Henry VIII

A NEW EXPLANATION FOR THE

REPRODUCTIVE WOES AND MIDLIFE

DECLINE OF HENRY VI I I *

CATR INA BANKS WH ITLEY

Southern Methodist University

A N D

KYRA KRAMER

AB STR ACT. Henry VIII’s first two wives experienced multiple pregnancies culminating in late-term

miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal mortality. After his fortieth birthday, the king’s mental and physical

health underwent rapid deterioration. In this article, we argue that both his reproductive troubles and his

midlife pathologies can be explained if Henry VIII were positive for the Kell blood group. A Kell negative

woman who has multiple pregnancies with a Kell positive male will suffer repeated miscarriages and death of

Kell positive foetuses and term infants that occur subsequent to the first Kell positive pregnancy. This pattern

is consistent with the pregnancies of Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. Additionally, Henry VIII may

have suffered from McLeod syndrome, a genetic disorder of the Kell blood group system, which is a condition

that causes physical and mental impairment consistent with his ailments.

The life of Henry VIII has long been the topic of intrigue and debate. Henry VIII

is one of England’s most well-known monarchs who broke with the Catholic

Church, created the Church of England, and married six women, two of whom

he notoriously executed. Much literature has been devoted to unravelling Henry’s

difficulty producing male heirs and the cause of his apparent change in person-

ality in later life. Henry’s first two wives encountered repeated reproductive

problems, and theories abound explaining their numerous miscarriages. A shift in

the king’s policies and in his personality is noticeable as he entered middle age,

supporting David Starkey’s observation that there were ‘ two Henry’s … one old,

the other young. And they are very, very different ’.1 Carolly Erickson further

6715 Cypress Village Dr., Sugar Land, TX 77479, USA [email protected]

4404 Weymouth Lane, Bloomington, IN 47408, USA [email protected]

* We are indebted to the anonymous reviewers and editors of the Historical Journal whose astute

comments and recommendations greatly enhanced this article. Kyra Kramer would also like to thank

Indiana University for allowing residents of Bloomington access to its library resources, thereby

making her independent research possible.1 D. Starkey, Henry : virtuous prince (London, 2008), p. 3.

The Historical Journal, 53, 4 (2010), pp. 827–848 f Cambridge University Press 2010

doi:10.1017/S0018246X10000452

827

describes Henry’s change from ‘a brilliant, athletic, heroic figure bursting with

vigor’ in his youth into a middle-aged tyrant who had become ‘monstrous, in-

wardly and outwardly ’.2

This article offers a solution to the long-debated issues surrounding Henry

VIII’s reproductive woes and alterations in his personality. During his first two

marriages, his wives conceived easily, yet bore only two viable offspring. Were the

myriad stillbirths, miscarriages, and neonatal deaths the result of living in an era

without medical intervention, a physiological flaw in the women, or was there an

unseen causal agent lurking within Henry VIII himself ? Further, why did Henry’s

health decline so precipitously and why did his personality change so significantly

around his fortieth birthday? Did circumstances, failures, adversities, or illnesses

influence his personality change and dearth of progeny, or could a medical con-

dition, genetic in nature, account for the high rate of miscarriage and stillbirths

experienced by Henry’s unfortunate wives, as well as his emotional instability

after midlife?

It is our assertion that we have identified the causal medical condition under-

lyingHenry’s reproductive problems and psychological deterioration.We propose

that Henry VIII was positive for the Kell blood group, with the complication of

McLeod syndrome, an X-linked medical condition of some (but certainly not all)

Kell positive patients.

A Kell positive father frequently causes negative reproductive outcomes for his

reproductive partner after the first Kell negative pregnancy, which is precisely the

circumstance experienced with women who had multiple pregnancies by Henry.

McLeod syndrome, with a mean onset between thirty to forty years, is sympto-

mized by cardiomyopathy, muscular myopathy, psychiatric abnormality, and

motor nueropathy.3 Henry VIII experienced most, if not all, of these symptoms,

which indicates McLeod syndrome as a plausible explanation for his psycho-

logical deterioration and for some of his physical decline after midlife.

I

Henry is justly famous for his marital exploits. Katherine of Aragon and Henry

had been married for eighteen years when he attempted to annul their marriage

in order to marry Anne Boleyn. The newly recognized archbishop of Canterbury,

Thomas Cranmer, obligingly nullified Henry’s marriage to Katherine on the

assumption that she was lying when she denied having consummated her prior

marriage to Henry’s dead brother. This annulment legitimized Henry’s marriage

to Anne Boleyn, but, a few years later, Anne was accused of committing adultery

with several men, including her brother, for which Henry had her beheaded. The

day after Anne’s execution, Henry announced his engagement to Jane Seymour,

2 C. Erickson, Great Harry : the extravagant life of Henry VIII (New York, NY, 1980), p. 10.3 H. Jung, ‘McLeod syndrome: a clinical review’, in Adrian Danek, ed., Neuroacanthocytosis syndromes

(New York, NY, 2004), pp. 45–53, at p. 45.

828 C A T R I N A B A NK S WH I T L E Y A ND K Y R A KR AM E R

whom, Karen Lindsey suggests, turned out to be the ‘perfect wife, docile and

submissive, giving him his son and then dying before he grew bored with her ’.4

Henry’s marriage to his next wife, Anne of Cleves, was short-lived, for while her

beauty was praised, Starkey observes that Henry was ‘overwhelmed with disgust ’

at her appearance and marvelled at the enthusiastic reports.5 Anne of Cleves was

arguably the most fortunate of his wives, as she readily agreed to an annulment of

their unconsummated marriage and was rewarded with lands, wealth, and inde-

pendence. Henry then married one of Anne’s teenage ladies in waiting, Kathryn

Howard, but, when Henry was informed of a previous lover before their union

and possibly an extramarital affair during their marriage, he executed his young

wife. For his sixth and final wife, Henry chose Catherine Parr, to whom he was

married until his death on 28 January 1547.

While Henry’s matrimonial experience was turbulent, his reproductive history

was tumultuous. The king’s reproductive partners frequently experienced foetal

loss, usually suffering a spontaneous abortion in the later stages of pregnancy.

The precise number of miscarriages endured by Henry’s reproductive partners is

difficult to determine. The rate of miscarriage may have been higher than re-

ported in the surviving historical record. Even the wealthiest women were subject

to poor nutrition, contaminated water, and minimal hygiene, and alcohol was a

regular part of the diet, so irregular menstruation may not have been uncommon,

and simply missing a menstrual period, or having a longer interval between

menses, might have been construed as a possible sign of conception. Pregnancy

was not generally confirmed until ‘quickening ’, at which time the woman could

feel foetal movement, and pregnancies typically remained unannounced until the

second trimester. Therefore, it is possible the king’s reproductive partners had

unreported miscarriages in the first trimester of pregnancy.

Following Henry and Katherine of Aragon’s marriage on 11 June 1509, there

was widespread hope that the newlyweds would quickly have their first child,

preferably a son. Katherine soon became pregnant, but the joy was short-lived as

she gave birth to a premature, stillborn female on 31 January 1510. This royal loss

was kept secret with only the king, a physician, Katherine’s confessor, and two

Spanish women privy to events.6 Confusing matters further, her uterus swelled

extensively after the delivery and her physician thought she might still be pregnant

with a second foetus.7 Those hopes were false, but Katherine quickly conceived

again sometime in late April or early May. Two confirmed pregnancies in rapid

succession conclusively demonstrate that both she andHenry were fertile together.

