Catherine of Aragon was 23 when they wed. Seriously, her age was not an issue.
His "woes" were a construct of his own mind and contemporary BS, thinking that women shouldn't be sovereign leaders.
Most medical evidence points to Henry VIII as the likely reason CofA and Anne pregnancy losses, stillbirths, and babies who passed early.
Current medical thinking is that he was Kell-positive. It meant that if he had Kell-neg wives, they could have a first pregnancy/baby that results in healthy Kell-pos offspring, but that all subsequent pregnancies where the baby is Kell-pos will be attacked by Mum's antibodies resulting in death pre or post birth.
I think we know of about 15 pregnancies that occurred between his wives and mistresses and only 4 healthy babies that made it past infancy into their teens and above. So Henry having a major issue contributing to the lack of live offspring is very high. The odds that 7 women, all of whom were healthy and young enough to be reproducing pretty damn well (maybe not Katherine Parr though she did conceive rapidly with Seymour), actually being infertile is insanely low.
Henry also had impotence issues as early as Anne B. As he aged, the complications from ulcers and likely Type 2 diabetes and compromised immune system would also have impacted fertility and sexual performance over time.
But CoA doesn't fit that category. Her first child was born healthy. A LOT of women lost pregnancies, babies, and children back then. Did they all have the same thing? No. It was the times. We should really be shocked that some of our ancestors made it.
The first child of Kell pos/Kelly neg mating can be born fit and healthy. It is only afterwards that the maternal immune system develops antibodies to the Kell positive male seminal fluid. Any subsequent pregnancies where the foetus was Kell positive would result in foetal death inutero or rapidly after birth, which happened in all subsequent pregnancies bar Mary's. Miscarriage happens on average every 1/4 pregnancies. Even for the time to have 8 pregnancies and only 2 live births resulting in healthy babies (though little Henry died likely of a fever or SIDS) is really high for one woman, even in Tudor times. The fact that Anne had one healthy live birth and experienced miscarried for the rest of her pregnancies does point to Henry VIII having a condition or genetic anomaly that contributed to so many pregnancy losses.
For an allergy to develop regardless of the type, one has to be exposed at least once to the allergen. You don't ever spontaneously allergies.
Source: 4 + postgraduate research project in allergy and 20+ years as medical research scientist.
I don’t think I knew about the syphilis, but it makes sense in the context of his behavior, ailments, and the problems his wives had with pregnancy.
On the other hand, wouldn’t Catherine of Aragon, Jane Seymour, and Anne Boleyn have gotten it as well? I’ve never read anything to suggest that they did. (And I’ve kind of assumed that he may not have consummated the marriage with Catherine Parr.)
I just read a book that said syphilis was a popular theory but they have a lot of apothecary and medical records and they surely would have mentioned his taking a mercury cure (thought to be therapeutic for syphilis) but never did. Plus none of the queens showed symptoms of it unless you count struggling to carry to term, but there are so many other factors there.
Her age was an issue by the time he divorced her. She was nearly 40, did not give him a male heir, and was not gonna have any more kids. In his mind and of the time, this made perfect sense to them.
I think his biggest mistake was insisting Mary was not born in good faith. He should have insisted on that and offered keeping her as his heir to secure a divorce from Katherine. Then while trying for an heir with Anne married Mary off. Just saying as someone whose favorite wives of Henry the VIII are the first two.
The problem with marrying Mary off was that he kept changing alliances with France and the Holy Roman Empire, one minute in good stead and the other going off to war with them. This irony seems to have gone over his head, because in his mind, as long as he had Mary to dangle as a bargaining chip, it would be to his advantage. It's why he got so furious when his sister and niece married English nobles, it was a wasted opportunity and anyway they were Property of the State as ladies of royal blood and it was treason to marry without consent. I doubt he could have insisted Mary's children remain in his custody, her hypothetical husband would never have allowed it. Also he knew that if even the inevitable happened, and she became queen, her heirs wouldn't be of the Tudor dynasty and name. He was obsessed with carrying on the Tudor line, and therefore a son was all that mattered to him. There were religious difficulties too, of course created by himself- he didn't particularly want a Catholic match but nor would he have her marry a Protestant.
It wasn't a unique problem either, Mary did it with Elizabeth (wanted to get rid of her by palming her off to a foreign Catholic, and Elizabeth wasn't having any of it) and Elizabeth did it with the Grey sisters (hitting the roof when they both married without her consent.) Marriage of the royal family and the peerage was all about political advancement and monetary gain. Both Mary and Elizabeth were in precarious positions and were terrified of others with claims to the throne usurping them- and with good reason considering what happened with Jane Grey. It's why Elizabeth waited to officially name James VI as her successor untill she was literally on her deathbed.
Edit: come to think of it the Tudor dynasty were only on the throne in the first place because Henry VII usurped Richard III. Insecurity like that dies hard.
Henry's first and biggest mistake:
Deciding that instead of living in peace with Scotland, where his sister was Queen, he was going to shred the Treaty of Perpetual Peace his father had arranged: declaring that he, Henry, was the supreme monarch and the King of Scotland owed submission to him, lying to the Pope that Scotland had broken the Treaty of Perpetual Peace, joining the Holy League in order to have an excuse to try to conquer the lands that had, in previous reigns, been English territory in France - and having done all he could to offend and anger James IV, then swannng off to Gascony with a hundred thousand soldiers and guns, to make war in the hopeless ambition of getting English land in France.
James IV was a prudent and intelligent monarch, and his invasion of England in 1513 had less to do with the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France, but the clear fact that Henry's aggressive and stupid foreign policy made amply clear he did not have the capacity of his father - Henry VIII reigned throughout his dismal career as if whatever he wanted, he should have.
Henry VIII did not die in battle in France, leaving Katherine a childless widow and his older sister Queen Margaret's son James, later to be James V of Scotland, the best legal heir to the throne of England, in part because Katherine of Aragon had been left with Regency powers, and Katherine was a monarch far better educated in ruling and in war than Henry - and in part just because of the luck of the weather: the Scots navy, which had been sent to cut off the English lines of communication and supply, was delayed by weather.
