Was Henry Vlll's first wife anorexic? Catherine of Aragon's secret problem

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Did anorexia indirectly lead to England's break with Rome in 1534 and the creation of the Church of England?

The reason why King Henry VIII divorced his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, so he could marry Anne Boleyn was because Catherine failed to produce him a male heir. This divorce led to England breaking from Rome.

And could Catherine's failure to produce an heir for Henry and some of her other problems be down to 'disorderly eating?'

Anorexia wasn't diagnosed as an illness until the late 19th Century but, of course, it certainly existed way before then and went by many different names.

Catherine was originally married to Arthur, Henry's elder brother, and the original heir to the Throne of Henry VII. But she may never have had sex with Arthur during their short marrriage, and we would often leave embarrassed from the bedchamber. ‘I fear he will never be able to have relations with me,’ she said, according to one retainer.

Arthur then died when he was only 15 and she 16 and, in 1503, she became engaged to Henry.

She was treated cruelly by her father-in-law, King Henry VII, and then her mother, Queen Isabel of Spain, died in 1504. Catherine started eating erratically and would fast on religious grounds.

One of the first people to notice that Catherine may have an eating disorder and that it may be jeopardising her ability to have children was Pope Julius II, who wrote of his concerns to the Prince of Wales (although it's not known when exactly the Pope wrote the letter so it's addressed to either Arthur or Henry).

Was Henry Vlll's first wife anorexic? Catherine of Aragon's secret problem

By Giles Tremlett
6th November 2010
Daily Mail

Fertility problems throughout her marriage meant that Catherine of Aragon never fulfilled her most important obligation – to produce a male heir. Could this have been a result of her ‘disordered eating’? Historian Giles Tremlett investigates


Catherine in 1530, as Queen of England

The warning signs were there. The teenage girl due to become England’s queen consort was not eating properly. Behind her back, worried letters were sent from one side of Europe to the other. In a sharp echo of the words used to describe anorexia, bulimia and today’s food-orientated illnesses, Catherine of Aragon was given to ‘disorderly eating’ – or so one close observer would go on to write in the early days of her marriage to Henry VIII.

The 15-year-old Spanish princess had arrived in England in 1501, after a long , storm-tossed journey from the magnificent surroundings of her home at the Alhambra Palace in Granada. Catherine had always known her destiny was to marry the future king of England and bear a son to continue the Tudor dynasty. Her first years in England, however, were miserable: a time of loneliness, uncertainty and almost continuous illness. Her eating problems did not help. But could they have had a knock-on effect, making it difficult for her to produce the desired male heir and thereby pushing her husband into the arms of Anne Boleyn and changing the course of English history?

We think of eating disorders as a uniquely modern phenomenon. Blame is pinned on everything from skeletal catwalk models, fashion magazines and bikinis to exams and career stress. But self-starvation and binge eating have been with us for centuries – at least since the Romans began vomiting after meals, or it first occurred to someone that fasting was virtuous. It is quite possible that Princess Diana was not the first famous royal to suffer.

Anorexia wasn’t formally diagnosed as an illness until the end of the 19th century, but candidates for early anorexics are now thought to range from Joan of Arc to Mary Queen of Scots. ‘Did this exist before? Absolutely. It just wasn’t called anorexia nervosa,’ says Dr Julie Hepworth, a specialist in eating disorders. ‘The symptoms have been called different things at different times.’

It is impossible to make a medical diagnosis five centuries later, but Dr Hepworth agrees that Catherine’s situation as a powerless, unhappy young woman and the symptoms I describe her experiencing in my biography Catherine of Aragon: Henry’s Spanish Queen are reminiscent of the lives of modern sufferers. ‘There are striking features which are very similar,’ she says.


(Left) A copy of Holbein’s 1537 portrait of King Henry VIII; (right) Mary Tudor, the future Queen Mary I (Bloody Mary), daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, in 1544

Catherine’s troubles started soon after her arrival in England. She had not originally come with the intention of marrying Prince Henry, but had been engaged since the age of four to his elder brother Arthur, heir to Henry VII. A wedding ceremony at St Paul’s sealed the match between the two 15-year-olds, and a wedding bed awaited Catherine and Arthur in the neighbouring Bishop’s Palace. It was there they were meant to set about the business of producing a future heir to the English crown.

