Anne Boleyn, Hever Castle
Catrina Whitley recently shared with me an article that she and her colleague Kyra Kramer recently wrote about the reasons behind Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn’s many miscarriages and stillbirths. Interestingly, they affirm that it was not Henry’s queens who ‘failed’ to provide the king with an heir, as history so often remembers them, and neither was it the women who were in some way physiologically responsible for the many miscarriages and stillbirths. Instead, the problem lay in Henry VIII himself.
The authors argue that the same theory that explains Henry VIII’s reproductive problems also helps explain why Henry VIII became a paranoid tyrant in his later years.
Catherine of Aragon by Michael Sittow c. 1502
This new theory that the authors propose is that Henry VIII was positive for the Kell blood group and also suffered from McLeod syndrome. In the abstract they state,
“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 authors acknowledge the speculation that Anne Boleyn may have been Rhesus (RH) Negative causing her reproductive problems but this hypothesis does not explain Catherine’s alarmingly high rate of miscarriage and neonatal deaths (Pg. 832).
Henry VIII by Hans Holbein the Younger
The article goes into great detail about what it means to be Kell positive and how this affects reproduction. Both Catherine and Anne’s reproductive patterns are examined and an explanation offered as to why Henry and Catherine’s firstborn did not survive yet Mary, their fifth, did.
Furthermore, the authors support their theory by tracing the reproductive history of Henry’s maternal male relatives that also displayed the Kell positive reproductive pattern.
We also get an in depth discussion of McLeod syndrome and how this disease, that only manifests in Kell positive patients, could explain Henry’s transformation from gentle prince to terrible tyrant.
“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.” (Whitley & Kramer, Pg. 848)
The article was originally published late last year in The Historical Journal but unfortunately due to Cambridge Journals copyright I cannot publish the article on my site. The author has though advised me that a copy of the article will soon be made available on her website. She will contact me once the website is live and I will promptly post a link to the article. We can then engage in further discussion of this very interesting topic.
Here is a link to the Historical Journal abstract for the article and a good starting point for searching for other articles about the Tudors.
References
CATRINA BANKS WHITLEY and KYRA KRAMER (2010). A NEW EXPLANATION FOR THE REPRODUCTIVE WOES AND MIDLIFE DECLINE OF HENRY VIII. The Historical Journal, 53, pp 827-848 doi:10.1017/S0018246X10000452
I always thought it was pretty absurd to blame only the women for reproductive failures in the past (since we know now that a lot of times it’s the male’s fault), but it never occured to me that perhaps Henry suffered from something making it difficult.
This is an interesting theory, one that has me convinced as it sounds pretty plausible.
Hi Kelly, it is definitely plausible. The arguments and evidence are really convincing and do explain all of Henry’s ‘issues’. Once the author has published the article I’ll be sure to let you know.
Oh, thanks so much!!!
That’s a new and interesting take on the Henry question! Henry did manage sons of course – Edward and also his illegitimate offspring (Henry Fitzroy). The Rhesus negative theory is interesting, but this one adds more possibilities to the mix. Also interesting that the personality of the Kell-positive male can be influenced by this syndrome. Thank you for bringing this to us.
You’re welcome Robert. Yes, Henry did manage sons but remember that both Edward and Henry Fitzroy were Jane and Bessie’s first and only pregnancies by the king and so are still in keeping with the reproductive pattern of a Kell positive male and a Kell negative woman. The problems generally arise with the subsequent pregnancies although this is not always the case. Sometimes the first pregnancy can be adversely affected as evident in Catherine of Aragon’s very sad pregnancy history. I find it all quite fascinating!
This may be a bit of a silly question, but is it a fact that Henry was positive for the Kell blood group and that he suffered from McLeod syndrome or are the people who have written the article saying this is just a theory and what they think?
No question is silly Clare. The authors of the article are proposing this theory and arguing for their case but of course nothing is definite as there is no real way of proving or disproving their claim. I think it is very plausible though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kell_antigen_system
I found this link to a Wikipedia article on Kell syndrome. It also has some info on McLeod’s, too. Basically, it causes an autoimmune reaction causing the body to see a fetus as an intruder. 🙁
Thanks Fran! I keep thinking what a sad thing it is that if true Catherine of Aragon could have prayed on the hard and cold stone floor 24hours a day and it would not have changed the fact that all but one of her pregnancies were destined to end tragically. And Anne only had one chance to have her son and saviour. Truly sad.