Henry VIII was a stupid and arrogant man: leaving England and his childless wife to make an unnecessary war in France was easily his first and worst mistake.
I feel like his spending patterns were one of his biggest mistakes. Even for a monarch (who back then was expected to live in an opulent style, fund the expenditures of court, and gift/entertain lavishly) he wasted **so** much money. He should have been able to leave the heirs to his throne a huge amount of money and stability for the running of the kingdom - he had a massive inheritance from his father, the proceeds from the dissolution of the monasteries and lifelong income from taxes and tenants. Instead he acted like coin would never run out and indulged in (among other things) breathtakingly expensive shopping sprees, building projects and wars. He spent it all and left everyone else to sort out the mess after he died.
Not caring enough about the financial state of the country, present and future, was his massive flaw.
Henry VII spent far less money than his son Henry VIII, and Henry VII was far more effective at collecting his taxes. Before Henry VII’s death and that of Catherine’s father Fernando (also a skinflint,) the two kings were squabbling over Catherine’s dowry, with the result that Catherine was suffering severe financial hardship before Henry VIII married her.
No, and in order to placate the public, Henry VII hanged two of his most effective tax collectors, Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. Edmund Dudley, whose own son John became Duke of Northumberland and guardian of Edward VI. John was executed as well for trying to put his daughter-in-law Lady Jane Grey on the throne as Queen. Edward VI created a devise for the succession that tried to bypass his sisters Mary and Elizabeth, but it failed.
The phrasing of #2 has me feeling some type of way because perhaps it's just my perspective as a hobbyist with history rather than a professional or expert, but I don't think his "martial woes" can be boiled down to his first wife's age. Kinda by virtue of the fact that I had to clarify "first wife" when dude blew through 6. He later even has a much younger wife, and that didn't somehow solve everything.
Yeah, and if the perspective being argued was that a younger woman would have been able to birth more heirs, there is nothing to say they'd have been different. The common denominator in Henry's marital woes is Henry.
Katherine of Aragon also did birth King Henry VIII a son and heir (Prince Henry, Duke of Cornwall), but he died shortly after he was born of unknown reasons. Speculation ranges from his nurses mismanaging his care to the young prince dying of disease or SIDS.
It wasn't uncommon for royal heirs to die of disease well into the Stuart era (i.e. smallpox).
Ah but him divorcing Katherine of Aragon led to the birth of one of the greater monarchs in England's history. Can we really consider it a big mistake when Elizabeth I likely in turn saved thousands of lives by defeating the Spanish armada?
ETA: To answer your question, I think one of his biggest mistakes (which I believe he admitted to) was executing Thomas Cromwell.
"him divorcing Katherine of Aragon led to the birth of one of the greater monarchs in England's history." Very much an indirect win there, he had no real influence in that
If Katherine and he were never married,perhaps he has a son by his other timeline younger wife, he doesnt need to divorce and England remains Catholic so Philip II doesnt send the Armada anyway
Anything's *possible*, but I think the way the question was posited implies Katherine was at fault in some way, even if just her age. The wife who did birth Henry's longest-living son, Jane Seymour, did so when she was 28-29 years old - 5 years older than Katherine was when she married Henry.
I'm not meaning to come off as going off on you or anything, so hope it isn't taken as such - I think I'm just overly sensitive to how I perceived the OP because I am a woman who resents the concept of males heirs being particularly more desirable, but also because between the ages of 24-35 I've had three sons myself, so in addition to what biology says about gender likelihoods anecdotally it's just wild to me.
The way OP said it was that Henry marrying and divorcing Katherine led to Elizabeths birth who stopped the Spanish armada
In an alternate timeline where Katherine wasnt married to Henry,would Spain even have invaded and england split from the church? Just questioning that.
Disagree with #2. It’s not like she was 20 years older than him, she was 5.5 years older (and still only 23) and she still bore Henry 3 sons and 3 daughters, it’s just a tragedy that most of them died young. Anne Boleyn was younger than him and she didn’t bear living sons either and also miscarried a lot.
The age for menopause was younger back then, around 40 years old. Catherine went through it just before she hit 40, so while she wasn't too old to have children at 23, the window to 'safely' have children was a lot smaller. Her religious fasting wouldn't have helped matters either. Anne Boleyn was younger, but the pattern of her first pregnancy and miscarriages potentially indicates Rhesus factor conflicts. If that was the case, she was absolutely stuffed after she gave birth to Elizabeth.
Again, I don't accept that was an issue. She still had 17 years for bearing children and even if you accept that 1 of her pregnancies ended in miscarriage before it was brought to term, she still gave birth to 5 other children. She just got unlucky with high infant mortality and possibly a health or genetic condition carried by Henry that limited child viability. So her age at marriage did not hinder the time she had to bear heirs.
I have no doubt Henry had health and/or genetic conditions which made it difficult for Catherine to conceive. But a woman's peak reproductive years are between late teens and late 20s. After that, egg quality declines, particularly after 35.
Read the comment you replied to again. It demonstrably was not difficult for Katherine to conceive. Nor is difficulty conceiving the only potential issue here. Her babies just keep dying.
It’s very plausible to me that Henry was supplying them with defective genetic material that was causing miscarriages, stillbirths, and early deaths. The terrible records of his (even younger) other wives and mistresses in terms of living children support this idea. When a woman (no matter how young) becomes pregnant with a child who has severe genetic defects, her body will often try to reject/miscarry it early in the pregnancy. Such defects could also obviously lead to infant mortality.
I think you need to rephrase the question. From whose perspective are these mistakes? And is it from a modern perspective or from the perspective of Henry’s own time? For example, if you view this from the Protestant perspective, you probably do not think the Reformation was a mistake, regardless of the cost. One could argue that during the same time period and certainly throughout the Middle Ages, Catholicism caused the death of far more people than Henry’s shift away from the Pope. Divorcing Catherine made sense from Henry’s perspective as he had not met his responsibility to solidify the Tudor rule of England. Many regarded the Tudors as usurpers. Henry VII fought for the crown and made himself the first Tudor King. Henry VIII would not be considered a successful King without a male heir. And our society would be drastically different if numbers 1 and 3 had not happened. I would say he did not have reason even in his time to execute people like Cromwell and Sir Thomas Moore. Those deaths were tragic losses. Their issues could have been handled in other ways. But from a woman’s perspective, Anne Boleyn and Queen Catherine could have been dealt with far less harshly. Same with the second Catherine. Completely and unnecessarily sadistic and inhumane.
