On the 29th January 1536, according to the Imperial ambassador, Eustace Chapuys, Anne Boleyn miscarried a male child of around three and a half months in gestation. Anne’s miscarriage was a huge blow for both Anne and her husband, Henry VIII, particularly as it was a boy, but it is not clear how much impact this miscarriage had on the couple’s relationship and whether it was the beginning of the end for Anne Boleyn. Historian J.E. Neale writes that Anne had “miscarried of her saviour” and Retha Warnicke writes that “her fall was almost certainly triggered by the nature of the miscarriage she was to suffer in late January, for there is no evidence that she had been in any personal or political danger.” However, Eric Ives disagrees:-
“The miscarriage of 29 January was neither Anne’s last chance nor the point at which Jane Seymour replaced Anne in Henry’s priorities. It did, nevertheless, make her vulnerable again.”
Vulnerable, but not the beginning of the end.
To get some idea of whether this miscarriage did have anything to do with Anne Boleyn’s fall just over three months later, we need to look at Anne’s obstetric history, after all, if Anne had had a series of miscarriages then Henry may well have been at his wit’s end in January 1536 and could have thought that his second marriage was cursed just like his first. The trouble is, we don’t have any medical records for Anne Boleyn and historians all seem to have different ideas regarding the number of miscarriages Anne suffered. Historian G. R. Elton writes of a “dreary tale of miscarriages”, Mary Louise Bruce writes that “during the first six months of 1534 she appears to have had one miscarriage after another” and Hester Chapman writes of three miscarriages in 1534, whereas F. Chamberlin writes of just two miscarriages, one in 1534 and another in 1535. So, what’s the truth of the matter? Let’s look at what the primary sources say.
- 1533 – On the 7th September 1533, Anne Boleyn gave birth to a little girl, the future Elizabeth I of England. Anne had become pregnant shortly after she and Henry had started co-habiting on their return from France in November 1532.
- 1534 – A dispatch from Chapuys to Charles V, dated 28th January, mentions Anne being pregnant and this is backed up by a letter from George Taylor to Lady Lisle, dated 7th April, in which Taylor writes “The Queen hath a goodly belly, praying our Lord to send us a prince.” Also, in July of that year, George, Lord Rochford, was sent to France to ask for a postponement of a meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I due to Anne “being so far gone with child she could not cross the sea with the King.” There is yet another mention of Anne’s pregnancy in a letter from Chapuys dated the 27th July. Also, Eric Ives writes of how there is evidence that Henry VIII ordered a silver cradle, decorated with precious stones and Tudor roses, from Cornelius Hayes, his goldsmith, in April 1534 and he would not have spent money on such a cradle if he was not sure that Anne was pregnant.
But what happened to this pregnancy? We just do not know. We have no reports of a stillbirth or miscarriage so perhaps it was a false pregnancy caused by stress and longing. Chapuys suggests that it may have been a false pregnancy in a letter dated 27th September 1534: “Since the King began to doubt whether his lady was enceinte or not, he has renewed and increased the love he formerly had for a beautiful damsel of the court.” However, Ives does not believe in the false pregnancy theory as he points out that Anne was not under any undue pressure at this time, having just given the King a baby girl and having every hope that she would conceive easily again. He believes that she miscarried as there is no record of Anne having taken to her chamber, so that rules out a stillbirth. - 1535 – In a letter dated 24th June 1535, Sir William Kingston writes to Lord Lisle saying ” Her Grace has as fair a belly as I have ever seen” but we have no corroborating evidence and Sir John Dewhurst, who examines the obstetric histories of Anne Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon in his article “The Alleged Miscarriages of Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn”, wonders if the date of this letter should actually be 1533 or 1534 as it also refers to a man who died in October 1534. This could simply be more corroborating evidence for the 1534 pregnancy.
- 1536 – As I said earlier, we have evidence from a letter dated 10th February 1536, from Chapuys to Charles V, that Anne Boleyn miscarried on the day of Catherine of Aragon’s funeral, the 29th January 1536.