On New Year’s Day 1511, Katherine delivered a son, the new prince of Wales,

named Henry after his father. Young Prince Henry initially seemed healthy,

prompting widespread celebration. At seven weeks old, however, the infant

prince died, on 22 February 1511. In September of the same year, it was rumoured

4 K. Lindsey, Divorced, beheaded, survived : a feminist reinterpretation of the wives of Henry VIII (Reading, MA,

1995), p. 135. 5 D. Starkey, Six wives : the queens of Henry VIII (New York, NY, 2003), pp. 628–9.6 Starkey, Henry : virtuous prince, p. 308. 7 Ibid.

H E N R Y V I I I’S R E P R ODU C T I V E WO E S 829

that Katherine might be pregnant again, but this rumour was never confirmed

and may indicate an early miscarriage. Owing to Henry’s absence for military

reasons, she did not conceive again until 1513. Katherine delivered a premature

son in October who died shortly after birth. Katherine’s sorrows continued in

November 1514 when she delivered another son who also died within hours of

birth. Finally, on 18 February 1516, a healthy daughter,Mary, was born.Katherine

was possibly pregnant again in August 1517, but no pregnancy was officially

announced. Her final acknowledged pregnancy ended in November of 1518 when

she delivered a baby girl who died shortly thereafter. Clearly, Katherine was

fecund, even though only one of her multiple pregnancies resulted in a child who

lived to adulthood.

Although Henry and Katherine were unsuccessful at producing a male heir to

the throne, Henry had a healthy son by his mistress, Bessie Blount, in 1519.8 It was

Bessie’s first pregnancy and her only child by the king. Henry VIII named the boy

Henry Fitzroy and publicly acknowledged paternity. Henry Fitzroy was healthy

as an infant and throughout early childhood, but became ill and died of unknown

causes in 1536 at the age of seventeen. Although the king was credited by Lacey

Baldwin Smith with proving ‘where the fault of sterility lay by siring a son’,

multiple confirmed pregnancies and a living daughter do not indicate that sterility

was a problem for either Henry or Katherine.9

In 1525, Mary Boleyn Carey delivered a son, Henry Carey, who may have also

been the king’s.10 The king’s desire for sons was such, that if he had been even

reasonably sure the boy was his, it seems unusual that he did not acknowledge his

paternity. Since Henry Carey’s paternity cannot be conclusively proved, he will

not be included in the king’s reproductive history.

Henry ceased having sexual relations with Katherine by 1524, and in 1527

sought to nullify the marriage on the scriptural grounds that Leviticus forbids a

man to marry his brother’s widow.11 Henry’s interest in Anne Bolyen probably

began in the winter of 1524–5.12 After years of an unconsummated relationship,

Henry and Anne Boleyn were probably married in a small, secret ceremony in

November 1532, followed by a second ceremony on 25 January 1533.13 Anne was

crowned in May, and in September gave birth to a healthy female, Elizabeth.

Although Henry would have preferred a boy, he was sanguine that a healthy first

baby presaged more children for himself and Anne, which seemed accurate as his

wife was pregnant again by January 1534. Anne’s pregnancy progressed well until

July, when she went into premature labour.14 The baby was either stillborn or

died shortly after birth, and its sex was left unreported. The king and queen never

made a formal announcement about the end of the pregnancy. Anne had a

8 Starkey, Six wives, p. 274.9 L. B. Smith, Henry VIII : the mask of royalty (Chicago, IL, 1982), p. 128.10 Starkey, Six wives, p. 274. 11 Ibid., p. 203.12 Ibid., p. 273. 13 Ibid., pp. 463, 473–4.14 S. Lipscomb, 1536: the year that changed Henry VIII (Oxford, 2009), pp. 66–7; E. Ives, The life and death

of Anne Boleyn (Oxford, 2004), pp. 191–2.


reported pregnancy in March 1535, but miscarried in June, probably near the end

of her second trimester. Her final pregnancy ended calamitously with the mis-

carriage of a boy in January 1536. Once again, she was probably into the second

trimester when the foetus spontaneously aborted. Anne never had another

chance to reproduce, because at the end of April she was accused of adultery and

treason and, following a brief trial, was beheaded on 19 May 1536.

Eleven days after Anne’s execution Henry married Jane Seymour who, on 12

October 1537, bore a son, Edward. The queen, however, died twelve days later,

possibly from puerperal sepsis.15 The newborn prince was Henry’s fourth and

final offspring, as none of Henry’s subsequent marriages, or mistresses, produced

another child.

Considering the king’s partners had a total of at least eleven, and possibly

thirteen or more pregnancies, fertility was clearly not Henry’s problem. Rather,

foetal and neonate mortality were the crux of his reproductive troubles since only

four of the eleven known pregnancies survived into infancy. Henry VIII’s re-

productive history is particularly interesting because he was unable to produce

multiple viable offspring with his first two wives, suggesting that the problem lay

not with either woman, but with him. Furthermore, the high rate of spontaneous

late-term abortion, stillbirth, or rapid neonatal death suffered by Henry’s first two

queens was an atypical reproductive pattern, as even in an age of high child

mortality, most women carried their pregnancies to term, and their infants lived

at least sufficiently long to be christened.

I I

Abundant theories exist to explain Henry VIII’s health and fertility issues. The

myth that Henry VIII had syphilis still persists, despite the fact that neither

Henry, nor any of his wives, showed symptoms consistent with syphilitic disease.

Physicians of Henry’s time were familiar with syphilitic symptoms and would

have attempted to treat him appropriately. The most common treatment for

syphilis by Tudor physicians involved dosing patients with massive quantities of

mercury, yet Henry was never given mercury.16 Furthermore, syphilis cannot

explain Henry’s reproductive problems. Syphilis can cause miscarriage, but

miscarriage occurs only if the mother has the disease or if the foetus has been

exposed to syphilis during pregnancy. Three of Henry’s surviving children were

the firstborn in Henry’s relationship with their mothers. It could be argued that

those infants survived because their mothers had not yet contracted syphilis from

the king, but Henry and Katherine’s fifth child, Mary, would have contracted

congenital syphilis were syphilis to blame for Katherine’s preceding miscarriages.

Additionally, none of Henry’s surviving offspring showed typical manifestations

15 M. Keynes, ‘The personality and health of Henry VIII (1491–1547) ’, Journal of Medical Biography,

13 (2005), pp. 174–83, at p. 180.16 D. Starkey, The reign of Henry VIII : personalities and politics (London, 1985).


of congenital syphilis, such as rashes, gummatous ulcers, collapse of the nasal

bridge, or the characteristic saber shin, Hutchinson’s incisors, or mulberry

molars.17

There has been speculation that Henry had Type II diabetes, based on his

obesity after middle age and ulcers on his legs. If the king did develop this disease,

it might provide an explanation for some aspects of his personality change, in-

fertility, and ill health after midlife, but it cannot explain the reproductive prob-

lems of his youth. Male infertility resulting from diabetes is associated with

erectile dysfunction and low sperm count, which could explain the lack of preg-

nancies for his fifth and sixth wives, but not the reproductive troubles of his first

and second wives. Superstructure defects in the sperm of male diabetics can

decrease the chances of conception or increase chances of a first trimester spon-

taneous abortion of a non-viable embryo, which is inconsistent with the fact that

Henry’s first two wives conceived quickly and miscarried late in the pregnancy.18

It has also been suggested that Henry had myxedema, a byproduct of hy-

pothyroidism which could have caused his weight gain, constipation, and muscle

pains, as well as explaining his psychological problems. Yet, like Type II diabetes,

this diagnosis does not resolve questions about Henry’s reproductive problems.19

Cushing’s syndrome, another endocrine disease, is also posited as a possible cause

of Henry VIII’s mental and emotional deterioration.20 Henry certainly displayed

symptoms consistent with Cushing’s syndrome, including excessive obesity,

slower healing of wounds and skin abrasions, depression, paranoia, fatigue,

headaches, lowered fertility, and likely impotence, but Cushing’s syndrome can-

not account for Henry’s reproductive history prior to his fourth marriage.