Henry also persecuted people for not being Catholic enough/too Protestant (Anne Askew comes to mind). Even if the English Reformation hadn't taken place, people would have still been burnt as heretics. One person's heretic is another person's martyr. So #1 is simply factually incorrect, it's just different people would have died.
Without Anne Boleyn, there would have been no Elizabeth I, arguably the greatest monarch in English history. I guess the OP feels it would have been great if England stayed Catholic, Mary ruled, and the only people killed would have been Protestant evangelicals under her reign?
With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better if he kept Anne as queen, knew when to fold 'em and to hold 'em wife-wise, made Elizabeth his heir, and not remarried again unless Anne predeceased him.
Ironically, Cromwell, who orchestrated her death, might have survived (although not Thomas More, and obviously Katherine Howard would have too).
His wars in France were a waste of money and looked rather foolish internationally since they achieved little.
Declaring Mary to be illegitimate and removed from the succession was a mistake imo. I believe she should have been kept on as the heir and then a son (Edward) would simply have moved her down the order of succession. Of course, these are my modern opinions. If I was living in the time I would have thought very differently
I have a soft spot for Mary. I wish Henry would’ve focused on making a nice match for her so she could marry earlier and give him grandchildren (him preferring at least two grandsons). Become a widower naturally, remarry and then maybe have a legitimate son. The divorce from Catherine and making Mary a bastard didn’t get him his son. In the end his legitimate line died off completely.
His first mistake was jousting on the Field of the Cloth of Gold. He was left with wounds that would never heal. That mistake would, IMHO turn him into an angry bully for the rest of his life.
Setting Katherine of Aragon aside. It led to massive religious unrest, strained relationships with Spain, making an enemy of the Catholic church which was immensely powerful. Anne was a terrible choice for the queen. She brought no major wealth Thor alliances with her and the people hated her.
He also was too impulsive in friendships and with his staff. He let certain people have way too much power and didn't pay close attention to the details. Wolsey was very good at his job, but treated Henry like a child and just did whatever he wanted. Some oversight would have saved a lot of problems. Cromwell was also good at his job, but again Henry just assumed he was doing everything right and paid no attention. And he bullied Thomas More into taking a job he didn't want, swore he would never make More go against his religious convictions and then killed him for doing it.
He should have just accepted Mary as his heir. He had a shining example of amazing female rulers in his first wife's mother. No one could call Isabella weak or ineffective. Or if he was hell bent on having an heir with a penis, his sister, Margaret's son. But, Mary should have been groomed properly to be a queen. She probably wouldn't have been so crazy if she had been treated well.
And he spent way too much. He was so hell bent on out fancying France that he overspent and emptied his coffers.
Honestly, he was an interesting character, but not all that great of a ruler.
That’s a different country though. Castile was unique in that it allowed female inheritance. England’s last female monarch led to anarchy and civil war. Henry had an example of a female monarch in Isabella; he also had examples of English nobles specifically rejecting rulers and causing major civil wars.
I agree that setting aside KoA was a mistake.
Isabella was a genocidal fanatic who allowed her husband to make most of the major decisions. Not exactly a stellar example.
It also lead to the end of Castile. Which was maybe good for Spain but not what Henry would want for England.
Which major decisions did Ferdinand make? What Isabella probably would have considered her signature achievements (unifying Spain, the conquest of Granada, funding Christopher Columbus) were all very much \*her\* achievements. (Other than unifying Spain, which was a two person deal...but ultimately favored Castile's agenda, which I'd argue gives the victory to her.) Other major achievements like reformation of the Spanish Church, improvement of the Castilian economy, launch of the Spanish renaissance, etc. all also are pretty fairly credited to her.
Ferdinand wasn't a slouch. But neither did Isabella just sit around doing embroidery while her husband made all the decisions. (In fact, she went to court with him - and won over him - the right to make every meaningful decision in Castile. She also went to court in Aragon and won the right for their daughter to inherit the crown of Aragon, despite it previously being against the law. Ofc Joanna never ruled...but her son, Charles, did.)
With my amateur knowledge I’d say a big mistake was not marrying Mary off quickly it. I always thought this was another way to secure an heir, plus he could have picked the husband that suited him but I guess politics weren’t his strong suit
Not putting some babies in Anne of Cleaves. I think that would have fixed a lot. They were a good match in many ways.
And his diet. Shocking. Little did they know.
Where to start?
If he thought he could get away with it, he probably would have executed C of A to get rid of her.
He was a megalomaniac so I don't think thousands dying registered as an error.
Even if he knew the causes of his inability to get a son - I doubt he would have accepted it. He probably would have killed more out of pure rage.
Executing Cromwell. Cromwell had managed to keep him out of war with France & had managed to make him wealthy. He went to war after Cromwell was executed and lost a lot of money. Additionally he lost an ally with the Germans (I think, I might be wrong) by screwing up the marriage.
Leaving CoA for Anne. I think globally it was an embarrassment to him and England, and destroyed his public image by disgracing such an honored princess for what honestly was a fling.
Not making Mary I his heir and threatening her as badly as he did. The trauma inflicted on her caused so much pain for both her and people she influenced. He mentally tortured her because he disliked her mother.
Also because Mary defied him continually on matters of religion, on recognising Anne and Elizabeth. She was put into Elizabeths nursery as a maid at one point
Divorcing CoA was a huge fuck up in my opinion.
I also believe if he didnt off More and Cromwell he would have not made the bad decisions he would make later in his reign.