So, we only have real corroborated evidence for three pregnancies: one resulting in a healthy baby girl and two resulting in miscarriages. The 1534 one may even have been a false pregnancy, rather than a miscarriage. Whatever the truth, it’s not exactly a “dreary tale of miscarriages” is it and surely not something that Henry would be unduly worried about? Anne had shown that she could conceive – three pregnancies in three years shows that – so there was every hope for another successful pregnancy and the birth of a son and heir. Henry could be forgiven for worrying about the future and wondering if history would repeat itself, but I cannot see that Anne Boleyn’s January 1536 miscarriage was the last straw.
Sources- Anne Boleyn, Marie Louise Bruce
- The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, Eric Ives
- England Under the Tudors, G. R. Elton
- Anne Boleyn, Hester W. Chapman
- The Private Character of Henry VIII, F. Chamberlin
- The Alleged Miscarriages of Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, article by Sir John Dewhurst, Medical History, 1984, 28: 49-56
- Queen Elizabeth, Sir John E. Neale
- Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII – vii. 114, vii. 958, vii. 1013, vii. 1193, viii. 919, x. 282.
thanks for pposting this info, it really helped me on my history study of annes influence in henry’sreign
I don’t understand why Henry wasn’t nicer to, and during her pregnancies the way he was nice to Jane Seymour during her pregnancy when you have wanted to be extra, careful not to upset and knowing that she’s caring his child, instead of just rubbing crap in her face and fighting with her about Jane Seymour, all during her pregnancy?? And
After watching Wolf Hall, I am reminded of the trials and pressures on the young Anne B. to produce a male heir. Unfortunately, we now know quite certainly that Henry VIII very likely had Kell’s syndrome – which would have and indeed did have an effect on his producing a boy from Anne (and most likely Katherine of Aragon).
But Henry VIII did produce sons – one was illegitimate and one he had with Jayne Seymour. Jane’s son Edward died young and Katherine’s daughter Mary ruled prior to Elizabeth I. Anne was 32 when she had Elizabeth. Perhaps her miscarriages were due to nothing more than age.
If you read the details re: Kell’s Syndrome you can see why there is very strong evidence that Henry VIII had it. Both of these son’s were born from a first pregnancy. The reproductive partner’s in both of these cases never had the chance to conceive with Henry VIII again. If they had, all subsequent males conceived would have been micarried or still born.
In no way is 32 advanced age in pregnancy, and it’s disputed whether she was the age or younger as well. Considering both Catherine and Anne had several losses and we now know the various male roles in miscarriage, it is extremely likely Henry was the root cause in these losses.
Thank you! This has helped me greatly with my History assignment! the question was “To What Extent was Anne Boleyn’s final miscarriage the main reason as to why she was executed?”
This is my first post on this forum, hopefully the first of many as these are interesting topics. Henry VIII actually had two more sons, with Katherine of Aragon. Before giving birth to Mary in 1516 there had been two sons born, Henry Duke of Cornwall in 1511, who died after 52 days, and another Henry Duke of Cornwall in 1513 who died soon after birth. How different our history would have been had either of these sons survived.
wow yes…i wonder what our history would have been like had they both survived…would henry Viii been as remembered in history as he is now? i think not…
I would just point out to a King, the birth of a girl followed by two miscarriages may have been a bigger deal than to us. As pampered and spoiled as he likely was (by mortal standards) “try, try again” may not have been in Henry’s vocabulary. Henry was of course very accustomed to getting what he wanted, when he wanted it. He might have been ill-equipped to give conveiving a prince “one more college try!” with his Queen Anne. His impulse might have been to — once again — replace the wife with a woman he saw as more capable of “getting the job done.” And he was impulsive. Especially in the period following his marriage to Anne.
I don’t think it’s likely that Anne suffered a false pregnancy (and thank you, thank you, thank you for not confusing false pregnancy with that fake diagnosis, “phantom pregnancy”, that the Freudians invented to make women sound crazy and inferior to men, then slapped onto Mary I to further blacken her name). I suspect her pregnancies after Elizabeth were real, only tragic.
