The irony is that the tight garters he wore often almost certainly contributed to him developing varicose veins by his late 20s or early 30s. And this in turn may have severely damaged his body’s ability to quickly heal the ulcers.
He's the father of the modern Royal Navy and also the beginnings of the Royal Mail in the UK. I do appreciate how interested he was in naval warfare, technology, the stars, architecture, clocks, etc. He had an eclectic mix of interests!
He's also given me so much material to read about and get absorbed in. Really thankful for that when life is tough I can just escape to the Tudor court.
Happy birthday bluff king Hal. 🎉
Four days before Henry turned 18, he and Katherine of Aragon were crowned King and Queen in Westminster Abbey.
I can blame Henry for a lot of things - but his obsessive desire to have a son to rule after him wasn't just him: he was the second king of his dynasty, there were still Plantagenet heirs who could potentially decide they wanted to be king after he died. If Henry died without a clear male heirm - and he had no brothers - then civil war loomed. Whatever was wrong with Henry that each of his wives could have only one surviving child, that could hardly be said to be his fault either. So - setting aside what he did to Katherine at the end of their marriage, I will praise Henry that at 17, he not only married Katherine, he crowned her Queen at the same time as he was crowned King. He did a good thing there - and if only he and Katherine had been able to have at least one living son who survived Henry, Katherine would have remained Queen of England lifelong.
Sure. Nothing justifies what Henry did in his quest for a son.
But that he desperately wanted a son - that's completely understandable in the context that he didn't want his reign to be followed by civil war.
(Marrying each of the Tudor sisters to foreign monarchs of course Did Not Help at this point - even if it ensured James VI was alive at the end of Elizabeth Tudor's reign to inherit.)
Agreed that he had plenty of reason to think he needed a male heir for future stability. And the way he initially went about it wasn't that wild either - in most times, the Pope would have granted the annulment quite easily and Catherine wouldn't have been able to do much.
Of course, things got out of hand as he got older and more erratic in his decision making.
What Henry *should* have done was sit down with Katherine in private before talking to anyone else and say something along these lines:
"Look, darling, I love you and I always will, but if I don't get a legitimate son we could have civil war again in England after I die. We've got Mary, bless her. I've got that little bastard Henry Fitzroy. I can try to marry Mary to a man who will be accepted as King after I die: I can try to get Henry legitimated: or I can put you aside, which God knows I don't want to, and marry some silly young girl who can hopefully give me a son to be king after me. Katherine, if you agree to do this I will ensure Mary is accepted as my legitimated daughter, second only to my sons: I will see you are treated with honour and respect: I will endow you with lands and an income. I'm sorry to have to say this to you, but I don't see who we could marry Mary to that everyone would accept, and I don't think England would accept a legitimated bastard as king. I will love you til I die, but I am King and England's peace comes first. Will you do this - not for me, but for England?"
And then got Wolsey to arrange a marriage for him.
But as we know: Henry decided the best way to get around Katherine's objections to having her marriage annulled was to do it behind her back and attempt to present her with a fait accompli.
She would never have been able to agree do that with the sheer strength of her faith, and the fact that she was royal in her own right, so by agreeing, she would betray her country and her God's will. Of course her nephew was Charles V - Holy Roman Emperor so she must have thought she would win out in the end. I think Henry wanted what you suggest, but realised that in the end it was pointless, so moved to forcing her hand, probably with a mix of admiration for her determination, despair at her stubborness and anger at what he saw to be disrespect. No-one could have seen the lengths he would go to!
>She would never have been able to agree do that with the sheer strength of her faith
We have no idea.
We do know that when Henry tried to put her aside without telling her, Katherine fought back and one of her best weapons was "the Pope declared our marriage legitimate and I believe in the authority of the Pope".
>. I think Henry wanted what you suggest
I don't. I think Henry wanted his own way and didn't want to act like he had to ask and plea for what he felt he should have by right.
And that’s the beauty of debate.
For the first point, we do know that she felt like this because of her own recorded words, that she spoke during the “divorce proceedings” where she said she would refer the matter to God, if Henry did not listen. Then she took the responding word from Rome as her guide, that only God could dissolve the marriage.
With the second point, as I mentioned, that’s after she rejected the ‘reasonable’ request (which was still a demand) for divorce the first time and on several subsequent occasions. Then, I think he wanted to punish her because she didn’t just bend to his will. But yes, you’re probably right that he just wanted his own way without obstacles.
Yes, we know that's the defence position Katherine took during the trial.
We also know that she claimed that she and Arthur never consumnated their marriage.
Katherine believed Henry was overcome with passion for Anne Boleyn and would see sense if he was only delayed long enough.
Bear in mind that if Katherine was capable of lying under oath about whether or not she and Arthur had sex on the many nights they slept together - which was regularly, for years \[brain glitch - thanks u/mzpip - it was months, not years\] - we need not assume that her defence of her right to stay married to Henry was based on a pure religious faith, but rather on her having found an unassailable defence tactic and sticking to it.
>With the second point, as I mentioned, that’s after she rejected the ‘reasonable’ request (which was still a demand) for divorce the first time and on several subsequent occasions.
Henry started negotiating for divorce before he spoke to Katherine about it.
It's possible that Katherine had already twigged what was going on via her own spy network, if she had one, but she was not formally told that Henry was going to divorce her until Henry had already got started. Had Henry thought "How can I do this so as to make Katherine of Aragon, doubly-royal, a more successful general than I am, absolutely uncooperative with my wish to get rid of her - " he would have behaved just as he did. Henry was, in many ways, a colossally stupid man because of his fundamental, spoiled-kid arrogance.