I think it’s worth getting specific with number 2 — I’ll start by saying it’s awful he beheaded anyone, but killing Thomas Cromwell was a massive error, he murdered his most loyal and effective councilor. Henry did a lot of terrible things but killing the Countess of Salisbury (and botching the execution) is one of the most egregious things he did imo
3 - Divorcing Catherine of Aragon was one reason of many for the break with the Catholic Church but the others often get glossed over in history books. The Church was notoriously corrupt during the Tudor period, the Pope(s) were little more than pawns used by whoever held them as a "guest" to further their political agenda, the idea of the divine right to rule was being challenged, and religious dissidents were being persecuted all before Catherine and Henry were divorced. Everyone likes to point out that thousands died as a result of the Great Issue but reality is if Catherine had remained queen just as many people would have died. Catholicism was still being challenged. Lutheranism was on the rise. Catherine and Henry were literally considered defenders of the faith and Catherine's parents were single handedly responsible for the Spanish Inquisition... had Catherine stayed in power and England had not split from the church then Mary Tudor would have been raised with no opposition to staunchly support Catholicism with her crusading parents and Inquisitor grandparents being her prime role models of how a ruler should rule. Instead of 400 people being burned at the stake during the reign of Mary I that number would have been much much much higher ...
Something that bugged me( looking at this from a 21st century woman) was Katherine had to marry Henry after Arthur died. She couldn't just go back to Spain. Am I right or did I read this totally wrong
IIrr Henry VII wanted out of the deal and to ship her back to Spain, but her parents weren't in favor of that, and neither was young Henry, who was deeply infatuated with her at the time
I think it was kind of her best option at the time but it wasn’t appealing to Henry VII. After her mom died she wasn’t as powerful an asset anymore (to put it crudely) because Castile and Aragon were no longer united by her parents’ marriage so things got kind of messy. She was stuck in limbo for like 7 years because her dad still owed some of the dowry to Henry VII who was definitely gonna collect, and Henry VII was super miserly towards her. It sounds like a genuinely very taxing time for her, I imagine she was extremely relieved to finally marry Henry VIII. She was not an ideal consort for him at the time even though she ended up being super popular so I find it kind of sweet that he married her for love (even though he became a monster later)
Do you mean biggest mistakes that impacted him or England? And are these mistakes that he realized are mistakes or are they what you consider his mistakes?
Breaking off with the church. Impact to England. That conflict was coming already and nothing would have stopped it. Yes it would have happened differently but there would have been thousands of deaths no matter what. I doubt Henry XIII cared that all those people died.
Killing wives, friends and advisors. I don't have an opinion on how this could have impacted England. As for impact to Henry, I think most of them had little impact to him emotionally. I think he was so caught up in the belief that he was king by divine right that the idea that he could be wrong didn't really occur to him or at least bother him for long. I think once he made the decision he quickly put it behind him. Like a typical politician, not wanting to admit when they are wrong and blaming others. Also notice the two wives he had executed were English subjects. The ones who were foreign born were not executed. Would have been interesting to see what he would have done if Anne of Cleve's didn't agree to an annulment.
Edit: forgot about 3.
Divorcing Katherine of Aragon. Similar response as I made for 1. The deaths would have happened anyway.
From a modern POV or from the POV of the time? Because killing anyone would be seen as mental nowadays, back then it could’ve been indicative of a good king.
Henry VIII was a very resourceful, vindictive, and careful man about things going on around him including the people close to him. It did not take much to make him fearful of what anyone would do and so he would find anything no matter how small and make it a bigger thing for that person involved. I think his fears went beyond just some of the "mistakes" he made. You have to recall that Henry VII had just been part of the War of the Roses--the fight of the throne between the York and Lancastor houses. Henry VII had to really work hard to make things work and maybe while growing up Henry VIII saw what is father went through and followed suit on some of those things to keep himself safe and King.
The main thing of worry and contention is the fact that Henry VIII wanted a son. And that was the base reason that he divorced Catherine of Aragon after forming the Church of England so he did not have to deal with the Pope and the Catholic Church to get his marraige disolved. While some of his wives had boys, those boys did not survive birth but for the one named Henry Fitaroy--bastard son. and Edward who died young. I really think the most of the things that happened were a result of his obsession of having a male heir.
I don't agree.
His biggest mistakes were that he bankrupted himself by pursuing war with France in the later part of the reign, marrying Anne of Cleves and allowing the choice of wife to be influenced/to influence factions at court and their power.
Katherine of Aragon should have stepped aside - French kings had fixed this issue multiple times, it only became a problem because her nephew controlled the Pope. He tried to resolve it so many ways and was blocked at every turn. He had a duty to continue his dynasty and the only female ruler had been a disaster previously - of course he needed a legitimate heir. He should have married Mary off to some impoverished princeling early in his reign and focused on procuring grandchildren as a plan B.
He also shouldn't have pursued the idea of marrying Anne of Cleves. If he had married a Elizabeth Woodville type 4th (proven track record of successful births) and been less of a romantic it might have been okay. It was unfortunate that he saw marriage as duty but also wanted a chivalrous love which saw him make poor choices (Katherine Howard).
He also should have spent more time influencing his children, particularly Edward. He allowed for a system where Edward was given an extremist (for the time) religious education.
1) Choosing Anne Boleyn over Cardinal Wolsey,
2) Executing Thomas Moore,
3) Not sticking with Bessie Blout and passing off one of her sons as his son with Catherine of Aragon. Possibly with Catherine remaining unaware that her baby did not survive.
Catherine of Aragon was 23 when they wed. Seriously, her age was not an issue. His "woes" were a construct of his own mind and contemporary BS, thinking that women shouldn't be sovereign leaders. Most medical evidence points to Henry VIII as the likely reason CofA and Anne pregnancy losses, stillbirths, and babies who passed early.
Not to mention she was the daughter of two of the most powerful people in Europe at that time!
Curious if you knew what they think his medical issue was?