Few theories take an obstetric or genetic approach to the mystery of Henry’s

health and fertility. As an exception, Eric Ives has pointed out that the lack of

successful reproduction ‘raises the possibility that it was Henry and not his wives

who was responsible for the silence in the royal nurseries ’.21 Ives argues that it

was anxiety-induced impotency that hindered Henry’s reproductive ambitions.

However, impotency does not cause multiple pregnancies, miscarriages, and

neonatal deaths, and thus cannot account for the reproductive history of

Katherine or Anne. Likewise, there has been speculation that Anne Boleyn may

have been Rhesus (Rh) negative, which could account for her reproductive his-

tory, but does not explain Katherine of Aragon’s rate of miscarriage.22

17 M. L. Powell and D. C. Cook, ‘Treponematosis : inquiries into the nature of a protean disease’,

in M. L. Powell and D. C. Cook, eds., The myth of syphilis : the natural history of treponematosis in North America

(Gainesville, FL, 2005), pp. 9–62, at pp. 24–30.18 I. Agbaje, ‘ Increased concentrations of the oxidative DNA adduct 7,8-dihydro-8-oxo-2-deoxy-

guanosine in the germ line of men with type 1 diabetes ’, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 16 (2008),

pp. 401–9.19 C. Murphy, ‘Second opinions: history winds up in the waiting room’, The Atlantic, 287 (2001),

pp. 16–18.20 R. Hutchinson, The last days of Henry VIII : conspiracy, treason and heresy at the court of the dying tyrant

(London, 2005), pp. 205–10. 21 Ives, Life and death, p. 190.22 Erickson, Great Harry, p. 304.


Henry is generally ignored as the cause for the failed pregnancies because

socio-cultural conditioning assumes that obstetrical problems are associated with

the female partner. Katherine, according to Starkey and Antonia Fraser, ‘ failed ’

to produce offspring, and such descriptions reaffirm cultural assumptions that

unhealthy pregnancies and neonates are invariably caused by the female.23 Henry

might have been identified as the culprit if none of his wives had become preg-

nant, but since troubled pregnancies are rarely associated with male-mediated

negative reproductive outcomes, a possible connection between Henry’s health

and the unsuccessful pregnancies is obscured.

The fact remains that the current hypotheses do not adequately explain the

numerous miscarriages by Katherine and Anne and why Henry began his reign

as a ‘much feted, glorious, and fun young monarch of the 1510s and 1520s ’ and

ended his reign, as Suzannah Lipscomb put it, as an ‘overweight, suspicious, and

ruthless tyrant ’.24

I I I

What, exactly, does it mean to say that Henry VIII was Kell positive? The Kell

antigen system assists in determining the human blood type. A Kell positive

phenotype diagnosis for Henry VIII means that he carried the gene for the Kell

antigen. The Kell antigen system is determined by a group of antigens on the

human red blood cells, similar to the Rh blood system, although in the Kell

system most individuals are negative for the antibody system. Just as in the Rh

blood system, genetic incompatibility between the phenotype of the father and

mother can cause significant difficulties when trying to produce offspring.

With the Rh blood group system, the majority of individuals are Rh positive,

and only a few individuals are Rh negative. With Kell, the majority of individuals

are Kell negative and only a few individuals are Kell positive. Since so few people

are Rh negative, the rare negative phenotype in the mother is the source of

fertility problems. In the Kell system, it is the rare Kell positive father that creates

reproductive problems (Figure 1). In both cases, problems with fertility occur

when the mother is negative and mates with a positive father, because she then

develops antibodies in response to the foreign positive phenotype.

If a Kell negative mother mates with a Kell positive father, each pregnancy has

a 50/50 chance of being Kell positive. The first pregnancy, providing that noth-

ing goes awry from other causes, typically carries to term and produces a healthy

infant, even if the infant is Kell positive and the mother is Kell negative (Figure 1).

After giving birth to the first Kell positive infant, or miscarrying a Kell positive

infant at any time during the pregnancy, a small amount of blood from the

foetus/newborn will be transferred to the mother causing alloimmunization, or

the development of anti-Kell antibodies, because her body is exposed to the foreign

23 Starkey, Six wives, pp. 123, 161; A. Fraser, The wives of Henry VIII (New York, NY, 1992), p. 136.24 Lipscomb, 1536, p. 13.


Kell antigen. Once the mother has become Kell-sensitized, her subsequent Kell

positive pregnancies are at risk because the mother’s antibodies will attack the

Kell positive foetus as a foreign body. The anti-Kell antibodies hasten the

removal of the Kell antigen, including the ‘ foreign’ red blood cells of the baby.

However, any baby that is Kell negative will not be attacked by the mother’s

antibodies and will carry to term if otherwise healthy.

Since the majority of individuals are Kell negative, if Henry VIII was Kell

positive he would have had significant reproductive problems because it is

Figure 1 Pregnancy options from the pairing a Kell negative female and a Kell positive male


unlikely his partner would also have been Kell positive. A Kell positive mother’s

body will not reject either a Kell positive or Kell negative foetus as a foreign body

due to the presence of the Kell antigen (Figure 1). Any of the mother’s Kell positive

male offspring, unless mated with a Kell positive individual, would nevertheless

have significant reproductive issues.

Kell alloimmunization of the mother results in infant fatalities of Kell positive

infants from hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN), anaemia, jaundice, hy-

drops fetalis (heart failure), foetal erythroblastosis, or autoimmune hemolytic

anaemia.25 HDN is the most common disease associated with anti-Kell alloim-

munization. HDN is a ‘potent immunogen’ and 10 per cent of all HDN is caused

by the Kell blood group antigen.26 HDN, if it does not result in spontaneous

abortion or a stillbirth around twenty-four to twenty-eight weeks, can result in

severe anaemia of the newborn which is associated with the onset of jaundice at

birth causing heart failure, enlarged liver and/or spleen, swelling, and respiratory

distress. Even in anti-Kell alloimmunized pregnancies successfully carried to

thirty-one to forty weeks, the infant may suffer anaemia, jaundice, and hyrdops

fetalis. Without modern medical intervention, these newborns typically die within

twenty-four hours of birth. Some hardier infants may survive a few months and

their short-term survival can be the result of late onset HDN, called hypo-

regenerative anaemia. In these cases, HDN symptoms do not appear until two to

six weeks after birth, briefly postponing the infant’s inevitable death.27

Numerous studies cite neonatal and term infant deaths caused by anti-Kell

antigens, with births of a healthy firstborn child being followed by sponta-

neous abortions, stillbirths, and the occasional subsequent healthy infant.

A twenty-four-year-old mother with four total pregnancies was monitored during

her fourth pregnancy.28 Her first pregnancy was ‘uneventful ’, and resulted in the

birth of a healthy Kell positive child. Likewise, the second pregnancy was also

uneventful. Kell alloimmunization did not affect the pregnancy since the child

25 J. C. Santiago et al., ‘Current clinical management of anti-Kell alloimmunization in pregnancy’,

European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 136 (2008), pp. 151–4; V. Baichoo and

A. Bruce-Tagoe, ‘Recurrent hydrops fetalis due to Kell allo-immunization’, Annals of Saudi Medicine, 20

(2000), pp. 415–16; M. E. Caine and E. Mueller-Heubach, ‘Kell sensitization in pregnancy’, American

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jan. (1986), pp. 85–90; J. M. Bowman et al., ‘Maternal kell blood

group alloimmunization’, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 79 (1992), pp. 239–44; K. Mayne et al., ‘The sig-

nificance of anti-Kell sensitization in pregnancy’, Clinical and Laboratory Hematology, 12 (1990),

pp. 379–85; W. L. Marsh, and C. M. Redman, ‘The Kell blood group system: a review’, Transfusion,

30 (1990), pp. 158–67; R. L. Berkowitz et al., ‘Death in utero due to Kell sensitization without ex-

cessive elevation of the Delta OD 450 value in amniotic fluid’, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 60 (1982), pp.