But her marriage to Arthur seems to have been as unhappy as it was short. Historians have argued endlessly about whether the two ever managed to have sex. Catherine insisted they did not, and her retainers told of an embarrassed Arthur shuffling out of her chambers, leaving a sad and dissatisfied Catherine behind. ‘I fear he will never be able to have relations with me,’ she said, according to one retainer. That must have been a blow to her self-esteem, especially as her main task was to provide heirs. Her sense of failure and worthlessness would have been acute.

After weeks of partying the young couple were sent to live inside the towering grey walls of Ludlow Castle, close to the Welsh border in Shropshire. But Arthur died within months, and Catherine found herself a widow at 16, ill and, presumably, anxious to leave what her mother called ‘that unhealthy place’.

Her kindly mother-in-law, Elizabeth of York, eventually sent a black-fringed carriage to take her back to London, but Henry VII and her parents, the mighty Spanish monarchs Isabel and Ferdinand, soon had fresh plans for her. In 1503 she was engaged to marry Arthur’s young brother Henry. Her new fiancé was, however, still an 11-year-old child. She must wait to marry him.

In the meantime her parents abandoned her to the care of the tight-fisted Henry VII, but repeatedly failed to send the final instalment of dowry money that would allow her to remarry. Seven glum years were spent in misery-provoking limbo. ‘I fear my life will be short, owing to my troubles,’ she told her father. Henry VII was sometimes cruel, hoping that might force her family to send the money.

Catherine was a pawn in European politics – trapped and powerless. She complained bitterly, especially about money: at one stage she was forced to sell her bracelets in order to buy herself a new dress.

Grief then added to Catherine’s woes. On 26 November 1504 Queen Isabel died. Catherine lost not just a mother, but her marriage-market status as daughter to the queen of Castile – a title that passed to her elder sister, Juana ‘the Mad’. If Catherine was already powerless, her mother’s death can only have made her feel increasingly worthless.

At some stage Catherine began eating erratically. Fasting on religious grounds offered her an opportunity to shun food. Today’s eating disorders are often associated with exaggerated perfectionism, and religion provided Catherine with examples of ways to pursue that.

Some of the more extreme practices could involve self-harm – ranging from self-flagellation to starvation. Famous medieval saints such as Catherine of Siena had even starved themselves to death.

‘She was constrained every day to vomit the food she had eaten,’ the saint’s confessor had reported.

Comparisons with today’s self-starving anorexics chasing a perfect body are apt. The saints replaced ‘the ideal of thinness with holiness’, says historian Rudolph Bell, author of a book on female saints whom he called ‘holy anorexics’.

Among those who spotted the danger to Catherine’s health was the Pope. Julius II, whose permission was required for many marriages between Europe’s royal families, was a key player in continental politics. So when he received news that Catherine was overdoing her fasting and jeopardising her ability to bear children, he wrote to the Prince of Wales.

The Pope’s letter is dated confusingly and it is not clear whether it was meant for Prince Arthur or Prince Henry, but Catherine was probably aged between 15 and 19 – the age at which today’s eating disorders appear. Julius leaves little doubt about the worry she caused. He had been told that the ‘fervour of her devotion’ was such that she excessively observed ‘holy oaths and prayers, fasting and abstinence’ without the Prince of Wales’s permission. Catherine ‘does not have the full power of her own body’, the Pope wrote.

‘And the devotions and fasting…if they are thought to stand in the way of her physical health and the procreation of children…can be revoked and annulled by men.’

He gave the prince ‘authority to restrain and compel’ her and prevent anything ‘that would stand in the way of the procreation of children’. Catherine, in other words, could be ordered to eat.


(Left) Prince Arthur, the original heir, Henry's older brother and Catherine’s first husband, in 1499, and (right) his father Henry VII, the first Tudor monarch, in 1505

Catherine was plagued by mysterious, long-lasting illnesses. Her own doctor believed she suffered one continuous bout of illness that lasted for six years after her arrival in England. The symptoms were varied and erratic. They included ‘derangement of the stomach’, hot sweats, cold sweats, fevers that came every other day, summer colds and summer coughs that baffled King Henry’s physicians.
She would complain, on the same day, of ‘suffering cold and heat’. It is difficult not to see her underlying illness as depression. Her doctor said as much. ‘The only pains of which she now suffers are moral afflictions beyond the knowledge and ability of her physician.’

The cures were various. Mostly they involved blood-letting and purgatives that would have provoked both vomiting and diarrhoea.