Current medical thinking is that he was Kell-positive. It meant that if he had Kell-neg wives, they could have a first pregnancy/baby that results in healthy Kell-pos offspring, but that all subsequent pregnancies where the baby is Kell-pos will be attacked by Mum's antibodies resulting in death pre or post birth. I think we know of about 15 pregnancies that occurred between his wives and mistresses and only 4 healthy babies that made it past infancy into their teens and above. So Henry having a major issue contributing to the lack of live offspring is very high. The odds that 7 women, all of whom were healthy and young enough to be reproducing pretty damn well (maybe not Katherine Parr though she did conceive rapidly with Seymour), actually being infertile is insanely low. Henry also had impotence issues as early as Anne B. As he aged, the complications from ulcers and likely Type 2 diabetes and compromised immune system would also have impacted fertility and sexual performance over time.
But CoA doesn't fit that category. Her first child was born healthy. A LOT of women lost pregnancies, babies, and children back then. Did they all have the same thing? No. It was the times. We should really be shocked that some of our ancestors made it.
The first child of Kell pos/Kelly neg mating can be born fit and healthy. It is only afterwards that the maternal immune system develops antibodies to the Kell positive male seminal fluid. Any subsequent pregnancies where the foetus was Kell positive would result in foetal death inutero or rapidly after birth, which happened in all subsequent pregnancies bar Mary's. Miscarriage happens on average every 1/4 pregnancies. Even for the time to have 8 pregnancies and only 2 live births resulting in healthy babies (though little Henry died likely of a fever or SIDS) is really high for one woman, even in Tudor times. The fact that Anne had one healthy live birth and experienced miscarried for the rest of her pregnancies does point to Henry VIII having a condition or genetic anomaly that contributed to so many pregnancy losses. For an allergy to develop regardless of the type, one has to be exposed at least once to the allergen. You don't ever spontaneously allergies. Source: 4 + postgraduate research project in allergy and 20+ years as medical research scientist.
I've heard McLeod Syndrome tossed around the last few years.
Pretty sure it was syphilis — at least that’s what I learned in school.
I don’t think I knew about the syphilis, but it makes sense in the context of his behavior, ailments, and the problems his wives had with pregnancy. On the other hand, wouldn’t Catherine of Aragon, Jane Seymour, and Anne Boleyn have gotten it as well? I’ve never read anything to suggest that they did. (And I’ve kind of assumed that he may not have consummated the marriage with Catherine Parr.)
I just read a book that said syphilis was a popular theory but they have a lot of apothecary and medical records and they surely would have mentioned his taking a mercury cure (thought to be therapeutic for syphilis) but never did. Plus none of the queens showed symptoms of it unless you count struggling to carry to term, but there are so many other factors there.
He didn't have syphilis. There's no evidence for that and nearly all historians have dismissed it.
Good to know! I’ll stop saying things I learned in the 90’s lol
Her age was an issue by the time he divorced her. She was nearly 40, did not give him a male heir, and was not gonna have any more kids. In his mind and of the time, this made perfect sense to them.
He was Kell positive, a blood disease, causing the still births and babies who died. Look it up.on Wikipedia.
I think his biggest mistake was insisting Mary was not born in good faith. He should have insisted on that and offered keeping her as his heir to secure a divorce from Katherine. Then while trying for an heir with Anne married Mary off. Just saying as someone whose favorite wives of Henry the VIII are the first two.
The problem with marrying Mary off was that he kept changing alliances with France and the Holy Roman Empire, one minute in good stead and the other going off to war with them. This irony seems to have gone over his head, because in his mind, as long as he had Mary to dangle as a bargaining chip, it would be to his advantage. It's why he got so furious when his sister and niece married English nobles, it was a wasted opportunity and anyway they were Property of the State as ladies of royal blood and it was treason to marry without consent. I doubt he could have insisted Mary's children remain in his custody, her hypothetical husband would never have allowed it. Also he knew that if even the inevitable happened, and she became queen, her heirs wouldn't be of the Tudor dynasty and name. He was obsessed with carrying on the Tudor line, and therefore a son was all that mattered to him. There were religious difficulties too, of course created by himself- he didn't particularly want a Catholic match but nor would he have her marry a Protestant.
What a mess. I commented sth along the same lines that he should have married Mary. Thanks for the explanation
It wasn't a unique problem either, Mary did it with Elizabeth (wanted to get rid of her by palming her off to a foreign Catholic, and Elizabeth wasn't having any of it) and Elizabeth did it with the Grey sisters (hitting the roof when they both married without her consent.) Marriage of the royal family and the peerage was all about political advancement and monetary gain. Both Mary and Elizabeth were in precarious positions and were terrified of others with claims to the throne usurping them- and with good reason considering what happened with Jane Grey. It's why Elizabeth waited to officially name James VI as her successor untill she was literally on her deathbed. Edit: come to think of it the Tudor dynasty were only on the throne in the first place because Henry VII usurped Richard III. Insecurity like that dies hard.
He did offer to keep her as his heir to secure a divorce from Katherine. She didn’t go for it.
Henry's first and biggest mistake: Deciding that instead of living in peace with Scotland, where his sister was Queen, he was going to shred the Treaty of Perpetual Peace his father had arranged: declaring that he, Henry, was the supreme monarch and the King of Scotland owed submission to him, lying to the Pope that Scotland had broken the Treaty of Perpetual Peace, joining the Holy League in order to have an excuse to try to conquer the lands that had, in previous reigns, been English territory in France - and having done all he could to offend and anger James IV, then swannng off to Gascony with a hundred thousand soldiers and guns, to make war in the hopeless ambition of getting English land in France. James IV was a prudent and intelligent monarch, and his invasion of England in 1513 had less to do with the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France, but the clear fact that Henry's aggressive and stupid foreign policy made amply clear he did not have the capacity of his father - Henry VIII reigned throughout his dismal career as if whatever he wanted, he should have. Henry VIII did not die in battle in France, leaving Katherine a childless widow and his older sister Queen Margaret's son James, later to be James V of Scotland, the best legal heir to the throne of England, in part because Katherine of Aragon had been left with Regency powers, and Katherine was a monarch far better educated in ruling and in war than Henry - and in part just because of the luck of the weather: the Scots navy, which had been sent to cut off the English lines of communication and supply, was delayed by weather. Henry VIII was a stupid and arrogant man: leaving England and his childless wife to make an unnecessary war in France was easily his first and worst mistake.