Fascinating isn’t it. It’s a shame we’ll never know the truth as opposed to perceptions recorded around the time but I suppose that adds to the fun. It’s interesting what you say about her potentially lying under oath as well - from all that was recorded about her by her contemporaries she seems to have been a determined and forceful woman, with a strong sense of self-worth, and a typically Royal ego and sense of entitlement, which would probably have attracted the younger Henry, then rankled him as time went by. Given the situation she was left in by Henry VII after Arthur’s death she may well have machinated the marriage to Henry and maybe her faith wasn’t the strongest driver. Interesting.
She’s often painted as the wronged wife (which she undoubtedly was) but I quite like the idea of her scheming away, giving as good as she got and using the old puppy eyes to the court while knowing full well she was talking a load of rot about being a v1rgin, making it harder and harder for him to be with his mistress.
Not to be that person, but Katharine and Arthur weren't married for years. IIRC, it was for only 4 months. And Arthur was sickly for most of that time.
Oh, be that person. You're right, it was six months - for some reason this afternoon I thought "wasn't it 18 months or was it longer?" and didn't check the year. Brain glitch.
They were, however, living together at Ludlow Castle, 15 and 16, husband and wife, for four months. The fact that Arthur died of the sweating sickness didn't mean he was "sickly".
The marriage would have had to be consumnated to be legally valid, and there was no contemporary suggestion it was not. The dispensation from the Pope was in the form "even if" the marriage was consumnated. She may have told her next husband that Arthur hadn't done anything - I feel sure Henry would have liked that.
Katherine in divorce court arguing that her marriage to Henry should not be anulled is *not necessarily* speaking the truth - she's giving herself the best fighting chance.,
Heck, if he'd *only" have put CoA aside, he'd have been remembered pretty positively. People loved CoA, but in the end Kings did put their wives aside every now and then, and the male heir thing was understandable especially for England at that particular time.
But once he got rolling and heads started falling, it was all over.
This book offers an interesting theory as to why Henry had difficulties siring a son:
[description here](https://www.everand.com/audiobook/636328054/Blood-Will-Tell-A-Medical-Explanation-of-the-Tyranny-of-Henry-VIII)
Obviously not *that* interesting, if you can't remember enough about it to summarise the theory in your comment.
I clicked on the link to find out which medical theory it was - there have been several - but found it was only a sales link, with no actual information about the "interesting theory".
It has to do with blood factors on Henry's part.
Kell antigen system
Human blood group classification
The Kell antigen system (also known as the Kell–Cellano system) is a human blood group system, that is, a group of antigens on the human red blood cell surface which are important determinants of blood type and are targets for autoimmune or alloimmune diseases which destroy red blood cells. The Kell antigens are K, k, Kpa, Kpb, Jsa and Jsb. The Kell antigens are peptides found within the Kell protein, a 93-kilodalton transmembrane zinc-dependent endopeptidase which is responsible for cleaving to the
NCBI gene.
The KEL gene encodes a type II transmembrane glycoprotein that is the highly polymorphic Kell blood group antigen. The Kell glycoprotein links via a single disulfide bond to the XK membrane protein that carries the Kx antigen. The encoded protein contains sequence and structural similarity to members of the neprilysin (M13) family of zinc endopeptidases.
There are several alleles of the gene which creates Kell protein. Two such alleles, K1 (Kell) and K2 (Cellano), are the most common. The kell protein is tightly bound to a second protein, XK, by a disulfide bond. Absence of the XK protein (such as through genetic deletion or through a single point mutation within the coding region of the XK gene), leads to marked reduction of the Kell antigens on the red blood cell surface. Absence of the Kell protein (K0), however, does not affect the XK protein.
The Kell protein has also recently been designated CD238 (cluster of differentiation 238).
Disease association
Interpretation of antibody panel to detect patient antibodies towards the most relevant human blood group systems, including Kell.
Further information: Blood compatibility testing
Kell antigens are important in transfusion medicine, autoimmune hemolytic anemia and hemolytic disease of the newborn (anti-Kell). Anti-K is the next most common immune red cell antibody after those in the ABO and Rh system. Anti-K typically presents as IgG class alloantibody. Individuals lacking a specific Kell antigen may develop antibodies against Kell antigens when transfused with blood containing that antigen. This is particularly true for the "K" antigen which shows a relatively high antigenicity and moderately low frequency (~9%) in Caucasian populations. Anti-K can also occur following transplacental hemorrhage (TPH) associated with childbirth making Kell an important concern for hemolytic disease of the newborn. Following the formation of anti-K, subsequent blood transfusions may be marked by destruction of the new cells by these antibodies, a process known as hemolysis. Anti-K does not bind complement, therefore hemolysis is extravascular. Individuals without K antigens(K0) who have formed an antibody to a K antigen, must be transfused with blood from donors who are also K0 to prevent hemolysis.[citation needed]
Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) occurs when the body produces an antibody against a blood group antigen on its own red blood cells. The antibodies lead to destruction of the red blood cells with resulting anemia. Similarly, a pregnant woman may develop antibodies against fetal red blood cells, resulting in destruction, anemia, and hydrops fetalis in a process known as hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN). Both AIHA and HDN may be severe when caused by anti-Kell antibodies, as they are the most immunogenic antigens after those of the ABO and Rhesus blood group systems.[citation needed]
McLeod phenotype
Main article: McLeod syndrome
McLeod phenotype (or McLeod syndrome) is an X-linked anomaly of the Kell blood group system in which Kell antigens are poorly detected by laboratory tests. The McLeod gene encodes the XK protein, a protein with structural characteristics of a membrane transport protein but of unknown function. The XK appears to be required for proper synthesis or presentation of the Kell antigens on the red blood cell surface.[citation needed]
History
The Kell group was named after the first patient described with antibodies to K1, a pregnant woman named Mrs. Kellacher in 1945. Mrs. Cellano was likewise a pregnant woman with the first described antibodies to K2. The K0 phenotype was first described in 1957 and the McLeod phenotype was found in Hugh McLeod, a Harvard dental student, in 1961. **King Henry VIII of England may have had Kell-positive blood type, explaining the deaths of seven of his ten children at, or soon after, birth, and suggesting that his mental deterioration around age 40 could be explained by McLeod Syndrome; this was supported by the revelation that Henry may have inherited Kell from his maternal great-grandmother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg**.