746–9; J. T. Goh et al., ‘Anti-Kell in pregnancy and hydrops fetalis ’, Aust NZ Journal of Obstetrical

Gynaecology, 33 (1993), pp. 210–11.26 K. Dhodapkar and F. Blei, ‘Treatment of hemolytic disease of the newborn caused by anti-Kell

antibody with recombinant erythropoietin’, Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, 23 (2001), pp. 69–70,

at p. 69.27 N. L. C. Luban, ‘Hemolytic disease of the newborn: progenitor cells and late effects ’, New England

Journal of Medicine, 38 (2008), pp. 829–31, at p. 31.28 Goh et al., ‘Anti-Kell in pregnancy’, passim.


was tested and found to be Kell negative. Her third pregnancy resulted in foetal

death in utero suggesting a Kell positive foetus, although Kell testing was not

undertaken. The fourth pregnancy was Kell positive, and resulted in severe HDN

with foetal death at twenty-seven weeks gestation. Another study discussed a

thirty-year-old woman with three pregnancies and only one surviving child.29

The firstborn infant survived without complications, but the second and third

pregnancies, both Kell positive, resulted in stillborn hydropic foeti at twenty-four

weeks.

A similar study examined the reproductive history of a patient with three poor

pregnancy outcomes.30 The participant’s first pregnancy resulted in spontaneous

abortion at eighteen weeks of unknown cause. The second and third pregnancies

ended in foetal death due to hydrops. In this same study, special discussion

focused on a Kell positive pregnancy that progressed normally, but the infant

died of congestive heart failure shortly after delivery.31

The reproductive patterns suffered by the partners of Henry VIII are similar to

the documented cases of Kell-affected pregnancies. Although the fact that Henry

and Katherine of Aragon’s firstborn did not survive is somewhat atypical, it is

possible that some cases of Kell sensitization affect even the first pregnancy.32

Every pregnancy also had a chance of inheriting the recessive Kell gene from

Henry, resulting in a healthy infant. This explains how Mary, the fifth baby born

to Katherine of Aragon, survived when her siblings did not. Anne Boleyn’s

pregnancies were a textbook example of Kell alloimmunized pregnancies with a

healthy first child and subsequent late-term miscarriages. Jane Seymour had only

one child before her death, but a healthy firstborn is consistent with a Kell posi-

tive father and is not inconsistent with the theory.

Kell is the second most common irregular antibody, exceeded only by the Rh

blood group system. In England the positive Kell phenotype occurs in 9 per cent

of the population.33 For white populations in general, 0.2 per cent of individuals

are homozygous Kell positive and 8.7 per cent are Kell heterozygous.34 Therefore,

we argue that, although alloimmunization due to the Kell blood group is generally

considered rare, the frequency of the phenotype in the English population demo-

nstrates that this condition is prevalent enough reasonably to explain Henry’s

reproductive problems.

Our theory is further supported by the fact that the reproductive history of

several of Henry’s male maternal relatives follows the Kell positive reproductive

pattern. We have traced the possible transmission of the Kell positive gene from

Jacquetta of Luxembourg, the king’s maternal great-grandmother. The pattern of

reproductive failure among Jacquetta’s male descendants, while the females were

29 Berkowitz et al., ‘Death in utero’, passim.30 Caine and Mueller-Heubach, ‘Kell sensitization’, passim. 31 Ibid., p. 87.32 Luban, ‘Hemolytic disease’, p. 829; Z. Zika et al., ‘Massive fetomaternal transplacental

hemorrhage as a perinatology problem, role of ABO fetomaternal compatibility – case studies ’,

Medical Science Monitor, 7 (2001), pp. 308–11. 33 Mayne et al., ‘Significance of anti-Kell ’, p. 382.34 Baichoo and Bruce-Tagoe, ‘Recurrent hydrops fetalis ’, p. 415.


generally reproductively successful, suggests the genetic presence of the Kell

phenotype within the family.35

I V

Our theory that Henry VIII was Kell positive explains his reproductive history.

Furthermore, we posit that he consequently developed a disease which is ex-

clusive to Kell positive individuals : McLeod syndrome.36

McLeod syndrome is carried on the X chromosome, and is inherited from the

patient’s mother as an unexpressed positive Kell phenotype.37 Few, if any, females

express McLeod syndrome because of the Lyon effect ; however, women are able

to pass the gene on to their children, where it can be expressed in Kell positive

male offspring.38 It resembles Huntington’s disease and may operate in a similar

fashion by causing degeneration of the basal ganglia.39 Although patients may be

sickly as youngsters and adolescents, many do not show obvious symptoms until

later in life.

Patients suffering from McLeod syndrome demonstrate physical and mental

symptoms. A patient will often experience muscle weakness and nerve deterio-

ration, especially in his lower limbs, and may also suffer various degrees of

depression, paranoia, irrational personality alterations, and congestive cardio-

myopathy. The onset of the symptoms of McLeod syndrome typically begins

when the patient is aged between thirty and forty,40 most often manifesting

around the fortieth birthday, and thereafter becoming progressively worse. There

is extreme variability in the scope of the pathologies with the common symptoms

of McLeod syndrome, such as acanthocytosis (spur cells or malformed red blood

cells) and areflexia (an absence of reflexes indicating possible nerve damage),

heart disease, muscle weakness, and psychopathology, frequently showing a

wide spectrum of severity.41 Varying levels in the psychopathology exhibited by

35 Dearth and incomplete obstetrical documentation among a few relatives makes it difficult to

verify the Kell pattern among these individuals, yet the overall pattern of reproductive failure among

Jacquetta’s male descendants strongly suggests the presence of the Kell positive phenotype.36 M. Miranda et al., ‘Phenotypic variability of a distinct deletion in McLeod syndrome’, Movement

Disorders, 22 (2007), pp. 1358–61. McLeod syndrome is ‘characterized by absent Kx red blood cell

(RBC) antigen and weak expression of Kell RBC antigens’.37 W. L. Marsh, ‘Biological roles of blood group antigens’, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 63

(1990), pp. 455–60, at p. 458.38 B. M. Wimer, and W. L. Marsh et al., ‘Heamatological changes associated with the McLeod

phenotype of the Kell blood group system’, British Journal of Haematology, 36 (1977), pp. 219–24, at p. 223.