This is an interesting theory–I didn’t know anything about either Kell or McCleod but will certainly do more research. Thanks!
I suspected that this could be the problem when I was pregnant with my first child. I’m RH negative and had to receive shots to ensure that my body wouldn’t attack my son. It’s a good thing that I was born in the present day and wouldn’t have had to endure the tragedy and blame of miscarrying my children.
Hi!
I just finished reading the article after coming across your blog by chance and I absolutely loved it! Its a very intriguing argument, and is also very persuasive. Even if Henry wasn’t kell positive, the article shines an interesting light on the latter half of his reign and his marital affairs!
– Now I can’t wait to explore the rest of your site!!
Thank you Fiona! I agree with you and think that even if the theory is not correct it has inspired fresh discussion about the topic which is fabulous. But, like you say, the arguments are convincing. Enjoy the site!
Fascinating…a week ago I saw the doc. “Inside The Body of Henry VIII”. This
new information must be very exciting for the historians and doctors who made it, I hope they make an addendum…thanks for this post!
You are welcome Rosina! It’s all very exciting isn’t it!
With a science background and strong interest in the Plantagenets and Tudors, I have long suspected that perhaps Rh factor may have been involved in the failure of Henry’s wives/mistresses to produce more than one live child. I read somewhere that most of the population of Europe is Rh – and a small percentage is Rh+. I thought maybe Henry was Rh + and the women Rh-. I am thrilled that someone else is pursuing the real cause of this situation which, of course, altered the history of Europe. I am very interested in the Kell blood group/McLeod syndrome proposal and look forward to reading the article when available.
This is all very interesting, however it deserves only a small footnote in Tudor history. To brand Henry as a terrible tyrant display a lack of knowledge and understanding of English history, Henry VIII and his reign. Henry suffered from gout and ulcers on his leg which never healed properly after a fall from his horse while jousting in 1536. The pain he endured led to depression, over eating since it was one of the few enjoyments left and lashing out at his subjects, advisors and foreign ambassadors. Henry at 55 outlived his French rival Francis I by three years.
I find the many unproven theories about Henry Viii and his personality changes, including this one fascinating, but none are proven and none can be proven. Even if you dig him up and ran ancient DNA and bone analysis for disease, it will limit you to diseases, not his brain. You cannot tell everything from analysis and nothing neurological. A rare blood disease, maybe, experts please. I agree, however, that the one thing we know for certain about Henry definitely affected him. In 1536, he fell from a 30 miles an hour horse in full armour, may or may not have been knocked out for two hours, depending on the sources which disagreed, but in any event, the impact alone would bash his brain around and cause temporal lobe damage. The fall would have caused more damage. He already had ulcers on his leg and it was opened up and loose bone got in, making it worse. It never healed and was painful. Henry’s walking was affected and he grew fat over the years and more bad tempered. Lobe damage has two affects. One you can change personality completely or two, you can bring out hidden or controlled traits in a negative way. Henry comfort ate, his sexual prowess was affected and he suffered from paranoid delusion and clinical depression. He was in constant pain. His personality definitely changed.
It is not correct from a legal point of view to call Henry Viii a tyrant and no, his own people didn’t call him one. Henry used Parliament and the law for everything he did, which is more than his royal contemporaries did. His laws could be said to be tyrannical and his actions certainly appear so, but we have no idea of how people thought in the sixteenth century and condemning people after 500 years of history is not realistic. Trying to find a medical exploration for tyranny after this long is also guesswork. I admire Kramer for her work and research, but I am sorry, it is not something you can claim as conclusive. When did she test Henry’s blood? What testing did she use or is she only going on certain traits? What test is even possible after 500 plus years on a corpse? He is not Richard iii, we can’t test the soil and find he had worms. They took DNA from teeth, so is there a test you can use from DNA? I am sorry to be an old fashioned sceptic but I can’t accept anything which is not proven. This is an interesting piece of research and theory, but it is only a theory, one among many.