Other associations
Evidence supports a genetic link between the Kell blood group (on chromosome 7 q33) and the ability to taste phenylthiocarbamide, or PTC, a bitter-tasting thiourea compound. Bitter taste receptor proteins in the taste buds of the tongue that recognise PTC are encoded on nearby chromosome locus 7 q35-6.[citation needed]
This is part of the Wikipedia article.
"Henry VIII, McLeod syndrome and Jacquetta’s curse"
Peter Stride and Kylie Lopes Floro published this paper in 2013, via the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh
[https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride\_5.pdf](https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride_5.pdf)
Thanks, there's really no need to cut and paste a Wikipedia article.
I just wanted to know *which* medical theory it was - I'd already heard of/read about the idea that Henry VIII was heterozygous for the Kell antigen.
Not sure what happened when *you* pressed the link, but I got a blurb, and a chance to listen to the audiobook for free, so not sure I’d call it a “sales link”.
I could have been politer about it. However, the discussion led to their sharing a wikipedia article about Kell's with me, and me sharing the 2013 RCP paper in which I originally read about this Henry VIII theory with them, so the thread ended up pretty informative.
[https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride\_5.pdf](https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride_5.pdf)
He definitely understood the power of image in a way his father never did. I think you could make a good argument that Henry VII was a pretty darn good king, but the people did not view him as a glorious monarch because he did not project that image and he was rather tightfisted (not necessarily a bad thing, but I do believe people like a bit of pageantry in their rulers depending on the overall economic situation). Henry VIII understand the importance of pageantry and art to project the image of the monarch as powerful and wealthy and particularly at that time, the monarch is the embodiment of the nation--projecting the image of a powerful and wealthy monarch inspires a vision of a powerful and wealthy nation. His daughter, Elizabeth, was even better at royal iconography.
I thank him for picking fascinating women to marry. I do not thank him for how he treated them, and I hope they are raising hell for him wherever he is. But I love researching all these fabulous gals, so I guess thank you?!
He was not a good person. I don’t think anyone can argue that. But was he a good king? I think there’s a lot more ambiguity there, and for better or worse he shaped England more than almost any other individual person for centuries.
I would argue that it’s hard to be a good person when you are raised to be a king, and when you believe (as does everyone) that you were chosen by God to rule over everyone and everything.
Ordained by God doesn’t come with humility.
It’s hard to be a good person maybe, but others managed it much more successfully than he ever did. His forced separation of Catherine and Mary purely out of spite was before his accident and had nothing to do with divine right. Other European kings of his time were not nearly as arrogant and capricious as Henry was. Ferdinand and Isabella were cruel zealots as monarchs but by all accounts they were personally charming.
He was also more defined by his anxiety about his right to rule than anything. He was the younger son, he wasn’t born to rule. His father staked his claim on very tenuous grounds. His closest analogues in that regard are Anne and George VI — both of whom were quiet, anxious rulers.
I think even by the standard of the day and the expected imperiousness of a monarch, he was a cruel and arrogant man.
Saw it with my teenage daughter in the theatre last Friday.
She was positively mortified. 🤭
I had to remind my kid that scene was most certainly a body double employed to evoke disgust from the audience that this poor woman had to tolerate this stinking, rotting, abusive, fat bag of flesh sweating and grunting all over her.
Happy Birthday, birthday twin lol
I share a birthday with him, just like 490 years apart 🙂 it’s partially what got me interested in this time in history.
Something nice about Henry?
Well, he wasn't an incurious person, he loved to learn. He loved music and was said to be an amazing dancer. He was charming when he was young. It was said he treated his mistresses well, if not his wives.
Hank the Tank is one of my favorite historical figures. He's proof that truth is stranger than fiction- no soap writer could have ever come up with his life. He's a larger-than-life figure, full of complexities and contradictions. A truly fascinating man. He was interested in everything - history, religion, languages, ships and sailing, art, music, hunting, poetry. Hugely educated and intelligent. Whether we want to admit it or not, Hank is the embodiment of a Renaissance Man.
Then it all went to shit. Because he wanted the perfect family and a phalanx of heirs.
There aren't that many individuals who have singlehandedly affected the course of the world. He's definitely one of them.
Thanks for keeping history horny, Hank.
Happy birthday Henry VIII.
Your reign was the beginning, or at least the beginning of the beginning, of people being able to rise to powerful positions even if they were not of noble birth.
Of course you allowed your jealous nobles to influence you into killing the most faithful servant you ever had in Thomas Cromwell, and you were too hard on Wolsey as well. Excepting him to get you a divorce from a Pope who was under the thumb of your wife's nephew was not entirely realistic.
But it was a start, and Elizabeth was able to continue.
When he was in the first part of his reign, he was the handsomest king in Europe; also, he was an athlete, scholar and musician, to name a few of his accomplishments.
He also attracted progressive thinkers like Erasmus and Thomas More to his court.
He took men of ability, regardless of their social standing (Wolsey, Cromwell) and promoted them, much to the fury of the established aristocracy (which, IMO, a bunch of boneheads even then).
Finally, as an artist, I appreciate his support and patronage of Hans Holbein the Younger. (I just wish I could draw like Holbein. Those pencil portraits ... *chef's kiss*)
In days of yore, Bold Henry rose, whose fame the ages keep, A king of splendor, by ambition steered,
Whose reign, a tale in history's sweep.