The Lyon effect is the inactivation of one of the X-chromosomes in female mammals in which one of

the two X-chromosomes is not expressed.39 A. Danek et al., ‘McLeod neuroacanthocytosis : genotype and phenotype’, Annual Neurology, 50

(2001), pp. 755–64. The basal ganglia are a group of nuclei in the brain called the caudate nucleus,

putamen, and globus pallidus. In humans, the basal ganglia are believed to control a diverse group of

functions, including motor control, cognition, learning, and emotions.40 Jung, ‘McLeod syndrome’, p. 45.41 Danek et al., ‘McLeod neuroacanthocytosis ’, p. 761.


patients with McLeod syndrome include, but are not limited to, deterioration of

memory and executive functions, paranoia, depression, socially inappropriate

conduct, and even schizophrenia-like behaviours.42 In severe cases, ‘ schizo-

phrenia-like symptoms’ of personality changes could be the ‘prominent initial

clinical manifestation ’ of McLeod syndrome.43

Henry VIII turned forty on 28 June 1531. Consistent with McLeod’s syndrome,

he began to manifest physical and psychological problems in his late thirties,

which became more acute after the king entered his fourth decade, and continued

to worsen as he aged. It is difficult to isolate Henry’s physical manifestations of

McLeod syndrome because many of the king’s symptoms cannot be conclusively

separated from physical infirmity caused by co-morbidity. For example, in the last

years of his life, Henry’s mobility deteriorated such that he had to be moved

around in a ‘ tramme’ – a chair with poles attached and carried by bearers – and

had likewise to be lifted up and down stairs. This immobility is consistent with a

known McLeod syndrome case in which a patient began to notice weakness in his

right leg when he was thirty-seven, and by age forty-seven both of his legs had

begun to atrophy.44 Similarly, the king could also have been experiencing nerve

deterioration and atrophy of the limbs.

Nonetheless, McLeod’s is not the only reasonable explanation, as Henry

had chronic leg ulcers, which were probably caused by osteomyelitis, a chronic

bone infection resulting from accidents experienced while hunting or jousting.45

Osteomyelitis could have made walking extremely painful, and would also ex-

plain Henry’s recurrent fevers and his general feeling of ill health. Moreover, the

king was indisputably obese, and his lack of mobility may have been caused by

excessive weight in combination with osteomyelitis. It is certainly possible that the

king was suffering each of these disorders concurrently with McLeod. Adding to

the diagnostic difficulties is the fact that records do not indicate whether Henry

displayed other physical signs of McLeod syndrome, such as dystonia (sustained

muscle contractions which may be seen as tics, cramps, or spasms) or hyperkin-

esia (abnormal increase in muscle activity, such as twitching or hyperactivity), and

it is impossible to confirm if he had an enlarged liver, hematological abnormali-

ties, or cardiac disease.46 Obviously, physical symptoms alone cannot be used

effectively to argue that Henry suffered from McLeod syndrome.

Psychological complications of McLeod syndrome, however, provide stronger

evidence that Henry had this syndrome, as his mental and emotional instability

increased severely in the dozen years before he died in 1547, to the extent that

Smith observed that Henry became ‘neurotic, possibly even a psychotic in the

42 H. Jung and H. Haker, ‘Schizophrenia as a manifestation of McLeod-Neuroacanthocytosis

syndrome’, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65 (2004), pp. 722–3. 43 Ibid., p. 723.44 M. Wada et al., ‘An unusual phenotype of McLeod syndrome with late onset axonal neuro-

pathy’, Journal of Neurology and Neurosurgical Psychiatry, 74 (2003), pp. 1697–9, at p. 1697.45 Ives, Life and death, p. 190.46 Danek et al., ‘McLeod neuroacanthocytosis ’. pp. 757–60.


modern clinical sense ’.47 McLeod syndrome could be the reason that Henry ap-

peared to experience progressively increasing paranoia (anxiety and fear strong

enough to cause delusions and irrational behaviour), depression, and abnormal

executive functions after midlife. It should be noted, however, that disagreement

exists as to the nature of Henry’s personality change, whether his personality

actually changed, and, if it did change, when this change first occurred. Starkey

argues that since Henry was both ‘ruthless and selfish, with a staggering self-

righteousness ’,48 from his earliest manhood, there is no need to look for a drastic

personality change to explain why during the ‘ last dozen or so years ’ of his life,

the king became a ‘hulking tyrant ’.49 J. J. Scarisbrick likewise asserts that there

was no change in the king’s personality, but rather that Henry simply grew older

and less genial with his failing health making him irritable, or that merely chan-

ged circumstances induced him to become a more ruthless monarch.50 Karen

Lindsey also argues that Henry had always been a latent tyrant, but prior to his

attempted nullity suit, the king’s ‘monstrous ego … had … gone unchallenged,

and thus unnoticed’.51 Even those scholars who eschew the idea that Henry

changed radically after midlife still, however, observe that his behaviour became

more unstable and despotic in later years. Smith notes that, while in his youth

Henry was ‘a man of honour, a warrior knight and a noble gentleman’, in his

later years he ‘became the most dangerous kind of tyrant, secretive, neurotic and

unpredictable ’.52 Starkey also acknowledges that ‘Henry’s is a life which naturally

falls in halves ’, meaning that the Henry who was crowned in 1509 ‘ is not the same

as the man who revises [the coronation oath] … twenty-odd years later ’.53

Other scholars posit that Henry’s personality did change abruptly. Lipscomb

argues that a distinct difference in Henry’s personality emerged during and after

1536, and that ‘[m]any of the flaws in his character were fashioned or catalyzed

by the events of this one year’.54 There is speculation that Henry sustained brain

damage when he fell from his horse while jousting, in 1536, explaining a rapid and

radical switch in his behaviour.55 A brain injury in 1536 is not, however, a satis-

factory explanation because the king showed signs of transformation two years

earlier in 1534. Certainly Henry’s moodiness, paranoia, and erratic behaviour

progressively became, as Lipscomb describes, ‘markedly more distrustful and

despotic ’, and thus more apparent, in the years following his fortieth birthday.56

What differentiates the king’s personality and mental state when influenced by

McLeod syndrome was the rationality behind his actions, no matter how self-

serving. Henry never lost his intelligence; rather he lost his reasonability and

judgement. Although Henry was susceptible to enthusiasms in his youth, they

47 Smith, Henry VIII, p. 23. 48 Starkey, Reign of Henry VIII, p. 11.49 Starkey, Henry : virtuous prince, p. 3.50 J. J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, 1970), pp. 624–5.51 Lindsey, Divorced, beheaded, survived, p. 64. 52 Smith, Henry VIII, pp. 23–4, 268.53 Starkey, Henry : virtuous prince, p. 7. 54 Lipscomb, 1536, p. 205.55 Smith, Henry VIII, p. 264. 56 Lipscomb, 1536, p. 184.


were usually trivial and often short-lived.57 In important matters, the king tended

to approach decision-making in what Smith describes as a ‘reluctant and crab-

like ’ fashion, to ensure he felt secure in the path to which he would obstinately

adhere.58 Although Henry generally retained much of that same stubbornness of

purpose once he had chosen a position, during the last dozen or so years of his

life, such positions were increasingly adapted more often from the perspective of

an irrational and paranoid mental state and with a strange rapidity. As he ap-

proached his fifties, Smith remarks that the once steadfast king was ‘often of one

mind in the morning and of quite another after dinner ’.59 The king’s increasing

paranoia meant those who dealt with Henry learned to dread his suddenly

forming an apparently irrational antipathy to any of his councillors or courtiers,

since Henry’s dislikes often led to the executioner’s block.60

Additionally, Henry may have experienced a crisis of generativity, more

commonly known as a ‘midlife crisis ’, which complicates events surrounding his

personality change.61 The king had embarked on his ‘great matter ’, attempting to

replace his older queen with a new one. While Henry’s marriage to Katherine of

Aragon appears to have been a love match, his ardour for his bride cooled as she

grew older, lost her looks, and none of the sons she bore him survived infancy.

Although rumours that Henry was seeking to divorce Katherine extend as far as

1514,62 it was not until 1527 that he firmly resolved to end his first marriage.