Catherine preferred blood-letting. The cures at least guaranteed her a little bit of attention, if only from her physician. Spaniards at court speculated that an early bout of illness was caused by the fact that ‘she was a virgin, and that if she married someone who had skills with women, she would get better’. What she needed, they meant, was a ‘real’ man in her bed. Her own physician proposed something more sensible – a little bit of love. Some ‘paternal solicitude’ from her uncaring father, he insisted, was ‘her only hope’.

Catherine’s troubles were brought to a sudden end by Henry VII’s death in 1509. The 17-year-old Henry VIII was proclaimed king, and one of his first decisions was to marry Catherine, now aged 23. The final dowry payment was made quickly, and the young couple were apparently happy, but overanxious to produce children. Catherine’s strange eating habits soon drew the attention of a worried Spanish ambassador.

‘Irregularity in her eating makes her unwell,’ he reported. ‘Which is why she does not menstruate well.’ Little surprise, he went on to say, that Catherine was having trouble conceiving.

A disturbed menstrual cycle is one of the first symptoms to appear in modern eating disorders, and problems getting pregnant can be another knock-on effect. In fact Catherine did conceive – at least half a dozen times – but her pregnancies mostly ended badly. Stillbirths, miscarriages and infant deaths were a painfully repetitive part of her existence. This was not abnormal for the times, but research also suggests that both miscarriages and underweight babies can be linked to eating disorders.

Only one of Catherine’s children survived into adulthood – Mary Tudor, the future queen who would go down in history as Bloody Mary for her persecution of England's Protestants.

Crucially, Catherine provided no male heir – and a daughter was not enough for Henry VIII. It was the desire for a son, as much as the spell cast by the bewitching Anne Boleyn, that drove Henry to leave Catherine. This only happened after 17 years of outwardly successful, amicable marriage (Catherine eventually lasted twice as long as Henry’s queen as the five wives who followed her put together).

A long and messy divorce battle, which Catherine fought tenaciously despite the obvious dangers to her life, ended only when Henry decided to split the English church from the Pope (who would not grant the divorce) and Rome. He could then appoint an archbishop of Canterbury who would do his will and grant a divorce, a decision that reverberated through English history for generations.

So was it an eating disorder that robbed Catherine of her ability to give Henry the male heir he craved? At this distance, and with the evidence available, it’s impossible to be sure. We can’t know if she had some other medical condition that might explain her symptoms, and we know little about her weight. Later portraits and descriptions certainly show her as plump enough.

But anorexics and bulimics, as their families know only too well, often spread their suffering beyond themselves.

dailymail.co.uk
 
Last edited:

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Book that helped Henry VIII annul his marriage and challenge the Pope discovered in Cornwall






When Henry VIII wanted to seek an annulment to his marriage to Catherine of Aragon he sent his agents out across the country to find the religious and philosophical texts that would help him build a case and set in train the events that would eventually lead to a break with Rome.

One of the books they found on their travels was a 1495 summary of works by philosopher and theologian William of Ockham who was a major figure in medieval intellectual and political thought. William argued against the spiritual and temporal supremacy of the pope, insisting on the independence of the authority of the monarch.

Brought to Henry’s libraries – probably between 1528 and 1533, the book, together with other writings, manuscripts and printed material was examined by secretarial staff for any significant information.

Now, centuries later the book – complete with annotations of Henry’s staff inserted at pertinent places – has been found in the library of the Cornish National Trust Property Lanhydrock.

Having been in the collection at Lanhydrock for many years, its direct connection to the Royal library was not known until Professor James Carley, an expert on the libraries of Henry VIII, was invited to examine some of the volumes in the 2,500-strong collection.


Describing his discovery as “thrilling” Professor James Carley said, “the book is important not only for its provenance but for the notes entered in it by Henry VIII’s advisors and no doubt intended for him to see.

“They draw attention to precisely the sort of issues that were so relevant to the King’s policies in the years leading up to the break with Rome.”

Secretarial staff to the King would insert wavy lines, signs and short marginal notes at pertinent places, and although nothing was found in Henry’s handwriting it does contain a number of the characteristic wavy lines accompanied by the # symbol commonly used by the annotators.

Two examples of pieces of text highlighted in the Lanhydrock book are translated as ‘When a synod is greater than the pope’. The second reads ‘When it is permitted to withdraw from obedience to the pope.’ An examination of the top right hand corner of the fly-leaf also revealed the inventory number 282, which corresponds to its place in an inventory of the Upper Library at Westminster Palace taken in 1542: ‘Epitome Occham.’

