
Yes, it was more common but there is still one common denominator to consider and that was Henry himself and whether the fault was a genetic one.

Yes. As I understand it (ie at a very surface level) Kell Syndrome means that after the first child subsequent babies may live for a while but will be very weak.

I have Rhesus Negative blood, and my husband's is positive, so after my first baby I had to be given antibodies to prevent any others being what used to be known as 'blue babies'. That is entirely different from Kell Syndrome, but it sounds like it follows a similar pattern. Obviously they didn't have the understanding or the medication back then, so they fell back on tradition and blamed the women .

I read of a theory a long time ago that Anne Boleyn was thought to be Rhesus Negative, which was the cause of only her first child, Elizabeth I surviving. Her subsequent babies had been attacked by her antibodies and either were stillborn or miscarried.

Flippinheck

Alison Weir is a wonderful writer, both fiction and non fiction. I always look forward to her books.
I like Sharon Penman too, though she covers a much earlier period. She writes fiction, though not straying too far from known fact.

While I do find AW's book easy to read, I didn't like the way she treated both AoC's and KP's backstories.

Beautyschooldropout

Flippinheck

Alison Weir is a wonderful writer, both fiction and non fiction. I always look forward to her books.
I like Sharon Penman too, though she covers a much earlier period. She writes fiction, though not straying too far from known fact.

While I do find AW's book easy to read, I didn't like the way she treated both AoC's and KP's backstories.

Which is why reading a wide range of books on the subject gives a more rounded view. Re-reading books I read years ago I am often struck by how much views have changed.

pinkprincess

Doodledog

Allira

But miscarriages and still births and deaths of infants and young children was very common back then. Only a minority made it to adulthood.
Yes, it was more common but there is still one common denominator to consider and that was Henry himself and whether the fault was a genetic one.

Yes. As I understand it (ie at a very surface level) Kell Syndrome means that after the first child subsequent babies may live for a while but will be very weak.

I have Rhesus Negative blood, and my husband's is positive, so after my first baby I had to be given antibodies to prevent any others being what used to be known as 'blue babies'. That is entirely different from Kell Syndrome, but it sounds like it follows a similar pattern. Obviously they didn't have the understanding or the medication back then, so they fell back on tradition and blamed the women .

I read of a theory a long time ago that Anne Boleyn was thought to be Rhesus Negative, which was the cause of only her first child, Elizabeth I surviving. Her subsequent babies had been attacked by her antibodies and either were stillborn or miscarried.

Interesting. I do remember when that theory was discovered and a treatment found in the 1960s.

I agree. Isn’t there a living descendant of King Richard? If her DNA were taken and the bones dug up and tested then we would know I whether or not the bones are those of the princes

Gran22boys

I agree. Isn’t there a living descendant of King Richard? If her DNA were taken and the bones dug up and tested then we would know I whether or not the bones are those of the princes

The person whose DNA they used was a descendant of one of his sisters. If you wanted to do that to those bones you would need a female line descendant of one of their sisters or from one of Elizabeth Wydville sisters as maternal mitochondrial is one of the best ways to determine ancestry.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumation_and_reburial_of_Richard_III_of_England

Flippinheck

Beautyschooldropout

Flippinheck

Alison Weir is a wonderful writer, both fiction and non fiction. I always look forward to her books.
I like Sharon Penman too, though she covers a much earlier period. She writes fiction, though not straying too far from known fact.

While I do find AW's book easy to read, I didn't like the way she treated both AoC's and KP's backstories.

Which is why reading a wide range of books on the subject gives a more rounded view. Re-reading books I read years ago I am often struck by how much views have changed.

Plus historians and archeologists are finding new things all the time. The myth that KP was a serial bride of elderly, frail men while the truth was something rather different.
Her first husband was a similar age to her. Her second was in his late 30's when they married while she was in her early twenties. An age different not uncommon in that era.

Then there was HVIII. Since the Magna Carta , kings couldn't force widows or heiresses marry, so he had to ask to marry her. Of course, she had to agree.

KP's last marriage has often been touted as a "love match" though some historians now think it was more of a power couple match. There was probably some attraction and while Thomas Seymour had tried to marry Mary and Elizabeth earlier, they had both rejected his suit.

KP could have been upset at being left out of the Regency Council for Edward VI. Marrying the king's uncle could possibly be seen as a way of setting up a rival court especially as both Elizabeth and Lady Jane Grey were part of her household.

Beautyschooldropout

MayBee70

It’s a bit dry isn’t it. There are more on that page that look more interesting. I can listen to In Our Time again thankfully. I usually listen to them at night when I’m trying to get to sleep. She was quite an amazing woman and people forget that she and Henry were happily married for a long time, or that she fought battles…and won. I wonder if there’s a Rest is History about her?

Katherine never fought. Her troops were commanded by Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey later 2nd Duke of Norfolk. She, herself never went further north than Bedfordshire.

