King Henry VIII and Traumatic Brain Injury

[strollingbones]

yes mary queen of the scots

 

[SweetSue92]

With all due respect ... Catholics "hoarding" wealth wasn't the problem ... it was the RCC actively and aggressively gather more wealth ... going door-to-door demanding money or eternal damnation in Hell ... the Reformation is already 50 years running in the German States ... we cannot view Henry VIII's rule outside this conflict ...

You don't condone the English Reformation ... do you ever play "what if?" games ... without this money, does England defeat the Spanish Armada 50 years later? ...

You mistake me entirely. I'm a Reformed Presbyterian...I think we condone the Reformation!

 

[SweetSue92]

Everyone is gay nowadays. That is the explanation for everything today.
Gay or not, Henry tried hard to make a son. He couldn´t. Probably, he was simply infertile.

He actually did have a son--I think by Jane Seymour? But he died young. Also, not being able to make a son does not mean one is infertile. He did father three children--Mary, Elizabeth and the son who died. And maybe more.

 

[ReinyDays]

He actually did have a son--I think by Jane Seymour? But he died young. Also, not being able to make a son does not mean one is infertile. He did father three children--Mary, Elizabeth and the son who died. And maybe more.

Edward VI ... died without issue ... he was conceived after Catherine's death ... and so was considered legitimate by those who care about such things ...

 

[Pellinore]

I watched the Netflix mini-series "Blood, Sex and Royalty" about Anne Boleyn. Frankly it wasn't great, just okay. But it did bring to light the jousting accident King Henry experienced and perhaps the results of that....

Before that time, he appeared to be a cavorting, selfish cad--throwing over this first wife for Anne via a religious veneer. Afterward, though, he led the charge in baking up excuses for her death, among which was that she had an incestuous affair with her brother.

Thoughts? Did Henry suffer from traumatic brain injury?

The idea that Henry VIII had a brain injury is a fun theory but from all I have read there isn't enough actual historical evidence to claim it as true. He had plenty of non-brain-damage reasons to campaign for Anne's downfall. He also was firmly fixated on producing a boy and, in those pre-Enlightenment, if-God-wills-it years, he had already sat through his first wife swinging and missing a half dozen times. He defied the Pope to replace her with Anne because she seemed super fertile, and she delivers ... another girl, and then miscarries a boy. She also wasn't nearly as submissive and pliable as he wanted in a queen, so he didn't need brain damage to be done with her, too.

And even if he did some scrambled eggs going on, that accident was hardly his only medical problem: he might have had malaria and syphilis, hurt his foot playing tennis of all things, and he caught a lance to the forehead at one point a few years earlier jousting without putting the visor down. The idea of the dramatic, trajectory-changing brain injury plays well on the likes of The History Channel and, well, Netflix, and they can always find some historians who will theorize about it, but I'd say probably not. History is rarely that simple.

One thing's for sure, though: The accident definitely fucked up his leg but good. He was jousting in a full set of armor which could easily weigh more than a hundred pounds, then his horse (also in armor) landed on him and he was out cold for a while. The accident reaggravating an old leg wound in a way that he would literally never get over; as he got older, it grew infected and nasty and steered him away from sports and toward the feast table. By the time he died, the former athlete was reportedly pushing 400 pounds, so it totally could have indirectly affected his mindset without brain damage.

I should point out that, even after, he continued to be a powerful and assertive leader of a major world power. He led armies, he made realm-changing decisions, he conducted diplomacy and arranged for the continuation of his bloodline. These can all be arguments against the idea of brain damage.

 

[Pellinore]

Henry was a fat fuck, he banned the Catholic Church because the Pope refused to divorce him. Then he created the Church of England with himself as Pope and got rid of his wife. He had five other wives of whose he beheaded two. None of his six wives bore him a son, which is good news for England.

He didn't become a fat fuck until years later, and he instilled himself as Head of the Church of England, not Pope. And three of his wives became pregnant with sons: Catherine delivered Henry who died as an infant, Anne miscarried a boy, and Jane Seymour delivered Edward, who later became Edward VI.

 

[Pellinore]

she was his brother's widow, and not at all to Henry's liking ... diplomacy required her to be Princess of Wales no matter which of Henry VII's sons had to be married to her ...

Basically yes, except for the nitpicks that it wasn't called Princess of Wales at the time, and he didn't marry her until after he became King. They were then married for more than twenty years.

But yeah.

 

[Pellinore]

It drove the Stanley family wild because they were the king makers .
Now consider their dilemma if it was known 100% that Henry was Gay. Not bi- sexual but 100% gay.

Remarkably detailed and scholarly work shows that suggestion to be almost certainly true but of course you would need to read the full report before determining a rational view on the evidence .

But like so many recent pieces of research this modern day revision is not something that the History writing elite would ever want to see accepted as the real truth.

Fortunately modern forensic methods plus information access allow alternative narratives to be inspected but backed with hard evidence and not just speculation .