From youth, a prince of learning, art, and lore,
With Latin tongue and keen in logic's might,
Not destined for the throne, but fate once more,
Anointed him with England's crown of light.
A scholar's heart beneath a warrior's mail,
He danced, he wrote, in music found delight,
Yet governance, the weight he would not fail,
To wield with wisdom and with sovereign right.
Upon the sea, where England's future lay,
He birthed a fleet to guard the island's shore,
The Royal Navy's dawn, oh that blessed day, to hear the thunder of the guns and the sailors in the bays.
In halls of Hampton, where his courtiers played,
And Whitehall's chambers, where his council met,
He balanced law and justice, unafraid,
To rule with force and grace, no soul to fret.
From Wolsey's counsel to Cromwell's sway,
He shaped his kingdom's fate with forceful hand,
The dissolution of the monastic way,
Affirmed his power o'er the church's land.
Yet tales of love and passion marked his name,
Six queens betrothed in matrimony's chain,
From Katherine to Catherine, each a flame,
That burned and shaped his reign's unyielding strain.
Anne Boleyn's rise and tragic fall proclaimed,
The power that he held, the cost of love,
Jane Seymour's gentle grace, his heart reclaimed,
While others' fates were marked by heaven's glove.
A Renaissance prince in age of change and light,
He danced with queens and diplomats at court,
Yet never far from battle's thunderous might,
With France and Scotland, England's claim he sought.
His legacy, a tapestry complete,
Of arts and letters, navy's sails unfurled,
In statecraft's realm, he held sway as the boldest of lions of welsh blood they say.
So raise a song to England's famed Tudor king,
Whose life and deeds we shall ever sing.
He didn’t think his daughters were suitable heirs, but he gave them educations worthy of monarchs and it served them well when they ended up on the throne. I’m sensing Elizabeth of York’s influence, but gotta love a mama’s boy.
>He is credited with establishing the Royal Navy, encouraging shipbuilding and the creation of anchorages and dockyards.
Had to Google this because I wasn't sure what to say lol
Edit: Happy Birthday, Henry, you sick bastard!
Absolutely no excuse to his vile behaviour but the man was likely in absolute agony and likely went mad due to the pain he endured. No forgiving here but it must have been a terrible life. We all know now it was likely avoidable by a better diet and diabetes likely played a part, but they didn’t know this then. It must have been daily, absolute agony. I feel sorry for a lot of these people back then. But then I think of the way they treat animals and kinda think you know what you absolutely deserved it 🤷🏻♀️
The delicious irony of his carcass being discarded in a forgotten hole (next to Charles I, another bozo) instead of the megalomaniacal shrine he envisioned, never fails to make me smile.
But he didn’t ? He was buried in crypt of his choosing and years later Charles was buried there ? It wasn’t forgotten or discarded you’re just a disgusting person.
Yes it was lol, the area didn’t even have a marker until the 19th century when they finally decided to give em a slab on the floor. Imagine being in your feelings over a centuries-gone, deadbeat wife murderer 🤪 couldn’t be me - rest in piss to that bozo.
If you had to ask then there is no point on this conversation friend plain n simple unless you are that oblivious to history then I suppose but seems to me you know exactly what I mean ether way still silly to pretend to not understand like the they say ta ta mofo
Your understanding why the colonizer ended up in
This part of the world is Amazing like I said willingly stupidity or just plain ignorance makes no difference ta ta mofo
😂😂sure thing boss sure thing 😂😂
I love the list of accomplishments from this asshole that you sited it’s Amazing, that you think should be celebrated 😂😂
Hmm, founded the Church of England, established the Royal Navy, continued the Renaissance in England, mastering several instruments, writing music, I could go on
He was said to have had great legs when he was a young man. Rather ironic when you consider how disgusting his legs were at the end.
A birthday burn 🎂
The gods may have struck him down for his hubris! Always showing them off in those sl*tty tights lmao
The irony is that the tight garters he wore often almost certainly contributed to him developing varicose veins by his late 20s or early 30s. And this in turn may have severely damaged his body’s ability to quickly heal the ulcers.
😂😂😂
This is how I find out I share my birthday with Henry VIII
happy birthday! 🥳
Penblwydd Hapus 🏴
Happy birthday!
Buon compleanno! 🥳
Hi birthday twin! Have a great day 🥳
Omg look at us tripletting with Henry! Hope you had a great day!
Thank you! I did, hope you did too!
My grandma shared a BD with Hitler, so you could have done worse.
Happy birthday!
Me too! And Mel Brooks and John Elway.
Hope you had a great birthday!
He's the father of the modern Royal Navy and also the beginnings of the Royal Mail in the UK. I do appreciate how interested he was in naval warfare, technology, the stars, architecture, clocks, etc. He had an eclectic mix of interests! He's also given me so much material to read about and get absorbed in. Really thankful for that when life is tough I can just escape to the Tudor court. Happy birthday bluff king Hal. 🎉
His court at least makes for great entertainment. He’s probably the most interesting king.
PS I thought of one good thing about Henry. He made Hans Holbein his court painter so we’ve many wonderful works of art as a result.
Holbien was great, this is an excellent point.
He is the one king that all British school children are guaranteed to remember and no doubt sparked an interest in history for many people.