Oh no. I thought she was a proper warrior queen!

MayBee70

Beautyschooldropout

MayBee70

It’s a bit dry isn’t it. There are more on that page that look more interesting. I can listen to In Our Time again thankfully. I usually listen to them at night when I’m trying to get to sleep. She was quite an amazing woman and people forget that she and Henry were happily married for a long time, or that she fought battles…and won. I wonder if there’s a Rest is History about her?

Katherine never fought. Her troops were commanded by Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey later 2nd Duke of Norfolk. She, herself never went further north than Bedfordshire.

Oh no. I thought she was a proper warrior queen!

Her mother Isabel of Castile was on the battlefield as part of the joint effort of the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, the Reconquista. However she never fought either.

Phillipa Gregory has spent far too long sliding by (IMHO) on her PhD. However, it is in Regency novels* and not history.

I loved her Wildacre novels but her Plantagenet and Tudor novels fall short for me.

I bought a few of her books after watching The White Queen on tv ( I love that series). I read The White Queen but couldn’t get into The White Princess or The Lady of the Rivers. Then again I do get obsessed with a subject and then suddenly move on to something else. It’s why I wanted to watch The Spanish Princess; kept meaning to buy the dvd and then found it was on Ch4. Unfortunately I’ve got a terrible memory and also don’t concentrate on what I’m watching so I’ve already forgotten what happened in The Spanish Princess. I didn’t realise there were two series and I think I’d started to lose interest by series two.

MarieElla

She was a true princess of Royal Spanish blood and was treated appallingly by Henry and his affair partner, Nan Bullen...

I am sorry that you feel the need to call her by the more derogatory name of Nan Bullen. This is what the populace called her when wanting to be insulting.

Yes, fancyflowers, she was hated for her treatment of Katherine and known to have a violent temper, often mistreating her maids...so yes, Nan Bullen was used as an insult which was deserved.

In those days it would have been unthinkable to even even suggest that a lack of heirs would have anything at all to do with THE MAN
It must have been a terrifying time to be the object of Henry's 'affection'

MarieElla

Yes, fancyflowers, she was hated for her treatment of Katherine and known to have a violent temper, often mistreating her maids...so yes, Nan Bullen was used as an insult which was deserved.

It may have been used as a put down in the 1530s, but why use it nowadays? It's hardly a widespread name for Anne - yes, we all know of it from TV drama and historical fiction, but it's hardly in common use.

All we know about Anne (as with most historical figures) is what men wrote about her. The people doing the writing all had vested interests in discrediting her - it was necessary for her to be guilty, as she had been executed so that Henry could get an heir, and/or so that he could be rid of her when his infatuation wore off. If the writers didn't make her unpopular, so the people felt that her death was deserved, there could be an uprising.

Henry had taken great pains to ensure that the marriage was legal in the eyes of the law and the church, so there had to be good reason for him to kill her off. It is highly unlikely that she was guilty of adultery, which made the pretext for her execution all the more perilous. If Anne had been a legitimate queen, then Elizabeth was a legitimate heir.

It is fair to say that the dissolution of the Catholic church caused great unrest, particularly as those who refused to convert to Protestantism were persecuted.

There is no doubt that the political and religious changes necessary for Henry to legitimise any children Anne might have were widespread and probably unpopular, but the personality of Anne - her temper, her scheming, her witchcraft, promiscuity, extra finger and so on is all speculation. How can anyone in the 21st century know how she treated her maids? And why would the man or woman in the street care, much less the courtiers who may well have also treated servants badly.

'Nan Bullen' is a commoner name, so is the sort of thing that people like those who talk about 'Rachel from Accounts' might have used - it's basically saying 'don't get above yourself, woman'. It's bad enough copycatting modern day insults - but copying ones from the 16th century is a whole new level surely?

keepcalmandcavachon

In those days it would have been unthinkable to even even suggest that a lack of heirs would have anything at all to do with THE MAN
It must have been a terrifying time to be the object of Henry's 'affection'

Absolutely. I feel very sorry for Katherine and Anne. They did all they could to carry children to term, and the fact that they didn't was never their fault, whatever the biological reason may have been. Being constantly pregnant, all those miscarriages and confinements, plus the stress of knowing that this one had to be a male heir must have ben hideous.

Goodness Doodledog, referring to her as Nan Bullen is hardly an offence (well obviously you're offered by it) as she's been dead for at least 500 years and let's face it, was not a likeable person regardless of being a commoner.
Also, some historians say the family name was actually Bullen sometimes spelt Bulen (actually signed by Anne in a letter, as such) and changed to Boleyn after her time in the French court. And, of course she wasn't a witch or have 6 fingers and the rest but she was incredibly ambitious and cruel towards Katherine and Mary but didn't deserve to be beheaded!