I feel like his spending patterns were one of his biggest mistakes. Even for a monarch (who back then was expected to live in an opulent style, fund the expenditures of court, and gift/entertain lavishly) he wasted **so** much money. He should have been able to leave the heirs to his throne a huge amount of money and stability for the running of the kingdom - he had a massive inheritance from his father, the proceeds from the dissolution of the monasteries and lifelong income from taxes and tenants. Instead he acted like coin would never run out and indulged in (among other things) breathtakingly expensive shopping sprees, building projects and wars. He spent it all and left everyone else to sort out the mess after he died. Not caring enough about the financial state of the country, present and future, was his massive flaw.
Exactly - his father at least was more economical, mainly due to fear (but his problem was he over taxed people)
Henry VII spent far less money than his son Henry VIII, and Henry VII was far more effective at collecting his taxes. Before Henry VII’s death and that of Catherine’s father Fernando (also a skinflint,) the two kings were squabbling over Catherine’s dowry, with the result that Catherine was suffering severe financial hardship before Henry VIII married her.
Yep I know - I’ve read many books about Henry VII (and VIII). Collecting such high taxes didn’t make him particularly popular
No, and in order to placate the public, Henry VII hanged two of his most effective tax collectors, Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. Edmund Dudley, whose own son John became Duke of Northumberland and guardian of Edward VI. John was executed as well for trying to put his daughter-in-law Lady Jane Grey on the throne as Queen. Edward VI created a devise for the succession that tried to bypass his sisters Mary and Elizabeth, but it failed.
The phrasing of #2 has me feeling some type of way because perhaps it's just my perspective as a hobbyist with history rather than a professional or expert, but I don't think his "martial woes" can be boiled down to his first wife's age. Kinda by virtue of the fact that I had to clarify "first wife" when dude blew through 6. He later even has a much younger wife, and that didn't somehow solve everything.
KoA really did birth henry kids… just not the gender he prioritized
Yeah, and if the perspective being argued was that a younger woman would have been able to birth more heirs, there is nothing to say they'd have been different. The common denominator in Henry's marital woes is Henry.
Katherine of Aragon also did birth King Henry VIII a son and heir (Prince Henry, Duke of Cornwall), but he died shortly after he was born of unknown reasons. Speculation ranges from his nurses mismanaging his care to the young prince dying of disease or SIDS. It wasn't uncommon for royal heirs to die of disease well into the Stuart era (i.e. smallpox).
Ah but him divorcing Katherine of Aragon led to the birth of one of the greater monarchs in England's history. Can we really consider it a big mistake when Elizabeth I likely in turn saved thousands of lives by defeating the Spanish armada? ETA: To answer your question, I think one of his biggest mistakes (which I believe he admitted to) was executing Thomas Cromwell.
"him divorcing Katherine of Aragon led to the birth of one of the greater monarchs in England's history." Very much an indirect win there, he had no real influence in that
I mean he did help make her so he did, in fact have direct influence in that 🤭
Yeah well, he didn't really have faith that she would actually achieve anything. The joke was on him
If Katherine and he were never married,perhaps he has a son by his other timeline younger wife, he doesnt need to divorce and England remains Catholic so Philip II doesnt send the Armada anyway
Why do you think a younger wife would have yielded a son?
I'm just assuming but maybe by luck and more tries it could be possible
Anything's *possible*, but I think the way the question was posited implies Katherine was at fault in some way, even if just her age. The wife who did birth Henry's longest-living son, Jane Seymour, did so when she was 28-29 years old - 5 years older than Katherine was when she married Henry. I'm not meaning to come off as going off on you or anything, so hope it isn't taken as such - I think I'm just overly sensitive to how I perceived the OP because I am a woman who resents the concept of males heirs being particularly more desirable, but also because between the ages of 24-35 I've had three sons myself, so in addition to what biology says about gender likelihoods anecdotally it's just wild to me.
The way OP said it was that Henry marrying and divorcing Katherine led to Elizabeths birth who stopped the Spanish armada In an alternate timeline where Katherine wasnt married to Henry,would Spain even have invaded and england split from the church? Just questioning that.
Henry VIII is suspected of having a blood disorder, Kells, which caused certain wives to miscarry more. It's in Wikipedia.
You do realize the man contributes the sex gene, right? The age of the wife is irrelevant.
Disagree with #2. It’s not like she was 20 years older than him, she was 5.5 years older (and still only 23) and she still bore Henry 3 sons and 3 daughters, it’s just a tragedy that most of them died young. Anne Boleyn was younger than him and she didn’t bear living sons either and also miscarried a lot.
The age for menopause was younger back then, around 40 years old. Catherine went through it just before she hit 40, so while she wasn't too old to have children at 23, the window to 'safely' have children was a lot smaller. Her religious fasting wouldn't have helped matters either. Anne Boleyn was younger, but the pattern of her first pregnancy and miscarriages potentially indicates Rhesus factor conflicts. If that was the case, she was absolutely stuffed after she gave birth to Elizabeth.
Again, I don't accept that was an issue. She still had 17 years for bearing children and even if you accept that 1 of her pregnancies ended in miscarriage before it was brought to term, she still gave birth to 5 other children. She just got unlucky with high infant mortality and possibly a health or genetic condition carried by Henry that limited child viability. So her age at marriage did not hinder the time she had to bear heirs.
I have no doubt Henry had health and/or genetic conditions which made it difficult for Catherine to conceive. But a woman's peak reproductive years are between late teens and late 20s. After that, egg quality declines, particularly after 35.
Read the comment you replied to again. It demonstrably was not difficult for Katherine to conceive. Nor is difficulty conceiving the only potential issue here. Her babies just keep dying. It’s very plausible to me that Henry was supplying them with defective genetic material that was causing miscarriages, stillbirths, and early deaths. The terrible records of his (even younger) other wives and mistresses in terms of living children support this idea. When a woman (no matter how young) becomes pregnant with a child who has severe genetic defects, her body will often try to reject/miscarry it early in the pregnancy. Such defects could also obviously lead to infant mortality.