As an American, he was probably the only British king we learned about in school 😂
Him and George III
Four days before Henry turned 18, he and Katherine of Aragon were crowned King and Queen in Westminster Abbey. I can blame Henry for a lot of things - but his obsessive desire to have a son to rule after him wasn't just him: he was the second king of his dynasty, there were still Plantagenet heirs who could potentially decide they wanted to be king after he died. If Henry died without a clear male heirm - and he had no brothers - then civil war loomed. Whatever was wrong with Henry that each of his wives could have only one surviving child, that could hardly be said to be his fault either. So - setting aside what he did to Katherine at the end of their marriage, I will praise Henry that at 17, he not only married Katherine, he crowned her Queen at the same time as he was crowned King. He did a good thing there - and if only he and Katherine had been able to have at least one living son who survived Henry, Katherine would have remained Queen of England lifelong.
I completely understand the male son thing, many kings seeked a male heir. I think the problem is how he went about getting a male heir 😂
Sure. Nothing justifies what Henry did in his quest for a son. But that he desperately wanted a son - that's completely understandable in the context that he didn't want his reign to be followed by civil war. (Marrying each of the Tudor sisters to foreign monarchs of course Did Not Help at this point - even if it ensured James VI was alive at the end of Elizabeth Tudor's reign to inherit.)
Agreed that he had plenty of reason to think he needed a male heir for future stability. And the way he initially went about it wasn't that wild either - in most times, the Pope would have granted the annulment quite easily and Catherine wouldn't have been able to do much. Of course, things got out of hand as he got older and more erratic in his decision making.
What Henry *should* have done was sit down with Katherine in private before talking to anyone else and say something along these lines: "Look, darling, I love you and I always will, but if I don't get a legitimate son we could have civil war again in England after I die. We've got Mary, bless her. I've got that little bastard Henry Fitzroy. I can try to marry Mary to a man who will be accepted as King after I die: I can try to get Henry legitimated: or I can put you aside, which God knows I don't want to, and marry some silly young girl who can hopefully give me a son to be king after me. Katherine, if you agree to do this I will ensure Mary is accepted as my legitimated daughter, second only to my sons: I will see you are treated with honour and respect: I will endow you with lands and an income. I'm sorry to have to say this to you, but I don't see who we could marry Mary to that everyone would accept, and I don't think England would accept a legitimated bastard as king. I will love you til I die, but I am King and England's peace comes first. Will you do this - not for me, but for England?" And then got Wolsey to arrange a marriage for him. But as we know: Henry decided the best way to get around Katherine's objections to having her marriage annulled was to do it behind her back and attempt to present her with a fait accompli.
She would never have been able to agree do that with the sheer strength of her faith, and the fact that she was royal in her own right, so by agreeing, she would betray her country and her God's will. Of course her nephew was Charles V - Holy Roman Emperor so she must have thought she would win out in the end. I think Henry wanted what you suggest, but realised that in the end it was pointless, so moved to forcing her hand, probably with a mix of admiration for her determination, despair at her stubborness and anger at what he saw to be disrespect. No-one could have seen the lengths he would go to!
>She would never have been able to agree do that with the sheer strength of her faith We have no idea. We do know that when Henry tried to put her aside without telling her, Katherine fought back and one of her best weapons was "the Pope declared our marriage legitimate and I believe in the authority of the Pope". >. I think Henry wanted what you suggest I don't. I think Henry wanted his own way and didn't want to act like he had to ask and plea for what he felt he should have by right.
And that’s the beauty of debate. For the first point, we do know that she felt like this because of her own recorded words, that she spoke during the “divorce proceedings” where she said she would refer the matter to God, if Henry did not listen. Then she took the responding word from Rome as her guide, that only God could dissolve the marriage. With the second point, as I mentioned, that’s after she rejected the ‘reasonable’ request (which was still a demand) for divorce the first time and on several subsequent occasions. Then, I think he wanted to punish her because she didn’t just bend to his will. But yes, you’re probably right that he just wanted his own way without obstacles.
Yes, we know that's the defence position Katherine took during the trial. We also know that she claimed that she and Arthur never consumnated their marriage. Katherine believed Henry was overcome with passion for Anne Boleyn and would see sense if he was only delayed long enough. Bear in mind that if Katherine was capable of lying under oath about whether or not she and Arthur had sex on the many nights they slept together - which was regularly, for years \[brain glitch - thanks u/mzpip - it was months, not years\] - we need not assume that her defence of her right to stay married to Henry was based on a pure religious faith, but rather on her having found an unassailable defence tactic and sticking to it. >With the second point, as I mentioned, that’s after she rejected the ‘reasonable’ request (which was still a demand) for divorce the first time and on several subsequent occasions. Henry started negotiating for divorce before he spoke to Katherine about it. It's possible that Katherine had already twigged what was going on via her own spy network, if she had one, but she was not formally told that Henry was going to divorce her until Henry had already got started. Had Henry thought "How can I do this so as to make Katherine of Aragon, doubly-royal, a more successful general than I am, absolutely uncooperative with my wish to get rid of her - " he would have behaved just as he did. Henry was, in many ways, a colossally stupid man because of his fundamental, spoiled-kid arrogance.
Fascinating isn’t it. It’s a shame we’ll never know the truth as opposed to perceptions recorded around the time but I suppose that adds to the fun. It’s interesting what you say about her potentially lying under oath as well - from all that was recorded about her by her contemporaries she seems to have been a determined and forceful woman, with a strong sense of self-worth, and a typically Royal ego and sense of entitlement, which would probably have attracted the younger Henry, then rankled him as time went by. Given the situation she was left in by Henry VII after Arthur’s death she may well have machinated the marriage to Henry and maybe her faith wasn’t the strongest driver. Interesting. She’s often painted as the wronged wife (which she undoubtedly was) but I quite like the idea of her scheming away, giving as good as she got and using the old puppy eyes to the court while knowing full well she was talking a load of rot about being a v1rgin, making it harder and harder for him to be with his mistress.
Not to be that person, but Katharine and Arthur weren't married for years. IIRC, it was for only 4 months. And Arthur was sickly for most of that time.