I have yet to see convincing evidence that he was gay, and I've studied this a lot. In fact, his conga line of mistresses indicates perhaps the opposite.

He also literally passed The Buggery Act during his reign.

 

[Pellinore]

Nonsense. Henry's successor was Elizabeth I. Does the Elizabethan Golden Age ring a bell?

Henry's successor was actually Edward VI. Edward's successor was sort of Lady Jane Grey, but then definitively Mary I. Mary's successor was Elizabeth I.

 

[Pellinore]

Omg, if Henry had a son he would have been the successor, Henry IX.

Henry did have a son Henry, who was set up to be Henry IX, but the poor kid died when he was less than two months old.

 

[Pellinore]

yes mary queen of the scots

You may be confusing your Marys.

King Henry's daughter became Mary I, later called "Bloody Mary" because she (a Catholic) persecuted so many Protestants during her reign. She became Queen after her half-brother Edward VI's death in 1553. Then-Princess Elizabeth had to walk on eggshells around her, lest Mary consider her Protestant younger sister a heretic or something and have an important part of her chopped off, but there wasn't much of a succession question here; Mary was clearly in charge while she lived. Mary got cancer and died in agony in 1558.

Mary Stuart, called Mary Queen of Scots, was King Henry's sister's granddaughter, so his great-niece; he didn't have anything to do with her upbringing and probably never met her. Henry's sister Margaret had married James IV of Scotland; their son, James V, married the French Mary of Guise, and their daughter was Mary Stuart. James V died only a few days after Mary Stuart was born, so she was almost instantly Queen of Scotland. She then grew up and married the King of France, who then also died, so she moved back home and married a very weird dude named Lord Darnley. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, was therefore Queen of both Scotland (by right) and France (by marriage) so she symbolized the alliance between those two, both of whom pretty much despised England.

Mary Queen of Scots was the one who was a massive threat to Elizabeth's throne, especially when English Catholics in the north began to revolt with the goal of overthrowing (read: executing) Elizabeth in favor of Mary. Eventually, Elizabeth reluctantly had to order Mary's execution, which she did in a way that really lends itself to a Hollywood star vehicle for the likes of Katherine Hepburn or Margot Robbie. The movie industry loves that stuff.

 

[Pellinore]

He actually did have a son--I think by Jane Seymour? But he died young. Also, not being able to make a son does not mean one is infertile. He did father three children--Mary, Elizabeth and the son who died. And maybe more.

A *lot* more. Catherine got pregnant at least six times; four stillbirths, a son Henry who died as an infant, and Mary. Anne was pregnant twice, once with Elizabeth and once with a son whom she also miscarried. Jane Seymour then delivered Edward, who became Edward VI. Henry also had one illegitimate son Henry FitzRoy, and maybe others. He was a machine, but, it being the sixteenth century, not many of them lasted.

 

[SweetSue92]

The idea that Henry VIII had a brain injury is a fun theory but from all I have read there isn't enough actual historical evidence to claim it as true. He had plenty of non-brain-damage reasons to campaign for Anne's downfall. He also was firmly fixated on producing a boy and, in those pre-Enlightenment, if-God-wills-it years, he had already sat through his first wife swinging and missing a half dozen times. He defied the Pope to replace her with Anne because she seemed super fertile, and she delivers ... another girl, and then miscarries a boy. She also wasn't nearly as submissive and pliable as he wanted in a queen, so he didn't need brain damage to be done with her, too.

And even if he did some scrambled eggs going on, that accident was hardly his only medical problem: he might have had malaria and syphilis, hurt his foot playing tennis of all things, and he caught a lance to the forehead at one point a few years earlier jousting without putting the visor down. The idea of the dramatic, trajectory-changing brain injury plays well on the likes of The History Channel and, well, Netflix, and they can always find some historians who will theorize about it, but I'd say probably not. History is rarely that simple.

One thing's for sure, though: The accident definitely fucked up his leg but good. He was jousting in a full set of armor which could easily weigh more than a hundred pounds, then his horse (also in armor) landed on him and he was out cold for a while. The accident reaggravating an old leg wound in a way that he would literally never get over; as he got older, it grew infected and nasty and steered him away from sports and toward the feast table. By the time he died, the former athlete was reportedly pushing 400 pounds, so it totally could have indirectly affected his mindset without brain damage.

I should point out that, even after, he continued to be a powerful and assertive leader of a major world power. He led armies, he made realm-changing decisions, he conducted diplomacy and arranged for the continuation of his bloodline. These can all be arguments against the idea of brain damage.

This is a great post, thanks. I've been passingly familiar with the life of Henry VIII, maybe more so than many, but certainly less so than some. I had once read about that leg problem, which would explain why he went from fit and athletic to obese.

 

[SweetSue92]

He didn't become a fat fuck until years later, and he instilled himself as Head of the Church of England, not Pope. And three of his wives became pregnant with sons: Catherine delivered Henry who died as an infant, Anne miscarried a boy, and Jane Seymour delivered Edward, who later became Edward VI.