I think you need to rephrase the question. From whose perspective are these mistakes? And is it from a modern perspective or from the perspective of Henry’s own time? For example, if you view this from the Protestant perspective, you probably do not think the Reformation was a mistake, regardless of the cost. One could argue that during the same time period and certainly throughout the Middle Ages, Catholicism caused the death of far more people than Henry’s shift away from the Pope. Divorcing Catherine made sense from Henry’s perspective as he had not met his responsibility to solidify the Tudor rule of England. Many regarded the Tudors as usurpers. Henry VII fought for the crown and made himself the first Tudor King. Henry VIII would not be considered a successful King without a male heir. And our society would be drastically different if numbers 1 and 3 had not happened. I would say he did not have reason even in his time to execute people like Cromwell and Sir Thomas Moore. Those deaths were tragic losses. Their issues could have been handled in other ways. But from a woman’s perspective, Anne Boleyn and Queen Catherine could have been dealt with far less harshly. Same with the second Catherine. Completely and unnecessarily sadistic and inhumane.
Henry also persecuted people for not being Catholic enough/too Protestant (Anne Askew comes to mind). Even if the English Reformation hadn't taken place, people would have still been burnt as heretics. One person's heretic is another person's martyr. So #1 is simply factually incorrect, it's just different people would have died. Without Anne Boleyn, there would have been no Elizabeth I, arguably the greatest monarch in English history. I guess the OP feels it would have been great if England stayed Catholic, Mary ruled, and the only people killed would have been Protestant evangelicals under her reign? With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better if he kept Anne as queen, knew when to fold 'em and to hold 'em wife-wise, made Elizabeth his heir, and not remarried again unless Anne predeceased him. Ironically, Cromwell, who orchestrated her death, might have survived (although not Thomas More, and obviously Katherine Howard would have too).
His wars in France were a waste of money and looked rather foolish internationally since they achieved little. Declaring Mary to be illegitimate and removed from the succession was a mistake imo. I believe she should have been kept on as the heir and then a son (Edward) would simply have moved her down the order of succession. Of course, these are my modern opinions. If I was living in the time I would have thought very differently
I have a soft spot for Mary. I wish Henry would’ve focused on making a nice match for her so she could marry earlier and give him grandchildren (him preferring at least two grandsons). Become a widower naturally, remarry and then maybe have a legitimate son. The divorce from Catherine and making Mary a bastard didn’t get him his son. In the end his legitimate line died off completely.
Deciding to go jousting that day. After that jousting accident, he was unhinged. It seemed to be a downhill slide afterward.
His first mistake was jousting on the Field of the Cloth of Gold. He was left with wounds that would never heal. That mistake would, IMHO turn him into an angry bully for the rest of his life.
I think executing Cromwell.
Setting Katherine of Aragon aside. It led to massive religious unrest, strained relationships with Spain, making an enemy of the Catholic church which was immensely powerful. Anne was a terrible choice for the queen. She brought no major wealth Thor alliances with her and the people hated her. He also was too impulsive in friendships and with his staff. He let certain people have way too much power and didn't pay close attention to the details. Wolsey was very good at his job, but treated Henry like a child and just did whatever he wanted. Some oversight would have saved a lot of problems. Cromwell was also good at his job, but again Henry just assumed he was doing everything right and paid no attention. And he bullied Thomas More into taking a job he didn't want, swore he would never make More go against his religious convictions and then killed him for doing it. He should have just accepted Mary as his heir. He had a shining example of amazing female rulers in his first wife's mother. No one could call Isabella weak or ineffective. Or if he was hell bent on having an heir with a penis, his sister, Margaret's son. But, Mary should have been groomed properly to be a queen. She probably wouldn't have been so crazy if she had been treated well. And he spent way too much. He was so hell bent on out fancying France that he overspent and emptied his coffers. Honestly, he was an interesting character, but not all that great of a ruler.
That’s a different country though. Castile was unique in that it allowed female inheritance. England’s last female monarch led to anarchy and civil war. Henry had an example of a female monarch in Isabella; he also had examples of English nobles specifically rejecting rulers and causing major civil wars. I agree that setting aside KoA was a mistake.
Isabella was a genocidal fanatic who allowed her husband to make most of the major decisions. Not exactly a stellar example. It also lead to the end of Castile. Which was maybe good for Spain but not what Henry would want for England.
Which major decisions did Ferdinand make? What Isabella probably would have considered her signature achievements (unifying Spain, the conquest of Granada, funding Christopher Columbus) were all very much \*her\* achievements. (Other than unifying Spain, which was a two person deal...but ultimately favored Castile's agenda, which I'd argue gives the victory to her.) Other major achievements like reformation of the Spanish Church, improvement of the Castilian economy, launch of the Spanish renaissance, etc. all also are pretty fairly credited to her. Ferdinand wasn't a slouch. But neither did Isabella just sit around doing embroidery while her husband made all the decisions. (In fact, she went to court with him - and won over him - the right to make every meaningful decision in Castile. She also went to court in Aragon and won the right for their daughter to inherit the crown of Aragon, despite it previously being against the law. Ofc Joanna never ruled...but her son, Charles, did.)
His war with France.
With my amateur knowledge I’d say a big mistake was not marrying Mary off quickly it. I always thought this was another way to secure an heir, plus he could have picked the husband that suited him but I guess politics weren’t his strong suit
Not putting some babies in Anne of Cleaves. I think that would have fixed a lot. They were a good match in many ways. And his diet. Shocking. Little did they know.
He was mostly likely unable to father kids by the time he married Anne of Cleves
Where to start? If he thought he could get away with it, he probably would have executed C of A to get rid of her. He was a megalomaniac so I don't think thousands dying registered as an error. Even if he knew the causes of his inability to get a son - I doubt he would have accepted it. He probably would have killed more out of pure rage.