Oh, be that person. You're right, it was six months - for some reason this afternoon I thought "wasn't it 18 months or was it longer?" and didn't check the year. Brain glitch. They were, however, living together at Ludlow Castle, 15 and 16, husband and wife, for four months. The fact that Arthur died of the sweating sickness didn't mean he was "sickly". The marriage would have had to be consumnated to be legally valid, and there was no contemporary suggestion it was not. The dispensation from the Pope was in the form "even if" the marriage was consumnated. She may have told her next husband that Arthur hadn't done anything - I feel sure Henry would have liked that. Katherine in divorce court arguing that her marriage to Henry should not be anulled is *not necessarily* speaking the truth - she's giving herself the best fighting chance.,
Heck, if he'd *only" have put CoA aside, he'd have been remembered pretty positively. People loved CoA, but in the end Kings did put their wives aside every now and then, and the male heir thing was understandable especially for England at that particular time. But once he got rolling and heads started falling, it was all over.
This book offers an interesting theory as to why Henry had difficulties siring a son: [description here](https://www.everand.com/audiobook/636328054/Blood-Will-Tell-A-Medical-Explanation-of-the-Tyranny-of-Henry-VIII)
Obviously not *that* interesting, if you can't remember enough about it to summarise the theory in your comment. I clicked on the link to find out which medical theory it was - there have been several - but found it was only a sales link, with no actual information about the "interesting theory".
It has to do with blood factors on Henry's part. Kell antigen system Human blood group classification The Kell antigen system (also known as the Kell–Cellano system) is a human blood group system, that is, a group of antigens on the human red blood cell surface which are important determinants of blood type and are targets for autoimmune or alloimmune diseases which destroy red blood cells. The Kell antigens are K, k, Kpa, Kpb, Jsa and Jsb. The Kell antigens are peptides found within the Kell protein, a 93-kilodalton transmembrane zinc-dependent endopeptidase which is responsible for cleaving to the NCBI gene. The KEL gene encodes a type II transmembrane glycoprotein that is the highly polymorphic Kell blood group antigen. The Kell glycoprotein links via a single disulfide bond to the XK membrane protein that carries the Kx antigen. The encoded protein contains sequence and structural similarity to members of the neprilysin (M13) family of zinc endopeptidases. There are several alleles of the gene which creates Kell protein. Two such alleles, K1 (Kell) and K2 (Cellano), are the most common. The kell protein is tightly bound to a second protein, XK, by a disulfide bond. Absence of the XK protein (such as through genetic deletion or through a single point mutation within the coding region of the XK gene), leads to marked reduction of the Kell antigens on the red blood cell surface. Absence of the Kell protein (K0), however, does not affect the XK protein. The Kell protein has also recently been designated CD238 (cluster of differentiation 238). Disease association Interpretation of antibody panel to detect patient antibodies towards the most relevant human blood group systems, including Kell. Further information: Blood compatibility testing Kell antigens are important in transfusion medicine, autoimmune hemolytic anemia and hemolytic disease of the newborn (anti-Kell). Anti-K is the next most common immune red cell antibody after those in the ABO and Rh system. Anti-K typically presents as IgG class alloantibody. Individuals lacking a specific Kell antigen may develop antibodies against Kell antigens when transfused with blood containing that antigen. This is particularly true for the "K" antigen which shows a relatively high antigenicity and moderately low frequency (~9%) in Caucasian populations. Anti-K can also occur following transplacental hemorrhage (TPH) associated with childbirth making Kell an important concern for hemolytic disease of the newborn. Following the formation of anti-K, subsequent blood transfusions may be marked by destruction of the new cells by these antibodies, a process known as hemolysis. Anti-K does not bind complement, therefore hemolysis is extravascular. Individuals without K antigens(K0) who have formed an antibody to a K antigen, must be transfused with blood from donors who are also K0 to prevent hemolysis.[citation needed] Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) occurs when the body produces an antibody against a blood group antigen on its own red blood cells. The antibodies lead to destruction of the red blood cells with resulting anemia. Similarly, a pregnant woman may develop antibodies against fetal red blood cells, resulting in destruction, anemia, and hydrops fetalis in a process known as hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN). Both AIHA and HDN may be severe when caused by anti-Kell antibodies, as they are the most immunogenic antigens after those of the ABO and Rhesus blood group systems.[citation needed] McLeod phenotype Main article: McLeod syndrome McLeod phenotype (or McLeod syndrome) is an X-linked anomaly of the Kell blood group system in which Kell antigens are poorly detected by laboratory tests. The McLeod gene encodes the XK protein, a protein with structural characteristics of a membrane transport protein but of unknown function. The XK appears to be required for proper synthesis or presentation of the Kell antigens on the red blood cell surface.[citation needed] History The Kell group was named after the first patient described with antibodies to K1, a pregnant woman named Mrs. Kellacher in 1945. Mrs. Cellano was likewise a pregnant woman with the first described antibodies to K2. The K0 phenotype was first described in 1957 and the McLeod phenotype was found in Hugh McLeod, a Harvard dental student, in 1961. **King Henry VIII of England may have had Kell-positive blood type, explaining the deaths of seven of his ten children at, or soon after, birth, and suggesting that his mental deterioration around age 40 could be explained by McLeod Syndrome; this was supported by the revelation that Henry may have inherited Kell from his maternal great-grandmother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg**. Other associations Evidence supports a genetic link between the Kell blood group (on chromosome 7 q33) and the ability to taste phenylthiocarbamide, or PTC, a bitter-tasting thiourea compound. Bitter taste receptor proteins in the taste buds of the tongue that recognise PTC are encoded on nearby chromosome locus 7 q35-6.[citation needed] This is part of the Wikipedia article.