I believe Jane Seymour then died as a result of that birth....maybe an infection?

 

[Pellinore]

I believe Jane Seymour then died as a result of that birth....maybe an infection?

She did. With 1530s-era medicine, it could have been anything.

 

[ReinyDays]

You may be confusing your Marys.

King Henry's daughter became Mary I, later called "Bloody Mary" because she (a Catholic) persecuted so many Protestants during her reign. She became Queen after her half-brother Edward VI's death in 1553. Then-Princess Elizabeth had to walk on eggshells around her, lest Mary consider her Protestant younger sister a heretic or something and have an important part of her chopped off, but there wasn't much of a succession question here; Mary was clearly in charge while she lived. Mary got cancer and died in agony in 1558.

Mary Stuart, called Mary Queen of Scots, was King Henry's sister's granddaughter, so his great-niece; he didn't have anything to do with her upbringing and probably never met her. Henry's sister Margaret had married James IV of Scotland; their son, James V, married the French Mary of Guise, and their daughter was Mary Stuart. James V died only a few days after Mary Stuart was born, so she was almost instantly Queen of Scotland. She then grew up and married the King of France, who then also died, so she moved back home and married a very weird dude named Lord Darnley. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, was therefore Queen of both Scotland (by right) and France (by marriage) so she symbolized the alliance between those two, both of whom pretty much despised England.

Mary Queen of Scots was the one who was a massive threat to Elizabeth's throne, especially when English Catholics in the north began to revolt with the goal of overthrowing (read: executing) Elizabeth in favor of Mary. Eventually, Elizabeth reluctantly had to order Mary's execution, which she did in a way that really lends itself to a Hollywood star vehicle for the likes of Katherine Hepburn or Margot Robbie. The movie industry loves that stuff.

Thank you for this clarity ... only thought to add that Mary, Queen of Scots, murdered her husband Lord Darnley ... for the weak excuse he was trying to murder her ... goddam Royals ... and in her haste to escape justice in Scotland, she fled to England and asked Elizabeth for sanctuary ... even the Apologist Community agrees this was a stupid stupid stupid thing to do ...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The decision not to grant the first divorce was a political decision. Spain had more sway with the pope than England. Henry was seen as a good catholic up till then.

Producing an heir was a fundamental at that time and Henry was in a bind. Women were not considered able to run the country.

Elizabeths rule was generally overshadowed by the threat of foreign invasion as every eligable bachelor in Europe made her an offer.

I think Henry would have been happy remaining a good catholic if he could have. But the church was corrupt and this was just business.

I dont think he was crazy, he was just a king and had a fully developed sense of entitlement.

 

[whitehall]

Do modern Brits still defend the Monarchy's absolute authority over life and death? Cromwell gave the cowardly Brits a chance at self governing when King Chuck #1 was beheaded but they chickened out and called a freaking teenager back from exile to lead them. No doubt that acute brain trauma is what killed Anne Boleyn.

 

[DudleySmith]

I watched the Netflix mini-series "Blood, Sex and Royalty" about Anne Boleyn. Frankly it wasn't great, just okay. But it did bring to light the jousting accident King Henry experienced and perhaps the results of that....

Before that time, he appeared to be a cavorting, selfish cad--throwing over this first wife for Anne via a religious veneer. Afterward, though, he led the charge in baking up excuses for her death, among which was that she had an incestuous affair with her brother.

Thoughts? Did Henry suffer from traumatic brain injury?

Probably, along with lead poisoning, mercury poisoning, and several other maladies common in those years, due to the eating and drinking utensils, cloth manufacturing methods, paints, and other materials the wealthy would be exposed to constantly. The expression "Mad as a hatter" was based on real life cases of gradual insanity among clothiers who made felt and the like.

Lead Poisoning Rampant for Wealthy Medieval Europeans

It wasn't just the Romans that accidentally poisoned themselves

www.smithsonianmag.com

Nearly all nobility with any means were probably nuts.

AS for Catholicism, nationalism and and English identity was coming into flower at that time, and a national language, via Chaucer's writings and others,, and the Catholic Church was seen as a foreign occupier, and not just by Kings. Monasteries were indeed high concentrations of local wealth; they owned over a quarter of England's farmland at the time as well as levying their own taxes on most English people. They were also pretty corrupt.

 

[Mindful]

I watched the Netflix mini-series "Blood, Sex and Royalty" about Anne Boleyn. Frankly it wasn't great, just okay.

This is better:

Wolf Hall (TV Mini Series 2015) - IMDb

Wolf Hall: With Mark Rylance, Damian Lewis, Claire Foy, Thomas Brodie-Sangster. After the downfall of Cardinal Wolsey, his secretary, Thomas Cromwell, finds himself amongst the treachery and intrigue of King Henry VIII's court and soon becomes a close advisor to the King, a role fraught with danger.

www.imdb.com