I read anything I can get my hands on in respect to Henry and his lovely family.
The thing I have always wondered about was Henry’s inability to beget a male heir that lived beyond 16 years of age. There was Edward, of course, but he died before reaching his 16th birthday. Henry Fitzroy (illegitimate) died at 17. His daughters, however, seem to be immune to whatever was causing the failure to thrive in his sons. Mary died at 42 and Elizabeth at 70.
Additionally, Henry’s brother Arthur died at 16, and from what I can recall, both his parents and grandparents had male children die at early ages.
Can anyone shed some light into this dark corner? I realize it is a matter of genetics (I guess) but what would cause one sex to live and the other to die? You could gloss over everything and say “inbreeding”, but Henry tried with 5 different wives (he wouldn’t touch Anne of Cleves) and had many, many affairs.
I think it was just a roll of the dice. Mere coincidence. After all, Henry himself only had two daughters and two sisters who lived to adulthood, and he and Catherine of Aragorn did have a stillborn daughter. And you certainly can’t count his maternal uncles, “the princes in the Tower,” even though they did die young. They were most likely murdered.
It’s not a statistically unsound family tree. I think it’s just a sad commentary on the high infant and child mortality rate, not to mention the lack of effective fertility treatment.
Probably coincidence and bad luck for the most part. Edward VI may not be - There is some suspiscion he had congenital syphilis as well as tuberculosis. But then so, probably, did Mary I and she lived to the age of 42. On the other hand Arthur Tudor is generally listed as dieing of a fever.
Elizabeth seemed to have lucked out in her longevity.
Here’s a http://tudors.crispen.org/tudor_tree/]family tree. Each of Henry’s sisters who lived to adulthood had a son. It was just fate that their sons lived; Henry’s sons died.
Wanna hear something disgusting? There was talk of marrying him to his half-sister Mary to clinch the deal! You thought the British royal family was already inbred, huh?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sugaree *
**Here’s a http://tudors.crispen.org/tudor_tree/]family tree. Each of Henry’s sisters who lived to adulthood had a son. It was just fate that their sons lived; Henry’s sons died.
One speculation that may have explained a few things was the possibility that Anne Boleyn was Rh negative. Elizabeth was born healthy, but there were one or two stillborn births.
There’s also some misconception about Edward VI. He was in general good health for most of his life, but grew ill once he became king.
However, the ultimate answer was probably just coincidence.
Most people are speculating on why his children died young. But Lyllyan is asking why only Tudor sons died young. This is a misconception to some degree, as the family tree shows. But the final answer to why more Tudor girls survived to adulthood is that it was just a coincidence.
Katherine also had quite a few miscarriages and stillbirths.
Bippy, that has always been my understanding of the term, so, yes.
It looks like the general concensus is coincidence. I am not really happy with that, but unless someone builds a time machine and I wake up one morning with a medical degree, I guess I will never know for sure.
Thanks to all who responded.
“Fitz-” may have been applied to illegimate sons of royalty and nobility, but it originally came via the Norman fitz, in turn from Norman-French fils meaning just “son of”.