Doodledog

I’m be theory about Henry is that he suffered from Kell Syndrome. People who have it are affected in various ways, including psychotic episodes (which he had) and the inability to have more than one child with any partner. The sex doesn’t matter - sufferers can produce male or female babies, but after the first one maternal antibodies attack foetuses in utero. Catherine had Mary, so subsequent babies died or were miscarried. It was the same with Anne - after Elizabeth she couldn’t carry to term. Jane had Edward. She died soon afterwards, but would not have produced any more children if Henry did have Kell blood.

It’s an interesting theory, but is still unproven beyond doubt. There is evidence that at least one of Henry’s ancestors had the syndrome, which is hereditary, however, so it is a plausible hypothesis, and explains why he went from a fit, rational young man to an obese monster in older age - a situation that is often thought to be the result of a fall from a horse.

Actually, Mary was Catherine and Henry's first child to survive, not the first baby Catherine had, which makes it more difficult to find a medical reason for their lack of children.

Until I read that, I had wondered whether Henry could have been rhesus negative, but in that case, surely his parents would not have managed three children who survived infancy?

If after Mary's birth. he contracted syphillis or gonhorrhea that might account for the one baby per wife with Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour, although Anne cannot have become sterile after Elizabeth's birth, as she is known to have miscarried about a year after having her daughter.

Apart from the age gap, Catherine's re-marriage to Henry or anyone else was delayed because both Henry VII and Ferdinand of Aragon were hard-headed businessmen. The one demanded the rest of Catherine's dowry, the other was reluctant and possibly unable to provide it, and probably felt that he could more profitably dispose of a daughter, still said to be virgan elsewhere that to England's new Prince of Wales.

That marriage also required a papal dispensation, never a particularly speedy matter, and certainly no need for haste when the putative bridegroom was only twelve.

MarieElla

Goodness Doodledog, referring to her as Nan Bullen is hardly an offence (well obviously you're offered by it) as she's been dead for at least 500 years and let's face it, was not a likeable person regardless of being a commoner.
Also, some historians say the family name was actually Bullen sometimes spelt Bulen (actually signed by Anne in a letter, as such) and changed to Boleyn after her time in the French court. And, of course she wasn't a witch or have 6 fingers and the rest but she was incredibly ambitious and cruel towards Katherine and Mary but didn't deserve to be beheaded!

There were various spellings of the surname Bulleyn, Bullen, Boleyn etc and Nan was a standard 'short' form of Anne.
It was used by enemies, would have been annoying but even today people refer to Catherine, Princess of Wales, as Kate Middleton!

Anne Boleyn signed herself "Anna de Boullan” in a letter to her father when she was young.

If anyone is interested, there is an annual Katharine (that’s how they spell it) of Aragon festival in Peterborough Cathedral. My friend went last year and said it was amazing. Link attached.

peterborough-cathedral.org.uk/about/history/katharine-of-aragon/kofa_26/

Doodledog

I’m be theory about Henry is that he suffered from Kell Syndrome. People who have it are affected in various ways, including psychotic episodes (which he had) and the inability to have more than one child with any partner. The sex doesn’t matter - sufferers can produce male or female babies, but after the first one maternal antibodies attack foetuses in utero. Catherine had Mary, so subsequent babies died or were miscarried. It was the same with Anne - after Elizabeth she couldn’t carry to term. Jane had Edward. She died soon afterwards, but would not have produced any more children if Henry did have Kell blood.

It’s an interesting theory, but is still unproven beyond doubt. There is evidence that at least one of Henry’s ancestors had the syndrome, which is hereditary, however, so it is a plausible hypothesis, and explains why he went from a fit, rational young man to an obese monster in older age - a situation that is often thought to be the result of a fall from a horse.

Very interesting! I had not heard about Kell syndrome.

Doodledog

keepcalmandcavachon

In those days it would have been unthinkable to even even suggest that a lack of heirs would have anything at all to do with THE MAN
It must have been a terrifying time to be the object of Henry's 'affection'

Absolutely. I feel very sorry for Katherine and Anne. They did all they could to carry children to term, and the fact that they didn't was never their fault, whatever the biological reason may have been. Being constantly pregnant, all those miscarriages and confinements, plus the stress of knowing that this one had to be a male heir must have ben hideous.

Yes, life was hard for all women and girls. Even noble ladies who were comparatively well kept must have been constantly aware they were at the mercy of their male relatives.

Nan Bullen' is a commoner name, so is the sort of thing that people like those who talk about 'Rachel from Accounts' might have used - it's basically saying 'don't get above yourself, woman'. It's bad enough copycatting modern day insults - but copying ones from the 16th century is a whole new level surely?

Doodle dog you put this so much more eloquently than I could have done.

With all today's societal problems, life as a woman in Henry VIII's time was so much worse.

I have never read any of Alison Weir’s books but last week on my way out of the library I lighted upon ‘The Cardinal’ which is about Thomas Wolsey. I am not fully into it yet but have no doubt that most of the aforementioned characters will appear in it.