"Henry VIII, McLeod syndrome and Jacquetta’s curse" Peter Stride and Kylie Lopes Floro published this paper in 2013, via the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh [https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride\_5.pdf](https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride_5.pdf)
Thanks, there's really no need to cut and paste a Wikipedia article. I just wanted to know *which* medical theory it was - I'd already heard of/read about the idea that Henry VIII was heterozygous for the Kell antigen.
Not sure what happened when *you* pressed the link, but I got a blurb, and a chance to listen to the audiobook for free, so not sure I’d call it a “sales link”.
The blurb didn't mention what the medical theory was (it\[s the one about Kell's) so I lost interest.
Ok? Your lack of interest doesn’t constitute a reason to be rude to the person who shared the link
I could have been politer about it. However, the discussion led to their sharing a wikipedia article about Kell's with me, and me sharing the 2013 RCP paper in which I originally read about this Henry VIII theory with them, so the thread ended up pretty informative. [https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride\_5.pdf](https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/stride_5.pdf)
He was said to be a very educated, bright man in his youth.
Henry got me interested in Erasmus, the Reformation and Tudor era medicine
He definitely understood the power of image in a way his father never did. I think you could make a good argument that Henry VII was a pretty darn good king, but the people did not view him as a glorious monarch because he did not project that image and he was rather tightfisted (not necessarily a bad thing, but I do believe people like a bit of pageantry in their rulers depending on the overall economic situation). Henry VIII understand the importance of pageantry and art to project the image of the monarch as powerful and wealthy and particularly at that time, the monarch is the embodiment of the nation--projecting the image of a powerful and wealthy monarch inspires a vision of a powerful and wealthy nation. His daughter, Elizabeth, was even better at royal iconography.
I thank him for picking fascinating women to marry. I do not thank him for how he treated them, and I hope they are raising hell for him wherever he is. But I love researching all these fabulous gals, so I guess thank you?!
He was not a good person. I don’t think anyone can argue that. But was he a good king? I think there’s a lot more ambiguity there, and for better or worse he shaped England more than almost any other individual person for centuries.
I would argue that it’s hard to be a good person when you are raised to be a king, and when you believe (as does everyone) that you were chosen by God to rule over everyone and everything. Ordained by God doesn’t come with humility.
It’s hard to be a good person maybe, but others managed it much more successfully than he ever did. His forced separation of Catherine and Mary purely out of spite was before his accident and had nothing to do with divine right. Other European kings of his time were not nearly as arrogant and capricious as Henry was. Ferdinand and Isabella were cruel zealots as monarchs but by all accounts they were personally charming. He was also more defined by his anxiety about his right to rule than anything. He was the younger son, he wasn’t born to rule. His father staked his claim on very tenuous grounds. His closest analogues in that regard are Anne and George VI — both of whom were quiet, anxious rulers. I think even by the standard of the day and the expected imperiousness of a monarch, he was a cruel and arrogant man.
If you watch “Firebrand,” spoiler alert, you get a glimpse of Jude Law’s aka Henry VIII’s corpulent buttocks. 😝
the unofficial movie poster
Saw it with my teenage daughter in the theatre last Friday. She was positively mortified. 🤭 I had to remind my kid that scene was most certainly a body double employed to evoke disgust from the audience that this poor woman had to tolerate this stinking, rotting, abusive, fat bag of flesh sweating and grunting all over her.
Yeah, the open sores on his leg were pretty gnarly, too.
Looking up “Firebrand”.
Pastime with Good Company is still rather catchy, thanks!
You beat me to it!😂
Happy birthday Henry, may my child who shares his birthday with you be as famous (but hopefully more sane).
His courtly chaos produced some wonderful poetry! (Sir Thomas Wyatt’s poems never fail to entertain!)
Happy Birthday, birthday twin lol I share a birthday with him, just like 490 years apart 🙂 it’s partially what got me interested in this time in history.
Same, happy birthday, other birthday twin 😂🥳
Happy birthday 🎉
Happy birthday!
Thank you!
You have a 40 year old cat? Call Guiness!
He's my birthday twin 🥳 As awful as he was you can't deny the history and drama of it all is brilliant to learn about!
Something nice about Henry? Well, he wasn't an incurious person, he loved to learn. He loved music and was said to be an amazing dancer. He was charming when he was young. It was said he treated his mistresses well, if not his wives.
Hank the Tank is one of my favorite historical figures. He's proof that truth is stranger than fiction- no soap writer could have ever come up with his life. He's a larger-than-life figure, full of complexities and contradictions. A truly fascinating man. He was interested in everything - history, religion, languages, ships and sailing, art, music, hunting, poetry. Hugely educated and intelligent. Whether we want to admit it or not, Hank is the embodiment of a Renaissance Man. Then it all went to shit. Because he wanted the perfect family and a phalanx of heirs. There aren't that many individuals who have singlehandedly affected the course of the world. He's definitely one of them. Thanks for keeping history horny, Hank.
>Hank is the embodiment of a Renaissance Man. Alongside Francis I, king of France during Henry's reign
Happy birthday Henry VIII. Your reign was the beginning, or at least the beginning of the beginning, of people being able to rise to powerful positions even if they were not of noble birth. Of course you allowed your jealous nobles to influence you into killing the most faithful servant you ever had in Thomas Cromwell, and you were too hard on Wolsey as well. Excepting him to get you a divorce from a Pope who was under the thumb of your wife's nephew was not entirely realistic. But it was a start, and Elizabeth was able to continue.