False pregnancy as described in this time period is usually one of three things: miscarriage or stillbirth followed by minor infection causing lingering uterine swelling; an abnormal real pregnancy, such as a complete or partial molar pregnancy, which can in some cases be resorbed by the body; or ascites from cancer or hepatitis. (Mary’s blighted pregnancy was likely one of the last two. Even the Freudians couldn’t explain how their fake invented diagnosis could have led to her death, so they generally just obfuscated the matter.)
Thank you for this. False pregnancy is exceedingly rare — her having a later miscarriage is much more likely and kept more under wraps for fear of reprisal from others (or even that she was pregnant, but due to proximity to Elizabeth’s birth, appeared further along than she was).
It was a shame that Henry did not marry Mary in the end as he already had two healthy
children by her a girl and a son whom she called Henry. Maybe things might have ended
differently, as Mary had a more softer approach than Anne.
There is no valid evidence that Henry VIII was the father of any of Mary Boleyn’s children. I could go into details as to how the so-called evidence that he was their father is invalid, but that would take up a lot of space, and anyone can find it by just Googling anyway. Suffice it to say it’s very unlikely that Henry VIII “had two healthy children by her”.
I have always wondered what would have happened if Katherine of Aragon would have given in. I find her insistence on staying married to Henry not so much born of love but out of a feeling of entitlement. It is silly to believe she did not understand the panic Henry was feeling as she became to old to conceive. Regardless of the reasons for her tragic loss of so many pregnancies and live born children, it does seem that she held on to being the queen for less than noble reasons. It seems Henry did hold her in high regard and would have made sure she was well taken care of. Imagine how things might have been. Mary Tudor would have no doubt had a happier life, Anne would have probably been divorced instead of executed and eventually the Protestant religion would have taken root, but with much less bloodshed. Anne’s miscarriage, or miscarriages would not have seemed so devastating if the Tudor court was less fractured, team Anne or team Katherine so to speak.
That is a stretch–laming Henry’s impulsiveness and bloodthirst on his wife. Henry fabricated the lies that led to Anne’s losing her head. Less that noble reasons on Catherine’s part? So you support , 500 years later, a man’s treatment of a woman as solely a breeder? And a miscarriage is devastating, no matter how “fractured” the Tudor court was. I can’t believe this comment comes from a woman.
All you need to know about Catharine’s motivations begins and ends with her fervid devotion to the Catholic church. God willed that she should be Henry’s wife and Queen — with or without living heirs — and she was going to die still clinging to the belief that she was his wife and queen , despite all he’d done to try and dismiss her. Unyielding. Rabid. Devoted. Stubborn. She wasn’t going to give in and this was largely due to her unswerving devotion to the Catholic church.
I e often wondered if Henry ever did produce a son? From his mistress? Could have been his or may not have been. I wonder if Jane Seymour and more likely her family would take the risk of her following in the footsteps of her two predecessors. They had all seen Catherine’s land then Anne’s very similar problems. Is it possible Jane took matters into her own hands and ensured a pregnancy. Artificial insemination? A I personally think it likely Henry suffered from syphillis. Anne’s own Sister had been his mistress and had been mistress to the king of France prior to they and it seems many others. As the French king was known to carry the disease surely she would be infected and thereafter Henry, although he was probably infected long before that this rendering Catherine unable to bear healthy children, a characteristic of stphillis is still born children or children that do not live long after birth. As for there being no medical record of Henry receiving mercy treatment he may well have ordered his physicians to omit this from the record as it was a well known cure for the disease. I still believe this is the explanation.