Yes, it most certainly is not fair to blame the woman for failure and not everyone did. To be fair, early in his marriage to Katherine of Aragon Henry didn’t blame her. In 1519, Bessie Blount gave him a son and Henry reasoned he wasn’t to blame. He still didn’t blame Katherine directly but God as their marriage was not blessed. Henry was convinced he and she had sinned by marrying when they were brother and sister by law. Katherine said as she was crowned, still a virgin and the Pope gave them permission that their marriage was lawful. Henry was uncertain. He looked into ending his marriage in 1525 and 1526 when he knew Katherine could no longer have children. He was sincere in his belief that only a son could rule and he was sincere in his need for a new wife. When he began his relationship with Anne Boleyn about 1526/7 it was only then that she became another reason for his divorce as she would only consent to marriage and she promised him a son.
Henry was more vocal in his blaming of Anne during her two failed attempts to give him a son and he never blamed himself, but this was normal behaviour for the time. As people didn’t know how to see the sex of a child and strange beliefs existed that the woman also had sperm and it was her sperm which gave the child life and it’s sex, what else was Henry or anyone else meant to do? Just because we have technology it doesn’t mean we are superior to people living in the sixteenth century and our world is actually in a worse state than theirs with mass genocide and weapons which can wipe out the planet if we chose to use them. We are very superior, I don’t think. We have less of a moral compass for a start off and less social responsibility. We may have better medical knowledge and technology, but as a society are we superior? I am sorry but I don’t believe we can seriously judge anyone by our own warped moral standards.
When we condemn Henry Viii for what we judge as cruelty and which yes it was, why don’t we also condemn Charles V who slaughtered over 25,000 peasants on the invitation of Martin Luther in 1525 who was concerned that these Protestants as they called themselves were about to cause trouble with their protests? Why don’t we condemn Francis I and his successor for their religious wars and far reaching persecution? Elizabeth I was of course the perfect monarch who did nothing cruel in her life while her far less cruel sister is called Bloody Mary, because a Protestant King won the argument a century and a half later. Edward vi was no angel either, for all his tender years. From the age of 13 he was active in the reforms which were widely rejected by most of the country and in sending the army to kill many thousands of people in the Western counties. If Henry was a tyrant, then all of his children had the makings of one as well and his contemporaries certainly were. There is no doubt that the last decade of his reign saw widespread persecution and terrible cruelty which we can only condemn, but we also have to look at why there was this change. In the first two decades three or four political executions took place and no doubt a number of lesser rioting and law breaking criminals as per usual. Henry made a number of harsher laws, which were actually beneficial to those who had suffered at the hands of continuous theft and deception. He was also renowned more for clemency. Then from 1534 everything changed. Why? Firstly, his divorce and break from Rome created opposition. People said no and criticised his marriage to Anne Boleyn. Thomas Cromwell and Henry made it treason to do so with new laws. Opposition to those laws was punished by death. Then there was the so called Pilgrimage of Grace and other northern rebellions which threatened the peace and security of the reign. Henry dealt with it severely but not as badly as he had threatened. 226 people out of 5O,000 rebels were executed. These were not peaceful rebellions either and Robert Aske was a rough ex soldier and lawyer, not a mild mannered family man. His mob used death threats to get people to join them. The lower classes may have liked him, the clergy and gentlemen did not. He forced several of them to join at the point of a blade. Henry dealt with this after his fall, while in pain and while his third wife was carrying his son. It was the most dangerous threat to his life and throne. He dealt with it the same way as any other monarch. Elizabeth did the same in 1570 and 1572, executing over 700 people. Both Mary and Elizabeth persecuted people who didn’t share their religious changes as did everyone else. The one thing that is unique to Henry is his execution of two wives. His treatment of Anne Boleyn was savage and there is no reasonable explanation, but this to followed his fall and could well be the start of his paranoid delusions. His treatment of Katherine Howard is more complex because he had worshiped her and he seems to have believed she was guilty, even though the jury is out on proof of adultery. Henry is wrongly condemned because she was young. Katherine was between 16 and 20 when she was executed and didn’t have a trial, but the law said she was an adult at 14. and tht did not change until the 1860s. We can only feel compassion for Katherine, but we can’t necessarily condemn Henry by our standards as they don’t apply. I know I will get replies disagreeing but please remember you are seeing things from a modern view point and as a historian I have to place myself in a sixteenth century mindset which without thirty years of experience and research is still very hard to do.
Natalie, you might just have been Anne Boleyn