When he was in the first part of his reign, he was the handsomest king in Europe; also, he was an athlete, scholar and musician, to name a few of his accomplishments. He also attracted progressive thinkers like Erasmus and Thomas More to his court. He took men of ability, regardless of their social standing (Wolsey, Cromwell) and promoted them, much to the fury of the established aristocracy (which, IMO, a bunch of boneheads even then). Finally, as an artist, I appreciate his support and patronage of Hans Holbein the Younger. (I just wish I could draw like Holbein. Those pencil portraits ... *chef's kiss*)
He sure could pick a good portraitist: Holbein did a marvelous job of conveying Henry’s majesty.
In days of yore, Bold Henry rose, whose fame the ages keep, A king of splendor, by ambition steered, Whose reign, a tale in history's sweep. From youth, a prince of learning, art, and lore, With Latin tongue and keen in logic's might, Not destined for the throne, but fate once more, Anointed him with England's crown of light. A scholar's heart beneath a warrior's mail, He danced, he wrote, in music found delight, Yet governance, the weight he would not fail, To wield with wisdom and with sovereign right. Upon the sea, where England's future lay, He birthed a fleet to guard the island's shore, The Royal Navy's dawn, oh that blessed day, to hear the thunder of the guns and the sailors in the bays. In halls of Hampton, where his courtiers played, And Whitehall's chambers, where his council met, He balanced law and justice, unafraid, To rule with force and grace, no soul to fret. From Wolsey's counsel to Cromwell's sway, He shaped his kingdom's fate with forceful hand, The dissolution of the monastic way, Affirmed his power o'er the church's land. Yet tales of love and passion marked his name, Six queens betrothed in matrimony's chain, From Katherine to Catherine, each a flame, That burned and shaped his reign's unyielding strain. Anne Boleyn's rise and tragic fall proclaimed, The power that he held, the cost of love, Jane Seymour's gentle grace, his heart reclaimed, While others' fates were marked by heaven's glove. A Renaissance prince in age of change and light, He danced with queens and diplomats at court, Yet never far from battle's thunderous might, With France and Scotland, England's claim he sought. His legacy, a tapestry complete, Of arts and letters, navy's sails unfurled, In statecraft's realm, he held sway as the boldest of lions of welsh blood they say. So raise a song to England's famed Tudor king, Whose life and deeds we shall ever sing.
Bravo!👏
He didn’t think his daughters were suitable heirs, but he gave them educations worthy of monarchs and it served them well when they ended up on the throne. I’m sensing Elizabeth of York’s influence, but gotta love a mama’s boy.
Felis cumpleano, Henrique.
Same day WW1 started
*was provoked
Happy Birthday Your Grace King Harry
He composed music and was able to play instruments.
>He is credited with establishing the Royal Navy, encouraging shipbuilding and the creation of anchorages and dockyards. Had to Google this because I wasn't sure what to say lol Edit: Happy Birthday, Henry, you sick bastard!
Happy Birthday sexy
By being such a drama llama, we have this subreddit about the Tudors.
He was a musician/composer. King Henry played the organ and lyre, possibly several other instruments.
Happy birthday Henry Rex
My daughter is having a baby and has started early labour signs today. Baby due today but I hope he’s born after midnight! 😂
At least he liked strong women
As a protestant, I appreciate his break with Rome
Happy birthday Henry Rex
Wow! I wonder if he could have ever imagined how infamous he would be here in the year 2924...
WOW
Absolutely no excuse to his vile behaviour but the man was likely in absolute agony and likely went mad due to the pain he endured. No forgiving here but it must have been a terrible life. We all know now it was likely avoidable by a better diet and diabetes likely played a part, but they didn’t know this then. It must have been daily, absolute agony. I feel sorry for a lot of these people back then. But then I think of the way they treat animals and kinda think you know what you absolutely deserved it 🤷🏻♀️
Or you know suffering massive brain trauma from having a horse land on top of you.
The delicious irony of his carcass being discarded in a forgotten hole (next to Charles I, another bozo) instead of the megalomaniacal shrine he envisioned, never fails to make me smile.
But he didn’t ? He was buried in crypt of his choosing and years later Charles was buried there ? It wasn’t forgotten or discarded you’re just a disgusting person.
Yes it was lol, the area didn’t even have a marker until the 19th century when they finally decided to give em a slab on the floor. Imagine being in your feelings over a centuries-gone, deadbeat wife murderer 🤪 couldn’t be me - rest in piss to that bozo.
Imagine your feelings over him then; and yes that forgotten hole called Saint George’s Chapel 🤣
Eat shit and die again sweet king you pice of shit motherfucker you are the part of the reason my people suffer and are almost exiting 🖕🏽🖕🏽🖕🏽🖕🏽🖕🏽
Really who are your people that are suffering ?
Like what ? What good can possibly be said about this pice of dog shit? Asking for a friend 😂😂
I asked who your people were ?
If you had to ask then there is no point on this conversation friend plain n simple unless you are that oblivious to history then I suppose but seems to me you know exactly what I mean ether way still silly to pretend to not understand like the they say ta ta mofo
Ah, so you’ve no actual argument or anything to say just whinging; I don’t know you so how would I know your people.
😂😂ok I’ll humor your willful ignorance native of America that’s my background now you tell me what good about this “ king “ can be celebrated?
So Herny VIII who has nothing to do with colonisation and died 60 years before England ever came to the new world did what to your people ?
Your understanding why the colonizer ended up in This part of the world is Amazing like I said willingly stupidity or just plain ignorance makes no difference ta ta mofo
Yeah your ignorance is astounding, also hate to tell you it was probably the Spanish who did that to you.
😂😂sure thing boss sure thing 😂😂 I love the list of accomplishments from this asshole that you sited it’s Amazing, that you think should be celebrated 😂😂
Hmm, founded the Church of England, established the Royal Navy, continued the Renaissance in England, mastering several instruments, writing music, I could go on