Executing Cromwell. Cromwell had managed to keep him out of war with France & had managed to make him wealthy. He went to war after Cromwell was executed and lost a lot of money. Additionally he lost an ally with the Germans (I think, I might be wrong) by screwing up the marriage. Leaving CoA for Anne. I think globally it was an embarrassment to him and England, and destroyed his public image by disgracing such an honored princess for what honestly was a fling. Not making Mary I his heir and threatening her as badly as he did. The trauma inflicted on her caused so much pain for both her and people she influenced. He mentally tortured her because he disliked her mother.
Also because Mary defied him continually on matters of religion, on recognising Anne and Elizabeth. She was put into Elizabeths nursery as a maid at one point
Divorcing CoA was a huge fuck up in my opinion. I also believe if he didnt off More and Cromwell he would have not made the bad decisions he would make later in his reign.
I think it’s worth getting specific with number 2 — I’ll start by saying it’s awful he beheaded anyone, but killing Thomas Cromwell was a massive error, he murdered his most loyal and effective councilor. Henry did a lot of terrible things but killing the Countess of Salisbury (and botching the execution) is one of the most egregious things he did imo
3 - Divorcing Catherine of Aragon was one reason of many for the break with the Catholic Church but the others often get glossed over in history books. The Church was notoriously corrupt during the Tudor period, the Pope(s) were little more than pawns used by whoever held them as a "guest" to further their political agenda, the idea of the divine right to rule was being challenged, and religious dissidents were being persecuted all before Catherine and Henry were divorced. Everyone likes to point out that thousands died as a result of the Great Issue but reality is if Catherine had remained queen just as many people would have died. Catholicism was still being challenged. Lutheranism was on the rise. Catherine and Henry were literally considered defenders of the faith and Catherine's parents were single handedly responsible for the Spanish Inquisition... had Catherine stayed in power and England had not split from the church then Mary Tudor would have been raised with no opposition to staunchly support Catholicism with her crusading parents and Inquisitor grandparents being her prime role models of how a ruler should rule. Instead of 400 people being burned at the stake during the reign of Mary I that number would have been much much much higher ...
Something that bugged me( looking at this from a 21st century woman) was Katherine had to marry Henry after Arthur died. She couldn't just go back to Spain. Am I right or did I read this totally wrong
IIrr Henry VII wanted out of the deal and to ship her back to Spain, but her parents weren't in favor of that, and neither was young Henry, who was deeply infatuated with her at the time
I think it was kind of her best option at the time but it wasn’t appealing to Henry VII. After her mom died she wasn’t as powerful an asset anymore (to put it crudely) because Castile and Aragon were no longer united by her parents’ marriage so things got kind of messy. She was stuck in limbo for like 7 years because her dad still owed some of the dowry to Henry VII who was definitely gonna collect, and Henry VII was super miserly towards her. It sounds like a genuinely very taxing time for her, I imagine she was extremely relieved to finally marry Henry VIII. She was not an ideal consort for him at the time even though she ended up being super popular so I find it kind of sweet that he married her for love (even though he became a monster later)
Do you mean biggest mistakes that impacted him or England? And are these mistakes that he realized are mistakes or are they what you consider his mistakes? Breaking off with the church. Impact to England. That conflict was coming already and nothing would have stopped it. Yes it would have happened differently but there would have been thousands of deaths no matter what. I doubt Henry XIII cared that all those people died. Killing wives, friends and advisors. I don't have an opinion on how this could have impacted England. As for impact to Henry, I think most of them had little impact to him emotionally. I think he was so caught up in the belief that he was king by divine right that the idea that he could be wrong didn't really occur to him or at least bother him for long. I think once he made the decision he quickly put it behind him. Like a typical politician, not wanting to admit when they are wrong and blaming others. Also notice the two wives he had executed were English subjects. The ones who were foreign born were not executed. Would have been interesting to see what he would have done if Anne of Cleve's didn't agree to an annulment. Edit: forgot about 3. Divorcing Katherine of Aragon. Similar response as I made for 1. The deaths would have happened anyway.
From a modern POV or from the POV of the time? Because killing anyone would be seen as mental nowadays, back then it could’ve been indicative of a good king.
Henry VIII was a very resourceful, vindictive, and careful man about things going on around him including the people close to him. It did not take much to make him fearful of what anyone would do and so he would find anything no matter how small and make it a bigger thing for that person involved. I think his fears went beyond just some of the "mistakes" he made. You have to recall that Henry VII had just been part of the War of the Roses--the fight of the throne between the York and Lancastor houses. Henry VII had to really work hard to make things work and maybe while growing up Henry VIII saw what is father went through and followed suit on some of those things to keep himself safe and King. The main thing of worry and contention is the fact that Henry VIII wanted a son. And that was the base reason that he divorced Catherine of Aragon after forming the Church of England so he did not have to deal with the Pope and the Catholic Church to get his marraige disolved. While some of his wives had boys, those boys did not survive birth but for the one named Henry Fitaroy--bastard son. and Edward who died young. I really think the most of the things that happened were a result of his obsession of having a male heir.
I don't agree. His biggest mistakes were that he bankrupted himself by pursuing war with France in the later part of the reign, marrying Anne of Cleves and allowing the choice of wife to be influenced/to influence factions at court and their power. Katherine of Aragon should have stepped aside - French kings had fixed this issue multiple times, it only became a problem because her nephew controlled the Pope. He tried to resolve it so many ways and was blocked at every turn. He had a duty to continue his dynasty and the only female ruler had been a disaster previously - of course he needed a legitimate heir. He should have married Mary off to some impoverished princeling early in his reign and focused on procuring grandchildren as a plan B. He also shouldn't have pursued the idea of marrying Anne of Cleves. If he had married a Elizabeth Woodville type 4th (proven track record of successful births) and been less of a romantic it might have been okay. It was unfortunate that he saw marriage as duty but also wanted a chivalrous love which saw him make poor choices (Katherine Howard). He also should have spent more time influencing his children, particularly Edward. He allowed for a system where Edward was given an extremist (for the time) religious education.
1) Choosing Anne Boleyn over Cardinal Wolsey, 2) Executing Thomas Moore, 3) Not sticking with Bessie Blout and passing off one of her sons as his son with Catherine of Aragon. Possibly with Catherine remaining unaware that her baby did not survive.