The likelihood of Henry suffering from syphilis is so minimal it could be discarded. In the 1500s syphilis was known affliction and there is absolutely no evidence that Henry displayed any of the symptoms. None of his children that survive to adulthood displayed any signs of syphilis either.
mercury treatment. I was pretty confused trying to figure out what mercy treatment was. just to clarify. Nuff said.
it may have been said before, but i’ll risk saying it again……whether it’s likely or not, isn’t it possible that some of Anne’s many haters could have induced an abortion by lacing her food with pennyroyal or some similar drug / herb ? It just seems odd to me that (in my pretty voluminous reading ) i’ve never seen this theory come up. They say that there’s nothing new under the sun and, so, it certainly IS possible. Granted, someone would have to hate her a whole LOT. Said Hater would be gambling with their own life, also. But it would oust Anne from power, get her rival in the “cat-bird” seat and t put an end to Boleyn rule generally. I can imagine it, though It is just a thought.
Just something I’ve noticed: it says above that Anne miscarried on the day of Katherine of Aragon’s funeral. Might that have been the moment when Henry finally turned against Anne? He was deeply religious and could possibly have interpreted a miscarriage on this specific day as a sign of God’s disapproval of his repudiation of Queen Katherine and new marriage. Maybe Henry had been having his doubts for some time about what he had done in order to marry Anne, and to have them seemingly confirmed by the new queen miscarrying on the exact day that the old (real?) queen was being laid to rest was some kind of turning point for him.
Given the source I sincerely doubt it. The man admitted to spreading any terrible rumor about Boleyn that he heard. The timing is just too suspect and there’s no good evidence to suggests the pregnancy had ever happened.
I’m intrigued by the pennyroyal/termination theory.
Professor Sir John Dewhurst: scientist, historian. Unravelling the obstetric history of Katharine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn
Karl SJ Oláh
First published: 11 December 2019
https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16017
I have suspected King Henry, Mary, and Anne suffered from the RH negative blood factor. There was nothing known about it during their lifetime but it was a great cause of miscarriages for thousands of years.
The issue with believing that the RH negative blood factor was the cause of all of this is that the RH negative blood factor is a problem only when the mother is RH negative and the father is RH positive. That would mean that both Catherine of Aragon AND Anne Boleyn would have had to be RH negative. Only 15% of people are RH negative, so while it’s possible that they both were negative, it’s not likely.
I believe Annes miscarriage in January 1536 was because she heard that Henry was having an affair with Jane.
As Jane gave birth on the 12th October of that year she would have been pregnant (about 1 or 2 weeks) when Anne miscarried. I beleive this because my son was due on the 6th October and he was conceived on the 13th January, that means Jane would have conceived about the same time and as most (not all) women tend to go over their due date about 1 or 2 week with their first baby.
Thanks for your thoughts, Ned, but Jane actually didn’t give birth until 12 October 1537, not 1536. However, it’s likely that Anne did know that Henry was paying “special” attention to her by January 1536, which must have been very upsetting for her.
I often wondered if Anne did have sex with these other men in an attempt to have a healthy son. It was said that Henry wouldn’t sleep with Anne at this time.
But if Henry weren’t sleeping with Anne at that time, then wouldn’t he know, if she turned up pregnant, that he could not be the father? So would he have just happily accepted another man’s son as his heir? I doubt it. I also don’t believe that Catherine Howard was trying to get pregnant when she was fooling around with Thomas Culpepper, because ditto. If Henry were impotent, then wouldn’t he know that somebody else had to have impregnated her? And if he weren’t impotent, well, she may have still fooled around, but not because she wanted to get pregnant by someone other than Henry.
I think we are forgetting the time all this happened as for history. People were so very much more tuned in to God and Right & Wrong as it was in their time.I believe Henry truly believed that because of what he did to the Church and lying to get his marriage annulled just for the selfish reason that he was lusting for Anne was the true reason he would not ever produce a healthy male heir.His own guilt drove him to murder.
My father told me when I was young that we are descended, on my father’s side, from an illegitimate child of Anne Boleyn. Is there any knowledge of any illegitimate children of hers?
There’s no evidence of any illegitimate children.
My Great Grandfather was Robert Bullen and he always told us he was related to Anne.
How can I find out the history of this story