Despite his desire for Anne, the king seems to have genuinely convinced himself

that his marriage to Katherine had been false and forbidden by God.63

Scarisbrick observes that Henry’s conscience was ‘malleable ’ and so long as he

could convince himself that he was in the right, no matter how much hypocrisy

was involved, he was content.64

Henry did not expect his nullity suit to raise any difficulties. Papal annulments,

at least for the wealthy or royal, were easy to obtain. Henry’s sister Margaret

received an annulment from her husband, the earl of Angus, in 1527, for a variety

of implausible theological reasons.65 Henry’s ego was immense, provoking sur-

prise when his otherwise compliant wife retaliated and did not retire quietly to a

nunnery. Lindsey asserts that, while Katherine was ‘not a woman much given

to subterfuge … when it was called for, she knew how to use it ’.66 The queen

used every means at her disposal, including her extremely powerful nephew,

Charles V, to block the nullity suit and ensure her daughter’s place in the royal

succession was preserved.

Henry inadvertently hampered his goal of marrying Anne Boleyn, since the

matter could have been resolved by means other than a papal dissolution of his

first marriage. Pope Clement VII expressed his openness to alternative solutions,

57 Starkey, Reign of Henry VIII, p. 13. 58 Smith, Henry VIII, p. 106.59 Ibid., p. 267. 60 Ibid., p. 266.61 M. F. Shore, ‘Henry VIII and the crisis of generativity’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 2 (1972),

pp. 359–90, passim. 62 Starkey, Six wives, p. 153.63 Ibid., p. 293. 64 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 161.65 Lindsey, Divorced, beheaded, survived, p. 71. 66 Ibid., p. 67.


such as permitting royal bigamy or legitimizing the offspring of any royal adul-

tery. Equally, Henry could have had Katherine clandestinely murdered. Lindsey

argues that Katherine was ‘ too popular for Henry to harm her without anta-

gonizing his people ’, but that would not have stopped the king had he been

determined to eliminate her.67 After all, popular support did not save anyone

Henry was to execute in the near future. Yet, the king was usually concerned

about discharging his conscience, and needed to believe himself in the right, as

a representative of God on earth.68 Henry desired admission from everyone,

including the pope, Katherine, and all of Katherine’s supporters, that he was

correctly and legitimately following God’s will.

It was not until after McLeod syndrome would have begun adversely to affect

Henry’s decisions in the mid-1530s that the divorce was transformed from a

thorny political problem into an issue to be determined, as Starkey puts it, ‘by the

axe and the knife ’.69 In 1535, Henry started to execute those with whom he

disagreed, starting with four Carthusian priests executed for treason in May, their

punishment also involving disembowelment and castration.70 The king then

executed John Fisher in June and Thomas More in July, both of whom were

respected public figures who had been posthumously canonized by the Roman

Church. As Scarisbrick shows, Henry’s execution of the Carthusians, Fisher, and

More ‘shocked much of the outside world … and cast a large blood-stain on the

new regime’.71

The deaths of Fisher and More are good examples of a change in Henry’s

personality. If the king had always been a ruthless tyrant he would probably have

executed Fisher long before 1535. Rather than end Fisher’s open rebellion ex-

pediently, Henry waited for eight years while Fisher wrote seven well-respected

books defending Katherine’s position.72 Fisher actively continued to preach

against the king and refused to be silenced. Yet Henry did not have Fisher ar-

rested until 1529 when Fisher publicly preached a sermon defending the validity

of Katherine’s marriage to the king, and compared Henry to the biblical mon-

arch Herod. In 1533, Fisher provided Henry with ample reason to execute him for

treason when he appealed to foreign powers to remove Henry from his throne.

We speculate that it was not until the irrationality and paranoia of McLeod

syndrome started to affect Henry’s judgement that Fisher was, however, finally

executed.

More’s execution made much less sense than that of Fisher’s. It was politically

unwise since More was popular and had never openly rebelled against Henry’s

commands. When More became Henry’s chancellor in 1529, the king had pro-

mised More that he would never be required to ‘molest his conscience ’, and in

turn More maintained a dignified silence, neither supporting Henry’s nullity suit

nor publicly refuting it.73 In 1532, More retired as chancellor and returned the

67 Ibid., p. 80. 68 Smith, Henry VIII, p. 125. 69 Starkey, Six wives, p. 523.70 Ibid., p. 523. 71 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 332. 72 Ibid., p. 167.73 Ibid., p. 236.


Great Seal to the king.74 Although More remained silent about the divorce, he

refused to swear the Act of Succession.75 In 1534, Henry imprisoned More and

executed his former friend, teacher, and chancellor the following year. Starkey

asserts that it was not so much More’s political stance that condemned him as the

king’s ‘hatred, now as deep and unquenchable as his affection had once been’,76

whilst evidence of Henry’s hatred and paranoia is supplied in the posthumous

attainder of More for treason in 1536.77 Although More had not changed, Henry

had, and he started to eliminate all those regarded as a threat to the throne.78

McLeod syndrome could have rendered Henry paranoid, a mental condition that

explains why, as Scarisbrick put it, people ‘who were not explicitly for him were

against him, and he could not rest until they had been destroyed’.79

Henry’s behaviour prior to the potential onset of McLeod syndrome, and its

attendant paranoia, is demonstrated by his reaction to other well-known priests

who sided against him over his divorce. In 1532, William Peto preached an Easter

sermon, in the king’s presence, comparing Henry to Ahab and strongly implying

that Anne was Jezebel reborn.80 Peto was jailed, but rather than being executed

for treason, he was eventually freed and exiled. Peto fled to Antwerp where he

published a book defending the legitimacy of Katherine’s marriage to Henry and

continued to act openly on her behalf.81 Henry could have likewise exiled Fisher

and More, sparing the lives of men he had befriended since earliest childhood,

but his paranoia and erratic mental state instead demanded their executions.

Henry’s succumbing to McLeod syndrome is also apparent in the rise and fall

of Anne Boleyn. At the start of his relationship with Anne, the king displayed only

his pre-existing psychopathology of egocentricity. Lindsey maintains that Henry’s

continued pursuit of Anne was the ‘deliberate ignorance of an absolute narcissist,

for surely she had given clear enough signals ’, especially since the king prevented

a proposed match between Anne and Henry Percy, and only a ‘grossly self-

absorbed person [would] destroy two people’s happiness because of his own,

possibly mild, attraction to a woman’.82

Although Anne refused to consummate the relationship for more than six

years, Henry remained obsessed with her.83 Though scholars have long supposed

that he turned against Anne because of Elizabeth’s birth, rather than that of the

son he had wanted, or Anne’s subsequent miscarriages, more recent scholarship

indicates that Henry remained loyal to his second wife until just a few weeks prior

to her execution.84 Ives notes that Henry did not eschew Anne after Elizabeth’s

birth, but instead appeared ‘more besotted than ever, constantly at his wife’s side

and letting court discipline go to the dogs ’. Even after her final miscarriage,

Henry ‘continued determined efforts to persuade Europe to accept Anne as his

74 Ives, Life and death, p. 155. 75 Lipscomb, 1536, p. 41.76 Starkey, Reign of Henry VIII, p. 107. 77 Lipscomb, 1536, p. 195. 78 Ibid., pp. 193–201.79 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 332. 80 Ives, Life and death, p. 154.81 G. W. Bernard, The king’s reformation (New Haven, CT, 2007), p. 153.82 Lindsey, Divorced, beheaded, survived, pp. 54, 58. 83 Starkey, Six wives, p. 461.84 G. Walker, ‘Rethinking the fall of Anne Boleyn’, Historical Journal, 45 (2002), pp. 1–29, at pp. 28–9.


legitimate wife ’.85 As late as 25 April 1536, the king wrote a letter to Richard Pate,

the English ambassador in Rome, asserting ‘ the likelihood and appearance that

God will send us male heirs ’ and referring to Anne as ‘our most dear and most

entirely beloved wife, the queen’.86 Suddenly, at the beginning of May, Henry

then had Anne charged with adultery and treason and she was beheaded on 19

May.87 Henry appears to have been genuinely in love with Anne. If he eventually

had her executed as a result of McLeod-induced paranoia, then her death would

be even more of a tragedy.

