Henry VIII's Health in a Nutshell (6 page)

Henry’s unchecked impulses and temper meant that England was fighting a war on two fronts. Since the king has squandered his wealth on foolishness for too long, both campaigns were strained from a lack of resources. Nonetheless, poor planning and poor leadership would have turned Henry’s war in France into a disaster even if he had been flush with funds
⁷⁷
. Henry’s one success came on 14 September 1544, when his forces captured Boulogne, a city in northern France. Boulogne was less than 100 miles from London and could have potentially been used as a stronghold for future English invasions, but further penetration into French soil had become impossible because Henry had run out of the money needed to wage war
⁷⁸
. The king couldn’t afford to fund his own armies or hire more mercenaries to fight for him. Europe was aware that the English Lion was becoming toothless, and the idea of military retaliation from England was more sneered at than otherwise. When Henry became furious that England’s ally, Charles V, decided to start negotiating a peace with France without any English input, the emperor was completely indifferent to the King of England’s meltdown over the accord
⁷⁹
.

By the summer of 1545, England was dealing with a plethora of difficulties as a result of the king’s ineptitude. Worst of all, England was in serious danger of being invaded simultaneously by two foreign powers from multiple fronts
⁸⁰
. This threat existed mainly because of Henry’s ill-thought-out attacks on France and Scotland, which had only helped cement the Franco-Scots alliance against England and created an opportunity and reason for retaliation against his kingdom. His antagonistic dismissal of the dangers the Franco-Scots alliance presented is just one of many black marks on Henry’s record as king.

Henry’s savagery lasted until the very end of his life. In December 1546, just a few weeks before his death, the king turned his spite toward the Howard family. First, Henry had the Duke of Norfolk thrown into the Tower, stripping him of his titles and lands. Then, with malice aforethought, the king had the duke’s son, the famous soldier and poet Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey, charged with high treason based on piffles
⁸¹
. There was no real reason for Henry to have turned on the Howards in that manner. Norfolk was hated by many people and was indisputably a wretched human being but he had always fawned before Henry and subjugated himself to the king’s commands
⁸²
. Why did the king turn so suddenly and so violently against Norfolk and Surrey?

The likeliest reason is because the Earl of Surrey carried a threat to Henry’s dynasty in his veins. Surrey’s maternal grandfather, Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham, was a direct male descendant of King Edward III, and technically Surrey had a more legitimate right to wear the English crown than did Henry himself
⁸³
.

Notwithstanding Henry’s penchant for beheading cousins, it must be said that the king may not have been the true culprit in Surrey’s murder. The Seymour family, who were well-placed to reap the benefits of a nephew as king, hated the Howards. Surrey in particular considered the Seymours to be jumped-up rabble more fit for the king’s sculleries than the king’s council, and he was not hesitant to share this opinion. The evidence that the Seymours, rather than Henry, killed Surrey is persuasive
⁸⁴
.

The Earl of Surrey’s coat of arms was the method used to arrange his execution. Chancellor Wriothesley, a man who had tortured Reformers and conspired to arrest Catherine Parr, was able to procure testimony from a herald by the name of Christopher Barker stating that Surrey had knowingly and rebelliously used the insignia of the English king Saint Edward the Confessor on his coat of arms
⁸⁵
. Bearing the arms of Edward the Confessor without royal permission could easily be construed as treason, since it flaunted a connection to the throne equal to the king’s
⁸⁶
. Nonetheless, there is good historical evidence that Surrey was never told he was forbidden to bear Edward the Confessor’s designs in his arms
⁸⁷
. Disregarding the lack of evidence as always, Surrey was executed on 19 January 1547. Unlike many of the king’s other victims, the earl did not follow the social conventions for those who were condemned. He did not go quietly or request that people pray for their sovereign. Instead, Surrey took the opportunity to castigate Henry from the scaffold, bellowing out, “Of what have you found me guilty? Surely you will find no law that justifies you; but I know that the king wants to get rid of the noble blood around him, and to employ none but low people”
⁸⁸
.

Henry Howard was only 30 years old when he died, and in the prime of his creativity. The epitome of a Renaissance man, Surrey was renowned both as a warrior and one of the innovative forces behind the English sonnet form of poetry. Among modern literary scholars, he is remembered for his “extraordinary invention and influence” and his “position as the center of an English poetic tradition”
⁸⁹
. For his contemporaries the Earl of Surrey was a luminary, gifted with both the pen and the sword. His execution was lamented throughout Europe and seen as further evidence of the king’s despotic nature. Surrey’s death would probably be much more historically denounced if it didn’t seem to be just one more bloody travesty at the end of a long list of nightmarish miscarriages of justice perpetrated during Henry’s reign.

Henry died on 28 January 1547. He was in denial about his own mortality, even at the very end. He was asked if he wished for a priest to come to him but he characteristically put it off because it was an unpleasant thought, saying he would “take a little sleep” first
⁹⁰
. It was as if he hoped he could ward off death by avoiding his last confession, or perhaps he felt he could avoid death by refusing to think about it. Death nonetheless came for him in spite of everything Henry did to avoid it. After a lifetime of bold action and ripping the kingdom asunder with his needs, the king simply slipped from sleep into a coma and never awoke
⁹¹
.

1. Figure 7 -
   Henry lies in his death bed in
   “Edward VI and the Pope: An Allegory of the Reformation”, artist unknown.
   

