The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir

I don’t remember that one. Does anyone remember Hereward the Wake with Alfred Lynch. It was totally erased by the BBC with no copies anywhere. I think it was the first historical drama that I watched.

Shadow of the Tower (HVII and Elizabeth of York) part one

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6FP8S3u28

BBC series from the 1970's.

Oh wow. Thanks. There are lots of them and, because it’s BBC Sounds I’m not going to find that the ones I want to listen to are subscriber only.

For those who like History podcasts, I recommend Not Jusr the Tudors on BBC Sounds- mainly women discussing the ins and outs of what went on - there are a few episodes on Henry VIII and his spouses….

keepcalmandcavachon

I'd not discovered 'The Spanish Princess' until this thread, so thankyou MayBee I'm loving it!

I love all three series, The White Queen being my favourite though. I think Becoming Elizabeth is on Ch 4, too. Glad you’re enjoying it.

I'd not discovered 'The Spanish Princess' until this thread, so thankyou MayBee I'm loving it!

She is buried in Peterborough Cathedral and there is info about her there

fancyflowers

This is my current reading, and I am amazed at how hard a life Katherine of Aragon had before she became Henry VIII's wife. She was short of money, to the point where she had hardly enough food and couldn't pay her ladies in waiting. Alison Weir's book is truly enlightening.

No wonder she copped for Henry.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24350322/

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303153114.htm

www.theanneboleynfiles.com/henry-viii-kell-positive-blood-type-and-mcleod-syndrome-guest-post-by-kyra-kramer/

AuntieE

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.

I didn't discover the theory, and don't have enough knowledge of DNA (or even of more general biology) to argue a case. I read about it and found it interesting when I was researching Anne Boleyn some time ago, so offered it as a point of interest.

This is an AI overview, but there are a lot of more scholarly articles on Google Scholar that back up the AI summary of anyone wants to follow them up.

Ots a wonderfully rich period of history -it captured my imagination at an early age .
I do take some of what I read with a pinch of salt .
I respect Tracey Borman as a respected Tudor historian.
She has just disputed something written in Wolf Hall for example as there is no proof of it happening .
I do think that these historical books are fabulous reads,but are sometimes distorted to be made palatable.
I've read several books by Alison Weir and enjoyed all of them.

Katherine of Aragon had at least four pregnancies before the birth of Mary, notably Prince Henry Duke of Cornwall, born 1511, who tragically and unexpectedly, died just over 7 weeks after birth, likely from SIDS. After this two more sons were born before Mary, one still born, the other dying soon after birth, and an unnamed daughter after her.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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'

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.

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.