One of the men with whom the king accused Anne of committing adultery was

Henry Norris, whom Greg Walker describes as ‘ the chief gentlemen of [Henry’s]

privy chamber and his closest companion. ’88 Ostensibly, Henry offered Norris a

full pardon if he would confess, but Norris steadfastly maintained his innocence.89

It has been argued that Henry’s chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, orchestrated

the deaths of Anne Boleyn and other court members,90, but, even if Cromwell

supplied information in the hope of inspiring Henry’s wrath toward particular

individuals, it still required the king to turn suddenly and violently against those

whom he had previously loved. Indeed, the allegation implies that Henry was

experiencing paranoia and excessive emotional instability, a fact which Cromwell

might have exploited. Regardless of how, why, and by whom he received infor-

mation, Anne was probably convicted because of imprudent conversations with

her brother regarding Henry’s failing sexual prowess and jokes with Norris re-

garding Henry’s death.91 If the king had been rendered paranoid by McLeod

syndrome, such relatively innocuous conversations could, after being filtered

through a delusional mental state, be construed as a threat on his life and his

ability to produce heirs to the throne.

Despite his abrupt enmity toward Anne, Henry did not seem perturbed by her

alleged infidelity.92 This is in considerable contrast to his later reaction to his fifth

wife’s alleged adultery, when Henry became so distraught that he stormed and

wept to such a degree that courtiers feared he verged on insanity.93 Henry ap-

parently did not believe that Anne had committed adultery, but instead devel-

oped a sudden and irrational hatred of his queen, and was henceforth committed

to what Smith calls her ‘ judicial murder ’.94 Henry displayed signs of paranoid

delusion in claiming that Anne was a ‘cursed and poisoning whore’ who had

planned to kill his two older children, and that she had been ‘unfaithful to him

with one hundred men’.95 Irrespective of what Henry had initially believed about

Anne’s guilt or innocence, after her death he embraced, as Ives describes, a

‘prurient self-righteousness which anesthetized all doubt ’.96 On 17 May 1536 the

85 Ives, Life and death, pp. 193, 300. 86 Ibid., p. 321.87 Walker, ‘Rethinking the fall ’, pp. 4–5; Ives, Life and death, pp. 319–21.88 Walker, ‘Rethinking the fall ’, p. 4. 89 Ibid., p. 5.90 Ives, Life and death, pp. 316–21. 91 Walker, ‘Rethinking the fall ’, p. 29.92 Starkey, Reign of Henry VIII, p. 126. 93 Smith, Henry VIII, p. 198.94 Ibid., p. 591.95 Walker, ‘Rethinking the fall ’, p. 29. 96 Ives, Life and death, p. 351.


king’s marriage to Anne was annulled and Elizabeth was proclaimed illegitimate.

Henry’s actions were thus becoming increasingly irrational, and Ives observes

that Henry’s ‘decision to annul [their] marriage immediately after accusing her of

adultery was, of course, schizoid ’.97

The events of 1536–9 are marked by bloodshed and cruelty particularly

towards those for whom the king felt ‘personal antipathy’,98 suggesting Henry

further declined into the psychopathology of McLeod syndrome. Arguably,

some of the king’s heartless actions during this time are exemplified by those

taken against his eldest daughter, as Henry refused to allow Mary to visit her

dying mother, from whom he kept her separated for five years.99 The king was

determined to force Mary to accept that his first marriage was null and that she

was a bastard. Mary finally submitted to her father’s demands, declaring that she

was the illegitimate product of incest and repudiating a key tenet of her Catholic

faith. According to Scarisbrick, had Mary not submitted to Henry’s demands,

‘ she might have been put to death’.100 Once Mary capitulated, the king

welcomed her back to court but, in an irrational twist, Henry quickly blamed

Anne Boleyn for the persecution Mary had suffered, although Anne had already

been executed.101

Concomitantly, as the king’s ability to make sound decisions would have con-

tinued to erode under the psychopathology resulting from McLeod syndrome, his

subjects also began to register unhappiness with his policies. As Scarisbrick

has shown, there were outbreaks of rebellion in late 1536, and ‘the country was

thick with prophecies and political ballads, unflattering stories about Henry and,

above all, violent rumors … [which] suggests a collapse in confidence in royal

government ’.102 Widespread discontent persisted although the rebellions failed,

more from a lack of resolve on their leaders’ part than from any of Henry’s

actions.

Henry’s paranoia is also evident in his sudden changed attitude towards his

Plantagenet relatives, the Courtenay, Neville, and Pole families. These same

maternal kin whom, as a freshly crowned monarch, he had allowed to become

favourites in his court,103 were, instead, perceived as a threat to his throne and

dynastic ambitions. Among those he eliminated was Henry Courtenay, earl of

Devon, who was Henry’s maternal first cousin, and, according to Ives ‘one of the

king’s intimates ’, who had ‘been brought up of a child with his grace in his

chamber’.104 The use of parliamentary attainder, a means of conviction without

due process or trial, was increasingly used to pass capital sentence on those ac-

cused to death without specifying crimes or providing specific evidence. Several

individuals from these high-profile families, including Gertrude Courtenay and

the old, infirmMargaret Pole, were thus convicted of treason by attainder without

97 Ibid., p. 355. 98 Lipscomb, 1536, p. 195.99 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 435. 100 Ibid., p. 353.101 Lindsey, Divorced, beheaded, survived, p. 132. 102 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 341.103 Starkey, Henry : virtuous prince, p. 306. 104 Ives, Life and death, p. 105.


indictment or trial.105 Although it could be argued that Henry’s decision to

eliminate the Plantagenets was politically, and even reasonably, motivated, it was

certainly a departure from the king’s earlier behaviour toward his mother’s

family, and demonstrates a radically altered perspective.

The final seven years of Henry’s life were even less commendable than the later

half of the 1530s. Smith contends that ‘[m]istaken or inept are the kindest words

to describe the King’s diplomatic and military labours during the 1540s, and

more often than not the chorus of condemnation includes wanton, extravagant,

frivolous, stupid and even criminal ’.106 Henry’s political judgement was rapidly

giving way to irrational choices made from mental and emotional instability.

After the death of his third wife, Henry sought political ties through marriage

to a foreign princess. These efforts proved fruitless for two years. Fears of a

Franco-Spanish coalition prompted Henry to propose marriage to Anne of

Cleves to secure an alliance with her brother, the duke of Cleves. The king sent

his court painter to obtain of portrait of Anne, to ascertain if she was sufficiently

attractive. Starkey notes that Anne’s portrait by Hans Holbein was described by

contemporaries as ‘very lively ’ and did ‘not appear to have flattered’ the bride-

to-be, whilst those who met her reported favourably on her appearance.107 Any

hope of a love match ended, however, when Henry went to meet his betrothed in

disguise at Rochester in December 1539. Unaware that the stranger who had

come to meet her was really Henry, Anne ‘regarded him little but always looked

out the window’.108 Piqued, the king decided that Anne was unattractive and he

did not want her for his wife, regardless of political expedience.109 Although the

king married her in January 1540 to avoid precipitating a political disaster, the

union made him deeply unhappy. In early July, the marriage was annulled with

little resistance from the former queen.110

Henry’s marriage to Anne of Cleves turned out to be, at worst, a minor and

easily resolved inconvenience. Under the influence of the paranoid delusions

McLeod syndrome may have been causing, Henry, nevertheless, developed a

pressing need to punish someone and Cromwell became his target. It made little

difference that Cromwell, a brilliant and skilled royal minister, had only arranged

the match on Henry’s orders. In another example of erratic behaviour, the king

elevated Cromwell as earl of Essex in April, before abruptly arresting him for

treason and heresy in June. Cromwell remained alive sufficiently long to procure

Henry a divorce from Anne of Cleves. Despite letters from Cromwell begging for

mercy, Henry had him executed on 28 June 1540.111 In under a year, Henry

regretted Cromwell’s death and started blaming others for forcing him to execute

Cromwell.112

105 Lipscomb, 1536, pp. 193–5. 106 Smith, Henry VIII, p. 164.107 Starkey, Six wives, pp. 620–6. 108 Ibid., p. 627.109 Lindsey, Divorced, beheaded, survived, p. 142. 110 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 373.111 Erickson, Great Harry, p. 155. 112 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 383.