It is thought many books left the Royal Library in the second half of the fifteenth century and passed into private hands and at some point in the seventeenth century the book was acquired by Hannibal Gamon, whose signature is on the title page.

Gamon lectured in theology at Oxford before becoming Rector of St Mawgan in North Cornwall and was probably a chaplain to 1st Earl Robartes whose family owned Lanhydrock in Cornwall. Gamon collected many early scholarly books, which he bequeathed to the Robartes family.

The book will now form the centrepiece of a new exhibition at Lanhydrock exploring unusual works with Royal themes from the Library




http://www.culture24.org.uk/asset_arena/6/00/91/519006/v0_master.jpg










 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Something which I'm sure was not known in the 16th Century.

Also, are you sure that Henry produced no male heirs?

Not with catherine if briddish history books are to be believed. Of course this wouldn't be the first time they were wrong. In any event no one cares.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Not with catherine if briddish history books are to be believed.
.

That doesn't mean that Catherine never gave birth to, or was pregnant with, a boy.

Catherine of Aragon had several miscarriages, three infants who were either stillborn or died immediately after birth (two of them males), two infants who died within a few weeks of birth (one of them a boy) and one girl, Princess Mary, the future Queen Mary I. Catherine probably had nine unsuccessful pregnancies, so it is little wonder that Henry felt that their marriage was cursed. So it's not true that Catherine never was never pregnant with a boy.

Likewise, Henry's second wife, Anne Boleyn, bore Henry the future Queen Elizabeth I, although she was probably pregnant a few times after that. She supposedly had a miscarriage on 29th January 1536, the day of Catherine of Aragon's funeral (she was buried at Peterborough Abbey, now Peterborough Cathedral, in Cambridgeshire), and that child could have been a boy.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
Something which I'm sure was not known in the 16th Century.
not only would it not have been known in the 16th Century there are males in the 21st Century who would deny it's truth

Also, are you sure that Henry produced no male heirs?
there are few things that one can be sure of when it comes to a certain type of male and their known or unknown progeny ... the rate at which many royals chose to copulate with women makes it doubly uncertain
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
not only would it not have been known in the 16th Century there are males in the 21st Century who would deny it's truth

It's actually the female which determines if a baby will be a boy or a girl. Sorry to disappoint you, love.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
It's actually the female which determines if a baby will be a boy or a girl. Sorry to disappoint you, love.

Not true. The male parent does. Sex is determined by two chromosomes, X and Y. A female is XX, a male is XY. Since women completely lack the Y choromosome, they always contribute an X chromosome to the baby. The sex is determined by whether the sperm that fertilizes the egg is carrying another X or a Y.
posted 11/27/2007 by a BabyCenter Member
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
It's actually the female which determines if a baby will be a boy or a girl. Sorry to disappoint you, love.
not in the least disappointed hon, not even surprised, but did you skip biology class frequently?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Wrong... Again

The ovum from the female provides an X component... The male provides an X or Y contribution that determines male (XY) or female (XX).

The male determines the boy/girl sperm ratio, but it's the female body that determines the winner.

If a 'boy' sperm fertilises the egg, its a boy, and visa versa.

"While it is true that the males' sperm contains the chromosomes responsible for your babys' gender. It is, we believe the condition of the womans' cervical mucus, reproductive tract and follicular fluid that determines which of the two types of sperm will successfully reach and fertilise the egg at the time of conception."


Pregnancy,Pregnant,Twins,Gender,Ovulation,boy girl,girl boy,girl or boy,boy

not in the least disappointed hon, not even surprised, but did you skip biology class frequently?


No. But you obviously did, dear.

Bloody feminists thinking they know it all.

Somebody once said that if women ruled the world, we'd still be living in grass huts.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
The male determines the boy/girl sperm ratio, but it's the female body that determines the winner.

If a 'boy' sperm fertilises the egg, its a boy, and visa versa.

"While it is true that the males' sperm contains the chromosomes responsible for your babys' gender. It is, we believe the condition of the womans' cervical mucus, reproductive tract and follicular fluid that determines which of the two types of sperm will successfully reach and fertilise the egg at the time of conception."


Pregnancy,Pregnant,Twins,Gender,Ovulation,boy girl,girl boy,girl or boy,boy




No. But you obviously did, dear.

Bloody feminists thinking they know it all.

Somebody once said that if women ruled the world, we'd still be living in grass huts.
sorry dear, Smart Stork just doesn't do it for me. But it is good to know from whence you draw your conclusions.