Theories regarding Henry’s mental aberrations

One of the theories to address Henry’s increasingly paranoid and irrational behaviour after midlife is the hypothesis that the king had myxoedema. This illness is a by-product of hypothyroidism, a medical condition in which the thyroid gland doesn’t make enough of the hormones it is supposed to produce
⁹²
. Myxoedema could certainly have caused some of Henry’s physical problems – including the weight gain, constipation, muscle pains and erectile dysfunction – that beset him after his middle-age. The presence of this illness could also explain some of his psychological ailments, such as his chronic depression, mental abstractions, irritability and mood instability. Nonetheless, there are two main weaknesses in this hypothesis. The first is the minor problem that Henry did not appear to show other signs typical of myxoedema, such as brittle nails, intolerance of the cold, slurred speech, or a goitre. The more significant problem is also that myxoedema is much more common in women over 50 than it is in men. Although this does not mean a younger man could
not
have this condition, it does lower the
likelihood
that he had it.

In 2005, historian Robert Hutchinson offered the idea that Cushing’s syndrome, a disease involving the endocrine system, was the possible cause of Henry VIII’s mental and emotional deterioration
⁹³
. Henry indisputably displayed some of the symptoms of Cushing’s syndrome, including rapid weight gain, particularly in the torso and face, muscle weakness of the hips, slower healing of wounds or abrasions, fatigue, headaches and impotence. It could have also caused some of his psychological disturbances, including depression, paranoia and anxiety. Additionally, he may have experienced the growth of a “buffalo hump” and a “moon face”, where fat pads along the collarbone and on the back of the neck swell to unnatural proportions. Hutchinson also argues that Cushing’s syndrome could explain the ulcers on Henry’s legs. Cushing’s can cause hypercalcemia, an elevated level of calcium in the blood that can lead to the death of the skin tissue, also known as skin necrosis. Hypercalcemia is a rare complication of Cushing’s, but it is certainly possible. Notwithstanding the credibility of the theory, it does have a crucial weakness. The major problem with the hypothesis is that Cushing’s syndrome cannot explain why the king’s personality altered
before
he began to put on so much additional weight. Additionally, there is no evidence that Henry had a buffalo hump, or that his moon face was anything more than the normal jowly appearance of an obese older man. A diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome fits many of Henry’s symptoms but it cannot completely solve the puzzle of the king’s health.

The theory that Henry had land-bound scurvy because the foods he usually ate lacked, or were extremely low in, vitamin C was suggested by Susan Maclean Kybett in 1989. She argues that low levels of vitamin C in Henry’s diet during parts of the year would account for his mood swings and physical deterioration
⁹⁴
. There are several significant problems with the scurvy hypothesis, however, including the fact that for the wealthy there was a year-round availability of foods rich in vitamin C. Doctors of the era also recommended eating citrus fruits for those who could afford them. This was to maintain one’s humoral balance
⁹⁵
. It was also considered medically sound for a meal to end with a dessert containing pears, which were readily available in Tudor England and are a decent source of vitamin C as well. Even people in the lower income strata consumed a fair amount of foods containing vitamin C from locally grown produce that was dried, preserved in syrups, or pickled for consumption during the winter months. While Henry would have been unlikely to eat cabbage, which has abundant vitamin C, even very wealthy Tudors were fond of desserts made of vitamin C rich gooseberries. Better yet, the upper classes frequently put dried currants in meat dishes and desserts. Popular cakes and savoury pies containing currants and/or raisins were eaten at Christmas and during Lent, indicating that dried currants were customarily used in foods even during the winter months. A single cup of black European currants contains 338% of the recommended daily amount of vitamin C, which would have allowed Henry to avoid scurvy. Finally, Henry’s doctors stuffed the king with as much rhubarb as he would eat. Rhubarb, which was thought to combat Henry’s melancholy, is abundant in vitamin K and a reasonable source of vitamin C as well. It is very unlikely that Henry had scurvy.

Syphilis is also given as an explanation for Henry’s psychological variations, as well as for the reproductive troubles his wives suffered. The initial symptoms of paralytic dementia in tertiary syphilis, such as socially inappropriate behaviour, increasing impairment of cognition and mood swings, appear to markedly align with Henry’s irrational actions and thought processes later in life. However, the deterioration of mental faculties from syphilis would have presented differently than the canny madness Henry VIII displayed. Brain impairment caused by late stage syphilis is called general paralysis of the insane or paralytic dementia, and while it does have the sudden onset and change in personality like Henry experienced, it is much less able to be mistaken for “normal” behaviour. Rather than setting cunning traps for members of his court, he would have become clinically insane and clinically imbecilic. He would have been unmistakably what they would have perceived as a “madman”, and he would have probably been unable to hold onto power. Theorists will have to look elsewhere for the cause of Henry’s emotional and mental instability.

Although Henry’s mental imbalance had become extreme by the end of his reign, few historians have actually called Henry VIII a lunatic. Instead, he has been described as “villainously quixotic”
⁹⁶
or as “an imperious and dangerous autocrat who [was] mesmerized by his own legend”
⁹⁷
. The descriptors of Henry’s inconstancies have always left the impression that he was somehow in charge of his own fickleness, and that there was more method than madness in his actions. Some historians postulate that Henry began his “significant shift in personality” because he was “taking on the lineaments of mature kingship”
⁹⁸
, with others maintaining that Henry’s eventual tyranny can be best explained by the fact he grew older and more aware of his power
⁹⁹
. Alternatively, scholars argue that it was a change in circumstances and threats to his rule that pushed him into becoming a more ruthless monarch, possibly exacerbated by a blow to the head
¹⁰⁰
. Some assert that the monster had always been present, but before his attempt to end his marriage to Katherina of Aragon, no one had ever really challenged his will on anything important, and thus his true malevolence had lain dormant
¹⁰¹
. In spite of the differing theories, there is a general consensus that his moodiness, paranoia and erratic behaviour became more extreme, and therefore more noticeable, in his later middle age.