To demonstrate Henry’s personality change, the rapidity of Cromwell’s fall

should be compared to the length of time it took Henry to decide to eliminate

Thomas Wolsey, since previously the king was slow to dispense execution. Henry

prevaricated about dismissing Wolsey, even with Anne Boleyn encouraging his

removal. In September 1529, the king commanded Wolsey to return the Great

Seal, but after Wolsey had departed in humiliation, the king dispatched a mess-

enger from Windsor, with a ring and assurances that Henry had not really

abandoned him. Overjoyed, Wolsey fruitlessly waited in retirement for Henry to

invite him back to court. In October, however, Wolsey was found guilty of sup-

porting the papal authority, instead of the king, but Henry could not bring him-

self to order Wolsey’s execution, and pardoned his former chancellor again.113

Henry continued to send occasional gifts, bolstering Wolsey’s hopes for a return

to royal favour. After more than a year of uncertainty, however, Henry had

Wolsey arrested for treason on 4 November 1530. Whether the king would once

again have pardoned him remains unknown, as Wolsey expired from natural

causes shortly thereafter.

A decade later, Henry readily ordered the execution of those who fell from

favour. In 1540, Henry not only executed Cromwell, but also executed the

religious reformers Robert Barnes, William Jerome, and Thomas Garret.114

Three devout Catholics, Edward Powell, Richard Fetherston, and Thomas Abel,

were also put to death on the same day.115 There were no plausible reasons

for these executions and judgement was reached by attainder, and, as Lindsey

notes, it was a ‘perversion of justice of which both parties complained … they had

never been called to judgment, nor knew why they were condemned’.116 It is

difficult to form a rational explanation as to why Henry killed so many individuals

for such different religious reasons on the same day. Scarisbrick argues that

Henry was not to blame for these deaths, and that the king was not a ‘capricious

tyrant ’ but rather a ‘volatile ’ man caught up in the machinations of bloodthirsty

factions.117 Nevertheless, the king retained ultimate authority in his court,

rendering his actions suspect. These were prominent men who were executed.

Henry must have known of, and approved, their executions.

As he entered his fifties, evidence of Henry’s psychopathology increased.

Stubbornness and the desire to be correct in all matters eclipsed his political

intuition. In 1542, the French king Francis I opened negotiations for a marriage

between his son and Mary, but Scarisbrick describes how the talks were

continuously impeded by Henry’s absolute refusal to allow Mary to be declared legitimate.

He held his ground now just as he had done four years [before] when Mary had been

suggested as a bride for a Portuguese prince. He would not allow the invalidity of his first

marriage to be doubted, however obliquely.118

113 Ibid., p. 235. 114 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 380. 115 Ibid., p. 383.116 Lindsey, Divorced, beheaded, survived, p. 156. 117 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 482.118 Ibid., p. 434.


Henry’s stubbornness trumped political skill, but this had not always been the

case. Without the influence of McLeod syndrome, he showed himself capable of

putting aside personal grudges in favour of political gain. For example, when

Henry was much younger, his father-in-law, Ferdinand of Aragon, had embar-

rassed him several times by abetting and encouraging Henry in his war against

France while secretly signing peace treaties.119 Although Henry was tempted to

retaliate in kind to Ferdinand, the young king was not the implacable and

vengeful individual he later became. Thus, when Spanish ambassadors attempted

to reconcile Henry to his untrustworthy father-in-law, he relented, motivated by

political desire to renew hostilities against France.120

Smith argues that, during the last years of the king’s life, Henry’s mercurial

emotional changes and paranoid contrivances ensured that ‘not a single coun-

cilor dared advise him honestly ’ or ‘ tell him his mind’ for fear a ‘ snare had been

laid for him’.121 In 1543, for example, Henry coerced conservative members of his

privy council to arrest Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and interrogate him for

suspected heresy when they brought him evidence implicating Cranmer. All the

while, Henry had secretly given Cranmer his ring and royal protection. When

Cranmer was summoned before the council he waited until the interrogation had

begun and then revealed Henry’s ring, dumbfounding the councillors,122 who

were then reprimanded by Henry for pursuing royal instructions. Moreover,

Henry repeatedly indulged in such capricious whims. Although it could be argued

that he did so to remind courtiers that he remained absolute monarch of the

realm, Smith claims that it can also be seen as ‘evidence of a psychotic mind … of

an apparently irrational mentality ’.123 If he suffered from McLeod syndrome, it

could have influenced his aberrant decisions, particularly since he was in his

fifties.

By the summer of 1545, Henry’s erratic political decisions had placed England

in danger of invasion on multiple fronts by combined forces from France and

Scotland, whose alliance had been reawakened by the poor diplomacy of Henry

himself. His conscription of monastic wealth brought him an immense treasury,

but excessive expenditures rendered the throne almost bankrupt.124 The king’s

actions and perceived motivations eventually became so convoluted that

Scarisbrick observes ‘ there is scarcely an event in the last year or so of his reign

which is not enigmatic ’.125 Henry died on 28 January 1547, leaving his kingdom

financially overburdened and in civil turmoil.

V

Henry VIII was destined to be famous, since it was in his blood. A Kell positive

diagnosis for Henry and his obsessive quest for a male heir sets course towards

119 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, pp. 78–9.120 Ibid., pp. 55–9. 121 Smith, Henry VIII, p. 304.122 Ibid., p. 30. 123 Ibid., p. 34. 124 Ibid., p. 456.125 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 470.


multiple marriages, and considerable heartache at the loss of so many potential

heirs. The notion that Henry VIII was Kell positive is supported by several aspects

of his family’s medical history, and the reproductive history of his sexual partners

is consistent with Henry being a Kell positive paternal genetic donor. Kell in-

duced HDN would certainly explain the high spontaneous abortion and infant

mortality ratios of Henry’s first two wives, and Kell incompatibility absolves

Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn from traditional tendencies to regard

them as ‘ failures ’ in reproductive terms. Interestingly, Henry desired a male heir

to ensure the destiny of the Tudor lineage, but being Kell positive meant that his

genetic legacy would have been better served by a daughter. A diagnosis of

McLeod syndrome also explains how such a promising monarchical reign came

to such a woeful conclusion. This disease, which can only manifest in Kell positive

patients, frequently causes the progressive physical deterioration of the lower

extremities and the type of increasingly severe psychological collapse which

Henry VIII exhibited with increasing frequency and severity from middle age.

The prince who had wanted to revive chivalry died with a reputation for

emotional contrariety and wilfulness that Martin Luther had scathingly declared

‘Junker Heinz will be God and does what he lust. ’126

126 Lindsey, Divorced, beheaded, survived, p. 152.


Date post:	24-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mocksafe
View:	278 times
Download:	1 times

Henry VIII

Documents